Black Jogger Gunned Down In The Street

[southernhybrid]

I watched part of the defendant being cross examined. Imo, the prosecutor did a pretty good job. There was absolutely no reason for the defendants to follow Arbery. It was very clear that Arbery wasn't armed, and he wasn't a threat to the men in the truck, who shouldn't have been chasing him down. They had plenty of opportunities to back off and call the police if they were so sure that Arbery was guilty of a crime.

Meanwhile, the defense is still fussing over the Black pastors in and outside the courtroom.

 

[blastula]

I think I saw Jesse Jackson there today.

The prosecutor reminds me of Marcia Clark in her speaking style. Or Julia Sugarbaker.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I watched part of the defendant being cross examined. Imo, the prosecutor did a pretty good job. There was absolutely no reason for the defendants to follow Arbery. It was very clear that Arbery wasn't armed, and he wasn't a threat to the men in the truck, who shouldn't have been chasing him down. They had plenty of opportunities to back off and call the police if they were so sure that Arbery was guilty of a crime.

Meanwhile, the defense is still fussing over the Black pastors in and outside the courtroom.

I don't think the defense has much of a case, so they are taking it to the gutter.

 

[southernhybrid]

The defense rested. yesterday. I read most of the script on the AJC this morning. I agree with Jimmy. The defense didn't have much of a case. It's also funny that there were over 100 Black pastors in and outside the courtroom. yesterday. If the defense attorney hadn't acted like such a prejudice jerk, there wouldn't be so many pastors from all over the country in and near the courthouse. I can't imagine a jury being influenced by who is sitting in the courtroom, but then, maybe that's just me. I never know what's going on in the brains of other people. The biggest mistake the defense made was to allow the defendant to questioned. From my perspective, it was almost as if he confessed to the crime. But, I'm not on the jury, so who knows what the outcome will be. My guess is either guilty or a hung jury, since it only takes one person for that.

 

[ZiprHead]

The defense rested. yesterday. I read most of the script on the AJC this morning. I agree with Jimmy. The defense didn't have much of a case. It's also funny that there were over 100 Black pastors in and outside the courtroom. yesterday. If the defense attorney hadn't acted like such a prejudice jerk, there wouldn't be so many pastors from all over the country in and near the courthouse. I can't imagine a jury being influenced by who is sitting in the courtroom, but then, maybe that's just me. I never know what's going on in the brains of other people. The biggest mistake the defense made was to allow the defendant to questioned. From my perspective, it was almost as if he confessed to the crime. But, I'm not on the jury, so who knows what the outcome will be. My guess is either guilty or a hung jury, since it only takes one person for that.

When claiming self defense it's pretty much a requirement for the defendant to testify. In this case I don't think they have a leg to stand on.

 

[Elixir]

The defense didn't have much of a case.

Right, but who needs one if you have a "great" judge?
He needed to take a page out of the Rittenhouse book. Seriously though, seeing that shooter responding to questions as if he was a traffic cop dispassionately describing ticketing a jaywalker... bigtime cognitive dissonance. I can't see how that feeling (if jurors reacted the same way) could have helped him.

 

[southernhybrid]

The defense rested. yesterday. I read most of the script on the AJC this morning. I agree with Jimmy. The defense didn't have much of a case. It's also funny that there were over 100 Black pastors in and outside the courtroom. yesterday. If the defense attorney hadn't acted like such a prejudice jerk, there wouldn't be so many pastors from all over the country in and near the courthouse. I can't imagine a jury being influenced by who is sitting in the courtroom, but then, maybe that's just me. I never know what's going on in the brains of other people. The biggest mistake the defense made was to allow the defendant to questioned. From my perspective, it was almost as if he confessed to the crime. But, I'm not on the jury, so who knows what the outcome will be. My guess is either guilty or a hung jury, since it only takes one person for that.

When claiming self defense it's pretty much a requirement for the defendant to testify. In this case I don't think they have a leg to stand on.

I'm not an attorney but somebody who is said publicly, that allowing a defendant to testify is a gift to the prosecutor. I also read that people were very surprised that he testified.

 

[ZiprHead]

^^^ Oh, I agree with you. But it's the only way to get the defendant's fears and feelings on the record.

Some of the things the judge in this case has disallowed somewhat stymie me. Not allowing the social media posts by the defendants calling black people the N word. The Confederate flag plate on the defendant's truck clearly seen in photos taken on the day of the incident but removed prior to the FBI photographing the truck.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Confederate flag plate on the defendant's truck clearly seen in photos taken on the day of the incident but removed prior to the FBI photographing the truck.

Jesus Christ, I wish they'd make up their fucking mind. First, it's you can't remove Confederate flags and statues because "history." Now, it's well, if something bad happened, it's okay to remove Confederate flag images temporarily until everyone is declared innocent.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The Confederate flag plate on the defendant's truck clearly seen in photos taken on the day of the incident but removed prior to the FBI photographing the truck.

Jesus Christ, I wish they'd make up their fucking mind. First, it's you can't remove Confederate flags and statues because "history." Now, it's well, if something bad happened, it's okay to remove Confederate flag images temporarily until everyone is declared innocent.

He had another bumper sticker that read: "IF YOU DON"T LIKE MY PRINCIPLES, I HAVE OTHER ONES"

 

[blastula]

The flag was allowed in.

Judge deems Travis McMichael's confederate license plate admissible in Ahmaud Arbery murder trial

"He wanted the world to know this," the lead prosecutor said about Travis McMichael's vanity plate that featured a Confederate emblem.

news.yahoo.com

 

[Gospel]

Flag allowed. That along with his testimony today is a bad mix.

 

[blastula]

Addendum to the above, because apparently the prosecution didn't use the flag even though it was allowed.

Discussions of Race Are Notably Absent in Trial of Arbery Murder Suspects (Published 2021)

Many outside observers say Ahmaud Arbery’s death at the hands of three white men is a prominent example of racial violence. But the jury never heard that argument.

www.nytimes.com

Last year prosecutors filed a motion saying they planned to introduce what they described as “racial” evidence, including a “Johnny Rebel” Facebook post by Travis McMichael, “racial messages” extracted from Mr. Bryan’s cellphone, and an “Identity Dixie” Facebook post by Gregory McMichael.

In a hearing, prosecutors read a text message from November 2019 in which Travis McMichael used a racist slur about Black people as he described the idea of shooting a “crackhead” with “gold teeth.”

In the weeks before the trial, however, prosecutors indicated that they had decided not to introduce “evidence of racial animus in the form of communications by the defendants with third parties” in their presentation of evidence, calling it a “strategic decision.”

So they deliberately did not include the flag or other evidences of racism. I guess they're guessing it wouldn't help them with this very white jury? Seems risky.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Addendum to the above, because apparently the prosecution didn't use the flag even though it was allowed.

Discussions of Race Are Notably Absent in Trial of Arbery Murder Suspects (Published 2021)

Many outside observers say Ahmaud Arbery’s death at the hands of three white men is a prominent example of racial violence. But the jury never heard that argument.

www.nytimes.com

Last year prosecutors filed a motion saying they planned to introduce what they described as “racial” evidence, including a “Johnny Rebel” Facebook post by Travis McMichael, “racial messages” extracted from Mr. Bryan’s cellphone, and an “Identity Dixie” Facebook post by Gregory McMichael.

In a hearing, prosecutors read a text message from November 2019 in which Travis McMichael used a racist slur about Black people as he described the idea of shooting a “crackhead” with “gold teeth.”

In the weeks before the trial, however, prosecutors indicated that they had decided not to introduce “evidence of racial animus in the form of communications by the defendants with third parties” in their presentation of evidence, calling it a “strategic decision.”

So they deliberately did not include the flag or other evidences of racism. I guess they're guessing it wouldn't help them with this very white jury? Seems risky.

Well, don't forget...one of the qualifying questions for jurors was that they had to view the old Georgia flag containing the Confederate symbol as non-racist.

"Do you agree that the old Georgia state flag, flown between 1956 and 2002, is a racist symbol? 479"

Or they had to be very unaware of the issue and by not answering Yes, they sort of locked themselves in.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Addendum to the above, because apparently the prosecution didn't use the flag even though it was allowed.

Discussions of Race Are Notably Absent in Trial of Arbery Murder Suspects (Published 2021)

Many outside observers say Ahmaud Arbery’s death at the hands of three white men is a prominent example of racial violence. But the jury never heard that argument.

www.nytimes.com

Last year prosecutors filed a motion saying they planned to introduce what they described as “racial” evidence, including a “Johnny Rebel” Facebook post by Travis McMichael, “racial messages” extracted from Mr. Bryan’s cellphone, and an “Identity Dixie” Facebook post by Gregory McMichael.

In a hearing, prosecutors read a text message from November 2019 in which Travis McMichael used a racist slur about Black people as he described the idea of shooting a “crackhead” with “gold teeth.”

In the weeks before the trial, however, prosecutors indicated that they had decided not to introduce “evidence of racial animus in the form of communications by the defendants with third parties” in their presentation of evidence, calling it a “strategic decision.”

So they deliberately did not include the flag or other evidences of racism. I guess they're guessing it wouldn't help them with this very white jury? Seems risky.

Well, don't forget...one of the qualifying questions for jurors was that they had to view the old Georgia flag containing the Confederate symbol as non-racist.

"Do you agree that the old Georgia state flag, flown between 1956 and 2002, is a racist symbol? 479"

Or they had to be very unaware of the issue and by not answering Yes, they sort of locked themselves in.

^...and what I mean by that is the extent that the flag is up for observation and discussion within the court will risk future discussion in the jurors' room. Any juror who then later on says, "hey waitaminnut, that's kinda racist," is grounds for disqualification at that later time or perhaps even a mistrial once someone rabidly in favor of the flag in the jury rats everyone else out to the judge.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Should we assume that whatever the jury decides is best? or the closest to the truth that we can hope for? because they heard all the facts?

Or is there only one verdict which can be right? -- Guilty? -- and any other verdict is wrong and only further proof that America is racist?

 

[Toni]

I think you're being an idiot here

You missed the opportunity to explain.

I didn't miss it.
I ignored it.

It's not the first time I've decided against expressing nuanced opinions, when I'm pretty sure what I'll get back is little but insults and strawman arguments.

Of course, sometimes I have a drink or two and say honest things. That's usually when I relearn the lesson, "Don't be too honest in an ideological bubble. It won't end well."

I'm trying.
Very very trying. Just ask the staff.

Tom

Well, suppose your equally gay lover were found murdered and it was discovered that he had been operating a clandestine escort service. Or had embezzled money from his employer or your business or had taken out a second (and third) mortgage on your jointly owned home —and it was going into foreclosure or whatever other ripped from the soap opera circuit crime you care to reference. You’re the suspect and are arrested and brought to trial.

I’m almost certain that whether or not you were guilty, you would want no one on that jury to be hostile to gay men, for any reason.

Would your jury need to be comprised of gay men? No. But you might not want it to be full of Southern Baptist evangelicals, especially if any were either closeted gay men themselves or had been molested by a camp counselor at bible camp. Or women whose husband left them for his 20 year old gay lover in their 45th wedding anniversary. And so on.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think you're being an idiot here

You missed the opportunity to explain.

I didn't miss it.
I ignored it.

It's not the first time I've decided against expressing nuanced opinions, when I'm pretty sure what I'll get back is little but insults and strawman arguments.

Of course, sometimes I have a drink or two and say honest things. That's usually when I relearn the lesson, "Don't be too honest in an ideological bubble. It won't end well."

I'm trying.
Very very trying. Just ask the staff.

Tom

Well, suppose your equally gay lover were found murdered and it was discovered that he had been operating a clandestine escort service. Or had embezzled money from his employer or your business or had taken out a second (and third) mortgage on your jointly owned home —and it was going into foreclosure or whatever other ripped from the soap opera circuit crime you care to reference. You’re the suspect and are arrested and brought to trial.

I’m almost certain that whether or not you were guilty, you would want no one on that jury to be hostile to gay men, for any reason.

Would your jury need to be comprised of gay men? No. But you might not want it to be full of Southern Baptist evangelicals, especially if any were either closeted gay men themselves or had been molested by a camp counselor at bible camp. Or women whose husband left them for his 20 year old gay lover in their 45th wedding anniversary. And so on.

I think the idea is to be "impartial" which regardless of legal definition should be "will not be reasonably expected to decide on the basis of irrelevant information".

I would think this should adequately filter the southern baptists who preach that gay people are gnostic sinners.

 

[Toni]

I think you're being an idiot here

You missed the opportunity to explain.

I didn't miss it.
I ignored it.

It's not the first time I've decided against expressing nuanced opinions, when I'm pretty sure what I'll get back is little but insults and strawman arguments.

Of course, sometimes I have a drink or two and say honest things. That's usually when I relearn the lesson, "Don't be too honest in an ideological bubble. It won't end well."

I'm trying.
Very very trying. Just ask the staff.

Tom

Well, suppose your equally gay lover were found murdered and it was discovered that he had been operating a clandestine escort service. Or had embezzled money from his employer or your business or had taken out a second (and third) mortgage on your jointly owned home —and it was going into foreclosure or whatever other ripped from the soap opera circuit crime you care to reference. You’re the suspect and are arrested and brought to trial.

I’m almost certain that whether or not you were guilty, you would want no one on that jury to be hostile to gay men, for any reason.

Would your jury need to be comprised of gay men? No. But you might not want it to be full of Southern Baptist evangelicals, especially if any were either closeted gay men themselves or had been molested by a camp counselor at bible camp. Or women whose husband left them for his 20 year old gay lover in their 45th wedding anniversary. And so on.

I think the idea is to be "impartial" which regardless of legal definition should be "will not be reasonably expected to decide on the basis of irrelevant information".

I would think this should adequately filter the southern baptists who preach that gay people are gnostic sinners.

Of course. Ideally, we would all probably like to believe that we could be completely impartial on any jury we were called to serve upon. On high profile cases or those with especially political, ideological or emotionally charged cases, it would be more difficult. Being a juror if the trial was about a burglary with no one at home would be different than a trial involving the rape/murder of a child, for example

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Should we assume that whatever the jury decides is best? or the closest to the truth that we can hope for? because they heard all the facts?

Or is there only one verdict which can be right? -- Guilty? -- and any other verdict is wrong and only further proof that America is racist?

They killed the guy. That isn't remotely debatable. The question is whether they should go to prison for it.

The lawyer for the shooter blamed the Arbery for defending himself when her client aimed a gun at him... which is why her client was totally in the right to shoot Arbery to defend himself. If you are good with that, then you should be good with an acquittal.