Jogging while black

[davew]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

Discharging a shotgun doesn’t seem like intent?

Why bring arms to a hunt if you don’t intend to use them if necessary.

There was intent. 100%

Allan

maybe after the other guy started to fight and wrestle the shotgun away from him


there are millions of concealed carry guns in the country. do you feel whenever someone has one they have intent to use it?

there are hundreds of thousands of police officers and security guards that carry weapons, so you feel they all have intent to use them?

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by davew

maybe after the other guy started to fight and wrestle the shotgun away from him


there are millions of concealed carry guns in the country. do you feel whenever someone has one they have intent to use it?

there are hundreds of thousands of police officers and security guards that carry weapons, so you feel they all have intent to use them?

Shouldn’t have brought the shotgun in the first place.

Vigilantism has no place in 2020 American society.

How hard is the concept for you to understand.

What did the victim do to provoke someone hunting him down?

Allan

[JerryBoyle]

Originally Posted by davew

maybe after the other guy started to fight and wrestle the shotgun away from him


there are millions of concealed carry guns in the country. do you feel whenever someone has one they have intent to use it?

there are hundreds of thousands of police officers and security guards that carry weapons, so you feel they all have intent to use them?

Who gives a crap abuot intent. Jogger shouldn't have been put in a position to have to make that decision

[PressThePace]

New to this thread. My comments here are not for justification purposes, but I think some points are worth mentioning. (1) In the state of Georgia, entering an unoccupied dwelling is burglary. It doesn't matter if anything was removed from the property or not; (2) Open carry is legal in the state of Georgia; (3) Citizens arrests are legal in Georgia as well as showing a firearm in doing so; (4) It is very clear that the men in the pickup had set up to cut the young man off and stop him, just as an officer might have done. Again, perfectly legal; (5) The young man lunges at the man holding the shotgun and engages the younger McMichael in a physical struggle, making self-defense perfectly reasonable, again, just as it would for any cop.


Now, most of us can honestly say that we would have never taken that approach. It is easy for us to say that what the McMichael's did was clearly unreasonable. But there is a very thin line between what is reasonable and what is legal. Were the McMichael's within their legal rights with every action they took? From a legal standpoint, it looks that way. Our emotions easily get in the way.

I hate this for everyone involved. It was a perfect storm of events that led to tragedy. I think it clearly comes down to jury selection.

I want to make it perfectly clear: I"M NOT CONDONING WHAT WAS DONE OR MAKING A JUDGEMENT.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

Discharging a shotgun doesn’t seem like intent?

Why bring arms to a hunt if you don’t intend to use them if necessary.

There was intent. 100%

Allan

I've carried a gun almost every day of my life since 1982. I have never shot anybody. Stop trolling

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by PressThePace

New to this thread. My comments here are not for justification purposes, but I think some points are worth mentioning. (1) In the state of Georgia, entering an unoccupied dwelling is burglary. It doesn't matter if anything was removed from the property or not; (2) Open carry is legal in the state of Georgia; (3) Citizens arrests are legal in Georgia as well as showing a firearm in doing so; (4) It is very clear that the men in the pickup had set up to cut the young man off and stop him, just as an officer might have done. Again, perfectly legal; (5) The young man lunges at the man holding the shotgun and engages the younger McMichael in a physical struggle, making self-defense perfectly reasonable, again, just as it would for any cop.


Now, most of us can honestly say that we would have never taken that approach. It is easy for us to say that what the McMichael's did was clearly unreasonable. But there is a very thin line between what is reasonable and what is legal. Were the McMichael's within their legal rights with every action they took? From a legal standpoint, it looks that way. Our emotions easily get in the way.

I hate this for everyone involved. It was a perfect storm of events that led to tragedy. I think it clearly comes down to jury selection.

I want to make it perfectly clear: I"M NOT CONDONING WHAT WAS DONE OR MAKING A JUDGEMENT.

They did not observe him commit a felony.

"(b) A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the first degree shall be guilty of a felony.......... "

I guess they are able to know his intent? Mind readers?

Did they see him commit a felony ? not as far as I can tell from all the info available. They had no right to detain him, therefore they committed a crime.

If it comes out they saw him "contemporaneously" commit a felony........then I might have to re-evaluate. I am sure those State of Georgia types got it all wrong huh? I am talking about the "State" cops

[PressThePace]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

They did not observe him commit a felony.

"(b) A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the first degree shall be guilty of a felony.......... "

I guess they are able to know his intent? Mind readers?

Did they see him commit a felony ? not as far as I can tell from all the info available. They had no right to detain him, therefore they committed a crime.

If it comes out they saw him "contemporaneously" commit a felony........then I might have to re-evaluate. I am sure those State of Georgia types got it all wrong huh? I am talking about the "State" cops

Georgia State Law:

As a private citizen, you have no authority to arrest anyone with a warrant. Without a warrant, you may arrest anyone who commits a mis-demeanor or a felony in your presence or with your immediate knowledge. A citizen's arrest occurs when a citizen prevents a suspect from leaving a scene.
When making a citizen's arrest, a person may not use more force than is reasonable to make the arrest. Deadly force is limited to self-defense or to instances in which such force is necessary to prevent certain felonies.

It must be stressed that the right of private citizens to make a citizen's arrest is limited. They cannot arrest people for violating local ordinances or regulations because these violations are not technically crimes as defined by state law.Therefore, as a private citizen, you would not have the authority to arrest a person who is creating a disturbance by making too much noise. In addition, a private person can only make a citizen's arrest for the purpose of bringing the suspect before a judicial officer.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by PressThePace

Georgia State Law:

As a private citizen, you have no authority to arrest anyone with a warrant. Without a warrant, you may arrest anyone who commits a mis-demeanor or a felony in your presence or with your immediate knowledge. A citizen's arrest occurs when a citizen prevents a suspect from leaving a scene.
When making a citizen's arrest, a person may not use more force than is reasonable to make the arrest. Deadly force is limited to self-defense or to instances in which such force is necessary to prevent certain felonies.

It must be stressed that the right of private citizens to make a citizen's arrest is limited. They cannot arrest people for violating local ordinances or regulations because these violations are not technically crimes as defined by state law.Therefore, as a private citizen, you would not have the authority to arrest a person who is creating a disturbance by making too much noise. In addition, a private person can only make a citizen's arrest for the purpose of bringing the suspect before a judicial officer.

and your point is? Are you agreeing with me or disputing my point? They did not see him commit a felony. Or a any crime as far as the current data shows?

[PressThePace]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

and your point is? Are you agreeing with me or disputing my point? They did not see him commit a felony. Or a any crime as far as the current data shows?

There is a video of a neighbor walking outside as Arbery went inside the dwelling minutes before the incident. He yelled at Arbery and that's when he took off running. How would the McMichael's not know about that? That is what isn't known by any of us. However, it's already been established that the McMichael's had seen security camera footage of the previous entrances to the dwelling.

According to state law, you don't have to witness the crime, you only need to have immediate knowledge. Also, whether it was a felony or not makes no difference, according to the law.

[baconswitchfarm]

Originally Posted by PressThePace

There is a video of a neighbor walking outside as Arbery went inside the dwelling minutes before the incident. He yelled at Arbery and that's when he took off running. How would the McMichael's not know about that? That is what isn't known by any of us. However, it's already been established that the McMichael's had seen security camera footage of the previous entrances to the dwelling.

According to state law, you don't have to witness the crime, you only need to have immediate knowledge. Also, whether it was a felony or not makes no difference, according to the law.

So technically they could be within the law. Get some extra fire insurance if you own a business in Atlanta . Sharpton getting fitted for a new suit as we speak.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

I've carried a gun almost every day of my life since 1982. I have never shot anybody. Stop trolling

Did you ever hunt one down like this guy.

Not a troll.

The alleged perps should not pursued him with guns that what I was trying to say.

Allan

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by PressThePace

There is a video of a neighbor walking outside as Arbery went inside the dwelling minutes before the incident. He yelled at Arbery and that's when he took off running. How would the McMichael's not know about that? That is what isn't known by any of us. However, it's already been established that the McMichael's had seen security camera footage of the previous entrances to the dwelling.

According to state law, you don't have to witness the crime, you only need to have immediate knowledge. Also, whether it was a felony or not makes no difference, according to the law.

Did he yell at the other people who trespassed or just him?

So you can chase down a person who committed a misdemeanor with a gun because someone told you the person did it.

Allan

[PressThePace]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

Did he yell at the other people who trespassed or just him?

So you can chase down a person who committed a misdemeanor with a gun because someone told you the person did it.

Allan

Look, I'm telling you what the law states. It will be interpreted by a jury who will be instructed on what the law is by a judge. I do not agree with what was done to Ahmaud Arbery. But, if I'm a juror, I don't convict on feelings. I convict because the law says to convict.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by PressThePace

Look, I'm telling you what the law states. It will be interpreted by a jury who will be instructed on what the law is by a judge. I do not agree with what was done to Ahmaud Arbery. But, if I'm a juror, I don't convict on feelings. I convict because the law says to convict.

Lol. What juror who has seen the video will let the alleged perps off with a not guilty verdict?

ps—it will never go to trial. The alleged perps (all of them) will pled out and that will be that.

Allan

[PressThePace]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

Did he yell at the other people who trespassed or just him?

Allan

The video being circulated is one that shows Arbery inside the dwelling at 3am on more than one occasion. First of all, it is a crime to be in the dwelling, period. Secondly, what would a reasonable person think if they owned said dwelling or even a neighbor who lived close by? Remember, there had been recently documented and reported burglaries in the same neighborhood. These are things that will be brought up in court.

I'm not saying that he deserved to die for entering a dwelling whether it was legal or not. But, the chain of events leading up to the younger McMichael pulling the trigger will most definitely come into play and deservedly so. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Has nothing to do with what emotions one may have.