- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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: The Truth About Ahmaud Arbery
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:06 pm to Flats
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:06 pm to Flats
Georgia is a stand your ground state.
As is most of America.
Map
It's associated with Florida because of the Trayvon case, but it's not unique to Florida.
As is most of America.
Map
It's associated with Florida because of the Trayvon case, but it's not unique to Florida.
This post was edited on 5/10/20 at 3:07 pm
0
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:08 pm to the808bass
quote:
The courts don’t seem to take too kindly to physical violence in effecting a citizens arrest.
That's fine, just asking about why I need a "citizen's arrest law" to exercise my freedom of speech.
If that's where a citizen's arrest ends, just kill the law.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:09 pm to Azkiger
Is "Roddy" the camera guy or is that Gregory McMichael? I see in the report it says "Roddy" attempted to "block" Arbery but failed to do so. That's the only thing I can see that could be interpreted as "blockading" him. On the road where Arbery was killed, it just says they "pulled up beside the male". Arbery is seen in the video running up beside the truck and then in front of the truck before attempting to take Travis McMichael's gun.
This post was edited on 5/10/20 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:11 pm to G The Tiger Fan
No clue on that one. Neither of the McMichaels are named Roddy, but that could be a nickname for one of them or the name/nickname of the driver of the car that was filming.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:11 pm to SammyTiger
When I say "plain language" I mean the regular ole dictionary's definition of a term IF there's no specifically prescribed legal definition for the term. That's exactly how it's done which takes subjective thoughts on such a matter out of the equation. There is simply no statutorily defined value for the term "immediate knowledge". Not that I've found anyway.
How it would work is the prosecution and defense would come together with the judge and they would settle on an agreeable meaning of that term. The judge's law clerk would probably do some case law research to attempt to find some prior jurisprudence that defines the term, and if there was none to be found, then the attorneys and judge would settle on a definition to include in the jury instructions, and that definition would simply come from the dictionary. That's just the way it works.
How it would work is the prosecution and defense would come together with the judge and they would settle on an agreeable meaning of that term. The judge's law clerk would probably do some case law research to attempt to find some prior jurisprudence that defines the term, and if there was none to be found, then the attorneys and judge would settle on a definition to include in the jury instructions, and that definition would simply come from the dictionary. That's just the way it works.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:11 pm to G The Tiger Fan
Roddy is the camera guy.
The lie that they pulled up next to him is odd and interesting.
The lie that they pulled up next to him is odd and interesting.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:11 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
If you haven't met cubbies on here before, welcome to her M.O. pretty much 100% of the time.
You certainly have an unrelenting hardon for me.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:13 pm to Azkiger
quote:It usually comes down to an appropriate use of force, which is to be determined in court.
Because you seem to suggest that anything beyond simply asking someone to not run is an assault. I don't need a citizen's arrest law to legally ask someone to wait until cops arrive.
If you think that beginning the arrest with gun drawn is appropriate, you should not be attempting a citizen's arrest. At least that is what any LEO or lawyer will tell you, and that is how courts generally rule.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:13 pm to the808bass
Yeah courts def don’t take too kindly to breaches of the peace
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:15 pm to ThePTExperience1969
They will either get life or the death penalty there depending on the temperature of the water.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:15 pm to Korkstand
quote:
If you think that beginning the arrest with gun drawn is appropriate, you should not be attempting a citizen's arrest.
Agreed, but you went a lot further than that in the reply I quoted.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:19 pm to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
They will either get life or the death penalty there depending on the temperature of the water.
The fact that they were lucky they caught “their” misdemeanor trespasser, and not the wrong person may save their life. Although thats still a tough sell because their citizens arrest was illegal from the start. They had no immediate knowledge of the crime, which turns out wasn’t even a felony.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:23 pm to davyjones
quote:
The Court of Appeals in this case reversed the trial court's grant of Carranza's motion to suppress on the basis of a provision in OCGA § 17-4-20(a) authorizing a law enforcement officer to make an arrest without a warrant "if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge."[1] Because this statutory language encompasses personal knowledge obtained through senses other than sight, see Marsh v. State, 182 Ga.App. 892, 893, 357 S.E.2d 325 (1987); see also O'Keefe v. State, 189 Ga.App. 519(3), 376 S.E.2d 406 (1988), such that testimony by law enforcement officers regarding matters overheard due to electronic amplification constitutes direct, primary evidence, Ferrell v. State, 203 Ga.App. 479(1), 416 S.E.2d 903 (1992); Goodwin v. State, 154 Ga.App. 46(1)(a), 267 S.E.2d 488 (1980), the Court of Appeals concluded that Carranza committed a crime "in [the] presence or within [the] immediate knowledge" of the officers overhearing the conversation so as to authorize a warrantless arrest of Carranza in his home. OCGA § 17-4-20(a).
Georgia Supreme Court
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:26 pm to davyjones
I am Not barred in Georgia but I strongly Doubt there is no case law on what this means.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:28 pm to AMS
quote:
They had no immediate knowledge of the crime, which turns out wasn’t even a felony.
This almost assuredly is the case.
Moreover, their repeated following of Ahmaud, while armed, and setting up in front of him could be seen as false imprisonment (which is a felony).
Georgia doesn't have first and second degree murder, just felony murder, but a death linked to "certain violent felonies -- such as arson, burglary, kidnapping, rape, and robbery." are seen as felony murders.
While kidnapping and false imprisonment aren't the same thing, they're close and the courts could see false imprisonment as a violent felony and remove the possibility of manslaughter charges.
This post was edited on 5/10/20 at 3:30 pm
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:28 pm to texashorn
So basically they had to hear it happen.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:29 pm to SammyTiger
Or see the video live.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:30 pm to texashorn
Well there ya go. It would still have to be put into format for the jury instruction of "Immediate knowledge is defined as........"
So I suppose it would or could (if the attorneys and judge accepted that guidance) include "is defined as that which encompasses personal knowledge obtained through senses other than sight...."
Ultimately, I don't think the father and son are going to enjoy any definition the court comes up with for "immediate knowledge".
So I suppose it would or could (if the attorneys and judge accepted that guidance) include "is defined as that which encompasses personal knowledge obtained through senses other than sight...."
Ultimately, I don't think the father and son are going to enjoy any definition the court comes up with for "immediate knowledge".
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:30 pm to Azkiger
quote:The laws have their place. But that place is usually to protect do-gooders in the event of an in-the-moment response to a witnessed crime. Shop owners detaining shoplifters, or someone nabbing a purse-snatcher, things like that. The response has to be appropriate for the crime.
That's fine, just asking about why I need a "citizen's arrest law" to exercise my freedom of speech.
If that's where a citizen's arrest ends, just kill the law.
Citizen's arrest laws are very carefully applied so that they aren't misconstrued to allow posses of armed vigilantes.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:31 pm to SammyTiger
I'm not saying there's not, only if there isn't. To the extent that makes any sense. 
Page 14 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News