Arctish
Centimillionaire
I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but my reading of that law is that a private citizen may arrest a suspect for any offense "if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge". But if the offense is a felony and the suspect is trying to escape, then "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion" suffice. And observing a burglary via surveillance video would fit I think.
Not unless the video showed them what was happening right at that moment, they could clearly see the person committing the crime, and they gave chase to that person immediately.
If the video was of an alleged burglary that happened days or weeks before, then it doesn't justify their pursuit. If they couldn't clearly see Arbery, then it doesn't justify anything the McMichaels did.
No. YOU are arguing that. I am arguing that they were motivated by suspicion that Arbery committed a felony.You are arguing that the McMichaels were motivated by bias and malice against Arbery.
Wrong. By detaining him until police arrived.You are implying their intention was to mete out extrajudicial punishment by intimidating, harassing, and/or threatening him.
First of all Arc, Georgia doesn't have hate crime laws. Second of all, there is no evidence Arbery's race was any part of their motivation. Him being black and them being white is not enough.You are making it sound like a hate crime, that Arbery was killed by armed white men who took it upon themselves to punish a black man for being in their neighborhood.
You really have to twist the facts to make it sound like a lynching.If you don't want to make Arbery's death sound like a lynching
I am not saying it was a lynching. I am saying you are making the case that it was. And I pointed out some of the things you are saying that imply it - that the McMichaels felt suspicion, hostility, and anger that Arbery,was in their neighborhood, that they desired to take matters into their own hands, and that they meant to threaten, intimidate, and assault him with a shotgun.
If you don't want to convince people it was a lynching then don't imply the McMichaels felt justified in committing aggravated assault on a black guy they didn't like seeing around the place.
Did he though?Lying to the police about a burglary recorded on a surveillance video is evidence in favor of it.
We'll see.
We need to see the police report of what McMichael said to the responding officer. And about that surveillance video, was there more than one camera on more than one property? The owner of the house under construction tells a very different story from the one that's been circulating:
The Washington Post said:Larry English, the man who owns the house under construction, told The Washington Post that the structure was not robbed.
“That’s completely wrong. I’ve never had a police report or anything stolen from my property, or any kind of robbery,” he said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/09/georgia-attorney-general-investigate-local-officials-handling-ahmaud-arberys-murder/
WTOC11 News said:The McMichaels told responding officers that they chased Arbery because they thought he was responsible for recent break-ins in the neighborhood. However, the only theft reported to police involved a gun stolen from Travis McMichael’s unlocked truck, according to reports provided to WTOC by the Glynn County Police Department.
The revelation of this new video showing a man that looks like Arbery inside the home prompted the GBI to respond. The agency confirmed they had the video as evidence but pointed out they had it before arresting the McMichaels.
Below is the entire statement from the homeowner’s attorney, J. Elizabeth Graddy:
"Mr. English wants to correct the mistaken impression that he had shared this video or any other information with the McMichaels prior to the McMichaels’ decision to chase Mr. Arbery. The homeowners had not even seen the February 23 video before Travis McMichael shot Mr. Arbery. When homeowner Larry English saw the photos of Mr. Arbery that were later broadcast, his first impression was that Mr. Arbery was not the man captured on video inside the house on February 23, and he said that to a neighbor.
https://www.wtoc.com/2020/05/11/homeowners-attorney-arbery-familys-attorney-respond-new-video/
Derec said:The latter two ones.Arctish said:What two?
Yes.They didn't witness or have immediate knowledge of Arbery committing a burglary right before they gave chase,
Does not follow logically. They could reasonably and with probable cause have suspected him of burglary without having immediate knowledge.therefore it couldn't have been the reason why they gave chase.
Witnessing a crime or have immediate knowledge of one is a necessary component of making a citizen's arrest. If they didn't have that, then what they did wasn't lawful under Georgia's statutes.
Not what the plain reading of the text of the law indicates.Nor could they have made a citizen's arrest for burglary because they didn't witness or have immediate knowledge of one.
The plain reading is that a citizen must be a witness to a crime or have immediate knowledge of a crime in order to effect a citizen's arrest. The McMichaels' had neither.
Reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.Greg McMichael wasn't some random guy with a hazy knowledge of Georgia laws. He was a retired investigator for the DA's office. It's quite a stretch to believe he was so ignorant when it came to citizen's arrest he didn't realize he couldn't make one based on mere suspicion.
I linked to the statute. It's very brief.
The conditions under which a private person can arrest someone is if they witness or have immediate knowledge of a crime; the "upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion" part explains the grounds for arrest when the conditions are met.
If X conditions are met, an arrest can be made upon Y grounds.
Suspicion alone doesn't cut it.
At least one prosecutor disagreed. The only reason the McMichaelses were arrested was the public pressure. Mob "justice", backed up by threats by the armed black supremacist militia.The McMichaels' actions fit the description of aggravated assault, and I have no doubt Greg McMichael knows it.
As I'm sure you know by now, Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney George Barnhill eventually recused himself because his son is an assistant district attorney in the Brunswick circuit and had worked with Greg McMichael on a case involving Arbery. Barnhill should have recused himself the moment he realized his own connection to the suspects and the victim, but instead he wrote a letter that was so sketchy the DOJ is reviewing it.
We'll see what comes of that investigation, too.
Last edited: