The fact that the McMichaels -- both with a law enforcement background -- shouted at Arbery several times, but never said "You're under arrest!" or "We're making a citizen's arrest!" should be enough to eliminate that claim.
Cont: Jogging in Georgia while black - The Trial
- Thread starter smartcooky
- Start date
The fact that the McMichaels -- both with a law enforcement background -- shouted at Arbery several times, but never said "You're under arrest!" or "We're making a citizen's arrest!" should be enough to eliminate that claim.
plague311
Great minds think...
The prosecution focused more on the fact that in order to even make a citizens arrest a felony has to be committed in the presence of those looking to make the arrest, or they have to have direct or immediate knowledge of the crime happening.
The McMichael's had neither. Like I said, I think it's a bad play on her end.
plague311
Great minds think...
Damn, the judge stopped her for some reason and I didn't hear why. Something related to the evidence. She must have said something untrue.
ETA: She sucks with that canvas paper.
ETA: She sucks with that canvas paper.
Last edited:
Much like "robberies" the whole citizens arrest thing only came up after the fact.
Again even under their own version of events they weren't making a valid citizens arrest.
That's what's been so frustrating for me this whole case. If you take the McMichael's version of events at face value, they committed murder.
The only place they didn't is in this stupid "okay but what they truly and honestly believed in their heart of hearts" alternative universe they were able to make up after the fact, and I'll be damned if I can understand why that is allowed in the court room at all.
Again even under their own version of events they weren't making a valid citizens arrest.
That's what's been so frustrating for me this whole case. If you take the McMichael's version of events at face value, they committed murder.
The only place they didn't is in this stupid "okay but what they truly and honestly believed in their heart of hearts" alternative universe they were able to make up after the fact, and I'll be damned if I can understand why that is allowed in the court room at all.
plague311
Great minds think...
Yeah, I don't get it. Really odd direction to go in over this whole thing.
Now she's focusing on the fact that Abery was, in fact, trespassing that day. Which, again, doesn't matter because the McMichael's had no idea where Arbery was that day. So even if it was trespassing it doesn't justify the "citizen's arrest" requirement as they weren't able to see it, and they didn't have direct\immediate knowledge.
Not to make the comparison again (although I think it works better this time), but it's like how in the Rittenhouse Thread people kept banging on about how after the fact one of his victims turned out to be a legit bad person.
Okay? And? So? This whole idea that you can commit murder and LATER it comes out that the person you killed is "bad" makes any sort of difference is just... I don't get it.
And in this case how "bad" of a person Arbury is is nowhere near as cut and dry.
Okay? And? So? This whole idea that you can commit murder and LATER it comes out that the person you killed is "bad" makes any sort of difference is just... I don't get it.
And in this case how "bad" of a person Arbury is is nowhere near as cut and dry.
plague311
Great minds think...
Yeah, they were unable to get in his mental history and criminal background.
She brought up that the McMichael's didn't need to do anything again. That makes absolutely no sense. She's trying to play it off like they saved the neighborhood from Arbery (who hadn't actually stolen anything) but really it comes across as they should have just kept their asses at home.
The prosecutor is going to crush this **** before the jury deliberates. It'll be a pretty quick layup. Laura is arguing from emotion, prosecution has the law.
Well because that's all they've got. They have to keep talking as if Arbury being the "bad" side in this conflict is so obvious and clear that they don't have to actually prove or argue it. It's a passive argument by omission, trying to seed the idea in the jury that Arbury being the instigator is an already accepted fact.
plague311
Great minds think...
LoL she just own goaled pretty hard. She said Greg can't be an accomplice unless he intentionally:
I think he actually did all of those things in that order (sans hiring) lol.
- Helps
- Advises
- Encourges
- Hires
- Counsels
- Procures
I think he actually did all of those things in that order (sans hiring) lol.
plague311
Great minds think...
Gough is trying for another mistrial because there were cars with coffins in them with their clients names on them.
I didn't know that.
ETA: Juror 12 is going to bedismissed monitored by the judge and other attorneys for the rest of the trial. She apparently can't stay awake for the duration of the trial. Prosecution is saying that's not true.
I didn't know that.
ETA: Juror 12 is going to be
Last edited:
plague311
Great minds think...
Yeah, she really, really rode on that as much as she could. "Why didn't he just let these white men detain him after chasing him for over 5 minutes? He's irrational, I say!"
"He died because for whatever inexplicable, illogical reason, instead of staying where he was, whatever overwhelming reason he had to avoid being captured that day and arrested by the police."
That's a direct quote from this lady and that is functionally insane. The fact that she isn't being laughed out of court room right now is a goddamn travesty.
plague311
Great minds think...
Yeah, that's part of the bummer of not seeing the jury. I would be able to hold it in but I wonder if there are any eye rolls and **** while she's talking. That was a decent closing argument, but not very convincing imo. Victim blaming never goes well I don't think.
As I understand it, the prosecution gets the last word. That should be monumental.
plague311
Great minds think...
Haha now that it's closing arguments Kevin Gough (Roddie's attorney) is absolutely throwing the McMichael's under the bus. Makes sense to me, it's Roddie's best chance, but this is going to be outstanding. Eating their own.
ETA:
Yup, she'll be the last thing they hear before going to deliberations as far as lawyers are concerned. After this it should be jury instruction and deliberation.
ETA:
Yup, she'll be the last thing they hear before going to deliberations as far as lawyers are concerned. After this it should be jury instruction and deliberation.
Last edited:
plague311
Great minds think...
He keeps bringing up that Roddie grabbed his cell phone but doesn't seem to explain why he didn't use that cell phone to call the cops...
That's the sort of thing that really strains friendships.
plague311
Great minds think...
If it works for Roddie I doubt it would be of much concern to him lol.
Like I said, I really, really, really don't see the McMichael's being able to skate from this at all. Roddie is the only possibility, but it will be awkward as **** if they all went to the pen together.
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
Yeah, that will be a problem for him. That makes him a party to the crime. He started this whole thing that day. It was his idea. I said previously in this thread that Greg yelling that he was going to blow his head off is what will do him in. I still think that is the case. The jury could find some outs on the other issue if they wanted to, but that one is tough to ignore.
I don't recall proof that it wasn't Arbery who charged into the truck. I forget now what was in the trial and what wasn't. On the bodycam that day Roddie said it happened after he angled him off the road and the contact happened when he was backing up. I forget if that was in the testimony at trial. I'm not sure it has ever been conclusive what exactly happened there. But I do agree that the prosecution did a good job of presenting it as the truck running into him.
The law says it must be that the felony "caused" the death. I think in the charge it says that the felony must be a "substantial and necessary" part of causing the death. That gives the jury some wiggle room. It is one thing to sit at home and argue law on the Internet. It is another to sit in a jury deliberation room with the fate of three people in your hands.
They are human beings. They will think about what is right and wrong and just and what people deserve. They can decide whether this was a "substantial" part or not. They can talk about whether or not he was really in fear of bodily injury when the truck was moving slow and only pulling in front of him and not coming at him. And so on. It can get complicated depending on what direction jurors want to go based on how they feel.