Posted on 02/22/2022 7:55:48 AM PST by Eleutheria5
Associated Press All 3 defendants convicted of hate crimes in Arbery killing RUSS BYNUM Tue, February 22, 2022, 8:18 AM·5 min read BRUNSWICK, Ga. (AP) — The three men convicted of murder in Ahmaud Arbery’s fatal shooting were found guilty of federal hate crimes Tuesday for violating Arbery’s civil rights and targeting him because he was Black.
The jury reached its decision after several hours of deliberation on the charges against father and son Greg and Travis McMichael and neighbor William “Roddie” Bryan.
During the trial, prosecutors showed roughly two dozen text messages and social media posts in which Travis McMichael and Bryan used racist slurs and made derogatory comments about Black people. The FBI wasn’t able to access Greg McMichael’s phone because it was encrypted.
The McMichaels grabbed guns and jumped in a pickup truck to pursue Arbery after seeing him running in their neighborhood outside the Georgia port city of Brunswick in February 2020. Bryan joined the pursuit in his own pickup and recorded cellphone video of Travis McMichael fatally shooting Arbery. The killing became part of a larger national reckoning on racial injustice after the graphic video leaked online two months later.
Defense attorneys contended the three didn’t chase and kill Arbery because of his race but acted on the earnest, though erroneous, suspicion that Arbery had committed crimes in their neighborhood.
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Yeah, I don't buy that assertion. He was under color of law as a civilian doing what he did, and he was doubly so as a retired cop.
I've read excellent legal analysis of this case over at "Legal Insurrection" and it is clear to me the judge erred in both his interpretation of the law, and in his instructions to the jury.
Their conviction was a clear miscarriage of justice to anyone not blinded by the racial aspects of this case and the baying of the mob for their blood.
That may be so, but does not prove the retired cop is not acting under the color of law. These actions, or lack thereof, could also be construed as your company being risk and loss averse, which is something we already know about insurance companies.
If it isn't covered in the policy, why would any insurance company pay for it? Who gives away free money?
+1.
“He was under color of law as a civilian doing what he did, and he was doubly so as a retired cop.”
Yeah? Then why didn’t the police department or its insurer defend him? Both the insurer and the department have a very high duty to defend, and neither did. The insurer didn’t even defend under a reservation of rights, which would be the right thing to do if there was even the remotest chance the guy was acting under color of law. But he wasn’t
With all due respect, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Because they were under no obligation to do so. The fact that they didn't pay for his lawyers doesn't prove he was not operating under the color of law. It proves that insurance companies don't give money away for free.
If the police department had negotiated a policy that said their insurance would apply to retired cops performing law enforcement duties, then the insurance company would have paid for his lawyers.
The insurer didn’t even defend under a reservation of rights, which would be the right thing to do if there was even the remotest chance the guy was acting under color of law.
I don't see insurance companies as being motivated primarily by a desire to see justice done. I see them as being motivated by a need to provide a service for a profit.
Sorry, you just have no clue.
If there was even the remotest chance he was acting under color of law, both the department and its insurer had an OBLIGATION to defend him. If they had such an obligation, and they refused to defend him, he’d end up owning a nice chunk of the insurer, at least.
I am always willing to learn. I am simply not seeing how your point about insurance determines guilt or innocence.
Courts sometimes deliberate for days to determine guilt or innocence, and from what I can tell, they often get it wrong.
Should an insurance company's decision be regarded as more conclusive than that of a trial?
I don't grasp this line of argument.
Who decides he wasn't before the fact of a court trial?
If that is determinative, why have a trial?
“I am always willing to learn. I am simply not seeing how your point about insurance determines guilt or innocence.”
An insurer has two primary duties: to defend and to indemnify. The duty to defend is superior to the duty to indemnify. Insurance doesn’t determine fault, the trier of fact (the jury; or, if a bench trial, the judge) does.
“Who decides he wasn’t before the fact of a court trial?
If that is determinative, why have a trial?”
You don’t understand. For an insurance company to defend its insured, there FIRST must be coverage — or potential coverage — under the policy. That means the cause of action (the claim) must fall within the policy’s insuring agreement. If it doesn’t, and there’s no question it doesn’t, the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify, and will issue a coverage disclaimer. If there is potential coverage, the insurer will issue the policyholder a reservation of rights, which means the insurer will provide for a defense, but if evidence comes in that would show that coverage would not apply, then the insurer can issue a coverage disclaimer and withdraw from providing a defense.
Another thing: There was no claim or charge against the police department, which there sure as hell would have been if the guy had been acting under color of law. The guy had no real recoverable assets, but the police department did, and its insurer sure as hell did; so a claim would have been brought against them. But, none was.
I used to like reading your posts. Now...... you are out of your mind.
A man was murdered by three hicks looking to be heroes. One held a camera to record the deed. And they are proven racists via their texts. So stop picking gnat shit out of pepper.
Stupid redneck hicks got what they deserved.
My bad. I found a federal lawsuit on line (it’s a different case than this one, which I thought was the federal civil rights lawsuit, as that was what our local radio station said today; I mistakenly assumed this thread was about that, but this thread is actually about a federal Hate Crimes action).
So, there WAS a federal civil rights lawsuit filed in the USDC for the Southern District of Georgia, naming as defendants the McMichaels, Bryant, a cop, the police chief, the DA, and some John Doe officials. That lawsuit DOES allege that all three of the perps were “entrusted by local law enforcement to respond to trespasses in the area.” This lawsuit DOES allege they acted under color of law.
I’m trying to find the status of this civil rights case, and who is defending whom.
My bad. I found a federal lawsuit on line (it’s a different case than this one, which I thought was the federal civil rights lawsuit, as that was what our local radio station said today; I mistakenly assumed this thread was about that, but this thread is actually about a federal Hate Crimes action).
So, there WAS a federal civil rights lawsuit filed in the USDC for the Southern District of Georgia, naming as defendants the McMichaels, Bryant, a cop, the police chief, the DA, and some John Doe officials. That lawsuit DOES allege that all three of the perps were “entrusted by local law enforcement to respond to trespasses in the area.” This lawsuit DOES allege they acted under color of law.
I’m trying to find the status of this civil rights case, and who is defending whom.
I believe I understand that just fine, and I've said the same thing to you already using different words.
If there is potential coverage, the insurer will issue the policyholder a reservation of rights, which means the insurer will provide for a defense, but if evidence comes in that would show that coverage would not apply, then the insurer can issue a coverage disclaimer and withdraw from providing a defense.
From my perspective, it sounds to me like you are claiming the insurance company can determine guilt or innocence, and I disagree that the decisions of an insurance company establish a fact of guilt.
I've seen actual lawyers at "Legal Insurrection" argue that the McMichaels had a legitimate "citizens arrest" claim as well as a legitimate "self defense" claim. They say the Judge made an error in both his interpretation of the Georgia statute, and in his instructions to the jury.
But what I am getting from you is that we should leave such decisions up to the insurance company, and that doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think what the Insurance company does or does not do, establishes "color of law".
He was no longer working for the police department, so why should their insurance cover him? This fact does not establish "color of law" one way or the other.
Many people take lawful actions in dealing with criminals and are not covered by the local police department's insurance.
The legal minds at "Legal Insurrection" saw what the McMIchaels did as under the color of law, and what this proves is that this particular point is a matter of debate.
I think what they did was reasonable under the Georgia statute and I also think if the guy who had been shot was white, nobody would have been brought up on charges. The cops would have probably patted the McMichaels on the back and told them "good job!"
Do not be deceived. This is a deliberately ginned up "outrage" fueled by deliberate media lying because they needed black voters angry while heading into an election year.
This case has been no more truthful than the Travon Martin case, the Michael Brown case, or the George Floyd case. In all these examples, the media deliberately lied about the facts of the case in order to gin up hate and outrage which they used to gain political power in Washington DC for their allies. (or masters, depending on how you want to look at it.)
That is a common enough reaction when you find a place where you disagree with somebody. My usual reaction to such a situation is to try to reason with them and get them to look at the issue from my perspective.
Alternatively, perhaps they can present me with information I did not know and therefore cause me to change my mind.
We have too little debate in our society, and too many emotion driven arguments.
He was not. He committed suicide, as would any person who deliberately attacks a man holding a shotgun.
People calling it "murder" are either being gas-lit, or attempting to gas-light others.
One held a camera to record the deed.
And that contributed to Arbery's death how? I may be mistaken, but to my knowledge, pointing a camera at someone does not normally result in a fatality.
And they are proven racists via their texts.
So if they weren't "racists" would that make them innocent, or does their guilt or innocence revolve around something else?
Because if being a "racist" makes you guilty, we have entered Salem Witch trial territory here. Just the accusation will get you a trial for your life.
Come to think of it, we pretty much have entered Salem Witch trial territory nowadays.
Stupid redneck hicks got what they deserved.
"Hick". "Redneck". Why that's completely different from being a "racist." Racists pre-judge people based on some characteristic they have, but calling people "hicks" and "rednecks" is not the same thing at all.
Pardon me if I don't consider you objective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.