To point out what may or may not be obvious.
The Glynn County Police Department's own records of the 3 incidents on English's property (including Feb 11) all specifically note that the trespasser had committed a MISDEMEANOR, not a felony. One call detail even specially downgrades the "nature" of the incident from "burglary" to "trespass." Not just because English told LE that nothing had been taken, and not just because his videos indicate the trespasser didn't commit any crime while on the property, but because, as LE notes for each incident, the trespassing was onto an open construction site.
The point is, DA Barnhill reached his conclusion of justifiable homicide less than 24 hours after AA was killed. So, he either made his determination without bothering to read those reports, though they provide the factual basis for determining whether or not the citizens arrest law was applicable. Or, he read them and made his determination DESPITE the fact they at the very least undermine (if not destroy) the MM's "right" to make a citizens arrest.
AND. Given LE had themselves declared that the only violations in which it was even theoretically possible to "prove" AA was involved were the MISDEMEANOR of trespassing, on what basis, exactly, did Barnhill so confidentally assert that the MMs had "first hand probable cause" to believe AA was guilty of felony burglary?
The Glynn County Police Department's own records of the 3 incidents on English's property (including Feb 11) all specifically note that the trespasser had committed a MISDEMEANOR, not a felony. One call detail even specially downgrades the "nature" of the incident from "burglary" to "trespass." Not just because English told LE that nothing had been taken, and not just because his videos indicate the trespasser didn't commit any crime while on the property, but because, as LE notes for each incident, the trespassing was onto an open construction site.
The point is, DA Barnhill reached his conclusion of justifiable homicide less than 24 hours after AA was killed. So, he either made his determination without bothering to read those reports, though they provide the factual basis for determining whether or not the citizens arrest law was applicable. Or, he read them and made his determination DESPITE the fact they at the very least undermine (if not destroy) the MM's "right" to make a citizens arrest.
AND. Given LE had themselves declared that the only violations in which it was even theoretically possible to "prove" AA was involved were the MISDEMEANOR of trespassing, on what basis, exactly, did Barnhill so confidentally assert that the MMs had "first hand probable cause" to believe AA was guilty of felony burglary?
