Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't run background checks on the people I've seen looking around unfinished houses over the years, but I don't think any have struck me as not normal.
If this even comes up for discussion among jurors it will all boil down to what each juror thinks about this imo and their own past behavior or behavior of people they know.
Some will say yes and I've done it.
Some will say in daytime yes, but not at night.
Some will say if its a development with everything under construction yes, but not a single house in an established neighborhood.
Some will say in other neighborhoods but not my own and vice versa
Some will say no and I've never done it.
Based on my own experience I doubt there will be people in this locale who are unaware that normal people go into construction sites all the time.
The conclusion of that conversation imo will be that many people engage or have engaged in some version of the behavior.
And, it will be supported by English's video if thats admitted.
Lo and behold, surveillance videos show multiple people have actually wandered through that house, include white children and a white couple on the SAME DAY as the shooting.
Yeah, there was no racial profiling that went on and race had 'nothing' at all to do with this.
Needless to say, some of you may need to go back to the drawing board and rethink your arguments in favor of the two defendants who shot Arbery to death, as it has already been proven on this thread that the two had ZERO legal backing for their actions, and multiple people had gone through that construction house.
No. Entering a home under construction in most places is not an offense. And it is done all the time. If you damage something or do it after the owner tells you not to a different story. In some places buildings under construction are normally fenced off and signed. Then entering would clearly be trespass.
Its pretty clear that the homeowner English has now been advised this is the law if he didnt already know it.
There is now a No Trespassing sign on the property as shown in the NY Times video.
Its pretty clear that the homeowner English has now been advised this is the law if he didnt already know it.
There is now a No Trespassing sign on the property as shown in the NY Times video.
Precisely what I thought. For example and on the same lines, my boss had issues with individuals parking their vehicles on the business property who don't have any business with our company. He had to post "no trespassing" signs in the parking lot before PD would issue citations or we could lawfully have the said vehicles towed. Same goes for construction sites in various states, depending on what the law requires in each state.
Precisely what I thought. For example and on the same lines, my boss had issues with individuals parking their vehicles on the business property who don't have any business with our company. He had to post "no trespassing" signs in the parking lot before PD would issue citations or we could lawfully have the said vehicles towed. Same goes for construction sites in various states, depending on what the law requires in each state.
Yeah makes sense.
There seem to be a lot of people who want the law to be whatever they think it should be.
The jury will be instructed on the law that applies and in my experience they will try very hard to apply it correctly.
Not clear that McMichael was an authorized agent. The cop may have been suggesting that but it would require an agreement between the owner and McMichael. I believe the owner has denied any contact any more an agreement other than a social contact with Travis to talk hunting and fishing.
And there is no evidence that Arbery was every in contact with an authorized agent.
So no Arbery violated no law in entering the home.
If this is the case is there a prayer for a citizens arrest defense?
In order to give chase even if it was a trespass that is not enough under GA law to chase.
It has to be suspicion or burglary to give chase.
But my question is this , I don't know > An unknown person exits a private property. He may be a burglar or may not be, he's running down the street. Can another citizen chase him?
Lets say the McMichaels say strangers on private property were generally suspicious because there were thefts reported but in fact the only reported one was Travis pistol a couple months earlier by person unknown. Record of burglaries is slim unless other residents come forward and say they had been burglarized but didn't report it (and they would have to be motivated to do that and not worry about retaliation possibility)
Lets say burglaries in the neighborhood has weak evidence. Travis had seen someone who may have been Arbery about 12 days earlier and the person ran. But when Arbery ran by on the day of the shooting it was his father that saw him and then went into the house to tell Travis, I assume that some black guy is running from what he thought was probably the English house.
So is it cause for chase by law? My understanding of GA law is there has to be suspicion of felony to chase not suspicion of trespass a misdemeanor. So how can they mount a citizens' arrest defense?
No. Entering a home under construction in most places is not an offense. And it is done all the time. If you damage something or do it after the owner tells you not to a different story. In some places buildings under construction are normally fenced off and signed. Then entering would clearly be trespass.
It's an offense no matter where you are and every time that I have ever entered a property to check out a house under construction, I knew I was trespassing.
Lo and behold, surveillance videos show multiple people have actually wandered through that house, include white children and a white couple on the SAME DAY as the shooting.
Yeah, there was no racial profiling that went on and race had 'nothing' at all to do with this.
Needless to say, some of you may need to go back to the drawing board and rethink your arguments in favor of the two defendants who shot Arbery to death, as it has already been proven on this thread that the two had ZERO legal backing for their actions, and multiple people had gone through that construction house.
The McMichaels had not been watching the surveillance cameras
and had they it would have to live at the time it was occurring so they would have had a chance to confront the person.
So it's not like they are security guards watching live camera feeds and saying to themselves "no problem it's only a white person in the house let them alone"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
