Ahmaud Arbery trial- verdict in

[Scarlett]

All 3 guilty of murder

[WildflowerMom]

Praise Jesus. 

[hshibley]

Now the feds need to investigate the police dept and local prosecutors as to why charges were not brought against the murders until 74 days after the murder. If the family did not hire a lawyer who was able to get a copy of the video of the murder to the press we would not be seeing justice today. 

[HS Mom in NC]

Thank God!

[Ottakee]

Sounds like a correct verdict.

[Ali in OR]

Relief.

[SoCal_Bear]

Today I felt some hope again in my fellow man and in my country. 

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

I hope they go to prison for life.  Also watched a lot of this trial and think this is 100% the correct verdict.

 

[Scarlett]

And what in the actual heck was that comment the DEFENSE made about Ahmaud's long dirty toenails?  I could not even believe that.  Was she implying he was not really a runner? I mean....he was wearing shoes  so they didn't know that except from after he died....weird. Dehumanizing......I think.

 

EDITED TO CHANGE THE WORD TO DEFENSE

Edited November 24, 2021 by Scarlett

[MooCow]

Revolting I think 

[Catwoman]

I was glued to the TV when I heard the jury had reached a verdict. I am so relieved!

[MercyA]

28 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

And what in the actual heck was that comment the prosecutor made about Ahmaud's long dirty toenails?  I could not even believe that.  Was she implying he was not really a runner? I mean....he was wearing shoes  so they didn't know that except from after he died....weird. Dehumanizing......I think.

His mother had to leave the courtroom when she made that remark. 😞 

I think she was implying that because he was wearing khaki shorts and no socks, he wasn't really out for a run. And of course she was implying way, way more than that. Horrifying and outrageous. 

[Caroline]

33 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

And what in the actual heck was that comment the prosecutor made about Ahmaud's long dirty toenails?  I could not even believe that.  Was she implying he was not really a runner? I mean....he was wearing shoes  so they didn't know that except from after he died....weird. Dehumanizing......I think.

Are we sure that wasn’t the defense attorney who made that remark? 

[MercyA]

4 minutes ago, Caroline said:

Are we sure that wasn’t the defense attorney who made that remark? 

Yes, you are right. https://www.wjcl.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-long-dirty-toenails/38330260#

[TravelingChris]

2 hours ago, hshibley said:

Now the feds need to investigate the police dept and local prosecutors as to why charges were not brought against the murders until 74 days after the murder. If the family did not hire a lawyer who was able to get a copy of the video of the murder to the press we would not be seeing justice today. 

Yes they certainly need to do that.

[TravelingChris]

11 minutes ago, MercyA said:

His mother had to leave the courtroom when she made that remark. 😞 

I think she was implying that because he was wearing khaki shorts and no socks, he wasn't really out for a run. And of course she was implying way, way more than that. Horrifying and outrageous. 

That is so stupid of a defense argument.

[Idalou]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

And what in the actual heck was that comment the prosecutor made about Ahmaud's long dirty toenails?  I could not even believe that.  Was she implying he was not really a runner? I mean....he was wearing shoes  so they didn't know that except from after he died....weird. Dehumanizing......I think.

  He was wearing khaki shorts, a white T, and running shoes. He was not barefoot, so she is making a comment about a dead man's feet, perhaps after the gunshot blew a hole through him and he was knocked out of his shoes. She is trying to present an image of him the same way people describe young black boys that are murdered as men, the way black men who are murdered are described as being hulking, large, etc. It is certainly to dehumanize them.

When this happened there were extreme right wing fanatics and neo Nazi types that spread rumors he was wearing 'khaki shorts and boots'. Even the popular conservative commentator, Candace Owens, tweeted multiple times, with one on May 9 to "stop with the just a jogger bulls*** narrative because avid joggers don't wear khaki shorts and stop to break into homes". We can all guess the other media who joined in.

Edited November 24, 2021 by Idalou

[hshibley]

There was so much race baiting on the part of the various defense attorneys it was shocking. Dirty long toe nails, trapped like a rat - a way to dehumanize him remind us he was a black man less than human. Too many black pastors in the court room to complaining about armed black men intimidating the jury by marching outside the building - remember black people are dangerous. All this said by defense attorneys not in the 1950’s but today 2021 America. 

[hshibley]

1 minute ago, Idalou said:

  He was wearing khaki shorts, a white T, and running shoes. He was not barefoot, so she is making a comment about a dead man's feet. She is trying to present an image of him the same way people describe young black boys that are murdered as men, the way back men who are murdered are described as being hulking, large, etc. It is certainly to dehumanize them.

When this happened there were extreme right wing fanatics and neo Nazi types that spread rumors he was wearing 'khaki shorts and boots'. Even the popular conservative commentator, Candace Owens, tweeted multiple times, with one on May 9 to "stop with the just a jogger bulls*** narrative because avid joggers don't wear khaki shorts and stop to break into homes". We can all guess the other media who joined in.

Plus the argument that he didn’t belong in that neighborhood. It was all of 1.8 miles from his home. I jog through neighborhoods other than my own all the time. 
 

I train with a running group twice a week. A couple of months back we were doing running drill around a track at 5:30 am and then for variation we we’re going to run through a well lit area of a neighborhood. There’s 1 African American in our group of about 35. He was the only one who did not feel safe running through the neighborhood and said so. It’s naive to think that he was unjustified. 

[Carol in Cal.]

Justice has been served.

[lauraw4321]

I know the attorney who said this. She has a long history of providing excellent defense and protecting people’s rights. Even racist jerks are entitled to a defense. Whether that comment was a good defense, we can debate. But running without socks is unusual. 
 

That said, I’m so relieved and grateful that the verdict came back guilty for all 3. 

[TechWife]

The comment the defense attorney made at closing was one of many racist comments made by defense attorneys during the trial. They weren’t even dog whistles.

[hshibley]

19 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

I know the attorney who said this. She has a long history of providing excellent defense and protecting people’s rights. Even racist jerks are entitled to a defense. Whether that comment was a good defense, we can debate. But running without socks is unusual. 
 

That said, I’m so relieved and grateful that the verdict came back guilty for all 3. 

If that’s what she wanted to imply then she would have mentioned the socks and left it at that not go on to mention the dirty long toe nails. 

[WildflowerMom]

The defense attorneys were so racist that at one point, dh and I said, ‘do you think they’re doing that on purpose, that even they want them imprisoned??’  I mean, it was so gross and so ugly.   And I know no one irl who thought it was justified, so I really think the defense came in with this idea that it would be a slam dunk.  We’re in the south, white guy screams, ‘I was defending myself!’ and surely the jury would agree.  I think they underestimated people.    

re Owens:  i had a cousin who posted something on FB from that Owens lady and i just unfriended her.   I don’t need people like that in my life. 

[katilac]

29 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

I know the attorney who said this. She has a long history of providing excellent defense and protecting people’s rights. Even racist jerks are entitled to a defense. Whether that comment was a good defense, we can debate. But running without socks is unusual. 
 

That said, I’m so relieved and grateful that the verdict came back guilty for all 3. 

What does wearing socks or not have to do with his toenails? If you're going to defend her, defend the part that was actually offensive. 

Edited November 24, 2021 by katilac

[TechWife]

13 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

I know the attorney who said this. She has a long history of providing excellent defense and protecting people’s rights. Even racist jerks are entitled to a defense. Whether that comment was a good defense, we can debate. But running without socks is unusual. 
 

That said, I’m so relieved and grateful that the verdict came back guilty for all 3. 

I’m glad to hear he had an excellent attorney. It increases the likelihood of a fair trial.

Whether or not the victim had socks on is irrelevant to the case because it isn’t crime and proves nothing. Just like a woman’s attire doesn’t justify rape,  footwear, or lack thereof, doesn’t justify murder.  For that reason, it’s a bad defense.   What’s problematic is that she willingly  picked a line out of an autopsy report and used it as a racial stereotype, not as a defense, but in order to appeal to any racists that were on the jury. I would have a hard time believing an attorney in south Georgia wouldn’t be aware of the stereotype & I would have a hard time believing that an attorney who did so is overall an ethical attorney. Of course, that my opinion and carries only that much weight with it. 

[TechWife]

4 minutes ago, WildflowerMom said:

The defense attorneys were so racist that at one point, dh and I said, ‘do you think they’re doing that on purpose, that even they want them imprisoned??’  I mean, it was so gross and so ugly.   And I know no one irl who thought it was justified, so I really think the defense came in with this idea that it would be a slam dunk.  We’re in the south, white guy screams, ‘I was defending myself!’ and surely the jury would agree.  I think they underestimated people.    

re Owens:  i had a cousin who posted something on FB from that Owens lady and i just unfriended her.   I don’t need people like that in my life. 

I sure hope it wasn’t on purpose because I think that would be grounds for a new trial due to inadequate representation. 

[katilac]

I don't run or jog myself, but I didn't think it was terribly unusual to do so without socks, so I googled it. I got a bunch of hits on the pros and cons of running without socks, why some people like to run without socks, and so on. It's clearly not that unusual. 

I 100% don't get the khaki shorts remark. There are many and plenty of people running around here in khaki shorts. Being out for a run does not have to equal final preparations for a marathon. 

[WildflowerMom]

2 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I sure hope it wasn’t on purpose because I think that would be grounds for a new trial due to inadequate representation. 

I hope not either, but it was so outrageous, we just couldn’t wrap our minds around it.   

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, Caroline said:

Are we sure that wasn’t the defense attorney who made that remark? 

Oh yes sorry, I had a blonde moment.  🙄

[Roadrunner]

34 minutes ago, TechWife said:

The comment the defense attorney made at closing was one of many racist comments made by defense attorneys during the trial. They weren’t even dog whistles.

This is rural Georgia, right? I am so not surprised sadly. I remember 20 years or so when we would drive through parts of GA on the way to FL spring break, some of us with not so white skin or foreign accents were basically being told to sit in the car by our friends and not get out to avoid problems. 
 

Glad justice was served today. 

[Idalou]

2 hours ago, lauraw4321 said:

I know the attorney who said this. She has a long history of providing excellent defense and protecting people’s rights. Even racist jerks are entitled to a defense. Whether that comment was a good defense, we can debate. But running without socks is unusual. 
 

That said, I’m so relieved and grateful that the verdict came back guilty for all 3. 

 I never, ever wear socks with sneakers. Never have. I walk several miles per day, sockless, but do not run. My toenails are not dirty, nor do my sockless feet in those sneakers make my nails  dirty or long.

Closing arguments are done to leave the jury with one last image in their heads before deliberation. This defense decided to put the image of a dirty black man in their heads in the hope of triggering some stereotype. 

Yes, jerks are entitled to a defense. Painting a dead man as one with long dirty toenails does absolutely nothing as a way of claiming they're right to kill him in self defense. 

Edited November 25, 2021 by Idalou

[BlsdMama]

5 hours ago, hshibley said:

Now the feds need to investigate the police dept and local prosecutors as to why charges were not brought against the murders until 74 days after the murder. If the family did not hire a lawyer who was able to get a copy of the video of the murder to the press we would not be seeing justice today. 

Exactly!

[lauraw4321]

2 hours ago, WildflowerMom said:

The defense attorneys were so racist that at one point, dh and I said, ‘do you think they’re doing that on purpose, that even they want them imprisoned??’  I mean, it was so gross and so ugly.   And I know no one irl who thought it was justified, so I really think the defense came in with this idea that it would be a slam dunk.  We’re in the south, white guy screams, ‘I was defending myself!’ and surely the jury would agree.  I think they underestimated people.    

re Owens:  i had a cousin who posted something on FB from that Owens lady and i just unfriended her.   I don’t need people like that in my life. 

Believe me, the defense never thought it was a slam dunk. The only defense they could offer is that it was a citizens arrest gone awry. There’s no other defense. They are good advocates. 

[hshibley]

9 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

Believe me, the defense never thought it was a slam dunk. The only defense they could offer is that it was a citizens arrest gone awry. There’s no other defense. They are good advocates. 

None of that excuses the racism. They are not good advocates. They tried to appeal to the base instincts of a nearly all white jury in Georgia and failed. The fact that it failed is something we can all take solace in. 

[lauraw4321]

2 hours ago, katilac said:

What does wearing socks or not have to do with his toenails? If you're going to defend her, defend the part that was actually offensive. 

A good defense attorney will use any and every tool available to reduce sympathy for the victim and undermine the prosecution’s version of events. 
 

imagine you were these defendants’ attorneys. What kind of defense would you raise?

[lauraw4321]

1 minute ago, hshibley said:

None of that excuses the racism. They are not good advocates. They tried to appeal to the base instincts of a nearly all white jury in Georgia and failed. The fact that it failed is something we can all take solace in. 

How would you defend these defendants?

[lauraw4321]

2 hours ago, TechWife said:

I’m glad to hear he had an excellent attorney. It increases the likelihood of a fair trial.

Whether or not the victim had socks on is irrelevant to the case because it isn’t crime and proves nothing. Just like a woman’s attire doesn’t justify rape,  footwear, or lack thereof, doesn’t justify murder.  For that reason, it’s a bad defense.   What’s problematic is that she willingly  picked a line out of an autopsy report and used it as a racial stereotype, not as a defense, but in order to appeal to any racists that were on the jury. I would have a hard time believing an attorney in south Georgia wouldn’t be aware of the stereotype & I would have a hard time believing that an attorney who did so is overall an ethical attorney. Of course, that my opinion and carries only that much weight with it. 

I have no reason to think she is anything other than ethical. It would be unethical to not use every lawful tool available. 

[TechWife]

7 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

I have no reason to think she is anything other than ethical. It would be unethical to not use every lawful tool available. 

I disagree with that. Not everything that is legal is ethical. People aren’t required to do everything that is legal. Even lawyers get to make choices. When she was engaging in this rhetoric, she wasn’t defending her client. She was attempting to slander the victim using racial stereotypes. 

[hshibley]

11 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

How would you defend these defendants?

I would not drag out the racist tropes. That is immoral. If she can’t muster a defense without being immoral then she’s not a talented enough lawyer to be the defense attorney. 

[Sneezyone]

9 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

I have no reason to think she is anything other than ethical. It would be unethical to not use every lawful tool available. 

My *personal* ethics would not allow me to impugn the character of a dead man based on immutable characteristics unrelated to the crime. *They* did that, not just her. I’d argue the hell out of their defense…

-They saw him running from the scene of known crimes.

- They believed they recognized him from the description of other residents.

I would not sell my soul for a buck. I watched a lot of the trial. Did she highlight his dirty toenails (dried blood?)  in the autopsy photos? No.

[TechWife]

26 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

A good defense attorney will use any and every tool available to reduce sympathy for the victim and undermine the prosecution’s version of events. 
 

imagine you were these defendants’ attorneys. What kind of defense would you raise?

 

25 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

How would you defend these defendants?

I’m pretty sure that, if I were actually an attorney that had months to prepare for a trial, I could do it without making racist  comments and without encouraging the jury to take a racist perspective. 

Edited November 25, 2021 by TechWife

[lauraw4321]

18 minutes ago, hshibley said:

I would not drag out the racist tropes. That is immoral. If she can’t muster a defense without being immoral then she’s not a talented enough lawyer to be the defense attorney. 

You didn’t answer the question. You are the defense counsel. What’s your defense to this crime?

[lauraw4321]

22 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I disagree with that. Not everything that is legal is ethical. People aren’t required to do everything that is legal. Even lawyers get to make choices. When she was engaging in this rhetoric, she wasn’t defending her client. She was attempting to slander the victim using racial stereotypes. 

Legal ethics and personal ethics are very different things. 

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

Legal ethics and personal ethics are very different things. 

Sometimes but not necessarily. Where this stuff is concerned, they are not in conflict. It’s no different from commenting on the length of a rape victims’ skirt or the slant of her eyes. A vigorous and competent defense does not require that.

Edited November 25, 2021 by Sneezyone

[lauraw4321]

I’m a white southern woman. I’ve heard a LOT of racism and dog whistles in my time. I’ve never heard any stereotype that POC have dirty toenails. Can anyone point me to a source that dirty toenails is a racist slur?

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

I’m a white southern woman. I’ve heard a LOT of racism and dog whistles in my time. I’ve never heard any stereotype that POC have dirty toenails. Can anyone point me to a source that dirty toenails is a racist slur?

It’s no different than comparing him to a filthy beast who lacks the common sense and decency to wear socks with shoes. Plausible deniability does not render something ethical. It was tacky and gross. Personally, I think the blatant nature of the appeals backfired. They’d have been better off with much more subtle appeals.

Edited November 25, 2021 by Sneezyone

[lauraw4321]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

Sometimes but not necessarily. Where this stuff is concerned, they are not in conflict. It’s no different from commenting on the length of a rape victims’ skirt or the slant of her eyes.

Actually, it’s not. Until the law was changed in states to prevent the introduction of that kind of testimony, any good defense attorney would argue that the victim’s dress, attitude, etc was relevant if the defense to rape was that it was consensual. If you don’t want to make that argument, then you shouldn’t be a defense attorney. The law had to change to prevent that kind of testimony before a lawyer could ethically avoid presenting it. Whether a victim gave indications they consented through unspoken actions is relevant to a defense based on consent. Gross? Yes. Personally abhorrent? Yes. A zealous defense? Definitely. 

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

Actually, it’s not. Until the law was changed in states to prevent the introduction of that kind of testimony, any good defense attorney would argue that the victim’s dress, attitude, etc was relevant if the defense to rape was that it was consensual. If you don’t want to make that argument, then you shouldn’t be a defense attorney. The law had to change to prevent that kind of testimony before a lawyer could ethically avoid presenting it. Whether a victim gave indications they consented through unspoken actions is relevant to a defense based on consent. Gross? Yes. Personally abhorrent? Yes. A zealous defense? Definitely. 

But the laws *HAVE* changed. These attorneys have not. Further, dirty toenails are no indication of criminality, aggression, or seeking confrontation.

Edited November 25, 2021 by Sneezyone

[lauraw4321]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

But the laws *HAVE* changed. These attorneys have not.

 The closing argument broke zero laws. None.