Ahmaud Arbery

Guy:Incognito

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Not sure why the color of their skin is relevant but they,.

Its relevant when Im replying to someone who asks what the "black dude " was doing there.

ohnonotgmail

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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.

is there any source that says that they seen arbery commit a crime? to my knowledge there is no such source. the mcmicahels arrived after arbery had already left.

Reasonable suspicion is complely irrevelant. there was no felony committed. you know this but you mention in a dishnest attempt to muddy the waters.

joe40

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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

I can't remember details off hand but I do remember cases in Ireland where further information came out after the court case. I can't think of specific cases off the top off my head. Beers aren't helping.

Gatling

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Its relevant when Im replying to someone who asks what the "black dude " was doing there.

The same black dude he diagnosed as having issues with people in authority

ohnonotgmail

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.

it has no relevance as to whether their attempted citizens arrest was legal. If they cannot show their citizens arrest was legal they will be found guilty. there is evidence that there was a legitimate basis for a citizens arrest.

pjohnson

joe40 wrote: »

I can't remember details off hand but I do remember cases in Ireland where further information came out after the court case. I can't think of specific cases off the top off my head. Beers aren't helping.

The Kriegel case hid a load of Boy A and B's background because it was irrelevant to the events that day.

Overheal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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.

100% running down the road is not a crime.

I see someone running down the street - there is no reasonable suspicion of a felony.

Just stop.

lalababa

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Its relevant when Im replying to someone who asks what the "black dude " was doing there.

The black dude was casing the joint man. The white dudes with the guns man we're casing the black dude man. Some scientific research has proved that the 'black man's brain is smaller that the White's'.



Of course these findings have been disproven , and discredited due to the
Bias nature of the idiot scientists who carried out the research back in the 20's.

Kidchameleon

Overheal wrote: »

100% running down the road is not a crime.

I see someone running down the street - there is no reasonable suspicion of a felony.

Just stop.

Agreed, running down the road is not a crime. I said running from a crime scene may be a crime. Arbery may have been running from a crime scene. He did tresspass on that property and then run from it.

Dont worry Im going to stop *for now* as Im tired of being misrepresented

Kidchameleon

pjohnson wrote: »

The Kriegel case hid a load of Boy A and B's background because it was irrelevant to the events that day.

Plenty of cases allow previous to be brought up. Maybe that will happen with the Arbery case, maybe not. We will see

Gatling

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Agreed, running down the road is not a crime. I said running from a crime scene may be a crime.

The only crime scene is where Ahmaud Arbery was murdered

Overheal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Agreed, running down the road is not a crime. I said running from a crime scene may be a crime. Arbery may have been running from a crime scene. He did tresspass on that property and then run from it.

Dont worry Im going to stop *for now* as Im tired of being misrepresented

Logically invalid:

“He was running from a crime”

What crime?

“We don’t know.”

martingriff

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.

No as it is immaterial

Kidchameleon

Gatling wrote: »

The only crime scene is where Ahmaud Arbery was murdered

Arbery tresspassed on the property. I beleive that makes the property a crime scene. Id be interested in hearing why you think im wrong in that. Please remember tresspassing is a crime even if nothing is stolen

Kidchameleon

martingriff wrote: »

No as it is immaterial

Is that your opinion or do you have any relevant links on Georgia law that confirms it?

martingriff

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Arbery tresspassed on the property. I beleive that makes the property a crime scene. Id be interested in hearing why you think im wrong in that. Please remember tresspassing is a crime even if nothing is stolen

So they saw arbery trespassing on that day at that time?

Overheal

Ahmaud Arbery is automatically a “thug” or a “scumbag” and a “criminal” for bringing a gun to school.

Meanwhile Kaitlin Bennet is a poster child for the right wing...

martingriff

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Is that your opinion or do you have any relevant links on Georgia law that confirms it?

Well I presume the case will be was it a legal citizens arrest or not. What has his past crime to do if it was legal or not?

You have been shown numerous times now which you wilfully ignore that they must have seen a crime been committed at that moment to be a legal citizens arrest.

So what has his past crimes to do with that?

Gatling

Kidchameleon wrote: »

. Id be interested in hearing why you think im wrong in that.

But the white folk were just getting water .


I've yet to see anything other than glorifying a murders while decrying and berating the victim

Overheal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Arbery tresspassed on the property. I beleive that makes the property a crime scene. Id be interested in hearing why you think im wrong in that. Please remember tresspassing is a crime even if nothing is stolen

Criminal trespassing is a misdemeanor. To perform a citizens arrest for a misdemeanor you need immediate knowledge of it. They did not. Running down the street is not immediate knowledge.

Kidchameleon

Never heard of that girl with the gun.

Look, I think the best thing to do with all of these niggly legal details is to wait for them to come up at the trial and comment on them when the experts have spoken. We are all going around in circles here. Peace all

Overheal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Never heard of that girl with the gun.

Look, I think the best thing to do with all of these niggly legal details is to wait for them to come up at the trial and comment on them when the experts have spoken. We are all going around in circles here. Peace all

Bye.

martingriff

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Never heard of that girl with the gun.

Look, I think the best thing to do with all of these niggly legal details is to wait for them to come up at the trial and comment on them when the experts have spoken. We are all going around in circles here. Peace all

So no answer to my question after I answered yours

Kidchameleon

martingriff wrote: »

So no answer to my question after I answered yours

As I have said, I dont know the answer and with all due respect, you havnt said you are a legal expert so I dont beleive you truly know the answer either. Im going to wait until it comes up at the trial and Ill discuss it with you then

Overheal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

As I have said, I dont know the answer and with all due respect, you havnt said you are a legal expert so I dont beleive you truly know the answer either. Im going to wait until it comes up at the trial and Ill discuss it with you then

Do you need to be bar certified to note that someone’s past criminal history has no bearing on the lawfulness of a citizens arrest on a given day for a given offense?

Kidchameleon

Overheal wrote: »

Bye.

I never said I was going anywhere Id still like to discuss the case and share any interesting links I find, I just wont be getting into legal mumbo jumbo until I hear experts at the trial

Overheal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I never said I was going anywhere Id still like to discuss the case and share any interesting links I find, I just wont be getting into legal mumbo jumbo until I hear experts at the trial

Okay then

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Never heard of that girl with the gun.

Look, I think the best thing to do with all of these niggly legal details is to wait for them to come up at the trial and comment on them when the experts have spoken. We are all going around in circles here. Peace all

Tasfasdf

Overheal wrote: »

Ahmaud Arbery is automatically a “thug” or a “scumbag” and a “criminal” for bringing a gun to school.

Meanwhile Kaitlin Bennet is a poster child for the right wing...

[img][/img]https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=514779&d=1590873541

Did she flee from the police and ditch the gun?

So much emotion and whataboutery

Overheal

Tasfasdf wrote: »

Did she flee from the police and ditch the gun?

So much emotion and whataboutery

You tell me if she did. Gaslighting about whataboutery in your own post.

Tasfasdf

Overheal wrote: »

You tell me if she did. Gaslighting about whataboutery in your own post.

You tell me, your the one who brings her to the discussion.