The Sheriff is hoping to find cocaine, meth, etc in his blood so he can sprinkle the proverbial crack on him and be done (maybe that was your point as well?).
Pretty much. If they find something, I would guess that it's old because who does coke/meth then goes jogging. Seems unlikely a dude exercising is mixing that in
One, that is wrong as a definitive statement but a tough gray area. I can elaborate when have more time but simplest terms is I push you and you chase me with a gun, etc (that’s a real case). Two, of course you’re the aggressor in a citizens arrest regardless. I believe they are saying that the Ag Assault (pointing gun) is justified due to a valid citizens arrest. They are ok with pulling the gun on him. If they are justifying that, then obviously they are going to take the leap and excuse the shooting while the jogger fights him for the gun.
My argument to my Supervisor to file charges would be simple: it wasn’t a valid citizen’s arrest. It was a crime, which was coincidentally a crime of harm/violence, thus giving the jogger the right to defend himself. DetroitNole
Obviously, being "the aggressor" is subjective. Your example isn't really applicable here. The point is that a citizen's arrest doesn't give you any "power" beyond the arrest. It means that you're not committing kidnapping by virtue of performing a legal arrest while not an officer. It doesn't confer to you any power beyond what any citizen has to defend himself. Similarly, if they were chasing him in a truck and hit an old lady in the crosswalk, they're not entitled to any immunity an officer might have in the similar situation.
if those were two black men who shot a white guy for no reason they’d already been given the death penalty
Why the fuck do we even have citizen arrest laws that would protect someone attempting to detain another person
Even if he was stealing why chase him down? Just follow him and stay in your truck while on the phone with police. Simple really
“Although a private person may make a citizen's arrest under OCGA § 17–4–60, only force that is reasonable under the circumstances may be used to restrain the individual arrested ... the use of unreasonable force ... could not have been part of a legitimate citizen's arrest.” Carter v. State, 269 Ga. 891, 894(7), 506 S.E.2d 124 (1998); Patel v. State, 279 Ga. 750, 754, 620 S.E.2d 343, 346 (2005) "Even though slight evidence is enough to justify the giving of a jury charge,we conclude there was not sufficient evidentiary support in this case to warrant the trial court's charge on citizen's arrest. Although a private person may make a citizen's arrest under OCGA § 17–4–60, only force that is reasonable under the circumstances may be used to restrain the individual arrested. Certainly under the facts that were recounted in the police report, Edward's alleged assault of the individual with a baseball bat entailed the use of unreasonable force, and could not have been part of a legitimate citizen's arrest." Carter v. State, 269 Ga. 891, 893, 506 S.E.2d 124, 127 (1998)
Different context, different argument. I think that jury was wrong, but it's beside the point. I'm addressing 941Gator 's statement that the government gives you the power to conduct a citizen's arrest, ergo you can use lethal force in self-defense if the person getting arrested resists. As I cited above, Georgia law does not support that.
His toxicology report is so irrelevant yet cops/media will focus on it. I don't give a shit if this guy just broke into 42 houses and did four 8 balls on Becky's couch. Bubba had no business confronting him with a shotgun, much less shooting him.
You’ll have to clarify your overall point for me. The citizen‘s arrest gives you the power to arrest. What does arresting (detaining) someone entail? Can you tackle suspect? The case law on citizens arrest say reasonable force. If the suspect is escaping can you cut them off in your truck and point a gun at them? I would say no, that is unreasonable. State/police think it is apparently. As a general rule, the person starting the violence won’t receive the benefits of SYG. Making a valid arrest isn’t “starting violence” obviously. I think the best argument for their arrest that they were beyond the scope of their power. They were committing a crime.
Stand Your Ground is where it gets into a really grey area. It doesn't matter how you got there, if you get to a point you fear for your life, you're ok to kill the other person. That's going to be the argument here. He feared for his life when Mr. Aubrey grabbed his gun. Nevermind that he and his armed gang had chased down and surround Mr. Aubrey, that doesn't matter. At the moment Mr. Aubrey grabbed the gun., Bubba feared for his life and killed him. It's Zimmerman all over again.
Someday there will be retribution for the centuries of violence white people have visited upon minorities in this country, and white people will have nobody to blame but themselves.
Your phrasing implied sequence, but citizen's arrest doesn't change the requirements for self defense. The "if they turn violent" portion isn't any different than in a non citizen's arrest scenario. You still have to have a "reasonable belief that your life is in danger at the hands of another." It being a citizen's arrest doesn't change that. So, when you chase some one down in your car, pull it in front of him to cut him off, point guns at him, and then shoot him because he steps toward you defending himself, you're the aggressor and not entitled to self-defense. Stand-your-ground only removes a duty to retreat. That's not really relevant here.
1. There is no such thing. The unintentional irony of you attempting to use a white nationalist/ separatist talking point to sound idk what (angry/revolutionary/woke) is amazing. 2. Rhetoric like this hurts more than helps. It’s stupid and turns off people who might be allies.
1) I didn't say there was such a thing, just that it's good 2) I purposefully evoke white nationalist language in this context because I know that is what they fear 3) Nothing I say or don't say helps, hurts, or really matters at all. This shit will continue until dumb crackers learn to fear getting shot back.
Your points are well taken but I don't think anyone on this website takes ale or his opinions seriously
You can still get self-defense immunity when using lethal force if the facts lined up accordingly... you cited a case where the facts didn't line up. The use of the bat was unreasonable. I didn't mean to imply that the second someone resists you can use lethal force. Not sure where I even intimated that? It wouldn't be "resisting" arrest per se in my hypothetical, it would be the suspect taking the gun or knife away from the citizen, which then allows the citizen to defend himself under his State's self-defense statute. I think we are saying the same thing?
Ah, I see. I think your issue was with my wording. I didn't mean to insinuate that the citizens arrest law now moves to phase 2 or a 2nd prong or something. My point was that once it becomes violent and you are in fear of GBH, the self-defense law (totally different statute) kicks in, i.e. the gov't now gives you the right to protect yourself blah blah. Apologies for the implied sequence.
Seems to me the law says the joggers biggest mistake was not pulling his own gun and shooting those two the moment they stopped the car and revealed they were armed. Stand your ground would surely support him “fearing for his life” when two armed men stopped a truck in front of him and got out with guns to confront him. Or, you know, if he weren’t black the situation would have never come up at all.
The "now" part is what is unclear/confusing, as is the implication that it's a "power." It's a defense, and it was available regardless of whether you were embarking on a citizen's arrest. And, the fact that you are embarking on a citizen's arrest, under the narrative that we currently know it, creates a lot of bad facts for such defense.
I have absolutely nothing to add to this thread except how awful, unnecessary and senseless gun violence is and I honestly have no idea how much different my life would be if I was a black man especially living in the south. It seems like a completely different life experience than mine, and that’s really depressing to think about.
Years of psychotic posting. Much, much more than a lot of posters who have been banned or ran off the board.
oh great one tell me what this has to do with what I wrote? Something that doesn’t exist can’t be good or bad. Saying “white genocide is good” is saying something that doesn’t exist does. It a bullshit white nationalist talking point. They don’t fucking fear it you fucking idiot. They use it as a justification for what we see in that video. They use that talking point to rally assholes to kill POC.
I am saying “white genocide” doesn’t exist. It is a white nationalist talking point used to hurt POC. White separatist use “the fear” of something that doesn’t exist to hurt POC. It’s a bullshit talking point like the “they trying to take your guns bullshit”. There is no good that comes from pushing that narrative.
A) For no apparent reason a redneck jumps out of his truck and points a gun at you. You go to grab the gun. Redneck kills you. Redneck gets self-defense immunity? B) A redneck actually see's the Felony happen or see's the person suspected of doing it and wants to make a citizen's arrest. Redneck jumps out of his truck and points a gun at the suspect in effort to make him stop and wait for the police. Suspect goes to grab the gun. Redneck kills suspect. Redneck gets self-defense immunity? C) Redneck doesn't see the crime happen but see's a person that loosely fits the description of suspect and wants to make a citizen's arrest. Redneck jumps out of his truck and points a gun at the suspect in effort to make him stop and wait for the police. Suspect goes to grab the gun. Redneck kills suspect. Redneck gets self-defense immunity?
Basically the old South Park bit with stans uncle. “It’s attacking us!” That was disturbing as hell to watch.
I’ll treat that as: A) No B) No C) No Comments section posters in some of those articles are fine with the shooting if shooters saw him coming from the house or knew it was him, etc. And people also getting into the weeds concerning the jogger going toward the gun and toward the truck, I suppose making a “the jogger is the aggressor at that point” argument. A juror of your peers!