Jogging in Georgia while black.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The mere mention of even possibly looking into the notion of a hate crime here is 100% stupidity and is really one of those little moments that lets you know you're not living in a serious society.

A person can very reasonably argue that the McMichaels went too far in their pursuit of this guy, but it is entirely clear that they were acting in reaction to someone's suspicious / criminal behavior or what they perceived as such, not his race.

Even if him being black made him seem a bit more threatening or suspicious to these guys, that still doesn't put this in the same galaxy as a hate crime.

It's also entirely clear that he was shot because of the attack and wrestling for control of the shotgun. So again, you can certainly argue that they created the situation and are criminally culpable for his death and all that, but there isn't even the necessary element to even entertain the idea that it MIGHT be a hate crime here. They clearly did not set out to kill him, and actually anyone who even plays with the idea that they did, is operating in a zero brain cell fashion.

So, so very dumb.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
I don't believe you. If you are genuinely telling the truth, then you are profoundly and dangerously wrong.
Click to expand...

So your theory is that they would have been entirely cool with a shady white guy trespassing, including often times at night, in that place and then taking off running when confronted?

"Wait, Travis. Stop the truck!"

"Why, pa?"

"Travis, I need to teach you a thing or two about being a proper racist southern gentleman. Did you notice that this guy is white? Not only are we not going to give chase, I'm actually planning to tell the cops he went the opposite direction when they arrive. Let's head on back home."
 
Skeptic Tank said:
So your theory is that they would have been entirely cool with a shady white guy trespassing, including often times at night, in that place and then taking off running when confronted?
Click to expand...
No, I don't think they would be entirely cool with your fictional narrative, but then again your narrative is fictional.
 
Darat said:
I really doubt it as I doubt the prosecution will bring the murderers' characters into this case, there is simple no need to as their intent or even state of mind doesn't come into this. The prosecution case will be based on just a few facts from the 911 calls, initial statements given to the police and the video and less than a handful of questions:

Did you see the victim commit a crime?
Did you chase the victim in your vehicle?
Did you attempt to impede the progress of the victim?
Were you armed when you attempted to impede the progress of the victim?

Even if they "plead the 5th" I think the evidence is clear to stand on its own.
Click to expand...

You must bear in mind the defendants do not have to take the stand [testify in the trial]. I think Zimmerman was not called by his defense team and it seem to have worked in his favor.

When a defendant is called by the defense the prosecutor can then cross examine him.


If the case goes to trial I think it would be Roddy, English, Perez and the first 911 who would be the witnesses to give the prosecution a guilty verdict.


Darat said:
One thing would alter my view of how the case will be prosecuted and that is if they go down the route of a prosecution for a "hate crime" as well, then it will open out the trial and then you would see character witnesses and so on. Whilst I think a strong case can be made for it being a hate crime I personally don't think it would be a sensible decision for the prosecution. As ever keep it simple.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I think the case should be handled similar to the Amber Guyger trial. The prosecution as far as I remember did not use the race card.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Do you really think they would have done the same if it were a white guy?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't do any of the things leading up to the shooting regardless of skin color, but if I was in a position of wrestling someone for a shotgun I would probably shoot them even if they were purple. The only exception I can think of is if I could feel that I was a lot stronger, enough so that I could wrest it away without getting shot myself.
 
Bob001 said:
I don't think you have paid much attention to how high-profile criminal trials work in the U.S. The prosecution is pretty much limited to the facts and evidence, painted in the worst possible light for the defendant; the defense can say and do just about anything to impugn the validity of the evidence, the integrity of the witnesses and the motivation of the prosecutor, and to make the defendant sympathetic to the jury. This will be a circus, and there's a good chance the McMichaels will walk.
Click to expand...

I think you want too much legal drama on TV.
 
Bob001 said:
G. Zimmerman looked like an open-and-shut case too.
Click to expand...

Yup, it did, but not in the way you think. The crazy thing is that this is one of the few cases in the US where the entire case is available on Youtube and yet people still seem to be ignorant about it and rather than looking at the evidence presented in court, they rely on all the speculation and misinformation that was in the newspapers and the posts of internet sleuths.
 
Scopedog said:
Yes, just like the Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman cases
Click to expand...

The Jury got it right in both these cases.

While Casey Anthony might have gotten away with murder, the fact is that the prosecution never had the evidence to convict her, and the Jury came down on the side of not beyond reasonable doubt. The defense created reasonable doubt, and the Prosecution couldn't combat it resulting in a correct legal decision, even if it wasn't the correct one for what really happened.

With Zimmerman, the Prosecution simply could not undermine the claim to self defense. All the evidence presented in court supported the claim, and the prosecution was never going to win it. I know a lot of people believe it was the wrong decision, but it was the correct one based on the evidence presented to the Jury in the courtroom.
 
PhantomWolf said:
The Jury got it right in both these cases.

While Casey Anthony might have gotten away with murder, the fact is that the prosecution never had the evidence to convict her, and the Jury came down on the side of not beyond reasonable doubt. The defense created reasonable doubt, and the Prosecution couldn't combat it resulting in a correct legal decision, even if it wasn't the correct one for what really happened.

With Zimmerman, the Prosecution simply could not undermine the claim to self defense. All the evidence presented in court supported the claim, and the prosecution was never going to win it. I know a lot of people believe it was the wrong decision, but it was the correct one based on the evidence presented to the Jury in the courtroom.
Click to expand...

While in the McMichaels' case, the evidence of what happened is both public and indisputable. The video clearly shows both trying to block the victim's path with their truck, and shows Travis McMichael killing the victim, an unarmed man, with two blasts of his shotgun.

The defence may try to do a character assassination job on Arbury, but it will be very limited in scope. I expect the prosecutors would object as both immaterial (lacking probative value) and prejudicial, the introduction of any evidence of the alleged burglaries and the theft of the handgun from Travis McMichael's vehicle, and I would expect the judge sustain such objections.
 
smartcooky said:
While in the McMichaels' case, the evidence of what happened is both public and indisputable. The video clearly shows both trying to block the victim's path with their truck, and shows Travis McMichael killing the victim, an unarmed man, with two blasts of his shotgun.

The defence may try to do a character assassination job on Arbury, but it will be very limited in scope. I expect the prosecutors would object as both immaterial (lacking probative value) and prejudicial, the introduction of any evidence of the alleged burglaries and the theft of the handgun from Travis McMichael's vehicle, and I would expect the judge sustain such objections.
Click to expand...

Think the defense might, just might mention Arbery attacking Travis, punching him multiple times, and trying to wrestle control of the shotgun away from him?

I feel like it may come up at trial. Maybe.

The jury, if they aren't overly emotional or overly diverse, may be struck by the fact that Mr. Arbery probably had about 10 distinct things he could've done as he ran up to that truck, and he chose pretty much the only course of action which would lead to someone ending up dead.
 
Scopedog said:
Edited to add: O. J. Simpson
Click to expand...

I am certain that Simpson is guilty, but having watched the series of American Crime Story about it (and assuming that that is a reasonably accurate account of the events), had I been on the jury I'd have voted to acquit.

I don't want to get too off-topic, but the key piece of evidence came from a police officer that the defence had on tape saying that he hated black people and would think nothing of fabricating evidence against them to get false convictions. Regardless of what I personally think about the case, that right there introduces "reasonable doubt" as to that evidence, and thereby onto the whole case.

Had there been video of Simpson killing his wife, then that would be somewhat different.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Think the defense might, just might mention Arbery attacking Travis, punching him multiple times, and trying to wrestle control of the shotgun away from him?
Click to expand...

Of course they will. Just as the prosecutor will make clear that it is irrelevant as you can't make a claim for self defence when you are committing a crime armed with a lethal weapon.

Skeptic Tank said:
...snip...

The jury, if they aren't overly emotional or overly diverse, may be struck by the fact that Mr. Arbery probably had about 10 distinct things he could've done as he ran up to that truck, and he chose pretty much the only course of action which would lead to someone ending up dead.
Click to expand...

And if they follow the actual law they will go "well that's got nothing to do with the accused murdering him".
 
smartcooky said:
quadraginta said:
It will be at least that simple since Georgia is one of the few states in the U.S. which doesn't have any sort of 'hate crime' statutes.
Click to expand...

But the Feds do, and they are investigating the possibility.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...s-federal-investigation-requested/3107382001/

The FBI could assert jurisdiction if they decide that a prosecutiosn for a hate crime is warranted. That might be a good thing as it could lessen the possibility of a jury full of Hometown Harries.
Click to expand...


Would the Feds take over the murder case and remove it from state jurisdiction? Or would they simply pursue Federal hate crime violations in addition to the state's prosecution for murder.

I don't think that double jeopardy would necessarily apply as the two crimes, while connected to the same incident, are not the same (As many of the murderers' defenders have so insistently pointed out), so I don't know why there would have to be only one trial.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Again the whole "Well a jury decides if it was reasonable self defense, that's how the system works" thing ignores the fact they never had any intention of this ever going to trial. This incident was well and completely buried until the video got out. This was never going to see a courtroom. They had already gotten away with it, question of if they were going to get away with it was are rather pointless.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I remember reading this story a couple weeks before the video came out. People then were calling foul, but the story was not gaining wider traction.

These killers were in the clear. The DA had made the decision not to prosecute and that was the end of it. Then the video came out.

There has been some protesting calling for the DAs involved to resign. I'm hoping there is more scrutiny of the decision to not prosecute before all of this is over.

The DA's letter gives the McMichaels accounting of the story an obscene amount of credulity. It basically accepts their framing of the self-defense narrative on face value despite ample evidence that casts their actions in an exceedingly poor light. The DA also characterizes Arbery as a fleeing burglar without providing any evidence to substantiate this key fact.

It was a letter never meant to be examined carefully, because it immediately collapses under scrutiny. It's purpose was to clear the two killers and make the case go away, facts of the case be damned. A horrible abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom