Jogging in Georgia while black.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Tank said:
No matter what you think of the video or the event as you currently understand them, every decent person has to find the idea of murder charges being filed because of celebrity attention and public outcry chilling.
Click to expand...

I find lynchings chilling and white supremacists not decent people.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
No matter what you think of the video or the event as you currently understand them, every decent person has to find the idea of murder charges being filed because of celebrity attention and public outcry chilling.
Click to expand...

I don't. If there's local corruption that would have prevented these guys from being charged, and public outcry has made that corruption ineffective, that seems like a good thing to me.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
He was not shot for trespassing, nor for being black, nor for going for a jog.



He was shot because he attacked, punched, and tried to take the firearm of a man who (legally) confronted him.
Click to expand...
I don't get that. It is perfectly legal to have a loaded gun pointed at you in the USA for no good reason in a public place.
 
Roboramma said:
I don't. If there's local corruption that would have prevented these guys from being charged, and public outcry has made that corruption ineffective, that seems like a good thing to me.
Click to expand...
This. A corrupt official made the decision not to charge them. That official in my opinion should also be charged with a crime and tried.
 
Sideroxylon said:
I find lynchings chilling and white supremacists not decent people.
Click to expand...

Lynchings, of which about 4,000 occurred ever - are ridiculously misrepresented / misunderstood. Over 1,000 of them were of white people, for one thing. Just like official justice today, it disproportionately impacted blacks because blacks disproportionately commit crimes.

While not ideal, it was a system of informal / frontier justice in many cases, in areas where more developed legal systems weren't present.

It's a grim reality but can only be viewed the way it is now from the soft perch we've had built for us (by those same type of people - hard people who lived in hard times and dealt with harsh realities we don't deal with.)

As for this 2020 event, it is comically emotional and silly to call it a lynching. Lynchings were a group of people, usually a large group, setting out to capture and punish people in a way where they had a pretty high level of certainty what the ultimate conclusion would be.

These gentlemen had called the authorities and were trying to hold this guy up until they could arrive, they attempted to do so verbally by asking/telling him to stop and the moment he thought he could no longer just keep running away from them, and the moment they were no longer protected by being inside a moving vehicle, he launched a rapid and vicious attack including an attempt to take one of their weapons, during which he was shot in self-defense.

In what world is that a lynching? In clown world alone.

As for white supremacists? You do realize that accurately describes like 95% + of white people in western nations until a couple of decades ago, right? You're talking about the people who built these societies. You're probably talking about your own blood / ancestors.

a_unique_person said:
I don't get that. It is perfectly legal to have a loaded gun pointed at you in the USA for no good reason in a public place.
Click to expand...

Does the video show them pointing their weapons at him prior to him attacking?
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon said:
If only there was an organisation that had mobile trained officials that they could have called in to deal with the situation.
Click to expand...
Or even an institution where the legal arguments about whether the killing was legal or a crime could be made in public and all the evidence reviewed. Instead decisions about whether a crime was committed seem to be made behind closed doors. (This includes grand juries, which seem to be vulnerable to manipulation by prosecuting authorities who may present as little or as much of a case as they wish, in secret, avoiding the principle that justice should be seen to be done.)
 
Skeptic Tank said:
No matter what you think of the video or the event as you currently understand them, every decent person has to find the idea of murder charges being filed because of celebrity attention and public outcry chilling.
Click to expand...

They weren't, the Governor saw the video and ordered a new investigation from someone that wasn't friends with the accused.
 
a_unique_person said:
I don't get that. It is perfectly legal to have a loaded gun pointed at you in the USA for no good reason in a public place.
Click to expand...

No, that isn't legal in the US, except in the case of law enforcement during the commission of their job, or for a legal citizen's arrest where a member of the public can detain a person that they saw commit a crime, or a person suspected of having committed a felony from fleeing the scene.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Tank said:
Lynchings, of which about 4,000 occurred ever - are ridiculously misrepresented / misunderstood. Over 1,000 of them were of white people, for one thing. Just like official justice today, it disproportionately impacted blacks because blacks disproportionately commit crimes.

While not ideal, it was a system of informal / frontier justice in many cases, in areas where more developed legal systems weren't present.

It's a grim reality but can only be viewed the way it is now from the soft perch we've had built for us (by those same type of people - hard people who lived in hard times and dealt with harsh realities we don't deal with.)

As for this 2020 event, it is comically emotional and silly to call it a lynching. Lynchings were a group of people, usually a large group, setting out to capture and punish people in a way where they had a pretty high level of certainty what the ultimate conclusion would be.

These gentlemen had called the authorities and were trying to hold this guy up until they could arrive, they attempted to do so verbally by asking/telling him to stop and the moment he thought he could no longer just keep running away from them, and the moment they were no longer protected by being inside a moving vehicle, he launched a rapid and vicious attack including an attempt to take one of their weapons, during which he was shot in self-defense.

In what world is that a lynching? In clown world alone.

As for white supremacists? You do realize that accurately describes like 95% + of white people in western nations until a couple of decades ago, right? You're talking about the people who built these societies. You're probably talking about your own blood / ancestors.



Does the video show them pointing their weapons at him prior to him attacking?
Click to expand...

••••••• are born criminals and got what they deserved then and now. Also, I am a race traitor.
 
Thermal said:
It shouldn't have gone on for more than a brief comment or two. It went on and became 'tedious' because of others lying about the content/intent the posts.

Which, going meta, is the ISF Cluster **** Conundrum. Posters see a story like this and polarize to pro-killer and anti-killer standpoints. There's no reason for that in, of all places, a skeptics forum. I would expect a bunch of adults who value critical thinking could elevate themselves above Twitter discussion and look at multiple angles dispassionately.

I take an interest in self defense and fighting strategies, and am always interested in real-time testing. Here, it falls with something I've always advocated: don't rush a group of armed nuts when unarmed. There is a good time to run like hell to the sides, and this was one. We are not bulletproof.
Click to expand...


He had run like hell.
 
CORed said:
Barring new evidence that changes things radically, I don't see how this is less than second degree murder for the shooter, with felony murder (if that is a thing in Georgia) charges for all participants, or assault charges at the least. Whether racially motivated or not (but I would bet a substantial amount that it was racially motivated), this was an assault with a deadly weapon that resulted in a homicide. This is behavior that ought to result in felony convictions and long prison sentences.
Click to expand...


Brandishing a weapon at someone shows intent to use that weapon, therefore the intent was to kill, there is no 2nd degree murder here, it was an intentional killing.
 
smartcooky said:
Unfortunately, racist trolls don't tend to value critical thinking all that much.

The only issue here is why two gun-brandishing dudes who murdered a jogger in cold blood, have been allowed to go uncharged for two and a half months?
Click to expand...


This is what is astonishing about this. Even from the initial statements given by the armed men it was obvious a crime had been committed so what was happening? I am absolutely 100% certain that one of the shooters being an ex-cop had nothing to do with that........
 
Darat said:
Onto someone’s property without the permission of the property owner?
Click to expand...

Yeah, so the property owner who sees the black 'suspect in recent robberies in the area' running straight at him can shoot the intruder instead of the guys in the truck.
 
Worth noting: a tool, possibly a hammer, is visible on the road behind him on the video. Strongly indicating he had stolen from the house under construction and dropped it as he was escaping.
 
Darat said:
Brandishing a weapon at someone shows intent to use that weapon, therefore the intent was to kill, there is no 2nd degree murder here, it was an intentional killing.
Click to expand...

I'm probably wrong, but I thought the difference between 1st and 2nd degree is premeditation. If you intentionally kill someone based on a decision to kill in the moment, that's 2nd degree, if you make a plan ahead of time, that's 1st degree.

Just saying my understanding, hoping to be corrected if I'm wrong, and learn something.
 
Ranb said:
Why don't you see this incident as people running down a guy out for a jog then blowing him away when he tried to defend himself from a man armed with a shotgun?


So if armed men chased after the victim, and another vehicle stops on the road in front of him, this does not matter?

Can you possibly see it from the dead man's point of view? Some armed men chased him down and he tried to keep a man from shooting him first by running around the vehicle stopped in the road then directly confronting the man with the shotgun?


You really think that the men who chased the victim down were going to let him go and ever testify against them? Only a fool would stop for an armed gang in the street when it was possible to run away.


The victim evading the armed men was entirely legal and sensible.


It looked like they had little trouble gunning him down. They could have simply followed him until the police got there.


So you're a witness to the victim's "crimes" and will testify that you knew his state of mind?


Or maybe he was out for a jog?


Are you suggesting that killing a person who is shooting a shotgun at you is not the proper course of action to take to save your own life while out jogging?
Click to expand...


You are forgetting a simple rule for the “arguments” Skeptic Tank is putting forward, the rule is “white = right”.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
What facts/evidence have convinced you that their story isn't true?

Their claim is that they loaded up to go confront this guy and try to buy time in doing so for the police to arrive and question him / arrest him - and that he then reacted in an unexpectedly rapid and violent way which necessitated a self-defense shooting.

What's disproving that in your mind? The video supports it. The lack of pre-hysteria charges supports it.
Click to expand...


When did they call the police.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom