- 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: Need help finding video of Black ex-cop breaking down Ahmaud Arbery case
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:24 pm to doubleb
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:24 pm to doubleb
quote:
But McMichaels didn’t know that. The neighbor did.
Some posters just can't or won't wrap their heads around the fact that one neighbor seeing something doesn't mean that all the neighbors simultaneously see the same thing.
0
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:25 pm to yesyesyall
quote:
are you sure about that last point or is that an assumption? because i think that's pivotal.
Yes.
You clearly haven't read the police report, watched all the videos and matched up the times in the videos with the 911 calls. Do that and then you'll your error.
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:25 pm to davyjones
quote:
Then you're back to square one. There must surely be some sort of knowledge either direct or immediately within one's knowledge in order to suspect a felony has occurred in order to form a basis for reasonable suspicion, correct? And that would be reasonable suspicion in the legal sense, not merely "something doesn't seem right with this picture....I'm suspicious." Reasonable suspicion of a felony, not just a misdemeanor such as trespassing.
think about it. if you already have direct knowledge of a felony, what does it mean that you ALSO have a reasonable suspicion of the thing that you have direct knowledge of? the reasonable suspicion is IN LIEU OF the direct knowledge in cases where the suspect is fleeing a suspected felony. and, again, burglary (entering premises with intent to commit a crime) is a felony.
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:28 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
If you can't grasp the self-contradiction n your own statement here, there's no helping you.
if you haven't read & understood everything in the thread to this point, likewise.
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:29 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
You clearly haven't read the police report, watched all the videos and matched up the times in the videos with the 911 calls. Do that and then you'll your error.
I think someone should put a time line together of what is on the record.
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:29 pm to yesyesyall
quote:
the winn dixie case involves acting on the word of a customer, who is unknown to the citizen making the arrest, and may have malicious intent. i'm not completely sure this incident is going to be viewed the same way.
Why is it hard to understand that the Accused in this case ALSO had no direct knowledge, the only one who did was the neighbor and if he conveyed it to the accused how could the determine he didn't have malicious intent?
But thats not what happened, Arbery ran past McDumbasses house and sr said, there he is, hauling arse, referring to the black guy he thought he had seen in previous videos, so they got their guns and jumped in the truck in hot pursuit.
At some point they called and coordinated with Roddy, who is not the 911 caller, and they tracked him down unaware of the NOT Felony witnessed by the neighbor
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:30 pm to yesyesyall
quote:
burglary
You keep harping on this, but we know that a burglary did not occur.
The McMichaels did not witness, have direct knowledge of, and almost certainly didn't have probable cause to believe a burglary occurred.
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:34 pm to yesyesyall
quote:
If you can't grasp the self-contradiction n your own statement here, there's no helping you.
if you haven't read & understood everything in the thread to this point, likewise.
That's one of the lamest attempts at saving face I've ever seen on this board.
You said he COULDN'T have known intent...which is pivotal to being able to execute a CA...then you go on to say they had grounds.
English. Learn it.
This post was edited on 5/15/20 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:34 pm to yesyesyall
quote:
i disagree with your reading, and IMO it's pretty clear. what is the special exception for fleeing (that they can arrest upon reasonable suspicion), what is that meant to substitute for, if not for direct knowledge?
People trying to arrest people in the midst of crime when they can just call the cops and tell them where they are. There is no reason for a citizens arrest unless the subject attempts to flee.
quote:
the winn dixie case involves acting on the word of a customer, who is unknown to the citizen making the arrest, and may have malicious intent. i'm not completely sure this incident is going to be viewed the same way.
Yes, winn dixie didn't have direct knowledge of a felony. The same post said that the customer could have enacted a citizens arrest due to their direct knowledge.
Any person may have malicious intent - that is why direct knowledge of a felony is required.
McDumbass could have had malicious intent (seems kind of obvious) - which is why direct knowledge of a felony is the only way he can legally enact citizens arrest.
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:35 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
The McMichaels did not witness, have direct knowledge of, and almost certainly didn't have probable cause to believe a burglary occurred.
Unnecessary word use :)
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:37 pm to Sneaky__Sally
quote:
McDumbass
:)
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:38 pm to More&Les
Haha it really does just roll off the tongue
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:45 pm to SuperFanDan
quote:
Basically he just presents the facts
quote:
before being yelled at and chased off by one of the two men that eventually chased him down
If this is one of the claims he is making then he is not presenting the facts.
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:47 pm to Sneaky__Sally
quote:
Haha it really does just roll off the tongue
Ikr :)
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:51 pm to TiketheMiger
quote:
If this is one of the claims he is making then he is not presenting the facts.
Basically everything Tatum states as a fact is actually a lie that Tatum made up. It's not even things that could be inferred from looking at he evidence and Tatum is just presenting inferences as facts. Tatum literally just makes the shite up and plenty of people here ate it hook, line and sinker.
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:52 pm to yesyesyall
Direct knowledge is actually incorrect verbiage to be using to begin with, even though yes I used it. The statute states "within his presence or immediate knowledge." Despite that, within his presence or immediate knowledge" forms the basis of reasonable suspicion. I'm certain we'd agree that no matter the circumstances, an arrest be it by citizen or by uniformed officer must necessarily come only after reasonable suspicion of a crime. Which again is not hunch or general suspicion or assumption.
And it's the intent to commit a felony therein that they by all appearances had no reasonable suspicion of. Criminal trespass, yes, felony no. Theirs was only a hunch as to Arbery's intent because there weren't in the house to observe any efforts to steal or commit any other felony. There has to be some observable evidence to satisfy, reasonably, of Arbery's intent.
And it's the intent to commit a felony therein that they by all appearances had no reasonable suspicion of. Criminal trespass, yes, felony no. Theirs was only a hunch as to Arbery's intent because there weren't in the house to observe any efforts to steal or commit any other felony. There has to be some observable evidence to satisfy, reasonably, of Arbery's intent.
This post was edited on 5/15/20 at 3:53 pm
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News