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

Just some good old boys.
Never meaning no harm.
Stopped a black man -- the only way they know how.
That's just a little more.
Than the law will allow.

 

No that wasn't a burglary, it was theft, the burglary was when he entered as a trespasser with intent to steal,

 

The first part is quite true, he second open to interpretation.

 

That's provably too. Irrelevant to the case, but I can't find what his convictions we're. Have you found them?

 

Interesting that the video was initially released to scotch rumours that the shooters flew a Confederate flag and just shot Arbery down unprovoked.

 

Arrested for shoplifting and a firearms offence. But not an ex-con, never sent to prison.

 

Don't need first hand knowledge, just RGTS and burglary is a felony.

 

A warrant for arrest and an information are two different things. Arrest happens on probable cause of the commission of a crime shown to a judge by a sworn statement from law enforcement alleging sufficient facts and law. The information is what the DA uses to bring charges (you can be arrested and charges not brought and you released) if they don't think they need a grand jury.
Does everyone who shoots someone catch a case they have to make the affirmative defense on? No, of course not. You'll get investigated, but arrested? Not unless they don't think you're justified and you have to show you were.
When they go to arrest you, part of the facts they'll allege is how you're not likely to be able to claim an affirmative defense. If they know you can claim an affirmative defense, then they know they don't have PC and they don't go for the warrant.
The statements in the police report by Greg, where he hangs himself, I guarantee you were in that warrant.
As stated: Its. Preliminary. Cool. Your. Jets.

Why would that seem absurd? Zimmerman was the initial aggressor in his case as well, he only was able to skate because Martin whipped his ass, had him on the ground at his mercy, and kept attacking sufficient to cause a minor fracture. When you have an assailant at your mercy and renew the attack, you take yourself outside self defense and no matter that they were the initial aggressor in the original conflict you become the aggressor now and are amenable to self defense assertions. Those facts came out only at trial BECAUSE THERE WAS NO VIDEO KICKING AROUND FOR 3 MONTHS PRIOR ALONG WITH A POLICE REPORT GOING OVER THE ACCUSED'S MOTIVATIONS IN THEIR OWN WORDS. Not the case here. Here, we can 1) see that arbery never gets the better of travis and greg 2) greg admits a) they were the initial aggressors and b) his perceived justification as to why which is not enough to shelter him and travis under the CA statute.

 

What fight were they picking? Detaining someone for the police is not picking a fight.

 

No, you need reasonable and probable grounds to suspect they were committing a felony. Burglary requires more than entry, even assuming you meet the 1st element (its somewhat unclear whether or not you can burglarize an open construction site) the 2nd requires 'with intent to commit a felony therein'.
So what felony was he there to commit? If its some form of theft: Why hadn't he taken anything in the perhaps 4 other times he's apparently there on tape? The homeowner claims nothing was missing.
Why would it be reasonable to suspect him of theft now, when the tapes don't show me he's a thief?

 

Can you find convictions?

 

Estimates I have seen place his residence at 2 to 5 miles away so I wouldn't say that this was his neighborhood. Yes he violently struck and tried to take the shotgun from one of their hands. We shall see if these men had sufficient reason to detain him for the police.

 

Uh by definition it is the sort of action which, if reduced to table top rules, would start with "Everyone roll initiative".
Going to seize someone of their liberty is per se picking a fight, its just that under certain circumstances you are said to have an excuse. Here, the McMichaels didn't have the sort of predicates required to chase and seize the man, hence they won't be under the statute and won't be able to offer the 'excuse'.

 

What crime was within his immediate knowledge?

 

which is not a felony, nor did McMichaels witness it
{aquote]
Who was murdered?[/QUOTE]
Ahmaud Arbery

 

yes you do

they had no reason to suspect he committed burglary. No matter how badly you try and pretend otherwise, the law is crystal clear here. They did not witness a crime or have any reasonable grounds for suspicion of a felony. they admit this to the police.

 

Have you read the citizen's arrest statute?

 

@rahl ,

Imagine that some fine citizens of Georgia are waiting in line at a post office in Atlanta. They see on the wall that Mr. Baddy is wanted for a heinous rape and murder. By a stroke of luck, at that exact moment Mr. Baddy himself walks into that very same post office. He's standing there in the flesh, a spitting image of the big glossy photo on the wanted poster. He's even wearing the same hat and bloody shirt from the photo. The good citizens of Georgia there in the post office say "Holy ****, it's you, Mr. Baddy, the rapist and murderer! Stay right there, we're calling the police." Upon hearing this, Mr. Baddy bolts for the exit and begins running up the street. The good citizens of Georgia give chase, tackling Mr. Baddy and holding him until the police arrive. Your argument is that they didn't perform a lawful citizens arrest, but instead collectively committed simple assault and false imprisonment against Mr. Baddy, because they didn't "witness" the rape and murder first-hand?

 

I keep telling people the part of the police report where Greg says he didn't know what the guy was up to and was going to detain him for questioning means he didn't have the sort of cause that allows CA

 

You have to be deputized to act on an arrest warrant bud. Or did you think you could just round up people who resemble a likeness with your posse?


Let's try this one: A man rapes a young girl. Two months later he's running down the street when the girl sees him, runs inside, grabs her father and tells him the man who raped me is running down the street and we can catch him. The father arms himself and gives chase. He holds the man at bay, the man escapes, the father renews the chase, catches him up again, a struggle ensues when the man resists, the man ends up dead by the father's hand.

CA? Nope. Little girl saying she spotted him aint enough to chase on, despite the heinous offense to her liberty and despite her being 1) entirely correct and 2) entirely in earnest having never once lied her entire life.
It would be enough to call the cops on him and have them try to get a search warrant for his DNA, his clothes etc to try to put him together with evidence of the crime. Those cops? Would not be authorized to simply seize him of his liberty because the girl cried wolf (even though in this case he was indeed a wolf).
See how that works?

 

answered

 

hypotheticals have no relevance to what actually took place in this instance. We know McMichaels attempted to detain Arbery, more than once. He admits this to police. We know they had no authority to do so, as they did not witness a crime. They admit this to police. The video shows them blocking his path in the roadway with a truck, and an armed man on foot, then shooting arbery when he tries to defend himself against an unlawful detention

 

1) its not even criminal trespass unless you can show he took or broke $500 worth of **** or an agent told him to **** off and he didn't.
2) burglary requires intent to commit a felony therein: If its a form of theft you allege as that felony he intended, why was nothing missing from any of the many times he visited the property over quite an extended time period? Why does the homeowner say nothing was missing?
Its not reasonable to assume theft is the intent of the person when they appear more than once over time and never actually take anything. That's assuming that a construction site that is open like that even qualifies for the 1st element of burglary.

 

??

 

you can not demonstrate Arbery intended to steal anything.