Hamlet, thanks for that additional information! Confederate tool box – classy! Must be a huge Dukes of Hazzard fan.
However, until they swear or affirm under oath that they are indeed racists, how can we know what’s in their hearts?
Same way we know anything, evidence.
Oh, I thought we had sufficient evidence when those guys chased down and killed a black man for the crime of jogging through their neighborhood because he supposedly resembled some guy who had committed non-existent burglaries.
People in this thread, though, thought we needed more evidence that the killers were racists before passing that judgement. I wonder if there’s enough evidence for them now. Sometimes it seems like the only thing that would convince some doubters is if the accused racists swore that they were racists on video or something.
Videos can be faked.
Video evidence doesn’t prove anything because it’s all taken out of context except he never said that and left-wing media is misconstruing these very fine people!
I’ve been following this case closely, because I live in Georgia and, like Ahmaud Arbery, am a runner. And as such, I immediately thought of a reason that he visited a construction site while running. It’s the same reason I occasionally do the same: construction site = Porta-Potty. Any athlete who’s ever gotten struck with the runner’s shits while out on a workout learns to take note of every Porta-Potty on her regular route. I suppose this could be technically considered trespass, or maybe theft-of-services, but that’s one hell of a stretch (and certainly not a crime that justifies grabbing a gun and going after the runner). I obviously don’t know if that’s why Arbery went into the construction site, but it’s the first thing that would occur to any runner.
Greg McMichael, the father, had a handgun in his possession that had been issued to him by the Glynn County Police Department, according to the GBI investigator who testified at yesterday’s hearing.
From the “It certainly took you long enough” file, the feds finally got around to indicting the 3 men involved in killing Ahmad ArbEry. From NPR:
"Gregory McMichael, 65; his son, Travis McMichael, 35; and William “Roddie” Bryan, 51, were each charged with one count of interference with rights and with one count of attempted kidnapping, according to a Justice Department statement.
Travis and Gregory McMichael also face charges of using guns to inflict violence.
Well, it’s not like the Trump Justice Department was going to do it.
Update: No, the case hasn’t gone to trial yet (it is scheduled for October 18th, but [to no one’s surprise] Covid is decimating rural Georgia). But there is some good news:
I admit, I’m kinda surprised they actually indicted her for trying to wave away the murder of a black man. And the felony indictment is pretty sparse on actual facts. But it does allege that she showed “favor and affection” to one of the killers by trying to have the AG appoint a sympathetic (who did not seek an arrest or charges) prosecutor to handle the case.
Should be interesting.
OK, now that I’m happy about. The racist jerks who commit crimes like this are bad enough, but the folks entrenched in the system who let them get away with it (or at least, try to) are far worse.
Update:
As the article says, the key point is whether the jury believes the men “reasonably suspected” Ahmaud had committed a felony and was trying to escape. I’m having a real hard time seeing how any reasonable person could connect Ahmaud to any felony.
Jury selection is continuing in the case. They have just 4 more jurors to select, and may start arguments as early as Thursday. The court wants to have 64 jurors, which is a lot of alternates. But given the high profile nature of the crime, the inevitable juror who wasn’t truthful in voir dere, and the length of the trial (it’s anticipated to run for 3 weeks), it’s not insane.
I’ll add this statement of the defense counsel for the guy who filmed the shooting had this to say: ““It would appear that white males born in the South over 40 years old without a college degree… which he might also be known as Bubba or Joe Sixpack… seem to be significantly underrepresented.” I fear this case is going to get ugly.
“It says a jury of my peers, so shouldn’t my jury be as racist as I am?”
There’s now an MPSIMS thread for the trial, courtesy Snowboarder_Bo:
As far as major differences go, it appears that Rittenhouse has a much, much stronger case than the three suspects here. In fact, I am not certain that they can raise an serious self-defence case at all, much less a compelling one.
I won’t go into all the details, but the distinction is that Rittenhouse, whatever the level of stupidity or malice or childishness that got him into that situation, has fairly strong evidence that he didn’t intentionally provoke violence and that he was specifically in danger. Note: this is not a moral judgment but simply pointing out that he has a good case for meeting the legal standard for self-defence. Lots of people are very angry at him and you’ll see the usual level of twitter commentary all about the case. That is, most people either don’t seem to understand either the facts or the law but they’ll happily talk nonsense about both, interminably.
In the Arbury case, the three suspects by their own admission armed themselves and chased an unarmed man, and thus far can’t seem to come up with any credible reason for their actions. The defence team will probably try implying all kinds of things about Arbury, but it will be hard to actually make a credible argument that three heavily armed men in trucks faced any kind of danger until they attacked.
One curious possibility is whether or not they’ll take the stand. Kyle Rittenhouse did, and this probably turned out to be a good move. Defendants taking the stand is a rare choice but in this situation hearing his perspective probably helped much more than it hurt, partly because the prosecution really flailed. The suspects in the Arbury case could face a much tougher scrutiny. Yet if they don’t take the stand, it may be very difficult to put a coherent defence case together.
One point that is curious to me is the place of William Bryan. Were I in that guy’s shoes, I would be begging for a deal - and cheerfully flip on the McMichaels duo. Bryan’s actions were more removed so there would be ample justification for this from the prosecution side. That being said, it’s also possible the prosecutors chose to keep him in as a strategic move. The jury might decide to find him only partly guilty, or even innocent, by contrast to the McMichaels father and son. (This is apparently a well-known tactic; putting up a relatively less-guilty party apparently shows the distinction to the jury.)
Again, all this is just my half-informed legal take and NOT a moral judgment. But given the video and the agreed facts I have no idea how the McMichaels father and son could not be guilty, and they’ll need one hell of an attorney here.
If you think that they don’t have any credible reason for trying to detain the guy, then you aren’t paying attention. This specific guy was captured in surveillance video on multiple occasions trespassing in that house. The cameras were set up specifically because there was trespassing in that house. Video of the trespassing had been shared around the neighborhood, and the people were specifically on the lookout for this one specific guy. He in fact was caught on video trespassing in the house minutes before they started chasing him. They were not profiling a random black person, they were after this one specific guy, they caught him red-handed, and he was indisputably guilty of what they were attempting to citizen’s arrest him for. They had the right guy.
- Trespassing is not a felony, therefore, they couldn’t properly execute a citizen’s arrest.
- Neither Bryan nor Greg McMichael mentioned the words “citizen’s arrest” to the law enforcement at the scene.
- They had absolutely no real evidence that the man they shot and killed was a burglar. They thought he might be, simply because he was a black man running through the neighborhood. Being a black man and running should not be “reasonable suspicion of a felony”.
This is not remotely true.