The Death of Ahmaud Arbery

Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Chaos Descending, May 7, 2020.

  1. oldfella1962

    oldfella1962 the only real finish line

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    81,024
    Location:
    front and center
    Ratings:
    +29,953
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lynching

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/lynching

    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Lynching
  2. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    25,334
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +19,332
    I didn't ask for links. I asked for his, and now your, opinion. What is YOUR definition of lynching?
  3. Paladin

    Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    50,154
    Location:
    Spacetime
    Ratings:
    +53,511
    A lynching is an unlawful execution; a tree is not required.

    An unlawful arrest is not an execution, even if it escalates to deadly violence.
  4. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    25,334
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +19,332
    So ..., when you chase someone down - to attempt a citizens arrest, and you have a weapon, ...., do you really not expect someone to fight back?

    What if, just ... go with me here, what if, you're going for a run, and you end up in a different neighborhood, and the social make up of that neighborhood is not your own..., and two people from that social neighborhood chase you down with guns, are you going to willingly comply?
  5. oldfella1962

    oldfella1962 the only real finish line

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    81,024
    Location:
    front and center
    Ratings:
    +29,953
    my definition of lynching (as it pertains to murder) involves actual hanging from a tree. That said in the figurative sense lynching just means a severely harsh reaction such as "the audience will lynch the academy members if Steven Seagal gets nominated and wins an Oscar for best actor!"
    • Facepalm Facepalm x 1
  6. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    25,334
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +19,332
    Thank you. That's all I was asking for.
  7. oldfella1962

    oldfella1962 the only real finish line

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    81,024
    Location:
    front and center
    Ratings:
    +29,953
    my military/gub'mint training preaches comply if you are being robbed at gunpoint. In other words, give up your wallet, car, etc. But if you are held at gunpoint and they are trying to force you into a vehicle or restrain you, do not comply - fight to get away or turn the tables by any means necessary no matter what the personal risk.

    Bottom line when Arbery saw two men with guns and a vehicle (especially a truck where he could easily be tossed into) he had no choice but to fight for his life because it could very well have been a kidnapping. I would have done the same thing that he did.
  8. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    25,334
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +19,332
    So, basically, even though they did not specifically intend to hang him from a tree, they knew he would resist and had every intent to kill him. Isn't that a lynching? even though no tree was actually involved?
  9. Raoul the Red Shirt

    Raoul the Red Shirt Professional bullseye

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,936
    Ratings:
    +10,700
    I think what Paladin is trying to say - and he can correct me if I'm wrong -- is that in a lynching, the intent is to kill the person from the very beginning.

    In this "arrest," he would argue that there is not evidence of the intent to kill from the beginning.That if Arbery had just let himself be boxed in by a couple of trucks and answered questions from people armed with guns, they would not have shot him.
    • Agree Agree x 4
  10. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    25,334
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +19,332
    And, as I posed the question before, would @Paladin, or @Federal Farmer (who liked your post), have complied had they been in that situation?
  11. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    25,334
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +19,332
    If they say yes, then I'll retract my statement. But, I think, regardless of what they say, they would not have complied. And, therefore, it really is murder by lynching.
  12. Raoul the Red Shirt

    Raoul the Red Shirt Professional bullseye

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,936
    Ratings:
    +10,700
    Well, according to this line of thought, whether they (or even the average person) would have complied at gunpoint with questions posed by strangers is irrelevant.

    What is relevant is the intent of the men holding the guns. If they were intending to kill Arbery regardless of what he did or said, then it would be a lynching.

    If not, it was an attempt to hold him for the law, and thus not a lynching
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    25,334
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +19,332
    Pretty sure their intent was to force him to do what they said. Regardless of whether or not he was innocent. I also believe, they intended to use those guns if he did not comply. Otherwise, there would have been no need to take their guns.
  14. Paladin

    Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    50,154
    Location:
    Spacetime
    Ratings:
    +53,511
    The two men attempted to unlawfully (presumably) detain Arbery. I can't tell from the video if they initially pointed guns at him or not, but they had guns, indicative of intent to use force under some condition.

    From Arbery's perspective, he was confronted by armed men seeking to detain him for no apparent lawful purpose. Thus, Arbery's move against the younger McMichael could very well be construed as self-defense. It makes no difference what Arbery may have been guilty of at some other time.

    I don't know if Arbery did anything wrong, but, unless the McMichaels had compelling reason to think him guilty of a felony, their move to detain him was unlawful.

    I see no evidence that the McMichaels intended to hurt Arbery, though they were prepared to do so. So, it wasn't a lynching. In a lynching, the death of the victim is the goal.

    But the McMichaels are guilty of at least manslaughter and, depending on how Georgia law is applied, possibly murder.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Steal Your Face

    Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    47,408
    Ratings:
    +31,461
    Would I comply if someone was holding a gun to me and asking questions, yes. I’ll answer any questions you have. If they tried to hang me or something, then I would struggle.
  16. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    25,334
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +19,332
    I hear what you're saying. It's just this part ...

    ... that I don't understand. They took guns. How can you not see evidence they intended to harm. They obviously expected him not to comply.
  17. Raoul the Red Shirt

    Raoul the Red Shirt Professional bullseye

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,936
    Ratings:
    +10,700
    That's not true. Despite recent events, cops carry guns all the time but generally do not intend to actually shoot unless necessary.

    Along similar lines, the suspects may have had no intent to shoot, but might have just had the weapons to protect themselves if something went wrong.

    That is very different from a lynching where they would have gleefully thought from the beginning, "I'm agonna shoot me a Negro!"
    • Agree Agree x 4
  18. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    25,334
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +19,332
    If they truly suspected he was involved in robbery, if they truly thought to stop him and hold him while waiting for police to arrive, then there would be no need to take a gun.

    Most people, even if they own a gun, do not take it with them even when they go into situations in which something might go wrong. Nearly everyone in my family owns at least one gun. it's just not the first thought when someone is like "hey, that guy is stealing something. Let's go detain him until the police come."
  19. Zombie

    Zombie dead and loving it

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    45,044
    Ratings:
    +33,117
    His definition is the definition that was linked for your dumb ass to read.

    Arbery was murdered in a botched civilian arrest attempt that should have never happened. He wasn't lynched.
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2020
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Paladin

    Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    50,154
    Location:
    Spacetime
    Ratings:
    +53,511
    Say a burglar broke into my home and I held him at gunpoint until the police arrived. Did I intend to harm the burglar? After all, I held him at gunpoint...
    • Agree Agree x 2
  21. Zombie

    Zombie dead and loving it

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    45,044
    Ratings:
    +33,117
    Though given that they were both idiots I would change that last line to, "they may not have shot him."
  22. Raoul the Red Shirt

    Raoul the Red Shirt Professional bullseye

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,936
    Ratings:
    +10,700
    I think you have it backwards. The point of having a gun (and getting the appropriate licenses) is that you CAN take it into situations in which something might go wrong so you can defend yourself or others.
    • Agree Agree x 4
  23. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    25,334
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +19,332
    But, Arbery didn't break into their home. they saw him running outside their home. That means, they had time to think. Time to go over in their head, "That's the guy! Let's stop him and hold him for the police!" Oh, wait, let me get my gun.
  24. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    25,334
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +19,332
    Got nothing backwards. I understand the argument of getting a license and having a gun for defense.

    I don't understand seeing someone you thought may have stolen something and your first thought is to get your gun.

    And, if your first thought is "I see someone who may have done something wrong so let me get my gun". THAT is the part that I have trouble with.

    I had a friend in college. Her boyfriend asked her to hang onto his gun for a couple days. Don't know, not relevant to the story. Anyway, it's in her car. One day, she's driving down the road and someone cut her off. She said her fist though was that there is a gun in her glove box. She immediately changed direction and took the gun back to the boyfriend.

    That is the part that is worrying about people having guns. The McMichaels weren't thinking that this weapon could possibly end someone's life. They were thinking "if push comes to shove, I've got my gun."
  25. Zombie

    Zombie dead and loving it

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    45,044
    Ratings:
    +33,117
    First, they should have been involved other than to call the cops. Maybe take cell phone pictures or video if safe to do so.

    People who carry guns will carry them. People who are former police officers, like the one guy was, will carry them.

    Just taking guns is not necessarily evidence they intended harm. It can be but that would be on the state to prove such a thing. I don't think they could do that in this case. They would be better off arguing to a jury that the defendants involved themselves in something they shouldn't have and used deadly force when it wasn't justified.
  26. Zombie

    Zombie dead and loving it

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    45,044
    Ratings:
    +33,117
    YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FIRST THOUGHTS IN THEIR HEADS WERE.

    Stop assigning to them what you think they were thinking of when they decided to go after Arbery.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Tuckerfan

    Tuckerfan BMF

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    76,620
    Location:
    Can't tell you, 'cause I'm undercover!
    Ratings:
    +154,156
    And yet, if I mug someone (and my only intention is to get their wallet, so the idea of harming that person isn’t in my mind) and in the process of mugging the individual, they get cut, then refuse medical treatment, and then die because they contracted tetanus from that cut, I can be charged with murder. There is, apparently, an actual incidence of this happening and the muggers were charged with murder, even though that was never their intention and had the victim sought medical w, he would have recovered. So, if you can be convicted of murder (as I believe the muggers were), why should this incident not be considered a lynching? It’s considered murder, even if the killers didn’t intend that.
  28. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    25,334
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +19,332
    Why not? you are assigning innocent thoughts. But, attack me for assigning thoughts that aren't innocent.
  29. matthunter

    matthunter Ice Bear

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    26,878
    Location:
    Bottom of the bearstack, top of the world
    Ratings:
    +48,416
    Arbery wasn't in their homes.

    Flip it. Say two armed men jump out of a truck at you in the street and shout at you in a hostile tone? Like these guys did to Arbery?

    If you are the NRA poster boy you make out, you're gonna draw, aren't you?
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  30. Raoul the Red Shirt

    Raoul the Red Shirt Professional bullseye

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,936
    Ratings:
    +10,700
    Felony murder is based on the notion that we as a society want to deter people from engaging in felonies that might lead to murder, and we want to also punish people who kill during the course of a crime even if they didn't have the full guilty mindset normally required for murder.

    I don't necessarily agree with the mindset I laid out above. And if you look at the definition of lynch linked to above, for instance, it doesn't inherently include the notion that from the beginning of the lynching incident that the intent must have been to kill.

    I have another issue with that definition -- according to it, even if these people literally said, "Let's shoot us that there Negro" it would not be a "lynching," because 2-4 people can't really be considered a "mob."

    Anyway, Paladin can go with however he wants to define "lynch," and if part of how he personally wants to do it involves intent to act unlawfully from jump street, that's his definition. Which is what Jenee asked for originally.
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1