How do you know he was leaving trespassed property? They didn't know. They assumed. Man is dead.
Rittenhouse Trial
- Thread starter El Correcto
- Start date
-
- Tags
- saint
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
You keep saying how they didn't know or didn't have proper suspicion.
And yet it turns out they were right.
So maybe they did know? You know, maybe they did know because....they were right.
You do know that the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government and their duties include ruling as to whether laws violate or up hold the Constitution? That responsibility serves as a check on power of the other two branches. This is Constitution 101. If that's not their role then please tell us what their role is?
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
If that's in the constitution as their job, cite it.
I'm waiting.
Show me where they are the final arbiter of the constitutionality of the law.
You're not making them co-equal. You're making them king. Whatever they say is the final word.
That has to be determined by a court. Turning out to be right, if true, doesn't negate assumptions about others and the very serious results of making mistakes.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
And yet they didn't make mistakes.
So how does an unreasonable assumption with no basis turn out so randomly to be completely correct?
Answer: They made perfectly reasonable assumptions, and were right.
They broke no laws. They only did stuff you don't think should be legal.
Article 3 of the Constitution.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
And the words are.....
They shot and killed a man they didn't have a lawful right to detain. That's why it should be left to professionals.
Look them up yourself.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
I've read them all plenty, and the full text of all the relevant cases we're discussing here.
It's not in the constitution. I'm wondering which words you think give them power to determine constitutionality.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
They killed a man who was trying to kill them, whom they did have a right to detain.
You say it should be left to professionals.
The problem is that your opinion isn't the law. Georgia law allows this. Deal with it, Karen.
Sorry, not going to chase my tail with you. Starting with the Judiciary Act of 1789 passed by Congress it has been long established that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional. That you aren't willing to accept that is your issue, not theirs.
OK, let's play your game. What statute of Georgia law gives anyone the right to draw a gun out in the street on anyone they suspect may have committed a crime?
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
So they're not a co-equal branch of government. They have veto power over anything the legislature or executive does, any time they want.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
Since 1863, state law has allowed any Georgian who believed he had witnessed a crime to arrest the suspected offender if the crime “is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.” If the crime was a felony and the person suspected of committing it was trying to flee, Georgians were allowed to arrest that person “upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.”
Governor signs changes to Georgia citizen’s arrest law after death of Ahmaud Arbery
As he signed the bill, Gov. Brian Kemp invoked the name of a Black jogger in South Georgia who died in a confrontation with three white men who said they thought he was burglar.
All 50 states allow for citizen's arrest. Georgia just made that 49.
These men had immediate knowledge of a probable active crime and a fleeing criminal. It's so straightforward it cannot even be questioned.
Long established that they are a co-equal branch and they never just arbitrarily veto laws. There's a process in place but you knew that already.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
A 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.
This is so easy.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
They never arbitrarily veto laws? Sure they do. Do I need to run down a list of arbitrary, capricious, and ridiculous supreme court constitionality rulings?
The key there is what did they know and when did they know it. These guys didn't know Arbery committed a crime. They saw a black man running down the road and decided he must be the guy. Wouldn't want to be them.Since 1863, state law has allowed any Georgian who believed he had witnessed a crime to arrest the suspected offender if the crime “is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.” If the crime was a felony and the person suspected of committing it was trying to flee, Georgians were allowed to arrest that person “upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.”
Governor signs changes to Georgia citizen’s arrest law after death of Ahmaud Arbery
As he signed the bill, Gov. Brian Kemp invoked the name of a Black jogger in South Georgia who died in a confrontation with three white men who said they thought he was burglar.www.ajc.com
All 50 states allow for citizen's arrest. Georgia just made that 49.
These men had immediate knowledge of a probable active crime and a fleeing criminal. It's so straightforward it cannot even be questioned.
Similar threads
