The Ahmaud Arbery affair

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by Sculptor »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:39 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 6:36 pm White people enter and leave houses all the time.

These three jobless clowns were looking for trouble. They had nothing better to do so had armed themselves and were playing at being "toy cop". The black guy had every right to fear them, and NOT accept any bullshit about citizen arrest.

You might want to try to get a life and use your imagination.
It should not have a great deal -- or anything -- to do with my imagination. It must only revolve around concrete points of law. As I said the prosecution's case was built on the fact that 1) he did illegally enter that property and thus was trespassing that day, and 2) that citizens had a right to pursue and arrest him.
You are making it up.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by henry quirk »

scrupulous attention to the letter of the law

Scrupulous attention to letter of the law won't render bad law, good.


It must only revolve around concrete points of law.

The law is an ass.

henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 9:33 pm I recommend thinking like a lawyer, which is the only way to think in this case.

A jury, as a body, is not obligated to do so. Juries can nullify.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by Walker »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:49 pm This is a prejudicial statement and you are using a term that corresponds to the n-word.

What if I were to have referred, in these posts, to Arbery as n-word? What would you have concluded? Some level of bias perhaps?
Comparing cracker to the word that no one dares mention is like comparing a dry fart to dysentery. However cracker, as in whip cracker, is a well-deserved name for those cracker-clowns who watch too much TV drama and think that without a badge, and all that a badge represents, they can hold a gun on someone and expect that someone to not begin fighting for life, because, when a stranger holds a gun on you that’s a life and death situation for all concerned, including the crackers.

When a cop holds a gun on you it means you are going to submit. When a stranger holds a gun on you, or abducts you, it means you're probably going to die.

When you talk intention, and say those clowns were intending a citizen's arrest, well ... so they say.

You don't know what their intention was.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by Walker »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 12:49 am (Q. quoting) It must only revolve around concrete points of law.

(Q. speaking (writing)) The law is an ass.
Life is the measure that defines whether or not the concrete points of law are crap.

Concrete points of law are interpreted in comparison to the effects upon life.

Life was the measure in the Aubery verdict, the measure behind all the kerfluffle that can distract from the purpose of the law.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:32 pm "The 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."

*right there is your critical point...did Arbery commit a crime in the three's presence?
Also, if that person committed a crime, but it was NOT a felony, and that person was escaping or attempting to escape, then, it appears, the private person is NOT allowed to arrest the person whether they committed that crime or not. One reason for this is that person is NOT in the presence of the private person's presence, anymore. If the offense was in fact a felony, then what is allowed appears to change.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:32 pm did the three know he committed a crime?
henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:32 pm Would it matter if the crime was NOT a felony and that one was escaping or attempting to escape?
henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:32 pm or did they chase, attempt to detain, and kill a fella who just seemed suspicious?
henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:32 pm From the not-always-accurate wikipedia...

Police interview transcripts detailed that Gregory initiated the chase after seeing Arbery running past his house, suspecting that Arbery had committed burglary or theft in Satilla Shores, but no evidence has emerged of Arbery doing so.
By the sounds of this absolutely NO offense, felony or not, was even committed in the presence of the private person anyway.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:32 pm According to police testimony, Bryan told police that he saw the chase and joined in independently, but was not sure if Arbery had done anything wrong.
The first one interviewed was NOT SURE either if that person had committed an offense, felony or not.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by Skepdick »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:47 pm The crux of this issue is bound to an old Georgia law of one paragraph and two sentences:
The Georgia law reads: "The 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 would seem -- it seems so to me but I only have a superficial understanding of this law -- that those who sought to detain Ahmaud Arbery had the right of law on their side. That is, if the first sentence is taken to refer to a misdemeanor infraction (since it is clear that the second sentence clearly refers to a felony infraction).

This entire case hinged on the issue of whether the defendants did or did not have the *right* to pursue, stop and arrest Ahmaud Arbery. Obviously, the law reads as I have quoted it.

The argument of the prosecution was that those who pursued and attempted to detain Ahmaud Arbery did not have right of law on their side. So, by doing so they committed a whole group of illegal acts.

Ahmaud Arbery was in this view, and in this interpretation of the law, within his rights to resist the attempted arrest, and that when he tried to disarm the man, or fight against him, he was in his right to do so.

Therefore, everything these 3 men did was entirely illegal from the start.

My thoughts on this matter are that their conviction was not properly attained. That is to say that -- I assume for political, social reasons -- that the legal issue was not properly defined to the jury by the judge. And that is to say that the law, as it is written, does allow a citizen to pursue and arrest a suspect in a minor crime (misdemeanor).

So in the reading, or interpretation, of the law that was operative at the time, it is Arbery who was *ignorant of the law*, not those who pursued and tried to detain him. He was obligated (I assume) to stop and submit to the arrest since, again if this reading is correct, instead of trying to flee.

He very definitely did not have a right to attempt to resist, or attack, those who pursued him. (Though in most other states there is not a right to citizen's arrest. In Georgia that law was in effect).

If there is ambiguity in the law, jurisprudence refers to the the legal doctrine of lenity. When a criminal statute is ambiguous, "that ambiguity is always to be resolved in the favor of the defendant, never in the favor of the State. It is the government that drafted that statute and passed it into law, not the defendant. If they left in ambiguity, that’s on the government, not the defendant."

I wonder if this conviction, in whole or in part, will be overturned on appeal. It would seem they have a very good chance at it.
None of this matters to the case.

This is the pertinent part: 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.

Ahmaud Arbery didn't commit ANY fellony to the knowledge of the three men who attemted to arrest him.
He may not even have committed a misdemeanor (tresspassing).

Their had no powers of arrest.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by henry quirk »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 12:49 am scrupulous attention to the letter of the law

Scrupulous attention to letter of the law won't render bad law, good.


It must only revolve around concrete points of law.

The law is an ass.

henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 9:33 pm I recommend thinking like a lawyer, which is the only way to think in this case.

A jury, as a body, is not obligated to do so. Juries can nullify.
In the Criminal Code of 1926 there was a most stupid Article 139 – “on the limits of necessary self-defense” —according to which you had the right to unsheath your knife only after the criminal’s knife was hovering over you. And you could stab him only after he had stabbed you. And otherwise you would be the one put on trial. (And there was no article in our legislation saying that the greater criminal was the one who attacked someone weaker than himself.) This fear of exceeding the measure of necessary self-defense lead to total spinelessness as a national characteristic. A hoodlum once began to beat up the Red Army man Aleksandr Zakharov outside a club. Zakharov took out a folding penknife and killed the hoodlum. And for this he got….ten years for plain murder! “And what was I supposed to do?” he asked, astonished. Prosecutor Artsishevsky replied: “You should have fled!” The Gulag Archipelago
commonsense
Posts: 5114
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by commonsense »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:04 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:55 pm
blah blah
(You are wrong about 'gotten'. It is definitely a valid word and is in common use).
Only with illiterate yanks.
I share your disdain for “gotten”. Then, too, I am irritated by the construction “to not” [think or do something]. And don’t get me started on “orientate”.

But we’re off topic and should get back to it.
commonsense
Posts: 5114
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by commonsense »

Furthermore, the use of deadly force, whether by police or by citizens, is legitimate only if one’s life, or the life of another, is imperiled.

Arbery reached for the shotgun presumably in self defense, as he could reasonably perceive that his life was in danger. Cracker #1 then discharged his weapon presumably because he then perceived that his life was endangered.

The proximate cause of the killing of Arbery may have been his own action. But take away the brandishing of the firearm, there would have been no attempt to gain control of the weapon.

The defendant was at risk because of his own actions—because he had failed to make a nonviolent arrest.

It is a given that none of the convicted murderers had direct knowledge of any crime having taken place. The perpetrators were acting outside of the law and in essence were in the act of committing a crime when the murder took place.

I maintain that the judge may have been quite exhaustive in instructing the jury, yet the verdict would have been the same.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5142
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 12:27 pmNone of this matters to the case.

This is the pertinent part: 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.

Ahmaud Arbery didn't commit ANY fellony to the knowledge of the three men who attemted to arrest him.
He may not even have committed a misdemeanor (tresspassing).

Their had no powers of arrest.
As I said in the opening post the law (which has since been repealed and rewritten) said: "The 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."

The crux of my post was in pointing out that the language of the law is ambiguous. The first sentence is distinct from the second, and the second clearly expresses what is necessary in a felonious instance.

The issue is that the first sentence seems to imply, and could imply, that in distinction to the felony mentioned in the second sentence, the first sentence refers to lesser crimes. I may be wrong by since the law is quite old (150 years I read) that it is likely that culture and society at that time did support a citizen's arrest for a misdemeanor crime. At least I would imagine so.

I think one would have to examine the precedent in case-law to see if there were other cases where a citizen arrested someone for a minor offense and the person arresting was tried for illegal arrest. (But I could find none).

But the main point I make is that when a law is ambiguous, and the first sentence is ambiguous, the ambiguity of the law should not benefit the state. Cf The Rule of Lenity:
The rule of lenity, also called the rule of strict construction, is a principle of criminal statutory interpretation that requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in the manner that is most favorable to the defendant. The rule has a long history in the law and has been an important element of the relationship between the courts and the legislature, but its role in modern jurisprudence is less clear.
The other aspect of this recent case, which I do not think can be dismissed, is the social or psychological element. And some of this psychology is in evidence in some comments in this thread. So the way that this case is seen by many people is through the lens of their feelings about what happened.

If the notion of lenity had been clearly explained by the judge (who has this duty as judge) the jury might have considered the entire situation differently. In my own case I find it hard to see how the worst form of murder was applied. I have no way of entering into their minds but it seems reasonable to assume their intention was to stop him and detain him, not to execute him.

There is a psychological element that seems to operate here in assuming the absolute worst motive.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5142
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

commonsense wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 3:44 pmThe proximate cause of the killing of Arbery may have been his own action. But take away the brandishing of the firearm, there would have been no attempt to gain control of the weapon.
I think I agree with this, at least at first blush. By arming themselves and then pursuing I think it is quite fair to say that their actions could reasonably be assumed to have eventuated some sort of confrontation.

Those men could have simply pursued him (followed him) without intervening. This is true. By interposing themselves, with weapons, it did indeed lead to a situation of struggle over the weapon.

But this issue (or having a weapon or carrying a weapon in such a situation) would have to be examined in the light of Georgia precedents.

It seems to me that 'malice murder' is a charge that does not accurately fit the crime. And for this reason I think it was motivated by social pressure, historical factors (getting even with *the crackers*), Black rage that is quite real but hard to decide about, and all of this in the social and cultural current of which we are all aware.

It seems to me that, given the circumstances, that voluntary manslaughter is more fitting:
(a) A person commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter when he causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would otherwise be murder and if he acts solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person; however, if there should have been an interval between the provocation and the killing sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, of which the jury in all cases shall be the judge, the killing shall be attributed to deliberate revenge and be punished as murder.

(b) A person who commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by Skepdick »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 3:56 pm The crux of my post was in pointing out that the language of the law is ambiguous. The first sentence is distinct from the second, and the second clearly expresses what is necessary in a felonious instance.

The issue is that the first sentence seems to imply, and could imply, that in distinction to the felony mentioned in the second sentence, the first sentence refers to lesser crimes. I may be wrong by since the law is quite old (150 years I read) that it is likely that culture and society at that time did support a citizen's arrest for a misdemeanor crime. At least I would imagine so.
The ambiguity is there, but the "arrestors" didn't even have grounds to believe a lesser crime has been committed.

The elements of the crime of tresspassing involve components (absence of legal permission, absence of legal excuse to enter) to which the "arrestors" would not have been privy to without an investigation.

They could, of course have approached the person suspected off tresspassing to investigate whether actual tresspassing has been committed, but as civilians they didn't have that legal right to investigate crime. They only had legal right to arrest for crimes they knew about.

In the simplest of terms: there was no complainant for the crime they suspected Arbery to have committed. They had no reasonable grounds to believe any crime had been committed - they acted on suspicion not on knowledge.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 3:56 pm But the main point I make is that when a law is ambiguous, and the first sentence is ambiguous, the ambiguity of the law should not benefit the state. Cf The Rule of Lenity:
The rule of lenity, also called the rule of strict construction, is a principle of criminal statutory interpretation that requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in the manner that is most favorable to the defendant. The rule has a long history in the law and has been an important element of the relationship between the courts and the legislature, but its role in modern jurisprudence is less clear.
The manner most favourable to the defendant is to assume that they knew a misdemeanor tresspassing (and NOT a fellony) had been committed.

They didn't even know that.
commonsense
Posts: 5114
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by commonsense »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 3:56 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 12:27 pmNone of this matters to the case.

This is the pertinent part: 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.

Ahmaud Arbery didn't commit ANY fellony to the knowledge of the three men who attemted to arrest him.
He may not even have committed a misdemeanor (tresspassing).

Their had no powers of arrest.
As I said in the opening post the law (which has since been repealed and rewritten) said: "The 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."

The crux of my post was in pointing out that the language of the law is ambiguous. The first sentence is distinct from the second, and the second clearly expresses what is necessary in a felonious instance.

The issue is that the first sentence seems to imply, and could imply, that in distinction to the felony mentioned in the second sentence, the first sentence refers to lesser crimes. I may be wrong by since the law is quite old (150 years I read) that it is likely that culture and society at that time did support a citizen's arrest for a misdemeanor crime. At least I would imagine so.
Your discussion about ambiguity and lenity is well taken.

Still, in my mind the acts of the three would have to fulfill the criteria of each/both sentence/s in order order to protect them from conviction: I.e. witnessed or within the direct knowledge of, and a felony.
commonsense
Posts: 5114
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by commonsense »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:08 pm
commonsense wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 3:44 pmThe proximate cause of the killing of Arbery may have been his own action. But take away the brandishing of the firearm, there would have been no attempt to gain control of the weapon.
I think I agree with this, at least at first blush. By arming themselves and then pursuing I think it is quite fair to say that their actions could reasonably be assumed to have eventuated some sort of confrontation.

Those men could have simply pursued him (followed him) without intervening. This is true. By interposing themselves, with weapons, it did indeed lead to a situation of struggle over the weapon.

But this issue (or having a weapon or carrying a weapon in such a situation) would have to be examined in the light of Georgia precedents.

It seems to me that 'malice murder' is a charge that does not accurately fit the crime. And for this reason I think it was motivated by social pressure, historical factors (getting even with *the crackers*), Black rage that is quite real but hard to decide about, and all of this in the social and cultural current of which we are all aware.

It seems to me that, given the circumstances, that voluntary manslaughter is more fitting:
(a) A person commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter when he causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would otherwise be murder and if he acts solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person; however, if there should have been an interval between the provocation and the killing sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, of which the jury in all cases shall be the judge, the killing shall be attributed to deliberate revenge and be punished as murder.

(b) A person who commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.
I agree that a lesser charge would have been more appropriate. Also, depending on Georgia law and what evidence is gathered concerning intentionality, there may have been grounds to prosecute this situation as a hate crime.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

commonsense wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:11 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:08 pm
commonsense wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 3:44 pmThe proximate cause of the killing of Arbery may have been his own action. But take away the brandishing of the firearm, there would have been no attempt to gain control of the weapon.
I think I agree with this, at least at first blush. By arming themselves and then pursuing I think it is quite fair to say that their actions could reasonably be assumed to have eventuated some sort of confrontation.

Those men could have simply pursued him (followed him) without intervening. This is true. By interposing themselves, with weapons, it did indeed lead to a situation of struggle over the weapon.

But this issue (or having a weapon or carrying a weapon in such a situation) would have to be examined in the light of Georgia precedents.

It seems to me that 'malice murder' is a charge that does not accurately fit the crime. And for this reason I think it was motivated by social pressure, historical factors (getting even with *the crackers*), Black rage that is quite real but hard to decide about, and all of this in the social and cultural current of which we are all aware.

It seems to me that, given the circumstances, that voluntary manslaughter is more fitting:
(a) A person commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter when he causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would otherwise be murder and if he acts solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person; however, if there should have been an interval between the provocation and the killing sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, of which the jury in all cases shall be the judge, the killing shall be attributed to deliberate revenge and be punished as murder.

(b) A person who commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.
I agree that a lesser charge would have been more appropriate. Also, depending on Georgia law and what evidence is gathered concerning intentionality, there may have been grounds to prosecute this situation as a hate crime.
Another bullshit non-term. Offensive in a grammatical sense and offensive in every other sense. Dead is dead. Murder is murder. And people don't tend to murder out of 'love'.
Post Reply