| Author | Message | ||
     Hootowl |
Sheesh. You shoot one guy in the face... | ||
| Fireboltwillie |
Blake, just my take on what happened and what is in the video.... the deceased entered the property, as has been shown on video. entering an open construction site is not typically trespassing unless posted no trespassing.... nothing was stolen as the interior and exterior video shows.. no crime committed... shooter and father stop in road ahead of deceased, with shooter standing by his door... deceased jogs/runs to opposite side of vehicle to bypass and get away from perceived threat... shooter comes around front of vehicle to apparently intercept... if he is pointing the shotgun in anyway towards the deceased, is that not brandishing? the shooter has no legal justification for attempting a citizens arrest... no felony was committed, he wasn't a witness to any crime... deceased comes around the front of the truck and immediately sees man with shotgun, possible pointing at him, and his reaction is to attack and disarm, fearing for his life... I am not 100% committed to this theory, but I am leaning this way. anything in the rapsheet of the deceased is irrelevant... until it is proven that a crime (felony) was committed, and the shooter had immediate knowledge of it, I am afraid the law will not be on their side. I may be wrong. | ||
| Tpehak |
Felony has been committed, he trespassed private property, and they saw it. | ||
| Blake |
Firebolt Willie: You don't need any crime to have been committed, suspected, or proved in order to justify self-defense. All that is needed is a reasonable fear of imminent violent attack and threat to life or limb, something like that. I'm no attorney, nor a Georgia resident. We agree that Arbery's entry into the home and rap sheet are irrelevant to the case, well other than the videos showing that Arbery wasn't just jogging through the neighborhood, since the video from across the street shows him walking casually prior to entering the house. The fact that after realizing that he had been observed Arbery took off running may or may not speak to the case. I don't know. The 911 call by McMichaels is relevant. I've not linked to that here yet. The shooter did appear to move towards the front of the truck, but was it to intercept? I don't see that as conclusive at all. It may just as well be that he was moving away from Arbery as Arbery was initially running straight for him before abruptly changing course to go around the right side of the truck. The video is horrible in quality, but you can go frame by frame and you can hear the shots. If the shooter pointed the gun at Arbery at any time prior to being charged at by Arbery, then he's guilty. | ||
| Blake |
Tpehak, As I understand it, there may be no violation for walking through an open home under construction when there are not any "No Trespassing" signs. Officer Tatum does find cause for suspicion there though. | ||
| Blake |
Major development in case. Third suspect arrested, the guy to took the video, charged with false imprisonment and murder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTKaqkPyeQ | ||
| Fireboltwillie |
Blake, I agree with you on every one of your points.. but I would add that the first note about self defense can possibly be seen with regard to the deceased. poor video quality, doesn't show what happened in front of the truck. the video does show that the deceased was jogging at that point, and on that side of the road before going around to the right. time and the courts will tell. | ||
| Tpehak |
The black man wasn't just casually walking, jogging and browsing inside the house, in the criminal world they call it shopping. | ||
| Court |
Trespass is not a felony Home owner has indicated “lots” of folks wandering in to take a look about . . . Didn’t seem to bother anyone. You can’t pursue someone to “defend” yourself. The shooter would not have had to “defend” himself if he hadn’t gotten a weapon, gotten in a vehicle ( someone else can comment on loaded shotguns in vehicles) and traveled to intercept the fellow ... essentially, to believe he was “defending” himself forces me to accept 5hat he took a number of measures to place himself in harms way. And starting to jog while out walking, something I pretty much do daily, isn’t a crime nor ... absent a lot more substantive facts (we’re dealing mostly wi5h supposition and wild ass guesses at 5his point) than I’ve seen. Again. . . . I’ve reached my life quota for bullets in me and I’d have, the moment I saw the truck, diverted and avoided. An armed person has a high duty to defuse and avoid and an unarmed person. . . . Speaking only &or myself. . . Should intuitively avoid charging people with shotguns. I’m sure who is innocent, who is guilty and who’s going to end up a victim. I am sure nearly everyone involved is as dumb as a bag of rocks. This is straight out of a grade B “Good Ol’ Boy” flick. | ||
| Tpehak |
They did not defend themselves chasing him, they wanted to inquire about his activity on the private property. They took guns with them to defend themselves in case the suspicious person will attack them and this is smart. They defended themselves when the person attacked the shotgun guy. If they wanted to stop him by any means they would just ram him with the truck. (Message edited by TPEHAK on May 22, 2020) | ||
| Court |
We’ll see. There had to be evidence, after the several months of investigating, on which to arrest them. The fellow who took the video has also been arrested, on murder charges, as well.
Not sure how that morphs to “murder” but apparently the GBI has something. | ||
| Blake |
It's an interesting case where both sides will be arguing about what is illegal versus what is just dumb. One side will argue that Arbery was dumb for charging/attacking McMichaels, but was within his legal right to do so since he feared for his life. The other side will argue that the McMichaels were dumb for seeking to question Arbery, but within their right to use lethal force when he attacked. What strikes me is that the tragedy required both parties to behave stupidly. Had either of them acted more prudently, no tragedy. The most trivial change that could have avoided the tragedy? Keep your damn weapons concealed! (Message edited by blake on May 23, 2020) | ||
| Bsanorton |
Let me see, 3 armed men, 2 trucks against an unarmed man in jogging shorts and sneakers. What was he going to throw his sneakers at him? Give me a break. My area has tons of construction going on, I've walked through so many houses under construction I can't even count. Never any 'no trespassing' signs. All potential new buyers and those curious do it. I'll side with what Blake, Court and Fireboltwillie have stated. (Message edited by bsanorton on May 24, 2020) | ||
| Crusty |
 | ||
| 04xl1200c |
Check your facts, sneakers were not worn by the man who was jogging. his shoes were described as boots. | ||
| Bsanorton |
I did he was clearly wearing grayish sneakers or low cut sport shoes. NOT boots. I checked several sources and the pictures of him in the house where he took nothing | ||
| 04xl1200c |
Bsanorton, I stand corrected. The first few articles I saw said he was wearing boots Misinformation abounds at the start of these types of things. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Never any 'no trespassing' signs. All potential new buyers and those curious do it. I don't need any "no trespassing" signs to know where I'm not supposed to be. Potential new buyers and those curious about the property don't run away when they're spotted. They call out a greeting and start asking questions. That being said, I don't care what he was doing. Once he ran away, I'd let him run - unless I can see him carrying my property in his hands - then I might weigh the risks of chasing him down and tackling him. A guy tried to steal my bike right in front of me about 20 years ago. I chased him down and tackled him. He was trying to ride my bike, so I was pretty sure he would be unable to shoot me. I gave him a couple of reminders that likely stuck with him for a few weeks around the face area. Then I let him up, gave him a quick lecture and let him go. I don't call cops for things like this. They've got bigger fish to fry. Then again, I didn't shoot anybody either. | ||
| Aesquire |
Not enough CREDIBLE information. That said, even the best intentions don't mean you aren't liable & responsible for your actions. My initial impressions are that while stopping a violent assault is both laudable and justified, suspected property crimes don't give anyone permission to play Batman. | ||
| Tpehak |
Another black person was killed | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
"Universal Citation: GA Code § 16-7-1 (2014) (a) As used in this Code section, the term: (1) "Dwelling" means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is designed or intended for occupancy for residential use. (2) "Railroad car" shall also include trailers on flatcars, containers on flatcars, trailers on railroad property, or containers on railroad property. (b) A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the first degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years. Upon the second conviction for burglary in the first degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two nor more than 20 years. Upon the third and all subsequent convictions for burglary in the first degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 25 years." | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
"2010 Georgia Code TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS § 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010) 17-4-60. Grounds for arrest 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." | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-11-126 (a) Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun may have or carry on his or her person a weapon or long gun on his or her property or inside his or her home, motor vehicle, or place of business without a valid weapons carry license. (b)Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun may have or carry on his or her person a long gun without a valid weapons carry license, provided that if the long gun is loaded, it shall only be carried in an open and fully exposed manner. | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
GA 3.02.10 Justification; Use of Force in Defense of Self or Others A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when, and to the extent that, he/she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himselfYherself or a third person against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if that person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself/herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
Let the chips fall where they may. | ||
| Blake |
Thanks for sharing that information Johnny. | ||
| Aesquire |
That's a decent set of parameters for violent and deadly response. In the past, today in some cultures, it's acceptable to kill to avenge a spoken insult. In huge parts of the world under Islamist rule, blasphemy is cause for murder. ( including questioning the death penalty for questioning the death penalty ) I much prefer a higher bar for justifying violence. | ||
| Hootowl |
I have to say, if I were approached by several angry men with guns out, I might interpret that as a threat to my life, regardless of whether they were pointing them at me. Fight or flight. The dead guy has a good case for his actions to be considered self-defense. The question is, which party was the aggressor? The guys with the legally carried firearms on the unarmed guy they chased down? I know he grabbed one of the guns, but until that point, he was unarmed. Not sure I’d want to be on the jury. | ||
| Tpehak |
People looted stores and businesses here in Seattle. Is it enough reason to shoot those looters down to protect the property? (Message edited by TPEHAK on May 31, 2020) | ||
| Ourdee |
I notice in different groups that a rioter will carry a traffic cone around. Is it a signal of some kind? |
