JOGGING WHILE BLACK

[Clang McFly]

But tell me how exactly they attempted to carry out a legal citizens arrest?

When Can a Private Citizen Make an Arrest?

Most states authorize private citizens to make arrests if the suspect:

has actually committed a felony, or
is committing a breach-of-the-peace misdemeanor in the presence of the citizen. Whether a misdemeanor breaches the peace is typically a case-by-case determination—for example, illegally carrying a firearm might qualify. (But it's generally not a good idea to try to personally arrest someone carrying a gun!)
While state laws vary, many states require the citizen to turn over the suspect to the police without delay. (The citizen cannot take justice into his or her own hands.)

Not the best quote I could find but they didn’t do that. Their actions were unreasonable.

Here's the initial prosecutor's report. Worth a read, IMO.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/...d/full.pdf


Here's the Georgia statute re citizen arrests:

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.


It dates back to the Civil War, and was definitely in need of updating, being very broad and ambiguous.

Yeah not too impressed with the initial prosecutor’s report. Of course they were going to write a CYA narrative that supported their decision not to charge.

And when you say the law was not only dated but “ambiguous” you’re just confirming that it was open to some interpretation. Ergo, the jury interpreted it and probably factored in the reasonable person expectation. Rightfully so.

You're showing a serious degree of ignorance with respect to criminal/civil law: It is NOT the role of a jury to interpret law. Their function is to interpret the *evidence* presented at trial. Interpretation of law is reserved exclusively for judges. So the ambiguity should have been resolved BEFORE the jury began deliberations.

You're acting like you passed the bar exam and have a fancy law degree. Are you holding out on us? You're Matlock, Matt Murdock or William Mattar, aren't you?

[username]

But tell me how exactly they attempted to carry out a legal citizens arrest?

When Can a Private Citizen Make an Arrest?

Most states authorize private citizens to make arrests if the suspect:

has actually committed a felony, or
is committing a breach-of-the-peace misdemeanor in the presence of the citizen. Whether a misdemeanor breaches the peace is typically a case-by-case determination—for example, illegally carrying a firearm might qualify. (But it's generally not a good idea to try to personally arrest someone carrying a gun!)
While state laws vary, many states require the citizen to turn over the suspect to the police without delay. (The citizen cannot take justice into his or her own hands.)

Not the best quote I could find but they didn’t do that. Their actions were unreasonable.

Here's the initial prosecutor's report. Worth a read, IMO.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/...d/full.pdf


Here's the Georgia statute re citizen arrests:

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.


It dates back to the Civil War, and was definitely in need of updating, being very broad and ambiguous.

Yeah not too impressed with the initial prosecutor’s report. Of course they were going to write a CYA narrative that supported their decision not to charge.

And when you say the law was not only dated but “ambiguous” you’re just confirming that it was open to some interpretation. Ergo, the jury interpreted it and probably factored in the reasonable person expectation. Rightfully so.

You're showing a serious degree of ignorance with respect to criminal/civil law: It is NOT the role of a jury to interpret law. Their function is to interpret the *evidence* presented at trial. Interpretation of law is reserved exclusively for judges. So the ambiguity should have been resolved BEFORE the jury began deliberations.

Ambiguity by definition implies that the law wasn’t clear (your words). So given that, who cares who interpreted the law as they did (be it the judge or jury)? Moot point. You said it was ambiguous so no one should be surprised by the outcome.

[Maggot]

Didn't the neighbor that recorded it give it to the cops on his own? Now he's kicking his ass in a jail cell.

[Duchess]

It was leaked online and it was then that it was brought to the attention of the world. Had it not been for that happening I doubt this case would have went anywhere given the initial response of the DA.

[rothschild]

Ambiguity by definition implies that the law wasn’t clear (your words). So given that, who cares who interpreted the law as they did (be it the judge or jury)? Moot point. You said it was ambiguous so no one should be surprised by the outcome.

It's ambiguous in a couple of ways:

1) For common folk who aren't well-versed in grammar.

2) For the judge who presided over the trial because there is little or no case law on record re citizen arrests.

Why would you think that people who have no legal education are as qualified as a judge to interpret law? Do you think judges should be appointed the same way juries are? Why? What do you think judges are there for?

What I think is moot is that because Walmsley didn't clarify this point of law, it will have to be done by a higher court.

[rothschild]

It was leaked online and it was then that it was brought to the attention of the world. Had it not been for that happening I doubt this case would have went anywhere given the initial response of the DA.

If you'd read the report I linked you'd know that he recused himself of his own volition.

[username]

It was leaked online and it was then that it was brought to the attention of the world. Had it not been for that happening I doubt this case would have went anywhere given the initial response of the DA.

If you'd read the report I linked you'd know that he recused himself of his own volition.

As if he wouldn’t have been kicked off the case anyway. 

Back pedal much, RC? The law as written was ambiguous (and dated…as you said previously without some caveat for the grammatically challenged) and therefore open to some interpretation by the judge when he instructed the jury. Just because you don’t like the way it turned out for your buddies doesn’t change the facts. Good luck with that appeal! It’s not going to be successful.

[rothschild]

It was leaked online and it was then that it was brought to the attention of the world. Had it not been for that happening I doubt this case would have went anywhere given the initial response of the DA.

If you'd read the report I linked you'd know that he recused himself of his own volition.

As if he wouldn’t have been kicked off the case anyway. 

Back pedal much, RC? The law as written was ambiguous (and dated…as you said previously without some caveat for the grammatically challenged) and therefore open to some interpretation by the judge when he instructed the jury. Just because you don’t like the way it turned out for your buddies doesn’t change the facts. Good luck with that appeal! It’s not going to be successful.

Since you bring up his instructions to the jury, please do us all the favor of quoting his precise interpretation of the statute as to whether it applied to both misdemeanors and felonies, or only felonies. And I'll again point out that our system of law always interprets ambiguity in favor of defendants, for the obvious reason that it is the states that make the law.

I find it amazing how people who know next to nothing about our legal system nevertheless have very strong opinions re "justice". Seems to me that if a person is truly concerned with justice, they'd take it upon themselves to learn how it functions, so they'd have some ideas as to how it could be improved. But mobs don't care about justice, only blood vengeance; which, ironically enough, is it's antithesis.

[Duchess]

I'm just glad the muthafuckas are going to suffer everyday for the rest of their lives. They will feel the terror that Ahmaud felt every friggin' day. HaHaFuckinHa.

[username]

I don’t think the law as it was written justified the defendants actions that day regardless of attempts to differentiate between misdemeanor or felony activity. It wasn’t in their presence or IMMEDIATE knowledge (if you believe a misdemeanor had occurred) nor did they have reasonable suspicion or probable cause (if they thought a felony had occurred). Certainly there was no basis for the latter since there was no evidence Ahmaud had ever stolen anything from the vacant house).
Guessing does not equal immediate knowledge or probable cause:
“In closing arguments, a defense attorney for the man who fired the fatal gunshots said the 25-year-old Arbery was killed as he violently resisted a legal effort to detain him to answer questions about burglaries in a neighborhood just outside the port city of Brunswick, Georgia”.
The law doesn’t say it’s okay to attempt a citizen’s arrest to ask someone questions about some suspicions you might have.
And again, back to what reasonable people would do…I wouldn’t chase someone for 4-5 minutes, with a gun and cut them off like a “cornered rat” to satisfy some curiosity or suspicions I might have.

[Carsman]

I don’t think the law as it was written justified the defendants actions that day regardless of attempts to differentiate between misdemeanor or felony activity. It wasn’t in their presence or IMMEDIATE knowledge (if you believe a misdemeanor had occurred) nor did they have reasonable suspicion or probable cause (if they thought a felony had occurred). Certainly there was no basis for the latter since there was no evidence Ahmaud had ever stolen anything from the vacant house).
Guessing does not equal immediate knowledge or probable cause:
“In closing arguments, a defense attorney for the man who fired the fatal gunshots said the 25-year-old Arbery was killed as he violently resisted a legal effort to detain him to answer questions about burglaries in a neighborhood just outside the port city of Brunswick, Georgia”.
The law doesn’t say it’s okay to attempt a citizen’s arrest to ask someone questions about some suspicions you might have.
And again, back to what reasonable people would do…I wouldn’t chase someone for 4-5 minutes, with a gun and cut them off like a “cornered rat” to satisfy some curiosity or suspicions I might have.

Violence begets violence. The zealous citizen arrester's violently pursued their suspect thus causing the frightened suspect to also become violent when finally cornered.
The citizen arrester's should have done the legal proper thing to do, and called police and report the incident as law abiding citizens are supposed to do.
And let the "trained police force" handle the situation.
If the zealous citizens really wanted to help, instead of "chasing" their suspect, if they felt they had to do something, they should have just followed him at a distance, and provide the suspects location to the police. And let the trained police do the investigation!

Although, sometimes when the trained police force does get involved, the situation doesn't always end well either! Sad. (IMO).

[rothschild]

I don’t think the law as it was written justified the defendants actions that day regardless of attempts to differentiate between misdemeanor or felony activity. It wasn’t in their presence or IMMEDIATE knowledge (if you believe a misdemeanor had occurred) nor did they have reasonable suspicion or probable cause (if they thought a felony had occurred). Certainly there was no basis for the latter since there was no evidence Ahmaud had ever stolen anything from the vacant house).
Guessing does not equal immediate knowledge or probable cause:
“In closing arguments, a defense attorney for the man who fired the fatal gunshots said the 25-year-old Arbery was killed as he violently resisted a legal effort to detain him to answer questions about burglaries in a neighborhood just outside the port city of Brunswick, Georgia”.
The law doesn’t say it’s okay to attempt a citizen’s arrest to ask someone questions about some suspicions you might have.
And again, back to what reasonable people would do…I wouldn’t chase someone for 4-5 minutes, with a gun and cut them off like a “cornered rat” to satisfy some curiosity or suspicions I might have.

Violence begets violence. The zealous citizen arrester's violently pursued their suspect thus causing the frightened suspect to also become violent when finally cornered.
The citizen arrester's should have done the legal proper thing to do, and called police and report the incident as law abiding citizens are supposed to do.
And let the "trained police force" handle the situation.
If the zealous citizens really wanted to help, instead of "chasing" their suspect, if they felt they had to do something, they should have just followed him at a distance, and provide the suspects location to the police. And let the trained police do the investigation!

Although, sometimes when the trained police force does get involved, the situation doesn't always end well either! Sad. (IMO).

Brings tears to my eyes, except for one glaring faux pas: "frightened suspect" should have been "frightened JOGGER". That's incredibly racist, Cars, and I'm going to have to report you to BLM, the NAACP, and your local diversity officers.


So close, yet so far.

[MirahM]

A video of the murder of Tyre Nichols will be released, showing a traffic stop and the 5 officers involved who have since been fired.

[MirahM]

Or in other news, 5 black police officers murdered a black man during a traffic stop in which the man was driving recklessly and then fled on foot. The man was beaten for 3 minutes. The video will air on Friday January 27. The 5 involved police officers have already been arrested and are in jail.

[MirahM]

The officers were fired and arrested quickly in this case. The question has already been asked-the statement has already been made that they were punished much quicker than any white officer has been.
Oy vay.

[Duchess]

It's hard not to notice that when it's so blatant. 

[rothschild]

The officers were fired and arrested quickly in this case. The question has already been asked-the statement has already been made that they were punished much quicker than any white officer has been.
Oy vay.

That didn't happen with the brutal murder of Kelly Thomas, a homeless man in California who had schizophrenia. They beat and tazed him for 20 minutes. When the Sergent finally showed up and asked what was happening, one of the officers replied, "I don't know". They were eventually prosecuted after a public outcry, and acquitted.

Whites are killed by police more frequently than blacks, and the consequences are typically nonexistent.

[Duchess]

The officers were fired and arrested quickly in this case. The question has already been asked-the statement has already been made that they were punished much quicker than any white officer has been.
Oy vay.

Are you going to watch the video. It's been released and I'm seeing people talking about it and some have described what they saw. I doubt I'll watch, the descriptions I've seen are appalling. 

[MirahM]

I watched w/out sound. I am trying to find the best quality video and one w/out interuptions. I will watch it.

[MirahM]

Rothschild, I am taking about one case right now.