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.
This is my understanding. The men said that they thought he fit the description of a person who had done some break ins in the area previously.
Minutes before they went on this chase, a trespasser was reported, and many believe it was the victim. Someone reported a black man in an abandoned building. But these yahoos couldn't know about that yet. And they did not say they did. They were after someone who fit the description of prior break ins. i.e. black male.
The law there only allows for a citizen's arrest for a crime that JUST HAPPENED. I don't see how this is legal even if the guy HAD BEEN the one to burgle in the past. That wouldn't make this lawful.
This is my understanding. The men said that they thought he fit the description of a person who had done some break ins in the area previously.
Minutes before they went on this chase, a trespasser was reported, and many believe it was the victim. Someone reported a black man in an abandoned building. But these yahoos couldn't know about that yet. And they did not say they did. They were after someone who fit the description of prior break ins. i.e. black male.
The law there only allows for a citizen's arrest for a crime that JUST HAPPENED. I don't see how this is legal even if the guy HAD BEEN the one to burgle in the past. That wouldn't make this lawful.
We need more information before either side can make an informed conclusion
We all know how the Michael Brown debacle turned out
We need more information before either side can make an informed conclusion
We all know how the Michael Brown debacle turned out
I know enough. It is not lawful to make a citizen's arrest except under a very specific set of circumstances. The men themselves said matched the description of someone who had been breaking in, not someone they had just saw commit a crime.
This man did not know he was a burglary suspect. All he knows is men with guns are chasing him. There is no reason for him to believe that 'I am just a jogger, let's wait for police' is what they want.
If I am being chased I do not think, oh, these fine upstanding people must think that *I* have done something wrong. I just need to stop and explain myself to them.
So you would attempt to physically disarm them? If you had done nothing wrong? I don't think any sane person would do that knowing that they would have no chance of survival if the armed men had bad intent.
Seems far more likely that he did know he was being asked to stop because he was seen burglarising a property. So far that is what we know, that he was seen, a phone call to 911 was in progress and describing the situation.
From the jump we know that the men did not just witness him committing a crime. They didn't even claim to. It's very cut and dry.
People want to get hung up on whether the guy fought after being chased, it's immaterial. It wasn't lawful to chase him down with guns and try to 'arrest' him to begin with. The man felt in danger, and he was.
'Stand your ground' doesn't apply if you initiate the conflict.
1. Randos who aren't law enforcement don't get to tell others what to do. 2. Because it's obvious he was out jogging, and he doesn't owe them a effing thing.
Why have you convinced yourself he was out jogging? Why do you immediately buy that narrative?
When was the last time you slipped on your khakis and a belt to go jogging?
From the jump we know that the men did not just witness him committing a crime. They didn't even claim to. It's very cut and dry.
People want to get hung up on whether the guy fought after being chased, it's immaterial. It wasn't lawful to chase him down with guns and try to 'arrest' him to begin with. The man felt in danger, and he was.
'Stand your ground' doesn't apply if you initiate the conflict.
I guess we will see in due course when the evidence is tested.
It is interesting to see how far some city-data people will go to defend a lynching in 2020.
It is starting to look that way perhaps.
The statement McMichael gave the police had holes in it also. He stated they "they happened to drive up on Arbery, and saw him running", when in the video it is Arbery that ran up on them (they were waiting).
The citizens arrest angle looks pretty weak also, even though it is a known that a black burgler had been described in the area recently. There is no proof that the burgler was Arbery. These look like two hotheads that took it way too far.
The leftists that are doing their darn best to make this all about race (advocations of Saint Trayvon have already been had!) are still idiots though.
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.
