Jogging in Georgia while black.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Tank said:
Serious question, what percentage likelihood do you think these 3 white men thought there was that they'd end up killing Ahmaud as they got into their vehicles?

It sounds like you're saying 100% - or near it?

I'm flabbergasted if you actually believe that. I don't think they considered it likely at all. Near to the point of 0% in fact.
Click to expand...

Another point on which we agree - that these guys are clueless morons.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Serious question, what percentage likelihood do you think these 3 white men thought there was that they'd end up killing Ahmaud as they got into their vehicles?

It sounds like you're saying 100% - or near it?

I'm flabbergasted if you actually believe that. I don't think they considered it likely at all. Near to the point of 0% in fact.
Click to expand...

They killed him. Your "Did they think they would kill him" is so extremely irrelevant. Just another distraction. :rolleyes:
 
It's not a distraction. It's a troll-post. Like all posts by the racist in this thread. It's about getting the reaction you are giving him. This is "triggering the libs" in action.

The racist isn't trying to make a rational argument that it's ok for white people to kill black people. He thinks that it is and knows that we don't. Because of that, he's going to find a way to say it over and over again, because he knows him saying it triggers a "racism bad" reaction in us. You cannot make a rational argument to dissuade him from his position, because it's not a rational position, but an emotional - ideological - one. The best thing you can do is to show the racist that his ideology is not welcome. You do that by not addressing him as a peer.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Tank said:
My impression is that he was their friend / neighbor / acquaintance and was coming along to help track him. I think he filmed it for CYA / interest / to show the police.

The reason for filming isn't too mysterious honestly, he thought this was an armed confrontation and declaration of "we have police on the way and intend to get you arrested" with someone he believed to be a criminal. That situation inherently can have video-worthy things even if zero violence takes place. Maybe you catch him admitting something, maybe he gives a fake name and that might be indicative to the cops later when they determine who he really is, etc.
Click to expand...


If that is the case he would have also been arrested for murder.
 
whoanellie said:
From the police report:
"McMichael stated the unidentified male turned around and began running back the direction from which he came and " Roddy" attempted to block him which was unsuccessful Michael stated he then jumped into the bed of the truck and he and Travis continued ....."

Roddy is William Bryan the video taker. He was in cahoots (at least to some degree) with the McMichaels.
Click to expand...


I posted above that he would have also been arrested for murder if this was the case, but considering they didn’t charge someone who confessed to a murder perhaps I am wrong assuming any competence.
 
Darat said:
I posted above that he would have also been arrested for murder if this was the case, but considering they didn’t charge someone who confessed to a murder perhaps I am wrong assuming any competence.
Click to expand...

For the next few years while this all works itself out, you will understand everything which happens a lot better if you proceed with the following understanding:

The three gentlemen committed no crime, and are being charged or not charged with things entirely based on mob appeasement / outrage suppression.

If they had committed a crime here, you're right - the third man would be charged too. He was not, at least not yet, because they were doing what they felt the outrage mob was demanding - not what the law or actual evidence would indicate to do. If he is ultimately charged, it will be because they felt that too was necessary to appease / placate.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Tank said:
For the next few years while this all works itself out, you will understand everything which happens a lot better if you proceed with the following understanding:

The three gentlemen committed no crime, and are being charged or not charged with things entirely based on mob appeasement / outrage suppression.

If they had committed a crime here, you're right - the third man would be charged too. He was not, at least not yet, because they were doing what they felt the outrage mob was demanding - not what the law or actual evidence would indicate to do. If he is ultimately charged, it will be because they felt that too was necessary to appease / placate.
Click to expand...

Priceless. You have framed things so that no matter what happens, you will be right.

This is the best sort of argument racists can come up with I suppose.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
For the next few years while this all works itself out, you will understand everything which happens a lot better if you proceed with the following understanding:

The three gentlemen committed no crime, and are being charged or not charged with things entirely based on mob appeasement / outrage suppression.

If they had committed a crime here, you're right - the third man would be charged too. He was not, at least not yet, because they were doing what they felt the outrage mob was demanding - not what the law or actual evidence would indicate to do. If he is ultimately charged, it will be because they felt that too was necessary to appease / placate.
Click to expand...

These scum murdered an unarmed man for jogging.
 
Craig4 said:
These scum murdered an unarmed man for jogging.
Click to expand...

For that to be true, it would literally need to be the case that the father and son were like "there he is! that black guy! he's joggin' down the street! let's go straight up murder him FOR THAT!"

It would require that they just popped him from the truck as they drove up to him, and that there not be any attack by the deceased upon them.

The fact that you would frame it as "he was murdered for jogging" indicates to me that emotion has vanquished reason within your brain on this topic.

smartcooky said:
With this kind of racist, pretty much every chain of reasoning leads to "the darkie was in the wrong"
Click to expand...

I'd say the white guy was in the wrong on this case (although I watched the video again for the first time in a few years and I do understand why he thought the guy might be going for a gun, but I'd still say he popped off too quick)
 
ponderingturtle said:
ANd of course our road means that there are no blacks on it, but stop trying to make this about race. Yes a black being there is what is weird and his being black is why it is weird but there is nothing racial about that.
Click to expand...

"Pretty women out walking with gorillas down my street"




One thing this tragedy has taught me - Michelle Malkin really has gone full nazi. She's apparently writing at the execrable Unz Report these days. Headline - Top 3 Reasons to Doubt the Ahmaud "Just a Jogger" Arbery Narrative. I won't link here.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Because of this
Click to expand...

Before they shot him, how did they know that?

If you know that 1 of 3 of X are bad, why do you make the automatic assumption that 100% of them share that trait?

Keep in mind, the crimes they suspected him of never happened. The string of burglaries never happened. So the reason they had to stop him was anywhere between false and a lie.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
For that to be true, it would literally need to be the case that the father and son were like "there he is! that black guy! he's joggin' down the street! let's go straight up murder him FOR THAT!"

It would require that they just popped him from the truck as they drove up to him, and that there not be any attack by the deceased upon them.

The fact that you would frame it as "he was murdered for jogging" indicates to me that emotion has vanquished reason within your brain on this topic.



I'd say the white guy was in the wrong on this case (although I watched the video again for the first time in a few years and I do understand why he thought the guy might be going for a gun, but I'd still say he popped off too quick)
Click to expand...

You are not correct. The Georgia statute says

(c) A person commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he or she causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.
Click to expand...

It was unlawful for the crackers to attempt to detain the victim. That the victim died as a result of that unlawful detention makes it murder.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
If they had committed a crime here, you're right - the third man would be charged too. He was not, at least not yet, because they were doing what they felt the outrage mob was demanding - not what the law or actual evidence would indicate to do. If he is ultimately charged, it will be because they felt that too was necessary to appease / placate.
Click to expand...

Good. Maybe the idiot swamp people like the defendants will finally learn their place. They will now know that a mob can bring down the wrath of the law and think twice before grabbing a gun and going jogger hunting.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
The three gentlemen committed no crime, and are being charged or not charged with things entirely based on mob appeasement / outrage suppression.
Click to expand...

What law did the defendants observe the victim break? Not suspect, not think he looked like someone who broke the law. The citizen arrest statute says observe.
 
Skeptic Tank,

I always try to assume that people on this forum are rational folks, even when they disagree with me. I'm trying to make that assumption with you, as well. However, you're making it difficult. I don't mean your overt racism. A lot of people here would find that cause to dismiss everything you say, but when it comes down to it, that's just an ad hominem argument. It's "because he is this sort of person, we should ignore his arguments."

I don't want to do that, but I'm trying to understand your arguments themselves, and I really don't. I think some of your statements make sense. I definitely think that the McMichaels thought they were doing the right thing at every step of the encounter. So, I don't want to say that everything you are saying is wrong, but there is one, key, point that is central to the whole issue relating to this incident. I've excerpted that one, key, point below:

Skeptic Tank said:
The three gentlemen committed no crime,
Click to expand...

In light of that, I want to return to a point brought up again and again, but which I don't think you have adequately addressed.

In the famous video, Travis McMichael is seen exiting the driver's side door of the pickup truck. He has a shotgun. He then raises his shotgun to a firing position and points it at Ahmoud Arbery.

Was that a crime?

Assuming you maintain that none of these gentlemen committed a crime, then I have to assume the answer is "no", unless you have changed your mind. If your answer is "no", could you explain your position? Explain it in any terms you like, but the following related questions may be relevant in discussing your explanation.

Is it, generally, legal to point a shotgun at another person?
Are there circumstances where pointing a shotgun at another person is legal?
Were any of those circumstances present at the time that Travis McMichael pointed the shotgun at Ahmoud Arbery?


That's really the entirety of the issue. That question is the key to every other question about the fatal shooting of Ahmoud Arbery. So, what do you say about that question? Was it a crime to point the shotgun at Arbery? I, and most of the participants in this thread, would say that it was, in fact, a crime. Assuming you disagree, I would like to understand why you do not think it was a crime.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker,

It is not clear on the video that he points the shotgun at him at that point. How have you reached such certainty that he did?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom