- 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
re: Need help finding video of Black ex-cop breaking down Ahmaud Arbery case
Posted on 5/15/20 at 2:49 pm to Sneaky__Sally
Posted on 5/15/20 at 2:49 pm to Sneaky__Sally
quote:
he was in the immediate vicinity of someone running away from him - he wasn't in the immediate vicinity of someone who had seen commit a felony / stealing something.
ETA: I didn't have the top post in this page so I assume you meant my first post in this page
sheesh, i'll just quote it again:
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.
mcmichael will say he had a "reasonable suspicion" that arbery had committed felony burglary (which means entering a premises with intent to commit any crime), obviously he had no proof of arbery's intent, but when arbery fled, mcmichael only needed reasonable suspicion to enact a legal citizen's arrest. that's what the law seems to say, no?
4
Posted on 5/15/20 at 2:54 pm to yesyesyall
quote:
you're trying to characterize his *bolting* from the house as "running at a joggers pace," and that's just not accurate. see the footage from the security camera across the street.
No, i said the video of him jogging up behind the truck is at a joggers pace...
You have 2 problems, McDumbasses had not seen the video you are referring to, nor did they see him exit the house, according to their own statement s in the PR. Also, if McDumbass is relying on the previous video, which show him not stealing, one of those videos shows him walkin, go off camera toward the dock where the water spickett is located, then walk out for a few steps and jog off...
There is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more evidence of him being a jogger than there is of any burglaries or thefts of any kind...
Posted on 5/15/20 at 2:54 pm to yesyesyall
You can't just take one of the two sentences I don't think. All of the grounds have to be met. If the offense is a felony, presupposes that the offense has been committed in the private persons presence / immediate knowledge - then they can arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds if he is fleeing. (Seems to also read that you can't just run up and arrest someone in the act - you have to call the cops and only if they are fleeing the scene can you attempt to do the citizens arrest).
They had no immediate knowledge of a felony - so they have no reasonable suspicions.
What is his reasonable suspicion of a felony going to be? He can say he has one, but "I saw this guy running away and other stuff has maybe been stolen in the neighborhood" etc.
I just don't see any way for those pieces to fit together at all.
They had no immediate knowledge of a felony - so they have no reasonable suspicions.
What is his reasonable suspicion of a felony going to be? He can say he has one, but "I saw this guy running away and other stuff has maybe been stolen in the neighborhood" etc.
I just don't see any way for those pieces to fit together at all.
This post was edited on 5/15/20 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 5/15/20 at 2:54 pm to More&Les
quote:
Oddly, not as much as the other but there is a slowmo video on p1 that shows McDumbass Jr pointing his shotgun at Arbery well before the "attack"
i certainly look forward to footage clear enough to make a definitive statement like that, because the image on P1 is, i think you will admit, unclear.
Posted on 5/15/20 at 2:56 pm to yesyesyall
quote:
mcmichael will say he had a "reasonable suspicion"
He can say whatever tf he likes, nobody's gonna buy it. There is far more evidence against his position than for it.
Posted on 5/15/20 at 2:56 pm to yesyesyall
That’s not the way the case law has been interpreted in Georgia. So, probably not.
There’s a Winn Dixie case where a customer told an employee that they were robbed and the employee stopped the alleged thief. The court ruled there was not sufficient cause for the citizens arrest.
LINK
There’s a Winn Dixie case where a customer told an employee that they were robbed and the employee stopped the alleged thief. The court ruled there was not sufficient cause for the citizens arrest.
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.
LINK
Posted on 5/15/20 at 2:58 pm to yesyesyall
quote:
i certainly look forward to footage clear enough to make a definitive statement like that, because the image on P1 is, i think you will admit, unclear.
If you already know that its a shotgun he is holding (we do) then its very clear. Whatever he was holding in his hand he raised up and pointed it directly at Arbery.
Unless you think he put 3 rounds of buckshot in Arbery with an umbrella...
Posted on 5/15/20 at 2:58 pm to More&Les
quote:
No, i said the video of him jogging up behind the truck is at a joggers pace...
you were saying it to the effect that:
quote:
he is clearly running at a joggers pace and he never strayed from the road so its gonna be hard to make the case that he was attempting to escape.
now he may have slowed to a jog by the time of the truck video, but he clearly *bolted* from the house when spotted by the neighbor. so i think it'd be very easy to make the case that that was an attempt to escape.
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:02 pm to Sneaky__Sally
quote:
You can't just take one of the two sentences I don't think. All of the grounds have to be met. If the offense is a felony, presupposes that the offense has been committed in the private persons presence / immediate knowledge - then they can arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds if he is fleeing.
read it again, the second sentence modifies the first. direct knowledge is required, unless he's fleeing from a suspected felony.
quote:
(Seems to also read that you can't just run up and arrest someone in the act - you have to call the cops and only if they are fleeing the scene can you attempt to do the citizens arrest).
isn't that exactly what they did, though?
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:05 pm to yesyesyall
quote:
read it again, the second sentence modifies the first. direct knowledge is required, unless he's fleeing from a suspected felony.
No, both sentences have to be met. Direct knowledge is required and they have to be fleeing IMO.
The Winn Dixie case seems to be supportive of this conclusion.
They did, except that they didn't have direct knowledge.
This post was edited on 5/15/20 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:06 pm to yesyesyall
quote:
he clearly *bolted* from the house when spotted by the neighbor. so i think it'd be very easy to make the case that that was an attempt to escape.
So you think the neighbor might have had sufficient grounds? I still think you are wrong because nothing was stolen AND big problem for the defense, the neighbor didn't make the attempted arrest, nor did he communicate with the McDumbasses prior to pursuit....
Next?
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:11 pm to yesyesyall
quote:
read it again, the second sentence modifies the first. direct knowledge is required, unless he's fleeing from a suspected felony.
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.
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:13 pm to yesyesyall
quote:
mcmichael will say he had a "reasonable suspicion" that arbery had committed felony burglary (which means entering a premises with intent to commit any crime), obviously he had no proof of arbery's intent, but when arbery fled, mcmichael only needed reasonable suspicion to enact a legal citizen's arrest. that's what the law seems to say, no?
Except on cross examination the prosecutor will ask how did you know Arbery was “fleeing” when you first saw him running down the street?
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:14 pm to doubleb
quote:
Except on cross examination the prosecutor will ask how did you know Arbery was “fleeing” when you first saw him running down the street?
Ding dong, the witch is dead
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:16 pm to yesyesyall
quote:
now he may have slowed to a jog by the time of the truck video, but he clearly *bolted* from the house when spotted by the neighbor. so i think it'd be very easy to make the case that that was an attempt to escape.
But McMichaels didn’t know that. The neighbor did.
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:20 pm to Sneaky__Sally
quote:
No, both sentences have to be met. Direct knowledge is required and they have to be fleeing IMO.
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?
quote:
The Winn Dixie case seems to be supportive of this conclusion.
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.
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:22 pm to doubleb
quote:
Except on cross examination the prosecutor will ask how did you know Arbery was “fleeing” when you first saw him running down the street?
I reasonable suspected he was fleeing from the open construction house that i reasonably suspected he was going to burglarize because i had reasonably watched multiple videos of him not burgarizing the joint..... reasonably
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:23 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.
The Judge ruled only the customer could make a citizens arrest in that case. I’m not sure it’s going to be viewed as irrelevant.
Think of the practical ramifications of what you’re proposing. You’re saying anyone who reasonably suspects someone of a crime can pull out their gun and detain them. That’s Wild West stuff. It’s not going to fly as a defense. Especially when nothing was stolen.
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:23 pm to More&Les
quote:
So you think the neighbor might have had sufficient grounds? I still think you are wrong because nothing was stolen AND big problem for the defense, the neighbor didn't make the attempted arrest, nor did he communicate with the McDumbasses prior to pursuit....
are you sure about that last point or is that an assumption? because i think that's pivotal.
i agree with you that mcmichael seemingly pointing the shotgun at arbery is also a game-changer. again, i look forward to clearer footage, but if he does in fact take aim, that would change things (to the best of my understanding).
Posted on 5/15/20 at 3:24 pm to yesyesyall
quote:
obviously the mcmichaels couldn't have known his intent, but they had reason to suspect exactly that from his flight when spotted. so, yes, it seems they did have grounds to make a legal citizen's arrest.
If you can't grasp the self-contradiction n your own statement here, there's no helping you.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News