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.
We now have a video of him robbing a house and a video of him attacking the guys trying to detain him for robbing a house. At 64 pages, What’s left to discuss?
Can you link these videos, they seem to have been buried in this thread.
It requires immediate knowledge that a crime may have been committed. There is no requirement for certainty. This is not a conviction. Just the cause of an arrest. Then the system is supposed to straighten out whether a crime even occurred.
Quote:
The terms "in the presence of" and "within his immediate knowledge" have been held to be synonymous. Piedmont Hotel Co. v. Henderson, 9 Ga. App. 672, 681 (72 SE 51) (1911). See also Humphrey v. State, 231 Ga. 855 (204 SE2d 603) (1974). The Court of Appeals recently reached a similar result in *550 Moore v. State, 128 Ga. App. 20 (195 SE2d 275) (1973), where it was held that an admission of an offense by an accused to the arresting party is tantamount to the commission of the offense in the presence of the party making the arrest. Whether the offense is said to be in the presence of, or within the immediate knowledge of, the arresting party, the result is the same as the two phrases mean the same thing.
Unless the victim confessed to them they had no legal right to a citizens arrest since they did not witness any crime. Added to that they claimed that they went after him because he looked like someone that was a suspect in recent break ins. Someone looking like a suspect is not immediate knowledge that he committed a crime.
Not when he will likely produce a dozen GA cops and DAs who will support his opinion.
Case law disputes his claim in several cases. Even being told that someone stole something does not allow a third person that did not witness the robbery to make a citizens arrest.
It's all about intent - intent to commit a robbery vs intent to apprehend a suspected criminal.
Considering those to intents to be the same, speaks of a system more concerned about convictions, than with justice.
No one knows the victims intent, but we do know that he didn't steal anything from the house. The intent to apprehend a suspected criminal is not a valid legal defense under the GA law.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 10 days ago)
35,636 posts, read 17,982,736 times
Reputation: 50676
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8won6
it's already been established that he didn't steal anything. The owner of that property already confirmed this. Don't forget this happened months ago, so they've had time to establish that.
Also, the GBI said there was no "rash of break-ins".
I see people are trying to muddy up the facts here like in other cases. And let's not play the "let the facts play out" thing. We literally have all the facts right now.
-no rash of break ins
-no report of theft from the English family's property that was under construction
-the worst the victim did was trespass.
We do NOT have all the facts right now. At all. I know there are posters who are basically saying shut up shut up shut up let's not take in any more information, the McMichaels are guilty. But there are a lot of questions unanswered, that would clarify either side. From my post earlier, after hitman asked if anyone needed further information to make a decision:
Were there other crimes committed in the neighborhood recently?
Is there a video of a perp from a recent crime in the neighborhood that looks like Arbery? Was it in fact Arbery? If not, would a reasonable person think they could be the same?
What was Arbery doing in that home the entire time he was there, Feb. 23? What caused him to suddenly bolt out of there at top speed? Did he hear McMichaels call 911?
Did Travis McMichaels have injuries consistent with being attacked?
Was the hammer found at the scene, in fact, being carried out of the vacant home by Arbery as a weapon?
Why did the McMichaels have at least two loaded guns at the immediate ready?
In general, do the McMichaels have a reputation for being even-keeled good neighbors?f
Did Gregory McMichaels in fact recognize Arbery, and know him by name, (indicating he could have given the name to LE instead of taking chase)?
That is a load of bull. I listened to that call. He reported a "black man running down the street", he never reported a crime. Then you hear him yell "TRAVIS!" That's the hayseed loser redneck who shot and killed the victim.
There was no hammer. Why don't you look at the video, the guy had NOTHING in his hands.
And there was nothing about a hammer in the police report either. It would seem that if there was one there it would have been noted in the police report.
No one knows the victims intent, but we do know that he didn't steal anything from the house. The intent to apprehend a suspected criminal is not a valid legal defense under the GA law.
I'm not talking about the victims intent.
I'm talking about the notion that the actions of the McMichaels, could be considered no different to the actions of a robber who shoots someone during the course of a robbery.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 10 days ago)
35,636 posts, read 17,982,736 times
Reputation: 50676
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
And there was nothing about a hammer in the police report either. It would seem that if there was one there it would have been noted in the police report.
There was a hammer in the street on the video, right where the confrontation occurred, apparently. It's on the video. The hammer may have been on the street before this incident happened and be unrelated.
He committed a criminal act when he attacked someone with a gun. He wasn't the victim once he attacked the man with the gun.
Happy to clear things up and if you care about the truth hopefully you'll get it.
This is wow, and you should delete this post Jesus, if a masked man meets me on the street and points a weapon at you, Are you committing a criminal act by attacking him. The man could be your neighbor masked up to protect himself from coronavirus.
You aren't legally allowed to chase someone down with guns and point them at someone and claim self-defense when said person decided to defend themselves.
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.
