Prosecutors

Ahmaud Arbery's Alleged Murderers Almost Escaped Charges, Thanks to Prosecutorial Misconduct

As the trial wraps up, it's important to remember that the first prosecutor on the case, Jackie Johnson, has been indicted for violating her oath of office.

|

The defense attorneys in the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial—representing Travis McMichael, 35, his father Gregory McMichael, 65, and friend William "Roddie" Bryan, 52, who stand accused of tracking down and killing Arbery during a so-called citizen's arrest—have arguably stolen the show. Kevin Gough, Bryan's attorney, requested that "high-profile African Americans" like Al Sharpton not be allowed in the courtroom; "We don't want any more black pastors coming in here," he said. Laura Hogue, one of Gregory McMichael's attorneys, upped the ante yesterday, referring to an outfit Arbery wore: "khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails."

Yet the theatrics from the defense have diverted scrutiny away from the seediness of the original prosecutor, Jackie Johnson, who in September was indicted on criminal charges for violating her oath of office and obstructing police when she allegedly showed the McMichaels favorable treatment and ensured they would not be arrested after Arbery's death.

Such charges against prosecutors are almost unheard of.

In February 2020, the McMichaels chased Arbery in their truck through a Georgia neighborhood, telling police that they suspected Arbery was behind a string of burglaries. (Investigators later confirmed that there was only one such burglary and it had been reported seven weeks prior.) Bryan joined the pursuit in his own vehicle, with the three ultimately attempting to corner Arbery. Travis, the younger McMichael, fired his shotgun three times after a brief struggle with Arbery, who was unarmed, with an autopsy showing two shotgun wounds to his chest and another on his wrist.* He later died.

Several months went by before the government applied any rigorous investigation to the case. Johnson, then the Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney, was a big part of that, according to the indictment against her.

The ex-prosecutor, who lost reelection in November 2020, allegedly leveraged her office to "show favor and affection to Greg McMichael," her former employee, during the state's initial probe of the case, and got in the way of law enforcement when she ordered them not to arrest Travis.

After recusing herself, Johnson then recruited Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney George E. Barnhill to replace her. But she declined to mention that Barnhill had already been involved: He told police the day after the killing that the three men should not face charges. He also had a conflict of interest, eventually disclosing that his son had worked in Johnson's office alongside McMichael, including on a prior prosecution that Arbery faced. Yet he stayed on the case until April and only resigned at the behest of Arbery's mother once she learned of his potential bias. (As of September, an investigation into Barnhill's conduct was ongoing.)

Indeed, had Arbery's case not received explosive media attention in May 2020, it's possible that both Johnson and Barnhill's prosecutorial malfeasance would have prevented charges from being brought against the men. On his way out the door, Barnhill told police that the three "were following, in 'hot pursuit,' a burglary suspect, with solid first hand probable cause, in their neighborhood, and asking/ telling him to stop."

That story lost traction when an attorney leaked cellphone footage of the encounter—taken by Bryan—with the clip of Arbery's final moments going viral. The men were indicted the following month and each faces one count of malice murder, four counts of felony murder, two counts of aggravated assault, one count of false imprisonment, and one count of criminal attempt to commit a felony.

Johnson and Barnhill are certainly not the first prosecutors to misuse their power at the expense of their oath, although they are two of the few who have been investigated for it. Probes into prosecutors are a rarity. Criminal charges are nearly unheard of. And data on convictions are scant, because they're almost nonexistent. "Prosecutors are so rarely indicted for job-related misconduct that this is like asking what happens if you toss a pack of Mentos into a black hole," Clark Neily, senior vice president for legal studies at the Cato Institute, told me in September when Johnson was first indicted. "In short, anything is possible," he said of a potential conviction, "including a result that appears to defy the known laws of the universe."

The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the teen who was acquitted on all charges for killing two men and wounding another during a night of civil unrest, brought issues of prosecutorial shenanigans to the fore. Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger racked up quite a few demerits during the trial, suggesting that Rittenhouse invoking his Miranda rights was a manifestation of his guilt and attempting to show evidence to the jury that the judge had already ruled was likely inadmissible. Those moments appeared to electrify factions on the law-and-order right, as they should have. But such misconduct is not limited to politically charged trials that happen to command national attention.

It's commonplace, emboldened by the doctrine of absolute immunity which gives prosecutors an impenetrable shield against civil liability for the role they play in commencing and carrying out prosecutions. That includes falsifying evidence, coercing witnesses, and knowingly putting perjured testimony on the stand. It is for this reason that a Louisiana prosecutor, for instance, was able to evade accountability for allegedly working to dismantle allegations against an assistant prison warden who was accused of brutally raping his cousin-in-law multiple times at his home on the grounds of Louisiana State Penitentiary.

"[The victim's] story is particularly appalling because her alleged perpetrator holds a position of significance in our criminal justice system as an assistant prison warden," wrote Judge James C. Ho for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. "But none of this changes the fact that our court has no jurisdiction to reach her claims against the district attorney, who for whatever reason declined to help her." As such, she was not given the privilege of suing.

Stories like those make Rittenhouse's prosecutor look saintly. Yet even Binger's actions rightly riled much of the country as they watched him flout the rules. The lead-up to the Arbery trial is another reminder that such instances are not outrageous because they occur in high-profile trials that are sometimes viewed through a political lens. They are outrageous because even the more mundane violations are an affront to basic liberty—only made worse by the fact that such transgressions are routine.

*CORRECTION: An earlier version of this piece misidentified the type of ammunition fired from McMichael's gun.

NEXT: What's the Point of NFTs?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1463523099761123328?t=chLcVhyejq-s3jstPHMwAA&s=19

    Leftist ideologue says the #Waukesha parade massacre suspect shouldn’t have been kept in jail despite his long violent criminal record because the better solution would be to limit access to vehicles. [Link]

    1. This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company VHt now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.

      For more info Open on this web Site............E-CASH

    2. whatabout, whatabout, whatabout.

      Try paying attention to the story or is that too difficult?

  2. CBS News, the Associated Press (AP), the Washington Post, and various other media outlets have been taking serious heat on social media for labeling the horrific attack in Waukesha, Wisconsin, a “parade crash.”
    https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2021/11/23/establishment-media-blasted-for-labeling-waukesha-massacre-a-parade-crash/

    Seems like Reason editors and writers (as well as the NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, USA Today, WSJ, Fox News, etc.) don't want Americans to know that Darrell Brooks was a racist Black Live Matter terrorist who committed a massive hate crime against whites.

    But since Tucker Carlson highlighted Brooks' racist anti white anti police postings on his show last night, millions of Americans will know that the news media cannot be trusted to reveal or acknowledge the truth.

    1. I also learned from Breitbart that, with clearly deliberate help from BLM, Ahmaud Arbery grew the original strain of COVID-19 under his long, dirty toenails! And then spread this nasty virus around everywhere!

      1. The retard covers for the authoritarians yet again.

        1. Yes, MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer does that ***ALL*** of the time!

          What else is new?

          1. Is MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer your nom de plume at the Act Blue seniors meetings?

        2. If you were Searching for a supplemental source of income? This is the easiest way I have found to earn $5000+ per week over the internet. Work for a few hours per week in your free time and get paid on a regular basis.GDw Only reliable internet connection and computer needed to get started…

          Start today...........Earn-Opportunities

      2. "Ahmaud Arbery grew the original strain of COVID-19 under his long, dirty toenails!"
        Do you have a link or are you just trolling?

        1. Breitbart told me personally, and Sidney Powell confirmed it to me personally!

          https://reason.com/2021/03/23/sidney-powell-says-shes-not-guilty-of-defamation-because-no-reasonable-person-would-have-believed-her-outlandish-election-conspiracy-theory/
          Sidney Powell Says She’s Not Guilty of Defamation Because ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Have Believed Her ‘Outlandish’ Election Conspiracy Theory

          Which particular lies are you wanting to hear and believe today, Super-Dooper-Pooper-Scooper-Scary? Sidney Powell will be DELIGHTED to tell you ANY lies that you'd like to hear, so long as her axles (AND her palms) get greased!

          1. She didn't say that. Her lawyer did and then apologized to her. Sullum was lying.

            But of course you knew that because you're a liar too. You're who M. Scott Peck was talking about in the People Of The Lie.

            1. Hitler didn't do ANYTHING wrong, right, right-wing Mammary? It was ALL the fault of His Flunkies!!! Just like with Sidney!

              https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sidney-powell-sanctioned-baseless-election-lawsuits/
              "Judge sanctions Sidney Powell and others who brought baseless lawsuit to overturn Biden victory"

              This judge is EVIL, and got it ALL wrong, right, MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer? And it is not YOUR fault when you LIE... "The Devil made you do it", right?

              YOU are the boss, Mammary! YOU make the Big Bucks (presumably from Putin, I guess), so YOU are at fault, for Your Lies! Grow a pair, and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!!!! (You have free will... You ARE allowed to STOP lying!)

              1. Look at those goalposts move. You need a rig for where your hauling them.

                You got caught lying so know you've changed the subject while squealing that I'm lying about your new assertion.

                Not even a Stalinist prosecutor in a kangaroo court would be as obvious as you.

                1. My goal has always been for you to see your own evil, Smug One...

                  If you ever come around to wanting to work on your affliction, EvilBahnFuhrer, start here: M. Scott Peck, The People of the Lie, the Hope for Healing Human Evil
                  https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684848597/reasonmagazinea-20/
                  People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Peck demonstrates the havoc these “people of the lie” work in the lives of those around them.

                  1. Your goal has always been to perpetuate your own lies and evil, Sqrlsy.

                    Even the devil can quote scripture for his own purpose, which is what you're doing with Peck.

          2. What does Sidney Powell have to do with this Arbery stuff or Breitbart, the site you mentioned in the post I originally replied to?

            1. That what he said was so absurd that only a moron or an extremely dishonest person (JesseAz, R Mac, Mother's Lament, etc) could take it seriously.

              1. Gosh, look at sarc cover for his sock.

                1. Gosh, look at MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer cover for Her cumrades-in-arms, in the armies of dishonesty and malice!

                  1. MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer

                    Is this you that you're talking about?

                    Marxist? Definitely you.
                    Tits? Probably. I bet you have droopy old man tits.
                    German railroad boss? I don't know, was that your job?

                2. Lol. It is as bad as Mike pretending he wasn't white knight. It is just pathetic at this point.

      3. Gosh, you ARE a race-baiting idiot.

      4. Well, that’s about sums up your level of gullibility and intelligence, doesn’t it?

    2. "But since Tucker Carlson highlighted Brooks' racist anti white anti police postings on his show last night, millions of Americans will know that the news media cannot be trusted to reveal or acknowledge the truth."

      And then will go right back to doing whatever it was they were doing before.

      We have the media and politicians that we deserve.

    3. lmMFao Billy. Breitbart eh? Then citing good ol Tucker setting the world straight again for half wits like you. .

      Thanks for playing

  3. https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1463523931801985030?t=l2wV_y1HegccuccWYbYOSw&s=19

    "The number one problem in almost all these cities is George Soros elected left-wing antipolice pro-criminal DAs who refuse to keep people locked up"

    - @NewtGingrich, Sept 2020

    1. That's Buttplug's boss he's talking smack about.

  4. NBC news called it a "parade accident"
    Footage of perp on someone's porch leading up to his arrest.
    Idiot homeowner lets the asshole inside his house.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjoI33r5IQ0
    8 year old Waukesha parader died today.
    What's that saying about media covering the news, with a pillow until it's dead?

  5. Now let's ALL pile on to CHANGE the topic away from the clearly racist murder of Ahmaud Arbery, and prosecutorial misconduct!

    Did y'all know that Stalin was an evil scumbucket and a monster?!?!?

    1. Was he your father?

      1. No, not Ahmaud Arbery! Darth Vader was my father!

        1. I actually thought you had a filial reverence for Saloth Sâr.

    2. The killers of Arbery should go to prison.

      But “clearly racist murders” implies that they killed the Arbery deliberately, with premeditation, out of racist motives. Do you have evidence for those elements of the crime?

      1. Fuck you, you lying racist!

        https://reason.com/2021/11/24/travis-mcmichael-gregory-mcmichael-and-william-roddie-bryan-found-guilty-of-murdering-ahmaud-arbery/

        From there...

        That Travis McMichael was motivated by racial animus came from McMichael himself: Bryan told investigators that, after shooting Arbery, Travis McMichael called him a "fucking nigger" as he lay dying.

        SQRLSY back now... Does calling a dying man a "fucking nigger" demonstrate racism, or is genocide required first!??!! YOU are a FUCKING LYING RACIST SCUMBAG!!!!

  6. https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1463518869017006081?t=6OasEzr-m4DxddA1WSWesA&s=19

    Are you paying attention yet?
    [Screenshot - Wikipedia "considering for deletion" the page titled "mass killings under communist regimes" citing "the neutrality of this article is disputed"]

    1. https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1463545492827168769?t=E4jamPWlPz3Ps28lUjzRMw&s=19

      And there it is
      [Screenshot - "2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car crash"

  7. https://twitter.com/WhitlockJason/status/1463525477520449537?t=hxLv-t5tbeOfeqHf6OxHiw&s=19

    Other than the death toll, what's the difference between Charlottesville and Waukesha? Why aren't the media clamoring for President Biden to rebuke Darrell Brooks as a racist terrorist? Why are we not discussing whether Biden's anti-Rittenhouse rhetoric radicalized Brooks?

    1. It's absolutely amazing how fast this story is getting memory-holed.

      1. Watching media corruption in real-time reminds me of the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax. We all watched the left-media continue to push the narrative long after it was proven false.

        It was surreal. Nothing can ever trigger a bigger correction to the mis-perception media searches for truth.

  8. https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1463520688447188997?t=6EiqL-9q6krvMRjAFD4LrA&s=19

    The Waukesha parade attack is gone from the front page of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The day after the suspect appeared in court and the death of another child was announced. Sent from a *source [pic]

  9. President Joe Biden will demand all essential foreign travelers entering the U.S. across land borders be fully vaccinated beginning on Jan. 22, the administration is planning to announce.
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/11/24/supply-chain-nightmare-u-s-to-enforce-strict-vaccine-mandate-for-all-border-crossers-in-january/

    The only foreign travelers who won't be required to show proof of a covid vaccine will be several million illegal immigrants who walk across the Mexican border claiming they were invited to come by the Big Guy.

    1. Sqrlsy's fine with this. Right, you crazy old authoritarian fuck?

      1. MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer is fine with this!

        https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
        Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?

        Oh but I know… Anything that disagrees with the JesseBahnFuhrer and MammaryBahnFuhrer echo chamber is “Marxist”, right? No matter HOW factual it might be!

        1. Posting Big Lies from Salon is like posting a chapter from Mein Kampf or a thread on Stormfront. Racist, hatemongering propaganda for petty authoritarian bigots and crazy old liars.

          1. But sarc promises he isnt a leftist.

        2. Ken is correct about on thing: you can't reason someone out of something they arrived at with emotion.

          The irony is that he doesn't see how he's just as emotional as the people he hates.

          1. Don't know if you've noticed, but his posts are becoming increasingly shrill. He honestly believes that progressives are bringing the end of the world.

            1. peek a boo

            2. Progressives are doing now what they did in the 1920’s: destroy the economy and cause racial hatred.

              That’s not “the end of the world”, but it will transform any nation that goes down that path the same way it did a century ago.

              Whether you like that or not… well, that says a lot about you.

              1. Yeah, it says I'm not a shrill conservative who pollutes my mind with conspiracy nonsense.

                1. Lol. Your a leftist still that pushes debunked conspiracies like trump russia still. You are against self defense for Rittenhouse. You think tax cuts are as authoritarian as a vaccine mandate. And you run defense for every article or comment critical of the left.

              2. Australia has ALREADY BUILT concentration camps and are now populating them...

                1. It's called quarantine.

                  1. you are such a fucking piece of shit.

          2. Dee is never going to sleep with you no matter how hard you troll and harass Ken.

  10. Not saying they should be found not guilty. But once again in a political trial the prosecutor created grave constitutional issues. The most alarming her stating the jury only had to rule on preponderance and not reasonable doubt during the final close.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/arbery-case-state-closing-rebuttal-presents-as-frantic-pleading-desperate/

    Weird how that is missing from the article.

    1. And since the usual uneducated idiots like sarc and Jeff are around... the Aubrey trial reads on citizens arrest and the applicable reading of it.

      A 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 question is does this law apply. If not does they are most likely not guilty. The judge has a responsibility to give the most generous reading of an ambitious law to lean towards the defendant. The judge did not do this in instructions and the prosecutor lied about the law in closing at multiple objections by the defense.

      https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/arbery-case-trial-judge-walmsley-drops-the-ball-on-ambiguous-citizens-arrest-law/

      But then again. These are the same idiots who Feel Rittenhouse should have been put in jail no matter the law.

      1. You've obviously been misinformed. I have been promised that this was 100% a bunch of white bois hunting a black man in a racist version of "The Most Dangerous Game". They shouldn't even get a trial or something.

        1. I just thought an article that described misconduct would include all of it. I forgot reason editors aren't actual reporters. They care about narrative over truth. Even the headline implies they are guilty without any analysis of the laws and the travesty was they almost got away with it.

          1. You're right. Honestly, I stopped coming here for good reporting and analysis years ago. They haven't been able to produce much of value in at least 4-5 years. I just come to laugh at the articles, and often the insane commenters.

      2. Wouldn't be surprised if prosecution got orders to tank the case. Acquittal or mistrial would serves the left's totalitarian interests much better.

        These guys had no business arming themselves and trying to detain the dude. Pick one or the other. Trying to "citizens' arrest" him while armed invites exactly what happened.

        1. You know who else had no business arming themselves?

            1. When did I arm myself?

            2. Apparently. After all the times he boasted about going shooting and the guns he bought, and then we get this confession:

              sarcasmic
              November.19.2021 at 1:45 pm
              I don't carry a gun. I'm not a great shot and I lack training. Doing so would be inviting trouble that I don't know how to handle.

              1. And wearing a seatbelt invites car crashes.

              2. He boasted about buying a gun yesterday. Guy can't keep his lies straight.

        2. These guys were led by ex-police, a group that routinely gets exemption from gun control laws and special privileges by Democrats and Republicans alike.

          Furthermore, neighborhood watch and 2A rights are an important aspect of keeping America’s neighborhoods safe, and the consequence of that is that you need citizens arrests and self-defense claims.

          I believe the people who killed Arbery crossed a line and should be punished. But it’s not as clearcut as you want to make it out, and there is no indication that they are guilty of premeditated murder.

          1. Not premeditated murder, no.
            But lack of premeditating the situation led to predictable results.
            You don't pull a gun unless you're willing to kill your target. You never pull a gun for show/intimidation.
            By going armed to detain him, they were either: 1- willing to shoot him to keep him from escaping, or 2- complete fucking morons who thought the sight of the gun would scare him into compliance.
            I'm as pro self defense and 2a as anybody, but I think these dudes crossed the line. Nothing wrong w/being armed, but they were armed while assuming the duty of law enforcement. That's an issue. Day to day Brunswick isn't rioting Kenosha - police weren't refusing to protect the community and letting people burn, loot, and destroy, plus KR didn't even try to apprehend anyone.
            Bringing a gun into the situation w/Arbery created more danger than it justifiably guarded against. They put themselves into proximity to danger of losing their weapon(s) to Arbery. They pursued and approached Arbery. That makes it difficult for me to see it as justified self defense.
            If you want to argue that it's ok for neighborhood watch to gun down thieves, I'm open to the argument. Better be right when you shoot someone though...

    2. "The most alarming her stating the jury only had to rule on preponderance and not reasonable doubt during the final close."

      Wait! What?!

  11. CBS News: "the man accused of deadly Christmas parade crash..."

    1. Hey man CALM DOWN! We have no way to truly confirm it for sure yet

    2. Of course. A crash implies the vehicle was out of control.

      Plus, between Jan 6 and Rittenhouse, the phrase 'deadly attack' is already thoroughly discredited.

      I would have gone with "the man accused of intentionally driving through a Christmas parade crowd", but then again, I have an ounce of integrity.

      1. Did they even say the word (looks around) Christmas?

    3. I"d call you a C**t, but you lack both the warmth and depth of a real one.

      Angry? Figures, You, just like the McMichaels must know people in low places.

  12. Factual Problems:

    According to the writer:

    "fired three bullets from his shotgun after a brief struggle with Arbery, "

    No shotgun I have ever seen fires bullets.

    What other facts the the writer fuck up?

    1. Is that maliciously fucking up facts or simply being ignorant about firearms?

    2. I mean, technically if he had slugs loaded they are bullets. But I doubt he had slugs loaded.

      1. Yes, I was gonna say... Ya beat me to it!

        When I was young and poor, and couldn't afford a rifle, I hunted deer with these...

        https://www.ballisticproducts.com/Pumpkin-Ball-Slugs-12ga-715-550gr-25_pak/productinfo/7000004/

        1. TDS-addled spastic asshole gets a LOT of flags.
          Fuck off and die.

    3. There are novelty shells out there that result in a standard 12-gauge firing a .50 BMG tracer bullet.

      But, yeah, that's the line at which I wrote off the whole article as unreliable.

    4. Not the most important ones pal.

  13. Oh, well, so much for post-acquittal Kyle Rittenhouse’s not being used as a political pawn:

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/donald-trump-meets-kyle-rittenhouse-prosecutorial-misconduct-kenosha-trial

    1. That was as predictable as my morning deuce.

      1. I love how mad that picture made you and Dee.

        Trump/Rittenhouse 2024!

        1. Very little would top a Trump/Rittenhouse ticket destroying a Biden/Kamala/Buttigeg ticket (whoever is still alive and kicking at the time). The lefty tears would never stop

    2. The sads are real, but mike's consistency is always fake but accurate.

    3. Pawn takes your king. Checkmate. Cry some more.

    4. Was this supposed to be some kind a get against Trump who supported Kyle's self defense as soon as he saw the video? Like most people who believe in liberty? We know that doesn't cover you and sarc who just feel kyle should be in jail.

    5. It’s BIden and the Democrats who turned Rittenhouse into a political pawn.

      It simply blew up in their face, and that bothers you.

    6. JFC, white mike, have you no shame?

  14. I have no sympathy for these guys. Carrying a firearm brings on massive responsibility. They directly created the situation which caused them to have to defend themselves with the lethal force they brought. They have no further business being gun owners or free men.

    1. Wow! Finally got a comment responsive to the article! And it's exactly right. You pull a gun on somebody to shoot them, not threaten them. If you can't legally shoot them - if you're not plausibly in fear for your life - don't be pulling a gun on them. I don't care if Aubry is a thief carrying a flat screen TV down the middle of the road, he's unarmed and he's not in your house, you can't threaten to shoot him. If he's stupid enough or desperate enough to try to take your gun away, that's an indication of how much he feared for his life and how much right he had to kill you. Fuck those guys.

    2. I don’t think it’s that simple. Citizens arrests are legal in many states, and they may result in people having to defend themselves with lethal force. More generally, there are many circumstances in which people do not have a duty to retreat in order to avoid the use of legal force.

      I’m not defending the people who killed Arbery; I think they did something wrong and should pay the price.

      But the principle you state is wrong as well.

      1. I would argue that if the law did support them, then I would be fully in favor of changing the law. There is no scenario where non-violent crime needs to be met with threatening lethal force by fellow citizens. There were other good ways to resolve this rather than getting in close range and threatening with a life-ending firearm. It is absolutely inappropriate if you consider yourself a respectable firearm user / carrier and should not be done.

        You know full well he raped, beat, murdered someone? Fine, then I am on your side (if you truly had that evidence). But he robbed some houses? I dont fucking care, that is not worth any citizens arrest with lethal force employed.

        1. Right, you're a full on marxist who holds no consideration for property rights so why work when you can steal. Got it.

          These guys way over reacted for the situation at hand so I don't think some of the guilty verdicts are unwarranted, but going so far as to abandon protection of property is far worse in the long run.

    3. Much better said than my attempt, but exactly this.

  15. Sorry, but attempting to quash a case before it gets to court is not worse than during trial after your initial angle of attack was ripped out from under you by your star witness admitting on the stand he pointed his gun at the defendant cropping a video to conceal the source and author of which you had on your potential witness list, sending a degraded version of the cropped video to the defense so they could not use it for anything useful, and then lying your ass off about not understanding the technical aspects of cropping and reducing the resolution when you fucking have Handbrake and Format Factory on the laptop containing the videos in question. One is being an asshole prosecutor, the other is actively manufacturing evidence and then lying directly to the judge about it. If Johnson and Barnhill are guilty of prosecutorial malfeasance than Krause is guilty a thousand times over. And lets not get into LittleBinger and Krause's highly probable witness tampering attempt being uncovered in regards to his case against Ziminski that Krause spent 20+ minutes in the middle of the Rittenhouse trial on cross or redirect, I forget which, attempting to cover their asses on.

    1. This is why charging the prosecutor with a crime is such a huge deal. Because it is something that should happen regularly until these abuses cease to be commonplace.

      1. Except for J6 and Rittenhouse right you non principle holding leftist shit.

      2. But it is not happening regularly. The reason this prosecutor is having the book thrown at her isn’t because we suddenly hold prosecutors accountable, it’s because it is politically expedient.

        Selective, politically motivated prosecutions are worse than a consistently applied standard, even if the standard is bad.

        1. When are prosecutors held accountable? This is the very first time I've heard of it.

        2. No, the prosecutor is being held accountable because we are shining a spotlight on these practices. Prosecutors and officers can get away with misconduct and outright perjury as a matter of course. They are so used to getting away with it that they don't stop even when they have the eyes of the world on them. They've literally forgotten that it's wrong.

    2. If this were the standard generally applied then all the Soros DAs would be up on charges for their interference snd non-prosecution in the cases against the rioters of 2020. It is only the standard when someone gets in the way of the marxist agenda of modern Democrats.

  16. REASON appears to be celebrating the end of citizen's arrest, given the obvious glee over the conviction of the McMichaels. Because that is what this case is about.

    This case will also be used as another round in the war on the 2nd Amendment. Law abiding gun owners will not be able to carry firearms when confronting criminals. And prosecutors will now be indicting anyone who dares to use a firearm in self defense.

    But who cares? REASON can score brownie points with people who hate our freedoms.

    Go REASON!

  17. In closing arguments, a defence attorney for the man who fired the fatal gunshots said Arbery, 25, was killed as he violently resisted a legal effort to detain him to answer questions about burglaries in the neighbourhood.
    “It is absolutely, horrifically tragic that this has happened,” said Jason Sheffield, the lawyer representing one of the accused, Travis McMichael. “This is where the law is intertwined with heartache and tragedy. You are allowed to defend yourself.”
    The arguments unfolded before a disproportionately white jury after 10 days of testimony that concluded last week, not long after the man who shot Arbery testified that he pulled the trigger in self-defence. Closing arguments were to resume Tuesday morning.
    https://worldabcnews.com/attorneys-make-closing-statements-in-trial-of-ahmaud-arberys-killing/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.