- 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: Ahmaud Arbery murder suspects seek to ban Confederate flag license plate from evidence
Posted on 10/8/21 at 12:12 pm to Azkiger
Posted on 10/8/21 at 12:12 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Shut up you hack, you've been wrong about quite literally everything
You can not possibly be serious.
Is it your assertion that every local media outlet who reported the same thing, that both the home owner and his attorney said that no police reports had been filed is their incorrect interpretation?
1
Posted on 10/8/21 at 12:12 pm to Azkiger
Yes. That’s fair. But stuff being stolen doesn’t mean Arbery stole it. And stuff being stolen isn’t going to help McMichaels defense.
Posted on 10/8/21 at 12:20 pm to Azkiger
quote:
If you have a direct quote from the lawyer saying as much, no.
Well as a matter of fact I do. This is from the transcript of the home owners lawyer being interviewed by Chris Cuomo:
quote:
GRADDY: Well what he has said is that he had nothing stolen, and he didn't make a police report. He contacted the authorities after each time, as - as best I can tell, beginning with October 19th.
Posted on 10/8/21 at 12:24 pm to doubleb
quote:
After its all out there perhaps we will learn something we didn’t know. That’s usually the case.
What information that isn't seen on video do you think could be important? The video is as damning as it possibly could be.
Posted on 10/8/21 at 12:29 pm to mouton
quote:
Is it your assertion that every local media outlet who reported the same thing, that both the home owner and his attorney said that no police reports had been filed is their incorrect interpretation?
I just saw you post one local news link, not all of them.
quote:
Well as a matter of fact I do. This is from the transcript of the home owners lawyer being interviewed by Chris Cuomo:
Thanks. That's what I was asking for.
Just goes to show you if you keep swinging you'll eventually hit something.
This post was edited on 10/8/21 at 12:31 pm
Posted on 10/8/21 at 12:33 pm to the808bass
quote:
But stuff being stolen doesn’t mean Arbery stole it.
But Arbery being spotted there by Travis, then Travis seeing the same guy two weeks later could be argued as reasonable suspicion if combined with things stolen from that property.
quote:
And stuff being stolen isn’t going to help McMichaels defense.
Agree to disagree. It doesn't matter anyways as it seems the land owner said everything was fine.
Posted on 10/8/21 at 12:35 pm to Azkiger
Good to see you finally admitting that he never filed a police report for anything stolen from his property even after seeing a local news report which stated he said he hadn't.
Posted on 10/8/21 at 12:36 pm to Azkiger
quote:
combined with things stolen from that property.
Posted on 10/8/21 at 12:48 pm to Azkiger
quote:
reasonable suspicion
McMichael isn’t a police officer justifying a stop. He’s a private individual whose defense rests on having immediate knowledge.
Posted on 10/8/21 at 12:51 pm to Azkiger
quote:No worries. Threads often take on a life of their own.
Yea sorry about that.
quote:My thought is that it's just too prejudicial.
I understand how unpopular of an opinion this will be, but I don't have an issue with the license plate being used
My daughter married a Hispanic guy. As soon as they got married they moved about 60 miles east of L.A. to a town in the High Desert in the Inland Empire where houses are more affordable. My son in law told me that when they moved into their new home there was a neighbor at the end of their street who flew a huge Confederate flag in his front yard. His first thought was, great, my neighbor is a racist who hates everyone except white people. Over the next couple of years he got to know his neighbor and realized he wasn't a racist at all. For the neighbor the Confederate flag symbolized an outlaw spirit. But my son in law's first impression is what a lot of POC experience when they see a Confederate flag. My hunch is that's how some of the jury will react when they see the Confederate flag license plate, and they won't have a couple of years to get to know the defendants.
Posted on 10/8/21 at 1:00 pm to Powerman
quote:
What information that isn't seen on video do you think could be important? The video is as damning as it possibly could be.
Everything I have seen and heard tells me the guys are guilty of murder, but I am open. If I’m on a jury I would listen to sll the evidence before rendering a decision.
And you never know what the media may have missed or if they reported something wrong
Posted on 10/8/21 at 1:02 pm to mouton
quote:
Good to see you finally admitting that he never filed a police report for anything stolen from his property even after seeing a local news report which stated he said he hadn't.
Absolutely, thanks for digging that up.
Interesting exchange on that transcript too. Seems Travis directly witnessed Arbery on the property that day along with another witness. The original story I heard, or thought I heard - it's been a long while and I haven't had a refresher until this thread, was that the neighbor that saw Arbery had told Travis, not that Travis saw Arbery himself. I had stated earlier that a neighbor told him which would have given him immediate knowledge. You argued both that a neighbor didn't and even if he did it still wouldn't. Well you were right, a neighbor didn't, Travis saw it himself.
They're just missing something to bump the misdemeanor to a felony but there doesn't seem to be anything.
Not a good look for the Mcmichaels.
This post was edited on 10/8/21 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 10/8/21 at 1:07 pm to the808bass
quote:
McMichael isn’t a police officer justifying a stop. He’s a private individual whose defense rests on having immediate knowledge.
I was operating under the assumption that there was a felony committed, which would activate this part of Georgia law "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."
Posted on 10/8/21 at 1:15 pm to L.A.
quote:
My hunch is that's how some of the jury will react when they see the Confederate flag license plate, and they won't have a couple of years to get to know the defendants.
Good point, I know the baggage the Confederate Flag carries, especially outside of the south.
My only concern would be how would one go about attempting to convince the jury that there was a racial bias involved in a crime if no potential prejudicial materials are allowed.
Posted on 10/8/21 at 2:10 pm to Azkiger
quote:
I was operating under the assumption that there was a felony committed,
Your assumption was wrong.
Posted on 10/8/21 at 4:41 pm to mouton
quote:
Your assumption was wrong.
No biggie, it was just an assumption.
You outright stated several things that were wrong.
1.) Something had to be stolen for there to be a felony.
2.) What "immediate knowledge" is.
3.) That past behavior can be used to determine intent.
4.) That Arbery wasn't on probation when he was shot.
And that's just off the top of my head.
Posted on 10/8/21 at 4:50 pm to Azkiger
quote:
What "immediate knowledge" is.
quote:
In Winn Dixie Stores Inc. v. Nichols, a Winn Dixie customer complained to management that another customer stole her wallet. The court held that the limited rights of merchants to detain or arrest a person reasonably believed to have committed a shoplifting offense do not authorize a merchant to detain or arrest individuals accused by store patrons of committing crimes against other patrons. To make the arrest, an employee would have had to actually see the criminal act committed. Therefore, it was ruled that management had no authority to arrest the alleged criminal. The court suggested that the only person who could have made the citizen’s arrest was the robbed customer herself.
When making a citizen’s arrest, a person may not use more force than is reasonable to make the arrest. Deadly force is limited to self-defense or to instances in which such force is necessary to prevent certain felonies.
It must be stressed that the right of private citizens to make a citizen’s arrest is limited. They cannot arrest people for violating local ordinances or regulations because these violations are not technically crimes as defined by state law (see chapter 15). Therefore, as a pri- vate citizen, you would not have the authority to arrest a person who is creating a disturbance by making too much noise. In addition, a private person can only make a citizen’s arrest for the purpose of bringing the suspect before a judicial officer.
LINK
P. 230
Posted on 10/8/21 at 5:42 pm to the808bass
quote:
The court held that the limited rights of merchants to detain or arrest a person reasonably believed to have committed a shoplifting offense do not authorize a merchant to detain or arrest individuals accused by store patrons of committing crimes against other patrons.
This part sets the stage for the bolded part.
Because the customer didn't witness the theft, and only "reasonably believed" that a specific person committed the theft, the limitation of immediate knowledge stopped at her.
Had she directly witnessed the theft, and just not "reasonably believed" that a specific person did it, immediate knowledge could be passed one step farther to someone the robbed witnesses conveyed her information too.
EDIT: This crossroads seems a bit pointless because it seems Travis wasn't told by another neighbor what had happened on the 23rd. He directly witnessed it. And not only did he witnesses it, he recognized Arbery from an encounter he had with him on the 11th, on the same piece of property.
The issue is what the "it" (what he witnessed on the 23rd) actually is. He either actually had to see a crime being committed, or he had to reasonably suspect a felony had occurred and the suspect was attempting to flee.
That seems to be the crux of the case.
This post was edited on 10/8/21 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 10/8/21 at 5:45 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Because the customer didn't witness the theft, and only "reasonably believed" that a specific person committed the theft, the limitation of immediate knowledge stopped at her. Had she directly witnessed the theft, and just not "reasonably believed" that a specific person did it, immediate knowledge could be passed one step farther to someone the robbed witnesses conveyed her information too.
None of that follows from anything I posted.
Posted on 10/8/21 at 5:49 pm to the808bass
quote:
None of that follows from anything I posted.
Did the person in that case directly witness who stole from her, or reasonably suspect that a specific person stole from her?
This post was edited on 10/8/21 at 5:50 pm
Page 20 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News