Jump to content

Ex Cop and son kill unarmed black man jogging

purplepride95

By purplepride95
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Burnt Orange in OC
Burnt Orange in OC

You say "pointing a gun at him for no reason." But Arbery is on video as having just committed a crime. You say he has the right to fight for the gun. That would be self-defense. Why doesn't the fel

Burnt Orange in OC
Burnt Orange in OC

Did he unlawfully enter the home under construction?

Foosters
Foosters

No, the insinuation is that blacks should shut the fuck up about our racist criminal justice system because blacks kill blacks too. Just another in a long line of "shut up and dribble."

Posted Images

Scheiss Meister

Scheiss Meister 8468

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Normally you have to investigate something in order to find evidence that would lead to charges.  It tends to not show up when you just interview the parties still living to tell their side.  
 

surprisingly, many people this year have had to learn the hard way that it’s a bad idea to film your crimes and then release them to the public.  It seems intuitive and yet…

They film themselves and release the evidence because they not only think that they did nothing wrong, they believe that what they did was the best course of action.  No villain has ever been the bad guy in their own mind.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Just as truly stupid people think they are the smartest person in the room, often evil people feel like they are the shepherds of virtue.  
 

and when you combine both those fallacy attributes, you get guys like this, and they get what they deserve. 
 

having said that, with a website and some collectible coins, I could raise $500k for these guy’s “appellate fund” by Christmas.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106886

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, TexasEd said:

Barnhill cites the video in the letter saying that Arbry initiated the conflict. 

 

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I misremembered that.  I'm not sure there was a Johnson letter.

Yeah, seems I got the wrong author.  In any case, it seemed apparent that they had seen the video, as it was specifically referenced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106886

Posted
Posted
Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

How does anyone get Arbrury instigated it when he was the individual accosted in the first place  ?

The letter went into standard cop mode: he was as suspicious character, and he had some criminal history, so obviously, he was engaged in a crime spree at the time and these brave citizens acted as good cops would.  Seriously, that was the letter's angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8266

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The letter went into standard cop mode: he was as suspicious character, and he had some criminal history, so obviously, he was engaged in a crime spree at the time and these brave citizens acted as good cops would.  Seriously, that was the letter's angle.

The George Barnhill letter misrepresented the citizen arrest part saying Arbery had committed a crime and the McMichaels were in hot pursuit with solid first hand probable cause.

image.png.dd1be94d4675592f68c6f958af78d69b.png

Then he doubles down on Arbery being the aggressor and finishes with good ole fashioned victim blaming.

image.png.b52ed55d802bf03bcd961d7325fb0258.png

 

Johnson lost her re-election, has been arrested and charged but Barnhill has not . (Yet)

The facts/trial/jury disagreed with Barnhill on at least three major points:

  1. The McMichaels did not have standing to perform a citizens arrest since there was no felony crime and they did not have solid first hand knowledge of a crime being committed.
  2. Travis and George McMichael and Roddie Instigated the confrontation not Arbery
  3. Arbery was the one defending himself not Travis.
Edited by TexasEd
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90641

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Scheiss Meister said:

They film themselves and release the evidence because they not only think that they did nothing wrong, they believe that what they did was the best course of action.  No villain has ever been the bad guy in their own mind.

The villains are the heroes of their own stories.  And these guys thought they were heroes and couldn't believe that other disagreed.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Genco

Genco 3055

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Scheiss Meister said:

They film themselves and release the evidence because they not only think that they did nothing wrong, they believe that what they did was the best course of action. 

This is what has always short circuited me since the time of the video's release. They thought the video was exculpatory!

And they had at least one DA convinced and a defense attorney that thought the entire matter could be put to rest with its release. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106886

Posted
Posted
This is what has always short circuited me since the time of the video's release. They thought the video was exculpatory!
And they had at least one DA convinced and a defense attorney that thought the entire matter could be put to rest with its release. 

In their community, it generally WAS exculpatory. They didn’t just think so - plenty of people around them almost certainly did as well. That’s the disturbing part.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
52-80

52-80 19377

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Genco said:

This is what has always short circuited me since the time of the video's release. They thought the video was exculpatory!

And they had at least one DA convinced and a defense attorney that thought the entire matter could be put to rest with its release. 

video is the great equalizer

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29579

Posted
Posted

NFL replay officials disagree.

In this case, the murderers needed slightly more than "he was a black guy running through my neighborhood" to justify the citizens' arrest angle. Had they been smart enough to just make up some shit about seeing him grab something out of their yard and toss it off the road right before the third dipshit began filming, there's a good chance they get away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Genco

Genco 3055

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

the barnhill letter was the most offensive thing about this whole thing to me.  it's a shame he's going to get off scott free.  

Keep that in mind and also know that Barnhill prosecuted a black woman twice for voter fraud because she showed a first time voter how to use the machine when the person asked for assistance.

Quote

Pearson, a 58-year-old black activist and city commissioner in the South Georgia town of Douglas, stood accused of improperly helping a woman vote—showing a young, first-time, black voter how to use a voting machine when she didn’t know how—in October 2012.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/ahmaud-arbery-george-barnhill-olivia-pearson.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8266

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 11/28/2021 at 11:25 AM, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not speaking in terms of this case.  I am speaking generally.

Example:  Amber Guyger was convicted of murder.  An automatic life sentence for that would have been unjust.  This notwithstanding the differences in murder in Georgia and Texas.  My point being that there are varations of murder, some of which require life, some of which require 30 years, and some of which might require 10 or 20.

Guyger got 10 with eligibility for parole in 5 for killing a man in his own house eating a bowl of ice cream.

If she gets out in 5 that is an injustice.

Edit: And she appealed that sentence.

Edited by TexasEd
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106886

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

I'm sure the McMichaels/Bryant would have chased a white jogger in the neighborhood the same way they did Arbery.

I mean, that's the undercurrent question, isn't it?  Do we think the murderers were a) more likely, b) less likely, or c) about equally likely to have chased down the victim if he'd been white?  And yes, of course, there's no way to know for CERTAIN, and the murderers aren't going to ever give an honest answer.  But knowing what you know about the circumstances and words used......come on.  Anyone with a lick of sense knows that a white victim would have been at least SOMEWHAT less likely to be pursued, and if so, less likely to have been confronted in such an aggressive manner.

The problem with culturally embedded racism isn't guys wearing Klan robes (although those guys are a bad thing).  It's guys who can put on a neutral stance, say the right things, claim not to be racist, etc......but are more likely to go tearing off, armed, to confront a black guy running through the neighborhood than the would a white guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Captainant

Captainant 28529

Posted
Posted

Some more news too...

Ahmaud Arbery's family says they rejected a plea deal for federal hate crime charges

The family of Ahmaud Arbery rejected a plea deal in the federal civil rights case of two of the men convicted of shooting and killing Arbery while he was jogging in a Brunswick, Georgia, neighborhood in February 2020, the family's attorney said. 

Earlier this week, the Department of Justice approached Arbery's mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, about a plea deal that would have Travis McMichael, 35, and his father Gregory McMichael, 66, spend 30 years in prison if they admit that what they did was motivated by hate, according to Arbery family lawyer Lee Merritt. 

Cooper-Jones told "CBS Mornings" she rejected the deal because she wants the men to stand trial in court for those charges. 

"I think that the federal charges are just as important as the state charges and I think that they need to stand trial for those charges as well," Cooper-Jones said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hammerin Hank said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/us/live-news/ahmaud-arbery-killing-mcmichael-bryan-sentencing/index.html
 

All 3 got life in prison. 2 without parole

That article opens with prosecutors request they cannot profit from a book or movie deal....two thoughts/questions there:

1.  I did well in CrimPro in law school decades ago but I don't remember this clearly.   I thought it was standing in every single jurisdiction that no felon can ever profit from their crime (particularly in the media/arts/publication spaces), ever under any circumstances---even if to raise money for their appeal.  Why did they have to ask for this so specifically? 

2.  I guess my first question leads me to believe they have already been approached about a movie/book deal.  What kind of sick fucking production company/publisher would pay these guys for their story?  I mean yeah, go ahead and make a streaming service movie about it, but don't fucking pay them.  Isn't it public domain now because they are legally prohibited from owning the rights to their story?  

These guys hunted a human being for sport.  I'm trying to understand how you have to get a specific injunction against them collecting money to narrate their "fictional re-enactment" on OAN Crime Drama channel or whatever the fuck would pay them.  I thought that was already codified law everywhere?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32076

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Some more news too...

Ahmaud Arbery's family says they rejected a plea deal for federal hate crime charges

The family of Ahmaud Arbery rejected a plea deal in the federal civil rights case of two of the men convicted of shooting and killing Arbery while he was jogging in a Brunswick, Georgia, neighborhood in February 2020, the family's attorney said. 

Earlier this week, the Department of Justice approached Arbery's mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, about a plea deal that would have Travis McMichael, 35, and his father Gregory McMichael, 66, spend 30 years in prison if they admit that what they did was motivated by hate, according to Arbery family lawyer Lee Merritt. 

Cooper-Jones told "CBS Mornings" she rejected the deal because she wants the men to stand trial in court for those charges. 

"I think that the federal charges are just as important as the state charges and I think that they need to stand trial for those charges as well," Cooper-Jones said. 

Waste of time.  Sorry, complete and utter waste of everyone's time.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32076

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Lobo said:

That article opens with prosecutors request they cannot profit from a book or movie deal....two thoughts/questions there:

1.  I did well in CrimPro in law school decades ago but I don't remember this clearly.   I thought it was standing in every single jurisdiction that no felon can ever profit from their crime (particularly in the media/arts/publication spaces), ever under any circumstances---even if to raise money for their appeal.  Why did they have to ask for this so specifically? 

2.  I guess my first question leads me to believe they have already been approached about a movie/book deal.  What kind of sick fucking production company/publisher would pay these guys for their story?  I mean yeah, go ahead and make a streaming service movie about it, but don't fucking pay them.  Isn't it public domain now because they are legally prohibited from owning the rights to their story?  

These guys hunted a human being for sport.  I'm trying to understand how you have to get a specific injunction against them collecting money to narrate their "fictional re-enactment" on OAN Crime Drama channel or whatever the fuck would pay them.  I thought that was already codified law everywhere?  

No, that's not a universal rule.  Some jurisdictions have it, some don't, some require it to be a specific aspect of the sentence.  You may be thinking of the common-law rule that a murderer is not permitted to profit (retain profit) from a murder, as by inheritance or insurance.  But that rule has not been extended, generally, to post-murder things like book deals.

I'm a bit troubled by the life sentences here.  Just in the vein of over-sentencing.

Thirty years would have been practical life sentences for the two older ones, and that doesn't trouble me.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106886

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Waste of time.  Sorry, complete and utter waste of everyone's time.

Yes.  But, there was a way to NOT make it a waste of time -- get the defendants to agree to waive all appeal rights in the state prosecution, and we'll drop the federal one.  I think that would have been a good way to "seal the deal."  But then, I'm not sure if that can actually be pulled off.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32076

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes.  But, there was a way to NOT make it a waste of time -- get the defendants to agree to waive all appeal rights in the state prosecution, and we'll drop the federal one.  I think that would have been a good way to "seal the deal."  But then, I'm not sure if that can actually be pulled off.

I would be absolutely willing to entertain the federal charges, including a trial, if the state charges resulted in an acquittal or the equivalent (possibly even just a re-trial).

My thinking is that the federal charges should be reserved for the case where state prosecution efforts constitute a miscarriage of justice, by non-prosecution, under-charging, sandbagging the case, or even a racist jury.  It seems like an appeal, even if successful, is less likely to constitute a a miscarriage of justice.  Everything at the trial level seems to be quite the opposite.  The State of Georgia done pretty good here.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzrock

Buzzrock 15136

Posted
Posted
No, that's not a universal rule.  Some jurisdictions have it, some don't, some require it to be a specific aspect of the sentence.  You may be thinking of the common-law rule that a murderer is not permitted to profit (retain profit) from a murder, as by inheritance or insurance.  But that rule has not been extended, generally, to post-murder things like book deals.
I'm a bit troubled by the life sentences here.  Just in the vein of over-sentencing.
Thirty years would have been practical life sentences for the two older ones, and that doesn't trouble me.

Is it a rule for federal felony convictions? I thought it was a standard as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Samson's Wig

Samson's Wig 3230

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:


Is it a rule for federal felony convictions? I thought it was a standard as well.

There is a federal version of what are called "Son of Sam" laws.  18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3681–3682.

Not all states have them, and they differ by state.  Some, including the original version in NY (hence the nickname) have been struck down by SCOTUS as they tend to raise 1st Amendment issues.   Lots of drafting and redrafting since the 70's when these first came about.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 24013

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hammerin Hank said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/us/live-news/ahmaud-arbery-killing-mcmichael-bryan-sentencing/index.html
 

All 3 got life in prison. 2 without parole

Good now lets get started on these two fucksticks who shot a black guy dead yesterday in Fayetteville NC. Obviously I don't know much about the story, but why exactly is the son out of the truck in traffic confronting the moyorcyclist, and why did his old man start blasting from the drivers seat. Does every fucking short dick moron in this country own a gun now? If your fat ass son thinks it fine to get out of the car, let him fuck around and get his ass beat. 

https://www.newsweek.com/nc-man-charged-murder-road-rage-clash-black-motorcyclist-1666177

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Homercles

Homercles 10206

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Good now lets get started on these two fucksticks who shot a black guy dead yesterday in Fayetteville NC. Obviously I don't know much about the story, but why exactly is the son out of the truck in traffic confronting the moyorcyclist, and why did his old man start blasting from the drivers seat. Does every fucking short dick moron in this country own a gun now? If your fat ass son thinks it fine to get out of the car, let him fuck around and get his ass beat. 

https://www.newsweek.com/nc-man-charged-murder-road-rage-clash-black-motorcyclist-1666177

Ok well I tried to watch the video but it played 90s of ads, then when I went full screen it moved to another story showing a bunch of trucks run off the road in what I assume was their recent snow storm up north.  Ugh I hate shit websites. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...