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

©2025 Poal.co

1.3K

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

The police instructed people to be on the lookout for this guy and to detain him if necessary, because the nigger was known to be armed and dangerous.

Plus, whether they are guilty of murder only hinges on one factor: Did the nigger lunge for the shotgun and try to take it? Yes. Yes he did. So it was self defense.

Maybe they get convicted on unlawful imprisonment, but that charge has no bearing on the homicide charge.

[–] • 0 pt

The police NEVER tell anyone to detain anyone who is armed and dangerous. They’ll tell you to call the police if you see them.

I see a Rittenhouse acquittal, but it would be a miracle if these guys weren’t convicted.

[–] • 0 pt

You're conflating two separate types of charges, though. Unlawful imprisonment is one thing, which maybe they are guilty of.

The homicide charge they definitely aren't guilty of. And even if they are found guilty of the former charge, ti still doesn't change the fact that the nigger charged and attacked the guy with the shotgun and tried to take it from him. That's justifiable self defense 100/100 times.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

So, if someone points a weapon at me who is not a cop, I don’t have a right to try to defend myself? Isn’t that the cruz of the Kyle case? There actually is one parallel there: He is being pursued by multiple guys and one has a weapon pointed at him.

[–] • 0 pt

If 3 non-cops who were Black approached me with a shotgun in the street and called me a cracker, I’d lunge for that shit, too.

[–] • 0 pt

Then you'd be dead and they'd walk due to it being self-defense.

[–] • 0 pt

They have no right to point a weapon at someone in the street like that. They are not affecting a lawful arrest and they are not defending their life. The guy is running away unarmed: they are the aggressors.