They seem to be contradictory statements given Greg McMichael was an ex-cop who retired in June 2019.
Jogging in Georgia while black.
- Thread starter TurkeysGhost
- Start date
- Status
They seem to be contradictory statements given Greg McMichael was an ex-cop who retired in June 2019.
Again in the same way that Amber Guyver absolutely was not in her home so "castle doctrine" didn't apply nor was Zimmerman the one being pursued so "Stand your ground" didn't apply yet in both cases discussions of said concept overwhelmingly controlled the debate, the argument again is that black people are somehow responsible for how they are acting in the alternative universes white people make up in their heads when interacting with them.
Amber Guyver wasn't "castle doctrine"-ing.
Zimmerman wasn't standing his ground.
The McMichael's were not conducting a citizens arrest.
But because the murderers were either mistaken, outright lying, or dancing a merry jig in the wonderful area in between the two, about what was going on, the black people they all killed are, somehow, expected to from beyond the grave defend themselves from accusations of what they should have done differently/better in the scenarios that weren't actually happening except in their white murderer's heads.
Amber Guyver wasn't "castle doctrine"-ing.
Zimmerman wasn't standing his ground.
The McMichael's were not conducting a citizens arrest.
But because the murderers were either mistaken, outright lying, or dancing a merry jig in the wonderful area in between the two, about what was going on, the black people they all killed are, somehow, expected to from beyond the grave defend themselves from accusations of what they should have done differently/better in the scenarios that weren't actually happening except in their white murderer's heads.
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
I think there's a pretty important difference in this example. Guyger's defense made a hail-Mary attempt with castle doctrine, but that smacks more of desperation than anything. She was obviously guilty and her defense had no choice but to try a long-shot defense, no matter how stupid. As far as I recall, Zimmerman never actually invoked any "stand your ground", that was mostly media commenters and other outsiders.
In the Arbery murder example, the local DA actually offered citizen's arrest as an explanation for why murder charges shouldn't be brought. The letter that attempted to sweep the whole killing under the rug claimed that the McMichaels were in "hot pursuit" of a burglary suspect and explicitly cites the GA law about citizen's arrest. The existing law was an important element that the DA relied on in the coverup to give it the pretext of lawfulness.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6916-george-barnhill-letter-to-glyn/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf
Last edited:
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Re the highlighted- Zimmerman could have sought dismissal of the charges on grounds of SYG, but didn't. The judge, however, did cite the law in jury instructions, and, IIRC, at least one juror said afterward that that instruction had made the difference. From the Wikipedia article:
Thermal
August Member
I honest to god don't remember clearly, but didn't witnesses say Martin was on top of Zimmerman going to town on him, and that's why Zimmerman shot upwards from underneath him? I don't think there is legal justification to straddle someone and pummel them, so SYG had nothing to do with it in any context?
But then that puts us back in the same place as this event. Armed white guy(s) follows black guy around without a valid reason, black guy eventually gets nervous and does something, white guy "fears for his life (magic get do anything phrase)" and *boom* dead black guy.
Thermal
August Member
Okay, but following someone around is at best a misdemeanor harassment issue, maybe stalking. That doesn't warrant violet assault, or 'doing something' as you call it.
This one is different in that the McMicheals were violently aggressive right out of the gate, not slinking around in the shadows behind him.
This one is different in that the McMicheals were violently aggressive right out of the gate, not slinking around in the shadows behind him.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Stalking someone with a gun is, I would think, the criminal offence of assault with a deadly weapon in any reasonable system of common law. A violent reaction would then qualify as self-defence, and the presence of a deadly threat should excuse even a deadly response.
Dave
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Well no, but a couple of centuries isn't that long.
Thermal
August Member
But as far as we know, the gun was not out and visible till Zim was being beaten, then drew and shot?
Or do you mean that any concealed carry adds aggravated assault to anything you do, even if no one even knew you had a gun?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Why wouldn't the SYG law itself be sufficient justification? It only requires that someone reasonably feels they are at risk of great bodily harm in a confrontation, and there's no requirement that I can see that the person who feels they are at risk knows whether or not it's from a gun. Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by following Martin when he had no right to do so, and in fact had been told by the actual police not to. Martin was perfectly within his rights under SYG to continue to confront, by more active means, rather than retreat- there's no implication that the means used to end a confrontation must be equal in force to what provoked it (Zimmerman's final resort certainly wasn't).
The real problem with the "Stand Your Ground" law is that it positively invites just that sort of escalating scenario, and the only justification anyone needs in the end is to be the last man standing.
Last edited:
The men have officially entered a "Non-guilty" plea.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/11/us/ahmaud-arbery-georgia-murder-federal-hearing/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/11/us/ahmaud-arbery-georgia-murder-federal-hearing/index.html
I'm in a weird place with things like stand your ground and castle doctrine ("citizens arrest" is a bit weirder and harder for me to unpack. It's not totally different but it's not the same either) and all that.
Speaking very broadly, very generically, and very non-specific to any individual case I support the idea behind them conceptually. I've said before that I'm just inherently against any moral standard which requires a victim to be passive. I don't like any set of standards where the "wrong" side is given all the violation and agency to control how the situation pans out.
So, as I've said before, I'll never be comfortable being told, that if I'm being robbed for instance, that the "right" thing to do is to cower under my bed like a good little victim and white the bad guy to decide on his own violation to get tired of burglarizing my house. I do believe there is a deep, inherent, almost natural law right to be able to react to wrongdoing perpetrated against your person.
But I also live in a world where it's beyond apparent that class disparage has given one group of people this right more than others and it's basically being more and more brought up as a blanket excuse for murder, even by law enforcement themselves.
If a man comes into my house illegally I do think I have the right to make him leave my house, not passively hide and wait for the cops to show up or put effort into escaping my OWN HOME before I am allowed to exercise that right. But I also live in a world where Office McTiredNHorny can walk into the WRONG HOUSE, shoot someone, and we have to unpack that as if that's anywhere near the same thing because of //mocking voice// in mens rea mistake of fact no intent //mocking voice// And that is not acceptable.
So I can't square it perfectly.
Speaking very broadly, very generically, and very non-specific to any individual case I support the idea behind them conceptually. I've said before that I'm just inherently against any moral standard which requires a victim to be passive. I don't like any set of standards where the "wrong" side is given all the violation and agency to control how the situation pans out.
So, as I've said before, I'll never be comfortable being told, that if I'm being robbed for instance, that the "right" thing to do is to cower under my bed like a good little victim and white the bad guy to decide on his own violation to get tired of burglarizing my house. I do believe there is a deep, inherent, almost natural law right to be able to react to wrongdoing perpetrated against your person.
But I also live in a world where it's beyond apparent that class disparage has given one group of people this right more than others and it's basically being more and more brought up as a blanket excuse for murder, even by law enforcement themselves.
If a man comes into my house illegally I do think I have the right to make him leave my house, not passively hide and wait for the cops to show up or put effort into escaping my OWN HOME before I am allowed to exercise that right. But I also live in a world where Office McTiredNHorny can walk into the WRONG HOUSE, shoot someone, and we have to unpack that as if that's anywhere near the same thing because of //mocking voice// in mens rea mistake of fact no intent //mocking voice// And that is not acceptable.
So I can't square it perfectly.
Last edited:
Skeptic Tank
Trigger Warning
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 3,121
Trayvon was getting in fights constantly and bragging about it to one of his girlfriends, who texted back that he was going to end up getting shot in the chest if he didn't stop fighting people and acting like a thug. Very prophetic on her part.
Trayvon was caught with stolen jewelry and a watch in his backpack by the school resource officer after his bag was searched following being seen vandalizing a locker on security camera. The items matched well with a burglary report filed from a house near the school that same day.
Zimmerman saw him and didn't recognize him, which makes sense because he didn't live there. He was temporarily staying with his father at his father's mistress's apartment. He had been sent up there to Sanford from Miami Gardens by his frustrated mother who was at her wit's end and sick of his fighting and thuggery and troubles at school. So Zimmerman was right about him being a criminal, a thug, a threat, and a stranger to the area.
Zimmerman's claim is that he merely kept an eye on Trayvon from a distance and never attempted to close the gap, but Trayvon ran off and then snuck/doubled back and ambushed him after confronting him and making threats. This fits other things we know about Trayvon, and it fits the timeline and where the altercation and shooting ended up happening. It looks like Zimmerman walked east at the "T" junction to see if he could spot Trayvon exiting from that vantage point, through the community's back entrance, and/or to see if he could get an address on that side. Then, when he walked back, Trayvon intercepted him.
Meanwhile, Ahmaud Arbery was a habitual criminal who was known to pretend to be a jogger to cover for his burglaries and thefts. The McMichaels and others in their neighborhood appraised him in an exactly right and accurate way, attempted to confront and detain him for the cops, and were physically attacked by a man who was not afraid of them, but angry at them for trying to impede his criminality.
Trayvon was never afraid. He was angry and violent and a criminal.
Ahmaud was never afraid. He was angry and violent and a criminal.
The case of Botham Jean who was shot in his own apartment is legitimately tragic and messed up. Big contrast to these other two cases.
Re: Trayvon and Ahmaud - responsible citizens who want their communities to be free of crime have a right to keep an eye on or even confront criminal interlopers. They even have a legal right to think someone is such, be wrong about it, and end up feeling silly. In these two cases, the neighbors not only weren't wrong about Ahmaud and Trayvon, if anything they underestimated their criminality and violence.
No society worth a crap would even give a moment's consideration to prosecuting the shooters in either case.
Trayvon was caught with stolen jewelry and a watch in his backpack by the school resource officer after his bag was searched following being seen vandalizing a locker on security camera. The items matched well with a burglary report filed from a house near the school that same day.
Zimmerman saw him and didn't recognize him, which makes sense because he didn't live there. He was temporarily staying with his father at his father's mistress's apartment. He had been sent up there to Sanford from Miami Gardens by his frustrated mother who was at her wit's end and sick of his fighting and thuggery and troubles at school. So Zimmerman was right about him being a criminal, a thug, a threat, and a stranger to the area.
Zimmerman's claim is that he merely kept an eye on Trayvon from a distance and never attempted to close the gap, but Trayvon ran off and then snuck/doubled back and ambushed him after confronting him and making threats. This fits other things we know about Trayvon, and it fits the timeline and where the altercation and shooting ended up happening. It looks like Zimmerman walked east at the "T" junction to see if he could spot Trayvon exiting from that vantage point, through the community's back entrance, and/or to see if he could get an address on that side. Then, when he walked back, Trayvon intercepted him.
Meanwhile, Ahmaud Arbery was a habitual criminal who was known to pretend to be a jogger to cover for his burglaries and thefts. The McMichaels and others in their neighborhood appraised him in an exactly right and accurate way, attempted to confront and detain him for the cops, and were physically attacked by a man who was not afraid of them, but angry at them for trying to impede his criminality.
Trayvon was never afraid. He was angry and violent and a criminal.
Ahmaud was never afraid. He was angry and violent and a criminal.
The case of Botham Jean who was shot in his own apartment is legitimately tragic and messed up. Big contrast to these other two cases.
Re: Trayvon and Ahmaud - responsible citizens who want their communities to be free of crime have a right to keep an eye on or even confront criminal interlopers. They even have a legal right to think someone is such, be wrong about it, and end up feeling silly. In these two cases, the neighbors not only weren't wrong about Ahmaud and Trayvon, if anything they underestimated their criminality and violence.
No society worth a crap would even give a moment's consideration to prosecuting the shooters in either case.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
This is going to be a tough few months for racists. First Chauvin gets that murder conviction, next these guys are probably looking at hate crime murder and other convictions.
A stream of L's for the white supremacists. Cope.
Like they have those skills.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,888
What’s the Vegas odds on Zimmerman doing something violent again for the attention?
- Status