Cont: Jogging in Georgia while black - The Trial

LoL this attorney is trying really hard to to make the son not look like a complete and total ******* loser!

His landlord sold the apartment he lived in so he couldn't get a new one? Living with mom and dad to save some money. What a douche
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
To be fair, the fact that the local cops and DA conspired to cover up a lynching speaks very poorly for them, but doesn't really have much to do with the question of the three killers' culpability.
Click to expand...

The murder, at least in the case of Travis, is a slam dunk, I would hope (Greg and Roddy might be tougher to prove conspiracy/ murder but will deal with their other felonies).

That ******* DA though, is skating off way too easy for my tastes. Those three (or at the very least, Travis) should have been in a cel that night and charged with homicide in seconds, leaving them to their proofs in later trial.

Eta: at least some of the responding police wanted to cuff and process them on the spot, IIRC.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
The murder, at least in the case of Travis, is a slam dunk, I would hope (Greg and Roddy might be tougher to prove conspiracy/ murder but will deal with their other felonies).

That ******* DA though, is skating off way too easy for my tastes. Those three (or at the very least, Travis) should have been in a cel that night and charged with homicide in seconds, leaving them to their proofs in later trial.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for more info about this car chase prior to the shooting. Earlier public statements made it sound like there was pretty compelling physical evidence that Roddie struck him with his car during a prolonged cat-and-mouse pursuit.

If that's the case, seems like a pretty straightforward path to finding them all accomplices on the murder, whether they anticipated that's where it was going or not. Travis might be the trigger man, but if they were involved in a criminal attack together, they all hang together.
 
Dave Rogers said:
When a system inevitably permits a lawyer to stack a jury in favour of one, and only one, ethnicity, as here, then the system discriminates in favour of that ethnicity. The arithmetic itself demonstrates the bias.

Dave
Click to expand...

The "system" as you call it, should damn well be color blind. That's exactly the problem. Court rules allow for excusing with cause and without, but doesn't factor in "well we all know how black people will think". And it shouldn't. That unfortunately leaves attorneys a situation ripe for abuse. But I still don't want jurors chosen by skin color, one way or the other.
 
Thermal said:
The "system" as you call it, should damn well be color blind. That's exactly the problem. Court rules allow for excusing with cause and without, but doesn't factor in "well we all know how black people will think". And it shouldn't. That unfortunately leaves attorneys a situation ripe for abuse. But I still don't want jurors chosen by skin color, one way or the other.
Click to expand...

They're not supposed to be chosen by skin color, which is the problem. In this case it just so happens that the only people the defense had issues with seem to be people with darker shades of skin. The judge commented on it, confirmed that it appears to be that way, but said there was nothing he could do because the defense had other problems with the jurors. Kind of sucks.
 
Thermal said:
The "system" as you call it, should damn well be color blind. That's exactly the problem. Court rules allow for excusing with cause and without, but doesn't factor in "well we all know how black people will think". And it shouldn't. That unfortunately leaves attorneys a situation ripe for abuse. But I still don't want jurors chosen by skin color, one way or the other.
Click to expand...

But it seems clear that the defence was able to do exactly that. They wanted an all white jury, and manipulated the system in an entirely predictable way so that they got most of the way there. Excusing without cause seems to be a big part of the problem, doesn't it?

Dave
 
plague311 said:
They're not supposed to be chosen by skin color, which is the problem. In this case it just so happens that the only people the defense had issues with seem to be people with darker shades of skin. The judge commented on it, confirmed that it appears to be that way, but said there was nothing he could do because the defense had other problems with the jurors. Kind of sucks.
Click to expand...

Agreed. While I get the reasoning behind dismissing jurors without cause, it's too easy to abuse. Better that a juror can only be dismissed with cause, and adjust the standards for what constitutes cause.
 
Dave Rogers said:
But it seems clear that the defence was able to do exactly that. They wanted an all white jury, and manipulated the system in an entirely predictable way so that they got most of the way there. Excusing without cause seems to be a big part of the problem, doesn't it?

Dave
Click to expand...

Yes, and addressed to plauge while you were posting. My lawyer kid is always quick to remind me that courts are not about strictly right and wrong, but legal and illegal. The discussion should be focused on how the rules could be changed to prevent abuses like the defense is so clearly taking advantage of here.
 
Thermal said:
Agreed. While I get the reasoning behind dismissing jurors without cause, it's too easy to abuse. Better that a juror can only be dismissed with cause, and adjust the standards for what constitutes cause.
Click to expand...

The prosecution used all 12 of their strikes on white jurors (I wonder why?). The defense struck 13 whites.

"One of the challenges that I think counsel recognized in this case is the racial overtones in the case. ... This is sort of the continuation of a conversation that I think will continue for a long time, with respect to this case," the judge said, but added that in Georgia, "all the defense needs to do is provide that legitimate, nondiscriminatory, clear, reasonably specific and related reason," for why they struck a juror and he said the defense met that burden.
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/03/us/ahmaud-arbery-jury-what-we-know/index.html
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
Dood, catch up. No one is saying it's illegal. We're saying it's a **** thing to do.

Jesus, no one is arguing with you.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing with anyone, either. ;)

I'm saying it isn't a **** thing to do...it is playing by the established rules. Does anyone expect the defense to be charitable to the prosecution?

Change the rules, then. But you still have issues if you are looking at jurors based on color and area demographics. What if the area were only 5% black...would that make for a more fair trial, since the number of black jurors better matched the demographics for the area?
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
The prosecution used all 12 of their strikes on white jurors (I wonder why?). The defense struck 13 whites.



https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/03/us/ahmaud-arbery-jury-what-we-know/index.html
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that's the mess. Its one thing to play the game with street savvy, but another to genuinely want an impartial jury. The last time I served, I went in looking like a whack job that neither side would want. But I didn't stay "in character" when being questioned, and got selected (not a racially charged case). The attorneys evaluated me blind to appearances, as they should.
 
Warp12 said:
I'm not arguing with anyone, either. ;)

I'm saying it isn't a **** thing to do...it is playing by the established rules. Does anyone expect the defense to be charitable to the prosecution?

Change the rules, then. But you still have issues if you are looking at jurors based on color and area demographics. What if the area were only 5% black...would that make for a more fair trial, since the number of black jurors better matched the demographics for the area?
Click to expand...

LoL whatever Warp12. I don't scream into the wind.

It's not going to matter. They're going to prison either way, and bickering with you about it makes no difference. The defense got what they wanted. An almost all white jury. Fine, good for them. It's still not going to get them off. The two geriatrics are going to die in prison.
 
Warp12 said:
Change the rules, then. But you still have issues if you are looking at jurors based on color and area demographics. What if the area were only 5% black...would that make for a more fair trial, since the number of black jurors better matched the demographics for the area?
Click to expand...

plague311 said:
It's not going to matter. They're going to prison either way, and bickering with you about it makes no difference. The defense got what they wanted. An almost all white jury. Fine, good for them. It's still not going to get them off. The two geriatrics are going to die in prison.
Click to expand...

The discussion matters if someone wants to affect meaningful change to a flawed system, as opposed to just shouting "racism".

I'm not losing any sleep over the outcome of this trial, no matter the result.
 
Warp12 said:
The discussion matters if someone wants to affect meaningful change to a flawed system, as opposed to just shouting "racism".
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, this. Watching posters go through the big show of "look how much I hate racism" is entertaining for a while, but we never get to the nuts and bolts discussion of what can or should we actually *do*, for real, here and now. I thought we were going to finally get there on the recent No more White Saviors, Please thread, but it got awfully quiet over there. Some new shiny #LWB threads popped up, it seems.

I'm not losing any sleep over the outcome of this trial, no matter the result.
Click to expand...

You should. Every harbinger of doom is worth taking note over. To borrow from upthread, watch out for those patterns.
 
Warp12 said:
The discussion matters if someone wants to affect meaningful change to a flawed system, as opposed to just shouting "racism".

I'm not losing any sleep over the outcome of this trial, no matter the result.
Click to expand...

This forum isn't changing a flawed system. The things said here aren't changing a flawed system.

They did it because of racism. The ironic part is that one of the defense attorney's wasn't happy, and bitched that there weren't enough "Bubba" and "Joe Six-Pack" jurors, referring to white men over 40 without a four-year degree. He was actually upset that the jury was mostly white women. The stupidity is strong with this one. That ignorant dink is the next one up for opening arguments I believe too. This is going to be an absolute hoot.

ETA: It appears he's delaying his opening statement, if I'm understanding it right?
 
Last edited:
"Hey thar, y'honor, shouldn't a true jury of peers be filled wit some Right-thinking good ol'boys?"

*hoists brow up and down rapidly*

Eta: the judge actually said to the defense "You have no right to a 'Bubba'-rich jury pool"
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
The discussion matters if someone wants to affect meaningful change to a flawed system, as opposed to just shouting "racism".
.
Click to expand...

Ironically, shouting racism is the one thing that might bring meaningful change to a flawed system.

This trial has nothing to do with how the system is flawed. This is the system:

SuburbanTurkey said:
What an easy gig. Throw the accused in jail pretrial and watch as their life falls apart, stack up a bunch of charges to scare the bejesus out of them, offer a lesser sentence in a plea bargain, and have judge rubber stamp it. 8hrs a day just cranking the plea bargain machine.
Click to expand...

This thread is mostly entertainment. There are larger societal issues about race, violence, and law that are reflected within this spectacle, but in the big picture this and every other high profile case is bread and circuses crap that operates to distract people from the dystopian horror that is the day to day system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom