Home » If you want to understand the legal issues in the Arbery case…

Comments

If you want to understand the legal issues in the Arbery case… — 14 Comments

  1. The best piece on what has since become, without question (and despite nearly every pronouncement in the MSM, including most conservative websites), a true miscarriage of justice was posted last month by Andrew Branca and entitled “Seven Facts the Jury Will (Probably) Never Hear”, yet, even had these well-documented facts about the “jogger” been introduced, the jurors would undoubtedly still have felt enormous pressure to deliver this outrageous decision, although a less punitive verdict such as “involuntary manslaughter” would have been appropriate.

  2. j e:

    Without the felony murder rule, that (an “involuntary manslaughter” type verdict) might have happened. It was made impossible (or at least very difficult) because of felony murder.

  3. Nate’s always a good source for a clear and focused exposition.

    Strange that someone can be convicted of both Georgia’s malice murder AND felony murder. They’re characterized as specific alternatives, with the felony rule intended for incidents involving homicide but not satisfying the more deliberate malice criteria. But I assume they they’re not actually written as such.

    FWIW I notice that Georgia specifically instructs jurors to not consider potential sentencing for any charges. Though I’d bet many assume a felony murder will be weighed by the nature of the precipitating felony – it’s not.

  4. Prosecutorial overcharging and the consequent miscarriages of justice are indeed a serious problem. One can hope that the judge will take the whole circumstances into consideration and give sentences which would land towards the manslaughter spectrum, more appropriate to what these men did.

    Probably this is a failure of charity on my part, in feeling less sympathy than I might otherwise. There’s been a lot of wild talk on the leftist media about Kyle Rittenhouse as a “vigilante,” which he wasn’t. But these guy who loaded up their guns in pursuit of Arbery were vigilantes, and without good cause.

  5. Kate:

    They were either vigilantes OR citizens out to make a valid citizen’s arrest. They thought they were the latter. The jury thought they were the former. I don’t know enough of the details to say for sure which I think they were, but I lean towards saying vigilantes.

    I don’t think Bryant was either.

  6. Yes, Neo, Bryant is probably the one really most mistreated by this verdict. On the other hand, he took the video which was circulated and ended up triggering these charges and the trial.

    Cicero, yes, black-on-black violence is an epidemic and uninvolved black people living in tough areas are frequently collateral damage. We shouldn’t close our eyes to those cases, but we also shouldn’t ignore white-on-black events, although those are much smaller in number.

  7. It is manslaughter of a kind, not murder- there was no intent to kill Arbery that passed the reasonable doubt standard. I think, ultimately the elder McMichael and Bryant will be set free on appeal since there is no proof of an actual underlying crime for felony murder to be built upon. The younger McMichael should have his conviction overturned for retrial. Yes, this was a terrible case of overcharging the crime.

  8. Malicious murder = “Malice murder refers to murders committed with the specific intent to kill, or with specific intent to cause serious bodily harm. It can be a premeditated murder or murder committed with gross recklessness and depraved indifference for human life.”

    IMO, knowing what the background conditions in the neighborhood were, these men thought they were doing a good thing. Doing what the police were either unable or unwilling to do. That is, apprehend a person of interest in a series of neighborhood burglaries.

    All this background seems to have been overlooked in the trial. The MSM, BLM, and the prosecutor all went with the narrative that these were three good-old-boy, southern, white supremacists who didn’t like a black man jogging in their neighborhood. So, they hunted him down and killed him like a dog. That line of thinking justifies premeditated murder. If that was true, I would not disagree with the verdict.

    From my reading about the case, what actually happened was a horrible mistake that arose from three men trying to carry out a citizen’s arrest without knowing exactly what was required – a perp with some stolen goods on him. They were also possibly naive to think that Arberry would not resist their attempted arrest. Like so many other arrests gone bad when the arrestee resisted, a man died.

    I don’t think the prosecution proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Mcmichaels or Bryan had premeditated murder or ever intended murder. It happened because Arberry attacked Travis McMichael and McMichael feared for his own life if Arberry got the gun. Involuntary manslaughter? Yes. Felony assault for following and cornering Arberry? Yes. Malicious murder? NO!

    The scene outside the trial in Brunswick, Georgia was as heated as the Chauvin trial in Minneapolis. The jury knew there would be riots if they brought in the wrong verdict. And there was very little public support for the defendants. Maybe even less than for Chauvin. So, our justice system grinds up those who are looked down on by the elites.

  9. All these niceties and fine distinctions aside, the only message that really matters at ground level is that the Joggers have been told that It’s More Than OK to Keep on Jogging.

    Expect a spate of blatant provocations and humiliations of Emasculated Whites.

  10. “They were either vigilantes OR citizens out to make a valid citizen’s arrest.”
    I am sure many, and suspect it’s even most Americans think those citizens trying to make citizen’s arrests ARE vigilantes.
    With the core principles of citizen’s arrest in flux, it is exceedingly
    difficult for private individuals to understand the doctrine’s subtleties
    and to effectuate arrests lawfully, safely, and without fear of reprisal.
    Implementation is ripe for abuse.

    https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1435&context=cjlpp from Cornell 2016
    “Vilifying the Vigilante: A Narrowed Scope of
    Citizen’s Arrest”

    A huge part of the “justice system” is to support the monopoly of force used by the police, and punish those private citizens trying to keep the peace with non-gov’t force.

    Whites trying to stop Blacks is also hugely opposed by Democrats (not the non-ballot “Left”). It’s a much smaller miscarriage of justice than the Rittenhouse case would have been with a guilty verdict.

    Because the citizen arresters failed to effectuate the arrest both lawfully AND safely. But it’s not murder.

    Good explanation of the 3* options for those enraged by the Rittenhouse verdict:
    Ignorant, Stupid, Evil. (*no trial noted at end)
    https://thewriterinblack.com/2021/11/28/im-going-to-be-blunt/#comment-17601

  11. @ Kate: The horrendous # of black-on black murders, e.g. in Chicago, goes ignored by politicians and the media. It does not fit the Narrative run by the MSM, which is evil white supremacy in action.
    On the flip side, our black population is immolating itself. 75% of black mamas are unmarried, which generates the thugs of BLM and the drug dealers. And the highest rate of abortion is among blacks. Regrettably, Charles Murray’s data over 40 years shows black men have a measurably lower IQ on average than whites. So the DIE movement will not improve our society or its productiveness. On the contrary.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>