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 just remembered something else for my numbered list above - Aggravated Assault requires an intent to murder, to rape, or to rob. This will be another very difficult obstacle for the prosecution to overcome.
No. I will assume you are just using an outdated version of the law rather than trying to fool us.
1. I guess I have to welcome you to the real world, I assumed most people realize that most petty burglaries and even robberies go unreported. Here you are arguing against absolute facts simply because you don't like what they do to your false narrative. Yikes.
2. I've spelled this out for you quite a few times, but I'll try again. They had IMMEDIATE KNOWLEDGE of the trespassing and reasonable and probable suspicion of a felony, if you read the statute, that's what you need for a citizen's arrest. I've also spelled out for you that no arrest was even attempted, so it doesn't really matter. They'd have been justified in doing so, but they never got a chance even if they wanted to because the violent idiot attacked them first.
3. Your argument is suggesting that the statute for citizen's arrest isn't the statute and the burglaries that happened didn't happen because you don't want them to have happened. That's not really a clear or convincing case.
1. A petty burglary might go unreported. A wave of burglaries covering multiple people, multiple times, and no one wants to bother the police? You really believe that? But then, they see someone who MIGHT have been involved, and suddenly it's important enough to round up the troops, chase him down WITH GUNS, and demand that clear himself? You really believe that? Lol
2. You can't make up your own law. It's clear what's allowed. You have to have IMMEDIATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FELONY! How much clearer do I need to make that? No amount spin is going to change that. They had NO IMMEDIATE KNOWLEDGE OF A FELONY. Do you understand now? It doesn't matter that they suspected it. They needed IMMEDIATE KNOWLEDGE OF A FELONY to justify chasing someone down.
3. You keep making up what you think are ways to go around the statute. You keep believing stories that even a child would see are lies. And you keep trying to pass off both as facts b/c you don't actually have an argument that stands up with the real facts.
I sure wouldn’t. But it appears the McMichaels did.
This is a reasonable analysis. My problem with it, and other similar posts, is when one concludes that no reasonable person would ever behave this way, therefore, the McMichaels didn’t behave this way.
The jury will be instructed to consider what a reasonable person would do or what most reasonable people would do.
The standard they are told to apply is not every last reasonable person on the face of the earth. But really if they are saying the behavior is not reasonable then they will be saying either that they dont see the McMichaels as reasonable people either at all or at that time.
That is not clear RK. The message indicates that McMichael agreed he would help. That suggests someone from the PD asked them. So the PD may well have asked for help or at least that the McMichael help his neighbor. .
Police are already disavowing that. The officer who sent English that text was not authorized to do so by his department, and had himself been previously officially disciplined for failing to do his duty.
Quote:
Lou Dekman, the chief of police in LaGrange, Georgia, and past president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said the request in the text message is not standard policy or procedure for police officers.
“As we see in the result of this incident, it’s dangerous,” Dekman said. “It’s dangerous for the citizen that is maybe representing the neighborhood and making the confrontation. It’s dangerous for the person who’s being confronted. In addition, police chiefs and departments and law enforcement agencies, they make decisions about the allocation of resources based on calls for service. So, if we’re not getting those calls, we’re not responding to them and we’re not documenting them.”
We both know this. That's the whole point. When someone couldn't come up with a good reason to justify Arbery's death, another tactic was used: Character assassination. By bringing up his past, said person hopes to show Arbery in a bad light, to say "he was a criminal, he deserved to die".
I have done some perusing around Facebook. In the wake of Arbery's death, I notice something. Hardly a peep from most of the conservatives that I know. Actually, a few persons who do have conservative views did make posts in tribute to Arbery. All them were females. All of them moms of young boys.
I thought about some of the individuals who were in a hurry to post about Michael Brown and pointing out how the officers were justified. Some of those persons are dead silent about Arbery.
Quote:
O.C.G.A. 16-11-102 (2010)
16-11-102. Pointing or aiming gun or pistol at another
A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he intentionally and without legal justification points or aims a gun or pistol at another, whether the gun or pistol is loaded or unloaded.
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.
