Jogging in Georgia while black.

[Thermal]

Don't make the mistake of conflating "blatant racist" with "conservative". IIRC, at least a few of the people in this thread calling this even atrocious and abhorrent are conservative, but are NOT racists.

I consider myself slightly conservative-leaning... really more of a "libertarian inspired pragmatist" though. I'm pretty broadly liberal on most social issues, and pretty broadly conservative on most fiscal issues. And in the truest sense of the term "conservative", I tend to approach change in a very tentative and slow way.

They think 'blatant racist', 'conservative', and 'anyone who questions Twitter narratives' to be one and the same.

 

[tyr_13]

They think 'blatant racist', 'conservative', and 'anyone who questions Twitter narratives' to be one and the same.

Nope, but each of those groups* have offered arguments that are still wrong, and behaving as if disagreeing with each of those groups separately was considering them 'the same' is a disingenuous over-simplification. Being criticized for wrong or irrelevant arguments isn't always some tribal persecution, no matter how much you want to poison the well as such. 'They just disagree with me because they're tribal and think I'm in the other tribe.' Naw.

Being 'reasonable' is in no way adequately simulated by shoving a fence post as far up one's ass as can be accomplished and pretending that criticisms of all sides might be meaningful, useful, or true, in whole or in part.

The old example holds true; if one side wants to eat all the puppies and the other wants to eat none of the puppies, it is not reasonable to think the truth is that we should eat some of the puppies. Even less reasonable is to pretend that criticisms of the side that want to eat none of the puppies also want to eat none of the kittens is meaningful to the discussion, that the puppies might have peed on the rug is meaningful, or that the side that wants to eat none of the puppies is grouping together all the puppy killers together when the 'eat none' side criticizes both the 'eat all the puppies' and 'eat some of the puppies' separately.


*Entertaining that the group 'anyone who questions Twitter narratives' is meaningful or true, even though it is neither.

 

[Emily's Cat]

..I have my own guiding lights as to who would be righteous in this situation which make that a fairly easy thing to ignore.

Him pointing the gun at Ahmaud, if he did, and it looks like he did - is of little significance to me and how I feel about this...

This is a sentiment that I find completely irrational as well as ethically abhorrent.

And for the record, I find this sentiment equally so:

...the two idiot cracker boys...

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I'm hearing that the water company had to be called out to the house site Ahmaud had fled from the day he died, to turn off water which was flooding out of pipes.

Indicating he may have been trying to dislodge / steal piping and didn't turn the water off first.

Dunno if true, but in time hopefully we'll get confirmation one way or the other on it.

 

[CORed]

Well so far, the justification for this is that they were conducting a "citizens arrest" for "burglary". However, the only "crime" for which there is any kind of evidence for the black guy having committed is trespassing in or around a house under construction, and none of these alleged burglaries were reported to the police. I have a feeling that the "burglaries" amount to nothing more than the murderers' and maybe some of their neighbors' belief that whatever items they happened to have misplaced recently must have been stolen by that suspicious black guy (suspicious primarily because he was black) that they'd seen wandering around.

 

[Thermal]

Nvm

 

[Bob001]

Interesting twist: The DA who gave the McMichaels a free pass spent years prosecuting a black woman for felony voter fraud, for which she was ultimately acquitted.

Barnhill’s prosecution of Pearson was part of a larger campaign by then–Secretary of State (and now Gov.) Brian Kemp, Georgia’s top elections official, to make vigilance against voter fraud a priority. I was alerted to the case while reporting on voter suppression efforts heading into the 2016 presidential election. Voting rights groups flagged Barnhill’s prosecution as part of an obvious and well-orchestrated attempt to intimidate black voters. After all, Pearson was accused of simply showing a young woman how to use a voting machine, not of influencing her vote.

It was an especially uncommon prosecution: At the time, only 10 of the 154 illegal voter assistance investigations in the previous three years in Georgia had been referred to a prosecutor. Most were closed without a ruling or dismissed. But Barnhill’s office was relentless in pursuing what they saw as an important case, and Pearson’s prosecution spanned two trials and two years.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/ahmaud-arbery-george-barnhill-olivia-pearson.html

Gee, could the guy have an agenda?

 

[Thermal]

Nope, but each of those groups* have offered arguments that are still wrong, and behaving as if disagreeing with each of those groups separately was considering them 'the same' is a disingenuous over-simplification. Being criticized for wrong or irrelevant arguments isn't always some tribal persecution, no matter how much you want to poison the well as such. 'They just disagree with me because they're tribal and think I'm in the other tribe.' Naw.

Being 'reasonable' is in no way adequately simulated by shoving a fence post as far up one's ass as can be accomplished and pretending that criticisms of all sides might be meaningful, useful, or true, in whole or in part.

The old example holds true; if one side wants to eat all the puppies and the other wants to eat none of the puppies, it is not reasonable to think the truth is that we should eat some of the puppies. Even less reasonable is to pretend that criticisms of the side that want to eat none of the puppies also want to eat none of the kittens is meaningful to the discussion, that the puppies might have peed on the rug is meaningful, or that the side that wants to eat none of the puppies is grouping together all the puppy killers together when the 'eat none' side criticizes both the 'eat all the puppies' and 'eat some of the puppies' separately.


*Entertaining that the group 'anyone who questions Twitter narratives' is meaningful or true, even though it is neither.

You're wildly misrepresenting the disparity here.

My argument: open carry very very bad. Checking out open construction sites very normal and fine. No reason for anyone to comply with weirdo hillbillies demands. The rednecks are certainly very guilty of several serious crimes, including aggravated assault. Oh, and not a great idea to charge a psycho with a shotgun who has backup.

Any, what did you call it, fencepost-shoving-up-the-ass you see in there? Anything controversial?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Then challenge open carry laws. That's the problem here.

I can't speak to all states... but my understanding is that open carry allows the carrying of firearms that are holstered or slung, but are not concealed. It does NOT, generally speaking, allow for holding them in a way that indicated preparation for use.

Open carry isn't necessarily a bad thing. Hunters, in particular, probably find it helpful. Also helpful in areas that have a relatively large amount of predatory or dangerous wildlife.

But no matter how you cut it, I'm pretty sure that Travis McMichaels blew right past open carry, and right into brandishing (at the very least).

 

[Emily's Cat]

"Hey black people sorry about dying, as soon as we fix the entire system it might get better."

And see above. Swap the races around and "bUt thEY R juST oePEn carrYIng" defense goes away.

The defense doesn't go away. But you do get some very different reactions from a lot of people who immediately view it as an implicit threat tantamount to assault with a deadly weapon.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Oh it would certainly be a step toward better, it just wouldn't be a solution.

If working within the existing system to the best of our ability, and increasing scrutiny on the inequities of the system, aren't acceptable... what is the solution?

 

[Thermal]

I can't speak to all states... but my understanding is that open carry allows the carrying of firearms that are holstered or slung, but are not concealed. It does NOT, generally speaking, allow for holding them in a way that indicated preparation for use.

Open carry isn't necessarily a bad thing. Hunters, in particular, probably find it helpful. Also helpful in areas that have a relatively large amount of predatory or dangerous wildlife.

But no matter how you cut it, I'm pretty sure that Travis McMichaels blew right past open carry, and right into brandishing (at the very least).

Yes, and in my own NJ, hunters can open carry while hunting, but not within 500 feet of residences or public streets (shoulder of the road exceptions for changing location while hunting). Georgia police said that the rednecks were carrying their weapons legally. I have said since my first post on page one that I have a hard time seeing this type of open carry as legal.

 

[Thermal]

The defense doesn't go away. But you do get some very different reactions from a lot of people who immediately view it as an implicit threat tantamount to assault with a deadly weapon.

My reaction is the same for both. People carrying guns are interested in shooting people. Get clear of them if you're a people, so you don't become a former people.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But again that leads back to the whole basic problem.

The story the shooters are telling us is basically that they were justified because Arbery had been committing crimes in their neighborhood but those crimes are never reported and never investigated.

But as soon as "Wait... why did the black guy get shot" come up then security footage of him starts pouring out of the woodwork.

Why did the homeowner release the footage now and not then if his site was being broken into?

At the end of the day nobody has the answer to "Why are the crimes only be investigated after the person who possibly committed them has been killed because literally nobody seems to have cared 1 iota about any of the crimes inbetween the point where they supposedly happened and the them becoming the excuse for why the black guy getting shot was justified."

Sorry, let me clarify. I don't believe the homeowner had released the footage to the public before this.

And at least according the Mr. English (the homeowner), nothing had been stolen from the worksite. I'm filling in some blanks, of course, but my impression is that Mr. English had not reported any of the trespassing, because it didn't bother him, nothing had been damaged or stolen, and it was obviously just some guy checking out the progress of a house being built.

My opinion is that the McMichaelses were aware that someone had been in the house and were overly vigilant. I have a very strong opinion on exactly *why* they were so overly vigilant(e) about that particular person to the extent that they felt they needed to chase him down in a truck and assault him with a deadly weapon. I am pretty sure you would agree with my conjecture regarding their motivation.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It takes some of the punch out of calling me "racist" when a lot of the same people are using that term to refer to the most milquetoast of conservatives pushing back on the narrative ever so gently.

And these are the same people who are literally saying things like "he was murdered, lynched in fact... for being black and jogging"

It's buffoonish.

For the record, you ARE one of the few blatant racists that I was referring to. I'm not defending your horrific beliefs in any way, shape, or form. I want nothing to do with you, or anyone of your ilk.

 

[tyr_13]

You're wildly misrepresenting the disparity here.

My argument: open carry very very bad. Checking out open construction sites very normal and fine. No reason for anyone to comply with weirdo hillbillies demands. The rednecks are certainly very guilty of several serious crimes, including aggravated assault. Oh, and not a great idea to charge a psycho with a shotgun who has backup.

Any, what did you call it, fencepost-shoving-up-the-ass you see in there? Anything controversial?

When I say 'one' I mean 'one' and not 'you', but further than that, your argument I specifically replied to, and quoted, was this...

They think 'blatant racist', 'conservative', and 'anyone who questions Twitter narratives' to be one and the same.

... and not any of the other things you just cited to make it seem like I was misrepresenting you. That others in the past based on your posting history misunderstood your other argument doesn't mean that you're not wrong about what they're arguing in the post I quoted.

And I will note this is especially funny coming from the poster who made a post listing a bunch of things 'no one' was arguing after Bogative already argued many of them and immediately before Tank argued every single one of the rest.

Your assertion of what 'they' believe is what I challenged and what is wrong.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, and in my own NJ, hunters can open carry while hunting, but not within 500 feet of residences or public streets (shoulder of the road exceptions for changing location while hunting). Georgia police said that the rednecks were carrying their weapons legally. I have said since my first post on page one that I have a hard time seeing this type of open carry as legal.

My reaction is the same for both. People carrying guns are interested in shooting people. Get clear of them if you're a people, so you don't become a former people.

I'll bear that in mind when I go for a walk from my neighborhood to the nearby trails. Might be worth mentioning that the nearby trails are essentially wilderness, full of coyotes, havalinas, rattlesnakes, etc. Hell, we get coyotes and havalinas *in* our neighborhood on a regular basis.

Also, my spouse used to open carry a sidearm in CO when he would go for motorcycle rides up in the canyon. Far more comfortable than trying to have it concealed under leathers, and far more accessible if a mountain lion or bear decides they feel like fast food.

 

[Thermal]

I'll bear that in mind when I go for a walk from my neighborhood to the nearby trails. Might be worth mentioning that the nearby trails are essentially wilderness, full of coyotes, havalinas, rattlesnakes, etc. Hell, we get coyotes and havalinas *in* our neighborhood on a regular basis.

Also, my spouse used to open carry a sidearm in CO when he would go for motorcycle rides up in the canyon. Far more comfortable than trying to have it concealed under leathers, and far more accessible if a mountain lion or bear decides they feel like fast food.

Yes, prevalence of large dangerous animals can be a reason to carry. The only large dangerous animals in this story are the McMichaels.

If you think they were wary of errant hippos, you are likely much mistaken.

 

[Thermal]

When I say 'one' I mean 'one' and not 'you', but further than that, your argument I specifically replied to, and quoted, was this...



... and not any of the other things you just cited to make it seem like I was misrepresenting you. That others in the past based on your posting history misunderstood your other argument doesn't mean that you're not wrong about what they're arguing in the post I quoted.

And I will note this is especially funny coming from the poster who made a post listing a bunch of things 'no one' was arguing after Bogative already argued many of them and immediately before Tank argued every single one of the rest.

Your assertion of what 'they' believe is what I challenged and what is wrong.

If you track back the post that I was commenting on, you'll see that 'blatant racists' and 'conservatives' were openly being used interchangeably, and at least one of the posters had yours truly lumped in with that category, although I am neither. I am anti-Twitter veracity.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm sure you will concede if/when the hammer turns out to be nothing.

It was nothing, and he won't concede anything - racists never do.

Also the hammer having been stolen doesn't justify the actions of the assailants, unless you can argue that he committed a felony in stealing the hammer AND you can argue they saw him steal it.

There was nothing stolen from the building site

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...hooting-construction-site-video-a9509071.html

"The (lawyer's) statement said: "He engaged in no illegal activity and remained for only a brief period. Ahmaud did not take anything from the construction site. He did not cause any damage to the property."

Larry English, the man who owns the house under construction, told The Washington Post that the structure was not burgled, and that the McMichaels' accounts of robberies at the site are "completely wrong."

"I've never had a police report or anything stolen from my property, or any kind of robbery," he said.

"Nothing was ever stolen from the house — which, again, was a construction site," the statement said. "Even if there had been a robbery, however, the English family would not have wanted a vigilante response. They would have entrusted the matter to law enforcement authorities. ... The only crime that the homeowner has seen captured on video is the senseless killing of Mr Arbery."

It is not good news for rednecks Cletus and Bubba that the supposed victim of Arbury's alleged wrongdoing are going in to bat for Arbury.

However, you will never get acknowledgement from any racists when they are wrong.