A 25-year-old black man was shot dead in Georgia while jogging, prompting online protests labeling t

You don't need a verbal threat. If a reasonable man is placed in fear by your actions it is assault.

 

I didn't claim there was evidence, you claimed he didn't threaten him. Again I said you DON'T KNOW what was said, so you don't know if he threatened him or not.

 

No it is not the only way.

 

Them rednecks did not see anybody do anything wrong. So they have no right at all to go hunt him down like run a way slave like their grandfathers used to do. So what they did, was just kidnapping, abduction. That makes their victim having the right to protect himself against that. And they killed him for protecting himself.

 

You can't be an aggressor by simply standing on a public road.

Once again if someone runs towards you, you aren't chasing them down. And being attacked is not the crime of the victim. Where do you get that from? What law?

Try actually reading the law on aggravated assault. You are wrong again. Don't make me quote it.

I never admitted that. Quote me saying it.

No evidence of anyone being boxed in with 3 directions of escape.

He ran. Not the same thing.

Wrong again. Keeping someone in sight is not chasing them.

And wrong again. 3 directions he could have continued on yet he chose to attack with no weapons raised and no one moving towards him.

There is no law that states you can attack someone if you feel you are being chased in Georgia. Try sticking with the actual state this happened in.

Pulling ahead is not chasing. Read a dictionary.

Wrong again. If they were trying to block him they wouldn't have stayed where they were. They would have tried to flank him and that never happened.

Please, quote the Georgia law that this criminal had to attack an armed man and I'll read it to you and prove the facts don't match your emotional claims.

 

The reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion bit is LITERALLY a quote from the code section applicable to CA of a felony.
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/17-4-60/
"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."

If you'll try reading instead of projecting you'll notice I don't side with the McMichaels, nor find they had an reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion of a felony. All I point out is that there is indeed more than simply the 'immediate presence' limb to the CA statute.

 

then explain how it's a hoax. Do you need the definition of a hoax to help you clear things up in your head?

 

You can when doing so renews your felonious assault from before which you admit to in the police report.

You are when you admit in the police report that you first chased them through the neighborhood, tried to hold them at bay, renewed pursuit when they escaped and brought them to bay again.

Please do quote it.

Are you Greg McMichael? Please say you are because this **** is going on the news. If you're not Greg: You might try reading where I say THEY have admitted it IN THE POLICE REPORT. Were you questioned by police over this issue? No? Then we're not talking about what YOU'VE said champ. See how that works?

They literally say in the police report that they tried to box him in once before they were successful in stopping him.

When you have to follow them at speed in a vehicle to keep up we call that chasing. Particularly if you read the police report the McMichaels characterize it as an attempted citizens arrest: Meaning they weren't just watching chief. Try using the actual evidence instead of what you make up. Ok?

Because they had renewed their assault by blocking his path again, he can trigger the stand your ground law and is not required to retreat or stop before using force in return (the chase is force. trying to seize him of his liberty is per se use of force under the law. They admit that's what they were about in the police report.) so these facts are immaterial as far as the law goes.

You can use reasonable force in self defense against people committing felonious assault against your person however. Since the McMichaels can't shelter under the CA statute because they don't have the proper grounds, their actions constitute felonious assault as the initial aggressors IE Arbery gets to stand his ground and claim self defense.

Pulling ahead is literally how you end a chase: you catch up and block off their path.

There is literally a guy coming up behind him filming who he has no idea if they are with the McMichaels or not. He is boxed in.

I'm going to ask this nicely, one time. Have you even read the police report?

 

It's no exaggeration. Their buddies. The entire Glynn County Police district is a joke to justice. Drugs taskforce got disbanded. Chief got indicted with 3 buddies on a separate occasion. They lost their certification because they did not meet basic policing standards.

 

LOL Not only did I never admit to it you haven't proven it with the law or facts.

They never held the criminal. Ever.

They admitted what? You are getting far to emotional to make any sense.

show us then. Show us where they said they tried to box him in.

When they run to you its not. As in the video that we actually have.,

Your opinion of his characterization is irrelevant. The law is the only thing that matters and lawfully you cannot justify their action with an attempt at a citizen's arrest. Go ahead, tell us the actions they took because the law is quite clear it requires detainment which they never attempted on that video.

I'll say it again since you are having trouble keeping your emotions in check. You cannot attempt to block someone in by only existing in one place.

Ok you need another lesson in the law.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-2/16-5-21

There's the law in Georgia for assault.

No more dancing around it. Point to the specific area in the law that they used assault against this criminal you are defending. Go ahead.

Your opinion is worthless on what constitutes a chase when the video clearly shows no one chasing him. He ran towards them with 3 major directions where he was never boxed in or stopped in any way.

Sigh. Another dictionary lesson.

boxed-in

Also found in: Thesaurus, Idioms.
ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
Switch to new thesaurus
Adj. 1. boxed-in - enclosed in or as if in a box; "boxed cigars"; "a confining boxed-in space"; "felt boxed in by the traffic"
boxed in, boxed
enclosed - closed in or surrounded or included within; "an enclosed porch"; "an enclosed yard"; "the enclosed check is to cover shipping and handling"

First you have to assume the criminal assumed the person behind him was with the men when he wasn't.

Second you have to claim he was surrounded as the definition actually says not what your emotional state wants it to say. Neither are true and you know it.

Yes I have. Its clear you haven't read the law since you keep running from quoting where it was violated.



No more dancing, no more assumptions. Either quote the law specifically either for assault or self defense that justifies his attack with actual video evidence or admit you can't.

 

Again seriously man, are you Greg McMichael? No? Then we're not talking about YOU personally and the you used is 2nd person impersonal. A general you, just like how people use 'they' or 'them'.

Its not emotion and please spare me the idea that it is. Its called emphasis because hitting shift is far easier than selecting bold font on and off. SEE how THAT works?
They admitted to chasing him, attempting to seize him of his liberty, and trying to box him in initially from which he escaped. Read the ****ing police report before you comment, is that really so much of an imposition?

Legally speaking their actions are considered a continuation of the initial assault which they admit to in the police report. So yes, you do.

His characterization of the motivations, inception, and extent of his actions is irrelevant when he's on the horns for agg assault and murder? Are you serious?
See the police report where they admit they tried to detain him and he escaped? Alright then, now don't you feel foolish?

I'll say it again: They claim to have already boxed him in once before the video starts, then renewed the chase. Keep up with the facts of the case or don't talk about it. Or I suppose bear up being corrected like a child who wanders in in the middle of a movie asking questions about the plot.
McMichaels up front and a car behind him (where do you think the video comes from?), its reasonable for arbery to consider himself boxed in in addition to having already been boxed in (by the mcmichaels own admission which is admissible against them at trial).
(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults: . . .

"(2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; or"
See the or? You don't need 1 and 2 you need 1 or 2. Assault with a weapon in hand which could kill or maim, like a gun, is agg assault.

So what's assault then?
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-2/16-5-20
a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.



See 2? You don't have to actually hurt them, you just have to place them in REASONABLE APPREHENSION of an imminent violent contact. Like chasing them down with a gun in hand and trying to box them in and seize them of their liberty (see police report admissions)

Its odd you claim to have read the police report when you don't know what it says. Almost as if you haven't actually read the report at all and are just saying that

I actually don't have to prove any of those things because in the police report they ADMIT to boxing him in once and him escaping and them pursuing him only to pull ahead and try again.
^ Their own statements hang themselves. You realize those statements are directly admissible as evidence as statements by a party opponent?

 

Its really quite simple: If McMichaels can't show he had reasonable and probable grounds to suspect arbery was fleeing the scene of a felony he'd committed, he can't chase and try to hold him at bay as he admits to doing. Without the CA statute he can't claim self defense and the entire chase becomes one long assault leading to a death which is charged as murder.

 

That ex cop worked for the DA, Jackie Johnson's, office till he retired last year. Why do you keep posting false information?

 

She's pictured with her hand on his shoulder giving him an award too.

 

LOL So I should take what they say at literal in your book? Good. They say they defended themselves so based on your laughable premise we should believe every interpretation they make there should be no case. Thank you for that

Actually it is.

No my friend. Its emotion when you keep making the same mistakes with words its emotional not emphasis.

So once again we should believe them on how they characterized this entire event. Thank you. The case is now closed since they said they simply defended themselves. Haven't you read the police report?

100% BS and of course you quote no law backing up your claim.

Not for a second since you still haven't figured out by your own standards you would have to pick and choose what part of their story you found credible. You really just love walking into these landmines don't you?

And I'll say it again. I could care less how they characterize it because if I did like you then I would have to believe all of their characterizations which is the trap you keep falling into.

He was always outside of his truck next to the driver's side. Nothing illegal about that.

Where in God's name is the assault? What specifically did he do that constitutes assault? My God you quote the law and you still can't explain what part of his actions were an assault. Open carry is LEGAL in Georgia. Holding a weapon alone is not using it "offensively" For God's sake can't you even read the law you are quoting?

Which never happened since he never moved or pointed his gun at the criminal.

Exactly! Which never happened.

Yes! Do you?

Will you please for God's sake get SPECIFIC. What action did either of these two make where they were stopped on the video that constitutes as REASONABLE APPREHENSION of an imminent violent contact?

Existing on the side of the road with no weapons brandished and multiple avenues for continued walking or running for your criminal which he even demonstrated by going around the truck with an OPEN ROAD IN FRONT OF HIM AND NO ONE MOVING TOWARD HIM (did you read that?) does not even come near to that definition. Where is it?

I'm simply smart enough to know if I'm going to use the description of what the men's actions were by themselves I can't pick and choose what I believe.


Your fallacy is not being able to point to ANY ACTION in that video that put this criminal in fear of his life. NONE. Every single action from stopping in the road to legally carrying firearms does not constitute an imminent violent contact and you refuse to admit that reality by running away each and every time I ask you to get specific about the men's actions in the video that constitutes it.

 

CA or GA?

 

So Jackie is saying it's not my fault that these 2 murderers were not arrested.

 

the video clearly shows them blocking his path with a vehicle, and an armed man in the street. They admit that was their intention to the police. They had zero legal authority to attempt to detain Arbery. They are brandishing firearms while trying to detain him. None of that is remotely debatable, as we have a video showing this, and McMichaels admitting this to the police, which is in the police report. Arbery had the absolute right to defend himself against them. It's why McMichaels are in jail, charged with aggravated assault and murder. But it's quite amusing you think you know GA law better than the DA does, lol.

 

Duplicate, please delete

 

What they say is admissible yes. What they offered as to motive and sufficiency of evidence before taking action? Yes you can offer against them.
They offer opinion as to their validity of action, you are then able to present that to the jury for them to consider whether or not they find it reasonable.
Since they admit they don't have any idea about a felony when they set off, they're not going to end up finding it reasonable because you NEED that felony for it to be reasonable.

Its not emotion dear as stated, and please do not cut quotes as it makes you appear disingenuous. I use capitalization for emphasis, please calm yourself.

No mistakes have been made but for your continued mistaken assumption that anyone was saying anything about what you said there. Also: We're not friends.

We can believe them when they admit to boxing the man in that it happened that they did indeed box him in, yes. Google "Admissions against interest" and how their probative weight is often seen.

Its 100% true as a general principle of law. If I attack you, and you flee while I pursue and I put myself in your path again it is reasonable to assume the attack continues and without specific facts showing its not a renewal of the attack it does as a matter of law. Otherwise I can try to attack, step off a bit if unsuccessful, and then find a way to sidle back up to you and you'd not be able to do anything to defend yourself until I took another swing. Ask yourself: Does that make sense?

So I should find them credible that they knew what they were doing but I shouldn't find them credible when they tell me WHY they knew what they were doing? Again: Google what admissions against interest are and what their probative weight normally is. Self serving statements aren't worth much, hanging yourself from your own mouth is something prosecutors would sell dear possessions for because people are not normally that stupid as to blab it out like that.

Not per se, no, but when you mate it to the rest of what they'd done in the encounter it is.

Pardon me but I do state it: Assault with a weapon in hand which could kill or maim, like a gun, is agg assault. Then we go to part 2: what is assault.
You whinge and whinge about emotion and here you are ranting and going off half cocked without even reading the full statement ffs.

By their own admission it did indeed: They by their own admission state they chased him down, armed, in an attempt to seize him of his liberty, and that in doing so they once boxed him in and he escaped. The boxing in and escape? Put a reasonable person in the reasonable apprehension of a violent injury, making the conduct assault and aggravated since they carried weapons while doing it. Pursuing him after that? Is legally speaking a continuation of the aggravated assault and something he neither had to retreat from nor pause for to use force in defense against. His death during the aggravated assault of his person? Tags section c of the murder statute.

If they have CA on a felony, they're fine. If they don't (and they can't show it here see numerous ad nausem discussions) they're murderers.

 

CA here is shorthand for citizens arrest. We're in the state of Georgia, California law does not matter.

 

My bad, gotcha.

 

What do you guys make of this.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/n...who-shot-him-lawyer/ar-BB14fIbN?ocid=msedgntp

 

O I'm sure that's not a chase by definition Guava can tell us all about it

 

The law does not require that a felony be committed.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/17-4-60/

The law requires reasonable grounds to suspect that a felony was committed. You said this was an open and shut case, but that depends on your ability to assess the reasonable grounds to establish a suspicion. Given the following, I am not at all convinced you are capable of judging whether their suspicion was reasonable. Good thing we have a justice system that allows a group of people to make this judgement.

Hmm. I seem to recall you saying:

There's an issue here that biases your ability to form a reasonable conclusion.