The Ahmaud Arbery Shooting

[blues7]

Thanks for the clarification on your Statutes.... That gives the Subjects even less probable cause to Arm up and attempting to detain/effect arrest..... Stay Safe.

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.

IMHO...

If the defense puts on a case, they will have to demonstrate that the actions of the defendants met the burden of the law above...and that the resultant loss of life was caused by an act of self-defense once the younger defendant and the decedent got into a scrum.

On the other hand...

The prosecution will attempt to demonstrate that the burden of the law was not met and that therefore any claim of self-defense is forfeit. (Since the defendant exited the vehicle armed, with an intent to intercept the decedent...thus initiating the event.)

All the defense need do is raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of one juror. (Or, if a bench trial, in the mind of the judge.)

The prosecution has a much greater burden of proof.

What evidence the judge admits will be key.

 

[Gene L]

The defense doesn't have to prove anything. They don't even have to mount a defense.

The burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution.

Very true. But if the Defense can raise these issues, though I don't see their relevance, they will. It's probably going to be viewed as a desperation grasping at straws defense, but that may be all the Defense has.

 

[vt_shooter]

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.

The "or others" part is filled with pitfalls. The odds are very slim I would come to someone other than a family member's aid using deadly force. Let's say you happened upon someone you didn't know who was being stabbed, and you employed deadly force to stop that attack. You might be on the hook for murder if the one being stabbed himself did not have a right to employ deadly force to protect himself because he himself started the altercation. Maybe he has a knife in his hand that you didn't see. Also, the person you perceived as being victimized made the decision to not be able to protect himself by carrying his own firearm. He owns that, you don't have to risk your neck because of his choice (assuming we're talking about an adult).

 

[Ziggy2525]

Frankly, neither comment is relevant nor adds anything to the search for truth.

You lost me on that one. It's an internet forum where people are all speculating on things they don't know fully. The search for the truth will happen in a court in Georgia, not on this forum.

 

[blues7]

The "or others" part is filled with pitfalls. The odds are very slim I would come to someone other than a family member's aid using deadly force. Let's say you happened upon someone you didn't know who was being stabbed, and you employed deadly force to stop that attack. You might be on the hook for murder if the one being stabbed himself did not have a right to employ deadly force to protect himself because he himself started the altercation. Maybe he has a knife in his hand that you didn't see. Also, the person you perceived as being victimized made the decision to not be able to protect himself by carrying his own firearm. He owns that, you don't have to risk your neck because of his choice (assuming we're talking about an adult).

My post was not intended to be read as a statute or case law. I mentioned the conditions under which I "might" respond.

And while there are exceptions to the rule, a person defending themselves against an aggressor (who cannot claim self-defense) does not have the right to continue stabbing, clubbing, beating or shooting the (original guilty party) once he or she is capable of extricating themselves from the threat.

So, I'll see your "what if" and raise you one.

But anyway, yes, it's always prudent to be sure of what you're about to do when you intervene, or consider doing so.

 

[vt_shooter]

My post was not intended to be read as a statute or case law.

I know

My intent was just to advocate people giving a lot of thought to the notion of protecting others (besides their own family).

Cheers, and thank you for serving!

 

[blues7]

You lost me on that one. It's an internet forum where people are all speculating on things they don't know fully. The search for the truth will happen in a court in Georgia, not on this forum.

Well, I just thought the comments on so-called privileged wannabes vs. the inner city / urban genuine article a bit over the top. But don't let my personal bias stop you.

Some of us actually are interested in the truth, though. I will stand by that. YMMV.

 

[Steve912]

Hmmm....violently assaulted a guy with a shotgun... not thinking that's one for attracting juror sympathy.

The video shows the deceased advancing on the shotgun-
holder, while shotgun holder backpedals. The deceased
closes the distance to arms-reach, where he grabs
the shotgun in one hand and punches the holder in
the face/head with the other, while the shotgun-holder
continues backpedaling. This is prior to shot(s) fired.


More info will no doubt be forthcoming, but my impression is
"bad judgement" on all involved parties.

 

[blues7]

More info will no doubt be forthcoming, but my impression is
"bad judgement" on all involved parties.

I would agree...speaking for myself and not as a representative of either side.

The legal and human cost it has and will generate will be staggering.

 

[Fastbolt]

This is already becoming quite the media storm.

The "big blender" of politics, racist claims, legal considerations and legal wrangling is going to keep this in the news cycle for some time. The only (sadly) "winners" of this whole debacle are going to be the cable/network news talking heads (and the advertisers), and the attorneys.

At least 2 families have been, or are in the process of being, destroyed by the decisions of the people immediately involved.

Another cautionary tale. Sigh.

 

[kbm6893]

They've already been convicted in the courts of public opinion. They're done.

To say the criminal justice system is fair is a blatant lie. They weren't arrested because those in power gave them a pass. Now they'll be convicted because those in power CAN'T give them a pass, even if they want to.

Evidence means nothing. Letter of the law means nothing. It can all be twisted. They walk, riots and the city burns. Nobody is going to let that happen.

For the record, I DON'T believe this guy was out for a jog. His criminal history means a lot to me. That doesn't mean I believe he had just committed a crime. I also don't believe these two idiots were virtuously looking out for their neighborhood. They took the law into their own hands because they thought they could. What stupidity. Both lives over, and one lost. And for what? Arresting somebody for a minor case that would more than likely get pled down to a fine or probation? So they could brag about it to their friends? This guy brought a gun to school? He serve any time for that?

And yes, these two yokels make ALL gun owners look bad. One more arrow in the quiver of those who would like the US to follow Canada's model.

 

[blues7]

It doesn't help when the media reports misinformation like this without fact checking:

Lawyers for Arbery's family say the video bolsters their position that Arbery did nothing wrong, and shows he did not commit a felony. Under Georgia law, someone who isn't a sworn police officer can arrest and detain another person only if a felony is committed in the presence of the arresting citizen.

"Ahmaud's actions at this empty home under construction were in no way a felony under Georgia law," the lawyers wrote in a social media post. "This video confirms that Mr. Arbery's murder was not justified and the actions of the men who pursued him and ambushed him were unjustified."

Georgia officials examine threats to Arbery case protesters

Maybe someone should actually look at the relevant sections of law before disseminating without analysis.

 

[zzclancy]

Very true. But if the Defense can raise these issues, though I don't see their relevance, they will. It's probably going to be viewed as a desperation grasping at straws defense, but that may be all the Defense has.

When it comes to juries and defense lawyers OJ ALWAYS comes to mind.

 

[Gene L]

Lawyers will say what they will, and it's possible they actually believe a felony has to be committed before a citizen can effect an arrest, but that's not true. Someone above posted GA code for citizens arrest. Lots of people DO think it has to be a felony; I believed it myself for a while. But store security people make them all the time for shoplifting. The defense is just blowing smoke. CAs are, as I said, pretty rare outside of shoplifting cases.

 

[otis24]

It appears they pulled out a shotgun and held the man at gunpoint, at which point Arbery attempted to disarm the man attempting the citizen's arrest.

At this time, I believe the guy with the shotgun was forced to fire on the suspect because he was afraid he would be disarmed and shot. I do not think it would have ended this way with anybody dead if Arbery had complied.

I do not think these two should have been prowling for someone just based on security camera footage, but DO NOT be so quick to demonize fellow gun owners. These two men were misguided, sure, but were attempting to be patriots defending their homesteads from a burglar.

It was not handled well, but I DO NOT think these men deserve life, as no malicious intent was involved. He was forced to shoot once the disarm attempt occurred, leading to this outcome.

Here's what I think happened. These nitwits thought the suspect was "suspicious" and didn't belong in the neighborhood just because of his race. It would be one thing if they saw him commiting a crime. But no degree of suspicion justifies stopping an individual and questioning them just because they look "suspicious". Looking suspicious is not a crime. Even a LEO would not have been justified in stopping the individual without just cause. I understand that the elder gentleman was a retired LEO and may have been emboldened by that fact. It's called "consentual contact". I do not have to engage with or answer the questions of an LEO, including identifying myself, unless I am suspected of commiting a crime and am being detained for that. Even LEOs get it wrong do many times. Watch "Audit the Audit" on YouTube. LEOs have the mistaken impression that if someone complains, they have to confront and provide a resolution to that complaint. For instance, suppose I am walking down the street videoing people's houses, which I have a legal right to do. Someone calls and makes a complaint. "Suspicious guy filming, we are nervous, upset". Officer approaches. I would gladly give him my name and then be justified in telling him to buzz off. My behavior is not illegal and he has no authority to tell me to stop videoing. He simply needs to make a report and dispatch needs to just convey to any concerned citizen that the matter was investigated and there is no need for concern. Or at least, no illegal behavior is taking place. These two overstepped their bounds and someone should pay. The media attention, thanks for the video, will most surely see that they are held accountable. Being a retired LEO will be a detriment as local officials try to avoid any hint of favoritism or racism.

 

[blues7]

Lawyers will say what they will, and it's possible they actually believe a felony has to be committed before a citizen can effect an arrest, but that's not true. Someone above posted GA code for citizens arrest. Lots of people DO think it has to be a felony; I believed it myself for a while. But store security people make them all the time for shoplifting. The defense is just blowing smoke. CAs are, as I said, pretty rare outside of shoplifting cases.

Pretty piss poor lawyer if you can't be assed to actually check the statute. (Of course, it's great to pander to your audience and all that, but who are you serving in doing so?)

I quoted the law above, but I'm not sure if you're referring to my post or not.

 

[CH4]

Burglary is a property crime. Make a police report.

 

[LostintheOzone]

Lawyers will say what they will, and it's possible they actually believe a felony has to be committed before a citizen can effect an arrest, but that's not true. Someone above posted GA code for citizens arrest. Lots of people DO think it has to be a felony; I believed it myself for a while. But store security people make them all the time for shoplifting. The defense is just blowing smoke. CAs are, as I said, pretty rare outside of shoplifting cases.

If the offense is not a felony it must be committed or at least attempted in the presence of the security guard before a citizen's arrest can be made.

Given that, was the crime committed in the presence of the individual who attempted the citizens arrest? And what crime was committed? I'm not sure there was one.

These guys weren't rent a cops protecting anyone's property anyway, so your shoplifting analogy here is pretty weak.

 

[forrestinmathews]

Come on, if the kid was really just jogging in this day and age he's got accessories. Minimalist isn't a thing with millennials especially genuine article urbanites. He's gotta show off his material things just like the rest of us. You know when I would go minimalist? When I didn't want to lose something exfiltrating the area of operation/scene of the crime. Urbanites are not the genuine article anymore than a preppy kid is a wannabe. Your personal bias is friggin ridiculous. The kid was killed for tugging on the shotgun and throwing punches. The end of the day result was he was somewhere he obviously shouldn't have been and he didn't know how to act. A little civility on his part and he'd have been the plaintiff and not the deceased. But he was disrespected and had to make a stand. Fools.

 

[otis24]

Come on, if the kid was really just jogging in this day and age he's got accessories. Minimalist isn't a thing with millennials especially genuine article urbanites. He's gotta show off his material things just like the rest of us. You know when I would go minimalist? When I didn't want to lose something exfiltrating the area of operation/scene of the crime. Urbanites are not the genuine article anymore than a preppy kid is a wannabe. Your personal bias is friggin ridiculous. The kid was killed for tugging on the shotgun and throwing punches. The end of the day result was he was somewhere he obviously shouldn't have been and he didn't know how to act. A little civility on his part and he'd have been the plaintiff and not the deceased. But he was disrespected and had to make a stand. Fools.

It doesn't matter if he was jogging in high heels and lipstick. And just where is it that "he wasn't supposed to be"?. I was under the impression that segregation had ended and that we, as free citizens, are free to travel wherever we wish so long as we are not trespassing on private property.

 

[GaryS]

Sadly, it's become horribly politicized, but that's the way things go these days.

It's up to a jury to decide if the suspects are guilty or innocent. No matter what a jury decides someone is going to be unhappy.

Being an election year, this will another racially charged story that the politicians will just use to their own advantage.

It's just sad. As you say, "Sigh..."

This is already becoming quite the media storm.

The "big blender" of politics, racist claims, legal considerations and legal wrangling is going to keep this in the news cycle for some time. The only (sadly) "winners" of this whole debacle are going to be the cable/network news talking heads (and the advertisers), and the attorneys.

At least 2 families have been, or are in the process of being, destroyed by the decisions of the people immediately involved.

Another cautionary tale. Sigh.

 

[Fastbolt]

Well, so much for wondering if the deceased individual having ducked into a house reno to maybe use a bathroom. Doesn't look far enough along for bathrooms to be completed. Easy for them to check, considering the video apparently in evidence. (The linked video provided by this news source won't show much of the individual's activities inside the construction site ... for whatever reason ... but it doesn't look like a toilet is visible, or flooring installed before a toilet might be setup.)
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg8CaecNJI8&feature=youtu.be[/ame]

 

[Fastbolt]

I wonder if the legal team for the suspects will decide to try for a Bench Trial, to avoid juror feelings after all the press and hope for a judge to just try the case on facts, evidence and the law? Is that an option in that state?

 

[Fastbolt]

Video shows Portable bathroom outside construction. Oh well, that settles that possible thought, huh?

Authorities investigate new video showing Ahmaud Arbery just prior to shooting

 

[Gene L]

It's an option, but I doubt a bench trial. They'll probably get a change of venue, though. While he might or might not have entered the house to use the bathroom, it's clear he didn't steal anything.

 

[biku324]

If you're guilty as sin, you want a jury. If your fate rests on a technical point of law, you want a bench trial.

 

[Rastoff]

This video, any video really, that shows anything Aubrey did prior to the shooting is not germane to the case. Why? Because the shooters had no knowledge of it. Even if Aubrey had murdered someone just prior to being shot, the shooters didn't know that and were acting on a hunch, not knowledge.

Therefore, the shoot is unjustifiable. That makes it murder and accessory to murder.

 

[Rastoff]

If you're guilty as sin, you want a jury. If your fact rests on a technical point of law, you want a bench trial.

Unless some miracle of weirdness happens, these two are guilty as sin. If it goes to a bench trial and they're acquitted, the riots in the Brown case will pale in comparison to what's gonna happen in Georgia.

 

[biku324]

I'd look for them to plead.

 

[Absalom]

Come on, if the kid was really just jogging in this day and age he's got accessories. Minimalist isn't a thing with millennials especially genuine article urbanites. He's gotta show off his material things just like the rest of us. You know when I would go minimalist? When I didn't want to lose something exfiltrating the area of operation/scene of the crime. Urbanites are not the genuine article anymore than a preppy kid is a wannabe. Your personal bias is friggin ridiculous. The kid was killed for tugging on the shotgun and throwing punches. The end of the day result was he was somewhere he obviously shouldn't have been and he didn't know how to act. A little civility on his part and he'd have been the plaintiff and not the deceased. But he was disrespected and had to make a stand. Fools.

Impressive how you managed to stuff this much condescension, blatant prejudice, and resentment into such a short paragraph. And all to come up with "conclusions" that are long on conjecture and short on any evidence.

As you say yourself, the "personal bias is friggin ridiculous."