Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[rogue06]

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.

The dude was definitely on dash cam and in a small town was anything but hard to identify.

[Diogenes]

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.

And trespassing isn't a felony.

Cool, then you haven no issue with what happened.

Since trespassing isn't a felony, Arbey wasn't escaping a felony and therefore the statute doesn't give grounds for pursuit of Arbey.

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

In order to justify the pursuit, Arbery would have had to committed a felony from which he could be escaping.

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

I'm saying that since trespassing isn't felony, the grounds for pursuit were unjustified. The statute make pursuit conditioned on the commission of an escaping from a felony. The conditions of the statute regarding pursuit were not met, therefore the pursuit was illegal.

The statute supports that.

No, but perhaps you could use their help.

*your

Looking at what you quoted, you did quote my usage of "your" but that may have been edited without meeting the threshold for the system to generate the edit notification on the post. But still, typing error < not understanding clauses and sentences.

[Mountain Man]

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.

You'll have to connect the dots here. In what way does the subsequent conversation change the fact the very first sentence in the transcript confirms that Arbery was observed trespassing on private property, a fact which directly contradicts your assertion that "it wasn't known he was trespassing at the time they decided to pursue"? He was literally caught in the act. There is no disputing this.

[Cow Poke]

If Travis McMichael was deputized, that doesn't mean he could deputize others to aid him and it brings a higher standard of accountability of a death in custody (intentionally or non-intentionally) to bear. If anything, that opens the LEO agency to culpability.

That's actually a good point - and supposedly he (or somebody in the group) was "neighborhood watch" - which has very strict "observe and report" limitations.

[oxmixmudd]

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.

That is simply an absurd way to cast the event given the facts and the video. Thankfully the police and the justice system concur with my assessment and not yours.

[Diogenes]

You'll have to connect the dots here. In what way does the subsequent conversation change the fact the very first sentence in the transcript confirms that Arbery was observed trespassing on private property, a fact which directly contradicts your assertion that "it wasn't known he was trespassing at the time they decided to pursue"? He was literally caught in the act. There is no disputing this.

Arbery's leaving the premises during call invalidate the grounds for citizen's arrest. At best, they saw an individual in the house that looked liked the individual from a the video so they initiated pursuit based on suspicion of a previous crime. The statute requires the offender to be escaping from an felony in order to justify pursuit.

[Diogenes]

That's actually a good point - and supposedly he (or somebody in the group) was "neighborhood watch" - which has very strict "observe and report" limitations.

I'm not trying to defend Arbery's criminal past. I do believe that the individuals went past the statutory limits of citizen's arrest or the practice of "neighborhood watch" due to instances of construction thefts which would be legitimate concerns.

[Gondwanaland]

And trespassing isn't a felony.

There you go arguing against strawmen again.

Since trespassing isn't a felony, Arbey

*Arbery

wasn't escaping a felony and therefore the statute doesn't give grounds for pursuit of Arbey.

*Arbery.

False. If you read the statute it does not say that a person escaping cannot be stopped. It says that IF the suspected crime is a felony AND the person is running, then a person can do a citizens arrest based on reasonable suspicion. IOW, they person can be arrested based on the suspicion, not on the person witnessing the act.

IOOW, if the suspected crime is a misdemeanor AND the person is running, then one cannot simply arrest them without witnessing the crime.

IOOOW If the suspected crime is a felony and the person is NOT running, then one cannot simply arrest them without witnessing a crime.

But, again, that is irrelevant, as the crime was witnessed, and the very first part of the statute allows arrest for a crime in such a case. Anything after the first sentence of the statute is speaking to a different scenario involving a person performing an arrest without having witnessed a crime, and what qualifies for such an arrest if they have not witnessed said crime. Thus not relevant here as the men witnessed him committing the crime.

This is not rocket science.

In order to justify the pursuit, Arbery would have had to committed a felony from which he could be escaping.

See above. The statute does not say that.

I'm saying that since trespassing isn't felony, the grounds for pursuit were unjustified. The statute make pursuit conditioned on the commission of an escaping from a felony. The conditions of the statute regarding pursuit were not met, therefore the pursuit was illegal.

See above. The statute says nothing about pursuit nor does it condition it on the commission of an escaping from a felony. It DOES however, say that an arrest can be made without having seen the felony if there is a believed felony that has been committed AND the person runs.

The statute supports that.

No, it does not.

Looking at what you quoted, you did quote my usage of "your" but that may have been edited without meeting the threshold for the system to generate the edit notification on the post.

Huh? Are you implying I edited your post to make you say 'you're' when you should have said 'your'?


I quoted YOUR words exactly as you typed them.

But still, typing error < not understanding clauses and sentences.

You've shown quite clearly you do not understand what the statute says.

[Gondwanaland]

That is simply an absurd way to cast the event given the facts and the video. Thankfully the police and the justice system concur with my assessment and not yours.

I'm sorry you dislike the factual statement of what happened that day. I'm not sorry for offending your delicate sensibilities, however.

[Cow Poke]

I'm not trying to defend Arbery's criminal past.

I get it!

I do believe that the individuals went past the statutory limits of citizen's arrest or the practice of "neighborhood watch" due to instances of construction thefts which would be legitimate concerns.

Yup, but what really angers the super-woke is when you point out the FACT that if Arbery hadn't have been in the habit of this kind of behavior in the past, and was just minding his own business, he wouldn't be dead. I posted a video WAY BACK in the thread somewhere where Arbery had run-ins like this with the law before -- he wasn't the innocent little fella people would like to believe.

Now, AGAIN, for the super-woke - he didn't deserve to get dead over his trespassing, but had he NOT done that, we wouldn't be discussing this now.

[Diogenes]

Yup, but what really angers the super-woke is when you point out the FACT that if Arbery hadn't have been in the habit of this kind of behavior in the past, and was just minding his own business, he wouldn't be dead. I posted a video WAY BACK in the thread somewhere where Arbery had run-ins like this with the law before -- he wasn't the innocent little fella people would like to believe.

Now, AGAIN, for the super-woke - he didn't deserve to get dead over his trespassing, but had he NOT done that, we wouldn't be discussing this now.

I would agree that had Arbey not trespass (either the immediate trespass or historically) we would n't be talking about it. By the same token, if the McMichaels had not 1) not been overzealous in their neighbourhood watch activities and had not brought firearms (least of all two) to apprehend Arbey, we wouldn't be talking about Arbey's death as well.

[Ronson]

Now, AGAIN, for the super-woke - he didn't deserve to get dead over his trespassing, but had he NOT done that, we wouldn't be discussing this now.

I agree with that.

But be careful using that argument when discussing reckless behavior. My wife and I got into it royally on this one, where I had said a woman shouldn't go into a biker bar wearing hot pants. "Had she NOT done that, we wouldn't be discussing her being raped now."

The same might be said of someone going into a high-crime neighborhood and flashing large quantities of cash. She agreed with that, but not the biker bar.

[Diogenes]

There you go arguing against strawmen again.

The statute rests on the condition of felony in order to engage in pursuit. That's not straw-manning

False. If you read the statute it does not say that a person escaping cannot be stopped.

I never said the statute does not say a person escaping cannot be stopped.

It says that IF the suspected crime is a felony AND the person is running, then a person can do a citizens arrest based on reasonable suspicion. IOW, they person can be arrested based on the suspicion, not on the person witnessing the act.

Trespass isn't a felony.

IOOW, if the suspected crime is a misdemeanour AND the person is running, then one cannot simply arrest them without witnessing the crime.

No, the condition is a felony and running. Both have to be satisfied. A person suspected of a misdemeanour can be stopped on the premises.

IOOOW If the suspected crime is a felony and the person is NOT running, then one cannot simply arrest them without witnessing a crime.

If they're not running, you would have witnessed the crime and they would still be at the location of the crime, which I've already agreed the statute allows for, including misdemeanours.

But, again, that is irrelevant, as the crime was witnessed, and the very first part of the statute allows arrest for a crime in such a case. Anything after the first sentence of the statute is speaking to a different scenario involving a person performing an arrest without having witnessed a crime, and what qualifies for such an arrest if they have not witnessed said crime. Thus not relevant here as the men witnessed him committing the crime.

Once Arbery left the scene and was escaping the crime of trespass, the justification for the citizen's arrests are no longer present.

This is not rocket science.

The statute says nothing about pursuit nor does it condition it on the commission of an escaping from a felony.

It literally does.

It DOES however, say that an arrest can be made without having seen the felony if there is a believed felony that has been committed AND the person runs.

And trespass isn't a felony.

Huh? Are you implying I edited your post to make you say 'you're' when you should have said 'your'?

I implied I may have edited the post to correct it between you seeing the post and quoting it.

I quoted YOUR words exactly as you typed them.

The quote says "your".

You've shown quite clearly you do not understand what the statute says.

I would agree with the statement, but not with your intended referent of "You've" and "you".



This is starting to become multiple posts of the same content.

[Gondwanaland]

The statute rests on the condition of felony in order to engage in pursuit. That's not straw-manning

No. The statute makes no mention of pursuit, let alone set a condition for pursuit. The statute states that an arrest can be performed if the crime happened in your direct presence or immediate knowledge. It then gives a scenario in which an arrest can be made without the crime having happened in one's direct presence or immediate knowledge. And even then it says nothing about pursuits.

I never said the statute does not say a person escaping cannot be stopped.

Then you should have no problem with the case.

Trespass isn't a felony.

Not one person in this thread has said it was.

No, the condition is a felony and running. Both have to be satisfied. A person suspected of a misdemeanour can be stopped on the premises.

The condition for an arrest of someone who committed the crime not in your presence, yes, both must be satisfied for that. Not for a crime committed in your presence. You are conflating two different things.

If they're not running, you would have witnessed the crime and they would still be at the location of the crime, which I've already agreed the statute allows for, including misdemeanours.

No, you could easily, say, enter a location, having not witnessed the crime, and they'd be in the location of the crime yet you've not witnessed it. You didn't think this through very well.

Once Arbery left the scene and was escaping the crime of trespass, the justification for the citizen's arrests are no longer present.

False. The first part of the statute applies. You are conflating the second part of the statute, which refers to conditions in which a citizens arrest can be performed for crimes not committed within your presence or your immediate knowledge.

It literally does.

No.

And trespass isn't a felony.

NO ONE SAID IT IS. Go take your strawman and burn it in a pit.

I implied I may have edited the post to correct it between you seeing the post and quoting it.

Your post is still there with the incorrect spelling.

The quote says "your".





I would agree with the statement, but not with your intended referent of "You've" and "you".



This is starting to become multiple posts of the same content.

My goodness you don't even know what you posted.

Your post:
1Capture.PNG
My response to your post, quoting your post"
11Capture.PNG

[Mountain Man]

Arbery's leaving the premises during call invalidate the grounds for citizen's arrest. At best, they saw an individual in the house that looked liked the individual from a the video so they initiated pursuit based on suspicion of a previous crime. The statute requires the offender to be escaping from an felony in order to justify pursuit.

You said that it was not known that he had committed a crime. That's false according to the 911 call transcript. Are you at least willing to concede that?