A 25-year-old black man was shot dead in Georgia while jogging, prompting online protests labeling t

I can't believe he's trying to make this a Terry stop.

Its a citizen's arrest attempt, not an investigatory traffic stop by a bonded law enforcement officer after reasonably articulable suspicion. Completely different standards.

 

CA = Citizens Arrest, a Georgia law.

 

To the extent that he did this (and I'm fairly skeptical it was to any significant extent), he did it without any input from the McMichaels. They haven't had a chance to lay out their defense yet.

 

And FWIW, I think that there's a fairly good defense available to the McMichaels that their actions did not amount to aggravated assault prior to Arbery attacking Travis (basically, the point @guavaball has been arguing).

We've all seen the video, I think, and just to recap, here's the relevant portions of the police report:

The jury will have to decide if that amounts to "Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury."

If I were on the jury, and the only evidence we had were the police report and the video, I don't think it's enough to get beyond a reasonable doubt, personally.

 

We're talking about two different instances, obviously. In the video posted previously a Terry stop was confused with a search. Correcting that false narrative does not amount to an attempt to apply it to McMichaels.

 

You mean.... The cops did an illegal search on his ass. And when they didn't find a thing...
they tasered him.

Yeah... right wing racist America twists this one around for sure.
And there is even a rumor... that one of them cops... is now a convict.

 

Ah... "their" neighborhood for the white people.
Got it. Yeah. They wouldn't have done it to a white jogger.

 

Looks like Travis raised the gun right before Arbery veers to the right.

 

The poster actually thinks showing a criminal cop try to tazer Arbery somehow defends the killers. Just like Greg McMichael thought that leaking the video of the shooting would be good for him.

 

That didn't happen.

And that didn't happen.

Your argument is based on things that didn't happen.

 

There was no real reason at all these morons couldn't let the police handle it. No one was in any immediate danger except for what they caused by they're cowboy B.S of confronting a stranger on the road with guns. If they don't go to prison over some kind of manslaughter charge at the very least they should have they're second amendment revoked. None of this had to happen at all, i wouldn't trust either of them with a butter knife.

 

That makes a whole lot more sense.Complete reversal as to what
Nutjobs like Benjamin Crump are out spreading.That Travis was
executed.Complete reversal of what went down.Same EXACT Script
Zimmerman Haters used to paint him with the same broad brush.
That he " hunted down Trayvon like a rabid dog " or how about
" Shot in the back of the head ". - Jesse Jackson
That was pure use of Critical Race Theory adapted for use to
paint a meme.
That is why Trayvon Martin is essential to this case.
The MSM in league with their loyal Black voter base is
gonna pull the same exact crap as they did with Trayvon.
Until a more complete Video is shown where Arbery was actively
and hurriedly trying to maintain possession of the shotgun in question.

 

Knock off the racism. Their neighborhood as in the one in which they lived. You've yet to present a single iota of evidence these guys cared what color this guy is yet you continue to spew this racist crap.

 

That is true.But then so to was the Fact as to Why Arbery ran off and even
changed direction.If alive he could answer that he was in fear of being
attacked or beaten.Which means in may rely on Intent and premeditation.
If Arbery did have a rap sheet for theft then that is intent.
He had an intent for going into a home under construction.
Maybe premeditation for scoping out the place.
It is surely seen where he was Not Jogging prior to
entering the property.
The intent of the White Guys was to find out what the guy who
was running off had in mind.Yes,that could be harassment.
But NOT if that neighborhood had burglaries that were unsolved.

 

For the cheap seats: "citizens arrest" can occur ONLY if the person of interest is (a) caught in the act of committing a crime (b) wanted by authorities in connection to crime. Since this guy was just JOGGING AND DOING NOTHING DIFFERENT THAN OTHERS ON VIDEO, he does not fit the bill. Since the local authorities HAD NOT REPORTED ANY BURGLARIES IN THAT AREA A MONTH OR SO PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT, he does not fit the bill. Since the owner of the property in question DID NOT CONTACT SAID VIGILANTIES OR LOCAL POLICE A SUSPICIOUS CHARACTER ON HIS PROPERTY OR A CRIME, he does not fit the bill.

Conclusion: two flaming a**holes WHO ARE NOT POLICE with a congenital bias stalked confronted an innocent black man MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS with their weapons brandished. Black man fights for his life (Note* if two clowns with guns block your path, point a gun at you and tell you to get into their truck, wouldn't you try to run or fight for your life?) dies, white perpetrators don't get arrested or held for trial for 2 months!

Yeah, nothing off about that.

 

I think you have the wrong state law on what constitutes a citizen arrest. Also do you have evidence of them pointing a gun at him? Get in their truck, where the heck did you come up with that one?

 

That's not what Georgia's citizen's arrest statute says.

 

Whoa thar Nellie Belle.You went from making sense in a lawyerly
way to outright bias in favor of Race.To the Nth degree.
Did you fail to notice the part where Ahmaud was attempting to wrestle
a shotgun out of the hands of the owner of the shotgun.
If I was of yer mindset I could make the case ... Right there attempting
Theft off a person's person.I mean,the Video does show that.
Meaning what was Ahmaud's reason for grabbing and attempting to
take the shotgun away from the owner of the shotgun.
I could say ... Execution.
Like what Racist Lawyer Benjamin Trump is out spouting.

 

You're saying you're skeptical that the judge actually examined the facts and law which would be required to generate probable cause in the circumstances alleged against the McMichaels?

O I wouldn't say without any input from the McMichaels: Greg talks an awful lot about why he thought it was cool to do what he did and what exactly he had done before the video picks up. He's got plenty of admissions against interest in there.

Note the use of the words "seems". That means he made a preliminary determination based on what he had at the time, which is of course subject to change based on new evidence presented at trial or in pre trial motions. The warrant simply alleges probable cause to arrest them and and the information that was filed (the pleading is called an information when a DA indicts you without a grand jury) allows them to be brought to trial.

 

Yea u got it.

 

Have you read the police report? If they can't use CA their actions chasing him down and attempting to seize him of his liberty, their admission to attempting/performing same is going to hang them.

 

Has he seriously never heard of James ****ing Brown?

 

Irrelevant McMichael doesn't have the authority to question or detain anyone.

 

If i was stalked by two strange armed men not in police uniforms who then got out of the'ye car with shotguns demanding all sorts of answers my flight or fight would of kicked in too. What Arbery may or may not have done is irrelevant as they saw nothing and decided to accost this man on nothing more than suspicion alone. Again this was something better left to uniformed police with actual authority and investigative powers, not a couple of guys trying to play bounty hunter. If i had a gun, not in a million years would i grab it, go outside and play cop on some random passerby who may or may not have done something suspicious. They both have a serious authority complex and shouldn't be allowed near anything resembling a firearm.

 

Emphasis mine: No, its not. The argument you make there is called 'the propensity inference' and is 100% not admissible at trial. You don't get to say "because he was once a thief it is reasonable to assume he is always a thief." in court. That will get you sanctions and if you keep doing it your bar card pulled.

If they didn't have reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion of Arbery committing a felony, and since the felony they would be using here is Burglary, and since Burglary requires the person have the 'intent to commit a felony therein' not simply enter a place, if they admit they don't know what he was thinking and were going to seize him of his liberty just to question him in an attempt to ascertain what he was thinking, then they admit they do not have the proper predicates for a citizen's arrest based on a felony.