The Ahmaud Arbery affair

[commonsense]

Not so. If one communicated to the others, then the others were not acting on immediate knowledge.

The Georgia law reads: "The private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. Immediate knowledge is an example of ambiguity.

If I tell you that some person committed a crime, you now have 'immediate knowledge' though you did not see the crime yourself.

The ambiguity of the law cannot, in American jurisprudence, benefit the State (prosecution). It can only benefit the accused. That is, the State cannot take advantage of an ambiguous law. But the accused can.

Actually, I believe that is an example of hear-say.

[commonsense]

White people enter and leave [that] house 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.

Where you wrote “prosecution’s case” didn’t you mean “defendant’s case”?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Actually, I believe that is an example of hear-say.

Yes, I see your point. And everything would hinge on the admissibility of someone's description of an event ("he just did thus-and-such"). Common sense would indicate that were you, being in your right mind, to tell your friend or husband/wife that you had just seen a crime, that that person is justified in believing you.

So I think it has to do with a matter 'heard' but moreover necessarily believed. And I am pretty sure that the law recognizes sch a description as a valid cause for pursuing someone who committed a crime. But so much depends on the state and also on precedent.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Where you wrote “prosecution’s case” didn’t you mean “defendant’s case”?

Yes, my mistake.

[commonsense]

AJ, you might be interested to read the following excerpt from Georgia law concerning self defense and deadly force.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-c ... -3-21.html

It seems to me that (b).(1) would apply to this case. No?

[henry quirk]

It seems to me that you are seeing with bias.

Not at all. I'm just refusin' to let shifty legalism get in the way of basic morality (justice).

Any of the three may have had cause to call the cops (based on recognizin' the guy from the security footage); none had cause to chase, detain, or kill the fella. None can claim self-defense, defense of other or defense of his own property.

Had the fella entered the home of any one of the three, uninvited, and got himself off'd by the home owner, the owner would probably have a damned good case for self-, other-, or property-defense. Gettin' off'd cuz mebbe one or all of the three claim they were aware the fella had trespassed in an unoccupied home: well, that's just murder (the unjustifed takin' of a person's life).

When our legalisms drown out morality (which law is supposed to codify, not obliterate) we ought reconsider the substance of our legalism.

[henry quirk]

should a person -- you, me, anyone -- take action to defend property?

If it's your own, and you're confronted -- in the moment -- by the thief or trespasser -- you certainly can (and, perhaps, ought to).

If it's not yours, if you are not an in-the-moment witness to the theft or trespassin', then mebbe you ought to reign in your zeal and call your local tips line instead.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Where does it say you can kill them?
I don't see how they are all guilty of murder though.

I think the reason that all three were charged with murder is that being an accessory to a crime is legally viewed to be the same as committing the crime.

I'm aware of that, but would they have known that the fuckwit would have actually killed the guy? Americans are gun-happy morons at the best of times. Presumably they know how to not shoot people?

[henry quirk]

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]

My thoughts on this matter are that their conviction was not properly attained.

Their conviction was properly attained. They killed. The charge was murder.

Their conviction was properly attained because it was rendered by a jury, under the jury system.

Your sense of impropriety pertains to the charges, and perhaps the arguments.

It’s always a matter of proportion. A citizen’s arrest based on the witnessing of a felony should be in proportion to the felony witnessed. The proper proportion is not determined by the legal definition of the felony.

Life is the measure of a proportional response.

Trespass is a criminal act but the response to trespass by a witness, as with all crimes witnessed, must be proportional to life, for Life Is The Measure is not just some abstract concept.

Not being experts in the law, the jury most likely has a better grip on the law in relation to Life.

No doubt those crackers now wish they had just followed Aubry to wherever he was going, armed with patience, wheels and cell-phones instead of packing death.

*

Can appeals be based on disputing a jury’s interpretation and application of the law, or are appeals based on improper courtroom proceedings, or both?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Not at all. I'm just refusin' to let shifty legalism get in the way of basic morality (justice).

I think you have gotten to the heart of the matter. I think that what has been done, and how people approach and see the case, is not through the lens of law -- what is right and proper as defined by laws (in the sense that *we are a country of laws*), but rather on the basis of what seems right. Or to say it in another way what seems immoral.

Now the reason I say that it appears to me that your bias determines your view should be obvious. It is as you say "I'm just refusin' to let shifty legalism get in the way of basic morality".

So one could say, and you might say, if one pressed it to an extreme, that a moral people should not pay attention to the law, but should make decisions on what they believe or feel is moral.

This is problematic, as the saying goes.

Any of the three may have had cause to call the cops (based on recognizin' the guy from the security footage); none had cause to chase, detain, or kill the fella. None can claim self-defense, defense of other or defense of his own property.

Again you are basing this not on the law -- what the law specifically says in a specific state -- but on other criteria.

So I think that you might be able to guess that I believe that the great mass of people -- the people with access to the news, and with the means of communication (social media) -- are injecting their sense of what is right into areas that must only be determined by law: by scrupulous attention to the letter of the law. And I have the sense that it is this mass that managed, somehow, to by-pass close and careful attention to the law (I think the judge has fault for not explaining the law to the jury) and that the jury was influenced by emotion (the sense that *this is wrong*).

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Not at all. I'm just refusin' to let shifty legalism get in the way of basic morality (justice).

I think you have gotten to the heart of the matter. I think that what has been done, and how people approach and see the case, is not through the lens of law -- what is right and proper as defined by laws (in the sense that *we are a country of laws*), but rather on the basis of what seems right. Or to say it in another way what seems immoral.

Now the reason I say that it appears to me that your bias determines your view should be obvious. It is as you say "I'm just refusin' to let shifty legalism get in the way of basic morality".

So one could say, and you might say, if one pressed it to an extreme, that a moral people should not pay attention to the law, but should make decisions on what they believe or feel is moral.

This is problematic, as the saying goes.

Any of the three may have had cause to call the cops (based on recognizin' the guy from the security footage); none had cause to chase, detain, or kill the fella. None can claim self-defense, defense of other or defense of his own property.

Again you are basing this not on the law -- what the law specifically says in a specific state -- but on other criteria.

So I think that you might be able to guess that I believe that the great mass of people -- the people with access to the news, and with the means of communication (social media) -- are injecting their sense of what is right into areas that must only be determined by law: by scrupulous attention to the letter of the law. And I have the sense that it is this mass that managed, somehow, to by-pass close and careful attention to the law (I think the judge has fault for not explaining the law to the jury) and that the jury was influenced by emotion (the sense that *this is wrong*).

Are you retarded? Do you seriously think that supposed 'trespass' on a building site is a death penalty crime? And the word is 'got'. There is no such fucking word as 'gotten'.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Their conviction was properly attained. They killed. The charge was murder.

While I definitely wish very much that they had not chosen the line of action they did, and the death of the man is highly regrettable, I do not share your view that the verdict is the right one.

Their conviction was properly attained because it was rendered by a jury, under the jury system.

In this you are 100% right. Even if their decision had been one agreed by many, or even all, to have been the wrong one, the verdict is the verdict.

However, mass riots have been started (and other types of social mayhem) because people do not accept the rule of law as it is meted out by juries.

So it is interesting to notice this: when the jury decides what 'the people' (or a mass of people, or certain factions of a people) do not believe is right and proper, they take it upon themselves (sometimes) to oppose the decision with violence and mayhem.

But what you say is right: the jury decided, and that is the way it is.

Your sense of impropriety pertains to the charges, and perhaps the arguments.

No, my sense is that the judge did not properly instruct the jury. If the first clause was ambiguous, then that ambiguity should dis-favor the State, not the accused.

My focus is strictly on the law -- what it says. The law allows (or allowed, I think it has been recently changed) for a citizen to make an arrest for a) a misdemeanor, and b) a felony.

It’s always a matter of proportion. A citizen’s arrest based on the witnessing of a felony should be in proportion to the felony witnessed. The proper proportion is not determined by the legal definition of the felony.

I do not agree with this. And one of the cruxes of my argument is in this area. Either a people, a citizen, has the right to defend his-her property, and this right is real, robust and respected, or the citizen does not. In Georgia, and on the basis of that law as it is written, the right is granted that a citizen can pursue, arrest and hold a suspect if their is sufficient cause to do so.

That law may have had many positive outcomes. It may have been, for many years, a 'good law'. But in this instance we all recognize a non-positive outcome. But the law still stands.

I do not know what ultimate view to take but I am not closed to seeing that those men made a fair, reasonable and respectable effort to pursue and arrest the man who had been trespassing. I think that citizens have sound reasons to protect their domain.

If Arbery had behaved differently -- if he had stopped, allowed himself to be arrested by citizen arrest, the police would have come in a few minutes and sorted it out. He was as obligated as they were -- in a sense more so since he was trespassing -- to know the law, and to obey the law.

The attempt to arrest him was not illegal.

Life is the measure of a proportional response.

This is another issue. It is a valid point but it does not pertain to the strict, legal base.

Trespass is a criminal act but the response to trespass by a witness, as with all crimes witnessed, must be proportional to life, for Life Is The Measure is not just some abstract concept.

The man was shot (if my perception is correct, or my interpretation of it) when he 1) did not stop, did not submit to the citizen's arrest, and b) when he grabbed the shotgun. As the two (or three) witnesses to the event asserted. Their witness is not invalid. (I guess they could have been lying but the video seems to support their story).

Not being experts in the law, the jury most likely has a better grip on the law in relation to Life.

But my point is that the judge has fault. Because he did not sufficiently explain the law (and the law's ambiguity).

No doubt those crackers now wish they had just followed Aubry to wherever he was going, armed with patience, wheels and cell-phones instead of packing death.

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?

Can appeals be based on disputing a jury’s interpretation and application of the law, or are appeals based on improper courtroom proceedings, or both?

This is my question. I would argue that in a strict interpretation of the law those men had justification in pursuing him and arresting him -- on the basis of a misdemeanor.

How things turned out was not 'murder' in any premeditated sense. A series of events followed, and Arbery was a participant in them, that led to a very very bad outcome.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Are you retarded? Do you seriously think that supposed 'trespass' on a building site is a death penalty crime? And the word is 'got'. There is no such fucking word as 'gotten'.

I think that you should pay attention to what you yourself are doing here. I did not and I do not say that trespass "is a death penalty crime".

What I do say is that the law, as it is written, allows for a citizen to pursue and arrest a suspect. This is a fact. It does not allow a citizen to kill the one arrested (but you know this of course).

What happened in that situation -- if I perceive correctly -- is a series of events that resulted in a shooting. But I do not think that the intention of the men who pursued him was to execute him.

(You are wrong about 'gotten'. It is definitely a valid word and is in common use).

[vegetariantaxidermy]

blah blah
(You are wrong about 'gotten'. It is definitely a valid word and is in common use).

Only with illiterate yanks.