Damn. I went back and checked the law as it was in 2010, and here’s what the provision was:

O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)

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.

So, essentially what I was suggesting the law SHOULD be is what the law was.

And, it puzzles me more that the prosecutor was treating this the Ahmaud Arbery case as a legitimate citizen’s arrest. The law, as of 2010, states the citizen can make an arrest for a crime committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. The subjects in the Arbery killing did not seem to allege that they saw him stealing something from the incomplete residence. They may have been able to allege that it was within their immediate knowledge, based on the communication with the homeowner regarding the thefts. But the crime they allege Arbery committed, Theft by Taking, is a misdemeanor, thus they wouldn’t have been authorized to arrest him because he was “escaping” or “attempting to escape,” something that as former law enforcement officers, they should have known.

Edit: Changed “threats” to “thefts”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here