Cont: Jogging in Georgia while black - The Trial

[Bob001]

.....
You're not breaking a law if you approach someone walking through your neighborhood and ask them what they're doing there, either.

I won't even go into the citizen's arrest angle, I'll just leave it at that because the way you framed what you just said, you're making it sound like no citizen can legally confront and question another. False.

The "subject" has no obligation to answer questions or cooperate in any way. Arbery had no obligation to stop running or do anything else he didn't want to do.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

The "subject" has no obligation to answer your questions or cooperate with you in any way. Arbery had no obligation to stop running or do anything else he didn't want to do.

Sure, although he was obligated to not rush someone, punch them repeatedly, and try to grab their gun.

I would also argue that if you have just committed criminal trespass / burglary (burglary doesn't require anything be taken) then yeah, you actually are obligated to stop when confronted about it, and face the police about it.

If you're preying upon a neighborhood and the neighbors come out and confront you and ask you to account for your actions and wait for the cops, yeah - you are obligated to do that.

If you choose to silently run away and attack people instead, you might end up like Ahmaud. Deservedly so.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Sure, although he was obligated to not rush someone, punch them repeatedly, and try to grab their gun.

I would also argue that if you have just committed criminal trespass / burglary (burglary doesn't require anything be taken) then yeah, you actually are obligated to stop when confronted about it, and face the police about it.

If you're preying upon a neighborhood and the neighbors come out and confront you and ask you to account for your actions and wait for the cops, yeah - you are obligated to do that.

If you choose to silently run away and attack people instead, you might end up like Ahmaud. Deservedly so.

That's right, they're all innocent and going to die in prison unjustly. Let the salt flow.

 

[Bob001]

.....
If you're preying upon a neighborhood and the neighbors come out and confront you and ask you to account for your actions and wait for the cops, yeah - you are obligated to do that.

If you choose to silently run away and attack people instead, you might end up like Ahmaud. Deservedly so.

A judge and jury do not agree.

 

[bruto]

I hope they all remember to keep their toenails clean.

e.t.a. One thing I think some people like Skeptic Tank are not appreciating is that there are some things that are wrong even if you are morally right. I don't agree at all with ST's ideas, but even if I did, and thought him a righteous and well-meaning person, I would have to disagree with his statements here. Even if it was true that Arbery was a thief and a no-good SOB, they did not have the right to make a citizen's arrest under the circumstances. Even if Arbery was all those no good things and worse, and even if it would have been morally praiseworthy to blow his brains out, it was illegal to do so, and it was still self-defense on his part to try to grab his assailant's gun; and no matter whether that assailant was a bigot or an angel of God, he cannot claim self defense as a grounds for shooting Arbery when he tried, because he was the man with the gun.

Even if the judgment of vigilantes is often right, it's not consistent, and the law is right to forbid people to invent the rules as they go along.

 

[Craig4]

Sure, although he was obligated to not rush someone, punch them repeatedly, and try to grab their gun.

You have every right to defend yourself if someone tries to lawfully detain you.

 

[turingtest]

A judge and jury do not agree.

And the jury unanimously. According to ST's latest little tantrum, the only reason the jury decided as they did was because they were afraid any verdict but guilty would result in riots. But...all of them? This means that every single one of the jurors colluded to deliberately reach a wrong verdict- or, to put it the other way around, not one single juror was willing to stand for what ST thinks was right. All it would have taken was one, just one, to hang the jury- and ST's silly little fantasy comes crumbling down on the reality that to achieve what he thinks did happen would require a conspiracy of many, but to have made the conspiracy unworkable needed only the action of one. And he couldn't even get that one...so sad.

 

[bruto]

And the jury unanimously. According to ST's latest little tantrum, the only reason the jury decided as they did was because they were afraid any verdict but guilty would result in riots. But...all of them? This means that every single one of the jurors colluded to deliberately reach a wrong verdict- or, to put it the other way around, not one single juror was willing to stand for what ST thinks was right. All it would have taken was one, just one, to hang the jury- and ST's silly little fantasy comes crumbling down on the reality that to achieve what he thinks did happen would require a conspiracy of many, but to have made the conspiracy unworkable needed only the action of one. And he couldn't even get that one...so sad.

That does seem far fetched, considering that there are likely many who share ST's notions, who would, if not welcome, at least accept, a riotous outcome to their righteousness. After all, if you are convinced that those on Arbery's side are no good, law-flouting, riotous looters and whatnot, I doubt you would let a little squeamishness get in the way of proving your thesis correct.

 

[Olmstead]

They absolutely had a legal right to confront "anybody about anything" - there is no law against one citizen confronting another.

Are you under the impression that if I see a guy downtown on the street and I am convinced (rightly or wrongly) that he's the guy who grabbed my sister's ass at a club 3 months ago, and I confront him angrily and accuse him of that, that I have broken some law?

People can legally confront others.

You're not breaking a law if you approach someone walking through your neighborhood and ask them what they're doing there, either.

I won't even go into the citizen's arrest angle, I'll just leave it at that because the way you framed what you just said, you're making it sound like no citizen can legally confront and question another. False.

Sure you can. And the moment they ignore you, you have to let them go, as you don't have a legal right to detain them. If the McMichaels simply let him go, Arbery would still be alive, and they wouldn't be going to prison.

It's quite simple really.

 

[turingtest]

You have every right to defend yourself if someone tries to lawfully detain you.

(Assuming you meant "unlawfully detain")

This has been pointed out to ST before. His formulation that Arbery "was obligated to not rush someone, punch them repeatedly, and try to grab their gun" is 100% the reverse of right. According to FindLaw.com, he had every right to do exactly those things:

Georgia is one of the states that have stand your ground laws. The basic idea behind these laws is that a person who is being threatened by another person's use of force does not have a duty to retreat or back down before he or she can legally use force against the attacker. Unlike the laws in some states which only allow this behavior in restricted areas such as your home or your car, Georgia's law makes no distinction regarding locations. As long as the person reasonably believes that the force used is necessary to defend himself or herself or another person, then the use of force is justified. This subjective standard helps to contribute to the confusion of how these laws are applied in specific situations.

I'm actually not a big fan of those laws, I think they amount to a "last man left standing" justification for violence. But, as long as they're on the books, they apply as equally for Arbery's actions in this case as to anybody else's in any other.

 

[cmikes]

Between this case and Kyle Rittenhouse, it is very confusing when self defence applies in the USA.

It's not complicated. Rittenhouse's reaction to being ambushed by Rosenbaum and the others was to immediately run away and try to get to the police line. He only defended himself after he had been cut off, knocked down, attacked with a club, kicked in the face and had someone rush him with a drawn gun aimed at his head.

In this case, the three dirt bags weren't running away from Arbery, they were deliberately running him down and attempting to stop him. That negates any self-defense claim that they would have had.

Now, if Rittenhouse had been the one chasing the people he shot, rather than desperately trying his best to get away from them, you might have a point.


On another note, has anyone seen anybody other than avowed racists like ST being upset at the verdict? I don't read any alterative to the right sources, but right wing sources like National Review, Reason, and Hot Air have been supportive of the verdict and editorializing that the DA that's been charged should be found guilty also.

 

[turingtest]

That does seem far fetched, considering that there are likely many who share ST's notions, who would, if not welcome, at least accept, a riotous outcome to their righteousness. After all, if you are convinced that those on Arbery's side are no good, law-flouting, riotous looters and whatnot, I doubt you would let a little squeamishness get in the way of proving your thesis correct.

That hadn't occurred to me, but of course you're right. If anyone on the jury really thought, as ST does, that the defendants had every right to act as they did and were justified in killing Arbery, then they're far more likely to be the kind of person who would welcome riots as the result of their righteous decision than the type to cave in to the mere possibility of them to reach a wrong one. And, again, it would have only taken one to have made that decision- it's the unanimity of the verdict that makes ST's CT both necessary and unlikely.

 

[smartcooky]

Sure, although he was obligated to not rush someone, punch them repeatedly, and try to grab their gun.

Those three rednecks were not obligated to chase an unarmed man using pickup trucks and guns.

The three rednecks were not obligated to chase a person because they suspected that at sometime before then, he MIGHT have been trespassing

Travis McMichael was not obligated to murder Arbery when the three rednecks had him trapped.

I would also argue that if you have just committed criminal trespass

GA § 16-7-21 - Criminal trespass
(a) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally damages any property of another without consent of that other person and the damage thereto is $500.00 or less or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person.

(b) A person commits the offence of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority:

(1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person for an unlawful purpose;

(2) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden; or

(3) Remains upon the land or premises of another person or within the vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant to depart.
(c) For the purposes of subsection (b) of this Code section, permission to enter or invitation to enter given by a minor who is or is not present on or in the property of the minor's parent or guardian is not sufficient to allow lawful entry of another person upon the land, premises, vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft owned or rightfully occupied by such minor's parent or guardian if such parent or guardian has previously given notice that such entry is forbidden or notice to depart.

(d) A person who commits the offense of criminal trespass shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(e) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally defaces, mutilates, or defiles any grave marker, monument, or memorial to one or more deceased persons who served in the military service of this state, the United States of America or any of the states thereof, or the Confederate States of America or any of the states thereof, or a monument, plaque, marker, or memorial which is dedicated to, honors, or recounts the military service of any past or present military personnel of this state, the United States of America or any of the states thereof, or the Confederate States of America or any of the states thereof if such grave marker, monument, memorial, plaque, or marker is privately owned or located on land which is privately owned.​

To summarize this for you

Arbery entering Larry English's house under construction is not criminal trespass because

(a) he did not damage the property or any of its contents, and he did not interfere with the use of the owner's property

(b)(1) Being nosey and wanting to have a look around is not an unlawful purpose

(b)(2) There were no signs forbidding entry, and Arbery had not received a warning not to enter

(b)(3) He was not asked to leave.

(c) not applicable

(d) not applicable

(e) not applicable

burglary (burglary doesn't require anything be taken)

Perhaps, but it requires the intent to commit a felony or theft

GA § 16-7-1 Crimes and Offenses
(a) As used in this Code section, the term:

(1) “Dwelling” means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is designed or intended for occupancy for residential use.

(2) “Railroad car” shall also include trailers on flatcars, containers on flatcars, trailers on railroad property, or containers on railroad property.

(b) A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another.  A person who commits the offense of burglary in the first degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.  Upon the second conviction for burglary in the first degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two nor more than 20 years.  Upon the third and all subsequent convictions for burglary in the first degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 25 years.

(c) A person commits the offense of burglary in the second degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant building, structure, railroad car, watercraft, or aircraft.  A person who commits the offense of burglary in the second degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.  Upon the second and all subsequent convictions for burglary in the second degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than eight years.

(d) Upon a fourth and all subsequent convictions for a crime of burglary in any degree, adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence shall not be suspended, probated, deferred, or withheld.​

No burglary was committed.

 

[smartcooky]

I hope they all remember to keep their toenails clean..

Racist!!!!

... oh, wait...

 

[arthwollipot]

They were proactive guys who looked out for the neighborhood, and had confronted whites before too.

They were vigilantes. This, to you, is good?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

To think that all this was over a trespass warning. It wasn't even a crime because there was no damage or interference and there had not been any notification from the owner, so it would have just been a warning. A trespass warning. That's all.

And now Arbery's life is gone. The defendant's lives are essentially over. And the effect on their families. Arbery's family. Travis's young son. Their friends. The impact on neighbors and the neighborhood. And English will now never get his dream home.

All over a trespass warning.

 

[Craig4]

What is your basis for saying racism was involved in this case?

They were proactive guys who looked out for the neighborhood, and had confronted whites before too.
Is it just... racism automatically in your mind because they were white and this particular burglar was black? Is that literally the only requirement?

So they were a threat to everyone. In sentencing, that's what's called an aggravating factor.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Are you under the impression that if I see a guy downtown on the street and I am convinced (rightly or wrongly) that he's the guy who grabbed my sister's ass at a club 3 months ago, and I confront him angrily and accuse him of that, that I have broken some law?
.

How about if you weren't sure if he was the guy then you chased him down in a truck and ran him in to a ditch then shot him?

 

[smartcooky]

Are you under the impression that if I see a guy downtown on the street and I am convinced (rightly or wrongly) that he's the guy who grabbed my sister's ass at a club 3 months ago, and I confront him angrily and accuse him of that, that I have broken some law?

This is a strawman argument.

Yes, you would be legally entitled to confront him, but if he walks away, you are NOT legally entitled to chase after him, with a gun, and a vehicle, until you have pushed him to the point he is so in fear for his life, that he turns on you in an attempt to defend himself from your relentless, threatening pursuit, and as a result of that you kill him......

YOUR LEGAL RIGHT TO CONFRONT HIM ENDS THE MOMENT YOU DON'T JUST LET HIM LEAVE!!!!

 

[theprestige]

I hope they all remember to keep their toenails clean.

e.t.a. One thing I think some people like Skeptic Tank are not appreciating is that there are some things that are wrong even if you are morally right. I don't agree at all with ST's ideas, but even if I did, and thought him a righteous and well-meaning person, I would have to disagree with his statements here. Even if it was true that Arbery was a thief and a no-good SOB, they did not have the right to make a citizen's arrest under the circumstances. Even if Arbery was all those no good things and worse, and even if it would have been morally praiseworthy to blow his brains out, it was illegal to do so, and it was still self-defense on his part to try to grab his assailant's gun; and no matter whether that assailant was a bigot or an angel of God, he cannot claim self defense as a grounds for shooting Arbery when he tried, because he was the man with the gun.

Even if the judgment of vigilantes is often right, it's not consistent, and the law is right to forbid people to invent the rules as they go along.

To me, you have a very weird and obscene idea of what's morally right.