These three idiots have a very good chance of never seeing the outside of a prison again. If I’m the sentencing judge I sentence them to serve their sentences for each conviction consecutively.
The Feds are now going to spend money and time on an issue handled properly and adequately by the local authorities where the crime happened. What more justice is there to achieve?
Men found guilty in Arbery murder will go to federal court on hate crime charges
Because, it will be reversed on appeal.
I strongly doubt that.
What was the reversible error? No separate trial for video guy?
Judge punted on resolving the ambiguity in the underlying statute and left it to the jury. Not how it’s supposed to work. Plus the jury chose the wrong interpretation of the statute. You can’t ignore the second half of it that says all you need is probable cause in the case of a fleeing felon. Ambiguity in statute gets resolved in the interpretation that is more favorable to the defendants.
But I would argue it wasn’t even ambiguous, if the first half of the statute is controlling in the case of a fleeing felon the second half becomes superfluous. And that is improper construction.
Did he rule it was not ambiguous, or that it was ambiguous and then submit the question to the jury?
What was his ruling? Do you know?
My understanding is the latter.
If it’s not ambiguous the appellate court won’t touch it. That’s rule #1 in statutory construction.
To be clear, I am not advocating they get off, just offering my opinion on the legal aspects of the case and probable appeal.
I’m not saying that didn’t happen, but I would be very surprised if that’s what actually happened.
For sure. I definitely get that. It’s worth discussing. I’m interested now.
He just didn’t resolve it and sent it to the jury, that statute is either a) ambiguous or b) exhonerrates the defendants imo.
This is incorrect. He did not put the question to the jury.
The judge determined that both prongs required temporal immediacy - either immediately after, or in the case of a felony, during an escape. The jury was given that in the instructions.
No need for the second half of the statute if the first half is controlling, improper construction. The judge should have recognized the ambiguity and resolved it in favor of the defendant. There is only one reason different standard exist for fleeing felon and it is not because the prior stricter standard is applicable. Obviously the lesser standard for that category is because of the greater danger a fleeing felon presents than say a shoplifter.
Nonsense. It doesn’t require reading the first half as controlling the second. Look at the text.
*The 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.
The judge ruled escaping meant escaping from the offense.
It’s not a controversial reading.
Oh and half of you were arguing the opposite in the Rittenhouse thing, saying bicep guy was justified in apprehending him because he heard or thought he was, a fleeing felon.
Absolutely no one made a citizen’s arrest argument in the Rittenhouse case.
Have a transcript of that bit? I could see that being it.
Intentionalist arguments aren’t really going to work here.
The law was written in 1863. Take a guess what the intent behind it was.
After being ridiculed for his take, Mr. Branca has added the full transcript to his article. Here’s the relevant section.
The defense of justification can be claimed a when the person’s conduct is justified, as the use of force in defense of self or when the person’s conduct is reasonable and is performed in the course of making a lawful arrest.
The 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.
The terms in his presence and within his immediate knowledge are synonymous in a crime committed in one’s presence only if, by the exercise of any of his senses, he has knowledge of its Commission, or by the accused admitting that such a crime is being or has been committed.
A private person may not act on the unsupported statement of others alone.
A private citizens warrantless arrest must occur immediately after the perpetration of the offence or in the case of felonies during escape.
If the observer fails to make the arrest immediately after the commission of the offense or during escape, in the case of felonies, his power to do so is extinguished.
