The citizen’s arrest law stipulates that the arresting citizen must have witnessed the crime as it was in progress or have immediate knowledge of such a crime identifying the criminal in the act.
There was no act of citizens arrest there was an act of following while on the phone with the police. Up until the point Aubrey decided to charge an attack Travis who is protecting himself with a gun
Following on foot or while in a truck ? At what point does anyone exit the truck, and why did they exit the truck ?
Does it matter? Is that against the law?
It could be (possibility) as based upon the acts or events that followed next. If they placed themselves and the victim in danger by their actions (Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law right), then they will have to answer for that.
Not sure what the verdict will be, but the courts will have a job on their hands getting it right for everyone involved. Once it entered the street, jurisdiction became law enforcements, and not a civilians responsibility unless self defense was needed for the aid of a person in distress or that person being endangerd by another if of course that was needed.
This is what happens when people decide to take the law into their own hands, otherwise when lives weren't immediately being threatened in the situation. Yeah maybe Arbery was a thief, a criminal, a piece of work, but was it these guy's job to confront him out on the street ? What a mess.
Get some training people or use some common sense already. Hopefully cases like this show people the err of their ways, and how people need to learn better about all aspects of these types of situations if thinking about doing the job of law enforcement. Yes, self defense is absolutely a right, but a right that needs to be protected with being educated in every aspect of its implementation of it.
Did TM's former duties as a police officer cause him to feel freerer as a citizen somehow to do such things, otherwise to perform police duties with ease, but not realizing that he no longer has the state to protect him due to his retirement, and worse involving family members in the situation before thinking it all through ??
Nope....you got it wrong. First of all Ahmaud could not have been in fear of his life when he ran towards MCMichales truck.
If one is in fear of his life he does not run towards what he feels is a threat to him, he runs in a different direction.
There was no danger to anyone until Ahmaud committed assault. As pointed out previously nothing that happened before that point gave Ahmaud any legal right to attack Travis. No matter if they were not justified in making a citizens arrest(which they did not do) no matter if Ahmaud had stole anything or not....all that is not relevant in this case.
Again this is a case of self defense. It is up to the defense team to convince the jury that Ahmaud committed assault which should be very easy to do with the aid of the video which clearly shows Ahmaud running across the front of the truck. If one watches the video very carefully or in slow motion it plainly seen that Ahmaud runs across the front of the truck to assault Travis McMichaels.
Also purportedly there are other things that exist but have not been brought out yet that will be helpful to the defense such as possibly the father may have also been making a video as he can be seen looking something like a camera whilst Ahmaud was attacking his son.
Once it is established to the jury that Travis was being attacked then that means Travis had a legal right to use lethal force to preserve his life and or to prevent grievious bodily harm. Any lawyer worth his salt knows this. Self defense 101.
It is obvious you have not followed the case as in you by your statements that reveal you do not know all the facts of the case such as the police dept were getting a lot of complaints about tresspassers in that neighborhood and they had made Greg McMichaels the father the person to go to if anyone saw anything suspicious going on. In a sense deputizing him as the one to consult regard the ongoing problem with the tresspassing
Thus your claim that the McMichaels had no business getting involved is even more spurious.
You seem to want to tell good citizens to go and hide if you see a criminal in your neighborhood. So ridiculous,
people have a absolute legal right to try and follow a suspect, which is all they did. People should try and help the police catch a criminal. Which they did by immediately calling the police and then following the suspect so they could tell the police where to go.
You can rest assured that Greg McMichaels having been in law enforcement for decades knew his rights and that he would have done nothing whatsoever of a illegal nature.
Your claim they took the law into their hands is outrageously false. Sounds like something you picked up from nbc, quite pathetic.
Regarding whether ahmaud was a threat to the community really was not known by them, though they had good reason to believe he was involved in crime and criminals often are armed and thus pose a threat to anyone around them and as we know ahmaud had taken a loaded pistol to school and was placed on five years probation for that which he soon violated....demonstrating he had no respect whatsoever for the law.
Thus it can easily be seen that he was a probable threat to society and possibly armed. Also he had a mental history which further increased the possibility of his danger to others...thus we see....he was a convicted criminal, a criminal who had access to a weapon, had mental problems and was apparantly involved in suspicious activities possibly burglary or tresspassing in that neighborhood where he was observed provoking a neighbor to call the police and also noticing the suspect taking out running as soon as he called the police...more suspicious behavior.
Thus the McMicahels armed themselves for their own safety. The McMichaels are good citizens with a history of helping their community and they should be lauded for their actions not attacked as the msm and their dupes are constantly doing.