Video emerges of Georgia jogger attack; case headed to grand jury

[Faun]

If travis was on his side of the truck, as you claim, THEN we would all be able to see when they made contact, but we can't BECAUSE travis was also in front of the truck, and NOT on 'his' side as you claim.
My eyes absolutely do NOT see what you see.
When contact is made between the two, the truck blocks the view, so we can't see, which means that travis was in FACT in front of the truck and not remaining on his side.

BTW, here is the still of the black man running down the street and there is no truck. why?

View attachment 336435

I see no threat there. you?

LOL

You really are as dumb as everyone says.

How does one see around a curve with obstructed view?

 

[Faun]

Q3. yes Travis remained on his side of the truck and yes the suspect blackman attacked Travis. yes. Bingo, at least your eyes see what I see. so you agree, the suspect blackman attacked Travis.

If travis was on his side of the truck, as you claim, THEN we would all be able to see when they made contact, but we can't BECAUSE travis was also in front of the truck, and NOT on 'his' side as you claim.
My eyes absolutely do NOT see what you see.
When contact is made between the two, the truck blocks the view, so we can't see, which means that travis was in FACT in front of the truck and not remaining on his side.

Did your eyes see the black man charging at the white man?

Because that's all that matters here. If you didn't I suggest visiting the eye doctor.

Actually, that's not all that matters. Being provoked to fight for his life against someone threatening his life with a gun also matters.

No it doesn't, someone who is fleeing does not have such rights.

Liar, he wasn't fleeing.

Oh right, he was "jogging"... I forgot the narrative you were programmed with.

He still wasn't fleeing. Fleeing entails fleeing from a crime. And as you have thoroughly proven with your inability to show a crime was committed; he wasn't fleeing.

 

[Norman]

Q3. yes Travis remained on his side of the truck and yes the suspect blackman attacked Travis. yes. Bingo, at least your eyes see what I see. so you agree, the suspect blackman attacked Travis.

If travis was on his side of the truck, as you claim, THEN we would all be able to see when they made contact, but we can't BECAUSE travis was also in front of the truck, and NOT on 'his' side as you claim.
My eyes absolutely do NOT see what you see.
When contact is made between the two, the truck blocks the view, so we can't see, which means that travis was in FACT in front of the truck and not remaining on his side.

Did your eyes see the black man charging at the white man?

Because that's all that matters here. If you didn't I suggest visiting the eye doctor.

Actually, that's not all that matters. Being provoked to fight for his life against someone threatening his life with a gun also matters.

No it doesn't, someone who is fleeing does not have such rights.

Liar, he wasn't fleeing.

Oh right, he was "jogging"... I forgot the narrative you were programmed with.

He still wasn't fleeing. Fleeing entails fleeing from a crime. And as you have thoroughly proven with your inability to show a crime was committed; he wasn't fleeing.

He committed a burglary.

 

[Faun]

Q3. yes Travis remained on his side of the truck and yes the suspect blackman attacked Travis. yes. Bingo, at least your eyes see what I see. so you agree, the suspect blackman attacked Travis.

If travis was on his side of the truck, as you claim, THEN we would all be able to see when they made contact, but we can't BECAUSE travis was also in front of the truck, and NOT on 'his' side as you claim.
My eyes absolutely do NOT see what you see.
When contact is made between the two, the truck blocks the view, so we can't see, which means that travis was in FACT in front of the truck and not remaining on his side.

Did your eyes see the black man charging at the white man?

Because that's all that matters here. If you didn't I suggest visiting the eye doctor.

Actually, that's not all that matters. Being provoked to fight for his life against someone threatening his life with a gun also matters.

No it doesn't, someone who is fleeing does not have such rights.

Liar, he wasn't fleeing.

Oh right, he was "jogging"... I forgot the narrative you were programmed with.

He still wasn't fleeing. Fleeing entails fleeing from a crime. And as you have thoroughly proven with your inability to show a crime was committed; he wasn't fleeing.

He committed a burglary.

Nope, you're still lying. There was no burglary committed based on the evidence we've seen thus far.

 

[Norman]

Q3. yes Travis remained on his side of the truck and yes the suspect blackman attacked Travis. yes. Bingo, at least your eyes see what I see. so you agree, the suspect blackman attacked Travis.

If travis was on his side of the truck, as you claim, THEN we would all be able to see when they made contact, but we can't BECAUSE travis was also in front of the truck, and NOT on 'his' side as you claim.
My eyes absolutely do NOT see what you see.
When contact is made between the two, the truck blocks the view, so we can't see, which means that travis was in FACT in front of the truck and not remaining on his side.

Did your eyes see the black man charging at the white man?

Because that's all that matters here. If you didn't I suggest visiting the eye doctor.

Actually, that's not all that matters. Being provoked to fight for his life against someone threatening his life with a gun also matters.

No it doesn't, someone who is fleeing does not have such rights.

Liar, he wasn't fleeing.

Oh right, he was "jogging"... I forgot the narrative you were programmed with.

He still wasn't fleeing. Fleeing entails fleeing from a crime. And as you have thoroughly proven with your inability to show a crime was committed; he wasn't fleeing.

He committed a burglary.

Nope, you're still lying. There was no burglary committed based on the evidence we've seen thus far.

I disagree, he had an intent to steal. People don't just wander around in vacant houses.

But do note it does not matter, only a suspicion of the intention to steal is enough to arrest.

 

[Faun]

Q3. yes Travis remained on his side of the truck and yes the suspect blackman attacked Travis. yes. Bingo, at least your eyes see what I see. so you agree, the suspect blackman attacked Travis.

If travis was on his side of the truck, as you claim, THEN we would all be able to see when they made contact, but we can't BECAUSE travis was also in front of the truck, and NOT on 'his' side as you claim.
My eyes absolutely do NOT see what you see.
When contact is made between the two, the truck blocks the view, so we can't see, which means that travis was in FACT in front of the truck and not remaining on his side.

Did your eyes see the black man charging at the white man?

Because that's all that matters here. If you didn't I suggest visiting the eye doctor.

Actually, that's not all that matters. Being provoked to fight for his life against someone threatening his life with a gun also matters.

No it doesn't, someone who is fleeing does not have such rights.

Liar, he wasn't fleeing.

Oh right, he was "jogging"... I forgot the narrative you were programmed with.

He still wasn't fleeing. Fleeing entails fleeing from a crime. And as you have thoroughly proven with your inability to show a crime was committed; he wasn't fleeing.

He committed a burglary.

Nope, you're still lying. There was no burglary committed based on the evidence we've seen thus far.

I disagree, he had an intent to steal. People don't just wander around in vacant houses.

But do note it does not matter, only a suspicion of the intention to steal is enough to arrest.

It wasn't a vacant house. It was a house under construction. And people wander into such structures all the time.

And no, just a suspicion is not enough. The suspect also had to commit a felony.

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.​

 

[Norman]

Q3. yes Travis remained on his side of the truck and yes the suspect blackman attacked Travis. yes. Bingo, at least your eyes see what I see. so you agree, the suspect blackman attacked Travis.

If travis was on his side of the truck, as you claim, THEN we would all be able to see when they made contact, but we can't BECAUSE travis was also in front of the truck, and NOT on 'his' side as you claim.
My eyes absolutely do NOT see what you see.
When contact is made between the two, the truck blocks the view, so we can't see, which means that travis was in FACT in front of the truck and not remaining on his side.

Did your eyes see the black man charging at the white man?

Because that's all that matters here. If you didn't I suggest visiting the eye doctor.

Actually, that's not all that matters. Being provoked to fight for his life against someone threatening his life with a gun also matters.

No it doesn't, someone who is fleeing does not have such rights.

Liar, he wasn't fleeing.

Oh right, he was "jogging"... I forgot the narrative you were programmed with.

He still wasn't fleeing. Fleeing entails fleeing from a crime. And as you have thoroughly proven with your inability to show a crime was committed; he wasn't fleeing.

He committed a burglary.

Nope, you're still lying. There was no burglary committed based on the evidence we've seen thus far.

I disagree, he had an intent to steal. People don't just wander around in vacant houses.

But do note it does not matter, only a suspicion of the intention to steal is enough to arrest.

It wasn't a vacant house. It was a house under construction. And people wander into such structures all the time.

And no, just a suspicion is not enough. The suspect also had to commit a felony.

​

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.​

Visiting a vacant house and then running off is enough to suspect a burglary. I am getting tired of repeating this over and over again, if you don't behave I will report again.

 

[Faun]

Q3. yes Travis remained on his side of the truck and yes the suspect blackman attacked Travis. yes. Bingo, at least your eyes see what I see. so you agree, the suspect blackman attacked Travis.

If travis was on his side of the truck, as you claim, THEN we would all be able to see when they made contact, but we can't BECAUSE travis was also in front of the truck, and NOT on 'his' side as you claim.
My eyes absolutely do NOT see what you see.
When contact is made between the two, the truck blocks the view, so we can't see, which means that travis was in FACT in front of the truck and not remaining on his side.

Did your eyes see the black man charging at the white man?

Because that's all that matters here. If you didn't I suggest visiting the eye doctor.

Actually, that's not all that matters. Being provoked to fight for his life against someone threatening his life with a gun also matters.

No it doesn't, someone who is fleeing does not have such rights.

Liar, he wasn't fleeing.

Oh right, he was "jogging"... I forgot the narrative you were programmed with.

He still wasn't fleeing. Fleeing entails fleeing from a crime. And as you have thoroughly proven with your inability to show a crime was committed; he wasn't fleeing.

He committed a burglary.

Nope, you're still lying. There was no burglary committed based on the evidence we've seen thus far.

I disagree, he had an intent to steal. People don't just wander around in vacant houses.

But do note it does not matter, only a suspicion of the intention to steal is enough to arrest.

It wasn't a vacant house. It was a house under construction. And people wander into such structures all the time.

And no, just a suspicion is not enough. The suspect also had to commit a felony.

​

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.​

Visiting a vacant house and then running off is enough to suspect a burglary. I am getting tired of repeating this over and over again, if you don't behave I will report again.

You can repeat it another 1000 times, it will still never prove a burglary occurred.

 

[Norman]

Q3. yes Travis remained on his side of the truck and yes the suspect blackman attacked Travis. yes. Bingo, at least your eyes see what I see. so you agree, the suspect blackman attacked Travis.

If travis was on his side of the truck, as you claim, THEN we would all be able to see when they made contact, but we can't BECAUSE travis was also in front of the truck, and NOT on 'his' side as you claim.
My eyes absolutely do NOT see what you see.
When contact is made between the two, the truck blocks the view, so we can't see, which means that travis was in FACT in front of the truck and not remaining on his side.

Did your eyes see the black man charging at the white man?

Because that's all that matters here. If you didn't I suggest visiting the eye doctor.

Actually, that's not all that matters. Being provoked to fight for his life against someone threatening his life with a gun also matters.

No it doesn't, someone who is fleeing does not have such rights.

Liar, he wasn't fleeing.

Oh right, he was "jogging"... I forgot the narrative you were programmed with.

He still wasn't fleeing. Fleeing entails fleeing from a crime. And as you have thoroughly proven with your inability to show a crime was committed; he wasn't fleeing.

He committed a burglary.

Nope, you're still lying. There was no burglary committed based on the evidence we've seen thus far.

I disagree, he had an intent to steal. People don't just wander around in vacant houses.

But do note it does not matter, only a suspicion of the intention to steal is enough to arrest.

It wasn't a vacant house. It was a house under construction. And people wander into such structures all the time.

And no, just a suspicion is not enough. The suspect also had to commit a felony.

​

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.​

Visiting a vacant house and then running off is enough to suspect a burglary. I am getting tired of repeating this over and over again, if you don't behave I will report again.

You can repeat it another 1000 times, it will still never prove a burglary occurred.

The burglary was captured on camera.

 

[Norman]

Live now...

 

[Faun]

Q3. yes Travis remained on his side of the truck and yes the suspect blackman attacked Travis. yes. Bingo, at least your eyes see what I see. so you agree, the suspect blackman attacked Travis.

If travis was on his side of the truck, as you claim, THEN we would all be able to see when they made contact, but we can't BECAUSE travis was also in front of the truck, and NOT on 'his' side as you claim.
My eyes absolutely do NOT see what you see.
When contact is made between the two, the truck blocks the view, so we can't see, which means that travis was in FACT in front of the truck and not remaining on his side.

Did your eyes see the black man charging at the white man?

Because that's all that matters here. If you didn't I suggest visiting the eye doctor.

Actually, that's not all that matters. Being provoked to fight for his life against someone threatening his life with a gun also matters.

No it doesn't, someone who is fleeing does not have such rights.

Liar, he wasn't fleeing.

Oh right, he was "jogging"... I forgot the narrative you were programmed with.

He still wasn't fleeing. Fleeing entails fleeing from a crime. And as you have thoroughly proven with your inability to show a crime was committed; he wasn't fleeing.

He committed a burglary.

Nope, you're still lying. There was no burglary committed based on the evidence we've seen thus far.

I disagree, he had an intent to steal. People don't just wander around in vacant houses.

But do note it does not matter, only a suspicion of the intention to steal is enough to arrest.

It wasn't a vacant house. It was a house under construction. And people wander into such structures all the time.

And no, just a suspicion is not enough. The suspect also had to commit a felony.

​

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.​

Visiting a vacant house and then running off is enough to suspect a burglary. I am getting tired of repeating this over and over again, if you don't behave I will report again.

You can repeat it another 1000 times, it will still never prove a burglary occurred.

The burglary was captured on camera.

LOLOL

Suuure it was, uh-huh.

 

[Norman]

Suspect in Arbery Shooting Offered to Help Deal With Potential Trespasser (Published 2020)

Two months before Ahmaud Arbery was killed, one of the suspects told the police he could be notified if a nearby homeowner noticed any suspicious activity.

www.nytimes.com

Suspect in Arbery Shooting Offered to Help Deal With Potential Trespasser
Two months before Ahmaud Arbery was killed, one of the suspects told the police he could be notified if a nearby homeowner noticed any suspicious activity.

BRUNSWICK, Ga. — Two months before Ahmaud Arbery was fatally shot in Glynn County, Ga., a police officer there sent a text to a property owner who was worried about recurring trespassing incidents, a lawyer for the homeowner said on Friday.

The officer provided the phone number of a nearby resident, telling the owner to call it the next time his motion-sensing security cameras whirred into action.

That resident, Gregory McMichael, a retired investigator in the local district attorney’s office, never received a call from the owner asking for help. But this month, Mr. McMichael and his son were arrested on murder charges after they chased and then confronted Mr. Arbery, who was black, through the streets of their Southeast Georgia neighborhood on Feb. 23. The McMichaels are white, and the killing has unleashed a firestorm of protests nationwide.

Charlie Bailey, a former senior assistant district attorney in Fulton County, Ga., said it was highly irregular for a police agency to recommend that a person who was not active in law enforcement to respond to a potential crime.

The democrat plain is now to
- End the police department, pack it with "inclusive" folks who ignore black crime.
- End the ability for civilians to arrest people, according to democrats civilians should not act like police, everyone should be dependent on government.
- Put criminals before citizens.
- Control every aspect of your life.

 

[Norman]

There are new clips of people entering the property now.



None of them lunging into a shotgun.

Facts are now:
- Couple months before the events someone entered the property, and the owner was asked by the officer to notify him.
- Two weeks prior someone suspicious again entered the property and 911 was called, he possibly had a gun. He was not caught.
- The day Arbery again entered the property and ran without responding.

In my opinion, he was there to burglarize. They had reasonable suspicion. He may have been on probation from shoplifting a television also, which may have made him flee since he probably did not know whether he had committed a crime even if he did not commit burglary.
-

 

[Winco]

Ahmaud Arbery Shooting Spurs Calls to Disband Police Force

More corrupt cops.

 

[Faun]

There are new clips of people entering the property now.



None of them lunging into a shotgun.

Facts are now:
- Couple months before the events someone entered the property, and the owner was asked by the officer to notify him.
- Two weeks prior someone suspicious again entered the property and 911 was called, he possibly had a gun. He was not caught.
- The day Arbery again entered the property and ran without responding.

In my opinion, he was there to burglarize. They had reasonable suspicion. He may have been on probation from shoplifting a television also, which may have made him flee since he probably did not know whether he had committed a crime even if he did not commit burglary.
-

Your opinion is meaningless. You have no proof to back it up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's a fact you seem to have trouble absorbing.

Like the facts of this case.

Here's a couple facts: three people charged with murder.

One message board goober with a Trump U law degree weeping for them.

 

[SavannahMann]

Why did he grab the gun? Even if the white dude said something insulting or provocative, one doesn’t try to disarm an armed man. Seems to me he wasn’t thinking clearly.

Does this make the actions of the white dudes acceptable? Hell no. However if someone runs up to you and physically tries to take your gun, what are you to conclude?

That poor guy. He must have been frightened out of his wits! Of course, he’s a chicken shit wuss. Which is why he felt he needed to have the gun in the first place.

Your post misses the point. Why attack an armed man? Do you have a death wish?

I didn’t miss the point.

You are searching for a way to blame the victim.

No I’m not. What do you expect to happen if you attack an armed man?

What makes you think it was an attack by this jogger? The video is crystal clear, that the jogger was attacking no one, while shots rang out first. That's what you are conveniently not seeing. Shots rang out first, while the Black guy was rounding the truck on the right side.

That’s not what the video shows. It shows the dude trying to take the gun away. Why would he do that?

fight or flight. he probably figured he would be shot in the back by running away - so he fought for his life.

That could be, but it might be dumb on his part. I find it hard to believe they would just murder him in broad daylight. Is there any evidence that these guys were out to murder a black dude?

Georgia does not have various degrees of Murder. In other states, you hear First Degree, Second Degree, sometimes Third Degree. Normally First degree is premeditated. Second degree is usually in the commission of another crime. From there it gets into more what we would conversationally call Manslaughter.

Georgia has Murder. In that one statute is no degrees. It does list the various situations. Premeditated, during the commission of a Felony, and all that. Same conditions, just without the degrees thrown in. Often called Felony Murder, it’s all the same in Georgia. It doesn’t matter if you were robbing a store and a man keeled over and died from a heart attack, or you plotted for months to kill your spouse. It’s all murder in Georgia.

Now, for the charge to make sense, you have to look at the totality of the event. What were the McMichael’s doing? They were attempting to stop AA by blocking his path, hemming him in with their neighbor who was following. Travis got out of the truck with his shotgun, and Daddy, got into the bed with his .357 Magnum. Now, here they have already committed one felony. Attempting to detain AA by blocking him in is attempted illegal imprisonment in Georgia. If they had been successful, it would have dropped the attempted.

By exiting the truck with his shotgun, in an effort to stop AA, Travis committed another crime, as did Daddy since he was a part of this mess. Aggravated Assault. In Georgia, you can’t just wave your weapon around in a threatening manner. In fact, it is illegal to detain someone at gunpoint. The Legislature has been debating changing this, but I think that effort is going to be delayed for a bit since they don’t want to be seen as excusing the extreme actions of the McMichaels, or they’ll write it in such a way to insure that actions like those of the McMichaels are not protected.

So you have at least one, and realistically two Felonies before contact is made. We aren’t doing well here if you are a fan of the McMichaels. Now the scuffle, or conflict, and the shooting. Here be the rub. The defenders like to swear it was Self Defense. But in Georgia, Self Defense is not an option when you were the aggressor, or committing a crime. Using Georgia Law, the only person acting in Self Defense was Arbury. Wise perhaps not, but legal.

It all goes back to the laws covering Citizens Arrest. In Georgia, it’s a bet your life move. If you are wrong, you’re the felon by taking the guy into custody. Probable does not cover it. Reasonable Suspicion does not do it for the Civilians. You have to be 100% sure, and the smart move is to get a picture, or a description and call the cops. They can act on Reasonable Suspicion. They can act on Probable Cause. They have the authority by law, that we citizens do not have.

So we know that legally speaking the McMichaels had no legal justification to stop AA. So their actions can not be legal. So the charge is Murder. Manslaughter does exist in Georgia. But the conditions are not met.

For Voluntary Manslaughter it basically has to be reckless behavior that would qualify as a Misdemeanor. Aggravated Assault and False Imprisonment are Felonies. Or a moment of Passion which the normal and reasonable person would have succumbed to. This is the finding your wife in bed with another man defense. You were overcome with a sense of rage and betrayal and killed them in a moment of passion. It wasn’t justified, but we can all understand how you felt Legally speaking.

Now, Involuntary Manslaughter is on the books too. Again, Felonies are excluded, but this time there is a caveat. You could get that, if you were doing a legal action, in an illegal manner. In other words, generally speaking what you were doing was legal, but you did it wrong. Ok, so we’re back to the Citizens Arrest and Confrontation. Is it legal to perform a Citizens Arrest? Yes. What are the conditions? You have to know with essentially 100% certainty that this fellow committed the crime. Ok. But what crime? Suspicion of Burglary is not 100% Knowing that a crime was committed. Trespassing? Arbury did not commit Trespassing. Not according to the law In Georgia. So we would have to stretch the definitions and meanings to the breaking point to fit this event into that crime. But here again, the punishment for Involuntary Manslaughter is still a long one in Georgia. Not quite as long as Murder, but still a long time. It is an option, and the DA may include it as one of the charges to give the Jury an out.

So how does that help you understand the charges against the McMichaels?

 

[BWK]

Q3. yes Travis remained on his side of the truck and yes the suspect blackman attacked Travis. yes. Bingo, at least your eyes see what I see. so you agree, the suspect blackman attacked Travis.

If travis was on his side of the truck, as you claim, THEN we would all be able to see when they made contact, but we can't BECAUSE travis was also in front of the truck, and NOT on 'his' side as you claim.
My eyes absolutely do NOT see what you see.
When contact is made between the two, the truck blocks the view, so we can't see, which means that travis was in FACT in front of the truck and not remaining on his side.

Did your eyes see the black man charging at the white man?

Because that's all that matters here. If you didn't I suggest visiting the eye doctor.

Actually, that's not all that matters. Being provoked to fight for his life against someone threatening his life with a gun also matters.

No it doesn't, someone who is fleeing does not have such rights.

Liar, he wasn't fleeing.

Oh right, he was "jogging"... I forgot the narrative you were programmed with.

He still wasn't fleeing. Fleeing entails fleeing from a crime. And as you have thoroughly proven with your inability to show a crime was committed; he wasn't fleeing.

He committed a burglary.

Nope, you're still lying. There was no burglary committed based on the evidence we've seen thus far.

I disagree, he had an intent to steal. People don't just wander around in vacant houses.

But do note it does not matter, only a suspicion of the intention to steal is enough to arrest.

When I was a kid, I walked around new construction sites quite a few times if they happened to be in the direction I was going. It was to look. The thought of grabbing something never entered my mind. We don't know this guy wasn't doing the same thing.

If Arbery had intent to steal, then without any stolen items, how can you prove intent?

 

[BWK]

Q3. yes Travis remained on his side of the truck and yes the suspect blackman attacked Travis. yes. Bingo, at least your eyes see what I see. so you agree, the suspect blackman attacked Travis.

If travis was on his side of the truck, as you claim, THEN we would all be able to see when they made contact, but we can't BECAUSE travis was also in front of the truck, and NOT on 'his' side as you claim.
My eyes absolutely do NOT see what you see.
When contact is made between the two, the truck blocks the view, so we can't see, which means that travis was in FACT in front of the truck and not remaining on his side.

Did your eyes see the black man charging at the white man?

Because that's all that matters here. If you didn't I suggest visiting the eye doctor.

Actually, that's not all that matters. Being provoked to fight for his life against someone threatening his life with a gun also matters.

No it doesn't, someone who is fleeing does not have such rights.

Liar, he wasn't fleeing.

Oh right, he was "jogging"... I forgot the narrative you were programmed with.

He still wasn't fleeing. Fleeing entails fleeing from a crime. And as you have thoroughly proven with your inability to show a crime was committed; he wasn't fleeing.

He committed a burglary.

Nope, you're still lying. There was no burglary committed based on the evidence we've seen thus far.

I disagree, he had an intent to steal. People don't just wander around in vacant houses.

But do note it does not matter, only a suspicion of the intention to steal is enough to arrest.

It wasn't a vacant house. It was a house under construction. And people wander into such structures all the time.

And no, just a suspicion is not enough. The suspect also had to commit a felony.

​

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.​

Visiting a vacant house and then running off is enough to suspect a burglary. I am getting tired of repeating this over and over again, if you don't behave I will report again.

You can repeat it another 1000 times, it will still never prove a burglary occurred.

The burglary was captured on camera.

In post 2249 you called it a "burglary." From post# 2247 you called it a "suspected burglary." You just got caught lying. Now do you see how full of shit you are?