Ahmaud Arbery

Overheal

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't believe the shooter is guilty of murder having reviewed the footage and notes available.
As noted, GA is a concealed carry state, meaning that the mcmichaels were entitled to carry their legally held weapon.
If I'm out for a jog, I dont go scouting out abandoned property for tools to steal.

You’re making a lot of assumptions. The case doesn’t hinge on 2A rights either, dragging up their right to own shotguns or carry them doesn’t buttress their legal defense

Donald Trump

pjohnson wrote: »

Was Ward not trespassing on Nally's property?


Dont see relevance the the Batman wannabee's. As its nothing like this.

Trespassing on property was irrelevant. There was no legal basis in Ireland at the time for being allowed to protect your property.

Guy:Incognito

Donald Trump wrote: »

Nally first shot hit the man in the back as he was running down the driveway.


All well and good to virtue signal in one case and then dodge the question when it comes to something else.


And no, it was not murder. If it was murder, he would still be in prison. He is not. He was convicted of manslaughter and that conviction was later quashed!

They were on his land. One in his house by his account iirc.

Thats leagues closer to stand your ground than what happened in this case.

Why not just go by the facts of the case instead of going on about an unrelated case from a different country with not even similar laws?

ohnonotgmail

Donald Trump wrote: »

Nally first shot hit the man in the back as he was running down the driveway.


All well and good to virtue signal in one case and then dodge the question when it comes to something else.


And no, it was not murder. If it was murder, he would still be in prison. He is not. He was convicted of manslaughter and that conviction was later quashed!

i am aware what he was convicted of. i was giving my opinion.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ELM327 wrote: »

Yes, it is unfortunate what happens, but, people die all the time at the hands of others and it doesnt mean it's murder. It can be accidental, manslaughter, self defense, etc.


That's what the trial will test. And as a reminder, everyone is innocent until and unless proven otherwise in a court of law.

But, thankfully, the thought police don’t exist (yet). So people are free to form their own opinion about the accused just as they are free to think what they like about people who have been acquitted of crimes. Not a jot can be done about that as long as they don’t defame people.

Overheal

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well, were the two fellas acting illegally in what they were attempting to do, or claimed to have been attempting to do? It hasn't been made clear to me that they were.


They might have been acting the prick but might have been legally allowed to do so.


If I am in a pub and a bouncer comes over telling me that I need to leave the premises then I cannot punch him and call him the aggressor. He might be completely in the wrong in the sense that I have not been misbehaving but legally he can be a prick and tell me to leave.

If another random punter comes over and tells me to leave, then I might be justified to consider that as aggression or a threat.




If they genuinely believed that he had committed a crime, they probably were legally allowed to stop him. They didn't have the right to shoot him on sight, but they did have the right to shoot him when he ran at them.

They had to immediate knowledge of any misdemeanor or felony. They had no reasonable suspicion either. Their 911 audio makes it clear they want to prosecute him for a string of trespasses on the property which is a) by itself not a misdemeanor or b) not the immediate crime in question. Citizens arrests deal with crimes of an immediate nature. The McMichaels and their friend were actively waiting to find this one trespasser one particular - we have no evidence or claims by them they ever interacted with anyone else who trespassed on the same property. They wanted the black guy specifically. They wanted to make a citizens arrest for a gun theft that happened weeks prior.

As the primary aggressors stand your ground laws won’t apply to them. 4 minutes of chase makes it clear that Arbery was chased down by them and forced into a fight. They aimed their shotgun at him. You don’t point a gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot. They didn’t do this as a result of him charging the truck or anything. They did this because they jumped out of their vehicle to engage Arbery for crimes they suspected him of weeks prior.

ELM327

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

But, thankfully, the thought police don’t exist (yet). So people are free to form their own opinion about the accused just as they are free to think what they like about people who have been acquitted of crimes. Not a jot can be done about that as long as they don’t defame people.

Yup, mob rules. Just like the not guilty rugby players. Trial by media is more important than the law of the land for some people.


Thankfully the law takes precedence over opinions of inconsequential people like us.

Gatling

ELM327 wrote: »

Yup, mob rules. Just like the not guilty rugby players.

Big difference between rugby players what's app posts Vs taking 2 shotgun round to the chest at point blank range .

Good oul fashioned lynching as long as the Blackman gets the blame it's fine and dandy

Rodin

Unjustified homicide. End of.

ohnonotgmail

ELM327 wrote: »

Yup, mob rules. Just like the not guilty rugby players. Trial by media is more important than the law of the land for some people.


Thankfully the law takes precedence over opinions of inconsequential people like us.

a couple of people posting opinions you dont like does not constitute a mob.

GY_1980

Donald Trump wrote: »

Trespassing on property was irrelevant. There was no legal basis in Ireland at the time for being allowed to protect your property.

There was no statutory footing to protect your property at that time but there was a legal basis through court precedent (common law). One of the major questions in that case was whether Nally could argue a common law self-defence in the context of the killing. The original judge did not think so and refused to allow the jury to consider this.

From what I remember, the legislation that was codified in the aftermath actually relies on “subjective” interpretation i.e what would a “reasonable” person think given the context.

This defense in this case will build a very similar case around the “reasonable suspicion” idea...

ohnonotgmail

GY_1980 wrote: »

There was no statutory footing to protect your property at that time but there was a legal basis through court precedent (common law). One of the major questions in that case was whether Nally could argue a common law self-defence in the context of the killing. The original judge did not think so and refused to allow the jury to consider this.

From what I remember, the legislation that was codified in the aftermath actually relies on “subjective” interpretation i.e what would a “reasonable” person think given the context.

standing over somebody and finishing them off is not reasonable by any standard i am aware of.

GY_1980 wrote: »

This defense in this case will build a very similar case around the “reasonable suspicion” idea...

reasonable suspicion is irrelevant. to effect a citizens arrest you have to see the person committing the crime.

Sean.3516

The case seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Whether or not Arbery was up to no good, this was clearly a bad shoot. It was overzealous vigilantism that resulted in a homicide. First of all, it's not a crime to walk by a construction site gawking in. Even if he had been doing something illegal, that didn't give these three guys the right to round up a posse and trap him at gunpoint the way they did. Even in Georgia, the citizen's arrest laws state that you need to witness the person commit and actual crime in order to effectuate a citizen's arrest. These guys did not witness him commit a crime.

As for the confrontation and the shooting, Arbery certainly made a mistake when he attempted to fight the two guys. He should have just ran away. This doesn't relieve the responsibility on the guys for instigating the confrontation (illegally). Arbery had the right to defend himself even if it wasn't the wisest option under the circumstances. This was quite obviously manslaughter at the very least. Not murder considering these guys' intentions were to capture and question him rather than kill him outright.

None of this is the controversial stuff. All of this can be concluded from both the video and the witness accounts. The truly nefarious aspect of this is the corruption on the part of the Police Department and the local prosecutor for not prosecuting these two guys for so long because they knew the guy who was a retired cop and they gave him a pass for killing a guy.

The only controversial aspect to this story is the media's attempts to shoehorn a racial narrative into this. There's absolutely no evidence that Arbery's race was a factor in any of this. But that won't stop Obama and the media from lamenting the ficticious epidemic of blacks being killed by whites for no reason. It's become clear America has a supply and demand problem when it comes to racism which is the only reason that this became international news.

Overheal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The case seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Whether or not Arbery was up to no good, this was clearly a bad shoot. It was overzealous vigilantism that resulted in a homicide. First of all, it's not a crime to walk by a construction site gawking in. Even if he had been doing something illegal, that didn't give these three guys the right to round up a posse and trap him at gunpoint the way they did. Even in Georgia, the citizen's arrest laws state that you need to witness the person commit and actual crime in order to effectuate a citizen's arrest. These guys did not witness him commit a crime.

As for the confrontation and the shooting, Arbery certainly made a mistake when he attempted to fight the two guys. He should have just ran away. This doesn't relieve the responsibility on the guys for instigating the confrontation (illegally). Arbery had the right to defend himself even if it wasn't the wisest option under the circumstances. This was quite obviously manslaughter at the very least. Not murder considering these guys' intentions were to capture and question him rather than kill him outright.

None of this is the controversial stuff. All of this can be concluded from both the video and the witness accounts. The truly nefarious aspect of this is the corruption on the part of the Police Department and the local prosecutor for not prosecuting these two guys for so long because they knew the guy who was a retired cop and they gave him a pass for killing a guy.

The only controversial aspect to this story is the media's attempts to shoehorn a racial narrative into this. There's absolutely no evidence that Arbery's race was a factor in any of this. But that won't stop Obama and the media from lamenting the ficticious epidemic of blacks being killed by whites for no reason. It's become clear America has a supply and demand problem when it comes to racism which is the only reason that this became international news.

Wrong

https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/496722-i-just-need-to-know-what-hes-doing-wrong-two-911-calls-made

suicide_circus

Georgia is a swing state, political capital to be made.

osarusan

Overheal wrote: »

Citizens arrests deal with crimes of an immediate nature.

I'm not convinced that's right. If somebody sees a criminal who has been on the Most Wanted List for 5 years, they don't have the grounds to try and make a citizen's arrest?


My understanding of citizen's arrests is is that for a misdemeanour, they must have witnessed or have 'immediate knowledge' of the misdemeanour. The did not witness Arbery's trespass on the day of his death, and somebody telling them about it does not appear to constitute immediate knowledge.

However, Travis McMichael had had an altercation with Arbery 12 days earlier - the motion-sensor in the same house/construction site had been triggered, and the owner Larry English called a neighbour, Ray Perez, to ask him to take a look. Along the way Perez met McMichael, and together they saw somebody that Perez gave evidence to be Arbery in the yard of the house. Maybe they can use this as 'immediate knowledge' of a misdemeanour and thus justification for their attempted citizen's arrest 12 days later.

Now, if it was a felony, the standard for citizen's arrests is lower - they need 'reasonable suspicion'. In their evidence to the police, the McMichaels said Arbery resembled somebody involved in some recent burglaries/break-ins (which would be felonies).

But the records suggest that there was just one reported burglary in the area that month - the theft of a gun from Travis McMichael's truck. I have no idea whether the police report of the stolen gun included a description of somebody who resembled Arbery (or any description of a suspect at all. There may have been burglaries reported in January or even before that though.

The McMichaels need to make an argument that they had legitimate reason to be there in the first place. Whether they can argue that they had witnessed a trespass, or that their suspicion that Arbery had committed recent burglaries was 'reasonable' will be central.

blinding

Gatling wrote: »

No a murder was committed and only a court can decide if they are guilty of that charge .

Which they are currently charged with

No Court has decided a Murder happened ! !

Overheal

osarusan wrote: »

I'm not convinced that's right. If somebody sees a criminal who has been on the Most Wanted List for 5 years, they don't have the grounds to try and make a citizen's arrest?


My understanding of citizen's arrests is is that for a misdemeanour, they must have witnessed or have 'immediate knowledge' of the misdemeanour. The did not witness it, and somebody telling them about it does not appear to constitute immediate knowledge.

Now, if it was a felony, the standard for citizen's arrests is lower - they need 'reasonable suspicion'. In their evidence to the police, the McMichaels said Arbery resembled somebody involved in some recent burglaries/break-ins (which would be felonies).

But the records suggest that there was just one reported burglary in the area that month - the theft of a gun from Travis McMichael's truck. I have no idea whether the police report of the stolen gun included a description of somebody who resembled Arbery (or any description of a suspect at all. There may have been burglaries reported in January or even before that though.

Whether they can argue that their suspicion that Arbery had committed recent burglaries was 'reasonable' will be central. The McMichaels need to make an argument that they had legitimate reason to be there in the first place.

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

You would not be able to perform a citizens arrest of someone on a most wanted list.

Danzy

magma69 wrote: »

Lynching black men is absolutely fine if they have previously committed a crime. That's essentially what a load of people on this thread are saying.

Lol.

Hyperbole from your holiness.

Overheal

blinding wrote: »

No Court has decided a Murder happened ! !

And?

Don’t lose your hat the McMichaels will get to tell their story

Ahmaud’s story ended with a shotgun blast.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ELM327 wrote: »

Yup, mob rules. Just like the not guilty rugby players. Trial by media is more important than the law of the land for some people.


Thankfully the law takes precedence over opinions of inconsequential people like us.

Mob rules? :pac: Half the world believes a certain high profile athlete killed his wife 25 years ago. They stroll around the surface of the earth believing that. There doesn’t appear to be many pitchforks waved despite the huge numbers of people who believe in his guilt. People just get on with their lives whilst thinking thoughts in their heads.

Gatling

blinding wrote: »

No Court has decided a Murder happened ! !

That's because it hasn't gone to trial yet .

Three were charged with murder this is a fact

blinding

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

3 armed men (possibly only 2 are armed) in cars chasing an unarmed man thats on foot up and down a road for 5 minutes before boxing him in might lean that in a certain direction.

For most right thinking people anyway.

It was very poor boxing in when Arbery could run either side of the Vehicle and 180 degrees either way as well ! !

joe40

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The case seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Whether or not Arbery was up to no good, this was clearly a bad shoot. It was overzealous vigilantism that resulted in a homicide. First of all, it's not a crime to walk by a construction site gawking in. Even if he had been doing something illegal, that didn't give these three guys the right to round up a posse and trap him at gunpoint the way they did. Even in Georgia, the citizen's arrest laws state that you need to witness the person commit and actual crime in order to effectuate a citizen's arrest. These guys did not witness him commit a crime.

As for the confrontation and the shooting, Arbery certainly made a mistake when he attempted to fight the two guys. He should have just ran away. This doesn't relieve the responsibility on the guys for instigating the confrontation (illegally). Arbery had the right to defend himself even if it wasn't the wisest option under the circumstances. This was quite obviously manslaughter at the very least. Not murder considering these guys' intentions were to capture and question him rather than kill him outright.

None of this is the controversial stuff. All of this can be concluded from both the video and the witness accounts. The truly nefarious aspect of this is the corruption on the part of the Police Department and the local prosecutor for not prosecuting these two guys for so long because they knew the guy who was a retired cop and they gave him a pass for killing a guy.

The only controversial aspect to this story is the media's attempts to shoehorn a racial narrative into this. There's absolutely no evidence that Arbery's race was a factor in any of this. But that won't stop Obama and the media from lamenting the ficticious epidemic of blacks being killed by whites for no reason. It's become clear America has a supply and demand problem when it comes to racism which is the only reason that this became international news.

Fully agree with most of your post, but I can't disregard the racism aspect so lightly.
If this had been two black men shooting a white man do you really think the prosecutor would have been as lenient.
We'll never know but I would find it very hard to believe.
Racism doesn't have to be overt to be a problem. Ingrained sub conscious bias can be just as damaging.

ILoveYourVibes

blinding wrote: »

It was very poor boxing in when Arbery could run either side of the Vehicle and 180 degrees either way as well ! !

Can he out run a speeding bullet?

blinding

Overheal wrote: »

And?

Don’t lose your hat the McMichaels will get to tell their story

Ahmaud’s story ended with a shotgun blast.

Mr Arbery would be alive if he had not tried to grab a legally held fire arm.

blinding

Gatling wrote: »

That's because it hasn't gone to trial yet .

Three were charged with murder this is a fact

They are entitled to a Free and Fair Trial. The Court and Jury will decide.

I assume you are happy with that !

Overheal

blinding wrote: »

It was very poor boxing in when Arbery could run either side of the Vehicle and 180 degrees either way as well ! !

He did.

blinding

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Can he out run a speeding bullet?

A shot gun fires cartridges with pellets !

Had Mr Arbery not made the crazy decision to try to grab a legally held fire-arm from its legal owner then he would be alive and well today !

Overheal

blinding wrote: »

Mr Arbery would be alive if he had not tried to grab a legally held fire arm.

Which was only pointed at him during an unlawful “citizens arrest”