Reasonable.
Cont: Jogging in Georgia while black - The Trial
- Thread starter smartcooky
- Start date
Reasonable.
Belz...
Fiend God
I wouldn't kill someone over a TV, although were I able, I might attempt to stop them if they were clearly stealing stuff. However, if I don't know their intentions, I wouldn't take the chance. They are in the process of committing a crime and thus don't get the benefit of the doubt.
I wouldn't kill anyone over the (non-living stuff) in my house. I would still (if circumstances warranted, massive amounts of nuance, all that aside) kill someone for being in my house (uninvited, as an intruder, refusing to leave, etc) because I feel that particular act is inherently threatening.
None of this has anything to do with Arbery, even as "thought experiment." It's just more racists murder apologetics.
None of this has anything to do with Arbery, even as "thought experiment." It's just more racists murder apologetics.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Yeah, sorry for being led into this. Again.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
No.
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
Wait, you think there is some ulterior motive to conflating the actions of victims facing life-threatening crimes with those of Arbery's murderers who were actually the criminals threatening a life in this case?
Say it ain't so!
Noooo....
I totes believe that someone just up and decided that this thread was the perfect place for a totally unrelated "thought experiment."
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
I really is shocking the half-assed, self serving lies these murderers told and were accepted at face value by the local DA. I know they have already lost their election and are out of office, but what a truly ghastly example of either corruption or incompetence. It's a real injustice that there's no criminal liability for this obvious dereliction of duty.
The lynch mob's story is going to absolutely collapse during trial. Even the mildest bit of prodding reveals the massive legal holes in their argument and makes it plain that their actions were blatantly criminal. Prosecutors are going into this trial on easy mode.
Maybe surprise isn't the right word, because we all know how terrible the justice system is in this country, but it still shocks the conscience to see a daylight murder getting pencil-whipped away as "self-defense" like this.
They were so very close to getting away with it. If these freaks could have used a bit of restraint and stopped bragging about their snuff film, they would be free men.
The lynch mob's story is going to absolutely collapse during trial. Even the mildest bit of prodding reveals the massive legal holes in their argument and makes it plain that their actions were blatantly criminal. Prosecutors are going into this trial on easy mode.
Maybe surprise isn't the right word, because we all know how terrible the justice system is in this country, but it still shocks the conscience to see a daylight murder getting pencil-whipped away as "self-defense" like this.
They were so very close to getting away with it. If these freaks could have used a bit of restraint and stopped bragging about their snuff film, they would be free men.
Last edited:
LifeJuror
New Blood
Little Law
Just to add a little law on why it is so hard to charge homeowners in the U.S.:
Not only do you have to prove the underlying crime, be it murder or some type of assault beyond a reasonable doubt, you must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Some jurisdictions left it to the defendant to prove beyond a preponderance of evidence standard that the act was committed in self-defense, but this was ruled as impermissible burden shifting and therefore the prosecution must now prove the crime and disprove self-defense.
In my jurisdiction "homicide" consists of:
- Murder in the 1st Degree (requires specific intent to kill, intent can be formed in a second)
- Murder in the Second Degree (aka, felony killing, a killing committed in the course of committing a crime)
- Murder in the 3rd Degree (all other forms of murder, does not require specific intent to kill, but actor acts with depraved heart without regard for human life)
- Voluntary manslaughter (heat of passion, imperfect self-defense)
- Involuntary manslaughter (doing an act in a grossly negligent or reckless manner)
Self-Defense contains a subjective and objective element. The actor himself must believe himself to be in fear of death or serious bodily injury AND that belief must be reasonable given the circumstances.
Many states have codified the 'castle doctrine' which in variations state that a "burglar" or someone who has broken into a home, has done so with 'evil' intent, i.e., it is assumed for the purpose of the law that the individual standing in your home means you harm. Further, you have no duty to retreat, it is your home.
Some states have further codified the 'stand your ground' doctrine, which more or less states that if you are in public doing a lawful act you have no duty to retreat even if you have the means and opportunity to do so.
Combine ALL this, and it makes it extremely difficult to prosecute except in the most outrageous cases and then usually all you get is voluntary manslaughter.
Caveat: While I am an expert in my jurisdiction, your mileage may vary.
Just to add a little law on why it is so hard to charge homeowners in the U.S.:
Not only do you have to prove the underlying crime, be it murder or some type of assault beyond a reasonable doubt, you must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Some jurisdictions left it to the defendant to prove beyond a preponderance of evidence standard that the act was committed in self-defense, but this was ruled as impermissible burden shifting and therefore the prosecution must now prove the crime and disprove self-defense.
In my jurisdiction "homicide" consists of:
- Murder in the 1st Degree (requires specific intent to kill, intent can be formed in a second)
- Murder in the Second Degree (aka, felony killing, a killing committed in the course of committing a crime)
- Murder in the 3rd Degree (all other forms of murder, does not require specific intent to kill, but actor acts with depraved heart without regard for human life)
- Voluntary manslaughter (heat of passion, imperfect self-defense)
- Involuntary manslaughter (doing an act in a grossly negligent or reckless manner)
Self-Defense contains a subjective and objective element. The actor himself must believe himself to be in fear of death or serious bodily injury AND that belief must be reasonable given the circumstances.
Many states have codified the 'castle doctrine' which in variations state that a "burglar" or someone who has broken into a home, has done so with 'evil' intent, i.e., it is assumed for the purpose of the law that the individual standing in your home means you harm. Further, you have no duty to retreat, it is your home.
Some states have further codified the 'stand your ground' doctrine, which more or less states that if you are in public doing a lawful act you have no duty to retreat even if you have the means and opportunity to do so.
Combine ALL this, and it makes it extremely difficult to prosecute except in the most outrageous cases and then usually all you get is voluntary manslaughter.
Caveat: While I am an expert in my jurisdiction, your mileage may vary.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Your keen insight into human nature is surely unbounded. Here I was thinking I could slip my racist murder apologetics past you, and while that might have worked with a few of the lesser mortals who populate this place, I forgot that JowMorgue was here and would surely call me out for what it is.
I have met my match, and surely there is no point in attempting to further deceive you with phony explanations. I bow to your greater knowledge.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
Self-awareness is a big first step. Good luck on your journey of self-improvement.
The internet tough guy routine would sell better if hidden anywhere in it was an actual logical defense that suggests you were doing anything but that.
Last edited:
That would have been bad enough, but the DA went well beyond simply accepting their statements, he provided the covering lies to why prosecution shouldn't go ahead.
Belz...
Fiend God
I don't think Meadmaker's post was apologetic, but I don't think it was a relevant example, nor was it a hypothetical.
Perhaps Mead is willing to clarify what it was supposed to help with in this thread.
Perhaps Mead is willing to clarify what it was supposed to help with in this thread.
Thermal
August Member
Dude, you're impossible.
You claimed that you would "threaten robbers with a gun". The word you used was in fact THREATEN.
While it is a generalization on my part, it's a statutory one. Saying you intend to threaten someone with a gun in my State (NJ USA) falls somewhere on the brandishing/aggravated assault spectrum. I thought it was interesting that other countries would condone this, assuming you are not advocating criminality.
You respond with a couple counter examples from unrelated states, for whatever reason.
Now you expect me to dig up a couple anecdotes for you, when I was talking about the legality of the action, not the conviction rate.
Btw, here in NJ we laugh about how liberal other states are in their treatment of firearms. I believe we have literally the most restrictive in the nation.
plague311
Great minds think...
California takes that cake, but you guys are definitely in the top 5.
I am genuinely interested to see if the Arbery's are going to stick with self-defense or change it up. The self-defense is going to be tough to stick with in this case, and given they weren't on any of their own property then I'm not sure what they were defending.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
I'm surprised there hasn't been more talk of pleading out.
Georgia is a death penalty state, and the facts of the case absolutely support a capital murder charge.
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
ftfy. Too many people conflating the perps with the victim can make it easy to make that honest mistake. Which is probably why they've been doing so...
Thermal
August Member
Jersey has no carry at all, open or concealed of any firearms, and here even a hardware store BB gun is considered a long gun and is regulated like an AR -15. Cali, Mass, and the other notoriously tough states, IIRC, allow some forms of carry. I guess it depends on what parts you consider the most restrictive.
They could theoretically claim personal self defense, but their carry would have to be legal. That was one of my first questions ITT, whether carrying 'at the ready', as opposed to slung, would be considered legal open carry. If it is, they could kinda sorta try self defense, but I think their provocation would negate it solidly.