Arbery Shooting in Georgia and Citizen's Arrest [& similar shootings]

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Georgia Rules of Engagement.
From page 9:

A police officer shall be authorised to use firearms and special means only if he/she has undergone special training.
…

Before using physical force, special means and firearms, a police officer shall warn a person and give a reasonable period of time to carry out the lawful order except if the delay may cause encroachment on life and health of a person and/or of a police officer, or other severe consequences, or if such warning is unjustifiable or impossible in a given situation.

From page 10:

Passive use of a firearm refers to demonstration of a firearm by a police officer to achieve a legitimate objective.
…
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;

…
The active use of a firearm against a person shall be preceded by the following verbal warning:‘Police!Freeze or I will shoot!’ followed by a warning shot. In the case of necessity, a warning shot might not be fired.

So, yeah. The passive use of the firearm wouldn’t have been justified for an actual cop, because the person hadn’t been detained for a violent act or extremely grievous crime.

[MikeF]

LHoD - I’m not sure how you reach the conclusion that the passive use of a firearm by an actual cop would not have been justified. I believe that when a police use of a firearm as a “last resort” is mentioned, it means the actual discharge of the firearm. “Passive use” is drawing or pointing. I really don’t think a violent act or extremely grievous crime is required before an officer can draw or point his weapon at someone in Georgia or anywhere else in the U.S. FWIW, the Georgia "Rules of Engagement’ you refer to doesn’t exist. Its “The Police Law of Georgia”. It seems to me to be pretty poorly written with only six definitions in an 18 page law with 61 Articles. The law even calls for a warning shot except in case of necessity. I don’t know of anywhere where warning shots are still a thing. Except Georgia, I guess.

[drad_dog]

@MikeF

LHoD - I’m not sure how you reach the conclusion that the passive use of a firearm by an actual cop would not have been justified. I believe that when a police use of a firearm as a “last resort” is mentioned, it means the actual discharge of the firearm. “Passive use” is drawing or pointing. I really don’t think a violent act or extremely grievous crime is required before an officer can draw or point his weapon at someone in Georgia or anywhere else in the U.S. FWIW, the Georgia "Rules of Engagement’ you refer to doesn’t exist. Its “The Police Law of Georgia”. It seems to me to be pretty poorly written with only six definitions in an 18 page law with 61 Articles. The law even calls for a warning shot except in case of necessity. I don’t know of anywhere where warning shots are still a thing. Except Georgia, I guess.

What would the justification be in the case under dispute?

Then how do you transfer that rationale to insufficiently trained ex-cops.

You have to unwrap it stage by stage. Each stage has problems. (Bias in who gets to trespass, “deputizing” bad ex cops, brandishing weapons, stalking) The only way to make it work is to claim that at some pivotal moment, chosen by the accused, for reasons of legal technicality, they are granted the total authority of the state to execute a fleeing citizen.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@MikeF

LHoD - I’m not sure how you reach the conclusion that the passive use of a firearm by an actual cop would not have been justified. I believe that when a police use of a firearm as a “last resort” is mentioned, it means the actual discharge of the firearm. “Passive use” is drawing or pointing. I really don’t think a violent act or extremely grievous crime is required before an officer can draw or point his weapon at someone in Georgia or anywhere else in the U.S. FWIW, the Georgia "Rules of Engagement’ you refer to doesn’t exist. Its “The Police Law of Georgia”. It seems to me to be pretty poorly written with only six definitions in an 18 page law with 61 Articles. The law even calls for a warning shot except in case of necessity. I don’t know of anywhere where warning shots are still a thing. Except Georgia, I guess.

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?

[Darren_Garrison]

@Darren_Garrison

Or:

1. A young black man was captured on video on several different occasions trespassing in someone’s under-construction house.
   2.) A young black man was seen entering the house by Travis McMichael himself on the night of Febuary 11th, when he called 911.
   3.) On the day of the shooting, Aubrey is caught on two seperate surveillance cameras entering the house, while one neighbor calls 911 to report him and another neighbor is seen on the external security camera standing and watching him.
   4.) And the homeowner had multiple incidents of tresspassing in his under-construction home and was told by a police officer to inlist the McMicheals to help watch over his property.

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.

So the neighborhood was actively alert for trespassers on the property, which had once been robbed, on at least four earlier occasions a black man had been recorded ir witnessed on the property, and on Feburary 23rd Aubrey was pursued immedietly following direct witness of him not innocently jogging but walking up to the property and going inside for several minutes.

You can make an argument that the McMichaels should not have confonted Audrey and instead stayed back at let the police handle it. You can make an argument that they should have not brought guns along with them, allowing a struggle over the gun to happen. What you can’t (with good faith) argue is that 1.) there was an assumption that he was guilty “because he was black”, but because a black man had been recorded on the property on several occasions, the neighbors were activity watching for one, and he was witnessed doing exactly what they were looking out for moments earlier and 2.) that Aubrey didn’t know exactly why people were chasing him.

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.”

Also, in an ironic twist, the cell phone video of the actual killing? That was released by the McMicheals themselves because they thought it would exonerate them from any accusations of racism or murder.

[RitterSport]

@Darren_Garrison

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.

So the neighborhood was actively alert for trespassers on the property, which had once been robbed, on at least four earlier occasions a black man had been recorded ir witnessed on the property, and on Feburary 23rd Aubrey was pursued immedietly following direct witness of him not innocently jogging but walking up to the property and going inside for several minutes.

You can make an argument that the McMichaels should not have confonted Audrey and instead stayed back at let the police handle it. You can make an argument that they should have not brought guns along with them, allowing a struggle over the gun to happen. What you can’t (with good faith) argue is that 1.) there was an assumption that he was guilty “because he was black”, but because a black man had been recorded on the property on several occasions, the neighbors were activity watching for one, and he was witnessed doing exactly what they were looking out for moments earlier and 2.) that Aubrey didn’t know exactly why people were chasing him.

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.”

Also, in an ironic twist, the cell phone video of the actual killing? That was released by the McMicheals themselves because they thought it would exonerate them from any accusations of racism or murder.

Re: your ironic twist – yes, they are racist and stupid. Those often go hand in hand.

Re: the rest of your post – since the McMichaels had no idea that anyone had trespassed on the day that they (allegedly) murdered Aubrey, that backstory is completely, utterly, entirely irrelevant.

By stressing “black person” over and over again, are you saying that, until that house was finished being built, black people (maybe just black men?) were not allowed in that neighborhood? That really seems to be the implication. If a black man came into that neighborhood, he should expect to be chased and detained, possibly killed, because of the color of his skin?

[Falchion]

@UltraVires

My point in asking to assume for the purposes of argument that it was a legal arrest was to address the idea that Arbery had the right to defend himself and that the two men were the aggressors.

The reason I said that is because if it was a legal arrest, Arbery had no such right, and if it was an illegal arrest, then he did and those guys are in the wrong regardless. So I guess my point is that whatever we see happening on the video as far as the confrontation is irrelevant as the whole question boils down to whether these guys had the privilege of arrest in this situation.

We’ve decided, I think, that in order to make a citizen’s arrest in Georgia, you need the following:

(1) probable cause that the person committed a felony;
(2) probable cause that he is escaping; and
(3) you may only use the force necessary to make the arrest.

Even if we assume (arguendo) that there is probable cause that this individual committed a felony (off-camera), the video speaks directly to steps 2 and 3. There is nothing to suggest that he was escaping and nothing to suggest that this was the appropriate amount of force to use.

I mean, whether or not Arbery committed a burglary, or a trespass, or even a homicide, there are pretty clear limits on citizen’s arrest. The better argument is that they didn’t intend to kill him (the firearm was discharged during the fight). But you’re back to the fact that this seems like a pretty straightforward application of the felony murder rule: a death that occurred during commission of an (attempted) false imprisonment and (successful) aggravated assault.

[RitterSport]

@Falchion

We’ve decided, I think, that in order to make a citizen’s arrest in Georgia, you need the following:

(1) probable cause that the person committed a felony;
(2) probable cause that he is escaping; and
(3) you may only use the force necessary to make the arrest.

Even if we assume (arguendo) that there is probable cause that this individual committed a felony (off-camera), the video speaks directly to steps 2 and 3. There is nothing to suggest that he was escaping and nothing to suggest that this was the appropriate amount of force to use.

I mean, whether or not Arbery committed a burglary, or a trespass, or even a homicide, there are pretty clear limits on citizen’s arrest. The better argument is that they didn’t intend to kill him (the firearm was discharged during the fight). But you’re back to the fact that this seems like a pretty straightforward application of the felony murder rule: a death that occurred during commission of an (attempted) false imprisonment and (successful) aggravated assault.

I don’t think that’s quite right, but I welcome correction. I thought that you had to have immediate knowledge, basically meaning you personally witnessed the felony, or something similar. Probably cause is what cops need, not regular citizens.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Falchion

We’ve decided, I think, that in order to make a citizen’s arrest in Georgia, you need the following:

(1) probable cause that the person committed a felony;
(2) probable cause that he is escaping; and
(3) you may only use the force necessary to make the arrest.

Even if we assume (arguendo) that there is probable cause that this individual committed a felony (off-camera), the video speaks directly to steps 2 and 3. There is nothing to suggest that he was escaping and nothing to suggest that this was the appropriate amount of force to use.

Something I’m not clear on: what exactly does the probable cause apply to?
From the OP’s law cite:

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.

The first time “the offense” is mentioned, you absolutely have to know that the offense occurred AND that the offender is the one who did it. But for a felony, does probably cause mean:

a) You know “the offense” was committed, and you have probable cause that the person you’re arresting is the offender; or
b) You have probable cause to believe “the offense” was committed, and have probable cause to believe that the person you’re arresting is the offender?

If, in the case of a felony, you can commit a citizens arrest before you even know that a felony was committed, that seems uber hinky to me.

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.

[k9bfriender]

@Darren_Garrison

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.

Relevance?

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.

Relevance again, as well as, what would cause someone to be “shaken” by someone walking around on a construction site?

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.

None of which gives them reason to chase him down.

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.

That’s quite a bit of fishing equipment. He probably should have filed a police report. Instead he did not, and instead tasked his neighbors to act as vigilantes.

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.

Your hunch goes against the evidence. Do you have anything to back your hunch?

So the neighborhood was actively alert for trespassers on the property, which had once been robbed, on at least four earlier occasions a black man had been recorded ir witnessed on the property, and on Feburary 23rd Aubrey was pursued immedietly following direct witness of him not innocently jogging but walking up to the property and going inside for several minutes.

Not robbed, burgled. There was no force or threat of force involved.

And the people who pursued him were the ones who witnessed this?

You can make an argument that the McMichaels should not have confonted Audrey and instead stayed back at let the police handle it. You can make an argument that they should have not brought guns along with them, allowing a struggle over the gun to happen.

Yes, yes you can.

What you can’t (with good faith) argue is that 1.) there was an assumption that he was guilty “because he was black”, but because a black man had been recorded on the property on several occasions, the neighbors were activity watching for one,

So, it sounds like you are saying that they were on the lookout for a black man. There were white people recorded as well, but no lookout for a white person. Huh…

and he was witnessed doing exactly what they were looking out for moments earlier

They witnessed him stealing? When was that?

and 2.) that Aubrey didn’t know exactly why people were chasing him.

Why do you think this? Lots of people check out construction sites, and they do not get chased down by gun toting duos.

If they had approached him unarmed, then there could be something for them warning him off from doing it again. They came at him with guns drawn. That is not something that any reasonable person would expect.

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.”

Even if it were not the first time, it’s still not something that calls for an armed response.

Also, in an ironic twist, the cell phone video of the actual killing? That was released by the McMicheals themselves because they thought it would exonerate them from any accusations of racism or murder.

Yeah, we know, that’s been pointed out. They thought that a video of them chasing down and killing a black man would exonoerate them. IMHO, they thought that other people were as racist as they are, and would see good (white) guys confronting a bad (black) guy, and as they were the good guys, they were justified in whatever they wanted to do.

Most people are not as racist as they are, and see the video as exactly what it is, documentation of an attempted kidnapping that turned to murder. Others, who are biased towards giving the white guy all the benefit of the doubt they can muster, while seeing black people with suspicion, see the video and events around it as a pretty reasonable reaction.

[Dark_Sponge]

It could have been prejudice which caused the father and son to assume he was the thief but I don’t see anything in the story which indicates they wanted to kill him. This was not a lynching. They made a terrible mistake by taking the law into their own hands. I’d call it manslaughter.

[RitterSport]

@Dark_Sponge

It could have been prejudice which caused the father and son to assume he was the thief but I don’t see anything in the story which indicates they wanted to kill him. This was not a lynching. They made a terrible mistake by taking the law into their own hands. I’d call it manslaughter.

I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t manslaughter when you accidentally kill someone (that is, without malice aforethought)? They killed him on purpose, because after they chased him and he tried to defend himself, they shit their pants and shot him.

[Slash1972]

@Darren_Garrison

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.”.

This seems to me to be “victim blaming”

To me, it is a perfect illustration of why you don’t grab your guns and chase down a guy because he’s black.

[drad_dog]

@Darren_Garrison

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.

So the neighborhood was actively alert for trespassers on the property, which had once been robbed, on at least four earlier occasions a black man had been recorded ir witnessed on the property, and on Feburary 23rd Aubrey was pursued immedietly following direct witness of him not innocently jogging but walking up to the property and going inside for several minutes.

You can make an argument that the McMichaels should not have confonted Audrey and instead stayed back at let the police handle it. You can make an argument that they should have not brought guns along with them, allowing a struggle over the gun to happen. What you can’t (with good faith) argue is that 1.) there was an assumption that he was guilty “because he was black”, but because a black man had been recorded on the property on several occasions, the neighbors were activity watching for one, and he was witnessed doing exactly what they were looking out for moments earlier and 2.) that Aubrey didn’t know exactly why people were chasing him.

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.”

Also, in an ironic twist, the cell phone video of the actual killing? That was released by the McMicheals themselves because they thought it would exonerate them from any accusations of racism or murder.

Can you revise your timeline to include all the non-black trespassers who came onto the property?

And then explain why the inhabitants were watching only for black people? I read this as meaning there was a black trespasser a little less than once a month, and never a burglary over this time.

[iiandyiiii]

@Dark_Sponge

It could have been prejudice which caused the father and son to assume he was the thief but I don’t see anything in the story which indicates they wanted to kill him. This was not a lynching. They made a terrible mistake by taking the law into their own hands. I’d call it manslaughter.

They wanted to impose their will on him, without cause. I suppose it’s possible racism had nothing to do with this, but Occam’s razor suggests that when armed white people in the South want to impose their will on black people without cause, racism is probably involved.

[Chronos]

Does the video show them pointing the gun at him and then pulling the trigger? Because it seems to me that that’s quite strong evidence indeed that they wanted to kill him. People don’t shoot people they don’t want to kill.

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.

[Chronos]

Does the video show them pointing the gun at him and then pulling the trigger? Because it seems to me that that’s quite strong evidence indeed that they wanted to kill him. People don’t shoot people they don’t want to kill.

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.

[Falchion]

@RitterSport

I don’t think that’s quite right, but I welcome correction. I thought that you had to have immediate knowledge, basically meaning you personally witnessed the felony, or something similar. Probably cause is what cops need, not regular citizens.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Something I’m not clear on: what exactly does the probable cause apply to?
From the OP’s law cite:

The first time “the offense” is mentioned, you absolutely have to know that the offense occurred AND that the offender is the one who did it. But for a felony, does probably cause mean:

a) You know “the offense” was committed, and you have probable cause that the person you’re arresting is the offender; or
b) You have probable cause to believe “the offense” was committed, and have probable cause to believe that the person you’re arresting is the offender?

If, in the case of a felony, you can commit a citizens arrest before you even know that a felony was committed, that seems uber hinky to me.

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.

I’m quoting these together, because I think I have the same answer. I’m not a Georgia lawyer (or a criminal defense lawyer), and I haven’t done a whole of research. But, the statute provides:

“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.”

The only way for me to read the two parts together (and I could be wrong) is to read them in analogy with a police officer’s ability to make a warrantless arrest (which requires “probable cause” plus an “exigency”). Two of those “exigencies” are escape and presence of the office.

So, I would read the 17-4-60 to allow a citizen’s arrest for: (1) any crime committed in your presence and (2) a felony (not in your presence) but that you have probable cause to believe was committed by a person who is escaping. (Which basically makes it a narrower subset of the warrantless arrest provisions).

So, to RitterSport, I say that, for a felony plus escape, you must be able to have something less than “immediate knowledge.” Otherwise it would seem to have a more stringent standard for felony arrests than misdemeanor arrests and, if anything, the reverse should be true.

To LHoD, I’m less sure. I think it sort of merges together. In the first instance (in your presence), whether it occurred in your presence and knowledge, that question sort of answers the “probable cause” question.

For a felony (outside your presence), I would read probable cause to modify everything: pc that an offense occurred; pc that he committed it; pc that he is escaping. I suppose, in that sense, not so different from the police making a warrantless arrest. There is an inherently uncertainty in situations that didn’t happen in your presence. But I don’t claim to have a definitive answer.

You can absolutely create a hypothetical where your citizen-hero has probable cause on all fronts and is, in fact, wrong and tragedy results. But I think the statute is trying to balance competing interests and I’m not sure there’s a perfect way to do it.

[RickJay]

@RitterSport

I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t manslaughter when you accidentally kill someone (that is, without malice aforethought)? They killed him on purpose, because after they chased him and he tried to defend himself, they shit their pants and shot him.

In Georgia, there is both voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is when you deliberately kill someone, but in a moment of heightened emotion that alters your judgment.

[Wolf333]

@Dark_Sponge

It could have been prejudice which caused the father and son to assume he was the thief but I don’t see anything in the story which indicates they wanted to kill him. This was not a lynching. They made a terrible mistake by taking the law into their own hands. I’d call it manslaughter.

If you intentionally point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger, and they die, that is not manslaughter.