- 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: Run 2.23 for Arbery #werunwitharbery
Posted on 3/31/21 at 6:14 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 3/31/21 at 6:14 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I think that this is actually a PROBLEM for the McMichaels Defendants, because it tends to indicate that he HAD previously entered the premises and had NOT committed a theft, lessening the likelihood that he had such intent in this instance.
There's several things to consider for sure. Not stealing anything is certainly a check mark in his favor, but was there anything there to steal at that time? Subcontractors rarely leave equipment and tools behind (for this very reason), and most house materials are either too heavy to snatch with your hands while on foot or aren't all that valuable.
A broke 22 year old, with a history of theft and suspicion of theft, entering a house late at night that's already been burglarized to the point the owner put up cameras outweighs, at least in my opinion, him not stealing anything that particular night.
I think it's very clear he was casing the property or there to steal that day. No I'm not 100% positive, but if I was sitting on a jury I'd be beyond any reasonable doubt he was there to steal.
This post was edited on 3/31/21 at 6:24 pm
2
Posted on 3/31/21 at 6:18 pm to RiseUpATL
I don’t know who that is.
Posted on 3/31/21 at 6:21 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I see two problems. First, the early statements do not say that the caller identified Arberty specifically ... only (and I paraphrase) "a Black guy." Second, I think the blogger guy misunderstands the case about first-hand vs second-hand knowledge of the existence of a crime. The fact that the caller did NOT specifically ID Arbery (but rather just "a Black guy") is a VERY important distinction, "breaking the chain of knowledge" if you will.
Good point.
This is all very hazy, and I'm not sure if this is how it went down, but I'm fairly sure I had heard that either the father or the son saw Arbery run past, possibly recognized him as someone who been spotted acting suspiciously in the area, ran outside to see what he was up to, heard from a neighbor that he had been in the house that was under construction, then went to get the other person (father or son) then both decided to grab weapons and follow.
I could be mistaken about that though.
This post was edited on 3/31/21 at 6:22 pm
Posted on 3/31/21 at 6:21 pm to Hot Carl
quote:
Of all the black guys that got unnecessarily murdered by racist white rednecks last year,
As though this ever fricking happens lol
What a lying POS
Posted on 3/31/21 at 6:27 pm to Azkiger
quote:
they decided to attempt a citizen's arrest with firearms which is allowed if a felony has been committed
The questions I would ask of them:
“at what point were you in possession of clear indisputable evidence that this particular man had committed a felony?”
And
“IF you WERE in possession of evidence that this particular man had committed a felony, what was the time lapse between the felony and the shooting?”
The duration must matter. You can’t reasonable expect to allow a citizens arrest unless the felony was occurring/had just occurred seconds before. Otherwise, I could know you committed a felony in 2013, and show up at your work tomorrow with a shotgun to arrest you.
The problem these clowns have: their answer to the first question is “we never were. We just felt he had committed a felony, and chased him”
Fools.
Posted on 3/31/21 at 6:29 pm to Azkiger
quote:
But charging someone with a gun when you were just casing a home/attempting to steal from a home places your life in someone else's hands.
I’ll go a step further and say that even if your are completely innocent and charge somebody with a gun you’re placing your life in their hands.
Stand your ground probably applies to both parties in this situation and I’d wager both parties will use that argument.
Unfortunately the guys with guns prompted the first instance of SYG from Arbery that resulted in pulling a trigger becoming the second SYG.
It’s been a year ago but I still think that it’s highly likely that Arbery didn’t set out that morning to break any laws and the McMichaels didn’t leave their house with guns with any actual intention of hurting anybody.
Posted on 3/31/21 at 6:34 pm to OccamsStubble
quote:
“at what point were you in possession of clear indisputable evidence that this particular man had committed a felony?”
Winn-Dixie Stores vs Nichols in 1992 set a precedent in Georgia that someone else's statement could be used as knowledge of a crime being committed, which would give someone the ability to enact a citizen's arrest.
The question becomes where did the father and son hear about Arbery being in the house that was under construction. Was it from someone who saw him directly? Or did it pass between multiple people before finding them? That case drew the line at one person removed. So if the neighbor that saw Arbery inside was the one that told them then they had reason enough. If it went from that neighbor, to another neighbor, then to them, they don't have enough suspicion.
quote:
The problem these clowns have: their answer to the first question is “we never were. We just felt he had committed a felony, and chased him”
This is the problem. Lots of people who don't know what's going on pretending they know exactly what's going on (like you). Fools indeed.
Posted on 3/31/21 at 6:37 pm to 3nOut
quote:
Stand your ground probably applies to both parties in this situation
I don't think so. The son wasn't standing his ground when he actively switched sides of the truck to cut Arbery off. Even ignoring that, he wasn't standing his ground when he chose to get into his truck, armed, and confront Arbery.
The only way what they did would be legal is through a citizen's arrest. And that seems to be on thin-ish ice as well.
Moral of the story, don't do stupid shite like that father and son. One or both could have been killed, and even though they ended up on the right side of the gun they're looking at a very serious criminal lawsuit. And all for what? Potentially stolen goods that didn't exist.
Posted on 3/31/21 at 6:42 pm to Azkiger
I don't think it can be "stand your ground" because the defendants initiated the confrontation. And weren't even doing so justifiably (legally) to begin with. Just one fella's opinion....
Posted on 3/31/21 at 6:45 pm to Azkiger
I saw the video. They behaved in a way that, were I on the jury, would put two in prison. The third guy is a tossup.
Your problem, and theirs, is their actions are on tape for everyone to see. If you’re hoping for their acquittal, you’re going to be disappointed.
Your problem, and theirs, is their actions are on tape for everyone to see. If you’re hoping for their acquittal, you’re going to be disappointed.
Posted on 3/31/21 at 6:47 pm to OccamsStubble
quote:
If you’re hoping for their acquittal, you’re going to be disappointed.
No, I'm just hoping idiots like you don't make it out of the jury pool.
Posted on 3/31/21 at 6:49 pm to Azkiger
quote:Really, this one small detail is where I think we differ.
I think it's very clear he was casing the property or there to steal that day. No I'm not 100% positive, but if I was sitting on a jury I'd be beyond any reasonable doubt he was there to steal.
I THINK he was casing the place, too. In fact, I think he was PROBABLY casing the place. I think it MOST LIKELY that he got a drink there every day on his run, hoping to spot something worth coming back and stealing at 2am. But all that is a VERY long way from “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
This post was edited on 3/31/21 at 6:53 pm
Posted on 3/31/21 at 6:56 pm to Azkiger
My guess is you’re jealous you didn’t get to use your shotgun on that guy.
This post was edited on 3/31/21 at 6:57 pm
Posted on 3/31/21 at 7:07 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I THINK he was casing the place, too. In fact, I think he was PROBABLY casing the place.
Hank, even if it were somehow proved that Arbery was casing the joint, that in and of itself isn't a crime of any level. In fact, had Arbery been running down that street loudly yelling "Yes, I was casing the joint!!" that still doesn't satisfy the indispensable element of "immediate knowledge of felony crime having occurred".
Posted on 3/31/21 at 7:08 pm to OccamsStubble
quote:
If you’re hoping for their acquittal, you’re going to be disappointed.
We shall see. I'm betting on acquittal, which would be the moral outcome as well.
Posted on 3/31/21 at 7:08 pm to RiseUpATL
I'll run a mag of .223 for him this weekend
Posted on 3/31/21 at 7:11 pm to davyjones
quote:Agreed. 100%. He would not be entering with intent until the 2am visit.
davyjones
(psssst, I was saving that for later in the discussion)
Posted on 3/31/21 at 7:32 pm to davyjones
quote:
Hank, even if it were somehow proved that Arbery was casing the joint, that in and of itself isn't a crime of any level. In fact, had Arbery been running down that street loudly yelling "Yes, I was casing the joint!!" that still doesn't satisfy the indispensable element of "immediate knowledge of felony crime having occurred".
Taken in the totality, though, items were stolen from that house and someone fitting Arbery's description was suspected. Seeing Arbery at the same house, where he was already video'd at, then sprint away shouting that he was casing the joint
, reasonably connects him to the previous felony(ies) of theft at that location and could satisfy "immediate knowledge of a felony crime having occured."This post was edited on 3/31/21 at 7:34 pm
Posted on 3/31/21 at 7:38 pm to Azkiger
quote:I do not think so. Not least because it would no longer be “immediate.”
Azkiger
Posted on 3/31/21 at 7:41 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Not least because it would no longer be “immediate.”
Immediate applies to knowledge, not to the felon.
Page 19 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News