Jogger shot in Georgia for being Black

Page 7 of 10 [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,367
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

20 May 2020, 10:45 am

Brictoria wrote:
The TL:DR version:
Laws allow for "citizen arrest" - if you have "reasonable suspicion" of a felony and the suspect is fleeing they are permitted to detain them.
Laws allow for "citizen arrest" - if you have "immediate knowledge" of a misdemeanour.

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.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,721
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

20 May 2020, 1:22 pm

Brictoria wrote:
tl;dr


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


_________________
All Praise To Athe, The God of Atheism


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,712

20 May 2020, 7:32 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
tl;dr


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



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,819
Location: Melbourne, Australia

20 May 2020, 7:41 pm

cyberdad wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
tl;dr


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.


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
“Indeed, you won the elections, but I won the count.” - Anastasio Somoz


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,712

20 May 2020, 7:48 pm

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


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



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,712

20 May 2020, 7:49 pm

Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
tl;dr


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.


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



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,819
Location: Melbourne, Australia

20 May 2020, 9:25 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
The TL:DR version:
Laws allow for "citizen arrest" - if you have "reasonable suspicion" of a felony and the suspect is fleeing they are permitted to detain them.
Laws allow for "citizen arrest" - if you have "immediate knowledge" of a misdemeanour.

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.


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):
Quote:

2014 Georgia Code
Title 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
Chapter 7 - DAMAGE TO AND INTRUSION UPON PROPERTY
Article 1 - BURGLARY
§ 16-7-1 - Burglary
(a) As used in this Code section, the term:

(1) "Dwelling" means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is designed or intended for occupancy for residential use.

(2) "Railroad car" shall also include trailers on flatcars, containers on flatcars, trailers on railroad property, or containers on railroad property.

(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...


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:

Quote:
Immediate knowledge:
Knowledge gained without proof, by a direct contemplation of truth, as distinct from discursive knowledge (mediated knowledge) which is always mediated by the data of experience and by logical reasoning. Immediate knowledge may be sensuous experience or a priori, intuitive knowledge.


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.


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
“Indeed, you won the elections, but I won the count.” - Anastasio Somoz


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,367
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

20 May 2020, 10:00 pm

Brictoria wrote:
Mr Arbery's visit likely to be classed as tresspass

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.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


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

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,721
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

20 May 2020, 10:07 pm

cyberdad wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
tl;dr


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


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.


_________________
All Praise To Athe, The God of Atheism


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,721
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

20 May 2020, 10:09 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
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.

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


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.


_________________
All Praise To Athe, The God of Atheism


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,819
Location: Melbourne, Australia

21 May 2020, 12:38 am

funeralxempire wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
tl;dr


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


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.


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...).


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
“Indeed, you won the elections, but I won the count.” - Anastasio Somoz


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,391
Location: Reading, England

21 May 2020, 3:26 pm

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.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

21 May 2020, 6:44 pm

Persephone29 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
Of all the suggestions you could make, I never thought it would be this one. I expected you to say something like steal one half of the white's land and money and give it all to the blacks. But, not kidnapping.
So basically what you are after is everyone being a nice shade of beige? What a boring world that would be. I like color.


I think you misunderstand. Aboriginals have been forcibly assimilated already.

In the US Jim crow laws forbid miscegenation between Africans Americans and whites. Even though those laws were revoked in the 1960s there is still a huge stigma against interracial relationships and the symptoms of can still be seen when a African American trespasses into white spaces in the US. The #while being black has become a popular meme. Another one I saw recently (and there seems to be hundreds) includes cutting white peoples lawn while being black. That one is the most preposterous where a black gardener was harassed by police when he was employed to cut grass in a predominately white neighbourhood.


White Americans think blacks complain too much. The invention of the mobile phone means their daily torment can now be filmed and passed on to radio stations/newspapers.



I know many interracial couples and their children. It's not near as taboo as people claim. It was taboo in the past, but the younger generations are not following in the footsteps of their parents. I know for myself and I've said this here before, I would much rather my kids and grand kids marry a motivated black individual, than a white loser any day.

There will always be people who hold unreasonable hatred in their hearts. I don't know what to do about those people, do you?


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


_________________
There is no place for me in the world. I'm going into the wilderness, probably to die


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

21 May 2020, 6:50 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Personally, I can't imagine many people would voluntarily enter an area in which they would have been at such risk as you imply, so I highly doubt that your suggestion matches this case.


Closer to home if a Sudanese youth was walking around Toorak how long do you think it would be before one the neighbors calls the police?

The very fact there are spaces that black people feel uncomfortable is the problem!

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.


_________________
There is no place for me in the world. I'm going into the wilderness, probably to die


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

21 May 2020, 6:54 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
It is interesting to see how both disagree with what happened to Mr Arbery morally, but also to see how what happened (or at least was known at the time of the video) is affected/relates to the laws in Georgia. They also discuss how the respective laws should, in their opinion, be changed, and how the law in the country/location where a person lives can impact thier belief in what should happen next based on the laws where they live. It also provided quite a bit of context regarding the actions of the McMichaels and how they fitted within (or outside) the legal requirements for the state.


My guess is the McMichaels defence lawyers are using the "stand your ground law" states that a person who is being threatened by another person's use of force does not have a duty to retreat or back down before he or she can legally use force against the attacker.

This whole case pivots on McMichael's testimony that Arbery threatened him and he reacted within the law to defend himself. I have watched a couple of videos from the dashcam of McMichael's friend where the footage conveniently blacks out when Arbery approaches McMichael. But even then McMichael is on very shaky ground because the use of the "stand your ground" law applies to protecting your home not to stalking somebody with a weapon outside.

I think the Zimmerman case is closest to this case where the victim is unable to testify so the perpetrator (defendant) can frame the incident through lawyers to give the impression of self-defence. The morality of Arbery is irrelevant as the correct procedure was explained by the dispatch to leave Arbery alone (exactly like the Zimmerman case) but they chose to pursue him despite the victim not being a threat to anyone!


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.


_________________
There is no place for me in the world. I'm going into the wilderness, probably to die


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

21 May 2020, 6:58 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:

Similarly, having looked into what occurred in the complete video, along with the actual laws in the state this happened, it appears that the only time a weapon was pointed in the direction of Mr Arbery was when he attempted to wrestle one away from the younger McMichaels, hardly the actions of people who you claimed wanted to kill Mr Arbery because of his race.

Sadly, the media have trained some people to make certain assumptions on these cases through the choice of facts they emphasise or omit in their initial reporting.

Should Mr Arbery have died: No.
Is there ANYTHING or any FACTS to indicate that he was shot\shot at\killed as a result of his skin colour/race - No.
Are the initial reports in the media (and exerpts from video of the event) designed\written to give the impression that this was about race - Yes.

I would suggest you watch/listen to the video I linked earlier, but I doubt there is anything that can be done to help you see that not every case of a black person being shot by a white person is automatically about race, and it is the fact that some people have been trained to make these assumptions that helps fuel racial divides.


Real justice will occur regardless of how the legal system handles it. If acquitted they'll never sleep soundly again for fear of justice finding their home at three in the morning with a bottle of gelled gasoline and a rag. If convicted, real justice will be waiting in general population with a pointy toothbrush handle. Either way the murderers won't be long for this earth.


So, what you're indicating here is that you condone vigilante justice rather than justice through the rule of law? Interesting.

After all, what could possibly go wrong should this become common practice.


When rule of law consistently fails or consistently fails to be applied fairly there comes a point where a community is obliged to defend themselves rather than simply tolerate being hunted like game. Make all the excuses you like, but people notice a pattern, especially when it's existed for several hundred years. If George Zimmermans keep being acquitted eventually people will start dealing with them because the justice system leaves them no other choice if they wish to no longer be terrorized by racially motivated murderers.

How many more decades should this be tolerated?


So basically you support purge night :p
No thanks.


_________________
There is no place for me in the world. I'm going into the wilderness, probably to die