Ahmaud Arbery Shooting

[Kountzer]

New victim, maybe a new thread.  Minneapolis police kept his knee on his neck until he died.

 

[SmashMouth]

Yep. New thread needed. 

[CardinalBacker]

3 hours ago, PAMFAM10 said:

The black crime rate is high for many reasons. Still have nothing to do with this incident. I can be upset about blacks killing blacks. I can also be upset with flat out racism that plague the black communities . I don’t have to choose one. A white man can be upset about immigration laws and the crimes in his communities. Also.

As you should.... The only problem that I, as an outsider, can see is that nobody is protesting the black on black killings.... which far outnumber the white on black killings.  And to be even more ironic, there are many more whites killed by blacks than blacks killed by whites.  But black men aren't safe in America?  Give me a break.   It's bizzaro-world. 

The statistics are out there.  2016 saw 220 some-odd blacks killed by whites, but 500+ whites killed by blacks.... which is even more impressive(?) based on the fact that there are so many fewer blacks living here, but they somehow manage to kill twice as many of us. (I'm white, btw).   IF you're offended by a black person's death at the hand of a white person, but have yet to protest the black/black and white by black killings (both of which are more prevalent), you're just being non-sensical.

 

[tvc184]

8 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

I disagree. We’re comparing the exact same scenario, except one group has badges and the other does not. One is accused of murder and the other is “just doing their job.” You just eloquently described what the people who protest these things have been complaining about. I guess what you’re saying is that the old man should have just had somebody carrying his commission and then this would have all been okay. 

They weren’t detaining him to investigate. They were trying to detain him until the police could arrive. But I don’t think they got to express much except “stop!” before Mr Arbery attacked.  
 

Since you don’t like that scenario, let’s pretend we’re talking about an armed security guard at a Walmart in GA. Loss Prevention radios him to stop the guy in the green jacket... he’s stolen something. The security guard confronts the shopper and a struggle ensues in which the shopper tries to disarm the guard and gets shot. Our guard didn’t see the actual theft-loss prevention thinks they did. No cover for a CA. How would you feel then? Would your opinion change if the guard was actually an off-duty police officer who wasn’t wearing his uniform to a side job?

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. 

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

The problem with all of this is that NONE of these hypothetical situations happened, nor do they line up with what actually happened. Those guys weren’t cops. The kid didn’t steal anything. And now he is dead. If your entire point is to say that the current circumstances don’t warrant a racial outcry from the black community, then I will ride with you until more evidence is exposed. If you’re  trying to say that the 2 (now 3) men arrested for the alleged murder of Arbery were acting lawfully and completely within their rights to detain and eventually kill Arbery then I’m unbuckling my seatbelt. If you’re implying that Arbery is a POS that, through his prior actions that day and with previous altercations with LE got what he deserved and the murder suspects should be let go, then pull over at the next light, I’m getting out. 

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

[SmashMouth]

28 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

As you should.... The only problem that I, as an outsider, can see is that nobody is protesting the black on black killings.... which far outnumber the white on black killings.  And to be even more ironic, there are many more whites killed by blacks than blacks killed by whites.  But black men aren't safe in America?  Give me a break.   It's bizzaro-world. 

The statistics are out there.  2016 saw 220 some-odd blacks killed by whites, but 500+ whites killed by blacks.... which is even more impressive(?) based on the fact that there are so many fewer blacks living here, but they somehow manage to kill twice as many of us. (I'm white, btw).   IF you're offended by a black person's death at the hand of a white person, but have yet to protest the black/black and white by black killings (both of which are more prevalent), you're just being non-sensical.

 

I’m not disagreeing with you or your stats. But it’s not the killings that are being protested, necessarily. It’s not the number of whites vs number of blacks, etc., etc. 

Its the issue that black violent crime is treated differently than white violent crime. Especially in the eyes of the law and law enforcement communities. So, all the preaching about black on black and white on black, etc. doesn’t mean dick.

Not saying I agree or disagree, but that’s all the hub-bub, Bub. 

[tvc184]

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. 

[CardinalBacker]

4 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

What gave them the right to attempt detaining Arbery?

“GA-17-4-60. Grounds for arrest 

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.”

The code you just quoted did.

I don't think you understand what you're reading.  There are two different distinct grounds for an arrest by a private person in GA.

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.  I believe that having witnessed Mr. Arbery enter and leave the dwelling gives the third person arrested coverage for his participation in the arrest as the offense was "in his presence," especially considering how this person was well aware of the ongoing nature of the intrusions and the property owner's attempts to stop those intrusions. The question is whether or not his notification to the father/son duo constitutes "immediate knowledge" on their part, but I think that it very well might.

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.  This second part doesn't apply to this scenario because no felony had been committed by Mr. Arbery.  What the code is saying is that IF the offense was a felony and the offender is trying to get a away, then the private person doesn't need to have been present or had immediate knowledge... just reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.  The grounds for arrest by a private citizen are LOWER if the offense is a felony AND the suspect is attempting to escape.

Thoughts by you or TVC?

[CardinalBacker]

3 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

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. 

You can't very well holster a shotgun. 

And we're all aware that the 4th DA was sent there to do a job.... regardless of the facts.  For a bunch of people who want to see the cash bail system eradicated, they sure don't mind locking folks up without bail, lol.  

[SmashMouth]

6 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

The code you just quoted did.

I don't think you understand what you're reading.  There are two different distinct grounds for an arrest by a private person in GA.

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.  I believe that having witnessed Mr. Arbery enter and leave the dwelling gives the third person arrested coverage for his participation in the arrest as the offense was "in his presence," especially considering how this person was well aware of the ongoing nature of the intrusions and the property owner's attempts to stop those intrusions. The question is whether or not his notification to the father/son duo constitutes "immediate knowledge" on their part, but I think that it very well might.

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.  This second part doesn't apply to this scenario because no felony had been committed by Mr. Arbery.  What the code is saying is that IF the offense was a felony and the offender is trying to get a away, then the private person doesn't need to have been present or had immediate knowledge... just reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.  The grounds for arrest by a private citizen are LOWER if the offense is a felony AND the suspect is attempting to escape.

Thoughts by you or TVC?

What was the offense?

[CardinalBacker]

1 minute ago, SmashMouth said:

What was the offense?

He was trespassing.  

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

(b)(2)  Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden; 

The info I read said that a "no trespassing" sign was enough to constitute notice by the owner. 

It's a stupid misdemeanor, and NO, nobody got killed for trespassing. 

[tvc184]

5 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

The code you just quoted did.

I don't think you understand what you're reading.  There are two different distinct grounds for an arrest by a private person in GA.

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.  I believe that having witnessed Mr. Arbery enter and leave the dwelling gives the third person arrested coverage for his participation in the arrest as the offense was "in his presence," especially considering how this person was well aware of the ongoing nature of the intrusions and the property owner's attempts to stop those intrusions. The question is whether or not his notification to the father/son duo constitutes "immediate knowledge" on their part, but I think that it very well might.

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.  This second part doesn't apply to this scenario because no felony had been committed by Mr. Arbery.  What the code is saying is that IF the offense was a felony and the offender is trying to get a away, then the private person doesn't need to have been present or had immediate knowledge... just reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.  The grounds for arrest by a private citizen are LOWER if the offense is a felony AND the suspect is attempting to escape.

Thoughts by you or TVC?

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. 

[tvc184]

22 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

You can't very well holster a shotgun. 

And we're all aware that the 4th DA was sent there to do a job.... regardless of the facts.  For a bunch of people who want to see the cash bail system eradicated, they sure don't mind locking folks up without bail, lol.  

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. 

[CardinalBacker]

1 minute ago, tvc184 said:

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.   I don't like the "arrest by private person" portion of their code. 

 As far as the events, was a felony committed? I don’t think so. Me, neither.

 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?  The article that I read said that so much as a "no trespassing" sign is sufficient notice.  

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?  If that's covered anywhere in their code, I haven't seen it. 

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.   But did they point a gun at him?  Or were they simply holding them?  It's a distinction that could have great importance.  They unquestionably had the constitutional right to possess them at the time/scene.  Does bouncing out of the truck with a weapon mean that they were brandishing it threateningly?  I have no idea.  I need to go back and watch the video.  I'll be quite honest.... I think that IF they manage to successfully claim the right to attempt a citizen's arrest, they have the right to do so the same as a police officer... weapon drawn and everything. 

 

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

He was trespassing.  

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

(b)(2)  Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden; 

The info I read said that a "no trespassing" sign was enough to constitute notice by the owner. 

It's a stupid misdemeanor, and NO, nobody got killed for trespassing. 

So, no proof of the “No Trespasspassing” sign?

[tvc184]

37 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

   But did they point a gun at him?  Or were they simply holding them?  It's a distinction that could have great importance.  They unquestionably had the constitutional right to possess them at the time/scene.  Does bouncing out of the truck with a weapon mean that they were brandishing it threateningly?  I have no idea.  I need to go back and watch the video.  I'll be quite honest.... I think that IF they manage to successfully claim the right to attempt a citizen's arrest, they have the right to do so the same as a police officer... weapon drawn and everything. 

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. 

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, SmashMouth said:

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.  I believe that having witnessed Mr. Arbery enter and leave the dwelling gives the third person arrested coverage for his participation in the arrest as the offense was "in his presence," especially considering how this person was well aware of the ongoing nature of the intrusions and the property owner's attempts to stop those intrusions. The question is whether or not his notification to the father/son duo constitutes "immediate knowledge" on their part, but I think that it very well might.

Was an arrest ever made bay the McMichaels? According to the police report I have read many times now, McMichaels claims they told Arbery, “Stop stop, we want to talk to you.” A conversation is not an arrest, and an unarmed citizen is under no legal obligation to stop and “talk” to other armed citizens who are blocking his path.

Furthermore, by trying to stop him for questioning Instead of arresting Arbery is an illegal detainment. Arbery was under no obligation to stop and talk to 2 armed men in the street trying to detain him for questioning. 

In fact, stating an intention to question a Arbery might be used as evidence that the individual claiming a right to make a citizen’s arrest is “uncertain and did not have immediate knowledge” that the victim had been the perpetrator of the alleged crime which would dismiss the McMichaels right to make a citizen’s arrest. 

[tvc184]

12 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

So, no proof of the “No Trespasspassing” sign?

And.....

Even if such a sign existed, that is not evidence of trespassing. A no trespassing sign doesn’t give even the police the authority to arrest. Maybe your cousin is on your property with permission. That doesn’t give police probable cause that s crime has been committed and arrest him. It means that an officer can detain to investigate (under Terry v. Ohio). Citizens generally don’t have the authority to detain and investigate. To try and do do in Texas might be Unlawful Restraint and up to a year in jail with no weapon displayed. Display a deadly weapon and again, we go into possibly Aggravated Assault.  

 

[tvc184]

9 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Was an arrest ever made bay the McMichaels? According to the police report I have read many times now, McMichaels claims they told Arbery, “Stop stop, we want to talk to you.” A conversation is not an arrest, and an unarmed citizen is under no legal obligation to stop and “talk” to other armed citizens who are blocking his path.

Furthermore, by trying to stop him for questioning Instead of arresting Arbery is an illegal detainment. Arbery was under no obligation to stop and talk to 2 armed men in the street trying to detain him for questioning. 

I brought that up in another forum almost from the start. I believe they made sworn statements to the police to that effect or at least the way it was portrayed in the media. IF SO, they might have cut their own throats. The retired cop isn’t a anymore. 

[CardinalBacker]

28 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Was an arrest ever made bay the McMichaels? According to the police report I have read many times now, McMichaels claims they told Arbery, “Stop stop, we want to talk to you.” A conversation is not an arrest, and an unarmed citizen is under no legal obligation to stop and “talk” to other armed citizens who are blocking his path.

Furthermore, by trying to stop him for questioning Instead of arresting Arbery is an illegal detainment. Arbery was under no obligation to stop and talk to 2 armed men in the street trying to detain him for questioning. 

In fact, stating an intention to question a Arbery might be used as evidence that the individual claiming a right to make a citizen’s arrest is “uncertain and did not have immediate knowledge” that the victim had been the perpetrator of the alleged crime which would dismiss the McMichaels right to make a citizen’s arrest. 

My understanding is that the father told the police in a statement that they were trying to make a citizen’s arrest. I’m curious if that was their intent that day or just a defense he came up with after the fact. Regardless, I don’t believe that they were able to relay their intentions to Mr Arbery before the struggle over the gun commenced. 
On the same note, he has a lot more experience with the nuances of a citizens arrest after operating with his peace officer’s certification being expired for years, lol. 

[tvc184]

3 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

My understanding is that the father told the police in a statement that they were trying to make a citizen’s arrest. I’m curious if that was their intent that day or just a defense he came up with after the fact. Regardless, I don’t believe that they were able to relay their intentions to Mr Arbery before the struggle over the gun commenced. 
On the same note, he has a lot more experience with the nuances of a citizens arrest after operating with his peace officer’s certification being expired for years, lol. 

I have thought that he may have been acting as an officer when he wasn’t.

 Hey, I was once a cop isn’t a strong legal defense. 

[CardinalBacker]

24 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

And.....

Even if such a sign existed, that is not evidence of trespassing. A no trespassing sign doesn’t give even the police the authority to arrest. Maybe your cousin is on your property with permission. That doesn’t give police probable cause that s crime has been committed and arrest him. It means that an officer can detain to investigate (under Terry v. Ohio). Citizens generally don’t have the authority to detain and investigate. To try and do do in Texas might be Unlawful Restraint and up to a year in jail with no weapon displayed. Display a deadly weapon and again, we go into possibly Aggravated Assault.  

 

The owner of the property notified at least one of the three men that day after he received a cell phone notification from his surveillance system is what I saw in an interview. 
But if the police have been notified repeatedly by a property owner upset about intrusions onto his property (which is what happened), then, yes... they have the right to assume that a person is trespassing. Back in the day, property owners on 16th Street in Orange notified the police that they didnt want people in their parking lots after hours. The police would roust us and let us know we’d be charged with CT if we came back. Same thing happened in Beaumont a couple of years ago when LEOs wanted to shut down the cruise there. 

[tvc184]

5 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

My understanding is that the father told the police in a statement that they were trying to make a citizen’s arrest. I’m curious if that was their intent that day or just a defense he came up with after the fact. Regardless, I don’t believe that they were able to relay their intentions to Mr Arbery before the struggle over the gun commenced. 
On the same note, he has a lot more experience with the nuances of a citizens arrest after operating with his peace officer’s certification being expired for years, lol. 

I read an article not long ago on retiring as an officer and it importantly noted, once you retire, walk away. You are no longer an officer so don’t chase scanners calls, try to make arrests, etc.

 when you walk away... walk away!

[tvc184]

2 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

The owner of the property notified at least one of the three men that day after he received a cell phone notification from his surveillance system is what I saw in an interview. 
But if the police have been notified repeatedly by a property owner upset about intrusions onto his property (which is what happened), then, yes... they have the right to assume that a person is trespassing. Back in the day, property owners on 16th Street in Orange notified the police that they didnt want people in their parking lots after hours. The police would roust us and let us know we’d be charged with CT if we came back. Same thing happened in Beaumont a couple of years ago when LEOs wanted to shut down the cruise there. 

Sure. IF you come back, we will file charges.

 Here is what I think is a pertinent question.... did this homeowner tell McMichael that he wanted the guy arrested. If not, no lawful arrest in my opinion.

 If the homeowner said, hey go tell that guy not to come in my property....oops!

I kind of suspect that may have taken place from my experience. Nothing taken or damaged and the owner sure doesn’t want to get tied up in court.  I might even be the owner has already given a statement to the police to that effect.

 You keep digging these guys deeper and deeper.......

[CardinalBacker]

7 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Sure. IF you come back, we will file charges.

 Here is what I think is a pertinent question.... did this homeowner tell McMichael that he wanted the guy arrested. If not, no lawful arrest in my opinion.

 If the homeowner said, hey go tell that guy not to come in my property....oops!

I kind of suspect that may have taken place from my experience. Nothing taken or damaged and the owner sure doesn’t want to get tied up in court.  I might even be the owner has already given a statement to the police to that effect.

 You keep digging these guys deeper and deeper.......

But Don’s Alternator on 16th had a no trespassing sign so they were “doing us a favor” by not charging us.... in cop-speak, anyways. 
 

Serious question to which I don’t think that I ever got an answer from you.  Same scenario, but instead of the father/son you have two uniformed policemen hooping out of a cruiser. Everything else happens the same with the same result. What would your hypothetical opinion be in that case?