(05-10-2020 08:00 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 07:13 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 02:30 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 02:09 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Besides Avery's arrest and conviction in 2013 did he have any other convictions?

Why does it matter? Watch the video. Those men had zero reason to accost him with firearms. They are not the police, there was no evidence for a citizen's arrest and they escalated the encounter. They deserve their day in court but the facts are facts.

I'm just now reading this thread so at some point you might have seen a different video than the one linked in the 1st post. I assume you did other wise you wouldnt have said "fact are facts"

Could you link me to a video showing "Those men had zero reason to accost him with firearms. They are not the police, there was no evidence for a citizen's arrest and they escalated the encounter" ?

The linked video shows about 5 seconds and it starts with the man jogging and a truck about 100 yards in front of him. Then it cuts to the man who was jogging attaching the fat guy with the gun.

Again just going by the linked video you are assuming facts that were not shown. This video does not show anyone stopping the jogger. This video does not show anyone trying to arrest him. You can assume what was being said but then we are not talking about... "fact are facts".

If we are going by the cut up video the facts show a man jogging towards a truck with someone in the back. Then it shows the jogger running around the truck attacking a man with a gun. Then it cuts again to show the jogger trying to pull at the gun and striking the fat guy with his fist. Then it shows a shot, with the joggers hand still on the barrel of the gun when he gets hit by that shot.

Now those are the..."fact are facts" from this video. If you have a link showing the whole video or more of it I'm willing to change my mind of what I saw from a cut up video?

What the video actually shows is a clear case of self defense by the fat guy who shot the jogger. The jogger was the aggressor, hitting and trying to take a gun away, while hitting. At that point the fat guy could easily have thought his life was in danger.

What the video doesnt show and something the state will have to prove. The jogger feared for his safety or life. This linked video does not show that. But if the state can prove that the man was in fear and his only way out was to attack first. Then self defense might be harder to prove.

But here's something about the law, at least in KY, how it started and how it ended might not be a connection to the charges. Other words at some point both men could have been the aggressors. The key is going to be those seconds before the shot.

Link to the whole video?

They told police that's what they were doing.

Quote:The police report of the incident, released to the media on March 31, 2020,[17] relied almost entirely on an interview with Gregory McMichael conducted by the responding officer.[4]

The report describes McMichael as a witness, who said he was in the yard of his house when he saw Arbery running by. He called to Travis McMichael and said "[Arbery] is running down the street let's go";[29] they grabbed a .357 Magnum handgun and a shotgun, and then got into a pickup truck to chase Arbery.[20][17] Travis attempted to cut off Arbery with the truck. Arbery then turned and began "running back in the direction from which he came".[17] A third person, "Roddy", also tried to cut off Arbery, but failed.[13] Gregory said they called to Arbery: "Stop, stop, we want to talk to you". Gregory claimed that they pulled up to Arbery, with Travis exiting the truck with the shotgun. Gregory claimed Arbery "began to violently attack Travis" before two shots were fired.[20][17] Arbery died on the spot after "bleeding out", the report concluded.

It's not possible for them to have known what he was doing before they saw him, so even if Arbery was burglarizing the construction site(not a felony regardless) it won't play a factor in the trial of this incident.

This should not have been swept under the rug, and that definitely looks like what the local police force did. Let 12 of their peers decide if they were justified.

No where did I say what the jogger was doing before hand played any role. The video shows the jogger around 50 to 100 yards away from the truck when he is jogging towards it. Unless there's another video the statement of "Gregory claimed that they pulled up to Arbery, with Travis exiting the truck with the shotgun" does not match the video. Which I'm sure you know what someone says happened is often not what really took place. The below capture is from the link on page 1 and you can see they did not stop "pulled up to Arbery". Actually the video has a picture that stops you from seeing Arbery for a couple seconds before the capture. So he's farther back than it shows



As for jumping out of the truck with a gun in his hand. That in itself is not a crime if the man did not threaten Arbery with it.

I dont believe its against the law to say "Stop, stop, we want to talk to you". As for trying to cut him off, that in itself is not detainment. It could be a crime under Ga law but unless they tried to run over him...I doubt it.

So again going by the video and statements. No one threaten him with a gun. No one put their hands on him before Arbery attacks. The only point about a felony I made was...

If the shooter had committed a felony his rights to self defense would be lessen and maybe void at that point. So again you have a video that clearly shows Arbery as the aggressor. While the fat guy has a gun I dont see in the video where he threaten Arbery with it. The video I saw you could not hear what was being said.

One man is dead and cannot tell anyone what was in his mind at the time he attacked the guy with a gun. So that leaves the video and statement of the people in the video to tell what took place.

Arbery most likely was in fear but he made the choice to run to the right side of the truck and to go around it and start the attack. No one had him detained/citizen arrest

"Stop, stop, we want to talk to you" is not the same as arrest. Cops do this often, they stop and talk to you and not arrest you. So we come back to Arbery's right to self defense and the shooters same rights. Again no one is going to be able to say one way or the other if Arbery thought his life was in danger. He's dead. The video shows if he wanted to he could have keep right on jogging. He didnt he made the choice to go after a man with a gun from behind him.

At that point unless the state can prove the man with the gun was committing a crime. He has the same right to self defense as any other person. If someone is beating you upside the head and trying to take your gun....

you have to figure your life is in danger. Is it against the law to get out of a truck with a gun in your hand? Are you breaking the law by saying "Stop, stop, we want to talk to you"? Cutting the guy off might be breaking the law if they drove at Arbery. Again unless they admitted to doing just that...there's no proof of anything other than their statements.

So unless the shooter was breaking the law at the time. This is a self defense case and the video clearly shows the shooter being attacked and Arbery trying to take the gun from him. Other than statements...that all the state has to work with.

We can assume what we think from that video but its 100% clear on who attacked whom. Can the state prove anyone was threatening Arbery at the point he started attacking? You can assume it but that's not what it shows. It shows Arbery around 50 yards from the truck and he made the decision to run towards it. The video shows Arbery made the decision to not to avoid them but to circle around the truck and attack. At no point in that video did anyone in that truck try to detain Arbery...

"Stop, stop, we want to talk to you" is not detaining. So what happen before those few seconds where Arbery made the decision to run those 50 or so yards at the people in the truck. Or he made the decision to attack...

shouldnt play any role in this. Let me ask you this. Do a reasonable person run towards a truck with people who have guns, if they have another direction to go? No they dont, not if they are afraid for their life. Again look at the video there is 2 or 3 different directions a man who is in fear could have ran.

(05-10-2020 08:42 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 07:25 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 03:38 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 02:39 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 02:30 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Why does it matter? Watch the video. Those men had zero reason to accost him with firearms. They are not the police, there was no evidence for a citizen's arrest and they escalated the encounter. They deserve their day in court but the facts are facts.

Of course they had a reason. You guys seem to want to totally abandon due process. How can you say they deserve their day in court and then the facts have already been established LOL. There is no logic to that.

You cannot claim citizens arrest without immediate knowledge. Probable cause does not cut it. The police report reads they had probable cause at best and Nowhere near immediate knowledge

You seem to be hung up on citizens arrest when that will not have any play into if it was self defense or not. Not unless they actually put their hands on the jogger.

I dont know what Ga. law is on trying to detain a person without cause. But that action alone will not relieve anyone of their right to self defense. This case will be won or lost by the state on if they can prove the jogger feared for his safety when he first attacked the man with the gun.

But the state will also have to prove that the shooter was not fearful for his life at the time he shot the jogger. Guess what both actions of self defense could have taken place, under the law. If the state can prove the fat guy was committing a felony at the time...

they will get a conviction. Other wise with one dead and three live telling there tale and a video showing the jogger hitting and trying to take the gun its going to be hard to get a conviction. Without a underlying felony charge

If you detain or attempt to detain someone without cause then you cannot claim self defense as you set up the bad situation

Bullcrap, unless the shooter was committing a felony, he still has the right to self defense. "Stop, stop, we want to talk to you" is not detaining, its asking.

Also timing matters...the guy was 50 yards from the truck jogging towards it. He wasnt detained or any attempt to being detained when he made the decision to attack. Show me the video where he was being detained? Show me a video where anyone in that truck was putting hands on him at or before the point he attacked a man with a gun.

I have no doubt their attentions was to stop him and call the police. But attentions and action are not the same. "Stop, stop, we want to talk to you" is not a detainment. Its asking someone to stop. What you assume is not facts. There statements admit they attempted to cut him off..Yet he had 50 or so yards and 5 or 6 seconds before attacking a man with a gun. So its very clear they did not detain him. You are not going to read a dead mans mind on his fear or what was going through it.

(05-10-2020 09:24 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 08:42 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 07:25 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 03:38 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 02:39 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Of course they had a reason. You guys seem to want to totally abandon due process. How can you say they deserve their day in court and then the facts have already been established LOL. There is no logic to that.

You cannot claim citizens arrest without immediate knowledge. Probable cause does not cut it. The police report reads they had probable cause at best and Nowhere near immediate knowledge

You seem to be hung up on citizens arrest when that will not have any play into if it was self defense or not. Not unless they actually put their hands on the jogger.

I dont know what Ga. law is on trying to detain a person without cause. But that action alone will not relieve anyone of their right to self defense. This case will be won or lost by the state on if they can prove the jogger feared for his safety when he first attacked the man with the gun.

But the state will also have to prove that the shooter was not fearful for his life at the time he shot the jogger. Guess what both actions of self defense could have taken place, under the law. If the state can prove the fat guy was committing a felony at the time...

they will get a conviction. Other wise with one dead and three live telling there tale and a video showing the jogger hitting and trying to take the gun its going to be hard to get a conviction. Without a underlying felony charge

If you detain or attempt to detain someone without cause then you cannot claim self defense as you set up the bad situation

Bullcrap, unless the shooter was committing a felony, he still has the right to self defense. "Stop, stop, we want to talk to you" is not detaining, its asking.

Also timing matters...the guy was 50 yards from the truck jogging towards it. He wasnt detained or any attempt to being detained when he made the decision to attack. Show me the video where he was being detained? Show me a video where anyone in that truck was putting hands on him at or before the point he attacked a man with a gun.

I have no doubt their attentions was to stop him and call the police. But attentions and action are not the same. "Stop, stop, we want to talk to you" is not a detainment. Its asking someone to stop. What you assume is not facts. There statements admit they attempted to cut him off..Yet he had 50 or so yards and 5 or 6 seconds before attacking a man with a gun. So its very clear they did not detain him. You are not going to read a dead mans mind on his fear or what was going through it.

I've already posted the link for unlawful detainment in the state of GA.

If their actions are deemed an unlawful detainment that is a felony

(05-10-2020 09:30 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 09:24 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 08:42 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 07:25 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 03:38 PM)solohawks Wrote:  You cannot claim citizens arrest without immediate knowledge. Probable cause does not cut it. The police report reads they had probable cause at best and Nowhere near immediate knowledge

You seem to be hung up on citizens arrest when that will not have any play into if it was self defense or not. Not unless they actually put their hands on the jogger.

I dont know what Ga. law is on trying to detain a person without cause. But that action alone will not relieve anyone of their right to self defense. This case will be won or lost by the state on if they can prove the jogger feared for his safety when he first attacked the man with the gun.

But the state will also have to prove that the shooter was not fearful for his life at the time he shot the jogger. Guess what both actions of self defense could have taken place, under the law. If the state can prove the fat guy was committing a felony at the time...

they will get a conviction. Other wise with one dead and three live telling there tale and a video showing the jogger hitting and trying to take the gun its going to be hard to get a conviction. Without a underlying felony charge

If you detain or attempt to detain someone without cause then you cannot claim self defense as you set up the bad situation

Bullcrap, unless the shooter was committing a felony, he still has the right to self defense. "Stop, stop, we want to talk to you" is not detaining, its asking.

Also timing matters...the guy was 50 yards from the truck jogging towards it. He wasnt detained or any attempt to being detained when he made the decision to attack. Show me the video where he was being detained? Show me a video where anyone in that truck was putting hands on him at or before the point he attacked a man with a gun.

I have no doubt their attentions was to stop him and call the police. But attentions and action are not the same. "Stop, stop, we want to talk to you" is not a detainment. Its asking someone to stop. What you assume is not facts. There statements admit they attempted to cut him off..Yet he had 50 or so yards and 5 or 6 seconds before attacking a man with a gun. So its very clear they did not detain him. You are not going to read a dead mans mind on his fear or what was going through it.

I've already posted the link for unlawful detainment in the state of GA.

If their actions are deemed an unlawful detainment that is a felony

You don’t seem to understand what detainment is and how it works. They never detained him.

They could say they wanted to or intended to all they want, but if they never did, then they never committed unlawful detainment.

I could tell you right now I intend to go rob a bank today. If I don’t actually rob the bank, a crime wasn’t committed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(05-10-2020 09:30 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 09:24 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 08:42 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 07:25 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 03:38 PM)solohawks Wrote:  You cannot claim citizens arrest without immediate knowledge. Probable cause does not cut it. The police report reads they had probable cause at best and Nowhere near immediate knowledge

You seem to be hung up on citizens arrest when that will not have any play into if it was self defense or not. Not unless they actually put their hands on the jogger.

I dont know what Ga. law is on trying to detain a person without cause. But that action alone will not relieve anyone of their right to self defense. This case will be won or lost by the state on if they can prove the jogger feared for his safety when he first attacked the man with the gun.

But the state will also have to prove that the shooter was not fearful for his life at the time he shot the jogger. Guess what both actions of self defense could have taken place, under the law. If the state can prove the fat guy was committing a felony at the time...

they will get a conviction. Other wise with one dead and three live telling there tale and a video showing the jogger hitting and trying to take the gun its going to be hard to get a conviction. Without a underlying felony charge

If you detain or attempt to detain someone without cause then you cannot claim self defense as you set up the bad situation

Bullcrap, unless the shooter was committing a felony, he still has the right to self defense. "Stop, stop, we want to talk to you" is not detaining, its asking.

Also timing matters...the guy was 50 yards from the truck jogging towards it. He wasnt detained or any attempt to being detained when he made the decision to attack. Show me the video where he was being detained? Show me a video where anyone in that truck was putting hands on him at or before the point he attacked a man with a gun.

I have no doubt their attentions was to stop him and call the police. But attentions and action are not the same. "Stop, stop, we want to talk to you" is not a detainment. Its asking someone to stop. What you assume is not facts. There statements admit they attempted to cut him off..Yet he had 50 or so yards and 5 or 6 seconds before attacking a man with a gun. So its very clear they did not detain him. You are not going to read a dead mans mind on his fear or what was going through it.

I've already posted the link for unlawful detainment in the state of GA.

If their actions are deemed an unlawful detainment that is a felony

Show me a video or statement where the below took place? The video CLEARLY shows he was not being detain when he made the choice, a decision he 5 or 6 seconds to think about...to make a blindside attack on a man with a gun. Show me a statesmen by anyone that says the below took place? You are assuming a lot of things unless the state charged these people with false imprisonment? I honestly dont know...what I know if from this thread.

Quote:Under Georgia law, the tort of false imprisonment, sometimes called false arrest, happens when there is an arrest or “unlawful detention” of someone, for any length of time, where that person is deprived of his physical liberty.

O.C.G.A. 16-5-41 (2010)
16-5-41. False imprisonment


(a) A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority.

The letter from DA #2 referenced citizen's arrest as one of the main reasons no charges were filed.

Putting your truck in someone's path after tailing them and tell them to stop so you can talk to them is pretty close to detainment to me. But a GA jury will be the ultimate decison maker as it should be.

(05-10-2020 10:34 AM)solohawks Wrote:  The letter from DA #2 referenced citizen's arrest as one of the main reasons no charges were filed.

Putting your truck in someone's path after tailing them and tell them to stop so you can talk to them is pretty close to detainment to me. But a GA jury will be the ultimate decison maker as it should be.

Yeah. If that’s detainment to you, then you don’t have a clue what detainment is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Piss poor job of trying to "detain" this young man. So, it takes two trucks full of men with guns to detain one man? This was a coward act with obvious intentions. Think whatever you want, but you know the truth.

(05-10-2020 11:08 AM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 10:34 AM)solohawks Wrote:  The letter from DA #2 referenced citizen's arrest as one of the main reasons no charges were filed.

Putting your truck in someone's path after tailing them and tell them to stop so you can talk to them is pretty close to detainment to me. But a GA jury will be the ultimate decison maker as it should be.

Yeah. If that’s detainment to you, then you don’t have a clue what detainment is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Then why did DA#2 use lawful detainment as justification for not bringing charges?

(05-10-2020 11:35 AM)tigersroll Wrote:  Piss poor job of trying to "detain" this young man. So, it takes two trucks full of men with guns to detain one man? This was a coward act with obvious intentions. Think whatever you want, but you know the truth.

No, at this point we don't know the truth. That's what evidentiary proceedings are about--to determine the truth. I would strongly urge anyone to refrain from jumping to conclusions that this is either murder or justifiable homicide without knowing the full and complete facts. It is my sincerest hope that the rabble rousers don't force law enforcement and prosecutors to act hastily and start the speedy trial clock running before the case is clearly established, so we don't end up with another George Zimmerman situation.

(05-10-2020 11:43 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 11:08 AM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 10:34 AM)solohawks Wrote:  The letter from DA #2 referenced citizen's arrest as one of the main reasons no charges were filed.

Putting your truck in someone's path after tailing them and tell them to stop so you can talk to them is pretty close to detainment to me. But a GA jury will be the ultimate decison maker as it should be.

Yeah. If that’s detainment to you, then you don’t have a clue what detainment is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Then why did DA#2 use lawful detainment as justification for not bringing charges?

No idea. I don’t work there. Anyone working in law enforcement though can look at that video and tell you there was 0% detainment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(05-10-2020 11:35 AM)tigersroll Wrote:  Piss poor job of trying to "detain" this young man. So, it takes two trucks full of men with guns to detain one man? This was a coward act with obvious intentions. Think whatever you want, but you know the truth.

Seems like you are making sweeping assumptions and ignoring the entire aspect of the MSM framing and pushing this to create racial unrest and riots. They are using this story to push their political and race bating narratives.

So I’m seeing he was running in boots and cargo shorts... and had a hammer.

(05-10-2020 11:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 11:35 AM)tigersroll Wrote:  Piss poor job of trying to "detain" this young man. So, it takes two trucks full of men with guns to detain one man? This was a coward act with obvious intentions. Think whatever you want, but you know the truth.

No, at this point we don't know the truth. That's what evidentiary proceedings are about--to determine the truth. I would strongly urge anyone to refrain from jumping to conclusions that this is either murder or justifiable homicide without knowing the full and complete facts. It is my sincerest hope that the rabble rousers don't force law enforcement and prosecutors to act hastily and start the speedy trial clock running before the case is clearly established, so we don't end up with another George Zimmerman situation.

Well the first one to cave was the Governor. I suspect the real target here is the open carry law in Georgia and the Citizen's arrest law. That's why the facts haven't been fully divulged in the press and why the video was cropped on news stories. Arbery and McMichael are both unfortunate vehicles for what will prove to be about something other than whether this was an innocent man being killed or not.

(05-10-2020 11:35 AM)tigersroll Wrote:  Piss poor job of trying to "detain" this young man. So, it takes two trucks full of men with guns to detain one man? This was a coward act with obvious intentions. Think whatever you want, but you know the truth.

Why cant people deal in facts, "two trucks full of men"? Wasnt there a total of 3 men in both trucks? Like I said, the only thing I know is whats been posted here so can you point me to a link that shows the other man, who wasnt charged, had a gun?

Lets look at what you know as the truth....

if two trucks full of men who are loaded with guns...points them at you or any normal person. What would you do? Since this man was jogging when he attempted to attack and take a gun from one of those men. Do you think he was being detained? Let me tell you what I would do if 2 truck full of men carrying guns and pointing them at me...

my hands would go up and say I dont know what you are thinking but lets talk this out. I might **** my pants but I sure wouldnt attack them. Wouldn't that be the reaction for most people?

But I agree with you they wanted him to stop so they could take him to or call the police. So the truth is he wasnt and they didnt use guns to stop and detain him. Anyone with a lick of common sense should understand that. That's why he was still jogging.

(05-09-2020 09:52 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 09:46 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 09:40 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 09:27 PM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 09:23 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Then they should walk. What were they supposed to do once he went for their gun and began punching them in the head, allow him to have it and kill them?

I’ll ask again what I brought up earlier. Hypothetically, let’s say I pull a gun on you. Do you lose your right to self defense if you try and disarm me?

Define "pull a gun on". Them merely having a gun doesn't give him the right to attack them. Show me where they brandished it against him. You can't, because it's not in the video.

If I have a gun and am not threatening you with it, and you attack me and attempt to disarm me, am I supposed to just allow you?

Wtf? This narrative flip is mind boggling.

They stopped him. Blocked his travel. With guns out.

That isnt 2 guys just chillin minding their own business with guns in their belts. And not threatening? They impeded his path, 2 on 1, with weapons. Should he have expected cookies and balloons?!


This portrayal of Ahmaud as an attacker is revolting.

He should have called the police.

When? They tried to stop him once, he ran the other way. They tried to stop him again.

(05-10-2020 12:01 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 11:35 AM)tigersroll Wrote:  Piss poor job of trying to "detain" this young man. So, it takes two trucks full of men with guns to detain one man? This was a coward act with obvious intentions. Think whatever you want, but you know the truth.

Why cant people deal in facts, "two trucks full of men"? Wasnt there a total of 3 men in both trucks? Like I said, the only thing I know is whats been posted here so can you point me to a link that shows the other man, who wasnt charged, had a gun?

Lets look at what you know as the truth....

if two trucks full of men who are loaded with guns...points them at you or any normal person. What would you do? Since this man was jogging when he attempted to attack and take a gun from one of those men. Do you think he was being detained? Let me tell you what I would do if 2 truck full of men carrying guns and pointing them at me...

my hands would go up and say I dont know what you are thinking but lets talk this out. I might **** my pants but I sure wouldnt attack them. Wouldn't that be the reaction for most people?

But I agree with you they wanted him to stop so they could take him to or call the police. So the truth is he wasnt and they didnt use guns to stop and detain him. Anyone with a lick of common sense should understand that. That's why he was still jogging.

If two trucks full of men who are loaded with guns...What would you do?

His first instinct was to run the other way, which he did. Stop ignoring that.

And also stop thinking that there is one and only one normal reaction. In extreme stress anything in the categories of run away, fight, or freeze are normal reactions.

(05-10-2020 12:41 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 12:01 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-10-2020 11:35 AM)tigersroll Wrote:  Piss poor job of trying to "detain" this young man. So, it takes two trucks full of men with guns to detain one man? This was a coward act with obvious intentions. Think whatever you want, but you know the truth.

Why cant people deal in facts, "two trucks full of men"? Wasnt there a total of 3 men in both trucks? Like I said, the only thing I know is whats been posted here so can you point me to a link that shows the other man, who wasnt charged, had a gun?

Lets look at what you know as the truth....

if two trucks full of men who are loaded with guns...points them at you or any normal person. What would you do? Since this man was jogging when he attempted to attack and take a gun from one of those men. Do you think he was being detained? Let me tell you what I would do if 2 truck full of men carrying guns and pointing them at me...

my hands would go up and say I dont know what you are thinking but lets talk this out. I might **** my pants but I sure wouldnt attack them. Wouldn't that be the reaction for most people?

But I agree with you they wanted him to stop so they could take him to or call the police. So the truth is he wasnt and they didnt use guns to stop and detain him. Anyone with a lick of common sense should understand that. That's why he was still jogging.

If two trucks full of men who are loaded with guns...What would you do?

His first instinct was to run the other way, which he did. Stop ignoring that.

And also stop thinking that there is one and only one normal reaction. In extreme stress anything in the categories of run away, fight, or freeze are normal reactions.

Stop ignoring the man ran DIRECTLY at the truck then decided his best option was to attack a man with a gun. Watch the video and you will see 10 seconds, which might not seen long. But he had a full 10 seconds so at least 50 yards between him and the truck with no one around him. Most people and when I say most I would guess 99.9% would choose to avoid a "truck full of men" that pointed guns at them.

So stop ignoring the fact he made that choice when there were better options. He chose the only option that could put him in the most danger. So who's to say he was looking for a fight? The option he choose tells me he's a idiot or at up to this point he had not seen any gun pointed or flashed at him.

Yes I'm assuming but basing it off a reacting that almost everyone else would not have made.

Two questions:

1. Is the attempt to detain (lawfully or especially unlawfully) the same as detaining when it comes to this case? (Technically detaining somebody in a broader sense simply to keep impeding their path, but we’re probably not going to go there).

2. Like Solo said, detainment is one of the reasons the DA decided not to bring charges. But, if it wasn’t detaining or even, as a couple posters want to point out, a sure fire attempt at detaining him, is it still lawful for them to block his way twice with trucks while you’re openly carrying guns?

These two men are going to get indicted...and unless something really compelling comes to light they probably should be.

That said, I don't care if you're getting robbed or if someone is trying to make a citizen's arrest, do not try and take the gun from the person. Just don't try it unless you're absolutely certain you will get shot no matter what you do. It's more important to maximize your chances for survival than it is to be legally right or to be a bad***.