Ahmaud Arbery murder case

[ramblinwreckguru]

Is it in question if he was aggressively trying to stop Arbery? Is it in question if he was trying to cause Arbery to fear and submit?

Using a weapon to cause another person to fear for their lives is assault. It doesn't matter if the gun is discharged. It doesn't matter if the gun is pointed. It is assault as soon as it is used to create fear in another person.

I don't think assault can be determined because of how someone feels. People lie about how they feel every day.

 

[Studdard63]

O.C.G.A. 16-11-102 (2010)
“A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he intentionally and without legal justification points or aims a gun or pistol at another, whether the gun or pistol is loaded or unloaded.”

Sometimes actions are fall under multiple crimes, this is just an alternative charge to the agg assault. The DA can choose to prosecute agg assault instead of this.

 

[RonJohn]

This is utterly rediculous. Exactly who would not fear having a loaded gun pointed at them?

Hyperbole much? Or just can't keep up with the discussion?

@GT_EE78 stated that pointing a weapon is only a misdemeanor. The statute he pointed out basically says that pointing a gun at a person, whether loaded or not is a misdemeanor.

I pointed out that if you create fear in the other person, it is assault and that using a weapon to commit assault is a felony.

The way I read the statutes, the mere action of pointing a gun at another person is a misdemeanor. If you don't use caution at a range and you accidentally point a gun at another person, it is a misdemeanor. If you point a gun at another person in a play, it would even be a misdemeanor. (Very unlikely to be prosecuted, but it is on the books) If you cause another person to fear bodily injury with a weapon, even if you don'y point it at them, that is a felony.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

Hyperbole much? Or just can't keep up with the discussion?

@GT_EE78 stated that pointing a weapon is only a misdemeanor. The statute he pointed out basically says that pointing a gun at a person, whether loaded or not is a misdemeanor.

I pointed out that if you create fear in the other person, it is assault and that using a weapon to commit assault is a felony.

The way I read the statutes, the mere action of pointing a gun at another person is a misdemeanor. If you don't use caution at a range and you accidentally point a gun at another person, it is a misdemeanor. If you point a gun at another person in a play, it would even be a misdemeanor. (Very unlikely to be prosecuted, but it is on the books) If you cause another person to fear bodily injury with a weapon, even if you don'y point it at them, that is a felony.

You can't base a law just on how someone feels. If that's true, our society is in a world of hurt.

 

[RonJohn]

You can't base a law just on how someone feels. If that's true, our society is in a world of hurt.

What exactly are you talking about now? Did you read the code sections that have been posted?

The text of the code is:

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

That isn't how someone "feels", but is is whether that person has a reasonable fear of being injured. That type of language is quite common in law. It is also necessary. If assault was based on how that individual person "felt", then a person could be found guilty of assault simply because they walked to a baseball field with a baseball bat and someone who they didn't talk to and didn't approach was afraid of them. If assault was based on a strict list of actions, then threatening to hit someone with a baseball bat might be a crime, but threatening to hit them with a lead pipe might not be. A "reasonable person" or "reasonable apprehension" are not uncommon terms in laws.

The statute that EE78 posted appears to make it illegal under any circumstance to point a gun at another person. As I said, even in a stage play you would technically be violating that statute. Assault is based on a "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury". Pointing a gun at a person in a play is against the statute, but wouldn't cause a reasonable person to fear that the other actor is going to harm them. Rushing toward someone while yelling and holding a machete in the air would case a reasonable person to fear.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

What exactly are you talking about now? Did you read the code sections that have been posted?

The text of the code is:

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

That isn't how someone "feels", but is is whether that person has a reasonable fear of being injured. That type of language is quite common in law. It is also necessary. If assault was based on how that individual person "felt", then a person could be found guilty of assault simply because they walked to a baseball field with a baseball bat and someone who they didn't talk to and didn't approach was afraid of them. If assault was based on a strict list of actions, then threatening to hit someone with a baseball bat might be a crime, but threatening to hit them with a lead pipe might not be. A "reasonable person" or "reasonable apprehension" are not uncommon terms in laws.

The statute that EE78 posted appears to make it illegal under any circumstance to point a gun at another person. As I said, even in a stage play you would technically be violating that statute. Assault is based on a "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury". Pointing a gun at a person in a play is against the statute, but wouldn't cause a reasonable person to fear that the other actor is going to harm them. Rushing toward someone while yelling and holding a machete in the air would case a reasonable person to fear.

Ok, who decides if a person is in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury? A jury?

 

[RonJohn]

Ok, who decides if a person is in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury? A jury?

That is the way it works. If you are at a bar and you break a beer bottle, point the shards at another patron, and tell him that you are going to cut his throat off, a prosecutor would have to present that to a jury and let the jury decide if it caused a "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury". (It probably wouldn't get that far and would probably involve a plea agreement.)

In this case, there were two guys in a truck and another in a car that chased and blocked Arbery. The guys in the truck were yelling at him to stop, and the driver got out of the truck with a shotgun and approached him. If I were on a jury and presented with that scenario, I would say that it did create a "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury".

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

That is the way it works. If you are at a bar and you break a beer bottle, point the shards at another patron, and tell him that you are going to cut his throat off, a prosecutor would have to present that to a jury and let the jury decide if it caused a "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury". (It probably wouldn't get that far and would probably involve a plea agreement.)

In this case, there were two guys in a truck and another in a car that chased and blocked Arbery. The guys in the truck were yelling at him to stop, and the driver got out of the truck with a shotgun and approached him. If I were on a jury and presented with that scenario, I would say that it did create a "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury".

Ok, and I would say they wouldn't.

 

[RonJohn]

Ok, and I would say they wouldn't.

So if some people with guns were yelling at you to stop, you wouldn't be concerned?

 

[Dpjacket]

What this debate over the last few pages has shown us is that the disproportionate response to such situations merely exacerbates the battle lines and puts everyone deeper into their trenches.

imho, the difference, @Dpjacket , between what you are arguing and what others are saying is this:

1. in other places (like Chicago) the police are actively trying to catch and jail offenders. In this case, the two guys were about to be let off scot free. (that is a HUGE difference)
2. the media and some activists absolutely do harm with their exaggerated responses to situations like this. They make it sound like every black person is being hunted down. This was VERY unhelpful after Ferguson, Trayvon Martin, etc etc...and served to inflame passions and perpetuate stereotypes. That is sad and should be criticized.
3. BUT, having said that, what I hear when I read @kg01's posts and what I hear for literally every black male friend I have is that there is a real issue underlying this. Much more subtle than it used to be, but an issue nevertheless. Too many solid decent black folk get stopped and questioned just because they are black and the criminal being looked for is black. In many cases they understand that crime is higher by blacks, but if you are trying to live a decent life and the American dream, having this kind of headwind just gets f***ing tired. And, every once in a blue moon, it can be dangerous. The fact that there are crazies out there isn't the issue. The fact that the criminal justice system doesn't respond to such craziness is the issue.

Thanks and credit for such a reasoned response. Was very well said and balanced perspective.

I’ll promise no multiple rants tonight but just to add:
- It was beautiful day around Stone Mountain, and folks of all ways walking together and interacting. It is the regular way here.

- I don’t know all the nuances of the Brunswick case. If fact didn’t even know about until Saturday. That said, it still seems to be an aberration. I don’t deny there is a Good Ol’ Boy system in parts of Georgia, or innate prejudice. (I also don’t think that I could reasonably walk about in parts of Metro Atlanta, either).

- re Chicago, my analogy was only in reply to that these two GA guys should be put to death for hunting down a person; the analogy is that others “hunt down” persons every day, especially in inner-city. I acknowledge in hindsight that there’s clearly a difference between mutual gangbangers and a person jogging

- There seems to be a parallel in this Brunswick and Travon Martin. Obviously that a black male is dead by hand of white guy. What’s interesting to me is whether the white guys intended to kill or not. Or were “masculated” by having a gun and willing to confront. And then if pressed and/or attacked it became tragic. Haven’t watched the video (won’t) but have read that the deceased charged at one with the gun. I hope that’s not the case.

- I understand it would be frustrating to be profiled — but also that I wouldn’t mind and that generally believe profiling works. If middle-aged white guys are the suspects ...it is what it is. But if it becomes offensive by the way it’s handled...yeah, that is not acceptable. This isn’t the same thing as racism imho. And I don’t know that anyone really knows how often it happens. So I think the real measure of this being a problem is not there. The sense from some is that if it happens even once — or heard that it happened to a friend of a friend I know —then it’s out of control and Society is in Shambles. But that’s not logical. IMHO, there’s a reason it happens at all and that reason is not systemic racism.

With respect to people being in trenches, I would say my position is not in the trench. It’s that it acknowledges flaws on both sides, recognizes and expects the extremes of behavior on both sides, while also maintaining that these same extremes are definitively not the life norm for most of us. Except that those would defense an extreme as a third party seem to be drawn to it, and drag others with them.

 

[Dpjacket]

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.

But really this is just your application of what is an offensive. The law doesn’t explicitly say, which is the issue, and so you shouldn’t assert so strongly. The flip argument would that their actions were defensive. In defense of their homes and community if it’s known that burglaries had been a problem and not addressed.

 

[Dpjacket]

I think you are drawing a false equivalency. I don't think you can make a comparison (only contrast) between a secret organization on one hand that thrives on a history of the secretly and illegally lynching minorities and burning their churches and homes for no rationale or legal reason, and a public organization on the other hand that was founded in direct response to the murder of Malcolm X and that exists solely to legally protest (some of those protests in the 60's got violent) for civil rights and justice. The members are/were well know, public leaders and were proud to stand up and be investigated/arrested for their actions. The fight for civil rights/justice continues.

There are so many false points here.

Lynchings and church burnings were real, but is in the past. No one under 50 or 60 knows these except from history books (and social posts that suggest it one should be expected tomorrow)

MalcomX was killed by these same folks. He was killed by one of his own.

What does “public organization” have to do with anything, re Black Panthers.

Black Panthers are known and honest about their opposition to white society and whites absolutely. It’s their manifesto to rid or divest from white society. In that way they are the polar to white separatist groups.

Which is exactly the equivalency from the previous post that they should be confronted — or to the earlier trench analogy post...neither trench position will be tolerated or justified.

 

[LibertyTurns]

In case anyone not entrenched cares below is a link to 2018’s violent crime data with racial breakdown of victims and offenders (and by each other). Here’s some excerpts:

A. White violent crime victimization is up 19%, black down 6.5%
B. Whites account for 50% of violent crime offenders, are victims 67% of time
C. Blacks account for 22% of violent crime offenders, are victims 11% of the time
D. Whites attack whites 62% of the time, whites attack blacks 10% of the time
E. Blacks attack blacks 70% of the time, blacks attack whites 15% of the time
F. Rich people are attacked about 1/3 as often as poor people
G. Property crime has been going down steadily

All violent crime has been increasing since about 2010- up & down obviously but the overall trend is what it is. Note: Last several years reporting changed so what was non-violent 4 years ago may not be non-violent today. I will note the criteria changed in 2016 after almost a decade of it being ok to report lower numbers. Hmmm, imagine that.

Summary: Americans tend to commit violent crime against people they know or “like them”, in other words blacks attack blacks, white attack whites, hispanics attack hispanics, asians attack asians, etc. Yes, family members like to attack their own. 60% of attackers are known to the victim, only 40% are strangers.

In other words, if you’re a white dude I’d keep an eye on the crazy looking/ acting white dude particularly if he’s your brother. If you’re a black dude, watch out for that odd looking/acting black dude especially your brother. Hispanic dudes beware of the hispanic dudes & Asians need to watch out for other Asians.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf

 

[Deleted member 2897]

What exactly are you talking about now? Did you read the code sections that have been posted?

The text of the code is:

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

That isn't how someone "feels", but is is whether that person has a reasonable fear of being injured. That type of language is quite common in law. It is also necessary. If assault was based on how that individual person "felt", then a person could be found guilty of assault simply because they walked to a baseball field with a baseball bat and someone who they didn't talk to and didn't approach was afraid of them. If assault was based on a strict list of actions, then threatening to hit someone with a baseball bat might be a crime, but threatening to hit them with a lead pipe might not be. A "reasonable person" or "reasonable apprehension" are not uncommon terms in laws.

The statute that EE78 posted appears to make it illegal under any circumstance to point a gun at another person. As I said, even in a stage play you would technically be violating that statute. Assault is based on a "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury". Pointing a gun at a person in a play is against the statute, but wouldn't cause a reasonable person to fear that the other actor is going to harm them. Rushing toward someone while yelling and holding a machete in the air would case a reasonable person to fear.

There is more than enough grey area here that a full investigation of the evidence with interviews of witnesses under oath should have happened. Even if the shooter wasn’t convicted, I see no way with my own eyes why they weren’t at least arrested too. Until a full accounting of what happened there occurs, people aren’t going to feel a true sense of justice regardless of what happens to the shooter. We learned yesterday via a treasure trove of released documents that Ambassador Yavanovich lied repeatedly under oath and was actually working with Burisma behind the scenes to get sanctions removed and knew all about Hunter Biden. Now we know why the butt hurt train of state department bureaucrats was so worried. And yet nothing at all has happened to her or anybody else who lied under oath. When people in power are immune, it’s insidious. It’s one thing to worry about losing a child or family member to a shooting...but at least if the law is enforced you can get some level of peace. It’s got to feel like going through the grief all over again when you find out the authorities are corrupt.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

There is more than enough grey area here that a full investigation of the evidence with interviews of witnesses under oath should have happened. Even if the shooter wasn’t convicted, I see no way with my own eyes why they weren’t at least arrested too. Until a full accounting of what happened there occurs, people aren’t going to feel a true sense of justice regardless of what happens to the shooter. We learned yesterday via a treasure trove of released documents that Ambassador Yavanovich lied repeatedly under oath and was actually working with Burisma behind the scenes to get sanctions removed and knew all about Hunter Biden. Now we know why the butt hurt train of state department bureaucrats was so worried. And yet nothing at all has happened to her or anybody else who lied under oath. When people in power are immune, it’s insidious. It’s one thing to worry about losing a child or family member to a shooting...but at least if the law is enforced you can get some level of peace. It’s got to feel like going through the grief all over again when you find out the authorities are corrupt.

https://www.kcra.com/article/homeow...ry-may-have-visited-before-shooting/32461096#
This is all so damning - the homeowner never reported any crime. Furthermore, McMichael told police that there had been several break-ins in the area and Ahmaud looked like the suspect. Police refute that as you'll see in the article, stating that no string of break-ins had been reported in the area going back at least several weeks. The District Attorney is going to have some 'splainin to do. And no sooner did I highlight revelations on Yavanovich above that a document was released listing 39 different people had requested to eavesdrop on Flynn's private conversations, including Joe Biden.
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05-13 ODNI to CEG RHJ (Unmasking).pdf

Our country has a very serious corruption problem at all levels of the government. The only way to cure this disease is to hold people accountable. The DA needs to be investigated, and if it is indeed true they whitewashed this and lied about it, they need to be disbarred, fired, and all benefits (healthcare/pension) need to be rescinded for life. Any criminal violations also need to be enforced. That's the only way to regain people's faith in government.

 

[MWBATL]

Our country has a very serious corruption problem at all levels of the government. The only way to cure this disease is to hold people accountable. The DA needs to be investigated, and if it is indeed true they whitewashed this and lied about it, they need to be disbarred, fired, and all benefits (healthcare/pension) need to be rescinded for life. Any criminal violations also need to be enforced. That's the only way to regain people's faith in government.

I agree completely on both counts!

May be the first time in history someone might bring a "no Justice, No Peace" sign to both a Black Lives Matter rally and then to a Trump rally!!

 

[GTpdm]

I do know a few black families that teach their children to be clean, dress sharp, talk politely, talk directly, talk intelligently, be respectful, etc.

Someone needs to ask these black families to have a series of long sit-down discussions with (u)GA fans.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Someone needs to ask these black families to have a series of long sit-down discussions with WHITE (u)GA fans.

FIFY

 

[LibertyTurns]

Someone needs to ask these black families to have a series of long sit-down discussions with (u)GA fans.

Maybe Crazy Uncle Joe could help. He definitely knows what an articulate, bright and clean, nice looking black dude looks like.

 

[684Bee]

Maybe Crazy Uncle Joe could help. He definitely knows what an articulate, bright and clean, nice looking black dude looks like.

“They gonna put y’all back in chains!”