Do self-defence laws (US) allow vigilantes to kill with impunity ?

@fanuc2013 How about the Arbery case ?

@LegendofPeza Arbery case is completely different. My prediction is the defendants will be convicted, and rightly so.

@fanuc2013 The defence is the same though , and that's what I'm getting at. Such a defence gives any would be vigilante a decent shot at exoneration.

@LegendofPeza I can't see any way a jury would believe self-defense in the Arbery case.

@LegendofPeza Self-defence laws are just that, "Self Defense"! The defendants in the Arbery case chased him down and killed him. They were not defending themselves by any stretch of the imagination. Now, hypothetically,if Arbery were to have killed one or more of his assailants he would be perfectly justified.

@fanuc2013 Yet that is precisely what they are claiming. i.e. Because Arbery was trying to wrestle the gun from them (Rittenhouse claimed the same) they feared he would turn the gun on them. Of course we have only their 'feelings' to go on , and it neglects the obvious fact that he actually did have very good reason to fear for his life , and wanted to disarm his assailant for that reason alone.

@fanuc2013 In both cases being talked about here the people had to face a court case.. If the US had impunity for these cases then they would have never been charged and would never be facing a court case..

Therefore there is no impunity happening here..

@Adstar Maybe I should have phrased it better ; 'the expectation of impunity' perhaps.

That's not to say that both cases could yet result in acquittal , in effect granting them impunity for their actions.