All 3 men guilty of murder in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery

Then that one individual should be charged with a criminal threat or intimidation with a firearm, not the other two men.

The dad also wasn't the one who fired the shot.

 

But he wasn't employed as a police officer and so wasn't in the performance of his lawful duty.

 

I was just trying to point out an intellectually interesting thought comparison.

That thought is not completely irrelevant.

 

It was both, and one more (attempted false imprisonment).

Here is what happened legally speaking:

The D.A. needed to make sure the defendants didn't get off on what people call a "technicality"(which doesn't really exist, but never mind). They charged multiple theories as a way of offering the jury alternate routes to conviction. You never know what the evidence will prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Count 1 was "malice murder." That means what it sounds like and was the Big Kahuna because, though the death penalty wasn't sought, Georgia law allows for the death penalty under that theory. They probably charged malice murder because they had not decided at the time of indicting whether to seek the death penalty. That's a whole separate discussion. Also it's harder to make parole if you are convicted of malice murder.


Count 2 was killing the victim, irrespective of malice, in the course of committing an aggravated assault (with a shotgun). It carries a max of life but not death.

Count 3 was killing another, malice or no malice, during the course of committing an aggravated assault (with a pickup truck). It carries a max of life but not death.

Count 4 killing another, malice or not, during the course of committing a felony (false imprisonment). It carries a max of life but not death.

Count 5 was killing another during the course of criminally attempting to commit false imprisonment. It carries a max of life but not death.

If they had charged just count one, they ran the risk of the jury finding them not guilty because they could not agree on the malice element because of some confict in the testimony or a witness changing his story in the middle of the trial.

Or the jury might have concluded, "Well, they assaulted him with the truck but not the shotgun, and the indictment doesn't mention an assault with a shotgun." Or they might have just disagreed on that.

Any one of the jurors could have fouled things up for the D.A., and so he threw every theory up there in hopes that all 12 jurors would agree on at least one count.

 

Then I suppose Arbery got the just desserts of stupidity?

 

It's not a comparison at all. Citizens and police officers have distinct responsibilities. At any point did McMichael identify himself as an officer? Did he say this was a lawful arrest?

 

What? See how senseless this is? There was no "assault".

The jury was reading different definitions into those legal words.

There was no felony. The "false imprisonment" attempt had not really actually begun yet.

Again, looks like the jury was being illogical.

 

I think the jury's verdict was correct. At first, I wondered if William Bryan would be convicted of murder. He was the one who took the cell phone video, and, unlike the McMichaels, he was not armed. But he did take an active role in trying to stop Arbery from escaping, and there was a dent in his truck from contact with Arbery. Since he took part in the illegal activity against Arbery, it makes him criminally liable for whatever outcome there is. Not knowing one of the McMichaels would end up killing Arbery is not a defense. It's like when the plan is to rob a store, and someone is the getaway driver. The plan may not be to kill the clerk, but if the clerk fights back and gets killed, the getaway driver is criminally liable for murder just like the shooter. So I think all three verdicts are correct.

Just a couple of thoughts about this case ...

First ...

The victim was a black man. The defendants were white, and this took place in a Deep South state. The judge was white. The prosecutor was white. The defense lawyers were white. The jury was almost all white, and they reached a unanimous verdict of guilty in a relatively short time. And I believe those white jurors reached the correct verdict because it was the correct verdict to reach. There is a message here for the whole nation.

And second ...

The Rittenhouse trial and the Arbery trial had one glaring similarity, and that similarity is the "doctrine of the primary aggressor". Rittenhouse was found not guilty because every person he shot was the aggressor against him. Like in the Arbery case, Rittenhouse was trying to escape his attackers. In the Arbery case, the defendants were all found guilty because they were the aggressors. The attempted defense of "self defense" didn't work because they were the aggressors.

The message here is that if you start it, don't expect the law and the courts to back you up.

 

I will point out they could have easily lied if they had wanted to about seeing something that would have given them cause to stop Arbery until the police could arrive.
They would have been believed.
But they did not lie but told the entire truth.

This should not be punished like an ordinary murder.

 

The victim was really stupid and ran at them. Trying to ambush one of them and grab his gun, even though there were two others with guns.
His expected chances of successfully acting in self defense were infinitesimally miniscule.

If you want to punish the one who shot him, fine, but this was not like an ordinary murder.

 

Here is another thing

I'm just telling you what the indictment said. Whether the facts fit the law was for the jury to decide. That said, it is possible in some cases for a judge to declare a judgment of "not guilty notwithstanding the verdict," due to insufficient evidence, which I take it you would have granted had you been the judge. I don't know if the defense lawyers asked for that, but I'm sure they did. Anyway, the state could have appealed that, and the standard would be "viewing the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could any reasonable jury have found them guilty?"

Courts don't like to invade the juries' province.

 

I'm just telling you what the charges were. There seems to be confusion about that above.

 

I don't believe those charges should automatically translate into the normal associated punishment for those charges.

 

You have made all the right points, but all the armchair quarterbacks don't want to hear them.

In Georgia, you can legally carry a shotgun. In every state (unless in some crazy lefty state I'm unaware of), firearms can be carried. So WTF is someone who is legally carrying supposed to do when they are charged and the person charging tries to take away their legally-carried firearm? Give it to them? Get shot by it?

The 2nd Amendment. It's still a right.

Stopping in the road and holding weapons isn't a crime.

If Aubry was white, they would have walked or wouldn't have been charged to begin with.

 

He wouldn't have had any idea why someone chased him down and pointed a shotgun at him. He had a choice to run or fight. It is a perfectly natural response to try to get that shotgun pointed away from you or to take it away from your attacker. What was he supposed to think? These were not the police, and you can't outrun bullets.

 

That is true. He probably wasn't bright enough to see how his actions might have appeared from the other side.

He should however have realized that trying to ambush and charge at a man with a gun (especially with two other men with guns present) would most likely get him shot.

Was he afraid of them, specifically, or was he ultimately afraid of police showing up?
(seems like he didn't want to wait around and was trying to get out of there as fast as possible)


If the shotgun was actually pointed at him before he started running towards the man who ended up shooting him, then that changes everything.
Was that actually the case?

 

I didn't see all the charges, but was carrying a weapon one of them?

If a kidnapper has someone at gunpoint, and they try to wrestle the gun away which inexplicably goes off and kills the hostage, should the kidnapper say they had no choice - the hostage was going to kill me?

 

Well, the court of appeals may agree with you and remand the case for a new trial with instructions to dismiss one or more counts of the indictment (Unlikely.) I guess you can write to the legislature and complain, but the law in Georgia is automatic life for any kind of murder. The judge can't override that. But some murders (felony murder) contemplate parole before completion of the sentence.

Walmsley did not immediately schedule a sentencing date. The sentence for felony murder and malice murder is the same, and the minimum penalty is life in prison. It is up to the judge to decide whether that comes with or without the possibility of parole. Even if the possibility of parole is granted, a person convicted of murder must serve 30 years before becoming eligible. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...es-murder-ahmaud-arbery-explained/8747459002/

 

Carrying a weapon? No, that wasn't one of the charges agains the defendants. In Georgia, white adult males are REQURED to carry a weapon. Kidding.

 

sounds like the law is very unfair then, it sees things in terms of total black and white.

 

He can say whatever he wants. Maybe his claim will be convincing to the jury, maybe not.

 

Normally you would be correct, but this case is different from that in several ways.

Arbery had not actually been "kidnapped" at that point, in the same sense of the word.
Also given the situation, they had at least some partial reason (even if not total overall justified) to do what they did.
For that reason, at the very least, the circumstances warrant lots of mercy.

If I can draw an analogy, it might be like the owner of a jewelry store who mistakenly believes someone has stolen a very high priced item, and that person is running away, acting very suspiciously, and then the owner threatens them with a gun to stop. If it turns out that individual is innocent, the owner may likely get into trouble, but they will not treat him like a regular kidnapper.

 

I see what you did there.

I agree with you that it would be better were the jury given the option of imposing a wide range of punishments, but ... sed lex, dura lex.

In Texas, for example, the range of possible punishments for felony murder is 5 to 99 years, or life imprisonment (jury's discretion).

 

We'll never know for sure.

 

Indeed....and this time they got it right.........and showed professional and legal wisdom.