Literally anyone on the planet who is conscious may resort to violence in an extreme situation when threatened in that way.
He's being chased by some armed rednecks, tries to run away and eventually can't... what do you think happens when someone is in fear of their life and has nowhere to flee or hide? A mouse will likely attack something ten times its size when it's cornered because it still offers a better chance than passively accepting death.
We cannot be allowed to threaten someone in that fashion and claim self defence if they attack. It is beyond reasonability to push people in that way and expect them to react with the coolness, omniscience and calculation of a disinterested observer who has had two years to digest the case from every angle.
Agreed. I was asked why someone might think they have a need to arm themselves. More simply, they may, unjustly or unlawfully even, think they are headed into a potentially violent situation.
That is what we call making excuses for racists assholes. You must love living in your willfuly ignorant and oblivious world don't you?
Remember that time you claimed you wanted to get away from the hardcore Conservative jack-asses and their twisted ideals? I give you the same response before, "You might as well be them ,all but in name, if you continue to carry their awful ideals and memes". They knew what they were doing was wrong and thought they could get away with, because of an innocent man's skin color being non-white. All of them can rot in jail and suffer the deepest, darkest, despair imaginable.
And this is what I would call being an unthinking, uncompassionate tribalist. I think I try to keep an open mind and realize good people can do bad and unlawful things. These guys were called upon to protect their community and they tried but in a way that does turn out to be unlawful making them responsible for the death that resulted.
Given what we've been reviewing in the Rittenhouse case, I am still asking: had the Arbery killers thought, however incorrectly, that Arbery was engaged in serious felony conduct, would they have had valid self defense claims? As far as I can tell, that is the difference between these 3 convicted guys and jump kick man and Grosskreutz. That isn't necessarily a good thing (that maybe even if Grosskreuz thought Rittenhouse guilty of a serious crime, if he had killed him and it was proven Rittenhouse, for the sake of argument, had done nothing wrong, does Grosskreutz go free anyway because he though him doing a serious crime?) EDIT: and conversely, if, for the sake of argument, Arbery's killers thought he was engaged in a serious felony, would they be cleared of murder? How about if they didn't think he was involved in a serious felony but it turned out he was? I'd think that would still have landed them with murder convictions.