Father and son charged in Ahmaud Arbery’s murder.

GDaddy

Duke status
Jan 17, 2006
29,239
2,048
113
Carlsbad
3 white racists convicted. Bad news for some of the equivalent to pieces of human sh!t who post on this board. You know who you are. You literally are walking turds.
Your objection seems to be rooting in what I refer to as the Swedish Argument, which basically amounts to the idea that even considering various possiblitites or asking the question can be considered proof of an immoral motivation.

And yet IRL (and on the factual basis) some of these not-readily-apparent factors actually does come into play.
 

GromsDad

Duke status
Jan 21, 2014
41,853
7,728
113
West of the Atlantic. East of the ICW.
I didn't follow the trial on this one. Trying to understand how all three were convicted of basically the same charges when only one person shot the deceased. Like I said, didn't follow the trial on this one. Just seems excessive for the two who did not shoot the deceased.
 

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
76,079
9,065
113
Your objection seems to be rooting in what I refer to as the Swedish Argument, which basically amounts to the idea that even considering various possiblitites or asking the question can be considered proof of an immoral motivation.

And yet IRL (and on the factual basis) some of these not-readily-apparent factors actually does come into play.
There are only two sides GDaddy. Left and evil
 

GDaddy

Duke status
Jan 17, 2006
29,239
2,048
113
Carlsbad
"You're evil for just asking the question. It is clearly more virtuous to not consider these other possibilities, even though we know for a fact they sometimes come into play"
 
  • Love
Reactions: Ifallalot

hal9000

Duke status
Jan 30, 2016
43,245
9,118
113
Urbana, Illinois
I didn't follow the trial on this one. Trying to understand how all three were convicted of basically the same charges when only one person shot the deceased. Like I said, didn't follow the trial on this one. Just seems excessive for the two who did not shoot the deceased.
this is a new dimension for the character
 

GDaddy

Duke status
Jan 17, 2006
29,239
2,048
113
Carlsbad
The jury in this case returned their verdict very quickly. The state obviously made it's case to them. AND, nobody can claim that the jury was racially stacked against the accused.
 

plasticbertrand

Tom Curren status
Jan 12, 2009
12,631
7,501
113
Citation needed. Be specific.

Go back and read what I posted at the outset of this case. I qualified my opinions every step of the way due to the lack of facts being reported about certain elements. A lot of "ifs".

"This is what could possibly have occurred at the scent or what can happen at trial" isn't an example of bending over backwards to defend the actions of the accused.
LoooooooooL

It's just so happens that all your "ifs" sided with the murderers.

All your "ifs" were judging the black man and him acting suspicious somehow, without any evidence.

It started with "you don't run here if you don't live here" and it only went worse from there.

You were not even attempting to hide what a racist POS you are.

Now you want citations like it's a matter of discussion. :roflmao:
 

plasticbertrand

Tom Curren status
Jan 12, 2009
12,631
7,501
113
Two prominent examples, less than a week apart, showing that the US criminal justice systems works.
Yes, one case showed us that you can start the fight, kill someone in "self-defense" and get away with it.

The other one showed us that you can start the fight, kill someone in "self-defense" and not get away with it.

The justice system works perfectly.

Just ask the Zimerman guy.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: grapedrink

GDaddy

Duke status
Jan 17, 2006
29,239
2,048
113
Carlsbad
LoooooooooL

It's just so happens that all your "ifs" sided with the murderers.

All your "ifs" were judging the black man and him acting suspicious somehow, without any evidence.

It started with "you don't run here if you don't live here" and it only went worse from there.

You were not even attempting to hide what a racist POS you are.

Now you want citations like it's a matter of discussion. :roflmao:

Swedish Argument.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: plasticbertrand

hammies

Rabbitt Bartholomew status
Apr 8, 2006
8,180
4,821
113
I didn't follow the trial on this one. Trying to understand how all three were convicted of basically the same charges when only one person shot the deceased. Like I said, didn't follow the trial on this one. Just seems excessive for the two who did not shoot the deceased.
It's kind of like in a gangster drive-by: everybody in the car is guilty of killing, not just the shooter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GDaddy and hal9000

grapedrink

Duke status
May 21, 2011
18,740
8,247
113
A Beach
Yes, one case showed us that you can start the fight, kill someone in "self-defense" and get away with it.

The other one showed us that you can start the fight, kill someone in "self-defense" and not get away with it.

The justice system works perfectly.

Just ask the Zimerman guy.
The justice system requires sufficient evidence of guilt. Which they had in the case of AA, hence the guilty verdict. Conversely, the evidence worked in favor of KR, therefore a not guilty verdict.

So yes, it shows that the system works exactly as it was designed- to force the state to make a strong enough case to remove all doubt, not the other way around.
 

plasticbertrand

Tom Curren status
Jan 12, 2009
12,631
7,501
113
The justice system requires sufficient evidence of guilt. Which they had in the case of AA, hence the guilty verdict. Conversely, the evidence worked in favor of KR, therefore a not guilty verdict.

So yes, it shows that the system works exactly as it was designed- to force the state to make a strong enough case to remove all doubt, not the other way around.
Yeah, the justice system where you pursue someone with a gun, start the fight and kill them in “self-defense”, works perfectly.
 

plasticbertrand

Tom Curren status
Jan 12, 2009
12,631
7,501
113
Where’s your proof that KR started the fight?

KR didn’t single his “victims” out from the crowd, they chose him.
The proof is that he fucking went to a volatile protest whose protagonists he hated, with a semi-automatic rifle, to shoot people over broken windows on a used car dealership lot.

Just like Zimmerman pursued Martin and initiated conflict.

Just like these three kooks pursued Arbery and initiated conflict.

Gunturds playing cops and killing people in “self-defense”.

You are a dishonest little weasel who likes to quote law only when it suits his argument while ignroing everything else.