Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 05-18-2020, 06:19 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
New details on this:
1.) On October 25th black man captured on video on the property.
2.) On November 18th black man captured on video on the property.
3.) On December 17th black man captured on video on the property.
4.) On Feburary 11th black man captured on video on the property and eyewitnessed by Travis McMichael, who called 911. McMichael was clearly shaken in the audio of the 911 call.
5.) On Feburary 23rd, Ahmaud Arbery is captured on video on the property by two video cameras, one eyewitness calls 911, one other eywitness is seen watching him on external video camera.
6.) Video clips of the intruders (and there were others, including children and a white man and woman) were circulated to the neighbors by the homeowner in effort to identify the trespassers. He was also in contact with the police on several occasions. He did not want the trespassers on his property and was attempting to stop it. At some unspecified date the homeowner had $2,500 worth of fishing equipment stolen from the garage of the house.
7.) The external camera that captured Aubrey on Feburary 23rd belonged to a neighbor who had set it up specificly to help the homeowner catch the trespassers in his under-construction home. This neighbor was the one who called 911 on Feburary 23rd.
8.) A police officer (as I noted earlier) had contacted the elder McMichael to ask him to keep an eye on the property. One or both of the McMichaels may or may not have been among the neighbors shown the video clips in an attempt to identify the tresspassers I have a hunch they were, but if not, there was the eyewitness incident with the younger McMichael.
A whole FIVE visits from black men, where nothing was stolen, over the course of five months.

This "timeline" is brought to you by the exact same thought process that led Gregory McMichael to assume releasing the video where he murdered an innocent jogger would exonerate him.
  #102  
Old 05-18-2020, 06:20 PM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 1,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf333 View Post
If you intentionally point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger, and they die, that is not manslaughter.
That would depend on how the law in Georgia.

ETA:

Which is this (for voluntary manslaughter):
Quote:
O.C.G.A. 16-5-2 (2010)
16-5-2. Voluntary manslaughter


(a) A person commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter when he causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would otherwise be murder and if he acts solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person; however, if there should have been an interval between the provocation and the killing sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, of which the jury in all cases shall be the judge, the killing shall be attributed to deliberate revenge and be punished as murder.

(b) A person who commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.
So you could intentionally point a gun at someone and pull the trigger in Georgia and have it be "not murder," even if it doesn’t meet the criteria for a justification defense. Whether or not that applies here is... not something I feel qualified to speculate on in this post.

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 05-18-2020 at 06:25 PM.
  #103  
Old 05-18-2020, 06:27 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
This might have been the first time that Aubrey tresspassed in English's home, but if so he couldn't have picked a worse powder keg to stumble into, and it is a perfect illustration of why you should not trespass unwanted in other people's houses, occupued or not, even if you are "just curious."
That's the thing...it should never have been a "powder keg" to begin with.

When I was a kid my friends and I would poke around homes under construction all the time. Really, it was a favorite thing since in the 70's there wasn't much else to do (before computers, only five TV channels, etc...we ran around outside a lot). They are really kind of interesting to check out. See the bones of a house. Neat stuff.

We never caused damage or stole anything but I would hate to think I would have gotten shot for it because someone before me had stolen something and now the site was a "powder keg" and some overzealous neighborhood watch person comes at us with a gun and looking for trouble.

Also, getting shot over theft at a construction site seems a bit much. Who here thinks the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for stealing from a construction site (assuming that even happened)? Who here is ok with the local neighborhood watch becoming judge, jury and executioners all in the space of a couple minutes for what *might* have been (in their view) a theft at a construction site?

Raise your hand and be counted.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-18-2020 at 06:30 PM.
  #104  
Old 05-18-2020, 08:17 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,811
UltraVires, IIRC, if you have been practicing for five years in WV, you could join the GA defence teem under reciprocity.

That would give you a chance to contribute your knowledge, experience and critical opinion to the defence team.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #105  
Old 05-19-2020, 06:08 AM
Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Rather, it seems to me that if "the offense" was nonexistent, "the offense" cannot possibly be a felony. Citizen's arrest based on probable cause when no felony was committed is not good law.
Upon further reflection, the answer seems less clear. Adams v. Carlisle (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) includes the following discussion:

Quote:
For the purpose of assessing probable cause, Evans and Grayson's involvement in the arrest of the plaintiffs can be analogized to a citizen's arrest. At common law, when a felony actually had been committed, a private person was authorized to arrest the person whom he reasonably believed committed the felony, and could arrest for a misdemeanor if it was committed in his presence and involved a breach of the peace.[20] Nonetheless, the private person's authority to arrest was more limited than an officer's.[21] "If called upon to justify his act, some courts [found] that [the private person] must show that the felony had actually been committed, and that he had reasonable grounds for believing the person arrested to be guilty; while other courts have gone further, and held that he must show that the person arrested was actually guilty."[22] In other words, the private citizen who made an arrest was strictly liable for the arrestee's damages if the arrestee was innocent.[23] Therefore, the distinction between the privileges afforded a police officer as opposed to a citizen in this regard pertained to the personal liability in the event of a false arrest.[24] The officer could not be sued personally if it were later determined, as in this case, that there had been in actuality no probable cause.

In view of the wide divergence between the two special concurrences, we leave it to the commentators to decide whether Georgia law has approached, or should approach, probable cause differently when analyzing whether an officer had probable cause to interfere with a subject's liberty, or whether a citizen had the right to remain secure in his home and papers, or whether an officer should be sued after making a good faith arrest based on apparent probable cause, or whether one citizen can vindicate his rights against another citizen after an unjust arrest. In any event, based on Georgia case law, it is for a jury to decide in the present instance whether Evans, LGC, Grayson, and CPG may be liable.
(emphasis added)


Adamscites to a 1915 decision (that isn't available on Google Scholar). But it suggests to me that the answer isn't clear or well-established and it's entirely possible that an offense must, in fact, have been committed (and you only need probable cause that the person who've arrested did it).
  #106  
Old 05-19-2020, 06:59 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,866
Thank you, Falchion. I appreciate your research here.
  #107  
Old 05-19-2020, 07:24 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falchion View Post
Upon further reflection, the answer seems less clear. Adams v. Carlisle (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) includes the following discussion:

(emphasis added)


Adamscites to a 1915 decision (that isn't available on Google Scholar). But it suggests to me that the answer isn't clear or well-established and it's entirely possible that an offense must, in fact, have been committed (and you only need probable cause that the person who've arrested did it).
Based on that, it seems that a citizen's arrest is a really risky thing to do, unless you actually saw the person you're arresting commit some felony. You're personally liable for any damages if it turns out after the fact that you're wrong.

Thanks for this and your correction to me about probable cause.
  #108  
Old 05-19-2020, 10:51 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
UltraVires, as for your continued questions of "What if it was a legal arrest?", you might as well ask "What if they didn't actually shoot him and just invited him in for tea and cookies?". Neither one of those is what happened, and what we should concern ourselves with is what actually did happen.
IANAL, but I've done some reading on citizen's arrest, and, other than Texas, you may only use non-deadly force to citizen's arrest someone.

So, grappling with them, pushing them to the ground, stuff like that may be acceptable. Starting off with the threat of deadly force, even if they had just witnessed a felony and the perpetrator was escaping, would be illegal, if I am reading things right.

The only time deadly force would be allowed (outside of Texas) would be if they were posing a direct and continuing threat to the safety of yourself or others.
  #109  
Old 05-19-2020, 10:56 AM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 1,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Thank you, Falchion. I appreciate your research here.
+1. It’s good to see something like relevant case law cited to help clarify certain ambiguities in the law. That’s the sort of thing I would expect an actual attorney to do, one worth his or her salt, so hopefully the prosecutor in the Arbury case is well-versed in the relevant case law and looking for a way to use it as a hammer, rather than trying to look for ways to slip ambiguity in and let these people off.

It seems the only question, going off that case law, is if Arbury's entering the unoccupied construction area (trespassing at worse, I would think) constitutes a "breach of the peace" and occurred in the McMichael's presence.

And regardless of whether what the McMichaels did is ACTUALLY legal, I think it damn well ought to be illegal. At worst, the man committed a non-violent misdemeanor, and they chased him down in a manner consistent with an old-school lynching and provoked a deadly confrontation against an unarmed man. Fleeing a violent felony is one thing, maybe (frankly, I still wouldn’t be too fond of bringing about a deadly confrontation if it could be avoided), but not what they actually had reason to believe he did.

ETA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
IANAL, but I've done some reading on citizen's arrest, and, other than Texas, you may only use non-deadly force to citizen's arrest someone.

So, grappling with them, pushing them to the ground, stuff like that may be acceptable. Starting off with the threat of deadly force, even if they had just witnessed a felony and the perpetrator was escaping, would be illegal, if I am reading things right.

The only time deadly force would be allowed (outside of Texas) would be if they were posing a direct and continuing threat to the safety of yourself or others.
I looked at Georgia's self-defense statute, and it wasn’t very clear. I mean, it’s clear enough that the instigator of a violent act is the one who gets lawfully defended against, but then it’s not clear if attempting to initiate a "lawful" (and that’s if we assume for the sake of argument only) citizen's arrest is allowed to initiate any level of violence or contact to effect the arrest. And a show of force (like showing up with shotguns and a pickup) might just count as a kind of force on its own (or rather, I haven’t ruled it out).

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 05-19-2020 at 11:00 AM.
  #110  
Old 05-19-2020, 11:13 AM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 1,172
And hereís the post-ETA addition with what I believe is the only applicable portion of the code for self-defense and use of force in Georgia. Whatís odd is that citizen's arrest doesnít even seem to get a passing mention, and I am left to hesitantly conclude that it must somehow fit within the proper self-defense or use of force statute in Georgia.

And the wording does confirm that "threat of force" is considered a kind of force of its own, and it would certainly seem to me that the McMichaels did just that the way they approached, pursued, and obstructed Arbury, which to me means, unless there is some part of the law that I missed that allows for force to apprehend a non-violent misdemeanor suspect, they were the initiators (and so not defending themselves), even if, as the video leaves some room for interpretation, Arbury charged one of the McMichaels after they obstructed his path. They were (as I posit) unlawfully exercising the threat of force, and he was attempting to use necessary force to extricate himself from that situation (he obviously couldnít run, because theyíd already chased him down, passed him, and obstructed his path at least once in the pickup).

Quote:
2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE
ß 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution
O.C.G.A. 16-3-21 (2010)
16-3-21. Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution


(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:

(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;

(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or

(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

(c) Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and effect.

(d) In a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, if a defendant raises as a defense a justification provided by subsection (a) of this Code section, the defendant, in order to establish the defendant's reasonable belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, may be permitted to offer:

(1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased, as such acts are described in Code Sections 19-13-1 and 19-15-1, respectively; and

(2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the bases of the expert's opinion.

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 05-19-2020 at 11:14 AM.
  #111  
Old 05-19-2020, 11:17 AM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falchion View Post
Adams v. Carlisle (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) includes the following discussion:
(emphasis added)
Quote:
...Nonetheless, the private person's authority to arrest was more limited than an officer's.[21] "If called upon to justify his act, some courts [found] that [the private person] must show that the felony had actually been committed, and that he had reasonable grounds for believing the person arrested to be guilty; while other courts have gone further, and held that he must show that the person arrested was actually guilty."[22] In other words, the private citizen who made an arrest was strictly liable for the arrestee's damages if the arrestee was innocent.[23] Therefore, the distinction between the privileges afforded a police officer as opposed to a citizen in this regard pertained to the personal liability in the event of a false arrest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Based on that, it seems that a citizen's arrest is a really risky thing to do, unless you actually saw the person you're arresting commit some felony. You're personally liable for any damages if it turns out after the fact that you're wrong.
It seems to me perfectly appropriate that there should not only be reasonable grounds for suspicion, but that the suspect must actually be guilty for a "citizen arrestor" to evade liability (i.e. strict liability).

In a police arrest, an innocent suspect is likely to submit peacefully, since (setting aside police corruption) the suspect knows that his physical safety is not in jeopardy, and that he has clearly defined rights, and that due process should exonerate him.

But a citizen's arrest places the rights of two citizens in opposition. It creates far greater potential for escalating violence than a police arrest. And an innocent suspect will surely be far more likely to resist and escalate the confrontation, since he will know of know of justifiable reason why somebody would be attempting to arrest him, and be more likely to assume that the people attempting to detain him are themselves criminals with ill intent.

Given the notorious unreliability of eyewitness testimony and the potential for error and escalating violence, we should require absolute certainty of a suspect's guilt for a citizen's arrest. We can't have untrained civilians "investigating" crimes outside of the immediate physical and temporal proximity of the crime, we can't have untrained civilians making subjective judgments about "likely" suspects. The rights of innocent citizens must surely be paramount.

Last edited by Riemann; 05-19-2020 at 11:21 AM.
  #112  
Old 05-19-2020, 11:24 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,866
Those are excellent points, Reimann. I agree that citizen's arrest should be an extremely rare event for cut-and-dried cases, and the arrestor should be taking a significant legal risk if they're wrong. To set it up otherwise is to encourage vigilantism.

Requiring absolute knowledge of a crime's commission seems like a pretty basic step toward setting the citizen's arrest standard high.
  #113  
Old 05-19-2020, 11:32 AM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Thank you, Falchion. I appreciate your research here.
Yup, seconded - thanks.
  #114  
Old 05-19-2020, 11:39 AM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
You're simply wrong. The section of the document I pulled that from is about use of firearm, and it defines both active and passive use. However, all use of a firearm--including passive use--may only be done under certain circumstances. I quoted the most relevant one. Do you think that document lists a different circumstance under which passive use may occur?
Article 34 Paragraph 3 - Passive use of a firearm refers to demonstration of a firearm by a police officer to achieve a legitimate objective.

Maybe I'm missing it but where are the circumstances listed where passive use of a firearm may be used? The only limitations that I see are that it must be for a legitimate objective. Effecting an arrest, preventing a crime or flight are among such objectives. In my state displaying a firearm is considered "constructive authority" and there is no statewide policy that delineates the circumstances when a firearm may be displayed or pointed. I don't see any limitations/requirements in the Georgia law either but I'd be happy to change my view if you can point me in the right direction.
  #115  
Old 05-19-2020, 11:43 AM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
This "timeline" is brought to you by the exact same thought process that led Gregory McMichael to assume releasing the video where he murdered an innocent jogger would exonerate him.
Aside from being a mindboggling "wtf was he thinking" moment...

It seems to me that the fact that he released the video thinking it would exonerate him could be introduced at trial as an incredibly damning piece of evidence about his state of mind, about what he was planning when he pursued Arbery and initiated a violent confrontation, about how he anticipated it would play out and what he thought he could get away with.
  #116  
Old 05-19-2020, 11:49 AM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 1,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
Article 34 Paragraph 3 - Passive use of a firearm refers to demonstration of a firearm by a police officer to achieve a legitimate objective.

Maybe I'm missing it but where are the circumstances listed where passive use of a firearm may be used? The only limitations that I see are that it must be for a legitimate objective. Effecting an arrest, preventing a crime or flight are among such objectives. In my state displaying a firearm is considered "constructive authority" and there is no statewide policy that delineates the circumstances when a firearm may be displayed or pointed. I don't see any limitations/requirements in the Georgia law either but I'd be happy to change my view if you can point me in the right direction.
This is from the Georgia code covering simple assault. I would argue that what the McMichaels did, pursuing Arbury and then obstructing his path while visibly armed, constituted simple assault at a minimum:

Quote:
2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 2 - ASSAULT AND BATTERY
ß 16-5-20 - Simple assault
O.C.G.A. 16-5-20 (2010)
16-5-20. Simple assault

(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.
Specifically, I think Arbury would have been "in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury," being confronted as he was, unarmed and on foot, by armed men in a pickup who had pursued and blocked him.

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 05-19-2020 at 11:50 AM.
  #117  
Old 05-19-2020, 12:07 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
I looked at Georgia's self-defense statute, and it wasnít very clear. I mean, itís clear enough that the instigator of a violent act is the one who gets lawfully defended against, but then itís not clear if attempting to initiate a "lawful" (and thatís if we assume for the sake of argument only) citizen's arrest is allowed to initiate any level of violence or contact to effect the arrest. And a show of force (like showing up with shotguns and a pickup) might just count as a kind of force on its own (or rather, I havenít ruled it out).
The problem with a citizen's arrest is it can look like an assault to the person who is being "arrested." Unless the crime was committed in front of the arresting citizen and they both know it then what would you think if someone came out of nowhere, pointed a gun at you and yelled, "Citizen's arrest! Hands-up!"

I would think I was being assaulted and would definitely consider means of defending myself, up to and including lethal means. Granted they have the drop on me so not good for me but it remains that, given a chance, I will defend myself.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #118  
Old 05-19-2020, 12:16 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
The problem with a citizen's arrest is it can look like an assault to the person who is being "arrested." Unless the crime was committed in front of the arresting citizen and they both know it then what would you think if someone came out of nowhere, pointed a gun at you and yelled, "Citizen's arrest! Hands-up!"

I would think I was being assaulted and would definitely consider means of defending myself, up to and including lethal means. Granted they have the drop on me so not good for me but it remains that, given a chance, I will defend myself.
Yup, that's why I think the standard must be absolute certainty of the suspect's guilt, which will usually imply immediate proximity in time and space to the crime, which will also imply that a guilty suspect understands that someone trying to detain them is not themselves a criminal with ill intent, but has good reason. Given the potential for escalating violence in a citizen's arrest, it's not just the reasonableness of the arrestor's suspicions that matters, it's the likely state of mind of the person being arrested.
  #119  
Old 05-19-2020, 12:58 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 7,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Yup, that's why I think the standard must be absolute certainty of the suspect's guilt, which will usually imply immediate proximity in time and space to the crime, which will also imply that a guilty suspect understands that someone trying to detain them is not themselves a criminal with ill intent, but has good reason. Given the potential for escalating violence in a citizen's arrest, it's not just the reasonableness of the arrestor's suspicions that matters, it's the likely state of mind of the person being arrested.
Not to mention the "state of mind" of the arrestors, and the "reasonableness" of the victim.
  #120  
Old 05-19-2020, 01:02 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
Article 34 Paragraph 3 - Passive use of a firearm refers to demonstration of a firearm by a police officer to achieve a legitimate objective.

Maybe I'm missing it but where are the circumstances listed where passive use of a firearm may be used? The only limitations that I see are that it must be for a legitimate objective. Effecting an arrest, preventing a crime or flight are among such objectives. In my state displaying a firearm is considered "constructive authority" and there is no statewide policy that delineates the circumstances when a firearm may be displayed or pointed. I don't see any limitations/requirements in the Georgia law either but I'd be happy to change my view if you can point me in the right direction.
Further down it defines when a firearm may be used. Are you interpreting that as defining when a firearm may be used actively? If so, why are you interpreting it in that way? If not, why are you not seeing that section as defining circumstances where passive use is appropriate?

I suspect you've inadvertently considered that section as being only about active use. But a passive use is also a use. Again, here's what it says:
Quote:
A police officer may use a firearm as a last resort:
...
based on prior information, to prevent the escape of a person who has been detained for having committed a violent act or extremely grievous crime;
If you can find, in that section, any other way that an officer may use a firearm (passively or actively) that apply to this situation, I'd be interested in seeing them. I read that section and didn't find anything else that looked applicable.
  #121  
Old 05-20-2020, 09:38 AM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,823
I do believe that that particular section refers to active use only. Otherwise, the police would not be permitted to draw their weapon while searching a house for a possible burglary suspect or confront a a suspect who won't show their hands. There is no extremely grievous crime or escape of a detained person who committed a violent act or any of the other particularized circumstances. Surely, you are not saying that is what the law intends. Like I said, the law is poorly written. It ought to say: A police officer may ACTIVELY use a firearm as a last resort: etc. That makes sense.

In any case, this is not about a police use of firearms. I was merely pointing out that I believe that police would not be breaking any laws for merely having their firearm out. I'm not saying the two guys charged would be justified. It seems they were not, based on the available information. Among the things I learned in 25 years an an LEO and especially as a homicide detective, was that things are often (indeed, hardly ever) as cut and dry as they first appear to be and a thorough investigation takes time. One other thing I learned is that people tend to believe the first version of an event that they hear and may stick to that belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
  #122  
Old 05-20-2020, 10:30 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
I do believe that that particular section refers to active use only. Otherwise, the police would not be permitted to draw their weapon while searching a house for a possible burglary suspect or confront a a suspect who won't show their hands. There is no extremely grievous crime or escape of a detained person who committed a violent act or any of the other particularized circumstances. Surely, you are not saying that is what the law intends. Like I said, the law is poorly written. It ought to say: A police officer may ACTIVELY use a firearm as a last resort: etc. That makes sense.
That would be incredibly poor writing to define passive and active use, and in the very next line give condition for use (without specifying you mean active use).

One use of a firearm is "a) to defend a person and him/herself from a threat to their lives and/or health". If there's a suspect who won't show their hands, might that comprise a threat? If there's a suspect in a house who may be armed, is that a threat?

I don't think that applies in this case, as there was no indication that Arbery was armed, his hands were almost certainly visible (he was jogging in shorts). Police cannot, to the best of my knowledge, draw their weapons on someone running away from a construction site. Passive use of firearms requires justification.

In fact, police have extensive training on when they're allowed to use firearms, passively and actively. McMichaels Sr. kept skipping that training.
Quote:
In any case, this is not about a police use of firearms. I was merely pointing out that I believe that police would not be breaking any laws for merely having their firearm out. I'm not saying the two guys charged would be justified. It seems they were not, based on the available information. Among the things I learned in 25 years an an LEO and especially as a homicide detective, was that things are often (indeed, hardly ever) as cut and dry as they first appear to be and a thorough investigation takes time. One other thing I learned is that people tend to believe the first version of an event that they hear and may stick to that belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I didn't realize you were an officer. In your LEO trainings on when you could draw your firearm, what conditions were you given?

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 05-20-2020 at 10:31 AM.
  #123  
Old 05-20-2020, 12:23 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
That's the thing...it should never have been a "powder keg" to begin with.

When I was a kid my friends and I would poke around homes under construction all the time. Really, it was a favorite thing since in the 70's there wasn't much else to do (before computers, only five TV channels, etc...we ran around outside a lot). They are really kind of interesting to check out. See the bones of a house. Neat stuff.

We never caused damage or stole anything but I would hate to think I would have gotten shot for it because someone before me had stolen something and now the site was a "powder keg" and some overzealous neighborhood watch person comes at us with a gun and looking for trouble.

Also, getting shot over theft at a construction site seems a bit much. Who here thinks the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for stealing from a construction site (assuming that even happened)? Who here is ok with the local neighborhood watch becoming judge, jury and executioners all in the space of a couple minutes for what *might* have been (in their view) a theft at a construction site?

Raise your hand and be counted.
I'll be counted. If their life is worth so little to them that they would enter my home uninvited, their life means less than it does to them, to me. So they should expect the possibility of death to come from that choice.
  #124  
Old 05-20-2020, 12:37 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I'll be counted. If their life is worth so little to them that they would enter my home uninvited, their life means less than it does to them, to me. So they should expect the possibility of death to come from that choice.
For an unoccupied home under construction? Why on Earth would you want to kill someone who entered an unoccupied home under construction?
  #125  
Old 05-20-2020, 01:26 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 7,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
For an unoccupied home under construction? Why on Earth would you want to kill someone who entered an unoccupied home under construction?
Because he is an anonymous person on the internet?
  #126  
Old 05-20-2020, 02:14 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I'll be counted. If their life is worth so little to them that they would enter my home uninvited, their life means less than it does to them, to me.
An unoccupied construction site is not a home. There are no lives to be protected there, so deadly force is not warranted.

Especially, if the person never harmed or threatened any person or property, ESPECIALLY if they have already vacated the premises.

As someone on Twitter said, I don't care if he hoisted the house on his back and was running away with it. That doesn't give anybody the right to hunt him down and kill him.
  #127  
Old 05-20-2020, 02:34 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I'll be counted. If their life is worth so little to them that they would enter my home uninvited, their life means less than it does to them, to me. So they should expect the possibility of death to come from that choice.
By the same token, if a person's freedom is worth so little to them that they'd murder someone for walking into a construction site, their freedom means less to me. So they should expect the possibility of life without parole to come from that choice.
  #128  
Old 05-20-2020, 02:35 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
As someone on Twitter said, I don't care if he hoisted the house on his back and was running away with it. That doesn't give anybody the right to hunt him down and kill him.
I wondered about this.

If they assumed Arbury had stolen something wouldn't it be obvious he was carrying something away?

Arbury was jogging. Not a lot of room to hide things on his person. Power tools generally don't fit in a pocket. What is there on a construction site that is worth stealing that you could walk away with and no one would notice you carrying?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-20-2020 at 02:37 PM.
  #129  
Old 05-20-2020, 02:44 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I wondered about this.

If they assumed Arbury had stolen something wouldn't it be obvious he was carrying something away?

Arbury was jogging. Not a lot of room to hide things on his person. Power tools generally don't fit in a pocket. What is there on a construction site that is worth stealing that you could walk away with and no one would notice you carrying?
My understanding is that they had no idea he had been wandering on that construction site that day. Rather, he "matched the description" of someone who had been burgling houses in the neighborhood. "Matched the description" no doubt refers to shoe size or handedness, not skin color because that would be racist.
  #130  
Old 05-20-2020, 03:17 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
My understanding is that they had no idea he had been wandering on that construction site that day. Rather, he "matched the description" of someone who had been burgling houses in the neighborhood. "Matched the description" no doubt refers to shoe size or handedness, not skin color because that would be racist.
Those would be the "burgling" that there was no report of by any police department, or... by anyone. The "burgling" that only occurred when the murderers needed a post hoc excuse for why they hunted and killed the guy.
  #131  
Old 05-20-2020, 07:17 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Those would be the "burgling" that there was no report of by any police department, or... by anyone. The "burgling" that only occurred when the murderers needed a post hoc excuse for why they hunted and killed the guy.
Yeah, I should have put the scare quotes around that, too.

I would really love for Kearsen1 and Darren Garrison to address some of the replies to their posts, because both of those posts are controversial, to say the least.
  #132  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:24 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
By the same token, if a person's freedom is worth so little to them that they'd murder someone for walking into a construction site, their freedom means less to me. So they should expect the possibility of life without parole to come from that choice.
True! All choices come with repercussions.
  #133  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:29 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
An unoccupied construction site is not a home. There are no lives to be protected there, so deadly force is not warranted.

Especially, if the person never harmed or threatened any person or property, ESPECIALLY if they have already vacated the premises.

As someone on Twitter said, I don't care if he hoisted the house on his back and was running away with it. That doesn't give anybody the right to hunt him down and kill him.
Although I do agree that theft, or burglary of an unoccupied space is way less threatening than someone breaking into a home I or my family lives in, that CRIME still comes with the likelihood of some sort of response. I would agree that death would be too harsh a punishment, absent some other added details. A home under construction can mean lots of things. Open air construction sites of houses are only "open", not dried in or roofed and closed, for the first month or so. If the house was dried in, there is always the possibility of someone being there and why would they make a choice like that, knowing what the possible outcome is?

With all that said, No, he shouldn't have been chased down and killed for that. But that isn't what has been reported.
  #134  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:59 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
...But that isn't what has been reported.
True! He reportedly did nothing at all, as far as the alleged murderers knew. They stated that he matched the description of someone who committed some imaginary burglaries. Right? Or, did you mean something else?
  #135  
Old 05-21-2020, 02:34 PM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
That would be incredibly poor writing to define passive and active use, and in the very next line give condition for use (without specifying you mean active use).

One use of a firearm is "a) to defend a person and him/herself from a threat to their lives and/or health". If there's a suspect who won't show their hands, might that comprise a threat? If there's a suspect in a house who may be armed, is that a threat?

I don't think that applies in this case, as there was no indication that Arbery was armed, his hands were almost certainly visible (he was jogging in shorts). Police cannot, to the best of my knowledge, draw their weapons on someone running away from a construction site. Passive use of firearms requires justification.

In fact, police have extensive training on when they're allowed to use firearms, passively and actively. McMichaels Sr. kept skipping that training.

I didn't realize you were an officer. In your LEO trainings on when you could draw your firearm, what conditions were you given?
Mind you, I don't live and never worked in Georgia so I can't address what goes on down there.

From NJ Attorney General's Policy

A. Constructive Authority

1. Constructive authority does not involve actual physical contact with
the subject, but involves the use of the law enforcement officer’s
authority to exert control over a subject.

2. Examples include verbal commands, gestures, warnings, and
unholstering a weapon.

3. Pointing a firearm at a subject is an element of constructive
authority to be used only in appropriate situations.


and

D. Exhibiting a Firearm
1. A law enforcement officer shall not unholster or exhibit a firearm
except under any of the following circumstances:

a. For maintenance of the firearm;

b. To secure the firearm;

c. During training exercises, practice or qualification with the
firearm;

d. When circumstances create a reasonable belief that it may
be necessary for the officer to use the firearm;

e. When circumstances create a reasonable belief that display
of a firearm as an element of constructive authority helps
establish or maintain control in a potentially dangerous
situation in an effort to discourage resistance and ensure
officer safety


As you can see, there is no requirement that a violent crime be suspected. It is a pretty low bar to get over to draw and point a weapon. Much, much higher to actually use it. A suspected burglar, even an empty handed one in shorts and t-shirt, might find himself looking at the wrong end of a gun. An officer who repeatedly draws his weapon unreasonably will probably find himself out of a job in short order. A citizen pointing a weapon at someone (in other than a legitimate self-defense scenario) is likely to result in an aggravated assault charge.

To repeat, all indications are that these two guys were acting unlawfully and I am not defending them. More like nitpicking the "police" aspect of the post.

Last edited by MikeF; 05-21-2020 at 02:37 PM.
  #136  
Old 05-21-2020, 02:43 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
Mind you, I don't live and never worked in Georgia so I can't address what goes on down there.

From NJ Attorney General's Policy

A. Constructive Authority

1. Constructive authority does not involve actual physical contact with
the subject, but involves the use of the law enforcement officerís
authority to exert control over a subject.

2. Examples include verbal commands, gestures, warnings, and
unholstering a weapon.

3. Pointing a firearm at a subject is an element of constructive
authority to be used only in appropriate situations.


and

D. Exhibiting a Firearm
1. A law enforcement officer shall not unholster or exhibit a firearm
except under any of the following circumstances:

a. For maintenance of the firearm;

b. To secure the firearm;

c. During training exercises, practice or qualification with the
firearm;

d. When circumstances create a reasonable belief that it may
be necessary for the officer to use the firearm;

e. When circumstances create a reasonable belief that display
of a firearm as an element of constructive authority helps
establish or maintain control in a potentially dangerous
situation in an effort to discourage resistance and ensure
officer safety
Thanks. That's interesting, and reads really differently to me than the Georgia code does. The last point in the quote seems far too broad, and definitely broader than the authority contained in the Georgia code.

As you say, the folks in question weren't cops. Discussing when cops can display a weapon establishes (I think) an upper bound to what would be allowed by a civilian, so it's pertinent to the discussion in that regard. That is, if a cop would be allowed to display a weapon, that doesn't establish that these killers were allowed to do so; but if even Georgia cops wouldn't be allowed to display a weapon, certainly it wasn't allowable for these killers to wave a shotgun around.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 05-21-2020 at 02:44 PM.
  #137  
Old 05-21-2020, 04:34 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Although I do agree that theft, or burglary of an unoccupied space is way less threatening than someone breaking into a home I or my family lives in, that CRIME still comes with the likelihood of some sort of response. I would agree that death would be too harsh a punishment, absent some other added details. A home under construction can mean lots of things. Open air construction sites of houses are only "open", not dried in or roofed and closed, for the first month or so. If the house was dried in, there is always the possibility of someone being there and why would they make a choice like that, knowing what the possible outcome is?

With all that said, No, he shouldn't have been chased down and killed for that. But that isn't what has been reported.
This whole thing feels like a dodge. There is a huge implied "but" in what you wrote.

You agree no one should be killed for theft from an unoccupied space BUT "crime comes with a likelihood of response" (with "response" having a big question mark next to it).

You can drive a truck through that loophole. "Well, I was responding to the person trespassing and he threatened me so I shot him."

I don't want to assume your opinions for this so please tell me:

When, in your view, is lethal force appropriate by Joe Citizen (i.e. not law enforcement)? In your view how can Joe Citizen reliably decide when the line to using lethal force has been crossed?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-21-2020 at 04:36 PM.
  #138  
Old 05-21-2020, 05:28 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,752
Has it even been established yet that there was a "no trespassing" sign (or equivalent) at the site? If there was no sign, there was no crime at all.
  #139  
Old 05-21-2020, 05:34 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 29,318
The guy who filmed Mr. Arbury's death has been charged with his murder.
Quote:
The Georgia man who filmed cellphone video of Ahmaud Arbery’s fatal shooting was arrested Thursday and charged with murder in his death.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation said 50-year-old William “Roddie” Bryan was arrested on charges of felony murder and criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment.
Quote:
Bryan lives in the same subdivision, and the video he took from the cab of his vehicle helped stir a national outcry when it leaked online. Bryan’s attorney, Kevin Gough, did not immediately return a phone message.
  #140  
Old 05-21-2020, 06:17 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,760
I'll never understand why the guy filming all of this didn't delete it the instant Arbery was shot.

I'm glad he didn't since it means these creeps can be prosecuted. I really think it goes to show how racist assholes somehow do not see themselves as racist. Somehow, in their heads, this was all fine and as it should be.

And that is really fucked-up.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #141  
Old 05-21-2020, 06:54 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I'll never understand why the guy filming all of this didn't delete it the instant Arbery was shot.

I'm glad he didn't since it means these creeps can be prosecuted. I really think it goes to show how racist assholes somehow do not see themselves as racist. Somehow, in their heads, this was all fine and as it should be.

And that is really fucked-up.
It's a classic mentality. People like this don't see themselves as the bad guy. It's not their fault they shot you. It's your fault because you didn't do what you were supposed to do; you made them shoot you.
  #142  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:02 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Has it even been established yet that there was a "no trespassing" sign (or equivalent) at the site? If there was no sign, there was no crime at all.
The owner of the property (who was not present at the time) has said that he does not consider Arbury's presence on his property to have been trespassing and has offered his condolences to Arbury's family. He also wanted to make it clear that he is not associated in any way with the shooters.
  #143  
Old 05-22-2020, 10:20 AM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,823
I've heard that the initial police reports make it pretty clear that the cameraman was more than just a passive witness. I believe that it was the victim's family members making the claim However, there were no cites. Has anyone here seen those initial reports or heard what they purportedly say?

Last edited by MikeF; 05-22-2020 at 10:21 AM.
  #144  
Old 05-22-2020, 10:26 AM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,823
NM

Last edited by MikeF; 05-22-2020 at 10:26 AM.
  #145  
Old 05-22-2020, 10:55 AM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 30,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
I've heard that the initial police reports make it pretty clear that the cameraman was more than just a passive witness. I believe that it was the victim's family members making the claim However, there were no cites. Has anyone here seen those initial reports or heard what they purportedly say?
The AP News article quoted by Snowboarder Bo says, "In the Glynn County police incident report on the shooting, Gregory McMichael told an officer that at one point Arbery 'began running back the direction from which he came and "Roddy" attempted to block him which was unsuccessful.' Itís the only mention in the police report of any potential involvement by Bryan."
  #146  
Old 05-22-2020, 12:42 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 7,027
Question: If Arbery was shot 3 times I would question whether one or more shots came from the father on the truck bed.

I can't see how you can shoot someone with a shotgun 3 times at close quarters, during a struggle. How does he aim? In the vidoe I think I can see the father aiming though.
  #147  
Old 05-25-2020, 11:46 AM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 1,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The owner of the property (who was not present at the time) has said that he does not consider Arbury's presence on his property to have been trespassing and has offered his condolences to Arbury's family. He also wanted to make it clear that he is not associated in any way with the shooters.
They donít consider it trespassing or they donít believe he stole anything from them and nothing was missing? I believe I have seen the latter claim, but donít recall the former being made. Can you point me to something?

Regardless, I can imagine the property owner would want to stay well clear of anything that could look like support for the killers in this case, whatever their attitudes about people wondering into the unfinished home might have been like prior to. Owner's feelings or not, trespassing or not, I donít think the McMichaels et al were justified in their actions and in a just society, they would get substantial prison sentences for their actions. If they are allowed to go free after a trial because of some ambiguity or allowance in the law, then there is a problem with the law.

In fact, Iíd say thereís a problem with citizens arrest and "self-defense" laws in Georgia (and other states) in general, regardless of how this trial goes. The idea that anyone could ever get it into their head that going after a man on foot with a shotgun and a pickup truck and then bringing about a violent confrontation over what was, at worst, a minor act of trespassing, and have even the barest argument towards justification is troubling to say the least. The fact that it took three prosecutors passing the case off like a hot potato, plus a very tone deaf video release on behalf of the perpetrators, to get us to what should have been the obvious conclusion that these men ought to be arrested is utterly astounding to me.
  #148  
Old 05-25-2020, 11:58 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
The fact that it took three prosecutors passing the case off like a hot potato, plus a very tone deaf video release on behalf of the perpetrators, to get us to what should have been the obvious conclusion that these men ought to be arrested is utterly astounding to me.
It should not be astonishing if you consider that there is a decently large population (especially in the rural south) who believe that lynching a black man to "teach others a lesson" is a good idea.
  #149  
Old 05-25-2020, 01:43 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 7,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
I can imagine the property owner would want to stay well clear of anything that could look like support for the killers in this case, whatever their attitudes about people wondering into the unfinished home might have been like prior to. .
Sounds like they were attacked by a severe case of proportionality. Possibly even humanity.

Last edited by drad dog; 05-25-2020 at 01:43 PM.
  #150  
Old 05-25-2020, 08:22 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
I can imagine the property owner would want to stay well clear of anything that could look like support for the killers in this case, whatever their attitudes about people wondering into the unfinished home might have been like prior to.
Maybe things have changed but, as I mentioned earlier, my friends and I would regularly wander around home construction sites when I was growing up. The builders took zero measure to protect the property from people wandering on.

Did this place have a fence or even signs to keep people out? Or is it like most homes under constructions...completely open to anyone to wander through?

My memory is there was nothing to steal anyway short of dismantling the structure which would be a major effort to even attempt.

Also, as has been mentioned, the guys who shot Arbury had no clue he had even visited that site.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017