New leaked video of black jogger gunned down by a white father and son duo

a reply to: continuousThunder

No it's not. Saying 'I have black friends' is... .

This is interesting....imo this case needs to be turned over to the feds as a hate crime.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Snarl
They can make a citizen's arrest when/where a reasonable person would believe Ol' Ahmoud had intent to steal something from that house. And since Ol' Ahmoud ain't around to make up excuses, "What a reasonable person believes is what it will all boil down to."

No, they cannot. A citizen's arrest in Georgia does not allow you to operate on intent, it clearly says 'direct knowledge of a felony'. They had no direct knowledge and this was not a felony.

AhhhhhhhHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... you'd make a horrible attorney.

2010 Georgia Code
§ 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest
Grounds for arrest
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.

Within his immediate knowledge:
They knew some damned Repeat Offender was going onto renovation dude's property.
They saw the perp on the premises. There's video ... We've all seen it.
What does a guilty guy do when confronted? He runs. And we all know he was running, don't we?

The offense was a felony:
I don't care if renovation dude was gonna file charges or not. It's the act that was the felony.
I know you won't, but you can look back through my posts and see exactly where I clarified this for the thread.

Reasonable and probable grounds:
See how it's not all cut and dry? Reasonable/Probable ... been shplained to you already, Brother.

Nail in the coffin: Georgia Can Honor Ahmaud Arbery by Repealing Its Horrible Citizen’s Arrest Statute Slate Link
Even the opposition knows it's a hopeless fight. They're only doing it to rile up their voting base.

I can just hear the cash register bells a chiming. The 'vigilantes' are gonna be living on Easy Street after they walk this pathetic excuse of a gauntlet the state has laid in front of them. It actually is an injustice. Imagine going to Vegas ... not liking your roll on the craps table ... and the house giving you not one, not two, not three, but four more rolls to come up with one you like.

Another arrest made.

In a news release, the GBI said it charged Bryan with felony murder and criminal contempt to commit false imprisonment.

Link

a reply to: frogs453

Yes. The pieces of the puzzle are starting to fall into place finally.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The FBI database had close to 3/4 of a billion images last year and was actively using it.

It's real and it works.

No where in that article does it say it actually works. (As in actually catching anyone in it.)

Linking it to over 640 million pictures is great. But if it can't actually analyze those pics well enough to match them, then it's just another expensive government toy that sounds menacing but isn't.

Can you imagine how long a 640 million picture search is going to take? (Even without having to do image processing on each one. )

That's why I say it's fantasy. You could just as easily tell me teleportation is real by pointing out that some quantum physicist has managed to teleport an electron.

There is real, and then there is "real".

Either way, I think we know it wasn't going to be used with Arbery.

Since the trespassing law has been discussed quite thoroughly. Here is the Georgia law regarding false imprisonment.

A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority.

Link

a reply to: frogs453

However, if he was acting under the lawful direction of a police officer this no longer applies since police officers are generally immune from consequences arising from a false arrest due to mistaken identity, mistaken circumstances, etc.

It is by no means open and shut.

a reply to: Snarl

Good point(s) snarl

Conspiracy is definitely a crime also. One or more persons engaged in a plot to commit some crime with some overt action taken in furtherance of the conspiracy.

A person commits the offense of conspiracy to commit a crime when he together with one or more persons conspires to commit any crime and any one or more of such persons does any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy. A person convicted of the offense of criminal conspiracy to commit a felony shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than one-half the maximum period of time for which he could have been sentenced if he had been convicted of the crime conspired to have been committed, by one-half the maximum fine to which he could have been subjected if he had been convicted of such crime, or both. A person convicted of the offense of criminal conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor shall be punished as for a misdemeanor. A person convicted of the offense of criminal conspiracy to commit a crime punishable by death or by life imprisonment shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years.

Ga. Code § 16-4-8

originally posted by: Snarl
AhhhhhhhHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... you'd make a horrible attorney.

2010 Georgia Code
§ 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest
Grounds for arrest
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.

You're quoting what I said, that they had to have immediate knowledge, they didn't.

Within his immediate knowledge:
They knew some damned Repeat Offender was going onto renovation dude's property.

Him being on the property is not a felony and they didn't have direct knowledge a felony was being committed while he was on the property. If you're going to break my balls about this at least get your understanding of the statute correct.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

It was working as of 5 years ago.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
You're quoting what I said, that they had to have immediate knowledge, they didn't.

You aren't the one who started that weak-assed argument. Milk Dud here

Atlanta civil rights attorney L. Chris Stewart (with his Power Fist) gets that credit. Instead of parroting a rabble rouser, you should more wisely spend your time looking at what Georgia's Case Law concludes. Hint: Immediate Knowledge is a legal term defined by said Case Law. Careful now: Case Law isn't Statutory Law.

Him being on the property is not a felony

Afraid it was. You can find that, ever so clearly shown in those previous posts I mentioned ... previously.

and they didn't have direct knowledge a felony

Didn't have to see him stealing (see where you moved the goal post a little (from 'immediate' to 'direct'? That won't be allowed in court. Understand what 'reasonable' means. People losing arguments aren't reasonable very often either ... apparently.

If you're going to break my balls about this at least get your understanding of the statute correct.

I'm rubber, you're glue
Eff off and die
Until you've read the Case Law too

Reasonable

a reply to: JBurns

Who is the police officer he was acting under? If you are referencing the text message, in reading the article again, it mentions the elder McMichael. Who is not a law enforcement officer. I do not have legal knowledge so I cannot verify, but if as people are saying McMichael had a right to stop him does that mean he can then get 1,2 or 10 people to assist legally?

Also as the text was sent back in Dec of 2019, does a text quantify and does it just give a blanket of legal right for an unspecified time frame? It can last a month? A year?

I also thought the homeowner did not contact McMichael in regard to the text. I'm sure they do have any relevant messages though. They also spent 2 hours this week searching the McMichaels house and cars before these charges were brought against the neighbor.

It will be interesting to hear the argument for this text.

originally posted by: Snarl
Eff off and die

Take your own advice since you haven't posted any case law.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Take your own advice since you haven't posted any case law.

I thought you'd be pleased that I made up a rhyme just for you.

Personal: You know I mostly reply to you, because other people would lose their minds if I was as direct with them. Take the credit. You're certainly in my ATS Top 10 list.

a reply to: frogs453

This is where my own knowledge is hazy as well. I have read he was making the arrest under the direction of a law enforcement officer, and if this were true then the arrest itself would be no different than an arrest by a law enforcement officer. BUT none of that gives carte blanche to use deadly force willynilly. If the group (or posse, assuming one was acting under the law as a police officer) would have made a mistake and it would've ended with solely a false arrest, they'd have been immune only if acting under the lawful direction of a sworn LEO. If acting as private citizens (ie: they decided to make the arrest on their own accord) and they made a mistake? They'd be criminally and civilly liable for claims arising from false arrest, false imprisonment, unlawful use of force, etc.

The use of force and especially deadly force does not change regardless of these circumstances, and is permissible only when life is in jeapardy or in some cases during the unlawful flight of a felon (all depends on the jurisdiction of course).

I've read really good arguments posted by both sides on this, and I can only say in my opinion the use of deadly force was absolutely not warranted here. Even if Arbury had done everything he's accused of, if they knew who he was there's no reason a warrant couldn't be sweared out and he get picked up later. Unfortunately what it will come down to is whether or not the actions were legal. Whether the arrest itself was legal and then whether the use of deadly force was justified

The problem here is, there was clearly a struggle for the weapon and that by itself is a justifiable reason to use deadly force. Unless of course the arrest was unlawful, in which case Arbury may have actually been defending himself vs. unlawfully resisting arrest. The question then becomes, under the law, even if their arrest (while acting as private citizens) was unlawful, does one have the right to resist arrest under any circumstance? If he/they were acting as law enforcement officers (under the law, through following the lawful order of a police officer) the answer is clearly "no"

Lots of open questions here and some will be possibly litigated for the first time. I think ultimately any hopes of getting a significant conviction is unlikely. Although I have no doubt the deadly force itself was preventable.

I do know the existing prosecutors have made a real mess of things. I think this illustrates clearly why empty handed skills, clear knowledge of the law and the willingness to take a step back and evaluate the situation (before, for instance, putting yourself in a position where your weapon is in jeapardy) are so important to have as skills

a reply to: frogs453

Let me just throw out this scenario:

A police officer is responding to a convenience store armed robbery. You walk up on it and see someone matching the suspect's description fleeing holding (something) in their hands in a state that permits use of deadly force to prevent unlawful flight by a felon and ultimately you end up using deadly force to stop them.

Well, if it turns out this individual was indeed the armed robber the DA will likely determine the OIS was a lawful use of force and you won't face charges

On the other hand, if its a citizen who was fleeing the store with a cell phone in their hand you are probably looking at involuntary manslaughter or something along those lines

Now lets say a private citizen is attempting to conduct an arrest by private citizen on someone they believed was that same armed robber and through whatever process ends up using deadly force. If they are correct and it was indeed the armed robber, they'd likely not face charges. If they were incorrect, they'd likely face something like a felony murder charge because the person died while they were committing a felony (ie: false arrest, since they had no legal grounds to conduct the arrest in the first place)

Lets say a private citizen OR law enforcement officer is walking the streets when they're accosted by someone with a knife. You use deadly force, legally, but your shot over penetrates and hits & kills someone behind the subject (because you didn't properly asses your backdrop). Both individuals are likely to face involuntary manslaughter or something similar

Its not clear cut. But if it turns out they were acting on their own accord and not under the law w/ protections afforded to police officers there's a much better chance the charges will stand. It will all boil down to what the jury in this case determines is "reasonable" (as snarl, I believe, pointed out) and what GA law says

I live in PA, so I'm not very familiar with GA state code

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: JBurns

Who is the police officer he was acting under? If you are referencing the text message, in reading the article again, it mentions the elder McMichael. Who is not a law enforcement officer. I do not have legal knowledge so I cannot verify, but if as people are saying McMichael had a right to stop him does that mean he can then get 1,2 or 10 people to assist legally?

Also as the text was sent back in Dec of 2019, does a text quantify and does it just give a blanket of legal right for an unspecified time frame? It can last a month? A year?

I also thought the homeowner did not contact McMichael in regard to the text. I'm sure they do have any relevant messages though. They also spent 2 hours this week searching the McMichaels house and cars before these charges were brought against the neighbor.

It will be interesting to hear the argument for this text.

Excellent point, the fact the email is from 2019 is important..imho It in no way..gives carte blanche, from that point on.

a reply to: JBurns
He was clearly defending himself, as I would. They tried to corral him, I'm sure he feared for his life, anyone who say they would not of feared..is lying.