Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[Mountain Man]

Perhaps he fully understands your interpretation of the implications of his words, but rejects that interpretation.

He's just glomming onto the whole "critical race theory/white privilege/micro-aggression" nonsense where you can accuse someone of being unintentionally racist, and they're not allowed to defend themselves because denials are considered proof.

[JimL]

So then it comes down to, assuming the shooting wasn't an accident, when was the decision made to pull the trigger?

The first, second, or third time the decision was made to pull the trigger?

[oxmixmudd]

Perhaps he fully understands your interpretation of the implications of his words, but rejects that interpretation.

The issue wrt a lie, as has been pointed out, is that for me to be lying, I must be speaking what I know to be false. And that simply is not the case here.

As for whether I'm right or wrong about whether MM's words justify the perpetrators and/or convict arbery independent of his intent, that Is a matter that can be debated. And I am willing to debate my reasons for what I believe if anyone can get past throwing out false accusations of lying or ad hominems (and I actually did give the reason for my belief that is what is happening). But such rarely happens, so I'm assuming this is where it ends.

[oxmixmudd]

He's just glomming onto the whole "critical race theory/white privilege/micro-aggression" nonsense where you can accuse someone of being unintentionally racist, and they're not allowed to defend themselves because denials are considered proof.

That would be strawman fantasy of your own making MM. But, again, I don't expect you to ever debate the actual argument. You rarely do.

[Mountain Man]

The first, second, or third time the decision was made to pull the trigger?

Does it matter? Because all three times were after Arbery attacked the man. So again, it comes down to when the decision was made to pull the trigger. If it was after, and assuming no laws were broken up to that point (and I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise), then this could very easily come down to a case of self-defense in favor of the men who confronted Arbery. Does this suggest they were morally in the right to confront Arbery in the manner that they did? Not necessarily, but they may not be legally culpable for his death.

It will be interesting to see which way this case goes once the full facts are established.

[Mountain Man]

That would be strawman fantasy of your own making MM. But, again, I don't expect you to ever debate the actual argument. You rarely do.

The "actual argument" where you falsely accuse me of being a racist without my knowing it?

Let's turn this back on you: Why don't you focus on my actual words instead of making incorrect assumptions about my motives. Deal?

[oxmixmudd]

The "actual argument" where you falsely accuse me of being a racist without my knowing it?

Let's turn this back on you: Why don't you focus on my actual words instead of making incorrect assumptions about my motives. Deal?

If I believe you are acting on an underlying culturally induced racism, it has nothing to do with motives of any kind. I am, in fact not making any judgement about your motives or intent, although In actual fact, I am framing my arguments based on the assumption you have no conscious intent to be racist or to encourage racism. But I do see, in your words, the evidence of that same underlying cultural racism. And So I've already done what you ask.

[Mountain Man]

If I believe you are acting on an underlying culturally induced racism, it has nothing to do with motives of any kind. I am, in fact not making any judgement about your motives or intent, although In actual fact, I am framing my arguments based on the assumption you have no conscious intent to be racist or to encourage racism. But I do see, in your words, the evidence of that same underlying cultural racism. And So I've already done what you ask.

And you called this a straw man:

He's just glomming onto the whole "critical race theory/white privilege/micro-aggression" nonsense where you can accuse someone of being unintentionally racist, and they're not allowed to defend themselves because denials are considered proof.

[Mountain Man]

Person A: "You're being unintentionally racist."
Person B: "No I'm not."
Person A: "See? You don't even realize it. That just proves I'm right."

There is literally no way for Person B to win this argument. It's a textbook kafkatrap.

[JimL]

Does it matter? Because all three times were after Arbery attacked the man. So again, it comes down to when the decision was made to pull the trigger. If it was after, and assuming no laws were broken up to that point (and I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise), then this could very easily come down to a case of self-defense in favor of the men who confronted Arbery. Does this suggest they were morally in the right to confront Arbery in the manner that they did? Not necessarily, but they may not be legally culpable for his death.

It will be interesting to see which way this case goes once the full facts are established.

No, it will come down the act of chasing the man down with guns in hand. The man has a right to defend himself from a nutcase vigilante with a shotgun trained on him. You don't have to be armed in order to stand your ground.

[Mountain Man]

No, it will come down the act of chasing the man down with guns in hand.

This is not the first time you've claimed this. What laws did they actually break? Please cite them, if you know.

[Cow Poke]

It is illegal for an armed posse to form and go after a suspect.

This is not that.

[Leonhard]

This is not that.

It does appear odd what they were doing.

[Cow Poke]

I think what's happening a lot in this case is....

There are a number of "facts" that came out initially, that have subsequently been disputed or adjusted.
We don't really have a timeline of who said what when.
Everybody is compiling their own "set of facts" to support their narrative.

As we've seen in the past, MANY times, when the "facts" are presented under oath, and subject to cross examination, they go "poof".

It would really be interesting to see the facts set out as they currently exist, not as they were originally portrayed.

[Cow Poke]

It does appear odd what they were doing.

It does, but supposedly, they were part of a neighborhood watch group, and intended to hold him until police arrived, but it went south in a hurry.

As I just posted, it will be interesting to see the actual facts under cross examination, to get the actual picture of what happened.