Branca: Arbery Case Has a Real Possibility of Acquittal

[RX-79G]

Who says whites don't care?
It would only be a racist/hypocritical question if whites were rioting under a White Lives Matter banner.

There isn't a connection between in-race violence and protesting violence against your race by police. That's a non sequitur.

 

[GWS]

'Technically' it wasn't legal for him to have a rifle either - remember he was charged with MIP but that was dropped.

It was probably a matter of convenience he had the AR over a handgun and, as he said when testifying, he said he got an AR-15 because "it looked cool".

Yes it was legal for KR to have a rifle on his person

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031

From the article above

To Kenosha-based defense attorney Michael Cicchini, the statute clearly requires a weapon to be short-barreled to apply, and the judge made the right call.


"There doesn't seem to be much ambiguity here," he said. "(The charge) should have been dismissed earlier."

The current wording of the overarching law seems clear: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." A lead-in paragraph defines dangerous weapon as several things, including "any firearm, loaded or unloaded."

The subsection that defense attorneys relied upon to seek dismissal reads: "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 ..." That section of law isn't specific to minors, but rather forbids any person from having a short-barreled shotgun or rifle.

"We knew from the beginning, that if you read that statute correctly, he was legal in having that firearm," Richards said Friday after Rittenhouse was cleared of the remaining charges.

 

[GWS]

There isn't a connection between in-race violence and protesting violence against your race by police. That's a non sequitur.

Hardly a non-sequitur unless you're saying that Black Lives only Matter if it's a black person being killed by a law enforcement officer. By implication then you're saying Black people are fine with killing each other just as long as no LEOs are involved. That sounds racist.

 

[RX-79G]

Hardly a non-sequitur unless you're saying that Black Lives only Matter if it's a black person being killed by a law enforcement officer. By implication then you're saying Black people are fine with killing each other just as long as no LEOs are involved. That sounds racist.

BLM is a movement about police. The fact that BLM is not targetting other types of violence isn't a commentary on what black people think about violence in general. You understand that BLM is not a black only movement, but a cross-racial movement against certain police behaviors, right?

Should pro life people automatically protest the death penalty?

 

[Xaevian]

Should pro life people automatically protest the death penalty?

Yes, unless they're hypocrites. That's like a vegan wearing leather shoes.

 

[GWS]

BLM is a movement about police. The fact that BLM is not targetting other types of violence isn't a commentary on what black people think about violence in general. You understand that BLM is not a black only movement, but a cross-racial movement against certain police behaviors, right?

Should pro life people automatically protest the death penalty?

I get your point
The pro-life people should change their names to a more specific name such as Anti-abortion people
And BLM should do something similar

Yes, unless they're hypocrites. That's like a vegan wearing leather shoes.

It's only hypocrisy if they oppose the abortion of a baby who is also a murderer.

 

[OldBroad44]

Here's an interesting observation on this trial. There were 9 charges against 3 men, that's 27 separate charges collectively for the jury to decide on. The jury deliberated for nearly 12 hours
That's an average of .4 hours to deliberate each count per person individually.

Assuming the charges were all independent. But they werent. Because of joint responsibility for crimes done by a group, once they have tried the leader the only issue is whether joint responsibility applies on all counts for the other two guys.

 

[Koda]

Assuming the charges were all independent. But they werent. Because of joint responsibility for crimes done by a group, once they have tried the leader the only issue is whether joint responsibility applies on all counts for the other two guys.

I guess so, I dont know how it works so I will take your word for it but then that means only about 1.3 hours per charge to deliberate.... the evidence was overwhelming they were guilty.

 

[monkeybutler]

Who says whites don't care?
It would only be a racist/hypocritical question if whites were rioting under a White Lives Matter banner.

Well, it's not exactly black people rioting under the BLM banner. It's mostly anarcho-dipbubblegum off-the-scale lefty white people, who the black folks are very tired of.

 

[OldBroad44]

Hardly a non-sequitur unless you're saying that Black Lives only Matter if it's a black person being killed by a law enforcement officer. By implication then you're saying Black people are fine with killing each other just as long as no LEOs are involved. That sounds racist.

Black people undoubtedly also care about black on black killings. However, being killed by the police or by whites with police looking the other way, as they did in this case, is inherently different, as it is essentially state sanctioned murder of blacks.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Black people undoubtedly also care about black on black killings. However, being killed by the police or by whites with police looking the other way, as they did in this case, is inherently different, as it is essentially state sanctioned murder of blacks.

Not just the police looking the other way! The future don't look so bright for her

Ex-prosecutor charged in Ahmaud Arbery case booked at jail

SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) — The former prosecutor charged with misconduct for her handling of the Ahmaud Arbery case was booked at a Georgia jail on Wednesday and released. Former Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney Jackie Johnson turned herself in Wednesday morning at the Glynn County jail...

mynbc15.com

 

[baker3gun]

They had guns out. Thats a fact and evidence they didnt just want to talk. They had guns "drawn" when they pointed it at him, by your own words it doesnt always work thank you for validating that fact too. If you just want to talk to someone you dont roll up on them with guns. And by your words "delay until police arrived" is a citizens arrest. The whole case was based on citizens arrest, it was their only and I mean only argument for taking the gun to the fight so to speak in order for them to claim self defense.


Not my words, quotes are from the dad. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ahmaud...ael-trapped-like-a-rat-before-fatal-shooting/

that I actually agree with, but its moot at this point. Note its not unreasonable for someone whose been trapped or felt trapped to feel their only last option is to fight back.


Thank you, I do appreciate the compliment. Though you havent dismantled any of my opinons in fact, my opinions are supported not just by the evidence but by the jury members too... thats probably the most important part. Grant it, its not unreasonable to disagree with a jury decision now and then but it doesn't help anyone's argument positions.

Good to see you! I mean that.

I have a gun all the time. If it's handgun, it isn't out all the time. If it's a long gun, it's out all the time. Because it's long.

TM had a shotgun. Shotguns are out.

I roll up everywhere with a gun, 24/7.
My mushroom top has a gun dent in it because I'm always wearing the damn thing.
I don't have an argument for taking a gun everywhere because I live in America and I don't need to have an argument for taking a gun everywhere.

Who cares if he had a gun or if it was out? It's not like TM was charging Arbery with a gun.
Oh yeah, it's like Arbery was charging TM.

I didn't validate anything. All I said was that pointing a gun at someone these days is pretty innocuous, often ignored in fact. Which is crazy in and of itself.

I've never read behavioral precedent that suggested the wise course of action when someone confronts you with a gun is to charge them and try to take their gun. That is not a "wise" course of action.
Arbery's act was beyond the pale. You can see it in TM trial testimony; he was like what the hell was I supposed to do, give him my gun?

It doesn't matter who said "trapped like a rat," Arbery was never trapped.
The roadway is not fenced. Arbery could have run or walked anywhere.
If I'm innocently jogging in a neighborhood and confronted by people in a vehicle, my first impulse will probably be to run up to a strange house and knock on the door with the intention of asking the homeowner to call the police. Or I might call the police on my own phone. Or I might stop and chat with the vehicle occupants and ask them to call the police.
If the driver gets out with a gun, I'm leaving. Fast.
If an armed guy is standing in the road yelling at me 100 feet away, I'm not going to run up to him and around his vehicle and then charge him and try to take his gun. That's just crazy.

I suspect Arbery had no interest in anyone calling the police.

Delay does not equal arrest.

Getting involved does not mean arrest.
The dad saw "the guy" sprint by, the son grabbed a gun and went outside, the neighbor was pointing up the road, everyone knew about "the guy", they drove after him. These are not crimes. Having a gun is not a crime. Confronting a person while holding a gun may or may not be a crime; it may be brandishing, it may not. Our boys didn't get convicted of brandishing.

To obtain a murder conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the McMichaels intended to kill Arbery and set out to kill him.

Do you really think that they grabbed guns and jumped in the truck to chase him down and so that they could execute him? If so, why didn't they just shoot him the first time they drove up on him?

Reasonable doubt?

Definitely, it is the responsibility and the duty of every informed American to stand up and point at injustice and call attention to it and shine a light on it.
You lean on the jury conviction.
I stand up and point at it and say that it is wrong.

Again, when social pressure or any form of misinformation sways the balance of justice, there is no justice.
If that happens, emotional response and unsubstantiated opinion has replaced reason and facts.
When that happens, it is the death knell of equality, liberty, and human rights.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Who cares if he had a gun or if it was out? It's not like TM was charging Arbery with a gun.

I stopped reading here.

Dude . . . YES! TM WAS LITERALLY CHARGING ARBERY WITH A GUN FOR OVER 4 MINUTES!!!
Almost nothing you write is supported by the evidence or even the testimony of the 3 of them while under oath.

With all due respect, maybe stop?

 

[baker3gun]

I'll take a wild guess as to what they were saying to Arbery wouldn't pass as 'speaking'.

Personally, If I were to encounter two hollow eyed (and armed) miscreants such as the McMichaels, (who were displaying threatening intentions) and had a clear path of escape I would put distance between them and myself quickly.

My guess is they intimidated Arbery to a point he maybe lost his composure, 'saw red', and lashed out at them. Heck I've done it myself at times, in the past - but never against someone with a gun but regardless it is possible he simply 'lost it' and wasn't going to 'take it' any longer.

If you make words, you are speaking.
They were yelling at him. That's speaking.
So what?

I'm not sure that the McMichaels are hollow eyed.
I'm not sure they are miscreants.
If you can't make a point without disparaging, then you can't make a point worth hearing.

If someone intimidates you until you lose your composure and assault them, when the dust settles, you will be charged with assault, because assault is prohibited by law.

If Arbery got angry, then at least we may know why he assaulted TM.

 

[RX-79G]

I gotta hand it to some of you guys. Even the Unite the Right crazies didn't show up to take the McMichael's side.

 

[baker3gun]

Sniped out the parts I wanted to focus on.

No, it did not "happen pretty fast" They chased him for over 4 minutes before he was shoot. He got away from them several times and they continued to chase him and box him in. They had no right to detain him, no right to brandish firearms, no right to verbally threaten his life
And yes, I think that if Arbery had kept walking one of them would have shot him anyway or hit him with one of their vehicles.

There is no need to imagine anything. Their testimony under oath is what convicted them. Seeing it any other way is where 'imagination' comes in to play

If you are working in your yard and "the trespasser guy" sprints by and you decide to get involved, the whole episode is abnormal and stressful.
Things happen pretty fast.
Nothing bad happened until Arbery left the grass and ran across the road to assault TM.
That happened pretty fast.

He wasn't boxed in.
Southern residential lots are huge. The lawns were not fenced.
Trucks were in the road. That's not boxed in.
Arbery ran around a truck.
Not boxed in.

I don't know the charge details, but i don't recall them being charged with brandishing.

I haven't seen any evidence that they threatened his life.

There is no need to imagine anything but you are imagining many things.

Their testimony did not convict them. The jury did.

Seeing reasonable doubt that the McMichaels set out to Arbery is not imagination. If they didn't set out to kill him, then the max possible conviction is manslaughter.
If the three convicts don't roll over and go silent, if they appeal, this will get overturned.

 

[baker3gun]

It's not 'stupid stuff' to imagine he just might HAVE shot him. Look at some of the idiotic things people do with guns when they are in fear of something, or feel threatened - and by UN-armed people.

I have been around people similar to the McMichaels. Some displayed such extreme prejudice and hate I don't know what they were capable of but i can honestly say they ain't the types I wanted to be around much - if at all.

Watch the body camera vids.

Watch the trial footage.

It's okay for you to think that the McMichaels would have killed Arbery if Arbery simply ran or walked away.
If that's what you think, you should come right out and say it.

This is me:
I 100% do not think that TM or GM would have killed Arbery if Arbery simply ran or walked or crawled away.
I'm on record.

 

[baker3gun]

After chasing the subject in multiple vehicles and then getting out of the vehicle with a weapon while being covered by another guy with a weapon, you think that the subject should then presume this isn't an escalation headed toward violence?

In a lynching state, no less.

I'm on record.
I think if Arbery had not attacked TM, Arbery would be alive. TM would not have just shot him in the back while he was walking away, and neither would GM.

I like where I stand. It's pretty solid ground. No fantasy or imagination involved.

 

[Koda]

Good to see you! I mean that.

I have a gun all the time. If it's handgun, it isn't out all the time. If it's a long gun, it's out all the time. Because it's long.

TM had a shotgun. Shotguns are out.

I roll up everywhere with a gun, 24/7.
My mushroom top has a gun dent in it because I'm always wearing the damn thing.
I don't have an argument for taking a gun everywhere because I live in America and I don't need to have an argument for taking a gun everywhere.

Who cares if he had a gun or if it was out? It's not like TM was charging Arbery with a gun.
Oh yeah, it's like Arbery was charging TM.

I didn't validate anything. All I said was that pointing a gun at someone these days is pretty innocuous, often ignored in fact. Which is crazy in and of itself.

I've never read behavioral precedent that suggested the wise course of action when someone confronts you with a gun is to charge them and try to take their gun. That is not a "wise" course of action.
Arbery's act was beyond the pale. You can see it in TM trial testimony; he was like what the hell was I supposed to do, give him my gun?

It doesn't matter who said "trapped like a rat," Arbery was never trapped.
The roadway is not fenced. Arbery could have run or walked anywhere.
If I'm innocently jogging in a neighborhood and confronted by people in a vehicle, my first impulse will probably be to run up to a strange house and knock on the door with the intention of asking the homeowner to call the police. Or I might call the police on my own phone. Or I might stop and chat with the vehicle occupants and ask them to call the police.
If the driver gets out with a gun, I'm leaving. Fast.
If an armed guy is standing in the road yelling at me 100 feet away, I'm not going to run up to him and around his vehicle and then charge him and try to take his gun. That's just crazy.

I suspect Arbery had no interest in anyone calling the police.

Delay does not equal arrest.

Getting involved does not mean arrest.
The dad saw "the guy" sprint by, the son grabbed a gun and went outside, the neighbor was pointing up the road, everyone knew about "the guy", they drove after him. These are not crimes. Having a gun is not a crime. Confronting a person while holding a gun may or may not be a crime; it may be brandishing, it may not. Our boys didn't get convicted of brandishing.

To obtain a murder conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the McMichaels intended to kill Arbery and set out to kill him.

Do you really think that they grabbed guns and jumped in the truck to chase him down and so that they could execute him? If so, why didn't they just shoot him the first time they drove up on him?

Reasonable doubt?

Definitely, it is the responsibility and the duty of every informed American to stand up and point at injustice and call attention to it and shine a light on it.
You lean on the jury conviction.
I stand up and point at it and say that it is wrong.

Again, when social pressure or any form of misinformation sways the balance of justice, there is no justice.
If that happens, emotional response and unsubstantiated opinion has replaced reason and facts.
When that happens, it is the death knell of equality, liberty, and human rights.

There is a lot of subjectiveness in your position that isn't established with evidence....

I could rebuttle your reply with a long list of logical reasons but I will ask you this, did you consider that maybe just maybe there might be more to the case than what you've read and the jury got it right?

 

[Koda]

I'm on record.
I think if Arbery had not attacked TM, Arbery would be alive. TM would not have just shot him in the back while he was walking away, and neither would GM.

I like where I stand. It's pretty solid ground. No fantasy or imagination involved.

except that Arbury had a right to try to defend himself. Arburys attack was the cleanest case of lawful self defense Ive seen, well since Kyles...