Crime Ahmaud Arbery Shooting v4 (autopsy report)

[Day Drinking]

both cases are fucking obvious, you pull stupid shit you get clapped

The guys running people down in trucks didn't get clapped though?

 

[Sir Burton]

Lots of people upset there is only one black juror, basically saying that white jurors can not be objective

Id be pissed too, it’s called “a jury of your peers“ for a reason.

 

[Sir Burton]

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.

thanks for sharing, those are very interesting opinions. It seems to me that everyone has very strong feelings/opinions…that’s human nature.

if a juror pointed out during questioning [paraphrasing]: “yes, I have strong opinions about X. But I also understand the necessity of having to put those strong opinions in a box and set them off to the side in instances like (a court case).”

honestly, that’s the best answer I could hope for from a juror.

 

[Sir Burton]

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.

most people, whether they admit it or not, do not have a real firm grasp on, or understanding of, our judicial system.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

most people, whether they admit it or not, do not have a real firm grasp on, or understanding of, our judicial system.

 

[nhbbear]

Id be pissed too, it’s called “a jury of your peers“ for a reason.

There is no guarantee that there will be equal representation of the exact demographics of a particular area. There are no Asians, Latinos, or others on the jury as well.

The bottom line is that the people pissed about this are pissed because they are afraid that it will affect the outcome of the trial. They are assuming that black jurors would vote a certain way and that white jurors would vote a certain way based upon race-which only validates the defense for striking some of those jurors. The defense was able to provide reasons why they struck certain jurors beyond race which is the only requirement needed to strike a juror-though some strikes-those without cause, do not require that.

The people like ben crump that are so vocal about this want the trial to go a certain way, and they think more blacks on the jury would get them that result proving that they believe race has an impact on trials. So how can they think this way while the defense is not allowed to?

And I will add that I think these men are total shit and guilty and I hope they are convicted.

 

[sickc0d3r]

The idea that Arbery was jogging is a fucking joke. He was out trespassing on private property for God knows what.

I’m curious why the idea that he was jogging is such a joke in your opinion? Based on the facts it seems as likely as any accusation of “up to no good”. More likely, even.

It was broad daylight, he was wearing shorts and a t-shirt with no bag or backpack or anything, he was on foot, and he was literally jogging.
Yes he stopped and walked around on a construction site, but nothing was stolen, was it? The owner said people walked in and out of that site all the time.
In fact, the only reported theft in the entire neighborhood that year was a gun stolen from a truck on New Year’s Eve, iirc.

Of course, it is possible he was up to something, and trespassing is a technically crime, but there’s way more evidence that he was out for a jog than out looking to steal shit or do something nefarious.

 

[JSN]

There is no guarantee that there will be equal representation of the exact demographics of a particular area. There are no Asians, Latinos, or others on the jury as well.

The bottom line is that the people pissed about this are pissed because they are afraid that it will affect the outcome of the trial. They are assuming that black jurors would vote a certain way and that white jurors would vote a certain way based upon race-which only validates the defense for striking some of those jurors. The defense was able to provide reasons why they struck certain jurors beyond race which is the only requirement needed to strike a juror-though some strikes-those without cause, do not require that.

The people like ben crump that are so vocal about this want the trial to go a certain way, and they think more blacks on the jury would get them that result proving that they believe race has an impact on trials. So how can they think this way while the defense is not allowed to?

And I will add that I think these men are total shit and guilty and I hope they are convicted.

Pretty ridiculous too. White juries can stay fairly objective. At least for a juried. Black juries will just interpret along straight racial lines.

 

[Sir Burton]

There is no guarantee that there will be equal representation of the exact demographics of a particular area. There are no Asians, Latinos, or others on the jury as well.

The bottom line is that the people pissed about this are pissed because they are afraid that it will affect the outcome of the trial. They are assuming that black jurors would vote a certain way and that white jurors would vote a certain way based upon race-which only validates the defense for striking some of those jurors. The defense was able to provide reasons why they struck certain jurors beyond race which is the only requirement needed to strike a juror-though some strikes-those without cause, do not require that.

The people like ben crump that are so vocal about this want the trial to go a certain way, and they think more blacks on the jury would get them that result proving that they believe race has an impact on trials. So how can they think this way while the defense is not allowed to?

And I will add that I think these men are total shit and guilty and I hope they are convicted.

Good points, and I agree many of these people don’t want to see it both ways (i.e. if it were an all-black jury, they wouldn’t speak out). The law is the law; and it is the law for all sides. A lot of people simply do not have you’re very firm grasp on the American judicial system. They respond with their emotions which will get both sides in trouble in a courtroom.

 

[evergreenrider]

I want to make sure I understand this. So the same system that was built to keep the African American down, they are now expected to willfully participate in said system AND in an impartial fashion? Huh.

 

[nhbbear]

Pretty ridiculous too. White juries can stay fairly objective. At least for a juried. Black juries will just interpret along straight racial lines.

I wouldn’t say that, but I would suggest that in a racially charged case, I understand why the defense would want to keep black jurors off the jury. I am just saying that assuming race is a factor by both sides but only one side assumes it is not fair. They know that black jurors are more likely to convict and they assume white jurors will not be objective. Defense only needs one. I think these turds are guilty

 

[Confucamus]

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.

Keep dodging having to explain your post about the Rittenhouse jury.

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?

I don't think we should look to these goofs to make sense of anything, considering their actions trying to apprehend Arbery. I wasn't aware of any couple that had gone on the site. But if these two shitheads deputized themselves to apprehend suspects of breaking in to houses, then absolutely it would make sense.

 

[Strychnine]

Keep dodging having to explain your post about the Rittenhouse jury.



I don't think we should look to these goofs to make sense of anything, considering their actions trying to apprehend Arbery. I wasn't aware of any couple that had gone on the site. But if these two shitheads deputized themselves to apprehend suspects of breaking in to houses, then absolutely it would make sense.

During the opening statement yesterday by the prosecution, the defendants told the cops that they never used "citizens arrest" as they confronted the victim. I don't know if that's damning or not but there's a lot more of this case to come.

 

[Confucamus]

During the opening statement yesterday by the prosecution, the defendants told the cops that they never used "citizens arrest" as they confronted the victim. I don't know if that's damning or not but there's a lot more of this case to come.

Not that I thought the citizens arrest would save them, but it actually was their best shot. They're screwed. I have no idea what explanation they could present.

 

[Strychnine]

Not that I thought the citizens arrest would save them, but it actually was their best shot. They're screwed. I have no idea what explanation they could present.

Yeah, this is going to be one interesting trial.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I want to make sure I understand this. So the same system that was built to keep the African American down, they are now expected to willfully participate in said system AND in an impartial fashion? Huh.

They'll bring the integrity that's been lacking.

Not that I thought the citizens arrest would save them, but it actually was their best shot. They're screwed. I have no idea what explanation they could present.

From my reading of the law, that argument is a sure loser. Better to concoct some shit and cross the ol' fingers.

 

[sickc0d3r]

They'll bring the integrity that's been lacking.




From my reading of the law, that argument is a sure loser. Better to concoct some shit and cross the ol' fingers.

Yep. They didn’t witness any crime. They need a hail mary self defense (e.g. he was going for the gun) to stick, I reckon.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Yep. They didn’t witness any crime. They need a hail mary self defense (e.g. he was going for the gun) to stick, I reckon.

Hoping for a Klan member on the jury, no doubt.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Hoping for a Klan member on the jury, no doubt.

 

[sickc0d3r]

JFC sherdog.

“So you’re telling me there’s a chance.gif”.