The wrong way to do a citizens arrest [Georgia]

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,949
    113
    Avon
    I did not know that.

    Reported could mean "speculated". I haven't bothered to verify.

    And, it could either help his case (supporting RAS/PC), or hurt his case ("gonna get that bastard" mindset/mens rea), if it is true that Arbury was known to him.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    Here's where I'm not sure I agree (because I don't know GA statute): even if the citizen's arrest were lawful, does statutory authority to effect a citizen's arrest allow for/justify the use of deadly force? If not, then they exceeded the statutory authority of the citizen's arrest, and as such their use of deadly force (presenting their firearms in the attempt to effect the arrest) was unjustified. If that's true, then wouldn't his attempt to disarm be justified use of deadly force in self-defense?

    Define "presenting firearms" and show how that's lethal force.

    Your notion is relevant only if they shot him to affect the arrest, i.e he was fleeing and shooting him was the only available option for apprehending him. That's not what happened, but if it were that would not be a legal use of deadly force by anyone. Tennessee vs Garner put an end to legally shooting folks who were fleeing in most circumstances for police and, generally, citizen's arrest is even more restrictive.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,949
    113
    Avon
    Define "presenting firearms" and show how that's lethal force.

    I believe the common term here is brandishing, i.e. presentation/use of a firearm in a threatening manner with the implication that the firearm will be used to coerce compliance with the demanded action (in this case, detention/citizen's arrest).

    Your notion is relevant only if they shot him to affect the arrest, i.e he was fleeing and shooting him was the only available option for apprehending him. That's not what happened, but if it were that would not be a legal use of deadly force by anyone. Tennessee vs Garner put an end to legally shooting folks who were fleeing in most circumstances for police and, generally, citizen's arrest is even more restrictive.

    Wait: so threatening to use deadly force is no longer unlawful? People aren't arrested for just that, commonly?
     

    ECS686

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Dec 9, 2017
    1,705
    113
    Brazil
    Here's where I'm not sure I agree (because I don't know GA statute): even if the citizen's arrest were lawful, does statutory authority to effect a citizen's arrest allow for/justify the use of deadly force? If not, then they exceeded the statutory authority of the citizen's arrest, and as such their use of deadly force (presenting their firearms in the attempt to effect the arrest) was unjustified. If that's true, then wouldn't his attempt to disarm be justified use of deadly force in self-defense?[/QUOTE


    I wont say I know everything but am a certified instructor through FLETC. With that my outlook on this is the use of force was not justified simply because they themself did not witness the act that day and time. It's much different than say an LEO wanting to question someone of frequent contacts etc.

    This is what I mean about straw men.

    One of the accused is former LEO. It is reported that Arbery, and his past criminality, was known to him. As such, that knowledge absolutely plays into his mindset regarding reasonable suspicion regarding trespassing/theft.

    And just because it's INGO: no, that prior knowledge does not justify otherwise unjustified use of deadly force.

    I don't disagree but I his is also the same reason 3 Officers in Louisville are probably going to be charged. From what I have read it sounds like nothing more tha one Officers EGO caused this. The sad thing is his ego got flexed on the wrong guy (not that any ego is justified but you get what I'm saying)

    Sounds similar to Dumb and Dumber in GA.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    I believe the common term here is brandishing, i.e. presentation/use of a firearm in a threatening manner with the implication that the firearm will be used to coerce compliance with the demanded action (in this case, detention/citizen's arrest).

    Threatening lethal force and *being* lethal force are not the same thing. That's why laws like robbery say "by force or threat of force". They are two distinct things or that would be redundant. So we're back to there was no deadly force used to affect an arrest so it's an irrelevant question if GA law allows for deadly force to be used to affect a citizen's arrest.

    Wait: so threatening to use deadly force is no longer unlawful? People aren't arrested for just that, commonly?

    Threatening deadly force is perfectly legal or perfectly illegal, depending entirely on the context. Intimidation in Indiana, for example is a multi-pronged law. "I'm going to kick your ass for calling the police" is illegal. "I'm going to kick your ass for stealing my neighbor's lawn gnomes" is legal, but it wouldn't be legal to actually do it. Why? Because calling the police is a prior lawful act, gnome theft is not. Battery is it's own crime and irrelevant to if something is Intimidation or not. I can't be charged with battery for threatening you, because the threat of force isn't force.

    You can't take elements of one law and apply that to a different law and read it as a coherent block. You can't even do it with definitions, as how a given term is defined in one law may be different in a different chapter, which is why chapters contain definitions. Each law has it's own prongs and each required prong must be present for a violation to be charged as a crime. You have to look at citizen's arrest alone, then look at battery alone, then look at intimidation alone, etc.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,949
    113
    Avon
    Threatening lethal force and *being* lethal force are not the same thing. That's why laws like robbery say "by force or threat of force". They are two distinct things or that would be redundant. So we're back to there was no deadly force used to affect an arrest so it's an irrelevant question if GA law allows for deadly force to be used to affect a citizen's arrest.

    Okay, then: substitute threatening lethal force for using lethal force. Under most state statutes, I assume, threatening lethal force is as unlawful as using deadly force. The question remains: was the action - the threatening lethal force - justified in the given circumstance?

    Threatening deadly force is perfectly legal or perfectly illegal, depending entirely on the context. Intimidation in Indiana, for example is a multi-pronged law. "I'm going to kick your ass for calling the police" is illegal. "I'm going to kick your ass for stealing my neighbor's lawn gnomes" is legal, but it wouldn't be legal to actually do it. Why? Because calling the police is a prior lawful act, gnome theft is not. Battery is it's own crime and irrelevant to if something is Intimidation or not. I can't be charged with battery for threatening you, because the threat of force isn't force.

    You can't take elements of one law and apply that to a different law and read it as a coherent block. You can't even do it with definitions, as how a given term is defined in one law may be different in a different chapter, which is why chapters contain definitions. Each law has it's own prongs and each required prong must be present for a violation to be charged as a crime. You have to look at citizen's arrest alone, then look at battery alone, then look at intimidation alone, etc.

    I appreciate the explanation. From my lay perspective, though, it still seems like a distinction without a difference. If the accused's actions of presenting firearms, thereby threatening use of deadly force, was unlawful and not otherwise justified, then Arbery's attempt to disarm the person unlawfully threatening use of deadly force would have been fully justifiable in self-defense.

    It is a question of who was the unlawful aggressor: Arbery, or the accused? I am struggling to come up with any way to rationalize that the accused are anything other than the unlawful aggressors in this instance, and that Arbery's attempt to disarm was therefore justifiable use of (deadly) force in self-defense.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    Under most state statutes, I assume, threatening lethal force is as unlawful as using deadly force. The question remains: was the action - the threatening lethal force - justified in the given circumstance?



    I appreciate the explanation. From my lay perspective, though, it still seems like a distinction without a difference. If the accused's actions of presenting firearms, thereby threatening use of deadly force, was unlawful and not otherwise justified, then Arbery's attempt to disarm the person unlawfully threatening use of deadly force would have been fully justifiable in self-defense.

    It is a question of who was the unlawful aggressor: Arbery, or the accused? I am struggling to come up with any way to rationalize that the accused are anything other than the unlawful aggressors in this instance, and that Arbery's attempt to disarm was therefore justifiable use of (deadly) force in self-defense.

    I've explained it as well as I can, or at least as well as I'm willing to. I've addressed all of that already.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,970
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,633
    149
    They got it right according to the law in GA. and the evidence. Just like the jury did in WI. The justice system worked in both cases.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    Believe it or not, and I hate to admit it, but once a case goes to trial, the jury often gets it right. A group of 12 (with notable exceptions) has a tendency to see through the BS.
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    The problem with these kinds of cases, for us all to discuss intelligently, is that they are based in state law. I would assume that most folks on this board are reasonably or at least vaguely familiar with Indiana law. We are not, by and large, familiar with Georgia law, nor are we familiar with Georgia case law. This presents somewhat of a challenge.

    Everything I read and applied the idea of Indiana law to this case is that the three (3) men are guilty as sin, string 'em up.

    IF the allegations of Arbery's previous criminal record are true, they are irrelevant. At best they give a reason to question the man but that's it. No law says you can't ask someone what they're doing. But that is where it stops.

    If they are true and known by one of the men I am thinking perhaps his ego got in the way of his knowledge of where his and his friends lawful authority ended. Perhaps...?

    However, even a convicted felon out jogging in shorts and a t-shirt has no reason to be stopped by anyone unless they directly witnessed something.

    That's just my :twocents:.

    For me, Wisconsin = good verdict. Georgia = good verdict. Let's get stuffed tomorrow. (Then sleep for a day!)

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    Believe it or not, and I hate to admit it, but once a case goes to trial, the jury often gets it right. A group of 12 (with notable exceptions) has a tendency to see through the BS.

    A friends mother told the story many years ago about how she and some other good citizens got roped into jury duty. Two (2) idiot families suing each other (as neighbors) over some petty BS.

    As far as EVERYONE on the jury was convinced every single adult was lying. They didn't trust anyone, except...

    There was a 12 year old girl that seemed reasonable. His mother said they (the jury) all agreed that she seemed the most level headed and believable witness that either side produced. So on the testimony of a 12 year old child the jury decided the entire case, basically ignoring her idiot parents and the alleged adults on the other side.

    We live in a sad world sometimes.

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    Mgderf

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    May 30, 2009
    17,882
    113
    Lafayette
    I did not pay close attention to the trial, but I did listen to the verdicts being read live.
    I don't understand how they had multiple counts of felony murder for each defendant, but I am glad they found them guilty.
     
    Top Bottom