It might not be a crime in Georgia but why is he poking around in the house? My sympathy for him is rapidly disappearing, especially since he has a criminal record as a thief.
It might not be a crime in Georgia but why is he poking around in the house? My sympathy for him is rapidly disappearing, especially since he has a criminal record as a thief.
I honestly don't care if he was jogging or not. Robbing the constriction site or not. Neither of those circumstances warrant being shot to death 3x with a shotgun.
realist1 wrote:
My sympathy for him is rapidly disappearing.
How humane of you.
realist1 wrote:
It might not be a crime in Georgia but why is he poking around in the house? My sympathy for him is rapidly disappearing, especially since he has a criminal record as a thief.
Nothing wrong with checking out a construction site. It didn't look like he stole anything and it wouldn't make sense to walk miles from his house to steal a bunch of crap from a construction site in broad daylight.
realist1 wrote:
It's not a fact....You saw a photo of a guy at a Klan rally that resembled him but that guy has a tattoo on his arm and McMichael doesn't.. That is your proof?
I hope you're not in law school...
You are correct. I'm not sure if correctly identifying racists is part of law school.
It does not matter who Arbery was as a person. It doesn't matter if he was entering a construction site. His 'intent' behind entering a construction site just doesn't matter.
It makes me sad every time a person of color is followed, hunted down and murdered, that the conversation inevitably turns to that time years ago when they stole a candy bar from their high school cafeteria or the baggy pants and cargo shorts that make them look 'suspicious'.
No one has the right to hunt down and murder someone. No one has the right to block the road and accost them with a shot gun. No one has the right to deem someone 'suspicious' unless they have hard evidence suggesting they are. Entering a construction site is far far from this evidence. And even so, no one has the right to hunt them down anyways.
Arbery once brought a gun to a basketball game? Did he shoot anyone? Because Travis and Greg McMichael brought shot guns to the middle of an empty road and did end up murdering someone. What is more they had their little friend film them. If you really believe that Arbery comes away looking worse, please get your head checked.
You appear to be right about the distance between the two places....I wonder where people are coming up with 10 miles.
realist1 wrote:
You appear to be right about the distance between the two places....I wonder where people are coming up with 10 miles.
This sort of thread attracts disinformers with an agenda of muddying the facts. I'm sure you will be shocked to learn this.
This story captures you because It follows a script that you have written in your head...The only problem is that it's not true....
99% of Black men are killed by other Black Men. You are living in 1860 ...
realist1 wrote:
It might not be a crime in Georgia but why is he poking around in the house? My sympathy for him is rapidly disappearing, especially since he has a criminal record as a thief.
Oh how sweet it will be if some of you racists end up having children who decide that they want to date a black person. The universe has a way of dealing with hatred. You'll probably end up having kids who date black and have biracial children.
Maybe it is a crime, but it wouldn't justify what happened. It also doesn't seem that the McMichaels were aware that Arbery had been In the vacant house. This is what the father said to the police:
When the police arrived after the shooting, Gregory McMichael said that Mr. Arbery had looked like the suspect in a string of break-ins in the area.
There had only one break-in (into a car) since Jan. 1st, so a "string of break-ins" is a bit of an exaggeration.
realist1 wrote:
This story captures you because It follows a script that you have written in your head...The only problem is that it's not true....
99% of Black men are killed by other Black Men. You are living in 1860 ...
This thread captures you because it promises a script that you have written in your head. The only problem is that it's not true.
Arbery did not deserve to die that day.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
realist1 wrote:
Show me a link....
Are you talking about the distance between the homes?
Arbery lived at:
140 Boykin Ridge Drive
The rednecks lived at:
230 Satilla Drive
Both addresses are in Brunswick and you can check the distance on Google Maps.
Owned, destroyed, humiliated......stays home devastated.
Realist lying yet again.
Toadlips wrote:
I cannot imagine that entering a home, even if still under construction, is not a crime of some sort in Georgia.
My thoughts exactly. Property laws vary state to state, but I did find some Georgia Legal info about entering a building (construction included):
What does not Constitute a Defense for Burglary
It was an unoccupied building, so technically there was no breaking or entering: Sometimes a defendant will attempt to argue that since the building was vacant, there was not a breaking and entering. However, this defense will not hold up in court as case law has held that even entering a house under construction qualifies as a building and a defendant could still be convicted of burglary. Smith v. State, 226 Ga App. 9 (1957).
I didn't even steal anything: Even though you may not have stolen anything, you could still be convicted of burglary. According to Johnson v. Jackson, it is not necessary that the defendant actually steal anything. 140 Ga. App. 252, (1976). It is enough if they enter without authority and with intent to commit theft.
Here is the website:
https://www.georgiacriminallawyer.com/burglaryThe statement that wejo provided does make sense because according to the url above, In Georgia, burglary is defined as the breaking and entering into any structure with the intent to commit a felony therein.
But if you see the other info I cited above, there is more to what can also constitute as a burglary. It seems like the grey area would be if Ahmaud was thinking about stealing something, even though he didn't. Maybe he planned on coming back later to steal something?
No matter what, I don't think entering a construction site unauthorized is a viable reason to shoot someone multiple times. Both parties seem to be in the wrong, though one side does seem a lot more wrong and their wrongness took a life, which is tragic.
I also think there is more to the story than what we know or what has been released to the public. And for those that keep saying that it's okay to walk around a construction site, it is not okay. That's someone's personal property, even if there are not doors installed yet. You can't just go walking into any building or construction site because you are curious of the layout. You need permission, but again the severity of this offense varies from state to state, which is probably why some of us are more appalled by it than others.
Why do you all think they had a camera installed in the house that was being built? Had stuff been stolen out of it already?
A poster "Toadlips" has correctly pointed out earlier posted false information and I apologize. I wrote that the GBI had said Arbery entering the residence wasn't a crime and then quoted a statement. I misread the article and was quoting a statement from the Arbery family lawyers. This is important as for the McMichaels to have justification to make a citizen's arrest they must witness or have immediate knowledge of a felony. Here is the statement that I thought came from the GBI but actually came from the Arbery lawyers.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/authorities-investigate-video-showing-ahmaud-arbery-prior-shooting/story?id=70600564Arbery's attorney wrote:
"Ahmaud’s actions at this empty home under construction were in no way a felony under Georgia law," the statement continued. "This video confirms that Mr. Arbery’s murder was not justified and the actions of the men who pursued him and ambushed him were unjustified. We reiterate, Ahmaud Arbery did not take part in ANY felony, had no illegal substances in his system, was not armed yet was shot three times with a shotgun at close range."
Toradlipos wrote:
I cannot imagine that entering a home, even if still under construction, is not a crime of some sort in Georgia.
As I understand it, the legal pertinence to the case is whether going into the house justifies a citizen's arrest (begging the question of whether the McMichaels were aware of it) which would require that it be a felony and I haven't seen any credible opinion that it would meet that criteria.
Monkeys typing wrote:
As I understand it, the legal pertinence to the case is whether going into the house justifies a citizen's arrest (begging the question of whether the McMichaels were aware of it) which would require that it be a felony and I haven't seen any credible opinion that it would meet that criteria.
So, what you're suggesting is that entering a construction site warrants an armed citizens arrest?
Cool... Cool...
Monkeys typing wrote:
As I understand it, the legal pertinence to the case is whether going into the house justifies a citizen's arrest (begging the question of whether the McMichaels were aware of it) which would require that it be a felony and I haven't seen any credible opinion that it would meet that criteria.
Right. And I was pointing out that there is a grey area within the law not knowing if Ahmaud was thinking about stealing upon entering the building, even though he clearly did not steal at that time. Again, I think there is a lot more to this story than the public knows. Whether that intel goes in Ahmaud’s favor or the McMichaels legal favor, I have no clue. If it can be proven that he was thinking about it, then seems like it could be considered a felony.
Monkeys typing wrote:
As I understand it, the legal pertinence to the case is whether going into the house justifies a citizen's arrest (begging the question of whether the McMichaels were aware of it) which would require that it be a felony and I haven't seen any credible opinion that it would meet that criteria.
As I posted before, it doesn't seem that the McMichaels were aware that Arbery had been inside the vacant house a few minutes before.
The actions of the McMichaels were illogical. The father used to be a policemen so he would have known there was no justification for an arrest. They chase after Arbery, anyway, and anticipating the potential for violence, they bring their guns.
According to the police report, they shout, "Stop, we want to talk to". If Arbery had complied, I assume they were going to ask him if he had been burglarizing their neighborhood and the obvious answer would be, "No and f*ck off". What was supposed to happen next?
gdeegz wrote:
Monkeys typing wrote:
As I understand it, the legal pertinence to the case is whether going into the house justifies a citizen's arrest (begging the question of whether the McMichaels were aware of it) which would require that it be a felony and I haven't seen any credible opinion that it would meet that criteria.
So, what you're suggesting is that entering a construction site warrants an armed citizens arrest?
Cool... Cool...
If they were entering the construction site and thinking about stealing, then yes, it seems like it warrants a citizen arrest, sans the armed part. I think we call agree the armed part was completely unnecessary.