Jogging in Georgia while black.

Status
Not open for further replies.
bluesjnr said:
Yes.



Pretty much straight out makes the case, unsceptically, that she's a racist.

On the one hand you won't accept her claim that she has had "black boyfriends" at face value claiming lack of evidence - sceptic.

On the other you apply the argumentum ad populum that is "some of my best friends are black" to her and find her wanting. - not sceptic.
Click to expand...

You're imposing a lot of your own meaning on that post. Read it again.
 
GBI executed a search warrant on the McMichaels home on May 19th. No further information about what they were looking for is known.

Not sure if they had already seized the murder weapons at an earlier date, but I wonder what other evidence they could be searching for.
 
I've wondered that if and when the word 'racist', used as the pejorative it is for whites and whites only, and a means of pathologising their natural in-group bias which is something innate to ALL races, has been so utterly worn-out that white people begin openly self-identifying as "racist", in a similar way to homosexuals self-identifying as 'queer', a word which was once the the most contemptuous used for them, thus effectively neutralising it in the same way.
 
IsThisTheLife said:
I've wondered that if and when the word 'racist', used as the pejorative it is for whites and whites only, and a means of pathologising their natural in-group bias which is something innate to ALL races, has been so utterly worn-out that white people begin openly self-identifying as "racist", in a similar way to homosexuals self-identifying as 'queer', a word which was once the the most contemptuous used for them, thus effectively neutralising it in the same way.
Click to expand...

Wot?! :eek:
 
Shadowdweller said:
And regardless of your intent in writing that statement, you highlighted the malice aforethought that ITTL claims is lacking.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you still don't get it.

That was my intent. The act of grabbing his gun suggested that he was willing to kill Arbery, regardless of whether he specifically "wanted to" before he went out.

That is malice aforethought enough for me.
 
So they grabbed their guns because if he was innocent they would give him a 21 gun salute as a show of sorry for wasting his time? That's the narrative we're going with now.

There's no such thing as "Armed and ambivalent" or "Armed and gregarious" and I say this as someone who loves me some guns.
 
quadraginta said:
Yeah, you still don't get it.

That was my intent. The act of grabbing his gun suggested that he was willing to kill Arbery, regardless of whether he specifically "wanted to" before he went out.

That is malice aforethought enough for me.
Click to expand...

Laws very state by state, but most come to the reasonable conclusion that someone committing a murder while committing a felony is an adequate substitute for malice/premeditation.

Premeditation is usually only a key factor when the murder itself is the only crime.

No one really cares about proving premeditation when someone sets out to commit a felony and kills someone in the process, for the reasons you mention. Even in cases where a killing during a felony could honestly be described as unintended, GA law is clear that it is felony murder. Obviously Michael was comfortable with using lethal force, because he took action to arm himself. But that's neither here nor there.

This is a very high stakes case. By my non-expert reading of the law, either this was a lawful citizen's arrest or a felony murder. I don't really see any legal room for a compromise verdict.

Evidence of the lawful citizen's arrest remains quite weak.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
So they grabbed their guns because if he was innocent they would give him a 21 gun salute as a show of sorry for wasting his time? That's the narrative we're going with now.

There's no such thing as "Armed and ambivalent" or "Armed and gregarious" and I say this as someone who loves me some guns.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There is no concept of carrying for self defense. Aggression only.
 
JoeMorgue said:
There's no concept of self defense when you're running down someone in a truck. That is aggression only. Yes I'm glad you agree.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with the concept of "there's a thief fleeing from a neighbor's house, we're going to confront him and try to stop him from getting away before the cops arrive, and just in case he's armed we'll make sure we are too, so we don't end up dead"

That seems fairly sensible, legal, rational, and not infused with racist hatred or bloodlust or anything. No?
 
Skeptic Tank said:
What's wrong with the concept of "there's a thief fleeing from a neighbor's house, we're going to confront him and try to stop him from getting away before the cops arrive, and just in case he's armed we'll make sure we are too, so we don't end up dead"

That seems fairly sensible, legal, rational, and not infused with racist hatred or bloodlust or anything. No?
Click to expand...

Only if he's actually a thief.

This is probably why the GA statute for citizen's arrest requires immediate knowledge of a felony, to prevent exactly this kind of situation. It's going to be hard for them to prove immediate knowledge of a felony that didn't occur.

The McMichaels made a big assumption and committed murder.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Tank said:
What's wrong with the concept of "there's a thief fleeing from a neighbor's house, we're going to confront him and try to stop him from getting away before the cops arrive, and just in case he's armed we'll make sure we are too, so we don't end up dead"
Click to expand...


Nothing if your goal is maximum number of dead black people.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
What's wrong with the concept of "there's a thief fleeing from a neighbor's house, we're going to confront him and try to stop him from getting away before the cops arrive, and just in case he's armed we'll make sure we are too, so we don't end up dead"

That seems fairly sensible, legal, rational, and not infused with racist hatred or bloodlust or anything. No?
Click to expand...

1) sensible? Value judgement. I won't argue it, for the moment.
2) legal? No. Just no. And that's the problem. It isn't legal. Well, it could be, if this situation was exactly as you described. It would be legal to follow him. It would be legal to demand that he stop. It would be legal, in some states, to carry a firearm with you to defend yourself in case he is armed.

It would NOT be legal to make use of that firearm to effect the other, otherwise legal, ends of confronting him and trying to stop him.

That isn't legal, and that is why the McMichaels, Travis at least but probably also Greg, are almost certain to lose this case.

And of course, your description begs the question of Arbery's identity as a thief, but legally, it's insignificant. If he was a thief. If he was not a thief. If he was believed by the McMichaels to be a thief. Legally, none of that matters. In any of those cases, it is illegal to confront him by threatening him. That threat is the crime of assault. If that threat involves a deadly weapon, it is the crime of aggravated assault.

So, to reiterate, not legal.

3) rational? Again, a value judgement. That word isn't always used precisely anyway. Regardless of whether it would be considered rational, though, it isn't legal.

4) Not infused with racist hatred - Unproven. It is not inherently racist, but many incidents would be racist. Any specific incident may not be racist, in the same way that any specific death by lung cancer cannot be said to be caused by smoking cigarettes, even if the deceased smoked cigarettes.

Now let's return to sensible. Should a person be allowed to use and/or threaten to use deadly force while attempting to catch a person they believe to be a criminal? In my opinion, the inevitable consequence of allowing that would be an awful lot of killings of innocent people. Some of them would die as a result of mistaken identity. Some of them would die accidental deaths when the deadly force is used incorrectly. (i.e. sometimes, some yahoo playing amateur cop is going to fire a bullet that misses his target, and hits someone else.)

In my opinion, the citizen's arrest law is sensible, saying that detention of suspected criminals by private citizens may only be done if a certain set of conditions has been met. Neither your description above, nor the actual circumstances involving the death of Ahmaud Arbery, satisfy those conditions. In other words, I think it is quite sensible to prohibit the use of firearms in the manner used by the McMichaels.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Nothing if your goal is maximum number of dead black people.
Click to expand...

Just to point out, we can safely dispense of the claim that "there's a thief running away from the neighbor's house" is why they were chasing him.

He didn't steal anything from the neighbor's house.

They may have thought he did, but they were wrong. Hence, they cannot claim to have immediate knowledge.
 
Breaking News: William "Roddie" Bryan has been arrested by the GBI.

(On the 5 O'clock news I'm watching on TV right now. Will link to a source when one is available)
 
Meadmaker said:
<...>
Now let's return to sensible. Should a person be allowed to use and/or threaten to use deadly force while attempting to catch a person they believe to be a criminal? In my opinion, the inevitable consequence of allowing that would be an awful lot of killings of innocent people. Some of them would die as a result of mistaken identity. Some of them would die accidental deaths when the deadly force is used incorrectly. (i.e. sometimes, some yahoo playing amateur cop is going to fire a bullet that misses his target, and hits someone else.)

In my opinion, the citizen's arrest law is sensible, saying that detention of suspected criminals by private citizens may only be done if a certain set of conditions has been met. Neither your description above, nor the actual circumstances involving the death of Ahmaud Arbery, satisfy those conditions. In other words, I think it is quite sensible to prohibit the use of firearms in the manner used by the McMichaels.
Click to expand...


I don't trust the average citizen to drive their car properly. I sure as hell don't trust them to be temporary cops (even if they used to be proper LEO in the past). And also this is the sort of thing which has changed my views on firearms over the years. The guns themselves aren't the problem, it's the attitudes of too many who have them.

I just honestly don't get the logic. When you've already called the cops you decide you just have to personally go and stop the guy who you think has been stealing stuff at a near by construction site. Pretty stupid just with that alone. But then you think "maybe he has a gun" and your next thought isn't "better let the cops handle it", but rather "better get my own gun just in case"?

******* hell, people. This isn't Tombstone, FFS.
 
The whole gig witb open/concealed carry is that you are allowed to bring your gun for any public eventuality(with a few exceptions like schools), so I think the hillbillies were legally clean on bringing weapons. If you can bring them to the grocery store, you can bring them on your own street.

That's why I think it wasn't malice afterthought, if you legally carry a gun in your State the way other people carry their phone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom