Black Jogger Gunned Down In The Street

[Derec]

No, the intent to kill is not a requirement for felony murder. The rather, as long as you are committing an inherently dangerous felony that results in the death of someone, then you have committed felony murder. Suppose, you commit armed burglary and your gun goes off, it's felony murder. Or suppose you rob a bank and then while fleeing, you run over a pedestrian, that is felony murder.

You are absolutely correct. Which is why GBI had to charge them with aggravated assault in order to be able to charge them with murder as well.

Indeed, this is one of the reasons these statutes are controversial.

Well, controversial in some cases. Funny how the same people who decried the application of felony murder against Lakeith Smith are now clamoring for felony murder and think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread!

 

[J842P]

No, the intent to kill is not a requirement for felony murder. The rather, as long as you are committing an inherently dangerous felony that results in the death of someone, then you have committed felony murder. Suppose, you commit armed burglary and your gun goes off, it's felony murder. Or suppose you rob a bank and then while fleeing, you run over a pedestrian, that is felony murder.

You are absolutely correct. Which is why GBI had to charge them with aggravated assault in order to be able to charge them with murder as well.

Indeed, this is one of the reasons these statutes are controversial.

Well, controversial in some cases. Funny how the same people who decried the application of felony murder against Lakeith Smith are now clamoring for felony murder and think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread!

It would be a pretty clear cut case of aggravated assault.

 

[Derec]

It would be a pretty clear cut case of aggravated assault.

I guess it's going to be for the jury to work out, unless there is a plea deal.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The fact is the Georgia Bureau of Investigation found sufficient evidence to arrest Greg and Travis McMichael on charges of aggravated assault and felony murder. The video we saw and the parts of the police report that were released are solid evidence those two crimes were committed and there is no doubt who committed them.

I linked to information on how Georgia defines those situations in this post. Other posters and several linked articles have pointed out that the only way the McMichaels' armed pursuit and confrontation of Arbery would have been lawful would be if they had actually seen Arbery committing a crime right before they got their guns and went after him. They didn't see a crime being committed so they had no legal grounds for attempting to detain him.

Arbery's prior interactions with the McMichaels explains why they decided to pursue him. It does not make their choice a good one. It does not make their actions lawful. It does not make his death something other than felony murder.

It's manslaughter. It’s not felony murder by Georgia statute. To prove that, you'd have to show that they went after him with the intent to kill him. There’s simply no evidence of that. They’re overcharging to get a plea deal. Happens all the time. He'll either plead guilty to that, or the judge will likely reduce it at some later point. Or he won’t be convicted at all, which is a real possibility.

SLD

How can you say that they didn't chase him with the intent to kill? They ran after him with guns in their hands. They claimed that they wanted to talk to him about a string of robberies. However, I heard that there were no robberies?

 

[ZiprHead]

No, the intent to kill is not a requirement for felony murder. The rather, as long as you are committing an inherently dangerous felony that results in the death of someone, then you have committed felony murder. Suppose, you commit armed burglary and your gun goes off, it's felony murder. Or suppose you rob a bank and then while fleeing, you run over a pedestrian, that is felony murder.

You are absolutely correct. Which is why GBI had to charge them with aggravated assault in order to be able to charge them with murder as well.

Indeed, this is one of the reasons these statutes are controversial.

Well, controversial in some cases. Funny how the same people who decried the application of felony murder against Lakeith Smith are now clamoring for felony murder and think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread!

Are you trying to say that wasn't agravated assault?

And stop derailing with other bullshit.

 

[laughing dog]

The high recidivism rates are a well known fact. Well, perhaps well known to everybody but you.

BS on both counts. And it is irrational to make such a claim from one conviction.

Your argument is based solely on projection, conjecture, and deliberate evasion of the actual facts in evidence of the event. Mr. Arbery's past is irrelevant to his killing. Your attempts to smear him are disgraceful.


I

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Donald Trump could shoot someone on fifth avenue and get away with it- because he's white.

 

[laughing dog]

Donald Trump could shoot someone on fifth avenue and get away with it- because he's white.

Since he is the POTUS, anything he does, according to him and his minions, anything he does is legal by definition.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Ahmaud Arbery was a thief. Deal with it!

I think this is a superficial classification and doesn't really help anything. I stole chocolates from my Mum's handbag when I was five. And I am admitting this on Mother's Day!

For many teenage and young adult women, shoplifting the cheaper jewelry, the stuff not kept in the locked displays, is a regular pastime. My wife worked at Penney's and caught a middle age well-to-do adult white woman switching tags on clothing then buying at the reduced price.

Yeah, there’s no profile for a shoplifter. My ex used to work loss prevention at a military base department store. They come in all shapes and sizes including the base commander’s wife. Can’t imagine she was hurting for cash or her credit was maxed out.

 

[Ford]

For many teenage and young adult women, shoplifting the cheaper jewelry, the stuff not kept in the locked displays, is a regular pastime. My wife worked at Penney's and caught a middle age well-to-do adult white woman switching tags on clothing then buying at the reduced price.

Yeah, there’s no profile for a shoplifter. My ex used to work loss prevention at a military base department store. They come in all shapes and sizes including the base commander’s wife. Can’t imagine she was hurting for cash or her credit was maxed out.

Ah, but you're still missing Derec's point: that since Arbery was a (black) thief, his life automatically became forfeit. He can be rightfully killed at any moment by any civilian (white) enforcer of the law. A (black) thief needs no judge and no jury, just an executioner...and that execution can come at any time, even if Arbery was not committing a crime when he was gunned down. Did he commit a crime in the past? Then his shooting was justified. That's Derec's point.

 

[Elixir]

since Arbery was a (black) thief, his life automatically became forfeit... his shooting was justified. That's Derec's point.

IIRC Derec is from Georgia. There is no point.
The objective is to try to use despicable lethal acts to rile up the lib'ruls.
DNFTT

 

[dannyk]

The fact is the Georgia Bureau of Investigation found sufficient evidence to arrest Greg and Travis McMichael on charges of aggravated assault and felony murder. The video we saw and the parts of the police report that were released are solid evidence those two crimes were committed and there is no doubt who committed them.

I linked to information on how Georgia defines those situations in this post. Other posters and several linked articles have pointed out that the only way the McMichaels' armed pursuit and confrontation of Arbery would have been lawful would be if they had actually seen Arbery committing a crime right before they got their guns and went after him. They didn't see a crime being committed so they had no legal grounds for attempting to detain him.

Arbery's prior interactions with the McMichaels explains why they decided to pursue him. It does not make their choice a good one. It does not make their actions lawful. It does not make his death something other than felony murder.

Doesn't a court and/or a jury need to decide this?

Without the public release of the video and the resulting public outrage, no court or jury would have ever gotten that chance. It remains to be seen whether the good old boys' lawyer can get a jury of their peers to acquit them, but it would be no surprise. Their peers are almost certainly as racist as they are.
Georgia racism is highlighted in bold type by the murderers' supporters in this thread.

Yes that is concerning. The decision to not proceed with charges or investigate should be based on what the police knew at the time. It would be good to understand what those were. Even if this does end up in an acquittal once all the facts are known, the police decision to not proceed at that time may still be a flawed one for which the police should be held to account.

 

[Arctish]

Without the public release of the video and the resulting public outrage, no court or jury would have ever gotten that chance. It remains to be seen whether the good old boys' lawyer can get a jury of their peers to acquit them, but it would be no surprise. Their peers are almost certainly as racist as they are.
Georgia racism is highlighted in bold type by the murderers' supporters in this thread.

Yes that is concerning. The decision to not proceed with charges or investigate should be based on what the police knew at the time. It would be good to understand what those were. Even if this does end up in an acquittal once all the facts are known, the police decision to not proceed at that time may still be a flawed one for which the police should be held to account.

The DA for the county in which the shooting occurred recused herself because Greg McMichael worked in her office before his retirement. George Barnhill, the DA of a neighboring county, took over the case. Eventually he, too, recused himself due to his own connections to the defendants but not until after he sent a 5 page memo to the police outlining his highly questionable reasoning for why the two men should not be arrested. Barnhill asserted the McMichaels had both probable cause and the legal authority to detain Arbery at gunpoint even though they apparently had neither under Georgia law.

It looks like the police were following Barnhill's lead and Barnhill was sweeping a felony murder case under the rug.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, there is no viable look for this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yep. It was their fault that they had ancestors stupid enough to be enslaved and not clever enough to pass for white so they could go to school..

Forget ancestors! Everybody had shitty things happen to some of their ancestors. Some of my ancestors were oppressed by Ottoman Turks for 500 years for example. And most of the Middle Ages ancestors of most Europeans were feudal serfs, which was a not much better existence than antebellum slavery in the US.

In the modern day, blacks have no excuse not to finish high school, or to make several children with multiple baby daddies/mamas by the time they are 21, or to engage in criminal activity. All that's on them, not on white people or "The Man".

Did Arbery steal a TV from Walmart because of his ancestors? Did he bring a gun to a high school game because of his ancestors? Is that going to be the excuse no matter the behavior?

What white people did to his ancestors--including his parents, grandparents and even to him certainly has a role in every aspect of his life.

A lot of people had bad things happen to them when they were growing up. We don't use that to excuse bad behavior in other situations, why should race be treated differently?

 

[Ford]

What white people did to his ancestors--including his parents, grandparents and even to him certainly has a role in every aspect of his life.

A lot of people had bad things happen to them when they were growing up. We don't use that to excuse bad behavior in other situations...

You do.


Loren, you've ardently defended every single action taken by Israel since the founding of the modern state. A state that was founded in no small part because of the treatment of the Jewish people just prior to the foundation of that nation.

Essentially, "wow, these poor people almost got wiped out...let's give them their own country and look the other way while they do horrible things in the name of keeping it."

Now you're saying "hey, just because your parents were discriminated against and your grandparents were lynched, doesn't mean we'll just let you get away with anything!"


One group of persecuted folks gets a country and an LP blank check. The other gets a shotgun blast. Double standard much?

 

[Jarhyn]

What white people did to his ancestors--including his parents, grandparents and even to him certainly has a role in every aspect of his life.

A lot of people had bad things happen to them when they were growing up. We don't use that to excuse bad behavior in other situations, why should race be treated differently?

We generally also don't use it to smear them when bad things are done to them. Why should race be treated differently?

I mean shit, I have 'telecommunications fraud' and 'disorderly conduct', and 'posession THC' buried somewhere in my past; sure, my record has been cleared since (hell, I've had a security clearance since!), But you can be sure as hell that if I was black and someone lynched me, you and the rest of them would be smearing me like "he had it coming, he was a criminal!"

Thankfully, though, I'm white so I don't have to worry about that.

The fact that people bring up "but he's Time Traveling Hitler so it's ok!" Doesnt apply if the shooter couldn't prove in the moment that they were assaulting time traveling Hitler. No, a mustache is not enough evidence to establish time traveling Hitler in the moment.

 

[ruby sparks]

What white people did to his ancestors--including his parents, grandparents and even to him certainly has a role in every aspect of his life.

A lot of people had bad things happen to them when they were growing up. We don't use that to excuse bad behavior in other situations, why should race be treated differently?

We generally also don't use it to smear them when bad things are done to them. Why should race be treated differently?

I mean shit, I have 'telecommunications fraud' and 'disorderly conduct', and 'posession THC' buried somewhere in my past; sure, my record has been cleared since (hell, I've had a security clearance since!), But you can be sure as hell that if I was black and someone lynched me, you and the rest of them would be smearing me like "he had it coming, he was a criminal!"

Thankfully, though, I'm white so I don't have to worry about that.

The fact that people bring up "but he's Time Traveling Hitler so it's ok!" Doesnt apply if the shooter couldn't prove in the moment that they were assaulting time traveling Hitler. No, a mustache is not enough evidence to establish time traveling Hitler in the moment.

I'm not sure there's much point in even discussing this at length with someone who explicitly claims that being confronted in the street by a man wielding a shotgun is not a threat of physical harm. It's the sort of thing that the response 'nuff said, pal' can be readily applied to, imo, and the person who claimed it it is arguably not worth wasting much more breath on than that.

 

[SLD]

The fact is the Georgia Bureau of Investigation found sufficient evidence to arrest Greg and Travis McMichael on charges of aggravated assault and felony murder. The video we saw and the parts of the police report that were released are solid evidence those two crimes were committed and there is no doubt who committed them.

I linked to information on how Georgia defines those situations in this post. Other posters and several linked articles have pointed out that the only way the McMichaels' armed pursuit and confrontation of Arbery would have been lawful would be if they had actually seen Arbery committing a crime right before they got their guns and went after him. They didn't see a crime being committed so they had no legal grounds for attempting to detain him.

Arbery's prior interactions with the McMichaels explains why they decided to pursue him. It does not make their choice a good one. It does not make their actions lawful. It does not make his death something other than felony murder.

It's manslaughter. It’s not felony murder by Georgia statute. To prove that, you'd have to show that they went after him with the intent to kill him. There’s simply no evidence of that. They’re overcharging to get a plea deal. Happens all the time. He'll either plead guilty to that, or the judge will likely reduce it at some later point. Or he won’t be convicted at all, which is a real possibility.

SLD

No, the intent to kill is not a requirement for felony murder. The rather, as long as you are committing an inherently dangerous felony that results in the death of someone, then you have committed felony murder. Suppose, you commit armed burglary and your gun goes off, it's felony murder. Or suppose you rob a bank and then while fleeing, you run over a pedestrian, that is felony murder. Indeed, this is one of the reasons these statutes are controversial.

But they weren’t committing a felony in stopping him. They weren’t trying to rob him. They wanted to stop him. They had no right to stop him, but asking someone to stop is not a felony.

What’s the specific felony?

 

[SLD]

The fact is the Georgia Bureau of Investigation found sufficient evidence to arrest Greg and Travis McMichael on charges of aggravated assault and felony murder. The video we saw and the parts of the police report that were released are solid evidence those two crimes were committed and there is no doubt who committed them.

I linked to information on how Georgia defines those situations in this post. Other posters and several linked articles have pointed out that the only way the McMichaels' armed pursuit and confrontation of Arbery would have been lawful would be if they had actually seen Arbery committing a crime right before they got their guns and went after him. They didn't see a crime being committed so they had no legal grounds for attempting to detain him.

Arbery's prior interactions with the McMichaels explains why they decided to pursue him. It does not make their choice a good one. It does not make their actions lawful. It does not make his death something other than felony murder.

It's manslaughter. It’s not felony murder by Georgia statute. To prove that, you'd have to show that they went after him with the intent to kill him. There’s simply no evidence of that. They’re overcharging to get a plea deal. Happens all the time. He'll either plead guilty to that, or the judge will likely reduce it at some later point. Or he won’t be convicted at all, which is a real possibility.

SLD

How can you say that they didn't chase him with the intent to kill? They ran after him with guns in their hands. They claimed that they wanted to talk to him about a string of robberies. However, I heard that there were no robberies?

That they armed themselves before they went out to stop this guy is not sufficient evidence of their intent. If it was their intent, then they wouldn’t have done anything but simply shoot him when they saw him. But that’s not what the video shows. The shooting didn’t occur until Arbery grabbed the gun. There’s no real self defense argument because they created the situation illegally. But it’s not a premeditated murder. It’s manslaughter.

Any specific intent would need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You need a statement from them beforehand or some other evidence to show that.