sundin13 said:
JWeinCom said:

It makes insofar as I undersand what you're saying, but legally, it doesn't really make a difference.  

I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that the killer was responding to what was in his mind unlawful force, regardless of Arbery's state of mind.  There's no way any prosecutor can defeat the self defense claim on that ground.

The only way to argue against it is to argue that he cannot invoke the self-defense claim because either he was committing a felony or he was the aggressor.  I don't see how Arbery's state of mind changes that.  For either of those claims you'd have to establish that he was the aggressor or was engaged in a felony at the very latest when he left the car.

Remember that the bar for self defense is not whether an individual truly believed that they were in danger, or that they were met with unlawful force, but instead whether a reasonable person would believe that. Would a reasonable person believe that someone didn't have the right to self defense in this situation? Personally, if I were in that situation, I would expect that the person I was chasing may act in self defense. Recall that the shooter grabbed a gun before chasing the victim. That certainly implies that they thought that the victim might try to act in self-defense. They knew they were putting someone in a situation where they might feel they have to fight back.

I understand what you are saying, but I do think there is some relevant room to make determinations here and that was largely what I was getting at with my original post.

When we look at criminal code, there are certain natural questions that are brought up. Sometimes the answers to these questions may be obvious. You may believe it is obvious that the shooter had a reasonable belief that Arbery was acting unlawfully, but it is still a fact of the case which needs to be proven, and I don't think it is that black and white. Similarly, I think the answer to the other questions I posed in that original post are fairly obvious, but they still need to be proven in court.

Its like a series of conditions that need to be met. I'd say in this case there are roughly 10 of them that I've outlined so far. If all of the conditions are met, the individual is innocent. If not, the individual is guilty. As the prosecution, I wouldn't stake my case on refuting this point ("The shooter has a claim to self-defense because a reasonable person would believe that the victim was acting unlawfully in his use of force") however, it is still a relevant condition. The others that you've highlighted are much more likely to be pivotal to the case though.

It actually doesn't need to be proven that the shooter had a reasonable he was in danger.  With that type of defense, if it is claimed, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, who has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (in some jurisdictions).  All the killer has to say is "I acted in self-defense", and then the prosecution has to prove otherwise.  Based on the facts I don't see how that can possibly be refuted.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 15 May 2020

Around the Network
JWeinCom said:
KLAMarine said:

Good questions... I kinda wanna leave it up to the court at this point.

At least they're getting paid for their time...

Where did you get the idea that I thought the gunmen should get off without any charges? Was it a post of mine earlier in this thread?

Well until you break it down, I'm afraid I can't help you.

"In this situation, what rules are you suggesting?  What do I have to do as the victim?  What do I have to wait for before I could defend myself?  Should I have When should the gunman have a legal right to shoot me without legal repercussions?"

That was my question, and you responded with an example with robbers and that you shouldn't try to defend yourself... so that seems to me that you're saying that's a situation where someone can shoot without repercussions.

But pretty much every post you made seemed to indicate to me that you didn't think the killers should face any consequences.  If I misunderstood you on either point, then feel free to clarify your position.

"That was my question, and you responded with an example with robbers and that you shouldn't try to defend yourself... so that seems to me that you're saying that's a situation where someone can shoot without repercussions."

>Well yeah, if Arbery thought his life was in danger and the gunmen meant to do him harm, he would be justified in resisting though, just like with a store clerk being robbed, it would be very inadvisable. If what the gunmen are saying is true, that they told him to 'stop' and that they 'wanted to ask questions', the gunmen didn't give him much reason to believe he was in danger aside from an armed pursuit. And of course that brings up more questions for me: are the gunmen being truthful about words exchanged? What was the pursuit like? How aggressive was it? Were the weapons immediately brandished? Were guns pointed at any point?

Questions with no answers.

Where does that land the gunmen? I don't know, that's a matter for lawyers. I'm mostly just focused on the video that we have and commenting/asking questions.

"But pretty much every post you made seemed to indicate to me that you didn't think the killers should face any consequences."

>The gunmen should face involuntary manslaughter? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer...

"If I misunderstood you on either point, then feel free to clarify your position."

>It never hurts to simply ask someone for their position. My position is a fluid one: it's subject to change as information comes in and I just think about it for a time... Ugh, I'm not a legal expert, let the damn courts deal with it. I'm growing tired of this topic...



KLAMarine said:
JWeinCom said:

"In this situation, what rules are you suggesting?  What do I have to do as the victim?  What do I have to wait for before I could defend myself?  Should I have When should the gunman have a legal right to shoot me without legal repercussions?"

That was my question, and you responded with an example with robbers and that you shouldn't try to defend yourself... so that seems to me that you're saying that's a situation where someone can shoot without repercussions.

But pretty much every post you made seemed to indicate to me that you didn't think the killers should face any consequences.  If I misunderstood you on either point, then feel free to clarify your position.

"That was my question, and you responded with an example with robbers and that you shouldn't try to defend yourself... so that seems to me that you're saying that's a situation where someone can shoot without repercussions."

>Well yeah, if Arbery thought his life was in danger and the gunmen meant to do him harm, he would be justified in resisting though, just like with a store clerk being robbed, it would be very inadvisable. If what the gunmen are saying is true, that they told him to 'stop' and that they 'wanted to ask questions', the gunmen didn't give him much reason to believe he was in danger aside from an armed pursuit. And of course that brings up more questions for me: are the gunmen being truthful about words exchanged? What was the pursuit like? How aggressive was it? Were the weapons immediately brandished? Were guns pointed at any point?

Questions with no answers.

Where does that land the gunmen? I don't know, that's a matter for lawyers. I'm mostly just focused on the video that we have and commenting/asking questions.

"But pretty much every post you made seemed to indicate to me that you didn't think the killers should face any consequences."

>The gunmen should face involuntary manslaughter? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer...

"If I misunderstood you on either point, then feel free to clarify your position."

>It never hurts to simply ask someone for their position. My position is a fluid one: it's subject to change as information comes in and I just think about it for a time... Ugh, I'm not a legal expert, let the damn courts deal with it. I'm growing tired of this topic...

"danger aside from an armed pursuit."

An armed pursuit isn't enough reason to feel threatened?  

You don't have to be a lawyer to have an opinion.  Based on the information as it currently is, do you think the killers should face legal consequences?



RolStoppable said:
sundin13 said:

(...)

Actually, for everyone's benefit, I'll just list out what I believe to be the relevant legal questions (If anyone has anything more, feel free to chime in):

1) Were the actors legally allowed to arrest Arbery?

1) I'd say yes. From what I've read, there were enough grounds for legitimate suspicion.

I touched on this earlier and the McMichael's did not have grounds to perform a citizens arrest.  No felony was committed which is part of the requirement to legally engage in a citizens arrest in the state of Georgia.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

JWeinCom said:
sundin13 said:

Remember that the bar for self defense is not whether an individual truly believed that they were in danger, or that they were met with unlawful force, but instead whether a reasonable person would believe that. Would a reasonable person believe that someone didn't have the right to self defense in this situation? Personally, if I were in that situation, I would expect that the person I was chasing may act in self defense. Recall that the shooter grabbed a gun before chasing the victim. That certainly implies that they thought that the victim might try to act in self-defense. They knew they were putting someone in a situation where they might feel they have to fight back.

I understand what you are saying, but I do think there is some relevant room to make determinations here and that was largely what I was getting at with my original post.

When we look at criminal code, there are certain natural questions that are brought up. Sometimes the answers to these questions may be obvious. You may believe it is obvious that the shooter had a reasonable belief that Arbery was acting unlawfully, but it is still a fact of the case which needs to be proven, and I don't think it is that black and white. Similarly, I think the answer to the other questions I posed in that original post are fairly obvious, but they still need to be proven in court.

Its like a series of conditions that need to be met. I'd say in this case there are roughly 10 of them that I've outlined so far. If all of the conditions are met, the individual is innocent. If not, the individual is guilty. As the prosecution, I wouldn't stake my case on refuting this point ("The shooter has a claim to self-defense because a reasonable person would believe that the victim was acting unlawfully in his use of force") however, it is still a relevant condition. The others that you've highlighted are much more likely to be pivotal to the case though.

It actually doesn't need to be proven that the shooter had a reasonable he was in danger.  With that type of defense, if it is claimed, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, who has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (in some jurisdictions).  All the killer has to say is "I acted in self-defense", and then the prosecution has to prove otherwise.  Based on the facts I don't see how that can possibly be refuted.

While you are mostly correct, I don't believe that counters what I had said. Typically (and this does appear to be the case in GA), the defendant does have to produce some evidence of self-defense, meaning more than simply saying so, before the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution. Small difference which doesn't really have any functional impact here in this case.

Like I had previously stated, I wouldn't stake my case on this single condition, but that does not mean that it is not a relevant condition and if I were a lawyer, I would likely bring it up as one of the many reasons why "self-defense" is not valid in this case.



Around the Network
sundin13 said:
JWeinCom said:

It actually doesn't need to be proven that the shooter had a reasonable he was in danger.  With that type of defense, if it is claimed, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, who has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (in some jurisdictions).  All the killer has to say is "I acted in self-defense", and then the prosecution has to prove otherwise.  Based on the facts I don't see how that can possibly be refuted.

While you are mostly correct, I don't believe that counters what I had said. Typically (and this does appear to be the case in GA), the defendant does have to produce some evidence of self-defense, meaning more than simply saying so, before the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution. Small difference which doesn't really have any functional impact here in this case.

Like I had previously stated, I wouldn't stake my case on this single condition, but that does not mean that it is not a relevant condition and if I were a lawyer, I would likely bring it up as one of the many reasons why "self-defense" is not valid in this case.

No... that's just not the case.  Burden of proof is on the prosecution for any justification defense *at trial*.  It's not a "typically" thing, it doesn't shift from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, this is a cornerstone of criminal law.   The defense does not need to say anything more.  However, if they don't make their case to the jury, they're probably going to find in favor of the prosecution.  If the defense can prove there is no case before trial, they can have the charges dropped, but if we're talking about an actual trial, then burden of defense is on the prosecution. 

Shooter says "I believed I was was acting lawfully and I was attacked with unlawful force".  What argument could you possibly make against that? If you were a lawyer, you actually don't want to throw the kitchen sink at a case.  When one of your points is easily blown up, that loses credibility.  You don't want to lob a softball to the other side.



JWeinCom said:
sundin13 said:

While you are mostly correct, I don't believe that counters what I had said. Typically (and this does appear to be the case in GA), the defendant does have to produce some evidence of self-defense, meaning more than simply saying so, before the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution. Small difference which doesn't really have any functional impact here in this case.

Like I had previously stated, I wouldn't stake my case on this single condition, but that does not mean that it is not a relevant condition and if I were a lawyer, I would likely bring it up as one of the many reasons why "self-defense" is not valid in this case.

No... that's just not the case.  Burden of proof is on the prosecution for any justification defense *at trial*.  It's not a "typically" thing, it doesn't shift from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, this is a cornerstone of criminal law.   The defense does not need to say anything more.  However, if they don't make their case to the jury, they're probably going to find in favor of the prosecution.  If the defense can prove there is no case before trial, they can have the charges dropped, but if we're talking about an actual trial, then burden of defense is on the prosecution. 

Shooter says "I believed I was was acting lawfully and I was attacked with unlawful force".  What argument could you possibly make against that? If you were a lawyer, you actually don't want to throw the kitchen sink at a case.  When one of your points is easily blown up, that loses credibility.  You don't want to lob a softball to the other side.

Since "self-defense" is an affirmative defense it changes a few things at trial. Basically, because it is an affirmative defense, you are presenting new facts into the case, not disputing the ones which are available, so you take some burden of proof onto yourself. The level of this does vary by jurisdiction and time (it seems that a lower burden on the defendant is becoming much more common).

"Some states may require defendants to prove self-defense by a “preponderance of the evidence,” while others require them to simply raise a plausible basis for it, and the prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt."

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/burdens-proof-criminal-cases.html

That said, I'm not really sure why we are arguing about this and I don't really see any benefit in continuing to go in circles regarding legal strategy. I believe there is more to this point than you do, but we seem to both largely agree on basically everything here, so lets agree to agree and move on...

Last edited by sundin13 - on 16 May 2020

SpokenTruth said:
RolStoppable said:

1) I'd say yes. From what I've read, there were enough grounds for legitimate suspicion.

I touched on this earlier and the McMichael's did not have grounds to perform a citizens arrest.  No felony was committed which is part of the requirement to legally engage in a citizens arrest in the state of Georgia.

But that still leaves an important question: This is the US politics thread, so why is the topic about the laws of a state of the former Soviet Union?



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:
SpokenTruth said:

I touched on this earlier and the McMichael's did not have grounds to perform a citizens arrest.  No felony was committed which is part of the requirement to legally engage in a citizens arrest in the state of Georgia.

But that still leaves an important question: This is the US politics thread, so why is the topic about the laws of a state of the former Soviet Union?

Well that's pretty derogatory. Georgia pre-dates the Soviet Union by well over a thousand years, so it's a bit insulting to associate it with them before anything else!



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

JWeinCom said:
KLAMarine said:

"That was my question, and you responded with an example with robbers and that you shouldn't try to defend yourself... so that seems to me that you're saying that's a situation where someone can shoot without repercussions."

>Well yeah, if Arbery thought his life was in danger and the gunmen meant to do him harm, he would be justified in resisting though, just like with a store clerk being robbed, it would be very inadvisable. If what the gunmen are saying is true, that they told him to 'stop' and that they 'wanted to ask questions', the gunmen didn't give him much reason to believe he was in danger aside from an armed pursuit. And of course that brings up more questions for me: are the gunmen being truthful about words exchanged? What was the pursuit like? How aggressive was it? Were the weapons immediately brandished? Were guns pointed at any point?

Questions with no answers.

Where does that land the gunmen? I don't know, that's a matter for lawyers. I'm mostly just focused on the video that we have and commenting/asking questions.

"But pretty much every post you made seemed to indicate to me that you didn't think the killers should face any consequences."

>The gunmen should face involuntary manslaughter? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer...

"If I misunderstood you on either point, then feel free to clarify your position."

>It never hurts to simply ask someone for their position. My position is a fluid one: it's subject to change as information comes in and I just think about it for a time... Ugh, I'm not a legal expert, let the damn courts deal with it. I'm growing tired of this topic...

"danger aside from an armed pursuit."

An armed pursuit isn't enough reason to feel threatened?  

You don't have to be a lawyer to have an opinion.  Based on the information as it currently is, do you think the killers should face legal consequences?

"An armed pursuit isn't enough reason to feel threatened?"

>It potentially is, yes. I still have to wonder how aggressive the pursuit was... I fear we'll never really know.

"You don't have to be a lawyer to have an opinion.  Based on the information as it currently is, do you think the killers should face legal consequences?"

>Yes.