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

You can't even defend a simple position... lol

 

I don't get why they can arrest someone, on the demands of the defendants lawyer, then charge him with murder. He had a camera, not a gun.

Liberals are destroying the judicial system and rotting it from the inside out.

 

Simple is the key word.

 

You have loved this system, as long as, it worked in your favor. The US Justice System has never been just to black folks.

 

Let's see how long it takes these cowards to turn on each other.

 

You believe this fits the charges of murder? I don't, not by a long shot. If the 2 men had chased him down the street and shot him from behind instead of trying to detain him until the police arrived, then yes, that is murder. But that is not what happened. Arbery attacked one of the men and attempted to take his shotgun away from him. Once a scuffle ensues and weapons are involved, all bets are off. It's not murder though, unless they consider 3 shots to be excessive, or the man was down and pretty much out and another 1-2 bullets were put into him, ending his life.

Have you seen the actual murder footage? I have not. Still, even in that case, that would mean 1 murder charge for whoever killed him, not 3.

3 men are now in custody and I am betting this trial is over before it even gets started. The 2 men will go to prison on murder charges, which are false and the cameraman will get manslaughter or something equivalent. The GBI would rather distort justice then to risk black people rioting like they did during Rodney King trial.

Justice is far from blind or level handed and the further along we get, your rights are being eroded slowly enough to the point where you don't really realize it. If citizens no longer have rights to defend their homes or defend their neighborhoods, then crime will flourish. The penalties for people committing crimes are just not severe enough to warrant them stopping their behavior. This case is a bit extreme to apply all of these same values, but the message is clear.

Here is the Georgia Code:
*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS
ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
§ 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest
O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
17-4-60. 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.
*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Stand Your Ground Law:

https://www.gpb.org/news/2012/05/07/georgias-stand-your-ground-law

 

Which you can't defend.

 

"
felony murder doctrine

n. a rule of criminal statutes that any death which occurs during the commission of a felony is first degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder. A typical example is a robbery involving more than one criminal, in which one of them shoots, beats to death or runs over a store clerk, killing the clerk. Even if the death were accidental, all of the participants can be found guilty of felony murder, including those who did no harm, had no gun, and/or did not intend to hurt anyone. In a bizarre situation, if one of the holdup men or women is killed, his/her fellow robbers can be charged with murder."

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=741

 

Thanks. I thought under situations where, say a group of men kill another man, the others would be charged with "aiding and abetting", or charges lesser than murder as he or they did not actually pull the trigger.

I am not a lawyer.

 

no, it's self defense as defined by GA law.

 

under what circumstances can you use deadly force to arrest someone who has not committed a felony?

the guy saw him walk into private property, which is a misdemeanor.

he had the legal right to detain him for the police, but i bet he did not have the right to hold him at gunpoint. by doing that, he broke the law and allowed the jogger to defend himself as a gun was pointed at him illegally.

 

no it isn't. he had the absolute right to defend himself from 2 armed men attempting to falsely imprison him.

 

McMichaels didn't witness Arbery breaking into or coming out of a house. He admits this to the police in his statement. At no time did Arbery assault anyone. He legally defended himself against an unlawful attempted detainment.

 

he had zero obligation to stop and wait for the cops. mcMichaels had zero authority to try and detain arbery. GA is a stand your ground state, so having them brandish weapons against arbery while attempting to illegally detain him gave arbery the absolute right to defend himself.

 

Yes it has. OJ Simpson. lol

Your constant claims of racism and unfairness are completely unjustified. They always have been.

 

and we know they didn't have the authority to detain Arbery, as defined in the statute you posted above. They ADMIT this to police, hence arbery had the right to stand his ground and defend himself against 2 armed people trying to illegally detain him. They ADMIT they had been chasing him for several minutes, and that he was able to evade them until they blocked his path with the truck.

 

I don't believe they had any idea it would come to that.

Yes, if they had direct knowledge of crime and since they had seen on the video tapes as well... It can be argued as well that they had reasonable suspicion that he had committed felony.

I imagine the defense will argue they held the weapons for their own defense and never pointed them at him. A gun had been stolen and they had reason to believe he was the neighborhood thief, also he had previously made gestures to suggest he was carrying.

No evidence a gun was ever pointed. I think cameraman was their for their own legal protection. To document that they didn't threaten, point, or use physical force when attempting to detain for the police. They may still be charged with manslaughter I believe, even if they followed the letter of the law. The jury may decide that their actions created what amounted to a deadly environment. Was it reasonable for them to dismiss the possibility that the perp may be angry dangerous suicidal.

 

but they didn't, as has already been established.

They are seen on video aiming firearms at Arbery.

the video shows the gun was pointed.

he is charged with felony murder, aggravated assault and attempted false imprisonment.

 

Unfortunately some people think that if you can imagine a felony was committed then that is enough to justify deadly force, at least when it comes to black "suspects".

 

I've watched the video and I think that is just wishful thinking on your part.

 

its right there on the video. Mcmichaels who was in the bed of the truck is pointing a gun at arbery.

 

Already refuted.

 

No I haven't, you're interpreting the law in one fashion and I in another. The facts support the reasonableness of their actions but you seem to lack all empathy with the accused. Remember the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt which is certainly not the case here.

Okay, let's break this down into brass tacks;

1. There had been a series of thefts and burglaries in the area in the months proceeding the shooting, hence why the CCTV was installed in the first place. That these were not formally reported to the police is irrelevant, there is no need to.

2. People are quibbling over the use of the term burglary rather than just trespass. That doesn't hold water, the various people who were seen on CCTV entering the house can reasonably be suspected of burglary, that they entered as trespassers (the house even had a no trespassing sign) with intent to steal. I think everyone agrees Arbery's actions were suspicious, they just disagree if they were enough to justify the McWilliams' actions.

3, It is not necessary for them to actually steal anything, just enter with intent to do so. Those who would say the house was incomplete or uninhabited and therefore burglary was impossible are mistaken, it only needs to be a structure. A citizen's arrest in Georgia can only be made for a felony but there was plenty of that, burglary is a felony.

4. For those who say "Oh you can't be sure of their intent", we'll you're quite right but that's why you only need reasonable grounds, unless you have a mindreading device you can't be certain but you establish that intent through police search and questioning and in order to do that the suspect must be detained.

5. So what was their probable cause? Well, they knew one of the suspects in the previous burglaries fitted the description of Arbery, not just a black man but a tall young black man with short hair wearing sports gear. What's more they see him running away from the scene of the previous burglaries.

6. People are getting hung up on the term 'immediate knowledge', this doesn't mean they have to witness the crime themselves or even be informed about it by a witness otherwise the police could never detain, search and question hardly anyone. 'Immediate knowledge' is 'knowledge that is immediate and not marked by any intervening agency'. In this case that is fulfilled by Arbery running from the scene of the previous burglaries, his physical description matching the previous and attempting to elude them when they tried to speak to him in order to detain him for the police, it's his actions and appearance then and there which constitute their immediate knowledge.

7. Speaking of intent here is where the murder charge really falls down. The fact is the McWilliams were constantly calling the police and on the 911 recording telling Arbery to stop. Their obvious defence in court will be "If we intended to murder this man why would e be calling the police as we did so?". So bang goes any consideration of premeditation and malice aforethought. So therefore we must consider were the reckless to have manslaughter and if so were they criminally so?

8. And here's where the vid comes in, we see McWilliams keeping the shotgun pointed down and at a distance, maintaining his reactive gap. Arbery advances towards HIM and we see them struggle for the gun. Now the only witnesses at this point are the father and son so their own testimony should be enough to exonerate them, there's nothing to contradict them. We also look at Arbery's past record of theft and firearms offences and the vids of his prior aggressive interactions with police and it doesn't exactly portray him in a favourable light to say the least.

9. Both first and second DA decided there was no case to answer, it was only when the video was released that the GBI decided that not only was there a case to answer but actually they were murderers? Murderers who despite their prior lack of criminal record, no flight risk, no threat to anyone are held on remand? What's more why arrest the father? Yes there is the principle of joint enterprise but this doesn't fit the criteria, the McWilliams could have shot Arbery at any time, it was only when they confronted him the shooting took place. This is a clear case of trial by Twitter and prosecutorial misconduct, it is just so incredibly blatant. That the DAs in question might have known McWilliams is hardly suspicious, it's a small town police department where that would be inevitable, that the department had complaints in the past doesn't mean anything, find me one that doesn't?

10. Can they justify carrying their weapons? Absolutely, one of the previous incidents was the theft of a firearm and a previous suspect who was challenged intimated that he had a weapon.

Essentially this boils down to 2 directly conflicting viewpoints. The right wingers here see 2 honest men attempting to detain a suspected burglar and killing him in self-defence when he resisted and tried to seize their gun with race and colour playing no part in the proceedings whatsoever. The left wingers see a racist crime where a man was presumed guilty purely due to the colour of his skin rather than any action on his part, their prejudice betrayed by their use of terms such as 'redneck' and 'good old boys' (and cowards? Men who confronted a possibly armed burglary?) so it is actually they who have a presumption of guilt against people due to stereotyping and the colour of their skin. One side wants to refight battles that are long over to avoid them having to confront the violence within their own community, it's easier for them to believe in a racist criminal justice system than look in the mirror, to argue that they are entitled to a form of exceptionalism due to mistreatment and discrimination in times past. The other side are sick to death of being lampooned and derided for expecting everyone in society to be held to the same standards of behaviour as everyone else and equality under the law.

This case will be absolutely fascinating in court, the legal arguments alone could probably fuel an entire season of L&O.

 

you would need to show the video was faked, and McMichaels lied to the police in his statement in order to refute it. Which is how we know you didn't and can't refute it.

 

all of this has been refuted. You've been shown the statutes which precluded McMichaels from attempting to detain arbery. Its why they are in jail, charged with murder, aggravated assault and attempted false imprisonment.