Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Nov 25, 2021 12:44 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Aside from public defenders, defense attorneys are often whoever the person can afford, and well, you get what you pay for. Even one of the Rittenhouse attorneys wasn't the sharpest. But the video does show that Arbery wasn't shot until he attacked and tried to take the gun. And saying Arbery was "cornered," "blocked," and "cut-off" fives times, while the video shows they didn't have him trapped, belies that Arbery had no other choice but to attack an armed man.

How does anyone watch that video, without leftist media commentary, and not see Arbery literally attacking and trying to take the gun? Anyone who has taken any gun safety/self-defense training knows you do anything to keep someone from getting your gun, as you have no idea if they will turn it on you or other innocent bystanders.

It appeared in the video that the three defendants were waiting for Arbery as he looked to be casually jogging down the street. One guy standing in the back of a pickup truck with a handgun, the other outside with his shotgun. (the third defendant recording the scene behind the pick up truck)

Why did they feel the need to do this? Why were they aggressively confronting him? Arbery didn’t pose a threat until he came at one of the defendants who had the shotgun. Yes, they struggled and it can appear like Arbery could have gained possession of the gun. But what happened was Arbery was shot and wounded during the struggle, and posed no threat as he let go of the shotgun at that moment. The defendant standing in the pickup truck then shot Arbery, and he lay in the street.

Had they called 911 after Arbery was shot by the shotgun, he may have survived. He was not a threat because he was wounded and moving away from that defendant. After that, he was fatally shot by the defendant in the truck.

Our justice system has flaws but think the jury got it right today.

Syne Wrote:..and if they wanted to get to him first

Can you show where I suggested or implied they wanted to get to him first? Did I not post that as far as they were concerned (they assumed) they were working with the police? If you are working with the police then of course you keep the police informed.

---

Leigha Wrote:He was not a threat because he was wounded and moving away from that defendant. After that, he was fatally shot by the defendant in the truck.

And there you have it.

(Nov 25, 2021 01:30 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]

Syne Wrote:..and if they wanted to get to him first

Can you show where I suggested or implied they wanted to get to him first? Did I not post that as far as they were concerned (they assumed) they were working with the police? If you are working with the police then of course you keep the police informed.

---

Leigha Wrote:He was not a threat because he was wounded and moving away from that defendant. After that, he was fatally shot by the defendant in the truck.

And there you have it.

Sorry, that was something the legal analysts were discussing, that the guy in the pick up had a handgun. My bad - I thought he fired his gun, too. So edit - Arbery was killed by the shotgun - two shots in the chest and one grazed his wrist. That said, he can be seen in the extended video shown in court that he was moving away from the defendant who held the shotgun after being shot.

There was no legal reason for those defendants to pursue Arbery in such an aggressive way and ultimately take his life. There was no proof that Arbery committed theft in their neighborhood which supposedly that is the excuse they used for going after him.

(Nov 25, 2021 01:24 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]It appeared in the video that the three defendants were waiting for Arbery as he looked to be casually jogging down the street. One guy standing in the back of a pickup truck with a handgun, the other outside with his shotgun. (the third defendant recording the scene behind the pick up truck)

Why did they feel the need to do this? Arbery didn’t pose a threat until he came at one of the defendants who had the shotgun. Yes, they struggled and it can appear like Arbery could have gained possession of the gun. But what happened was Arbery was shot and wounded, and posed no threat as he let go of the shotgun at that moment. The defendant standing in the pickup truck then shot Arbery, and he lay in the street.

Had they called 911 after Arbery was shot by the shotgun, he may have survived. He was not a threat because he was wounded and moving away from that defendant. After that, he was fatally shot by the defendant in the truck.

Our justice system has flaws but think the jury got it right today.

Where on earth are you finding videos of the incident where gunshots can be heard after Arbery has stopped advancing or going for the gun?! Because that would be altered video of the raw footage: https://www.news4jax.com/video/news/2020...ud-arbery/
Or have you just read a description somewhere and taken it as gospel truth without see it yourself? Or is your perception so faulty that you can't apprehend a simple sequence of events?

Just moments earlier, Arbery very suspiciously entered a house under construction and then bolted out the door and down the street. Not exactly a "casual jog."

Notice how he stops and checks if the coast is clear before entering. Or can you not perceive that either?
How about the neighbor, walking out, seeing him enter, and calling the police before he takes off running: https://youtu.be/tNwVuRJnvgc?t=46

They thought they were being neighborhood watch, where laws do allow for citizen's arrest. They didn't shoot him until after he attacked them and stopped shooting as soon as he was no longer a threat. If they intended to kill him, they would have simple kept shooting.

The one with the handgun never shot him. All three shots came from the shotgun he was trying to grab: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_...ry#Autopsy

Greg McMichael called 911 right before the shooting, and police arrived, from the earlier 911 call, immediately after the shooting. There was no time to call before police arrived.

So let's see how many facts you got completely wrong there:

1. No shots were fired after Arbery was no longer a threat.
2. Arbery seemed to be running from a property he trespassed on, not "casually jogging," other than perhaps being tired from running.
3. The man with the handgun never shot Arbery.
4. Arbery was only shot with the shotgun he tried to grab.
5. They not only called 911 beforehand, they had no time to call again after the shooting before police arrived on the scene.

And you have the gall to pretend like you have any idea what you're opining and passing moral judgement on. Shame on you. You actually call yourself a Christian?!

---

(Nov 25, 2021 01:30 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]

Syne Wrote:..and if they wanted to get to him first

Can you show where I suggested or implied they wanted to get to him first? Did I not post that as far as they were concerned (they assumed) they were working with the police? If you are working with the police then of course you keep the police informed.

Right here:

(Nov 25, 2021 12:45 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]'they' probably assumed the police would shoot Arbery if they didn't get him first

What, already forget what you posted?

(Nov 25, 2021 02:25 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, that was something the legal analysts were discussing, that the guy in the pick up had a handgun. My bad - I thought he fired his gun, too. So edit - Arbery was killed by the shotgun - two shots in the chest and one grazed his wrist. That said, he can be seen in the extended video shown in court that he was moving away from the defendant who held the shotgun after being shot.

There was no legal reason for those defendants to pursue Arbery in such an aggressive way and ultimately take his life. There was no proof that Arbery committed theft in their neighborhood which supposedly that is the excuse they used for going after him.

Yes, after being shot. IOW, he wasn't shot after he was no longer a threat.

Pursuing Arbery under the notion that they were conducting a legal citizen's arrest. Yes, their assumption that a felony had been committed (that time, even though there's evidence of past burglaries at that same house, with Arbery trespassing on surveillance video) was faulty, but that doesn't make them guilty of intentional homicide. The only direct aggression in evidence is from Arbery. They didn't even have him cornered.

The charges and conviction simply don't fit the crime. I cannot find any reference that says brandishing a firearm or bullying/intimidation is a felony. Only that brandishing is a misdemeanor.

I corrected my mistake above in response to confused. Just because you don’t like the verdict doesn’t mean the jury got it wrong. But, juries only go by the evidence. No matter what we’ve read, watched etc they were in the courtroom and it is insulting to them to suggest their verdicts were not a product of considerate deliberation.

I’m not passing moral judgement just agreeing with the jury’s verdicts. You’re actually passing moral judgement on the jury as if they were swayed by the media or the leftist politics. I posted above that they had no legal reason to pursue Arbery in an aggressive way. They didn’t and that was how the jury saw it, as well.

I also thought the jury got it right in the Rittenhouse case. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this case.

(Nov 25, 2021 03:16 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I corrected my mistake above in response to confused. Just because you don’t like the verdict doesn’t mean the jury got it wrong. But, juries only go by the evidence. No matter what we’ve read, watched etc they were in the courtroom and it is insulting to them to suggest their verdicts were not a product of considerate deliberation.

No, they don't. Juries are not well-educated in the law. They go by their own gut feelings, experiences, biases, previous media exposure, etc., which is why jury selection is so important to any case. https://youtu.be/9RYJAz5o11U?t=354

Three days before Christmas, a New York jury told their judge they were deadlocked after deliberating for more than 11 hours. Judge Barbara Kahn ordered them to continue deliberating and said they would return the next day if they did not reach a verdict. An hour later, the jury found the defendant, John White, guilty of manslaughter. Two jurors reportedly were leaning toward acquittal but changed their minds because of the judge's orders and hostile fellow jurors.

The defendant's attorneys are considering an appeal, stating that the judge's order influenced the verdict by unfairly pressuring jurors who were in the minority (i.e., favoring an acquittal). Psychological research concerning social and time pressure indicate that these concerns may have merit.
...
More broadly, this research suggests that minority jurors are not conforming based on informational influence (i.e., because they are actually persuaded), but because of normative influence (i.e., because of social pressure).
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/03/jn

Social pressure is not going "by the evidence."

---

(Nov 25, 2021 03:16 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I’m not passing moral judgement just agreeing with the jury’s verdicts. You’re actually passing moral judgement on the jury as if they were swayed by the media or the leftist politics.

I also thought the jury got it right in the Rittenhouse case. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this case.

You are passing moral judgement, and obviously without even knowing all the facts, as you agree with condemning these men for murder.
Anyone with half a brain should agree on the Rittenhouse verdict. The prosecutor's witnesses all made the case for his acquittal.

We''ll have to agree that you're ignorant of the facts and rely on others to tell you who should be condemned.

Confused2 Wrote:'they' probably assumed the police would shoot Arbery if they didn't get him first

I don't see this as suggesting they wanted to get him before the police did - only a reasonable belief on their part that either way Arbery would end up dead.

(Nov 25, 2021 02:52 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 25, 2021 01:24 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]It appeared in the video that the three defendants were waiting for Arbery as he looked to be casually jogging down the street. One guy standing in the back of a pickup truck with a handgun, the other outside with his shotgun. (the third defendant recording the scene behind the pick up truck)

Why did they feel the need to do this? Arbery didn’t pose a threat until he came at one of the defendants who had the shotgun. Yes, they struggled and it can appear like Arbery could have gained possession of the gun. But what happened was Arbery was shot and wounded, and posed no threat as he let go of the shotgun at that moment. The defendant standing in the pickup truck then shot Arbery, and he lay in the street.

Had they called 911 after Arbery was shot by the shotgun, he may have survived. He was not a threat because he was wounded and moving away from that defendant. After that, he was fatally shot by the defendant in the truck.

Our justice system has flaws but think the jury got it right today.

Where on earth are you finding videos of the incident where gunshots can be heard after Arbery has stopped advancing or going for the gun?! Because that would be altered video of the raw footage: https://www.news4jax.com/video/news/2020...ud-arbery/
Or have you just read a description somewhere and taken it as gospel truth without see it yourself? Or is your perception so faulty that you can't apprehend a simple sequence of events?

Just moments earlier, Arbery very suspiciously entered a house under construction and then bolted out the door and down the street. Not exactly a "casual jog."

Notice how he stops and checks if the coast is clear before entering. Or can you not perceive that either?
How about the neighbor, walking out, seeing him enter, and calling the police before he takes off running: https://youtu.be/tNwVuRJnvgc?t=46

They thought they were being neighborhood watch, where laws do allow for citizen's arrest. They didn't shoot him until after he attacked them and stopped shooting as soon as he was no longer a threat. If they intended to kill him, they would have simple kept shooting.

The one with the handgun never shot him. All three shots came from the shotgun he was trying to grab: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_...ry#Autopsy

Greg McMichael called 911 right before the shooting, and police arrived, from the earlier 911 call, immediately after the shooting. There was no time to call before police arrived.

So let's see how many facts you got completely wrong there:

1. No shots were fired after Arbery was no longer a threat.
2. Arbery seemed to be running from a property he trespassed on, not "casually jogging," other than perhaps being tired from running.
3. The man with the handgun never shot Arbery.
4. Arbery was only shot with the shotgun he tried to grab.
5. They not only called 911 beforehand, they had no time to call again after the shooting before police arrived on the scene.

And you have the gall to pretend like you have any idea what you're opining and passing moral judgement on. Shame on you. You actually call yourself a Christian?!

---

(Nov 25, 2021 01:30 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]

Syne Wrote:..and if they wanted to get to him first

Can you show where I suggested or implied they wanted to get to him first? Did I not post that as far as they were concerned (they assumed) they were working with the police? If you are working with the police then of course you keep the police informed.

Right here:

(Nov 25, 2021 12:45 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]'they' probably assumed the police would shoot Arbery if they didn't get him first

What, already forget what you posted?

(Nov 25, 2021 02:25 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, that was something the legal analysts were discussing, that the guy in the pick up had a handgun. My bad - I thought he fired his gun, too. So edit - Arbery was killed by the shotgun - two shots in the chest and one grazed his wrist. That said, he can be seen in the extended video shown in court that he was moving away from the defendant who held the shotgun after being shot.

There was no legal reason for those defendants to pursue Arbery in such an aggressive way and ultimately take his life. There was no proof that Arbery committed theft in their neighborhood which supposedly that is the excuse they used for going after him.

Yes, after being shot. IOW, he wasn't shot after he was no longer a threat.

Pursuing Arbery under the notion that they were conducting a legal citizen's arrest. Yes, their assumption that a felony had been committed (that time, even though there's evidence of past burglaries at that same house, with Arbery trespassing on surveillance video) was faulty, but that doesn't make them guilty of intentional homicide. The only direct aggression in evidence is from Arbery. They didn't even have him cornered.

The charges and conviction simply don't fit the crime. I cannot find any reference that says brandishing a firearm or bullying/intimidation is a felony. Only that brandishing is a misdemeanor.

Arbery may have felt his life was in danger so he began the struggle with one of the defendants for the shotgun. I’m not saying it makes sense, but maybe it made sense to him at the time.

What do you think Arbery should have done? These weren’t police officers, Arbery was unarmed and didn’t seem to be a threat to anyone...why should he stop running at their request?

---

(Nov 25, 2021 03:27 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 25, 2021 03:16 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I corrected my mistake above in response to confused. Just because you don’t like the verdict doesn’t mean the jury got it wrong. But, juries only go by the evidence. No matter what we’ve read, watched etc they were in the courtroom and it is insulting to them to suggest their verdicts were not a product of considerate deliberation.

No, they don't. Juries are not well-educated in the law. They go by their own gut feelings, experiences, biases, previous media exposure, etc., which is why jury selection is so important to any case. https://youtu.be/9RYJAz5o11U?t=354

Three days before Christmas, a New York jury told their judge they were deadlocked after deliberating for more than 11 hours. Judge Barbara Kahn ordered them to continue deliberating and said they would return the next day if they did not reach a verdict. An hour later, the jury found the defendant, John White, guilty of manslaughter. Two jurors reportedly were leaning toward acquittal but changed their minds because of the judge's orders and hostile fellow jurors.

The defendant's attorneys are considering an appeal, stating that the judge's order influenced the verdict by unfairly pressuring jurors who were in the minority (i.e., favoring an acquittal). Psychological research concerning social and time pressure indicate that these concerns may have merit.
...
More broadly, this research suggests that minority jurors are not conforming based on informational influence (i.e., because they are actually persuaded), but because of normative influence (i.e., because of social pressure).
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/03/jn

Social pressure is not going "by the evidence."

---

(Nov 25, 2021 03:16 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I’m not passing moral judgement just agreeing with the jury’s verdicts. You’re actually passing moral judgement on the jury as if they were swayed by the media or the leftist politics.

I also thought the jury got it right in the Rittenhouse case. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this case.

You are passing moral judgement, and obviously without even knowing all the facts, as you agree with condemning these men for murder.
Anyone with half a brain should agree on the Rittenhouse verdict. The prosecutor's witnesses all made the case for his acquittal.

We''ll have to agree that you're ignorant of the facts and rely on others to tell you who should be condemned.

This case has nothing to do with me. They were found guilty by a jury of their peers. So, do you think they reached the wrong verdict? If so, what is their motive for finding them guilty? Did they not pay attention enough during the trial or do you feel they were swayed by public opinion?

Edit - I see you’ve answered some of this above. You felt similarly (about the jury) in the Chauvin trial. Then in your eyes, the jury system is deeply flawed if it keeps getting verdicts wrong? The only thing I’d like to see is juries being sequestered in high profile cases - both to steer clear of any outside influence and for their own safety. But they do their best, I’d like to believe that anyway.

Quote:...why should he stop running at their request?

Why should he keep running? Syne can probably help here. A moving target is more difficult to hit with a rifle or handgun. A shotgun uses pellets which spread out and lose velocity with distance and are much less likely to be fatal than when fired at close range. Whatever firearm is being used your best friends are cover and distance. The report I read suggests he was killed without cover and nowhere to run. Under those circumstances the only way out was get control of a gun - it makes perfect sense. With no other choice he gambled the guy with the shotgun wasn't insane and wouldn't fire or the gun would misfire or wasn't loaded - and lost.

(Nov 25, 2021 04:09 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:...why should he stop running at their request?

Why should he keep running? Syne can probably help here. A moving target is more difficult to hit with a rifle or handgun. A shotgun uses pellets which spread out and lose velocity with distance and are much less likely to be fatal than when fired at close range. Whatever firearm is being used your best friends are cover and distance. The report I read suggests he was killed without cover and nowhere to run. Under those circumstances the only way out was get control of a gun - it makes perfect sense.  With no other choice he gambled the guy with the shotgun wasn't insane and wouldn't fire or the gun would misfire or wasn't loaded - and lost.

In the video, he was casually running up the street and going past one of the defendant’s trucks on its right side. I wonder why he didn’t just keep jogging (from that point on) - instead he made a left as he likely saw a shotgun pointed in his direction, and the struggle began...

The prosecution put it well - “You can’t claim self-defense if you are the unjustified aggressor,” Linda Dunikoski said. “Who started this? It wasn’t Ahmaud Arbery.”
(https://nowthisnews.com/news/defendants-...cutor-says)

From the article:

Dunikoski said Tuesday that the McMichaels and Bryan threatened Arbery both with their pickup trucks and by pointing a shotgun at him before the final confrontation in which Arbery threw punches and grabbed for the gun.

She also said there was no evidence Arbery had committed crimes in the defendants’ neighborhood. She said he was never seen stealing anything the five times he was recorded by security cameras in an unfinished home under construction from which he was seen running.

“You’ve got lumber, you’ve got all this stuff,” Dunikoski said. “Mr. Arbery never shows up with a bag. He doesn’t pull up with a U-haul. ... All he does is wander around for a few minutes and then leave.”

The prosecutor told jurors someone can only make a citizen’s arrest in “emergency situations” where a crime is happening “right then and there.”



Either way, it’s not a moral issue or judgement, it’s a legal one. From the evidence, they were convicted by a jury of their peers. If we stop believing that the system works, where do we go from here as a society?