All three men involved in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty. All things considered, this has not been a bad week for the criminal justice system.
61 thoughts on “Arbery murderers found guilty of murder”
Comments are closed.
Cats, charts, and politics
All three men involved in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty. All things considered, this has not been a bad week for the criminal justice system.
Comments are closed.
Nobody expected this, after the Rittenhaus verdict. And this was by a jury of (all but one) whites.
But ... wait for the appeals.
Either the ministers affected the jury or ineffective counsel i.e. the racist play backfired, so the lawyers' racism should be grounds for a new trial....
Heh.
Or the two juries listened to all the evidence (which neither Kevin nor any of his commenters has done), made a serious effort to understand the applicable law as explained by someone with an actual law degree (ditto), discussed the correct application of the law to the facts carefully with 11 of their fellow citizens, drawn from divergent walks of life and with divergent values (definite ditto), and reached a unanimous conclusion (easy if you omit the first three steps, harder in real life).
Or perhaps an 11/12 white jury in Georgia, knowing the antiracist, antislavery, Northern Yankee aggressors in Wisconsin had sided with Rittenhouse, wanted to heighten the similarity to the song "Rednecks" by Randy Newman. It's as if to say, "Yeah, we voted for Lester Maddox, who got sassed on national teevee by some smartass New York Jew, to be our governor in 1966, but you still gave your 1972 Democrat Convention delegates to George Wallace".
nobody? this was not complicated. the rittenhaus case and this were light years different from each other. just look at the available video of the two incidents. and if you heard any of the prosecution's closing argument, there was no way a reasonable jury could come to any other verdict than this.
This. The facts were messy in Rittenhouse case but far more one sided here.
I’m not sure that anything we saw would be reversible error. Obviously, the main issue on appeal with be the trial judge’s ruling on the citizens arrest issue, which, in turn, realistically made the defense of self defense unavailable.
As I read the former statute, there was ambiguity but the core requirements of a felony committed in the defendants presence and no available police meant that misdemeanor trespassing (if that) months previously,etc meant that this would never have been a valid citizen arrest.
I don’t know what Georgia does with imperfect selfdefense or whether such an instruction was requested or whether the judge blocked argument (but not testimony) about the invalid citizen arrest.
I think the betting line would favor a sustained conviction.
I don’t know anyone that didn’t expect this. Seemed like the obvious verdict. And it follows suit after the jury got the Rittenhouse verdict right as well.
Don't overdose on copium tonite. Would hate for your family to have to skip Thanksgiving to plan a memorial service.
It was important to get this right and I think they did. Something is working with some common sense.
So I guess Arbery counts as a “murder” whereas those people killed by Rittenhouse don’t.
Rittenhaus has already been to Mar A Lago so I guess he’s well on his way to a Presidential Medal of Freedom from Trump once he is “re-elected”.
The key difference was the decision regarding the killer’s illegal possession of a firearm. Had that charge been upheld or at least been presented to the jury you might have seen a different outcome. Not likely but possible as it would have technically foreclosed the defense he presented.
Arbery’s killers came very close to getting away with his murder using the same defense Rittenhaus did. It didn’t work with the jury but it did with the DA:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty/620817/
My impression is that what worked with the DA was that these were good old boys with connections to law enforcement. From the moment the video surfaced, Self-defense was hanging by a threat and when the judge denied the instructions on citizens arrest, their goose was cooked
????
"Well, I guess the libs got what they want. The white lives that Rittenhouse ended don't matter, but Arbery's Black life does".
(I expect to see this taek. Not sure if from Maureen Dowd, Bret Bedbug, Hugh Hewitt, Glemm Greemwald, or someone else, though.)
Correct. Rittenhouse acted in self defense so there was no murder.
He still shot them. They're still dead from those shots.
One man ended the life of another man: that's homicide, colloquially, if not legally.
You must feel really bad about the German defenders on the Normandy beaches.
Is this a race war?
I do feel bad about them. The overwhelming majority were just poor slobs, just like the poor slobs on our side. No matter how well justified, war is a tragedy and the death of even our enemies is to be regretted and mourned. That’s why sailors pick up the survivors.
I would not particularly regret the death of, for example, members of the Waffen SS or the Gestapo, but I do understand that they had families who loved them and that their passing left a void in their loved ones lives. There are killings that must be done in time of war but I believe that civilized men who are soldiers regret the taking of life even as they accept it’s necessity.
I suppose you won’t mind when he gets the MOF from Trump then. I suppose the lesson here is that in a open carry state peaceful protests should all be carried out by heavily armed protesters. Then, if they feel threatened, they are prepared to defend themselves.
Could you explain how exactly Rittenhouse was defending himself from death or GBH when he murdered his first victim? And how he was entitled to use self defense against people who were attempting to disarm him and turn him over to the police after he’d committed his first murder?
I think the explanation is that the jury was unwilling to not follow the law based on racial solidarity. One the juge ruled that the defense could not justify the killing as a citizen arrest gone bad, a quick review of the pattern jury instruction for self defense makes it overwhelmingly clear that the jury’s choice were between nullification and conviction on all counts.
I think any analysis needs to revolve around the interaction between the citizens arrest ruling and the instructions on self defense.
GEORGIA SUGGESTED PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS (SPJI 2013)
GA SPJI 3.10.10. Justification; Use of Force in Defense of Self or Others
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when, and to the extent that, he/she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend himself/herself or a third person against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if that person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself/herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
[Consider SPJI 3.10.13. No Duty to Retreat to Be Justified]
The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified.
A person is not justified in using force if that person
(a) initially provokes the use of force against himself/herself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(b) is attempting to commit, is committing, or is fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony [define arguable felony]; or
(c) was the aggressor or was engaged in combat by agreement, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates his/her intent to withdraw to the other person and the other person still continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
Georgia's self defense statute looks to be more clearly written than Wisconsin's.
Yes, the statute and the recommended jury instruction are very clear. But realistically, it was clear that Rittenhouse was always the initial aggressor who committed a felony and his victims were lawful entitled to capture him. It was the mirror image of this case.
Rittenhouse may have been the initial aggressor, but when he retreated, that reset the provocation issue. Even if someone provokes an incident, if they retreat, they regain the right to claim self-defense. (They also need to communicate that they are withdrawing, which, without any recording, we have no idea whether Rittenhouse did so when withdrawing from Rosenbaum. And, since the prosecution has the burden of proving that self-defense was not justified, they needed to prove that Rittenhouse did not so communicate.) All of that meant that Rittenhouse's claim of self-defense was valid for the purposes of the trial. (And, no, the gun charge probably wouldn't have made a difference had it still been in play.)
Once Rittenhouse's self-defense claim in regards to Rosenbaum was held valid, his self-defense claims against Huber and Grosskreutz became self-evident. It doesn't matter that Huber and Grosskreutz thought that they were trying to apprehend a murderer, because Rittenhouse wasn't, in the eyes of the law. Since he had not committed a crime up to that point, he had a right to defend himself.
The problem here was not the verdict. It's the laws that make that verdict the correct one. Huber and Grosskreutz probably would also have had valid self-defense claims had they killed Rittenhouse. There was no way to hold anybody accountable for deaths that occurred.
This is why it is so stupid to allow everyone to carry guns on them at all times. Once a firearm is introduced to a volatile situation like a large scale protest (something that Grosskreutz is just as guilty of as Rittenhouse), everyone has a reasonable fear for their life, and all bets are off.
I think that’s a fair assessment. And it’s also why the trial judge dismissing the weapons charge was so important. I don’t know the law in Wisconsin but in some jurisdictions (Louisiana, sometimes) a “fleeing defendant” instruction is both circumstantial evidence of guilt and also operates to make it impossible to assert self defense against lawful pursuers. I don’t know what the prosecutors tried in terms of legal theories to shut down self defense (I.e, flight is just a part of the initial crime—in this case 1st degree murder or, at least, depraved heart murder.
Kyle retreated? Does he not know the sacrosanct condition of the DBAP Lifestyle?
Clearly, no, given his flood of tears on the witness stand.
Rittenhause should have been found guilty, in my humble opinion.
IMHO, the first-degree murder charges would be a stretch, and probably unjust in this circumstance. Rittenhouse looks to me like a Walter Mitty-type kid who fancied himself to be an EMT or a cop, got into a situation he hadn't imagined in his fantasies, got scared shitless in the heat of the moment, and panicked, shooting. And shooting again. And again.
What I don't understand is why the jury didn't convict on the reckless endangerment charges. If injecting yourself into a volatile, chaotic situation wielding a semi-automatic rifle doesn't qualify as reckless endangerment, I don't know what it means. Maybe Mitch Guthman can shed some light on the nuances of law that would make such a conviction unlikely. Even if there might be some technical reasons complicating that charge, I would hope the jury would convict at least on that, if for no other reason than to discourage vigilantism as a matter of law.
The only problem with this explanation is the exhilaration Rittenhouse displayed after shooting the first unarmed man. His galloping down the street and calling a friend to tell what he had done (not expressing remorse). These are not the reactions that go with the situation you describe.
Kyle Rittenhouse is just a big Future Sound of London fan. 1996 album Dead Cities, track 2 opens, "I have killed a man. A man who looked like me".
I can’t explain it either. Your description of him and his conduct accords perfectly with depraved heart murder; a crime for which he should have been convicted. A part of it is Wisconsin’s bizarre open carry law as well as self defense instructions to seemed to emphasize the perpetrator’s subjective fears without the traditional requirement that those fears (however genuine) must be objectively reasonable and not have been created by voluntarily interjecting himself into a dangerous situation
.
Rittenhouse had the same right to be at that location as anyone else. And, with the gun charge dismissed, he had the same right to be armed as anyone else. While showing up with a rifle is reckless in the colloquial sense of the word, it is not reckless endangerment under the law.
But nobody else killed anyone. While everyone else bringing a gun to the protests and rioting fringe is "colloquially" be guilty of reckless endangerment, when that endangerment becomes fatal, it's no longer just water cooler fodder. There SHOULD be consequences for the shooter. It was a situation he created.
It would not constitute “reckless endangerment” but if you look at the comments to the Wisconsin self defense statute and the cases which are referenced, there’s an interesting question about whether pointing or even carrying the gun openly would constitute the kind of provocative act which would negate self defense.
This is the obvious problem with all open carry laws and their interactions with the criminal law and with unarmed citizens being expected to subordinate their rights to speech, assembling,and so forth to the 2nd amendment which becomes the trump card for the right
So there you go. They were mad. And they had a gun. So why not kill him?
They were afraid and they had a gun. That's even worse.
I rejoice to see justice done ... even as I continue to despair at how frequently justice fails in our country in these times.
There will be alot of discussion, but from a legal perspective both defenses lofted in the exact same argument:
Question. "What was the reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury?"
Answer: "I was fearful he would take my gun and shoot me, so I shot him."
In Arbery, you get convicted because they admitted being the agressors, essentially they started it.
In Rittenhouse, its an acquittal since it appears to be the law in Wisconsin that you can go prancing around to a tense situation in public with an assault rifle and no one is supposed to say boo to you, even after you shoot one unarmed person.
It boils down to what, legally was going on at the moment of the shooting. Those of us who believe prancing around with an assault rifle looking to be a vigilante should be some form of illegal have one view of Rittenhouse, but Wisconsin law had another.
^^^ This exactly. I'm no lawyer, but I spent half of Monday wrassling with the WI self-defense statute, and came to that same conclusion: right or wrong, vigilantism can be legal there, and it ain't that difficult. Even if he prances and taunts.
The other thing that floored me was their firearms law for minors. I concluded it is a felony to give KR, at 17 y.o., that gun. But apparently as long as he is not at target practice or hunting, and the weapon is not short-barreled, it's legal for KR to possess the weapon.
I'd say go figure, but I don't see how anyone could.
And there was a curfew - protesters considered to be in violation, but not Rittenhouse, who was lying about being an EMT (with a military-style weapon!) - & being welcomed by the police.
Cannot imagine that smug teenager studying to be a nurse!
"In Rittenhouse, its an acquittal since it appears to be the law in Wisconsin that you can go prancing around to a tense situation in public with an assault rifle . . ."
Rittenhouse had the same right to be there that anyone else did, and, once the gun charge was dismissed, had the same right to be there armed that anyone else (such as gun toting Gaige Grosskreutz) did. He has the same first amendment rights to speak his mind and dance that the protestors did.
That's not a Wisconsin thing. So long as people are allowed to carry forearms around with them, this is an American law thing. It's the deference to firearms that is the problem. Given the ridiculous laws on gun possession, the jury rendered the correct verdict.
That’s not exactly true. The instructions given in the Georgia case made it clear the if the defendants were the aggressors, they wouldn’t have the right to use force in their defense until after they had withdrawn from combat and at least attempted to retreat. Even the the fear of being shot with a gun genuinely existed and was objectively reasonable, the initial aggressors lost their right to use force in their defense and the video plus their admissions made it clear that their was never a point in time when any of them attempted to withdraw (and communicate to the victim that combat would not continue and he was safe).
This means that once the trial judge determined that the was no lawful citizen arrest, the defendants were both the aggressors and, very simply, criminals who were assaulting the victim. As the instruction on self defense made clear, one the state had proven that beyond a reasonable doubt, none of the defendants were entitled to use force even if their fear of death was totally reasonable.
Congratulations, Wisconsin! You are now more racist than the Empire State of the South.
The World's Longest Bridge just got longer.
"Wisconsin! You are now more racist than the Empire State of the South."
Well, Wisconsin is a helluva lot more white than Georgia.
That's what I said when my Proud Bois cell met up to heckle the ignoble savages on their latest spearfishing trip.
The Proud Boys ain't that white.
It is a triumph of American multiculturalism that our evil right wing fanatics are racially diverse! Yippee. Now I can call them right wing niggers and spics and, you know, not be accused of being racist.
And don’t forget the fascist right wing Islamists among the afghan refugees. Sure to to both child molesters and future synagogue bombers. ????
Dude, you're slipping. You should have alluded to the Aethiopaean-American voters in Virginia who voted Biden in 2020, then Yungkins in 2021, because the Biden Regime hasn't been supportive of the Aethiopaen genocide of the Ammara people.
When are these dimples realize that Rittenhouse was a mixed race boy and that was a large reason for his defense. It's great pr for Republicans. The media missed this angle. He was threatened by Rosenbaum(quarter Ashkie) and he lost it after he was slurred.
I don’t know… looks like poor white trash to me. Useless parents. Drop out. Where is this mixed race?
Lol, no. Look at his "father". Clear part Mexican resemblance. Maybe he couldn't have kids and "Raul" had the special sauce.
I think this shows the inherent weakness of the Long Dirty Toenails defense. I doubt if it will be attempted again in Georgia.
Yes, I was hoping that with that defense attorney & one Black juror, the other eleven would be too ashamed to acquit the vigilantes.
If they weren't ashamed to vote for El Jefe after he disparaged the Khans's son's sacrifice & John Mc Cain's time as a POW -- which is odd, given how much Southerners love the Troops -- they shouldn't have been expected to be shamed by Lestermaddoxian lawyering from the defense.
The psychopaths who essentially lynched him would have gotten away with it if they'd just had the mother wit to keep the phone video of it to themselves. It was 'blowing over' until that video (that one of them shot) got out. Even then you had to wonder they would pay.
I can only hope that enough of America's independents see the ugly face of minoritarian (minority and authoritarian rule) tyranny clearly enough to derail the GOP juggernaut. But I'm not holding my breath
One set of murderers found guilty, one murderer walks- 50-50 , not a bad week.