Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "ABC News" channel.

  1. Well there was at least a little bit of justice. The petition to prosecute the parents failed. You have to be mentally unbalanced to sign a petition like that.
    31
  2.  @kalechips5972  I am grateful not everyone is a moron here. Could you imagine the sh-t we'd be in if Youtube ran society?
    14
  3. That is very true. However, I fear it's not the norm. Most people don't change very much once they become adults.
    13
  4. +Deven Appreciate your input, but here's my problem. Manslaughter has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd say it's NOT beyond reasonable doubt to declare that every single depressed or suicidal person is mentally unstable to the point they are deemed incompetent to make their own decisions. Would you also give Roy a pass on the basis of mental instability if Carter coaxed him into shooting another person? If not, I see a dangerous double standard. Tricky case though.
    9
  5. Ridiculous. A 3-year-old can slip away in seconds. Have you ever been a parent??? The primary cause was the zoo's negligence. Especially when you are operating a child-centered business, you have an obligation to make it safe. The zoo was negligent. Businesses have far more of an obligation to create a safe place. Because you are the paying customer.
    9
  6. I don't think society is served by calling a 3 year age difference rape.
    7
  7.  @elfamosoabraham5880  And the purpose of signing the petition, I suppose, is that even very conscientious parents could never ever lose track of their child, that only bad parents make mistakes. And every time someone behaves imperfectly, we should make a million assumptions about their motives, and rush to sign a petition. This is the dark side of humanity.
    7
  8.  @elfamosoabraham5880  The thing you seem to have terribly wrong is saying "she isn't watching her child." It doesn't follow that watching your son carefully means you are perfect, any more than being a great driver proves you cannot ever be responsible for an accident. In case you didn't know, careful people also make mistakes. Am I wrong?
    6
  9.  @elfamosoabraham5880  Well if there's dangerous creatures all over the place, why did the zoo have such defective enclosure? I would say that while I respect your position, the zoo, being a kid-oriented place, has an obligation to cover up the holes in its system. By contrast, a parent does not have an obligation to be perfect 100% all of the time, because that's the nature of kids. I hope you at least would agree that criminal charges are unwarranted here.  I would use an airplane analogy. If a child gets out of his seat while mom's back is turned, and then slips out through a hole in the plane, is that mommy negligence, or should the mom assume that a plane is safe from having holes in it?
    5
  10. Well I think they pretty much proved that. Her words and actions were lifted from a TV series of the same exact theme. That said, calls for life in prison are knee jerk reactions, or from people who lack discretion. Good thing our legal system is not run by the Youtube mob and all of their terrible judgement.
    5
  11. +Martin valles I agree with you, it's not so simple. That applies to many layers here. It's not so simple, for example, to prove beyond doubt that Roy was in fact forced to kill himself. If there's reasonable doubt, then the judge overstepped his bounds.
    4
  12. Yeah, like, he had teenage sex. What else is happening in the world?
    4
  13.  @guitarsz  Her tears are irrelevant. A conviction of manslaughter violates two basic things: the traditional distinction between ordinary negligence -- usually a civil matter, as in medical malpractice for example -- and gross recklessness. The second is the amputation of due process. It's inherently impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she acted with extreme recklessness, or even ordinary negligence. That's what the research says: even the most experienced are not perfect in their ability to act under stress.
    4
  14. And traditionally we don't go for manslaughter under what might be termed "ordinary negligence." Unless you can prove it rises to gross recklessness, in the US at least, it's usually handled as a civil matter witness commercial airline crashes and medical malpractice. The idea we jail everyone for every single mistake they make under pressure is way off base IMHO. No matter how experienced, there's never a guarantee we can always avoid even big mistakes. It's this element of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" that's being amputated in this case. There's an inherent element of speculation when we assert she was careless or reckless. The research in heuristics (despite the fancy name, it just means decision making under stress) shows that even very experienced people can make such mistakes. The scary part is these mistakes often happen at an unconscious level, so we can't always detect them as they happen.
    4
  15. But in this case we have witnesses who saw the assault. So it's difficult to say she made it up. She even said initially she didn't want him to go to jail. The irony is that it was precisely the short sentence that ruined his life. Had it been, say, 2 years, no one would have heard of Brock Turner.
    4
  16.  @elfamosoabraham5880  Would you have still signed the petition if she hadn't been on the phone?
    4
  17. There are two things wrong here. One, Owen is a jerk, and "Senior Salute" is an affront to common decency. Two, statutory rape law is an injustice when the participants are both teens close in age. Many states now have this age-difference clause, as they recognize the absurdity of prosecuting teen sex between friends and school mates. There are far better uses of the legal system than to prosecute voluntary sex between teens 15 and older.
    4
  18. +Deven The key word is "convince." People have convinced me of doing things many many times. Does that prove I'm mentally unstable? "He got out of the truck because he was scared." Too open to interpretation for me. Analogy: I remember being afraid to do things, especially as a child - swallowing pills, diving into the swimming pool,for examples, but I was coaxed by adults to do them, partly because even as a child I recognized it was in my own interest. People hesitate and change their minds all the time out of fear, reluctance. "Scared" has reasonable doubt written all over it. Anyway, I welcome disagreement. It's healthy to debate this.
    3
  19. +Jeremy As I understand it, the case for manslaughter depends on Roy having no ability to defend himself against her texts. That in turn depends on proving Roy was defenseless. That's the way manslaughter usually works. Do we have (mental health community) a well-established procedure to determine that depressed and suicidal people are of necessity completely helpless? This judgement just strikes me as having proceeded too quickly with too many unproven assumptions.
    3
  20. Absolutely right, a totally overblown story that amounts to little more than teenage sex and an unproven rape charge.
    3
  21. ​ @ganondorf66  I wouldn't disagree. But who do you think has greater responsibility, the zoo building a child-proof enclosure, or a parent never making a mistake? Similarly, if a toddler is able to open an emergency door in flight, does that speak more to a parent, or to the airline? This is why I feel theses discussions are not prioritizing the hierarchy of responsibility.
    3
  22.  @jamgrl38  They were rightly found guilty. But one can certainly argue the harshness of the penalties, at least regarding Bryan.
    3
  23. It is true. But it doesn't get the father/son off the hook. By any reasonable standard, you have no right to subject a potentially innocent person to a 4 minute armed chase. With guns clearly on display. No presumed innocent person should be subjected to that level of stress/ fear. No way.
    3
  24. What a refreshing outcome. A judge who has the right combination of fairness and empathy to resist the political and racial hysteria that is the wellspring of support for a longer sentence.
    3
  25. Well I have to agree with that!
    3
  26. These two women are experts?
    3
  27. There's one element missing from your equation. In time sensitive and stressful situations, we all employ shortcut reasoning based on simplified assumptions because there's not enough time to consciously reason every detail out. The fancy term for this is heuristics if one wants to learn more about it. The problem is, behavior under stress is not always perfect and in some cases leads to big errors. But the key take away is that these errors are often completely unconscious, so the person committing them has no way to guard against them. This is precisely what could have happened here. Also, while not exactly the same, a Google image search shows that tasers and hand guns often look very similar, and have the same basic size and design. Similar enough that under stress, you might make such a mistake. I say give the benefit of the doubt to Potter. It's the same reason we don't lock up commercial pilots for their fatal errors. You can't expect perfection under stress. Period.
    3
  28. +Frank I would probably agree with your assessment as a general rule. However, not every clinically depressed or suicidal person lacks the ability to maintain mental competence and have the rational ability to resist orders or suggestions. So that to me constitutes reasonable doubt.
    2
  29. +Deven As an adult, I find myself changing my mind all the time based on input from others. Some other examples: whether to invest in a stock; choosing surgery as a treatment option; confronting someone you don't want to confront. As for fear, the same thing. A person may fear going on a plane, then be coaxed on the plane, then chicken out and walk off (one unlucky fearful flyer was talked back onto a plane which actually crashed!). These examples suffice for me to constitute reasonable doubt. I would have to be convinced that being depressed and suicidal proves beyond reasonable doubt that you don't have meaningful free will. If we aren't willing to make this generalization, then it seems to me the judge is playing God and assuming he knows for (reasonable) certain which depressed people have it and which don't. Too much grey for me = the verdict overstepped the legitimate boundary of the law. That said, I won't be crying for her when she's in jail.
    2
  30. +Andy I think she deserves punishment. But legally, or even just using common sense, I don't see this as fitting the definition of manslaughter without a proof that Roy had no control over the situation. That's where I feel there's reasonable doubt. Exactly what goes on inside the mind of a depressed suicidal person who's being texted these messages is impossible to know with any certainty. We hardly know anything about how the mind works; it's fantastically complex. So to me, it's playing God to say we know for sure she killed him.
    2
  31. +Andy I think we're on the same basic wave length. I feel she shouldn't get the max penalty, since it's so unlike most manslaughter cases, and she was under 18, and it's hard to know just how much of a danger she is to others except in the unusual circumstance of this case. I'll bet the judge will giver her not more than 5-10, if that.
    2
  32. And it was the zoo's fault. If we can make commercial flight virtually 100% safe, then there's no excuse for a hazardous gorilla exhibit. If a small child managed to open an airplane door in flight, would we blame the mom or the airline?
    2
  33.  @Freefs1  She did not "leave her child unattended." She momentarily lost track of him. Have you ever lost track of your kid even once? Have you ever even had kids? How is she supposed to know the zoo was a safety hazard? This is why sensible people prevailed. The DA explained that's why no charges were filed against the mom. Have you ever read an NTSB accident report? They don't blame the victim. Their probable cause would have been a hazardous exhibit. Hands downs.
    2
  34.  @a.l.m.o.  But you are making an unrealistic assumption. You are assuming absolute parental perfection at all times and places. Have you ever been a parent? You are holding someone liable for being human.
    2
  35.  @Risingofthephoenix  No, absolutely not. There wasn't enough evidence to convict him of forcible rape. Didn't you follow the trial?
    2
  36. A better way of putting it: "The minority of boys who do this need to..." rest same,
    2
  37. Tremendous pressure to avoid a violent reaction from the race-based hysteria that has overcome the US recently. What prosecutor could possibly resist this pressure? I don't think she deserves this.
    2
  38.  @bellalugosisrightnipple3719  I believe it was rape because she wrote a book on it. But at the trial, could the jury determine this beyond a reasonable doubt?
    2
  39. Don't expect it from anyone anytime soon. Especially the 911 Lie movement.
    2
  40. The zoo got the gorilla killed. It was responsible in creating a fool-proof enclosure, which it failed to do. With 5-year-olds all over a zoo, it's pure negligence.
    2
  41. @@chrislauricella "If someone points a gun at you and try and grab it. You are an idiot." In theory, I agree. But when under stress, people have been known to act quite irrationally and when terrified even more so. Like the mother in Cheshire who got back in the car with the robbers. In addition Arbery's mother mentioned he had mental illness. Could that have also affected his judgement?
    2
  42. I think we are in agreement, but I would still say they needed big jails sentences (maybe not Bryon) because they did indeed create a totally unacceptable reckless endangerment. I would have given Travis 20 years, Greg 15, and Bryan 5 or less. But these sentences lack any sense of proportionality. They say Travis is guilty of "malace murder." What, we can read the mind of Travis the moment he pulled the trigger? I'd say it was more likely a reflex reaction to being suddenly charged. I don't pretend to be the mind reader that everyone else claims.
    2
  43.  @jwhome9319  At least they didn't get carried away with wanting her to serve the full 15 years. I haven't looked yet at the other networks. I hope they have wiser and less biased commentators.
    2
  44.  @SpiceItUp_5150  Well, everyone fancies themselves an armchair psychologist. To me, her tears could go either way. The overriding flaw, IMHO, with this whole trial, is it's fundamentally misguided. Negligence resulting in death should be a civil matter, as is usually the case with medical malpractice, for example, or as I like to point out, with commercial airline pilots. We in the US at least, don't jail pilots for fatal errors under stress. Only when we get to gross recklessness or criminal intent, should we bring in manslaughter or worse. Just my opinion. Do we have that level of recklessness here? Not if we go by the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There's inherently speculation in saying she was too casual or not being as cautious as she might.
    2
  45. It's irrelevant. The Ms were in the wrong either way.
    2
  46. "The family should keep better watch of their child. " Not always realistic. The emphasis should be on the zoo. It's child centered. It needs to be fool-proofed. Zero-fault tolerance is a concept that should apply to a business at least as much as to a mother who loses track of her child for a brief moment. Here's an airplane analogy: if a child is able to wiggle out of his seat and open an emergency exit, would you blame the mother or the airline/manufacturer?
    2
  47. That's really under the heading of "speculation." The research in heuristics (fancy name for decision making under pressure) tends to confirm that when we employ such shortcut thinking, it's not a fool proof system. Even highly experienced people can make surprising mistakes. The reason is that these errors are often at an unconscious level, so they can't be detected as they happen. So I give her the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise we are simply playing god. Not a good idea given our principles of due process and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just my to cents
    2
  48.  @Westberg246  "("I'm going to prison!") is not only a confession but also BENEATH THE DIGNITY" Me personally: I wouldn't put too much into a spontaneous comment under extreme emotional shock, what, 2 seconds later? Give her a break. It's not necessarily a confession either. It could be just a statement of, here's what I am likely to face, whether fair or not. Again, just my two cents. I am not saying you are wrong.
    2
  49. If this were true you would be able to walk into any university physics department and and get instant verification of your theory. I challenge you to prove your nonsense. Like most truthers, lifting a finger other than to click on CT sites is anathema. You don't do real research. If what you say were really true, the alleged US government conspirators would not have chosen to "violate basic physics." Because the whole world would have known within about 15 minutes. If you want to be a 9/11 skeptic, fine. But for goodness sakes can't you do it with more intelligence than the stupidity with which you accuse the government?
    2
  50.  @derekgreene2304  "Aluminium aeroplanes don't disappear into 4 and 6 foot steel H beams surrounded with concrete" Only if you're up for the challenge, I challenge you to support that statement with good old fashioned physics.
    2
  51.  @derekgreene2304  Anyone who thinks no planes hit the towers has a serious problem with reality. I challenge you to provide a proof the planes could not have sliced through the towers. Go to a physics professor and get back to me. If you don't, your words carry no weight.
    2
  52. Not enough punishment for what: teenage sex? And unproven use of force? And total abuse of the stalking law. Total miscarriage of justice, much as Labrie is undoubtedly a rather sad example of a human being. This case ballooned into pure hatred rather than staying within rational bounds. Total hysteria.
    2
  53. Sensible people prevailed here. They recognized the fact it's impossible to be a 100% perfect parent. That's precisely why the DA refused to press charges. Where's your common sense? The zoo was the negligent party. The exhibit was unsafe. Wake up to common sense.
    2
  54.  @elfamosoabraham5880  I'll bet you were one of the crazed people who signed the petition.
    2
  55. ​ @xxalienxx9541  Actually you're the one who doesn't get it. In the real world, parents cannot be perfect. That's why the prosecutor and the primate expert Jane Goodall, did not blame the parents. You lack a sense of tolerance and real world wisdom. Some people have it, some don't.
    2
  56. @Mongol ForLife "you are mentally imbalanced." Perhaps I am. So let me ask you a balanced question. Do you think a zoo is safe if a child can come face to face with a gorilla in mere seconds? Is that a kids safe environment? A zoo is designed around kids after all. You tell me.
    2
  57. She was not trying to help him. She was copying a TV series from Netflix? I believe, where a girl does the exact same thing. Yes, she may have been mentally ill herself, but it was all designed for her own narcissistic needs, just as in the TV show.
    2
  58. I think you miss the bigger picture. A zoo is a child-oriented place. No parent is perfect. Have you ever been a parent? So, even if you are right, the zoo has a much greater responsibility to make the Gorilla exhibit child-proof. If I ran that zoo, I would never have allowed this to happen, period.
    2
  59. Sorry, the vast bulk of evidence shows that the war on drugs causes far more harm than good. It's also just plain wrong to make a relatively harmless act into a federal crime. You have no sense of basic principle here.
    2
  60.  @shauntaylor9503  Thank you for your replies, and being a good sport!
    2
  61. I am getting tired of these absurd posts. So here's a question for you: A 3-year-old boy slips out of his airplane seat while his mom momentarily glances away. He manages to open an emergency door. Would you blame the mom or the airline? (Hint: the NTSB would hold the airline responsible. not the parent.)
    2
  62. @Fail Zero Not if he were Sam Ukwuachu, a black man who got 6 months for rape.
    2
  63.  @annemedel5463  Yah, this racism thing is way out of contol. Yah I'm a white dude, but I get it. We still live in a racist society, and blacks often get the short end of the legal stick. But the knee jerk reaction that every white sentence is privilege and every black would-be sentence is 20 years to life, this is pure garbage. This is why I have some criticism of BLM. Even befiore the facts are in, they frequently prejudge cases. It's just pure speculation in many cases, and the human tendency to elevate instinct to fact.
    2
  64.  les antoine  This thread is littered with stupid comments. Statutory rape typically results in light sentences. It's only a misdemeanor offense in some states. In others, it's not even a crime at all, including for example Maine and Vermont. This gushing of racist rhetoric is another example how it's hard to have a balanced conversation about anything to do with race.
    2
  65. Even black legal experts agreed she didn't deserve more than a few years. There is no requirement to give the minimum. This was not intentional. Usually, we don't jail people for unintentional lapses under stress. Think airline pilots. The judge thought for herself. I think the anger at Potter is better directed at Duante, whose behavior was orders of magnitude worse than hers: car jacking, strangling a woman, etc. It might be refreshing if his mother might one day forgive her. She forgave her son after all. That's normally hypocrisy, except that a grieving mother has a right to feel the way she does.
    2
  66.  @TheRealBigPearl  Think you are missing the point of the airplane analogy. If an emergency door can be opened in flight, then the airline has a defective product. That part is beyond dispute. So why is that any different than the zoo? If a 3-year-old can slip away and come face to face with a frigging gorilla in mere seconds, how is that any different in principle? You must be aware how often toys are recalled because of various child hazards. Think if the gorilla exhibit at Cincinatti Zoo (at that time) were a product you could buy. No doubt it would be recalled in two seconds. I rest my case :)
    2
  67.  @SamFindley-zt7mt  Interesting. I think this view is off base for one basic reason. As any parent knows, keeping an eye on your child at all times is not practical. The mom took her eyes off her child for a brief moment. In mere seconds the child came face to face with a gorilla. We cannot expect 100% perfection from a parent who may let go of her child for a second to sneeze, or to adjust her glasses. But don't we have a right to expect a child proof exhibit? cheers
    2
  68. Yes, that's a positive sign. The less spam the better.
    2
  69. Yup. It can happen to anyone. Read up on the study of heuristics.
    2
  70. Fake post.
    2
  71. No, the zoo killed the gorilla. If your gorilla exhibit is so flawed that a child can slip into it in mere seconds, you have a negligent zoo, pure and simple. Blaming the mom assumes parents, even great ones, are always perfect. That's a stupid assumption, and goes against the experience of anyone who's ever had a child.
    2
  72. You are way behind the curve. The alleged alive hijackers were mostly different people with the same name. Get a life.
    2
  73. @phillipclearman859 I kind of agree; Bryant was a victim of the felony murder rule, among other things. His aggressive chasing and hitting Arbery, however, seems to indicate some punishment. IMO, there was a rush to judgement and denial of due process for all three men. The chief offense, as I see it, is the assumption of malice when Travis pulled the trigger. I refuse to play the mind reading game.
    2
  74. That's become common all over the place in the last year. They now say "108 months." And so on. But the fact is, that's an appropriate sentence. It was an accident. Had it been a black cop who made the same mistake, the protests would be farther and fewer.
    2
  75. Well, there's at least a kernel of truth to this point of view.
    2
  76. But this case has nothing to do with a minor under 14 being accused of sexual assault.
    2
  77. Don't know that it's fair. An unintentional mistake under pressure can happen to anyone of us at any time. That's not, for me at least, what manslaughter cases are about.
    2
  78. The more important lesson is, if you are going to create a flawed exhibit where a child, the main customers after all, can so easily get in, that's pure negligence. The zoo is far more accountable because it had no excuse. By contrast, no matter how perfect a parent is, a 3-year-old can slip away from time to time. That's just the nature of the beast. This is why they refused to prosecute the mom.
    2
  79. Well what the hell did he do? Unproven use of force. Otherwise this is a boring case of ordinary teen sex. This case is mass hysteria if there ever was.
    2
  80. They didn't use missiles. You have no proof they used missiles. The debris pattern doesn't support it. The FDR readout doesn't support it. The bulk of witnesses don't support it. If it were shot down, the government would also be dying to take the credit, stung by the charge they were woefully unprepared that day.
    2
  81. One case doesn't prove much. There have been black men who got similar treatment for rape.
    2
  82.  @LoireValleyChateaux  Oops, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about the Arbery killing. Yes, an obvious hate crime, even if race wasn't the motive. You have to have hate in your heart even if you mow down members of your own race.
    2
  83.  @johnmas9221  She admitted she made amistake. You don't understand the nature of evidence, but this is Youtube, so I give you a pass. :)
    2
  84.  @zayjones2885  Sure. Racism was institutionalized by whites, primarily in the US, but also Britain, Australia, and of course Nazi Germany. It was and still is an ideology designed to oppress black people, and other disliked groups, and keep them from encroaching on the power and privilege of whites. This is the primary reason for the increasing threat of civil war in the US. But there have always been whites who have sided with blacks and people of color, who were in civil rights marches of the 60s. There is no doubt white racism has been the most damaging form of racism over the last few centuries. But to condemn the entire "white race" is to adopt the same repulsive thought process that leads one down the path of more hate.
    2
  85. That may be because he isn't one. The use of force was unproven, as you must have seen. Otherwise this is just teen sex with a 3 year age difference. Not considered rape in many if not most states, as we reform our laws to weed out hysteria and replace it with common sense.
    2
  86.  @textbox6648  The video concluded the plane crashed before Cheney's order went out. The two fighter planes were unarmed, making a shoot down impossible. The video concluded the passengers brought the plane down. Do you have problems with listening comprehension?
    2
  87.  @mikebyrd8278  Yup. Talk about mentally challenged. This person can't even comprehend a 4 minute video he's promoting.
    2
  88. That said, the punishment was excessive if you go by standards of due process, and proportionality. Especially for William Bryan, whose sentence is almost as much of an outrage as his contribution to the crime. I would agree to wave this opinion if you and others would concede that felony murder laws are barbaric anachronisms having no place in a civilized justice system. They have done far more to harm black people than did these men, as sickening as they are. THAT would be real justice.
    2
  89. Yes, this obsession with parents-not-being perfect is the oddest part of this affair. The ZOO was the negligent one. Zoos are children oriented. They have an obligation to make them safe, and to anticipate imperfect parents, as no parent is perfect. Another example of the absolute absurd times in which we live.
    2
  90.  @Bl00obs  Yes, in this game of holding the police accountable, which of course they should be, why do we never hear the victims' mother/father say, "I am sorry for my son's conduct, which put your lives at risk. You both need to be held accountable." That would be a class act. Though I can understand that's asking a lot of a grieving mother. And a nation in the grip of the absurd.
    2
  91. +Milan Oh don't be so thick, she was 17 WHEN SHE DID IT. "A person can be considered a Youthful Offender if he or she committed the offense between the ages of fourteen and seventeen." -Mass DA
    1
  92. +Deven The source I quoted above also says "A person between the ages of seven and seventeen charged with a criminal offense is considered a juvenile." Do you know if he means when they are charged, or at the time of offense?
    1
  93. +Stephen As someone who has suffered from depression, you cannot just say every single depressed or suicidal person is mentally incompetent. Would you give Roy a free pass to kill someone else just because he's depressed? This means there's reasonable doubt. That benefit should IMO be granted to her, even though I agree she deserves some jail time for her horrible and evil behavior. Just as suicide is complex, so is the notion of manslaughter by words. As one legal analyst put it, it's like trying to push a square peg into a round hole. With all this grayness, the proper thing to do is to accept that the law is overreaching its proper bounds here. Of course, that just my own personal opinion, and I welcome healthy debate and disagreement. cheers
    1
  94. +Daisy Agreed, except there's reasonable doubt.
    1
  95. +Benny But there' a big difference. Manson case fits the definition of murder. Carter Roy case goes against the usual parameters of manslaughter.
    1
  96. +Gus The texts didn't change my mind. There's reasonable doubt that he was forced to do it.
    1
  97. +Angle Agree the law is misapplied here. But forgetting the law, one has to admit that what she did was in fact morally wrong, and very very evil. So she deserves punishment not from a legal, but from a moral point of view. I don;t know that there's anything else she can be charged with under the law though. So while I disagree with the legal process here, I won't be feeling too badly for her once (or if) she's behind bars.
    1
  98. +Jeremy I agree about her pressuring him and not helping him. But that doesn't prove to my satisfaction that he was defenseless. That's the key, as my mind sees it.
    1
  99. +Jeremy But the question remains, was this really manslaughter? Not doing anything to prevent doesn't = manslaughter.
    1
  100. +Jeremy "Any reasonably minded individual would never ever let ....... " My position is that I personally don't have the confidence to speculate like this. The mind is fabulously complex. We know only a tiny tiny bit about how it functions. So if you take a depressed suicidal person, and then add to that a friend ordering him to take his life, there are theoretically countless other factors we have no way to measure that could have influenced his decision; and which may be the product of a "normal" person. In particular, the assumption that a reasonable minded person "would never ever let that get to them" is fraught with difficulty. Scenario: as he receives each text from her, he reasons that she's right: "if I don't get back in the truck, I will keep putting it off, so I better do it now, or I will never do it." That doesn't necessarily indicate a defenseless person.
    1
  101. +Jeremey And I just want to make clear I do not see whatsherface as a victim. She did evil, and I won't be shedding any tears for her once in jail. My reluctance is, what happens the next time a judge decides to loosen the definition of manslaughter in a way you might disagree with. I see too much room here for abusing the law by declaring we know how to read the mind of a Conrad Roy. So, my heart is with you in this case. But my brain is saying this is bad precedent. cheers
    1
  102. I'll bet this will go all the way to the SJC and be struck down. Just my prediction
    1
  103. Felony murder rule. This is a pretty good example of its failings. The US is just about the last country in the world that clings to this barbaric relic of English law. Not that it would have made much difference, IMO. The fact is, these men were on trial, not for their actual crimes, but for the entire history of Southern white racism. Under present conditions a fair trial could hardly have been expected. Right now, in the US, racism for many has come to be seen as a crime worse than death. That's what drove this trial, IMO. Basic principles of justice, such as proportionality. due process and reasonable doubt, stood little chance to the bulldozer of hatred of the moment. The crying screaming hysterical masses ran the show here.
    1
  104. Well I don't think that's how it worked. They are guilty of manslaughter because there's absolutely no proof of intent to kill. Travis shot as a reflexive reaction tosuddenly being attacked. How can you not see that? Travis should get the appropriate sentence for creating reckless endangerment that created a dangerous situation. But intent to kill cannot be proven. The judge thinks he's a mind reader. WRONG.
    1
  105.  @mdjb49  "When he brought and then targeted and aimed his gun at an unarmed man who Travis admitted never threatened physically or verbally any of these three me, he demonstrated intent to kill." Not beyond reasonable doubt. Cannot be proven, though I concede it may well have been the case. "Your murderous hero" Why would I want manslaughter for "my hero"? Shows you are stereotyping anyone who differs with you on the degree of punishment. You cast them all into the same lot. That's not intelligent thinking.
    1
  106.  @yampy1353  Impossible to know that. In the trial, the medical examiner testified the gun was easily within reach of Arbery when the first shot was fired. The video shows that Travis shot Arbery AFTER he turned to his left and lunged at Travis. So how can anyone know what was going on in Travis' mind when he pulled the trigger? It may have been an understandable reflex reaction to defend yourself. This is what's known as reasonable doubt in my book.
    1
  107. If you can't provide the proof, the claim is totally worthless.
    1
  108. Please, we need a sense of balance and good will here.
    1
  109. They already kicked him out.
    1
  110.  @a.l.m.o.  “She had three other kids with her and turned her back. … And if anyone doesn’t believe a 3-year-old can scamper off very quickly, they’ve never had kids.” -the Ohio prosecutor There you go.
    1
  111.  @a.l.m.o.  And finally, “Had she been in the bathroom smoking crack and let her kids run around the zoo that’d be a different story,” he told reporters on Monday. “She was attending to her children by all witness accounts and the 3-year-old just scampered off.”
    1
  112. You're right. No one can know for sure. But due process requires the accused gets the benefit of the doubt.
    1
  113.  @Westberg246  "MISTAKES are not defensible" Now I've lost you. As I've said on other threads, the research on heuristics (fancy name: decisions under a deadline) doesn't bear this out. It tends to show that shortcut thinking is never perfect even for highly experienced people. No one is entirely immune. These errors are often unconscious so they can't be detected as they happen. This notion of absolute perfection goes against the real world. Some mistakes are defensible, unless you think we humans have complete control over all of our actions at all time. Seems to me that's a fantasy world you describe. "That benefit of the doubt DOOMS many future victims of brutality." And dispensing with reasonable doubt dooms many innocent people to prison or worse. We see this especially with the new generation of DNA evidence, which has made frighteningly clear just how flawed the jury system has been in murder cases, for example. I totally disagree we need to dispense with due process. We've survived it very well for generations. Without due process, we are free to wreck the lives of innocent people in a way which is far more cruel. Intentionally playing fast and loose with people's rights is only a notch or two above vigilantism, in my opinion. Thank you for a challenging discussion.
    1
  114.  @Westberg246  Of course I agree racism is still rampant in this country, and stereotypes abound, and the police rely on them too much. No argument from me. "how you can forgive her lapse of reason and then condemn Wright's survival instinct " I don't think I said that. I well understand the survival fight or flight. It's human nature. We do see some things a bit differently, and that can make for interesting conversation. Thank you for a civil exchange. I don't know Minnesota law except from this passage: "A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both: (1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another..." Maybe you can help me here. It seems to be saying, even for 2nd degree, that there must be a conscious intent to take a chance. If that really is the full story, I don't see how this even came to court, as we (mostly all) agree she didn't consciously take a chance. The only thing she did consciously was intend to use a taser. Thoughts?
    1
  115.  @creamlust6669  It's precisely because blacks have NOT been given the benefit of the doubt that they have more to lose in the long run if we trash fair trials. Everyone loses that way. If it was you who were on trial and you knew you were innocent, even though the evidence looked damning, would you still be complaining about due process?
    1
  116. You are right. It's easier to polarize than acknowledge even victims can have a dark side. Neither of these 2 men were exactly a role model for anyone.
    1
  117.  @LoreEclectic  No on said he was doing anything illegal.
    1
  118. I agree. BUT I have one big complaint. The stuff stinks up everything. Since they legalized in Massachusetts, you smell it frequently, people walking into gas stations and smelling it up, illegally in parks. Don't such people have any sense of consideration? The idea seems to be they have the right to stink up any place they feel like. So I would be in favor of stiff fines for stinking up public places. These people don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. They are selfish piglets.
    1
  119.  @tye829  Exactly, not a high priority for cops, which is not surprising. It's just one of my pet peeves.
    1
  120. The idea he is a rapist is absurd, at least based on the evidence presented.
    1
  121. You miss the bigger picture IMHO. The real injustice is prosecuting teen sex when they are only a few years apart in age. Many if not most states now have introduced an age-difference clause, which in some cases is even up to 5 years, because of the manifest absurdity of criminalizing teens who are dating/having sex when they are so close in age. May I prevail upon you to reconsider? cheers
    1
  122. You are espousing a lower order opinion. Even Jane Goodall weighed in on this. She, the prosecutor and indeed all realistic parents the world over know that parental imperfection is impossible. What causes you to make such a glaring error of judgement?
    1
  123.  @oofgottarunn  So if she were, say, just one month younger, would that make it rape? If not, tell us the objective formula for age difference that separates the OK from the criminal.
    1
  124. I think that's an understandable reaction. But one error I think many people make is the assumption every predator knows that what he does can cause a ruined life. I have many friends who seem to not get it either. That says to me we aren't born knowing this fact. You have to learn about it by delving into the subject. This is no excuse for what they do. But I think punishment has to take some consideration of intent, just like we do with drunk drivers.
    1
  125. If this has happened so many times, what does that tell us about the failure of zoos?
    1
  126.  @stacyliddell5038  Well that's a bad opinion in my opinion. Parents aren't perfect. Have you ever had kids?
    1
  127.  @stacyliddell5038  Well here's my reasoning. Especially if you have been a parent, you would know how even the most careful parents have had plenty of incidents where their kids slip away in an instant. As the prosecutor of the case stated:
    1
  128.  @stacyliddell5038  As the prosecutor of the case stated: "I've never seen the attention given to a family-endangering case as this," Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said. "If you don't believe a 3-year-old can scamper away that quickly, you've never had kids. They do just that."    Jane Goodall, the primate expert also weighed in and said much the same. I'm with the prosecutor and common sense on this one. It's a sign of unrealistic thinking to ascribe the level of parental perfection you are assuming exists.  By contrast, any responsible zoo has the luxury of time and forethought to identify child hazards. I'm not saying for sure if I blame the zoo, but zoos are child oriented businesses. Thusn they have job to identify in advance hazards like this. That's very different than the unrealistic assumption of perfect parents. So your view on this contradicts basic logic: you cannot take a single instance of a parent's mistake and generalize from it. So your opinion is mathematically unsound. IMO
    1
  129.  @yampy1353  "Arbery didn't sprint forward to anyone. Arbery was hitted with the first shot, before he touched the barrel" I would disagree. It's clear from the video that an instant before the first shot, we see Arbery turning left to confront Travis. Maybe not a sprint per se, but more than enough to see he's not just continuing straight ahead. Further, I distinctly remember a forensic expert at the trial saying it was absolutely possible Arbery could well have grabbed the gun right before the 1st shot. So, if the first shot was a reflex reaction to someone attacking you, that would be different than malice murder: say, 2nd degree murder or the equivalent of manslaughter (which I know is not on the books in Georgia) That to me is a significant flaw in the trial: pretending we could read Travis's state of mind at that exact moment beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore my vote was for the less serious murder charge, so a sentence of 10-20 years. As for Bryan, he was a victim of the cruel brutality of the felony murder rule. Five years at most for him. Of course it's hard to summon any sympathy for racist pigs. But even racist pigs deserve due process, which I really don't think they got here.
    1
  130.  @yampy1353  "Had the jury had any reasonable doubt, all three would have been acquitted on all charges." But they should have. There is reasonable doubt about malice murder versus a lessor degree of murder. Can you rule out: Arbery gabbing gun; followed by Travis instinctively shooting him out of fear for his life? Even if he didn't grabbed the gun, it wouldn't alter the dynamics that much as this was all happening much too quickly for anything other than an instant reaction.
    1
  131.  @yampy1353  Thank you for your comment. I just reviewed the Georgia law. One thing that makes this case interesting is the potential grey area of the Georgia law. IM non-expert O, "Without provocation" is not absolutely clear cut in this case. From Arbery's perspective, it would be 100% wrong to accuse him of provocation, given the big picture. HE is clearly the victim. But from Travis' perspective, he's just been accosted and potentially attacked. Under normal circumstances this would be considered provocation. So as I see it, the "malice murder" verdict therefore depends on the context, not just the shooting itself. I am big on reasonable doubt. so if there's a grey area I give that benefit to the accused. I don't see that malice is 100% proven when trying to read Travis' mind when he pulled the trigger, or even if he intended to kill. THAT is also part of the big picture context. That's my case, but I am open to changing my mind if that grey area is resolved in a convincing way. Some might analogize this case to a bank robbery gone wrong. That's a very good argument, but IMO that too doesn't quite capture the spirit of this case.
    1
  132. @@chrislauricella Curious. Don't both you and yampy agree that the Ms acted badly? So why the sudden flare up? :)
    1
  133. @@chrislauricella I guess I would agree with you in part. Arbery may have had a perfect right to disarm Travis, but I also agree not a wise move, at least for a person wishing to save his own life. But as I stated above, when in terror or possibly under mental impairment, maybe we can't hold that against him.
    1
  134. Pure speculation. The obvious reality of racism doesn't make you or anyone else into a mind reader. If you think about it long and hard, there is no hard evidence of racism. It's pure belief supported by nothing else. When will people grow up and recognize the difference between the power of belief and actual evidence. The justice system is based on due process and reasonable doubt, not whatever impulses pop into our mind spontaneously.
    1
  135.  @wendellknight2072  Again, you have ZERO proof. Reality routinely outsmarts our assumptions. Look at the very first high profile BLM case. BLM got it wrong and made a mistake, precisely because they too made an assumption based on belief and the undeniable pattern of police racism. But that doesn't mean every case fits the pattern. In a court of law, you would have had ZERO proof this was racism. YOU ARE NOT A MIND READER. Your insistence you can read minds is what we call HUBRIS.
    1
  136. I agree. These two analysts are not in my mind up to the task of reasonable assessment. They speculate out proportion to the evidence.
    1
  137.  @gabrielmichael3701  I didn't watch every minute of her testimony but a big chunk of it. Maybe you can refresh my memory. To save me another 3 hour long review of this video, do you remember if she indicated any basic confusion about her overall training? I only heard she couldn't remember the smaller details about some things. Was she ignorant of basic training? Thank you.
    1
  138.  @gabrielmichael3701  "Pilots don’t survive crashes nice try." Careful, you're talking to a certified aviation/aviation safety geek. National Airlines Pensacola Bay 1978 3 dead, pilot survived, "unprofessional approach" Jail time: no United Portand crash 1978 5-10 deaths, crew survives. jail time: no USAir Laguardia 1989 fatal: pilot survived. jail time: no USAir Charlotte 1994 fatal: pilot survived Jail: no If you'd like more, please don't hesitate to ask.
    1
  139.  @gabrielmichael3701  An aside: Follow up on USAir Charlotte. Interesting case in point. "Although the jury said USAir’s negligence contributed to the crash, it ruled that the airline was not liable for claims of wrongful death. . . North Carolina law under which the case was tried has a stringent standard for punishment, said David Rapoport, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers. . . .This jury verdict means the jury felt there was not a willful, intentional reckless disregard for safety, and I think that’s the difference,″ he said." (Me): This is standard in commercial crashes in the US. Manslaughter isn't even mentioned despite stringent North Carolina law and the prosecutor stating "USAir was willfully and wantonly negligent, grossly negligent, and we were disappointed in that regard with the verdict. However, we are quite pleased that there has been a finding of fault,″ This to me is very analogous to the Kim Potter case. The main difference is that we don't have race cops and a climate of racial and racist denial hysteria distorting everything. But the essentials are all the same. In fact, it's even worse in the USAir crash. More negligence. So do we want to put all these people in jail? Should a doctor who has a one time lapse and cuts the wrong artery go to prison? Is this the direction we want to go? Every last lapse is always criminal?
    1
  140.  @gabrielmichael3701  I agree with you. Surgeons are not facing identical kinds of judgements. But the essence is still the same. In fact, surgeons arguably face even less stress. In each case, there is human fallibility. There may be more room for malice, but that's hard to prove by standards of due process. Can we conclusively prove Potter acted with Malice?
    1
  141.  @gabrielmichael3701  Yes, it all depends on the circumstances. I can see Potter being found guilty. But as I've said elswwhere, there's a field of study known as heuristics, which is decision-making when faced with a deadline. What it tends to show is that even the most highly qualified people can suffer an unconscious lapse. This is due to the very nature of short-cut thinking, which must be used when under pressure or a deadline. Because it's often at an unconscious level, these mistakes can't be detected as they happen. I've seen many examples where this may be at play. Though I present this as tentative, this has been my overwhelming argument: it's antiquated thinking to assume even the most careful and experienced cannot fall victim to these lapses. They may be rare, but hardly beyond reasonable doubt. A very good article as regards hunting accidents is worth a read: excerpt: "Contrary to what most people think, the hunters committing these accidents are often experienced and considered to be safe and competent. Crucially, they often believe they have, 100%, correctly identified their target. Psychology and human factors can provide insight into how these situations might occur. When interpreting information, we rely heavily upon mental rules of thumb called heuristics. Heuristics operate outside of our conscious awareness and are utilised even more in stressful or emotionally charged situations. However, they can also make us susceptible to cognitive biases which may lead us astray—we underestimate the impact heuristics will have on our decisions. Attempts to manage heuristics and cognitive biases are often futile because we normally cannot detect them when they occur. Hunters are constantly told that they need to treat every sound or movement as human in an attempt to change their mind-set. However, given the difficulty in detecting cognitive biases, it is unlikely a hunter’s conscious management of heuristics would be consistently possible in the long term."
    1
  142.  @silvereyessilvereyes4200  I'm sorry but teenage sex isn't pedophilia. Society is not served by criminalizing a three year age difference. This is why most states now have a close-in age clause. New Hampshoire had one too, but by a fluke it did not cover intercourse per se. I think you need to update your thinking and stay in touch with common sense. This is very bad behavior but not by any stretch a pedophile.
    1
  143. Enough on the black thing. This is about rape. Otherwise why not just post race related speculation about every white person on trial. That's kind of boring.
    1
  144. Samba Jallow: I think your view lacks compassion and humanity. We need to make a distinction between manslaughter and murder at the very least. Unintentional error can happen to any one of us at any time, including you. The intolerance factor is what I am objecting too.
    1
  145.  @v2kcarver367  I think we owe every defendant a reasonable benefit of the doubt. Why not assume the best rather than the worst. She made a mistake under pressure. Note how we (US) don't jail commercial airline pilots when they crash their planes due to unintentional mistakes under pressure. I think it's a more humane approach.
    1
  146.  @Westberg246  This is an age old question: Benefit of the doubt versus a convenient way to escape responsibility. I agree with you. I don't pretend to have a definitive solution. So, should we just do away with due process and proof beyond reasonable doubt?
    1
  147.  @krp9555  As I said, the research on decision making under pressure or time limit shows we are all subject to unconscious bias. Not expecting many to agree with me because this is not part of our "common sense" worldview. But it should be, IMO.
    1
  148.  Roger Dodger  You weren't there, you have no idea if he was walking back to his vehicle. No one does except him.
    1
  149.  Roger Dodger  He might have confronted Trayvon. That's the part no one knows. You weren't there. So stop pretending you know what happened in the final seconds leading up to the physical part of the confrontation.
    1
  150.  Roger Dodger  We do know some of those things. What we do not know is, who started charging whom first? Maybe Zimmerman did. Maybe that's why he got tackled by Martin. You can't make things up like you do. We don't know the timetable. There isn't an ounce of proof in the court documents that Trayvon initiated the violence. Zimmerman was acquitted not because Trayvon charged him initially, but because Zimmerman was fearing for his life later on in the fight. Two completely distinct issues.
    1
  151.  Roger Dodger  "SANFORD, Fla. June 27, 2013— -- A woman who was talking on the phone to Trayvon Martin moments before he was shot and killed by George Zimmerman acknowledged on the stand today that she does not know whether Zimmerman or Martin started the fatal fight."
    1
  152. Irresponsible zoo. Its gorilla exhibit was not child proof. That's pure negligence. Have you ever been a parent? Even the most attentive parents cannot be 100% perfect. That's why sensible people agreed it would be wrong to charge the mom.
    1
  153.  @chicochris3062  Well, you're way off base. Youv'e obviously never had kids.
    1
  154.  @derekgreene2304  Yes. I was referring to your theory that an aluminum plane can't go through a building. Did you check that out with a physics expert yourself? We don't need Judy Wood because we already have a good understanding of what happened without bringing in high energy weapons, or whatever she thinks might have been used. The inability to trust the evidence of one's senses is one of the more remarkable phenomena of our time. I can give you page after page of witnesses who saw IN PERSON the 2nd plane impact. Were they seeing a hologram?
    1
  155. Ah I see Derek has deleted his replies. I think he began to finally use his brain.
    1
  156.  @derekgreene2304  So why did you delete all your replies?
    1
  157.  @derekgreene2304  Do you see any of your replies? If so, I apologize. It must be Google's customer vendetta algorithm once again.
    1
  158.  @derekgreene2304  That woman, as I recall, has no data. It's just speculation.
    1
  159. Yes she did. Taking care of a child doesn't mean 100% perfection. Maybe you've never been a parent. Why is no one criticizing the zoo for letting children into a hazardous environment? It's such an astonishing feat of illogic to blame the parent and not the zoo. Seriously.
    1
  160.  @klif4755  Yeah I mean, I can go as far as understanding why some people will hold the parents responsible. But signing a petition?? So if I accidentally run a red light, should there be a national petition to make sure I am arrested? It's beyond nuts. And where is the corresponding outrage at the zoo for having glaring holes in its safety? By never mentioning that, it shows again the one-sided obsession of these posters.
    1
  161. Another absurd comment.
    1
  162.  @alfredindy8058  But, the standard of reasonable doubt means we cannot know for sure if the shooting was malice murder or instinctive self-defense.
    1
  163.  @alfredindy8058  Thank you for your reply. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about self-defense under the law. Scenario A: Travis kills out of malice (the actual verdict) Scenario B: Travis spontaneously shoots because Arbery turns left, as we see in the video, and confronts Travis, and may well have grabbed his gun before the 1st shot was fired, as the forensic witness testified at trial. Would you call Scenario B malice murder? Or is it possibly motivated not by malice, but by instinctive self-defense? Now you could argue that creating reckless endangerment in the 1st place amounts to malice. But if we focus solely at the exact moment Travis pulled the trigger at that exact time, he still may have reacted instinctively, as the police surely would have. To me, that would make the shooting effectively 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. More thoughts welcome.
    1
  164. You are absolutely wrong on this one,
    1
  165. ​ @adelinalva3906  You're going against the nature of the real world.
    1
  166.  @nickabbott319  And while he did something very exploitive and selfish, I don't think the punishment was warranted. Unless we want to say all teenage sex is rape unless you are both exactly the same age. Which is pretty absurd IMO, and in the opinion of most states now as well, New Hampshire coming within a hair's breath of legality in this case. To me this was not far short of a case of mass brainwashing.
    1
  167. I would say, not necessarily. In Minnesota, 2nd degree manslaughter requires the accused "consciously takes chances" of causing death. Did she consciously take a reckless chance? Or was it purely accidental?
    1
  168.  @Freefs1  I can only say, I am grateful sensible people prevailed here. God forbid if the Youtube mob were running society.
    1
  169. Yes, that's my logic too. The unasked assumption is, does suicidal depression necessarily render you incompetent? The law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where is this proof? cheers
    1
  170. Only about one in 10 comments here make any sense. They blame the parent but not the obviously hazardous exhibit? That's totally backwards reasoning - as if there's ever been a parent in the history of the world who never ever lost track of their child even once? We do indeed live in the age of the absurd.
    1
  171. The Soon-Yi relationship was deplorable, but not so sure it qualifies as child sexual abuse, as she was said to be about 21 at the time it started. But in a broader context, it might be said anything so inappropriate as this could be considered abuse. But that said, a very big distinction between 21 year old consent, and 7-year old rape.
    1
  172. I think the case at best is for manslaughter, as it's impossible to prove this was not self-defense.
    1
  173.  @alasarcher400  Thank you for your comment. I think I gave the wrong impression. What I meant to say is, this was not JUSTIFIED self-defense. But I don't think we can say is was cold-blooded pre-meditated murder either. In your bank robbery scenario, I'm not sure we have a totally analogous situation. In an armed robbery, you can and should 100% assume that if you try and escape you can expect to be shot. Is Arbery really the same though? The McMichael's guns could be seen, but not necessarily aimed at AA. Being armed is not the same as pointing a gun as you make a threat. That's your bank robber scenario. The level of threat is more ambiguous here. It's not 100% beyond doubt that TM was using his weapon with the same mindset as a bank robber. We can speculate he was, but hard to prove. So while I totally agree this was egregious and illegal behavior, I always try and give the benefit of a reasonable doubt to the accused. To me there's some degree of doubt as to the degree of their intentions. So I go with a manslaughter type violation. I don't think we can prove they were out to do something they thought was wrong. Whereas a bank robber knows this is pure thuggery. Big difference. Don't get me wrong, I still favor a significant jail sentence. I'm more inclined to think 10 years, rather than completely destroy their lives.
    1
  174.  @alasarcher400  Before continuing, I just listened to the 911 call again, having heard it two weeks ago. You must be referencing a different call because there's no order by the Police to go home or anything like that. Let's try to clear up the confusion. The version I just listened to was made about 1:14pm just seconds before the shooting. Greg M calls 911 and the dispatcher 1st says. "What is the address of your emergency?" Are we talking about the same call so far?
    1
  175.  @alasarcher400  Reasonable doubt as follows: hate crime. There's no robust proof their motive was hate. We can speculate. We can even agree they are racist pigs. That TM used the N word after shooting AA. But that doesn't mean they would not have pursued the suspect if he were white. You would have to prove that to prove a hate crime.
    1
  176. You are amputating context. While it was a spontaneous act of self-defense no doubt, it was ultimately triggered by Travis' decision to point his gun directly at Arbery several seconds before he became a legitimate threat. So while I would argue against first or even 2nd degree murder, a manslaughter type of offense seems the appropriate crime, which still calls for a significant jail sentence. We can't condone people going around committing assault with a deadly weapon when they are the ones recklessly provoking people who have yet to indicate an intent to harm.
    1
  177. Can't be murder unless she used lethal force??. Force is the key word. It raises the more basic question, is a text literally a lethal weapon? Another question: do we know for a fact suicidal depression renders you mentally incompetent? If so, why not declare that all suicidaly depressed people have no right to make their own decisions? I'm just asking questions here.
    1
  178. Easy to say, hard to prove. What else is new in the neighborhood of make believe.
    1
  179. You are as stupid as they come if you think gorillas are more valuable than innocent children. Absolutely insane.
    1
  180.  @shauntaylor9503  What about the proven link between the war on drugs and murder, the war on drugs and property crimes, in turning whole countries into war zones? If Marijuana causes psychosis and schizophrenia , that's a medical issue, not a criminal one. The point is, the criminalizing of these substances is an example of the cure being worse than the disease. If I have a joint in my pocket, and I'm an adult, and know the risk, and keep it from stinking up your property, that's really not your business. BUT, if it were left to my own selfish preferences, I would ban it because it stinks up public parks, gas stations, you name it. These users have no respect for anyone else.
    1
  181.  @shauntaylor9503  Would you also be in favor or jailing people who smoke cigarettes? Cigarettes cause strokes, heart attacks and lung cancer, and amputations (when liked to diabetes,) and increases the risk for several other diseases. It also kills other through 2nd hand smoke.
    1
  182. There may be some truth to what you say. But imagine if this were a case of drunk driving. Would we be wrong to punish someone just because they might be too drunk or stupid to recognize they were about to commit a potentially lethal crime?
    1
  183. Blacks don't get the death penalty for rape. So let's stop caricaturing reality. Racism is bad enough. No need to embellish it with extravagant claims.
    1
  184. Very bad behavior. But, $100,000 bond seems a bit much.
    1
  185.  sukadik2441  It makes little difference however. Even if the McMichaels were attempting a legal citizen's arrest (which they weren't), they still would have been conducting it recklessly. The key mistake was to point a loaded shot gun at Arbery when he was still several seconds from the vehicle. Had Arbery been armed, he would have had the right to shoot Travis dead. This is why the reckless endangerment charge is absolutely valid.
    1
  186. This forum is not for the mentally ill.
    1
  187. If you really thought for yourself you would know that 9/11 truth has all the traditional markings of a scholarly joke: a complete absence of peer review, a poor sense of judgement, and refutations of all the major theories has been provided. But I assume you only read CT sites and not the debunker material.
    1
  188. I hope this helps dispel the notion among some extremists that white people never care about black people.
    1
  189.  @Tylnorton  That's an example of short-sighted thinking. The parents were no letting their children roam around. The mom lost track of her son for a brief few seconds. You don't think the zoo was irresponsible for allowing a 3-year-old to gain access to a gorilla exhibit? We've all but lost common sense in our society. And these kinds of comments are about as clear as an example as you can find.
    1
  190.  @dominiquetatum7034  Well if I am one, it's because people like you drain me with your hateful thoughts. Too bad you can't express yourself more civilly.
    1
  191. This is why there was a petition to prosecute the mother. To some Green extremists, the gorilla is more important than the child.
    1
  192. Or the fact this was unintentional and debatable as manslaughter. Human beings never were and never will be perfect. What will you say when it's your turn to screw up?
    1
  193.  @anthonykahukiwa7993  You've never heard of, say, a drunk driver victim? ????????????? It happens every day of the week. I don't know how you can read the news and not be familiar with negligent death. It's all around us.
    1
  194.  @anthonykahukiwa7993  Good point. That said, my argument is that even the most basic errors can overtake anyone at anytime. Research has shown that if the stress factor is great enough, it has a tendency to narrow one's focus, without even being aware of it. I follow commercial aviation accidents, for example. Experienced pilots can and have made basic mistakes that have killed people. Look up the Tenerife disaster, for example. Hunting accidents are another candidate for these types of errors. It turns out it is mainly the most experienced hunters who are 100% sure they have correctly identified their target that are most likely to be the ones who accidentally kill their fellow hunters, or innocent bystanders. So my personal take is, let's extend the benefit of doubt to our fellow humans. Can you guarantee you might not screw up when it's your turn to be overtaken by a stressful situation?
    1
  195.  @anthonykahukiwa7993  Look how similar they are: https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-j7nzh/product_images/uploaded_images/handgun-vs-taser-gun-best-for-self-defense.jpg -Also, under stress you may not even look but instinctively grab your left pocket, instead of your right pocket. -Two Lufthansa pilots once took off from London Heathrow because they were 100% sure they had received take off clearance, when in fact they had received an altered departure clearance instead. Please also google this from an article on hunting accidents: "Heuristics operate outside of our conscious awareness and are utilised even more in stressful or emotionally- charged situations. However, they can also make us susceptible to cognitive biases which may lead us astray—we underestimate the impact heuristics will have on our decisions. Attempts to manage heuristics and cognitive biases are often futile because we normally cannot detect them when they occur." This passage is key to understanding how seemingly impossible errors can occur.
    1
  196.  @anthonykahukiwa7993  As to the Floyd case, I haven't followed it enough to say whether he deserves the entire 60 years he could face. But I don't see any way out of a guilty verdict he received. The expert police and medical testimony was very powerful in this case. Beyond reasonable doubt. Over a period of 9 minutes you would be hard pressed to argue stress!!
    1
  197.  @Pk-io6xe  The only real argument is the stuff stinks, and the people that smoke in public places and stink up gas stations when they come in, are selfish pigs who couldn't be bothered by the effect it has on others.
    1
  198. Yes, it's most curious. If she was given orders it would have been after flight 93 had crashed, as that's what the timeline has established (see The Eleventh Hour). According to the Daily Mail she only found out F93 crashed "hours later."
    1
  199. Are you a robot?
    1
  200.  @CorpusGreed  Well how do you know that the mother knew the child could get into the exhibit? The district attorney refused to prosecute because you and others keep making this weird assumption that parents can be 100% perfect at all times. That's a defective paradigm. And, as witnesses stated, the mom WAS watching her kids, but all it takes is one second to move your head away, and a child can slip away. I recommend reading the many comments of parents who are 100% meticulous but conceded that anything can happen, even to them. Like the thread below with 174 replies.
    1
  201.  @HYDROCARBON_XD  But that assumes that loosing track of your child is always negligence. By all accounts, the mom turned her head away for a brief instant. The idea of the perfect parent is a defective paradigm. And you don't expect your child will be be able to drop in front a of a gorilla in mere seconds. That's why the DA refused to prosecute. That's just my view, and I appreciate your sharing yours,
    1
  202. I said she took her EYES off of him for an "instant." In an instant you can lose track of a child. I did not say the child "took an instant"to go from being lost track of into the exhibit. But he did so rather quickly.By all accounts he was in there in mere seconds. i.e. less than a minute. Please don't be overly literal. If I am in error, kindly quote the part of the story that says otherwise.
    1
  203.  @kirikiti5425  Once again, you are approaching the issue with the defective paradigm that human beings can always be 100% perfect. Where did you ever get that idea from? Certainly not the real world. Where human infallibility has been refuted time and again. Even people who "have 100 percent attention" are not immune from error, period.
    1
  204.  @ItsYoBoyJesusPreacher  And I know the results of the police investigation, which involved several witnesses. On that basis no charges were filed.
    1
  205.  @ItsYoBoyJesusPreacher  Well that's quite a bit of speculation.
    1
  206.  @StaleArt  You are asking for a world in which none of us inhabit: absolute perfection.
    1
  207.  @krazedsuperman  Omg, calm down why don't you. There's no need to be yelling. That said, thank you for your replies. I see your point. I think my main point boils down to this: we live in a world where there is no such thing as 100% perfection. If you agree with that, then what is there to be arguing about? cheers
    1
  208.  @krazedsuperman  Translation: everyone must agree with me, the superior krazedsuperman, or they are i-diots, which would include the county prosecutor, and Jane Goodall I suspect, who weighed in too. YOU ARE SUPERIOR IN VIRTUE OF YOUR BEING YOU. Got it
    1
  209.  @SamFindley-zt7mt  Or if the zoo had built a safer enclosure.
    1
  210.  @SamFindley-zt7mt  Curious whom you think had the greater responsibility to protect this child. Zoo or parents?
    1
  211.  @alyssaj.2659  Well I think that since the age difference was only 2 1/2 years, the statutory rape charge seems misguided. Most states now have an age difference clause to account for the absurdity of, say, a 16 year old having sex with a 16 year old. To my mind, 2 1/2 years is at least in a grey area. In essence, this prosecution is tantamount to criminalizing ordinary teenage sex. Is that the route we really want to go? What if he were 18 and she 17? Or he 17 and she 16? Should that be statutory rape?
    1
  212. Absolutely. But people tend to fit evidence into a preconceived narrative. Maybe some homeowner is remodeling her home, so she steps inside to see if there are any ideas she can use. How much imagination does that take.
    1
  213. Pure speculation.
    1
  214. Especially the ones who blame the parent.
    1
  215.  @network263  But there's no proof she was confused. In fact, in situations like this, mistakes can be entirely unconscious. This is what the study of human bias under stress shows. Any one of us can make such a mistake, however rarely.
    1
  216.  @network263  Not so. Most people are unfamiliar with the study of heuristics, or decision making under stress. It shows that under a deadline, none of us can be perfect. And even worse, the errors we make can be entirely unconscious. Thus we cannot protect ourselves from them. Even the most meticulous and experienced are subject to this. This contradicts common sense. It's another fascinating example where reality routinely outsmarts us.
    1
  217. Except that it's unlikely the third man, Bryan, set out to murder him. He left his rifle at home.
    1
  218. What about the zoo? Don't they have a responsible to make sure a child-oriented business is safe for children?
    1
  219. I would say the two cases are almost the same but for one potential difference. Zimmerman/Trayvon not only lacked video, it had some potential reasonable doubt. How certain can we be that Zimmerman is lying when he states that he turned around to back to his car, then Trayvon came from behind and attacked him? If this counts as reasonable doubt, then effectively Trayvon is now the aggressor, as a merely scared person would retreat, not pursue. The equivalent in the Arbery killing would be if at first Arbery retreated, then when the McMichaels got back to their house, and opened the car door, Arbery suddenly lunged at them. Obviously the McMichaels have no case for anything like this.
    1
  220. We got both justice and injustice. -The scumbag racists went to jail = justice -felony murder = injustice, especially in regard to black defendants over the years -Life w/o parole = injustice. This wasn't even pre-meditated murder. Here's a case where racist hysteria ruled the court. These men weren't on trial for their actual crimes, but for the entire history of white Southern racism in all its hideous ugliness. I get it. Decent folk are fed up with racism, and have lost all patience. But that's precisely where due process and reasonable doubt should be put to the test. As Noam Chomsky said in another context, freedom of speech doesn't mean very much unless we uphold it when we revile what's being said. Similarly here, when we are filled with loathing and disgust, the principles of justice need to be upheld, not to be casually dispensed with, as they were here.
    1
  221. But it was still deplorable.
    1
  222. Well, was there a hard proof he raped her?
    1
  223. "couldn’t tell the difference between a gun and a taser." Even basic error can occur to anyone of us at any time. I remember my brain playing tricks on me, like the time it processed my red light for the other cars. There is no absolute immunity from this aspect of human nature. So I say, give her the benefit of the doubt and don't find her guilty. Otherwise we are saying being human is a punishable crime.
    1
  224. What about the zoo's negligence?
    1
  225. He already was. They kicked him out earlier this year.
    1
  226. @phillipclearman859 I don't know for sure, and some have said it was the other way around. But according to a CNN article, GBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge Richard Dial stated: "...Mr. Arbery kept jumping out of the way and moving around the bumper and actually running down into the ditch in an attempt to avoid his truck. . . . At one point, Arbery was heading out of the Satilla Shores neighborhood where the defendants live, but the McMichaels forced him to turn back into the neighborhood and run past Bryan, the agent said. That is when he struck Arbery." If that has been refuted, then kindly fill me in.
    1
  227. @phillipclearman859 With his truck. The article is referenced in the wiki entry.
    1
  228. That's so BS. It was already proved she was following a TV script based on the exact same theme - a girl wanting her BF dead so she could get all the attention. This is old news.
    1
  229.  @senoraantero2836  She was on trial for manslaughter, not her personality.
    1
  230.  @kjs257incpen3  You're all wrong. The truth is, no one knows for sure how the last 90 seconds or so played out.
    1
  231.  @highmaxedoutlife6285  Agreed. But a case can be made that the law here is inadequate, and her actions did not constitute manslaughter.
    1
  232. I don't either. But the zoo itself is the primary cause here: if a child found a way to open an emergency door inflight, the NTSB would rightly blame the airline, not the child. That's the absurdity of so many comments above. Common sense has been amputated in this age of the absurd.
    1
  233.  @warningflashflood4485  A lot depends on one's internal state or situation. A person who suffers from depression will tend to see the negative and ignore the positive. A person who does not suffer from depression may not see things so bleakly. Who is right, and how can it be proven?
    1
  234. Maybe not certifiably sick, but deplorable, as Cathy Young states in her most balanced articles. The relationship was devastating to Mia. That alone makes it deplorable.
    1
  235.  @gregpoore2757  What Mia may or may not have done to Dylan is irrelevant to whether the Woody- Soon-Yi relationship is appropriate or worse. I realize people are human, but in his new book Woody states he sees no moral dilemmas with with this. And that says to me rather unequivocally Woody has some basic problems with moral boundaries. Even Moses stated what his father did was wrong. It caused exreme pain to Mia and roiled up the whole family. I can forgive him because we are all human; but it doesn't make what he did OK. Just my thoughts. As to Mia, I am perfectly aware of the many allegations against her and have no doubt they could well be true. So not saying she's necessarily any better.
    1
  236.  @gregpoore2757  I get you! And I agree sometimes people should just let go of others' mistakes. It's been 28 years for goodness sake. So I agree with you.
    1
  237. Or, as some truthers think, blow up a hole in the middle of nowhere rather than target buildings. As if some dead grass were vital to the alleged plot.
    1
  238.  @textbox6648  Wrong. That video concluded the passengers brought the plane down. Did you actually watch it?
    1
  239. I would vote either manslaughter or third degree murder.
    1
  240.  @wardatkins1320  There was a plan to confront, not necessarily to kill.
    1
  241. Well what's crazy is the stupidity of criminals. They leave an obvious trail of clues in their wake, love to boast about their crimes on social media. But this case out-does them all. I've always maintained that criminals usually convict themselves. Have they never watched a single episode of those forensic detective shows?
    1
  242. That's totally normal for a kid. What's disturbingly abnormal is blaming the parent for not being perfect. And not blaming the zoo for an obvious hazard.
    1
  243. Sorry, you're not a mind reader.
    1
  244.  @robertchandler2124  Sorry, that's wrong. The field of heuristics (fancy name for decision making under a deadline) shows that we have to employ an element of shortcut thinking under pressure. The research shows that even highly experienced people can make mistakes like this. The scary part is that such errors often happen at an unconscious level, so we can't always guard against them as they happen. This is the inherent flaw in your view. But I give you a pass because heuristic models fly in the face of common sense. Modern day "common sense" has not yet caught up with this reality.
    1
  245.  @Latingyal58  I don't agree with even manslaughter. If a surgeon with a perfect record causes death by a single mistake, we don't traditionally send her or him to jail. Nor do we jail commercial airline pilots for fatal errors that kill. Because we make a distinction between negligence, especially under stress, versus gross recklessness. That distinction is fast collapsing in the legal system as of late. I think it totally goes against due process and reasonable doubt. But I admit this is all open to debate.
    1
  246.  @robertchandler2124  Like I said, I give you a pass.
    1
  247. Well, if we go by due process, in the final analysis, there's no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she was negligent or reckless. Sometimes even the most careful people can make basic mistakes. The study of heuristics (decisions under a deadline) has tended to prove this. The lapses can be entirely unconscious. The arguments against Potter carry some weight. But does it really prove beyond a reasonable doubt a careful person could NEVER make such a mistake? I don't see how.
    1
  248. You might be right. But in a court of law, I believe it's only fair to give the accused the benefit of any reasonable doubt. That means we can't assume it's a hate crime per se, even though they are racists. And we cannot assume premeditated malice. That means to me we should not rush to the conclusion they should get the equivalent of a 1st degree murder sentence, such as life in prison, or even 40 years. They need to pay for sure, but I would say 5-10 years is in alignment with the degree of proof on offer.
    1
  249.  @textbox6648  You didn't listen to the video carefully. No shoot down.
    1
  250.  sukadik2441  Don't you have anything more useful to do than post the same question ad nauseam on every Arbery forum in the universe?
    1
  251. Because he used his car to prevent Arbery from getting away. In the trial, I believe it was also speculated he assaulted Arbery with his car in an attempt to run him over.
    1
  252. Let's celebrate that the petition failed. People with nothing better to do than harass a parent for being human come off the worst in this whole saga.
    1
  253. Bill Demich: I agree that we have become overly hysterical in claiming emotional trauma for every underage encounter, at least for 14 and 15 year olds. That said, it needs to be against the law because the potential for damage is still very high. Other 14-year-olds may have reacted differently or come to realize long lasting harm later. I was also a victim age 12/13. While it was not helpful to me, I don't believe it traumatized me either. But even there, it's hard to know for sure.
    1
  254.  @mysticnomad3577  I just checked wiki and it appears they raised the age of consent to 16 in 2008, but 14 year olds can consent with people "not more than 5 years" older. So I'm guessing this would still be illegal in Canada. I think the judge should be ashamed herself and thrown off the bench. It's man's inhumanity to man. How can she live with herself? She must be part of the brainwashed generation of feminists whose critical thinking and sense of compassion have been sacrificed to political correctness, or some other mental disorder. Normal people don't behave with such inhumanity.
    1
  255. Because the evidence of a hate crime at this point is speculative.
    1
  256. I would suggest 10-15 years based on the standards of reasonable doubt of intent, and that it may not have been premeditated. Give the benefit of reasonable doubt to everyone, including to racist pigs.
    1
  257. But I vigorously protest putting the third man, Mr. Bryan, into the same box. He deserves some punishment yes. But his transgressions were not proportional to the other two. For example, he did not set out illegally at first. And he had no intimate knowledge of the Ms plan at pointing guns at AA.
    1
  258.  @alanmorris7669  In your view yes, in mine no. There is no absolute objective correct answer. The best we can do is evaluate the evidence as thoroughly and fairly as possible.
    1
  259.  @alanmorris7669  True. And the jury may well find them not all equally guilty. I suspect Bryan, the third man, might be given a somewhat lessor sentence because 1)he did not initiate an illegal chase the way the Ms did. And most importantly 2) he did not conspire to, or have foreknowledge of, the Ms plan to use deadly force and armed assault. To me, these are relevant differences in culpability. Just my views, but I fully respect yours too.
    1
  260. The irony is that it was precisely the short sentence that made him into the most reviled rapists in the US. I only have a little sympathy because he gets all the target of this disproportionate rage. Had he received a full one year in jail or more, no one would have heard of Brock Turner.
    1
  261.  @adaptwt8250  I think the petition to charge the mom was also driven by people who detest human beings in general. They think humans are destroying the planet, so let's stick it to them. Maybe a cover for racism too.
    1
  262. I'm afraid not. Yes, I think everyone knows this is deplorable. BUT, not everyone seems to realize how horrific the emotional damage can be. That's probably one reason why some people I know have not expressed nearly as much outrage. They don't completely get it. If they don't, then it shouldn't be so mysterious why some pedo types don't fully get it either.
    1
  263. Brainwashed by the truth mvt as usual.
    1
  264.  @johnmas9221  And accountability in this case should be a civil issue, not a criminal one. There's no proof she acted criminally. But even if there were, that doesn't automatically warrant jail time. This case has seemed to sway people because it's cops and race. if it were, say, a doctor with a perfect record causing death from a single mistake, we wouldn't usually rush to jail them. Otherwise we would be jailing everyone for every single mistake they make. Do we want to go that route in society? In a country where lawyers are out of control, it's hardly surprising this is we seem to be going. Under the ideal rule of lawyers, there would be no such thing as an honest mistake.
    1
  265.  @johnmas9221  I've given you a pass. So don't worry. We all get get it wrong sometimes.
    1
  266.  @Westberg246  That's open to some argument. The wording in the statute can be interpreted differently. But I let that go as we've discussed it to death. What astounded me most is the defense bringing up the examples of airline pilots and doctors. Could I be forgiven for thinking he had read my comments? Probably just coincidence - OR, maybe I think too much like a lawyer. I wasn't too impressed by either side's closing statements. Gray was confusing if not incompetent. Outrageous he blamed the victim for his own death. Eldridge was far more effective, and I predict will win the jury over. But in her gratuitous excess, hyperbole and ridiculous straw men, she is a typical lawyer at heart: cold, calculating, uncharitable. I am glad I am not in this ugly profession.
    1
  267.  @Westberg246  Thank you too for a fine conversation, forced me to rethink things. Are you getting that annoying dot dot dot where it should say "show more"? ? It's very annoying, just try refreshing page. You're not missing much, just my opinionated take on things!
    1
  268.  @jamgrl38  Had Arbery been white, and Bryan black, would you still feel the same way?
    1
  269.  @jamgrl38  It shouldn't. But in this case, I believe it did, resulting in sentences out of proportion to the crime. In principle would you give someone a life sentence when they had no intent to kill, and did not himself kill, and honestly (though stupidly) assumed his neighbor had a valid reason to chase someone? I always thought life sentences should be reserved for worst case crimes. No?
    1
  270.  @jamgrl38  No, you cannot make assumptions when there's reasonable doubt. There's no solid proof Bryan was trying to kill Arbery. He may have ended up knocking him down, which is a very serious offense. But not a provable intent to kill. Why would he? What evidence did he have to believe Arbery deserved to be killed? You cannot elevate your assumptions to proof, especially one as questionable as that.
    1
  271. But far more the zoo's.
    1
  272. Question: If a 3-year-old managed to open an emergency door in flight, would you agree the NTSB would rightly hold the airline accountable, and not the mom?
    1
  273. They treat these men as if they were worse than Hitler. Yet their crimes didn't even approach the worst cases of 1st degree or premeditated murder. This trial shows what happens when the hatred of the moment takes priority over basic principles of justice. For many in the US, racism is now seen as far worse than mass murder.
    1
  274.  @zayjones2885  We are talking 3 men, not the entire white race. Are you saying all whites are as guilty as the McMichaels?
    1
  275.  @zayjones2885  It's not embedded in everyone. Just the small fraction of people who kill.
    1
  276. I'm glad we can finally agree on something. There are good people in every race, group, or society.
    1
  277. Exactly. Just like UFO abductees.
    1
  278.  @textbox6648  Please cite a confirmatory link.
    1
  279.  @textbox6648  I know he said that, but he also denied it in other places. When the same person gives two different stories, neither one can be considered the truth. This is one of the basics of being honest. You don't just cherry pick the version you like. The truth mvt is one of the worst offenders witness their inability to cite the numerous firemen who spoke of building 7 completely engulfed, and their complete ignorance of the 2003 cell phone study confirming calls connected at all phases of flight. Witness too the BBC report where they said bldg 7 came down before it actually did. Since THIS BBC story fits the truther's narrative, the "lying media" are now treated like the gospel.
    1
  280. Your name says it all.
    1
  281. Sex offender for life is ridiculous. He may be an a-hole for sure. But teenage sex should not be criminalized.
    1
  282. I think some people are conflating very bad behavior with criminality. My take is, with an age difference of just 2 1/2 years, some people are effectively just criminalizing the concept of teenage sex. Enough is enough. IMO. In many states the age difference clause would rule out statutory rape. But when the momentum of ganging up on a scummy person gets far enough, we see this avalanche of hatred that runs rough shod over basic common sense. Of course he MAY have raped her, but the jury had every right to find reasonable doubt.
    1
  283. As I've stated, this trial was about racism, not murder. For many right now, racism has become a crime worse than murder. An interesting case how justice has little to do with principle, but with the pure hatred of the moment.
    1
  284. He did the absolute wrong thing.You have to look at the bigger picture: it is bad law to prosecute teen sex when the participants are three or fewer years apart in age. Recently, state after state has introduced such close in -age clauses which recognize the absurdity of treating teen sex as a crime when the participants are only a few years apart.
    1
  285. I think Bryan goes a bit too far though. Unlike the other two men, he did not set out to do anything illegal. Once he started to try and stop Arbery, then yes he crossed the line. But the entire thing was initiated by the MicMichaels, not Bryan. That makes him far less instrumental in creating reckless endangerment. Not saying he should get off the hook completely though.
    1
  286. It was the zoo's fault. Parents have an excuse: they aren't perfect. Zoos have plenty of time to think about making their gorilla enclosures safe. Where's your common sense?
    1
  287.  @melaniewood3506  It happened in an instant. I suspect you have never had kids. As the prosecutor said: "I've never seen the attention given to a family-endangering case as this," Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said. "If you don't believe a 3-year-old can scamper away that quickly, you've never had kids. They do just that."
    1
  288.  @melaniewood3506  So why is it more the mother's fault than the zoo's? Mothers are suppose to be perfect and zoos are not? Is that your argument?
    1
  289.  @melaniewood3506  OK got it, parents must be perfect, but a zoo's enclosure can be imperfect. You don't know how to carry out a logical conversation, but that's fine, this is Youtube after all.
    1
  290.  @melaniewood3506  Well I have 3 questions for you then, and I'd like to get an honest answer to these if you would care to. 1) Do you agree that even the most conscientious parents in the world can recall times when they momentarily lost track of their children? 2) Have you ever been a parent? 3) If you were building a gorilla enclosure, wouldn't you want to make it kid-safe, in case a kid accidentally strays from his parents/guardian?
    1
  291.  @melaniewood3506  OK, thank you for your answers. However, you didn't;t answer my last question, and no one ever blamed the gorilla. Don't you think a zoo has a duty to identify places where a child could get, and get rid of the hazard too? I am not singling you out, I have posed this question to many others too. I can only say that while I respect your point of view, I am glad that people with greater wisdom, like Jane Goodall, like the country prosecutor whom I quoted, carry more weight than unforgiving Youtube viewers. Just my opinion of course. :)
    1
  292. "He was just as culpable." 2:55 This is an example where pure rage, aided and abetted by the poorly conceived felony murder rule, has blinded people to what justice is all about. I'm sorry, but life in prison is for worst case crimes only. Bryan is a despicable racist to be sure. But his crime was not intentional murder, period. It shows how blind rage matters more than justice. And that people are driven by primal impulses more than reason and reflection.
    1
  293. But in this case it turns out it wasn't legal. So that's 2 strikes against the Ms. The third strike, that this was a hate crime, is IMO somewhat more questionable though.
    1
  294.  @ulyssesgrant2782  Sure, I will try to. People who only see in black and white are not helping the discussion. Nuance is key. You're not interested in that. And that's OK. We all choose different standards of seriousness.
    1
  295. It is, but Bryan's sentence is really over the top and again highlights the outdated felony murder rule, which flies against basic principles of justice.
    1
  296.  @WhatSoEverThingsAreLovely  Well that may be true. But he was on trial for murder, not failure to give 1st aid. My concern is the failure to follow due process and reasonable doubt. I don't think they were in this case. Even the verdict of malice murder violated the reasonable doubt principle. This IMH but strong O, is a case of raw emotion bulldozing legal standards. Possibly due to the hysteria in the "ether," the case amounted to a twisting of common sense: that racism is far worse than murder.
    1
  297. The kid was not retarded, it's your response and the 100s like it that's retarded. Sane adults don't think like this.
    1
  298. Please I urge you to be more tolerant of people's mistakes. Especially since you cannot provide a proof she was motivated by evil.
    1
  299. Thank you for holding the zoo accountable. Not many posters seem to care one wit about that. However, I take issue with "doesn't parent as she should." The assumption of 100% perfect parents at all times and places is unrealistic. Have you ever been a parent?
    1
  300. That may be true, but we cannot place any blame on her.
    1
  301. Ultimately though, the judgement was flawed. The jury are not mind readers, but decided to bestow this ability on to themselves regardless . Reasonable doubt was thus amputated.
    1
  302. The zoo's at fault because a zoo is a child-oriented business, and therefore has an obligation to eliminate child hazards such as this. What don't you get here? On the other hand no parent is perfect. Maybe you've just never been a parent?
    1
  303. Well that's actually a nice proof she was watching her child and lost track if him only briefly. Had she truly been a bad parent she wouldn't have had a clue where he was.
    1
  304. Some sanity and compassion. Thank you.
    1
  305. "and the officer standing right next to her were completely unaware that she was holding her firearm and not her taser??" Well, I assume all this happened very fast. Maybe no one was looking at her hand? I don't see it's realistic to assume others to be focusing on her hand and instantly yell out, "that's your gun!" One last thing, bias under stress often occurs to precisely those who are most trained and experienced, contrary to what people think. This has turned out to be the case especially with hunting accidents. This is yet another instance where common sense may be totally wrong.
    1
  306.  @BenTV91  I think you lack both a sense of proportion, and also a degree of compassion. Life in prison for a mistake that anyone of us could potentially have made? That's intolerant. It goes against basic decency.
    1
  307.  @SunflowerSunflower-lc3kw  I think the system needs an overhaul. But it's pure speculation to say she did it deliberately. Youtube, as usual, brings out the very worst in people.
    1
  308. This is the dark side of human nature speaking , your comment. Society, and its unjust felony murder principle, gives you license to hate without limit. Roddie is a stupid mor-n r-cist who got in over his head. Sure thing. Yes! But there's no equivalence between his crime and the punishment. None whatsoever. We have a long way to go in revamping our justice system. In BOTH directions.
    1
  309. Well I don't disagree he was being aggressively persued by some racist scumbags. But he could have just continued running, or run through the adjacent yard, and not attacked them. This is no excuse for the Ms, but if you're implying they would have shot him dead regardless, that's unprovable.
    1
  310.  @weytogoman  There's no doubt in my mind Travis lied big time in court. However, I believe there's reasonable doubt as to Malice Murder.
    1
  311.  @weytogoman  I may not be quite as intune to all the details in the last few seconds as you. So I'm happy to be corrected if I left out something relevant. Yes, indeed, I'm well aware that enhanced FBI video and Travis' own words in court prove that Travis aimed the gun at Arbery some 5-10 seconds or more out. That's armed assault with a dangerous weapon. But in itself it doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt an intent to shoot. If it did, why didn't he pull the trigger right then and there, or during all of those seconds as Arbery approached? = reasonable doubt. Or, if you think he waited to avoid hitting Bryan, he may just wanted to continue to scare and bully Arbery, = reasonable doubt. One way or another, this is not a viable proof. Travis changing position- this is where I concede I might be off. But my reasoning is that changing a position might be due to the belief Arbery might be armed, so he wants to get into a more defensive position. There's only so much one can tell from the video. Arbery charges - even if you are guilty of reckless conduct and armed assault, when someone turns and charges at you, and (quite possibly) tries to grab your gun, there might also be a reflex reaction to shoot. It might be a self preservation instinct to shoot when someone tries to grab your gun, since they could grab it and shoot you. If you want to convince me we know for a virtual certainty that Travis' shot was totally unrelated to a reflex action of self defense, please fill in any blanks I am missing.
    1
  312.  @weytogoman  I didn't have time to watch everything needless to say, but I watched most the excerpts you cite. Three statements that stand out to me are Arbery "Turns and decides to engage Travis McMichael" at 37:30 Travis "could tell from 30-40 yards away Arbery was going to fight." 3:13:30 Travis: "He said he was afraid Mr. Arbery would get hold of the shot gun. 3:15:55 On that basis, I don't see the issue of reasonable doubt is resolved.
    1
  313.  @weytogoman  And now let's state the obvious, as everyone seems to have a massive case of amnesia in this case. As a general rule, if someone tries to attack you and you are armed, you might fear for your life. And it would be understandable that you might shoot in self-defense. Whether legally or not is besides the point. Are you in disagreement with this common sense assessment?
    1
  314.  @weytogoman  OK, well let's go more in depth. 2:30 in your link there's a discussion of self defense. There is no resolution of Travis' claim to self defense. The argument that he wasn't sure if Arbery struck him leaves that point unresolved. What you seem to have missed is again obvious. Even if you have not been struck, and your gun has not been grabbed, when someone turns and decides to confront you in a threatening way, you might shoot out of fear. Have you not seen the many instances of police being confronted by an unarmed man and they shoot? Whether justified or not, the motive is fear, not malice. Isn't this obvious?
    1
  315.  @weytogoman  Sorry, you don't have the intelligence or grasp of basic concepts to continue the discussion. Feel free to have the final word.
    1
  316.  @Vibrinspiration  The comment wasn't stupid. A single spelling error is not worthy of serious discussion.
    1
  317.  @jordancharm6780  For an unintentional mistake that anyone of us could make at any time? It amounts to prosecuting human nature.
    1
  318. I agree that not all rapes are created equal. However, it can be pretty frightening, I imagine, finding out later you have been raped. And there's no question sex with someone unconscious is sexual assault. I think we males might be at a disadvantage in dealing with this. If I woke up to some girl giving me a HJ or BJ, I'd say "please, don't stop!" But women do not think this way at all. They have a very different sexual psychology, and men have to be taught that women don't go for all the same things men do. And this is a big one of those things.
    1
  319. I agree. But here we have someone going way beyond defending their neighborhood. Travis pointed his gun directly at Arbery when he still hadn't even reached the truck. . No doubt it was this escalation that caused Arbery to grab the gun. You cannot be reckless when defending your neighborhood and expect peace to result.
    1
  320.  @Jonathan-mt9up  "The escalation began" Not violent escalation, not armed assault with a deadly weapon. You simply cannot put that in the same category as pulling a gun on someone. Apples/oranges. But even if you could, you cannot overlook the fact that Travis had no right to aim a loaded gun at Arbery when Arbery was still some 5-10 seconds away from them. We all have our biases, but to fail to digest the reckless nature of what Travis did is almost willful ignorance, IMO.
    1
  321. No, that's normal for a kid that age. What's stupid is your comment. Unless you're a teenager, you should know better than to post garbage like this.
    1
  322. Where was the f-ing child-resistant gorilla enclosure?
    1
  323. Sanity actually prevailed and the parents were not charged. As the DA had to remind the Youtube mob, if you've ever been a parent you know how quickly and easily a child can slip away from you. A single second's distraction can do it. What I don't understand is why these posters see no negligence on the part of the zoo. How safe can an enclosure be if a child can slip into it in literally seconds? I see this incident as a fascinating insight into human nature. How it is that I and you see things through such different lenses. I'm not saying I'm ultimately right or wrong. It's just fascinating to me.
    1
  324. An unsafe zoo is even dumber. Did you forget about that?
    1