Sandydragon wrote:
The truck is on his jogging route, not sure that indicative of anything. We lose footage for a moment which is a shame (why was that video shot?)
The jogging claim is looking more and more dubious.
To brandish, both in English and in law, means to wave something in the air (usually in an excited or threatening manner). In law, you are generally taken to be brandishing a weapon if it is being held in the hands in a manner no congruent with transporting it from point A to point B.
The man is clearly not holding his gun just to transport it.
Puja
No, unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Let me try and explain it to you:
In the context of the law regarding gun ownership in GA, "Brandish" means to use the weapon in a threatening manner i.e. to point it at someone who isn't threatening you.
So, what a jury will be instructed to look at is if McMichaels brandished the weapon i.e. threatened someone who was not a threat to him, or if he held the weapon in a defensive display.
McMichaels senior was a law enforcement officer and would have been familiar with the distinction.
Thanks for trying to explain it to me. Allow me to return the favour.
I agree that in the context of the law regarding gun ownership, "Brandish" means to use the weapon in a threatening manner, and also that pointing it at someone would count as this.
However, where you are still making an incredible leap of law, logic, and English, is in insisting that this is the *only* way that a shotgun can be used in a threatening manner. It is perfectly possible to hold a shotgun threateningly without the end with the holes pointing towards someone. For example, if you chase someone down while holding a shotgun in your hands in a position suggesting that it is ready to use, that is brandishing it as you are using it as a threat.
Cf. Every police shooting where someone holding a weapon or what was thought to be a weapon was put down because the police considered there to be an imminent threat. They didn't say, "Oh, he hasn't taken the 1 second necessary to point the gun directly at me, so clearly that means there's no threat here."
Puja
Re: America
Posted: Tue May 12, 2020 4:43 pm
by Sandydragon
That video demonstrates only that the McMichaels were totally wrong to try and enforce a citizens arrest in the way that they did. The victim acted aggressively when a gun was pointed at him. That’s not unreasonable in the situation, which is important as neither was a police officer.
Basically, two good old boys heard about a black man running from the scene of an alleged burglary and decided to apprehend the first black man they saw running. They expected the victim
To cooperate but when he didn’t it all went wrong.
I’d also want to know what their next actions were. Having fired several rounds did they try to provide first aid? Did they immediately call for medical assistance?
I’m sure that some will argue that when confronted with two idiots with weapons one should immediately comply with their shouted instructions. Equally if you are I fear of your life when confronted with an armed assailants then you are entitled to respond aggressively.
As a former military policeman who has carried firearms and has had to practice the concept of reasonable force, including when making an arrest, the actions of the McMichaels were clearly excessive by any reasonable measure. They should have attempted to detail the victim using non lethal methods first and only escalated to firearms if the victim had produced an offensive weapon. With two of them one could have covered the other quite capably.
It was their actions that led to this tragedy and in most places they would be looking at a manslaughter charge. If the law in Georgia allows this the the law is clearly a nonsense.
Re: America
Posted: Tue May 12, 2020 4:46 pm
by Sandydragon
Maximillian wrote:
Sandydragon wrote:
The truck is on his jogging route, not sure that indicative of anything. We lose footage for a moment which is a shame (why was that video shot?)
The jogging claim is looking more and more dubious.
(why was that video shot?)
Good question.
Maybe he wasn’t out jogging for recreational purposes. But the two guys in the truck had no way of knowing that. When they encountered him he wasn’t committing a crime and would not have seen the CCTV imagery in your video below. All they had was a vague description of an offender. Their actions were totally disproportionate as a result of the information they knew and the scene as it unfolded in front of them.
Re: America
Posted: Tue May 12, 2020 5:01 pm
by Maximillian
Puja wrote:
Thanks for trying to explain it to me. Allow me to return the favour.
I agree that in the context of the law regarding gun ownership, "Brandish" means to use the weapon in a threatening manner, and also that pointing it at someone would count as this.
However, where you are still making an incredible leap of law, logic, and English, is in insisting that this is the *only* way that a shotgun can be used in a threatening manner. It is perfectly possible to hold a shotgun threateningly without the end with the holes pointing towards someone. For example, if you chase someone down while holding a shotgun in your hands in a position suggesting that it is ready to use, that is brandishing it as you are using it as a threat.
Cf. Every police shooting where someone holding a weapon or what was thought to be a weapon was put down because the police considered there to be an imminent threat. They didn't say, "Oh, he hasn't taken the 1 second necessary to point the gun directly at me, so clearly that means there's no threat here."
Puja
The gun could already be loaded i.e. ready to use. "Brandishing" it in a legal context means that's it's being used in a threatening manner on someone who isn't a threat to your person. Glad we agree on that.
So, a jury will be instructed to look at whether McMichaels was brandishing the weapon or held it in a defensive display. Arbery had a previous firearms conviction so it's not outside the realms of possibility that McMichaels assumed that Arbery was carrying a weapon.
I think this case will hinge on whether or not the prosecution can convince a jury that (1) McMichaels was brandishing a weapon - no conclusive footage in any available vids and (2) Arbery attempted to disarm McMichaels for defensive reasons - which implies (1).
Re: America
Posted: Tue May 12, 2020 5:08 pm
by morepork
Here we go.
Re: America
Posted: Tue May 12, 2020 5:17 pm
by Maximillian
Sandydragon wrote:That video demonstrates only that the McMichaels were totally wrong to try and enforce a citizens arrest in the way that they did. The victim acted aggressively when a gun was pointed at him. That’s not unreasonable in the situation, which is important as neither was a police officer.
Well, personally I wouldn't have attempted to do what the McMichaels did, but according to the law they are allowed to make a citizens arrest if there is reasonable and probable grounds. As for your statement in bold: how do you know this?
Basically, two good old boys heard about a black man running from the scene of an alleged burglary and decided to apprehend the first black man they saw running. They expected the victim
To cooperate but when he didn’t it all went wrong.
Again, you'd need to provide evidence to corroborate this claim.
I’d also want to know what their next actions were. Having fired several rounds did they try to provide first aid? Did they immediately call for medical assistance?
Good point.
I’m sure that some will argue that when confronted with two idiots with weapons one should immediately comply with their shouted instructions. Equally if you are I fear of your life when confronted with an armed assailants then you are entitled to respond aggressively.
I think it's easy to dismiss them as idiots. McMichaels (senior) was a former police man, so he would have been familiar with the law - of course that doesn't mean that he's a shining paradigm of virtue. Some of the footage coming out suggests that Arbery had been in the area before casing the same joint. Unless there's some evidence supporting the assertion that they threatened Arbery, I don't think they can be categorised as "armed assailants".
As a former military policeman who has carried firearms and has had to practice the concept of reasonable force, including when making an arrest, the actions of the McMichaels were clearly excessive by any reasonable measure. They should have attempted to detail the victim using non lethal methods first and only escalated to firearms if the victim had produced an offensive weapon. With two of them one could have covered the other quite capably.
Legally? How so?
FWIW, I do think that they should have contacted the authorities rather than taking it upon themselves to apprehend Arbery.
It was their actions that led to this tragedy and in most places they would be looking at a manslaughter charge. If the law in Georgia allows this the the law is clearly a nonsense.
Well, not really, since it is legal to make a citizens arrest - once certain conditions are met. For me, if a jury can be convinced that the McMichaels did not brandish weapons, then they may be set free.
There will, of course, be a clamour by the media (and some politicians) to see these two men imprisoned. Hopefully, any jury that is selected will look at the facts objectively.
Re: America
Posted: Tue May 12, 2020 5:21 pm
by Maximillian
Sandydragon wrote:
Maybe he wasn’t out jogging for recreational purposes. But the two guys in the truck had no way of knowing that. When they encountered him he wasn’t committing a crime and would not have seen the CCTV imagery in your video below. All they had was a vague description of an offender. Their actions were totally disproportionate as a result of the information they knew and the scene as it unfolded in front of them.
He was spotted several times in the area casing that site. It's not unreasonable to assume that the locals were suspicious.
I would agree that the McMichaels should not have taken it upon themselves to challenge Arbery, but again, this case needs to be examined in the context of the law.
Re: America
Posted: Tue May 12, 2020 7:52 pm
by Sandydragon
It appears that Arbery did not commit any felony whilst he popped into the building site during his run. He was there for a maximum of 3 minutes and neither removed or damaged anything. The only reported theft in the area this year was the theft of a firearm from a vehicle.
Its getting harder to support th theory that locals genuinely thought Arbery was involved in unlawful activity given a lack of burglaries and other crime the area and instead made series of assumptions.
Sandydragon wrote:It appears that Arbery did not commit any felony whilst he popped into the building site during his run. He was there for a maximum of 3 minutes and neither removed or damaged anything. The only reported theft in the area this year was the theft of a firearm from a vehicle.
Its getting harder to support th theory that locals genuinely thought Arbery was involved in unlawful activity given a lack of burglaries and other crime the area and instead made series of assumptions.
Sandydragon wrote:It appears that Arbery did not commit any felony whilst he popped into the building site during his run. He was there for a maximum of 3 minutes and neither removed or damaged anything. The only reported theft in the area this year was the theft of a firearm from a vehicle.
Its getting harder to support th theory that locals genuinely thought Arbery was involved in unlawful activity given a lack of burglaries and other crime the area and instead made series of assumptions.
So which tedious fuckwit that got shoo'd away from here are you? Based on the fact that as soon as you've arrived, you've been posting about how a black guy deserved to die for being black in public, I'm guessing Vengabus Glutton or whatever it was that the pretentious, boring Diet Cola Richard Littlejohn cunt called himself.
Radical anti government militia group threatens police - but it’s cool, they’re white. If they were not, well, you know what would be happening....
Aha! So this is what they were referring to all this time? The moment their second amendment rights would all make sense to the world as they take up arms against a tyrannical government.
In 1985, another confrontation ended when a police helicopter dropped a bomb on the MOVE compound, a row house in the middle of the 6200 block of Osage Avenue. The resulting fire killed eleven MOVE members, including five children, and destroyed 65 houses in the neighborhood. The survivors later filed a civil suit against the city and the police department, and were awarded $1.5 million in a 1996 settlement.
Re: America
Posted: Sun May 24, 2020 8:09 pm
by Digby
So they did better than the Lech family. Though $1.5 million in 1996 sounds on the face it to be coming up short if one wanted to buy 65 homes
