Arbery Case Outcome

[40Garand]

But going after a hate crime now?

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton want their allotted 15 minutes of fame. If Gloria Allred was black she'd be right their with them.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

They turned over the film to the cops. Had they not filmed the event, they could have made up whatever story they wanted and it would be 3 words against a dead man. They'd be walking free today.

I don't think we can gloss over the fact that even after they turned the video over they where STILL going walk and it was only after the video was leaked that the truth came out. Not sure how that will all play out, but JMHO everyone involved with that decision is no less guilty of a crime than someone that may have shown up afterwards and helped them move the body before the cops showed up

 

[bbbass]

And no fish on Fridays.

This guy will have their nuts!

 

[Alexx1401]

Of course, but in your neighborhood are they jumping in pickup trucks and chasing down the perceived criminals with shotguns? Rhetorical of course. They had no "right" to chase him down, no obligation or otherwise. They made the choice to grab guns and go after him. They knew full well what the outcome could be. And was.

Yep!, and they will have a LONG time to remember just how over the top stupid they were. They can enjoy sleeping in the bed they made. MORONS!

 

[Alexx1401]

It was said in the beginning there were theft/burglaries in the area. That makes victims. My main point is we don't know for sure what was in those men's hearts. Unless you consider yourself some kind of clairvoyant? That'd be a good trick.

Its one thing to get pissed at the crime. That is happening here and it will get worse. Still to get in your vehicle and chase down someone who you did not see take anything, then shoot them? If I was on the jury it would have been easy. Now if they had caught the guy under their car with a saw and dropped the car on him? I would shrug and say too bad no harm no foul. People who wish to carry a gun have to learn to have control over their emotions or they should not have a gun. The guy was unarmed. If they felt they "had" to play Cop they could have carried Taser, OC, or such. Then at worst they would be looking at a civil judgement and maybe a little jail time. They made the choice to go after the guy with a gun and shoot him. Now they get to spend a good LONG time thinking over that choice they all made.

 

[Hawaiian]

Bottom line, these guys were in the wrong, period. In their minds, they were in the right, but their way of thinking is stupid and now they will pay the price.

Sorry to say, but racism, religious persecution, gender discrimination have been deeply embedded in the human race since the beginning of time. It will never be totally eliminated. And it is comes from all sides and from all of the groups of people, not just from one. However, it seems that today, some are trying to fan the flames and are wiping out years of progress made for political or ideological reasons. Sad.

 

[American123]

Possibly because they never would have chased down a white guy.

It came out that the crime Arbury was *suspected* of committing was trespassing - a misdemeanor crime. The police are on record stating they had hoped to give him a warning.

The McM's chased him down, held him at gunpoint, and ultimately killed him over their perception that he was the one to have commit this trespass - as I understand it, none of them were eye witness to the misdemeanor event.

They turned over the film to the cops. Had they not filmed the event, they could have made up whatever story they wanted and it would be 3 words against a dead man. They'd be walking free today.

This tells me that they had complete faith in their actions. They thought they had the right to restrict another man's free movement at the very hunch that he *may* have commit a crime, and a non-serious one at that.

What do you think their thoughts would be if the situation were reversed? What if it were Arbury and friends holding one of them at gunpoint while they walked around. Do you think they would think it was okay or do you think "criminal kidnapping" would be crossing their mind?

Thinking that you are completely in the right to take away another man's liberty on your whims is a complete and utter misunderstanding of rights and liberty, and I don't see how a person can arrive at that conclusion without first thinking that the man they intend to take rights from is not, in fact, a man but some lesser being not deserving of equal treatment.

That, in short, is racism.

Right now the demand for racism is greater than the supply. Hence so many fake racist actions are later found to be hoaxes by people trying to get attention for their cause.

If you take race out of this completely and examine the actions/facts, these guys get convicted regardless for their role in the death. Trying to examine it further than that is unnecessary and irrelevant.

 

[nobamaplease]

The problem with racism seems to be fueled by Caucasian progressives or flaming liberals accusing other Caucasians of being racist. Every time I drive by a BLM protest or turn on the TV their isn't a black person in sight except for maybe the field reporter from the new stations.

White guilt caused by the flaming libs

Guilty IMHO of racial killing - YES
Need for another trial- NO

 

[Koda]

Im all for the federal trial, clearly there was a racial element to this case and justice needs to be served on that regardless of their state issued life sentences.

 

[Kruel J]

Right now the demand for racism is greater than the supply. Hence so many fake racist actions are later found to be hoaxes by people trying to get attention for their cause.

If you take race out of this completely and examine the actions/facts, these guys get convicted regardless for their role in the death. Trying to examine it further than that is unnecessary and irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant if race was the cause of the actions/facts.

 

[mhayd93]

"Hate Crimes" shouldn't even exist. They are an idiotic and unnecessary aspect of the American Justice system.

Hate is a potential motive, not a crime. In this particular case, the suspects were convicted of their actual crime. There should be no extra charges or trial based off of why they committed that crime. The way I see it, if the prosecutors thought that hate/racism played a role in this crime (specifically as proof of intent), then that needs to be presented and proven in the trial at hand.

 

[American123]

It's not irrelevant if race was the cause of the actions/facts.

So how do you prove they only acted because of a particular skin tone?

Either what they did was illegal, or it wasn't, regardless of race.

 

[Certaindeaf]

So how do you prove they only acted because of a particular skin tone?

Either what they did was illegal, or it wasn't, regardless of race.

They were overheard to say they were going corn popping right before they got their straight razors out of a rain barrel.








not really

 

[Koda]

Some motivations are more egregious than others I'm fine with hate and racism being called out separately as a crime within itself.

So how do you prove they only acted because of a particular skin tone?

That was covered already above but to recap they used racist epitaphs to the police when they arrived but also it was shown there were other people who trespassed at the house under construction that were not black yet they chose Arbury. The evidence is overwhelming here.

 

[American123]

Some motivations are more egregious than others I'm fine with hate and racism being called out separately as a crime within itself.

That was covered already above but to recap they used racist epitaphs to the police when they arrived but also it was shown there were other people who trespassed at the house under construction that were not black yet they chose Arbury. The evidence is overwhelming here.

For starters I disagree that using a "racist word" is indication of motive, but regardless, I think you are missing the point.

Regardless of anyones skin tone, regardless of anyone gender or however they identify. If they committed a crime against the deceased, they committed a crime. All the extra remains irrelevant to whether they committed a crime or not.

From my perspective you keep trying to portray it as a race thing. What I am saying is that if they committed a crime against the deceased, race has no part in whether what they did was a crime or not.

Additionally:

It's really a joke at this day in age when you can here Nigga dropped in nearly every rap song and between kids at school that our society is still so obsessed with a couple syllables and the skin tone of who said it to determine whether it is ok or not.

It's a clown world.

 

[mhayd93]

Some motivations are more egregious than others I'm fine with hate and racism being called out separately as a crime within itself.

We will likely have to agree to disagree, but I find that to be against every fiber of the US Constitution and Justice System. If you really think about it, you are saying it's okay to convict somebody for a thought or feeling.

Furthermore, you are saying it's okay to convict somebody for the same crime twice, just "repackaged." I for one, would rather not have "backdoors" to put US citizens in Double Jeopardy!

Motive and intent are tools to prove guilt when an actual crime has been committed; they are best left that way in my opinion.

 

[Koda]

From my perspective you keep trying to portray it as a race thing. What I am saying is that if they committed a crime against the deceased, race has no part in whether what they did was a crime or not.

Well history is rife with crimes committed due to race being the motivation. Apparently race does have a part in whether they choose to commit a crime or not. They didn't pick on the white trespassers.

 

[American123]

Well history is rife with crimes committed due to race being the motivation. Apparently race does have a part in whether they choose to commit a crime or not. They didn't pick on the white trespassers.

Ok… but was what they did to Arberry a crime regardless of what skin tone Arberry had?

For example, if Arberry was Asian, or Mexican, or White, would that have made what they did not a crime? I presume that answer is obviously no, so that's why I keep articulating that race is irrelevant to if they committed a crime or not.

 

[Koda]

Ok… but was what they did to Arberry a crime regardless of what skin tone Arberry had?

For example, if Arberry was Asian, or Mexican, or White, would that have made what they did not a crime? I presume that answer is obviously no, so that's why I keep articulating that race is irrelevant to if they committed a crime or not.

What they did to Arbury was a crime regardless of skin tone, but people have been convicted of hate crime of other minorities as well. All Im saying is hate and racism is egregrious enough its singled out as a crime, its caused a lot of harm in the world above and beyond usual motivations like greed, Im fine with them being tried for their hate.

 

[Xaevian]

...hate and racism is egregrious enough its singled out as a crime, its caused a lot of harm in the world above and beyond usual motivations like greed...

But that shouldn't be. Those are emotions, and common sense, no matter how uncommon it actually is, reveals that you can't legislate morality.

It is okay to hate on racists. I am not a big fan, either. But I recognize I can't change what they think. No one can. The hate crime trend is going in the wrong direction in my opinion. It is just as bad to me as red flag laws. I get where the other side is coming from, but I totally disagree. Justice needs to be blind.