Man unfairly sentenced to life in prison for "role" in death

You are neither the jury nor the judge, so really your opinion just doesn’t matter in this case.

 

don't chase people with trucks, don't chase people with guns, don't kill people

or you will do lots of time in prison.... moral of the story

of course the victim tried to defend himself.... people were trying to kill him and did kill him

 

Certain people are only going to think about this in certain ways because of tribalism.

 

It's a discussion about what happened if you don't want to talk about it just don't read or respond.

 

Com'on Katz.. you know black people have special privileges.

 

Why would he assume the man running from two men with guns is a criminal? My money would be on the rednecks being intent on harm, not the eventual victim. He should have instantly seen the possible bad outcome from that.

Some people argue that William Bryan's intention was to take part in a wrongful arrest tantamount to kidnapping, but I would argue there is no solid evidence that is what his intent actually was, and even if that were his intent, that is still not necessarily relevant, because Bryan's actions up to that point did not actually constitute carrying out kidnapping.[/quote]

Obviously th judge and jury think different. If you want to argue guilt or innocence, argue that point, don't whine about the sentence.

Your argument originally was about his sentence, not whether or not he committed an actual crime. Having been convicted, he is liable for the sentence. The time for proving innocence is over. Trials have discrete parts and those parts should not be mixed, as you seem to be trying to do here. You haven't shown anything in mitigation or extenuation of the crime and instead point back to guilty finding and say it's wrong.

 

We've been over this before. That question has already been answered in the opening post.

Perhaps you can try to argue he should have foreseen the possible way his actions could have contributed to a bad outcome, but that is true with any arrest or any chase.

I want to direct your thoughts to police again. Could you imagine if it was made illegal for any police officer to take part in a chase of a suspect unless that officer had specific knowledge about what crime that suspect had committed? I mean where a police officer would not be legally allowed to chase a suspect just because he saw the suspect running and other police officers chasing the suspect. There is often not much time to be able to verify all the details in those situations.
I will point out again that Bryan did not even get out of his truck. All his actions point to trying to slow Arbery down, either so the McMichaels could catch up to him and stop him, or to try to give police more time to be able to arrive and stop Arbery. (It is of course true that Bryan did not know for sure that there was a legally justified reason to be able to stop Arbery, but assumed that to be the case)

If his assumption had been correct, that his neighbors, the McMichaels, had a justified reason to try to stop or slow down Arbery, then (in that hypothetical case) would we be in complete agreement that Bryan's actions would not be seen as illegal?

 

this seems to be as bigoted a statement as you are protesting

 

Which are?

 

He's claiming there is a mob of people who think with their emotions, rather than just cold calculating reason and logic. So the outcome of how they feel about a situation can depend on the race of those involved. Many of these people may not consciously realize this is so. It's almost like neurologic programming.
White guy kills black guy, in a borderline complex situation where it's not altogether clear who was in the right and who was in the wrong, and some people automatically jump to the conclusion that the white guy was the bad guy.

But it does work the other way around too, because I doubt many conservatives would be very comfortable with this situation if the races had been reversed.

 

If the shoe fits, as they say. They chased a man down because they thought he had committed a crime without evidence of a crime even being committed. Pretty much the definition of a redneck in my book, Perhaps you have some other?

 

Sure. That's why we leave that stuff to the professionals we pay to do it.

This guy was not a cop. the men chasing Arbery were not cops. scenario doesn't apply.

Sure. If we agree he was justified then we agree he was justified. your argument is self referential and circular.