It doesn’t matter anyway.
You aren’t allowed to shoot a guy because you think he committed a minor crime. You also are not - in Georgia, anyway - allowed to effect a citizen’s arrest because you think someone committed a crime at some point in the past.
The facts of exactly what they had knowledge of aren’t clear from the reports. How much time had passed since he was on the construction site, and did they have direct knowledge of that specific surveillance video when they pursued him? How could that be so, surely that video was recovered only later? In any event, there’s no evidence of burglary in that surveillance video, and trespass is not a felony. I thought their claim was that they thought he resembled someone who had been seen in other videos committing burglaries in the areas recently, i.e. not that particular event, and not on that day. But I’m not clear on that.
There’s some discussion of Georgia’s citizen’s arrest law here:
If what they did here can remotely be construed as a citizen’s arrest the law needs to be rewritten. It seems outlandish to me that the notion of citizen’s arrest can apply to anything other than the events immediately after a serious crime is committed. It surely can’t be right that it could justify civilians going out trying to apprehend people who they think are suspects long after the event.
The other issue that I find deeply troubling about the citizen’s arrest law is that the standard (in Georgia at least) is just a felony, which would include non-violent felonies such as theft. I can see that it’s reasonable to allow a citizen’s arrest in these cases, for example:
(1) The circumstances immediately surrounding a non-violent theft - someone grabs your bag and runs, obviously you can chase them down and restrain them.
(2) A violent crime in the past - a mugger stabs your friend in your presence, next day you see the mugger, you restrain them. It might be foolish, but it should be legal.
But given the obvious potential for error and escalating out-of-control violence in any attempt to make a citizen’s arrest, it seems to me that the law should not permit a citizens arrest for a non-violent crime except in the immediate aftermath. You should never be allowed to try to apprehend someone who you think is a suspect for a non-violent crime such as burglary committed in the past. You should call the cops.
The “burglary” wave nearby was just a post facto alibi. The murderers had no knowledge of Arberys history, only that he was a black jogger. His previous actions can’t be relevant.
The felony assault was in brandishing the weapon to intimidate him, and then stalking him down the public roadways.
Subsequently in the event, Arbery made an “evasive” move and was dead less than a second later. Too bad Darwins law didn’t work in this case.
Man, I thought for SURE this would be in the Positive Gun News thread. Guy uses gun to scare off intruders from his house?
Imagine my shock when I found nothing :rolleyes:
It looks to me more that some… highly questionable actions by one or more individuals in the DA’s office are responsible for this getting out of hand. Everyone else, from the local news media to the GBI to religious leaders, have been fairly thorough in their condemnations of how this was handled, and the police are openly saying that the DA stopped the arrests. Wikipedia has put together an impressively detailed article already: Murder of Ahmaud Arbery - Wikipedia . Of particular concern is that McMichaels and DA Barnhill were previously involved in a case against Arbery. I sincerely hope that is only coincidence, but it doesn’t exactly make this look any better.
It’s not a convincing claim to suspect someone of “felony theft” who was observed lingering in jogging attire in an empty construction site, on a prior date. It needed to be a felony right? So the pursuers need to make a judgment call about the severity of the offense? On what basis? When? I don’t think one can do this just by being a good old boy out in your truck.
Do you think they could be “legally justified” in brandishing a gun and trying to force him off the road?
I don’t disagree with you, and I absolutely agree that they should be prosecuted. I’m just pointing out that this case may not be a slam dunk. I remember the Trayvon Martin case all too well.
And Trayvon Martin would be 25 this year too.
But yeah, I would like to be optimistic, but I do see this going the same way as the Martin case. To me, the substantial difference between the cases is that this one was filmed and we got to see what went down, rather than just taking the word of the murderer. In fact, without the camera as a witness, this’d probably be good fodder for the “Positive gun news thread.”
I am surprised that Shodan hasn’t jumped in to defend them yet.
Eh, just the word of the murderer should have been enough, when the murderer’s own word makes it clear that it was murder.
Just to be clear the reason he was not “supposed” to be on that construction site was that he was black, not that he was a danger to the law. That we can even discuss an alibi for him to be there means that we have already been indoctrinated in racist white patriarchy.
drad dog, I’m not so sure there. Lots of people do not want anyone poking about their construction site, and theft from them does seem to be a common problem. There may be tools lying about, stray nails, sharp edges, or whatever and reasonable people could (and sometimes do) demand that others stay away from a job site. The reason it became an issue here is because one or both of McMichaels claimed they thought Arbery was a thief and had, or may have, taken something from the site. And then some people, which definitely does not include a poster on this board no sir* took this and ran with it. The people trying to defend the McMichaels’ actions via those claims may be racist; it does not mean that examining and countering those claims critically is unwarranted or that everyone has been indoctrinated.
Was this attack racially motivated? In my opinion that’s extremely probable. However, the actual evidence for it is thin right now except from the totality of circumstances, which do look impossibly bad. However, proving that may be very difficult unless investigators can document a pattern of such behavior. In a related just-breaking story, the DoJ is now considering hate-crime charges.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52623292
*It’s sarcasm, and I know I can call out people in the Pit.
I don’t know what you mean by “danger to the law,” but criminal trespass is a law with origins dating back to Medieval England and eventually found its way into the Common Law. It evolved over the 14th through the 18th Centuries to eventually criminalize unauthorized access onto property, and such laws were inherited and adopted by Colonies, and eventually, the states.
I would agree that there’s an element of racism that exists implicitly within the law. Black people were obviously once considered property owned by whites, and even after they were technically free, the white power establishment in many places throughout the country - not just the South - interfered with the property rights of African Americans.
In addition to that, as I mentioned before, gun rights and policing have typically been instruments of oppression and evolved to reinforce a society based on white superiority.
Fortunately, it’s probably not necessary to prove that the attacks were racially motivated. It’s early yet, but based on the evidence we have so far, the McMichaels had no legal cause to use deadly force.
OK, I get the point everyone’s making that it didn’t matter. But damn, when I watch that video I can almost see myself doing exactly what he did.
But I’ve worked construction and it’s just not that unusual for a neighbor or passerby to step inside the site, looking for someone to speak to. Sometimes it’s a neighbor that has questions on the schedule and sometimes people want to ask who the builder is, or are those outdoor lights solar powered? or where did you get that stone? They usually have a specific question but it’s usually mostly because they’re just curious.
I saw the video that shows him jogging, he gets mostly past the construction site then turns back towards what appears to be an open garage door. Maybe he thought it was odd to see a garage door open in an unoccupied structure, making him think someone might be there.
When I was writing I was defining “danger to the law” as being anything that would be notable, by an actual officer, if the person had been a white jogger lingering and not black. Those clowns did not appear to be sticklers about the letter of the law did they? They don’t get the benefit of the doubt on the law for a few good reasons, one of them: neither of them were police officers.
I think that reversing the races of the people just totally falsifies this idea that an alibi is needed for this. Do you believe they would treat a white jogger like that?
They might not be racist. It’s entirely possible they are violently paranoid and would have killed anyone! We’ve seen in the other thread around that some police officers will, seemingly at random, shoot white people for no reason, too.
I’ve been pondering what the McMichael’s defense might do. There are few options. One big hurdle is that some arguments they might raised couldn’t be allowed unless they actively take the stand themselves, which is a very dangerous thing to try. Additionally, the prosecution could basically lay a trap - not discuss Arbery himself much. If the defendants bring it up, however, they potentially open themselves up to some questions they can’t answer.
The case looks to be tried in Cobb County, which is right outside Atlanta (really part of the metro area). It’s the most middle-class area you’ve ever seen. Additionally, there is enough of a minority population that it would be very tricky, and potentially very obvious, for the defense to strike them all.
A psychiatric screening would be good. But it’s not remotely credible that this isn’t race based. I really think it’s an insult to those who have to live as a minority. In trying to reasonably assess the immediate danger to society of these people, to ignore race would be incompetent and unprofessional as well as unrealistic.
I don’t disagree. It’s more than obvious that race is a factor.
At the same time, as the justice system starts building its case, I’m curious to know what kind of legal tapestries they will try to weave to escape justice.
Some white guy decided to give it a try and see what would happen if he went jogging while carrying a TV. I think the conclusion was, “nothing happened.” Obviously this is just a stunt, and doesn’t really prove anything, other than that this one white guy could go jogging with a TV, and nobody cared. These are just the brief Tik Tok videos he posted. First video, the second, and an article in which he talks about it.