Florida Concealed Carry banner

181 - 200 of 225 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,637 Posts
I wasn't trying to paint a similar scenario, I was trying to make a scenario that demonstrated how simply responding to a person with a shotgun in their arms and you don't know why doesn't give you the right to presume harmful intentions and act on those even though you might have fear. The fear must be reasonable given the circumstances, and for that to be determined, the circumstances must be examined, meaning we can't just say "He had a shotgun and I was afraid so I've every right to attack him." What I did was create a scenario where if you put the "fear only" thing into play, only this time it's not two guys in a truck but just a guy walking to his duck blind, you clearly see that any fear just won't cut it.

I'm not trying to speculate on outcome, I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't seem logical to have the law state that someone is in bounds if they do X, but then say if you do X, you're out of bounds. GA law says it's legal to carry a shotgun. It specifically says that shotgun must be carried in an open manner, not concealed or covered up by something. Nothing in the criminal code says anything about standing in front of someone with a shotgun held in your arms constituting a criminal offense unless you point it at them. Threat of harming someone with or without a gun is a crime, but not simply having a gun.

What's happened in this case is people are placing motives behind each person's actions without proof. They are declaring Arbery felt threatened because perhaps they would, but have no proof about Arbery. They are declaring the younger McDaniels threatened Arbery just by getting out of his truck with a shotgun when the law gives him every right to do just that. How it will all wash out in the end is anyone's guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bttbbob

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,108 Posts
I wasn't trying to paint a similar scenario, I was trying to make a scenario that demonstrated how simply responding to a person with a shotgun in their arms and you don't know why doesn't give you the right to presume harmful intentions and act on those even though you might have fear. The fear must be reasonable given the circumstances, and for that to be determined, the circumstances must be examined, meaning we can't just say "He had a shotgun and I was afraid so I've every right to attack him." What I did was create a scenario where if you put the "fear only" thing into play, only this time it's not two guys in a truck but just a guy walking to his duck blind, you clearly see that any fear just won't cut it.

I'm not trying to speculate on outcome, I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't seem logical to have the law state that someone is in bounds if they do X, but then say if you do X, you're out of bounds. GA law says it's legal to carry a shotgun. It specifically says that shotgun must be carried in an open manner, not concealed or covered up by something. Nothing in the criminal code says anything about standing in front of someone with a shotgun held in your arms constituting a criminal offense unless you point it at them. Threat of harming someone with or without a gun is a crime, but not simply having a gun.

What's happened in this case is people are placing motives behind each person's actions without proof. They are declaring Arbery felt threatened because perhaps they would, but have no proof about Arbery. They are declaring the younger McDaniels threatened Arbery just by getting out of his truck with a shotgun when the law gives him every right to do just that. How it will all wash out in the end is anyone's guess.
Well anyone can say what they "think" might be the reasons either side took the actions they did. However, I didn't see those posting in here "declaring" their speculations were "fact," only providing their speculation on what they or another reasonable person might think of the actions of one side and the reactions of the other side, which is not entirely unlike what the jury will do, judge the accused based on which of two competing stories they believe is supported by the facts presented them. The real difference for people here on FCC and elsewhere is this is not a court of law and they are not judging the set of facts that the jury will be deliberating on. This quote from Mr. Branca's book The Law of Self Defense (third edition) sums this idea up quite well on page 11:

The startling truth about our system, which takes innocent people by surprise every day, is that it doesn't base its decisions on what actually happened. [my emphasis added] The quicker you realize your actions won't be judged on absolute reality, the quicker you can get ahead in the game. This isn't a knock on the system. It's impossible for the people who will judge you to know what really happened, because they weren't there when it happened. Absent absolute knowledge, they're forced to base their conclusions on what evidence suggests might have happened.

This means the game is actually a competition between two stories, built around the available evidence. The prosecution will tell a story of guilt, They will paint a picture of you and your actions in the worst possible light to convince the jury that you broke the law. They will say your claim to innocence is flawed, and you should be held criminally liable.

Your defense counsel, on the other hand, will tell a story of innocence. They'll work to convince the jury that your actions were lawful. Your claim to innocence is true, and that your actions should be found justified.

These two stories - the narrative of guilt and the narrative of innocence - are all the jury will have to go on.
Many here have talked everything coming down to what the facts supported by evidence prove in court. It's probably just semantics but I would modify that just a little bit. It's what version of reality those facts supported by the evidence presented that the jury actually believes!

Now brownie just reported another issue about a previous encounter between the deceased and one of the accused and one wonders how that issue will be presented in court and how it will color the version of reality the jury ultimately believes. :unsure: 🍿
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,488 Posts
Oh oh, the former leo who shot him, had a run in with him a few years back. 2017 video shows Georgia officer tried to tase Ahmaud Arbery

While I agree with Bob, one’s opinions or feelings don’t equal evidence....does anyone really believe that cat was “just jogging through the neighborhood“ ? Or just poking around that unfinished home out of curiosity?

Dude was up to no good or what’s the phrase....lingering with the intent to mope? insert laughing emoji here
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,240 Posts
Well said, BH and good quote from Branca. The video actually shows an encounter with the Glenn County Police Department in 2017 and not the defendant. From a Law Enforcement perspective, the video demonstrates practices that we’ve been trying to avoid for decades. You can see the officer attempts to tase Arbery when his hands are outstretched from his body out to the side. Fortunately, the Taser malfunctioned. If you listen to the chat at the end of the video you will note the supervisor realizes he’s on record. He asks something to the effect of “so it got so bad you had to taser him“ and the individual officer tries to justify it by saying he had a bulge in his pocket and he was wearing a big coat and then the very last comment was “and he wasn’t moving fast enough“

That video is unlikely to play any role in the trial. The only way it could see a courtroom, I would think, would be in a section 42, 1983 USC civil rights case against the department or a action by the Feds.

We are all pontificating but the big picture is that when these defendants tried two or three times to block this man’s path with a pick up truck and then one leaped out with a shotgun while the other one was standing up in the bed, the message is likely threatening. One of my favorite sayings is “what you are speaks so loudly I can’t hear what you say“
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,108 Posts
Well said, BH and good quote from Branca. The video actually shows an encounter with the Glenn County Police Department in 2017 and not the defendant. From a Law Enforcement perspective, the video demonstrates practices that we’ve been trying to avoid for decades. You can see the officer attempts to tase Arbery when his hands are outstretched from his body out to the side. Fortunately, the Taser malfunctioned. If you listen to the chat at the end of the video you will note the supervisor realizes he’s on record. He asks something to the effect of “so it got so bad you had to taser him“ and the individual officer tries to justify it by saying he had a bulge in his pocket and he was wearing a big coat and then the very last comment was “and he wasn’t moving fast enough“

That video is unlikely to play any role in the trial. The only way it could see a courtroom, I would think, would be in a section 42, 1983 USC civil rights case against the department or a action by the Feds.

We are all pontificating but the big picture is that when these defendants tried two or three times to block this man’s path with a pick up truck and then one leaped out with a shotgun while the other one was standing up in the bed, the message is likely threatening. One of my favorite sayings is “what you are speaks so loudly I can’t hear what you say“
Thanks and it seems I misunderstood what brownie was saying in his post, having not watched the linked video.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,435 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,637 Posts
The officer who tried to tase Arbery was not the cop who stopped him but the cop who showed up when the initial officer radioed for backup. The initial officer said he observed veins bulging out and sensed increased tension in his (Arbery's) voice leading him to suspect it might get ugly, so he called for assistance. When the second officer arrived, he reported that cop #1 was trying to get Arbery out of the car and Arbery was both refusing to follow that command and was not keeping his hands where he could see them -> taser.

Right? Wrong? I don't know. What's that got to do with the current case?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
We are all pontificating but the big picture is that when these defendants tried two or three times to block this man’s path with a pick up truck and then one leaped out with a shotgun while the other one was standing up in the bed, the message is likely threatening.
I have not heard this before now. Has this come out to be fact that this was the third or fourth time the pick up tried to confront him?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,355 Posts
"I think it more likely he'd be concerned that there were two guys plus another following versus only himself than whether or not a gun he couldn't see was a factor.

I do agree that he possibly felt some fear seeing the other McDaniel holding a shotgun. But it is clear that gun was held in a non-threatening way,"


lol...contradictory?...it is the totality of the situation that creates a situation in which a reasonable man has a fear for his well being....put those two statements together...holding the gun in a non-threatening manner in a threatening situation pretty much ties it all together...thank you for doing that for me...although i already covered it in the statement you continue to argue...it isnt just one piece of the puzzle...its the entire puzzle put together...

"Consider a different scenario. It's early morning in GA, still dark. I pull into a McDonalds type restaurant to grab a coffee and a square of morning chow. As I get out of my truck, I notice another fellow getting out of his truck not far from me, and he's got a shotgun. He begins to walk in my general direction - I have fear he might be looking to hurt me, so I draw and shoot him dead.
Am I justified in doing that based on my fear of death/GBH?"


i dunno...did the guy getting out of his truck park in a fashion outside of the normal parking pattern that headed you off in an effort to possibly detain you for a reason you are unfamiliar with?...please tell me that wouldnt change the situation for you...unless of course you believe he is going duck hunting in the pond behind mcdonalds...lol...and i dont believe there is any proof that arbery's intent was to shoot the man dead...possible just disarm him to protect himself...careful...youre making assumptions that arbery had ill intent...there is no evidence of that...

really...camo in georgia...an indication someone is going duck hunting?...lol...theres a shitload of duck hunting going on in walmart...is it normal for a guy to park in the middle of the road in the path of another and hop out to walk down to the water with his gun in his hands..i know...its your hypothetical situation....it is quite different than the one we're dealing with here...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,545 Posts
Open carrying any long gun in an urban/suburban setting is cause for fear on the part of third parties. Georgia or NYC.:)
Open carrying in the woods is a different matter.
Not an issue of whether open carry is legal or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joecarry

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,240 Posts
I have not heard this before now. Has this come out to be fact that this was the third or fourth time the pick up tried to confront him?
Who knows the absolute truth, but I’ve seen from several sources this was the third attempt to block him with a pick up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,637 Posts
I saw a parked pickup truck in the right lane of a two-lane street in the video. How does that classify as "blocking him?" Was he able to go around it? Looked to me like he did. Could he have kept going unmolested save for calls to "Stop. We want to talk to you?" We'll never know because he chose to run at the guy with the shotgun. We don't know why he did that, except some have invented a fear scenario we have no proof of and speculated he was in fear of being harmed/shot/killed.

i know...its your hypothetical situation....it is quite different than the one we're dealing with here...
This is a classic example of what we call a straw man argument. I am not making an argument that the scenarios are similar... that's you trying to shoot down something I'm not asserting, meanwhile you dodge the questions I do ask.

The point of the scenario I offered was to demonstrate that the presence of a gun alone is not enough to call it a threat. That's all the scenario was offered for. You are saying it is, and you appeal to this "totality of the circumstance" idea, but then you offer only a speculation as proof it had to convert a mere gun present to something more sinister.

If you want to account for totality of circumstances, you must also account for prior burglary being a valid issue, especially since one of the men in the truck was its victim. Also, the possibility this unknown entity casing a property he really had no legitimate business being in possibly being the same guy that boosted the senior McDaniel's 9mm, thus they had a reason to arm up. We have two live witnesses that, according to the reporting at least, expressed no intention ahead of time to do anything except stop and talk to him, their weapons only onboard in case he was armed and tried to employ a weapon, and nowhere has either stated an intent to harm him in any way. So what facts exist that counter this, that say it's all wrong, they were going to blast that guy if he didn't stop? And before you answer that, consider there were multiple encounters where they tried to get him to stop and talk with them. Why didn't they blast him the first time if that was so clearly their intent?

Further, you have to account for the video evidence that showed Arbery with plenty of space to change course well before coming up to the pickup truck in the first place, and it doesn't matter how many times prior to that the truck passed him or how long it followed him. He could have avoided it if he wanted to. If he thought he was headed into an armed conflict with a bunch of racist rednecks intent on a shotgun lynching, then wth did he keep running at them for? Did they only become suspected racist rednecks inside of 20 feet or something?

It's in that light of all facts, whether they favor his position or don't, that his fear will be evaluated as reasonable or not. We don't know what facts each side is considering nor what facts they'll ultimately present and what story each collection of facts paints, but it's clear that the jury is going to accept one story or the other. We won't know until then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,435 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,031 Posts
Now reported he was arrested and plead guilty to stealing a big screenTV from Walmart a couple of years ago. Seems the picture of him at graduation is a very out of date representation.
Like the Martin case, relying on the media and edited images MIGHT lead to erroneous conclusions.

”Walks like a duck.....” comes to mind. Sadly reality is shades of grey, not so clear cut and both bigotry AND progressive agenda colorization have their effects.:cautious:
 
  • Like
Reactions: brownie

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,240 Posts
Good point, Bob and MPDC.

Doubt it had anything to do with the two chasing him down, but it casts a bad light on his trespassing.

That’s why we let the police do their job and they have teletype or whatever they call it now. Unlikely the shoplifting charge plays a role in the prosecution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,488 Posts
Now reported he was arrested and plead guilty to stealing a big screenTV from Walmart a couple of years ago. Seems the picture of him at graduation is a very out of date representation.
Like the Martin case, relying on the media and edited images MIGHT lead to erroneous conclusions.

”Walks like a duck.....” comes to mind. Sadly reality is shades of grey, not so clear cut and both bigotry AND progressive agenda colorization have their effects.:cautious:
These revealing stories about this fella explains why this event has started to fall off the news cycle. Their ”innocent black guy shot for simply jogging“ narrative is unraveling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,435 Posts
Open carrying any long gun in an urban/suburban setting is cause for fear on the part of third parties. Georgia or NYC.:)
Open carrying in the woods is a different matter.
Not an issue of whether open carry is legal or not.
Fish, sorry, no just no. The SCOTUS has already ruled that the mere presence of a gun is not illegal.
don’t practice law or testify in court.
 
181 - 200 of 225 Posts
Top