Cont: Jogging in Georgia while black - The Trial

I got through the closing for Greg. I think she did a good job. But I think her start with them trying to hold him for the police rings hollow. None of them had called the police. They didn't know if Albenze had called the police. I'm not even sure if Traivs actually saw him at all or if he is lying again. They chased him for over 5 minutes, and none of them called the police. That has to be troubling for the jury.

She ended with addressing exactly the issues I raised about what the jury might think about. She told them this isn't a negotiation and to not do a compromise. She is thinking the same thing I am. I am bit surprised she spent so much time defending Travis and didn't distance Greg from him: He just wanted to talk to him, not hurt him or detain him. Travis was driving. Travis shot him. Etc.

She spent some time on the "blow you head off" comment. She says that would have been when he was on the call with 911. I'm not sure if that was supposed to be then or when they passed Arbery on Holmes. There is enough doubt that the jury will probably have to disregard that as possibly not true. But that is more of a problematic factor rather than a deciding factor.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
She spent some time on the "blow you head off" comment. She says that would have been when he was on the call with 911. I'm not sure if that was supposed to be then or when they passed Arbery on Holmes. There is enough doubt that the jury will probably have to disregard that as possibly not true. But that is more of a problematic factor rather than a deciding factor.
Click to expand...

The issue is that Greg is the one that told the cops he said it. Neither the prosecution, Roddie or the police were the ones that asked him about it. It was information he volunteered on his own, so it's kind of pointless for her to say it didn't happen.

If it didn't happen, Greg shouldn't have said it happened.
 
The issues absolutely nothing the McMichael's defense has claimed reflects reality. It's all alternative "okay but what if" fan fiction.
 
plague311 said:
The issue is that Greg is the one that told the cops he said it. Neither the prosecution, Roddie or the police were the ones that asked him about it. It was information he volunteered on his own, so it's kind of pointless for her to say it didn't happen.

If it didn't happen, Greg shouldn't have said it happened.
Click to expand...

My guess is that it was post-stress bravado / retcon.

He'd just had a very scary incident happen where he thought his son might die before his eyes. He was probably amped up on adrenaline and conflating things he thought / said / wished he'd said.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
My guess is that it was post-stress bravado / retcon.
Click to expand...

I don't care what the excuse is and it makes no difference. If he's throwing in bravado while standing over a dead body then that's on him. He still said it.

Skeptic Tank said:
He'd just had a very scary incident happen where he thought his son might die before his eyes. He was probably amped up on adrenaline and conflating things he thought / said / wished he'd said.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't care. It doesn't change the fact that it's his fault, he said it, and it should be used against him in the court of law. As a previous LEO he should have pulled his head out of his ass and stuck to the facts, he knew better.

That being said, I'm pretty sure he said it.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The issues absolutely nothing the McMichael's defense has claimed reflects reality. It's all alternative "okay but what if" fan fiction.
Click to expand...

That was a big problem's with Greg's closing arguments. What if Arbery had just stopped? Or run to the right instead of the left? Or ran through a yard? Or into a garage?

As if a strange acting scary criminal colored guy running toward or into a house wouldn't be the perfect reason to shoot him. This guy just did something, and then he was headed straight into that house. There are innocent children in there. I had to shoot him, your honor, I had no choice.

And what if Travis hadn't gone at Arbery with a shotgun? Or they had just turned the corner and gone home? Where they would have seen the police car coming up Satilla. Or just followed him and not tried to run him off the road? Or just called the police? You know, a possible criminal is running down the street. Call the police. What is more sensible than that?

By the time Arbery got back around to the front of the neighborhood, the police would have been there. Stopped him. Found out what was going on. Issued him a trespass warning. And today they would all be at home preparing for a nice Thanksgiving dinner with their family.

But they didn't do that. They didn't do that.
 
Because the Proudly Wrong decided "facts" where just these things that give other people an unfair advantage and whatever stupid fantasy was going on in their heads should be given the same level of credence.

It's why every time some racist kills a black person we're forced to stop and have a huge detailed discussion about some legal concept/principal that doesn't apply. The McMichaels were not making a citizens arrest, Zimmerman was not standing his ground, Officer McTired N' Horny was not defending her castle, yet that's what between 50 and 90 percent of the discussion was about in those topics because for some reason their alternative universe fan fiction gets submitted into evidence because //screeching whine// "But that's what they thought in their heads!!!!!!" //screeching whine//
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Tank said:
I'm not even sure at this point which would be sweeter... the satisfaction of knowing that these good men who were doing the right thing avoided unwarranted punishment? Or getting to watch the enraged meltdowns in here and elsewhere?
....
Click to expand...

Tell the truth: Do you really believe this garbage or are you just screwing with us?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Because the Proudly Wrong decided "facts" where just these things that give other people an unfair advantage and whatever stupid fantasy was going on in their heads should be given the same level of credence.

It's why every time some racist kills a black person we're forced to stop and have a huge detailed discussion about some legal concept/principal that doesn't apply. The McMichaels were not making a citizens arrest, Zimmerman was not standing his ground, Officer McTired N' Horny was not defending her castle, yet that's what between 50 and 90 percent of the discussion was about in those topics because for some reason their alternative universe fan fiction gets submitted into evidence because //screeching whine// "But that's what they thought in their heads!!!!!!" //screeching whine//
Click to expand...

They claim citizens arrest. I think it is important to look at the law to determine whether this could be citizens arrest or not. Turns out, it is not. Same with the other cases. Look at the law. Determine whether the law fits or not. Plus, I like talking about the law.

In this case, it wasn't citizens arrest. During the chase and in the bodycam and police reports and their own written statements from that day they never mentioned citizens arrest. They never mentioned English's fishing equipment. We know what this was about. The very first sentence in Travis's statement from that day says his gun was stolen on January 1ts. In his mind, that is where this all started. That is what this was about.

He's mad his gun was stolen from his unlocked truck. He is going to get the person that did that. He starts posting on Facebook. Asking neighbors for videos. It must be that guy in that truck I don't recognize. I know where he lives. He's playing with fire. Oops, turns out that's a different truck. It must be that homeless guy living under the bridge. Oops, turns out he lives in Fancy Bluff and is just down here fishing. It must be that black guy wandering around that construction site. Oops, turns out I shot him to death.
 
Well yeah but the problem is the "Citizens Arrest" argument stands up to about .000000002 seconds of actual legal/moral/logical scrutiny and it's still their primary defense weeks into the trial.

I like "talking about the law" too but this is a real person who was murdered, not a hypothetical "John Doe" in a law textbook we're having a debate about.

If every dead black guy could stop being the catalyst for a law discussion that would just be super.

Let me put it this way. There's going to be a LOT less people who just up and decide it's vitally important we have a 50 page discussion now, right now, and not later about the nuances of the technical legal definition of vehicular homicide in the thread about running down the holiday parade in Wisconsin. And I already know the answer, "Yeah because that's cut and dry."

And that's sort of the problem. When black people commit crimes, it's always cut and dry. Whenever they have crimes committed against them, it's suddenly not.
 
Last edited:
Legally clarifying the difference between carrying and brandishing a long gun would go a long way towards determining who was the aggressor too, from the McMicheals to Rittenhouse.
 
Thermal said:
Legally clarifying the difference between carrying and brandishing a long gun would go a long way towards determining who was the aggressor too, from the McMicheals to Rittenhouse.
Click to expand...

I think getting into the legalities of brandishing would be the wrong direction. That is just pointing a gun at a person without justification. That's a misdemeanor. But under some circumstances it can be a simple assault or aggravated assault. They are trying to convict for aggravated assault. That is legally a bit different from simple misdemeanor brandishing. They have to stick to what constitutes aggravated assault. I think they did that.
 
Regardless I'm starting to get a knot in my stomach that we aren't going to get a verdict today.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I think getting into the legalities of brandishing would be the wrong direction. That is just pointing a gun at a person without justification. That's a misdemeanor. But under some circumstances it can be a simple assault or aggravated assault. They are trying to convict for aggravated assault. That is legally a bit different from simple misdemeanor brandishing. They have to stick to what constitutes aggravated assault. I think they did that.
Click to expand...

Not brandishing then. Just a simple statutory definition of what constitutes a lawful carry, which I think should mean shoulder or back slung.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Regardless I'm starting to get a knot in my stomach that we aren't going to get a verdict today.
Click to expand...

It is a murder trial for 3 different defendants. It might take awhile. If I were the foreman I would do each individual, and each individual count for that individual. So you're looking at deciding on possibly 27 different counts. If there is any debate or anything it could take awhile. I wouldn't be concerned if we don't hear back by Monday or Tuesday.
 
The live feed I'm seeing is starting to show a lot of people gathering on the steps, heading into the building, and talking a bunch. Also some police outside ushering people in. Something might have happened.

ETA: Feed just changed from the outside of the building to the eagle on the flag inside the courtroom. Might not mean anything, but it's a change of pace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom