Jury finds Ahmaud Arbery's murderers guilty. But the racist defense arguments still sting.Njeri Mathis Rutledge and Geoffrey S. Corn - 1h ago
© Stephen B. Morton, AP
There’s an old saying in the courtroom that when the law is against you hammer on the facts, when the facts are against you hammer on the law, but when both are against you hammer on the table. This week, a defense attorney for the men who killed Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia chose to pull out a different hammer to distract from both the facts and the law: the racist hammer.
Yet, by its guilty verdict Wednesday, the jury rejected the defense's obvious efforts to exploit what it hoped would be the racial undercurrent.
Instead, the jury did its duty and followed the law by answering “no” to the critical legal question: whether the three defendants, Greg McMichael, Travis McMichael and William “Roddie” Bryan validly engaged in a citizen’s arrest that led to a justifiable use of deadly force against Ahmaud Arbery?
Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.
They did not, and as a result, all three men were found guilty of felony murder. They must be accountable for the unlawful killing of this innocent victim.
More: Ahmaud Arbery was murdered or, more accurately, lynched
This was a good day for justice. But the verdict cannot and should not negate the way in which race permeated this case.
For the prosecution, it was nothing more than the victim’s race – or more precisely the inherent bigotry triggered by his race – that led the three defendants to chase him down and initiate the alarmingly violent confrontation.
For observers, the legal process that allowed the defense to remove all but one African American juror from the case in a community that is nearly 27% Black – even with the judge voicing his concern that the tactic appeared to indicate discrimination – seemed perplexing.
And for too many Americans, it was once again time to brace for the all-too-common “not guilty.”
© Associated Press staffA jury on Nov. 24, 2021, found three Georgia men guilty of murder in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery last year.
But for all of us, this case is a powerful illustration of how the legitimacy of criminal justice is always vulnerable to the corrosive effect of racial bias.
The defense's new level of lowIt was essential for the defense to characterize Arbery as a menacing presence. Only by doing so could they justify the conduct of their clients. That is not surprising and is a common tactic in a self-defense case. But using Arbery’s race as the basis for that characterization went too far.
Specifically, Laura Hogue, one of Greg McMichael's lawyers, stated: "Turning Ahmaud Arbery into a victim after the choices that he made does not reflect the reality of what brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores in his khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails."
This description was both puzzling and inflammatory, but also recognized immediately as a despicable effort to tap into inherent racial bias to justify the actions that led to his death. While blaming a victim’s aggressive conduct is logical to assert self-defense, criticizing a decedent’s clothing and hygiene is a new level of low.
USA TODAY's Suzette Hackney: 25 million reasons to be thankful in Charlottesville, where there's accountability for hate
The description of long dirty toe nails, taken from the autopsy report, and the emphasis of the type of shorts he was wearing with no socks helped paint Arbery as an outsider who did not belong in a community that may wear expensive exercise gear and get regular pedicures.
© Rashid TillisNjeri Mathis Rutledge in Houston, Texas, in December 2020.
And why not? What down side was there to take that shot hoping it would appeal to the darker instincts of the almost all-white jury? Such an argument might resonate with someone who agrees that a young Black man who “really doesn’t fit” running down that street was automatically suspicious, who can’t understand why Arbery would resist after being chased down and confronted with a gun.