Poll of the Day > Prosecutors want to use RACIST SOCIAL MEDIA of the Men who Killed AHMAUD ARBERY

(+) Yeah! (+)

Georia Prosecutors want to use the RACIST Facebook posts and text messages against the Trailer Trash McMichael Father and Son who MURDERED Ahmaud Arbery as evidence against the 3 charged!!

Gregory and Travis and their neighbor, William "Roddie" Bryan Jr shared racist material with each other as they want to use this as proof of motive

They have been imprisoned since they were arrested in more than 2 months since 25 y/o Arbery was fatally shot while running in their neighborhood as they claimed he fit the suspect of someone "stealing" in their area and pursued him.

Travis shared a racist facebook post of a Johnny Rebel post and a racist text message in 2019 he sent to someone

His father, Greg shared an "Identity Dixie Facebook post" and "Racial Johnny Rebel FB post"

Bryan Jr sent racist text messages and all men repeatdly used the n word to containing a "ton of filth" according to prosecutor Jesse Evans

Last month, attorneys for the men said the pursuit and killing was not racially motivated when they armed themselves and chased and shot him after a confrontation

No trial date is set given the pandemic as cellphone video from Bryan showed Travis getting out of the truck with his shotgun and Arbery trying to stop him when he shot Arbery three times at close range fueling national outcry over racial injustice

Gregory, who has ties with the sheriff's office as they REFUSED to charge him initially since he worked there

Police said there's no evidence Arbery stole from the construction site or that he committed any other crimes as an attorney for the homeowner in the home under construction said it's possible Arbery stopped there for water while jogging

An agent, Richard Dial said the 3rd man who recorded it said he overheard the father and son use the N-WORD after killing Arbery and felt he made that account up in hopes of cutting a deal.

President Trump weighed in on the murder and said Arbery looked like a "good man" when showed a picture of him in his suit but DID NOT say if he believed the men were guilty and said there should be an investigation

https://i.imgur.com/zzL09Q9.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/hnWwVr3.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/nCKa6Gl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/1B3XNqK.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/6YOrhlP.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/3leMjWO.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/SEwI7oN.jpg
---

I don't see how these post are relevant to the case. If I understand correctly he was killed after the 3 tried to detain and question him. Did they have the authority to detain and question someone? Is that a valid defense for the charges? Did they have sufficient cause to detain and question this person? If you answer "no" to any of these they're guilty. What do the posts change?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

What do the posts change?

They'd be guilty regardless - but sentencing takes motivational context into account

---

Lokarin posted...

They'd be guilty regardless - but sentencing takes motivational context into account

So the posts should be disregarded until after the 3 have been tried and convicted.

---

fuck those guys

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So the posts should be disregarded until after the 3 have been tried and convicted.

Tried yes, convicted no; since if they are found guilty the sentencing phase can use the posts as evidence of violent tendencies to sentence for a longer conviction

---

Lokarin posted...

Tried yes, convicted no; since if they are found guilty

convicted - having been declared guilty of a criminal offense by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge.
How can they be found guilty but not yet convicted?

Lokarin posted...

if they are found guilty the sentencing phase can use the posts as evidence

This is what I'm saying. After they are convicted then the posts can be used during the sentencing phase. The posts should not be used before then.

Lokarin posted...

to sentence for a longer conviction

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

---

If they want to use it for a hate crime aspect seems plausible, but if that is all they have to go on... I don't think that will go far.
SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So the posts should be disregarded until after the 3 have been tried and convicted.

No one makes you read the posts.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

That's possible - My interpretation is it goes Judgment - Sentencing and then Conviction

---

Lokarin posted...

That's possible - My interpretation is it goes Judgment - Sentencing and then Conviction

Nope, the trial leads to the conviction (the decision if they're guilty or not), then the sentence is the consequence assigned to the offense of which they've been convicted.

---

adjl posted...

Nope, the trial leads to the conviction (the decision if they're guilty or not), then the sentence is the consequence assigned to the offense of which they've been convicted.

Sure, just explaining my interpretation... even if wrong

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't see how these post are relevant to the case. If I understand correctly he was killed after the 3 tried to detain and question him. Did they have the authority to detain and question someone? Is that a valid legal defense for the charges against them? Did they have sufficient cause to detain and question this person? If you answer "no" to any of these they're guilty. What do the posts change?

So, racist imagery and propaganda should be excluded in a case prosecutors think is motivated by race?

Wut?

---

Lokarin posted...

That's possible - My interpretation is it goes Judgment - Sentencing and then Conviction

At the close of the trial the defendant is either found guilty (convicted) or found not guilty (exonerated). If found guilty then they are sentenced. I see where there can be some confusion in terminology since someone who has been to prison is regarded as a convict. And someone who feels a strong sense of purpose is said to be filled with conviction.

EvilMegas posted...

So, racist imagery and propaganda should be excluded in a case prosecutors think is motivated by race?

What matters is whether their actions were lawful. Imagine if the situation were reversed. If after confronting the individual one of their group had been killed. Would the individual face the same murder charges? Oh... wait. Didn't that exact scenario happen recently in Omaha. How was that case handled?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

What matters is whether their actions were lawful.

That said, where hate crimes are often different charges from their non-hate-motivated counterparts, racist motivations may be relevant for making hate crime charges stick. In theory, I'd be fine with doing away with separate hate crime charges and just treating hate as an exacerbating factor during sentencing. In general, hate-motivated crimes are worse because of how many more potential targets they have and how commonly they're motivated by an ideology and therefore at increased risk of reoffending, which means they should be treated differently, but that treatment can easily be handled in sentencing. Try to handle it in the initial conviction, and you risk failing to convict them because you couldn't prove a hateful motive, which just wastes everyone's time and introduces the risk that they'll walk free.

In practice, however, I believe it is a different charge, so it needs to be considered now.

---

adjl posted...

In practice, however, I believe it is a different charge, so it needs to be considered now.

Here's what I find dubious about that. Let's say the defense successfully argues that they were making a citizens arrest of an individual they believed to have committed a crime. This means they were acting lawfully in order to detain and question that individual. With hate crime being a different change they would be not guilty of having committed a crime, but still guilty of impure motivations for what was otherwise deemed a lawful act.

In my understanding a hate crime is a more severe form of the initial crime. So if there is no initial crime it cannot also be a hate crime. However making it a separate change means it can exist independently. It sounds like an excuse to still punish them even if found not guilty.

---