Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
Ahmaud Arbery murder case
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RonJohn" data-source="post: 719996" data-attributes="member: 2426"><p>The statute says:</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>suspicion</em> that someone <em>might </em>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.</p><p></p><p>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: <a href="https://www.macon.com/news/state/georgia/article240853751.html" target="_blank">https://www.macon.com/news/state/georgia/article240853751.html</a> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RonJohn, post: 719996, member: 2426"] 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 [I]suspicion[/I] that someone [I]might [/I]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: [URL]https://www.macon.com/news/state/georgia/article240853751.html[/URL] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who won the ACC Coach of the Year Award in 2014?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
Ahmaud Arbery murder case
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top