tvc184

I don’t think it matters if they pointed it. Again using Texas, to display a deadly weapon and make a threat Is up to 20 years unless justified under self defense. It never mentions pointing, only displaying. If s person pulls out s pistol and says I am about to kill you, that is Aggravated Assault,. Pointing doesn’t matter. Also exposing a deadly weapon calculated to alarm is a crime. I imagine that the shooter didn’t jump out and say have a nice day. He pulled s shotgun with intent to get Arbery to stop by scaring him. That is the definition or meaning of calculated to alarm. Basically it is s terroristic threat without having to make the threat. If GA has any laws similar to Texas on displaying firearms AND these guys had no justification to pull a firearm for a non violent misdemeanor arrest, they sure look guilty of murder to me. For now I will defer to the state attorney who knows the law. I realize that it could be political however if is as have explained in Texas or similar, they are in serous trouble. There is no federal court case law of a constitutional right to display a shotgun in public. You could make an emotional appeal however try to find a court ruling. I am not sure where you think an officer can draw a weapon on a Misdemeanor arrest. There has to be justification and running isn’t generally one of them.

Yeah but he was not coming back from a Duck Hunt walking back home. He chased a guy down and jumped out of the truck with a shotgun to make a misdemeanor arrest.

Yeah, I have been teaching this at the college level for many years and have never heard of “reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion”. Huh? It is like they took a couple of different definitions or concepts and kind of threw them together into gibberish. As far as the events, was a felony committed? I don’t think so. Was a crime committed at all? That is debatable. Texas law says that to trespass you had to have been given s warning. Was Arbery given a warning by state law? As I have brought to before, EVEN IF there was a lawful citizen arrest, can they threaten Arbery with a firearm for a non-violent misdemeanor? I think that is what will burn them. All of the what if scenarios won’t matter if they could not lawfully point a gun for a non violent crime. Not liking Arbery or seeing that he has a prior record doesn’t change that.

And to the store security trying to take a but into custody and the suspect tries to take his firearm, there is a good chance that will result in the lawful use of deadly force. The difference is that because you have a handgun in a holster and someone tries to take it away, you are in danger and have not committed a crime. Heck, forget about security. What about a citizen who is open casting with a Texas LTC? You are shopping and open carrying and some nut runs up and tries to disarm you for no lawful reason? You can probably use DF lawfully. You aren’t committing any crime and are now in serious danger. But if you are the one illegally running around the store pointing a gun at people, you are breaking the law, cannot likely use self defense lawfully but someone else can against you. Did the men that are charged with killing Arbery have the lawful authority of arrest by state law and if so, did they have the lawful authority to present a firearm to take him into custody for the non-violent crime (if one even existed) and apparently unarmed? The state Attorney said in his opinion, no.

Yep. I love what if scenarios but these don’t match up.

The police have authorities that civilians do not have. You say things are the same when they aren’t. You claim that these men were detaining until the police arrived. It is a use of legalese but they can’t detain to wait for the police. They can arrest if it guys GA law. You can claim that is what happened but the state attorneys disagree with you. The law on shoplifting are different than other crimes. Texas Law says that a CA must be a felony or a breach of the peace. BUT.... in a completely different chapter it says that “any person” has the authority to prevent the consequences of theft. I don’t feel like looking up GA law at this moment but you speak in general terms and what if scenarios when there are sometimes several different parts of the law in question. As an example from Texas law, it is the legal case law rulings from the SCOTUS and other courts from the Fourth Amendment that probable cause is needed to justify an arrest. Couple that with Texas law in CA of a felony or breach of the peace only... yet any person can do s shoplifter with a “reasonable ground” to believe that theft has taken place. You have to look at all of the laws that apply, not cherry pick them when using examples. Remember the legal concept of lex specialis derogat legi generali.

If the retired cop has any money in his retirement account, I’ll bet he won’t have any when this is over, no matter the outcome unless a go fund me account gives him some. Even if he beats the rap, he will be penniless and won’t be able to go back to his old job. About the best he can hope for being is a free destitute..... And what did the community policing cop text.... let the retired cop handle it?

Aaaaaand now the FBI is investigating it......

No, you are comparing apples to Dodge Durangos. The third guy is not indicted for the video. He is indicted (from what I have read) for assisting, not videoing. Video in a public place is lawful. Also, officers have the authority to detain by force in order to investigate. Civilians do not. In IL v. Wardlow the SCOTUS ruled that seeing the cops in a high crime area and bolting away is enough reasonable suspicion to detain a person without violating the Fourth Amendment. I am not sure what no crime to jog or flee refers to....

No, it’s not all fair game. It has to be relevant to the trial however, if a defendant (or anyone) takes the stand, you can impeach his testimony by trying to show that he is untruthful. For the guys to claim self defense in this case, I believe they are going to have to take the stand to explain their actions. They obviously don’t have to by law and their lawyers can try to make the case without it but it will be difficult with what I think the state attorney is going to bring. Dropping a case or being found not guilty has nothing to do with a lawful arrest. Probable cause is a way different standard than proof beyond s reasonable doubt. Yes I have seen officers sued and successfully. Deadly force is defined (at least in Texas) by statute. It isn’t merely “generally accepted”. DF used on a person is actual use of deadly force but the threat of deadly force (in Texas) with a deadly Weapon can get you up to 99 years in the hoosegow according who you threaten. Up to 20 years for everyone else. That is the mere threat and not even use. i disagree with your struggle over the weapon makes the use of DF would be “completely useable beyond question”. Welllll.... not so much. If a person displays a weapon and/or threatens DF when it isn’t lawful, he loses his use of self defense. I will quote Texas law (as an example as I don’t like looking at GA) on self defense not being lawful. In your terminology, if a mortal was initiated by the deceased. No, if the shooter had no legal standing for displaying the shotgun, morally initiating the struggle is legal by Arbery. He has just as much right of self defense and stand your ground against an unlawful use of force including the threat. This is Texas law when self defense is not lawful: >>>>>(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone;<<<< Does not provoke... if the shooter had no lawful use of a shotgun to stop a man merely running (even away), then the shooter provoked the incident. Also, no defense when engaged in any crime other than C misdemeanor or in other words, a traffic citation. So if brandishing a firearm without the lawful use of self defense is a crime in GA, again (and I bet it is), the shooter broke the law and again, loses lawful self defense. So, you can’t commit a crime and then claim self defense. As my questions were, was an arrest lawful under GA law and was the display of a weapon to make that arrest in that situation lawful. If not lawful on either, case closed. If the shooter displayed the shotgun unlawfully, it is Arbery that had the lawful right of self defense, not the shooter. I am not sure what the Michael Slager case has to do with this except even an officer can’t guess what “may” happen. If so the police could legally shoot anyone because they “may” do something.

I disagree on several points. Yes you can sue for unlawful arrest. I don’t that GA or any state laws allow bringing things like a confrontation with the police. Those types of evidence can normally only come out in a punishment phase of s trial and only after a conviction. Arbery can’t claim self defense because he is dead but the DA will be able to bring up self defense laws. Even if Arbery has no right of self defense, that doesn’t negate murder. If you are in Walmart arguing with someone and he bops you in the nose, you would have a hard time claiming self defense by deadly force. A bloody nose doesn’t justify getting shot. It doesn’t matter if he was jogging or fleeing. Neither justifies deadly force.

And if the answer to either of my first questions is “no”, we need not proceed any further down the list. If the answer to either is no, the Murder charge is valid. If both are yes, more details are needed but the first two are critical. No valid crime to justify a CA or not having the required knowledge to justify such an arrest and thesec guys need to make the best plea possible. I am not saying those are the facts as I don’t know (nor anyone else reading this) but if you can’t get past both of those, these guys are rightfully in deep trouble.

Some of these side bar arguments and questions are mostly a diversion to prove one way or the other. It didn’t matter if there is a video showing Arbery arguing with the cops two years earlier. It doesn’t matter if he wasn’t completely stable mentally, it doesn’t matter about race relations and who has the most violent community, it doesn’t matter if he was jogging and so on. What matters is GA law on citizen arrest (CA), what the required knowledge is to justify such an arrest and what force or threats can be used. These are the questions that in my opinion matter. Was Arbery committing a crime that GA law allows for a CA? If that existed, did the men have the required direct knowledge of the crime? What force does GA law allow for a CA and is displaying a firearm lawful without provocation of deadly force by the suspect? If the men unlawfully displayed a weapon to apprehend Arbery for a non-violent, did Arbery have the right of self defense and stand your ground against the men? Short of knowing these answers......

I agree completely on video. I have intervened when I have seen officers trying to drop someone from making a video. The only issue is if the person gets too far into a scene. When a person is so close as to interfere with an officer, that isn’t legal but not because of the video. I think it was earlier in this thread or maybe even another forum but I said that the video guy was reported to have take post in the attempted apprehension of Arbery. It was not from taking video. The three men were reported to have been all together in trying to arrest Arbery. Of course that is just from reports that I read which isn’t evidence In what GA calls immediate knowledge, I think Texas calls “in his presence”. Texas law says an arrest can be made if within his presence or view. Obviously within view is to actually witness the crime but I think in his presence means close enough to know it is happening right now. Like a person hears glass break and turns a corner and sees a man standing next to a broken window and a hammer is on the ground. The crime wasn’t within view but it was within the person’s “presence”. I think that the GA law is similar. Immediate knowledge means you are close enough to know that a crime has been committed. If aneighbor calls you 5 minutes later about a possible crime, is that immediate? I think not but I don’t feel like looking up GA case law.

Not sure what you are complaining about. I just answered the questions you put out there.

I answered that a few posts ago. There is huge difference between a routine traffic stop and one where the officer it stopping a suspected armed felon. When grandma is stopped for speeding, the cops count pull guns and put her on the ground. Don’t try and confuse the issues. If you want SCOTUS law, I will be glad to provide it with at least 3 unanimous rulings.

From what I read about stop and frisk, it was completely legal. Officers can detain someone for reasonable suspicion. It has to be linked to a specific crime. That came from SCOTUS in Terry v. Ohio. Detectives McFadden saw what he thought was 4 guys casing a store in order to rob it. They took turns walking back and forth, looked into the store to see how many customers, etc. When they all started walking toward the store together, McFadden moved in thinking it was about to happen. He pushed the guys against the wall and patted them down and I think 3 had guns. Now such a contract is called a Terry stop or a Terry frisk it is still the standard to justify a detention by law enforcement. All that NYPD did was tell the patrol officers to get off their butts, out of their patrol cars and start stopping suspicious people. They did. The problem with this and such programs is the belief by some police administrations to use traffic stops and Terry stops as a measure of success or performance. That is a folly in my opinion. When you start rewarding officers for contacts, they may start stretching the reason for the contact. Stop and frisk is what cops get paid to do. I don’t think there should be any reward at al for doing your job however. The laziest cop who stops no one, might all of a sudden find hundreds of “criminals” in his midst if he thinks it might get him that job in detectives and off of patrol. Officers should be commended for the quality of their cases, not quantity. in my opinion

One word answer: maybe Explanation: There simply isn’t enough public information. Profiling in itself is not illegal even by the police. In fact the police get paid to profile. Racial profiling is unlawful as a reason to detain someone.

And many of those detentions are not lawful. Saying magic words like you aren’t under arrest but this is for my protection is not legal. The lawful reasons to handcuff are probable cause of a crime or a situation bad enough to justify the intrusion such as a felony traffic stop of a suspected armed robbery suspect. If it was lawful to handcuff someone by just saying the words you are not under arrest, then everyone the cops talk to could be handcuffed.

There should be no middle ground on constitutional rights. There is no give and take.

Be should have never been in handcuffs. Releasing him later doesn’t right the wrong. I would like to see if he had body cam video. If the officer is really demanding that he be called sergeant, he has serious issues and might need to seek a different profession. We don’t have all the facts but from the appearance of it, this looks like an unlawful detention. Now,, waiting for the other side if the story is one exists....

That isn’t correct for the gas salesman unless he knew that they were going to commit a crime with it. It is intent. The video guy took intentional action as part of the incident. He wasn’t a guy on the porch who happened to catch the action. In the example I gave it was two guys breaking into cars and one guy selling it to a third who knew the property was stolen. They all knowingly took part in crimes. The guy selling gas had no clue. Zimmerman complied with the dispatcher (who has no authority to give him an order). Legally it wouldn’t have mattered but Zimmerman complied. i don’t think the state is reaching however without actually knowing the evidence, it is a complete guess. Let’s play what if..... what if 3 guys see Arbery prowling around. It is suspicious but not a crime. So the three get together and say, let’s teach this guy a lesson. Or perhaps they say, we don’t know what he is up to but maybe he is the guy that has been committing crimes in this area. In either case they have no probable cause to arrest. I read the GA citizen arrest law and it says witnesses a crime, not suspects a crime and can detain like an officer. So the video guy in either case says, great and I will video and tell you where he runs. Under that scenario, video guy is directly involved in the outcome. If so, it sure isn’t reaching. If “all” the guy did was video and took no part in the attempted detention, it is a reach.

No and there is likely no need. If like Texas, lesser included crimes are served concurrently. Let’s say a guy is convicted of Murder and then unlawful restraint in the same incident. He gets 50 years on the Murder and 5 on the unlawful restraint. He doesn’t do 5 years after the Murder sentence. The first 5 years of his time is the first 5 if Murder and the entire time for the restraint. Like locally you might here a guy get three 10 year sentences. That is 30 years but he will only have to do 10. All three sentences will be served at the same time. What I suspect will happen is that the state attorney might use the unlawful detention (if they determine that it was) as the evidence needed for the Murder charge. If no authority to arrest them no lawful use of force.

From what I have read, he was on the phone with the shooters, telling them which way Arbery was running, etc. To that extent, he helped track Arbery down. That makes him part of the murder charge. I don’t feel like looking up GA law at this hour but I might compare Texas law. There are two ways this could be Murder (or any crime) in Texas. If a person took any part in any crime, he can be charged in the crime. Texas doesn’t use the law of accomplices. If you take any part, you are responsible for the entire crime. So if the two guys charged with Murder were assisted in any way by the video guy, he can be charged and that could include a phone call. The other way is organized crime. In Texas Organized Crime requires at least 3 people who participate in certain crimes. Unlike being charged directly with taking part in a crime (like making a phone call), in OC the parties can be at an at an arm length relationship and the parties don’t even have to know one another. For example if two guys break into cars and one of them sells the stolen property to w third guy. There one that helps break into cars doesn’t know who is buying the property. The one that buys the knowingly stolen property doesn’t even know the name of the guy that helps his friend. So it doesn’t matter if they know each other or how many people are involved or exactly what crimes are committed. If three or more people end up in the same enterprise, they can all be charged.

Absolutely. But I don’t have to answer for Tmir Rice, lynching or anything else that I had no part in.