Trial for Ahmaud Arbery's Killers

[BigPapaKain]

(11-12-2021, 01:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Just wondering, and this is no way a comment on their guilt or innocence, but what exactly prompts someone to label the defendants "white supremacists?"  Is their a legitimate reason for making that claim or is this just casual and lazy racism?  Honest question.

Lazy racism from what I can tell. 

Point of fact; the only thing I can find about the killers and white supremacy is that one of the men accused fought to have the video made public to show that they weren't 'white supremacists with a confederate flag on their truck' (roughly quoted; it's early and I don't feel like braining too much today).

[GMDino]

(11-12-2021, 09:14 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Lazy racism from what I can tell. 

Point of fact; the only thing I can find about the killers and white supremacy is that one of the men accused fought to have the video made public to show that they weren't 'white supremacists with a confederate flag on their truck' (roughly quoted; it's early and I don't feel like braining too much today).

Twitter users say things you can't say in court. I just shared a post that contained the video as clear as possible.

But yeah, the defendants felt that the flag on their truck would look bad.  I don't know why...it's just their "heritage". 


But it's odd that we have a video of the men chasing down the victim, one stopping in front of him and moving toward him with a gun and when Abery tries to defend himself he gets shot and their defense is the guy we were chasing and threatening tried to get my gun so I had to shoot him.

And they may win on that.

But the discussion became, after the video was posted here, on why are they labeled that way by some person on the internet?  

Like in the Rittenhouse case we can discuss the legal aspect AND the social aspects of the trial.  Three white guys in pick up trucks, with a confederate flag plate, chased and shot a black man for....jogging.  Then claimed self defense.  Legally they may have a case.  Beyond that it "looks" like they were at a minimum dumb, possibly racist and probably a combination of both.

And that doesn't mean they will be found guilty or innocent.  It's just a comment on the situation.

Edit to add that they only had one text and one social media post where one of the accused used racial slurs (one for blacks and one for asians) entered into the trial as evidence so I guess there's that.

[BigPapaKain]

(11-12-2021, 09:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: Twitter users say things you can't say in court. I just shared a post that contained the video as clear as possible.

But yeah, the defendants felt that the flag on their truck would look bad.  I don't know why...it's just their "heritage". 


But it's odd that we have a video of the men chasing down the victim, one stopping in front of him and moving toward him with a gun and when Abery tries to defend himself he gets shot and their defense is the guy we were chasing and threatening tried to get my gun so I had to shoot him.

And they may win on that.

But the discussion became, after the video was posted here, on why are they labeled that way by some person on the internet?  

Like in the Rittenhouse case we can discuss the legal aspect AND the social aspects of the trial.  Three white guys in pick up trucks, with a confederate flag plate, chased and shot a black man for....jogging.  Then claimed self defense.  Legally they may have a case.  Beyond that it "looks" like they were at a minimum dumb, possibly racist and probably a combination of both.

And that doesn't mean they will be found guilty or innocent.  It's just a comment on the situation.

Edit to add that they only had one text and one social media post where one of the accused used racial slurs (one for blacks and one for asians) entered into the trial as evidence so I guess there's that.

I don't wanna brain today.

I was simply answering a question being asked. Whether or not the defendants are racists or whatever isn't what they're on trial for, though it being answered may sway the jury or judge to push the hate crime angle. I'm not defending anyone here one way or the other; I'm not a prosecutor or a defense attorney - I'm just a guy bored at work.

[GMDino]

(11-12-2021, 10:44 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I don't wanna brain today.

I was simply answering a question being asked. Whether or not the defendants are racists or whatever isn't what they're on trial for, though it being answered may sway the jury or judge to push the hate crime angle. I'm not defending anyone here one way or the other; I'm not a prosecutor or a defense attorney - I'm just a guy bored at work.

Ha!  Totally get that.

That's the majority of my posting here...killing time and sharing info *I* think may be interesting to others.

The defense asked a lot of questions about racism during jury selection for a reason...they don't want a jury thinking the defendants are racist.  That won't change the public's perception no matter what though.  Not in this case.  

They're weren't charged with a hate crime though, I don' think.  At least the two links I found (one above) didn't say they were.

Quote:Each is charged with malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment and criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment

[Dill]

(11-12-2021, 09:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: Twitter users say things you can't say in court. I just shared a post that contained the video as clear as possible.
But yeah, the defendants felt that the flag on their truck would look bad.  I don't know why...it's just their "heritage". 

I've been watching the trial on HLN. Apparently McMichaels removed the confederate flag license plate, and the court is using a picture of the vehicle without it.

The prosecution does not object. A commentator on the decision, Darrin Porcher, suggested that the prosecutor is "reading" the jury correctly, some of whom may not be happy to see the Confederate flag presented as "evidence" of racist attitudes. Remember, only ONE black juror.

So no "value added" by insisting on the flag.

[Dill]

(11-12-2021, 09:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: But it's odd that we have a video of the men chasing down the victim, one stopping in front of him and moving toward him with a gun and when Abery tries to defend himself he gets shot and their defense is the guy we were chasing and threatening tried to get my gun so I had to shoot him.

And they may win on that.

But the discussion became, after the video was posted here, on why are they labeled that way by some person on the internet?  

Like in the Rittenhouse case we can discuss the legal aspect AND the social aspects of the trial.  Three white guys in pick up trucks, with a confederate flag plate, chased and shot a black man for....jogging.  Then claimed self defense.  Legally they may have a case.  Beyond that it "looks" like they were at a minimum dumb, possibly racist and probably a combination of both.

“Roddy” Brian’s lawyer has moved to dismiss all nine charges against his client this morning. Remember, Roddy, was the guy who used his pick up truck to help contain Arbery so that the McMichaels could effect a citizens arrest.
 
Some points argued—

The video of the shooting is on a different street from the one where Roddy initially blocked Ahmaud, so his vehicle was not involved in the final containment.  In any case, Arbery “broke containment” and “never submitted” to the citizens arrest. Therefore there was no “false imprisonment.”  So charges of aggravated assault with a vehicle (#7) and false imprisonment (#8) should be dismissed.

More interesting is the direct to dismiss malice murder (#1) and felony murder (#2).  The defense focused on Arbery’s decisions—e.g., not to submit to the “arrest,” not to turn towards the exit of the community, and to turn towards McMichaels, grabbing his gun.

At this point, the turn to McMichaels, the “chain of circumstances” which led to the confrontation is broken. It doesn’t matter that McMichaels created the confrontation by chasing and containing Arbery. All that matters is whether McMichaels reasonably feared for his life when Arbery tried to rob him of his shotgun. At that point the men are roughly equal combatants. We don’t know what was going through Arbery’s mind, why he made the decision he did. We have heard of “suicide by cop.” How do we know this wasn’t “suicide by citizens arrest”?

Now he is moving for a mistrial because Jesse Jackson has returned and is sitting in an overflow room. It’s not just about “Blacks” this time. There are other pastors and a female rabbi. Their presence, part of a “national conversation” about the trial, unduly influences the jury. If the court won't accept the mistrial motion then it must do more to protect the jury from undue influence.
 

[Belsnickel]

(11-17-2021, 01:58 PM)Dill Wrote: Now he is moving for a mistrial because Jesse Jackson has returned and is sitting in an overflow room. It’s not just about “Blacks” this time. There are other pastors and a female rabbi. Their presence, part of a “national conversation” about the trial, unduly influences the jury. If the court won't accept the mistrial motion then it must do more to protect the jury from undue influence.
 

I mean, I know we both thing the motion is horse shit but it does bring up a point that I often really wrestle with. How do they find juries that are not already familiar with cases like these? Do we really have that many people that don't pay attention to the news? And how long do we have in this information age before we won't be able to seat a jury that has not already been influenced?

This is actually something I have been thinking about, lately.

[GMDino]

Listening to the defendant on the stand I'm reminded how nice it is for them that their victim can't testify and dispute what this person "saw" happen and possibly dispute anything.



Currently he's defending that he told Arbery the police were coming and he ran so they went to "see where he was going" and that he "misspoke" when he talked to the police immediately after the shooting.

[Sled21]

These guys are going to prison, as they probably should ( from what I have read in the news, haven't been watching the trial.)

[CKwi88]

(11-17-2021, 06:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, I know we both thing the motion is horse shit but it does bring up a point that I often really wrestle with. How do they find juries that are not already familiar with cases like these? Do we really have that many people that don't pay attention to the news? And how long do we have in this information age before we won't be able to seat a jury that has not already been influenced?

This is actually something I have been thinking about, lately.

Eh, everyone is influenced one way or the other wether it is hearing about the facts before or during the trial.

Ideally the attorneys are looking for people that can set that influence aside and be as impartial as possible. If that's what actually happens is another story.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-18-2021, 06:02 PM)Sled21 Wrote: These guys are going to prison, as they probably should ( from what I have read in the news, haven't been watching the trial.)

This begs the question, why has this trial received almost zero national media attention?  You think this case would be much more up their alley as it actually has the racism angle that they love to push and exploit for views.  It's very interesting to me that this case is flying as under the radar as it is.  Maybe, and this is obviously supposition on my part, it's because the defendants are likely to be acquitted which wouldn't fir the "racist criminal justice system" trope that they're trying to push?

[Dill]

(11-20-2021, 12:00 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: Eh, everyone is influenced one way or the other wether it is hearing about the facts before or during the trial.

Ideally the attorneys are looking for people that can set that influence aside and be as impartial as possible. If that's what actually happens is another story.

I think they mostly look for people whom they will think view their side of the case favorably.

[Belsnickel]

(11-20-2021, 02:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This begs the question, why has this trial received almost zero national media attention?  You think this case would be much more up their alley as it actually has the racism angle that they love to push and exploit for views.  It's very interesting to me that this case is flying as under the radar as it is.  Maybe, and this is obviously supposition on my part, it's because the defendants are likely to be acquitted which wouldn't fir the "racist criminal justice system" trope that they're trying to push?

I think you may have mistyped. If they were acquitted, that would fit the trope.

[Sled21]

(11-17-2021, 06:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, I know we both thing the motion is horse shit but it does bring up a point that I often really wrestle with. How do they find juries that are not already familiar with cases like these? Do we really have that many people that don't pay attention to the news? And how long do we have in this information age before we won't be able to seat a jury that has not already been influenced?

This is actually something I have been thinking about, lately.

It's not about jurors being familiar with the case. In any big case jurors have probably seen news on it. What they try to do is seat jurors who can put what they may have heard out of their mind and render a verdict only on what they hear in the court. Is this really possible, I'm not sure, but some verdicts that go against what they public listening to the news thinks kind of points to it working. 

[Sled21]

(11-20-2021, 02:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This begs the question, why has this trial received almost zero national media attention?  You think this case would be much more up their alley as it actually has the racism angle that they love to push and exploit for views.  It's very interesting to me that this case is flying as under the radar as it is.  Maybe, and this is obviously supposition on my part, it's because the defendants are likely to be acquitted which wouldn't fir the "racist criminal justice system" trope that they're trying to push?

I think it is flying under the radar, as you say, because it was overshadowed by the Rittenhouse trial. The media had much more interest in convicting Rittenhouse and put their effort there. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-21-2021, 07:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think you may have mistyped. If they were acquitted, that would fit the trope.

Yes, you are correct, I had intended to type that they were likely to be convicted.

(11-22-2021, 10:02 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I think it is flying under the radar, as you say, because it was overshadowed by the Rittenhouse trial. The media had much more interest in convicting Rittenhouse and put their effort there. 

Very likely, but that raises my original question, which is why?

[GMDino]

(11-22-2021, 10:02 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I think it is flying under the radar, as you say, because it was overshadowed by the Rittenhouse trial. The media had much more interest in convicting Rittenhouse and put their effort there. 

The Rittenhouse trial was more interesting given the circumstances about the protests and his coming there and then ending up killing two people...and that is what the news talks more about: What people will be interested in watching.

My best is always railing about media bias and I keep telling him they only pout on air what they think people will watch so they can make money.

Now if these three men get off it will be a big story and create interest and it will get more coverage.

Not everything is about politics and bias in the news.  Mostly it's about selling advertising.

That's why FOX does what it does and why MSNBC does what it does.

[GMDino]

This defense attorney is doing a great job of putting at least half the blame on Arbery.  Right down to critiquing his clothes the day he was killed and his "dirty toenails".

I mean he didn't stop and answer the questions of the three defendants and then wait quietly for the police to come!  So what if he didn't commit a crime?!?!

[GMDino]

Really pounding home the point that he had "no reason" to run away and not talk tot hem ("how he acted" and how he also had no reason to run at the person with the shotgun while.

All they wanted to do was detain someone!  

I'm getting the feeling they'll get off.

[Sled21]

(11-22-2021, 01:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, you are correct, I had intended to type that they were likely to be convicted.


Very likely, but that raises my original question, which is why?

The mainstream media has been fully invested in the BLM/Antifa riots, to the point they stood in front of a raging arson fire talking about how it was a mostly peaceful protest. The fact Rittenhouse shot several of their rioters made it a personal matter for them. They want the riots to continue, because if it bleeds it leads....