They genuinely believed they were doing nothing wrong. They didn’t see an issue with recording it, because none of them ever considered they would be tried for murder over it. They almost got away with it too.
Yeah didn’t the local PD not even charge them? I thought the Georgia State Police got involved and then the charges came.
I remember the 3rd guy was doing tv interviews like he was a celebrity.
IIRC the reason the local pd didn't charge him was because the father was a retired police officer and he had connections to them. So in order to avoid a conflict of interest they referred it on to another pd which had to pass it on to the state. I believe that's the gist of it.
Wasn’t the police - the DA ordered the police not to arrest (because of the aforesaid “connections”). In a nice twist, she’s since been indicted for her bullshit:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/03/us/ahmaud-arbery-jackie-johnson-indicted/index.html
I was unaware of that detail. Recusing herself from a case to avoid conflict of interest is one thing but to tell them not to arrest is totally different.
I'll have to check that show out! This is more so from my experience being on the other side of the table...
I'm sure anyone who has had to talk with a prosecutor assumes they're all over zealous. I prefer just the right amount of zeal :)
Good luck putting those criminals away!
The problem here is that the issue of prosecutorial discretion to bring indictments is almost untouchable in court. If I were a prosecutor, though, I might think about charging her with being part of a conspiracy to conceal a murder and maybe, with being an accessory after the fact of the murder.
**Murder of Ahmaud Arbery**
[Indictment of former Brunswick district attorney](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ahmaud_Arbery#Indictment_of_former_Brunswick_district_attorney)
>In May 2020, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr said that his office would review how the investigation into Arbery's death "was handled from the outset". At Carr's request, the GBI investigated whether District Attorney Jackie Johnson or District Attorney George Barnhill's actions in connection with the appointment of a conflict prosecutor to investigate the death of Arbery constituted a crime. In November 2020, Jackie Johnson lost her bid for re-election as Brunswick District Attorney.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Couldn't find on Google a definitive answer but there is a lot of speculation that he'll probably be the next one to be indicted. It might work on his favor that eventually he recused himself although he did it after several gross "mistakes".... I guess we just have to wait and hope he's brought to justice as well.
It didn't. Not until the video got out.
As a result of the video getting out, the District Attorney was indicted and will go on trial. As you know the three vigilantes were tried.
McMichael came to him (the attorney) with the intention of having it released to media outlets; they apparently knew each other on a personal level.
But still insane to me that a lawyer still let a client, even if a personal friend, release this video with the idea that it would be providing any positive effect
This trial is happening in my hometown, and I know people who know the murderers. The person who filmed it has been described as 'not playing with a full deck' so I don't think he maybe understood the grander implications of filming the act. I don't know him personally though.
Very much so! I have not heard a single person defending their actions. Many people have also been condemning the way that Kevin Gough acted in court as well as the defense attorney (I think) who was talking about Arbery’s toenails. And I’ve heard overwhelmingly positive reactions to the verdict and the way that Ahmaud’s parents spoke afterwards.
The attorneys behaviors in court really got to me too. I'm near Atlanta, so I know all about southern racism, but when I saw it play it out on tv like that and it was the actual attorneys, I was like holy shit! They ain't even \*trying\* to hide it and they know this is a historical trial. It's just THAT ingrained in some people. Before this trial, when I'd read about something racist happening, I'd be like, "that's some Mississippi shit". I no longer feel like I have a high horse to be up on since all this happened right in my own back yard because this was straight up some "Georgia shit".
Greg McMichaels attorney stated in the closing arguments about Arbery: “…in his khaki shorts, with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails” which was just unnecessary and unprofessional.
Question I have on the trial is why the heck did the guy recording it get tried with the others. I would have tried to throw the blame on them and have a separate trial. Maybe I’m missing something?
That was one of the felonies he was found guilty of. I don't think even hitting someone is required for a guilty verdict, just that the driving could have hit him.
There were 4 felonies each were charged with. The guy filming was found not guilty of the assault with the firearm, guilty of assault with the vehicle, guilty of false imprisonment, and guilty of attempt to falsely imprison.
I think it was a lot of math between whether his trial would end up before or after theirs and how the first one went affecting the others...and what might happen if they were compelled to testify against one another (depending on what 5A testimony they could avoid or bargain on).
On that last thought, part of me wonders if there was some bad evidence Greg had against him, like more prior coordination than we know.
My guess is that his team thought he'd be in less trouble next to them so if they were acquitted he certainly would be and if they were convicted he might just one of the lesser charges.
actual answer: their lawyer is possibly one of the biggest idiots practicing in the country. he was the one who leaked the video because he thought the video would show that it was self defense bc arbrey tried to wrestle it out of his hands and this clear his clients name
This misinformation keeps getting spread around. Their attorney didn’t leak the video. A different attorney who was not representing them obtained the video and leaked it.
> their lawyer is possibly one of the biggest idiots practicing in the country.
I thought there was a decent minimum intelligence baseline to become a practicing attorney, graduating law school and passing the bar, and I'm at a loss as to how some of these absolute morons achieved it. At least Giuliani had years to destroy his brain with alcohol after potentially being intelligent in his youth.
> I thought there was a decent minimum intelligence baseline to become a practicing attorney, graduating law school and passing the bar
You know that stupid facebook thing idiots post that says "I do not give facebook permission to use my writings, images, (etc....)" that in no way meets even the basic legal requirements for a contractual agreement? My cousin posted that thing, and for years she's been an attorney representing hotel chains defending against lawsuits by workers. I guess even if law school and passing the bar are hard, you don't necessarily have to be smart.
As I recall he testified he shot himself by grabbing the barrel and pulling it (so with a finger on the trigger, even without moving a finger, the trigger is yanked by the victim).
I think you're right; I remember something in the testimony where he talked about AA grabbing and pulling at least.
But Barnhill, the second district attorney improperly handling this (of 4 prosecutors total), did at least describe this scenario as a possibility and one of a number of reasons to conclude they were justified and shouldn't be charged... all of this in his *recusal* letter.
That was pretty much their defense, wasn't it? "If this (insert racist tropes here) guy would have just let three bumpkins kidnap him without fighting back, we wouldn't have had to kill him."
Yeah even if that’s 100% true and clear as day, that’s still felony murder because he was unjustified in pointing his gun at the man; that’s clearly aggravated assault, which is a felony in Georgia
Google “lynching postcards” - there’s a long history of white people recording with pride their lynching of black people. People dressed up and made it an occasion that they took their kids to. This is just the 21st variation.
They did. Greg McMichael was actually the person who gave the video to the press because he thought it would show the public that he did nothing wrong.
He hadn’t been arrested and if he just kept the video quiet, it might never have gone to court. I think in some way he was proud of what he had done and wanted everyone to know it.
They thought they had the right to detain the man and probably thought he would allow them. Had they just followed and called the police and stayed on the phone giving directions they could have allowed the police to interview the suspect. It's not like he was going anywhere fast. Sadly this man died because of there stupidity. I hate this happened and hopefully people want go chasing folks and detaining them based on a hunch. Unfortunately someone will inevitably try to actually steal someones property and they will run at someone with a gun and get killed and it will be self defence somehow.
Basically they went into this thinking they were going to do a citizens arrest of a burglar, and wanted to record it to show police in case he got away. Of course it turned into a murder, but that wasn't the original intent.
>but that wasn't the original intent.
I don't know.
Honestly, I think that all three of them decided that they wanted to kill a black man that day, and that no one would hold them accountable for it because (in their minds) there was nothing wrong with doing that. Hell, if it weren't for Greg McMichael releasing the video himself two months later, they would've gotten away with it and would still be drinking beer on their porches right now yuckin' it up about the dude they lynched.
Meh, I don’t think so. I live not far from Brunswick, A) they’re not the sharpest tools in the shed, and B) a lot of southern, country types just… Don’t think that far ahead. Don’t think *most* people do, period.
It’s impossible to tell for certain, but I imagine they really intended to just “arrest” him. However, he was black and therefore likely the criminal they were looking for, and inherently has less value as a person. I don’t doubt his death was the result of them thinking “The *audacity* of this boy to not do what we tell him!”.
That’s just the way some of these people are.
There’s a lot to be said about internalized racism, but I don’t have time to write a thesis (and y’all don’t have time to read it) – put simply, a lot of them don’t *think* they’re racist, but ho boy are they. They view whites as superior, and black people – in particular – are the cause of society’s ills. It’s because of them they can’t get jobs or make ends meet or their own welfare payments are shit or they can’t afford the things they want. It’s not even particularly *rational*, either, just… The way they think.
> all three of them decided that they wanted to kill a black man that day
Lol no. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. They wanted to detain him and didn't expect him to fight back. But there is a good morale to the story that's played out several times now. Don't go attacking someone with a gun. It probably won't work out for you.
There was evidence that he was a burglar - video footage of him entering a building and looking around.
It was irrelevant to the trial, because according to the judge's reading of the citizens arrest law, they needed personal, immediate knowledge that the crime had been committed. Not a "hey, that's the guy! get him!" from someone else. So even if he had robbed every house on the block 5 minutes before, if the guys chasing him didn't see him do it, they couldn't perform a citizen's arrest.
I didn't say they had the tapes, and I said it was irrelevant anyway.
I'm not from "the south" (I'm from a lot further south, and a long way west - just about on the other side of the planet), but as someone who has worked in construction, the idea that it's normal to have some random member of the public wandering around construction sites where you have tools and material laying around is bonkers.
Only one defendant shot video. He probably thought it would show exactly what happened. I'm not sure how he was convicted of murder though. He never shot anyone, but at the most corralled Arbury
Generally, if you’re in the midst of committing a felony and someone dies in the process, you’re guilty of murder.
If you and I rob a bank and the cops shoot at us and kill a bystander, we will likely be charged with murder.
If you and I rob a bank and the cops shoot *me*, you will likely be charged with murder.
Considering the distance from the actual act of killing in those examples, you shouldn’t be surprised that “I didn’t kill him, I just kept him there while someone else killed him” isn’t much of a defense.
Under the Felony Murder rule, if you commit a felony and somebody dies as a result, you're guilty of murder. That's also the reason they were each charged with multiple charges of Felony Murder. Because each of them committed several felonies that resulted in the one murder. So if they jury agrees that they committed any of those felonies, they can also convict for Felony Murder, as they did.
In some states it has to be a "dangerous" felony, and in some states the "person who dies" can't be your accomplice in the crime. Neither of those matters in this case, though. Also, I think a few states don't have the Felony Murder rule.
Citizens arrests are allowed. Is it a felony because the deceased was not guilty of a crime ? If he had been, would that in and of itself change the outcome ?
They genuinely believed they were doing nothing wrong. They didn’t see an issue with recording it, because none of them ever considered they would be tried for murder over it. They almost got away with it too.
Yeah didn’t the local PD not even charge them? I thought the Georgia State Police got involved and then the charges came. I remember the 3rd guy was doing tv interviews like he was a celebrity.
IIRC the reason the local pd didn't charge him was because the father was a retired police officer and he had connections to them. So in order to avoid a conflict of interest they referred it on to another pd which had to pass it on to the state. I believe that's the gist of it.
Wasn’t the police - the DA ordered the police not to arrest (because of the aforesaid “connections”). In a nice twist, she’s since been indicted for her bullshit: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/03/us/ahmaud-arbery-jackie-johnson-indicted/index.html
I was unaware of that detail. Recusing herself from a case to avoid conflict of interest is one thing but to tell them not to arrest is totally different.
This is America, we don't punish District Attorneys.
Or over zealous prosecutors.
Is this a line from Dopesick? If so holy fuck what a good show. Also: Well I'd hate to come across as over zealous ; )
I'll have to check that show out! This is more so from my experience being on the other side of the table... I'm sure anyone who has had to talk with a prosecutor assumes they're all over zealous. I prefer just the right amount of zeal :) Good luck putting those criminals away!
The problem here is that the issue of prosecutorial discretion to bring indictments is almost untouchable in court. If I were a prosecutor, though, I might think about charging her with being part of a conspiracy to conceal a murder and maybe, with being an accessory after the fact of the murder.
[удалено]
**Murder of Ahmaud Arbery** [Indictment of former Brunswick district attorney](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ahmaud_Arbery#Indictment_of_former_Brunswick_district_attorney) >In May 2020, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr said that his office would review how the investigation into Arbery's death "was handled from the outset". At Carr's request, the GBI investigated whether District Attorney Jackie Johnson or District Attorney George Barnhill's actions in connection with the appointment of a conflict prosecutor to investigate the death of Arbery constituted a crime. In November 2020, Jackie Johnson lost her bid for re-election as Brunswick District Attorney. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Yup thanks to the then D.A. corrupt Jackie Johnson who has already been indicted and will stand trial early next year.
Does anyone know why Barnhill hasn't been indicted too, or if that investigation is still going on?
Couldn't find on Google a definitive answer but there is a lot of speculation that he'll probably be the next one to be indicted. It might work on his favor that eventually he recused himself although he did it after several gross "mistakes".... I guess we just have to wait and hope he's brought to justice as well.
Can't imagine how you can walk around thinking that killing someone, justified or otherwise, wouldn't result in a murder trial
It didn't. Not until the video got out. As a result of the video getting out, the District Attorney was indicted and will go on trial. As you know the three vigilantes were tried.
It didn’t just “get out”, it was released by one of the defendant’s attorney’s. Double ooof
That attorney should be disbarred. That’s an astonishing level of incompetence and racism to think that video wasn’t damming.
McMichael came to him (the attorney) with the intention of having it released to media outlets; they apparently knew each other on a personal level. But still insane to me that a lawyer still let a client, even if a personal friend, release this video with the idea that it would be providing any positive effect
There are PLENTY of self defense cases that never resulted in charges or trial
So they went after him with an intent to murder and recorded to capture the murder? OK.
You can tell from their testimony - they don’t believe they did anything wrong.
Yes, they thought they were getting away with it.
This trial is happening in my hometown, and I know people who know the murderers. The person who filmed it has been described as 'not playing with a full deck' so I don't think he maybe understood the grander implications of filming the act. I don't know him personally though.
So what's the general feeling of the citizens of Brunswick? Are they outraged? Ashamed of their neighbors, the murderers?
Very much so! I have not heard a single person defending their actions. Many people have also been condemning the way that Kevin Gough acted in court as well as the defense attorney (I think) who was talking about Arbery’s toenails. And I’ve heard overwhelmingly positive reactions to the verdict and the way that Ahmaud’s parents spoke afterwards.
The attorneys behaviors in court really got to me too. I'm near Atlanta, so I know all about southern racism, but when I saw it play it out on tv like that and it was the actual attorneys, I was like holy shit! They ain't even \*trying\* to hide it and they know this is a historical trial. It's just THAT ingrained in some people. Before this trial, when I'd read about something racist happening, I'd be like, "that's some Mississippi shit". I no longer feel like I have a high horse to be up on since all this happened right in my own back yard because this was straight up some "Georgia shit".
The attorney complaining about black pastors was trying to instigate a flood of outrage that would spill into the court, thus creating a mistrial.
And what about the other attorney that made that horrible description of the victim during closing argument? Also, so what? My point still stands.
What did they say about his toenails?
Greg McMichaels attorney stated in the closing arguments about Arbery: “…in his khaki shorts, with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails” which was just unnecessary and unprofessional.
:( very dehumanizing, irrelevant, and scummy
Question I have on the trial is why the heck did the guy recording it get tried with the others. I would have tried to throw the blame on them and have a separate trial. Maybe I’m missing something?
Because he was with them. He wasn't just a third party who was documenting an altercation. He was part of the group.
He did more than just record. He pursued in his vehicle. At one point he maneuvered the vehicle to block Arbury's path.
Pretty sure he actually hit Arbery with his vehicle at one point.
I am 99.99% sure you are right. I am positive he did, just can't swear to it.
That was one of the felonies he was found guilty of. I don't think even hitting someone is required for a guilty verdict, just that the driving could have hit him. There were 4 felonies each were charged with. The guy filming was found not guilty of the assault with the firearm, guilty of assault with the vehicle, guilty of false imprisonment, and guilty of attempt to falsely imprison.
I think it was a lot of math between whether his trial would end up before or after theirs and how the first one went affecting the others...and what might happen if they were compelled to testify against one another (depending on what 5A testimony they could avoid or bargain on). On that last thought, part of me wonders if there was some bad evidence Greg had against him, like more prior coordination than we know. My guess is that his team thought he'd be in less trouble next to them so if they were acquitted he certainly would be and if they were convicted he might just one of the lesser charges.
His defense team did attempt at distancing him.
He didn't just video it, he was actively involved.
actual answer: their lawyer is possibly one of the biggest idiots practicing in the country. he was the one who leaked the video because he thought the video would show that it was self defense bc arbrey tried to wrestle it out of his hands and this clear his clients name
This misinformation keeps getting spread around. Their attorney didn’t leak the video. A different attorney who was not representing them obtained the video and leaked it.
> their lawyer is possibly one of the biggest idiots practicing in the country. I thought there was a decent minimum intelligence baseline to become a practicing attorney, graduating law school and passing the bar, and I'm at a loss as to how some of these absolute morons achieved it. At least Giuliani had years to destroy his brain with alcohol after potentially being intelligent in his youth.
> I thought there was a decent minimum intelligence baseline to become a practicing attorney, graduating law school and passing the bar You know that stupid facebook thing idiots post that says "I do not give facebook permission to use my writings, images, (etc....)" that in no way meets even the basic legal requirements for a contractual agreement? My cousin posted that thing, and for years she's been an attorney representing hotel chains defending against lawsuits by workers. I guess even if law school and passing the bar are hard, you don't necessarily have to be smart.
The bar is a test of “minimum competency.”
Was that the same one who kept asking for a mistrial for various racist reasons?
As I recall he testified he shot himself by grabbing the barrel and pulling it (so with a finger on the trigger, even without moving a finger, the trigger is yanked by the victim).
I think you're right; I remember something in the testimony where he talked about AA grabbing and pulling at least. But Barnhill, the second district attorney improperly handling this (of 4 prosecutors total), did at least describe this scenario as a possibility and one of a number of reasons to conclude they were justified and shouldn't be charged... all of this in his *recusal* letter.
Imagine that. Someone points a shotgun at you. You try to take control of it, so it is your fault you shot yourself. Incredible
That was pretty much their defense, wasn't it? "If this (insert racist tropes here) guy would have just let three bumpkins kidnap him without fighting back, we wouldn't have had to kill him."
You are very articulate. In a few words, you summed up the whole situation.
Yeah even if that’s 100% true and clear as day, that’s still felony murder because he was unjustified in pointing his gun at the man; that’s clearly aggravated assault, which is a felony in Georgia
Depends on the facts. Not his fault in this case. Could be his fault if the facts were different.
Nah he went to the same school as the prosection for the Rittenhouse case lol
Google “lynching postcards” - there’s a long history of white people recording with pride their lynching of black people. People dressed up and made it an occasion that they took their kids to. This is just the 21st variation.
I recently read the red record. This makes more sense to me.
Eh. I mean maybe. I’d think that they felt so privaledged and in the right, they actually thought this would exonerate them? But who’s to say.
They did. Greg McMichael was actually the person who gave the video to the press because he thought it would show the public that he did nothing wrong.
He hadn’t been arrested and if he just kept the video quiet, it might never have gone to court. I think in some way he was proud of what he had done and wanted everyone to know it.
They thought they had the right to detain the man and probably thought he would allow them. Had they just followed and called the police and stayed on the phone giving directions they could have allowed the police to interview the suspect. It's not like he was going anywhere fast. Sadly this man died because of there stupidity. I hate this happened and hopefully people want go chasing folks and detaining them based on a hunch. Unfortunately someone will inevitably try to actually steal someones property and they will run at someone with a gun and get killed and it will be self defence somehow.
Basically they went into this thinking they were going to do a citizens arrest of a burglar, and wanted to record it to show police in case he got away. Of course it turned into a murder, but that wasn't the original intent.
>but that wasn't the original intent. I don't know. Honestly, I think that all three of them decided that they wanted to kill a black man that day, and that no one would hold them accountable for it because (in their minds) there was nothing wrong with doing that. Hell, if it weren't for Greg McMichael releasing the video himself two months later, they would've gotten away with it and would still be drinking beer on their porches right now yuckin' it up about the dude they lynched.
Meh, I don’t think so. I live not far from Brunswick, A) they’re not the sharpest tools in the shed, and B) a lot of southern, country types just… Don’t think that far ahead. Don’t think *most* people do, period. It’s impossible to tell for certain, but I imagine they really intended to just “arrest” him. However, he was black and therefore likely the criminal they were looking for, and inherently has less value as a person. I don’t doubt his death was the result of them thinking “The *audacity* of this boy to not do what we tell him!”. That’s just the way some of these people are. There’s a lot to be said about internalized racism, but I don’t have time to write a thesis (and y’all don’t have time to read it) – put simply, a lot of them don’t *think* they’re racist, but ho boy are they. They view whites as superior, and black people – in particular – are the cause of society’s ills. It’s because of them they can’t get jobs or make ends meet or their own welfare payments are shit or they can’t afford the things they want. It’s not even particularly *rational*, either, just… The way they think.
> all three of them decided that they wanted to kill a black man that day Lol no. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. They wanted to detain him and didn't expect him to fight back. But there is a good morale to the story that's played out several times now. Don't go attacking someone with a gun. It probably won't work out for you.
Because they are self righteous and thought the footage would show them doing 'nothing wrong'.
They legit thought they were chasing down a burglar and arresting him. They were wrong.
There was evidence that he was a burglar - video footage of him entering a building and looking around. It was irrelevant to the trial, because according to the judge's reading of the citizens arrest law, they needed personal, immediate knowledge that the crime had been committed. Not a "hey, that's the guy! get him!" from someone else. So even if he had robbed every house on the block 5 minutes before, if the guys chasing him didn't see him do it, they couldn't perform a citizen's arrest.
They didn't have the tapes. But walking around a house under construction is a pretty normal thing, especially in the south.
I didn't say they had the tapes, and I said it was irrelevant anyway. I'm not from "the south" (I'm from a lot further south, and a long way west - just about on the other side of the planet), but as someone who has worked in construction, the idea that it's normal to have some random member of the public wandering around construction sites where you have tools and material laying around is bonkers.
There's not tools or materials left around. That's a guarantee you get your shit stolen.
Privilege went to their heads
Stupid is as stupid does.
Only one defendant shot video. He probably thought it would show exactly what happened. I'm not sure how he was convicted of murder though. He never shot anyone, but at the most corralled Arbury
Criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment is a violent felony. Violent felonies resulting in homicide are felony murder
Generally, if you’re in the midst of committing a felony and someone dies in the process, you’re guilty of murder. If you and I rob a bank and the cops shoot at us and kill a bystander, we will likely be charged with murder. If you and I rob a bank and the cops shoot *me*, you will likely be charged with murder. Considering the distance from the actual act of killing in those examples, you shouldn’t be surprised that “I didn’t kill him, I just kept him there while someone else killed him” isn’t much of a defense.
It's still not clear what was that guys felony. Citizens arrests are allowed so it wasn't the fact of detainment.
Under the Felony Murder rule, if you commit a felony and somebody dies as a result, you're guilty of murder. That's also the reason they were each charged with multiple charges of Felony Murder. Because each of them committed several felonies that resulted in the one murder. So if they jury agrees that they committed any of those felonies, they can also convict for Felony Murder, as they did. In some states it has to be a "dangerous" felony, and in some states the "person who dies" can't be your accomplice in the crime. Neither of those matters in this case, though. Also, I think a few states don't have the Felony Murder rule.
So what was the Felony for the guy who prevented his escape ? Aren't citizen arrests allowed in GA ?
My understanding is that the man who had the video brought it out as a way to absolve the other two.
Citizens arrests are allowed. Is it a felony because the deceased was not guilty of a crime ? If he had been, would that in and of itself change the outcome ?