Jump to content

Ahmaud Arbery murder trial


MiloMorai
 Share

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, R011 said:

At the very least, one would expect undercover/plainclothes cops to identoify themselves as police.  Three guys with guns chasing after me?  I'd either run or fight myself.

To I suppose insert race back into it; you're in a sketchy part of Chicago or old Jamaica Plains and three black dudes in jeans and hoodies come up with a shotgun and handgun towards you and tell you to hold up, they just want to talk to you.  Would anyone assume that they were people currently engaging in a citizens arrest and have you ponder what you might have done to run afoul of the law or would you think "oh, sh*t I am about to get jacked the F up?"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Quote

They were not in uniform, they were not driving a police car, and they had no obvious identification as anything besides people on the street. 

Precisely. The citizen arrest needs to be almost full proof otherwise the risk is all for the person doing it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, R011 said:

See the Colion Noir video already posted.  No crime was committed in their presence.  They thus had no right or authority to detain him let alone do so at gunpoint.

Yep. See the Andrew Branca view that's different. When you can get several attorneys disagreeing then you clearly have a statute that is unclear. 

The point Branca makes is that you have MORE power to arrest someone who shop lifts vs someone who you think murdered another. That makes little sense from a public policy perspective. 

Tim Pool is casting doubt and that's based on what Branca is saying. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DKTanker said:

One of the neighbors saw a person coming out of a house under construction.  That is NOT a crime, and even it tickles at the edges of being criminal, it certainly doesn't rise to the level of being a capital offense.

It's not a capital offense because the shooting isn't punishment. That sort of talk is again, what I expect out of some but not you. Shooting in extremis where the subject of the stop and the person conducting the stop are fighting over a gun isn't punishment. 

 

8 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Regarding the BD compound, I'm specifically talking about the initial invasion by ATF, when they were serving their warrant on Koresh for the weapons charge.  Good shoots by all sides would you say? 

HOW THE HELL is anyone supposed to know if it was a good shoot. Did the AFT openly explain and show what happened or was it all covered up. It's not like we could get any witness testimony out of the crispy critters the feds mad out of MOST of the Branch Davidians. 

Is there some sort of special, dispositive and open display by federal officers when they discharge their firearms vis a vis legality of the shoot? 

8 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Could have taken Koresh while in town, the ATF had been following him, but a few dead bodies to fertilize the fields, it's all good.  Isn't that about where you're at?

There's a pretty BIG difference between an ad-hoc pursuit of a person you believe is responsible for several burglaries and the subject of a BOLO and the measured and supposedly orderly serving of warrant by a federal agency with Billions in resources. To push your own language back on you, the $200 tax violations, is that worth 50 odd men women and children in collective executions? Because to use your framing you're so wrong on this that it's not even funny. 

An in extremis situation is a LOT different than a planned op and the follow up operations where you can call in M113s and M88/M728s in on flat bed to help cover up the debris and make sure that none of the witnesses can speak out. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2021 at 1:57 PM, rmgill said:

To be clear. What's vigilante act? Because if you go according to the dictionary meaning it means those that go and punish criminals for their actions in an extra legal way.

Why is catching a criminal considered vigilantism? If a cop shoots a suspect is that vigilantism? Does the shooting itself constitute punishment? 

I'm used to seeing this sort of slapdash use of English by some but not you Dave. 

To put it differently, why is THIS killing absent probable case a good judgement vs the lack of charges for the officers who killed Willie Jackson? I use that as a case that I am very familiar with AND which had miss-apprehension by the arresting individuals and which resulted in the death of someone not shown to have been committing any crime or where there was any reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime, let alone probable cause for an arrest. 

Note, Andrew Branca notes that there are some serious issues with this case and I expect there will be several things that subject this case to appeal. 

lynch-db2a1722a61a2ea2e98a0cc7e20300a120

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, rmgill said:

Yep. See the Andrew Branca view that's different. When you can get several attorneys disagreeing then you clearly have a statute that is unclear. 

The point Branca makes is that you have MORE power to arrest someone who shop lifts vs someone who you think murdered another. That makes little sense from a public policy perspective. 

Tim Pool is casting doubt and that's based on what Branca is saying. 

 

The black letter law on trespass seems pretty clear.  It's only criminal trespass if one of three conditions are met (paraphrasing):

Engaging in a criminal activity;

Entry where entry prohibited; and

Failure to leave when directed.

None of those conditions were met, therefore there was no crime for the accused to arrest for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one seems pretty clear it to me. Artery wasn't posing any sort of imminent threat, so the three bozos had no reason to escalate the way that they did. If the GA statute on citizens arrest is ambiguous, then a career LEO should know where he stands as a citizen. And he nstigated the whole situation, even though his son is the one that pulled the trigger.

Arbery wasn't probably in the wrong, but the other three were more wrong, and will now suffer for their stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, R011 said:

The black letter law on trespass seems pretty clear.  It's only criminal trespass if one of three conditions are met (paraphrasing):

But a point I saw made was that it wasn't just trespass, they had numerous other thefts and there was  larger concern for what was going on with those night time visits to look around. The police had also warned the neighbors that he could be armed.

 I am amused at how Arbery's past encounters and patterns of aggressive response EVEN to police is ignored in his aggressive response to the residents. If he was a criminal escaping and was trying to avoid capture, what would he do? If he'll get up in the face of a solitary officer, what will he do to three non-police? I'm sure he'd be nice and polite. Yeah. 

I think in the end even when you have a gate and walls around your neighborhood folks are still going to consider that it's reasonable for folks of a certain color to enter and do what they want and if you confront them, you're a racist and will be arrested for such. See what happened in Ohio. It's so far beyond the pale and folks can't discuss things without going hyper partisan. 

Fine. We can just refer to riots, looting and other unlawful acts as "protesting" now. 

So, how's everyone's holiday protesting going? You get any Louis Vuitton bags for your wives? Burberry scarves for the kids? 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, rmgill said:

No Doug. That's just murder. 

 

Is it?  These days you've been pretty fluid about the definition of murder.  By that picture alone how can you determine it wasn't self defense?  It could be they did actually commit real crimes and in the course of a few noble people trying to apprehend them, they became violently entangled in ropes meant to merely restrain them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

Is it?  These days you've been pretty fluid about the definition of murder. 

No, I'm just not down with getting white people back for the sins against Emmit Till, just because they look the same. 
 

44 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

By that picture alone how can you determine it wasn't self defense?  It could be they did actually commit real crimes and in the course of a few noble people trying to apprehend them, they became violently entangled in ropes meant to merely restrain them.

Because there's still a wide gulf between stringing up a rope to hang a man extra-legally and fighting over a gun in the heat of the moment. You're smarter than this Dave. I swear it's like one of the woke lefties I know hacked your account. Failing to grasp the subtle but important differences between a planned act and a struggle following a chase is absurd. 

It's like demanding why a Platoon leader who was responding to an ambush on a road march didn't have pre-planned range cards for his crew served weapons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

But a point I saw made was that it wasn't just trespass, they had numerous other thefts and there was  larger concern for what was going on with those night time visits to look around. The police had also warned the neighbors that he could be armed.

 I am amused at how Arbery's past encounters and patterns of aggressive response EVEN to police is ignored in his aggressive response to the residents. If he was a criminal escaping and was trying to avoid capture, what would he do? If he'll get up in the face of a solitary officer, what will he do to three non-police? I'm sure he'd be nice and polite. Yeah. 

No thefts that they saw Arbery commit, even on the surveillance video.  No crime seen means no permission for a citizens' arrest.

Certainly not on the day they chased him down.  As for Arbery's response, they illegally started the incident.  Arbery could make any response he wanted within reason, and that might have included deadly force as he was being illegally threatened by it.

Quote

Fine. We can just refer to riots, looting and other unlawful acts as "protesting" now. 

That may be so, but it's not new nor is it especially relevant to this case.

 

Quote

No, I'm just not down with getting white people back for the sins against Emmit Till, just because they look the same. 

Which isn't what happened here.  This wasn't some PC witchhunt as happened to Rittenhouse.  These guys murdered Arbery.  I don't know if they would have got into this mess if he was a sketchy-looking White guy or not, but it doesn't matter.

 

Edited by R011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, FALightFighter said:

This one seems pretty clear it to me. Artery wasn't posing any sort of imminent threat, so the three bozos had no reason to escalate the way that they did. If the GA statute on citizens arrest is ambiguous, then a career LEO should know where he stands as a citizen. And he nstigated the whole situation, even though his son is the one that pulled the trigger.

Arbery wasn't probably in the wrong, but the other three were more wrong, and will now suffer for their stupidity.

The career LEO forgot he no longer had the authority he had before he retired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, R011 said:

No thefts that they saw Arbery commit, even on the surveillance video.  No crime seen means no permission for a citizens' arrest.

See Branca's point about this. The gist is that they had video of him repeatedly at the site. They had knowledge of prior acts and prior events there. 

The alternative view is that there's two sets of conditions. For felonies, like threats, suspicion is the the basis, not direct knowledge. 

I was under the impression myself that one needed to witness the crime. But the alternate view that Branca proffers does make sense and can be read as well. 

27 minutes ago, R011 said:

Certainly not on the day they chased him down.  As for Arbery's response, they illegally started the incident.  Arbery could make any response he wanted within reason, and that might have included deadly force as he was being illegally threatened by it.

Again, it doesn't need to be that one forgets the prior events. Police certainly would not if they were looking into a prowler say who'd been at a home multiple times. 

27 minutes ago, R011 said:

That may be so, but it's not new nor is it especially relevant to this case.

No, I'm speaking to the more general shifting of language. Note how the mass killing in Waukeshaw is framed as a "car crash" by " a red suv". It's the Lewis Carroll/Humpty Dumpty quote with language and power. 

27 minutes ago, R011 said:

Which isn't what happened here.  This wasn't some PC witchhunt as happened to Rittenhouse.  These guys murdered Arbery.

The exact same language about Rittenhouse was being used here. He hunted BLM supporters. Heck even British media was saying Rittenhouse killed 3 black men. The same language was used in the Zimmerman trial. I'm tired of the presumed knowledge of racist intent about everything that happened and imputed motives when folks can't bloody well know what the intent was with a dearth of evidence. It's part of a larger fabric of how liberals look at this things. They minimize EVERYTHING that goes against their narrative. Conversely, if there is some pretty hard evidence of what was going on, it's all minimized and ignored. Again, in Waukesha it's being billed as an accident or crash by the media in large part, all with passive voice of the SUV being at fault. 

 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, rmgill said:

See Branca's point about this. The gist is that they had video of him repeatedly at the site. They had knowledge of prior acts and prior events there. 

But they didn't see him commit any crime on site - ever.  The site wasn't blocked, even symbolically, to deny access, and Arbery had never been told by the property owner to stay off the property.  Thus there is no cause to arrest for criminal trespass by Georgia law even for police.  This is black letter law.  there's nothing there about reasonable suspicion or probable cause.  It doesn't matter if it's a felony or not.  They actually have to see a crime being committed by Arbery to arrest him and they simply did not.   The judge and jury here had no trouble figuring this out.

 

As for your race tangent.  Start a new thread.  Frankly it has nothing to do with whether these idiots murdered Arbery or not.

Edited by R011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, R011 said:

But they didn't see him commit any crime on site - ever. 

There were photos shown around of Arbery if I'm not mistaken. By the police. From INSIDE the home under construction. 

3 minutes ago, R011 said:

The site wasn't blocked, even symbolically, to deny access, and Arbery had never been told by the property owner to stay off the property.  Thus there is no cause to arrest for criminal trespass by Georgia law even for police.  This is black letter law. 

I still think there's an argument that that there was grounds for some sort of investigatory action by the neighbors. 

Also, vis a vis Criminal trespass, you're citing 16-7-21 (3). 

Criminal trespass possibly asserts because of subsection (b)(1) if Arbery was there for unlawful purposes. I'll admit it's hard to know if that was the case, but I can see a colorable argument that he was there for unlawful purposes. 
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-7/article-2/part-1/16-7-21/

16-7-21
(a) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally damages any property of another without consent of that other person and the damage thereto is $500.00 or less or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person.

(b) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority:

(1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person for an unlawful purpose;


(2) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden; or

(3) Remains upon the land or premises of another person or within the vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant to depart.

(c) For the purposes of subsection (b) of this Code section, permission to enter or invitation to enter given by a minor who is or is not present on or in the property of the minor's parent or guardian is not sufficient to allow lawful entry of another person upon the land, premises, vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft owned or rightfully occupied by such minor's parent or guardian if such parent or guardian has previously given notice that such entry is forbidden or notice to depart.

(d) A person who commits the offense of criminal trespass shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

3 minutes ago, R011 said:

 They actually have to see a crime being committed by Arbery to arrest him and they simply did not.   The judge and jury here had no trouble figuring this out.

§ 17-4-60. 
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.


Thefts. Snooping/prowling.Other suspicious actions late at night. He was just there, that's on video. One neighbor saw and raised the alarm. He'd been there before. Firearms had been taken. Tools had been taken. Some concerns were that he was armed. That seems to fit by my reading. 

That falls within immediate. The other facts are background that substantiate the reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion. 

Or does this mean based on the prosecutors reading of the statute that if you'd known of a prowling suspect who'd raped a neighbor, seen his photo because the cops showed it to you, but he was not apprehended. He comes back days later to intimidate/ attack the witness again, you see him, but because the rape had not JUST occurred, that you cannot intervene to arrest him because the rape itself was not immediately after? Is that the proper reading of that statute? 

 

3 minutes ago, R011 said:

As for your race tangent.  Start a new thread.  Frankly it has nothing to do with whether these idiots murdered Arbery or not.

My race tangent? No, It's DKTANKER's race tangent, he's the one who's been arguing it 'was white folk hunting darkies'. I'm just calling it for what it is and pointing to the larger background of absurdity. 

Personally, I'm interested in the details of the law and concerned that the judge didn't clarify the ambiguity of § 17-4-60. 

I am more concerned that with 17-4-60 changed to ONLY protect retail establishments we're back on the common law and it's even more nebulous. 

Additional skimming material on the subject:
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2020/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/section-17-4-60/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mikel2 said:

 

This is why you need high capacity magazines.

And exactly why the left doesn't want you having high capacity magazines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rmgill said:

There were photos shown around of Arbery if I'm not mistaken. By the police. From INSIDE the home under construction. 

I still think there's an argument that that there was grounds for some sort of investigatory action by the neighbors. 

Also, vis a vis Criminal trespass, you're citing 16-7-21 (3). 

Criminal trespass possibly asserts because of subsection (b)(1) if Arbery was there for unlawful purposes. I'll admit it's hard to know if that was the case, but I can see a colorable argument that he was there for unlawful purposes. 
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-7/article-2/part-1/16-7-21/

16-7-21
(a) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally damages any property of another without consent of that other person and the damage thereto is $500.00 or less or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person.

(b) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority:

(1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person for an unlawful purpose;


(2) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden; or

(3) Remains upon the land or premises of another person or within the vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant to depart.

(c) For the purposes of subsection (b) of this Code section, permission to enter or invitation to enter given by a minor who is or is not present on or in the property of the minor's parent or guardian is not sufficient to allow lawful entry of another person upon the land, premises, vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft owned or rightfully occupied by such minor's parent or guardian if such parent or guardian has previously given notice that such entry is forbidden or notice to depart.

(d) A person who commits the offense of criminal trespass shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

§ 17-4-60. 
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.


Thefts. Snooping/prowling.Other suspicious actions late at night. He was just there, that's on video. One neighbor saw and raised the alarm. He'd been there before. Firearms had been taken. Tools had been taken. Some concerns were that he was armed. That seems to fit by my reading. 

That falls within immediate. The other facts are background that substantiate the reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion. 

Or does this mean based on the prosecutors reading of the statute that if you'd known of a prowling suspect who'd raped a neighbor, seen his photo because the cops showed it to you, but he was not apprehended. He comes back days later to intimidate/ attack the witness again, you see him, but because the rape had not JUST occurred, that you cannot intervene to arrest him because the rape itself was not immediately after? Is that the proper reading of that statute? 

 

My race tangent? No, It's DKTANKER's race tangent, he's the one who's been arguing it 'was white folk hunting darkies'. I'm just calling it for what it is and pointing to the larger background of absurdity. 

Personally, I'm interested in the details of the law and concerned that the judge didn't clarify the ambiguity of § 17-4-60. 

I am more concerned that with 17-4-60 changed to ONLY protect retail establishments we're back on the common law and it's even more nebulous. 

Additional skimming material on the subject:
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2020/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/section-17-4-60/

What unlawful acts did they see Arbery commit?  They have to see them to be able to say they saw him commit a crime. What notices or barricades/door etc were in place to indicate no entry allowed?  When and by whom was he told to leave the property and did he comply ? Just being on the property is not a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, R011 said:

What unlawful acts did they see Arbery commit?  They have to see them to be able to say they saw him commit a crime. What notices or barricades/door etc were in place to indicate no entry allowed?  When and by whom was he told to leave the property and did he comply ? Just being on the property is not a crime.

The entry to English's property was the offense. It was a repeated occurrence. Happening at all manner of hours, late at night in fact. Combine that with the thefts and police, I can see why the neighbors would glob onto this. 

(b) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority:

(1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person for an unlawful purpose;


If he was there to commit theft, or case the place for future theft, that's an unlawful purpose. You determine that after contacting the person committing the trespass. 

Note the testimony of Brook Perez, one of the neighbors. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not watching a half hour video thanks.  Unless she testified the property was posted or that she barred Arbery from the property, it doesn't matter.  They can't say he was casing the property because they simply do not know because he was not seen stealing anything and they aren't telepathic.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Simon Tan said:

Are you asking if they will drive over with an AR to clean grafitti?

Well the anarchist and crack pipe huffers seem to object to having their graffiti cleaned up==perhaps having that armalite handy is prudent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EchoFiveMike said:

How many people posting in this thread live in GA or an adjoining state?  S/F....Ken M

*raises hand*

How many people have been illegally stopped by police because the cops didn't understand the law but didn't get into a shoot out with the cops?

*raises hand again*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...