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.
If the owner called the police then that is up to the owner, in this case the owner did not make a police report.
So then your contention is that its only illegal if you get caught or someone complains.
I will agree that trespassing is a very minor crime, and of course nobody should die for it.
I am just tired of all the "oh I look at construction sites all the time" people. Just because people do something all the time doesn't make it any less illegal, dangerous, or stupid.
If you get hurt while trespassing, the liability is on the owner of the facility, you are putting them at risk financially because "oh hey I was just curious"
"Reasonable doubt" would not be about the law...which the prosecution will be sure to carefully explain to the jury.
Reasonable doubt would only be about the facts of the incident: Did or did not McMichaels actually know that Arbery had committed a crime at that moment?
Nope. The only real issue in the trial will be if it was, or was not a legal citizen arrest. And the real trial will literally be of the statute and what it means and what the McMichaels thought. And unfortunately the elder McMichael is a retired LEO. And I suspect the prosecutors will not be able to raise the issue about whether he was a competent one or not.
And the jury will hear multiple expert witnesses on both sides. And likely all the known locals will agree with the McMichaels.
And overall the layer of murk will be sufficient to prevent a conviction. Could happen but very unlikely.
I don't think it has to be "at the moment". For example, if you're jogging on a trial and witness a man attempting to rape a woman and you scare him off, and then weeks later you're on the same trail again and notice a man in the bushes you believe to be the same man, you can affect a citizen's arrest.
According to Georgia law, a citizen's arrest could be made in that circumstance because attempted rape is a felony.
You see, the law makes a distinction between levels of crime that you aren't making.
It would be more like: would a reasonable person conclude that Arbery committed a felony that necessitated citizens arrest.
The standpoint of what was going on in the McMichael's heads is unimportant to their conviction.
The point of law rests upon what the person knew about the crime and the suspect at the time of the attempted citizen's arrest. So the question would then be, "Is it reasonable that McMichaels had the necessary knowledge that a crime had been committed and that Arbery was probably the person who committed it?"
318 pages holy ****, I'm not going to read all of that.
I will say this much, as someone that served on the jury of a murder trial in GA in 2019, that also involved a self defense/fight argument a bit similar to this, there is very little chance these people will be convicted imo.
Our trial was this situation. A dude (we'll call him Aaron) was going to his friend's house (the deceased, we'll call him Michael), and had another friend tag along (the defendant, we'll call him Ron). The defendant had never met the victim. After Aaron and Ron enter Michael's house, he becomes agitated and starts cursing at Ron. The defendant Ron comes up to him and punches him in the face. This is the first physical escalation. A fight then ensues. Michael has a gun on his person and attempts to draw it. (Michael did not have a criminal record and the gun was legally possessed). During the fight the defendant wrestles the gun away for a brief moment. Michael lunges at him trying to get it back, Ron fires a single shot hitting him in the chest which proves fatal. Aaron was the only living eyewitness to the shooting other than the defendant and was a cooperating witness for the prosecution.
The defendant argued self defense saying there was a fight going on. The prosecution argued that defense was not allowed because the defendant was the aggressor, having initiated the fight by punching the deceased in the face. Further, they argued that the deceased was lawfully allowed to possess a firearm and even to defend himself with it in his home.
Our options were:
1. find the defendant guilty of murder
2. find that the defendant acted in self defense, which would mean all charges would be dismissed
3. find that the defendant was not guilty of murder (both malice murder and felony murder were charged), but was guilty of voluntary manslaughter
4. find the defendant guilty on one of the lesser charges (assault, etc)
At the start of deliberations it was roughy split, but over time more people favored the defendant. 10 people on the jury eventually felt that it was self defense. I was one of the 2 who disagreed and felt that it should have been either a conviction on assault or voluntary manslaughter. The result of the case was a mistrial.
Last edited by atltechdude; 05-14-2020 at 06:49 PM..
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,622 posts, read 17,953,728 times
Reputation: 50641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
The point of law rests upon what the person knew about the crime and the suspect at the time of the attempted citizen's arrest. So the question would then be, "Is it reasonable that McMichaels had the necessary knowledge that a crime had been committed and that Arbery was probably the person who committed it?"
Yes. THAT is the question the jury will have to decide, if this case goes to trial.
So then your contention is that its only illegal if you get caught or someone complains.
I will agree that trespassing is a very minor crime, and of course nobody should die for it.
I am just tired of all the "oh I look at construction sites all the time" people. Just because people do something all the time doesn't make it any less illegal, dangerous, or stupid.
If you get hurt while trespassing, the liability is on the owner of the facility, you are putting them at risk financially because "oh hey I was just curious"
Well, people do go looking around construction sites all the time. Everywhere I have ever lived, city or country, people go looky looing around sites. Is it illegal, yep, but even if caught by the police they tell you to go away, they don't even arrest you. Now if you are stealing or vandalizing that is a different story, but that doesn't apply here since the owner said that nothing was stolen or damaged.
318 pages holy ****, I'm not going to read all of that.
I will say this much, as someone that served on the jury of a murder trial in GA in 2019, that also involved a self defense/fight argument a bit similar to this, there is very little chance these people will be convicted imo.
Our trial was this situation. A dude (we'll call him Aaron) was going to his friend's house (the deceased, we'll call him Michael), and had another friend tag along (the defendant, we'll call him Ron). The defendant had never met the victim. After Aaron and Ron enter Michael's house, he becomes agitated and starts cursing at Ron. The defendant Ron comes up to him and punches him in the face. This is the first physical escalation. A fight then ensues. Michael has a gun on his person and attempts to draw it. (Michael did not have a criminal record and the gun was legally possessed). During the fight the defendant wrestles the gun away for a brief moment. Michael lunges at him trying to get it back, Ron fires a single shot hitting him in the chest which proves fatal. Aaron was the only living eyewitness to the shooting other than the defendant and was a cooperating witness for the prosecution.
The defendant argued self defense saying there was a fight going on. The prosecution argued that defense was not allowed because the defendant was the aggressor, having initiated the fight by punching the deceased in the face. Further, they argued that the deceased was lawfully allowed to possess a firearm and even to defend himself with it in his home.
Our options were:
1. find the defendant guilty of murder
2. find that the defendant acted in self defense, which would mean all charges would be dismissed
3. find that the defendant was not guilty of murder (both malice murder and felony murder were charged), but was guilty of voluntary manslaughter
4. find the defendant guilty on one of the lesser charges (assault, etc)
At the start of deliberations it was roughy split, but over time more people favored the defendant. 10 people on the jury eventually felt that it was self defense. I was one of the 2 who disagreed and felt that it should have been either a conviction on assault or voluntary manslaughter. The result of the case was a mistrial.
Fascinating. Do you know how the thing came out in the end?
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.
