New development in the shooting case of the black georgia jogger

[Norman]

The owner of the property Mr. English said nothing was ever taken, he did not know the McMichaels and only met one of them once when he bought the property. At no time did English ever ask McMichaels to do anything on his behalf. This begs the question what business was it of the McMichaels? Absolutely none. Do people in Georgia always find it agreeable to stick their nose in another mans business? The McMichaels seem to think so.

Bing

www.bing.com

It’s not up to him, they have property of concern, they don’t want a pattern developed it’s really simple. Go to the south side of Chicago

It is up to him. It is his property. Only he can file a complaint for Trespassing. And his testimony at the trial is going to be really harmful for the defense.

Nonsense...again you prove you lack legal expertise despite all your tutoring from para-legals bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa As has been pointed out to you many times nothing that happened before the black guy assaulted the younger McMichaels has any relevancy....no matter what happened before....even if he had been followed, harassed, or falsely arrested (none of which happened) gave him (the insane negro) the right to committ assault...try and wrap your head around that if you want to stop looking so stupid.

Again. That is where you are wrong according to actual lawyers.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

The most important part of this statute is the unwritten bit — you are allowed to make arrests only with “reasonable force.” You can’t burn down an orphanage to catch one child snatching extra bowls of gruel. And the Georgia Supreme Court has held, as a matter of law, that you can’t chase someone down with a weapon because you think they have committed burglary. For example, it held that there was no evidence of a “citizen’s arrest” when a man with a baseball bat chased down someone who burglarized his home.

The McMichaels will have a hard time establishing that a crime was committed within their presence or immediate knowledge. But even if they get past those serious hurtles, they’re still stuck justifying hemming an unarmed man in with a truck and guns when those acts are each serious felonies under Georgia law.

Actual Lawyers seem to think you are wrong. But what do they know. I assume you have a BAR card and are licensed in Georgia. I honestly hope you are on the way to take over the defense of the McMichaels because they need all the legal help they can get. Because actual Georgia law applies to actual cases and decided by the actual Georgia Supreme Court says you are actually wrong.

They did not do anything unreasonable in making the arrest.

He only got shot because he grabbed a gun, this is reasonable self defense.

In the state of Georgia (and I believe this is true in all 50 states) if you initiate a confrontation, you cannot claim self defense. To wit: If I punch you in the face, and you then pick up a stick and hit me with it, I can't claim self defense if I shoot you and kill you.

It's mind boggling to know that there are idiots in this world who do not see someone arming himself, getting into a truck and chasing someone, and then getting out of that truck, with a loaded shotgun, as not initiating a confrontation...

Fleeing from a crime scene is initiating the confrontation.

There was no crime scene. You're truly fucked in tne head.

Yes there was, a possible burglary. The black man thought he was going to be put away for a long time, therefore the attack.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

As was the opinion of several lawyers who say that the McMichaels did not have Reasonable Suspicion by Georgia Law.

LOL

Yeah. You guys are starting to sound like a skit from The Onion.



No matter how many people tell you the truth you just won’t accept it. Fine with me. You can claim they are political prisoners. But think about this. The longer you protest the more you sound like the far leftists you detest who refuse to accept truth. The Bernie Bro’s who act like Socialism works if the right people are in charge as one example.

Yes they did have reasonable grounds. Burglary is a felony, and they knew about the break ins and burglaries in the neighborhood, the camera footage with an individual who looks similar to the one running. When the black man didn't respond to their shouting, that severely did not help.

And if they were police they would probably be fine. But they aren’t. And there be the rub. Which is why the Legal Experts. You know those who went to school and then got licensed and then actually make their living doing this sort of thing. The Legal Experts say that they did not.

But it is worse. Really worse for the McMichaels. If Daddy recognized the suspect and did not share that with police then that is withholding information.

But it gets even worse. Let’s go to the trial. To prove Reasonable Suspicion even using your inaccurate definition they have to testify. In doing so they open the Prosecution to cross examine. How well do you think that will go? Why did you withhold the identity of the suspect from the police? Why did you not tell the 911 operator it was a trespassing case. He was wearing a t shirt and shorts. How much could he have possibly stolen from a construction site and concealed upon himself? Were you ever asked to watch the property?

Before the testimony is over every case he worked on will have filed appeals claiming that this case shows that McMichaels is dishonest and criminal. How many convicts will be released because of it? If he does not testify then no reasonable suspicion can be established, even by your definition.

You have no clue how much trouble those two are in. Why do I keep telling you to start funding their defense? Any Sentence for Daddy is probably a life sentence. And Junior will get at least twenty years. Right now their one hope is a strong which means very expensive defense. A lawyer who has successfully defended murder charges is not going to be cheap. And any attorney that takes it Pro Bono is not going to be worth having.

On the off chance that they are found not guilty. They will be homeless and unemployed. And you can’t use Kickstarter or other online fundraisers like that. They will not allow funds to be raised for criminal defense.

Now I have posted the links. You should know what they are facing. It is not political. It is Georgia Criminal Law. Something that we had a chance of starting to reform before this. Now we will be lucky if we don’t see some asinine hate crime law passed.

They were obviously monitoring the neighborhood for suspicious activity. Even the other 911 caller was and he was not even a cop as far as we know.

They had called 911 two weeks prior and one of their guns was stolen before.

If you leave a gun in an unlocked vehicle, you are partially responsible, dumbass!

And now we have moved to victim blaming.

Damn, you really hate the two heroic defenders of their community. Your community has no defenders?

You brought up an irrelevant theft of a gun, which the suspect left in an unlocked vehicle. By law, they are partially responsible for the theft.

The theft is highly relevant. String of thefts and unwarranted entries in a neighborhood. Guy runs when asked to stop... that's suspicious as fuck. Their suspicion was correct.

If you come at me with a gun, I damn sure am not going to stop! The theft was 2 months prior and nothing pointed to him being the thief. I honestly think you are brain damaged.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The owner of the property Mr. English said nothing was ever taken, he did not know the McMichaels and only met one of them once when he bought the property. At no time did English ever ask McMichaels to do anything on his behalf. This begs the question what business was it of the McMichaels? Absolutely none. Do people in Georgia always find it agreeable to stick their nose in another mans business? The McMichaels seem to think so.

Bing

www.bing.com

It’s not up to him, they have property of concern, they don’t want a pattern developed it’s really simple. Go to the south side of Chicago

It is up to him. It is his property. Only he can file a complaint for Trespassing. And his testimony at the trial is going to be really harmful for the defense.

Nonsense...again you prove you lack legal expertise despite all your tutoring from para-legals bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa As has been pointed out to you many times nothing that happened before the black guy assaulted the younger McMichaels has any relevancy....no matter what happened before....even if he had been followed, harassed, or falsely arrested (none of which happened) gave him (the insane negro) the right to committ assault...try and wrap your head around that if you want to stop looking so stupid.

Again. That is where you are wrong according to actual lawyers.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

The most important part of this statute is the unwritten bit — you are allowed to make arrests only with “reasonable force.” You can’t burn down an orphanage to catch one child snatching extra bowls of gruel. And the Georgia Supreme Court has held, as a matter of law, that you can’t chase someone down with a weapon because you think they have committed burglary. For example, it held that there was no evidence of a “citizen’s arrest” when a man with a baseball bat chased down someone who burglarized his home.

The McMichaels will have a hard time establishing that a crime was committed within their presence or immediate knowledge. But even if they get past those serious hurtles, they’re still stuck justifying hemming an unarmed man in with a truck and guns when those acts are each serious felonies under Georgia law.

Actual Lawyers seem to think you are wrong. But what do they know. I assume you have a BAR card and are licensed in Georgia. I honestly hope you are on the way to take over the defense of the McMichaels because they need all the legal help they can get. Because actual Georgia law applies to actual cases and decided by the actual Georgia Supreme Court says you are actually wrong.

They did not do anything unreasonable in making the arrest.

He only got shot because he grabbed a gun, this is reasonable self defense.

In the state of Georgia (and I believe this is true in all 50 states) if you initiate a confrontation, you cannot claim self defense. To wit: If I punch you in the face, and you then pick up a stick and hit me with it, I can't claim self defense if I shoot you and kill you.

It's mind boggling to know that there are idiots in this world who do not see someone arming himself, getting into a truck and chasing someone, and then getting out of that truck, with a loaded shotgun, as not initiating a confrontation...

Fleeing from a crime scene is initiating the confrontation.

There was no crime scene. You're truly fucked in tne head.

Yes there was, a possible burglary. The black man thought he was going to be put away for a long time, therefore the attack.

What did he steal, moron?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That is not why the Prosecutor is going to be defending his law license. It is because he decided to Recuse himself and still issued instructions to the police. That is misconduct.

Blah, blah, blah... It is clear the white men did nothing wrong. The black man charged at a shotgun and paid the price for it.

This is what all already concluded until the crazy SJWs got a sniff of the case as if it was young girl near Biden.

That you respond with "blahblahblah" illustrates only one of two things: that you're devoid of anything intelligent to add, or you understand that SavannahMann is right.

Gregory and Travis McMichael are going to be found guilty. All of your racist whining isn't change that...

More blah, blah, blah.

They did nothing wrong, that's the fact.

Nothing wrong?

1) Illegal detaining an individual.

2) Criminal assault with a deadly weapon.

There are two felonies right there.

 

[Norman]

That is not why the Prosecutor is going to be defending his law license. It is because he decided to Recuse himself and still issued instructions to the police. That is misconduct.

Blah, blah, blah... It is clear the white men did nothing wrong. The black man charged at a shotgun and paid the price for it.

This is what all already concluded until the crazy SJWs got a sniff of the case as if it was young girl near Biden.

That you respond with "blahblahblah" illustrates only one of two things: that you're devoid of anything intelligent to add, or you understand that SavannahMann is right.

Gregory and Travis McMichael are going to be found guilty. All of your racist whining isn't change that...

More blah, blah, blah.

They did nothing wrong, that's the fact.

Nothing wrong?

1) Illegal detaining an individual.

2) Criminal assault with a deadly weapon.

There are two felonies right there.

They LEGALLY detained the individual over legitimate suspicion.

The black man committed an armed assault, not the white man. It is quite clear from the video who is charging and who is not.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That is not why the Prosecutor is going to be defending his law license. It is because he decided to Recuse himself and still issued instructions to the police. That is misconduct.

Blah, blah, blah... It is clear the white men did nothing wrong. The black man charged at a shotgun and paid the price for it.

This is what all already concluded until the crazy SJWs got a sniff of the case as if it was young girl near Biden.

That you respond with "blahblahblah" illustrates only one of two things: that you're devoid of anything intelligent to add, or you understand that SavannahMann is right.

Gregory and Travis McMichael are going to be found guilty. All of your racist whining isn't change that...

More blah, blah, blah.

They did nothing wrong, that's the fact.

OK. Lets deal with the link I shared. Why would an experienced Defense Attorney who has argued before the State Supreme Court disagree with you?

As I said before, initially no charges were brought up. It was clear cut to all, including the prosecutor that no wrongdoing occurred.

The prosecutor employed McMichael at one time. It was a clear cut case for recusal, which they eventually did.

 

[Norman]

That is not why the Prosecutor is going to be defending his law license. It is because he decided to Recuse himself and still issued instructions to the police. That is misconduct.

Blah, blah, blah... It is clear the white men did nothing wrong. The black man charged at a shotgun and paid the price for it.

This is what all already concluded until the crazy SJWs got a sniff of the case as if it was young girl near Biden.

That you respond with "blahblahblah" illustrates only one of two things: that you're devoid of anything intelligent to add, or you understand that SavannahMann is right.

Gregory and Travis McMichael are going to be found guilty. All of your racist whining isn't change that...

More blah, blah, blah.

They did nothing wrong, that's the fact.

OK. Lets deal with the link I shared. Why would an experienced Defense Attorney who has argued before the State Supreme Court disagree with you?

As I said before, initially no charges were brought up. It was clear cut to all, including the prosecutor that no wrongdoing occurred.

The prosecutor employed McMichael at one time. It was a clear cut case for recusal, which they eventually did.

It's a clear cut case of no crime being committed.

 

[Faun]

The owner of the property Mr. English said nothing was ever taken, he did not know the McMichaels and only met one of them once when he bought the property. At no time did English ever ask McMichaels to do anything on his behalf. This begs the question what business was it of the McMichaels? Absolutely none. Do people in Georgia always find it agreeable to stick their nose in another mans business? The McMichaels seem to think so.

Bing

www.bing.com

It’s not up to him, they have property of concern, they don’t want a pattern developed it’s really simple. Go to the south side of Chicago

It is up to him. It is his property. Only he can file a complaint for Trespassing. And his testimony at the trial is going to be really harmful for the defense.

Nonsense...again you prove you lack legal expertise despite all your tutoring from para-legals bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa As has been pointed out to you many times nothing that happened before the black guy assaulted the younger McMichaels has any relevancy....no matter what happened before....even if he had been followed, harassed, or falsely arrested (none of which happened) gave him (the insane negro) the right to committ assault...try and wrap your head around that if you want to stop looking so stupid.

Again. That is where you are wrong according to actual lawyers.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

The most important part of this statute is the unwritten bit — you are allowed to make arrests only with “reasonable force.” You can’t burn down an orphanage to catch one child snatching extra bowls of gruel. And the Georgia Supreme Court has held, as a matter of law, that you can’t chase someone down with a weapon because you think they have committed burglary. For example, it held that there was no evidence of a “citizen’s arrest” when a man with a baseball bat chased down someone who burglarized his home.

The McMichaels will have a hard time establishing that a crime was committed within their presence or immediate knowledge. But even if they get past those serious hurtles, they’re still stuck justifying hemming an unarmed man in with a truck and guns when those acts are each serious felonies under Georgia law.

Actual Lawyers seem to think you are wrong. But what do they know. I assume you have a BAR card and are licensed in Georgia. I honestly hope you are on the way to take over the defense of the McMichaels because they need all the legal help they can get. Because actual Georgia law applies to actual cases and decided by the actual Georgia Supreme Court says you are actually wrong.

They did not do anything unreasonable in making the arrest.

He only got shot because he grabbed a gun, this is reasonable self defense.

In the state of Georgia (and I believe this is true in all 50 states) if you initiate a confrontation, you cannot claim self defense. To wit: If I punch you in the face, and you then pick up a stick and hit me with it, I can't claim self defense if I shoot you and kill you.

It's mind boggling to know that there are idiots in this world who do not see someone arming himself, getting into a truck and chasing someone, and then getting out of that truck, with a loaded shotgun, as not initiating a confrontation...

Then how can you make a citizens arrest? To wit: I see a thug running out of my house ... then what happens?

That's not what happened here.

Focus.

Travis McMichael could not legally make a citizen's arrest because Arbery committed no crime in his presence, nor did McMichael have immediate, first hand knowledge of the crime. "First hand" means that Daddy McMichael telling Junior that Arbery committed a crime is insufficient to effect a citizen's arrest.

Had Daddy gotten his lard-ass out of the back of the truck, an argument might be able to be made that, since he allegedly saw the video, that he could make a citizen's arrest...

Reasonable suspicion is enough. For someone who lives in Georgia you certainly don't know the law, and apparently can't even read the thread since the law was already posted here.

By the way, fleeing itself can generate reasonable suspicion. Of course in this case, the suspicion turned out to be correct. It's also possible that they heard screams for the man to stop.

Well, if anyone needed further proof that you're a no-nothing dipshit, you just provided it here, dumbass.

I don't live in Georgia, and I've never claimed to.

I read from the Georgia Bar Association website:

"Citizen’s Arrests - As a private citizen, you have no authority to arrest anyone with a warrant. Without a warrant, you may arrest anyone who commits a misdemeanor or a felony in your presence or with your immediate knowledge. A citizen’s arrest occurs when a citizen prevents a suspect from leaving a scene. Citizen’s arrest most often happens in cases like shoplifting, when the store’s manager detains the suspected offender."

https://www.gabar.org/forthepublic/forteachersstudents/lre/teacherresources/upload/ch16.pdf

Arbery committed no crime in the presence of Travis McMichael, nor did Travis McMichael have immediate knowledge of any crime committed by Arbery. An example of "immediate knowledge" would be, say, a woman yelling to you that the guy running away from her carrying a woman's purse just stole her purse.

But, just for fun, let's pretend that Travis McMichael was in a position to legally perform a citizen's arrest of Arbery. The law in Georgia states: "When making a citizen’s arrest, a person may not use more force than is reasonable to make the arrest. Deadly force is limited to self-defense or to instances in which such force is necessary to prevent certain felonies."

Hopping out of the truck with a gun is clearly not the use of a minimum amount of force. In fact it's an unwarranted escalation of force for someone who's running down the road. So, as soon as his feet hit the ground he fucked up.

Now, even though you're too ignorant to wrap your head around this, we already know there's no legitimate claim to self-defense, simply because Travis and Gregory McMichael initiated the entire incident.

Lastly, deadly force is authorized to prevent someone from committing certain felonies, but not all. It's a felony to embezzle money from an employer. Deadly force is not authorized to stop it. Likewise, if Arbery had stolen something from a construction site days prior, that felony has not only already been committed, but it was committed outside the view or knowledge of Travis McMichael.

But none of those things are what happened.

I know you're not a fan of facts, but there ya' go...

I already posted the law it allows for arrest for only reasonable suspicion.

Stop spreading your fake news sources.

Fake news?? You don't like what it says so it's "fake news"?

You are slowly, but ever so surely, redefining the term "ignorant dipshit".

The source quoted in my post isn't a "fake news source", Zippy. It's the website for the Georgia State Bar Association.

You've just relegated yourself to "idiot clown" status. Nothing you say has value. Your opinions mean dick. You and your idiot ramblings are utterly meaningless...

Whatever it is, is not the law. Looks like fake news.

Here is the law.

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

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.

What part of, "If the offense is a felony," escapes your first grade level reading comprehension?

Arbery did not commit a felony.

Game over.

 

[jc456]

The owner of the property Mr. English said nothing was ever taken, he did not know the McMichaels and only met one of them once when he bought the property. At no time did English ever ask McMichaels to do anything on his behalf. This begs the question what business was it of the McMichaels? Absolutely none. Do people in Georgia always find it agreeable to stick their nose in another mans business? The McMichaels seem to think so.

Bing

www.bing.com

It’s not up to him, they have property of concern, they don’t want a pattern developed it’s really simple. Go to the south side of Chicago

It is up to him. It is his property. Only he can file a complaint for Trespassing. And his testimony at the trial is going to be really harmful for the defense.

Nonsense...again you prove you lack legal expertise despite all your tutoring from para-legals bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa As has been pointed out to you many times nothing that happened before the black guy assaulted the younger McMichaels has any relevancy....no matter what happened before....even if he had been followed, harassed, or falsely arrested (none of which happened) gave him (the insane negro) the right to committ assault...try and wrap your head around that if you want to stop looking so stupid.

Again. That is where you are wrong according to actual lawyers.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

The most important part of this statute is the unwritten bit — you are allowed to make arrests only with “reasonable force.” You can’t burn down an orphanage to catch one child snatching extra bowls of gruel. And the Georgia Supreme Court has held, as a matter of law, that you can’t chase someone down with a weapon because you think they have committed burglary. For example, it held that there was no evidence of a “citizen’s arrest” when a man with a baseball bat chased down someone who burglarized his home.

The McMichaels will have a hard time establishing that a crime was committed within their presence or immediate knowledge. But even if they get past those serious hurtles, they’re still stuck justifying hemming an unarmed man in with a truck and guns when those acts are each serious felonies under Georgia law.

Actual Lawyers seem to think you are wrong. But what do they know. I assume you have a BAR card and are licensed in Georgia. I honestly hope you are on the way to take over the defense of the McMichaels because they need all the legal help they can get. Because actual Georgia law applies to actual cases and decided by the actual Georgia Supreme Court says you are actually wrong.

They did not do anything unreasonable in making the arrest.

He only got shot because he grabbed a gun, this is reasonable self defense.

Chasing someone with a weapon and SHOOTING someone with a weapon are two different things. It used to be legal to shoot thieves, that's what you are talking about.

They could NOT arrest him as he had not committed a felony in their presence. Now, push the "I believe" button and STFU until you have something intelligent to add. Judging by your iQ, that will be never!

they don't need to know that. it's why they call them suspects. anyone can be detained.

 

[Canon Shooter]

The owner of the property Mr. English said nothing was ever taken, he did not know the McMichaels and only met one of them once when he bought the property. At no time did English ever ask McMichaels to do anything on his behalf. This begs the question what business was it of the McMichaels? Absolutely none. Do people in Georgia always find it agreeable to stick their nose in another mans business? The McMichaels seem to think so.

Bing

www.bing.com

It’s not up to him, they have property of concern, they don’t want a pattern developed it’s really simple. Go to the south side of Chicago

It is up to him. It is his property. Only he can file a complaint for Trespassing. And his testimony at the trial is going to be really harmful for the defense.

Nonsense...again you prove you lack legal expertise despite all your tutoring from para-legals bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa As has been pointed out to you many times nothing that happened before the black guy assaulted the younger McMichaels has any relevancy....no matter what happened before....even if he had been followed, harassed, or falsely arrested (none of which happened) gave him (the insane negro) the right to committ assault...try and wrap your head around that if you want to stop looking so stupid.

Again. That is where you are wrong according to actual lawyers.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

The most important part of this statute is the unwritten bit — you are allowed to make arrests only with “reasonable force.” You can’t burn down an orphanage to catch one child snatching extra bowls of gruel. And the Georgia Supreme Court has held, as a matter of law, that you can’t chase someone down with a weapon because you think they have committed burglary. For example, it held that there was no evidence of a “citizen’s arrest” when a man with a baseball bat chased down someone who burglarized his home.

The McMichaels will have a hard time establishing that a crime was committed within their presence or immediate knowledge. But even if they get past those serious hurtles, they’re still stuck justifying hemming an unarmed man in with a truck and guns when those acts are each serious felonies under Georgia law.

Actual Lawyers seem to think you are wrong. But what do they know. I assume you have a BAR card and are licensed in Georgia. I honestly hope you are on the way to take over the defense of the McMichaels because they need all the legal help they can get. Because actual Georgia law applies to actual cases and decided by the actual Georgia Supreme Court says you are actually wrong.

They did not do anything unreasonable in making the arrest.

He only got shot because he grabbed a gun, this is reasonable self defense.

Chasing someone with a weapon and SHOOTING someone with a weapon are two different things. It used to be legal to shoot thieves, that's what you are talking about.

They could NOT arrest him as he had not committed a felony in their presence. Now, push the "I believe" button and STFU until you have something intelligent to add. Judging by your iQ, that will be never!

How many times must we go through the law with you far left morons.

WHEN SOMEONE IS FLEEING YOU DON'T NEED TO BE PRESENT. ONLY HAVING SUSPICION IS ENOUGH.

Damn retards. How many times will the law need to be shown to your stupid ass face before you get it?

But what you're failing to understand, despite it being a REALLY simple fucking concept, is that Travis McMichael didn't know he was "fleeing". Travis McMichael didn't know about any burglary, or any other crime for that matter, that Arbery would've been running from.

And kudos on continuing to prove how stupid you can be by demonstrating how wrong you are.

First, you said I live in Georgia. I don't, and have never made that claim. In fact, several times in this thread I've mentioned where I live.

Secondly, calling me a "far left moron" is about the most ignorant thing you could belch up. I'm a 58 year old white guy. I've voted for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Donald Trump. I'm a Life Member of the NRA. I have at least one legally carried, loaded firearm on my person every time I leave my home. I'm retired military. I remove my hat and stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I also have an unwavering respect for the law, and generally dismiss those, like you, who would try to twist the law whatever way they had to in order to satisfy some agenda, especially a racist agenda, which is what you're attempting here.

Travis McMichael is going to be found guilty of murder. You should get used to that idea...

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

As was the opinion of several lawyers who say that the McMichaels did not have Reasonable Suspicion by Georgia Law.

LOL

Yeah. You guys are starting to sound like a skit from The Onion.



No matter how many people tell you the truth you just won’t accept it. Fine with me. You can claim they are political prisoners. But think about this. The longer you protest the more you sound like the far leftists you detest who refuse to accept truth. The Bernie Bro’s who act like Socialism works if the right people are in charge as one example.

Yes they did have reasonable grounds. Burglary is a felony, and they knew about the break ins and burglaries in the neighborhood, the camera footage with an individual who looks similar to the one running. When the black man didn't respond to their shouting, that severely did not help.

The last break-in occurred in December. There was no video footage before he was shot. Why do you continue to lie? Do you not have a conscience?

 

[jc456]

The owner of the property Mr. English said nothing was ever taken, he did not know the McMichaels and only met one of them once when he bought the property. At no time did English ever ask McMichaels to do anything on his behalf. This begs the question what business was it of the McMichaels? Absolutely none. Do people in Georgia always find it agreeable to stick their nose in another mans business? The McMichaels seem to think so.

Bing

www.bing.com

It’s not up to him, they have property of concern, they don’t want a pattern developed it’s really simple. Go to the south side of Chicago

It is up to him. It is his property. Only he can file a complaint for Trespassing. And his testimony at the trial is going to be really harmful for the defense.

Nonsense...again you prove you lack legal expertise despite all your tutoring from para-legals bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa As has been pointed out to you many times nothing that happened before the black guy assaulted the younger McMichaels has any relevancy....no matter what happened before....even if he had been followed, harassed, or falsely arrested (none of which happened) gave him (the insane negro) the right to committ assault...try and wrap your head around that if you want to stop looking so stupid.

Again. That is where you are wrong according to actual lawyers.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

The most important part of this statute is the unwritten bit — you are allowed to make arrests only with “reasonable force.” You can’t burn down an orphanage to catch one child snatching extra bowls of gruel. And the Georgia Supreme Court has held, as a matter of law, that you can’t chase someone down with a weapon because you think they have committed burglary. For example, it held that there was no evidence of a “citizen’s arrest” when a man with a baseball bat chased down someone who burglarized his home.

The McMichaels will have a hard time establishing that a crime was committed within their presence or immediate knowledge. But even if they get past those serious hurtles, they’re still stuck justifying hemming an unarmed man in with a truck and guns when those acts are each serious felonies under Georgia law.

Actual Lawyers seem to think you are wrong. But what do they know. I assume you have a BAR card and are licensed in Georgia. I honestly hope you are on the way to take over the defense of the McMichaels because they need all the legal help they can get. Because actual Georgia law applies to actual cases and decided by the actual Georgia Supreme Court says you are actually wrong.

They did not do anything unreasonable in making the arrest.

He only got shot because he grabbed a gun, this is reasonable self defense.

In the state of Georgia (and I believe this is true in all 50 states) if you initiate a confrontation, you cannot claim self defense. To wit: If I punch you in the face, and you then pick up a stick and hit me with it, I can't claim self defense if I shoot you and kill you.

It's mind boggling to know that there are idiots in this world who do not see someone arming himself, getting into a truck and chasing someone, and then getting out of that truck, with a loaded shotgun, as not initiating a confrontation...

they didn't initiate a confrontation. there was at least 100 yards between the truck and the black man. no one from the truck did a thing to invoke a physical confrontation. The person who throws the first punch is always the one that starts a fight. who threw the first punch?

Who had the loaded weapon? That is assault, just like throwing a punch.

never made a threat. I can have a loaded weapon and not initiate a fight. they weren't near him, he moved to them. again, the video isn't your friend.

The video shows the younger suspect exiting the driver's side of the vehicle and the first shot was fired in front of the truck, how did he get there? Teleportation hasn't been invented yet.

By walking there. He was going to detain the suspect.

Walking is not illegal.

Detaining him was illegal. They have no right whatsoever to stop and detain him.

they never detained anyone. but sure they can. there isn't a law saying they can't. you are mistaken like a leftist now.

 

[jc456]

The owner of the property Mr. English said nothing was ever taken, he did not know the McMichaels and only met one of them once when he bought the property. At no time did English ever ask McMichaels to do anything on his behalf. This begs the question what business was it of the McMichaels? Absolutely none. Do people in Georgia always find it agreeable to stick their nose in another mans business? The McMichaels seem to think so.

Bing

www.bing.com

It’s not up to him, they have property of concern, they don’t want a pattern developed it’s really simple. Go to the south side of Chicago

It is up to him. It is his property. Only he can file a complaint for Trespassing. And his testimony at the trial is going to be really harmful for the defense.

Nonsense...again you prove you lack legal expertise despite all your tutoring from para-legals bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa As has been pointed out to you many times nothing that happened before the black guy assaulted the younger McMichaels has any relevancy....no matter what happened before....even if he had been followed, harassed, or falsely arrested (none of which happened) gave him (the insane negro) the right to committ assault...try and wrap your head around that if you want to stop looking so stupid.

Again. That is where you are wrong according to actual lawyers.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

The most important part of this statute is the unwritten bit — you are allowed to make arrests only with “reasonable force.” You can’t burn down an orphanage to catch one child snatching extra bowls of gruel. And the Georgia Supreme Court has held, as a matter of law, that you can’t chase someone down with a weapon because you think they have committed burglary. For example, it held that there was no evidence of a “citizen’s arrest” when a man with a baseball bat chased down someone who burglarized his home.

The McMichaels will have a hard time establishing that a crime was committed within their presence or immediate knowledge. But even if they get past those serious hurtles, they’re still stuck justifying hemming an unarmed man in with a truck and guns when those acts are each serious felonies under Georgia law.

Actual Lawyers seem to think you are wrong. But what do they know. I assume you have a BAR card and are licensed in Georgia. I honestly hope you are on the way to take over the defense of the McMichaels because they need all the legal help they can get. Because actual Georgia law applies to actual cases and decided by the actual Georgia Supreme Court says you are actually wrong.

They did not do anything unreasonable in making the arrest.

He only got shot because he grabbed a gun, this is reasonable self defense.

Chasing someone with a weapon and SHOOTING someone with a weapon are two different things. It used to be legal to shoot thieves, that's what you are talking about.

They could NOT arrest him as he had not committed a felony in their presence. Now, push the "I believe" button and STFU until you have something intelligent to add. Judging by your iQ, that will be never!

How many times must we go through the law with you far left morons.

WHEN SOMEONE IS FLEEING YOU DON'T NEED TO BE PRESENT. ONLY HAVING SUSPICION IS ENOUGH.

Damn retards. How many times will the law need to be shown to your stupid ass face before you get it?

But what you're failing to understand, despite it being a REALLY simple fucking concept, is that Travis McMichael didn't know he was "fleeing". Travis McMichael didn't know about any burglary, or any other crime for that matter, that Arbery would've been running from.

And kudos on continuing to prove how stupid you can be by demonstrating how wrong you are.

First, you said I live in Georgia. I don't, and have never made that claim. In fact, several times in this thread I've mentioned where I live.

Secondly, calling me a "far left moron" is about the most ignorant thing you could belch up. I'm a 58 year old white guy. I've voted for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Donald Trump. I'm a Life Member of the NRA. I have at least one legally carried, loaded firearm on my person every time I leave my home. I'm retired military. I remove my hat and stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I also have an unwavering respect for the law, and generally dismiss those, like you, who would try to twist the law whatever way they had to in order to satisfy some agenda, especially a racist agenda, which is what you're attempting here.

Travis McMichael is going to be found guilty of murder. You should get used to that idea...

you should learn about the law then.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The owner of the property Mr. English said nothing was ever taken, he did not know the McMichaels and only met one of them once when he bought the property. At no time did English ever ask McMichaels to do anything on his behalf. This begs the question what business was it of the McMichaels? Absolutely none. Do people in Georgia always find it agreeable to stick their nose in another mans business? The McMichaels seem to think so.

Bing

www.bing.com

It’s not up to him, they have property of concern, they don’t want a pattern developed it’s really simple. Go to the south side of Chicago

It is up to him. It is his property. Only he can file a complaint for Trespassing. And his testimony at the trial is going to be really harmful for the defense.

Nonsense...again you prove you lack legal expertise despite all your tutoring from para-legals bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa As has been pointed out to you many times nothing that happened before the black guy assaulted the younger McMichaels has any relevancy....no matter what happened before....even if he had been followed, harassed, or falsely arrested (none of which happened) gave him (the insane negro) the right to committ assault...try and wrap your head around that if you want to stop looking so stupid.

Again. That is where you are wrong according to actual lawyers.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

The most important part of this statute is the unwritten bit — you are allowed to make arrests only with “reasonable force.” You can’t burn down an orphanage to catch one child snatching extra bowls of gruel. And the Georgia Supreme Court has held, as a matter of law, that you can’t chase someone down with a weapon because you think they have committed burglary. For example, it held that there was no evidence of a “citizen’s arrest” when a man with a baseball bat chased down someone who burglarized his home.

The McMichaels will have a hard time establishing that a crime was committed within their presence or immediate knowledge. But even if they get past those serious hurtles, they’re still stuck justifying hemming an unarmed man in with a truck and guns when those acts are each serious felonies under Georgia law.

Actual Lawyers seem to think you are wrong. But what do they know. I assume you have a BAR card and are licensed in Georgia. I honestly hope you are on the way to take over the defense of the McMichaels because they need all the legal help they can get. Because actual Georgia law applies to actual cases and decided by the actual Georgia Supreme Court says you are actually wrong.

They did not do anything unreasonable in making the arrest.

He only got shot because he grabbed a gun, this is reasonable self defense.

In the state of Georgia (and I believe this is true in all 50 states) if you initiate a confrontation, you cannot claim self defense. To wit: If I punch you in the face, and you then pick up a stick and hit me with it, I can't claim self defense if I shoot you and kill you.

It's mind boggling to know that there are idiots in this world who do not see someone arming himself, getting into a truck and chasing someone, and then getting out of that truck, with a loaded shotgun, as not initiating a confrontation...

Then how can you make a citizens arrest? To wit: I see a thug running out of my house ... then what happens?

That's not what happened here.

Focus.

Travis McMichael could not legally make a citizen's arrest because Arbery committed no crime in his presence, nor did McMichael have immediate, first hand knowledge of the crime. "First hand" means that Daddy McMichael telling Junior that Arbery committed a crime is insufficient to effect a citizen's arrest.

Had Daddy gotten his lard-ass out of the back of the truck, an argument might be able to be made that, since he allegedly saw the video, that he could make a citizen's arrest...

Reasonable suspicion is enough. For someone who lives in Georgia you certainly don't know the law, and apparently can't even read the thread since the law was already posted here.

By the way, fleeing itself can generate reasonable suspicion. Of course in this case, the suspicion turned out to be correct. It's also possible that they heard screams for the man to stop.

Well, if anyone needed further proof that you're a no-nothing dipshit, you just provided it here, dumbass.

I don't live in Georgia, and I've never claimed to.

I read from the Georgia Bar Association website:

"Citizen’s Arrests - As a private citizen, you have no authority to arrest anyone with a warrant. Without a warrant, you may arrest anyone who commits a misdemeanor or a felony in your presence or with your immediate knowledge. A citizen’s arrest occurs when a citizen prevents a suspect from leaving a scene. Citizen’s arrest most often happens in cases like shoplifting, when the store’s manager detains the suspected offender."

https://www.gabar.org/forthepublic/forteachersstudents/lre/teacherresources/upload/ch16.pdf

Arbery committed no crime in the presence of Travis McMichael, nor did Travis McMichael have immediate knowledge of any crime committed by Arbery. An example of "immediate knowledge" would be, say, a woman yelling to you that the guy running away from her carrying a woman's purse just stole her purse.

But, just for fun, let's pretend that Travis McMichael was in a position to legally perform a citizen's arrest of Arbery. The law in Georgia states: "When making a citizen’s arrest, a person may not use more force than is reasonable to make the arrest. Deadly force is limited to self-defense or to instances in which such force is necessary to prevent certain felonies."

Hopping out of the truck with a gun is clearly not the use of a minimum amount of force. In fact it's an unwarranted escalation of force for someone who's running down the road. So, as soon as his feet hit the ground he fucked up.

Now, even though you're too ignorant to wrap your head around this, we already know there's no legitimate claim to self-defense, simply because Travis and Gregory McMichael initiated the entire incident.

Lastly, deadly force is authorized to prevent someone from committing certain felonies, but not all. It's a felony to embezzle money from an employer. Deadly force is not authorized to stop it. Likewise, if Arbery had stolen something from a construction site days prior, that felony has not only already been committed, but it was committed outside the view or knowledge of Travis McMichael.

But none of those things are what happened.

I know you're not a fan of facts, but there ya' go...

I already posted the law it allows for arrest for only reasonable suspicion.

Stop spreading your fake news sources.

Fake news?? You don't like what it says so it's "fake news"?

You are slowly, but ever so surely, redefining the term "ignorant dipshit".

The source quoted in my post isn't a "fake news source", Zippy. It's the website for the Georgia State Bar Association.

You've just relegated yourself to "idiot clown" status. Nothing you say has value. Your opinions mean dick. You and your idiot ramblings are utterly meaningless...

Whatever it is, is not the law. Looks like fake news.

Here is the law.

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

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.

And you look like a complete fool.

I think we can agree that Arbery committed no crime in the presence of Travis McMichael, so we can dispense with that. As for ""immediate knowledge", no one reported the crime immediately following it being committed, nor was it reported to Travis McMichael by the property owner.

Travis McMichael had no legal standing to make a citizen's arrest. None. It didn't exist.

Your attempt to negate the point I was making actually reinforces it.

You're not very good at this, are you?

Are you unable to read clear cut text? Stopping someone from fleeing only requires REASONABLE SUSPICION, which they had in spades.

No. They had NO reasonable suspicion. You need to look up the term.

 

[Faun]

As was the opinion of several lawyers who say that the McMichaels did not have Reasonable Suspicion by Georgia Law.

LOL

Yeah. You guys are starting to sound like a skit from The Onion.



No matter how many people tell you the truth you just won’t accept it. Fine with me. You can claim they are political prisoners. But think about this. The longer you protest the more you sound like the far leftists you detest who refuse to accept truth. The Bernie Bro’s who act like Socialism works if the right people are in charge as one example.

Yes they did have reasonable grounds. Burglary is a felony, and they knew about the break ins and burglaries in the neighborhood, the camera footage with an individual who looks similar to the one running. When the black man didn't respond to their shouting, that severely did not help.

LOL

Where was the burglary? In your pants?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The owner of the property Mr. English said nothing was ever taken, he did not know the McMichaels and only met one of them once when he bought the property. At no time did English ever ask McMichaels to do anything on his behalf. This begs the question what business was it of the McMichaels? Absolutely none. Do people in Georgia always find it agreeable to stick their nose in another mans business? The McMichaels seem to think so.

Bing

www.bing.com

It’s not up to him, they have property of concern, they don’t want a pattern developed it’s really simple. Go to the south side of Chicago

It is up to him. It is his property. Only he can file a complaint for Trespassing. And his testimony at the trial is going to be really harmful for the defense.

Nonsense...again you prove you lack legal expertise despite all your tutoring from para-legals bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa As has been pointed out to you many times nothing that happened before the black guy assaulted the younger McMichaels has any relevancy....no matter what happened before....even if he had been followed, harassed, or falsely arrested (none of which happened) gave him (the insane negro) the right to committ assault...try and wrap your head around that if you want to stop looking so stupid.

Again. That is where you are wrong according to actual lawyers.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

The most important part of this statute is the unwritten bit — you are allowed to make arrests only with “reasonable force.” You can’t burn down an orphanage to catch one child snatching extra bowls of gruel. And the Georgia Supreme Court has held, as a matter of law, that you can’t chase someone down with a weapon because you think they have committed burglary. For example, it held that there was no evidence of a “citizen’s arrest” when a man with a baseball bat chased down someone who burglarized his home.

The McMichaels will have a hard time establishing that a crime was committed within their presence or immediate knowledge. But even if they get past those serious hurtles, they’re still stuck justifying hemming an unarmed man in with a truck and guns when those acts are each serious felonies under Georgia law.

Actual Lawyers seem to think you are wrong. But what do they know. I assume you have a BAR card and are licensed in Georgia. I honestly hope you are on the way to take over the defense of the McMichaels because they need all the legal help they can get. Because actual Georgia law applies to actual cases and decided by the actual Georgia Supreme Court says you are actually wrong.

They did not do anything unreasonable in making the arrest.

He only got shot because he grabbed a gun, this is reasonable self defense.

In the state of Georgia (and I believe this is true in all 50 states) if you initiate a confrontation, you cannot claim self defense. To wit: If I punch you in the face, and you then pick up a stick and hit me with it, I can't claim self defense if I shoot you and kill you.

It's mind boggling to know that there are idiots in this world who do not see someone arming himself, getting into a truck and chasing someone, and then getting out of that truck, with a loaded shotgun, as not initiating a confrontation...

they didn't initiate a confrontation. there was at least 100 yards between the truck and the black man. no one from the truck did a thing to invoke a physical confrontation. The person who throws the first punch is always the one that starts a fight. who threw the first punch?

Who had the loaded weapon? That is assault, just like throwing a punch.

never made a threat. I can have a loaded weapon and not initiate a fight. they weren't near him, he moved to them. again, the video isn't your friend.

The video shows the younger suspect exiting the driver's side of the vehicle and the first shot was fired in front of the truck, how did he get there? Teleportation hasn't been invented yet.

By walking there. He was going to detain the suspect.

Walking is not illegal.

Detaining him was illegal. They have no right whatsoever to stop and detain him.

they never detained anyone. but sure they can. there isn't a law saying they can't. you are mistaken like a leftist now.

Holding someone against their will is the same as kidnapping, you fucking twit!

 

[jc456]

As was the opinion of several lawyers who say that the McMichaels did not have Reasonable Suspicion by Georgia Law.

LOL

Yeah. You guys are starting to sound like a skit from The Onion.



No matter how many people tell you the truth you just won’t accept it. Fine with me. You can claim they are political prisoners. But think about this. The longer you protest the more you sound like the far leftists you detest who refuse to accept truth. The Bernie Bro’s who act like Socialism works if the right people are in charge as one example.

Yes they did have reasonable grounds. Burglary is a felony, and they knew about the break ins and burglaries in the neighborhood, the camera footage with an individual who looks similar to the one running. When the black man didn't respond to their shouting, that severely did not help.

And if they were police they would probably be fine. But they aren’t. And there be the rub. Which is why the Legal Experts. You know those who went to school and then got licensed and then actually make their living doing this sort of thing. The Legal Experts say that they did not.

But it is worse. Really worse for the McMichaels. If Daddy recognized the suspect and did not share that with police then that is withholding information.

But it gets even worse. Let’s go to the trial. To prove Reasonable Suspicion even using your inaccurate definition they have to testify. In doing so they open the Prosecution to cross examine. How well do you think that will go? Why did you withhold the identity of the suspect from the police? Why did you not tell the 911 operator it was a trespassing case. He was wearing a t shirt and shorts. How much could he have possibly stolen from a construction site and concealed upon himself? Were you ever asked to watch the property?

Before the testimony is over every case he worked on will have filed appeals claiming that this case shows that McMichaels is dishonest and criminal. How many convicts will be released because of it? If he does not testify then no reasonable suspicion can be established, even by your definition.

You have no clue how much trouble those two are in. Why do I keep telling you to start funding their defense? Any Sentence for Daddy is probably a life sentence. And Junior will get at least twenty years. Right now their one hope is a strong which means very expensive defense. A lawyer who has successfully defended murder charges is not going to be cheap. And any attorney that takes it Pro Bono is not going to be worth having.

On the off chance that they are found not guilty. They will be homeless and unemployed. And you can’t use Kickstarter or other online fundraisers like that. They will not allow funds to be raised for criminal defense.

Now I have posted the links. You should know what they are facing. It is not political. It is Georgia Criminal Law. Something that we had a chance of starting to reform before this. Now we will be lucky if we don’t see some asinine hate crime law passed.

They were obviously monitoring the neighborhood for suspicious activity. Even the other 911 caller was and he was not even a cop as far as we know.

They had called 911 two weeks prior and one of their guns was stolen before.

If you leave a gun in an unlocked vehicle, you are partially responsible, dumbass!

And now we have moved to victim blaming.

Damn, you really hate the two heroic defenders of their community. Your community has no defenders?

You brought up an irrelevant theft of a gun, which the suspect left in an unlocked vehicle. By law, they are partially responsible for the theft.

The theft is highly relevant. String of thefts and unwarranted entries in a neighborhood. Guy runs when asked to stop... that's suspicious as fuck. Their suspicion was correct.

If you come at me with a gun, I damn sure am not going to stop! The theft was 2 months prior and nothing pointed to him being the thief. I honestly think you are brain damaged.

no one came at the man with a gun. they were parked. he went to them. he went to them, them that had a gun. you're still wrong. leftist like.

 

[jc456]

The owner of the property Mr. English said nothing was ever taken, he did not know the McMichaels and only met one of them once when he bought the property. At no time did English ever ask McMichaels to do anything on his behalf. This begs the question what business was it of the McMichaels? Absolutely none. Do people in Georgia always find it agreeable to stick their nose in another mans business? The McMichaels seem to think so.

Bing

www.bing.com

It’s not up to him, they have property of concern, they don’t want a pattern developed it’s really simple. Go to the south side of Chicago

It is up to him. It is his property. Only he can file a complaint for Trespassing. And his testimony at the trial is going to be really harmful for the defense.

Nonsense...again you prove you lack legal expertise despite all your tutoring from para-legals bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa As has been pointed out to you many times nothing that happened before the black guy assaulted the younger McMichaels has any relevancy....no matter what happened before....even if he had been followed, harassed, or falsely arrested (none of which happened) gave him (the insane negro) the right to committ assault...try and wrap your head around that if you want to stop looking so stupid.

Again. That is where you are wrong according to actual lawyers.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

The most important part of this statute is the unwritten bit — you are allowed to make arrests only with “reasonable force.” You can’t burn down an orphanage to catch one child snatching extra bowls of gruel. And the Georgia Supreme Court has held, as a matter of law, that you can’t chase someone down with a weapon because you think they have committed burglary. For example, it held that there was no evidence of a “citizen’s arrest” when a man with a baseball bat chased down someone who burglarized his home.

The McMichaels will have a hard time establishing that a crime was committed within their presence or immediate knowledge. But even if they get past those serious hurtles, they’re still stuck justifying hemming an unarmed man in with a truck and guns when those acts are each serious felonies under Georgia law.

Actual Lawyers seem to think you are wrong. But what do they know. I assume you have a BAR card and are licensed in Georgia. I honestly hope you are on the way to take over the defense of the McMichaels because they need all the legal help they can get. Because actual Georgia law applies to actual cases and decided by the actual Georgia Supreme Court says you are actually wrong.

They did not do anything unreasonable in making the arrest.

He only got shot because he grabbed a gun, this is reasonable self defense.

In the state of Georgia (and I believe this is true in all 50 states) if you initiate a confrontation, you cannot claim self defense. To wit: If I punch you in the face, and you then pick up a stick and hit me with it, I can't claim self defense if I shoot you and kill you.

It's mind boggling to know that there are idiots in this world who do not see someone arming himself, getting into a truck and chasing someone, and then getting out of that truck, with a loaded shotgun, as not initiating a confrontation...

they didn't initiate a confrontation. there was at least 100 yards between the truck and the black man. no one from the truck did a thing to invoke a physical confrontation. The person who throws the first punch is always the one that starts a fight. who threw the first punch?

Who had the loaded weapon? That is assault, just like throwing a punch.

never made a threat. I can have a loaded weapon and not initiate a fight. they weren't near him, he moved to them. again, the video isn't your friend.

The video shows the younger suspect exiting the driver's side of the vehicle and the first shot was fired in front of the truck, how did he get there? Teleportation hasn't been invented yet.

By walking there. He was going to detain the suspect.

Walking is not illegal.

Detaining him was illegal. They have no right whatsoever to stop and detain him.

they never detained anyone. but sure they can. there isn't a law saying they can't. you are mistaken like a leftist now.

Holding someone against their will is the same as kidnapping, you fucking twit!

not if they contacted the cops and they are on their way. citizen arrest allows that. man dude you are now full pledged leftist.

 

[jc456]

The owner of the property Mr. English said nothing was ever taken, he did not know the McMichaels and only met one of them once when he bought the property. At no time did English ever ask McMichaels to do anything on his behalf. This begs the question what business was it of the McMichaels? Absolutely none. Do people in Georgia always find it agreeable to stick their nose in another mans business? The McMichaels seem to think so.

Bing

www.bing.com

It’s not up to him, they have property of concern, they don’t want a pattern developed it’s really simple. Go to the south side of Chicago

It is up to him. It is his property. Only he can file a complaint for Trespassing. And his testimony at the trial is going to be really harmful for the defense.

Nonsense...again you prove you lack legal expertise despite all your tutoring from para-legals bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa As has been pointed out to you many times nothing that happened before the black guy assaulted the younger McMichaels has any relevancy....no matter what happened before....even if he had been followed, harassed, or falsely arrested (none of which happened) gave him (the insane negro) the right to committ assault...try and wrap your head around that if you want to stop looking so stupid.

Again. That is where you are wrong according to actual lawyers.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

The most important part of this statute is the unwritten bit — you are allowed to make arrests only with “reasonable force.” You can’t burn down an orphanage to catch one child snatching extra bowls of gruel. And the Georgia Supreme Court has held, as a matter of law, that you can’t chase someone down with a weapon because you think they have committed burglary. For example, it held that there was no evidence of a “citizen’s arrest” when a man with a baseball bat chased down someone who burglarized his home.

The McMichaels will have a hard time establishing that a crime was committed within their presence or immediate knowledge. But even if they get past those serious hurtles, they’re still stuck justifying hemming an unarmed man in with a truck and guns when those acts are each serious felonies under Georgia law.

Actual Lawyers seem to think you are wrong. But what do they know. I assume you have a BAR card and are licensed in Georgia. I honestly hope you are on the way to take over the defense of the McMichaels because they need all the legal help they can get. Because actual Georgia law applies to actual cases and decided by the actual Georgia Supreme Court says you are actually wrong.

They did not do anything unreasonable in making the arrest.

He only got shot because he grabbed a gun, this is reasonable self defense.

In the state of Georgia (and I believe this is true in all 50 states) if you initiate a confrontation, you cannot claim self defense. To wit: If I punch you in the face, and you then pick up a stick and hit me with it, I can't claim self defense if I shoot you and kill you.

It's mind boggling to know that there are idiots in this world who do not see someone arming himself, getting into a truck and chasing someone, and then getting out of that truck, with a loaded shotgun, as not initiating a confrontation...

Then how can you make a citizens arrest? To wit: I see a thug running out of my house ... then what happens?

That's not what happened here.

Focus.

Travis McMichael could not legally make a citizen's arrest because Arbery committed no crime in his presence, nor did McMichael have immediate, first hand knowledge of the crime. "First hand" means that Daddy McMichael telling Junior that Arbery committed a crime is insufficient to effect a citizen's arrest.

Had Daddy gotten his lard-ass out of the back of the truck, an argument might be able to be made that, since he allegedly saw the video, that he could make a citizen's arrest...

Reasonable suspicion is enough. For someone who lives in Georgia you certainly don't know the law, and apparently can't even read the thread since the law was already posted here.

By the way, fleeing itself can generate reasonable suspicion. Of course in this case, the suspicion turned out to be correct. It's also possible that they heard screams for the man to stop.

Well, if anyone needed further proof that you're a no-nothing dipshit, you just provided it here, dumbass.

I don't live in Georgia, and I've never claimed to.

I read from the Georgia Bar Association website:

"Citizen’s Arrests - As a private citizen, you have no authority to arrest anyone with a warrant. Without a warrant, you may arrest anyone who commits a misdemeanor or a felony in your presence or with your immediate knowledge. A citizen’s arrest occurs when a citizen prevents a suspect from leaving a scene. Citizen’s arrest most often happens in cases like shoplifting, when the store’s manager detains the suspected offender."

https://www.gabar.org/forthepublic/forteachersstudents/lre/teacherresources/upload/ch16.pdf

Arbery committed no crime in the presence of Travis McMichael, nor did Travis McMichael have immediate knowledge of any crime committed by Arbery. An example of "immediate knowledge" would be, say, a woman yelling to you that the guy running away from her carrying a woman's purse just stole her purse.

But, just for fun, let's pretend that Travis McMichael was in a position to legally perform a citizen's arrest of Arbery. The law in Georgia states: "When making a citizen’s arrest, a person may not use more force than is reasonable to make the arrest. Deadly force is limited to self-defense or to instances in which such force is necessary to prevent certain felonies."

Hopping out of the truck with a gun is clearly not the use of a minimum amount of force. In fact it's an unwarranted escalation of force for someone who's running down the road. So, as soon as his feet hit the ground he fucked up.

Now, even though you're too ignorant to wrap your head around this, we already know there's no legitimate claim to self-defense, simply because Travis and Gregory McMichael initiated the entire incident.

Lastly, deadly force is authorized to prevent someone from committing certain felonies, but not all. It's a felony to embezzle money from an employer. Deadly force is not authorized to stop it. Likewise, if Arbery had stolen something from a construction site days prior, that felony has not only already been committed, but it was committed outside the view or knowledge of Travis McMichael.

But none of those things are what happened.

I know you're not a fan of facts, but there ya' go...

I already posted the law it allows for arrest for only reasonable suspicion.

Stop spreading your fake news sources.

Fake news?? You don't like what it says so it's "fake news"?

You are slowly, but ever so surely, redefining the term "ignorant dipshit".

The source quoted in my post isn't a "fake news source", Zippy. It's the website for the Georgia State Bar Association.

You've just relegated yourself to "idiot clown" status. Nothing you say has value. Your opinions mean dick. You and your idiot ramblings are utterly meaningless...

Whatever it is, is not the law. Looks like fake news.

Here is the law.

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

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.

And you look like a complete fool.

I think we can agree that Arbery committed no crime in the presence of Travis McMichael, so we can dispense with that. As for ""immediate knowledge", no one reported the crime immediately following it being committed, nor was it reported to Travis McMichael by the property owner.

Travis McMichael had no legal standing to make a citizen's arrest. None. It didn't exist.

Your attempt to negate the point I was making actually reinforces it.

You're not very good at this, are you?

Are you unable to read clear cut text? Stopping someone from fleeing only requires REASONABLE SUSPICION, which they had in spades.

No. They had NO reasonable suspicion. You need to look up the term.

there is no such thing as reasonable suspicion. now you're making shit up.

 

[Norman]

The owner of the property Mr. English said nothing was ever taken, he did not know the McMichaels and only met one of them once when he bought the property. At no time did English ever ask McMichaels to do anything on his behalf. This begs the question what business was it of the McMichaels? Absolutely none. Do people in Georgia always find it agreeable to stick their nose in another mans business? The McMichaels seem to think so.

Bing

www.bing.com

It’s not up to him, they have property of concern, they don’t want a pattern developed it’s really simple. Go to the south side of Chicago

It is up to him. It is his property. Only he can file a complaint for Trespassing. And his testimony at the trial is going to be really harmful for the defense.

Nonsense...again you prove you lack legal expertise despite all your tutoring from para-legals bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa As has been pointed out to you many times nothing that happened before the black guy assaulted the younger McMichaels has any relevancy....no matter what happened before....even if he had been followed, harassed, or falsely arrested (none of which happened) gave him (the insane negro) the right to committ assault...try and wrap your head around that if you want to stop looking so stupid.

Again. That is where you are wrong according to actual lawyers.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

The most important part of this statute is the unwritten bit — you are allowed to make arrests only with “reasonable force.” You can’t burn down an orphanage to catch one child snatching extra bowls of gruel. And the Georgia Supreme Court has held, as a matter of law, that you can’t chase someone down with a weapon because you think they have committed burglary. For example, it held that there was no evidence of a “citizen’s arrest” when a man with a baseball bat chased down someone who burglarized his home.

The McMichaels will have a hard time establishing that a crime was committed within their presence or immediate knowledge. But even if they get past those serious hurtles, they’re still stuck justifying hemming an unarmed man in with a truck and guns when those acts are each serious felonies under Georgia law.

Actual Lawyers seem to think you are wrong. But what do they know. I assume you have a BAR card and are licensed in Georgia. I honestly hope you are on the way to take over the defense of the McMichaels because they need all the legal help they can get. Because actual Georgia law applies to actual cases and decided by the actual Georgia Supreme Court says you are actually wrong.

They did not do anything unreasonable in making the arrest.

He only got shot because he grabbed a gun, this is reasonable self defense.

In the state of Georgia (and I believe this is true in all 50 states) if you initiate a confrontation, you cannot claim self defense. To wit: If I punch you in the face, and you then pick up a stick and hit me with it, I can't claim self defense if I shoot you and kill you.

It's mind boggling to know that there are idiots in this world who do not see someone arming himself, getting into a truck and chasing someone, and then getting out of that truck, with a loaded shotgun, as not initiating a confrontation...

they didn't initiate a confrontation. there was at least 100 yards between the truck and the black man. no one from the truck did a thing to invoke a physical confrontation. The person who throws the first punch is always the one that starts a fight. who threw the first punch?

Who had the loaded weapon? That is assault, just like throwing a punch.

never made a threat. I can have a loaded weapon and not initiate a fight. they weren't near him, he moved to them. again, the video isn't your friend.

The video shows the younger suspect exiting the driver's side of the vehicle and the first shot was fired in front of the truck, how did he get there? Teleportation hasn't been invented yet.

By walking there. He was going to detain the suspect.

Walking is not illegal.

Detaining him was illegal. They have no right whatsoever to stop and detain him.

they never detained anyone. but sure they can. there isn't a law saying they can't. you are mistaken like a leftist now.

Holding someone against their will is the same as kidnapping, you fucking twit!

Making arrest is legal under probable cause. The black man was also guilty of resisting an arrest.