Black Jogger Gunned Down In The Street

[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.

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

Fuck that. There are juries I would not be impartial on. There are juries I would be partial on.

There are juries I would be the most laser focused piece of analytical machinery imaginable for, for the sole sake of right thing be done by society via the application of law as prescribed by the constitution and applicable legal codes.

There are juries I would nullify.

I'm not going to pretend otherwise except as my ethics demands it.

 

[Gospel]

Just like the slaves, I'll be dead long before the "zoinks I killed a black dude because I thought he did something" days are over.

 

[Arctish]

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.

She went way beyond that. She said:

"Turning Ahmaud Arbery into a victim after the choices that he made does not reflect the reality of what brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores in his khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails,"

And why did she say that? A former prosecutor thinks it was an appeal to the emotions of this particular jury:

Former prosecutor Mark Eiglarsh said Hogue had the pulse of the jury.
"I did find the defense lawyer's comments, personally, extremely offensive," Eiglarch said. "That said, I'm going to defend her right to make it, because her job is to do everything that she can to get an acquittal, as long as it's within the confines of what the law allows."
"As outrageous and offensive as I found it personally, I know that she wouldn't have made it if she didn't think it would resonate with those particular jurors," Eiglarsh said. "And that's what she did."

<link>

What brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores that day was jogging while Black. It appears Greg McMichael's lawyer thinks the jury will agree that warrants a death sentence carried out by vigilantes. Or at least she's willing to take that stance in court.

 

[J842P]

I think they have them dead to rights on felony murder at least. To me, this sounds pretty damning:

Defense says ruling by judge in Ahmaud Arbery trial over citizens arrest law guts their case

Defense attorneys were livid over the jury instructions Judge Timothy Walmsley plans to give next week.

www.wsbtv.com

The judge ruled Friday afternoon that under Georgia’s old citizen’s arrest law, the one applied in this case, the arrest would have to occur right after any felony crime was committed, not days or months later.

The defense argued that the ruling guts their case.


“If you are going to instruct the jury as you say, you are directing a verdict for the state,” said Bob Rubin, attorney for Travis McMichael.

Channel 2′s Tony Thomas has been in Brunswick covering the trial since the beginning. He said the defense attorneys were livid over the jury instructions Judge Timothy Walmsley plans to give next week.

“We have built this whole case around the probable cause and you are gutting all of it if you give this particular charge,” Rubin said.

So, this is just bizarre. From what I understand, they should have known this was going to be part of the jury instruction, since it is a plain part of the statute. Was there some agreement beforehand? This just sounds like incompetence or maybe trying to go for a mistrial or something. I think they are toast. They've been flailing about the entire time.

Another article:

Attorneys debate nuances of legal instructions judge plans to give to jury in Arbery death trial

With closing arguments set for Monday in the trial of the three men charged in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, prosecutors and defense attorneys spent Friday debating nuances of the legal instructions the judge plans to give to the jury before deliberations.

www.news4jax.com

Ahead of closing arguments scheduled for Monday, prosecutors and defense attorneys argued Friday what the judge should charge the jury with.

Much of the debate dealt with how the judge will describe the limitations on making a citizen’s arrest. Defense attorneys say Georgia law authorized the McMichaels and Bryan to detain Arbery for police because they had valid reason to suspect he was a burglar. Prosecutors say there’s no evidence that Arbery had committed any crimes in the neighborhood.

Defense attorneys objected when the judge said he would instruct the jury that “a private citizen’s warrantless arrest must occur immediately after the perpetration of the offense, or in the case of a felony during escape.”

Robert Rubin, an attorney for Travis McMichael, said the proposed language would make it virtually impossible for a jury to find the defendants had probable cause to detain Arbery based on suspicion he’d committed prior burglaries in same home under construction he was seen running from before his death.


“We have built this whole case around the probable cause ... that Travis McMichael and Greg McMichael had on Feb. 23 for events that happened previously,” Rubin said. “And you are gutting all of it.”

Travis McMichael testified this week that he had seen security camera videos of Arbery inside the unfinished home and that he spotted Arbery “creeping” outside of it 12 days before the shooting. None of the five videos of Arbery inside the home showed him stealing. The owner said he installed cameras after items were taken from a boat he kept in an open garage.

Walmsley said he would consider changes if attorneys could support them citing other cases.

Apparently, although this is being denied, that Bryan's attorny, the defendant that isn't a McMichael, asked the state for a plea deal:

Defense attorney in the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial sought a plea deal for one defendant and was declined, Arbery's mother's lawyer says

A defense attorney for William "Roddie" Bryan Jr., one of the three men accused of chasing and killing Ahmaud Arbery, asked prosecutors for a plea deal and was declined, according to Lee Merritt, attorney for Ahmaud Arbery's mother.

www.cnn.com

 

[barbos]

Dirty toenails, how does she know they were dirty?
In any case, no socks jogger, I find that incredibly hard to believe.
I think US have gun laws which are incompatible with idiots. We have 3 white idiots and 1 black idiot who lost. And since you can't get rid of idiots you need to get rid of idiotic gun laws.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I can't believe they are stooping this low. The black guy didn't regularly clip his toe nails!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Dirty toenails, how does she know they were dirty?
In any case, no socks jogger, I find that incredibly hard to believe.
I think US have gun laws which are incompatible with idiots. We have 3 white idiots and 1 black idiot who lost. And since you can't get rid of idiots you need to get rid of idiotic gun laws.

He wasn’t jogging. He was somewhere he didn’t need to be, just like tens of millions of other people have been at some point when younger. He hadn’t committed a crime and the dad/son wanted to go play police and wrassle up a black guy.

And this barely even went to trial!

The self defense claim doesn’t rest with the law but with how the jury feels about the case.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I can't believe they are stooping this low. The black guy didn't regularly clip his toe nails!

Law has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with arbitrary accountability. His lawyer was doing her job. It is vile that this reflects the racism they hoped they cultivated in the jury.

 

[barbos]

I can't believe they are stooping this low. The black guy didn't regularly clip his toe nails!

If you don't wear socks at all, you don't really need clipping that often.
makes me wonder how it was done 20,000 years ago.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Robert Rubin, an attorney for Travis McMichael, said the proposed language would make it virtually impossible for a jury to find the defendants had probable cause

So, the letter of the law is important when it allows you to pack a jury with racists, but it's bad if the letter of the law literally says you broke the law. Funny how that works....

 

[barbos]

He wasn’t jogging.

Well, then left leaning media should stop calling him a jogger.
Call him "a black man pretending to be a jogger"

 

[Toni]

Dirty toenails, how does she know they were dirty?
In any case, no socks jogger, I find that incredibly hard to believe.
I think US have gun laws which are incompatible with idiots. We have 3 white idiots and 1 black idiot who lost. And since you can't get rid of idiots you need to get rid of idiotic gun laws.

I almost never wear socks.

Why on earth does it matter if he was wearing socks?

 

[barbos]

Dirty toenails, how does she know they were dirty?
In any case, no socks jogger, I find that incredibly hard to believe.
I think US have gun laws which are incompatible with idiots. We have 3 white idiots and 1 black idiot who lost. And since you can't get rid of idiots you need to get rid of idiotic gun laws.

I almost never wear socks.

Even when running/jogging?

 

[southernhybrid]

Dirty toenails, how does she know they were dirty?
In any case, no socks jogger, I find that incredibly hard to believe.
I think US have gun laws which are incompatible with idiots. We have 3 white idiots and 1 black idiot who lost. And since you can't get rid of idiots you need to get rid of idiotic gun laws.

I almost never wear socks.

Why on earth does it matter if he was wearing socks?

I never wear socks when I do aerobics except when it's very cold. Aerobics is sort of like jogging or running. But, it was an insane thing to even mention. The defense seems pretty desperate. They asked for a mistrial again this morning and the judge denied it.

 

[barbos]

I never wear socks when I do aerobics except when it's very cold. Aerobics is sort of like jogging or running

You do Aerobics in running shoes?
No socks and running shoes is a sure way to ruin your feet, not to mention shoes themselves. Lets be honest here, he tried to pretend to be a jogger to get away from these three idiots and then tried to wrestle one of the idiots with a gun and lost.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So people who are up to no good, like armed robberies and gang warfare traditionally do not wear socks?

 

[barbos]

So people who are up to no good, like armed robberies and gang warfare traditionally do not wear socks?

No, joggers wear socks and he was not.

 

[TomC]

Defense attorneys often have a gruesome task. Defending ugly people and their ugliest behavior. But that's their job. I fully expect those people to pull out the stops, and do what they're expected to do by any legal means available.

Yuck. But it's sounds like a desperation ploy.
Tom

 

[thebeave]

Defense attorneys often have a gruesome task. Defending ugly people and their ugliest behavior. But that's their job. I fully expect those people to pull out the stops, and do what they're expected to do by any legal means available.

Yuck. But it's sounds like a desperation ploy.
Tom

Sounds like the kind of thing that would backfire for a sensible jury. Even mentioning dirty, uncut toenails by the defense would indicate how there really is no "there there" at all in their case. Speaking as someone with a nasty and embarrassing case of toenail fungus on 75% of my toes, I would hope my toe situation never becomes public knowledge...whether I'm dead or alive.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Dirty toenails, how does she know they were dirty?
In any case, no socks jogger, I find that incredibly hard to believe.
I think US have gun laws which are incompatible with idiots. We have 3 white idiots and 1 black idiot who lost. And since you can't get rid of idiots you need to get rid of idiotic gun laws.

I almost never wear socks.

Why on earth does it matter if he was wearing socks?

I never wear socks when I do aerobics except when it's very cold. Aerobics is sort of like jogging or running. But, it was an insane thing to even mention. The defense seems pretty desperate. They asked for a mistrial again this morning and the judge denied it.

No, its not. Running without socks can be quite bad. It might be possible to do if your skin is tough enough. I couldn't run a single run sans socks without getting blisters.

Regardless, he was needlessly killed by idiots that need to go to prison.