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

©2025 Poal.co

866

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

While that is true, you are missing the point, as well: DID THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO DETAIN HIM?

[–] • 1 pt

I'm starting to understand why New York City has a crime problem.

[–] • 1 pt

This is not just NYC. IT is many jurisdictions. I don;t like nigger trespassers at all, but the law is the law. You cannot, as private citizens, form a small posse and go out detaining people without probable cause. They were not police. They were not bounty hunters. and I'm pretty sure they didn't actually witness a misdemeanor or felony with their own eyes. I hate to say it, but this thread needs a lawyer or two ASAP.

[–] • 0 pt

The law should serve man and not the other way around. He stole from that neighborhood several times. Basically Aubrey was a career criminal who fucked around and found out.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Just because you illegally detain someone doesn’t make you are a murderer if you defend yourself. It makes you an illegal detainerer.

Going after someone with an open gun is suicide.

They made a choice to illegally detain. The jogger made the choice to make it into a death.

I’m not seeing why they should be expected to be walking law book to know the exact details on when they are allowed to detain or not.

[–] • 2 pts

Oh man. I am thankful for your post because at least you have given a little thought to this, but if you decide to detain, you should 100% know the laws regarding that because you are FORCEFULLY DEPRIVING SOMEONE OF THEIR LIBERTY. You'd better be damned sure before you hold someone at gunpoint that you know the law or you'll be held criminally liable. IF the people had not made the decision to illegally detain at gunpoint, there would be nothing to speak of. This is a far cry from the Rittenhouse case. Not even close. Completely different scenario.