Ahmaud Arbery murder case

[Milwaukee]

I agree. But im curious, Why do you think the shooters will walk after the trial?

I think their lawyers are gonna exploit ridiculous loopholes and wording in the stand your ground laws and open carry laws, etc. Hope I’m wrong, I’ll be following the trial closely.

 

[Dpjacket]

What does this have to do with the incident that happened in February?

Glad you asked.

What it has to do with this thread is the immediate characterization from the media of the glamour high school photo shot to insinuate the choir boy image against mug shots. It’s the continued contortion of media to control a narrative, which of course extends far beyond this incident.

What it has to do with February is that this guy set in motion by choice and his actions a series of events that culminated in a confrontation by people tired of it, and in that confrontation appears (disclaimer: to be discovered in trial) to attack, which ultimately ended in his death.

So let’s not digress or ignore that this potential was set in motion long before February.

Although there is already and clearly a guilty sentiment before the trial.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

I think their lawyers are gonna exploit ridiculous loopholes and wording in the stand your ground laws and open carry laws, etc. Hope I’m wrong, I’ll be following the trial closely.

I think Mcmichael gets convicted of the lesser charge of Involuntary Manslaughter since I really don't see the death of Arbery as intentional or premeditated. I agree with others that this will be an ugly trial all the way around.

 

[A Love Supreme]

I think their lawyers are gonna exploit ridiculous loopholes and wording in the stand your ground laws and open carry laws, etc. Hope I’m wrong, I’ll be following the trial closely.

That's what i was thinking too. Unfortunately.

 

[Dpjacket]

This is the sort of stuff that is going to be included in the trial, trying to make a case against his character. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but it’s the way our court system operates. To answer your question (and I’ve seen hundreds of others asking the same question), it doesn’t have anything to do with his murder in February. That’s the answer to your question, but it’s still going to be brought up in court. When a prostitute gets raped the defense lawyers are going to bring up the fact that she is a prostitute even though she was actually raped in that instance. Our court system can be crazy af. Everything Arbery has ever done is going to be brought up in court, right wrong or otherwise. And every single instance of him being a great person will be brought up by the DA and some people will ask “but what does him doing a good deed years ago have to do with happened in February?”

The trial is gonna be nuts.

You’re exactly right. And sometimes “what goes around comes around” and “live in the fast lane die in the fast lane”. It happens all the time.

Where I equivocally draw the line against is the associated narrative about this that the country is inherently racist and, otherwise, just as it were 100 yrs ago. That’s the bigger picture, imo, of what many are looking to project.

While at the same time, I might add and also imo, the prevalent problem amid young black men to be civil, who plague even mostly their own neighborhoods.

So when this incident is done and finished we’ll acknowledge there are bubbas and there are thugs. And we’re not going to give EITHER one of them a pass on continuing to **** up this country.

 

[Dpjacket]

I think Mcmichael gets convicted of the lesser charge of Involuntary Manslaughter since I really don't see the death of Arbery as intentional or premeditated. I agree with others that this will be an ugly trial all the way around.

Yep —^. They’ll have to come away with something. It won’t be cold-blooded murder. But it will have to be something to assuage.

But then that won’t assuage anything really.

 

[A Love Supreme]

Glad you asked.

What it has to do with this thread is the immediate characterization from the media of the glamour high school photo shot to insinuate the choir boy image against mug shots. It’s the continued contortion of media to control a narrative, which of course extends far beyond this incident.

What it has to do with February is that this guy set in motion by choice and his actions a series of events that culminated in a confrontation by people tired of it, and in that confrontation appears (disclaimer: to be discovered in trial) to attack, which ultimately ended in his death.

So let’s not digress or ignore that this potential was set in motion long before February.

Although there is already and clearly a guilty sentiment before the trial.

Let me try to understand you. Are you saying because of that incident with the police years ago, Arbery deserved to die at the hand of two non police officers when he wasn't even committing a crime?

 

[Dpjacket]

Let me try to understand you. Are you saying because of that incident with the police years ago, Arbery deserved to die at the hand of two non police officers when he wasn't even committing a crime?

I didn’t ever say “deserved”. See, that’s where so many of you have gotten your panties in a wad.

Neither am I saying the white guys — yeah, this is really just about black guy dying at the hands of white guys — are innocent.

What I’ll keep iterating is that personal choices and actions may ultimately end in a unfortunate scene. That’s what this is. Period. And it repeats again and again every day because humans are flawed or just damned stupid.

 

[MWBATL]

I just want a thorough investigation and justice for all American citizens, no matter their race, color, or creed.

And that should include the initial handling of this case by our justice system.

 

[A Love Supreme]

I didn’t ever say “deserved”. See, that’s where so many of you have gotten your panties in a wad.

Neither am I saying the white guys — yeah, this is really just about black guy dying at the hands of white guys — are innocent.

What I’ll keep iterating is that personal choices and actions may ultimately end in a unfortunate scene. That’s what this is. Period. And it repeats again and again every day because humans are flawed or just damned stupid.

What personal choices and actions was Arbery doing that day in February that caused those two guys to confront him? Arbery was just jogging.

 

[Dpjacket]

What personal choices and actions was Arbery doing that day in February that caused those two guys to confront him? Arbery was just jogging.

And that’s a deep as you can think and consider the backdrop of what preceded? That’s just willful simplification and gross ignorance.

 

[RonJohn]

All I’m going to say is they better not over charge this thing. The Mcmichaels walk as they should on a first degree murder charge.

There is no "first degree" murder in Georgia. There is"malice murder" when you kill someone with malice, and there is "felony murder" when you kill someone in the commission of a felony.

In this case they have charged them with aggravated assault, which is a felony, and felony murder. It doesn't require malice or intent to kill, just that someone dies during or as the result of commission of a felony.

 

[RonJohn]

Glad you asked.

What it has to do with this thread is the immediate characterization from the media of the glamour high school photo shot to insinuate the choir boy image against mug shots. It’s the continued contortion of media to control a narrative, which of course extends far beyond this incident.

What it has to do with February is that this guy set in motion by choice and his actions a series of events that culminated in a confrontation by people tired of it, and in that confrontation appears (disclaimer: to be discovered in trial) to attack, which ultimately ended in his death.

So let’s not digress or ignore that this potential was set in motion long before February.

Although there is already and clearly a guilty sentiment before the trial.

You are arguing against a narrative that is being painted in the media.

However arguments don't for in with Georgia law with respect to the incident in February. Even if the person shoot had been a convicted murderer that everyone in the town knew to be bad news, there is nothing that happened that legally authorized Travis McMichael to attempt to detain him. There is nothing that legally authorized Travis McMichael to utilize a gun in the attempt to detain him. Protesters can argue he was a saint. you can argue that he was a villain. However, that argument doesn't affect whether or not McMichael actions were legal or not.

 

[Dpjacket]

There is no "first degree" murder in Georgia. There is"malice murder" when you kill someone with malice, and there is "felony murder" when you kill someone in the commission of a felony.

In this case they have charged them with aggravated assault, which is a felony, and felony murder. It doesn't require malice or intent to kill, just that someone dies during or as the result of commission of a felony.

So, do you think the charges will go, 1) aggravated assault, because you can’t go around pointing guns at people, +2) felony murder because someone died @1?

Just asking, really. Does one charge guilty lead another charge of guilty?

 

[Dpjacket]

You are arguing against a narrative that is being painted in the media.

HoweveryHowever arguments don't for in with Georgia law with respect to the incident in February. Even if the person shoot had been a convicted murderer that everyone in the town knew to be bad news, there is nothing that happened that legally authorized Travis McMichael to attempt to detain him. There is nothing that legally authorized Travis McMichael to utilize a gun in the attempt to detain him. Protesters can argue he was a saint. you can argue that he was a villain. However, that argument doesn't affect whether or not McMichael actions were legal or not.

Yes, I hear what you’re saying (and for sure we’ve all read it from you about a dozen+ times on the thread).

I guess my question — and I posted similarly a sec ago — does one lead to another?

In other words, could McMichaels be found guilty of whatever is “illegal pursuit”, but decidedly not murder? (or, guilty of manslaughter at most?).

If just the former I doubt the sentence would satisfy the “hang them” crowd — because, of course, all they see is the video.

 

[RonJohn]

So, do you think the charges will go, 1) aggravated assault, because you can’t go around pointing guns at people, +2) felony murder because someone died @1?

Just asking, really. Does one charge guilty lead another charge of guilty?

That is what they have already charged them with. You can't get a felony murder conviction without an underlying felony. They have been charged with aggravated assault. Since a death resulted from the alleged felony, they were also charged with feeling murder. I don't know if they have gotten indictments yet or not.

I am not a lawyer, and I don't know if they can get lesser chargers included at trial or not. If manslaughter is included, I don't see how a jury could not decide that the McMichaels at least pushed things further than they should have and the death resulted from that.

 

[RonJohn]

Yes, I hear what you’re saying (and for sure we’ve all read it from you about a dozen+ times on the thread).

I guess my question — and I posted similarly a sec ago — does one lead to another?

In other words, could McMichaels be found guilty of whatever is “illegal pursuit”, but decidedly not murder? (or, guilty of manslaughter at most?).

If just the former I doubt the sentence would satisfy the “hang them” crowd — because, of course, all they see is the video.

Once again the I'm not a lawyer disclaimer. Juries are unpredictable. Things depend on what evidence gets entered, what specific instructions are given to the jury, and the people in the jury. They could find them guilty of assault, but decide that the assault and the death are not related. They could not find them guilty of felony murder unless they found them guilty of some felony.

 

[A Love Supreme]

And that’s a deep as you can think and consider the backdrop of what preceded? That’s just willful simplification and gross ignorance.

What are you talking about backdrop of what preceded?
I'm asking you what crime was Arbery committing that day?

 

[Dpjacket]

Once again the I'm not a lawyer disclaimer. Juries are unpredictable. Things depend on what evidence gets entered, what specific instructions are given to the jury, and the people in the jury. They could find them guilty of assault, but decide that the assault and the death are not related. They could not find them guilty of felony murder unless they found them guilty of some felony.

Thanks. Really. You definitely would have a grasp of the law and legal matters than I. So ... Thanks.

It’s a shame the law isn’t more cut and dry. To your point, it often seems more about the presentation and competence of the litigators — not to mention the jurors....which would scare the hell out of me — than the Law.

In contrast to your earlier posts, though: Don’t you wonder, though, that outside of the obvious that McMichaels had guns and did pursue....was there intent to kill? But only when (it appears) physically attacked that a shot went off? Seems that’s going to be central in this.

disclaimer: I personally have no problem with the pursuit, especially in of the video and 911 call. don’t know what statutes say about the guns vis-a-vis “protecting property”.

 

[Dpjacket]

What are you talking about backdrop of what preceded?
I'm asking you what crime was Arbery committing that day?

You seem to believe that this just a random young black dude out for an afternoon jog.

Other social media shows a break in, which was preceded by other break ins.

There seems to have been a 911 call regarding the young breaking in.

You seem to only consider the young man was killed purposefully. You probably believe that the white guys are absolute racists.

All of this is either your projection or lack of information.

Your question of “what crime did he commit that day” is just silly rhetoric.