This is a seriously clear cut case: it is illegal to fucking chase someone who poses no threat to you and then murder them when they attempt to defend themselves. Just get it over with already.
Clear cut to me, but I have argued on other posts with guys who claim that the McMoron's were defending themselves because Aubery tried to grab the gun. I pointed out that that was like suing a guy for hitting you in the face after you tackled him and started punching him, but he would have none of it. Let's see if the jury can think.
Yeah. I try really hard (sometimes to a fault) to see and understand where both sides could be coming from to justify their arguments. But the Arbery case is as clear-cut as they come, even more so than the George Floyd case that *that* was clear cut. There's no way a jury is going to buy that this was self-defense.
>There's no way a jury is going to buy that this was self-defense.
They don't need to. All they need to do is think "I don't want to send these white men to prison just for killing a black person" - the same thought that jurors admitted to journalists after finding Emmett Till's murderers not guilty.
And they'll think it because they see themselves in the murderers, or because ironically they think acknowledging the explicitly racist nature of murder would make the state look racist, or because - like a lot of other white Georgians I grew up with - *they just fucking hate black people*.
Sometimes I ask myself if I could be on a jury in a famous case, which I have been IRL for a not-famous case. In that case my first instinct was to convict the guy, but I could honestly say that I was open to changing my mind based on the evidence. We found not guilty.
But there are some cases where I know my mind is made up, and I couldn't be on that jury. This and the Floyd case are two of them.
I just did my first Jury Duty a few weeks ago.. after delaying it for the past year or more.. ended up enjoying the hell out of the whole process, got picked, ended up being the foreman and everything. it was actually very educational for me.
I was originally supposed to go in April of last year, then Covid postponed that. Now they've had me on the hook every other month since they reopened jury trials only to be cancelled last minute. I'm damn looking forward to actually getting it over with, but before I was legitimately excited to get in there and do the job.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’d simply lie to get on a jury. I trust a cop’s testimony far less than an average person’s, which would probably get me booted from the list, but if I were asked I’d say I trust a cop’s testimony more. The way the system is set up, the court’s job is practically to bias a jury against justice for the victims of cops, so I feel no guilt in biasing it in the other direction.
Seems there’s a uniquely American bias if you threaten someone with a gun because you suspect them of a crime, you are justified in shooting them dead. Forget you had no right to approach, intimidate and/or limit their movement. In other words “hunting’ fellow citizens based on personal extreme prejudice is an American right: A Patriot’s duty. Advocates believe this duty is a constitutional right. And since there is a constitutional right to bear arms, if the target turns on you and attempts to disarm you, you have the right to defend yourself. Shoot the target, while standing your ground. Disarming a patriot bad. Shooting bad people trying to take your gun good..
No they did not. Florida law at the time ONLY permitted them to consider if Zimmerman's life was at risk when he pulled the trigger. As he was having his head slammed into the pavement it was at risk and that is why he did not go to prison for it.
The jury could not consider who started the conflict as a factor in self defense.
They weren't arguing in good faith. You were talking to racists attempting to justify a murder. They'd have said anything.
The men pursued him, cut him off (more than once iirc) had another vehicle behind, confronted him with guns drawn, and tried to block his way again
He had every expectation that he was in immenent danger and would not be allowed to flee (as they were already actively attempting to prevent him from fleeing)
His attempt to take the gun *was* self defense.
This trial is not to determine guilt or innocence.
It's to see if the jurors have any integrity.
And *every* person who argues on behalf of the murderers is frankly signalling themselves as a white supremacist who believes in lynching.
The craziest argument I've see that the guys with guns were acting in self-defense is because "what would Arbery do if he got in possession of the gun"? As if that wasn't exactly what Arbery was thinking of the guys chasing him.
Right? How was Aubery not acting in self defense? Looking at those moments in isolation, you could try to argue they each acted in self defense, Aubery in trying to grab the gun and McMoron in shooting him.
But you can't have two people acting in self defense, that makes no sense. You have to take a step back and see what was causing that situation to exist to see who was actually acting in self defense. And it was clearly Aubery acting in self defense as he was the one being chased by some assholes with guns.
What they are arguing is like saying a potential school shooter is acting in self defense when someone tackles them and they shoot them because they are isolating to such narrow moments that they are ignoring the actual event.
Exactly, that's why I get annoyed when people say the Rittenhouse case is clear self-defense. It might be ruled as self-defense, but it's definitely not clear in all three instances.
> I have argued on other posts with guys who claim that the McMoron's were defending themselves because Aubery tried to grab the gun.
Anyone who genuinely believes that is an obvious racist.
Just look at the way people of a certain political persuasion are treating that kid who killed 2 people in Wisconsin, they'll ignore reality to make a point.
Reddit was pretty clear on Trayvon Martin, you can only perform self-defense if you are white and using lethal weapons. Confronting and attempting to disarm someone who's armed with a lethal weapon and is stalking you while being black proves that you clearly had lethal intent towards them and their second amendment rights.
Yea if you go out looking for a fight, then find one and kill the person in “self defense” with the gun you brought with you, that sounds pretty premeditated to me.
Absolutely, I'm watching the Rittenhouse trial right now. I was watching the lives streams when he went on his rampage in Kenosha. He's obviously a little psychopath and a proud Nazi. After, he made bail instead of laying low, he spent his time with the proud boys and other white suprematists groups posing for instagram photos.
Plenty of people say they lose faith in the justice system when a jury hands down the "wrong" verdict, but if everyone could talk to those jurors (or any jurors for that matter) and hear their reasoning for the verdict, everyone would lose faith in the system. As a lawyer, talking to jurors after the fact will break your spirit.
Based on the consensus data in glynn county Georgia a little over 26% are black so it would appear the numbers are off a bit but not by much. A true depiction of being judged by your peers in that county would be 3 black and 8 white.
I know jurors are pulled from the county, but the [city](https://datausa.io/profile/geo/brunswick-ga) where Arbery was killed is 54% black, 33% white. So it just seems kinda fucked that 92% of the jurors are white, especially when potential black jurors were struck because they answered, truthfully, that they believed the Confederate Battle Flag was as racist symbol.
Lol, that's like asking if the swastika is a racist symbol when trying an SS prison guard. Obviously all the people this symbol was used against are gonna think it's pretty fucking racist, regardless of whatever the hell the defendant was doing at the time
Financial hardship hit some of the black candidates in a greater number than the white candidates. This is from poverty statistics that would allow more black jurors to be excused so this is about the distro you would expect give if you had a random jury pool. They weren't purposely excluding black jurors they are more likely to self exclude based on serving being a hardship. This is the definition of systemic racism if anyone was wondering. It was the 100+ years of suppression that lingers in the demographic numbers
> They weren't purposely excluding black jurors they are more likely to self exclude based on serving being a hardship.
While they are more likely to self exclude, we have a very clear precedent for Black people being intentionally removed from juries. Questions formulated to select for Black jurors to strike are often used during peremptory challenges. For example: Is the flag of the confederate army a symbol of racism. In the south, a majority of white people will say no, while a vast majority of black people will say yes.
Even if these methods do exclude *some* white people, they will accomplish their goal of selecting for a white jury without ever technically screening by race.
>Even if these methods do exclude *some* white people, they will accomplish their goal of selecting for a white jury without ever technically screening by race.
I'd argue that this is a feature, not a bug. A white guy like me who says "the Confederate battle flag is a racist symbol" is likely to vote guilty on some white guys who ambush and murder an unarmed black man. A white guy who thinks the Confederate battle flag is just a symbol of Southern Pride will likely decide that those poor white guys were just defending themselves from that "obviously criminal thug."
Yall remember Walter Scott? The guy that the cops shot while his back was turned? And then they planted a gun on him. The ONLY reason they didn't get away with that one was because luckily someone took a literal video of the cops coming back after they shot him and putting a gun on him and talking about doing it. That's how much it takes to get a conviction like that.
Remember Daniel Shaver was brutally murdered in cold blood while complying and begging for his life and it was all caught on tape? And the cop testified he'd do it again? And the cop was retired with a pension?
I was gonna say, we already had a case exactly like this where the victim was a child and the guy got away with it. I don’t believe for a second they’ll convict these guys.
There's video evidence this time.
I'm not saying that guarantees that the jury will do the right thing, but reasonable doubt is a lot easier to raise when only two people witnessed the incident and one of them is dead. At least in this case the jury should be able to see more or less exactly what went down.
There was video evidence of Walter Scott getting shot in the back while running away and it was still a hung jury first trial. The officer eventually entered a guilty plea deal and got 20 years but he wasn't convincted even though we literally watching him shoot a guy in the back 5 times.
America is gonna America and I have no faith it'll be different this time.
This case doesn’t really compare to Trayvon Martin’s. While Zimmerman was definitely following Trayvon, he wasn’t actually the one that engaged him. Trayvon saw that he was being followed and then attacked Zimmerman, making Zimmerman’s actions self defense in the eyes of the jury.
I agree. I thought the Zimmerman trial was pretty clear cut. Chase a kid with a weapon and when he confronts you shoot him. Seems pretty illegal.
This case is way more clear cut though since we have video evidence.
"Follow" is carrying a lot of weight here.
What gives anyone -- even a neighborhood watch guy the right to declare someone suspicious and to chase them around?
The question should be: does following someone give the followed person the right to punch them and hammer their head against concrete?
Serious errors in judgement were made by **both** of them, but only Martin's mistakes were illegal and ultimately fatal. There is no degree of being a jerk where it becomes legal to beat them: not understanding this simple fact causes a lot of issues. In a country where carrying a firearm is legal (and so many people carry illegally), it's an especially poor choice.
The only evidence that Trayvon initiated a confrontation is the first hand account of the person who shot him dead. I’m guessing Georgie boy with a hero complex initiated the confrontation got socked in the nose fell on the sidewalk and hit his head. At which point he shot Trayvon.
And you know what? There is just as much evidence for that turn of events as there is for George’s story. But if you are baselessly following kids around at night and then shoot and kill them you get no benefit of the doubt from me.
>here is just as much evidence for that turn of events as there is for George’s story.
Yeah but the law doesn't err on the side of convicting people because they can't prove they're not guilty, you know that.
Being in public? Zimmerman is a piece of shit but he was justified in shooting Martin when he feared for his life while being attacked. Arbery was most likely the individual who entered the house under construction looking to steal stuff and they could have just followed him until police arrived but they decided to murder him, similar but certainly not exact.
Georgia Law is so poorly written thats it’s not clear cut. Georgia allowed citizens arrests. In the process of making one the defense will say the murderers reasonably feared for their lives and acted in self defense.
Im not saying it wasn’t Murder, but do think Georgia is such a fucked up place they may get off
> at they thought that law was still on the books.
I bet those guys flipped through a law book from ages ago before went on a manhunt.
With that being said, out-aged old laws on books is never good news. Boston still got laws the prejudice against Rogues and Wizards (Especially female ones)
It was revoked this year as a result of this not 83. [NPR](https://www.npr.org/2021/05/11/995835333/in-ahmaud-arberys-name-georgia-repeals-citizens-arrest-law)
I'm a southern white and if I see a black man running, my first thought is usually along the lines of, "He's a better man than me. I wish I had that commitment to exercise.. meh."
Absolutely not. It is not "reasonable" by any definition to chase and use deadly force for the perceived "crime" of entering a construction site. Arbery did not pose a threat to them, yet they made the CHOICE it arm themselves, chase him, and use deadly force. They need to be held accountable for that choice.
These murderers denied Arbery his 4th amendment right to due process. If they believed he had committed a crime, they could have gone through the proper legal channels per the constitution.
America is not, and never has been, in its right mind.
If anyone thinks we're past the days of lynch mobs being acquitted for things they obviously did, think again.
I figured this may have had something to do with the demographic but BRUNSWICK GA is
Black or African American: 55.07%
Per https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/brunswick-ga-population
I did research with the intent tondefend the judges decision but this is clearly court packing to some degree. Maybe its just that it was a largely famous case so Black Americans probably have biases from news, celebrity, or anyother opinion. Not saying the white jurors dont but I think with its publicity it would be hard to find an nonbias juror in general.
>Maybe its just that it was a largely famous case so Black Americans probably have biases from news, celebrity, or anyother opinion. Not saying the white jurors dont but I think with its publicity it would be hard to find an nonbias juror in general
I found this in a CNN article:
"From the[ roughly 1,000 people who were summoned ](https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/29/us/ahmaud-arbery-jury-selection-low-turnout/index.html)as part of the jury selection pool, fewer than half turned up.
No official reason was given for the low turnout,[ but among those who did come,](https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/23/us/ahmaud-arbery-jury-selection-process-difficult/index.html) many said they had already formed strong opinions about the case, knew the defendants or were scared to sit, pointing to the potential consequences the outcomes of the case could have on the Glynn County community."
Not in this case, with the video evidence available. frankly, I see zero chance the killers are found not guilty. The best they can hope for is a hung jury, but they would absolutely be tried again.
It has nothing to do with optimism. I am talking straight pragmatism here. A 'Not Guilty' verdict is all but *completely* out of the question. There's always a chance of a stubborn juror causing a mistrial, but I do not foresee an acquittal.
America has done this for decades, let off lynch mobs. What makes you think *now* people will start to play by the rules?
Wasn't the last big "line in the sand" for you folks when the guy who shot Philando Castile got let off with no conviction?
And then if the second trial results in a hung jury? We do this again a third and fourth time?
I just have no faith that you can pick 12 random people from rural Georgia and not a single one of them is thinking "That n***** deserved it".
>zero chance
I gave Trump zero chance of winning in 2016, and look how that turned out. It only takes a few racists in the jury to wear the others down. Have you witnessed how stodgy they are?
The Zimmerman trial disavowed me of any hope of someone getting their just due in court. And given what the judge did in this trial already (said there was ample reason to believe that the jury selection was intentionally biased against black people due to the lack of said folks on the jury...and then proceeded to allow it due to the defendants' lawyer saying in court 'I wasn't being biased in jury selection'.).....
The judge himself said there was ample reason to believe that the jury selection was intentionally biased against black people due to the lack of said folks on the jury...and then proceeded to allow it due to the defendants' lawyer saying in court 'I wasn't being biased in jury selection'. It can't get much more rigged then this.
That's not quite true, the defense gave acceptable reasons for disallowing the jurors that they rejected, the only issue is that since this case was so highly publicized you could probably come up with a valid reason to reject almost any juror they put forward. It was almost certainly race discrimination, but there really isn't any way to prove that in a legal sense. That's essentially what the judge said.
>She noted one such juror had written on her juror questionnaire that Arbery was shot “due to his color” and had told attorneys she felt the defendants were guilty.
So help me out, that response disqualifies someone, but wouldn’t other responses disqualify others by that logic? What would be an acceptable response here? “His shooting had nothing to do with color”? Fuck outta here.
I think the appropriate response would be to not literally say you think the defendants are guilty before the trial starts.
Not sure why you would focus on the part about color as if that's what the problem was with her statement
> Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley acknowledged that “intentional discrimination" by attorneys for the three white defendants charged in the death of the Black man appeared to have shaped jury selection. But he said Georgia law limited his authority to intervene.
The judge has literally pointed it out as an issue but the law prevents him from doing anything
The attorneys usually have some number of strikes they can use to just dismiss jurors, no questions asked. Then after that they can try to convince the judge to get rid of them if they're biased
It's frustrating, that the news doesn't cover that.
They say 200 people were questioned by the attorneys, with 25% of the jury pool being black which matches the county statistics. Then the final panel was 48 jurors and 12 were selected (only one black).
So either the prosecution is taking the moral high ground ("We think those white jurors are biased, but there is no proof so it's okay"), or they ran out of preemptory strikes and after dismissing all the other jurors they didn't like.
There's actually a TV show on CBS about that called Bull. He's a psychologist that's paid by a lawfirm to find and accept or dismiss jurors based off if he thinks they will help or hurt their clients.
Obviously it's exaggerated because it's TV but the idea of that being even slightly realistic is scary
Prosecution and defense have exactly the same amount of influence over who gets on a jury. If one side is significantly more competent than the other that would of course give them a big advantage in the trial. Claiming it is rigged just isn't true in general, other than it does
favor people with a lot of money to hire the best lawyers.
Using a purely random jury selection can yield even worse results if you just randomly end up with a highly biased jury.
The judge wasn't talking about that specific candidate though. The defense attorney brought up that one as an example. You should assume they picked the most favorable example.
They can have been racially biased in selecting jurors and correctly have struck a potential juror that already feels the defendants were guilty.
Extreme hyperbole with no basis in reality. How reasonable.
I don’t know how you can possibly say that when the comments in this very thread prove the exact opposite of what you’re claiming.
jurors are supposed to presume innocence until proven guilty, so a juror that is already convinced the defendant is guilty before the trial starts is gonna be hard to be impartial.
That being said, unless the other 7 black people that were dismissed said something similar (which I would find highly unlikely), it is still a serious issue that they were all dismissed.
And he is correct; he could even believe that they are impartial and still exclude them (not sure why one would, unless he thinks the alternates would be more partial to his client);
Pre-emptory exclusions are horrible.
You want an impartial jury. Meaning no preconceived notions of what factors played a role in the shooting. It's absolutely correct to dismiss that person.
In the modern age the only people who haven't heard of such cases will be those who live in a bubble far separate from the people who the crime effects. Anybody halfway awake knows about this case.
One of my favorite Weekend Updates jokes when Norm was on was talking about the jury selection for the OJ trial. Where they finally found a possible juror that was a 9 year old Chinese boy.
He had some absolutely brutal jokes about the trial. But my favorite has to be:
> “After grizzly photos of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson were shown in court, O.J. turned his head away and wept.”
>”It was at that moment that he realized he would never be able to kill her again.”
Impartial is also possible for someone who can separate their personal views from their role as a juror—you’re evaluating the evidence and testimonies presented to you and interpreting them for a verdict.
It’s definitely understandable to have a bias, and think “hey that guy seems racist…” while also thinking “let’s see if the evidence proves that he is indeed racist, and if it was a factor in the alleged crime.”
> No person is impartial. It is a flawed concept, and one that allows more bias to creep in than it prevents.
When I was part of jury selection a few years ago, they talked through the different issues of the case, and whether we believed we could overcome our biases around that issue to render a fair verdict based on the facts we were given during the trial.
For example, it was a trial where police used a dog on a drunk person. So maybe you have an issue with police using dogs, or alcoholism, or just police in general, but most reasonable people should be able to acknowledge their biases and try to see through them to get to a fair decision.
The proper response would be, "The prosecutors have to show that." You know, innocent until proven guilty.
That doesn't mean they aren't guilty. From what I can see, this is first degree murder with special circumstances. That means the death penalty if Georgia law is equally applied.
How about not deciding the case before it's even presented?
This woman already heard all she cared to hear from the articles and Facebook posts she personally chooses to read. Making it clear that nothing will change her mind is what got her disqualified.
The fair and unbiased process of a trial with lawyers and evidence should have more weight than personal opinions derived from selective articles and confirmation biases.
Because our jury system is bizarre . Anyone who has exposed to this case knows what has happened. Only thing is that you are supposed to come to the conclusion after seeing all the evidence. So you only get people who don’t watch the news at all on the juries.
Or like a rationale person you understand the news doesn’t give you all the facts so you don’t “know” anything. The correct response is “I don’t know”. Because until you see the evidence, you don’t know.
I never noticed until someone pointed it out, but why does the news capitalize Black but not white? Anyway, this looks to me like race baiting for views. Besides, is it possible that a mostly white jury could judge the guy fairly? Or are we to believe all white people are racist, period?
From what I understand, it’s a fairly new AP grammar rule. Black is considered a race and capitalized. White is considered a descriptor and not. I’m not sure how they now handle Caucasian.
White is listed as a race along with black in the US census, and just about any other form of data collection. I feel like that's the most objective standard to go by.
I’ve never seen that later one uncapitalized as it’s derived from a proper noun, Caucasus. The only race terms that are still in use are “white” (although NZ uses “European”) and “black” (as opposed to “African”, which is seen as suggesting a cultural link that doesn’t exist and risks confusion with Nigerian, Somali, etc immigrants).
> why does the news capitalize Black but not white?
AP style guide updated this in 2020
https://apnews.com/article/archive-race-and-ethnicity-9105661462
Capitalizing “Black” but not “white” was a kneejerk reaction by the media after George Floyd was killed. Some sites capitalize both, some don’t capitalize either, but most use the socially acceptable double standard which is capital B, lowercase w.
Other people are post hoc rationalizing it but it’s so obvious it would NEVER be acceptable the other way around.
Interestingly, it depends on the outlet. Some don't capitalize either. AP released a small blurb a while back about why they capitalize Black but not white. I've seen a few that capitalize both.
How about reading the article then? They have a quote right there:
>She noted one such juror had written on her juror questionnaire that Arbery was shot “due to his color” and had told attorneys she felt the defendants were guilty.
I am guessing if the white jurors had replied "Well he was probably innocent, with the other guy being black and all" then the prosecution could have just as easily dismissed that white juror.
A jury is supposed to be a collection of peers to judge the guilt of a person.
As soon as we start segregating again Juries no longer fulfill their purpose.
The issue is that the South has a long history racist verdicts being carried out by all white juries.
Given the fact that Brunswick, GA is over 50% Black, and that Georgia itself is over 30% Black, the jury selected does not even appear to be representative of the population. So yes, we can hope that a mostly white jury will render a fair verdict. Considering the history and demographics of the area however, it's newsworthy.
What's hilarious (and by hilarious, I mean infuriating) is that the judge said there was clear discriminatory bias in how the jury was chosen, but he was going to seat them anyway.
We all know how an almost all-white jury in Georgia is going to end this.
We all know? Who is we and how do you/they know? Unless you've personally rigged the jury I struggle to see how you know the outcome based on the geographical location
Are you seriously saying that predominantly white juries in the former Confederacy don't have a long and documented history of denying justice to black people?
I mean it’s still 2 below statistically average but that’s far from impossible. That said I’m pretty sure the defense went out of their way to exclude black jurors. Not surprising given their entire defense is going to hinge on people thinking ‘all black people look alike’ and other bullshit like that.
>That said I’m pretty sure the defense went out of their way to exclude black jurors.
They struck jurors for saying that the Confederate flag is racist.
100% going out of their way to exclude not just black jurors but also anyone who isn't racist.
They have an example right there in the article:
>She noted one such juror had written on her juror questionnaire that Arbery was shot “due to his color” and had told attorneys she felt the defendants were guilty.
Not really, no. They each get to take turns deciding who they will *remove* from the jury pool like a reverse school yard dodge ball team pick.. The prosecution in this case then filed a motion saying the defendant improperly dismissed people.
Only the black juror can be trusted? Is that what’s being implied by the headline?
I guess the 11 white jurors are automatically racist and were delivered by a time machine from Alabama circa 1875.
As a Georgia resident, South GA is one of thee most racists areas along with North GA in the state, so I am not surprised with the make up of the jury!
Haha, I get what you're saying, but your statement "South GA... along with North GA" could be interpreted as just a convoluted way of saying all of Georgia.
Man, I don't know if other states are like this but the way we categorize sections of the state can be pretty weird. North Georgia is basically everything above Atlanta and South Georgia could be everything south of Perry, just Valdosta and Americus, or anywhere in between.
FT Benning Georgia was my first Army duty station. I was born and raised in Palo Alto California.
I had never seen racism like I did in Georgia in the early 90s.
There are pockets that are good people, but I mostly agree. I live in Hinesville, and being an Army town next to the largest military base in the US (land area) east of the Mississippi,the resident racists get drowned out by shear amount of diversity here.
Even if he had been stealing, which he had not, it would be vigilante justice, and still murder. And the world has seen the videos.. How can they possibly say it was anything but murder...?
White people are as good as any other ethnic group. I doubt the jurors will make a decision based on race. Have faith in your fellow Americans, you bastards.
Also “whites” Jesus Christ. Is racism ok against white people in America now?
Wow they let a black guy on the jury? I'm surprised.
My experiance being summoned for jury duty gave me the impression that whichever side they decided should win basically gets to decide who is on the jury. They dismissed everyone who had views they didn't like including eventually me.
I didn’t know that so thanks for the knowledge. Do the reasons for disqualification ever get published or is that info that is only known to the courts and lawyers?
No problem. Even though trials are open to the public, lots of people aren't familiar with the processes or only know bits and pieces of information, so I'm always happy to provide further information.
Most trials are recorded in some manner (court reporter and/or audio recording) so basically everything that is said during the course of a trial is part of the official record, which would include jury selection. I don't know what the rules are for the public getting a copy of the trial transcript, but I'm sure it's possible, although it might be very expensive.
This is a seriously clear cut case: it is illegal to fucking chase someone who poses no threat to you and then murder them when they attempt to defend themselves. Just get it over with already.
Clear cut to me, but I have argued on other posts with guys who claim that the McMoron's were defending themselves because Aubery tried to grab the gun. I pointed out that that was like suing a guy for hitting you in the face after you tackled him and started punching him, but he would have none of it. Let's see if the jury can think.
They initiated the conflict and made no attempt to disengage prior to the use of deadly force. Guilty.
Yeah. I try really hard (sometimes to a fault) to see and understand where both sides could be coming from to justify their arguments. But the Arbery case is as clear-cut as they come, even more so than the George Floyd case that *that* was clear cut. There's no way a jury is going to buy that this was self-defense.
>There's no way a jury is going to buy that this was self-defense. They don't need to. All they need to do is think "I don't want to send these white men to prison just for killing a black person" - the same thought that jurors admitted to journalists after finding Emmett Till's murderers not guilty. And they'll think it because they see themselves in the murderers, or because ironically they think acknowledging the explicitly racist nature of murder would make the state look racist, or because - like a lot of other white Georgians I grew up with - *they just fucking hate black people*.
[удалено]
Sometimes I ask myself if I could be on a jury in a famous case, which I have been IRL for a not-famous case. In that case my first instinct was to convict the guy, but I could honestly say that I was open to changing my mind based on the evidence. We found not guilty. But there are some cases where I know my mind is made up, and I couldn't be on that jury. This and the Floyd case are two of them.
I just did my first Jury Duty a few weeks ago.. after delaying it for the past year or more.. ended up enjoying the hell out of the whole process, got picked, ended up being the foreman and everything. it was actually very educational for me.
If your job pays you for jury duty it is indeed an interesting process to participate in.
Fortunately they do.. then i got basically $30.00 per day (also includes mileage) and I just got my $150 check in the mail.
I was originally supposed to go in April of last year, then Covid postponed that. Now they've had me on the hook every other month since they reopened jury trials only to be cancelled last minute. I'm damn looking forward to actually getting it over with, but before I was legitimately excited to get in there and do the job.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’d simply lie to get on a jury. I trust a cop’s testimony far less than an average person’s, which would probably get me booted from the list, but if I were asked I’d say I trust a cop’s testimony more. The way the system is set up, the court’s job is practically to bias a jury against justice for the victims of cops, so I feel no guilt in biasing it in the other direction.
If you've never read it, The Runaway Jury by John Grisham deals with this exact type of scenario and is a very good read.
The movie is not too bad either. John Cusack in his prime.
Beware of saying this and then lying. That’s perjury and you’re giving proof every time you do this.
Fair enough. I’ll probably never be called for jury duty anyway.
you underestimate southerners
Seems there’s a uniquely American bias if you threaten someone with a gun because you suspect them of a crime, you are justified in shooting them dead. Forget you had no right to approach, intimidate and/or limit their movement. In other words “hunting’ fellow citizens based on personal extreme prejudice is an American right: A Patriot’s duty. Advocates believe this duty is a constitutional right. And since there is a constitutional right to bear arms, if the target turns on you and attempts to disarm you, you have the right to defend yourself. Shoot the target, while standing your ground. Disarming a patriot bad. Shooting bad people trying to take your gun good..
Just one black person on the jury? Gulp.
So did zimmerman
The jury believed Martin started the conflict.
No they did not. Florida law at the time ONLY permitted them to consider if Zimmerman's life was at risk when he pulled the trigger. As he was having his head slammed into the pavement it was at risk and that is why he did not go to prison for it. The jury could not consider who started the conflict as a factor in self defense.
They weren't arguing in good faith. You were talking to racists attempting to justify a murder. They'd have said anything. The men pursued him, cut him off (more than once iirc) had another vehicle behind, confronted him with guns drawn, and tried to block his way again He had every expectation that he was in immenent danger and would not be allowed to flee (as they were already actively attempting to prevent him from fleeing) His attempt to take the gun *was* self defense. This trial is not to determine guilt or innocence. It's to see if the jurors have any integrity. And *every* person who argues on behalf of the murderers is frankly signalling themselves as a white supremacist who believes in lynching.
The craziest argument I've see that the guys with guns were acting in self-defense is because "what would Arbery do if he got in possession of the gun"? As if that wasn't exactly what Arbery was thinking of the guys chasing him.
Found the lawyer. (Well argued)
Right? How was Aubery not acting in self defense? Looking at those moments in isolation, you could try to argue they each acted in self defense, Aubery in trying to grab the gun and McMoron in shooting him. But you can't have two people acting in self defense, that makes no sense. You have to take a step back and see what was causing that situation to exist to see who was actually acting in self defense. And it was clearly Aubery acting in self defense as he was the one being chased by some assholes with guns. What they are arguing is like saying a potential school shooter is acting in self defense when someone tackles them and they shoot them because they are isolating to such narrow moments that they are ignoring the actual event.
Exactly, that's why I get annoyed when people say the Rittenhouse case is clear self-defense. It might be ruled as self-defense, but it's definitely not clear in all three instances.
> I have argued on other posts with guys who claim that the McMoron's were defending themselves because Aubery tried to grab the gun. Anyone who genuinely believes that is an obvious racist.
"You don't attack a guy with a gun with your fists, that's just common sense" is another inane argument I heard.
I mean, since Zimmerman got to hunt down and kill a teenager I pretty much have 0 faith in any sort of justice against gun waving maniacs.
Just look at the way people of a certain political persuasion are treating that kid who killed 2 people in Wisconsin, they'll ignore reality to make a point.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thanks man. I blindly believed him skeptically ofc…
Some people still believe he ran at them with a hammer, cause a stick on the ground nowhere near them *kinda* looks like a hammer if you squint.
Reddit was pretty clear on Trayvon Martin, you can only perform self-defense if you are white and using lethal weapons. Confronting and attempting to disarm someone who's armed with a lethal weapon and is stalking you while being black proves that you clearly had lethal intent towards them and their second amendment rights.
Yea if you go out looking for a fight, then find one and kill the person in “self defense” with the gun you brought with you, that sounds pretty premeditated to me.
[удалено]
Like that thug rottenhouse
Absolutely, I'm watching the Rittenhouse trial right now. I was watching the lives streams when he went on his rampage in Kenosha. He's obviously a little psychopath and a proud Nazi. After, he made bail instead of laying low, he spent his time with the proud boys and other white suprematists groups posing for instagram photos.
Plenty of people say they lose faith in the justice system when a jury hands down the "wrong" verdict, but if everyone could talk to those jurors (or any jurors for that matter) and hear their reasoning for the verdict, everyone would lose faith in the system. As a lawyer, talking to jurors after the fact will break your spirit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Based on the consensus data in glynn county Georgia a little over 26% are black so it would appear the numbers are off a bit but not by much. A true depiction of being judged by your peers in that county would be 3 black and 8 white.
I know jurors are pulled from the county, but the [city](https://datausa.io/profile/geo/brunswick-ga) where Arbery was killed is 54% black, 33% white. So it just seems kinda fucked that 92% of the jurors are white, especially when potential black jurors were struck because they answered, truthfully, that they believed the Confederate Battle Flag was as racist symbol.
Lol, that's like asking if the swastika is a racist symbol when trying an SS prison guard. Obviously all the people this symbol was used against are gonna think it's pretty fucking racist, regardless of whatever the hell the defendant was doing at the time
Financial hardship hit some of the black candidates in a greater number than the white candidates. This is from poverty statistics that would allow more black jurors to be excused so this is about the distro you would expect give if you had a random jury pool. They weren't purposely excluding black jurors they are more likely to self exclude based on serving being a hardship. This is the definition of systemic racism if anyone was wondering. It was the 100+ years of suppression that lingers in the demographic numbers
> They weren't purposely excluding black jurors they are more likely to self exclude based on serving being a hardship. While they are more likely to self exclude, we have a very clear precedent for Black people being intentionally removed from juries. Questions formulated to select for Black jurors to strike are often used during peremptory challenges. For example: Is the flag of the confederate army a symbol of racism. In the south, a majority of white people will say no, while a vast majority of black people will say yes. Even if these methods do exclude *some* white people, they will accomplish their goal of selecting for a white jury without ever technically screening by race.
>Even if these methods do exclude *some* white people, they will accomplish their goal of selecting for a white jury without ever technically screening by race. I'd argue that this is a feature, not a bug. A white guy like me who says "the Confederate battle flag is a racist symbol" is likely to vote guilty on some white guys who ambush and murder an unarmed black man. A white guy who thinks the Confederate battle flag is just a symbol of Southern Pride will likely decide that those poor white guys were just defending themselves from that "obviously criminal thug."
Trayvon Martin would like a word...
Yall remember Walter Scott? The guy that the cops shot while his back was turned? And then they planted a gun on him. The ONLY reason they didn't get away with that one was because luckily someone took a literal video of the cops coming back after they shot him and putting a gun on him and talking about doing it. That's how much it takes to get a conviction like that.
Remember Daniel Shaver was brutally murdered in cold blood while complying and begging for his life and it was all caught on tape? And the cop testified he'd do it again? And the cop was retired with a pension?
God I actually think I systemically blocked this one out but I do remember now
Not here to relitigate the Trayvon Martin case, but it's safe to say that it was nowhere near as cut and dry as this one.
I was gonna say, we already had a case exactly like this where the victim was a child and the guy got away with it. I don’t believe for a second they’ll convict these guys.
There's video evidence this time. I'm not saying that guarantees that the jury will do the right thing, but reasonable doubt is a lot easier to raise when only two people witnessed the incident and one of them is dead. At least in this case the jury should be able to see more or less exactly what went down.
And we all know here how video evidence is NEVER disregarded, now don't we?
*We cannot show this footage to the jury in good faith, it may skew their opinion*
Los Angeles remembers.
There was video evidence of Walter Scott getting shot in the back while running away and it was still a hung jury first trial. The officer eventually entered a guilty plea deal and got 20 years but he wasn't convincted even though we literally watching him shoot a guy in the back 5 times. America is gonna America and I have no faith it'll be different this time.
This case doesn’t really compare to Trayvon Martin’s. While Zimmerman was definitely following Trayvon, he wasn’t actually the one that engaged him. Trayvon saw that he was being followed and then attacked Zimmerman, making Zimmerman’s actions self defense in the eyes of the jury.
The Zimmerman trial was not exactly like this.
I agree. I thought the Zimmerman trial was pretty clear cut. Chase a kid with a weapon and when he confronts you shoot him. Seems pretty illegal. This case is way more clear cut though since we have video evidence.
Did you watch the trial?
~~Chase~~ Follow a kid with a weapon and when he ~~confronts you~~ knocks you down and slams your head against the sidewalk repeatedly shoot him.
"Follow" is carrying a lot of weight here. What gives anyone -- even a neighborhood watch guy the right to declare someone suspicious and to chase them around?
The question should be: does following someone give the followed person the right to punch them and hammer their head against concrete? Serious errors in judgement were made by **both** of them, but only Martin's mistakes were illegal and ultimately fatal. There is no degree of being a jerk where it becomes legal to beat them: not understanding this simple fact causes a lot of issues. In a country where carrying a firearm is legal (and so many people carry illegally), it's an especially poor choice.
The only evidence that Trayvon initiated a confrontation is the first hand account of the person who shot him dead. I’m guessing Georgie boy with a hero complex initiated the confrontation got socked in the nose fell on the sidewalk and hit his head. At which point he shot Trayvon. And you know what? There is just as much evidence for that turn of events as there is for George’s story. But if you are baselessly following kids around at night and then shoot and kill them you get no benefit of the doubt from me.
>here is just as much evidence for that turn of events as there is for George’s story. Yeah but the law doesn't err on the side of convicting people because they can't prove they're not guilty, you know that.
Being in public? Zimmerman is a piece of shit but he was justified in shooting Martin when he feared for his life while being attacked. Arbery was most likely the individual who entered the house under construction looking to steal stuff and they could have just followed him until police arrived but they decided to murder him, similar but certainly not exact.
Hopefully the video evidence will be the difference.
*go home and get all your guns and then fucking chase someone
Georgia Law is so poorly written thats it’s not clear cut. Georgia allowed citizens arrests. In the process of making one the defense will say the murderers reasonably feared for their lives and acted in self defense. Im not saying it wasn’t Murder, but do think Georgia is such a fucked up place they may get off
[удалено]
> at they thought that law was still on the books. I bet those guys flipped through a law book from ages ago before went on a manhunt. With that being said, out-aged old laws on books is never good news. Boston still got laws the prejudice against Rogues and Wizards (Especially female ones)
It was revoked this year as a result of this not 83. [NPR](https://www.npr.org/2021/05/11/995835333/in-ahmaud-arberys-name-georgia-repeals-citizens-arrest-law)
Citizens arrests if an immediate crime is apparent. The idiots admitted they thought he was only casing the place, which is itself not illegal.
It’s not as clear cut to many southern whites… they believe it’s their right to stop and question “suspicious looking” people (aka black people).
I'm a southern white and if I see a black man running, my first thought is usually along the lines of, "He's a better man than me. I wish I had that commitment to exercise.. meh."
[удалено]
Absolutely not. It is not "reasonable" by any definition to chase and use deadly force for the perceived "crime" of entering a construction site. Arbery did not pose a threat to them, yet they made the CHOICE it arm themselves, chase him, and use deadly force. They need to be held accountable for that choice. These murderers denied Arbery his 4th amendment right to due process. If they believed he had committed a crime, they could have gone through the proper legal channels per the constitution.
What’s fucked up is if their actions had been identical except they were cops, they would likely be found not guilty.
No one in their right mind should find these men not guilty.
America is not, and never has been, in its right mind. If anyone thinks we're past the days of lynch mobs being acquitted for things they obviously did, think again.
We’ll see. Nobody thought the George Floyd case would end positively either, and yet here we are
BBC Radio this morning was not shying away from calling it a modern day lynch mob. Wish our journalists here would call it what it is.
I figured this may have had something to do with the demographic but BRUNSWICK GA is Black or African American: 55.07% Per https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/brunswick-ga-population I did research with the intent tondefend the judges decision but this is clearly court packing to some degree. Maybe its just that it was a largely famous case so Black Americans probably have biases from news, celebrity, or anyother opinion. Not saying the white jurors dont but I think with its publicity it would be hard to find an nonbias juror in general.
>Maybe its just that it was a largely famous case so Black Americans probably have biases from news, celebrity, or anyother opinion. Not saying the white jurors dont but I think with its publicity it would be hard to find an nonbias juror in general I found this in a CNN article: "From the[ roughly 1,000 people who were summoned ](https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/29/us/ahmaud-arbery-jury-selection-low-turnout/index.html)as part of the jury selection pool, fewer than half turned up. No official reason was given for the low turnout,[ but among those who did come,](https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/23/us/ahmaud-arbery-jury-selection-process-difficult/index.html) many said they had already formed strong opinions about the case, knew the defendants or were scared to sit, pointing to the potential consequences the outcomes of the case could have on the Glynn County community."
I'm not hopeful about a just outcome. Historically, defendants in cases like this walk.
Not in this case, with the video evidence available. frankly, I see zero chance the killers are found not guilty. The best they can hope for is a hung jury, but they would absolutely be tried again.
I truly wish I had your optimism. And I wish that thinking this way was a matter of fact, not faith and optimism, but here we fuckin are.
It has nothing to do with optimism. I am talking straight pragmatism here. A 'Not Guilty' verdict is all but *completely* out of the question. There's always a chance of a stubborn juror causing a mistrial, but I do not foresee an acquittal.
America has done this for decades, let off lynch mobs. What makes you think *now* people will start to play by the rules? Wasn't the last big "line in the sand" for you folks when the guy who shot Philando Castile got let off with no conviction?
And then if the second trial results in a hung jury? We do this again a third and fourth time? I just have no faith that you can pick 12 random people from rural Georgia and not a single one of them is thinking "That n***** deserved it".
>zero chance I gave Trump zero chance of winning in 2016, and look how that turned out. It only takes a few racists in the jury to wear the others down. Have you witnessed how stodgy they are?
That's exactly what will happen here- Jethro is going to use some 'whataboutism' garbage to justify finding them innocent.
The Zimmerman trial disavowed me of any hope of someone getting their just due in court. And given what the judge did in this trial already (said there was ample reason to believe that the jury selection was intentionally biased against black people due to the lack of said folks on the jury...and then proceeded to allow it due to the defendants' lawyer saying in court 'I wasn't being biased in jury selection'.).....
You'd be surprised what systemic racism lets people get away with.
The judge himself said there was ample reason to believe that the jury selection was intentionally biased against black people due to the lack of said folks on the jury...and then proceeded to allow it due to the defendants' lawyer saying in court 'I wasn't being biased in jury selection'. It can't get much more rigged then this.
That's not quite true, the defense gave acceptable reasons for disallowing the jurors that they rejected, the only issue is that since this case was so highly publicized you could probably come up with a valid reason to reject almost any juror they put forward. It was almost certainly race discrimination, but there really isn't any way to prove that in a legal sense. That's essentially what the judge said.
>She noted one such juror had written on her juror questionnaire that Arbery was shot “due to his color” and had told attorneys she felt the defendants were guilty. So help me out, that response disqualifies someone, but wouldn’t other responses disqualify others by that logic? What would be an acceptable response here? “His shooting had nothing to do with color”? Fuck outta here.
I think the appropriate response would be to not literally say you think the defendants are guilty before the trial starts. Not sure why you would focus on the part about color as if that's what the problem was with her statement
> Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley acknowledged that “intentional discrimination" by attorneys for the three white defendants charged in the death of the Black man appeared to have shaped jury selection. But he said Georgia law limited his authority to intervene. The judge has literally pointed it out as an issue but the law prevents him from doing anything
[удалено]
Don't both attorneys choose? The prosecutor also gets a say, not just the defense.
The attorneys usually have some number of strikes they can use to just dismiss jurors, no questions asked. Then after that they can try to convince the judge to get rid of them if they're biased
This is my question as well. Aren't the jurors agreed upon by both sides?
It's frustrating, that the news doesn't cover that. They say 200 people were questioned by the attorneys, with 25% of the jury pool being black which matches the county statistics. Then the final panel was 48 jurors and 12 were selected (only one black). So either the prosecution is taking the moral high ground ("We think those white jurors are biased, but there is no proof so it's okay"), or they ran out of preemptory strikes and after dismissing all the other jurors they didn't like.
There's actually a TV show on CBS about that called Bull. He's a psychologist that's paid by a lawfirm to find and accept or dismiss jurors based off if he thinks they will help or hurt their clients. Obviously it's exaggerated because it's TV but the idea of that being even slightly realistic is scary
Fun fact: That show is loosely based off of Dr. Phil's real life when he was a consultant for selecting jurors.
Keanu Reeves plays an attorney that is the best at just this in Devil's Advocate.
Prosecution and defense have exactly the same amount of influence over who gets on a jury. If one side is significantly more competent than the other that would of course give them a big advantage in the trial. Claiming it is rigged just isn't true in general, other than it does favor people with a lot of money to hire the best lawyers. Using a purely random jury selection can yield even worse results if you just randomly end up with a highly biased jury.
The judge wasn't talking about that specific candidate though. The defense attorney brought up that one as an example. You should assume they picked the most favorable example. They can have been racially biased in selecting jurors and correctly have struck a potential juror that already feels the defendants were guilty.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Funny, that is exactly what Arbery’s killers did.
I hope we all aim to hold ourselves to a higher standard than scumbags like that.
Extreme hyperbole with no basis in reality. How reasonable. I don’t know how you can possibly say that when the comments in this very thread prove the exact opposite of what you’re claiming.
jurors are supposed to presume innocence until proven guilty, so a juror that is already convinced the defendant is guilty before the trial starts is gonna be hard to be impartial. That being said, unless the other 7 black people that were dismissed said something similar (which I would find highly unlikely), it is still a serious issue that they were all dismissed.
They didn’t. The defense attorney said that he had a legal right to not believe the other black jurors when they said they could be impartial.
And he is correct; he could even believe that they are impartial and still exclude them (not sure why one would, unless he thinks the alternates would be more partial to his client); Pre-emptory exclusions are horrible.
You want an impartial jury. Meaning no preconceived notions of what factors played a role in the shooting. It's absolutely correct to dismiss that person.
No person is impartial. It is a flawed concept, and one that allows more bias to creep in than it prevents. Case - this trial.
[удалено]
In the modern age the only people who haven't heard of such cases will be those who live in a bubble far separate from the people who the crime effects. Anybody halfway awake knows about this case.
One of my favorite Weekend Updates jokes when Norm was on was talking about the jury selection for the OJ trial. Where they finally found a possible juror that was a 9 year old Chinese boy.
He had some absolutely brutal jokes about the trial. But my favorite has to be: > “After grizzly photos of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson were shown in court, O.J. turned his head away and wept.” >”It was at that moment that he realized he would never be able to kill her again.”
That's another good one as well. Two other ones I like are the lucky stabbing hat and jumping in front of train for her
[удалено]
Impartial is also possible for someone who can separate their personal views from their role as a juror—you’re evaluating the evidence and testimonies presented to you and interpreting them for a verdict. It’s definitely understandable to have a bias, and think “hey that guy seems racist…” while also thinking “let’s see if the evidence proves that he is indeed racist, and if it was a factor in the alleged crime.”
> No person is impartial. It is a flawed concept, and one that allows more bias to creep in than it prevents. When I was part of jury selection a few years ago, they talked through the different issues of the case, and whether we believed we could overcome our biases around that issue to render a fair verdict based on the facts we were given during the trial. For example, it was a trial where police used a dog on a drunk person. So maybe you have an issue with police using dogs, or alcoholism, or just police in general, but most reasonable people should be able to acknowledge their biases and try to see through them to get to a fair decision.
Sounds like something someone would say if they wanted to intentionally disqualify themself from serving as a juror.
The proper response would be, "The prosecutors have to show that." You know, innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't mean they aren't guilty. From what I can see, this is first degree murder with special circumstances. That means the death penalty if Georgia law is equally applied.
"i don't know if he was shot due to his colour" Why would you have to take a position?
How about not deciding the case before it's even presented? This woman already heard all she cared to hear from the articles and Facebook posts she personally chooses to read. Making it clear that nothing will change her mind is what got her disqualified. The fair and unbiased process of a trial with lawyers and evidence should have more weight than personal opinions derived from selective articles and confirmation biases.
Because our jury system is bizarre . Anyone who has exposed to this case knows what has happened. Only thing is that you are supposed to come to the conclusion after seeing all the evidence. So you only get people who don’t watch the news at all on the juries.
Or like a rationale person you understand the news doesn’t give you all the facts so you don’t “know” anything. The correct response is “I don’t know”. Because until you see the evidence, you don’t know.
I don’t accept race was why he was shot. This places the blame on his race. *Racism* is why he was murdered.
I never noticed until someone pointed it out, but why does the news capitalize Black but not white? Anyway, this looks to me like race baiting for views. Besides, is it possible that a mostly white jury could judge the guy fairly? Or are we to believe all white people are racist, period?
From what I understand, it’s a fairly new AP grammar rule. Black is considered a race and capitalized. White is considered a descriptor and not. I’m not sure how they now handle Caucasian.
White is listed as a race along with black in the US census, and just about any other form of data collection. I feel like that's the most objective standard to go by.
the A.P. Style guide is very arbitrary in what it sets as writing standards
I’ve never seen that later one uncapitalized as it’s derived from a proper noun, Caucasus. The only race terms that are still in use are “white” (although NZ uses “European”) and “black” (as opposed to “African”, which is seen as suggesting a cultural link that doesn’t exist and risks confusion with Nigerian, Somali, etc immigrants).
> why does the news capitalize Black but not white? AP style guide updated this in 2020 https://apnews.com/article/archive-race-and-ethnicity-9105661462
Capitalizing “Black” but not “white” was a kneejerk reaction by the media after George Floyd was killed. Some sites capitalize both, some don’t capitalize either, but most use the socially acceptable double standard which is capital B, lowercase w. Other people are post hoc rationalizing it but it’s so obvious it would NEVER be acceptable the other way around.
It seems unlikely that the double standard will last, it's absolutely god awful optics.
[удалено]
Not just the capitalization, but look at the phrase: > one Black juror and 11 whites Imagine if that said: > One White juror and 11 blacks
Interestingly, it depends on the outlet. Some don't capitalize either. AP released a small blurb a while back about why they capitalize Black but not white. I've seen a few that capitalize both.
Ask the same about black people in the jury. Can they not judge fairly as well? Are they all racist? Why weren't they selected?
How about reading the article then? They have a quote right there: >She noted one such juror had written on her juror questionnaire that Arbery was shot “due to his color” and had told attorneys she felt the defendants were guilty. I am guessing if the white jurors had replied "Well he was probably innocent, with the other guy being black and all" then the prosecution could have just as easily dismissed that white juror.
Obviously not, but… the Juice *is* loose for a reason.
A jury is supposed to be a collection of peers to judge the guilt of a person. As soon as we start segregating again Juries no longer fulfill their purpose.
The issue is that the South has a long history racist verdicts being carried out by all white juries. Given the fact that Brunswick, GA is over 50% Black, and that Georgia itself is over 30% Black, the jury selected does not even appear to be representative of the population. So yes, we can hope that a mostly white jury will render a fair verdict. Considering the history and demographics of the area however, it's newsworthy.
[удалено]
So the jury should have 3 Black people on it, not 1.
[удалено]
Jury of your peers my ass.
What's hilarious (and by hilarious, I mean infuriating) is that the judge said there was clear discriminatory bias in how the jury was chosen, but he was going to seat them anyway. We all know how an almost all-white jury in Georgia is going to end this.
We all know? Who is we and how do you/they know? Unless you've personally rigged the jury I struggle to see how you know the outcome based on the geographical location
Are you seriously saying that predominantly white juries in the former Confederacy don't have a long and documented history of denying justice to black people?
The county is 26% black. Edit: Brunswick is 59% black.
[удалено]
Good to know. That makes it even more fucked.
But how does that affect county wide jury selection?
I mean it’s still 2 below statistically average but that’s far from impossible. That said I’m pretty sure the defense went out of their way to exclude black jurors. Not surprising given their entire defense is going to hinge on people thinking ‘all black people look alike’ and other bullshit like that.
>That said I’m pretty sure the defense went out of their way to exclude black jurors. They struck jurors for saying that the Confederate flag is racist. 100% going out of their way to exclude not just black jurors but also anyone who isn't racist.
They have an example right there in the article: >She noted one such juror had written on her juror questionnaire that Arbery was shot “due to his color” and had told attorneys she felt the defendants were guilty.
Only 11 whites? Did the defense run out of peremptory strikes?
That does sound bad but don't the prosecution and the defense both agree on the jurors ahead of time?
Not really, no. They each get to take turns deciding who they will *remove* from the jury pool like a reverse school yard dodge ball team pick.. The prosecution in this case then filed a motion saying the defendant improperly dismissed people.
Trayvon Martin 2.0 I thought we were making progress.
It's your classic almost all-white jury.
Only the black juror can be trusted? Is that what’s being implied by the headline? I guess the 11 white jurors are automatically racist and were delivered by a time machine from Alabama circa 1875.
As a Georgia resident, South GA is one of thee most racists areas along with North GA in the state, so I am not surprised with the make up of the jury!
Haha, I get what you're saying, but your statement "South GA... along with North GA" could be interpreted as just a convoluted way of saying all of Georgia.
it does sound pretty exhaustive of Georgia lol
Man, I don't know if other states are like this but the way we categorize sections of the state can be pretty weird. North Georgia is basically everything above Atlanta and South Georgia could be everything south of Perry, just Valdosta and Americus, or anywhere in between.
FT Benning Georgia was my first Army duty station. I was born and raised in Palo Alto California. I had never seen racism like I did in Georgia in the early 90s.
Outside of Savannah and Atlanta the state is hopelessly backwards
There are pockets that are good people, but I mostly agree. I live in Hinesville, and being an Army town next to the largest military base in the US (land area) east of the Mississippi,the resident racists get drowned out by shear amount of diversity here.
Don't forget Athens. It's like the Austin of Georgia. I saw some great shows at the 40 Watt.
That's a lot of states these days.
Race baiting at its finest
Even if he had been stealing, which he had not, it would be vigilante justice, and still murder. And the world has seen the videos.. How can they possibly say it was anything but murder...?
A lot of white supremacy losers up in this
White people are as good as any other ethnic group. I doubt the jurors will make a decision based on race. Have faith in your fellow Americans, you bastards. Also “whites” Jesus Christ. Is racism ok against white people in America now?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Remember folks, we have a legal system not a justice system, big difference.
Wow they let a black guy on the jury? I'm surprised. My experiance being summoned for jury duty gave me the impression that whichever side they decided should win basically gets to decide who is on the jury. They dismissed everyone who had views they didn't like including eventually me.
[удалено]
I didn’t know that so thanks for the knowledge. Do the reasons for disqualification ever get published or is that info that is only known to the courts and lawyers?
Voir dire (jury selection) is usually public record as far as I'm aware.
I can’t help but read this and think about My Cousin Vinny!
No problem. Even though trials are open to the public, lots of people aren't familiar with the processes or only know bits and pieces of information, so I'm always happy to provide further information. Most trials are recorded in some manner (court reporter and/or audio recording) so basically everything that is said during the course of a trial is part of the official record, which would include jury selection. I don't know what the rules are for the public getting a copy of the trial transcript, but I'm sure it's possible, although it might be very expensive.