The jury is back behind closed doors as deliberations pour into a second day. The 12-person jury will decide the fate of defendants Gregory McMichael, his son Travis McMichael and William “Roddie” Bryan Jr., all three accused of murdering 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery, a Black man, while he was out for a jog.
The jury has also requested to review the 9-1-1 call made by defendant Gregory McMichael.
It was nice of them to call 911 after they murdered him. Points for being thoughtful.
Any more racist tropes from the defense attorneys today?
No, but only for lack of opportunity.
And timed it to crush a verdict in before Thanksgiving. It comes today, I reckon.
Hi! To find out what I can do, say @discobot display help.
I’ve been puzzled.
Armed men in a pickup truck chase a guy out taking a jog.
Jogger runs away, then fights back when guy with a rifle catches him. Jogger gets shot and armed guy claims “self-defense.”
What am I missing here?
Interesting…though, after the Rittenhouse trial, I’m going to believe that they went back in to try to convince the holdout juror(s) that they should let the three murderers walk instead of reviewing evidence in detail to determine which felony charges are appropriate.
All that matters for a self defense claim is that you were afraid for your life in the second before you pulled the trigger, it’s irrelevant if you caused the situation or scared someone into fighting for their life. This defense works better if you make sure the person who scared you is dead, and is only available to white male gun owners or people who kill “suspicious” Black people who are carrying Skittles or breathing.
EDIT: I hope everyone got the sarcasm of the last paragraph…it’s infuriating that things seem to work that way.
just the ugly reality of racism in America. Otherwise, yes, this case would be open and shut.
This is mostly correct. And self defense laws vary from state to state. However, most do include some caveats. On a quick look, it appears that the jury in this case was instructed that self defense cannot be claimed if the individual was the aggressor in a given situation. In the Rittenhouse case, self defense would have been unavailable if the situation was caused by unlawful provocation on the part of the individual attempting to assert self-defense (which is why it is so important that the Judge tossed the illegal possession of a firearm claim, but I digress…)
But generally, yes, there can be occasions where you could imagine that both sides could have claimed self defense, had they been the one who successfully killed the other.
It is still early…
Nothing. Welcome to America. We hope you’ll enjoy your stay. Try not to go jogging if you carry a certain amount of pigment.
So that the heroes of the Conservative Movement can spend Thanksgiving at Mar-a-Lago.
I know that it seems difficult to think that any sort of discussion can be had, but the very LEAST we have to re-examine citizen arrest laws. If you try to detain someone and you are armed and they are not - and by detained, I mean you have a sidearm and you say, “stop right there I need to talk to you” then I can only assume that you are going to kill me and therefore that should be assault.
I live in a pretty unrestricted open carry area for sidearms. I’m somewhat used to seeing people with holstered weapons at the grocery store etc. My neighbors alot of the time. And yeah, if one of them that I didn’t know or might have some issue with tried to detain me I would fear for my life to some extent.
The law can’t just protect the right of the armed person. It has to protect the rights of both parties. That is a discussion that I believe can be had. Yeah, it seems like small potatoes. But in this case, it might have avoided this situation.
I read somewhere that the GA lege rescinded the citizen arrest law that was on the books after this incident. If so, that’s at least one small positive step.
The way our laws are constructed, your best hope is to be armed yourself and shoot first.
When there aren’t any inconvenient witnesses around, make sure to use the hand of the person to remove their pistol from their holster, if necessary, before the cops arrive.
Don’t get too fancy and try a grazing wound shot to your arm, as the powder burns may give it away.
Thanks to decades long machinations of the NRA and ultra conservative judges, common sense has been thrown out of the window. The duty to retreat from a potentially violent situation has vanished in favor of self defense laws that literally cannot find someone guilty no matter what they may have done to provoke the ultimate situation. Carrying a large scary gun is provocative and aggressive - it just is. We have these couch commandos around Mesa and I always feel threatened because they brandish ridiculous amounts of firepower. How am I supposed to know they are “responsible” gun owners? We are marching into Mad Max territory here as fast as the courts can rule and the RW media can propagandize.
We did - I’m in GA. But there is still confusion with stand your ground laws. Look at what happened in Florida with T Martin. Z went out there to detain him while armed.
I’m arguing that in the USA in 2021 with our record of mass shootings etc, that confronting someone while armed should be assault. You need s gun for self defense? Ok. But you don’t get to be aggressive while carrying it.
Works for me. I’ll contribute to your campaign, should you decide to run.
Will also send donations for the flower arrangement, should you decide to run.
Yup, and there it is in a nutshell - the absolutely insane idea that anyone should be able to carry a deadly weapon without any training or insurance requirements, or even so much as a mention of any responsibilities.