- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 10/6/21 at 11:25 pm to oklahogjr
Posted on 10/6/21 at 11:25 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
Oh sure. But what is their reasoning? Or have they not unveiled that?
IIRC, ole boy outright sprinted down the street (not jogged) when he saw a concerned neighbor at the end of his driveway on the phone (with police, but I don't think he ever got in range of the neighbor to hear what was being said).
A few houses down he ran past the house of the father and son duo, one saw him running by, went out to see what was up, was informed by the neighbor saying he was poking around the house that was under construction, whichever saw him run by and went out to check went back into the home to get the other, they armed themselves incase the person may be violent and then loaded up in the truck and went to try and get Arbery to stop until police arrived.
If that's what happened, it seems to follow the letter of Georgia law because "immediate knowledge" of a potential felon does allow an eye witness to tell someone else and that someone else is considered to have immediate knowledge. That someone else cannot tell a 3rd party, only the person who witnessed the potential felony or anyone they themselves told would have enough knowledge to attempt a citizen's arrest.
Something that's a bit murky, and I'm not sure how it'll play in, is I think whichever one who saw Arbery run by said he looked like a guy who a neighbor or neighbors thought had stolen things from that neighborhood.
I never heard about fishing gear, but originally I had heard that the property owner who's house under construction Arbery was poking around in had told neighbors that things were stolen, he put up cameras, and had asked people to keep an eye on his property. Sometime after hearing that the homeowner officially came out and said none of that was true. While that might be true, it's not irrational to not want to get involved as a witness to a case BLM has taken interest in. Hell, the "Not fricking Around Coalition, which is essentially a self proclaimed armed black militia, has marched several times threatening the Georgia State Government and local businesses with violence if charges and cases don't go the way they want. I'd be tempted to pull my hat out of the ring if that were me as well... So it's hard to know what to believe there.
This post was edited on 10/6/21 at 11:26 pm
3
Posted on 10/6/21 at 11:40 pm to 93and99
quote:
I still am amazed at how many people are pro-criminal
Are you for the Arbery criminal or the McMichaels criminals in this case?
Posted on 10/6/21 at 11:43 pm to Azkiger
quote:
If that's what happened, it seems to follow the letter of Georgia law because "immediate knowledge"
They didn’t have immediate knowledge of a felony. There was no felony. And a guy saying “stop those guys” isn’t immediate knowledge.
Posted on 10/6/21 at 11:46 pm to the808bass
quote:
There was no felony.
The fact that Georgia state law, at least at that time, allowed for a witness to convey knowledge of a felony to someone else who did not witness the felony and that still count as immediate knowledge should tell you that this objection doesn't mean what you think it means.
In short, how can Georgia law require you to know that a felony occurred and at the same time allow you to react off of an eye witness telling you what happened?
quote:
and a guy saying "stop those guys" isn't immediate knowledge
Depending on what specifically was said, it could be. Read up on Young v. State for the details on what exactly constitutes "immediate knowledge".
This post was edited on 10/6/21 at 11:49 pm
Posted on 10/6/21 at 11:47 pm to L.A.
Give them community service along with Chauvin
Give Rittenhouse a medal
Give Rittenhouse a medal
Posted on 10/6/21 at 11:49 pm to the808bass
quote:
Are you for the Arbery criminal or the McMichaels criminals in this case?
Arbery is a convicted felon. Do the McMichaels have any felony convictions on their record?
Posted on 10/6/21 at 11:50 pm to Azkiger
They’re fixing to.
Posted on 10/6/21 at 11:51 pm to Azkiger
quote:
The fact that Georgia state law, at least at that time, allowed for a witness to convey knowledge of a felony to someone else who did not witness the felony and that still count as immediate knowledge should tell you that this objection doesn't mean what you think it means.
The case law doesn’t support this. It’s been interpreted pretty strictly with respect to immediate knowledge.
Posted on 10/6/21 at 11:51 pm to the808bass
quote:
They’re fixing to.
So no. There's your answer to your ridiculous attempt at wit via a question.
Posted on 10/6/21 at 11:54 pm to the808bass
quote:
The case law doesn’t support this.
Does the case law allow an eye witness to convey to another person that a felony had been committed, and that count as immediate knowledge?
Because, if I'm not mistaken, that's their defense.
Posted on 10/6/21 at 11:55 pm to Azkiger
When someone is committing a crime (which they were), it’s ridiculous to claim noting they are committing a crime is being “pro-criminal.”
Arbery isn’t a saint. The media attempts to make him one are silly.
None of that justifies Junior pointing a shotgun at Arbery and Junior and Pops chasing him through the neighborhood, attempting to hit him with their vehicle.
Arbery isn’t a saint. The media attempts to make him one are silly.
None of that justifies Junior pointing a shotgun at Arbery and Junior and Pops chasing him through the neighborhood, attempting to hit him with their vehicle.
Posted on 10/6/21 at 11:56 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Does the case law allow an eye witness to convey to another person that a felony had been committed, and that count as immediate knowledge
There was a case where that was not allowed as immediate knowledge. I’m sure that’s their defense as it’s the only one they have.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 12:12 am to the808bass
quote:
There was no felony.
Did a little digging...
"A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the first degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years."
- Source - Georgia Law
Seems their defense got a little easier as all they have to do is show intent to steal, not that Arbery actually stole something.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 12:13 am to the808bass
quote:
There was a case where that was not allowed as immediate knowledge.
A case? Uh huh... And absolutely no felony was committed as well, right?
This post was edited on 10/7/21 at 12:14 am
Posted on 10/7/21 at 12:17 am to Azkiger
I’d look it up but I don’t care that much.
Anyone who has no qualms about what the McMichaels did isn’t worth arguing with.
Anyone who has no qualms about what the McMichaels did isn’t worth arguing with.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 12:18 am to Azkiger
quote:
Seems their defense got a little easier as all they have to do is show intent to steal, not that Arbery actually stole something.
Bookmark this post. You’re gonna be disappointed.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 12:26 am to the808bass
quote:
Anyone who has no qualms about what the McMichaels did isn’t worth arguing with.
You drop the legal angle once I show that all that's needed for a felony is trespassing with the intent to steal, and then retreat to moral indignation saying you can't even have a discussion with someone who holds such an unvirtuous view. Tuck tail and run you pussy.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 12:29 am to the808bass
quote:
Bookmark this post. You’re gonna be disappointed.
You don't think it's easier to prove intent to steal verses actual theft when there was nothing stolen? Because that's the only idea that post conveys.
Moreover, are you going to go on record and say you agree with every jury decision?
This post was edited on 10/7/21 at 12:32 am
Posted on 10/7/21 at 12:30 am to Azkiger
quote:
You drop the legal angle once I show that all that's needed for a felony is trespassing with the intent to steal,
I didn’t drop it. I just don’t care enough to argue with some morally bankrupt person. If you want to declare victory, you’re welcome to it.
Posted on 10/7/21 at 12:41 am to the808bass
quote:
I just don’t care enough to argue with some morally bankrupt person
You knew what my stance was and still started a conversation with me. You didn't find your virtue signal antenna until I quoted actual Georgia law and how all that was required for a felony was intent to steal.
Posters here can decide for themselves what caused you to shut down so suddenly.
Page 9 of 24
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News