Ahmaud Arbery murder case

[RonJohn]

Are you certain that the men with guns assaulted the jogger? It appears from the video that the jogger initiated the attack on one of the men with guns.

Simply having a gun and approaching a person in a threatening manner is assault. It is pretty clear from the video that the man with the shotgun did assault the man who was running.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Simple Assault under the Georgia statute is committing an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury. Whether their initial act of rolling up on him with guns could be considered an assault is probably a question the jury will have to decide.

I don't think we have ever been in agreement before on anything, but I do agree with you here.

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

If someone approached me in a threatening manner with a gun while I was jogging, I would react the same way.

 

[RonJohn]

maybe " within his immediate knowledge" is the relevant passage. In a letter the DA said that the McMichaels had "solid first hand probable cause" but he didn't elaborate on what that was.
OCGA17-4-60 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.”

So what crime was committed in the presence or immediate knowledge of the McMichaels? Court rulings have basically said that "in the presence" and "immediate knowledge" are basically the same thing. So, in order to make a citizens arrest, they would have had to see him commit a crime. There have been court rulings(not sure any were in Georgia) that say that in order to make a citizens arrest, it has to be done immediately after the crime was committed. You can't wait a few days, or even a few minutes and then decide to go after someone. A citizen's arrest is in situations such as you see a person snatch an old lady's purse, and as he runs by you you tackle him and hold him until the police arrive. It isn't for situations where you think some guy might have stolen a gun from a truck in front of your house a few months ago and you decide to chase him with guns.

What felony even might have been committed that day by the deceased? He entered an open construction area. He might be guilty of trespassing. That isn't a felony in Georgia. What felony is he even accused of on that day that maybe could have been committed "in the presence" of the guys who chased him with guns?

In that letter, the DA also wrote that he isn't biased and that the entire protest about the situation was caused by one local "rabble rouser". He then indicated his lack of bias by describing how bad the entire family of the deceased is. His conclusion that the McMichaels were justified in what they did was almost immediately rejected by the next DA who took over the case. His conclusion was rejected by the GBI and the Attorney General. The first DA, and the DA that you are quoting are currently being investigated by the GBI for how they conducted the case. It is possible that the DA you are quoting to prove your point is going to end up being sanctioned for his actions in this case. I wouldn't put my faith into what he wrote.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

So what crime was committed in the presence or immediate knowledge of the McMichaels? Court rulings have basically said that "in the presence" and "immediate knowledge" are basically the same thing. So, in order to make a citizens arrest, they would have had to see him commit a crime. There have been court rulings(not sure any were in Georgia) that say that in order to make a citizens arrest, it has to be done immediately after the crime was committed. You can't wait a few days, or even a few minutes and then decide to go after someone. A citizen's arrest is in situations such as you see a person snatch an old lady's purse, and as he runs by you you tackle him and hold him until the police arrive. It isn't for situations where you think some guy might have stolen a gun from a truck in front of your house a few months ago and you decide to chase him with guns.

What felony even might have been committed that day by the deceased? He entered an open construction area. He might be guilty of trespassing. That isn't a felony in Georgia. What felony is he even accused of on that day that maybe could have been committed "in the presence" of the guys who chased him with guns?

In that letter, the DA also wrote that he isn't biased and that the entire protest about the situation was caused by one local "rabble rouser". He then indicated his lack of bias by describing how bad the entire family of the deceased is. His conclusion that the McMichaels were justified in what they did was almost immediately rejected by the next DA who took over the case. His conclusion was rejected by the GBI and the Attorney General. The first DA, and the DA that you are quoting are currently being investigated by the GBI for how they conducted the case. It is possible that the DA you are quoting to prove your point is going to end up being sanctioned for his actions in this case. I wouldn't put my faith into what he wrote.

"not biased"? Yeah, right.

 

[RonJohn]

They were actually in the video and witnessed the man go into the house though. That’s where all this gets muddy as hell. Trial is gonna be nuts, with riots to follow most likely.

It is a good opportunity for the press to stop being sensationalistic and actually discuss things like the laws around citizen's arrest. Instead of showing people arguing about whether the guys were correct in pursuing him, have law enforcement and lawyers discuss the issues. Can you chase down someone with a gun because he trespassed on someone else's property? Can you chase someone with a gun because you think he broke into a truck in front of you house a couple of months ago? Can you openly carry a weapon to execute a citizen's arrest? If you take the time to get a weapon has the immediate response to the crime passed?

I haven't seen any of that. If the press actually takes the time to do those kinds of things, it might prevent such situations in the future. However, rednecks making stupid claims and riots seem to be better for ratings.

 

[LibertyTurns]

@RonJohn It’s all about money & power. Controversy generates media hits which increases advertising revenue. A good crisis is good for raising political donations and energizing different voting bases. Lawyers get to run up their billing. Cops get to work OT keeping the peace. A few more hotels rooms will be filled up with those covering the spectacle. At the end of the day we’ll end up with a media circus, certain groups will profit, the radical left & right will have an issue to parade around & not a damn thing will come out of this. Sad because it’s another opportunity to move the needle.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

If someone approached me in a threatening manner with a gun while I was jogging, I would react the same way.

Just like these men say they saw this guy and he was the criminal, people who act like those men probably have a wide and far reputation. We have no idea if they have told Ahmaud if they catch him alone they will kill him, or if they’ve yelled insults at him, or if they were yelling at him that day to hold still so they could shoot him. We just don’t know. A real investigation would have researched all these things, gathered evidence, canvassed for witnesses, and so on. There is more than enough evidence to have arrested these guys long ago. You can bet the scenario that Ahmaud was the bad guy and that’s all there is to it wasn’t true, because the DA would have said so and would have presented all the evidence to prove so.

 

[MWBATL]

All true American support real justice. I am disturbed beyond words by what that video shows. I am ALSO disturbed by some of the comments I see and hear (on both sides)....what we need is a complete and thorough (and impartial) investigation. I don't assume anything. I want there to be a complete examination of the facts and I don't think it is appropriate to convict either party based on one video or one claim either way. Let's just shut up and get the facts here......

 

[GT_EE78]

What felony even might have been committed that day by the deceased? He entered an open construction area. He might be guilty of trespassing. That isn't a felony in Georgia. What felony is he even accused of

You also need to consider that IF they had seen the video of the guy in that house, they would have had to have made the video themselves (which is likely). And if they made the video, then they know he had only been inside that (under construction) house for 3 minutes and didn't leave with anything from it.

Security cams were mounted inside the house and on a neighbors house across the street. There's more than one video...
.
per Georgia statute, one doesn't have to take anything to have committed a felony burglary.
GA Code § 16-7-1 (2014)

(b) A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the first degree shall be guilty of a felony

 

[GT_EE78]

In that letter, the DA also wrote that he isn't biased and that the entire protest about the situation was caused by one local "rabble rouser". He then indicated his lack of bias by describing how bad the entire family of the deceased is.

What i would want to know is whether or not this online activist was making true or false accusations. If false, maybe "rabble rouser" is true.Maybe the suspect,brother and family criminal histories are used to show a pattern of behavior.I'm not sure why he included that. I don't have enough information to either agree or disagree with your bias opinion.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Security cams were mounted inside the house and on a neighbors house across the street. There's more than one video...
.
per Georgia statute, one doesn't have to take anything to have committed a felony burglary.
GA Code § 16-7-1 (2014)

(b) A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the first degree shall be guilty of a felony

Like I said earlier, who among us has never visited a house or other building under construction just to see what it all looks like? I sure have many times.

 

[RonJohn]

Security cams were mounted inside the house and on a neighbors house across the street. There's more than one video...
.
per Georgia statute, one doesn't have to take anything to have committed a felony burglary.
GA Code § 16-7-1 (2014)

(b) A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the first degree shall be guilty of a felony

"with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein" Even if the McMichaels saw him inside the house, how could the possibly know that his intent was?

Does the house even meet the definition above? It is under construction and is open so unsuitable for use as a "dwelling". There was a 911 call that is quoted in the AJC, where the caller was asked if the person at the house broke in. The caller said no, because the house is under construction and is open.

 

[RonJohn]

What i would want to know is whether or not this online activist was making true or false accusations. If false, maybe "rabble rouser" is true.Maybe the suspect,brother and family criminal histories are used to show a pattern of behavior.I'm not sure why he included that. I don't have enough information to either agree or disagree with your bias opinion.

Well it is pretty clear that there was indeed a conflict of interest with that DA. It is also clear that there was a conflict of interest with the original DA, who happened to push the case to that DA even though she knew that his son worked in her office and had worked with the suspect. Even from that DA's comments, it is clear that he should have recused himself from the case. Since it is clear, even to him, that he should recuse himself why did it take so long?

 

[Milwaukee]

Like I said earlier, who among us has never visited a house or other building under construction just to see what it all looks like? I sure have many times.

Me. And millions of others. Lmao. I’ve seen a buncha weirdos making the same statement you’re making though when it comes to this case.
Who tf walks around construction sites and houses being built? Stop being a weirdo, and stop trespassing while you’re at it.

 

[RonJohn]

According the the AJC, the National District Attorneys Association isn't happy with Barnhill either. They stated

“We must strongly disagree with District Attorney George Barnhill’s decision to share his opinion of whether Greg and Travis McMichael should be arrested after he decided to recuse himself from the case,”

“No prosecutor should inject his or her opinion into a pending case to the point where she or he becomes a potential witness and risks compromising the just outcome of a case.”

(AJC)He had acknowledged his conflict of interest by April 2.

“At that point, his involvement in the case should have ceased,” the association said. “Instead District Attorney Barnhill wrote a letter, which has now become public, in which he offered a gratuitous and detailed opinion regarding the hurdles to any prosecution of the individuals involved in the shooting of Mr. Arbery.”

According to that association of DAs, he should not have continued to try to influence the case after he determined that he had a conflict of interest.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Me. And millions of others. Lmao. I’ve seen a buncha weirdos making the same statement you’re making though when it comes to this case.
Who tf walks around construction sites and houses being built? Stop being a weirdo, and stop trespassing while you’re at it.

So I guess since you have done it yourself, you are a weirdo too, huh? LOL

 

[MWBATL]

I do have to say that having armed Black Panthers show up in the neighborhood to protest doesn't really help matters, imho.

 

[Milwaukee]

I do have to say that having armed Black Panthers show up in the neighborhood to protest doesn't really help matters, imho.

Great let’s bring more racist idiots into the fold, that’ll help. How about let the McMichaels and all their redneck friends battle all these panther racist losers and let the rest of us be at peace. Sounds good to me.
Not really, but this is just the beginning. Wait until they’re declared innocent.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Great let’s bring more racist idiots into the fold, that’ll help. How about let the McMichaels and all their redneck friends battle all these panther racist losers and let the rest of us be at peace. Sounds good to me.
Not really, but this is just the beginning. Wait until they’re declared innocent.

If that happens, there will be riots like never seen before.