Trayvon Martin all over again.

[HumblePie]

How am I interjecting bias in that example? That is the case. I am black. I have a follow up question

Same scenario. I am carrying. These guys after chasing me with their truck get out armed and come towards me. I say "don't take another step towards me because I feel threatened" They take that step. I shoot.

Is that a justified shooting?

Like I asked before everyone managed to flex their 2A muscle. While legal, what did that get everyone. Somewhere between 1-3 dead people.

All was legal. Was any of it responsible??

Because the qualifiers of defining yourself as black and the people approaching being white is bias. It shouldn't matter to the law what the race of people involved in the scenario is unless the scenario is specifically a hate crime.

As for you updated scenario, no you would not be justified. Making that statement does not constitute you being reasonably in fear of your life to start shooting. If you survived that scenario you would sitting in prison for a long time and should be regardless of the races of the people involved. Would it be a tragic situation? Sure. Could situations like that be avoided, they certainly can. Does that change the legal outcome and culpability of those involved in a given scenario? Not one whit.

So no, not all was legal in your scenario.

 

[HumblePie]

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.

Nope. Chasing someone down to ask them a question can never be given the context of an aggressive legal action by definition. Otherwise are you going to shoot the bagger chasing you down to your car to give over your groceries that you forget in the store after purchase? What about someone trying to return your wallet you dropped? The mere act of chasing someone down is never considered a legally aggressive action or those would be as well. The mere act of being armed or carrying a rifle in hand can't be considered aggressive. Since neither of them are considered legally aggressive, doing them together can't be either. Otherwise any mall cop approaching someone in a store while openly carrying their arms would land them in jail even if they are just walking up to return a dropped wallet. There are no specific carved out exceptions here. It is literally that if action A is safe and legal, and action B is safe and legal, then doing A and B together have to be safe and legal as well in this context.

I understand your feelings about not liking that being true. Many people don't think that people should be able to own, let alone carry, firearms. That they believe anyone carrying a firearm that isn't a police officer or military is by defacto threatening people around them. As I said, SCOTUS has ruled many times that isn't the case. There has to be a clear deliniated escalation of force first.

 

[brycejones]

Nope. Chasing someone down to ask them a question can never be given the context of an aggressive legal action by definition. Otherwise are you going to shoot the bagger chasing you down to your car to give over your groceries that you forget in the store after purchase? What about someone trying to return your wallet you dropped? The mere act of chasing someone down is never considered a legally aggressive action or those would be as well. The mere act of being armed or carrying a rifle in hand can't be considered aggressive. Since neither of them are considered legally aggressive, doing them together can't be either. Otherwise any mall cop approaching someone in a store while openly carrying their arms would land them in jail even if they are just walking up to return a dropped wallet. There are no specific carved out exceptions here. It is literally that if action A is safe and legal, and action B is safe and legal, then doing A and B together have to be safe and legal as well in this context.

I understand your feelings about not liking that being true. Many people don't think that people should be able to own, let alone carry, firearms. That they believe anyone carrying a firearm that isn't a police officer or military is by defacto threatening people around them. As I said, SCOTUS has ruled many times that isn't the case. There has to be a clear deliniated escalation of force first.

Context matters, the bagger isn't chasing me down in a pickup truck with 2 buddies, hoping out with guns drawn while I'm out for a jog. You should type less and think more.

Or is this a common occurrence in your life people chasing you with guns "just to ask you a question"?

 

[interchange]

What I read was Greg made that call. If that was not right, then I stand corrected. Still, if Perez immediately notified Greg of the trespass, then he has immediate knowledge that can be argued to affect a citizen's arrest. As I have stated, direct witness is not required for citizen's arrest law in Georgia. It is direct witness or immediate knowledge. If Perez immediately told the McMichaels what he saw, that is immediate knowlege. This means Perez can't tell the McMichaels a day later or if he tells them immediately then McMichaels can't decide to do the citizen's arrest hours or days later instead. It has to be right in that moment.

That's what they'll have to argue for the defense. And yet, if especially a misdemeanor, would that still apply if the suspect was fleeing and in what period of time? And was Arbery fleeing? And how reasonable was their identification that this was the right guy? The language reasonable and probable apply to the felony fleeing/attempting to flee. I certainly read that bar as significantly higher in terms of knowing that a specific person was committing the offense and immediately so. For a misdemeanor, I wouldn't think it reasonable to interpret that as a right to pursue and detain and present firearms in attempt to enforce that detainment.

 

[interchange]

Nope. Chasing someone down to ask them a question can never be given the context of an aggressive legal action by definition. Otherwise are you going to shoot the bagger chasing you down to your car to give over your groceries that you forget in the store after purchase? What about someone trying to return your wallet you dropped? The mere act of chasing someone down is never considered a legally aggressive action or those would be as well. The mere act of being armed or carrying a rifle in hand can't be considered aggressive. Since neither of them are considered legally aggressive, doing them together can't be either. Otherwise any mall cop approaching someone in a store while openly carrying their arms would land them in jail even if they are just walking up to return a dropped wallet. There are no specific carved out exceptions here. It is literally that if action A is safe and legal, and action B is safe and legal, then doing A and B together have to be safe and legal as well in this context.

I understand your feelings about not liking that being true. Many people don't think that people should be able to own, let alone carry, firearms. That they believe anyone carrying a firearm that isn't a police officer or military is by defacto threatening people around them. As I said, SCOTUS has ruled many times that isn't the case. There has to be a clear deliniated escalation of force first.

They presented the firearms in direct response to him not complying with their commands to stop. The specifically went to get the firearms because they anticipated an armed confrontation. It is crystal clear that this wasn't legal carrying of a firearm. The situation represented to Arbery a threat of lethal force to detain him, and it is clear that the McMichaels intended to demonstrate this.

 

[brycejones]

They presented the firearms in direct response to him not complying with their commands to stop. The specifically went to get the firearms because they anticipated an armed confrontation. It is crystal clear that this wasn't legal carrying of a firearm. The situation represented to Arbery a threat of lethal force to detain him, and it is clear that the McMichaels intended to demonstrate this.

If you yell at someone to stop "just to ask them a question" and they don't then obviously the next logical stop is to present firearms right? There is nothing aggressive about that move at all. /s

 

[Paratus]

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.

Nope. If the individuals in question have moved to block my progress with their vehicle twice while I’m on foot that’s not a confrontation that’s attempted unlawful detainment. Whether I allow them to detainee me or use my right to self-defense here is up to me. I know I haven’t committed any crimes and they are in the process of committing one by trying to unlawfully detain me.

If at that point they get out while open carrying weapons and demand I stop they are now brandishing weapons in committing an unlawful detainment. I also don’t know if they are attempting to kidnap me, rob me or kill me. So absent them backing down I would be well within my right to self-defense and stand my ground.

Now as a reasonably well off middle class White man I would expect no jury would convict me after describing my use of force as self-defense. This would be what I would want the justice systems to conclude for Arbery if it had happened like this to him.

 

[HumblePie]

Context matters, the bagger isn't chasing me down in a pickup truck with 2 buddies, hoping out with guns drawn while I'm out for a jog. You should type less and think more.

Or is this a common occurrence in your life people chasing you with guns "just to ask you a question"?

Legally acceptable behaviors that don't have to be mutually exclusive. An armed mall cop, bounty hunter, or security guard (one that isn't duly sworn and authorized law enforcement for that jurisdiction) can legally confront people to ask them questions while armed. ACTIONS matter in a given scenario. This is why a cop outside his/her jurisdiction can pull someone over for a traffic ticket or reckless driving, but actually cannot be the person that does the citation or the actual arrest. They are in affect doing a citizen's arrest. Those scenarios are both with someone armed, openly carrying, and approaching to confront someone about a suspected crime while not being authorized law enforcement for that scenario.

Actions matter because a bagger in my state can be openly carrying if their store allows it. If they are chasing me down to return groceries that I forgot while walking out of the store then that is an armed person chasing after me. Maybe it was a lot of groceries and it requires 3 baggers. If I didn't know they are bringing me my groceries and I saw 3 armed individuals chasing after me I can see where that is cause for concern, but unless they are making legally aggressive actions I know it isn't illegal in what they are doing either.

The question about a common occurrence is moot, but yes it has happened more than a few times before. I've had guns drawn at me and been shot at too (not hit though). I worked at a store before that after hours during cleanup had armed robbers break in to rob the place. They didn't care who they shot. Had friends die too from it. Does any of that story or your question detract from the statements I made about the legality of actions described in these "what if" senarios?

 

[brycejones]

Legally acceptable behaviors that don't have to be mutually exclusive. An armed mall cop, bounty hunter, or security guard (one that isn't duly sworn and authorized law enforcement for that jurisdiction) can legally confront people to ask them questions while armed. ACTIONS matter in a given scenario. This is why a cop outside his/her jurisdiction can pull someone over for a traffic ticket or reckless driving, but actually cannot be the person that does the citation or the actual arrest. They are in affect doing a citizen's arrest. Those scenarios are both with someone armed, openly carrying, and approaching to confront someone about a suspected crime while not being authorized law enforcement for that scenario.

Actions matter because a bagger in my state can be openly carrying if their store allows it. If they are chasing me down to return groceries that I forgot while walking out of the store then that is an armed person chasing after me. Maybe it was a lot of groceries and it requires 3 baggers. If I didn't know they are bringing me my groceries and I saw 3 armed individuals chasing after me I can see where that is cause for concern, but unless they are making legally aggressive actions I know it isn't illegal in what they are doing either.

The question about a common occurrence is moot, but yes it has happened more than a few times before. I've had guns drawn at me and been shot at too (not hit though). I worked at a store before that after hours during cleanup had armed robbers break in to rob the place. They didn't care who they shot. Had friends die too from it. Does any of that story or your question detract from the statements I made about the legality of actions described in these "what if" senarios?

We aren’t talking about a bagger. You keep ignoring the context.

 

[HumblePie]

That's what they'll have to argue for the defense. And yet, if especially a misdemeanor, would that still apply if the suspect was fleeing and in what period of time? And was Arbery fleeing? And how reasonable was their identification that this was the right guy? The language reasonable and probable apply to the felony fleeing/attempting to flee. I certainly read that bar as significantly higher in terms of knowing that a specific person was committing the offense and immediately so. For a misdemeanor, I wouldn't think it reasonable to interpret that as a right to pursue and detain and present firearms in attempt to enforce that detainment.

Couple things to break down here. The reasonable and probable clause relates to it all. Felony or midemeanor. Direct witness or with "immediate knowledge" relates to both. Direct witness is far easier to defend against I'll grant that. But immediate knowledge is a defense here as well. Greg stated he saw arbery hauling ass past his porch in his statement to the police. He said he immediately recognized him from the footage as well of previous trespassing attempts. I don't know how the argument will turn out in court for defense on immediate knowledge or not here. It can go very badly for the two if the jury don't think it is a valid defense in this scenario. I still find it unlikely given the circumstances, but could turn out that way.

However, you are committing a logic fallacy here. We don't know if the McMichaels presented firearms here. Presenting implies escalation of force. Carrying isn't considered use of force. It could very well be that there is evidence, like witness testimony still not released, that state if the McMichaels aimed their guns during part the chase or as Travis got out. The video we the public have seen doesn't show that though. Doesn't mean it didn't happen since the video wasn't showing the actions of the McMichaels during the entire encounter. I've already stated for misdemeanor citizen's arrest I feel a jury would certainly not consider presenting a firearm as a reasonable escalation of use of force so far if one can be proven to have happened. Lastly though on this point. Even if the McMichaels did aim their firearm(s) at Arbery during some point of the chase, if it confirmed with other evidence we don't know about yet that Arbery had stolen something then dumped along the way, or the McMichaels could reasonably believe (by a jury of their peers) that Arbery was running from a felony and not a misdemeanor (like say Perez told them "He's running because he stole something!") then the escalation of force would be justified by them.

For reference on Georgia's brandishing law:

(https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-11/article-4/part-1/16-11-102/)

Different states have different laws regarding brandishing. In Georgia you have to POINT your weapon and have no legal justification in doing so. The mere act of carrying a long gun in hand in Georgia is not brandishing or presenting there.

As I said before, there is a lot of evidence I know hasn't been released to the public and we'll see what plays out in court.

 

[HumblePie]

Nope. If the individuals in question have moved to block my progress with their vehicle twice while I’m on foot that’s not a confrontation that’s attempted unlawful detainment. Whether I allow them to detainee me or use my right to self-defense here is up to me. I know I haven’t committed any crimes and they are in the process of committing one by trying to unlawfully detain me.

If at that point they get out while open carrying weapons and demand I stop they are now brandishing weapons in committing an unlawful detainment. I also don’t know if they are attempting to kidnap me, rob me or kill me. So absent them backing down I would be well within my right to self-defense and stand my ground.

Now as a reasonably well off middle class White man I would expect no jury would convict me after describing my use of force as self-defense. This would be what I would want the justice systems to conclude for Arbery if it had happened like this to him.

That situation is lala land. Unlawful detainment would only be true if you had done nothing wrong. Arbery was at the very least trespassing in this scenario. That means he committed a crime. Thus it can't be unlawful detainment. Unlawful detainment only applies to people in situations that haven't committed or are associated with the commission of a crime.

 

[interchange]

Couple things to break down here. The reasonable and probable clause relates to it all. Felony or midemeanor. Direct witness or with "immediate knowledge" relates to both. Direct witness is far easier to defend against I'll grant that. But immediate knowledge is a defense here as well.

"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."

Those are separate sentences.

Greg stated he saw arbery hauling ass past his porch in his statement to the police. He said he immediately recognized him from the footage as well of previous trespassing attempts.

You need to go back to the police report. You are misattributing to Perez and your words are flatly inaccurate. The police report, in fact, contains no description of how Perez or McMichael identified him as the same guy and at what point they drew that conclusion.

However, you are committing a logic fallacy here. We don't know if the McMichaels presented firearms here. Presenting implies escalation of force. Carrying isn't considered use of force. It could very well be that there is evidence, like witness testimony still not released, that state if the McMichaels aimed their guns during part the chase or as Travis got out. The video we the public have seen doesn't show that though. Doesn't mean it didn't happen since the video wasn't showing the actions of the McMichaels during the entire encounter. I've already stated for misdemeanor citizen's arrest I feel a jury would certainly not consider presenting a firearm as a reasonable escalation of use of force so far if one can be proven to have happened. Lastly though on this point. Even if the McMichaels did aim their firearm(s) at Arbery during some point of the chase, if it confirmed with other evidence we don't know about yet that Arbery had stolen something then dumped along the way, or the McMichaels could reasonably believe (by a jury of their peers) that Arbery was running from a felony and not a misdemeanor (like say Perez told them "He's running because he stole something!") then the escalation of force would be justified by them.

As I said before, there is a lot of evidence I know hasn't been released to the public and we'll see what plays out in court.

It is not a fallacy. It is an inference. I don't think it would be reasonable to come to any other inference since they clearly reported to police they went to get their firearms in anticipation that he might be armed and that they more than once tried to get him to stop while in the vehicle. He did not. Travis then exited the truck with the shotgun. If you want to argue that the firearm being in his hands at that point in time was incidental and unconnected to their desire to detain him, you are crackpot nuts.

Since you continue to post inaccurate descriptions of the 911 calls and police report, this is the last I will engage with you on this topic.

 

[HomerJS]

Because the qualifiers of defining yourself as black and the people approaching being white is bias. It shouldn't matter to the law what the race of people involved in the scenario is unless the scenario is specifically a hate crime.

As for you updated scenario, no you would not be justified. Making that statement does not constitute you being reasonably in fear of your life to start shooting. If you survived that scenario you would sitting in prison for a long time and should be regardless of the races of the people involved. Would it be a tragic situation? Sure. Could situations like that be avoided, they certainly can. Does that change the legal outcome and culpability of those involved in a given scenario? Not one whit.

So no, not all was legal in your scenario.

Armed people chasing you with a truck isn't threatening??? Really??

Remember you didn't understand the comment a bout us living in different worlds?

Most people here understand why my scenario using the real life example is aggressive, a threat from my perspective.

So why don't I have the right to demand you retreat from approaching me with loaded guns after chasing me with your truck? Why don't I have the right to defend myself from a perceived threat. We have a real life example why a black man in that scenario considers it a threat. In your world it isn't. Unfortunately in the real world Arbery is dead.

BTW - For the record if the truck was full of black women armed chasing me with a truck I would consider that a threat.

Get my drift, Skippy??

 

[HumblePie]

"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."

Those are separate sentences.

This statute is the extra protection statute for citizen's arrest. It is on top of of citizen's arrest common law. Reasonable is the low bar for a person to affect a citizen's arrest in Georgia, and immediate knowledge at the very least is what is required. Those are the lowest to bars for affirmative defense here.

You need to go back to the police report. You are misattributing to Perez and your words are flatly inaccurate. The police report, in fact, contains no description of how Perez or McMichael identified him as the same guy and at what point they drew that conclusion.

Police report sheds more light on Satilla Shores shooting

When retired district attorney investigator Greg McMichael saw a man he suspected of burglary sprinting down Satilla Drive on the afternoon of Feb. 23, he alerted his adult son and

thebrunswicknews.com

Not from what I am reading. Gregory McMichael stated he saw him hauling ass past his porch. That he identified him as the man from the video tapes trespassing on property. If Perez let him know he saw him on the property just then, it is immediate knowledge of a crime that just happened.

Also with this article and evidence, the day of the shooting wasn't the most recent interactions between the McMichaels and Arbery.

(https://nypost.com/2020/05/13/ahmaud-arbery-may-have-had-previous-run-in-with-alleged-killers/)
(https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law...borhood-confrontation/HGz6ZaFXYs3pkJhke22x4J/)

It is said here that Travis made the statement tried to stop him once before while he was unarmed. When doing so Arbery reached into his pants like he was going for a weapon so Travis ran away.

It is not a fallacy. It is an inference. I don't think it would be reasonable to come to any other inference since they clearly reported to police they went to get their firearms in anticipation that he might be armed and that they more than once tried to get him to stop while in the vehicle. He did not. Travis then exited the truck with the shotgun. If you want to argue that the firearm being in his hands at that point in time was incidental and unconnected to their desire to detain him, you are crackpot nuts.

Since you continue to post inaccurate descriptions of the 911 calls and police report, this is the last I will engage with you on this topic.

When looking up and reading the evidence, some of what I have read or remember is older stuff. I was not intentionally trying to mislead when I stated Greg was on that 911 call when it was Deigo Perez. I read it was previously in an older article. This is the problem with judging cases like this with media leaked info and not all the facts.

As far as having a long gun in your hands, I posted the Georgia statute for brandishing. It is not considered brandishing unless it is being pointed at someone. It is a legal activity in Georiga to carry a long gun, for any reason, in your hands as long as you have legal authority to be where you are.

 

[HumblePie]

Armed people chasing you with a truck isn't threatening??? Really??

Remember you didn't understand the comment a bout us living in different worlds?

Most people here understand why my scenario using the real life example is aggressive, a threat from my perspective.

So why don't I have the right to demand you retreat from approaching me with loaded guns after chasing me with your truck? Why don't I have the right to defend myself from a perceived threat. We have a real life example why a black man in that scenario considers it a threat. In your world it isn't. Unfortunately in the real world Arbery is dead.

BTW - For the record if the truck was full of black women armed chasing me with a truck I would consider that a threat.

Get my drift, Skippy??

Your personal opinion and what the law treats as a threat can be vastly different. I stated as such. I am not dismissing your feelings about a scenario like that feeling threatening to you or anyone. I am dismissing "what if isms" about actions you can or can't legally take based upon those feelings. A person can feel their boss is a dickless jerk that doesn't deserve to live, but acting upon those feeling wouldn't be legal. That is the way the world works. I think you are getting hung up on the differences between perception of reality and reality. It is a common occurrence and not exactly wrong all the time either. I try to, but not always, not let my perceptions or feelings dictate my actions and use logic instead. Doesn't mean I don't feel empathy and can't see why someone would perceive some as a few men chasing them clearly armed would make someone's butthole clench a little bit in fear. My emotions may respond the same way. The difference is I try to analyze the situation and react as needed and not jump to conclusion and proactively do things which may not be legal.

 

[Paratus]

That situation is lala land. Unlawful detainment would only be true if you had done nothing wrong. Arbery was at the very least trespassing in this scenario. That means he committed a crime. Thus it can't be unlawful detainment. Unlawful detainment only applies to people in situations that haven't committed or are associated with the commission of a crime.

I’m sorry but almost no one considers walking through an open construction site for a new house trespassing. At least without posted no trespassing signs. I’ve done it dozens of times when looking for A new house and while our neighborhood was being built out. I’ve seen dozens of others doing the same.

You also seemed to miss the article by the lawyer on citizens arrest. Stopping someone to ask a question about their actions is routinely used in court to show the person implementing the citizens arrest didn’t have direct knowledge of the crime.

 

[HumblePie]

I’m sorry but almost no one considers walking through an open construction site for a new house trespassing. At least without posted no trespassing signs. I’ve done it dozens of times when looking for A new house and while our neighborhood was being built out. I’ve seen dozens of others doing the same.

You also seemed to miss the article by the lawyer on citizens arrest. Stopping someone to ask a question about their actions is routinely used in court to show the person implementing the citizens arrest didn’t have direct knowledge of the crime.

You are wrong in your statements here. It wasn't open construction for new housing. It was additional storage being built next to an already built house. Basically an additional garage. It wasn't open either. Fishing gear, a boat, and other items were already being stored there during the last of the construction. It also had a sign plastered at the entrance stating "No trespassing" written. If you think that isn't a big deal...

I erroneously thought it was just an open construction house being built earlier until I found out this fact. Which has been stated since in this thread.

Also that article you are referring to is OLD and I did address it.

 

[Brainonska511]

He did the same thing in the Michael Dunn case, swore Dunn wouldn't face murder charges, failed fantastically.

It's honestly a pretty weird stance to take, unless you're either the suspects' personal lawyer or a racist. Maybe not an open racist like a Nazi or a Klansman, but something more in the lines of "very fine people".

 

[HumblePie]

It's honestly a pretty weird stance to take, unless you're either the suspects' personal lawyer or a racist. Maybe not an open racist like a Nazi or a Klansman, but something more in the lines of "very fine people".

I never took that stance. I never swore to that either. I stated Dunn would be going to prison. I stated he had a case for self defense if he stopped firing after the first shot and that every shot after on people fleeing were criminal in nature. What I stated happened. So why are you making a false statement about what I said here?

 

[BUTCH1]

You are wrong in your statements here. It wasn't open construction for new housing. It was additional storage being built next to an already built house. Basically an additional garage. It wasn't open either. Fishing gear, a boat, and other items were already being stored there during the last of the construction. It also had a sign plastered at the entrance stating "No trespassing" written. If you think that isn't a big deal...

I erroneously thought it was just an open construction house being built earlier until I found out this fact. Which has been stated since in this thread.

Also that article you are referring to is OLD and I did address it.

Amazingly, none of the other people who visited the unfinished house, (including a 70+yr old couple) and various children drew no response and I guess they ignored the "no trespassing" sign too. Kinda weird that fishing gear, a boat would all be in an unlocked building as well. None of this will matter in court, sign or not, witnessing a possible trespass on someone else's property did not warrant trying to stop him at gunpoint. Any lawyer will shred this up like a white shark on a chuck-roast, they're TOAST dude.

 

[HumblePie]

Amazingly, none of the other people who visited the unfinished house, (including a 70+yr old couple) and various children drew no response and I guess they ignored the "no trespassing" sign too. Kinda weird that fishing gear, a boat would all be in an unlocked building as well. None of this will matter in court, sign or not, witnessing a possible trespass on someone else's property did not warrant trying to stop him at gunpoint. Any lawyer will shred this up like a white shark on a chuck-roast, they're TOAST dude.

As far as I know none of the others were repeats coming back or not given permission to be there. Just because people are caught on his camera during the day doesn't mean we know the situation for why they were there. They could have been invited to look. If they weren't then they were trespassing and committing a crime.

You fail to also understand the part that by Georgia law, a citizen can use a gun to affect a citizens arrest. They can even brandish a firearm (aka point it) if the arrest is about a felony or reasonable person can believe the criminal offender could be armed at the time.

My opinion so far on the case still stands that Travis will go to prison over what I have pointed out, and not by all the bad conjecture or lies about the facts stated by many in this thread.

 

[BUTCH1]

As far as I know none of the others were repeats coming back or not given permission to be there. Just because people are caught on his camera during the day doesn't mean we know the situation for why they were there. They could have been invited to look. If they weren't then they were trespassing and committing a crime.

You fail to also understand the part that by Georgia law, a citizen can use a gun to affect a citizens arrest. They can even brandish a firearm (aka point it) if the arrest is about a felony or reasonable person can believe the criminal offender could be armed at the time.

My opinion so far on the case still stands that Travis will go to prison over what I have pointed out, and not by all the bad conjecture or lies about the facts stated by many in this thread.

LOL, "could be armed", anyone "could be armed" and the dad's lame "I saw him put his hands in his pants!" excuse will fly like a lead balloon. These two are TOAST and so is the original DA who told the lie to this man's mom he was "killed while caught breaking into a house"

 

[brycejones]

As far as I know none of the others were repeats coming back or not given permission to be there. Just because people are caught on his camera during the day doesn't mean we know the situation for why they were there. They could have been invited to look. If they weren't then they were trespassing and committing a crime.

You fail to also understand the part that by Georgia law, a citizen can use a gun to affect a citizens arrest. They can even brandish a firearm (aka point it) if the arrest is about a felony or reasonable person can believe the criminal offender could be armed at the time.

My opinion so far on the case still stands that Travis will go to prison over what I have pointed out, and not by all the bad conjecture or lies about the facts stated by many in this thread.

you obviously are not a reasonable person

 

[shortylickens]

HumblePie is like all the other Trumpettes, he's completely full of shit and so full of shit he cant realized or admit he's full of shit.

 

[HumblePie]

you obviously are not a reasonable person

Not a reasonable person because I don't jump to conclusions unlike others? Or not jumping to the conclusions you want me to jump to? When people post where I make an actual mistake I actually do the reasonable thing and own up to it. Done it a few times in this thread already. Would an unreasonable person do that? I have no problem with dialog, but when people make the same argument over and over that there already discrediting info provided against said info I am not one to be swayed by posts like that.