mcmichaels charged with hate crime on the arbery case, new trial coming

[theHawk]

So whites never get away with murder?

They quite often get convicted when innocent. Like in this case.

 

[White 6]

They quite often get convicted when innocent. Like in this case.

A jury of their peers found them guilty, a judge in good stand pronounced them guilty and sentenced them under the laws of that state. They are by definition guilty as charged and convicted.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Thanks for the clarification, whether I was intellectually deserving or not. It's just we haven't talked much and probably like yourself bopping into several threads, not always pay attention to who instead of what, I am responding to. Nice ta meetcha.

No problem W6, it can be a mine field to maneuver through. I enjoy reading your comments to some of the right-wing folks around here. Same to you my man.

 

[Coyote]

They quite often get convicted when innocent. Like in this case.

Uh huh…nothing innocent about chasing down a man in a couple of trucks yelling at him to “stop or I’ll shoot your fucking head off” …. and then doing it.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

A jury of their peers found them guilty, a judge in good stand pronounced them guilty and sentenced them under the laws of that state. They are by definition guilty as charged and convicted.

It is a prime example of one of those right wingers I was speaking of.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not necessarily on the move to Federal prison. They could run concurrent, the more serious charge being the state charge and left in state prison, depending probably on the judge, unless there is something that says federal charges must take precedence. On the other hand, a judge might decides if convicted the sentence to be served consecutive to the state charges, then game over, they die of old age in state prison.

Which really brings us back to this being nothing more than a waste of time.

 

[theHawk]

A jury of their peers found them guilty, a judge in good stand pronounced them guilty and sentenced them under the laws of that state. They are by definition guilty as charged and convicted.

Yea, and OJ was “not guilty”. Most people who serve on juries are complete morons.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Yea, and OJ was “not guilty”. Most people who serve on juries are complete morons.

Break down the case for us Hawk, tell us how they were legal in their actions against an innocent, black man.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yea, and OJ was “not guilty”. Most people who serve on juries are complete morons.

Whatever.

They were clearly guilty and the sole reason anyone can look at the objective facts of the case and come out with the impression they were innocent is if they are raging worthless racists.

End of story.

You would be bitching nonstop if it was 3 black guys chasing down a white guy and killing the 'cracker' because he was somewhere they thought he was not supposed to be. It is jackasses like you that make the right look like a bunch of racists.

Fuck off.

 

[FA_Q2]

Nope. Further more a thought crime is one your were thinking about but never initiated or were part of a plan or act. Thought crime is the subject of science fiction. These guy carried out their crime.

I do not see the justification that the 'hate' part of it brings though. What is the purpose of making a conviction of murder a hate crime or not? In the end it was murder. It is not the hate that means you need to be put in a cage but the act of killing someone.

I do not really care why you murdered someone unless it was a lawful reason. Outside of that, all reasons are the same to me.

Hate crimes just seem to be pointless.

I want to know what society gains by charging people with a hate crime.

 

[Mac-7]

Where they charged with a hate crime in State Court?

My standard is one alleged crime and one trial

and the mcmichaels have had theirs

 

[Mac-7]

No. It is not the same charge.

Its the same alleged crime

 

[1srelluc]

Not necessarily on the move to Federal prison. They could run concurrent, the more serious charge being the state charge and left in state prison, depending probably on the judge, unless there is something that says federal charges must take precedence. On the other hand, a judge might decides if convicted the sentence to be served consecutive to the state charges, then game over, they die of old age in state prison.

Sigh, the feds can't remove a convict from state into federal custody on their own hook till their time is served. Foreign nationals are a bit different in that regard, I've seen them released into ICE custody never to return. I've no idea what they did with them.

That said if the convict asks the state court, and they agree, the the feds can take them but usually they don't, or at least I've never seen it, no real reason for them to. I heard where it happened on occasion but it was usually some kid from a rich family that they buttonholed their congressman to make it happen.

The US Marshall's Service used to show-up all the time on a convicts state discharge day to take them into custody to do their fed time.....Again, after they had served their state time.....Same with the .mil.

LOL....When the USMC guys would show-up from Quantico you could tell the convict was going to be loved tenderly.

I don't know how many convicts I've seen break down in tears when the feds showed-up. We had no set time of day to release them, only that they be released by midnight.

Now if the feds didn't show up by then we would release them as it would be akin to kidnapping to hold them any longer in state custody......I've taken more than one convict to the bus stop at midnight when the feds failed to show.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

My standard is one alleged crime and one trial

and the mcmichaels have had theirs

No, they want the Federal trial because Fed Prisons are bettering than State prisons. I hope they are sent to one of Georgia's worse.

 

[White 6]

Which really brings us back to this being nothing more than a waste of time.

Somewhere in this thread, I mentioned a benefit to legal charges not charged or tried in state court, being charged and tried in Federal court. While a person convicted or found innocent on one charge cannot be tried for the same offense. They can and are at times tried for different crimes in state and then bound over for trial on different charges. That is the case here.
The benefit to society is a prevention of a possible miscarriage of justice, by early pardon or suspension of sentence at one of the two levels, by decision of a governor or a president. Either has the authority to release for whatever reason, on the charge in their sphere of the justice system, but it would take both the Governor and the President to pardon in both Federal and State courts jurisdictions. The President cannot pardon state crimes and the Governor cannot pardon Federal crimes. I am not saying, I suspect a Governor of that great state would ever pardon these three as "good old boys" of the state, although there is nothing that prevents it. This trial, if they are found guilty, preclude the possibility. to me that is something of benefit to the citizens of that state, now and into the future, especially if the sentences are to run consecutively, as they serve the state charges (the more serious and first to be found in guilty) by the people of that state.
At times, I have been a belt and suspenders guy. I believe in having a plan and a backup plan.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sigh, the feds can't remove a convict from state into federal custody on their own hook till their time is served. Foreign nationals are a bit different in that regard, I've seen them released into ICE custody never to return. I've no idea what they did with them.

That said if the convict asks the state court, and they agree, the the feds can take them but usually they don't, or at least I've never seen it, no real reason for them to. I heard where it happened on occasion but it was usually some kid from a rich family that they buttonholed their congressman to make it happen.

The US Marshall's Service used to show-up all the time on a convicts state discharge day to take them into custody to do their fed time.....Again, after they had served their state time.....Same with the .mil.

LOL....When the USMC guys would show-up from Quantico you could tell the convict was going to be loved tenderly.

I don't know how many convicts I've seen break down in tears when the feds showed-up. We had no set time of day to release them, only that they be released by midnight.

Now if the feds didn't show up by then we would release them as it would be akin to kidnapping to hold them any longer in state custody......I've taken more than one convict to the bus stop at midnight when the feds failed to show.

It is taking on a burden and a financial obligation.

It seems nonsensical for any entity to WANT a convicted prisoner in their system - no gains whatsoever.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Factbox-What are the charges in the Ahmaud Arbery hate-crimes case?

Federal prosecutors are expected to tell a jury on Monday why they have brought hate-crimes charges against three white men who were convicted of murdering Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man, in a mostly white neighborhood in Georgia in 2020. A state court found Travis McMichael, 36, his...

www.aol.com

this is so ridiculous. they are in for life. lets move on. the idiots screwed up because thought he was stealing. not a hate crime. this is just the begining a white person even looks at black persion they get setence for hate crime. this race shit is just reuning our country.

They thought he was stealing because he was black.

But I do agree with you on this, this is not a hate crime because there should be no such thing. The very nature of a stronger punishment for a "hate crime" violates the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution.

There should be no such thing hate crime laws

 

[FA_Q2]

Somewhere in this thread, I mentioned a benefit to legal charges not charged or tried in state court, being charged and tried in Federal court. While a person convicted or found innocent on one charge cannot be tried for the same offense. They can and are at times tried for different crimes in state and then bound over for trial on different charges. That is the case here.
The benefit to society is a prevention of a possible miscarriage of justice, by early pardon or suspension of sentence at one of the two levels, by decision of a governor or a president. Either has the authority to release for whatever reason, on the charge in their sphere of the justice system, but it would take both the Governor and the President to pardon in both Federal and State courts jurisdictions. The President cannot pardon state crimes and the Governor cannot pardon Federal crimes. I am not saying, I suspect a Governor of that great state would ever pardon these three as "good old boys" of the state, although there is nothing that prevents it. This trial, if they are found guilty, preclude the possibility. to me that is something of benefit to the citizens of that state, now and into the future, especially if the sentences are to run consecutively, as they serve the state charges (the more serious and first to be found in guilty) by the people of that state.
At times, I have been a belt and suspenders guy. I believe in having a plan and a backup plan.

I do not believe in back up plans that cost tens of thousands of dollars for something that flatly has a zero percent chance of occurring.

In a broader sense you might have a point but it is lost by the cold hard fact that such pardons are not just unlikely but extremely so. We would need to add to that fact that pardons serve a purpose. It is to fix a misarrange of justice and to be quite frank, I would posit this is FAR more likely than your situation. I am still left with the distinct impression that there is no real gain to society for hate crimes.

Perhaps the situation you are pointing out was prevalent and needed addressing 60 years ago. Now I can only see it being necessary in very few specific cases.

This clearly not being one of them.

 

[White 6]

Sigh, the feds can't remove a convict from state into federal custody on their own hook till their time is served. Foreign nationals are a bit different in that regard, I've seen them released into ICE custody never to return. I've no idea what they did with them.

That said if the convict asks the state court, and they agree, the the feds can take them but usually they don't, or at least I've never seen it, no real reason for them to. I heard where it happened on occasion but it was usually some kid from a rich family that they buttonholed their congressman to make it happen.

The US Marshall's Service used to show-up all the time on a convicts state discharge day to take them into custody to do their fed time.....Again, after they had served their state time.....Same with the .mil.

LOL....When the USMC guys would show-up from Quantico you could tell the convict was going to be loved tenderly.

I don't know how many convicts I've seen break down in tears when the feds showed-up. We had no set time of day to release them, only that they be released by midnight.

Now if the feds didn't show up by then we would release them as it would be akin to kidnapping to hold them any longer in state custody......I've taken more than one convict to the bus stop at midnight when the feds failed to show.

I did not know the laws on that. I did hear or read, this was a reason some of the family of the victim did not want them charged with the federal hate crime as they were afraid, it would mean the three murderers got sent to less crowded better condition federal prison. So they apparently did not know either.
Everything you said makes sense. I am glad it works that way. Thanks.

 

[White 6]

I do not see the justification that the 'hate' part of it brings though. What is the purpose of making a conviction of murder a hate crime or not? In the end it was murder. It is not the hate that means you need to be put in a cage but the act of killing someone.

I do not really care why you murdered someone unless it was a lawful reason. Outside of that, all reasons are the same to me.

Hate crimes just seem to be pointless.

I want to know what society gains by charging people with a hate crime.

Some states have a hate crime law. If at state level charge with both and convicted of both, it is an add on sentence only. If charge at state with a crime and convicted, but then charged with the hate crime at Federal level, it assures they will be behind bars for a length of time no matter who is elected governor or president. I have no sympathy for violent criminals, so the longer and more assured they stay locked up, the better for society.