Originally posted by Robtard
Should also be noted that he left his truck unlocked with a gun inside(unless this has changed?). Sure, no one should have entered and stolen it, but this guy is a complete negligent idiot, a kid could have entered that unlocked truck and shot themselves.
That's I point I initially considered when I found out that this case was far more complicated than 2 racist dudes stopping a random jogger.
It's still burglary however, if the victims leave their door unlocked, at least in CA, it would not get the additional charge of "breaking and entering." Just a burglary.
https://www.shouselaw.com/is-it-a-crime-to-break-into-an-unlocked-car-in-california
However, Georgia is even more lax in their definition and makes no distinction related to locked or unlocked:
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/georgia-law/georgia-burglary-laws.html
But it does look like this lawyer explains that breaking and entering is also a charge in Georgia and just "entering"
https://www.georgiacriminallawyer.com/entering-auto
Finally, the most important element to your question is case law.
Williams v. State, 208 Ga. App. 572, (1993).
Williams stole nothing but the cops caught him rummaging through the vehicle. The prosecutor proved it met the standard for burglary (in Georgia, you don't have to take anything, just the intent needs to be proven) and Williams lost his case.
Originally posted by Surtur
I never argued for it.
arguing that mcmichaels had previous knowledge of the second unreported B&E on english's property is a plea for justifiable criminal suspicion which in turn argues for justifiable homicide.
as it stands, mcmichaels seems to have had no cause to suspect criminal intent.
if we agree on these points, why in gods name have we been arguing over those points?
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's I point I initially considered when I found out that this case was far more complicated than 2 racist dudes stopping a random jogger.It's still burglary however, if the victims leave their door unlocked, at least in CA, it would not get the additional charge of "breaking and entering." Just a burglary.
https://www.shouselaw.com/is-it-a-crime-to-break-into-an-unlocked-car-in-california
However, Georgia is even more lax in their definition and makes no distinction related to locked or unlocked:
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/georgia-law/georgia-burglary-laws.html
But it does look like this lawyer explains that breaking and entering is also a charge in Georgia and just "entering"
https://www.georgiacriminallawyer.com/entering-auto
Finally, the most important element to your question is case law.
Williams v. State, 208 Ga. App. 572, (1993).
Williams stole nothing but the cops caught him rummaging through the vehicle. The prosecutor proved it met the standard for burglary (in Georgia, you don't have to take anything, just the intent needs to be proven) and Williams lost his case.
I didn't argue it wasn't a burglary/a crime, why I said the gun was "stolen"
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
arguing that mcmichaels had previous knowledge of the second unreported B&E on english's property is a plea for justifiable criminal suspicion which in turn argues for justifiable homicide.as it stands, mcmichaels seems to have had no cause to suspect criminal intent.
if we agree on these points, why in gods name have we been arguing over those points?
Not what I'm saying, I've said even if they knew he was a thief they shouldn't have pursued. I was not saying it's possible he knew about the theft because I felt that should be some legal defense, but merely as a possible explanation for why they said what they did about the number of break-ins and burglaries.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
arguing that mcmichaels had previous knowledge of the second unreported B&E on english's property is a plea for justifiable criminal suspicion which in turn argues for justifiable homicide.
I was with you until the last 2 words.
Justifiable pursuit of a suspect that committed a felony, not a justifiable homicide.
And that pursuit requires first-hand knowledge.
Here's how it breaks down:
Originally posted by dadudemon
...the case hinges on the following:1. That Arbery legit was casing the joint (thus, constituting a first degree burgle which is a felony). This provides lawful pursuit of Arbery if the McMichael's can prove they had first hand knowledge of the felony.
2. Arbery approached the McMichael's on the road and immediately attacked McMichael senior.
If 1 is not true, it's the bare minimum of involuntary manslaughter.
If 1 and 2 cannot be proven, it is voluntary manslaughter.
If both can be proven, they will be acquitted.
Originally posted by Surtur
Not what I'm saying, I've said even if they knew he was a thief they shouldn't have pursued. I was not saying it's possible he knew about the theft because I felt that should be some legal defense, but merely as a possible explanation for why they said what they did about the number of break-ins and burglaries.
okay, but if they hypothetically knew he was a thief, that would strengthen the case for justifiable homicide. B&E is a felony, so they could argue that they were in the right for pursuing him (remember, we're talking about georgia) and subsequently killing him in 'self defense' .
conversely trespassing of the non-criminal variety (entering/leaving property while causing no damage and stealing nothing) is not a criminal offense, thus there would be no cause to apprehend.
Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't argue it wasn't a burglary/a crime, why I said the gun was "stolen"
Some laws downgrade the crimes if the doors are unlocked which would hurt the McMichael's case depending on the laws on the books and precedence set in case law.
My angle was to explore how this was relevant from a legality and case law perspective to frame the actions and/or motivations of the McMichaels.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i said "argues for justifiable homicide", not "proves justifiable homicide". words matter
Correct which is why it is not appropriate to argue justifiable homicide as it specifically pertains to the burglary Arbery committed or did not commit. That's a lawful pursuit argument.
The justifiable homicide portion is a separate issue and you crossed tracks which I corrected for you because you were clearly confused in your line of reasoning.
Edit - I just noticed you tried to strawman what I said. Odd. Why strawman even this? You said something wrong and I corrected it. Accept the correction instead of making another strawman. 👆
Originally posted by dadudemon
The justifiable homicide portion is a separate issue and you crossed tracks which I corrected for you because you were clearly confused in your line of reasoning.
it means everything in terms of whether mcmichaels had the right to pursue, and thus to "defend himself" when things got out of control.
if he had no right to pursue, the self defense point is moot since he was illegally pursuing. if he did have the right to pursue, then that argues for self defense/justifiable homicide. one does indeed impact the other with much notable significance
maybe we actually are in agreement but you're just being impossible again?
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
it means everything in terms of whether mcmichaels had the right to pursue and then to "defend himself".
That's incorrect because of the last part you added.
This would be a more appropriate way to represent your point that does not confuse to the two points of the case:
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
It means everything in terms of whether McCichaels had the right to pursue.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
if he had no right to pursue, the self defense point is moot since he was illegally pursuing. if he did have the right to pursue, then that argues for self defense/justifiable homicide. one does indeed impact the other with much notable significance
This is the correct take on the two key points of the case that does not confuse lawful pursuit with homicide:
1. That Arbery legit was casing the joint (thus, constituting a first degree burgle which is a felony). This provides lawful pursuit of Arbery if the McMichael's can prove they had first hand knowledge of the felony.
2. Arbery approached the McMichael's on the road and immediately attacked McMichael senior.
If 1 is not true, it's the bare minimum of involuntary manslaughter.
If 1 and 2 cannot be proven, it is voluntary manslaughter.
If both can be proven, they will be acquitted.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
how can you even wrap your head around the term, since by your assertion of definition that would mean it should be called something like "lawfully unlawful killing". a complete paradox.
Instead of melting down, try answering the question.
Again, Who is arguing for "justifiable homicide"?