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.
Thinking of going for a jog today in my new looted Victoria Secret satin camisole.
I'm hoping it doesn't attract too much attention when I stop for my usual inspection of construction projects to check whether expensive equipment has been securely stored away.
Gonna match the outfit with same waders when I go fishing later.
Thinking of going for a jog today in my new looted Victoria Secret satin camisole.
I'm hoping it doesn't attract too much attention when I stop for my usual inspection of construction projects to check whether expensive equipment has been securely stored away.
Gonna match the outfit with same waders when I go fishing later.
If you get chased by guys with guns be sure to stop and obey their commands.
If you get chased by guys with guns be sure to stop and obey their commands.
Yes, because the first thing I am going to do when some people with guns start chasing me, is actually obey their commands, lol. I conceal carry, so I would probably shoot them.
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.
_________________________________
Ok you maintain the first sentence is not relevant, the McMichaels did not see an offense, just a man running down the street (according to police report)
So we go to sentence 2)
sentence 2) 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.
your interpretation is >
"If we are talking about a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion."
Ok, yes I see that now, the felony does not have to had actually occurred just a reasonable suspicion and that the suspect was trying to leave the crime scene.
______________
One last look at the old argument that since on other laws there numbers when things are options so since there aren't the whole thing applies
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.
Now trying to look it as one. the interpretation of both sentences together is " If a private person sees a crime and the crime is a felony and the suspect is escaping they can arrest them on reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion"
That seems wrong because why would it say suspicion if the person saw the crime being committed.
back to the Arizona reference:
_____________________________________________
2005 Arizona Revised Statutes - Revised Statutes §13-3884 Arrest by private person
A private person may make an arrest:
1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.
2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.
We can see 1) and 2) are separated . 1) has misdemeanor or felony but 2) only felony
So from this when can assume the Georgia law is the same that if you see the crime you can make the arrest, misdemeanor or felony
but when it's a felony you don't have to have seen it , just reasonable suspicion.
but it started by saying When a felony has been in fact committed
It seems peculiar to say go ahead an arrest somebody on suspicion but then if it's found out that a felony did not occur the arrest is invalid.
The big question is if you were given the right to arrest but it turns out invalid were your actions then criminal? If the answer is yes then why enable the situation by saying the arrest could be made on suspicion?
Maybe they could only be sued in civil court. there's a death here and that could wipe out their finances if there are no criminal charges
So from this when can assume the Georgia law is the same
Irreverent. Here is GA law:
1) A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.
2) 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.
Unless...........everyone is confused and arguing about the wrong thing.
For the sake of argument, assume that the McMichaels originally had a valid reason to pursue a citizens arrest.
What they do not have a right to do is use deadly force to make a citizens arrest for a non-violent felony. Clearly entry into an unoccupied home under construction even with the possible intent to commit burglary is not a violent felony.
So, they cannot use deadly force to stop, question, detain or hold a suspect during their citizens arrest.
Did they or did they not use deadly force?
We dont really know, because we dont have all the evidence.
All we know is that their was apparently some attempt to cut him off with Roddy's truck and Travis may or may not have raised his gun after he got out of the truck.
We also know there is apparently more video that Roddy took and there may be other video from either home surveillance or other witnesses. Additionally, there may be eye witnesses to what happened anywhere along the chase.
Was there brandishing or pointing of guns anywhere along the line or dangerous use of the trucks as weapons? Either or both could constitute deadly force that resulted in the aggravated assault that rendered a citizens arrest that started out as legal to be illegal.
In short, the prosecution may not even need to make a case of whether or not the citizens arrest started legally.
When this turned into a high profile case the media rushed to judgement all but convicting the defendants.
The public demanded justice and only a charge of murder would suffice thus: a felony murder charge.
If the prosecution can prove the defendants had no cause to chase Arbery their case becomes much stronger. The defense will argue the McMs just wanted to talk with Arbery and the reason they brought guns was because they thought Arbery might be armed. The defense will say the McMs never grabbed Arbery or physical tried to detain him.
However, the prosecution will argue Arbery panicked which is why he started fighting. He was afraid. He felt trapped. They had a truck, a gun.
And if the defendants had no cause to chase Arbery it won't matter why the gun went off. A felony was likely committed (kidnapping - holding Arbery against his will) and a death occurred.
Which is why reasons for chasing Arbery are so important in this case.
When this turned into a high profile case the media rushed to judgement all but convicting the defendants. The popular narrative became black man jogging down the street in a white neighborhood. He's minding his own business, then chased and shot.
The public demanded justice and only a charge of murder would suffice thus: a felony murder charge.
If the prosecution can prove the defendants had no cause to chase Arbery their case becomes much stronger. The defense will argue the McMs just wanted to talk with Arbery and the reason they brought guns was because they thought Arbery might be armed. The defense will say the McMs never grabbed Arbery or physical tried to detain him.
However, the prosecution will have a strong argument that Arbery simply panicked which is why he started fighting. He was afraid. He felt he was now trapped with no place to go. And because the defendants had no cause to chase Arbery it doesn't matter why the gun went off. The defendants committed a felony (kidnapping - holding Arbery against his will) and a death occurred.
Which is why the defendants reasons for chasing Arbery are so important in this case.
If the prosecution has evidence that the defendants used their guns and trucks in a way that constitutes deadly force they dont need a stronger case based on it not being a valid citizens arrests.
Did they brandish or point their guns at him, run him off the road, almost hit him when they tried to cut him off, etc.
I'm guessing the rest of Roddy's video does not show them in a favorable light in this regard or they would have released it when Greg McMichaels had a lawyer release the video to the world.
We will most likely see more of the prosecutions case at the preliminary hearing.
If the prosecution has evidence that the defendants used their guns and trucks in a way that constitutes deadly force they dont need a stronger case based on it not being a valid citizens arrests.
Did they brandish or point their guns at him, run him off the road, almost hit him when they tried to cut him off, etc.
I'm guessing the rest of Roddy's video does not show them in a favorable light in this regard or they would have released it when Greg McMichaels had a lawyer release the video to the world.
We will most likely see more of the prosecutions case at the preliminary hearing.
With regards to the guns: The defense will likely argue while Arbery was running no gun was pointed at him. That he could have kept running. The defendants didn't intend to detain Arbery. They just wanted to talk and brought guns for their own protection. The prosecution will argue that might be true but that's not the way Arbery would have perceived the events.
With regards to the guns: The defense will likely argue while Arbery was running no gun was pointed at him. That he could have kept running. The defendants didn't intend to detain Arbery. They just wanted to talk and brought guns for their own protection. The prosecution will argue that might be true but that's not the way Arbery would have perceived the events.
Depends what the other video, possible witnesses and any other evidence show.
If there is video or witness to them pointing a gun at him while he isnt doing anything that could be remotely threatening to them, the defense will have a hard time making the arguments you describe.
Ditto if there is video or witnesses showing them doing anything threatening/dangerous with the trucks.
Depends what the other video, possible witnesses and any other evidence show.
If there is video or witness to them pointing a gun at him while he isnt doing anything that could be remotely threatening to them, the defense will have a hard time making the arguments you describe.
Ditto if there is video or witnesses showing them doing anything threatening/dangerous with the trucks.
I agree. However, I doubt we'll see such video footage. If it existed it would have been leaked.
I agree. However, I doubt we'll see such video footage. If it existed it would have been leaked.
A witness? That's a possibility.
I dont think we can automatically assume it would have been leaked. Depends who has it and where it came from.
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.
