Jogging in Georgia while black.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I actually don't lie on this or other message boards.

...and that's what you'd say if you were a liar, too. All I can say for sure is that you very demonstrably have a loose affiliation with the truth and, as such, I am not willing to take your word on anything.

But, yes, I do accept that online radicalisation of liberal (in the actual sense of the word, rather than being limited to those who support a particular party) people by the alt-right is something that does happen, and that various social media sites have started trying to combat this. YouTube have even changed their recommendation algorithm, based on evidence that it was instrumental in radicalising people to become members of the alt-right.

So I accept that your story is plausible. It wouldn't be unusual. But I also accept that lying that "I used to be like you" is a tactic that's explicitly endorsed on the kinds of sites that say the same kinds of things that you do, and I know that anyway I can't trust what you say to be true. Therefore I'm not going to take your word for it that it's actually true in your case in particular.

Of course, if you've got a blog, or a twitter account, or are a member of other sites, etc. you could post a link which demonstrates how your views have changed over time. If, that is, my belief in your story is important to you.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I've so grown to hate the term "narrative." Reality is the story, we don't all get our own separate individual story being written on top of it.

But many people demonstrably do write their own story on top of it. That's why it's good to use terms that acknowledge the fact that what they believe is a story, rather than reality.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I did ask you earlier but you failed to answer. What other "crimes" not prosecuted by the state are citizens allowed to summary execute a fellow citizen?

According to you so far we have trespassing.

Is that the only crime that citizens are allowed to act as prosecutor, judge and executioner or are there others?

I haven't generally found it necessary to respond to what I view as silly framings.

If someone is framing it as "he was executed for jogging / trespassing / being black" I know I'm not dealing with a very serious argument, just someone venting some emotion.

And that's fine. But what do you want me to say? He wasn't "executed for trespassing" he was shot while punching a man and grabbing his shotgun. They might've been peeved about him stealing in their neighborhood but they wanted him arrested, not dead.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But many people demonstrably do write their own story on top of it. That's why it's good to use terms that acknowledge the fact that what they believe is a story, rather than reality.

I agree and that's (sort of) the point. If you're making a "narrative" for yourself you're basically trying to lie without admitting you are lying.

Arbery may or may not have committed some minor transgressions and now he's dead. That's the facts and they are not in dispute. Splitting the hairs of the angels dancing on the head of the pin about "brandishing versus carrying" and the particularities of some Citizen Arrest Law that doesn't even apply don't matter.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I haven't generally found it necessary to respond to what I view as silly framings.

If someone is framing it as "he was executed for jogging / trespassing / being black" I know I'm not dealing with a very serious argument, just someone venting some emotion.

And that's fine. But what do you want me to say? He wasn't "executed for trespassing" he was shot while punching a man and grabbing his shotgun. They might've been peeved about him stealing in their neighborhood but they wanted him arrested, not dead.

An armed robber wants the cash register, not the clerk dead. An yet, sometimes they commit murder if the clerk resists.

The McMichaels intentions are largely irrelevant.

The McMichaels brought firearms to assist them in an unlawful endeavor, and when things went sideways, they used them. It's not complicated.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

An armed robber wants the cash register, not the clerk dead. An yet, sometimes they commit murder if the clerk resists.
The McMichaels intentions are largely irrelevant.

The McMichaels brought firearms to assist them in an unlawful endeavor, and when things went sideways, they used them. It's not complicated.

Would you acknowledge that there's a pretty big difference between a person initiating criminality out of the blue vs. people responding to someone else's repeated criminality?

Whatever you think of the McMichaels' ultimate actions that day, they were essentially functioning as that neighborhood's immune system. In my mind, that doesn't seem very similar to someone walking into a previously peaceful convenience store and robbing the clerk.

 

[Darat]

I haven't generally found it necessary to respond to what I view as silly framings.

Well no since it's your silliness why should you comment on your framing?

If someone is framing it as "he was executed for jogging / trespassing / being black" I know I'm not dealing with a very serious argument, just someone venting some emotion.

You are the one that is saying his crime of trespassing is the reason he was murdered.

And that's fine. But what do you want me to say? He wasn't "executed for trespassing" he was shot while punching a man and grabbing his shotgun. They might've been peeved about him stealing in their neighborhood but they wanted him arrested, not dead.

I don't want you to say anything.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I agree and that's (sort of) the point. If you're making a "narrative" for yourself you're basically trying to lie without admitting you are lying.

Arbery may or may not have committed some minor transgressions and now he's dead. That's the facts and they are not in dispute. Splitting the hairs of the angels dancing on the head of the pin about "brandishing versus carrying" and the particularities of some Citizen Arrest Law that doesn't even apply don't matter.

You were complaining about the use of the word "narrative". It's rarely the person spinning the story who frames it in that way. It's more commonly the people like me who are pointing out that that's what's happening.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Would you acknowledge that there's a pretty big difference between a person initiating criminality out of the blue vs. people responding to someone else's repeated criminality?

Whatever you think of the McMichaels' ultimate actions that day, they were essentially functioning as that neighborhood's immune system. In my mind, that doesn't seem very similar to someone walking into a previously peaceful convenience store and robbing the clerk.

Sure, McMichaels killed out of wanton recklessness and a misplaced feeling of authority rather than some self-serving motive. Still sounds like murder to me.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You were complaining about the use of the word "narrative". It's rarely the person spinning the story who frames it in that way. It's more commonly the people like me who are pointing out that that's what's happening.

Well yeah because from a lot of people (not you to be clear) "narrative" simply seems like a way of rebranding "spin" or "bias" or even "outright lying" into something more positive.

"Well that's your narrative and this is my narrative" is a phrase/concept we hear a lot in a lot of discussions I don't know if that's a good way to frame it.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Have we established for certain that the guy in the house was actually Arbery?

I think this has been pretty well established. His family members confirmed his ID in the other video that was taken from across the street outside the house. I don't have a link handy, but it has been often reported.

The video in the house shows a guy wearing the same clothing at the same time.

 

[Darat]

Sure, McMichaels killed out of wanton recklessness and a misplaced feeling of authority rather than some self-serving motive. Still sounds like murder to me.

And in pretty much every legal system based on English common law!

 

[Robin]

I see it as a profound evil for men looking out for their community to end up in prison for years or decades on account of a miserable criminal who'd been preying upon their neighborhood for months.

Perhaps you would have preferred them to face the same kind of 'justice' they were trying to mete out.

At best they were weak and stupid.

My wife once single handedly confronted someone trying to break into our house. After seeing the burglar off she contacted the police who were able to make an arrest with the description. She went to testify in court and a burglar the police had been trying to put away for a while was convicted and no one was hurt.

That's how you do it. A bunch of ill disciplined vigilantes driving around waving firearms is no way to protect a community.

 

[Bob001]

Maybe. Though everything is going in a very, very predictable fashion for someone with my worldview.
....

Now we get to it: What exactly is your "worldview" that warps your perceptions so badly?

 

[Meadmaker]

I think this has been pretty well established. His family members confirmed his ID in the other video that was taken from across the street outside the house. I don't have a link handy, but it has been often reported.

The video in the house shows a guy wearing the same clothing at the same time.

Once again, there might be multiple videos involved.

There are the two surveillance videos from the day of the incident. Those were definitely Arbery.


Overnight, some new video from previous days has been released. There is some doubt about whether those were Arbery. At least, no official has stated that they were Arbery. I didn't look at the videos closely enough to see if it is rather obvious one way or another.

 

[dejudge]

The main questions that must be answered :

1. Where were the McMichaels when the jogger entered the construction site? A mile away??
2. When did they call 911?
3. Did they identify themselves and their location to 911?
4. What did they report to 911?
5. When did they encounter the jogger before they killed him?


The first caller to 911 gave identification and location and was a witness to the jogger entering and leaving but there is no evidence that the McMichaels witnessed him.
entering or leaving the site.

It could not be shown at the time [23 Feb. 20] that the jogger was trespassing because there is no evidence that anyone had contacted the owner [at the time]to find out if he had given permission to enter the property and no-one even attempted to talk to Arbery.


Now, the second unidentified caller claimed that there was a black male running in the street and that he didn't know street he was on.

Who was the second 911 caller and why didn't he identify himself and give his location?

If the second caller was one of the McMichaels who lived in the area then surely he should have known the name of the street.

Why did the second unidentified caller put his phone on mute or reduced the mike volume and then hang up without saying anything for about 3 minutes?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't really see that changing the legal situation at all. Arbery was in the right to try to disarm McMichael, he would have been in the right to shoot McMichael with his own shotgun during the struggle, and he would have been his legal right to produce his own firearm and defend himself against two armed attackers.

Both men have been charged with aggravated assault in addition to the murders. Unless some evidence comes forth to exonerate them of this, using lethal force to repel this armed assault would have been perfectly legal. He wouldn't have even needed to rely on a "stand your ground" defense, as the circumstances fall neatly into ordinary self defense that are widely understood in all states.

Hell he tried to retreat.

 

[Thermal]

Well yeah because from a lot of people (not you to be clear) "narrative" simply seems like a way of rebranding "spin" or "bias" or even "outright lying" into something more positive.

"Well that's your narrative and this is my narrative" is a phrase/concept we hear a lot in a lot of discussions I don't know if that's a good way to frame it.

r/SelfAwareWolves

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Once again, there might be multiple videos involved.

There are the two surveillance videos from the day of the incident. Those were definitely Arbery.


Overnight, some new video from previous days has been released. There is some doubt about whether those were Arbery. At least, no official has stated that they were Arbery. I didn't look at the videos closely enough to see if it is rather obvious one way or another.

I decided just now to overlay some images of him from the day he was killed and was in that house on some of the earlier ones:

To be honest, it's a bit of a hard call. Wasn't expecting to say that, but the guy at night does look lighter skinned. However, I've seen stuff like that result from the night vision mode so that may be what is causing that. The hair looks very similar.

I think at trial if they seek to confirm it, the apparent large arm tattoo on the guy when he's shirtless at night should be a good way to confirm it.

I think the odds are very strong it's him. If it's not, I would be very surprised if it wasn't at least a close friend of his.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Perhaps you would have preferred them to face the same kind of 'justice' they were trying to mete out.

Which raises a good point. I haven't kept up with the thread over the weekend, so apologies if this has already been raised. Those who feel that McMichaels and son were justified in all that they did, would you have reached the same conclusion had everything happened the same, but McMichaels Sr and Jr were black and Arbery white?

Dave