Ex Cop and son kill unarmed black man jogging

[Homercles 10206]

Here’s a YouTube link:  

 

 

And yes, it appears they all have guns and consider just about any leaning, pointing, or anything but complete deference to another person is aggressive enough to use it.

 

 

[Homercles 10206]

Here’s a YouTube link:  

 

 

And yes, it appears they all have guns and consider just about any leaning, pointing, or anything but complete deference to another person is aggressive enough to use it.

 

 

[Guest Lobo]

That’s horrifying.  I’ll hang back and wait to hear what bad things the victim did twenty years ago and why he shouldn’t have been so aggressive. 

[Captainant 28529]

13 minutes ago, Homercles said:

And yes, it appears they all have guns and consider just about any leaning, pointing, or anything but complete deference to another person is aggressive enough to use it.

Well it's what the police do, and they've got lots of punisher and thin blue line stickers just like the cop cars do, so they get to use the same split-second self defense horseshit that warrior cops do!

It's why the gomer here in TX isn't going to face any charges for murdering a man in cold blood either.

[Blotto 24013]

nm, wrong forum. should be in CR

Edited January 7, 2022 by Blotto

[TexasEd 8266]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

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

Yes, if this was me I would have taken that with two conditions:

1. The federal sentence is stacked on the state sentence (not sure if doable but would ask)

2. The admission has to be public and recorded, makes the nightly news, etc.

Then either spend your time on the civil suit to get what you can monetarily or just walk away and try to find peace.

The last part, trying to find peace, is hard but it has to come to be able to move on.

Edited January 8, 2022 by TexasEd

[TexasEd 8266]

1 hour ago, Homercles said:

Here’s a YouTube link:  

 

 

And yes, it appears they all have guns and consider just about any leaning, pointing, or anything but complete deference to another person is aggressive enough to use it.

 

 

Needs a new thread.

  

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

That’s horrifying.  I’ll hang back and wait to hear what bad things the victim did twenty years ago and why he shouldn’t have been so aggressive. 

He walks into houses under construction, looks at cars at the dealership lot on Sunday when closed and takes short cuts through apartment complexes.

Edited January 8, 2022 by TexasEd

[mchookem 16765]

On 1/7/2022 at 4:49 PM, Captainant said:

 

ha i was gonna post the same gif

 

Edited January 9, 2022 by mchookem

[JimmyJames 12271]

Was anyone holding a skateboard?

[TwiceHorn 32076]

On 1/7/2022 at 6:05 PM, TexasEd said:

Yes, if this was me I would have taken that with two conditions:

1. The federal sentence is stacked on the state sentence (not sure if doable but would ask)

2. The admission has to be public and recorded, makes the nightly news, etc.

Then either spend your time on the civil suit to get what you can monetarily or just walk away and try to find peace.

The last part, trying to find peace, is hard but it has to come to be able to move on.

Federal sentences almost always run consecutively with state (are stacked).

I surely hope peace comes to victim's families through some medium other than the justice system.

[DigglerontheHoof 21551]

On 1/7/2022 at 4:30 PM, Homercles said:

Here’s a YouTube link:  

 

 

And yes, it appears they all have guns and consider just about any leaning, pointing, or anything but complete deference to another person is aggressive enough to use it.

 

 

Burn in hell, cocksucker (shooter, not poster).

[Newdoc 3511]

On 1/7/2022 at 5:10 PM, TexasEd said:

Needs a new thread.

And apparently it needs to be in the CR.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 hour ago, Newdoc said:

And apparently it needs to be in the CR.

I'll start a thread in DT for Fayetteville. There were actually two incidents there this week.

[TwiceHorn 32076]

Argh.  They are actually going through with the federal trial.

It apparently is fairly juicy in terms of how despicable these fuckers were or are.  But, I just can't get on board with it.

[pacman 7504]

News link from ajc

 

no need to post the racist posts and texts the prosecution has discovered.

needless to say, they are who we thought they were...

Edited February 17, 2022 by pacman

[Dahobbs 18315]

4 minutes ago, pacman said:

News link from ajc

 

no need to post the racist posts and texts the prosecution has discovered.

needless to say, they are who we thought they were...

Wow. After reading that I'm going to disagree with @TwiceHorn. I think separate federal charges and trial are warranted here. 

[TwiceHorn 32076]

21 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Wow. After reading that I'm going to disagree with @TwiceHorn. I think separate federal charges and trial are warranted here. 

I'm speaking more in terms of the general case of parallel federal and state prosecutions.  The very notion bugs me viscerally in about 95% of cases.

Deserve's got nothin to do with it.

I suppose the exposure of the existence of these kind of monsters, just walking around free among us, has some value.

But, because these guys got literal and effective (taking into account earliest possible parole date) life sentences, I'm not sure this game is worth the candle.

Edited February 17, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[TexasEd 8266]

9 hours ago, pacman said:

News link from ajc

 

no need to post the racist posts and texts the prosecution has discovered.

needless to say, they are who we thought they were...

As bad as expected.  I almost thought it was going to be worse but it wasn't but as bad as I expected is pretty bad.

[Guest Lobo]

So they posted online they wanted to go out and kill some black people.  Then they found one, hunted him down, and killed him?  That's a crime now ? 

Also, I was shocked.  Shocked, I tell you...that they were eating at a Cracker Barrel.  Just totally caught me off-guard.

['stache 22131]

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm speaking more in terms of the general case of parallel federal and state prosecutions.  The very notion bugs me viscerally in about 95% of cases.

Deserve's got nothin to do with it.

I suppose the exposure of the existence of these kind of monsters, just walking around free among us, has some value.

But, because these guys got literal and effective (taking into account earliest possible parole date) life sentences, I'm not sure this game is worth the candle.

They aren't parallel, the federal charges are different and arise only under federal law. Why does it bother you so much? It's not double jeopardy, and if there is any case to make for a hate crime, this is it by definition.

[Pato del Muerto 53464]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

They aren't parallel, the federal charges are different and arise only under federal law. Why does it bother you so much? It's not double jeopardy, and if there is any case to make for a hate crime, this is it by definition.

It’s a waste of resources, if these guys are locked up for a good long while. 

[TwiceHorn 32076]

9 minutes ago, 'stache said:

They aren't parallel, the federal charges are different and arise only under federal law. Why does it bother you so much? It's not double jeopardy, and if there is any case to make for a hate crime, this is it by definition.

The difference in the charges is slight, but exists.  That makes it technically fine, notwithstanding dual sovereignty.  And dual sovereignty bugs me quite a bit.  And, although the feds are free to prosecute in parallel with the states anytime they have jurisdiction, they generally don't because dual sovereignty tends to bug everyone that thinks about it much.

I just don't like it.  All murder implies an insidious motivation: if there's not one, there's generally not murder.  I'm fine with exposing racial motivation in a murder case and enhancing the sentence accordingly.  A separate offense and separate trial, by a "different sovereign" just strikes me as excessive.

Practically, I'm with the Duck.  

As is my tendency with things legal, I am separating the specifics of the Arbery case from the "general rules."  That these bastards may deserve everything that comes to them is not relevant to my analysis of the situation.

Edited February 17, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[GabrielsHorn 2246]

Surprised this wasn’t posted here as well. 
 

Really need to make an example of these people. Complete bullshit it keeps happening. 

[TwiceHorn 32076]

Point of interest.  It would appear that the Arbery defendants will serve their state sentences first because Georgia assumed "primary jurisdiction."  That could change depending on some agreement among the relevant authorities, but that seems to be the basic law here.

It is somewhat unusual in that, as seen on TV and in the movies, the feds are usually pretty aggressive about assuming primary jurisdiction in criminal investigations and prosecutions, usually drug crimes, meaning any federal sentence would be discharged first.

Not the case here, though.

It's relevant because generally speaking, federal time is easier than state.  And I am guessing that there is a high likelihood that these guys do not complete their initial sentence.

 

[Brisketexan 106886]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The difference in the charges is slight, but exists.  That makes it technically fine, notwithstanding dual sovereignty.  And dual sovereignty bugs me quite a bit.  And, although the feds are free to prosecute in parallel with the states anytime they have jurisdiction, they generally don't because dual sovereignty tends to bug everyone that thinks about it much.

I just don't like it.  All murder implies an insidious motivation: if there's not one, there's generally not murder.  I'm fine with exposing racial motivation in a murder case and enhancing the sentence accordingly.  A separate offense and separate trial, by a "different sovereign" just strikes me as excessive.

Practically, I'm with the Duck.  

As is my tendency with things legal, I am separating the specifics of the Arbery case from the "general rules."  That these bastards may deserve everything that comes to them is not relevant to my analysis of the situation.

As a law-dog, I tend to lean in support of your position.

But as a member of a seriously broken society, I lean the other way.  As a society, we need clear and public displays like this to show the kind of egregious conduct and behavior that actually exists, and is causing real and deadly harm in the present day.  A public trial is the most effective way to do that.  There is social value in certain legal mechanisms that "make an example" of people.  This is one of those times.

[TwiceHorn 32076]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

As a law-dog, I tend to lean in support of your position.

But as a member of a seriously broken society, I lean the other way.  As a society, we need clear and public displays like this to show the kind of egregious conduct and behavior that actually exists, and is causing real and deadly harm in the present day.  A public trial is the most effective way to do that.  There is social value in certain legal mechanisms that "make an example" of people.  This is one of those times.

As noted previously, I see that, yes.  As is my tendency, I get kind of overly analytical or doctrinaire about these things.

['stache 22131]

The "waste of resources" cry is laughable. It's the federal government, there is no lack or resources whatsoever (unless of course we're talking about healthcare or social safety nets, can't afford that).

[Brisketexan 106886]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

As noted previously, I see that, yes.  As is my tendency, I get kind of overly analytical or doctrinaire about these things.

And that's fair.  I appreciate that voice, and when it comes to legal-ish stuff like this, I have a similar tendency.  But I also realize that in certain contexts, the overly legalistic approach can miss the forest for the trees (and yes, vice-versa is also possible -- if we are so fixated on some social goal, we can end up making bad law).

[TwiceHorn 32076]

3 minutes ago, GabrielsHorn said:

Surprised this wasn’t posted here as well. 
 

Really need to make an example of these people. Complete bullshit it keeps happening. 

That raises the $64K question. People like us are horrified that this type of thinking persists in our society.  But we're not the people who have any tendency to commit these crimes.

So will this kind of thing have any deterrent effect on people like the McMichaels or the above?  I have my doubts.

[TwiceHorn 32076]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

The "waste of resources" cry is laughable. It's the federal government, there is no lack or resources whatsoever (unless of course we're talking about healthcare or social safety nets, can't afford that).

Well, if you practice in federal court, you know that trial dates are a precious resource for both criminal and civil cases.

['stache 22131]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Point of interest.  It would appear that the Arbery defendants will serve their state sentences first because Georgia assumed "primary jurisdiction."  That could change depending on some agreement among the relevant authorities, but that seems to be the basic law here.

It is somewhat unusual in that, as seen on TV and in the movies, the feds are usually pretty aggressive about assuming primary jurisdiction in criminal investigations and prosecutions, usually drug crimes, meaning any federal sentence would be discharged first.

Not the case here, though.

It's relevant because generally speaking, federal time is easier than state.  And I am guessing that there is a high likelihood that these guys do not complete their initial sentence.

 

The offer that was made by the prosecutors was something along these lines, serve federal time first and concurrent with the state charges. The family asked that the deal be rejected, and it was, so they'll serve the state time first, and in reality forever. I think we can agree that this case in particular is a type of case that a federal prosecution makes sense to make a statement, if nothing else. What will always bother me is that neither involved the death penalty. I'm against the death penalty, but my state has executed a bunch of people violently the last few months, and their crimes weren't any worse than what happened here, a racially motivated open execution.

['stache 22131]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Well, if you practice in federal court, you know that trial dates are a precious resource for both criminal and civil cases.

I do, and it's still laughable. Congress can add judges and funding tomorrow, they won't because like fucking everything, it's been cloak roomed to shit.

[Dahobbs 18315]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

As a law-dog, I tend to lean in support of your position.

But as a member of a seriously broken society, I lean the other way.  As a society, we need clear and public displays like this to show the kind of egregious conduct and behavior that actually exists, and is causing real and deadly harm in the present day.  A public trial is the most effective way to do that.  There is social value in certain legal mechanisms that "make an example" of people.  This is one of those times.

Same. I agree with @TwiceHorn in general on this. But, I think this case is an exception. I think there is societal value in making clear our condemnation of their particularly heinous thinking and actions. I might feel a bit differently if any of this had really come out in their state trial. But it didn't (that I know of). I'm assuming either it was excluded or wasn't known. 

[TwiceHorn 32076]

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Same. I agree with @TwiceHorn in general on this. But, I think this case is an exception. I think there is societal value in making clear our condemnation of their particularly heinous thinking and actions. I might feel a bit differently if any of this had really come out in their state trial. But it didn't (that I know of). I'm assuming either it was excluded or wasn't known. 

I'm kind of curious why it didn't.  And, a quick ddg indicates that Georgia did not have hate crime legislation until 2020.  https://www.gratlantalaw.com/practice-areas/georgia-enacts-new-hate-crime-law.html

[TwiceHorn 32076]

The other thing that influences me on this is that, since I have become interested in criminal justice policies, I have become extremely skeptical of the exercise of federal criminal jurisdiction, broadly.

By and large, federal criminal penalties are far more draconian than any states, for a given crime (white collar being a notable exception).  And there's a nearly one-to-one correspondence or overlap between state and federal crimes.  And most of those federal crimes are enacted based on a nexus to interstate commerce, which is just about any damn thing, usually.  So there's very little keeping the feds from asserting primary jurisdiction over what should fundamentally be a state matter.

This is extremely evident in the case of drug crimes, for example. 

And, the main reason we have so many federal crimes now is simple pandering.  VCCLEA, the "1994 crime bill," is a sterling example. Federal hate crime legislation is another, in that the vast majority of racially motivated crimes are or should be prosecuted at the state level and that is where any "hate crime" motivation should be taken into account, not by the feds, and certainly not in a separate prosecution.

I am actually less offended by the similar "criminal deprivation of civil rights" federal crimes, which at least implicitly involve the miscarriage of justice at the state level.

And all of this involves what are or should be discredited ideas like "drug war," "tough on crime," etc.

[TexasEd 8266]

4 hours ago, GabrielsHorn said:

Surprised this wasn’t posted here as well. 
 

Really need to make an example of these people. Complete bullshit it keeps happening. 

I love how their mugshots capture their Confederate Officer beards in full character.  You can just imagine them in full uniform as Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson

Edited February 17, 2022 by TexasEd

[CooterBrown 18288]

That raises the $64K question. People like us are horrified that this type of thinking persists in our society.  But we're not the people who have any tendency to commit these crimes.
So will this kind of thing have any deterrent effect on people like the McMichaels or the above?  I have my doubts.

I think that a thousand plus years of punishment for crimes has shown there’s no real deterrent for criminals.

[Dahobbs 18315]

1 hour ago, CooterBrown said:

I think that a thousand plus years of punishment for crimes has shown there’s no real deterrent for criminals.

No. It just shows that any deterrent effect isn't perfect. 

[Beau Vine 55863]

On 2/17/2022 at 9:32 AM, TwiceHorn said:

As noted previously, I see that, yes.  As is my tendency, I get kind of overly analytical or doctrinaire about these things.

[wildcat09 29579]

On 2/17/2022 at 9:35 AM, TwiceHorn said:

That raises the $64K question. People like us are horrified that this type of thinking persists in our society.  But we're not the people who have any tendency to commit these crimes.

So will this kind of thing have any deterrent effect on people like the McMichaels or the above?  I have my doubts.

Without getting too CR, there are a lot of people who don't think racism is still a serious problem in America. A trial may not do anything to change or deter people like the McMichaels, but could possibly help open the eyes of some people who thought racism was in the past.

[wildcat09 29579]

On 2/16/2022 at 10:56 PM, Dahobbs said:

Wow. After reading that I'm going to disagree with @TwiceHorn. I think separate federal charges and trial are warranted here. 

 

On 2/17/2022 at 9:53 AM, Dahobbs said:

Same. I agree with @TwiceHorn in general on this. But, I think this case is an exception. I think there is societal value in making clear our condemnation of their particularly heinous thinking and actions. I might feel a bit differently if any of this had really come out in their state trial. But it didn't (that I know of). I'm assuming either it was excluded or wasn't known. 

I'd love to know why Incredulity negged these posts.

[Dahobbs 18315]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

I'd love to know why Incredulity negged these posts.

Off topic, but because I negged his trantrum in the Trudeau thread. He needs medication. 

[Ten Bears 2500]

On 2/17/2022 at 9:30 AM, GabrielsHorn said:

Surprised this wasn’t posted here as well. 
 

Really need to make an example of these people. Complete bullshit it keeps happening. 

 

Way to go Fedex.  Sent him right back to the same route he got shot up on.

[Blotto 24013]

58 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Without getting too CR, there are a lot of people who don't think racism is still a serious problem in America. A trial may not do anything to change or deter people like the McMichaels, but could possibly help open the eyes of some people who thought racism was in the past.

There are many highly publicized cases every year. If you haven't acknowledged the issue by now, its because you refuse to acknowledge the issue no matter the evidence. 

[TwiceHorn 32076]

On 2/17/2022 at 12:14 PM, Dahobbs said:

No. It just shows that any deterrent effect isn't perfect. 

The federal government, actually, on deterrence.  https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence

[Guest Lobo]

I’d like to revert back to the immortal words of Dr. beeper who suggested that this young man should have gotten on his knees and complied.  I I think we have the wrong people in American leadership. If we could just get some top-notch white people from Highland Park this whole thing could’ve been averted

[Dahobbs 18315]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The federal government, actually, on deterrence.  https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence

All that supports that having criminal laws has a deterrent effect. It just says that severity of punishment and deterrence don't have a strong correlation.

[TwiceHorn 32076]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

All that supports that having criminal laws has a deterrent effect. It just says that severity of punishment and deterrence don't have a strong correlation.

It's a topic that comes up pretty often and seems to be surrounded with misinformation or assumptions that aren't supported by the empirical evidence.

I'm not sure having a second murder trial that focuses on the racial motivation does much as far as deterrence or really any other meaningful purpose, see Blotto, above.  I think it mostly satisfies some form of vindictiveness, even if the vindictiveness is righteous, or as righteous as it can be.

[Dahobbs 18315]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

It's a topic that comes up pretty often and seems to be surrounded with misinformation or assumptions that aren't supported by the empirical evidence.

I'm not sure having a second murder trial that focuses on the racial motivation does much as far as deterrence or really any other meaningful purpose, see Blotto, above.  I think it mostly satisfies some form of vindictiveness, even if the vindictiveness is righteous, or as righteous as it can be.

Oh, sure. I don't know that having a second trial has a deterrent effect. It probably doesn't. From a societal perspective, I think that it represents our united disapproval of the behavior and does something to cement that shared attitude. 

[atomheartbevo 90641]

On 2/17/2022 at 9:30 AM, GabrielsHorn said:

Surprised this wasn’t posted here as well. 
 

Really need to make an example of these people. Complete bullshit it keeps happening. 

When I see this kind of shit, it makes me feel so much better that the worst thing I've ever done with my son is too let him play too much Minecraft, or let him watch the Star Wars sequels.