Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Ahmaud Arbery killer's sentenced

Page 2 of 3 [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

09 Jan 2022, 5:17 am

Nades wrote:
Probably an excessive sentences for the guy filming at least.


Accomplices usually get similar sentences. There was a case in the US where a guy lent his car to two friends to commit a murder and he was also charged with being a accomplice even though he didn't take part in the murder itself.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1933
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,801
Location: wales

09 Jan 2022, 5:49 am

cyberdad wrote:
Nades wrote:
Probably an excessive sentences for the guy filming at least.


Accomplices usually get similar sentences. There was a case in the US where a guy lent his car to two friends to commit a murder and he was also charged with being a accomplice even though he didn't take part in the murder itself.


Very similar case happened here. This murder looks to spontaneous for my liking to warrant a murder conviction for the guy filming. He might not have reasonably known what was going to happen or foreseen it.

Joint enterprise convictions in such circumstances are always dodgy and are now causing issues here in the UK where it was concluded in circumstances similar to this, the convictions might be unfair.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Jan 2022, 6:22 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Who says I'm sympathetic to a robber who shoots a clerk in a holdup?


I didn't, I was just pointing out that convictions in cases like that often don't carry the LWOP, as our system is not supposed to require an eye for an eye.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1933
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,801
Location: wales

09 Jan 2022, 9:54 am

cyberdad wrote:
At least it serves as a good lesson for any future wanabee Rittenhouses.


He was found innocent. There was no lesson to learn from the Rittenhouse case unless you want white skin to be a factor in culpability after the case has concluded in court which appears to be what you're implying.


Two totally different cases with Rittenhouse probably not motivated by race.



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

09 Jan 2022, 11:27 am

While Aubery was dieing on the ground, Travis says, "f**k**G N*GGER".

This will be used in his federal hate crime trial to show he's racist.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

09 Jan 2022, 5:10 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
While Aubery was dieing on the ground, Travis says, "f**k**G N*GGER".

This will be used in his federal hate crime trial to show he's racist.


People need to keep in mind
1. It's now 2022
2. America is the most advanced country on earth
3. Travis comes from the most privileged social group in America

There is a serious problem when the benefactors of progress carry such deeply ingrained hate. I wonder how black Americans go on with their every day lives without jumping at the shadows not knowing if they are going to be picked on by the police or some karen for simply walking on the footpath.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,818
Location: Stendec

09 Jan 2022, 5:52 pm

Nades wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
At least it serves as a good lesson for any future wanabee Rittenhouses.
He was found innocent.
Wrong.  He was found "Not Guilty".  "Innocent" mean he committed no crime.  "Not Guilty" means the prosecution's case was not strong enough to deserve a "Guilty" verdict for the murderer.
Nades wrote:
There was no lesson to learn from the Rittenhouse case unless you want white skin to be a factor in culpability after the case has concluded in court which appears to be what you're implying.
The lesson learned is if you want to kill people and get away with it, claim "Self Defense" in front of a conservative jury that has been carefully instructed by a conservative judge on how to render their verdict.
Nades wrote:
Two totally different cases with Rittenhouse probably not motivated by race.
More likely they were motivated by political affiliation and social class.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,818
Location: Stendec

09 Jan 2022, 5:56 pm

cyberdad wrote:
At least it serves as a good lesson for any future wanabee Rittenhouses.
Yeah . . . play up the self-defense angle in front of a conservative judge who carefully instructs the juries on how they should reach their verdict.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,778
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Jan 2022, 5:56 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
While Aubery was dieing on the ground, Travis says, "f**k**G N*GGER".

This will be used in his federal hate crime trial to show he's racist.


All the more evidence that this constituted a lynching.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,818
Location: Stendec

09 Jan 2022, 6:05 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
While Aubery was dieing on the ground, Travis says, "f**k**G N*GGER".  This will be used in his federal hate crime trial to show he's racist.
All the more evidence that this constituted a lynching.
A "lynching" with an assault rifle instead of a rope; but, yeah.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

09 Jan 2022, 6:56 pm

Fnord wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
At least it serves as a good lesson for any future wanabee Rittenhouses.
Yeah . . . play up the self-defense angle in front of a conservative judge who carefully instructs the juries on how they should reach their verdict.


Unfinished business for the families of the victims of Kyle's shooting spree



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

10 Jan 2022, 1:47 am

Fnord wrote:
The lesson learned is if you want to kill people and get away with it, claim "Self Defense" in front of a conservative jury that has been carefully instructed by a conservative judge on how to render their verdict.


Evidence, please?


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

11 Jan 2022, 4:59 am

 ! magz wrote:
Multiple posts have been removed.

I remind everyone here that personal attacks are forbidden on WrongPlanet, no matter what you think about character of another member. Just discuss the topic not other members. It applies to everyone here.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1933
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,801
Location: wales

11 Jan 2022, 5:54 am

Fnord wrote:
Nades wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
At least it serves as a good lesson for any future wanabee Rittenhouses.
He was found innocent.
Wrong.  He was found "Not Guilty".  "Innocent" mean he committed no crime.  "Not Guilty" means the prosecution's case was not strong enough to deserve a "Guilty" verdict for the murderer.
Nades wrote:
There was no lesson to learn from the Rittenhouse case unless you want white skin to be a factor in culpability after the case has concluded in court which appears to be what you're implying.
The lesson learned is if you want to kill people and get away with it, claim "Self Defense" in front of a conservative jury that has been carefully instructed by a conservative judge on how to render their verdict.
Nades wrote:
Two totally different cases with Rittenhouse probably not motivated by race.
More likely they were motivated by political affiliation and social class.


A not guilty verdict in the eyes of the law is a verdict of no crime being commited. Once found not guilty that person can't be charged again for the same "crime" and it's effectively put into common law as an acceptable act where no crime was committed in those particular circumstances. If something very similar were to happen again, a charge, yet alone prosecution will be even harder.

I didn't really watch the case play out in court but it's hard to deny Rittenhouse was in trouble on that day. While i think race had little do with it, whipped up emotions, political identities and mob behaviour no doubt dragged Rittenhouse into the streets that day with the intention of stirring s**t up. Even though he went out looking for trouble and found it, he still wasn't the one to attack first and he wasn't the only one with a gun.

Arbery on the other hand was hunted down and was unarmed. Two completely different cases but in both the mob came off second best.

I think both outcomes were appropriate. I hate gang attacks and the only reason they're carried out is in the hopes that blame is divided between so many member of the group that charging them becomes difficult.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,818
Location: Stendec

11 Jan 2022, 9:15 am

Nades wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Nades wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
At least it serves as a good lesson for any future wanabee Rittenhouses.
He was found innocent.
Wrong.  He was found "Not Guilty".  "Innocent" mean he committed no crime.  "Not Guilty" means the prosecution's case was not strong enough to deserve a "Guilty" verdict for the murderer.
Nades wrote:
There was no lesson to learn from the Rittenhouse case unless you want white skin to be a factor in culpability after the case has concluded in court which appears to be what you're implying.
The lesson learned is if you want to kill people and get away with it, claim "Self Defense" in front of a conservative jury that has been carefully instructed by a conservative judge on how to render their verdict.
Nades wrote:
Two totally different cases with Rittenhouse probably not motivated by race.
More likely they were motivated by political affiliation and social class.
A not guilty verdict in the eyes of the law is a verdict of no crime being committed.  Once found not guilty that person can't be charged again for the same crime . . .
No, the former defendant must petition that court for a separate declaration of "Innocent".  "Not Guilty" means a person can be tried more than once for the same crime if new evidence is discovered, such as a previously unknown cellphone video clearly showing the defendant committing the crime.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1933
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,801
Location: wales

11 Jan 2022, 2:02 pm

Fnord wrote:
Nades wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Nades wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
At least it serves as a good lesson for any future wanabee Rittenhouses.
He was found innocent.
Wrong.  He was found "Not Guilty".  "Innocent" mean he committed no crime.  "Not Guilty" means the prosecution's case was not strong enough to deserve a "Guilty" verdict for the murderer.
Nades wrote:
There was no lesson to learn from the Rittenhouse case unless you want white skin to be a factor in culpability after the case has concluded in court which appears to be what you're implying.
The lesson learned is if you want to kill people and get away with it, claim "Self Defense" in front of a conservative jury that has been carefully instructed by a conservative judge on how to render their verdict.
Nades wrote:
Two totally different cases with Rittenhouse probably not motivated by race.
More likely they were motivated by political affiliation and social class.
A not guilty verdict in the eyes of the law is a verdict of no crime being committed.  Once found not guilty that person can't be charged again for the same crime . . .
No, the former defendant must petition that court for a separate declaration of "Innocent".  "Not Guilty" means a person can be tried more than once for the same crime if new evidence is discovered, such as a previously unknown cellphone video clearly showing the defendant committing the crime.


That's new to me. Is this a US thing or something?