patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,245,240 comments by 14,870 users - AD, Ceffer online now
It's not looking good for the Texas vigilante killing.
invite response
2020 May 10, 8:58pm 7,326 views 243 comments
« First « Previous Comments 203 - 242 of 243 Next » Last » Search these comments
204
krc
2020 May 25, 5:15pm
PeopleUnited says
There is no way you can construe this as "self defense". That is a joke - right?
They instigated the confrontation. They were morons in how they made the approach. They had the weapons. The numbers. And they still ended up killing him. Whatever.
krc saysman walks onto a construction site, therefore he is trespassing, therefore he is a burglar, therefore he should be confronted, therefore he should be killed)
That is the narrative the left is peddling, support for self defense is what they want to eliminate. The left wants the public to rely on the state for everything. Don’t believe it, don’t promote it. Wake up and see they wish to tell us all what we can and can’t do to protect ourselves. If people don’t wake up now, they will soon wake up in a world where all choices are removed, and dissent is not tolerated.
Everyone in this story made at least some choices different than we would have made, but other than attempting to take the weapon that did not belong to him, we have yet to see any evidence of an actual crime. And the man who committed the assault is dead, proving the only thing botched is his assault on an armed man. Le...
There is no way you can construe this as "self defense". That is a joke - right?
They instigated the confrontation. They were morons in how they made the approach. They had the weapons. The numbers. And they still ended up killing him. Whatever.
205
krc
2020 May 25, 5:19pm
OccasionalCortex says
I did link to the full text of the law. Did you not check that out? There is no way this is trespassing even in Georgia. That is probably why the police and DA have ALL said that the "suspect" violated no laws - I assume you are aware of those statements as well. Regardless, the killers did not know whether "the suspect" broke the law or not. They were just vigilantes where there was no crime.
Believe me, if the DA and the government could show there was a crime and probable cause, they would as the situation would all go away.
I guess if some guys come up and wave you down with shotguns you should just comply? I wouldn't. You can take your chances with these yahoos on your own dime and time. Cheers!
krc saysTrespassing seems intwined with property damage > $500.00
NO. Once again you warp reality. That is ONE of the criteria for trespassing. Not the only one. But you cherry pick one that obviously does not apply, do not mention the others and then claim you are correct.
I did link to the full text of the law. Did you not check that out? There is no way this is trespassing even in Georgia. That is probably why the police and DA have ALL said that the "suspect" violated no laws - I assume you are aware of those statements as well. Regardless, the killers did not know whether "the suspect" broke the law or not. They were just vigilantes where there was no crime.
Believe me, if the DA and the government could show there was a crime and probable cause, they would as the situation would all go away.
I guess if some guys come up and wave you down with shotguns you should just comply? I wouldn't. You can take your chances with these yahoos on your own dime and time. Cheers!
206
ignoreme
2020 May 25, 5:32pm
krc says
Exactly, you admit he was trying to “take them out”. Sorry, but if you’re trying to take me out with my own gun, you’re going to lose.
If someone did that to me and I thought I had a chance to take them out, I would
Exactly, you admit he was trying to “take them out”. Sorry, but if you’re trying to take me out with my own gun, you’re going to lose.
207
krc
2020 May 25, 5:32pm
Onvacation says
Perhaps I am incorrect, but it is a Constitutional right subject to removal by 3/4 of house/senate and approval of 3/4 of state legislatures. Or Contitutional convention. While difficult, you can remove an amendment. I don't remember all the details. Let me know where in the constitution it says you cannot change it....
It is difficult and I think prohibition was the only amendment ever repealed.
The 21st repealed the 18th.
The brilliancy of the constitution is that it can be amended if there is enough outrage. When you have yahoos shooting people for no damn reason except they "feel he may be a burglar" or "he was playing his music too loud" or "he looked weirdly at me", then you risk more sane people saying enough is enough and willing to forgo their natural rights. It is unfortunate. That is why any serious 2A supporter should look at these yahoos and say they are idiots and put them to trial.
krc saysRemember that 2A relies on the support of the people.
No it doesn't. It's a right not given by law. It's a right that can't be taken by law. It's our right to overlook any law established that try's to overthrow our rights. Rights are not given to us by the law and cannot be taken away by the law.
Perhaps I am incorrect, but it is a Constitutional right subject to removal by 3/4 of house/senate and approval of 3/4 of state legislatures. Or Contitutional convention. While difficult, you can remove an amendment. I don't remember all the details. Let me know where in the constitution it says you cannot change it....
It is difficult and I think prohibition was the only amendment ever repealed.
The 21st repealed the 18th.
The brilliancy of the constitution is that it can be amended if there is enough outrage. When you have yahoos shooting people for no damn reason except they "feel he may be a burglar" or "he was playing his music too loud" or "he looked weirdly at me", then you risk more sane people saying enough is enough and willing to forgo their natural rights. It is unfortunate. That is why any serious 2A supporter should look at these yahoos and say they are idiots and put them to trial.
208
krc
2020 May 25, 5:35pm
krc says
Ok - looks like 2/3 and not 3/4 when I looked it up. There is a clear defined process...
Onvacation sayskrc saysRemember that 2A relies on the support of the people.
No it doesn't. It's a right not given by law. It's a right that can't be taken by law. It's our right to overlook any law established that try's to overthrow our rights. Rights are not given to us by the law and cannot be taken away by the law.
Perhaps I am incorrect, but it is a Constitutional right subject to removal by 3/4 of house/senate and approval of 3/4 of state legislatures. Or Contitutional convention. While difficult, you can remove an amendment. I don't remember all the details. Let me know where in the constitution it says you cannot change it....
It is difficult and I think prohibition was the only amendment ever repealed.
The 21st repealed the 18th.
The brilliancy of the constitution ...
Ok - looks like 2/3 and not 3/4 when I looked it up. There is a clear defined process...
209
Tenpoundbass
2020 May 25, 5:39pm
Tenpoundbass
2020 May 25, 5:39pm
This murder case has nothing to do with the second amendment, and anyone getting a hard dick at the prospect, that it will move the proverbial needle, will just end up soaked in Liberal tears as usual.
Why don't y'all fight the good fight, and demand clear laws that defines protection vs menace? Trying to politicize tragedies, mistakes, accidents, and people not clear on their legal boundaries as a gun grab. Will never fucking work. So don't creme your jeans, fancy pants.
Why don't y'all fight the good fight, and demand clear laws that defines protection vs menace? Trying to politicize tragedies, mistakes, accidents, and people not clear on their legal boundaries as a gun grab. Will never fucking work. So don't creme your jeans, fancy pants.
210
krc
2020 May 25, 5:42pm
ignoreme says
Once someone pulls a gun it is up to the person targeted (the "suspect" in this case) to make a decision. Will he wait and see if this is just a "hey dude - I want to see what you are up to and have gun to kill you if you look at me wrong" or will he believe that his constitutional right to life liberty and prosperity are being violated by this yahoo and respond accordingly - which would be to defend yourself to the fullest extent.
I guess we know what side you are on.
krc saysIf someone did that to me and I thought I had a chance to take them out, I would
Exactly, you admit he was trying to “take them out”. Sorry, but if you’re trying to take me out with my own gun, you’re going to lose.
Once someone pulls a gun it is up to the person targeted (the "suspect" in this case) to make a decision. Will he wait and see if this is just a "hey dude - I want to see what you are up to and have gun to kill you if you look at me wrong" or will he believe that his constitutional right to life liberty and prosperity are being violated by this yahoo and respond accordingly - which would be to defend yourself to the fullest extent.
I guess we know what side you are on.
211
ignoreme
2020 May 25, 5:43pm
krc says
I would not try to grab the gun of someone trying to make a citizen’s arrest. I would have waited for police.
The "suspect" did nothing that you and I wouldn't have done.
I would not try to grab the gun of someone trying to make a citizen’s arrest. I would have waited for police.
212
krc
2020 May 25, 5:47pm
ignoreme says
Really? I wouldn't. But I have seen too many people robbed at gunpoint in DC to think a "citizen" with gun pointed at me is normal. Perhaps you are willing to take the risk when someone comes up with a gun and starts pointing it at you. That is your decision. The best way to be robbed is for someone to simply tell you they are making a citizen's arrest and you will just fold I guess. Good luck!
krc saysThe "suspect" did nothing that you and I wouldn't have done.
I would not try to grab the gun of someone trying to make a citizen’s arrest. I would have waited for police.
Really? I wouldn't. But I have seen too many people robbed at gunpoint in DC to think a "citizen" with gun pointed at me is normal. Perhaps you are willing to take the risk when someone comes up with a gun and starts pointing it at you. That is your decision. The best way to be robbed is for someone to simply tell you they are making a citizen's arrest and you will just fold I guess. Good luck!
213
ignoreme
2020 May 25, 5:47pm
theoakman says
100% agree. If anyone of the party wasn’t an idiot, Arbery would be alive today.
It’s probably manslaughter since the guys shouldn’t have rolled up guns drawn. But you try to take someone’s gun they have no choice but to shoot you.
Everyone involved in this situation is an idiot. Arbery, the 2 rednecks, and the 3rd idiot that filmed it.
100% agree. If anyone of the party wasn’t an idiot, Arbery would be alive today.
It’s probably manslaughter since the guys shouldn’t have rolled up guns drawn. But you try to take someone’s gun they have no choice but to shoot you.
214
krc
2020 May 25, 5:49pm
ignoreme says
We will see. It will be what the jury believes. The contact was instigated behind the truck where the video did not see what happened. After that, it was clearly a struggle. And once you are in that struggle you aren't going to stop until you get control of the lethal weapon.
Again, if there is no camera this is a non-issue.
theoakman saysEveryone involved in this situation is an idiot. Arbery, the 2 rednecks, and the 3rd idiot that filmed it.
100% agree. If anyone of the party wasn’t an idiot, Arbery would be alive today.
It’s probably manslaughter since the guys shouldn’t have rolled up guns drawn. But you try to take someone’s gun they have no choice but to shoot you.
We will see. It will be what the jury believes. The contact was instigated behind the truck where the video did not see what happened. After that, it was clearly a struggle. And once you are in that struggle you aren't going to stop until you get control of the lethal weapon.
Again, if there is no camera this is a non-issue.
215
krc
2020 May 25, 5:50pm
Tenpoundbass says
Agree completely.
This murder case has nothing to do with the second amendment, and anyone getting a hard dick at the prospect, that it will move the proverbial needle, will just end up soaked in Liberal tears as usual.
Why don't y'all fight the good fight, and demand clear laws that defines protection vs menace? Trying to politicize tragedies, mistakes, accidents, and people not clear on their legal boundaries as a gun grab. Will never fucking work. So don't creme your jeans, fancy pants.
Agree completely.
216
ignoreme
2020 May 25, 5:55pm
krc says
Dude, if the guy is going to even make the pretense that he’s making a citizen’s arrest I’m going to take those odds. If he wanted to kill me he could have just run me over with the truck or shot me or something.
If 3 guys are there, one filming, I know I was doing something wrong previously, my first assumption is going to be they want to have the police have a chat with me, not that they are some racist murder cult.
But hey, good luck.
Really? I wouldn't.
Dude, if the guy is going to even make the pretense that he’s making a citizen’s arrest I’m going to take those odds. If he wanted to kill me he could have just run me over with the truck or shot me or something.
If 3 guys are there, one filming, I know I was doing something wrong previously, my first assumption is going to be they want to have the police have a chat with me, not that they are some racist murder cult.
But hey, good luck.
217
krc
2020 May 25, 6:13pm
ignoreme says
And I would take the opposite (I am not even sure they were making a citizens arrest. The verbal recording was garbled, but we will see). Our decisions are all based on experiences from our past, so certainly individuals will respond, well, differently. That shouldn't be a surprise. Running someone over with a truck without surprise is not very likely.
And, I don't think race played a part here. They got a call, someone says some dude in the neighborhood who shouldn't be there was in a construction site that is open to everyone (and yes there is numerous video of other "criminals" from the neighborhood entering the house)... Hey Bubba - let's go check it out! Let's grab out guns and see if we can make him confess to something! Or else...
Better response would be for the suspect's family to take out the killers family as revenge I guess. Just go up and say "citizen's arrest" and start shooting. What would be the difference? That seems to be the next step since we can't even agree that these yahoos acted irresponsibly and should be held accountable.
krc saysReally? I wouldn't.
Dude, if the guy is going to even make the pretense that he’s making a citizen’s arrest I’m going to take those odds. If he wanted to kill me he could have just run me over with the truck or shot me or something.
If 3 guys are there, one filming, I know I was doing something wrong previously, my first assumption is going to be they want to have the police have a chat with me, not that they are some racist murder cult.
But hey, good luck.
And I would take the opposite (I am not even sure they were making a citizens arrest. The verbal recording was garbled, but we will see). Our decisions are all based on experiences from our past, so certainly individuals will respond, well, differently. That shouldn't be a surprise. Running someone over with a truck without surprise is not very likely.
And, I don't think race played a part here. They got a call, someone says some dude in the neighborhood who shouldn't be there was in a construction site that is open to everyone (and yes there is numerous video of other "criminals" from the neighborhood entering the house)... Hey Bubba - let's go check it out! Let's grab out guns and see if we can make him confess to something! Or else...
Better response would be for the suspect's family to take out the killers family as revenge I guess. Just go up and say "citizen's arrest" and start shooting. What would be the difference? That seems to be the next step since we can't even agree that these yahoos acted irresponsibly and should be held accountable.
218
GNL
2020 May 25, 7:27pm
GNL
2020 May 25, 7:27pm
krc says
You'd be able to make better arguments if you were honest. You'd still be wrong but, at least you'd be an honest person.
ignoreme sayskrc saysReally? I wouldn't.
Dude, if the guy is going to even make the pretense that he’s making a citizen’s arrest I’m going to take those odds. If he wanted to kill me he could have just run me over with the truck or shot me or something.
If 3 guys are there, one filming, I know I was doing something wrong previously, my first assumption is going to be they want to have the police have a chat with me, not that they are some racist murder cult.
But hey, good luck.
And I would take the opposite (I am not even sure they were making a citizens arrest. The verbal recording was garbled, but we will see). Our decisions are all based on experiences from our past, so certainly individuals will respond, well, differently. That shouldn't be a surprise. Running someone over with a tru...
You'd be able to make better arguments if you were honest. You'd still be wrong but, at least you'd be an honest person.
219
Ceffer
2020 May 25, 7:36pm
Ceffer
2020 May 25, 7:36pm
WineHorror1 says
Honest person? That's so old school.
You'd still be wrong but, at least you'd be an honest person.
Honest person? That's so old school.
220
WookieMan
2020 May 26, 6:36am
WookieMan
2020 May 26, 6:36am
krc says
And that's all that matters. I haven't even looked at the charges, but the only one that maybe could stick is some illegal citizens arrest charge if that was even presented. Which is likely a misdemeanor.
I know people want these guys charged with murder and be convicted, it's just not going to happen. There's no way a jury of 12 or whatever number it is in this jurisdiction, is going to convict these guys of anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Only way is if their attorney is a complete moron, which is always possible. They're likely to end up with a high profile attorney that will do this pro bono for the free advertising and knows that they can get them off.
Hell this thread itself is split 50/50. Not sure how you're going to get a conviction on any charges, at least major ones.
We will see. It will be what the jury believes.
And that's all that matters. I haven't even looked at the charges, but the only one that maybe could stick is some illegal citizens arrest charge if that was even presented. Which is likely a misdemeanor.
I know people want these guys charged with murder and be convicted, it's just not going to happen. There's no way a jury of 12 or whatever number it is in this jurisdiction, is going to convict these guys of anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Only way is if their attorney is a complete moron, which is always possible. They're likely to end up with a high profile attorney that will do this pro bono for the free advertising and knows that they can get them off.
Hell this thread itself is split 50/50. Not sure how you're going to get a conviction on any charges, at least major ones.
221
ignoreme
2020 May 26, 6:39am
krc says
Grabbing the gun.
Just go up and say "citizen's arrest" and start shooting. What would be the difference?
Grabbing the gun.
222
krc
2020 May 26, 7:11am
ignoreme says
Not really. Assuming no one is stupid enough to film, then you simply shoot and say "yeah, dude tried to grab my gun when I declared I wanted to arrest him. And my name is Bubba by the way. B-U-B-B-A. ". :)
krc saysJust go up and say "citizen's arrest" and start shooting. What would be the difference?
Grabbing the gun.
Not really. Assuming no one is stupid enough to film, then you simply shoot and say "yeah, dude tried to grab my gun when I declared I wanted to arrest him. And my name is Bubba by the way. B-U-B-B-A. ". :)
223
CBOEtrader
2020 May 26, 7:24am
CBOEtrader
2020 May 26, 7:24am
krc says
bullshit. if you were routinely canvassing a home or store to rob, had just left that home or store and were then confronted by someone with a gun asking to talk to you, you would know EXACTLY why.
Arbery knew EXACTLY why he was confronted. He probably just didnt want to go to jail and overreacted.
Unfortunately, when he grabs for the man's gun, the man has the right to defend himself with the gun.
But I have seen too many people robbed at gunpoint in DC to think a "citizen" with gun pointed at me is normal.
bullshit. if you were routinely canvassing a home or store to rob, had just left that home or store and were then confronted by someone with a gun asking to talk to you, you would know EXACTLY why.
Arbery knew EXACTLY why he was confronted. He probably just didnt want to go to jail and overreacted.
Unfortunately, when he grabs for the man's gun, the man has the right to defend himself with the gun.
224
RWSGFY
2020 May 26, 7:29am
RWSGFY
2020 May 26, 7:29am
krc says
Oh, lookie here: somebody has discovered a novel method to win arguments - reductio ad absurdum. =))
ignoreme sayskrc saysJust go up and say "citizen's arrest" and start shooting. What would be the difference?
Grabbing the gun.
Not really. Assuming no one is stupid enough to film, then you simply shoot and say "yeah, dude tried to grab my gun when I declared I wanted to arrest him. And my name is Bubba by the way. B-U-B-B-A. ". :)
Oh, lookie here: somebody has discovered a novel method to win arguments - reductio ad absurdum. =))
225
RWSGFY
2020 May 26, 7:34am
RWSGFY
2020 May 26, 7:34am
krc says
And yet, when camera is rolling we see a dude actually grabbing the fucking gun. Reality vs imaginary scenarios...
Assuming no one is stupid enough to film, then you simply shoot and say "yeah, dude tried to grab my gun when I declared I wanted to arrest him
And yet, when camera is rolling we see a dude actually grabbing the fucking gun. Reality vs imaginary scenarios...
226
WookieMan
2020 May 26, 7:49am
WookieMan
2020 May 26, 7:49am
CBOEtrader says
This is pretty much the story here. I don't see how a jury convicts these guys of anything at this point, outside of maybe a minor citizen's arrest violation. I don't even think manslaughter sticks because Arbery came after him. Open carry is legal there. I can question someone just walking their dog on my street if I wanted, even if I know they didn't break a law. It's called talking.... I can do that in a truck as well. And if my state was legal open carry, I could have a gun with me as well.
A lot of people are being race baited on this one, as usual. Some need to open their eyes and see the shit they're being fed. If they wanted to kill Arbery, they should have just taken a page from his communities playbook and committed a drive by. And no, that's not a racist statement, it's reality. But hey, it appears some are just cool with randoms entering properties in their neighborhood for no reason. I'm glad I don't live in your neighborhood.
Arbery knew EXACTLY why he was confronted. He probably just didnt want to go to jail and overreacted.
This is pretty much the story here. I don't see how a jury convicts these guys of anything at this point, outside of maybe a minor citizen's arrest violation. I don't even think manslaughter sticks because Arbery came after him. Open carry is legal there. I can question someone just walking their dog on my street if I wanted, even if I know they didn't break a law. It's called talking.... I can do that in a truck as well. And if my state was legal open carry, I could have a gun with me as well.
A lot of people are being race baited on this one, as usual. Some need to open their eyes and see the shit they're being fed. If they wanted to kill Arbery, they should have just taken a page from his communities playbook and committed a drive by. And no, that's not a racist statement, it's reality. But hey, it appears some are just cool with randoms entering properties in their neighborhood for no reason. I'm glad I don't live in your neighborhood.
227
Tenpoundbass
2020 May 26, 8:00am
Tenpoundbass
2020 May 26, 8:00am
WookieMan says
You never answered my question, do you see any problems with their approach for the Citizens Arrest, and is there anything you think they should have done differently?
Would you have confronted him with a gun, or would you have just followed him at the most?
But hey, it appears some are just cool with randoms entering properties in their neighborhood for no reason. I'm glad I don't live in your neighborhood.
You never answered my question, do you see any problems with their approach for the Citizens Arrest, and is there anything you think they should have done differently?
Would you have confronted him with a gun, or would you have just followed him at the most?
228
krc
2020 May 26, 8:03am
WookieMan says
I actually don't think this about race at all. It is really about whether this was a valid citizens arrest at all and if there was any legal justification. As other commentators note, it was handled poorly at best. So I guess you don't have to have any responsibility when you make a citizens arrest - to do this in a responsible manner. They did not. Manslaughter IMO would be suitable.
I believe the fool that filmed the event has been charged with murder and attempt to commit false imprisonment. This last charge is probably key....
A lot of people are being race baited on this one, as usual.
I actually don't think this about race at all. It is really about whether this was a valid citizens arrest at all and if there was any legal justification. As other commentators note, it was handled poorly at best. So I guess you don't have to have any responsibility when you make a citizens arrest - to do this in a responsible manner. They did not. Manslaughter IMO would be suitable.
I believe the fool that filmed the event has been charged with murder and attempt to commit false imprisonment. This last charge is probably key....
229
Onvacation
2020 May 26, 8:35am
Onvacation
2020 May 26, 8:35am
krc says
The first ten amendments are what is known as the "Bill of Rights". They are inalienable and when a government tries to limit these rights the people have a right to throw out that government.
The constitution never would have been ratified if these "natural rights" were not enumerated.
And it does not matter if a government made a law telling us how to think. We would think how we wanted to anyway.
Perhaps I am incorrect, but it is a Constitutional right subject to removal by 3/4 of house/senate and approval of 3/4 of state legislatures. Or Contitutional convention. While difficult, you can remove an amendment. I don't remember all the details. Let me know where in the constitution it says you cannot change it...
The first ten amendments are what is known as the "Bill of Rights". They are inalienable and when a government tries to limit these rights the people have a right to throw out that government.
The constitution never would have been ratified if these "natural rights" were not enumerated.
And it does not matter if a government made a law telling us how to think. We would think how we wanted to anyway.
230
Onvacation
2020 May 26, 8:37am
Onvacation
2020 May 26, 8:37am
krc says
Open carry is legal. Citizen arrest is legal. Charging at and swinging on an armed citizen is stupid.
That is why any serious 2A supporter should look at these yahoos and say they are idiots and put them to trial.
Open carry is legal. Citizen arrest is legal. Charging at and swinging on an armed citizen is stupid.
231
krc
2020 May 26, 8:59am
Onvacation says
And that is the crux. Do you think what these bozos in the truck did resembled any sort of "citizen arrest"? I suppose the jury will decide whether what these idiots did was reasonable or not and had any legal merit. Did they reasonably believe he had committed a felony? Was he carrying stolen property? Did he have a burglar toolset or a weapon? Etc...
The charges that are being added to the murder charge by the state indicate that they believe there was no legal reason to apprehend the "suspect".
General trespass is NOT a felony in GA in general unless there is extreme property damage or long term occupation. Likely the "citizens" new that and didn't care.
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.
krc saysThat is why any serious 2A supporter should look at these yahoos and say they are idiots and put them to trial.
Open carry is legal. Citizen arrest is legal. Charging at and swinging on an armed citizen is stupid.
And that is the crux. Do you think what these bozos in the truck did resembled any sort of "citizen arrest"? I suppose the jury will decide whether what these idiots did was reasonable or not and had any legal merit. Did they reasonably believe he had committed a felony? Was he carrying stolen property? Did he have a burglar toolset or a weapon? Etc...
The charges that are being added to the murder charge by the state indicate that they believe there was no legal reason to apprehend the "suspect".
General trespass is NOT a felony in GA in general unless there is extreme property damage or long term occupation. Likely the "citizens" new that and didn't care.
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.
232
Onvacation
2020 May 26, 9:06am
Onvacation
2020 May 26, 9:06am
krc says
They never did arrest the trespasser. Before they had a chance to ask him why he was snooping around private property he charged a man with a loaded shotgun.
He charged a man with a loaded shotgun.
He died of stupidity.
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.
They never did arrest the trespasser. Before they had a chance to ask him why he was snooping around private property he charged a man with a loaded shotgun.
He charged a man with a loaded shotgun.
He died of stupidity.
233
WookieMan
2020 May 26, 10:11am
WookieMan
2020 May 26, 10:11am
Tenpoundbass says
I've said it probably wasn't handled correctly. It's not about that though. I'm strictly speaking about the legal aspect of it. I don't see an infraction that's above a misdemeanor by the two dudes though. I personally would not have come out with a gun, but if it's legal, so be it.
So yes, there are problems with the approach for sure. I just don't see any legal charges getting them convicted of anything outside of something minor that most of us don't even know about.
You never answered my question, do you see any problems with their approach for the Citizens Arrest, and is there anything you think they should have done differently?
Would you have confronted him with a gun, or would you have just followed him at the most?
I've said it probably wasn't handled correctly. It's not about that though. I'm strictly speaking about the legal aspect of it. I don't see an infraction that's above a misdemeanor by the two dudes though. I personally would not have come out with a gun, but if it's legal, so be it.
So yes, there are problems with the approach for sure. I just don't see any legal charges getting them convicted of anything outside of something minor that most of us don't even know about.
234
WookieMan
2020 May 26, 10:16am
WookieMan
2020 May 26, 10:16am
krc says
This is where looking up laws will fuck you over. There's a reason the language is very vague. These 4 words get the two hick's off. Followed by this.
krc says
Suspicion. Probable. The law is in their favor. I don't like it and you clearly don't either, but it's water under the bridge at this point. They won't be convicted of anything more severe than a traffic ticket.
within his immediate knowledge.
This is where looking up laws will fuck you over. There's a reason the language is very vague. These 4 words get the two hick's off. Followed by this.
krc says
attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.
Suspicion. Probable. The law is in their favor. I don't like it and you clearly don't either, but it's water under the bridge at this point. They won't be convicted of anything more severe than a traffic ticket.
235
Tenpoundbass
2020 May 26, 1:07pm
Tenpoundbass
2020 May 26, 1:07pm
WookieMan says
There should be more "constables" which are citizens, that have been trained and authorized to play Charles Bronson, by the local police authorities.
Folks who have been trained to coordinate with dispatch and the police dept, to make sure there is no confusion or that the hero dogooder, isn't a second gunman seen outside the scene. Which is what happens all too often after a shooting. There was a clerk in NYC that is now going to jail for shooting a robber coming after him with a knife.
We need laws that protects these people, and makes it clear that's what the 2nd amendment is for.
Your support of the shooters, would be like me defending an excellent driver fiddling with items in glove compartment, and changing the radio, while he plowed through a school zone killing a couple children crossing the street. Was there things he could have done differently? Sure there is, always be careful and never take your eyes off the road, and always maintain control of the vehicle. You can't arbitrarily say "Well he's a good guy, he didn't mean no harm by it, it was an accident."
It's less about punishing him, as it is about driving home to others, why they should always think and consider their actions.
And 80% of the gun owners out there, have not had training to run into a violent situation with a fleeing felonious suspect.
No matter how noble the cause, the outcome should be their responsibility to bare. If it were common knowledge that these wanna be heroes end up making mistakes and it's not as easy as cops on TV makes it look. Then people would be less incline to go charging in, unless they have had proper training, or have gotten some local Constable credentials.
The majority of those not trained to do so, never would chase after a suspect that potentially robbed a neighbor's construction site. They would follow him and do other things to make sure he gets caught when the police come. But they would run out there and engage in gun play.
You can shoot a bad guy all day long if you and he are on the same scene at the same time during the commission of the crime. So should the would be victim. We need to protect them, not these crackpot lunatics just itching to bag their first perp.
Also did you acknowledge that I said, the majority of these grey area shootings, are always caused by people who were rejected from Law enforcement or even military because those organizations did not deem them fit to be at large armed and dangerous?
We can't keep protecting these people, and would be people like them, need to be educated that they might get in some deep shit, if it goes wrong.
I don't think people realize, their actions would only be lawful and heroic, only if all goes to plan. Even the pros consider every scenario before they go charging in.
"Should I grab this shotgun and go running in? Nah better not, what if the idiot grabs the barrel, I'll have to shoot him?"
I've said it probably wasn't handled correctly. It's not about that though. I'm strictly speaking about the legal aspect of it. I don't see an infraction that's above a misdemeanor by the two dudes though. I personally would not have come out with a gun, but if it's legal, so be it.
There should be more "constables" which are citizens, that have been trained and authorized to play Charles Bronson, by the local police authorities.
Folks who have been trained to coordinate with dispatch and the police dept, to make sure there is no confusion or that the hero dogooder, isn't a second gunman seen outside the scene. Which is what happens all too often after a shooting. There was a clerk in NYC that is now going to jail for shooting a robber coming after him with a knife.
We need laws that protects these people, and makes it clear that's what the 2nd amendment is for.
Your support of the shooters, would be like me defending an excellent driver fiddling with items in glove compartment, and changing the radio, while he plowed through a school zone killing a couple children crossing the street. Was there things he could have done differently? Sure there is, always be careful and never take your eyes off the road, and always maintain control of the vehicle. You can't arbitrarily say "Well he's a good guy, he didn't mean no harm by it, it was an accident."
It's less about punishing him, as it is about driving home to others, why they should always think and consider their actions.
And 80% of the gun owners out there, have not had training to run into a violent situation with a fleeing felonious suspect.
No matter how noble the cause, the outcome should be their responsibility to bare. If it were common knowledge that these wanna be heroes end up making mistakes and it's not as easy as cops on TV makes it look. Then people would be less incline to go charging in, unless they have had proper training, or have gotten some local Constable credentials.
The majority of those not trained to do so, never would chase after a suspect that potentially robbed a neighbor's construction site. They would follow him and do other things to make sure he gets caught when the police come. But they would run out there and engage in gun play.
You can shoot a bad guy all day long if you and he are on the same scene at the same time during the commission of the crime. So should the would be victim. We need to protect them, not these crackpot lunatics just itching to bag their first perp.
Also did you acknowledge that I said, the majority of these grey area shootings, are always caused by people who were rejected from Law enforcement or even military because those organizations did not deem them fit to be at large armed and dangerous?
We can't keep protecting these people, and would be people like them, need to be educated that they might get in some deep shit, if it goes wrong.
I don't think people realize, their actions would only be lawful and heroic, only if all goes to plan. Even the pros consider every scenario before they go charging in.
"Should I grab this shotgun and go running in? Nah better not, what if the idiot grabs the barrel, I'll have to shoot him?"
236
PeopleUnited
2020 May 26, 7:25pm
PeopleUnited
2020 May 26, 7:25pm
CBOEtrader says
This is quite likely, here is another possibility; maybe in addition to the fact he didn’t want to talk to the po po, he had struck out on a night of attempted thievery and when he saw the gun he saw a way to really make some money by stealing a gun. Either way, the assault and attempt to grab the gun is the bridge too far for any innocent person’s behavior. It is dishonest to say the departed was not in the wrong, and even more dishonest to suggest the people who were attacked set out to kill. They could have killed him anytime and not shared the video and more importantly not called the police, if killing was their intent. Here’s a clue, the criminals don’t call the police before they commit a crime. On the other hand when criminals get caught they run and resist arrest. It is fiction and foolish to invent stories of racism or other propaganda when the most reasonable answer is the three men who are still alive underestimated the recklessness of a criminal. So now they will have to explain to us all that their assumption that a criminal would be reasonable and wait for the police to arrive was wrong. But unfortunately for the people who want to punish these men for attempting to protect their neighborhood (don’t forget that if we allow people to steal or trespass on one persons things we might as well let people steal or trespass on everyone) it is not unreasonable or illegal to assume someone will be reasonable nor is it unreasonable or illegal to use deadly force when a person is punching you in the face or trying to grab your own firearm.
He probably just didnt want to go to jail and overreacted.
This is quite likely, here is another possibility; maybe in addition to the fact he didn’t want to talk to the po po, he had struck out on a night of attempted thievery and when he saw the gun he saw a way to really make some money by stealing a gun. Either way, the assault and attempt to grab the gun is the bridge too far for any innocent person’s behavior. It is dishonest to say the departed was not in the wrong, and even more dishonest to suggest the people who were attacked set out to kill. They could have killed him anytime and not shared the video and more importantly not called the police, if killing was their intent. Here’s a clue, the criminals don’t call the police before they commit a crime. On the other hand when criminals get caught they run and resist arrest. It is fiction and foolish to invent stories of racism or other propaganda when the most reasonable answer is the three men who are still alive underestimated the recklessness of a criminal. So now they will have to explain to us all that their assumption that a criminal would be reasonable and wait for the police to arrive was wrong. But unfortunately for the people who want to punish these men for attempting to protect their neighborhood (don’t forget that if we allow people to steal or trespass on one persons things we might as well let people steal or trespass on everyone) it is not unreasonable or illegal to assume someone will be reasonable nor is it unreasonable or illegal to use deadly force when a person is punching you in the face or trying to grab your own firearm.
237
PeopleUnited
2020 May 26, 8:00pm
PeopleUnited
2020 May 26, 8:00pm
Tenpoundbass says
This is not true. Even police officers by law -in my state anyway- cannot use deadly force unless confronted with a criminal who appears to be an imminent threat to their own life or the life of another human being. Using a gun to send a projectile into the body of a horse thief for example is illegal, unless the horse thief is threatening by their actions violence on another person. I will say it again, the police cannot use deadly force to stop a non-violent crime. Neither can you. We are limited by divine right to only use deadly force in defense against violence.
You can shoot a bad guy all day long if you and he are on the same scene at the same time during the commission of the crime
This is not true. Even police officers by law -in my state anyway- cannot use deadly force unless confronted with a criminal who appears to be an imminent threat to their own life or the life of another human being. Using a gun to send a projectile into the body of a horse thief for example is illegal, unless the horse thief is threatening by their actions violence on another person. I will say it again, the police cannot use deadly force to stop a non-violent crime. Neither can you. We are limited by divine right to only use deadly force in defense against violence.
238
krc
2020 May 27, 10:28am
PeopleUnited says
If the suspect truly committed a crime that was worthy of being chased down and killed I believe the law enforcement would have said so and this whole case would be over. What has happened is that is that there was no crime. There was no justification to make an arrest - particularly once the "suspect" fled. We can argue trespass all day long but without a fence and a closed door, it is simply not trespass. Never mind the fact that they didn't chase down the MANY others that showed up on the video - only this particular person. There was no long term occupation. We can argue all day long but I am guessing we will see what the jury thinks and what the DA represents - if it was a crime to begin with.
Note I am not saying murder1 etc... But the killers instigated the entire confrontation in a most irresponsible manner and should be accountable. Manslaughter... Perhaps the DA will overcharge and they will get off when jury thinks life term. Not sure how it works in GA.
The killers "thought" he did something - now they are in trouble because he wasn't robbing that location. You can claim he was "casing" but apparently (though I don't know if this is true or not) the killers had a run in with the suspect the previous week where they told him to leave the neighborhood - I guess because he wasn't from the neighborhood and I guess in GA you can't just go wandering in a neighborhood that I thought would be open to anyone. Owner has stated multiple times that the "suspect" as well as others were "looky-loos" and nothing was ever taken or damaged. Odd, if there was such a concern, that the owner has done his best to throw the killers under the bus as well. Maybe he is concerned about liability as well - since he did the "cheap" web cam as security vs putting up a fence and door.
It was a clear idiotic rush to judgement.
The mistake the suspect made was not carrying a weapon and firing back immediately when someone pulls out a gun.... So, if you are in GA - remember - go well armed.
:)
He probably just didnt want to go to jail and overreacted.
If the suspect truly committed a crime that was worthy of being chased down and killed I believe the law enforcement would have said so and this whole case would be over. What has happened is that is that there was no crime. There was no justification to make an arrest - particularly once the "suspect" fled. We can argue trespass all day long but without a fence and a closed door, it is simply not trespass. Never mind the fact that they didn't chase down the MANY others that showed up on the video - only this particular person. There was no long term occupation. We can argue all day long but I am guessing we will see what the jury thinks and what the DA represents - if it was a crime to begin with.
Note I am not saying murder1 etc... But the killers instigated the entire confrontation in a most irresponsible manner and should be accountable. Manslaughter... Perhaps the DA will overcharge and they will get off when jury thinks life term. Not sure how it works in GA.
The killers "thought" he did something - now they are in trouble because he wasn't robbing that location. You can claim he was "casing" but apparently (though I don't know if this is true or not) the killers had a run in with the suspect the previous week where they told him to leave the neighborhood - I guess because he wasn't from the neighborhood and I guess in GA you can't just go wandering in a neighborhood that I thought would be open to anyone. Owner has stated multiple times that the "suspect" as well as others were "looky-loos" and nothing was ever taken or damaged. Odd, if there was such a concern, that the owner has done his best to throw the killers under the bus as well. Maybe he is concerned about liability as well - since he did the "cheap" web cam as security vs putting up a fence and door.
It was a clear idiotic rush to judgement.
The mistake the suspect made was not carrying a weapon and firing back immediately when someone pulls out a gun.... So, if you are in GA - remember - go well armed.
:)
239
RWSGFY
2020 May 27, 10:36am
RWSGFY
2020 May 27, 10:36am
krc says
It was over until busybodies made LE to open/reopen the case. Just like with Zim/Trayvon. Only to waste shitload of taxpayer money on futile attempt to prosecute, ultimately arriving to the same point where it all started. There is a very good chance the same will happen here.
If the suspect truly committed a crime that was worthy of being chased down and killed I believe the law enforcement would have said so and this whole case would be over. What has happened is that is that there was no crime.
It was over until busybodies made LE to open/reopen the case. Just like with Zim/Trayvon. Only to waste shitload of taxpayer money on futile attempt to prosecute, ultimately arriving to the same point where it all started. There is a very good chance the same will happen here.
240
krc
2020 May 27, 10:41am
WookieMan says
I agree we really need to see how this is interpreted. To me, the reading of the full text is that the private person may arrest only upon reasonable grounds of a "felony" and AND attempting to escape. The "crime" certainly wasn't in the killers presence, so they had no idea what was done. He showed up on a security camera, the idiots get a call, and go chasing him down. I doubt they reviewed the footage, etc... I think that is why the charges are not just "murder" but illegal detention and go the crux of the matter: they had no justification to even make an arrest. Note that I am not saying the "set out to kill him" but they created a situation where someone ended up dead due to the killers negligence, lack of care, and lack of responsibility.
"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."
krc sayswithin his immediate knowledge.
This is where looking up laws will fuck you over. There's a reason the language is very vague. These 4 words get the two hick's off. Followed by this.
krc saysattempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.
Suspicion. Probable. The law is in their favor. I don't like it and you clearly don't either, but it's water under the bridge at this point. They won't be convicted of anything more severe than a traffic ticket.
I agree we really need to see how this is interpreted. To me, the reading of the full text is that the private person may arrest only upon reasonable grounds of a "felony" and AND attempting to escape. The "crime" certainly wasn't in the killers presence, so they had no idea what was done. He showed up on a security camera, the idiots get a call, and go chasing him down. I doubt they reviewed the footage, etc... I think that is why the charges are not just "murder" but illegal detention and go the crux of the matter: they had no justification to even make an arrest. Note that I am not saying the "set out to kill him" but they created a situation where someone ended up dead due to the killers negligence, lack of care, and lack of responsibility.
"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."
241
Tenpoundbass
2020 May 27, 10:48am
Tenpoundbass
2020 May 27, 10:48am
PeopleUnited says
Naturally I was speaking purely in terms of stopping a violent attack or armed intruder threatening people. And it's not a clear cut and dry law now. But I say we need laws that protect armed citizens protecting themselves and their homes, while making it clear what other accidental deaths with gun play, you'll be on your own with your lawyer and jury deciding your fate of Laws you clearly broke. If people understood these laws, they would be less inclined to run in and play Texas Walker Ranger.
As it's the same class of idiots time and time again. As you and I would not do something so haphazardly foolish.
This is not true. Even police officers by law -in my state anyway- cannot use deadly force unless confronted with a criminal who appears to be an imminent threat to their own life or the life of another human being. Using a gun to send a projectile into the body of a horse thief for example is illegal, unless the horse thief is threatening by their actions violence on another person. I will say it again, the police cannot use deadly force to stop a non-violent crime. Neither can you. We are limited by divine right to only use deadly force in defense against violence.
Naturally I was speaking purely in terms of stopping a violent attack or armed intruder threatening people. And it's not a clear cut and dry law now. But I say we need laws that protect armed citizens protecting themselves and their homes, while making it clear what other accidental deaths with gun play, you'll be on your own with your lawyer and jury deciding your fate of Laws you clearly broke. If people understood these laws, they would be less inclined to run in and play Texas Walker Ranger.
As it's the same class of idiots time and time again. As you and I would not do something so haphazardly foolish.
242
krc
2020 May 27, 11:08am
covid_shmovid says
No. It was over until the idiotic killers decided that letting the video out was a good idea. :)
krc saysIf the suspect truly committed a crime that was worthy of being chased down and killed I believe the law enforcement would have said so and this whole case would be over. What has happened is that is that there was no crime.
It was over until busybodies made LE to open/reopen the case. Just like with Zim/Trayvon. Only to waste shitload of taxpayer money on futile attempt to prosecute, ultimately arriving to the same point where it all started. There is a very good chance the same will happen here.
No. It was over until the idiotic killers decided that letting the video out was a good idea. :)
« First « Previous Comments 203 - 242 of 243 Next » Last » Search these comments
There's not a stand your ground law in the US that will back you, if things get out of hand at that point. In almost every scenario, you'll be the aggressor.
Why did Ahmaud Arbery, grab their gun, the video would have cleared him and he could have sued them later.
It's been rumored he was in boots, and was carrying a hammer, though it's clear he wasn't doing either. The video, shows Ahmaud enter the under construction property. But IMHO, it doesn't look like he's casing the place. Now they don't show the whole video, he could have looked innocent until the video stops. Then he could have been snooping and prowling looking for tools, and scoping out any copper wire. Speculation of course, but why release the video and not show the entire three minutes. What was he doing when he noticed the neighbor across the street calling 9-11 before he bolted out the door?
If he was doing nothing more than what it looked like, it could be argued he was stopping by looking for work. That's how I used to get construction work way way on back in the day. Just show up on the job, and ask if they need help.
It's not looking good for the Good Ole Boys, what's in the rest of the video, and why is Ahmaud so brazen to try to take the gun, rather than the prospect of waiting for the police?
Especially given the lack of will to prosecute these days by Liberal judges, Mayors and DA's.
www.youtube.com/embed/rg8CaecNJI8