Ex Cop and son kill unarmed black man jogging

[TwiceHorn 31322]

1 hour ago, Buzzrock said:

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/georgia/defense-says-ruling-by-judge-ahmaud-arbery-trial-over-citizens-arrest-law-guts-their-case/KI73ZTIXI5DELKFTRHWCBZX3VI/

That’s a shame.

Looks like a good decision.  A cop would need either an arrest warrant or to have personally witnessed the crime.  Why would a citizen have broader powers than a cop.

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Looks like a good decision.  A cop would need either an arrest warrant or to have personally witnessed the crime.  Why would a citizen have broader powers than a cop.

Because being stupid is a source of pride these days.  I'd love to hear the pow-wow between these dipshits and the cops that showed up, "Okay, y'all obviously didn't have a warrant.  And you didn't actually see him committing any crimes other than jogging in the general area?"  Okay, here's what we gonna say...you two was Deputized."  

[Brisketexan 104746]

Because being stupid is a source of pride these days.  I'd love to hear the pow-wow between these dipshits and the cops that showed up, "Okay, y'all obviously didn't have a warrant.  And you didn't actually see him committing any crimes other than jogging in the general area?"  Okay, here's what we gonna say...you two was Deputized."  

That’s functionally what happened - remember, the cops and DA were gonna let this whole case walk.

[tx 3 putt 76498]

3 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/georgia/defense-says-ruling-by-judge-ahmaud-arbery-trial-over-citizens-arrest-law-guts-their-case/KI73ZTIXI5DELKFTRHWCBZX3VI/

That’s a shame.

im sure dying in prison isn’t as bad as it seems 

[Thatguy 8541]

15 hours ago, immortal13 said:

Thatguy is just a racist cunt. Ignore him

7,493 chances to add substance to the site and yet here we are......still

[immortal13 4059]

4 hours ago, Thatguy said:

7,493 chances to add substance to the site and yet here we are......still

Good post. Now go work on not being such a racist. Not all white people hate blacks

[TwiceHorn 31322]

A piece on Kevin Gough, the guy generating all the outrage from the defense.  https://apnews.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-crime-georgia-atlanta-brunswick-39e4ca2c9e5afd9d534159550196e5e3

He's not just some Lin Wood loonbag.  He may be a loonbag, but he was the chief public defender for the region for a while, until his antics apparently got him fired.

[Neonmoon 38127]

On 11/20/2021 at 8:29 AM, immortal13 said:

Good post. Now go work on not being such a racist. Not all white people hate blacks

No, but the ones that defend two whites guys killing a black jogger probably do. 

[immortal13 4059]

26 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

No, but the ones that defend two whites guys killing a black jogger probably do. 

Who is defending them?

[Brisketexan 104746]

From what I understand, the ruling on the jury instruction as to the limits of the prior Georgia “citizens arrest” statute is both correct and devastating to the defense case.

That said, all it takes is one juror who decides to nullify because, well, folks gotta right to protect their neighborhood from, you know, “bad people.”

[immortal13 4059]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

From what I understand, the ruling on the jury instruction as to the limits of the prior Georgia “citizens arrest” statute is both correct and devastating to the defense case.

Good

[Nicole44 22028]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

From what I understand, the ruling on the jury instruction as to the limits of the prior Georgia “citizens arrest” statute is both correct and devastating to the defense case.

That said, all it takes is one juror who decides to nullify because, well, folks gotta right to protect their neighborhood from, you know, “bad people.”

Wouldn’t the Georgia statute tend to support self-defense in favor of Aubrey and not the defendants? Since the defendants were the aggressor and provoked it? I go back to the GBI guy’s testimony where he said the victim ran and until he couldn’t run anymore (boxed in) and rather than turn his back he had no choice but to fight…

The Judge already attacked the defense for striking all but one black juror in the jury selection so I think the State can absolutely re-file the case immediately but not sure about that.

I am just hoping for guilty verdicts…hoping. 

[Brisketexan 104746]

Wouldn’t the Georgia statute tend to support self-defense in favor of Aubrey and not the defendants? Since the defendants were the aggressor and provoked it? I go back to the GBI guy’s testimony where he said the victim ran and until he couldn’t run anymore (boxed in) and rather than turn his back he had no choice but to fight…
The Judge already attacked the defense for striking all but one black juror in the jury selection so I think the State can absolutely re-file the case immediately but not sure about that.
I am just hoping for guilty verdicts…hoping. 

Would the LAW support self defense for Aubrey? Sure. Will the local jury pool support it being applied to a, you know, “suspicious character up to no good,” who was properly confronted by some local good guys just looking out for their neighborhood? Remember, it only takes one juror thinking that way.

[Nicole44 22028]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Would the LAW support self defense for Aubrey? Sure. Will the local jury pool support it being applied to a, you know, “suspicious character up to no good,” who was properly confronted by some local good guys just looking out for their neighborhood? Remember, it only takes one juror thinking that way.

I know what you are saying. I am hoping that doesn’t happen. Prosecution already debunked that bullshit about a string of thefts in the neighborhood. Just the one theft of a firearm in a car parked outside the defendant’s residence belonging to said defendant (which…bullshit.) 

I was probably phrasing my question wrong: since the defense went an affirmative defense (self-defense) wouldn’t that tend to be negated by the fact they were the aggressor? I understand it didn’t work that way in the Martin case but there is video and testimony from the defendant (son) which would tend to negate their defense on legal grounds? I guess I’m after legal stuff here lol…I know what the jury could possibly do based on their makeup and alleged potential bias…just looking at the law. 

[immortal13 4059]

48 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Would the LAW support self defense for Aubrey? Sure. Will the local jury pool support it being applied to a, you know, “suspicious character up to no good,” who was properly confronted by some local good guys just looking out for their neighborhood? Remember, it only takes one juror thinking that way.

I really don't think it will matter that he may have "seemed" suspicious. The law does not afford you the right to use deadly force to detain someone. 

Edited November 21, 2021 by immortal13

[Brisketexan 104746]

28 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

I really don't think it will matter that he may have "seemed" suspicious. The law does not afford you the right to use deadly for to detain someone. 

You are correct on the law.

You are not necessarily correct on whether a jury in this jurisdiction will follow it.  Recall that the DA, the chief PROSECUTOR in the jurisdiction, who knows that law inside and out, was going to let these guys skate.  That DA was elected by the voters who make up this jury pool.  

This case should be a slam-dunk.  In 90% of other jurisdictions, it would be.  But in that 10%......let's see what happens.

[immortal13 4059]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You are correct on the law.

You are not necessarily correct on whether a jury in this jurisdiction will follow it.  Recall that the DA, the chief PROSECUTOR in the jurisdiction, who knows that law inside and out, was going to let these guys skate.  That DA was elected by the voters who make up this jury pool.  

This case should be a slam-dunk.  In 90% of other jurisdictions, it would be.  But in that 10%......let's see what happens.

I think it will be a slam dunk for the prosecution, as it should be

[Brisketexan 104746]

Just now, immortal13 said:

I think it will be a slam dunk for the prosecution, as it should be

I hope you are right.  The fact that the ELECTED DA didn't want it to even result in charges, and the elected DA reflects the will and personality of the county, gives me GREAT pause.  Don't forget that a crucial chapter in this case, after chapter 1 (defendants hunt down and kill a guy), and before chapter 3 (holy shit, did you see that video, those guys need to be charged with murder) was chapter 2: the cops and DA investigate the event, and do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT.

Chapter 2 is really, really, really important.  Because without the video going public, there wouldn't have even been a chapter 3, or a chapter 4 (the trial).  THESE GUYS WERE GOING TO SKATE, BECAUSE THE LOCAL PD AND ELECTED DA WANTED THEM TO.  That's its own horrific story, and it does not bode well for this jury pool.

[TwiceHorn 31322]

54 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

I know what you are saying. I am hoping that doesn’t happen. Prosecution already debunked that bullshit about a string of thefts in the neighborhood. Just the one theft of a firearm in a car parked outside the defendant’s residence belonging to said defendant (which…bullshit.) 

I was probably phrasing my question wrong: since the defense went an affirmative defense (self-defense) wouldn’t that tend to be negated by the fact they were the aggressor? I understand it didn’t work that way in the Martin case but there is video and testimony from the defendant (son) which would tend to negate their defense on legal grounds? I guess I’m after legal stuff here lol…I know what the jury could possibly do based on their makeup and alleged potential bias…just looking at the law. 

As a legal matter and as a matter of persuasion, they had to have some justification for being there and chasing Arbery around.  As long as that is legally justified, it's possible to argue self-defense against Arbery when he resisted.

The citizens arrest statute ostensibly created that justification.  But the judge ruled that they had to have witnessed the crime in question and/or act swiftly after the commission of the crime, neither of which they did, to invoke a valid citizens arrest.

Without the citizens arrest application, they killed a man while attempting to falsely imprison him, or provoked the aggression from Arbery, denying them a self-defense defense.

So legally, the prosecution has it in the bag, unlike Rittenhouse.  But, like brisket, I am very wary of what Glynn County jurors will do.

Edited November 21, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[immortal13 4059]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I hope you are right.  The fact that the ELECTED DA didn't want it to even result in charges, and the elected DA reflects the will and personality of the county, gives me GREAT pause.  Don't forget that a crucial chapter in this case, after chapter 1 (defendants hunt down and kill a guy), and before chapter 3 (holy shit, did you see that video, those guys need to be charged with murder) was chapter 2: the cops and DA investigate the event, and do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT.

Chapter 2 is really, really, really important.  Because without the video going public, there wouldn't have even been a chapter 3, or a chapter 4 (the trial).  THESE GUYS WERE GOING TO SKATE, BECAUSE THE LOCAL PD AND ELECTED DA WANTED THEM TO.  That's its own horrific story, and it does not bode well for this jury pool.

Well of course the video is key. Without the video and photo evidence in the Rittenhouse trial, he would be serving a life sentence. It's mind boggling to think of the probably many thousands of cases that were either never brought or resulted in wrong verdicts due to the absence of video. 

[TwiceHorn 31322]

30 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I hope you are right.  The fact that the ELECTED DA didn't want it to even result in charges, and the elected DA reflects the will and personality of the county, gives me GREAT pause.  Don't forget that a crucial chapter in this case, after chapter 1 (defendants hunt down and kill a guy), and before chapter 3 (holy shit, did you see that video, those guys need to be charged with murder) was chapter 2: the cops and DA investigate the event, and do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT.

Chapter 2 is really, really, really important.  Because without the video going public, there wouldn't have even been a chapter 3, or a chapter 4 (the trial).  THESE GUYS WERE GOING TO SKATE, BECAUSE THE LOCAL PD AND ELECTED DA WANTED THEM TO.  That's its own horrific story, and it does not bode well for this jury pool.

I read somewhere that the local constabulary was not exactly thrilled by the DA's order to leave them alone.  Maybe in that article I posted upthread about that DA's legal difficulties.

I had some faith in Dallas County jurors in the Guyger case because it's my home, and we recently elected a progressive DA, and they had just convicted another cop of murder in a bad shoot.  As stated before, I don't have any of those positive data points about Glynn County, GA.

[Brisketexan 104746]

Well of course the video is key. Without the video and photo evidence in the Rittenhouse trial, he would be serving a life sentence. It's mind boggling to think of the probably many thousands of cases that were either never brought or resulted in wrong verdicts due to the absence of video. 

You’re missing the point - the elected DA didn’t even TRY to gather evidence. He functionally listened to the killers’ story, judged it a good shooting of a guy who had it coming, and closed the file. It’s not about the video. It’s about the elected prosecutor, mirroring the electorate, not even bothering to give a shit if there was evidence or not.

Extrapolate that shitheel to the jury pool that elected him. Then, be concerned like Twice and I are.

[TwiceHorn 31322]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

You’re missing the point - the elected DA didn’t even TRY to gather evidence. He functionally listened to the killers’ story, judged it a good shooting of a guy who had it coming, and closed the file. It’s not about the video. It’s about the elected prosecutor, mirroring the electorate, not even bothering to give a shit if there was evidence or not.

Extrapolate that shitheel to the jury pool that elected him. Then, be concerned like Twice and I are.

^She, no less.  And, realizing the conflict of interest, she tried to pawn it off on the neighboring DA, who was more than happy to try to whitewash the whole thing.  So, two elected prosecutors in the same area perfectly willing to write it off as just another dead nagger.

[52-80 19110]

9 hours ago, immortal13 said:

Who is defending them?

To the dismay of those who paint the world in black and white, and view others only as allies or enemies, victims or oppressors…

 

…… the answer to this will be **crickets**

[Brisketexan 104746]

15 hours ago, 52-80 said:

To the dismay of those who paint the world in black and white, and view others only as allies or enemies, victims or oppressors…

 

…… the answer to this will be **crickets**

I posted above who was "defending" them......And it's most problematic, because their chief defender was the local, elected district attorney.

The problem we're pointing to isn't about feelings, or slogans, it's the literal institution of law enforcement, the system set up to protect society, giving these guys a complete free pass that never would have been revoked without appalling video taken by a third party being released.  That's a systemic problem -- the "justice" system in Glynn county.

[TexasEd 8064]

On 11/19/2021 at 6:49 PM, Buzzrock said:

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/georgia/defense-says-ruling-by-judge-ahmaud-arbery-trial-over-citizens-arrest-law-guts-their-case/KI73ZTIXI5DELKFTRHWCBZX3VI/

That’s a shame.

From the story:

Defense attorney Kevin Gough again called for a mistrial, saying the gathering of hundreds of Black ministers Thursday outside court was an effort to influence the jury.

“This is what a public lynching looks like in the 21st century,” Gough said. “This is not 1915. This is not 1923. There are not thousands of people out there with pitchforks and baseball bats. But I would submit this is the 21st century equivalent.”

Many of the ministers came to pray in response to Gough’s previous efforts to ban Black ministers from the courtroom.

“He has asked for a mistrial for something he caused himself,” special prosecutor Linda Dunikoski said.

Torbush.gif

The defense attorney invokes the Lynch mob analogy in defense of his clients and complains about the black ministers he dared to come there.

 

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2059]

torbush indeed.  holy hell.

[TwiceHorn 31322]

1 hour ago, TexasEd said:

From the story:

Defense attorney Kevin Gough again called for a mistrial, saying the gathering of hundreds of Black ministers Thursday outside court was an effort to influence the jury.

“This is what a public lynching looks like in the 21st century,” Gough said. “This is not 1915. This is not 1923. There are not thousands of people out there with pitchforks and baseball bats. But I would submit this is the 21st century equivalent.”

Many of the ministers came to pray in response to Gough’s previous efforts to ban Black ministers from the courtroom.

“He has asked for a mistrial for something he caused himself,” special prosecutor Linda Dunikoski said.

Torbush.gif

The defense attorney invokes the Lynch mob analogy in defense of his clients and complains about the black ministers he dared to come there.

 

As noted upthread, this guy specializes in outrageous things on behalf of his clients.  It's a bit, rather than him being some sort of white supremacist.

[JBJ 3649]

On 11/21/2021 at 10:34 AM, Brisketexan said:

From what I understand, the ruling on the jury instruction as to the limits of the prior Georgia “citizens arrest” statute is both correct and devastating to the defense case.

There's conflicting expert opinions out there, but it seems to be because "presence or immediate knowledge" is pretty loosey-goosey in the caselaw - not because it doesn't apply at all.

A lot of people advocating against the law because of this case were completely making stuff up as well or blurring it with shopkeeper's privelege and other laws.

They don't have probable cause either way.

[Brisketexan 104746]

10 minutes ago, JBJ said:

There's conflicting expert opinions out there, but it seems to be because "presence or immediate knowledge" is pretty loosey-goosey in the caselaw - not because it doesn't apply at all.

A lot of people advocating against the law because of this case were completely making stuff up as well or blurring it with shopkeeper's privelege and other laws.

They don't have probable cause either way.

I think the best argument for advocating against the prior law was "because armed dumbfucks have a demonstrated proclivity for using it as an excuse to confront people at random, resulting in death."  Regardless of what the law allowed, if armed dumbfucks THOUGHT it gave them an excuse to go person-hunting in their neighborhood, we might oughta consider getting rid of it altogether.

And again....as we all know, law-schmaw, all it takes is one juror to conclude "that Aubrey type is a suspicious character, who am I to say they weren't within their rights to try to protect their community?" and it's a mistrial.  Glynn County jury pool.  You and I both know there's a material chance of that exact outcome.  No, it's not a certainty, but the risk level is higher than any of us should be comfortable with.

[Serak The Preparer 3430]

24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I think the best argument for advocating against the prior law was "because armed dumbfucks have a demonstrated proclivity for using it as an excuse to confront people at random, resulting in death."  Regardless of what the law allowed, if armed dumbfucks THOUGHT it gave them an excuse to go person-hunting in their neighborhood, we might oughta consider getting rid of it altogether.

I know you know this, but there was nothing random about this killing.

[ChickenNuggets 1611]

8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I posted above who was "defending" them......And it's most problematic, because their chief defender was the local, elected district attorney.

The problem we're pointing to isn't about feelings, or slogans, it's the literal institution of law enforcement, the system set up to protect society, giving these guys a complete free pass that never would have been revoked without appalling video taken by a third party being released.  That's a systemic problem -- the "justice" system in Glynn county.

Yeah, but I think you can find that bias everywhere in America, prosecutors bringing charges or not bringing charges because of political motivations or world views. It's a cancer that needs to be confronted and excised. 

[Brisketexan 104746]

12 minutes ago, ChickenNuggets said:

Yeah, but I think you can find that bias everywhere in America, prosecutors bringing charges or not bringing charges because of political motivations or world views. It's a cancer that needs to be confronted and excised. 

Discretion is not a cancer.  It's necessary.  For cops, prosecutors, and judges.

Abuses of that discretion?  Absolutely a cancer.

Finding the line that shouldn't be crossed?  Good luck, it ain't a bright one.  It's much easier to see certain cases and conclude "wherever that line might be, this shit is WAY over it."

 

This case?  WAY over the line.

[The Ace of Aces 5107]

21 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

I know you know this, but there was nothing random about this killing.

This was a lynching. I wish it was called as such. 

[JBJ 3649]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I think the best argument for advocating against the prior law was "because armed dumbfucks have a demonstrated proclivity for using it as an excuse to confront people at random, resulting in death."  Regardless of what the law allowed, if armed dumbfucks THOUGHT it gave them an excuse to go person-hunting in their neighborhood, we might oughta consider getting rid of it altogether.

No.  It's the law in 49 states by statute or through recognition as common law.  This statute was more restrictive than common law.

[scottsins 1954]

Would the LAW support self defense for Aubrey? Sure. Will the local jury pool support it being applied to a, you know, “suspicious character up to no good,” who was properly confronted by some local good guys just looking out for their neighborhood? Remember, it only takes one juror thinking that way.

I get this sentiment, and it would be an awful result but “one juror” can’t cause an acquittal and there’s no way the State just lets the case go in the scenario of a mistrial caused by a holdout juror.

[Neonmoon 38127]

On 11/21/2021 at 9:57 AM, immortal13 said:

Who is defending them?

I assumed you were. 

[DDD Dad 14269]

SIAP but I caught a snippet of the defense’s closing on the news today.

Something song the lines of “Arbury wasn’t a victim because he was wearing khaki shorts, had no socks on, and had long dirty toenails”. Seriously.

Anyone else see that?

[conVINCEd 21468]

If you are the defense attorney here aren’t you kinda compelled to go for jury nullification?  

[C-Man 27083]

6 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

SIAP but I caught a snippet of the defense’s closing on the news today.

Something song the lines of “Arbury wasn’t a victim because he was wearing khaki shorts, had no socks on, and had long dirty toenails”. Seriously.

Anyone else see that?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/22/us/ahmaud-arbery-trial-toenails-comment-outrage/index.html

[TwiceHorn 31322]

19 minutes ago, C-Man said:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/22/us/ahmaud-arbery-trial-toenails-comment-outrage/index.html

JFC, and that wasn't even Mr. Outrageous, Kevin Gough.  Either that lawyer has gone soft in the head or is swinging for the "dirty nagger deserved to die" nullification defense.  Some of the commentary in that article even suggests that the jury was receptive to that kind of thing, which is horrifying.

Edited November 23, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[C-Man 27083]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

JFC, and that wasn't even Mr. Outrageous, Kevin Gough.  Either that lawyer has gone soft in the head or is swinging for the "dirty nagger deserved to die" nullification defense.  Some of the commentary in that article even suggests that the jury was receptive to that kind of thing, which is horrifying.

Utterly disgusting. If these fucking pieces of shit walk ...

[atomheartbevo 89475]

13 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Utterly disgusting. If these fucking pieces of shit walk ...

I don't think it's a cliche to worry about...

However, I don't think they'll walk free.  

Because if the lawyers are talking about somebody's fucking toenails in the closing statements, then they don't have a lot of confidence in the rest of their case.

I'm not going to bet money on that, but the defense lawyers feel like they know they are going to lose, and are just grasping for straws.

[C-Man 27083]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I don't think it's a cliche to worry about...

However, I don't think they'll walk free.  

Because if the lawyers are talking about somebody's fucking toenails in the closing statements, then they don't have a lot of confidence in the rest of their case.

I'm not going to bet money on that, but the defense lawyers feel like they know they are going to lose, and are just grasping for straws.

Sounds like they're trying to play into jurors potential inherent racism. It's fucking gross.

(I, too, don't think they walk on this. Still, I can only imagine what happens if they do. Fuck.) 

[atomheartbevo 89475]

2 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Sounds like they're trying to play into jurors potential inherent racism. It's fucking gross.

(I, too, don't think they walk on this. Still, I can only imagine what happens if they do. Fuck.) 

Trying to play to potential racism as they are closing things out...hell, I'm not a lawyer, but I think I could come up with a better closing statement than that.  

He's swinging for the fences, I'll give him that much.

[TexasEd 8064]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Trying to play to potential racism as they are closing things out...hell, I'm not a lawyer, but I think I could come up with a better closing statement than that.  

He's swinging for the fences, I'll give him that much.

It was a woman.

[DigglerontheHoof 21082]

5 hours ago, C-Man said:

Utterly disgusting. If these fucking pieces of shit walk ...

I think the best one can hope for is a hung jury.   There are a shit-ton of southern dummies who still view lynching as a good thing and there's likely one of those scumbags on the jury. 

[Guest Lobo]

Wow, I did not understand the toenail references from earlier.  But I read the closing statements by the defense.  And yeah, it was about khaki shorts and toenails.  Always the mark of a top-notch attorney.  

But yeah, to berate the point.  One "these just good ole' boys trying to defend the neighborhood/themselves..." juror is all it takes.  And we all know the type we're talking about here /noCR.  One person who thinks this is their time to plant the flag, to draw a line in the sand, to charge that hill.  All in the name of some worthless cause that's ben as futile as it was brief.  

[immortal13 4059]

Somebody explain the toenail defense strategy. That shit doesn't make any sense. 

[Guest Lobo]

Just now, immortal13 said:

Somebody explain the toenail defense strategy. That shit doesn't make any sense. 

It's the Chewbacca defense, but with toenails.  It's not supposed to make sense, it's the South.  

The only thing left in the defense's "toolbox" is Chewbacca's toenails.  And if you're wondering if Wookies even have toenails, you were already struck during voir dire.