Crime Ahmaud Arbery Shooting v4 (autopsy report)

jk7707 said:
No. It's basically pointing out that there is a long history of this type of thing resulting in unfair trials, especially in the deep south. Which is true.
Click to expand...

No, I get that. I was just pointing out they assume there is going to be a different outcome based upon race
 
nhbbear said:
No, I get that. I was just pointing out they assume there is going to be a different outcome based upon race
Click to expand...

I agree that it isn't necessarily a given that the jurors selected won't be objective. It seems like all the rules were followed. But optics-wise it looks bad when you factor in the history of this sort of thing in the south and the comments by the defense.
 
Man they are just completely fucked. I'm not sure what I would have argued, but this is definitely not it. The defense lawyers are now making a TON of assumptions, trying to say that they thought Abrery was armed and dangerous when there is concrete proof he was never armed on any of the times he was on the property. They have no leg to stand on.
 
Confucamus said:
Why would that matter? What is thew racial component in that case?



The judge approved because legitimate reasons for each juror to be excused were given. The racist idea that an almost all white jury won't be objective is pretty sad and the media is having a field day with it.
Click to expand...

I'm almost positive they are pending federal hate crime charges as well, they definitely used the N word and its on record.
 
Strychnine said:
Not enough 'Bubba' men, defense attorney said

Defense attorneys previously expressed concern over not only how many people didn't show, but also who was missing among those who did.

"It would appear that White males born in the South, over 40 years of age, without four-year college degrees, sometimes euphemistically known as 'Bubba' or 'Joe Six Pack,' seem to be significantly underrepresented," defense attorney Kevin Gough, who represents Bryan, told the court Friday."

Ahmaud Arbery trial: Judge finds 'intentional discrimination' in jury selection but allows trial to move forward with 1 Black member - CNN
Click to expand...

Why aren't you giving the whole context here?
https://www.crossville-chronicle.co...cle_eb894226-3d97-11ec-a9fb-0f21171e5da7.html

"Greg McMichael’s attorney Laura Hogue went through the defense’ reasoning for striking the majority of the Black prospects, stating many of them already had opinions about the defendants or the case, one them — juror 218— opining that the defendants are guilty.

“…I will say most of the jury selection in this case and the decisions we had to make is the epitome of the lesser of two evils,” Hogue said. “We are stuck between a rock in a hard place given that the majority of the African American jurors that came in here were struck...immediately because of their firm opinions.”

“Later on we had some African American jurors who had some opinions that were very strong but indicated they could put them in a box and set them aside…” Hogue continued. “Is that the kind of juror given those impressions and feelings weeks ago when they filled out the questionnaire and still fixed on those opinions today, would you want that juror judging you in this case?”"

What are they supposed to do when a potential juror admits bias? They have to remove them.
 
andnowweknow said:
A black man was chased and killed by two white men in the deep South. Having to illuminate the racial component here seems...strange.
Click to expand...

b34stmode said:
I'm almost positive they are pending federal hate crime charges as well, they definitely used the N word and its on record.
Click to expand...

I was responding to @andnowweknow 's post that people would flip out about the racial makeup of the Rittenhouse jury. Was looking for an explanation. I thought that was obvious, seeing as that's what I quoted.
 
Confucamus said:
I was responding to @andnowweknow 's post that people would flip out about the racial makeup of the Rittenhouse jury. Was looking for an explanation. I thought that was obvious, seeing as that's what I quoted.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm sure if it was an all black jury, youd have an issue with it.
 
Confucamus said:
Why aren't you giving the whole context here?
https://www.crossville-chronicle.co...cle_eb894226-3d97-11ec-a9fb-0f21171e5da7.html

"Greg McMichael’s attorney Laura Hogue went through the defense’ reasoning for striking the majority of the Black prospects, stating many of them already had opinions about the defendants or the case, one them — juror 218— opining that the defendants are guilty.

“…I will say most of the jury selection in this case and the decisions we had to make is the epitome of the lesser of two evils,” Hogue said. “We are stuck between a rock in a hard place given that the majority of the African American jurors that came in here were struck...immediately because of their firm opinions.”

“Later on we had some African American jurors who had some opinions that were very strong but indicated they could put them in a box and set them aside…” Hogue continued. “Is that the kind of juror given those impressions and feelings weeks ago when they filled out the questionnaire and still fixed on those opinions today, would you want that juror judging you in this case?”"

What are they supposed to do when a potential juror admits bias? They have to remove them.
Click to expand...

That's what I copy/pasted from the sourced website that I posted. Please contact them on their reporting. Here's more...

"Participation in the jury pool is important, but only so much to establish diversity of race and perhaps gender, but not 'Bubba' background, whatever that may be," Pate said. "I've represented doctors who have gone on trial. Now, was my jury made up of a bunch of doctors? Of course not."
"Even if there were no 'Bubbas,' as long as the lawyers are not removing people solely because of race, there's really no problem," Pate said. "You have no legal right to a 'Bubba'-rich jury pool."

Ahmaud Arbery trial: Judge says 'there appears to be intentional discrimination' in jury selection but allows trial to move forward with 1 Black juror - CNN
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
It's funny how open and shut both this and the Rittenhouse cases seem to be, except in opposite directions. Can't imagine how these goofs think they have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

It's perplexing how both cases are clear as day, yet people on both cases still don't seem to grasp it, on both sides of the political spectrum. Sad, really.
 
b34stmode said:
It's perplexing how both cases are clear as day, yet people on both cases still don't seem to grasp it, on both sides of the political spectrum. Sad, really.
Click to expand...

Agreed. People want a conclusion and will do whatever it takes to rationalize it. Facts and reason be damned.
 
Strychnine said:
That's what I copy/pasted from the sourced website that I posted. Please contact them on their reporting. Here's more...

"Participation in the jury pool is important, but only so much to establish diversity of race and perhaps gender, but not 'Bubba' background, whatever that may be," Pate said. "I've represented doctors who have gone on trial. Now, was my jury made up of a bunch of doctors? Of course not."
"Even if there were no 'Bubbas,' as long as the lawyers are not removing people solely because of race, there's really no problem," Pate said. "You have no legal right to a 'Bubba'-rich jury pool."

Ahmaud Arbery trial: Judge says 'there appears to be intentional discrimination' in jury selection but allows trial to move forward with 1 Black juror - CNN
Click to expand...

I'm really not following the "Bubba" shit, to be completely honest. There were reasons for excusing the jurors they did, and it was because of things the jurors themselves admitted.

Before you ascribe bias to me that I don't happen to have, let me be clear. I don't think these two should get off. Whether Arbery went for the gun or not, this could have been avoided if these two idiots didn't attempt an armed citizens arrest. The idea that Arbery was jogging is a fucking joke. He was out trespassing on private property for God knows what. It still doesn't matter in terms of the actual altercation. These two pieces of shit didn't have the right to attempt what they did and this is exactly why trained law enforcement should be the one to arrest somebody. I also don't think the guy filming should get off either. He knew what he was there for and only turned the video in just to save his own fat ass.
 
Confucamus said:
I'm really not following the "Bubba" shit, to be completely honest. There were reasons for excusing the jurors they did, and it was because of things the jurors themselves admitted.

Before you ascribe bias to me that I don't happen to have, let me be clear. I don't think these two should get off. Whether Arbery went for the gun or not, this could have been avoided if these two idiots didn't attempt an armed citizens arrest. The idea that Arbery was jogging is a fucking joke. He was out trespassing on private property for God knows what. It still doesn't matter in terms of the actual altercation. These two pieces of shit didn't have the right to attempt what they did and this is exactly why trained law enforcement should be the one to arrest somebody. I also don't think the guy filming should get off either. He knew what he was there for and only turned the video in just to save his own fat ass.
Click to expand...
Jurors were removed from consideration because they were black. The judge himself said as much. Stop apologizing for racist shit and trying to cover it up by stating the obvious about these trailer trash idiots being guilty of murder.
 
Ut think the fact yall have a"business as usual" stance to the jury selection is the exact reason why the media is pointing it out.

The entire case has been covered in cold molasses from the word go, but this...this is fine.

The South gonna South is the wrong answer.

Cant say that then act like there aint serious race issues below the bible belt.
 
Confucamus said:
I'm really not following the "Bubba" shit, to be completely honest. There were reasons for excusing the jurors they did, and it was because of things the jurors themselves admitted.

Before you ascribe bias to me that I don't happen to have, let me be clear. I don't think these two should get off. Whether Arbery went for the gun or not, this could have been avoided if these two idiots didn't attempt an armed citizens arrest. The idea that Arbery was jogging is a fucking joke. He was out trespassing on private property for God knows what. It still doesn't matter in terms of the actual altercation. These two pieces of shit didn't have the right to attempt what they did and this is exactly why trained law enforcement should be the one to arrest somebody. I also don't think the guy filming should get off either. He knew what he was there for and only turned the video in just to save his own fat ass.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to accuse you of any bias at all man. I just want a civil debate about the facts. I do have a question though.

If they were going so hard in the paint about Ahmaud, then why not stage a manhunt for the couple that went into the site (at night if memory serves) with a bag? It would only make sense to do so, right?
 
both cases are fucking obvious, you pull stupid shit you get clapped
 
andnowweknow said:
Jurors were removed from consideration because they were black. The judge himself said as much. Stop apologizing for racist shit and trying to cover it up by stating the obvious about these trailer trash idiots being guilty of murder.
Click to expand...
to be clear its illegal to remove jurors because they are black (or any race) and the judge didnt say that. He implied it appeared the black jurors were weeded out in such a manner racial bias could be assumed, and I dont doubt that to be the case personally. But to state it as matter of fact they were removed for being black and the judge confirmed that to be the case is incorrect.
 
llperez22 said:
to be clear its illegal to remove jurors because they are black (or any race) and the judge didnt say that. He implied it appeared the black jurors were weeded out in such a manner racial bias could be assumed, and I dont doubt that to be the case personally. But to state it as matter of fact they were removed for being black and the judge confirmed that to be the case is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Unlike whitey, black folks would never allow race to cloud their judgment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,239,106
Messages
55,605,055
Members
174,848
Latest member
notloub9

Share this page

Back
Top