JOGGING WHILE BLACK

[rothschild]

They were fully within their rights under Georgia law to respond in the manner that they did. That isn't arguable.

This was just argued in a court of law where the people responsible for the murder of Ahmaud were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. So to be clear, not only was this arguable, it was proven beyond doubt that the murderers had no right to respond in the manner they did.

Here's the law re citizen arrests in Georgia:

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

applying normal rules of statutory construction, it's describing 2 different scenarios, not one; the first sentence relates to misdemeanors, the second to felonies. If the two are melded together, which Dunikoski argued was the correct interpretation, it makes no sense as there would no longer be any necessity for probable cause -- both misdemeanors and felonies would have to occur in the presence of anyone attempting to make a citizen's arrest.

It is not the role of a jury to interpret the law, only the evidence. It was incumbent upon Judge Walmsley to clarify this point, which is a critical one for both the prosecution and the defense, and he failed to do so. That's an egregious error and should result in the verdict being thrown out on appeal, though it very well may not.

As for your contention that this point of law *is* arguable, feel free to show that Dunikoski's interpretation is in keeping with the rules of statutory construction.