Ahmaud Arbery murder trial

[MiloMorai]

11 white jurors, 1 black juror, defense makes racist comments

Do the 3 white defendants get away with murder or get some lesser charge(s)?

[shep854]

The prosecution has a strong case.

Ahmaud Arbery trial: Attorneys deliver blistering closing arguments (nypost.com)

Ahmaud Arbery trial: Attorneys deliver blistering closing arguments

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by shep854

[Ivanhoe]

Haven't had time to read his commentary yet, hard to see how given what little I know so far, but lawyer Andrew Branca says there is a substantial chance for acquittal.

 

[shep854]

44 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

Haven't had time to read his commentary yet, hard to see how given what little I know so far, but lawyer Andrew Branca says there is a substantial chance for acquittal.

 

I don't see it.  The (3) defendants initiated the confrontation with a single, unarmed man.

[R011]

1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

11 white jurors, 1 black juror, defense makes racist comments

Do the 3 white defendants get away with murder or get some lesser charge(s)?

What racist comments did the defence make?

Edited November 23, 2021 by R011

[shep854]

From May, 2020, Colion gives a good breakdown:

 

[glenn239]

5 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

11 white jurors, 1 black juror, defense makes racist comments

Do the 3 white defendants get away with murder or get some lesser charge(s)?

Two of the defendants will be convicted of murder charges.  The video guy following might get some lesser conviction.  I doubt any are found not guilty.

[DKTanker]

I seriously don't understand why the three didn't plead out, I have seen nothing to suggest that a acquittal would be in the air.  Three good old boys with the mentality of, yet not the thoughtfulness of, Gomer Pyle grabbed their guns and started yelling, "Citizen's arrest, Citizen's arrest." thinking they'd play cops and robbers and put two shot gun blasts into a guy that didn't want to play their games.  So what did Aubrey do to deserve having his chest caved in by a 12 gauge shotgun?  He looked in on the construction of a new house, something I did as a kid, something I've been known to do as an adult.  Curiosity, plain and simple.  Curious to see what the innards of a house really looks like, curious to see about figuring out the floor plan.  Certainly nothing to lose one's life over.

[rmgill]

It's as simple as any police encounter where the Police officer didn't have probable cause for an arrest. They lack the qualified immunity of an officer so one must be doubly careful of what one is doing when one DOES effect an arrest. 

One of the drums I beat when it comes to police encounters is what are the facts of the RAS and PC arguments for the stop? This is where the 'he was carrying a gun' refrain of the left keeps coming up and I'm left with, yes, but what was the crime? Carrying a gun is not, in may states an element of a crime let alone a default presumption of criminal activity any more than driving a car is. 

In this case it looks as if they didn't have the requisite elements of Probable Cause of a felony that one has direct knowledge as Colin Noir points out. Pretty much what I've noted since the start of this case. There is the aspect of the apparent BOLO by the police for this fellow that was in place but that still doesn't boot strap the PC needed to effect an arrest, citizens or otherwise. 


 

Edited November 23, 2021 by rmgill

[DB]

So, a guilty verdict, which seems to be appropriate.

[DKTanker]

Guilty, guilty, and guilty.  The only surprising thing about this trial was that anybody had doubt as to guilt.  From the beginning I thought this as much an open and shut case of murder as I thought it was open and shut that KR acted in self-defense.

[rmgill]

34 minutes ago, DB said:

So, a guilty verdict, which seems to be appropriate.

Maybe. There was as I said some activity relating to the police looking for Arbery as he had been repeatedly looking around the property. This could have been construed as casing the place for a future invasion or burglary as well as the fact that tools had gone missing and he was suspected as the perpetrator. With the NFAC or whom ever is pushing things down there, there very well may be a pushback that no, we don't want miscreants who are burglarizing and the like doing this stuff. The rampant looting/smash and grab robberies in California can't be playing well with rural Americans. It certainly doesn't play well with this suburban American. 

Fair warning, Sometimes juries don't convict for burglary cases because they're tired of criminals doing what they want. 

This little snippet from Of Arms and the Law back in 2010
https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2010/09/mock_jury_resea.php

"Here in AZ, with real juries, the results are quite different. A prosecutor once told me that he'd urged the County Attorney to stop prosecuting homeowners who shot burglars in the back. They'd just lost three of those cases in a row. Whatever the statute law might be, jurors saw one fewer burglar as a good thing and would not convict a fellow homeowner for having done a good thing."


Remember the jury system was meant to be a check on the authority of the state and what they dictate as laws. 

Also  from several years ago over at of Arms and the Law from back in 2006. 
https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/12/medieval_englis.php

Just finished reading Thomas A. Green, The Jury and the English Law of Homicide, 1200-1600, 74 Mich. Law Rev. 413 (1976). Several interesting aspects.

As the period starts out, self-defense isn't much of a defense. The defender must prove that he did *everything* to avoid use of deadly force, and that it was an absolute necessity. At that, he would still be convicted, but upon the jury's recommendation, the judge would forward a request for pardon, and kings rubber-stamped them. The defender's property was still forfeited to the Crown, and he sat in jail until the pardon came back. Further, all intentional killings were the equivalent of first-degree murder. There was no second-degree, and no manslaughter (that didn't come in until Tudor times).

Juries, however, dealt with the problem. If a fellow was a decent citizen, they'd just acquit, no matter what the facts were. The court records suggest that England must have been full of hedges, unclimbable ditches, and walls, because jurors were constantly finding that self-defenders had retreated to one and been unable to escape. :Nearly every act of self-defense was said to have been undertaken by a cornered defendant: ditches, walls, and hedges had constrained the fleeing defendants at every turn. Moreover, all juries, when questioned by the incredulous bench, tenaciously repeated these assertions." 14th century records show findings of self-defense in over 50% of some sets of trials. One case involved an attacker who hit the defender with a bow, and when it broke, continued to hit him with one of the broken staves. The judge questioned the jury as to how the defender could have thought he was going to be beaten to death with that, but the jury stood by its findings. (Remember that without manslaughter, the jury's choice was find self defense or send the fellow to the gallows).

There was also at this period no doctrine for use of force to defend a third person, but when that came up juries just found that the defender was really defending himself.

(We also have to read this against the background that at common law there was a general privilege to use force to prevent a felony, so self-defense was only argued when the aggressor was not trying to commit robbery, rape, burglary, etc.).

 

[DKTanker]

2 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Maybe. There was as I said some activity relating to the police looking for Arbery as he had been repeatedly looking around the property.

 

What has that got to do with three good old boys seeing an opportunity to kill some darky?

[rmgill]

Well for one, I'm not sure that implied racism was even entered as an aspect of evidence in the case. The argument that it's racism just because it's white on black crime is over wrought. Presuming it just because, is frankly, unwise. 

However, just as I was typing above, apparently the jury returned a guilty verdict down in Glynn County. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/ahmaud-arbery-travis-mcmichael-trial-verdict-2021-11-24/#textThe20jury20has20reached20a20verdict20in20theis20expected20to20be20announced20in20court20soon
"Travis McMichael, who fired the fatal shots, was convicted on all counts, including the charge of malice murder. His father Gregory McMichael and neighbor William "Roddie" Bryan were convicted of felony murder and other charges."

Edited November 24, 2021 by rmgill

[DKTanker]

12 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Well for one, I'm not sure that implied racism was even entered as an aspect of evidence in the case. The argument that it's racism just because it's white on black crime is over wrought. Presuming it just because, is frankly, unwise. 

Didn't have to be, personally I think "hate crime" being an opinion, should never be part of a charging document.  That said, this was a blatant racist attack.  Did those three have any prior history of conducting a "citizen's arrest" or otherwise detaining anybody else, skin color irrespective?  I didn't see any evidence of it.  I'm not surprised by the guilty verdicts.  I'm really surprised it took almost two months before the trio were arrested and, had it not been for the video they'd be looking for their next victim(s).

Edited November 24, 2021 by DKTanker

[DB]

Aren't there investigations of relatives/acquaintances who may have hindered the investigation ongoing, including within the local law enforcement?

Chasing down and shooting someone who you think might one day commit a crime isn't legal anywhere outside of a Tom Cruise movie, at least not yet.

[lucklucky]

Quote

 That said, this was a blatant racist attack.  Did those three have any prior history of conducting a "citizen's arrest" or otherwise detaining anybody else, skin color irrespective?  I didn't see any evidence of it.

What is that have to do with being racist? So if someone first citizen arrest is a person of another colour that makes it racist?

[DKTanker]

22 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

What is that have to do with being racist? So if someone first citizen arrest is a person of another colour that makes it racist?

Just ignored my qualification of skin color being inconsequential.  Interesting.

[lucklucky]

Really? you just took a page of neo-marxists newspeak and just said that  because there is no evidence they made an arrest before irrespective of color it is racist... so if these 3 white guys would have murdered a white person instead would also be racist? or skin color is now consequential?  

 

 

Edited November 24, 2021 by lucklucky

[DKTanker]

11 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

Really? you just took a page of neo-marxists newspeak and just said that  because there is no evidence they made an arrest before irrespective of color it is racist... so if these 3 white guys would have murdered a white person instead would also be racist? or skin color is now consequential?  

I took a page from common sense.  Three white people didn't murder a white person.  As far as I can tell, these three white people, acting as civilians, had never before attempted anything like what they did with Arbery.  What they did do is see darky, thought him up to no good, thought it best to have a shotgun because everyone knows three big white guys are still no match for one skinny darky, and proceeded to hunt him down and exterminate him.

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Didn't have to be, personally I think "hate crime" being an opinion, should never be part of a charging document.  That said, this was a blatant racist attack.  Did those three have any prior history of conducting a "citizen's arrest" or otherwise detaining anybody else, skin color irrespective?

Didn't have to be? Talk about taking a page from the woke left that impute racist overtones to every single bloody thing. Is ANY shooting of a black person by a white person blatantly racist by default? 

Why does one NEED a prior history of conducting citizen's arrest (it doesn't need scare quotes because that was an actual thing). 

Also, wasn't one of them a former police officer and later an investigator for the government? 

2 hours ago, DKTanker said:

  I didn't see any evidence of it.  

Then don't assert it as fact. 

Edited November 24, 2021 by rmgill

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, DB said:

Chasing down and shooting someone who you think might one day commit a crime isn't legal anywhere outside of a Tom Cruise movie, at least not yet.

Wasn't what happened. 

They chased him down, they attempted to detain Arbery. Arbery and one of the men struggled for a gun and Arbery was shot. This wasn't "pre-crime". This was a person who they thought was committing a crime and was in fact not in the commission of a felony which made it an unlawful arrest. Arbery was being sought and police had had reports and canvased the neighborhood about the multiple instances of people snooping around the construction site. 

If Arbery had been seen to have taken property amounting to a felony by McMichael, then this would have been a legal shooting. 

This is no different than someone who's shot and killed by police for doing something NOT illegal in the course of an unlawful or mistaken arrest. Generally speaking people attribute higher degrees of presumed competence to police when they kill someone that is sometimes misplaced. 

Which officers were charged with murder for killing Jean Charles de Menezes? What pre-crime was he guilty of? 

[DB]

They at no time observed Arbery committing any sort of crime. That's a fundamental element required before you're in any position to attempt to effect a citizen's arrest. It's also why bloviations about them claiming that he was casing a joint don't amount to anything other than accusing someone of pre-crime.

They had no right to chase him, they had no right to threaten him with a weapon, and he had every right to defend himself.

They got what they deserved.

[rmgill]

Asserting that none of the 3 had ever done anything like arrest someone is patently absurd. 

Gregory McMichael was a police officer for 37 years. Likely he forgot that as a non-police officer he needed to witness a felony or be in direct knowledge of such for him to effect a lawful citizens arrest. Something NOT the case for police in general. They can arrest based on PC for a lower threshold. This is why police can arrest someone for DUI which is a serious misdemeanor and not a felony for example. 

Now, Gregory McMichael was terminated for not keeping up with continuing education on use of force and the like. But that doesn't side step the fact that 37 years as a police officer flies in the face of an assertion that "As far as I can tell, these three white people, acting as civilians, had never before attempted anything like what they did with Arbery". 

 

[rmgill]

4 minutes ago, DB said:

They at no time observed Arbery committing any sort of crime. That's a fundamental element required before you're in any position to attempt to effect a citizen's arrest.

Arbery was witnessed exiting the neighbors home. They'd had several incidents before and theres even testimony from an investigating police officer specifically talking to the neighbor who was one of the 3 men discussing the idea of him watching the home for the man who owned the home under construction. 

Yes. There's suspicion of a crime. It's not significant enough to warrant an arrest. It was enough to trigger suspicion and they'd have been more wise to observe, call 911 and follow the subject on foot so that officers could detain him with the lower level of RAS that they need to effect a tier 2 stop. 

4 minutes ago, DB said:

It's also why bloviations about them claiming that he was casing a joint don't amount to anything other than accusing someone of pre-crime.

Bloviating that's the "pre crime" thing. 

Trespass isn't pre-crime. It IS crime. 
 

4 minutes ago, DB said:

They had no right to chase him

Bullcrap. There's not a legal requirement for such a power to exist for them to do so. I've followed someone who was apparently drunk and called in such to 911. I've called in other crimes and kept the folks under observation until police could arrive. 

4 minutes ago, DB said:

,... they had no right to threaten him with a weapon, and he had every right to defend himself.

They got what they deserved.

If it had been a burglary in progress, they could very well have conducted an arrest. They did however get ahead of themselves and over stepped their legal authority.