GA - Ahmaud Arbery, 25, jogger, fatally shot by former PD and son, Brunswick, Feb 2020 #2

[Matic]

What happens in the first few feet of your property?

Email notifications.

 

[sonicfanaticsmommy]

So threatening to kill someone is a no no, but actually killing someone is ok? Because there seems to be a fair amount of borderline excuses and blaming the victim on this thread.

it’s sad, isn’t it? so much discussion and dissection of the victim’s character/background/culpability and virtually none about the two people who murdered him.

 

[Matic]

ok, this is MOO but I've been following this case from the first week's posts and was blindsided by today's vitriol. Holy cow I was only away from this thread for a day and a half and already it feels like it has whipsawed from extreme victim-blaming (TY to mods for fixing that) to the start of the new thread being a guns right argument that's generalized, and not related to the folks who have been arrested (sorry I have no idea if mods have addressed that yet). WTF people?!

Matic, thank you for speaking out as you have.

I come in here to catch up on what the heck is happening to poor AA's case and all of a sudden the tones of the thread make me feel like I am part of the problem because I live in a rural area and have 3 "unregistered, not state tracked" guns (a WW2 rifle, and Korean/Vietnam era rifle, and a handgun) that I inherited last year from my 83+-year-old dad who lived with my husband and me. My dad owned those guns LEGALLY for 50+ years here in FL. It was legal for him to own them without centralized registration. They never left his house. Concealed carry (even open carry) was not applicable to how my father handled those guns. When he aged and moved in with us, we bought a gun safe, and those arms were secured in the safe. When he died 2 years ago, I inherited them but they remain in that safe, untouched. I am in Florida but gun laws in GA are not too far off from FL's. I do firmly believe that if AA's shooter had a hand gun stolen from his unlocked truck in January, that he should be accountable for that negligence., and that he is probably a negligent dumbass.

However, that is not a condition that I see as simply fixed by an "anyone who doesn't register their guns is a criminal" type mandate. Again, MOO. I think poor AA was a victim of excessive force for an unjustified "citizens arrest" but that alone does not make every gun owner a felon or miscreant. Please stop insinuating as much.

I absolutely 100% agree.

ok, this is MOO but I've been following this case from the first week's posts and was blindsided by today's vitriol. Holy cow I was only away from this thread for a day and a half and already it feels like it has whipsawed from extreme victim-blaming (TY to mods for fixing that) to the start of the new thread being a guns right argument that's generalized, and not related to the folks who have been arrested (sorry I have no idea if mods have addressed that yet). WTF people?!

Matic, thank you for speaking out as you have.

I come in here to catch up on what the heck is happening to poor AA's case and all of a sudden the tones of the thread make me feel like I am part of the problem because I live in a rural area and have 3 "unregistered, not state tracked" guns (a WW2 rifle, and Korean/Vietnam era rifle, and a handgun) that I inherited last year from my 83+-year-old dad who lived with my husband and me. My dad owned those guns LEGALLY for 50+ years here in FL. It was legal for him to own them without centralized registration. They never left his house. Concealed carry (even open carry) was not applicable to how my father handled those guns. When he aged and moved in with us, we bought a gun safe, and those arms were secured in the safe. When he died 2 years ago, I inherited them but they remain in that safe, untouched. I am in Florida but gun laws in GA are not too far off from FL's. I do firmly believe that if AA's shooter had a hand gun stolen from his unlocked truck in January, that he should be accountable for that negligence., and that he is probably a negligent dumbass.

However, that is not a condition that I see as simply fixed by an "anyone who doesn't register their guns is a criminal" type mandate. Again, MOO. I think poor AA was a victim of excessive force for an unjustified "citizens arrest" but that alone does not make every gun owner a felon or miscreant. Please stop insinuating as much.

I absolutely agree on 99% of your post.
Georgia law states there is no differentiation between a lost or stolen firearm. It's one of the same.

Georgia law also says you are not required by law to report a stolen or lost firearm.

A guns registration is only recorded once. By the original purchaser. It can be sold 20x and if its used in a felony robbery or murder, its traced back to the original owner and it ends there.

It's a crappy law, I admit. But it's also crappy that the gov't would step in and make people register their firearms after every purchase.

 

[Matic]

I’m going to concentrate on other cases but I will today tell you that the state of Georgia will never get a conviction on any charge. Never.

I'm going to agree with this poster. Except to say I think they will get some petty charges to stick.

This isn't a race issue. No one was "hunting" or "lynching" anyone.
<modsnip: Not victim friendly>

How can people say he was even afraid for his life when no one here was in his head?

<modsnip: Discussing other members>

A jury doesn't work like that
They render their verdict on facts. And the facts in this case don't show that a murder was commited. Only a justified homicide, if applicable.

 

[Matic]

Also. If TM and GM arent convicted and sentenced to anything other than life with no parole, good luck brunswick,Ga and many other places on rebuilding your town and RIP to the many people including law enforcement who will lose their lives because of this tragedy. <modsnip>

 

[Boxer]

A lot of developments.
Many more people involved in tracking Arbery, looking like Arbery got water at the house, other people wandering through the site, English advised by the beat cop to call on GM for assistance.
GM leaked the shooting video, reportedly there is another video of the shooting.

 

[Sarahlou]

it’s sad, isn’t it? so much discussion and dissection of the victim’s character/background/culpability and virtually none about the two people who murdered him.

There's an obvious reason for that imo. It's sad to see.
I really hope justice is served in this case but I won't hold my breath.

 

[Boxer]

I'm going to agree with this poster. Except to say I think they will get some petty charges to stick.

This isn't a race issue. No one was "hunting" or "lynching" anyone.
<modsnip: Not victim friendly>

How can people say he was even afraid for his life when no one here was in his head?

<modsnip: Discussing other members>

A jury doesn't work like that
They render their verdict on facts. And the facts in this case don't show that a murder was commited. Only a justified homicide, if applicable.

The other video of the shooting purported to exist through Tucker might shed light on the first event out of sight behind the truck.
There all kinds of color of law going on for Ms, but for AA he was being chased and cut off by some armed white men in a pick up and car.
Running away turned to fighting when they trapped AA on Holmes, sadly with police only 40 seconds away.


MOO they pursued him as the the thief, but all they had immrdiate knowledge of was of his trespassing.
Trying to detain AA unlawfully set off a chain of events for which they are responsible.

 

[Leve]

Was Travis afraid for his life when he jumped out of that truck with a loaded weapon? Was Travis, knowing daddy was right behind him with a gun, afraid for his life when scuffling with AA?
Thats the question here. Is it reasonable that he was afraid for his life? I don't think so.
Was AA afraid for his life when he attempted to disarm Travis? Absolutely. Any reasonable person would have been.

 

[Cappuccino]

So threatening to kill someone is a no no, but actually killing someone is ok? Because there seems to be a fair amount of borderline excuses and blaming the victim on this thread.

I have never, at any stage, said that actually killing someone is okay. Two wrongs don't make a right here.

 

[Cryptic]

Trying to detain AA unlawfully set off a chain of events for which they are responsible.

Well said.

That is the core point that will (well, should) lead to convictions.

In the end, it should not matter whether the "lock n' load" hyper vigilance / reaction to AA was, or was not racially motivated, what AA's intentions were in going into the construction site, what AA's criminal record is, or what GM's past performance as an LEO was.

In a free society, arrest authority (with rare emergency exceptions) is solely in the hands of LEO's who work for, and are accountable to the executive branch elected by the people.

That is the way it must remain and any suggestion to the contrary by not convicting these two men is a slippery slope that snowballs and ends badly.

Getting of my soap box....

 

[Nadi]

I have never, at any stage, said that actually killing someone is okay. Two wrongs don't make a right here.

no you didn’t actually say that but ... “Sorry, not credible. He thinks the citizens arrest was illegal "because the man was jogging." .He was not jogging, he was running away from a property that he had no business entering.”

 

[Cappuccino]

no you didn’t actually say that but ... “Sorry, not credible. He thinks the citizens arrest was illegal "because the man was jogging." .He was not jogging, he was running away from a property that he had no business entering.”

Which is a comment about the credibility of a lawyer giving an opinion on the case, not an insinuation that it is okay to actually kill people.

And like I said, two wrongs don't make a right here.

 

[Cryptic]

He thinks the citizens arrest was illegal "because the man was jogging." .He was not jogging, he was running away from a property that he had no business entering.”

Yes, AA trespassed. That fact, however, does not change the fact that the citizens arrest was illegal.

Georgia only allows citizens arrests for a felony that was witnessed directly. Trespassing is not a felony.

Likewise, Georgia law allows property owners or their agents to confront trespassers and also to confront people to prevent trespass. Once AA left the property (running away, resuming his jog, or say, by skipping) he was no longer trespassing and could not be confronted.

I do, however, agree with you that the confrontation did not occur in a total vacuum. Following a conviction for murder, soft aspects such as AA did trespass can be taken into consideration for the sentencing.

 

[Nadi]

Yes, AA trespassed. That fact, however, does not change the fact that the citizens arrest was illegal.

Georgia only allows citizens arrests for a felony that was witnessed directly. Trespassing is not a felony.

Likewise, Georgia law allows property owners or their agents to confront trespassers and also to confront people to prevent trespass. Once AA left the property (running away, resuming his jog, or say, by skipping) he was no longer trespassing and could not be confronted.

I do, however, agree with you that the confrontation did not occur in a total vacuum. Following a conviction for murder, soft aspects such as AA did trespass can be taken into consideration for the sentencing.

sorry I should have made it clear, those were not my words. It was another quote from the poster I was responding to.

 

[firebird]

A lot of developments.
Many more people involved in tracking Arbery, looking like Arbery got water at the house, other people wandering through the site, English advised by the beat cop to call on GM for assistance.
GM leaked the shooting video, reportedly there is another video of the shooting.

AA getting water at the house was 100% speculation last article I read. Has more of the video been released?

I also wonder how many of the other people who were in the house actually lived in the neighborhodd. Which would, imo, be less unusual and concerning than someone from an entirely different neighborhood entering the house on multiple occasions for no apparent reason.

 

[Cryptic]

sorry I should have made it clear, those were not my words. It was another quote from the poster I was responding to.

Please accept my apology for suggesting that you felt that way.

 

[firebird]

Yes, AA trespassed. That fact, however, does not change the fact that the citizens arrest was illegal.

Georgia only allows citizens arrests for a felony that was witnessed directly. Trespassing is not a felony.

Likewise, Georgia law allows property owners or their agents to confront trespassers and also to confront people to prevent trespass. Once AA left the property (running away, resuming his jog, or say, by skipping) he was no longer trespassing and could not be confronted.

I do, however, agree with you that the confrontation did not occur in a total vacuum. Following a conviction for murder, soft aspects such as AA did trespass can be taken into consideration for the sentencing.

Just to be clear, since the citizens arrest law keeps getting misstated, a citizen's arrest can be made if the person doing the arresting either witnessed it, or it was within his immediate knowledge. The offense does not need to be a felony. The standard for a fleeing felon is different and is a "reasonable and probable ground of suspicion."

So one of the M's seeing AA on the English property, or a phone call to the M's saying AA was trespassing would be sufficient for a citizen's arrest, if either of those things happened

eta: this probably explains why LE told English to call Sr. if he was notified of a trespasser by his camera system.

Here's the text of the statute and two cases -- one on citizen's arrest for a misdemeanor, and another on what constitutes "immediate knowledge."


A 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.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :: CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS :: ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS :: § 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

A private person is authorized to make an arrest for a misdemeanor only where the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.  Delegal v. State, 1900, 109 Ga. 518, 35 S.E. 105.  Arrest

64

Attempted arrest of defendant by store employee and store manager was legal, and thus, in ensuing aggravated assault prosecution, defendant was not entitled to jury instruction regarding unlawful arrest by private person and defendant's right to use force to resist such unlawful arrest; employee witnessed defendant shoplifting, and such offense was within manager's immediate knowledge, as he was on in-house telephone with another employee regarding suspected shoplifting as it transpired.  Merneigh v. State, 2000, 242 Ga.App. 735, 531 S.E.2d 152.  Arrest

64;  Criminal Law

814(3)

 

[Vern]

So this information is not correct?

Georgia Concealed Carry Gun Laws & WCL: USCCA CCW Reciprocity Map

CARRY IN VEHICLE?
Can you carry a concealed handgun in a vehicle in Georgia?

Yes, any person not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun may carry a weapon openly or concealed without a permit in his or her own vehicle (owned or rented). In a vehicle you do not own, you must have the permission of the person who has legal control of the vehicle.

Both can be true; if you carefully read the law you've quoted it explicitly states, "any person not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun may carry"; that's not the same as 'forgetting' or 'storing' a gun in a vehicle when you are not present in the vehicle to actually 'carry' it. Different ball of wax.

ok, this is MOO but I've been following this case from the first week's posts and was blindsided by today's vitriol. Holy cow I was only away from this thread for a day and a half and already it feels like it has whipsawed from extreme victim-blaming (TY to mods for fixing that) to the start of the new thread being a guns right argument that's generalized, and not related to the folks who have been arrested (sorry I have no idea if mods have addressed that yet). WTF people?!

Matic, thank you for speaking out as you have.

I come in here to catch up on what the heck is happening to poor AA's case and all of a sudden the tones of the thread make me feel like I am part of the problem because I live in a rural area and have 3 "unregistered, not state tracked" guns (a WW2 rifle, and Korean/Vietnam era rifle, and a handgun) that I inherited last year from my 83+-year-old dad who lived with my husband and me. My dad owned those guns LEGALLY for 50+ years here in FL. It was legal for him to own them without centralized registration. They never left his house. Concealed carry (even open carry) was not applicable to how my father handled those guns. When he aged and moved in with us, we bought a gun safe, and those arms were secured in the safe. When he died 2 years ago, I inherited them but they remain in that safe, untouched. I am in Florida but gun laws in GA are not too far off from FL's. I do firmly believe that if AA's shooter had a hand gun stolen from his unlocked truck in January, that he should be accountable for that negligence., and that he is probably a negligent dumbass.

However, that is not a condition that I see as simply fixed by an "anyone who doesn't register their guns is a criminal" type mandate. Again, MOO. I think poor AA was a victim of excessive force for an unjustified "citizens arrest" but that alone does not make every gun owner a felon or miscreant. Please stop insinuating as much.

I don't see anything of the sort regarding "anyone who doesn't register their guns is a criminal" context in this thread. All I see is persons stating that responsible gun ownership would entail keeping track of the serial numbers of the weapons you own. Nada any points that would contextualize a lack of doing so as making someone a criminal. No-one has suggested registration. They have suggested that persons who legally own firearms write down the serial numbers and keep a record of those; you are insinuating "record with the state/LE etc", but none of them have (else I've totally missed it).

I'm a responsible gun owner. I know my serial numbers and they are recorded in a safe place along with their legal purchase documents. They are also stored to a higher standard than that required by law here. Should one of them ever disappear, I have everything I need to provide proof to the law about the chain of custody of said weapon and it's serial number which I will report to them immediately upon discovery of it's absence. That way, if it is ever recovered or used to commit a criminal act, my butt is covered and the law has a means of tracking back that weapon, and perhaps even the criminal's, history in investigating prior activity and/or crimes.

It's just the responsible thing to do.

 

[Knitty]

I'm going to agree with this poster. Except to say I think they will get some petty charges to stick.

This isn't a race issue. No one was "hunting" or "lynching" anyone.
<modsnip: Not victim friendly>

How can people say he was even afraid for his life when no one here was in his head?

<modsnip: Discussing other members>

A jury doesn't work like that
They render their verdict on facts. And the facts in this case don't show that a murder was commited. Only a justified homicide, if applicable.

How can they not?