A 25-year-old black man was shot dead in Georgia while jogging, prompting online protests labeling t

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by superbadbrutha, Apr 29, 2020.

  1. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    12,583
    Likes Received:
    3,156
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1: That just makes it funnier.
    2: General Practice. Mostly civil but I'm not a stranger to the criminal bar. Criminal law is also a bar tested subject. One of my mentees is now a prosecutor in AZ and we discuss current events like this continuously. I'm more than familiar.
    3: The end of the article is the only part that mentions it and it doesn't say the sign was up when Arbery was there which is your claim. If you claim otherwise you'll need to quote the section directly.
    4: Yes, just let the person go whom you have no legal authority to run to ground and seize under the 4th amendment. Their want to be good neighbors doesn't either absolve them of their felonies, or allow them into citizen's arrest.
    5: Their statements days later doubled down on the initial statements chief or didn't you watch the preliminary hearing where all that came out? You can always elaborate on what you said, but humans tend to judge someone from the first blush. Particularly jurors. Jurors are also generally suspicious when the story at the scene and days later changes at trial so radically.
    6: Except to shelter under CA you need a current crime. Greg admits he didn't have that, and Travis didn't see **** so he can't. Roddie is in a similar boat to Travis, he witnessed no crime allowing him to CA anyone and therefore his actions constitute a felony.
    That's exactly how CA works so... they will. IDK why don't you go FINALLY watch the ****ing preliminary hearing and you can hear the statement that Travis gave to investigators where he admits to pointing a gun at Arbery and ordering him to get on the ground. Greg and Travis chasing is the initial aggression legally speaking. Which means without CA, they're ****ed. They're not going to be able to get CA, ergo they're ****ed.
     
  2. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    12,583
    Likes Received:
    3,156
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1: Perhaps that is a personal problem of yours, and not one of mine? Other posters have understood the post quite perfectly, what is your excuse for failure?
    2: THAT. DOESN'T. MATTER. If you're conflicted out, you're conflicted out. You don't get to say "well its not that big a deal so its fine". You realize that that is EXACTLY what someone who was corrupt would do, right? They would sweep it under the rug. Therefore, when you do that when conflicted, even if you were justified in doing so under the law/guidelines, you've still breached your ethical duties. Even if the decisions of the DAs were 100% en pointe legally, they were 100% in violation of their ethical duty not to participate in a case they have a conflict of interest on. And they were NOT 100% en pointe legally. Not even close.
    3: I read the whole article dude, and as an attorney I'm more than familiar with the very, INCREDIBLY limited circumstances the propensity inference is acceptable and its not the case we find with DA#2. If you have a point to make, quote the section and I'll just brow beat you over that particular section. Its not about you: Rhetoric is a spectator sport. When I point out how hilariously off base you are, its not to change your mind, its to point out how hilariously off base you are to other persons.
    4: You can elaborate, sure. But human psychology is such that most people consider your story after you've had time to work on it to be less likely to be 100% the truth than when you are shocked from an emotional event. In fact, one of the exceptions to hearsay is a description of your then existing mental state directly after the event. Why is that? Because such statements are considered to be generally trustworthy, as after such an event one does not normally have one's wits about one sufficient to craft an unassailable lie.
    5: It is rounding up a posse. You're trying to bootstrap on another citizen's claim under the CA statute. The CA statute does not provide for that, ergo it is illegal. No exception is made for bootstrapping onto a blood relation's claim.
    Roddie: Joined the illegal conduct on display. He had no way to claim CA on either group and should've remained out of it. When he didn't he became a party to the crimes of the group he joined. The fact that they were his neighbors doesn't change the calculus under the statute.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
  3. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. Because he'd seen them on a previous occasion
    2. Or you are?
    3. On that occasion no but that is irrelevant.
    4. Yes we know why, because they didn't see the others running away from the scene.
    5. You're the one whining and snivelling nonsense about 'slave patrols' and 'racist redneck murderers' aren't you?
    6. Odd thing is we are talking about the same facts we just interpret them differently.
     
  4. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. I guess we'll have to take your word for it?
    2. Interesting
    3. I must say I've scoured the internet and can't find any article which definitively says the no trespassing signs were there before the incident
    4. Yes it does, they had a genuine and reasonably held belief. How can you justify letting suspecting criminals escape? And that's what the jury should think.
    5. I would say the opposite, remember the statements are only the basis for testimony not the definitive article, otherwise what would be the point of them appearing in the witness box.
    6. Again, witness a crime or have immediate knowledge, without any intervening agency? They certainly had that?
     
  5. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. Maybe you should learn to express yourself better?
    2. No, it's what someone who saw this as a clear cut case would do, what EXACTLY did they sweep under the rug?
    3. So whilst I'm ridiculing you and every is having a good laugh at your expense (see how it feels? Can't we keep this civilized?) I would point out under the mercy rule,” a criminal defendant could inject the issue of character into his trial and present pertinent propensity evidence concerning his good character and/or the alleged victim’s bad character. Accordingly, a defendant charged with assault could have witnesses testify that he was a peaceable person, and, if he were claiming self-defense, he could call witnesses to testify that the alleged victim was a violent person.
    Remember, they can bring in Arbery's past behaviour not to mention what we see on the tape?
    4. Again I'd point you towards Elizabeth Loftus' work, especially when the witnesses have just suffered a traumatic event?
    5. In that case how would one citizen ever be expected to help another? Unless they themselves had direct knowledge of the event or without an intervening agency?
     
  6. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    12,583
    Likes Received:
    3,156
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) Do that.
    2) Cool beans.
    3) I know.
    4) By their own admission of a PRIOR crimes when they needed CURRENT. Not to mention: Travis didn't see **** so can't chase under any conception. CA does not allow bootstrapping to another's claims.
    5) At this point? There pretty much is no point to putting them on the stand. This may shock you but often times the accused does not take the stand because that is their best shot. You would say the opposite? Well that's great, you'd better hope they have 12 people just like you because on average people do the opposite of what you claim you would do in that situation. Most of them don't even really pay attention to the actual evidence at trial, they've made their mind up by the time they're on the jury, one way or another. That's part of what makes the process of voir dire so important, you can fish for people whose minds are made up against you and get them struck for cause. Your opponent will do likewise. The idea being that you end up with 12 people who are ready to make a decision on the issue after hearing evidence, because you've eliminated all the ones that had made up minds for either side and 3 others per side that you strike out for any reason but racial animus.
    6) Greg admits he perceived no current crime and instead went after Arbery to detain him for a prior event. Greg would be the only person who could make any attempt at CA but even he is defeated by not linking Arbery to a CURRENT crime and instead explicating it was about a PRIOR incident.
    Travis: Didn't perceive Arbery at all. That's not in his presence or immediate knowledge. Again: CA doesn't allow bootstrapping just cause he's your daddy. It doesn't allow bootstrapping at all.
    Roddie: Witnesses a disturbance but he doesn't see it start and has no way therefore to tell who is in the wrong IE a criminal amenable to CA. That means he can't join in on a side because he has no way to form the proper predicates for CA on only one group under these facts. Greg being his neighbor doesn't mean Greg wasn't in the wrong. Arbery being not his neighbor doesn't mean Arbery was in the wrong. He can't reasonably say which one was doing what when because he has exactly zero knowledge. And yet he did so anyway, making him a party to the crimes of Travis and Greg.
     
  7. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    12,583
    Likes Received:
    3,156
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) As stated, you're the only one confused. Ever heard the adage that "If you run into an *******, well you ran into an *******. If you always run into *******s, you're the *******"? Sort of like that with comprehension. If everyone else understands and you don't, you're the one with the problem.
    2) No, someone who saw it as a clear cut case but was conflicted out and wanted to abide by their ethical duties would recuse themselves. Because that's how it ****ing works. The purpose of the rule is to avoid even the mere APPEARANCE of impropriety. You ruling on your buddies case and saying "it was no big deal" are LITERALLY that.
    3) That would be at trial, not something you put in a letter. And its only for the criminal defendant to assert at trial, not for a prosecutor who is conflicted out to offer like a turd. Not to mention that the evidence of propensity offered was not one to one and thus didn't track with the limited purpose it could be offered for ONLY at trial. DA's 1 and 2 were conflicted out and should only have said "I recuse myself based on a conflict of interest to wit:" trial considerations are not for them to consider, that is for their successor in the case to consider.
    4) And again I'd point you to the principles behind the exceptions to hearsay, to basic principles of human psychology and how we judge people, and to the experience of every lawyer on the planet. Juries. Don't. Care. The ones that make it to the courtroom without a decision already in mind are only looking for one thing they can clutch like a talisman to justify a decision. Those statements from the scene? Will blow any credibility the McMichaels could otherwise try to build. Particularly when they get to Travis' racial animosity in private conversations and against the victim at the scene.
    5) Yes exactly. They would need direct knowledge of the event to effect a citizen's arrest of a person. That doesn't mean they can't shelter a person, call the cops, follow at a distance to keep track and route the units etc. What they cannot do in that situation is posse up and go seize someone of their liberty who they have no direct knowledge of current crimes in commission. Someone telling me about what they think is THEIR direct knowledge doesn't make that MY direct knowledge.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
  8. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We shall see, as I said, the witness statement is only the basis for their testimony. I would disagree in that the facts of the case are pretty well set out, the defence's task is to overcome the influence of the tape and that can only be done by their testimony, they have to explain themselves and try to justify their actions (Rodney King would be a good example, the tape seemed damning but the officers were found not guilty because their testimony was more persuasive and told the whole story). Quite frankly good luck in trying to find jurors who haven't been influenced in this case, once again, it would be like OJ. I agree sometimes it's better not to put the accused on the stand in order to avoid self incrimination (Wayne Williams the classic example) but realistically this is all they have. As for Roddie again he was backing up his neighbours and that is going to be the defence's strategy, if placed in the same situation would the jurors have done the same thing? In that regard I think everyone would have?
     
  9. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    12,583
    Likes Received:
    3,156
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The defense has to overcome not only the tape but all the statements they made and Travis' racial animus. That's too high a burden to pass. And that's leaving aside that CA doesn't allow bootstrapping so Travis and Roddie are going in 100%.
    Rodney King: Wildly panned as a bullshit verdict just as much as the OJ case.

    You're not going to find anyone not influenced but you might be able to find some people who haven't made up their minds yet.

    As to your last sentence: Objection, improper jury argument. Move to Strike. Motion for sanctions.
    You cannot ask the jury to put themselves into the shoes of the defendant. Stop watching Hollywood movies.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
  10. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm sorry, I don't speak asterisk, how about you stop getting into such a tizzy and keep things civilized? Dear lord! (Anyone would think I was deliberately winding you up to get a reaction?) There was no appearance of impropriety, this was an investigation conducted by the book, no one is saying they were 'buddies', otherwise police departments couldn't have their own Internal Affairs departments as they would always have had some contact with those they were investigating (I mean look at Robert Mueller?). They did recuse themselves when questioned and there's no allegations that they ever covered anything up, they just came to conclusions others disagreed with. Thing is not all lawyers agree otherwise we wouldn't otherwise we wouldn't bother having a court system at all and you can never have 100% confidence in a jury (or judge?) as Marcia Clark could tell you? I agree, keep Travis off the stand, his private statements would hang him, indeed maybe just let Greg alone testify. You must remember they did not actually seize the suspect at any time, they had no physical contact, the argument will be whether they illegally detained him (can't be kidnapping which would require transport or detention which would require confinement)
     
  11. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Inaccurately so, you should read Stacey Koon's book. I agree Travis' racist remarks will definitely count against him, especially in the current climate, I suspect the jury will have more sympathy with the others however. You can say that, much like the judge telling a jury to disregard something they've heard but there is no mind wipe button. Plus any decent solicitor won't just come out and say it, it's all in the inference. Never underestimate the power of Hollywood (or the internet), you have the Perry Mason effect, the CSI effect etc
     
  12. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    24,250
    Likes Received:
    1,362
    Trophy Points:
    113
    he was doing a crime spree while jogging in boots, they were defending their castle.
     
  13. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    12,583
    Likes Received:
    3,156
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its perfectly civilized, I'm not grunting at you or shaking my dong in your general direction. Its literally a colloquialism ffs. Calm down.
    I hate to tell you this bud but the fact that I use invective does not indicate that I am upset.

    Its literally the appearance of impropriety to rule on a case you are conflicted out of. That's THE example they use in the class man. Stop, you're embarrassing yourself more than usual.

    You don't get to rule on someone you gave an award to, and you don't get to rule on a case where one of the investigators who helped with a previous prosecution has now been involved in a homicide with the person you prosecuted. Those are direct connections which cause a conflict of interest. Additionally: IA is intentionally kept separate from other departments and cops don't have the same ethical standards that lawyers have to abide by. They're not even bound by the professional standard of torts.

    They shouldn't have had to be questioned, its not "only recuse yourself if questioned". Both of them need their cards pulled, their misconduct has been egregious and public. Nothing will happen to them though as the state is going to want to downplay the public corruption on the part of their employees.

    As to seizure: You don't have to succeed, you have to attempt. Travis admits to pointing the gun at Arbery and ordering him down on the ground. There is no question that the 3 of them acting in concert brought Arbery to bay more than once, turned him from his path out of the neighborhood 3 times, hit him with a vehicle while doing so etc. All of that? Counts. As to physical contact: What the **** would you call being struck by a motor vehicle then, if not physical contact? Magic rainbow butterfly kisses? Its clear they illegally detained him, they admit to such when they admit to turning him around back into the neighborhood to prevent his escape. None of these facts are in question. You keep acting as if they are. Its incredibly disingenuous.




    Marcia Clark and the OJ team's problem was they 1) got caught tampering with ****ing evidence, adding OJs blood sample to the scene completely blowing any credibility they might have had; 2) you could tell they were ****ed when they took all day for their opening statement. They tried to introduce too many issues. There was no need. An prosecutor's opener should damn near be just the indictment and the elements you intend to prove. It was a clusterfuck all around.
     
    superbadbrutha likes this.
  14. superbadbrutha

    superbadbrutha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    51,799
    Likes Received:
    6,305
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Where did he see them at?
    Nope, the investigation is pretty much proving what I said.
    How is it irrelevant?
    Greg McMichael didn't see Arbery running out of the house either.
    I'm talking about 3 racist murdering a man being brought to Justice.
    First of all you aren't posting any facts to back up that garbage you are spewing. None whatsoever, we have been asking for you to post ONE thing to back up your support for these 3 racist murderers and all we get is crickets.

    You have been shown over and over again that they didn't see him committing a crime, they had NO Authority to detain him, it wasn't their home and they murdered him.

    You keep claiming he was a suspect and he fit the description, I have posted the police reports that didn't have any description of Arbery. You keep claiming he fit the description of someone who had been burglarizing the neighborhood and that was proven false. I believe you are just trying to play devils advocate.
     
  15. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    24,250
    Likes Received:
    1,362
    Trophy Points:
    113
    jogging in boots on private property is probable cause for a citizen's arrest.

    this boy was a robber on a crime spree and picked the wrong 40 acres to trespass on, these gentlemen defended their mule with prejudice.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_acres_and_a_mule
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
  16. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    12,583
    Likes Received:
    3,156
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Make up your mind is it Loftus or Koon? You can't even get what you quickly googled to sound erudite the same every time man. Please try harder.

    No dude I mean as soon as you said to the jury the words "put yourselves in the " I can object an shut down that entire line of argument and if you try to keep talking I'll not only get monetary damages off of the LAWYER who keeps running their mouth but you'll also likely end up in contempt of court for thumbing your nose at the judge telling you to shut the **** up. Good day for me man, and dragging some unethical jackass off while he rants 1) sounds like an absolutely great time to see in person and 2) leads to a mistrial most often so we just get to go again with a new jury having removed their lawyer from the field of play and struck the fear of God into the next man at bat.
    There are very few things its considered acceptable to object to at closing. Improper jury argument is almost all there is.

    We call them attorneys on this side of the Atlantic, not solicitors. I'm simply pointing out that the form of argument you want to use is verboten and trying to proceed and "ring the bell" over a valid objection on that point is just going to cost you money and reputation.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
  17. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You see, the facts of the case are not in dispute, people are just interpreting them in wildly different manners. With your blather about 'slave patrols' and 'racist murderers' you are obviously just desperate to make this a racist incident, I'm just pointing out the other side of the equation, Greg had seen a suspect on a previous occasion, they had been relayed the suspect description from the previous incidents. What possible reason would they have had to confront him if they did not genuinely suspect him to be a burglar? In their shoes I may have done exactly the same thing. I cannot say the same for Arbery.
     
  18. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes but they didn’t consider it to be improper, you can disagree with them and so do I but that doesn’t carry to corruption or any form of cover up. The facts of this case are actually undisputed, it’s the interpretation. Even IA cops still go to the same academy as everyone else, serve on the street as rookies and it would be inconceivable for prosecutors to never have any contact with officers involved, even in huge departments like the NYPD. Like the wholly impartial judge or juror they do not actually exist, unless we establish a bunker somewhere and fill it with such people.

    I agree, nothing will happen to the prosecutors as it rarely does unless matters are truly egregious such as in the Duke Lacrosse case, as Mark Godsey points out.

    As for the case they still left him an avenue of retreat to the scene. We’ll see about the damage to the vehicle, if they struck him or he lashed out at it?

    Now you see here I’m REALLY, REALLY tempted here to say something like “You really need to read up on the OJ case so to stop humiliating yourself with your ignorance” but I’ll restrain myself, you stop sniping and me and I’ll return the favour. There was no contamination of the scene, the defence tried to imply this but even they gave up given the huge mountain of forensic evidence against OJ they had to fall back on accusing the police of planting evidence, even though this would be next to impossible. Would never have worked except they got a recording of detective Mark Furman using the N word 40 times after denying he was a racist on the stand. You should read Marcia Clark’s book on the subject.

    Then again, might not have made any difference, reputedly 87% of white people thought OJ guilty but only 27% of blacks, the verdict was seen as payback for Rodney King and influenced by the desire to avoid more riots (as indeed this case may be?). One of the jurors actually gave OJ the black power salute upon acquittal as he was a former Black Panther, so much for Voir Dire (puts Roger Stone into perspective, huh?).
     
  19. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, Stacey Koon was the Sergeant who was in charge of the arrest of Rodney King, Elizabeth Loftus is an academic who has written extensively on memory and eyewitness testimony. I’m not exactly sure how you can get the 2 confused?

    Didn’t google anything, ‘man’, sublimely erudite, ‘dude’. Now at this point I could say something such as “Please think harder” but again, why don’t you stop sniping and I’ll return the favour?

    We both know court is a beauty contest, defence and prosecution will through inference and phrasing try to influence the jury and win them over to their viewpoint. I once arrested a man who’d stabbed a graffiti artist in the head, recovered the weapon, blood stained clothing, loads of witnesses and he even confessed. But was found innocent at court because the jury took a dislike to the victim who abused the defendant from the stand.

    As for a mistrial, that might actually work in the McMichael’s favour. Traditionally prosecutors are reluctant to give things a second attempt and often drop proceedings against all but those with the strongest case against them or reduce to a lesser charge (McMartin would be the classic example). Also the longer the wait the more tempers will cool.
     
  20. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    12,583
    Likes Received:
    3,156
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It doesn't matter if THEY consider it improper dude, its literally the example given for the rule and if they have their license to practice law then they had to also get an ethics certification prior to that which tests this very subject for this very reason.
    Stop, seriously its like beating on a child: Its not like I'm going to allow you to hit me but I feel real bad for having to keep knocking you down.
    IA cops: Cops are, again, not held to the same ethical duty as lawyers, and particularly prosecutors, are. Specious example is specious. Lawyers and especially prosecutors are taught both in school and on the job to avoid this sort of thing for this very reason: If it was an open and shut case then handing it to a neutral prosecutor wouldn't have mattered, and no one demanding their professional head on a platter would have any legs to stand on. As it is those that want to throw stones now look like ****ing centipedes.

    Stand your ground laws: He does not HAVE to retreat before self defense (leaving aside that he had already retreated multiple times) and having an avenue of retreat does not negate the crimes. As to the car: No, the cause of the damage is already established see the preliminary hearing. I've told you this more than once. Were you a lawyer or a cop I'd be brow beating you for daring to try the ostrich defense. But since you're just gecko45 I'll simply point out that you've been told this already.

    The blood sample found at the scene had preservative in it, of the exact same kind used on the blood sample OJ gave to rule himself out. Human bodies don't have that occurring in them naturally, nor will it find its way into a blood sample in situ unless that situ happens to be a forensics lab and they just happen to have spilled blood preservative compound into the scene.
    Certainly the nicole simpson scene is not such a place one finds blood preservative laying about on the ground to mix with droplets of blood. And yes Furman lying on the stand about things he had said on tape also went to destroy his credibility.
    Tainted evidence and a lead detective dropping the N bomb on tape after he just sat there and lied about it to the jury. O yeah I can't IMAGINE why OJ walked. Spare us all this happy horseshit. You want to snipe? Take a shot, don't worry I won't hold my breath! Marcia Clarke, she of the should've known these things and done something about them ahead of time legal team for the state? Pass, don't think I'll be putting any royalty dollars in her pocket.

    Don't try to change the subject to Stone who is an odious toad.
     
  21. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    12,583
    Likes Received:
    3,156
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll pass on reading the Rodney King story from the poor police sergeant's perspective thanks. Odd how Loftus' work doesn't change 1) the rules of evidence or 2) how I've observed juries to act in actual courtrooms and parleyed that into lining my pocket with filthy filthy money by making informed choices based upon that observation. Feel free to cite anything from her you actually think applies, but I'm not going to sit here and read iirc 4 separate books now, just because you can't understand the Arbery case.

    As stated: Give it a shot, no one is worried about your response.

    As to ringing the bell intentionally to cause a mistrial: The McMichaels do not have enough money to tempt a lawyer into risking disbarment, sanctions, or even a shitty reputation at Bar, on their behalf. ****ing OJ didn't have that much money.
    I know that scene from A Time to Kill gives you goosebumps but you have to understand that the entirety of both the novel and screenplay are fiction not intended to do more than put on a theatric production about the concepts involved. Its not how real law works.
     
  22. superbadbrutha

    superbadbrutha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    51,799
    Likes Received:
    6,305
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The only dispute is you trying to defend 3 racist killers.

    Yea because calling a man you just murdered a f......ing Nword is not racist.

    Really, please post where Greg had seen Arbery before.

    Irrelevant what they suspected.

    Yep and you would be sitting in jail facing the same charges these 3 racist cowards are.
     
  23. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't beat on children and I hope you don't either! If we follow your logic, no prosecutor can hear any case in their own jurisdiction featuring any current or former police officer whom they had any conduct with?
    There's not retreating and there's punching Travis in the face and trying to snatch his shotgun off him. We'll see on the damage to the car, remember, in the preliminary hearing we only heard the prosecution's side. What the blazes is a Gecko45? And 'throwing stones at centipedes'?
    True (and in fairness this was the early days of DNA evidence) but overwhelmingly the prosecution was able to discredit the defence's attempts to poke holes in their evidence as Judge Ito commented. Furman killed the case, it have the jury a way out.
    Your opinion of Stone is a political one, my point was the weakness of voir dire in practical life and the weakness of going after prosecution misconduct.
     
  24. Bill Murdock

    Bill Murdock Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Turns out he was a robber. Good shoot.
     
  25. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oooooh? Don't want to hear the other side? Think about that for a moment? Same with Marcia Clark, what animus do you have against her? You should really read more, you can never too informed about your subject. Loftus' work doesn't change the rules of evidence but it does explain the fallibility of initial eyewitness testimony, especially when taken from people who are still in shock after suffering a traumatic event (or being repeatedly punched in the head as Travis was). According mistaken eyewitness identification is responsible for up to 70% of false convictions.

    I find your remarks disturbing, so the McMichaels will be found guilty because they don't have the money for their defence? Well we all know that has some truth to it although I wonder if they will be able to raise money from sympathetic donors? Never watched A Time to Kill, I think 'The Client' is the only John Grisham I've ever seen.
     

Share This Page