babygorilla
NES Member
Herein lies the problem with today's corrupt USA
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Two Weapons, a Chase, a Killing and No Charges: A 25-year-old man running through a Georgia neighborhood ended up dead
- Thread starter Reptile
- Start date
If he doesn't have the intent to commit a felony or theft, it's not burglary.
babygorilla
NES Member
Again, your assumption. I ASSUME, that if you enter illegally multiple times, and they had to resort to a camera, that burglaries had already occurred.
I didn't make an assumption one way or the other. But you can't say "He committed B&E" without proving intent.
Incorrect. Please read the statute.
Why did you bold only the one portion. All elements must be met. That's probably why you didn't bold the first part, that says "WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT A FELONY OR THEFT". Considering he left without doing any of that, how's it apply?
There is a potential crime here. Trespassing. But even that is unlikely to apply.
The people chasing him up and down the street with guns are.
They certainly tried to and admitted to attempting to detain him. Who moved towards who? The video appears to show they both moved towards each other.
Clear misrepresentation of what happened. They weren't just legally carrying and having a chat. They were actively chasing this guy.
Honestly, you don't think there is anything illegal with chasing a guy up and down the street with guns and trying to block him? Seriously?
And their bad choice is a crime.
Dear lord, that's not how laws work. You don't get to assume he was going to do something he in fact didn't and say that's good enough! You have to prove it. If you can't, then no, a burglary did not occur. JFC. Don't they teach this stuff in school?
The other important part is that if it was trespassing, then you cannot enact a citizens arrest on someone unless you see the crime being committed. Which, according the police report, the McMichaels did not see. Therefore if they didn't see it, they can't citizens arrest him for it.
babygorilla
NES Member
And all of this goes back to why I said it is irrelevant, since we do not know his intention, and never will. And does not change who did what later since the MM's were unaware of this instance.
There is a reason why I intially used the term B&E, not burglary.....
If the McMichaels were unaware of what he did, then they don't have the right to arrest him in the first place.
babygorilla
NES Member
But did they?
eboos
NES Member
Magic 8 ball time: plea deal for shooter. Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter under O.C.G.A. 16-5-3(b). Misdemeanor. Charges against bubba in the truck dropped. Attempt to placate public with max sentence under misdemeanor involuntary manslaughter. There is a weak case for Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter's elements don't seem to fit.
Not according to the police report, no. I don't have anything else to go on.
babygorilla
NES Member
EXACTLY
The only thing we know is that these two were idiots and PSGWSP.
And running idiot also PSGWSP by trying to go h2h with a guy with a gun.
If you were a black guy in Georgia and three white guys made repeated attempts to intercept you so that they could "stop and talk to [you]" while open-carrying weapons, what would you do?
babygorilla
NES Member
Not run down an open roadway at them. If I saw a dude with a shotgun standing in the road, I would not approach greater than 100'. Not attempt to throwdown. Evade, find C&C. Fight only when cornered. They have the superior numbers and firepower. Live to fight another day.
do tell?
That depends on the timing. Sure if you can ascertain that complete situation at 100' its one thing but if you don't put it all together until you are 10' away that might change your response.
Case for manslaughter isn't weak at all.
They defendants cant satisfy any of the requirements for the citizen's arrest. Home owner has been clear on the matter that nothing was stolen and they didn't witness any kind of felony, only a misdemeanor trespass.
When their intent fails nothing in the follow-up is inapplicable. They made a bad choice turning themselves into the aggressor's and as such have no other protections.
Relevant laws:
Georgia 16-7-1 Burglary.
(a) As used in this Code section, the term:
(1) "Dwelling" means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is designed or intended for occupancy for residential use.
(2) "Railroad car" shall also include trailers on flatcars, containers on flatcars, trailers on railroad property, or containers on railroad property.
(b) A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the first degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment...
(c) A person commits the offense of burglary in the second degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant building, structure, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, or aircraft. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the second degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years...
Georgia 17-4-60- Citizeen's 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.
Georgia 16-3-21- Use of force for self defense:
(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:
(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
Georgia 16-5-20
Not applicable to the defense because it's countered by the above, but applicable to the prosecution as the defense cannot validate any of the points above.
A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either (1) attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or (2) commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.
The neighborhood roads aren't just a loop - it's a peninsula surrounded on 3 sides by water. The thoughts of trying to go sideways off the road through yards are of limited value - you'll hit the water. After he tried the other way around the loop to evade they cut him off and he pretty much had to get past them.
Brain game for you.
3 men in two trucks, armed, have been chasing you down. You've evaded your way past them once but they've blocked the only exit to the area and are now approaching you from both sides. You fear for your life. You ARE armed. You open fire and happen to get them before they get you. Good shoot? I think it is, even in the Commonwealth of MA.
Brain game for you.
3 men in two trucks, armed, have been chasing you down. You've evaded your way past them once but they've blocked the only exit to the area and are now approaching you from both sides. You fear for your life. You ARE armed. You open fire and happen to get them before they get you. Good shoot? I think it is, even in the Commonwealth of MA.
babygorilla
NES Member
False analogy. There were multiple ways to evade and seek concealment / cover. It is a heavily wooded area. If being confronted by 2 fat bodies at a distance with firearms I would evade into the woods. Armed or not. Even in GA or MA.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,600
- Likes
- 33,537
Mans Laughter seems the best outcome for all outside of Mr. Aboobeebee.
You mean because, as a former LEO, he's plugged into the system and it will be jaded to help his case? Yes, that is certainly possible. They won't need the media for that.
Damn these strings chafe.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
It is entirely possible that Arbery did not realize that they were armed until the McMichaels got out of the truck, in which case Arbery might not have been so incentivized to take cover.
Of course, if the McMichaels were pointing their weapons out of the vehicle before they tried to stop Arbery, that is even worse for their defense.
babygorilla
NES Member
IF they ever even POINTED the weapons who is it worse for?
Tell me you aren’t trying to say because they weren’t successful it makes it okay. If anything, that’s worse. Because instead the guy killed him.
The McMichaels, because then it starts to look like aggravated assault.
babygorilla
NES Member
But, DID they point the weapons? The video does not show that. Not until the fight starts.
eboos
NES Member
Here is where I see it:
Under paragraph (b) of the involuntary manslaughter statute it rests on committing a lawful act in an unlawful manner and resulting in the death of the victim. This is a safe play for both the prosecution and the defense. (Without reviewing GA cases, just the statutes) Murder is out unless the prosecution can show malice aforethought or during the commission of a felony. With the information available, the state can make a case for it but ultimately I think it would fail when put to the jury. Voluntary Manslaughter is even more of a stretch unless it could be shown that the bubba's were so enraged that they couldn't control their impulse. That leaves felony involuntary manslaughter (paragraph (a)) and misdemeanor involuntary manslaughter (paragraph (b)). For felony involuntary manslaughter, the state would have to show that the bubbas committed an illegal act which resulted in the death - which they certainly could - but there is the risk of loosing combined with the incentive for the defense to take a deal.
You’re blaming the vic for not bushwhacking to avoid trouble.
I’m blaming the shooter for not refraining from shooting him.
Objectively, I think my case is far stronger.
I don't know. My point was, if they weren't pointing them, then Arbery may not have thought his life was in danger and may not have thought he needed to head for the woods.
babygorilla
NES Member
But did they even attempt a CA? Or are we assuming they were based upon the statement of a recused prosecutor?
See, this is the problem EVERYONE ASSUMING. No one really knows all the facts except the MM's and the deceased.
