Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[Watermelon]

It's a misdemeanor unless they know he actually stole something. So, that could be shaky grounds for trying to stop him and hold him for the police....even though when he seen in the house, he ran away at a fast run, not a jog.

I guess this came from the videographer in his interview with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation? I don't know how we verify this one way or the other without footage but if he admitted it then it's probably true. If all they were trying to do was hold him until the police got there, most likely it was a blocking attempt where Arbery was cut off shortly and couldn't avoid it? I'm not sure that the Bryan knew the score or not. His interview is being held from the public. (As it probably should be) From what I've read, the Sr. McMichaels knew Arbery and had previously arrested him on a weapons charge and it's speculated that knew that he could possibly be armed which was why they were armed.

Umm if he knew the victim and had previously arrested him then why try and detain him? Just tell the police who he is and what he did wrong. That makes no sense.

[MaxVel]

It's a misdemeanor unless they know he actually stole something. So, that could be shaky grounds for trying to stop him and hold him for the police....even though when he seen in the house, he ran away at a fast run, not a jog.

I think Georgia law provides that 'trespassing with intent to commit a felony or a theft' is itself a felony. So (perhaps) stopping someone and enquiring as to their intent is legal...?

I think it is also a crime to flee after committing a felony.

I guess this came from the videographer in his interview with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation? I don't know how we verify this one way or the other without footage but if he admitted it then it's probably true. If all they were trying to do was hold him until the police got there, most likely it was a blocking attempt where Arbery was cut off shortly and couldn't avoid it? I'm not sure that the Bryan knew the score or not. His interview is being held from the public. (As it probably should be) From what I've read, the Sr. McMichaels knew Arbery and had previously arrested him on a weapons charge and it's speculated that knew that he could possibly be armed which was why they were armed.

Yeah, the 'hit by a truck' thing is not very clear at the moment. I think you scenario is quite likely what happened, and it may have caused Arbery to panic or feel seriously threatened, depending on what happened.

[MaxVel]

Umm if he knew the victim and had previously arrested him then why try and detain him? Just tell the police who he is and what he did wrong. That makes no sense.

Who knows? One possible explanation is that there had been thefts and prowlers in the neighbourhood of late, and that they had been asked to keep an eye on the place after multiple night-time prowlers recorded on security camera. Maybe they got sick of it and decided to catch the next one.

Another is that it might be futile to ask the police to track down someone who was seen trespassing (a misdemeanor) as it would be a very low priority. But making a citizen's arrest of someone who had committed a felony... that would get police action. McMichael senior had had local law enforcement experience, that may have played into his decision here.

Also there is the theft of a handgun from their car in January... maybe part of it was a concern that there was an armed prowler/thief in the neighbourhood.

[Charles]

It's not a lie CP, it s what I believe to be true. You believe otherwise. We belive different things about what is causing the focus on arbery's character.

The racism I believe is motivating this is not entirely conscious, but then again none of you is willing to consider how your culture and class may have conditioned you to think in a racist manner, so there is no way to bridge the gulf in thinking that drives this disagreement about the underlying racism driving the content of this thread.

Are you telling me I am not allowed to tell you what I believe to be true, just because you disagree?

This is very much the heart of it.

The last couple of pages contain frustrated post after post from persons running away from this reality. Mountain Man seems to have fooled himself into thinking he is concerned with facts, when anyone can clearly see, he is mainly focused on "facts" that put the victim in a worse light. He seems to think no one is going to note his racist bias, if only he claims he is not trying to justify what happened. He is, obviously, trying to change our perception of it in order to make it look less worse.

CP is bragging about how good a person he is, and claims are made about what you do or don't do. Predictable. Not the strategy of someone who has good reasons.

[MaxVel]

This is very much the heart of it.

The last couple of pages contain frustrated

Your imagination

post after post from persons running away from this reality. Mountain Man seems to have fooled himself into thinking he is concerned with facts, when anyone can clearly see, he is mainly focused on "facts" that put the victim in a worse light. He seems to think no one is going to note his racist bias, if only he claims he is not trying to justify what happened. He is, obviously, trying to change our perception of it in order to make it look less worse.

Your complete lack of any discussion of any facts is noted.

CP is bragging about how good a person he is, and claims are made about what you do or don't do. Predictable. Not the strategy of someone who has good reasons.

Yawn. Your post is empty of good reasons - just your speculation about the supposed motives of other posters. They're busy talking about things that actually happened, you're trying to discredit them for that. You are, indeed, predictable, shallow and irrelevant.

[Cow Poke]

CP is bragging about how good a person he is, and claims are made about what you do or don't do. Predictable. Not the strategy of someone who has good reasons.

CP loves serving the Lord, CP loves TALKING about serving the Lord, CP loves ENCOURAGING OTHERS to serve the Lord, CP is not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ -- CP doesn't brag about what a good person he is, but what a GREAT GOD HE SERVES.

Charles loves getting into other peoples' business and gossiping about them.

Don't be a Charles.

[Cow Poke]

How do you know I'm not doing CP? Because I don't brag about it on TWEB?

Congratulations, Jim - you've got the atheist(s) slapping you on the back reinforcing this attack on my character.

CP is bragging about how good a person he is, and claims are made about what you do or don't do. Predictable. Not the strategy of someone who has good reasons.

Does that warm your heart?

OBVIOUSLY, even you realized your attack wasn't Kosher, as you tried to soften it up (after the fact with an edit) with....

But I do applaud that you are 'doing'. You have a great deal more time for that than I likely do. so my efforts will likely never have the potential effect yours will.

So, as I already said, I take to heart the principle of Matt 5:16 - Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. You should take the time to see all the references to "works" in the New Testament, and how we are "furnished unto good works".... clearly, works don't SAVE us, but BECAUSE we are saved - we work. Or should. And there is JOY in sharing it.

I LOVE serving the Lord, and I LOVE talking about serving the Lord, and I LOVE encouraging others to serve the Lord, because, as I said, I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, or the attacks that come from those who don't understand.

What I've found generally is that...
A) brothers and sisters in Christ are encouraged by stories of Christ's redemptive work, of efforts to "Do" rather than "Hear only", of efforts to reach out and minister....
2) enemies of the Cross will attack and criticize and accuse those of us who love talking about serving the Lord of "bragging".

I do NOT consider you an enemy of the Cross (though, all too often, you seem to be enemies of your brothers and sisters in Christ, and in league with the enemies of the Cross) but I would really encourage you to think about the fact that these atheists and mockers of all things Christian are basically YOUR "peanut gallery". THEY are the ones who amen you and agree with you and join you in attacking your brothers and sisters in Christ. THEY are your "friends".

IF you EVER WERE to talk about your love of Christ, or serving Him, or the need for Salvation, the Heaven to gain or the Hell to shun, these same "friends" of yours would stab you in the back in a New York Minute. They HATE the Power of the Blood, and mock the Christ who gave His all.

As for your comment - "You have a great deal more time for that than I likely do" - that is demonstrably false. We both have 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day, 7 days in a week, 365 days a year..... we both have EXACTLY the same amount of time as long as we are alive - the difference is in how we allocate it.

I know full well that, when I post something about a project I'm involved in, or planned or initiated, or something good God did, our mission work, our Jobs for Live program, the fact that, in my workweek, I am "the minority", many times being the ONLY "white cracker" in the room --- that there will both be approval and disdain. Encouragement and attack. I've been attacked -- what was that, "credentialism"?

We are told that we should not be "hearers of the word" only, but DOERS. I love to do. I love to share what I do. I love to share how the Lord blesses, provides, changes lives, redeems the downtrodden, saves the lost.

Let the Redeemed of the Lord say so, and let the enemies of Christ mock and attack. It's what they do.

AND TO BE CLEAR --- I do NOT consider you "an enemy of the Cross" -- I'm just dumbfounded that THEY are your peanut gallery.

[oxmixmudd]

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

Just a fancy way of dodging the topic and the problem. There is nothing 'unspecified' about culturally induced/covert racism. We can identify specifically where, how, and why it happens. I was specific in my posts mentioning the subject what it was and how it was evidenced. And we can, if we so desire, discover how it affects us and our thinking, and in so doing, help reduce it in our own lives and the lives of those we interact with.

The problem here is not it's reality. Just like Global Warming, Evolution, the Age of the Earth - three well verified and evidenced truths about our world - covert/cultural racism simply is not a comfortable thing to deal with from within certain ideological frameworks and so great effort is spent trying to find a way to dismiss it.

[Mountain Man]

There is nothing 'unspecified' about culturally induced/covert racism.

Sorry, but you are throwing a vague label at someone and expecting them to feel guilty so that you can emotionally manipulate them into doing what you want. An accusation of something non-specific like "covert racism" is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to implicate them of something that is impossible to defend against, because if they deny it, you just wink and nod and say, "You see? It's so covert that you don't even realize it." It's a classic "heads, I win; tails, you lose" gambit.

So unless you can point to something specific that I have done or said that is explicitly racist, and not something that you merely misinterpret as racist, then, well, let's just say you know where can stick your accusations.

[oxmixmudd]

Sorry, but you are throwing a vague label at someone and expecting them to feel guilty so that you can emotionally manipulate them into doing what you want. An accusation of something non-specific like "covert racism" is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to implicate them of something that is impossible to defend against, because if they deny it, you just wink and nod and say, "You see? It's so covert that you don't even realize it." It's a classic "heads, I win; tails, you lose" gambit.

So unless you can point to something specific that I have done or said that is explicitly racist, and not something that you merely misinterpret as racist, then, well, let's just say you know where can stick your accusations.

I am not about what I put in bold. And I have not said what is in italics.

So you are wrong in most of what you say above from step 1.

I have been specific in terms of what I see is going on. And I'm not talking about 'explicit' racism am I?

The continued focus on the flaws in the victim which tend to excuse the criminals is what I have focussed on. The inherent belief that a 'black man' - in this case Arbery - 'is guilty of something' is itself endemic to our culture and formed a deep basis for so many posts in this thread. It's part of who we all are.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4181901...o_tab_contents

There is no denying many in this thread stated categorically the man was 'up to no good' in one form or another. Yet the evidence is he stole nothing and was in the neighborhood to run. And even with that evidence most here are unwilling to admit he was there just to run.


Why - in spite of all the evidence to the contrary - do you still hold to the narrative Arbery was not just a man running in the neighborhood? Why, when one justification for that narrative is shown to be false do you just seek out another one? If it is covert culturally infused racial bias, you really can't help yourself. Your culture has taught you to be more wary of a black man than a white man. And so you just keep trying to prove that culturally infused conclusion true. And you think you are justified doing it, because you believe black men are more likely to be up to no good. What you need to do is put that justification into words, and then ask if it would feel as justified if the man in our story were white. Would whatever justification you write down motivate you just as strongly if Arbery was a white man? If it would not, then you need to think seriously about why that is the case.

[Mountain Man]

And I'm not talking about 'explicit' racism am I?

Right, like I said, you just want to toss out vague and impossible to refute accusations and then use them to browbeat others into emotional submission. You can't point to anything explicitly racist, so instead you just sort of wave your hand and throw out meaningless terms like "covert culturally infused racial bias" and expect us to hang our heads in shame concede the debate.

[oxmixmudd]

Right, like I said, you just want to toss out vague and impossible to refute accusations and then use them to browbeat others into emotional submission. You can't point to anything explicitly racist, so instead you just sort of wave your hand and throw out meaningless terms like "covert culturally infused racial bias" and expect us to hang our heads in shame concede the debate.

back to ad hom I see.

[Mountain Man]

back to ad hom I see.

Look who's taking! You've been slinging around false accusations of racism throughout this entire thread, putting almost your entire focus on the character of other posters, and you want to accuse ME of the and hominem fallacy?

[oxmixmudd]

Look who's taking! You've been slinging around false accusations of racism throughout this entire thread, putting almost your entire focus on the character of other posters, and you want to accuse ME of the and hominem fallacy?

You know MM, there is a qualitative difference here that is hard to pin down. What you did was direct ad hom. You don't even want to consider whether covert racism is possible, so you just invent this bizarre fantasy about why I'm arguing the issue and make all sorts of bizarre accusations about who I am as a consequence. Straight up ad hom.

The argument as it relates to covert racism inherently contains a potentially accusatory element that is very hard to get around. If I am acting on a bit of covert racism I am not even aware of, and that is causing me to form my arguments a certain way, and someone says 'hey - you are arguing that way because of covert racism', the difference between that being a legitimate argument and 'ad hominem' gets a lot harder to parse. The difference I suppose goes to the fact that the incorrectness of the argument structure is based on internal bias - an internal bias that stems from an attribute that when overt is itself a character issue. If a person can objectively, impassionately look at the potential for covert racism to be driving their arguments incorrectly, then 'accusations' can be avoided. But it a person takes the very possibility of some sort of racism driving them as an accusation, then they feel and likely perceive the argument is ad hom.

And that is a barrier to conversation on this issue not easily bridged.

[Mountain Man]

You know MM, there is a qualitative difference here that is hard to pin down. What you did was direct ad hom. You don't even want to consider whether covert racism is possible, so you just invent this bizarre fantasy about why I'm arguing the issue and make all sorts of bizarre accusations about who I am as a consequence. Straight up ad hom.

The argument as it relates to covert racism inherently contains a potentially accusatory element that is very hard to get around. If I am acting on a bit of covert racism I am not even aware of, and that is causing me to form my arguments a certain way, and someone says 'hey - you are arguing that way because of covert racism', the difference between that being a legitimate argument and 'ad hominem' gets a lot harder to parse. The difference I suppose goes to the fact that the incorrectness of the argument structure is based on internal bias - an internal bias that stems from an attribute that when overt is itself a character issue. If a person can objectively, impassionately look at the potential for covert racism to be driving their arguments incorrectly, then 'accusations' can be avoided. But it a person takes the very possibility of some sort of racism driving them as an accusation, then they feel and likely perceive the argument is ad hom.

And that is a barrier to conversation on this issue not easily bridged.

In other words, you want the luxury of declaring other people guilty without the burden of having to actually specify and prove their crimes.

Maybe I should just accuse you of covert stupity and call it day.