Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[Leonhard]

Three.

Yeah I keep forgetting the guy with the camera. I'm a bit more sensitive to that because its important that crimes are caught on video. That shouldn't be discouraged.

[Whateverman]

Families of the victim often are outraged if a plea deal is struck, but if the courts had gone for the charge the family wanted, it could well result in a "not guilty" verdict.

You're doing a great job of explaining this.

(all too often, somebody will refuse to plea to a much less offense, because it is, indeed, an admission of guilt, and they want to stand "on principle". So they refuse to accept a bargain, and often end up losing anyway, and suffering FAR worse than if they had accepted the deal)

Indeed, and thanks for the perspective from the victims of the alleged crime.

I've seen several people (lawyers, judges, etc) say that the US criminal system of justice would be crushed under the weight of trials if lawyers couldn't use this plea-deal mechanism. I'd sorta guessed this on my own, but once people who worked in courts began saying it, I saw the whole situation differently.

[Whateverman]

As long as these two yahoos get appropriately punished to send a signal to all other would be vigilantes that this stuff isn't okay.

I don't think the warning works any more.

Maybe at one point, the threat of getting hanged for robbing a bank (back in the days when cowboys rode horses thru the streets) was a suitable disincentive to robbing banks. These days, getting legally accused of a crime is definitely something average people want to avoid - but for people pre-disposed toward crime, the system can seem arbitrary...

[Leonhard]

I don't think the warning works any more.

Maybe at one point, the threat of getting hanged for robbing a bank (back in the days where cowboys rode horses thru the streets) was a suitable disincentive to robbing banks. These days, getting legally accused of a crime is definitely something average people want to avoid - but for people pre-disposed toward crime, the system can seem arbitrary...

I don't think criminals tend toward vigilantism. They seem more attracted to being in gangs. No these were two gun-nutters who thought they were neighborhood heroes. Turns out they were just two idiots who didn't have the faintest clue what they were doing, and they got someone killed needlessly.

[Cow Poke]

Indeed, and thanks for the perspective from the victims of the alleged crime.

That's always a tough one -- the victim's family wants the maximum penalty, but that's like rolling the dice, because if you shoot too high, you might totally miss. (Could have convicted on 2nd degree murder, but not 1st)

I've seen several people (lawyers, judges, etc) say that the US criminal system of justice would be crushed under the weight of trials if lawyers couldn't use this plea-deal mechanism.

Absolutely - and the expense of prosecution is not just the trial, but the jury, criminal investigators, securing witnesses, issuing subpoenas....

I'd sorta guessed this on my own, but once people who worked in courts began saying it, I saw the whole situation differently.

Have you ever watched Night Court?

[JimL]

That's always a tough one -- the victim's family wants the maximum penalty, but that's like rolling the dice, because if you shoot too high, you might totally miss. (Could have convicted on 2nd degree murder, but not 1st)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with respect to officer Chauvin I think the charge of 2nd degree murder was added to the original charge of 3rd degree and manslaughter so that the jury could reject the 2rd degree charge and still convict him on the lesser charges.

[Watermelon]

We don't know that - we just know we have no record of him doing so. I'd be inclined to believe he did not, but you can't say positively that he never did.



No, he had them added AFTER fishing tackle was stolen from his boat.



Trespassing is a crime. That he did not report does not negate the fact that it is a crime.



I never said he didn't.



Try to stay with the actual facts.

[Cow Poke]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with respect to officer Chauvin I think the charge of 2nd degree murder was added to the original charge of 3rd degree and manslaughter so that the jury could reject the 2rd degree charge and still convict him on the lesser charges.

He actually faces three separate charges:

unintentional second-degree murder
third-degree murder
and second-degree manslaughter

Maximum penalties are prison terms of 40, 25 and 10 years respectively.

It appears the jury can choose which charge.

[Cow Poke]

Trespassing on is a tort.

Not sure that's a complete sentence.

In what situations would trespassing be considered a crime? On public lands? Yes maybe but where else?

Private property.

Never claimed otherwise, and I have clearly said the owner did not report the offense.

Unless authorized by the owner, correct.

Not sure you you're directing this at me - I have in NO WAY tried to justify the actions against the deceased, and have CLEARLY indicated that the owner of the property did not report the crime - including the theft of $2,500 worth of fishing gear from his boat.

[Mountain Man]

I have in NO WAY tried to justify the actions against the deceased...

Nobody in this thread has, yet I continue to see that accusation being flung around.

The latest variation that has reared its ugly head is, "Oh, sure, that's what you say, but we all know what you're really thinking!"

[JimL]

Nobody in this thread has, yet I continue to see that accusation being flung around.

The latest variation that has reared its ugly head is, "Oh, sure, that's what you say, but we all know what you're really thinking!"

[oxmixmudd]

Nobody in this thread has, yet I continue to see that accusation being flung around.

The latest variation that has reared its ugly head is, "Oh, sure, that's what you say, but we all know what you're really thinking!"

Despite your attempts to rewrite the history of this thread, what you and others did was focus the majority of your comments on insinuation Arbery actually had criminal intent and was in the neighborhood for criminal purpose, not a jog. The only purpose for retaining such a focus, especially after additional facts showed very clearly he was a regular runner and had taken nothing any of the alleged times he was in the house, is to create doubt about arbery's innocence wrt his run and his presence in the neighborhood.

You know that is true. I know that is true. Everybody knows that is true.

And the net effect of creating that suspicion of Arbery is to give the suspects cause for a pursuit.

Cause for the pursuit.
Cause for the pursuit.

Giving them cause for the pursuit does not justify the killing.

Giving them cause for the pursuit does not justify the killing.

BUT - it does provide PARTIAL justification for their actions.

This is the thrust of this thread.

[Mountain Man]

BUT - it does provide PARTIAL justification for their actions.

That's your conclusion, not mine. I have nether said nor implied that the actions taken against Arbery were necessarily justified.

[oxmixmudd]

That's your conclusion, not mine. I have nether said nor implied that the actions taken against Arbery were necessarily justified.

Again you dodge the point and cut the content to hide the point . But since you have spent the last several weeks doing your very best to make an innocent black man killed unjustly look guilty, dodging is probably all you can do.

[JimL]

That's your conclusion, not mine. I have nether said nor implied that the actions taken against Arbery were necessarily justified.

Yes you did! "The idea that this was just some innocent black guy out for a jog, needs to be rejected?"