The Next Trayvon Martin Case?

[Dthomas3523]

If the offense is a felony. Right now, it appears to be a misdemeanor criminal trespass.

That’s why my post you quoted says “felony crime.”

If they can show that a reasonable person would have probable cause to believe a felony was committed, there will be a not guilty verdict.

I don’t see anything yet that would rise above reasonable suspicion of either misdemeanor or felony though.

 

[RTH1800]

Some folks are assuming a jury will do the right thing, reach the correct decision.

OJ?

 

[Dthomas3523]

Generally speaking, juries get it right most of the time. We just remember the times they don’t.

The other 9 million times aren’t newsworthy.

 

[jakelly]

Simple... YOU DON‘T TRY TO DETAIN HIM...

you are asking for an incident if you open carry and try to detain someone.

What possession do you have that’s worth someone’s life and potentially spending the rest of your life in jail?

This isn’t an active shooter or violent crime. You aren’t defending your family or your life. They put themselves in this position out of stupidity.

Wake up and use your brain.

I’m using my brain, Rerun.

Let’s go with your position. They messed up, they shouldn’t have tried to detain him. In this case, however, that amounts to shouting something out of a truck and then getting out of the truck while armed. The man was never detained or kidnapped, heck, he never even broke stride except to accelerate. Meanwhile, the other guy trespassed and then committed assault when they shouted to stop. If justice is truly blind and scales are truly balanced, who committed more wrong? None of the responsibility for this outcome rests on the dead man? You think these guys should go down for murder, because they got into their truck armed and attempted to ask someone why they were there and to wait for police?

 

[Victory]

You don’t have to physically touch someone to detain them. Standing there with a gun or being a person of authority is more than enough to be considered detained, and this has been shown over and over in case law.

 

[Dthomas3523]

I’m using my brain, Rerun.

Let’s go with your position. They messed up, they shouldn’t have tried to detain him. In this case, however, that amounts to shouting something out of a truck and then getting out of the truck while armed. The man was never detained or kidnapped, heck, he never even broke stride except to accelerate. Meanwhile, the other guy trespassed and then committed assault when they shouted to stop. If justice is truly blind and scales are truly balanced, who committed more wrong? None of the responsibility for this outcome rests on the dead man? You think these guys should go down for murder, because they got into their truck armed and attempted to ask someone why they were there and to wait for police?

The minute a truck with someone in the back (much less armed) follows you and tells you to stop......that’s being detained. Whether you comply or not, doesn’t matter.

There is no doubt what they did will be considered a detention. The question is if it was a legal detention.

 

[Dthomas3523]

The courts will look at it like this:

Would a reasonable person feel like these two men were attempting to detain him? If yes, it’s a detention. Then the question moves to whether it was a legal detention.

If a truck comes rolling up with someone in the back and they yell at you to stop......especially armed.....would you feel like they are trying to detain you?

Similar to LE:

If I say “would you mind talking to me for a second?” No detention

If I say “come here and talk to me” that’s a detention.

In the latter, if you run off, you were still detained. Just like this case......they clearly meant to keep him there and told him to stop whiles following him with a vehicle.

If the detention is deemed illegal, they are fucked. If the detention is deemed legal, then it will depend who started the physical altercation that ended up fighting for a gun.

 

[Snuby642]

Well there we all go.

See ya.

 

[jakelly]

The Martin case was in a gray area. Zimmerman shouldn’t have been off following him around, and Martin shouldn’t have attacked him. There was only two witnesses and one of them is dead. Zimmerman said the gun came out after he was attacked. So, without any other evidence to show otherwise, there was beyond a reasonable doubt and he was not guilty. It went the way it should have according to our justice system. Zimmerman is the only person alive who truly knows what happened and if he is guilty.

This one at the moment looks to be different.

The entire Zimmerman event took place in seven minutes. From the beginning of his call to the cops to the shooting. He only walked, out of his car, in the direction Trayvon had gone for a minute, so he could give the cops the best information. He was part of a neighborhood watch program, that’s basically the game plan.

This is why the saying “sometimes it’s better to be a good witness” exists.

This has bad decision written all over it regardless of the legal outcome. These two men would have been best suited to follow and report to police where he went. If you lose him, you lose him. Approaching is just a terrible idea.

Obviously different story if you just witnessed something violent or major crime occur.

They should have followed him, you mean like Zimmerman?

 

[Don-n-Texas]

I’m retired I got a job as a security guard to get out of the house. I am license to carry a firearm. But I never work where I carry a firearm. The risk is to high. I never have had any trouble but I plan on observing and retreat. Use my cell phone and call 911.

Talk to LE and they say it is not worth it to use your firearm.

 

[Maser]

There is no doubt what they did will be considered a detention. The question is if it was a legal detention.

You cannot detain someone who's not committing a crime.

 

[Victory]

You cannot detain someone who's not committing a crime.

You can, you will just be committing a crime doing it. Lol

 

[Fig]

The amount of strong opinions, with such scant facts and such an incomplete video, is ridiculous.

The entire media is calling him a “jogger”.

I jog (or maybe it’s yog with a soft j) the same rout all the time. This “jogger” must have run this rout hundreds of times...right? I’d think everybody in the neighborhood knows him...right? ‘Cuz anyone running is by definition a “jogger”...right?

Its crazy how some of you never learn. By this time in Michael Brown the officer had shot him execution style in cold blood. It was only way later we found out his little friend was telling fairy tales, and Michael Brown had assaulted the officer and tried to take his gun...

Why even speculate, much less take a side as vehemently as some of you have? If it’s because you want us all to know your personal biases and prejudices, then you’re doing a bang up job. If you think you’re arguing the case, or know more than the prosecutor who did not think there was enough to take it to a grand jury...wow. I’ll bet you can also refuel a reactor by yourself because you kinda understand how it works...?

The video shows a guy running towards armed men, and then attacking one of them. Was there time for some kind of dialog, because to me it seems to happen way to fast for a discussion. How does someone get close enough to grab your shotgun if you mean to murder them in broad daylight on an open street? Do you know some kind of shotgun-fu where you can fire it from retention, so it’s ok to let an assailant close to melee range?

I have zero idea, and neither do any of you speculating and opining. You guys are drinking media poison. Whatever they sat on TV, odds are the opposite is true.

 

[supercorndogs]

 

[jakelly]

Here’s the actual wording for citizen’s arrest in Ga.

Also, they will have to answer these questions:

How do you know this person committed a crime? And it has to be probable cause. A police officer can detain with reasonable suspicion, but a civilian cannot. They cannot perform brief investigative detentions. So it’s probable cause or nothing. No “well he might have been.”

Was the crime a felony? It looks like it was misdemeanor criminal trespassing. So, once he tries to flee, if it’s not a felony, you can’t do anything else. This law is to keep what appears to happen, from happening. They approach for a misdemeanor and end up taking action that would be reserved for a more serious crime.

I’d say these guys are probably up shit creek unless they have a better story than what they have told/what’s been released.

The big time key here is *felony offense* when trying to escape. If there isn’t some sort of probable cause of a felony, all bets are off and they are fucked beyond fucked.

View attachment 7320801

Theft of a firearm is a felony in Georgia. If they had him on tape, they had reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion to believe this was the man responsible. Not sure what the case law is regarding this? Wouldn’t that make their detainment legal? It’s clear from the tape they aren’t detaining him for trespassing, they are detaining him because they think he’s the guy that stole some guns.

 

[Jgunner]

The amount of strong opinions, with such scant facts and such an incomplete video, is ridiculous.

The entire media is calling him a “jogger”.

I jog (or maybe it’s yog with a soft j) the same rout all the time. This “jogger” must have run this rout hundreds of times...right? I’d think everybody in the neighborhood knows him...right? ‘Cuz anyone running is by definition a “jogger”...right?

Its crazy how some of you never learn. By this time in Michael Brown the officer had shot him execution style in cold blood. It was only way later we found out his little friend was telling fairy tales, and Michael Brown had assaulted the officer and tried to take his gun...

Why even speculate, much less take a side as vehemently as some of you have? If it’s because you want us all to know your personal biases and prejudices, then you’re doing a bang up job. If you think you’re arguing the case, or know more than the prosecutor who did not think there was enough to take it to a grand jury...wow. I’ll bet you can also refuel a reactor by yourself because you kinda understand how it works...?

The video shows a guy running towards armed men, and then attacking one of them. Was there time for some kind of dialog, because to me it seems to happen way to fast for a discussion. How does someone get close enough to grab your shotgun if you mean to murder them in broad daylight on an open street? Do you know some kind of shotgun-fu where you can fire it from retention, so it’s ok to let an assailant close to melee range?

I have zero idea, and neither do any of you speculating and opining. You guys are drinking media poison. Whatever they sat on TV, odds are the opposite is true.

This is where I’ve been during this whole story. Watching a clearer video and reading more. I am not sure what everyone else is watching or reading, but i would love to hear some info NOT from the msn.

 

[lonegunman762x51]

The Martin case was in a gray area. Zimmerman shouldn’t have been off following him around, and Martin shouldn’t have attacked him. There was only two witnesses and one of them is dead. Zimmerman said the gun came out after he was attacked. So, without any other evidence to show otherwise, there was beyond a reasonable doubt and he was not guilty. It went the way it should have according to our justice system. Zimmerman is the only person alive who truly knows what happened and if he is guilty.

This one at the moment looks to be different.

What crack smoked filled room are you posting this crap from? Damn the democrat is coming out in some of you people.

George Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch guy on duty the night he shot Tray Tray, his entire job consisted of following scumbags around and making sure they didn't do scumbag shit. He was in fact on the phone to 911 when Sweet baby Tray violently attacked him. There were actual other witnesses who initially identified Trayvon as the attacker and described the attack as a violent assault on George Zimmerman in which Tray was smashing Zimmerman's skull into a concrete sidewalk repeatedly.

As witnesses were threatened with death, rape or assault by Trayvon supporters they developed memory loss and as they realized they would be supporting a "white hispanic" contrary to their leftist beliefs they changed their stories. The prosecutor even used an imposter posing as Trayvon's girlfriend on the fucking stand during the trial and he still got a not guilty verdict.

 

[jakelly]

^^^ Crazy, , but all seemingly true.

 

[Maser]

It was NEVER "witness fraud" that divided the country in the Martin/Zimmerman case. It was the biased MSM and the dumb fucks who believed them. Personally I think Martin got the best end of the stick. He gets to rest peacefully in the ground whereas Zimmerman got a life sentence of constantly having to look over his shoulders anytime he's in public.

 

[Bitchtitsbob]

Zimmerman could have been a racist (which he probably isn't), card-carrying, cross-burning, cousin-fucking member of the KKK, and I wouldn't have voted to convict him if I were on the jury. Why? Reasonable doubt. The evidence--namely the defensive wounds and the injuries Zimmerman sustained, and the issues with the state's "witnesses"--is enough reasonable doubt. Self-defense is an affirmative defense to a charge of murder in Florida. Everyone has the right to self defense, even piece of shit racists.

That said, I don't know if that's what we have here with the killing of Ahmaud Arbery. But I don't have the case file and I don't believe everything the media is reporting, so I'm going to wait and see.

(I almost wish George Zimmerman would have been found guilty at trial so all the issues with the State's case could come up on appeal and become a matter of record. Zimmerman wouldn't have liked that outcome, but it would've been better for the country.)

 

[Dthomas3523]

What crack smoked filled room are you posting this crap from? Damn the democrat is coming out in some of you people.

George Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch guy on duty the night he shot Tray Tray, his entire job consisted of following scumbags around and making sure they didn't do scumbag shit. He was in fact on the phone to 911 when Sweet baby Tray violently attacked him. There were actual other witnesses who initially identified Trayvon as the attacker and described the attack as a violent assault on George Zimmerman in which Tray was smashing Zimmerman's skull into a concrete sidewalk repeatedly.

As witnesses were threatened with death, rape or assault by Trayvon supporters they developed memory loss and as they realized they would be supporting a "white hispanic" contrary to their leftist beliefs they changed their stories. The prosecutor even used an imposter posing as Trayvon's girlfriend on the fucking stand during the trial and he still got a not guilty verdict.

Keep your usual tin foil hat bullshit to yourself.

I never said what Zimmerman did or didn’t do. I said he’s the only witness that knows what happened. You cannot dispute that. Only he and Martin were there.

It’s his word vs no word and the evidence at the scene shows his word was *possibly* true. The prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman’s story wasn’t true. Therefore he is not guilty. The verdict was a legally correct verdict. Zimmerman is the only person alive who knows if it was the morally correct verdict.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Theft of a firearm is a felony in Georgia. If they had him on tape, they had reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion to believe this was the man responsible. Not sure what the case law is regarding this? Wouldn’t that make their detainment legal? It’s clear from the tape they aren’t detaining him for trespassing, they are detaining him because they think he’s the guy that stole some guns.

They stated on the 911 call he was coming out of “mostly open construction site.”

Gonna have to explain how that goes to “he must be the guy that stole some guns.”

There’s also no police report on anything stolen. Not to mention unless there is an absolutely clear picture of his face, there’s not much probable cause.

There’s plenty of reasonable suspicion a LEO could detain him. But these guys need probable cause.

 

[Dthomas3523]

You cannot detain someone who's not committing a crime.

This is patently false. You can detain anyone you want to.

Whether or not it amounts to a legal detention, illegal detention, kidnapping, assault, etc etc........is an entirely other story.

 

[Dthomas3523]

The entire Zimmerman event took place in seven minutes. From the beginning of his call to the cops to the shooting. He only walked, out of his car, in the direction Trayvon had gone for a minute, so he could give the cops the best information. He was part of a neighborhood watch program, that’s basically the game plan.


They should have followed him, you mean like Zimmerman?

Followed him in the vehicle as long as possible. Don’t exit the vehicle. Zimmerman fucked up (put himself into a very precarious situation at best) following on foot. The police will do just fine with a general area you last saw someone. It’s not a big deal if you don’t find the guy who *might* have possibly done something wrong.

Non LE should only put themselves into a high chance of physical altercation for very serious crimes.

 

[Maser]

This is patently false. You can detain anyone you want to.

Whether or not it amounts to a legal detention, illegal detention, kidnapping, assault, etc etc........is an entirely other story.

Well, I guess I have an excuse to tell this story that pertains to 2 members of a forum I been poking fun of recently. One of my favorite past times of being a young internet user back when I was 13 and 14 was confronting internet tough guys in real life to see just how tough they really are are. Long story short when I was about 19 or 20 I confronted 2 members of the forum mentioned on separate days and separate locations because they were stupid enough to doxx themselves. Even though I said confronted, it was more along the lines of just me following them back to their cars trying to get them to talk. Never once did I obstruct them from running away. Are you telling me that I could have legally detained them and forced them to talk to me and use deadly force if they tried to get away? Once again the keyword here is LEGALLY.

 

[DarnYankeeUSMC]

Non LE should only put themselves into a high chance of physical altercation for very serious crimes.

Ahh there's the kicker of most of this story.
A retired cop along with his son went after this man.
And well, police gotta police.
We know that LE get different treatment when the SHTF. Anyone here believe that they would be walking around free 2 minutes after the shooting of this man? Was there preferences shown by the DA, or whoever wrote the letter previously posted, towards the retired cop? Looks like it to me. His letter stating that he's recusing himself because of conflicts and then he goes about laying out his beliefs and why he didn't charge anyone or even let a Grand Jury decide.

For you that are saying that they just stopped him to ask questions was reasonable.
Your fucking full of shit. You act like they were just going to ask if he knew what time it is or where the local Walmart is. You don't do that while brandishing a 12ga.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Well, I guess I have an excuse to tell this story that pertains to 2 members of a forum I been poking fun of recently. One of my favorite past times of being a young internet user back when I was 13 and 14 was confronting internet tough guys in real life to see just how tough they really are are. Long story short when I was about 19 or 20 I confronted 2 members of the forum mentioned on separate days and separate locations because they were stupid enough to doxx themselves. Even though I said confronted, it was more along the lines of just me following them back to their cars trying to get them to talk. Never once did I obstruct them from running away. Are you telling me that I could have legally detained them and forced them to talk to me and use deadly force if they tried to get away? Once again the keyword here is LEGALLY.

I’m not even sure where to begin with this clusterfuck of an example.

What you seem to be describing is a consensual encounter.

The only way to legally detain someone would be in accordance with state law. So, if one of them started beating on you for no legal reason, you can gain upper hand and detain them.

You could also detain them for no legal reason at all and then it becomes a plethora of possible criminal acts. Though it is still a detention.

You said you cannot “detain” someone if there is no crime. Now you are putting the word “legally” in front of it. That changes your argument entirely. You cannot “legally” detain someone without reasonable suspicion (law enforcement) or probable cause (civilian and also LE). But just because a detention isn’t legal, doesn’t make it not a detention.


As it pertains to this case......if a truck with someone driving and someone in the back of the truck follows you, cuts you off and tells you to stop......there aren’t many people alive who wouldn’t feel as if those men are performing a detention. So, in all likelihood, this will be a matter of a legal or illegal detention.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Ahh there's the kicker of most of this story.
A retired cop along with his son went after this man.
And well, police gotta police.
We know that LE get different treatment when the SHTF. Anyone here believe that they would be walking around free 2 minutes after the shooting of this man? Was there preferences shown by the DA, or whoever wrote the letter previously posted, towards the retired cop? Looks like it to me. His letter stating that he's recusing himself because of conflicts and then he goes about laying out his beliefs and why he didn't charge anyone or even let a Grand Jury decide.

For you that are saying that they just stopped him to ask questions was reasonable.
Your fucking full of shit. You act like they were just going to ask if he knew what time it is or where the local Walmart is. You don't do that while brandishing a 12ga.

Agreed. The fact they armed themselves prior is not going to look good. While carrying of firearms is not illegal, the fact they saw him, armed themselves, and then went after him can absolutely be taken into consideration.

Also the way they brandished the weapons. It’s one thing to grab a handgun and put in your pocket, then approach the man with “hey man, I’d like to talk to you a second.”

It’s completely different to be in the bed of a pickup truck with a shotgun jumping out telling him to stop.

 

[Tokay444]

 

[supercorndogs]

We can't have guns in our pickup beds? I am too tall to shoot prone out of a pickup bed, but many do.

 

[Dthomas3523]

View attachment 7321061

Still doesn’t make it probable cause he committed a felony.

 

[Dthomas3523]

We can't have guns in our pickup beds? I am too tall to shoot prone out of a pickup bed, but many do.

You cant ride around holding it and telling people to stop while cutting them off.

 

[DarnYankeeUSMC]

I see something in the street but can't identify it.
I am viewing from a phone so maybe that's why. Maybe someone can show a better picture.

0:17 of the shooting video there is a hammer in the road. Witch would make sense if the rumor is true they saw him lurking in a construction site.

 

[Maser]

I’m not even sure where to begin with this clusterfuck of an example.

What you seem to be describing is a consensual encounter.

The only way to legally detain someone would be in accordance with state law. So, if one of them started beating on you for no legal reason, you can gain upper hand and detain them.

You could also detain them for no legal reason at all and then it becomes a plethora of possible criminal acts. Though it is still a detention.

You said you cannot “detain” someone if there is no crime. Now you are putting the word “legally” in front of it. That changes your argument entirely. You cannot “legally” detain someone without reasonable suspicion (law enforcement) or probable cause (civilian and also LE). But just because a detention isn’t legal, doesn’t make it not a detention.


As it pertains to this case......if a truck with someone driving and someone in the back of the truck follows you, cuts you off and tells you to stop......there aren’t many people alive who wouldn’t feel as if those men are performing a detention. So, in all likelihood, this will be a matter of a legal or illegal detention.

I used the word legally because in the end that's what it boils down to is legality. Hell, we can go out and beat the shit out of obnoxious zoomer vapers for the fun of it if we want to, but can we do it legally? I really hope those gout infested fat fucks in the truck get charged with something because if the general public sees that they can just chase anyone down just for the fuck of it, it's gonna be really bad!

 

[supercorndogs]

IMO, Its gotten real bad because the public is so restricted from chasing down dirt bags.

 

[Dthomas3523]

IMO, Its gotten real bad because the public is so restricted from chasing down dirt bags.

As it should be. Absent some sort of probable cause of a violent or serious crime, the public shouldn’t be allowed to.

If you want to chase down dirt bags, plenty of well paying LE jobs out there hiring all the time.

 

[supercorndogs]

Nope disagree. Thieves keep thieving because they get away with it. People don't commit crimes in front of police. Police show up to take statements from people, that could be charged for stopping a criminal. And every person in the world Monday morning QBs the situation to death.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Nope disagree. Thieves keep thieving because they get away with it. People don't commit crimes in front of police. Police show up to take statements from people, that could be charged for stopping a criminal. And every person in the world Monday morning QBs the situation to death.

Would cause way more problems that it would solve. Thieves have been thieving since the Wild West when they could be shot on sight. That didn’t stop them. It just made things more violent.

We go back to that and then the thieves just start shooting at the civilians trying to stop them.

We’ve already tried this form of justice and it didn’t work.

 

[supercorndogs]

No it wouldn't. not allowing has caused more problems than it has solved. It worked out fine, big daddy just found you would give more rights if he told it was too dangerous to protect yourself.

I don't know why you are arguing, as I stated I fundamentally disagree with you, and you will to change my mind.

 

[Dthomas3523]

No it wouldn't. not allowing has caused more problems than it has solved. It worked out fine, big daddy just found you would give more rights if he told it was too dangerous to protect yourself.

I don't know why you are arguing, as I stated I fundamentally disagree with you, and you will to change my mind.

Because ironically, I’m free to type and disagree without you. Whether you like it or not.

 

[supercorndogs]

I don't give a shit, you are free to waste all the time on pointless endeavors you want.

 

[Petrov]

Look its a good thing they shot him, he was a survivalist neo-nazi biker who was abusing children and had full auto guns.

 

[Tokay444]

Still doesn’t make it probable cause he committed a felony.

No, it doesn’t. And I don’t think all felonies should carry the death penalty, but, he wasn’t a fucking jogger. Let’s make that clear.

 

[Tokay444]

The media has it, now and all you’re gonna see is shit like this...

Minus the obvious truth.

 

[FS1]

I still think if the Defense can prove this guy was the crook and his clients acted in good faith, they win. If they can't prove that...they may well be toast. JMHO.

They IMO should have just kept tracking and following this guy until the Po Po arrived. I will never pull my carry pistol unless I have already decide to use it. I would not have pulled it this case.

 

[Dthomas3523]

I still think if the Defense can prove this guy was the crook and his clients acted in good faith, they win. If they can't prove that...they may well be toast. JMHO.

They IMO should have just kept tracking and following this guy until the Po Po arrived. I will never pull my carry pistol unless I have already decide to use it. I would not have pulled it this case.

I think they likely believe they were acting in good faith. But that’s not all it takes to be legal.

If you’re going to take action like this, you need to be very educated on the laws pertaining to a citizen’s arrest. I don’t doubt for a second these guys likely thought they were doing the community a favor. But their actions lead to what may be murder.

And, even if the defense can prove he actually was a criminal, they still will have to show how these two men had probable cause at the time to believe it. It won’t be good enough they threw a hail marry and were right.

 

[jakelly]

The 911 call posted earlier in this thread, although incomplete, clearly stated the men pursuing him had him on video, a bunch, prowling at night.

 

[Dthomas3523]

The 911 call posted earlier in this thread, although incomplete, clearly stated the men pursuing him had him on video, a bunch, prowling at night.

They are going to have to show they could absolutely identify him as the same individual. Not just matching a description.

Matching description = reasonable suspicion and not good enough.

Also, I still haven’t seen where it was anymore than prowling a construction site several times. Still just a misdemeanor. I haven’t seen anything about a firearm theft.

And, they will have to show they had seen the video or image prior to. Not just the owner of the site relaying the description.

Meeting the description but not 100% ID = good enough for police to stop, not good enough for civilians.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

We’ve already tried this form of justice and it didn’t work.

Bullshit. It worked just fine. We simply lost the stomach for it.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Bullshit. It worked just fine. We simply lost the stomach for it.

It didn’t stop the crime. And people were murdered in the name of “justice” all the time. Regardless of what system you have in place, criminals will be criminals.

You (anyone) can go get a job chasing shit bags all day everyday. There is a shortage of LE all over the country. Until there is no shortage, there’s no reason to let non LE do it. If you want to do it, come on over and get paid for it.