Jogging in Georgia while black.

[Meadmaker]

You seem to be defending one group’s right to speculate but admonishing another for doing the same.

Yes, sometimes irrelevant minutiae gets brought up and discussed to death. And sometimes a poster or group of posters seem to place a strange amount of importance on that minutiae. The rest of us are entitled to ask why they think it’s so important. And if their responses don’t make a lot of sense, or they choose to offer no response at all, we are entitled to express our opinions about why that is.

And, sometimes, in fact a lot more sometimes than the sometimes you mentioned, a poster mentions a bit of minutiae, and 12 other posters rush to draw a lot of unsupported conclusions about the state of mine of the poster who mentioned the minutiae, and if the first poster writes 12 replies to the 12 other posters, then a bunch of those other posters insist that it is obviously important to the first poster because he's spending so much time on it, and they draw the "obvious" conclusion from "his" preoccupation with the subject matter.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Do you realise what a damning thing you have posted about the USA justice system?

The US justice system is a sham. The vast majority of cases end in plea agreements. Trial by jury is the exception to the rule.

DAs wield far too much power through coercive plea bargaining.

Most cases should receive as much scrutiny on discretionary decisions by the prosecutor as this case is likely to receive.

 

[catsmate]

Let me know when you make up your mind.

 

[Scopedog]

You are doing what a lot of people did in the thread about Jean’s murder and looking too much into details which will be irrelevant to the actual prosecution and therefore the defence.

All the prosecution will do is establish the actual actions of the murderers as they occurred, and that is the only case the defence will be able to challenge. The defence may try to bring in other areas but they are very unlikely to be allowed to by the judge (if the judge and prosecutor are at least awake - which may be a tall ask given the apparent state of the area’s justice system!)

We often think that court cases are like the TV shows we watch, superficially they are but not really, the surprise witness, the unveiling of something unknown in the court, these just don’t really happen in real criminal cases. Such a case is the prosecutor saying “I will show that the accused did x, y, z at a,b,c time which is murder (will use the appropriate term for the legislation)” and that is what the defence has to defend.

The only aspects that the defence would be able to bring across may have been the likes of “you armed yourself because you knew the victim was armed” or “you approached the victim because you had seen him breaking the law in the area in the past”. But we know they didn’t know that or and hadn’t seen him breaking the law.

This is going to be rather open and shut case.

Yes, just like the Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman cases and the initial indictment of Jussie Smollett. Your condescension regarding the reality of a trial didn't escape me, by the way- I've seen My Cousin Vinny so I know what discovery is. If I create a thread for the discussion of irrelevant details regarding this case are you going to merge or delete it?

Edited to add: O. J. Simpson

 

[Scopedog]

Yes.

It's quite ridiculous.

The federal and state justice systems of "the colonies" have many profound flaws but are hopefully self-correcting and are hopefully better than they have been in the past and are hopefully getting better and will hopefully get better as a result of this case (maybe the local department or District Attorney will arrest people as murder suspects immediately in circumstances like these and maybe the local department will stop referring reports of suspicious activity to the reporter's neighbors). However, to any non-US citizen who engages in generalization or condemnation of the US systems: " ... why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

 

[smartcooky]

I don't know what you mean.

The location of LionKing is on the left of the screen

Its a reference to this

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13088440&postcount=77

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13089678#post13089678

Probably a bit obscure

 

[smartcooky]

If this situation draws attention to flaws in the system perhaps it will contribute to correcting them.

This hasn't happened much in the South since April 9, 1865 - I can't seeing it happening much now.

 

[Darat]

Yes, just like the Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman cases and the initial indictment of Jussie Smollett.

What have those cases got to do with this one?

Your condescension regarding the reality of a trial didn't escape me, by the way- I've seen My Cousin Vinny so I know what discovery is.

Sorry that it sounded condescending I didn't intend it to be.

If I create a thread for the discussion of irrelevant details regarding this case are you going to merge or delete it?

Eh?

Edited to add: O. J. Simpson

And a double

 

[Bob001]

.....
The only aspects that the defence would be able to bring across may have been the likes of “you armed yourself because you knew the victim was armed” or “you approached the victim because you had seen him breaking the law in the area in the past”. But we know they didn’t know that or and hadn’t seen him breaking the law.

This is going to be rather open and shut case.

A defense attorney can bring into the picture pretty much anything he thinks will work. You can expect a parade of character witnesses testiying to the McMichaels' sterling character, their lack of a prejudiced bone in their bodies, the Dad's heroism as a police officer and his brilliance as an investigator, the community's terror of unsolved robberies, and Travis's fear of immediate and imminent death: "I looked into the suspect's eyes and I saw the flames of hell. I saw the devil himself. I knew I was gonna die if I lost control of my weapon. I'm lucky to be alive!"

You can also expect lengthy character assassination of Arbery, starting with the unforgettable day in preschool when he squabbled with another toddler over a cookie.

All it takes is one juror to swallow it, and a Southern small-town jury will lap it up. G. Zimmerman looked like an open-and-shut case too.

 

[Darat]

The federal and state justice systems of "the colonies" have many profound flaws but are hopefully self-correcting and are hopefully better than they have been in the past and are hopefully getting better and will hopefully get better as a result of this case (maybe the local department or District Attorney will arrest people as murder suspects immediately in circumstances like these and maybe the local department will stop referring reports of suspicious activity to the reporter's neighbors).

To the highlighted - eh?

However, to any non-US citizen who engages in generalization or condemnation of the US systems: " ... why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

That sounds like an ad hominem. What has the nationality or citizenship of a particular country got to do with criticism of a justice system, either it is valid or it isn't no matter who makes the criticism?

 

[turingtest]

A defense attorney can bring into the picture pretty much anything he thinks will work. You can expect a parade of character witnesses testiying to the McMichaels' sterling character, their lack of a prejudiced bone in their bodies, the Dad's heroism as a police officer and his brilliance as an investigator, the community's terror of unsolved robberies, and Travis's fear of immediate and imminent death: "I looked into the suspect's eyes and I saw the flames of hell. I saw the devil himself. I knew I was gonna die if I lost control of my weapon. I'm lucky to be alive!"
You can also expect lengthy character assassination of Arbery, starting with the unforgettable day in preschool when he squabbled with another toddler over a cookie.

All it takes is one juror to swallow it, and a Southern small-town jury will lap it up. G. Zimmerman looked like an open-and-shut case too.

"He had a 'fro, man! A poufed-up 'FRO!"

 

[Darat]

A defense attorney can bring into the picture pretty much anything he thinks will work. You can expect a parade of character witnesses testiying to the McMichaels' sterling character, their lack of a prejudiced bone in their bodies, the Dad's heroism as a police officer and his brilliance as an investigator, the community's terror of unsolved robberies, and Travis's fear of immediate and imminent death: "I looked into the suspect's eyes and I saw the flames of hell. I saw the devil himself. I knew I was gonna die if I lost control of my weapon. I'm lucky to be alive!"

I really doubt it as I doubt the prosecution will bring the murderers' characters into this case, there is simple no need to as their intent or even state of mind doesn't come into this. The prosecution case will be based on just a few facts from the 911 calls, initial statements given to the police and the video and less than a handful of questions:

Did you see the victim commit a crime?
Did you chase the victim in your vehicle?
Did you attempt to impede the progress of the victim?
Were you armed when you attempted to impede the progress of the victim?

Even if they "plead the 5th" I think the evidence is clear to stand on its own.

Unlike many murder cases this is (to use the phrase lots in the USA use) a "felony murder" so there is no need to establish an intent to kill at any point for it to be murder. (The relevant legislation that showed this was posted earlier in the thread.)

You can also expect lengthy character assassination of Arbery, starting with the unforgettable day in preschool when he squabbled with another toddler over a cookie.

All it takes is one juror to swallow it, and a Southern small-town jury will lap it up. G. Zimmerman looked like an open-and-shut case too.

Again all that would be irrelevant to a defence of the prosecution case so it won't be brought up so I'll have to disagree.

(I don't know about the fine detail of sentencing - it may be that character testimonials and so on can be used to try and mitigate sentencing.)

One thing would alter my view of how the case will be prosecuted and that is if they go down the route of a prosecution for a "hate crime" as well, then it will open out the trial and then you would see character witnesses and so on. Whilst I think a strong case can be made for it being a hate crime I personally don't think it would be a sensible decision for the prosecution. As ever keep it simple.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes, just like the Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman cases and the initial indictment of Jussie Smollett. Your condescension regarding the reality of a trial didn't escape me, by the way- I've seen My Cousin Vinny so I know what discovery is. If I create a thread for the discussion of irrelevant details regarding this case are you going to merge or delete it?

Edited to add: O. J. Simpson

You really gonna have to explain what any of this has to do with anything.

So what O.J. gets off some 20 years later two guys get to gun down a black guy to even the score?

Again you can't dig back into the past and get "anti-racism" points to cash in here. This isn't how this works and yes that is exactly what this is.

 

[Bob001]

.....
Again all that would be irrelevant to a defence of the prosecution case so it won't be brought up so I'll have to disagree.
.....

I don't think you have paid much attention to how high-profile criminal trials work in the U.S. The prosecution is pretty much limited to the facts and evidence, painted in the worst possible light for the defendant; the defense can say and do just about anything to impugn the validity of the evidence, the integrity of the witnesses and the motivation of the prosecutor, and to make the defendant sympathetic to the jury. This will be a circus, and there's a good chance the McMichaels will walk.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again the whole "Well a jury decides if it was reasonable self defense, that's how the system works" thing ignores the fact they never had any intention of this ever going to trial. This incident was well and completely buried until the video got out. This was never going to see a courtroom. They had already gotten away with it, question of if they were going to get away with it was are rather pointless.

 

[whoanellie]

I don't think you have paid much attention to how high-profile criminal trials work in the U.S. The prosecution is pretty much limited to the facts and evidence, painted in the worst possible light for the defendant; the defense can say and do just about anything to impugn the validity of the evidence, the integrity of the witnesses and the motivation of the prosecutor, and to make the defendant sympathetic to the jury. This will be a circus, and there's a good chance the McMichaels will walk.

What is allowed to happen in a trial depends on the jurisdiction, the judge, and the skill of the defense attorney, but to say that "the defense can say and do just about anything" is a gross misrepresentation of how trials typically work in the US.

 

[Bob001]

What is allowed to happen in a trial depends on the jurisdiction, the judge, and the skill of the defense attorney, but to say that "the defense can say and do just about anything" is a gross misrepresentation of how trials typically work in the US.

Typically, almost all criminal charges (by some counts as much as 95%) are resolved without going to trial, and at most of the ones that do the defendant faces a cut-and-dried case represented by an overworked public defender or court-appointed lawyer who doesn't want to be there. But in a high-profile case, with enough money the defense can hire its own investigators, its own forensic experts, its own video analysts, its own psychiatrists and anybody else who might raise doubts about the prosecution's case. All they need is one juror who thinks "that guy didn't murder anybody, he was just scared," and that's enough to hang the jury.

 

[Scopedog]

What have those cases got to do with this one?

And a double

They're examples of cases that were either considered to have a foregone conclusion or had an otherwise controversial outcome.

Sorry that it sounded condescending I didn't intend it to be.

Thank you.

Eh?

Discussion of Officer Rash's text and various other aspects appear to be aggressively unwelcome or off-topic in this thread.

To the highlighted - eh?

It was a subtle dig to impugn your motives for saying: "Do you realise what a damning thing you have posted about the USA justice system?"

It was unwarranted, unnecessary, and I apologize. There's more than enough motive-impugning in the thread already.

That sounds like an ad hominem. What has the nationality or citizenship of a particular country got to do with criticism of a justice system, either it is valid or it isn't no matter who makes the criticism?

I retract it. There was no need for me to adopt the least charitable interpretation of your admittedly valid criticism of the USA.

You really gonna have to explain what any of this has to do with anything.

Darat said 'open-and-shut case', I gave 4 examples of controversial cases with unexpected conclusions.

So what O.J. gets off some 20 years later two guys get to gun down a black guy to even the score?

An odd and unwarranted interpretation.

Again you can't dig back into the past and get "anti-racism" points to cash in here. This isn't how this works and yes that is exactly what this is.

Getting racism points (pro or anti) and exactly what you think 'this is' doesn't overly concern me, except if I confused you with the formatting or wording then I accept responsibility for that and I hope I've provided sufficient clarification.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

One thing would alter my view of how the case will be prosecuted and that is if they go down the route of a prosecution for a "hate crime" as well, then it will open out the trial and then you would see character witnesses and so on. Whilst I think a strong case can be made for it being a hate crime I personally don't think it would be a sensible decision for the prosecution. As ever keep it simple.

It will be at least that simple since Georgia is one of the few states in the U.S. which doesn't have any sort of 'hate crime' statutes.

 

[smartcooky]

It will be at least that simple since Georgia is one of the few states in the U.S. which doesn't have any sort of 'hate crime' statutes.

But the Feds do, and they are investigating the possibility.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...s-federal-investigation-requested/3107382001/

The FBI could assert jurisdiction if they decide that a prosecutiosn for a hate crime is warranted. That might be a good thing as it could lessen the possibility of a jury full of Hometown Harries.