They have to have probable cause, though. Whether he actually had intent to steal is not technically a relevant fact for a defense of citizen's arrest. Of course, looking around the construction site itself is not enough.
Watched that entire video. The guy is pretty good with the facts. But I will disagree with him on a couple of points. He implied that Arbury going on to the construction site "might" have been a B&E, but doesn't address Georgia's B&E statute. Unauthorized entry onto property is not enough. There must be an intent to commit theft or a felony. That cannot be proven, as Arbury is not shown stealing anything on those videos. Nor were thefts reported from that construction site. This was trespass, a misdemeanor. Given that his legal analysis of citizen's arrest law is pretty good here, he should have gotten that right.
They have to have probable cause, though. Whether he actually had intent to steal is not technically a relevant fact for a defense of citizen's arrest. Of course, looking around the construction site itself is not enough.
Incorrect. Georgia law for citizen's arrest is not based on probable cause but the lesser legal bar of reasonable suspicion by an average person. It says that directly in the statute.
A good article from actual lawyer Bronze Star winning Harvard graduate, probably more informed than AT eLawyers and eVigilantes :
https://thedispatch.com/p/a-vigilante-killing-in-Georgia
It eviscerates any "defense" these gentlemen might have.
It says reasonable and probable in the statute.
Which means it protects for both bars of legal justification.
I hate the misnaming bit about calling it Citizen's Arrest, because it is more or less Citizen's Detaining. Citizen's still aren't arresting people, cuffing them, or reading them their rights. They are just detaining them until the cops arrive. Shop keepers do this all the time for people they suspect of shoplifting. It is meant for the lesser bar for this reason. If an associate witnesses what they think is shoplifting, or behavior that looks like it, they can report to the manager and the manager can detain the person. The manager does NOT need to witness the suspected behavior nor actually have probable cause to detain someone for law enforcement.
They have to have probable cause, though. Whether he actually had intent to steal is not technically a relevant fact for a defense of citizen's arrest. Of course, looking around the construction site itself is not enough.
That video is absurd.That's out of date and missing info
New evidence has been revealed such as:
- The construction site being exposed as a tourist attraction.
- The owner of the site stating nothing was ever taken
- The owner has denying the accusation about stolen fishing gear
Video shows person at construction site 12 days before Ahmaud Arbery’s death
The attorney for a property owner in the Satilla Shores neighborhood has released video showing someone inside a home being built on the property less than a mile from where Ahmaud Arbery was killed.www.news4jax.com
All we have left now is dumbasses, far right and extremists pushing bullshit narratives, what-ifs, "Evidence that we don't know" and nitpicking over laws that they don't understand.
First off, HP is likely correct that reasonable suspicion is the standard, though I'd have to look at how Georgia interpets "reasonable and probable suspicion" to be sure. However, what I am referring to the is the phrase "if the offense is a felony" meaning they must have reasonable and probable suspicion of a felony.
Merely walking onto a construction site is a misdemeanor which does not trigger the protection of the citizen's arrest statute. That is the only thing they knew of that he had done. But going onto a property with intent to commit theft or a felony is burglary under Georgia's B&E law, which is itself a felony. However, these guys were aware of exactly zero evidence of intent to steal so all they could reasonably suspect was a trespass.
My God Jim!! Can`t you stop arguing for those 2 guys to get off scott free?Incorrect. Georgia law for citizen's arrest is not based on probable cause but the lesser legal bar of reasonable suspicion by an average person. It says that directly in the statute.
True, some members don`t or fail to understand! Because they are looking for ways to justify the assassination of an unarmed black man.....As I said, merely entering the premises and running off are not probable cause.
I'm having a little trouble with interpreting that as reasonable suspicion, since the statute is not for a temporary detainment for questioning but rather for a citizen's arrest which would be indefinite until police arrive. The text would not reasonably allow you to detain someone so you could determine whether you had grounds for arrest. Of course, this is a separate statute, and a lot of the boundaries of these things for police have been defined through case law after this one was in the books, and I doubt there is much case law or recent case law to aid in the interpretation. Still, just taking at face value the words, how could you not take "probable" to mean anything less than 50% sure?
As I said, merely entering the premises and running off are not probable cause. I don't know if I would agree that, if you saw someone going on to a property you knew wasn't theirs and after being noticed they took off running, that this wouldn't be reasonable suspicion. Of course, even that narrative of events isn't firmly established.
But I would not say zero evidence so plainly. We'll see what gets presented in court if it gets that far.
First off, HP is likely correct that reasonable suspicion is the standard, though I'd have to look at how Georgia interpets "reasonable and probable suspicion" to be sure. However, what I am referring to the is the phrase "if the offense is a felony" meaning they must have reasonable and probable suspicion of a felony.
Merely walking onto a construction site is a misdemeanor which does not trigger the protection of the citizen's arrest statute. That is the only thing they knew of that he had done. But going onto a property with intent to commit theft or a felony is burglary under Georgia's B&E law, which is itself a felony. However, these guys were aware of exactly zero evidence of intent to steal so all they could reasonably suspect was a trespass.
Umm there is a bit more info on that. Greg, the father and previous cop, had dealings with Arbery in the past. He was the one to investigate him for shop lifting in 2018 and knew about his prior records which included a weapons charge when he brought a gun to a high school basketball game. This wasn't Greg's first encounter with Arbery we now know. Greg had been part of the facebook page in dealing with people coming into the area and stealing stuff or moving things around at the very least.
What is going to be argued in court is if those past incidents would lead a normal person, as Greg was a civilian at the time, to reasonably believe Arbery had stolen something when they saw him trespassing again, or was casing the place with the intent to steal in the future. That is going to be a key factor in if the McMichaels get off without any guilty verdict. If it was reasonable for a person with their knowledge to believe Arbery had committed a felony at the time and may have been armed, then they are really protected by the Citizens Arrest statute. Meaning they'll get off without any charges sticking.
There are really two parts to this case. Would anyone with the evidence at had to the McMichaels have a reasonable suspicion that Arbery had committed a crime to affect a detainment until law enforcement arrived. That is issue one. Second, was the use of force use for detainment and what that constitutes. Of course if the first legal issue doesn't go well for the McMichaels, the second is going to be far worse. They will more than likely get felony aggravated assault and murder if the jury doesn't find that they had reasonable suspicion a crime occurred at all. Which I don't think that will happen because they witnessed him trespassing at the minimum. Trespass is a crime and people can affect a citizen's arrest over it in Georgia. Just like how shop keepers can affect a citizen's arrest over a suspected shoplifting incident which is also a misdemeanor crime everywhere in this country.
If the McMichaels are deemed in a court to have reasonable suspicion to affect a citizen's arrest in a court, all that means is it highly unlikely that they get felony assault and murder. That doesn't mean they are off the hook. There is still the problem with reasonable use of force to affect the citizen's arrest. This is where the nitty gritty and ugly come into play I think in the court room. Following a truck and even carrying weapons I don't think is the problem here. The issue was getting out of the truck and possibly having the shotgun pointed at Arbery at the time. That would be an escalation of force that a jury may not find reasonable to the situation. If not, Travis will get reckless use of force and endangerment charges at the least and possibly negligent/reckless homicide as a guilty verdict. I am leaning in this camp as to what is going to happen. As I have said though, we don't have all the evidence yet on this case. There may be more witnesses we don't know about, more video, and other evidence from the scene at the time. We don't know if Arbery had not stolen anything at the time either and then dumped it while escaping the McMichaels. He had previously dumped stuff from his prior run ins with the law that he was convicted of. Also, many in his inner circle had been convicted of crimes as well at the time Greg had been investigating Arbery for his shoplifting crime in 2018. Which means Greg would know the circumstances of those as well at the time of this incident.
As I said right now already several times. We don't have all the evidence. We can all express opinions on the evidence and the likely outcome of the case. I am just trying to do my best to correct mistakes other posters have made, which may include myself, on this case as it progresses for the public. I am surprised still by how much evidence keeps getting leaked out though. I would be worried about possible tainted jury pools if I was handling the investigation of this case.
Given that this was a construction site where it is not uncommon for people to merely trespass, I doubt there could be reasonable suspicion or probable cause of intent to steal. Indeed, the fact he had been on the site on prior occasions with no reports of theft known to those men actually hurts their case rather than helps it. And there really isn't anything of value to steal on a construction which could fit into someone's pockets. The valuable stuff (lumber, piping etc.) would have to be hauled away in a vehicle. Even small tools would not be present as those are not left around when work crews are not there.
I think you're going to find that these guys will lose the argument on the citizen's arrest statute. Instead, the case will come down to whether there was an underlying "assault" when they brandished the shotguns. This requires that their actions created "a reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury" by Arbury. If there's an assault, then they both go down for murder under the felony murder rule. If not, then the father gets off (or misdemeanor brandishing at most) while the son likely gets manslaughter.
My God Jim!! Can`t you stop arguing for those 2 guys to get off scott free?
It is blatantly obviuos you think they did nothing wrong....well pother than assassinate an unarmed black man.....
You're saying that the father having "investigated" Arbury for "shoplifting" two years earlier would affect his suspicion of Arbery then? Is it even reasonable to assume the father would have known it was the same guy? He may say he did recognize him, but I have a hard time believing that. He didn't know Arbury's name. He would have had to ID him as the black man he investigated for a misdemeanor 2 years back, something he probably spent all of 5 minutes doing, because there really isn't much to investigate with shoplifting.
Again, my prediction is that they're going to lose the argument over the citizen's arrest statute. We'll see who's right here.
It has been stated over and over agaiin on both FOX and CNN and MCNBC by various attorneys that what happened 2 years ago has no bearing at all on anything!
Also note there is a law in Georgia that is called -- Party to the crime.....
Text shows cop told GA homeowner he could contact Arbery murder suspect for help with trespassers
Reaction and analysis from former Georgia U.S. attorney Michael J. Moore on ‘America’s News HQ.’www.yahoo.com
ok!! We get it!! You believe the assassination was justified! We get it!Too much of the evidence that has come out since that article has been published "eviscerates" much of what was surmised in that article. That article was posted on the 7th and new evidence released to the public shows much of what this lawyer got wrong. Also of note David French never actually was a courtroom lawyer. Got his degree and was a teacher and then an legal author. Not that what he says can't have merit, just that he has never had to present a legal case in a court of law to win or lose.
Here is the point, there is still more evidence we have not been made aware of yet. I am actually quite surprised by how much has been leaked to the media as Georgia is not like Florida when it comes to publicly releasing all information in an on going case. So we are getting dribbles and what the media wants to spin with that they get to us. Trust me, Benjamin Crump the sleazebag, is in full disinformation media dissemination here like with the Trayvon Martin case. Do you not remember the same media hackery then where the media edited 911 calls, released photos of a 12 year boy instead of a 17 year old young man, or all the other intentional lies released at the time? If you don't think that the media is not intentionally trying to skew the information in this case as well I don't know what to tell you.
I will also note, that there are several police, judges, and lawyers in other articles contradicting points David French is making in that article. I want to also note, that you know people in the legal system aren't the ones capable of knowing the law, that actually our justice system is based on regular people "aka peers" interpreting the law to decide upon guilt.
ok!! We get it!! You believe the assassination was justified! We get it!
You truly desire the facts to show that these two vigilantes were justified in their actions!
While on the other end of the spectrum there are those of us who are sick and tired of the blatant way that law enforcement approaches white people as opposed to people of color differently!!
In what world are any of these evidence a crime was committed except in a world where you want to nail this guy for something?Umm there is a bit more info on that. Greg, the father and previous cop, had dealings with Arbery in the past. He was the one to investigate him for shop lifting in 2018 and knew about his prior records which included a weapons charge when he brought a gun to a high school basketball game. This wasn't Greg's first encounter with Arbery we now know. Greg had been part of the facebook page in dealing with people coming into the area and stealing stuff or moving things around at the very least.
What is going to be argued in court is if those past incidents would lead a normal person, as Greg was a civilian at the time, to reasonably believe Arbery had stolen something when they saw him trespassing again, or was casing the place with the intent to steal in the future. That is going to be a key factor in if the McMichaels get off without any guilty verdict. If it was reasonable for a person with their knowledge to believe Arbery had committed a felony at the time and may have been armed, then they are really protected by the Citizens Arrest statute. Meaning they'll get off without any charges sticking.
Shoplifting has its own special rules. Note that shopkeeper's *can't* detain a customer accused of a crime against another patron if they didn't directly observe it.Which means it protects for both bars of legal justification.
I hate the misnaming bit about calling it Citizen's Arrest, because it is more or less Citizen's Detaining. Citizen's still aren't arresting people, cuffing them, or reading them their rights. They are just detaining them until the cops arrive. Shop keepers do this all the time for people they suspect of shoplifting. It is meant for the lesser bar for this reason. If an associate witnesses what they think is shoplifting, or behavior that looks like it, they can report to the manager and the manager can detain the person. The manager does NOT need to witness the suspected behavior nor actually have probable cause to detain someone for law enforcement.
The alleged crime was not committed in the presence or within the immediate knowledge of Arrowood or any other employee of appellant, and thus Arrowood and other employees of appellant were not legally authorized to arrest the alleged criminals. OCGA § 17-4-60. Indeed, the only person who could have effected a citizen's arrest was appellee herself because she was the only person who "by the exercise of any of [her] senses. . . ha[d] knowledge of *311 [the crime's] commission. [Cit.]" Johnson v. Jackson, 140 Ga. App. 252, 257 (230 SE2d 756) (1976). Nothing in OCGA § 51-7-60 suggests that a merchant is authorized to detain or arrest persons accused by business patrons of committing crimes against the patrons, since that statute expressly involves only the limited right of a merchant to detain or arrest a person reasonably believed to have committed the offense of shoplifting as defined in OCGA § 16-8-14.
I'll bite since you accused the media of "lying" in cases like this.I'll take what any in the media says as their opinions with a grain of salt. Too often in the past the media has lied blatantly about cases like this. Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Jessie Smolette, and Nick Sandman cases are a few examples of media going crazy on cases that they think have a whiff of racism to talk about.
Shoplifting has its own special rules. Note that shopkeeper's *can't* detain a customer accused of a crime against another patron if they didn't directly observe it.
Winn-Dixie Stores v. Nichols
Winn-Dixie Stores v. Nichols - 205 Ga. App. 308, 422 S.E.2d 209law.justia.com