Attorneys are asking a U.S. appeals court to throw out the hate crime convictions of three White men who used pickup trucks to chase Ahmaud Arbery through the streets of a Georgia subdivision before one of them killed the running Black man with a shotgun.

A panel of judges from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta was scheduled to hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that followed a national outcry over Arbery’s death. The men’s lawyers argue that evidence of past racist comments they made didn’t prove a racist intent to harm.

    • rtxn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Disagree on the lawyers. Their job is to zealously represent whoever the client might be, and anything less than that risks a mistrial due to ineffective representation. Borrowing former prosecutor Emily D. Baker’s words (from a Depp v. Heard livestream), not making such a motion is almost considered legal malpractice.

      You wouldn’t want those three cunts to walk free because of a procedural mistake.

        • rtxn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          9 months ago

          Except sovereign citizens, they’ll hate them all the more once they need one.

      • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Just like freedom of speech, everyone loves the right to representation until someone they don’t like exercises it. If rights don’t apply to everyone then they effectively apply to no one.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s unconstitutional to torture them.

      Better do separate holes so they don’t annoy each other.

      • Beefy-Tootz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Correction, it’s only unconstitutional if it’s also really weird. The rule prevents punishments that are both cruel and unusual, not cruel or unusual

      • Zorsith
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s kinda the UKs modus operati. Ship the problematic individuals in society away (criminals to Australia, puritans to the new England colonies).

  • stoly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    9 months ago

    Notable: their argument is that it was unfair to have used their social media posts in trial because what was said inflamed the jury against them. They are literally saying that you can’t use their past words against them because they were so bad that a jury would automatically react against them.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      Well, it’s too late to not be vocally racist hillbillies, so what other shot do they have?

      I wish them a speedy trial and a swift return to their homes (cells, that is).

      Does America add time as a penalty for stupid appeals, yet?

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      This is why you shouldn’t post anything to social media that anyone could ever use against you unless you do so very anonymously.

  • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    9 months ago

    Unless they can prove that no other people ever went jogging through that neighborhood without being chased down and shot at, then there is a reason they specifically chose this person to chase down and shoot at.