Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[whag]

I know that I have a "pro-Police" bias. BIG time. So I have to work at seeing the failures, problems, challenges --- like not coming up with a SINGLE THING to minimize what Chauvin did.

[Cow Poke]

This is about the killing of Arbery, and you made a point to say he had run-ins with police

Yes, that's a fact, and I presented that background.

while in the same breath

Actually, I breathed between the two comments.

They certainly do not.

Actually, I've written on this at length, but let's just sum up to say that IF this comes to trial, both sides will lay everything they have out there. It's best not to be surprised, and to know what the other side may claim.

I really enjoy what I do and I enjoy sharing about it.

while letting your subconscious give voice to your racism in a public forum.

"my racism".

I do

and, hence, not relevant facts in the lynching of black men, you are indeed TOO biased.

Sure.

[Mountain Man]

I have done so numerous times in this very thread. It is already there if you wish to read it. Here are some examples:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post737694

I didn't respond to this one at the time because I think it's fairly obvious that there is no contradiction between saying "I'm just stating the facts" and saying "We should wait for all the facts before reaching a conclusion".

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post737710

And here was my response:

You can emphasize whatever you want. Pointing out that he wasn't just an innocent jogger in no way suggests that the actions against him were justified.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post738781

Here you are responding to something Leonhard said about something I said. Here was my response to Leonhard:

The relevance is that Arbery wasn't randomly targeted like some have claimed. That speaks to motive.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post738829

And here was my response:

I'm not, but neither am I saying that their actions weren't justified. I'm not embracing either conclusion because we still don't have all the facts. This case can easily go either way, and I'm willing to keep an open mind. Are you?

Here is a rather interesting one where it is shown that MM contradicted himself (again):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post738878

This one I didn't respond to other than rolling my eyes, which as I look at the post again was the correct response.

An example from JimL:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post738202

And here was my response:

That he had visited the site on multiple occasions at night suggests that it was more than mere curiosity that attracted him. At the very least he was guilty of trespassing.

Does this in and of itself justify him being shot? Of course not. I'm still not even sure if the shooting was deliberate or if it was an accident caused as a direct result of the struggle.

An example form Ox:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post738686

And here was my response:

Let's assume that Arbery was intentionally shot and that it wasn't an accidental discharge caused by the struggle. Here's what the trial is going to come down to: Precisely when was the decision made to pull the trigger? That's going to be the key question. Was it before Arbery attacked, or was it after? If it was after, then it could very easily be ruled a matter of self-defense like we saw with the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case. The two incidents are very similar in that a situation was created in which a male apparently felt threatened and tried to gain the upper hand by wrestling a gun away from the man confronting him. You can argue that they had no business confronting him while armed, but as far as I know, their actions up to that point did not break any laws, so from a purely legal standpoint, it's irrelevant.

Notice that in my replies, I explicitly said at least twice that the shooting of Arbery was not necessarily justified -- a sentiment I expressed from the very beginning of this thread and have reiterated numerous times throughout. Oh, but that doesn't support your narrative, so you just sort of ignore it, don't you?

[DivineOb]

Actually, I've written on this at length, but let's just sum up to say that IF this comes to trial, both sides will lay everything they have out there. It's best not to be surprised, and to know what the other side may claim.

In the criminal trial it will be the job of the defense to argue the facts so that they point to the defendants' innocence and mitigate their responsibility. You are under no such obligation and seem to be doing that voluntarily. Does it not make sense that that might rub some people the wrong way?

[JimL]

I didn't respond to this one at the time because I think it's fairly obvious that there is no contradiction between saying "I'm just stating the facts" and saying "We should wait for all the facts before reaching a conclusion".


And here was my response:


Here you are responding to something Leonhard said about something I said. Here was my response to Leonhard:


And here was my response:


This one I didn't respond to other than rolling my eyes, which as I look at the post again was the correct response.


And here was my response:


And here was my response:
Notice that in my replies, I explicitly said at least twice that the shooting of Arbery was not necessarily justified -- a sentiment I expressed from the very beginning of this thread and have reiterated numerous times throughout. Oh, but that doesn't support your narrative, so you just sort of ignore it, don't you?

And your response to me was just another unsubstantiated assertion that Arbery cased the joint on multiple occassions in the dark of night. Everyone is well aware of what you were implying, MM. Put down the shovel, and we'll help you up, keep digging and we'll help to bury you. MM: "the idea that this was just some innocent black guy out for a jog, needs to be rejected."

[Charles]

[...]Notice that in my replies, I explicitly said at least twice that the shooting of Arbery was not necessarily justified -- a sentiment I expressed from the very beginning of this thread and have reiterated numerous times throughout. Oh, but that doesn't support your narrative, so you just sort of ignore it, don't you?

Yes, you have mentioned that quite many times while continuing to focus solely on possible wrongdoings of the victim. It, of course, plays into to your narrative in which you try to appear objective, focused on "facts" but it is just a thin sugar coating on your attempts to put a dead person in a worse light. It is so easy to see.

[Mountain Man]

...unsubstantiated assertion that Arbery cased the joint on multiple occassions in the dark of night.

Do you deny that multiple videos show him visiting the construction site at night and looking around? Here is a relevant post by seanD if you need to refresh your memory:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post737504

[Mountain Man]

Yes, you have mentioned that [the shooting wasn't necessarily justified] quite many times...

Thank you.

[Charles]

Thank you.

And here is what you left out:

Yes, you have mentioned that quite many times while continuing to focus solely on possible wrongdoings of the victim. It, of course, plays into to your narrative in which you try to appear objective, focused on "facts" but it is just a thin sugar coating on your attempts to put a dead person in a worse light. It is so easy to see.

But your cutting is a perfect example of how you cut reality in general. Thanks for demonstrating it so obviously yourself.

[JimL]

Do you deny that multiple videos show him visiting the construction site at night and looking around? Here is a relevant post by seanD if you need to refresh your memory:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post737504

I can't view the film, so tell me, and not that it matters, but was Arbury personally ID'd as the person there on multiple occassions. Was it in the dark of night as you suggested? Was he casing the joint as you asserted? Even if it was him on the video, I don't really care how many times he chose to check out the place. What does that have to do with anything other than as an attemptby you to support the narrative of Arbery's guilt that you're trying to push. Besides, you snipped this part of my post. MM: "the idea that this was just some innocent black guy out jogging, needs to be rejected". That statement alone tells us everything we need to know about what you've been up to in this thread, and it ain't seeking the facts. Seriously, give it up.

[JonathanL]

. . . while letting your subconscious give voice to your racism in a public forum.

CP: I can think of no justification what so ever for what the McMichael's did.


Whag: Why are you such a racist?

[Cow Poke]

In the criminal trial it will be the job of the defense to argue the facts so that they point to the defendants' innocence and mitigate their responsibility.

Correct, and it's wise for the prosecution to know every card they'll play.

You are under no such obligation and seem to be doing that voluntarily.

Yes, because I'm not afraid of the truth, and I'm not going to shame somebody into silence because they're not kissing my butt or adding to my narrative.

Does it not make sense that that might rub some people the wrong way?

There will ALWAYS be those who are looking to be offended, but, quite honestly, I didn't think you were one of them.

[DivineOb]

Yes, because I'm not afraid of the truth, and I'm not going to shame somebody into silence because they're not kissing my butt or adding to my narrative.

None of us are afraid of the truth. We all *know* that Arbery "shouldn't" have made multiple choices he made. No one is trying to take away your "freedom of speech" or "right to offend" or whatever.

I don't know if this helps or not but last night I encountered a situation exactly along these lines came up in a totally different context. The American gymnast Kurt Thomas died yesterday. He was famous for a particular (and particularly dangerous) maneuver called the "Thomas Salto" (here you can see video of the last time it was performed by a woman in competition due it being banned for being too dangerous.) In the Youtube comments of that video the fate of another gymnast named Elena Mukhina who broke her neck trying to perform the Thomas Salto came up. Someone pointed out that the reason she botched the Salto was likely due to her trainer not giving her enough time to fully heal her broken leg. And the question of whether the broken leg or the Salto was to blame for her ultimate fate came up.

It's obvious to me (after watching that video above to see what the Salto involves) that the Salto was to blame for what happened to Elena Mukhina and incidental details like leg failing to heal contributed but are ultimately immaterial. Mandating that no athlete should be forced to train until fully healed really doesn't impact the ultimate issue which is that the Salto is just too dangerous of a maneuver to be part of gymnastics competition. Changing the rule about the amount time before an athlete trains again might reduce injury from the Salto but it's just putting off a reckoning with the core underlying problem.

If you can watch this video and still believe that discussions about these secondary issues are more than window dressing then we should just agree to disagree and move on.

There will ALWAYS be those who are looking to be offended, but, quite honestly, I didn't think you were one of them.

That seems to be harsh and uncalled for.

[Mountain Man]

And here is what you left out...

I quoted the relevant part, which was your concession that I have repeatedly said that the shooting wasn't justified, and I really don't care that you then tried to "reinterpret" my clear and unambiguous statements as saying the exact opposite. Believe it or not, Chuck, I'm not obligated to respond to every bit of sophistry that you sprinkle around this forum.

[oxmixmudd]

You can keep repeating that false accusation as many times as you want - it doesn't make it truerererer. That is NOT what I am doing at all.

It is what was done in the threads in question. And you were part of that process CP, whether you can admit it or not, whether you intend to be or not. As I have pointed out, we don't have long series of posts on why what the shooters did was wrong or delving deeply into how crazy their aggressive pursuit was, but we do have long series of posts trying to make out Arbery's presence in the house meant he was up to no good or 'casing' the joint for some future crime and that because of that the shooter has cause to chase after him.

You were part of that.

We also have the thread on Floyd and covid. Now you have clearly from the very beginning said the policeman was completely out of line wrt Floyd. But you're in there with the guys trying to make it about Floyd too, muddying your stance on the brutality of the police action. And you are all over pointing out how bad the protesters are, not countering wrt what might be motivating them.

So - you are not the worst by any means. But time and time again you are there supporting the worst, and in general against the conversation that recognizes how systemic racism and white privilege have kept black people oppressed for decades.

That is what you have done CP. It is what it is.