Crime Ahmaud Arbery Shooting v4 (autopsy report)

Cubo de Sangre said:
That's fuckin' stupid. If someone robs your store or breaks into your house you sure as shit shouldn't be punished by law for holding these fucks until authorities arrive, or escorting them into custody.
Click to expand...
Holding them and doing a citizen's arrest are different things.

What happens if 1 citizen tries to make a citizen's arrest and the other citizen tries to do the same?
 
Proud American said:
you bet your ass Americans have the right to detain a criminal. Unless if you let them go they might not get caught. Fuck that noise.

if some thug steals an old ladies purse, it’s your American duty to chase them down and get that purse back and see them apprehended.

who raised you people. What the fuck is going on.
Click to expand...
We are not talking about detaining/holding people who have committed a crime in your presense, we are talking about a citzen's arrest.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
Dafuq you think an arrest is if not holding someone?
Click to expand...

When you detain someone who is committing a crime, you are actually witnessing the crime.

You can make a citizen's arrest if you reasonably suspect the person has committed a crime. This will lead to abuse because civilians will claim they suspected the civilian they detained of commiting a felony. As in the Arbery case where the 3 White men claimed they thought Arbery had stolen something.
 
MicroBrew said:
When you detain someone who is committing a crime, you are actually witnessing the crime.

You can make a citizen's arrest if you reasonably suspect the person has committed a crime. This will lead to abuse because civilians will claim they suspected the civilian they detained of commiting a felony. As in the Arbery case where the 3 White men claimed they thought Arbery had stolen something.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the nuance I referred to. Also why existing GA law will ring these fools up.
 
MicroBrew said:
Civilians should not have the power to arrest anyone , it just invites abuse. Why should 1 civilian have said power over another?
Click to expand...
This is the dumbest thing written in this entire megathread.

It empowers the people to not tolerate crime simply because a peace officer isn't present (which is true for the overwhelmingly majority of crime). This is one of the most pro-citizen laws that exists. It presumes-- like innocence over guilt-- that almost all citizens are inherently law-abiding, and want to do the right thing.
 
Madmick said:
This is the dumbest thing written in this entire megathread.

It empowers the people to not tolerate crime simply because a peace officer isn't present (which is true for the overwhelmingly majority of crime). This is one of the most pro-citizen laws that exists. It presumes-- like innocence over guilt-- that almost all citizens are inherently law-abiding, and want to do the right thing.
Click to expand...
It emboldens vigilantism, because any asshole can attemp a citizen's arrest and then claim he/she believed the suspect engaged in a felony.

This law does not prevent people from defending themselves and detain suspects when they directly witness a crime.
 
MicroBrew said:
It emboldens vigilantism, because any asshole can attemp a citizen's arrest and then claim he/she believed the suspect engaged in a felony.

This law does not prevent people from defending themselves and detain suspects when they directly witness a crime.
Click to expand...
No, it empowers people to act based on trust in information relayed to them that is time-sensitive by other citizens. This once again assumes most citizens are law-abiding, and possess benevolent intent. Obviously those who attempt to make citizen's arrests based on third-party information are still subject to the law, so it's absurd to allege that vigilantism is emboldened.
 
Madmick said:
No, it empowers people to act based on trust in information relayed to them that is time-sensitive by other citizens. This once again assumes most citizens are law-abiding, and possess benevolent intent. Obviously those who attempt to make citizen's arrests based on third-party information are still subject to the law, so it's absurd to allege that vigilantism is emboldened.
Click to expand...

There are enough people around who will abuse the law. It won't be a common occurance but even a case happening every now and then can lead to Ahmaud Arbery like situations.
 
MicroBrew said:
There are enough people around who will abuse the law. It won't be a common occurance but even a case happening every now and then can lead to Ahmaud Arbery like situations.
Click to expand...
This is a stupid argument that was dismantled in a sentence.

Again, it's ridiculous to assert it emboldens vigilantism when citizens remain subject to the law, and they may only credibly cite an action within the capacity of citizen's arrest based on third-party communication by producing that third party.

Anyone who isn't pro-crime will favor this empowerment of everyday, law-abiding citizens to act given these extraordinary circumstances.
 
Madmick said:
This is a stupid argument that was dismantled in a sentence.

Again, it's ridiculous to assert it emboldens vigilantism when citizens remain subject to the law, and they may only credibly cite an action within the capacity of citizen's arrest based on third-party communication by producing that third party.

Anyone who isn't pro-crime will favor this empowerment of everyday, law-abiding citizens to act given these extraordinary circumstances.
Click to expand...

And you are ignoring that some citizens will claim they reasonably suspected a person engaged in a felony, to justify their citizen's arrest, even if their justifcation is sketchy.

This law does not stop a person from holding a suspect they saw commit a felony. It just makes it harder for people who didn't witness a crime taking the law into their own hands.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
That's fuckin' stupid. If someone robs your store or breaks into your house you sure as shit shouldn't be punished by law for holding these fucks until authorities arrive, or escorting them into custody.
Click to expand...

You should research "Castle Doctrine". It answers your questions.
 
MicroBrew said:
And you are ignoring that some citizens will claim they reasonably suspected a person engaged in a felony, to justify their citizen's arrest, even if their justifcation is sketchy.

This law does not stop a person from holding a suspect they saw commit a felony. It just makes it harder for people who didn't witness a crime taking the law into their own hands.
Click to expand...
Because I don't concern myself with extraordinary outliers like this one where the perpetrators ultimately caught murder charges, anyway.

The overwhelming majority of citizen's arrests are valid, and don't involve the arresting citizen committing a crime. If one isn't pro-crime, one favors laws that permit this reality versus those that thwart it. Unfortunately, so many in this country care more about protecting criminals than protecting those they victimize.
 
Madmick said:
Because I don't concern myself with extraordinary outliers like this one where the perpetrators ultimately caught murder charges, anyway.

The overwhelming majority of citizen's arrests are valid, and don't involve the arresting citizen committing a crime. If one isn't pro-crime, one favors laws that permit this reality versus those that thwart it. Unfortunately, so many in this country care more about protecting criminals than protecting those they victimize.
Click to expand...

We don't know how this case will turn out, so if these guys get acquited it will embolden others to take the law into their hands, but voiding the citizen's arrest law can counter such behavior.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
That's fuckin' stupid. If someone robs your store or breaks into your house you sure as shit shouldn't be punished by law for holding these fucks until authorities arrive, or escorting them into custody.
Click to expand...
Fair to say if you witness a crime you should be able to detain the perpetrator(s). But, unless it is your property and you are the victim, I think the use of force line is pretty blurry. Like, people are stupid and make a lot of assumptions (this case is an example). Yanking a gun at someone you think did something, if that citizen thinks otherwise, they have every right to defend themselves.
 
Madmick said:
No, it empowers people to act based on trust in information relayed to them that is time-sensitive by other citizens. This once again assumes most citizens are law-abiding, and possess benevolent intent. Obviously those who attempt to make citizen's arrests based on third-party information are still subject to the law, so it's absurd to allege that vigilantism is emboldened.
Click to expand...

I wonder if his posting on the Rittenhouse case is consistent. Too lazy to look it up.
 
sickc0d3r said:
Fair to say if you witness a crime you should be able to detain the perpetrator(s). But, unless it is your property and you are the victim, I think the use of force line is pretty blurry. Like, people are stupid and make a lot of assumptions (this case is an example). Yanking a gun at someone you think did something, if that citizen thinks otherwise, they have every right to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

People make mistakes, same as law enforcement. The difference is that non-LEOs tend to be held accountable. That's why these dudes will be doing time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,661
Messages
55,432,722
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top