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.
.
I did not know that.
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.
.
I did not know that.
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.
Wait: so threatening to use deadly force is no longer unlawful? People aren't arrested for just that, commonly?
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.
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).
Wait: so threatening to use deadly force is no longer unlawful? People aren't arrested for just that, commonly?
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.
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.
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.
Ahmaud Arbery case: DOJ announces federal hate crimes charges against 3 Georgia men
Three Georgia men accused of taking part in the roadside slaying of Ahmaud Arbery in February 2020 have been indicted on federal hate crimes charges, according to the Justice Department.www.foxnews.com
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.