"... when they cut him off in pickup trucks and threatened him with guns in a Georgia neighborhood on Feb. 23, 2020.
The government presented evidence from 20 witnesses, many of whom testified about racially derogatory text messages, social media posts and remarks from the three men in which they disparaged Black people. 'All three defendants told you loud and clear, in their own words, how they feel about African Americans,' prosecutor Tara Lyons told the jury, made up of eight White people, three Black people and one Hispanic person. 'Yes, race, racism, racial discrimination — those can all be very difficult topics to discuss. But the facts of this case are not difficult.'... The McMichaels and Bryan were convicted on state murder charges in November 2021 after a trial in which prosecutors did not make race a central focus of their case....
Under sentencing guidelines, in the absence of a plea deal, the men are expected to serve their sentences in state prison...."
From "Killers of Ahmaud Arbery found guilty of federal hate-crimes charges" (WaPo). There was no plea deal because the Arbery family objected to it.
पोस्ट्स
९० टिप्पण्या:
So, when is their next trial scheduled?
Aren't they already doing life in prison? What was the purpose of this trial?
JK, trick question!
Like Mussolini, Democrats know how to run a railroad.
Thoughtcrime - flat-out. In America. Shameful.
Somewhere, George Orwell is sighing.
Dont defend your property, not even in the hamhanded way therein lies the lesson
Hate self defense.
This is how you build a low trust society.
The Aristocracy have their policies of racial division and the people that are helping them do this are just shitty people.
So, is this how they're going after all the black attackers of Asians?
... they erroneously viewed Arbery, 25, as a potential criminal...
He was a potential criminal. Furthermore, he was a criminal.
Seven Facts the Jury Will (Probably) Never Hear
1. ARBERY WAS A CONVICTED THIEF
2. ARBERY WAS CONVICTED FELON, SENTENCED TO 5 YEARS FOR UNLAWFUL GUN POSSESSION AT A SCHOOL
3. ARBERY WAS ON FELONY PROBATION ON THE DATE HE DIED
4. ARBERY WAS HIGH WHEN HE CHARGED TRAVIS MCMICHAEL AND FOUGHT FOR SHOTGUN
5. ARBERY WAS LITERALLY “OFF HIS MEDS” WHEN HE CHARGED TRAVIS MCMICHAEL
6. ARBERY FREQUENTLY USED “JOGGING” AS A COVER TO FACILITATE/EXCUSE THEFT ACTIVITIES
7. ARBERY HAD REPEATEDLY CASED THE 220 SATILLA DRIVE PROPERTY FOR WEEKS PRIOR TO HIS DEATH
Go to the link to read details.
LOL @ "erroneously"
The trial has been like an episode of "Stereotypes on Parade." The guys who were convicted looked like they'd been sent from Central Casting to play stupid-looking rednecks. This morning the local NBC affiliate pre-empted all regular programming to show Arbery's family taking a victory lap and mostly they looked as if they didn't have 100 IQ points among the lot of them. God bless America.
These comments are one of many reasons why people cheer when a right wing anti-vaxer radio host dies of Covid after weeks of suffering on a ventilator without the comfort of family and loved ones. It's also why so many people have zero sympathy for the whining Canadian Protest Trucker Impersonators. Now, according to you people, it's tyranny when a fire team of obese good old boys can't chase down and shoot a negro in cold blood and in broad daylight. This is what Trump was implying when he stated he could murder someone on 5th avenue and you folks would still support him.
"Arbery was on probation at the time of his death."
Howard said...
These comments are one of many reasons why people cheer when a right wing anti-vaxer radio host dies of Covid after weeks of suffering on a ventilator without the comfort of family and loved ones. It's also why so many people have zero sympathy for the whining Canadian Protest Trucker Impersonators. Now, according to you people, it's tyranny when a fire team of obese good old boys can't chase down and shoot a negro in cold blood and in broad daylight. This is what Trump was implying when he stated he could murder someone on 5th avenue and you folks would still support him.
This is how a dishonest person who can't honestly state what they support acts.
Democrats cannot be honest about what they are doing. Howard cannot discuss this case with anything resembling what actually happened. He has to rely on his State Propaganda.
So they have to paint the people they disagree with as Others who they can persecute.
You are just a fascist piece of shit Howard.
I am not a believer in 'hate crime' prosecution.
They should be convicted of murder. If part of their motive was racism then that is fine to bring up in prosecution.
But it's murder. Charge them. Convict them. Sentence them.
The rest is just woke theater...
The fact that he was on probation is irrelevant to the fact these three guys took the law into their own hands.
It also turns out that casually making racist statements catches up with you.
My hunch is that even Althouse commenters would be capable of seeing a hate crime if an unarmed white man were hunted down and murdered by blacks on the suspicion that he seemed suspicious.
“There was no plea deal because the Arbery family objected to it.”
There was a plea deal. The Arbery family objected to it. The judge did not accept it.
First time I've seen a victim's family have that clout.
And I have worked as a victim's advocate and lobbied a dozen bills on the subject of criminal law enforcement and policy.
I have had two DAs contact me and ask me to REMOVE comments from my little-read blog by siblings of people who were murdered because they feared that any anger at all expressed by the families could lead to grounds for appeal. And these were remarkably controlled, non-actionable comments about their love for their lost ones.
One was by a woman whose sister was gunned down with four other women in a beauty salon. Luckily, just targeting and killing five women isn't a hate crime.
I've ben doing this since 1988. And I officially give up, like most of the decent cops I know. We saw the writing on the wall early, and we can't take it any more. If people don't start understanding what law enforcement is versus what happens in a courtroom, and directing their outrage at the real problem -- lefty prosecutors, lefty defense scum, and lefty lawyers, then we are doomed.
“There was no plea deal because the Arbery family objected to it.”
Show trial plus Black Privilege in Demokrat Amerika.
How many victims’ families get to call the shots in real cases prosecuted by real prosecutors, not Garlands marionettes? Who would pay the bills if 80% of criminal cases went to trial because victims wished it so? (About 5% go to trial now.)
If we are not yet put off by lefty Democrat political corruption and double standards, it’s time we looked north.
Is this healing any wounds?
Achilles: Don't waste your time with that troll. He just gets a dopamine jolt every time you respond to his intentionally provocative posts.
Howard: “These comments are one of many reasons why people cheer when a right wing anti-vaxer radio host dies of Covid after weeks of suffering on a ventilator without the comfort of family and loved ones.“
No. These comments express perfectly legitimate points of view protected, so far, from the ruling class and people like you by the First Amendment. People cheer at the excruciating, lonely deaths of others who merely express different views because they are anti-Constitutional assholes and/or pathetic human beings. And you, Howard?
He was a potential criminal. Furthermore, he was a criminal.
And even if all of these things are true, there is zero evidence that the murderers knew any of it. And even if they did, that still would not justify the use of deadly force against Arbery
I'm still trying to understand why the two men who DID NOT shoot Arbery or harm him in any way, are being sentenced to life without parole. THese men went to make a "citizens arrest" and were simply standing there when Arbery and the older man struggled for the gun and it went off. They literally had almost nothing to do with his death.
Further, they did not have a premeditated desire to kill anyone. The old man was attacked by Arbery and the shotgun went off because you don't let someone take a firearm away from you while attacking you.
I guess Justice and common sense just go out the window when it gets in the way of our power elite signally how much they hate "Racism" and love black folks.
The Upper classes are making ti clear they do NOT care about facts, justice, the constitution, etc. They support the Party line, whatever that is, they are in favor of it. If the party line is in favor of justice for the accused or freedom on speech they're for it too. But if the Party line switches the next day, then its "hate 'em high" and "shut up or get your life ruined".
Murder Ashli babbitt, who gives a rip. Arbery dies in a struggle over a gun, then its 100 years in jail, a hate crime, and the worst thing ever.
Feder Federson at 11:28 AM
And even if all of these things are true, there is zero evidence that the murderers knew any of it.
The journalist wrote:
... they erroneously viewed Arbery, 25, as a potential criminal ...
Do you admire that journalism?
Do you think that statement portrays the situation correctly?
It should not, but does amaze me how people adopt a view of a situation and then hold to that view regardless of the actual facts because those facts do not support the narrative they understand.
Arbery was not shot in cold blood. He was shot due to attacking a person who held a gun.
Our laws allow people to be charged with murder if, during the commission of a crime an individual dies. The three defendants chased down a person they thought was suspicious and were stupid enough to pull out a gun. Because they were believed to be acting outside the legal parameters for citizens arrest, the subsequent killing of Arbery resulted in a murder conviction, that is how the law is written.
This is bullshit. The federal Civil Rights laws of the 1890s or so were intended to make up for the fact that no one at the state level would take any action in response to Klan-like violence and murder. The feds had to do it. Even in the Rodney King case the rationale for going federal was thin, and this case is bullshit. The killers were tried and convicted at the state level. The feds are scalp-hunting for the woke.
... they erroneously viewed Arbery, 25, as a potential criminal ...
Do you admire that journalism?
Do you think that statement portrays the situation correctly?. they erroneously viewed Arbery, 25, as a potential criminal ...
Unless you have the least shred of evidence that they knew anything about his history (and you don't), then that is perfectly accurate. Heck, even the building site they claimed he trespassed on, had not had anything stolen from it.
I'm still trying to understand why the two men who DID NOT shoot Arbery or harm him in any way, are being sentenced to life without parole.
You need to brush up on Felony Murder (
"Thoughtcrime - flat-out. In America. Shameful."
I'm not a supporter of "hate crimes" laws, but this isn't a case of thought crime. These men allowed their prejudice to direct their actions and ended up killing a man. Is the Federal prosecution excessive, probably as they were already convicted of murder and doing life in prison. Considering what they did though, don't ask me to call them martyrs.
Freder Frederson at 11:58 AM
Unless you have the least shred of evidence that they knew anything about his history (and you don't), then that is perfectly accurate.
Please comment on the journalist's use of the word erroneously in the journalist's article.
The journalist indicates that it was erroneous to think that Arbery was a potential criminal.
In fact, Arbery was a criminal.
The journalist should have written that Arbery indeed was a criminal, but that the other men did not know that fact for sure.
"The journalist indicates that it was erroneous to think that Arbery was a potential criminal.
In fact, Arbery was a criminal."
It turns out the three white guys that chased him down were too.
The big difference is that Arbery was not doing anything criminal by going for a run, while the 3 defendents were engaging in criminal behavior at that very moment.
Circumstance, pursue, withdraw, attacked by Arbery while retreating, self-defense or self-abortion during the struggle. There is no evidence that diversity, let alone rabid, was a motive for the pursuit. This was not a "Capitol Hill Hero" who aborted a "burden" in a prone position, in cold blood, while retreating in a closed space from a police forced riot ("disorder").
Show trial plus Black Privilege in Demokrat Amerika.
This is not people of black privilege, who are suffering disparate outcomes in their tribal conflicts. This is leverage wherever they can manufacture it a la Fentanyl-induced progressive condition socially justifying nationwide insurrections. This is people of elite privilege a la Mandela's Zhosa vs Zulu requiring an apartheid regime to mitigate their progress, then an international community aborting the native population, establishing systemic diversity, and engaging in redistributive change with "benefits" for #ThemToo. Also Kenya's elite vs deplorables, etc. It's the new old color order, which has been, and is observed in every population at one time or another, and sustains humanity in darkness.
"And even if all of these things are true, there is zero evidence that the murderers knew any of it. And even if they did, that still would not justify the use of deadly force against Arbery."
Correct. What justified the use of deadly force against Arbery was his trying to take the shotgun away from the man who shot him. It is certainly possible to argue that the man should not have been holding the shotgun, but I think even Arbery would agree, if he were available to opine, that it was not a good idea to try to take it away from him.
But let's be clear what is at stake. During the Rittenhouse attempted railroading, everyone was careful to piously affirm that "lives are more important than property". And that is the hill the Left is currently crucifying us on. Once you agree that Dindu has a right to steal your property, and your only recourse is a futile appeal to a Soros prosecutor, you have essentially ceded ALL of your rights. Why are you still standing on Dindu's property? Move your ass!
One has to appreciate the sheer genius of the Leftists, in choosing Dindu as the ostensible object of their supposed solicitude. They must have realized that some depraved fraction of the "Black Community" can always be counted on to cross any line that anyone draws. Therefore, anyone who is not wholly subservient to the Left, in every aspect of his life (and death, when and where required), will be forced to reveal his "racism", after which the Left can administer his well-deserved punishment.
You need to brush up on Felony Murder
I'm not talking about conviction. I'm talkng about the Sentence and justice. I mean, I know libtards just want their enemies destroyed and their friends to be left off easy, but I'm not a libtard.
And by the way;
"...when they cut him off in pickup trucks and threatened him with guns in a Georgia neighborhood on Feb. 23, 2020."
I have seen the video. They did not cut him off in pickup trucks, and they did not threaten him with guns. But hey, WaPo got the when and where right. They're not disoriented. They're just lying liars who always lie.
As it turns out there’s already a word for when white vigilantes murder a black man for the crime of being suspicious: Lynching.
"11:58 AM
Unless you have the least shred of evidence that they knew anything about his history (and you don't), then that is perfectly accurate.
Please comment on the journalist's use of the word erroneously in the journalist's article."
The journalist is operating from the same incorrect assumption the defendants were. Even if they had known about the victim's criminal record (they thought they knew based on the victim's race), they had no right to stop him and demand anything. They were law enforcement officers and didn't identify themselves as that. They were 3 guys with guns who could have just as easily been trying to rob the victim. Or they could have been 3 racist assholes who just wanted to kill a black guy. The victim's status as a criminal doesn't enter into the matter.
"Thoughtcrime - flat-out. In America. Shameful."
Chasing down and killing a man is not thought crime. They were not convicted because of their language or beliefs about black people; they were convicted for murdering a man, and the evidence regarding the murderers' feelings about black people provided a context for their frame of mind when they set out after Arbery.
"They were 3 guys with guns who could have just as easily been trying to rob the victim."
Yeah, it happens a lot. White guys in vehicles stop some black jogger and steal his running boots. "Bootjacking", it's called.
>Chris Lopes said...
"Thoughtcrime - flat-out. In America. Shameful."
I'm not a supporter of "hate crimes" laws, but this isn't a case of thought crime. These men allowed their prejudice to direct their actions and ended up killing a man.>
Of course it is a thought crime - and thank you for confirming that with your supposed rebuttal. Prejudice resides in our minds as, guess what...thoughts! They were already convicted for killing a man. In the second case they were convicted for what they were (prejudiced) thinking about the man as they killed him.
>Is the Federal prosecution excessive, probably as they were already convicted of murder and doing life in prison. Considering what they did though, don't ask me to call them martyrs.<
No one asked you to call them martyrs. (I was all for the conviction of the shooter for killing the guy, btw - although not for the other two convictions.)
But shouldn't Arbery have let them take his jogging boots? No one deserves to lose his life over mere property.
"He was a potential criminal. Furthermore, he was a criminal.
Seven Facts the Jury Will (Probably) Never Hear
1. ARBERY WAS A CONVICTED THIEF
2. ARBERY WAS CONVICTED FELON, SENTENCED TO 5 YEARS FOR UNLAWFUL GUN POSSESSION AT A SCHOOL
3. ARBERY WAS ON FELONY PROBATION ON THE DATE HE DIED
4. ARBERY WAS HIGH WHEN HE CHARGED TRAVIS MCMICHAEL AND FOUGHT FOR SHOTGUN
5. ARBERY WAS LITERALLY “OFF HIS MEDS” WHEN HE CHARGED TRAVIS MCMICHAEL
6. ARBERY FREQUENTLY USED “JOGGING” AS A COVER TO FACILITATE/EXCUSE THEFT ACTIVITIES
7. ARBERY HAD REPEATEDLY CASED THE 220 SATILLA DRIVE PROPERTY FOR WEEKS PRIOR TO HIS DEATH
Go to the link to read details."
Even assuming for arguments' sake all the information at the links you provide is correct, (I have not looked at them), they did not know any of this at the time they chased down and killed Arbery. If they believed he was a committing a crime, they should have called the police to murder him for them, rather than taking that official state responsibility upon themselves.
Leaving aside, for the moment, whether the defendants were guilty as charged, and whether their actions were motivated by race hatred--
Does anyone seriously believe that Arbury was just out jogging? That he was an exercise enthusiast who just happened to jog off course through a new home under contruction?
The arguments in suport of the verdicts, and the over-the-top prosecution and punishment of the defendants, would be more credible if they recognized the reality of what actually happened, and didn't blow smoke about what an angel the victim was.
Or to put it another way--what do you think Mr. Arbury was doing there that day?
"Arbery was not shot in cold blood. He was shot due to attacking a person who held a gun."
So, he was murdered because he tried to defend himself from being murdered. Yep...all his fault!
"What justified the use of deadly force against Arbery was his trying to take the shotgun away from the man who shot him."
Pointing the gun at Arbery was threatening him with deadly force. His response was an attempt at self defense. He had no idea who these guys were, but he knew (because they hadn't identified themselves as such) they weren't cops. For all he knew, they were about to put him in the trunk of a car, drive him out to someplace secluded, and bury his ass for shots and giggles. Had he succeeded at getting the gun and using it, a solid case for self defense could have been made.
>Robert Cook said...
"Thoughtcrime - flat-out. In America. Shameful."
Chasing down and killing a man is not thought crime...they were convicted for murdering a man, and the evidence regarding the murderers' feelings about black people provided a context for their frame of mind when they set out after Arbery.<
You're making the same sophistic argument the other guy above is. Somehow their "feelings" and "their frame of mind" have nothing to do with their thoughts. That's an absurdity.
See, the argument here is that these white property-owners saw a person in their neighborhood, and because he was black, they concluded he was up to no good. Now, I assume I don't have to tell anyone here that they were correct in that conclusion. So the point is, if you don't want to mark yourself as a "racist", you have to pretend you believe that Ahmed Arbery was an innocent jogger, just out for a little wholesome exercise. This is exactly how the Left operates. Take something that everyone knows is false - men can become women, for example - and demand that everyone assent to it, on pain of being deemed morally unacceptable. And good little Howard, and good little Earnest Prole, oh, how swiftly they accede to what they know to be false! How eagerly they proclaim their allegiance to the winning side! The kingdom of lies has many willing soldiers. Which of my belongings are you hoping they will let you keep after the stoning, Howie? My loincloth? My sandals? Surely they'll let you have something good, after all you've sacrificed.
"Now, I assume I don't have to tell anyone here that they were correct in that conclusion."
Whether they were correct or not is beside the point. They had no authority to stop him from going from point A to point B. They had no authority to threaten him with deadly force for not complying with their orders. He had every reason to believe these men meant to do him (possibly lethal) harm. What part of "they weren't cops!" are you not getting.
Chasing down and killing a man is not thought crime.
They didn't "Kill a man". Arbery attacked the old man with the shotgun. He struggled and fought, and the gun went off. How that ends up being Murder One, is something I don't understand.
But a lot of morons, and callous dumbshits in the Jury room. People - especially libtards - are idiots. They'll set some car jacker who murdered a 77 y/o man free, and they'll convict these 3 guys. They'll laugh at Ashbli Babbitt getting murdered, and cry over George Floyd and set up shrines for him.
If I'm up for a crime, I'll ask for Trial by Judge.
hombre: Please keep in mind that Howard, in addition to being a loon, is part of the Democide gang (i.e. those who commit or facilitate Democide--i.e. the Left--plus those who enable it). That should tell you how much his opinion on homicide is to be valued. If Arbery were a Freedom Trucker shot down by the RCMP, Howard would cheer. In addition to having a Milton Berle sized hard-on.
Bilwick: Exactly right. When I found out that the first nations native Canadian disabled lady wasn't actually trampled to death by the RCMP and that the Fox news reports were lies, I went into a deep depression. To make myself feel better, I volunteered at the local abortion clinic to transport fetal body parts to the Dr. Mengele Oncology Research Lab at the Harvard Medical school.
"I volunteered at the local abortion clinic to transport fetal body parts to the Dr. Mengele Oncology Research Lab at the Harvard Medical school."
Oh, good work, Howie! What rich spoils await you!
"They had no authority to stop him from going from point A to point B. They had no authority to threaten him with deadly force for not complying with their orders."
I know of no evidence that they did either. But you seem to think that Arbery was entitled to assume they were up to no good, and attack one of them. And I do see the logic of your view. It's kind of difficult to believe they were just out for a Sunday drive, isn't it? After all, they're White!
What’s hilarious about all this special pleading is that the facts in this case aren’t even in dispute. By their own admission the perps did not witness a felony, therefore under our laws they’re simply three white guys menacing a black guy with guns and pickups. If the races were reversed this would be instantly apparent even to thicker commenters here.
There's an election coming up. The Democrats have to show they've done something to earn the Black vote.
"under our laws they’re simply three white guys menacing a black guy with guns and pickups. If the races were reversed this would be instantly apparent even to thicker commenters here."
If the races were reversed, I don't think it would be quite so evident to you that the "jogger" had a right to assault someone for stopping his pickup and getting out with a shotgun. "Under our laws", the remedy for that sort of behavior is to assert your rights and demand they call the cops. Isn't that your position?
Arbery WAS a convicted criminal already found guilty of what they suspected him of. But the Left wants us to believe that does not matter. Just as they want us to believe that the percentage of gay men who rape little kids being astronomically higher per capita than straight men does not matter and so obviously mentally ill gay men should be given free access to people’s children.
As far as the murder charge is concerned, I'm OK with that. There was nothing to justify what was done to Arbery, even if he was a criminal and foolishly looking for something to steal in that neighborhood, and not an innocent jogger. Just like there was no justification to restrain George Floyd, also a known criminal, with a knee on his neck (or his back) for many minutes after he had obviously gone limp.
However I don't understand how justice can rule that “'The character of victim is neither relevant nor admissible in murder trial,' the judge wrote in his ruling Monday." and then use mind reading and old texts to determine the character of the defendants and use that as evidence of their motivation when they stopped Arbery and caused his death.
But as I said, this is a politically motivated prosecution.
Howard: as I said, a loon.
Without getting into the details of the case and even accepting that the defendants screwed up in their apprehension of Arberey, isn't life without parole a bit stiff? Every day I hear of some murderer who gets out after less than ten years in prison for a far more evil murder and then he goes on to commit his next murder. Just on the face of it, the punishment here looks disparate.....These men are being sent away for life not for their deeds but for the racist views that the jury thought they harbored.
If the races were reversed, I don't think it would be quite so evident to you that the "jogger" had a right to assault someone for stopping his pickup and getting out with a shotgun.
You’re lying in an effort to persuade those who have not seen the video. The pickup tracks down the victim with an armed man standing in its bed; the armed men then attempt to box the victim in, impeding his right to move freely and creating the reasonable belief he is about to be harmed. Under our laws it is the victim who has the right to self-defense in such circumstances, not the perps.
"Just as they want us to believe that the percentage of gay men who rape little kids being astronomically higher per capita than straight men does not matter and so obviously mentally ill gay men should be given free access to people’s children."
No, it's quite a bit worse than that. They want us to pretend to believe that. They want us to stand idle while our children are raped, out of fear of the consequences of stating and acting upon the obvious. They know that if you want to find out who is truly and abjectly submissive and who is merely lying low, raping their children in front of them is a great way to find out.
"The pickup tracks down the victim with an armed man standing in its bed; the armed men then attempt to box the victim in, impeding his right to move freely and creating the reasonable belief he is about to be harmed."
In the video, which you can see just as well as I can, Ahmed Arbery passes the stopped pickup on the passenger side. The other truck is behind them, as should be clear from the fact that the driver took the video. There was nothing to prevent Arbery continuing down the road, or off the road. Instead, he suddenly turned and ran at the man getting out the driver's side, and grabbed the barrel of the shotgun. What the armed men are "attempting" to do is neither evident nor relevant. Although I do think it rather implausible that the guy in back thought he was making of video of himself committing murder.
Arbery WAS a convicted criminal already found guilty of what they suspected him of. But the Left wants us to believe that does not matter.
It doesn’t really matter what the Left does or doesn’t want in this case; under our laws the vigilantes could detain the victim with force only if they had just witnessed him commit a felony (which they had not). His previous convictions are legally irrelevant.
Arbery is dead because of de-policing. You call the cops after spotting suspicious behavior in your neighborhood and suffering vandalism and burglary, only to have them tell you they can't or won't do anything...?
Be prepared for a lot more of these, and a lot more brutality as we foolishly listen to the various and sundry activists telling us all about how the police abuse minorities. The reality is this: Without the police there doing their jobs, people are going to do things for themselves. Just imagine a situation where Arbery is out doing his thing, observers see him behaving oddly or they think he's "casing" residences. Then, he's leaving the area, a van pulls up, he's pulled in, and he's never seen again, period.
That's what happens when the rule of law goes away: People do for themselves, and people don't give a damn about proprieties or "getting it right" when they feel like they're acting in self-defense or the defense of their communities. You think the cops have a body count on them? LOL... Wait until you get a load of what happens once cops are generally seen as not worth the bother of calling. Vigilantism was one of the reasons we established formal law enforcement, because the old community-based way of doing business was not doing what it needed to. With the geeeeniouuuus laptoperati types thinking they don't need cops, well... That's coming back. We're about to repeat history, and learn lessons again that we learned a long time ago.
Glenn Reynolds repeated an old saw about the cops not being there to protect the public from the criminal, but to protect the criminal from the public. That's a solid truth, one that we're about to re-learn.
No idea about the rights or wrongs of what happened to Arbery, but the reality is, one of the main reason it happened? Because the people in that neighborhood knew that calling the cops was a waste of time, and nothing would be done. The people who should have been in that dock right next to the guys who shot Arbery are the same people that rendered that 911 call useless for dealing with property crimes.
"It doesn’t really matter what the Left does or doesn’t want in this case; under our laws the vigilantes could detain the victim with force only if they had just witnessed him commit a felony (which they had not). His previous convictions are legally irrelevant."
What do our laws say about attacking a man and grabbing his weapon because you can see it, and you have a feeling he might use it on you, even though he has had multiple opportunities already and has not done so?
"You're making the same sophistic argument the other guy above is. Somehow their 'feelings' and 'their frame of mind' have nothing to do with their thoughts. That's an absurdity."
I don't even know what you're trying to say here.
However, I do have to say I answered precipitously previously. I thought the conviction under discussion was the original murder charge. I missed that this appears to be about additional convictions of these men for federal hate crimes. I have always opposed and "hate crimes" laws. If I punch another person in the face, whether because I'm trying to rob him or because he called me a bad name or because I just don't like him, the crime is my physical assault, not my motive. "Enhancing" punishment for hate crimes are, in fact, thought crimes. Hate crimes, as a category, should be abolished.
'I have always opposed and "hate crimes" laws. If I punch another person in the face, whether because I'm trying to rob him or because he called me a bad name or because I just don't like him, the crime is my physical assault, not my motive. "Enhancing" punishment for hate crimes are, in fact, thought crimes. Hate crimes, as a category, should be abolished.'
OMG...I agree with Cook!
Maybe it's time to reevaluate my life choices : )
Now let's do asset forfeiture...
"Just as they want us to believe that the percentage of gay men who rape little kids being astronomically higher per capita than straight men does not matter and so obviously mentally ill gay men should be given free access to people’s children."
Do you have stats to support your claim that more child molestors are gay than are straight?
By "obviously mentally ill gay men," do you refer to gay men who happen to be obviously mentally ill, or do you mean that all gay man are obviously mentally ill?
In either case, do you have stats to support this claim?
"Do you have stats to support your claim that more child molestors are gay than are straight?"
That wasn't his claim. Although I think it may be true. Hard to say. If a male sexually molests a child, and the child is also male, does that make the molestor "gay"?
"Now let's do asset forfeiture...."
Asset forfeiture is an abomination, pure criminal theft by the government...unless the person whose cash or property is confiscated has first been convicted of a specific crime or crimes to which the confiscated cash or property is clearly connected and indisputably illegally gained.
"Asset forfeiture is an abomination,..."
Cookie, last time I checked, you were a Marxist. You know, "Property is theft!". "Seize the means of production!". Did you undergo a religious awakening, or take a Civics class or something?
> Robert Cook said...
"You're making the same sophistic argument the other guy above is. Somehow their 'feelings' and 'their frame of mind' have nothing to do with their thoughts. That's an absurdity."
I don't even know what you're trying to say here.<
Well, that is certainly easy to understand, given that you threw yourself off track with not knowing the subject under discussion, as you subsequently admitted.
>However, I do have to say I answered precipitously previously. I thought the conviction under discussion was the original murder charge. I missed that this appears to be about additional convictions of these men for federal hate crimes. <
Yeah, that. And now that you are back on track with the subject, it should be easy to understand that I have been saying above the very same thing as you, before you showed up. We are, in fact, in agreement on the subject - hate crimes.
'Asset forfeiture is an abomination, pure criminal theft by the government...unless the person whose cash or property is confiscated has first been convicted of a specific crime or crimes to which the confiscated cash or property is clearly connected and indisputably illegally gained.'
OK, now it's just getting plain scary.
I think Cook is more of a libertarian incognito.
Neato : )
Almost 30 years ago the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that hate crimes aren’t thought crimes . The races were reversed in that case, so take note of further evidence of Earnest Prole’s point.
"Cookie, last time I checked, you were a Marxist."
Says who?
>Left Bank of the Charles said...
Almost 30 years ago the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that hate crimes aren’t thought crimes.<
I would imagine that, in Oceania, thoughtcrime could be called by the ruling elite whatever was expedient, as well. That certainly doesn't mean that, either there or here, the criminalizing of thought is not the criminalizing of thought.
The rejected plea deal displays some innovative thinking on the part of someone. The deal was to plead guilty to the federal crime in exchange for getting to serve the sentence in federal prison rather than state prison. Did the defense attorneys cook that up, or the federal prosecutors?
What do our laws say about attacking a man and grabbing his weapon because you can see it, and you have a feeling he might use it on you
Our laws say that when a man brandishes a weapon while standing in the bed of a pickup truck that’s chasing you, then impedes your free movement while threatening you with the weapon, you may reasonably conclude your life is in danger and respond with deadly force.
"What do our laws say about attacking a man and grabbing his weapon because you can see it, and you have a feeling he might use it on you, even though he has had multiple opportunities already and has not done so?"
If the gun is being pointed at me and I have reason to believe the person doing the pointing isn't a cop (because he hasn't identified himself as one), I can safely assume he isn't there to talk to me about the how the Red Sox are doing. He's threatening me with deadly force, a threat I have to take seriously. Trying to take the weapon away from him is self-defense.
Mark said...
The fact that he was on probation is irrelevant to the fact these three guys took the law into their own hands.
It also turns out that casually making racist statements catches up with you.
**************
If Arbery's probation was not relevant and could not be admitted as evidence, then why are the defendants' prior statements and the hearsay testimony of what witnesses SAID they said to them admissible?
p.s simply "being" racist is not a crime...at least not yet.
I never thought I'd type this, but Mark, Earnest Prole, Freder, Robert Cook, and Chris Lopes are completely correct.
According to the law, the three convicted of murder were guilty of a felony — attempted kidnapping, which is to say, detention without cause. And because an unjustified homicide occurred during the felony, all the participants in the felony are guilty of murder.
No, I'm not a lawyer. But I recently took Idaho's Enhanced Concealed Carry License* training. Most of it was dedicated to the unjustifiable uses of a gun in putative self-defense. Arbery's previous acts were completely irrelevant, even if the defendants knew about them.
Their murder conviction was a slam-dunk.
As for the hate crimes conviction? The DOJ was unable to make a direct connection between the defendants previous statements and their actions. That alone should have caused the DOJ to reconsider. Moreover, there is no chance the SUV that killed six people in Wisconsin will get charged with, never mind convicted for, any hate crimes.
Hate crime laws need to go.
*Concealed and open carry are completely legal in Idaho. Idaho ECCL training allows concealed carry to an additional twenty states. There is no waiting period for a gun purchase, beyond the 20 minutes required to submit a background check. Gun ownership is practically universal here. Yet somehow there aren't shootouts everywhere you turn. It's a real mystery.
Prior to the Arbery case, a black man in central Georgia declared he was going to murder the first white man he saw, and then he repeatedly stabbed a white stranger in a hardware store. He was then put in a cell with a white man, whom he stomped to death immediately. There were more than a dozen stranger rapes, some serial, which ought to count as hate if anything does, and there was an unprovoked near-murder of a white man outside the state capitol by a bunch of looting black thugs. The man was not even trying to.stop the looters. There was also the murder of a little black girl in a car by black gang members vying for control of a streetcorner. That too could have been prosecuted as a hate crime, with a bit of creativity, for the offenders were claiming violent ownership of the corner because they were black. That's a black-commited hate crime with a black victim.
All these should have been tried as Georgia's first so-called hate crime, but the elite activists wanted the first case to be white on black, so the word went down from either the AG or GBI to hold off prosecutions of these earlier crimes so they could have the "first" hate crime they wanted. The central Georgia case was especially egregious.
Prior to the Arbery case, a black man in central Georgia declared he was going to murder the first white man he saw, and then he repeatedly stabbed a white stranger in a hardware store. He was then put in a cell with a white man, whom he stomped to death immediately. There were more than a dozen stranger rapes, some serial, which ought to count as hate if anything does, and there was an unprovoked near-murder of a white man outside the state capitol by a bunch of looting black thugs. The man was not even trying to.stop the looters. There was also the murder of a little black girl in a car by black gang members vying for control of a streetcorner. That too could have been prosecuted as a hate crime, with a bit of creativity, for the offenders were claiming violent ownership of the corner because they were black. That's a black-commited hate crime with a black victim.
All these should have been tried as Georgia's first so-called hate crime, but the elite activists wanted the first case to be white on black, so the word went down from either the AG or GBI to hold off prosecutions of these earlier crimes so they could have the "first" hate crime they wanted. The central Georgia case was especially egregious.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा