The GA citizens arrest law looks pretty liberal but a lot would have to do with what the posse knew when this occurred.
The GA statute reads:
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.
If they saw the offense happen an arrest is justified. Likewise, if it is “within his immediate knowledge” it is justified. I’m not exactly sure what this is but I found some
Merneigh’s argument ignores the fact that the crime did occur within the presence of the food manager, one of the two persons attempting the arrest, and it occurred within the immediate knowledge of the store manager. OCGA § 17-4-60 provides, in pertinent part, that a private citizen may arrest an offender “if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.” [10] It does not distinguish between misdemeanor and felony offenses. The term “within his immediate knowledge” enables a private citizen to use any of his senses to obtain knowledge that an offense is being committed. [11] A private citizen is not required to actually be present when a misdemeanor offense occurs.
In Williams, a panel of this court upheld a private citizen’s lawful arrest, finding that the misdemeanor offense was clearly made within the presence and within the immediate knowledge of the private citizen and that the arrest was effected immediately after the offense occurred. [12] Language in the Williams decision cited by Merneigh, which in isolation appears to suggest that a citizen arrest in a misdemeanor case may be made only when the offense was committed in his presence, is simply an application of OCGA § 17-4-60 to the particular facts in that case.
Merneigh v. State, 242 Ga.App. 735, 531 S.E.2d 152, (Ga.App. 2000)
Without additional information, I question whether the “within immediate knowledge” standard would have been met for a citizen’s arrest.
And as others have said, If the victim was confronted by a person pointing a shotgun at them, he would have the right to defend himself and the shooter would likely be considered the initial aggressor.
My gut tells me that in a case like this, it would have been appropriate for the prosecutors to present the evidence to the grand jury to decide whether to indict or not and then let the legal process proceed from there. This can even be done when the DA feels they have insufficient probable cause for an arrest to be made.
And as with all of these matter, we have only a small portion of the available facts. I prefer to withhold judgment until all of the information is available.
There is one significant exception to this, Epstein did not kill himself!