Did Ahmad Aubrey deserve to die?

[EJ24]

?

[BG-NY]

Unless somebody is a murderer, a pedophile, or has committed treason/terrorism, nobody should die honestly. Even then, need to have incontrovertible video and/or DNA evidence, and clear proof of motive.

[Mopsus]

Not sure this thread is in good taste.

[Alben Barkley]

Of course not. And this case seems far more open and shut to me than the Rittenhouse case. Those redneck morons should serve time.

Also their defense attorney really is a "nasty woman:"

"Turning Ahmaud Arbery into a victim after the choices that he made, does not reflect the reality of what's brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores, in his khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails," she said.

[lfromnj]

Of course not. And this case seems far more open and shut to me than the Rittenhouse case. Those redneck morons should serve time.

Also their defense attorney really is a "nasty woman:"

"Turning Ahmaud Arbery into a victim after the choices that he made, does not reflect the reality of what's brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores, in his khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails," she said.

A defense attorney making disparaging statements should not be used against them. They are merely trying to provide their client the best chance possible.

[Alben Barkley]

Of course not. And this case seems far more open and shut to me than the Rittenhouse case. Those redneck morons should serve time.

Also their defense attorney really is a "nasty woman:"

"Turning Ahmaud Arbery into a victim after the choices that he made, does not reflect the reality of what's brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores, in his khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails," she said.

A defense attorney making disparaging statements should not be used against them. They are merely trying to provide their client the best chance possible.

It is one thing to suggest the victim of the crime your client is accused of was not so innocent. It's another thing entirely to personally attack their physical appearance, fashion, and hygiene. There is zero cause for that, and if anything it probably only hurts her client's case, not strengthens it, given most juries are going to have a visceral negative reaction to that sort of thing. I know enough about the legal system to say this absolutely is worthy of criticism on both legal AND moral grounds. I get that yellow avatars especially tend to love being contrarians about everything, but there really is no excuse for this s--t.

[DrScholl]

Of course not. And this case seems far more open and shut to me than the Rittenhouse case. Those redneck morons should serve time.

Also their defense attorney really is a "nasty woman:"

"Turning Ahmaud Arbery into a victim after the choices that he made, does not reflect the reality of what's brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores, in his khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails," she said.

A defense attorney making disparaging statements should not be used against them. They are merely trying to provide their client the best chance possible.

Attacking the victim of a crime is not a good defense, it's nothing more than victim blaming. If anything it shows that the attorney has a poor defense for their client.

[lfromnj]

Of course not. And this case seems far more open and shut to me than the Rittenhouse case. Those redneck morons should serve time.

Also their defense attorney really is a "nasty woman:"

"Turning Ahmaud Arbery into a victim after the choices that he made, does not reflect the reality of what's brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores, in his khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails," she said.

A defense attorney making disparaging statements should not be used against them. They are merely trying to provide their client the best chance possible.

Attacking the victim of a crime is not a good defense, it's nothing more than victim blaming. If anything it shows that the attorney has a poor defense for their client.

Yes just like the Rittenhouse prosecution and COD. The difference is the state vs a defense. The defense lawyer is not a bad person for statements made in court for their client.

[DrScholl]

Of course not. And this case seems far more open and shut to me than the Rittenhouse case. Those redneck morons should serve time.

Also their defense attorney really is a "nasty woman:"

"Turning Ahmaud Arbery into a victim after the choices that he made, does not reflect the reality of what's brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores, in his khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails," she said.

A defense attorney making disparaging statements should not be used against them. They are merely trying to provide their client the best chance possible.

Attacking the victim of a crime is not a good defense, it's nothing more than victim blaming. If anything it shows that the attorney has a poor defense for their client.

Yes just like the Rittenhouse prosecution and COD. The difference is the state vs a defense. The defense lawyer is not a bad person for statements made in court for their client.

This isn't about Rittenhouse. Morally a defense attorney is a bad person if they victim blame. Legally they can say these things but morally it's reprehensible and there's nothing wrong with stating that opinion.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Of course not. And this case seems far more open and shut to me than the Rittenhouse case. Those redneck morons should serve time.

Also their defense attorney really is a "nasty woman:"

"Turning Ahmaud Arbery into a victim after the choices that he made, does not reflect the reality of what's brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores, in his khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails," she said.

A defense attorney making disparaging statements should not be used against them. They are merely trying to provide their client the best chance possible.

Attacking the victim of a crime is not a good defense, it's nothing more than victim blaming. If anything it shows that the attorney has a poor defense for their client.

Yes just like the Rittenhouse prosecution and COD. The difference is the state vs a defense. The defense lawyer is not a bad person for statements made in court for their client.

I have a tough time seeing any judge allowing those sort of remarks in court, especially the "long, dirty toenails" one. Would probably result in an immediate objection and sustaining.

[NYSforKennedy2024]

What?

[SteveRogers]

Of course not. And this case seems far more open and shut to me than the Rittenhouse case. Those redneck morons should serve time.

Also their defense attorney really is a "nasty woman:"

"Turning Ahmaud Arbery into a victim after the choices that he made, does not reflect the reality of what's brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores, in his khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails," she said.

A defense attorney making disparaging statements should not be used against them. They are merely trying to provide their client the best chance possible.

Attacking the victim of a crime is not a good defense, it's nothing more than victim blaming. If anything it shows that the attorney has a poor defense for their client.

Yes just like the Rittenhouse prosecution and COD. The difference is the state vs a defense. The defense lawyer is not a bad person for statements made in court for their client.

I have a tough time seeing any judge allowing those sort of remarks in court, especially the "long, dirty toenails" one. Would probably result in an immediate objection and sustaining.

If I’m understanding correctly, she got away with the “long, dirty toenails” remark because it was a direct quote from the autopsy report that was in evidence. Still, I can’t see that line gaining her any credibility with the jury.

[lfromnj]

Of course not. And this case seems far more open and shut to me than the Rittenhouse case. Those redneck morons should serve time.

Also their defense attorney really is a "nasty woman:"

"Turning Ahmaud Arbery into a victim after the choices that he made, does not reflect the reality of what's brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores, in his khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails," she said.

A defense attorney making disparaging statements should not be used against them. They are merely trying to provide their client the best chance possible.

Attacking the victim of a crime is not a good defense, it's nothing more than victim blaming. If anything it shows that the attorney has a poor defense for their client.

Yes just like the Rittenhouse prosecution and COD. The difference is the state vs a defense. The defense lawyer is not a bad person for statements made in court for their client.

I have a tough time seeing any judge allowing those sort of remarks in court, especially the "long, dirty toenails" one. Would probably result in an immediate objection and sustaining.

If I’m understanding correctly, she got away with the “long, dirty toenails” remark because it was a direct quote from the autopsy report that was in evidence. Still, I can’t see that line gaining her any credibility with the jury.

Hmm I think the point of saying it was why is someone jogging without socks while wearing khaki shorts.(its bs but she's just trying to sow doubt ?) The argument is probably that "anyone "would see him as suspicious and not a standard jogger. Note the argument is bs, but the lawyers have a quite weak case as far as I see it, and going for Hail Mary's is the only play other than a plea deal. I still don't like the idea of cancelling a defense lawyer.

[Sestak]

I think you could easily argue that it is in fact the judge who should be preventing these types of attempts to bias the jury. Trial lawyers do have to try to give the best shot they can give their client in the courtroom; it is up to the judge to determine what is a legitimate way to do that and what isn't.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Of course not. And this case seems far more open and shut to me than the Rittenhouse case. Those redneck morons should serve time.

Also their defense attorney really is a "nasty woman:"

"Turning Ahmaud Arbery into a victim after the choices that he made, does not reflect the reality of what's brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores, in his khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails," she said.

What the f**k?

[lfromnj]

Ok on 2nd thought it seems the attorneys may not be acting in an attempt to persuade the jury but rather to bring so much national attention that some incident happens and a mistrial happens.

[Roronoa D. Law]

The defense thinks their best play is gunning for a mistrial or racially tribalizing jury by using racially coded language.

[Badger]

Is a very very satisfying Vote result in this poll. Hopefully the jury thinks similarly.

[ProudModerate2]

According to the defense attorneys, he should because of his dirty toenails.

[dead0man]

Can a red avatar who thinks Rittenhouse should be in prison explain the difference between this poll and the Rittenhouse poll?  Why do you think it is that everyone agrees Ahmad was murdered but only a handful of you and most of the mainstream media think Rosenbaum was?  It's weird, right?  If it was because we were racist or whatever, wouldn't there be a lot more people saying Ahmad wasn't murdered but was killed in self defense.  But you're not seeing that, it must be very confusing to some of you.  Maybe some of your comrades can help you out and explain.