Judge Finds '"Intentional Discrimination" in Arbery Jury Selection But Allows Trial to Move Forward

[my_2cents]

The jury has been selected for the Ahmaud Arbery case and there is only one black person on the jury. The defense struck jurors that were non-white numerous times.

Also, the defense attorneys complained there were not enough "Bubba men" on the jury:

"It would appear that White males born in the South, over 40 years of age, without four-year college degrees, sometimes euphemistically known as 'Bubba' or 'Joe Six Pack,' seem to be significantly underrepresented. Without meaning to be stereotypical in any way, I do think there is a real question in this case whether that demographic is underrepresented in this jury pool. And if it is, then we have a problem with that."

Arbery Jury

 

[HighStickHarry]

Can you go through and give us the defense attorney’s reasons for dismissing any of the potential jurors and point us in the direction of racism for the poc? The reasons that the same judge said met the burden of race neutral arguments?

 

[my_2cents]

point us in the direction of racism for the poc?

Did "I" ever claim there was racism involved? I simply shared an article and quoted what the Judge and defense attorneys said.

I don't know if racism was involved in striking the jurors. I didn't observe jury selection.

 

[Alpha Woke]

Is this the good kind of propaganda?

 

[my_2cents]

Is this the good kind of propaganda?

What makes this propaganda?

 

[Alpha Woke]

What makes this propaganda?

It being propaganda.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

WTF is the point of this thread?

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Bumped to let the OP know how FOS he is.

 

[squeak]

I think OP just ate a dick on this one.

 

[2012Bearcat]

I think OP just ate a dick on this one.

It's like leftist live in some kind of alternative realty. Every time they spout off their BS it comes back to bite them in the ass.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

It's like leftist live in some kind of alternative realty. Every time they spout off their BS it comes back to bite them in the ass.

.....or feed them a dick. 😂😂😂

 

[my_2cents]

Bumped to let the OP know how FOS he is.

lol, I simply shared an article and what the article was reporting. I made no comments about the article. You guys are the ones that jumped to your typical conclusions.

It is great though to see at least one recent jury get their verdict right. It was unfortunate though that it took such mobilization from civil rights groups to get these three racists to even face prosecution.

Still, no guilty verdict can bring back the innocent life that was lost. Out for a jog and hunted down. Just a horrible tragedy that could have easily been prevented.

 

[2012Bearcat]

lol, I simply shared an article and what the article was reporting. I made no comments about the article. You guys are the ones that jumped to your typical conclusions.

It is great though to see at least one recent jury get their verdict right. It was unfortunate though that it took such mobilization from civil rights groups to get these three racists to even face prosecution.

Still, no guilty verdict can bring back the innocent life that was lost. Out for a jog and hunted down. Just a horrible tragedy that could have easily been prevented.

You trying to feign innocence after posting a race baiting article is pathetic. You had a reason for posting the article and it backfired spectacularly in your face. This is what happens when you view everything through the racial lens.
Yes, the jury looks to have made the right decision in the Arbery case, just as it looks another jury made the right decision in the Rittenhouse case, just as another jury found Andrew Coffee innocent based on self-defense. By the way Coffee is a black man and was shooting police. Strangely enough Coffee's verdict was decided and announced on the same day as the Rittenhouse case, funny how very few people know about it. Can't say I blame the MSM for not covering the story, wouldn't want rubes like you seeing how you are being manipulated.

 

[my_2cents]

You trying to feign innocence after posting a race baiting article is pathetic. You had a reason for posting the article and it backfired spectacularly in your face. This is what happens when you view everything through the racial lens.

And like I said, you guys jumped to your typical conclusions.

You can't help it. It is who you are.

Yes, the jury looks to have made the right decision in the Arbery case, just as it looks another jury made the right decision in the Rittenhouse case

I agree about the Arbery case. The Rittenhouse verdict was a travesty and a disgrace. A black mark on our judicial system.

btw, I know your opinion and thoughts on the Rittenhouse case. I know he is your new hero and is being lionized by the right for killing two people and injuring a third. I really don't need to read your recitation of the propaganda you have been fed regarding Rittenhouse. Save it for your allies in hate and ignorance.

 

[2012Bearcat]

And like I said, you guys jumped to your typical conclusions.

You can't help it. It is who you are.


I agree about the Arbery case. The Rittenhouse verdict was a travesty and a disgrace. A black mark on our judicial system.

btw, I know your opinion and thoughts on the Rittenhouse case. I know he is your new hero and is being lionized by the right for killing two people and injuring a third. I really don't need to read your recitation of the propaganda you have been fed regarding Rittenhouse. Save it for your allies in hate and ignorance.

Since when is video evidence propaganda? Oh, that's right when it blows your leftist viewpoint right out of the water.

 

[my_2cents]

Since when is video evidence propaganda? Oh, that's right when it blows your leftist viewpoint right out of the water.

My view of the Rittenhouse matter and verdict has nothing to do with the left or right. I could less what his politics are or what the politics of his victims were.

 

[launch]

😅 🤣 😅😂🤣😂😅😂😅😂🤣

 

[2012Bearcat]

My view of the Rittenhouse matter and verdict has nothing to do with the left or right. I could less what his politics are or what the politics of his victims were.

Spoken like a true and faithful cult member.

Just out of curiosity how would you have expected that situation to have worked out? It's not illegal for the kid to have the gun and Rittenhouse had just as much right to be there as the protestors.

I carry a firearm in my truck and I can tell you if some idiot tries to come after me or my family, I'm going to shoot them dead whether they are armed or not. I have every right to defend myself with lethal force against anyone attacking me. Moral of the story don't attack other people and you don't have the chance of the person being attacked shooting you.

 

[my_2cents]

Just out of curiosity how would you have expected that situation to have worked out?

No one is dead or injured if Rittenhouse doesn't show up to a volatile situation (a place he had no business being) with a gun ready to play war games.

If he had kept his butt at home like community leaders had requested instead of trying to be a vigilante, no one would be dead or injured today.

I carry a firearm in my truck and I can tell you if some idiot tries to come after me or my family, I'm going to shoot them dead whether they are armed or not. I have every right to defend myself with lethal force against anyone attacking me.

This is nothing like what occurred in the Rittenhouse matter.

Again though, I know your position on this and I also know you aren't going to change your mind. This was all about scoring a political win for your side and pushing a right-wing narrative. I'm also not going to change my view on this either. No point in wasting out time going around and around in circles on this.

 

[2012Bearcat]

No one is dead or injured if Rittenhouse doesn't show up to a volatile situation (a place he had no business being) with a gun ready to play war games.

If he had kept his butt at home like community leaders had requested instead of trying to be a vigilante, no one would be dead or injured today.


This is nothing like what occurred in the Rittenhouse matter.

Again though, I know your position on this and I also know you aren't going to change your mind. This was all about scoring a political win for your side and pushing a right-wing narrative. I'm also not going to change my view on this either. No point in wasting out time going around and around in circles on this.

Now let's apply your same logic to the protestors. No one is dead or injured if the protestors had not shown up or at least not turned violent and started burning innocent businesses down. I'll even go further, there would have been no need for Rittenhouse or any of the others that were there trying to protect the city from violent protesters if State and City officials had allowed the police to d their job. Those leaders chose to allow the rioters to burn the city down. I was under the impression it was the job of elected officials to protect people from violent crime.

If the protesters had kept their butt at home or had at the bare minimum peacefully protested like city leaders had requested there would have been no need for anyone to protect businesses.

See when you apply your same standard to the protesters your argument falls apart.

While you say that the Rittenhouse case is nothing like what I described the fact of the matter it is exactly what I described. Rittenhouse was attacked by the child diddler, was attacked by the skateboard guy and was a second away from being shot himself by another protester that was in fact illegally carrying a firearm. The videos prove these facts without question.
While I agree Rittenhouse should have chosen to not be there, I also think the protesters should not have been there or at least not been violent. You seem to discount all the wrongs of the protesters but hold Rittenhouse to a higher standard. Not surprising you display your double standard as it seems to be a trait of being a leftist.

 

[my_2cents]

No one is dead or injured if the protestors had not shown up

I agree.

But they didn't kill themselves. Take Rittenhouse out of the equation, and no one is dead or injured.

I'll even go further, there would have been no need for Rittenhouse or any of the others that were there trying to protect the city from violent protesters if State and City officials had allowed the police to d their job.

There was no need for Rittenhouse period. Period.

See when you apply your same standard to the protesters your argument falls apart.

No it doesn't.

While you say that the Rittenhouse case is nothing like what I described the fact of the matter it is exactly what I described. Rittenhouse was attacked by the child diddler, was attacked by the skateboard guy and was a second away from being shot himself by another protester that was in fact illegally carrying a firearm. The videos prove these facts without question.

Cue the victim bashing. Right on schedule with the programming.

Rittenhouse didn't know the history of his victims. Their history is irrelevant to this conversation. It is only relevant for those pushing a political agenda, as you are doing.

You defending yourself in your truck or your home is not the same thing as what happened in the Rittenhouse matter. A foolish kid with a gun inserted himself into a volatile situation he had no business being in. He wasn't just at home or just in his truck.

While I agree Rittenhouse should have chosen to not be there, I also think the protesters should not have been there or at least not been violent. You seem to discount all the wrongs of the protesters but hold Rittenhouse to a higher standard.

This is literally the first time I have commented about the Rittenhouse matter on this board. I haven't discounted anything. You, as you always do, are making assumptions about my position due to politics.

Protestors have a right to protest. They don't have a right to loot and cause violence though. I don't discount those wrongs. However, I don't believe they justify what Rittenhouse did.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

 

[blbronco]

Cue the victim bashing. Right on schedule with the programming.

Rittenhouse didn't know the history of his victims. Their history is irrelevant to this conversation. It is only relevant for those pushing a political agenda, as you are doing.

You defending yourself in your truck or your home is not the same thing as what happened in the Rittenhouse matter. A foolish kid with a gun inserted himself into a volatile situation he had no business being in. He wasn't just at home or just in his truck.

It does provide hindsight that at least two of them were prone to criminal behavior. Rittenhouse is no hero. He is a stupid kid that made several stupid choices that, combined with three other people also behaving stupidly lead to two dearhs and a severe injury. Both of these juries, from what I can see, got it right. That does not always happen, and the original decision by the DA to not prosecute these three in the Arbery case should be looked in to. Justice is not blind, but the recent cases are not good hills to die on.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

 

[my_2cents]

It does provide hindsight that at least two of them were prone to criminal behavior.

Again, Rittenhouse didn't know their history. And even if he did, it wouldn't justify him killing them.

It is completely irrelevant. Nothing but victim bashing by those with a political agenda.

Rittenhouse is no hero.

You can say that again.

Sadly though in he is being lionized by the right. And that will have its consequences.

and the original decision by the DA to not prosecute these three in the Arbery case should be looked in to.

Absolutely.

 

[blbronco]

Again, Rittenhouse didn't know their history. And even if he did, it wouldn't justify him killing them.

It is completely irrelevant. Nothing but victim bashing by those with a political agenda.

He did not need to know. That is irrelevant. Even the videos show the three that were shot as the aggressors. That, alone, justifies him shooting them. Rittenhouse did not fire blindly into a crowd. He shot three people, two of which assaulted him, the third approached him pointing a gun at him. Lots of stupid choices occurred prior to that, but nothing illegal until the three separately went after him. the only one of the three that could even remotely justify his actions was the last one if he truly felt Rittenhouse was an active shooter. In the case of the third, IMO, either could have been justified in shooting.

 

[CowboyJD]

It does provide hindsight that at least two of them were prone to criminal behavior. Rittenhouse is no hero. He is a stupid kid that made several stupid choices that, combined with three other people also behaving stupidly lead to two dearhs and a severe injury. Both of these juries, from what I can see, got it right. That does not always happen, and the original decision by the DA to not prosecute these three in the Arbery case should be looked in to. Justice is not blind, but the recent cases are not good hills to die on.

Former Glynn DA Johnson arrested after indictment linked to Arbery case

The former Glynn County DA turned herself in to authorities Wednesday following her indictment on two charges. Both charges involve her handling of the Ahmaud Arbery shooting, a case that drew national attention because of the racial dynamics. Trial is scheduled next month for three men, who are...

www.ajc.com

 

[blbronco]

Former Glynn DA Johnson arrested after indictment linked to Arbery case

The former Glynn County DA turned herself in to authorities Wednesday following her indictment on two charges. Both charges involve her handling of the Ahmaud Arbery shooting, a case that drew national attention because of the racial dynamics. Trial is scheduled next month for three men, who are...

www.ajc.com

Well I’ll be. Thank you for that link. I am curious to see how this ends up. I am shocked that I had not heard about this, seeing that the story you linked was from September….

 

[my_2cents]

He did not need to know. That is irrelevant. Even the videos show the three that were shot as the aggressors. That, alone, justifies him shooting them.

But this is the self-defense claim. Although I firmly disagree with this claim, it is relevant to the discussion of course.

If one wants to make this claim, so be it. There is just no need to engage in victim bashing by interjecting highly prejeudicial material.

 

[CowboyJD]

Well I’ll be. Thank you for that link. I am curious to see how this ends up. I am shocked that I had not heard about this, seeing that the story you linked was from September….

You are welcome.

 

[2012Bearcat]

I agree.

But they didn't kill themselves. Take Rittenhouse out of the equation, and no one is dead or injured.


There was no need for Rittenhouse period. Period.


No it doesn't.


Cue the victim bashing. Right on schedule with the programming.

Rittenhouse didn't know the history of his victims. Their history is irrelevant to this conversation. It is only relevant for those pushing a political agenda, as you are doing.

You defending yourself in your truck or your home is not the same thing as what happened in the Rittenhouse matter. A foolish kid with a gun inserted himself into a volatile situation he had no business being in. He wasn't just at home or just in his truck.


This is literally the first time I have commented about the Rittenhouse matter on this board. I haven't discounted anything. You, as you always do, are making assumptions about my position due to politics.

Protestors have a right to protest. They don't have a right to loot and cause violence though. I don't discount those wrongs. However, I don't believe they justify what Rittenhouse did.

Once again you excuse the actions of the protester. Protesters don't attack someone they don't get shot. Protesters don't turn violent there is no need for anyone to feel the need to protect the community. Real simple, don't become violent and damn sure don't attack someone and none of this would have taken place. Protesters chose to attack a person with a firearm WTF did they think would happen?

What law says Rittenhouse cannot protect his community from volent protesters? I'm not familiar with that law, surely you can point that out as you feel so strongly about it. I can point to a law that makes it illegal to violently protest and burn down businesses.

Rittenhouse, from everything we know about him was a decent kid with good intentions. He was a life guard in the city that was being burned down. He volunteered to clean up the damage caused by the violent mob the night before the shooting. He volunteered to protect a business when the Governor and Mayor of the city refused to allow the police to do the job they are hired to do. You also have a kid that even in the fog of absolute chaos didn't start firing blindly into a crowd, he rightly fired only on those that were attacking him. Now compare that to the protesters that attacked him. They were all convicted felons with long lists of criminal offenses, one having just been released from a mental institution that day. Whoever did that should be held accountable. While Rittenhouse may not have known their history it's not hard to tell the good people from bad people when they are attacking you.

What justified Rittenhouse shooting those people was the very fact they attacked him. Rittenhouse didn't threaten to kill them, the protesters did. Rittenhouse didn't threaten the protesters, the protesters threatened him. Rittenhouse didn't chase down the protesters, the protesters chased him down. Rittenhouse didn't attack the protesters, the protesters attacked Rittenhouse. Those are the facts but for some reason you keep going back to what would be different if Rittenhouse wasn't there all while discounting the actions of the protesters. Bottom line Rittenhouse was within his god given right to self-defense and the protesters sadly paid for it with their lives and a bicep. While Rittenhouse should not be considered a hero, he damn sure shouldn't be punished for protecting himself from what was surely a life-threatening situation.

 

[2012Bearcat]

He did not need to know. That is irrelevant. Even the videos show the three that were shot as the aggressors. That, alone, justifies him shooting them. Rittenhouse did not fire blindly into a crowd. He shot three people, two of which assaulted him, the third approached him pointing a gun at him. Lots of stupid choices occurred prior to that, but nothing illegal until the three separately went after him. the only one of the three that could even remotely justify his actions was the last one if he truly felt Rittenhouse was an active shooter. In the case of the third, IMO, either could have been justified in shooting.

With the exception the third protester was a convicted felon and was illegally carrying a firearm.

 

[blbronco]

With the exception the third protester was a convicted felon and was illegally carrying a firearm.

True. If he shot Rittenhouse, I would think that part would have been legal (or at least justified), but the possession would have still been a criminal act.

 

[my_2cents]

Protesters don't turn violent there is no need for anyone to feel the need to protect the community..

We have law enforcement for a reason. We don't need vigilantes.

Unless you want to do away with law enforcement and embrace vigilante justice. I don't.

What law says Rittenhouse cannot protect his community from volent protesters?

Rittenhouse is a resident of Antioch, Illinois.

Again, he had no business being where he was and community leaders had expressly asked for people like him not to show up.

Rittenhouse, from everything we know about him was a decent kid with good intentions. He was a life guard in the city that was being burned down. He volunteered to clean up the damage caused by the violent mob the night before the shooting. He volunteered to protect a business when the Governor and Mayor of the city refused to allow the police to do the job they are hired to do. You also have a kid that even in the fog of absolute chaos didn't start firing blindly into a crowd, he rightly fired only on those that were attacking him. Now compare that to the protesters that attacked him. They were all convicted felons with long lists of criminal offenses, one having just been released from a mental institution that day.

None of this justifies his actions that night. It just pushes a political narrative.

Charles Manson played the guitar in church. And that means what?

What justified Rittenhouse shooting those people was the very fact they attacked him.

This is your opinion. And I disagree with it.

I believe Rittenhouse was the initial unjustified aggressor, therefore I don't buy his self defense argument. He had the gun and was seen as a threat by others. They reacted to his initial aggression.

Again, we aren't going to agree on this. I believe Rittenhouse is a killer who deserves to be behind bars. You don't. So be it.

btw, don't be surprised in the future when Rittenhouse finds himself in trouble with the law again and when this verdict encourages more vigilante violence.

 

[2012Bearcat]

We have law enforcement for a reason. We don't need vigilantes.

Unless you want to do away with law enforcement and embrace vigilante justice. I don't.


Rittenhouse is a resident of Antioch, Illinois.

Again, he had no business being where he was.


None of this justifies his actions that night. It just pushes a political narrative.

Charles Manson played the guitar in church. And that means what?


This is your opinion. And I disagree with it.

I believe Rittenhouse was the initial unjustified aggressor, therefore I don't buy his self defense argument. He had the gun and was seen as a threat by others. They reacted to his initial aggression.

Again, we aren't going to agree on this. I believe Rittenhouse is a killer who deserves to be behind bars. You don't. So be it.

btw, don't be surprised in the future when Rittenhouse finds himself in trouble with the law again and when this verdict encourages more vigilante trouble.

What are people supposed to do when the government leaders refuse to allow the police to protect the community? In your eyes people are supposed to sit back and watch their life's work destroyed by a violent mob throwing a temper tantrum over a shooting that has been ruled justified? Sorry but I'm not one to sit back doing nothing when a community I'm involved in burns to the ground, evidently you are.

Rittenhouse was part of the Kenosha community, He worked there and his father and other relatives lived there, He had as much or more right to be there as anyone.

There were numerous people openly carrying firearms during that protest yet the only rounds fired were by the protesters and Rittenhouse after he was attacked. Merly carrying a firearm is not a threat to anyone.

All in all, my position is based on fact and the law, your position is based on the lies you've been told to manipulate you and feelings. Sorry but lies and feelings don't count.