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.

  • @chemical_cutthroat
    link
    4610 months ago

    We need to dig a hole. Like, a really deep hole. Like, so deep. And then throw these fucks and and their lawyers into it.

    • @rtxn
      link
      English
      57
      edit-2
      10 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.

      • @Cosmonauticus
        link
        3410 months ago

        Everyone hates a defense lawyer until they need one

        • @rtxn
          link
          English
          1310 months ago

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        110 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
      link
      English
      1510 months ago

      It’s unconstitutional to torture them.

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

      • Beefy-Tootz
        link
        410 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

    • @AbidanYre
      link
      English
      1110 months ago

      Isn’t that basically how we got Australia?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        410 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).

    • @Son_of_dad
      link
      010 months ago

      Not the lawyers. Everyone deserves a defense. John Adams defended the Boston massacre soldiers, even though he would be hated for it, because he believed in the rule of law and the idea that everyone gets a defense or the system is fucked

  • @stoly
    link
    2810 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      510 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?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      210 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.

  • @rtxn
    link
    English
    1710 months ago

    “Lol”, the court said. “Lmao.”

  • @dogslayeggs
    link
    1310 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.