USA shooting - Ahmaud Arbury

[Ian Geary]

The 3 defendents have been found guilty of murdering Ahmaud, who was jogging when chased down and killed on the claims he was a burglar.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ah...

In my opinion that makes two out of two correct decisions in recent USA trials

Whilst totally eclipsed by the Rittenhouse trial (imo at least) it was (to me again) a shocking display of racism and the frankly appalling gun culture the USA has.

I think the prosecutor's office have some tough questions to answer too about how long it took them to get their finger out when confronted with a violent death.

[bitchstewie]

Agreed seems another right verdict.

Some bizarre sounding conflicts of interest with a prosecutor charged with violating her oath and obstruction for trying to not have them charged.

[mick987]

They hunted him down like an animal and then killed him. As previous poster said race played a huge part on what went on.

[coppernorks]

Another case tried on mainly video evidence, fair to say these 3 buffoons would have got away with it but for one
of them videoing it, and offering it to the cops as evidence. What a mistake-a to make-a.


The US judicial system will need to get its ass in gear if mobile footage is again the mainstay of a prosecution or defence case.

Much scratching of heads when the deliberating jury wishes to view video evidence, will it be in the jury room or the courtroom ?
In private or with lawyers and judge present ? view it as many times as they wish or with a limited number of views ?

Seems to me out of 12 people there will be a one or two who are computer savvy, give them a laptop with all the videos and let them view it as they wish.

[ but not on VLC , so fking slow to obey clicks it's unbelievable.]
.

[jimmyjimjim]

Ian Geary said:

In my opinion that makes two out of two correct decisions in recent USA trials

Spot on.

[dudleybloke]

The correct result.
He wasn't a threat, no reason to shoot him.

[jdw100]

I found the amount of attempted cover-up interesting.

Behind the scenes action to prevent their arrest. Police told not to arrest them, initially.

Several officials having to recuse themselves.

That bizarre American system of trying to load the jury to your advantage; all but one black juror taken off the list.

Good result...but in most other countries these guys would have been in handcuffs immediately.

Vey sad that this is all about race and celebrated as a 'win', in a clear-cut case of murder. That's America....

[Byker28i]

coppernorks said:

Another case tried on mainly video evidence, fair to say these 3 buffoons would have got away with it but for one
of them videoing it, and offering it to the cops as evidence. What a mistake-a to make-a.

jdw100 said:

I found the amount of attempted cover-up interesting.

Behind the scenes action to prevent their arrest. Police told not to arrest them, initially.

Several officials having to recuse themselves.

That bizarre American system of trying to load the jury to your advantage; all but one black juror taken off the list.

Good result...but in most other countries these guys would have been in handcuffs immediately.

Vey sad that this is all about race and celebrated as a 'win', in a clear-cut case of murder. That's America....

It wasn't until video of the Ahmaud Arbery's killing became public, which then lots of questions and criticism about how local authorities handled the investigation, that the three white men were charged with murder.

They even disqualified black people from the jury

Not only do the US need to sort out their gun laws, standardise them across the country and introduce some controls, but they also need to stamp out the institutional racism in their police forces

[JagLover]

Ian Geary said:

The 3 defendents have been found guilty of murdering Ahmaud, who was jogging when chased down and killed on the claims he was a burglar.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ah...

In my opinion that makes two out of two correct decisions in recent USA trials

Whilst totally eclipsed by the Rittenhouse trial (imo at least) it was (to me again) a shocking display of racism and the frankly appalling gun culture the USA has.

.

Interesting to speculate why it was "overshadowed" in terms of media coverage. Was it perhaps that the Rittenhouse case was always likely to end in acquittal whereas this one was always likely to end in conviction and so it served the "agenda" to focus on one and not the other.

[Randy Winkman]

JagLover said:

Ian Geary said:

The 3 defendents have been found guilty of murdering Ahmaud, who was jogging when chased down and killed on the claims he was a burglar.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ah...

In my opinion that makes two out of two correct decisions in recent USA trials

Whilst totally eclipsed by the Rittenhouse trial (imo at least) it was (to me again) a shocking display of racism and the frankly appalling gun culture the USA has.

.

Interesting to speculate why it was "overshadowed" in terms of media coverage. Was it perhaps that the Rittenhouse case was always likely to end in acquittal whereas this one was always likely to end in conviction and so it served the "agenda" to focus on one and not the other.

Perhaps - but haven't we got some people telling us "the agenda" works the other way around?

[anonymous-user]

Ian Geary said:

In my opinion that makes two out of two correct decisions in recent USA trials

Maybe 3 for 3?

[deckster]

JagLover said:

Interesting to speculate why it was "overshadowed" in terms of media coverage. Was it perhaps that the Rittenhouse case was always likely to end in acquittal whereas this one was always likely to end in conviction and so it served the "agenda" to focus on one and not the other.

No agenda from where I'm sitting. Loathsome as the act was, this case was always pretty much open-and-shut; chasing down an unarmed man who has given no provocation with a pickup truck is hard to defend no matter where you're coming from.

Whereas the Rittenhouse trial raised a whole load more very basic points around self defence, the Second Amendment, jurisdiction, and of course the background to why those involved were there in the first place. Fundamentally it was the more important case.

[JagLover]

deckster said:

No agenda from where I'm sitting. Loathsome as the act was, this case was always pretty much open-and-shut; chasing down an unarmed man who has given no provocation with a pickup truck is hard to defend no matter where you're coming from.

Whereas the Rittenhouse trial raised a whole load more very basic points around self defence, the Second Amendment, jurisdiction, and of course the background to why those involved were there in the first place. Fundamentally it was the more important case.

Except for those who watched the video footage there was never much doubt he would likely be cleared on self defence grounds. The MSM misrepresented the case from the start, but there was never any other likely outcome. So you have the "great interest" of a trial when in different circumstances the prosecution likely wouldn't have brought it to trial.

Then after the verdict the MSM can go on about it being a great "miscarriage of justice" and implying that Rittenhouse had gunned down black protestors peacefully protesting, rather than desperately defending himself from (white) people physically assaulting him.

[BikeBikeBIke]

JagLover said:

Interesting to speculate why it was "overshadowed" in terms of media coverage. Was it perhaps that the Rittenhouse case was always likely to end in acquittal whereas this one was always likely to end in conviction and so it served the "agenda" to focus on one and not the other.

Good point, yeah, I think it was.

Correct verdict but not a surprise. The defence themselves had nowhere to go given the facts and were forced to spend two weeks literally arguing a case that made their clients guilty, and said so when the judge wrote his instructions to the jury.

America doesn't play soft with sentencing. 30 year minimum before parole for all three as an absolute bare minimum. Just as likely to not be offered parole.

I don't think prison will be kind to them.

FWIW this guy is quite good at providing the legal situation in the two cases:

https://youtu.be/BKaSWE5A1fg

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Thursday 25th November 10:34

[BikeBikeBIke]

JagLover said:

Except for those who watched the video footage there was never much doubt he would likely be cleared on self defence grounds. The MSM misrepresented the case from the start, but there was never any other likely outcome. So you have the "great interest" of a trial when in different circumstances the prosecution likely wouldn't have brought it to trial.

Then after the verdict the MSM can go on about it being a great "miscarriage of justice" and implying that Rittenhouse had gunned down black protestors peacefully protesting, rather than desperately defending himself from (white) people physically assaulting him.

This.

[rscott]

Randy Winkman said:

JagLover said:

Ian Geary said:

The 3 defendents have been found guilty of murdering Ahmaud, who was jogging when chased down and killed on the claims he was a burglar.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ah...

In my opinion that makes two out of two correct decisions in recent USA trials

Whilst totally eclipsed by the Rittenhouse trial (imo at least) it was (to me again) a shocking display of racism and the frankly appalling gun culture the USA has.

.

Interesting to speculate why it was "overshadowed" in terms of media coverage. Was it perhaps that the Rittenhouse case was always likely to end in acquittal whereas this one was always likely to end in conviction and so it served the "agenda" to focus on one and not the other.

Perhaps - but haven't we got some people telling us "the agenda" works the other way around?

We had quite a few posters at the time of the shooting claim that it was fully justified because it was likely Arbery was a burglar, etc. Although the thread seems to have disappeared now.

[fido]

rscott said:

We had quite a few posters at the time of the shooting claim that it was fully justified because it was likely Arbery was a burglar, etc. Although the thread seems to have disappeared now.

As I did initially but on seeing all the facts I completely agree with the verdict.

[rscott]

fido said:

rscott said:

We had quite a few posters at the time of the shooting claim that it was fully justified because it was likely Arbery was a burglar, etc. Although the thread seems to have disappeared now.

As I did initially but on seeing all the facts I completely agree with the verdict.

That's about the same reaction I had in the Rittenhouse case - changed my view after seeing the evidence.

The Arbery case does highlight some major issues with the legal system in some parts of the USA - this case would probably never have gone to court without the mobile phone evidence as the local law enforcement didn't do their job properly.

[coppernorks]

Bryan will get a life sentence for not killing anyone, or carrying a gun, and being in a different vehicle.

Moral being don't get involved with crazy redneck vigilantes.

[bitchstewie]

coppernorks said:

Bryan will get a life sentence for not killing anyone, or carrying a gun, and being in a different vehicle.

Moral being don't get involved with crazy redneck vigilantes.

Honestly though knowing a little bit about the interference at various stages after the murder and the little bit I think I know about that area I don't think I'd have put money on the verdict.

Which is fking crazy when you consider they literally hunted him down and left him in the road to die.