Newly released Ahmaud Arbery video shows 2017 shoplifting arrest

The New York Post ^ | May 19, 2020 | Jorge Fitz-Gibbon

[DiogenesLamp]

You're talking about evidence as if the two shooters were a jury. They weren't.

Jury's don't arrest people. Cops and Citizens do, and they don't decide guilt they just decide "suspicion."

Suspicion of a crime is all that is necessary.

Cops can't carry around a Jury in their back pocket. Courts decide "facts", Cops grab "suspects."

The victim rushing him caused him not to shoot,

Very bad plan for anyone rushing a man with a shotgun. That he wasn't killed instantly was only because the man holding the shotgun didn't want to kill him.

The problem here isn't English comprehension - the problem is the logical contortions needed to defend this shooting.

Defending the shooting is logical and clear cut. Trying to *FORCE* it to be a "crime", requires all sorts of logical and factual contortions.

You don't see how ridiculous it is because your initial gut reaction is that two "Bubba's" should not be trying to arrest a black guy, and certainly shouldn't be using guns.

But you were not in that situation, and anyone as weak as those two men would stand no chance against a young man like Arbery without a weapon.

You don't have a realistic view of what they were facing. You make these snap judgements from the comfort of your chair, and don't really consider how you would have behaved were you in their situation.

President Eisenhower once said "Farming is easy if your plow is a pencil and the fields are a thousand miles away."

[AnotherUnixGeek]

You don't see how ridiculous it is because your initial gut reaction is that two "Bubba's" should not be trying to arrest a black guy, and certainly shouldn't be using guns.

They shouldn't have been trying to arrest anyone, black, white or any other color (and since you want to question my motives in a racial context, let's ask if you'd be this eager to defend two black men who'd shot a white man in this circumstance).

The state of Georgia has very clear laws for citizens arrest, and they did not follow them. They witnessed no crime being committed, certainly no felony. They had no grounds for detaining the victim, and none at all for shooting him. They deserve prison.

[DiogenesLamp]

They shouldn't have been trying to arrest anyone, black, white or any other color (and since you want to question my motives in a racial context, let's ask if you'd be this eager to defend two black men who'd shot a white man in this circumstance).

If they shoot a violent criminal i'll say "Hallelujah!"

Also I am not questioning your motives, i'm questioning your judgement. I don't have a double standard here, and I think a lot of you out there do.

If this criminal had been white, we would not be hearing a big fuss over this. Everyone would have shrugged and gone about their business, and people would have been focusing on the fact that some stupid white guy was insane enough to attack a man holding a shotgun.

Which is what people *OUGHT* to be focusing on. Arbery was nuts. He way overreacted to the circumstances he faced.

Rational people do not play with men holding shotguns. They either go the other direction, or they stop. What they never do is run at the man and hit him.

The state of Georgia has very clear laws for citizens arrest, and they did not follow them.

They most certainly did. You just don't like the fact that they did because you don't like the outcome. You want them to have broken a law, just as you want Arbery to NOT have broken a law.

Arbery did break the law, and that's why they were interested in him. They did not break any laws, and are only being held because of angry demands from portions of the populace.

This is a show trial, and they will be acquitted. A DA would have to be a fool to take this case, because it's a complete loser.

At best, at best they could argue "reckless homicide", but I very much doubt they could even make that stick.

It's self defense, and they're not going to be able to turn it into murder.

[UCANSEE2]

Thank you for the response, and the correction on the timeline.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

They most certainly did. You just don't like the fact that they did because you don't like the outcome.

No, they didn't. They did not see the victim commit any felony. They had no right to attempt any arrest of him. The rest of your words add nothing of substance.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, they didn't. They did not see the victim commit any felony.

It is unnecessary to see the ASSAILANT, not "victim", commit any felony. All that is required is a reasonable suspicion of a crime.

Stop trying to move the goalposts and stop believing everyone is dumb enough to accept your changes to what the law actually is.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

It is unnecessary to see the ASSAILANT, not "victim", commit any felony. All that is required is a reasonable suspicion of a crime.

Wrong - the relevant law clearly states:

"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."

The killers witnessed no crime. If they had "suspicions" that the man they killed had committed a crime, that crime would have had to be a felony. What felony did they suspect the victim of committing? By all indications, they thought he was pilfering things from a construction site - a misdemeanor.

If they hadn't shot the victim, they'd have been guilty of false arrest. As it is, they're guilty of murder.

Stop trying to move the goalposts and stop believing everyone is dumb enough to accept your changes to what the law actually is.

Read the law and try to get it through your head that the two idiots you're white-knighting for are murderers.

[DiogenesLamp]

The killers witnessed no crime.

The citizens witnessed the crime of trespass, and had reason to believe the recurring trespasser whom they had seen on several videos spanning several months, was the thief.

Yes, they had probable cause.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

The citizens witnessed the crime of trespass

The killers did not claim to have seen their victim commit any trespass. Stop making things up.

And after you stop making things up, go read the definition of trespass under Georgia law, and understand why the killers could not have known that their victim was in any way guilty of criminal trespass on someone else's property.

[DiogenesLamp]

The killers did not claim to have seen their victim commit any trespass.

This statement reminds me of the concern over the murder weapon during the OJ Simpson trial. A lot of people felt that it was absolutely essential that they have a murder weapon. They acted as if not finding the murder weapon absolved OJ of any culpability.

My point at the time was that the murder weapon did in fact exist, because the people were murdered with it. The fact that they were murdered with a knife (Believe it or not a Swiss Army Knife) demonstrates beyond question that the weapon existed. Not being able to find it did not make it nonexistent, it made it non available. It still existed.

Now apply that logic to the McMichaels. If they were not aware of his trespass, then how the f*** did they know to be chasing him? Clearly they were aware of it. Not being aware of it would have caused them to do nothing. The mere fact that they did something proves they had knowledge of the trespass.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

If they were not aware of his trespass, then how the f*** did they know to be chasing him? Clearly they were aware of it. Not being aware of it would have caused them to do nothing.

The killers didn't even claim to have witnessed any crime happening in their presence, nor were they aware of any felony having been committed. They had zero grounds for any citizens arrest, by Georgia law.

[DiogenesLamp]

The killers didn't even claim to have witnessed any crime happening in their presence, nor were they aware of any felony having been committed.

"In their presence" is not the only allowable condition. "Immediate knowledge" of a crime is adequate to justify a citizen arrest. They had immediate knowledge of the crime.

You are ignoring the portion of Georgia law that states "immediate knowledge" is an acceptable alterantive.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

"In their presence" is not the only allowable condition. "Immediate knowledge" of a crime is adequate to justify a citizen arrest.

The killers had no immediate knowledge of any criminal activity by the victim, as their own phone recordings make clear. They had their suspicions, which do not amount to "immediate knowledge".