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

©2025 Poal.co

1.2K

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

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.

[–] • 0 pt

Are you a retard or just an angry asshole who doesn’t comprehend and responds reflexively to posts? I NEVER SAID THAT KYLE WASN’T INNOCENT. This about the Arbery case. Fuck off already. You deviated like 5 times already from the initial thread discussion.

[–] • 0 pt

Kyle, the guys in Georgia, etc. It doesn't make a difference. You're a fed who keeps resorting to illogical fallacies. This is about U.S. "law" which you are so about and you can't even defend that garbage because you know it's illogical and evil. Checkmate.

[–] • 0 pt

Another defeated idiot who keeps changing the subject and accusing people of being feds, Jews and glowniggers. Great.