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

What felony did he commit and what felony did they witness him commit?

 

You're "accidentally" leaving out... cutting off, getting out, yelling commands, guns are out... while also are closing you in from behind.

You analogy is ridiculous. As if them red necks just happen to be in front of their victim while their neighbor just happen close their victim from behind. No such thing happened. They saw him, and they chased him down. They admitted to this. So you're just being dishonest and trolling around.

Try reading the law about citizens arrest. Them red necks don't have the law on their side.

Their neighbor came from behind. And there was no roads left of right.

There were no roads left or right. They cut him off in front. They chased him up from behind.

There is. It's defending yourself against an illegal citizens arrest.

Cutting him off, is finishing the chase.

Cutting him off from up front, standing in the middle of the only street, while their neighbor was driving him up from behind.

Quiet simple. You can't chase down a black guy around, yelling him to stop with your guns out. If black people in the hood did that to a white female jogger,... and that woman jogger would shoot first,.. than it would be rather obvious to you who is actually defending. What them red necks did, seizing a person, is simply illegal. Even against black people. YOU LOST THE WAR! So that's a crime you can defend against. Duh. You're just exceptionally dishonest to claim, this was just attacking armed red necks who did nothing wrong.

 

I think you are failing to read your own quote. There has to be a felony first, not a suspicion that a felony occurred.

 

No. You have to have a felony first. Then you can make a citizen's arrest of a reasonable suspect of said felony. You can't just imagine that there might be a felony. You can't cause a citizen's arrest on someone because they are suspicious.

IE: If you see a stabbing suspect in the street and someone else is there with a bloody knife, you can detain that person for police to arrive.

 

I think you need to try understanding basic grammar.

What does reasonable and probable suspicion refer to? Of what?

 

Reasonable and probable grounds for suspicion of the commission of a felony are more akin to the situation you describe (bloody knife ) not the mcmichaels facts.

 

That the person you are trying to detain committed the felony. You can see a man holding a bloody knife and reasonably suspect that he stabbed the person who is bleeding from a knife wound. You can't witness someone trespassing and think they might have committed burglary, not that the McMichaels witnessed either.

 

The fact is that the McMichaels cannot reasonably connect Arbery to any felony as they don't know of any felony that had just occurred. As they have said in the past, they thought Arbery was suspicious and wanted to detain him for police. The only felony they are aware of is that of Travis' gun that happened on New Year's Eve or Day, more than a month before either of them witnessed Arbery running through the neighborhood.

 

So why didn't they speak of the various whites who also were illegally entering the property, why is it that the only reasonable and probable suspicion was of a black man?

 

I didnt say they had that. Did you read the police report?

 

No ****. I didnt say they could.

 

Again, no ****. None of what I said contests that. Read, then post. Dont just respond.

 

and we know they had no reasonable suspicion of a felony. It’s why they are in jail.

We know they didn’t.

My conclusion is based on the video evidence and the statements from the shooter himself. They both confirm they were attempting to illegally detain Arbery, while brandishing weapons.

 

I did. I am asking why they singled out the black man and there was never any mention of white folks who were also entering the property. Why is that?

 

This is the first I'm hearing of other persons on the property. Where did you hear about that?

 

Lu

lock these people up

 

Looks like it

 

and that matters?

 

I asked you two very simple questions. 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?

and

What specifically did he do that constitutes assault according to the law and the action he took?

And you couldn't point to the action they took or the specific part of the law they violated in that video. And I knew you wouldn't do it because it blows all the smoke and mirrors away from your argument.

You are obsessed with their testimony about chasing him down and cornering him something that happened well before the video incident but when it gets to their testimony about shooting him in self defense even when we have that on video you choose not to believe that. Its the hallmark of a hypocritical argument. You want to pick and choose what you believe they testified to only if you can use it against them.

"Given the fact Arbery initiated the fight, at the point Arbery grabbed the shotgun under Georgia Law McMichael was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself"

That is the key finding you want to deny despite video evidence of that event. There is NOTHING in the law that supports Arbery justifiably attacking that man in the law. And that's why you run every time I challenge you to quote the law that justifies it and the specific action in the video that proves it.

Self Defense law what you laughably claim Arbery has justification under but can't cite the specific area that would apply to your criminal:

TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE
§ 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution
O.C.G.A. 16-3-21 (2010)
16-3-21. Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution


(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:

(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;

(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or

(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

(c) Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and effect.

(d) In a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, if a defendant raises as a defense a justification provided by subsection (a) of this Code section, the defendant, in order to establish the defendant's reasonable belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, may be permitted to offer:

(1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased, as such acts are described in Code Sections 19-13-1 and 19-15-1, respectively; and

(2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the bases of the expert's opinion.

There's the law for self defense again since you can't bring yourself to quote it.

I can easily quote the section where McMichael has justification:

(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;

That's what your criminal did. Point blank.

Come back when you can actually cite the specific law they broke with the video evidence to back it up. Until then you've got nothing for your argument but unsupported supposition and selective belief.

 

I have no idea. I guess that's a question to ask a jury. But what I do know is that probable cause can exist when no crime has been committed.

If I fit the description of a suspect that committed a felony, I'm running from the scene, etc, I can be lawfully detained whether I committed the crime or not so that an investigation can be conducted. In Georgia, that stop can be conducted by a citizen.

 

And you are laughably leaving out that there is no evidence Arbery even knew a man was behind him with a camera since he never looks back in the video. Didn't think that through did you. And you are ignoring he could turn left right or go straight forward as he did with no opposition whatsoever.

And none of the adjectives you are using exist in self defense law in Georgia as justification for attack.

Read the law next time.

Soi you can't cite the law either. This is my shocked face you once again fall short.

LOL I have unlike you obviously haven't. To perform a citizens' arrest one must detain the person. Since no one moved towards your criminal in the video at all they never even attempted to detain him.

Strike 3.

LOL #1 there is no evidence Arbery even knew he was there since he never looked back one time on the video.

#2 you can walk on grass. I've done it. Many times

Same answer since you are incapable of understanding people can walk on grass.

#1 there is no evidence Arbery even knew he was there since he never looked back one time on the video.

#2 you can walk on grass. I've done it. Many times

Once again, To perform a citizens' arrest one must detain the person. Since no one moved towards your criminal in the video at all they never even attempted to detain him.

Wrong again. I see another dictionary lesson is needed

cut off
1. To set apart from a group:
close off, insulate, isolate, seclude, segregate, separate, sequester.
2. To cause the death of:
carry off, cut down, destroy, dispatch, finish (off), kill, slay.
Slang: waste, zap.
Idioms: put an end to, put to sleep.
3. To block the progress of and force to change direction:

Your criminal was never forced to keep running towards them as the video shows. You really should learn what words actually mean before you use them.

Still with the failed argument

#1 there is no evidence Arbery even knew he was there since he never looked back one time on the video.

#2 you can walk on grass. I've done it. Many times

You can't chase down a man running towards you. Try again.

Open carry is legal. Strike 2.

Ah the ever racist emotional argument with no basis in the law. A perfect ending.

Come back when you can quote the self defense law that specifically justified your criminal attacking McMichaels. Of course you won't because it would require something other than emotion to base your argument off of.

 

How did that black dude get here, on a H-1B visa? Did all of the whites see the black dude owning slaves and said that they could do it too?

Why do you think it is a good idea to let crazy white guys go around killing black people just because they think that is something they want to do? Would you be OK if you were a victim?

 

Yes they would, that's why I have sympathy with Arbery in this one.

 

Rodney King, sure is. Koon and the others were railroaded to appease public opinion and avoid riots.

 

They didn't threaten him but I agree, I can see Arbery's viewpoint on this.