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

©2025 Poal.co

368

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 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

These are our laws. They cannot be skirted to deal with some nuisance nigger. If you deal with nogs outside of the law, then you're putting yourself at risk for criminal prosecution and civil liability. I'm sure there they have vagrancy laws. Imagine being in NYC or Frisco or LA where you can't even tell them to move along and they can just stand around aimlessly right outside of your property line if they want to.

[–] • 0 pt

Not my laws. Real law is dead in the US. Further, "our" laws are now being used against me and my kind. Just like laws are being used against the men who chased after Aubrey, all to protect their neighborhood. Aubrey got what he deserved.

Sometimes laws can come back and bite the destroyers of society. The Miranda guy who led to the Miranda Rights rule that cops have to follow was later killed in a bar fight. There were numerous witnesses, but they all knew their Miranda rights and kept their mouths shut.

[–] • 0 pt

I am not discussing morality or our problems in this society. I am merely discussing the current the legal framework of the case as I am interpreting it--be it correctly or incorrectly. I would like someone more knowledgeable than me of the law to comment. RFC.