Jogging in Georgia while black.

[Mumbles]

I didn't follow the Zimmerman case extremely closely. As best I can tell, the huge, huge, difference between the two is that Zimmerman may have been harassing Martin, but he didn't initiate violence. He was just being a jerk.

Ah, yes, the story where Martin (who, as we all know, is a street Fighter 4 Character) somehow sneaks up on Zimmerman, and hits him so hard that he breaks the laws of physics and Zimmerman flies 50 feet *towards* the punch. Must have been his Super Move.

Nah, these are about the same - all of these murderers went out hunting their target because they thought they'd be seen as heroes, and are shocked when people instead organize just to get them arrested. All initiated struggles over a gun at close range, and sadly, all successfully murdered their chosen victim. And in both events, it's because the victim was black.

 

[carlitos]

We can be sure that some of the prospective jurors will buy into this:

We already know where the racist posters who participate here have been reading this stuff. It's a concerted effort to flood the zone.

 

[quadraginta]

“You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into.”

According to ST's own autobiography, he actually did "reason" (if that word can be twisted into such a usage) himself into being a rabid, mouth-breathing, brain-dead racist. If he can be trusted to tell the truth about such a thing.

So maybe there's hope for him.

...

...

...

Nah.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

My apologies if this has been addressed already. I didn't read every post as I find the taste of bile affects my ability to make tasty dinners for my family. My comment regards this,

McMichael stated he was in his front yard and saw the suspect from the break - ins " hauling ass" down Satilla
Drive toward Burford Drive. McMichael stated he then ran inside his house and
called to Travis and said " Travis the guy is running down the
street lets go " .

from the suspects initial statement.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6915-arbery-shooting/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf

With 54 years experience being a human being here on earth I have to question the phrasing of someone jogging as "hauling trump". I'm sorry but if you can't tell the difference between the synchronized motion of jogging by sacrificing speed for endurance as apposed to "fright or flight" flailing at your highest speed, you've been doing life wrong all along.

Everything that follows his initial reaction is fully fitting and Occam compatible with a hate crime perpetrated by racists. Their intent may not have been to kill but their complete lack of hazard awareness that that was a high probability outcome due to their actions and the tools of their ignorance is not questionable.

Nothing about this says "justifiable" without stormfront coloured glasses on.

 

[quadraginta]

I didn't follow the Zimmerman case extremely closely. As best I can tell, the huge, huge, difference between the two is that Zimmerman may have been harassing Martin, but he didn't initiate violence. He was just being a jerk.

Apparently not, since we don't actually know that Zimmerman didn't initiate the violence that ended the encounter. All we have attesting to that is Zimmerman's own testimony, which, to be charitable, might be somewhat self-serving.

What we do know is that Martin had a legitimate right to be where he was, was unarmed, and was being stalked through the apartment complex by Zimmerman solely on the basis that he was black and it was dark. (Note; not late, just dark ... ish.)

If there had been camera footage of those last minutes then the subsequent charges and trial might have gone in a completely different direction.

In this case, by attempting their citizens arrest, blocking his path, and pulling out a shotgun, the McMichaels initiated a violent confrontation with Arbery.

And thanks to a camera, we know for a fact that the killers' testimony about this incident was entirely self-serving. Also false.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

We can be sure that some of the prospective jurors will buy into this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...cde428-962b-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html

I'm shocked that Skeptic Tank got his talking points from Nazi websites.

 

[quadraginta]

I'm shocked that Skeptic Tank got his talking points from Nazi websites.

Where else would he go for like-minded company? Of course he goes there for talking points.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

A Right Wing Watch story about a reporter that was advancing these "Race War" tropes around the Arbery case has resulted in the woman being fired from her Washington DC thinktank position.


Groypers chalk up another loss.

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/capital-research-center-employee-favorite-source-for-white-nationalist-smear-campaign-against-ahmaud-arbery/

 

[Babbylonian]

Apparently not, since we don't actually know that Zimmerman didn't initiate the violence that ended the encounter. All we have attesting to that is Zimmerman's own testimony, which, to be charitable, might be somewhat self-serving.

We also have the benefit of hindsight in that he engaged in more violent acts (including brandishing another gun) after his acquittal, making it seem most likely that he forced the deadly confrontation.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Where else would he go for like-minded company? Of course he goes there for talking points.

I was being sarcastic. I'm not shocked at all. And he's already admitted to frequenting Nazi websites. He claims it's how he was radicalised.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The defense only needs to convince one juror to think like the original authorities.

And then they have their mistrial not a victory.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Do any our resident forum racists actually think an acquittal is a likely outcome?

Seems like the best outcome our killers can hope for is a hung jury.

 

[Babbylonian]

Seems like the best outcome our killers can hope for is a hung jury.

It depends on how convincing the hypothetical holdouts might be. And, of course, how the jury is selected plays a huge role.

 

[Mumbles]

Do any our resident forum racists actually think an acquittal is a likely outcome?

Seems like the best outcome our killers can hope for is a hung jury.

I'm not one of them, but as the song states, This is America. We'll see.

 

[Bob001]

And then they have their mistrial not a victory.

For someone facing murder charges, a not-conviction is a victory. They walk unless they DA decides to try them again. And a second trial could go the same way. The McMichaels could still get away with this.
.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yeah, a mistrial could mean that the case is tried again, tried again under lesser charges, or abandoned altogether. Anything but a guilty verdict is a good outcome for the defendants.

Usually the prosecutor will interview the jury after a mistrial and try to get a feel about why the case failed to determine the next step.

A mistrial could easily see the murder charge reduced to manslaughter on retrial if the jury just wasn't willing to convict on the more serious charge.

 

[The Atheist]

“You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into.”

I've found myself saying that a lot lately.

Racism is like religion - kids get it from their parents, reinforced every day by the parents cherry-picking pieces that support their insane beliefs.

 

[whoanellie]

For someone facing murder charges, a not-conviction is a victory. They walk unless they DA decides to try them again. And a second trial could go the same way. The McMichaels could still get away with this.
.

Not that it's relevant to the question of whether a defense attorney can do anything they want to in a court of law, but an 11-1 hung jury in favor of conviction doesn't get the McMichaels much. Yes, I'm pretty sure the DA would retry them. Many different things can happen during the course of a trial, but a real trial is not like an episode of Law & Order.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes, I'm pretty sure the DA would retry them.

The DA didn't want to try them the first time.

The prosecution has already decided he's not guilty. That makes the defensive job rather trivial.

 

[Bob001]

Not that it's relevant to the question of whether a defense attorney can do anything they want to in a court of law,
.....

Let me give you one example that happened to be the subject of a two-hour ABC 20/20 last week. In short, a woman tried to have her husband murdered. A friend she approached to do the deed went straight to the police, and they created an elaborate sting with an undercover cop posing as a contract hitter. When the case went to trial with overwhelming evidence, including videos from multiple angles of her making the deal, the defense claimed that she was auditioning for a reality TV show. No script, no producers, no contracts, no support; but she was allowed to make that claim. She was convicted and sentenced to 20 years.

The conviction was overturned on appeal, and at her second trial she skipped the reality tv defense and claimed that the police had entrapped into doing something she would never actually have done by sending her a "hitman." The result was a hung jury.

At her third trial, almost eight years after the crime, the defense made pretty much the same entrapment case, but the jury came back with a guilty verdict in 90 minutes. The defense is now appealing that conviction.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/dalia-dippolito-managing-prison-life-legal-teams-hope/story?id=70638556

That's one example of what the defense can do if they have enough time and money.

In another recent case (can't find a link at the moment), a man was convicted of kidnapping, raping and murdering a teen-age girl. DNA and other physical evidence identified him conclusively and exclusively. He claimed in court, supported by his lawyers, that he had had a secret relationship with her unknown to anybody else, that he had met her for consensual sex in the cold woods where her broken body was discovered, and that she was fine when he left her there because she wanted to be alone. He was convicted, too.

Defense attorneys are allowed to do pretty much anything they can to deflate overwhelming evidence against their clients. Judges don't want to be accused on appeal of impairing a defense. Pointing to a non-existent alternate suspect, calling witnesses liars and claiming police misconduct are basic tactics. In this case the lawyers are no doubt going to claim that Arbery was a dangerous criminal trying to escape, and the McMichaels were heroic citizens defending their community from a predator. And that's what the jury will be allowed to hear.