Originally posted by Ronson
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.
Collapse
X
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View PostNo, 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.
Cool, then you haven no issue with what happened.
No one said it was a felony. Are you reading your own posts?
The law does not appear to say what you claim it says.
The statute supports that.
No, but perhaps you could use their help.
*yourP1) If , then I win.
P2)
C) I win.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
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.Last edited by Mountain Man; 04-03-2021, 01:16 PM.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
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.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
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.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
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.P1) If , then I win.
P2)
C) I win.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
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.P1) If , then I win.
P2)
C) I win.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
And trespassing isn't a felony.
Since trespassing isn't a felony, Arbey
wasn't escaping a felony and therefore the statute doesn't give grounds for pursuit of Arbey.
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.
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.
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.
I quoted YOUR words exactly as you typed them.
But still, typing error < not understanding clauses and sentences.Last edited by Gondwanaland; 04-03-2021, 01:37 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Diogenes View PostI'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.
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.
The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
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.P1) If , then I win.
P2)
C) I win.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostNow, 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View PostThere you go arguing against strawmen again.
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 misdemeanour 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.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.
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.
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.
P1) If , then I win.
P2)
C) I win.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
The statute rests on the condition of felony in order to engage in pursuit. That's not straw-manning
I never said the statute does not say a person escaping cannot be stopped.
Trespass isn't a felony.
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.
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.
Once Arbery left the scene and was escaping the crime of trespass, the justification for the citizen's arrests are no longer present.
It literally does.
And trespass isn't a felony.
I implied I may have edited the post to correct it between you seeing the post and quoting it.
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.
Your post:
1Capture.PNG
My response to your post, quoting your post"
11Capture.PNGLast edited by Gondwanaland; 04-03-2021, 02:47 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
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.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
- 1 like
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 11:24 AM
|
2 responses
24 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 01:00 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Today, 09:13 AM
|
8 responses
62 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Today, 04:12 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:15 AM
|
26 responses
97 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 04:04 PM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, 06-01-2024, 04:11 PM
|
14 responses
99 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 08:11 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 06-01-2024, 03:50 PM
|
2 responses
54 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 06:35 AM
|
Comment