Ahmaud Arbery - The Trial

[candcallen]

The McMichaels each received a life sentence without possibility of parole. Mr. Bryan was sentence to life with the chance of parole.

I'm ok with that. Will probably get some post convictions relief if the lawyers do their jobs.

 

[Axxe55]

The McMichaels each received a life sentence without possibility of parole. Mr. Bryan was sentence to life with the chance of parole.

I'm okay with those verdicts.

 

[DoubleDuty]

They deserve it. Dumbasses

 

[candcallen]

If I heard the judge correctly, 3 times with a 12 gage pump?

 

[craigntx]

Why did his mom have to announce he had nasty un-trimmed feets?

 

[Armybrat]

They deserve it. Dumbasses

Agreed

 

[tonelar]

What the judge said struck a chord. It's time to expand the definition of "neighbor".

 

[Glenn B]

The father & so team got what they deserved. Have not kept up on all the facts and wonder if their pal got what he deserved or got shafted. Would have figured maybe 25 years for him but dumb is as dumb does, or something like that.

 

[Axxe55]

Family of Ahmaud Arbery Rejects Federal Hate Crime Plea Deal for Father and Son Convicted of His Murder at State Trial

The family of Ahmaud Arbery has made their decision on the plea deal proposed to them by the Department of Justice earlier this week on […]

news.yahoo.com

 

[toddnjoyce]

Trying to understand how that’s not double jeopardy, but then again, I’m not a lawyer.

 

[Axxe55]

Trying to understand how that’s not double jeopardy, but then again, I’m not a lawyer.

The only thing that comes to mind it's a totally different charge than the ones they were previously tried for?

 

[Younggun]

While I’ve got no issue at all with the outcome of the trial, seems like every state case now has a follow up federal case. Not really a fan of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[toddnjoyce]

Forgot about the principle of dual sovereignty. Essentially one crime happens in two different places at once. In a 2019 SCOTUS decision, it was upheld 7-2. Surprising dissenters.

In her dissent, Ginsburg wrote that under the Constitution, it is the governed, not the governments, who are the ultimate sovereigns.

In his dissent, Gorsuch wrote that a "free society does not allow its government to try the same individual for the same crime until it's happy with the result."

I tend to agree with them.

 

[deemus]

It will be a giant shit show, again. Cue Bl m to get their peeps gathered and destroy some more personal property. Because nothing says that guy was treated unfairly like destroying a person's stuff who had nothing to do with the offense.

 

[jrbfishn]

Trying to understand how that’s not double jeopardy, but then again, I’m not a lawyer.

I ain't a lawyer either and I am with you.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[jrbfishn]

The only thing that comes to mind it's a totally different charge than the ones they were previously tried for?

Doesn't matter what you call the charge, if they are being charged a second time for the same murder, it's double jeopardy. If the Federal case is just on civil rights, that would be a whole different animal.
How many life without parole sentences do you need before you die in prison? Unless they figure them to get a pardon, it ain't about justice, it's about politics and revenge.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Axxe55]

Doesn't matter what you call the charge, if they are being charged a second time for the same murder, it's double jeopardy. If the Federal case is just on civil rights, that would be a whole different animal.
How many life without parole sentences do you need before you die in prison? Unless they figure them to get a pardon, it ain't about justice, it's about politics and revenge.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

I don't disagree with you the least on that. I'm just trying to understand how they would be able to bypass the double-jeopardy rules on charging them on federal charges.

 

[easy rider]

While I’ve got no issue at all with the outcome of the trial, seems like every state case now has a follow up federal case. Not really a fan of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, I have issues, but then I'm one to buck the narrative. The trial was political, as were the sentences. While I won't say they were innocent of all charges, although I'm not sure how someone that was videoing the altercation is also charged with murder, I believe the charges were excessive.

 

[candcallen]

Well, I have issues, but then I'm one to buck the narrative. The trial was political, as were the sentences. While I won't say they were innocent of all charges, although I'm not sure how someone that was videoing the altercation is also charged with murder, I believe the charges were excessive.

Felony murder. Participating in a crime that ends up with a murder means murder for all parties involved even if only involved in the conspiracy or driving and filming in this instance.

Like many thing criminal justice related it's not something folks always agree with.

Interestingly if the guy didnt film the incident he probably wouldnt have been able to be charged as a participant since he only followed and the other 2 might have been offerd plea deals or not charged.

 

[nickgibson72]

Well, I have issues, but then I'm one to buck the narrative. The trial was political, as were the sentences. While I won't say they were innocent of all charges, although I'm not sure how someone that was videoing the altercation is also charged with murder, I believe the charges were excessive.

You believe that murder charges were excessive for murdering someone? What do you think the charges should have been? And the driver was charged because he filmed the whole incident and did nothing to stop it. He literally filmed someone being murdered and then drove off like nothing happened.