Why are the Feds getting involved in the Arbrey Case?

[zantax]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@zantax

You know that was a silly absolute right? Do you seriously think nobody has ever faced criminal repercussions for stopping a crime?

You’re missing the point, in search of nits to pick.

Your premise that a lack of citizen’s arrest laws will make crime worse is entirely unsupported.

You can’t be serious. Citizen arrest law shields good samaritans, no legal protection, the fewer good guys get involved.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@zantax

You can’t be serious. Citizen arrest law shields good samaritans, no legal protection, the fewer good guys get involved.

No, citizen’s arrest laws empower wannabes to play cop. It doesn’t shield good samaritans - it shields people who tried to play hero, and ■■■■■■ it up.

The whole vigilante fantasy is just that - fantasy. The only time citizen’s arrest laws come into play are when those fantasies go wrong.

[WuWei]

That’s not true.

[Samm]

@zantax

@Zander

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.

The ambiguity was regarding the right of citizen arrest. That was not really pertinent to the murder, because their citizens arrest was not conducted properly in either case. They had no cause to use deadly force in making the “arrest.”

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@zantax

And you think that means he didn’t face repercussions?

I know that it means he didn’t suffer any criminal repercussions.

You don’t think being falsely prosecuted is a criminal repercussion? WOW!

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

I know that it means he didn’t suffer any criminal repercussions.

I can’t agree with that statement. At all.

[Zander]

@zantax

@TheDoctorIsIn

@zantax

Great, more women raped on subways with audiences. Libertopia

You have to see how silly this argument is.

Do I? That’s what happens when citizens fear to get involved because they may be prosecuted.

You think the average citizen is going to know their state’s citizen arrest laws, and then apply that knowledge when deciding whether to stop a rape on a subway?

C’mon man. That’s absurd.

[biggestal99]

@e7alr

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

Arbery’s civil rights were violated. Plain and simple, plus if the state guilty verdicts are appealed and overturned. The feds verdict will still stand.

Allan

[zantax]

@Zander

@zantax

@TheDoctorIsIn

@zantax

Great, more women raped on subways with audiences. Libertopia

You have to see how silly this argument is.

Do I? That’s what happens when citizens fear to get involved because they may be prosecuted.

You think the average citizen is going to know their state’s citizen arrest laws, and then apply that knowledge when deciding whether to stop a rape on a subway?

C’mon man. That’s absurd.

Good citizens do. Even better ones don’t need to know to save the woman. But will likely be punished and that is, criminal.

[Zander]

In what state will a citizen be punished for stopping an ongoing rape on a subway?

[zantax]

@Samm

@zantax

@Zander

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.

The ambiguity was regarding the right of citizen arrest. That was not really pertinent to the murder, because their citizens arrest was not conducted properly in either case. They had no cause to use deadly force in making the “arrest.”

If they had legal cause to effect the citizens arrest it was self defense.

[e7alr]

Three criminals broke the law and were convicted of serious violent crimes. Other than that they were white, and the victim was black, which is not in itself a civil rights violation, what specific proof is there, that will stand up in a court of law, that this was a hate crime, in violation of the civil rights act?

To actually bring a civil rights charge you have to prove race driven motivation. And race alone is not enough.

[e7alr]

Looks like we need a side thread on citizen’s arrest laws.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@e7alr

Three criminals broke the law and were convicted of serious violent crimes. Other than that they were white, and the victim was black, which is not in itself a civil rights violation, what specific proof is there, that will stand up in a court of law, that this was a hate crime, in violation of the civil rights act?

To actually bring a civil rights charge you have to prove race driven motivation. And race alone is not enough.

Well, isn’t that what the trial is for? The Feds think they can prove it, so let us wait and see if they can.

For all we know, there is a bunch of social media posts that prove the case.

[zantax]

No, feds coming in is double jeopardy, always thought so independent of any one case. Feds need to butt out.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@zantax

No, feds coming in is double jeopardy, always thought so independent of any one case. Feds need to butt out.

Well that’s not true. The Feds aren’t charging them with murder again.

[zantax]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@zantax

No, feds coming in is double jeopardy, always thought so independent of any one case. Feds need to butt out.

Well that’s not true. The Feds aren’t charging them with murder again.

Come on dude, it’s another state bite of the apple, it’s an end run around double jeopardy that will be and is used against minorities. It should be hard to jail people, not easy.

[e7alr]

I would have expected the prosecution to present any evidence of that nature at trial to impeach the claim of making a citizen’s arrest. It would also be an element of aggravation, justifying a sterner punishment at sentencing.

Honestly looks like DOJ show boating.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@e7alr

I would have expected the prosecution to present any evidence of that nature at trial to impeach the claim of making a citizen’s arrest. It would also be an element of aggravation, justifying a sterner punishment at sentencing.

It was a strategic choice by the prosecution to not make it about race.

Georgia had no hate crimes law, and life with parole is the minimum sentence for murder in Georgia, so they didn’t lose anything.

[e7alr]

It would have been an effective impeachment of their claim to have taken the action simply to make a citizen’s arrest. And is one hell of an aggravating factor for determining sentence.

I don’t actually think hate crime laws make a lot of sense, beyond emotional appeal. You can’t criminalize thought, so you have to show an actual criminal act of violence or property destruction, which are already crimes. As an aggravating factor, justifying greater punishment or financial liability, when present, makes complete sense to me.