Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, WOW....

A lawyer for one of the three White men accused of the fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery came under fire Monday for highlighting the slain man's "dirty toenails" in her closing argument.

"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," Lauren Hogue told the panel, referring to a description from the autopsy report.

The comment prompted Arbery's mother Wanda Cooper-Jones to exclaim "Wow!" and exit the Glynn County courtroom in Georgia.

[Mountain Man]

What a dumb thing to say. Aurbury's personal hygiene has nothing at all to do with this case, and if the defense thought that was relevant enough to mention during closing arguments then things may not go well for the McMichaels during deliberations.

[rogue06]

What a dumb thing to say. Aurbury's personal hygiene has nothing at all to do with this case, and if the defense thought that was relevant enough to mention during closing arguments then things may not go well for the McMichaels during deliberations.

It looks like he was trying to make Aurbury out as physically repellant as possible and thus less sympathetic but he definitely did no favors for his clients with that.

[Sparko]

Yeah, WOW....

A lawyer for one of the three White men accused of the fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery came under fire Monday for highlighting the slain man's "dirty toenails" in her closing argument.

"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," Lauren Hogue told the panel, referring to a description from the autopsy report.

The comment prompted Arbery's mother Wanda Cooper-Jones to exclaim "Wow!" and exit the Glynn County courtroom in Georgia.

The defense lawyer did them no favors with that closing.

I am thinking that these guys did start it and the guy was only trying to get away when they chased him down. Then he tried to fight the guy with the gun and lost. Arbery was the one who was defending himself.

[Cow Poke]

The defense lawyer did them no favors with that closing.

I am thinking that these guys did start it and the guy was only trying to get away when they chased him down. Then he tried to fight the guy with the gun and lost. Arbery was the one who was defending himself.

I wouldn't fault them for keeping an eye on him while waiting for police to respond, but, yeah.... I can't see how they won't be found guilty.

[tabibito]

Jury is deliberating - it will be interesting to see.

Prosecution wraps up by claiming you can't claim self-defense if you're the one who initiated the confrontation. WAY different than Rittenhouse situation.

Eh? Somebody called me a nasty name so I bludgeoned him to death - he initiated the confrontation, so it's his fault. I can't see that working as a defence.
I called him a nasty name and he came at me with a knife so I shot him. Self defence - but there should be something "I" could be charged with. Public affray maybe?

[rogue06]

I wouldn't fault them for keeping an eye on him while waiting for police to respond, but, yeah.... I can't see how they won't be found guilty.

And that could have been done from a short distance without ever physically confronting him.

As already pointed out by some very wise men (or is it wise guys?):

They should have followed and maintained contact with the police. Period. There was no need for a confrontation.

They should have followed and maintained contact with the police. Period. There was no need for a confrontation.

[rogue06]

Eh? Somebody called me a nasty name so I bludgeoned him to death - he initiated the confrontation, so it's his fault. I can't see that working as a defence.
I called him a nasty name and he came at me with a knife so I shot him. Self defence - but there should be something "I" could be charged with. Public affray maybe?

A few years back in Atlanta, an elderly man plowed into a car sitting at a red light. The driver of the struck car got out of the car waving his arms around screaming. Obviously he was angry. As he approached the other car, the elderly man pulled out a pistol and shot him through the front windshield resulting in that person's death.

It was ruled self defense.

None of the news reports alleged that the person shot was threatening the driver -- just that he was obviously angry and shouting.

If there were no threats being issued and he was still in front of the shooter's car, I strongly disagree with this finding.


ETA: Since someone might ask, I believe both men were black, so race doesn't come into play.

[tabibito]

A few years back in Atlanta, an elderly man plowed into a car sitting at a red light. The driver of the struck car got out of the car waving his arms around screaming. Obviously he was angry. As he approached the other car, the elderly man pulled out a pistol and shot him through the front windshield resulting in that person's death.

It was ruled self defense.

None of the news reports alleged that the person shot was threatening the driver -- just that he was obviously angry and shouting.

If there were no threats being issued and he was still in front of the shooter's car, I strongly disagree with this finding.


ETA: Since someone might ask, I believe both men were black, so race doesn't come into play.

It could be ruled that the shooter had just cause (subjectively, which is what counts) to fear for his safety I suppose - but it still seems to be an odd decision.

[Sparko]

Generally the response has to be reasonable force to stop the threat. So shooting someone for calling you names would not be reasonable force. Shooting someone who you believed was trying to beat you to death would be reasonable force.

[rogue06]

It could be ruled that the shooter had just cause (subjectively, which is what counts) to fear for his safety I suppose - but it still seems to be an odd decision.

That was the rationalization, but the guy was basically shot dead for being upset with someone and getting out of his car. Given that the shooter shot through his front windshield means that the victim was not in a position to be threatening. Sort of like shooting some on the other side of the street who is yelling at you.

Not justified.

[Sparko]

That was the rationalization, but the guy was basically shot dead for being upset with someone and getting out of his car. Given that the shooter shot through his front windshield means that the victim was not in a position to be threatening. Sort of like shooting some on the other side of the street who is yelling at you.

Not justified.

Yup. that was a bad decision. You never can tell with juries.

[Cow Poke]

That was the rationalization, but the guy was basically shot dead for being upset with someone and getting out of his car. Given that the shooter shot through his front windshield means that the victim was not in a position to be threatening. Sort of like shooting some on the other side of the street who is yelling at you.

Not justified.

Yeah, the guy would have been better off rolling up his windows and locking his doors.

[rogue06]

Yup. that was a bad decision. You never can tell with juries.

Never went to a jury. It was declared to be self-defense on the spot.

[rogue06]

Yeah, the guy would have been better off rolling up his windows and locking his doors.

Or just showing that he was armed if he kept approaching.