Status
Not open for further replies.

Interesting the bits if the article you left out... such as the DA that wrote the letter being one of those that had to recuse themselves because of personal connections to the defendants. Also that...

Action News Jax has looked into Arbery’s criminal history, and it doesn’t include any violent offenses. Action News Jax contacted his attorney and he said Arbery doesn’t have a history of mental issues.

which the DA claimed he did.

also....

Action News Jax law and safety expert Dale Carson said he finds Barnhill’s letter unusual.

“The entire letter is based on the presumption that the individuals that engaged in the shooting, was engaged in a criminal act before he was chased down,” Carson said.

He said no one has provided proof of that.

By which I would suggest was meant to mean....

“The entire letter is based on the presumption that the individual that was involved in the shooting, was engaged in a criminal act before he was chased down”

Also it is clear that those that did the chasing did not witness a crime being committed...

According to the police report, Gregory McMichael and Travis McMichael told police they believed Arbery was the person committing burglaries in their neighborhood, Satilla Shores. When they saw him running past their home on a Sunday afternoon, they grabbed their guns and went after him.

Again, their own words show that the attempted detention was not legal. You can't just grab your gun and go after someone you think might have, perhaps been the guy you think might have perhaps been committing some crime. That's not a citizen's arrest, that's an unlawful detention.
 
For a start, that's a circular argument. Second, doesn't the video show that they were brandishing?

If they are engaging in a citizens arrest, they likely then enter the rules around law enforcement unholstering weapons....which often sides with law enforcement.
 
If only there was an organisation that had mobile trained officials that they could have called in to deal with the situation.

Irrelevant....the George Zimmerman case demonstrates well that the cases are far more narrow and don't look more broadly at general actions.
 
If they are engaging in a citizens arrest, they likely then enter the rules around law enforcement unholstering weapons....which often sides with law enforcement.

The problem is that they weren't complying with Georgia Law in their attempt. The law doesn't allow you to see someone jogging down the road and decide they might have been committing a crime so you can get your gun and run them down in your pickup to confront and point your guns at them.

It gives the right to prevent a person leaving the scene of a crime you witness, or to prevent a suspect to a felony from escaping the crime scene. This is not what happened.
 
Last edited:
Irrelevant....the George Zimmerman case demonstrates well that the cases are far more narrow and don't look more broadly at general actions.

True. Untrained members of the public with guns, no legal training, and no HR psychological screening, stopping anyone on their own initiative. What could go wrong?
 
The problem is that they weren't complying with Georgia Law in their attempt. The law doesn't allow you to see someone jogging down the road and decide they might have been committing a crime so you can get your gun and run them down in your pickup to confront and point your guns at them.

It gives the right to prevent a person leaving the scene of a crime you witness, or to prevent a suspect to a felony from escaping the crime scene. This is not what happened.

The standards for "reasonable" and "probable" are such **** in this country that what they saw is going to be "correctly" interpreted as reasonable perception that they had firsthand knowledge of a crime.
 
I disagree, and it is an unresolvable debate. I doubt neither phantomwolf nor I would accept the outcome of court case in the south where a white man murdered a black man as an experiment to prove our respective interpretations.

It's unresolvable in the sense that you're not willing to admit that you're wrong.

It's not unresolvable in the sense that it's possible to show logically, based on the law and the facts of the case, that you're wrong, as has already been done in this thread.
 
Regardless of protestations, they have been arrested, they have been charged, and they are going to court. The court will decide whether what they did was legal or not.
 
NYT: 2 Suspects Charged With Murder in Ahmaud Arbery Shooting
Gregory McMichael and Travis McMichael were arrested in connection with the killing of Mr. Arbery, which had led to protests in Georgia.

Guess the new prosecutor decided not to wait for that Grand Jury.

The case is the latest in the United States to raise concerns about racial inequities in the justice system. Documents obtained by The New York Times show that a Georgia prosecutor who had the case for weeks before recusing himself over a conflict of interest had advised the Glynn County Police Department that there was “insufficient probable cause” to issue arrest warrants for the McMichaels.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of protestations, they have been arrested, they have been charged, and they are going to court. The court will decide whether what they did was legal or not.

A socially agreed convention to publicly try the cases and be judged by your peers, presided over by legal experts? What a grand notion.
 
No matter what you think of the video or the event as you currently understand them, every decent person has to find the idea of murder charges being filed because of celebrity attention and public outcry chilling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom