Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

800

From a moral standpoint, the three men weren’t wrong. Legally, there seems to be a problem that Nate the Lawyer hints at but doesn’t say directly:

The heart of the defense’s case is that the three men were trying to detain Aubery for a citizen’s arrest until the police came. Now, I don’t know how the law is in Georgia or wherever Aubery was doing his shit, but in NYC, if I’m not mistaken, in order to detain someone you have to witness the crime yourself and the crime has to be at least a misdemeanor. They don’t witness him doing anything but running. They didn’t see him in that house. I forget if someone even informed them that the man was on a property, but even if they did, I am still pretty sure that they would have to witness the crime themselves in order to detain him or else it is unlawful imprisonment. Can someone more knowledgeable than me (lawyer, paralegal, resident of that state) confirm or deny? If that is the case, those three men are fucked because they would have had no legal right to engage the man.

From a moral standpoint, the three men weren’t wrong. Legally, there seems to be a problem that Nate the Lawyer hints at but doesn’t say directly: The heart of the defense’s case is that the three men were trying to detain Aubery for a citizen’s arrest until the police came. Now, I don’t know how the law is in Georgia or wherever Aubery was doing his shit, but in NYC, if I’m not mistaken, in order to detain someone you have to witness the crime yourself and the crime has to be at least a misdemeanor. They don’t witness him doing anything but running. They didn’t see him in that house. I forget if someone even informed them that the man was on a property, but even if they did, I am still pretty sure that they would have to witness the crime themselves in order to detain him or else it is unlawful imprisonment. Can someone more knowledgeable than me (lawyer, paralegal, resident of that state) confirm or deny? If that is the case, those three men are fucked because they would have had no legal right to engage the man.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (71).
[–] • 0 pt

Doesn't change the fact of good guys protecting the community from criminals.

[–] • 1 pt

Man, you guys will do anything to preserve your narrative. I AM NOT EXAMINING THIS MORALLY. THIS IS AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAWS THAT GOVERN THEIR ACTIONS AND THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF THOSE ACTIONS.

You can be a good, guy, a great guy...a fucking superlative guy, but that does necessarily give them the right to detain or hold someone at gunpoint. You guys are almost as idiotic as a nignog who says that their criminal son dindu nuffin. Stop being emotional and look objectively at the facts.

[–] • 0 pt

Stop being a liberal. Like seriously, whose side on your on? This is why can'tservative never win. They play liberal games. They don't understand they are stuck in a liberal framework where they will always lose.

When Christ comes down to earth and vaporizes all the servants of satan are you going to also say we should look at the masonic liberal U.S. laws to determine if he was guilty for doing that???!!! Wake up man.

[–] • 0 pt

The law is the law. Has nothing to do with “being a Liberal”—which I am most certainly not. While we have chosen this system of criminal justice, we should adhere to it. If not, then reform or abandon it.