Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ghostpanther]

Something just dawned on me.

Been reading and responding in this thread for some time. Always noticed a lot of people from other countries here. Why? Why do you care what the gun laws are here in the U.S.?

It isn't like we are moving to your countries and insisting we take our firearms w/us.

Or is it just another venue for you to bitch about the U.S. and claim superiority?

I watch threads dealing w/other countries if it interests me, I do not however complain about their policies (I may question why) cause it isn't my country. There are things that I would never understand not living there. They do not have the same culture or traditions.

Same reasons wars and disputes happen. And it is not just those from other countries which do it. Those who are US citizens, need to change the Second Amendment in order to enact the excessive restrictions some want. And that frustrates them.

But those not from our country are expressing opinions which are nothing but that. We on the other hand get to practice what we believe the Second Amendment is about. So it not just our opinions, but a right we get to express and use in our daily lives.

[Kiri]

Something just dawned on me.

Been reading and responding in this thread for some time. Always noticed a lot of people from other countries here. Why? Why do you care what the gun laws are here in the U.S.?

It isn't like we are moving to your countries and insisting we take our firearms w/us.

Or is it just another venue for you to bitch about the U.S. and claim superiority?

I watch threads dealing w/other countries if it interests me, I do not however complain about their policies (I may question why) cause it isn't my country. There are things that I would never understand not living there. They do not have the same culture or traditions.

It's probably because of that lack of traditions, tbh. I mean, I'm not exactly constantly here and complaining or anything. But as someone without that kind of culture, the whole gun law thing sort of just baffles me, I'd say. Thing is, the US kind of is a focal point for the world, exporting both its culture and its news around the world. Hence, even where I live, we often hear about mass shooting X or other incident Y. And when you come from a country with very strict gun laws, where such shootings are almost unheard of, it just creates a kind of dissonance.
I mean, it's probably just human psychology, really. Every day, lots of people all around the world die, and there are probably even worse gun-related incidents around the world we don't even hear about. Or if we do, there is just kind of a rift. But for example when I hear of a school shooting in the US, I can't help but feel at least a bit affected. It's just how us humans are constructed I guess - the US is just a lot closer to my country in many ways and thanks to being brought back on US media, schools there are superficially familiar, so something happening there just resonates more. And that creates a dissonance when there are those big differences in gun laws and gun culture, which gets people invested and sometimes agitated. It's just really easy from the outside to see that and say "those people who died and were a lot like me wouldn't have died with stricter gun laws, like we have here" or something like that. Plus there is the fact that over here, you certainly don't hear in the news how someone defended their home from a thief in the US or something like that. But we do hear of those big shootings, which just creates that connection between the two topics that's hard to shake off.

At least, that's my take on it. Not really a point for the debate here in and of itself, just trying to answer your question. Sure, bunch of people are probably in for just kinda feeling smug or whatever, but I'm probably not the only one feeling like I described.

[Masark]

Why? Why do you care what the gun laws are here in the U.S.?

It isn't like we are moving to your countries and insisting we take our firearms w/us.

1. The US is a major source of criminal guns up here.

2. Not for lack of trying. Border security regularly has to deal with stupid people who think they can haul their guns wherever they want.

[Ghostpanther]

1. The US is a major source of criminal guns up here.

2. Not for lack of trying. Border security regularly has to deal with stupid people who think they can haul their guns wherever they want.

Good points. It is like having a neighbor you do not like, yet you can not move. You have to deal with them the best you can. Esp. when they are a hell of lot stronger than you are.

[Zan15]

It's like other cases, putting yourself into a situation like that, chasing some guy that might possibly have done something, is just a generally bad idea. That said, it'll come down to whether the guy actually did attack them or not, hard to say what evidence there is for much of anything. I guess Georgia's "citizen arrest" laws allow such a thing as chasing and stopping someone. The case has some strange stuff to it, and of course now it's hitting the stage of news where the articles are all written by wanna be fiction writers ("the afternoon was cool and good weather for jogging...") rather than facts.

He was inside a house under construction, but doubt the shooters knew that. Apparently they recognized him from video from previous times, but no mention of what he was doing in that surveillance. Also a gun was stolen from the pickup, but again, what does it have to do with anything? Supposedly video shows the guy attacking the shooter, so there's that.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-two-men.html

looks like on video he is jogging down the block, tried to go around the truck... guys in truck confronted him and he attempted to defend himself before he was shot by these guys basically for being black because that is the only part of the description they had.

[Maneo]

It's probably because of that lack of traditions, tbh. I mean, I'm not exactly constantly here and complaining or anything. But as someone without that kind of culture, the whole gun law thing sort of just baffles me, I'd say. Thing is, the US kind of is a focal point for the world, exporting both its culture and its news around the world. Hence, even where I live, we often hear about mass shooting X or other incident Y. And when you come from a country with very strict gun laws, where such shootings are almost unheard of, it just creates a kind of dissonance.
I mean, it's probably just human psychology, really. Every day, lots of people all around the world die, and there are probably even worse gun-related incidents around the world we don't even hear about. Or if we do, there is just kind of a rift. But for example when I hear of a school shooting in the US, I can't help but feel at least a bit affected. It's just how us humans are constructed I guess - the US is just a lot closer to my country in many ways and thanks to being brought back on US media, schools there are superficially familiar, so something happening there just resonates more. And that creates a dissonance when there are those big differences in gun laws and gun culture, which gets people invested and sometimes agitated. It's just really easy from the outside to see that and say "those people who died and were a lot like me wouldn't have died with stricter gun laws, like we have here" or something like that. Plus there is the fact that over here, you certainly don't hear in the news how someone defended their home from a thief in the US or something like that. But we do hear of those big shootings, which just creates that connection between the two topics that's hard to shake off.

At least, that's my take on it. Not really a point for the debate here in and of itself, just trying to answer your question. Sure, bunch of people are probably in for just kinda feeling smug or whatever, but I'm probably not the only one feeling like I described.

A very polite response and thank you for such a response.

1. The US is a major source of criminal guns up here.

2. Not for lack of trying. Border security regularly has to deal with stupid people who think they can haul their guns wherever they want.

You can always build a wall jk

Seriously though that is the point of border security. Although after reading that Canada has a fair point to bitch. What about everyone else though?

[Svifnymr]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-two-men.html

looks like on video he is jogging down the block, tried to go around the truck... guys in truck confronted him and he attempted to defend himself before he was shot by these guys basically for being black because that is the only part of the description they had.

He is heading down the road, he heads to the right of the truck since the guy is on the left, camera films the sky and then the dashboard, and then he's over on the left side wrestling the guy for the shotgun. Then gunshots and more wrestling. It might be dramatic to describe it as an execution or whatever, but the gun wasn't pointed at him during the approach, and he didn't even point it at him after they separated.

As I said, I haven't seen anything saying they knew that this is the guy that was wandering around the unbuilt house, so I don't think they had a description of him at all. They apparently had seen him in their own video camera system at some point. They'd also had break ins and a gun stolen from their truck, but no word that it's related to the video they had of him previously. Their state does give them the right to make a citizens arrest apparently, not sure how firearms factor into it. There's still plenty of details that don't add up.

I will say that the letter in that article is not accurate in most of the details, he didn't "collide with the gunman" as if he tripped.

It may be justified that this person felt his only option when confronted by an armed man was to rush that man and attempt to wrest away the gun, but that doesn't mean that he didn't do it. There's enough wrong to go around, don't chase people you think may have possibly done something at some point and try to stop them (legal or not), and when confronted by a guy with a gun, don't charge him, keep your head down and run the other way, calling the police asap.

Not sure why the driver was filming, let alone why he couldn't film it better. The article seems to say it's anonymous upload.

[Masark]

when confronted by a guy with a gun, don't charge him, keep your head down and run the other way, calling the police asap.

Do you think he's the motherfucking Flash?

In what fucking reality do you think that running is going to get you out of range before the lynching party shoots you in the back?

[Svifnymr]

Do you think he's the motherfucking Flash?

Nope, that's why I said not to charge a guy with a gun. It does show one of the downsides of a shotgun though, too long of a barrel.

In what fucking reality do you think that running is going to get you out of range before the lynching party shoots you in the back?

What was the plan then? Take the shotgun and shoot the other guy in the back of the truck? Does he do a quick roll too?

You know what didn't happen in the video? As the guy is heading down the road, they didn't shoot him at a distance. You think they'd shoot him in the back when they didn't shoot him in the front? Is that your logic? You know what also didn't happen? After they separated, they didn't shoot him again. You're reading into a situation based on this perception of a lynch mob and ignoring what happened and didn't happen and also the fact that the shooter knew his legal rights and apparently acted within them.

[Zan15]

He is heading down the road, he heads to the right of the truck since the guy is on the left, camera films the sky and then the dashboard, and then he's over on the left side wrestling the guy for the shotgun. Then gunshots and more wrestling. It might be dramatic to describe it as an execution or whatever, but the gun wasn't pointed at him during the approach, and he didn't even point it at him after they separated.

As I said, I haven't seen anything saying they knew that this is the guy that was wandering around the unbuilt house, so I don't think they had a description of him at all. They apparently had seen him in their own video camera system at some point. They'd also had break ins and a gun stolen from their truck, but no word that it's related to the video they had of him previously. Their state does give them the right to make a citizens arrest apparently, not sure how firearms factor into it. There's still plenty of details that don't add up.

I will say that the letter in that article is not accurate in most of the details, he didn't "collide with the gunman" as if he tripped.

It may be justified that this person felt his only option when confronted by an armed man was to rush that man and attempt to wrest away the gun, but that doesn't mean that he didn't do it. There's enough wrong to go around, don't chase people you think may have possibly done something at some point and try to stop them (legal or not), and when confronted by a guy with a gun, don't charge him, keep your head down and run the other way, calling the police asap.

Not sure why the driver was filming, let alone why he couldn't film it better. The article seems to say it's anonymous upload.

Listen for the gun shots.


The black guy ran around the truck to the right
The white dude was on the left of the truck.
The white dude ran over to where the black dude was avoiding the man with the gun.

the confrontation was instigated by the shooter as the black guy tried to go around the truck away from the man with the gun.


"but the gun wasn't pointed at him during the approach, and he didn't even point it at him after they separated."

I guess magically the bullet went around the word then hit him?

The right to self defense is clearly on the side of the victim in this case when he is confronted by someone with a gun chasing after him from one side of his truck to another.

scary that they have not arrested this guy yet.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, that's why I said not to charge a guy with a gun. It does show one of the downsides of a shotgun though, too long of a barrel.



What was the plan then? Take the shotgun and shoot the other guy in the back of the truck? Does he do a quick roll too?

You know what didn't happen in the video? As the guy is heading down the road, they didn't shoot him at a distance. You think they'd shoot him in the back when they didn't shoot him in the front? Is that your logic? You know what also didn't happen? After they separated, they didn't shoot him again. You're reading into a situation based on this perception of a lynch mob and ignoring what happened and didn't happen and also the fact that the shooter knew his legal rights and apparently acted within them.

What happens when you are walking/jogging down the street and someone approaches you with a gun?? Do you just sit there and let them do whatever they want to? Do you defend yourself?

I thought 2A supporters were all about self defense when confronted with life and death situations?

What if the black guy had a gun, you would in any other instance say he should have taken out his gun and defended himself as is his rights under the 2A!! But defending yourself unarmed is wrong? He should have just been a hapless victim? How did he know it had anything to do with a break in? He could have thought it was a mugging, a lynching, who knows what else.

[Svifnymr]

Listen for the gun shots.


The black guy ran around the truck to the right
The white dude was on the left of the truck.
The white dude ran over to where the black dude was avoiding the man with the gun.

The white dude is at the front left of the truck when the black dude charges him across the front of the truck, the first gunshot goes off at that point, into the ground. The guy in the back of the truck I don't know what he's doing.

the confrontation was instigated by the shooter as the black guy tried to go around the truck away from the man with the gun.

The white guys instigated a confrontation which is theoretically a legal confrontation by the laws of their jurisdiction, no matter how stupid that may seem. The original statement said the video showed the black guy was the aggressor, and that is true. If I tell you to wear a mask, and you attack me, I may have instigated the confrontation, but I was not the aggressor.

"but the gun wasn't pointed at him during the approach, and he didn't even point it at him after they separated."

I guess magically the bullet went around the word then hit him?

He was shot during the scuffle. My point was that leaving the encounter would have been preferable to attacking.

What happens when you are walking/jogging down the street and someone approaches you with a gun?? Do you just sit there and let them do whatever they want to? Do you defend yourself?

Depends on the situation, doesn't it? Someone says "stop, this is the police", you probably don't shoot him. Someone jumps out and says "hey, give me your money", go ahead and shoot him. I can't make out what was said here, but I can make out that the black guy was unarmed, and surrounded by open terrain, and chose to keep running towards the encounter rather than away.

I thought 2A supporters were all about self defense when confronted with life and death situations?

And if the black guy had drawn a gun and shot them both, this would be a different conversation. As it was, he had no means to defend himself, but he did have a means to escape. I assume their state has a duty to retreat, but the only one retreating in this video is the shooter actually, as he is punched in the head after the guy rushed him. The black guy only breaks off contact once he is hit by the third shell it looks like.

Maybe instead of looking for internet scoring chances and trying to throw back arguments you don't quite get, try to look at the situation from an outside perspective?

What if the black guy had a gun, you would in any other instance say he should have taken out his gun and defended himself as is his rights under the 2A!! But defending yourself unarmed is wrong? He should have just been a hapless victim? How did he know it had anything to do with a break in? He could have thought it was a mugging, a lynching, who knows what else.

As I said, if he'd drawn a gun and shot them, then the situation would be murkier depending on "duty to retreat" vs "Stand your ground". Defending yourself unarmed isn't wrong, but it IS a last resort. This guy had plenty of options to try to escape, but instead he chose to attack. Invulnerability of Youth maybe? Dunno, but it didn't work out for him here. If he had a phone, he'd have been better off calling police or live streaming it or something. Basically almost any solution rather than rush the guy and hope you don't get shot. Did he think it was a lynching and decide that fighting a couple armed guys was a better idea than simply running for it? Who knows, but it obviously didn't end well.

As I said above, the guys said they recognized him from their security cameras from previous instances. Were they correct? Who knows. Should they have gone after the guy and confronted him with guns? I'd say no. Was it legal for them to do so? Quite possibly as we've already discussed.

Also interesting that camera guy drives up on a scene like this with no commentary, but that's not important to the actual case I'd think. He might be the third buddy that was also following the guy.

[Zan15]

The white dude is at the front left of the truck when the black dude charges him across the front of the truck, the first gunshot goes off at that point, into the ground. The guy in the back of the truck I don't know what he's doing.


The white guys instigated a confrontation which is theoretically a legal confrontation by the laws of their jurisdiction, no matter how stupid that may seem. The original statement said the video showed the black guy was the aggressor, and that is true. If I tell you to wear a mask, and you attack me, I may have instigated the confrontation, but I was not the aggressor.


.

I disagree the white dude made specific motions towards the black dude, even when the black dude tried to go around the truck away from the armed man.

he cleared the truck on the right side and came face to face with a white dude now in front of the truck pointing his gun at him

at that point the black dude made the decision that his life was in danger and tried to defend himself as he has the right to do since the white dude is not of law enforcement.

again did you expect the black dude just to get down on the ground and hope that he doesnt get shot? that is 120% against every 2A/self defense arguement ever made in this thread. "lay down and be a sheep or defend yourself?"

Depends on the situation, doesn't it? Someone says "stop, this is the police", you probably don't shoot him. Someone jumps out and says "hey, give me your money", go ahead and shoot him. I can't make out what was said here, but I can make out that the black guy was unarmed, and surrounded by open terrain, and chose to keep running towards the encounter rather than away.


.

he ran around the truck away from the gun man. it was the gun man who followed.
He had no reason to believe he should run anywhere else because what did he do wrong besides being black at this point?

If I tell you to wear a mask, and you attack me, I may have instigated the confrontation, but I was not the aggressor.


.

Depends on how you said it and your body language. You do not need to make an actual threat to be an aggressor.
You might not have been the one to make the first physical attack but depending on circumstances you might not be "aggressor-free"

As I said, if he'd drawn a gun and shot them, then the situation would be murkier depending on "duty to retreat" vs "Stand your ground". Defending yourself unarmed isn't wrong, but it IS a last resort. This guy had plenty of options to try to escape, but instead he chose to attack. Invulnerability of Youth maybe? Dunno, but it didn't work out for him here. If he had a phone, he'd have been better off calling police or live streaming it or something. Basically almost any solution rather than rush the guy and hope you don't get shot. Did he think it was a lynching and decide that fighting a couple armed guys was a better idea than simply running for it? Who knows, but it obviously didn't end well.

As I said above, the guys said they recognized him from their security cameras from previous instances. Were they correct? Who knows. Should they have gone after the guy and confronted him with guns? I'd say no. Was it legal for them to do so? Quite possibly as we've already discussed.

Also interesting that camera guy drives up on a scene like this with no commentary, but that's not important to the actual case I'd think. He might be the third buddy that was also following the guy.

Defending himself unarmed is the same as the white dude saying he defended himself with a gun.

As for the law, in that state they had no legal right to attempt or stop the man even if they believed he was involved in criminal activity. there is no allowance for anything relative to citizen action outside of private property.

Also running does you no good when you now have two dudes with guns and a pickuptruck. He must have felt this was his only chance.

I agree he was stupid for even going near them, but thats another problem i have with your logic. 2A folks say people with guns are the good guys. They are not the ones we have to worry about its the criminals. Why would the black guy have to run away from the "good guys with guns"??

So which is it are we to not worry about the 2A crowd with their guns, or run away from them if we see them in the middle of the street while jogging?

[ErrandRunner]

I always wonder what life would be like if something like deadly weapons were never thought of to be invented. Imagine that world.

[Ghostpanther]

I always wonder what life would be like if something like deadly weapons were never thought of to be invented. Imagine that world.

It doesn't exist. So best to deal with the reality of what this world really is. Be prepared to defend yourself if you do not want to be a victim.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

I always wonder what life would be like if something like deadly weapons were never thought of to be invented. Imagine that world.

Even chimps can fashion missile weapons out of stone...

[Ghostpanther]

Even chimps can fashion missile weapons out of stone...

Yep and they can be extremely brutal. Even against other chimps. Nature itself reveals it is the strong which have the best chance of surviving.

And I still really like the old, but true saying...." God may have created man, but it is Samuel Colt, who made them equal."

[Stormdash]

I am a vehement pro-2nd Amendment advocate. I think you should be able to openly carry fully automatic weapons without a permit, and that you don't have a duty to retreat before you defend your life with deadly force.

I say that just to make sure to set the context here. Ahmaud Arbery was murdered and his killers should rot in prison if not eventually hell. At the time of the confrontation, his killers were the aggressors, had no basis to inquire upon him, let alone attempt a "citizens arrest". Arbery was 100% justifed using force to resist them. If two armed men suddenly pulled up on me while I was jogging and demanded I stop and "speak" with them and they had cut off avenues of escape... even unarmed, it is the divine right granted me by God Almighty to use force to defend myself, as I am now reasonably afraid for my safety.

By the law in all 50 states, the self-defense initiative doesn't shift back to the original aggressors (the drivers) unless the force used is disportionate to the threat and escalates. The baseline for justifiable deadly force never changes, the killers would have to be in REASONABLE fear of imminent DEATH or grievous bodily injury. That was not present, nor would a reasonable person standing in their shoes find it present. Ergo, Arbery's use of physical force to resist their approach was justified self-defense, and the shooting was not. The crime is murder, and barring any truly impressive evidentiary unicorns popping up that contradict what's on the video, local law enforcement and prosecutors are abusing power not to bring the case.

EDIT:

To really drive this point home, if Arbery had been CCW while jogging, I think things escalated to the point where he could have drawn and fired on them, justifiably.

[Breccia]

Posted without further comment.

U.S. still has a gun violence problem despite coronavirus lockdowns

Police departments throughout the U.S. have seen crime rates fall since the coronavirus pandemic, but shootings in some cities have surged despite stay-at-home orders.

Why it matters: Before the pandemic, mass shootings — when four or more people are injured — drove the national conversation on gun violence. But while shootings at schools or crowded places snagged the headlines, victims were in their homes 61% of the time when gunfire erupted.

By the numbers: The U.S. logged nearly 2,100 gun deaths between March 1 and April 19, 6% more than the same time period in the past three years, per aggregated data from the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive.

Nerves are frayed, and cities are reporting gun violence at grocery stores and other public spaces over people exercising what they believe are their rights.

A security guard at a Family Dollar in Flint, Michigan, was fatally shot after he asked a customer to wear a state-mandated face mask to shop in the store and an argument broke out, CNN reports.

Stillwater, Oklahoma, amended an emergency order this week after residents said wearing face masks was unconstitutional and threatened employees and store owners with violence.

Americans are still confronting gunfire in their homes during the pandemic, including domestic violence incidents, injuries from improperly stored firearms and suicide, per research organization Giffords.

Stay-at-home orders have meant fewer bystanders and police in public who can provide eye-witness accounts.

Many Americans have also stocked up on guns since the outbreak, including a rise in first-time owners.

"Under all of these social-economic stressors and social isolation, you now have firearms, one of the biggest risk factors for fatal outcomes for self-harm. ... Now we have a lot of guns in homes and I'm deeply concerned about domestic homicide, suicide and a lot of bored kids with time on their hands if those guns are not stored safely."
— Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research

Dallas, Nashville, Philadelphia and Tucson saw shootings, firearm homicides and assaults go up while crimes like robberies and drug offenses declined, per an analysis on shootings and the pandemic by The Trace.

Chicago, New Orleans and Washington saw gun violence fall while under lockdown compared to weeks prior, but not as much as other crimes where guns weren't involved.

Some cities like Baltimore, St. Louis and Philadelphia had already been grappling with an upswing in homicides since 2019. A vast majority of these deaths were caused by guns.

Shootings generally increase as the weather warms up. Experts say it's best to watch year-over-year trends of gun violence in addition to data from periods before and after the state lockdowns.

Emergency response workers already had the daunting task of treating shooting victims in underserved neighborhoods before the onset of the pandemic. Now these same communities are also the hardest hit by COVID-19 infections, and their resources are battling both public health crises.

It will likely take months or longer to fully understand the effects of gun violence during the coronavirus pandemic, Webster said.

[Zan15]

It doesn't exist. So best to deal with the reality of what this world really is. Be prepared to defend yourself if you do not want to be a victim.

Sure defend yourself and then you end up getting shot by a "good guy with a gun" for no other reason then you were in the neighborhood and black.

Funny how you have not commented on this story yet and how Ahmaud Arbery was shot "defending himself" from two good guys with guns who had no authority to stop this guy or confront him with weapons


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-revealed.html

So this is what happens when you have two people following your suggestions of "be prepared to defend yourself", its just lucky for the white dudes they had guns and the apparently innocent black guy didn't.

- - - Updated - - -

I am a vehement pro-2nd Amendment advocate. I think you should be able to openly carry fully automatic weapons without a permit, and that you don't have a duty to retreat before you defend your life with deadly force.

I say that just to make sure to set the context here. Ahmaud Arbery was murdered and his killers should rot in prison if not eventually hell. At the time of the confrontation, his killers were the aggressors, had no basis to inquire upon him, let alone attempt a "citizens arrest". Arbery was 100% justifed using force to resist them. If two armed men suddenly pulled up on me while I was jogging and demanded I stop and "speak" with them and they had cut off avenues of escape... even unarmed, it is the divine right granted me by God Almighty to use force to defend myself, as I am now reasonably afraid for my safety.

By the law in all 50 states, the self-defense initiative doesn't shift back to the original aggressors (the drivers) unless the force used is disportionate to the threat and escalates. The baseline for justifiable deadly force never changes, the killers would have to be in REASONABLE fear of imminent DEATH or grievous bodily injury. That was not present, nor would a reasonable person standing in their shoes find it present. Ergo, Arbery's use of physical force to resist their approach was justified self-defense, and the shooting was not. The crime is murder, and barring any truly impressive evidentiary unicorns popping up that contradict what's on the video, local law enforcement and prosecutors are abusing power not to bring the case.

EDIT:

To really drive this point home, if Arbery had been CCW while jogging, I think things escalated to the point where he could have drawn and fired on them, justifiably.

Thank you for saying that so eloquently and making a better point then I have been able to so far!
For some reason all I have heard from 2A folks is "the black man attacked them so they were right to shoot him". Although I hate reddit that is basically all you hear from them on the topic.
I guess since he did not have a gun he should have dropped to the ground like a sheep and accepted whatever fate the armed guys had for him!!

Funny how hypocritical these people are when it comes to "defending"

[Stormdash]

I guess since he did not have a gun he should have dropped to the ground like a sheep and accepted whatever fate the armed guys had for him!!

Funny how hypocritical these people are when it comes to "defending"

Well, much as most martial instructors will tell you the right course of action if you are mugged is to cooperate, I think as a question of prudence Arbery probably should have cooperated and insisted on the police being called to their location, etc. That's a different question than one of right, which absolutely covers resisting by force.

I often say that what people forget when they deal with actual police is that they need to run their decisions through a couple different lenses. One of those is "should I do what the man with a gun says?" Most of the time, wisdom is going to answer "yes". If he'd been armed and fired on them I think that's within the law based on what I saw on the tape.