Even though it bothers me ethically that Kyle Rittenhouse brought a rifle to a riot, I can understand why the law of self defense, coupled with the facts of his case, led to a successful acquittal.
But this case - this case is altogether different. The defense has nothing of substance to add - regardless of whether Arbery was scoping out a construction site for nefarious reasons, and regardless of whether it would have been justified for a citizen to detain him (and that is very, very dubious), what these men did was something completely different. They got in a truck and chased a man until he was too exhausted to continue, got out and cornered him, than summarily executed him when he tried to escape. It was outrageous conduct. I don’t care the makeup of the jury : it would shock and appall me to think that a collection of citizens could unanimously condone this killing.
God knows what the defence was trying to go for there. Invoke disgust? Dehumanize Arbery by describing the state of his corpse?
The prosecution & defence are only allowed to refer to evidence presented in trial so she couldn’t straight call Arbery a “lowlife junkie” or something. Maybe she wants to trigger neighbouring thoughts by insulting his hygiene? It’s a wild swing, but wild swings are all the defence has.
The defence for the person who boxed and filmed Arbery getting shot, said crazy inflammatory racist stuff to the cameras during the trial and used the resulting public uproar/response to repeatedly call for a mistrial (multiple sessions each day).
It’s pretty much this. The defense doesn’t have very much of substance to argue, so they’re appealing to what they hope is a sizeable contingent of racists on the jury. It’s what lawyers do, and in Georgia, probably not a bad strategy. As much as I’m offended by the Rittenhouse acquittal, an acquittal here would be far worse. It would be a doubling down on endorsing vigilantism, and the far right would have three more heroes to bring on talk shows.
The conservative media was playing up Rittenhouse ever since that shooting happened. Has any conservative media outlet called for an acquittal in this case? I suppose it’s possible, but I highly doubt it. I’ve only heard universal condemnation of the defendant’s behavior.
First off, be very careful about throwing around accusations of racism at an entire state, please. The issue got initially covered up because of an extremely unethical D.A.'s office, and the moment it got out the state government came down like a hammer.
Second (and ironically) the McMichaels’ attorneys have been doing their job appropriately and honestly according to even some left-leaning lawyers. Their problem is that they have no facts and only the thinnest end of the law to lean on, so they’re really struggling to make this case for whatever they’ve got. Bryan’s lawyer was the one who kinda went right up to the edge of outright racism with his “black pastors” remark.
As far it goes, I think Acquittal is basically impossible. A Hung Jury result, of course, is always possible but not likely. The trouble there is that there could always be one holdout who refuses to convict for his or her own reasons.
Gross though their arguments may sometimes be, it is their job to get their defendants the best possible outcome, within the bounds of the law and the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Being angry at a defendant’s counsel for trying to get them acquitted is insane. The lawyers didn’t murder Ahmaud Arbery.
I am forever amazed at the tendency for people to be angry at defense attorneys. They’re doing their job. If they didn’t do their job to the best of their ability, the defendant could get their conviction tossed out on appeal, after all.
My apologies if I appeared to be insulting an entire state. I have no problem with the state or with most of its citizens. But look, this trio currently on trial were pretty clearly vigilantes with preconceived racially motivated ideas of what criminals usually look like, and they are surely not the only ones in the whole state (or anywhere else, for that matter) who think that way. Judging from their rhetorical strategy, the defense seems to be betting that there may even be a few on the jury.
It wasn’t just Bryan’s lawyer. Today’s news, cited above, was Greg McMichael’s lawyer suggesting that Arbery was dirty and unkempt and had no business being in the neighbourhood. This, in the presence of his mother watching from the gallery.
It’s easy to be angry at defense attorneys if one believes the defendants are egregiously guilty, and I agree it can be unfair. But I think most of what you’re seeing in this thread is anger at defense strategies that appear to be exploiting racism. If any or all of the defendants are to be acquitted, they should be acquitted on the basis of facts and the law, not because their victim was black, or poorly dressed, or had dirty toenails, or because there are “black pastors” in the gallery.
It’s not just that. It’s a preconceived notion of white/black relationships. Criminal or not, they think any black man should defer to any white man who detains him. It’s a legacy of slavery: all white men are deputized to maintain white supremacy. The real danger is someone who feels upholding that principle is the biggest concern, even if they privately think these guys created a scenario that didn’t need to happen.
Slamming the victim of a crime is more or less normal argument for, and maybe even ethically required of, a defence attorney. I understand why you would perceive the McMichaels’ lawyers’ statements as racially coded, and it may or may not be a good tactic for them because of that, but in this situation they’re probably limited to what their clients, the situation, and the law allow for. They’re reduced to arguing that Arbery had dirty toenails because there’s not much to go on. (For that matter, the statement is factually incorrect as Ahmaud Arbery has as much right as anyone to go jogging there.)
That they said it in the presence of Arbery’s mother is certainly not ideal, but they can’t do much about it. If the defence had to be conducted such that the warm feelings of others were never offended, then we may as well drop the idea altogether and simply not bother with trials.
Travis and Gregory McMichaels and William Bryan may well be racists; I think they are murderers. Whether or not they “deserve” a legal defence possible is irrelevant. They get it because it is our moral duty to ensure they are represented and judged fairly.
Actually, I’ve been rethinking the attorney’s comments as per wolfpup. As I said, smearing the victim is hardly an uncommon trial tactic. I can’t quite make up my mind as to whether it crosses the line in this case. Dehumanization is always dangerous, and in this case the defence seemed to be trying to portray Arbery in what could, and maybe should, 100% be construed as racist. It’s extremely ugly, though, and I’ll have to revise my estimation of those lawyers down.
I think the “dirty toenails” remark is a symptom of the broader systemic and intrinsic bigotry in our society more than anything else. In a society and culture without these sorts of systemic and intrinsic bigotries, juries would see such a remark as an obvious sign of desperation, and possibly bigotry, from the defense, and attorneys wouldn’t use such tactics because they would backfire.
There’s a good chance that that particular smear tactic by the defense, and the way it was done, will turn out to be a serious misstep. Intended to resonate with the potential biases of the jury, it may instead backfire very badly.
Honestly more troubling than the fact that the defense is making those statements is the fact that in our culture they are a potentially effective way of defending their clients. That’s more an indictment of our culture than of any individual lawyer though.
But by using those tropes, the individual lawyer is doing their part to perpetuate that racist culture, so I can’t hold them completely blameless. And it could affect them personally if they find themselves defending a Black man in their next trial.
I agree, but on the other hand as defense attorneys to slimy, odious pieces of shit they have to make slimy, odious, shitty arguments. Not to do so would break their fiduciary duty to their client.
When you are a defense attorney, you have a responsibility to your slimy odious shitty clients. When you are a human member of society, your have a responsibility to that society which you are a part of.
Those two responsibilities may very well come into conflict and I think the line of what is and isn’t appropriate can be blurry, so while I certainly don’t approve of what these lawyers are doing I don’t know to what extent I’d be comfortable with condemning them for it.
It would if there are any runners on the jury; nasty, discolored, and missing toenails are a humorous stereotype of runners and something of a badge of honor; the kind of thing that makes a “You know you’re a runner when…” list.
Yeah, I have been wondering how somebody who’s out for some exercise on the naturally dirty streets, especially if he went through a construction site, in sweaty sneakers or sandals or whatever, would avoid having dirty toenails. I mean, it’s feet. Feet get dirty, and unlike hands which also get dirty, you’re not periodically washing them throughout the day.