Cont: Jogging in Georgia while black - The Trial

[Skeptic Tank]

All of the things I said. You're a racist, that's why you have only one explanation because anything beyond his skin color means nothing to you. You'll make any loose connections you possibly can as long as it makes him look guilty.

I still don't believe anyone other than a criminal who was 100% focused on trying to run and get away before cops showed up, would go into a blank faced, zero communication, eyes forward running mode and then a burst of violence when presented with a target on foot rather than in a vehicle.

I think that when you say you literally wouldn't give any sort of response, that's just simply not true. Sorry, but I don't believe you. You would absolutely, as would almost anyone, have some sort of discussion with them. It might be dismissive, it might be polite or confused or tailored to de-escalate, or maybe tailored to make them feel foolish, or whatever. There are a lot of forms it could take, but it would take some form. It would take place. There would be words exchanged.

For you to claim you would exchange no words whatsoever, is simply not believable. I'd appreciate if you were to admit that.

Regardless, I laughed at your fan fic comment. That was quite good.

And yes, I am a racist, but I still care about the particulars. My racism, after all, was born from evidence and observation. It did not come naturally nor swiftly to me. I still have substantially more years as an SJW type under my belt, during my life, than I do with these sorts of views.

I'm not so "racist" as to be the kind of person who'd cheer if the McMichaels had shotgun blasted an 85 year old black granny walking down the street with the aid of her cane.

A lot more than just being black is relevant here to my assessment of Arbery.

Hell, even if he were still the same 25 year old black male with the same criminal record, and he had done everything exactly the same UP UNTIL the final minutes, and instead had launched into a curse laden "F off, crackas! ain't none yo bidness!" type outburst toward them.

If they had simply shot him down cold blooded in the street because they didn't like his attitude, and he mouthed off to them, even I would not sign off on that.

I'd totally want them to get like... 5 hours community service? Maybe?

Just kidding.

Seriously, something like what I just described above would NEED TO BE what happened in order for a narrative of "racist lynching, hunted down in the street" to be true.

That narrative simply doesn't fit the facts. These men believed he was a criminal, tried to stop him and hold him for police, and he attacked them.

 

[Ranb]

Because you and I both know that an innocent person would, in basically 100% of cases, stop and at least have some sort of discussion.

No. Any rational person is not going to stop to have a chat with people who are chasing them with a vehicle. That is something only a stupid person would do.

Are you trying to tell me that if three black men with guns were trying to run you down in their pickup, you would stop to chat with them?

So who just keeps running, makes no response, dodges around cars, and eventually lunges, punches, and grabs for a gun?

Anyone who is trying to get away from lunatics with guns trying to run them down with a truck.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I quite simply refuse to believe...

Argument from incredulity noted.

Likewise, nobody actually believes...

Projection of incredulity noted.

Literally everyone with any sort of functioning brain...

Unwarranted generalization from personal inexperience noted.

There's really only one explanation I can think of for that behavior.

Argument from personal decision to ignore alternative explanations noted.

And yes, I am a racist...

Belated acknowledgement of alternative explanation noted.

 

[Olmstead]

That narrative simply doesn't fit the facts. These men believed he was a criminal, tried to stop him and hold him for police, and he attacked them.

Ah yes, makes one wonder what their endgame was supposed to look like after they got out of their vehicle. I suppose they were going to run after him "Looney Tunes" style with shotgun in hand?

What do you think was supposed to happen when they got out of their vehicle and stepped in Arbery's path with guns at the ready?

 

[JoeMorgue]

What I want to know is where do all the people who think the exact same thing as Skeptic Tank and openly admit to believing in the same narrative but just keep the racism in the subtext instead of the text disappear off to whenever he decides to turn the thread into Stormfront for a few pages.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Ah yes, makes one wonder what their endgame was supposed to look like after they got out of their vehicle. I suppose they were going to run after him "Looney Tunes" style with shotgun in hand?

What do you think was supposed to happen when they got out of their vehicle and stepped in Arbery's path with guns at the ready?

I think their expectation was that he'd finally stop and await the arrival of police.

They failed to anticipate just how impulsive, violent, dangerous, and stupid Arbery was. In other words, they ended up in the awful position they're in now, due to insufficient racism.

What I want to know is where do all the people who think the exact same thing as Skeptic Tank and openly admit to believing in the same narrative but just keep the racism in the subtext instead of the text disappear off to whenever he decides to turn the thread into Stormfront for a few pages.

Who are these brilliant posters? I'd like to know what posts to look out for.

 

[smartcooky]

What do you think was supposed to happen when they got out of their vehicle and stepped in Arbery's path with guns at the ready?

The ******-boy stops, puts up his hands and says "Yez mazzah" ?

 

[Olmstead]

I think their expectation was that he'd finally stop and await the arrival of police.

That's cute. He doesn't stop because he doesn't have to. Now what?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

That's cute. He doesn't stop because he doesn't have to. Now what?

Well, what sort of obligations to stop did the citizen's arrest law at that time bring with it? None, under any circumstances?

What sort of obligations to stop did wisdom, desire to contribute to a functioning society, and self-preservation instinct bring with them? None? Okay, well... he's dead.

I'd be more sympathetic to the argument that he had no obligation whatsoever to account for himself to anyone, if it were the case that the McMichaels were just totally off base. If he really had just been jogging innocently, and had no criminal record, and wasn't the same guy captured on camera in the house previously, etc. --- but none of that is the case. They were spot on correct about him.

I would DEFINITELY be way more sympathetic to any arguments about him having no obligations to explain himself, if he'd just kept running, or sat down and silently awaited police, refusing to speak to the three guys, instead of lunging, punching, and grabbing hold of the shotgun.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Judge had to call another recess so he could read through some transcripts. The prosecution took a jab at the defense by saying something along the lines of "we've had 3 months to get this figured out and we couldn't until now?" Not verbatim, but that's the general theme.

I knew that this was going to be more time consuming with 3 defendants but this is getting really crazy. I think I've seen more court room time without the jury in the room than with because of all of the objections.

This is a very difficult case from that perspective because it involves multiple co-defendants and that evidence is largely things they said on bodycams and police statements while talking about each other. These long objections are due to Bruton issues.

Bruton was a Supreme Court case where Evans were co-defendants. Evans had made statements that were essentially a confession that he and Bruton committed the crime and what they both did. Both pleaded not guilty. The full confession was allowed into evidence. (In a surprising twist, the conviction of Evans was allowed to stand while the conviction of Bruton was reversed, which seems contradictory, but it is a complicated and fascinating and strange case that would take a dissertation explain why that happened.)

The bottom line from Bruton is that out-of-court statements from a co-defendant about another co-defendant are not allowed. Under the 6th Amendment a defendant has a right to cross examination.

A statement about what somebody else about the truth of a matter is hearsay. Hearsay can be permitted in some cases. In this type of case would would normally be permitted if the person is subject to cross examination. A person who is on record saying "John shot him" has problems without cross-examination. Maybe they said that because Bill told them that but they didn't actually see it. Or that was just an opinion. Or they meant to say Jim but got the names mixed up. Or they were talking about someone else named John. And so on. Without cross-examination we don't know this so it is hearsay that cannot be evidence.

The problem with Bruton is that with co-defendants who made statements on bodycams or to police that are relevant and not hearsay to their own charges, but could be hearsay in regards to other co-defendants. Those hearsay statement might normally be allowed, but only if cross-examination is available. Because they are also defendants, they have the right to remain silent and therefore cannot be required for cross-examination. That means those statements are not allowable as hearsay.

The Supreme Court ruled that giving instructions to the jury to consider evidence for one defendant while ignoring when considering another defendant is an unreasonable expectation. And that this type of evidence can only be presented if it is properly redacted to excludes these type of hearsay violations.

In this case, evidence is mostly bodycam videos and police statements that has to meet the Bruton rule. That means they can't just show the bodycam and police reports. They can bring in the cop with the body cam and give him a transcript and ask him questions and ask him to read part of that transcript. But not everything.

That makes this very difficult and frustrating. And results in all these long objections. It is difficult and messy and time consuming, but that is what needs to be done to protect people's rights and get a fair trial.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

The judge seems to be very good and fair in this case, but I think he totally failed on the question of, "How many times did Bryan say he blocked Arbery?"

It was asked by the prosecution and immediately objected to by the defense as ambiguous. I was very surprised that the judge allowed it, and then not surprised by the result. That is basically a textbook example of an ambiguous question. It could mean how many times he said something about blocking, or whether he said how many times he did blocking, or whether he said multiple times about blocking that might be multiple instance of blocking that are less than the instances of blocking.

I have no idea why the judge allowed this. It resulted in long questioning and confusion. The answer still isn't even clear.

This is a textbook example of an ambiguous question. Is it how many times he did it based on what he said? Or did he say how many times he did it? Or based on what he said how many times he did it?

I think the defense and the prosecution and the judge all failed. I still don't know the answer to that question. The only conclusion I can make is that is was at least two (because they were on different streets) and up to five.

Prosecution did not do well on this issue.

 

[plague311]

I still don't believe anyone other than a criminal who was 100% focused on trying to run and get away before cops showed up, would go into a blank faced, zero communication, eyes forward running mode and then a burst of violence when presented with a target on foot rather than in a vehicle.

Burst of violence? He took every possible evasive measure before having no other option but to fight back. He tried flight already. That's human instinct, not your weird mind reading.

For you to claim you would exchange no words whatsoever, is simply not believable. I'd appreciate if you were to admit that.

Admitting that would be a lie, because I wouldn't. Again, he has nothing to say to them because they have no right to engage him. There's no reason at to talk to them.

And yes, I am a racist, but I still care about the particulars. My racism, after all, was born from evidence and observation. It did not come naturally nor swiftly to me. I still have substantially more years as an SJW type under my belt, during my life, than I do with these sorts of views.

That narrative simply doesn't fit the facts. These men believed he was a criminal, tried to stop him and hold him for police, and he attacked them.

All of your racism is why we don't have a lot more to discuss.

Either way, no matter what you believe about Arbery, these guys are going to prison for a long, long time. Racism got them in trouble, it's going to cost them their freedom for the rest of their lives. As it should.

 

[plague311]

The prosecution is pretty much hammering the fact that the McMichael's had no idea where Arbery was coming from, what he was doing, or anything other than he was running "at full speed". That's it. They pursued him for no other reason at all. Just because he was running.

 

[Darat]

The prosecution is pretty much hammering the fact that the McMichael's had no idea where Arbery was coming from, what he was doing, or anything other than he was running "at full speed". That's it. They pursued him for no other reason at all. Just because he was running.

You mean - apart from him being guilty of being black.

 

[RolandRat]

I would DEFINITELY be way more sympathetic to any arguments about him having no obligations to explain himself, if he'd just kept running, or sat down and silently awaited police, refusing to speak to the three guys, instead of lunging, punching, and grabbing hold of the shotgun.

The trying to grab the weapon came after they'd made comments about blowing his head off, trying to ram him with their vehicle and then roadblocked him and stepped outside the vehicle in an armed barricade style though, right? I think we can excuse him if he was a tad bit worried for his mortal being at that point.

I find it bewildering you think the standard state of affairs should be that someone should just stop when another citizen demands it. If that person doesn't stop, it justifies the events above. Craziness.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The trying to grab the weapon came after they'd made comments about blowing his head, trying to ram him with their vehicle and then roadblocked him and stepped outside the vehicle in an armed barricade style though, right? I think we can excuse him if he was a tad bit worried for his mortal being at that point.

I find it bewildering you think the standard state of affairs should be that someone should just stop when another citizen demands it. If that person doesn't stop, it justifies the events above. Craziness.

Of course. All we have to do is imagine the frothing at the mouth racist outrage that would be spewing from him if a few black people decided to "citizens arrest" the 3 men for murder.

 

[sackett]

This is OT.

Racism is fun. Hatred feels good. You can focus all your life's anger, frustration, and failure on people you don't know or have to confront. Indulging our worst traits is, let's face it, enjoyable.

But it requires a peculiar sort of self-discipline. The racist must keep his mind small. Ignorance is his strength. So is stupidity: he must reject thought, he must only ruminate on the same few notions that support his little racialist hut. In particular, I think, he must concentrate on images rather than on narratives; visual stereotypes are easy to hate.

Does that sound like anyone we know?

 

[RolandRat]

Of course. All we have to do is imagine the frothing at the mouth racist outrage that would be spewing from him if a few black people decided to "citizens arrest" the 3 men for murder.

In hypothetical, fanfic world it would have been very interesting if that had actually happened. A couple of passing black guys in a car, seeing the shooting, got out, tried to CA the white guys and then shot them as they made a move. The mental knots that would have to be tied to justify Aubreys shooting whilst condemning the killing of the McMichaels would've made for a good read.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is OT.

Racism is fun. Hatred feels good. You can focus all your life's anger, frustration, and failure on people you don't know or have to confront. Indulging our worst traits is, let's face it, enjoyable.

But it requires a peculiar sort of self-discipline. The racist must keep his mind small. Ignorance is his strength. So is stupidity: he must reject thought, he must only ruminate on the same few notions that support his little racialist hut. In particular, I think, he must concentrate on images rather than on narratives; visual stereotypes are easy to hate.

Does that sound like anyone we know?

I've said it before but even beyond how vile it is modern racisms just seems so tiring to me.

Like, and Lord I hope I can phrase this the right way, I can "get," not agree with, not condone, but "get" easy racism, being racist when it's the path of least resistant and requires no effort.

But modern racists, the troll-racists, the "I'm both racist AND I want that to be a problem." "Yeah I'm racist, bet that will get a reaction out of you, dare you to knock this chip off my shoulder" types where their racism is turned into their second jobs... like that's just weird.

Like just go yell the N-word on Xbox Live. You're not only racist you're massively inefficient.

 

[Olmstead]

[...]

I would DEFINITELY be way more sympathetic to any arguments about him having no obligations to explain himself, if he'd just kept running, or sat down and silently awaited police, refusing to speak to the three guys, instead of lunging, punching, and grabbing hold of the shotgun.

You're dodging the question. What was Travis' great plan when he stepped out of the car with shotgun in hand?

a) Make Arbery stop by threatening him with the shotgun?

b) Try to physically detain him with shotgun in hand?

c) Run after him with shotgun in hand?

Pretty sure all of those push the matter into felony murder territory.

You've spent so much time trying to read Arbery's mind and guess his motivations, but you're ignoring the actions of the people who acted like complete madmen all the way through.