Defending the shooters is a warping of the concept of Self Defense and makes a mockery of the 2nd Amendment and 2A beliefs.

If any of you is a 2A carrier, running down the street, and armed men in trucks pursue you, chase you down and attempt to detain you, you are justified in using your gun to stand your ground and defend yourself from their aggression. If you get into a shoot out and kill them you are justified under self defense and they are not.

You cannot add a caveat of 'what if the chasers SUSPECT a crime?' That changes nothing from the prior. Suspicion is NOT enough to allow average citizens to engage other average citizens with an attempt to detain, and any 2A proponent will tell you that. Not one of them would accept that from another citizen coming up on them, demanding they submit themselves to them because they 'think' something wrong MAY have been done prior.

Not only are you a racist, you are a lying racist. I've never defended the murderers. You were caught racial profiling, and were called on it and now want to lie about what I've posted.

Also even though this is irrelevant to my post above...

...Larry English, the man who owns the house under construction, told The Washington Post that the structure was not robbed.
“That’s completely wrong. I’ve never had a police report or anything stolen from my property, or any kind of robbery,” he said....cite

I agree with itshotinvegas. The racial component is overblown. To think that those two only chased Arbery because of his race and they wouldn't if he were white is foolish. Also, the point being made the McMichael's were not arrested right away because they were white is also playing into a narrative and ignoring the fact that the father was a retired police officer.

I "profiled" the white guys on a pickup truck, with guns, in rural Georgia, shooting a black guy? On the basis of the available evidence, I'd say they were backwoods rednecks. If you want to call that "profiling", go ahead.

FYP
You as a lawyer are actually making conclusions about the facts of this case before there is a trial to establish those facts? That is just bad form. These guys are probably guilty but shouldn’t we wait until they have their day in court to draw conclusions ?

You don't need to wait for a trial to state or read what a law says. What he said was accurate.

Here is my summary from prior.

-------

Defending the shooters is a warping of the concept of Self Defense and makes a mockery of the 2nd Amendment and 2A beliefs.

If any of you is a 2A carrier, running down the street, and armed men in trucks pursue you, chase you down and attempt to detain you, you are justified in using your gun to stand your ground and defend yourself from their aggression. If you get into a shoot out and kill them you are justified under self defense and they are not.

You cannot add a caveat of 'what if the chasers SUSPECT a crime?' That changes nothing from the prior. Suspicion is NOT enough to allow average citizens to engage other average citizens with an attempt to detain, and any 2A proponent will tell you that. Not one of them would accept that from another citizen coming up on them, demanding they submit themselves to them because they 'think' something wrong MAY have been done prior.

A textbook example of profiling, actually.

And your profiling here is almost certainly correct.

Is profiling the same as stereotypoing? If so, guilty.

I think "profiling" is typically stereotyping in the context of identifying possible suspects of a crime.

There was a detective show once called "The Profiler", iirc.

Profiling is pseudoscience imo. I remember Profiler being at least entertaining though.

wait you dont think there was racist motivation to this murder? the **** is wrong with you people

"you people" lol

ITT I learnt that people calling out a racist murder are the real racists.

Not defending the murderers, just going to the mat to make sure their reputations aren't besmirched with an accusation of racism. Liberals aren't allowed to accuse people of racism when there is literally any other possible explanation.

All lies.

Black guy walks into abandoned construction site in broad day light looking around.

Time to take the shotguns out and run after him.

This is the 8th post ITT in which you've insisted that these murderers should not be called racist. I stand by my assessment.

Come on, let's be serious for a second and stop playing around. You're not really suggesting given the facts we know already that there is no racial element to this case, right? You're just goofing around and tolling the libs a little bit, right?

Why? Fooling around and not being serious are the main purposes of a forum of anonymous posters.

The amazing thing is, it could only be one, and you'd stand by your assessment, as if you've ever admitted you were wrong. What's odd is, without the evidence of this guy trespassing, I concluded a racist motivation along with everyone else, now that we have evidence of trespassing, the motivation is clearly more likely these idiots wanted to be wannabe heroes, and before you do the same straw man two others have, no, that does not justify the murder.

Just what do you think racism is, such that it's definitely absent if a couple of white guys allegedly see a black guy commit the most petty of crimes, one with literally no damage to any party, and decide they want to be heroes?

Unreal I have to explain this to a gun grabber (then again you have to be told over and over again that I won't ever answer your questions, yet you still ask them).

Some people who own guns dream about the day they get to be hero with their gun, but let's just conclude it's racist due to the skin color of the people involved, and ignoring everything else, like the statements given, the video evidence, etc. Again, if it was racist, this guy would have been dead before a fight for the gun even went down.

Sure. That doesn't address my question at all.

I've told you at least 8 times that I'm never answering questions from you. Expecting an answer is just plain silly.