Why are the Feds getting involved in the Arbrey Case?

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Samm

@Supreme_War_Pig

@e7alr

What crime? And if you plan to respond violating his civil rights, explain how his civil rights were violated other than that they, falsely imprisoned, assaulted and killed him.

Hate crimes go to motivation, not the crime itself. That is why it is not double jeopardy.

There is no evidence that these three men were motivated by race.

How would you know? Are you on the prosecution team?

[biggestal99]

@e7alr

Three criminals broke the law and were convicted of serious violent crimes. Other than that they were white, and the victim was black, which is not in itself a civil rights violation, what specific proof is there, that will stand up in a court of law, that this was a hate crime, in violation of the civil rights act?

■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■ was uttered by the shooter after the killing.

You can guess what was said thought the software censor.

Allan

[Smyrna]

…and the possibility of garnering more votes fake pandering to those who vote with their feeeeeeeelings.

[WuWei]

@Samm

They didn’t make it about race because it wasn’t about race.

@Samm

There is no evidence that these three men were motivated by race.

Even you don’t believe that.

The prosecution didn’t make it about race because it had the luxury of not doing so.

It was about race. No need to harp on what everybody already knows.

[WuWei]

@Supreme_War_Pig

Hate crimes go to motivation, not the crime itself. That is why it is not double jeopardy.

You need to stop too.

[Samm]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@Samm

@Supreme_War_Pig

@e7alr

What crime? And if you plan to respond violating his civil rights, explain how his civil rights were violated other than that they, falsely imprisoned, assaulted and killed him.

Hate crimes go to motivation, not the crime itself. That is why it is not double jeopardy.

There is no evidence that these three men were motivated by race.

How would you know? Are you on the prosecution team?

How do I know? Because no such evidence has been made public.

[Samm]

@WuWei

@Samm

They didn’t make it about race because it wasn’t about race.

@Samm

There is no evidence that these three men were motivated by race.

Even you don’t believe that.

The prosecution didn’t make it about race because it had the luxury of not doing so.

It was about race. No need to harp on what everybody already knows.

Are you friends with these guys or something? Did they tell you they went after him because he was black? How else would you know?

[e7alr]

I looked deeper and apparently the 3d guy claimed to police that the shooter made a racial reference towards Arbrey after shooting him. Judge wouldn’t allow it into evidence. Also wouldn’t allow Arbrey’s criminal history into evidence.

Still doesn’t negate the fact that the local authorities dealt with this. The judge may allow it into evidence at sentencing. Have to wait and see.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Samm

@Supreme_War_Pig

@Samm

@Supreme_War_Pig

@e7alr

What crime? And if you plan to respond violating his civil rights, explain how his civil rights were violated other than that they, falsely imprisoned, assaulted and killed him.

Hate crimes go to motivation, not the crime itself. That is why it is not double jeopardy.

There is no evidence that these three men were motivated by race.

How would you know? Are you on the prosecution team?

How do I know? Because no such evidence has been made public.

Well, it wouldn’t be made public until the trial, would it?

[Samm]

@e7alr

I looked deeper and apparently the 3d guy claimed to police that the shooter made a racial reference towards Arbrey after shooting him. Judge wouldn’t allow it into evidence. Also wouldn’t allow Arbrey’s criminal history into evidence.

Still doesn’t negate the fact that the local authorities dealt with this. The judge may allow it into evidence at sentencing. Have to wait and see.

A derogatory racial reference may denote an individual’s racial prejudice, but it does not show motive. There is a difference between disliking a set of people because of their race and hunting down and killing them because of their race. All evidence points to the fact that they pursued Aubrey because he had been identified by this group as a likely suspect in repeated trespasses of a property under construction that had been pilfered from previously. None of that was disputed by the prosecution.

[Samm]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@Samm

@Supreme_War_Pig

@Samm

@Supreme_War_Pig

@e7alr

What crime? And if you plan to respond violating his civil rights, explain how his civil rights were violated other than that they, falsely imprisoned, assaulted and killed him.

Hate crimes go to motivation, not the crime itself. That is why it is not double jeopardy.

There is no evidence that these three men were motivated by race.

How would you know? Are you on the prosecution team?

How do I know? Because no such evidence has been made public.

Well, it wouldn’t be made public until the trial, would it?

They have had their trial. Did you miss that?

[zantax]

@Samm

@e7alr

I looked deeper and apparently the 3d guy claimed to police that the shooter made a racial reference towards Arbrey after shooting him. Judge wouldn’t allow it into evidence. Also wouldn’t allow Arbrey’s criminal history into evidence.

Still doesn’t negate the fact that the local authorities dealt with this. The judge may allow it into evidence at sentencing. Have to wait and see.

A derogatory racial reference may denote an individual’s racial prejudice, but it does not show motive. There is a difference between disliking a set of people because of their race and hunting down and killing them because of their race. All evidence points to the fact that they pursued Aubrey because he had been identified by this group as a likely suspect in repeated trespasses of a property under construction that had been pilfered from previously. None of that was disputed by the prosecution.

Saying something racist sure isn’t the standard they appear to have set to prove Brooks had a racial motive to run over white people.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Samm

They have had their trial. Did you miss that?

…Samm, this thread is about the Federal trial, which they most certainly have not had yet. In fact, we don’t even know if a federal trial will actually happen.

[Samm]

The thread may be, but the conversation wasn’t.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Samm

The thread may be, but the conversation wasn’t.

Sure. Nevertheless, you are wrong, they haven’t yet had their hate crime trial.

[Samm]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@Samm

The thread may be, but the conversation wasn’t.

Sure. Nevertheless, you are wrong, they haven’t yet had their hate crime trial.

And there has been no evidence to support said trial. So there we are.