Jogger shot in Georgia for being Black

Post Reply New Topic

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS
ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
§ 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."
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/20 ... 4/17-4-60/

The McMichaels appear to pursue Mr. Aubrey based on past events, not as the law specifies of "immediate knowledge of an offense".

In the 911 call, Travis McMichaels indicates that "this guy" has been doing this before.

The McMichaels say a pistol was stolen from their truck.

However, past events is not "immediate knowledge of an offense".

Travis McMichaels is suspicious, yet has no "immediate knowledge of an offense".

"This guy" could be a gardener , handyman, or helper for the owner, or work for the city, or be an inspector.

The McMichaels are not allowed to arrest people based on their suspicions.

You can muddy the waters all you like but it won't obscure the truth here.

He does this whenever there's a post on the following topics;
Trump
race
republicans
conservatives

Thanks for letting me know.

Sadly some people are so fixed in their opinions\beliefs that it's impossible to have a reasoned discussion with them on certain topics. It would be interesting to know exactly WHAT he disagreed with, which caused that responce.

I think the court needs to set a precedence that people can't stalk members of the public with loaded weapons because they vaguely fit the profile of somebody they suspect.

The suspicion here was based on Arbery's racial profile although lets hear what the court decides on this matter

You are entitled to take a perspective so I have no problem with it

Thank you for the clarification.

However, the call to which you refer was on the 11th, while the shooting was around the 23rd, as I recall, and made by a different person. Would you happen to have a link to where it has been reported\published that this was based on past events, or alternatively one where it was reported that one (or both) McMichaels saw Mr Arbery leaving that property on the day, as that would be one of the deciding factors here regarding this potential "defence" which could be used by them.

Of course, immediate knowledge is applicable in terms of misdemeanour, whereas "reasonable and provable ground for suspicion" would apply for a felony...I assume (should this come up) that the prosecution would be indicating it was a misdemeanour (trespass), whereas the defence will be indicating felony (burglary - althought this would require evidence of intent by Mr Arbery, based on my understanding of Georgia laws):

Second degreee (also felony) differs as to being for areas\structures not designed for residential use.

Another would be what "immediate knowledge" means (lawyers love playing with definitions): Does it mean immediate in the time sense (finds commiting, I believe is ther term here, based on time in security industry), or does it mean personal (not heard from someone else) knowledge of the person committing the "crime" even if some time ago:



Above was best definition I could find, but not sure how relaible the source was (https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/m.htm)

Under the latter definition, past events could conceivably fit under immediate knowledge, but not knowing how the term is used in the situation, I don't know which option would be applicable.

Sadly, it seems that laws don't always reflect people's opinions of how they should work...Whether this case ends with relevent laws being changed (should the McMichaels be found innocent) will be interesting to see (If guilty, it is unlikely that the laws would need changing).

TL:DR version...It is likely that this will come down to was citizens arrest appropriate: was Mr Arbery's visit likely to be classed as tresspass (in which case immediate knowledge was required), would it fit within burglary (in which case intent to commit a felony or theft needs to be shown by defence), or some other reason. It would then need to be proven whether the shooting occurred as part of a struggle over the firearm (self defence) and whether it was due to the lawful or unlawful actions of the McMichaels in regards to the attempted citizen's arrest.

I will say, this has given me an interesting insight into the way both prosecutors and defence lawyers would potentially look at this: Trying to work out how the "other side" would frame their argument, in order to find problems and inconsistencies in their own, so-as to be able to prepare a counter to this...Unfortunately too many people are looking at this from their own side of the argument, looking for problems on the other side, which can lead to disappointment if something happens to highlight a flaw behind their reasoning which they were not expecting/aware of. To be able to defend a position, you need to be aware of all likely\probable angles from which you need to defend, and to prosecute an argument you need to be prepared for the likely\probable defences that will be put against it.

Georgia law requires the trespasser to have "criminal intent" or "unlawful purpose".
https://bixonlaw.com/georgia-trespassing-101/

It doesn't appear to be any proof that Mr. Aubrey was on the property with "criminal intent" or "unlawful purpose".

So, it does not appear he was trespassing.

However, it's irrelevant since McMichaels could not possibly know what Mr Arbery was doing.

As far as they knew, he could be a city meter reader suspiciously going up to homes, and taking meter readings. He could of been asking for work, or asking for a drink (thirsty).

Imagine a neighbor hires a plumber, the McMichaels argue they could go arrest this plumber, because he is suspiciously on a neighbor's property.

Last edited by TheRobotLives on 20 May 2020, 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I've noticed, that's why I'm not interested in engaging with him or changing his mind. I don't believe someone who has a documented history of making poor excuses for racially motivated slayings is going just magically become decent and reasonable at some point.

While we've disagreed in the past, in this specific thread every single post you've left makes me wish to give you a hug or buy you a coffee.

I realise it may be difficult to understand, but having an ability to present an arguement from the other side, trying to work out what they may present\how they may present it can be a quite useful exercise, both for understanding something, and to reinforce your own opinions on what occurred.

If the best argument you can come up with to (I assume) support your prefered side is "race", it would indicate a very superficial understanding of events, if not in general, then at least in this situation.

As I currently understand it:
From one side it will be shown in court as assault (based on implied possibilty through holding of firearms), potential wrongful arrest (if citizens arrest was not warranted), and, as I understand, murder (would potentially drop to manslaughter in Australia) connected to the use of firearms and accessory to this.
From the other side, they will likely argue the appropriateness of the attempted citizen's arrest, and self defence, claiming that the gunshots were as a result of/caused by the attempt by Mr Arbery to take possesion of the firearm.

The unknown factors would be what level of knowledge was available to initiate the potential citizen's arrest, which would rely on how Mr Arbery's presence at the house under construction is presented, along with the gunshot angles, which would impact on whether they are consistent with gun going off in a struggle, or are more likely aimed.

The only way I could potentially see race being a factor would have been had it been someone other than Mr Arbery in the house on the day (when no doubt the defence would claim mistaken identity, although it would be unlikely to have any affect), but as he was identified in the video at the house by his mother (from memory), there is nothing that I have seen to show that events would have occurrred otherwise had Mr Arbery been white.

Naturally, I'm happy to have any constructive critisim of my reasoning here (for either side), and it would be interesting to see how each side does eventually argue the case in court (I don't think "racist lynching" will be claimed by the prosecution, but who knows...).

Two reminders here:

Firstly, please focus on what people are doing and saying rather than the people themselves.

Secondly, discussion of banned users is against the rules.

Why do you hate losers? Many aspie men are losers due to our disability

Does that go for white people in black neighborhoods not being welcomed?
There’s places in la I’d be shot if I went for being white.

You’re confusing castle law with stand your ground. Stand your ground means you can defend yourself where ever you are, as it should be.
Situations like this one are muddy but the law is good.
I personally won’t turn my back to someone trying to kill me .
Oddly enough the law backs the victim also in him trying to disarm the two with guns. So if you oppose it you are saying the victim should have just continued to try to run or wait for police rather then fighting for his life. Stand yiur ground isn’t a gun law it’s a law protecting the right of self defense.

So basically you support purge night :p
No thanks.