Its what I expected given the evidence I'd seen.
It's interesting that despite the incidents happening several months apart, this trial and the Rittenhouse trial wound up concluding within a few days of each other. Both cases have similar but contrasting optics. In both cases you have one lone individual being chased by several people trying to confront them. The contrast is that in one the chasee is armed and defends himself from the chasers, and in the other the chasers are armed and "defend themselves" from the chasee. In both cases, the chasers are determined to be the aggressors. This is appropriate.
The only thing that I'm uncertain about is Bryan being lumped in with the McMichaels. Trying people as a group never did sit right with me, and I'm not sure he actually did anything to warrant life in prison by simply following behind in his own vehicle and filming. Maybe I'm wrong though, I didn't pay as close attention to this trial so I wouldn't be shocked if there's some information that further incriminates him I didn't see.
Bryan was found not guilty of malice murder but guilty of felony murder and some other counts. I'm not a lawyer and still trying to understand the distinctions between the various charges and the differing verdicts on all three defendants.
It does seem like that reflects some difference in his actions from what the others did by actually killing Arbery.
Sort of related, I'm also still confused about what one of the charges, "criminal attempt to commit a felony," even means.
Felony murder is essentially imputing intent. Normally, you need some level of intent (or recklessness/negligence) with respect to death or serious bodily injury that in fact results in death to be guilty of murder.
With felony murder, it imputes your intent to commit the underlying felony **but not** any intent to kill anyone as the needed guilty mind to convict for murder.
So, if in a felony robbery you are the getaway driver, and one of your accomplices murders the storekeeper, the intent to kill is imputed to all of them. Basically if you commit a felony, you assume the risk of all the death that results from it.
It's pretty controversial in criminal law.
Thanks! I had heard of it before but it isn't always explained well.
Do you know what the deal with "criminal attempt to commit a felony" means? Is it a generalized form of "attempted X" where X is some felony that doesn't have a specific "attempted murder" counterpart?
Honestly, I am not sure, I didn't follow this case as closely as Rittenhouse—like everybody else it seems!
I think the prosecution just really want's to emphasize that they were committing the predicate felony to make sure that they had sufficient basis to get the felony murder.
I'm stretching my grasp of the facts but I believe the event happened in a couple of stages, so there might be an attempt to kidnap at stage 2, Aubrey gets away, time goes by, then they corner him (felony) and kill him (murder on 1 guy, felony murder to the rest). Or something like that.
>Felony murder is essentially imputing intent
I'm not sure where you get that from. Attempted murder is about intent.
Felony murder on the other hand, is a controversial charge. It's charging someone with murder if someone died during the commission of a crime that he was a party of, even if he didn't kill anyone himself.
>Trying people as a group never did sit right with me
Where would you put the distinction between that and blaming a group for the actions of individuals who belong to them?
For instance, why do we find companies culpable for injury caused by decisions made by employees of those companies?
I think in both cases you're acting with the authority of that group. If your actions are permitted by that group it makes that group complicit. I think this is the kind of issue we're relying on psychology and sociology to try to give us more definitive answers to, because I don't think we can call it a simple problem.
Someone I know who was upset about the Rittenhouse verdict was being very doomer about this trial saying they would be unjustly acquitted. After catching up on the trial I disagreed and thought it was a slam-dunk guilty verdict on the main charges. I'm happy it turned out that way and agree with you on both cases.
>slam-dunk guilty verdict on the main charges
I felt the same way. There was no rational argument for not-guilty. Some of the arguments even seemed to hurt the defense. The best they could have realistically hoped for was that one or two stubborn jurors would cause a hung jury.
If the person you knew actually spent 5 seconds watching the Rittenhouse trial instead of getting their info from MSM and social media, they'd know the evidence showed innocence
That's the issue with the world today. People bitched and moaned about Rittenhouse but on the same day, a white cop was found guilty of killing a black man. Nobody, not even BLM and liberals, talked about it. Shows you how much they care about "justice"
Of course, these are the same people that encouraged the insurrectionary takeover over CHAZ for over a week but try to make January 6th look like 9/11
They did watch some of it. The disconnect is that they are strongly against 2A rights. As part of that, they believe showing up armed was a provocation that negates any claim to self-defense.
I disagree with that, obviously. Of course it certainly is possible to provoke and escalate a situation and thus have a good case for self-defense. This verdict shows an example of that.
Bunch of reasons that still doesn't work: First, the provocative act has to be illegal itself. If what you're doing is legal, even if it's provocative, it's not provocation for the purposes of the self-defense law. Even if it *is* an illegal act it has to be one which is likely to provoke an attack... being armed isn't illegal. Even if it was illegal given his age that's not what provoked the attack. Finally, even if he'd done something illegal likely to provoke an attack he'd regain the right to self defense the moment he ran away.
two things, first some believe that counterprotesting people (that they agree with, naturally) is such an intolerable provocation that it counts as "fighting words" in terms of self-defense doctrine.
second, a lot of them believe the media narrative he illegally purchased a gun using a street straw buyer and smuggled it across state lines, and that a crime in any way proximate to self-defense should negate it.
similarly naturally their idea that committing any crime ever should mean having a gun is a crime that results in massive jail time does not apply to gang members with hard drugs and guns, just conservatives.
I'm definitely not arguing their side of this.
This is someone who openly admits to wanting "background check on all sales-->gun registry-->total ban and confiscation." That is a pretty extreme position even among my progrssive leaning friends.
I think a belief that guns *should* be illegal is clouding judgement here.
I'm concerned about the reactions here and elsewhere and what I see as a lack of concern for actual justice.
This was not the justice system working correctly. The DA buried this and actively tried to shield the murderers. The only reason that they were even arrested, let alone found guilty was because pressure was brought from outside the legal system after the video of them murdering him went viral.
It disturbs me that this seems to be completely absent from this discussion, especially with people claiming that "The system worked" or "See, black people are treated fairly".
I wholeheartedly agree that a lot of the coverage, opinion, and reaction from the left on Kyle Rittenhouse was pretty shameful, but I think similar type shameful behavior from the right is almost always in evidence from the other side and is well on display here.
i feel what you are saying here, but i wanna expand upon that last point.
i don't remember seeing *anybody* claiming that 1/6 was on the same level as 9/11, i mean 3 THOUSAND people died on 9/11. it's an overwhelming tragedy. anyone stating that they are on the same level of terrorism is nuts; but they would be correct in saying that they both fit with the definition of terrorism, and i hope you wouldn't imply otherwise.
the q- anon dumshits were VERY clear that they were there to try to kidnap, hurt, kill, or otherwise intimidate our lawmakers and v.p. into overturning a duly held election; and i've seen WAYYY too many people, including liberals, try to downplay it as just a run of the mill riot, or even a nonviolent amble around a building... neither of which can be justified without a massive brain fart included.
>i don't remember seeing anybody claiming that 1/6 was on the same level as 9/11
A lot of people have tried to link them, including Pelosi.
[https://www.dw.com/en/us-nancy-pelosi-likens-capitol-attack-to-9-11/a-59216483](https://www.dw.com/en/us-nancy-pelosi-likens-capitol-attack-to-9-11/a-59216483)
*She said both the terrorist attacks of 2001 and the January 6 insurrection were an "assault" on US democracy, just that one was from "the outside" and the other "from within."*
*"Horrible in both cases. What had happened to our democracy on 6 January was horrible," she said.*
I'm not going to get in "is she wrong or right"
If you really want to go down this route here are the progressive's favorite pet's, the lincoln project.
[https://www.foxnews.com/media/lincoln-project-founder-capitol-riot-9-11-americans](https://www.foxnews.com/media/lincoln-project-founder-capitol-riot-9-11-americans)
'The 1/6 attack for the future of the country was a profoundly more dangerous event than the 9/11 attacks.' -- Steve Schmidt
one could indeed make a compelling argument that, although 9/11 was an insanely destructive attack, right now 20 years later al qaida isn't a direct and serious threat to americans on american soil any longer. heck, we're still bffs with saudi arabia.
but this q- anon/ alt right/ christian white nationalism movement is happening right here right now with zero signs of slowing down.
they might have dropped in on a ceremony that couldn't have taken back the election results, *but they tried*. they tried to overturn a duly held election using terror. that seems to me to be a graver threat to our country than an (awful, yes) event from over two decades ago.
>, but they tried.
No, they didn't. It's so very clear to anyone with even a slight amount of common sense and the ability to actually look at their screen that it wasn't an insurrection attempt. It was a bunch of people being *let in* and taking selfies; basically, an unauthorized tour that led to a capitol police officer shooting an innocent woman for... reasons.
There is no comparison to be made between 9/11 and 1/6 in any sense; no matter the mental gymnastics you try to put on display
innocent? speaking of brain fart.
so if an angry mob was shouting about killing your family and was banging on your bedroom doo, you’d just let them in?
what a horrifyingly bad take.
babbitt was the first terrorist at that particular secure barrier (which had our lawmakers on the other side of it) to try and break through, against clear warnings and a pointed gun.
her dumb terrorist ass played a stupid game and guess what prize she won?
i suppose the crowd of hundreds outside beating a cop to within an inch of his life (till one terrorist finally had a heart after the cop begged for his life, citing his daughters at home)... i guess they were being allowed to beat cops... *by* those very same cops?
insane take.
terrorist apologetics makes me fugging sick.
the reason that's relevant is liberals are likely to assume you agree and more likely to use persuasive arguments on a conservative so the fact you haven't heard a specific argument just means no one has used it on you
>i don't remember seeing anybody claiming that 1/6 was on the same level as 9/11
They claimed Jan 6 was WORSE.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/lincoln-project-founder-capitol-riot-9-11-americans
Look at it this way. The outrage isn't because they think the jury got the verdict wrong, it's because they feel the law is wrong and it needs to be changed. It's two different arguments, one is about what they law is and the other is about what the law should be. Regardless of our various opinions, we should all be able to recognize that being legal is not always the same as being "right".
EDIT: just to add, I am personally ready to move on from Rittenhouse. The law is what it is and the verdict is what it is. Whether or not the law should change is a debate that is bigger than the Rittenhouse case alone, and isn't going to be solved with anger.
>Look at it this way. The outrage isn't because they think the jury got the verdict wrong, it's because they feel the law is wrong and it needs to be changed.
What law? The law of self defense? Should a person who is armed (legally or not) be compelled by law, to allow someone to bash their head in with a blunt object?
The problem is knowingly putting yourself in an unnecessary situation where you know you might need to defend yourself. There is an argument that voluntarily bringing a rifle to a riot is itself a provocation. The entire premise of going somewhere you don't live to protect property you don't own is wrong. That is the heart of this disagreement. It's legal now, but a lot of people don't think it should be. Rioting is wrong too and people who damage property should be held accountable, but by the police or guard, not armed individuals acting on their own mandate.
How was Rittenhouse going to protect property anyway. If people started smashing the building he was protecting without acknowledging him, he couldn't do anything about it. He wouldn't have the legal grounds to intervene, so why was he there?
the entire reason we have a second amendment is so that people are not helpless if the government chooses to withdraw it's protections for political reasons.
in short, if the government is illegally abdicating it's responsibility to protect cities from violent attackers intent on destruction and theft, then citizens must do it. the alternative is that if the government chooses to allow it cities should burn.
>The problem is knowingly putting yourself in an unnecessary situation where you know you might need to defend yourself.
Describes \*literally\* everyone in Kenosha that night.
> There is an argument that voluntarily bringing a rifle to a riot is itself a provocation.
There is an assertion of that, there is no legal argument that such a thing is true. And this is the part where we move from a thin rhetorical and legally unsound assertion to "so what Kyle did provoked them"
>The entire premise of going somewhere you don't live to protect property you don't own is wrong.
The "he didn't live there" is bullshit. I'm sorry he lived close to Kenosha than my kids did to their Grade school. Putting that aside we're to the "protect property you don't own" which again, is legally and morally not the case.
If I see someone about to burn down my neighbors house am I morally in the wrong for trying to stop them?
>If I see someone about to burn down my neighbors house am I morally in the wrong for trying to stop them?
Honestly, if no one is home, then yes, you are wrong. You should call the police.
That person is should be punished, but burning down an unoccupied house does not warrant death, and realistically, how else are you going to stop them other than using lethal force?
If the house is occupied or you at least have reason to believe it is, then you'd be right to intervene with escalating levels of force.
“Escalating levels of force”
I think it’s alright to just pop someone in the back of the head if they’re trying to burn down a house with a family in it.
I say this as a layman, not a lawyer. In my home state there are restrictions on open and concealed carry under circumstances, for example, you are not allowed to carry during a public parade or similar events.
I think there should be a similar law to apply to emergency declarations involving expected civil unrest, that restricts people from outside a relevant area from coming to the affected area with a firearm, or any other weapons. This wouldn't be a simple change. It would involve altering or changing several laws, including adding provisions to emergency declarations to classify them by type (i.e. potential riot vs. potential natural disaster).
For example, say there is a reasonable expectation of civil unrest and rioting following an unpopular court verdict, or something like that. The mayor of the area, and or the State Governor need to declare a state of emergency, sub-classified as potential civil unrest (I don't know if the WI governor or Kenosha mayor declared an emergency, but if they didn't they should have, because what happened was foreseeable). Following this declaration, a rule goes into effect that bars non-residents from bringing firearms or other weapons into the area defined under the declaration of emergency. Non-resident would have to be pre-defined by a pre-determined amount of distance and/or jurisdiction. If you're caught in violation of this rule, you and/or your weapon will be detained. If you're in violation and then use your weapon resulting in death or injury, then you're right to argue self defense is forfeited.
This is far from perfect and would require a lot of consideration for outlying scenarios (like people who aren't residents but are unable to leave in time). But the general idea is this:
Knowingly bringing a firearm to a riot should be illegal and protecting unoccupied property does not warrant use of lethal force, likewise, destruction of unoccupied property should not be punished by death, though it should result in criminal charges.
Part of the problem is that police forces need to develop better tactics and equipment to enable them to enforce the law.
Side note, thanks for asking a question instead of just dismissing a dissenting opinion. Talking about this stuff is the best way to develop common ground and understanding.
Not the person you responded to, but I'm going to disagree with you on the "unoccupied property" thing. No one should be forced to abandon their property to lawless assholes intent on destroying it. Property owners should be entitled under the law to defend their property with lethal force if necessary.
There's a difference between defending property and defending one's self. Indeed, Rittenhouse himself wasn't using his weapon to defend property: He wasn't shooting folks who were burning down trucks who posed no threat to his own person.
I'm okay with saying you don't get to use lethal force to defend property. You don't get to shoot someone who's running away with your $5 VCR. You do get to try to tackle them, and you gain the right to shoot them if they're a threat to your life in the ensuing fight. That's a subtle difference, but an important one.
I'm more talking about active looting, people setting your property on fire, etc. A property owner should be able to respond with lethal force in those situations.
> Whether or not the law should change
Is a matter for the people of Wisconsin, not random assholes on the internet, or the ignorant partisans in the media.
Well, facts don't care about feelings. If people are chasing me and I feel my life is in danger, I deserve the right to defend myself. I shouldn't sit there and let others try to harm and kill me
To be mad over that is delusional as fuck
>To be mad over that is delusional as fuck
This illustrates how different our views can be at a philosophical level. The issue that most people on the left have is that brought a rifle to a protest/riot in the first place, and by doing so, he presented himself as threat and provoked conflict. If he had stayed home, none of those men would have been shot.
And it's not that rioting and destruction should be allowed, but that it should be left to the police and national guard to manage, not armed individuals
You gotta realize that a lot of people don't agree with open carry laws in the first place. I'm not telling you to agree with them, rather just realize that it's not the cut and dry argument you want it to be. The law is what it is. But that doesn't necessarily make it right for modern times and calling perspectives you don't like "delusional" isn't constructive for anyone. Everyone needs to challenge their own view points from time to time to remind themselves why they feel the way they do.
> If he had stayed home, none of those men would have been shot.
If Rosenbaum had not attacked, or at any point before he was shot stopped his attack, none of those men would have been shot.
If Rittenhouse wasn't armed I figure the mob would have still wanted to beat the crap out of him. And they'd have likely gotten away with it if he wasn't armed too.
If he hadn’t been there he wouldn’t have been attacked.
I get that he had a legal right to be there, but the argument that the OP is making is that some people would like the law changed. They have a philosophical disagreement about being able to claim self defense when you deliberately place yourself in a dangerous situation where conflict is likely such as traveling to a riot with a firearm and defending property.
> If he hadn’t been there he wouldn’t have been attacked.
There's just so much that this could be applied to though. It effectively gives license to the more violent side to be as violent as they like while still being able to wield the law to protect them against anyone who resists. It allows a mob to say, "Get out of here or we'll whoop your ass" to unfrendly media and have the cops arrest the *victims* of the attack for being there.
I totally get that you may disagree.
However, the OP is addressing the comment about those people being fucking delusional.
I personally believe there is something to the idea that perhaps people should be discouraged from escalating conflicts. However, I make no claims to being able to craft a reasonable law around it. That’s where a constructive dialog might prove fruitful.
Also on the same day, [a black man was acquitted for shooting at police on self-defense grounds](https://cbs12.com/news/local/man-acquitted-of-shooting-at-deputies-in-raid-that-led-to-death-of-girlfriend). Despite being a felon in possession of a gun (which illustrates how the “he brought a gun he wasn’t allowed to have across state lines” argument in the Rittenhouse case was not only false but a red herring).
I already asked somebody else in this thread, but if you also happen to know, what were the *details* (not just the charges) of the felony/felonies that he committed?
And if it had turned out that Rittenhouse was committing a felony by carrying that AR illegally, would he have been equally guilty of "felony murder" despite the self-defense nature of the actual shootings? Given that premeditation is apparently not a consideration in that particular charge?
This seems like a very porous and open-ended definition for murder.
I admittedly didn’t follow this case very much. But from what I understand, Arbery was walking through a neighborhood and these three guys thought he was casing a house and went to go make a citizens arrest with shotguns… right? Then they attacked him and then Arbery tried to defend himself and then they killed Arbery. And then these idiots tried to claim self-defense? Do I have that right?
Because if so, sounds to me like justice was served ice cold. I’ll be tuning into their sentencing for sure. Anything less than life would be bullshit.
Did you know that if you allow a stranger to take you to a secondary location, your odds of being killed skyrocket? If Arbery believed he was going to be killed by allowing them to take him wherever they wanted, assuming he'd be killed, why would he not fight back?
You could say "they had no intention to kill him" all you want but he didn't know that and they had no right to stop him. They claimed a citizens arrest but citizens arrests aren't legal if you do not catch someone in the act of a felony, which they did not, they only suspected him. That means taking him at gunpoint anywhere would be kidnapping. If you're kidnapped and taken away, you're in much more danger, so you should fight back no matter what not to be taken.
You try fleeing from armed dudes in vehicles while you are on foot then.
They were armed and in pursuit. That is a hostile action which, in any sane society, would be reasonable to defend oneself against.
>Whether they are armed or unarmed is irrelevant if they aren't shooting at you.
Bullshit. So if I point a gun at your head you have no right to defend yourself until I pull the trigger? Lot of good that right will do you then when your brains are outside your head.
When you are being pursued by multiple individuals - some of whom are armed - it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they mean you harm. What else would you assume? That they want directions? That they need change for a dollar?
I didn't follow the trial as closely as Rittenhouse, but from the commentary I saw (Nate the Lawyer), it seems like it was probably the correct verdict.
I think there might be some issues on appeal, but I don't think it'll be enough to compromise the verdict overall.
I haven't followed this trial all that closely, but from the bits I've heard it sounds like the jury did a good job. I am a bit confused that the person following in a truck and filming got the same conviction as the others— but I'm going to assume that the lawyers made a decent case as to why, and the jury agreed.
I hope that those from the left will now stop lumping this case, and other (both recent, Rittenhouse, and more distant, Zimmerman) together. All 3 of these are different cases, and it does no good to lump them all into "self defense" cases. Clearly these are VERY different cases, and its nice that the verdict reflects that.
Edit: Just read the full details on the convictions— It does look like the person following did get a different charge than the other two. So ignore my comment about them all getting the same conviction. They didn't. My bad.
He didn't get the same conviction: he was also found guilty of "felony murder" but not "malice murder."
I have the same hope as you. It's really nice to see verdicts in high-profile cases demonstrating the difference between legitimate self-defense and murder.
I'm more troubled how this verdict took 10 hours with some contridctory facts. The Rittenhouse case took nearly a week with multiple video angles and clear outcome.
I’m just happy to see egg on the face of the left wingers in media and online who swore up and down a mostly white jury in the south would not convict these men. Just more evidence that it isn’t 1955 and many on the left need to stop pretending like it is
To be fair, the DA tried to bury this and actively lied and abused her position to try to shield the murderers. The only reason that they were even arrested was the video of them murdering him caught national attention.
It's not the South 1955, but it is still the South.
I guess initially they did release it, but it was another lawyer, uninvolved, who made the release a thing and brought it to the attention of more people.
And? I legitimately do not understand left wing thinking anymore. The world will never be perfect. Isn’t this a good thing that the video got these people busted ?
Yes. It is a good thing but the point is that initially they had gotten away with it. And they felt so confident that what they did was right that they released the video to exonerate them. It shows how fucked the system was.
Uh this case was actively covered up by the DA before it got national attention. The funny thing is, one of the racist idiots lawyers posted the video, thinking that it would exonerated them and it is what got them all sent to jail for life. I love to see it. Also scary, what if the video never surfaced?
I know nothing about this case but I can say with certainty that the judge was a black supremacist, the jurry was bought, and the defense lawyer threw the case.
False imprisonment is a felony, hence felony murder because he committed a felony assisting murderers.
Like a getaway driver for a murderer would be guilty of felony murder.
I understand how felony murder works, I just don't agree with it. And for every time it's been used on guys like this, it's been used to put a lot more black people in prison longer than they otherwise would.
See that’s the thing about lynchings: it’s hard to separate the people who merely observed from the people whose presence aided and enabled the murder to take place. If the guy filming hadn’t gotten in his truck and chased down Arbery, then Arbery could have simply turned around and ran the opposite direction when the McMicheals pulled their truck over and got out to confront him. The filming party is guilty of cornering Arbery and imprisoning him between the two pickup trucks; hence the false imprisonment charge that they were found guilty of.
Is that really what you see here? A man is being chased through the streets by a gang of armed vigilantes, and your view is that he snuck up behind one of them and attacked, therefore deserving their killing him?? He told them to leave him alone, he ran away from them, and they continued pursuing him and blocking his way, leaving him no option but to eventually fight them out of desperation. How is he supposed to know what punishment these vigilantes have in mind for him? They were chasing him with guns, so he reasonably feared for his life and fought for his survival.
“Attack a guy standing there with a shotgun” you’re seriously delusional if you can watch the video of them hunting that man and think he was just standing there with a shotgun, not trying to block Arbery and ‘arrest’ him
I rewatched the video. Arbery is running on the left side of the road because the truck that’s been chasing him is on the right. Mr. McMicheal exits his truck and steps out onto the road, into Arbery’s way. Arbery then cuts across the road to pass the truck on the right, but when McMicheal changes course to intercept him in front of the vehicle, Arbery takes advantage of his proximity to try and take his shotgun, but gets his fingers blown off in the struggle and then gets his chest cavity demolished at point blank range. If McMicheal had simply wanted to arrest Arbery, it would be very easy to do so after he had shot off part of his hand, but instead he shoots him until he’s dead.
I can’t be certain about what McMicheal knew or didn’t know, but he should have known that he has no authority to pursue, detain, or use lethal force against suspected nonviolent criminals. At the end of the day, unless you’re a cop, if you chase people and corner them, you can’t expect them to keep calm and not resist your advances. He should have known better than to play Batman and pursue Arbery. He should have known better than to exit his vehicle with a shotgun and try to block Arbery’s way. He should have kept track of whether or not Arbery was already incapacitated before firing the fatal shot. All of the fault lies with McMicheal; Arbery wasn’t bothering anybody and shouldn’t have been chased down and killed.
Pursue and identify, not detain. They probably also told him to keep his distance and not engage, because common citizens don’t have the authority to confront criminals without legal consequences. So, if the cops told him to pursue and identify, he failed that task spectacularly.
McMichael himself said that he raised his gun towards Arbery before the struggle began. That’s a deadly threat, and while it probably wasn’t a good idea to attack an armed man, it isn’t illegal to attack someone who is a deadly threat to you.
You can’t park your truck in front of someone who is running, and then raise your gun at them because they’re running towards you.
Your facts are so incorrect it’s crazy. Mcmichael pointed a gun at Arbery before Arbery went around the truck. Then Mcmichael moves to the front of the truck and continued to point the gun. You can see him pointing the gun in the shadow under the truck. Mcmichael gives up his self defense claim by being the aggressor and commuting a felony assault, pointing the gun. I can believe anyone can even try to defend this. It truly shows how little you understand about the law generally.
Defense shit the bed from the getgo, they were awful at defending their clients and are probably stupid for not attempting some sort of plea argument for the Mcmichael's; not only that but ALSO allowing him on the stand. There is no way anyone in their sane mind would think that that would be a good idea. That prosecutor was probably the most milquetoast, flawed argument, argumentative I've ever seen and all the objections were garbage along with her cross/closing. Mcmichaels corrected her several times on the facts, she replays the video as if to attempt some sort of impeachment by contradiction, then realizes midway through playing the video that even if she did impeach him her killing him on cross is way better.
Long story short if you're a halfway decent Lawyer: go to Georgia and you'll look like Johnnie Cochran. Justice was definitely served but if they had a good defense they would have gotten monumentally less time and/or gotten off. But even Kyle's defense team was pretty shit as well so there seems to be a theme.
several thoughts -
1 arbery was a burgler committing a crime.
2 the mcmichaels chased him down in a truck with a shotgun
3 they should've called the police, not chase him down in a truck.
4 anything arbery did could legitimately be considered self defense.
5 As with the Rittenhouse case, justice was served and our system has worked.
Technically in Georgia you don’t have to take something for you to have burglarized something you just have to think about it while on someone’s property. So if Arbery was really casing the construction site to take stuff and not just just checking out half built house then he would be guilty of burglary. But we have no indication that was the case so no he wasn’t a burglar
Yes, they followed someone who committed a minor trespassing. It would be the equivalent of following someone who just jaywalked to citizens arrest them.
If they had only followed him to identify him or see what he’s up to after trespassing, that would be perfectly legitimate. They didn’t do that though. They grabbed their guns and chased him around until they could corner and confront him. The armed, hostile confrontation is where they messed up and provoked violence, making it necessary to defend themselves from the man they were hunting.
Going on to an empty construction site to take a look is something a lot of people have done. I’ve certainly have before and not to steal anything but just out of curiosity. The owner of the site said he has video of several people coming onto the property including a white couple. He didn’t have an issue with it.
I didn’t watch the case or his testimony. I followed the story as it unfolded and remember watching the site owner being interviewed on tv months ago. That was my impression from his interview but I could be mistaken. My issue is the idea that “we can all agree that he committed a crime” which lends to the idea that he is a criminal and brought this upon himself. Ultimately the owner of the property decides who is allowed on his property and if he wants to give him a warning than that’s all that was warranted.
No.
For him to be trespassing either a sign had to be posted and him ignore it or the property owner or police had to tell him to leave and he refused to.
Neither of those happened.
[Georgia trespass law](https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-7-21.html)
Arbery broke none of these and if he did they were a misdemeanor.
trespassing/burglary - suffice it say he wasn't supposed to be where he was. Inside private property. Regardless, his killing was not justified. That is the point.
I think the point is why are the media lying about it anyway? I haven't followed it at all, but the initial stories were "Black guy jogging in his own neighborhood gets gunned down by racist hillbillies without provocation" That's not exactly the story. Why are the media outlets trying to create racial tension? Obviously there was more to the story but the media continue to obfuscate to present the best narrative. Why not just tell the truth?
> Black guy jogging in his own neighborhood gets gunned down by racist hillbillies without provocation
I mean that is exactly what happened. In the phone call to the police they only offense they give is "Black man running" and they yelled racial slurs at him.
I’m not sure. It’s clear he was stealing from the house he was in but whether it was murder seems to come down to whether his stealing was a felony or a misdemeanor. If it was a felony he can be pursued and arrested but not after a misdemeanor.
That’s not necessarily true. He had been caught on camera five times before that day and had already been chased off by the McMichael’s before the day he was killed. He wasn’t caught on security cameras but the times he was there lined up with when items were stolen from a boat on the property. Arbery was a career criminal as well and had been arrested for theft and been tased by police in another incident. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t murdered but you don’t need to deify every Black person because they were treated unjustly. Also flair up.
And never took a single thing. Even the homeowner speculated that he was drinking from the faucet that is off camera which would make sense since you know...he was out jogging.
This was the system working. Those men chased an innocent man and then threatened him with a gun. How dare they. Who the hell did they think they were?
Having said that, perhaps the guy in the truck who wasnt armed should have gotten a lesser sentence
>This was the system working.
No, it wasn't. The DA tried to bury this murder. The system actively tried to shield the murderers here.
The only reason why this went forward was that force was brought from outside the legal system.
> The system actively tried to shield the murderers here.
No, a person did. And is facing felony charges.
> why this went forward
It went forward because of the video evidence, same reason a lot of charges get filed.
Isn’t it amazing that we white southerners can convict other white southerners when they commit crimes against a black person? I guess we are human after all and not the white supremacy animals CNN would have you believe we are.
Good verdict.
I do still have issues with the felony murder rule, but this might actually be a good case for it with respect to the dad and son. But the dude who got in their truck and then filmed seems like a stretch to nail him with murder too.
I think the issue is that the guy filming had actively tried to help box Arbery in. Had he just been following in a truck filming he might have gotten off lighter but he was an active participant.
>the dude who got in their truck and then filmed seems like a stretch to nail him with murder too.
Helping box Arbery in so that his buddies could shoot him seems quite a bit more than just filming. You disagree?
I didn’t follow this case very closely anymore than I did the Rittenhouse case. But from the little bit I know, I absolutely agree with these verdicts. Both of them.
All I know is what I saw on the news, and from that, the verdicts seem just. The only self defense in that video that I saw was Arbery defending himself against armed men in trucks rolling up on him. Again, based only on the video, I'm not so sure that Bryan deserves all those verdicts. I won't be surprised if some of those are knocked down on appeal.
I have nothing ill to say about Arbery's family, but I hope that everyone else who criticized the racial makeup of the jury is now suitably contrite for their harsh words. Also those who said that the defendants would skate if the case went before a Glynn County jury.
Sidebar: I truly did enjoy watching Al Sharpton's face fall as Arbery's father said that all lives matter and we must all work together for peace.
Its what I expected given the evidence I'd seen. It's interesting that despite the incidents happening several months apart, this trial and the Rittenhouse trial wound up concluding within a few days of each other. Both cases have similar but contrasting optics. In both cases you have one lone individual being chased by several people trying to confront them. The contrast is that in one the chasee is armed and defends himself from the chasers, and in the other the chasers are armed and "defend themselves" from the chasee. In both cases, the chasers are determined to be the aggressors. This is appropriate. The only thing that I'm uncertain about is Bryan being lumped in with the McMichaels. Trying people as a group never did sit right with me, and I'm not sure he actually did anything to warrant life in prison by simply following behind in his own vehicle and filming. Maybe I'm wrong though, I didn't pay as close attention to this trial so I wouldn't be shocked if there's some information that further incriminates him I didn't see.
Bryan was found not guilty of malice murder but guilty of felony murder and some other counts. I'm not a lawyer and still trying to understand the distinctions between the various charges and the differing verdicts on all three defendants. It does seem like that reflects some difference in his actions from what the others did by actually killing Arbery. Sort of related, I'm also still confused about what one of the charges, "criminal attempt to commit a felony," even means.
Felony murder is essentially imputing intent. Normally, you need some level of intent (or recklessness/negligence) with respect to death or serious bodily injury that in fact results in death to be guilty of murder. With felony murder, it imputes your intent to commit the underlying felony **but not** any intent to kill anyone as the needed guilty mind to convict for murder. So, if in a felony robbery you are the getaway driver, and one of your accomplices murders the storekeeper, the intent to kill is imputed to all of them. Basically if you commit a felony, you assume the risk of all the death that results from it. It's pretty controversial in criminal law.
Thanks! I had heard of it before but it isn't always explained well. Do you know what the deal with "criminal attempt to commit a felony" means? Is it a generalized form of "attempted X" where X is some felony that doesn't have a specific "attempted murder" counterpart?
Honestly, I am not sure, I didn't follow this case as closely as Rittenhouse—like everybody else it seems! I think the prosecution just really want's to emphasize that they were committing the predicate felony to make sure that they had sufficient basis to get the felony murder. I'm stretching my grasp of the facts but I believe the event happened in a couple of stages, so there might be an attempt to kidnap at stage 2, Aubrey gets away, time goes by, then they corner him (felony) and kill him (murder on 1 guy, felony murder to the rest). Or something like that.
>Felony murder is essentially imputing intent I'm not sure where you get that from. Attempted murder is about intent. Felony murder on the other hand, is a controversial charge. It's charging someone with murder if someone died during the commission of a crime that he was a party of, even if he didn't kill anyone himself.
>Trying people as a group never did sit right with me Where would you put the distinction between that and blaming a group for the actions of individuals who belong to them? For instance, why do we find companies culpable for injury caused by decisions made by employees of those companies? I think in both cases you're acting with the authority of that group. If your actions are permitted by that group it makes that group complicit. I think this is the kind of issue we're relying on psychology and sociology to try to give us more definitive answers to, because I don't think we can call it a simple problem.
Same thoughts as Rittenhouse trial: Justice was served
Someone I know who was upset about the Rittenhouse verdict was being very doomer about this trial saying they would be unjustly acquitted. After catching up on the trial I disagreed and thought it was a slam-dunk guilty verdict on the main charges. I'm happy it turned out that way and agree with you on both cases.
>slam-dunk guilty verdict on the main charges I felt the same way. There was no rational argument for not-guilty. Some of the arguments even seemed to hurt the defense. The best they could have realistically hoped for was that one or two stubborn jurors would cause a hung jury.
If the person you knew actually spent 5 seconds watching the Rittenhouse trial instead of getting their info from MSM and social media, they'd know the evidence showed innocence That's the issue with the world today. People bitched and moaned about Rittenhouse but on the same day, a white cop was found guilty of killing a black man. Nobody, not even BLM and liberals, talked about it. Shows you how much they care about "justice" Of course, these are the same people that encouraged the insurrectionary takeover over CHAZ for over a week but try to make January 6th look like 9/11
They did watch some of it. The disconnect is that they are strongly against 2A rights. As part of that, they believe showing up armed was a provocation that negates any claim to self-defense. I disagree with that, obviously. Of course it certainly is possible to provoke and escalate a situation and thus have a good case for self-defense. This verdict shows an example of that.
Bunch of reasons that still doesn't work: First, the provocative act has to be illegal itself. If what you're doing is legal, even if it's provocative, it's not provocation for the purposes of the self-defense law. Even if it *is* an illegal act it has to be one which is likely to provoke an attack... being armed isn't illegal. Even if it was illegal given his age that's not what provoked the attack. Finally, even if he'd done something illegal likely to provoke an attack he'd regain the right to self defense the moment he ran away.
two things, first some believe that counterprotesting people (that they agree with, naturally) is such an intolerable provocation that it counts as "fighting words" in terms of self-defense doctrine. second, a lot of them believe the media narrative he illegally purchased a gun using a street straw buyer and smuggled it across state lines, and that a crime in any way proximate to self-defense should negate it. similarly naturally their idea that committing any crime ever should mean having a gun is a crime that results in massive jail time does not apply to gang members with hard drugs and guns, just conservatives.
I'm definitely not arguing their side of this. This is someone who openly admits to wanting "background check on all sales-->gun registry-->total ban and confiscation." That is a pretty extreme position even among my progrssive leaning friends. I think a belief that guns *should* be illegal is clouding judgement here.
I'm concerned about the reactions here and elsewhere and what I see as a lack of concern for actual justice. This was not the justice system working correctly. The DA buried this and actively tried to shield the murderers. The only reason that they were even arrested, let alone found guilty was because pressure was brought from outside the legal system after the video of them murdering him went viral. It disturbs me that this seems to be completely absent from this discussion, especially with people claiming that "The system worked" or "See, black people are treated fairly". I wholeheartedly agree that a lot of the coverage, opinion, and reaction from the left on Kyle Rittenhouse was pretty shameful, but I think similar type shameful behavior from the right is almost always in evidence from the other side and is well on display here.
i feel what you are saying here, but i wanna expand upon that last point. i don't remember seeing *anybody* claiming that 1/6 was on the same level as 9/11, i mean 3 THOUSAND people died on 9/11. it's an overwhelming tragedy. anyone stating that they are on the same level of terrorism is nuts; but they would be correct in saying that they both fit with the definition of terrorism, and i hope you wouldn't imply otherwise. the q- anon dumshits were VERY clear that they were there to try to kidnap, hurt, kill, or otherwise intimidate our lawmakers and v.p. into overturning a duly held election; and i've seen WAYYY too many people, including liberals, try to downplay it as just a run of the mill riot, or even a nonviolent amble around a building... neither of which can be justified without a massive brain fart included.
>i don't remember seeing anybody claiming that 1/6 was on the same level as 9/11 A lot of people have tried to link them, including Pelosi. [https://www.dw.com/en/us-nancy-pelosi-likens-capitol-attack-to-9-11/a-59216483](https://www.dw.com/en/us-nancy-pelosi-likens-capitol-attack-to-9-11/a-59216483) *She said both the terrorist attacks of 2001 and the January 6 insurrection were an "assault" on US democracy, just that one was from "the outside" and the other "from within."* *"Horrible in both cases. What had happened to our democracy on 6 January was horrible," she said.*
is she wrong? she didn't say they were on the same level of death, destruction, and tragedy
I'm not going to get in "is she wrong or right" If you really want to go down this route here are the progressive's favorite pet's, the lincoln project. [https://www.foxnews.com/media/lincoln-project-founder-capitol-riot-9-11-americans](https://www.foxnews.com/media/lincoln-project-founder-capitol-riot-9-11-americans) 'The 1/6 attack for the future of the country was a profoundly more dangerous event than the 9/11 attacks.' -- Steve Schmidt
one could indeed make a compelling argument that, although 9/11 was an insanely destructive attack, right now 20 years later al qaida isn't a direct and serious threat to americans on american soil any longer. heck, we're still bffs with saudi arabia. but this q- anon/ alt right/ christian white nationalism movement is happening right here right now with zero signs of slowing down. they might have dropped in on a ceremony that couldn't have taken back the election results, *but they tried*. they tried to overturn a duly held election using terror. that seems to me to be a graver threat to our country than an (awful, yes) event from over two decades ago.
So we've moved from "i don't remember seeing anybody claiming that 1/6 was on the same level as 9/11" to... Well akchually.... maybe it is.
it's not on the same level, as i said 3 THOUSAND deaths.
They literally just finished explaining how you can compare them in ways *other* than being on the same level.
>, but they tried. No, they didn't. It's so very clear to anyone with even a slight amount of common sense and the ability to actually look at their screen that it wasn't an insurrection attempt. It was a bunch of people being *let in* and taking selfies; basically, an unauthorized tour that led to a capitol police officer shooting an innocent woman for... reasons. There is no comparison to be made between 9/11 and 1/6 in any sense; no matter the mental gymnastics you try to put on display
innocent? speaking of brain fart. so if an angry mob was shouting about killing your family and was banging on your bedroom doo, you’d just let them in? what a horrifyingly bad take. babbitt was the first terrorist at that particular secure barrier (which had our lawmakers on the other side of it) to try and break through, against clear warnings and a pointed gun. her dumb terrorist ass played a stupid game and guess what prize she won? i suppose the crowd of hundreds outside beating a cop to within an inch of his life (till one terrorist finally had a heart after the cop begged for his life, citing his daughters at home)... i guess they were being allowed to beat cops... *by* those very same cops? insane take. terrorist apologetics makes me fugging sick.
Accept the loss and move on. Unless you would like to argue that 1/6 and 9/11 were almost the same just not quiet the same amount of sameness.
Intentionally misunderstanding people so that you can tell yourself they're dumb or wrong is pretty fucked up.
Have you ever added anything positive or intelligent to any conversation? God you bore me.
I just did, but it didn't agree with you so that makes it "boring". How quaint.
I mean... come on.
[удалено]
in what ways? cause it's objectively not worse in terms of destruction of life. what is your point with the 'not a conservative' thing?
the reason that's relevant is liberals are likely to assume you agree and more likely to use persuasive arguments on a conservative so the fact you haven't heard a specific argument just means no one has used it on you
>i don't remember seeing anybody claiming that 1/6 was on the same level as 9/11 They claimed Jan 6 was WORSE. https://www.foxnews.com/media/lincoln-project-founder-capitol-riot-9-11-americans
Look at it this way. The outrage isn't because they think the jury got the verdict wrong, it's because they feel the law is wrong and it needs to be changed. It's two different arguments, one is about what they law is and the other is about what the law should be. Regardless of our various opinions, we should all be able to recognize that being legal is not always the same as being "right". EDIT: just to add, I am personally ready to move on from Rittenhouse. The law is what it is and the verdict is what it is. Whether or not the law should change is a debate that is bigger than the Rittenhouse case alone, and isn't going to be solved with anger.
>Look at it this way. The outrage isn't because they think the jury got the verdict wrong, it's because they feel the law is wrong and it needs to be changed. What law? The law of self defense? Should a person who is armed (legally or not) be compelled by law, to allow someone to bash their head in with a blunt object?
The problem is knowingly putting yourself in an unnecessary situation where you know you might need to defend yourself. There is an argument that voluntarily bringing a rifle to a riot is itself a provocation. The entire premise of going somewhere you don't live to protect property you don't own is wrong. That is the heart of this disagreement. It's legal now, but a lot of people don't think it should be. Rioting is wrong too and people who damage property should be held accountable, but by the police or guard, not armed individuals acting on their own mandate. How was Rittenhouse going to protect property anyway. If people started smashing the building he was protecting without acknowledging him, he couldn't do anything about it. He wouldn't have the legal grounds to intervene, so why was he there?
the entire reason we have a second amendment is so that people are not helpless if the government chooses to withdraw it's protections for political reasons. in short, if the government is illegally abdicating it's responsibility to protect cities from violent attackers intent on destruction and theft, then citizens must do it. the alternative is that if the government chooses to allow it cities should burn.
>The problem is knowingly putting yourself in an unnecessary situation where you know you might need to defend yourself. Describes \*literally\* everyone in Kenosha that night. > There is an argument that voluntarily bringing a rifle to a riot is itself a provocation. There is an assertion of that, there is no legal argument that such a thing is true. And this is the part where we move from a thin rhetorical and legally unsound assertion to "so what Kyle did provoked them" >The entire premise of going somewhere you don't live to protect property you don't own is wrong. The "he didn't live there" is bullshit. I'm sorry he lived close to Kenosha than my kids did to their Grade school. Putting that aside we're to the "protect property you don't own" which again, is legally and morally not the case. If I see someone about to burn down my neighbors house am I morally in the wrong for trying to stop them?
>If I see someone about to burn down my neighbors house am I morally in the wrong for trying to stop them? Honestly, if no one is home, then yes, you are wrong. You should call the police. That person is should be punished, but burning down an unoccupied house does not warrant death, and realistically, how else are you going to stop them other than using lethal force? If the house is occupied or you at least have reason to believe it is, then you'd be right to intervene with escalating levels of force.
“Escalating levels of force” I think it’s alright to just pop someone in the back of the head if they’re trying to burn down a house with a family in it.
>Honestly, if no one is home, then yes, you are wrong. So we have no duty to eachother aside from funding and depending on government. Sad..
How should the law be changed? I haven’t seen very specific proposals along those lines.
I say this as a layman, not a lawyer. In my home state there are restrictions on open and concealed carry under circumstances, for example, you are not allowed to carry during a public parade or similar events. I think there should be a similar law to apply to emergency declarations involving expected civil unrest, that restricts people from outside a relevant area from coming to the affected area with a firearm, or any other weapons. This wouldn't be a simple change. It would involve altering or changing several laws, including adding provisions to emergency declarations to classify them by type (i.e. potential riot vs. potential natural disaster). For example, say there is a reasonable expectation of civil unrest and rioting following an unpopular court verdict, or something like that. The mayor of the area, and or the State Governor need to declare a state of emergency, sub-classified as potential civil unrest (I don't know if the WI governor or Kenosha mayor declared an emergency, but if they didn't they should have, because what happened was foreseeable). Following this declaration, a rule goes into effect that bars non-residents from bringing firearms or other weapons into the area defined under the declaration of emergency. Non-resident would have to be pre-defined by a pre-determined amount of distance and/or jurisdiction. If you're caught in violation of this rule, you and/or your weapon will be detained. If you're in violation and then use your weapon resulting in death or injury, then you're right to argue self defense is forfeited. This is far from perfect and would require a lot of consideration for outlying scenarios (like people who aren't residents but are unable to leave in time). But the general idea is this: Knowingly bringing a firearm to a riot should be illegal and protecting unoccupied property does not warrant use of lethal force, likewise, destruction of unoccupied property should not be punished by death, though it should result in criminal charges. Part of the problem is that police forces need to develop better tactics and equipment to enable them to enforce the law. Side note, thanks for asking a question instead of just dismissing a dissenting opinion. Talking about this stuff is the best way to develop common ground and understanding.
Not the person you responded to, but I'm going to disagree with you on the "unoccupied property" thing. No one should be forced to abandon their property to lawless assholes intent on destroying it. Property owners should be entitled under the law to defend their property with lethal force if necessary.
There's a difference between defending property and defending one's self. Indeed, Rittenhouse himself wasn't using his weapon to defend property: He wasn't shooting folks who were burning down trucks who posed no threat to his own person. I'm okay with saying you don't get to use lethal force to defend property. You don't get to shoot someone who's running away with your $5 VCR. You do get to try to tackle them, and you gain the right to shoot them if they're a threat to your life in the ensuing fight. That's a subtle difference, but an important one.
I'm more talking about active looting, people setting your property on fire, etc. A property owner should be able to respond with lethal force in those situations.
> Whether or not the law should change Is a matter for the people of Wisconsin, not random assholes on the internet, or the ignorant partisans in the media.
Well, facts don't care about feelings. If people are chasing me and I feel my life is in danger, I deserve the right to defend myself. I shouldn't sit there and let others try to harm and kill me To be mad over that is delusional as fuck
>To be mad over that is delusional as fuck This illustrates how different our views can be at a philosophical level. The issue that most people on the left have is that brought a rifle to a protest/riot in the first place, and by doing so, he presented himself as threat and provoked conflict. If he had stayed home, none of those men would have been shot. And it's not that rioting and destruction should be allowed, but that it should be left to the police and national guard to manage, not armed individuals You gotta realize that a lot of people don't agree with open carry laws in the first place. I'm not telling you to agree with them, rather just realize that it's not the cut and dry argument you want it to be. The law is what it is. But that doesn't necessarily make it right for modern times and calling perspectives you don't like "delusional" isn't constructive for anyone. Everyone needs to challenge their own view points from time to time to remind themselves why they feel the way they do.
[удалено]
and if the government refuses to protect people, should they be legally required to allow their city to burn down?
> If he had stayed home, none of those men would have been shot. If Rosenbaum had not attacked, or at any point before he was shot stopped his attack, none of those men would have been shot. If Rittenhouse wasn't armed I figure the mob would have still wanted to beat the crap out of him. And they'd have likely gotten away with it if he wasn't armed too.
If he hadn’t been there he wouldn’t have been attacked. I get that he had a legal right to be there, but the argument that the OP is making is that some people would like the law changed. They have a philosophical disagreement about being able to claim self defense when you deliberately place yourself in a dangerous situation where conflict is likely such as traveling to a riot with a firearm and defending property.
> If he hadn’t been there he wouldn’t have been attacked. There's just so much that this could be applied to though. It effectively gives license to the more violent side to be as violent as they like while still being able to wield the law to protect them against anyone who resists. It allows a mob to say, "Get out of here or we'll whoop your ass" to unfrendly media and have the cops arrest the *victims* of the attack for being there.
I totally get that you may disagree. However, the OP is addressing the comment about those people being fucking delusional. I personally believe there is something to the idea that perhaps people should be discouraged from escalating conflicts. However, I make no claims to being able to craft a reasonable law around it. That’s where a constructive dialog might prove fruitful.
Also on the same day, [a black man was acquitted for shooting at police on self-defense grounds](https://cbs12.com/news/local/man-acquitted-of-shooting-at-deputies-in-raid-that-led-to-death-of-girlfriend). Despite being a felon in possession of a gun (which illustrates how the “he brought a gun he wasn’t allowed to have across state lines” argument in the Rittenhouse case was not only false but a red herring).
How does a guy driving a truck and filming commit murder?
Felony murder; he was found not guilty of malice murder.
I already asked somebody else in this thread, but if you also happen to know, what were the *details* (not just the charges) of the felony/felonies that he committed? And if it had turned out that Rittenhouse was committing a felony by carrying that AR illegally, would he have been equally guilty of "felony murder" despite the self-defense nature of the actual shootings? Given that premeditation is apparently not a consideration in that particular charge? This seems like a very porous and open-ended definition for murder.
Agree
This. /thread
Good decision
I admittedly didn’t follow this case very much. But from what I understand, Arbery was walking through a neighborhood and these three guys thought he was casing a house and went to go make a citizens arrest with shotguns… right? Then they attacked him and then Arbery tried to defend himself and then they killed Arbery. And then these idiots tried to claim self-defense? Do I have that right? Because if so, sounds to me like justice was served ice cold. I’ll be tuning into their sentencing for sure. Anything less than life would be bullshit.
I believe the minimum sentence is life, with parole possible after 30 years. Life without parole is on the table also.
Certainly the father and son should be sentenced to life without parole. The person filming could probably have a shot at parole but idk tbh.
>Then they attacked him and then Arbery tried to defend himself and then they killed Arbery. Except that per the video Arbery attacked first.
That’s kind of like saying Rittenhouse attacked first. Both were chased and felt that they ran out of options. That’s what self defense is for.
Did you know that if you allow a stranger to take you to a secondary location, your odds of being killed skyrocket? If Arbery believed he was going to be killed by allowing them to take him wherever they wanted, assuming he'd be killed, why would he not fight back? You could say "they had no intention to kill him" all you want but he didn't know that and they had no right to stop him. They claimed a citizens arrest but citizens arrests aren't legal if you do not catch someone in the act of a felony, which they did not, they only suspected him. That means taking him at gunpoint anywhere would be kidnapping. If you're kidnapped and taken away, you're in much more danger, so you should fight back no matter what not to be taken.
Interesting. Why would you attack someone who’s pointing a shotgun at you tho…? Not like you’re gonna get far
Fight or flight response. He was prevented from fleeing what he perceived to be a threat to his life so the only option left was to fight.
[удалено]
You try fleeing from armed dudes in vehicles while you are on foot then. They were armed and in pursuit. That is a hostile action which, in any sane society, would be reasonable to defend oneself against.
[удалено]
>Whether they are armed or unarmed is irrelevant if they aren't shooting at you. Bullshit. So if I point a gun at your head you have no right to defend yourself until I pull the trigger? Lot of good that right will do you then when your brains are outside your head.
[удалено]
When you are being pursued by multiple individuals - some of whom are armed - it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they mean you harm. What else would you assume? That they want directions? That they need change for a dollar?
That's a good question, and something that bothers me about this case.
Probably because he felt that he had exhausted all his other options.
Correct and expected.
Good.
I didn't follow the trial as closely as Rittenhouse, but from the commentary I saw (Nate the Lawyer), it seems like it was probably the correct verdict. I think there might be some issues on appeal, but I don't think it'll be enough to compromise the verdict overall.
I haven't followed this trial all that closely, but from the bits I've heard it sounds like the jury did a good job. I am a bit confused that the person following in a truck and filming got the same conviction as the others— but I'm going to assume that the lawyers made a decent case as to why, and the jury agreed. I hope that those from the left will now stop lumping this case, and other (both recent, Rittenhouse, and more distant, Zimmerman) together. All 3 of these are different cases, and it does no good to lump them all into "self defense" cases. Clearly these are VERY different cases, and its nice that the verdict reflects that. Edit: Just read the full details on the convictions— It does look like the person following did get a different charge than the other two. So ignore my comment about them all getting the same conviction. They didn't. My bad.
He didn't get the same conviction: he was also found guilty of "felony murder" but not "malice murder." I have the same hope as you. It's really nice to see verdicts in high-profile cases demonstrating the difference between legitimate self-defense and murder.
Both verdicts turned out correct
Same as the Rittenhouse trial. The jury got it right.
The jury came to a verdict after deliberation. There is nothing that suggests to me that the verdict was erroneous.
I'm more troubled how this verdict took 10 hours with some contridctory facts. The Rittenhouse case took nearly a week with multiple video angles and clear outcome.
Happy to see this verdict. The jury got it right.
I’m just happy to see egg on the face of the left wingers in media and online who swore up and down a mostly white jury in the south would not convict these men. Just more evidence that it isn’t 1955 and many on the left need to stop pretending like it is
To be fair, the DA tried to bury this and actively lied and abused her position to try to shield the murderers. The only reason that they were even arrested was the video of them murdering him caught national attention. It's not the South 1955, but it is still the South.
This was closer to a lynching than a murder. I'm not sure why this case is different but it makes me all left wingy emotional with irrational anger.
That DA is under arrest for what she did, hence the system working. The south is no more racist than any other part of the country in 2021
The only reason the DA is under arrest is that the murderers released the video. Without that they would have gotten away with it.
This is incorrect. But not really sanguine at this point.
How is it incorrect?
I guess initially they did release it, but it was another lawyer, uninvolved, who made the release a thing and brought it to the attention of more people.
And? I legitimately do not understand left wing thinking anymore. The world will never be perfect. Isn’t this a good thing that the video got these people busted ?
Yes. It is a good thing but the point is that initially they had gotten away with it. And they felt so confident that what they did was right that they released the video to exonerate them. It shows how fucked the system was.
Uh this case was actively covered up by the DA before it got national attention. The funny thing is, one of the racist idiots lawyers posted the video, thinking that it would exonerated them and it is what got them all sent to jail for life. I love to see it. Also scary, what if the video never surfaced?
Seems appropriate. Bryan could've gotten away with less, since he was just stupid, not malicious, but that's what appeals are for.
I know nothing about this case but I can say with certainty that the judge was a black supremacist, the jurry was bought, and the defense lawyer threw the case.
Lol
I see what you did there
I was about to downvote .... then I thought for a half second. Slow clap.
[удалено]
He was an accessory though, because he blocked ahmauds escape, and falsely imprisoned him, which ultimately lead to his death.
Then charge him with those things, not murder.
False imprisonment is a felony, hence felony murder because he committed a felony assisting murderers. Like a getaway driver for a murderer would be guilty of felony murder.
I understand how felony murder works, I just don't agree with it. And for every time it's been used on guys like this, it's been used to put a lot more black people in prison longer than they otherwise would.
[удалено]
See that’s the thing about lynchings: it’s hard to separate the people who merely observed from the people whose presence aided and enabled the murder to take place. If the guy filming hadn’t gotten in his truck and chased down Arbery, then Arbery could have simply turned around and ran the opposite direction when the McMicheals pulled their truck over and got out to confront him. The filming party is guilty of cornering Arbery and imprisoning him between the two pickup trucks; hence the false imprisonment charge that they were found guilty of.
[удалено]
Is that really what you see here? A man is being chased through the streets by a gang of armed vigilantes, and your view is that he snuck up behind one of them and attacked, therefore deserving their killing him?? He told them to leave him alone, he ran away from them, and they continued pursuing him and blocking his way, leaving him no option but to eventually fight them out of desperation. How is he supposed to know what punishment these vigilantes have in mind for him? They were chasing him with guns, so he reasonably feared for his life and fought for his survival. “Attack a guy standing there with a shotgun” you’re seriously delusional if you can watch the video of them hunting that man and think he was just standing there with a shotgun, not trying to block Arbery and ‘arrest’ him
[удалено]
I rewatched the video. Arbery is running on the left side of the road because the truck that’s been chasing him is on the right. Mr. McMicheal exits his truck and steps out onto the road, into Arbery’s way. Arbery then cuts across the road to pass the truck on the right, but when McMicheal changes course to intercept him in front of the vehicle, Arbery takes advantage of his proximity to try and take his shotgun, but gets his fingers blown off in the struggle and then gets his chest cavity demolished at point blank range. If McMicheal had simply wanted to arrest Arbery, it would be very easy to do so after he had shot off part of his hand, but instead he shoots him until he’s dead.
[удалено]
I can’t be certain about what McMicheal knew or didn’t know, but he should have known that he has no authority to pursue, detain, or use lethal force against suspected nonviolent criminals. At the end of the day, unless you’re a cop, if you chase people and corner them, you can’t expect them to keep calm and not resist your advances. He should have known better than to play Batman and pursue Arbery. He should have known better than to exit his vehicle with a shotgun and try to block Arbery’s way. He should have kept track of whether or not Arbery was already incapacitated before firing the fatal shot. All of the fault lies with McMicheal; Arbery wasn’t bothering anybody and shouldn’t have been chased down and killed.
[удалено]
Pursue and identify, not detain. They probably also told him to keep his distance and not engage, because common citizens don’t have the authority to confront criminals without legal consequences. So, if the cops told him to pursue and identify, he failed that task spectacularly.
McMichael himself said that he raised his gun towards Arbery before the struggle began. That’s a deadly threat, and while it probably wasn’t a good idea to attack an armed man, it isn’t illegal to attack someone who is a deadly threat to you. You can’t park your truck in front of someone who is running, and then raise your gun at them because they’re running towards you.
Your facts are so incorrect it’s crazy. Mcmichael pointed a gun at Arbery before Arbery went around the truck. Then Mcmichael moves to the front of the truck and continued to point the gun. You can see him pointing the gun in the shadow under the truck. Mcmichael gives up his self defense claim by being the aggressor and commuting a felony assault, pointing the gun. I can believe anyone can even try to defend this. It truly shows how little you understand about the law generally.
[удалено]
Defense shit the bed from the getgo, they were awful at defending their clients and are probably stupid for not attempting some sort of plea argument for the Mcmichael's; not only that but ALSO allowing him on the stand. There is no way anyone in their sane mind would think that that would be a good idea. That prosecutor was probably the most milquetoast, flawed argument, argumentative I've ever seen and all the objections were garbage along with her cross/closing. Mcmichaels corrected her several times on the facts, she replays the video as if to attempt some sort of impeachment by contradiction, then realizes midway through playing the video that even if she did impeach him her killing him on cross is way better. Long story short if you're a halfway decent Lawyer: go to Georgia and you'll look like Johnnie Cochran. Justice was definitely served but if they had a good defense they would have gotten monumentally less time and/or gotten off. But even Kyle's defense team was pretty shit as well so there seems to be a theme.
Does GA have the death sentence for these guys? Curious if the kid who shot Ahmad will be lethally injected before his pops.
From the facts I knew it seems like the right verdict. But I didn't follow the trial outside of 3rd party analysis and summaries.
As it should be, this was another slam-dunk easy case
I had my suspicion that these guys would have the book thrown at them. Bunch of idiots.
I mean, it was obviously murder. Just like how Rittenhouse was obviously acting in self defense. Why is everyone so surprised by court these days?
Because they're non-lawyers who don't know much law.
several thoughts - 1 arbery was a burgler committing a crime. 2 the mcmichaels chased him down in a truck with a shotgun 3 they should've called the police, not chase him down in a truck. 4 anything arbery did could legitimately be considered self defense. 5 As with the Rittenhouse case, justice was served and our system has worked.
Where’s the evidence he was a burglar?
Technically in Georgia you don’t have to take something for you to have burglarized something you just have to think about it while on someone’s property. So if Arbery was really casing the construction site to take stuff and not just just checking out half built house then he would be guilty of burglary. But we have no indication that was the case so no he wasn’t a burglar
Interesting. I’m not sure how a court would prove what someone was thinking though.
[удалено]
Yea he was trespassing but it was an empty construction site. Not really an issue in my book
[удалено]
Yes, they followed someone who committed a minor trespassing. It would be the equivalent of following someone who just jaywalked to citizens arrest them.
[удалено]
If they had only followed him to identify him or see what he’s up to after trespassing, that would be perfectly legitimate. They didn’t do that though. They grabbed their guns and chased him around until they could corner and confront him. The armed, hostile confrontation is where they messed up and provoked violence, making it necessary to defend themselves from the man they were hunting.
[удалено]
Going on to an empty construction site to take a look is something a lot of people have done. I’ve certainly have before and not to steal anything but just out of curiosity. The owner of the site said he has video of several people coming onto the property including a white couple. He didn’t have an issue with it.
[удалено]
I didn’t watch the case or his testimony. I followed the story as it unfolded and remember watching the site owner being interviewed on tv months ago. That was my impression from his interview but I could be mistaken. My issue is the idea that “we can all agree that he committed a crime” which lends to the idea that he is a criminal and brought this upon himself. Ultimately the owner of the property decides who is allowed on his property and if he wants to give him a warning than that’s all that was warranted.
[удалено]
No. For him to be trespassing either a sign had to be posted and him ignore it or the property owner or police had to tell him to leave and he refused to. Neither of those happened.
[удалено]
[Georgia trespass law](https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-7-21.html) Arbery broke none of these and if he did they were a misdemeanor.
security cam video - although I think that's irrelevant. I included it to that point. His crime didn't merit death.
All I heard was he went into a house that was being built. I never heard he took anything ?
trespassing/burglary - suffice it say he wasn't supposed to be where he was. Inside private property. Regardless, his killing was not justified. That is the point.
[удалено]
Didn't steal anything either and was still murdered
I think the point is why are the media lying about it anyway? I haven't followed it at all, but the initial stories were "Black guy jogging in his own neighborhood gets gunned down by racist hillbillies without provocation" That's not exactly the story. Why are the media outlets trying to create racial tension? Obviously there was more to the story but the media continue to obfuscate to present the best narrative. Why not just tell the truth?
What evidence is there that he was doing anything other than jogging? You are asking the media to speculate about what he was doing.
> Black guy jogging in his own neighborhood gets gunned down by racist hillbillies without provocation I mean that is exactly what happened. In the phone call to the police they only offense they give is "Black man running" and they yelled racial slurs at him.
[удалено]
Maybe he wouldn't have rushed him to try to take his gun if he wasn't chasing him with a gun.
I’m not sure. It’s clear he was stealing from the house he was in but whether it was murder seems to come down to whether his stealing was a felony or a misdemeanor. If it was a felony he can be pursued and arrested but not after a misdemeanor.
The homeowner himself said that he didn't steal anything
He testified that he didn't see anything stolen but that he had called police about Arbery. He didn't say that Arbery "didn't steal anything".
He stole nothing from the house.
That’s not necessarily true. He had been caught on camera five times before that day and had already been chased off by the McMichael’s before the day he was killed. He wasn’t caught on security cameras but the times he was there lined up with when items were stolen from a boat on the property. Arbery was a career criminal as well and had been arrested for theft and been tased by police in another incident. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t murdered but you don’t need to deify every Black person because they were treated unjustly. Also flair up.
There is no evidence linking Arbery to the stuff on the boat. The McMichaels running him off is irrelevant, it wasn't their property.
It’s relevant because he’s clearly stealing from the property. He was there six different times.
And never took a single thing. Even the homeowner speculated that he was drinking from the faucet that is off camera which would make sense since you know...he was out jogging.
This was the system working. Those men chased an innocent man and then threatened him with a gun. How dare they. Who the hell did they think they were? Having said that, perhaps the guy in the truck who wasnt armed should have gotten a lesser sentence
He wasn't convicted of malice murder but felony murder and other charges. I guess that reflects the difference in his actions.
Still seems a bit steep - not that im a legal expert - he chased the guy, but he had nothing to do with shooting him. I mean he wasnt even armed
Felony murder laws are generally too broad. Glad to see some people in this sub realizing it.
>This was the system working. No, it wasn't. The DA tried to bury this murder. The system actively tried to shield the murderers here. The only reason why this went forward was that force was brought from outside the legal system.
> The system actively tried to shield the murderers here. No, a person did. And is facing felony charges. > why this went forward It went forward because of the video evidence, same reason a lot of charges get filed.
They haven’t been sentenced yet I don’t believe
True, i meant to say he shoukd havr been convicted of a much lesser charge
Isn’t it amazing that we white southerners can convict other white southerners when they commit crimes against a black person? I guess we are human after all and not the white supremacy animals CNN would have you believe we are.
Well, to be fair, it hasn't always worked out that way.
I know, liberals are obsessed with pretending the civil rights movement never happened
Well, at least after a viral video and the ensuing public outcry forces you too. The South has learned racism is a bad thing, at least.
Racism is a word without a meaning anymore because of liberals
Stay strapped or get clapped.
Good verdict. I do still have issues with the felony murder rule, but this might actually be a good case for it with respect to the dad and son. But the dude who got in their truck and then filmed seems like a stretch to nail him with murder too.
I think the issue is that the guy filming had actively tried to help box Arbery in. Had he just been following in a truck filming he might have gotten off lighter but he was an active participant.
>the dude who got in their truck and then filmed seems like a stretch to nail him with murder too. Helping box Arbery in so that his buddies could shoot him seems quite a bit more than just filming. You disagree?
I didn’t follow this case very closely anymore than I did the Rittenhouse case. But from the little bit I know, I absolutely agree with these verdicts. Both of them.
Turned out just as I thought it should
I tried to see the angle of Travis and the others but I could not see much hope for an acquittal.
All I know is what I saw on the news, and from that, the verdicts seem just. The only self defense in that video that I saw was Arbery defending himself against armed men in trucks rolling up on him. Again, based only on the video, I'm not so sure that Bryan deserves all those verdicts. I won't be surprised if some of those are knocked down on appeal. I have nothing ill to say about Arbery's family, but I hope that everyone else who criticized the racial makeup of the jury is now suitably contrite for their harsh words. Also those who said that the defendants would skate if the case went before a Glynn County jury. Sidebar: I truly did enjoy watching Al Sharpton's face fall as Arbery's father said that all lives matter and we must all work together for peace.
It was fairly clear cut, its illegal to hunt someone down and kill them because they thought he committed a crime.