RugbyRebels

Post 1 from a bot or some bollix paid to spam by the nra don't even dignify that shit with a response

gransoporro wrote:There is also a statute for doing a citizen arrest under false pretense.

The victim is shown trespassing in a house under construction: that is a misdemeanor not a felony. He did not steal nor damage the property.

TBF, we do not know whether he did or not. It hasn't been confirmed but he may have visited the site on multiple occasions, so the claim that he was "just out for a jog" as the MSM are reporting is at the least, questionable.

Also, from the victim’s point of view, he is assaulted by 3 people, one in front of him with a shotgun. That is kidnapping and he has the right to protect himself.

There are no burglaries reported to the police in the last month or 2 in that are. One guy said they stole over $1000 in fishing equipment from him but never reported to the police. That is clearly a dubious claim. Lots of people there live on less than $40k a year. $1000 is a huge sum!

Highly speculative on your part IMO. To have committed assault, McMichaels would have at the very least threatened to inflict physical harm. So far there is no evidence that he did nor is there any evidence that they were attempting to kidnap him. Of course Arbery may have thought that they were. Lunging for the gun like he does implies that Arbery was trying to disarm McMichaels - but what for? Did McMichaels threaten to kill him? Did Arbery panic? We do not know.

The fishing equipment story is strange. Originally it was reported that $2,500 of fishing kit had been stolen from the owner's house. Larry English the owner of the site subsequently reported that nothing had been stolen.

It is a basic principle of the rule of law that the executive doesn't interfere in prosecutions. Without the rule of law you have no state or at least no democracy. It would appear that America has abandoned democracy.

despotism for the win

There is a video, shot by the third man in the chase, the one behind the victim.

I watched it.

My opinion: the victim fought an armed assailant that tried to stop him with a shotgun in hand. Just the action to stop him with a pointed weapon is kidnapping. At no time the white men said it was a citizen arrest.

unless we speculate that such action of pointing weapons in your direction to stop you is legal...

And in Brunswick, GA if 2 armed white men stop a black one, the black one will make wild assumptions that his life is at risk. And defend himself.
The black man is likely to be right. I spent significant time there, that’s how I formed my opinion.

A charge of aggravated assault would require that the prosecution demonstrate that McMichael's brandished his gun. The video's available online do not show McMichael's brandishing (i.e. threatening to use) his weapon.

gransoporro wrote:There is a video, shot by the third man in the chase, the one behind the victim.

I watched it.

My opinion: the victim fought an armed assailant that tried to stop him with a shotgun in hand. Just the action to stop him with a pointed weapon is kidnapping. At no time the white men said it was a citizen arrest.

unless we speculate that such action of pointing weapons in your direction to stop you is legal...

And in Brunswick, GA if 2 armed white men stop a black one, the black one will make wild assumptions that his life is at risk. And defend himself.
The black man is likely to be right. I spent significant time there, that’s how I formed my opinion.

Got a link for that?

gransoporro wrote:.

And in Brunswick, GA if 2 armed white men stop a black one, the black one will make wild assumptions that his life is at risk. And defend himself.
The black man is likely to be right. I spent significant time there, that’s how I formed my opinion.

You could also argue that if two armed black men stopped a white man, the white man would make wild assumptions that his life was at risk etc. etc.

Anecdotal evidence can and should be dismissed by a jury. What matters are the facts of this case, not opinions formed from living in GA - which are very often formed underpinned by prejudice.

Maximillian wrote:

gransoporro wrote:.

And in Brunswick, GA if 2 armed white men stop a black one, the black one will make wild assumptions that his life is at risk. And defend himself.
The black man is likely to be right. I spent significant time there, that’s how I formed my opinion.

You could also argue that if two armed black men stopped a white man, the white man would make wild assumptions that his life was at risk etc. etc.

Anecdotal evidence can and should be dismissed by a jury. What matters are the facts of this case, not opinions formed from living in GA - which are very often formed underpinned by prejudice.

Actually what you are describing there is the basis of self-defence. What do I perceive to be the threat to me? And then, are my subsequent actions consistent with that when reviewed by a reasonable group of people? 2 blokes of any colour jumping out in front of me with firearms will get an unhelpful response. If they are identifying themselves as Police Officers then I will of course cooperate; if they do not then I will assume I am about to get mugged or worse and react accordingly.

In a reasonable society, the actions of a person armed with a firearm in attempting to undertake a citizens arrest of a person with no weapon evident would be questioned, and thoroughly. Clearly the law can be used to cover actions which are not motivated by any sense of the reasonable application of justice.

Maximillian wrote:A charge of aggravated assault would require that the prosecution demonstrate that McMichael's brandished his gun. The video's available online do not show McMichael's brandishing (i.e. threatening to use) his weapon.

{InigoMontoyaThatWordDoesNotMeanWhatYouThinkItMeans.gif}

To brandish, both in English and in law, means to wave something in the air (usually in an excited or threatening manner). In law, you are generally taken to be brandishing a weapon if it is being held in the hands in a manner no congruent with transporting it from point A to point B.

The man is clearly not holding his gun just to transport it.

Puja

Sandydragon wrote: Actually what you are describing there is the basis of self-defence. What do I perceive to be the threat to me? And then, are my subsequent actions consistent with that when reviewed by a reasonable group of people? 2 blokes of any colour jumping out in front of me with firearms will get an unhelpful response. If they are identifying themselves as Police Officers then I will of course cooperate; if they do not then I will assume I am about to get mugged or worse and react accordingly.

McMichaels didn't jump out in front of Arbery. If you look at the footage, Arbery runs towards the PU truck. He then goes left and then turns right, runs along the PU truck and suddenly turns left, charging at McMichaels. If he perceived McMichaels as a threat, why did he run towards the PU truck?

In a reasonable society, the actions of a person armed with a firearm in attempting to undertake a citizens arrest of a person with no weapon evident would be questioned, and thoroughly. Clearly the law can be used to cover actions which are not motivated by any sense of the reasonable application of justice.

Absolutely.

Puja wrote:

Maximillian wrote:
{InigoMontoyaThatWordDoesNotMeanWhatYouThinkItMeans.gif}

To brandish, both in English and in law, means to wave something in the air (usually in an excited or threatening manner). In law, you are generally taken to be brandishing a weapon if it is being held in the hands in a manner no congruent with transporting it from point A to point B.

The man is clearly not holding his gun just to transport it.

Puja

No, unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Let me try and explain it to you:

In the context of the law regarding gun ownership in GA, "Brandish" means to use the weapon in a threatening manner i.e. to point it at someone who isn't threatening you.

So, what a jury will be instructed to look at is if McMichaels brandished the weapon i.e. threatened someone who was not a threat to him, or if he held the weapon in a defensive display.

McMichaels senior was a law enforcement officer and would have been familiar with the distinction.

Maximillian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Actually what you are describing there is the basis of self-defence. What do I perceive to be the threat to me? And then, are my subsequent actions consistent with that when reviewed by a reasonable group of people? 2 blokes of any colour jumping out in front of me with firearms will get an unhelpful response. If they are identifying themselves as Police Officers then I will of course cooperate; if they do not then I will assume I am about to get mugged or worse and react accordingly.

McMichaels didn't jump out in front of Arbery. If you look at the footage, Arbery runs towards the PU truck. He then goes left and then turns right, runs along the PU truck and suddenly turns left, charging at McMichaels. If he perceived McMichaels as a threat, why did he run towards the PU truck?

In a reasonable society, the actions of a person armed with a firearm in attempting to undertake a citizens arrest of a person with no weapon evident would be questioned, and thoroughly. Clearly the law can be used to cover actions which are not motivated by any sense of the reasonable application of justice.[/quote
Absolutely.

The truck is on his jogging route, not sure that indicative of anything. We lose footage for a moment which is a shame (why was that video shot?)

Sandydragon wrote: The truck is on his jogging route, not sure that indicative of anything. We lose footage for a moment which is a shame (why was that video shot?)

The jogging claim is looking more and more dubious.

(why was that video shot?)

Good question.

Maximillian wrote:

Puja wrote:

Maximillian wrote:
{InigoMontoyaThatWordDoesNotMeanWhatYouThinkItMeans.gif}

To brandish, both in English and in law, means to wave something in the air (usually in an excited or threatening manner). In law, you are generally taken to be brandishing a weapon if it is being held in the hands in a manner no congruent with transporting it from point A to point B.

The man is clearly not holding his gun just to transport it.

Puja

No, unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Let me try and explain it to you:

In the context of the law regarding gun ownership in GA, "Brandish" means to use the weapon in a threatening manner i.e. to point it at someone who isn't threatening you.

So, what a jury will be instructed to look at is if McMichaels brandished the weapon i.e. threatened someone who was not a threat to him, or if he held the weapon in a defensive display.

McMichaels senior was a law enforcement officer and would have been familiar with the distinction.

Thanks for trying to explain it to me. Allow me to return the favour.

I agree that in the context of the law regarding gun ownership, "Brandish" means to use the weapon in a threatening manner, and also that pointing it at someone would count as this.

However, where you are still making an incredible leap of law, logic, and English, is in insisting that this is the *only* way that a shotgun can be used in a threatening manner. It is perfectly possible to hold a shotgun threateningly without the end with the holes pointing towards someone. For example, if you chase someone down while holding a shotgun in your hands in a position suggesting that it is ready to use, that is brandishing it as you are using it as a threat.

Cf. Every police shooting where someone holding a weapon or what was thought to be a weapon was put down because the police considered there to be an imminent threat. They didn't say, "Oh, he hasn't taken the 1 second necessary to point the gun directly at me, so clearly that means there's no threat here."

Puja

That video demonstrates only that the McMichaels were totally wrong to try and enforce a citizens arrest in the way that they did. The victim acted aggressively when a gun was pointed at him. That’s not unreasonable in the situation, which is important as neither was a police officer.

Basically, two good old boys heard about a black man running from the scene of an alleged burglary and decided to apprehend the first black man they saw running. They expected the victim
To cooperate but when he didn’t it all went wrong.

I’d also want to know what their next actions were. Having fired several rounds did they try to provide first aid? Did they immediately call for medical assistance?

I’m sure that some will argue that when confronted with two idiots with weapons one should immediately comply with their shouted instructions. Equally if you are I fear of your life when confronted with an armed assailants then you are entitled to respond aggressively.

As a former military policeman who has carried firearms and has had to practice the concept of reasonable force, including when making an arrest, the actions of the McMichaels were clearly excessive by any reasonable measure. They should have attempted to detail the victim using non lethal methods first and only escalated to firearms if the victim had produced an offensive weapon. With two of them one could have covered the other quite capably.

It was their actions that led to this tragedy and in most places they would be looking at a manslaughter charge. If the law in Georgia allows this the the law is clearly a nonsense.

Maximillian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: The truck is on his jogging route, not sure that indicative of anything. We lose footage for a moment which is a shame (why was that video shot?)

The jogging claim is looking more and more dubious.

(why was that video shot?)

Good question.

Maybe he wasn’t out jogging for recreational purposes. But the two guys in the truck had no way of knowing that. When they encountered him he wasn’t committing a crime and would not have seen the CCTV imagery in your video below. All they had was a vague description of an offender. Their actions were totally disproportionate as a result of the information they knew and the scene as it unfolded in front of them.

Puja wrote:
Thanks for trying to explain it to me. Allow me to return the favour.

I agree that in the context of the law regarding gun ownership, "Brandish" means to use the weapon in a threatening manner, and also that pointing it at someone would count as this.

However, where you are still making an incredible leap of law, logic, and English, is in insisting that this is the *only* way that a shotgun can be used in a threatening manner. It is perfectly possible to hold a shotgun threateningly without the end with the holes pointing towards someone. For example, if you chase someone down while holding a shotgun in your hands in a position suggesting that it is ready to use, that is brandishing it as you are using it as a threat.

Cf. Every police shooting where someone holding a weapon or what was thought to be a weapon was put down because the police considered there to be an imminent threat. They didn't say, "Oh, he hasn't taken the 1 second necessary to point the gun directly at me, so clearly that means there's no threat here."

Puja

The gun could already be loaded i.e. ready to use. "Brandishing" it in a legal context means that's it's being used in a threatening manner on someone who isn't a threat to your person. Glad we agree on that.

So, a jury will be instructed to look at whether McMichaels was brandishing the weapon or held it in a defensive display. Arbery had a previous firearms conviction so it's not outside the realms of possibility that McMichaels assumed that Arbery was carrying a weapon.

I think this case will hinge on whether or not the prosecution can convince a jury that (1) McMichaels was brandishing a weapon - no conclusive footage in any available vids and (2) Arbery attempted to disarm McMichaels for defensive reasons - which implies (1).

Here we go.

Sandydragon wrote:That video demonstrates only that the McMichaels were totally wrong to try and enforce a citizens arrest in the way that they did. The victim acted aggressively when a gun was pointed at him. That’s not unreasonable in the situation, which is important as neither was a police officer.

Well, personally I wouldn't have attempted to do what the McMichaels did, but according to the law they are allowed to make a citizens arrest if there is reasonable and probable grounds. As for your statement in bold: how do you know this?

Basically, two good old boys heard about a black man running from the scene of an alleged burglary and decided to apprehend the first black man they saw running. They expected the victim
To cooperate but when he didn’t it all went wrong.

Again, you'd need to provide evidence to corroborate this claim.

I’d also want to know what their next actions were. Having fired several rounds did they try to provide first aid? Did they immediately call for medical assistance?

Good point.

I’m sure that some will argue that when confronted with two idiots with weapons one should immediately comply with their shouted instructions. Equally if you are I fear of your life when confronted with an armed assailants then you are entitled to respond aggressively.

I think it's easy to dismiss them as idiots. McMichaels (senior) was a former police man, so he would have been familiar with the law - of course that doesn't mean that he's a shining paradigm of virtue. Some of the footage coming out suggests that Arbery had been in the area before casing the same joint. Unless there's some evidence supporting the assertion that they threatened Arbery, I don't think they can be categorised as "armed assailants".

As a former military policeman who has carried firearms and has had to practice the concept of reasonable force, including when making an arrest, the actions of the McMichaels were clearly excessive by any reasonable measure. They should have attempted to detail the victim using non lethal methods first and only escalated to firearms if the victim had produced an offensive weapon. With two of them one could have covered the other quite capably.

Legally? How so?

FWIW, I do think that they should have contacted the authorities rather than taking it upon themselves to apprehend Arbery.

It was their actions that led to this tragedy and in most places they would be looking at a manslaughter charge. If the law in Georgia allows this the the law is clearly a nonsense.

Well, not really, since it is legal to make a citizens arrest - once certain conditions are met. For me, if a jury can be convinced that the McMichaels did not brandish weapons, then they may be set free.

There will, of course, be a clamour by the media (and some politicians) to see these two men imprisoned. Hopefully, any jury that is selected will look at the facts objectively.

Sandydragon wrote: Maybe he wasn’t out jogging for recreational purposes. But the two guys in the truck had no way of knowing that. When they encountered him he wasn’t committing a crime and would not have seen the CCTV imagery in your video below. All they had was a vague description of an offender. Their actions were totally disproportionate as a result of the information they knew and the scene as it unfolded in front of them.

He was spotted several times in the area casing that site. It's not unreasonable to assume that the locals were suspicious.

I would agree that the McMichaels should not have taken it upon themselves to challenge Arbery, but again, this case needs to be examined in the context of the law.

It appears that Arbery did not commit any felony whilst he popped into the building site during his run. He was there for a maximum of 3 minutes and neither removed or damaged anything. The only reported theft in the area this year was the theft of a firearm from a vehicle.

Its getting harder to support th theory that locals genuinely thought Arbery was involved in unlawful activity given a lack of burglaries and other crime the area and instead made series of assumptions.

And then acted very stupidly.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... 105123001/

Prisoners are getting lazy these days...what's wrong with a bit of tunnelling, wall-scaling or even laundry van manoeuvering ?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... s-angeles/

Sandydragon wrote:It appears that Arbery did not commit any felony whilst he popped into the building site during his run. He was there for a maximum of 3 minutes and neither removed or damaged anything. The only reported theft in the area this year was the theft of a firearm from a vehicle.

Its getting harder to support th theory that locals genuinely thought Arbery was involved in unlawful activity given a lack of burglaries and other crime the area and instead made series of assumptions.

And then acted very stupidly.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... 105123001/

Some interesting observations here:

Oh cool.

https://t.co/kAA5rPVb9f