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

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Try again.

This never gets old ...

These two statutes alone wreck your argument:

2014 Georgia Code
§ 16-7-1 - Burglary
(b) A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, ... designed for use as the dwelling of another. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the first degree shall be guilty of a felony ...

There's the Felony. Understand?

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.

Shooter Family's authority to arrest. All you have to do is look at the video showing Ol' Ahmoud darting into Renovation Dude's house and then running like Hell when Shooter Dude's dad comes out and hollers at him to stop.

originally posted by: frogs453
I'm still trying to figure out the intent. How did they know his intent?

That boils down to what a reasonable person believes. You think one of them 12 jurists won't have reasonable doubt? I'll bet you more than half of 'em will believe Ol' Ahmoud was there with intent. It's intent. If he didn't find anything to steal ... he still intended to do so. Stop being hard-headed.

You will have the owner stating he believed he was drinking water according to his attorney.

Renovation Dude's personal opinions won't matter. Renovation Dude's previous complaints to the cops about people being in his dwelling without his permission ... well ... those are gonna carry a lot of weight in court.

originally posted by: Snarl
Shooter Family's authority to arrest. All you have to do is look at the video show Ahmoud darting into Renovation Dude's house and then running like Hell when Shooter Dude's dad comes out and hollers at him to stop.

There is no allowance in the citizen's arrest law for intent. They need to see or know that a crime WAS committed. They didn't do either.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
They need to see or know that a crime WAS committed.

It wasn't that 'just a crime' was committed. It was a FELONY that Shooter Dude's dad saw being committed.

originally posted by: Snarl
It was a FELONY that Shooter Dude's dad saw being committed.

No, he didn't, he isn't able to judge intent and they're going to have the homeowner, you know, the guy who's stuff they were supposedly coming to the rescue of, tell the jurors that nothing was stolen and that he didn't think anything was going to be stolen.

Ruh-uh, looks like Goober One and Goober Two are gonna have some fun in the showers.

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

I think they saw him enter their neighbours property and reasonably assumed he was committing a felony.

That’s what they will argue to the judge who will most likely agree with them.

Don’t shoot the messenger, it’s about interpretation of the law and that’s how I see it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, they need to make reasonable assumption.

It specifically makes this definition in the law.

originally posted by: Grenade
I think they saw him enter their neighbours property and reasonably assumed he was committing a felony.

Assumption is not part of the statute.

That’s what they will argue to the judge who will most likely agree with them.

Pretty sure this is a trial by jury.

originally posted by: Grenade
No, they need to make reasonable assumption.

It specifically makes this definition in the law.

Show me the word 'assumption':

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.

a reply to: Snarl

The good guys are ones who chase people down and shoot them in the street for suspected robbery?

Are you and others who starred your post seriously cheering for wild west justice?

Lets just rid ourselves of laws and trust people with guns and a willingness to kill to be righteous and true.

Shame on you.

a reply to: Grenade

Bad interpretation of law. You can't legally shoot someone because you believe them to be a robber. It's not like they encountered the suspected robber on their property. They chased suspected robber down and issued their own justice.

Not putting them in jail creates a dangerous precedent for vigilantes.

a reply to: Snarl

I'm not purposely being hard headed. We are to assume that every person on video in that site had the intent to steal? All that qualifies is entering the premises? So misdemeanor trespassing does not exist? If you enter it's a felony because you must have an intent? That makes no sense.

a reply to: Snarl

1. Does the "jogger" match the man on camera.

2. Even if the "jogger" did commit the robbery in question, what law justifies murder in the public street?

Letting the shooters get away free ignores all laws.

Theyll most likely face jail time unless they get a bad jury that favors "fronteir justice" over actual law.

If suspected robber doesn't halt , take pictures and call the police.

a reply to: frogs453

Snarl is suggesting we usurp law to uphold individual deemed justice. Just kill any suspected robbers. No trials. No investigations. Just kill on your own terms.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
They need to see or know that a crime WAS committed.

It wasn't that 'just a crime' was committed. It was a FELONY that Shooter Dude's dad saw being committed.

Well then, darn, it's a felony those 2 kids on dirt bikes were doing when they rolled through the front of the property also and into the house.

It was a felony when the couple, holding hands, sauntered into the construction site (at night!) to do whatever they did.

It was also felony when the other black guy (not Ahmaud!) was seen wandering around the site doing whatever God knows.

Arrest them all!!! You see how that sounds? Ridiculous.

Go back and look at the statute. The key word is "and". That is "AND with the intent to commit..."

Have any set of 12 jurors prove he was intending to commit a crime or felony. They would then need to explain all the other people walking through the property "intending to commit a crime", as you so put it.

These men, at least the father and son, are not walking away from this. Even Stevie Wonder can see this.

originally posted by: Jaellma
Go back and look at the statute. The key word is "and". That is "AND with the intent to commit..."

No ... you go back and look at it. You're wrong.

I know you don't want me to be right. I know reading my posts must be like hearing someone dragging their nails down a chalkboard to you. But, there it is ... again.

You people hating on this pair of rednecks is going to bring them to a state of wealth you can only dream of achieving. And, they'll take that Georgia money and leave the state with it. Tragic loss. Tragic.

a reply to: Snarl

Well, we can sit here all day and say "you're right" "no, you're wrong".. blah, blah, blah. This has nothing to do with rednecks. Only thoughts creeping into your mind. This is about justice and upholding the law.

Let's agree to disagree and sit back and watch as it unfolds.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Reasonable and probable ground does leave some space to play with.

If a cop catches you entering a bank with a mask and a gun in your hand would he assume you’re there to deposit a cheque?

a reply to: blueman12
That’s not why he shot him, he shot him because the victim ran toward him and tried to grab his gun.

Hence the first shot went through the palm of the hand.

a reply to: Grenade

They chased him down in a car with guns. They were the aggressor. He made a mistake, but his panixked decision doesn't justify their vigilantism.

Or supposed vigilantism. Still haven't heard if this man was a proven robber. And even if he was, chasing him down with guns is the worst decision to make