November 24, 2021

"The jury has found Travis McMichael, the man who shot Ahmaud Arbery, guilty on all nine counts, including malice murder and felony murder."

 The NYT reports.
The jury has found Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael's father, not guilty of malice murder, but guilty of all other counts he faces, including felony murder. 
On the first count of the indictment, malice murder, the jury has found William Bryan, who filmed the fatal encounter with Ahmaud Arbery, not guilty. Here are the other counts he faces and the jury's verdict on each: Felony murder, count one -- not guilty/Felony murder, count two -- guilty/Felony murder, count three -- guilty/Felony murder, count four -- guilty/Aggravated assault, count one -- not guilty/Aggravated assault, count two -- guilty/False imprisonment -- guilty/Criminal attempt to commit a felony -- guilty

89 comments:

Gospace said...

And the streets there will be much safer now.

Readering said...

The local police did nothing soft on crime?

Lem said...

Inexplicably word is from news accounts, authorities are expecting violence. I have my excuse to go home early.

rcocean said...

How can you have 5 counts of murder with only one dead man? How can the men who didn't shoot anyone be guilty of murder? How can McMichael be guilty of "Malice murder" when Arbery attacked him, punched him, and tried to take the gun away?

I'd love to see the racial makeup of the jury and their education level. We're getting to the point where justice is a roulette wheel, and it all depends on who's on the jury. Get the right jury and you can commit murder and carjacking, confess to it, and still be found not guilty. Murder Ashli babbitt and you're not only a free man, you can brag about it on TV. Meanwhile Policeman Chauvin rots in jail for 30 years.

The USA is getting more insane. Or maybe its always like this, we just didn't get the Cases reported in the National News.

Narr said...

This case was much murkier to me than Kenosha Kyle's, and I didn't follow the trial at all.

The outcomes tempt me to an aphorism: all jury decisions are local.

MikeR said...

If Arbery had been black and the defendants white, we all know the results would have been completely different.

Peglegged Picador said...

Gospace said...
"And the streets there will be much safer now."

I'm not sure whether you're intending sarcasm here, if you don't believe this though, I'd recommend having a conversation with a black friendcwho enjoys running.

Freder Frederson said...

How can McMichael be guilty of "Malice murder" when Arbery attacked him, punched him, and tried to take the gun away?

Because they chased him down, cornered him and attempted to kidnap him. What happened to the concept of self defense you were lauding just the other day?

Althouse can address your other questions, which pretty much are black letter criminal law.

I'd love to see the racial makeup of the jury and their education level.

Eleven White, one Black, in a jurisdiction 26% Black. As for the education level, not sure, but one of the defense attorneys told the Atlanta Constitution and Journal that the jury pool didn't have enough "Bubbas and Joe Six-Packs" on it.

Roger Sweeny said...

Tulsi Gabbard should be happy.

Wince said...

The video appears to show the decedent run around the right side of the truck before charging at the guy with the gun on the left side of the truck, whereupon he was shot during a struggle over the weapon.

Not sure whose privilege of citizen's arrest and self-defense should have trumped whose under Georgia law at the time.

mccullough said...

You can’t chase and shoot someone who trespassed on someone else’s property. You can only shoot them on your property if they trespassed. You can’t chase them down and shoot them after they left your property.

If Arbery had been able to get the gun from McMichael and shoot him, he’d have a good case of self defense.

Neither citizens nor the police can shoot a fleeing trespasser (or burglar).

A police officer who chased Arbery and then shot him after Arbery went for his gun would not be charged.

McMichael was not a police officer.

Georgia is free to change its laws of defense of others’ property to permit citizens to chase and shoot those who they witness trespassing and/or burglarizing.

Until then, the defendants are out of luck.

Freder Frederson said...

The USA is getting more insane.

And why is that? Because occasionally you can't lynch a Black man (and make no mistake, this was a lynching) and get away with it? You must miss the good old days.

Joe Smith said...

Not sure about all of the weird sub-counts (having been a jury foreman, I think prosecutors go crazy with most of these), but you shouldn't be able to chase someone down and shoot them just because they 'might' be a burglar.

Take their picture (maybe) and call the cops.

Then go home and have a beer...

M said...


Blogger Lem said...
Inexplicably word is from news accounts, authorities are expecting violence. I have my excuse to go home early.

Whenever you maliciously prosecute people for trying to protect their own neighborhood from criminals you can expect more criminality. They should AT MOST have gotten manslaughter. Instead they threw the book at them. They don’t go after willful murderers like this. Georgia will be less safe from now on. We were thinking of moving there because they have some very fine old homes for half the price of our current state but I won’t move from a red state to a brown shirt state.

tim maguire said...

I haven't followed this case that closely, mostly because it's not that interesting. Three men decided to attack a black man who was checking out a construction site (a normal activity to anybody who's ever swung a hammer) and at the end of the attack, he was dead. Pretty straightforward. Some type of murder conviction is in order.

JPS said...

rcocean,

"How can the men who didn't shoot anyone be guilty of murder?"

Isn't that one of the definitions of felony murder? You didn't pull the trigger, but you were in on it?

"How can McMichael be guilty of "Malice murder" when Arbery attacked him, punched him, and tried to take the gun away?"

Applying my Reasonable Man standard, in which I am the very definition of the Reasonable Man, if three guys with guns chase me down and corner me, I might just decide I'm dead anyway and I may as well go down fighting. Attack into an ambush, as I'm trained.

If by some miracle I manage to grab the gun, and I have to shoot one of the bastards, not only am I claiming self-defense, I'm claiming it sincerely and in good faith.

gadfly said...

Even a defense attorney admitted that Arbery was obviously not armed and that his only likely weapon was his exposed, unkempt and dirty toenails.

"Turning Ahmaud Arbery into a victim after the choices that he made does not reflect the reality of what brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores in his khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails," Laura Hogue, one of Gregory McMichael's lawyers told jurors.

Balfegor said...

Re: Narr:

This case was much murkier to me than Kenosha Kyle's, and I didn't follow the trial at all.

I didn't follow the trial closely either, but unless reporting from the incident and the trial itself was made up of nothing but lies (a possibility, to be sure, given the constant stream of falsehoods in the reporting on the Rittenhouse incident and trial), this didn't strike me as murky at all.

If it's a matter of self defense, basically, you can't claim self defense if you initiated the confrontation, unless you take steps to disengage. Here, Arbery tried to disengage by running away, and the defendants chased him down in a truck and threatened him with a gun. Those aren't particularly helpful facts if you're trying to argue self defense.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

I wasn't paying attention to this case until recently.
So I'm not an expert at all.

My opinion is that this is the correct verdict.
The man was not a real threat. I heard a snip of the defense atty - and I thought she was gross. Describing Arbery with his dirty feet. Ugh - that sounds racist to me.

so - 2 correct verdicts this week.

ga6 said...

Speaking for all SAs (Swedish-Americans)I can truthfully say none of us will be going to Georgia to re-enact Sherman's march.

rcocean said...

Because they chased him down, cornered him and attempted to kidnap him. What happened to the concept of self defense you were lauding just the other day?

They didn't do any of that. They tried to make a citizen's arrest. And Arbery could have ran away, he's wasn't "cornered". He had escape routes. That's been pointed out to you before. Why do Libtards just lie instead of arguing the truth? And no I'm NOT interested in debating what the words "Kidnaping" or "Cornered" mean.

0_0 said...

One is definitely guilty of murder, which makes all three guilty of murder. That makes sense.

I don't get the multiple counts of murder for each, though.

ga6 said...

Meanwhile in Chicago:
Chicago shooting kills mom steps from memorial for 14-year-old son killed in Roseland over weekend
https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shooting-roseland-delisa-tucker-kevin-tinker/11267789/

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

Ahmaud Arbery case: Three armed men chase down an unarmed man and kill him. The unarmed man attempts to wrest the gun away and fails. The three men are convicted of murder.

Kyle Rittenhouse case: Three men chase down an armed kid and attempt to murder the kid. Two of them end up dead and the third wounded. A fourth man attempts a flying kick and misses and the armed kid attempts to shoot him and misses. The kid is acquitted of murder.

Even Al Sharpton should be able to understand the difference in the verdict here. But, Al won't because he's more invested in stirring up rioters (Freddie's Fashion Mart and Crown Heights Brooklyn) and smearing the innocent (Tawana Brawley hoax).

Freder Frederson said...

They tried to make a citizen's arrest.

Under Georgia law they had no right to make a citizens' arrest. They did not witness him committing any crime, which is required for a citizens' arrest in Georgia. He looked like someone who was seen on a surveillance video trespassing on a building site.

And Arbery could have ran away,

So they could shoot him in the back? Besides, I thought you guys were all about "stand your ground".

Michael K said...

The defendants were screwed by the Rittenhouse verdict. This jury came back with a verdict of guilty in an hour. The third defendant had almost nothing to do with the death of Arbury. The best choice for Arbury was to wait for the cops who would realize he was an innocent "jogger" with long toenails. Instead, he tried to take the shotgun away.

Mattman26 said...

MikeR, I see what you did there. Cute.

kjbe said...

Without the video and his parents, this would have not gone to trail. If video evidence and community advocacy are required, what does this say about our legal system for finding justice?

Howard said...

Praise Jesus. Lynching is officially illegal in Georgia.

I'm Not Sure said...

"what does this say about our legal system for finding justice?"

You misspelled "equity".

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Have not seen video of this, nor gone digging for details, but based on the information circulating, but verdict is arguably a bit harsh but within the range I would expect.

Balfegor said...

Re: rcocean:

And Arbery could have ran away, he's wasn't "cornered". He had escape routes.

Would a reasonable person have considered those escape routes viable given that they'd literally just chased him down in a truck? Was he going to be able to outrun a truck after failing to do so just then?

And besides, it wasn't on him to disengage at that point. He'd already tried to do so (by running away), and failed. The defendants escalated in response to his attempt to disengage, so it's a real stretch to claim self-defense at that point just because he fought back. You don't get self-defense for a conflict you initiated.

Wa St Blogger said...

It's amazing how some one who says he did not follow the case then render an opinion on the case that gets pertinent facts wrong.

Even more amazing is how some people get the facts wrong even after being told the facts. I am sure they did not actually look at the facts in the case, just the information provided to them by the media. The media does not swear on a Bible to tell the truth.

I think this case was wrongly decided. A lot had to do with the ambiguity in the citizen's arrest law. The Prosecutor did a great job waiting until after the Defense could offer a rebuttal to completely mislead the jury on the law. The Judge allowed it. Appeal is likely.

The McMasters should not have pulled out the shotgun, it was an escalation that should not have occurred and thus Travis and his Dad should pay a price for that. Not sure 1st degree murder is the right call. Bryan got screwed. He was not a party to the shooting and should get assault at most. None of it should be aggravated.

Balfegor said...

Re: Michael K:

This jury came back with a verdict of guilty in an hour.

Where are you seeing that?

"The verdict, delivered by nine White men, two White women and one Black man, came after more than 11 hours of deliberation spanning two days."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/24/us/ahmaud-arbery-killing-trial-wednesday-jury-deliberations/index.html

Maynard said...

What I this world coming to?

I completely agree with Freder's comments at 3:01.

Of course, I am assuming that these facts were brought out at trial, and not just the media.

guitar joe said...

I read comments from some of the posters here and wonder exactly what circumstances would lead them to think it's not OK to shoot a black guy.

Temujin said...

I'm not sure what to make of this except that guys who thought they could just stop and shoot a black man because of suspicion of doing something were correctly found guilty. This did not seem to have much nuance to it.

I just wonder if we'll see fewer or more group shopping outings in San Francisco, Chicago, and other areas with Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, Gucci, and Louis Vuitton stores. I'm not sure the demand for discounted Vuitton handbags has dropped any due to the verdict in this case.

Likewise, I wonder if we'll see a drop in the number of people shot in Chicago this week due to an overall feeling of goodness from the verdict.

I'm thinking not.

rhhardin said...

It looks like another show trial to me. The point of having a show trial is to have a show trial. Georgia law apparently allowed citizens' arrest at the time, so there was no prior illegality to damage a self-defense claim. It should be overturned on appeal for faulty instructions.

I wonder if the neighborhood robberies stopped. It could be a coincidence of course.

Rabel said...

When you go full retard, as the McMichaels did, you should have to face the consequences of your actions.

They will, with a life sentence. That's a little heavy, all things considered, but despite the overcharging they deserved a conviction.

traditionalguy said...

The reason the Jury will convict men who say that they did not do the charges is the Jury does not believe them.

Don’t doubt that Juries are empowered with a higher wisdom to reach true verdicts. They need a good trial lawyer to assist them. But they find the truth themselves

CWJ said...

I watched the verdict reading on NBC. Immediately thereafter, they threw it to the talking heads. One, I think a law Prof, tried to equate this trial with that of the Rittenhouse trial, and then strongly suggest that Rittenhouse's acquittal was due to the greater amount of money raised for his defence.

The situations were no where near equivalent, but suggesting so was necessary for him to ignore the differences and evidence, and go straight to undermining Kyle's acquittal. Lazy and disgusting.

Rosalyn C. said...

I am wondering why the Rittenhouse case was publicized so much more than this case. My guess is that the Left was more motivated to see someone who had opposed the BLM riots and is white found guilty.

The Arbery case outcome was more obvious imo and therefore if I am being cynical the Left leaning media did not want to promote the narrative that sometimes justice is done for Black people. From what I am seeing reported in the Left media Blacks including Sharpton were assuming the worst outcome and the guilty verdicts were very emotional. How much Sharpton manipulated them or they were acting from bad past experience I don't know. I notice that Biden felt it was necessary to scold us as a nation that we still have not achieved racial justice. Thanks, Joe, for proving my point.

Chris Lopes said...

"So they could shoot him in the back? Besides, I thought you guys were all about "stand your ground"."

Stand your ground usually applies when you are in your own residence. The getting shot in the back thing though is perfectly correct. They were threatening his life. He was trying to save his life. As others have suggested, if he'd succeeded, a very good case for self defense could have been made.

These clowns were not cops and had no right to chase and "detain" him. They also had no right to point a gun at him, as he wasn't a threat. He grabbed the gun so it wouldn't be used against his, a reasonable thing to do.

ndspinelli said...

Having worked many criminal cases as an investigator, from both sides, I think, like the Cheese woman,that both juries got it right.

Tom T. said...

The jury was eleven white people and one black, same as in the Rittenhouse case. They deliberated for ten hours.

If I understand the charges right, malice murder goes to actual participation in the killing. Only the shooter was convicted on this charge.

There were four lesser charges of aggravated assault (with a vehicle), aggravated assault with a firearm, false imprisonment, and attempted false imprisonment. The shooter and his father were each convicted of all four of these. I'm not sure how the father got convicted on the firearm charge. The neighbor was not guilty on the firearm charge but guilty of the other three, because he helped box Arbery in with his truck.

There were four felony murder charges, one for homicide in the course of committing each of the felonies comprising the four lesser charges. Since the shooter and his father were convicted of all four of those charges, they were convicted of all four felony murder charges too. The neighbor was not guilty of felony murder in connection with the firearm charge, but guilty on the other felony murder charges.

Since the felony murder counts all involved the same death, I would expect that the sentences on those counts would run concurrently, but I don't know that for sure.

They had no legal basis to make a citizens arrest, because they admitted that they did not witness any crime. They just thought that he might be the guy who committed some recent break-ins.

Freder Frederson said...

This jury came back with a verdict of guilty in an hour

I guess being off by a factor of ten is a reasonably minor lie by Michael K.

Freder Frederson said...

Whenever you maliciously prosecute people for trying to protect their own neighborhood from criminals you can expect more criminality.

And what crime did arbery commit or had even been suspected of?

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Again- The Rittenhosue case and this case - the verdicts are appropriate.

thomastheglassexpert said...

I am so right wing I have left the ballpark yet I see multiple crimes from these TWO men not the 3rd. The black fellow had no weapon of any kind except his fists, had no tools/paraphernalia for burglar, and was running away from crazy white men. They should have let him go but no and now look where they are tonight. And for a LONG dang time. Vigilante Justice is a very tricky deal and sometimes it will turn around and bite you.

Hey Skipper said...

I didn't think I'd ever agree with Freder Frederson, but he is on the money here.

Listen to the latest McCarthy Report podcast. He spends an hour going through the case, and clearly explains why these three knuckleheads had blown any possibility of self defense. And, in contrast, how Rittenhouse was clearly a case of self-defense.

And race has nothing to do with it.

jebbbz said...

Over at Legal Insurrection (legalinsurrection.com) there is coverage and analysis of this case, mostly by Andrew Branca. The applicable law at the time was, he said, somewhat ambiguous and not clarified by the judge:

"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 question is whether the first sentence applies to all suspected crimes rather than just lesser misdemeanors committed in the presence of the citizen or whether the second sentence would treat felonies differently. See his discussion at:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/arbery-case-trial-judge-walmsley-drops-the-ball-on-ambiguous-citizens-arrest-law/

As to the comment on Arbery's toenails, that was addressed to the claim that he was simply a jogger. He had, however, apparently been captured on security camera footage at night in the house under construction several times and there had been thefts form that site .

It is a bit more complicated than the mainstream press made out.

gspencer said...

As Algonquin J. Calhoun once put, "They'll send you away for your natural life. Or even longer,"

at 13:54,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lktF0V_4Xgw


BUMBLE BEE said...

The reference to the long toenails and dirty feet was a direct assault on the "jogger" theory of explaining Aubrey's presence. How many of the runners on this blog ignore their toenails and the foot hygiene described by the defense. Do you have, "ew gross!", feet?

Narr said...

Thanks Balfegor.

Like I said, the Arbury case didn't have my attention at all after the first few reports.

NBC News--which was on when I walked through the room--was reporting with wonderment that three W/white men had been convicted of murdering a B/black man by A Nearly All-White Jury In The Deep South.

As if W/white men haven't been convicted of crimes against B/blacks, in The Deep South, for quite a term now.

For some people it's always 1957, as they say.

rcocean said...

I'm not sure what to make of this except that guys who thought they could just stop and shoot a black man because of suspicion of doing something were correctly found guilty. This did not seem to have much nuance to it.

What the fuck! That's not what happened at all. Don't you dumbshits ever get it right? They didn't "Shoot a man". "They" at least two them didn't do anything.

Arbery instead of running away, ran around the truck, and attacked a man with a shotgun. SHould the old guy with a shotgun have been there? Maybe not. But that doesn't excuse Arbery from attacking him, punching him, and trying to get the shotgun away. You don't get to attack a man with a gun, and try to take his gun away.

That's not "Malice Murder". That's not even "Murder" period. Does anyone in the USA actually think?

Ahouse Comments said...

Aubrey had no business being in the area and by being there brought on everything that happened to him.

Just like Kyle Rittenhouse deserved to be beaten, possibly to death, for being somewhere he did not belong.

Right, Crack?

Right, Howard?

Right, others?

Yeah, BULLSHIT.

It is a free country and Aubry had every right to be where he was. As does every other American have the right to be in any public space.

As for him wandering around a construction site, it was open, he did not climb any fence or break any gate to do this. He took or injured nothing. Just looking, by all accounts.

How many guys here can say they have never once passed a construction site, open like this one, without taking a peek inside? I suspect that it is in our DNA.

I know I am guilty as Hell. Even today, when a new home goes up in my neighborhood, I'll wander inside and see what they are up to.

So, technically, perhaps, trespassing in the construction. But I'll give him a pass on that. He's American, he's male. Extenuating circumstances.

John Henry

gadfly said...

Mike of Snoqualmie said...
Kyle Rittenhouse case: Three men chase down an armed kid and attempt to murder the kid. Two of them end up dead and the third wounded. A fourth man attempts a flying kick and misses and the armed kid attempts to shoot him and misses. The kid is acquitted of murder.

Nobody attempted to murder the kid. As I see it:

In Kenosha, 15 gun shots were aimed with intent to kill. A white police officer shot Jacob Blake 7 times in the back leaving Blake partially paralyzed.

Later 17-year-old vigilante Kyle Rittenhouse carrying an AR-15 type semiautomatic rifle that he obtained illegally, pulled the trigger 8 times within 1 minute and 20 seconds, shooting and killing an unarmed man (just released from a hospital after he attempted suicide), Joseph Rosenbaum, hitting him four times with a kill shot in the back of the victim. Then Rittenhouse shot and killed Anthony Huber, firing once hitting him in the chest when Huber attempted to stop the vigilante by striking Rittenhouse with a skateboard. And then there was the unidentified black man who knocked Kyle down with a kick maneuver but miraculously escaped unscathed as the kid missed twice from point-blank range. Finally Rittenhouse wounded paramedic Gaige Grosskreutz (who was carrying a glock he never fired but could have from a safe distance) destroying the man's right bicep.

Kyle "The Fuck" Rittenhouse is mentally immature and downright slow, having abandoned school after the 9th grade (which must be OK with his separated parents). He was playing cop in Kenosha when the real world descended, bringing panic. Even if he had only been ruled not guilty by reason of mental difficulties, he will need future help and The Donald and his "boys" are egging the kid on. What we might have here is George Zimmerman II - making confrontations an exciting way of life.

Michael K said...

And what crime did arbery commit or had even been suspected of?

He was seen on home security videos. He was a burglar.

gadfly said...

BUMBLE BEE said...
The reference to the long toenails and dirty feet was a direct assault on the "jogger" theory of explaining Aubrey's presence. How many of the runners on this blog ignore their toenails and the foot hygiene described by the defense. Do you have, "ew gross!", feet?

So Bumble bumbles the righteous thought that anyone with dirty feet should be run down and shot! Even if dirty, untrimmed toenails are not against the law.

effinayright said...

rcocean said...
Because they chased him down, cornered him and attempted to kidnap him. What happened to the concept of self defense you were lauding just the other day?
**********************

"They didn't do any of that. They tried to make a citizen's arrest."

>>> Based on what crime he had committed in their presence? You can't "arrest" someone based simply on suspicion. That was their big mistake, right there.

"And Arbery could have (sic) ran away, he's wasn't "cornered". He had escape routes."

>>> How do you escape a shotgun blast by running away?

That's been pointed out to you before. Why do Libtards just lie instead of arguing the truth?

>>>When you make unwarranted assumptions, you can expect to be challenged. WHO told you WHAT "lies"?

And no I'm NOT interested in debating what the words "Kidnaping" or "Cornered" mean.

>>>>There's yer problem, right there...

guitar joe said...


Andrew McCarthy: "America is not Twitter. It's not our elite editorial pages. It's not the mobs who distort real-life heartache into demagogic messages. It is 12 decent, commonsense Americans who take their oath seriously and do justice. As they did today."

He also supported the Rittenhouse verdict. Guess he's not a conservative anymore. Or, were the circumstances different, leading to the different results?

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

gadfly - "As Gadfly sees it"
You delude yourself with half-truths and lies. You do not understand reality.

Fact:
A convicted child rapist called Joseph Rosenbaum was released from a mental hospital, then went directly to join the mob that was burning downtown Kenosha. Once he got to the riot, Rosenbaum saw Kyle Rittenhouse and immediately threatened to kill him. Rosenbaum then chased Rittenhouse and tried to pull the gun from his hands. When he did that, Kyle Rittenhouse shot him.

FACT:
At this point, Rittenhouse ran to find police. A mob then chased him down the street, howling for his death. A rioter jumped on Rittenhouse and knocked him to the ground, another smashed him in the face with a skateboard. Yet another drew a loaded gun and pointed it in his face. Kyle Rittenhouse shot the second two men, one of them fatally.

Those are the facts, and there's no way to interpret them, except for what they are. The exercise of self-defense. Kyle Rittenhouse shot people so he would not be killed.

CNN and MSNBC - they LIE and if you feed your brain those lies, what does that say about you and your character?


More news Gadfly will refuse to let sink in:
Why We’ve Decided to Tell You the Criminal Records of the Men Shot in Kenosha

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Rioters and looters and arsonists have rights! They get to torch your business or police station - they are righteously angry at what they saw on MSNBC!

Got that?!

Leland said...

Nobody attempted to murder the kid.

Well Rosenbaum said he would kill Rittenhouse, then said f’you and grabbed the gun. That was testimony from a prosecution witness. That happened we’ll before Grosskruetz aimed his loaded Glock at Rittenhouse with intent to kill, which is also testimony from a prosecution witness. Somewhere in between, Rittenhouse dispatched a guy that attempted to cranium him with a skate board, that was visible in the prosecution’s video evidence.

Rt41Rebel said...

The Rittenhouse case and the Arbery case are the exact same situation with different endings. A man who "doesn't belong" is assailed by three armed men "looking for justice."

It's amazing to me that two groups of 12 average Americans who don't know each other and are in two different parts of the country decided with consistency what was fair and just. I sure wouldn't trust our government to be able to do that.

Rhetorical questions:

What if Rittenhouse were killed? Would Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz be charged with murder? Would they be convicted?

What if Arbery had killed McMichael, McMichael, and wounded Bryan? Would Arbery be charged with murder? Would he be exonerated?

Drago said...

Gadfly is experiencing a full psychotic break from reality.

Astonishing to observe in real time.

Narr said...

Gadfly's argument about the pacific nature of Grosskreutz's pistol-pointing backfires!

If KR had intended to wreak mayhem, he could have let fly with a few dozen rounds before anyone else knew what was going on, any number of times in that chaos. His weapon was far more likely to hit and kill at ranges beyond whatever Grosskreutz was playing with, but KR had (unless I'm shown differently) good trigger discipline when he did shoot.

It will be interesting to get a full timeline and sequence of all the fire and movement that night.

Mark said...

I wasn't on the jury, I didn't see the trial, I don't know what evidence was presented at trial. But based upon what every commenter's description of what happened, more and more these defendants sound like some quasi-lynchers in their conduct.

Gahrie said...

Aubrey had no business being in the area and by being there brought on everything that happened to him.

The fact is, Aubrey was a thief. He was there to steal as he had done in the past.

He shouldn't have been killed over it, his death was a crime.

Invariably these incidents are caused by Black criminals refusing to comply with attempts to arrest them. These criminals are treated as heroes by the Left, and thus encourage more Black criminals to resist arrest and risk getting shot.

jg said...

It's easy to suspect a politically motivated verdict, but in any case the defense wasn't effective enough (jury selection?)
I believe the deceased was a career burglar with a known M.O; you can try to apprehend one yourself but it's clearly at great physical+legal risk as apparently it easily becomes a stage on which the public can play out some racial drama.

Drago said...

With gadfly's latest lunacy, we are witnessing a lefty panic that all their lies regarding Rittenhouse actually did occur with Brooks, but in reverse, and the more sophisticated lefty liars are going with the "Pretend Hunter Biden's Laptop Never Existed" strategem while the dumbest of the dumb lefties, like gadfly, are going with the Increase The Smoke Thru Double-Downed On Lies gambit.

Further, Brooks is the Charlottesville Death by Car scenario x 100 and thus obfuscation is the order of the day.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Ahmaud Arbery Case Highlights Problem of Insider Favoritism in Law Enforcement

Interesting. All insider corruption needs to be flushed from our system.


Left Bank of the Charles said...


The citizens arrest defense might be the worst possible defense to a charge of murder, because it admits the intentionality of your actions.

“Bryan got screwed. He was not a party to the shooting and should get assault at most. None of it should be aggravated.”

“You know how it works, Jake, you ride with an outlaw, you die with an outlaw. I’m sorry you crossed the line.” -Gus McCrae, Lonesome Dove.

Chris Lopes said...

"The reference to the long toenails and dirty feet was a direct assault on the "jogger" theory of explaining Aubrey's presence."

It doesn't matter why he was there. He wasn't committing a crime when he was confronted. They had no right to "detain" him or point guns at him. Had he managed to get the gun and shoot them, it would have been self defense.

Mark said...

They had no right to "detain" him or point guns at him.

And even if the defendants did have some "right" or "privilege" to gleefully take it upon themselves to try to "arrest" this guy, Aubrey -- like ANY OF US -- had absolutely NO obligation to comply with their demands and submit. If there is any self-defense in this case, it was Aubrey who had that right.

If you don't have a badge and you take the law into your own hands, you do so at your own peril.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Chris Lopes - 9:02.
Thank you. That's my take on it as well.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Rt41...
Rhetorical questions:

What if Rittenhouse were killed? Would Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz be charged with murder? Would they be convicted?



NO. No charges. They'd been released in no time at all. They would all be held up as heroes with massive leftwing GoFundMe Money pouring in.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

btw - Do NOT support or use GoFundMe.

EVER. They are corrupt leftists and they suck. They allowed money to pour in for the horrible rage-filled lunatic terrorist who plowed into innocents in Waukesha. (probably pushed over the edge by Joe Biden's words)

---***The latest death by the Waukesha terrorist is an 8 year old boy.

The left are horrible horrible people.

Robert Cook said...

"I don't get the multiple counts of murder for each, though."

This may have been answered up above, but it is expensive to mount a prosecution, and obtaining a conviction is uncertain. Prosecutors like to pile multiple charges on a defendant to increase the cumulative punishment. This is done as a means to pressure the defendant to plead guilty to at least one or two of the charges in exchange for a "lesser" sentence--e.g., 30 years to life in a murder case with a chance for parole, say--rather than risk being convicted of all of the charges, which would guarantee a much heavier sentence--e.g., guaranteed life with no chance for parole, or even execution.

Robert Cook said...

It appears Can of Cheese for Hunter has had a bit too much holiday cheer, too early.

I'm Not Sure said...

If people trusted the police to do the job they were supposedly hired to do, neither of these situations would have escalated to the points they did.

Just sayin'.

Drago said...

The performance of the judge in this case has been called into question regarding whether or not he (the judge) allowed the jyry members themselves make a determination of law as opposed to a determination of just the facts of the case.

This 5 min clip from Andrew Branca of Law Of Self Defense explains this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vVBPZXzTSwU

I'd be interested to hear from legal types at Althouse what they think of Branca's take on the judges actions.

Wa St Blogger said...

“You know how it works, Jake, you ride with an outlaw, you die with an outlaw. I’m sorry you crossed the line.” -Gus McCrae, Lonesome Dove.

I would bet money that the Left Bank of the Charles is only saying this because the subject is a white hick from Georgia. If a black man from Chicago was convicted fore being in a group of others who commit a crime he would be the first to lament the racist system that convicted an innocent man.

I have always been uncomfortable with the birds of a feather prosecution. If someone is part of a group that he has no expectation is going to commit a killing and has no intention to be a party of that killing, and is not himself engaged in a crime that is a proximate cause for the killing, then I think he should be judged on intent. Motive is supposed to be a part of the criminal process.

I disagree with the Jury's assessment of the underlying felonies in the case, and thus I disagree with the conviction of Bryan on felony murder. He got caught up in events out of his control and should be judged based on his personal involvement, not on the actions of other people. That is what justice is about.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Robert Cook - I do not drink.
I also do not include you in my over-all disdain of most people who reside on the far left. You're more of an old fashioned liberal.

Narayanan said...

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...
Ahmaud Arbery Case Highlights Problem of Insider Favoritism in Law Enforcement

Interesting. All insider corruption needs to be flushed from our system.
------------
is not USA one big Insider Favoritism according to CRT?

Narayanan said...

They tried to make a citizen's arrest.
------------
I thought this was Andy Griffith Mayberry Gomer Pyle Barnie joke - not a real legal concept theory or procedure.

so what happens after you make an arrest ? citizen lock-up; citizen judge; citizen sentencing etc >>>> aka lynching.

did McMicheael call THE COPS/911 at any point?

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...


Narayanan
There's all types of insider favoritism, sure.
Financial: (see Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, FBI insiders)
Legal: Anyone getting a wink and a nod from a biased judge or prosecutor - btw -that goes in many directions.
CRT - is race-based favoritism?
CRT teaches young people that they are defined by their race and the color of their skin. It teaches that only whites can get ahead and therefore they are bad people.

Mark said...

By the way -- A jury is a society. A society separate and distinct from the court and from the State, and the purpose of which is to provide a check against same. The prosecutor does NOT represent "the people." The prosecutor represents the Government. The jury stands in for the People.

Jim at said...

Nobody attempted to murder the kid.

You might want to shut up on this subject and wait for another.
Because you're all out of stupid on this one.