|
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
Verdict watch now in Arbery case.
|
|
Poster Handle
|
GooPile |
|
Post Content
|
Didn't see everything in this case due to the overlap with the Rittenhouse case, but based on the closing arguments:
The father and son stopped following Arbery after he ran away. They stop pursuing him, and had no reason to expect the guy with the phone (camera) was going to push him back in their direction.
The father and son did not 'false imprison' Arbery.
The guy with the camera turned his car around and followed Arbery into the circumstances where he may have thought he needed to make a stand.
The guy with the camera may have false imprisoned Arbery. There is more evidence of that than for the other two. Since the guy with the camera did not have any reason to expect and was not complicit with the father and son in the other truck, even though he may have effectively chased him into a entrapment, non-deliberately.
And completely unaware that the other person in the other truck had a shotgun.
The prosecutor has charged malice murder, which I believe is ridiculous and can be overruled for all 3 (since the 'malice' here was Arbery trying to take the gun off him). They have also charged felony murder, which requires the murder to be committed during the act of a felony. The felony here is false imprisonment but:
a) I think there is no evidence the father and son were complicit in false imprisonment;
b) Even though there is evidence the guy with the camera was chasing him down, he was not complicit with murder because he was not complicit with the other two.
If the prosecution provided evidence of their complicity, I have not seen it and I don't believe she mentioned it.
The prosecution alleges 4 felonies. I don't see how they can possibly get it with false imprisonment. They also argue that a felony was the guy with the camera committing assault with the car. Once again, I don't think there is a direct unbroken line between this and the murder. And from what I understand, angling the car into his path (at 2mph, not believed to have hit Arbery) was defensive due to Arbery trying to open the car door.
A third felony I believe is that the son held a gun up to Arbery as he was coming back at them. And I don't know the legality of this as they were within their rights (best I can tell) to suspect him of committing a felony because: a) he trespassed (not a felony); and b) he may have committed theft (which is a felony over a certain amount).
As I understand it, you don't need proof that a person has committed a felony, but reasonable suspicion. And Arbery's behavior of running out of the place he had trespassed into (doesn't look like a jog to me) certainly arouses suspicion. And as I understand it, he does not need to tell him it is a citizens arrest, but according to their testimony they did try talking to him but he was silent.
Quoting: GooPile They held him at the barrel of a shotgun. How do you consider that not to be wrongful imprisonment ? As for citizens arrest, you must actually WITNESS a crime not just suspect one. The property was and is not fenced off, it was unoccupied and no signs posted against trespassing. I know I myself have walked up to empty houses under construction just to see what they are doing as far as construction, that’s not a crime. Even have had security come while I was there and they were fine with it as clearly I wasn’t hauling off equipment or construction supplies nor vandalism. Neither did the man these guys killed. This is the right verdict, you just need to pull your racist head out of your ass to see It should be noted I had revised my points in this post, which was my earliest post here. I said felony murder may be plausible for the father and son. This included potentially assaulting Arbery by raising his gun in his direction, although I had issue with whether that constituted the same act as the homicide. Furthermore, it is complicated (despite how ugly they are) by the fact that they had seen footage of Arbery repeatedly trespassing in a location where items were stolen (from a boat) and fleeing from the scene. I don't know the law, but my instinct is raising the gun towards someone who potentially committed a felony is not the first aggression. And that was said to have been the standard in the closing statements: you don't need to know they had committed a felony for a detainment, all you need is reasonable suspicion. Doesn't matter if he had any stolen possessions on him, that is 20:20 hindsight.
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for reporting:
|
