Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: T.O.M. on May 07, 2020, 07:34:12 AM
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5174327002
Black male out jogging during daylight hours. Two white males see him, call police to report that they see a suspect in recent break ins running... "hauling ass"...through the neighborhood. White males arm up (shotgun and .357 revolver), and pursue runner in their truck. Get in front of runner, then confront him. Fight ensues. Runner is shot and killed.
When I first heard of this, it was in relation to the first prosecutor on the case stating that the shooting was justified under Georgia citizen arrest laws. I've also read that some legal expert said the shooting was justified because the runner, when confronted, attacked one of the men, making it self defense/defense of others. I've seen the video now. Seems clear to me that the runner was actually running for exercise, based on dress and behavior (consistent pace, following roadway, etc.)
I'm a jogger. I run through neighborhoods all the time. I have had crazy things happen...been confronted by people, accused of doing things. As often as not, I try to just keep on jogging. If I was 25, and I was confronted by a male (not an LEO) with a long gun, I might just try and struggle for control of that gun.
This one seems bad for the shooter to me. Thoughts?
-
Is it ever a good to idea to go out looking for an opportunity exercise vigilante justice or play law enforcement officer?
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5174327002
Seems clear to me that the runner was actually running for exercise, based on dress and behavior (consistent pace, following roadway, etc.)
This one seems bad for the shooter to me. Thoughts?
Watching the video yesterday, I came to the same conclusion.
-
Is it ever a good to idea to go out looking for an opportunity exercise vigilante justice or play law enforcement officer?
Not really. Even less so when people are taking video of it. Even if they just confronted and held the guy, it opens up liability concerns.
If he was just jogging at a consistent pace, they could have called police.
-
The video really doesn't look good for the two shooters.
They would have been justified to ASK him to stop, or to follow at a distance until police arrived, but I saw no evidence they had a reason to attempt to stop him. (By getting, armed, out of the vehicle.)
The jogger could very easily have seen that as a threat to his life. (And, I would argue, DID.)
Reading more about the case, I'm betting the fact that the two shooters were white had much less to do with the lack of charges than the fact that the shooter was a former police officer.
-
The other part I was thinking: if your mind is zoned in on an activity and someone comes up and starts yelling at you, it may take a few seconds to register what they are saying. Seeing a gun is not going to help that.
I hadn't heard about the case, but came across the video yesterday. I find it hard to believe it was ruled as justified, but if they didn't have the video, maybe they believed whatever story was told. I get the impression the guys with the guns thought things through less than the jogger did.
-
The video really doesn't look good for the two shooters.
They would have been justified to ASK him to stop, or to follow at a distance until police arrived, but I saw no evidence they had a reason to attempt to stop him. (By getting, armed, out of the vehicle.)
The jogger could very easily have seen that as a threat to his life. (And, I would argue, DID.)
Reading more about the case, I'm betting the fact that the two shooters were white had much less to do with the lack of charges than the fact that the shooter was a former police officer.
True. That is going to mean more to local police and prosecutors than his skin color. I was wondering why they were pulling out citizens arrest stuff to justify the shooting.
-
“We’re literally hunted EVERYDAY/EVERYTIME we step foot outside the comfort of our homes! Can’t even go for a damn jog man! Like WTF man are you kidding me?!?!?!?!?!? No man fr [for real] ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!! I’m sorry Ahmaud(Rest In Paradise) and my prayers and blessings sent to the heavens above to your family!”
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/lebron-james-ahmaud-arbery-shooting-death
Not to trivialize the apparently avoidable tragedy that occured here but where was Lebron while thousands of blacks were being murdered by other blacks in the months before this happened? I seem to recall hearing nothing but crickets coming from his multi million dollar gated mansion. Brace yourselves for more of this from celebrities, the MSM, libs, and the race baiters, cherry picking murders for political gain. This could be worst than the Martin/Zimmerman case in the noise that's going to be generated. Combine this with the race baiting that's been going on with this C19 business and it's going to be long summer.
-
I haven't done a lot of research on this, as it just hit my RADAR, but I tend to agree that this doesn't look good for the two shooters.
It also doesn't look good for the law enforcement agencies that spent two months looking really hard to find reasons to justify the shooting by someone they've worked with in the past.
Gregory McMichael is a former Glynn County police officer and a former investigator with the local district attorney’s office who retired last May.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-georgia.html
-
I haven't done a lot of research on this, as it just hit my RADAR, but I tend to agree that this doesn't look good for the two shooters.
It also doesn't look good for the law enforcement agencies that spent two months looking really hard to find reasons to justify the shooting by someone they've worked with in the past.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-georgia.html
Paywall
-
Paywall
not for me. You can rest assured I have never given the New York Times a dime.
I clicked the link in an opinion piece back to that story. Opinon piece here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/opinion/ahmaud-arbery-killing.html
-
I can't wait to be told how brave and wise the Black Lives Matter demonstrators/rioters are to defy the white man's lock-down orders.
-
It looks bad, but it might just be another hunt for the Great White Defendant.
Waiting to see what shows up, nobody's paying for my opinion anyways.
-
not for me. You can rest assured I have never given the New York Times a dime.
I clicked the link in an opinion piece back to that story. Opinon piece here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/opinion/ahmaud-arbery-killing.html
Paywall again
It just sunk into my thick skull that this happened over two months ago. Yeah, the optics don't look good at all on this on the surface for the shooter and the police dept unless there's something we're not being told/shown.
-
I will add that my opinion is only based on the video. I hadn't even heard of this until the video. There could certainly be missing information. When the Covington video came out, I was a kid hater too for about half a day until the rest of the info started flowing.
Still, even with more info in favor of the shooters, it's hard to get past this video.
-
I will add that my opinion is only based on the video. I hadn't even heard of this until the video. There could certainly be missing information. When the Covington video came out, I was a kid hater too for about half a day until the rest of the info started flowing.
Still, even with more info in favor of the shooters, it's hard to get past this video.
Agreed. It is hard to justify self defense or citizens arrest when you drive up on someone and jump out waving shotguns around.
-
Supporters are running 2.23 miles on the birthday of a man killed while jogging
(https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/07/us/ahmaud-arbery-run-support-demonstration/index.html?utm_source=fbCNN&utm_content=2020-05-07T11%3A00%3A11&utm_term=link&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR0ZCj-rDSoppWskwRGS4QSrBvG3AfbihURleaR7dHB92ZEAxi1tFE2RNJc)
-
Is it ever a good to idea to go out looking for an opportunity exercise vigilante justice or play law enforcement officer?
Nope. It's not your job to enforce handicap spaces laws, decibel levels laws, chase down graffiti vandals, confront trash-dumpers, or confront joggers.
You are not the cops. Call the actual cops.
But if you're a former cop you probably still think like a cop. With that "go get 'em" attitude. Which led to this death.
---------------
Now if I can bring up Trayvon, that incident is different in that Zimmerman never directly confronted him. Just followed and reported and got ambushed and assaulted which led to a valid self-defense claim.
-
Just got a news update on my phone. Father and son shooters arrested and charged with murder.
-
Just got a news update on my phone. Father and son shooters arrested and charged with murder.
Has Georgia hate crime statutes? Will the Feds charge them with such?
-
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/lebron-james-ahmaud-arbery-shooting-death
Not to trivialize the apparently avoidable tragedy that occured here but where was Lebron while thousands of blacks were being murdered by other blacks in the months before this happened? I seem to recall hearing nothing but crickets coming from his multi million dollar gated mansion. Brace yourselves for more of this from celebrities, the MSM, libs, and the race baiters, cherry picking murders for political gain. This could be worst than the Martin/Zimmerman case in the noise that's going to be generated. Combine this with the race baiting that's been going on with this C19 business and it's going to be long summer.
Ha, that's just Thursday for those aholes. nothing special.
-
Nope. It's not your job to enforce handicap spaces laws, decibel levels laws, chase down graffiti vandals, confront trash-dumpers, or confront joggers.
You are not the cops. Call the actual cops.
But if you're a former cop you probably still think like a cop. With that "go get 'em" attitude. Which led to this death.
---------------
Now if I can bring up Trayvon, that incident is different in that Zimmerman never directly confronted him. Just followed and reported and got ambushed and assaulted which led to a valid self-defense claim.
The key difference between the Zimmerman case and this is that there is a video. Killing the only other witness leaves one in a stronger position to make claims about who started what.
-
The key difference between the Zimmerman case and this is that there is a video. Killing the only other witness leaves one in a stronger position to make claims about who started what.
Also it was daylight. And running around a neighborhood in daylight isn't suspicious, unlike a dark and rainy night.
Also, it was two against one. (Disparity of force.) And both were visibly armed.
Also, this likely WAS a case of good 'ol boys saying "Greg's a good guy, I'm sure he knew what he was doing. Shame about that jogger, he should have just complied!"
Also, they clearly admitted they tried to detain him, unlike Zimmerman, who only did it in the fevered imaginations of people who want to claim the Hispanic that had already fought against the law in a racial disparity case was actually racist.
Other than that, it's EXACTLY like Zimmerman.
But, I'm sure the mastermind George Zimmerman just made up a story on the spot that fit all the available evidence. Oh, and was smart enough to know the cops were bluffing when they claimed they had video, so he could pretend to be relieved.
But, yeah, this is just like Zimmerman.
Here's an idea: we all agree this is a bad shoot. Even without the video it sounds hinky. Why not take the win rather than trying to re-litigate the Zimmerman battle where you lost?
-
The key difference in the cases is that in both instances, the activists were sure that no charges were filed because a white guy killed a black guy and white police officers (which is all of them, because once a "Person of Color" becomes a police officer, he's automatically white) don't charge white people because white people look out for their own kind.*
IN THIS CASE, they're still wrong, because police don't care about "white people." They DO however, look after their own, but "their own" are other members of the police.
So the activists STILL have the mechanism wrong, but are correct in what went on. It's one of those weird situations where they are wrong on the motivations, but correct on the outcome. (It's like a math problem where you do all the operations wrong, but amazingly still come out with the right number.)
*They are so tied to this narrative that they had to invent "White Hispanic" to keep Zimmerman in the "White" category.
-
*They are so tied to this narrative that they had to invent "White Hispanic" to keep Zimmerman in the "White" category.
No, they did not invent "white Hispanic." Hispanics have always come in various colors.
It is, though, rather obvious they only identified him as white because they knew they could use "white" as the pejorative term it has become.
-
It is, though, rather obvious they only identified him as white because they knew they could use "white" as the pejorative term it has become.
Funny how the "equality" people really mean that they just want white people to be the black people of the 1860s.
-
No, they did not invent "white Hispanic." Hispanics have always come in various colors.
It is, though, rather obvious they only identified him as white because they knew they could use "white" as the pejorative term it has become.
Invent may have been too strong a term, but the use of it was almost completely previously absent because the media generally wants to highlight the "Hispanic" part.
Most Hispanic people (at least in the US) are "white". But they are almost universally not referred to that way, was my point.
-
There was at least one witness who only saw part of that Zimmerman/Martin incident. His testimony supported Zimmerman's story. Not to mention that Zimmerman submitted to extensive questioning by the cops at the scene. I think we have seen since that incident that he isn't the kind of guy who can make up a false story and stick with it.
On the Georgia incident, I think makattak is likely right if this guy was a retired police officer. He was known by the police and prosecutors, maybe even a member of clubs or other groups with them. They would be very reluctant to hang changes on him. With someone dead, I am still not sure how they managed that. When I first saw the video on twitter, it looked bad, but I thought the guy was a fleeing criminal and these guys would get in trouble for that. Later, I find out he was just someone jogging through.
Have any of you see mention of how this video was made public? The article just says it was posted to several online sites. Since this happened Feb 23rd, makes me wonder if someone didn't like where the investigation was going and pushed it out to the public.
-
Nope. It's not your job to enforce handicap spaces laws, decibel levels laws, chase down graffiti vandals, confront trash-dumpers, or confront joggers.
You are not the cops. Call the actual cops.
I subscribe to this concept completely. But there are a LOT of SJW types who will be only too happy to explain that we shouldn't call the police to enforce the laws (Heaven forfend!), we should instead approach the scofflaws personally and ask them to stop doing what they're doing.
Just ask McDonald's how that works out: https://www.timesunion.com/entertainment/article/McDonald-s-teen-staffers-shot-15255584.php
-
we shouldn't call the police to enforce the laws
I can see some merit to that argument...
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=62242.msg1254233#msg1254233
-
I subscribe to this concept completely. But there are a LOT of SJW types who will be only too happy to explain that we shouldn't call the police to enforce the laws (Heaven forfend!), we should instead approach the scofflaws personally and ask them to stop doing what they're doing
and point out the No ____ sticker that the scofflaws misunderstood persons obviously missed then go to drink soy lattes together while discussing woke topics. Problem solved.
-
Colion Noir video
It's a short video pretty good and to the point IMHO
My Thoughts On The Ahmaud Arbery Case
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYa-LSTCS40
-
One thing I'll say is hoo-boy, could you imagine the news coverage and resulting protests, etc. on this if not for the virus?
-
My guess is that if the dead man was really a thief it was probably a good shoot. A thief doesn't have the right to attack someone attempting a citizen's arrest on him.
If the dead man was just an innocent jogger, it was almost certainly a bad shoot. Being confronted with two men with guns out of the blue would make an innocent person think he was probably in mortal danger.
Given that I don't know if the deceased was stealing from the neighborhood, I don't know if it was a good shoot or not. And I don't think I ever will.
-
My guess is that if the dead man was really a thief it was probably a good shoot. A thief doesn't have the right to attack someone attempting a citizen's arrest on him.
If the dead man was just an innocent jogger, it was almost certainly a bad shoot. Being confronted with two men with guns out of the blue would make an innocent person think he was probably in mortal danger.
Given that I don't know if the deceased was stealing from the neighborhood, I don't know if it was a good shoot or not. And I don't think I ever will.
That's a big fat hairy negative there ghostrider.
You can only do a citizens arrest (in places where you can at all) if you see the guy actually committing the crime. Even if this guy was the thief they thought he was (i.e had broken into homes in the neighborhood previously) he was jogging at the time. They had no right to stop him at all, certainly not armed.
I agree with Colion Noir: if I'm jogging and a truck pulls in front of me, and two armed people get out, the gunfight has started at that point. Arbary didn't have an effetive means to defend himself, but he did his best against two armed attackers.
There may be some other facts coming forward, but based on the video, and the statements of the shooters thmeselves, this is going to be a very hard shoot to justify.
-
The key difference between the Zimmerman case and this is that there is a video. Killing the only other witness leaves one in a stronger position to make claims about who started what.
Do you have an antenna that twitches whenever “Zimmerman” is used on here?
-
Quick trial or will it drag out through the election season?
-
Highly doubt this will be done before the election. A plain homicide, without major media attention, protesters, and a written letter from the prosecutor saying the shooting was legally justified, takes about a year from arrest to trial. This will become a media circus with lots of pretrial litigation. It could drag out to 2022.
-
I question how long the media can keep people interested in this.
-
I question how long the media can keep people interested in this.
How long has it been since a laughing Zimmerman chased down and shot little 5 yr old Trayvon in the back?
Since Rodney King?
Anything they can do to remind you how racist you are.
-
I'm young enough that I didn't pay attention to the King business, but with the Martin case,* there were two sides to keep the controversy going. I don't see many people lining up on the side of the vigilantes here.
*I continue to be annoyed that people are on a first name basis with that creep. Along with Hillary Clinton.
-
Anything they can do to remind you how racist you are.
Nailed it.
-
On twitter I saw it posted that there is a video of him in and leaving out of a building in the neighborhood that is under construction.
The claim is also that it agrees with the 911 call.
It looks like another flustercluck in the making.
-
On twitter I saw it posted that there is a video of him in and leaving out of a building in the neighborhood that is under construction.
The claim is also that it agrees with the 911 call.
It looks like another flustercluck in the making.
Posted this morning
The new video, which appears to be home security footage, shows a man -- whom the Arbery family's lawyers say was the victim -- walking down the street the afternoon Arbery was killed. The man walks into the garage of a house under construction. He walks around the back of the house and leaves within a few minutes, most of the time out of view of the camera. He isn’t seen taking anything.
After he enters the property, another man across the street can be seen watching the scene. The man said to be Arbery then comes out of the front door of the house and runs down the street.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ahmaud-arbery-case-additional-video-being-reviewed-authorities-say
Also saw a comment somewhere that stated he was over 9 miles from home which the commenter thought was strangely far from home for most joggers. I don't know enough to say ya or nay on that.
Onions have layers
-
About the house thing, I have often entered houses under construction just to look around. I find it interesting to see how houses are built and to get ideas for my own house.
Unless there was a no trespassing sign, I don't think this is an issue.
-
^^^When my wife and I were looking for our current house, we did exactly the same thing.
-
^^^When my wife and I were looking for our current house, we did exactly the same thing.
Me too, although not anymore.
Here in the burbs they started fencing off remodel/construction sites, probably because Karen complained and/or vandalism.
The price you pay in low trust atomized societies.
-
As more info flows, this is going to get more and more interesting. I'm not sure about the walking through the house stuff. I'm thinking that would be viewed as okay or not differently in different parts of the country. In California, they have security guards to stop that kind of stuff.
The oddball thing would be the "nine miles from home". I've driven much farther than that to start a run, but in order to get to someplace interesting, not a housing tract. Has there been any info on the victim's criminal record?
At this point, the "two rednecks in a pickup chasing a guy with one of them waving a shotgun around in the back of the truck" imagery is going to be hard for the accused to shake. That's kinda out of a bad "city slicker passing through a corrupt Southern town" movie from the '70s.
-
The oddball thing would be the "nine miles from home". I've driven much farther than that to start a run, but in order to get to someplace interesting, not a housing tract. Has there been any info on the victim's criminal record?
There's a little bit about a record: https://newsone.com/3937291/da-blamed-ahmaud-arberys-killing-aggressive-nature-resign-leaders-say/
Barnhill even tried to criminalize Arbery early on, bringing up his past record to cops. Court documents show that he was convicted of shoplifting and of violating probation in 2018, according to The New York Times. Five years earlier, Arbery was also indicted on accusations that he took a handgun to a high school basketball game. In his letter, Barnhill argued, “Arbery’s mental health records & prior convictions help explain his apparent aggressive nature and his possible thought pattern to attack an armed man.”
-
About the house thing, I have often entered houses under construction just to look around. I find it interesting to see how houses are built and to get ideas for my own house.
Unless there was a no trespassing sign, I don't think this is an issue.
I disagree. Posted or not, it's still private property, and one should respect that.
-
This should be a reminder, no matter the outcome, that chasing down a person suspected of a crime will not play out well for you.
The court of public opinion will weigh in and hang you before you have the opportunity to be proven right or wrong.
-
Fact remains that no matter what Arbery was or wasn't up to you shouldn't go confronting people in a pickup with a shotgun.
But I will say this, many police departments have publicly stated that they will not response to many what they deem to be non emergency calls during this C19 mess basically saying you're on your own. Combine this with judges releasing criminals apparnelly including many violent ones and these are not normal times. Not justifying the shooting just wondering if this contributed to the shooting.
But, since this occurred in Feb I'm not sure if what I said above is relevant except for the first line.
-
It's all Orange Man's fault
Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms compared the shooting death of 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery in February to lynchings in the Jim Crow-era South and said that President Trump’s rhetoric give racists “permission to do it in an overt way.”
Atlanta mayor calls Ahmaud Arbery killing 'a lynching'; says Trump's rhetoric gives racists permission
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/atlanta-mayor-calls-ahmaud-arbery-killing-a-lynching-says-trumps-rhetoric-gives-racists-permission
-
Which begs the question, has anyone seen anything that would suggest race was in any way shape or form a factor in this? Not that it matters to the MSM/Dems/libs/race baiters ect....
-
Which begs the question, has anyone seen anything that would suggest race was in any way shape or form a factor in this? Not that it matters to the MSM/Dems/libs/race baiters ect....
Whether it was or wasn't, I'm going to reiterate that the optics of two bubbas in a pickup - one of them with a shotgun and riding in back instead of sitting in the passenger seat - chasing a black guy down the street, are simply devastating to the bubbas, even if they have a lifetime NAACP membership.
-
Whether it was or wasn't, I'm going to reiterate that the optics of two bubbas in a pickup - one of them with a shotgun and riding in back instead of sitting in the passenger seat - chasing a black guy down the street, are simply devastating to the bubbas, even if they have a lifetime NAACP membership.
I agree and that's more than enough for the MSM etc.... Doesn't prove it though but feelings don't need proof do they?
-
There's also going to be the issue of who initiated the confrontation. It would be one [still not a great idea] thing to follow someone suspected of a crime to get more evidence, or a better description for the cops. It is a different thing to try and stop or hold them. One is intimidating and rude, the other is an overtly hostile act.
For me, just going by the videos so far and the father and son's statement, the moment they pulled the truck in front of him and jumped out with guns, they had initiated violence. What follows after that initiation is on them.
More facts may change that calculation, but we'll see.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcB6l3r0E04
Stefan Molyneux takes a different tack on this story. It is worth considering. One thing he mentions is Aubrey was on probation for a previous incident. The retired police officer may have known who he was and he may have recognized the retired officer. If he was actually trying to get away from a possible crime to avoid getting a parole violation, how would that affect his decision making. Stefan Molyneux is making some assumptions in taking that line of reasoning I think. Further investigation and trial should bring all that out if true.
What dogmush said is still true. Even if Aubrey was a criminal running from a crime, that still may not legally excuse what the shooter did.
-
Private property is, indeed, private property. Entering without permission is trespassing. Whether or not it's criminal trespass depends on the wording of the state's laws on trespass.
According to the National Review, Georgia's state law on citizen's arrest is:
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.
Apparently the two defendants are claiming that they witnessed Arbery committing a burglary, giving them the right to arrest him. But he didn't take anything from the construction site, so he didn't commit a "burglary," even though he was trespassing. So their claim that they had justification to arrest him is open to debate. More to the point -- the law on citizen's arrest (if the citation from the NR is correct and complete) doesn't seem to authorize the use of deadly force in effecting a citizen's arrest.
Stay tuned. [popcorn]
[Edit to add] Found an article by a Georgia attorney about Georgia's law on criminal trespass:
https://bixonlaw.com/georgia-trespassing-101/
It doesn't appear that Arbery's entry into the construction site qualifies as criminal trespass -- unless he had intentions of stealing, but if he was out for a jog that's unlikely. In any event, it looks like even criminal trespass in Georgia is only a misdemeanor, not a felony.
Another recital of the law, from an unbiased source:
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-7/article-2/part-1/16-7-21/
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcB6l3r0E04
Stefan Molyneux takes a different tack on this story. It is worth considering. One thing he mentions is Aubrey was on probation for a previous incident. The retired police officer may have known who he was and he may have recognized the retired officer. If he was actually trying to get away from a possible crime to avoid getting a parole violation, how would that affect his decision making. Stefan Molyneux is making some assumptions in taking that line of reasoning I think. Further investigation and trial should bring all that out if true.
What dogmush said is still true. Even if Aubrey was a criminal running from a crime, that still may not legally excuse what the shooter did.
I would assume that if the retired cop knew Aubrey was on probation he would have made sure the cops knew that he knew it, and it would be in his initial statement.
I haven't seen that anywhere (which makes sense as the case is still open), but the lawyers for the accused have also not mentioned it in their statements so far. That makes me assume they didn't know each other in advance.
In the FL case of he who shall not be named lest ShootingStudent appear the trial was where a ton of the initial statements and reports became public in their entirety. We may have to wait that long to make informed opinions, or at least remain open to changing our minds.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcB6l3r0E04
Stefan Molyneux takes a different tack on this story. It is worth considering. One thing he mentions is Aubrey was on probation for a previous incident. The retired police officer may have known who he was and he may have recognized the retired officer. If he was actually trying to get away from a possible crime to avoid getting a parole violation, how would that affect his decision making. Stefan Molyneux is making some assumptions in taking that line of reasoning I think. Further investigation and trial should bring all that out if true.
What dogmush said is still true. Even if Aubrey was a criminal running from a crime, that still may not legally excuse what the shooter did.
Stefan is a pretty cool dude most of the time, I love his stuff.
However, while being "pro-gun" ... he doesn't really understand use of guns or study the laws and civilian uses of guns in a criminal case like we do....
Most of us here would probably know that the police dislike freelancers apprehending and unlawfully shooting "perp's"
We would know that you leave the apprehending and unlawfully shooting to the professionals with uniforms, badges and legal immunity
-
In the FL case of he who shall not be named lest ShootingStudent appear the trial was where a ton of the initial statements and reports became public in their entirety. We may have to wait that long to make informed opinions, or at least remain open to changing our minds.
He who shall not be named lest he who shall not be deadnamed appear?
-
It's all Orange Man's fault
Atlanta mayor calls Ahmaud Arbery killing 'a lynching'; says Trump's rhetoric gives racists permission
Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms compared the shooting death of 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery in February to lynchings in the Jim Crow-era South and said that President Trump’s rhetoric give racists “permission to do it in an overt way.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/atlanta-mayor-calls-ahmaud-arbery-killing-a-lynching-says-trumps-rhetoric-gives-racists-permission
Get a dictionary, your honor. If racists were lynching blacks "in an overt way," they wouldn't try to disguise it as defending their neighborhood from criminals.
Wait, why am I expecting a race-baiting, race-huckster Democrat to say anything that makes sense? :facepalm:
-
I would assume that if the retired cop knew Aubrey was on probation he would have made sure the cops knew that he knew it, and it would be in his initial statement.
Was Arbery still on probation? The articles that mention probation date that as 2018.
-
Whether it was or wasn't, I'm going to reiterate that the optics of two bubbas in a pickup - one of them with a shotgun and riding in back instead of sitting in the passenger seat - chasing a black guy down the street, are simply devastating to the bubbas, even if they have a lifetime NAACP membership.
And if I was a black man in the South, who saw a couple of bubbas heading toward me with shotguns, I would be worried about their intentions, even if they have a lifetime NAACP membership.
-
I wonder how it would have played out if the intended victim had a concealed carry permit and successfully defended himself from the unwarranted attack.
-
Update: https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/gbi-reviewing-new-video-footage-ahmaud-arbery-case/xvSWFTbaD0k9cr80R7CTnL/?ftag=YHF4eb9d17
There's video from a house across the street from the construction site.
-
I wonder how it would have played out if the intended victim had a concealed carry permit and successfully defended himself from the unwarranted attack.
Very quietly.
-
Update: https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/gbi-reviewing-new-video-footage-ahmaud-arbery-case/xvSWFTbaD0k9cr80R7CTnL/?ftag=YHF4eb9d17
There's video from a house across the street from the construction site.
A couple of things from that link open this up for me. This isn't the kind of walking through a house under construction that people might think was okay. If it was a new subdivision being built with ongoing construction of homes, that, to me, could be a lookeeloo just investigating floorplans. This looks more like somebody's house in an established neighborhood undergoing a remodel. I would never consider poking around in those circumstances. Also, hard to tell from the sped up video, but it doesn't look like he was jogging before he entered the home.
Also:
Arbery’s family said he liked to jog in the area. One of the armed men who confronted Arbery that day later told police they pursued him because they thought he had been involved in earlier break-ins in the neighborhood.
Again, why travel nine miles to jog in a random neighborhood versus a park, school track, along a river, etc.?
So I have growing suspicions about the victim's intentions. Though at this point I'm still calling him a victim because I still haven't seen cause for shooting him.
-
Again, why travel nine miles to jog in a random neighborhood versus a park, school track, along a river, etc.?
This is the second reference I've seen on APS to nine miles, but the articles I've read said the shooting occurred two miles from where Arbery lived. Two miles isn't an unreasonable jog.
That said, I agree regarding the nature of Arbery's visit to the house under construction (or reconstruction). But the neighbor who called in that someone had entered the house told the dispatcher that the house was under construction and open.
-
This is the second reference I've seen on APS to nine miles,
My responses were based off one of WLJ's posts. If it's actually two miles, that's not at all unreasonable. That would pretty much be considered jogging in one's own neighborhood.
-
This is the second reference I've seen on APS to nine miles, but the articles I've read said the shooting occurred two miles from where Arbery lived. Two miles isn't an unreasonable jog.
That said, I agree regarding the nature of Arbery's visit to the house under construction (or reconstruction). But the neighbor who called in that someone had entered the house told the dispatcher that the house was under construction and open.
How far was the shooting from the alleged trespassing?
-
My responses were based off one of WLJ's posts. If it's actually two miles, that's not at all unreasonable. That would pretty much be considered jogging in one's own neighborhood.
I posted that it was a comment I saw.
-
I'm changing my vote to "trigger happy vigilantes remove choir boy and themselves from society, and nothing of value was lost".
Barnhill even tried to criminalize Arbery early on, bringing up his past record to cops. Court documents show that he was convicted of shoplifting and of violating probation in 2018, according to The New York Times. Five years earlier, Arbery was also indicted on accusations that he took a handgun to a high school basketball game.
I have no use for thieves.
-
How far was the shooting from the alleged trespassing?
One or two blocks.
-
OK, things are getting stupid.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8305955/Man-arrested-making-threats-Ahmaud-Arbery-protesters-Facebook-bikers-pay-tribute.html
-
Colion Noir video
It's a short video pretty good and to the point IMHO
My Thoughts On The Ahmaud Arbery Case
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYa-LSTCS40
Moir from Noir.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr-HMjlr1sU
I don't follow him that much, as his presentation style is not really my cup of tea, but both his videos on this case have been quite good. I don't know how familiar he is with the laws in question, but FWIW, I believe he is one of those lawyer type guys. They're not always terrible. =)
-
Moir from Noir.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr-HMjlr1sU
I don't follow him that much, as his presentation style is not really my cup of tea, but both his videos on this case have been quite good. I don't know how familiar he is with the laws in question, but FWIW, I believe he is one of those lawyer type guys. They're not always terrible. =)
I just saw that as well. It was a good presentation of the basic facts (at least the ones we know).
-
They're dropping like flies. The case has now been turned over to a fourth prosecutor.
https://www.courthousenews.com/georgia-attorney-general-appoints-new-prosecutor-in-ahmaud-arbery-murder-case/
Of course, USA Today carried the story but completely misrepresented it.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2020/05/11/ahmaud-arbery-case-advocates-say-appointment-special-prosecutor-removes-bias/3107731001/
They make it appear that the third prosecutor, Durden, was replaced by the Attorney General because he, too, failed to pursue the case. In fact, it was Durden who called in the GBI to investigate, it was Durden who authorized the arrest, and it was Durden's request that the case be tirned over to a prosecutor with a larger staff and more resources.
-
I wonder if the prosecutors are seeing this as a no-win *expletive deleted*it show, and dumping it if they can.
-
The latest prosecutor is a black woman. If she doesn't get a conviction, you can bet the black community will portray her as a sell-out to Whitey.
-
I wonder if the prosecutors are seeing this as a no-win *expletive deleted*it show, and dumping it if they can.
That's the smell I'm getting, too.
-
The latest prosecutor is a black woman. If she doesn't get a conviction, you can bet the black community will portray her as a sell-out to Whitey.
No, the more likely portrayal is whitey keeping black women down.
-
As far as the shooters go, legally I have seen nothing yet that puts them in a righteous light. No matter the black guy's criminal record, or if he had been trespassing, or even if he was guilty of recent burglaries in the area, I haven't seen any information that the attempted detention was in any way legally justified. The GA statute on citizen arrest is pretty clear, and even giving all possible charitable interpretations of the events this far disclosed, they didn't meet the requirements for a legal citizen arrest. Certainly once they brandished their firearms they became the instigators of violence, and Arbery would have been fully justified in using deadly force to resist attempted false imprisonment or even attempted kidnapping, and definitely assault with a deadly weapon.
The retired cop, at least, should have known better.
-
As far as the shooters go, legally I have seen nothing yet that puts them in a righteous light. No matter the black guy's criminal record, or if he had been trespassing, or even if he was guilty of recent burglaries in the area, I haven't seen any information that the attempted detention was in any way legally justified. The GA statute on citizen arrest is pretty clear, and even giving all possible charitable interpretations of the events this far disclosed, they didn't meet the requirements for a legal citizen arrest. Certainly once they brandished their firearms they became the instigators of violence, and Arbery would have been fully justified in using deadly force to resist attempted false imprisonment or even attempted kidnapping, and definitely assault with a deadly weapon.
The retired cop, at least, should have known better.
I think I am in agreement with you. Regardless of any politics involved, they put themselves in a hole by their own actions. Now, I am open to hear more facts come out at trial, but it don't look good right now.
At the least, it is a good example of what not to do if you happen to be following/tracking a "known" criminal.
-
I think I am in agreement with you. Regardless of any politics involved, they put themselves in a hole by their own actions. Now, I am open to hear more facts come out at trial, but it don't look good right now.
At the least, it is a good example of what not to do if you happen to be following/tracking a "known" criminal.
Yep. Reports are starting to come out the shooters had a prior confrontation with the same guy. If that's true they would have been justified in following enough to tell the cops (that haven't retired yet) where he was, and maybe to get a good photo of the guy. They still had no justification for chasing him and blocking him in with their vehicles, and then confronting him with firearms.
The prior confrontations apparently were over earlier trespassing at the same construction site. But it was never a burglary as the owner of the property has stated nothing was ever missing from the property.
-
The prior confrontations apparently were over earlier trespassing at the same construction site. But it was never a burglary as the owner of the property has stated nothing was ever missing from the property.
After an early video came out, I made a case for the house being a remodel in the existing neighborhood, which would mean the inside might still have stuff in it, etc. However a later video either posted in this thread or I saw it elsewhere, showed that the inside looked to be completely open stud walls, just like new construction before the drywall goes up.
If he were looking to steal, I guess it would have been tools or things potentially left by workers. Regardless, I'm still calling him a victim unless other evidence to the contrary comes out, but at this point, I'm not sure that's possible. Hard to refute the video of them jumping out and attacking him, whether they thought they were "arresting" him or not.
-
Let's also keep our crimes clear and in rooted Georgia statutes. Colion Noir (who is a TX Lawyer) laid out the GA criminal trespass statute pretty clearly.
Aurbury had not been informed by the owner (or rep.) nor do their appear to have been signs on the property, and notification is required in GA law for criminal trespass. So even if our shooter HAD been non retired police officers, their authority would only have extended to giving him a misdemeanor Criminal Trespass warning, after they had contacted the owner and determined that was indeed what the owner wished.
There's not evidence, even with the video from inside the home under construction, that Aurbury committed any crime at all, under GA law.
I think that's important to remember.
I also am open to new facts, but as it stands now, I can't really think of any set of facts that will make this a legally justified shooting.
-
Let's also keep our crimes clear and in rooted Georgia statutes. Colion Noir (who is a TX Lawyer) laid out the GA criminal trespass statute pretty clearly.
Aurbury had not been informed by the owner (or rep.) nor do their appear to have been signs on the property, and notification is required in GA law for criminal trespass. So even if our shooter HAD been non retired police officers, their authority would only have extended to giving him a misdemeanor Criminal Trespass warning, after they had contacted the owner and determined that was indeed what the owner wished.
There's not evidence, even with the video from inside the home under construction, that Aurbury committed any crime at all, under GA law.
I think that's important to remember.
I also am open to new facts, but as it stands now, I can't really think of any set of facts that will make this a legally justified shooting.
Colion Noir laid out a pretty decent analysis, but he did slip up. In his second video, he said (two or three times, I believe) that Arbery wasn't trespassing. That's not correct. By being on the property and in the house without the owner's permission (or other legal authority), Arbery WAS trespassing. But Georgia law doesn't appear to have anything to say about simple trespass. The law only addresses "criminal" trespass, and Arbery didn't do anything that would have triggered "criminal" trespass. (Unless he was there with the intention of stealing something. If he did have that intention, he didn't follow through, and there's now no way to know.) And, even if he did, the law in Georgia makes criminal trespass a misdemeanor, not a felony.
So, based on the available evidence, there was no criminal trespass as established in Georgia state laws, and the two rednecks had no legal justification to accost Arbery with weapons.
-
Same guy but using a slightly different last name ( who doesn't use multiple names aliases?).
Another dodgy character being held up by the media as a sainted victim.
If the major news media reports it it's probably a lie.
https://www.news4jax.com/news/2013/12/09/police-man-brought-gun-to-high-school-basketball-game/
https://thebrunswicknews.com/news/local_news/police-arrest-four-in-span-of-an-hour/article_23db5ae1-9e5d-519e-a683-c1a216c042c0.html
-
Same guy but using a slightly different last name ( who doesn't use multiple names aliases?).
Another dodgy character being held up by the media as a sainted victim.
If the major news media reports it it's probably a lie.
https://www.news4jax.com/news/2013/12/09/police-man-brought-gun-to-high-school-basketball-game/
https://thebrunswicknews.com/news/local_news/police-arrest-four-in-span-of-an-hour/article_23db5ae1-9e5d-519e-a683-c1a216c042c0.html
I've heard reports that Mr. Aubery (I think that's his last name) had a criminal record.
He might very well have been casing the house for a future burglary. Maybe he was even a serial killer learning the layout so it would be easier to move around inside after the owners had moved in. Maybe the two shooters saved the world from a guy who would have gone on to a "SAW" type murder rampage.
If that's the case, it's sad for them because they attempted to stop a man who they had no right to try to stop. That means they are the ones in the wrong here. It doesn't matter that the deceased had been a criminal, if they did not observe a felony, they had no right to detain the guy.
Sumpnz mentioned that a retired cop ought to have known better. I'm fairly certain it's the "retired cop" part of this that CAUSED him to try to apprehend the "suspect."
Just like most of the people who end up pushing back against unjust laws tend to be unsavory characters, we still push for our rights, even when it's a criminal whose rights are being violated. The same applies here. Mr. Aubery, past criminal or not, was having his rights violated. His history has no bearing on his current situation.*
*For the benefit of any who are going to claim otherwise: unlike, for example, Mr. Martin's situation, where his history was used to show that he had a history of starting fights, which lends credence to Mr. Zimmerman's account that he was attacked by Mr. Martin. That he was likely casing the houses merely meant that Zimmerman had justification to be suspicious of his actions. As with the rest of that case, the plump Zimmerman chasing down and accosting Martin didn't fit the timeline (nor the location of the assault.) HAD Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin, Martin would have been justified in defending himself. The difference in that case was that rational people thought it highly unlikely that fit 17 year old Martin was chased down by Zimmerman, after having run out of sight and somehow Zimmerman dragged him back to within sight of his truck before Martin suddenly turned the tables on him.
-
Just applying more context to the situation.
I have no opinion on the whole debacle other than like everything else, the media is distorting the reality.
So any opinion based solely on media (dis)information is potentially wrong.
The media is just one big psy-op.
-
Colion Noir laid out a pretty decent analysis, but he did slip up. In his second video, he said (two or three times, I believe) that Arbery wasn't trespassing. That's not correct. By being on the property and in the house without the owner's permission (or other legal authority), Arbery WAS trespassing. But Georgia law doesn't appear to have anything to say about simple trespass. The law only addresses "criminal" trespass, and Arbery didn't do anything that would have triggered "criminal" trespass. (Unless he was there with the intention of stealing something. If he did have that intention, he didn't follow through, and there's now no way to know.) And, even if he did, the law in Georgia makes criminal trespass a misdemeanor, not a felony.
So, based on the available evidence, there was no criminal trespass as established in Georgia state laws, and the two rednecks had no legal justification to accost Arbery with weapons.
Absolutely true.
I actually had that post all typed out and went back to put the word "criminal " in front of trespass in the post. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.
-
False imprisonment in Georgia is a felony. Their murder statute classifies murder as causing the death of another human being in the commission of a felony "irrespective of malice".
The McMichaels will go down for murder, unless they can convince a jury that what they did wasn't false imprisonment, kidnapping, etc. Based on what has been publicized thus far I don't see how they can possibly do that. They didn't come even vaguely close to meeting the scope of lawful citizen arrest.
Again, caveat that the above is based on the currently publicized information. As we saw with he who must not be named from Florida, it's possible that additional evidence will come out and improve the defense's case.
-
I'm not sure why we're trying to avoid having he who must not be summoned by naming the unnameable name dance on out and beclown himself.
-
OK, things are getting stupid.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8305955/Man-arrested-making-threats-Ahmaud-Arbery-protesters-Facebook-bikers-pay-tribute.html
I'll raise you one
https://nypost.com/2020/05/15/gregory-mcmichael-leaked-the-ahmaud-arbery-video-report/
-
I'll raise you one
https://nypost.com/2020/05/15/gregory-mcmichael-leaked-the-ahmaud-arbery-video-report/
Which is what happens when you call the feds.
-
Which is what happens when you call the feds.
What do you do when the feds call you?
https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/suspect-arbery-shooting-had-offered-help-police/gFMpkRpX0Zk5edjvXrE6sN/
(https://www.ajc.com/rf/image_large/Pub/p11/AJC/2020/05/15/Images/Officer%20Rash%20text.3.jpg)
-
My Shitshow Meter is ticking steadily higher.
The issue in court is going to be, I think, McMichael acted like a cop, when he was not.
It is possible his buddies in Law Enforcement set him up for that by not telling him to mind his retired business, but the sticking point will still be that he went out to enforce laws, armed, with his kid, when he was not a cop.
But yeah, Shitshow.
Also, if the local LEO's had brought him into the situation, that explains their frantic search for some way to rule this justified and make it go away before to many folks dug in to it.
-
Doesn't sound good for the defense.
Ahmaud Arbery, the Georgia jogger gunned down by a white father and son with links to local law enforcement, was chased for more than four minutes by the duo and a neighbor who filmed the incident before he was shot and killed, an attorney for Arbery's family said.
New video shows Ahmaud Arbery chased for 4 minutes by father and son who shot him: lawyer
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ahmaud-arbery-video-chased-minutes-father-son-shot-lawyer
-
Doesn't sound good for the defense.
New video shows Ahmaud Arbery chased for 4 minutes by father and son who shot him: lawyer
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ahmaud-arbery-video-chased-minutes-father-son-shot-lawyer
I don't really like to trust news reports that don't include the actual evidence.
That said, as you can tell from my previous posts, the video is unlikely to change my position since it's pretty clear I think they are rightly charged with murder. (Felony murder.)
I've also seen that there is apparently a history of corruption in the local police department. That lends credence to my thought that the elder being a former cop explains a lot of what happened.
I'll also note another difference between this one and Zimmerman. With the Zimmerman case, it took a lie (from a "witness" that is becoming increasingly clear was pretending to be someone else) to get him charged. It took a video to get these guys charged.
-
I don't care about any of the people involved.
If justice is done, that's all I care about.
The media wants to whip up a bunch of emotion on this subject and incident but I really don't give a *expletive deleted*it.
Do the right the thing and don't bother me with it, is government that incompetent that I need to know and have opinion on this incident?
Found a word that slips through the filter btw, "shits".
-
I don't care about any of the people involved.
If justice is done, that's all I care about.
The media wants to whip up a bunch of emotion on this subject and incident but I really don't give a *expletive deleted*it.
Do the right the thing and don't bother me with it, is government that incompetent that I need to know and have opinion on this incident?
Found a word that slips through the filter btw, "shits".
Under normal circumstances, I would agree with you. However, we have a hyper-partisan media pushing an agenda. The press can not be allowed to be judge and jury.
-
And another video. This one from 2017
Has no real bearing on this current mess IMHO but I'm sure both sides will see in it what they want to see and use it, or not, accordingly.
Video Shows Police Attempt to Use a Taser on Ahmaud Arbery
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/video-shows-police-attempt-to-use-a-taser-on-ahmaud-arbery/
-
And another video. This one from 2017
Has no real bearing on this current mess IMHO but I'm sure both sides will see in it what they want to see and use it, or not, accordingly.
Video Shows Police Attempt to Use a Taser on Ahmaud Arbery
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/video-shows-police-attempt-to-use-a-taser-on-ahmaud-arbery/
I don't know what to think of it. Theres a longer video of the incident down in the comments:
https://youtu.be/5ZsVD61pirs
On the one hand, "suspicious activity" doesn't necessarily cut it in a free country. On the other hand, Arbery was unnecessarily aggressive. On the third hand, the second cop picked a weird time to taze him, i.e., well after his hands were exposed. On the fourth hand, they were coming up with weak reasons (e.g., "improperly parked") to tow the car to impound and search it.
-
I think early on it was said that even if he was a criminal, it is hard to justify what happened under the law. We may be getting to that point, but it is still hard to justify what happened.
-
I've seen some legal analysis (here (https://www.scribd.com/document/461618415/Banzhaf-Citizens-Arrest-200515)) that suggests that both Arbery and the Michaels may have been justified in self-defense, owing to the mistaken beliefs on both their parts.
Arbery, because he feared for his life from random strangers stopping him with guns. Even if they had no plans to harm him, he was put in fear by their actions.
The Michaels, because they had no aims to harm Arbery (or, in a less generous telling, IF they can prevail in their claims that they had no such aims...), and his actions in attacking them (even justified!) put them in fear of their life. They wrongly believed they had citizens arrest powers, and while that belief was wrong, based on that belief, they were justified.
Honestly, I have no idea if this legal analysis is correct, but even if they ultimately prevail in a self-defense claim, it's a major mess. It shows the danger of ASSUMPTIONS on the part of both parties.
Just a reminder: don't try to exercise police powers, especially with openly carried firearms, unless you are actually the police.
-
Let me say up front I have no knowledge or experience with citizens arrest. It doesn't exist like that in Ohio. With that said, the mutual self defense argument is legally interesting. On one hand, if (and a big if at that) the father/son team is allowed to make an arrest by use of force, or threat of force, then Mr. Jogger cannot argue self defense against a legal use/threat of force. Kind of like a burglar cannot argue self defense against an armed home owner in the owner's home after breaking in. On the other hand, if the law holds that the father/son team cannot legally use force, then Mr. Jogger's attack is the one legally justified. I think the whole thing turns on the legality of the father/son team attempting the stop while displaying weapon(s).
As for Mr. Jogger's prior record (if any) and the prior stop, that can't come into evidence absent proof that the shooter knew of that before the trigger was pulled. They can't argue "he was a criminal with a history of violence" unless they knew of any of that going into the incident.
That said, I agree. My job is to protect my family. My job is not to make an arrest, especially outside my home for a possible property crime I didn't witness.
-
I'm pretty sure they are allowed to make a citizens' arrest using threat of force, and actual force if necessary, BUT the conditions were not met for them to do so (although it's not as cut and dried IMHO as Colion Noir says it is), so them brandishing the weapons and impeding Mr. Arbery was illegal. I think GBI is charging them appropriately with Aggrevated Assault and Felony Murder. Felony Murder does not require intent, and it fact it doesn't matter whether McMichaels pulled the trigger, or if the gun went off by accident during the struggle. The gun should have been slung or holstered, or not been there at all.
I think the world is probably a better place without any of these 3 losers in it, but I'm more sympathetic towards Arbery. Or perhaps I'm just more hostile towards the McMichaels. I'm also getting sick of all the race-baiting going on.
The most intriguing part is were the local police complicit in the murder and that's why they tried to cover it up.
-
A third arrest: the man who took the video.
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/21/860593300/georgia-authorities-arrest-third-man-in-ahmaud-arbery-killing?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR2YsbcYl_-up0sOHHTo8ZbcX62ZwgR8RbQ3C_kPqSIvpNEBCI7zbcmkv3M&fbclid=IwAR0FOFipQzWtVtESPNp7jJ8rY3U802uLKJnvULgvqoDeGkOEgaA2AkDdqlo&fbclid=IwAR1IChQmmtz_4tCu5B2D1aW25KrugCb8N2VBwGAE43-7-8IQWCCFbvJxP-g&fbclid=IwAR00Y2N9TP7ls9HVDXvYH0CXpiZTIkTWOquFyfPB3q8_kkRyyNJDgFuh0g0&fbclid=IwAR0ZjheJG8kp7L9qXtIcNHbZ59fb1_rmbRNA-G-Tb4i_03w5lQ8VuZL8qD8
-
A third arrest: the man who took the video.
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/21/860593300/georgia-authorities-arrest-third-man-in-ahmaud-arbery-killing?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR2YsbcYl_-up0sOHHTo8ZbcX62ZwgR8RbQ3C_kPqSIvpNEBCI7zbcmkv3M&fbclid=IwAR0FOFipQzWtVtESPNp7jJ8rY3U802uLKJnvULgvqoDeGkOEgaA2AkDdqlo&fbclid=IwAR1IChQmmtz_4tCu5B2D1aW25KrugCb8N2VBwGAE43-7-8IQWCCFbvJxP-g&fbclid=IwAR00Y2N9TP7ls9HVDXvYH0CXpiZTIkTWOquFyfPB3q8_kkRyyNJDgFuh0g0&fbclid=IwAR0ZjheJG8kp7L9qXtIcNHbZ59fb1_rmbRNA-G-Tb4i_03w5lQ8VuZL8qD8
With the ongoing caveat of "information that's available", I'm thinking they're overextending themselves with a murder wrap. Seems more like it should be some kind of an accessory or other charge. Given the info in the story, the false imprisonment charge seems reasonable.
-
Might depend on state law. Here if a someone gets killed during commission of a crime all the crime committers can be charged with murder.
-
With the ongoing caveat of "information that's available", I'm thinking they're overextending themselves with a murder wrap.
Murder wrap? Is that to wrap the bodies in?
-
Murder wrap? Is that to wrap the bodies in?
Only the ones you want to put in the fridge for later.
-
^^^Cryovac makes them last longer.
-
Murder wrap? Is that to wrap the bodies in?
Oh, ghistfull, reely?
(https://2ahawaii.com/Smileys/extended/stopjack.gif)
-
News story in my local (Austin, TX) rag quoted the 3rd man's lawyer asserting that he had nothing to do with the murder and his only involvement was as a witness.
Unless the police have some hard evidence the 3rd guy was more involved, the case - any case - against the guy who shot the cell phone video from a different vehicle some distance away from the action looks tenuous at best. (Caveat: that's from what I've read in the news, which is my only source of information to date.)
-
News story in my local (Austin, TX) rag quoted the 3rd man's lawyer asserting that he had nothing to do with the murder and his only involvement was as a witness.
Unless the police have some hard evidence the 3rd guy was more involved, the case - any case - against the guy who shot the cell phone video from a different vehicle some distance away from the action looks tenuous at best. (Caveat: that's from what I've read in the news, which is my only source of information to date.)
I read somewhere that he might have chased Arbery and blocked him at some point with his vehicle. Don't know whether it's true or not, but it fits with the charges. I suspect they don't really want him, they are putting the squeeze on him to testify against the McMichaels.
-
As for Mr. Jogger's prior record (if any) and the prior stop, that can't come into evidence absent proof that the shooter knew of that before the trigger was pulled. They can't argue "he was a criminal with a history of violence" unless they knew of any of that going into the incident.
The former cop involved in the killing worked crime committed by Aubrey previously.
-
As we know, filming police doing their jobs in public is a horrible crime which must be stopped. Ergo, filming not-police doing the police's job in public is also a horrible crime which must be stopped.
This is basic stuff, people. Come on!
-
As we know, filming police doing their jobs in public is a horrible crime which must be stopped. Ergo, filming not-police doing the police's job in public is also a horrible crime which must be stopped.
This is basic stuff, people. Come on!
What is good for the peasants is never the same as what is good for the special people.
-
Thread Necro:
The Feds have indicted the father, son, and video taker on hate crimes and attempted kidnapping. Dad and son got some firearms charges as well.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/29/us/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-indicted-thursday/index.html
-
Police are learning, better be very careful how you treat "joggers". It might be a better idea to leave the "joggers" alone.
The police can't get away with chasing "joggers" down anymore so why would anyone think that as a non LEO they would be treated any better?
-
Update:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/former-georgia-da-indicted-for-failing-to-prosecute-suspects-in-the-ahmaud-arbery-shooting/
-
Update:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/former-georgia-da-indicted-for-failing-to-prosecute-suspects-in-the-ahmaud-arbery-shooting/
I'm shocked. Prosecutors normally get away with this kind of crap. (Also, police.)
-
It appears the alleged victim in this case wasn't the squeaky clean, all-American boy the media would like us to view him as.
https://thepostmillennial.com/new-evidence-reveals-ahmaud-arbery-claimed-to-be-a-jogger-as-an-alibi-for-criminal-activity
-
It appears the alleged victim in this case wasn't the squeaky clean, all-American boy the media would like us to view him as.
https://thepostmillennial.com/new-evidence-reveals-ahmaud-arbery-claimed-to-be-a-jogger-as-an-alibi-for-criminal-activity
Yeah, some of that was brought up in earlier posts. Trouble is it makes him even more of a hero of the left because, you know, he wouldn't have had to be a criminal if it wasn't for white racism and capitalism and all that.
-
It appears the alleged victim in this case wasn't the squeaky clean, all-American boy the media would like us to view him as.
https://thepostmillennial.com/new-evidence-reveals-ahmaud-arbery-claimed-to-be-a-jogger-as-an-alibi-for-criminal-activity
On February 23, Ahmaud Arbery was killed while he was running through the Satilla Shores neighborhood near Brunswick, in Georgia. Two men were sitting on their lawn when Arbery passed, and they pursued him in their truck. The men proceeded to get out of their truck and shoot Arbery, which resulted in his death.
It has been quite a while since I saw that video, but it was a little bit more complicated that that. Instead of running away or standing still, Aubery advanced on the guy and grabbed for the shotgun. Who was justified to do what was the question I was unclear of. A case could be made for either one and both were likely in the process of doing things they weren't supposed to (though I haven't seen evidence that Aubery was doing something wrong that day). It doesn't look good for the two men involved in the shooting.
Sounds like the authorities are indicting everyone involved.
-
On February 23, Ahmaud Arbery was killed while he was running through the Satilla Shores neighborhood near Brunswick, in Georgia. Two men were sitting on their lawn when Arbery passed, and they pursued him in their truck. The men proceeded to get out of their truck and shoot Arbery, which resulted in his death.
Definitely more to it than that. I watched the video. Arbery took a bit of a detour from his run, and spent several minutes inside a house that was under construction across the street from somebody's security camera. There had been burglaries in the neighborhood, so the three men suspected that Arbery might be the burglar. They pursued him, cut him off, and (apparently) attempted to detain him until they could get the police there. However, Arbery lunged at the guy holding the shotgun, and got himself killed for his efforts.
At the time, citizens arrests were legal in Georgia. The law has since been repealed, as a result of this case.
-
At the time, citizens arrests were legal in Georgia. The law has since been repealed, as a result of this case.
Yes. Now if someone rapes your daughter and tries to escape, you had better not try and capture him for the police... or you can go to prison for ten years. Because capturing criminals is racist. :mad:
-
Yes. Now if someone rapes your daughter and tries to escape, you had better not try and capture him for the police... or you can go to prison for ten years. Because capturing criminals is racist. :mad:
And that is why I have a wood chipper and a strip pit.
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/09/03/us/ahmaud-arbery-jackie-johnson-indicted/index.html
So the prosecutor who first declined charges on the shooter and associates has been indicted for dereliction of duty and interference with a law enforcement officer. What's interesting to me in this article is that Madame D.A. and the ex-L.E.O. were friends...close enough that he called her after the shooting looking for advice. I'll be interested to see how this one plays out.
-
Yes. Now if someone rapes your daughter and tries to escape, you had better not try and capture him for the police... or you can go to prison for ten years. Because capturing criminals is racist. :mad:
I really doubt that they have totally eliminated citizens' arrest; if you personally witness a felony and maybe a select few misdemeanors. But if you do arrest someone as a citizen you do not have the qualified immunity that police officers have (and abuse regularly) so you better get it right.
-
Got chewed out today by a "customer."
He was on foot. Had a backpack. Was frickin' holding a Dewalt impact box in his hand (Home Depot is in the same complex, and damn, but they have a shoplifting problem).
Guy walks in the front door. I walk with him back to the EMPTY BOXES of jump boxes, etc., at which point he asks a dozen or so questions. Walk him back to the front door, at which point he start round-a-bout accusing me of being racist.
"I'm just your personal shopper. You're the only guy in the store."
My POC coworker watched with amusement.
-
I guess "paying customer" is an entirely different term not applied to that individual.
-
I really doubt that they have totally eliminated citizens' arrest; if you personally witness a felony and maybe a select few misdemeanors. But if you do arrest someone as a citizen you do not have the qualified immunity that police officers have (and abuse regularly) so you better get it right.
The GA eliminates citizens arrest except for a few categories of people (security guards, PIs and a few others).
It absolutely does eliminate citizens arrest for regular joes:
https://gov.georgia.gov/press-releases/2021-02-16/governor-kemp-announces-overhaul-citizens-arrest-statute
So if the rapist, murder, robber etc is trying to escape, you have to let them if you are an ordinary person... you can be imprisoned for ten years. ;/
-
So that leaves them with SSS then, got it.
-
So that leaves them with SSS then, got it.
"I was in fear for my life"
Rapists, murderers and thieves are scary, I see no issue.
-
The second most infuriating thing about the GA banning citizens arrest was the blatant lying about citizens arrests laws by every commentator I saw.
Did you know these laws are racist, and were invented to oppress blacks?
That is the only explanation of these laws the media gave.
Citizens arrest laws are a part of English common law, and go back to ancient times, long before the existence of a police force. When a bad guy was on the loose, there was a "hue and cry" and all men were required to grab their weapons and chase after the criminal... if they didn't, they were liable for damages from the crime.
Citizens arrest is also one of the foundations of Peel's Principles of Policing:
"To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
Everything police can do, citizens can do, because they are have all the same rights. Police can carry weapons? So can citizens. Police can arrest people? So can citizens.... because they are the same sorts of people.
-
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/ahmaud-arbery-killing-trial-verdict-watch-11-24-21/h_61c9715b10cc24cad69318a030329d21
All three defendants guility of the murder of Mr. Arbery.
-
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/ahmaud-arbery-killing-trial-verdict-watch-11-24-21/h_61c9715b10cc24cad69318a030329d21
All three defendants guility of the murder of Mr. Arbery.
All three WHITE defendants guilty of the murder of Mr. Arbery
Seemed like just about every headline I saw made sure you knew they were white
-
I figured the father and son would get that, but did I forget something about the neighbor? I'm not sure how he got a murder charge.
I also figured there might be some bias due to the Rittenhouse not guilty verdict. The father and son didn't think things through. I don't know enough about the evidence to have input in what an appropriate charge would be, but this kinda sounds like what they did to Chauvin. How do you get four counts of felony murder and one count of "malice murder" for killing one person?
-
Three white men convicted of murdering a black man. Last Friday, a black felon acquitted of murder and attempted murder of cops based on a claim of self-defense. The Rittenhouse protesters have been telling us this is not possible in our racist system, but I'm starting to think that maybe they are wrong.
But it's probably just me failing to understand how these other two rulings are racist as well. Maybe Don Lemon will explain it.
-
I figured the father and son would get that, but did I forget something about the neighbor? I'm not sure how he got a murder charge.
I also figured there might be some bias due to the Rittenhouse not guilty verdict. The father and son didn't think things through. I don't know enough about the evidence to have input in what an appropriate charge would be, but this kinda sounds like what they did to Chauvin. How do you get four counts of felony murder and one count of "malice murder" for killing one person?
I'm guessing they were charged/convicted under old Jim Crow laws. Georgia has some unique laws for murder.
-
Malice murder in Georgia: https://www.11alive.com/article/news/crime/ahmaud-arbery/malice-murder-felony-murder-difference-ahmaud-arbery-death-trial/85-d13db692-cff9-4b4d-be73-5eba5ae22054
-
Under Oklahoma law anyone involved in the commission of a crime that results in a murder can be charged with the murder. An example of that in action would be: a few years ago three young adults committed a daytime home invasion armed with knives and brass knuckles. A resident of the home was armed with an AR-15. Three dead home invaders and the get away driver was charged and eventually convicted with their murders, the armed resident was not charged. Possibly Georgia has a similar statute.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/oklahoma-home-invasion-shooting-no-charges-against-man-who-killed-3-intruders
http://thugify.com/man-kills-burglars-in-oklahoma-home-invasion/
-
Meanwhile the MSM and the race baiters continue to push the narrative that the justice sys is setup to let white people get away with murdering blacks.
-
The three Arbery defendants are scheduled to go to trial next year on Federal hate crime charges. It will be interesting to see how that trial goes for them.
-
The three Arbery defendants are scheduled to go to trial next year on Federal hate crime charges. It will be interesting to see how that trial goes for them.
It will be more interesting to see how long America continues to put up with the criminalizing of [some] mean thoughts.
-
Malice murder in Georgia: https://www.11alive.com/article/news/crime/ahmaud-arbery/malice-murder-felony-murder-difference-ahmaud-arbery-death-trial/85-d13db692-cff9-4b4d-be73-5eba5ae22054
So malice murder appears to be the mostest horriblest murder. So why not just charge them with that instead of including the four other murders (again, for one victim)? I'm not just focusing on this case, but many others where they seem to throw a ton of various murder charges at someone, hooping something will stick. I want to see murderers get their just desserts, but I worry about the government just amassing charges on someone just to win a case. Pick a lane, and you either have the evidence or you don't.
Not directing this at you Millcreek- just throwing out a general comment / question on these kinds of charges.
-
Meanwhile the MSM and the race baiters continue to push the narrative that the justice sys is setup to let white people get away with murdering blacks.
I guess if he was protesting racial injustice at the time, he'd have been fair game? ???
-
If you are going to kill a thug it better be clearly in self defense as you are trying to escape.
The system is working overtime to protect the thugs from retaliation.
Hate to say it, but a not guilty in this case probably would have been like declaring open season on thugs in some areas.
One of the things keeping people from cleaning up their neighborhoods is the police and court system treating them harshly if it looks like vigilante justice.
Even in clear cut cases the legal process is the punishment.
-
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/ahmaud-arbery-killing-trial-verdict-watch-11-24-21/h_61c9715b10cc24cad69318a030329d21
All three defendants guility of the murder of Mr. Arbery.
I don't get it. Not that I don't think they're guilty, but how do you get FOUR murder charges, two assault charges, AND an unlawful imprisonment charge out of shooting ONE guy?
Would somebody 'splain me that, please?
-
I don't get it. Not that I don't think they're guilty, but how do you get FOUR murder charges,
Actually five. One count malice murder, four counts felony murder.
-
https://youtu.be/HKGjCPBSG38
-
Actually five. One count malice murder, four counts felony murder.
There were 3 defendants so 1 each makes sense. Were there some lesser included offenses, like with Chauvin?
-
As far as the shooters go, legally I have seen nothing yet that puts them in a righteous light. No matter the black guy's criminal record, or if he had been trespassing, or even if he was guilty of recent burglaries in the area, I haven't seen any information that the attempted detention was in any way legally justified. The GA statute on citizen arrest is pretty clear, and even giving all possible charitable interpretations of the events this far disclosed, they didn't meet the requirements for a legal citizen arrest. Certainly once they brandished their firearms they became the instigators of violence, and Arbery would have been fully justified in using deadly force to resist attempted false imprisonment or even attempted kidnapping, and definitely assault with a deadly weapon.
The retired cop, at least, should have known better.
It would appear I called it correctly back when it first happened.
-
There were 3 defendants so 1 each makes sense. Were there some lesser included offenses, like with Chauvin?
My understanding is that the main guy, the son, got popped for all five.
Travis McMichael, who shot and killed Arbery, was convicted on all nine counts. Five of the counts — malice murder and four counts of felony murder — carry a possible life sentence.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/ahmaud-arbery-killing-trial-verdict-watch-11-24-21/index.html
-
It would appear I called it correctly back when it first happened.
I don't think most of us thought it would be something they could get clear of. They made themselves poster boys for the "what not to do" training.
They sort of did everything Zimmerman was accused of doing. If someone with a shotgun asks you to go find a thief that ran down the road, say "No".
-
So is the 3rd guy the one that took the video? Was he charged as an accessory? I think I heard that, but I haven't been watching this case lately.
I don't think I agree that he should be tagged with murder, but that is the way the laws are set up.
-
If you are going to kill a thug it better be clearly in self defense as you are trying to escape.
The system is working overtime to protect the thugs from retaliation.
Hate to say it, but a not guilty in this case probably would have been like declaring open season on thugs in some areas.
One of the things keeping people from cleaning up their neighborhoods is the police and court system treating them harshly if it looks like vigilante justice.
Even in clear cut cases the legal process is the punishment.
That leaves no incentive to trust the system to get it right. Which is apparently what they want.
So it's do nothing, ever, or take action and avoid the courts at all costs. That's not a healthy place to be.
-
That leaves no incentive to trust the system to get it right. Which is apparently what they want.
So it's do nothing, ever, or take action and avoid the courts at all costs. That's not a healthy place to be.
And if you are in a group and one person steps over the line, everyone can get tagged with murder and whatever else they pile on.
-
They sort of did everything Zimmerman was accused of doing. If someone with a shotgun asks you to go find a thief that ran down the road, say "No".
That's what I was thinking. Also, as the Left works itself into a feces-hurling tantrum about fictitious white vigilantism (in Kenosha), they seem to be ignoring a case that comes a lot closer to fitting that description. I guess they'd rather not talk about the fact that, even in the Deep South, whites actually do face very harsh consequences when they commit crimes against blacks. It's like their white supremacy narrative is all a myth, if you can imagine that.
-
And if you are in a group and one person steps over the line, everyone can get tagged with murder and whatever else they pile on.
Hell, even if you're not in whatever group they currently hate, they'll just add you to it.
-
There were 3 defendants so 1 each makes sense. Were there some lesser included offenses, like with Chauvin?
MillCreek's link explains it: https://www.11alive.com/article/news/crime/ahmaud-arbery/malice-murder-felony-murder-difference-ahmaud-arbery-death-trial/85-d13db692-cff9-4b4d-be73-5eba5ae22054
It still seems to me like it's piling on. I understand -- and subscribe to -- the concept of people who participate in a crime that results in the death of another person being charged with murder. And if tweo people die, I can see and support two charges.
But when ONE person dies and they take each little criminal act anyone present committed and make EVERY one of those a concomitant murder charge -- I think that's overdoing it.
-
So is the 3rd guy the one that took the video? Was he charged as an accessory? I think I heard that, but I haven't been watching this case lately.
Yes, and yes.
-
And if you are in a group and one person steps over the line, everyone can get tagged with murder and whatever else they pile on.
Welcome to Georgia, don't participate in fuckery. State's Rights!
-
Nobody, including the dead guy, made any good decisions that day.
-
Three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery were sentenced Friday to life in prison, with a judge denying any chance of parole for the father and son who armed themselves and initiated the deadly pursuit of the 25-year-old Black man.
Ahmaud Arbery killers get life in prison; no parole for father, son
https://www.wlky.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-killing-sentencing/38690642
And not to change the subject but note again how black is capitalized but not white in the article
-
Unlike some communities the White community doesn't get riled up about guys paying a price for bad decisions.
The problem is the system is pushing, pushing, pushing. A segment of the country is pushing, pushing, pushing.
Many White folks are slowly waking up to find that their government and many fellow citizens hate them, or at least have arrayed themselves as enemies of white Americans and their culture.
This is not a good thing, at some point the battle will be joined. I personally hope I'm not around to see what that looks like. Boxing people in and giving them no official recourse is a bad thing to do, gaslighting only goes so far.
It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good ...
-
Sorry. Been away for a bit. As one of the resident legal beagles here at APS, I'll throw in my two cents on the charges here. The piling on is the prosecution putting alternate charges in front of the jury. Kind of saying "if not Charge A, consider Charge B or C". When the jury deliberated, they can find guilty of all, none, or some of the charges. When the jury finds guilty of multiple charges, as happened here, the judge will then merge charges and/or vacate charges, depending on how they overlap. If you listen to the sentencing, the judge vacated a lot of the charges by operation of law because of the conviction of the one murder charge. The "lesser" murder charges got kicked by the judge. The merger applied on some, where the conviction of the higher charge incorporated the lower charge (often see this in Burglary cases, where a theft charge ends up merged into the Burglary at sentencing). The "problem", if you will, is that prosecutors any more throw any possible charge at a situation, to either give negotiating room for plea bargaining or to give them more chance of getting a conviction at trial. I blame this on prosecutors who keep conviction stats of their staff and use that for promotions, pay raises, etc. But, since conviction rates get brought up so often in elections, I guess that matters to the public. In my opinion, if plea bargaining went away, prosecutors had to open their file (more or less) in the discovery process, you would have charges based only on what actually happened, eliminate this stacking of charges, and there would be better results for both sides.
As for the felony murder rule, my understanding is that this guy wasn't just there. He was actively pursuing Arbury, and worked to get him cornered between the two vehicles. In other words, he did an affirmative act in commission of the felony (Unlawful Arrest/Detaining) that resulted in the death.
IMHO, this case was correctly prosecuted and sentenced, given the facts of the case as I understand them.
-
^ I don't really disagree.
The disconnect is how different communities are having different standards applied.
Ironically, the inner city Black community seems to feel they are held to a higher standard of behavior.
-
Can we stop capitalizing skin colors?
-
Can we stop capitalizing skin colors?
I'm sure the average Black person couldn't care less whether it is capitalized or not.
-
Sorry. Been away for a bit. As one of the resident legal beagles here at APS, I'll throw in my two cents on the charges here. The piling on is the prosecution putting alternate charges in front of the jury. Kind of saying "if not Charge A, consider Charge B or C". When the jury deliberated, they can find guilty of all, none, or some of the charges. When the jury finds guilty of multiple charges, as happened here, the judge will then merge charges and/or vacate charges, depending on how they overlap. If you listen to the sentencing, the judge vacated a lot of the charges by operation of law because of the conviction of the one murder charge. The "lesser" murder charges got kicked by the judge. The merger applied on some, where the conviction of the higher charge incorporated the lower charge (often see this in Burglary cases, where a theft charge ends up merged into the Burglary at sentencing). The "problem", if you will, is that prosecutors any more throw any possible charge at a situation, to either give negotiating room for plea bargaining or to give them more chance of getting a conviction at trial. I blame this on prosecutors who keep conviction stats of their staff and use that for promotions, pay raises, etc. But, since conviction rates get brought up so often in elections, I guess that matters to the public. In my opinion, if plea bargaining went away, prosecutors had to open their file (more or less) in the discovery process, you would have charges based only on what actually happened, eliminate this stacking of charges, and there would be better results for both sides.
As for the felony murder rule, my understanding is that this guy wasn't just there. He was actively pursuing Albert, and worked to get him cornered between the two vehicles. In other words, he did an affirmative act in commission of the felony (Unlawful Arrest/Detaining) that resulted in the death.
IMHO, this case was correctly prosecuted and sentenced, given the facts of the case as I understand them.
I think the bold part is a good proposal. In addition to the prosecutor's file, all the evidence and paperwork should be public record once the case is over.
IMO, I would rather hear prosecutors rated on number of cases processed and closed rather than convictions. I think convictions is more about what they think voters want to hear than what they actually want.
-
It’s hard to believe watching the video, but it does seem like this trio genuinely believed they hadn’t done anything wrong. Just goes to show how possible it is to be totally out of step with what your community believes - a lesson for people everywhere really.
The criminal justice system cannot function without plea bargaining because of the sheer volume of cases it deals with.
The only non-penal system answer the rest of the world seems to have found to crime is the welfare state - populations with guaranteed housing, food, education, healthcare and basic access to income support tend not to commit lots of violent crime.
-
If you're gonna go jogging, don't trespass on construction sites.
If you notice someone trespassing, call the cops, and watch from your living room.
-
The only non-penal system answer the rest of the world seems to have found to crime is the welfare state - populations with guaranteed housing, food, education, healthcare and basic access to income support tend not to commit lots of violent crime.
FYI, a VERY large percentage of the crime in American cities is committed by beneficiaries of the welfare state -- people who live in public housing, receive welfare payments, receive food stamps (or whatever they use in lieu of food stamps these days), and who don't pay anything for medical care.
-
It’s hard to believe watching the video, but it does seem like this trio genuinely believed they hadn’t done anything wrong. Just goes to show how possible it is to be totally out of step with what your community believes - a lesson for people everywhere really.
The criminal justice system cannot function without plea bargaining because of the sheer volume of cases it deals with.
The only non-penal system answer the rest of the world seems to have found to crime is the welfare state - populations with guaranteed housing, food, education, healthcare and basic access to income support tend not to commit lots of violent crime.
In the US the group that gets all that and more is the same group that is career criminal as *expletive deleted*ck and the local popo visit them weekly.
-
In the US the group that gets all that and more is the same group that is career criminal as *expletive deleted*ck and the local popo visit them weekly.
I agree with that. All the free stuff does nothing but enable the bad behavior. It may only be percentage of the population, but it is there.
I think humans who have all their basic food/shelter needs met are not automatically passive and content. I would bet people like that are likely more discontent.
-
I agree with that. All the free stuff does nothing but enable the bad behavior. It may only be percentage of the population, but it is there.
I think humans who have all their basic food/shelter needs met are not automatically passive and content. I would bet people like that are likely more discontent.
Idle hands are the devil’s workshop.
-
If you're gonna go jogging, don't trespass on construction sites.
If you notice someone trespassing, call the cops, and watch from your living room.
That's not bad advice.
Based on over a half century of personal experience, when a new house is going up, quite a few of the locals will take a walk through it, at least until the windows and doors are put in. (Builders usually use a "construction door" rather than the fancy door installed at completion.) If there are children in the neighborhood, it's a magnet for them. Problems arise if the locals decide to do things like strip out the copper pipes - but the doors are usually on before plumbing is done and appliances are installed. When the last houses were built on my block, most of the neighbors went through them at some point in the construction process - no problems AFAIK. But of course, I live in a very "low crime" area.
Usually its no problem - in fact, from news accounts on TV, while security cam footage showed the jogger in a house under construction, it didn't show him stealing or vandalizing it. So maybe he trespassed, which for a residential construction site is a petty crime at worst. Most likely police would tell him "don't do it again" and not arrest or ticket him unless he goes in it again after explicitly being warned away. (Unless trespassing = insurrection?)
-
^^^When my wife and I were house hunting, we would wander in and out of houses under construction all the time, at least until the stage that doors were in and locked. Looking at layouts gave us some idea of what we wanted.
-
If you're gonna go jogging, don't trespass on construction sites.
The jogger in this case wasn't trespassing.
-
The jogger in this case wasn't trespassing.
He wasn't?
Video clearly showed him wandering around (and I think in) the house that was under construction. The only way that wasn't trespassing would be if he had the owner's permission to be there. Are you saying that he had such permission?
-
He wasn't?
Video clearly showed him wandering around (and I think in) the house that was under construction. The only way that wasn't trespassing would be if he had the owner's permission to be there. Are you saying that he had such permission?
He might be making a distinction between criminal and civil trespass. I'm not sure what the rules are, but was the property posted?
-
He wasn't?
Video clearly showed him wandering around (and I think in) the house that was under construction. The only way that wasn't trespassing would be if he had the owner's permission to be there. Are you saying that he had such permission?
If he was trespassing, does that justify what happened to him?
-
If he was trespassing, does that justify what happened to him?
No, hence the convictions and life sentences.
That doesn’t alter his being guilty of trespass, and possibly prior burglary.
-
He wasn't trespassing when he was shot.
That said, I may be misremembering, but it seemed I saw a video that made it look like he was in someone's house undergoing a remodel in an already developed neighborhood. That's akin to me finding someone poking around out in my shop simply because the rollup door was open. That is a "my gun is already out" situation, especially where I live, where there is no help for me readily available. Not that I would come out guns blazing, but I would be in condition orange with my gun visible while I question/assess from a distance.
If he was in an in-progress housing development that was under construction, while I'm sure the "trespassing philosophy" varies geographically, I know that a lot of people do what Millcreek mentioned. While I assume that is still trespassing in the letter of the law, it may or may not be looked at as trespassing by various individuals affected. The homebuilder may look at it as "advertising" regarding what Millcreek did, but would still consider kids playing in the unfinished homes trespassing.
-
De Selby correctly observed:
"The criminal justice system cannot function without plea bargaining because of the sheer volume of cases it deals with."
If I may get on my rocking horse again, although it doesn't directly matter in this case:
We need fewer laws.
You elect these people as lawmakers and guess what? They make laws. De Selby brought it up; I'm just pointing out a cause and a simple solution.
Terry dismounts.
(https://2ahawaii.com/Smileys/extended/stopjack.gif)
-
If he was trespassing, does that justify what happened to him?
No, and I didn't imply that it did.
-
De Selby correctly observed:
"The criminal justice system cannot function without plea bargaining because of the sheer volume of cases it deals with."
If I may get on my rocking horse again, although it doesn't directly matter in this case:
We need fewer laws.
You elect these people as lawmakers and guess what? They make laws. De Selby brought it up; I'm just pointing out a cause and a simple solution.
Consider that an alternate possibility is that fewer criminals would be repeat-repeat-repeat offenders if they were properly incarcerated for long sentences upon their first conviction. Crime feeds on plea bargains, and the "need" for plea bargains becomes a self-perpetuating monster.
The current movement among liberal prosecutors and judges to simply eliminate bail and not press charges for anything less serious than mass murders is only going to increase crime -- as we are already seeing.
-
He wasn't?
Video clearly showed him wandering around (and I think in) the house that was under construction. The only way that wasn't trespassing would be if he had the owner's permission to be there. Are you saying that he had such permission?
Yes, he entered a building under construction, but since the property wasn't posted (AFAIK) that isn't trespassing. Just like a stranger walking up your door isn't trespassing.
-
Yes, he entered a building under construction, but since the property wasn't posted (AFAIK) that isn't trespassing. Just like a stranger walking up your door isn't trespassing.
I don't think that's an apt analogy, unless that stranger had to climb over a fence because the gate was locked. Arbery actually entered the building. (counter-argument is that the building is not a "dwelling" yet, so is not different than the yard)
1) He shouldn't have been there.
2) It's debatable whether it was illegal or not, but even if it was it's a very minor offense. Police would have probably just told him to leave, if they bothered to do anything at all.
I suspect he was up to no good. Maybe casing the place to come back later and steal stuff. Doesn't really matter.
-
I don't think that's an apt analogy,
Agree. A stranger walking up to my door is walking up to an implied barrier, whether the door is open or not. Same if a Jehovah's Witness walks up your walkway past your open garage door. If they enter the garage, they've just crossed a boundary.
I'm not sure how THE law works regarding that in various jurisdictions, but under Ben's law, my doors are barriers. Outside is not inside. I will handle a knock on the front door differently than a stranger standing in my garage or my backyard after they went through a gate. It doesn't mean I'm gonna pull on them, but they will not be handled equally regarding friendliness.
-
The current movement among liberal prosecutors and judges to simply eliminate bail and not press charges for anything less serious than mass murders is only going to increase crime -- as we are already seeing.
There is plenty of blame to go around, so let's add legislators for passing laws requiring probation for "low level" and "property offenses," while at the same time creating mandatory sentences that take the discretion away from judges to decide punishment based on the actual case at bar. And, let's also add appellate and Supreme Court judges who are out of touch with reality and mandate new rules and procedures that further tie up an overburdened system. I could go on and on, but the point is made. The system is spinning around the bowl, headed towards the drain, and the criminals are taking advantage.
-
I thought we argued this at the beginning of this thread. [Shrug] the relevant GA statute:
(a) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally damages any property of another without consent of that other person and the damage thereto is $500.00 or less or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person.
(b) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority:
(1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person for an unlawful purpose;
(2) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden; or
(3) Remains upon the land or premises of another person or within the vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant to depart.
No damage was done to the house, so (a) doesn't apply. The owner of the property has publicly said it wasn't posted, and he never told Aurbury not to be there so (b) 2 and 3 don't apply. b (1) requires the entry to be made for an unlawful purpose, which doesn't seem to be the case. Certainly several folks had said he may have been casing the place but I've not seen any evidence to support that. Short of an unlawful purpose it's very likely that he wasn't trespassing at all, and indeed had done nothing illegal during the jog. So even if the idiots hadn't screwed up the citizen's arrest, they would have been on the hook for kidnapping or unlawful detention.
I know I said it earlier, but I jog with a CCW. If three idiots run me off the road in a pickup, then jump out with shotguns, the gunfight is on. As more evidence has come out in this one I've come to the opinion that it's a shame Aurbury didn't cap all three of them and save the taxpayers the bill for for their prison time.
That doesn't even touch the issue that the dad was an ex-cop. You'll never convince me that he wasn't doing things like this to abuse his authority when he had a badge as well.
-
I thought we argued this at the beginning of this thread. [Shrug] the relevant GA statute:
That doesn't even touch the issue that the dad was an ex-cop. You'll never convince me that he wasn't doing things like this to abuse his authority when he had a badge as well.
oooh, good point, he was so used to doing whatever the heck he wanted that he forgot he lacked qualified imunity
-
I thought we argued this at the beginning of this thread. [Shrug] the relevant GA statute:
No damage was done to the house, so (a) doesn't apply. The owner of the property has publicly said it wasn't posted, and he never told Aurbury not to be there so (b) 2 and 3 don't apply. b (1) requires the entry to be made for an unlawful purpose, which doesn't seem to be the case. Certainly several folks had said he may have been casing the place but I've not seen any evidence to support that. Short of an unlawful purpose it's very likely that he wasn't trespassing at all, and indeed had done nothing illegal during the jog. So even if the idiots hadn't screwed up the citizen's arrest, they would have been on the hook for kidnapping or unlawful detention.
I know I said it earlier, but I jog with a CCW. If three idiots run me off the road in a pickup, then jump out with shotguns, the gunfight is on. As more evidence has come out in this one I've come to the opinion that it's a shame Aurbury didn't cap all three of them and save the taxpayers the bill for for their prison time.
That doesn't even touch the issue that the dad was an ex-cop. You'll never convince me that he wasn't doing things like this to abuse his authority when he had a badge as well.
I didn't watch the trial coverage. Can someone summarize what that new evidence is? I am wondering if there was something I missed.
The one thing I remember is there was a video that was supposedly Aurbury in another incident with a cop that showed he was a very aggressive person. I can see where these guys were expected a certain reaction from Aurbury when they chased him down. Instead of running or being scared, he attacked and ended up getting shot. Since these guys were playing vigilante and took video of it, the legal system gave it too them good and hard.
-
And why shouldn't he be aggressive? He was outnumbered and ougunned. Flight had effectively been cut off, and they had proven willing to chase you down with a truck. Fight is pretty much all that's left. That or surrender and hope they don't do anything to you.
Anyone here have "surrender and hope for the best" on their self defense tactics?
-
And why shouldn't he be aggressive? He was outnumbered and ougunned. Flight had effectively been cut off, and they had proven willing to chase you down with a truck. Fight is pretty much all that's left. That or surrender and hope they don't do anything to you.
Anyone here have "surrender and hope for the best" on their self defense tactics?
My comment was more about how the driver messed up. I am not sure what Aurbury could have done better. He went for the shotgun, failed to get control of it, and got shot. I don't know what they would have done if Aurbury ran or if he just stood there. When he went for the shotgun, that forced a response. Was there a better choice, I don't know.
Putting myself in his shoes: I am usually armed when I am out for a walk. If someone drove up and jumped out with a shotgun, I would be thinking theft and likely draw depending on what it looked like. Yeah, I wouldn't be assuming he out bird hunting. I guess someone could mistake you for someone else so it isn't an impossible scenario.
-
And why shouldn't he be aggressive? He was outnumbered and ougunned. Flight had effectively been cut off, and they had proven willing to chase you down with a truck. Fight is pretty much all that's left. That or surrender and hope they don't do anything to you.
Anyone here have "surrender and hope for the best" on their self defense tactics?
I'm one of the ppl who think he was up to no good, but I have no evidence of that. He still hadn't done anything illegal (yet); and certainly not a felony. The vigilantes were totally in the wrong, and good for him for fighting back; too bad he didn't kill any of them.
-
I'm one of the ppl who think he was up to no good, but I have no evidence of that. He still hadn't done anything illegal (yet); and certainly not a felony. The vigilantes were totally in the wrong, and good for him for fighting back; too bad he didn't kill any of them.
I tend to think he was probably up to no good also, but those guys still shouldn't have done what they did and should have known better. Their own video made sure their conviction took place.
-
Just announced that they have been convicted of "hate crimes" in federal court. Can anyone explain what the purpose of this trial was, since they are already serving life sentences (and rightly so, IMHO) in a state prison? Did the feds think there was a risk they would receive pardons?? That's an insult to the whole state of Georgia
-
Just announced that they have been convicted of "hate crimes" in federal court. Can anyone explain what the purpose of this trial was, since they are already serving life sentences (and rightly so, IMHO) in a state prison? Did the feds think there was a risk they would receive pardons?? That's an insult to the whole state of Georgia
Just piling on for no purpose.
-
Just piling on for no purpose.
Prosecutor padding his/her conviction record?
Brownie points with the SJW mob?
-
Just announced that they have been convicted of "hate crimes" in federal court. Can anyone explain what the purpose of this trial was, since they are already serving life sentences (and rightly so, IMHO) in a state prison? Did the feds think there was a risk they would receive pardons?? That's an insult to the whole state of Georgia
I had heard that defense counsel was hoping that their clients would end up serving a sentence in Federal prison, which are considered better for a long sentence than the Georgia state prison system.
-
I had heard that defense counsel was hoping that their clients would end up serving a sentence in Federal prison, which are considered better for a long sentence than the Georgia state prison system.
Interesting. Does the defense have pull with the Federal prosecutors to push them to go to trial? Or just say that they're going to put up a wimpy defense to make it an easy run?
Ultimately, isn't this just another example of white privilege?
-
Brownie points with the SJW mob?
^^^ This.
-
They hold unacceptable views.
-
Aubrey's mother apparently had an issue with a plea deal on the table back in Jan for letting the convicts go to club fed vs. the state penn. So the plea was squashed by the judge, and the trial went forward to the guilty verdict.
I'm in clear what they are looking at as far as possible sentencing, but only the videographer is even eligible for parole from the state. I guess the fed verdict would keep him in jail if he did get state parole.
-
Prosecutor padding his/her conviction record?
Brownie points with the SJW mob?
Yes and yes. But I have no evidence of that.
-
As medieval as hate crime laws may be, the real tragedy here is that America has no system established that could have matched up these racists with eager victims like Jussie Smollett. Sad
-
As medieval as hate crime laws may be, the real tragedy here is that America has no system established that could have matched up these racists with eager victims like Jussie Smollett. Sad
So we need some sort of online matching service like tinder for racists (both ways). What would be a good name?
KKKinder? Black Fake Hate Crimes Matter? NeverFakeAHateCrimeAgain.com
-
So we need some sort of online matching service like tinder for racists (both ways). What would be a good name?
KKKinder? Black Fake Hate Crimes Matter? NeverFakeAHateCrimeAgain.com
SPLC
-
So we need some sort of online matching service like tinder for racists (both ways). What would be a good name?
KKKinder? Black Fake Hate Crimes Matter? NeverFakeAHateCrimeAgain.com
gohateme
-
So we need some sort of online matching service like tinder for racists (both ways). What would be a good name?
KKKinder? Black Fake Hate Crimes Matter? NeverFakeAHateCrimeAgain.com
https://democrats.org/