Ahmaud Arbery murder case

[Studdard63]

That's right. A jury, not Ron Jon, will decide whether or not the McMichaels assaulted Arbery. I still believe that the only reason that Arbery got shot was because he tried to grab the gun from one of the men which would put McMichael on defense.

What you are saying can be 100% correct, BUT if the jury finds them guilty of assault, they can’t be legally justified shooting someone they just committed assault against.

 

[TampaBuzz]

that's true, i've never had to face either mask but do believe that i can recognize another person's right to be stupid. right?

But isn't also true that we as a society have an obligation to tell the guy that society has changed and that that kind of stupidity is no longer acceptable? If we don't, aren't we are tacitly condoning the behavior?

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

What you are saying can be 100% correct, BUT if the jury finds them guilty of assault, they can’t be legally justified shooting someone they just committed assault against.

That we can agree on.

 

[RonJohn]

That's right. A jury, not Ron Jon, will decide whether or not the McMichaels assaulted Arbery. I still believe that the only reason that Arbery got shot was because he tried to grab the gun from one of the men which would put McMichael on defense.

When have I stated that I would make the legal decision?

I have been debating with you whether the McMichaels assaulted Arbery or not. I have included the legal definitions of assault.

@Studdard63 is a lawyer, and although I'm sure he won't offer legal advice in a forum, can speak better about law than I can. When I read:
(2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used
offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury;

I understand that to mean:

• A deadly weapon or
• any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury:

It isn't saying that the person has to cause bodily injury to commit aggravated assault, or that the weapon or object has to be used offensively. It is saying that if a person commits assault using an object that is capable of causing serious injury when that object is used offensively, then that is aggravated assault.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

When have I stated that I would make the legal decision?

I have been debating with you whether the McMichaels assaulted Arbery or not. I have included the legal definitions of assault.

@Studdard63 is a lawyer, and although I'm sure he won't offer legal advice in a forum, can speak better about law than I can. When I read:
(2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used
offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury;

I understand that to mean:

• A deadly weapon or
• any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury:

It isn't saying that the person has to cause bodily injury to commit aggravated assault, or that the weapon or object has to be used offensively. It is saying that if a person commits assault using an object that is capable of causing serious injury when that object is used offensively, then that is aggravated assault.

Yeah, that's not how I interpret that. If a person uses a weapon defensively, I don't know how that could possibly be an assault.

 

[TampaBuzz]

I sincerely have a hard time believing the actions of law enforcement would have changed if it were a white kid shot while it was suspected he was breaking into other people's property and the police chief knew the individual that shot him. I say this because you highlighted equal application of laws as if you know the outcome would have been different.

The problem IMO is that a white guy jogging through the neighborhood would almost certainly not have been pursued or shot.

 

[Studdard63]

Yeah, that's not how I interpret that. If a person uses a weapon defensively, I don't know how that could possibly be an assault.

I agree with Ron John’s analysis, the issue is whether the shooting was justified, which relies on whether they committed assault, which when done with a deadly weapon would be aggravated. If they committed assault the shooting wasn’t justified, if a jury finds they didn’t commit assault, it’s possible the shooting was justified. Whether the shot was offensive or defensive cannot be decided until a decision is made on whether or not they committed assault.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

I agree with Ron John’s analysis, the issue is whether the shooting was justified, which relies on whether they committed assault, which when done with a deadly weapon would be aggravated. If they committed assault the shooting wasn’t justified, if a jury finds they didn’t commit assault, it’s possible the shooting was justified. Whether the shot was offensive or defensive can not be decided until a decision is made on whether or not they committed assault.

Doesn't whether the shooting is offensive or defensive have something to do with whether or not it is deemed an assault? Chicken or egg scenario? It's all tied together.

 

[armeck]

Yeah, that's not how I interpret that. If a person uses a weapon defensively, I don't know how that could possibly be an assault.

Pulling your a weapon, then pursuing a person is an offensive act. Searching for the man down public streets, armed with a shotgun and a revolver is an offensive act.

 

[Studdard63]

Doesn't whether the shooting is offensive or defensive have something to do with whether or not it is deemed an assault? Chicken or egg scenario? It's all tied together.

The shooting doesn’t have anything to do with whether the initial approach by the McMichaels was assault, any chance of a self defense claim would be defeated if simply confronting the victim was found to be agg assault.

 

[RonJohn]

I agree with Ron John’s analysis, the issue is whether the shooting was justified, which relies on whether they committed assault, which when done with a deadly weapon would be aggravated. If they committed assault the shooting wasn’t justified, if a jury finds they didn’t commit assault, it’s possible the shooting was justified. Whether the shot was offensive or defensive can not be decided until a decision is made on whether or not they committed assault.

The reason that I argue that they did commit assault is that they, from their own statements, were intending to forcibly stop Arbery. Since they had weapons in their hands when they attempted to stop him, it seems to fit the "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury" definition of simple assault. Then since they had weapons it fits the definition of aggravated assault.

 

[Studdard63]

The reason that I argue that they did commit assault is that they, from their own statements, were intending to forcibly stop Arbery. Since they had weapons in their hands when they attempted to stop him, it seems to fit the "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury" definition of simple assault. Then since they had weapons it fits the definition of aggravated assault.

Yeah, I definitely agree. I would not like my chances trying to convince a jury their actions didn’t amount to aggravated assault, but then again it only takes one juror...

 

[GT_EE78]

I agree with Ron John’s analysis, the issue is whether the shooting was justified, which relies on whether they committed assault, which when done with a deadly weapon would be aggravated. If they committed assault the shooting wasn’t justified, if a jury finds they didn’t commit assault, it’s possible the shooting was justified. Whether the shot was offensive or defensive cannot be decided until a decision is made on whether or not they committed assault.

which can't be determined until it's decided if they had valid Probable Cause to detain him. Which can't be decided until it's known if the suspect may have committed a crime and it was reasonable to believe that..

 

[armeck]

which can't be determined until it's decided if they had valid Probable Cause to detain him. Which can't be decided until it's known if the suspect may have committed a crime and it was reasonable to believe that..

I don't think so. For a Citizen's Arrest they had to have seen him committing a crime or first hand knowledge of a crime:

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS
ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
§ 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest
O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
17-4-60. Grounds for arrest


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.

By their own admission, they thought he was a suspicious and wanted to question him. They did not accuse him of actually committing a crime in their given statements that I have heard referenced. Additionally, what they suspected him of doing was not a felony.

 

[Studdard63]

which can't be determined until it's decided if they had valid Probable Cause to detain him. Which can't be decided until it's known if the suspect may have committed a crime and it was reasonable to believe that..

There is no doubt their lawyers will grasp as hard as they can for that straw, we will see how it turns out.

 

[Milwaukee]

The problem IMO is that a white guy jogging through the neighborhood would almost certainly not have been pursued or shot.

For the umteenth time it’s been established he wasn’t just out for a jog. But that doesn’t mean it’s okay he was murdered either. Welcome to the board.
Carry on.

 

[GT_EE78]

But isn't also true that we as a society have an obligation to tell the guy that society has changed and that that kind of stupidity is no longer acceptable? If we don't, aren't we are tacitly condoning the behavior?

That's a tough question. Especially tough to make a generalization about, but i'll try.
I'm not gonna be surprised if you can find an example that contradicts this generalization.
no i don't think approval(an action)whether tacit or not, can be inferred from a non-action in most cases.
Even if i think a person's action is distasteful and inappropriate,if protected speech or expression, then i'd be inclined to defend that right.
the next time they come for our rights, it might be one that you or I hold dear!
5.56mm

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

But isn't also true that we as a society have an obligation to tell the guy that society has changed and that that kind of stupidity is no longer acceptable? If we don't, aren't we are tacitly condoning the behavior?

If we see a black man at a grocery store wearing a Black Panther t-shirt, should we be obligated to tell the guy that society has changed and that that kind of stupidity is no longer acceptable? Are we condoning their behavior if we don't? Could be a slippery slope if we start applying that to everything we find that's racially offensive?

 

[GT_EE78]

LOL. He eventually wrestled with the gun - of course his finger prints are on the gun.

I can tell these things from watching the video. Watch it a few times and you'll see. Unless you just don't want to see it.

I could have said something similar to you, which would have been equally pointless.
guess we'll both have to settle for "seeing is believing" "and vice-versa"

 

[GT_EE78]

Pulling your a weapon, then pursuing a person is an offensive act. Searching for the man down public streets, armed with a shotgun and a revolver is an offensive act.

Some people consider burglarizing houses to be kind of offensive, especially if it's their own or in their neighborhood.