Ahmaud Arbery

[Fireballer 2,369]

19 hours ago, tanatastic said:

None of that is relevant. You still don’t attack men with guns. In the list of 100 options he had, he chose the only one that resulted in his death. Attack them is the only option that gets him killed. They were not planning to gun down a man in broad daylight, he left them no choice. If he takes that gun he kills both guys. They had the guns to control him and make him comply. Their reasoning on that is irrelevent.

Actually, it's all relevant.  Before any pursuit happens, it has to be proven that they met the standards of the GA citizens arrest statute.  If not, they're fuked.

[TBayXXXVII 2,106]

45 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Actually, it's all relevant.  Before any pursuit happens, it has to be proven that they met the standards of the GA citizens arrest statute.  If not, they're fuked.

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS
ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
§ 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

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.

 

Honestly, I don't know if they meet this standard.  I don't remember.  My guess is no, because they're being charged with attempted kidnapping.  Now, if they're being charged with attempted kidnapping and not murder, I'm inclined to the think @tanatastic is right.

[Utilit99 4,099]

16 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS
ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
§ 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

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.

 

Honestly, I don't know if they meet this standard.  I don't remember.  My guess is no, because they're being charged with attempted kidnapping.  Now, if they're being charged with attempted kidnapping and not murder, I'm inclined to the think @tanatastic is right.

What's with the civil rights charge?

[TBayXXXVII 2,106]

17 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

What's with the civil rights charge?

These charges are confusing.  The civil rights charge is that these guys used intimidation to detain him.  I guess that's true... they had guns.

• No murder charge... but attempted kidnapping: meaning, they didn't satisfy the citizen's arrest standard.
• No murder charge... but interference with civil rights: meaning, they threatened Arbery.
• No murder charge... but using and brandishing a firearm: meaning, they showed the gun and used it.

My guess is that they have a great case for self defense.  I mean, at the very least, it looks like the DA would have an easy shot at a conviction for involuntary manslaughter.  Then again, for all I know, these offenses may bring a 10 year sentence.

[Fireballer 2,369]

35 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS
ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
§ 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

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.

 

Honestly, I don't know if they meet this standard.  I don't remember.  My guess is no, because they're being charged with attempted kidnapping.  Now, if they're being charged with attempted kidnapping and not murder, I'm inclined to the think @tanatastic is right.

Some type of murder is one of the state charges

[TBayXXXVII 2,106]

1 minute ago, Fireballer said:

Some type of murder is one of the charges

Voltaire posted that their wasn't.

[Fireballer 2,369]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

Voltaire posted that their wasn't.

No Fed murder charges, state charged them with murder. Unless something changed.

[bostonlager 2,457]

11 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

No Fed murder charges, state charged them with murder. Unless something changed.

Pretty sure they dropped it.

[Fireballer 2,369]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Voltaire posted that their wasn't.

1 minute ago, bostonlager said:

Pretty sure they dropped it.

The Fed indictment from April 28 is latest I can find...

All three defendants have also been charged in a separate state proceeding with malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and criminal attempt to commit a felony. No trial date has been set for the state case.

[TBayXXXVII 2,106]

11 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

The Fed indictment from April 28 is latest I can find...

All three defendants have also been charged in a separate state proceeding with malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and criminal attempt to commit a felony. No trial date has been set for the state case.

I just read that the trial date for the murder charge is in October.  Personally, I'm ok with it.  Fry'em for all I care.  They were idiots for even being involved in this.  Just based on what I know about the case, which is very little, I don't see how they're going to be able to get a conviction on murder.  It's hard to prove intent when they had multiple chances to shoot him and only fired after Arbery came at them.

[Fireballer 2,369]

6 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I just read that the trial date is in October.  Personally, I'm ok with it.  Fry'em for all I care.  They were idiots for even being involved in this.  Just based on what I know about the case, which is very little, I don't see how they're going to be able to get a conviction on murder.  It's hard to prove intent when they had multiple chances to shoot him and only fired after Arbery came at them.

Just spitballin' here...could one reasonably assume that Arbury was fearful of his life when the son intentionally moved to encounter Arbury at front of truck?  Arbury avoided the son by going around passenger side.  If the son had no legal right to detain Arbury, I think you could argue that Arbury was entitled to use any force necessary to escape the son, therefore there's no self defense for the son.  But as you said, there's a ton to learn about this still.  Hopefully the trial is carried on HLN.

[TBayXXXVII 2,106]

1 minute ago, Fireballer said:

Just spitballin' here...could one reasonably assume that Arbury was fearful of his life when the son intentionally moved to encounter Arbury at front of truck?  Arbury avoided the son by going around passenger side.  If the son had no legal right to detain Arbury, I think you could argue that Arbury was entitled to use any force necessary to escape the son, therefore there's no self defense for the son.  But as you said, there's a ton to learn about this still.  Hopefully the trial is carried on HLN.

I'm sure there will be some people who would buy that.  I don't think I'd hold that against them, but to me, common sense says that where you see a gun, run the other way... not towards it.

 

In the video, you see Arbery running down the middle of the road and the father and son are parked in the right lane as Arbery runs up to them.  Arbery starts to run off the road to the right, then turns around and runs at the son(?).  After attacking the kid, is when shots were fired.  So, why not keep running away.  There was a house and open land to run down.  Why not keep running?  If he's afraid of getting shot, why run towards the gun and towards unfair numbers?

As you said, just spit balling... do we really know if either the father and son or Arbery knew that the father and son didn't have the right to detain Arbury?  I'm guessing the father and son were under the impression that they had every right to do so.  I think they may have a case.  If they saw Arbery leave a house (private property), then they may be right.

[Fireballer 2,369]

4 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

 

 

In the video, you see Arbery running down the middle of the road and the father and son are parked in the right lane as Arbery runs up to them.  Arbery starts to run off the road to the right, then turns around and runs at the son(?).  After attacking the kid, is when shots were fired.  So, why not keep running away.  There was a house and open land to run down.  Why not keep running?  If he's afraid of getting shot, why run towards the gun and towards unfair numbers?

 

Arbery is running down road and makes an evasive maneuver to avoid the son, who is on the driver's side of pick up.  In reaction to Arbery going around passenger side, the son intentionally goes to front of truck to encounter Arbery. The son moves from his position to attempt a detention he most likely has no right to make. Him possessing a firearm during this potentially illegal detention is where I think Arbery gets the right to do whatever necessary to escape.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,106]

1 minute ago, Fireballer said:

Arbery is running down road and makes an evasive maneuver to avoid the son, who is on the driver's side of pick up.  In reaction to Arbery going around passenger side, the son intentionally goes to front of truck to encounter Arbery. The son moves from his position to attempt a detention he most likely has no right to make. Him possessing a firearm during this potentially illegal detention is where I think Arbery gets the right to do whatever necessary to escape.  

As for: "The son moves from his position to attempt a detention he most likely has no right to make".  I don't know this is true.  Georgia law states that if these guys saw Arbery in the act, they have the right to perform a citizen's arrest.  I don't know if they did or didn't.

Yes, Arbery does have the right to do whatever he deems necessary to escape, but that doesn't make the decision right.  The right decision is to run away.  Period.  These guys are not going to drive through other people's property. 

The thing is, you have to prove intent to kill with a murder charge.  Once Arbery runs at the son, they can make the claim (and I'd buy it), that self defense is what cause the son to shoot Arbery.  Remember, they're under the impression that Arbery is a criminal, not just some random person.  Now, if we're talking involuntary manslaughter, I can buy that.

[Fireballer 2,369]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

As for: "The son moves from his position to attempt a detention he most likely has no right to make".  I don't know this is true.  Georgia law states that if these guys saw Arbery in the act, they have the right to perform a citizen's arrest.  I don't know if they did or didn't.

Yes, Arbery does have the right to do whatever he deems necessary to escape, but that doesn't make the decision right.  The right decision is to run away.  Period.  These guys are not going to drive through other people's property. 

The thing is, you have to prove intent to kill with a murder charge.  Once Arbery runs at the son, they can make the claim (and I'd buy it), that self defense is what cause the son to shoot Arbery.  Remember, they're under the impression that Arbery is a criminal, not just some random person.  Now, if we're talking involuntary manslaughter, I can buy that.

These are all good claims that I'm sure will be argued. My contention is that self defense is no defense if your attempting an illegal detection.  At this point, Arbery has already been chased and multiple detentions attempted. It all circles back to whether their attempts to detain actually met Georgia law.  From what I've read, they witnessed nothing.  Pops was cutting grass and called the son when he saw Arbery in the street.

[Voltaire 4,554]

https://apnews.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-georgia-hate-crimes-crime-government-and-politics-ef101bfbf96f3ee921c29c6dcf89e7eb?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral

I re-read my link because of Fireballer's talking about murder. The story is about federal charges which are those three listed, but if you read down halfway, Georgia is trying them for murder. Can't believe I missed that.

[tanatastic 2,061]

2 hours ago, Fireballer said:

Actually, it's all relevant.  Before any pursuit happens, it has to be proven that they met the standards of the GA citizens arrest statute.  If not, they're fuked.

One look at his criminal record and reasonable cause for suspicion will be a no brainer making any pursuit understandable. I chalk the case up to manslaughter by reason of self defense. Unlawful attempt of detainment could be there as well but attempted kidnapping is laughable. Chasing someone down doesn’t mean you plan to tie them up in your basement. They wanted to question him and play cops and robbers while flexing with their guns to feel in control. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,106]

26 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

These are all good claims that I'm sure will be argued. My contention is that self defense is no defense if your attempting an illegal detection.  At this point, Arbery has already been chased and multiple detentions attempted. It all circles back to whether their attempts to detain actually met Georgia law.  From what I've read, they witnessed nothing.  Pops was cutting grass and called the son when he saw Arbery in the street.

I agree with you on a lot of this.  What I don't know in terms of trials is, if you think you have the legal right to do something (citizen's arrest in this case), wouldn't self defense be a viable defense?  I don't know this.  If I were on the jury, I'd need to be told this.  My thinking is that if you're making a citizens arrest and you feel threatened, then it's no different than a cop making an arrest and feeling threatened.  Just because you have the gun, it doesn't mean you can't be the victim.  I prefer these guys go to jail for a long time.  But I just fear that if they over charge them, they're going to get off.  If they get off here, there's probably a good chance they get cleared on the federal charges too.

You can't charge someone with a hate crime if a court finds them innocent of their actions.  Georgia will have said that these guys were within their rights in the actions they took... hence, you can't make a federal charge that finds them guilty of crimes that Georgia said they didn't commit.

[lod001 1,235]

5 hours ago, bostonlager said:

The entire thing is headed down the road to nowhere and is why you don't hear anymore in the news about it. These guys will walk, as they should, and AA will be remembered as the thief that got what he deserved. 

He'll get a statue. 

[Fireballer 2,369]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I agree with you on a lot of this.  What I don't know in terms of trials is, if you think you have the legal right to do something (citizen's arrest in this case), wouldn't self defense be a viable defense?  I don't know this.  If I were on the jury, I'd need to be told this.  My thinking is that if you're making a citizens arrest and you feel threatened, then it's no different than a cop making an arrest and feeling threatened.  

Lots of good questions here.  Hopefully the jury gets good directions.  I'm thinking if you don't have a legal right to detain, there is no self defense.  As a former LEO, in the state I worked, citizens could resist an illegal detention by a LEO by using deadly force if needed.

[TBayXXXVII 2,106]

1 hour ago, Fireballer said:

Lots of good questions here.  Hopefully the jury gets good directions.  I'm thinking if you don't have a legal right to detain, there is no self defense.  As a former LEO, in the state I worked, citizens could resist an illegal detention by a LEO by using deadly force if needed.

Yeah, I'm with you.  If what they did was illegal, then they're screwed.  I think that this case could all boil down to something as simple as whether or not those guys had a right to perform a citizen's arrest.  If Georgia law backs up with those guys did as having a right, I don't see how self defense is not enough to get acquitted of murder.

[Herbivore 904]

7 hours ago, bostonlager said:

The entire thing is headed down the road to nowhere and is why you don't hear anymore in the news about it. These guys will walk, as they should, and AA will be remembered as the thief that got what he deserved. 

I imagine you said the same thing about Drejka.  These 2 are going down, and they deserve it.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,566]

as we learned murder doesn't need to be premeditated anymore

good job justice system

 

[IGotWorms 3,300]

3 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

as we learned murder doesn't need to be premeditated anymore

good job justice system

 

It’s really only ever been first degree murder that had to be premeditated.

[peenie 1,690]

TAMIR RICE

 (figure it out)

[peenie 1,690]

Let me help you racist ass mofos:

 

[peenie 1,690]

Explain why it was okay for police officers to shoot this 12 year old kid dead because they felt threatened by a toy gun but Ahmad Aubrey shouldn’t feel threatened or defend himself with his bear hands by a truck that has been chasing him down and hit him for 7 minutes? And when a person gets out of his car with a rifle!!! For simply walking into an empty half built home?!!  One of these cases is incorrect. Either a gun is threatening or it’s not. Whack ass racist country. Fock y’all racist asses. They’re gonna fry and your way of thinking is gonna die soon. We’re so sick of you. 

[Strike 3,948]

Just now, peenie said:

Explain why it was okay for police officers to shoot this 12 year old kid dead because the felt threatened by a toy gun but Ahmad Aubrey shouldn’t feel threatened or defend himself with his bear hands by a truck that has been chasing him down and hit him for 7 minutes? One of these cases is incorrect. Either a gun is threatening or it’s not. Whack ass racist country. Fock y’all racist asses. They’re gonna fry and your way of thinking is gonna die soon. We’re so sick of you. 

Yesterday you called us all racist, took your ball home, and vowed never to visit this thread again.  Today, you Peenied that post and here you are.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. 

[peenie 1,690]

I have lost all respect for each and every one of you.

[peenie 1,690]

Just now, Strike said:

Yesterday you called us all racist, took your ball home, and vowed never to visit this thread again.  Today, you Peenied that post and here you are.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. 

And I’ll come back every day to remind you how much I despise your existence. 

[Strike 3,948]

Just now, peenie said:

And I’ll come back every day to remind you how much I despise your existence. 

And that's fine.  It's like you think we care. 

[peenie 1,690]

And I will delete and keep deleting!!!

[Strike 3,948]

1 minute ago, peenie said:

I have lost all respect for each and every one of you.

Even the black ones?

[peenie 1,690]

Just now, Strike said:

And that's fine.  It's like you think we care. 

You obviously do!

[peenie 1,690]

Just now, Strike said:

Even the black ones?

I’m the only black one here. 

[Strike 3,948]

Just now, peenie said:

I’m the only black one here. 

Nah. We have a couple others.  They just don't post much. 

[Strike 3,948]

1 minute ago, peenie said:

You obviously do!

No one will ever accuse you of properly reading a room.

[DonS 3,063]

Just now, Strike said:

Nah. We have a couple others.  They just don't post much. 

It's because they are being oppressed!!!!  Rise up brothas and sistahs!!!! 

[Strike 3,948]

1 minute ago, DonS said:

It's because they are being oppressed!!!!  Rise up brothas and sistahs!!!! 

I'm so glad Peenie was able to rise up from her oppressed exclusive private school upbringing to become a productive member of society.

[Gladiators 1,903]

11 minutes ago, peenie said:

And I will delete and keep deleting!!!

How original!!!