Random thoughts/comments

C C Offline
February flashbacks in time

February 26, 2012: The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him [Trayvon Martin]. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that."
- - - - - -

February 23, 2020 ... Murder of Ahmaud Arbery: Gregory McMichael said he was in his yard when he saw an unidentified man running by. ... He called to his son Travis ... The McMichaels said they pursued the man because he resembled a suspect in a string of local burglaries.

[...] Gregory McMichael, age 64, previously worked as a GCPD officer from 1982 to 1989, and as an investigator for the Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office from 1995 to his retirement in May 2019. In 2018, McMichael led the investigation that resulted in Arbery’s probation being revoked.

Gregory McMichael previously investigated victim Ahmaud Arbery: When he was in high school, Arbery was sentenced to five years probation as a first offender on charges of carrying a weapon on campus and several counts of obstructing a law enforcement officer. He was convicted of probation violation in 2018 after he was charged with shoplifting, court documents show.

Gregory McMichael, who retired from the DA’s office in April 2019, made no mention of his work on that investigation to police, though it’s unknown whether he remembered it at the time.

[...] In his letter of recusal to Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney Roger Barnhill wrote that his son, a prosecutor in the Brunswick DA’s office, and McMichael, then an investigator in that same office, “both helped with the previous prosecution of (Ahmaud) Arbery.”

[...] “This family are not strangers to the local criminal justice system,” Barnhill wrote in his letter to Carr. “From best we can tell, Ahmaud’s older brother has gone to prison in the past and is currently in the Glynn jail, without bond, awaiting new felony prosecution. It also appears a cousin has been prosecuted by DA Johnson’s office.”

Merritt questioned what that had to do with Arbery’s shooting. “This speaks to the wider issue of mass incarceration,” Merritt said. “If Black people have any kind of criminal record, somehow that justifies their murder.

Meanwhile, a Brunswick criminal defence lawyer on Thursday said he released the explosive video showing Arbery’s shooting.

“There had been very little information provided by the police department or the district attorney’s office, but there was entirely too much speculation, rumour, false narratives and outright lies surrounding this event,” said the lawyer, Alan Tucker. “I didn’t release this to ‘show that they did nothing wrong,’ as is being circulated.”

The video has proved to be a game-changer, with everyone from former U.S. vice-president Joe Biden to NBA star LeBron James condemning the shooting.

U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters Thursday that he had not seen the video. “My heart goes out to the parents and the loved ones of the young gentleman,” Trump said. “I will be getting a full report this evening.”
Syne Offline
(Nov 25, 2021 03:36 AM)Leigha Wrote: 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?
Arbery was not trapped or cornered. Most humans would run away, not toward, the threat of a gun.

When Mr Arbery was in high school, he received five years of probation for a first-time weapons charge and in 2018, was convicted of probation violation for shoplifting, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper.

Criminals think a law-abiding citizen won't shoot them, so they attack.
Arbery should have just kept running...and the police would've been there shortly, as they'd already been called. Either those with guns are reasonable and won't shoot him in the back, sealing their fate (with an autopsy, even if no video), or they were going to shoot him no matter what he did. 50-50. But attacking someone who has a gun almost assures that they will feel the need to shoot you.

Quote: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.
It does when you agree with the jury without even knowing the facts, agreeing that these men should lose their freedom and futures out of ignorance. That's sick. The jury's motive is the same as any other jury. Each individual brings their own experience, bias, gut feelings, etc., and the hope is that these are varied enough that the combined result is somewhat unbiased. But the trial being held in the same county as the killing, jurors may have also feared a rioting mob response to anything less than guilty on all charges. That could bias all the jurors in the same direction, which likely also happened in the Chauvin case.

As I cited earlier, social pressure can overcome actually being persuaded. In both the Chauvin and Arbery cases, local jurors had a very real possibility that their verdict could mean devastation for their own communities. Basically the media attention on the Democrat leniency for rioting becoming a ubiquitous form of jury tampering. Yes, all juries in high-profile cases should be sequestered, but with smart phones, that's not enough. Juries are not, themselves, a bad thing, but we do probably need to expand and strengthen jury tampering laws and always change the trial venue for high-profile cases.

(Nov 25, 2021 04:44 AM)Leigha Wrote: 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.”

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?

"casually running up the street" after fleeing a house he was trespassing in. Reasonable people either run away from a gun or freeze.

The defense's case didn't rely solely on self-defense. It relied first on a good faith citizen's arrest...and the judge didn't give the jury any instruction on how to interpret that law, leaving them to play legal expert for themselves.

They were certainly guilty of brandishing weapons and simple assault (perhaps high and aggravated)...regardless of thinking they were acting in good faith. But to my knowledge, those aren't felonies. Having called 911 beforehand, it's hard to claim it was intentional murder either. At most, it was probably involuntary manslaughter, which carries up to a ten year sentence. Add a year for brandishing, and another for a high and aggravated assault.

But thinking all jury verdicts are 100% legit is naive idealism. If we believed that, legally, we wouldn't allow for appeals. Remember all the people convicted by juries who were later exonerated by DNA evidence?

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Random Beep from Laptop? Secular Sanity 19 2,096 Mar 18, 2018 07:05 PM
Last Post: elte

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)