- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Greg and Travis McMichaels - Could they get convicted on 2nd degree murder charges?
Posted on 5/8/20 at 6:05 am to davyjones
Posted on 5/8/20 at 6:05 am to davyjones
Someone give me a scenario of how a citizens arrest should go down. Do the citizens arrest laws allow the citizen to arrest at gunpoint? If so, then they go free, period. They called the police to tell them that is what they were doing beforehand. Why is the belief that they left home with the intent to kill the guy? Why call the cops if that is the case?
The intent to kill the guy wasn’t there, in my opinion, until the physical altercation started and the other guy was in fear for his life from the deceased getting the gun. You can argue that they shouldn’t have been there all you want and I would agree with you and I would agree the citizens arrest laws need to go away, but IF they allow you to arrest at gunpoint, then I think they have a very strong case for self defense.
It’s all about the prerequisites for the citizens arrest and if they were within the law to be there in the first place.
The intent to kill the guy wasn’t there, in my opinion, until the physical altercation started and the other guy was in fear for his life from the deceased getting the gun. You can argue that they shouldn’t have been there all you want and I would agree with you and I would agree the citizens arrest laws need to go away, but IF they allow you to arrest at gunpoint, then I think they have a very strong case for self defense.
It’s all about the prerequisites for the citizens arrest and if they were within the law to be there in the first place.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 6:20 am to latech15
quote:
a very strong case for self defense
LOL.
Two (presumably three) white guys with guns road block an unarmed black man to perform a citizens arrest and the white guys can claim self defense? GTFO, y’all are crazy.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:19 am to latech15
quote:
Someone give me a scenario of how a citizens arrest should go down. Do the citizens arrest laws allow the citizen to arrest at gunpoint? If so, then they go free, period.
I found the Georgia statute on a couple of sites. Here is one
It says:
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.
Their actions don’t meet that standard in a couple of ways. Whatever the victim was doing, it wasn’t “in the presence” of the perps. Nor did they have “immediate knowledge” of the victim’s hypothetical crime. They may have suspected, but they didn’t—they couldn’t know. Also, he was neither “escaping” or “attempting to escape.” Even if he stuffed his pants with gold bricks at the house under construction, he had already escaped—he was running down the road. They would have had to try to detain him at that house. After he left there, he had escaped—past tense—and therefore could no longer be “escaping” or “attempting to escape.” You can’t create an artificial trap for which he has to escape from again. (Just to clarify, I am not in anyway saying the victim actually committed a crime. I am using worst case scenario to make the point that it doesn’t even matter if he had).
quote:
The intent to kill the guy wasn’t there, in my opinion,
Looking at the Georgia statute that the other guy posted a couple of pages ago, I think intent/malice can easily be argued. However, it’s not even necessary:
“(c) A person commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he or she causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.”
Since the citizen’s arrest was not legal, the perps were “in the commission of a felony” themselves. Either aggravated assault or certainly false imprisonment:
quote:
(a) A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority.
So since they were “in the commission of a felony” and “caused the death of another human being,” intent doesn’t have to be proven—it is “irrespective of malice.”
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News