Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
I was reading a news story, a couple of days ago, about a completely unrelated case and found myself nodding in agreement with what had happened, and then I realized that it had certain parallels with this case that made me very uncomfortable.
In the case of the McMichaels, I have said that the crime was in threatening the jogger. Having done so, the jogger was entitled to self defense, which, in this case, meant that the jogger, Arbery, grabbed Travis McMichael's gun. The fact that McMichael was in danger at that moment is not a valid legal defense, because he had placed himself in that danger by threatening Arbery.
I'm going to have to be slightly coy about the story I read yesterday in order to not poison the well against one of the participants, but the story had a lot of similarities. A man was seen committing a crime. It was not a crime that put anyone in any danger of death or injury. (i.e, there was no element of self defense involved with regards to the suspect.) Two people, having seen the man, grabbed guns, and chased him. Guns were drawn and pointed at the fleeing criminal. One of the people chasing the man got very close, and the fleeing suspect turned and grabbed the gun. While the two struggled for control of the gun, the second person who had been chasing the fleeing suspect fired multiple shots at and hit the suspect. He did not die, but was taken to a hospital in critical condition.
I found myself thinking very positively about the two gun weilding chasers, but then I thought of the incident that sparked this thread, and started asking myself what was so different. Was it only that I started out with an opinion of the McMichaels as Georgia racist rednecks, or was there something truly different?
So, let's get to one obvious difference. In the story I read yesterday, the two people chasing the suspect actually saw the man committing a crime. In the case of the McMichaels, they merely suspected Arbery had committed a crime. (Trespassing, while technically a crime, is really not worth calling a crime, and would never be prosecuted under the circumstance. They suspected Arbery was a thief, not just a trespasser.)
Other than that, there's a lot of similarity. In both cases, the people chasing the suspect were attempting to effect a citizen's arrest. The suspect fled, but when cornered attempted to take the gun from the chaser, and ended up getting shot himself.
It has all of the elements that I said made the McMichaels guilty. The biggest difference was that they were actually witnesses to an actual crime, instead of just believing that they had caught a criminal, but without evidence. Despite that, I found myself thinking that the people from yesterday's story had done a good deed.
No mention of anyone's race was made in the story.
Ok....the rest of the story.
As I said, I didn't want to poison the well. The crime which the man committed was voyeurism and exhibitionism. He was peeping into the window of a 10 year old girl's room, and masturbating. The people chasing him were the girl's parents. The parents did not set out to kill the man, or even shoot him, but they were trying to arrest him so the cops could pick him up. The woman was the one who got close. The criminal grabbed her gun, and the husband shot the guy.
Now, no jury in the world would convict them. An awful lot of people think it would have been ok if they had just plain shot him without ever trying to apprehend him.
Knowing that he is a super-creepy pedophile, we instantly turn against him, but at its heart, here is the same story. If you ask me in advance, I would say use a camera, not a gun. I wouldn't want private citizens going around and pointing guns at people, even if they think those people are criminals. All the arguments I made in the Arbery case would apply in this case as well.
And yet, I feel like the parents in this story did the right thing. Is it just that I actually believe in the guilt of the man they shot, while I don't believe in Arbery's guilt? If the McMichaels had actually caught Arbery stealing, would their actions have been ok? It just made me think about my reaction to the Arbery case versus this one. Is the difference in my reaction just based on a sympathetic view of the people who pulled the guns?
There is a very big difference... the person in this case actually was committing a serious felony punishable by years in prison, and he was actually caught in the act of committing that felony.
In the Santilla Shores jogger case, Arbury, was not committing any crime at all. The McMichaels' and Bryant only thought that he might have been the same guy that might have stolen a gun from McMichaels senior's car some weeks earlier.
Here is how you tell the difference.
Putting aside for a moment the fact that Arbury was black, and that in Georgia, just being Black is regarded by most Rednecks as a crime in and of itself, which of these two; the person in your story, or Arbury, would have presented probable cause to be detained and arrested by a fair and reasonable LEO, and subsequently charged with a felony?
Answer that question, and you answer your question.
I'm going to have to be slightly coy about the story I read yesterday in order to not poison the well against one of the participants, but the story had a lot of similarities. A man was seen committing a crime. It was not a crime that put anyone in any danger of death or injury. (i.e, there was no element of self defense involved with regards to the suspect.)
Reading your summary, my initial reaction was to view the armed chasers in exactly the same way that I viewed the McMichaels' - as overzealous vigilantes who should be condemned for trying to pretend to be the law when they are not.
I still strongly hold that they should NOT have chased the perpetrator with guns. FWIW, I'm pro-gun, and we own several firearms. But you just don't go chasing people with them - they're for sport and for self-defense, not for playing cowboy.
That said... I have some comments regarding the spoilered bit.
I think your assessment that the crime didn't put anyone in danger. Granted, it wasn't impending danger... but it's the kind of behavior that is reasonable to assume represents a danger to their 10 yo child. A grown adult peeping through a window and masturbating to a 10 year old child *is* a danger to that child.
I can understand the parents' inclination to chase and apprehend him, but as you said, I think that photos and video turned over to the police would have been a much better approach. Also, warning to all of the other neighbors in the area.
"Well IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SET OF EVENTS a totally different person committed a crime, so isn't the black guy getting shotgunned down in the street sort of okay?"
**** that. **** that so much.
And **** "sHOw mE wheRE anYEONe is SAYing ThAT!" even harder.
I was reading a news story, a couple of days ago, about a completely unrelated case and found myself nodding in agreement with what had happened, and then I realized that it had certain parallels with this case that made me very uncomfortable.
In the case of the McMichaels, I have said that the crime was in threatening the jogger. Having done so, the jogger was entitled to self defense, which, in this case, meant that the jogger, Arbery, grabbed Travis McMichael's gun. The fact that McMichael was in danger at that moment is not a valid legal defense, because he had placed himself in that danger by threatening Arbery.
I'm going to have to be slightly coy about the story I read yesterday in order to not poison the well against one of the participants, but the story had a lot of similarities. A man was seen committing a crime. It was not a crime that put anyone in any danger of death or injury. (i.e, there was no element of self defense involved with regards to the suspect.) Two people, having seen the man, grabbed guns, and chased him. Guns were drawn and pointed at the fleeing criminal. One of the people chasing the man got very close, and the fleeing suspect turned and grabbed the gun. While the two struggled for control of the gun, the second person who had been chasing the fleeing suspect fired multiple shots at and hit the suspect. He did not die, but was taken to a hospital in critical condition.
I found myself thinking very positively about the two gun weilding chasers, but then I thought of the incident that sparked this thread, and started asking myself what was so different. Was it only that I started out with an opinion of the McMichaels as Georgia racist rednecks, or was there something truly different?
So, let's get to one obvious difference. In the story I read yesterday, the two people chasing the suspect actually saw the man committing a crime. In the case of the McMichaels, they merely suspected Arbery had committed a crime. (Trespassing, while technically a crime, is really not worth calling a crime, and would never be prosecuted under the circumstance. They suspected Arbery was a thief, not just a trespasser.)
Other than that, there's a lot of similarity. In both cases, the people chasing the suspect were attempting to effect a citizen's arrest. The suspect fled, but when cornered attempted to take the gun from the chaser, and ended up getting shot himself.
It has all of the elements that I said made the McMichaels guilty. The biggest difference was that they were actually witnesses to an actual crime, instead of just believing that they had caught a criminal, but without evidence. Despite that, I found myself thinking that the people from yesterday's story had done a good deed.
No mention of anyone's race was made in the story.
Ok....the rest of the story.
As I said, I didn't want to poison the well. The crime which the man committed was voyeurism and exhibitionism. He was peeping into the window of a 10 year old girl's room, and masturbating. The people chasing him were the girl's parents. The parents did not set out to kill the man, or even shoot him, but they were trying to arrest him so the cops could pick him up. The woman was the one who got close. The criminal grabbed her gun, and the husband shot the guy.
Now, no jury in the world would convict them. An awful lot of people think it would have been ok if they had just plain shot him without ever trying to apprehend him.
Knowing that he is a super-creepy pedophile, we instantly turn against him, but at its heart, here is the same story. If you ask me in advance, I would say use a camera, not a gun. I wouldn't want private citizens going around and pointing guns at people, even if they think those people are criminals. All the arguments I made in the Arbery case would apply in this case as well.
And yet, I feel like the parents in this story did the right thing. Is it just that I actually believe in the guilt of the man they shot, while I don't believe in Arbery's guilt? If the McMichaels had actually caught Arbery stealing, would their actions have been ok? It just made me think about my reaction to the Arbery case versus this one. Is the difference in my reaction just based on a sympathetic view of the people who pulled the guns?
An interesting comparison and a pretty good thought experiment to tease out some of the subtleties. And a good job of not poisoning the well (there was more than enough well poisoning to go around in the post after yours).
An additional difference is not only that they knew the guy committed a crime, but that the crime was in progress on their property. Additionally, a case might be made that they wouldn't have felt safe confronting the guy without weapons and they wanted the behavior to end immediately.
"Well IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SET OF EVENTS a totally different person committed a crime, so isn't the black guy getting shotgunned down in the street sort of okay?"
"Well IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SET OF EVENTS a totally different person committed a crime, so isn't the black guy getting shotgunned down in the street sort of okay?"
**** that. **** that so much.
And **** "sHOw mE wheRE anYEONe is SAYing ThAT!" even harder.
Putting aside for a moment the fact that Arbury was black, and that in Georgia, just being Black is regarded by most Rednecks as a crime in and of itself, which of these two; the person in your story, or Arbury, would have presented probable cause to be detained and arrested by a fair and reasonable LEO, and subsequently charged with a felony?
Answer that question, and you answer your question.
Yes, I see your point. I'm not absolutely certain in the eyes of the law, but it makes sense.
It still seems like it's giving the green light for people to go vigilante on chasing down someone if they are certain that he is a criminal and the police would do the same thing.
"Well IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SET OF EVENTS a totally different person committed a crime, so isn't the black guy getting shotgunned down in the street sort of okay?"
**** that. **** that so much.
And **** "sHOw mE wheRE anYEONe is SAYing ThAT!" even harder.
I still think you don't chase someone with guns unless you're willing to kill them. You don't follow someone off your property with the intent to kill them for crimes that are not death penalty crimes.
Don't know if the crime is death penalty crime? Don't follow them with a gun. Scared for your safety while following? Don't follow them.
I feel for the parents here. If I had been that father I might have gone out with a baseball bat and taken my chances with getting charged with assault. Actually I would have wanted to run him down with my car. But I wouldn't. I hope.
If you're going to follow them stay back for your safety. Take pictures, get license plate numbers (apparently not applicable in this case), call the cops and get them following as soon as you can. Tell the cops where the guy is.
But don't go out with a gun unless you intend to kill, and know that if you do you're likely committing murder. Not just some kind of "technically" murder, but actual murder where you are in the wrong and killed someone.
Just to bring some balance, here is a story from a few years ago about a father who caught a man in the act of sexually assaulting his 11 year old son, and gave him a brutal beating. (The molester is not a pretty sight on the video)
"Well IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SET OF EVENTS a totally different person committed a crime, so isn't the black guy getting shotgunned down in the street sort of okay?"
**** that. **** that so much.
And **** "sHOw mE wheRE anYEONe is SAYing ThAT!" even harder.
An interesting comparison and a pretty good thought experiment to tease out some of the subtleties. And a good job of not poisoning the well (there was more than enough well poisoning to go around in the post after yours).
An additional difference is not only that they knew the guy committed a crime, but that the crime was in progress on their property. Additionally, a case might be made that they wouldn't have felt safe confronting the guy without weapons and they wanted the behavior to end immediately.
I know for sure that here, while that is the law, getting a jury to convict parents who caught someone sexually abusing their child is a tough ask. The defence lawyer will make absolutely sure that they will do their best to put every juror in the shoes of the defendant - especially if the juror has children of their own.
There have been several cases over the years where farmers or homeowners have shot thieves in the act of stealing on their property, and they were either never charged (because the CP knew the chances of conviction were slim to none), of they were charged, and the jury found them not guilty.
If I'm ever on a jury for a case like this, the farmer/homeowner is getting a not guilty vote from me right from the get-go. It would take a very convincing argument with an extraordinary set of circumstances to change my mind.
I know for sure that here, while that is the law, getting a jury to convict parents who caught someone sexually abusing their child is a tough ask. The defence lawyer will make absolutely sure that they will do their best to put every juror in the shoes of the defendant - especially if the juror has children of their own.
There have been several cases over the years where farmers or homeowners have shot thieves in the act of stealing on their property, and they were either never charged (because the CP knew the chances of conviction were slim to none), of they were charged, and the jury found them not guilty.
If I'm ever on a jury for a case like this, the farmer/homeowner is getting a not guilty vote from me right from the get-go. It would take a very convincing argument with an extraordinary set of circumstances to change my mind.
I have, twice. I (and my wife at the time) were very upset and felt quite vulnerable for a time. But I would not have shot at someone for it, even if I had caught them in the act and had a gun available, unless they were actively threatening me or my family.
But not running away, and I wouldn't chase them with a gun. At least I hope I'd be clear headed enough to not do something like that.
As I said, earlier, most times when this happens the police don't charge the farmer/homeowner, and even if they do, its very, very difficult to get a jury to convict. You get someone like me on the jury who can put themselves in the shoes of the homeowner/farmer, and the conviction will fail.
There have been a few of these incidents in this country over the last couple of decades. I cannot recall a single occasion when a thief/intruder/burglar has been shot by the property owner, and the property owner has been convicted.
I have been part of an armed robbery in a fast food restaurant. At the time, there was a high profile case being tried in the US where someone had shot some suspected criminals.
I found myself thinking that I would be perfectly happy if someone had blown the SOBs that were robbing the place, and holding us hostage while they did it, to kingdom come. On the other hand, I also remember thinking that I hoped no one had a gun and was tempted to try it, because in all likelihood they would fail, at least on the first attempt, and innocent people could be hurt. (Innocent people like me and my girlfriend. My girlfriend was in fact stand about 2 feet away from one of the robbers, who was waving around a gun and telling us to all hold still. If he had decided he needed a hostage, my girlfriend would have been it.)
In the Arbery case, I think Roddy and the McMichaels felt the same way.....except they didn't actually have any substantive reason to believe that Arbery was a criminal.
In the Peeping Tom case, I learned a few things since I first posted the story.
1. The incident happened at 2:00 am.
2. The Peeping Tom was drunk.
3. I watched the video I linked earlier, and saw the street where it happened.
After I learned those things, I wondered if I should have been so quick to assume that the parents' story was actually correct. Was it possible that what actually happened is that a drunk guy was stumbling home from the bar and decided to duck into some bushes and take a leak.
The guy survived, so the investigators will no doubt ask a bunch of questions and see if they can find out more about what was going on, but it goes back to what made me start thinking about the Peeping Tom case in connection with the Arbery case? Why was I so quick to believe the parents' story, and congratulate them, when I was so quick to condemn the McMichaels?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
