WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

180

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)

[–] 0 pt

When did I ever say such a thing? You’re putting words in my mouth. What kind of, straw man argument is this?

[–] 0 pt

Yes, but let me clarify that I was referring more specifically to criminal law is it pertains to violent crimes.

[–] 0 pt

Yeah, and I never said that sex crimes are nkt violent crimes. However, none of this has anything to do with the Arbery case.

[–] 0 pt

It has to do with the corrupt U.S. government and all their double standards. You're playing into their game. How about the fact that an entire marxist mob was destroying the city of Kenosha and the local police did nothing? How about the fact that marxist mobs all across the country for over a year were destroying cities, terrorizing, stealing, murdering, raping, etc. and all the police including the federal government let it happen and the few marxists that were arrested were let go and charges dropped. How about that open border? But now you want to play devil's advocate in the case of Kyle for defending himself against a mob of marxists? You're barking up the wrong tree man. It's clear as night and day what happen that night. Marxist mob destroys city and attacks anyone who isn't part of their ideology. It's clear who was outnumbered that night and it's clear that the police in that city weren't going to do anything about a mob of marxist idiots because of politics. Citizens have the right to defend their city and themselves with guns (2nd amendment). Law enforcement isn't bound to protect anyone.