Ahmaud Arbery murder case

[ramblinwreckguru]

But that’s not what happened is it?

I would think that house is pretty random.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I would think that house is pretty random.

We don't know that to be the case. There well may be other houses currently under construction in that neighborhood.

 

[Studdard63]

I would think that house is pretty random.

People don’t live in houses under construction, so of course there is nobody home.

 

[MWBATL]

Thieves can make some serious money by stealing valuable construction product (copper wire etc) from houses under construction. BUT, typically, builders have learned not to leave that sort of stuff lying around, and if they do they usually secure it on some fashion. I am not aware of any such reports about theft from that house. Just wandering through it seems harmless to me.

 

[RonJohn]

It looks to me like the charges against the guy who made the video will be much harder for the prosecutors to prove in court. I believe the charges are attempt to commit false imprisonment and felony murder. The only evidence that I have seen of him assisting the McMichaels in stopping Arbery are McMichael's statements to police. There might be more, but if so it isn't public at this point.

If I were his lawyer, I would want to do everything I could to have separate trials. If he has a separate trial, he will not be sitting next to the McMichaels. If he has a separate trial, I'm not sure the McMichael's statement to police would be admissible unless the defense can cross-examine McMichael. I don't think McMichael's lawyer would let him testify in Bryan's trial unless they had reached a plea agreement, in which case the lawyer can attack him for getting a better deal for testifying against Bryan. Bryan has claimed that he didn't have any communication with the McMichaels on the day of the incident. He can claim that he say a chase in progress and only followed to observe and film the chase. Unless the trials are conducted together and the prosecutors can enter evidence that they wouldn't be able to in a trial against Bryan alone, I don't see how they can prove that case.

 

[armeck]

It looks to me like the charges against the guy who made the video will be much harder for the prosecutors to prove in court. I believe the charges are attempt to commit false imprisonment and felony murder. The only evidence that I have seen of him assisting the McMichaels in stopping Arbery are McMichael's statements to police. There might be more, but if so it isn't public at this point.

If I were his lawyer, I would want to do everything I could to have separate trials. If he has a separate trial, he will not be sitting next to the McMichaels. If he has a separate trial, I'm not sure the McMichael's statement to police would be admissible unless the defense can cross-examine McMichael. I don't think McMichael's lawyer would let him testify in Bryan's trial unless they had reached a plea agreement, in which case the lawyer can attack him for getting a better deal for testifying against Bryan. Bryan has claimed that he didn't have any communication with the McMichaels on the day of the incident. He can claim that he say a chase in progress and only followed to observe and film the chase. Unless the trials are conducted together and the prosecutors can enter evidence that they wouldn't be able to in a trial against Bryan alone, I don't see how they can prove that case.

Since he was also pursuing, they are going to lump him into the overall activities. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy pleads out in favor of offering more "behind the scenes" evidence against the McMichaels.

 

[GT_EE78]

We don't know that to be the case. There well may be other houses currently under construction in that neighborhood.

and there may have been two people simultaneously wearing OJ Simpson's Bruno Maglio shoes.

 

[IEEEWreck]

Since he was also pursuing, they are going to lump him into the overall activities. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy pleads out in favor of offering more "behind the scenes" evidence against the McMichaels.

This is the most likely outcome.

If they do get him, it will be because he was dumb enough to admit to doing it to other people.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

and there may have been two people simultaneously wearing OJ Simpson's Bruno Maglio shoes.

Have you ridden around new neighborhoods lately? There are almost always more than one house under construction.

 

[GT_EE78]

Have you ridden around new neighborhoods lately? There are almost always more than one house under construction.

Although i'm sure that's true, in this case there really isn't any controversy over which house it was.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Although i'm sure that's true, in this case there really isn't any controversy over which house it was.

And according to all reports, there was no controversy about what he did while in there.

 

[GT_EE78]

And according to all reports, there was no controversy about what he did while in there.

same source of reports no doubt who told of that innocent girl in the Duke LaCrosse case

 

[IEEEWreck]

same source of reports no doubt who told of that innocent girl in the Duke LaCrosse case

Wow. This is a moment to maybe step back and ponder the choices you've made.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

You are arguing against a narrative that is being painted in the media.

However arguments don't for in with Georgia law with respect to the incident in February. Even if the person shoot had been a convicted murderer that everyone in the town knew to be bad news, there is nothing that happened that legally authorized Travis McMichael to attempt to detain him. There is nothing that legally authorized Travis McMichael to utilize a gun in the attempt to detain him. Protesters can argue he was a saint. you can argue that he was a villain. However, that argument doesn't affect whether or not McMichael actions were legal or not.

Are you able to prove, under state law, your assertion that the accused did not have "legal authority" to detain/arrest, with a weapon the person they did?

I am not saying they did, but have seen commentary regarding citizen arrest laws in Ga regarding such.

I haven't researched them, but since you definitively declared such, i thought perhaps you had and could lay it out.

 

[RonJohn]

Are you able to prove, under state law, your assertion that the accused did not have "legal authority" to detain/arrest, with a weapon the person they did?

I am not saying they did, but have seen commentary regarding citizen arrest laws in Ga regarding such.

I haven't researched them, but since you definitively declared such, i thought perhaps you had and could lay it out.

The statute says:

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.

Further down in the statute is says that if a person is detained, and there was no crime committed that the person making the arrest has committed false imprisonment. Good will about believing that a crime was committed isn't good enough. A crime must have been committed, and the person making the arrest must have personal knowledge of the crime. I don't have the annotated Georgia code on the computer I am using now, but I can find that item later for you if you would like.

In a 2004 case, Patel vs State, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that ONLY the necessary amount of force required to restrain a person may be used by a private citizen when executing a citizen's arrest. "The only force reasonable under the circumstances may be used to restrain the individual arrested," You can't use suspicion that someone might have a weapon as a reason to use or even produce a weapon when making a citizen's arrest. Private citizens are much more restrained than certified police officers with arrest powers.

Chasing Arbery down wasn't legal. The big mistake made by Travis McMichael was making his gun visible. Under Georgia law currently, simply brandishing a weapon during a conflict is by definition aggravated assault, which is a felony. A Georgia Senator was trying to change the law to make displaying a weapon not be illegal before the legislature shut down this year: https://www.macon.com/news/state/georgia/article240853751.html Once Travis displayed a weapon, under Georgia law Arbery was entitled to a self defense claim to defend himself from the person with a weapon who was committing aggravated assault against him.(No possible argument about aggravated assault because it is strictly from the definition -- you produce a weapon, you have committed aggravated assault.) Once Travis is established as the aggressor, by definition of the aggravated assault statute, he cannot use self defense as a defense against any harm that results from the assault.

Basically, if they had chased him but not produced weapons, they might have had some legal issues if it were pursued by the DA. (By how things turned out, it probably wouldn't have.) Once Travis pulled out a gun, it directly fits the legal definition of assault. That is on video.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

The statute says:

Further down in the statute is says that if a person is detained, and there was no crime committed that the person making the arrest has committed false imprisonment. Good will about believing that a crime was committed isn't good enough. A crime must have been committed, and the person making the arrest must have personal knowledge of the crime. I don't have the annotated Georgia code on the computer I am using now, but I can find that item later for you if you would like.

In a 2004 case, Patel vs State, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that ONLY the necessary amount of force required to restrain a person may be used by a private citizen when executing a citizen's arrest. "The only force reasonable under the circumstances may be used to restrain the individual arrested," You can't use suspicion that someone might have a weapon as a reason to use or even produce a weapon when making a citizen's arrest. Private citizens are much more restrained than certified police officers with arrest powers.

Chasing Arbery down wasn't legal. The big mistake made by Travis McMichael was making his gun visible. Under Georgia law currently, simply brandishing a weapon during a conflict is by definition aggravated assault, which is a felony. A Georgia Senator was trying to change the law to make displaying a weapon not be illegal before the legislature shut down this year: https://www.macon.com/news/state/georgia/article240853751.html Once Travis displayed a weapon, under Georgia law Arbery was entitled to a self defense claim to defend himself from the person with a weapon who was committing aggravated assault against him.(No possible argument about aggravated assault because it is strictly from the definition -- you produce a weapon, you have committed aggravated assault.) Once Travis is established as the aggressor, by definition of the aggravated assault statute, he cannot use self defense as a defense against any harm that results from the assault.

Basically, if they had chased him but not produced weapons, they might have had some legal issues if it were pursued by the DA. (By how things turned out, it probably wouldn't have.) Once Travis pulled out a gun, it directly fits the legal definition of assault. That is on video.

Most excellent.

But there are, indeed, situations when certain criteria is met for people to have "legal authority" in regards to citizen arrest powers- no?

That was what i have been trying to find out.

 

[RonJohn]

Most excellent.

But there are, indeed, situations when certain criteria is met for people to have "legal authority" in regards to citizen arrest powers- no?

That was what i have been trying to find out.

Yes. If you witness a crime, you can detain the person committing the crime. If you witness a felony in progress, you can pursue the person who committed the felony and detain them.

With that said, you need to be certain that you are witnessing a crime. If what you witnessed ends up not being a crime, you can be charged with false imprisonment. If the person you detain ends up not being charged, they could file a civil lawsuit against you even if it could have been a crime that they could have been charged with. Trespass in Georgia has some legal limits. Just entering a property isn't trespass. People entering basically have to have been on notice that the owner doesn't want them on the property. Just because you think they might be trespassing could open you up to criminal or civil penalties if you are wrong about the statutes. Use caution about using force against other people even if you think they might have committed a crime.

With that said, if you see someone snatching a purse from an old lady, beating a child (not just a slap to the butt, but actually beating), or a violent rape in progress, by all means stop the crime and hold the perpetrator until police arrive. If I were on a jury, it would be difficult to convict someone if they took action because they saw such a thing in progress. If someone were violently raping a child, it would be difficult for me to convict a person of stopping them, even if they used more force than necessary. I think I would be a little over zealous in my attempt to stop such a thing, and the perpetrator might end up with some injuries.

EDIT: The statute I posted is from Georgia. The laws are different in different states. Some allow citizen's arrest more liberally than Georgia, and some don't allow it at all. I don't know, but I don't see a jury convicting someone of anything even in states that don't allow it for stopping an egregious crime in progress.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

Yes. If you witness a crime, you can detain the person committing the crime. If you witness a felony in progress, you can pursue the person who committed the felony and detain them.

With that said, you need to be certain that you are witnessing a crime. If what you witnessed ends up not being a crime, you can be charged with false imprisonment. If the person you detain ends up not being charged, they could file a civil lawsuit against you even if it could have been a crime that they could have been charged with. Trespass in Georgia has some legal limits. Just entering a property isn't trespass. People entering basically have to have been on notice that the owner doesn't want them on the property. Just because you think they might be trespassing could open you up to criminal or civil penalties if you are wrong about the statutes. Use caution about using force against other people even if you think they might have committed a crime.

With that said, if you see someone snatching a purse from an old lady, beating a child (not just a slap to the butt, but actually beating), or a violent rape in progress, by all means stop the crime and hold the perpetrator until police arrive. If I were on a jury, it would be difficult to convict someone if they took action because they saw such a thing in progress. If someone were violently raping a child, it would be difficult for me to convict a person of stopping them, even if they used more force than necessary. I think I would be a little over zealous in my attempt to stop such a thing, and the perpetrator might end up with some injuries.

EDIT: The statute I posted is from Georgia. The laws are different in different states. Some allow citizen's arrest more liberally than Georgia, and some don't allow it at all. I don't know, but I don't see a jury convicting someone of anything even in states that don't allow it for stopping an egregious crime in progress.

I still have a couple issues with your interpretation of GA law.

According to you,

1) Any person can legally attack another person who he sees with a firearm and claim it was self defense.

2) Any person can legally enter any random house with an unlocked door and hang out there as long as noone is home and nothing is taken or vandalized.

I understand the way you are interpreting these laws, but I really have an issue with your interpretations from a common sense standpoint.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I still have a couple issues with your interpretation of GA law.

According to you,

1) Any person can legally attack another person who he sees with a firearm and claim it was self defense.

2) Any person can legally enter any random house with an unlocked door and hang out there as long as noone is home and nothing is taken or vandalized.

I understand the way you are interpreting these laws, but I really have an issue with your interpretations from a common sense standpoint.

You're misrepresenting what he said. Tresspass and Entering are not the same thing. The house under construction did not have doors or walls, so there is no Entering. What you described is Entering. Different animal. Also, the statute talks about brandishing a gun when there is a conflict, not just when someone sees a gun. Come on. Don't be a troll.

 

[RonJohn]

I still have a couple issues with your interpretation of GA law.

According to you,

1) Any person can legally attack another person who he sees with a firearm and claim it was self defense.

2) Any person can legally enter any random house with an unlocked door and hang out there as long as noone is home and nothing is taken or vandalized.

I understand the way you are interpreting these laws, but I really have an issue with your interpretations from a common sense standpoint.

For item number 1, that is an egregious misinterpretation of what I have said. If you are in a hostile, or charged situation with another person and display that you have a weapon, by Georgia law that is aggravated assault. If you are in a charged situation with someone else and you present a weapon, that person can defend themselves. As a matter of fact, if I happen to have my gun with me and another person who is yelling at me shows me that they have a gun, I will attempt to shoot them before they have a chance to shoot me. I am not going to wait until they point the gun at me and begin to flex their index finger to fire the gun, that would be too late. If someone is yelling at me, I am NOT going to show them that I have a gun until such a point that I am in the action of shooting them. I would not want to threaten that person, and I would not want that person to know that I had a gun so that if they want to harm me they don't plan on me having a gun.

Just having a gun doesn't cut it. If McMichael had been walking from his truck to the woods to hunt turkey and had a gun in his hands, there would be no justification for anyone to attack him. However, McMichael had been chasing Arbery with his truck for about 4 minutes and yelling at him. I understand that you can't see it, but there is a huge difference between: "having a gun", and chasing a person for four minutes, yelling at that person, and then showing a gun.

For item number 2, that is how the statute is written. If you live in Georgia and you don't like it from a common sense standpoint, talk to your state house member and senator to let them know you would like for it to be changed.