How broken does a justice system have to be before vigilantism is moral?

[alai]

Presumably "consequences" like getting offered a job by a right-wing congressman or by ONAN, etc, would be acceptable.

[cherrypoptart]

I've been in the situation where someone suspected me of a crime and I was innocent. Mail came to my address but belonged to a neighbor. It was late at night so I was going around looking to see if I could figure out who it belonged to. Some old lady, not sure if her name was Karen, was walking her dog and told me I don't belong here and I need to leave or she will call the police. I pointed to my house and said I live right there. I got what looks like a birthday card and it has my address on it but somebody else's name and I'm trying to figure out where they live. She said okay she will call the police. I said go ahead but you'll be wasting their time. Then I had a solution. I'd just open my garage door with the remote and that would prove it to her. So I pushed the button but it'd been sticking a lot, I think because of a faulty circuit board but not sure really. Anyway, sometimes it takes a while and a lot of clicking. That was an awkward minute let me tell ya. But it finally opened and she walked off. I called after her though, saying that I actually appreciated her keeping an eye on the neighborhood and if someone really was trying to burglarize people I'm glad she's on the lookout.

I didn't rush her and beat the crap out of her like Trayvon did to George. Just had a conversation.

Okay, so the point is that citizens can't confront criminals?

Just wait until the police handle it. An innocent person may get murdered first, maybe a neighbor, but hey that's life.

This guy coming around trespassing over and over, of course he's no threat to anyone. Just let him be. Nobody out there is crazy, or a pedo, or a rapist, or a murderer. No need to be so suspicious. Assume the best about everyone. If you're wrong no big deal. A neighbor's kid gets raped and murdered. Life goes on. Just let the police handle it. Of course they won't do anything until someone gets seriously hurt or killed but that's how it should be. Until then, don't worry, be happy. It's interesting though two of these guys got life in prison without parole while a guy who actually did rape and murder two children got only twenty years and then went on to kill more people.

[cherrypoptart]

One kind of ironic thing is if the police were the ones to handle it he may have been shot to death anyway like Michael Brown and so many other totally innocent black men who get murdered by racist cops looking for any excuse to kill black people with impunity just like these vigilantes were obviously doing.

[NobleHunter]

Yes, lets conflate stranger danger with trespassing. Next, should we advocate harassing jaywalkers because they might be cannibals?

[Grant]

So the big problem is they confronted him with guns.

Better to confront criminals unarmed, and he was a criminal because he was caught on video trespassing multiple times.

The best option is not to confront at all.  Observe and report. 

Let's think this through.  The best reason to have a gun is because they might have a gun.  But if they have a gun then you're already signing up for a gun fight if you confront them.  I suppose getting in gun fights might be romantic for some.  At least back in the day people who watched enough westerns realized that getting in gunfights usually doesn't end well for everyone and gunfighters are not the happiest of people. 

And this idea that cops are not doing anything is ridiculous.  I'm sure there are some lazy and overworked police departments out there.  The rest of them may not be able to do much immediately because it's tough to track down stolen goods.  No, they're not always going to make it there in 5 minutes.  If you have that problem, raise taxes and hire more cops.  If the problem is lazy, then get a new mayor or police chief.  The solution isn't to become the Punisher.  But there are plenty of stories of the police finding catalytic converter rings. 

[TheDrake]

This guy coming around trespassing over and over, of course he's no threat to anyone. Just let him be. Nobody out there is crazy, or a pedo, or a rapist, or a murderer. No need to be so suspicious.

There is no escalation from trespasser to rapist and murderer. I doubt there's even a correlation. Most rapists are friends and family members. Most murderers know their victims. Your righteous fury and hyperbole suggest that you aren't as interested in stopping crime than teaching someone a lesson for being a lawbreaker.

[alai]

One kind of ironic thing is if the police were the ones to handle it he may have been shot to death anyway like Michael Brown and so many other totally innocent black men who get murdered by racist cops looking for any excuse to kill black people with impunity just like these vigilantes were obviously doing.

Or, given a warning not to commit that particular misdemeanor again, as an actual cop has actually said in this actual case.  But feel free to make whatever wild surmise necessary to galumph artlessly from one talking point to the next, without regard to the facts, or anyone else's points put to you.  It's pretty popular these days.

I've been in the situation where someone suspected me of a crime and I was innocent.

Come back to us when you've surrendered yourself to purported "arrest" by multiple angry, hostile people threatening you with weapons, presuming you to be be a criminal.  If able.

I didn't rush her and beat the crap out of her like Trayvon did to George.

As the killer claimed in defence of their killing, ITYM.  That there was no guilty verdict does not amount to an affirmative finding of fact in regards that account.  Nor indeed, actual fact.  But also not the case under discussion.

Okay, so the point is that citizens can't confront criminals?

You seem to be keener to defend criminals confronting citizens.  One remains mystified as to your designation process.

[Grant]

One kind of ironic thing is if the police were the ones to handle it he may have been shot to death anyway like Michael Brown and so many other totally innocent black men who get murdered by racist cops looking for any excuse to kill black people with impunity just like these vigilantes were obviously doing.

I kinda thought you were arguing that the cops never show up for these things, creating a "broken" justice system, and hence citizens have to turn vigilante. 

So now you're arguing that citizens should confront possible burglars or rapists or pedos because if the cops get there they may shoot a black guy that was innocent? 

[cherrypoptart]

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/08/us/missouri-fbi-arrests-suspected-serial-killer/index.html

"The FBI said Monday it has arrested a "suspected serial killer" who it believes is responsible for killing six people and wounding two others across Missouri and Kansas."

Just because most people know their rapist and murderer and molester doesn't mean a lot of people also don't.

Sure the police might get around to catching them eventually, and that's still a might, but how many people have to die first? Get raped first? Have their catalytic converters stolen first?

It's kind of funny actually how y'all seem to think the racist police are going to protect everyone.

https://news.sky.com/story/police-officers-fired-for-ignoring-la-robbery-in-progress-to-play-pokemon-go-12513520

Two officers with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) were fired for ignoring a robbery in progress to play Pokemon Go, according to recently released court documents.

The men, Louis Lozano and Eric Mitchell, lost their appeal against "multiple counts of misconduct" which had in part been based on a recording of them in the car.

The digital in-car video system (DICVS) recording "captured [them] willfully abdicating their duty to assist a commanding officer's response to a robbery in progress and playing a Pokemon mobile phone game while on duty".

----------------------------------------------------

There seems to be some misapprehension that the police have a duty to protect the public. They don't. They have a duty to protect criminals in custody, but no duty to protect the innocent victims of criminals, even dangerous ones.

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

"On Monday, though, a federal judge ruled that the government agencies " had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody."

This latest decision adds to a growing body of case law establishing that government agencies — including police agencies — have no duty to provide protection to citizens in general:

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody,” he pointed out."

-------------------------------------------------------

[TheDrake]

I was standing at the entrance of the basement when I yelled, and before I could process what was happening, a man ran up the stairs past me and out the back door, which had a broken frame and had obviously been kicked in. I was yelling at him the entire time, asking him over and over what the f*ck he thought he was doing in my house.

Knowing that I wasn’t fast enough to follow him through the back, I ran out the front door and tried to head him off before he got away. I chased him down the sidewalk, yelling at my neighbors to call the cops. In my mind, if I could just get close enough, I could jump on him or grab his shirt and take him down. What I planned to do at that point was not clear. But one thing was for sure, I was furious, and I wasn’t about to just let him get away without a fight.

One neighbor took up the chase when I ran out of steam and followed the intruder over to the next street where a get-away-car and driver were waiting. Someone had called the police by that time, and when they showed up, my neighbor gave them the license plate number of the car. They took my statement, and that was that. I didn’t even realize how foolish I had been until I called my husband to tell him the news.

My husband was annoyed and angry with me. He couldn’t understand why I had risked my life to chase after this guy. Why hadn’t I called the police when I realized that someone had been in our home? What the hell did I think I was going to do if I caught him? What if he had been carrying a gun?

Frankly, I hadn’t given any of those possibilities a second thought. I hadn’t considered that a forty-something-year-old woman wearing Doc Martens might not be able to run fast enough to catch this guy. I hadn’t considered that if I did catch him, I was not likely strong enough to do anything to stop him and would probably hurt myself in the process.

I had not considered anything. My mind was rendered temporarily, unable to reason. I was enraged that someone had broken into my house. I was so angry that I couldn’t think at all. My fight or flight dial was turned 100% to fight, and I’m not sure why. I am generally not a violent person. I am generally easy-going, but somehow, the home invasion had tapped a deep well of anger and aggression in me.

Smart or dumb? Was this something that would become smart if she were armed? It think most of these situations are not thought through logically, but rather consist of a "How DARE you!" attitude. It is impressive to feed off your emotions.

[cherrypoptart]

The possibility that the police might have shot and killed him anyway wasn't an argument for anything, just an observation.

That the police catch some criminals sometimes is good but does that mean people are really safe and can count on the police to protect them if they can't or won't or just don't protect themselves?

Thousands of murders, hundreds of thousands of rapes, and millions of property crimes say otherwise.

[msquared]

Or train the cops not to kill unarmed people with out determining  what is going on first.  That POC is in real trouble. If the cops are called they get shot. If the cops are not called, they get shot.

[TheDrake]

Anecdotes are fun. Let's just detain and/or lock up every man woman and child, and we can completely eliminate rape and murder! Well, maybe not, since that happens in prison also.

While we're at it, lets get rid of that pesky search and seizure rule, because hey we'll probably catch some murderers and rapists that way also.

You had a right to live your life unmolested while returning some mail. Yes, people should turn a blind eye and shut up unless they are witnessing an actual crime. Even though some secret criminals might get caught at random.

[rightleft22]

I didn't rush her and beat the crap out of her like Trayvon did to George. Just had a conversation.

Okay, so the point is that citizens can't confront criminals?

So a black man being confronted by what appears to be 'good old boys' with weapons = You being confronted by  "Some old lady' with a phone ?
So glad you didn't beat the crap out of her or that she didn't shoot you. By your own argument if she did she would not have been quality.

Shame

Ok the point is that if citizens confront criminals they will be held accountable for how that confrontation goes. And if the get it wrong the rule of law requires them to be held accountable. 

I will agree with your argument if you promises that the next BLM or such debate you never mention Rule of Law as being something your tribe believes in.

[alai]

The possibility that the police might have shot and killed him anyway wasn't an argument for anything, just an observation.

Maybe you should develop some sort of annotation scheme to denote which of your many tangents are intended to speak to some point, and which we should ignore entirely, then.

I will agree with your argument if you promises that the next BLM or such debate you never mention Rule of Law as being something your tribe believes in.

Rule of law with "decree" characteristics.

But whachamean "the next" BLM debate?  cherry can barely go three posts running without an "ahbutwhataboutblmantifa!".  Regardless of what the topic is.  And probably will continue in that vein;  after all, if they thought that black lives matter, that fascism was something they should actively oppose, that masks and vaccinations were good ideas, that'd be waaaay too many RINO strikes.  Communism, practically!

[cherrypoptart]

I wasn't equating my experience with Arbery but with Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.  Martin didn't know Zimmerman had a gun and attacked him anyway. All Zimmerman had used at that point was his phone and he did call police and he hung back. He did everything all of you are saying he was supposed to do and still half the country, your half, wanted him in prison anyway.

[cherrypoptart]

For Zimmerman, it could even be that if the exact same thing happened now he would go to prison because the jury would be intimidated by the prospect of violent and deadly riots of mass destruction. In the Arbery case the law was changed after the fact but these guys were still strung up, ex-post facto style.

And if trespass should be ignored, then how about all of the so called January 6th "rioters" who are pretty much only charged with trumped-up trespassing.

https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-arrests-charges-names-2021-1

Most of the charges look like this:

Thomas Conover: Entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly conduct in a Capitol building; parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building - Images prosecutors cited show Conover with beer inside the Capitol.
Jonas Buxton: Entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly conduct in a Capitol building; parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building - Prosecutors said Buxton is a member of the Three Percenters.

Basically for the vast majority of them, just trespassing, and one of them unarmed like Arbery, shot dead.

Sure for the violent ones I agree they need to be punished. Heck, even for the ones just trespassing they should face consequences, although one has to wonder if it's really trespassing for some of them when the President of the United States invited them in and the barriers had been removed, perhaps by FBI agents provocateur.  But at least I'm consistent. I'm not going around all over the internet saying that trespassing is no big deal and it should be ignored.

[alai]

I wasn't equating my experience with Arbery but with [buncha tangential defence claims in a wildly different case]

So, irrelevant then, and any optical appearance you were posting in relation to the topic, or is response to points raised by anyone else in it, were just an optical illusion.  Worth knowing for future reference.

In the Arbery case the law was changed after the fact but these guys were still strung up, ex-post facto style.

No, they were tried according to the law at the time, and with by due process.  Your wiping away a fond nostalgic tear for Civil-War-era "fetch the posse" laws which were still not an adequate defence for these crimes really does makes make your ranting about that seem like psychological projection.

And if trespass should be ignored, then how about all of the so called January 6th "rioters" who are pretty much only charged with trumped-up trespassing.

Three misrepresentations in one casual sentences, getting us from black, to white (literally!).  We really should just have a Combined Cherry Thread, to save you the trouble of these laboured segues from one terrible take to the next.

[...] one has to wonder if it's really trespassing for some of them when the President of the United States invited them in and the barriers had been removed, perhaps by FBI agents provocateur. 

Literally only one person "has" to wonder that.  If even.

But at least I'm consistent.

Actual laughter, aloud. 

I'm not going around all over the internet saying that trespassing is no big deal and it should be ignored.

You're just all over here, debating against bad-faith distortions of anything that's actually been said -- or ignoring such inconveniences entirely, and using the most shoddy forms of whatabouts and false equivalence.

[TheDrake]

Who said trespass should be ignored? I would also have advocates against random passers-by from trying to apprehend the Q-shaman.

[msquared]

If you are not allowed to kill them then you must think it is completely allowable and you support crime and criminals.

[cherrypoptart]

I like how y'all are acting like I'm way out of line even though the original DA and cops who saw the video and knew what happened thought it wasn't a crime or prosecutable. And now the woke mob is going after that DA.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/02/us/jackie-johnson-indicted-ahmaud-arbery.html

She's being charged with failing to bring those guys up on charges while liberal DAs around the country are failing to bring criminals up on charges all the time, even going so far as to say they can't bring people engaging in a public gunfight up on charges because it's perfectly legal mutual combat.

"I didn't rush her and beat the crap out of her like Trayvon did to George. Just had a conversation" is what I wrote in relation to my story. Zimmerman was also called a vigilante because as a white Hispanic if he sees a black man walking around his neighborhood he is no longer allowed to walk around it and must remain in his vehicle but anyway or deserves any beating he gets but anyway it's all part of the same concept, vigilante justice.

If Arbery had been white, convicted of bringing a gun to a school and other crimes, and then the same thing happened does anyone seriously believe these guys would be getting life in prison? Even if they did get convicted, and that's a medium sized if, they'd probably be looking at 8-10 tops and with time off for good behavior. And that's also a big part of why Rittenhouse got off, because the people he killed weren't black. Apparently, this is what the left means by "racial justice".

[Grant]

I like how y'all are acting like I'm way out of line even though the original DA and cops who saw the video and knew what happened thought it wasn't a crime or prosecutable. And now the woke mob is going after that DA.

I really don't think that I'm a member of the "woke mob", and I pretty much agree that the DA may be prosecutable in this case.  I don't know if she's guilty or not, that will be up to a trial.  I do know that the citizens of the county in Georgia already voted her out, so not sure how "woke mob" Georgia is.  I also know that at least one conservative lawyer pundit has agreed that it was a mistake not to press charges to begin with. 

David French:https://thedispatch.com/p/a-vigilante-killing-in-georgia

If you’ve watched the video, you can already spot one clear problem. The video doesn’t depict McMichael pulling up beside Arbery but instead shows him waiting, blocking the road with his truck. Arbery changed direction to avoid the truck, Travis McMichael moved to intercept Arbery while holding his shotgun, the two scuffled (it’s not clear who initiated contact), and then Travis fired three shots.

Some context: The Brunswick News (thank God for diligent local media) noted that only one burglary had been reported to local police between January 1 and the day of the shooting. On January 1, someone allegedly stole a 9mm handgun from a pickup truck outside Travis McMichael’s home. A Brunswick resident named Larry English also told The Daily Beast that someone stole $2,500 in fishing equipment from his property, an alleged loss he did not report to the police.

It’s also worth noting that Greg McMichael is a former police detective and investigator for the Brunswick district attorney’s office. According to the New York Times, Glynn County district attorney Jackie Johnson recused herself from the case because of McMichael’s prior work for her office. A second district attorney, George Barnhill, also stepped away from the case—but not before writing a letter explaining why he believed “there is insufficient probable cause to issue arrest warrants at this time.”

His argument was simple: The three men were in “hot pursuit” of a burglary suspect with “solid firsthand probable cause” in the effort to execute a citizen’s arrest. Moreover, he argues, open-carrying weapons is lawful in Georgia, and the shooting occurred only after Arbery attacked Travis McMichael and tried to grab his shotgun. At that point, Barnhill argues, “McMichael was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself.”

Georgia law does indeed permit a person to execute a citizen’s arrest—in very narrow circumstances. The relevant false arrest statute holds that a “private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.”

Once the citizen’s arrest is properly made, Georgia law requires the citizen to take the suspect before a judicial officer or peace officer “without any unnecessary delay.”

It’s also true, however, that an unlawful attempt to take and hold a person is itself a crime—false imprisonment. Under Georgia law, a person commits the crime of false imprisonment “when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority.”

Moreover, according to Georgia case law, one cannot use the citizen’s arrest statute “to question” a suspect. In fact, stating an intention to question a suspect can be evidence that the individual claiming a right to make a citizen’s arrest is “uncertain and did not have immediate knowledge” that the victim had been the perpetrator of the alleged crime.

I'm also going to state that I was on the opposite side of the coin when it came to the Zimmerman case, and I pretty much still am, for a number of reasons that make the situation different.  Some people may not agree with me on that, but that's the way I see it.  I do still believe that Zimmerman used bad judgement and was unfit as a security guard/neighborhood watch. 

[TheDrake]

It's your standard of gun defense that lets people run around in a shootout. If Arbery had pulled a gun and survived, they probably wouldn't have charged either party in that case either. I'd prefer a legal framework where everybody carrying, brandishing, or firing a weapon gets charged. But here we are in America, with all the gun laws of Somalia.

They wouldn't have gotten life if they had A. Plea bargained, or B. Showed any remorse. They tripled down and tripled their punishment.

Zimmerman was explicitly told by authorities to back the F off. Immediately. Let people be. Once again, neighborhood watch? The operative word is WATCH. Not neighborhood tackle, confront, or punish.

[Grant]

But here we are in America, with all the gun laws of Somalia.

No.  That's ridiculous. 

[TheDrake]

But here we are in America, with all the gun laws of Somalia.

No.  That's ridiculous.

Actually, after actual research, you're right. They have more.

The Somali government does not allow any domestic firearm production[162] and it doesn't license any firearm shops, effectively outlawing acquisition of firearms by civilians. However this is widely ignored and illegal possession and sale of firearms is widespread in Somalia.

[alai]

If Arbery had been white, convicted of bringing a gun to a school and other crimes, and then the same thing happened does anyone seriously believe these guys would be getting life in prison? Even if they did get convicted, and that's a medium sized if, they'd probably be looking at 8-10 tops and with time off for good behavior. And that's also a big part of why Rittenhouse got off, because the people he killed weren't black. Apparently, this is what the left means by "racial justice".

Apparently this is what the Right means by "those uppity Black folks, had it too good for too long!"  (One always wonders just how long, case to case.)

If we don't like one of your wild surmises, that's fine...  you have dozens more where those game from!  I've no idea if a white Arbery would have been acquitted.  Hopefully cases where people -- generally -- are chased by armed men for sustained periods and then shot by them, claiming "self defence" while doing so, are fairly rare.   Even in America.  But I might be wrong, so if you have similar cases to offer up for comparison, I'd be interested.  Horrified, but interested.  That you simply yet again make another of your strange tangents to another very high-profile case with very different facts implies to me that you don't.  And won't stick to the facts of one case, when there's specious comparisons to be made.

"Rittenhouse got off" is one characterisation I'd agree with, albeit not via your bizarre rationale for how and why that came about.

[TheDeamon]

If Arbery had been white, convicted of bringing a gun to a school and other crimes, and then the same thing happened does anyone seriously believe these guys would be getting life in prison? Even if they did get convicted, and that's a medium sized if, they'd probably be looking at 8-10 tops and with time off for good behavior. And that's also a big part of why Rittenhouse got off, because the people he killed weren't black. Apparently, this is what the left means by "racial justice".

I'm reasonably certain that in most circumstance a White Arbery with no prior record had the same circumstance play out, charges would likely have been filed. But I'd agree that life sentences would likely not have followed suit.

That particular scenario doesn't have quite the same "connotations" for a white person in Georgia as it would for someone who is black. So it would make the act of self-defense on "White Arbery's" part a little less reasonable, but still reasonable. His also being white in this scenario also removes the racial motivation from the crime which further reduces the amount of "energy" inherent in the case.

Rittenhouse got off on his charges because it was one of the clearest cases of self-defense to ever be brought to trial. Even if his "victims" were black, he would have either received a jury exoneration, or the case being overturned and sent back for retrial if not simply thrown out in due time. The only question in his case was how long the process was going to take to play out, and how many hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars would be wasted during that time.

[alai]

I'm reasonably certain that in most circumstance a White Arbery with no prior record had the same circumstance play out, charges would likely have been filed. But I'd agree that life sentences would likely not have followed suit.

It's the mandatory minimum for Murder I in Georgia.  So White Arbery's murder would have been in the second degree, or some still lesser charge, somehow?

Any meaningful comparison with actual cases you can offer in support of this contention?

Rittenhouse got off on his charges because it was one of the clearest cases of self-defense to ever be brought to trial.

Quite the assertion.  Apparently the principle that you can't claim self-defence against a danger you yourself create is somehow novel to the law.

And because AR-15s aren't "dangerous weapons", let's not forget for suite-of-charges completeness.

[TheDrake]

It's the mandatory minimum for Murder I in Georgia.  So White Arbery's murder would have been in the second degree, or some still lesser charge, somehow?

Yup. The somehow would come in the form of a plea bargain, which even the real case would have happened I reckon if the defendants set their pride down and accepted that what they did was wrong.

Of course, this unlikely to have played out this way excepting race. It is less likely that anyone would have spotted a white guy on the property and called their neighbors to chase them down, have them agree, have them rush up on him armed, and have him fight back.

[alai]

Yup. The somehow would come in the form of a plea bargain, which even the real case would have happened I reckon if the defendants set their pride down and accepted that what they did was wrong.

Sure, that may have happened, but what's basis for concluding it's likely to have?  And if we're proposing the hypothetical murderers of Ahmaud White would be willing to plea-bargain, whereas the actual murderers of Actual Arbery were not, it's not a like-for-like comparison.

Of course, this unlikely to have played out this way excepting race. It is less likely that anyone would have spotted a white guy on the property and called their neighbors to chase them down, have them agree, have them rush up on him armed, and have him fight back.

Sounds a more plausible point of difference, indeed.  But in these Orwellian (yes) times when Republicans can claim they're being murdered by reverse psychology, due to Democrats telling them to use masks and get vaccinated, no doubt someone will argue that angry white southerners have legitimate historical expectations that aren't being vindicated here, and thus they should get lots of lynch-mob slack.

[TheDeamon]

Rittenhouse got off on his charges because it was one of the clearest cases of self-defense to ever be brought to trial.

Quite the assertion.  Apparently the principle that you can't claim self-defence against a danger you yourself create is somehow novel to the law.

And because AR-15s aren't "dangerous weapons", let's not forget for suite-of-charges completeness.

The AR-15 was a weapon he was lawfully allowed to have in his possession at the time.

As to self-defense, he was not carrying out a crime, and the people trying to apprehend him were not law enforcement.

The only people Americans have no right to self-defense toward, is to law enforcement. And even then gets an asterisk, as another recent case involving a certain black man shooting at police and getting his black girlfriend killed also demonstrated recently. He was acquitted on self-defense grounds as well.

The AR-15 is a lethal weapon, and as such, anyone making a grab for it is threatening the holder with lethal force. As such lethal self-defense is legally permitted. (1st death)

The next victim attacked Rittenhouse by hitting him with a skateboard hard enough that even the third victim testified to being concerned about Rittenhouse's medical condition at the time. Which established self-defense for the 2nd death.

The third victim admitted to pointing a gun at Rittenhouse, which established self-defense for the 3rd shooting.

There is no law on the books which obligated Rittenhouse to surrender to any of the people he shot. No law obligating him to turn over his weapon to them either. There are laws on the books which allow him to defend himself from people who are not police seeking to disarm him however.

[msquared]

All three found guilty of hate crimes.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hate-crimes-case-arbery-killing-061807665.html

[cherrypoptart]

I don't know about this being a hate crime or vigilantism being moral, but it sure fits the bill for a broken justice system:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10509019/Woman-followed-home-night-fatally-stabbed-inside-New-York-City-apartment.html

"A 35-year-old Asian advertising creative was knifed to death by a homeless serial criminal who was free on bail - with the victim's landlord blaming woke NYC DA Alvin Bragg's soft-on-crime policies for the killing.   

Christina Yuna Lee was named as the victim of the Sunday morning stabbing in Manhattan's Chinatown. She was a freelance advertising creative from New Jersey who has spearheaded campaigns for brands including Equinox and Google.

...  According to court records accessed by DailyMail.com, Nash has been arrested four times in the last year alone. His rap sheet included misdemeanor charges of assault, intentional damage to property, harassment, resisting arrest, both attempted and successful escape from police officers and selling a fare card.

Three of these cases remain open, and he has appeared in court on numerous occasions. He was set to appear again before a judge on March 9 on the assault, harassment and intentional damage to property charges.

'This all could have been avoided,' Lee's landlord, Brian Chin, told reporters Sunday night. 'This guy should never have been out of the street. And it's DA Alvin Bragg playing politics with people's lives and the Asian community has been hurt. To have a DA who has won those horrific crimes right on his doorstep. And he doesn't even bother to show up. It's disgraceful."

---------------------------------------------------

I will say that until he started stabbing her, even after he followed her into her apartment, he was "just trespassing."

So just call the cops on him?

That was tried multiple times and he was let go every time so he'd be allowed to do this.

If three male residents had seen him there, didn't recognize him, and thought him suspicious, should they have confronted him? Said they wanted to talk to him? No, of course not. That's racist. If anyone did that and he fought back and they had to kill him, they would of course be guilty of murder as well as a hate crime and get sentenced to life in prison. Ms. Lee would still be alive though. Catch-22, Kobayashi Maru, no good choices available.

[TheDrake]

I agree. Problem is we already have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Maybe if we let some of the non-violent criminals go, we might have room for people committing assault. The other charges are non-sensical. We should lock up people who damage property because that's a gateway crime to murder?

Is there any indication that this is anything more than a terrible anecdote? How many people released on bail for assault or misdemeanors go on to commit murders and other felonies?

Are we just supposed to lock up everyone awaiting trial for assault? That's going to be a lot of people who got in street fights locked up for months. If not, what are the criteria?

[kidv]

---------------------------------------------------

I will say that until he started stabbing her, even after he followed her into her apartment, he was "just trespassing."

So just call the cops on him?

That was tried multiple times and he was let go every time so he'd be allowed to do this.

If three male residents had seen him there, didn't recognize him, and thought him suspicious, should they have confronted him? Said they wanted to talk to him? No, of course not. That's racist. If anyone did that and he fought back and they had to kill him, they would of course be guilty of murder as well as a hate crime and get sentenced to life in prison. Ms. Lee would still be alive though. Catch-22, Kobayashi Maru, no good choices available.

Misrepresenting the facts and the law doesn't help a rational discussion.

Entering a dwelling is under no circumstances "just trespassing," it's burglary, it's a felony, and in the context of this thread it's fairly universally subject to potentially deadly force being an acceptable self-help response.  Also in comparison to Ahmaud Arbery, any male residents directly observing dude sneaking into a lady's apartment would be able to claim direct observation of the commission of a felony, not third hand reports of a guy who might have committed a misdemeanor (but did not).

So she could have shot the guy with a knife who entered her apartment. 
The owners put steel doors on the apartments that took the police 10 minutes to get through when the killer locked the door on them, so I am sad she did not get the door closed and locked behind her before this guy snuck in to her apartment. (The story was unclear, or I missed it, on how he entered her apartment.  He seemed to be lurking a floor behind her all the way up.)

Interesting legal question of whether he was committing burglary (and not just trespassing) after slipping through the main door to the apartment building, which wasn't fully closed behind the resident.

---------------------

The question of what is appropriate bail seems like not the same topic of this thread.  (This guy's prior charges are not one's that would generally lead to murder, or would have him held without bail, sadly for this lady.)

[TheDrake]

That's a good point, kidv. Cherry, are you making an argument that it would be appropriate for other residents of the building to confront the guy once he got in the building? That would be an active tresspass, but I think not burglary or even B&E if the apartment building is largely open to the public, security door or not. Active the operative word. Yes, I think we could imagine that somebody might reasonably confront the guy verbally in the stairwell and yell at him to get out. I don't think they should take it upon themselves to go back to their apartment and get a gun to threaten him or to defend themselves while approaching him to restrain him. I think it would be a lot more appropriate to call the police on the guy and watch him until they can get there. It would NOT make sense at all for a resident to chase him out into the street to confront him if he ran away, and it especially wouldn't make sense to call somebody who lives a couple of blocks down the street to gird themselves for battle and hunt him.

[cherrypoptart]

Whether it's appropriate or not for other residents to confront him if they saw him slip into the building after her I don't know. The Arbery case seems to make it clear that it is not appropriate at all and can get you sentenced to prison for life.

There are a lot of scenarios that can play out with this.

Let's say some guy, Chuck, did confront Nash. If Chuck has a gun out and Nash is unarmed but attacks Chuck and then Chuck shoots Nash then Chuck goes to prison for life. If Chuck has a gun but it's concealed and confronts Nash then it's entirely possible that Nash can stab Chuck to death before he can draw his gun or even beat him to death or beat him senseless and then take Chuck's gun and shoot him with it. If Chuck does not have a gun out and Nash has a knife then Chuck ends up stabbed to death like the poor lady. If Chuck doesn't have a gun and Nash does then Chuck gets shot to death. The Arbery case made it clear that you'd better mind your own business. Sure, you can call the police. Hopefully you won't lose your job for it like dog walking lady in the park did, but in this case the police were called promptly. That didn't help the victim at all. The only chance she had was a citizen not minding their own business, not worried about being called a racist, not worried about going viral and losing their job because they asked a black man who was about to stab an innocent young Asian lady to death what they were doing. The left got everything they wanted in this Nash case and this is what that looks like.

One question is how did the guys who confronted Arbery know that that was Arbery and not Nash?

That the guy they were rolling up on who was trespassing in houses was just a lookyloo and not a rapist murderer who would follow a vulnerable woman into her residence and stab her to death, not someone they needed to be armed to protect themselves against?

[TheDrake]

You've blown right past the verb tense, cherry.

One is WAS TRESSPASSING, the other IS TRESSPASSING. They are nowhere near the same thing.

If those guys blast up on Arbery while he's having a sip of water on the construction site, and particularly if they were the owners and already on the property, it is night and day.

[cherrypoptart]

That's blowing past the main issue though which is, is Arbery Arbery or is Arbery Nash. If he's Arbery then it probably doesn't matter when you catch him trespassing. It doesn't seem like he's the type of guy who is going to be a big problem. But if Arbery is actually Nash then it doesn't matter that you missed him in the act of trespassing. If he isn't confronted he'll come back another time looking for a vulnerable person and he will brutally kill them. It wasn't so much that those country boys cared about somebody trespassing in a house under construction. What they cared about was finding out if the guy was an Arbery or if he was a Nash which is why they said they wanted to talk to him and why they were armed when they did it. Unfortunately for them, he was a relatively innocent Arbery so they are in prison. If he would have been a Nash and somebody had confronted him then maybe a lady would still be alive and wouldn't have spent her last moments on Earth in such terror and agony.

[TheDrake]

Not to me. The main issue is are you ejecting a trespasser who is an active threat, or hunt someone down who is a potential threat? That makes all the difference no matter which one happens to be a serial killer or a beloved schoolteacher.

[kidv]

Actually please let's respond to actual situations.

There is no comparison to someone "trespassing" in a vacant lot, or a home under construction, and someone trespassing in an occupied dwelling [which is allowed in all circumstances to be treated as burglary, I would posit].

Let's assume a hypothetical insane homeless person. 

If you come across and confront the named hypothetical insane homeless person in ANY LOCATION that person may pull a knife and try to kill you [cuz they're wigged out homicidally insane, natch]. I don't think we can confront a homeless guy with wild eyes on the sidewalk with a gun 'cuz he looks weird.

If we see a wild-eyed homeless guy shambling down the street, and our neighbor calls out, "Hey! That looks like the homeless guy that was in the vacant lot across the street!" I don't think we're allowed to get guns and corral the homeless guy with our trucks while calling out our intent to "kill that homeless m...f....er" while pointing a gun at him, A) when we haven't physically witnessed the homeless guy actually commit a crime [felony], and B) when a homeless guy being in a vacant lot is apparently not a crime.  You may see the homeless guy and his wild eyes and think, "wow, that guy looks like a homicidal maniac," but I don't think we're allowed to grab a gun and apprehend a homeless guy walking past our house no matter how whacked out he looks.  [Some may prefer different standards for homeless-appearing eradication, but let's accept that pre-emptive murder continues to be illegal.]

So as the summation of this thread as what has actually been established as what is acceptable for trespassing in your neighborhood:

It is legal to call the police. 
It is legal to document the person by filming or regarding them. 
It is legal to observe the person, and continue to document the person. 
It is legal to ask a person questions.

 It is not legal to brandish a weapon at a person.
 It is not legal to detain a person who you did not personally observe commit a felony.
It is not legal to threaten a person with a weapon.
It is wise to realize that if you initiate a confrontation with a deadly weapon, the other person may be entitled to defend themselves, either of you may end up dead, and you may be held responsible.

"Whether it's appropriate or not for other residents to confront him if they saw him slip into the building after her I don't know. The Arbery case seems to make it clear that it is not appropriate at all and can get you sentenced to prison for life."

NO.

Let's examine. 

If you see someone in your apartment building, past the secure front door, there are legal ways to confront and not. 
You can ask the crazed stinky person a question, and you can follow them.
If you see the stinky person try to break into a door to a unit while you are observing them, you can most likely pull a deadly weapon on them and threaten and detain them, because they are committing a burglary, and you know they don't live in the apartment they are breaking into.
If you see them walk into a unit, you can knock on the door and inquire if the owner is there and express your concern.
If they talk to you and they follow social norms, you may be satisfied that they are not a danger or a trespasser and quit following them. 
You can continue to follow and observe them until they enter a unit or exit the building.
If they pull a knife you can pull you gun.

A helpful inquiry for this thread (which I may track down) is if a trespasser who passes the exterior locked door of an building of dwellings is already committing "burglary" if they intend to commit a crime, meaning residents would have more rights to use force on confronting those trespassers, and people who slip into those buildings innocuously should be aware that they don't have the same safety rights they may have if they wander into a vacant lot or a home under construction while they are out jogging.

[kidv]

N.B. I've wanted to compliment Cherrypoptart throughout this thread as I find it helpful and interesting to contemplate what would A) wise and B) legal to do in the instance of something weird happening in the neighborhood, when things may be very concerning to you but the police may come 2 hours later or not at all.

I think creating crazed hypotheticals works counter to the useful exercise of this thread.

[yossarian22c]

That's blowing past the main issue though which is, is Arbery Arbery or is Arbery Nash. If he's Arbery then it probably doesn't matter when you catch him trespassing. It doesn't seem like he's the type of guy who is going to be a big problem. But if Arbery is actually Nash then it doesn't matter that you missed him in the act of trespassing. If he isn't confronted he'll come back another time looking for a vulnerable person and he will brutally kill them. It wasn't so much that those country boys cared about somebody trespassing in a house under construction. What they cared about was finding out if the guy was an Arbery or if he was a Nash which is why they said they wanted to talk to him and why they were armed when they did it. Unfortunately for them, he was a relatively innocent Arbery so they are in prison. If he would have been a Nash and somebody had confronted him then maybe a lady would still be alive and wouldn't have spent her last moments on Earth in such terror and agony.

Rittenhouse shot 3 people in a public street and is free and IMO it was probably the right verdict even if I think he was an idiot for being out on the street alone and armed. Self defense is alive in America.

What isn't alive is chasing people down in the streets who aren't in the process of committing a crime or threatening anyone and threatening them with guns and then shooting them when they don't surrender immediately. If these 3 aren't guilty of any crime you might as well legalize kidnapping and murder. Chase someone down in your car, threaten them with guns unless they submit to being held by you, and if they fight back, self defense. What could go wrong in that society?

If you're concerned about women getting hurt, be concerned about the serial rapist who follows the Arbery model for chasing down women out jogging with guns and "detaining them" because they had maybe been trespassing. If she runs away or fights back, trap and shoot her. Self defense right? She could have been up to no good, maybe armed, who knows? She can't fight back until he starts raping her in your world? Everything up to then is just being a concerned citizen.

[TheDrake]

Since most women who get killed or raped are done by their dates, boyfriends, or husbands we should probably detain anyone seen holding hands until we know they are on the up-and-up.

[TheDeamon]

Since most women who get killed or raped are done by their dates, boyfriends, or husbands we should probably detain anyone seen holding hands until we know they are on the up-and-up.

Uh, that stat also generally includes neighbors and associations at up to 1 social remove from them. "Someone known to the victim" doesn't mean it is their SO that did it.

So basically any male who is in even indirect social contact with a woman is to be treated as being suspect.