Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[Mountain Man]

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.

As I said, and as I have repeatedly said throughout this discussion, none of the facts stated necessarily justify any of the actions taken against Arbery. I never said it, I never implied it, and I don't believe it. That is the conclusion YOU have reached, and you are dishonestly attempting to project YOUR conclusion onto me.

I would like to say I know you're better than this, but that would be a lie.

[DivineOb]

As I said, and as I have repeatedly said throughout this discussion, none of the facts stated necessarily justify any of the actions taken against Arbery. I never said it, I never implied it, and I don't believe it. That is the conclusion YOU have reached, and you are dishonestly attempting to project YOUR conclusion onto me.

I would like to say I know you're better than this, but that would be a lie.

Since you love courtroom comparisons there is a reason the personal history of a victim (say, that a rape victim was promiscuous) might not be allowed as part of the evidence in a trial. Why do you think that is?

[Mountain Man]

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

Right, but just because he was guilty of trespassing doesn't mean the actions against him were necessarily justified. I don't know why this point is so hard for you guys to grasp, and it's to the point that I'm just going to start ignoring any comments along this line because I'm getting tired of explaining this over and over again to people who are determined not to get it.

[JimL]

Right, but just because he was guilty of trespassing doesn't mean the actions against him were necessarily justified. I don't know why this point is so hard for you guys to grasp, and it's to the point that I'm just going to start ignoring any comments along this line because I'm getting tired of explaining this over and over again to people who are determined not to get it.

Oh I see, so the implication you were making was that this non-innocent black guy wasn't just out jogging, that he went there just to trespass for the heck of it?

[Whateverman]

Have you ever watched Night Court?

Tangent:

That show was funny, but when I see reruns today, it comes off as a bit weird. Sorta like All In The Family, which blended humor with drama (and social commentary, etc). Sorta like Rosanne, too, now that I think about it...

[Mountain Man]

Since you love courtroom comparisons there is a reason the personal history of a victim (say, that a rape victim was promiscuous) might not be allowed as part of the evidence in a trial. Why do you think that is?

Likely because that history is not relevant to the case being tried. In this instance, however, that Arbery was witnessed trespassing on the day in question, and the fact that there is video evidence of him trespassing on the property in the recent past, is relevant because it explains but does not necessarily justify the actions of the McMichaels. I suppose you could call it a mitigating circumstance that at least gets them off the hook for first degree murder, and possibly even second degree murder.

Let's put it this way: if the prosecution tries to run with the "jogging while black" narrative, the defense is going to come back and say, "Actually, it was Mr. Arbery's actions and not the color of his skin that attracted the attention of the defendants." And if it's shown that the property owner had asked the McMichaels to keep an eye out for someone matching Arbery's description based on the video of him trespassing on previous occasions (and I don't know if the owner did, so this is speculative), then that would be another mitigating circumstance in favor of the defendants.

It doesn't make sense to ignore relevant facts on the basis that you think they reflect badly on the deceased, because you can be certain the defense attorneys won't ignore them.

[DivineOb]

Likely because that history is not relevant to the case being tried. In this instance, however, that Arbery was witnessed trespassing on the day in question, and the fact that there is video evidence of him trespassing on the property in the recent past, is relevant because it explains but does not necessarily justify the actions of the McMichaels. I suppose you could call it a mitigating circumstance that at least gets them off the hook for first degree murder, and possibly even second degree murder.

Let's put it this way: if the prosecution tries to run with the "jogging while black" narrative, the defense is going to come back and say, "Actually, it was Mr. Arbery's actions and not the color of his skin that attracted the attention of the defendants." And if it's shown that the property owner had asked the McMichaels to keep an eye out for someone matching Arbery's description based on the video of him trespassing on previous occasions (and I don't know if the owner did, so this is speculative), then that would be another mitigating circumstance in favor of the defendants.

It doesn't make sense to ignore relevant facts on the basis that you think they reflect badly on the deceased, because you can be certain the defense attorneys won't ignore them.

Thanks for making your true colors visible. That was easier than I expected.

[Cow Poke]

Tangent:

That show was funny, but when I see reruns today, it comes off as a bit weird. Sorta like All In The Family, which blended humor with drama (and social commentary, etc). Sorta like Rosanne, too, now that I think about it...

EGGzackly!

[Mountain Man]

Thanks for making your true colors visible. That was easier than I expected.

[DivineOb]

It is the moral duty of a lawyer to zealously represent their client's interests. It is not your moral duty. If you are choosing to zealously represent the interests of those murderers I can't stop you but I can point out that you are necessarily representing them in the best possible light. That is not the same as dispassionately exploring the facts of the case. Prefacing everything you write with "I'm not blaming the victim" or similar language doesn't take away from the rest of what you write.

[Mountain Man]

It is the moral duty of a lawyer to zealously represent their client's interests. It is not your moral duty. If you are choosing to zealously represent the interests of those murderers I can't stop you but I can point out that you are necessarily representing them in the best possible light. That is not the same as dispassionately exploring the facts of the case. Prefacing everything you write with "I'm not blaming the victim" or similar language doesn't take away from the rest of what you write.

In other words, we're not allowed to look at all sides of the issue. How very closed minded of you.

Look, I agree that the defendants are morally guilty of killing Arbery. However, the extent to which they are legally culpable is a different matter.

[Littlejoe]

In other words, we're not allowed to look at all sides of the issue. How very closed minded of you.

Look, I agree that the defendants are morally guilty of killing Arbery. However, the extent to which they are legally culpable is a different matter.

If we look at it from a strictly legal standpoint it's conceivable that the McMichaels could be found not guilty. (provided a truly impartial jury could be empaneled) After looking at it, Georgia has similar laws to Texas. For instance, it's perfectly legal to carry a rifle or shotgun openly in public (in fact it must be openly carried as to be visible) so, they didn't violate a law there. Georgia has a "Stand your ground law", so if Arbery did in fact attack and attempt to take the gun away, McMichaels had the right to defend himself. There could be other factors that render these things legally moot, but I haven't seen them yet.

[oxmixmudd]

If we look at it from a strictly legal standpoint it's conceivable that the McMichaels could be found not guilty. (provided a truly impartial jury could be empaneled) After looking at it, Georgia has similar laws to Texas. For instance, it's perfectly legal to carry a rifle or shotgun openly in public (in fact it must be openly carried as to be visible) so, they didn't violate a law there. Georgia has a "Stand your ground law", so if Arbery did in fact attack and attempt to take the gun away, McMichaels had the right to defend himself. There could be other factors that render these things legally moot, but I haven't seen them yet.

And the fact they were chasing him, were attempting to stop him, had hit him with the truck, means nothing? Is this something you hope for? If so - why?

They are clearly the aggressors here. For them to get off would truly be a travesty of justice.

[Mountain Man]

If we look at it from a strictly legal standpoint it's conceivable that the McMichaels could be found not guilty. (provided a truly impartial jury could be empaneled) After looking at it, Georgia has similar laws to Texas. For instance, it's perfectly legal to carry a rifle or shotgun openly in public (in fact it must be openly carried as to be visible) so, they didn't violate a law there. Georgia has a "Stand your ground law", so if Arbery did in fact attack and attempt to take the gun away, McMichaels had the right to defend himself. There could be other factors that render these things legally moot, but I haven't seen them yet.

I agree. It's a complex case, certainly more complex than some people are willing to admit. I suspect there are some facts that we're not even aware of that won't come out until the trial, assuming there even if a trial and they don't simply plead to a lesser charge.

[MaxVel]

If we look at it from a strictly legal standpoint it's conceivable that the McMichaels could be found not guilty. (provided a truly impartial jury could be empaneled) After looking at it, Georgia has similar laws to Texas. For instance, it's perfectly legal to carry a rifle or shotgun openly in public (in fact it must be openly carried as to be visible) so, they didn't violate a law there. Georgia has a "Stand your ground law", so if Arbery did in fact attack and attempt to take the gun away, McMichaels had the right to defend himself. There could be other factors that render these things legally moot, but I haven't seen them yet.

It's my understanding that entering a property with intent to steal (i.e. then or at a later time) is a felony, which would then give legal grounds for a citizen's arrest.... i.e. detaining a person until law enforcement arrives. So it's possible that there were legal grounds for the McMichaels to arrest Arbery

It appears that Arbery hit or was hit by the side of the truck of the person who filmed the incident. Not by tye McMichaels. Because it was the side of the vehicle it seems unlikely that the driver hit Arbery, unless he turned close in front of him, trying to cut him off...? We don't seem to have any footage of that...