GA - Ahmaud Arbery, 25, jogger, fatally shot by former PD and son, Brunswick, Feb 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
bbm
"Overalls"... :D

Good points !
My .02 is that I'm not going to risk going to prison over defending someone else's house that' under construction !!!
What was so important about defending the English's property ?
I can see defending your own home.
But not to the death against someone who was at the very worst trespassing and/or loitering.

This may be waaaay out there : But, was someone else planning to 'burglarize' the English's home ?
Was it someone else who stole the fishing equipment ?
And they wanted to pin it on someone else ?
And who would that someone else be ?
Someone known to the McMichael's ?
A person they needed to protect ?
Don't say it's too crazy as I'm reminded of another case that wasn't local to me but known to my coworker.
I don't know, I think hyper vigilance explains it just as well. I've seen it happen, I live in a small town - a rumour starts that so-and-so is dodgy in some way, and before you know it, so-and-so is being blamed for the cat having kittens.
 
It becomes a legal problem if based on suspicion alone you arm yourself, chase the cleaning crew into an empty office, and with your gun pointed at them, demand that they stay immobile until LE arrives.

Though, in that case and unlike the one we're discussing, at least an actual theft would have taken place, even if the thief was one of your co-workers, not anyone on the cleaning crew.

Can you provide a time stamp in the video of the altercation where guns were pointed at AA?

Or possibly a link to an msm article where it states guns were "pointed" at AA?
 
That's wrong. There has to be intent to commit a crime, but nothing need be taken.


The Crime of Robbery
Robbery is a crime where someone takes something of value directly from someone else. While laws vary by state, the typical elements of the crime are:

  • taking money or property
  • directly from someone
  • without permission
  • with the intent to keep the property permanently
  • through the use of force or intimidation.
The Crime of Burglary
States also define burglary slightly differently. But the offense usually has the following elements:

  • illegally entering
  • a building (usually a home or business)
  • with the intent to steal something or commit a felony while inside.
OLD-TIMEY BURGLARY LAWS

In the past, most states defined burglary as forcibly breaking into another person’s home at night. Today, though, burglary statutes are generally much broader. Normally, someone can commit burglary by simply entering any type of building without permission at any time of day while intending to commit a crime once inside.
The Differences Between Robbery and Burglary

Same as what I said. There is no way to prove intent if the trespasser enters, is in, and leaves unimpeded without committing a crime. That the unknown trespasser onto English's construction site entered without permission multiple times without ever committing a crime within is pretty strong evidence that he didn't have the requisite intent. So. Not a burglary legally.

Anyway, when the Satillo Shores 4 fellows used the term burglary, I'm willing to bet they were thinking and using the term loosely, as is common- theft, not a literal, informed legal definition.
 
I don't know, I think hyper vigilance explains it just as well. I've seen it happen, I live in a small town - a rumour starts that so-and-so is dodgy in some way, and before you know it, so-and-so is being blamed for the cat having kittens.
Except in this case, an unarmed man who didn't cause any harm is dead. Hyper-vigilance doesn't make any of this acceptable, or understandable. JMO.
 
Same as what I said. There is no way to prove intent if the trespasser enters, is in, and leaves unimpeded without committing a crime. That the unknown trespasser onto English's construction site entered without permission multiple times without ever committing a crime within is pretty strong evidence that he didn't have the requisite intent. So. Not a burglary legally.

Anyway, when the Satillo Shores 4 fellows used the term burglary, I'm willing to bet they were thinking and using the term loosely, as is common- theft, not a literal, informed legal definition.

If there were no way to prove it, it would be pretty silly to have a "mere intent" crime. The jury will, no doubt, decide whether there was intent. Most likely based on evidence that we have no idea about yet. Unless the defendants take a plea, of course. all jmo
 
Last edited:
This is the applicable law from the GA criminal code.

O.C.G.A. 16-5-41 (2010)
16-5-41. False imprisonment
(a) A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority.

Boxer, you need a link for that or your post will have to be removed.
 
Except in this case, an unarmed man who didn't cause any harm is dead. Hyper-vigilance doesn't make any of this acceptable, or understandable. JMO.
I never said it did. Trying to work out what went on is not the same as saying it's acceptable.
 
I don't think it's a problem to suspect someone of criminal behavior without proof. Someone in my office building takes stuff we leave in the kitchen. I suspect the cleaning crew. No problem. jmo

Suspecting is fine, thats investigation.
But if you only suspect and do not witness or have proof then try to stop them, blocking them from leaving (in this case 3 times) and then produce a shotgun to compel the cleaner to stay, you are commiting a crime of false imprisonment.

Some one suddenly trying to detain you is bizarre and threatening. The cleaner might try to struggle with you to get free rather than get shot while standing defenselessly.
The cleaner might even have a record, but that wouldnt matter.
 
Can you provide a time stamp in the video of the altercation where guns were pointed at AA?

Or possibly a link to an msm article where it states guns were "pointed" at AA?

If their weapons were drawn, he had a reason to fear for his life. Or do you think that it would have been in his best interest to do exactly what these armed strangers who came out of nowhere told him to do? If I were jogging and 3 men came at me and weapons were involved, I would assume they intended to kill me in some nefarious way and I would do what I could to make it as hard as possible for them to achieve their goals, even if it meant I died in the process on my own terms. I wouldn't acquiesce (or I imagine not).

What part of this is okay? What part of their actions in creating this situation was necessary?
 
Here's a summary of the GA Burglary Statutes. Note that all degrees and types of burglary are felonies

Georgia Burglary Laws - FindLaw

Which is why talking head attorneys are mostly or entirely in agreement that Ahmaud, if guilty of anything that day, had committed the misdemeanor offense of trespassing. Not of first or second degree burglary, which yes, are both felonies. And both require proving that pesky element of intent to commit a crime.
 
Which is why talking head attorneys are mostly or entirely in agreement that Ahmaud, if guilty of anything that day, had committed the misdemeanor offense of trespassing. Not of first or second degree burglary, which yes, are both felonies. And both require proving that pesky element of intent to commit a crime.

Amen.
 
Which is why talking head attorneys are mostly or entirely in agreement that Ahmaud, if guilty of anything that day, had committed the misdemeanor offense of trespassing. Not of first or second degree burglary, which yes, are both felonies. And both require proving that pesky element of intent to commit a crime.

Right. And the talking head attorneys have no idea, at the moment, whether there's any proof of intent. So what they say on the topic is irrelevant to me. We won't know for a LONG time what all the evidence is. Especially with the courts under emergency orders.
 
If their weapons were drawn, he had a reason to fear for his life. Or do you think that it would have been in his best interest to do exactly what these armed strangers who came out of nowhere told him to do? If I were jogging and 3 men came at me and weapons were involved, I would assume they intended to kill me in some nefarious way and I would do what I could to make it as hard as possible for them to achieve their goals, even if it meant I died in the process on my own terms. I wouldn't acquiesce (or I imagine not).

What part of this is okay? What part of their actions in creating this situation was necessary?
I asked a simple question. "Is there anywhere in the video or elsewhere, where guns are being pointed".

Not brandished, not readied, not laying on a truck seat, not in a holster. "Pointed".

<modsnip: Snarky comments are a violation of Websleuths TOS>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
234
Guests online
4,442
Total visitors
4,676

Forum statistics

Threads
592,313
Messages
17,967,240
Members
228,743
Latest member
VT_Squire
Back
Top