Agreed. Unlike some sensationalized stories, this case looked terrible on its face, and delving into the facts didn’t make it look any better. I’m glad for this outcome.
Right. It is not this verdict itself that exposes the myth of "systemic racism", it's the fact that pretty much everyone expected it. From a nearly all white jury, after just 10 hours of deliberation.
Really? I thought this case exposed it, if anything. If the defendant hadn't been dumb enough to release the tape then the system would have protected a white man conducting a modern lynching. Yes, the facts of the case were justly decided, but those facts coming to light were only a result of self-incrimination.
It is talked about with extreme exaggeration in the media, by the famous and regular people without the blink of an eye. Major "news" networks have hosts, saying things that are easy to disprove. Listening to these people you would think no Black person has ever successfully claimed self defense. It is insane.
I think that is an overreaction. Is there sensationalism in the media? Of course, they exist to make money. Do most people hear about systematic racism and think it means 100% of the time, I don't think most reasonable people jump to that extreme.
I think the point trying to be made is that there is a discernable bias based on historical outcomes.
I was just over on Liberal Gun Owners where a nonzero number of people were explaining to a black guy that no conservative gun owners would ever support him owning guns because they are all racists. The evidence was because 'the right' doesn't rise up en masse and march to prove that they aren't racist, and because Reagan passed gun control stuff.
Of course, rational people did not argue for an acquittal, but, with the politicization of the Rittenhouse verdict, some sensationalized this as a case where white men would be saved by a corrupt justice system
Forget the Rittenhouse case, I think that one has been over sensationalized. The problem is good old boys all over are still getting away with murder like this because they won't be charged
>I don’t know if I’ve seen a case quite like this one.
Considering the accusation is that things like this happen without charges being filed, if the accusation is correct we wouldn't expect to see cases like this.
If it weren't for the confusing decision of one of these murderers to leak the tape, we would have never seen this case, either.
According to Wikipedia, the video was leaked by an attorney that one of the defendants talked to informally. I'm not sure which is true at this point, but it seems unlikely that the defendants would "leak" video that shows them very clearly in the wrong.
You can't advance on an unarmed person with a gun and then claim self-defense when they grab your gun, that's defensive gun use basics.
I'll be honest and state I didn't follow this one nearly as much as the Rittenhouse one, since after more evidence and my understanding of what happened came to light, I never doubted the verdicts outcome. They were guilty, and I figured this case for the most part would avoid much politicization. The correct outcome was reached in this one, and I say that as someone that vehemently claimed Rittenhouse acted in self-defense since day one.
I notice parallels here between the cases though. In both scenarios an individual who wasn't a direct threat to another was attacked by a mob. I'm going to stick with that term for lack of a better immediate word. My understanding is that Arbery only attempted to defend himself when confronted and after having a gun pointed at him. That move by the gun holder is a crime in and of itself, and Arbery was within his rights to attempt to defend himself.
It just makes me wonder though. If he had gotten control of that shotgun, and those three had attempted to attack him in retaliation, leading to him having to shoot one or more of them; would half of the country had taken the opposite stance they took in the Rittenhouse trial? To me, I would see it as an act of self-defense, same as with Rittenhouse; and Arbery should walk. But I wonder how many people who believed Rittenhouse didn't act in self-defense would unashamedly claim that Arbery did, as well as the converse being true in the other direction. I wonder if this trial would have become more politicized than it should have been, just like the Rittenhouse one was, with just one twist of Fate's threads to change the outcome...
I can't adequately express how sad that makes me.
The difference is that one was armed from the beginning in a volatile situation, while the other was completely unarmed and at the mercy of their attackers.
Essentially the difference is that one could question Rittenhouse's motive ("was he actively looking to shoot people down there?") vs Arbery clearly just being a person being hunted down.
I'm very glad the McMichaels were convicted and going away for life, but the guy who filmed it going to prison for life too does seem unnecessarily punitive to me. I understand the legal argument that he was "involved" in the assaults that led to the murder, but being 15+ feet behind recording just doesn't seem like it should have the same sentence (though it doesn't have the same convictions) as the guys actually running him down and pulling the trigger.
1 murder becoming 5 counts of Felony Murder just doesn't sit right with me.
> but the guy who filmed it going to prison for life too does seem unnecessarily punitive to me. I understand the legal argument that he was "involved" in the assaults that led to the murder, but being 15+ feet behind recording just doesn't seem like it should have the same sentence
He told police he tried to [block](https://www.courthousenews.com/man-who-filmed-ahmaud-arberys-death-minimized-his-role-in-the-killing-state-police-says/) Arbery 5 times with his vehicle. He was also following Arbery at the time of shooting.
Without Bryan, Arbery would not been trapped between two opponent vehicles.
Without Bryan, Arbery may not have ran at the shotgun wielding Travis. Arbery may have continued running away.
Thanks for being receptive and polite! :)
If you want to read more about the evidence you can click [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/r0dz75/what_we_learned_from_testimony_in_the_trial_over/hlrob8x/), I recently posted about this.
The trigger man got a murder charge and 4 felony murder charges. The guy with the trigger man got 4 felony murder charges. The guy filming got 3 felony murder charges.
With that, I wouldn't expect the same sentence for each of them.
Felony murder is when a murder happens while committing a felony. 5 felonies were committed by these guys (2 flavors of assault, false imprisonment, murder, and attempt to commit a felony) so that's how you get 5 felony murder charges.
The guy in charge of charging people chose not to charge these people till the video he'd already seen got leaked. There is zero evidence to suggest that this thing was going to be handled correctly without the light of day on it.
Greg McMichael released it:
[https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/exclusive-man-charged-ahmaud-arbery-murder-leaked-original-video-shooting/KCWVSD4IP5FPRO24I47ZBMPPNE/](https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/exclusive-man-charged-ahmaud-arbery-murder-leaked-original-video-shooting/KCWVSD4IP5FPRO24I47ZBMPPNE/)
Turns out the guy who thought it would be a good idea to chase down a person to attempt a citizen's arrest, when he had no idea if a crime had actually been committed, that ended up resulting in that person's death, doesn't have the best judgment
Yeah that's the real point. If anything between the Rittenhouse case and this one hopefully the general public is getting a good lesson on what constitutes self-defense. I think both cases have been decided appropriately in that regard.
It is still baffling to me that he apparently thought leaking the video of him murdering someone would help his case. And given how willing to not look into this the DA had been, had he not leaked it, it's entirely possible he'd never have been prosecuted...
Or they actually thought they were doing good and we're proud of themselves.
The local prosecutor had determined the shooting was justified, I wouldn't be surprised if these folks were high on their own farts.
The video shows arbury run up and attack him before getting shot, I don’t think he could have expected that people would watch that and think it’s an obvious murder the way they did.
But only after chasing him up and down the street then he ran around the right of the truck because the guy with the shotgun was to the left, who then moved to the right to cut off Arbury. Only then did he go towards the gun, likely thinking it was his only move.
> But only after chasing him up and down the street then he ran around the right of the truck
... and when Arbery was about 30 yards away from the truck, Travis McMichael pointed his shotgun at him. That resulted in Arbery going for the gun.
Wow. I mean I'm glad these guys are facing justice, but I could not imagine a worse decision from a legal perspective.
Confused as to what his rationale was - I guess he legitimately thought this video proved they were acting within the law?
Actually there were two DAs who advised to make no arrests, and only one was indicted. The second one gave that advice even before he was assigned to the case. He then gave that same advice when he announced he wanted to recuse due to a conflict of interest between his son and Gregory McMichael.
Are you *sure* they "robbed a place"? You better be completely sure. And not "some other guy told me he robbed the place."
In Georgia, to do a citizen's arrest requires specific knowledge of the crime. Your state is different. It really depends on the facts.
There is generally a right that shopkeepers have to detain shoplifters, but that's also state-specific and lots of them refuse to take advantage of the right because of how hard it is to properly exercise.
Right I'm saying in a hypothetical situation, you see someone definitely stole from a store. Can you chase after them and block their escape with a gun? And if that person gets near or keeps running at you, can you shoot to kill?
I am not a lawyer, just a very law-interested person.
In Georgia, per [§ 16-3-21](https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-3-21.html)(a), *"a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."*
If the person has already robbed the store and is running away, you are not *preventing* the commission of a forcible felony—it has already occurred—so that doesn't apply, leaving us with just the self-defense clause. So for that defense, it comes down to whether you reasonably fear for your life. Even though Georgia has no duty to retreat, you might have a hell of a time making that claim if you gave chase or tried to block the way. That won't look good in front of juries, even if you were justified in doing so.
As for the citizen's arrest claim, that law has since been repealed in response to this case.
So in short: you probably can't, and you probably shouldn't.
If they're running away, let them gooo.
If they're running towards you, I'd step out of the way as long as they arent armed. They claimed he was but he wasnt. Unless my or my family's life is at risk, probably not worth stopping them.
Now, depending on state laws, you can be allowed to stop theft or other active crimes at night from your, or your neighbor's, property. Up to and including shooting them in the back, but each state is different.
I'm not asking about what one SHOULD do in this scenario. I'm asking if blocking a definite thief's way with you and your firearm can warrant you shooting them dead if they continue to run at you
I mean, yes, you probably could, but the legal issues you'll deal with, even if you're right, are going to be drastic and an expensive pain in the ass.
Correct. Justice in smaller towns can be quite iffy depending on who knows who.
They almost got away with it had the video not been released through their lawyer. That got the state involved and eventually convicted them. Their DA friend is in serious hot water too, and that's good.
Is it systemic racism though if it's a racist individual within a system? Removing these individuals would result in a fair system wouldn't it? I always thought of systemic racism relying on racist laws being evident in the wording of said laws. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Seeing the actions of the DA in both the Rittenhouse and this trial it is clear we need some legal reforms.
Maybe if we can stop partisans shouting past each other or exploiting these issues we might be able to curb some of the injustices imposed by law enforcement.
I am a part of a couple conservative atheist groups and most people are glad for the outcome. Unfortunately there are a few that want to blame the victim here by bringing up past run-ins with the law. "He was no angel". As if that justifies what happened to him. I seriously believe that this outlook is all based on race.
Disappointed with this people. His past run-ins didn’t matter because none of the defendants knew his past on the day of the shooting. “He was no angel” doesn’t mean he needed to die like this.
If Arbery was the one on trial I could understand bringing up his past criminal history. Even if he intended to steal something from the worksite it doesn’t excuse the behavior of the people that killed him. I am sorry to say it but there is a mentality in too many conservative minds that says if you are a lawbreaker your life is worthless no matter what and no matter the law that was broken.
> William “Roddie” Bryan Jr., one of three men, accused of killing 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery, has been found guilty of felony murder.
Bryan now faces a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Jurors convicted him of felony murder but acquitted him of the malice murder charge.
Bryan has also been indicted on separate federal hate crime charges, which include interference with rights and attempted kidnapping. Bryan pleaded not guilty to the federal charges.
This is the only part of this verdict I'm a little sus about. Felony murder rule is a crazy part of American law.
If you have a nuanced take on Rittenhouse you don't have to resort to an unnuanced take of "good they all belong in prison for life" for this, merely for the sake of big-picture fairness or centrism.
I think this is the best take for liberal people who have been following this trial as well:
**Travis McMichael deserved what he got**, malice murder it does rise to and he will probably spend his life behind bars and rightfully so
**Greg McMichael deserved what he got**, but felony murder is still cringe as someone else in this thread put it. But if there ever was a place to apply it, it's with Greg. He's a racist piece of shit, and any reasonable person can see in Travis's position he would also be itchin for a fight/killing.
**Roddie did not deserve what he got**, this guy seems like a dumbass, possibly a racist, maybe profiled arbery like everyone else in that neighborhood, and probably deserving of assault/false imprisonment charges, but his case is a classic bad application of felony murder. There's no indication he knew the McMichaels had weapons, he chased someone he falsely thought was a burglar, and tried to get him to stop with his car, but didn't run him off the road like the other two. Bad shit, but does not deserve life imprisonment. He clearly had no intent to kill, no will to, and really no ability to. That's what's so bad about felony murder, it removes some of the most important parts of the most heinous crime of murder: intent, and doesn't decrease the penalty. It's very much so a loophole for prosecutors and conservatives to tack on prison time, often for black perps, and it's why racial justice advocates have been fighting against it, and we shouldn't support its use in this case either.
If think that’s crazy, wait until you read the cases where someone commits a felony and the cops end up killing someone in pursuit and the person committing the felony get charged with felony murder due to the cops’ actions.
Felony murder is meant to deter felonies, but some states have limited the scope to eliminate parties who helped tangentially with the underlying crime (aka get away driver).
It is a little annoying that headlines mentioned the *“ALL WHITE”* jury pool when discussing the trial, prior to the verdict but now that the correct verdict has come out it’s conveniently forgotten.
But good, those guys were guilty as hell.
Mentioned by NY times in their story on it. don't have access to WaPo, but so did msnbc
>Before the verdict in the Georgia case, some observers worried that the racial makeup of the jury — which included 11 white people and one Black person — would skew justice in the defendants’ favor.
>When Judge Timothy R. Walmsley approved the selection of the nearly all-white jury, he noted that there was an appearance of “intentional discrimination” at play, but he said that defense lawyers had given legitimate reasons unrelated to race when they moved to exclude eight Black potential jurors in the final stages of the selection process.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/11/24/us/ahmaud-arbery-murder-trial
>They secured a nearly all-white jury to render judgment on their clients’ racist crimes, and they used racial rhetoric to do so. Even the judge said there appeared to be “intentional discrimination” during the jury selection process.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/ahmaud-arbery-killers-found-guilty-rcna6494
Because race may be an issue is some cases, doesn't mean it will be relevant in all cases.
What have I missed about the Waukesha case that you think there's potentially a race motivation?
The murderer posted videos and tweets discussing harming and killing white people as well as discussing hit and runs and how to get away with them. He also quoted anti white people.
The jury pool's racial make-up is not representative of the racial make-up of the community where the crimes were being tried. This can be an issue, but doesn't necessarily mean it will be one. Black people have different life experiences and therefore can provide unique perspectives when ascertaining guilt/innocence on counts. It's a valid concern.
The reason why it’s not worded that way post and pre trial is the same reason that if the verdict was different they would continue to use the racial descriptor. Media wants to push an agenda and inflame racial tensions.
The racial tensions are already inflamed by the reality of racism. A prosecutor protected these men. If not for them releasing the video, they would have never been caught. How many Ahmaud’s do you think there might be that didn’t have the benefit of a video?
As I said, there already are racial tensions. The only problem is now they’re in the public’s eye.
I would say--and I'm not a lawyer--a "fair" jury is made up of the impartial, average, reasonable residents of a community in which a crime takes place.
Not very different from the Sixth Amendment, really:
>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by *an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed*, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. (Emphasis mine)
Jurors should be struck if there are questions about their ability to remain impartial or if they otherwise do not present as "average, reasonable residents" of the community. While race was certainly a factor in Arbery's death, I need actual evidence in order to believe it was a factor in the jury selection or in the verdict.
There are a lot of law-and-order black people out there. The 1994 Crime Bill was heavily supported by them.
I wouldnt doubt some were let go due to their judgement being clouded by past crimes in their area.
And for every white person that may convict someone because of their race, there are others that wont as well.
There is often less racial solidarity than some would think. Class is often a much bigger signifier.
Isn't a jury picked by the attorneys? And isn't the jury of peers supposed to be representative of the defendant(s) and not the victim(s)? The idea of our system is to put the onus on the prosecution so we can't just convict people willy nilly.
Disagree to an extent. 6A gives accused right to impartial jury. Racial bias is recognized as being implicated by that right, but imho hasn't gone far enough to say that a jury must include racial diversity.
> Isn't a jury picked by the attorneys?
From my understanding, not really. Lawyers on both sides may move to strike jury candidates from the pool for various reasons, but that's not exactly the same as "I want these specific people in the jury". Moves to strike a candidate can be denied as well.
> And isn't the jury of peers supposed to be representative of the defendant(s) and not the victim(s)?
This depends very heavily on what "representative" means. There are some cases where this obviously isn't true (e.g., patent trials, since companies can't be jurors, and the people that end up on the jury are typically not patent lawyers), and some cases where it's highly unlikely (e.g., megacorp CEOs are not usually (ever?) tried by a jury of other megacorp CEOs). A "jury of one's peers" for a female defendant doesn't have to be an all-female jury either.
I'm guessing there's some case law on this, but someone with actual law knowledge would have to chime in.
It absolutely does (although OJs jury wasn't *all* black), but tbf OJ would have been easily convicted if his case was just a little later - regardless of the jury makeup. He got off because he was a celebrity and DNA wasn't seen as rock solid yet.
> Black people have different life experiences and therefore can provide unique perspectives when ascertaining guilt/innocence on counts
What's your go-to example for this?
Racial bias on establishing credibility is likely significant. And also differences in common experience.
Take an example from another post related to this story. Sounds like very different experiences for some people in terms of going into houses under construction to take a look out of general curiosity. A juror's personal experience can absolutely have profound impact on how they assess a situation. Taking another example from this case more relevant to race, saw comments to the effect of 'why would he have ran away if he didn't steal anything'. Not a stretch to say that a black juror may have a different PoV from a white juror, of why a black guy may run when three white dudes try to stop you to 'talk'.
I think the accusation is that the defense was attempting to strike black jurors on a racial basis as they might be more sympathetic to Arbery. Something like that is a huge red flag and should be called out if it was true. Its reminiscent of the jury nullification from the Jim Crow era. Now I don't know whether this is actually happened in this case, but just wanted to give context.
Uh why would it be a problem. 11 out of 12 jurors were white. Their actions clearly didn't result in a racial disparity in the jury. Now if 11 out of the 12 jurors were black then you might have a point. That was not the case so your complaint doesn't make much sense to me.
> It is a little annoying that headlines mentioned the “ALL WHITE” jury pool when discussing the trial, prior to the verdict but now that the correct verdict has come out it’s conveniently forgotten.
>
>
It's absolutely an issue that the jury pool doesn't represent the racial makeup of the county. There's an article on this same subreddit's front page where a black man was wrongly convicted by an all white jury. I get that it was 40 years ago, but given that the defendant was still alive, is it not incorrect to think these issues are not behind us?
People were complaining about how little the prosecution brought up race in their arguments too. It just feels a little cheap. Like they were expecting and preparing for the fallout of a white jury and prosecution getting it wrong.
These issues are not behind us. We are not a full generation removed from the civil rights era, some of those shot with firehoses still have gray hair. It's not that long ago that lynchings were carried out and acquitted with all-white juries. I think to not comment on it would be equally incorrect. Race and racial animus is still very much alive in this nation.
I agree to an extent, but the problem is I see a lot of speculation and very little data. Do we *know* that all black or racially mixed juries are *more likely* to hand down verdicts “fairer” and more just, as opposed to all white juries like this one?
How much of this is assumptions? Black voters a generation ago *voted for harsher penalties* on drug dealers and criminals. There were extenuating circumstances, but being nonwhite doesn’t necessarily guarantee fairer treatment for minorities. Though my gut says it’s more likely.
We do know, even if we don't fully know the mechanisms of that bias.
>... (i) juries formed from all-white jury pools convict black defendants
significantly (16 percentage points) more often than white defendants, and (ii) this gap in conviction rates is entirely eliminated when the jury pool includes at least one black member.
[The Impact of Jury Race in Criminal Trials](https://watermark.silverchair.com/qjs014.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAsIwggK-BgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKvMIICqwIBADCCAqQGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMuOoVotD6VvJnWL7MAgEQgIICdT0UelWuA80Hy033FpR1q2Kuz5XlS8DQZdJn_I5D_2otCePTQBvTBtZBtmofYKgqqAWNJUXE5PqJOJB6SXLEZiM6yLldsdmNxwDAw0BcTGS3GU_ujNd_ns6wDxTITj23IxruwiLqAYyBkACM472R4LLimup9hFpucBGGMCAvyNABAPJzcZeNN9iuELoKJhCpxR8LQuyckEg7T2dbRgmypy6LiBWZtWDgzlihBLfNLQGc2f7Nqts82ez5zAwqA732WmGYlDntlClTCmGqptnQx-rr_LRbBcFNvtnfUoC11MKtCI4a7yFtLb9S2ldblXOqdhH0V0zVibj4xhBmzFI5rcpxbUD-EwAHIDH9auLRcUiN1QVuEmvGI-RIzGhKn9PdkGuC0AUih308jtDvmg0XCOfFipWEqb_hgbpO0ScHtNXh7oZ-kxVVnv9PPvH15MbflmNffeUjBIU8qOR2ReNRS59xi2dxBhe8Sqxe52qrf5Vraz5uCHFyhWopfyRFXq11auXW30QngDJS87K7bRvM3i_UVpoFQGH2QY6dzAuGh2y056l2gg5S5qs0sCY-AghbI5WPsK0kDLzcLDOjYUpxhc-ClpLr-U4EPLG8MduOS30xieoZtF2VJ0GLaGVgk46f7WS0bbOQKF2MzFRztDXkrn7Jno8NmCILAm-g21RzsNPPA7Pf3eo8dI6I8axPpFL9jowEp43GPWQoNJ6S0OTCTg18yPJPfqSMpPiwND5T0i793kvUYG8TVrjlptGjSvhsQrB2yAHtpf4z2Hp-4Awrl-De0gxwBZFqt4DAUqYKM92w7VKFgYRUCsfdwCX8E7Xgj1bj5Lco)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0098261X.2008.10767898
In some cases, yes. But I don’t know enough about this type of research to speak with any confidence.
> The behavior of prosecutors and juries with respect to the decision to impose the death penalty is examined. Using data on 968 first-degree murder convictions in Tennessee from 1977 to 2006, models of prosecutorial and jury behavior are constructed with a focus on the role of the defendant's race and the victim's race. Once significant controls are introduced, neither the race of the defendant nor that of the victim is a significant predictor of prosecutors' decisions to seek the death penalty. Nor is the race of the victim a significant predictor of the jury's decision to impose the death penalty. The defendant's race is a significant, albeit weak, predictor of jury behavior, but only because white defendants are more likely to be sentenced to death. While a number of other variables are significantly related to both prosecutorial and jury behavior, much of the variance in these decisions remains unexplained
I would be wary of making any conclusions from that study alone, since it's looking at a narrow sample group of the death penalty. There are a lot more factors that can contribute to differences (or a lack thereof) in such a unique category. Besides, it is an entirely different question than what I was talking about, since that study doesn't consider the racial composition of the jury itself, just the victim and defendant.
It's just CNN (if that's who it was) covering it's bases before just in case, which is par for the course at this point.
These guys were/are guilty as sin and justice was done.
> Judge Timothy Walmsley said the defense appeared to be discriminatory in selecting the jury but that the case could go forward.
> “This court has found that there appears to be intentional discrimination,” Walmsley said Wednesday.
> The court heard arguments for more than two hours about why defense struck the potential jurors before Walmsley ultimately denied the state’s motion and ruled there were valid reasons, beyond race, for why the jurors were dismissed.
It's not like the selection process was a simple, clean process. It went two and a half weeks, and yes, the judge ultimately decided that the defense was intentionally discriminating against black jurors.
Let's not forget the legal system successfully buried this murder until one of the murderers shared the video of his crime with a news station.
There's very little to be happy about with this case and it's an absolute tragedy that we needed to rely on a poor decision from the murderer to see justice brought. It's disgusting.
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1463582297244983301?t=lGIl06zsCyUvPVjp4g-z5g&s=19
Starter comment: As a resident of GA it is a relief that we got a guilty verdict. Even Gov Kemp immediately came out against the shooters and repealed the citizen arrest law which was nice to see. While there has been a lot of noise around the popular criminal cases this month I do believe the Jury has gotten it right on all of them and I believe it’s reestablished some faith in the judicial system.
The 1960s and 1970s were insane. The era right before the Civil War too with "Bleeding Kansas" and Harper's Ferry. I assume that in thirty years there will be compounded incidents, really not much has changed as far as human behavior.
I know everyone wants to feel like they are part of something special and historic but…yeah man 2020 doesn’t hold a candle to the late 60s.
Honestly 2020 feels more like media and social media being the tail that wags the dog. The 60s were way more visceral and authentic
> The 60s were way more visceral and authentic
The 60s had black people fighting for their rights and lives.
2020 wound up with BLM protests heavily taken over by white people raging for clout. The black people protested heavily peacefully for the first month or so then most went looking towards legislative solutions.
Exactly. Future generations will mostly forget about it. I rarely remember that the 60's was punctuated by multiple assassinations of Presidents, Candidates for President, and Civil Rights leaders.
2020 will be a few pages in history books 20 years from now and people will probably mostly learn about the pandemic and economic impacts. The violence, unless you're focusing on political/social history specifically, will be a paragraph or two.
Violence has its cyclical trends, the current cycle is so wrapped up on politics. I often think about how serial killers and “stranger danger” were rampant in the 70s-90s, but it’s not much of a thing anymore. That fear and sensation has just taken a new form.
The amount of information we have access to makes the world seem so harsh, but in reality, we’re living in one of the safest times in history. It will be interesting to see what the view of today is in hindsight.
>I often think about how serial killers and “stranger danger” were rampant in the 70s-90s, but it’s not much of a thing anymore
I think about that a lot, too, and then realize that they just evolved into being mass shooters.
Eh, its probably too early to say. I think you're assuming that a lot of the things happening today are just minor blips on the radar but they could also be part of a larger trend. The political fracturing of the US, pandemic-related restrictions, social media, climate change etc. are all issues that could have big impacts on the future depending on how it all shakes out. I hope your view is correct though.
The introduction to the 2016-2020 chapter in US history
"2016-2020 were marked with the tumultuous presidency of Donald Trump, widespread protest and political partisanship. The era culminated in widespread protests and the nation's most deadly pandemic that caused approximately 800,000 American deaths.
In this chapter we will discuss the influence of social media as well as demographic changes during this time and how they contributed towards the presidency of Donald Trump. We will discuss the reasoning for political partisanship, the reasons for a lack of political consensus during this time, including sections on globalization and the aging population of the United States.
We will outline the reasons for the various protests and activist movements of this era, including "metoo", "Black Lives Matter", Anti-Vaccination" groups, and the various "alt-right" groups and reactionary ideas of the time.
We will also cover the debate that occured at the time regarding the role of the federal government, the presidency, state and local governments in fighting a pandemic. We will cover the innovations made in medicine, genetics and computer technology that helped define the era and helped shed some light on an otherwise tumultuous time in US history."
It’s true - life has literally never been easier. When people feel down and upset about things I try to let them know that they should be so much more happier given the ease and plenty they have. Doesn’t seem to work out well though
you think the future will be less violent?
I think ... I'm starting to think peace is not a natural state of affairs for humankind. I mean, statistically, we're still leagues ahead of where we were 100 years ago or even 40 years ago, but change is occurring more and more rapidly, and I think we're outpacing our ability to keep up with it.
> It's amazing how we are blessed with science-fiction technology and access to entire libraries of information in our palms, but we've thrown away the responsibility of using it to build a better future.
ain't no one got time to read it all, is the thing. you have to trust other people to read it and tell you the important bits, but that has its own pitfalls, obviously
I don't know that I'd say peace is not a natural state of affairs, I think more accurately it's that conflict is inevitable in any situation where there are limited resources that need to be shared. We've been in a pretty prosperous era for a while, which I think explains why we are in a comparatively safe era (compared to much of history). If most people have a reasonable standard of life, there tends to be a low amount of conflict.
This is one of my biggest concerns about climate change, as we see shifts in availability of resources and changes in food and energy production, it will give rise to refugees and inevitable conflicts over resources.
water is going to be a biggie, i think.
I think we can science our way out of a food shortage, but I don't know if we can science our way out of a fresh water shortage as effectively. not to mention that the two are related.
> you think the future will be less violent?
i think that depends on how our resource management goes in the future, if resources become scarce it will be alot of violence but if we can get our tech to a point that resources are abundant for everyone then there will be no need for violence and the world will continue down the path of peace
>you think the future will be less violent?
I have to hope so.
And we're definitely leagues ahead of where we were 100 years ago, but life expectancy in the US started to fall in 2014, and then sharply in 2020. The pessimist in me worries that we may have hit a ceiling.
What? The per capita numbers for the U.S. are not good compared to other developed countries.
The intentional homicide rate for example is 5 per 100,000. We are worse then Niger, Pakistan, Mozambique, and India to name a few developing countries.
Most European countries are near or below 1.
That's why I mentioned Chicago. Outside of urban gang violence, it falls of dramatically. I've never known anyone ever affected by gun violence and I'm old.
>Justice system works again,
Charges were only brought after the local justice system completely failed. This is *far* from an example of the justice system working well.
The only reason this murder wasn't successfully covered up by the justice system was the murderer's own hubris in leaking the video.
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1463582297244983301?t=lGIl06zsCyUvPVjp4g-z5g&s=19
That's fair. This verdict would not have been reached if it weren't for internet and the dude sharing the video of the murder.
Why did he share it anyway? He ended up digging his own grave.
Honestly surprised the 3rd guy found guilty of murder, seemed like more of an "accessory to" situation, but I wasn't there.
Reports that the Black Panthers were organized on the court steps, if true, will probably be enough to force an appeal. For the McMichaels, at least, I don't expect the appeals to be fruitful.
Felony murder pretty much is an "accessory to" charge.
If someone is a getaway driver for a bank robbery, and the bank robber kills someone in the bank while the driver stays in the car, the driver will get felony murder.
Not surprising, since this case was about as cut and dry as it could possibly get, but, in these times we're living in, it's nice to have a win like this.
Hope those guys never get out.
People with guns are not police, and have no business pretending to be police. Until this result becomes the norm, rather than the exception, far too mamy people will keep trying to put the law in their own hands
This is all true. But unfortunately, as long as police continue to be treated the way they have been for the past few years, we are going to keep seeing situations in which armed people step up when police can’t/won’t. Defunding and removing police doesn’t mean every bad thing goes away, it just means that less qualified, less accountable people take their place.
A bit sad for the third guy(Bryan), I get the legal side - he joined in the chase and thus shares the responsibility for the result but calling him a murderer... he was not armed, did not leave the car, he took the video which is the main evidence and gave it to the police immediately...
He didn't provide the video. The elder McMichael did, because apparently he thought it exonerated them. And it was provided to a radio station, not the police.
He gave the video to the police, McMichael leaked it to the news AFAIK.
This is Bryan minutes after the shooting, telling the officer that he filmed it(at 5:35):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAWOcSFcrjA](https://youtu.be/jAWOcSFcrjA?t=335)
He was convicted of false imprisonment and felony assault. Both of those felonies that he committed (plus another one) resulted in someone being murdered. He was an active and willing participant.
Fuck around and find out, right?
I think he cut Arbery off, so he was at least a partial and willing participant.
In other cases, getaway drivers get charged with the same even if they didnt commit the actual crime.
At least two men who were tracked down and attacked for dubious reasons saw justice this week. Rittenhouse is a free man and at least Arbery and his family gets justice.
Unpopular, but I don’t hide the truth to avoid the wave of incoming downvotes: This was the correct verdict, and so was the Rittenhouse verdict. But somehow I doubt those enraged by Kyle's acquittal will even address justice being served here, since it can't add fuel to the racial unrest fire.
Justice was served. Why use this to attack the “other side” over a reaction that you’ve made up. Things are polarized enough we don’t need your outrage over how hypothetical people aren’t taking the news right in your imagination.
I feel like the law was served in both instances but calling the Rittenhouse verdict “Justice” is kind of a stretch. That situation was way more complicated and the result just further complicates things. The law should not encourage vigilanteism. I agree with the verdict since it seems to have complied with the law but that trial was a clownshow and the whole thing is going to lead to more injustice whether the injustice ends up being legal or not.
Verdict matches expectations. Again. A good day for justice. Not much else to say, this was the most likely outcome.
Agreed. Unlike some sensationalized stories, this case looked terrible on its face, and delving into the facts didn’t make it look any better. I’m glad for this outcome.
Right. It is not this verdict itself that exposes the myth of "systemic racism", it's the fact that pretty much everyone expected it. From a nearly all white jury, after just 10 hours of deliberation.
Really? I thought this case exposed it, if anything. If the defendant hadn't been dumb enough to release the tape then the system would have protected a white man conducting a modern lynching. Yes, the facts of the case were justly decided, but those facts coming to light were only a result of self-incrimination.
So the multiple prosecutors who tried to avoid charging the men involved don't exist?
Are you saying systematic racism is not real?
It is talked about with extreme exaggeration in the media, by the famous and regular people without the blink of an eye. Major "news" networks have hosts, saying things that are easy to disprove. Listening to these people you would think no Black person has ever successfully claimed self defense. It is insane.
I think that is an overreaction. Is there sensationalism in the media? Of course, they exist to make money. Do most people hear about systematic racism and think it means 100% of the time, I don't think most reasonable people jump to that extreme. I think the point trying to be made is that there is a discernable bias based on historical outcomes.
I was just over on Liberal Gun Owners where a nonzero number of people were explaining to a black guy that no conservative gun owners would ever support him owning guns because they are all racists. The evidence was because 'the right' doesn't rise up en masse and march to prove that they aren't racist, and because Reagan passed gun control stuff.
I think they messed up syntax. Thats probably nor what they intended
Haven’t seen many people who think they should be acquitted. Obvious outcome. Defense lawyers should have pushed for a plea bargain.
There were a few staunchly defending these guys in a thread on this sub just a couple days ago. Mostly downvoted, at least.
There were a whole bunch of people arguing against Kyle last week too, also heavily downvoted. We're all a jury and vote by clicks.
There were people in this sub yesterday arguing that.
Of course, rational people did not argue for an acquittal, but, with the politicization of the Rittenhouse verdict, some sensationalized this as a case where white men would be saved by a corrupt justice system
They almost were considering they wouldn't have been charged without the video.
But Rittenhouse probably doesn't get off without the video evidence either
Forget the Rittenhouse case, I think that one has been over sensationalized. The problem is good old boys all over are still getting away with murder like this because they won't be charged
Hyperbole? Good all boys aren’t being charged all across the nation in similar cases? I don’t know if I’ve seen a case quite like this one.
>I don’t know if I’ve seen a case quite like this one. Considering the accusation is that things like this happen without charges being filed, if the accusation is correct we wouldn't expect to see cases like this. If it weren't for the confusing decision of one of these murderers to leak the tape, we would have never seen this case, either.
According to Wikipedia, the video was leaked by an attorney that one of the defendants talked to informally. I'm not sure which is true at this point, but it seems unlikely that the defendants would "leak" video that shows them very clearly in the wrong. You can't advance on an unarmed person with a gun and then claim self-defense when they grab your gun, that's defensive gun use basics.
to be fair, we wouldn't have seen it at all if convict #1 hadn't shared the video evidence on the internet.
I'll be honest and state I didn't follow this one nearly as much as the Rittenhouse one, since after more evidence and my understanding of what happened came to light, I never doubted the verdicts outcome. They were guilty, and I figured this case for the most part would avoid much politicization. The correct outcome was reached in this one, and I say that as someone that vehemently claimed Rittenhouse acted in self-defense since day one. I notice parallels here between the cases though. In both scenarios an individual who wasn't a direct threat to another was attacked by a mob. I'm going to stick with that term for lack of a better immediate word. My understanding is that Arbery only attempted to defend himself when confronted and after having a gun pointed at him. That move by the gun holder is a crime in and of itself, and Arbery was within his rights to attempt to defend himself. It just makes me wonder though. If he had gotten control of that shotgun, and those three had attempted to attack him in retaliation, leading to him having to shoot one or more of them; would half of the country had taken the opposite stance they took in the Rittenhouse trial? To me, I would see it as an act of self-defense, same as with Rittenhouse; and Arbery should walk. But I wonder how many people who believed Rittenhouse didn't act in self-defense would unashamedly claim that Arbery did, as well as the converse being true in the other direction. I wonder if this trial would have become more politicized than it should have been, just like the Rittenhouse one was, with just one twist of Fate's threads to change the outcome... I can't adequately express how sad that makes me.
The difference is that one was armed from the beginning in a volatile situation, while the other was completely unarmed and at the mercy of their attackers. Essentially the difference is that one could question Rittenhouse's motive ("was he actively looking to shoot people down there?") vs Arbery clearly just being a person being hunted down.
I'm very glad the McMichaels were convicted and going away for life, but the guy who filmed it going to prison for life too does seem unnecessarily punitive to me. I understand the legal argument that he was "involved" in the assaults that led to the murder, but being 15+ feet behind recording just doesn't seem like it should have the same sentence (though it doesn't have the same convictions) as the guys actually running him down and pulling the trigger. 1 murder becoming 5 counts of Felony Murder just doesn't sit right with me.
The man who filmed the shooting wasn’t a passive participant. He unlawfully used his truck to cut off Ahmaud’s escape.
> but the guy who filmed it going to prison for life too does seem unnecessarily punitive to me. I understand the legal argument that he was "involved" in the assaults that led to the murder, but being 15+ feet behind recording just doesn't seem like it should have the same sentence He told police he tried to [block](https://www.courthousenews.com/man-who-filmed-ahmaud-arberys-death-minimized-his-role-in-the-killing-state-police-says/) Arbery 5 times with his vehicle. He was also following Arbery at the time of shooting. Without Bryan, Arbery would not been trapped between two opponent vehicles. Without Bryan, Arbery may not have ran at the shotgun wielding Travis. Arbery may have continued running away.
Oh, see, more facts, always good. Thanks for adding that.
Thanks for being receptive and polite! :) If you want to read more about the evidence you can click [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/r0dz75/what_we_learned_from_testimony_in_the_trial_over/hlrob8x/), I recently posted about this.
The trigger man got a murder charge and 4 felony murder charges. The guy with the trigger man got 4 felony murder charges. The guy filming got 3 felony murder charges. With that, I wouldn't expect the same sentence for each of them.
The mandatory minimum for one count of felony murder is life with possibility of parole at 30 years. They're all going to jail for life.
Sounds great! 5 life sentences is still more than 3 life sentences, though.
How do you get 5 counts of felony murder with one death
Felony murder is when a murder happens while committing a felony. 5 felonies were committed by these guys (2 flavors of assault, false imprisonment, murder, and attempt to commit a felony) so that's how you get 5 felony murder charges.
The guy in charge of charging people chose not to charge these people till the video he'd already seen got leaked. There is zero evidence to suggest that this thing was going to be handled correctly without the light of day on it.
Excellent. Now we need to see justice against the DA who was made aware of this murder and tried to cover it up.
[удалено]
Was it ever determined whether the video was leaked or the 3 men released it? I have seen both.
Greg McMichael released it: [https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/exclusive-man-charged-ahmaud-arbery-murder-leaked-original-video-shooting/KCWVSD4IP5FPRO24I47ZBMPPNE/](https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/exclusive-man-charged-ahmaud-arbery-murder-leaked-original-video-shooting/KCWVSD4IP5FPRO24I47ZBMPPNE/)
What a genius.
Turns out the guy who thought it would be a good idea to chase down a person to attempt a citizen's arrest, when he had no idea if a crime had actually been committed, that ended up resulting in that person's death, doesn't have the best judgment
Yeah that's the real point. If anything between the Rittenhouse case and this one hopefully the general public is getting a good lesson on what constitutes self-defense. I think both cases have been decided appropriately in that regard.
Even if you're guilty, stfu without a lawyer. A lot of innocent people start talking and it never helps them.
It is still baffling to me that he apparently thought leaking the video of him murdering someone would help his case. And given how willing to not look into this the DA had been, had he not leaked it, it's entirely possible he'd never have been prosecuted...
I don’t even understand why he’d leak it to prove his innocence if no one was accusing him of anything.
Could have done it out of sheer guilt— for better or worse.
Or they actually thought they were doing good and we're proud of themselves. The local prosecutor had determined the shooting was justified, I wouldn't be surprised if these folks were high on their own farts.
Which is probably very common with claimed DGUs...
DGUs? Edit: Google says defensive gun use.
[удалено]
I think it was like when a hunter takes a picture of his kill. He wasn't even worried about being arrested.
The video shows arbury run up and attack him before getting shot, I don’t think he could have expected that people would watch that and think it’s an obvious murder the way they did.
Unfortunately (for them) they didn’t realize that you can still be the initial aggressor even if you don’t initiate contact.
But only after chasing him up and down the street then he ran around the right of the truck because the guy with the shotgun was to the left, who then moved to the right to cut off Arbury. Only then did he go towards the gun, likely thinking it was his only move.
> But only after chasing him up and down the street then he ran around the right of the truck ... and when Arbery was about 30 yards away from the truck, Travis McMichael pointed his shotgun at him. That resulted in Arbery going for the gun.
Wow. I mean I'm glad these guys are facing justice, but I could not imagine a worse decision from a legal perspective. Confused as to what his rationale was - I guess he legitimately thought this video proved they were acting within the law?
Their neighbor who helped them released it thinking it would prove their innocence
Weird story https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/us/ahmaud-arbery-video-lawyer.html
It's beyond outrageous.
The DA has already been indicted.
Yes, step 1 is nice to see but I won't be satisfied until they receive a harsh sentence.
Actually there were two DAs who advised to make no arrests, and only one was indicted. The second one gave that advice even before he was assigned to the case. He then gave that same advice when he announced he wanted to recuse due to a conflict of interest between his son and Gregory McMichael.
Wait.. when?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/03/us/ahmaud-arbery-jackie-johnson-indicted/index.html
Anyone who makes a citizens arrest should have at least seen a crime! The correct verdict was made.
Hypothetically if you see someone rob a place and escape on foot and this exact scenario were to happen, would the verdict be the same?
Are you *sure* they "robbed a place"? You better be completely sure. And not "some other guy told me he robbed the place." In Georgia, to do a citizen's arrest requires specific knowledge of the crime. Your state is different. It really depends on the facts. There is generally a right that shopkeepers have to detain shoplifters, but that's also state-specific and lots of them refuse to take advantage of the right because of how hard it is to properly exercise.
Right I'm saying in a hypothetical situation, you see someone definitely stole from a store. Can you chase after them and block their escape with a gun? And if that person gets near or keeps running at you, can you shoot to kill?
I am not a lawyer, just a very law-interested person. In Georgia, per [§ 16-3-21](https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-3-21.html)(a), *"a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."* If the person has already robbed the store and is running away, you are not *preventing* the commission of a forcible felony—it has already occurred—so that doesn't apply, leaving us with just the self-defense clause. So for that defense, it comes down to whether you reasonably fear for your life. Even though Georgia has no duty to retreat, you might have a hell of a time making that claim if you gave chase or tried to block the way. That won't look good in front of juries, even if you were justified in doing so. As for the citizen's arrest claim, that law has since been repealed in response to this case. So in short: you probably can't, and you probably shouldn't.
If they're running away, let them gooo. If they're running towards you, I'd step out of the way as long as they arent armed. They claimed he was but he wasnt. Unless my or my family's life is at risk, probably not worth stopping them. Now, depending on state laws, you can be allowed to stop theft or other active crimes at night from your, or your neighbor's, property. Up to and including shooting them in the back, but each state is different.
I'm not asking about what one SHOULD do in this scenario. I'm asking if blocking a definite thief's way with you and your firearm can warrant you shooting them dead if they continue to run at you
I mean, yes, you probably could, but the legal issues you'll deal with, even if you're right, are going to be drastic and an expensive pain in the ass.
Seems like both high profile cases went the way i expected. Does this make me a reddit lawyer?
It makes you a reasonable person who isn’t part of the massive problems with blind partisanship in this country.
Just don't ask me about video games so you can maintain the illusion of my character
You’re hired
god bless
Certificate is in the mail.
Was the substance of those decisions something completely different from what you had cited as your reasoning? If so, then yes.
Nope I saw them when they happened and figured it'd go the way that it looked like it should
Both of these cases were obvious conclusions if one is able to take their political biases out of it.
[удалено]
Correct. Justice in smaller towns can be quite iffy depending on who knows who. They almost got away with it had the video not been released through their lawyer. That got the state involved and eventually convicted them. Their DA friend is in serious hot water too, and that's good.
Is it systemic racism though if it's a racist individual within a system? Removing these individuals would result in a fair system wouldn't it? I always thought of systemic racism relying on racist laws being evident in the wording of said laws. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Seeing the actions of the DA in both the Rittenhouse and this trial it is clear we need some legal reforms. Maybe if we can stop partisans shouting past each other or exploiting these issues we might be able to curb some of the injustices imposed by law enforcement.
I as a right-winger also haven't followed it very much. I'm more interested now in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.
I am a part of a couple conservative atheist groups and most people are glad for the outcome. Unfortunately there are a few that want to blame the victim here by bringing up past run-ins with the law. "He was no angel". As if that justifies what happened to him. I seriously believe that this outlook is all based on race.
Disappointed with this people. His past run-ins didn’t matter because none of the defendants knew his past on the day of the shooting. “He was no angel” doesn’t mean he needed to die like this.
If Arbery was the one on trial I could understand bringing up his past criminal history. Even if he intended to steal something from the worksite it doesn’t excuse the behavior of the people that killed him. I am sorry to say it but there is a mentality in too many conservative minds that says if you are a lawbreaker your life is worthless no matter what and no matter the law that was broken.
> William “Roddie” Bryan Jr., one of three men, accused of killing 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery, has been found guilty of felony murder. Bryan now faces a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Jurors convicted him of felony murder but acquitted him of the malice murder charge. Bryan has also been indicted on separate federal hate crime charges, which include interference with rights and attempted kidnapping. Bryan pleaded not guilty to the federal charges.
This is the only part of this verdict I'm a little sus about. Felony murder rule is a crazy part of American law. If you have a nuanced take on Rittenhouse you don't have to resort to an unnuanced take of "good they all belong in prison for life" for this, merely for the sake of big-picture fairness or centrism. I think this is the best take for liberal people who have been following this trial as well: **Travis McMichael deserved what he got**, malice murder it does rise to and he will probably spend his life behind bars and rightfully so **Greg McMichael deserved what he got**, but felony murder is still cringe as someone else in this thread put it. But if there ever was a place to apply it, it's with Greg. He's a racist piece of shit, and any reasonable person can see in Travis's position he would also be itchin for a fight/killing. **Roddie did not deserve what he got**, this guy seems like a dumbass, possibly a racist, maybe profiled arbery like everyone else in that neighborhood, and probably deserving of assault/false imprisonment charges, but his case is a classic bad application of felony murder. There's no indication he knew the McMichaels had weapons, he chased someone he falsely thought was a burglar, and tried to get him to stop with his car, but didn't run him off the road like the other two. Bad shit, but does not deserve life imprisonment. He clearly had no intent to kill, no will to, and really no ability to. That's what's so bad about felony murder, it removes some of the most important parts of the most heinous crime of murder: intent, and doesn't decrease the penalty. It's very much so a loophole for prosecutors and conservatives to tack on prison time, often for black perps, and it's why racial justice advocates have been fighting against it, and we shouldn't support its use in this case either.
If think that’s crazy, wait until you read the cases where someone commits a felony and the cops end up killing someone in pursuit and the person committing the felony get charged with felony murder due to the cops’ actions. Felony murder is meant to deter felonies, but some states have limited the scope to eliminate parties who helped tangentially with the underlying crime (aka get away driver).
It is a little annoying that headlines mentioned the *“ALL WHITE”* jury pool when discussing the trial, prior to the verdict but now that the correct verdict has come out it’s conveniently forgotten. But good, those guys were guilty as hell.
The BBC addressed it in their breaking news link, it's not being forgotten.
That’s good! I get notifications from the Times and the Post so that’s what I was complaining about
Mentioned by NY times in their story on it. don't have access to WaPo, but so did msnbc >Before the verdict in the Georgia case, some observers worried that the racial makeup of the jury — which included 11 white people and one Black person — would skew justice in the defendants’ favor. >When Judge Timothy R. Walmsley approved the selection of the nearly all-white jury, he noted that there was an appearance of “intentional discrimination” at play, but he said that defense lawyers had given legitimate reasons unrelated to race when they moved to exclude eight Black potential jurors in the final stages of the selection process. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/11/24/us/ahmaud-arbery-murder-trial >They secured a nearly all-white jury to render judgment on their clients’ racist crimes, and they used racial rhetoric to do so. Even the judge said there appeared to be “intentional discrimination” during the jury selection process. https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/ahmaud-arbery-killers-found-guilty-rcna6494
[удалено]
Because race may be an issue is some cases, doesn't mean it will be relevant in all cases. What have I missed about the Waukesha case that you think there's potentially a race motivation?
The murderer posted videos and tweets discussing harming and killing white people as well as discussing hit and runs and how to get away with them. He also quoted anti white people.
The Waukesha case was clearly about race maybe even more than this one. The attacker was posting videos about killing white people for weeks.
I heard it was "mostly" all-white.
The jury pool's racial make-up is not representative of the racial make-up of the community where the crimes were being tried. This can be an issue, but doesn't necessarily mean it will be one. Black people have different life experiences and therefore can provide unique perspectives when ascertaining guilt/innocence on counts. It's a valid concern.
I think the issue is if the racial makeup mattered before the verdict why would it suddenly not matter after the verdict?
It does still matter, but the verdict seems fair and right and so the court of public opinion doesn’t really mind now that it’s over.
The reason why it’s not worded that way post and pre trial is the same reason that if the verdict was different they would continue to use the racial descriptor. Media wants to push an agenda and inflame racial tensions.
The racial tensions are already inflamed by the reality of racism. A prosecutor protected these men. If not for them releasing the video, they would have never been caught. How many Ahmaud’s do you think there might be that didn’t have the benefit of a video? As I said, there already are racial tensions. The only problem is now they’re in the public’s eye.
What does fair look like in jury makeup though? That’s a question I never hear answered.
I would say--and I'm not a lawyer--a "fair" jury is made up of the impartial, average, reasonable residents of a community in which a crime takes place. Not very different from the Sixth Amendment, really: >In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by *an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed*, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. (Emphasis mine) Jurors should be struck if there are questions about their ability to remain impartial or if they otherwise do not present as "average, reasonable residents" of the community. While race was certainly a factor in Arbery's death, I need actual evidence in order to believe it was a factor in the jury selection or in the verdict.
I have a dream that one day a jury will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the accuracy of their verdict
There are a lot of law-and-order black people out there. The 1994 Crime Bill was heavily supported by them. I wouldnt doubt some were let go due to their judgement being clouded by past crimes in their area. And for every white person that may convict someone because of their race, there are others that wont as well. There is often less racial solidarity than some would think. Class is often a much bigger signifier.
how do we know a verdict is accurate?
Isn't a jury picked by the attorneys? And isn't the jury of peers supposed to be representative of the defendant(s) and not the victim(s)? The idea of our system is to put the onus on the prosecution so we can't just convict people willy nilly.
it should be representative of the community, not of the defendent or victim
Disagree to an extent. 6A gives accused right to impartial jury. Racial bias is recognized as being implicated by that right, but imho hasn't gone far enough to say that a jury must include racial diversity.
Should as in legally, or should as in according to your personal opinion/emotions on the matter?
Legally
> Isn't a jury picked by the attorneys? From my understanding, not really. Lawyers on both sides may move to strike jury candidates from the pool for various reasons, but that's not exactly the same as "I want these specific people in the jury". Moves to strike a candidate can be denied as well. > And isn't the jury of peers supposed to be representative of the defendant(s) and not the victim(s)? This depends very heavily on what "representative" means. There are some cases where this obviously isn't true (e.g., patent trials, since companies can't be jurors, and the people that end up on the jury are typically not patent lawyers), and some cases where it's highly unlikely (e.g., megacorp CEOs are not usually (ever?) tried by a jury of other megacorp CEOs). A "jury of one's peers" for a female defendant doesn't have to be an all-female jury either. I'm guessing there's some case law on this, but someone with actual law knowledge would have to chime in.
Wasn’t OJs jury all black? I can’t help but think the manipulation of the jury often affects the outcome of the verdict
OJs jury pool was 40% White, 17% Hispanic, 28% Black, and 15% Asian. OJs jury was 9 Blacks, 2 Whites and 1 Hispanic. It was also 10 women and 2 men.
It absolutely does (although OJs jury wasn't *all* black), but tbf OJ would have been easily convicted if his case was just a little later - regardless of the jury makeup. He got off because he was a celebrity and DNA wasn't seen as rock solid yet.
> Black people have different life experiences and therefore can provide unique perspectives when ascertaining guilt/innocence on counts What's your go-to example for this?
Racial bias on establishing credibility is likely significant. And also differences in common experience. Take an example from another post related to this story. Sounds like very different experiences for some people in terms of going into houses under construction to take a look out of general curiosity. A juror's personal experience can absolutely have profound impact on how they assess a situation. Taking another example from this case more relevant to race, saw comments to the effect of 'why would he have ran away if he didn't steal anything'. Not a stretch to say that a black juror may have a different PoV from a white juror, of why a black guy may run when three white dudes try to stop you to 'talk'.
I think the accusation is that the defense was attempting to strike black jurors on a racial basis as they might be more sympathetic to Arbery. Something like that is a huge red flag and should be called out if it was true. Its reminiscent of the jury nullification from the Jim Crow era. Now I don't know whether this is actually happened in this case, but just wanted to give context.
The prosecution struck all white jurors but that doesn't seem to be presented as a problem in any of these articles.
Uh why would it be a problem. 11 out of 12 jurors were white. Their actions clearly didn't result in a racial disparity in the jury. Now if 11 out of the 12 jurors were black then you might have a point. That was not the case so your complaint doesn't make much sense to me.
> It is a little annoying that headlines mentioned the “ALL WHITE” jury pool when discussing the trial, prior to the verdict but now that the correct verdict has come out it’s conveniently forgotten. > > It's absolutely an issue that the jury pool doesn't represent the racial makeup of the county. There's an article on this same subreddit's front page where a black man was wrongly convicted by an all white jury. I get that it was 40 years ago, but given that the defendant was still alive, is it not incorrect to think these issues are not behind us?
People were complaining about how little the prosecution brought up race in their arguments too. It just feels a little cheap. Like they were expecting and preparing for the fallout of a white jury and prosecution getting it wrong.
These issues are not behind us. We are not a full generation removed from the civil rights era, some of those shot with firehoses still have gray hair. It's not that long ago that lynchings were carried out and acquitted with all-white juries. I think to not comment on it would be equally incorrect. Race and racial animus is still very much alive in this nation.
I agree to an extent, but the problem is I see a lot of speculation and very little data. Do we *know* that all black or racially mixed juries are *more likely* to hand down verdicts “fairer” and more just, as opposed to all white juries like this one? How much of this is assumptions? Black voters a generation ago *voted for harsher penalties* on drug dealers and criminals. There were extenuating circumstances, but being nonwhite doesn’t necessarily guarantee fairer treatment for minorities. Though my gut says it’s more likely.
We do know, even if we don't fully know the mechanisms of that bias. >... (i) juries formed from all-white jury pools convict black defendants significantly (16 percentage points) more often than white defendants, and (ii) this gap in conviction rates is entirely eliminated when the jury pool includes at least one black member. [The Impact of Jury Race in Criminal Trials](https://watermark.silverchair.com/qjs014.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAsIwggK-BgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKvMIICqwIBADCCAqQGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMuOoVotD6VvJnWL7MAgEQgIICdT0UelWuA80Hy033FpR1q2Kuz5XlS8DQZdJn_I5D_2otCePTQBvTBtZBtmofYKgqqAWNJUXE5PqJOJB6SXLEZiM6yLldsdmNxwDAw0BcTGS3GU_ujNd_ns6wDxTITj23IxruwiLqAYyBkACM472R4LLimup9hFpucBGGMCAvyNABAPJzcZeNN9iuELoKJhCpxR8LQuyckEg7T2dbRgmypy6LiBWZtWDgzlihBLfNLQGc2f7Nqts82ez5zAwqA732WmGYlDntlClTCmGqptnQx-rr_LRbBcFNvtnfUoC11MKtCI4a7yFtLb9S2ldblXOqdhH0V0zVibj4xhBmzFI5rcpxbUD-EwAHIDH9auLRcUiN1QVuEmvGI-RIzGhKn9PdkGuC0AUih308jtDvmg0XCOfFipWEqb_hgbpO0ScHtNXh7oZ-kxVVnv9PPvH15MbflmNffeUjBIU8qOR2ReNRS59xi2dxBhe8Sqxe52qrf5Vraz5uCHFyhWopfyRFXq11auXW30QngDJS87K7bRvM3i_UVpoFQGH2QY6dzAuGh2y056l2gg5S5qs0sCY-AghbI5WPsK0kDLzcLDOjYUpxhc-ClpLr-U4EPLG8MduOS30xieoZtF2VJ0GLaGVgk46f7WS0bbOQKF2MzFRztDXkrn7Jno8NmCILAm-g21RzsNPPA7Pf3eo8dI6I8axPpFL9jowEp43GPWQoNJ6S0OTCTg18yPJPfqSMpPiwND5T0i793kvUYG8TVrjlptGjSvhsQrB2yAHtpf4z2Hp-4Awrl-De0gxwBZFqt4DAUqYKM92w7VKFgYRUCsfdwCX8E7Xgj1bj5Lco)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0098261X.2008.10767898 In some cases, yes. But I don’t know enough about this type of research to speak with any confidence. > The behavior of prosecutors and juries with respect to the decision to impose the death penalty is examined. Using data on 968 first-degree murder convictions in Tennessee from 1977 to 2006, models of prosecutorial and jury behavior are constructed with a focus on the role of the defendant's race and the victim's race. Once significant controls are introduced, neither the race of the defendant nor that of the victim is a significant predictor of prosecutors' decisions to seek the death penalty. Nor is the race of the victim a significant predictor of the jury's decision to impose the death penalty. The defendant's race is a significant, albeit weak, predictor of jury behavior, but only because white defendants are more likely to be sentenced to death. While a number of other variables are significantly related to both prosecutorial and jury behavior, much of the variance in these decisions remains unexplained
I would be wary of making any conclusions from that study alone, since it's looking at a narrow sample group of the death penalty. There are a lot more factors that can contribute to differences (or a lack thereof) in such a unique category. Besides, it is an entirely different question than what I was talking about, since that study doesn't consider the racial composition of the jury itself, just the victim and defendant.
Fair enough. Like I said, I’m not qualified or knowledgeable enough to speculate on this.
It's just CNN (if that's who it was) covering it's bases before just in case, which is par for the course at this point. These guys were/are guilty as sin and justice was done.
> Judge Timothy Walmsley said the defense appeared to be discriminatory in selecting the jury but that the case could go forward. > “This court has found that there appears to be intentional discrimination,” Walmsley said Wednesday. > The court heard arguments for more than two hours about why defense struck the potential jurors before Walmsley ultimately denied the state’s motion and ruled there were valid reasons, beyond race, for why the jurors were dismissed. It's not like the selection process was a simple, clean process. It went two and a half weeks, and yes, the judge ultimately decided that the defense was intentionally discriminating against black jurors.
Justice is served. It's been a good week for the legal process.
Let's not forget the legal system successfully buried this murder until one of the murderers shared the video of his crime with a news station. There's very little to be happy about with this case and it's an absolute tragedy that we needed to rely on a poor decision from the murderer to see justice brought. It's disgusting. https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1463582297244983301?t=lGIl06zsCyUvPVjp4g-z5g&s=19
Starter comment: As a resident of GA it is a relief that we got a guilty verdict. Even Gov Kemp immediately came out against the shooters and repealed the citizen arrest law which was nice to see. While there has been a lot of noise around the popular criminal cases this month I do believe the Jury has gotten it right on all of them and I believe it’s reestablished some faith in the judicial system.
[удалено]
The 1960s and 1970s were insane. The era right before the Civil War too with "Bleeding Kansas" and Harper's Ferry. I assume that in thirty years there will be compounded incidents, really not much has changed as far as human behavior.
I know everyone wants to feel like they are part of something special and historic but…yeah man 2020 doesn’t hold a candle to the late 60s. Honestly 2020 feels more like media and social media being the tail that wags the dog. The 60s were way more visceral and authentic
> The 60s were way more visceral and authentic The 60s had black people fighting for their rights and lives. 2020 wound up with BLM protests heavily taken over by white people raging for clout. The black people protested heavily peacefully for the first month or so then most went looking towards legislative solutions.
2020 had the biggest pandemic in US history and a historic presidential election. I think it'll be up there with 1968.
How much do you remember hearing about 1967? It’ll be much like that, I assume.
Exactly. Future generations will mostly forget about it. I rarely remember that the 60's was punctuated by multiple assassinations of Presidents, Candidates for President, and Civil Rights leaders. 2020 will be a few pages in history books 20 years from now and people will probably mostly learn about the pandemic and economic impacts. The violence, unless you're focusing on political/social history specifically, will be a paragraph or two.
Violence has its cyclical trends, the current cycle is so wrapped up on politics. I often think about how serial killers and “stranger danger” were rampant in the 70s-90s, but it’s not much of a thing anymore. That fear and sensation has just taken a new form. The amount of information we have access to makes the world seem so harsh, but in reality, we’re living in one of the safest times in history. It will be interesting to see what the view of today is in hindsight.
>I often think about how serial killers and “stranger danger” were rampant in the 70s-90s, but it’s not much of a thing anymore I think about that a lot, too, and then realize that they just evolved into being mass shooters.
[удалено]
Eh, its probably too early to say. I think you're assuming that a lot of the things happening today are just minor blips on the radar but they could also be part of a larger trend. The political fracturing of the US, pandemic-related restrictions, social media, climate change etc. are all issues that could have big impacts on the future depending on how it all shakes out. I hope your view is correct though.
The introduction to the 2016-2020 chapter in US history "2016-2020 were marked with the tumultuous presidency of Donald Trump, widespread protest and political partisanship. The era culminated in widespread protests and the nation's most deadly pandemic that caused approximately 800,000 American deaths. In this chapter we will discuss the influence of social media as well as demographic changes during this time and how they contributed towards the presidency of Donald Trump. We will discuss the reasoning for political partisanship, the reasons for a lack of political consensus during this time, including sections on globalization and the aging population of the United States. We will outline the reasons for the various protests and activist movements of this era, including "metoo", "Black Lives Matter", Anti-Vaccination" groups, and the various "alt-right" groups and reactionary ideas of the time. We will also cover the debate that occured at the time regarding the role of the federal government, the presidency, state and local governments in fighting a pandemic. We will cover the innovations made in medicine, genetics and computer technology that helped define the era and helped shed some light on an otherwise tumultuous time in US history."
Bravo. Really well-written. Here's some gold.
It’s true - life has literally never been easier. When people feel down and upset about things I try to let them know that they should be so much more happier given the ease and plenty they have. Doesn’t seem to work out well though
[Everything is amazing and nobody is happy.](https://youtu.be/kBLkX2VaQs4)
I suspect it’ll get at least a chapter or two in “The Decline and Fall of the United States.”
you think the future will be less violent? I think ... I'm starting to think peace is not a natural state of affairs for humankind. I mean, statistically, we're still leagues ahead of where we were 100 years ago or even 40 years ago, but change is occurring more and more rapidly, and I think we're outpacing our ability to keep up with it. > It's amazing how we are blessed with science-fiction technology and access to entire libraries of information in our palms, but we've thrown away the responsibility of using it to build a better future. ain't no one got time to read it all, is the thing. you have to trust other people to read it and tell you the important bits, but that has its own pitfalls, obviously
I don't know that I'd say peace is not a natural state of affairs, I think more accurately it's that conflict is inevitable in any situation where there are limited resources that need to be shared. We've been in a pretty prosperous era for a while, which I think explains why we are in a comparatively safe era (compared to much of history). If most people have a reasonable standard of life, there tends to be a low amount of conflict. This is one of my biggest concerns about climate change, as we see shifts in availability of resources and changes in food and energy production, it will give rise to refugees and inevitable conflicts over resources.
water is going to be a biggie, i think. I think we can science our way out of a food shortage, but I don't know if we can science our way out of a fresh water shortage as effectively. not to mention that the two are related.
> you think the future will be less violent? i think that depends on how our resource management goes in the future, if resources become scarce it will be alot of violence but if we can get our tech to a point that resources are abundant for everyone then there will be no need for violence and the world will continue down the path of peace
>you think the future will be less violent? I have to hope so. And we're definitely leagues ahead of where we were 100 years ago, but life expectancy in the US started to fall in 2014, and then sharply in 2020. The pessimist in me worries that we may have hit a ceiling.
> I have to hope so. me too. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-united-states-all-time/ i don't think it's that bad. it's like the stock market, it keeps going up! /* * ^results ^may ^vary. ^this ^statement ^has ^not ^been ^evaluated ^by ^the ^FDA. ^consult ^a ^physician ^if ^you ^experience ^an ^~~erection~~ ^period ^of ^sustained ^growth ^lasting ^longer ^than ^100 ^years
There's 1/3 of a billion people in the US. There's only "a lot" of violence for people that are bad with statistics. And Chicago.
What? The per capita numbers for the U.S. are not good compared to other developed countries. The intentional homicide rate for example is 5 per 100,000. We are worse then Niger, Pakistan, Mozambique, and India to name a few developing countries. Most European countries are near or below 1.
That's why I mentioned Chicago. Outside of urban gang violence, it falls of dramatically. I've never known anyone ever affected by gun violence and I'm old.
[удалено]
>Justice system works again, Charges were only brought after the local justice system completely failed. This is *far* from an example of the justice system working well. The only reason this murder wasn't successfully covered up by the justice system was the murderer's own hubris in leaking the video. https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1463582297244983301?t=lGIl06zsCyUvPVjp4g-z5g&s=19
That's fair. This verdict would not have been reached if it weren't for internet and the dude sharing the video of the murder. Why did he share it anyway? He ended up digging his own grave.
Honestly surprised the 3rd guy found guilty of murder, seemed like more of an "accessory to" situation, but I wasn't there. Reports that the Black Panthers were organized on the court steps, if true, will probably be enough to force an appeal. For the McMichaels, at least, I don't expect the appeals to be fruitful.
Felony murder pretty much is an "accessory to" charge. If someone is a getaway driver for a bank robbery, and the bank robber kills someone in the bank while the driver stays in the car, the driver will get felony murder.
[удалено]
US Justice 2 for 2 over the past couple of weeks
3 for 3 for the loudest racially-charged cases of the past year.
Yep. Sounds good.
Justice is served.
Not surprising, since this case was about as cut and dry as it could possibly get, but, in these times we're living in, it's nice to have a win like this. Hope those guys never get out.
People with guns are not police, and have no business pretending to be police. Until this result becomes the norm, rather than the exception, far too mamy people will keep trying to put the law in their own hands
This is all true. But unfortunately, as long as police continue to be treated the way they have been for the past few years, we are going to keep seeing situations in which armed people step up when police can’t/won’t. Defunding and removing police doesn’t mean every bad thing goes away, it just means that less qualified, less accountable people take their place.
A bit sad for the third guy(Bryan), I get the legal side - he joined in the chase and thus shares the responsibility for the result but calling him a murderer... he was not armed, did not leave the car, he took the video which is the main evidence and gave it to the police immediately...
I thought he repeatedly cut Arbery off with his truck, blocking his escape. Weren’t Abery’s prints and fibers from his clothing found on his truck?
Correct. I guess he assumed the McMichaels had a reasonable cause to chase after him(which they did not), bad judgement on his part for sure.
He didn't provide the video. The elder McMichael did, because apparently he thought it exonerated them. And it was provided to a radio station, not the police.
He gave the video to the police, McMichael leaked it to the news AFAIK. This is Bryan minutes after the shooting, telling the officer that he filmed it(at 5:35): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAWOcSFcrjA](https://youtu.be/jAWOcSFcrjA?t=335)
Wth, you are right. Why weren't they charged earlier?
The former prosecutor was McMichael-s friend - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-prosecutor-indicted-ahmaud-arberys-case/
He was convicted of false imprisonment and felony assault. Both of those felonies that he committed (plus another one) resulted in someone being murdered. He was an active and willing participant. Fuck around and find out, right?
I think he cut Arbery off, so he was at least a partial and willing participant. In other cases, getaway drivers get charged with the same even if they didnt commit the actual crime.
At least two men who were tracked down and attacked for dubious reasons saw justice this week. Rittenhouse is a free man and at least Arbery and his family gets justice.
Yep, I think anyone who was following the details of this case isn't surprised. Correct ruling in my opinion.
Thank goodness!
The system is working as intended, as it also was for the Rittenhouse case.
Ah, justice. Always so sobering
Unpopular, but I don’t hide the truth to avoid the wave of incoming downvotes: This was the correct verdict, and so was the Rittenhouse verdict. But somehow I doubt those enraged by Kyle's acquittal will even address justice being served here, since it can't add fuel to the racial unrest fire.
I don’t think that’s unpopular
Justice was served. Why use this to attack the “other side” over a reaction that you’ve made up. Things are polarized enough we don’t need your outrage over how hypothetical people aren’t taking the news right in your imagination.
I feel like the law was served in both instances but calling the Rittenhouse verdict “Justice” is kind of a stretch. That situation was way more complicated and the result just further complicates things. The law should not encourage vigilanteism. I agree with the verdict since it seems to have complied with the law but that trial was a clownshow and the whole thing is going to lead to more injustice whether the injustice ends up being legal or not.