The Next Trayvon Martin Case?

#851
#852
E. Bryant said:
But was Arbrey guilty of trespass?

codes.findlaw.com

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-7-21. Read the code on FindLaw
codes.findlaw.com codes.findlaw.com

Simply walking into the home under construction does not make him guilty of that crime. Also, it's not a felony, which changes the standard for citizen's arrest.
Click to expand...
It was a dwelling under renovation. Not a home under construction. That’s trespass.
Edit. It’s actually felony burglary. Clear cut and dry. Legal grounds for citizens arrest.
 
Last edited:
#853
Tokay444 said:
It was a dwelling under renovation. Not a home under construction. That’s trespass.
Click to expand...

Where in the applicable Georgia code does it distinguish between the two? There has been no evidence presented so far that Arbery committed a crime while on the property, or refused to leave when requested. If such evidence exists, then it can and should be presented in a court of law, although it may not exonerate the defendants since the powers of citizen's arrest are different for misdemeanors vs. felonies.
 
#855
E. Bryant said:
Where in the applicable Georgia code does it distinguish between the two? There has been no evidence presented so far that Arbery committed a crime while on the property, or refused to leave when requested. If such evidence exists, then it can and should be presented in a court of law, although it may not exonerate the defendants since the powers of citizen's arrest are different for misdemeanors vs. felonies.
Click to expand...
I believe it was mentioned earlier in this thread earlier that in the same video his grandmother identifies him in the dwelling, he can be seen in commission of theft. I will re-read the Georgia code, but I’m certain dwelling makes all the difference.
 
#857
E. Bryant said:
Where in the applicable Georgia code does it distinguish between the two? There has been no evidence presented so far that Arbery committed a crime while on the property, or refused to leave when requested. If such evidence exists, then it can and should be presented in a court of law, although it may not exonerate the defendants since the powers of citizen's arrest are different for misdemeanors vs. felonies.
Click to expand...

Georgia defines burglary (felony) as the entering of a dwelling (occupied or not) with the intent to commit a crime.

A brand new construction is obviously not a dwelling. A house having the bathroom renovated obviously is a dwelling.

A current house undergoing a full remodel.....that’s gonna be interesting. If it requires a permit to be re-established before you can live in it, probably not a dwelling. If it doesn’t, probably a dwelling.

Normally, you could say the accused see the outside as a complete house and would be reasonable to assume it’s a dwelling. However, the accused have some prior knowledge that the house is being fully renovated an no one lives there.

So, the first part of this case will hinge on if this would be considered trespassing or burglary. There is an argument to be made for both.

If it’s reasonable for the two accused to believe it was a felony, we move into the probable cause portion. That will hinge on how well they can articulate why they had probable cause to arrest without the need for questioning the subject to further determine facts.

If it’s ruled they couldn’t have reasonably believed it was a felony, the state will then move to show why they were assaultive with the way they approached the subject which would cause him to attempt to defend himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitchtitsbob
#858
Is it illegal to resist a citizen's arrest?
Use of force
In at least one state, a civilian may use reasonable force, including deadly force if reasonable, to prevent an escape from a lawful citizen's arrest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ravenworks
#860
candyx said:
Is it illegal to resist a citizen's arrest?
Use of force
In at least one state, a civilian may use reasonable force, including deadly force if reasonable, to prevent an escape from a lawful citizen's arrest.
Click to expand...

If the arrest was for a felony in Ga, they can use reasonable force.

Which is why the distinction between burglary and trespass is going to be so important here.
 
#861
Dthomas3523 said:
Georgia defines burglary (felony) as the entering of a dwelling (occupied or not) with the intent to commit a crime.

A brand new construction is obviously not a dwelling. A house having the bathroom renovated obviously is a dwelling.

A current house undergoing a full remodel.....that’s gonna be interesting. If it requires a permit to be re-established before you can live in it, probably not a dwelling. If it doesn’t, probably a dwelling.

Normally, you could say the accused see the outside as a complete house and would be reasonable to assume it’s a dwelling. However, the accused have some prior knowledge that the house is being fully renovated an no one lives there.

So, the first part of this case will hinge on if this would be considered trespassing or burglary. There is an argument to be made for both.

If it’s reasonable for the two accused to believe it was a felony, we move into the probable cause portion. That will hinge on how well they can articulate why they had probable cause to arrest without the need for questioning the subject to further determine facts.

If it’s ruled they couldn’t have reasonably believed it was a felony, the state will then move to show why they were assaultive with the way they approached the subject which would cause him to attempt to defend himself.
Click to expand...
The legal definition does not differentiate between constructed or under construction. The fact is, it is a house. Therefore it is a dwelling.
(1) “Dwelling” means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is designed or intended for occupancy for residential use.
By the definition, it could be framework only, but the design is intended for occupancy for residential use. Dwelling. Felony burglary.
 
#862
Tokay444 said:
The legal definition does not differentiate between constructed or under construction. The fact is, it is a house. Therefore it is a dwelling.
(1) “Dwelling” means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is designed or intended for occupancy for residential use.
Click to expand...

It’s absolutely not that simple. You’ll see once arguments during trial happen.

If he was alive and arrested for burglary, a defense attorney would pick apart the dwelling portion.

Just like the prosecuting attorneys will make a point these men knew the house was fully gutted and not “intended for occupancy” in its current form.
 
#863
edited previous post.
The law quite clearly states it only needs to be designed for occupancy for residential use. It’s designed to be a house. There’s nothing left for interpretation there.
 
#865
Tokay444 said:
edited previous post.
The law quite clearly states it only needs to be designed for occupancy for residential use. It’s designed to be a house. There’s nothing left for interpretation there.
Click to expand...

Also wrong. There is always room for interpretation.

For example, a crack house can at times be considered a dwelling and other times considered not a dwelling. This is an important distinction for law enforcement. As they cannot enter a dwelling without permission or a warrant.

As per your argument, it’s always a dwelling because of the original status of the structure. This is simply not true at all. There are many many cases where houses have be ruled not a dwelling due to their current condition.

And typically, one of the biggest determining factor is the LEO’s prior knowledge and experience with that house. Just like a large factor here will be these two men’s knowledge of this house.

There’s almost never a “not open for interpretation” of a law. That’s literally what case law provides......interpretation of statutes.

Another prime example, the 2nd amendment is interpreted all the time by the court system. Which is why you can’t own a tank. You may not agree with it and say “shall not be infringed” is not open for interpretation, but it is in fact open for interpretation. Just like a “dwelling” can be interpreted differently.
 
#868
Dthomas3523 said:
Another prime example, the 2nd amendment is interpreted all the time by the court system. Which is why you can’t own a tank.
Click to expand...
That is 200% wrong. There are more than a few tanks in private hands an I know of 3 that are 100% live, all guns including main. How about a M35A1 gun truck with a quad 50 an two M60's. Don't try an count the Knee, 60 & 81mm mortars lives out there. Plus you have all the live towed shit as well. If you have the money an clean record you can own anything you want just ask Dick Chaney. Not many M50 Ontos around but enough 106mm RR's to fit more than a hand full if you come up with a hull.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deersniper, Ravenworks and Tokay444
#869
Gunfighter14e2 said:
That is 200% wrong. There are more than a few tanks in private hands an I know of 3 that are 100% live, all guns including main. How about a M35A1 gun truck with a quad 50 an two M60's. Don't try an count the Knee, 60 & 81mm mortars lives out there. Plus you have all the live towed shit as well. If you have the money an clean record you can own anything you want just ask Dick Chaney. Not many M50 Ontos around but enough 106mm RR's to fit more than a hand full if you come up with a hull.
Click to expand...

Again, which is my point. “Shall not be infringed” has been interpreted to mean sometimes, with tons of restrictions.

I’m sorry I didn’t put an aterisk next to it as I wrongly assumed people wouldn’t start nitpicking when the point was obviously about laws being interpreted.

If it makes you feel better, replace tank with nuclear warhead, cruise missile, or any other thing you want to replace it with.

If “shall not be infringed” wasn’t being interpreted, you’d be able to go to the store and buy an automatic rifle just like you can anything else.
 
#870
Tokay444 said:
You simply need to enter the dwelling without authorization to commit burglary, which is a felony, which is grounds for lawful citizen arrest.
codes.findlaw.com

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-1 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-7-1. Read the code on FindLaw
codes.findlaw.com codes.findlaw.com
Click to expand...

Very interesting. So then why were we talking about "trespass" all this time?

Edit: I do not think your description matches the actual law. Both first and second degree charges require that the suspect enter the dwelling "without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft". So the "without authority" seems clear, but proving intent to steal is another matter altogether. It should be interesting to see how this one plays out in court.
 
Last edited:
#872
Dthomas3523 said:
Again, which is my point. “Shall not be infringed” has been interpreted to mean sometimes, with tons of restrictions.

I’m sorry I didn’t put an aterisk next to it as I wrongly assumed people wouldn’t start nitpicking when the point was obviously about laws being interpreted.

If it makes you feel better, replace tank with nuclear warhead, cruise missile, or any other thing you want to replace it with.

If “shall not be infringed” wasn’t being interpreted, you’d be able to go to the store and buy an automatic rifle just like you can anything else.
Click to expand...

Has anyone else experience poor customer service with Raytheon , purchase a Tomahawk in January . Dealt with a guy named Fred and got no where for a new triggering system.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: MtnCreek, RTH1800, Ravenworks and 1 other person
#873
candyx said:
Has anyone else experience poor customer service with Raytheon , purchase a Tomahawk in January . Dealt with a guy named Fred and got no where for a new triggering system.
Click to expand...
Were you asking for financing, or was this a cash deal? Fred is a Fagot, you need to talk to Omar,... ext 6969
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Tokay444 and candyx
#876
E. Bryant said:
But was Arbrey guilty of trespass?

codes.findlaw.com

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-7-21. Read the code on FindLaw
codes.findlaw.com codes.findlaw.com

Simply walking into the home under construction does not make him guilty of that crime. Also, it's not a felony, which changes the standard for citizen's arrest.
Click to expand...

Again, not taking any side here as I'll wait for all the evidence, but having said that, the law clearly says this:

A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another.  Also remember, attorneys get paid to skew the table based on nuance to their clients side.

It could very well come down to whether or not side A can prove the victim had intent or Side B can prove there was no intent. How one determines that I'm not sure really sure other than the owner has said nothing has been stolen (so why did he want somebody watching??); but, this determination will be key as to how the trial ends. I'm maintaining I'll continue to observe the evidence, of which I am willing to guess we MAY have 25%. Once it goes to trial, hopefully we can have all the facts without bias from reporting agencies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: E. Bryant
#877
Gunfighter14e2 said:
That is 200% wrong. There are more than a few tanks in private hands an I know of 3 that are 100% live, all guns including main. How about a M35A1 gun truck with a quad 50 an two M60's. Don't try an count the Knee, 60 & 81mm mortars lives out there. Plus you have all the live towed shit as well. If you have the money an clean record you can own anything you want just ask Dick Chaney. Not many M50 Ontos around but enough 106mm RR's to fit more than a hand full if you come up with a hull.
Click to expand...
I thought Cheney only needed a 28 ga shotgun, he doesn't need a tank to take care of bidness :):). He's like a slightly less powerful version of Cordell. Did Walker need a revolver to take down bad guys?
 
#883
candyx said:
That High School photo is very deceiving as you would not think they were one in the same person.

www.theguardian.com

Exclusive: Police tried to tase Ahmaud Arbery in 2017 incident, video shows

Officers questioned why Arbery was sitting alone in his car in a park one morning in November 2017
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

At least he doesn't have an attitude about it. Very nice, upstanding response. Not at all aggressive or threatening.

I'd say the McMichaels are going away after seeing this video.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chiefethan, Ravenworks, candyx and 1 other person
#885
candyx said:
That High School photo is very deceiving as you would not think they were one in the same person.

www.theguardian.com

Exclusive: Police tried to tase Ahmaud Arbery in 2017 incident, video shows

Officers questioned why Arbery was sitting alone in his car in a park one morning in November 2017
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

I watched the video in the article. I've seen that behavior and that attitude all to often. Pardon me for using stereotypes but that belligerent attitude seems much to prevalent whenever a white guy has an encounter with a black guy.

The black guy is going to do whatever he can to intimidate the white guy and show how tough he is. I've seen it too much. It's like a conditioned response with them. That video shows a lot about Mr. Arbery's mindset but watch the American Prvada spin the video another way.

They will show only the portion of the video where Mr. Arbery is on his knees explaining to the RACIST cops that he was just at the park on his day off, "rapping" and "chilling" when they started harassing him.

Prvada won't show the part when Mr. Arbery approaches the officer with his hands up in the air, moving excitedly, aggressively and quickly. Before the 2nd officer showed up, I would bet you that Mr. Arbery would have attacked the officer had he not been given the warning to back up. You can also bet that warning was given with his hand on his pistol.

That video confirms my suspicion that Mr. Arbery was a hot-head who didn't want any "cracker" cops asking him questions. He was also a hot-head who wanted to shove a shotgun up some "cracker's" ass and paid for that attempt with his life.

EDIT: For something to be funny, there has to be some truth to it:

 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: MtnCreek, lightman, SN13 and 1 other person
#886
LA260 said:
I though 90% on SH are either rocket scientists or mechanical engineers. I was wrong. 90% are attorneys.
Click to expand...

It's something I dabble in when I'm not handing out medical device, providing political consulting, or negotiating trade agreements. Hey, if Elon Musk can become a paper billionaire by pretending to know a bunch of stuff, then maybe I can at least get enough gain in wealth to buy a new optic and some reloading supplies. Hasn't happened yet, but gotta fake it until ya make it...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ravenworks and RTH1800
#887
LA260 said:
I though 90% on SH are either rocket scientists or mechanical engineers. I was wrong. 90% are attorneys.
Click to expand...


lawyer.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ravenworks and RTH1800
#888
LA260 said:
I though 90% on SH are either rocket scientists or mechanical engineers. I was wrong. 90% are attorneys.
Click to expand...

I attended a seminar on self-defense shootings taught by an attorney one evening. He opened up the floor for questions.

I asked him about asserting self-defense without jeopardizing the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination.

Before he answered my question he said; "Sir, you sound a lot like a lawyer. Are you an attorney?"

I told him no but that I had too many ex-wives.

He replied, "That's why I got in to a legal career myself." Then he answered my question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BytorJr
#889
BytorJr said:
Again, not taking any side here as I'll wait for all the evidence, but having said that, the law clearly says this:

A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another.  Also remember, attorneys get paid to skew the table based on nuance to their clients side.

It could very well come down to whether or not side A can prove the victim had intent or Side B can prove there was no intent. How one determines that I'm not sure really sure other than the owner has said nothing has been stolen (so why did he want somebody watching??); but, this determination will be key as to how the trial ends. I'm maintaining I'll continue to observe the evidence, of which I am willing to guess we MAY have 25%. Once it goes to trial, hopefully we can have all the facts without bias from reporting agencies.
Click to expand...

Intent would only need to be proven for a conviction. Typically the act is what gets you arrested and then intent is the job of the prosecutor.

Say I pull you over and you allow me to search your vehicle. I find narcotics hidden in the spare tire area. You just purchased the vehicle at an auction and claim you didn’t know it was there. I’m still going to arrest you (possibly with an intent to distribute charge if the amount of narcotics is enough). But the prosecutor might determine he either believes you or he thinks a jury would believe you, so the charges are dropped. Or you go to trial and a jury finds reasonable doubt and returns a not guilty verdict.

But at any time during that arrest you fought back, I would be justified in using the necessary amount of force up to and including deadly force if necessary. Even if it turns out you actually had no idea the narcotics were in the vehicle. The facts *at the time* supported my probable cause to arrest you.

So, in this case, as long as they can articulate their probable cause they believed he had possible committed a felony, they don’t need to show any intent.
 
#890
Basically, the exact time the two accused initiated the attempted arrest (by either telling him to stop or driving up aggressively with weapons......whichever the courts decide is that moment), the clock stops.

At this point, only the past matters. Nothing in the future. What they knew previously about the subject, the felony/s they believe just occurred in the past few months and the one they believe they just witnessed.......is all that matters. They have to be able to articulate why they have probable cause to arrest this person. And nothing that took place afterwards or they did not have knowledge of (videos or police reports for example) can be used as an articulable fact.

Now, if they can articulate this properly, and they in fact do have probable cause......the clock starts again. The clock stops at the point of aggression. If the subject initiated the aggression and tried to take the weapon........justifiable homicide. If the two accused started beating on him or whatnot, that’s a different story. We all saw the video of them fighting for the shotgun. What we did not see is the beginning of that encounter. Unless a witness comes forward and gives a difference account, the two accused’s account will have to be taken as truth and the subject initiated the aggression and attempted to take the shotgun away.

So, unless some other witness shows up, it’s basically a case of articulating their probable cause. Which honestly, is very possible. Personally speaking, from what I’ve seen, I think it’s more reasonable suspicion and I’d need to talk to the subject before developing probable cause for an arrest. But, there is a very real possibility of more facts being known by the two accused that pushes it into probable cause.
 
#891
Dthomas3523 said:
Basically, the exact time the two accused initiated the attempted arrest (by either telling him to stop or driving up aggressively with weapons......whichever the courts decide is that moment), the clock stops.

At this point, only the past matters. Nothing in the future. What they knew previously about the subject, the felony/s they believe just occurred in the past few months and the one they believe they just witnessed.......is all that matters. They have to be able to articulate why they have probable cause to arrest this person. And nothing that took place afterwards or they did not have knowledge of (videos or police reports for example) can be used as an articulable fact.

Now, if they can articulate this properly, and they in fact do have probable cause......the clock starts again. The clock stops at the point of aggression. If the subject initiated the aggression and tried to take the weapon........justifiable homicide. If the two accused started beating on him or whatnot, that’s a different story. We all saw the video of them fighting for the shotgun. What we did not see is the beginning of that encounter. Unless a witness comes forward and gives a difference account, the two accused’s account will have to be taken as truth and the subject initiated the aggression and attempted to take the shotgun away.

So, unless some other witness shows up, it’s basically a case of articulating their probable cause. Which honestly, is very possible. Personally speaking, from what I’ve seen, I think it’s more reasonable suspicion and I’d need to talk to the subject before developing probable cause for an arrest. But, there is a very real possibility of more facts being known by the two accused that pushes it into probable cause.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the defendants don't have to articulate anything at all. They can still assert their 5th amendment rights and not take the witness stand.

Their attorneys will have to do the articulating. In some states, if a defendant asserts self-defense, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that he or she was justified in using deadly force.

Florida, for example, is different. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that the self-defense assertion is weak or fallacious. I don't know if Georgia requires the defense to prove a self-defense assertion or not.

If I were the McMichaels' attorney, I would keep them off of the witness stand and make the prosecution earn their paycheck. If either of the McMichaels gives up their 5th amendment right against self-incrimination the prosecutor could shred them during cross-examination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TACC, Ravenworks, E. Bryant and 1 other person
#894
rth1800 said:
@Dthomas3523 and @Longshot231

Would either of you care to state your credentials?

You both seem more knowledgeable than laymen on these legal issues.

Thanks
Click to expand...

No credentials other than just been in a court room a lot. My current job requires me to look at a lot of rules, regulations, polices and law. That's all that I care to reveal about myself now. My current employer wouldn't appreciate it if I said much more about my identity.

What are your credentials?
 
#897
candyx said:
That High School photo is very deceiving as you would not think they were one in the same person.

www.theguardian.com

Exclusive: Police tried to tase Ahmaud Arbery in 2017 incident, video shows

Officers questioned why Arbery was sitting alone in his car in a park one morning in November 2017
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

There is also another aspect with this video. If I were an attorney and was the defense attorney, this video would be subpoenaed and used as evidence to show that Mr. Arbery was a hot-head and reveals something about his mindset toward attacking first and asking questions later.

The prosecution would probably object with a flimsy excuse of citing relevancy.

If the Judge sustains the objection, the Jury may not like that. It would also be an appealable assignment of error should the McMichaels be convicted.

Like I said, the Jury may not like that. Even though they are supposed to rule on the evidence they have been exposed to, they will wonder "what are they trying to hide from us? Do they think we are too stupid to watch the video and judge for ourselves?"

If the Judge overrules the objection the smartest thing the prosecution could do would be to keep their mouths shut about the video and let the Defense run with it. Why?

1) If the prosecution cross examines any witnesses about this video, they run the risk of an appellate court ruling in favor of the defense. In other words, they cannot use the same evidence they objected to in order to cross examine any witnesses about it. They cannot have it both ways. They can't object to the video then use it to cross examine a witness.

2) If they do object to it and have to twist the events in their favor to secure a conviction then they would have to do everything they can to throw the officers in the video and the Glynn County Police Department under the bus. Politically, that may not be a very smart move.
 
#898
I was not questioning your credentials in a critical way. I thought you both sounded knowledgeable.

Regarding law, I have no credentials whatsoever.

My experiences with LE mostly are related to being a property owner over several counties. I have had literally hundreds of vandalism, trespass, theft and poaching events. Most of which went unpunished even though I had photos, names and details .

I have been sued twice over property boundaries.

I have received two seatbelt tickets.

That is the extent of it.
 
#899
rth1800 said:
I was not questioning your credentials in a critical way. I thought you both sounded knowledgeable.

Regarding law, I have no credentials whatsoever.

My experiences with LE mostly are related to being a property owner over several counties. I have had literally hundreds of vandalism, trespass, theft and poaching events. Most of which went unpunished even though I had photos, names and details .

I have been sued twice over property boundaries.

I have received two seatbelt tickets.

That is the extent of it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the complement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RTH1800
#900
This doesn't look good for the defendants. The sister of the younger McMichael, took a photo of the deceased Mr. Arbery and posted it on Snapchat.

That was really bad taste in the court of public opinion. It also makes her a material witness as she "heard the commotion." The prosecution will be able to submit those photos as evidence. It's true they can always use the official crime scene photos but by using the sister's pictures they will be able to plant a seed in the Jury's mind that the entire McMichael family are a bunch of ghouls.

The prosecution won't have to say that. All they have to do is put her on the witness stand and ask her some objective questions and submit the photos as evidence.

Buried in the article is her statements about the McMichaels accepting her non-white boyfriends. So hopefully, the defense can use her to show the Jury that the Defendants are not racists.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/837071/sister-ahmaud-arbery-killer-picture-dead-body-snapchat/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blue Sky Country
"Will Not Prosecute". Soros-funded Dem prosecutors allow criminals to operate with no fear of jail.
Replies
10
Views
1K
theLBC
theLBC
Sean the Nailer
Something to contemplate,
Replies
30
Views
2K
Zeroit
Zeroit
Lowlight
All of Facebook's Banned Content in One Place
Replies
57
Views
18K
Ronws
Ronws
Maggot
Not a good cop
Replies
11
Views
1K
Rthur
Rthur
Bowman
16 Page Article about LEOs
Replies
37
Views
3K
Fig
Fig
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts