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

©2025 Poal.co

563

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).
[–] • 3 pts

They defended themselves. In the video the lowlife wrestles for the gun. The media portrayed it as the poor innocent black man who was afraid of being shot by these evil white racists. In reality it was another case of good citizens protecting their community (sound familiar?) against a criminal.

[–] • 0 pt

Completely different. Kyle was being pursued ans assaulted with weapons. These guys attempted to detain someone and it was likely an unlawlful detainment.

[–] • 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.