Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[oxmixmudd]

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.

IOW, you choose dishonesty. I did specify the support for my position. Many, many times.

[Mountain Man]

IOW, you choose dishonesty. I did specify the support for my position. Many, many times.

The way you "support" your accusations reminds me of a scene from The Life of Brian:

"Will you stop following me! I'm not the messiah!"
"But only the true messiah would deny his own divinity."
"Oh, come on, what sort of chance does that give me? Fine, I am the messiah!"
"He admits it! He's the messiah!"

There is literally no way to defend ourselves against your accusations, because if we deny it, you just pivot to nonsense like accusing us of being blinded by "covert culturally infused racial bias". It's an argument that none of us can ever win.

[Watermelon]

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp....ennedy-mitchum

[MaxVel]

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp....ennedy-mitchum
Miriam Webster dictionary is updating the definition of racism to include something along the lines of

‘Racism is not only prejudice against a certain race due to the color of a person’s skin, as it states in your dictionary,. It is both prejudice combined with social and institutional power. It is a system of advantage based on skin color’

Which is pretty much how oxmixmudd is using it here.

Great... by that definition, I cannot be a racist in any way.

Racism = prejudice due to the colour of a person's skin + social and institutional power. (the new definition)


I'm not prejudiced against any races due to the colour of their skin. That alone means I cannot be racist.

I am a 1 per 650 ethnic minority, of a different skin colour to the majority. I am immediately, and unavoidably, noticeable wherever I go as not one of the majority ethnic group. I have a lot less legal rights and privileges than the majority group - but I still pay tax, and get overcharged for all sorts of things at every opportunity.


I have no social or institutional power.



On top of all that, oxmixmudd has charged me - and others including CP, Littlejoe, and Mountain Man - with either being racist or supporting racism, on the basis that we have brought up actual facts about the Arbery case, or asked if X is a fact about the case, and that we have not also brought up other facts that he thinks we should.

No-one - except him - has tried to stop anyone else form bringing up any facts they think interesting or relevant. No-one - except him - has accused anyone else of having any hidden agenda. He has not shown - claimed, but not shown - how citing facts, or talking about why the McMichaels or Arbery might have done what they did is in any way supporting racism.

His real complaint is that we have not immediately 'bowed the knee' and assumed that Arbery did nothing at all to contribute to the incident, and argeed immediately that there is no way the McMichaels could be anything but racist murderers.

As I have said, there is nothing here that can justify what was done to him. The house they saw him roaming through was under construction. No occupants, no one living there. I would not know enough to know if he was 'just jogging' or not, but it doesn't matter. These fellows took the law into their own hands and they killed a young man in the process. That's never going to be ok. And the fact they where white and he was black will raise the racial spectres, as it should. The simple fact is, if this had been a white kid roaming through the neighborhood or pilfering through a house under construction, they would not have tried to detain him, and he would not be dead. I can't 'prove' that, but we all know it is true.

from page 2

Here he completely begs the question and assumes - he admits he can't prove it - that the McMichaels were racist. And then goes on to vilify anyone who merely suggests that it might not be that simple.

[MaxVel]

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.

Here is what I know - feel free anyone to correct or modify this with better facts, and sources where possible. In the following I describe what I know about the details of the incident, and what the possible explanations for those details might be. (?) indicates where there may be different or better information.


(1) Arbery trespassed by going into the house. That is a fact under Georgia law. That would be true whatever his skin colour. That is true even if no-one was in the house at the time. That is true even if people have done it elsewhere, or there, at whatever time, and whatever their skin colour is, and not been caught, or warned, or prosecuted.


Trespassing does not justify what then happened, btw.

But it does go to cast possible doubt that he was just jogging. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Again, this would be true whatever race he was.



(2) On at least one occasion, security cameras captured footage of people, including in one case a black man, trespassing in the house at night. AFAIK the McMichaels and other neighbours were aware of this, and had been asked to keep an eye on the property.

Therefore the neighbourhood was on the lookout for trespassers at that property.



(3) A gun was stolen from a car on January. $2500 worth of fishing gear was stolen (I don't know when or from who).

The neighbourhood may have been concerned that there could be armed criminals prowling.

This may be why the McMichaels were armed. BTW, under Georgia law, if you are carrying a loaded long gun, you MUST have it out, in plain sight. I'm not aware that they broke any laws simply by being armed in the way they were.




(4) A neighbour saw Arbery come out of the house. They were on the phone to the police ( there is a transcript of their call). When Arbery saw them (?) he ran off. AFAICT he ran off at some speed. Perhaps someone has better info on this - did he run off at a jogging pace, or run off fast?

We don't know if Arbery heard what the neighbour was saying. We don't know if Arbery said anything to that neighbour. We don't know why he ran. Maybe he was scared. Maybe he didn't want any trouble.

Whatever the reason, by running off he made himself look suspicious. Unintentionally. Again, this would be true whatever his race. There had been (AFAIK) both black and white night prowlers at the house. A white person going in, coming out, and running off when spotted would attract suspicion too.



(5) At some time very soon after (4), the McMichaels and one other neighbour (Bryan??) got in their vehicles and followed / chased Arbery. The second vehicle driver filmed part of the incident, including the end, from some distance.



(6) There was at least one incident of contact between the second vehicle and Arbery, on the side of the vehicle.

The only way I can think of for this to occur (as opposed to the front or the back) is for the vehicle to 'cut off' someone on foot. It is possible that a pedestrian could deliberately contact the side of a vehicle.

This indicates a fairly close pursuit, where Arbery could possibly see the driver - but we don;t know if he could see the McMichaels ?? The senior McMichael is in the truck bed once it stopped, was he there when they were chasing Arbery?

IF he was, it is possible - but we don't know - that he recognised Arbery, or Arbery him, or both each other. That may play into what happened at the end,l since there had been some prior contact, in a law enforcement situation. It is possible that either party (or both) recognised the other, and this affected subsequent choices.

Arbery may have felt more scared or threatened if he recognised McMichael, or thought McMichael recognised him. The McMichaels may have felt concerned if they recognised Arbery and remembered his previous record for carrying a gun (?). Or not. We don't know.



(7) At some point the McMichael's vehicle got ahead, and stopped, some distance down the street. The second vehicle was following Arbery. In the last part of the video, at some distance, as Arbery ran/jogged away, towards the stopped McMichaels.



(8) The senior McMichael was in the truck bed, looking towards Arbery. The junior was out of the vehicle, on the driver's side, with his shotgun clearly visible, pointed at the ground. (Note this is in compliance with Georgia law AFAIK). There was initially some considerable distance between them and Arbery - he was moving at a 'fast jog', and it takes around 8 seconds (?) in the video for him to come up to the truck.

We don't know Arbery's state of mind - he most likely was under stress, from running and from being chased by two vehicles.

Distance: initially, as Arbery comes around the corner in the video, something like 40 meters (?) or more, given the time it took for him to cover the distance.

Arbery was initially running down the middle of the road, but as he gets closer to the truck he moves to his right, away from the side the junior McMichael is on.

As Arbery gets up to the truck, he passes it on it's right, then cuts across the front to confront the junior McMichaels. We don't know if anything was said as Arbery came up.


It doesn't appear as if there was an exchange of words or threats in the sense of two people 'facing off', McMichaels moves quickly across the front of the truck, and there's a struggle over the shotgun.



(9) The gun discharges, twice (?), and Arbery is fatally wounded.




What I don't know, and don't understand, is why Arbery didn't just run on past. Was he very scared for his life at that point?


From what we know, he took the most immediately dangerous action there was - trying to wrestle a gun off someone, when they also have a friend close at hand.


IMHO, that is most times going to lead to you or them getting shot. Most probably you, because (a) they have the gun, hence more control; (b) they have a friend close by, who is presumably either armed, or willing to use a lot of force on you to stop you getting the gun.


What is the best case scenario here? Get the gun, and create enough distance from two people to point the gun at them and force them away. Escape.

Or get the gun, and throw it somewhere they can't quickly get it and use it on you. Unlikely given the environment (street, front yards) and they have vehicles and you don't. Then what? You vs two, one who is still possibly armed. Run off?


What is the worst case scenario? What happened. Or multiple people get shot, including you. Or you get the gun and shoot one or both of the other parties.

I think the most likely scenario is... ...you getting shot. Either in grabbing for the gun, or by the second person if you get the gun, and some space.

So I don't understand the reasoning here. Did the McMichaels threaten Arbery verbally in some way, that made him fear gravely for his life?


Once Arbery tried to grab the gun, what were the McMichaels thinking? Probably nothing, as there was no time. If they had time, probably - 'I can't let this person get this gun'. Grabbing for the gun is an escalation that forces a conflict where the outcome is serious violence on one or the other parties.

I think it was very unwise for the McMichaels to get into a situation where Arbery was faced with that kind of choice/opportunity, as we can see from the awful consequences. But I suspect they didn't consider seriously the possibility that he might get, or go for, the gun. They should have stayed in their vehicle and tracked him until the police, who were on their way, got there.

[JimL]

Great... by that definition, I cannot be a racist in any way.

Racism = prejudice due to the colour of a person's skin + social and institutional power. (the new definition)


I'm not prejudiced against any races due to the colour of their skin. That alone means I cannot be racist.

I am a 1 per 650 ethnic minority, of a different skin colour to the majority. I am immediately, and unavoidably, noticeable wherever I go as not one of the majority ethnic group. I have a lot less legal rights and privileges than the majority group - but I still pay tax, and get overcharged for all sorts of things at every opportunity.


I have no social or institutional power.



On top of all that, oxmixmudd has charged me - and others including CP, Littlejoe, and Mountain Man - with either being racist or supporting racism, on the basis that we have brought up actual facts about the Arbery case, or asked if X is a fact about the case, and that we have not also brought up other facts that he thinks we should.

No-one - except him - has tried to stop anyone else form bringing up any facts they think interesting or relevant. No-one - except him - has accused anyone else of having any hidden agenda. He has not shown - claimed, but not shown - how citing facts, or talking about why the McMichaels or Arbery might have done what they did is in any way supporting racism.

His real complaint is that we have not immediately 'bowed the knee' and assumed that Arbery did nothing at all to contribute to the incident, and argeed immediately that there is no way the McMichaels could be anything but racist murderers.




from page 2

Here he completely begs the question and assumes - he admits he can't prove it - that the McMichaels were racist. And then goes on to vilify anyone who merely suggests that it might not be that simple.

Although the assumption is a pretty safe one to make, Ox doesn't have to assume, after killing a human being Travis McMichael called the victim lying dead or dying in front of him a F......N,,,, .

[Mountain Man]

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp....ennedy-mitchum

I'm not prejudiced against anybody based on the color of their skin, so that definition doesn't apply to me.

[JimL]

I'm not prejudiced against anybody based on the color of their skin, so that definition doesn't apply to me.

"The idea that he was just some innocent black guy out for a jog, needs to be rejected!"

[Mountain Man]

"The idea that he was just some innocent black guy out for a jog, needs to be rejected!"

Right, he wasn't just an innocent black guy out for a jog because he was observed trespassing, so the ugly "jogging while black" narrative should be rejected because it is false. This has nothing to do with the color of his skin.

[MaxVel]

"The idea that he was just some innocent black guy out for a jog, needs to be rejected!"

Yes, if that is the truth.

Which is what some people are trying to find out. Others - like you - have made up your minds before looking at the evidence in any detail, and are now yelling insults from the sidelines at people who are trying to have an adult conversation, one where people can explore ideas, and change their positions as they come to better understand the evidence.

It looks very much like you - and others - have decided what the 'truth' is, and are threatened by any suggestions that might challenge that. Hence you lash out.

[MaxVel]

Although the assumption is a pretty safe one to make, Ox doesn't have to assume, after killing a human being Travis McMichael called the victim lying dead or dying in front of him a F......N,,,, .

Source?

[Bill the Cat]

Source?

Good one Max!!

[MaxVel]

Good one Max!!

Well, one has to try... (Yes, I know, it is JimL).

No source, no fact, no response needed.

I'd be much more convinced by a pattern of documented behaviour BEFORE the incident than a heat of the moment curse someone utters after being in a life-threatening situation.

[Cow Poke]

Right, he wasn't just an innocent black guy out for a jog because he was observed trespassing, so the ugly "jogging while black" narrative should be rejected because it is false. This has nothing to do with the color of his skin.

So, the left identifies the guy as 'black' to focus on the racial aspect, but when we use their own words, we're racist.

[Mountain Man]

Source?

I don't remember the source, but I'm pretty sure it's true that the younger McMichael uttered the n-word after Arbery was shot. Of course some people are insisting that this is iron clad proof that the entire incident was racially motivated with no other factors coming into play (such as Arbery's own conduct), but I don't think that's a valid conclusion.