Cont: Jogging in Georgia while black - The Trial

wareyin said:
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...
Click to expand...

Much appreciated. I should have been more diligent, was typing what I was reading at the time.

SuburbanTurkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

As we saw with the George Floyd case, it's possible that the defendants are trying to plead out but they're waiting for Federal buy-in. If the plea doesn't coincide with the feds then the feds can get them on hate crimes too. Chauvin is facing that in real-time and I'd think the McMicheal's realize that. The wheels move slow, but I'd be shocked if there wasn't some sort of, at the very least, realistic attempt at a plea before the trial. Then again, the prosecutors and Feds could be going for the head too. Punish them severely to make an example out of them. Ironic considering how black people have been treated in our justice system throughout the years.

Thermal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as I've been saying in the Rittenhouse thread, it's really tough to claim self-defense when you initiate the confrontation.
 
plague311 said:
Yeah, as I've been saying in the Rittenhouse thread, it's really tough to claim self-defense when you initiate the confrontation.
Click to expand...

Protecting others can be seen as self-defense as well, I think, so it's not completely crazy to expect them to try to claim that they were protecting their community.
 
Belz... said:
Protecting others can be seen as self-defense as well, I think, so it's not completely crazy to expect them to try to claim that they were protecting their community.
Click to expand...

Not completely crazy, no. It might even have merit. But they would still have to overcome the hurdle of brandishing versus carrying. I think that should be too big a hurdle to successfully use as a defense.
 
Thermal said:
Not completely crazy, no. It might even have merit. But they would still have to overcome the hurdle of brandishing versus carrying. I think that should be too big a hurdle to successfully use as a defense.
Click to expand...

I dont think that's really going to be relevant. It's probably in their best interests to try to paint the murder as a single, charged encounter at the side of the road, but the totality of the facts already establishes that the lynch squad was engaged in lawless aggression well before McMichael stepped out of his truck.

The physical evidence is quite clear that the three men assaulted Arbery with their trucks and were engaged in a coordinated, felonious attempt of unlawfully imprison or otherwise assault him. I suspect it's going to be very easy for the prosecutors to establish the fact that they were unlawful aggressors well before the fatal moment seen on the widely circulated video.
 
Belz... said:
Protecting others can be seen as self-defense as well, I think, so it's not completely crazy to expect them to try to claim that they were protecting their community.
Click to expand...

I mean, not really. Everything changed when Arbery tried to flee. Once he was leaving the neighborhood I can't imagine seeing it as "protecting their community" when the video shows them taking active steps to prohibit his escape. There was nobody threatened at all, anywhere. There couldn't have been and since Ahmed had nothing in his hands there was no way he stole anything.

You're right in that it's not completely crazy, but any defense attorney worth his weight in used toilet paper would tell them what their chances are with that defense.

Maybe if Ahmed was just coming out of the house. It's the chase that changes everything imo.
 
plague311 said:
I mean, not really. Everything changed when Arbery tried to flee. Once he was leaving the neighborhood I can't imagine seeing it as "protecting their community" when the video shows them taking active steps to prohibit his escape. There was nobody threatened at all, anywhere. There couldn't have been and since Ahmed had nothing in his hands there was no way he stole anything.

You're right in that it's not completely crazy, but any defense attorney worth his weight in used toilet paper would tell them what their chances are with that defense.

Maybe if Ahmed was just coming out of the house. It's the chase that changes everything imo.
Click to expand...

Hey, I said not completely. It's still crazy.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Good news. I don't recall her role, but I do recall that there were a number of people in the DA's office and the State office that swept this the under the rug and they should be held accountable.
Click to expand...

She was the Brunswick DA; the buck stopped with her. She was the first one who tried to cover it all up, and then she covered her arse by recusing herself. The next one to try to do a cover up was prosecutor George Barnhill, the Waycross DA, who said that the three [the McMichaels' and Bryant] had "solid first hand probable cause" to pursue Arbery, a "burglary suspect," and stop him. Then he recused himself and the case was handed to a third prosecutor, Thomas Durden, who was going to convene a Grand Jury before the GBI took over the case, and almost immediately arrested the McMichaels. I would say Barnhill will be in the gun as well at some point.

Had it not been for the "sheer genius" of those three rednecks who showed the video thinking it would justify their actions rather than display their culpability in murder, no-one would ever have known what these scumbag corrupt officials did.

Makes me wonder how many other times the course of justice has been perverted because white officials swept the murder of a back man by white thugs under the carpet.
 
Last edited:
Prosecutors get wide discretion that is often unreviewable, but the obvious corruption in this case is beyond the pale.

Glad this turd is finally getting hammered.
 
casebro said:
Corruption?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Corruption isn't always about money. It can be about lobbying, cronyism, nepotism, parochialism, patronage and influence peddling. In this case, I would say influence peddling might apply.

Influence peddling: The practice of using one's authority, or influence with people in authority, to get favours or preferential treatment for another person, often but not always for money.


casebro said:
Was there a quid pro quo?
Click to expand...

Yes. Letting her friends, the white ex-cop and his son get away with a murder.
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
Corruption? Was there a quid pro quo?
Click to expand...

I meant this in the more broad sense that smartcooky so aptly described. I have no reason to be believe that money changed hands, or that people even met in shady rooms to conspire, but rather that the DA used her authority in a way that was contrary to the purpose of her office. A DA using their broad authority to sweep murders under the rug is corruption. Whether the corruption in this case was motivated by a prior personal relationship, a racial prejudice, or undue deference to former cops and/or vigilantes is hard to say.

Authority comes with certain responsibilities, and egregious enough dereliction of that duty can, and should, be treated as criminal.
 
Last edited:
This one slipped past me, from Aug 31:

Defense attorneys representing the three men charged with killing Ahmaud Arbery cannot present evidence at trial of Arbery’s past run-ins with the law, a judge has ruled.

Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley’s decision is a big victory for prosecutors, who had strongly opposed the defense attempts to get Arbery’s past “bad acts” before a jury. This essentially would have put the slain Arbery on trial.
Click to expand...

https://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-news/judge-arberys-imperfect-past-cant-be-used-by-defense-at-trial/IND5BYIHDJGSHGOC6JRZBRL2YY/


Defense won't be allowed to smear murder victim for unrelated prior history of petty criminal conduct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom