New development in the shooting case of the black georgia jogger

[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.

If I ever inject "the opinion of several lawyers" in any argument, then you can laugh too. Fair enough?

Here are two lawyers discussing the case. One who has been involved in many civil rights cases.



Discussion starts at 8 minute mark.

Wow! What a grabage piece of fake news. YouTube no less!

 

[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.

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

You know less about the law than a fucking 5-year old.

 

[Norman]

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.

If I ever inject "the opinion of several lawyers" in any argument, then you can laugh too. Fair enough?

Here are two lawyers discussing the case. One who has been involved in many civil rights cases.



Discussion starts at 8 minute mark.

Wow! What a grabage piece of fake news. YouTube no less!

Two lawyers are now fake news?

Conservatives who never conserved anything are fake conservatives.

Tell us where they went wrong...

 

[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!

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

For about the 40th time, there was no fucking probable cause!

 

[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.

If I ever inject "the opinion of several lawyers" in any argument, then you can laugh too. Fair enough?

Here are two lawyers discussing the case. One who has been involved in many civil rights cases.



Discussion starts at 8 minute mark.

Wow! What a grabage piece of fake news. YouTube no less!

Two lawyers are now fake news?

Conservatives who never conserved anything are fake conservatives.

YouTube is fake news, especially if it is as moronic as you are!

 

[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.

You know less about the law than a fucking 5-year old.

I still know more than you.

 

[Canon Shooter]

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

Are you saying they had probable cause because they saw him running?

Remember, now, they had no knowledge, whatsoever, of any alleged crime that he may have been running from>

Just him running is enough to establish probable cause that a crime has been committed?

 

[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.

If I ever inject "the opinion of several lawyers" in any argument, then you can laugh too. Fair enough?

Here are two lawyers discussing the case. One who has been involved in many civil rights cases.



Discussion starts at 8 minute mark.

Wow! What a grabage piece of fake news. YouTube no less!

Two lawyers are now fake news?

Conservatives who never conserved anything are fake conservatives.

YouTube is fake news, especially if it is as moronic as you are!

the video though doesn't lie.

 

[jc456]

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

Are you saying they had probable cause because they saw him running?

Remember, now, they had no knowledge, whatsoever, of any alleged crime that he may have been running from>

Just him running is enough to establish probable cause that a crime has been committed?

not rehashing the entire thread with you.. go read the thread from the beginning.

 

[Mac-7]

We need to dig up the history of the two racist murderers.

What is your evidence that they are racists?

 

[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.

I invited you to come on down to Georgia before. Come on down. Park in the road. Wave a shotgun around. Georgia will really love you for it. They will like you so much they will invite you to stay for a few years. Tell the cops they don’t know the law. Tell the Prosecutor. Do not call on an attorney to defend you. Do it yourself. Tell the Judge it is all political. They will really love that.

Now at some point, say between three and twenty years later. Georgia will release you to continue your rants about how they don’t know their own laws.

The cops did know the law, and that's why they did not arrest the two white heroes who caught a robber.

Are you of the opinion that the initial decision made by the police or by a prosecutor is infallible and should always be considered correct?

Second time I'm asking. I wonder why you're afraid to answer...

No, but it sure as hell doesn't bolster your case. No new facts have come out that are beneficial to the prosecutor, to the contrary.

That doesn't make sense.

You're commenting on the actions of the police and the prosecutor at the time of the incident and you're stating that, at that time, they made the proper call. Anything that's come to light after that is of no consequence. You're not arguing that, after two months, you believe they made the right call. You're arguing that the call was the right one to make at the time.

Those are different...

The facts that have come out are of only detrimental nature to the prosecution. And more will almost certainly be coming out. If Arbery had not committed big crimes it's very unlikely he had run like that and attacked a man with a shotgun.

Politically motivated case...

Big crimes?

 

[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!

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

For about the 40th time, there was no fucking probable cause!

you have no idea. people called 911, that made it probable cause whether there was an actual robbery or not.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Facts of this case......a father and son associated with law enforcement and never in trouble of any kind, never arrested for anything but are called criminals by the liberals

vs.

The black jogger............who comidtted a felony (brought a gun to school) was convicted placed on 5 yrs probation.

The he engaged in theft thus violating his probation.....but nothing was done...he should have been in jail. If he had been where he belonged he would still be alive.

Yet the liberals want us to believe he is just so innocent...he ranks right up there with Mother Teresa
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Then just like the the Zimmerman case the media plays games with photos..........show the best possible photo of the black dude they could find......but show the white dudes in their jail outfit.

Keep tuned this case is getting crazier by the second.

Latest development....video emerges of the black dude visiting that same home at night....what is that all about? Did he have some sort of obsession with that house....maybe Satan lured him there...as in the devil made him do it???

Miscarriage of justice,, poor guys are being lynched by democrats

And the Earth is Flat. We faked the moon landing. Artificial Sweeteners are good for you, and Anna Nicole married for Love. Any other insane conspiracy theories you believe in besides these?

They did nothing wrong, if you stop pretending the black did nothing wrong it might dawn on you that this is serious. These men deserve to be treated fairly. Just stop pretending this kid did nothing wrong it insane.

Oh, they'll be treated fairly -- once they're incarcerated. Inmates love cops.

you sound like a terrorist.. you want two innocent men in jail to die for political reasons, to race bait.. you are a terrorist

Well they murdered someone, so why is it unfair for them to face the same consequences?

In self defense? You terrorist

It wasn't in self defense. Georgia law does not protect the aggressor in an altercation with self defense. And Travis McMichael was the aggressor by arming himself with no knowledge of Arbery but with the intent to chase him down and stop him.

We clearly see the black kid darting in front of the truck to attack the son.. standing there with a shotgun is not an active and aggression he saying stop stop we want to talk to you

Liar, McMichael couldn't have just been standing there. Scotty didn't beam him from about 4 feet to the left of the truck to being in front of it.

He was asking him to stop so they could talk..

Which brings me back to ... with Travis block the road with a shotgun, why should Arbery have assumed they only wanted to talk?

Because they had been chasing the person for a good time. There is more info on this in the police report. But it is very inconceivable that at this point, he did not know what the deal was.

There was no reason for them to stop Arbery so there was no reason for why Arbery would know why they wanted him to stop.

They suspected him of burglary.

He was reported to 911.

No reason? Please...

How did they know he was suspected of burglary if the call went to 911?

maybe they live across the street or something. why do you think it matters? I can stop anyone and ask them questions. you still haven't answered why you feel that's a crime.

They don't live across the street. Brandishing a gun is illegal dumbass!

If they just wanted to talk to him, why carry a gun?

post the statute then. The guy in the back of the truck an ex police officer I'd think knows his laws and what he can do. Experience they call that. why does it matter if they had a gun? you still didn't answer. In fact you haven't answered or provided any evidence for your position. I have the video for mine. still waiting.

Why should I do that? It has been posted numerous times in the thread. Are you too fucking lazy to do your homework. What are you 12 years old?

well it states pointing a weapon. you still haven't stated when that happened. why not? five times now I've asked you to show us that evidence. Why do you avoid that? so,so far no statute has been posted to describe a crime.

The suspect obviously points the gun at the victim and in the struggle shoots the victim. Watch the video with your eyes open. That might help, dumbass!

obviously when? tell me where in the video that occurs. come on son, I've asked now six times. you still avoid the answer. what you said is inadmissible at this point.

it happens in front of the truck - the first of three shots. As the shooter and victim struggle for control of the shotgun as the fight moves to the left. The man who was shot for jogging while black is the only one acting in self defense because he was attacked.


View attachment 335636

He was attacked while charging... this must be the stupidest thing I read all day.

Once the person charged at a man with shotgun, yeah he was attacked as SELF DEFENSE.

Why are these people so perplexed by something so obvious?

Because they are adult children aka. leftists.

And then a few conservatives who are very content on never EVER conserving anything.

This isn’t self defense when two armed people block the path of an unarmed man for no reason of their own and shoot him in the chest, it’s an execution.

BTW I’m not a leftist, I’m a church going, God praising,Trump Supporting conservative and a 40 year registered Republican. What I’m not is a conservative sheeple who feels like they have to justify stupidity by making it a political issue.

You must not have watched the video....it is clear as day that the jogger had plenty of room to keep on jogging down the road...his path was not blocked.

It is also very clear that the jogger veered to the left and attacked the guy with the shotgun.

I will tell you what you really are ---a politically correct moron that is very confused....let me try and help you....first quit watching the alphabet media news and fox is not much better.....the media are the ones who have made this case a political case....essentially engaging in race baiting to incite hysteria amongst blacks as well as a lot of duped white folk.

Let me ask you this since you think the white guy shot the black guy in cold blood? Since that is what you believe...if it is true he must have had some reason for committing murder. What was his motive?

Also you need to remember the father called the police before they took off in pursuit of the black criminal...vigilantes do not call the police.

Something else ....do you know the criminal history of the black dude....he took a gun to school....a felony. He was placed on 5yrs probation for that and then violated his probation by stealing...at the time of his death he was in violation of his probation....he should have been in jail but because of black privilege aka the double-standard that comes into play when blacks committ crimes.

Also the black guy had a mental history...the former D.A.cited his mental history as one reason they did not put him in jail....someone had sympathy for him because he had mental problems..

Rest assured I saw the video. I saw two armed individuals illegally blocking a jogger.
Arberys past has zero to do with this incident unless you are saying that the McMichaels knew Arbreys wrap sheet before this incident which could be seen as some level of premeditation on the part of the McMichaels. The reality is according to the police Arbery had no stolen property on him nor was he armed. Two against one, guns,not good odds to charge someone. It was straight up bullying of Arbery not protecting the neighborhood and not citizens arrest.

Where do you see this?

On every news station out there.

View attachment 335679

In the video Arbery’s jogging down the road. The truck as you can see is stopped, the truck door is open and to the right there’s one of the McMichaels standing in the road. Arbery’s swerves to the yellow arrow so as not to pass by the door and McMichael in the street waiting for him. After that the camera pans and it’s hard to see until McMichael and Arbery’s are fighting over the gun. They chased, blocked and harassed Arbery. They had no right to do so. They knew they were armed. They killed a 25 year old over nothing. They violated Arbery’s rights. That’s what the jury will see. They will rot in jail now that the feds are investigating and they don’t have the protection of the local police department.

of

First of all he is not standing to the right...he is standing to the left and slightly to the front of the truck. Your first mistake

Now for your second error.....arbery does not swerve to the yellow arrow...instead he goes to the right to get around the truck Then he immediately swerves to the left and attacks the white guy standing there with the shotgun.....if you watch the video again look through the windshield and you will see the black guy crossing
the front of the truck and attacking the white guy trying to take away his gun.

No...they did not chase....they simply followed him in the truck and then went ahead of him and parked....at no time was arbery blocked...he had plenty of room to get around the truck and he did and then instead of jogging on down the road he quickly swerved to the left and attacked the white guy.

When you have a weapon and someone attacks you and tries to get possession of your weapon you are legally entitled to use lethal force in self defense..spelled out by the Georgia law on self defense.

Thus it is easily seen your narrative is full of holes...you have a severe lack of ability to observe and report what is readily seen by most. Why is that? Some kind of cognitive problem?
Watch the video again...I am talking about the complete video.....not the edited one the msm has put out....maybe that is what got you confused...you watched the wrong video???

He went around the truck. Your words. Why? Because McMichael was in the road BLOCKING HIS WAY. If he hadn’t felt threatened, if he hadn’t been blocked by McMichael and the truck door which is wide open, he would have passed to the left of the truck. But clearly he was blocked and went to the right.

Chase was the word the police used, not mine. The police said McMichael CHASED Arbery, not followed. Read the articles I posted it’s there.

you are neglecting to acknowledge they fact that the McMichaels aren’t cops. It’s not their job to follow, chase or confront anyone. It’s not their job to assume somebody they don’t know on a property of someone they don’t know is a thief. Their job it to report it and let the cops handle it not go all Wild West on a stranger gun him down in the middle of the road. You refuse to acknowledge that McMichael had no business being in that road committing a traffic violation. Arbery wouldn’t have been anywhere near McMichael if McMichael hadn’t been acting like a dick and instigated the whole thing. They gave chase, confronted a person and shot him for nothing and now they have to pay the price.

Ridiculous commentary. Anyhow.....again.....the white guys did nothing illegal.

The black guy was a criminal...as in had a criminal record. Took a gun to school....stole stuff...violated his probation ....should have been in jail but nothing was done....thus he roamed the streets day and night apparantly doing some very weird stuff....but the mdeia is doing their best to put him up there on the shelf with mother teresa.

Speaking of mothers ahmuad's mother did love him...must have been a difficult thing to do. but i guess once you give birth there is a bond formed even if the kid is a mental defect.

Why should he have been in jail? His probation was over!

Speaking of mental defects, how are you today?

Because he was a burglar.

You know this how?

 

[protectionist]

For about the 40th time, there was no fucking probable cause!

One doesn't need probable cause for self-defense. We have a false arrest.

 

[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...

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.

Which part of SUSPICION do you not understand?

He did not need to commit a thing. Further, you did not provide ANY evidence that he did not commit a burglary.

 

[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!

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

For about the 40th time, there was no fucking probable cause!

you have no idea. people called 911, that made it probable cause whether there was an actual robbery or not.

No. What did the 911 call say, since you are the expert?

 

[Norman]

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.

If I ever inject "the opinion of several lawyers" in any argument, then you can laugh too. Fair enough?

Here are two lawyers discussing the case. One who has been involved in many civil rights cases.



Discussion starts at 8 minute mark.

Wow! What a grabage piece of fake news. YouTube no less!

Two lawyers are now fake news?

Conservatives who never conserved anything are fake conservatives.

YouTube is fake news, especially if it is as moronic as you are!

Two lawyers one who has taken civil rights cases like the one where people were treated like dogs in prison is now fake news?

You truly are a total moron.

 

[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.

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

Arbery did not commit a felony.

Game over.

Which part of SUSPICION do you not understand?

He did not need to commit a thing. Further, you did not provide ANY evidence that he did not commit a burglary.

Did he commit a felony in the property? No.

No felony = no burglary = no suspicion.

 

[MarcATL]

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?

Can you describe what things must have looked like from the jogger's perspective?

 

[Faun]

She sounds dumb as a rock....pobably a negro...aka low i.q. aka....brainwashed and braindead.

You can't buy idiot dipshit moments like this...

This female raised a criminal! He’s breaking into houses he’s attacking people with guns! He’s bringing handguns to school to shoot it up.. She’s a horrible mother she should be in jail we should’ve did this back in the 70s with these black mothers welfare queens

What houses did he break into? What did he steal?

He didn't bring a gun to school to "shoot it up". He brought a gun onto school property; very different.

And how in the holy fuck have you determined that she's a "black mother welfare queen"? Does your racism run so deep that you've decided that no black woman can have a decent job and provide for her family?

I'd like the authorities to arrest you mother. She deserves to be in prison for raising such an absolute fucking dipshit...

She’s a horrible mother she should be in jail for raising a failure of a child! She’s asking for these two innocent meant to die she should be fucking sent back to Africa

Why should she be sent "back to Africa?" Is she even from there?

You should be smart and put Jizz on "ignore". Anyone with common sense has already done so as he is a racist and a moron on top of that.

I don't put anyone on ignore. Especially idiots like him who crack me up.