The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Convictions in Arbery Case
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Whaddaya think?

 
Hide 262 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I can’t even, with 1 little kid dead in Wisconsin and another little girl hooked up to life support.

    And BLM is spiking the football over this attack. We’ve hit a new low when Democrats say little kids asked for it.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    , @Reg Cæsar
  2. People tend to conflate this case with the Rittenhouse case.

    The cases are very different.

  3. Daniel H says:

    Don’t vigilante with long guns. Don’t walk away from your property with a long gun (unless you are hunting). Bringing out a long gun increases the probability of a screw-up.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Hibernian
    , @KenH
  4. Jmaie says:

    The deceased was a dirt bag who was stupid to try to grab a shotgun by the barrel. But the tres galletas didn’t have legal justification to chase him down.

    If the bozos that Rittenhous had shot were black, he’d also have been toast even with as clear cut case for self defense.

  5. Ken52 says:

    The trial seemed more of a “lynch mob” then the alleged crime. The racial reckoning has instituted reverse racism. I’m beginning to think that Rittenhouse would have been found guilty if the victims were black.

  6. @Bragadocious

    This is a very common fallacy these days.

    There are a handful people on the left and the right who will say absolutely sick stuff. Then, folks on the other side can sputter and point fingers and say “see, they are all horrible people”.

    Let’s look at the facts. One extremely disturbed woman in Illinois tweeted some really sick stuff. She happened to have a minor position for a county Democratic Party in Illinois. The head of the Du Page County party condemned her statements and fired her.

    Writing “Democrats say” is false. One sicko Democrat is not all Democrats, or even Democrats plural at all.

    This is like when some sicko on the right wing praises Hitler and random lefties say “see, they’re all Nazis”.

    If you think it stupid when the other side uses logical fallacies don’t use logical fallacies yourself.

  7. Luzzatto says:
    @Paleo Liberal

    Yeah Kyle Rittenhouse smoked a bunch of Antifa White social degenerates burning down Kenosha while the other case is about a bunch of bored out of their minds with nothing to do Deliverance hillbillies with way too much free time on their hands so they decided to go hunting for joggers. Which is evidence there is not a lot of fun things to do in Rural America to kill the time.

    • Agree: Not Raul
  8. JimDandy says:

    Arbery was a piece of shit violent thief. The people in that neighborhood were trying to protect their interests–their property and their safety. The First Degree Murder conviction is a joke.

  9. The jury has sent a strong message to Georgia peasants that grabbing guns and ganging up on an individual is not self-defense.

    In one sense the verdict seems a bit harsh, because I doubt whether these three guys really set out to kill the victim on that day, but this case should have a strong deterrent value for those who want to play cops and robbers with real guns.

  10. Not a lot of “jogging” going on here. (1:00-1:20) To be fair I’ve been known to check out a construction site or two while on a jog in the past……but then again I was usually DRESSED FOR JOGGING.

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/10/ahmaud-arbery-surveillance-video-construction-savidge-vpx.cnn

    The take-away is that maybe private citizens should think about wearing body-cams for any future “interactions”. Come to think of it – maybe there’s a huge business opportunity there.

  11. @Bragadocious

    I can’t even, with 1 little kid dead in Wisconsin and another little girl hooked up to life support.

    Was the 8-year-old victim Jewish? If so, that makes the “accident” “anti-Semitic” as well! Nice going, George! And at a (premature) Christmas parade!

    His passing was a shock to attendees at a Jewish community event Tuesday.

    “The Lubavitcher of Blessed Memory taught us that when faced with tragedy, when faced with darkness, we have to use that as a catalyst for a better tomorrow,” said Rabbi Mendel Shmotkin, Lubavitch of Wisconsin CEO.

    https://www.fox6now.com/news/waukesha-parade-victims-mukwonago-boy-among-6-dead

    The family is from nearby Mukwonago– the town or the village not specified; they are separate under Northwest Territory law. It sounds like a suburb of Wakanda, but the name is Potawanomi for “bear’s den”.

    Come to think of it, Wakanda itself is Lakota. It’s spelled “Wauconda” in other states.

  12. Anonymous[234] • Disclaimer says:

    What’s there to think? Not as slam dunk as in the Rittenhouse case but again, it’s the case of citizens trying to do something when authorities can’t be bothered. If Rittenhouse “victims” were two blacks, he’d be in prison for 100+ years.

    The outcome is simple: Even more mayhem from the ever-encouraged blacks, including terrorizing whites at whim.

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
  13. JimDandy says:
    @Paleo Liberal

    You’re absolutely delusional. Her Tweets were representative of a LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE PROGRESSIVE SOCIAL MEDIA CULTURE. Face it, your people are in the throes of mass psychosis.

    Furthermore… waiiiiittt a minute! You’re trolling, aren’t you? Dammit, ya got me. Good one.

    • LOL: Bro43rd
  14. siv says:

    The defendants were guilty as charged and the jury made the right decision.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  15. I thought the McMichaels had good reasons for believing Arbery was fleeing after having just commissioned a felony. It was their bad luck he had not on that particular day. But the notion he was just a jogger is nonsense. Travis McMichael had an unsettling nighttime encounter with Arbery less than two weeks before he shot him, one which I’m sure led Travis and his father to make sure they were armed the next time they saw the man.

    • Troll: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @D. K.
    , @OilcanFloyd
  16. @Paleo Liberal

    People tend to conflate this case with the Rittenhouse case.

    The cases are very different.

    Just connected. The Milwaukee DA said the man’s low bail figure, easily met, was a “mistake”. It was no such thing.

    It was policy.

    A guy tries to run over his ex. So you give him back his keys.

    • Agree: Rob McX
    • Replies: @RobinG
  17. PaceLaw says:

    Can’t say that I’m surprised at all. Granted, I don’t believe that Arbery was a simple jogger in the neighborhood. He was likely up to no good in the house that was under construction, but, from my understanding, he didn’t actually take anything and to have three men roll up on him with a firearm, which they ultimately used to kill him, is a bad look. These guys had no valid basis for making a “citizens arrest.” Also, didn’t one of the defendants videotape the entire event, which was ultimately used against them? Not exactly the smartest bunch here.

    • Agree: siv
  18. @Paleo Liberal

    They weren’t that different. In both cases, overeager defendants thought they were defending their communities and as a result put themselves in bad situations that most people would not have found themselves in.

    It was Rittenhouse’s good fortune he killed attacking white hipsters and not a fleeing black “jogger” on the attack.

  19. @Jonathan Mason

    At least you admit Arbery was a thief.

  20. Mike Tre says:

    I don’t understand why the defendants didn’t request a bench trial if it were possible. No jury after being corrupted by the media was going to let them walk. They were fucked from the start.

  21. I don’t pay much attention to current affairs anymore and I haven’t been following the trial, but my general impression was that the case had some pretty bad optics and I wasn’t expecting an acquittal.

    I don’t know if this is going to sound boring or provocative, but in all three cases of the century—Chauvin, Rittenhouse, and Arbery—the jury came to the same conclusion I would have.

    • Replies: @Redman
  22. William Bryan is very unlucky is all I have to say. How does his murder conviction not get overturned on appeal?

    • Replies: @Mikeja
  23. @Paleo Liberal

    Let’s look at the facts.

    Yes, let’s. A known aficionado of vehicular homicide was freed by an elected official. That official and his party and his supporters and his voters are ultimately responsible for that and what followed.

    Wisconsin does not brew enough beer to make cheeseheads swallow the official story. The ever-changing official story.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  24. Anonymous[258] • Disclaimer says:
    @Daniel H

    Don’t vigilante with long guns. Don’t walk away from your property with a long gun (unless you are hunting). Bringing out a long gun increases the probability of a screw-up.

    And if you’ve got to shot/kill a predator you’d better dispose of the body and get rid of all evidence. Never ever trust in the fairness of “justice” system in modern America. The Rittenhouse case and this case made that abundantly clear. Put your trust in covering up the killing and in the ineptitude and laziness of cops and DA’s and not in the fairness of the police, prosecutors, politicians, and press.

  25. Hibernian says:
    @Daniel H

    It inceases the probability of killing your target and being charged with murder instead of attempted murder and/or aggravated assault.

  26. Luzzatto says:
    @Pincher Martin

    The 2 cases were very different in that Kyle Rittenhouse was running for his life and had no other choice but to use deadly force, while The Beverly Hillbillies in Georgia started the confrontation, they were not running away from anything.

    • Agree: James Speaks
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  27. Sorry, but they did not have to be there. The Vic had no business being there either, but the defendants were borderline vigilantes.

    By contrast, Zim guy was on home turf and when dead Trayvon was giving him a beat down, recourse was to ventilate him. The Aubury defendants had no such defense.

  28. joe862 says:

    If you chase someone who might have done something wrong who isn’t armed and end up killing him I don’t think you get the benefit of the doubt. Especially when it’s 3 on 1.

    That said, now we have to deal with the 10 million totally not imaginary white supremacists rioting and looting indefinitely.

  29. JimDandy says:

    “This is really a sad day for Waukasha, but I KNOW WHAT YOU’RE THINKING, YOU RACISTS, AND THIS WAS NOT A CASE OF TERRORISM!” –Black Waukasha Police Spokesman, right out of the gates.

  30. Agitprop says:

    After the trial, we now know that Arbery, or Armed Robbery as I have heard him nicknamed, was caught on video trespassing in the home he was alleged to have burgled. It is not proven that he burgled it, but trespassers deserve to be shot anyway.

    • Replies: @siv
  31. Whaddya think… I think that whatever the merits and facts of the case, the jury did not want to see mass terror attacks and the burning of cities across the country.

    • Agree: europeasant
  32. ATBOTL says:

    Free the McMichaels and all white political prisoners. There was a massive failure of the pro-white movement to support them adequately and even many traitors among us. There will be hard hitting coverage of this disgrace and the traitors from the most serious and relevant people in the pro-white movement soon. Stay tuned.

  33. @Paleo Liberal

    No, it wasn’t just one “sicko” Democrat hack. More gaslighting from the town idiot.

    Twitter was absolutely aflame with “they asked for it” comments the other night, worded in various ways to indict all of Wisconsin for one (correct) jury verdict. She made the mistake of bringing kids into the discussion, and even for Democrats, that’s a no-no (publicly at least, because it’s certain they would hit the gas on their Priuses and flatten all kids of conservative parents if they thought they could get away with it).

    Not that we know these kids are from conservative families at all–maybe their parents voted for Biden. But these details hardly matter to the left. Bodies must be sacrificed, so why not start with a Christmas parade? Odds are, they believe in all the wrong things.

    And how do you know she’s sick? Has she been committed to a mental institution? What makes you the expert? Seems to me that she is, in fact, very typical of the 2021 shitlib.

  34. Hibernian says:
    @Jmaie

    Rittenhouse shot at a Black man, Maurice Freeland, AKA Jump Kick Man, whom KR was charged with endangering. JKM was kept under wraps by the prosecution because he demanded dismissal of a pending DV case against him as the price of his testimony. Binger falsely said that JKM was unknown; otherwise a case could hardly be made against KR at least on that one count without the complaining witness.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Reg Cæsar
  35. Out of the 3 recent important court cases, the country lost 2 of them. The other one is the Charlottesville, Virginia (Yes, still!) civil suit that Jason Kessler and his crowd just lost – see Peak Stupidity’s take, as taken from VDare’s report.

    Here’s my opinion: White People/Conservatives/patriotic Americans just got lucky to have a decent judge and non-cowardly and decent jury in the Rittenhouse case. Also, no matter what lies the Lyin’ Press tried to surreptitiously spread, most people knew that no black people were hurt in any way. That wasn’t the case in the trial of the Glynn County 3, and the Charlottesville civil case was just rubbing salt in the wounds of the alt-right.

    If black people get hurt, the “justice” system must make accommodations. That’s nothing but plain and simple Civil Rites.

  36. They will be exonerated on appeal. The evidence the defendants wished to admit concerning Arbery’s prior bad acts was relevant and keeping it out is a serious error in a murder trial.

    • Disagree: James Speaks, siv
    • Replies: @James Speaks
  37. @Pincher Martin

    Right!

    Charlottesville, Virginia: Defending your culture via free speech and assembly – OVERRULED!
    Glynn County, Georgia: Defending the property in your neighborhood from known criminals – OVERRULED!
    Kenosha, Wisconsin: Defending your very life – “Heh, ya’ got lucky, kid…”

  38. Luzzatto says:
    @Paleo Liberal

    The Woke Far Left is a way bigger share of The Democratic Party pie than White Supremacists will ever be of The Republican Party pie, so it’s apples to oranges. When White Supremacist Paul Nehlen twice ran for public office in Wisconsin he lost badly all 2 times in The Republican Primaries. He never made it out of The GOP Primaries because Paul Nehlen’s views are too extreme even for Republican voters. And by the way actual White Supremacists hate The Republican Party!

  39. Q-ship says:
    @Pincher Martin

    It was Rittenhouse’s good fortune he killed attacking white hipsters and not a fleeing black “jogger” on the attack.

    Yes. If he had hit “jump kick man”, the outcome of the trial would almost certainly have been different.

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
  40. D. K. says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “I thought the McMichaels had good reasons for believing Arbery was fleeing after having just commissioned a felony. It was their bad luck he had not on that particular day.”

    Wrong! Illegal entry with the intent to steal something is felony burglary in Georgia:

    ***

    (b) A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the first degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years. Upon the second conviction for burglary in the first degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two nor more than 20 years. Upon the third and all subsequent convictions for burglary in the first degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 25 years.

    ***

    https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2014/title-16/chapter-7/article-1/section-16-7-1

    In the video of the shooting, you can see an item, reputedly a hammer, lying in the middle of the street, behind the fleeing felon. There was no sign of it, in his hand or on his person, when he was walking down the street, just prior to his burglary. Regardless, felony burglary in Georgia does not require that anything be stolen; the intent to steal is sufficient, and that intent may be inferred from the circumstances (e.g., his having illegally entered the same premises several times, previously, including at night– which was known by both of the McMichaels!).

  41. @Jonathan Mason

    The jury isn’t supposed to send a message.

    They are supposed to determine if the defendant broke the law.

    It is ridiculous to suggest that they committed murder with intent.

    If they were planning to kill him then they would have just shot him right away and erased the video.

    This is mob rule. They are worried negroes will riot after the Rittenhouse case.

    • Agree: AndrewR
  42. @D. K.

    Wrong! Illegal entry with the intent to steal something is felony burglary in Georgia:

    I hate to argue with you because I’m sympathetic to the men who were found guilty, and thus you and I are probably on the same side here. But the site Arbery entered was under construction and had no trespassing signs. Numerous lookie-loos had come to check out the construction site without permission, and the property owner was okay with that. After seeing Arbery on his video, he had reported him to the police – not for stealing mind you, but because the property owner thought the man didn’t look right. He asked the police to tell Arbery to stay off his property.

    Trespassing is a misdemeanor in Georgia. By state law, one can only be found guilty of it only if 1) signs are posted or 2) written or oral warning is given to you. So Arbery was not even guilty of misdemeanor trespassing at the time he was shot. The police were looking for Arbery to give him warning to stay off the site (at the property owner’s request), but they had not yet done so.

    The McMichaels most likely did not know that. One policeman agreed with the elder McMichael on the phone that Arbery was guilty of “criminal trespassing” “at the very least.” But that was not yet the case because 1) no trespassing signs were up at the site, and 2) no written or oral warning had been given to Arbery.

    That was critical. The defense team couldn’t even argue that the McMichaels had seen Arbery committing a misdemeanor that day, let alone a felony, even though it’s clear the McMichaels believed that to be the case.

    In the video of the shooting, you can see an item, reputedly a hammer, lying in the middle of the street, behind the fleeing felon. There was no sign of it, in his hand or on his person, when he was walking down the street, just prior to his burglary.

    But the property owner testified that nothing was taken from his premises that day or any other day he spotted Arbery on video.

    Look, you and I both know that Arbery was up to no good in his own lackadaisical and stupid way. He most likely had something to do with the rash of recent break-ins. But the defense couldn’t tie Arbery to anything in the neighborhood because there was no proof he had stolen anything.

    (e.g., his having illegally entered the same premises several times, previously, including at night– which was known by both of the McMichaels!).

    It was not yet illegal trespassing, but, yes, that nighttime encounter was critical in the McMichaels making sure they were armed the next time they saw Arbery.

    Like I said, bad luck for the three men.

    • Agree: siv
    • Replies: @D. K.
    , @D. K.
  43. To me, it seems that Americans are still well off, law abiding citizens. In other countries, white terrorist organizations and death squads would be operating, full force.

    Nowhere would police even think of going against “white man”.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/11/09/362356878/in-brazil-race-is-a-matter-of-life-and-violent-death?t=1590938973692

    In Brazil, Race Is A Matter Of Life And Violent Death

    https://theconversation.com/assassination-in-brazil-unmasks-the-deadly-racism-of-a-country-that-would-rather-ignore-it-94389

    Assassination in Brazil unmasks the deadly racism of a country that would rather ignore it

    Brazilian OJ would be offed before even appearing in the court.

    • Replies: @Gabe Ruth
  44. RobinG says:
    @D. K.

    Infer away. You have no proof of intent. (Did they cite the “hammer” in the trial?)

    • Replies: @D. K.
  45. D. K. says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Trespassing is coming onto someone’s property without permission. As the statute that I quoted in relevant part states plainly: “A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another.”

    Entering a house– even an unoccupied house– is an illegal entry, not mere trespassing; a homeowner, whether resident therein or not, is not required to put up a “No Trespassing!” sign on his dwelling. An illegal entry into such a dwelling, with the intent of committing either a separate felony or a theft, of whatever value, while inside that dwelling, is a felony burglary in the first degree.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  46. I think factually it was a pretty close call, appropriate for a jury to decide.

    But no way was this a fair trial with the intense, national publicity the case received.

    • Agree: ben tillman
  47. RobinG says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Just connected…

    I don’t get what point you’re trying to make. He said GA case v. Rittenhouse, not parade car killer…. Did you misread, maybe?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  48. @Jonathan Mason

    Georgia peasants!

    I like that.

    How long have you been homosexual, Johnny?

    • Agree: V. Hickel
  49. @Paleo Liberal

    Joe Biden’s silence is violence. Kamala’s just saves us from her cackling.

  50. SafeNow says:

    Arbery’s created persona was the prom photo – – you know, the one with the bowtie. So, guilty, with bowtie enhancement. The lesson is, if you are contemplating taking harsh action against a perpetrator or suspected perpetrator, first ask yourself whether it is likely that such person attended his prom.

  51. I don’t think Arbery was quite the choirboy he was painted to be and it seemed likely that he had a mental illness and the idea that he was just out jogging for exercise under the midday sun sounds a bit unlikely, but on the other hand the fact that the local sheriff’s office tried to cover up the killing after a phone call from the father who was a former cop, and that the vigilantes were not arrested until months after the event smacks of good old boyismo and must have riled up the jury due to making Georgia look like Hazzard County under Boss Hogg.

    The fact that Travis McMichael had an image of a Confederate flag on his truck license plate was never fully explained. Perhaps he is a student of nineteenth century history.

    McMichael did not avail himself of the opportunity to take the stand to explain why he had this license plate, which would be regarded as offensive by many people. It is possible that the jury might have drawn the conclusion that he was some kind of racist.

  52. @Reg Cæsar

    No, the child wasn’t Jewish. The parents are members of a church, I forget the name – it was on his Go Fund Me.

    You should all give a few bucks. There are plenty to choose from:

    https://www.gofundme.com/s?q=waukesha

    About Arbery, I don’t care. Do I have to care about everything? I’m not going to say, “I love our jury system” when I get a verdict I like and then turn around and say I hate it when it doesn’t go my way.

  53. I have only two questions:

    1. Did the break-ins and burglaries stop?
    2. Who jogs in Timbs?

  54. D. K. says:
    @Pincher Martin

    P.S. As to the owner of the oft-burgled house:

    ***

    Mr. English had valuables on his property: boats and a camper. He saw Arbery on his security cameras four times. There were no lights in the house, so infrared camera captured Arbery wandering around inside in the dark. Mr. Rubin told jury that Mr. English said he didn’t mind curiosity seekers coming to his house during the day, but that “there is no legitimate reason why this man should be on the property at night.”

    Mr. English noticed that a satellite system, cooler, and microphone system were missing from his boat. From early November through February, he told people that they were stolen from his boat docked behind his new house, but he changed his story after the McMichaels were arrested, and said he wasn’t sure where the boat was when the articles were stolen.

    On November 18, a week and a half after the theft of the boat equipment, Mr. English saw a suspicious white couple on one his security cameras, but they were gone when police came. He decided to move his boat from Satilla Shores because it wasn’t safe. That night he saw Arbery on his security camera again, looking at smaller boats he had in his unfinished garage. He described Arbery’s actions to police as “plundering around.”

    Mr. English was frustrated that every time he called the police, Arbery was gone before the cops could question him. In a text conversation, a neighbor two houses down, Diego Perez, offered to respond if strangers were on Mr. English’s property again. Mr. English gave Mr. Perez his permission and thanked him. “I may be able to intercept them or pen them up for the police,” Mr. Perez wrote. “When seconds count, the police are minutes away.”

    A police officer canvased the neighborhood using stills from Mr. English’s video, but no one could identify the black man. “He is, at this point, a scary mystery,” Mr. Rubin told the jury. A nighttime video from December 17 showed Arbery coming out of the house, looking around, and then running. “The question remains: Was he out for a jog, 10 o’clock at night, December 17th? Or was he doing something else? And we’ll never know, but it sure does look suspicious.”

    ***

    https://www.amren.com/commentary/2021/11/opening-statements-in-the-arbery-trial/

    In other words, Mr. English is as trustworthy as the immigrant ingrates who claimed that they had given no one their blessings to guard their car lots, in Kenosha, and that they were unaware of the volunteers’ presence until the next day!

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  55. Juvenalis says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Was the 8-year-old victim Jewish? If so, that makes the “accident” “anti-Semitic” as well!

    What is your evidence that the victim is Jewish? Why would Lubavitch Jews be at a Christmas Parade? The GoFundMe page for murdered 8-yr-old boy Jackson Sparks (and his severely injured brother Tucker) says the deceased child is ‘now under the care of Jesus’.

    Jack’s death was announced by his church, where the little boys and their devout “people of faith” family are parishioners, at LifePoint Church Mukwonago. Not a shul.

    https://www.christianpost.com/news/church-says-8-y-o-died-from-christmas-parade-attack-injuries.html

    A Pentecostal church in Wisconsin has confirmed that a child member of its congregation has died from injuries sustained in the Waukesha Christmas parade attack on Sunday.

    LifePoint Church of Mukwonago, located about 13 miles from Waukesha, posted a statement on Facebook Tuesday stating that two children — 12-year-old Tucker Sparks and 8-year-old Jackson Sparks — were among those critically injured when an SUV plowed into the parade.

    The incident killed six people and injured over 60.

    The church noted that Jackson Sparks had “sadly succumbed to his injuries and passed away.” He had brain surgery on Sunday night but passed away on Tuesday.

    Tucker Sparks is recovering “by the grace of God” and expects to return home soon.

    “Please know that they appreciate your continued prayers and tremendous outpouring of support for their family,” the church’s Facebook post reads.

    “They do however ask for privacy at this time to allow Tucker to continue to heal physically and their family to heal and mourn the tremendous loss of their sweet little boy who is now under the care of Jesus.”

    Jackson Sparks had marched in the parade with the Waukesha Blazers little-league baseball team when the SUV plowed into the event.

    “Jackson was a sweet, talented boy who was a joy to coach,” said Waukesha Blazers President Jeff Rogers in a statement posted to the team’s Facebook page.

    “He was an awesome utility player and played on the Blazers Wolfpack team. Jackson was tender-hearted with a contagious smile. He was the little guy on the team that everyone supported. You couldn’t help but love him.”

    https://www.gofundme.com/f/waukesha-parade-attack-sparks-family

    [MORE]

    My name is Alyssa and I am the niece of Aaron and Sheri Sparks, who have been impacted by the horrific events at the Waukesha Christmas Parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin on Sunday, November 21, 2021.

    While attending the Waukesha Christmas parade, an SUV tragically entered the parade route and struck 40 victims. Two of those victims were children, Tucker (age 12) and Jackson (age 8) Sparks. The entire family is devastated and their parents, Aaron and Sheri, are at the bedsides of their children who are both at Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin. Tucker, is recovering, but sustained road rash and a fractured skull. They are closely monitoring his head and spine. He is stable at this time. Jackson, age 8, underwent brain surgery on Sunday evening. Doctors will be testing for brain function and brainstem activity today (Monday, November 22nd). He needs a miracle.

    The family is facing mounting medical expenses with two children receiving medical treatment, and time away from work. Any donation, large or small, is so appreciated and will make a big difference to the Sparks family. Aaron and Sheri are people of faith, so please continue to lift them and their boys in prayer. Even if you’re not able to give, please share their story.

    Aaron Sparks and Sheri Sparks would like to thank everyone for your prayers and amazing support during this difficult time.

    They wanted to give an update to everyone as you are likely aware, Tucker (12) and Jackson (8) Sparks were both seriously injured during the Waukesha Christmas Parade attack and have been in the ICU since.

    Tucker, by the grace of God is miraculously recovering from his injuries and will be being discharged home.

    This afternoon, our dear Jackson has sadly succumbed to his injuries and passed away.

    Please know that they appreciate your continued prayers and tremendous outpouring of support for their family. They do however ask for privacy at this time to allow Tucker to continue to heal physically and their family to heal and mourn the tremendous loss of their sweet little boy who is now under the care of Jesus.

    https://archive.md/qefqH/9161fe90de38434d3b9258157ae92e93681bb82f/scr.png

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  56. @Reg Cæsar

    PS this is a better article. Everyone in WI is having candle-light vigils. Except perhaps the People’s Revolutionary Movement.

    https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/vigils-continue-across-southeast-wisconsin-for-those-affected-by-waukeshas-christmas-parade-tragedy

    PS A lot of Hispanics were at the parade & injured.

    Interesting….

  57. @Jonathan Mason

    They weren’t arrested because the investigation found no probable cause to issue arrest warrants.

    See Barnhill letter here: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6916-george-barnhill-letter-to-glyn/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf

    • Thanks: V. Hickel
  58. Jack D says:

    Even if this actually happened and the old man was aiming at them (probably he was just shooting over their heads to scare the littering Negroes off of his property), by what ratio are such incidents outnumbered by black people shooting (and hitting) each other over even stupider beefs? 10 to 1? 100 to 1? But, I have yet to read a story by a black person complaining about this. Sure sometime you read about “gun violence” where the guns get violent but no articles about “black violence”. Disputes among kangs are to be expected and ain’t no big thang. But if’n a white peon dares to shot at a black, the kangs are deeply offended.

    • Thanks: JerseyJeffersonian
  59. D. K. says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    “The fact that Travis McMichael had an image of a Confederate flag on his truck license plate was never fully explained. Perhaps he is a student of nineteenth century history.”

    I am not surprised that you think that that is relevant and material to a criminal charge of murder. You come from a country where people have been threatened with arrest for displaying the English national flag– and where a lounge singer was arrested, several years ago already, for singing a song during his act that had been a #1 hit on the pop charts, in 1974! In both cases, the police claimed that those “offenses” were “incitement to racial hatred.” You really ought to go back where you fucking came from, limey.

    • Agree: Tony massey, TWS
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  60. Bottom line: These guys had as much chance of getting off as James Fields, which is to say no chance at all. They are Bad Guys straight out of central casting.

    White guys need to think like blacks did in the south in, say, 1916. You can make it, but watch every glance, word, and action you take. And whatever you do, if at all possible, don’t confront a potentially dangerous black man who is less well armed than you. If he attacks and you defend yourself, you’re probably finished.

    It’s grossly unfair, but for now, this is how it is.

  61. The malice murder conviction is puzzling legally. It looks more like the jury expressing it’s opinion about Trever McMichael’s behavior and being the triggerman rather than a strict legal interpretation. I didn’t pay enough attention to know how the prosecution argued that count or what evidence it used.

    The technical questions about burglary and citizen’s arrest are likely to be subject to appeal.
    The judge can likely claim that the instructions were only informed by the facts that came out during the testimony, but that kind of question of law should be clear before the defense presents.

    I think appeals are certain, maybe a 50% chance something sticks, but I’d bet against anyone getting off.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  62. @Jack D

    I doubt it happened.

    The Times is getting desperate.

    Someone in the Teddy Roosevelt thread posted this link, to which you responded.

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/22/wisconsin-democrats-kenosha-problem-523196

    While you’re right about the “narrative” the article indicates that the power structure is actually shifting it’s massive bulk a tiny bit, a millimeter, towards sanity. Not much. The article, written before the Waukesha Massacre, still gives too much credit to the Narrative. But they’ve given up on Jacob Blake, and they admit that Kenosha had mostly unpeaceful protests. I’m not saying we should be grateful. Quite the contrary.

  63. Batman says:

    I’m having a hard time processing the verdict because I don’t know what’s true about the case. If Armed Robbery was innocently out for a jog (which the MSM “asserts without evidence” to be true), they probably deserved to be convicted. If he was in Timberland boots and khaki cargo shorts, he probably wasn’t innocently out for a jog, and I think their actions were justified.

    The problem is there is no one on earth I’d trust to filter this information for me.

  64. Juvenalis says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    The fact that Travis McMichael had an image of a Confederate flag on his truck license plate was never fully explained. Perhaps he is a student of nineteenth century history.

    McMichael did not avail himself of the opportunity to take the stand to explain why he had this license plate, which would be regarded as offensive by many people. It is possible that the jury might have drawn the conclusion that he was some kind of racist.

    Well listening to Fox News conservatives/Republicans discussing the Rittenhouse case, it does sound as if they have accepted the premise that it is now illegal in the United States to be a “racist” or “white supremacist”, that’s what he was really on trial for—Kyle’s right to self-defense would be waived if it were discovered he held ‘politically incorrect’ views on race. And thus the “white supremacist” label was by far the worse accusation to be hurled at Kyle R by Biden and others, compared to charges of murder—especially since he only killed “fellow white people”.

    Juxtaposed so closely to the McMichael case, the disparity in reaction to the two cases among mainstream conservatives seems designed to set precedent that a White man’s right to self-defense is conditioned upon (1) the White man’s ideological, historical, political views, and (2) whether the people he shoots in self-defense are White or from a protected racial group—esp. blacks…

    • Agree: Rosie, TWS
    • Replies: @res
  65. Marquis says:
    @Paleo Liberal

    They are. Rittenhouse case was black and white textbook self defense that shouldn’t have been charged and was purely a political prosecution.

    The Arbery case pushes the limits of justifiable force, but is far from murder. Much like the Chauvin case the white defendant vs the black “victim “ was prosecuted to hell and beyond without any nuance.

    Any “conservative” that thinks this is a good development is off his (or her!) rocker.

    • Agree: Frank McGar
  66. Element59 says:
    @Ken52

    Not surprised that the jury was overwhelmingly comprised of women, based on hearing the voices of the jurors (10 of the 12?). This fact portends to a jury not having minds of systematic analysis, but of minds of emotive empathy for sympathizing with the perceived “victim”.

  67. Marquis says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Dumb. No defendant should ever take the stand. Certainly not over something as dumb as a political license plate.

    The locals investigated and said no charges. The politically charged feds came in and said “not so fast.” And your instincts are to side with the feds. You have bad instincts.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    , @TWS
  68. @D. K.

    Trespassing is coming onto someone’s property without permission.

    I repeat: Georgia law says that misdemeanor trespassing requires either signage or verbal notice.

    The property owner put up no signage. “Do Not Trespass” signs were nowhere on the property.

    However, the property owner had told the police he did not want Arbery to be on his property. So the police, who did not know Arbery’s name, were looking for him at the time of his death to give him “verbal notice” that he could not be on the property. But he had not yet been informed. Until Arbery was informed, he was not guilty of trespassing.

    Criminal trespass requires an intent to commit a crime. But the property owner testified under oath that he had no proof Arbery stole so much as a single item from him during his many times on the property. Nor did he damage the property. Arbery acted weird on the various videos and the owner told police he thought Arbery might be on drugs, which is why the owner did not want him on the property, but there was no indication Arbery stole or damaged anything.

    That was critical to the trial result, in my opinion. I’m sure that Arbery was up to no good, and that he might have been responsible for the rash of recent break-ins in the area. You seem sure as well. But the defense had no proof Arbery committed a crime, not even trespassing that day.

  69. Anon[255] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hibernian

    After Some of Kyle’s revelations in the Tucker interview, I’m wondering if his first lawyers were controlled opposition.

    • LOL: IHTG
    • Replies: @Luzzatto
    , @joe862
  70. “Mr. English was frustrated that every time he called the police, Arbery was gone before the cops could question him.”

    The McMichaels have taught us two things:

    1. The police cannot protect you. Most of the time they just show up and do the paperwork. They do their jobs at the pleasure of the politicians in power, not for you.

    2. Given that we have to protect ourselves in the event of an attack and that the number of deadbeats like Aubery is not going to decrease, we have to put some thought into how we’re going to react and keep ourselves safe.

    How many times have we heard “unarmed black man” interpreted to mean innocent and harmless?

    Just as many blacks had to flee the south years ago for their safety, it probably makes sense for peaceful people of all races to choose wisely where they call home.

  71. It was pretty clear from the start that the point of persecuting the McMichaels was more just to railroad them on false charges without much publicity than to put on a show (like the Rittenhouse trial). Very similar to the way they railroaded James Fields, really. Very little national publicity for the trial itself, then trumpet the “successful” verdict for a couple of days. The Rittenhouse trial, on the other hand, was obviously intended as a kosher sandwich/ managed dialectic/ heavily publicized show trial from the start. Note that even the notorious Neocon Review (which ordinarily only concerns itself with more important issues such as how to get the American goyim to fight more wars for Israel) defended the Rittenhouse verdict.

    But the McMichaels got thrown under the bus for defending themselves against Mr. Armed Robbery’s crazed attack as quickly and quietly as possible.

    In retrospect, the early “news” media narrative of Mr. Armed Robbery’s death looks like an abortive form of the Floyd narrative — it got 24/ 7 hype for a week or two, they put a lot of effort into the long-discredited “jogger” trope… then just dropped it. Apparently it wasn’t quite right as a focus, a “hook,” for the planned riots/ generalized destruction. Perhaps because they wanted footage of a White cop in uniform visibly “oppressing” an “innocent” Negro? Who knows.

    At any rate, they dropped that one and continued looking, and a couple of months later they decided to promote the Floyd overdose as the ostensible “cause” of the BLM/ antifa riots.

    They’re just following through by punishing the designated “oppressors” in the earlier narrative, but doesn’t rate much “news” coverage — just get it done quick and dirty. They’re even prosecuting the Georgia prosecutor for her failure to follow the plan — though they termed it something like “obstruction of justice”… for failing to follow the orders of a police detective in making decisions on who to prosecute and for what. I’m not kidding. Read the indictment — that’s what it says. Want some mustard on that ham sandwich?

    Perhaps we should compare the framing of the McMichaels (and the persecution of the prosecutor for the horrific “crime’ of exercising prosecutorial discretion) to the result of this recent trial. Apart from the Likudniks at Breitbart, it was apparently covered almost entirely by local “news”:

    https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/follow-day-5-of-the-billy-chemirmir-trial-as-jurors-resume-deliberations/2820503/

    https://texasmetronews.com/20863/prosecutors-vow-to-re-try-billy-chemirmir-after-judge-declares-mistrial-in-capital-murder-case/

    Murdered dozens of elderly Whites in cold blood, but the jury ended up hopelessly deadlocked — surely not because the Blacks on the jury refused to convict a fellow African who, after all, only murdered wypipo… right?

    But hey — just keep on believing in abstract rules of “justice” and the “rule of law” — while African people, Levantine people, and pretty much everyone else in the world believes only in what’s good for their tribe. Or you could, you know, do a search for “jury nullification”…

    • Agree: James Braxton
  72. @Juvenalis

    What is your evidence that the victim is Jewish?

    I didn’t say that he was, I asked. The first organization quoted in the local article linked to was Lubavitcher. That seems a little odd, don’t you think? We lived near a large settlement of Lubavitchers in the city, and I don’t remember news organizations going to them at all for their take on anything, let alone first.

    No, the family isn’t Jewish, but the supposition wasn’t unreasonable. That’s what questions are for.

    Besides, the dad’s name is Aaron. A 50-50 bet.

  73. Opinion by RASHAWN RAY

    11/24/2021 09:18 PM EST

    Rashawn Ray is a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution and professor of Sociology at University of Maryland. He is on Twitter @SociologistRay.

    Ahmaud Arbery’s killers were convicted of murder for what many — including Emmett Till’s cousin

    I believe the rules of Aposotolic Succession renders any opinion by a “cousin” of St. Emmett unimpeachable, irrevocable and wholly infallible.

    — called a “modern-day lynching.” Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man with ambitions of becoming an electrician, was chased by three white men in pickup trucks. White men in pickup trucks armed with shotguns. Tragically, Arbery, who was unarmed,

    but trying mightily to self remedy that disadvantage

    did not survive their encounter.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/24/when-black-men-meet-white-communities-523372

  74. @D. K.

    Yes, the entire community of Santina Shores had seen an uptick in burglaries and break-ins in the many months leading up to the shooting. I suspect Arbery might have been involved in some of them, but that is just speculation based on his suspicious behavior and his past criminal record. The property owner had no proof that Arbery ever stole a single item from him or damaged his property in any way, and he made that clear during his deposition.

    He described Arbery’s actions to police as “plundering around.”

    Yes, but as the property owner made clear during his testimony he did not mean Arbery stole anything from him. He was using the word “plundering” loosely when he spoke to police.

    Look, I don’t think these three men did anything illegal, any more than Rittenhouse did anything illegal. Their actions, while rash, were understandable in context. They had every reason to believe they had just witnessed a felony and that Arbery was fleeing (once again) before police could arrive to take him into custody. They had every reason to believe he might be armed and dangerous based on Travis McMichael’s previous encounter with him.

    But he wasn’t. And I think that made all the difference to the trial. Despite their reasonable beliefs to the contrary, they were chasing an unarmed man who had done nothing wrong on that particular day other than act in a suspicious manner, which is not a crime. At that point, the McMichael’s only defense was that Arbery attacked them and that Travis shot him in self-defense. But that was a hard sell.

    • Replies: @Jack Armstrong
    , @we
    , @Redman
  75. @Jonathan Mason

    The fact that Travis McMichael had an image of a Confederate flag on his truck license plate was never fully explained.

    It is a battle flag. It’s been a symbol of hatred whites have directed at other whites for 161 years.

    Here’s one you might appreciate more:

    • LOL: Tony massey
  76. @Pincher Martin

    I thought the McMichaels had good reasons for believing Arbery was fleeing after having just commissioned a felony. It was their bad luck he had not on that particular day. But the notion he was just a jogger is nonsense

    Arbery was a violent criminal, and if the local police and criminal justice officials had done their job previously, he would not have been out on the street. Vidoes of him fighting with the police and shoplifting reveal a nasty individual who was a tragedy waiting to happen. He also was caught within an illegal gun at a high school basketball game. He wasn’t just some random jogger in the wrong neighborhood. He was a potentially dangerous criminal.

    The neighborhood he was in was far from downtown Brunswick, where he lived, and, in order to get there, he had to either run a good distance to and over a suspension bridge that I have never seen anyone run over, or run a much longer stretch around a salt marsh, which would be about equal to a marathon.

    Murder is a ridiculous charge for what happened.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  77. Luzzatto says:
    @Jack D

    Usually African American hate hoaxes involve nooses and not firearms. So he should get bonus points for hate hoax creativity, while the other African American hate hoaxers are just mindless zombies with their damn nooses.

  78. @Jonathan Mason

    The fact that Travis McMichael had an image of a Confederate flag on his truck license plate was never fully explained. Perhaps he is a student of nineteenth century history.

    This is just dumb. It requires absolutely no explanation at all.

  79. @D. K.

    (b) A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another . . . .

    It wasn’t a dwelling. It didn’t have doors.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  80. D. K. says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “I repeat: Georgia law says that misdemeanor trespassing requires either signage or verbal notice.”

    I repeat: entering a dwelling is not trespassing; it is an illegal entry. If that illegal entry is found to have been done with the intent to steal something or to commit an additional felony, such as rape, then the illegal entry becomes a burglary. Not having a “No Trespassing!” sign on your property does not make someone’s entering your house with the intent to rape you while you are doing your yoga routine a mere misdemeanor trespassing offense, let alone an unenforceable misdemeanor because you had failed to put up a sign about not wanting people to enter your home with the intention of raping you.

    You are not an attorney; you do not know what you are talking about.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  81. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the verdict against the McMichaels, the conviction of William Bryan is difficult to justify.

    Imagine that your neighbors pass you in their pickup, and call out that they are chasing a suspected burglar. You follow in your own vehicle and by the time you catch up, the suspect and one of the neighbors are grappling over a gun. You film the encounter from inside your vehicle, stopped behind the other vehicle. The neighbors kill the suspect, and then you are convicted of felony murder. It does not make sense, even on the doctrine of common purpose – because you do not have a common purpose with the others.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  82. @Pincher Martin

    Stay in the truck. Arbery wasn’t going anywhere.

  83. Never go near Black people. Certainly don’t try to enforce outdated concepts of social behavior upon them. Move away quickly.

    Had Rittenhouse even grazed “jump kick man”, he would soon have been sentenced on all the charges. This is the new reality for us.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  84. we says:
    @Pincher Martin

    The other weird thing about this case is that the McMichael’s own video is probably 100% of what convicted them. I think everyone on both sides of the verdict agrees that Arbery was mentally ill. Without the video, Arbery is a mentally ill aggressive black who responds stereotypically when he is confronted by the McMichaels – he attacks them and then they respond with force to protect themselves.
    However, that is not what the video shows. The video shows an unarmed person, who hadn’t actually committed a crime, running from three people who are pointing a deadly weapon at him. Per Pincher’s posts, Arbery would have had a reasonable case for self defense if he had grabbed the shotgun and shot his pursuers. He was not guilty of a crime and had a reasonable fear of the people that were pursuing him. The McMichaels should have let him go and then let the police respond.

  85. What is outrageous is that this should at the worst a case of manslaughter. But if you’re a badwhite it becomes intentional.

  86. JR Ewing says:

    These guys did in fact murder this “jogger” according to the legal definition, so the verdict appears to be just.

    But, that being said, the “jogger” was not an upstanding member of the community by any stretch and probably ultimately deserved whatever he got given the circumstances. Maybe not in this one individual circumstance, but cumulatively, it all eventually caught up to him.

    So, justice served all around it appears.

  87. V. Hickel says:

    well even Breitbart is falsely calling him a “jogger” now… AA deserved what he got and the world is better off without him, but once the idiot Roddie released that video they were doomed.

  88. conatus says:

    I think no White person in AmeriKa will ever entertain ‘good Samaritan’ thoughts in the US of A ever again.
    No one will ever voluntarily try to stop a crime in progress ever again.
    For the corporate media to whine about rape on the Philly subway and then to cheer the life imprisonment these guys get is inconsistent.
    Let the rapes, looting and thefts continue, I will not notice and turn my head.

  89. @Reg Cæsar

    From the link you provided: The Mukwonago Area School District released a statement .. “Sadly we lost one of our students today.”

    The totally crappy, MASD is upset that one of its funding tokens — one with 9 years of useful life left on it — was taken away.

    • Replies: @Gabe Ruth
  90. @Patrick in SC

    You may be whatever you resolve to be.

    The time for war has not yet come, but it will come, and that soon; and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard.
    If the general government should persist in the measures now threatened, there must be war. It is painful enough to discover with what unconcern they speak of war and threaten it.
    Captain, my religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me. Captain, that is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave.
    Who could not conquer with such troops as these?
    Always mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy, if possible; and when you strike and overcome him, never let up the pursuit so long as your men have strength to follow; for an army routed, if hotly pursued, becomes panic-stricken, and can then be destroyed by half their number. The other rule is, never fight against heavy odds, if by any possible maneuvering you can hurl your own force on only a part, and that the weakest part of your enemy and crush it. Such tactics will win every time, and a small army may thus destroy a large one in detail, and repeated victory will make it invincible.
    Tell ap hill to bring his men up…
    Now let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees…

  91. How much THC was in the body of the schizophrenic Arbery when he made the decisions, if they can be dignified by the label of decisions, that cost him his life and two men probably the rest of their lives in prison and one man maybe 20 years in prison?

    How much drugs were in the body of Rosenbaum when he committed suicide with Rittenhouse’s rifle, caused another death and massive suffering for many people?

    We know that George Floyd’s body contained a massive amount of drugs when he stumbled into eternity and cost Chauvin a long prison term, the country five months of urban terror and, not so indirectly, a couple thousand lives in surging homicide rates.

    We may be witnessing a series on human car crashes caused by petty criminals on drugs as imperfect cops or citizens try to control their drug-induced crazy or suicidal behavior. And after each crash, we then try to apportion blame precisely between drug-crazed petty criminal and imperfect cop or citizen, along the way loading each case with all the ideological baggage we are accumulating.

    • Agree: Redman
  92. @Jonathan Mason

    The fact that Travis McMichael had an image of a Confederate flag on his truck license plate was never fully explained. Perhaps he is a student of nineteenth century history.

    You bought that line of crap? I remember black members of Confederate Heritage groups, and have personally seen blacks wear Confederate flag shirts and hats in the Brunswick area….not many, and not lately, but it happens. I see Confederate flags on trucks and shirts daily, and most blacks and whites just consider it a part of local life, until recently, I guess. I’ve also met old-line southern Jews who revere the Confederacy.

    My southern ancestors didn’t benefit from either the Confederacy or the Union, so I don’t really hold either dear.

  93. Anonymous[407] • Disclaimer says:
    @D. K.

    I remember the Confed battle flag briefly — very briefly — became a fun fashion symbol in the early ’00s. I acknowledge this is partly for its “conventional edginess,” if that isn’t a contradiction (slightly outre, but not enough to embarrass the wearers). The other reason is it has an enduring cool design, much like a certain other flag design favored by Sid Vicious in the ’70s.

    In hindsight, I’d say the way this worked was that people with no connection to the Lost Cause (e.g. Polish runway models, or whatever) were OK’d to culturally appropriate it. But after His Obamaness ascended we got all puritanical and abstemious and decided nobody should express anything culturally ever, except in forms of the all-purpose “Black People Good” slogan.

    And I don’t know if it is good or bad news for Unz.com partisans, but the early signs seem to be that nobody cares about the defendants losing this Georgia trial. I personally think that’s a bad thing, in the long-term civilization sense, but Wisconsin totally owned the Thanksgiving ramp-up.

    • Agree: D. K.
  94. @Jonathan Mason

    The jury has sent a strong message to Georgia peasants that grabbing guns and ganging up on an individual is not self-defense.

    No one claimed that “grabbing guns and ganging up on an individual” is self-defense. And surely you know that.

  95. I don’t care about the Arbery case. The three guys were stupid to pursue the jogger and stupidity is a sin. One thing’s for sure: blacks don’t regard this as justice, just another notch, and I no longer fool myself into thinking that they’ll be satisfied. They are never satisfied.

    I’m more interested in Charlottesville. I don’t know what to make of it. I despise Richard B. Spencer but what’s he guilty of?

    • Replies: @Luzzatto
  96. @RobinG

    He said GA case v. Rittenhouse, not parade car killer…. Did you misread, maybe?

    Mea culpa. PL lives 2-3 counties from Waukesha and Kenosha, so it was easy to mix up.

    Back to Atlanta, Emory U has managed to keep MARTA out of their environs for half a century, but a tunnel was built and abandoned. Some grafittist slapped a portrait of JFK in it. It’s not dated, but he was still hero in the ’70s.

  97. D. K. says:
    @ben tillman

    “It wasn’t a dwelling. It didn’t have doors.”

    ***

    (1) “Dwelling” means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is designed or intended for occupancy for residential use.

    ***

    https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2014/title-16/chapter-7/article-1/section-16-7-1

    The vacant house, with attached garage, was a dwelling, “designed [and] intended for occupancy for residential use,” irrespective of whether the garage had a door on it yet, or a door that was left open.

    ***

    Historically, burglary was defined as breaking and entering into a home at night with the intent to commit a felony (a crime punishable by state prison) inside. Today, many states have done away with these narrow requirements and a person commits burglary by entering into any building or structure without permission with the intent to commit a crime inside. For more information on burglary, see Burglary: Penalties and Sentencing and Home Invasions.

    In most states, a house under construction would be considered a building or a structure, unless perhaps it was in the earliest stages of development. For example, if a foundation has been laid, but no walls are yet framed, then there would be no building to “enter” and the entry may have to be charged as trespassing (explained below).

    ***

    https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/can-i-be-convicted-burglarizing-a-house-under-constru

    [MORE]

    ***

    In Georgia, a person commits burglary by entering or remaining in a structure without authorization and with intent to commit a felony or theft inside. The penalties for burglary depend on the circumstances of the crime. A home invasion carries the harshest penalties and can be punished by up to life imprisonment. Georgia also criminalizes criminal trespass (going onto someone else’s property without permission), although it’s a less serious crime than burglary.

    . . .

    Traditionally, the law defined burglary as breaking and entering into a home at night with the intent to commit a felony inside. Today, Georgia law—along with many other states—has done away with most of these requirements.

    Under current law, the elements essential to burglary include (1) unlawfully entering or remaining in a protected structure (2) with intent to commit a crime.

    (Ga. Code §§ 16-7-1, 16-7-5 (2020).)

    . . .

    Burglary statutes protect more than homes. Protected structures include buildings, structures, vehicles, watercraft, and aircraft. The protected structure can be occupied, unoccupied, or even vacant. So, for example, a person who goes into a vacant store intending to steal copper pipes could be convicted of burglary.

    An unlawful entry does not require force or a physical breaking to constitute burglary. A person who pushes open an unlocked window or door commits an unlawful entry. Unlawful entry also includes going into a portion of a building that is generally closed to the public, such as an employee breakroom.

    Remaining unlawfully might occur when someone has been invited into the premises (say a store or party), but the person stays after the invitation is revoked (asked to leave the party) or expired (store closed). The intent to remain doesn’t need to occur at the entry, just some point after entering.

    . . .

    The crime of burglary occurs as soon as the defendant unlawfully enters or remains in the structure with the intent to commit a theft or some other crime, even if the intended crime or theft never occurs. Say a person sneaks into a home, but before he can take anything, the homeowner returns and the person flees. Despite not stealing anything, the person still committed the crime of burglary. If the theft or other crime is completed, additional charges can be filed. Intent to commit a crime can also be formed after unlawfully entering the premises. (Dillard v. State, 753 S.E.2d 772 (Ga. App. 2013).)

    A prosecutor generally proves a defendant’s illicit intention through circumstantial evidence. Unless the defendant confesses, we can’t know what was going in the defendant’s mind. For instance, a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that a gunman went inside another’s home intending to commit a crime based on the homeowner’s testimony that she came home to find an armed person rifling through her possessions.

    . . .

    If a person knowingly enters or remains on another’s land, property, or vehicle without permission for an unlawful purpose (not amounting to theft or a felony), the person commits criminal trespass rather than burglary. It’s also criminal trespass to enter or remain on another’s land or property after being informed not to or once asked to leave. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor and can result in up to one year in jail and a fine up to \$1,000. (Ga. Code §§ 16-7-21, 17-10-3 (2020).)

    ***

    https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/burglary-and-home-invasions-georgia.htm

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  98. @James N. Kennett

    I agree, if things happened as you say they did.

    As for William Bryan, I can never forgive him for obstructing me at the 1896 Democratic Convention. His “Cross of Gold” speech paled in comparison to what I had to say:

    When this convention disperses, I hope my fellow citizens will have a different opinion of the man with the pitchfork from South Carolina. I am from South Carolina, which was the home of secession. [Great hissing.] Oh, hiss if you like. There are only three things on earth which can hiss—a goose, a serpent, and a man, and the man who hisses the name of South Carolina has no knowledge whatever of its grand history. But I tell you I do not come from the South Carolina of 1860, which you charge brought about the disruption of the Democratic Party. The war there declared was for the emancipation of the black slaves. I come now from a South Carolina which demands the emancipation of the white slaves. You charge that in 1860 South Carolina brought about the disruption of the Democratic Party. I say to you now that I am willing to see the Democratic Party disrupted again to accomplish the emancipation of the white slaves.

  99. @D. K.

    DK,

    1) It was a construction site, not a dwelling.

    2) There was no proof Arbery committed, or intended to commit, any crime on the property.

    3) The police, who were looking for Arbery at the time of his death, were looking to give him “verbal notice” he was not to trespass on the property.

    4) The police officer who spoke to McMichael’s father two weeks before the shooting mistakenly agreed with McMichael that Arbery was guilty of “criminal trespass”… “at the very least.” That was the assumption under which the McMichaels tried to make a citizens’ arrest of Arbery.

    You are not an attorney; you do not know what you are talking about.

    If you are an attorney, then you’re an idiot who has not paid attention to even the most basic details of this case.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    , @RobinG
  100. @thomasblair

    I have only two questions:

    1. Did the break-ins and burglaries stop?
    2. Who jogs in Timbs?

    I think there are unanswered questions. From everything I have read, Arbery didn’t live anywhere near where he was killed, and it would have been difficult to get there by foot. I doubt anyone runs that route, either. Did he have a car? Did somebody drop him off? Was he a long distance runner? It doesn’t add up.

  101. Luzzatto says:
    @Anon

    Lin Wood is a Democrat plant. Lin Wood told Republican voters to never vote again in Presidential, House, and Senate races unless Donald Trump is reinstated as POTUS, which Lin Wood knows Donald Trump is NEVER going to be reinstated as POTUS. Lin Wood wants all Republicans to stop voting so that even Deep Red States transform into Deep Blue States.

  102. @Jonathan Mason

    Georgia peasants…

    Atlanta has had an underground railroad system for about 50 years, the same as Washington and San Francisco.

    On the other hand, it’s less than a mile from San Francisco to Alameda on the subway.

    That is, if Quito ever gets around to finishing it:

  103. D. K. says:
    @RobinG

    “Infer away. You have no proof of intent.”

    Proof of Arbery’s intent was unnecessary; he was not on trial for his (final) felony burglary.

    ***

    The Georgia Citizen’s Arrest law, which was repealed in May 2021, dated to 1863 during the American Civil War. Its last iteration, passed by the Georgia legislature in 2010 and signed into law, stated “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.” A private individual who makes a “citizen’s arrest” is instructed “without any unnecessary delay” to “take the person arrested before a judicial officer . . . or deliver the person and all effects removed from him to a peace officer of this state.” Nearly every state in the United States currently permits citizen arrests in one form or another.The Georgia Citizen’s Arrest law, which was repealed in May 2021, dated to 1863 during the American Civil War. Its last iteration, passed by the Georgia legislature in 2010 and signed into law, stated “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.” A private individual who makes a “citizen’s arrest” is instructed “without any unnecessary delay” to “take the person arrested before a judicial officer . . . or deliver the person and all effects removed from him to a peace officer of this state.” Nearly every state in the United States currently permits citizen arrests in one form or another.

    ***

    https://ibw21.org/commentary/citizens-arrest-law-at-center-of-trial-of-arberys-killers-originated-in-slavery/

    All that the defendants had to demonstrate, under the statute that was still in effect last year, was their own “reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion” that Arbery was fleeing from a felony committed within their “immediate knowledge.”

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  104. @D. K.

    Nothing you wrote supports your claim that it was a dwelling.

    Your previous comment included the definition of burglary in the first degree. It applies only to a dwelling. I have no idea why you spend so much time talking about a “structure” in your later comment when according to YOU, burglary in Georgia requires the entry of a DWELLING.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    , @D. K.
  105. @Pincher Martin

    I don’t think they should have chased him but what did the jury expect them to do when Arbery charged? Hand him the gun? Should be manslaughter at the most.

    With that said these guys were really foolish to do this in the Age of Clowns.

    Even if the law is on your side there is too much risk of it becoming a case where Clown Town decides you must pay cause slavery. It’s just not worth it. Someone like Arbery will get their due eventually.

    If you are going to keep a shotgun for self defense then load the first round with steel shot BB. That way you can aim for the legs and drop someone without killing them. If you really feel threatened and tried to retreat then shuck it away.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  106. joe862 says:
    @Anon

    The thing with the Proud Boys couldn’t be anything else. There’s no way that’s anything other than intentional bad optics.

  107. Luzzatto says:
    @Paperback Writer

    Those 3 hillbillies were dumb to go out of their way to create trouble. Never shoot a jogger unless they start shit with you first like with Bernhard Goetz who shot joggers because he was being mugged at gunpoint. If a jogger ain’t starting shit with you than you do not need to start shit with them. Mind your own damn business.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
  108. RobinG says:
    @Dr. DoomNGloom

    The malice murder conviction is puzzling legally.

    Agreed. ‘Malice’ seems to be a legal term. Is it equivalent to premeditated? If so, I don’t buy it, and it seems like a reasonable point to appeal.

  109. Luzzatto says:

    Bernhard Goetz is a justifiable shooting of joggers while the 3 Deliverance dudes in Georgia is not.

    • Agree: siv
    • Replies: @Redman
  110. It should be normal, not exceptional, that citizens who see a prowler would chase the man down and hold him for the police. This is not vigilantism and not grandstanding. In fact it should be expected of every able-bodied man in a free country.
    The message of this case is clear. Do not pursue blacks. Do not confront blacks no matter what their behavior. Avoid blacks. If you get into an altercation with blacks two things will happen:
    1. The black will do something ridiculously crazy like charge a shotgun.
    2. White officials and black juries will side with the black, no matter the facts.

    One of the men just convicted of murder did nothing more than tag along and watch as the events unfolded. Truly he was just a witness, and now will go to prison for life.
    It is dangerous to even witness a black, much less confront one.
    This will not change until the monopoly on violence shifts from blacks back to whites, which will not happen as long as the government of the United States exists.

    • Agree: europeasant
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  111. @we

    The other weird thing about this case is that the McMichael’s own video is probably 100% of what convicted them.

    It’s very weird because if had deleted the video it never would have become mainstream news and there probably would not have been a trial. Arbery was a convicted criminal with a history of using jogging as a cover for casing neighborhoods. If he ended up dead in a confrontation without witnesses then they would just assume he was at fault. He took the video assuming it would help them and the opposite was true.

    However, that is not what the video shows. The video shows an unarmed person, who hadn’t actually committed a crime, running from three people who are pointing a deadly weapon at him.

    But he didn’t try to run from them when they stopped. He had a clear path to run away and then darted back for the shotgun.

    What happened is that he didn’t think some suburban White guy would pull the trigger. The media convinces Blacks that they all have super ninja reflexes and suburban White men don’t have the balls to do anything. He planned on taking the shotgun and blasting them both.

    Rosenbaum thought the same thing. He didn’t think some 17 year old from the burbs would actually pull the trigger. That is why he charged him. The antifa mob made the same assumption. Everyone watches too much TEEVEE which tells them that conservative looking Whites with guns are all posers.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  112. @we

    The other weird thing about this case is that the McMichael’s own video is probably 100% of what convicted them.

    Yes, it was Bryan’s video, who was the third man convicted in this case. The elder McMichael asked his lawyer friend to release the video to the public because he believed it would help his case and reduce tensions in the area. That obviously didn’t happen.

    I think everyone on both sides of the verdict agrees that Arbery was mentally ill.

    He was mentally ill; he had a criminal record, including a conviction for shoplifting; and he was known as the “jogger” because he would steal from stores and run.

    I have no proof, but little doubt, that Arbery stole items from the Satina Shores neighborhood, which had suffered a rash of recent break-ins in the months before Arbery was shot.

    However, that is not what the video shows. The video shows an unarmed person, who hadn’t actually committed a crime, running from three people who are pointing a deadly weapon at him.

    I have little sympathy for Arbery, who I believe I was up to no good in the neighborhood, but in my opinion the key moment in the trial was when Travis McMichael admitted to pointing his weapon at Arbery before the two of them fought and never made any attempt to explain to Arbery what they were doing. That made Travis’s claim of self-defense less credible.

    The McMichaels should have let him go and then let the police respond.

    But of course the police had been called to the neighborhood many times before, and they had been unable to do anything about the rash of break-ins nor had they been able to find Arbery. The last time was on the evening of February 11th when police showed up and investigated the property with their weapons drawn because Travis had reported on his 9-1-1 call that he thought Arbery was acting as if he was armed.

    That explains why the McMichaels were so aggressive in pursuing Arbery two weeks later. They could have called the police again that day, but the police would’ve shown up late and Arbery would’ve been gone again. It was their back luck that Arbery hadn’t committed any crime that day, but they certainly had reason to believe he had and that he was also potentially armed and dangerous.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  113. D. K. says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “1) It was a construction site, not a dwelling.”

    ***

    In most states, a house under construction would be considered a building or a structure, unless perhaps it was in the earliest stages of development. For example, if a foundation has been laid, but no walls are yet framed, then there would be no building to “enter” and the entry may have to be charged as trespassing (explained below).

    ***

    https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/can-i-be-convicted-burglarizing-a-house-under-constru

    “2) There was no proof Arbery committed, or intended to commit, any crime on the property.”

    Entering the dwelling without permission was a crime. No sign is necessary to dissuade trespassers on the property from illegally entering the dwelling. Intention to commit a further crime inside of the dwelling, whether a theft or a felony, can be inferred from the circumstances– e.g., his entering into the same dwelling, on several previous occasions, including at night.

    “3) The police, who were looking for Arbery at the time of his death, were looking to give him ‘verbal notice’ he was not to trespass on the property.”

    That is relevant as to criminal trespass onto the property, but not as to illegal entries or burglaries of the dwelling.

    “4) The police officer who spoke to McMichael’s father two weeks before the shooting mistakenly agreed with McMichael that Arbery was guilty of ‘criminal trespass’… ‘at the very least.’ That was the assumption under which the McMichaels tried to make a citizens’ arrest of Arbery.”

    The issue is whether they had “reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion” that Arbery, on that Sunday afternoon, was “escaping or attempting to escape” after committing a felony (in that case, a felony burglary).

    “If you are an attorney, then you’re an idiot who has not paid attention to even the most basic details of this case.”

    Having been admitted to the Bar, over thirty-five years ago, I know the difference between trespass, illegal entry and burglary– which you obviously do not.

  114. @Jonathan Mason

    Georgia peasants

    The anonymity of the internet invites this sort of cowardly rudeness. If you say this to the face of one of the good men of Georgia, you’ll get the beating you deserve.

    • Troll: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  115. @D. K.

    Proof of Arbery’s intent was unnecessary; he was not on trial for his (final) felony burglary.

    He was not on trial at all. So stop referring to the Georgia statute on burglary, you numbnuts. There is zero proof that Arbery committed or intended to commit any burglary that day, your tendentious interpretation of the video notwithstanding.

    All that the defendants had to demonstrate, under the statute that was still in effect last year, was their own “reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion” that Arbery was fleeing from a felony committed within their “immediate knowledge.”

    The defendants could’ve helped their case enormously if they had announced to Arbery that they were arresting him. “Stop or I’ll blow your fucking head off” doesn’t cut it.

    The McMichaels had a reasonable belief that Arbery had just committed a crime. They assumed (incorrectly) that he had trespassed. They assumed (incorrectly) that he had committed a felony.

    That was their bad luck. Their reasonable suspicions were wrong, and so the focus fell on their aggressive actions that day. They were very aggressive in chasing an innocent Arbery down and confronting him in such a way that Arbery’s assault on an armed Travis McMichael seemed like a reasonable claim of self-defense on Arbery’s part rather than McMichael’s.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  116. ‘Whaddaya think?’

    One step forward, two steps back.

  117. @Jonathan Mason

    ‘The fact that Travis McMichael had an image of a Confederate flag on his truck license plate was never fully explained. Perhaps he is a student of nineteenth century history.’

    ? It’s simply irrelevant to the question of his guilt. How do his political beliefs enter into the question of whether his actions constituted a crime?

  118. D. K. says:
    @ben tillman

    “Nothing you wrote supports your claim that it was a dwelling.”

    You have very poor reading comprehension in English:

    ***

    In most states, a house under construction would be considered a building or a structure, unless perhaps it was in the earliest stages of development. For example, if a foundation has been laid, but no walls are yet framed, then there would be no building to “enter” and the entry may have to be charged as trespassing (explained below).

    ***

    https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/can-i-be-convicted-burglarizing-a-house-under-constru

    Here is the Georgia burglary statute’s definition of a “dwelling”:

    ***

    (a) As used in this Code section, the term:

    (1) “Dwelling” means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is designed or intended for occupancy for residential use.

    ***

    https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2019/title-16/chapter-7/article-1/section-16-7-1/

    “Your previous comment included the definition of burglary in the first degree. It applies only to a dwelling. I have no idea why you spend so much time talking about a ‘structure’ in your later comment when according to YOU, burglary in Georgia requires the entry of a DWELLING.”

    The reason that the criminal-defense attorneys who wrote that page talked about “buildings” and “structures” is because the Georgia burglary statute is not limited to “dwellings”:

    ***

    (c) A person commits the offense of burglary in the second degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant building, structure, railroad car, watercraft, or aircraft. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the second degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years. Upon the second and all subsequent convictions for burglary in the second degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than eight years.

    ***

    https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2019/title-16/chapter-7/article-1/section-16-7-1/

    “Dwellings” are a subset of the “buildings” and “structures” that are subject to Georgia’s burglary statute. If you can find a Georgia statute or judicial ruling that would rule the home out as a “dwelling,” feel welcome to cite it.

  119. Bernard says:

    Let’s be accurate in our description of the situation. Aubrey was not shot while simply jogging along a public street. That’s a favorite sound bite of the left, but it’s not true. He was shot after he had charged an armed man and attempted to disarm him. If he simply stopped, or perhaps continued on his way, ignoring the men, he very likely would be alive today. Aubrey acted irrationally and impulsively and the shooter was faced with having to surrender his weapon and perhaps be killed, or to kill Aubrey.

    This does not mean that the defendants were innocent if it could be proven that they acted outside the law by attempting to detain Aubrey, but it was far from a premeditated murder.

    This is a great site which details the various legal issues involved.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/

  120. @D. K.

    Hey DK, if you’re such a hotshit lawyer, how come you keep referring to a law which is not applicable to this case?

    There is NO EVIDENCE Arbery either committed a burglary or intended to commit a burglary on February 23rd or any other day on which he visited that construction site.

    Zero.

    Zilch.

    Nada.

    None.

    The owner of the property admitted as much under oath. The police officer who wanted to give Arbery a “verbal warning” for trespassing admitted as much under oath.

    Get it now? Or do you want to keep referring to a Georgia burglary statue in this case?

    As for Arbery’s so-called crime of “illegal entry”, find it for us good readers here. Or go back to law school.

    The police office in question testified that he intended to give Arbery a trespass warning.

    A police officer testified Friday he had planned to give Ahmaud Arbery a trespass warning for repeatedly entering an under-construction home before three White men pursued the unarmed Black man, 25, and one shot him dead.

    Glynn County Police Officer Robert Rash had been communicating with Georgia home-owner Larry English, who had sent him videos of Arbery lurking around the property in the Satilla Shores neighborhood on four occasions.

    “Once we make contact with the person on the property, we explain to them the homeowner does not want them there, they have no legal reason to be there,”
    Rash testified in Glynn County Superior Court. He did not yet know Arbery’s identity, he said. “I explain to that person, if you ever come back onto this property for any reason, you will be arrested,” he added. There was no evidence Arbery had ever taken anything from the home, Rash said.

    If Arbery had failed to heed the warning, at most, he faced a misdemeanor trespassing charge under Georgia law, the officer told the panel, which includes only one Black juror.

    Too bad you weren’t there, DK, to offer your legal skills to the court and let them know that Arbery was already guilty of “illegal entry.” The McMichaels could’ve used your fine legal skills in explaining the Georgia statute to the jury.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    , @Butler T. Reynolds
  121. D. K. says:
    @ben tillman

    P.S. You will notice, however, that it makes absolutely no legal difference, vis-a-vis the murder case against the three defendants, whether the house is a “dwelling” or merely a “building” or “structure.” Arbery’s (final) illegal entry, on the Sunday that he was killed in self-defense, would be a burglary in the second degree, instead of a burglary in the first degree, if the vacant house were ruled not to be a “dwelling.” Either crime is a felony– and thus a valid predicate for Georgia’s citizen’s arrest statute that was in effect, last year.

    • Agree: Jack Armstrong
    • Replies: @Thomas
  122. Not Raul says:

    Two things can both be — and are — true:

    1. The jury made the right decision in the Rittenhouse case.

    2. The jury made the right decision in the Arbery case.

    Juries get trashed a lot in the media, social media, around the water cooler, and so on; but they usually get it right. In general, juries are underrated.

  123. @Jonathan Mason

    The fact that Travis McMichael had an image of a Confederate flag on his truck license plate was never fully explained.

    I will fully explain it to you.
    The Confederate Flag is a symbol. It means whatever the person displaying it wants it to mean. Unlike England and Ecuador, in the United States we have a right to free speech, which means anyone can display any symbol they want, and the symbol can mean anything they want it to mean.
    For context, for most people who display Confederate flags it means they are proud of their fighting ancestors, proud of their home state, proud of their biscuits and gravy culture, and still a little pissed off that Yankees stopped them from having their own country. They don’t fly Confederate flags to express their opinions about blacks. They express their opinions about blacks the same way the English and Ecuadorians do, by living as far away from them as possible.

    • Agree: Rob McX, europeasant
  124. @John Johnson

    I don’t think they should have chased him but what did the jury expect them to do when Arbery charged? Hand him the gun? Should be manslaughter at the most.

    Yeah, I think the McMichaels were a little rash, but I understand their need to protect their community. Everything they had experienced and been told in the previous weeks and months before that day led them to believe Arbery was guilty of trespassing and had just committed a felony. They also had reason to believe Arbery might be armed.

    Even if the law is on your side there is too much risk of it becoming a case where Clown Town decides you must pay cause slavery. It’s just not worth it. Someone like Arbery will get their due eventually.

    Yeah, if the guy they shot was white rather than black, I don’t think anyone in the country pays the slightest attention to this case and the McMichaels and Bryan would never have gone to trial.

    • Replies: @res
  125. RobinG says:
    @Pincher Martin

    If you are an attorney, then you’re an idiot who has not paid attention to even the most basic details of this case.

    Yes, and he keeps alleging something [‘intent’] that he cannot prove. (Unfortunately, he’s not the only one.)

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @D. K.
  126. D. K. says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “Hey [sic] DK, if you’re such a hotshit lawyer, how come you keep referring to a law which is not applicable to this case?

    “There is NO EVIDENCE Arbery either committed a burglary or intended to commit a burglary on February 23rd or any other day on which he visited that construction site.

    “Zero.

    “Zilch.

    “Nada.

    “None.

    “The owner of the property admitted as much under oath. The police officer who wanted to give Arbery a ‘verbal warning’ for trespassing admitted as much under oath.

    “Get it now? Or do you want to keep referring to a Georgia burglary statue in this case?”

    Here is the surveillance video, captured from kitty-corner across the street:

    At just before 2:09 p.m., according to the video’s own time stamp, Arbery enters from stage right, walking towards the house that he already had burgled several times previously. At approximately 2:09:35 p.m., he illegally enters the dwelling . . . or building . . . or structure (it matters not which, for purposes of the charges against the three defendants). About three minutes later, someone approaches from stage left, and stands across the street from the house, apparently aware that Arbery was illegally inside of it. Shortly thereafter, a vehicle drives by the house, from left to right. Moments later, Arbery is seen running out of the garage, at a sprint, after about four minutes on the property, and on down the street, to the left.

    The owner’s testimony (dubious to begin with, as noted above) is incompetent on the issue of whether Arbery had, on that Sunday or previously, committed burglary. The owner’s testimony that nothing was stolen, even if accepted arguendo, does not prove that Arbery did not intend to steal anything of value that he could find. Why else did he keep illegally entering the house, including at night, if not to seek items worth stealing? If the defendants reasonably believed that Arbery had committed a felony burglary, that Sunday afternoon, by illegally entering the house with the intent to steal something, then the then-extant Georgia citizen’s arrest statute was applicable– and the owner’s (dubious) testimony can have no legal effect on the reasonableness of the defendants’ own beliefs as to Arbery’s actions, that day, when the absentee homeowner was nowhere near the scene of the crime.

    ***

    After the jurors were sworn in, the judge gave them several legal definitions that will help them determine if Arbery was committing a crime when he wandered around a house under construction, and whether the three white men who tried to detain him were making a lawful citizen’s arrest.

    Burglary in 1st degree: Without authority, and with intent to commit a theft, that person enters or remains in the dwelling of someone else. “The dwelling” includes a house, building or structure intended to be used as a residence. It does not matter if the building was occupied, unoccupied or vacant.

    Burglary intent to steal: You may infer intent to steal when the evidence shows an unlawful entry into the place of another where items of some value are present or kept inside, and when there is no other apparent motive for entry.

    ***

    https://www.amren.com/commentary/2021/11/opening-statements-in-the-arbery-trial/

    “Too bad you weren’t there, DK, to offer your legal skills to the court and let them know that Arbery was already guilty of ‘illegal entry.’ The McMichaels could’ve used your fine legal skills in explaining the Georgia statute to the jury.”

    You got that right, bitch!

    • Troll: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  127. RobinG says:
    @Pincher Martin

    They could have called the police again that day, but the police would’ve shown up late and Arbery would’ve been gone again

    Didn’t they have cell phones? They could have called the cops and stayed on the phone while they followed Arbery, apprising them of location. Instead they did the worst possible thing.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
  128. Thomas says:
    @D. K.

    There was nothing to support that Arbery had any intent to steal, a necessary element of burglary. He’d been inside the house several times but hadn’t been observed taking anything at any point. Greg McMichael was aware of that.

    Rash soon arrived on the scene and played for the McMichaels some of the videos English had sent to his cellphone.

    “This guy’s always on foot, nobody in the neighborhood knows who he is,” Rash tells the McMichaels, according to video from his body-worn camera. He tells them that English has only ever seen Arbery nosing around. “He hasn’t seen him actually take anything,” Rash says.

    “It’s criminal trespassing,” Gregory McMichael replies. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor in Georgia law.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/police-showed-defendants-video-ahmaud-arbery-before-shooting-georgia-jury-hears-2021-11-12/

    • Replies: @D. K.
  129. I think the most horrifying aspect of the case is that eleven white jurors apparently voted to convict.

    • Agree: Jack Armstrong, Redman
  130. D. K. says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “The defendants could’ve helped their case enormously if they had announced to Arbery that they were arresting him. ‘Stop or I’ll blow your fucking head off’ doesn’t cut it.”

    Who testified to any of the three defendants’ having said any such thing to Arbery, before he attacked one of them and attempted to steal his gun?

    “The McMichaels had a reasonable belief that Arbery had just committed a crime. They assumed (incorrectly) that he had trespassed. They assumed (incorrectly) that he had committed a felony.

    “That was their bad luck. Their reasonable suspicions were wrong, and so the focus fell on their aggressive actions that day. They were very aggressive in chasing an innocent Arbery down and confronting him in such a way that Arbery’s assault on an armed Travis McMichael seemed like a reasonable claim of self-defense on Arbery’s part rather than McMichael’s.”

    You have just admitted to the validity of their defense! They did not have to be right– even though they were, since Arbery was indeed fleeing a felony burglary; they merely needed to have a reasonable belief that he was fleeing a felony burglary:

    “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.”

    https://ibw21.org/commentary/citizens-arrest-law-at-center-of-trial-of-arberys-killers-originated-in-slavery/

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  131. @Patrick in SC

    It’s grossly unfair, but for now, this is how it is

    LOL Keeping a policy of MYOB is hardly unfair. These three assholes got exactly what was coming to them.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    , @Redman
  132. RobinG says:
    @we

    As you say…..

    How a shaky cellphone video changed the course of the Ahmaud Arbery murder case

    In an unlikely turn of events, Greg McMichael, with the help of attorney Alan Tucker, brought Bryan’s unsteady cellphone footage to radio station WGIG with the hope of absolving the men in the court of public opinion…

    Instead, the video published online by the radio station surfaced questions nationwide about racial profiling and the lack of criminal charges.

    Full story from Washington Post –
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/how-a-shaky-cellphone-video-changed-the-course-of-the-ahmaud-arbery-murder-case/ar-AAR6HED?ocid=msedgntp

  133. @Marquis

    Rittenhouse took the stand and it saved him. Evoking your right to silence only works if there is a question if you actually did it. In this case, and with Derek Chauvin, we all know you killed the guy, so if you don’t want to explain why, then you’re going away.

    • Replies: @Marquis
  134. D. K. says:
    @Thomas

    “There was nothing to support that Arbery had any intent to steal, a necessary element of burglary. He’d been inside the house several times but hadn’t been observed taking anything at any point. Greg McMichael was aware of that.”

    Why was the young career criminal and convicted felon illegally in the house, several times, including at night, if not because he was intending to steal whatever of value he could find, Thomas? What items of value that he would have been capable of carrying off, all the way to his own home, miles away, did he find but choose not to steal?

    • Replies: @Thomas
    , @Pincher Martin
  135. Anon[346] • Disclaimer says:

    Tension are high as citizens fear rioting and looting by white people…

    Oh, wait, that’s not a thing.

  136. Thomas says:
    @D. K.

    We can speculate all the live long day why Arbery was going into that house but it’s ultimately not relevant. He hadn’t taken anything. Greg McMichael was aware of that and of the legal significance of it. The burglary theory was argued by the defense and went to the jury, where it didn’t play. Ultimately, the jury is going to be the finder of what’s reasonable and what’s not.

    And now, prison law libraries in Georgia may soon be getting three eminently well qualified experts in the specific intent requirement for burglary.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  137. @D. K.

    Having been admitted to the Bar, over thirty-five years ago

    Time to retire, old man

    • Replies: @D. K.
  138. D. K. says:
    @Thomas

    “We can speculate all the live long day why Arbery was going into that house but it’s ultimately not relevant. He hadn’t taken anything.”

    Stealing something is not a required element of a felony burglary, Thomas.

    • Replies: @Thomas
  139. @D. K.

    I’ve seen the video, dumbass. So has everyone else. It doesn’t demonstrate either burglary or the intent to burgle.

    Does it show Arbery acting suspiciously? Yes. And so what? Acting suspiciously doesn’t merit a citizen’s arrest let alone a street execution.

    The owner’s testimony (dubious to begin with, as noted above) is incompetent on the issue of whether Arbery had, on that Sunday or previously, committed burglary.

    Where did you get your law degree? Toys “R” Us?

    The owner of the property is the only person who is competent to prove burglary in this case, since only he knows the full inventory of goods on his land. He is also the one who videotaped Arbery’s actions on his property and thus the only person fully competent to explain Arbery passing over valuable items (like tools) in the video, which are typically items that thieves burgle when visiting a construction site.

    The owner’s testimony that nothing was stolen, even if accepted arguendo, does not prove that Arbery did not intend to steal anything of value that he could find.

    Nothing else was presented in evidence showing Arbery’s intent to burgle. There was no testimony from, say, a friend of Arbery’s who might have said “Oh, yeah, Arbery told me he was going to burgle that house.” There was no evidence of stolen goods dropped during the chase, despite your Zapruder-like analysis of the video in which your eagle-eyes – and only your eagle-eyes – see Arbery dropping the loot.

    Why else did he keep illegally entering the house, including at night, if not to seek items worth stealing?

    As I continue to point out to you, but your dipshit legal brain somehow prevents you from understanding, Arbery never illegally entered the construction site. That would’ve required either “No Trespassing” signage, which was not put up, or a verbal warning to Arbery, which was never given.

    The owner of the property did have something stolen out of his boat months before the shooting, which precipitated his putting up video cameras on his property, but he never actually witnessed nor filmed Arbery stealing a single item from his property.

    After the jurors were sworn in, the judge gave them several legal definitions that will help them determine if Arbery was committing a crime when he wandered around a house under construction, and whether the three white men who tried to detain him were making a lawful citizen’s arrest.

    And what did they find in court? That Arbery committed no crime, and the McMichaels had not seen him commit a crime.

    Even the neighbor, Matthew Albenze, who saw Arbery first that day, causing him to flee the property, and who also pointed out Arbery to the McMichaels as he ran away from the site, said he never called 9-1-1, but only the nonemergency police phone number. Why? Because, as he told the court, he did not call 9-1-1 because he did not consider what he saw as an emergency. Arbery was “just looking around” the partially constructed home.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  140. @D. K.

    Why was the young career criminal and convicted felon illegally in the house, several times, including at night, if not because he was intending to steal whatever of value he could find, Thomas? What items of value that he would have been capable of carrying off, all the way to his own home, miles away, did he find but choose not to steal?

    I’m sure Arbery was there to steal something he considered worth stealing and just never found anything worth the effort, but that’s speculation on our part, legal beagle. He did not, in fact, steal or demonstrate any intent to steal from any property in Satina Shores on that day or on any other.

    Arbery’s criminal background is irrelevant to the case (but not to our speculations) since it was not allowed in the courtroom.

    I’m fairly confident Arbery was in the neighborhood to steal something, if not on that day than on some other day. I’m somewhat certain he had already stolen items in the previous months while “jogging” through the neighborhood.

    But that is only (well-founded) speculation on my part based on Arbery’s background, criminal record, and suspicious behavior. It could not be used by the defense in the case.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  141. Thomas says:
    @D. K.

    Stealing something is not a required element of a felony burglary, Thomas.

    Intent to steal or to commit a felony is. The evidence showed that the McMichaels were aware Arbery had entered the house multiple times but hadn’t taken anything. Greg McMichael wasn’t reticent to the detectives after the shooting about what he thought Arbery had been up to and the basis of that belief. It was all there for the jury to consider: the burglary claim, the reasonableness of that assumption, and the facts it was (or wasn’t) based on. As I said, it didn’t play.

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @D. K.
  142. Anonymous[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    A few weeks back I attended the local Neighborhood Watch. Advice from law enforcement speaker was to ask likely scouts for thieves what they were doing in the neighborhood.

    I mentioned that I’d want a IIIA anti-stab vest before I approached anybody out of place, since law enforcement had mentioned that many of the scouts were also thieves and psychoactive drug addicted. I was told that .357 and .44 pistol rounds could be lethal even with a IIIA, since they caused a half inch to inch sudden compression of flesh and bone under the point of impact. This would necessitate hospitalization and could cause cardiac arrest.

    So I asked whether they were suggesting that I use Level IV plate armor when approaching likely scouts. They changed the subject. I decided to keep well clear of strangers.

    Point of the story: Repressive Tolerance is operational enough that law enforcement is suggesting activities that are dangerous even for law enforcement, but without warning of the danger. The Arbery case suggests that even approaching a possible scout for thieves will result in your arrest should the scout attack you.

    Consider that Repressive Tolerance can only be countered on the political level.

    • Replies: @Tono Bungay
  143. D. K. says:
    @ScarletNumber

    “Time to retire, old man[.]”

    I am retired, youngster, and have been for years. How do you suppose that I am able to waste so much time on this godforsaken Web site, while waiting for my prostate to send me to a better place?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  144. @D. K.

    Who testified to any of the three defendants’ having said any such thing to Arbery, before he attacked one of them and attempted to steal his gun?

    The line was used by the prosecutors at the trial so I assume they had some evidentiary basis for it.

    You have just admitted to the validity of their defense! They did not have to be right– even though they were, since Arbery was indeed fleeing a felony burglary; they merely needed to have a reasonable belief that he was fleeing a felony burglary:

    You need to read more carefully. I’m sympathetic to the men’s defense that they were acting in good faith. But they handled the citizen’s arrest very poorly. Arbery was under no obligation (other than good sense) to stop running because several mobile and armed civilians were telling him to. Nor was he under any obligation to not defend himself when one of those armed civilians brandished a weapon in his presence in a threatening manner.

    Good sense should’ve stopped Arbery from attacking an armed man who had backup, but he was short of good sense. Being short of good sense is not illegal, however.

    The same goes for the men convicted of Arbery’s murder. Anyone making a citizen’s arrest needs to do so carefully. They need to clearly tell the person who they are detaining what is happening. Not shout “Stop or I’ll blow your fucking head off!” And they need to immediately transfer the detained person to police control without any delay.

    They didn’t do those things, and there was enough ambiguity in the law for the prosecutors to show that the McMichaels’ rash actions caused Arbery’s homicide without good cause.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  145. notsaying says:

    I have not followed this much.

    Did everybody here realize Arbery had serious mental problems? This fact, along with his criminal record, did not come out at the trial. I read that earlier today at the Daily Mail. I of course then wondered if he was getting treatment. I found an article about things not expected to come out at trial that includes the prosecution and defense motions.

    According to the article:

    “There is evidence that Arbery described to his mental health evaluator that he had auditory delusions that compelled him to rob, steal, and hurt people, leading him into combative behavior, and anger that led to difficulty for him both inside and outside his home.

    Arbery was subsequently prescribed psychiatric medication, specifically Zyprexa (olanzapine), in an effort to control his schizoaffective disorder.

    Blood tests performed after Arbery’s death indicated absolutely no detectable Zyprexa in his system, meaning he was literally “off his meds” (non-compliant with prescribed psychiatric medication) on the date he charged Travis McMichael and fought for control of the shotgun.”

    I have to wonder what his parents did to try to get him to take his medication and see doctors and therapists. Now that the trial is over, will they acknowledge his problems and criminal record? If he had his mental problems under control, he may well not have kept returning to this neighborhood and would still be alive.

    I get so sick of neglected mental health problems being a part of so many bad things that happen in America.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/10/ahmaud-arbery-case-seven-facts-the-jury-will-probably-never-hear/

    • Thanks: D. K., Jonathan Mason
  146. D. K. says:
    @Thomas

    “Intent to steal or to commit a felony is. The evidence showed that the McMichaels were aware Arbery had entered the house multiple times but hadn’t taken anything. Greg McMichael wasn’t reticent to the detectives after the shooting about what he thought Arbery had been up to and the basis of that belief. It was all there for the jury to consider: the burglary claim, the reasonableness of that assumption, and the facts it was (or wasn’t) based on. As I said, it didn’t play.”

    What other reasonable inference is there as to why Arbery kept entering the house illegally, including in the dark? His allegedly not taking anything– Was that a hammer lying behind him in the street, Thomas? Where did it come from?– is immaterial, unless it can be shown that, during one or more of his illegal entries, he passed up an opportunity to steal something that he readily could have stolen. I am obviously aware that the defense put on “didn’t play.” I am saying that the jury is wrong, as both a matter of the law and the facts. A civil jury in Virginia, the day before, was likewise wrong. A criminal jury in Minneapolis, earlier this year, likewise was wrong. Juries were never infallible, and they are getting more fallible, with every passing year, for reasons that should be obvious.

  147. @OilcanFloyd

    Arbery was a violent criminal, and if the local police and criminal justice officials had done their job previously, he would not have been out on the street. Vidoes of him fighting with the police and shoplifting reveal a nasty individual who was a tragedy waiting to happen. He also was caught within an illegal gun at a high school basketball game. He wasn’t just some random jogger in the wrong neighborhood. He was a potentially dangerous criminal.

    I’m aware of Arbery’s criminal background, including the shoplifting and weapon charges. But where are you getting that Arbery was a “violent criminal”? The reports I saw suggested he was more of a low-grade common criminal rather than one prone to violence.

    The neighborhood he was in was far from downtown Brunswick, where he lived, and, in order to get there, he had to either run a good distance to and over a suspension bridge that I have never seen anyone run over, or run a much longer stretch around a salt marsh, which would be about equal to a marathon.

    Oh, I never once believed the claim he was just a jogger going through the neighborhood.

    Murder is a ridiculous charge for what happened.

    Agreed.

  148. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    Putting aside the particular details of law in Georgia or anywhere else, the rational basis for “citizen’s arrest” rests upon:
    1) the fact that immediately apprehending a dangerous criminal is best for all, and
    2) the fact that immediate apprehension of a lesser criminal (e.g. shoplifter) is most liable to secure conviction and foster deterrence.
    Citizen’s arrest is a good idea in these cases, even if not all have the courage and even if malefactors in power try to dissuade it.
    But the men convicted in this case were in no way citizens who just happened to be thrust into a situation where they encountered crime. They were quite clearly acting as a sort of militia exercising government power.
    There might well be situations where that is necessary or good. But they weren’t in fact any sort of duly constituted militia.
    The deceased man, even if he had been scouting for stuff to steal, was under no obligation to submit himself to these jokers with weapons, and perhaps reasonably feared for his life. They initiated the confrontation.
    That said, some of them seem to have been convicted of crimes that are too severe, no doubt due to the political atmosphere. But some felony convictions seem warranted here.

  149. D. K. says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “The line was used by the prosecutors at the trial so I assume they had some evidentiary basis for it.”

    As I have pointed out several times to denizens of iSteve: LEGAL ARGUMENTS MADE AT TRIAL BY OPPOSING COUNSEL ARE NOT EVIDENCE! Either some sworn testimony or an outside statement was admitted into evidence that said that one or more of the defendants had made such a statement, threatening Arbery’s life, or not. The prosecution’s own statements in court to that effect, if any, are not evidence.

    “But they handled the citizen’s arrest very poorly.”

    They did not formally attempt a citizen’s arrest. They merely had asked him what he was doing there, and to stop and talk to them.

    “Arbery was under no obligation (other than good sense) to stop running because several mobile and armed civilians were telling him to.”

    I agree.

    “Nor was he under any obligation to not defend himself when one of those armed civilians brandished a weapon in his presence in a threatening manner.”

    I disagree that that is what happened. Merely holding a weapon is not brandishing it “in a threatening manner.” The defendants had a reasonable belief that Arbery might be armed and dangerous. Arbery himself knew that he was fleeing from a crime scene. Arbery was behind the right side of the truck, from the shooter’s own perspective. He was not trapped there; he could have run off in any other direction– continuing straight, backtracking down the street, running in between houses, or going to someone’s front door. Instead, as soon as he reached the right front of the truck, he made a 90-degree turn and attacked the shooter, attempting to take away his gun. Arbery had caused the life-and-death struggle– absent any evidence that the three defendants had threatened him with imminent death or serious bodily injury, if he refused to stop and answer their questions. Arbery knew precisely why they wanted to talk to him, because he knew that he had just fled from being in someone else’s house!

    “Good sense should’ve stopped Arbery from attacking an armed man who had backup, but he was short of good sense. Being short of good sense is not illegal, however.”

    When it causes you to attack a legally armed man, and attempt to take his weapon from him, putting him in a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury, it sure the hell is illegal, unless he was already threatening you with the same– and merely possessing a weapon does not create such a threat to a reasonable person. It is not the defendants’ fault that Arbery was mentally ill. They had to take him as they found him.

    “The same goes for the men convicted of Arbery’s murder. Anyone making a citizen’s arrest needs to do so carefully. They need to clearly tell the person who they are detaining what is happening. Not shout ‘Stop or I’ll blow your fucking head off!’ And they need to immediately transfer the detained person to police control without any delay.”

    Again, I am unaware of any such testimony. They had merely asked Arbery, previously, what he was doing and why he was there. They had not yet attempted to take him into their physical custody. Since they never got that far, because of Arbery’s choice to attack one of them, they obviously had no chance to turn him over to the police, alive, with or without delay.

    “They didn’t do those things, and there was enough ambiguity in the law for the prosecutors to show that the McMichaels’ rash actions caused Arbery’s homicide without good cause.”

    The prosecution has to prove each element of the crime(s) charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case of an affirmative defense, the prosecution likewise has to disprove the defense claimed, beyond a reasonable doubt. To say that “there was enough ambiguity in the law” is to admit that the prosecution had failed in its duty to prove its case, beyond a reasonable doubt!

    • Replies: @RobinG
  150. Luzzatto says:

    Glynn County where this trial took place is politically Deep Red Republican Country in presidential elections. So it was mostly Republican voters in that overwhelmingly White jury who found the 3 Cletuses guilty, yet Republican voters in that MAGA Country Jury are getting ZERO praise from The Democrat Run Mainstream Media. That jury was NOT made up of mostly lesbian dance theory Stuff White People Like Antifa types.

  151. D. K. says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “I’m sure Arbery was there to steal something he considered worth stealing and just never found anything worth the effort….”

    How can you be sure of it, yet it be an unreasonable assumption for the defendants to have made?

    “Arbery’s criminal background is irrelevant to the case (but not to our speculations) since it was not allowed in the courtroom.”

    No, the issue is whether his criminal background should have been allowed into evidence. Does it touch upon issues in the case? Yes! Does it make it more or less likely that his behavior that day was criminal– e.g., that he intended to steal something, if he could? Yes, it makes it more likely. The usual reason for a judge to keep such background information out of a trial is because it is prejudicial to the defendant– but Arbery was not the defendant, he was the decedent! He had no right, as such, not to have relevant information about himself entered into evidence, because he was not a legal party to the case.

    “I’m fairly confident Arbery was in the neighborhood to steal something, if not on that day than on some other day. I’m somewhat certain he had already stolen items in the previous months while ‘jogging’ through the neighborhood.

    “But that is only (well-founded) speculation on my part based on Arbery’s background, criminal record, and suspicious behavior. It could not be used by the defense in the case.”

    No, it also was a reasonable assumption on the part of the defendants– especially the McMichaels– because there was no other plausible reason for Arbery’s frequent illegal entries into the house, including at night. As for jogging, the surveillance video shows that he was walking down the street, not jogging, when he entered the scene. He also ran out of the garage, at a sprint, which is not how a jogger would have started running again, from a standing start, with miles to run to get back home– which presumably would have meant running in the opposite direction, whence he came!?!

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  152. @D. K.

    Every snide commenter is starting to sound like Corvinus now. Is it a trend? Or is the Crow that busy? Hope the SPLC is paying him more than minimum wage. It’s a full-time job!

    Some readers are misinterpreting the Troll button as a request for self-identification.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  153. D. K. says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “Where did you get your law degree? Toys ‘R’ Us?”

    As regular readers here know, I graduated (in absentia) from the University of Washington School of Law, on Saturday, June 15, 1985. My classmates included ‘Mayor Jenny’ of Seattle, and the current, longtime King County Prosecuting Attorney (and his wife, an in-house Microsoft attorney). I had Professor Junker for both Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, and the recently deceased Professor Aronson for Evidence.

    “The owner of the property is the only person who is competent to prove burglary in this case, since only he knows the full inventory of goods on his land. He is also the one who videotaped Arbery’s actions on his property and thus the only person fully competent to explain Arbery passing over valuable items (like tools) in the video, which are typically items that thieves burgle when visiting a construction site.”

    No, because a felony burglary only requires an intent to steal, or to commit another felony within the premises. The absentee owner– even if his testimony could be trusted, which it can’t!– has no more competency than anyone else to know if the person wandering around his vacant house, sometimes in the dark, intended to steal anything or not. Which tools did Arbery pass over that he could have easily carried home, miles away, let alone without drawing unwanted attention to himself while doing so?

    “Nothing else was presented in evidence showing Arbery’s intent to burgle. There was no testimony from, say, a friend of Arbery’s who might have said ‘Oh, yeah, Arbery told me he was going to burgle that house.’ There was no evidence of stolen goods dropped during the chase, despite your Zapruder-like analysis of the video in which your eagle-eyes – and only your eagle-eyes – see Arbery dropping the loot.”

    For the umpteenth time, intent can be inferred from the circumstances; direct evidence (e.g., your hypothetical hearsay testimony) is not required. You yourself say, elsewhere, that you are sure that that was what Arbery was up to, with all of those illegal entries into a house located miles from his own– including at night, wandering in the dark!

    Here is the shooting video:

    If you cannot see an item lying in the middle of the right lane, from approximately the 15-18 second marks, then you definitely need a new prescription, old girl. I did not say that I could see him drop the item, which appears to be a hammer, but it is right where he just had run– and is precisely the type of item that he could have stolen from the house that he illegally had entered, for at least the fifth time.

    “As I continue to point out to you, but your dipshit legal brain somehow prevents you from understanding, Arbery never illegally entered the construction site. That would’ve required either ‘No Trespassing’ signage, which was not put up, or a verbal warning to Arbery, which was never given.”

    As I continue to point out to you, ignoramus, no one needs to put a sign on his house that entrance is not allowed, in order for it to be considered a crime to enter that house without permission. The law makes a grave distinction between walking on to someone property– e.g., stepping on to the lawn or driveway– and entering a dwelling– whether occupied, unoccupied or vacant. Do you have a sign on the mansion that you got in your latest divorce, saying that no one can enter? Do you think that if some sick fuck with a fetish for post-menopausal women sneaks into your house at night, to take a peek, that he has not committed a crime, if you have no sign on the door barring his entry?

    “And what did they find in court? That Arbery committed no crime, and the McMichaels had not seen him commit a crime.”

    Yes, that is why I am denouncing the verdicts as mistakes and an obscene miscarriage of justice.

    “Even the neighbor, Matthew Albenze, who saw Arbery first that day, causing him to flee the property, and who also pointed out Arbery to the McMichaels as he ran away from the site, said he never called 9-1-1, but only the nonemergency police phone number. Why? Because, as he told the court, he did not call 9-1-1 because he did not consider what he saw as an emergency. Arbery was ‘just looking around’ the partially constructed home.”

    If Mr. Albenze had not seen Arbery and caused him to flee, that Sunday afternoon, how did Mr. Albenze know whether Arbery was intending to steal something? Regardless, whether Mr. Albenze considered it an emergency or not is immaterial as to whether the defendants had a reasonable belief that Arbery was escaping or attempting to escape from a felony, namely a burglary in the first degree.

    • Agree: KenH
  154. D. K. says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    The universe is entropic, is it not?

  155. Ed Case says:
    @thomasblair

    Arbery was also carrying a Claw Hammer while Jogging.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  156. Marquis says:
    @ScarletNumber

    There’s no indication whatever that Rittenhouse taking the stand “saved him.” For all we know he came off as insincere and it’s why the jury took 4 days to acquit him. He also took the stand against the advice of his well qualified counsel.

    There are very few times that it works out. A charismatic and intelligent defendant versus a moron prosecutor can work in your favor. Do the Arbrys look all that charismatic to you?

  157. D. K. says:
    @RobinG

    “Yes, and he keeps alleging something [‘intent’] that he cannot prove. (Unfortunately, he’s not the only one.)”

    To repeat, since Arbery was the decedent, not the defendant, it was not necessary for the defense to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intended to commit either a theft or an additional felony, within the house that he had illegally entered. The defense merely needed to demonstrate, from his known pattern of behavior, that it was reasonable of the defendants to believe that a felony had taken place– i.e., an illegal entry into a dwelling, with the intent to steal something, if possible– and that they had “reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion” that Arbery was the person guilty of that felony. If that belief of theirs was reasonable, then their reliance upon the citizen’s arrest statute that then existed was justified, and they had the authority under law to attempt a citizen’s arrest of Arbery. Their reasonable belief did not need to be true in fact.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  158. @Luzzatto

    I agree with some of what you’re saying but not with the essence.

    Understand, white man, that you are in a never-ending 24/7 war, and that you have to be a smart soldier.

    Sure, don’t create trouble. That’s the first rule of good soldiering.

    I don’t go along with the “mind your own business” stuff. Black misbehavior is everyone’s business. Look at Waukesha.

    These three were dumb soldiers. I’m sorry for them, but even good soldiers end up in the stockade for breaking the rules.

  159. @Luzzatto

    , yet Republican voters in that MAGA Country Jury are getting ZERO praise from The Democrat Run Mainstream Media.

    Of course not. What did you expect? Isn’t it time to move beyond this? Every sentient white person should recognize that we’re in a state of war.

  160. @D. K.

    As regular readers here know, I graduated (in absentia) from the University of Washington School of Law, on Saturday, June 15, 1985

    This regular reader has you on “Ignore” so I didn’t know that. In addition to the fact that you’re crazy, you are verbose, dull, and hectoring.

  161. KenH says:
    @Daniel H

    Don’t vigilante with long guns. Don’t walk away from your property with a long gun

    It’s perfectly legal to open carry a shotgun in Georgia. In fact, the law requires you open carry. But the McMichaels didn’t know that as working class white men they are dhimmi with no legal rights and will always be found guilty regardless of the facts.

  162. Christ, what a giant load of BS. The idiot thought he could get away with the ridiculous argument that he “de-escalated” the situation by whipping out a deadly weapon? In a confrontation he created by accosting a passing stranger he did not witness doing anything illegal. The kid did what any man would do. When your life is threatened, you have nothing to lose by trying to take away the gun and turn it on the screaming psycho who’s appeared out of nowhere pointing it in your face. That was the essence of the Wisconsin girlyman’s successful defense – except that he was deliberately provoking people so he could prove to the alpha males he hero-worshipped what a brave little fellow he was after all.

    The arrogant creeps enjoyed hunting the most dangerous game, and maybe they even convinced themselves they had noble intentions, but this time it blew up in their faces.

  163. Cabal made the mistake of fully documenting their planned beatdown to make an example of Rittenhouse, and underestimated his ability to fend for himself.

    These guys were on a frolic of their own making, and Cabal didn’t have to play along with discovery.

  164. KenH says:

    The verdict was by a bunch of virtue signaling white people who wanted to “get it right” after the Rittenhouse ruling and also didn’t want to miss Thanksgiving.

    How does one get charged and convicted for multiple counts of felony murder against one person? People shouldn’t forget that two separate prior investigations by area D.A.’s found that the McMichael’s acted lawfully. But then the woke twitter mob and civil rights racketeers inserted themselves and Brian Kemp cucked.

    It also seems that the Georgia citizen’s arrest law that was in effect at the time is ambiguous and can be construed multiple ways but the judge did so in such a way that greatly disadvantaged the defense.

    This is probably the best explanation of what happened that I’ve come across to date:

    • Replies: @res
  165. @D. K.

    That seems to be a general tendency in United States trials to withhold relevant information from juries and to prevent them from getting the whole picture.

    In this trial Arbery’s history of mental illness and his reputation in the neighborhood were certainly relevant factors.

    The fact that the McMichaels had posted racist comments on Facebook and that the younger McMichael had a Confederate flag on his truck number plate were also relevant factors.

    How can a jury make a good decision when so much relevant information is withheld from them by the judge? The jury were treated like children.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @James Braxton
  166. Sean says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    How can a jury make a good decision when so much relevant information is withheld from them by the judge?

    There was a video, which they could have but didn’t destroy, once the prosecution had that they were as good as convicted . William Bryan probably thought he could make some money off of his dashcam recording and didn’t realise that diming his buddies was a trap for him. He was idiotic for cooperating with the police/ GBI. They got everything they needed on the McMichaels from him, then a month before the trial threw him in jail and charged him with murder too. Very difficult to fight a case from inside jail. He is not the first person to get life for felony murder because he talked to the police about what his pals did expecting he would be treated as a witness thereafter. He was very poorly advised by his lawyer.

  167. Mikeja says:
    @Henry's Cat

    Very, very unlucky. All he did was join his neighbour chasing someone and that’s felony murder?

  168. @Anonymous

    Come on, Anonymous. What did the three defendants hope to do on that day? What could possibly have happened to confirm their suspicions? The guy was clearly not armed, and he certainly wasn’t carrying loot. It was at the very least knuckleheaded to take their guns and try to corner the guy. And I agree (implicitly) with the jury that once they cornered him his response, wise or not, was justified. If they wanted to stop burglaries they could have shot him with their cellphone cameras.

  169. @Pincher Martin

    The thing is, we’re not on a jury and this isn’t a courtroom. We can judge for ourselves what AA was up to: prowling around a neighborhood, far from home, often at night.

    The McMichaels were trying to protect their neighborhood. Would you rather have neighbors like them or neighbors like the Aubreys?

    In hindsight, they should have stayed in their cars. They’ll pay for that mistake with their lives.

    Take a look at these videos and tell me that you feel pretty confident that St Ahmaud was just a curious jogger:

    Just as your property tax bill demonstrates that your property isn’t really yours, the AA story demonstrates two other realities of government:
    1) The police can’t protect you
    2) The laws are against you protecting your neighborhood.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  170. @D. K.

    It looks to me as if you’ve read the letter of the law correctly, but I think you’re ignoring what I take to be a fact that when a building is being constructed and it isn’t fenced off, it is natural for all sorts of people, including honest people, to be curious and take a look. Walking into an unfinished structure is not, to my mind, equivalent to entering someone’s home.

  171. @Luzzatto

    He was not a jogger. The judge even ruled there was no evidence to support this assertion.

    That false characterization, among others, tainted the jury pool beyond measure. A fair trial under those circumstances was impossible.

  172. @Jonathan Mason

    A lot of that is more prejudicial than probative.

  173. @Jack Armstrong

    No they won’t. They weren’t law enforcement making an arrest. They were vigilantes.

    • Replies: @Jack Armstrong
  174. Apparently the three White guys hadn’t read “The Derbyshire Rules”. In general, do not have anything to do with a Negro. Especially, Do Not Chase the Negro!

  175. Thomas says:
    @Marquis

    Rittenhouse’s defense team did two mock juries, one with him testifying and one without. The one where he didn’t testify scored significantly worse.

  176. @Luzzatto

    The two cases are not so different, and their small differences do not always favor Rittenhouse.

    Rittenhouse was breaking the law (i.e., a curfew no one else he interacted with that night was obeying, either) by being on the street in Kenosha in a protest he could have easily avoided. The McMichaels were NOT breaking the law by living in their neighborhood and acting as a neighborhood watch nor were they breaking the law by initiating a citizen’s arrest of a man they reasonably believed had committed a felony.

    It was only in the rash way they chose to arrest Arbery (not making an announcement of their intentions to Arbery, brandishing weapons, etc.), and in the material fact that the McMichaels’ defense team could not later prove that the unarmed Arbery had committed any crime that day, not even a misdemeanor, which opened them up to serious charges, even though Arbery appears to start the physical contact between he and the armed Travis McMichael.

    So, really, the only difference between Rittenhouse and the McMichaels, other than the race of those who they killed, was that Rittenhouse’s rashness in being on the streets of Kenosha long preceded his justified killings, while the McMichaels’ rashness that day was too close to Arbery’s killing for the jury’s comfort.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @James Braxton
  177. @Anonymous

    Is there any evidence “authorities couldn’t be bothered” in the Arbery case though? The doofus McMichaels didn’t call the police when they saw Arbery creeping around the construction site. The suburban Savannah GA metro (where this occurred) was not experiencing police walkouts or police apathy at the time. It’s not a big rust belt city with anti-police animosity, people trust the police in places like that, and police are often quite effective.

    When I was an older teenager I confronted a burglar/crackhead trying to break into my parents’ house one morning and I went outside and ordered him to leave from a distance. He ran away immediately; it would have never occurred to me to call up my relatives and pursue him as he ran. I called the police, made a statement, and identified the dude (who had plenty of priors for possession and burglary) from a digital line-up. Police went to his house and charged him a few days later.

  178. RobinG says:
    @D. K.

    “Arbery knew precisely why they wanted to talk to him, because he knew that he had just fled from being in someone else’s house!”

    This is 100% speculation on your part and (as per assorted comments in this thread) likely 100% incorrect. You have absolutely no idea what was going thru Arbery’s troubled mind at the time, much less what he “knew.”

    You’re retired? Was that by choice? Or just how old were you when you passed the bar 35 years ago? It must be therapeutic to find this outlet for your pedantic pettifoggery. (Reminds me more of the Olde Wizzer than the Old Crow.)

  179. @Pincher Martin

    I think it was ruled that the curfew was not legally enforceable.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @Hibernian
  180. jb says:
    @Paleo Liberal

    If you think it stupid when the other side uses logical fallacies don’t use logical fallacies yourself.

    Exactly. I see way too much of this sort of thing from our side, and it’s highly counterproductive. (Of course if preaching to the choir is your intention, and you don’t mind discrediting yourself in the eyes of anyone who doesn’t already agree with you on everything, then you’re fine, go nuts).

  181. siv says:
    @Agitprop

    The property owner determines who is trespassing, no?
    Lots of people trespassed on that property because it is a partially completed structure on a waterfront lot with a dock.

  182. @D. K.

    As regular readers here know, I graduated (in absentia) from the University of Washington School of Law, on Saturday, June 15, 1985. My classmates included ‘Mayor Jenny’ of Seattle, and the current, longtime King County Prosecuting Attorney (and his wife, an in-house Microsoft attorney). I had Professor Junker for both Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, and the recently deceased Professor Aronson for Evidence.

    So I got it right: Toys “R” Us.

    No, because a felony burglary only requires an intent to steal, or to commit another felony within the premises. The absentee owner– even if his testimony could be trusted, which it can’t!– has no more competency than anyone else to know if the person wandering around his vacant house, sometimes in the dark, intended to steal anything or not. Which tools did Arbery pass over that he could have easily carried home, miles away, let alone without drawing unwanted attention to himself while doing so?

    It was at night on at least one occasion. Presumably, Arbery could have carried any number of items, including tools, away from the house at night “without drawing unwanted attention to himself.” Yet the video shows him doing no such thing.

    But as the owner of the property stated in his deposition, Arbery did not do so. He passed up the tools. Even at night. This is critical, especially since you claim to have spotted, with your eagle eyes, Arbery dropping his loot of a claw hammer during the chase. Where did he get the hammer if not from the construction site? Why didn’t the owner verify that a hammer was stolen from his tool inventory? Why wasn’t the theft recorded on video?

    As for the “intent to steal or commit another felony within the premises,” your speculation is free of supporting facts unless Arbery’s previous criminal record can be considered relevant, which for this jury it could not. That leaves you with nothing more than the owner’s deposition and video recordings. The owner states that he never saw Arbery steal anything or attempt to steal anything from his property, and the owner’s videos that have been made public collaborate that claim.

    If you cannot see an item lying in the middle of the right lane, from approximately the 15-18 second marks, then you definitely need a new prescription, old girl.

    Oh, I see the item in the road alright, you sassy old retired lady. I just don’t, unlike you, see Arbery dropping or carrying it.

    Had you some collaborating evidence of someone actually missing something in the wake of Arbery’s shooting, you might have a claim. But you don’t. For all you know, Arbery brought that whatever-it-is to the site on his own, if it was ever in his possession in the first place.

    As I continue to point out to you, ignoramus, no one needs to put a sign on his house that entrance is not allowed, in order for it to be considered a crime to enter that house without permission. The law makes a grave distinction between walking on to someone property– e.g., stepping on to the lawn or driveway– and entering a dwelling– whether occupied, unoccupied or vacant.

    You continue to point this out only because you use an inappropriate burglary statute which you can’t prove has any relevance to this case other than as a basis for the McMichael’s citizen’s arrest, which the jury decided wasn’t applicable since, you know, a burglary by Arbery could not be shown to have ever taken place.

    So, as it was, the police were looking for Arbery, not for any burglaries or attempted burglaries, but to give him a “verbal warning” that he would be trespassing if he went to the construction site again. That verbal warning had not been delivered on the day Arbery was shot, which means he wasn’t even guilty of trespassing, a misdemeanor, on that day.

    If your claims here had any merit, which they don’t, the police should’ve been able to arrest Arbery for attempted burglary if they had found him before he was shot. But of course they couldn’t, because the owner told the police that Arbery hadn’t actually attempted to steal anything.

    If Mr. Albenze had not seen Arbery and caused him to flee, that Sunday afternoon, how did Mr. Albenze know whether Arbery was intending to steal something?

    He didn’t. All Albenze saw was a suspicious-looking man loitering on the property who bolted when Albenze saw him.

    That’s not a crime. Nor was it an emergency. But Albenze decided to call the non-emergency police number so that the police could check it out.

    Regardless, whether Mr. Albenze considered it an emergency or not is immaterial as to whether the defendants had a reasonable belief that Arbery was escaping or attempting to escape from a felony, namely a burglary in the first degree.

    Of course it’s material, Judge Numbnuts.

    Since Albenze saw Arbery that day on the property with more clarity and detail than the McMichaels saw him, and nothing Albenze saw indicated Arbery had committed a crime, you’re left in the lurch trying to justify how the McMichaels knew a crime had just been committed.

    Albenze never mentions a hammer or any other item in Arbery’s hand, for example, that you later see being dropped in the road. Where’s that hammer, Judge Numbnuts, if it’s not in Arbery’s hand when he bolts from the property after Albenze spots him? Stuffed down his pants? That makes for some uncomfortable “jogging” that he was about to do.

  183. @rebel yell

    The anonymity of the internet invites this sort of cowardly rudeness. If you say this to the face of one of the good men of Georgia, you’ll get the beating you deserve.

    Is peasant the new “n” word?

    Anyway, I post under my own name.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  184. @D. K.

    How can you be sure of it, yet it be an unreasonable assumption for the defendants to have made?

    Where do you get this shit?

    I never said it was “unreasonable” for the McMichaels to believe Arbery had just committed a crime. To the contrary, I’ve stated on numerous occasions here that in the context of what the McMichaels knew that day, they made a reasonable (but wrong) assumption that Arbery had just committed criminal trespassing (a misdemeanor) to perpetrate some possible felony (like burglary).

    Here is a sampling of what I have said in this thread, to both you and others:

    Everything they [the McMichaels] had experienced and been told in the previous weeks and months before that day led them to believe Arbery was guilty of trespassing and had just committed a felony. They also had reason to believe Arbery might be armed.

    The McMichaels had a reasonable belief that Arbery had just committed a crime. They assumed (incorrectly) that he had trespassed. They assumed (incorrectly) that he had committed a felony.

    It was their back luck that Arbery hadn’t committed any crime that day, but they certainly had reason to believe he had and that he was also potentially armed and dangerous.

    Look, I don’t think these three men did anything illegal, any more than Rittenhouse did anything illegal. Their actions, while rash, were understandable in context. They had every reason to believe they had just witnessed a felony and that Arbery was fleeing (once again) before police could arrive to take him into custody. They had every reason to believe he might be armed and dangerous based on Travis McMichael’s previous encounter with him.

    Where I have criticized McMichaels is in the manner of their attempted arrest. No announcement, even if was just a scream out the truck window of “Stop! We are arresting you!” A 9-1-1 call made on the fly rather than before the chase. Travis McMichael admitting in his testimony that he pointed the shotgun at Arbery before the two tangled.

    It was the McMichaels’ bad luck that the defense could not show Arbery committed any crime that day for it placed the emphasis in the trial on the sloppy way the McMichaels chose to chase down and confront Arbery rather than on any crime Arbery had just committed.

    I still would not have voted to convict on a murder charge, but I understand why the jury was leery of letting men off who had chased down a fleeing man in the streets and shot him when there was no evidence he had committed any crime that day other than stupidity and when even the McMichaels had no reason to believe Arbery had done anything other than a property crime.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  185. JimB says:

    Legal Insurrection was betting on acquital because their defense was exceptionally well argued, the state’s evidence was weak, and the dopey female prosecutor acted like a deer caught in the headlights. But no matter. The state did a two hour rebuttal 24 hours after closing arguments by the defense and misrepresented the Law (apparently prosecutors can do that in a rebuttal and the defense can’t answer) and the Nimrod judge gave unintelligible jury instructions for evaluating whether the defendents acted according to Georgia’s laws permitting citizens arrest. And the rest is history. Three white men will be tossed into the black hole of Calcutta to appease the woke mobs.

    The state has all kinda of tricks to convict the innocent, as demonstrated in the Rittenhouse and the Arbery trial. Andrew Branca estimates that juries wrongfully convict approxinately 10% of the time, even with a good defense and all the evidence pointing toward innocence. Juries are dangerous and stupid.

  186. ATBOTL says:

    Anyone who supports this verdict has the blood of the white victims in Waukesha on their hands. That saddest thing is that even many white people who spend long amounts of time in pro-white spaces online can’t understand that. I noticed that there are a large group of boomer-cuck long time posters on the American Renaissance comments cheering this verdict and moralizing against the McMichaels, even calling them “low IQ white trash.” These are people who read AR for years and years.

    Knowing that, imagine how deep the hole we are in is. Even self-described white nationalists are cucking on this in large numbers. This is a turning point. You will see next year, the more hardcore elements of the alt-right will start criticizing the cucks, sell out and boomerist elements more openly. Trying to show unity with these people has failed. They are getting worse and taking openly anti-white positions now.

    We need to have a purge of reactionary boomerists from the pro-white movement. This trial is a major turing point for white Americans. Negrophilia and self-hatred among whites have crossed a new threshold and now, for the first time, that is spilling over into pro-white spaces and people. Terrifying. We can see a future where self described “pro-white” people and groups insist that all white people must support BLM and that whites have no right to self-defense.

  187. Art Deco says:
    @Marquis

    He also took the stand against the advice of his well qualified counsel.

    He didn’t.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/kyle-rittenhouses-defense-team-made-200812447.html

    For all we know he came off as insincere and it’s why the jury took 4 days to acquit him.

    The decision to acquit him was made one count at a time and the dates were entered on each jury form. Only one count took 3 days and change on which to make a decisions, and that was because of a single holdout juror.

    • Thanks: Pincher Martin
  188. siv says:
    @we

    The video shot by Bryan became public when the elder McMichael brought it to a radio station and turned it over because he believed, after consulting with his lawyer (not a criminal defense attorney), that it would show it was a justifiable case of self defense and quell the cries to charge him and his son.
    The incident was then only known locally in the Glynn county/Brunswick area and the DA wasn’t going to let him get arrested for the killing. The state became involved after the video went “viral” nationwide.

  189. D. K. says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “I never said it was ‘unreasonable’ for the McMichaels to believe Arbery had just committed a crime. To the contrary, I’ve stated on numerous occasions here that in the context of what the McMichaels knew that day, they made a reasonable (but wrong) assumption that Arbery had just committed criminal trespassing (a misdemeanor) to perpetrate some possible felony (like burglary).”

    If they reasonably believed that he had committed a burglary, whether in the first or second degree, they were authorized under Georgia law, at that time, to attempt to make a citizen’s arrest for that assumed crime. We know for a fact that he entered the house, that afternoon, and stayed inside for a few minutes, until he was scared away. His intent to steal something would make that a burglary– whether he had formed that intent when he already was inside the house, when he was about to enter the house, as he was walking down the street toward the house, when he left home, that afternoon, or when he went to bed, the night before his death. If the defendants made a reasonable assumption that he had such an intent, based upon his known pattern of behavior, then they were authorized under the Georgia statute, as it then stood, to attempt a citizen’s arrest. Their being legally armed, as they set out on that attempt, that Sunday afternoon, would also therefore have been justified. If Arbery was then carrying the hammer that appears to be lying in the street, then there are two possibilities: (1) he stole it from the house that he entered, thus confirming that it was a burglary, or (2) he was carrying it when he arrived at the house. If the latter, then he was armed with at least one deadly weapon, until just seconds before he attacked the man who shot him. The salient legal point, however, as I had pointed out, supra, is that the defendants’ assumption that he had committed a felony burglary, that Sunday afternoon, did not need to be correct, as a matter of fact; it merely needed to be reasonable– as you yourself state that it was!

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  190. @D. K.

    If they reasonably believed that he had committed a burglary, whether in the first or second degree, they were authorized under Georgia law, at that time, to attempt to make a citizen’s arrest for that assumed crime.

    Because the Georgia law at the time was ambiguous as to the circumstances one could make a citizen’s arrest when the felony had not actually been witnessed. That ambiguity was most likely enough for the jury to decide that, in the absence of any evidence of a crime by Arbery, the McMichaels had acted unreasonably in chasing down Arbery.

    The McMichaels inferred that a felony had taken place. Given all they knew, I believe that was a reasonable inference. So I would have interpreted the ambiguous “immediate knowledge” of the old Georgia citizen’s arrest statute broadly.

    But as we now know, Arbery was not even guilty of trespassing, which is a misdemeanor. So the jury did not interpret the law as broadly as I would have done. I don’t think that’s unjust given the rash way the McMichaels and Bryan went about making their citizen’s arrest. Even when making a citizen’s arrest, you aren’t allowed to do anything you like when attempting to detain the person you believe committed a felony.

    So the jury most likely looked at the case narrowly and decided that since the McMichaels didn’t see a crime (given there was no evidence Arbery committed a crime) that they illegally chased Arbery down and killed him.

    Again, I don’t agree with the decision. I think the incident was tragic and avoidable, but not a crime. I think both parties were stupid but not criminal in their actions that day. But I can understand why – and indeed expected – the jury would come to another decision. I hope it’s overturned on appeal.

    If Arbery was then carrying the hammer that appears to be lying in the street, then there are two possibilities: (1) he stole it from the house that he entered, thus confirming that it was a burglary, or (2) he was carrying it when he arrived at the house. If the latter, then he was armed with at least one deadly weapon, until just seconds before he attacked the man who shot him.

    Too much idle speculation. We don’t know that the hammer has anything to do with Arbery or this case.

    The McMichaels believed Arbery might be armed because Travis reported as much in his 9-1-1 call to police on February 11th, which was almost two weeks before the shooting. That was the reason the McMichaels armed themselves before chasing Arbery down on Feburary 23rd. You don’t want to chase, unarmed, after a man who might have a weapon stuffed in his shorts.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  191. D. K. says:
    @Pincher Martin

    “Because the Georgia law at the time was ambiguous as to the circumstances one could make a citizen’s arrest when the felony had not actually been witnessed. That ambiguity was most likely enough for the jury to decide that, in the absence of any evidence of a crime by Arbery, the McMichaels had acted unreasonably in chasing down Arbery.”

    As a matter of black-letter law, any such ambiguity in a state criminal statute under which a defendant has been charged with a crime must be interpreted in favor of the criminal defendant– period! I am through responding to your ridiculous claims that there was an “absence of evidence of a crime by Arbery,” despite your admitting that it was reasonable for the defendants to believe that there was. Aside from the fact that the first claim is wrong, it also is immaterial; the defendants’ reasonable beliefs, respectively, are all that matter regarding their affirmative defenses that (a) they were acting under the Georgia citizen’s arrest statute, as it then existed, and (b) that the shooter acted in reasonable self-defense against an illegal and imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, at the hands of the deceased.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  192. @Ed Case

    Arbery was also carrying a Claw Hammer while Jogging.

    Useful for removing nails that you might step on, no?

  193. res says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    I don’t think Arbery was quite the choirboy he was painted to be

    LOL! Do you or don’t you think he was in that building casing it looking for something to steal?

    the idea that he was just out jogging for exercise under the midday sun sounds a bit unlikely

    “A bit unlikely” What kind of probability would you estimate for that story being true? If you don’t like thinking that way, what kind of odds would you require to place a bet on it?

    Do you often go jogging inside buildings?

    You are a fascinating commenter. Can’t decide whether you are an idiot or a troll, but leaning towards the latter. If so, at least you are good at it. I just hope no one here makes the mistake of taking you seriously.

  194. res says:
    @Juvenalis

    Juxtaposed so closely to the McMichael case, the disparity in reaction to the two cases among mainstream conservatives seems designed to set precedent that a White man’s right to self-defense is conditioned upon (1) the White man’s ideological, historical, political views, and (2) whether the people he shoots in self-defense are White or from a protected racial group—esp. blacks…

    Good point. Yet another manifestation of Who/Whom?

    One way to look at the Rittenhouse case is it was an attempt to push that idea even further. Except they had an extremely unsympathetic group of leftist radicals to work with as “victims.”

  195. Gabe Ruth says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I agree, but USG seem to believe having the nuclear codes will keep us from getting there no matter how much the huwhyte man is squeezed.

  196. res says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Yeah, if the guy they shot was white rather than black, I don’t think anyone in the country pays the slightest attention to this case and the McMichaels and Bryan would never have gone to trial.

    This is a key point. I understand that it is a losing cause to accuse the left of hypocrisy in cases like that. But under the common law isn’t a term other than hypocrisy appropriate? That being “precedent.”

    So has your version ever occurred? Surely in a country of hundreds of millions of people over hundreds of years it has, right?

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  197. @ScarletNumber

    Were the whites (and Hispanics) in Waukesha minding their own business?

    I think a better piece of advice is think of yourself in a guerrilla war. Whites have to be clever. Very clever.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
  198. @D. K.

    As a matter of black-letter law, any such ambiguity in a state criminal statute under which a defendant has been charged with a crime must be interpreted in favor of the criminal defendant– period!

    What I called the “ambiguity” that I see in the wording of the old statute might not have been perceived as ambiguous to the jurors.

    What’s clear from the trial is that a great deal of attention was spent on two related things: 1) that the defendants had not seen Arbery commit any felony that day because 2) Arbery had, in fact, to no one’s clear knowledge committed any crime that day. Not even the misdemeanor of trespassing.

    The rest is just inference, as you have incompetently demonstrated here. Was that a hammer? Was it dropped by Arbery? Did he have a criminal background? Is running away from a construction site while black enough to justify a citizen’s arrest because you believe – but do not see – a crime is being committed?

    I tend to see all the circumstances as favoring the defendants, but even I can understand this is a tough case and that the law does not clearly come down in their favor, and that a lot might depend on the judge’s instructions and how the case was presented in court. That was the ambiguity I was talking about.

    I am through responding to your ridiculous claims that there was an “absence of evidence of a crime by Arbery,” despite your admitting that it was reasonable for the defendants to believe that there was.

    Through responding to it? You didn’t even know what I was saying until your last post. So you have already tired of responding to something that you didn’t understand until quite recently.

    What I have claimed from the beginning, and what you have completely misread, is that I think the totality of evidence favored the defendants having reasonable cause for making a citizen’s arrest that day, but that the lack of a crime and the rashness of the men’s actions while making their arrest made that a hard sell to a jury who might not have had our ability for making reasonable inferences and who, also quite reasonably (but without much imagination), focused instead on why three armed men ran a guy down who hadn’t committed a crime.

    Get it now? Or do you have to go back and read the exchange again, since you so clearly misread me the first time?

  199. @res

    Like I said, I hope the convictions are overturned on appeal.

    But I also believe that the jury, based on what they heard in court, came to a decision they probably believed was just. They couldn’t get past the fact that three armed men chased a man down, menaced him, and killed him, despite that man committing no crime.

    For my own judgment, I took into account what the McMichaels had seen and heard in their neighborhood for months before the shooting. Crime was up. Burglaries and break-ins were taking place with more frequency. The McMichaels attempted to work with the police, who ultimately were not of much help. Travis McMichael later saw a suspicious black “jogger,” who during one surprise nighttime encounter on the neighbor’s property acted towards Travis as if he was armed. Again, the McMichaels called the police. Again, the police were of no help.

    So, to me, it’s clear the McMichaels were men who, while probably not very smart, were still acting in what they believed was their community’s best interest by protecting the property of their neighbors. Their rashness while attempting to detain Arbery that day was due to being amped up, which was natural given the circumstances.

    Why did they take the initiative in making a citizen’s arrest? Why not just call the police? Because the police had shown in the past they were not of much use to this community. They always arrived late, and Arbery and/or the other thieves were already gone. So this time the McMichaels grabbed their weapons, hopped into their truck, and went after Arbery themselves. This time they would make sure he didn’t get away.

    Bad luck for them that Arbery hadn’t actually committed a crime anyone knew about that day or even demonstrated a clear intent to commit one. Bad luck for them that the old Georgia statute focused more on a citizen witnessing or knowing about a felony rather than inferring one took place. Bad luck for them that Arbery wasn’t even guilty of trespassing that day, which was a misdemeanor and not a felony, but at least was some sort of crime they could hang their hat on. Even worse luck that the judge decided that Arbery’s criminal background and mental illness were not relevant to the trial.

  200. @Luzzatto

    Glynn County where this trial took place is politically Deep Red Republican Country in presidential elections. So it was mostly Republican voters in that overwhelmingly White jury who found the 3 Cletuses guilty, yet Republican voters in that MAGA Country Jury are getting ZERO praise from The Democrat Run Mainstream Media. That jury was NOT made up of mostly lesbian dance theory Stuff White People Like Antifa types.

    After this travesty of a jury decision, it would be cosmic justice if the county were overrun by joggers looking for easy prey. After all, any white civilian who attempts to stop them runs the risk of a murder conviction and a life term – perhaps even the death sentence.

  201. RobinG says:
    @JimB

    the dopey female prosecutor acted like a deer caught in the headlights.

    Are you sure you aren’t confusing with the dippy “dirty toenails” defense attorney who may have single-handedly thrown the case?

    • Replies: @anon
  202. @Marquis

    Do the Arbrys [sic] look all that charismatic to you?

    Not in the least, but something is better than nothing.

  203. @Paperback Writer

    This thread is about Georgia. Do try to keep up.

  204. I know that. I brought up something that showed what you said is inadequate and faulty. I’m allowed to do that.

  205. @Reg Cæsar

    But it’s not as if Darrell “MathBoi Fly” was known to direct his hatred at any particular group in the years before he committed his heinous anti-White terrorist attack… right?

    Good thing these nice ladies helped him to get out in time to commit the Waukesha Massacre, huh?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  206. Not Raul says:
    @RobinG

    Didn’t they have cell phones? They could have called the cops and stayed on the phone while they followed Arbery, apprising them of location. Instead they did the worst possible thing.

    Exactly!

  207. TWS says:
    @Marquis

    He’s not American. What do you expect?

  208. @JimB

    Oh, for heaven’s sake. People who commit crimes and can’t plea bargain them away are always going to claim self defense, or something similar if they go to trial.

    As I recall when George W. Bush attacked Iraq it was really self defense, because any day Saddam Hussein was about to destroy the US with germ warfare and poison gas.

    And when Bush and his gang tortured captives at Guantanamo Bay, it was really self defense, because otherwise these guys might have set off a bomb at the Statue of Liberty which was ticking at the time that they were tortured, just like in the movies.

    But if Bush had been put on trial for war crimes (as he should have been) would he have been convicted if he just said that he thought the US was under attack?

    This is the reason why we have juries.

    Someone has to see through the bullshit served up by lawyers and determine what is really the truth of the matter–ordinary members of the public who hopefully don’t have pre-existing agendas. You can’t just say that anyone who commits a crime is innocent if they are paranoid and believe they acted in self defense, regardless of how badly a law is worded.

    As the judge in the Rittenhouse trial pointed out, sometimes the way laws are written just doesn’t make any sense anyway. That is why we have juries.

  209. @JimB

    Three white men will be tossed into the black hole of Calcutta to appease the woke mobs.

    There you have raised a whole other issue. Is the reason that Georgia’s prisons are like the black hole of Calcutta something to do with the fact that they were designed for black prisoners?

    Why can these three men not lead constructive lives in prison and emerge as reformed characters? Perhaps they can teach gun safety in prison. Perhaps we should have segregated prisons so that white prisoners can listen to country music and wave Confederate flags in peace.

  210. Anon[216] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jmaie

    Around 52:30, This lawyer makes a case that the McMichaels should not have been found guilty, based on the felony arrest statute in Georgia that was in place at the time. Basically, you could make an arrest of someone who you had probable cause to believe had recently committed a felony. You did not have to witness it, and Arbery was suspected by local police of committing a felony in the neighborhood. You only had to witness the crime, if it were a misdemeanor. The judge chose not to give those instructions to the jury. Interesting argument that the convictions will be overturned:

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    , @Not Raul
  211. Sean says:
    @Jmaie

    But the tres galletas didn’t have legal justification to chase him down.

    The key moment for Rittenhouse was when the judge dismissed the illegal possession of a rifle charge saying the law was completely unclear , because that meant Rittenhouse was not acting unlawfully up until the point when he defended himself against Rosenbaum, and the other two shootings that followed were also not by Rittenhouse while unlawfully carrying a gun.

    As you say the actions of McMichael his father and the idiot neighbour who cooperated and then got convicted of murder went beyond what the letter of the law was before the shotgun was used; so yes it all depends on you acting lawfully before the need to defend oneself. That said Arberry’s assault on McMicheal was far more dangerous than what Rosenbaum did to Rittenhouse.

  212. @Luzzatto

    This isn’t a rural area. But yes, I think you’ve hit on the main distinction between the two cases. Ahrmed Robbery surely sized up the situation and wanted to head back to the hood in Brunswick or wherever once his jogging and amateur home inspection attracted too much attention. So the defendants could have ushered him out of the neighborhood and watched as he high-tailed it back home. Instead they provoked a physical confrontation that went south pretty quick.

  213. Some people commenting seem unaware of some of the evidence. From the wikpedia article on the incident:

    “… Minshew testified that he questioned William “Roddie” Bryan at the scene, where Bryan said the following: (1) that he was not familiar with Arbery or the McMichaels when Bryan joined the chase; (2) that he was not sure if Arbery did anything wrong; (3) that he did not know if he should have chased Arbery at all; (4) that he tried to “corner” Arbery with his vehicle five times; (5) that Arbery “had to stop and catch his breath”,[12] and seemed “tired of running”; (6) that he heard one of the McMichaels shouting at Arbery: “What’d you steal? What’d you do?” during the chase.[153]”

    and

    “Parker Marcy, a Glynn County police detective, who had interviewed Gregory McMichael at the police station later in the day of the killing, testified that Gregory told him: (1) that he had seen Arbery on surveillance videos shared by a neighbour and “had heard a description of him”, but was unsure if he had seen Arbery in person before (“never” or “maybe”); (2) that he saw “two or three videos” showing “this guy breaking into or being or wandering around into this [under-construction] house … I don’t think the guy has stolen anything out of there, and if he did it was early on in this process, but he keeps going back in that house over and over again”;[8][156] (3) that he considered Arbery a “prime suspect” in “numerous” forcible entries into buildings and vehicles (“Logic tells you that this guy may be the one that’s doing it”);[7] (4) he told Arbery during the chase words akin to “Stop … I’ll blow your fucking head off”, because “I was trying to convey to this guy we were not playing”; (5) that Gregory had once pointed his gun at Arbery;[156][157] and (6) that the chase resulted in Arbery being “cornered … like a rat”.[7] Marcy further stated that surveillance video did not show Arbery taking anything from the under-construction house that day.[156]”

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  214. @James Forrestal

    They’re too busy keeping Nativity crèches and intelligent design out of any rogue public schools still around.

    The attempted murder of his baby momma is what should have multiplied his bail figure and kept him locked up. Not the beliefs held in secret by most American blacks for 400 years.

    We don’t have 40 million jail cells.

  215. @Hibernian

    Binger falsely said that JKM was unknown

    Is that a crime, or just grounds for disbarment?

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  216. @Jonathan Mason

    Anyway, I post under my own name.

    Which is conveniently common. Lucky for you. Spokeo.com lists 7,517 Jonathan Masons in the US.

    I gave up searching for an old housemate from Eastern Europe. His name is the local equivalent of “George Miller”.

    A teenage Finn I knew was named for a Hungarian grandfather (or someone similar). His moniker was as strange to Finns as it would be to us. But two of the first three people he met on a visit to Hungary were unrelated and bore the same first and last name.

  217. @James B. Shearer

    I’ve left Bryan out of most of my analysis of the case for the simple reason that I don’t have the slightest clue what he was doing that day. He seems to have joined in the chase for the sheer hell of it.

    I wouldn’t rely too heavily on Wikipedia. It’s little more than a collation of press reports, some of which might be reliable because they are directly based on testimony, but others which are not because they are based on hearsay.

    But, yeah, it’s pretty clear that the McMichaels did not see Arbery commit any crime. They were also pretty amped up by the chase and not thinking clearly about what exactly they were going to do when they caught their “rat”.

    Which is too bad. I don’t think the McMichaels were bad men. I don’t think they meant to kill Arbery. But the rash of burglaries and break-ins in their area had, understandably, made them sensitive to suspicious behavior in their neighborhood, and they sensed (without knowing for sure) that Arbery most likely had something to do with the problem.

    I think their intuition was correct. Arbery was almost certainly up to no good in that neighborhood. But the jury decided it was what the McMichaels should’ve known rather than just guessed at.

    Unfortunately, this kind of case is what happens sometimes when IQ 95 meets IQ 80.

  218. @James Braxton

    But wasn’t that ruling only known later and based on a technicality? As far as Rittenhouse understood that August night when he shot three people and killed two, a curfew was in effect and he was breaking it.

    • Replies: @James Braxton
  219. @Butler T. Reynolds

    The thing is, we’re not on a jury and this isn’t a courtroom. We can judge for ourselves what AA was up to: prowling around a neighborhood, far from home, often at night.

    I’ve said several times that I believe Arbery was up to no good in that neighborhood. He was certainly not a jogger just out getting his cardio.

    The McMichaels were trying to protect their neighborhood. Would you rather have neighbors like them or neighbors like the Aubreys?

    The McMichaels by a country mile.

    In hindsight, they should have stayed in their cars. They’ll pay for that mistake with their lives.

    I hope not. I hope they get some people less afraid of the spirit of the times on their appeal.

  220. @Anon

    Around 52:30, This lawyer makes a case that the McMichaels should not have been found guilty, based on the felony arrest statute in Georgia that was in place at the time. Basically, you could make an arrest of someone who you had probable cause to believe had recently committed a felony. You did not have to witness it…

    Georgia just happened to have a Jim Crow law that had not yet been repealed, but the jury saw through this and wasn’t having any of it.

    An appeal court is not going to overrule the jury on this one.

    A citizens arrest law might be intended to cover security guards detaining shoplifters until the arrival of the police, but, regardless of where you live, if you try to arrest somebody as a private citizen using a gun, and they get killed, then you are going to be in a helluva lot of hot water.

    Even children in elementary schools are discouraged from playing cops and robbers with finger guns these days.

    The McMichaels thought that they could get away with this behavior because the father was a former cop, and knew many people in law enforcement, and they were part of the good old boy network, but they badly miscalculated, although initially they were given a pass.

    If they were really concerned, they could have followed the intruder in a vehicle, armed only with a cell phone with a camera, taken pictures and video of him, and called the police.

    Even the Orlando vigilante Zimmerman who killed Trayvon Martin had the sense to do that and only pulled the gun when Martin was sitting on top of him banging his head on the ground.

    • Agree: Not Raul
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @anon
    , @res
  221. @Pincher Martin

    His testimony made clear that he took the curfew for what it legally turned out to be, an advisory.

    Kyle had every legal right to be where he was and to do what he was doing the night he defended himself from the murderous mob.

  222. AndrewR says:
    @Paleo Liberal

    Comparing a low IQ black terrorist to the greatest man in German history is so dumb as to defy comprehension.

  223. AndrewR says:
    @siv

    Your dad made the wrong decision when he chose not to pull out

  224. Hibernian says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    I think both, but likely not enforced in this case.

    • Agree: Jack Armstrong
  225. Hibernian says:
    @James Braxton

    The curfew charge was thrown out because the prosecution never introduced evidence that the curfew was proclaimed. After they rested, Rhichards and/or Chirafsi moved for dimissal of this charge, which was granted by the Judge.

    • Replies: @James Braxton
  226. Hibernian says:
    @Just another serf

    Had Rittenhouse even grazed “jump kick man”, he would soon have been sentenced on all the charges. This is the new reality for us.

    Very true, unless, in that hypothetical, Mr. Freeland sought and received some minor first aid at home, or applied it himself, and had reacted the same way he reacted in real life when KR shot at him and missed, and Binger and Co. had also acted in the same way. (No public outing of everything that had happened and the race of Jump Kick Man, and no trial testimony by him.)

  227. Pssst! White people! We’re at war, act like it.

  228. Redman says:
    @Paleo Liberal

    You probably thought Trump was being serious when he told the Russians he “hopes they find something in Hillary’s emails because the press would reward them.”

  229. Hibernian says:
    @Marquis

    He also took the stand against the advice of his well qualified counsel.

    That was the speculation at the time he took the stand. After the trial concluded Mr. Richards in an interview explained that it was on the advice of counsel that KR took the stand. Said advice resulting from comparative mock juries with KR taking vs. not taking the stand; also “In Wisconsin, you’ve got to take the stand.” (Local culture, not Wisconsin law.) It’s been widely recognized that conventional wisdom about a defendant testifying shifts in favor of his testifying when it’s a self defense case.

  230. Redman says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Chauvin is the first case I could find in US history of a cop charged and convicted for intentional murder while arresting or restraining someone.

    Maybe I missed an unreported one out there but I doubt it.

  231. @Jonathan Mason

    If they were really concerned, they could have followed the intruder in a vehicle, armed only with a cell phone with a camera, taken pictures and video of him, and called the police.

    The police already had plenty of video on the guy, as the McMichaels well knew. What they didn’t have was a name and address.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
  232. Felony burglary is entering a dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein. There’s one act element (entering) and one state of mind element (intent to commit a crime. Arbery committed the entire act element, and given the history, neighbors had probable cause to conclude he’d likely committed burglary. Neighbors pursued him to determine if he’d committed the intent element. This was 100% legal under Georgia law. While they were doing this, he moronically attacked a neighbor legally carrying a gun, who then shot him during the struggle to prevent Arbery from getting the gun and killing him. Slam dunk acquittal

  233. There’s a direct line between these cases and nobody stepping in to stop a black man raping a white woman in broad daylight on a train or in the street. We get it, Democrats – you don’t want anyone to stop any black man committing a crime. You don’t want anyone opposing a Burn Loot Murder riot. Got it.

  234. Redman says:
    @thomasblair

    If the guy was killed at the scene, where does the story that he was “jogging” come from? Like did he say, “hey mom, ima gonna go jogging in that white area we don’t live near if anyone asks”?

  235. anon[730] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    What? Just never got around to passing the new law they meant to post-civil rights? I don’t think that, luckily, is an actual legal standard. The law was on the books (and I think they might have did some tweaking with it as recently as 2010 or something if I’m remembering correctly) and that’s what the GA citizens are answerable to.

    And hopefully, some judges in the appeal process rules that way.

  236. Redman says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Huh? The McMichaels were the defendants. Reasonable mistakes of perception by them (your words) lead to inevitable reasonable doubt of their motivations having been criminal.

    This is/was a criminal “murder” trial. You seem to have gone down a rabbit hole of irrelevant information about the legal definition of trespass and the like.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  237. anon[730] • Disclaimer says:
    @RobinG

    Hers was a good example of how one bad, very bad sentence, can ruin an otherwise half-way decent presentation.

    Apparently, it was meant to convey the idea Arbery, with his long toenails, wasn’t actually a devoted jogger.

    (I had no clue what the possible meaning of that bizarre observation was supposed to imply before I read some online explanation. And I’m sure barely 5% of the rest who heard it deduced that was what it was meant to show. But almost everyone could grasp it was insulting to someone of another race who was killed in a gruesome encounter. Not good. She mustn’t have read her closing to anyone before presenting it or I’m sure that would have likely been brought up.)

  238. Redman says:
    @Luzzatto

    Actually it’s kind of similar. Goetz shot the guys while they were running away. If anything, this one was MORE justified since it was clear self-defense.

    Both were OK in my book.

  239. res says:
    @KenH

    This is probably the best explanation of what happened that I’ve come across to date

    Thanks. Note his focus on the ambiguity of the citizens arrest law. Along with his statement that the legality of the citizens arrest is the crux of the case and his mention of the principle of lenity meaning that in the presence of ambiguity the interpretation most favorable to the defendant should apply.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_lenity

    That sounds a lot like what D.K. has been saying.

  240. @Pincher Martin

    Felony burglary occurs at the precise moment the burglar steps across the threshold with intent to steal. If a neighbor or dog scares him away before he actually steals anything, he’s still guilty of felony burglary. It doesn’t matter if he actually steals anything or not, or if he has an exact idea what he’ll steal – if he enters with intent to steal, he’s guilty. If he enters thinking “I’ll steal tools if I find any” or “I’ll see if there’s anything I want or need and if there is I’ll steal it.” Then he’s guilty of felony burglary

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  241. Redman says:
    @ScarletNumber

    Tell that to family of Kittee Genovese.

  242. Jmaie says:
    @thomasblair

    Who jogs in Timbs?

    “According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigations, Arbery was wearing khaki cargo shorts, a white t-shirt, grey athletic shoes, and two bandanas at the time of his death.”

    https://www.crimeonline.com/2020/05/11/ahmaud-arbery-autopsy-reveals-georgia-jogger-died-from-two-shotgun-blasts-to-his-chest/

    It’s been said that the coroner’s report specifically mentioned Nike shoes. although I was unable to find said report on line.

  243. res says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Georgia just happened to have a Jim Crow law that had not yet been repealed, but the jury saw through this and wasn’t having any of it.

    So you think the written law should be ignored in favor of what a lynch mob wants. Got it. Thanks for clarifying. Equally clear that you are not an American, as you have said.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  244. Not Raul says:
    @Anon

    Basically, you could make an arrest of someone who you had probable cause to believe had recently committed a felony. You did not have to witness it, and Arbery was suspected by local police of committing a felony in the neighborhood. You only had to witness the crime, if it were a misdemeanor.

    If that were true, and if it actually applied in this case, defense council would have brought it up during the trial, especially during closing arguments.

  245. Not Raul says:
    @Pincher Martin

    The police already had plenty of video on the guy, as the McMichaels well knew. What they didn’t have was a name and address.

    The police could have had his location in real time, if the killers had followed from a safe distance, and kept the cops informed over the phone.

    There was no need to box him in and pull guns on him.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  246. @res

    So you think the written law should be ignored in favor of what a lynch mob wants. Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

    A jury is not a lynch mob. A jury is part of the legal apparatus instituted so that ordinary people can make the ultimate decisions in courts and to some extent protect people from crooked judges and lawyers.

    The Georgia citizens arrest law dated from 1863, and was originally designed to enable vigilantes like the McMichaels to arrest runaway slaves in the days before there was a police force.

    It would be interesting to know how many times this law has been used by black people to arrest runaway white criminals. Possibly never.

    The Georgia Rip Van Winkle legislature only woke up from its deep slumber after more than 150 years and after the arrest of the McMichaels to update the law to reflect the existence of police forces and the end of slavery.

    It is interesting that many people think that the McMichaels condemn themselves by using phrases like “trapped like a rat” because they saw the cops they were talking to as people of their own kind who would appreciate such honest and down to earth speech and who would make common cause with them in making things all right for the McMichaels.

    So it is a good thing we have juries, because you can’t leave the law to the lawyers.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @res
  247. @Redman

    Did you not read my post?

    I said “I don’t think these three men did anything illegal”.

    But the case is not clear-cut, and you should stop pretending it is clear-cut. By the McMichaels’ admission, they claimed in the early police interviews that they never saw, or even assumed, that Arbery stole anything off the property on the day they confronted him. They even admitted Arbery may have never stole anything from the house under construction.

    Greg McMichaels on the day of the killing:

    “I don’t think the guy has stolen anything out of there, and if he did it was early on in this process, but he keeps going back in that house over and over again”

    So McMichaels knew that Arbery had the habit of visiting this house on a regular basis, but had to McMichael’s own knowledge never stole anything from it. Well, if McMichaels knew Arbery visited this construction site and never stole anything, why did he and his son assume on this particular day there was a burglary or an intent to steal?

    Right there, the McMichaels’ case of a justified need for a citizen’s arrest under Georgia law becomes a problem for them.

    And Bryan, the third suspect in all this, didn’t even know that much. He just kind of joined in the chase for the sheer thrill of it, apparently.

  248. Anon[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    In the video, the lawyer asserts that the judge gave faulty instructions to the jury, having them ignore the part of the statute favorable to the defendants. That is legal grounds for overturning the jury verdict, right or wrong.

  249. @Prometheus Martel

    Felony burglary occurs at the precise moment the burglar steps across the threshold with intent to steal. If a neighbor or dog scares him away before he actually steals anything, he’s still guilty of felony burglary. It doesn’t matter if he actually steals anything or not, or if he has an exact idea what he’ll steal – if he enters with intent to steal, he’s guilty. If he enters thinking “I’ll steal tools if I find any” or “I’ll see if there’s anything I want or need and if there is I’ll steal it.” Then he’s guilty of felony burglary

    From the mouth of Greg McMichaels on the day of the shooting, according to police interviews:

    “I don’t think the guy has stolen anything out of there, and if he did it was early on in this process, but he keeps going back in that house over and over again”

    As I just put to another poster, the “McMichaels knew that Arbery had the habit of visiting this house on a regular basis, but had to McMichael’s own knowledge never stole anything from it. Well, if the McMichaels knew Arbery visited this construction site and never stole anything, why did he and his son assume on this particular day that there was a burglary or an intent to steal?”

    Without that felony, there’s no justification for a citizen’s arrest. And what McMichaels is telling us is that he already knew Arbery had the habit of regularly visiting the construction site in question and NOT burgling it.

    Well, if he already knew that, then where is the justification for the citizen’s arrest?

    Again, my point here is not to claim they are guilty of murder, but to show that this case is more difficult than some of you are acknowledging.

  250. @Not Raul

    Well, look at it from the McMichaels’ perspective. The police had up to then failed to find Arbery on several occasions despite calls by both Travis McMichael and the property owner of the construction site.

    On the last occasion (February 11th – nearly two weeks before Arbery’s shooting), the police came out to inspect the property with their weapons drawn because they believed Arbery might be armed.

    The McMichaels knew all this. So, from their perspective, the police had been less than helpful in solving the problem because they were always late to show up and Arbery was already gone.

    Besides, your post is not relevant to their guilt. Everything hinges on the interpretation of the old Georgia citizens arrest statute and the facts of the case.

    You’re kind of like the guy who argues that a man who kills an aggressor should’ve fired at his legs rather than his chest. You want a happier outcome without dealing directly with the law. Either the McMichaels had the right to arrest Arbery or they didn’t and they shouldn’t have been following him at all.

  251. Anonymous[166] • Disclaimer says:
    @rebel yell

    As others have said, these guys made just one mistake, which was filming the incident. Without that it would just be their word against the victim’s friends/family, and since the victim was a known criminal they would have little to fear.

  252. res says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    A jury is not a lynch mob. A jury is part of the legal apparatus instituted so that ordinary people can make the ultimate decisions in courts and to some extent protect people from crooked judges and lawyers.

    The lynch mob was the media. Including social media. Of course the jury made their decision with absolutely no thought to those–is that what you are contending?

    It would be interesting to know how many times this law has been used by black people to arrest runaway white criminals. Possibly never.

    Your speculation is tiresome. How about bringing some facts or shutting up?

  253. Art Deco says:
    @Paleo Liberal

    One extremely disturbed woman in Illinois

    She’s a fairly ordinary suburban resident until recently employed by the DuPage County Democratic Committee. She is 46 years old, lives in a house Zillow estimates would sell for \$656,000, and has children (along with an estranged husband). Her mode of rhetoric is quite unremarkable and just what one would expect of a partisan Democrat. Calling her ‘extremely disturbed’ is self-indicting.

  254. Art Deco says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Again, Rittenhouse never pursued anyone and he was present in Kenosha because the National Guard were not deployed and the police had crapped out. This isn’t that difficult.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  255. @Art Deco

    I didn’t say the cases were identical. I said “they weren’t that different.”

    In both cases the people put on trial made highly questionable decisions that put them in positions that most people didn’t understand.

    In both cases the accused defended their actions by claiming their questionable choices were simply done to help guard their communities from lawbreakers.

    In both cases the accused said they ultimately had to kill people to defend themselves.

    In both cases I think they majority of posters here (including me) believe they were all innocent of the charge of murder.

    Of course there were differences in the two cases, too, but not all of them favored Rittenhouse.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  256. RobinG says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Gee, the “majority of posters” in a White Nationalist backwater agree with you. Quelle surprise!

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Becker update V1.3.2
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement