Originally Posted by RJ
RJ, I had to jump back in when I read your question. If you haven't already read Andrew Branca's excellent book - "The Law of Self Defense/The Indispensable Guide for the Armed Citizen" - it will answer your questions. In the appendix, he provides a breakdown of state -specific legal information.
Edit to post - I should know better by now to read the entire thread - blues gave the same information. In MY defense, this thread changes, literally, by the minute.
Last edited by 11B10; 05-08-2020 at 10:40 AM.
Going from memory from 2002 again, you are correct. If you initiate the conflict you cannot claim self defense for the use of deadly force. However, if you do try to deescalate the situation and the other party continues to escalate and threaten your life, then you can use deadly force.
Let's just drop a link to save everyone the trouble too:
https://www.amazon.com/Law-Self-Defe...8952237&sr=8-1
Not a book I previously had. Rectified.
Yes, I have it. Good book.
It and also "attending" the series of video lectures available as part of my recent membership in the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network prompted me to ask this question.
Here's what my state says about it, others will vary, of course:
(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified:
(1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;
(2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) The person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so; and
(B) The other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person; or
From what I can tell thus far - acknowledging we have incomplete evidence at this point - the McMichaels are likely going to jail.
Unless they can demonstrate that Arbery really had committed theft, their attempts at a citizen's arrest/detainment is likely to be viewed as unlawful by a jury. The prosecution is going to argue that that even if Arbery committed criminal trespass, criminal trespass is a misdemeanor and therefore doesn't meet the burden for a citizen's arrest in Georgia. So, their attempts to detain/arrest Arbery were unlawful and therefore...they became the aggressors (whether intend or not) when they pursued and engaged Arbery.
Whether Arbery fought with an armed McMichael after that is really kind of irrelevant, because you cannot claim self-defense when you are the armed aggressor.
___
The ultimate reality is - Criminal Trespass isn't a felony and someone who is running down the street isn't actively committing a crime. Unless the McMichaels can point - definitively - to evidence that Arbery committed a felony and they witnessed it and/or had direct knowledge of it - they are almost certainly going to jail.
___
At least that's how I see it - acknowledging that I am NOT a lawyer or legal professional. Just a citizen, but that's my read of the situation.
I intend for this to be my last post in this thread until after the case is concluded. On top of all of the change of venue stuff the defense will argue, they are going to have one heckuva compelling witness:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthel...3RSF6iE#page=1
A plea bargain at this point is likely a tough sell in the court of social media meaning that the prosecutor is going to have to go full steam ahead. If this case ever gets to trial(s), a hung jury(s) would not surprise me. The defense only has to get one "not guilty" vote.
I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.
What is the solid first hand probable cause?Third
It appears Travis McMichael, Greg McMichael, and Bryan William were following, in "hot
pursuit", a burglary suspect, with solid first hand probable cause, in their neighborhood, and
asking/ telling him to stop. It appears their intent was to stop and hold this criminal suspect until
law enforcement arrived. Under Georgia Law this is perfectly legal,
OCGA 17 -4 -60 A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his
immediate knowledge . If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private
person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.
(ETA: I'm assuming that GBI didn't agree with the view expressed in the quoted passage above...since they found probable cause to arrest on suspicion of murder.)
Last edited by blues; 05-08-2020 at 01:36 PM.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Witness? How do you figure that? That is an opinion from a prosecutor, not statements from a fact witness. Further despite his claimed experience in criminal prosecution it is highly unlikely he would be allowed to testify as an expert witness that would be allowed to offer opinion testimony at trial.
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
That's actually irrelevant. You aren't judged by what facts are discovered after the fact, either for or against you. You are judged solely on what you knew at the time, and it cuts both ways. Let's say you shoot someone for pointing a gun at you, then it turns out it was a lump of wood carved to look like a gun. Pointing a lump of wood isn't illegal. That doesn't change the situation, though, as you reasonably believed a gun was being pointed at you.
So if he (the person shot) really committed a certain crime or not isn't the question. He could have been discovered to have been wearing a suicide vest and if the shooters didn't know that it doesn't matter. The question will solely be, with the information they had at the time, could they lawfully arrest him? If they couldn't they are committing a forcible felony and have no claim to self-defense. A quick glance at GA law shows our criminal confinement would be their false arrest, although other crimes may also apply.
Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 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.
(b) A person convicted of the offense of false imprisonment shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Reply With Quote