re: Not Just An Innocent Jogger!

quote:

---

This only changes the narrative about his character. You still can't just chase him down and kill him.

---

Seriously...most people who are saying "but but he was robbing the place..." fully believe they should be able to chase him and down and kill him just like they believe they can pick a fight and when they are getting their asses whipped they can shoot a person and it is standing their ground....and unfortunately our society is, at the moment, in a state where we do allow that sort of foolishness. It ain't gonna last long but it is kind of legal right now...

quote:

---

most people who are saying "but but he was robbing the place..." fully believe they should be able to chase him and down and kill him

---

Nope, the two men screwed up by doing what they did. I don't care if he was carrying the house on his back, they shouldn't have gone after him like they did. Like I have said before, this is a fricked up case and I feel it is only get more ridiculous as we go along.

Completely avoidable situation.

quote:

---

I believe so. Their own statements to the police show they didn’t meet the standard required to pursue a suspects and make a citizen’s arrest. This is not really disputable. From there they commit an aggravated assault in an attempt to illegally detain AA Because of this agg assault in progress, AA is now entitled to defend himself, including going after travis once he rounded the vehicle. Because of the agg assault in progress, Travis CANNOT defend himself from AA. That’s a penalty for committing aggravated assaults, you give up your legal ability to defend yourself if the person being assaulted fights back. For those reasons, I believe they will be found guilty on both counts.

---

They might, I really don't know. It will be interesting to see what happens.

quote:

---

This case wouldn't fit 16-5-1(a) because it'd be hard to prove malice aforethought. Most likely they'll go with 16-5-1(c) by proving they were in commission of a felony (aggravated assault) when the death occurred. This is likely why the charges they were booked on by GBI were felony murder and aggravated assault

---

Ding ding ding

quote:

---

But have the easiest road? You need at least a bunch of caveats to make that close to true.

---

You're probably right but they do have many advantages over their white counterparts with everything else being equal.

All white people are not born into wealth. I don't care what anybody thinks about me I'm not racist but I have educated myself about this issue and how out of proportion black on white crime is and has been.

I'm privileged yet affirmative action doesn't help me the media over reports on crime committed by people that look like me or people that share the same skin tone.

My point is quit pushing this bullshite before it all comes out in the open. I've done heard white privilege and white supremacy so many fricking times I'm ready for the conversation let's have that motherfricker.
But when we have that conversation don't get mad when I point out the factual truth that black on white crime is out of proportion and we have to acknowledge it and we have to take steps to reign it in.

We need to end affirmative action we also need to end all of these groups that limit your admission based on the color of your skin. No more NAACP and say goodbye to the Congressional Black Caucus.
But there is nowhere in America today that a well-educated black person doesn't have a better chance of success over a well-educated white person from the same economic background.

quote:

---

You still can't just chase him down and kill him.

---

You don't really believe that is what happened. If you do, then you are intellectually lazy and have reviewed any facts surrounding this case.

Explain the basis for aggravated assault. Google "aggravated assault" and nothing on the video fits the charge. The state may try to hoo doo the jury to get themselves a conviction but if that description of the crime is accurate it will be difficult to uphold on appeal. Not a lawyer obviously but I can read.

quote:

---

Explain the basis for aggravated assault. Google "aggravated assault" and nothing on the video fits the charge. The state may try to hoo doo the jury to get themselves a conviction but if that description of the crime is accurate it will be difficult to uphold on appeal. Not a lawyer obviously but I can read.

---

quote:

---

Assault in Georgia is defined under Ga. Code Ann. § 16-5-20 as any attempt to physically injure another person. You can be charged with assault if you attempt to strike somebody, but miss. An assault is also an intentional act or threat of action that reasonably causes another party to be afraid of impending violence. If you threaten someone in an angry or a menacing manner and the victim believes you will carry out the threat, you could be charged with assault.

---

The shotgun makes it aggravated.

Thus they currently stand charged with Aggravated Assault & Felony Murder.

quote:

---

Explain the basis for aggravated assault. Google "aggravated assault" and nothing on the video fits the charge.

---

quote:

---

§ 16-5-21. Aggravated assault
Universal Citation: GA Code § 16-5-21 (2017)
(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults:
(1) With intent to murder, to rape, or to rob;
(2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury;
(3) With any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in strangulation; or
(4) A person or persons without legal justification by discharging a firearm from within a motor vehicle toward a person or persons.

---

The prosecution will argue that, because the pursuit of AA was illegal under Georgia law, the men placed him in "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury" (see § 16-5-20(a)(1), Simple assault). Because the assault took place with guns, the charge is elevated to aggravated assault.

ETA: And to answer any impending questions about the word "arrest" or "detain," what the McMichaels did could certainly be considered an attempt at arrest. In Brendlin v. California the SCOTUS ruled that that "the test for determining whether a person is seized is whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave under the circumstances." That case had to do with law enforcement pulling over a vehicle, and whether or not a reasonable person would feel free to leave such a traffic stop. I think you can surely argue that AA would not have felt free to leave a situation in which he was being held by two armed men, a vehicle in front, and a vehicle behind.
That's enough to constitute a "citizen's arrest," which the McMichaels had no right to perform.