By now you must have heard that Gregory McMichael and his son, Travis have been charged in the shooting death of an apparent jogger, they believed fit the description of a neighborhood burglar.

As discussed in this forum in both full and partial threads, there is no future in taking the law into your own hands and attempting citizens' arrests. I would like to think it was Massad Ayoob ( I may be mistaken here) who advised that no matter what your state has to say about citizens' arrest, it's best not to make a citizens' arrest. The laws are so treacherous and murky that you risk life as you know it once the legal machine begins to grind you up.

In the state laws that I'm familiar with, a citizens' arrest is permissible for a crime committed in your presence. Searching the neighborhood for someone the "fits the description" of a criminal is a job best left to the police. Once would think that after the Trayvon Martin shooting, in 2012, in Florida by George Zimmerman, people in general would have been awakened to the risks of overzealous participation in citizens' or neighborhood watch groups. These individuals should be the eyes and ears of the police the rather than arming themselves and trying to do their job for them.

I've mentioned it before in several threads: if your home suffers a break-in, any shots fired in self-defense within your home are easily viewed as legitimate self defense. If the intruder flees and you give chase outside your home, you are no longer acting in self defense but are now attempting a citizens' arrest where the laws become a legal minefield.

I think it's important that besides the elements to successful firearms engagements, we must also be intimately familiar with our local laws and how they may apply to the situation you find yourself in. Make a bad call and personal bankruptcy is the likely result.

AMEN to the OP. Those two guys acted in a totally unacceptable way and I hope they get the book thrown at them (IMHO).

Or worse.

A good reason to know the relevant laws before something happens. I live in a Constitutional Carry state, but I still took the carry permit class, not only for reciprocity when traveling out-of-state, but also to learn my state's carry and self defense laws.

While it seems to be a somewhat controversial subject in these forums, it may also be worth it to consider one of the self-defense legal services available, or have a lawyer knowledgeable of self defense law on retainer. Like a gun, you may go through life never needing it, but if you do, you really need it.

Legal or not, weigh the risk, the short and long ramifications. There are no takebacks. A mentor Sgt of mine used to say "100 years from now, you wont know the difference"

Federali said it well.

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

Back in the early 80's I remember when NYPD met with our federal LEOs and advised that the best course of action off-duty was to drop a dime and report a crime, rather than get involved (unless exigent circumstances were present).

"Be a good witness" was what they counseled for their own off-duty officers as well as us feds. There is wisdom in that advice.

Personally, outside of my home, I will only get involved if there is a threat of loss of life or grave bodily harm to myself or others...if I feel I can make a difference without putting others at risk.

__________________
642-1, M&P15 TS

Throw the book at em.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

In many states "citizens arrest" is limited to a felony committed in your presence. Also, in many states figuring out what may be a felony/heinous felony can be confusing/difficult at best and may be dependent upon murky circumstances. Some states may throw in "breach of the peace" as grounds for a citizen arrest which can be even murkier.

There's been a lot of change in folks perception/outlook since most of our legal codes were originated.

Them boys are done for. There was no justification for them to stop the guy let alone at gun point. If they hadn’t killed him he would own everything they have. To many people think a gun is a badge. It’s simple, no gun unless a life threatening situation. You can’t make one by starting a fight.

They were wrong, wrong, wrong. Matters no their reasoning just wanting to play cop ended wrong. My opinion was a retired LEO

This. The media is reporting that this occurred in February and that the Father/Son thought the Victim looked like a Subject caught on a surveillance camera from a prior burglary.....At the time ,they weren’t charged.

The proper action in this case would have been to call it in and report it and let LE handle it. There was NO imminent danger to to the Father/son or others at the time, You always have to conduct yourself and act as a reasonable and prudent Person.

I had a DI tell me back in 1966,” If you’re gonna be dumb, you better be tough”

These two have been arrested and charged with murder and agg assault,not to mention what the big G will come up with.

Make stupid choices, win stupid prizes.

Ignorance, adrenaline and guns are a dangerous combination - these men should now be tried by a jury of their peers and punished in accordance with the law if found guilty.

What we don't need, is for this to be the impetus of unnecessary hate crime laws to be adopted by my home state of Georgia.

Punish illegal actions, not misguided motives....


Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

It amazes me that with all the troubles going on over racism that people could be so stupid as to cause this kind of issue when it could easily been avoided. To me there are two victims, the actual victim & his family and all the law abiding citizens that are gun owners. Everyone of these incidents adds ammo to anti gunners.

Seems like without a picture it didn't happen. Should not have taken 2 months for an arrest to be made.

This should never have happened, stupid vigilantes.
However the victim did not display a lot of intelligence by grabbing the barrel of a shotgun and fighting for possession when confronted by two vigilantes who had the drop on him.
I would wager that most of the cases of adversaries fighting over a firearm ends in at least one being shot.

It takes very few instances like this one, adding in armored-up AR carriers at State Capitals protesting public safety orders, to make life as we know it to change. Throw in a few confederate battle flags, run over some folks peacefully protesting, some crazy kid shoots up his high school, and all gun owners will be vilified. Support for reducing our 2nd amendment rights will increase. I’m not being political here. Merely stating my fears. Ask a Canadian how they feel now that they are facing a ban.

__________________
SWCA 3255 SWHF 615

Had the third individual not recorded the act, I don't believe that anything would have been done to the father and son.

Personally, I think the third individual may be connected to the father and son. Maybe not, but it is unusual and worth investigating.

__________________
SWCA 3255 SWHF 615

In the laws of self-defense, the aggressor, depending on your state, may not claim self defense but the victim may attempt to disarm the aggressor as part of his self defense. I would expect attorneys for the father and son would try to turn this around and muddy up the legal waters. The video apparently shows the father and son stopping their vehicle and producing shotguns. The victim cannot know nor does the law require him to know the intentions of his attackers. Perhaps resistance was a poor choice but he still acted in self defense.

Arbery was out in public, guilty of nothing. He’d still be alive if those 2 didn’t leave the privacy of their own home specifically to chase him down. I wouldn’t want to be in the situation they’re in.

__________________
Geoff. Since 1960.

They called the police for a suspected burglar w/ prior shoplifting charges (possibly unknown to them), then followed him. All legal so far. However stopping him was over the line, brandishing a gun while stopping him, way over the line unless they claimed to be making a citizens arrest (they're not claiming that). Possible kidnapping? At that point thy can't legitimately claim self defense but Arbery might since they came after him... if he survived the attack. Getting that close to a suspect is bad tactics, obviously had no idea what they were doing. Arbery had reason to protect himself since a couple pickups full of armed rednecks were chasing him. Father & son are in a world of trouble. The videoing neighbor is now in the middle of a mess although his intent may have been good.

I'm probably the only one here who thinks they won't be convicted of murder.

That being said incredibly stupid to go looking for trouble. Usually you find it.

__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me.

Manslaughter at the least & they are going to loose everything they own in civil suits.

Even if they had no intension for it to end that way, they have to be responsible for their actions.

Dunno about there, but in New Mexico this would be straight up voluntary manslaughter with a firearm enhancement.

a corrupt police chief, a corrupt DA who is definitely becoming a headline, this is just a slice from current reporting on how grim conditions in this county have been:

"On Feb. 28, Glynn County Police Chief John Powell was indicted, along with two officers and the police chief from nearby Vidalia, on charges of covering up crimes allegedly committed by members of the department’s drug task force. Former members of the since-disbanded task force were accused of suppressing evidence in a fatal police chase, sleeping and doing meth and cocaine with a confidential informant, carrying a handgun while drinking in a bar, coercing witnesses, and lying to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation about at least one of those instances of misconduct."


"Sasser, one of the two officers involved in Small’s killing, went on to kill his wife and her friend before turning the gun on himself in June 2018. He was out on bond at the time, after threatening his estranged wife at her home. After that, Sasser had attacked police officers during an armed standoff and was again released on bond, an agreement DA Johnson negotiated with a local judge. Out on that bond, he threatened his estranged wife and her male companion at a restaurant. Two days later, he killed the pair."

I’ll wait for the rest of the story before pronouncing judgement.

In the coming days and weeks the dead guy’s mugshots will be released by the defense, along with his criminal history. Maybe the doorbell cam video, or other witnesses who saw him interrupt his jog by poking around in a home under construction.

I’ll let the system work.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

Me too, but it sure beats another virus thread, at least for the time being.

__________________
Sure you did

As a realistic matter, I am never unarmed. Period. I almost never go anywhere if I cannot be armed there. I am horrified when I read of people who could be armed and chose not to be - it is simply not consistent with anything I know or believe. But: it is for the defense of myself, my wife, my dogs. Period.

Is it possible I would get involved in some other situation? Yes, but very unlikely. Unless the facts are really clear to me (like someone assaulting a cop), I'm going to call 911 and stay back. I came close to intervening in a matter involving an officer being resisted while I was walking the dogs a few years ago, and I would done so if I had not been able to ascertain the officer's well-being from a distance.

While is is clear that neither American cops nor private citizens kill nearly as many violent criminals as they could (and thus by definition should), this event is very unlikely to pass the smell test.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

So, according to the above, all "persons of color" are automatically guilty of something and should be shot for getting "uppity" and daring to jog in the wrong neighborhood. Go look in a mirror.

We do not know what was said, the only credible witness is DEAD. If it was his choice to die fighting instead of on his knees like a slave, I agree.

Geoff
Who thinks it was a pure race murder, the alleged crimes were committed months before the incident, no "hot pursuit."

Long post, so beware.

As a retired LEO after 33 years, I can’t think of a single legal circumstance that would justify this killing. Poking around as he was jogging in broad daylight in a white neighborhood? Does that sound reasonable to anyone? Even if he had, there’s no way the shooters could have known this. Self defense? The person who initiates the violence can’t claim self defense when the victim tries to defend himself. As I see it at this time, it’s murder and I can’t think of any reason this killing would be justified.

Before I retired in 2009, we worked a somewhat similar case, legally similar but the circumstances were different. A case where a nan took the law in his own hands where no crime had been committed by the victim. The victim was on a 125 cc motorbike coming out of a shopping center making a left turn when the two daughters of the shooter, also making a left turn in an auto, made contact with him in his lane. It wasn’t serious contact, but both vehicles received a little bit of damage. The girls didn’t stop and the biker followed them home. En route, the daughters called dad and told him a biker was following them home, which indeed he was. That’s all they told him, no other info about the slight collision. Or a touching, at least.

Anyway, dad got his pistol and stood in his yard, presumably next to the street. Girls drove into the driveway. The biker apparently saw dad with the pistol, drove by. Dead end street, so he turned around and rode past the house. Father said he tried to run him down, but no evidence of this. Dad said he was on his property when he shot the biker in the back as he rode by, killing him. If he was on his on property when he shot, there would have been shell casings (it was one of those commie 9x18 pistols) but there weren’t. Dad policed them up before we got there, presumably to hide where he was when he shot, an indicator he knew what he’d done was wrong. He shot the kid, who was retreating, from the street. In the back.

When I say “biker” not talking about a 300 pound outlaw biker, unshaven and riding a Harley, this kid was on a 125 cc bike, was 19 years old, and weighed 125 pounds. Because we get very few murders, we investigated this case very thoroughly.

Dad was convicted. He was a respected member of the community, and in fact the street where he killed the biker bore his last name, after his father, a preacher.

I make this long post to show what can happen when someone uses a firearm illegally against another person who is not offering a threat. . Bad things will happen.

Different circumstances but legal similarity. Our case was a white on white crime, so there wasn’t as much emotion as in the Arbery case, but the shooter had lots of support in the community as a person. Support but not a lot of sympathy.

To clear up the definition of Citizens Arrest, a citizen can arrest a person who commits a crime in his presence or in his knowledge. Felony or misdemeanor. Which allows security in stores to arrest shoplifters. In GA, citizens have the same arrest powers as LEOs, except citizens can’t arrest for traffic violations or ordinance violations, and can’t serve warrants.

I am sorry two men caught on video murdering a young man were arrested. They are obviously guilty and should of been hung already. One of the murderers is a former LEO, according to the news reports every few hours.

My concern is that the proper charges are filed. Former DeKalb county sheriff Ray Bonner shot and killed a teenager years ago and got off because of wrong charges.

Watching the limited video and reading the deluge of info released thus far ...

This seemingly started with poor judgment, and went downhill.

No way for me to pretend to know the father's experience and professionalism as a former police officer and retired DA's Investigator, of course.

That said, being a retired peace officer, it's dismaying to think he would've thought it was any sort of a good idea to arm himself, and encourage (?) his son to arm himself, and chase after a man seen running for what he might think would be nothing more than a low level property crime. That's why we pay local taxes to have the uniformed cops drive around and be willing to check out suspicious people and circumstances.

Maybe stretch it and follow at a distance, and not stand with a gun in the bed of the truck, so he could offer to update the responding cops to DoT? Even that's a recipe for a possible nasty turn of events, though. Let the responding cops have the room to do their thing.

A little while back I had a neighbor come over and get me because another neighbor's house alarm was going off in the afternoon. Yes, she knew I was a retired cop, so she came to knock on my door. "Did anyone call the sheriff?" Yes? See anything obviously bad? No? Then I'll walk along, but only to observe from a distance, and try to keep everyone else to stay back and wait for the sheriff.

Local deputy rolled up, after driving right by the right address. (Hey, it happens, folks.)

I met him in the road, identified myself and my little "group" as concerned neighbors, and pointed out the correct residence (visible from our position about a hundred yards away). Gave him what little succinct info we had about the new buyers to the neighborhood.

Since he was alone on the call, at least at that time, I quietly identified myself as a retired cop. He wouldn't have been able to see my pocketed weapon (and he didn't ask), and neither did any of the neighbors (be able to see, or think to ask). I offered to make sure the rest of the neighbors stayed well back, and stood closer where I could have a good view of 2 sides of the house/property while he did his check for open doors, windows, people, etc ... and be able to greet any further cover unit and direct them (in case they missed the SO veh parked on a side private road ).

Anticlimactic. That's always a good thing. House secure and no signs of forced entry. Just another new resident alarm system call in the country. Nice to have interested neighbors, though. As long as none of them do anything stupid that gets them hurt or in serious trouble, or anyone else hurt.

Oh yeah, make sure the sheriff has been called before you come knock at my door. Saves me from having to do it and play catch up/go-between. Embarrassing. Sigh.

Some people seem to want to treat property crimes like it's life and death, and don't seem to grasp that poor judgment and bad decisions can turn an otherwise low level susp/circ call into a serious injury or death event.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

Sorry, but you are wrong.....no reason for the young man to comply with thugs brandishing a weapon at him....I would like to see you comply in that situation.....probably not going to happen. You just happen not to be black and you own firearms.....your perspective is skewed. If someone attempts to detain me with a weapon.....and I am privileged to be able to own a bunch of firearms....that situation is going to be me or them. This kid fought with what he had.....they won, but now they get to pay the price for acting as thugs....no sympathy for them and they deserve the maximum penalty.....to think that the young man should have complied is kind of twisted thinking.....as far as he was concerned his life was in danger.....

While I personally disagree with the actions of these two vigilantes, I have to say that Georgia has one of the most ambiguous citizen arrest laws I’ve ever encountered:

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.

I don’t know all of the circumstances of this case, but I suspect that whichever side of this controversy you come down on, you can probably make an argument based on that equivocal and puzzling language.

Happened not to far from my town. Got church members who live in that area. The boy was well know in our country high school, etc. He was out running. He had not broken any laws. He was simply out running. The two men who murdered him can holler citizen arrest, standing their ground or anything else they want. The video shows what happened. They murdered the man. Plain and simple. He didn't force them to shoot b/c they were in danger of getting shot if he got the gun away from them. He was defending his own life. It is that simple. If he were white and the two men were African-American, would anyone be saying that he was at fault for trying to defend his life? JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

__________________
<><

Looking at the GA statutes, looks like you can’t use deadly force to defend property. Also looks like you can’t claim self defense if you instigate a deadly force attack and the guy you attacked defends themselves.

Based on that, I think these guys are toast.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

CapnB, I don't think GA laws of Citizens Arrest are in the least confusing, and I live here and was a cop, as I said above. They're based on knowledge of a crime, which didn't occur here until the shooters assaulted the runner. Then there was a crime, committed by the shooters. There was NO offense committed by Avery that would give the citizens the right to interview him, much less threaten him with a gun and kill him. Avery had not committed a felony the shooters knew of and wasn't fleeing.

A Citizens Arrest requires a crime and a CA must be immediate. Delay and interviews aren't covered.

By the way, LEOs in GA require the same circumstances you mentioned above to make an arrest, except LEOs can arrest on warrants for things that did not occur in their presence and for a couple of other reasons I mentioned above.

Gene L, I agree with everything you say and I respect and appreciate your many years of experience, but it doesn’t change my opinion on the wording of that particular statute. Apparently, even one of the prosecutors originally assigned to the case wrote a letter stating the shooting was justified based on that law. Again, I’m sure there are underlying circumstances I’m not aware of, but I believe the law could have been more artfully worded.

A classic case of what not to do.

__________________
No baby we aint

Well, the GA law on powers of arrest has been around for many years and has worked great so far. Cops are rather extensively trained on this law, while citizens aren't. Citizens arrests outside of security busting shoplifters and the like is a very rare thing in GA because most citizens don't know the fine points of the law. Then there's the liability thing which will almost certainly result in a lawsuit. Not to mention legal woes if the arrest isn't legal.

To whom and when did the prosecutor address this letter and who is he/she? He was wrong. Me, I'd see such a letter as devastating to his career and possibly a reason to question if local corruption is present.

The retired cop has said he had dealings with the dead guy from previous run-ins with the law, which included firearms offenses. That will not be hard to prove.

They may get convicted, but the whole story has not been told - just a shaky video that doesn’t even show the initial encounter.

The two “vigilantes” called the cops - twice.

I know it is horribly politically incorrect, but the two folks in custody are innocent until proven guilty.

I’ll wait for the rest of the story.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

It is a very sad situation that the liberal media had to immediately jump on the fact that one of those involved was an "ex-cop". They are always ready to "stir the pot", sell an extra paper and start a riot. They are mostly scum.

Gene L. Sorry, I just figured you were aware of this (copied and pasted without edits directly from CNN): “. . . before Barnhill's recusal, he wrote a separate letter to police saying he believed Gregory and Travis McMichael were within their rights to make a citizen's arrest of Arbery at the time of the shooting. "It appears their intent was to stop and hold this criminal suspect until law enforcement arrived. Under Georgia law, this is perfectly legal," Barnhill wrote in an April 2 letter. He went on to question whether Arbery could have been responsible for the gunshots by pulling on the shotgun and wrote Travis McMichael "was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself."

Again, I’m sure there is more to this story and you’re certainly in a position to know more about it than me. I appreciate your insight on this interesting and tragic story.

This incident has nothing to do with "citizens arrest".

The guy was out for a run and was targeted by the other two.
Senator Tim Scott made a good point when he said "burglars don't go jogging down the middle of the street in the afternoon."

The father and son staked out a position blocking the road.
Arbery went along the shoulder of the road to continue his run.

The first shot was fired while he was just running.

Watch the unedited video WITH the original audio!
The first shot is fired, but even though the vehicle blocks a lot of the view, it appears that Arbery's feet are still moving at his same run pace.
The physical engagement didn't begin until AFTER that.

If you were unarmed and came under fire by two armed assailants would you not feel as though your life was under immediate threat?
If you saw as perhaps your last chance to survive by trying to disarm one of the assailants, while you were being shot at, would you not take it?

IF the father had any legitimate law enforcement background what justification can he offer for any of this?

Any of you LEO’s been to the federal training place near Brunswick? Is it called Glynco? If so, you know the area has issues.

The classic definition of a self-defense situation has been said to be the following: A reasonable person knowing what you knew at the time of the incident believes that there is an imminent and unavoidable threat of death or serious bodily injury and the person making the threat has the ability, opportunity and jeopardy to carry it out.

Chasing a person in public whom you believe may have committed a criminal offense certainly seems to me to be rather difficult to justify in meeting the "imminent and unavoidable" part of the self-defense definition.

I would suspect that the first thing a jury is going to ask is why after calling the local PD did they escalate the matter by chasing down the suspected criminal on a public road? How does this action meet the imminent and unavoidable part of the self-defense definition in view of the fact that the person shot was not trying to break into their homes and threaten their families with death or serious bodily injury but was rather running away from them?

Some states may take a rather expansive view of when a citizen has the legal right to shot at another individual outside the setting of one's home but states such as the Democratic People's Republic of Massachusetts certainly is not one of those states.

If one disregards any questions pursuant to the moral issue of shooting there is still the legal issues to contend with. I strongly believe that an individual who is not acting in the sworn capacity of a LEO would be better served by adapting a more conservative interpretation of their legal responsibilities of self-defense as opposed to a more expansive one even if their particular state allows a degree of wider latitude in defining the matter.

I carry a concealed pistol everyday that I leave my home and I bear in mind that as I have chosen to do so of my own volition it is incumbent upon me to have a keen awareness of the citizen rules of engagement involving the employment of deadly force that I am operating under in my particular area.

Mr. Grant Cunningham has written several articles pointing out that situational awareness and subsequent avoidance of being in a shooting situation are a prudent approach to surviving when out and about these days. A person who says that they relish the opportunity to become involved in a potential deadly force situation has proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that not only are they a fool but also that they never have been confronted by such circumstances in the real world.

Harry

Seen some of the videos ......... from what little I've seen this is a classic....

You can't fix stupid.

I do know that two guys getting out of a pickup truck with shotguns would scare the poop out of me.............................

Beyond that ...... I'll wait for the Trial.

I put a "like" on this for the simple fact that the news is not really the news. It's always skewed. I'll wait for the facts and make up my own mind. I haven't seen the video or really heard a story about it. I pretty much avoid the news.

That event saddens me very much...terrible, terrible...those things should never happen today and sadly is reminiscent of the Jim Crow South.