Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ahmaud Arbery

Options
1…2526283031…40

Comments

  • Options
    #812
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ELM327 wrote: »
    What you see as a drink of water, the law will see as criminal trespass (passing a no entry sign).
    This, in GA, is a defined ground for citizens arrest.


    if you see the person doing it or have immediate knowledge. neither of those apply to the mcmichaels.


  • Options
    #813
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    KiKi III wrote: »
    They had no justifiable reason for taking that man’s life. He had done nothing to deserve that and their suspicions were based primarily on their own prejudices.

    Link please. All the evidence I have provided suggests otherwise.
    KiKi III wrote: »
    It’s disgusting that you’ve spent days here defending his killers kid chameleon. You’d want to have a serious think about that.

    They are heroes in my opinion, they were defending their neighborhood, hopefully they will be released and not locked up to please the mob.
    KiKi III wrote: »
    His mother will never see him again because he stopped for a drink of water at a construction site and two guys made a decision to take the law into their own hands.

    His mother will never see him again because he was a criminal. Now that's not to say he deserved to die but he tried to take a mans shotgun and died in the process.


  • Options
    #814
    pjohnson
    Registered Users Posts: 23,764 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    they didnt see it themselves so you can drop that. the neighbour gave a description. the mcmichaels started driving around looking for someone that matched that description. that is not immediate knowledge. if the neighbour had pointed at somebody running away and said "thats the guy, him there" that might qualify as immediate knowledge. there has to be a direct link between the offence and mcmicahels. acting on a description breaks that link. but dont take my word for it. a lawyer licenced in the state of Georgia thinks the same as i do

    https://fox28media.com/news/local/criminal-defense-attorney-breaks-down-the-citizens-arrest-law-after-arbery-murder
    Kidchameleon was arguing against police reports before so doubt a lawyer will be accepted either.


  • Options
    #815
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ELM327 wrote: »
    You are correct.
    It is immediate knowledge. Immediate knowledge is knowing something is happening, when it is happening. As opposed to "after the fact knowledge"

    they didnt arrive until after any offence was committed. a neighbour told them what happened. how is that not "after the fact knowledge"?


  • Options
    #816
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    if you see the person doing it or have immediate knowledge. neither of those apply to the mcmichaels.

    Can you please define "immediate knowledge".

    It would be helpful to the discussion if we could figure that one out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #817
    pjohnson
    Registered Users Posts: 23,764 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    They are heroes in my opinion, they were defending their neighborhood, hopefully they will be released and not locked up to please the mob.

    No doubt you think the same of George Lloyd's murderers?


  • Options
    #818
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Li


    His mother will never see him again because he was a criminal. Now that's not to say he deserved to die but he tried to take a mans shotgun and died in the process.

    Youre picking up where you banned mate left off going back to this crap. He ran around the other side of the car to avoid travis. If travis hadn't moved from where he was to go towards arbery and initiated the scuffle , it wouldn't have happened and Arbery , would have continued running down the road. They initiated it all.


  • Options
    #819
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Can you please define "immediate knowledge".

    It would be helpful to the discussion if we could figure that one out.

    try looking at the link i posted. or maybe even this one.
    https://www.gpbnews.org/post/breaking-down-georgias-citizens-arrest-law-after-ahmaud-arbery-fatal-shooting

    if this doesnt qualify as a legitimate citizens arrest what makes you think the mcmichaels have a better case?
    In the 2017 case Edwards vs. State, a man chased someone whom he thought had burglarized his home. The homeowner attacked the man with a baseball bat. The court also found in that case that unnecessary force was used and it was not a legitimate citizen's arrest.

    "Edwards' alleged assault of the individual with a baseball bat entailed the use of unreasonable force, and could not have been part of a legitimate citizen's arrest," the court ruled.


  • Options
    #820
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 22,002 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    if you see the person doing it or have immediate knowledge. neither of those apply to the mcmichaels.
    They have immediate knowledge, did you not see the local area watch facebook and the communication with property owner.
    Do keep up.


  • Options
    #821
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Can you please define "immediate knowledge".

    It would be helpful to the discussion if we could figure that one out.

    next to, at the same time. neither of those apply to the mcmichaels.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #822
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ELM327 wrote: »
    They have immediate knowledge, did you not see the local area watch facebook and the communication with property owner.
    Do keep up.

    immediate knowledge of a specific offence. they didnt have that. the property ownerhad immediate knowledge. the mcmichaels acted on second hand information.


  • Options
    #823
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 22,002 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    immediate knowledge of a specific offence. they didnt have that. the property ownerhad immediate knowledge. the mcmichaels acted on second hand information.
    I guess the court will decide who's right then


  • Options
    #824
    MeMen2_MoRi_
    Registered Users Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭MeMen2_MoRi_


    ELM327 wrote: »
    What you see as a drink of water, the law will see as criminal trespass (passing a no entry sign).
    This, in GA, is a defined ground for citizens arrest.

    "In the killing of Mr. Arbery, someone called 911 beforehand to say that a man was inside a house under construction. If that man was Mr. Arbery, and he was there without permission but stole nothing, then he could have been charged with trespassing, a misdemeanor, said Lawrence J. Zimmerman, the president of the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. That means, Mr. Zimmerman said, the men who went after him would not have been authorized to give chase"

    "THE MEN WHO WENT AFTER HIM WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AUTHORISED TO GIVE CHASE"


  • Options
    #825
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ELM327 wrote: »
    I guess the court will decide who's right then

    hopefully they will. the death penalty will then await the mcmichaels.


  • Options
    #826
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    immediate knowledge of a specific offence. they didnt have that. the property ownerhad immediate knowledge. the mcmichaels acted on second hand information.

    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    next to, at the same time. neither of those apply to the mcmichaels.


    Again, can you define "immediate knowledge". Thanks.


  • Options
    #827
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 22,002 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    hopefully they will. the death penalty will then await the mcmichaels.


    I think that's very unlikely even if found guilty.
    Probably a murder 2 or manslaughter charge. GA dont use the death penalty very often


  • Options
    #828
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Again, can you define "immediate knowledge". Thanks.

    can you? according to you receiving a description of somebody taken from a security camera counts as immediate knowledge


  • Options
    #829
    pjohnson
    Registered Users Posts: 23,764 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Again, can you define "immediate knowledge". Thanks.

    How many times do you need it defined.


  • Options
    #830
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 22,002 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    pjohnson wrote: »
    How many times do you need it defined.
    Just once, accurately, would do


  • Options
    #831
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    can you? according to you receiving a description of somebody taken from a security camera counts as immediate knowledge

    I already did.
    pjohnson wrote: »
    How many times do you need it defined.

    Just once.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #832
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Image from the Satilla Shores Neighborhood watch Facebook page. IMHO, give extra weight to the McMichaels having reasonable suspicion.

    Bs and you know it ,

    Amazing the police knew nothing of alleged crimes amazing considering the sacked cop lived there
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #833
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Can we assume seeing as the two of you are clinging so desperately to the hope that a legal definition of what might allow them to actually attempt to stop the guy getting away before the actual police came that you cant justify the way he was killed?


  • Options
    #834
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    I already did.



    Just once.

    here you go. I'm happy to do your thinking for you. will a decision of The Supreme Court of Georgia suffice? i have bolded the relevant parts to assist you further.

    https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/1977/31907-1.html
    While the actual shoplifting was not done in the sight of the manager, appellant's admission, together with other evidence of the shoplifting known by the manager at the store, were sufficient to bring the offense within the immediate knowledge of the manager and authorize him to arrest appellant without a warrant. The terms "in the presence of" and "within his immediate knowledge" have been held to be synonymous. Piedmont Hotel Co. v. Henderson, 9 Ga. App. 672, 681 (72 SE 51) (1911). See also Humphrey v. State, 231 Ga. 855 (204 SE2d 603) (1974). The Court of Appeals recently reached a similar result in *550 Moore v. State, 128 Ga. App. 20 (195 SE2d 275) (1973), where it was held that an admission of an offense by an accused to the arresting party is tantamount to the commission of the offense in the presence of the party making the arrest. Whether the offense is said to be in the presence of, or within the immediate knowledge of, the arresting party, the result is the same as the two phrases mean the same thing.


  • Options
    #835
    MeMen2_MoRi_
    Registered Users Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭MeMen2_MoRi_


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Just once, accurately, would do

    It'll only be "accurate" when the poster agrees with your interpretation.


  • Options
    #836
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Gatling wrote: »
    Bs and you know it ,

    Amazing the police knew nothing of alleged crimes


    I have shared evidence that the police did know about crimes (text messages from police to Larry English). The police were informed that Arbery entered the house on the day of the incident (I have shared the phone call from the neighbor regarding this) I have also shared a phone call from Travis McMichael where he describes a black man entering number 220 looking like he is armed. And yet you still make a post saying the police "knew nothing". Your either not reading the thread or choosing to ignore certain parts of it.

    Gatling wrote: »
    considering the sacked cop lived there


    Can you share evidence that Gregory McMichael was "sacked". I have asked for proof of this about five times now and nobody seems to be able to back it up.


  • Options
    #837
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    here you go. I'm happy to do your thinking for you. will a decision of The Supreme Court of Georgia suffice? i have bolded the relevant parts to assist you further.

    https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/1977/31907-1.html


    I will help but I think we need to get to some kind of agreed upon definition. From my reading of that, it would seem to me that "immediate knowledge" is as good as being there and witnessing the crime. Do you have a different interpretation?


  • Options
    #838
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Kidchameleon wrote: »


    Can you share evidence that Gregory McMichael was "sacked". I have asked for proof of this

    He was removed from the police in 2006 his badge and gun was taken off him along with his police vehicles ,he couldn't identify as a police officer or get involved in police matters ,he was then moved to a civilian job in a DA's office.


    So yeah he was sacked unless your trying to twist the narrative like you have from your first post onwards
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #839
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    I will help but I think we need to get to some kind of agreed upon definition. From my reading of that, it would seem to me that "immediate knowledge" is as good as being there and witnessing the crime. Do you have a different interpretation?

    what part of
    The terms "in the presence of" and "within his immediate knowledge" have been held to be synonymous.

    are you struggling to understand? "Immediate knowledge" is the SAME THING as being there and witnessing the crime. if you did not witness the crime you do not have immediate knowledge. the terms are interchangeable. that is what synonymous means


  • Options
    #840
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Image from the Satilla Shores Neighborhood watch Facebook page. IMHO, give extra weight to the McMichaels having reasonable suspicion.


    AV879Rr.jpg

    Is there a non redacted version of these knocking about? What are they calling him in the message where they say he freaks out when *redacted* sees something patrolling. Wouldn't suit to be a certain n word.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #841
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    hopefully they will. the death penalty will then await the mcmichaels.

    I hope they get prison time for their crime, but no one deserves the death penalty.
    That is why I despise what the McMichaels did, they went after a man armed with guns. Of course a fatality is highly likely.
    Just let the police handle it.
    Unfortunately fatality is still a possible outcome but less likely.
    That were cowardly macho assholes, nothing else. Certainly not heroes like some are suggesting.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement