arbery trial and race

[YoursTruly]

Here's the law:

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.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :: CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS :: ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS :: § 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

law.justia.com

You proved my point and you don't even realize it.

Being in the property does not necessarily meet the legal definition of trespassing. The house was open. For it to be trespassing, he'd have to have been told not to go onto the property or been told to leave once he was there. If he enters the property or remains at the property after being told this, he would be guilty of trespass.

It has little to do with the house itself and more to do with what constitutes trespass.

Moreover, the McMichaels did not see him in the house.

If you don't own the property (which starts at the street) you don't need sign to tell you that you don't own it, and therefore have no right to be on the property.
You keep trying to justify a proven criminal. Proven by his criminal record.

Why the left keeps taking up for criminals, and bashing those who try to stop criminals is starting to be very helpful for the right in the 2022 elections. So keep up the good work. You're doing more to get republicans elected than you even know.
You leftist extremist, who don't seem to understand that law breakers are a drain our society. They cost the tax payers a TON of money, even when they're caught and prosecuted.
Black law breakers are the reason why decent black folks can't lose the stereotype. Even they know it and feel it. You white liberals do as much or more to hurt the reputation of the black community, as the black thugs themselves.

BTW, if your white, then you must be a racist. So sayeth the left.

 

[YoursTruly]

The worst crime we are even talking here is trespassing. That's it. A crime that a LOT of us have committed.

Why someone sees the need to jump in a truck with firearms to deal with this demonstrates poor judgement.

There's laws against trespassing for a reason.

Going after a law breaker, without a gun, is just stupid.

 

[colfax_m]

You proved my point and you don't even realize it.

The McMichaels did not see Arbery on the property. That's been in testimony. They did not witness a crime. Since the crime was not a felony, they could not use reasonable suspicion.

If you don't own the property (which starts at the street) you don't need sign to tell you that you don't own it, and therefore have no right to be on the property.
You keep trying to justify a proven criminal. Proven by his criminal record.

Why the left keeps taking up for criminals, and bashing those who try to stop criminals is starting to be very helpful for the right in the 2022 elections. So keep up the good work. You're doing more to get republicans elected than you even know.
You leftist extremist, who don't seem to understand that law breakers are a drain our society. They cost the tax payers a TON of money, even when they're caught and prosecuted.
Black law breakers are the reason why decent black folks can't lose the stereotype. Even they know it and feel it. You white liberals do as much or more to hurt the reputation of the black community, as the black thugs themselves.

BTW, if your white, then you must be a racist. So sayeth the left.

No one is claiming a "right" to be on the property. That's not the question. Any property owner retains full rights to tell people to stay off their property. The question here is what is required to prosecute someone for the crime of trespassing. If the property is open, you can't prosecute trespassing for walking across it. A kid walking across my front lawn to get to his friend's house isn't a criminal.

Arbery having not been told to stay off the property, having not been asked to leave the property, could not be prosecuted for trespassing.

These aren't little details. The entire case hinges on it.

 

[YoursTruly]

The McMichaels did not see Arbery on the property. That's been in testimony. They did not witness a crime. Since the crime was not a felony, they could not use reasonable suspicion.

Who said it was the McMichaels who witnessed him on the property?

No one is claiming a "right" to be on the property. That's not the question. Any property owner retains full rights to tell people to stay off their property. The question here is what is required to prosecute someone for the crime of trespassing. If the property is open, you can't prosecute trespassing for walking across it. A kid walking across my front lawn to get to his friend's house isn't a criminal.

Arbery having not been told to stay off the property, having not been asked to leave the property, could not be prosecuted for trespassing.

These aren't little details. The entire case hinges on it.

The property owner wasn't even there to tell Arbery to stay off the property and out of the house. The cops hadn't gotten there yet.
So your point is mute.
Again, you don't need a sign to know that a piece of property isn't your. If his momma didn't teach him to respect other peoples property, that's on her. But him being over 18 doesn't excuse him for not understanding that. If it's not yours, leave it alone.

As for you, you can take up for criminals all you want. It's expected, coming from the left and groups like BLM. Protect the black thugs at all cost. Y'all don't even realize how racist you are. Do you?

 

[colfax_m]

Who said it was the McMichaels who witnessed him on the property?

If we both agree that they didn't witness any "crime", then under what authority do they have to chase him down?

The property owner wasn't even there to tell Arbery to stay off the property and out of the house. The cops hadn't gotten there yet.
So your point is mute.
Again, you don't need a sign to know that a piece of property isn't your. If his momma didn't teach him to respect other peoples property, that's on her. But him being over 18 doesn't excuse him for not understanding that. If it's not yours, leave it alone.

As for you, you can take up for criminals all you want. It's expected, coming from the left and groups like BLM. Protect the black thugs at all cost. Y'all don't even realize how racist you are. Do you?

Then the property owner merely needs to place a sign on the property saying no trespassing. I don't know whether the property owner could have given the McMichaels the ability to tell Arbery this, but seems like it may be possible. Whether you want to admit it or not, there are statutory elements of a crime. You can't skip over them out of convenience.

Merely being on someone's property does not make them a trespasser. You can argue about respect, but that has no bearing on the legality of the matter.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There's laws against trespassing for a reason.

Going after a law breaker, without a gun, is just stupid.

Going after a law breaker period is just stupid. That's what we have police for.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Tell me can you hold someone at gunpoint because you think they committed a crime?

You could but you are responsible for what happens afterwards like these guys are. And like I said, depending on the statute of the state, it may even be a minor kidnapping charge.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

You could but you are responsible for what happens afterwards like these guys are. And like I said, depending on the statute of the state, it may even be a minor kidnapping charge.

No you can't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I feel like you are trying to win an argument by making a somewhat unreasonable request given the very specific nature of something that is not necessarily very easily searched.

Unfortunately for you, I am very good at this.

Pointing a gun or pistol at another may lead to being charged with another crime. In the case of Savage v. State, the defendant pointed a firearm at the victim. However, the Court charged the defendant with aggravated assault instead of pointing a gun at another because the victim was placed in reasonable apprehension of immediate violent injury. Therefore, the accused went from being charged with the misdemeanor pointing a gun to a felony of aggravated assault. 274 Ga. 692, (2002).

Pointing or Aiming Gun or Pistol at Another | Georgia Criminal Lawyer

www.georgiacriminallawyer.com

Apparently you are not very good at it. From your link:

Legal Justification: If you pointed a gun at another in self-defense or had another reason that would legally justify it, then you may be acquitted of the charges.

He took out the gun in self-defense because he was addressing a potential criminal. He didn't know at the time. In the instances given, they point out that road rage was the reason for the one person pointing a gun at another, and gave an example of a post officer worker being accosted by a homeowner for a dispute about the service. That's not the same as holding a person at bay until police arrive.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No you can't.

Why not?

 

[colfax_m]

Apparently you are not very good at it. From your link:

Legal Justification: If you pointed a gun at another in self-defense or had another reason that would legally justify it, then you may be acquitted of the charges.

He took out the gun in self-defense because he was addressing a potential criminal. He didn't know at the time. In the instances given, they point out that road rage was the reason for the one person pointing a gun at another, and gave an example of a post officer worker being accosted by a homeowner for a dispute about the service. That's not the same as holding a person at bay until police arrive.

I beat you to the punch long ago indicating you need justification.

You don’t get to claim self defense when you agree the aggressor. It is quite clear the McMichael’s were the aggressor. They do not get to legally claim self defense.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I beat you to the punch long ago indicating you need justification.

You don’t get to claim self defense when you agree the aggressor. It is quite clear the McMichael’s were the aggressor. They do not get to legally claim self defense.

That's why he was holding the gun, for self-defense. It was not out of anger like in the instances your link referred to.

 

[colfax_m]

That's why he was holding the gun, for self-defense. It was not out of anger like in the instances your link referred to.

Doesn’t matter how angry he was. If you instigate the conflict, if you are the aggressor, you don’t get to claim self defense.

 

[YoursTruly]

Going after a law breaker period is just stupid. That's what we have police for.

Following one is not stupid. Trying to get him to stop isn't stupid. We're talking about simple trepassing, possibly burglary.
First contact was made from the safety of his vehicle, when he was first told to stop. That's pretty secure, considering that all he had to do was mash the gas is Arbery tried anything.
It's not like the McMichael jumped out the first time they seen him, jumped out and drew down on him. There was several attempts to get him to stop and just have a discussion.
That's it. And even though Arbery is black, it doesn't excuse him for not being more respectful and explaining why he was trespassing. Apparently he though that was "below him" and his self righteous blackness. Or he was scared he was going to have yet another run in with the law, to ad to the other charges already on his record.
Like bringing a gun to a high school basketball game.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Why not?

It's against the Law.

 

[YoursTruly]

You don’t get to claim self defense when you agree the aggressor. It is quite clear the McMichael’s were the aggressor. They do not get to legally claim self defense.

How are you the aggressor when someone charges at you? Because you're standing there with a gun in your hand only makes you standing there with a gun in your hand. Someone lunging at you, grabbing the gun, is the aggressor.
In some cases, being the aggressor is the right thing to do, even if someone is holding a gun on you. Say like in a case of robbery or kidnapping.
But in this case, it's been proven by the video evidence that the McMichael's were not out to just shoot a black guy. They had a lot of chances to do just that. Many chances. And didn't do it.
Only when Arbery lunged and grab the gun was he shot.
In fact, Arbery wasn't even being detained at the time. There was nothing to keep him from just running straight ahead. It was HIS own decision to turn sharp left and lunge and grab Gregs gun.
That's on Arbery. Greg didn't force Arbery to turn left or grab for the gun.

 

[colfax_m]

How are you the aggressor when someone charges at you? Because you're standing there with a gun in your hand only makes you standing there with a gun in your hand. Someone lunging at you, grabbing the gun, is the aggressor.
In some cases, being the aggressor is the right thing to do, even if someone is holding a gun on you. Say like in a case of robbery or kidnapping.
But in this case, it's been proven by the video evidence that the McMichael's were not out to just shoot a black guy. They had a lot of chances to do just that. Many chances. And didn't do it.
Only when Arbery lunged and grab the gun was he shot.
In fact, Arbery wasn't even being detained at the time. There was nothing to keep him from just running straight ahead. It was HIS own decision to turn sharp left and lunge and grab Gregs gun.
That's on Arbery. Greg didn't force Arbery to turn left or grab for the gun.

The McMichaels became the aggressor when they got in their truck and chased after Arbery. The encounter didn't start when Arbery grabbed the gun. It started when the aggressors started chasing Arbery down the street shouting at him.

If the McMichaels were not out to shoot the guy, then telling him to stop or we'll blow your head off is a pretty dumb thing to say. Maybe such a threat was empty, but that's not relevant. What's relevant is that a reasonable person would interpret their actions as an imminent threat to their life which means that Arbery would be entitled to self defense against the people pursuing and threatening him, which means he was entitled to grab McMichael's gun in self defense.

 

[YoursTruly]

The McMichaels became the aggressor when they got in their truck and chased after Arbery. The encounter didn't start when Arbery grabbed the gun. It started when the aggressors started chasing Arbery down the street shouting at him.

The entire events aren't what caused Greg to shoot. If they were out to just kill Arbery, they would've done before Arbery lunged for the gun.

If the McMichaels were not out to shoot the guy, then telling him to stop or we'll blow your head off is a pretty dumb thing to say. Maybe such a threat was empty, but that's not relevant. What's relevant is that a reasonable person would interpret their actions as an imminent threat to their life which means that Arbery would be entitled to self defense against the people pursuing and threatening him, which means he was entitled to grab McMichael's gun in self defense.

If the threat wasn't "empty," they would've shot him long the final incident.
Remember, Greg wasn't standing on the front passenger side when Arbery ran up. Greg was on the front drivers side. So Arbery didn't even have to stop. He didn't have to, in that instance, become the aggressor. But he did. And it got him killed.

 

[colfax_m]

The entire events aren't what caused Greg to shoot. If they were out to just kill Arbery, they would've done before Arbery lunged for the gun.


If the threat wasn't "empty," they would've shot him long the final incident.
Remember, Greg wasn't standing on the front passenger side when Arbery ran up. Greg was on the front drivers side. So Arbery didn't even have to stop. He didn't have to, in that instance, become the aggressor. But he did. And it got him killed.

The entire events are what makes the McMichaels the aggressors which means they do not get the ability to claim self defense.

Saying they didn’t intend to shoot them is entirely irrelevant. It makes no difference whatsoever. It’s not a defense. It doesn’t matter because a reasonable person would fear for their life in that situation. It’s still a gun and they were still chasing Arbery to confront him. They were still an immediate threat to him.

 

[Faun]

You think you can hold a person at gun point without breaking any laws?

Cmon man. A reasonable person would believe that if someone was pointing a gun at you, they have every intention of using it. That’s assault.

In Georgia, it's a misdemeanor...

§ 16-11-102 - Pointing or aiming gun or pistol at another

A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he intentionally and without legal justification points or aims a gun or pistol at another, whether the gun or pistol is loaded or unloaded.​