Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[Gondwanaland]

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.

Then you should have no problem with the case.


Not one person in this thread has said it was.

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.

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.

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.


No.


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



Your post is still there with the incorrect spelling.


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

Here let's make it easier and break it down. Here is the statute:

"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."

Okay, so let's look at that first sentence first. It says you can arrest an offender if the offense is committed in your presence or within your immediate knowledge.

That means if someone snatches a purse in front of you, you can arrest them. If someone near you snatches a purse and a person within your immediate surrounings shouts out to stop the thief that stole their purse, you can arrest them.
Get it? Got it? Good.

Now, the second sentence. The second sentence refers to placing someone arrest based on 'reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion' This means arresting someone based on your SUSPICION (reasonable and probable) that they committed a crime. It sets out the criteria for making such an arrest based on SUSPICION of a crime. It requires that you believe a felony has been committed, and that the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, in order to make said arrest based on SUSPICION of a crime.

That means, if you hear gunshots coming from a bank, and a person suddenly runs out with a bag of money, you can place them under citizens arrest. Or if, say, you walk near a bank, see a man with a bag of money, and a bank security guard chasing them down as they try desperately to sprint away from the person shouting at them to 'stop, thief!'. What you can't do, per the statute, is see someone running down a street, without any context, without any sign that a felony was committed, with a bag of money, and then arrest them.

The statute does not set out any requirements for a 'pursuit'. It does not state that you can only pursue someone if they committed a felony and are running. It states that you can place someone under citizens arrest 'if the offense is committed in (your) presenfe or within (your) immediate knowledge. And you may place someone under arrest on reasonable and probable suspicion IF they committed a felony and the offender is escaping. This case is not a case of the latter. Arbery committed the crime in their presence, AND their immediate knowledge (they knew he had committed the same crime prior, having seen him on video doing so). The second sentence of the statute has zero application to this case.

[Diogenes]

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?

There's nothing in transcript that states they had information to concluded that the individual they saw did not have the right the premises. At best, the transcript support the McMichaels came to that conclusion due to the individual in the house at the time looked like the individual from the recordings. I would be sceptical of their ability to say both individuals were the same person.

Putting my natural scepticism aside and conceding Arbery was in fact both individuals, will you concede the statute doesn't justify the pursuit of a misdemeanour?

[Mountain Man]

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.

The toughest part about this case is that neither party is wholly innocent. That the McMichaels are at least partially responsible for Arbery's death is not up for debate. That Arbery is at least partially responsible for his own death is not up for debate. What is up for debate is whether or not the McMichaels are criminally responsible, and that's what the court needs to figure out.

[Diogenes]

The toughest part about this case is that neither party is wholly innocent. That the McMichaels are at least partially responsible for Arbery's death is not up for debate. That Arbery is at least partially responsible for his own death is not up for debate. What is up for debate is whether or not the McMichaels are criminally responsible.

I will agree that both parties have their issues. The problem is that without a valid justification for the citizen's arrest, it becomes a death during the commission of false imprisonment. That would be felony murder.

[Mountain Man]

I will agree that both parties have their issues. The problem is that without a valid justification for the citizen's arrest, it becomes a death during the commission of false imprisonment. That would be felony murder.

I don't believe any of us here has sufficient knowledge of all the facts and the law to be able to make that determination.

[Cow Poke]

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."

Yup, that's the one that lights people up. My response is simple - if it's my daughter, I'm going to do everything I can to warn her of the possible (even probable) consequences --- because I love her and want her to stay on the green side of the dirt.

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.

Because it comes down to "blaming the victim" and this isn't that --- there are often horrible consequences for bad choices.

It's like a black father having to have "the talk" with his son, about "driving while black" -- that absolutely should NOT have to be necessary, but we live in a fallen world, so....

[Cow Poke]

I will agree that both parties have their issues. The problem is that without a valid justification for the citizen's arrest, it becomes a death during the commission of false imprisonment. That would be felony murder.

That's really pushing it. The term would be "death in custody", and he was not.

[rogue06]

I get it!



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.

In the same way that when someone does a whole lot of stuff that they knew at least at some point was not a good idea but still went ahead with it. Look at all the memes of just that sort of thing on the interwebz and how often they're of someone in the Fail category while getting (as they say around here^[1]) torn a new one in the process.

Do any of them get what they deserve in contrast to the popular saying? No. Of course. What Arbery did wasn't a capital offense by any means or measure. It doesn't matter that if he has a prior history -- it still doesn't warrant a death penalty.

And that could have been avoided if Travis McMichael never exited the pick-up armed with a shotgun. After that, it appears that virtually everyone concerned made a series of bad choices



1. or at least used to say. I'm not exactly the go-to person for what is the most happening jive.

[rogue06]

The feetnote was primarily 'cuz the prodder of bovines likes 'em so much.

[Cow Poke]

The feetnote was primarily 'cuz the prodder of bovines likes 'em so much.

He do.

[shunyadragon]

Only you, shunny, would respond to a post that's practically a year old. Only you.

If the post is in an active thread I will respond to it.

[firstfloor]

New developments:

A grand jury on Thursday indicted a former Georgia prosecutor over her handling of Ahmaud Arbery’s fatal shooting, on allegations she helped shield men now charged with murder in a case that went for months without arrests.

Ex-Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney Jackie Johnson is accused of violating her oath of office and obstructing police after the Black man’s death in February of 2020. A viral video of White men chasing and shooting 25-year-old Arbery drew comparisons to a lynching, sparking public demands for accountability and also accusations of a coverup by local authorities. Arbery soon became a rallying cry in a massive racial justice movement ignited by the murder of George Floyd as protests sought justice in high-profile killings of Black Americans.

Thursday’s indictment says Johnson showed “favor and affection” to suspect Greg McMichael, who was previously an investigator in her office, and also failed to “treat Ahmaud Arbery and his family fairly and with dignity” when she sought help from another district attorney — now also under investigation — who argued the shooting was justified before recusing himself.

[tabibito]

That's really pushing it. The term would be "death in custody", and he was not.

Seems to me that
If there are grounds for a citizens' arrest, arrest would be lawful.*
Running away would be resisting arrest.
Is resisting arrest a felony?

*The case in point however does seem to be a lynching.

[rogue06]

Seems to me that
If there are grounds for a citizens' arrest, arrest would be lawful.*
Running away would be resisting arrest.
Is resisting arrest a felony?

*The case in point however does seem to be a lynching.

A lynching is taking someone and executing them. Aubrey was shot as he struggled with Travis McMichael over the shotgun the latter possessed.

[tabibito]

A lynching is taking someone and executing them. Aubrey was shot as he struggled with Travis McMichael over the shotgun the latter possessed.

So be it. The case in point seems to have many of the earmarks of a lynching.

[rogue06]

So be it. The case in point seems to have many of the earmarks of a lynching.

How so?

A lynching is deliberate and intended.

This was a case of citizen's arrest gone horribly wrong. There was no intent on killing Abrey but rather arrest him and turn him over to the police.