The wrong way to do a citizens arrest [Georgia]

Tombs

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jan 13, 2011
9,757
113
Martinsville
I didn't get to see the case in as much detail as the Rittenhouse case, but once the McMichaels decided to do the tour through media lying through their teeth, I figured they were bound for a lengthily prison sentence.

They had a good argument they could have made and stood by; being instructed by the local detective to do this kind of citizen arrest. But once they lie and twist facts, that charity is all dried up.
 

Expat

Proud Ditttohead
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Feb 27, 2010
84,231
77
Michiana
I was listening to the legal beagles on FNC and they said the Defense attorney may not have helped their case with the jury with some of their questions. They said they were wanting to discuss the appearance of the dead guy's toenails...
 

KG1

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
66   0   0
Jan 20, 2009
14,880
149
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.
The way that I understand the multiple felony murder charges is that it correlates with the other charges on each count like felony assaults, false imprisonment ect. because those charges were committed with the the end result ending in death. So in other words they tack a felony murder charge on each of those additional counts.

Someone else might be able to explain it better than I but that's the gist of it the way I understand it as a non lawyer layman.
 
Last edited:

BehindBlueI's

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Oct 3, 2012
22,333
113
That's what happens when you have one of the best lawyers in the country, and great marketing for their arguments.

And a shoddy investigation because the lead detectives are star-struck and don't treat OJ as a real suspect early on. The transcripts of the interview are used in a lot of interview/interrogation classes because OJ makes a bunch of partial admissions but the detectives gloss over them. There were several other issues, but had they treated him like a 'normal person' I think it would have been a different outcome.
 

KLB

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Sep 12, 2011
15,935
77
Porter County
I didn't get to see the case in as much detail as the Rittenhouse case, but once the McMichaels decided to do the tour through media lying through their teeth, I figured they were bound for a lengthily prison sentence.

They had a good argument they could have made and stood by; being instructed by the local detective to do this kind of citizen arrest. But once they lie and twist facts, that charity is all dried up.
It was determined that they didn't qualify under the law to make a citizen's arrest. They would have to had witnessed him commit a felony just before they tried to stop him. Trespassing is not a felony.

They may have been right about the guy. Jumping in your truck and chasing someone down based upon suspicions that he may commit a crime in the future or may have committed a crime in the past is not the way to do it though. They should have stuck to recording him.
 

KG1

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
66   0   0
Jan 20, 2009
14,880
149
Under the law in GA. you can't attempt to make a citizen's arrest and physically try to detain an individual by force until the police arrive based on suspicion alone.

I gave a rundown of events in another thread and explained why they were'nt legally justified in trying to make a citizen's arrest and because of their actions in doing so they could'nt claim self defense in Arbery's killing.

 
Last edited:

rcwill

Plinker
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Jul 12, 2013
99
2
Indianapolis
I’m glad that in this country a couple of bubbas do not have the right to detain and kill a man because of what they think or believe. If they were truly concerned they should have called 911 before shooting this man, not after. Glad they will have a lifetime in prison to think about it.

And the original prosecutor that tried to cover this up is under indictment. She needs a lengthy jail sentence as well.
 

ECS686

Expert
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Dec 9, 2017
752
43
Brazil
I’m glad that in this country a couple of bubbas do not have the right to detain and kill a man because of what they think or believe. If they were truly concerned they should have called 911 before shooting this man, not after. Glad they will have a lifetime in prison to think about it.

And the original prosecutor that tried to cover this up is under indictment. She needs a lengthy jail sentence as well.

Also they are facing Federal charges as well. And it won’t be a double jeopardy so there’s that
 

KG1

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
66   0   0
Jan 20, 2009
14,880
149
I came across something ironic in this case and that is according to GA law Arbery would've been legally more entitled to conduct a citizen's arrest than the three individuals were when they tried to do it to him.

They thought that they were legally entitled to make a citizen's arrest but were sadly mistaken and now they will pay a hefty price.
 

Tombs

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jan 13, 2011
9,757
113
Martinsville
It was determined that they didn't qualify under the law to make a citizen's arrest. They would have to had witnessed him commit a felony just before they tried to stop him. Trespassing is not a felony.

They may have been right about the guy. Jumping in your truck and chasing someone down based upon suspicions that he may commit a crime in the future or may have committed a crime in the past is not the way to do it though. They should have stuck to recording him.


I've been listening to some lawyers discuss this. It's coming from an 1800s law that is vaguely written and there's 2 different ways to take it.

One would mean they must have witnessed a felony crime with their own eyes, in the moment, to carry out the arrest. The other means they would only need probable cause to believe he was the individual who was committing felony crime in their neighborhood.

It can go either way with equally qualified arguments on either side. The judge just decided to throw it to the jury rather than follow precedent on how to deal with vague laws like this.

It turns the case into either full charges or acquittal, there would be no in between to be discussed.

In any event, I don't believe the lives of these individuals should be over. I think that is excessive given instruction from a local detective, and their own belief that they were entitled to a citizen's arrest, in which that belief came from listening to said detective. Unless.... They want to send the detective to prison on the same charges as well, then I would be okay with it.
 

BehindBlueI's

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Oct 3, 2012
22,333
113
I've been listening to some lawyers discuss this. It's coming from an 1800s law that is vaguely written and there's 2 different ways to take it.

One would mean they must have witnessed a felony crime with their own eyes, in the moment, to carry out the arrest. The other means they would only need probable cause to believe he was the individual who was committing felony crime in their neighborhood.

What PC did the trio have that the person they were attempting to arrest had committed a felony?

What were the verbatim directions from the detective?
 

Tombs

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jan 13, 2011
9,757
113
Martinsville
What PC did the trio have that the person they were attempting to arrest had committed a felony?

What were the verbatim directions from the detective?
Well the father knew this individual from his prior police work, and they had seen this individual committing felony level robbery from security cameras throughout the weeks.

I'm not sure of the detective's exact words, just that he advised them to do a citizens arrest then call the police.
 

KG1

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
66   0   0
Jan 20, 2009
14,880
149
Here is the exact code in question. The defense claimed that the judge basically gutted their whole case that was predicated on the second sentence by ruling the whole code to be all inclusive with limitations on how long it should apply and in doing so he basically directed the verdict for the state.

It's also of note that the original prosecutor declined to bring charges based on an interpretation this code.

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.
 

ECS686

Expert
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Dec 9, 2017
752
43
Brazil
Well the father knew this individual from his prior police work, and they had seen this individual committing felony level robbery from security cameras throughout the weeks.

I'm not sure of the detective's exact words, just that he advised them to do a citizens arrest then call the police.

I didn’t watch every second of this trial as it was apparent they were going to be convicted.

So my question. Was the Detective on record advising that? Or was it just more BS from the Trio trying to deflect the overreach they got themselves into
 

Site Supporter

INGO Supporter

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
491,659
Messages
8,876,577
Members
48,184
Latest member
Pewpew9mm
Top Bottom