The murder of Ahmaud Arbery/All three perpetrators found guilty

'We don't want any more Black pastors' in Arbery murder trial, lawyer says

A lawyer for one of the three white men charged with killing Ahmaud Arbery said his team did not want "any more Black pastors coming" into the Georgia courtroom after a civil rights leader attended proceedings.

Thursday's comment by Kevin Gough drew sharp criticism from the Rev. Al Sharpton, whom the defense attorney cited in asking the judge in the high-profile case to exclude African-American clergy. -snip

Not even trying to hide their racism. Oh Georgia..

They already managed to get all but one of the Black jurors in the jury pool kicked out. Seems they're still scared.

Originally posted by Robtard
'We don't want any more Black pastors' in Arbery murder trial, lawyer says

A lawyer for one of the three white men charged with killing Ahmaud Arbery said his team did not want "any more Black pastors coming" into the Georgia courtroom after a civil rights leader attended proceedings.

Thursday's comment by Kevin Gough drew sharp criticism from the Rev. Al Sharpton, whom the defense attorney cited in asking the judge in the high-profile case to exclude African-American clergy. -snip

Not even trying to hide their racism. Oh Georgia..

They already managed to get all but one of the Black jurors in the jury pool kicked out. Seems they're still scared.

I'm just imagining how difficult it would be to reconcile the world view that Rittenhouse killed in self defense, totally justified to shoot the people chasing him, but Arbery was also killed in self defense somehow. The two cases seem like opposite sides of the same coin to me. You can't defend both Rittenhouse and the men chasing Arbery, you simply can't.

Originally posted by truejedi
I'm just imagining how difficult it would be to reconcile the world view that Rittenhouse killed in self defense, totally justified to shoot the people chasing him, but Arbery was also killed in self defense somehow. The two cases seem like opposite sides of the same coin to me. You can't defend both Rittenhouse and the men chasing Arbery, you simply can't.

Rittenhouse was chased by rioters, Travis McMichael and company were attempting to detain what they thought was a robber after a number of tresspassings and robberies.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
But, they can.

They been doing it since day one.

Arbery should have just obeyed their orders like he was apparently supposed, really, it’s his own fault.

From now on, whenever somebody fukks up, I won't blame the Dahmer 3.0, I will blame ALL OF YOU!!!🤬🤬📴

It just doesn't make any sense. To say both that Rittenhouse acted in self defense by shooting three men chasing him, but Arbery caused his own death by trying to get a gun away from three men chasing him? It doesn't even sound like a view point anyone could possibly have. Dividing by zero.

Why? The two cases seem quite different. And it's often not so clear cut as aggressor and defender. Take the Rittenhouse case, had it played out differently and the guy with the skateboard ended up braining Kyle, I think there may have been a decent chance he could have got off with self defense.

Very well could be a similar case here. Arbery may have felt threatened and it was because of this he attacked and the defendant (I only use this term because I do not know the shooters name) killed him in his own defense. Now, I know very little about the Arbery case but I'm doubtful that that will hold up in court.

The two defense attorneys have already asked for a mistrial, their reasons: because there was a Black pastor present in the court room and because Arbery's mother was crying when they showed pictures of Arbery's body. Just nutty. The judge rejected.

The owner of the property which the McMichaels claimed Arbery was stealing from has said again that he did not ask either of the McMichaels or Bryan to act as security.

Should be noted again that Arbery did not have any stolen possessions at the time of his murder.

Originally posted by ares834
Why? The two cases seem quite different. And it's often not so clear cut as aggressor and defender. Take the Rittenhouse case, had it played out differently and the guy with the skateboard ended up braining Kyle, I think there may have been a decent chance he could have got off with self defense.

Very well could be a similar case here. Arbery may have felt threatened and it was because of this he attacked and the defendant (I only use this term because I do not know the shooters name) killed him in his own defense. Now, I know very little about the Arbery case but I'm doubtful that that will hold up in court.

Rittenhouse brings an automatic weapon to a riot away from his hometown with white supremacists. He was chased and assaulted by a skateboard.

I guess if you're that much of a retard that you need to use a gun in defence against a skateboard, you probably shouldn't be carrying one in the first place, let alone bring it to a riot.

I think the Arbery trial is 100 percent clear. Armed white men ina pickup
Chase down a black jogger... In the deep south.. Everything that happens after that is self defense.. you wouldn't expect Arbery to feel anyt other way than he was in a fight for his life.

Originally posted by truejedi
I think the Arbery trial is 100 percent clear. Armed white men ina pickup
Chase down a black jogger... In the deep south.. Everything that happens after that is self defense.. you wouldn't expect Arbery to feel anyt other way than he was in a fight for his life.

Agreed.

Originally posted by truejedi
I think the Arbery trial is 100 percent clear. Armed white men ina pickup
Chase down a black jogger... In the deep south.. Everything that happens after that is self defense.. you wouldn't expect Arbery to feel anyt other way than he was in a fight for his life.

I wouldn’t be so 100% confident. People that created conflict and then use that very conflict as justification to shoot people have gotten off before. eg Zimmerman, Rittenhouse. This is also Georgia.

Oh, I'm not saying they might be found Not Guilty, but considering the circumstances, that would be a completely bogus result that would render the men no more innocent than OJ.

Maybe America should restrict ownership of some guns?

Originally posted by Blakemore
Maybe America should restrict ownership of some guns?

Not according to the second amendment.

That argument is stupid. First of all, it's called an amendment. One of the amendments says alcohol is illegal, another says that amendment sucks dicks.

Reconstruction and much later amendments are held in lower regard for a reason. Prohibition is one of fhose reasons.

And that is why the Founders original vision is sacred. They knew exactly what they were doing by giving the citizens unfettered and unrestricted access to defend themselves from tyranny.