Parse the statute a bit more carefully. The issue is not whether the crime has been brought within your immediate knowledge; it’s whether it was committed within your immediate knowledge, even if not in your actual presence. So if you are watching on security camera, say, while it is being committed, then it is committed within your immediate knowledge - i.e. you know directly (not through an intermediary) that the crime is being committed. If you only know about the commission of the crime because someone tells you about it then, no, it’s not within your immediate knowledge.
This doesn’t require presence or knowledge, but it does require that a felony has in fact been committed, and that the offender is in fact escaping or attempting to escape. Given those facts, if you have reasonable and probable grounds for suspecting that I am that offender, you may arrest me. But your arrest will be unlawful if, in fact, no felony has been committed, or the offender has not escaped or attempted to escape. Your reasonable and probable suspicion that both these things happened will not help you.
Remember, the common law loves liberty. Statutes which restrict your liberty (by giving other people the right to arrest you) will be strictly construed.
I don’t think that’s true. I think that the “probable cause” standard modifies both prongs: a private citizen may lawfully arrest someone if he has probable cause that they have committed a felony and probable cause that they are escaping. (But you need both). Take for example the discussion of probable cause and false imprisonment in Collins v. Sadlo, 306 S.E.2d 390 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). It talks at length that “probable cause” is not a defense to false imprisonment, but it’s clear that what they’re saying is that you need both probable cause of a crime and one of the statutorily enumerated “exigencies” in 17-4-20 (i.e., committed in the presence of the officer; domestic violence; abuse of an elder; escape; or lack of a judicial officer to issue a warrant). See Collins (“Thus, the defendant in a false imprisonment case premised upon a warrantless arrest does not meet his defensive burden merely by demonstrating the existence of probable cause but he must go further and show that the arrest was also effectuated pursuant to one of the ‘exigent circumstances’ enumerated in OCGA § 17-4-20 (a)”
The “citizen’s arrest” statute appears to authorize a warrantless arrest for two of those exigencies (in the presence of the person and escape). So the arrest does not require that a crime actually have been committed or is actually trying to escape, but you need probable cause of both (which makes sense, because the default assumption has to be that you call the authorities and they get a warrant).
“Defendant asserts that the statute authorizing citizens’ arrests implies that whatever force is necessary may be used to arrest a fleeing felon, and that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that the use of deadly force was limited to certain circumstances. We find no merit to this contention.”
" Moreover, OCGA § 17-4-60 merely authorizes a private person to make an arrest under certain circumstances; it does not prescribe the amount of force that may be used in effecting a valid arrest. The transcript reveals the charge given by the trial court was taken from the Supreme Court case of Hayes v. State, 261 Ga. 439, 443 (6) (a) (405 SE2d 660) (1991), wherein that Court stated *58 as follows: "OCGA § 17-4-60 provides that a private citizen may make an arrest if a felony is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. A private citizen may make an arrest upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion if the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or trying to escape. For a citizen’s arrest to be valid, the citizen must use no more force than is reasonable under the circumstances. . . . Also, . … deadly force in effecting an arrest is limited to self-defense or to a situation in which it is necessary to prevent a forcible felony." Id.
The shoddiness of the initial investigation and the attempted coverup by the local DA’s office will make the case much more difficult to prove. While it seems clear to me that there was no “forcible felony” committed to provide the allowance of the use of deadly force, the defendants are white and the defendant is black, so who knows what a Georgia jury is going to do with it.
No. “Immediate knowledge” means that it is brought to your attention immediately that a person is committing a crime.
The McMichaels fit neither. They said themselves that they thought Arbery fit the description of someone who had committed burglaries in the previous couple of months. In Georgia that is nowhere near the standard for a citizen’s arrest.
According to Georgia law, ARBERY was standing his ground.
“Further, the law is clear that if the two men were privileged to make an arrest, and Arbury fought back and tried to grab their guns, it would be an act of self defense for the men to shoot him.”
Followed by a question expressing some confusion as to what, exactly, the problem is here.
I think it is glaringly obvious and even if a law is so pernicious only the dimmest of people would merely suggest that the law says so therefore no problem. Whatever my disagreements with the OP I do not think they are stupid.
It must really get tiresome blaming anything and everything on racism … Couldn’t have been any thing else no? Possible suspicion based upon anything other than the color of a persons skin is improbable. That shit makes me laugh every time, and worse it makes it incredibly hard to stand on the side of right when that side thinks that they are right for the wrong reasons.
It must really get tiresome blaming anything and everything on racism … Couldn’t have been any thing else no? Possible suspicion based upon anything other than the color of a persons skin is improbable. That shit makes me laugh every time, and worse it makes it incredibly hard to stand on the side of right when that side thinks that they are right for the wrong reasons.
I guess you could go through the history of those two alleged murderers to see if they’ve also chased down and threatened white joggers running through their neighborhood. I’d bet on that research, but betting is not allowed on this board.
How many times do you think they’ve chased and blocked white joggers? Just a guess is fine? Zero? Zilch? Null? Nada? Cero? Nula? ゼロ? Nul? Pagh? Probably one of those.
Oh, but he matched the description of someone who committed non-existent robberies in the neighborhood. What do you think that match was based on? Shoe size? Eye color? Handedness? Accent? Auto repair proficiency? Length of his fingernails?
As long as you are building strawmen with hyperbole, doesn’t it get tiresome defending racists all the time?
And what reason do you think that these people hunted down this jogger and killed him?
Welcome to give the benefit of the doubt here. But, they didn’t see him commit any crimes, and at best, he “fit the description” of someone who may have committed some crimes that apparently never actually happened.
And yes, if you hunt down someone for “fitting a description”, and the only similarity that they have is the color of their skin, then it’s pretty hard to not chalk that up to racism.
So, what is your defense? What evidence can you provide that would suggest these people would have hunted down and shot a white jogger who happened to be in the same wrong place at the wrong time? It could have been something else, but nothing else has emerged as a rational reason for them to hunt and kill another human being, other than the color of his skin.
You are positive it wasn’t racism; make your case. Otherwise you are just spinning your wheels and doing your best to derail the rest of us.
If it’s hard to for you to stand on the “side of right”, then maybe it’s because you just don’t want to be there, and are blaming your company as an excuse to go join the “side of wrong”. If it makes you laugh when white men hunt down and kill black men who did absolutely nothing wrong, then you probably do not like the company of those who would object to such a thing.
If I’m in Georgia, going about my lawful business, and some people have “reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion” (which very much depends on “what was within the minds of these two men” as you say) that I’ve committed a felony, and they interpret my actions as I go about my business as “escaping or attempting to escape,” they are empowered to grab their guns and attempt to arrest me.
Now if I have no idea what the everloving fuck is going on in their heads, and I interpret their pursuing and stopping me as an attack on my person and try to prevent them from shooting me, they have the right to kill me in self-defense??
IANAL, so for all I know, that’s what Georgia law adds up to. But if it does, that’s one motherfucking crazy set of laws.
Actually, of these five news stories, I only blame one on racism. Guess which one?
Retail sales plunged 16.4% in April, a record decline
Trump’s company has received at least $970,000 from U.S. taxpayers for room rentals
Florida wildfires torch over 5,000 acres, shut down parts of ‘Alligator Alley’
Biden says he does not remember Tara Reade
Europe bids adieu to cheek kiss in coronavirus era
Kenneth Cole wants to fight mental health stigma — and he’s enlisted Kendall Jenner and a host of experts to help
CDC offers checklists on reopening to guide businesses, schools, others
Airbnb creates a new listing: Its laid-off workers
North Dakota businesses dominated the PPP. Their secret weapon? A century-old bank founded by radical progressives.
Ahmaud Arbery case puts spotlight on community’s race legacy
The idea that everything is being blamed on racism, not just cases where two white men chase after a black man in the Deep South and confront him with a shotgun before shooting him dead, is as odious as it is intellectually bankrupt.
The most obvious rebuttal to the OP’s implied argument is that the Georgia law he quotes only applies to people who have committed a felony. Arbery had not. Trespassing is a misdemeanor in Georgia.
The citizen’s arrest law also contains no provision that authorizes a private person to use force or the threat of force in carrying out their arrest. The McMichaels had no legal authority to point a gun at Arbery in order to carry out their arrest.
From a legal standpoint, what McMichael did was approach a person in public and threaten him with a gun. At this point, Arbery was legally justified, under Georgia law, to defend himself:
McMichael is not allowed to make a counter-claim that he was defending himself from Arbery when they fought for control of the gun. As noted above, McMichael started the incident by pointing the gun at Arbery and Georgia law specifically exempts self-defense claims by a person who “initially provokes the use of force against himself”.
Based on my understanding of the meaning of the word “immediate,” I’d be inclined to say “No.”
Sounds more like “hearsay.” The person you heard say it is a mediate entity between you and the actual knowledge, which violates the meaning of the word “immediate” (without mediate entities).