I pretty much came to same conclusion earlier tonight. In fact, I just changed my vote to 'self-defense' in thread poll. I think that is how it is going to go down. And I don't think it is going to center on anything to do with citizen's arrest but rather whether Ahmaud is determined to have had a legitimate cause to attack Travis McMichael. I do not think he had a legitimate cause to do that.
You've stated the complete opposite of how a self-defense claim is handled within our laws.
The defendant (the dad and son charged with murder) have the burden of establishing an affirmative defense such as self-defense. The State only has the burden to prove the elements of the crime.
The defendants here, should that assert a claim of self-defense, will have to show that they held reasonable fear (not themselves, but that of a common man in similar circumstances) of imminent death, and, most importantly that they did not initiate the assault. You cannot start an assault and then claim self-defense once you feel your life is in danger. By rolling up with guns, they did just that. An assault occurs when a reasonable person concludes that unlawful conduct is likely imminent. To this effect, the defendants will need to convince a jury that the average person would not feel threatened by them exiting a truck, clearly brandishing arms.
Now there's no telling what could happen when they get that to a jury, because juries are often retarded. But any decent prosecutor should be able to blow the fuck out of that theory. A theory that, again, the DEFENDANTS must prove.
And think about what a retarded standard that would set. You're telling me that I should be able to drive around L.A. with my buddy, both armed, and be able to roll up on anyone I suspect may have committed a crime and demand they obey my summons. If any of them then threaten me, I can kill them.
I really hope you can understand just how shitty a precedent that would set.
even when the guy lunges at you and tries to take your firearm ? lol .. that's kind of a tough situation .. even if you think they're in the wrong for trying to citizen arrest him no one is going to just give up their firearm or try to keep fighting .. you're gonna wanna shoot the other guy because your life is under threat .. and we now know he was committing a crime at the very least so he wasn't just some random person .. my question would be was there direct communication with the neighbor who saw this guy coming out of the house and the shooters where the neighbor alerted them of this guy and gave them a description as opposed to them just targeting this guy solely because he looked suspicious to them
Under Georgia law, a person making a citizens arrest has to have knowledge of a crime being committed by the person he's trying to detain. Not suspicion. Knowledge. You have to have either witnessed the crime, or be otherwise certain that the person committed said act. You can't just have another tell you about something, and off you go.
Further, under Georgia law (and virtually all others that I'm aware of) you have to use the minimal use of force to detain that person. You can't just brandish weapons at someone you think committed a property crime. If the bar was that fucking low, any american could jump out armed and demand the halt of someone they merley suspect had done wrong.
