Black Jogger Gunned Down In The Street

[Rhea]

(I also can't figure out how you think it's the same person - the "light skinned, tattooed-armed, dreadlock wearing" person they saw is not what Arbery looks like)

 

[TV and credit cards]

It looks likely that he did commit a felony--burglary. The lack of anything stolen doesn't rebut this--construction sites usually have nothing worth stealing because theft is such a problem that companies do what they can to prevent it.

I find it quite a coincidence that despite supposedly having no knowledge of what went down they managed to go after a probable burglar. More likely they knew and thus were acting legally, albeit extremely stupidly.

It matters not. "They knew" matters not. I had been looking for a definition of "immediate knowledge" and here it is, in the great state of Georgia. The information the McMichaels claimed to have had does not qualify as immediate knowledge by Georgia's own standard.

The terms "in the presence of" and "within his immediate knowledge" have been held to be synonymous. Piedmont Hotel Co. v. Henderson, 9 Ga. App. 672, 681 (72 SE 51) (1911). See also Humphrey v. State, 231 Ga. 855 (204 SE2d 603) (1974). The Court of Appeals recently reached a similar result in *550 Moore v. State, 128 Ga. App. 20 (195 SE2d 275) (1973)

https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/1977/31907-1.html

 

[Arctish]

Attempting to 'catch' someone without justification under the law is illegal, even if your plan is to hold them for the police.



The McMichaels did not see Arbery commit a crime and they had no immediate knowledge of one. Being suspicious of Arbery because he kinda sorta resembled a guy Travis saw a few weeks earlier who ran into the house under construction and wandered around with a flashlight isn't good enough. They needed "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion" that Arbery had committed a felony, not just guesses about him committing a misdemeanor or thinking he was the one who stole Travis' gun back in January because <reasons>.

Loren, this should convince you that they were acting illegally.
Why doesn't it?

It looks likely that he did commit a felony--burglary. The lack of anything stolen doesn't rebut this--construction sites usually have nothing worth stealing because theft is such a problem that companies do what they can to prevent it.

I find it quite a coincidence that despite supposedly having no knowledge of what went down they managed to go after a probable burglar. More likely they knew and thus were acting legally, albeit extremely stupidly.

Which one of the McMichaels do you think is the clairvoyant? You know, the one who 'saw' what Arbery was doing before he ran past their house?

Which one do you think is the psychic who 'knew' why Arbery went in to the house under construction?

 

[ruby sparks]

Just a general sidenote. Not related specifically to this case.

It surprises me a bit that the site was not secured. Here, if you are the owner, you must ensure it is, for a number of reasons, including health & safety. Building sites are inherently dangerous. For example if a child wandered in and climbed up to and fell off your half-constructed 1st floor, you would be in trouble if you had not secured the site and posted appropriate warnings about potential dangers. You would be prosecuted under Health & Safety laws.

If you have employed a main contractor, then the responsibility mostly passes to them (though strictly-speaking you still have some limited responsibility).

Sorry. It's just a passing observation. I used to be a qualified health & Safety co-ordinator on house-building sites.

 

[Toni]

Just a general sidenote. Not related specifically to this case.

It surprises me a bit that the site was not secured. Here, if you are the owner, you must ensure it is, for a number of reasons, including health & safety. Building sites are inherently dangerous. For example if a child wandered in and climbed up to and fell off your half-constructed 1st floor, you would be in trouble if you had not secured the site and posted appropriate warnings about potential dangers. You would be prosecuted under Health & Safety laws.

If you have employed a main contractor, then the responsibility mostly passes to them (though strictly-speaking you still have some limited responsibility).

Sorry. It's just a passing observation. I used to be a qualified health & Safety co-ordinator on house-building sites.

In my observation, larger construction sites are usually secured. Construction of private homes? Not usually. Tools and such things are usually locked up or removed from site because of theft. In more recent years, there has been an issue with copper pipes being stolen but now most piping is PVC.

Parents usually warn their kids to stay away from construction sites, vacant buildings, etc. There is usually at least one neighbor who is nosy enough to keep an eye out. It's not at all uncommon for adults, usually male, to walk into a house site under construction and look around.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's not at all uncommon for adults, usually male, to walk into a house site under construction and look around.

I vividly remember doing it myself 34 years ago in December 1986 as a final-year architecture student in Belfast. I was walking home late one Saturday night and I was very, very, very drunk indeed, and I clambered up a ladder onto a partially completed upper floor of a suburban house under construction. It was so stupid of me and I was very lucky (which is probably why I remember it so well). Site was unsecured. Things have tightened up here considerably since then, even for small domestic extensions.

 

[Rhea]

For example if a child wandered in and climbed up to and fell off your half-constructed 1st floor, you would be in trouble if you had not secured the site and posted appropriate warnings about potential dangers.

Well, for one thing, Americans are smart enough to put the first floor at street level so that sort of thing doesn't happen.


I have wandered into and out of home construction sites dozens and dozens of times. I find them interesting and fun. I've done it all my life, from childhood to adult.
I love looking at the floor plans and around at the designs. It's a very common thing in America.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It looks likely that he did commit a felony--burglary. The lack of anything stolen doesn't rebut this--construction sites usually have nothing worth stealing because theft is such a problem that companies do what they can to prevent it.

Your 2nd sentence rebuts the first, because why would anyone go to a site with the intent to steal if there is nothing worth stealing?

Construction sites aren't locked up in the earlier phases of construction--you can check a lot of places for something left behind that's worth stealing without taking the risk of breaking into a place or the risk of encountering a homeowner. While the reward per attempt is low the risk is very low, hence it's a big issue. Anything saleable and not fastened to the building is at risk and even things fasted on sometimes vanish. We had enough trouble with theft of cabinets--something that's far too bulky to easily steal!

There is no evidence of intent. All you have is trespassing and that he was black. that is it.

We also have the TV theft and the gun at the ball game. The latter is particularly telling--that's not something the remotely law abiding do. (There are occasional cases of people bringing defensive guns to school without being bad guys, but such people aren't going to go to something like a ball game.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just a general sidenote. Not related specifically to this case.

It surprises me a bit that the site was not secured. Here, if you are the owner, you must ensure it is, for a number of reasons, including health & safety. Building sites are inherently dangerous. For example if a child wandered in and climbed up to and fell off your half-constructed 1st floor, you would be in trouble if you had not secured the site and posted appropriate warnings about potential dangers. You would be prosecuted under Health & Safety laws.

If you have employed a main contractor, then the responsibility mostly passes to them (though strictly-speaking you still have some limited responsibility).

Sorry. It's just a passing observation. I used to be a qualified health & Safety co-ordinator on house-building sites.

I've never seen residential construction secured until the building itself was capable of securing it. Since the drywall wasn't up neither were the doors, the only way it could possibly be secured would be a fence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In my observation, larger construction sites are usually secured. Construction of private homes? Not usually. Tools and such things are usually locked up or removed from site because of theft. In more recent years, there has been an issue with copper pipes being stolen but now most piping is PVC.

PVC?? PVC can't be used for hot water. I think you have the wrong material in mind. There are plastic pipes that can take the heat, but they're not PVC.

Parents usually warn their kids to stay away from construction sites, vacant buildings, etc. There is usually at least one neighbor who is nosy enough to keep an eye out. It's not at all uncommon for adults, usually male, to walk into a house site under construction and look around.

Neighbors can keep an eye out when it's one house. That doesn't work so well when it's a subdivision. We stopped by most days during the construction of this house (we bought it when it was nothing but foundations), there were absolutely no barriers until the doors and locks were in place and that was very late in the process.

 

[Rhea]

We also have the TV theft and the gun at the ball game. The latter is particularly telling--that's not something the remotely law abiding do. (There are occasional cases of people bringing defensive guns to school without being bad guys, but such people aren't going to go to something like a ball game.)

And again, one more time because you keep ignoring that legal point being shown to you,

None of that matter a single bit because it does not make what happened to Arbery legal.

It is not legal to apprehend someone unless you PERSONALLY SAW them commit a crime RIGHT THEN.

None of your attempts to create justification work because none of them passes the bar of "in the presence of" and "within his immediate knowledge" (which, as was noted, have been held to be synonymous.).

NONE OF IT MATTERS to make this justified or legal. None of it. You MUST pass the bar of immediate knowledge and they had none of that.
What they did was illegal and criminal.

 

[laughing dog]

Construction sites aren't locked up in the earlier phases of construction--you can check a lot of places for something left behind that's worth stealing without taking the risk of breaking into a place or the risk of encountering a homeowner. While the reward per attempt is low the risk is very low, hence it's a big issue. Anything saleable and not fastened to the building is at risk and even things fasted on sometimes vanish. We had enough trouble with theft of cabinets--something that's far too bulky to easily steal!

Cool story bro, but it missed the point. If there is nothing to steal at a construction site, how could Mr. Arbery have intent to steal NOTHING?

We also have the TV theft and the gun at the ball game. ...

Which are irrelevant to this situation. Basically, you are playing the "thug" card and assuming he must be criminal. Unfortunately for you and that lame brains in the "posse", there is no evidence Mr. Arbery was there to steal and he did not steal anything. All they had was a black guy jogging.

 

[Derec]

It was NOT LEGAL for them to go after a "probable" burglar. They can only go after a DEFINITE burglar. And they did not have that.

It's called "probable grounds of suspicion", not "definite grounds of suspicion".

 

[Derec]

There was no “statement” that I can find. The only time that is mentioned is in the CNN article and it is not a direct quote. Regardless, the actual statement—as read by Larry English’s lawyer—supersedes any previous reportage, not “contradicts” anything.

Are you saying CNN made it up? Because unless they made it up, English made a statement that fishing tackle was stolen. Then later he made a statement that nothing was stolen. So he is lying, either then or now.

Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything, but fify since that is a constant with your posts.

Of course heavily armed extremist marching through the neighborhood is relevant.
If KKK was marching while heavily armed would you also dismiss them as being mere "protesters"?

Why would it be?

To see if he stole it. The whole thing was started because he was suspected of theft. So why not check it out? Note also that he has a well-documented history of theft.
When somebody is killed, their places of residence are usually searched for evidence. For example when Joshua Brown was killed in Dallas during a drug deal gone bad, police searched his apartment, finding trafficking weight of marijuana as well as large amount of cash.

As has been repeatedly confirmed already by the actual homeowner, nothing was ever stolen from the site.

Except for the fishing tackle he mentioned earlier.

As for McMichael’s gun, no one witnessed Arbery as being the one who stole it. Why haven’t the police searched your home for the missing gun?

Because I wasn't shot after being suspected of stealing it and other things.
And if I was shot during such an incident, and was innocent, I would very much want police to search my place to confirm I did not have it. Arbery or his memory has nothing to fear from a search if he was innocent and "just a jogger". So why so much opposition by the Arbery Fan Club to a search? Is it because you think he may be a burglar and not a jogger after all?

You are just as likely to be the culprit as anyone else in Georgia.

Not even remotely true. He had means. He had opportunity. He had a history of thievery.

 

[zorq]

It was NOT LEGAL for them to go after a "probable" burglar. They can only go after a DEFINITE burglar. And they did not have that.

It's called "probable grounds of suspicion", not "definite grounds of suspicion".

Probable grounds is the standard for police making an arrest, not civilians. Rhea just covered that.

 

[Arctish]

It was NOT LEGAL for them to go after a "probable" burglar. They can only go after a DEFINITE burglar. And they did not have that.

It's called "probable grounds of suspicion", not "definite grounds of suspicion".

What 'probable grounds of suspicion' do you think they had?

They didn't know if Arbery had trespassed that day, or at any other time. He didn't match the description of the trespasser that was apparently being circulated in their neighborhood. And the McMichaels had no idea who stole Travis' gun, which was the most recent reported burglary.

Also, making a citizen's arrest on "probable grounds of suspicion" rather than for a crime committed in view of the citizen making the arrest, is allowable for fleeing suspected felons, not just someone who might have walked around in a half-built house. What probable grounds did they have for suspecting Arbery had just committed a felony and was running away from the scene of the crime?

 

[laughing dog]

It was NOT LEGAL for them to go after a "probable" burglar. They can only go after a DEFINITE burglar. And they did not have that.

It's called "probable grounds of suspicion", not "definite grounds of suspicion".

What 'probable grounds of suspicion' do you think they had?

They didn't know if Arbery had trespassed that day, or at any other time. He didn't match the description of the trespasser that was apparently being circulated in their neighborhood. And the McMichaels had no idea who stole Travis' gun, which was the most recent reported burglary.

Also, making a citizen's arrest on "probable grounds of suspicion" rather than for a crime committed in view of the citizen making the arrest, is allowable for fleeing suspected felons, not just someone who might have walked around in a half-built house. What probable grounds did they have for suspecting Arbery had just committed a felony and was running away from the scene of the crime?

Apparently for the same unstated reason, the McMichaels went after him - being a black man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[Derec]

It was NOT LEGAL for them to go after a "probable" burglar. They can only go after a DEFINITE burglar. And they did not have that.

It's called "probable grounds of suspicion", not "definite grounds of suspicion".

Probable grounds is the standard for police making an arrest, not civilians. Rhea just covered that.

The citizen's arrest statute explicitly uses the phrase "probable grounds of suspicion". Rhea and you are wrong here.

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.

Definite knowledge is not required when the offense is a felony and the suspect is trying to escape.

 

[Derec]

What 'probable grounds of suspicion' do you think they had?

I did not say they did or didn't have 'probable grounds of suspicion'. I was merely correcting Rhea's error.

 

[Toni]

Probable grounds is the standard for police making an arrest, not civilians. Rhea just covered that.

The citizen's arrest statute explicitly uses the phrase "probable grounds of suspicion". Rhea and you are wrong here.

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.

Definite knowledge is not required when the offense is a felony and the suspect is trying to escape.

The McMichaels’ failed to meet the lower standard. No felony was committed nor was there reasonable suspicion that one had been committed. There was no history of thefts at the construction site. There was no recent history of burglaries in the neighborhood. Arbery did not appear to be ‘fleeing.’ There was no pursuit other than the McMichaels’ part. They initiated a very threatening encounter with an individual taking a leisurely run through their neighborhood. Any threat was their threat towards Arbery motivated by whatever threat they imagined to be happening. Moreover they had called the police and could have waited for the police to respond. There is no reasonable standard that justifies their actions even if Arbery had not been killed.