Criminal Justice

How Did Ahmaud Arbery's 3 Assailants End Up With 12 Murder Convictions?

The felony murder rule is a perversion of justice—even when used against unsympathetic defendants.

|

There were a lot of guilty verdicts read out last week at the close of the Ahmaud Arbery trial, something that likely came as a shock to very few people. After all, footage showed Travis McMichael killing the Georgia man after he and two others tracked Arbery down in their trucks and blocked him from escaping. But one part may have been confusing: How did three men rack up a collective 12 murder convictions after McMichael shot one person?

For that, we can look primarily to the felony murder rule, which allows the government to charge you with murder while subsequently acknowledging you didn't actually kill anyone, so long as the killing happened while you were committing a related felony. (McMichael was also found guilty of an additional count of malice murder.) 

His father, Gregory McMichael, and friend, William "Roddie" Bryan, were convicted on a slew of charges related to their reprehensible conduct that day: aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and criminal attempt to commit a felony. They were thus found guilty of felony murder associated with each one of those tangential convictions.

The vast majority of the country supported that verdict. That isn't surprising; Arbery's death is—at least in my view—an open and shut moral case. That the murder was undergirded by racism is not speculative. It can be found in the younger McMichael's own words: Bryan, who filmed the encounter, told investigators that, after shooting Arbery dead, McMichael called him a "fucking nigger."

It would thus be tempting now to associate the words "felony murder" with fairness and justice. But high-profile trials are a lousy way of assessing the criminal justice system. It's understandable some would assume that individual proceedings are microcosms for the broader machine. That's not true. The Arbery case is no exception.

The felony murder rule "divorces intent from consequence," says Lara Bazelon, a professor of law at the University of San Francisco. "The concept is that, well, if you went along for the underlying felony, if you went along for the less serious act…then you're just as guilty as [the murderer], even if you didn't know that your co-defendant was armed, and even if you had no intent to kill yourself."

That scenario is not a hypothetical. In May 2020, not long before Arbery's convicted murderers were indicted, Jenna Holm was arrested on a manslaughter charge in Idaho, accused of killing a police officer after he arrived to respond to her apparent mental health crisis. But it wasn't Holm who killed Bonneville County Sheriff's Deputy Wyatt Maser—something the state conceded. It was another cop, who struck Maser in his vehicle when he drove onto the scene.

While an internal investigation revealed the officers disregarded safety procedures that night, the police eschewed introspection and set their sights on Holm, charging her with an "unlawful act" and tacking a manslaughter charge on top. (A judge recently struck it down, but only after Holm sat in jail for 16 months pre-trial.)

There are many more such stories. In December 2018, 16-year-old Masonique Saunders was charged with the felony murder of her boyfriend, who a police officer shot during the commission of a robbery. Because she allegedly helped plan that burglary, Ohio said the teen effectively killed her own partner. But perhaps the most iconic anecdote associated with the felony murder rule is the unfortunate story of Ryan Holle, who was sentenced to life in prison after he lent his car to some friends. Those friends then used it to commit a crime—also a burglary—which went horribly awry after one of the men found a firearm in the house they were robbing and used it to kill 18-year-old Jessica Snyder.

Holle was a mile and a half away from that scene, but he was treated no differently than Charles Miller, Jr., who saw that gun and spontaneously murdered Snyder. "Felony murder says you are just as liable, you are just as guilty as the person who pulled the trigger," notes Bazelon. In 2015, Holle's sentence was commuted to 25 years in prison; he will not be released until 2024.

Indeed, the felony murder rule has long been a popular target among people interested in criminal justice reform. Yet those principles are decidedly more difficult to apply when the defendants are as unsympathetic as those in the Arbery case, which is why someone like Bazelon may find herself on a smaller island than usual.

"If you believe in your heart that felony murder is wrong because it overcriminalizes, and you're a believer that you should be guilty of what you intend to do—no more no less—then you have to stick with that," she says, "even when the people who are convicted are people that you dislike, and in your heart you feel, you know what, they deserve it."

Bazelon admits that she did feel that way toward the two defendants who didn't pull the trigger—that she had to resist the gut urge to celebrate the ruling as just. It's hard to blame her. But ultimately taking issue with Gregory McMichael and Bryan's collective seven murder convictions is not synonymous with hoping they'd walk free. 

Consider Bryan's involvement: The McMichaels' neighbor pursued Arbery in a separate vehicle, admittedly using his truck to cut off Arbery's route of escape and allegedly hitting him in the process. For the latter action alone, he was convicted of aggravated assault, which, under Georgia law, carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. And that's to say nothing of his other convictions.

His behavior was "incredibly reckless and dangerous," Bazelon says. "But there's no evidence that he intended to murder him."

From a purely legal perspective, that Georgia jury still got it right. "It's a correct use of Georgia felony murder law. This is exactly what the law was designed to do," she tells me. "And it makes me uncomfortable….If you are a principled thinker and you are a professor of law, and you have moral principles and beliefs, then you have to apply them to everybody." For that to include the Holms and the Saunderses and the Holles of the world, that necessarily also has to include a McMichael and a Bryan—no matter how unsavory it may be.

NEXT: School Districts Are Using Their COVID-19 Relief Money on Vape Detectors, Tennis Courts

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. Hey look, NBC news has an artist's rendering of JFree.

    Even after being fully vaccinated, many still wrestle with a fear of catching Covid
    “I don’t want to be sitting in a movie theater with ‘patient zero’ of a variant that bucks the vaccine.”

    Since the start of the pandemic, Kit Breshears has been terrified of catching the coronavirus. Getting vaccinated did not magically change that.

    For the past 13 months, Breshears, 44, of Buffalo, Minnesota, has not stepped foot inside a store or restaurant, not even to pick up a takeout meal. Any visits with family and friends have been over Zoom.

    There's another word for Breshears: A Democrat.

    1. LOL, he's mentally ill!

      1. ◄ WORK AT HOME FOR USA ►
        ★I am making a real GOOD MONEY (123$ / hr ) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT of nearly $30k, this online work is simple and straightforward, don’t have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I…go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart…
        ══════HERE► ........... Visit Here

        1. Getting paid every month easily more than $15k just by doing simple job online. Last month i have exactly received $17529 from this online job just by giving this 2 hrs a day online. start earning more cash online just by follow instructions here.

          Here’s what I do… WorkJoin1

      2. Yeah Paul mentioned that he's a Democrat.

    2. Getting paid every month easily more than $15k just by doing simple job online. Last month i have exactly received $17529 from this online job just by giving this 2 hrs a day online. start earning more cash online just by follow instructions here.

      Here’s what I do…>>> WorkJoin1

  2. 1+1+1+feelingz = whatever number emotionally satisfies you

    1. Yeah, I can see how 5/3rds of a murder gets you to 5. I don't see how the other 7 get you to justice being restored.

      1. 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 Asd per week in your free time and get paid on a regular basis. Only reliable internet connection and computer needed to get started…

        Start Today Click Here...........Pays/-24

    2. Make money online from home extra cash more than $18k to $21k. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26K in this month by HVc just working online from home in my part time. Every person easily do this job by

      just visit.............BizProfit

  3. How is it not double jeopardy to attach a felony murder charge to every felony committed when there is only one murder? I mean, ignore whether felony murder is a good idea or not for the moment - there was still only one murder. How can you be guilty of it multiple times?

    1. Felony murder is an old common law doctrine, it's meant to provide incentives for felons to not endanger their victim's lives.

      Double jeopardy only applies for charges where the elements are the same. The predicate felonies here have different elements.

      1. But the act was the same-they were engaging in a felony that killed someone.

        Beyond that, Georgia is an extremely unique state that lets you charge felony murder for the underlying crime of aggravated assault. Given that every murder must inherently involve aggravated assault, how is not every murder also a felony murder? It's a weird legal theory that lets you charge people for murder twice. Or, perhaps worse, it lets you charge murder when they don't have murderous intent and the charge should be closer to manslaughter, as a result of a death coming as a consequence of assault. It's a shitty law in Georgia.

        I can kind of support the felony murder for the dad (even though he was shouting "no!" as his son pulled the trigger) but it's really tough for me to get to felony murder for Roddy Brian, who didn't bring a gun at all.

      2. Find USA Online Jobs (800$-95000$ Weekly) safe and secure! Easy Acces To Information. Simple in use. All the Answers. Multiple sources combined.GHb Fast and trusted. Discover us now! Easy & Fast, 99% Match. ..
        GOOD LUCK......VISIT HERE

      3. Common Law crimes are based on the notion that the accused caused harm to the victim. Thus, only the actual murderer could be guilty of murder under common law, no matter what other deeds were committed nor how they felt. I believe that your assessment that felony murder arose from that concept is in error.

    2. That’s an easy one: because humans are fucking idiots who have no problem fastening the noose around their own necks. As long as it’s somebody else’s problem, the rest of us will be proud and indignant when we declare the bad guy to be so wrong that his actions must consequently curtaik our own freedoms in an act of ignorant spite.

      I really do hope to see humanity end while I’m here.

      1. My pay at least $300/day. My co-worker says me! I’m really amazed because you really help people to have ideas how to earn money. Thank you for your ideas and I hope that you’ll achieve more and receive more blessings.ffi I admire your Website I hope you will notice me & I hope I can also win your paypal giveaway.

        Visit Now ..............Extreme-Earning

  4. See they should have ran him over, then it would be the cars fault. Am I doing this right?

    1. No, they were supposed to claim the gun went off by itself.

      1. Was Alex Baldwin involved in shooting Aubrey?

        1. If he was, he didn’t pull the trigger.

          1. But let's not dismiss the victims here. And I do mean multiple victims, besides poor Alec.

            He's not the only one to find his interview Hilaria-s.

  5. Thanks Billy, I asked about this in another thread when the verdict came in. Maybe dumbassca will see this and learn too.

  6. Lol these guys ran down and murdered this dude, they should have gotten 2 charges for lynching and murder and the electric chair as the only option. This was premeditated KKK bullshit.

    1. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. In the progressives mindset, It's not a regular murder.

      For progressives, people should be punished for what they think and how they feel.

      1. Lol, felony murder doctrine predates 'progressivism' by quite a bit Ken.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule#History

        But when all you have is a hammer, hey....

        1. Progressives are so evil, they went back in time to impose felony murder doctrine upon us all!

        2. What mendacity. Ken was refering to whether the motive makes a murder worse. Should you get a lighter sentence because you murdered someone because he was boning your gal than someone who murders because of race or religion or whatever? Murder is murder. Motive should be used as part of the prosecution's case, not a part of the judge's sentence.

          1. Ding! +1

          2. I might also add that in the case of Rittenhouse, progressives don't seem to care that Rittenhouse didn't murder anyone.

            They wanted him convicted for murder--not because he murdered anyone but because they say acquitting him sent the wrong message to racists. They wanted him unjustly convicted of murder to send a message to racists.

            For a while, some of them contended that he crossed state lines--as if that were a crime for some reason. They were grasping at anything. They just wanted him convicted for murder because they say he was a white supremacist.

            It wasn't even really about Rittenhouse for most progressives. It was probably about Trump and Trump supporters. They thought Trump and Trump supporters supported Rittenhouse, so they wanted Rittenhouse convicted for being a racist. That's how their minds work.

          3. Lol, let's ignore a big chunk of, say, death penalty jurisprudence (if you killed a guy intending to rob him you are more likely to get death, etc.,)! It's a liberal conspiracy I tells ya!

      2. Ken, it is murder regardless, and the murderous trio deserve a very quick date with *Old Sparky. Murder is murder. As a civil society governed by the rule of law, murder cannot be tolerated.

        I don't see how this is political at all. I loathe progressivism.

        *The reason I want a quick trip to Old Sparky is these guys look relatively young. As a taxpayer, I don't want to have to pay for their murdering asses for 30-40 years. The needle works too, but these assholes really deserve a special send-off that Old Sparky can uniquely provide.

        1. I have no problem convicting murderers of murder.

          The question is how three assailants ended up with 12 murder convictions for murdering one man, and the answer is political--even if it shouldn't be.

        2. I'll take the opinion of use of force experts over internet randos who just want whitey hanged. From the experts I've listened to the video of previous thefts with the I'd was enough to make the stop legal which then nullified the entirety of the illegality of actions taken. But the judge chose to leave the interpretation of the law to a jury that didn't want to be doxxed and murdered by progressives. Yeah, no politics there.

      3. "No cash bail!" Let out all the looters caught and charged in LA. But $1M bail is not good enough for the parents of the school shooter.

    2. Lynching is murder, that's kind of the problem with it. There shouldn't be two crimes in a single criminal act, see. When we want criminal justice reform, this is the sort of thing we're talking about, and it doesn't matter if the defendants are really unlikeable.

      1. I'm sure Don "make sure you bump their head when you put them in the patrol car, but when it comes to me where's the due process, witch hunt!!!!' Trump will fix that when he gets back in!

        1. Bitch, whatever you’re smoking, pass it around!

          1. Unfortunately it’s not fun drugs, it’s mental illness.

  7. "How Did Ahmaud Arbery's 3 Assailants End Up With 12 Murder Convictions?"

    Theoretically, racism isn't a crime--like stupidity isn't a crime.

    In reality, racism is a crime, and it quadruples the punishment.

    1. Again, lol, maybe you couldn't be expected to know felony legal doctrine's long history sans legal or historical training, but the OP itself details examples not related to racism.

      You're just on a grievance mission.

      1. Is racism a crime?

        1. Thoughts are nor crimes--not even stupid ones.

          But juries, the media, and the courts are treating it like a crime.

          They wanted Rittenhouse convicted for having racism in his heart. There are people still on TV today upset that he wasn't convicted for being a racist.

          1. Some of "the media".

        2. Not sure who the muted pile of shit is, but if public stupidity was a crime, he'd be in jail.

          1. Is Sevo a retard?

            1. No. He is quite intelligent. But idiots cannot see this.

              1. So who told you this?

        3. Are you retarded?

          (this question has the same relevance)

          1. GG calls me "faggot" on a regular basis, if that is an indication of his maturity.

            1. You unironically call everyone who disagrees with a "Trumpista" a year after Trump left office.

              Also if you don't want to get called a faggot, a good first step would be to stop inviting anonymous men from the internet to the bathroom of a Ministry concert. Another good option would be to stop making eyes at White Mike and spit shreek's cock out of your mouth. Do you ever look at your sorry fucking excuse for a life you piece of shit? You're leaping into the fray to defend a guy who was banned from this site for posting child pornography and apologists for Soviet mass murder on a daily basis to pwn the cons. You've always been a stupid, low brow, lowlife, ignorant piece of shit, but at least you weren't a Marxist apologist. Make sure you've got plenty of 5.56 for that imaginary rifle you built over that all-male weekend at an AirBNB despite the fact that by your own admission you are a convicted criminal and would be prohibited from owning firearms. You may just need it if you get what you want.

  8. Because they killed a black guy, the sacred cow of the American nation. Do not defile the gods. That's rule number 1.

    #mayomonkeysgot2go

  9. Sort of OT: I once sat (for a time) on an jury charged with deciding which of three young men were charged with killing a fourth. Since the prosecution couldn't prove WHICH young men had pulled the trigger, all three were convicted of "accessory to murder," and no one was convicted of the actual murder. Hmm.

    1. That’s a pretty nifty prosecutorial trick.

    2. I've heard of cases like this involving "commerce".

      Two guys are busted driving down the highway with a pound of weed. Neither of them will talk to the police, so the prosecutor charges both of them with possession of one pound of weed and intent to distribute.

      I don't know why a jury would let a prosecutor get away with that. At the very least, there's reasonable doubt that either one of them was the owner. It could have belonged to the other guy! Who's to say it didn't?

      1. The ethical strategy is to charge them both and have simultaneous, separate juries, not one, consider the facts.

  10. Meanwhile, there's a manhunt underway for the parents of the school shooter in Michigan because the prosecutor is planning on charging them with involuntary manslaughter for the actions of their son. Of course, the teachers who knew this kid was a whacko are under no such threat of prosecution. And I'm sure the prosecutor isn't doing backflips over this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a name for herself that can be leveraged into higher office. If the kid has a lick of sense, his defense is going to be that the Covid pandemic, its school closures, its lockdowns and social distancing and mask mandates, stressed him out so badly that it tipped him over the edge into madness. It really wasn't his fault, it was Joe Biden's, for mercilessly driving an emotionally fragile child such as himself into committing such an awful act.

    1. "Of course, the teachers who knew this kid was a whacko are under no such threat of prosecution."

      Cuz they bought him a gun for class!

      God, you want to spin your vicimhood narrative so badly you're literally humping our legs.

      1. It isn’t either/or. If teachers were aware of a threat, they had both a professional and a moral obligation to have it reported and investigated.

        1. They did, and the parents shrugged.

          1. The parents were made aware he behaved strangely. There was no knowledge of a threat at the time of the meeting.

            That’s why police were not notified and the kid had not been suspended or punished.

            It was believed he was weird, not dangerous.

      2. No wonder shreek likes to fuck children, they're the only people at his intellectual level.

        Turns out buying a gun isn't a crime, shreeky. So be real fucking careful whose kids you touch. You wouldn't be the first or last degenerate faggot kiddie fucker to get ventilated for his trouble.

    2. It’s easier than that.
      “I didn’t pull the trigger”.

    3. Meanwhile, there's a manhunt underway for the parents of the school shooter in Michigan because the prosecutor is planning on charging them with involuntary manslaughter for the actions of their son.

      Meanwhile meanwhile, a black school shooter (which we all know can't possibly exist) gets released on bail. To be fair, maybe they would have charged his dad for accessory if he had one.

  11. Good piece.

    1. Way to mischaracterize what he actually said, which was a joke about Moderna CEO's greed with absolutely no doubt expressed that vaccinations are effective and safe.

      1. Cite?

      2. Skepticism towards vaccines in any way shape or form is anti-vaxx behavior.

        QED.

        1. Victimhood narratives aplenty!

          1. Right? What a bunch of babies! Get on the cattle car to the COVID concentration quarantine camp you big whiners! It's not like you're some persecuted minority like the family of a drugged out ghetto punk ass bitch who held a pregnant woman at gunpoint and died after inhaling his stash of fentanyl. What, do you think you're entitled to 27 million dollars or something?

      3. Oh, and just so you know, it wasn't the MAGA crowd that ratio'd him, it was his own loyal audience.

    2. Haven't seen the Daily Show since they gave up on comedy.

  12. Your examples are all over the map. Loaning your vehicle to someone who later uses it to burgle a place with a buddy who shoots someone -- I have zero problem with both burglars being charged with murder. Did the car loaner know they planned a burglary - if yes, charge him too, since he was part of that bungled burglary; if not, if he had no idea what they intended, leave him out of it all.

    These three -- hell yes, charge them all with the same crimes, they were all in it together, intending something illegal -- kidnapping, false arrest, imprisonment, cal it what you will -- which ended in death. Whether any of them intended the death may change the degree of murder or manslaughter. but all three were in it together and all three deserve the same charges. Did one of them try to stop the shooting? If yes, cut him some slack. If not, too bad.

    The woman who was pulled over by cops and then charged with murder when one cop ran into another -- hell no, she had no idea cops would be so stupid.

    Don't do stupid things with stupid people at stupid places and stupid times. It's a simple rule.

    1. I don't have an issue with the concept of felony murder. I have issues with application that lets you charge people several times for the same murder. It's like a pre-emptive double-jeopardy: If you're not guilty of the murder in this way, maybe you're guilty of the murder in this other way, or this other way. But there's only a single act or murder involved. I think prosecutors should commit to a single theory and prosecute on that on that, without getting several swings all at once.

      1. I agree with that. Hate crimes, terrorism, this felony murder crap piled on -- charge the actual crime -- murder (x 3000 for the 9-11 terrorists) and leave the amplifiers and double-triple jeopardy out of it. Same with federal charges piled on, or civil charges in addition to criminal charges.

        1. I'm with you on this too.

          Also don't like other forms of charge stacking. Should not be able to prosecute for 1st degree and 2nd degree murder of the same person at the same time. Force the prosecution to pick the right charges and proves them.

    2. all three were in it together and all three deserve the same charges.

      Try reading the article you illiterate fucking retard. That's got fuck all to do with anything. You obviously can't read, but can you fucking add? 12 convictions for 3 guys on 1 murder. Find a grownup to read it to you real fucking slow.

    3. And there is the mind of the progressive racist. You don't care if they did something illegal so any label will work, you just want them lynched. So tolerant, so wise.

  13. The truth is that I'm still torn on this from a legal theory. I reject the notion that the laws of the state can only be enforced by agents of the state; they derive their power to enforce laws from the population.

    If police can stop and detain someone based on a reasonable suspicion that they've committed a crime, why is that denied to citizens? On the other side, I don't submit to any random people being justified in using force to stop and question me just because I might look like someone who committed a crime.

    The optics of hopping in a pick-up and chasing after a black guy are really poor but I'm not sure if it reaches to the level of murder. If they'd wanted to kill him they could have just shot him in the back-they wanted to detain him so police could interview him when he arrived. This is a guy who had a history of fighting with police as well-if police had done the exact same thing these guys did, would we still call this murder?

    1. "This is a guy who had a history of fighting with police as well-if police had done the exact same thing these guys did, would we still call this murder?"

      Likely you sure wouldn't!

      1. This from the faggot boy-fucker who posted child pornography at Reason.com and got his faggot boy-fucker ass banned and has been an apologist for Stalin and the Soviet purges for a decade.

    2. Ask the family of Saint George Floyd if it matters that a piece of crap died.

      He deserved death, but at a place and manner of divine humor, not as it happened.

    3. If police can stop and detain someone based on a reasonable suspicion that they've committed a crime, why is that denied to citizens?

      Because we've all agreed that police powers should be the exclusive province of the state, because the alternative is vigilantism.

      1. See, I'm not settled on this. Use of force and usage of tools of lethal force is not something I believe is exclusively the province of the state. When it comes to the processes that deprive people of liberty, that does need to be exclusively a state function so that people can exercise their civil rights and protections-to protect themselves from unlawful search and seizure, right to refuse to answer questions and to consult with an attorney, etc.

        But if I see someone burgling my neighbor's house, if I don't believe police are going to arrive in time to apprehend them, I don't think I'm obliged to just let them get away with criminal activity. When there's an active felony occurring, the community at large is affected, so the answer can't be "tough shit, the police are too busy to deal with it right now."

      2. Because we've all agreed that police powers should be the exclusive province of the state

        I don't remember the committee meeting where I voted for that. It certainly isn't any part of the American constitution or common law. Of course since you're a Canadian with no idea how your own country's legal system works and even less about America, it's not surprising you made that mistake, cytotoxic.

        It's interesting you spent 2 years defending "inner city youth" chimpouts that resulted in 3 dozen murders, thousands of assaults and 3 billion dollars in property damage. Get your lily white bloated fat fucking ass out there next time and find out what police power really is like your child-fucking comrade Jo Jo Rosenbaum did. I'll be there waiting for you.

      1. Lol, I love how he asks the question and then answers it himself.

        1. If you hadn't dropped out of high school you not only might have made enough money to pay your mortgage and your lost bets, but you'd also have learned about rhetoric and socratic dialogue. Of course we all know your interests are more at a grade-school level. (For the benefit of your retarded ass, that's a joke about how you fuck little children and got banned from Reason.com for posting child pornography)

    1. It's my understanding that if a corporation wants to use a native American mascot, they have a right to do so, and any attempt to limit that would be a right wing Josh Hawley-esque plot.

  14. Remember how all those white supremacists lied about CRT being taught in public schools?
    https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/12/detroit-superintendent-opposes-crt-ban-in-michigan-our-curriculum-is-deeply-using-crt/
    Vitti: We’re very intentional about creating a curriculum, infusing materials, and embedding critical race theory within our curriculum.
    In a school board meeting on November 9, Dr. Nikolai Vitti, the superintendent of Detroit Public Schools Community District (DPSCD), urged the board to oppose a ban on Critical Race Theory (CRT) in public schools in Michigan.
    Vitti urged the board to oppose a bill passed by the state House banning certain aspects of CRT, saying DPSCD is “very intentional” about embedding CRT: “Our curriculum is deeply using critical race theory, especially in social studies, but you’ll find it in English Language Arts and the other disciplines.”

    1. (3) It isn’t what you think.

    2. They never said that the vaccine was 100% effective and that you couldn't catch nor transmit the disease once you got it.

      Well, yes, they did say that, but that was before the Rubincon variant was prevalent, so since they were "speaking broadly" it doesn't count.

      What does "speaking broadly mean"

      What it means, Trumpy McTrumpmeister, is that this is the photo of Stalin that's now the official photo, it no longer contains Trotsky, so just shut the fuck up and accept it.

      1. Hi Luka! It's like a triple double of errors here...

        1. It's like a triple double of errors here...

          Exactly what the doctor told your mom when the abortion didn't take and you came rolling out of her gaping episiotomy, brain damaged and covered in shit, just like you'd go on to spend the entire rest of your life.

  15. How Did Ahmaud Arbery's 3 Assailants End Up With 12 Murder Convictions?

    They were convicted in 4 parallel universes?

  16. " The felony murder rule is a perversion of justice "

    From the perspective of disaffected, half-educated, anti-government cranks, sure!

    Get an education. Maybe a law degree (from a reputable, mainstream school). Or at least ask someone who understands this subject for an explanation.

    1. Mens rea disagrees.

      1. Is that (1) a clinger law degree (Regent, Liberty, Ave Maria) talking, (2) what you think you remember from a discount homeschooling outline, or (3) something you heard from Ingraham, Hannity, Carlson, or Alex Jones last night?

        1. How's that doctorate of divinity you got out of the back of Rolling Stone working out for you? Did you hang it up on the wall of the men's room where you make your living next to your law degree from the university of CNN?

      2. Translation: thoughtcrime in ancient Rome. Early christians were executed for it as of about 150CE, when the Jesus myth was fabricated and took root. The meek got even by burning Romans at the stake for the same thoughtcrime, different gods.

  17. Speaking of criminal justice reform, Eric Garcetti just said publicly that he wants to end the city's "zero bail" system. Well, that party didn't last very long when the criminals started hitting Louboutin and Anthropologie.

    1. Didn't expect it would.

  18. Reason has done some deep dives this week. A colorful tableau of scoundrels like Dr. Oz, Josh Hawley and Greg Abbot. Never has the republic, indeed the planet, faced a greater risk to liberty than it does from posturing, big tech threatening, dubious nostrum hawking Republicans. As if that weren't enough we learned that Republicans mulled Shutting.Down.The.Government. It was like reliving the insurrection of 1/6 all over again. Still there was some good news. If when you drink alone you prefer to be by yourself, some states will let some guy stop by with your pal Johnny Walker and his brothers black and red (full disclosure, I didn't actually read the article). But then yet another depressing update on the endless oppression visited upon food trucks by callous and unfeeling politicians. It's been a busy week for the journalists at Reason defending our rights and twirling toward freedom so they can be forgiven if they failed to notice that liberal democracy is in it's death throes at the hands of authoritarian leftists.
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-01/multiple-people-escape-howard-springs-quarantine-facility-darwin/100663994

    1. The guards wear paper smocks. Paper smocks! How scary is an internment camp with guards that wear paper smocks?

      The subtext here is that who knew paper smocks protected you from the most deadly virus in the history of human civilization?

      Ebola, 50% kill rate? Showing concern over who might be coming into the country from Ebola infected areas: Racist.

      Shutting down travel from South Africa because those niggers refused to get vaccinated and are "rats and cockroaches scampering across your dinner plate"? Good policy.

      1. "the most deadly virus in the history of human civilization?"

        Dianne reminds me of my ex-wife.

        Me: Honey, did you leave the milk out?
        Dianne: I guess I did, I guess I'm the worst person in the world, I guess I can't do anything right.

        1. Now we understand why she kicked your lesbian ass out.

        2. You are an unmarried pedophile welfare case, shreek. Also adults do not need milk and the vast majority of them do not drink it. You're probably thinking of one of the children you drugged, kidnapped, and fucked.

      2. Diane, I never expected you to be one of those who goes in for the deliberately coarse and offensive language in order to try to make your point.

        1. He's literally quoting your buddy sarcasmic's latest Joe Friday sock you ignorant fat fucking faggot.

    2. "This the first time we've had to use the centre for large numbers of people from an Aboriginal community, but it probably won't be the last time," he said.

      Nazi Ozzies?

      1. Clearly no racism here from white people who know what's best for the darkies.

  19. "How did three men rack up a collective 12 murder convictions after McMichael shot one person?"

    Cuz how else are we gonna Justice?

  20. Agreed that they're guilty as hell, but the math is pretty funky here... But wait, math is racist too, so I guess it makes sense.

    I have seen the sines.

  21. Felony murder is a bad idea.
    You know who is guilty of murder? The person who pulls the trigger. Not the person who drove the car, or bought the gun, or did anything else. All those other people might be guilty of other crimes, but not murder.

    1. Oh, come on, get out your pitchfork! You know you want to!

    2. The problem with this is that now, to get rid of the murder charge, all a group has to do is stand in a circle and point to their right. Now, you know the group murdered someone but cannot pin it on anyone. It becomes even worse if all of them attack and there's no single wound that was mortal.

      If a group of three men rob a store together, then they all get charged with robbery. If three men work together to kill someone, then they should all be charged with murder.

  22. This whole trial was a farce from beginning to end. If these men really wanted to kill Arbery, they would have just shot him, not called the police beforehand. And the murder conviction totally ignores the fact that the men didn't shoot until Arbery grabbed the gun and started punching the guy.

    And there was no way the jury was going to acquit them with the mobs threatening to burn the city down. Welcome to justice post-George Floyd.

    1. Reason has been clear that on criminal justice reform they always side with the marxist politicians and the criminals.

  23. You haven't figured it out yet? They're radicalising blm and lgbtqxyz by successful propaganda while relocating their families to a luxury island in the Atlantic where they'll have a condo next to colon power just before a controlled nuclear burn of North america.

  24. And it makes me uncomfortable….If you are a principled thinker and you are a professor of law, and you have moral principles and beliefs,

    Thank goodness there is no danger of this among the people writing for Reason!

  25. Kyle was only on trial because he was white. The Arbery guys got a gazzillion murder charges because they are white.
    The Waukesha guy will get less because he’s black.
    So yea racism changes the justice system just not in the ways some think

  26. well, there should be a hell of a lot of murder charges in Chicago as of this morning the homicide count is at 800. That's right folks, 800 homicides in the windy city.
    And there's still four weeks to go left in this month/year.
    Congratulations Chicago on surpassing your previous worst year!
    And to Mayor Lori Lightfoot for her courage , determination and ability to bring this all about.
    She'll get re-elected for sure.

  27. While you can cite some examples that suggest that the felony murder laws could be tightened up (for example, actually being present while the crime is committed), I really don’t have an issue with the basic notion that if you participate in a crime and someone is murdered that you are guilty of participating in that murder and should be charged accordingly.

  28. Bryan’s attorney, Kevin Gough, said his team was “disappointed with the verdict, but we respect it.” He planned to file new legal motions after Thanksgiving.

  29. What about the "one act, one crime" rule? Is that still the law? Is this considered compatible with it because there were multiple "associated" criminal acts? Can someone really be convicted of "murdering" the same person several times over?

  30. I am very impressed with your post, thanks for sharing. Would love to see more stuff like this in future. Also download Nulls Clash Apk.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.