They were not cops. They were not wearing badges and uniforms. We are required to surrender to COPS. We are not required to surrender to assholes running around with guns threatening to blow our heads off!
“The “pursuit” has nothing to do with it.”
Absolute HOGWASH! If you pursue someone and are the aggressor, you lose the right to self-defense. You can’t race after someone, threaten to blow their head off, and then whine, “But he fought back!”
Those guys were and are pathetic, racist assholes who give those of us who carry a bad name. I’m ashamed white guys acted like that.
” I think too many Americans have become cowed into being p*ssies who think letting thieves get away is a reasonable thing to do.”
It is called the law. I can defend myself in my home and I can defend my home against an intruder, but I don’t get to impose the death penalty on a crime that doesn’t CARRY the death penalty!
I hope YOU don’t CCW because if you do and you act out what you say, your butt will go to prison.
So they weren't cops, but they were within a reasonable interpretation of Georgia law to do exactly what they did.
Absolute HOGWASH! If you pursue someone and are the aggressor, you lose the right to self-defense. You can’t race after someone, threaten to blow their head off, and then whine, “But he fought back!”
Words versus actions. You can't "assault" someone with words. You have to physically do something to them. They clearly had no intention of shooting him else they would have done so as he was running up to the truck. I imagine the father is a decent shot having been a police officer for 20 years.
Those guys were and are pathetic, racist assholes who give those of us who carry a bad name. I’m ashamed white guys acted like that.
You are making it a racial thing. I am happy when white crooks get shot too. As a matter of fact, if Arbery was white, this case would have been dropped and charges would never have been filed at all.
I think a lot of Freepers immediately make this into a racial thing, and then they want to virtue signal by condemning these guys for doing something that would not bother them at all had they did it to a white guy.
What they are really saying is "I want everyone to see how non racist I am!" That's the vibe i'm getting.
Me? I try to see everything objectively. The guy was a crook who got shot when he attacked a man with a gun. Case closed.
It is called the law. I can defend myself in my home and I can defend my home against an intruder, but I don’t get to impose the death penalty on a crime that doesn’t CARRY the death penalty!
Mens rea.
No intent.
I hope YOU don’t CCW because if you do and you act out what you say, your butt will go to prison.
I don't carry a gun, and I mostly live in an area and in a manner where I usually don't have to worry about violent crime. Perhaps I should be more cautious and at least keep one nearby, but so far i've seen no likely threat to my peace and tranquility.
They were not cops. They were not wearing badges and uniforms. We are required to surrender to COPS. We are not required to surrender to assholes running around with guns threatening to blow our heads off! ...If you pursue someone and are the aggressor, you lose the right to self-defense. ...
It is called the law. I can defend myself in my home and I can defend my home against an intruder, but I don’t get to impose the death penalty on a crime that doesn’t CARRY the death penalty!
What you are stating is not the applicable law of this case in the state of Georgia. The law of Citizen Arrest and the law of Self-Defence are separate statutes. First up in this case is to determine if they were lawfully attempting a citizen arrest.
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2018/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/section-17-4-60/
2018 Georgia Code
Title 17 - Criminal Procedure
Chapter 4 - Arrest of Persons
Article 4 - Arrest by Private Persons
§ 17-4-60. Grounds for arrest Universal Citation: GA Code § 17-4-60 (2018)A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.
Were there probable and reasonable grounds of suspicion of the felony of second degree burglary? The law did not require a crime to have been committed; rather it required that the defendants had probable and reasonable grounds of suspicion that a felony offense had been committed by Arbery.
If they had such probable and reasonable grounds of suspicion, then they could chase Arbery down and arrest him.
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2018/title-16/chapter-7/article-1/section-16-7-1/
2018 Georgia Code
Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses
Chapter 7 - Damage to and Intrusion Upon Property
Article 1 - Burglary
§ 16-7-1. Burglary
Universal Citation: GA Code § 16-7-1 (2018)(c) A person commits the offense of burglary in the second degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant building, structure, railroad car, watercraft, or aircraft. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the second degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years. Upon the second and all subsequent convictions for burglary in the second degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than eight years.
Were there probable and reasonable grounds to suspect second degree burglary, a felony?
Having prior knowledge of thefts in the vacant building, and claiming to recognize Arbery from the security video, did the McMichaels have a probable and reasonable suspicion that Arbery entered the building with the intent to commit a theft therein?
If yes, then the McMichaels apparently had the authority to track down the fleeing Arbery and make a citizen arrest.
If no, then the McMichaels' acts were unlawful, and self-defence would not be an available plea.
There were a few stumbles by the prosecutor today in closing arguments. In defining "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" she actually told the jury that if they believe they did it, that's enough. One of the three defense counsels made an objection on the grounds of misstatement of the law. The judge said he wanted to continue, and the defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the basis of a misstatement of the law. The second and third defense counsel stated that they joined the motion for mistrial. At that point, the judge had the jury leave, engaged in a colloquy with counsel, and when the jury returned gave them a correct statement of the law. What the prosecutor stated was a gross misstatement of law, similar to what Thomas Binger did in the Rittenhouse trial.
In another statement, the prosecutor misstated the law on citizen arrest. Again, the judge gave the jury a correct instruction on the law.
Counsel have repeatedly argued over the meaning of the statutory language.
The applicable law, in effect at the time of the events, dates to the 1800s and has since been changed. It is not the most clearly worded statute, and reasonably susceptible to differing interpretations. In interpreting unclear statute language, the Court would tend toward the interpretation most favorable to the defense.
The probable and reasonable suspicion standard is peculiar.
If the attempted citizen arrest was lawful, then consider the plea of self-defence.
16-3-21. Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:
(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force. ...
Consider the report of District Attorney George Barnhill:
The video made by William Bryan clearly shows the shooting in real time. From said video it appears Ahmaud Arbery was running along the right side of the McMichael truck then abruptly turns 90 degrees to the left and attacks Travis McMichael who was standing at the front left corner of the truck. A brief skirmish ensues in which it appear Arbery strikes McMichael and appears to grab the shotgun and pull it from McMichael. The 1st shot is through Arbery’s right hand palm which is consistent with him grabbing and pulling the shotgun at the barrel tip, the 2nd and 3rd wounds are consistent with the struggle for the shotgun as depicted in the video, the angle of the 2nd shot with the rear of the buttstock being pushed away and down from the fight are also consistent with the upward angle of blood plume shown in the video and that McMichael was attempting to push the gun away from Arbery while Arbery was pulling it toward himself. The 3rd shot too appears to be in a struggle over the gun. The angle of the shots and the video show this was from the beginning or almost immediately became—a fight over the shotgun. Given the fact Arbery initiated the fight, at the point Arbery grabbed the shotgun, under Georgia Law, McMichael was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself.Just as importantly, while we know McMichael had his finger on the trigger, we do not know who caused the firings. Arbery would only had to pull the shotgun approximately 1/16th to 1/8th of one inch to fire the weapon himself and in the height of an altercation this is entirely possible. Arbery’s mental health records & prior convictions help explain his apparent aggressive nature and his possible thought pattern to attack an armed man.
Much of this case turns on a law from the 1800s and whether the attempted citizen arrest was lawful.