Ahmaud Arbery murder trial

[EDGECRUSHER]

I think you're half right: without a camera, this is just another open-and-shut case of Self-Defense From A Dangerous Thug.  He was menacing them with a deadly weapon!

So yeah, their main problem is that they recorded it.

I think if it's 3 men vs. 1, with the 1 being dead and one of the 3 being armed, they would really need some hell of an alibi to avoid jail. That being said, recording the event and then giving it to the cops probably made every lawyer in America wince and then bill their client for wincing. Shows me they thought they did the right thing or at least didn't do anything illegal and that was obviously stupid.

[Dolphster]

I think you're half right: without a camera, this is just another open-and-shut case of Self-Defense From A Dangerous Thug.  He was menacing them with a deadly weapon!

So yeah, their main problem is that they recorded it.

I wondered how you would spin this to still find a way to talk about racism when an almost all white jury convicted three white men of murdering a black man.  You did not disappoint. 

[CF DolFan]

I think you're half right: without a camera, this is just another open-and-shut case of Self-Defense From A Dangerous Thug.  He was menacing them with a deadly weapon!

So yeah, their main problem is that they recorded it.

You crack me up. I've never seen the video and came to the conclusion they are guilty. Their story doesn't add up regardless of the video. I promise if you just go out into the real world you will see that most people get along and aren't out to get others regardless of race, sex, political affiliation or even financial status.  

[Spider-Dan]

I think if it's 3 men vs. 1, with the 1 being dead and one of the 3 being armed, they would really need some hell of an alibi to avoid jail.

Why?  It's their word vs. his, and he's dead.

I keep saying that without video, there's no conviction and you guys act like that's crazy talk.  Tell me where I'm wrong.  The outcome of these kinds of events* is not surprising, nor is it hard to predict: whenever there is an event like this that involves black vs. white (or if inapplicable, then liberal vs. conservative), if there isn't hard video evidence exonerating the black/liberal party, the justice system is going to come down against them.

The one exception I can think of was Amber Guyger, and even in that very egregious and clear-cut case, there was a contingent on this forum trying their hardest to argue that she didn't actually commit murder.

*edit: To be ultra-clear here before every conservative on this board starts screaming about OJ SIMPSON!!!1!: I am talking about events where one person openly admits to killing another but claims it was justified.

[Spider-Dan]

You crack me up. I've never seen the video and came to the conclusion they are guilty.

I wasn't referring to your opinion of their guilt.
I was referring to the verdict.

[Spider-Dan]

I wondered how you would spin this to still find a way to talk about racism when an almost all white jury convicted three white men of murdering a black man.  You did not disappoint.

To be extremely fair to myself: I was responding to the claim that if these gentlemen had brought fewer cameras and more guns, Arbery would be alive and they would not be headed to prison for murder.  And I think that claim is exactly half true.

The idea that if only there were three armed people to confront Arbery that day instead of two, this would have went down totally differently is so bizarre that I don't even know what to say to it.  Whatever the question, the answer always seems to be we need more guns!

[Dolphster]

To be extremely fair to myself: I was responding to the claim that if these gentlemen had brought fewer cameras and more guns, Arbery would be alive and they would not be headed to prison for murder.  And I think that claim is exactly half true.

The idea that if only there were three armed people to confront Arbery that day instead of two, this would have went down totally differently is so bizarre that I don't even know what to say to it.

Okay, that is fair.  But my comment to you was more pointed to the frequency with which you refer to racism in general rather than specifically the Arbery case.  I didn't make that very clear in my original response to you and that is my fault.   In the big picture (talking about society in general, not specific court cases), I fully agree with you that racism still exists and is very real.  Racism spans the spectrum of races.  There are white racists, black racists, Hispanic racists, Asian racists, etc etc etc.  And there is an unacceptable amount of it.  Ideally, there would be zero racists in the world.  But to try to label everything bad as racist (I'm not saying you do this), I think does a disservice to the effort of shining a flashlight in the dark corners where true racism exists.  It becomes a modern day McCarthyism (a commie or now a racist under every rock) and dilutes the fight against real racism.  Hell, I've been called racist.  A fact that my Jamaican godson finds hilarious now that he is an adult, but that is another story for another time.    I dunno, maybe I've just been smart (lucky) enough in choosing friends that I've just not been around many racists in my life (unless they hide it REALLY well) and fortunate enough to have been raised in a very multicultural part of South Florida and fortunate enough to have always been around others who looked different from me in sports, the military, etc. so that it just never even occurred to me that being different from me made anyone lesser than me.  I am forever grateful for that. 

As for the Arbery case, sadly, I think that poor guy would be dead regardless of the ratio of guns to cameras.  Thankfully, justice was served and the perpetrators were convicted as they very much should have been. 

[EDGECRUSHER]

To be extremely fair to myself: I was responding to the claim that if these gentlemen had brought fewer cameras and more guns, Arbery would be alive and they would not be headed to prison for murder.  And I think that claim is exactly half true.

The idea that if only there were three armed people to confront Arbery that day instead of two, this would have went down totally differently is so bizarre that I don't even know what to say to it.  Whatever the question, the answer always seems to be we need more guns!

It's not bizarre if you take a step back and think about it. The 3 men did not go right up to Arbery and shoot him. They confronted him, they chased him, but they did not do a drive by. They only fired back when he went for the gun, which was an absolutely reasonable response from Arbery since he was terrified these men would kill him. Because they did.

However, if all 3 men had a gun, very good chance Arbery doesn't try anything and waits for the cops to arrive since he knows he can't disarm all 3. Not saying he did anything wrong since there isn't evidence of that, odds are the 3 men would be in some legal trouble if they couldn't prove to the cops they saw him committing a crime but all 4 would be alive and 3 wouldn't be facing life sentences.

Now, if you think they were going to kill him no matter what, then that is a difference of opinion that probably can't be bridged.

[Spider-Dan]

Both the father and the son were armed when they confronted Arbery.  So what difference would a third gun make?

At best, it seems like you're saying that the father should have been more aggressive with his firearm, in the hopes of intimidating Arbery.  But I don't even subscribe to the idea that - in a hypothetical situation where it's 3-on-1 and only one of them is armed - the problem is an insufficiently overwhelming threat to coerce cooperation.

The "problem" was the camera, full stop.  Whether there were one, two, or three guns, the camera was always the problem for these self-important vigilantes.

The irony is, while some on this thread are happy to briskly file this away as the one-off actions of hardcore racists, I see it as just another day in America.  The sentiment behind this encounter is far too common, and was repeatedly expressed in the Rittenhouse thread: our woke government is too politically correct to Do Something about this crime wave, so armed patriots are taking this matter into their own hands.  Arbery's "mistake" was in trying to defend himself, instead of just complying like he is supposed to.  And these guys were so high on their own sovereign citizen supply that they thought releasing the video of this murder would exonerate THEM.

If there's no video taken, and Travis McMichael can show some scrapes and bruises from the scuffle, this case is virtually IDENTICAL to George Zimmerman's and has the same outcome.

[masterfins]

I agree with Spider that without the video, that these guys are found not guilty, heck they would never stand trial.  Also, IMO, if Arbery was white he never gets chased down and shot like he did.

I'm not exactly sure what the extent of what William Bryan's role was, and the guilty verdict for felony murder.  Yes, I know he filmed the incident, and that he used his truck to try and stop Arbery; so he should be guilty of aggravated assault.  But he did not have a gun, and I don't think he started out with the McMichael's, or that he knew they were armed.  If he started out with the McMichaels then I think he should be guilty of felony murder, but I don't think that was the case.  If he were tried separately I don't think he would have been convicted of murder, but IMO he was guilty of assault.  I'm sure his lawyer will appeal the verdict, he was calling for a mistrial every day of the trial.

Also, there was a disgusting comment made by the attorney for the father during her closing remarks, she described Arbery that he had "no socks on to cover his long, dirty toenails".

[Dolphster]

Also, there was a disgusting comment made by the attorney for the father during her closing remarks, she described Arbery that he had "no socks on to cover his long, dirty toenails".

Jesus.  Crap like that is why I like dogs better than people.   And that was a supposedly educated attorney that made that remark?

[Fau Teixeira]

Jesus.  Crap like that is why I like dogs better than people.   And that was a supposedly educated attorney that made that remark?

Wasn't this the same lawyer that asked the judge to ban any black clergy from the courtroom

[masterfins]

Wasn't this the same lawyer that asked the judge to ban any black clergy from the courtroom

I'm not sure if she did, but the attorney for Bryan kept going on and on about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson being there, and wondering if other reverends were going to show up. That was one of his many reasons to request a mistrial.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Wasn't this the same lawyer that asked the judge to ban any black clergy from the courtroom

Two different attorneys.