Sure, go ahead.
Rittenhouse Trial
- Thread starter El Correcto
- Start date
-
- Tags
- saint
But they didn't know Artery was the guy in question. They assumed. This is so easy.
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 had very reasonable suspicion, they knew the circumstances, and they were totally right. This was not a random black man running down the road.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
They had reasonable suspicion. And that's all the law requires.
Just admit you hate the law.
How were they totally right? That he had a criminal record so he must be the guy? They didn't know and they ended up shooting and killing an unarmed man. Exactly why we have laws against vigilante justice.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
You can start with all the decisions stemming from a 'right to privacy' - an invented right supposedly emanating from penumbras, which allowed the supreme court the latitude to decide whatever they want, however they want, without even language in teh constitution to back it.
Porn, abortion, sodomy, you name it. They invented all of these rights with no text or history except their imaginations.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
He was armed. He had his hands on their gun, lol. That's being armed.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
Alright, this is lopsided enough to be embarrassing. Many onlookers have been educated. The student here has not, but the audience has. Class is done for today. Dismissed.
The statute you cited requires a criminal act be committed in one's presence or one's immediate knowledge. Such as a woman crying out she's had her purse snatched by a guy running down the street with it. Not a "reasonable suspicion." "There's a black guy over there, bet he's the one who took her purse!"
Finally giving up making silly arguments are you? Now cry "Uncle!" and move on.
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
Is trespassing a capital offense in Georgia?
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Attacking a guy with a gun apparently is.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
He wasn't capitally punished.
BMWMC
B.C. boohoo buster.
What planet do you come from? Here on this planet you don't interpret the law to fit your political social prejudices.
The law has two sentences. #2 is subordinate to #1. Meaning #1 must proceeds before you can go to #2. Not the other way around.
- "A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.
At no time did any of these vigilantes identify any probable cause. They had no direct knowledge of a crime. They never contacted the owner to ask if this person had permission to enter the property. He could have been a worker who forgot his tools or was given permission to get a drink of water by the owner. They "assumed" a crime was committed and assumptions are not considered reasonable grounds for an armed and violent intervention to restrict the freedom and liberty of another person. The victim wasn't fleeing because he has been seen before by the defendants jogging in the area. "Fleeing" also assumes that he was at one time confined by the defendants, which he was not.
Imagine someone stopping you in the Walmart parking lot because they believe your a wanted felon and whose activities "looked" suspicious. Should they be allowed to use deadly force on you to have you comply with their capture and custody?
The first sentences definition of "in his presences or within his immediate knowledge" is in no way fulfilled here by the defendants. They acted impulsively, prejudicially and violently because he was a black man in a mostly, if not, exclusively, white neighborhood.
Just like these two racist, who see black people in their white neighborhood and assume they need to shoot them.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
The nice white people pictured also committed no crime.What planet do you come from? Here on this planet you don't interpret the law to fit your political social prejudices.
The law has two sentences. #2 is subordinate to #1. Meaning #1 must proceeds before you can go to #2. Not the other way around.
2. "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".
- "A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.
At no time did any of these vigilantes identify any probable cause. They had no direct knowledge of a crime. They never contacted the owner to ask if this person had permission to enter the property. He could have been a worker who forgot his tools or was given permission to get a drink of water by the owner. They "assumed" a crime was committed and assumptions are not considered reasonable grounds for an armed and violent intervention to restrict the freedom and liberty of another person. The victim wasn't fleeing because he has been seen before by the defendants jogging in the area. "Fleeing" also assumes that he was at one time confined by the defendants, which he was not.
Imagine someone stopping you in the Walmart parking lot because they believe your a wanted felon and whose activities "looked" suspicious. Should they be allowed to use deadly force on you to have you comply with their capture and custody?
The first sentences definition of "in his presences or within his immediate knowledge" is in no way fulfilled here by the defendants. They acted impulsively, prejudicially and violently because he was a black man in a mostly, if not, exclusively, white neighborhood.
Just like these two racist, who see black people in their white neighborhood and assume they need to shoot them.
El Correcto
god is dead
Why do you always lie? Just curious.Just like these two racist, who see black people in their white neighborhood and assume they need to shoot them.
Like are you being serious here, trolling or seriously this mentally ill?
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
9th and 10th amendments. Enumeration of powers. Jury nullification is not explicitly delegated to the government, because it can't be, so the people retain the power to nullify unjust laws.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
This guy pretends to love the constitution and he wants a bunch of appointed elitists telling juries how they can rule.
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
The homeowner of the "construction site" testified that he called the police a dozen times, had things stolen, had caught Arbery on camera, and asked the defendants to keep an eye out for Arbery specifically. These are facts that destroy the mainstream narrative of the case and establish that the defendants did have a reason to suspect Arbery had committed Felony Burglary, and was fleeing.
Similar threads
