Correct, had they had direct knowledge that a citizens arrest was lawful to make they would have been lawfully able to brandish a weapon in order to make a criminal comply with said citizens arrest. if however the person turned and fled, even with hands bulging with stolen construction tools from a jobsite they saw him steal them from, they cant shoot him.

their usage of self defense from an attacker rests on their legal right to have a gun pointed at him, which they didnt have. the deceased had the legal right to fear for his life, and even attack those with guns despite being unarmed, because there was no legal right for a citizens arrest.

and as a side note i dont see anything short of a known weapon on the burglar in clear site as a reason to approach him with guns drawn anyways. simply approaching an unarmed man with guns drawn is an escalation of force, and they're not legally use-able.

cops are free to shoot someone when they reach for a cellphone, citizens aren't. citizens arrest laws are designed to detain physically a fleeing criminal, there's not any gun vs non-gun legal uses i know of, or more realistically no guns can be used on someone without them having a weapon or a legit fear of being beaten to death.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 11 2020 12:34pm

Undecided.

Really? I had figured #1 would be a slam dunk. After all, if a police officer makes an unlawful arrest a pretty uncontroversial interpretation within libertarian circles would be that resisting unlawful arrests is legitimate.

Do you think if a police officer makes an unlawful arrest then resistance is warranted?

If so why is it harder to make the decision when it's just anybody walking down the street?

I'm not saying cam believes this, but a lot of libertarians will say that trespassing on property is a violation of the NAP (even if it's not your property). You are allowed to use as much force as you want if the NAP is violated. A 6 year old chases their soccer ball that they accidentally kicked on your property? You're allowed to kill the child with a 50 caliber rifle.

using a 50 cal there would be a waste of good meat. 22 gets the job done just fine

As a level headed intelligent adult I have no need to rush to judgement (or false dichotomies) without proper evidence and analysis.
I'm not a Georgia lawyer and don't have access and knowledge of all relevant evidence and information.

Its not fully clear they acted unlawfully in allegedly asking him to stop/attempting to stop him.

If an officer asks you to stop and you think its unlawful you don't automatically get to attack him and/or grab his gun.
Its much more complicated than that.



This is incorrect. Proportionality is a recognized concept in libertarianism.

What false dichotomy didn't I present? The only dichotomy I presented I specifically asked you for any third interpretation. If you have one, then please, present it and we can discuss it. For now I only see the two options I presented before.

As Snipa pointed out, the law is crystal clear on whether they broke the law by stopping this person.

If an officer makes an arrest that is unlawful, do you think it is fine to resist that arrest? The proportion of resistance isn't what I'm asking, we can talk about that next. I'm just asking if you think, as a concept, that unlawful arrest means there is a warranted amount of physical resistance?

unless they personally saw him commit the crime he hasnt even been proven to have committed, aka something they themselves dont claim happened, then its pepsi clear.

previously committed crimes aren't admissible evidence in a court of law. and its to stop complete idiots on a jury from thinking a past crime proves a current alleged crime.

zero chance you'd be one of those idiots right? pshhhhhhh