Ahmaud Arbery sentencing.

[beagle9]

Preposterous.

Up until the Jury everyone involved is trained in the law, and paid to do the job. Think about it for a moment. The Police are trained and charged by law to enforce the law. Yet they lie, plant evidence, hide or destroy evidence, and violate the Constitutional Rights of the citizenry pretty regularly.

Their actions are reviewed by other cops, and then by the District Attorney. Look at every exoneration. In every one the DA knew there were problems and continued with the Prosecution. Why? It’s his job to prosecute. His job, he is paid to prosecute people, even if he has doubts. It’s not up to him to decide the guy is guilty, it’s the job of the Jury, and his job is to fool the jury.

The Judge is trained and experienced in the law. Paid to insure that the law is followed. Additionally he is responsible for explaining the law to the Jury.

Yet Judges are overturned, or overruled all the time. It is why we have an appeals process. To weigh the issues in a more controlled setting. Then if we don’t like the decision on the appeals, we can go higher. Eventually appealing to the Supreme Court, and the legal experts trained and all that to be there.

Yet those experts, trained and experienced, came up with the asinine doctrine of Qualified Immunity. A doctrine that has shielded corrupt and bad cops for going on three generations.

And if you go with professional jurors, the next question is what happens to the Reasonable Person doctrine? We judge many events based upon what a reasonable person would think in that situation. Is it reasonable to do this, or not?

Take a case from our recent history. Michael Drejka shot and killed a man over a dispute revolving around a handicapped parking place. The Defense and many others argued it was self defense. The prosecution and the police argued that it was murder. The Jury watched the tapes, listened to the testimony, and debated for a while before deciding it was not reasonable to shoot McGlockton. There was a pause between the pulling of the pistol, when McGlockton took a step back, and the shooting.

The Jury decided it was not reasonable for Drejka to still believe he was in danger, sufficient to justify the use of deadly force.

Drejka was sent to Prison over the howls of outrage by some. What would a professional Jury think? What would be their connection to the Reasonable Person argument? They would be professionals wouldn’t they?

One of the problems facing our society is corruption in Police. Cops on the take. Cops who are bribed. Lawyers and Judges are also susceptible. But wouldn’t the professional juror also be susceptible?

Now, someone would have to assign Jurors to the cases. That assignment could be random, picking twelve names out of a hat out of a pool of one hundred. Or more likely it would be a supervisor assigning jurors. Kick a little money towards him and get a jury who is made up of people more likely to be favorable towards your case. Or talk to him and get a jury to decide that the accused is guilty.

But let me ask you this. Why do you believe we need this professional jury pool? What decisions have been outrageous? What decisions have made it apparent to you that the average individual is incapable of understanding what the case was really about? Was it this case? The case of the killing of Arbery? Or was it Chauvin? What case helped you decide we need professional jurors?

Not just one case, but many cases as of late it seems, suggest that the citizen's are not satisfied with the outcomes. It seems that in these cases the citizen's end up blaming the juries and judge when the cases fail, and they even think that the juries can be infiltrated, doxed, followed, intimidated, mocked and so on and so forth. Otherwise we are experiencing a new chapter in American justice, and it is being influenced heavily by the activities that are going on in society now.

The juries might have to be insulated from it, and the only way to do it is to educate them against it, and to separate them somehow by having them move about within the country from state to state when called upon. This would or should cut down on corruption and most intimidating factors involved. Otherwise no ties to the region, just a mobile professional group of trained individuals who have one incentivized goal, and that is to consider all the facts and evidence in a non-biased or influenced way.

Nice try on your attempt to see if I was swayed by the specific case, otherwise to maybe suggest that I might be a racist commenting on this specific case. No I'm no racist, but I do like listening to what everyone has to say, and then make suggestions based off of a gathering of the conversational points in hopes to help if at all possible. You on the other hand might be biased because you seem to be taking my post in a defensive way, so do you have bias in the specific case, and if so what is the source of your being biased ?

 

[SavannahMann]

Not just one case, but many cases as of late it seems, suggest that the citizen's are not satisfied with the outcomes. It seems that in these cases the citizen's end up blaming the juries and judge when the cases fail, and they even think that the juries can be infiltrated, doxed, followed, intimidated, mocked and so on and so forth. Otherwise we are experiencing a new chapter in American justice, and it is being influenced heavily by the activities that are going on in society now.

The juries might have to be insulated from it, and the only way to do it is to educate them against it, and to separate them somehow by having them move about within the country from state to state when called upon. This would or should cut down on corruption and most intimidating factors involved. Otherwise no ties to the region, just a mobile professional group of trained individuals who have one incentivized goal, and that is to consider all the facts and evidence in a non-biased or influenced way.

Nice try on your attempt to see if I was swayed by the specific case, otherwise to maybe suggest that I might be a racist commenting on this specific case. No I'm no racist, but I do like listening to what everyone has to say, and then make suggestions based off of a gathering of the conversational points in hopes to help if at all possible. You on the other hand might be biased because you seem to be taking my post in a defensive way, so do you have bias in the specific case, and if so what is the source of your being biased ?

I wasn’t trying to intimate or suggest your motivation was racist. Many people who objected to the Drejka decision did so based upon their belief that it was a valid and reasonable self defense shooting.

My belief is that it was murder. When he pulled the gun, the threat stopped for that second between aiming and firing. The baddie backed up, moving away.

Now, up until the shooting, the person I would suggest should have been arrested was McGlockton. He assaulted Drejka. My feelings are not based upon race, but upon what I believe is simple fairness.

Gypsy juries moving from town to town and even state to state before rendering verdicts rules out the idea of trained in the laws though. Each state is different. Each state has variations in the laws.

Georgia is one of those where the laws of Georgia, in which the McMichaels were tried, were different than the laws of most of the other states. Many people claimed that the McMichaels should have been tried for Manslaughter, or Murder Two, instead of Murder.

Many times I explained that Georgia law was different. There is a Manslaughter statute. Two sections actually. Those break down as such. For Voluntary Manslaughter as an example. It is the crime of passion. The classic you came home and found a man in bed with your wife and killed him. Georgia says look, we understand you were overcome by an irresistible rage. It wasn’t right that you killed that fellow. But we understand. However, we’re still sending you to prison. We won’t send you for more than 20 years, because again, we understand the crime of passion was the motivation.

Involuntary Manslaughter. That is where you are doing something you know damned well was stupid and dangerous and someone gets killed. Like racing your car down a residential neighborhood and killing a kid. Georgia says look, we get it. You didn’t mean to hurt someone. But you did and you’re going to prison. We won’t send you there for longer than ten years. The catch is you can’t be committing a felony when you do this, so reckless behavior that results in a death.

Neither of those applied to the McMichaels. And to the Murder Charge. Georgia doesn’t have Murder in the degree. We don’t have Murder in the First Degree for Premeditation. We have murder. We don’t have Murder in the Second for a death that occurs during the commission of a felony. That is Felony Murder in our books.

When this was pointed out the internet experts shrugged and said that the McMichaels were being overcharged. It was political, or whatever. Under Georgia law, there wasn’t any other choice. There were no other charges available. Felony Murder, and Malice Murder. That was it. Malice Murder is the crime of passion sort of thing, only during the commission of a felony.

To give an example. You’re robbing a bank. The clerk taps the silent alarm. The robber snarled Motherfucker and shoots the clerk. That is Felony Murder, and Malice Murder under Georgia Law. The Robber did not enter the bank planning on murdering anyone. He planned on getting the money and getting away. The actions of the clerk threw the escape into doubt, and the robber reacted in a moment of rage.

Felony Murder alone. The robber produces a gun, the clerk hands over the money, and then collapses from a heart attack. Or a shoot out ensues and the robber kills someone. It wasn’t intended. It was a moment in time, and there was no snarling rage about how this mother fucker had to pay.

I’m probably not explaining it well. But I hope you get the idea. I am in the middle of a few things, I hope you will bear that in mind.

I am not accusing you of being racist. I am saying that motivations can be based upon other than race. The get tough on crime, anything is justified when dealing with a criminal mentality is not conjoined to racism.



This one is funny to me. But in Georgia, the old man would be in danger of being charged with Aggravated Assault. It would be unlikely that he would be convicted, he never used the weapon in a directly threatening manner, and did not pursue the baddie. But he might have been charged. It is probable that the DA would have run it up in front of a Grand Jury, and that is a coin toss if he is indicted.

I personally don’t think the old man did anything wrong. He was armed in case of trouble, but did not directly threaten the thief. He told the thief to return the package. He loaded a round as he exited the house, but that would be a reasonable precaution in case danger existed.

He didn’t point the weapon, fire rounds for effect or to punctuate the statement of put the package back on the porch. Expletive deleted.

I really have no heart burn with the case. If I was on the Jury, and here is where a Jury gets important. I’d almost certainly lean towards not guilty depending on additional facts in the case.

I don’t care that the old man is black. I don’t care that the thief is. It’s the actions of the old man that we are discussing.

Jury Nullification almost never happens. But it would never happen with professional jurors. That is where the Jury decides that yes, the accused did it. But the law, or the application of the law is unjust. So they vote Not Guilty.

 

[maybelooking]

Well it's not readily apparent that you have such as what's unfortunate about people being convicted of racism if that's what they were involved in?

what's absolutely apparent is that the term racism has been thrown around so much by idiotic liberals that it no longer has any real meaning.

 

[maybelooking]

Every decision Greg and Travis made that day was the dumb choice. And they weren’t alone.

no disagreement from me at all on that statement.

 

[skews13]

The audio recording of the 911 call proves that that's not what he said to Arbery.

The jury says you are full of shit.

Which means nobody gives a rats ass what you think about anything.

And there isnt going to be a do over

And three worthless pieces of shit rednecks in Georgia are now rotting prison

And their guns have all been confiscated

I would go on, but I think I have reiterated clearly enough just how impotent your position is.

 

[beagle9]

I wasn’t trying to intimate or suggest your motivation was racist. Many people who objected to the Drejka decision did so based upon their belief that it was a valid and reasonable self defense shooting.

My belief is that it was murder. When he pulled the gun, the threat stopped for that second between aiming and firing. The baddie backed up, moving away.

Now, up until the shooting, the person I would suggest should have been arrested was McGlockton. He assaulted Drejka. My feelings are not based upon race, but upon what I believe is simple fairness.

Gypsy juries moving from town to town and even state to state before rendering verdicts rules out the idea of trained in the laws though. Each state is different. Each state has variations in the laws.

Georgia is one of those where the laws of Georgia, in which the McMichaels were tried, were different than the laws of most of the other states. Many people claimed that the McMichaels should have been tried for Manslaughter, or Murder Two, instead of Murder.

Many times I explained that Georgia law was different. There is a Manslaughter statute. Two sections actually. Those break down as such. For Voluntary Manslaughter as an example. It is the crime of passion. The classic you came home and found a man in bed with your wife and killed him. Georgia says look, we understand you were overcome by an irresistible rage. It wasn’t right that you killed that fellow. But we understand. However, we’re still sending you to prison. We won’t send you for more than 20 years, because again, we understand the crime of passion was the motivation.

Involuntary Manslaughter. That is where you are doing something you know damned well was stupid and dangerous and someone gets killed. Like racing your car down a residential neighborhood and killing a kid. Georgia says look, we get it. You didn’t mean to hurt someone. But you did and you’re going to prison. We won’t send you there for longer than ten years. The catch is you can’t be committing a felony when you do this, so reckless behavior that results in a death.

Neither of those applied to the McMichaels. And to the Murder Charge. Georgia doesn’t have Murder in the degree. We don’t have Murder in the First Degree for Premeditation. We have murder. We don’t have Murder in the Second for a death that occurs during the commission of a felony. That is Felony Murder in our books.

When this was pointed out the internet experts shrugged and said that the McMichaels were being overcharged. It was political, or whatever. Under Georgia law, there wasn’t any other choice. There were no other charges available. Felony Murder, and Malice Murder. That was it. Malice Murder is the crime of passion sort of thing, only during the commission of a felony.

To give an example. You’re robbing a bank. The clerk taps the silent alarm. The robber snarled Motherfucker and shoots the clerk. That is Felony Murder, and Malice Murder under Georgia Law. The Robber did not enter the bank planning on murdering anyone. He planned on getting the money and getting away. The actions of the clerk threw the escape into doubt, and the robber reacted in a moment of rage.

Felony Murder alone. The robber produces a gun, the clerk hands over the money, and then collapses from a heart attack. Or a shoot out ensues and the robber kills someone. It wasn’t intended. It was a moment in time, and there was no snarling rage about how this mother fucker had to pay.

I’m probably not explaining it well. But I hope you get the idea. I am in the middle of a few things, I hope you will bear that in mind.

I am not accusing you of being racist. I am saying that motivations can be based upon other than race. The get tough on crime, anything is justified when dealing with a criminal mentality is not conjoined to racism.



This one is funny to me. But in Georgia, the old man would be in danger of being charged with Aggravated Assault. It would be unlikely that he would be convicted, he never used the weapon in a directly threatening manner, and did not pursue the baddie. But he might have been charged. It is probable that the DA would have run it up in front of a Grand Jury, and that is a coin toss if he is indicted.

I personally don’t think the old man did anything wrong. He was armed in case of trouble, but did not directly threaten the thief. He told the thief to return the package. He loaded a round as he exited the house, but that would be a reasonable precaution in case danger existed.

He didn’t point the weapon, fire rounds for effect or to punctuate the statement of put the package back on the porch. Expletive deleted.

I really have no heart burn with the case. If I was on the Jury, and here is where a Jury gets important. I’d almost certainly lean towards not guilty depending on additional facts in the case.

I don’t care that the old man is black. I don’t care that the thief is. It’s the actions of the old man that we are discussing.

Jury Nullification almost never happens. But it would never happen with professional jurors. That is where the Jury decides that yes, the accused did it. But the law, or the application of the law is unjust. So they vote Not Guilty.

Good response.... As for the jypsy jury thing, the only way for that to actually work is for the juries to be Federal employee's, and we know how screwed up that would be. Especially when we have the Fed's causing so much trouble in society these days. Solution's are out there, but the full story has to unfold completely for the solution's to then be looked at, and then be picked from today.

 

[Mac-7]

Three Georgia men sentenced to life in prison for 'chilling' Arbery murder

(Reuters) -A Georgia judge sentenced Travis McMichael and his father Gregory McMichael on Friday to life in prison without the possibility of parole for what he called the "chilling" 2020 murder of Ahmaud Arbery, a Black man running through their mostly white neighborhood in the southern U.S...

www.yahoo.com

How long will each get?

The father and son are guilty of bad judgement but so is abrey

the third man is guilty of nothing

 

[Otis Mayfield]

How safe do you think he is in jail?

Would you hit that?

 

[liarintheWH]

How safe do you think he is in jail?

Would you hit that?

We know you would, being the vile leftist that you are.

 

[Canon Shooter]

How safe do you think he is in jail?

Would you hit that?

Oh, there's gonna be some big, hung-like-an-ox negro who's gonna' make Travis his bitch...

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Oh, there's gonna be some big, hung-like-an-ox negro who's gonna' make Travis his bitch...

Travis could find true love!

Let's stay focused on the brighter side of things.

 

[beagle9]

The father and son are guilty of bad judgement but so is abrey

the third man is guilty of nothing

The thing about the third man is this right, otherwise in according to my understanding he was near by working on a porch when he was drawn into the action or event (not knowing what had exactly took place or why the two was trying to stop Aubrey am I right?) so in that I ask, could it have been that he thought that the two were attempting to apprehend a fleeing suspect that had done something bad, and so he just wanted to help because he genuinely thought that the event taking place was something that was critical ?? If so, and he thought that he was truly in a situation that warranted his help as a citizen to believe that a criminal suspect needed to be stopped, and he had absolutely nothing to do with the struggle or the gun going off in that part of the event, then it should have been found that he was guilty of involuntary manslaughter at best as to be based upon his role in the event maybe ?? Did he know the McMichael's when he was drawn into the event, and did he trust their judgement that a criminal was fleeing a scene of a crime, even though he didn't know what type of alledged crime had alledgedly taken place ? Did the McMichael's tell the court that they were sorry that they had created a situation that Drew their friend or neighbor into the event, and that they wished that they hadn't done that ?? Otherwise did they ask the court to not go hard on their neighbor or friend, because he really didn't deserve to be in the situation ?

 

[pknopp]

The thing about the third man is this right, otherwise in according to my understanding he was near by working on a porch when he was drawn into the action or event (not knowing what had exactly took place or why the two was trying to stop Aubrey am I right?)

No.

 

[Zincwarrior]

what's absolutely apparent is that the term racism has been thrown around so much by idiotic liberals that it no longer has any real meaning.

But not in this case.

 

[maybelooking]

But not in this case.

im not condoning what they did. The father and son should be in prison forever. And I will admit I didn't watch every minute of the trial. But exactly how do we know they killed him because he was black?

 

[Zincwarrior]

im not condoning what they did. The father and son should be in prison forever. And I will admit I didn't watch every minute of the trial. But exactly how do we know they killed him because he was black?

Because they ignored many other walkers. Also the killer called him a Ner to the PoPo but not admitted.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I said from the outset. Before they were arrested.

You saw photos of them before they were booked?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You saw photos of them before they were booked?

Yep.

 

[beagle9]

No.

Explain your understanding of it.

 

[beagle9]

Because they ignored many other walkers. Also the killer called him a Ner to the PoPo but not admitted.

Please don't use things that aren't proven or can't be proved in a transparent way. Never heard this about them ignoring other walker's or the last part of your projection.