Friday, November 26

Ahmaud Arbery: Was Justice Served?

As a bookend to the Kyle Rittenhouse case I covered in a previous post, at the same time there was the Ahmaud Arbery case in which three older white men, Travis McMichael (34), his father Gregory McMichael (64), and neighbour  William "Roddie" Bryan Jr. (50) were charged with multiple felony murder and other counts all relating to the shooting death of 25-year old Arbery.

Ahmaud Arbery

Arbery was a bit of a gangster. He was a school dropout, was apprehended with an illegal concealed pistol (tugged into the waistband of his pants) trying to enter a high school basketball game, drove a gold Camry, was detained by police officers for suspected marijuana possession, resisted arrest, was tasered (unsuccessfully), ran from police, shoplifted numerous times (using "jogging" as an excuse - he was knows as "the jogger" by police), and was convicted of stealing a TV from a Walmart.

At the time of the incident he was jogging in the relatively prosperous neighborhood of Glynn County Georgia near Brunswick called Satilla Shores about 8 miles away from where he lived with his mother in downtown Brunswick.

A Satilla Shores house

There had been a rash of breakins in the neighborhood recently with security cameras showing black men doing it, and the residents were on their guard. Arbery was spotted in the backyard and snooping inside a house that was under construction.

A person called the police and reported Arbery for trespassing. Her video captured Arbery bolting out of the house at high speed, looking like he was spooked by something?

He runs through the neighborhood and first the McMichaels and then Bryan get into their pickup trucks with the intent of chasing him down and detaining him until the cops arrive (a "citizen's arrest").

The very athletic, in-shape Arbery gives them a huge chase but appears to eventually tire after over four minutes of non-stop sprinting. The McMichaels cut him off with their truck and Travis, who was driving, gets out with his shotgun. Rather than run around and away (he may have feared he would be shot in the back? Or he may have felt he could not outrun them any longer?), Arbery instead went around the car and started fighting with Travis. The 64 year-old Dad was observing, with a pistol in hand, standing on the truckbed. This was all caught on video by Bryan who was driving up at the time. The father was on with 9-1-1 from the truckbed.

There was an initial shot fired which may have been a response to Arbery lunging for the gun, then they wrestle for control of the gun.

Arbery is seen punching Travis in the head repeatedly. There is another shot just off camera. Arbery continues to wrestle and punch Travis, and then there is a third shot fired that kills Arbery.

Most of this can be seen on video. Here is one compilation:

The DA charged all three men with multiple counts and the verdict is now in, rendered by a jury consisting of 11 whites and 1 black.

All the charges somehow relate to this one incident. Some are for assault with the gun, others for assault with the trucks (that was very unclear to me). They are variously charged with committing the counts or being accessories to them. The murders all carry a sentence of life imprisonment with no chance of parole for 30 years. Since they are found guilty of multiple charges, it makes them "multiple offenders" (even though no other criminal record) which increases the sentencing guidelines and removes the possibility of parole. Sentences have yet to be handed down.

I ask the question, was justice served?

The defense's case was that the men were entitled to effect a citizen's arrest based on the observed trespassing. After that, it was arguably self-defense after Arbery lunged for the gun.

What muddies the case was whether they were entitled to effect a citizen's arrest. The Georgia law on it was very unclear at the time (and has since been amended as a result of this incident, which may give you a clue!). The law at the time was only two sentences long:

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

I think it's relatively clear that if it's not a felony you're allowed to effect a citizen's arrest if you have immediate knowledge of a crime (trespassing in this case). It's arguable that they had "immediate knowledge" as Arbery was spotted running out of the house. If it's a felony, you don't need that, but a lesser certainty of reasonable and probable. If the law is ambiguous, it must be interpreted in a manner that favours the defendants.

So, I think (based on the convincing arguments of many legal experts) that under Georgia law they were entitled to effect a citizen's arrest. I think the law is overly vague and should not allow for citizen's arrest for minor things like trespass, but it was the law.

The judge in this case really dropped the ball by not clarifying the law for the jury, but leaving it up to the jury to interpret the law, which is not their job.

Once citizen's arrest is allowed, all the other charges would fall away, with the exception of whether excessive force was used by Travis McMichael in defending himself. Many would argue that having been shot twice already, the third, killing shot, was uneccessary. This was the basis on which Travis was convicted of "malice murder" (pre-meditated). However, until the final shot Arbery was still attempting to wrestle the gun away, and had he gained possession it is reasonable to assume he would have tried to shoot his opponents to defend himself.

It's an ugly incident all around. Clearly, Arbery was no "innocent jogger". Clearly the good 'ol boys in their pickup should not have chased down Arbery with trucks and guns over a trespass. I cannot blame Arbery for fleeing for his life and at that point for attempting to wrestle the gun away. I cannot blame Travis at that point for shooting Arbery to stop it. I can blame Travis for shooting that third time, I think it was likely not necessary and may have been malicious and racist in the moment.

There is evidence that Travis McMichael had racist views of blacks, based on phone messages, and was said by Bryan to have muttered "fucking nigger" when he was walking callously away from the dying Arbery.

I think the just outcome was for Travis to be convicted of some sort of manslaughter with something like a 10 year sentence, and for the other two to have been convicted of some lesser crime involving a year or so in jail.

I think giving life sentences, with no chance of parole, for all three, is not justice. I think the outcome is evidence of reverse racism - they were going to make an example of these men because of their race versus the race of the victim. And while there may be some larger "societal good" given racist tensions of such severe punishments, I don't think the individuals deserved it, and certainly not Gregory McMichael and Bryan.

What are your thoughts?

182 comments:

  1. Sorry, dead wrong. Arbery was a jogger who had the nerve to jog through a white neighborhood and was profiled simply because he was non white. The perps went after him and the actual shooter clearly *wanted* to kill from the outset.

    The whole "citizen's arrest" defense is nonsense since the perps did not have any direct knowledge of a crime beyond possibly tresspassing, which is not a felony.

    The prosecution *could have* sought the death penalty for the perps. Keep that in mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's as if you didn't read the post. Your confirmation bias makes you blind to new thoughts, maybe?

      The citizens arrest is not "nonsense". There is a whole section in the blog on it, I quote the law on it, the law was changed because of this incident, and many legal experts argue it is not "nonsense". But you do you.

      Had he just jogged and not entered a vacant building to case it, I might be more inclined to agree with you. I go on jogs sometimes, and would not consider entering private property uninvited. What's wrong with you that you think that's perfectly ok?

      Delete
    2. The "citizen's arrest" defense was never mentioned to police, not after the killing and not after the perps were arrested. It was only raised once there was a trial. The shooter clearly went out with the intention of killing, and the jury agreed.

      Delete
    3. That's a word game. They had called the cops several times and were clearly intent on restraining him until the cops came. The Dad was on the phone with the cops as the scuffle happened and the cops were there 30 seconds later. There is zero evidence their intent was to "gun him down". You don't call the cops and film the whole thing if that is your intent.

      Delete
    4. Yeah, nothing says "There is zero evidence their intent was to "gun him down" like a shotgun, a 357 Magnum, and 2 pickups.

      Delete
    5. It's just that the facts are not consistent with them going to murder him.

      Delete
  2. All three of those bigoted racists deserve to die in prison.
    Arbery was defending himself when, in an act of desperation, he lunged for the gun. He probably knew he would be murdered by the white men armed with two firearms and two pickup trucks but he went down fighting. Why is it your opinion that black men have no right to self defense?
    Chasing down an unarmed jogger in pickup trucks is no different than a lynching.
    Whether or not he drives a gold Camry or uses cannabis is irrelevant.
    The "citizens arrest" law was written by a slaver in 1863, likely to make the capture or murder of escaping enslaved people explicitly legal.
    You should be ashamed to defend it.
    Tomas

    https://www.ajc.com/politics/opinion-the-ugly-past-of-georgias-citizens-arrest-law/FTMNUJSNPREYBBLNZC56SZIY7U/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not defending their actions, and I think they should be jailed for them, but not for their entire natural lives, and certainly not all three. I made that clear.

      Arbery was not without responsibility as well. He did break the law (trespassing, likely casing the place). And given that cops had already been called, had he surrendered he would likely only have been charged with trespassing (I very much doubt they would have lynched him with the cops 30 seconds away).

      And I don't see how the history of how the law came to be has much bearing on this case. It should have been changed sooner, but the law was the law at the time of the incident.

      Can you point out where I said blacks have no right to self-defense? I said the opposite, in fact - "I cannot blame Arbery for fleeing for his life and at that point for attempting to wrestle the gun away."

      I would also add that you are bringing race into my analysis where it is not present. Had Arbery been a white boy doing the same actions and with the same criminal past, my post would have been identical (other than reporting on the racist slur from Travis - but it might have been "fucking white trash" said instead). Bringing race into everything as you do is what I call "race grifting", and you should avoid doing it.

      Delete
    2. "I go on jogs sometimes, and would not consider entering private property uninvited."

      How many instances of sex, including sodomy, in public places, have you confessed to in these pages?

      Georgia law:
      "(a) A person commits the offense of public indecency when he or she performs any of the following acts in a public place:

      (1) An act of sexual intercourse;

      (2) A lewd exposure of the sexual organs;

      (3) A lewd appearance in a state of partial or complete nudity; or

      (4) A lewd caress or indecent fondling of the body of another person.

      (b) A person convicted of the offense of public indecency as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section shall be punished as for a misdemeanor except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section.

      (c) Upon a third or subsequent conviction for public indecency for the violation of paragraph (2), (3), or (4) of subsection (a) of this Code section, a person shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.

      (d) For the purposes of this Code section only, “public place” shall include jails and penal and correctional institutions of the state and its political subdivisions.

      (e) This Code section shall be cumulative to and shall not prohibit the enactment of any other general and local laws, rules, and regulations of state and local authorities or agencies and local ordinances prohibiting such activities which are more restrictive than this Code section."

      Which is worse, trespassing or multiple instances of public indecency?



      Delete
    3. Racial bigotry is central to this case.
      "In a previous bond hearing for Bryan, Evans said Bryan repeatedly used the n-word in texts. Bryan took cellphone video of the shooting and told authorities he heard Travis McMichael say a racial slur when he shot Arbery three times.

      During Thursday's hearing, defense attorneys for the McMichaels denied that the posts and texts were "hateful thoughts," saying they "are thoughts we might differ with."

      An attorney for Greg McMichael conceded that one post on his Facebook page by Identity Dixie, which said to "stop letting strangers lecture you about your ancestors," linked to a hate group. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Identity Dixie is a "small Facebook campaign predicated on keeping Confederate monuments."

      Delete
    4. "three older white men,"
      "Had Arbery been a white boy"

      Arbery was 26, years past being a "boy".

      "Having grown up in the South, I am dumbfounded as to why it took the court so long to acknowledge that referring to a black man as “boy” is racist. Southerners have become accustomed to all manner of subtle racism, but there is nothing subtle about calling a black man “boy.” In an amicus brief, civil rights leaders presented historical evidence of the use of the word to subordinate and emasculate black men. The brief stated, “If not a proxy for ‘nigger,’ it is at the very least a close cousin.”

      https://harvardlpr.com/2011/12/21/court-finally-says-boy-comments-are-racist/

      Delete
    5. I don't think you've added anything with your comments. Already addressed, acknowledged, or irrelevant.

      Delete
  3. He was killed for the crime of 'running whilst black'.

    I note that you don't look at the killers' prior behaviour, only the deceased. I wonder why? It couldn't be because the deceased is black but the killers are white could it? So you're making an assumption based on skin colour that the black man jogging is a criminal but the white guys with guns are law abiding citizens.

    There's a word for that. It's racism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well that's a real stretch! I'm objectively reporting on the boy's criminal past as it is germane (to me, not to the jury) in assessing whether he was out for an innocent jog and had an interest in home construction, or was likely casing the place. I would have done the same for a white boy in the same situation. It's you who's bringing race into it, and that is racist.

      I am unaware of any criminal background of the white men, despite my looking for it. If you can find any, then please report it here. I did bring in the fact that racism was found in their past and is in evidence.

      Delete
  4. They were technically within their rights, unfortunately, but chasing down a man in a truck, with a pistol and a shotgun, just because you saw him looking round an unfinished property? Excessive doesn't begin to cover it. I'm sure any cop, lawyer, legal expert, would have told them to observe and report, not to chase after the guy, certainly not to shoot him.

    It looks like they threw the book at them as a reaction to them using the problematic citizens arrest law, which seems unfair, but is again legal. I won't be losing any sleep over them.

    My parents, brother, and myself committed the same crime as Arbery multiple times twenty years ago when they were looking to buy a new house. There's no way these guys would have shot us or even chased us. Ludicrous behaviour. Despicable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 99% agree, but we have to admit Arbery was likely not looking for a new house and had no business being there.

      I will lose some sleep over Gregory McMichael and Roddie Bryan going to jail until they die over this.

      Delete
    2. Other people trespassed.
      They weren't chased or shot.

      https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/18/us/ahmaud-arbery-surveillance-timeline/index.html

      Delete
    3. Arbery was in there four times. He took nothing.
      He was watching the progress of the construction, as people often do.
      Thinking he’s up to no good while ignoring the white people doing the same thing is racist.

      Delete
    4. It's not his race that sways me, it's his criminal history of robbing people.

      Delete
  5. The problem is that the McMichaels did not see the young man (did you use the word boy deliberately? If so shame on you. He was a 26 year old man.) leave the property. They may have seen him on videos in the past but on that day they did not see him on a video or in person leave that property. So they had no basis under the law to interfere with his free movement. None, Zero, Zip. If they did then this will be over turned on appeal. Another person did see him on that property that day. That person could have attempted a citizen's arrest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. I used "boy" to refer sarcastically to the "good 'ol boys", and then said something about if it were a "white boy", and then in that context referred to Arbery as a boy. But I was not using the term in a racist sense, more a motherly one.

      I think the law is a bit vague. They knew he was running from the house he was trespassing on though they may not have directly observed it themselves. But did they have "immediate knowledge"? It is a fact he was trespassing and then was seen running from the house with police being called moments before. I don't think it's a slam dunk, but the law is ambiguous, which means it needs to be interpreted favourably for the defendants. I would not characterize it as "None, Zero, Zip".

      Delete
  6. Here's a perspective from the running community: https://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/a32883923/ahmaud-arbery-death-running-and-racism/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That article seems to be a very cleaned up version of Arbery. Makes no mention of his very prolific criminal past.

      Delete
    2. "Prolific" criminal past? Please ... your bigotry is showing. I'm sure the "good ol' boys" have an equally prolific past.

      Meanwhile, here's an account from a blogger / history professorhttps://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/november-26-2021.

      Delete
    3. It's a statement of fact. You can look up Arbery's long criminal past easily. There does not seem to be any for the good 'ol boys (I looked, but if you can find it, please produce it). It has nothing to do with racism. Your thinking so is weird (and a bit racist, if you ask me).

      Delete
  7. This case bothers me a lot. The image of "good 'ol boys" in a pickup truck hunting niggers harks back to the 40s and 50s. At least they didn't wear white sheets.

    There's no way to escape the racial nature of this incident. Abery didn't have to run. I suppose he was scared of three gun-toting white men in a pickup truck going after him.

    It's incredibly hard to apply citizens arrest to this incident. Let's agree that Arbery looked around the construction site and some God-fearing Southern woman did her duty and reported it.

    Would you docily allow those three good ole boys to "arrest" you? I understand why he ran. Why he fought with three guns pointed at him is difficult to imagine. There was blame to go around during the shooting.

    I don't think the jury made a mistake. Since when is death the penalty for trespassing, even in the South? Maybe the sentences were harsh. Perhaps a sympathetic appeals court will reduce them. I am not shedding any tears for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 99% agree. I will shed a tear for the father and the observer. They should get jail, but their entire natural lives in prison is a miscarriage.

      Delete
    2. "Good ol' boys hunting "niggers" goes much farther back than the '40s.

      "Between 1882 and 1930 the American South experienced an epidemic of fatal mob violence that produced more than 3,000 victims, the vast majority of whom were African Americans.
      More than 450 documented lynchings occurred in Georgia alone. Lynching refers to the illegal killing of a person by a group of others. It does not refer to the method of killing.
      Lynching victims were murdered by being hanged, shot, burned, drowned, dismembered, or dragged to death."

      https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/lynching/

      Delete
    3. And you think because bad things were done in the past it's germane to the fair application of law today?

      Delete
    4. The Klan and other racist organizations thrived well into the 1970s. They probably exist now. Remember the civil rights movement in the 60s? Hooded Klansmen burned crosses and attacked civil rights demonstrators.

      I worked in Richmond Virginia in 1997 and 1998. Racism was thriving. It was overt and very upsetting to me. I won't go into details, but let's just say that when I brought a black analyst onto the project, I had to send her home.

      Delete
    5. The difference is that they are now universally and roundly criticized.

      Delete
  8. The problem is you are not allowed to act on that opinion " but we have to admit Arbery was likely not looking for a new house and had no business being there." If you do that is racism

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not racism necessarily, but profiling yes. If a distinguished looking, well-dressed black couple was having a look see, I'm sure it would not have ended as it did. If a scruffy-looking white young man did the same, it may have ended the same.

      Delete
  9. Oops... You committed the cardinal sin of trying to bring nuance and understanding to a difficult problem, and I think your conclusions are fair, and the reasoning leading up to them are well thought out and logical. It is clear that they overstepped the law, and committed a crime that resulted in the needless death of human being, but life in prison without parole seems to me to be excessive punishment.

    Having said that, I need to add that I continue to have great faith in the jury system, and whatever we might think as spectators, we were not in the courtroom, we did not hear days of testimony, and I think we should be careful before we second guess a verdict (especially in the case of a non-guilty verdict, where - as we saw with the Rittenhouse case, the majority of the resources are in the hands of the state).

    I also want you to know how impressed I am by your calm and composed reaction to those commentators who raise straw man arguments or put words into you mouth. I probably could not be so generous.

    Your political commentaries are (almost) as enjoyable as the rest of your blog...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! I appreciate your comment. 🙏

      Delete
  10. Hello again Ms. Julie...
    I have to admit I didn't really follow this case very closely and that was perhaps my own bias showing....
    Three white men with guns....pickup trucks....dead black man...deep south....of course they're guilty...at least that's what I thought...
    But after reading your blog laying out all the facts, I'm not so sure it was so cut and dried....
    There are some gray areas of which I was unaware and now I have my doubts about the whole thing...
    I am a runner....I prefer to run on the streets....it beats the horrible monotony of circling a track....and first, I have rarely found myself eight miles from home....second, I rarely stop for anything....I'm not touring...third, when confronted by multiple armed men my first reaction certainly isn't going to be to fight for control of one of the weapons....I think any reasonable person could see that wouldn't end well...
    If they were making a legal citizens arrest under the law at that time then this whole case falls apart....
    Perhaps manslaughter would've been the right charge, but if the facts are as you've so nicely laid them out then I'm not sure even that applies...
    Thank you for another fine post regarding hot button politics and, in this case, race...it's funny that I get more clarity from a spanking blog than I get from the media!!!
    You must have known the amount of crap that's going to be thrown at you for posting this and you posted it anyway...Bravo!!!
    And if it means anything to you, you've actually helped me to change my mind despite my own bias and for that I also say Bravo!!!
    Maybe I'll cancel the newspapers and tune in here fro the real story!!!
    Kisses
    Kaaren

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was nice to hear. Thank you.

      Delete
    2. His first reaction was to run.
      How long could you run from 2 pickups?
      Arbery ran for 5 minutes before turning to face his tormentors.
      They were not making a legal "citizen's arrest"

      The Georgia law said:
      "A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion."

      The 3 convicted killers DID NOT WITNESS any crime.
      They were merely 3 white bigots carrying on a long and ugly tradition of Georgia lynchings.

      Delete
    3. You post the law as if I had not already and explained the controversy. Lol.

      But was the crime of trespassing within his "immediate knowledge" whatever the hell that means.

      Delete
    4. Because a Canadian citizen is an expert on Georgia law and racist culture.
      Lol

      Delete
    5. Lol that you think a Canadian cannot have a better take on GA law than the average US citizen? I listened to expert commentators and read the law myself. You?

      Delete
  11. So, if I see you, Julie, go into a house under construction, and then leave, I have the right to track you down and shoot you dead if you try to run away. Is that what you are saying?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No on several levels.

      You never have the right to shoot me dead unless I am attacking you and you fear for your life and are defending yourself. I would not attack you.

      If you wanted to detain me until cops arrived I would say bring it on, let's wait for them together. I would not run.

      If you observed me committing a crime, trespassing, and I was in Georgia at that time, and I ran, you can chase me and detain me until cops arrive. You would have been within your rights. I don't agree with that law, mind you, and am glad it was changed.

      Delete
    2. Watch the video.
      Arbery was shot before he attacked Travis.
      The Mcmichaels made no attempt to detain. They shot first.
      Arbery comitted no felony. The Mcmichaels are in prison because they didn't follow the citizen's arrest law.

      Delete
    3. Hard to tell as it was obscured by the truck. Did Arbery dive for the gun first or did Travis shoot first?

      Delete
    4. Did not need to be a felony. I discussed above.

      Delete
    5. Travis shot Arbery before Arbery attacked him.
      Did he have that right?
      No, then he is guilty of murder.

      "In the video, the truck blocks the view until after the first gunshot is fired. The video then shows both men with hands on the gun as a bleeding Arbery punches McMichael. After the third shot, Arbery turns to run, then falls facedown in the street.

      The medical examiner who performed the autopsy said only two of the shotgun blasts hit Arbery, but each struck at close range. One punched a hole in the center of his chest. The other severed an artery near his left armpit and fractured his arm.

      Authorities say the McMichaels and Bryan chased Arbery for five minutes before the shooting, using their trucks to cut off Arbery’s escape. Greg McMichael told police they had him “trapped like a rat.” Bryan said he used his truck to run Arbery off the road several times."

      Delete
    6. I think we still don't know for sure if Arbery attacked first. It looks like he did, as he came around the car to engage Travis McMichael. I don't think he approached him for a chat. Mind you, if he thought he could run no longer, and he wanted to get away, engaging Travis might have been his best choice.

      Delete
    7. Any honest observer can see that Travis shot Arbery before Arbery touched him.
      And you lose the "I don't think he approached him for a chat." test when you consider the two pickups, a pistol, and a shotgun in the hands of the Mcmichaels and Roddie.


      Delete
    8. Arbery definitely turned towards him,, not away from him, and looked like he was lunging. If the shot came before or after the first contact is not so germane.

      Delete
    9. Arbery ran at the men who obviously meant to kill him. This was a last, desperate act.

      Delete
    10. @ Julie

      It does need to be a felony.
      It states so in the law:

      "2010 Georgia Code
      TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
      CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS
      ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
      § 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest
      O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
      17-4-60. Grounds for arrest


      A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. *If the offense is a felony* and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion."

      Delete
    11. The first sentence applies to any crime and requires "immediate knowledge" (whatever that is). **Additionally** if it's a felony you need only reasonable and provable.

      Delete
  12. Most striking to me about the Rittenhouse and Arbery cases is, without video evidence, the verdicts of both would probably be reversed. Also, that there is a lot of general misunderstanding about what constitutes “self defense”. First, if you instigate a fight, you lose your claim of self defense. Second, if you kill someone in self defense, you are admitting to a crime (homicide) and now you have to prove there was a good reason to justify your crime. Third, if you are engaged in felonious activity that results in death, even if you weren’t the direct cause, many states will charge you with felony murder. Don’t go looking for trouble!

    ReplyDelete
  13. There behavior was absolutely unambiguous - otherwise the defense would have focused on facts - like my client saw him exit the house, my client saw him enter the house. No what was said was "McMichael said he was at home with family on Feb. 23 when his father came into the room and told him the man they believed had been breaking into houses in their neighborhood was back."

    I looked for the transcript of his testimony to get the exact words but it is not available or I am looking in the wrong places. You have the benefit of hindsight and can rail about Mr. Arbery's past - they did not have any such information so I think they were acting as racists or at least as bullies. Mr. Arbery evidently ran often and if we are going to judge someone by what the look like when out jogging - shame on us.
    And just because you want to detain me doesn't mean I have to be willing to be detained by you.

    You have no evidence to make this characterization - Clearly, Arbery was no "innocent jogger". None.


    I told some youngsters it was really bad for Mr. Arbery to decide to stand up for his person hood but it was really good for the rest of us that he did. When you are fucking with someone's life like the McMichael's were you better be damn sure of your basis. They had no reasonable basis.

    "that they had "immediate knowledge" as Arbery was spotted running out of the house." They did not spot him running out of the house.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I'm not naive. The young man had a long criminal record and was trespassing during a jog in a neighbourhood that was having a crime spree. He was also known to police for committing crimes while jogging. So based on what we know now, I can characterize him that way. I am NOT arguing that was germane to the court case, and I am not saying that the McMichaels knew any of that and were justified in effecting their citizens arrest, and I do think it was racial profiling by them.

      Delete
    2. Yeah so thats all that matters then. There is no need to bring up his criminal record in the first place. It was racial profiling and therefore all that needed to happen was for Arbery to commit some minor offence for these guys to engage in vigilantism. So yeah that deserves a serious charge and a serious sentence.

      Delete
    3. It's only germane to my understanding of what actually went on.

      Delete
    4. Arbery's criminal past is not germane to anything, as the Jury's decision illustrates.

      Delete
    5. I agree not germane to jury. Germane to me.

      Delete
  14. It doesn't matter whether Arbery had anything on his record. Its irrelevant to this case. Every time a black victim is involved their record is somehow more important than the facts of the case.

    The whole trespassing thing is BS. I have done shit like that before. Heck I did this just yesterday while on my run in downtown Toronto, where a house is being built. I just walked in to check it out for a few mins. Yeah I "trespassed". Big fucking deal.

    All these racist mofos needed, was for the black guy to commit some minor offence. So they thought they could get away with it. Nope. Yes justice was done. Asking for a more lenient charge instead of what they got is another example of racism btw. Thankfully that didn't happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I literally said that above.

      No, trespassing is not BS. And especially not when you're a black young man in a racist neighbourhood. Same way I won't go for a stroll after midnight downtown on my own in a sexy skirt. A little common sense might have saved his life also.

      We can agree to disagree on the sentencing (which has not happened yet).

      Delete
    2. Agree with the common sense part. Especially in Georgia and the other southern bible belt states.

      Delete
    3. @ Julie
      Now it’s a “racist neighborhood”?
      Above you claimed they would have shot and killed a white man.
      Are you admitting that the Mcmichaels are racist?

      Delete
    4. It is demonstrably true that there were racists in the neighborhood, which is all I meant. I did not intend to tar all residents of the neighborhood. And yes, if you are prone to judge a book by its cover than if the white man fits a certain negative profile in their mind, then yup.

      Delete
  15. As a gun owner and 2A advocate, you have to be very careful whipping a gun out. It removes options from the table. If someone comes after you, you have to shoot them because you don't want them to take your gun away and use it on you. I think the main difference between these guys and Kyle Rittenhouse was that Kyle excessively retreated before he defended himself. These guys went actively chasing someone that ended in his death. All they had to do was follow the guy at a safe distance and talk the police in to their location. The fact that this guy had a long criminal history couldn't have been known to these three guys AFAIK. Maybe you could use that at sentencing but it doesn't mean diddly squat in terms of their state of mind that led them down the path of chasing him. I suppose the other difference between the two cases is that Kyle's involved other white guys. The jury and judge in the Georgia case may have been sending a message. If so, that is grounds for appeal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The message the Judge sent was that the existing law would be applied as it exists.

      Delete
    2. In the Arbery case the judge screwed up by not giving the jury a clear take on the citizens arrest law, but left it up to them to make their best guess at interpreting it.

      Delete
    3. I get your point. The Rittenhouse case hinged on an ambiguous law regarding the length of barrel which took away the most damning element of that trial and dismissing the charge assured he would be found innocent. So apples...oranges...

      Delete
    4. I don't think the barrel length law was at all ambiguous. No other way to interpret that clause. And the case did not hinge on that at all. It hinged on whether Kyle provoked his attackers. He was found not to have.

      Delete
    5. Julie wrote: "In the Arbery case the judge screwed up by not giving the jury a clear take on the citizens arrest law, but left it up to them to make their best guess at interpreting it."

      That's interesting. Please tell us why you believe that. Was there video?

      Delete
    6. It was the opinion of Andrew Branca, the leading attorney in the US on the law of self-defense. He's posted extensively on it. Here is an entry point: https://youtu.be/TkKzGnh591g

      Delete
  16. I think it's worth mentioning how bad the initial handling of the case by the local authorities was.
    If it wasn't for the "evil media" playing the "race card", it may have been possible for all three "citizen arresting" men to end up being just witnesses; with no charges filed against them. Absurd as that may sound.

    - "Commissioner Allen Booker said: 'The police at the scene went to her, saying they were ready to arrest both of them. These were the police at the scene who had done the investigation. She shut them down to protect her friend [Gregory] McMichael.' "

    It was that bad!
    This is one of the cases that the usual defendant of police against claims of systemic racism, and similarly defendants of "police-like" actions of private citizens, would like to sweep under the rugs because it undermines their main narrative.

    Also, the "left" vs. right mentality seems to be affecting everything in America. I'm from a country with actual leftists in politics, and previously, even in power. And therefore, I can't fathom how either of the capitalist, center-right to far-right, main parties of the US is "leftist" in any meaningful sense! But, anyway...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is the "progressive" fringe of the Democrat party that has a disturbing amount of power that are very "leftist" in the sense that they wish to give more and more power to a central government run by themselves; wish to remove freedoms, such as free speech, gun ownership, and due process of law; wish to tax the wealthy to make everybody equally poor; and wish to divide people, not along class lines as for Marx, but along "identitarian" lines (such as race, sex, LGBTQ, ...). Many people from formerly communist countries are seeing the parallels in the US and Canada and are concerned.

      Delete
    2. Thank you! Such a simple concept, but so few outside the US understand it. No, the mainstream MAGA movement was never fascist. Yes, the Democratic establishment of capitalists,grifters and neo-cons (some people are all 3) have allied with the radical 'progressive' wing and are busy changing laws and policies to include ideas like 'equity' that are unknown in the US political tradition but are suddenly being introduced and FORCED on people.

      Delete
    3. I politely disagree.

      Wanting a bigger, stronger, "big brother style" government, AND removing any right to criticize the state/church, AND dividing people based on race/sexuality/etc. into 1st class citizens and "lined up and shot" or "hanged with a piano wire" inferior humans, AND even appropriating the wealth/taxing-into-oblivion the super rich --under the guise of weeding out the "fifth column"-- are textbook right-wing fascism. Not exclusively theirs, but not exclusively a "leftists-style governing" either.

      Any historic (well with the exception of some radical Catholic apologist)record of what Spain looked like under Franco will leave little disagreement on that front.

      Also, I'm rereading that part in your response:

      " and wish to divide people, not along class lines as for Marx, but along "identitarian" lines (such as race, sex, LGBTQ, ...). "

      And can't help but think: When the Red Scare/McCarthyism was at its highest, and thus leftist weren't "in power", hell they weren't even safe from extrajudicial killing in many cases, one would think --based on that part I just quoted from your response-- that "divid[ing]people ... along "identitarian" lines (such as race, sex, LGBTQ" ... was unheard of in the United States.
      You know, as in: it was unheard of during actual segregation, and shock "therapy" for youth LGBT!

      Delete
    4. I was thinking of the excesses of communist regimes such as the Soviet Union and China which are estimated to have killed about 100,000,000 people in the 20th century. Most recently, Venezuela. The "progressive" wing of the Democrats are pushing for the same sorts of Marxist policies and are the danger now.

      I agree that fascists were pretty nasty as well, and used the same sorts of tactics to control their populations (gun control, censorship, subverting the legal system, state control of industry, big government, ...). All those tactics are the ones being pushed by the left right now. I don't hear the right (currently) pushing for any of that. Counterexamples welcome.

      Delete
  17. Note to the person who writes a half dozen ranting comments a day ending each of them with something along the lines of "you fascist cunt!", please know how much joy you bring to my life as I delete your rude voice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The amount of unhinged rhetoric coming from one side is disturbing. I believe it is dress rehearsal for violence to a degree we haven’t yet seen. With cheerleaders in media, they’ve convinced themselves they are on the “right side of history.” I’m still convinced that the good guys (sane, reasonable, normal) win eventually, but not looking forward to what happens between now and then. Stay aware and safe. david

      Delete
    2. Someone clearly has a terrible grasp on what it means to be a fascist. (Wokka wokka!)

      Delete
    3. Hold up. This person comes to a kinky spanking blog just to comment things like "You fascist cunt"? And they do it repeatedly, almost daily? I... what a world we live in. This person, likely male, comes here to jerk off but instead goes off in a tirade in your rare non-spanko posts... Like... my dude, for once in your life, I encourage you to think with your little head like you'd originally intended because your big head clearly doesn't know what it's doing any more. Smh.

      -Kasey

      Delete
    4. Ha ha! What SHE said!

      I think I chased him away with my comment, or he may have left a comment but it was polite (he's anon, so I don't know who's who). Either way, he took his spanking.

      Delete
    5. Oh, he's back, much more polite than before, but was equally repetitive and spewing nonsensical points. Rather than allowing him to flood the comments I'm picking his best 1 in 10 and letting them through now. But I am glad he's submitted to my insistence at being polite 😎

      Delete
  18. You keep saying this was a "citizen's arrest".
    When did the three men tell Arbery that they were doing a citizen's arrest?
    If they didn't announce that, and video that, they're nothing but three rednecks lynching another black man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not saying that, and I'm not defending it. It was the defence position and there was a reasonable interpretation of the flawed and ambiguous GA law that was subsequently changed as a direct result of this case.

      I don't honestly know if it's a legal requirement to shout out certain words during a citizen's arrest, but if they did not, and it was otherwise clear they were attempting to detain him until the cops arrived, I'm not sure how important that really is? And they literally did video it for that reason.

      Delete
    2. The whole citizen arrest was just an afterthought. These morons were just thugs who consider themselves "patriots" lol. The southern US has a lot of bullshit laws and BS attitudes. They simply wanted to chase this guy down and vent their anger/frustrations. They probably videoed it have an alibi that they were not being "Racist". Of course what happens when morons make a moronic plan? It goes sideways, as it did.

      Delete
    3. We can't mind-read what was in their hearts.

      Delete
    4. "and it was otherwise clear they were attempting to detain him until the cops arrived"

      Why even attempt to detain him? Just follow him until the cops show up.

      This is the South. Black men know that armed white men pursuing them in 3500 lb pickups aren't out to "detain him".

      Delete
    5. I doubt they were out to murder him given video and inbound cops.

      Delete
    6. You've just illustrated that you're a Canadian and not a Southerner.
      As a southerner myself I can tell you that they were out to murder him and believed the video and local cops, and prosecutors would let him off. They were initially proved correct in that assumption.

      Delete
    7. You may be captured by your own prejudices. Objectively, if they were out to murder him they would not be filming it and calling the cops. I think I can see it more clearly than you because I lack your prejudices. But we are all entitled to our opinions.

      Delete
    8. They filmed it and called the cops because they knew they would be let off -- and they were let off! The Prosecutor refused to charge them!
      It was only because the video was leaked that they were finally, months later, charged.

      Delete
    9. That is true, but it does not prove they were out to murder him.

      Delete
  19. the problem with the radical left is that they push one line of argumentation, no matter what the facts.

    the problem with the radical right is that they push one line of argumentation, no matter what the facts.

    I don't trust the radical left, but I don't trust the radical right either.

    I would value your reporting and judgment much more highly if you didn't only support positions from the radical right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's your cognitive dissonance speaking. I defined radical left, what is your "radical right"? Is it white supremacists? I'm actually pretty middle of the road, small-c conservative with many classical liberal views. The Overton window has shifted because of the influence of the progressives on mainstream and social media, and thus on you.

      Is thinking Trump did a lot of good things and is not a racist, that Biden has done a lot of bad things, that the elections were not 100% fair and legal, that Jan 6 was not actually an insurrection, that the BLM protests descended into violence alarmingly often, is that how you characterize "far right"?

      Delete
    2. I do think the overton window has shifted to the right. So political positions that would otherwise be considered radical right or atleast hardline conservative, are now just mainstream.

      On the left, there is no real push for far left wing policies. Social justice or social welfare initiatives are not really far left positions.

      Delete
    3. Objectively, it has shifted left. See Pew research paper https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/10/05162647/10-05-2017-Political-landscape-release.pdf

      Delete
    4. "Is thinking Trump did a lot of good things and is not a racist, that Biden has done a lot of bad things, that the elections were not 100% fair and legal, that Jan 6 was not actually an insurrection, that the BLM protests descended into violence alarmingly often, is that how you characterize "far right"?"

      Both yes and no. "No", in the sense that it's hard to see a consistent ideology (right wing or otherwise) behind your views on those or other topics. But also "yes" because what *is* consistent is that your views on political topics invariably echo what right-wing pundits and media are saying.

      You call yourself a middle of the road classical liberal and obviously think of your views as independent conclusions based on unbiased evidence. Yet I've never seen a political post on this blog where I wouldn't have been able to guess the content with pretty good accuracy just by looking up what someone like Tucker Carlson said about the topic. That's not a result of the Overton window shifting around your ideology, it's your ideology (or at least the ideology you share on this blog) being exclusively shaped by specific messaging.

      Look at this topic. Does the fact that Arbery drove a gold Camry seem like the kind of detail a reasonable person would independently pick out and highlight as relevant to their view of the case? Seems a bit unlikely to me, but what does seem plausible is that someone else would highlight it as part of a narrative they're trying to get you to believe. They're not presenting you with facts to enable you to come to your own conclusion. They're telling you a story, and they do it because it works.

      Delete
    5. I think, at this point in history, the right wing sources are more truthful and common-sensual than the left wing ones, so it's somewhat inevitable that we would agree. If you think bringing up the gold Camry is something I heard from Tucker, please find where he said anything about it. I read that from a police file. Maybe Tucker should be reading my blog?

      Delete
  20. In the heat of the moment, many people do not, or can not effectively explain all that they were feeling to police. The three accused men did not immediately explain that they were trying to effect a citizens arrest, and it was the job of their legal counsel to bring that out in trial.

    I agree with you Julie that this was once again an over-reach, jury over reaction stemming from liberal induced white guilt.

    The guys put themselves in a bad position out of frustration with lack of appropriate legal results, and they got caught in a system anxious to reverse race discriminate.

    Appeal attempts will be interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do think the good 'ol boys were racist in their hearts, but they have behaved in exactly the same way if they saw a young white punk trespassing and running,

      Delete
    2. Anonymous wrote "In the heat of the moment, many people do not, or can not effectively explain all that they were feeling to police"

      BS He was an Officer of the Law for 30 years.
      He knew exactly what he did. That's why he called his good friend the Prosecutor.

      "GREGORY MCMICHAEL

      Age: 65
      Residence: Satilla Shores, Georgia
      Career: Worked as a police officer for Glynn County Police Department from 1982 to 1989 and an investigator for the Brunswick Judicial Court District Attorney's Office from 1995 to 2019. No complaints while at GCPD.







      Delete
    3. No argument here. He apparently was not a good cop, as he had not passed the necessary qualifications to arrest people as a cop, ironically.

      Delete
  21. Yes, justice was done. A jury of his peers, 11 Whites and 1 Black, applied the existing laws and evidence determined so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Juries are not always perfect, but it's the best we have.

      Delete
    2. You're right..and PoC have been living with that fact our entire lives. But juries are only imperfect when the faces of the defendants are white, just my take as someone who looks like Ahmaud Arbery. And I understand you're really only questioning the sentences being unduly harsh not the act. It's kind of like how the 3rd strike laws or drug laws come with harsher sentences for PoC than whites...welcome to the cruel world of an imperfect system. Yep, I agree it's the best we have. I applaud your perceptive take.

      Delete
  22. My point was that your blog only supports right-wing views.

    Where is your support to a left-wing view? if you are a centrist, then surely you have some of those. Why haven't I ever seen such a post?

    All your political posts seem to be pro-Trump pro-Republican posts. Where are the pro-Democrat posts? Did I miss something?

    Maybe I did: I would be happy to admit if I was wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I consider myself pretty liberal about sexuality.
      I don't really do much stuff that ought to be left/right. Like climate change, Covid, these trials. The lefties make it political. I do defend Trump because the left incessantly lies about him much to the detriment of Western society.

      Delete
    2. didn't Trump's people make Covid political?
      I feel like if Trump hadn't made covid political, he would have won the election easily. I think he really blew that chance.

      Your country has not politicized covid, and you've been much more successful at dealing with it (from an outsider's view), in spite of having way less vaccination capabilities compared to the US.

      I think your statement "the lefties make it political" is false, if you mean "only the left" or "primarily the left". Both the right and the left politicize everything. It's a bit silly to blame one side when the other does the same thing.

      I know you think of yourself as centrist, but I doubt an average person from the US or Canada or Europe would see you that way. You come across a pretty radical right.

      I am not saying that that's bad. that's just how you seem to me. if you really think you are centrist, then let's hear about your left-wing political views.

      (I don't think sexuality is political, is it?)

      Delete
    3. I don't know how Trump made it political? Seems the opposite. The Democrats used COVID as a bludgeon to make an election issue out of it. Remember them personally blaming Trump for the deaths in the US? (I understand that Biden has surpassed that total already in his term, so that's pretty ironic).

      I don't think country leadership has much to do with COVID outcomes, except the giant obvious blunders such as jamming COVID patients into nursing homes like what Cuomo did. I think it relates more to age of population and obesity levels. Would love to see a country / state comparison with that factored out.

      I think there have been points in relatively recent history where the right politicized things, but lately it has been primarily the left.

      I wonder what views of mine you find to be "radical right"? If it's things like this blog post, that's just an analysis, and I don't view it as left or right. Same for climate change and Covid and Rittenhouse.

      I think it's a liberal centrist thing to say society should be colour blind as far as race goes. Same for equality of opportunity (not equality of outcome). Same for free speech. Regrettably, too many who identify as Democrats now oppose those things in word and deed.

      I support expanded universal health care (with a private option to encourage innovation), and even some form of universal basic income.

      Delete
  23. 3 punks murder my neighbor ? """ are you fucking kidding me " Come on Brothers, Fathers, sons, brothers. Leta just look after each other !!!
    Ya or Nay?

    ReplyDelete
  24. If everything you say is the gospel truth and you exchanged me or you in place of this young black man - if we'd done everything you said he had done, we would not have been chased and eventually shot. Even if at every step we'd done the same thing he did. He's dead because he was black in the 'wrong' neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, if it was me, they'd have laughed and given me a spanking and let me on my way with a red bum and no jogging shorts.

      But seriously, you may well be right but we'll never know. Our biases dictate what we think would have happened. If it was a young athletic white man they suspected of robbing from their neighborhood, and the young man went for the shotgun, tried to wrestle it from him, and started punching him repeatedly in the head (you did say 'exactly') he might have been shot at that point.

      But I absolutely think racism played a role in them imagining the worst in Arbery without any evidence. A white jogger, even if he trespassed, would not have been pursued as aggressively and given more benefit of the doubt, likely.

      But... if Arbery had surrendered to them and awaited police and then pressed charges for false imprisonment it would have gone differently also (had Arbery surrendered I don't believe they would have killed him in cold blood, not videoing it and having called the cops with them 1 minute away).

      Delete
  25. Several comments complain about one side or the other making everything political, news flash, every single thing is political.

    When the amount of taxes that you pay is a different amount based on which political party is in power, that's political.

    When the supply of heating fuel and gasoline varies depending on which political party is in power, that's political.

    When the difference between being fired from your job or not based on your vaccination status varies based on what political party runs your country and your state, that is political.

    One political party pushes for larger government control, and that will always have predictable consequences.

    One political party sort of pushes for slightly smaller government and more individual liberty and personal responsibility, and that system also has predictable consequences.

    One constant throughout history, once government has grown and taken on more power for itself, it never gives it back without a violent outcome. Maybe better to keep the "necessary evil" of government as limited as possible for as long as possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We were talking more about things that ought not be political being turned political. Things like the courts, or the science of climate change, or Ivermectin, and so on.

      Delete
  26. You are a racist.

    You'll disagree, you'll shrug off what I say as just another ad hominem attack, but deep down, you know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I published it not because it adds anything to the conversation, but just to hilight the unhinged amongst us.

      Deep, deep, deep down, right to as deep as you can possibly get, I judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

      Yours I find wanting.

      Delete
    2. That has to hurt worse than your belt, Julie.

      Delete
    3. I reckon his butt is stinging from that one.

      Delete
    4. Julie certainly makes racist or at the very least racist dog whistle statements, like most white people who grow up only amongst other white people do. However I dont think she is racist. She just reacts to news out there and these days if you disagree with something you are racist.

      Clarence on the other hand is a racist piece of shit. He doesnt even agree with 1st generation citizens having the right to vote. Thankfully better sense prevails.

      Delete
    5. I don't know how you're defining "racist", but if it means believing in treating everybody the same regardless of race, then guilty as charged.

      Clarence often has insightful, based, comments. Smart dude. And also, not racist.

      Delete
    6. I define racist based on "intent to harm". Your statements objectively are either racist or racist dog whistle statements. However, I dont think there is maliciousness behind it.

      Clarence on the other hand, said that 1st generation citizens should not have the right to vote. Thereby disenfranchising them, disempowering them and making them 2nd class citizens. That is intent to harm and therefore racist. Exactly what white men in the 1800s did to blacks - no right to vote, cant testify against a white man etc.,

      Delete
    7. Unless Clarence is saying "POC ought not to vote" (which he is definitely NOT saying), then you're confusing citizenship questions with racial questions. Because there are many, many POC who are > first gen, and such a policy would exclude many foreign whites from citizenship, it is objectively not racist. I don't agree with Clarence's position, but I can debate it without pulling race into it and shutting down the conversation like a pussy.

      Delete
    8. That is precisely why it is racist. Its often times difficult to pin point or can be explained away by saying "POCs are citizens too!!". Its also something white people find it difficult to understand or relate to as they dont have lived experiences on that note. But if you have reasonably faced racism in anyway shape or form, if you are an immigrant and have been in awkward conversations with people that you will never be in because you are white, you know these guys specifically refer to non white immigrants when they make these statements. They are just a little glib about it these days by using the generic term "citizens".Its similar to Trump's comment about shithole countries and why people from those countries are coming here, instead of people from countries like Norway. If you are white and from another developed country they will welcome you with open arms. But the moment you are non white, they will start talking about "excessive immigration", "illegal immigration", "freedoms", "patriotism", "nationalism" etc., These guys dont deserve a debate. They are total dirtbags masquerading as wanting to have a debate while they are just haters.

      Delete
    9. Well, there isn't this massive flood of illegal immigrants from Norway, so who cares, but 200,000 illegals showing up on the Southern border is a cause for concern regardless of their skin tone. In Canada we have a points system for legal immigration which works well. You somehow manage to take every single conversation about social policy and twist it into racism because your view of the world is, inherently, a racist one.

      Delete
    10. My view of the world is cynical, not racist. Racism is endemic and cultural to this part of the world and I see it and call it as such. Also Trump wasn't talking about Mexico, he was referencing Africa. Illegal immigration is a problem, yes. But these guys dont even want legal immigration - especially non white legal immigration. Hence statements like why do people from shit hole countries in Africa have to come here, why not people from Norway etc.,

      Delete
    11. There you go again with "non-white". By your reckoning, our Canadian immigration system is very racist because you can get in easier if you speak English well, don't have a criminal record, are better educated in certain in-demand fields, are willing to start a business and bring capital do do that. None of that is "racist", but it will disadvantage people from less developed countries immigrating.

      Delete
    12. Not really. You can get in if you score a CLB level 7 on IELTS for English. Everyone has to take the test regardless of nationality and Level 7 is pretty easy to score. I am a non native English speaker and I scored CLB 10 (the highest band). The provincial nomination programs require a score of 4.5, which is even less.

      With respect to criminal record the point is moot - anyone from anywhere cant immigrate based on what shows up on your PCC certificate. A lot of less developed countries dont consider a lot of things like DUI to be a felony (unlike developed countries) which could potentially work in their favor.

      Education - field of study doesn't matter. As long as you have a 3 or 4 year program on anything, you are good.

      Work experience - min 1 year required. No biggie.

      Willing to start a business/capital - the only capital requirement is the LICO cut off. Which is like 13,213 CAD for 2021 for a single person. As long as you show this you are good. Easy peasy dont have to be a financial big wig.

      The MOST important thing is AGE. If you are under 30 you get a full 110 points. If you are 40 and over, you get 0. Guess where most of the worlds young people live? Asia and Africa.

      So no the Canadian immigration system generally favors immigration from less developed, non white countries. I think most immigrants to Canada today are Indians (25%).

      Canada wants YOUNG people primarily, who can speak english or french or both, who have some education, have potential opportunities to get a job, and people who are in min reasonable health (they ask you to get a health check). Canadas average age is 45 and getting older, so they want to reduce the average age for the future. People dont come to Canada accomplished. They come here, establish themselves and them work up from there, which is what Canada wants as well.

      Delete
  27. Thank you for your thought-provoking post. It is brave of you to risk being reflexively called ‘racist’ by others.

    I did not follow the trial. I’m not sure the defendants are entitled to the ‘benefit of the doubt’ of the ‘murky’ citizen’s arrest law. In my state, the decedent’s actions would NOT be trespassing without additional evidence of a prior official warning or clear signage. Citizens are not entitled to rely on information they do not themselves know (unlike police who are charged with the knowledge of the ‘police team’), so, while I think the Defendants had ‘reasonable suspicion’ (see Terry v. Ohio), I do not think they had probable cause, hence they could not detain the decedent because there is no ‘citizen’s right to a Terry-stop.’ The other disturbing factor is the prior inconsistent statement by one defendant and the attempt to use his prior professional relationship with the prosecutor to circumvent an investigation. In my mind, this vitiates the claims of innocence evidenced by the 911 calls.

    Most cases are messy—this one is no exception. Justice is a range of outcomes. This is probably on the harsh side, but not unjust. When you take your gun with you, outside your home, and you perform police work, you are undertaking a significant risk that you might be wrong. I think the Defendants got it wrong and will pay a stiff price, though not quite as high as the price paid by the decedent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I 99% agree but still think the charges against the other 2 were unreasonable (not legally, just from a Christian point of view).

      Delete
  28. What bothers me most is what happens after the fact. Trials today become a media event. In the interest of justice, the trial should have been held away from the area where it happened and the jury should have been anonymous and sequestered. With personal identification and the threat of looting and violence, how can any juror really vote his/her mind? It happens over and over again. It makes a mockery of the criminal justice system.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very insightful. That key point got lost in the mess, but I agree so much.

      Delete
    2. @ Anonymous
      Exactly right -- no doubt the jury members are getting death threats right now.

      Delete
    3. More likely they minimized the number of death threats by going the way of the mob.

      Delete
  29. No , Justice was not served here.
    Let's assume it's somehow kosher for a Judge to delay ruling on a contested interpretation of a Statute until the case is over and AFTER the defense has made its case based on a different interpretation (hint: it's not, this part alone should be an excellent point for appeal, though who knows if it will be appealable in GA law), we have the charging of the third man whose only 'crime' was to film the encounter. He was charged under a legal doctrine (not all states have this particular idea of murder)that makes it possible to charge someone with murder MERELY for being on the scene or participating in the crime (directly such as standing guard or planning it or indirectly such as being a driver )when the crime is a felony level crime (such as armed burglary) that one knew or should have known COULD reasonably have ended in the death of an innocent. The Theory for this case seems to be : Since it wasn't a citizens arrest (arguable via statute and maybe overturned on appeal but lets grant the argument) it was an 'unlawful detention'. Since one or two of the other defendants had a gun...well, you see the argument I suppose. The fact that Mr. Bryan didn't have any kind of conversation with the other two (thus no 'planning') before this happened AND that his video and early cooperation with law enforcement helped bring this case to light , mattered not apparently. There's no indication he's a racist that I've heard or seen, and, even if he was, he played no part in Mr. Arbury's death. This alone is a horrible injustice. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/william-bryan-arrest-ahmaud-arbery.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree completely. Well stated.

      Delete
    2. @ Clarence

      There was no "contested interpretation". The Mcmichaels DID NOT adhere to the Citizens Arrest statute, as the Prosecutor showed, and the Judge agreed.

      Bryan's crime was not to film the chase; his crime was actively using his pickup in chasing Arbery. Without his aid the Mcmichaels may not have caught Arbery.
      As Mcmichael said:
      "In their own words to the 9-1-1 operator they said, ‘WE got him trapped like a rat.’

      Bryan used his pickup to funnel Arbery to Travis, who killed him.

      "As Arbery ran away from the McMichaels, he encountered Bryan, who attempted to hit him four different times with his pick up truck, forcing Arbery into a ditch, Dunikoski argued, noting that the 29-year-old was “under attack.”

      "Among the charges against Bryan are false imprisonment and aggravated assault for using his car as a deadly weapon. Per the prosecution, Bryan also redirected Arbery toward McMichaels, who killed him."

      Delete
    3. That is a valid interpretation as well.

      Delete
  30. Real justice in this case would probably be a new trial under the old interpretation of the Citizens Arrest law. Maybe all 3 get off. More likely there's at least a manslaughter conviction for one of them (the son) and some lesser conviction for the father. This was more a tragedy than a lynching by a gang (well, if two people constitute a gang, Mr Film wasn't even involved) of KKK members and it should have been treated as such from the start, esp given more than even odds that Mr. Arbery really was the man they were looking for and their stupidity and his at least somewhat understandable panicking probably led to his death more than any 'racism' explanation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tend to agree, but we do note that Southerners commenting are saying we are naive, and that racism remains rampant in that area of the country and was a major contributor to the outcome, which is certainly possible.

      Delete
    2. @ Clarence
      The Citizen's Arrest law requires that a crime be witnessed.
      Mcmichaels did not witness any crime.

      https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/09/us/ahmaud-arbery-killing-trial-day-3/index.html


      Mcmichael didn't even tell the Officer on the scene that he was attempting to make a Citizen's Arrest. They made that up later.

      "Glynn County police Officer Jeff Brandeberry, who also interviewed Gregory McMichael, testified earlier Tuesday that McMichael never used the words "arrest," "detain" or "trespass" when he spoke with him at the scene of the shooting. Brandeberry testified Gregory McMichael appeared "animated" and "pretty amped up" when he arrived.
      "Did he ever tell you while you were talking to him that he was attempting to make a citizen's arrest?" prosecutor Linda Dunikoski asked Brandeberry.
      "No, ma'am," Brandeberry replied."

      https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/09/us/ahmaud-arbery-killing-trial-day-3/index.html

      Delete
    3. It requires "immediate knowledge", which is ill-defined.

      Delete
    4. Yep. Andrew Branca ( a guy I've been following since the 90's, and the premier US legal expert on self defence laws) shows just how vague the statute is here:https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/arbery-case-trial-judge-walmsley-drops-the-ball-on-ambiguous-citizens-arrest-law/

      Delete
    5. Yup. Same source for me. Referenced below as well.

      Delete
    6. If only the defendants five high priced lawyers had come to you for advice you could have recommended your favorite YouTube lawyer.

      Delete
    7. Wow. That is an ignorant statement. Have you checked out Andrew Branca's credentials? He's done a lot more than YouTube!

      Delete
  31. And here's another case that both puts the lie to the 'racism' charges against the self defense laws (allegedly only white people can use them, what bullshit) and yet also shows how hard it is for most foreign people to grok just how hardcore , harsh, punitive (Whatever you want to call it) easily abused (easy to 'stack' charges to coerce pleas even in cases involving innocence) the US Justice System is. This guy wins his self defense case against white officers , yet still is facing 30 years as a 'felon in possession'. If a gun was found to be used in legit self defense I'd always disallow such a charge. https://reason.com/2021/11/22/man-faces-30-year-sentence-self-defense-andrew-coffee-iv-rittenhouse/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, seeking to send Coffee to prison for 30 years for illegal possession of a firearm is a huge overreach and feels vindictive after he won his self-defence case against the cops who broke in unannounced and mistakenly in the hood!

      Delete
    2. "...is a huge overreach and feels vindictive.."
      That's because it is, Julie.
      Besides the mainstream US Press going full Pravda the past 5 or 6 years the other big depressing thing is the politicization of trials.Then there's the constant attacks on the cops. Deaths of black men by police had been in a constant decline for two decades because of improved USE of force policies, the acquisition of non-lethal(actually, 'less lethal' the occasional heart attack due to a taser, for example, does happen) force tools of interdiction such as tasers and nets, and improved training had made a huge difference. But, starting in 2012 with the deliberate politicization of the Trayvon Martin case by Obama and his Justice Department (Black Lives Matter was partly founded by the Community Relations Service part of the DOJ, few people know this) the average cop has been treated as a member of the KKK, and every case that makes the news its always forever Selma, Alabama in the 1950's. The MAGA movement was actually in favor (as was Trump) of some reasonable reforms of the CJS (rather than 'defund the police' or removing their limited legal protection against liability, without which, honestly, policing becomes impossible as every small mistake opens them up to civil or criminal suit) such as ending or severely curtailing "No Knock"raids, and asset forfeiture. Meanwhile, while 'beat cops' who rarely kill anyone and mostly were doing a darn good job of 'keeping the peace' were being demonized, no one has called for reforms at the Prosecutorial level where Prosecutors and DA's enjoy 'absolute immunity' and can imprison innocent people or make people's lives hell for the fun of it, and hardly ever get even a slap on the wrist even when they do things like lie or hide evidence. The left in this country basically doesn't care. So long as the Prosecutors use their powers in service of the cause and against 'deplorables', all is right with the world. I predict this short sighted selfishness will eventually come back to bite them in the ass HARD, but many other people are going to have to suffer first.

      Delete
    3. I agree that prosecutorial overreach is a major problem. Heck, VP Kamala was the poster child for it vus-a-vus blacks, as so famously stated by Tulsi, a fact conveniently forgotten by the left in its rush to power.

      Delete
  32. Julie, dont you know you are a radical right winger? You are because your views may differ from those on the left, so in their view your radical....I learned something from your post today that I did not know. I paid very little attention to this case unlike the Rittenhouse case. I can not say they are innocent because a jury found them guilty. I can not say they got a fair trial because I did not see the trial. I can not say they did not get a fair trial because I did not see the trial. I do wonder how one can be guilty of killing a person more than once. Malice Murder and Felony Murder are tow charges for one dead person...I have not had anyone explain that theory of law....Nice job for being brave and saying what you think....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. It was definitely a political hit job, not to say the good 'ol boys should get off Scott free.

      Delete
    2. "

      Malice murder is comparatively straightforward.

      The law in Georgia defines it as the "deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being" where "no considerable provocation appears" and in which the killer shows "an abandoned and malignant heart."

      This is sort of what you might consider a "classic" murder charge, or the the rough equivalent of "first degree" murder in other states.

      Basically, someone intentionally kills another person out of some sense of ill will.
      Felony murder

      Felony murder works a little differently.

      A person can be charged and convicted of felony murder without actually killing someone.

      Take, for instance, Greg McMichael and Roddie Bryan in the Arbery case.

      Neither of them pulled the trigger - the video of the killing shows it was Travis McMichael - but the way felony murder works, if the jury finds they committed felonies that resulted in Arbery's death, that results in felony murder.

      That's why there's four felony murder charges against each defendant - because they are each charged with four felonies (two counts of aggravated assault, one count of false imprisonment and one count of criminal attempt to commit a felony) that allegedly resulted in murder."

      Delete
    3. Thank you for that clarification.

      Delete
  33. Julie, once again, congrats for taking on a difficult topic and then taking a lot of heat and nasty comments for expressing your views -- which you are absolutely entitled to do. It's your blog, you can write what you want. I don't know enough about this to express much of an opinion. If it were me, I guess I would say that some guy dressed up as a jogger without a car or a backpack wouldn't be much of a thief or criminal. I mean, how much could the guy really carry away in his hands? The defendants, in my view, were a trifle overzealous. I agree with your views on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's more likely he was casing the neighbourhood.

      Delete
  34. So interesting that your site viewers went from a diverse group of people to alt-right bigots. Most comments make me wanna puke. It's a shame. I thought you were a cool lady.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think what you call "alt-right bigots" is you projecting a racist mindset onto people who wish to treat all races equally. I have a very nice, diverse set of commenters, and it includes people with far out views, such as yours, and all are welcome.

      Delete
    2. Looks to me, (Julie aside) that the preponderance of comments are leftist.

      Delete
    3. I get a nice mix, which is rare. My porn trumps the bubble!

      Delete
    4. On a side note, all races cannot be treated "equally"- in the sense that you'd have to know the history and be especially sensitive while communicating with different people, especially if you are white. This sort of "I treat everyone the same" thinking also promotes the melting pot theory (basically means people from various cultures come here and then adopt a NEW set of values - sort of like a soup pot where you throw everything and it all turns to mush and you cant tell one ingredient from the other) where everyone assumes that everybody regardless of ethnicity or background has the same needs, which isn't the case. Which is why I think Canada's pluralism works way better than Americas melting pot. Am of course digressing from the discussion on this post though.

      Delete
    5. Sure you can treat everyone equally, you literally don't need to know anything about them to treat people equally. I think what you're saying is that we have to bend over backwards for certain identity groups because they were treated badly historically. I reject that totally as a very dangerous path that leads to racism and discrimination.

      In Canada we have the "Mosaic" which works well. We encourage people to maintain their culture and traditions, but also adhere to a common set of core Western values in the Greek-Roman-Judeo-Christian tradition and also maintain an identity as a proud Canuck.

      Delete
    6. Being sensitive to people's history and appropriately altering communication/action isn't bending over backwards. Its just common sense and courtesy.

      Delete
    7. Yes, but it's a slippery slope to not treating people the same, which IS racism.

      Delete
    8. Where is the slippery slope there? There is none. Not being sensitive to people's history on the other hand, is objectively racism. Its like pretending nothing severe happened and denying it.

      Delete
    9. The slippery slope is when you think because of things that happened to their ancestors that therefore there should be racism in reverse applied to redress the balance.

      Delete
    10. Although I agree reverse racism exists, things like affirmative action for example, isn't reverse racism even though it benefits one race vs the other. Yes its special treatment and it isn't perfect (for example, it doesn't exactly encourage meritocracy and some talented people get denied opportunities because of quotas and such), but it isn't reverse racism. Its things like that I am referring to.

      Delete
  35. How did I know what your take would be? I bet you wish you lived in the USA instead of Canada.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What, the reasonable take on it?
      I'll bet you are hallucinating that I have a different take. As an exercise, why don't you summarize what you think my take on it is, and I'll tell you if you're right or not.

      Delete
  36. This is one of those cases where it becomes really difficult to determine what's reasonable or not, if we are to base it in the applicable law and existing legal president. A 30 year sentence is a HELL of a long time (assuming that's what they are going to get? I believe you wrote that the actual sentencing was still pending?), but murder is not a trivial business.

    I'll admit that I'm a little unclear on what constitutes a "felony" in the US, but my gut reaction would be that I wouldn't think that entering a private construction site without permission, would be a serious crime. Based on that, I would argue that having three people getting into two cars to actively chase someone running on foot, is overkill. Additionally, bringing along loaded weapons, would also be overkill in my view. I say this because I would not personally expect that the concept of a "citizen's arrest" would include actively chasing someone, and holding them at gunpoint (assuming we are not talking about an armed intruder or similar situation). It's a question of proportional response.

    That being said, going a little overboard in this way, should not get you sent to prison for 30 years. The problem here, as I see it, based solely on your report of the case, is that it appears that one of the people chasing the runner here, actually shoots the guy in the center mass, at least two times (based on the video commentary), and a third time in an unspecified position (at least I didn't catch it, if it was specified). Shooting someone in the chest with a shotgun, even if they have been running away from you, and are coming towards you in an aggressive manner, is IMO overkill. Especially if the attacker is unarmed. A gun going off during a struggle is one thing, but three times, and at least two towards center mass? I'm be willing to throw some leeway towards someone in a fight, but generally speaking, if you fire a weapon at point blank range against someone's chest, you are IMO more or less directly aiming to kill them, or at least severely harm them. The more times you fire at them, the harder it becomes to argue that you did not intend to kill them.
    Based on the above considerations I'd say that the guy actively doing the shooting get to do some significant time.

    The other two people in the scenario is a bigger question though. They have probably overstepped their "mandate" in actively hunting the guy on foot, but they have no active part in him being shot. They should probably have tried to intervene somehow, but what happens happens fast, and it's not clear to me if any of them try verbally oppose their friend shooting Arbery. Also, your story does not say anything about whether any of them subsequently try to save Arbery's life, how they react to the situation, or what they have told the court. Technically they are a part of the chase. Technically at least one of them are armed (was the third person also armed? Can't recall right now). Technically they are thus in some way a part of the shooting, in that they didn't prevent it. But what's reasonable?

    IMO they do get some form of sentence, but I can't really determine what I believe would be reasonable here, as I'm lacking some important pieces of information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparently there were only 2 gunshot wounds. One of the shots missed. Arbery was very actively fighting and punching Travis in the head until the final shot. "Felony murder" is the charge of being in the process of committing a felony (unlawful citizens arrest in this case) when a person dies as a result of the felony.

      Delete
    2. Arbery had every reason to fight and punch travis in the head. His life was being threatened by 3 racist hillbillies.

      Delete
    3. Maybe, or maybe they just wanted him to settle down and wait for the cops. We'll never know.

      Delete
    4. They could have done that without ganging up on him and pointing a gun at him.

      Delete
    5. I doubt anything less would have been effective, as even the ganging up and guns was not effective. But I don't want to be here defending what they did at all. I think it was a boneheaded thing influenced by racism and am glad it was brought to justice.

      Delete
  37. Congrats, your most outlandish fantasy yet.

    ReplyDelete