Open Season: "Vigilantes" Shoot Black Jogger in Georgia

[Neanderthaland]

The problem lies with your reading.


The second sentence is literally and genuinely meaningless if it is predicated on the first sentence. If the crime is a felony the law does not require the crime be within your immediate knowledge or presence. They had reasonable and probable grounds to suspect he was responsible for at least one felony.

The second sentence seems to be predicated on the first, but even if it is not, they have neither reasonable grounds nor probable grounds for suspicion, nor was he even fleeing at the time they began pursuing him. He was jogging.

Nor does it appear any arrest was being attempted. No one seems to have used the words “citizens arrest” or “you’re under arrest” at any point. Whether or not they might have after questioning is irrelevant - the fact that they attempted to question him (after chasing him with guns) shows no arrest was being attempted.

And the perpetrators can't claim ignorance on that fact either. Since at least one was a former police officer.

[Des-Bal]

The second sentence seems to be predicated on the first, but even if it is not, they have neither reasonable grounds nor probable grounds for suspicion, nor was he even fleeing at the time they began pursuing him. He was jogging.

Nor does it appear any arrest was being attempted. No one seems to have used the words “citizens arrest” or “you’re under arrest” at any point. Whether or not they might have after questioning is irrelevant - the fact that they attempted to question him (after chasing him with guns) shows no arrest was being attempted.

I disagree. They had him identified as the suspect from a burglary and had him reported as looking through a window of a property which builds to reasonable and probable. As to escaping I see no suggestion that anything other than conduct likely to result in a party being outside of the area when police arrive is demanded. The statute is not an exacting statute and if that's a flaw it's a flaw but it's not on them.

They have as I understand it stated their intent was to arrest him and if the law demands you say the words "citizens arrest" "you are under arrest" or "I am a citizen and arresting you because this is a citizen's arrest" then I'm not familiar with the provision.

[Spirit of Hope]

In a brief interview with The Daily Beast on Friday, Gregory McMichael said that he had no direct evidence that Arbery was a thief targeting Satilla Shores, before teasing what could be a key part of a legal defense for the shooting.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-shoot ... itter_page

The article also noted there is video of Arbery being in an unoccupied house under construction prior to the chase, however the video doesn't appear to show him taking anything.

[Gormwood]

In a brief interview with The Daily Beast on Friday, Gregory McMichael said that he had no direct evidence that Arbery was a thief targeting Satilla Shores, before teasing what could be a key part of a legal defense for the shooting.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-shoot ... itter_page

The article also noted there is video of Arbery being in an unoccupied house under construction prior to the chase, however the video doesn't appear to show him taking anything.

He was casing the joint, silly.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

In a brief interview with The Daily Beast on Friday, Gregory McMichael said that he had no direct evidence that Arbery was a thief targeting Satilla Shores, before teasing what could be a key part of a legal defense for the shooting.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-shoot ... itter_page

The article also noted there is video of Arbery being in an unoccupied house under construction prior to the chase, however the video doesn't appear to show him taking anything.

Well, if there’s no direct evidence, shouldn’t we put in doubt claims of this being a citizens arrest and that Arbery was doing nothing untoward other than jogging?

[Bombadil]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-shoot ... itter_page

The article also noted there is video of Arbery being in an unoccupied house under construction prior to the chase, however the video doesn't appear to show him taking anything.

He was casing the joint, silly.

It wasn't even a house, it was the foundations of a house being built..

[Neanderthaland]

Surely this is an area where the appropriate body to determine guilt is, you know, a jury.

[Des-Bal]

Well, if there’s no direct evidence, shouldn’t we put in doubt claims of this being a citizens arrest and that Arbery was doing nothing untoward other than jogging?

No, in fact if there's video of him trespassing prior to the pursuit it would be misdemeanor trespassing within the immediate knowledge of pursuers.

[Nazeroth]

Surely this is an area where the appropriate body to determine guilt is, you know, a jury.

Yup

[Bombadil]

Surely this is an area where the appropriate body to determine guilt is, you know, a jury.

12 Angry Men.

[Des-Bal]

Surely this is an area where the appropriate body to determine guilt is, you know, a jury.

I don't see there being a genuine question other than which provision of the law is this 100% kosher under.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Well, if there’s no direct evidence, shouldn’t we put in doubt claims of this being a citizens arrest and that Arbery was doing nothing untoward other than jogging?

No, in fact if there's video of him trespassing prior to the pursuit it would be misdemeanor trespassing within the immediate knowledge of pursuers.

Enough to shoot him though?

[Bombadil]

Well, if there’s no direct evidence, shouldn’t we put in doubt claims of this being a citizens arrest and that Arbery was doing nothing untoward other than jogging?

No, in fact if there's video of him trespassing prior to the pursuit it would be misdemeanor trespassing within the immediate knowledge of pursuers.

From the article..

According to their statements to police, the only thing the McMichaels saw on the day of Arbery’s killing was him running down the street.

They didn't see shit and had no probable cause.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

No, in fact if there's video of him trespassing prior to the pursuit it would be misdemeanor trespassing within the immediate knowledge of pursuers.

From the article..

According to their statements to police, the only thing the McMichaels saw on the day of Arbery’s killing was him running down the street.

They didn't see shit and had no probable cause.

Which casts doubts on allegations. No reason to shoot the kid. Thanks.

[Des-Bal]

Enough to shoot him though?

No, in fact there's nothing your'e able to see which justifies later shooting another person who is just hanging out. The shooting is justified because he was beating and wrestling a gun away from a man's son. The only issue is whether or not it was okay for them to roll up on him in the first place and yes a misdemeanor within the immediate knowledge or felony satisfy that.

[Galloism]

The second sentence seems to be predicated on the first, but even if it is not, they have neither reasonable grounds nor probable grounds for suspicion, nor was he even fleeing at the time they began pursuing him. He was jogging.

Nor does it appear any arrest was being attempted. No one seems to have used the words “citizens arrest” or “you’re under arrest” at any point. Whether or not they might have after questioning is irrelevant - the fact that they attempted to question him (after chasing him with guns) shows no arrest was being attempted.

I disagree. They had him identified as the suspect from a burglary and had him reported as looking through a window of a property which builds to reasonable and probable. As to escaping I see no suggestion that anything other than conduct likely to result in a party being outside of the area when police arrive is demanded. The statute is not an exacting statute and if that's a flaw it's a flaw but it's not on them.

They have as I understand it stated their intent was to arrest him and if the law demands you say the words "citizens arrest" "you are under arrest" or "I am a citizen and arresting you because this is a citizen's arrest" then I'm not familiar with the provision.

It’s generally accepted that to arrest someone you must notify them they are being arrested, not kidnapped. This is also true among law enforcement, who say things like “you are under arrest. Anything you say can and...”

Regarding your definition of “escaping”, that’s absurd. It means that you can arrest anyone who isn’t standing perfectly still at basically anytime. Escaping is a knowing act - black’s law dictionary defines escape this way:

“The departure or deliverance out of custody of a person who was lawfullyimprisoned, before he is entitled to his liberty by the process of law.The voluntarily or negligently allowing any person lawfully in confinement to leavethe place. 2”

https://thelawdictionary.org/escape/

He was not in confinement when he was jogging. Nor was anyone attempting to lawfully confine him. Ergo, he can’t be escaping. He’s just moving.

Regarding this:

“They had him identified as the suspect from a burglary and had him reported as looking through a window of a property which builds to reasonable and probable.”

Can you source it please?

[Des-Bal]

According to their statements to police, the only thing the McMichaels saw on the day of Arbery’s killing was him running down the street.

They didn't see shit and had no probable cause.

"According to their statements to the police arbey was in the process of eating a human infant and insisted he would only be stopped by being fatally shot"

If they have a quote I'll judge it.

[Bombadil]

According to their statements to police, the only thing the McMichaels saw on the day of Arbery’s killing was him running down the street.

They didn't see shit and had no probable cause.

"According to their statements to the police arbey was in the process of eating a human infant and insisted he would only be stopped by being fatally shot"

If they have a quote I'll judge it.

Yeah, you're super stretching in your weird need to defend the actions of these murderers. They had no cause, they chased an innocent man down bearing weapons and shot him dead when he tried to defend himself.

And all because of the colour of his skin.

[Galloism]

Enough to shoot him though?

No, in fact there's nothing your'e able to see which justifies later shooting another person who is just hanging out. The shooting is justified because he was beating and wrestling a gun away from a man's son. The only issue is whether or not it was okay for them to roll up on him in the first place and yes a misdemeanor within the immediate knowledge or felony satisfy that.

Notably, this might be partially answered in a couple cases:

https://www.gpbnews.org/post/breaking-d ... l-shooting

In the 2004 case Patel vs. State, a convenience store owner shot an intruder who broke into the store after the store owner told him to halt. The Georgia Supreme Court found that even though Viral Patel had attempted to stop an intruder, the measure of force used was disproportionate to the circumstance.

"The only force reasonable under the circumstances may be used to restrain the individual arrested," the state supreme court said in its ruling. "The use of unreasonable force could not have been part of a legitimate citizen's arrest.”

In the 2017 case Edwards vs. State, a man chased someone whom he thought had burglarized his home. The homeowner attacked the man with a baseball bat. The court also found in that case that unnecessary force was used and it was not a legitimate citizen's arrest.

"Edwards' alleged assault of the individual with a baseball bat entailed the use of unreasonable force, and could not have been part of a legitimate citizen's arrest," the court ruled.

So the question is how that applies to this case - rolling up on someone and threatening them with a firearm, vs threatening someone with a firearm then shooting them, or attacking them with a baseball bat.

Notably, between Patel and Edwards is when Georgia enacted its stand your ground law.

[Risottia]

So nothing. Cool, then we're done here.

I’ll agree these guys committed murder, but plain reading of the Georgia stalking law would seem to preclude this for lack of a pattern.

a)(1) A person commits the offense of stalking when he or she follows, places under surveillance, or contacts another person at or about a place or places without the consent of the other person for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other person. For the purpose of this article, the terms "computer" and "computer network" shall have the same meanings as set out in Code Section 16-9-92; the term "contact" shall mean any communication including without being limited to communication in person, by telephone, by mail, by broadcast, by computer, by computer network, or by any other electronic device; and the place or places that contact by telephone, mail, broadcast, computer, computer network, or any other electronic device is deemed to occur shall be the place or places where such communication is received. For the purpose of this article, the term "place or places" shall include any public or private property occupied by the victim other than the residence of the defendant. For the purposes of this article, the term "harassing and intimidating" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes emotional distress by placing such person in reasonable fear for such person's safety or the safety of a member of his or her immediate family, by establishing a pattern of harassing and intimidating behavior, and which serves no legitimate purpose. This Code section shall not be construed to require that an overt threat of death or bodily injury has been made.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/20 ... 7/16-5-90/

Lacking an established pattern, it’s hard to see it as stalking.

Maybe tye escalation from chase with vehicle to waylaying and assault can be considered as a pattern? I don't see a requirement of time duration for the pattern.

[Gravlen]

Two months after is far too late.There has to be more immediacy.

The term "within his immediate knowledge" enables a private citizen to use any of his senses to obtain knowledge that an offense is being committed. A private citizen is not required to actually be present when a misdemeanor offense occurs.

Merneigh v. State
My underlining.

See also State v. Folk, which the above-mentioned case refers to:

A warrantless arrest is lawful if the underlying offense was committed within the "immediate knowledge" of the arresting officer. OCGA § 17-4-20 (a). And the officer is not required to see the crime taking place, but may use any of his senses to acquire knowledge that an offense is being committed. Youhoing v. State, 226 Ga. App. 475, 476-477(1) ( 487 S.E.2d 86) (1997).

Odor as well as sight, hearing, taste or touch can be used in establishing probable cause. If the presence of odors is testified to before a magistrate and he finds the affiant qualified to know the odor, and it is one sufficiently distinctive to identify a forbidden substance, this Court has never held such a basis insufficient to justify issuance of a search warrant. Indeed it might very well be found to be evidence of most persuasive character.

State v. Folk

Regardless, it doesn't matter, since McMichael isn't claiming to have attempted to carry out a citizens arrest. He wasn't arresting Arbery, merely wanting to interrogate him. A conversation is not an arrest.

So we're left with a possible attempt at illegal imprisonment, and possibly violating Georgia law by pointing a gun at Arbery without legal justification, both of which would enable Arbery to engage in self-defence.

However, this is also irrelevant if McMichael simply fired first as Arbery was jogging past, as the video appears to show. That would be murder.

First of all thank you for demonstrating the correct way to use sources. The way you provided a link, noted the relevant portion, and explained how it furthered your point makes it easy to respond to you and makes it clear you aren't just raving.

Thanks. I do it so people can go back and read the sources. They might find answers to their questions there. Case in point:

To your sources the statute requires immediacy when the crime isn't a felony. Merneigh speaks to immediate knowledge not requiring a felony but cannot be read to require immediacy otherwise.

Now, if you had taken a closer look at my source, you would have found this sentence immediately preceeding what I posted:

OCGA § 17-4-60 provides, in pertinent part, that a private citizen may arrest an offender "if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge." It does not distinguish between misdemeanor and felony offenses. The term "within his immediate knowledge" enables a private citizen to use any of his senses to obtain knowledge that an offense is being committed. A private citizen is not required to actually be present when a misdemeanor offense occurs.

My underlining.

So your objection fails.

Please link the video showing him firing first. Several people have said he shots first, if that's true I'll turn on a dime because you 100% cant do that but the video I've watched and linked repeatedly shows no hallmarks of editing or editorializing and shows the first shot being fired while the victims hands are already on the gun.

It's in the video in the OP, and as an alternative source here. When Arbery passes around the front of the car the gunshot sounds before it's physically possible for him to start a brawl. You only see them struggling after the first gunshot.

I disagree. They had him identified as the suspect from a burglary and had him reported as looking through a window of a property which builds to reasonable and probable.

Weird that this is not what they were saying to the police, and what has been reported:

“There’s a guy in the house right now; it’s under construction,” the man told the dispatcher.
The man then gave her an address.
“And you said someone’s breaking into it right now?” the dispatcher asked.
“No,” the man replied, “it’s all open. It’s under construction … “

And identified him? Not beyond him being a black man.

As to escaping I see no suggestion that anything other than conduct likely to result in a party being outside of the area when police arrive is demanded. The statute is not an exacting statute and if that's a flaw it's a flaw but it's not on them.

It's clear that "escaping" is predicated on the first part, which is that you have to have immediate knowledge of the offence being committed, which they didn't have.

They have as I understand it stated their intent was to arrest him and if the law demands you say the words "citizens arrest" "you are under arrest" or "I am a citizen and arresting you because this is a citizen's arrest" then I'm not familiar with the provision.

Does the person being subjected to a citizen's arrest not need to know that he is being arrested? It sure would be nice for the person at the other end of the gun to have an idea if the actions of the people holding the gun are lawful or not. Arbery’s killers say they only wanted to him to stop so they could talk to him (no intent to arrest), something which he was under no legal obligation to acquiesce to, and if the shotgun was pointed in his direction the second he gets to the front of the car McMichael is comitting a criminal act.

[Thermodolia]

Acting in self defence to stop yourself being shot makes you fair game apparently.

Again, that would be a valid argument if you had incontrovertible proof they would have shot him anyway if he had cooperated. Given they were in the middle of a suburb, with witnesses all around I somehow doubt that's the case.

They aren’t cops. They have no authority to get him to comply or cooperate

[Thermodolia]

Citizens arrest law doesn’t seem to apply here, unless you have more info than I can find.

“ 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.”

Was the burglary done in his presence? Probably not, or this would have gone down before.

Was it within his immediate knowledge? Doesn’t appear so, since they apparently intended to question him, not arrest him (hence the “we want to talk to you”).

The problem lies with your reading.


The second sentence is literally and genuinely meaningless if it is predicated on the first sentence. If the crime is a felony the law does not require the crime be within your immediate knowledge or presence. They had reasonable and probable grounds to suspect he was responsible for at least one felony.

No you are wrong. In Georgia you have to witness the crime taking place in order to preform a citizens arrest. Otherwise you could be in a heap of trouble.

[Thermodolia]

In a brief interview with The Daily Beast on Friday, Gregory McMichael said that he had no direct evidence that Arbery was a thief targeting Satilla Shores, before teasing what could be a key part of a legal defense for the shooting.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-shoot ... itter_page

The article also noted there is video of Arbery being in an unoccupied house under construction prior to the chase, however the video doesn't appear to show him taking anything.

People who are out running sometimes use the bathrooms in unfinished homes to go to the bathroom.

[Albrenia]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-shoot ... itter_page

The article also noted there is video of Arbery being in an unoccupied house under construction prior to the chase, however the video doesn't appear to show him taking anything.

People who are out running sometimes use the bathrooms in unfinished homes to go to the bathroom.

That's kind of rude, but preferable to taking a dump on the sidewalk I suppose. I hope they only do it in homes with working plumbing.

All the same, I'm not sure if the shooters even knew of the supposed sighting of him at an under construction home, even if said knowledge makes any difference.