Jump to content

Ahmad Arbery Trial.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 635
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I look forward to the trial of the DA who swept it under the rug. 

When they picked up their 2nd Amendment they thought that would protect them.  It's been my point about the gun-culture all along. For most people it's about 10x more likely to ruin their lives t

Posted Images

As I predicted guilty

Typical of how those screaming bullshit and how the system was rigged are 0 and 2 with the reality of the situations in WI and GA. 

Where are all the RWNJ’s protests over this verdict?  Are CNN and MSNBC dropping the ball?

Could someone link the RWNJ politicians that are decrying this verdict?

How about the comments from FOX telling their viewers the system failed the McMichael’s?   Surely Tucker or Hannity has lashed out at the biased  jury and the racist judge?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

You screamed bullshit about the Kenosha courthouse crowd . . 

Own it. 

Did you think we would forget ?? 

Own what pee brain?
 What bullshit did I post about the Kenosha crowd? 


While I’m in a rare mood by responded to your rant  

 What is this WE you keep stating?

 Is it a Royal WE or a desperate effort, on your part to belong to the collective?

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Prisons are segregated, right? Whut? They’re not? Un-far. SO Un-far!

Wait haven’t  you predicting there would never be a guilty verdict?   .  Because you knew a mostly white jury would never convict some good old boys?  
Some would call that bullshit and you a bullshitter.  I guess you don’t know your neighbors as well as you think. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, badlatitude said:

It's still Georgia. I'm nervously expecting the Judge to sentence them to time served.

It's the first time in memory that I watched a likable AND competent judge who seemed very neutral.  Ergo, zero chance of your doomsday prediction.  My 'guesses'.

Son:  life

Dad: 15-20

Neighbor: 5-7

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cal20sailor said:

It's the first time in memory that I watched a likable AND competent judge who seemed very neutral.  Ergo, zero chance of your doomsday prediction.  My 'guesses'.

Son:  life

Dad: 15-20

Neighbor: 5-7

Yep.  He didn’t stand for any bullshit from their idiot racist attorney.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal20sailor said:

It's the first time in memory that I watched a likable AND competent judge who seemed very neutral.  Ergo, zero chance of your doomsday prediction.  My 'guesses'.

Son:  life

Dad: 15-20

Neighbor: 5-7

The judge did a shit job actually.  He let the jury try to figure out the citizens' arrest statute.  It is strong grounds for appeal.  That is why it is better if a judge is on top of that shit, even if it seems like it is against you.  Then the defendants have nothing to complain about later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

It's the first time in memory that I watched a likable AND competent judge who seemed very neutral.  Ergo, zero chance of your doomsday prediction.  My 'guesses'.

Son:  life

Dad: 15-20

Neighbor: 5-7

Dad and Neighbor won’t be leaving prison according to GA sentencing guidelines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2021 at 1:30 PM, Sol Rosenberg said:
On 11/5/2021 at 12:04 PM, learningJ24 said:

I'm betting on an acquittal. Old, white ex-cop kills a black kid in that region?

Yup. They’re gonna walk, and get rich from the story. 

That would have made better political theater. Oh well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jzk said:

The judge did a shit job actually.  He let the jury try to figure out the citizens' arrest statute.  It is strong grounds for appeal.  That is why it is better if a judge is on top of that shit, even if it seems like it is against you.  Then the defendants have nothing to complain about later.

I'm assuming your daughter or wife gave it up to a black guy and gave birth.  Remind all of us where you received your law or any other degree.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Own what pee brain?
 What bullshit did I post about the Kenosha crowd? 

@The Joker wrote . .  "Major mistake to not sequester this jury.  They are hearing the threats from the mob that they will burn the town down if he is acquitted small town there has to be some concern by the jury."  

You knew or should have known that there was no loud threatening mob outside the court house. 

I say again, own it . . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

I'm assuming your daughter or wife gave it up to a black guy and gave birth.  Remind all of us where you received your law or any other degree.

 

I realize it is beyond your pee brain to actually understand what the role of the judge is in these matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

As I predicted guilty

Typical of how those screaming bullshit and how the system was rigged are 0 and 2 with the reality of the situations in WI and GA. 

Where are all the RWNJ’s protests over this verdict?  Are CNN and MSNBC dropping the ball?

Could someone link the RWNJ politicians that are decrying this verdict?

How about the comments from FOX telling their viewers the system failed the McMichael’s?   Surely Tucker or Hannity has lashed out at the biased  jury and the racist judge?

 

They shot a black guy out of season and didn't have a license to boot! (all purple font)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

I realize it is beyond your pee brain to actually understand what the role of the judge is in these matters.

I know exactly their role.  Answer my question, where did you get your law or any other degree?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

I know exactly their role.  Answer my question, where did you get your law or any other degree?

Doesn't seem like you have any clue whatsoever.  I don't think you can even engage the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

They shot a black guy out of season and didn't have a license to boot! (all purple font)

Yeah jokes aside.  Anyone who didn’t see this as a they are guilty as fuck scenario didn’t watch the trial.    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

Doesn't seem like you have any clue whatsoever.  I don't think you can even engage the issue.

You can't comprehend my question.  DO YOU HAVE A COLLEGE DEGREE?  Not that it matters, but your aversion/deflection makes the answer obvious.  Did you finish high school?  Got that framed diploma for all to see at the car wash?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cal20sailor said:

You can't comprehend my question.  DO YOU HAVE A COLLEGE DEGREE?  Not that it matters, but your aversion/deflection makes the answer obvious.  Did you finish high school?  Got that framed diploma for all to see at the car wash?

You think you are in charge of anything here?  You can't even engage the issue.  You don't even belong in the same room.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Yeah jokes aside.  Anyone who didn’t see this as a they are guilty as fuck scenario didn’t watch the trial.    

We disagree on most things, and I'm glad this isn't one of them.  To all, have a great Thanksgiving!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

You think you are in charge of anything here?  You can't even engage the issue.  You don't even belong in the same room.

You sound like you're going to cry!  I can help you with the GED, I have math covered and Bus Driver will help.  You can do it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

@The Joker wrote . .  "Major mistake to not sequester this jury.  They are hearing the threats from the mob that they will burn the town down if he is acquitted small town there has to be some concern by the jury."  

You knew or should have known that there was no loud threatening mob outside the court house. 

I say again, own it . . 

Did you even watch the trial?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

We disagree on most things, and I'm glad this isn't one of them.  To all, have a great Thanksgiving!

Same to you I’m in a great mood. Picked up my kid from college drove to my parents and looking forward to some football and turkey. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cal20sailor said:

You win.

Its great if you want to go back and forth on an internet forum posting absolutely nothing.  Just a waste of space.  Your right to do so.

I went to a top 20 law school, top 3 engineering school and passed the bar in two states.  How did you do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

Its great if you want to go back and forth on an internet forum posting absolutely nothing.  Just a waste of space.  Your right to do so.

I went to a top 20 law school, top 3 engineering school and passed the bar in two states.  How did you do?

I have a BS and MS in engineering from UMich (79,83) and many years later an MA from EMich ('12).  I traveled the world only having to bill 40hrs/week.

So, name your schools.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal20sailor said:

I have a BS and MS in engineering from UMich (79,83) and many years later an MA from EMich ('12).  I traveled the world only having to bill 40hrs/week.

So, name your schools.

University of Illinois.  And I sailed 2000 miles this year.  I haven't been to Australia or Africa yet.  How is that?  You didn't mention where you went to law school.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

It's the first time in memory that I watched a likable AND competent judge who seemed very neutral.  Ergo, zero chance of your doomsday prediction.  My 'guesses'.

Son:  life

Dad: 15-20

Neighbor: 5-7

I do believe the charges for which they were convicted carry a mandatory life sentence. 

The only question is whether the judge will allow it with, or without, the possibility of parole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

The judge did a shit job actually.  He let the jury try to figure out the citizens' arrest statute.  It is strong grounds for appeal.  That is why it is better if a judge is on top of that shit, even if it seems like it is against you.  Then the defendants have nothing to complain about later.

 

I don't believe that's correct, but the Georgia supreme court will decide ultimately.

Here's a copy of the relevant part of the Jury Instructions with italicize reading of the statue - other emphasis added for this particular objection.   (https://lawofselfdefense.com/arbery-case-trial-judge-walmsley-drops-the-ball-on-ambiguous-citizens-arrest-law/):

-------------

"The defense of justification can be claimed a when the person’s conduct is justified, as the use of force in defense of self or when the person’s conduct is reasonable and is performed in the course of making a lawful arrest.

The private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony, and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

The terms in his presence and within his immediate knowledge are synonymous in a crime committed in one’s presence only if, by the exercise of any of his senses, he has knowledge of its Commission, or by the accused admitting that such a crime is being or has been committed.

A private person may not act on the unsupported statement of others alone.

A private citizens warrantless arrest must occur immediately after the perpetration of the offence or in the case of felonies during escape.

If the observer fails to make the arrest immediately after the commission of the offense or during escape, in the case of felonies, his power to do so is extinguished.

A private person may arrest an offender upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion that is on probable cause, which is defined as facts and circumstances that are sufficient toward a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution in believing in the circumstances shown that the suspect has committed an offense.

The facts necessary to establish probable cause for arrest are much less than those required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. The test merely requires a probability less than a certainty, but more than a mere suspicion or possibility.

In determining whether probable cause exists, the totality of the circumstances must be considered.

Whether probable cause existed is for the determination of the jury.

Now, an arrest is defined as the taking seizing or detaining of the person of another, either by touching or putting hands on him or by any act indicating an intention to take such person into custody, and which subjects such person to the actual control and we’ll have the person making the arrest. An arrest can occur, even when a subject is not told that he is under arrest.

A person is authorized to use in making a lawful arrest only that degree of force that is reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest. The mere fact that a lawful arrest is being made, does not give the person the right to use excessive force or an unlawful degree of force upon the upon the person being arrested."

----------------

The people who disagree with his interpretation of the Georgia statue (such as the author of the reference), are fine to have a disagreement but the instructions weren't ambiguous.  Personally, i think the objections to the law are very 'Clintonesque' and are trying to word smith a different outcome.

But the judge was clear - "You (the jury) have to decide if you believe the defendants acted prudently."  Assuming the defendants know what they said they knew and believing what they said they believed, did they act prudently?  And the jury said nope - they weren't prudent. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:

University of Illinois.  And I sailed 2000 miles this year.  I haven't been to Australia or Africa yet.  How is that?  You didn't mention where you went to law school.

2000 miles?  Wow!  I've done that on the Great Lakes by July.  I can only speak to Tonga and the sailing was great and the snorkeling world class.

Illinois is a great university and I never claimed a law degree.  I feel sorry for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal20sailor said:

2000 miles?  Wow!  I've done that on the Great Lakes by July.  I can only speak to Tonga and the sailing was great and the snorkeling world class.

Illinois is a great university and I never claimed a law degree.  I feel sorry for you.

Yeah I feel sorry for you too.  You still haven't actually engaged the issue.  I think it is because you can't.  Instead of presenting a coherent position, you just started flinging bullshit.  Were you always like that, or did this forum convert you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

Yeah I feel sorry for you too.  You still haven't actually engaged the issue.  I think it is because you can't.  Instead of presenting a coherent position, you just started flinging bullshit.  Were you always like that, or did this forum convert you?

Probably the latter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BeSafe said:

 

I don't believe that's correct, but the Georgia supreme court will decide ultimately.

Here's a copy of the relevant part of the Jury Instructions with emphasis on the parts that MIGHT be argued later (https://lawofselfdefense.com/arbery-case-trial-judge-walmsley-drops-the-ball-on-ambiguous-citizens-arrest-law/):

-------------

"The defense of justification can be claimed a when the person’s conduct is justified, as the use of force in defense of self or when the person’s conduct is reasonable and is performed in the course of making a lawful arrest.

The private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony, and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

The terms in his presence and within his immediate knowledge are synonymous in a crime committed in one’s presence only if, by the exercise of any of his senses, he has knowledge of its Commission, or by the accused admitting that such a crime is being or has been committed.

A private person may not act on the unsupported statement of others alone.

A private citizens warrantless arrest must occur immediately after the perpetration of the offence or in the case of felonies during escape.

If the observer fails to make the arrest immediately after the commission of the offense or during escape, in the case of felonies, his power to do so is extinguished.

A private person may arrest an offender upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion that is on probable cause, which is defined as facts and circumstances that are sufficient toward a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution in believing in the circumstances shown that the suspect has committed an offense.

The facts necessary to establish probable cause for arrest are much less than those required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. The test merely requires a probability less than a certainty, but more than a mere suspicion or possibility.

In determining whether probable cause exists, the totality of the circumstances must be considered.

Whether probable cause existed is for the determination of the jury.

Now, an arrest is defined as the taking seizing or detaining of the person of another, either by touching or putting hands on him or by any act indicating an intention to take such person into custody, and which subjects such person to the actual control and we’ll have the person making the arrest. An arrest can occur, even when a subject is not told that he is under arrest.

A person is authorized to use in making a lawful arrest only that degree of force that is reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest. The mere fact that a lawful arrest is being made, does not give the person the right to use excessive force or an unlawful degree of force upon the upon the person being arrested."

----------------

The people who disagree with his interpretation of the Georgia statue (such as the author of the reference), are fine to have a disagreement but the instructions weren't ambiguous.  Personally, i think the objections to the law are very 'Clintonesque' and are trying to word smith a different outcome.

The judge was clear - "You (the jury) have to decide if you believe the defendants acted prudently."

And the jury said nope - they weren't prudent.

 

Are you saying that this self defense lawyer is wrong?  He seems to be saying the exact same thing as I did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BeSafe said:

 

I don't believe that's correct, but the Georgia supreme court will decide ultimately.

Here's a copy of the relevant part of the Jury Instructions with italicize reading of the statue - other emphasis added for this particular objection.   (https://lawofselfdefense.com/arbery-case-trial-judge-walmsley-drops-the-ball-on-ambiguous-citizens-arrest-law/):

-------------

"The defense of justification can be claimed a when the person’s conduct is justified, as the use of force in defense of self or when the person’s conduct is reasonable and is performed in the course of making a lawful arrest.

The private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony, and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

The terms in his presence and within his immediate knowledge are synonymous in a crime committed in one’s presence only if, by the exercise of any of his senses, he has knowledge of its Commission, or by the accused admitting that such a crime is being or has been committed.

A private person may not act on the unsupported statement of others alone.

A private citizens warrantless arrest must occur immediately after the perpetration of the offence or in the case of felonies during escape.

If the observer fails to make the arrest immediately after the commission of the offense or during escape, in the case of felonies, his power to do so is extinguished.

A private person may arrest an offender upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion that is on probable cause, which is defined as facts and circumstances that are sufficient toward a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution in believing in the circumstances shown that the suspect has committed an offense.

The facts necessary to establish probable cause for arrest are much less than those required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. The test merely requires a probability less than a certainty, but more than a mere suspicion or possibility.

In determining whether probable cause exists, the totality of the circumstances must be considered.

Whether probable cause existed is for the determination of the jury.

Now, an arrest is defined as the taking seizing or detaining of the person of another, either by touching or putting hands on him or by any act indicating an intention to take such person into custody, and which subjects such person to the actual control and we’ll have the person making the arrest. An arrest can occur, even when a subject is not told that he is under arrest.

A person is authorized to use in making a lawful arrest only that degree of force that is reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest. The mere fact that a lawful arrest is being made, does not give the person the right to use excessive force or an unlawful degree of force upon the upon the person being arrested."

----------------

The people who disagree with his interpretation of the Georgia statue (such as the author of the reference), are fine to have a disagreement but the instructions weren't ambiguous.  Personally, i think the objections to the law are very 'Clintonesque' and are trying to word smith a different outcome.

But the judge was clear - "You (the jury) have to decide if you believe the defendants acted prudently."  Assuming the defendants know what they said they knew and believing what they said they believed, did they act prudently?  And the jury said nope - they weren't prudent. 

 

Ok, now I see what you wrote at the end.  The "prudently" instruction is probably an issue.  The whole case follows on the law of citizens' arrests.  That is the felony.  Did they follow that two sentence law or not.  The judge should have made it clear.  The idea is to prevent overturning on appeal.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

Are you saying that this self defense lawyer is wrong?  He seems to be saying the exact same thing as I did.

Yes, I think the defense lawyer's interpretation is incorrect.   I think the defense team is trying to word-smith to their client's advantage.  Good for them.

The judge told them last Friday how he was going to instruct.  They got an opportunity to pitch their view.  He read it, disagreed, and told the Jury EXACTLY what he told the defense he was going to tell the Jury.

I believe the Jury is the best avenue for determine 'prudently' in this case.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BeSafe said:

Yes, I think the defense lawyer's interpretation is incorrect.   I think the defense team is trying to word-smith to their client's advantage.  Good for them.

The judge told them last Friday how he was going to instruct.  They got an opportunity to pitch their view.  He read it, disagreed, and told the Jury EXACTLY what he told the defense he was going to tell the Jury.

I believe the Jury is the best avenue for determine 'prudently' in this case.

 

Just to be clear, the defense attorney you cited is not involved in the case.  He is just commenting on the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

Just to be clear, the defense attorney you cited is not involved in the case.  He is just commenting on the case.

Yup - but the defense team leveraged pretty much the same argument.  They were going for the 'either' standard instead of the 'both' standard because the both standard is potentially ambiguous. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BeSafe said:

Yup - but the defense team leveraged pretty much the same argument.  They were going for the 'either' standard instead of the 'both' standard because the both standard is potentially ambiguous. 

Actually, they readily admitted they were not engaging with the first part (witnessing the crime) and relying on the second part (during the escape).  The judge was having none of it.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ex-prosecutor charged in Ahmaud Arbery case booked at jail

 

Ex-prosecutor charged in Ahmaud Arbery case booked at jail (Glynn Co Jail)

 

SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) — The former prosecutor charged with misconduct for her handling of the Ahmaud Arbery case was booked at a Georgia jail on Wednesday and released. 

Former Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney Jackie Johnson turned herself in Wednesday morning at the Glynn County jail, county Undersheriff Ron Corbett said. Jail records show she was released on her own recognizance, meaning she did not have to pay a cash bond. 

A grand jury indicted Johnson, 49, last week on a felony charge of violating her oath of office and a misdemeanor count of obstructing police. Johnson was the area’s top prosecutor when three white men chased and fatally shot Arbery last year. The indictment alleges she used her position to discourage police from making arrests in the 25-year-old Black man’s killing. 

Johnson did not immediately return a phone message Wednesday. Officials at the jail and the Glynn County Superior Court clerk’s office said their records did not list an attorney for her. 

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/ex-prosecutor-charged-in-ahmaud-arbery-case-booked-at-jail

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Ex-prosecutor charged in Ahmaud Arbery case booked at jail

 

Ex-prosecutor charged in Ahmaud Arbery case booked at jail (Glynn Co Jail)

 

SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) — The former prosecutor charged with misconduct for her handling of the Ahmaud Arbery case was booked at a Georgia jail on Wednesday and released. 

Former Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney Jackie Johnson turned herself in Wednesday morning at the Glynn County jail, county Undersheriff Ron Corbett said. Jail records show she was released on her own recognizance, meaning she did not have to pay a cash bond. 

A grand jury indicted Johnson, 49, last week on a felony charge of violating her oath of office and a misdemeanor count of obstructing police. Johnson was the area’s top prosecutor when three white men chased and fatally shot Arbery last year. The indictment alleges she used her position to discourage police from making arrests in the 25-year-old Black man’s killing. 

Johnson did not immediately return a phone message Wednesday. Officials at the jail and the Glynn County Superior Court clerk’s office said their records did not list an attorney for her. 

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/ex-prosecutor-charged-in-ahmaud-arbery-case-booked-at-jail

Good, any of these people, in a position of power, need to be held accountable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Ex-prosecutor charged in Ahmaud Arbery case booked at jail

 

Ex-prosecutor charged in Ahmaud Arbery case booked at jail (Glynn Co Jail)

 

SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) — The former prosecutor charged with misconduct for her handling of the Ahmaud Arbery case was booked at a Georgia jail on Wednesday and released. 

Former Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney Jackie Johnson turned herself in Wednesday morning at the Glynn County jail, county Undersheriff Ron Corbett said. Jail records show she was released on her own recognizance, meaning she did not have to pay a cash bond. 

A grand jury indicted Johnson, 49, last week on a felony charge of violating her oath of office and a misdemeanor count of obstructing police. Johnson was the area’s top prosecutor when three white men chased and fatally shot Arbery last year. The indictment alleges she used her position to discourage police from making arrests in the 25-year-old Black man’s killing. 

Johnson did not immediately return a phone message Wednesday. Officials at the jail and the Glynn County Superior Court clerk’s office said their records did not list an attorney for her. 

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/ex-prosecutor-charged-in-ahmaud-arbery-case-booked-at-jail

Good.  No excuse for anyone who obstructed this case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Ex-prosecutor charged in Ahmaud Arbery case booked at jail

 

Ex-prosecutor charged in Ahmaud Arbery case booked at jail (Glynn Co Jail)

 

SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) — The former prosecutor charged with misconduct for her handling of the Ahmaud Arbery case was booked at a Georgia jail on Wednesday and released. 

Former Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney Jackie Johnson turned herself in Wednesday morning at the Glynn County jail, county Undersheriff Ron Corbett said. Jail records show she was released on her own recognizance, meaning she did not have to pay a cash bond. 

A grand jury indicted Johnson, 49, last week on a felony charge of violating her oath of office and a misdemeanor count of obstructing police. Johnson was the area’s top prosecutor when three white men chased and fatally shot Arbery last year. The indictment alleges she used her position to discourage police from making arrests in the 25-year-old Black man’s killing. 

Johnson did not immediately return a phone message Wednesday. Officials at the jail and the Glynn County Superior Court clerk’s office said their records did not list an attorney for her. 

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/ex-prosecutor-charged-in-ahmaud-arbery-case-booked-at-jail

That quite literally makes  me feel ill.  What possesses these people.  Just sad and should remind all of us, we have a long way to go.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

796 people killed in Chicago in a year.  Only Trump people care?

You have a reading comprehension issue. Chicago's rate is shit compared to many other large cities.  Engineer my ass.  More like mail order degree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal20sailor said:

You have a reading comprehension issue. Chicago's rate is shit compared to many other large cities.  Engineer my ass.  More like mail order degree.

I posted a link to 796 unnecessary deaths, saying we have a long way to go.  Either you give a shit about it or you don't.   

The rest of your contribution is a big zero.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

I posted a link to 796 unnecessary deaths, saying we have a long way to go.  Either you give a shit about it or you don't.   

The rest of your contribution is a big zero.

I misinterpreted, nationwide, we need to do better.  Enjoy your holiday.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Not quite the same as the prosecutor covering up the murder of Ahmaud Arbery.  But, you do you.

Yeah, 796 homicides that few people give a shit about is not quite the same at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

I have a BS and MS in engineering from UMich (79,83) and many years later an MA from EMich ('12).  I traveled the world only having to bill 40hrs/week.

So, name your schools.

I see our "airing of grievances" is over and it's now time for the "Feats of Strength" portion of Festivus.  It's not over until someone pins Cal to the floor.  

image.png.4d80106b5028bdb8fa87ec41430c0e90.png

You know, and I've told you this before......  Anyone who constantly feels the needs to brag about his education and IQ - probably shouldn't.  You remind me of the dork in the HS chess club who dares anyone to play him.  I double dog dare you - says @Cal20sailor.

Just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Yeah I feel sorry for you too.  You still haven't actually engaged the issue.  I think it is because you can't.  Instead of presenting a coherent position, you just started flinging bullshit.  Were you always like that, or did this forum convert you?

Probably the latter.

I doubt that.  Forums don't turn people INTO assholes.  They just bring out and amplify the inner asshole that is already there.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

So, you've always had it?  

Seriously, why are you such a dick?  I posted something about the jury instructions and you were a dick.  Other people presented actual legal challenges to what I said, but not you.  Just a dick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jzk said:

Seriously, why are you such a dick?  I posted something about the jury instructions and you were a dick.  Other people presented actual legal challenges to what I said, but not you.  Just a dick.

I wasn't responding to you.  Or do you just like using the term 'dick'.  Come out of the closet for 'CHRIST'S SAKE'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:
4 hours ago, jzk said:

I realize it is beyond your pee brain to actually understand what the role of the judge is in these matters.

I know exactly their role.  Answer my question, where did you get your law or any other degree?

That's not fair Cal - you know very well he hasn't even received his brain yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:


You might want to think twice about hunting and killing the people jogging through your neighborhood, just because they don’t look like you, bullshitters. A black guy jogging is not a proper response to “911, what is your emergency?”

Let's be honest.  The defendant was not a jogger, but rather a criminal.  He still has a right to a fair trial and prison vs. being killed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:


You might want to think twice about hunting and killing the people jogging through your neighborhood, just because they don’t look like you, bullshitters. A black guy jogging is not a proper response to “911, what is your emergency?”

 When they picked up their 2nd Amendment they thought that would protect them. 

It's been my point about the gun-culture all along. For most people it's about 10x more likely to ruin their lives than it is to save it. Particularly for those who are unable to admit they are purchasing themselves a toy to play with, and allow dreams of being heroes to seep in.  

 v5mug.gif

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jzk said:

Let's be honest.  The defendant was not a jogger, but rather a criminal.  He still has a right to a fair trial and prison vs. being killed.

Actually, the defendants were drivers and are now criminals. The victim was a jogger. We regret the confusion.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Olsonist said:

Actually, the defendants were drivers and are now criminals. The victim was a jogger. We regret the confusion.

Yeah, it is hard for people around here to be honest about much of anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Olsonist said:
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Let's be honest.  The defendant was not a jogger, but rather a criminal.  He still has a right to a fair trial and prison vs. being killed.

Actually, the defendants were drivers and are now criminals. The victim was a jogger. We regret the confusion.

Where the hell did jogger=criminal come from? What crimes did he commit, besides being black?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ishmael said:

Where the hell did jogger=criminal come from? What crimes did he commit, besides being black?

Right.  How was he just running through that neighborhood.  Did they have him on video breaking the law?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What did the guy with the camera do to get such a stiff sentence?  Did he have physical contact with Arbery, or was he just behind the camera, hoping he'd be the next YT folk hero for capturing a black man running through his neighborhood?

He's got to be feeling like a chump right now.  From what I read, he didn't even know the two racist, inbred, backwoods retards who killed Ahmad.  Now he gets to look forward to years of forced oral copulation with the United Blood Nation, Black Guerilla Family and Crips he's going to encounter during his "stay".  

Link to post
Share on other sites