Any bets on Arbery case?

[ClaraD]

That is not true based on my understanding of the evidence and frankly the jury didn’t see it that way.

I would say we should all refrain from saying what made the jury decide how they did or how they saw it....for all we know they decided to acquit because he was a dumb 17-year old that they didn't think should go to jail for the rest of his life.....we don't know what they said or what they thought...we may never know and we may one day know.

 

[ClaraD]

You can use the word acquitted, but in the end, they were found innocent in the eyes of the law and can not be tried again, nor will serve any punishment for their actions.

they cannot be tried again...but the law does not say they were found innocent....that is why people like OJ have faced civil courts, which have a lower bar and have been found to be responsible and had to pay through the nose....if the finding was innocent....the civil court could not find them responsible.

 

[ClaraD]

You should do a poll. I say guilty on all counts.

Rittenhouse was a tossup for at least some charge until the judge threw out minor in possession of a dangerous weapon. Once that happened, it was over for the prosecution. The question was never if Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, (the video clearly showed he attempted to flee and was pursued before he fired) it was whether he was entitled to act in self-defense. If he wasn't actively engaged in the commission of a crime at the time of the shooting, then he most definitely was entitled to defend himself. Once the judge made it clear that he was not in the commission of a crime when he acted in self-defense, the jury's hands were tied.

The McMichael's situation is different. They had no intention of leaving Arbery alone, and by their own admission were attempting to detain him. When civilian A detains civilian B at gunpoint without witnessing civilian B in the active commission of a crime, that is called attempted kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon. Regardless of how fiercely Arbery fought back against his assailants, and regardless of whether his assailants were legitimately in fear for their lives from their victim, they do not have the right to self-defense at that time. Once they made the fateful decision to detain Arbery at gunpoint they lost their right to self-defense. When he grabbed the shotgun, their choices were limited to letting him kill them with their own weapon or commit murder and be sent to prison for (likely) the rest of their lives. They made their choice.

not to mention that the citizen's arrest statute in Georgia has been repealed since this occurred...and it was because this occurred.

 

[HIP56948]

They're going down like a bad dream.

 

[lwf]

not to mention that the citizen's arrest statute in Georgia has been repealed since this occurred...and it was because this occurred.

Yeah, a lot of people misunderstand how citizen's arrest works. Citizens don't have the same legal protections as police officers when attempting a citizen's arrest. If you unequivocally witness someone in the active commission of a felony, such as holding up a liquor store with a firearm, and you disarm him and hold him at gunpoint until the police arrive, you have made a citizen's arrest and are a hero. If they fight back and you shoot, you will likely not face charges by claiming self-defense.

If on the other hand you see someone walking down the street that you recognize as having held up a liquor store last week and you hold them at gunpoint until the police arrive, you have likely just committed kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon, even if the person really did previously hold up the liquor store. If they fight back and you shoot to protect yourself, you have likely just committed murder, since you were engaged in a felony at the time and therefore do not have the right to self-defense. Civilians are not police officers, and their powers of detaining other citizens, especially with force, are extremely limited. And once you cross that line into actively committing a crime, you lose your right to self-defense.

 

[jnug]

While i agree with you that Rittenhouse acted like an idiot and shouldn’t have been there armed it is irrelevant to self defense.

The relevant issue is NOT SELF DEFENSE. The relevant issue is that Wisconsin is one of the few states that require the Prosecution to disprove a self defense claim beyond a shadow of a doubt. So the rule in Wisconsin is that the Prosecution has got to prove a negative beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's folly. Its juvenile. Its just the sort of thing you would expect from a state with its head up its ass....a state that sends Ron Johnson to represent them in the Senate.

 

[maxparrish]

They way things are going in this country with cases involving white shooters, I would not be surprised at a not guilty verdict. Like the Travon case, the Rittenhouse case and this one, the people who instigated the incident say self defense and the juries say not guilty. I guess you should not walk to your sisters in the dark, go to a protest, or even just jog down the street in this country because some person with a gun looking for someone to shoot will kill you.

It is near impossible that all the defendants won't be convicted. First, half of the many hundreds called for jury refused to show up...many out of fear. Of those that showed up 60 to 70 percent had already made up their minds. This is not a cut and dried case of not guilty like Rittenhouse or Zimmerman.

The pivotal elements are two or three fold.

First, much of this might depend on citizens arrest law. The key elements in this law was whether or not the defendants had immediate or direct knowledge of any crime. OR if the defendants had "probable and reasonable suspicion of a felony", a standard that is likely (not not necessarily) lower than "probable cause" for police officers. So what they knew, how they knew it, and what the standard is could be a factor.

Second, it is unclear to me if the pursuit of someone to question BEFORE having solidified intentions to arrest falls under the protections afforded for citizens arrest.

Three, depending on how one characterizes their actions are also of importance. If citizens arrest is NOT in play, then they only have a right to follow or intercept an individual, but not to attempt to block or prevent their egress. Moreover, they may not point their weapons or threaten to kill someone for not stopping. The only right that a person likely has in Georgia is to make a defense display as a warning (pointing a gun) at someone charging them.

Given statements made by them after the encounter, and the modified statements and video, there is likely more than enough to satisfy a prejudicial jury to vote in the direction of their prejudices.

Interesting the most clueless of the bunch, Roddy, is also the most vulnerable because he got into this effort without a clue as to why he should be stopping someone.

 

[maxparrish]

The relevant issue is NOT SELF DEFENSE. The relevant issue is that Wisconsin is one of the few states that require the Prosecution to disprove a self defense claim beyond a shadow of a doubt. So the rule in Wisconsin is that the Prosecution has got to prove a negative beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's folly. Its juvenile. Its just the sort of thing you would expect from a state with its head up its ass....a state that sends Ron Johnson to represent them in the Senate.

More pass around disinformation. Most states require the prosecution to disprove at least one of the five elements of self defense. What font of propaganda lies is your source?

 

[jnug]

More pass around disinformation. Most states require the prosecution to disprove at least one of the five elements of self defense. What font of propaganda lies is your source?

Other states with the same self defense burden of proof standard as Wisconsin are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Wyoming have replaced the common law “reasonable person” standard, which placed the burden on the defendant to show that their defensive action were reasonable, with a “presumption of reasonableness,” or “presumption of fear,” which shifts the burden of proof to the prosecutor to prove a negative.

That is 16.....last I counted 16 was less than half of 50.

 

[Deuce]

It is near impossible that all the defendants won't be convicted. First, half of the many hundreds called for jury refused to show up...many out of fear. Of those that showed up 60 to 70 percent had already made up their minds. This is not a cut and dried case of not guilty like Rittenhouse or Zimmerman.

The pivotal elements are two or three fold.

First, much of this might depend on citizens arrest law. The key elements in this law was whether or not the defendants had immediate or direct knowledge of any crime. OR if the defendants had "probable and reasonable suspicion of a felony", a standard that is likely (not not necessarily) lower than "probable cause" for police officers. So what they knew, how they knew it, and what the standard is could be a factor.

Second, it is unclear to me if the pursuit of someone to question BEFORE having solidified intentions to arrest falls under the protections afforded for citizens arrest.

Three, depending on how one characterizes their actions are also of importance. If citizens arrest is NOT in play, then they only have a right to follow or intercept an individual, but not to attempt to block or prevent their egress. Moreover, they may not point their weapons or threaten to kill someone for not stopping. The only right that a person likely has in Georgia is to make a defense display as a warning (pointing a gun) at someone charging them.

Given statements made by them after the encounter, and the modified statements and video, there is likely more than enough to satisfy a prejudicial jury to vote in the direction of their prejudices.

Interesting the most clueless of the bunch, Roddy, is also the most vulnerable because he got into this effort without a clue as to why he should be stopping someone.

I think most people would argue "this dude is black" is not "probable and reasonable suspicion of a felony."

 

[Craig234]

For goodness' sake.

We all know that those three gentleman are going down.

As some people have correctly pointed out, Mr. R. had a chance only because he shot people of his own ethnicity.

But those three defendants in the other case shot someone of another ethnicity.

Another ethnicity for whom the Dems and the media express great solicitude.

No jury would dare acquit them.

In fact, those men are aware of that, for the liberal media are reporting that at least one of the defendants is looking for a plea deal.

It's not about race, it's about the facts of the crimes, and this second one it's likely the facts will get a conviction.

 

[Gaius46]

The relevant issue is NOT SELF DEFENSE. The relevant issue is that Wisconsin is one of the few states that require the Prosecution to disprove a self defense claim beyond a shadow of a doubt. So the rule in Wisconsin is that the Prosecution has got to prove a negative beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's folly. Its juvenile. Its just the sort of thing you would expect from a state with its head up its ass....a state that sends Ron Johnson to represent them in the Senate.

It’s still irrelevant. You don’t like that the state has to disprove a self defense defense. Cool. Doesn’t change the fact that the state didn’t meet its burden.

 

[Metric Mouse]

It's nice to see in a thread with a few dozen posters, only 1 person is defending the killers here.

Quite a difference from the 70+% of people who polled on this site saying Rittenhouse was innocent.

 

[maxparrish]

Other states with the same self defense burden of proof standard as Wisconsin are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Wyoming have replaced the common law “reasonable person” standard, which placed the burden on the defendant to show that their defensive action were reasonable, with a “presumption of reasonableness,” or “presumption of fear,” which shifts the burden of proof to the prosecutor to prove a negative.

That is 16.....last I counted 16 was less than half of 50.

I asked to cite where you got your "information" that "Wisconsin is one of the few states that require the Prosecution to disprove a self defense claim beyond a shadow of a doubt, not push more of your unsupported claims as avoidance.

Here is how its done (Source listed in endnote):

"This (Ohio) is different from all 49 other states, which use the other standard of proof, “Beyond a reasonable doubt.”

"The standard of proof relevant in self-defense cases outside Ohio is proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

"The burden of proof consists of two distinct facets: the “burden of production,” and the “burden of persuasion.”

If you want to be able to argue “self-defense” before the jury you must first introduce evidence meeting the "the burden of production". "If there is any evidence, however contested it might be, you can argue self-defense. In most “good” self-defense cases there is little difficulty in meeting the burden of production."

And if the prosecution wants to prosecute you, they also have to meet the burden of production. "They are required to present evidence that you committed the crime you’re charged with, or the judge won’t allow them to take you to trial at all. This is not difficult at all in a self-defense case, because you’ve already admitted that you used force against the guy to defend yourself. Assuming all the burdens of production have been adequately met, it is time to proceed to the burden of persuasion."

After the burden of production is quickly attained, the meat of the trial begins. And once it does it is the prosecution that has the burden of persuasion against self-defense (other than Ohio).

"That is, the prosecution must disprove you acted in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If they do not the jury will be required to acquit. It is hard to over emphasize how huge this is for the defendant in a self-defense case. The prosecution could easily convince the jury that it’s more likely than not that you did not act in self-defense. But that’s not enough to overcome a claim of self-defense. The prosecution could convince the jury that it’s highly likely that you did not act in self-defense. But that’s still not enough to overcome a claim of self-defense. Unless the prosecution can convince the jury that you did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, you must be acquitted. To put it another way, so long as your defense counsel can maintain at least a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, an acquittal is yours."

Now this isn't quite as insurmountable as it may seem. Depending on the state, there are either four or five elements of self defense. "Avoidence" is the only element that may substantially vary, with "Duty to Retreat States", "Stand Your Ground States", and states like Wisconsin and California which have no duty to retreat BUT may take into consideration that a defendant didn't retreat when he could have.

All the prosecution need do is prove that the defendant didn't comply with one of those four or five elements, and the defendant is gulty.

If you don't know those self-defense elements, I'll provide you a link.

All quotes are from: Branca, Andrew. The Law of Self Defense, 3rd Edition (Kindle Locations 525-538). Kindle Edition.

 

[MaryP]

First, much of this might depend on citizens arrest law. The key elements in this law was whether or not the defendants had immediate or direct knowledge of any crime. OR if the defendants had "probable and reasonable suspicion of a felony", a standard that is likely (not not necessarily) lower than "probable cause" for police officers. So what they knew, how they knew it, and what the standard is could be a factor.

Not any more.

The judge ruled Friday afternoon that under Georgia’s old citizen’s arrest law, the one applied in this case, the arrest would have to occur right after any felony crime was committed, not days or months later.

The defense is furious; they built their whole case on probable cause and the judge just threw it out.

Defense says ruling by judge in Ahmaud Arbery trial over citizens arrest law guts their case

Defense attorneys were livid over the jury instructions Judge Timothy Walmsley plans to give next week.

www.wsbtv.com

 

[jnug]

I asked to cite where you got your "information" that "Wisconsin is one of the few states that require the Prosecution to disprove a self defense claim beyond a shadow of a doubt, not push more of your unsupported claims as avoidance.

Here is how its done (Source listed in endnote):

"This (Ohio) is different from all 49 other states, which use the other standard of proof, “Beyond a reasonable doubt.”

"The standard of proof relevant in self-defense cases outside Ohio is proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

"The burden of proof consists of two distinct facets: the “burden of production,” and the “burden of persuasion.”

If you want to be able to argue “self-defense” before the jury you must first introduce evidence meeting the "the burden of production". "If there is any evidence, however contested it might be, you can argue self-defense. In most “good” self-defense cases there is little difficulty in meeting the burden of production."

And if the prosecution wants to prosecute you, they also have to meet the burden of production. "They are required to present evidence that you committed the crime you’re charged with, or the judge won’t allow them to take you to trial at all. This is not difficult at all in a self-defense case, because you’ve already admitted that you used force against the guy to defend yourself. Assuming all the burdens of production have been adequately met, it is time to proceed to the burden of persuasion."

After the burden of production is quickly attained, the meat of the trial begins. And once it does it is the prosecution that has the burden of persuasion against self-defense (other than Ohio).

"That is, the prosecution must disprove you acted in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If they do not the jury will be required to acquit. It is hard to over emphasize how huge this is for the defendant in a self-defense case. The prosecution could easily convince the jury that it’s more likely than not that you did not act in self-defense. But that’s not enough to overcome a claim of self-defense. The prosecution could convince the jury that it’s highly likely that you did not act in self-defense. But that’s still not enough to overcome a claim of self-defense. Unless the prosecution can convince the jury that you did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, you must be acquitted. To put it another way, so long as your defense counsel can maintain at least a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, an acquittal is yours."

Now this isn't quite as insurmountable as it may seem. Depending on the state, there are either four or five elements of self defense. "Avoidence" is the only element that may substantially vary, with "Duty to Retreat States", "Stand Your Ground States", and states like Wisconsin and California which have no duty to retreat BUT may take into consideration that a defendant didn't retreat when he could have.

All the prosecution need do is prove that the defendant didn't comply with one of those four or five elements, and the defendant is gulty.

If you don't know those self-defense elements, I'll provide you a link.

All quotes are from: Branca, Andrew. The Law of Self Defense, 3rd Edition (Kindle Locations 525-538). Kindle Edition.

You are still missing the point. The Prosecution must defeat a self defense claim "beyond a reasonable doubt" in 16 states in this country in order to convict a defendant and as we just saw if the self defense claim holds for the most serous charges it holds for all of them. Its is patently ridiculous. It forces the Prosecution to prove a negative, hard enough by any standard, never mind beyond a reasonable doubt.

One of the biggest problems we have with Jurisprudence in this country is the inability to see the forest for the trees. You are simply refusing to see the forest for the tress. That is how we ended up with the SC deciding in 2013 that DOJ pre-clearance of state election law changes was no longer necessary because the issues pre-clearance were designed to mitigate were no longer issues. Ah-huh! Yup...no question...no longer an issue.

That is how we ended up with Citizens United. as well.

 

[jnug]

It’s still irrelevant. You don’t like that the state has to disprove a self defense defense. Cool. Doesn’t change the fact that the state didn’t meet its burden.

It's an unreasonable burden. The verdict is what it is. But its still a ludicrous, unreasonable burden for the Prosecution.

Wisconsin's self defense standard itself is made a mockery when citizens can carry AR15's on the city streets and Wisconsin's self defense burden of proof standard is laughable.

I will again repeat, replace the abysmal prosecutor in the Rittenhouse case with Prosecutor in the Georgia case and change Wisconsin's self defense standard and self defense burden of proof burden to what it is in Georgia and I seriously doubt Rittenhouse walks.

The verdict is what it is. But what we are doing state by state in this country does not make much sense.

 

[independentusa]

Jesus a foreman who doesn’t know what the terms he uses are. They must have set the bar

I guess you did not read my message. I do understand he was not found innocent but acquitted. The end result being though, that he is innocent in the eyes of the law as he can not be retried nor will he receive any punishment for his actions of killing two and wounding one. The end result is that in the USA if you are white and shoot someone, all you have to do is mutter self defense and make sure you do the killing in Trump country and you will be acquitted. I guess they want to send the message that even if you have done nothing wrong, and there is no proof that the people Rittenhouse killed did anything wrong, if you go to a protest that the right does not like, they can shoot you with impunity

 

[maxparrish]

I think most people would argue "this dude is black" is not "probable and reasonable suspicion of a felony."

And most people familiar with the case know that no one is arguing that he was followed merely because he was black.

 

[Deuce]

And most people familiar with the case know that no one is arguing that he was followed merely because he was black.

No, the people who murdered Arbery aren't going to say they followed him because he was black.

It's still the reason.

 

[MaryP]

And most people familiar with the case know that no one is arguing that he was followed merely because he was black.

True. But it was part of it.

 

[Simpletruther]

They way things are going in this country with cases involving white shooters, I would not be surprised at a not guilty verdict. Like the Travon case, the Rittenhouse case and this one, the people who instigated the incident say self defense and the juries say not guilty. I guess you should not walk to your sisters in the dark, go to a protest, or even just jog down the street in this country because some person with a gun looking for someone to shoot will kill you.

You forgot t mention not charge and attack them.

 

[Simpletruther]

In some ways it's identical: the vigilante mindset of charging off with guns to play cop (why does it always seem to be against black people?) led to a situation where a life or death struggle took place and the need for self defense was clear. How they arrived at that point is where the cases seem to differ.

And yet rittonhouse was not charging off against black people. Maybe you're being spoonfed lies.

 

[Simpletruther]

not really...both say that they were afraid that the person who was shot would take their gun...both took a gun where it did not need to be taken into...and both were in over their heads.....Arbery did indeed fight for the gun..and they shot him for it...but he was certainly within his rights to fight for the gun...Georgia law is a bit more clear than Wisconsin law on a few things.

Did both brandish their gun though?

 

[MaryP]

And yet rittonhouse was not charging off against black people. Maybe you're being spoonfed lies.

Yet the protests/riots in Kenosha were by and about whom? BLM supporters rioting against cops shooting a black man. I know KR wasn't charging off against black men. The militia response was in opposition to BLM. KR tagged along with the militia.

Arbery was black. Martin was black. Till was black. If you know of cases where vigilantes chased and killed white guys, I'd be happy to hear about it.