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

Good. None of us can find probable cause for the McMichaels to perform a citizen arrest either.

You might want to double check that one. Most people understand that for probable cause to suspect someone was involved in a crime, there has to be a crime to begin with. In your view, does the suspect have to exist too? Or can you blame the tooth fairy for theft when you can't find your car keys?

 

Image the Main stream media wants you to see


Images the Main Stream Media doesn't want you to see

 

nope. No evidence at all of a burglary. Past crimes in the area is not witnessing a crime first hand, which is required under GA law for a citizens arrest.

 

lol, the 2 DA's that are under investigation for corruption?

trying to keep him there for police was the attempted detention. They had no authority to do so, which is why they are in jail charged with murder and aggravated assault.

 

Perhaps so. If this individual had previously made a gesture that suggested he was carrying then I can understand why they would want to be armed themselves.

 

Not sure he did...what we do know is the killers followed him in a truck with guns. So not sure how they could be threatened if they followed him

 

I think this video explains a lot.

 

Images of the same man complying with police orders yet getting tazed (unsuccessfully) by a trigger happy cop who was the second on scene.

 

Are you for real? lol

You don't even have to tell a cop who you are, if there is no cause.
Arbery gave his ID, they ran him through the system. Nothing turned up, and so there was no probable cause for the cop. Yet the cop commanded him to turn around to be searched, (he said he wasn't searching,... but he clearly was) with no probably cause! That's illegal and you're allowed to refuse it. So you know like, hello 4th amendment? It does apply to black people! And Arbery got tasered for allegedly having his hands in his empty pockets.... seriously? That's just nuts. lol

And I'm not holding you against it. This is just so typical behavior of cops against black people... that it all seems that it's the black dude's own fault.

 

what evidence do you have suggesting he committed burglary? We know McMichaels didn't witness this, or have any knowledge of a burglary by arbery. What evidence have you found?

 

These terms have legal definitions that you are clearly unaware of. They are not the same.

If that is true, then most people are wrong. Though, it's likely you're projecting your belief on to most people. There's a reason why the standard isn't called definite cause, or guaranteed cause. Probability allows for the possibility that nothing happened. The probability standard allows for an investigation to take place. In many instances the investigation determines that there was no further cause to detain and the suspect is let go. Just like in the video posted on page 172 of this thread. That doesn't mean that probable cause to initiate the stop didn't exist. Did some crime take place in that video? No crime was uncovered. But I guarantee you that a judge would find that they had probable cause to detain him.

 

About how white cops treat black people and the 4th amendment.... yup. He gave his ID,... not even required to give. Nothing turned up. He than commanded him to turn around. So he, even though he said he was not... he clearly was searching him.... with zero probably cause. And than he got tasered when the cops knew that his pockets were empty. To than... well I violated your constitutional rights, tasered you for nothing... but it's me who is cool here, you're just "jumpy"... and so asking for me to violate you.

Good lord. lol

 

You're contesting that the cop was searching him? Seriously?

 

In Georgia you have an obligation to identify yourself.

 

the GA statute precludes McMichaels from legally detaining Arbery, as they did not witness a crime.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

And I answered you: They chased a man down the street, armed, attempting to seize him of his liberty. They boxed him in and he escaped. They then renewed the chase and presented in his path again, continuing their attempt to seize him of his liberty. They did this without the reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion of a felony by Arbery that would be required to shelter under the citizen's arrest statute. Since they are the initial aggressors, this estopps them from being able to claim self defense. See their own admissions in the police report. Their actions constitute an aggravated assault that led to a man's death. Agg assault and murder.

Again: They chased a man down the street, armed, and tried to seize him of his liberty by holding him at bay by their own admissions. That puts a reasonable person in the reasonable apprehension of an imminent violent injury. Since they did it armed, its aggravated rather than simple assault.

I pointed to the specific actions they took on the video: Presenting in his path again, renewing their previously admitted to assault on Arbery which was aggravated by their having weapons on their person while doing so.

Because legally speaking they are estopped from claiming self defense since they were the initial aggressors. As explained the chase is the initial aggression, their renewal of it authorizes Arbery to respond in self defense.

You want to quote DA Barnhill who had to recuse himself for Bias and who the National Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, which represents 2/3rds of all DA's offices in the nation, wrote a letter condemning his egregiously unethical conduct https://www.ajc.com/news/district-a...or-ahmaud-arbery-case/VWV86naEbd9eprgOCSWwRJ/
The man was biased and had to recuse himself. He violated ethical standards. Not who you want to quote. Also an incorrect statement of law, unsurprising.



He can use "(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."
Agg assault being a forcible felony.

He's not subject to "(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;" because he didn't taunt the man into chasing him down and trying to seize him of his liberty. He did not invite agg assault.

He's not subject to "(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or" either because he is at that time at most fleeing a misdemeanor (criminal trespass) and you can't even make the predicates for that.

Nor is he subject to "(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." ^ the mcmichaels start the agg assault by chasing him and attempting to seize him of his liberty while armed. Presenting themselves in his path again, by their own admission a continuation of their attempted seizure, makes them the aggressor, not him.
Nor is it combat by agreement because if it is then all self defense would be. If you attacking me and my defending myself is mutual combat then self defense doesn't exist.

So you're claiming that he somehow antagonized Travis and Greg McMichael when he ran past Greg at a high rate of speed, that by doing so he intended to provoke them into using force against him so he could respond with force and claim self defense?



I literally quoted the statutes for you chief. Just because you ignore what I write to project your flights of fancy doesn't mean I haven't answered your questions.

 

Well it makes me wonder if this was armed uniformed cops instead of citizens concerned about their neighborhood, whether Arbery would have behaved any differently.

 

Turns out the cop who tried to tazer him in the video was recently thrown in jail. All in a case involving Glynn County investigators (Greg's co-workers) being buddies with a known drug dealer and a lot of wrongdoing by Glenn County PD, including their chief of police.
https://www.news4jax.com/news/georg...-police-chief-3-ex-officers-booked-into-jail/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/18/ahmaud-arbery-police-taser-2017-georgia

 

A judge signed off on the warrant for the arrest of the McMichaels, so clearly at least one judge found no probable cause. Even the McMichaels admitted they had no reason to believe a crime was committed.

 

1) under GA law its not criminal trespass because he didn't break or take $500 worth of ****. Nor did he seem to be, he is after all not carrying or driving anything. Leaving when told to is actually also a defense to it being criminal trespass: You have to remain after being told to **** off to trigger one of the additional limbs that can make criminal trespass. Saying "he left when told to" isn't evidence of wrong doing.
2) You can't take possible criminal trespass and magic it into burglary. What felony did he have the intent to commit therein? What gives you your reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion? If its some form of theft: Why is he on tape so many times over so long a period but never shown taking anything and the homeowner reports nothing missing?

 

Certainly uniformed police are different than random brigands.

 

You realize that both things can be true, right? Probable cause to arrest McMichaels does not preclude any probable cause McMichaels may have had.

 

fair enough

That is about... reasonable suspension of an criminal activity. There was no reason to suspect he did something wrong. He was just black and there by his own, chilling. Hence the cop may not just command him to turn around to frisk him / search him or search his car. Do note... the cop did not dare to open THE CAR and SEARCH it. No cop dared. Take a hint.

 

Not per se but its close. To have probable cause to arrest the McMichaels the judge must have examined the evidence presented in the application for the warrant (they don't just say probable cause now gimmie. they have to lay it all out) and decided enough existed to bang up the McMichaels. The thing is, to find that he has to examine whether or not it seems the McMichaels could use the CA and then SD statutes to excuse their conduct and decide it seemed that they didn't have enough.