Jogging in Georgia while black.

Status
Not open for further replies.
DevilsAdvocate said:
Yes. But there are different Federal hate crimes that include murder. I think this would be the basic racist murder hate crime that would fall under 18 USC 249(a)(1), which does not include the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Basic murder hate crime? What's the advanced version?
 
Thermal said:
You're wildly misrepresenting the disparity here.

My argument: open carry very very bad. Checking out open construction sites very normal and fine. No reason for anyone to comply with weirdo hillbillies demands. The rednecks are certainly very guilty of several serious crimes, including aggravated assault. Oh, and not a great idea to charge a psycho with a shotgun who has backup.

Any, what did you call it, fencepost-shoving-up-the-ass you see in there? Anything controversial?
Click to expand...

Yet you seem to only focus on the behavior of the victim and not the murders.
 
smartcooky said:
Remember when that off duty cop accidentally walked into the wrong apartment and shot and killed a black man sitting on his own couch, in his own home? Well Skeptic Tank still tried to blame the black guy!
Click to expand...

To be clear the conservative(NRA) line is that he should have simply opened fire first.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I think it would be hard to prove a hate crime here. They stopped him because they thought he was a burglar, not just because he was black. I think racial attitudes played a role, but from the evidence I have seen I don't think it can be shown that this happened specifically because of race.
Click to expand...

Excepting of course for the total lack of evidence they had of burglaries and his involvement. But yes clearly they would also have done the same to random white people jogging in the area too. No racism at all. Racism being defined by only explicitly going out to kill a black person. Simply finding black people suspicious and threatening is of course not at all racist.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Interference with federally protected activity (such as public education, employment, jury service, travel), religious rights, or Constitutionally protected freedoms.
Click to expand...

I'd say the murderers interfered with all of those, especially the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" part.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I think it would be hard to prove a hate crime here. They stopped him because they thought he was a burglar, not just because he was black. I think racial attitudes played a role, but from the evidence I have seen I don't think it can be shown that this happened specifically because of race.

...snip...
Click to expand...

But we now know their claims of burglary from a particular site didn't happen, that there are no reports of any widespread thefts, robberies or burglaries in the area for the last few months and so on. In other words they lied about the reason for targeting their victim.

So why did they say they thought this person was responsible for crimes that never happened?

The answer is because he was a black man they had seen in their neighbourhood in the past.

What we call "hate crimes" are based on the idea of a person being targeted at least in part because they are a member of what we generally call a "protected class", whether a particular person (for the suggested hate crime here) is a racist doesn't have to come into it. Sometimes it can be an issue to determine if a crime was a hate crime or not and looking into the personal beliefs of a perpetrator may be necessary but in this instance we don't need to do that as the murderer's own statements make it clear he did target his victim because his victim was black.

In the UK I am pretty sure that their targeting of him based on him being a black man would be enough to make race an aggravating factor so would also be taken into account in any prosecution or sentencing.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
Yet you seem to only focus on the behavior of the victim and not the murders.
Click to expand...

In this thread it has stuck out like a sore thumb that the background and the personal lives of the murderers are not being looked into, not having videos "leaked", not being commented on by all and sundry, what is the high school background of the murderers, have they ever been in trouble with the police, committed crimes themselves and so on? No only the murdered victim's character and background is being forensically dissected.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I think it would be hard to prove a hate crime here. They stopped him because they thought he was a burglar, not just because he was black.
Click to expand...

I disagree. They stopped him because they thought he was a burglar, and they thought he was a burglar because he was black. There's the causal link established.

And if you doubt the second link of the chain, the people defending the McMichaels's will happily explain to you that they think he was a burglar because he was black too.

Dave
 
uke2se said:
I'd say the murderers interfered with all of those, especially the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" part.
Click to expand...

That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Federal law distinguishes hate crimes that qualify for the death penalty on a sort of basic principle of whether or not the crime interfered or was intended to interfere with the function of the Federal government.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I disagree. They stopped him because they thought he was a burglar, and they thought he was a burglar because he was black. There's the causal link established.

And if you doubt the second link of the chain, the people defending the McMichaels's will happily explain to you that they think he was a burglar because he was black too.

Dave
Click to expand...

Or they thought he was a burglar because he was snooping around a construction site, which he was. Or that he matched a suspect who was previously taped snooping around a construction site, which he did (whether it was him or not).

I think they thought he was a burglar because of his observed actions. As I said, I think racial attitudes played a part. But I don't think it can be shown that they did what they did simply because he was black. This isn't like Dylan Roof or someone who attacked someone simply because of race and without any other reason.
 
Thermal said:
...intentionally pointing a loaded gun at someone is a misdemeanor?

It certainly is a different world south of the Mason Dixon line.
Click to expand...

Meadmaker said:
I suspect that the law cited by Devil's Advocate is the very minimal charge that could result from pointing a gun at someone. Under any circumstances, no matter what else is going on, it is at least a misdemeanor just to point a gun at someone, whether it is as a joke, a threat, an accident, whatever. The existence of that law gives a very easy way for a police officer to put a stop to some bad stuff without having to establish probable cause for anything except pointing the gun.

I further suspect that pointing a gun at someone and saying, "Don't move or I will kill you", is a very different, more serious, crime, in addition to pointing the gun, and also pointing a gun at someone in such a manner that a reasonable person would think that the threat is implied is also the same, more serious, crime.

ETA: I see that the law says "intentionally", so I suppose "by accident" in the above is incorrect.
Click to expand...

That was my reading of this too. Using a deadly weapon to threaten someone is clearly defined as aggravated assault already, and this is what the McMichaels were charged with in addition to their murder.

I am assuming the "pointing gun" charge exists as a backstop for dangerous behavior with a gun that might not meet the standards of aggravated assault. Perhaps it exists as a plea down crime, since so much of criminal justice these days revolves around extracting and negotiating guilty pleas.

I'm not familiar enough with how this law is applied in GA to do more than speculate, but it's not really relevant here since the killers were charged with plain ole aggravated assault.
 
I think hate crime charges are going to be tough to make stick, unless there is some evidence that the public hasn't seen yet.

It will be difficult to prove with any certainty that the McMichaels were motivated by Arbery's race. If they are defending themselves against this attack, they can probably make a credible claim that they were just overzealous anti-burglary murderers, not race-motivated murderers.

I welcome the presence of investigators and prosecutors who aren't from the GA law enforcement system nonetheless.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Or they thought he was a burglar because he was snooping around a construction site, which he was. Or that he matched a suspect who was previously taped snooping around a construction site, which he did (whether it was him or not).

I think they thought he was a burglar because of his observed actions. As I said, I think racial attitudes played a part. But I don't think it can be shown that they did what they did simply because he was black. This isn't like Dylan Roof or someone who attacked someone simply because of race and without any other reason.
Click to expand...

They attacked him simply because he was black. There was no other reason. The video and their testimony shows that.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I disagree. They stopped him because they thought he was a burglar, and they thought he was a burglar because he was black. There's the causal link established.

And if you doubt the second link of the chain, the people defending the McMichaels's will happily explain to you that they think he was a burglar because he was black too.

Dave
Click to expand...

They thought he was a burglar because he was prowling around a construction site. And maybe because they had seen videos of him or someone who looked like him doing so before.

They didn't just pick out some random black guy to hassle.

Of course, that doesn't mean that they had no bias in their opinions. But that sort of bias is different from targeting someone specifically because of their race.

A person commits a civil violation when they commit a violation against another person. A person commits a criminal violation when they commit a violation against society. A person commits a hate crime violation when they commit a violation against specific segment of society.

To be a hate crime, it has to an act that was committed not only against the person (even if for racial reasons) or even against society (even if for racial reasons) but specifically against specific segment of society. Something to intimate and control that specific segment of society. An act targeted specifically to that specific segment of society.

A hate crime is not just prejudice that influences the crime. It is a crime specifically targeted toward that specific segment of society that makes it a hate crime.
 
uke2se said:
They attacked him simply because he was black. There was no other reason. The video and their testimony shows that.
Click to expand...

They targeted him because they thought he was a burglar. Can you give me links to specific evidence otherwise?
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
They targeted him because they thought he was a burglar. Can you give me links to specific evidence otherwise?
Click to expand...

1. The fact that he was not a burglar and the burglaries were made up by the murderers.

2. The fact that they loaded up in a pick-up with shotguns.

3. The fact that they shot him dead.

Sorry, no links to anything that hasn't been posted before. It's obvious that this was racially motivated. To deny it is stupid.
 
uke2se said:
1. The fact that he was not a burglar and the burglaries were made up by the murderers.

2. The fact that they loaded up in a pick-up with shotguns.

3. The fact that they shot him dead.

Sorry, no links to anything that hasn't been posted before. It's obvious that this was racially motivated. To deny it is stupid.
Click to expand...

Unless they find some additional evidence, I think it's going to be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this crime was primarily motivated on targeting Arbery because of his race.

Compare this case to other successful hate crime prosecutions and you'll notice a stark difference.
 
Again

- There were no break-ins reported in the weeks prior to the shooting nor where any break-ins investigated between the shooting and the video going public. Again this mythical crime wave does not exist, nor did anyone ever claim it existed outside of the "Oh crap we need an excuse for killing the black guy" context. The break-ins either didn't happen or didn't really concern anyone (enough to you know like report it) until they needed an excuse why they shot the black guy.

- Georgia's Citizen Arrest Law only covers stopping the act of or fleeing from a Felony where you have first hand knowledge of it, not an after the fact challenging of someone who looks like someone who you had heard committed some unreported misdemeanors.

These are the facts and they are not in dispute.

Again these men are guilty in their own version of the story. It is illegal in Georgia to try and detain someone because you think they might have committed a misdemeanor in the recent past as that falls outside the scope of the Georgia Citizens Arrest Law, so that can't be the "In mens rea mistake of fact with sprinkles" excuse for actions that happened following from it.

Citizens arrest, defense of self, stand your ground... none of those; either the broad legal concepts or specific laws, are applicable here and have zero place in the discussion unless the dead black buy being at fault is really, really important to you.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom