Does not mention anything about a pursuit, only arrest.i think it means you can only pursue if the offense committed in your presence was a felony. can’t do it for a misdemeanor.
Does not mention anything about a pursuit, only arrest.i think it means you can only pursue if the offense committed in your presence was a felony. can’t do it for a misdemeanor.
okDoes not mention anything about a pursuit, only arrest.
Why do you need the second sentence about a felony given the first sentence. If the offense was committed in their presence or within their immediate knowledge that itself is "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion" and the second sentence is moot and serves no purpose.
And that's that.So let's move from hypothetical to what actually was stated by the defendants.
Re your comment: "If the offense was committed in their presence or within their immediate knowledge", here are excerpts from the statements given to the police immediately after the shooting.
"The shooter, Travis McMichael, his dad, Greg McMichael and neighbor William “Roddie” Bryan all spoke extensively and candidly with Glynn County investigators just hours after Arbery was killed in their Brunswick, Georgia, neighborhood in February 2020. They told police they weren’t sure exactly what Arbery had done wrong"
“I don’t think the guy has actually stolen anything out of there, or if he did it was early in the process. But he keeps going back over and over again to this damn house," Greg McMichael said, according to a transcript of the interview that Glynn County police Sgt. Roderic Nohilly read in court.
Bryan was on his front porch when he saw Arbery run past with the McMichaels’ truck close behind. He told police he didn’t recognize any of them, or know what prompted the chase, but still joined in after calling out: “Y’all got him?”
In an interview with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Bryan said he wanted to take a photo of Arbery to show police, but couldn’t point to any crimes Arbery had committed.
“I figured he had done something wrong,” Bryan said. “I didn’t know for sure.”
So from their own statements to the police, the McMichael's and Bryan were unaware of any offense that Arbery had committed.
This pretty well destroys any legitimacy of a citizens arrest under what was then Georgia law.
And to bring this even Closer to home, what do you do for a Child in your home that is Disrespectful, Thieves, Lies, Is Truant, Will NOT mind his parents??? A serious question............Now apply this to a 21+ year old person......what "fix" is there for the younger before thy become the older????? FTWhat does the private citizen do when the police and legal establishment refuse to enforce the law?
a lot of mind reading in that article. i didn’t read their body language or reaction the same way.The video in this story shows Crump and Sharpton behind the father of the deceased. He says all lives matter and you can see that Crump appears that he tries to get him to stop talking.
It could go either way. I am only sharing the story because I can see it becoming a part of this cases story. I do agree with his father that all lives matter.a lot of mind reading in that article. i didn’t read their body language or reaction the same way.
I wonder that IF the video the neighbor had taken and shared had never been leaked if we would even be seeing anything about this case? I don’t say that as a good thing but because that video was damning evidence to refute their own claims of self defense. This whole case is a sad loss of life that never should have occurred. Like you said the Rittenhouse shooting and trial was the polar opposite of this case in how it turned out and what happened to cause that outcomeThe problem with this case is so many people "know" things that are not fact.
The stolen pistol was weeks earlier. Stolen from the son's truck. They have no proof connecting it with Arbery.
Nothing was stolen from the house that day.
According to the homeowner nothing was ever stolen from his house.
Also according to the homeowner he never spoke to the McMichaels about the break in's.
He never shared the video with the McMichaels. They got it from another neighbor.
These guys thought they were being heros and ended up killing someone for a bunch of bad assumptions. They attached themselves to the neighbor in an attempt to justify what they were doing.
A lot of guys are on the opposite end of the spectrum on this one than the Rittenhouse case. The media spun a tale against Rittenhouse, and people fell for it. The McMichaels spun a tell and got enough of it into the media that folks fell for that.
Unfortunately, I doubt that it anything would have been pursued due to the defendants close relationship with the local DA and police departments.I wonder that IF the video the neighbor had taken and shared had never been leaked if we would even be seeing anything about this case? I don’t say that as a good thing but because that video was damning evidence to refute their own claims of self defense. This whole case is a sad loss of life that never should have occurred. Like you said the Rittenhouse shooting and trial was the polar opposite of this case in how it turned out and what happened to cause that outcome
I wonder that IF the video the neighbor had taken and shared had never been leaked if we would even be seeing anything about this case? I don’t say that as a good thing but because that video was damning evidence to refute their own claims of self defense. This whole case is a sad loss of life that never should have occurred. Like you said the Rittenhouse shooting and trial was the polar opposite of this case in how it turned out and what happened to cause that outcome
I agree it was karma ….also anytime you are involved in a shooting you shut up and lawyer up. Kyle did that very thing if I am not mistakenUnfortunately, maybe not.
But he released the video because he thought it would help them. I’m assuming that was a result of local pressure. Crazy that he thought it would help their case when all it did was blow it up. Without the video being public I’m assuming the DA continues to run interference for them. Glad he screwed that one up.
The government showed jurors messages from Travis McMichael’s phone beginning in March 2019. McMichael asked a friend, identified as H.B., where they “ended up last night.”
H.B. wrote back: “n*****s everywhere.”
“Damn. They ruin everything,” McMichael replied. “That’s why I love what I do. Not a n****r in sight.”
“Ha ha ha,” H.B. wrote. “What do you do?”
McMichael described himself as a “government contractor driving boats for Navy & Marines.” He added: “Love it. Zero n*****s work with me.”
This stuff is going to wind up biting the people who thought it was good.....
Interesting. I was vocal against amendment 1 as well, mostly because I argued that the state has no business "licensing" a marriage of any sort at all. I argued this with an elder in my church (a very very conservative church) and he was "yeah, but they will use it for bad, but we use it for good." I just decided to walk away from the convo.Agree 100%, but folks are so short-sighted, they don’t even consider the possibility.
Back in 2011, when Amendment I was up for a vote here in NC, I had some knock-down, drag-outs on Farcebook with some former high school classmates…went to a Christian high school, so need I say more?
Anyhow, some of these folks were getting frothy-mad over the issue and could not understand how I could be against passage of Amendment I…they saw it as me “turning my back” on my beliefs. I tried explaining to them how dangerous it was for the state to decide what consenting adults could or could not do, based upon what the state found to be morally reprehensible.
I told them, “Look…it’s just a matter of time and this same tactic will be used against YOU…then, whatteryougonnado? What are you going to do when the state declares the Bible you read is full of hate speech, the services you attend propagate it and the state bans you from doing either?”
“Well…they’re not gonna that…they can’t do that!”
Au contraire…they can and they will, because folks like you said they should have the power to do so.
Unfortunately, they were so myopic that my arguments against the state intervening into an institution where it had no business did not work. I was told that I would burn in Hell with all of the other reprobates…and the icing on the cake was they were “unfriending” me, which caused me to loose an immense amount of sleep😂.
Anyhow, long story short, you’re dead on the x-ring and folks can’t quite grasp the tools they are in favor of now will eventually be used against them by those with a lust for power and control.
Indeed, pretty much anything you can argue in favor of your religious view, one can likewise argue the opposite using the equivalent of the same argument citing an opposing religious view. Why do you think the The Satanic Temple (not to be confused with he Church of Satan), is the fastest growing religious entityInteresting. I was vocal against amendment 1 as well, mostly because I argued that the state has no business "licensing" a marriage of any sort at all. I argued this with an elder in my church (a very very conservative church) and he was "yeah, but they will use it for bad, but we use it for good." I just decided to walk away from the convo.
Indeed. However, the way the secular courts have argued for a "religiously neutral" stance is one of the most idiotic, self refuting piles of crap I have ever seen sentient men and women propose. Just appallingly stupid. The entire ability to propose "rights" which theoretically undergird the entire Constitutional apparatus... that whole structure rests on an ability to declare "this is wrong... intrinsically... and this is right... intrinsically." Such a moral position is IMPOSSIBLE without reference to a law outside the system itself.... Since morality is by definition a function of a personality, this demands a personal law giver. It is not just Christians who have asserted this syllogism. A fairly bright schoolboy who is willing to actually think about it can see it. Men reject it NOT because it is intellectually cogent to do so, but rather because they don't LIKE it.Indeed, pretty much anything you can argue in favor of your religious view, one can likewise argue the opposite using the equivalent of the same argument citing an opposing religious view. Why do you think the The Satanic Temple (not to be confused with he Church of Satan), is the fastest growing religious entity
in the world?
I always liked the simplicity of the idea that, “as long as ye harm none, do as you will”. As was explained to me, one, the none includes yourself and two, it is a very difficult ideal to try to follow. As to the why, it is because whatever you do, good or ill, will be returned to you threefold. Your reward or punishment will be in the here and now, not judgment by some cosmic deity.Anyway, the rule of law is based in the rule of morality. However, morality must have a "why" or it will itself collapse and the only one left standing will be a fully armed state who grins at you with no inherent restrictions on how or even why it should use its power.
What is "harm" and why should it be avoided? Why should any exploitation be eschewed in the pursuit of my own advancement. The whole idea seems to depend on a moral yardstick which classifies something as "helpful or harmful" which plops me back in the same pool. Why should I abhor the selective repression of persons based on race, religion/ideology, voluntary association or anything else? This is a question I have examined in detail for decades, and read volumes (including John Stuart Mill/Hume, who did the most cogent work here imo). I see no basis for condemnation of murder at all much less racism.I always liked the simplicity of the idea that, “as long as ye harm none, do as you will”. As was explained to me, one, the none includes yourself and two, it is a very difficult ideal to try to follow. As to the why, it is because whatever you do, good or ill, will be returned to you threefold. Your reward or punishment will be in the here and now, not judgment by some cosmic deity.
This is also coupled with the concept of karma. Again, not in the sense that if a cosmic deity declares you “bad” that you’ll be reborn as a toad, but in that your current situation and future prospects, for good or ill, are all a function of your (and often times your parents and others) choices.
Can people of other races that are NOT White be charged with a Hate Crime...if the answer is YES, please let me know if the charges resulted in Guilty verdicts...............I'm not lazy, I just know there are folks on here that will know this and I trust This Community to know................Thanks.
We are quickly reaching the point of trying to define words and concepts. It’s like trying to define the concepts of one and two, which are almost empirical definitions in and of themselves. Harm, that which brings pain, discomfort, undesirable outcomes, etc., etc. As for being a moral yard stick, how is it any different than this illusive yard stick your deity allegedly uses? The only difference I see is that in the latter the responsibility for defining “good” and “bad” is placed outside of ones own responsibility.What is "harm" and why should it be avoided?
As to why one should avoid it, as I said, whatever you do is returned to you amplified. Presumably one doesn’t enjoy or want negative consequences, so why inflict negativity on others?Why should any exploitation be eschewed in the pursuit of my own advancement.
I suspect the answer is yes, they could be, but I don’t know of any that ever have.I ask it to get Can people of other races that are NOT White be charged with a Hate Crime...if the answer is YES, please let me know if the charges resulted in Guilty verdicts.
If I remember right Immanuel Kant was big in philosophy due to trying to argue the morals of the Bible without just saying because God said so." Interesting reads in a thought experiment and why the laws of Christianity work well.Indeed. However, the way the secular courts have argued for a "religiously neutral" stance is one of the most idiotic, self refuting piles of crap I have ever seen sentient men and women propose. Just appallingly stupid. The entire ability to propose "rights" which theoretically undergird the entire Constitutional apparatus... that whole structure rests on an ability to declare "this is wrong... intrinsically... and this is right... intrinsically." Such a moral position is IMPOSSIBLE without reference to a law outside the system itself.... Since morality is by definition a function of a personality, this demands a personal law giver. It is not just Christians who have asserted this syllogism. A fairly bright schoolboy who is willing to actually think about it can see it. Men reject it NOT because it is intellectually cogent to do so, but rather because they don't LIKE it.
John Adams (no "Christian" in any biblical sense of the word, rather a Universalist/Unitarian) understood this, as did all the framers and Thomas Jefferson (who was not involved in the Constitution or the BOR, as he was in France at the time). It is only modernists who ignore most of Western Civilization and at least 4000 years of ordered, repetitive thinking on this issue to come up with the idiotic tripe we call "separation of church and state."
Anyway, the rule of law is based in the rule of morality. However, morality must have a "why" or it will itself collapse and the only one left standing will be a fully armed state who grins at you with no inherent restrictions on how or even why it should use its power.
I want men to come to Christ because the entire civil order, including our rtkba, our prosperity, our general happiness, AND THE FREEDOM FOR INDIVIDUAL MEN TO REJECT AND REMAIN SECURE IN THEIR RIGHTS..... all depend on this being a general current of thought. It is why I continually stray out of the ordered "streams" of thought from politics/religion/gun issues, blah blah blah like a guy who only knows one chord on a guitar. It is folly to attempt to model a society on our modern premises. It will collapse...... or worse.
Might be worth ignoring the "church culture" that is often so horrible here in SE USA, picking up a bible, and asking yourself if there might be truth there.
So, if you have followed the regular sort of back and forth between me and @noway2 you know that I really like him for a number of reasons. The reason for today is that this dialogue is an example of why libertarian/anarchist type folks can get along on the societal scale of how laws are enforced or implemented while having monstrous divides on how we got there.I always liked the simplicity of the idea that, “as long as ye harm none, do as you will”. As was explained to me, one, the none includes yourself and two, it is a very difficult ideal to try to follow. As to the why, it is because whatever you do, good or ill, will be returned to you threefold. Your reward or punishment will be in the here and now, not judgment by some cosmic deity.
This is also coupled with the concept of karma. Again, not in the sense that if a cosmic deity declares you “bad” that you’ll be reborn as a toad, but in that your current situation and future prospects, for good or ill, are all a function of your (and often times your parents and others) choices.