Why are you so willing to believe the killers when they say they witnessed Arbery trespassing?
Why are you so willing to believe the killers when they say they witnessed Arbery trespassing?No, Arbery was trespassing and witnessed by the McMichaels. That was a crime. I was talking about the previous investigations as it potentially relates to the use of force later. I believe the McMichaels were legally justified in attempting to affect a citizen's arrest. As for the reasonable use of force, other factors are going to play into that equation. Arbery's past criminal actions that Greg McMichael knew about, if he actually recognized he was dealing with Arbery at that moment, would certainly play a role in justifying the level of use of force used to apprehend Arbery.
Unreasonable use of force is what tends to get most people on criminal charges attempting to affect a citizens arrest. We don't want shopkeepers shooting kids for stealing candy bars for example. Or cutting off their hands like they do in some countries.
I did check, here's one of your posts where you changed your mind and argued Dunn was acting in self defense. This was approx 180-190 pages into the thread.
Why are you so willing to believe the killers when they say they witnessed Arbery trespassing?
Legally speaking, you are talking nonsense and that was proven in court. Martin was legal to "confront" George Zimmerman like it is legal for anyone to confront anyone else. Meaning it is legal to walk up and say Hi to someone you don't know. Saying Hi is a confrontation. However, he was not legal to attack George while confronting him. That has been decided in a court of law. Don't like it? Take it up with the legal system in Florida, or pretty much any other state that has laws for battery.
As for Arbery, this is a wrinkle in the case we may not know all the details to. I say Travis McMichael getting out of his vehicle while having gun in hand based on the current evidence is an unreasonable escalation of the use of force to affect a citizen's arrest. That is why I say that Travis at the very least will most likely be going to prison unless there is some evidence we don't know about comes out in the court room to change that. If Arbery had stolen something which he dumped while running for example, then that means Arbery committed a felony and doesn't have the same self defense protection when fleeing from a criminal felony even for a citizen's arrest. That would be an example of evidence we don't know about changing things.
As for your third example, you are still completely wrong. There mere act of holding a weapon in public is not criminal. This has been ruled on several times and by SCOTUS. You actually have to be threatening to shoot verbally or by pointing a firearm at someone. Just carrying a firearm is not an aggressive action.
It never occurs to him to view the situation from the victim does it? He’s always viewing from the point of the armed guys in the truck “protecting their neighborhood” and never the guy out for a jog.Interesting how you think in the Arbery case it is legitimate to suspect him for a crime because he was "investigated" for something unrelated
No, Arbery was trespassing and witnessed by the McMichaels. That was a crime. I was talking about the previous investigations as it potentially relates to the use of force later. I believe the McMichaels were legally justified in attempting to affect a citizen's arrest. As for the reasonable use of force, other factors are going to play into that equation. Arbery's past criminal actions that Greg McMichael knew about, if he actually recognized he was dealing with Arbery at that moment, would certainly play a role in justifying the level of use of force used to apprehend Arbery.
Unreasonable use of force is what tends to get most people on criminal charges attempting to affect a citizens arrest. We don't want shopkeepers shooting kids for stealing candy bars for example. Or cutting off their hands like they do in some countries.
Im sorry but Zimmerman was acquitted because there was no other story to challenge his. If Martin had been armed and shot Zimmerman it would have been his story told not Zimmermans. If Martin has been armed there wouldn’t have been a physical fight and the story would probably have been Zimmerman brandishing his gun after the initial confrontation (which may have actually happened the only one who knows is Zimmerman) and Martin fearing for his life shot Zimmerman. Absent any racial bias by the courts he would have been acquitted.
Your response to my third example is a spot on example of your inherent bias in the situation. I didn’t say they were standing around with a weapon. I said they were approaching aggressively. I was alluding to the Arbery situation. If I’m jogging while concealed carrying when two guys in a truck block my path, move to block me when I try and go around and then confront me while brandishing a weapon I may just defend myself against illegal detainment, especially in a state with strong self-defense laws.
Can we ge confirmation of this? Curious since humble was so quick to believe him and discredit ArberyHe wasn't witnessed by the McMichaels. He was witnessed by a neighbor who called them.
He wasn't witnessed by the McMichaels. He was witnessed by a neighbor who called them. The certainty with which the McMichaels may have known he was the same guy from the prior security video, the same guy they had investigated years ago, the same guy the neighbor ID'd and described to them since they didn't witness him trespassing at the time -- these are all valid and highly important questions.
As well as interpretation of the statute "within immediate knowledge", "reasonably and probable suspicion", "attempting to flee" a felony which all are not the obvious scenarios for citizen's arrest.
Personally, for the misdemeanor immediate knowledge I imagine something like a woman screeching "stop, he took my bag" and seeing a guy running from the direction of the screech holding a bag. Or a store owner pointing out a specific person who they witnessed shoplifting to a security guard on the scene. This is case is a big stretch from those scenarios, and the arguments can only begin with a presentation of evidence to establish their state of mind at the time which we don't have.
Believing they were legally justified in attempting the arrest is just too far from reasonable in my mind, although I think it is possible they could establish in the evidence something which is worth testing.
Just so I understand...Approaching with a weapon is not aggressive behavior either. Legal actions in public are still legal with a weapon if legally authorized to carry.
Just so I understand...
I'm black, if 3 white guys chase me with their car, get out armed and start questioning me, I'm not supposed to consider that aggressive? I know what world you live in but what world to you think I live in?
According to SCOTUS, armed individuals approaching you is not by default aggressive or threatening in nature. Personal feelings aside, from a legal perspective that is the case. That isn't to say that most people in this day and age in urban area of the country won't have a cause for concern if being approached by an armed individual. As long as the 2nd amendment stands though, it is not legal to take use of force actions based on that cause for concern by the mere presence of an armed person. Cops have been gone to jail for doing so as well.
Its almost like you didn't actually read his post.
According to the 911 call that Greg made as well as statements to the police he witnessed Arbery trespassing. He even stated, "he is looking right at me, oh there he goes! He's running right now!" That is the evidence we have on hand that Greg McMichaels witnessed the trespassing. Maybe he was lying, but there isn't anything to hold that conjecture at the moment. Until something else comes out to change the evidence that he didn't witness the trespass I can only go on what I know. If you want to believe he lied that is your prerogative.
I did. His assumption to treat armed individually approaching him to be legally aggressive, if he did make that assumption in that scenario, would be wrong. That doesn't mean he shouldn't make assumptions that something aggressive and bad may happen and happen quickly. But striking first as an act off aggressive before one has been made against him would be illegal in the US. There is a difference between being prepared to react if things go wrong, and striking out first. If the armed men approaching him have their guns pointed at him, or state they are going to shoot him then that would be an act of aggression on their part first to which appropriate legal response can be taken. There can be other things that denote an act of aggression which would include loading or chambering a round in front of him as an example.
I don't know why you fail to make the distinction between being a gun owner and a responsible gun owner. Just because 2A makes it legal you seem to think it is responsible to.According to SCOTUS, armed individuals approaching you is not by default aggressive or threatening in nature. Personal feelings aside, from a legal perspective that is the case. That isn't to say that most people in this day and age in urban area of the country won't have a cause for concern if being approached by an armed individual. As long as the 2nd amendment stands though, it is not legal to take use of force actions based on that cause for concern by the mere presence of an armed person. Cops have been gone to jail for doing so as well.
More attention needs to be placed on the police department.
More attention needs to be placed on the police department.
“veins were popping from [Arbery’s] chest, which made me feel that he was becoming enraged and may turn physically violent towards me”
The second officer, David Haney, arrived minutes later and screamed at Arbery to get his hands out of his pockets, which Arbery did.
Haney then attempted to tase Arbery, but his Taser malfunctioned, according to Kanago’s report. Arbery continued to comply with instructions from the two officers to get on the ground. Kanago had already searched Arbery for weapons before Haney arrived, and deduced he was unarmed.
“I get one day off a week…I’m up early in the morning trying to chill,” Arbery told the officers as he sat on the ground. “I’m just so aggravated because I work hard, six days a week.”
I never used the word legal. Is the scenario considered an aggressive act?I did. His assumption to treat armed individually approaching him to be legally aggressive, if he did make that assumption in that scenario, would be wrong. That doesn't mean he shouldn't make assumptions that something aggressive and bad may happen and happen quickly. But striking first as an act off aggressive before one has been made against him would be illegal in the US. There is a difference between being prepared to react if things go wrong, and striking out first. If the armed men approaching him have their guns pointed at him, or state they are going to shoot him then that would be an act of aggression on their part first to which appropriate legal response can be taken. There can be other things that denote an act of aggression which would include loading or chambering a round in front of him as an example.
Wrong. That was Perez's 911 call. The police report states he then called the McMichael's to pursue him. Greg McMichael called 911 during the pursuit but did not witness him on the property on that date at least nor engaging in any illegal activity. Things would be much different if they directly witnessed him trespassing at the time as far as justification to attempt citizen's arrest, although separately there is significant question of whether their attempt was performed in a legal way. That may be of greater relevance than their defense if involuntary manslaughter is a charge being considered. Otherwise, if aggravated assault were proven and thus felony murder substantiated, this would be only relevant to making their affirmative defense.
Obviously you haven't. Try again. Take your bias out of it and address the scenario he has presented in its entirety.
I'm black, if 3 white guys chase me with their car, get out armed and start questioning me, I'm not supposed to consider that aggressive? I know what world you live in but what world to you think I live in?
That's an interesting take on a ruling that basically says you can't shoot someone just because they happen to have a gun. The aggressive act of chasing someone down and confronting them with drawn guns while outnumbering them 3 to 1 is very different from some guy walking down the street just carrying a gun. You're basically arguing that chasing someone isn't an aggressive act and that's just horseshit.I have taken my bias out. I removed the white and black contexts.
He stated
But lets remove the bias from that sentence first.
"I'm a person, if 3 other people chase me with their car, get our armed and start questioning me, I'm not suppose to consider that aggressive?"
The answer to that is "no" legally. Personally he can consider it aggressive in his opinion, but legally he cannot. He can certainly feel it is aggressive, but if he acts upon that feeling first without clear legal indication that the 3 people are being legally aggressive, then he would be in the wrong legally speaking.
Unless you are referring to the second part of his question:
" I know what world you live in but what world to you think I live in?"
Which is that he lives in the same world as me. Unless he is typing this from a different planet? That would be strange.
How am I interjecting bias in that example? That is the case. I am black. I have a follow up questionI have taken my bias out. I removed the white and black contexts.
He stated
But lets remove the bias from that sentence first.
"I'm a person, if 3 other people chase me with their car, get our armed and start questioning me, I'm not suppose to consider that aggressive?"
The answer to that is "no" legally. Personally he can consider it aggressive in his opinion, but legally he cannot. He can certainly feel it is aggressive, but if he acts upon that feeling first without clear legal indication that the 3 people are being legally aggressive, then he would be in the wrong legally speaking.
Unless you are referring to the second part of his question:
" I know what world you live in but what world to you think I live in?"
Which is that he lives in the same world as me. Unless he is typing this from a different planet? That would be strange.