re: Ahmaud Arbery murder suspects seek to ban Confederate flag license plate from evidence

quote:

---

Agree to disagree. If you'd say you'd rather live in a neighborhood full of Arberys (felon with weapon charges, history of stealing anything that's not bolted down) rather than the McMichaels you're lying your arse off.

---

I wouldn't want any of these people as my neighbors.

quote:

---

we already found out. they literally gave statement explaining their actions at the time. Their explanation for their actions had nothing to do with knowledge of a current crime, and was only focused on thefts that happened at separate points of time in the past. you can continue to white knight for these scumbag thugs all you want but their crimes are much worse.

---

It's late, I misread. You said current crime, I had just read crime.

I'm not sure if there's some sort of precedence set on time limitations on citizen's arrest. If they believed they had a thief from two weeks ago, or a month ago, does the law allow them to try and make a citizen's arrest?

quote:

---

hmm now do that with a neighborhood full of folks who commit aggravated assault, illegal detainment and murder?

---

Considering I'm not a criminal with felon weapon charges, a history of stealing shite, currently on probation for stealing shite, poking around peoples property looking for shite to steal, then when caught take off running, refuse to stop, and when a gun is drawn (even if its done illegally) fight them for it...

I'll take my chances with them.

quote:

---

you dont see any irony that you are so against that individual that you can justify and white knight for people who do worse things like aggravated assault, illegal detention, and murder. got it.

---

Assuming a conviction, yes they did worse things but in very specific and rare circumstances.

You can turn your back on the McMichaels. Arbery, not so much.

quote:

---

it is specifically a crime currently in progress

---

O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
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."

Where does it say anything about the crime needing to currently be progress?

quote:

---

and requires immediate knowledge

---

Unless its a felony and the person is trying to escape, then all that's required is "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion".

I'm not saying the McMichaels had reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion or that Arbery had committed a felony. But it is arguable. Firstly, burglary felony doesn't require items stolen, only an intent to steal. Secondly, Travis had confronted Arbery two weeks prior about him not being allowed on that property. Unreasonable jump to conclusion or reasonable suspicion? That's for a jury to decide.

quote:

---

thats why they are facing charges like aggravated assault, false imprisonment, murder instead of no charges for good citizens arrest and self defense.

---

DAs and courts never get it wrong and aren't influenced by the public, gotcha. And certainly not when the Not fricking Around Coalition, a self proclaimed black militia, has marched open carrying high capacity rifles in Georgia several times, threatening public riots if certain court cases don't go their way.

quote:

---

Assuming a conviction, yes they did worse things but in very specific and rare circumstances.

---

you say its 'very specific and rare circumstances' but its pretty clear that it was something common like they intended on settling an old score. in their own words, their explanation to police was they wanted to confront him over past break ins. I know thats something you want to ignore to make white knighting for thugs more palatable.

They held grudges and were willing to commit aggravated assault, false imprisonment and murder as retaliation for petty theft that occurred weeks ago. holding a grudge isnt rare circumstances, but most people wouldnt be willing to do what they were over petty theft. sorry you white knight for thugs

quote:

---

"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."

Where does it say anything about the crime needing to currently be progress?

---

well its not explicitly stated but go read up about its interpretation and application. its intent is for when LEO are not able to be present timely enough and a citizen must act at the time. its clearly not intended to call back to past events. Maybe I couldve described it better but ongoing crime is basically what this is referring to.

say you witnessed a bank robbery and a month later you decide to kick in the robbers home door and hold them at gunpoint. do you honestly believe that would be legally protected via citizens arrest? obviously not bc thats patently absurd.

quote:

---

I'm not saying the McMichaels had reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion or that Arbery had committed a felony. But it is arguable. Firstly, burglary felony doesn't require items stolen, only an intent to steal. Secondly, Travis had confronted Arbery two weeks prior about him not being allowed on that property. Unreasonable jump to conclusion or reasonable suspicion? That's for a jury to decide.

---

well its not really arguable, according to the mcmichaels themselves they wanted to confront him for past break ins. their reasoning for pursuit was entirely divorced from any current knowledge of a felony in progress. since they knew of no crime they had no reasonable suspicion he was fleeing a crime. its essentially like bank robber example above, obviously absurd.

quote:

---

What likely happened: They assumed Arbery was responsible for the previous burglaries (which included several firearms, not petty theft like you described), and wanted him to stop so the police can intervein. He didn't want to stop. They chased him kept resorting to more and more aggressive methods to stop him,

---

sure, those are basically the events that happened but your perspective on what happened is pure garbage.
AA is under no obligation to stop for a civilian, this is aggression initiated by the defendants, and they admit to initiating the confrontation to police at the time. it is where they are now earning charges of false imprisonment as they are escalate their criminal activity.

quote:

---

which eventually ended up with Travis exiting his truck with a shotgun trying to get Arbery to stop so the police can intervein. Arbery saw this as a threat, attempted to disarm Travis, and was shot.

---

well yes AA saw aggravated assault as a threat which any reasonable person would and remember he had 0 obligation to yield to these thugs. I would certainly view folks driving me down with shotguns a threat and want to defend myself from such a thug. this is where they are now committing aggravated assault to go along with the false imprisonment before AA resorts to self defense which leads to murder.

its really a shame how much mental gymnastics you are willing to do to white knight for thug criminals

quote:

---

say you witnessed a bank robbery and a month later you decide to kick in the robbers home door and hold them at gunpoint.


That's a horrible example both for the McMichaels and for Arbery. The McMichaels didn't witness Arbery committing a crime (robbing a bank in your example) nor did they know where he lived (and could kick down his door at a later time).

---

k lol it had enough in common to get the message across, but since you just want to nit pick it without considering the basic message ill change it up to be more similar. Say you didnt even see any bank robbery at all, but you see the dude running down a street a bank is on a month later so you go hold him at gunpoint and end up killing him. thats obviously an absurd application of a citizens arrest for a crime a month ago.

quote:

---

The idea behind the citizens arrest law in Georgia, especially the latter part about felonies, is to prevent the person from getting away because there's not always going to be a police officer right there to intervene. Whether the person gets away that day, or weeks later doesn't seem to change the focus of the law is to give society another tool to prevent the criminal getting away.

---

its obviously absurd to think a citizens arrest is to be performed at significantly separate times than the crime. do whatever mental games you need to believe whatever you want though.

quote:

---

So it's "obviously absurd" to think that the guy you've repeatedly seen, on foot, snooping around your neighborhood, weeks after lots of things are stolen, and the dude high tails it out of there the second you notice him, is indeed the person behind the previous stolen items?

---

work on that comprehension dog. I was saying the bank robber example that the CA isnt for shite a month ago, thats obviously absurd. CA isnt for shite very separated from now regardless of your mental gymnastics.

quote:

---

Agree to disagree. If you'd say you'd rather live in a neighborhood full of Arberys (felon with weapon charges, history of stealing anything that's not bolted down) rather than the McMichaels you're lying your arse off.

---

Huh?

So your argument now is like the game we use to play as a kid.
Would you rather slide down a razor blade into a vat of acid, or be tied to a post in the dessert, over ant bed, and smeared with honey?

I wouldn’t want a thief in my neighborhood; nor would I want two vigilantes on call 24/7.

You made some dumb assumptions based on what if’s and not on what is known. Admit it and follow the trial and find out what really happened instead of making chit up.