Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[Mountain Man]

It's not a felony. Nor was it known that he was criminally trespassing at the time of pursuit. The 9-1-1 call indicates the use of prior acts to reach the conclusion of a crime being committed which are outside the scope of the statute.

I never said it was a felony. You said there was no immediate knowledge that he had committed a crime, but that is not true. He was literally caught in the act on the day in question. And the term "criminally trespassing" is redundant, like saying "criminal larceny". Trespassing is a crime. Legally, the term means "unlawful intrusion". Did that give sufficient cause for the McMichaels to pursue him? I don't know. That's what the jury needs to figure out.

[Mountain Man]

No, he was there jogging and may have entered the premesis of a house under construction in the process.

There's no "may" about it. He was definitely observed trespassing on the day in the question, and he was recognized as the same individual who had done so on previous occasions.

Before you can even begin discussing this topic in any sensible manner, you need to first come to grips with the plain facts of the case.

[Diogenes]

No, he was there trespassing, as he had previously. He chose to respond violently and threateningly when he got caught, just like he has in the past (beyond the incidents in the court docs, we have footage of a previous encounter with the police where he became belligerent and threatening violence for no reason). Unfortunately for him, he chose to turn that violence and threatening on with someone who was armed, and wound up dead.

Him "getting caught" was the attempted citizen's arrest. You've only posted pics sourced from a twitter feed, not the actual documents.

[Gondwanaland]

Him "getting caught" was the attempted citizen's arrest.

Trespassing is a crime. Repeated trespassings are crimes. So is trying to take someone's gun from them when you get violent after getting caught in your criminal act.

You've only posted pics sourced from a twitter feed, not the actual documents.

You're welcome to show us what the pics got wrong.

[Diogenes]

I never said it was a felony. You said there was no immediate knowledge that he had committed a crime, but that is not true. He was literally caught in the act on the day in question.

Per the 911 call, it wasn't known he was trespassing at the time they decided to pursue. They were using prior acts to come to the conclusion. In order use the citizen's arrest to detain an individual escaping a crime, it would have to be a felony per the statute. Being detained on the property for a misdemeanor would have been accepted use of the statute.[/QUOTE]

[Diogenes]

Trespassing is a crime. Repeated trespassings are crimes. So is trying to take someone's gun from them when you get violent after getting caught in your criminal act.

Escaping a misdemeanor isn't covered under the statute

You're welcome to show us what the pics got wrong.

You're welcome to post the actual documents the pics come from.

[Gondwanaland]

Escaping a misdemeanor isn't covered under the statute

My reading of the law doesn't require a felony to have been committed.

Rather it say two seperate things. https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia...cle-4/17-4-60/ "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."

It doesn't say that one can only perform a citizen's arrest if the person is committing a felony. Rather it says that they can only arrest him upon reasonable and probable ground of suspicion if he is escaping or attempting to escape (i.e. they realize a felony likely happened but did not witness it, but then see the person running). In this case, they saw the trespassing, and knew him to be a person that had trespassed on the same property someday prior to that as well.

Maybe there is some other statute elsewhere (If so I'd love to see it), but going by this, it's more than vague enough to allow an arrest for a misdemeanor trespassing if you see it happening (which they did).


I suspect the jury will have a lot of pondering to do on this one due to the wording of the law.

You're welcome to post the actual documents the pics come from.

Again, you're welcome to show what the pics got wrong. *shrug*

[Diogenes]

My reading of the law doesn't require a felony to have been committed.

It does if the offender is escaping or attempting to escape. Running down the road away from the location of the crime would be escaping.

Rather it say two separate things. https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia...cle-4/17-4-60/ "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."

I emphasized what you quoted.

It doesn't say that one can only perform a citizen's arrest if the person is committing a felony.

I never said that citizen's arrest was limited to felonies.

Rather it says that they can only arrest him upon reasonable and probable ground of suspicion if he is escaping or attempting to escape (i.e. they realize a felony likely happened but did not witness it, but then see the person running). In this case, they saw the trespassing, and knew him to be a person that had trespassed on the same property someday prior to that as well.

Trespass isn't a felony. It's called a "conditional sentence".

Maybe there is some other statute elsewhere (If so I'd love to see it), but going by this, it's more than vague enough to allow an arrest for a misdemeanor trespassing if you see it happening (which they did).

The statute allows for detaining a trespasser on the premises. After they escape, the citizen's arrest won't cover misdemeanors. It's not vague if you understand what a constitutes a conditional sentence.

I suspect the jury will have a lot of pondering to do on this one due to the wording of the law.

Perhaps the prosecution needs to call a 5th grade English teacher to the stand.

Again, you're welcome to show what the pics got wrong. *shrug*

It's you're citation, it's not my job to do your homework.

[Bill the Cat]

And you know this for a fact because...

Because white folks never get shot, silly. Racists gonna racist, Rogue....

[Mountain Man]

Per the 911 call, it wasn't known he was trespassing at the time they decided to pursue.

Um... this is from the transcript you posted earlier:

“There’s a guy in the house right now; it’s under construction,” the man told the dispatcher.

So, yeah, it was known.

[rogue06]

Because white folks never get shot, silly. Racists gonna racist, Rogue....

45e0149d-8b66-4664-abb2-75771ad7922c-081895_rr_KKK_1_NEWS.jpg

[Ronson]

I think "citizen's arrests" are usually unwise. I would never attempt one unless there is a threat of physical danger present, like an assault or armed robbery, or worse. For something like trespassing, unless it was MY property, I would try to get a photo of the person in the act and pass it on to the owner of the property.

[Gondwanaland]

It does if the offender is escaping or attempting to escape. Running down the road away from the location of the crime would be escaping.

No, the escaping or attempting to escape part of the sentence is referring to when a person has a reasonable belief that a felony has been committed yet did not witness it.

I emphasized what you quoted.

See above.

I never said that citizen's arrest was limited to felonies.

Cool, then you haven no issue with what happened.

Trespass isn't a felony. It's called a "conditional sentence".

No one said it was a felony. Are you reading your own posts?

The statute allows for detaining a trespasser on the premises. After they escape, the citizen's arrest won't cover misdemeanors. It's not vague if you understand what a constitutes a conditional sentence.

The law does not appear to say what you claim it says.

Perhaps the prosecution needs to call a 5th grade English teacher to the stand.

No, but perhaps you could use their help.
You pointed to an 'if and' statement, and then ignored the last part of the sentence.

It's you're citation, it's not my job to do your homework.

*your

[Diogenes]

Um... this is from the transcript you posted earlier:

“There’s a guy in the house right now; it’s under construction,” the man told the dispatcher.

So, yeah, it was known.

You seem to have missed:

“And you said someone’s breaking into it right now?” the dispatcher asked.

“No,” the man replied, “it’s all open. It’s under construction … “

The man interrupted to say Arbery was leaving. “And there he goes right now.”

“Ok,” the dispatcher said, “What is he doing?”

“He’s running down the street,” the man said. The next sentence is garbled.

“That’s fine,” the dispatcher said. “I’ll get (police) out there. I just need to know what he was doing wrong. Was he just on the premises and not supposed to be?”

The next sentence is garbled. “And he’s been caught on camera a bunch at night. It’s kind of an ongoing thing. The man building the house has got heart issues. I think he’s not going to finish it.”

You can do better than quote-mining, Patrick.

[Gondwanaland]

I think "citizen's arrests" are usually unwise. I would never attempt one unless there is a threat of physical danger present, like an assault or armed robbery, or worse. For something like trespassing, unless it was MY property, I would try to get a photo of the person in the act and pass it on to the owner of the property.

Agreed 100%.