Ahmaud Arbery

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

Your logic was that they shouldn't protect themselves all the same, philo.

---

no my logic is that you shouldnt grab guns just to pursue somebody and create the deadly situation.

the only reason anybody "feared for their lives" is because bubbas introduced guns into the equation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

no my logic is that you shouldnt grab guns just to pursue somebody and create the deadly situation.

the only reason anybody "feared for their lives" is because bubbas introduced guns into the equation

---

I have no problem with you living your life that way. But the parameters for the debate is did they break the law?

Based on what I know and have heard, I have seen nothing that says this is so.

I'm open to the possibility of learning otherwise; but your snowflake tears won't make it so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

I have no problem with you living your life that way. But the parameters for the debate is did they break the law?

Based on what I know and have heard, I have seen nothing that says this is so.

I'm open to the possibility of learning otherwise; but your snowflake tears won't make it so.

---

i posted the law on citizens arrests above. it doesnt apply. they also broke the law by chasing down and killing the guy in the street

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

a) not a felony. you cant chase somebody down to arrest them unless its a felony (read the law above). you can still arrest somebody for a misdemeanor (most commonly a store-owner can detain a shoplifter) but the law specifies that somebody escaping cannot be arrested unless it was a felony (they want to avoid exactly the situation that happened, putting people needlessly in harms way)

b) they didnt witness the trespass in question. they just saw him running on the street. has to be committed within their presence or immediate knowledge (read the law above)

c) you cannot use more force than is reasonable to make the arrest

:lmao citizen's arrest at gunpoint over trespassing?

---

Quote:

---

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.

---

AA fit the description of the man who had committed the trespassing crime. The men acted upon this immediate knowledge and attempted a citizen's arrest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

i posted the law on citizens arrests above. it doesnt apply. they also broke the law by chasing down and killing the guy in the street

---

They had immediate knowledge of a crime for which Arbery had committed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

They had immediate knowledge of a crime for which Arbery had committed.

---

No, that's not what that means, and walking into a vacant structure isn't a felony.

Jeez you're retarded. You should thank spurraider for having the patience to explain this shit to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

They had immediate knowledge of a crime for which Arbery had committed.

---

what crime committed by arbery did they have immediate knowledge of?

note that georgia law has held more than once that "immediate knowledge" is synonymous with the crime being committed in their presence

https://i.gyazo.com/bfb8bd59a36a841b...56de5b6f39.png

https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia...7/31907-1.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

No, that's not what that means, and walking into a vacant structure isn't a felony.

Jeez you're retarded. You should thank spurraider for having the patience to explain this shit to you.

---

The law states that a person can be citizen arrested for an offense (misdemeanor or felony) if the person has witnessed it or has "immediate knowledge".Thus we see that the citizen arrest is lawful.

The second part, philo is just trying to confuse the matter. It's basically saying that if the crime rises to a felony, then anyone may citizen arrest the potential offender even on just suspicion rather than having to hit the higher standard of having witnessed the crime or having "immediate knowledge."

Ten leagues, bruh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

The law states that a person can be citizen arrested for an offense (misdemeanor or felony) if the person has witnessed it or has "immediate knowledge".Thus we see that the citizen arrest is lawful.

---

so what crime was committed by arbery which the bubbas had immediate knowledge of?

again, as stated above, georgia law holds "immediate knowledge" and "in the presence of" as synonymous

:lol "thus"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

so what crime was committed by arbery which the bubbas had immediate knowledge of?

again, as stated above, georgia law holds "immediate knowledge" and "in the presence of" as synonymous

---

The write-up example you give is based on evidentiary knowledge and not "in the presence of".

:lol Lite

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/WetDopeyFl...restricted.gif

How did this happen? Muh Mentor Lite is a lawyer and everything!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

so what crime was committed by arbery which the bubbas had immediate knowledge of?

again, as stated above, georgia law holds "immediate knowledge" and "in the presence of" as synonymous

---

:lol why do you argue with ignorant?

:lol ElNono been reduced to an ankle biter.

:lol yah, that's what's going on in here

:lol Yea, "reduced" was generous. Frankly, it's right up your alley.

sure, you also thought rolling out a sock puppet was really showing him :lol

smh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

The write-up example you give is based on evidentiary knowledge and not "in the presence of".

:lol Lite

---

No. The court relied on other rulings that an admission is tantamount to the crime being committed in their presence.

What crime did arbery commit within the immediate knowledge of the bubbas?

I don't think the legal aspect matters that much. The lives of the two perps were not in immediate danger but they put themselves and the victim into a very hazardous situation by pursuing. There's no way the victim would have known anything about who was pursuing, and when two fat white bearded rednecks with guns jump out of a truck after chasing you, you know you cannot outrun the long gun so what are you going to do?

I think this is the point. There was no reason any trespassing or even theft of property (of someone else) should ever be escalated to armed pursuit by civilians. This isn't the wild west.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

I don't think the legal aspect matters that much. The lives of the two perps were not in immediate danger but they put themselves and the victim into a very hazardous situation by pursuing. There's no way the victim would have known anything about who was pursuing, and when two fat white bearded rednecks with guns jump out of a truck after chasing you, you know you cannot outrun the long gun so what are you going to do?

I think this is the point. There was no reason any trespassing or even theft of property (of someone else) should ever be escalated to armed pursuit by civilians. This isn't the wild west.

---

All true.

Just wanted to let derp know that his “citizens arrest” crap fails at all levels

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

No. The court relied on other rulings that an admission is tantamount to the crime being committed in their presence.

What crime did arbery commit within the immediate knowledge of the bubbas?

---

Immediate knowledge is what it is. You're trying to pretend the case limited that when all it did was uphold the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

Immediate knowledge is what it is.

---

what crime did arbery commit within the immediate knowledge of the bubbas?

Quote:

---

You're trying to pretend the case limited that when all it did was uphold the law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Georgia Supreme Court

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), where it was held that an admission of an offense by an accused to the arresting party is tantamount to the commission of the offense in the presence of the party making the arrest. Whether the offense is said to be in the presence of, or within the immediate knowledge of, the arresting party, the result is the same as the two phrases mean the same thing.

---

https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia...7/31907-1.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

what crime did arbery commit within the immediate knowledge of the bubbas?

---

Trespassing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

Trespassing.

---

bubbas never claimed to have witnessed the trespassing caught on video that day

they first saw him running down the street and thought they recognized him from other security footage of other break-ins.

none of those happened within their presence or immediate knowledge, nor did they have any certainty that arbery was in fact the guy behind them

https://i.gyazo.com/0ca1f696abe8162a...5519ce7e0d.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

bubbas never claimed to have witnessed the trespassing caught on video that day

they first saw him running down the street and thought they recognized him from other security footage of other break-ins.

none of those happened within their presence or immediate knowledge, nor did they have any certainty that arbery was in fact the guy behind them

https://i.gyazo.com/0ca1f696abe8162a...5519ce7e0d.png

---

"The other night"

Smh