|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 12, 2021 12:35:43 GMT
Is anyone paying attention to this? I listened to an episode of The Daily the other day and it was depressing that they said it is would not be a surprise if they got off because of the laws in Georgia at the time. From what I have heard on TV, it sounds like there have been some pretty inflammatory things said, particularly yesterday by the defense attorney regarding black pastors. What are your thoughts on this case?
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 12, 2021 12:56:10 GMT
I don’t think they’ll skate free.
What they did is pretty damn clear.
They hunted down a black man and killed him.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 12, 2021 13:17:22 GMT
I don’t think they’ll skate free. What they did is pretty damn clear. They hunted down a black man and killed him. I hope not. But apparently there was a citizens arrest law in Georgia that dated back to the Civil War. It was repealed after Arbery's murder, but was still on the books when he was killed.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 12, 2021 13:46:58 GMT
The defense attorney was despicable at the least!
|
|
|
Post by 16joy on Nov 12, 2021 14:04:29 GMT
Testimony from a police on the scene said there was no claim made of attempting a citizens arrest. Was the citizen’s arrest claim why the Daily thought they would get off?
My husband was at an event where A top law enforcement official said the previous prosecutor assigned to the case, Joyette Holmes, would have been able to convict these guys. He wasn’t familiar with the new person assigned to the case. Joyette Holmes was the Cobb county DA at the time Vic Reynolds, former Cobb DA, assigned the case to Cobb County. A new county DA was elected and JH is out as prosecutor.
|
|
|
Post by Bridget in MD on Nov 12, 2021 16:13:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by micpea on Nov 12, 2021 16:22:09 GMT
It does here....I'm in KC & it's on our local news as well as the national news.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 12, 2021 16:45:56 GMT
I don’t think they’ll skate free. What they did is pretty damn clear. They hunted down a black man and killed him. I hope not. But apparently there was a citizens arrest law in Georgia that dated back to the Civil War. It was repealed after Arbery's murder, but was still on the books when he was killed. The killers had no evidence or a crime being committed. The old law allows citizens arrest IF a crime is witnessed. The killers actually took the time to get guns and hunt him down —-BEFORE the police were event called. They hit him with their truck, Had a physical fight with them, And then shot him.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 12, 2021 18:18:11 GMT
I haven't had a chance to watch much news in depth, but I know they are talking about it on CNN, although not as much as the Rittenhouse trial.
I can't find a good video right now, but I would love to know what the blonde woman was thinking as the defense attorney was talking about not having anymore Black pastors in the court room.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 12, 2021 22:47:52 GMT
I hope not. But apparently there was a citizens arrest law in Georgia that dated back to the Civil War. It was repealed after Arbery's murder, but was still on the books when he was killed. The killers had no evidence or a crime being committed. The old law allows citizens arrest IF a crime is witnessed. The killers actually took the time to get guns and hunt him down —-BEFORE the police were event called. They hit him with their truck, Had a physical fight with them, And then shot him. Yes. Arbery wasn’t even committing criminal trespass, much less burglary or any other crime. Even the property owner himself said people wandering through the interior of the unfinished house was common. “Children and curious neighbors also have gone onto the property and walked around inside the house.” Maybe if he had bothered to fence in his property that has been sitting unfinished for several years and posted a No Trespassing sign, it would have prevented the tragedy. More importantly, maybe if these states that still have their slavery-based laws had repealed them a long time ago, some of their “good ol’ boys” would have thought twice about murdering innocents.
|
|
|
Post by mom on Nov 12, 2021 22:52:34 GMT
I hope the Prosecutors show up and have their case nailed down. This should be a slam dunk for a guilty verdict. IF the Prosecutor does his job.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 12, 2021 23:39:34 GMT
The killers had no evidence or a crime being committed. The old law allows citizens arrest IF a crime is witnessed. The killers actually took the time to get guns and hunt him down —-BEFORE the police were event called. They hit him with their truck, Had a physical fight with them, And then shot him. Yes. Arbery wasn’t even committing criminal trespass, much less burglary or any other crime. Even the property owner himself said people wandering through the interior of the unfinished house was common. “Children and curious neighbors also have gone onto the property and walked around inside the house.” Maybe if he had bothered to fence in his property that has been sitting unfinished for several years and posted a No Trespassing sign, it would have prevented the tragedy. More importantly, maybe if these states that still have their slavery-based laws had repealed them a long time ago, some of their “good ol’ boys” would have thought twice about murdering innocents. As a white kid in the 70s and 80s, I wandered through unfinished houses in our neighborhood with my friends all the time. No one ever said a word to us, much less chased us down and shot us. The problem we have here and in the Rittenhouse case in my opinion is that in both cases, white men felt entitled to deputize themselves to “deal with” a black man or “black sympathizers” (I won’t use the even more offensive pejorative that was thrown around when I was a kid, and I’m sure is still in use by certain people today). Vigilantism should not be acceptable in any instance. No one should get to just decide that the punishment for a property crime - if one was committed - is immediate death. In my opinion, where laws exist that protect that sort of behavior, they need to be examined and either thrown out or re-written in such a way that you can’t insert yourself and a weapon into a volatile situation and claim self defense. Laws that protect armed vigilantes are not just.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 13, 2021 0:46:43 GMT
Yes. Arbery wasn’t even committing criminal trespass, much less burglary or any other crime. Even the property owner himself said people wandering through the interior of the unfinished house was common. “Children and curious neighbors also have gone onto the property and walked around inside the house.” Maybe if he had bothered to fence in his property that has been sitting unfinished for several years and posted a No Trespassing sign, it would have prevented the tragedy. More importantly, maybe if these states that still have their slavery-based laws had repealed them a long time ago, some of their “good ol’ boys” would have thought twice about murdering innocents. As a white kid in the 70s and 80s, I wandered through unfinished houses in our neighborhood with my friends all the time. No one ever said a word to us, much less chased us down and shot us. The problem we have here and in the Rittenhouse case in my opinion is that in both cases, white men felt entitled to deputize themselves to “deal with” a black man or “black sympathizers” (I won’t use the even more offensive pejorative that was thrown around when I was a kid, and I’m sure is still in use by certain people today). Vigilantism should not be acceptable in any instance. No one should get to just decide that the punishment for a property crime - if one was committed - is immediate death. In my opinion, where laws exist that protect that sort of behavior, they need to be examined and either thrown out or re-written in such a way that you can’t insert yourself and a weapon into a volatile situation and claim self defense. Laws that protect armed vigilantes are not just. Absolutely. Vigilante “justice” has no place in a civilized society. Add to that the fetishism of guns in this country and it’s no surprise there’s no end to tragedies like these. Admittedly, as a black male, Arbery should have exercised more prudence. Roaming while black inside someone else’s unfinished and vacant house in a predominantly white neighborhood was not a wise thing to do because no matter how innocent you are, you’ll be assumed a burglar. I don’t know how many times black parents have instilled caution in their children because of the many perils brought on by their skin color. (In my family alone, no one grew up thinking if we just act like white people, everything will be okay. Uh, no.) But, however unwise Arbery’s decision was, his actions were not criminal, he was not armed, he wasn’t the aggressor against whom three men would find “self-defense” necessary, and he most definitely did not deserve the self-styled "justice" meted out by racist thugs. There’s just no legal or moral justification for his murder.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 13, 2021 1:53:13 GMT
Amazed that 3 adult men could not physically hold Artery down for the police. No, the macho men had to use their big guns!
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 13, 2021 2:19:20 GMT
I hope the Prosecutors show up and have their case nailed down. This should be a slam dunk for a guilty verdict. IF the Prosecutor does his job.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Nov 13, 2021 4:33:49 GMT
Is anyone paying attention to this? I listened to an episode of The Daily the other day and it was depressing that they said it is would not be a surprise if they got off because of the laws in Georgia at the time. From what I have heard on TV, it sounds like there have been some pretty inflammatory things said, particularly yesterday by the defense attorney regarding black pastors. What are your thoughts on this case? Gough said Thursday he had "nothing personally against" Sharpton, adding, "We don't want any more Black pastors coming in here or other Jesse Jackson, whoever was in here earlier this week, sitting with the victim's family trying to influence a jury in this case." “We don't want any more Black pastors coming in here”. That statement is inflammatory at best but I’d say it’s racist. Now I’m no where near an Al Sharpton fan in any way, but the family invited him there to support them. Sharpton sat there completely respectfully, quietly, as any one in court should. He supported the family as he was asked to do. Sharpton has every right to be there as a member of the public but even more so at the invitation of the victims family. The things said by the attorney about him are simply bigoted racist crap. He didn’t even bother to correctly identify whoever was there before Al Sharpton. The attorney tried to walk back his language today but IMO he still made an ass of himself - racist asshole to be exact. If the family wants someone there to support them then they can have someone. The lawyer seems to be implying that simply because they are known black pastors their very presence will be intimidating to the court. Which is a load of racist bullshit.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:52:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2021 5:28:15 GMT
“We don't want any more Black pastors coming in here”. The attorney tried to walk back his language today but IMO he still made an ass of himself - racist asshole to be exact. If the family wants someone there to support them then they can have someone. The lawyer seems to be implying that simply because they are known black pastors their very presence will be intimidating to the court. Which is a load of racist bullshit. They keep forgetting not to say the quiet part out loud (to microphones, connected to satellites)
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 13, 2021 12:43:00 GMT
Is anyone paying attention to this? I listened to an episode of The Daily the other day and it was depressing that they said it is would not be a surprise if they got off because of the laws in Georgia at the time. From what I have heard on TV, it sounds like there have been some pretty inflammatory things said, particularly yesterday by the defense attorney regarding black pastors. What are your thoughts on this case? Gough said Thursday he had "nothing personally against" Sharpton, adding, "We don't want any more Black pastors coming in here or other Jesse Jackson, whoever was in here earlier this week, sitting with the victim's family trying to influence a jury in this case." “We don't want any more Black pastors coming in here”. That statement is inflammatory at best but I’d say it’s racist. Now I’m no where near an Al Sharpton fan in any way, but the family invited him there to support them. Sharpton sat there completely respectfully, quietly, as any one in court should. He supported the family as he was asked to do. Sharpton has every right to be there as a member of the public but even more so at the invitation of the victims family. The things said by the attorney about him are simply bigoted racist crap. He didn’t even bother to correctly identify whoever was there before Al Sharpton. The attorney tried to walk back his language today but IMO he still made an ass of himself - racist asshole to be exact. If the family wants someone there to support them then they can have someone. The lawyer seems to be implying that simply because they are known black pastors their very presence will be intimidating to the court. Which is a load of racist bullshit. And yet that same defense used their challenges to strike down the last of 11 black jurors. The judge even stated himself tgat the defenses jury selected appeared to be “intentionally discriminatory “. This is what the defense has said about jury selection: “We are very pleased that we have been able to select now 16 members of this community," Sheffield said as he exited the courthouse. "Where this community can now decide the pending issues of this indictment, and we truly believe that they will do so fairly and in keeping with what we all understand justice to be about." Read that again—“WHAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND JUSTICE TO BE ABOUT” He is purposely choosing jurors who he thinks will vote their feelings of how it should be, void of what the murderers did. And… “Not enough 'Bubba' men, defense attorney said Defense attorneys previously expressed concern over not only how many people didn't show, but also who was missing among those who did. "It would appear that White males born in the South, over 40 years of age, without four-year college degrees, sometimes euphemistically known as 'Bubba' or 'Joe Six Pack,' seem to be significantly underrepresented," defense attorney Kevin Gough, who represents Bryan, told the court Friday. "Without meaning to be stereotypical in any way, I do think there is a real question in this case whether that demographic is underrepresented in this jury pool," Gough added. "And if it is, then we have a problem with that." Sheffield, the attorney for Travis McMichael, brought up demographics again this week, stressing that the low turnout of people during the jury selection process meant the pool didn't "fairly reflect the accused in this case, where the accused can't look across the courtroom and see persons that are similarly situated.” Imagine if they extended the same jury selection thinking when a black man is on trial…
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:52:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2021 13:27:59 GMT
Sheffield, the attorney for Travis McMichael, brought up demographics again this week, stressing that the low turnout of people during the jury selection process meant the pool didn't "fairly reflect the accused in this case, where the accused can't look across the courtroom and see persons that are similarly situated.” Imagine if they extended the same jury selection thinking when a black man is on trial… Isn't it funny all the things we're learning this week: 1. Judges can not have to bend over backwards for the prosecution (when the defendant is white - Kyle) 2. Juries need to look more like the defendant (when the defendants are white - Arbury case) 3. Prisons are sometimes dirty and unsafe (when the defendants are white). Well. So interesting! I wonder which non-white defendants have been screaming this for decades?!?! Hmmmm. Seems like I know this one.....Give me a little to puzzle it out.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 13, 2021 14:17:14 GMT
@zingermack IF only people would pay attention to this week of all weeks!!
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Nov 13, 2021 15:36:01 GMT
Gough said Thursday he had "nothing personally against" Sharpton, adding, "We don't want any more Black pastors coming in here or other Jesse Jackson, whoever was in here earlier this week, sitting with the victim's family trying to influence a jury in this case." “We don't want any more Black pastors coming in here”. That statement is inflammatory at best but I’d say it’s racist. Now I’m no where near an Al Sharpton fan in any way, but the family invited him there to support them. Sharpton sat there completely respectfully, quietly, as any one in court should. He supported the family as he was asked to do. Sharpton has every right to be there as a member of the public but even more so at the invitation of the victims family. The things said by the attorney about him are simply bigoted racist crap. He didn’t even bother to correctly identify whoever was there before Al Sharpton. The attorney tried to walk back his language today but IMO he still made an ass of himself - racist asshole to be exact. If the family wants someone there to support them then they can have someone. The lawyer seems to be implying that simply because they are known black pastors their very presence will be intimidating to the court. Which is a load of racist bullshit. And yet that same defense used their challenges to strike down the last of 11 black jurors. The judge even stated himself tgat the defenses jury selected appeared to be “intentionally discriminatory “. This is what the defense has said about jury selection: “We are very pleased that we have been able to select now 16 members of this community," Sheffield said as he exited the courthouse. "Where this community can now decide the pending issues of this indictment, and we truly believe that they will do so fairly and in keeping with what we all understand justice to be about." Read that again—“WHAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND JUSTICE TO BE ABOUT” He is purposely choosing jurors who he thinks will vote their feelings of how it should be, void of what the murderers did. And… “Not enough 'Bubba' men, defense attorney said Defense attorneys previously expressed concern over not only how many people didn't show, but also who was missing among those who did. "It would appear that White males born in the South, over 40 years of age, without four-year college degrees, sometimes euphemistically known as 'Bubba' or 'Joe Six Pack,' seem to be significantly underrepresented," defense attorney Kevin Gough, who represents Bryan, told the court Friday. "Without meaning to be stereotypical in any way, I do think there is a real question in this case whether that demographic is underrepresented in this jury pool," Gough added. "And if it is, then we have a problem with that." Sheffield, the attorney for Travis McMichael, brought up demographics again this week, stressing that the low turnout of people during the jury selection process meant the pool didn't "fairly reflect the accused in this case, where the accused can't look across the courtroom and see persons that are similarly situated.” Imagine if they extended the same jury selection thinking when a black man is on trial… Yeah, imagine. That lawyer is one racist m-f-er
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:52:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2021 16:35:19 GMT
"It would appear that White males born in the South, over 40 years of age, without four-year college degrees, sometimes euphemistically known as 'Bubba' or 'Joe Six Pack,' seem to be significantly underrepresented," defense attorney Kevin Gough, who represents Bryan, told the court Friday. "Without meaning to be stereotypical in any way, I do think there is a real question in this case whether that demographic is underrepresented in this jury pool," Gough added. "And if it is, then we have a problem with that." A long time ago, the rich white men of American put enmity between black Americans and poor white Americans (the old divide-and-conquer routine). As I look around I see how many times the poor white Americans and black Americans could have made common cause to create a more just and equitable America. But that enmity was well-placed and fed by centuries of propaganda. All the rich white "owner class" had to do was convince the poor white Americans that "at least we won't treat you THIS badly" while they pointed to instances of truly degrading behavior toward black Americans. Now, finally, poor white Americans and black Americans may figure out just how much they have in common. And maybe do something with that knowledge. I know in my industry, all of the reach out and equity issues are primarily geared toward the "urban poor" and "rural" America. Amazing how both groups have suffered needlessly for a century and more because they couldn't figure out they have much more in common (including enemies) than they have differences.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 15, 2021 22:15:01 GMT
The defense attorney made it far worse today.... Worse for him, at least ... On Monday, attorney Kevin Gough objected to the presence of Rev. Jesse Jackson, saying seats in the courtroom are "not like courtside seats at a Lakers game.""How many pastors does the Arbery family have?" Gough said. "We had the Rev. Al Sharpton here earlier last week, and I'm not keeping track and I think the court has indicated that the court doesn't intend to ask anyone to keep track of who is in the gallery, but I don't know who Rev. Jackson is pastoring here." Last week, Gough said the "idea that we're going to be serially bringing these people in to sit with the victim's family, one after another, obviously there's only so many pastors they can have," later adding, ""If their pastor's Al Sharpton right now, that's fine. But then that's it. We don't want any more Black pastors coming in here."Attorney goes off after Rev. Jackson appears at Ahmaud Arbery trial: These are ‘not courtside seats' www.rawstory.com/ahmaud-arbery-trial-2655557039/
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 22, 2021 17:02:40 GMT
Is anyone watching the closing arguments right now? I am having a hard time understanding why information about other (possible) criminal activity in the neighborhood is relevant to the situation with Arbery? I understand that they are trying to justify their behavior, but it seems like it would be similar to bringing up someone's past criminal history during a trial. It is used to sway the jury but doesn't really have any proof that it is relevant to Arbery and the situation that led up to his death.
|
|
oh yvonne
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,064
Jun 26, 2014 0:45:23 GMT
|
Post by oh yvonne on Nov 22, 2021 17:04:53 GMT
I will be stunned if they are found not guilty. Stunned.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 22, 2021 17:26:28 GMT
I will be stunned if they are found not guilty. Stunned. Oh so it was Arbrey's fault because he crossed in front of the truck at the very end? My comment was just what the defense lawyer had just stated to defend McMichael.
|
|
oh yvonne
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,064
Jun 26, 2014 0:45:23 GMT
|
Post by oh yvonne on Nov 22, 2021 17:32:29 GMT
I will be stunned if they are found not guilty. Stunned. Oh so it was Arbrey's fault because he crossed in front of the truck at the very end? huh??
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 22, 2021 17:36:00 GMT
Oh so it was Arbrey's fault because he crossed in front of the truck at the very end? huh?? just a comment that the defense lawyer had just said. That is was Arbrey's fault he got shot. Sorry.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 22, 2021 17:36:15 GMT
I will be stunned if they are found not guilty. Stunned. Oh so it was Arbrey's fault because he crossed in front of the truck at the very end? I think you misread oh yvonne ‘s post. Stunned if found NOT guilty.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 22, 2021 17:37:43 GMT
I will also be stunned, but the defense says it was Arbrey's fault he got shot!
I misread nothing... I will leave this thread now!!
|
|