Ahmaud Arbery

ohnonotgmail

Kidchameleon wrote: »

McMichaels saw Arbery running from the crime scene. He also saw several surveillance videos of Arbery trespassing on the same property. I get peoples arguments as to why that may not be "immediate knowledge" but I believe it qualifies as immediate knowledge (note I am saying "I believe" as I do not "know"). Bear in mind, nobody has found the definition of immediate knowledge under Georgia law and I have linked the opinion of two district attorneys who believe the McMichales had sufficient grounds for a citizens arrest. We could all be wrong on this "immediate knowledge" aspect of the case & I think the court is the best place for it to be decided.

Did the mcmichaels see arbery commit a crime? yes or no?

ohnonotgmail

Gatling wrote: »

He's clearly now trolling now .

that was clear yesterday

Hammer Archer

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have visited many many sites about this case looking for specific information. I may have chanced upon some unfavorable sites and missed other objectionable content contained within. As far as I am aware, all the information I have presented is true & in two instances where it was pointed out I was wrong, I corrected the issue publicly in thread.

Which post specifically contained the link? Sorry if I missed objectionable content on any particular site.

This one. Dunno, I've personally never "chanced upon" white supremacist websites before. Seems like I sort of site you'd either go looking for or be linked to it by someone who shares that viewpoint.
It's been pointed out to you that countless things you've posted are wrong, you've just admitted two of them. And even the ones you eventually admitted were incorrect, you initially claimed that numerous sources backed your statements up (e.g. that he lived 12 miles away). I'd be willing to bet good money that these "sources" were similar to the website you posted previously.

Kidchameleon

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Did the mcmichaels see arbery commit a crime? yes or no?

I am not 100% sure is the short answer.

Greg McMichaels did see Arbery fleeing from the direction of a known crime scene (I'm not sure if that in itself is a crime). He also saw Arbery entering that house on other occasions. He saw footage of Arbery in that house. He had reports from neighbors of a man matching Arbery's description entering that house (I know that is not 100% reliable). He had knowledge of Arbery's criminal past. He asked Arbery to stop running several times. These things combined I believe gave McMichales "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion. " Note that this is my limited understanding of the law having taken all information provided in thread into account. Thanks for your input on that by the way, it was helpful.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/17-4-60/

"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. "

This is the most relevent definition I can find of "reasonable suspicion". I understand that it is not from Georgia, but cannot find their definition.

https://wolflawcolorado.com/difference-between-probable-cause-and-reasonable-suspicion/


""there is reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, is currently engaged in criminal activity or plans to commit a crime."

I believe Arbery refusing to stop for McMichales when ordered along with witnessing Arbery running from the direction of the house game him reasonable suspicion.

Here are some more legal findings I have made that might be of use to the discussion (not 100% pertaining to Georgia but to give some indication of what we are dealing with)

Burglary

The crime of burglary, though most often equated with theft, doesn't actually require that a theft occur, or even be intended. Burglary is simply the unlawful entry into a structure, such as a home or business, with the intent to commit a crime inside. Although many burglaries involve theft, the crime intended can be any crime from theft, to murder, to making pot brownies.

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/georgia-law/georgia-burglary-laws.html

Although burglary is often associated with theft or robbery, these are all different types of property crimes. The difference between them usually depends on how the crime is committed. So, for example, robbery is a form of theft that involves the use or threat of force. The crime of burglary requires a defendant to unlawfully enter into a structure such as a home or a business with the intent to commit a crime inside. However, the crime intended inside of a structure is not limited to theft but can include other crimes such as kidnapping or assault.

Georgia burglary laws distinguish between three forms of burglary, first degree burglary, second degree burglary, and "smash and grab" burglary.

The elements for first degree burglary include:

Entering or remaining in an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any other dwelling structure; and
The intent to commit a felony or theft inside.

The same elements apply to second degree burglary except that this crime applies to structures that are not used as dwellings.

Smash and grab burglary is a crime against businesses and requires that a defendant:

Intentionally enter a retail establishment;
Intend to commit a theft; and
Cause damages in excess of $500.

https://www.georgiacriminallawyer.com/burglary

Intent to Commit a Crime Within

Many people are under the misconception that the only crime that can be associated with burglary is stealing. However, this is not true. You could be convicted of burglary if you had the intention of kidnapping, assault, or rape. If you broke into and entered a house with the intent to commit one of those felonies, you would still be convicted of burglary. You do not have to take any personal property items to be convicted of burglary.

I didn't even steal anything:

Even though you may not have stolen anything, you could still be convicted of burglary. According to Johnson v. Jackson, it is not necessary that the defendant actually steal anything. 140 Ga. App. 252, (1976). It is enough if they enter without authority and with intent to commit theft.

Kidchameleon

Hammer Archer wrote: »

This one. Dunno, I've personally never "chanced upon" white supremacist websites before. Seems like I sort of site you'd either go looking for or be linked to it by someone who shares that viewpoint.
It's been pointed out to you that countless things you've posted are wrong, you've just admitted two of them. And even the ones you eventually admitted were incorrect, you initially claimed that numerous sources backed your statements up (e.g. that he lived 12 miles away). I'd be willing to bet good money that these "sources" were similar to the website you posted previously.

Apologies for linking that website. I understand having looked at other content on it that you may have found it offensive. I assure you I just quickly Googled a search term for whatever we were discussing in thread at that point and I was sent there. I linked that site without vetting the rest of its content. Again, apologies if it caused you any upset, that was not my intention.

Either way, their information about his gun charge was accurate. I have provided several sources throughout this discussion that proves Arbery had a gun charge.

This source may be more appropriate:

https://www.news4jax.com/news/2013/12/09/police-man-brought-gun-to-high-school-basketball-game/

(more info about this source, affiliated with CBS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WJXT)

"BRUNSWICK, Ga. – A quick acting police officer in Brunswick stopped a teenager with a loaded gun from entering a high school basketball game Tuesday night.

Police arrested 19-year-old Ahmaud Marquez Avery (pictured below), who is not a student at Brunswick.

"The man ran through the parking lot. I tried to get him to stop as well. He would not stop for us," said Glynn County Schools Chief of Police, Rod Ellis. "We ended up chasing him to the back of the school were other officers helped us apprehend him."

Ellis said the .380 caliber semi-automatic handgun slipped out of the teen's pants.

A parent, who did not want to be identified, told Channel 4 he saw the gun as he was about to enter the school gym. He said police were everywhere.
"They were trying to keep everyone calm and away from the gun that was on the ground. They wouldn't let anyone in or out of the gym," said the parent.

The basketball game continued without interruption while police arrested Avery.

"The main thing is we stopped him from getting into the event," Ellis said.


"We don't know what his intentions were but you know it's never a good combination when you bring a weapon to a school event clearly when it's posted that you can't."

At Friday night's basketball game, Chief Ellis said they added more officers and from now on, every person will be scanned with a metal detecting wand.
Police said Avery is out of jail on bond.

Two of the police officers suffered injuries. One has been treated for a fractured hand."

---

Its a terrible shame that police officers were injured in this case, thankfully the gun had slipped out of Arberys pants. Who knows what would have happened once cornered if he still had the gun? Perhaps nothing, perhaps only something minor.

It also makes me wonder, what on Earth was he doing bringing a LOADED gun to a basketball game?

Guy:Incognito

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I am not 100% sure is the short answer.
]

You are sure. You saw the reconstruction, because you asked for it at least once . It shows him running off on the cctv and tells you they pull out after.

Gatling

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Apologies for linking that website

It makes zero difference to this case he was murdered by white men chasing him through a white neighborhood with murder on their minds .

Can you please stop dragging Ahmaud Arbery past up to muddy what happened here we all know he was previously arrested ,and given probation years ago ,
seems the DA didn't think it was as serious as your making it out to be or he wouldn't have just got s slap on the wrist .

Kidchameleon

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You are sure. You saw the reconstruction, because you asked for it at least once . It shows him running off on the cctv and tells you they pull out after.

Just to be sure we are on the same page, are you talking about this video:

Greg McMichael was in his sons front yard (230 Satilla Drive I beleive) & saw Arbery running from the direction of 220 Satilla Drive. He went inside his sons house, told Travis (his son) that the man they had seen trespassing recently had just run past the house. Both men grab their guns (because they had reason to suspect Arbery might be armed) and leave in the truck, sometime after Arbery had run past.


This is consistent with Gregs statement & is my understanding of each mans movements in the lead up to the fatality.

Overheal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Just to be sure we are on the same page, are you talking about this video:

Greg McMichael was in his sons front yard (230 Satilla Drive I beleive) & saw Arbery running from the direction of 220 Satilla Drive. He went inside his sons house, told Travis (his son) that the man they had seen trespassing recently had just run past the house. Both men grab their guns (because they had reason to suspect Arbery might be armed) and leave in the truck, 1 minute and 30 seconds after Arbery had run past.


This is consistent with Gregs statement & is my understanding of each mans movements in the lead up to the fatality.

So to be clear, he was a suspect in a theft from January 1st, and neither person saw or had reasonable suspicion of any misdemeanor or felony occurring on the day of February 23.

Guy:Incognito

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Greg McMichael was in his sons front yard (230 Satilla Drive I beleive) & saw Arbery running from the direction of 220 Satilla Drive. He went side his sons house, told Travis (his son) that the man they had seen trespassing recently had just run past the house. Both men grab their guns (because they had reason to suspect Arbery might be armed) and leave in the truck, sometime after Arbery had run past.
.

So, they didnt see him do anything then. Thanks for clarifying 100%. At least youre sure now.



Edit. added the full quote, lest i be accused of misquoting.

Kidchameleon

Please see post #1081 for my thoughts on what they saw/did not see & their grounds for reasonable suspicion

Guy:Incognito

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Please see post #1081 for my thoughts on what they saw/did not see & their grounds for reasonable suspicion

I quoted the bit where you say he saw him running form the direction of the building site. Thats all I need thanks.

He didnt see him committing any crime and you said it yourself.

jam_mac_jam

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I quoted the bit where you say he saw him running form the direction of the building site. Thats all I need thanks.

He didnt see him committing any crime and you said it yourself.

Which is the most important point and why they couldn't carry out a legitimate citizens arrest. The rest is all bull**** to try and make the victim deserving of what he got.

Even if he was Ted Bundy those men had no right to shoot him. You call the police and let them deal with it.

joe40

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Which is the most important point and why they couldn't carry out a legitimate citizens arrest. The rest is all bull**** to try and make the victim deserving of what he got.

Even if he was Ted Bundy those men had no right to shoot him. You call the police and let them deal with it.

That is the Crux of the matter. All the stuff dragged up about his past is immaterial to the shooting.

Kidchameleon

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I quoted the bit where you say he saw him running form the direction of the building site. Thats all I need thanks.

He didnt see him committing any crime and you said it yourself.

Just to be clear, I dont know if running from the scene of a crime is a crime in itself. What I am saying is, McMichaels did see him running therefore he could have witnessed a crime ie. the crime running from a crime scene

We know with video evidence (that McMichaels did not have at the time) that Arbery was in the house on the tragic day & commited a crime by tresspassing therefore 220 Satilla Drive was a crimescene (in my amateur understanding, I could be wrong on that)

I hope that makes things more clear.

Note that this post is not a commentary on the reasonable suspicion/immeadiate knowledge element of the case.

pjohnson

So he could have maybe witnessed a possible crime?


Thats your new line to validate the fake citizens arrest?

Kidchameleon

joe40 wrote: »

All the stuff dragged up about his past is immaterial to the shooting.

Do you think his past will be used by the defense in the trial? If so, it is very releant to the discussion we are having here.

lalababa

Looks like the black dude had a few pennies short of a pound. What's he doing in someone else's almost finished house 1.8 miles from home? He knows he's being rumbled and starts running. He is chased up and down the street by people with guns. Yet he stays on the street?? And keeps running (does not want a 3rd strike??) He eventually gets a little boxed in. But still could easily keep running, them fat whites aren't gonna run after him.
I reckon that ex-cop fired as black dude passed the front of the van. Black dude started fighting for his life then.
Ex-cop and black dudes are morons. -Manslaugther-5yrs out in 5.

Kidchameleon

lalababa wrote: »

What's he doing in someone else's almost finished house 12 miles from home?

1.8 miles from home. See police report on tazer incedent (somewhere in thread) for confirmation of his adress, check distance to Satilla Drive

pjohnson

Oh wow back to the 12 miles fantasy now :pac:

joe40

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Do you think his past will be used by the defense in the trial? If so, it is very releant to the discussion we are having here.

Would his past even be admissable. I'm no legal expert but I would have thought the jury would be instructed to only consider evidence directly relating to the shooting.

I know there have been plenty of high profile Irish cases where things were kept from the jury to prevent bias.

lalababa

Some dude said it was 12 man. Still no reason to run him down and shoot him. But yeah he was casing that place out man.

jam_mac_jam

pjohnson wrote: »

Oh wow back to the 12 miles fantasy now :pac:

And round and round

Kidchameleon

joe40 wrote: »

Would his past even be admissable. I'm no legal expert but I would have thought the jury would be instructed to only with evidence directly relating to the shooting.

I know there have been plenty of high profile Irish cases where things were kept from the jury to prevent bias.

It will be interesting to see weather it will form part of the defense. I have a feeling it might seeing as his past includes firearms offenses/attacking police (or leading them to be injured its unclear)/resisting arrest and burglary. They all seem very relevant to the events of the day if one is being perfectly honest and logical. Again, like you, Im no legal expert so we shall see.

Guy:Incognito

lalababa wrote: »

Looks like the black dude had a few pennies short of a pound. What's he doing in someone else's almost finished house 1.8 miles from home? .

Same thing the white people that went in too were doing.

joe40

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It will be interesting to see weather it will form part of the defense. I have a feeling it might seeing as his past includes firearms offenses/attacking police/resisting arrest and burglary. They all seem very relevant to the events of the day if one is being perfectly honest and logical. Again, like you, Im no legal expert so we shall see.

No his past is not relevant. The only thing relevant is whether the shooting was lawful/ justified or not.

It may appeal to a twisted sense of justice for some people, but it is not relevant to the shooting.

pjohnson

If the McMichaels try to represent themselves it might be used.


I doubt anyone competent will bring up irrelevant shít .

Kidchameleon

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Same thing the white people that went in too were doing.

Not sure why the color of their skin is relevant but they, to our knowledge were not spotted exiting the house & did not flee after being spotted like Mr Arbery did.

Guy:Incognito

lalababa wrote: »

Some dude said it was 12 man.

Well thats enough proof for me

Kidchameleon

joe40 wrote: »

No his past is not relevant. The only thing relevant is whether the shooting was lawful/ justified or not.

It may appeal to a twisted sense of justice for some people, but it is not relevant to the shooting.

Have you any cases to link that would back that opinion up with precedent or is that your amateur legal opinion?