Crime Ahmaud Arbery shooting v3

[LMP]

No, it's not even a false imprisonment. They didn't abduct him. It is what it is. A false arrest: an unlawful, attempted citizen's arrest.

He died in their attempt to detain him. It is clear the they are attempting to detain him (attempting to kidnap). They had no lawful authority to do so.

 

[Madmick]

Yeah, I’ve made peace with that.

I figured. You aren't the only one, obviously. The problem is an uninhibited desire for revenge isn't a benign motivation towards the pursuit of justice.

He died in their attempt to detain him. It is clear the they are attempting to detain him (attempting to kidnap). They had no lawful authority to do so.

You need to take a step back. You just equated an attempted false arrest to an attempted kidnapping.

 

[AgonyandIrony]

Yeah, I’ve made peace with that.

I wish I could like this post a thousand times.

Did you read this article I posted earlier? If you want to get all on my level on the whole "fuck the cops and fuck racists" put on that Run the Jewels track from earlier. It's a shame Ahmaud wasn't armed. The right people could have died that die.

 

[b34stmode]

I figured. You aren't the only one, obviously. The problem is an uninhibited desire for revenge isn't a benign motivation towards the pursuit of justice.

You need to take a step back. You just equated an attempted false arrest to an attempted kidnapping.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-3/16-5-41/

(a) A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority.

They confined him in between the two vehicles with the vehicles and shotgun. It's a felony as well.

 

[jamel]

Like I told yall in the last thread, MadMick is just articulating how badly the system is rigged in the south.

He is not to blame for the shit sounding fucked up, he didn't write the laws, people with agenda's and predjudice's are to blame!

 

[LMP]

I figured. You aren't the only one, obviously. The problem is an uninhibited desire for revenge isn't a benign motivation towards the pursuit of justice.

You need to take a step back. You just equated an attempted false arrest to an attempted kidnapping.

Under Georgia law, O.C.G.A. §16-5-40, a person commits the offense of kidnapping when such person abducts or steals away another person without lawful authority or warrant and holds such other person against his or her will.

I would say that they are clearly attempting and without lawful authority, to steal away AA against his will(detain).

 

[computer fogie]

So let me get this straight... In your attempt to be anti-racist, you post a prison photo of black men, whom you imply are eagerly awaiting the chance to beat and rape two white men...? You lefties are something special...

Finally, a clear-thinking Georgia resident speaks up. What do you think about the case against the McMichaels?

 

[irish_thug]

The same reason it took so long for them to get arrested and the it's police force that murdered someone else.

Good old boys in blue. Also they chased him for four fucking minutes? That's insane... But same question stands I always ask about car chases... What kind of music do you think they were listening to while they chased him down with guns?

My go to is seek and destroy

 

[Madmick]

Under Georgia law, O.C.G.A. §16-5-40, a person commits the offense of kidnapping when such person abducts or steals away another person without lawful authority or warrant and holds such other person against his or her will.

I would say that they are clearly attempting and without lawful authority, to steal away AA against his will(detain).

Doubling down on not reading it correctly the first time?

Please, by all means, abuse yourself with your own ignorance.

 

[Madmick]

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-3/16-5-41/

(a) A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority.

They confined him in between the two vehicles with the vehicles and shotgun. It's a felony as well.

In Georgia only if that person is detained in a bounded area.

He isn't confined in that way.

 

[AgonyandIrony]

Like I told yall in the last thread, MadMick is just articulating how badly the system is rigged in the south.

He is not to blame for the shit sounding fucked up, he didn't write the laws, people with agenda's and predjudice's are to blame!

That's my favorite part of arguing for the law but not morality, Georgias laws were written by White Supremacists and enforced by these nice fellas.

Now watch motherfuckers are going to be more upset with me bringing up white supremacists historical links to law enforcement than the fact that the KKK ran the Georgia Beareu of Investigation and infiltrated almost every law enforcement agency in the state lmao.

Oh shit @sickc0d3r I forgot to link the article again.
https://theintercept.com/2020/05/14/georgia-bureau-of-investigation-ahmaud-arbery/

 

[LMP]

Doubling down on not reading it correctly the first time?

Please, by all means, abuse yourself with your own ignorance.

Please cite another Georgia law that this would fall under besides kidnapping.

 

[BEER]

Doubling down on not reading it correctly the first time?

Please, by all means, abuse yourself with your own ignorance.

If they attempted to illegally detain him, would that not be grounds for "attempting kidnapping" given the language of the law?

 

[Madmick]

Please cite another Georgia law that this would fall under besides kidnapping.

I literally just did. It's a false arrest.

O.C.G.A. 51-7-4 (2010)
51-7-4. Arrest under civil process of person exempt from such arrest

The willful arrest, under civil process, of a person exempt by law from such arrest shall be deemed malicious until the contrary shall be proved.

If they attempted to illegally detain him, would that not be grounds for "attempting kidnapping" given the language of the law?

The fact they didn't abduct him, LOL.

 

[b34stmode]

In Georgia only if that person is detained in a bounded area.

He isn't confined in that way.

https://www.georgiacriminallawyer.com/false-imprisonment

Where are you getting the bounded area from?

To be convicted of false imprisonment in Georgia, the State must demonstrate that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That includes showing that the accused had the intent to confine the victim and that there were no reasonable means of escape.

 

[Madmick]

https://www.georgiacriminallawyer.com/false-imprisonment

Where are you getting the bounded area from?

To be convicted of false imprisonment in Georgia, the State must demonstrate that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That includes showing that the accused had the intent to confine the victim and that there were no reasonable means of escape.

https://www.georgialegalaid.org/resource/when-you-harm-others-intentionally

False Imprisonment
False imprisonment is the unlawful confinement to a bounded area of one person by another for any length of time whereby he or she is deprived of his or her liberty. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for the tort to occur. If the person reasonably believes that he or she is not free to leave, then a false imprisonment has occurred.

Generally, the injury resulting from false imprisonment is emotional (resulting in, for example, humiliation, fear, or embarrassment). However, physical injuries can occur from the restraint itself or when the person attempts to escape. In either case, the wrongdoer would be liable for all such injuries.

Unless their actions are purposefully unlawful, police officers generally have immunity from lawsuits when acting officially.

This is why it can be problematic to look at statutes without looking at the preceding law that they further detail.

 

[shockaholic12]

Your attempt to justify his aggressive initiation of battery on an armed man as self-defense is illogical. The choice to attack was not his only option.

Attempting to disarm one of the men who set up an armed roadblock and has run across the street towards him brandishing a shotgun and shouting orders at him doesn't have to be Arbery's literal only possible option in the world to be considered self-defense. There's no precedent for that. He had a right to run down the side of the road unthreatened. Travis had no right to set up a road block and charge someone brandishing a shotgun. Just because with hindsight you can pour over a video and find spot a route that could or could not have hypothetically allowed Arbery to escape Travis chasing after him doesn't in any way rescind Abery's right to defend himself. All that needs to be established is whether Arbery could logically reason Travis constituted an immediate threat to him and logically reason disarming him could negate the immediate threat. A dude chasing you for a long time and running around the street at you with a shotty, yep that about covers it.

The shooter and his old man themselves established 2 things as does the video. Arbery had gone to great, great lengths for a very long time to evade them and not engage. In response they set up armed road block to trap him and force a confrontation with brandished deadly weapons. Arbery in response attempted as you stated to defensively run around them for the countless time and the shooter decides he wants to confront Arbery with the shotgun so he runs towards him thus causing the confrontation. Shooter stands still, not an immediate threat. Shooter runs around truck and tries to block Arbery from getting to safety? That's an immediate threat. You arguing Arbery didn't explore the option of evading them to a great enough extent when that's what they admit he did for a very long time to the point they needed to break a ton of laws to make that has difficult and dangerous for him as possible is now tripling down on the frankly terrible logic you have in this thread.

Yes, once it was far too late and Travis had already run up on Arbery with a gun and started a confrontation with a deadly weapon he took a step back, but that doesn't matter because he had already clearly crossed the line by such a margin. You can't toss up a road block, run around your truck at someone with a shotgun, and then jump back and cry foul when they start defending themselves and you don't like getting beat up. That's ridiculous. Travis did something that would grant any pedestrian the right to swing on him when approached and then shot the guy for swinging on him.

 

[Madmick]

Attempting to disarm one of the men who set up an armed roadblock and has run across the street towards him brandishing a shotgun and shouting orders at him doesn't have to be Arbery's literal only possible option in the world to be considered self-defense. There's no precedent for that. He had a right to run down the side of the road unthreatened. Travis had no right to set up a road block and charge someone brandishing a shotgun. Just because with hindsight you can pour over a video and find spot a route that could or could not have hypothetically allowed Arbery to escape Travis chasing after him doesn't in any way rescind Abery's right to defend himself. All that needs to be established is whether Arbery could logically reason Travis constituted an immediate threat to him and logically reason disarming him could negate the immediate threat. A dude chasing you for a long time and running around the street at you with a shotty, yep that about covers it.

The shooter and his old man themselves established 2 things as does the video. Arbery had gone to great, great lengths for a very long time to evade them and not engage. In response they set up armed road block to trap him and force a confrontation with brandished deadly weapons. Arbery in response attempted as you stated to defensively run around them for the countless time and the shooter decides he wants to confront Arbery with the shotgun so he runs towards him thus causing the confrontation. Shooter stands still, not an immediate threat. Shooter runs around truck and tries to block Arbery from getting to safety? That's an immediate threat. You arguing Arbery didn't explore the option of evading them to a great enough extent when that's what they admit he did for a very long time to the point they needed to break a ton of laws to make that has difficult and dangerous for him as possible is now tripling down on the frankly terrible logic you have in this thread.

Yes, once it was far too late and Travis had already run up on Arbery with a gun and started a confrontation with a deadly weapon he took a step back, but that doesn't matter because he had already clearly crossed the line by such a margin. You can't toss up a road block, run around your truck at someone with a shotgun, and then jump back and cry foul when they start defending themselves and you don't like getting beat up. That's ridiculous. Travis did something that would grant any pedestrian the right to swing on him when approached and then shot the guy for swinging on him.

Travis not having the right to arrest him, or even to brandish his weapon, doesn't entail Arbery having the right to attack him, and attempt to take his gun from him.

 

[sickc0d3r]

I figured. You aren't the only one, obviously. The problem is an uninhibited desire for revenge isn't a benign motivation towards the pursuit of justice.

That’s one way to look at it, I guess. The other is it’s fun and kind of a civic duty to get the stormfront crew that infests this place to expose themselves. With you as their uninformed leader sporting a bad case of logorrhea it’s all too easy.

So are you gonna tell us how you think it would go down if you chased down and jumped in front of some dude with your shottie? How do you think a citizen with rights would react and why?

 

[b34stmode]

https://www.georgialegalaid.org/resource/when-you-harm-others-intentionally

This is why it can be problematic to look at statutes without looking at the preceding law that they further detail.

Yeah no, the statute doesn't read that way. Also a bounded area is the part of road he was forced on by both vehicles.

O.C.G.A. 16-5-41 (2010) <-- Thats the actual statute.