Shooting of jogger in GA

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Perhaps getting into an altercation wouldn't turn out well. As far as your fate, if they wanted you to get into the truck, there are ways to die and there are ways to die. You don't have to look far in recent history of stopped black men to know that.

Might he have run in the direction opposite of the truck? Run on some neighbor's lawn and started screaming for them to call the police. Sit down so they could not move him easily? Perhaps.

The onus however is on the two from the truck. They accosted a man with instruments of lethal force with no good reason. We can parse alternative universe outcomes all we want. They initially skated because of connections, what else is new?

[jrm]

Perhaps getting into an altercation wouldn't turn out well. As far as your fate, if they wanted you to get into the truck, there are ways to die and there are ways to die. You don't have to look far in recent history of stopped black men to know that.

Might he have run in the direction opposite of the truck? Run on some neighbor's lawn and started screaming for them to call the police. Sit down so they could not move him easily? Perhaps.

The onus however is on the two from the truck. They accosted a man with instruments of lethal force with no good reason. We can parse alternative universe outcomes all we want. They initially skated because of connections, what else is new?

James Byrd, Jr. would probably agree with this if he hadn’t been drug behind a pickup truck until he was dismembered and decapitated by a few white guys.

[Dog Guy]

I get you are trying to draw some parallel with complying with law enforcement here.

Serious question, had the victim complied what was the likely outcome? Probably not worse then being shot to death. Police come, investigate, Bubbas go to jail for criminal confinement or whatever the GA equivalent is, victim sues and moves into their trailer?

You learn about pre-assault indicators so you know how much time you have on the timer and if it's worth the risk to resist now or if I can wait for an opening. Do you think he had a realistic chance to win by resisting? No.

I'm not comparing this to complying with LE at all. I'm sorry if it sounded that way. My comments apply only to how we would advocate people react to an unknown person with no apparent symbol of authority (marked unit, badge, ID, uniform) confronting us when we're doing something we have the right to do in a place we have the right to be. Are we dealing with a bad guy who has a plan and initiated the action and we're reactive from the get go? Are we expected to give up any chance of escape by complying with their orders and allowing ourselves to be detained on the hope that it's actually a good guy who mistook us for a bad guy? I don't have numbers but I expect that confrontations initiated by unknown persons in public are far more likely to be criminal in nature than benign. How many jurisdictions are there where mistaken identity citizen's arrests outnumber criminal assaults on the street? (That's sort of a rhetorical question.) I just have a hard time telling my wife to do as she's told and let LE sort it all out when they get there. I think she's much more likely to be accosted by a crook than by a well intentioned self appointed sheep dog.

As to the likely outcome had he complied in this incident: I expect that compliance would have worked out well for him, certainly better than getting shot. But he didn't know that ahead of time, and that's my poorly made point. If he's an innocent jogger, what was he perceiving? Were these two upstanding citizens protecting the neighborhood, or two wannabe klansmen looking to cart him off and dump his corpse in the swamp? He was going to lose this confrontation. Maybe he never even thought about what he'd do. Maybe he had incredible courage and decided to go down fighting rather than being dragged to death behind a truck. Maybe he was a burglar who was hoping to get away. So much depends on the mindset and perception of the jogger.

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm not comparing this to complying with LE at all. I'm sorry if it sounded that way. My comments apply only to how we would advocate people react to an unknown person with no apparent symbol of authority (marked unit, badge, ID, uniform) confronting us when we're doing something we have the right to do in a place we have the right to be. Are we dealing with a bad guy who has a plan and initiated the action and we're reactive from the get go? Are we expected to give up any chance of escape by complying with their orders and allowing ourselves to be detained on the hope that it's actually a good guy who mistook us for a bad guy?

Ok, I must have read something into your initial post that you didn't intend. Thanks for clarifying that.

So as for the rest, that's why knowing pre-attack indicators do matter so much. If I ask you if you know where the bus station is, am I distracting you to close with you and attempt to rob you or am I lost and needing help? That's more mundane then what we've got going on here, but you understand that nuance matters in determining what we should do. As long as I have time, I want to stay in the OOD part of the OODA loop and maximize my chances that when I Act I'll win.

I just got back from a 2 mile slog...err, jog. Let's say I was confronted in the same way. I was better armed then the victim here, carrying a Shield, but I'm still one dude on foot with a handgun vs two guys armed with long guns and a truck with. I think I can make a few conclusions without the benefit of hindsight.

1) They aren't shooting yet. That probably means they don't want to shoot me. That doesn't mean they don't want to victimize me, but it does mean I have time.

2) They are talking to me. Again, that means they don't want to shoot me. They, at this point, what information or compliance. I still have time.

So I have time to continue to observe and orient to make a decision.

What's the demand?
Stop and wait for the police? Sure. Let's do that and keep talking. Still have time.

Are you Larry the guy who punched my dog? Nope. Wrong guy. Now see what happens. Still have time.

Get in the truck? I still have time, but probably not as much.

Get out handcuffs or rope? Not much time but I know one of them is going to get close to me and that's probably when the time to Act is.

So, yeah, comply until you don't. Especially if outnumbered, outgunned, with no cover and no ready means of escape.

[farscott]

My thought is that the best possible action any (or all) of the three people in the video could have done is call "911" and let the pros sort out the mess.

[andre3k]

Policing off duty will get you caught up every time. Like others have said, call it in and be a good witness. Don't be a Cleetus and grab your long gun and get the search posse together.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Gray Ghost]

If the two white guys were in fact trying to effect an arrest, and if they had probable cause, then they were privileged to use reasonable force, but not deadly force. However, if while that was going on, the suspect attempted to gain control of a firearm, then the two would be arresters may have reasonably believed that they were in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury, thus giving them the privilege to use deadly force.

I think the whole thing will turn on whether they had probable cause. If they did not, and the arrest was unlawful, then the suspect was privileged to use reasonable force to resist, which could include deadly force.

It was of course extraordinarily unwise to attempt the arrest, and this also shows why you shouldn't have a firearm in your hand until you are justified in using it. You may find yourself with the need to employ a lower level of force, in which case the firearm becomes a liability.

[EricG]

My libertarian beliefs are constantly challenged. Red flag laws are designed for psychos like these two.
Geez!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[MickAK]

Letter written by one of the DA's that recused himself. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthel...ull.pdf#page=1

I've done a lot of wandering around. Multiple times, usually when there had been property crimes in the area recently, men carrying shotguns/rifles have pulled up to speak to me. I never once felt that I was being accosted or held at gunpoint. I was out of place. In many communities, it is perfectly normal for folks to show up questioning strangers that are wandering around. Usually these folks are armed.

The man in the video is wearing cargo/jean shorts and loosely fitting Timberlands/work boots. You can jog wearing all kinds of things. I used to jog in wildland firefighting boots and Carharts. But if you do that you don't look like a jogger. You look like a guy running.

Google Earth streetview shows this isn't the kind of neighborhood where random joggers come through. No reason not to jog there, but this is not a city block where seeing random joggers is a commonplace.

I'm not sure what's giving people the idea that with all of the above, the guy that ran at the armed men and attempted to wrestle away their weapons is the reasonable one here. Or that there is cause to arrest the men that came to check on him. I think it's a combination of Southern stereotypes and media outrage narrative.

[vcdgrips]

Oddlot

"But Wisconsin courts have expressly recognized citizens arrests (City of Waukesha v. Gorz tops my duckduckgo search results)."


I was going to let the above go as what WI courts have recognized have virtually nothing to to with GA- the jurisdiction where this case presently is sitting. But then...I could not.

The silence with which your have not responded when asked to provide information outlining your training/education/experience in this and other threads given the breadth and depth of your legal and medical pronouncements is deafening.

Clearly, you have not read the case you cited well, if at all, because if you had, it would have been patently clear that the holding of Gorz was not remotely comparable to the conduct at hand but rather whether a police officer outside of his jurisdiction still had the powers of arrest re a DUI they had witnessed on a public road.

Did you "shepardize" Gortz or otherwise determine it continued legal validity and read the cases that cited Gortz since 1991?

You do understand that the duck duck go search engine (In AR Terms- Crappy Olympic Arms) you mentioned is not a recognized legal search engine relative to Westlaw (Colt 6920) and Lexis (BCM) right?


If you shepardized Gortz, you would have seen that the vast majority of 15 or 16 State of Wisconsin state cases that cited Gorz since in was decided in 1991 dealt with the same fact pattern-Whether an officer, outside of their jurisdiction could affect an arrest when they actually witnessed a DUI. Indeed the first case that arguably cites Gortz outside of that context was Waupaca County v. Krueger in 2011 wherein a tow truck driver's citizen's arrest in the DUI context was deemed valid. Finally, the last case in WI talking about the term citizen's arrest in WI was a 2016 case-State v. Caster (edited to add as per Westlaw running the search term citizen's within the same sentence as arrest). It focused on the power of arrest by an officer who observed a DUI.

In short, Gortz absolutely does not stand for the proposition that WI has "expressly recognized citizen's arrest" in a similar context as to what happened in GA or what most people contemplate re the general area of citizen's arrest. The holding in Gortz and those of the cases that cite Gortz are far more nuanced and limited than what you stated.

Given the clarity with which the Gortz case set forth its holding-I am left with one of or a combination of the following conclusions

a. you did not read the case at all

b. you read the case and misinterpreted the holding out of ignorance/lack of experience/training/ability/acumen etc

c. You read the case, and decided that as its very narrow holding did not support your narrative, you would simply attempt to deceive those who read you conclusive pronouncement banking on the fact that most folks would not read the case etc.