The problem is that to be able to have the jury instructed about self-defense and citizen’s arrest, there has to be evidence to support them. I don’t think that, after the state rested, there was enough evidence presented to get the jury instructed about either of them. McMichael had to take the stand to get enough evidence presented for the jury instruction, let alone for an actual acquittal. I’m guessing the defense attorney thought along the same lines.
Couldn’t that be introduced through expert witnesses?
I haven’t been able to watch much of the cross, but the DA seems to be doing an adequate job. She brought up most of the inconsistencies between his trial testimony and what he told the police initially. Of course he says he wasn’t lying, he was just really “mixed up” after the shooting. That’s why he didn’t mention citizen’s arrest to the police, why he suddenly remembered that Arbery grabbed the gun when he didn’t tell the police that, and that he now recognized Arbery from before, which, again, he didn’t mention to the police. He’s not lying, he’s just mixed up.
I’d be really surprised. An expert witness cannot testify that the killer was scared or that the killer believed that he acted in self-defense; that kind of testimony can generally only come from the defendant. It’s generally not an “expert witness” type of thing.
I love this:
Over 100 Black Pastors showed up today.
Makes sense, thanks.
It would be astounding if that shameless ploy got any traction with a jury, unless they’re all white supremacists or have the brains of a turnip. That defense sometimes fails even for police if they use unnecessary force, but the difference is that when police are put in a potentially dangerous position, it’s in their capacity as sworn law enforcement officers doing their duty. They don’t have the option of staying home and calling the police like McMichael could have done. Instead, he chose to put himself in that position because he’s a racist asshole.
You don’t have to be a card carrying white supremacist to just be a little racist. One can be inclined to believing McMichael and honestly believe to oneself one is not a racist at all.
The DA calmly took him apart piece by piece. There was nothing left.
Jury charge on Monday, then deliberations begin.
Funny, I read that as “have the brains of a trump.” Still works.
Nonetheless, if I had to bet $20 in the result, I’d bet on acquittal. They’re white men who shot a black man in Georgia. I’m not absolutely certain they’ll be acquitted, I wouldn’t want to bet anything I couldn’t afford to lose, but it’s the likelier result.
It’s the cynical take - I’d have a hard time arguing against it and I sure wouldn’t bet either as I think acquittal is quite possible. But I’m just barely on the opposite side of the fence. I’m not sure acquittal is probable. I was about 98% sure Rittenhouse would be acquitted (and legally I’m not going to argue that one - it was probably the right decision in a technical sense). This one maybe 40%. The case against these defendants is quite a bit stronger and I’d think even a hung jury is more likely than a straight acquittal.
But we’ll see. Cynicism is often the safe bet.
I agree. I think a hung jury is much more likely than acquittal. Yes, there may be some white person who just won’t convict a white man of killing a black man, but there will as likely be someone who just won’t acquit a clear murder.
Not so much a dog whistle as a Fenris Foghorn:
Defense attorney Laura Hogue argued during her closing statement that Ahmaud Arbery was not a “victim” when he was shot and killed on Feb. 23, 2020…
“Turning Ahmaud Arbery into a victim after the choices that he made, does not reflect the reality of what’s brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores,” she said. The defense attorney then noted Arbery was wearing khaki shorts and criticized his personal hygiene the day he was killed…
The prosecution was all facts about the actions of the McMicheals while the defence needed to do their best to raise the character of the McMicheals and cast dangerous speculations about Arbery’s character and history.
Its going to be difficult as everyone already knows and agrees about the events and acts that happened. (The defence can’t claim that Arbery attacked first, or threatened him, just “acted or looked funny/sus”)
The defense seems to be contending that Aubery should have just complied and voluntarily submitted to their citizens arrest, and by failing to do so its his own fault he got killed. This absolutely reeks of “He should have minded his betters!”.
I actually think that there will be a conviction. Jurors are usually pretty savvy, and I just can’t see them deciding that this deadly force was justified.
He deserved to be killed because… he was wearing khaki shorts? If that’s the best the defense can do, then it’s hard to see how they don’t get convicted.
And long, dirty toenails.
