Jogging in Georgia while black.

[Giordano]

There are many points that make this clearly murder. But beyond this, as a thought experiment I tried to imagine this in reverse: that 3 black men chased down a white jogger and shot him point blank. They try the same excuse as in the actual event. Do the posters here who are trying to rationalize the shooting, or “only asking questions” really think there would be any question that the shooters would have been quickly arrested and very likely convicted? Would all the improbable scenarios to try to justify their actions be trotted out as they have been here? I doubt it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There are many points that make this clearly murder. But beyond this, as a thought experiment I tried to imagine this in reverse: that 3 black men chased down a white jogger and shot him point blank. They try the same excuse as in the actual event. Do the posters here who are trying to rationalize the shooting, or “only asking questions” really think there would be any question that the shooters would have been quickly arrested and very likely convicted? Would all the improbable scenarios to try to justify their actions be trotted out as they have been here? I doubt it.

It's been well established that we're just not allowed to bring that up, that it doesn't matter, and that we're the real racists.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Regarding whether or not a person running away from a person armed with a shotgun or rifle. If a person is running away, the departure angle is most likely very small, in other words they are well with-in max point blank range for at least several seconds. Shooting them would not be a challenge at all provided the shooters is willing to do so.

Running across the shooter's field of view complicates things. This was not the case with Arbery though. He was right next to the shooter. Had he tried to run away, he would still be a sitting duck.

For those who know how easy it is to shoot a clay pigeon flying directly away from them compared to flying across their field of view, they will understand exactly what I'm saying.

I've had exactly one session shooting shotguns (skeet shooting on a stag do) and completely understand and agree.

 

[Emily's Cat]

People who make stupid decisions rarely recognise their own stupidity.

Nommed for very concise truth

 

[Emily's Cat]

I say he should have gotten the **** out of there, off the road.

I suspect a lot of people are taking exception to your framing of this as "should have".

I think many people can probably hypothesize about different actions that Arbery could have taken, that might have kept him alive. By framing it as what he should have done, it comes across as if you're attributing blame to Arbery.

Running through someone else's yard might have saved his life, but it might not have. I don't know for sure, and I can't say that were I in his position it would have occurred to me to go off road.

 

[Emily's Cat]

They had been chasing him, and not shooting. It stands to reason they would have continued not shooting.

I think that's a risky assumption to make, especially if you're the person trying to get away from the loonies with firearms. Travis appears to have taken aim at Arbery in the video, before Arbery tried to go around the truck. And Travis moved to the front of the truck while still aiming at him. I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume they wouldn't shoot if it looked like her were actually getting away from them.

 

[Meadmaker]

There are many points that make this clearly murder. But beyond this, as a thought experiment I tried to imagine this in reverse: that 3 black men chased down a white jogger and shot him point blank. They try the same excuse as in the actual event. Do the posters here who are trying to rationalize the shooting, or “only asking questions” really think there would be any question that the shooters would have been quickly arrested and very likely convicted? Would all the improbable scenarios to try to justify their actions be trotted out as they have been here? I doubt it.

No one here is trying to rationalize the shooting. They are talking about the interactions of people and shotgun pellets, with a hint of psychology thrown in. It's kind of fantasizing about deadly weapons play. I do it, too. I'm planning on playing a wargame tonight. Cardboard, maps with hexagons, kind of old style It's fantasizing about being a general.

Ok, this is fantasizing on a much smaller scale.

Have you ever read the books or played the game based on "worst case scenario" survival? If you did, we could start a thread about whether their advice about how to survive being buried alive was really the best advice.

If the authors were reading this thread, they could add a chapter to their book, "How to Survive if You are a Black Guy Being Chased by Three Gun Carrying White Guys"

That's all it is. If you are reading anything more into this conversation, you are missing the point. There's no rationalization. There's no distraction. It's just "worst case scenario survival" debate.

Is that interesting? Obviously, to the people doing it, it is interesting. Is it important? No.

But what better thing is there to do? There hasn't been any new information on the case for a long time. Once there are some new developments, we can talk about them. For now, play along with this discussion, or ignore it. Or start a thread in community about how to survive if you are attacked by a polar bear. (Maybe a grizzly bear would be better. They're meaner, and who needs another thread about someone being attacked by white guys bears.)

 

[Emily's Cat]

Did these three morons see their victim as a fully enfranchised person? In their minds do you really think they hadn't dehumanized him? Is their anything in their behavior that indicates to you that their victim wasn't the hated other.

What does that have to do with anything? If the McMichaelses didn't consider him a fully realized person... does that justify you using racial slurs that dehumanize white people in general? Wouldn't that suggest that you view white people in general as less than fully human?

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

There are many points that make this clearly murder. But beyond this, as a thought experiment I tried to imagine this in reverse: that 3 black men chased down a white jogger and shot him point blank. They try the same excuse as in the actual event. Do the posters here who are trying to rationalize the shooting, or “only asking questions” really think there would be any question that the shooters would have been quickly arrested and very likely convicted? Would all the improbable scenarios to try to justify their actions be trotted out as they have been here? I doubt it.

I don't quite agree with your characterization of the event, but leaving that aside, if the exact same set of events were to happen with the only differences being the skin color of the participants, I think a couple of things would differ:

- Media coverage would be dramatically different
- Many of the posters here (and elsewhere) would interpret events differently

I think it'd still be a legitimate question as to why the (white) guy ran towards the (black) guy with the gun pointed at him. Not the most interesting question among the many that can be raised about this incident, but still worth asking.

It's been well established that we're just not allowed to bring that up, that it doesn't matter, and that we're the real racists.

It has?

 

[wareyin]

I don't quite agree with your characterization of the event, but leaving that aside, if the exact same set of events were to happen with the only differences being the skin color of the participants, I think a couple of things would differ:

- Media coverage would be dramatically different

It would almost certainly have to be. In the situation we actually have, media coverage was required for any investigation to be performed or charges filed. Before the media coverage, the DA had swept it under the rug. In the hypothetical scenario, with video evidence like we have, the murderers would have been arrested on the spot.

 

[Craig4]

What does that have to do with anything? If the McMichaelses didn't consider him a fully realized person... does that justify you using racial slurs that dehumanize white people in general? Wouldn't that suggest that you view white people in general as less than fully human?

A cracker refers to a specific class of white person. One chooses to be a cracker. A cracker is an unsophisticated, stupid southern white with a history of doing things like lynchings. I would argue I'm being classists no racist because one could elevate oneself out of being a cracker if they so chose. Not every white person in the south is a cracker.

Here is the original definition

I should explain to your Lordship what is meant by crackers; a name they have got from being great boasters; they are a lawless set of rascalls on the frontiers of Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas and Georgia, who often change their places of abode

But yes, I feel entirely justified to dehumanize these morons and classify them as a hated other because that's what they did to someone else. It's okay to dehumanize people who deserve to be dehumanized. Not everyone is good enough to rate basic human dignity.

I've learned the lesson of 2016 well. This is a powerful and effective weapon and I, at every opportunity, online or in person apply it to their kind. I'm dehumanizing them because of choices they made to put themselves in a category that deserves it.

 

[bruto]

What does that have to do with anything? If the McMichaelses didn't consider him a fully realized person... does that justify you using racial slurs that dehumanize white people in general? Wouldn't that suggest that you view white people in general as less than fully human?

I think there's a very important difference here. While it might or might not be true that one poster or another views the murderers as not fully realized persons, or as stereotypes, whatever epithets are applied to them are done so after the fact, based on what they actually did. To call them all sorts of demeaning and nasty names at this point does not necessarily indicate any general point of view about white people or southerners in general.

Of course we can't be sure who is who on this anonymous board, but I think it's reasonable to say that the McMichaelses have earned no favors from us.

 

[Thermal]

I see you've chosen to switch to a "better question" than answer the one I asked. How disappointing. Have you even looked at the map?

Fine. Jump off the street at a 90 degree angle twenty yards in or so and stand there. Or knock on the nearest front door. We know factually that the police arrived within moments of the shooting, so basically he would not have had to do much at all but bide his time till other neighbors or the 5-0 rolled up. Does that answer your question?

Or are you freewheeling this to some other scenario, with conditions as yet undisclosed?

Yet again, my argument is that he was not somehow restricted to asphalt. Others insist he was. I find that an odd assertion.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A cracker refers to a specific class of white person. One chooses to be a cracker. A cracker is an unsophisticated, stupid southern white with a history of doing things like lynchings. I would argue I'm being classists no racist because one could elevate oneself out of being a cracker if they so chose. Not every white person in the south is a cracker.

Are you aware that the exact same excuse gets used do rationalize use of the n-word against "only a certain kind of black guy"?

But yes, I feel entirely justified to dehumanize these morons and classify them as a hated other because that's what they did to someone else. It's okay to dehumanize people who deserve to be dehumanized. Not everyone is good enough to rate basic human dignity.

Again... same argument used by the other side. The only difference being that you don't even try to church it up.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think there's a very important difference here. While it might or might not be true that one poster or another views the murderers as not fully realized persons, or as stereotypes, whatever epithets are applied to them are done so after the fact, based on what they actually did. To call them all sorts of demeaning and nasty names at this point does not necessarily indicate any general point of view about white people or southerners in general.

Would you be as acceptable of calling a black person a racial epithet based on what they actually did after the fact?

Is it okay to use racial slurs to demean individuals, and other people are just supposed to assume that it's not meant as a generalization?

 

[Myriad]

Fine. Jump off the street at a 90 degree angle twenty yards in or so and stand there. Or knock on the nearest front door. We know factually that the police arrived within moments of the shooting, so basically he would not have had to do much at all but bide his time till other neighbors or the 5-0 rolled up. Does that answer your question?

Or are you freewheeling this to some other scenario, with conditions as yet undisclosed?

Yet again, my argument is that he was not somehow restricted to asphalt. Others insist he was. I find that an odd assertion.

Ah, I see. You're addressing the question "what might he have done to survive the 7 seconds of real time in which, in the real world, he was killed." I'm more interested in, what could he have done to survive the overall situation without his life taken or destroyed?

He, of course, had no way of knowing when the police would arrive. (Nor, actually, do we. A journalist's "seconds later" can be hyperbolic.) I find the prospect of the pursuers standing there scratching their heads and saying, "What're we gonna do now, Paw? He's a-standin' twinny yards away and there ain't no pave-a-ment thar" to be rather silly, in a grim way.

However, others have pointed out that such discussion of alternate-history scenarios isn't really appropriate for this thread, and after reading their arguments I agree. So I'm not going to comment or inquire further, unless there's a new thread for such a topic.

 

[Leftus]

Fine. Jump off the street at a 90 degree angle twenty yards in or so and stand there. Or knock on the nearest front door. We know factually that the police arrived within moments of the shooting, so basically he would not have had to do much at all but bide his time till other neighbors or the 5-0 rolled up. Does that answer your question?

How is he safer 20 yards into a yard than he was on the street? If surrendering on the street wasn't viable, what is so magical about 20 yards removed? Nice to see that you, for the moment, understand that you could be 20 yards and not be at the back of the house. If we grant him a 4.4 40 yard dash, that's 2.2 seconds of running. The 2 seconds you said he could disappear in. Do you yet see the flaw in your scenario?


What do you think his 40 yard dash time was? Better yet, what is your 40 yard dash? Since you would have easily ducked into backyards and whatnots.

Since we are allowed the knowledge that the police are on the way, why not advocate running in that direction again? Did he know the police were on the way or would be of any help at all?

Given the absolutely stellar job the police did at first, why do you assume he would be safer with the locals there?

 

[Giordano]

Fine. Jump off the street at a 90 degree angle twenty yards in or so and stand there. Or knock on the nearest front door. We know factually that the police arrived within moments of the shooting, so basically he would not have had to do much at all but bide his time till other neighbors or the 5-0 rolled up. Does that answer your question?

Or are you freewheeling this to some other scenario, with conditions as yet undisclosed?

Yet again, my argument is that he was not somehow restricted to asphalt. Others insist he was. I find that an odd assertion.

My god, don’t knock on a front door if you are black:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...-teenager-shot-at-after-asking-for-directions

Sure, the real problem was that when he was being chased repeatedly by multiple men in two trucks, cut off, and had a loaded shotgun pointed at his middle the guy zagged when he should have zigged. You’ve sold me.

I can easily see that attempting to wrestle the shotgun from the murderer might have been the best decision given the choices left open to him. Who knows. In many ways it looks as if his choices were limited to being shot in the chest or in his back.

 

[Thermal]

This one's taken a really unhealthy turn. Thermal out.

 

[Leftus]

This one's taken a really unhealthy turn. Thermal out.

So you aren't turning 90 degrees, standing there and accepting what is coming?

It was such a good plan.