Rednecks shoot black kid running in neighborhood

Austin_Bill said:
Isn't that the exact same thing that happened in Columbine High school? I wonder why that got so much coverage.

Two kids kill a bunch of other kids and kill themselves, where is the story in that?
Click to expand...
Back in the day mass killings at a school was REALLY novel. That's partly why of the 40,000 or so gun deaths in the U.S. per year, the 15 at Columbine High School gripped the nation's attention. Place and personalities involved, compelling death/survivor stories....lots of available video.
 
towersniper said:
Direct me to the place where Arbery is shown breaking into homes. Also, Someone else on this thread, maybe not you, Garmel, said that Arbery was trespassing. I haven't seen the source of this claim. Were there signs? Is there evidence that Arbery stole something? I'm late to following this story, but I did read the Georgia Criminal Trespass statute. It appears to describe a misdemeanor, not a felony, and Arbery's conduct on the video I saw on your post doesn't demonstrate any unlawful act. The Citizen's Arrest statute doesn't seem to fit, unless I am missing something (quite possible). What am I missing, other than a bunch of conclusion jumping?
Click to expand...

TS, I brought up trespassing but largely to make your point. If all he was doing was nosing around a construction site (not stealing anything), then at most he was guilty of misdemeanor trespassing. And you're right. That isn't enough to make a citizens arrest.

Barring some evidence that they caught him stealing or breaking into an actual home, the citizens arrest claim isn't going to fly. They'll have to rely on some kind of self-defense claim, and the ice that's on isn't very thick.
 
Garmel said:
A black ex-cop's view of the case. This is really good.
Click to expand...


I didn't have a chance to watch the whole thing, but what he's saying about the house he entered could be game changer. The impression I had was that it was an open construction site that was not anyone's home yet. His description suggests that not to be the case but that it was actually someone's home being remodeled.

I'd still like to know how the shooters knew about this. The statute still requires it to be within their immediate knowledge.
 
There's kind of no point to bringing this up as if you do not have a link, it apparently is not factual on the internet. However, I bizarrely happen to work with someone originally from the community who knows many of the people involved and has an immediate family member who is an attorney involved in this case.

@huisache "I have been lawyering for 40 years, first 6 as a prosecutor and last 10 as a defense attorney
my advice: wait until the evidence has been sifted before calling people burglars, thieves, racists or murderers."

^ assuming what my colleague has told me is accurate (and I really do not have any reason to doubt my colleague), a LOT of facts have not yet come out on this one. I will advise everyone against defending any of the three involved. None of these three are people you will want to defend beyond the fact none of them had the right to murder or attack one another.

What I will say, which is something you can discern from what has already been released, the victim was not wearing jogging shorts and his pockets of his very much not jogging shorts were not empty.
 
Too bad America isn't 100% Black, Female and LGBTQIA..... There would be no corruption, no crime and everyone would be living in peaceful utopia. Everyone would be a Democratic Socialist and all would be well. Valhalla, if you will.

Am I right?
 
2003TexasGrad said:
Too bad America isn't 100% Black, Female and LGBTQIA..... There would be no corruption, no crime and everyone would be living in peaceful utopia. Everyone would be a Democratic Socialist and all would be well. Valhalla, if you will.

Am I right?
Click to expand...
Nah: I've been around those folks and the crime of not being pure enough in your outlook can cause outrage. Ain't nobody pure enough.
 
Last edited:
Htown77 said:
There's kind of no point to bringing this up as if you do not have a link, it apparently is not factual on the internet. However, I bizarrely happen to work with someone originally from the community who knows many of the people involved and has an immediate family member who is an attorney involved in this case.

@huisache "I have been lawyering for 40 years, first 6 as a prosecutor and last 10 as a defense attorney
my advice: wait until the evidence has been sifted before calling people burglars, thieves, racists or murderers."

^ assuming what my colleague has told me is accurate (and I really do not have any reason to doubt my colleague), a LOT of facts have not yet come out on this one. I will advise everyone against defending any of the three involved. None of these three are people you will want to defend beyond the fact none of them had the right to murder or attack one another.

What I will say, which is something you can discern from what has already been released, the victim was not wearing jogging shorts and his pockets of his very much not jogging shorts were not empty.
Click to expand...
I used to jog in "non jogging attire". Even if he had diamonds from the construction site in his pockets they would not be justified in gunning him down like they did. Trying to detain him? Maybe. Why not just follow him until the police show up?
 
2003TexasGrad said:
Too bad America isn't 100% Black, Female and LGBTQIA..... There would be no corruption, no crime and everyone would be living in peaceful utopia. Everyone would be a Democratic Socialist and all would be well. Valhalla, if you will.

Am I right?
Click to expand...

Valhalla is the hall of warriors, there are no socialist warriors, just wuss girly men. Is there a wuss girly man version of Valhalla? Weenie Hut Jr sounds like a better place for the socialist.
 
huisache said:
There were no warriors in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and that is why we all speak German

Edit: I was responding to the post above in which there were no Socialist warriors. None in Vietnam either
Click to expand...


Awwww

Where is the girly man post?
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
I didn't have a chance to watch the whole thing, but what he's saying about the house he entered could be game changer. The impression I had was that it was an open construction site that was not anyone's home yet. His description suggests that not to be the case but that it was actually someone's home being remodeled.

I'd still like to know how the shooters knew about this. The statute still requires it to be within their immediate knowledge.
Click to expand...
Not a game changer at all. While I don't want to get into a drawn out discussion about burdens of proof, suffice it to say if you try to claim "citizens arrest" you have to show evidence of the "burglary." The video does not show, and the shooter does not claim to have had special knowlege of Arbery intending to steal anything. If the video that so impressed you of the ex cop defending the shooter were correct, then the "intent to commit a crime" element of burglary is meaningless, and you can "arrest" me for burglary for looking in doorless construction sites as long as walls are up. Ive done that a lot. There must be evidence of such intent. You can't assume it. You don't have (qualified) immunity if you take it upon yourself to grab a shotgun and "arrest" someone. You better damn well be right. The law tolerates vigilantiism under narrow circumstances. It does not encourage it. I don't know about Georgia caselaw, but generally if one enters an open costruction site (no locks or even doors) under modern burglary law there is no burglary without intent to steal (or other crime). Criminal Trespass generally requires intent to commit a felony - an even stricter standard. The guy in the video is trying to absolve a fellow cop by assuming the intent of Arbery through mere presense on the property. No no.
 
towersniper said:
Not a game changer at all. While I don't want to get into a drawn out discussion about burdens of proof, suffice it to say if you try to claim "citizens arrest" you have to show evidence of the "burglary." The video does not show, and the shooter does not claim to have had special knowlege of Arbery intending to steal anything. If the video that so impressed you of the ex cop defending the shooter were correct, then the "intent to commit a crime" element of burglary is meaningless, and you can "arrest" me for burglary for looking in doorless construction sites as long as walls are up. Ive done that a lot. There must be evidence of such intent. You can't assume it. You don't have (qualified) immunity if you take it upon yourself to grab a shotgun and "arrest" someone. You better damn well be right. The law tolerates vigilantiism under narrow circumstances. It does not encourage it. I don't know about Georgia caselaw, but generally if one enters an open costruction site (no locks or even doors) under modern burglary law there is no burglary without intent to steal (or other crime). Criminal Trespass generally requires intent to commit a felony - an even stricter standard. The guy in the video is trying to absolve a fellow cop by assuming the intent of Arbery through mere presense on the property. No no.
Click to expand...

I said that it could be a game changer, not that it necessarily was. The reason why is that it corrected a false impression I and probably others had of the property and because the Georgia burglary statute is pretty broad when it comes to the property.

"A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another." GA Code § 16-7-1(b) (2014).

It doesn't matter if the door is locked or if there is a door. It doesn't matter if he actually steals. Nosing around looking for something to steal and not finding anything you want is still burglary.

Yes, intent to commit theft or some other felony would still need to be proven. That is true, and the video doesn't establish or refute that. More evidence is needed. However, if it can be found, then they might be able to thread the needle of the citizens arrest law and walk. And a competent defense counsel is going to look for such evidence. He isn't just going to assume for politically correct reasons that it doesn't exist as you seem to. Jogging and nosing through homes in a neighborhood you don't live or work near might be totally innocent. But is it suspicious enough to look into it and grossly negligent not to if it's your job to defend an accused in court? Hell yes. Personally, I'm going to reserve judgment on the matter.

By the way, I don't condone what these guys did either way. Even if you legally can arrest someone, it's a very stupid and dangerous thing to do. I wouldn't want to live near guys like this.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I said that it could be a game changer, not that it necessarily was. The reason why is that it corrected a false impression I and probably others had of the property and because the Georgia burglary statute is pretty broad when it comes to the property.

"A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another." GA Code § 16-7-1(b) (2014).

It doesn't matter if the door is locked or if there is a door. It doesn't matter if he actually steals. Nosing around looking for something to steal and not finding anything you want is still burglary.

Yes, intent to commit theft or some other felony would still need to be proven. That is true, and the video doesn't establish or refute that. More evidence is needed. However, if it can be found, then they might be able to thread the needle of the citizens arrest law and walk. And a competent defense counsel is going to look for such evidence. He isn't just going to assume for politically correct reasons that it doesn't exist as you seem to. Jogging and nosing through homes in a neighborhood you don't live or work near might be totally innocent. But is it suspicious enough to look into it and grossly negligent not to if it's your job to defend an accused in court? Hell yes. Personally, I'm going to reserve judgment on the matter.

By the way, I don't condone what these guys did either way. Even if you legally can arrest someone, it's a very stupid and dangerous thing to do. I wouldn't want to live near guys like this.
Click to expand...
Is that because being a plaintiffs’ lawyer immediately placed you in the category of felon with bad intent, and you are worried “vigilantes” would target you?:yes:
 
Mr. Deez: fair enough, and not much disagreement here. To my eyes, burglary requires only a showing of intent to commit a felony or theft (I assume there might be misdemeanor theft in Ga.) in a dwelling, trespassing an intent to commit any unlawful act on any property. The status as a dwelling is an interesting question; I wonder whether that is a legal question or a fact question (I know almost nothing about jury charges in criminal cases). Either way, the relevant inquiry will likely be Arbery's intent, which is why I concluded that the "dwelling" issue was not a game changer. Clearly you are right - defense counsel will be painting Arbery as an aspiring thief casing the joint, and the public outcry will be nasty. Blaming the victim and all that, similar to the outcry when defense counsel goes after the complaining witness in a rape case. What goes on in the courtroom is often offensive to the public at large, but that is as it should be. Good comments.
 
OUBubba said:
Google Image Result for https://i.imgflip.com/36nfdn.jpg
Click to expand...

Did you just call me a black lady?

tenor.gif
 
towersniper said:
(I assume there might be misdemeanor theft in Ga.)
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is. Obviously Georgia isn't going to charge you with a felony if you lift a Snickers bar at the local 7-11. It's when you combine the theft or intent to commit theft with entering a dwelling without authorization that it becomes a felony.

towersniper said:
The status as a dwelling is an interesting question; I wonder whether that is a legal question or a fact question (I know almost nothing about jury charges in criminal cases).
Click to expand...

I would defer to huisache (because he has done a lot of criminal work) or NJLonghorn (because he's smarter than I am) on this, but it I suspect that there would be a guilty/not guilty question coupled with definitions of burglary and terms like "dwelling." I'm pretty sure that criminal jury charges (like civil) have a preference for broad form submission.

towersniper said:
Blaming the victim and all that, similar to the outcry when defense counsel goes after the complaining witness in a rape case. What goes on in the courtroom is often offensive to the public at large, but that is as it should be.
Click to expand...

I think it's a bit different, because it serves a different purpose at least in part. When a criminal defense attorney is trying to make the alleged victim look like a ***** or that she was "asking for it," he's doing it to make the jury less sympathetic to her in general and to attack her credibility when she denies that the sex was consensual. After all, if she willingly banged these 50 dudes, why should we believe her when she says she didn't consent to bang the 51st dude?

There's an actual legal purpose in defense counsel trying to find out why Arbery was in that house. If it could be established that he was there intending to steal, the defendants have a real chance to walk.

Does he also want to diminish sympathy for Arbery? Of course. Even if guilty, juries are less likely to severely punish someone who murdered a felonious thug than someone who murdered a nice dude who was just on a jog. However, there's also a chance to get an acquittal Arbery was there to steal. I think that's a stronger purpose, and of course, it would make it a lot harder for a prosecutor to get such evidence excluded than it would be for a prosecutor to get "skank evidence" excluded in a rape case.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
There's an actual legal purpose in defense counsel trying to find out why Arbery was in that house. If it could be established that he was there intending to steal, the defendants have a real chance to walk.
Click to expand...
A. They did not witness him take anything (because he didn't) and they can't infer intent.
B. Even if they saw him take something a vigilante detaining by firearm is excessive for petty theft.

I hope the plead for some kind of deal that keeps them from 20 years in the pen but also doesn't let them walk. I don't think they'll plead. They'll try to fight a culture war and it will get ugly.
 
OUBubba said:
A. They did not witness him take anything (because he didn't) and they can't infer intent.
B. Even if they saw him take something a vigilante detaining by firearm is excessive for petty theft.

I hope the plead for some kind of deal that keeps them from 20 years in the pen but also doesn't let them walk. I don't think they'll plead. They'll try to fight a culture war and it will get ugly.
Click to expand...

Barry, TS and I are discussing the nuances of the jury charge and trial strategy. This **** is way over the head of a guy who cheats at college football and ruins NFL franchises and even further over the head of guys who like people who do that kind of stuff. Besides you're far too politically correct and emotional to get on a jury that's handling a case like this. You'd get stricken from the panel about 5 seconds after you opened your mouth.
 
Y'all are forgetting what Htown77 said, Arbery's pockets weren't empty.

He was being ambiguous for good reason, but he was saying to wait. There is important information to come out on both sides.
 
What I will say, which is something you can discern from what has already been released, the victim was not wearing jogging shorts and his pockets of his very much not jogging shorts were not empty.
Click to expand...

I go walking or jogging in a tshirt and cargo shorts a lot. Better come at me with guns.

iatrogenic said:
Did they detain him in some way before he ran at the guy and started fighting? That is the question.
Click to expand...

Why? If dudes with weapons chase me down in their vehicle to confront me, they've already started something and I have no right or duty to answer to them, even if they don't actually come up to me and grab me and hold me down.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'm sure there is. Obviously Georgia isn't going to charge you with a felony if you lift a Snickers bar at the local 7-11. It's when you combine the theft or intent to commit theft with entering a dwelling without authorization that it becomes a felony.
Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree with this. I was listening to a lawyer talk about this case and he made some great points. It's not trespassing unless the property is signed no trespassing, there is a barrier such as a fence, and you are asked to leave and don't. All three of those criteria have to be met for someone to be charged with trespassing in Georgia. As for intent to commit theft, that is only considered if someone takes another person's property but doesn't leave with it, then it can be construed as intent to commit theft, they can't say intent to commit theft simply because he is some place he shouldn't be. That goes for even in cases of walking into someones home through the front door. Now if you enter through the window or break the door down, then criminal intent is assumed.

Think of when Tom Brady walked into the home of some guy when he thought he was walking into the home of his coach. They weren't going to charge him with intent to commit theft and criminal trespassing, not because he is Tom Brady, but because he walked through the open door, there were no signs of no trespassing, and the owner didn't ask him to leave and him ignoring the request. Not to mention he never touched any of the property in the home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top