UPDATE: Ahmaud Arbery's 3 murderers all found guilty. Sentenced to LIFE in prison.

& now for the rest of the story....

Wanna be cop: Here he is officers. I got the suspected child molester.

Real cop: We have not had any reports of molestation.

WBC: Well we have him on surveillance video.

RC: Doing what?

WBC: Nothing, but it's definitely him.

RC: But there are no victims & no reported crimes. We're going to have to let him go.

WBC: Damn, I knew I should've shot him.

 

I have seen the video unintentionally. Don't watch it.

A lot of people can say where it falls under Georgia law. It's manslaughter, if not murder.

 

"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."

If the private person didn't see it happen, if they only have reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion, then the offense has to be a felony for a citizen's arrest to be permissible.

Was the offense a felony?

 

But what would you know, you're a lawyer. Ask the bartender or hair stylist, they know more than all the attorneys.

Seriously, even if the guy had broken into houses in the neighborhood, which still is a hypothetical, does that give those guys the right to shoot him dead with a shotgun? I'm no expert in that field, but it looks pretty f err messed up to me. I guess we'll find out.

 

Idk. Just going by what was reported, which was that the dad saw the guy run past, and identified him as the perp of several break ins.

 

This was murder bro...murder...And I hope with every fiber in my body...that these red-necks rot in prison...they saw a black man....although they refered to him as a ******...and just wanted to take him down. What about you're "innocent until proven guilty"...I guess that does not apply when jogging while black in GAWJA...and I guess you claim to be a Christian...pathetic.

 

I think the cop who shot the guy in SC got what he deserved.

I spoke about a possible reason for their conduct. Didn’t condone it in any way. Wanted to say don’t be too sure of your opinion until you have all the facts and Georgia law.

As to my comment about even if he stole the items, that’s not a reason to kill kill him. Someone got killed, possibly murdered. What they were supposedly chasing him for “imo” was not justification. I was trying to make that point.

My granddaughter is biracial and lived in Richmond Hill Georgia. She very dark skinned. That’s south of Savannah about 15 miles. I spend a lot of time with her. Her ex-neighbors threw out the N word like it’s meant to be said. I hang out with her relatives who just happen to be black. I put a comment on another thread about how I take my granddaughter out with me and how people react when they see us together holding hands. I’ve been called a N lover and on this board a racist. That’s ok as I don’t get too upset over name calling. Why am I telling you this. Because I want you and everyone else to know that I’m commenting from limited experience. There are a lot of white racist in South Georgia. My daughter and granddaughter lived among them for 5.5 years. Me and the wife spent a lot of time with them before we sold our place and moved them to Savannah. One neighbor asked me when I put up the for sale sign if I’d please not sell my place to a N. Family. They didn’t want the neighborhood to go to hell and their property values drop. I just shook my head. What they don’t realize is they are the cockroaches of society and they bring the neighborhood down. BTW, I bought the place in Richmond Hill in a foreclosure for 25K and sold it 5.5 years later for 88,300.

I hope enough people follow the case and put the info here. I’d like to see the completion of the case and results.

 

Due to the Rona, there won't be a grand jury hearing until mid June at the earliest.

 

And yet...they call themselves Christians...Jesus is crying on the cross...a racist by any other name is still a RACIST...PERIOD...come on 92...give me your best shot brother.

 

Do you think the application of the CA statute would actually pivot on the private person's foreknowledge as to whether or not a suspected offense arose to the level of a felony vs say a 3rd degree misdemeanor?

...and again, the 'immediate knowledge' goes to the PP's basis for believing the suspect committed a crime, and in all liklihood, was drafted precisely to avoid a strict requirement of observing a crime.

At the very least, these present issues that fall within the purview of prosecutorial discretion, further noting that IF a prosecuting authority exercised discretion to prosecute for violating the CA statute, it would be strictly construed against the prosecutor, not the PP as defendant.

 

Not all of southern Georgia call themselves Christians and some who do don’t do Christian things. They are living a lie and will eventually pay the price.

Real Christians are not too hard to identify.

 

Was the private person a retired cop?

 

It doesn't necessarily work both ways. If they pursued him in their trucks with guns without any evidence of him doing wrong, or even if they were simply mistaken, they would still have created the threat to this guy's life. They can go ahead and try to claim self-defense, but unless there is actual evidence of him doing something that could reasonably be presumed he deserved to be killed, it should be summarily rejected.

There is an absurdity in letting people who instigate violence claim self-defense when people respond in kind.

 

Up to right this second there is no reported house break-ins involving him or anyone else in that hood, which makes me think this Jackie person should be shot for not charging them. They were so arrogant & confident that big gov could roll over the people that they didn't even report or get someone to report a break-in to cover their asses.

I mean damn. You get yr gun stolen from yr truck & yr pissed. You put up a camera. You see this guy a few times run by. All you gotta do is have a person or 2 report a break-in. Then, he runs by again, you execute him & say he was in the act of attempting yet another break-in. It's GA, it would not be hard. EZ to get off being stupid & racist, but they had to throw in lazy.

 

I'm not defending their actions (let alone them); all I've done is point out that we don't have sufficient information to really render a judgment.

It sounds in the vain of defending them only because to make the point, I have address the opposite, which is the instinctive reaction to string these 'necks up.

Yes, though I readily admit that I'm a horrible model of one.

A chronic, serial sinner to the core, hoping to pull a 'good thief', and be graced with salvation before it's too late..

But a believer in Jesus Christ, a proponent of his teachings, and an aspiring follower., yes.

 

To clear up some big misconceptions, self defense isn’t some kind of catch all that exonerates the last man standing. Generally, if you can claim self defense, the other party to a fight cannot—it’s a very rare case where both sides are justifiably defending themselves.

So let's take a look at this case. Georgia has the standard self-defense language that

"a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."​

We'll just accept that's the case here since the victim was attempting to grab the shotgun (although even that is arguable).

The shooter's bigger problem is that there are three big exceptions that kick you out of the self defense statute:

"A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:

(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
​

So, if you hold a gun to someone's head, and the victim tries to disarm you, you don't get to cry self defense. You provoked the encounter by holding a gun to the victim's head. His justifiable reaction is not an excuse to escalate the situation to murder. In the same manner, if you ambush and surround someone in the street with a gun in your hand, the victim's justifiable attempts to defend himself do not give you the excuse to blow his head off.

(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or​

Our shooter has another problem here. Georgia might be in the deep south, but brandishing firearms can still get you 20 years. It's assault in Georgia to "Commit an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury." When you do it with a firearm in hand, that's aggravated assault. But wait, you might say, we don't know for sure if our shooter was aiming the shotgun at the victim before the victim tried his disarm maneuver. The problem is -- that doesn't matter. In fact, Republicans in Georgia actually want to change the law so that a "good guy with a gun" can pull his piece out to try to "de-escalate" a situation where he feels "threatened." A fortiori doing that sort of thing right now is illegal--aggravated assault, in fact. Per the bill's proponent:

"'My argument is: just because I have a weapon on my person and I show that weapon, I should not be charged with a felony — a 20-year felony — for simply brandishing my firearm in my attempt to de-escalate what I consider a situation where I felt threatened,' Harper said, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution."
​

So our trio of good old boys blocks off the road, pulls out their guns, and confronts the victim. No question, that's going to put any person on earth "in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury." The perps used guns, so that makes it a felony. Since they were in the process of committing a felony when they shot the victim, that means no self defense. Too bad, so sad.

That leaves our last exception.

"A person is not justified in using force . . . if he3) Was the aggressor . . . unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
​

The encounter began when these jokers rolled up on the victim and surrounded him with guns. That makes them the aggressors and instigators, meaning they don't get the benefit of Georgia's self defense laws unless they withdraw. The video proves otherwise.

So what do we charge our friends with? Murder? Manslaughter? How about neither. Instead let's use this nifty little statute called felony murder.

A person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.
​

You get tagged with felony murder if anyone dies while you're committing a felony. Doesn't matter if you're the shooter or not. Everyone goes down. Aggravated assault -- there's your felony. Victim is six feet under. There's your death.

Life in prison. Throw away the key.

 

Going to wait until all the facts come out before passing judgement on a 1:11 second video. I trust the process will prove these men guilty or innocent.

I will agree that the first view of the video is pretty damning and shows little, if any, evidence of self defense. I will also point out that short videos, the media and this message board have a way of passing judgement before all the facts are revealed.

 

Your honor I was skerd fer ma life, so I chased this man down with a gun - my diddy was in the truck bed with another gun as a testament to my fear. I love the baby jesus, why must I suffer thusly? &, can we getter going, the dukes of hazard's bout to start.

 

But wait!!! What about the citizen's arrest law?!?!. Surely that will justify everything. Wrong again. Turns out, to make a lawful citizen's arrest, you have to possess more than just base speculation that the person you're trying to arrest, maybe, possibly, looks like a guy who you heard might have committed a crime. Per the Georgia Court of Appeals, 2012:

The grounds for a "citizen's arrest" are governed by OCGA § 17-4-60, which pertinently provides that "[a] private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge." Moreover, OCGA § 17-4-61(a) mandates that "[a] private person who makes an arrest pursuant to Code Section 17-4-60 shall, without any unnecessary delay, take the person arrested before a judicial officer, as provided in Code Section 17-4-62, or deliver the person and all effects removed from him to a peace officer of this tate." The trial evidence did not support Smith's contention that his confinement of the victim was lawful under these provisions. Significantly, Smith testified that he was not present when the money was allegedly taken. His suggestion that the victim had committed the theft was based upon mere speculation. Smith's claim that he wanted "to question" the victim reflected that he was uncertain and did not have immediate knowledge that the victim had been the perpetrator of the alleged theft, as required for a lawful citizen's arrest. 888*888 Compare Merneigh v. State, 242 Ga.App. 735, 738-739(4), 531 S.E.2d 152 (2000) (concluding that a store employee's arrest of a defendant for shoplifting was lawful under OCGA § 17-4-61(a) since the employee witnessed the shoplifting incident and the defendant activated the store's security system as he attempted to exit the store). Moreover, Smith testified that he had no intention of reporting the alleged theft to the police. As such, there was no evidence that Smith's confinement of the victim complied with the requirements of a citizen's arrest under OCGA § 17-4-61(a). See, e.g., Conoly v. Imperial Tobacco Co., 63 Ga.App. 880, 884-885, 12 S.E.2d 398 (1940) (concluding that the defendant's citizen's arrest of a minor child was unlawful and amounted to a false imprisonment since there was no evidence that the child had committed an offense in the defendant's presence and the defendant did not thereafter take the child before any magistrate, as required). Rather, the trial evidence showed that Smith had confined the victim in the bedroom without lawful authority. Smith's false imprisonment conviction was thus authorized. See OCGA § 16-5-41(a); Port, supra, 295 Ga.App. at 110(1), 671 S.E.2d 200.[/S]​

 

No idea why this keeps crossing out -- even tried separating it into different posts.