- 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 3:32 pm to texashorn
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:32 pm to texashorn
I was going to type that in as a guess, since other criteria was sight, the "immediate knowledge" would likely apply to the other senses.
This doesn't help the McMichaels. But even if they had immediate knowledge they still need a felony. And they need the courts to see their behavior, following someone around with a shotgun visible, as "reasonable force".
I just don't see that happening. They'll certainly pass beyond a grand jury and will be involved in a criminal case.
I'd bet a lot of money on a guilty verdict.
This doesn't help the McMichaels. But even if they had immediate knowledge they still need a felony. And they need the courts to see their behavior, following someone around with a shotgun visible, as "reasonable force".
I just don't see that happening. They'll certainly pass beyond a grand jury and will be involved in a criminal case.
I'd bet a lot of money on a guilty verdict.
1
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:33 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Citizen's arrest laws are very carefully applied so that they aren't misconstrued to allow posses of armed vigilantes.
Which makes sense, and creates images similar to the ones we saw on tape.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:35 pm to davyjones
quote:
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".
None of that even matters based of mcmichaels description of events, theres no definition that will work. He said he saw someone running and was suspicious because there were recently break ins in the area so he went to confront him. That’s a tough sell for knowledge of a current felony
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:38 pm to AMS
He did say he recognized the guy from surveillance footage (I believe) but yea that's not a current felony, nor was his presence on a construction site/unlocked building.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:42 pm to Azkiger
quote:
He did say he recognized the guy from surveillance footage (I believe) but yea that's not a current felony, nor was his presence on a construction site/unlocked building.
Thats my point. A citizens arrest is for an apprehending someone for or fleeing a currently ongoing felony. Not something from 2 months ago. Mcmichaels only had a a general suspicion of recent break ins and went all dog the bounty hunter.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:44 pm to the808bass
quote:
So they had their guns out to talk to him? They’re going to want to argue citizens arrest and then self-defense. I don’t think they can say “I got my gun out to talk to the guy and he all misconstrued it.”
What if he is armed? They are supposed to stop him with their dick in their hand?
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:45 pm to troyt37
Then maybe the murdering rednecks should have, you know, called the real cops?
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:45 pm to troyt37
quote:
What if he is armed? They are supposed to stop him with their dick in their hand?
That would be an interesting hypothetical.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:46 pm to AMS
I agree. And the goal is certainly not to achieve a definition of relevant terms and concepts that "will work" for either side, although both sides do try to include in jury instructions definitions and explanations that benefit their own side. But ultimately the goal at that phase is to provide the jury with as succinct as possible and accurate as possible and agreeable as possible definitions and explanations for each concept involved.
Defining the actual statutes involved is easy. Defining/explaining broader concepts such as specific intent and general intent etc etc is easy....just copy and paste any previous jury instructions because they all include those subjects, but there are typically concepts specific to the particular case at hand, and sometimes they aren't statutorily defined and there isn't always on point jurisprudence to look to.
I'm getting off in the weeds now.
Defining the actual statutes involved is easy. Defining/explaining broader concepts such as specific intent and general intent etc etc is easy....just copy and paste any previous jury instructions because they all include those subjects, but there are typically concepts specific to the particular case at hand, and sometimes they aren't statutorily defined and there isn't always on point jurisprudence to look to.
I'm getting off in the weeds now.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:53 pm to davyjones
I think a half decent prosecutor would take these folks to the shed just based off the fact that there was no justifiable reason for mcmichaels to initiate a violent confrontation.
Mcmichaels stated he went to confront Arbery.
Mcmichaels stated he saw him running and was suspicious due to recent break ins, not for a current felony.
No citizens arrest, no stand your ground for the initiatior of violence. Prosecution stacked, defense fricked.
Mcmichaels stated he went to confront Arbery.
Mcmichaels stated he saw him running and was suspicious due to recent break ins, not for a current felony.
No citizens arrest, no stand your ground for the initiatior of violence. Prosecution stacked, defense fricked.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:56 pm to SammyTiger
Then you don’t care to look at opposing views of this case.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:57 pm to troyt37
quote:If he is armed but isn't an immediate threat to anyone, then he's within his rights to open carry, correct?
What if he is armed? They are supposed to stop him with their dick in their hand?
Now, if he was displaying his weapon while blockading a road in order to intimidate someone, that would be aggravated assault.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 3:57 pm to AMS
Yeah I agree. There's somewhat of a flowchart involved. It starts with whether a felony offense was even involved. If not, do not pass go, do not collect 200. If no felony, then no legal citizens arrest. If no legal citizens arrest, then no justifiable self-defense.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 4:10 pm to CDawson
quote:Every "opposing view" ignores or misrepresents what clearly happened.
Then you don’t care to look at opposing views of this case.
They claim that AA assaulted Jr. The video clearly shows AA attempt to evade Jr (he goes around the opposite side of the truck), but Jr changes his position from well left of the vehicle and moves toward AA's new path. They met in front of the vehicle, at least 10 feet away from Jr's original position. Jr forced the physical conflict. AA acted in self-defense.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 4:11 pm to Korkstand
quote:ROFLMAO
. The video clearly shows AA attempt to evade Jr
Posted on 5/10/20 at 4:12 pm to CDawson
Not enough to spend 42 minutes.
What are the viewpoints?
Bullets points
What are the viewpoints?
Bullets points
Posted on 5/10/20 at 4:19 pm to Korkstand
100% to this, basically to prevent what ultimately occurred in this case
Posted on 5/10/20 at 4:21 pm to Azkiger
100% on everything you just said, I’d take that bet too
Posted on 5/10/20 at 4:27 pm to ShortyRob
quote:What do you call going around the opposite side of the vehicle, then? He only turned back toward Jr after Jr gave chase. Jr forced a fight or flight response, and AA chose to fight in self-defense.quote:ROFLMAO
The video clearly shows AA attempt to evade Jr
Posted on 5/10/20 at 5:26 pm to AMS
quote:
So your cute little quibble about immediate vs in person is irrelevant, because he didnt have knowledge of any ongoing crime.
I don’t like the coincidence that the deceased was trespassing just minutes before the incident if I’m arguing they didn’t see anything.
Page 15 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News