Jogging in Georgia while black.

[ponderingturtle]

Guys: you can't point a shotgun at humans for trespassing or petty theft. It really does come down to nothing but that. You can't hold them against their will for jaywalking, either.

Well maybe in Texas. Grabbing a shotgun to confront people and shooting them when they charge you is legal in texas after all.

 

[bluesjnr]

That has nothing to do with his murder.

Ok.

 

[bluesjnr]

I don't think you've been reading what he's written with any effort to grasp it.

I don't think you read exactly what I wrote. Would you care to show me where I'm off base?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Did the McMichaels witness or have immediate knowledge that Arbery committed any offense? The presumed offense would be trespassing. It does not appear so. Greg says he was standing on his lawn when he saw Arbery running down the street. Travis was in the house. Neither were in the presence of any offense.

Travis had confronted Arbery standing on English’s property about two weeks before. That raises the question whether that constitutes immediate knowledge of an offense. It appears the phrase “immediate knowledge” is not defined in Georgia law and that it is not even a common legal term.

The “immediate” part does not appear to mean that the offense just happened recently. Although that does raise some issues about how long after an offense a person can make a citizen’s arrest. If someone sees someone committed a simple misdemeanor and then they run into that person two years later, can they arrest that person? Probably not, but it isn’t laid out in the law.

The term “immediate knowledge” basically means direct knowledge. Knowledge that is not based on hearsay or putting a bunch of clues together. For example: a person is standing at the end of a fence with a road on the other side of the fence. They hear a car crash on the other side of the fence and then see past the fence a car drive away with a banged up front end. They look around the fence and see a parked car with the side smashed in. The person didn’t see the car crash into the parked car, but they have immediate knowledge that that is what happened.

It could be argued that Travis had seen or had immediate knowledge that Arbery had trespassed on English’s property from the confrontation two week ago.

But it is not clear that Arbery even committed criminal trespass. Here is the relevant law:

A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority:

(1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person…for an unlawful purpose;

(2) Enters upon the land or premises 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…after receiving notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant to depart.

Arbery was not given any proper notification. If there were No Trespassing signs that might be a different issue, but I had not been able to readily see any in the videos. That leaves the question of whether Arbery entered the property for unlawful purposes. We don’t know. And neither did the McMichaels.

So, this isn’t a slam dunk case. There are some questionable issues. But I think there is a string case that the McMichaels could not have made a lawful citizen’s arrest under this standard.

 

[bluesjnr]

I find your "Oh well I'm just making sure you're not overplaying the race card" thing rather eye rolling, but whatever.

I absolutely couldn't give a toss for either side of the argument, really. It has no bearing on me nor the society and culture I live in.

I want to know if I was getting the drift of some of the more vociferous posters, like yourself.

Sad death aside, this thread is hilarious.

You're hardly the first person in this thread with a "Gotta keep an eye on them dramatic libs to make sure they don't overplay the race card" chip on their should and I must say I can't think of a non-icky way to react to that.

See above. Libs, dems, lefties, righties, far righties.... all wind and pish to me.

Two white people report "A black guy running down the street" to 911 and 5 minutes later he's dead from two shotgun blast to the chest. Looking at that scenario and going into "Gotta sniff out any over use of the race card!" bloodhound mode over it just seems really, really off to me.

Since your happy to pigeonhole me I'd like to politely suggest that, by the tenor (and at times specific language) of your posts here and in the other thread, you might want to slow down, take a breath and a wee break. I'm pretty sure everybody here is in no doubt as to your position - constant repetition is not required.

And it's just the "being dramatic is worse then being evil" thing again.

Like I politely suggest......

 

[Darat]

It would be really interesting to see how this same thread would unfold if mentioning "racism" was simply not allowed.

It acts as this escape hatch for about 70% of the posters in here, to just tap out of having to seriously analyze legitimate questions which other posters raise.

Or if the same event had happened but all involved parties were of the same race, we could actually look at all information which came to light, entertain different theories and propose different possibilities without this endless stream of "zero nutritional content" posts which all always just say the same thing "racism! racist! racism! racist!"

In reality, if the media is pushing a big narrative about how someone got shot and they were doing totally innocent activity A but then a bunch of evidence starts to surface that the individual was actually doing not so innocent activity B - this is obviously interesting information and obviously the kind of thing which posters would end up discussing surrounding a major story like this.

But through the magic of "racism!!!!!!" - these revelations and new bits of fo never really get to have their proper reveal / integration into our understanding. A ton of information which comes out just gets flagged as irradiated by "racism" and from then on, anyone who mentions it can be assured that they will get very few serious responses.

It's actually really pathetic and childish, to be honest.

Well we wouldn't have a single post from yourself. Or do you mean only the word racism? Fine by me I am quite happy to describe your racism as vile, disgusting bigotry and irrational non fact based hatred. Takes me a few more words but if you want me to happy to do so in future.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It would be really interesting to see how this same thread would unfold if mentioning "racism" was simply not allowed.

It acts as this escape hatch for about 70% of the posters in here, to just tap out of having to seriously analyze legitimate questions which other posters raise.

Or if the same event had happened but all involved parties were of the same race, we could actually look at all information which came to light, entertain different theories and propose different possibilities without this endless stream of "zero nutritional content" posts which all always just say the same thing "racism! racist! racism! racist!"

In reality, if the media is pushing a big narrative about how someone got shot and they were doing totally innocent activity A but then a bunch of evidence starts to surface that the individual was actually doing not so innocent activity B - this is obviously interesting information and obviously the kind of thing which posters would end up discussing surrounding a major story like this.

But through the magic of "racism!!!!!!" - these revelations and new bits of info never really get to have their proper reveal / integration into our understanding. A ton of information which comes out just gets flagged as irradiated by "racism" and from then on, anyone who mentions it can be assured that they will get very few serious responses.

It's actually really pathetic and childish, to be honest.

This is classic racist denialism. The idea is that if the word "racism" is expunged from the language used to discuss incidents where a person is treated differently to another due to their race, then there is no means to highlight connections between such incidents, so a pattern of behavior can be masked by insisting that every incident can be treated as if it existed in a vacuum. It's a popular approach to fostering the lie that there is no such thing as racial discrimination, because a lot of discrimination only shows up in the statistics; so if anything looks bad about a thousand cases of black people being killed and the perpetrators getting off scot-free because the legal system does not consider the killing of a black person as serious as the killing of a white person, just insist that every case must be viewed separately on its own merits, construct any excuse however flimsy for each separate case, then declare racism not to exist. It's falling apart somewhat in this instance, not so much because McMichaels and son's actions were so obviously outside the scope of their legal rights as to be incontrovertibly criminal, but because nobody in their right mind could imagine two black people killing a white jogger in Georgia and being protected by a legal system that decided there was no basis even to investigate the killing. But the racists must keep trying, because it's the only card they have to play; the longer intelligent analysis can be kept at bay, the longer the killings can continue with relative impunity. The sad thing is that, at least in the US, they seem to be winning; but even Trump seems to have worked out that this is one battle they're going to lose.

Dave

 

[smartcooky]

I think there has been some confusion about Georgia’s citizen’s arrest law. It is not only for a felony. And it does not necessarily require witnessing the crime. Here’s the law:



There are two sentences that describe different circumstances and different standards.

The first sentence talks about an offense in general; felony, misdemeanor; any offense. The standard for making a citizen’s arrest for an offense in general is that the offense must have been committed in the person’s presence or with immediate knowledge.

The second sentence describes specific conditions and has a different standard. It refers toa fleeing felon. The standard for that is condition is reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion. An arrest can only be made using that standard if it a felony offense and the offender is trying to escape.

An arrest can be made for a non-felony, but only if the person witnesses the crime or has immediate knowledge. And arrest can be made without witnessing the crime or having immediate knowledge, but on if 1) these is reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion and 2) the offense is a felony and 3) the offender is escaping or attempting to escape.

I think you are reading the Law incorrectly

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.

Allows a private person to arrest if the offender is right there and is not fleeing, so if Cletus and Bubba caught him in the house under construction, they could have attempted to restrain him on the spot. However, once he left and started running, from their perspective, he is now "fleeing the scene" and the second part kicks in....

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.

Since the offence is not a Felony, it is not lawful for them to pursue and attempt an arrest. All they can do is follow him and call the police.

Additionally a citizens arrest is supposed to be accomplished using the minimum reasonable force necessary. Two big guys with a pickup up truck, a shotgun and a hand gun is WAY more force than would be considered reasonable when trying to arrest one unarmed person on foot.

This is a straight up case of murder - Cletus and Bubba are heading to the slammer for lengthy stretch.

 

[uke2se]

Did the McMichaels witness or have immediate knowledge that Arbery committed any offense? The presumed offense would be trespassing. It does not appear so. Greg says he was standing on his lawn when he saw Arbery running down the street. Travis was in the house. Neither were in the presence of any offense.

Travis had confronted Arbery standing on English’s property about two weeks before. That raises the question whether that constitutes immediate knowledge of an offense. It appears the phrase “immediate knowledge” is not defined in Georgia law and that it is not even a common legal term.

The “immediate” part does not appear to mean that the offense just happened recently. Although that does raise some issues about how long after an offense a person can make a citizen’s arrest. If someone sees someone committed a simple misdemeanor and then they run into that person two years later, can they arrest that person? Probably not, but it isn’t laid out in the law.

The term “immediate knowledge” basically means direct knowledge. Knowledge that is not based on hearsay or putting a bunch of clues together. For example: a person is standing at the end of a fence with a road on the other side of the fence. They hear a car crash on the other side of the fence and then see past the fence a car drive away with a banged up front end. They look around the fence and see a parked car with the side smashed in. The person didn’t see the car crash into the parked car, but they have immediate knowledge that that is what happened.

It could be argued that Travis had seen or had immediate knowledge that Arbery had trespassed on English’s property from the confrontation two week ago.

But it is not clear that Arbery even committed criminal trespass. Here is the relevant law:



Arbery was not given any proper notification. If there were No Trespassing signs that might be a different issue, but I had not been able to readily see any in the videos. That leaves the question of whether Arbery entered the property for unlawful purposes. We don’t know. And neither did the McMichaels.

So, this isn’t a slam dunk case. There are some questionable issues. But I think there is a string case that the McMichaels could not have made a lawful citizen’s arrest under this standard.

Are you an actual lawyer?

 

[Darat]

I think Skeptic Tank's point is that it wouldn't be very controversial to question the state of mind and possible impulse control problems of Aaron Howard when he repeatedly told two armed men that he was going to kill them then threw a baseball bat at them:

https://amp.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article242568611.html

If Aaron Howard were black then examining his actions would probably be considered racist by several posters and end that aspect of the discussion.
I feel like these situations are analagous to a mugging by two armed men on one victim. Its probably unwise to attack your armed muggers if you're unarmed and you're also less likely to die. I suppose the main controversy of the Georgia case is the initial lack of arrest. I think unless the McMichaels have a history of documented racism and of harassing black people in the neighborhood they'll be acquitted if the charge is too high such as what happened in the Zimmerman case.

Any evidence for this bizarre world idea?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

You are reading the Law incorrectly

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.

Allows a private person to arrest if the offender is right there and is not fleeing, so if Cletus and Bubba caught him in the house under construction, they could have attempted to restrain him on the spot. However, once he left and started running, from their perspective, he is now "fleeing the scene" and the second part kicks in....

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.

The second part does not kick in after the first part. The second sentence does not permit any additional action .Both sentences describe standards for which a person "may arrest" someone. They are different standards that apply to different circumstances.

The first sentence says a person may arrest someone for any offence based on being in the presence of the offense or immediate knowledge. The second sentence says a person may arrest someone for a felony offence if the person is escaping based on reasonable suspicion.

Two different standards for two different types of offenses and conditions.

ETA: I'll probably post something later about issues related to using the second sentence to justify a citizen's arrest and the unlawful use of force.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Are you an actual lawyer?

No. Just an interest in law. If you want an opinion from a lawyer that reflects what I am saying, here is just one example from Attorney Lori Bluff:

http://news.monroelocal.org/legalese-citizens-arrest/

 

[JoeMorgue]

I absolutely couldn't give a toss for either side of the argument, really. It has no bearing on me nor the society and culture I live in.

Well yeah because you aren't going to get shotgunned down in the street for jogging.

"LOL doesn't effect me none, so I don't give it no mind" isn't exactly making your case.

I want to know if I was getting the drift of some of the more vociferous posters, like yourself.

Again the fact that you see being against racism as an ulterior motive that you've "gotcha"ed me on by pointing out is... yeah.

This idea that somehow me being anti-racist is some corner you've trapped me in and forced me to confess is very, very problematic. I'm trying me best to get from literally anywhere to "LOOKIT! LOOKIT EVERYONE! I GO THIS GUY TO ADMIT HE'S ONLY CONCERNED WITH STOPPING RACISM!" via any good path and I'm not finding one.

Since your happy to pigeonhole me I'd like to politely suggest that, by the tenor (and at times specific language) of your posts here and in the other thread, you might want to slow down, take a breath and ea wee break. I'm pretty sure everybody here is in no doubt as to your position - constant repetition is not required.

Go start another thread to whine about it FMF then. Either put me on ignore or don't waste my time telling me don't want to hear me.

 

[Garb]

I think Skeptic Tank's point is that it wouldn't be very controversial to question the state of mind and possible impulse control problems of Aaron Howard when he repeatedly told two armed men that he was going to kill them then threw a baseball bat at them:

https://amp.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article242568611.html

If Aaron Howard were black then examining his actions would probably be considered racist by several posters and end that aspect of the discussion.

Can you explain why you think this story is analogous? I do not see these two stories being all that similar except for the whole "two men with guns shoot man dead for confronting them."

 

[carlitos]

It would be really interesting to see how this same thread would unfold if mentioning "racism" was simply not allowed.

Unfortunately for yourself, we live in the real world. Your fantasies about this jogger’s motivations, fantasies about things you read on Twitter being true, and other fantasies about words being banned don’t have any bearing on the real world. If your kind were called “widgets” instead of white nationalists, it wouldn’t change a thing. Semantics is a coward’s argument, as you know.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Didn't catch whether anyone had linked this yet or not, the elder McMichael - Greg, had lapsed training hour requirements for years and his arrest powers weren't valid / active from like 2006 to 2019 when he quit, if I'm understanding correctly:

Link

 

[carlitos]

And this will be interesting- I mean, as long as we're gonna go poking around in presumably relevant pasts

For reasons unclear, McMichael’s POST certification was suspended in February 2019 and he was reassigned to the Camden County District Attorney’s office, about an hour away, and was no longer allowed to work in a “law enforcement” capacity, records show.

“Mr. McMichael will not carry a firearm or badge, nor will he operate any vehicle that would be construed as being law enforcement in nature,” a February 2019 memo signed by Glynn County DA Office Administrator Mark Spaulding said.

When interviewed by Insider last week, Spaulding offered without prompting that investigators in Georgia, unlike other states, don’t have arrest powers. He also said he was otherwise unfamiliar with McMichael’s specific work history.

Just what society needs for its protection- a nitwit who, for some reason, had been told he could no longer carry a gun or badge grabbing one and acting like he still had the other, teaming up with a nitwit son, also armed, to go out and run down a guy who, as far as they had any actual evidence for, was totally guilty of- trespassing.



Yeah- no thanks.

In case anyone missed it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

In case anyone missed it.

More interesting is this, I think, from the same article.

Two Glynn County commissioners – Allen Booker and Peter Murphy – recently said that responding officers wanted to arrest the McMichaels at the time of the incident, but were blocked by Johnson.

“The police at the scene went to her, saying they were ready to arrest both of them. These were the police at the scene who had done the investigation,” Booker told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “She shut them down to protect her friend [Gregory] McMichael.”

Johnson, who eventually recused herself from the case, denied that this ever happened.

Cops on the scene were inclined to make an arrest given what they knew, Johnson intervened. The first move in a series that intended to cover up the killing.

Former boss went to bat for her retired employee. Obvious misconduct, if true.

 

[Scopedog]

Any evidence for this bizarre world idea?

If you disagree, I doubt I can convince you. I've read that Aaron Howard was a big jerk and his neighbors are probably glad he's dead. I imagine that would be a pretty unwelcome statement if he were black. The idea of examining whether Ahmed Arbery may have been a petty criminal is generally met with disgust in this thread, but I doubt it would get the same general reaction if he was white. It also reminds me that it's okay to scrutinize, dissect, and cast aspersions on Tara Reade in the Biden thread (mind you, I don't believe her anyway or many other prominent #metoo accusers) but I suspect that accusation analysis dynamic would be a bit different if she were black. I guess we may never know.

Can you explain why you think this story is analogous? I do not see these two stories being all that similar except for the whole "two men with guns shoot man dead for confronting them."

You removed the answer from your quote of my post. What part do you disagree with? I doubt I can convince you, though.

Edited to add: In both cases the victim wasn't doing anything worth confronting them with guns and killing them over.

 

[Leftus]

If they couldn't nail him and prove he stole anything, he'd probably get cited for trespassing and the McMichaels would probably have been in the clear, with the cops deciding they'd performed a legitimate citizen's arrest on the basis of a reasonable belief that he had been stealing.

In GA, a citizens arrest requires actual first hand knowledge. For a cop to cite someone for trespassing, they would need evidence, and a victim. Since none of those arrestors owned the property, or even asked him to leave it, there was no trespass.

Also, you don't get to perform a citizens arrest in GA on a "reasonable belief" you need "the offense to be committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge." It's a different standard.

They hand absolutely zero first hand knowledge that he was stealing anything. There was no offense in their presence by which to hold him. They had zero authority to arrest him. At that point it time, it's not a citizens arrest, but an attempted kidnapping.

The older fellow was a cop. He would have known this. Armed with this knowledge, care to adjust your scenario?

I think it's appropriate for the police, in a scenario like that, to err on the side of cutting slack to the concerned neighbors looking out for their neighborhood vs. the trespasser / likely thief.

Once the saddle up and form an armed posse, I don't think they would let it slide.