Ahmaud Arbery murder case

[takethepoints]

As you can probably tell from my past posts, I typically just try to lay out the letter of the law and let the chips fall where they may. But FWIW, I completely agree with you here. Criminal trespassing, even if applicable, is a misdemeanor. As such, McMichael would have to personally witness or have immediate knowledge of the crime. If it were a felony, then he may have a basis to detain Aubrey based on reasonable suspicion but only if Arbery were trying to escape. From what we know, none of that is applicable. The law (whether trespass, citizen's arrest, or stand your ground) is not the problem here, McMichael is.

Yes. And, btw, getting rid of the whole idea of citizen's arrest would be a real good idea. Now, as to the rest …

It seems to me that the precondition for the use of force in the statute rises or falls on the "unlawfully and forcibly entered" part. But that wasn't in the original hypothetical. There a homeowner comes home and finds someone in the house. That could happen for a variety of reasons and isn't necessarily preconditioned on "unlawfully and forcibly …" entering. The person might be drunk, they might be trying to find an address and entered by mistake, they could have come through to see if there had been a break-in after seeing a door left opened … there are a lot of situations where the statute wouldn't protect you if you used deadly force to remove someone you came home to find in your house. That's why it's always a good idea to call the cops. Now, if you are watching tv and hear your back door being forced open, it's another story. But, imho, it's still a good idea to call the cops at once, no matter what.

But, like I say, I'll have to ask the son.

 

[BonafideJacket]

Yes. And, btw, getting rid of the whole idea of citizen's arrest would be a real good idea. Now, as to the rest …

It seems to me that the precondition for the use of force in the statute rises or falls on the "unlawfully and forcibly entered" part. But that wasn't in the original hypothetical. There a homeowner comes home and finds someone in the house. That could happen for a variety of reasons and isn't necessarily preconditioned on "unlawfully and forcibly …" entering. The person might be drunk, they might be trying to find an address and entered by mistake, they could have come through to see if there had been a break-in after seeing a door left opened … there are a lot of situations where the statute wouldn't protect you if you used deadly force to remove someone you came home to find in your house. That's why it's always a good idea to call the cops. Now, if you are watching tv and hear your back door being forced open, it's another story. But, imho, it's still a good idea to call the cops at once, no matter what.

But, like I say, I'll have to ask the son.

Rabbit trail alert: I'm not up to speed on Georgia law specifically, but the first two situations would qualify under my understanding of "unlawful and forcibly" under the common law. "Unlawful" meaning without consent of the owner and "forcibly" carrying a very low threshold including moving some sort of obstacle out of the way, i.e. opening a door. Drunkenness or mistake would not be a defense as there is not an intent requirement for the castle doctrine to apply. Now someone wandering in through an open door may or may not qualify, but if the homeowner reasonably believes that individual entered unlawfully and forcibly, then it has a good chance of holding up, especially if the only contrary witness is now dead. Good discussion. I'd be interested to hear your son's thoughts.

 

[RonJohn]

Is anyone watching the probable cause hearing?

 

[Techster]

 

[armeck]

Is anyone watching the probable cause hearing?

I am, this is pretty damning.

 

[RonJohn]

I didn't see all of it. Apparently the GBI Agent in Charge of the investigation said that according to statements that the McMichaels and Bryan attempted to box Arbery in with their trucks. According to him on the stabilized video, it is apparent that the gun is pointed at Arbery when Arbery is 30-40 feet behind the truck, and Travis made a statement that he pointed the gun and yelled at Arbery to stop and get on the ground. Also, that McMichael made a statement that he pointed the gun at Arbery again when Arbery rotated toward him at the front of the truck.

Some items that might have an impact on whether the feds decide to pursue hate crime charges: Bryan heard Travis say effn n-word just after the shooting. I wouldn't take that to mean too much, because people in such an adrenaline pumping event might do or say almost anything. However, he said that there are multiple instances of the n-word on Travis's social media history including a statement that he enjoyed being on a boat in the water because there aren't any n-words around. I don't know if a hate crimes prosecution is warranted or even worth it since he is already facing a minimum of life in prison for felony murder, but it looks like Travis has laid out a relatively easy path to get the feds rolling with one. If that is what his family is like, it also brings into question the Brunswick DA's office. If their lead investigator commonly uses racial epithets, how could he objectively investigate crimes and be objective towards the race of the victims and/or suspects.

 

[armeck]

I didn't see all of it. Apparently the GBI Agent in Charge of the investigation said that according to statements that the McMichaels and Bryan attempted to box Arbery in with their trucks. According to him on the stabilized video, it is apparent that the gun is pointed at Arbery when Arbery is 30-40 feet behind the truck, and Travis made a statement that he pointed the gun and yelled at Arbery to stop and get on the ground. Also, that McMichael made a statement that he pointed the gun at Arbery again when Arbery rotated toward him at the front of the truck.

Some items that might have an impact on whether the feds decide to pursue hate crime charges: Bryan heard Travis say effn n-word just after the shooting. I wouldn't take that to mean too much, because people in such an adrenaline pumping event might do or say almost anything. However, he said that there are multiple instances of the n-word on Travis's social media history including a statement that he enjoyed being on a boat in the water because there aren't any n-words around. I don't know if a hate crimes prosecution is warranted or even worth it since he is already facing a minimum of life in prison for felony murder, but it looks like Travis has laid out a relatively easy path to get the feds rolling with one. If that is what his family is like, it also brings into question the Brunswick DA's office. If their lead investigator commonly uses racial epithets, how could he objectively investigate crimes and be objective towards the race of the victims and/or suspects.

I watched a lot of it, and you have highlighted the most salient points.
- Documented previous racist language.
- Intent to pursue, box in, and detain Arbery.
- Raised firearm to a shooting position, being the first act of aggression.
- Hit with the vehicle of Bryan, the person who videoed the event.

I don't approve of the death penalty, but I won't complain much if they get it.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Defendants turning each other now.
https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law...tm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_1265350

 

[Boaty1]

I watched a lot of it, and you have highlighted the most salient points.
- Documented previous racist language.
- Intent to pursue, box in, and detain Arbery.
- Raised firearm to a shooting position, being the first act of aggression.
- Hit with the vehicle of Bryan, the person who videoed the event.

I don't approve of the death penalty, but I won't complain much if they get it.

I know we have had some back and forth in the other thread, but these guys deserve what's coming to them here. They are idiots.

 

[RonJohn]

The judge ruled that there is enough probable cause to continue the cases. It shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone.

 

[Milwaukee]

I know we have had some back and forth in the other thread, but these guys deserve what's coming to them here. They are idiots.

Same here, Armeck and I don’t agree on much but he’s still good people. These 2 deserve the death penalty and should be charged as a hate crime on top.

 

[RonJohn]

All three defendants pleaded not guilty. Bryan was denied bond. I read elsewhere that the judge cited Bryan's lack of employment as a big reason to deny bond. He isn't employed because he has been in jail since he was arrested. I think he will end up in prison anyway, but it doesn't seem right to arrest someone, hold him in jail until he loses his job, and then just his lack of employment as the reason to consider him a flight risk and deny bond.