The wrong way to do a citizens arrest [Georgia]

[DoggyDaddy]

So what? It's just a transparent scare tactic. The type of ammunition used has no bearing on this. Shouldn't have been a confrontation. No confrontation, no shooting. See BBI's perfect summary.

Oh I know, I was just commenting on the glaring ignorance of the lawyer.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Oh I know, I was just commenting on the glaring ignorance of the lawyer.

Ignorance or purposefully narrative building?

Remember all those times on INGO when people said "if it's a good shoot it's a good shoot and XXX won't matter..."

Here there's a very strong question on if it's a good shoot. I personally don't think it is, but that's not a universal opinion and GA law isn't my area of expertise. One might ask why if a good shoot is a good shoot regardless and a bad shoot is a bad shoot regardless, why these sorts of statements are made. It doesn't matter, right? Because narrative building. He's not talking to you. He's talking to every perspective juror in the state.

But hey, keep engraving your guns, loading your own carry ammo, putting your "you're *****ed" dust covers on your gun, etc because a good shoot is a good shoot regardless. They'll latch on to everything they can to paint you in a negative light. Some arguments are easier to counter then others. The slug thing probably won't have legs, but it's a good example of the concept and keep in mind that either way these guys will be paying their lawyer $XXX/hr to try and counter that narrative.

 

[Fargo]

Ignorance or purposefully narrative building?

Remember all those times on INGO when people said "if it's a good shoot it's a good shoot and XXX won't matter..."

Here there's a very strong question on if it's a good shoot. I personally don't think it is, but that's not a universal opinion and GA law isn't my area of expertise. One might ask why if a good shoot is a good shoot regardless and a bad shoot is a bad shoot regardless, why these sorts of statements are made. It doesn't matter, right? Because narrative building. He's not talking to you. He's talking to every perspective juror in the state.

But hey, keep engraving your guns, loading your own carry ammo, putting your "you're *****ed" dust covers on your gun, etc because a good shoot is a good shoot regardless. They'll latch on to everything they can to paint you in a negative light. Some arguments are easier to counter then others. The slug thing probably won't have legs, but it's a good example of the concept and keep in mind that either way these guys will be paying their lawyer $XXX/hr to try and counter that narrative.

To piggyback off of what BBI said, keep in mind that of the 12 people who sit on a jury, there is a very strong likelihood there will be a significant percentage of them who have never contemplated the idea that they might have to kill someone, much less considered what that entails.

To those people, anything that hints at “I wanted to kill or hurt someone”, will be incredibly distasteful and not viewed sympathetically.

I have said this before and I will say it again: juries can and will do incredible mental gymnastics to acquit a sympathetic person on strong evidence, and the same mental gymnastics to convict an unsympathetic person on much weaker evidence.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Okay, I didn't delve nearly as deep into this as you guys did. I see (and agree with) your points. I was just looking at the statement purely on the surface without thinking about the motivation behind it. I forget the lawyer's name but I recognized him from other high profile cases. He's a "tv lawyer" (my term), and he is to race-related cases as Gloria Allred is to feminist-related cases.

ETA: It was Benjamin Crump.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Looks like another 4 minutes of video surfaced..

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/n...o-shot-him-lawyer/ar-BB14fIbN?ocid=spartanntp

 

[JettaKnight]

I just learned from some lawyer for the victim (on Dr. Phil) that a 12 gauge slug is the same diameter as a half dollar. And it expands to the size of a bar of soap. Oh and that it is what is used when an elephant escapes a zoo.

This begs the question - why were you watching Dr. Phil?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

This begs the question - why were you watching Dr. Phil?

Because there's not much on between 4:00, when Pitbulls and Parolees ends, and 5:00 when the news comes on.

 

[LP1]

Saw a story that bubba's sister took a photo of the dead man's body. Among the comments, this was my favorite: "Wow! It's like a real-life Dukes of Hazzard but without the cars or Daisy".

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Newly released Ahmaud Arbery video shows 2017 shoplifting arrest

Oh so now it's totally justified, okay

 

[ECS686]

Newly released Ahmaud Arbery video shows 2017 shoplifting arrest

Oh so now it's totally justified, okay

Aww. So now the campaign of smearing by the defense to throw off from the ole scent trail begins!!!

 

[OurDee]

I was thinking like a Hoosier and decided that is the wrong way to look at this case. So, I called up a friend in GA. I said, "Ahmaud Arbery, What do you think?" I didn't get the answer I expected. It is not Indiana down there. This will be interesting to watch play out.

If a person with a gun stops you, If you grab said person's gun, what would you expect another person with that person to do? (I am not talking legalities) I would expect the other person to aid the person with the gun. If I was the other person, I would be concerned for my life at that point.

The mom and lawyer want the camera man arrested. They say he should have honked the horn instead of continueing to film when the shot was fired. Friends, That is cray cray. I am not going to honk at anyone shooting another person. Mom can pound sand.

 

[OurDee]

Lol, now for 3.58 he lost his hose and gas can which is going to cost him a lot more than that to replace.

Do you think the thief will buy another can and hose?

 

[cbhausen]

Ignorance or purposefully narrative building?

Remember all those times on INGO when people said "if it's a good shoot it's a good shoot and XXX won't matter..."

Here there's a very strong question on if it's a good shoot. I personally don't think it is, but that's not a universal opinion and GA law isn't my area of expertise. One might ask why if a good shoot is a good shoot regardless and a bad shoot is a bad shoot regardless, why these sorts of statements are made. It doesn't matter, right? Because narrative building. He's not talking to you. He's talking to every perspective juror in the state.

But hey, keep engraving your guns, loading your own carry ammo, putting your "you're *****ed" dust covers on your gun, etc because a good shoot is a good shoot regardless. They'll latch on to everything they can to paint you in a negative light. Some arguments are easier to counter then others. The slug thing probably won't have legs, but it's a good example of the concept and keep in mind that either way these guys will be paying their lawyer $XXX/hr to try and counter that narrative.

Should I start marketing “In the Gravest Extreme” dust covers (with props to Mas Auoob)?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Aww. So now the campaign of smearing by the defense to throw off from the ole scent trail begins!!!

Yup, more talking to perspective jurors via narrative building. They are getting info that they likely can't get in at trial out into the public hands now.

 

[chipbennett]

Going strictly on the media account from the linked article, it would not be. An arrest requires probable cause, no matter who is doing the arresting.

Matching the description alone isn't probable cause, it's reasonable suspicion at best.

Law enforcement can detain on reasonable suspicion, but there is no "Citizen's Detain" equivalent. In real world terms, police can stop you to further the investigation and can then make an arrest or release you. Non-police need to be able to make an arrest based on what they know right then with no further investigation. You can't arrest based solely on "in the area and matched the description".

I'm not sure I want to step into this one, have only followed the facts/details/narrative from the sidelines, and may or may not catch up on all pages in the thread. That said, I think BBI gets to the heart of my issue here: the citizen's arrest was of dubious legality, based on GA law. And even if it was valid, on what basis was the use of deadly force justified while effecting that citizen's arrest?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm not sure I want to step into this one, have only followed the facts/details/narrative from the sidelines, and may or may not catch up on all pages in the thread. That said, I think BBI gets to the heart of my issue here: the citizen's arrest was of dubious legality, based on GA law. And even if it was valid, on what basis was the use of deadly force justified while effecting that citizen's arrest?

So there's two choices here, and they hinge on the legality of the citizen's arrest.

Arrest is legal: Dynamic Duo was in a place they had the legal right to be and where engaged in legal conduct. Trespassing Jogger grabs Jr's gun, which a reasonable person would assume is an attempt to disarm him. That's actually a strong arm robbery, attempting to take property from a person by force. He's now committing a forcible felony and attempting to gain access to a deadly weapon, both of the dynamic duo can use lethal force to prevent the forcible felony.

Arrest is illegal: GA calls it false arrest, IIRC, but it would be criminal confinement here. The Dynamic Duo may have a legal right to be there but are now engaged in a crime. As they are committing a forcible felony the Trespassing Jogger has the right of sel-defense and they lose it. Tactically stupid but legally able to attempt to disarm his attacker, Trespassing Jogger grabs the gun. Neither of the Dynamic Duo has the legal right to shoot and, as happened, if either kill him it's Murder for both. Both because they both planned and executed the criminal act together, and for most serious crimes in that circumstance if one pulls the trigger they all did, legally.

The entire case revolves around did the dynamic duo have sufficient knowledge at the time of their attempted arrest to meet the burdens of GA's citizen's arrest law from a strictly legal standpoint. Of course in the real world, juries aren't influenced solely by the strictly legal standpoint, so we'll see where this winds up.

 

[chipbennett]

Ugh. Yes, please... give us the "but ackshually" of this one.

https://twitter.com/TomiLahren/status/1259548159187062785

This is largely why I haven't engaged on this incident. It's an exercise in straw man and non sequitur on all sides.

What if - what if?!? - this was merely an instance where two people reasonably believed they were attempting to apprehend a criminal, but unjustifiably used deadly force in their attempt to detain the suspect, thereby instigating a series of events that led to the unjustified shooting/killing of that suspect? What if it is simultaneously true that a) his trespassing contributed to reasonable belief that he was attempting to commit a crime, and b) they were at fault for using deadly force without justification? What if it is simultaneously true that a) he was actually casing the construction site, and b) they had no legal justification for either effecting a citizen's arrest and/or using deadly force to effect that citizen's arrest?

It is almost impossible to discuss this incident within these parameters, because one side wants to go directly to race, and the other side wants to go to more or less victim blaming, and nobody wants to talk about the contributing factors from both parties.

He was wrong for trespassing.
They might have been wrong for attempting to effect a citizen's arrest based on that trespassing.
They were almost certainly wrong for using deadly force to effect that citizen's arrest.
As such, he was justified in using whatever means available to defend himself against unjustified deadly force.
As such, they were not justified in using deadly force against him in response to his self-defense.

That's how I see it, anyway.

 

[chipbennett]

So there's two choices here, and they hinge on the legality of the citizen's arrest.

Arrest is legal: Dynamic Duo was in a place they had the legal right to be and where engaged in legal conduct. Trespassing Jogger grabs Jr's gun, which a reasonable person would assume is an attempt to disarm him. That's actually a strong arm robbery, attempting to take property from a person by force. He's now committing a forcible felony and attempting to gain access to a deadly weapon, both of the dynamic duo can use lethal force to prevent the forcible felony.

Arrest is illegal: GA calls it false arrest, IIRC, but it would be criminal confinement here. The Dynamic Duo may have a legal right to be there but are now engaged in a crime. As they are committing a forcible felony the Trespassing Jogger has the right of sel-defense and they lose it. Tactically stupid but legally able to attempt to disarm his attacker, Trespassing Jogger grabs the gun. Neither of the Dynamic Duo has the legal right to shoot and, as happened, if either kill him it's Murder for both. Both because they both planned and executed the criminal act together, and for most serious crimes in that circumstance if one pulls the trigger they all did, legally.

The entire case revolves around did the dynamic duo have sufficient knowledge at the time of their attempted arrest to meet the burdens of GA's citizen's arrest law from a strictly legal standpoint. Of course in the real world, juries aren't influenced solely by the strictly legal standpoint, so we'll see where this winds up.

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?

 

[Route 45]

https://www.insider.com/lindsay-mcmichael-posted-ahmaud-arbery-body-photo-apology-2020-5

 

[chipbennett]

Newly released Ahmaud Arbery video shows 2017 shoplifting arrest

Oh so now it's totally justified, okay

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.