Ahmaud Arbery killers all convicted

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated G through PG-13.
Chap
God
Posts: 1142
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: Ahmaud Arbery killers all convicted

Post by Chap »

Marcus wrote:
Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:11 pm
Chap wrote:
Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:55 am
I am grateful to DrC for his summary of the situation.
me too. Thanks, doc.
There are lessons to be learned from this, but few will.

- Doc
Sadly.
One lesson to be learned from this business comes from an examination of why it took such a long time for anybody to be charged in relation to this killing

Glynn County commissioners say DA blocked arrests after fatal shooting

Two Glynn County commissioners say District Attorney Jackie Johnson’s office refused to allow the Glynn County Police Department to make arrests immediately after the Feb. 23 shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery.

The GBI announced the arrests of Travis McMichael, 34, and his father Greg McMichael, 64, on Thursday - more than two months after the fatal shooting. They were denied bond Friday afternoon.

“The police at the scene went to her, saying they were ready to arrest both of them. These were the police at the scene who had done the investigation,” Commissioner Allen Booker, who has spoken with Glynn County police, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “She shut them down to protect her friend McMichael.”

Greg McMichael, now retired, once worked as an investigator in Johnson’s office.

Commissioner Peter Murphy, who also said he spoke directly to Glynn County police about the incident, said officers at the scene concluded they had probable cause to make arrests and contacted Johnson’s office to inform the prosecutor of their decision.

“They were told not to make the arrest,” Murphy said.

Johnson recused herself from the case within days of the shooting. Her office has not responded to a request to comment on the commissioners’ account of what happened, or on the case in general.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Peering over your left shoulder

Re: Ahmaud Arbery killers all convicted

Post by Res Ipsa »

Chap wrote:
Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:55 am
I am grateful to DrC for his summary of the situation.

Mr Arbery was a person running in the public road not far from where he lived, unarmed and not engaged in any activity that reasonable people could interpret as a threat. But he was pursued by armed men who eventually forced him to stop, menaced him with weapons, and then shot him dead. The three men involved in his pursuit and killing were rightly convicted by the majority white jury.

The pleasant thing about this thread is that nobody on this board appears to take exception to the verdict reached. That is a marked contrast to the bitterness of the controversy surrounding the Rittenhouse verdict.

Might we explore the implications of this situation a little further, however? Consider these two hypotheticals:

A. Suppose that in the struggle after his pursuers had stopped him and got out of their truck with their weapons, despite his efforts to escape them by running away, the unarmed Mr Arbery's subsequent attempt to wrest the shotgun from one of his pursuers had not led to his own death when the weapon was discharged, but to the death of one of his armed pursuers. Would Mr Arbery then have been able to make a case against a homicide charge on the basis that his actions were self-defence?

B. What if Mr Arbery, perhaps aware of the dangers of running on the roads in a white neighbourhood while black, had carried a weapon with him when he went out running? If, after trying to escape his armed pursuers (as he in fact did), he had shot one of them dead with his weapon when they approached him with their weapons, would he then have been able to make a case against a homicide charge on the basis that his actions were self-defence? Or would he have had to wait for them to shoot at him first before having the right to defend himself by shooting back, assuming the shot fired by his pursuers did not kill or disable him?

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 10:29 pm
Someone can tell me if I’m off, but I think this was a pretty much open and shut case. This is what I got after spending an hour or two sifting through the intertubes:

1. AA didn’t commit a felony. Trespassing isn’t a felony.

2. AA committed zero crimes in the presence of the three dummies.

3. The three amigos had no right or cause to initiate a citizens arrest. I don’t think they witnessed the trespassing.

4. They had no right to chase the kid around the neighborhood for 5 mins. That’s a long time to be chased by guys with guns. AA had to be terrified.

5. AA ran away, for 5 mins, before being cornered by the dummies.

6. AA wasn’t armed.

7. AA wasn’t carrying a weapon of any kind.

8. AA was stupid for trying to grab the son’s gun, but the dummies were even more stupid for bringing the gun to bear to begin with. I believe AA panicked, rightly so after being chased by some armed bubbas in a truck.

9. The guy who recorded the whole thing was guilty of ‘murder by association’, which I don’t really understand, but that’s the law in GA.

There are lessons to be learned from this, but few will.

- Doc
Chap, the answers are pretty heavily fact dependent. The general rule of thumb proportionality: one can use use force for self defense that is proportional to the threat. The law in Wisconsin for use of non-deadly force is much less restrictive that for the use of deadly force. In your example, the individual is using less than deadly force to defend against deadly force when he attempts to disarm. That should be well within the self-defense privilege.

If the firearm goes off unintentionally during the struggle, I don’t think the individual would be criminally liable, as he was acting within his self defense privilege. If he takes the gun away and fires, then the requirements for the privilege to defend with deadly force come into play: would a reasonable person in his position believe he faced a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury and that use of deadly force was necessary to remove that threat. If he puts on any evidence that supports his privilege defense, then the burden of proof is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the privilege does not apply. And then a jury gets to decide.

The same rules apply in your second example. It all depends on what a reasonable person would believe in the specific circumstances and the jury generally gets to decide. The key concepts are reasonable person, imminent threat, and necessary use.
he/him
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds….”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Chap
God
Posts: 1142
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: Ahmaud Arbery killers all convicted

Post by Chap »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Nov 25, 2021 6:27 pm
Chap, the answers are pretty heavily fact dependent. The general rule of thumb proportionality: one can use use force for self defense that is proportional to the threat. The law in Wisconsin for use of non-deadly force is much less restrictive that for the use of deadly force. In your example, the individual is using less than deadly force to defend against deadly force when he attempts to disarm. That should be well within the self-defense privilege.

If the firearm goes off unintentionally during the struggle, I don’t think the individual would be criminally liable, as he was acting within his self defense privilege. If he takes the gun away and fires, then the requirements for the privilege to defend with deadly force come into play: would a reasonable person in his position believe he faced a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury and that use of deadly force was necessary to remove that threat. If he puts on any evidence that supports his privilege defense, then the burden of proof is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the privilege does not apply. And then a jury gets to decide.

The same rules apply in your second example. It all depends on what a reasonable person would believe in the specific circumstances and the jury generally gets to decide. The key concepts are reasonable person, imminent threat, and necessary use.
Thanks - in both of the hypotheticals I raised, your opinion is just about what I would have expected on the basis of English law (as you know, Scots law is a separate system). [For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a lawyer, though I am not legally illiterate.]

That is, of course, no great surprise ...
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Peering over your left shoulder

Re: Ahmaud Arbery killers all convicted

Post by Res Ipsa »

Yes, not a surprise at all. The basic law of self defense in the US is firmly rooted in English common law, and hasn’t changed that much over time. The main changes have been the expansion of the castle doctrine to businesses and vehicles, it’s further expansion to any location where the defender has a right to be (stand your ground), and something described as a “make my day” law, which I believe was enacted in Colorado and haven’t looked into at all.
he/him
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds….”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Chap
God
Posts: 1142
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: Ahmaud Arbery killers all convicted

Post by Chap »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Nov 25, 2021 7:43 pm
... something described as a “make my day” law, which I believe was enacted in Colorado ...
Well at least they didn't call it the 'make my day, punk' law ...
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 3578
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Peering over your left shoulder

Re: Ahmaud Arbery killers all convicted

Post by Res Ipsa »

Chap wrote:
Thu Nov 25, 2021 7:46 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Nov 25, 2021 7:43 pm
... something described as a “make my day” law, which I believe was enacted in Colorado ...
Well at least they didn't call it the 'make my day, punk' law ...
There is that. ;)
he/him
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds….”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 1464
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm

Re: Ahmaud Arbery killers all convicted

Post by Gadianton »

The way that I read the GA laws, if after Arbery grabbed the gun, the son would have let go of the gun and retreated, put his hands up and screamed his intent to disengage, then even as the initial aggressor, if Arbery would have shot him, then Arbery could be liable for murder. Of course, good ole pop was there with his .357 as an added threat so he'd have needed to back way off, also.

Another choice: they could have went for a Mexican standoff with Arbery taking the gun and potentially training it on son and dad having a gun on Arbery, and then they could talk about it.

Should Arbery have went for the gun? Probably not, but, with pop backing up with a .357, it's not as clear. Pop says that before sonny boy went after Arbery, he told his son not to do anything stupid with the gun. However, afterward, he said if he'd had a clear shot, he would have shot Arbery himself. Presumably that meant after Arbery had gone for the rifle, but it probably really meant just how triggered pop was in the moment.

Arbery had already done a lot of running. Had he taken off again, the good ole boys would have got in the truck and chased him. How much longer can he keep that up?

He either had to surrender, or fight back with whatever strength he had left.
Post Reply