Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Trayvon Martin II

I already linked the source.

I have t claimed he took the tackle. I simply noted that he reported that much tackle missing at one point. Makes sense too, because you can see a boat in there in some of the videos from last year showing Arbery in there.

Then what are you suggesting or strongly implying here?

So GBI viewed all the footage seen here (and more)
and found no evidence of him thieving or/ 'intent' to
thieve in any of it., .. would that be correct?

and consequently arrested the McMichaels cause it
was deemed no felony was committed by Arbery to
justify citizens arrest/self-defence..... correct?

Despite your far more limited video evidence knowledge
than GBI and your displayed distinct lack of understanding
of GA statute[re: burglary] , somehow you know better
than those in charge of the case.

Despite the predictable derailed train wreck this has become, one outcome of this thread for me, was that it prompted me to review the citizen's arrest laws for my home state.

I had done that years ago, but a refresher was worth my time:

In my home state, there are rules and regulations around a citizen's arrest - acceptable use of restraint. The guidelines around being an actual, in person whiteness of an ACTUAL crime in progress.... Plus the use of force to restrain, and the acceptable use of deadly force. It's late and I won't go into the details, but there is a lot to think about when apprehending someone as a civilian.

Not to mention:

Assisting a peace officer after being commanded to do so, and the civil protections afforded if you jump in.

And, the penalties if you refuse, which actually exist in Colorado.

And, all of the guidance about when you will and won't be protected from civil suites, which for most of us, is probably the biggest threat in these situations.

The cited cases are "sufficiency of the evidence" cases meaning, that the court of appeal, drawing every reasonable inference in favor of the verdict in the trial court (which they are required to do) found the evidence sufficient to support the jury's conclusion the defendant had the requisite intent. In other words, neither the Howard or Miller decisions stand for the proposition that the mere presence of valuables standing alone suffices to prove felonious intent. Rather, they stand for the proposition that a jury having found sufficient evidence to convict and the court of appeal drawing every reasonable inference in favor of the verdict (as they are required to do on appeal) was disinclined to second guess the jury on the issue of intent based (in part at least) on the presence of valuables in the home. The cited cases do not stand for the proposition that the mere presence of valuables in a home one has entered makes you guilty of burglary.

GFY. LOL

Beat it then.

One thing that's come out of this is my having second thoughts of looking at new construction without asking. Here in Arkansas it must be a habitable residence to be burglary. The worst they can get you with is trespassing unless you actually stole something, and then it's still not burglary. It's pretty common for people to take a quick look around a new house going up, multiple times as it progresses. Most people don't mind, and some encourage it to drum up more business. I certainly never thought it could have been something that would have led to being gunned down in the middle of the street.

Arguing like a 3rd grader. Impressive.

Nothing he could have done necessarily makes him guilty of burglary. But he did enough that a jury could have found him guilty of burglary. AND AS I SAID IN MY FIRST POST ON IT, a jury could also have found him guilty of the lesser included of criminal trespass, or nothing at all for that matter.

So, once again, thank you for confirming what I said all along.

Wonder why English changed his mind concerning the fishing tackle theft?



Link

Another can of worms is intervening on behalf of someone else, and I don’t mean chasing some guy down the street as happened here.

From what I gather you’re fairly safe from civil lawsuits if you use deadly force in lawful self-defense, might get less clear if you ain’t the one being attacked.

Closest I ever came to that was when I was birdwatching along a walking trail here in a park on the West Side. An attractive Hispanic woman, early twenties walks by in workout gear and she looks scared, shoots me one of those looks like she wanted to ask for help.

Parking lot ain’t far away so I follow at a discrete distance, she gets back to her car and there’s a large, dangerous-looking individual waiting, probable Ex-Con/gang member type, late twenties/early thirties. The gist of the loud conversation that followed was they know each other somehow, she was still really scared and wanted him to leave her alone, she’s in the drivers seat he is standing right there obstructing her from closing it.

Coulda been a boyfriend/pimp/debt collector/all of the above.

I commence to watch birds again at an appropriate distance, far enough away so as not to be involved, close enough to be someone who was “there”, not looking directly at them. Nobody else around just then. Me an older White guy with binocs apparently looking at trees.

After maybe five minutes of this (a loooong time for me right then) he steps back, she drives off, he gets in his own vehicle and leaves also. Huge relief on my part. I do suspect I helped her out just by being present but what I shoulda done is called 911 right off and then hung around like I did.

Otherwise it could have been me and my j-frame “diving into a deep well of schidt”.......

It coulda been a deep well even if I HAD called the Cops, maybe just a bit less deep....

This guy here does a pretty decent job of being objective. I agree with most of what he says.

What we actually know

Just when I think you can't get any dumber, you post that.

C'mon Mike, why didn't you be a hero like Ahmaud tried to be and take that gun and shove it up their azz?

I understand that you are such a [bleep] you think that men should stay inside rather than investigate criminals having the run of the neighborhood.

Hes wrong almost right off the bat with his definition of a dwelling....

uh, no...i'm not doing anything egregious...if the contractor or owner showed up they'd probably give me a tour and have a nice chat.

you guys are hanging around the wrong folks, glass always half empty, apparently

That guy has it 100% right. Manslaughter (imperfect self-defense) is the maximum possible legitimate conviction, and now that I've seen more evidence, I think that's a fading possibility, being replaced by a high probability of total acquittal.

Tyrone Biggums,

Are you from the south?

It's more than a little obvious you have zero experience in a court room, making arrests, or attempting to learn anything about the 4th Amendment.