The Goat Pen

I think there are two issues here


one is justified citizen's arrest and the other is self defense.

based on the law and the definition of burglary , and I think its important to note that he was suspected of criminal trespass and a known thief in the neighborhood, they had enough reason to perform a citizens arrest for second degree burglary as they had video of him entering a home. So they had 1. immediate knowledge of him committing a crime, and 2. based on past history, reasonable suspicion he had intent to commit a burglary.

now, should they be brandishing a weapon, I don't know - Georgia is an open carry and has a stand your ground law, so the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Its not a choice I would have made, but I wouldn't have made any those choices . I just think they were railroaded on the citizens arrest because this was a political landmine, and because they weren't given grounds for a citizens arrest, then they had no shot at claiming self defense.

They wanted to get these guys for murder and if they allowed the citizens arrest to stand, that put the whole case in jeopardy.

It's not good enough under the state law as it was written.

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.

Their "knowledge" of a crime, assuming they would claim they saw him on tape would not be immediate. Immediately would mean without any delay or intervening time and certainly not through an intermediary like a tape. The proper way to deal with that crime after you watch it is to take the evidence tape to the police. And any crime that definitely occurred that night in their presence or within their immediate knowledge wouldn't be a felony, at worst anything they actually witness would just be some sort of trespassing, if that, and yet they pursued him anyway. The trigger man outright killed him and had no legal reason he could do so, and he did so in the commission of a crime (whatever Georgia calls unlawful restraint). The other guys all are guilty of felony murder, because they were helping the trigger man commit the felony that lead to someone getting killed just like a getaway driver would get a felony murder charge if the robber in the convenience store shoots the clerk.

Self-defense also typically wouldn't really apply either when their criminal activity caused it all. They were going after him. Rittenhouse would have been guilty too if he was running after one of those guys and then shot them all after they fought back, even if he only fired the gun to defend himself from their attacks, they would have been defending themselves from his aggressive actions first. Thats why the state was trying to use the bullshit fuzzy "enhanced" video to try and say that still shots from it showed Rittenhouse being aggressive first.

maybe

I'm going by what other lawyers are saying about what immediately meant as to when the law was written and delay , in the sense that the crime may have occurred many days past and the person escaped, but you were aware of the crime and you found them at a later date, was permissible for a citizens arrest

What did he steal? I didn't see him running with a saw zaw or a table saw. He was black. The end.

in the sense that the crime may have occurred many days past and the person escaped, but you were aware of the crime and you found them at a later date, was permissible for a citizens arrest

IMO, as a layman just reading the statute, just being "aware" is clearly not good enough. Otherwise the word "immediate" would not have been put in the statute since they could have then just said "knowledge" only. These guys did not have immediate knowledge. You watching a video your neighbor gives you, gives you knowledge, but not immediate knowledge. Maybe even if one of these guys was the person who was originally robbed and taped it, you could have said that that person had immediate knowledge since it it was a crime against him personally and he took the video. Knowing your neighbors are looking out for somebody is not immediate knowledge of a felony.

If you're just watching a video that someone is showing you of someone in a store, you don't have all of the information. You don't know for sure that it isn't staged or altered or misleading, except that you have to take the word of the person showing it to you. Watching the tape can't be good enough, IMO. You're making yourself the investigator by interpreting the evidence you're being shown. Watching the tape doesnt make it like "you were there and witnessed it." If you showed the tape to a jury in a trial, it would not be admissible without the person who made the tape testifying as to what the tape shows and what the circumstances were when it was recorded.

yea I don't know what standards apply but I don't think immediate in the law relates to time but refers to position in the crime

Clearly there is something that doesn't feel right about Arbery being killed over this, but this felt more about convicting them on what ...well...just about everyone thought was the spirit of the law in 2021 terms versus the letter of the law in 1847 terms (or whenever it was written)

Today's political climate demanded a guilty verdict with a harsh sentence and many people of power were weighing in on making sure that happened.

Political climate had nothing to do with it you half brained nit wit. They killed him.

I would guess that most people get away with stuff like that actually...

Down there.

They got gators

eCat wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 6:55 pm
Clearly there is something that doesn't feel right about Arbery being killed over this

The fact that they chased him down and hounded him for over 5 minutes....bumping him with their vehicles, brandishing weapons, basically terrorizing the kid.

Yeah, something didn't feel right..

Hey you committed burglary, I am placing you under citizens arrest

No

oh, ok, then well, have a good day


what people can't get past though is that within the law?

This is the problem with the Arbery case, people react on the emotion of the case and not the law

much like Rittenhouse where people believed the liberal media that distorted and lied to push their agenda

I'm not saying these guys shouldn't have been found guilty, what I am saying is the prosecution distorted the law to the jury , and the judge allowed that to happen because the law was written for a time that doesn't exist anymore. But it was still the law.

They didn't like the law so they changed it, and then convicted these guys on what they thought the law should be.

The parents of that kid that shot up that Michigan School

I'm OK with them being charged with involuntary manslaughter. I've been saying for a long time that if you really want to make a difference in gun violence in this country, you go after irresponsible gun owners - and that starts with parents who don't limit access to guns, who ignore mental health issues and violent tendencies of their kids. Make examples of these people and gunowners will notice.

I don't agree with Red Flag laws but it should be easier to get people evaluated on mental stability and triggers without the stigma of them being labeled a potential active shooter

Dear Nancy Pelosi. I fucking hate you, you fucking liar. It was bad enough when McAuliffe spammed my email looking for "grassroots" donations, but now you're doing it too? Go fuck yourself you richie DINO cunt. Hope you get investigated for insider trading or fraud or whatever it is when you use insider knowledge of covid to make bank. Once again, fuck off and lose. I'd rather have a Republican and let the system burn than deal with you. -- Tree

Can’t unsee that…

Guess you can

You are the dumbest motherfucker who posts here. Hi, Rat.

Hi

eCat wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:19 pm The parents of that kid that shot up that Michigan School

I'm OK with them being charged with involuntary manslaughter. I've been saying for a long time that if you really want to make a difference in gun violence in this country, you go after irresponsible gun owners - and that starts with parents who don't limit access to guns, who ignore mental health issues and violent tendencies of their kids. Make examples of these people and gunowners will notice.

I don't agree with Red Flag laws but it should be easier to get people evaluated on mental stability and triggers without the stigma of them being labeled a potential active shooter

on further thought, I think the parents should be charged with something, but involuntary manslaughter means they were directly involved with the murder. They were not.

I believe they bear some burden, I don't know what

I never thought I'd see Roe V Wade overturned.

Its a real possibility, I never would have guess it.

If it does happen that will be Trump's biggest legacy