• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Black Jogger Gunned Down In The Street

So what?
The murderers were convicted.
This is the USA, barbos. Read up:


(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:

(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;

(B) subject to the limitations in Rule 412, a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may:

(i) offer evidence to rebut it; and

(ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait; and

(C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
 
So you need to be better prepared for discussion.

Why? I was absolutely correct that no attack on police occurred during the incident resulting in the murder, despite what you said/implied.
And at the end of the day, a scuffle four years prior should not have been allowed, even though it had no effect. You tried to use it in a misguided attempt to justify the murder. (Exactly why it should not have been allowed. But the judge didn't want to provide grounds for appeal.)
 
So you need to be better prepared for discussion.

Why? I was absolutely correct that no attack on police occurred during the incident resulting in the murder, despite what you said/implied.
No, you were not correct.
And at the end of the day, a scuffle four years prior should not have been allowed, even though it had no effect. But you tried to use it in a misguided attempt to justify the murder. (Exactly why it should not have been allowed. But the judge didn't want to provide grounds for appeal.)
I am not trying to justify murder. I am trying to explain mechanics of what happened there.
 
So you need to be better prepared for discussion.
Judge allowed that video as evidence and defense had spent 45 minutes on it.

That video wasn't allowed in the trial, and it shouldn't have been, doesn't affect the defendants' responsibility for their actions.
 
That hyperbolic proposition isn't a thing you have to believe in order to agree with what I wrote and so you are just engaging in taking an exaggerated stance to argue.
Well, this is exactly what you suggested. You suggested that Ahmaud Arbery had reasons to believe that these rednecks were about to murder him.... for sure.
You cannot be much familiar with the U.S. if you don't understand this.
A lone black man, at night and on foot, is in grave danger if confronted by white yahoos with trucks and guns. Heck, I'd be scared and I'm a big white dude.
Tom
It was not night but that's not really relevant. So if what you said is true, then why in the love of God any black would be jogging through white neighborhood, or any neighborhood for that matter?

Oh, and I am pretty familiar with US and was warned to lock car doors when driving through South Side Chicago. Have never been in Georgia though. But I do read news and I don't remember ever reading about white lynching blacks on the street. I am talking about modern times.
These days, why lynch when you can just shoot someone in broad daylight and claim you were trying to make a citizen's arrest for whatever crime you choose to make up? The police will offer you a lot of sympathy for your trauma over having murdered a man in broad daylight because that's a rough thing to happen, especially when you were scared for a second that he was fighting back and grabbed the gun you were pointing at him in a threatening manner (there is NO non-threatening manner to point a gun at someone, btw).

Actual lynching with a rope and a crowd and all of that is fairly passe. There are more modern means to 'lynch' someone such as chaining someone to a car and dragging him to death (TX, 1998, James Byrd was so murdered) or if you want to do it nice and legal, plenty of police officers are happy to kneel on the necks of black people until they die. But a small group of racist vigilantes will do, so long as they are armed and in motor vehicles so the victim cannot jog away from them....
 
I am not trying to justify murder. I am trying to explain mechanics of what happened there.
And doing a piss-poor job of it. Mechanics doesn't explain putting thoughts in people's heads.
Again, I am not trying to justify murder. And it is you who is doing piss-poor job.
Arbery was an idiot, shoplifter and unpredictably aggressive individual.
Did not deserve to die but it contributed to his death when he met these 3 idiots.
 
How a Prosecutor Addressed a Mostly White Jury and Won a Conviction in the Arbery Case - The New York Times - "Linda Dunikoski, a prosecutor brought in from the Atlanta area, struck a careful tone in a case that many saw as an obvious act of racial violence."
Despite the evidence of racism she had at her disposal, Linda Dunikoski, the prosecutor, stunned some legal observers by largely avoiding race during the trial, choosing instead to hew closely to the details of how the three men had chased the Black man, Ahmaud Arbery, through their neighborhood.

The risks went beyond her career and a single trial. Failure to convict in a case that many saw as an obvious act of racial violence would reverberate well outside Glynn County, Ga. For some, it would be a referendum on a country that appeared to have made tentative steps last summer toward confronting racism, only to devolve into deeper divisions.
But she succeeded with that strategy.
Kevin Gough, the lawyer who represented Mr. Bryan, credited Ms. Dunikoski with threading the most difficult of needles. She mentioned a racial motive just once during the three-week trial, in her closing argument: The men, she said, had attacked Mr. Arbery “because he was a Black man running down the street.”

“She found a clever way of bringing the issue up that wouldn’t be offensive to the right-leaning members of the jury,” he said. “I think you can see from the verdict that Dunikoski made the right call.”
After going into detail about LD's career,
Observers said Ms. Dunikoski had succeeded in the trial over Mr. Arbery’s murder by finessing a difficult case with the right tone.

She presented her case to the jury with a style that was at times matter-of-fact and at times intimate and colloquial, like a strict high school principal who occasionally offers students a flash of her unguarded self. At some moments, she twisted her body into exaggerated, matador-like poses as she described the way she believed Mr. Arbery, in the moment he was shot, had tried to defend himself.

She led the jury through a thicket of detailed legal points as she pushed back against the defense’s argument that the three white men had pursued Mr. Arbery legally, under a state citizen’s arrest law that has since been largely gutted. And she sought to dismantle the idea that the man who pulled the trigger, Travis McMichael, had done so in self-defense.

In her rebuttal to the defense’s closing argument — the last word before jurors were sent off to decide the fate of the three men — Ms. Dunikoski made an appeal to common sense, offering up a general rule of life that she said the defendants had violated: “Don’t go looking for trouble.”
A job well done. What can I say?
 
That hyperbolic proposition isn't a thing you have to believe in order to agree with what I wrote and so you are just engaging in taking an exaggerated stance to argue.
Well, this is exactly what you suggested. You suggested that Ahmaud Arbery had reasons to believe that these rednecks were about to murder him.... for sure.
You cannot be much familiar with the U.S. if you don't understand this.
A lone black man, at night and on foot, is in grave danger if confronted by white yahoos with trucks and guns. Heck, I'd be scared and I'm a big white dude.
Tom
It was not night but that's not really relevant. So if what you said is true, then why in the love of God any black would be jogging through white neighborhood, or any neighborhood for that matter?

Oh, and I am pretty familiar with US and was warned to lock car doors when driving through South Side Chicago. Have never been in Georgia though. But I do read news and I don't remember ever reading about white lynching blacks on the street. I am talking about modern times.
You are correct about Georgia in that it's changed drastically since the 50s and 60s, even more so since the 90s.. Things like what happened to Mr. Arbery are very rare. In fact, I've never heard of anything like this happening in modern times here in Georgia. I live in a mixed race middle class neighborhood in Georgia. None of my Black neighbors, including the Black police sergeant, the Black probation officer, the Black nurse, the Black school teacher, the Black woman who is in charge of our local sanitation department or the Black retired military officer have any fears about running through our neighborhood. We all get along. There is virtually no crime in my neighborhood. I still lock my car doors, as I was taught to do that when I was a child growing up in NJ in the 50s and 60s. :)

But, my view of Georgia has absolutely nothing to do what happened to Mr. Arbery, who was murdered by 3 White men, who I presume thought he had committed a crime based on the fact that he was a Black man who had been checking out the construction of a new home, just like several other people had done, but those people were White. So, yes, just like the rest of the country, we sadly have some dangerous racists in Georgia, but the Georgia that I know has made substantial progress in the nearly 30 years that I've lived here. Georgia is a large state, with over 10 million people, most of them are nothing like the three that killed Mr. Arbery.

Systemic racism is a national problem. To put it the way a former Black coworker of mine did: "I can take a Southern racist over a Northern racist any day because at least I know where I stand with the Southern racist." In other words, we know who the more harmful racists are in the South because they are more open about it. There have been Black folks killed by the police without justification all over the country. Our last president, who was from New York City, was very racist. He even encouraged the police to rough up suspects and we all suspected that this was code for Black suspects, since his racism goes way back to his youth and the influence of his racist father, who was sued for discriminating against Black folks who wanted to rent from him. But, by now, I think you should have gotten the point.

Of course that doesn't mean that all Black folks are harmless either, but nobody should be murdered simply because someone of a different culture or skin shade has suspected that they have committed a crime. The one positive that has come from this is that Georgia has finally updated a very old law regarding making a citizen's arrest.

I'm mostly posting this because I am sick and tired of people in other parts of the US, trying to blame racism on the South. As one who was raised in the Northeast, but has spent most of her life in many different areas of the South, I know that racism is alive and well in just about every part of the US. One hopeful sign that I read recently is that most Americans prefer to live in mixed race neighborhoods. Maybe there is hope.
 
Was it reasonable to have that expectation?

After attempting to escape from the McMichaels and Bryan for 5 minutes, being repeatedly cut off and cornered, being struck by Bryan's truck, subjected to death threats from Greg McMichael and faced with Travis McMichael armed with a shotgun and moving to cut him off at close range, yes. It was reasonable for him to have that expectation.
No, it was not.
Three guys with guns chasing me while I'm taking a casual run or stroll through a neighborhood? I'd certainly figure they intended to use the guns on me. Three guys chasing me in trucks or even without trucks and I'd figure they were intending me significant harm.

And you would, too.
 
CNN calls it lynching of a jogger. Nuances my ass.

I repeat, he was not a jogger, it was not a lynching, and Arbery would have been alive today if he decided against attacking a guy with a gun and these 3 idiots would have been in prison on much lesser charges.
It's a case of a 4 idiots and idiotic gun laws.

If he wasn't a jogger what was he? And whatever it is you think he was did he deserve to die for that?

The rest of your point of view is based on hypotheticals. As if you can predict the outcome if he would have stopped.
He was a black guy, who correctly thought that these guys were trying to detain him for trespassing.
Trying to run away from a situation where several angry people are trying to run you over with trucks, pointing guns at you, and shouting "I'm going to blow your fucking head off" is the reasonable thing thing to do. I have a concealed weapons permit and often carry a firearm on my person, and I would have tried to avoid a confrontation with an armed aggressor in a similar situation if it was at all possible. Mr Arbery was not armed, and he had no legal, ethical or sensible reason to stop; his killers were not police officers, nor did they tell him that they were. Mr Arbery was trying to run away likely because he feared for his life. Mr Arbery died because of the callous, reckless, and malicious actions of his assailants, as was clearly demonstrated by the prosecution during the trial. Did you even watch the trial or are you just making up stuff for shits and giggles?
 
I think it backfired--the dog whistle was perhaps too loud.
I think so too, everyone on a jury quietly thought - we can't even remotely acquit, we would be painted as fucking racists after these lawyers performance.
You need to watch the trial and educate yourself on the facts of the case and the laws that were used to convict the three accused men. The prosecutor crucified them during the closing, using the facts and the laws, and it is the best closing argument I have ever seen.
 
Mr Arbery was not armed, and he had no legal, ethical or reasonable reason to stop;
And he is dead now.
Actually as I said he had more than enough reasonable reasons to stop. He was stupid but not not that stupid to not figure out why these 3 guys were after him - he knew they were after him because he just trespassed that construction sight.
 
I think it backfired--the dog whistle was perhaps too loud.
I think so too, everyone on a jury quietly thought - we can't even remotely acquit, we would be painted as fucking racists after these lawyers performance.
You need to watch the trial and educate yourself on the facts of the case and the laws that were used to convict the three accused men. The prosecutor crucified them during the closing, using the facts and the laws, and it is the best closing argument I have ever seen.
I am sorry, but you need to watch CNN. Even they called defense actions malpractice. The Defense buried these 3 idiots.
 
Mr Arbery was not armed, and he had no legal, ethical or reasonable reason to stop;
And he is dead now.
Actually as I said he had more than enough reasonable reasons to stop. He was stupid but not not that stupid to figure out why these 3 guys were after him - he knew they were after him because he just trespassed that construction sight.
Wrong again - the assailants did not know he had done anything of that sort that day. Go back and watch the testimony. Like I explained, and you conveniently ignored, it is reasonable for people to try to run away from situations where their lives are threatened. Mr Arbery's behavior was not aberrant in any way. Mr Arbery is dead because he was murdered by a posse of racist thugs, not because of something he did wrong. The testimony in the courtroom demonstrated that clearly, and the jury agreed. Your ill-informed and nonsensical opinion notwithstanding.
 
I think it backfired--the dog whistle was perhaps too loud.
I think so too, everyone on a jury quietly thought - we can't even remotely acquit, we would be painted as fucking racists after these lawyers performance.
You need to watch the trial and educate yourself on the facts of the case and the laws that were used to convict the three accused men. The prosecutor crucified them during the closing, using the facts and the laws, and it is the best closing argument I have ever seen.
I am sorry, but you need to watch CNN. Even they called defense actions malpractice. The Defense buried these 3 idiots.
I trust my own judgement of the facts and arguments presented at trial. No matter what some idiot on TV or on the internet might believe.
 
Wrong again - the assailants did not know he had done anything of that sort that day.
Nope, what assailants knew or did not know is irrelevant here, I am talking about Arbery.
So it is you who is wrong again and I am right again.
 
Back
Top Bottom