Ahmaud Arbery murder case

[GT_EE78]

The only things that matter are the actions that McMichael took. .

That would seem to be the only things that matter to you.
Luckily neither you nor I will be the one deciding how to apply the various (and sometimes confusing) laws for this case. Only the jury.
The Georgia Constitution - “In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts. Article I, Section 1, Paragraph XI."

 

[RonJohn]

A few thoughts on your diatribe.

1) You can have witnessed or have immediate knowledge of a misdemeanor as well in order to make a citizens arrest.

https://www.georgialegalaid.org/resource/rights-during-arrest

2) I don't think you or I know all the facts about what the McMichaels may or may not have had knowledge of at the time of the citizens arrest.

3) Arbery's actions were not fearful, and yes, that is my opinion.

1) You can have witnessed a misdemeanor and make a citizens arrest, however you can only actively arrest a fleeing suspect if it was a felony.
2) Nobody has all of the facts, but the knowledge isn't about what you might know, or what happened a couple of weeks ago. To make a citizens arrest, the crime has to be committed in your presence. Courts in Georgia have ruled that "immediate knowledge" is the same thing as in your presence. The statements from McMichael's father said that he saw someone(Arbery) and then went inside and told his son to get guns and come with him to apprehend him. From that statement, the only person that could have seen anything would have been the father. Based on that, the son could not make a citizen's arrest according to language of the statute.
3) Fear isn't only when someone pees their pants and does nothing. People react differently to fear. In that situation: some people would have run, some people would have peed their pants and laid down submissively, and some people would have attacked the person threatening them. Also, the statute says "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury", not fear. Was it reasonable for Arbery to believe that McMichael might hurt him? A man with a gun running at you and shouting would make most people believe that the person running at them intended to harm them.

 

[RonJohn]

That would seem to be the only things that matter to you.
Luckily neither you nor I will be the one deciding how to apply the various (and sometimes confusing) laws for this case. Only the jury.
The Georgia Constitution - “In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts. Article I, Section 1, Paragraph XI."

You like to quote statutes and state your opinion. Then when you are shown that your take on the statutes doesn't actually work, you decide to deride everyone else who actually thinks things through. Very classy.

EDIT: Also, it is extremely apparent to anyone who isn't looking at the video with some kind of bias that McMichael did in fact assault Arbery going strictly by the statute. It is extremely apparent that death of Arbery was directly related to that assault, which is felony murder in Georgia.

The points you have been attempting to make are for justification. For a justification defense, you pretty much have to admit that you committed the crime. McMichael would say he did assault Arbery, and that Arbery's death resulted from that assault. He would then have to lay out reasons that he was justified in assaulting Arbery.

 

[GT_EE78]

It takes a "reasonable apprehension" of receiving a violent injury. Would it be "reasonable" for you to fear being injured? .

I'm still having a little trouble with your interpretation of this.
this exerpt is from the 1969/pandemic/woodstock article in the other viral thread
"It’s a point echoed by Lydon. Her best memories of that wild weekend aren’t the sweaty crowds or the music — Jimi Hendrix’s electric guitar scared the “begeebers” out of her" So since anyone can look up the SPL where ear damage becomes permanent and may have a "reasonable apprehension" of receiving a violent injury,,
Should they have arrested Jimi?

 

[GT_EE78]

You like to quote statutes and state your opinion. Then when you are shown that your take on the statutes doesn't actually work, you decide to deride everyone else who actually thinks things through. Very classy.

Same to you

 

[RonJohn]

I'm still having a little trouble with your interpretation of this.
this exerpt is from the 1969/pandemic/woodstock article in the other viral thread
"It’s a point echoed by Lydon. Her best memories of that wild weekend aren’t the sweaty crowds or the music — Jimi Hendrix’s electric guitar scared the “begeebers” out of her" So since anyone can look up the SPL where ear damage becomes permanent and may have a "reasonable apprehension" of receiving a violent injury,,
Should they have arrested Jimi?

Best I remember, Woodstock was in NY instead of Woodstock, GA. The Georgia statute wouldn't have any importance there.

The statute says: "(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury." Would you believe that hearing loss from a concert is a violent injury?

If two black guys stop suddenly next to you while you are walking on a sidewalk and yell at you while holding guns in their hands, I am sure you would still say that you shouldn't have a fear that they might hurt you. It is all just normal law abiding citizens legally carrying firearms and intending no harm to anyone.

 

[RonJohn]

Same to you

When have i derided you? When have I posted statutes that don't actually cover the situation at hand, and then given up on the discussion, said everything is confusing, and that only a jury will decide?

I post statutes, articles, and quotes from legislatures and lawyers that support my statements.

 

[GT_EE78]

A man with a gun running at you and shouting would make most people believe that the person running at them intended to harm them.

Except that you've already been proven wrong,maybe disputed is better, or at least that others have a different opinion.
.
nobody knows if he was shouting.
Video proves that Arbery was running at the guy with the gun.
running at him proved that he didn't fear the gun.
his "reasonable apprehension" was that of going back to jail.
he had no duty to retreat and just stood his ground

 

[RonJohn]

nobody knows if he was shouting.

The father made a statement to the police that they were shouting at Arbery. Did the father make a false statement to police? (That is "proof" that they were shouting at Arbery)

Video proves that Arbery was running at the guy with the gun.
running at him proved that he didn't fear the gun.

Running at him does not prove that he doesn't fear the gun. If someone pulls a gun on you and you pull your weapon and shoot him is that proof that you didn't fear the gun or proof that you did fear the gun and wanted to use force to ensure you were not shot? Are you saying that Arbery knew when he was 100 feet away that McMichael had a gun? In the video, was the gun visible when Arbery was running up to the truck or was it only visible after McMichael stepped out of the truck with it in his hands? It appears that he wouldn't have been able to see the shotgun until he was beside the truck, which is when he launched himself at McMichael. Is having a gun in your hands going to de-escalate a situation, or make the person without a gun believe they must act quickly to prevent themselves being shot?

his "reasonable apprehension" was that of going back to jail.

That is pure conjecture. Maybe he had apprehension about the man who had been chasing him, exited his vehicle, and approached him with a gun.

he had no duty to retreat and just stood his ground.

If you assault a person, you cannot use that persons reaction to your assault as justification for violence. If McMichael has "stood his ground" at his house, there would not be an issue. If McMichael had "stood his ground" at the house under construction while Arbery ran away, there would not be an issue. From the statements made by his father to the police, they were actively chasing Arbery. Another person had turned him back, and they moved into a position to cut him off. They were not "standing their ground", they were actively pursuing.

Except that you've already been proven wrong,maybe disputed is better, or at least that others have a different opinion.

You have disputed me by saying that in Georgia pointing a gun at someone is only a misdemeanor and that it is only a felony if you shoot them. That is a misunderstanding of how the law works. Under the assault law in Georgia it is actually a felony to display a weapon during an altercation. It is extremely apparent in this case the the younger McMichael did do that. Arbery died as a result, which under Georgia statute is murder.

You have claimed there are several justification defenses for those actions. Self defense is expressly unavailable to someone who commits assault. Since McMichael did in fact commit assault from a strict reading of the statute, he cannot use self defense as his defense.

You have claimed that they were making a citizen's arrest, but you have failed to support that claim with any available facts. Maybe they saw him snatch a purse and were pursuing because of that. I haven't seen that claimed anywhere. What crime did they witness? Also, as I have stated, under rulings in Georgia just believing you witnessed a crime isn't good enough. A crime has to be committed. In Georgia, trespass requires a) damage to the property b) notification from the owner not to be on the property or c) a request from the owner to leave the property. It isn't clear that he even committed trespass on that day. Ohh, there is an unverified screenshot from a video that shows a blur that might be a hammer isn't good enough. There have been a string of robberies in the neighborhood isn't good enough. The McMichaels had to have witnessed a crime in progress and react immediately to that crime. What crime are you proposing that they immediately witnessed, and where is your evidence of them witnessing said crime?

 

[GT_EE78]

The father made a statement to the police that they were shouting at Arbery. Did the father make a false statement to police? (That is "proof" that they were shouting at Arbery)



Running at him does not prove that he doesn't fear the gun. If someone pulls a gun on you and you pull your weapon and shoot him is that proof that you didn't fear the gun or proof that you did fear the gun and wanted to use force to ensure you were not shot? Are you saying that Arbery knew when he was 100 feet away that McMichael had a gun? In the video, was the gun visible when Arbery was running up to the truck or was it only visible after McMichael stepped out of the truck with it in his hands? It appears that he wouldn't have been able to see the shotgun until he was beside the truck, which is when he launched himself at McMichael. Is having a gun in your hands going to de-escalate a situation, or make the person without a gun believe they must act quickly to prevent themselves being shot?



That is pure conjecture. Maybe he had apprehension about the man who had been chasing him, exited his vehicle, and approached him with a gun.



If you assault a person, you cannot use that persons reaction to your assault as justification for violence. If McMichael has "stood his ground" at his house, there would not be an issue. If McMichael had "stood his ground" at the house under construction while Arbery ran away, there would not be an issue. From the statements made by his father to the police, they were actively chasing Arbery. Another person had turned him back, and they moved into a position to cut him off. They were not "standing their ground", they were actively pursuing.



You have disputed me by saying that in Georgia pointing a gun at someone is only a misdemeanor and that it is only a felony if you shoot them. That is a misunderstanding of how the law works. Under the assault law in Georgia it is actually a felony to display a weapon during an altercation. It is extremely apparent in this case the the younger McMichael did do that. Arbery died as a result, which under Georgia statute is murder.

You have claimed there are several justification defenses for those actions. Self defense is expressly unavailable to someone who commits assault. Since McMichael did in fact commit assault from a strict reading of the statute, he cannot use self defense as his defense.

You have claimed that they were making a citizen's arrest, but you have failed to support that claim with any available facts. Maybe they saw him snatch a purse and were pursuing because of that. I haven't seen that claimed anywhere. What crime did they witness? Also, as I have stated, under rulings in Georgia just believing you witnessed a crime isn't good enough. A crime has to be committed. In Georgia, trespass requires a) damage to the property b) notification from the owner not to be on the property or c) a request from the owner to leave the property. It isn't clear that he even committed trespass on that day. Ohh, there is an unverified screenshot from a video that shows a blur that might be a hammer isn't good enough. There have been a string of robberies in the neighborhood isn't good enough. The McMichaels had to have witnessed a crime in progress and react immediately to that crime. What crime are you proposing that they immediately witnessed, and where is your evidence of them witnessing said crime?

I respectfully disagree

 

[Deleted member 2897]

well, at least one of them was able to pass on that second sheet cake at breakfast.

Because by the looks of her she had been up for 48 hours already on a Meth binge.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I think I remember this drive by debunked conspiracy theory before - then we ask what and they never respond again. Oh well.

Oh well. IIWII.

 

[RonJohn]

I respectfully disagree

With what in particular?

The police report states that they claimed to be shouting at Arbery. Do you dispute McMichael's own statements?

Can you honestly say you can only respond to a person assaulting you with a weapon if you have no fear?

What evidence do you have to support your claim that Arbery was only afraid of going back to jail? This claim in particular is quite in contrast with all of my statements. I do not claim that the McMichaels were out for Arbery because he was black. I am simply looking at available information and Georgia statutes. It doesn't matter what McMichael was thinking. He chased Arbery with a gun. That IS assault under the Georgia statutes. No questions, no ifs, not buts. It IS assault. There might be a claim for justification, but I haven't seen one yet.

Can you point me to a crime that the McMichaels witnessed? According to the police report, the older McMichael stated that the younger McMichael was in the house when he saw Arbery running down the street. Can you point me to a Georgia statute that says it is legal to detain someone if you don't witness a crime yourself?

You are not arguing facts. You are simply stating general, non law based opinion that the McMichaels are decent guys.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

With what in particular?

The police report states that they claimed to be shouting at Arbery. Do you dispute McMichael's own statements?

Can you honestly say you can only respond to a person assaulting you with a weapon if you have no fear?

What evidence do you have to support your claim that Arbery was only afraid of going back to jail? This claim in particular is quite in contrast with all of my statements. I do not claim that the McMichaels were out for Arbery because he was black. I am simply looking at available information and Georgia statutes. It doesn't matter what McMichael was thinking. He chased Arbery with a gun. That IS assault under the Georgia statutes. No questions, no ifs, not buts. It IS assault. There might be a claim for justification, but I haven't seen one yet.

Can you point me to a crime that the McMichaels witnessed? According to the police report, the older McMichael stated that the younger McMichael was in the house when he saw Arbery running down the street. Can you point me to a Georgia statute that says it is legal to detain someone if you don't witness a crime yourself?

You are not arguing facts. You are simply stating general, non law based opinion that the McMichaels are decent guys.

RJ, you make it sound like already have plenty of evidence to convict Mcmichael of assault. That's fine and good, but my opinion is that we don't know everything about this case yet, and Lord help this man if someone like you who has already found him guilty even before seeing all the evidence gets on his jury.

 

[RonJohn]

RJ, you make it sound like already have plenty of evidence to convict Mcmichael of assault. That's fine and good, but my opinion is that we don't know everything about this case yet, and Lord help this man if someone like you who has already found him guilty even before seeing all the evidence gets on his jury.

And I totally disagree with that. I am looking at facts. I am not thinking about some scenario, where it might be possible that there was something that justified McMichael to chase him with a gun. If facts do come out that justify McMichael chasing him with a gun, then I will consider those facts, compare them with the law, and possibly change how I view this situation.

You on the other hand, have decided with no available facts that Arbery was a danger to the area and should have been chased with guns. What is that conclusion based on? Have you seen that the home owner now thinks that Arbery was getting water on the property during jogs? He has other video of Arbery entering the property and going towards a water source. He also has video of many other people entering the property. Were they guilty of the same crime that you claim Arbery was guilty of? If no evidence of a crime committed by Arbery ever becomes available, will you change your mind?

Lord help society if people like you actually believe any person that steps on another person's property should be gunned down.

EDIT: There is more than enough evidence to charge McMichael with assault. The only way I can see possible that he can defend himself is with a justification defense. I haven't seen anything that would legally justify him chasing Arbery with a gun, but as you said I don't know everything about the case. If evidence is produced, then I will consider it. I am not going to pretend like it exists before then.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

And I totally disagree with that. I am looking at facts. I am not thinking about some scenario, where it might be possible that there was something that justified McMichael to chase him with a gun. If facts do come out that justify McMichael chasing him with a gun, then I will consider those facts, compare them with the law, and possibly change how I view this situation.

You on the other hand, have decided with no available facts that Arbery was a danger to the area and should have been chased with guns. What is that conclusion based on? Have you seen that the home owner now thinks that Arbery was getting water on the property during jogs? He has other video of Arbery entering the property and going towards a water source. He also has video of many other people entering the property. Were they guilty of the same crime that you claim Arbery was guilty of? If no evidence of a crime committed by Arbery ever becomes available, will you change your mind?

Lord help society if people like you actually believe any person that steps on another person's property should be gunned down.

EDIT: There is more than enough evidence to charge McMichael with assault. The only way I can see possible that he can defend himself is with a justification defense. I haven't seen anything that would legally justify him chasing Arbery with a gun, but as you said I don't know everything about the case. If evidence is produced, then I will consider it. I am not going to pretend like it exists before then.

For starters, I have not said any of what you accuse me of saying. You are really good at putting words in people's mouths that they did not say. While you are obviously adamant that Mcmichael is already guilty and that you won't consider that there could be other evidence until it is presented to you, I say that we do not have all the facts it the case and that his guilt is not yet sealed.

 

[RonJohn]

For starters, I have not said any of what you accuse me of saying. You are really good at putting words in people's mouths that they did not say. While you are obviously adamant that Mcmichael is already guilty and that you won't consider that there could be other evidence until it is presented to you, I say that we do not have all the facts it the case and that his guilt is not yet sealed.

You did say that you would not be concerned if someone chased you with a gun while yelling "STOP". I do not believe that.

You seem to believe that I have a political spin on the situation. What I have said is basic, and is only based on the evidence that is available. In the video, the younger McMichael approached Arbery with a gun. That is evidence. According to Georgia law, that is assault. Arbery died as a result of that assault. That is evidence. I am not making supposition about McMichael being a racist. I am not making supposition about McMichael intending to kill Arbery when he left his house. I am simply looking at the evidence available and the laws of Georgia.

From the older McMiachael's statements to police, the younger McMichael didn't witness ANY actions by Arbery before the chase began, criminal or not. That statement is evidence. That will make it extremely difficult for him to argue that he was making a legal citizen's arrest, since he wasn't even able to see the area. Also, courts in Georgia have ruled that during a citizen's arrest only the amount of force necessary to hold the suspect is allowed. You can't use a gun to arrest someone who is not armed. You can't use a gun simply because you think he might be armed. McMichael will probably claim self defense, but under Georgia law, justification does not work if you commit the initial assault. Even if someone assaults you, once you are separated or things calm down, you cannot begin a new assault. So, even if Arbery had shot at McMichael 5 minutes before, McMicahel could not at that point chase him with a gun.

I have stated more than once that if other facts become available, I will consider them. Since you, based on no facts whatsoever, have decided that he is completely innocent, please use your imagination and tell me one scenario in which McMichael was legally justified in chasing Arbery with a gun. I can't think of any possible situation in which McMichael had a legal justification for chasing him with a gun. Provide any possible scenario and statute that would legally allow that.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

You did say that you would not be concerned if someone chased you with a gun while yelling "STOP". I do not believe that.

You seem to believe that I have a political spin on the situation. What I have said is basic, and is only based on the evidence that is available. In the video, the younger McMichael approached Arbery with a gun. That is evidence. According to Georgia law, that is assault. Arbery died as a result of that assault. That is evidence. I am not making supposition about McMichael being a racist. I am not making supposition about McMichael intending to kill Arbery when he left his house. I am simply looking at the evidence available and the laws of Georgia.

From the older McMiachael's statements to police, the younger McMichael didn't witness ANY actions by Arbery before the chase began, criminal or not. That statement is evidence. That will make it extremely difficult for him to argue that he was making a legal citizen's arrest, since he wasn't even able to see the area. Also, courts in Georgia have ruled that during a citizen's arrest only the amount of force necessary to hold the suspect is allowed. You can't use a gun to arrest someone who is not armed. You can't use a gun simply because you think he might be armed. McMichael will probably claim self defense, but under Georgia law, justification does not work if you commit the initial assault. Even if someone assaults you, once you are separated or things calm down, you cannot begin a new assault. So, even if Arbery had shot at McMichael 5 minutes before, McMicahel could not at that point chase him with a gun.

I have stated more than once that if other facts become available, I will consider them. Since you, based on no facts whatsoever, have decided that he is completely innocent, please use your imagination and tell me one scenario in which McMichael was legally justified in chasing Arbery with a gun. I can't think of any possible situation in which McMichael had a legal justification for chasing him with a gun. Provide any possible scenario and statute that would legally allow that.

Dude, quit lying about what I say or don't say. I didn't say either of those things, nor do I even agree with them. The McMichaels may indeed be guilty of assault and murder. I'm just not as quick to condemn the men based only on a video and a police report like you are. I am fairly confident that there are things about this case that both you and I are not privy to at this time.

 

[RonJohn]

Dude, quit lying about what I say or don't say. I didn't say either of those things, nor do I even agree with them. The McMichaels may indeed be guilty of assault and murder. I'm just not as quick to condemn the men based only on a video and a police report like you are. I am fairly confident that there are things about this case that both you and I are not privy to at this time.

You did say that someone yelling at someone, exiting their vehicle with a gun, and approaching them would not cause a "reasonable apprehension of of immediately receiving a violent injury". You specifically said that it would not. I can point to that post if I need to. I'm not the one who is lying.

As I requested before, please give me one scenario in which McMichael was legally justified in chasing Arbery with a gun. I cannot think of any possible scenario in which it would be legal. If you can't think of any possible scenario, even if highly unlikely, why do you believe that one exists?

I am confident that there are things about the case that we don't know also. However, if there isn't even an imaginary way that McMichael could have been justified in armed pursuit of Arbery, then no facts of such a thing will arise.

 

[RonJohn]

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.