- 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
0
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:00 pm to the808bass
quote:
The question is did the McMichaels have direct knowledge of a crime serious enough to attempt to detain Ahmaud at gunpoint. All of that, at this point, looks unlikely
In fact according to mcmichaels own description of events at the time, he did not have direct knowledge.
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:00 pm to AMS
quote:Not at all
You need to ignore it if you have any type of logical consistency
That branch fork comes after the deceased's decisions.
YOu don't like that reality, but, it's still reality.
quote:When I'm speeding, I don't "make" someone cut me off because they can't read my speed...…...but, I can certainly foresee the possibility.
Arbery didnt make mcmichaels confront him.
You're not going to logic your way out of who the root of all the branches are
Sorry.
quote:
Those branches were on separate trees
LOL Wut?
In your world, there's a diagram of this that could occur where McMichael goes out looking for a crook and the root of Arbery never even happened?
That's gonna be a weird looking diagram. Just all floating in space like that. 
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:00 pm to Smeg
quote:
So if it comes out that they did have direct knowledge of a crime he just committed.
And that their use of force in attempting to detain him was commensurate with the crime, then yes. They will likely walk away completely free and then they should.
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:01 pm to AMS
quote:
In fact according to mcmichaels own description of events at the time, he did not have direct knowledge.
Don’t confuse them with facts. They’re running on raw anger at this point.
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:01 pm to the808bass
quote:
The question is did the McMichaels have direct knowledge of a crime serious enough to attempt to detain Ahmaud at gunpoint. All of that, at this point, looks unlikely.
this is indeed the question. they will have to prove they knew/strongly suspected this.
it's actually going to be very difficult for them because
1. the original suspect is dead
2. I dont know if any other arrests were made and even if they were, they sure as shite arent going to be like "yeah we were out doin felonious hood rat shite, those honkies are iight"
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:02 pm to Smeg
quote:
So if it comes out that they did have direct knowledge of a crime he just committed... They would be justified? I just want to make sure goal posts don't move
IFFF thats the case, he has a much better shot at a defense. Unfortunately for mcmichaels his description of events at the time does not support this.
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:03 pm to Tiguar
quote:
they will have to prove they knew/strongly suspected this.
I don’t think strongly suspected will suffice.
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:03 pm to the808bass
quote:
And that their use of force in attempting to detain him was commensurate with the crime, then yes
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:03 pm to the808bass
quote:
And that their use of force in attempting to detain him was commensurate with the crime, then yes.
Could you cite the law that details this? Do you know the name Joe Horn? He shot two thieves in the back, who were running away after robbing his neighbor's house. He was not convicted of a crime. This was in Texas.
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:05 pm to the808bass
I dont know what "immediate knowledge" means in legalese so I can't really argue; it may not.
It depends on if "immediate" is referring to a temporal descriptor or a "relative to point of witness" descriptor
ie. "5 minutes ago" vs "I witnessed it directly"
It depends on if "immediate" is referring to a temporal descriptor or a "relative to point of witness" descriptor
ie. "5 minutes ago" vs "I witnessed it directly"
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:05 pm to Tiguar
quote:
this is indeed the question. they will have to prove they knew/strongly suspected this.
it's actually going to be very difficult for them because
1. the original suspect is dead
2. I dont know if any other arrests were made and even if they were, they sure as shite arent going to be like "yeah we were out doin felonious hood rat shite, those honkies are iight"
You forgot #3. Mcmichaels own description of events paints no suggestion of direct knowledge or being a witness to the crime. In fact, it is evidence he did not meet that criteria. ‘I saw someone running so i called my son to get his guns, to confront him Because I knew there were break ins in the area recently.’ No mention of a current crime.
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:07 pm to the808bass
quote:
So tell me what immediate means. Use your vast legal experience
Well It’s definitely a relative term but we know it doesn’t mean in person. Because the law differentiates it. Perhaps a jury will decide.
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:07 pm to AMS
see the post above you in direct vs. immediate knowlegde
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:07 pm to Tiguar
quote:
I dont know what "immediate knowledge" means in legalese so I can't really argue; it may not.
It depends on if "immediate" is referring to a temporal descriptor or a "relative to point of witness" descriptor
ie. "5 minutes ago" vs "I witnessed it directly"
Well that doesnt matter much because he didn’t have any knowledge of it immediate, or directly. According to himself, He saw someone running, and the recent break in history prompted him to get ready to confront the runner.
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:07 pm to AMS
quote:
did not have direct knowledge.
That’s not the law.
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:08 pm to Smeg
quote:
Could you cite the law that details this?
LINK
quote:
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.
quote:
In Winn Dixie Stores Inc. v. Nichols, 205 Ga. App. 308, 422 S.E. 2d 209 (1992), 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.
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:08 pm to AMS
quote:
According to himself, He saw someone running, and the recent break in history prompted him to get ready to confront the runner.
then he's kinda boned, but I will wait to see if someone comes forward and says they told him this just happened or something like that
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:09 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
That’s not the law.
Yeah. It is the law.
Posted on 5/9/20 at 7:09 pm to Tiguar
quote:
see the post above you in direct vs. immediate knowlegde
Yea and he didnt even claim any knowledge of a crime currently occurring. He only had ‘ i saw someone running and there were recent break ins’
You cant citizens arrest someone for something 2 weeks ago.
Page 17 of 25
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News