Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[oxmixmudd]

BtC: I was threatened by a man with a gun.

Ox:

A real class act.

Indeed, and far more classy than you. Why you are so classy you are not above twisting the entire sequence and response into what it obviously was not.

I am clearly laughing at him swearing he would never talk to me again, NOT the fact he was held up.

And my point is not to mock HIS misfortune, but to bring forward HIS complete lack of compassion for Arbery in the situation he was in. Which is made worse by the fact he himself had been held up, yet apparently that illicits not an ounce of empathy with Arbery's situation.

[JonathanL]

Indeed, and far more classy than you. Why you are so classy you are not above twisting the entire sequence and response into what it obviously was not.

I am clearly laughing at him swearing he would never talk to me again, NOT the fact he was held up.

And my point is not to mock HIS misfortune, but to bring forward HIS complete lack of compassion for Arbery in the situation he was in. Which is made worse by the fact he himself had been held up, yet apparently that illicits not an ounce of empathy with Arbery's situation.

Twisting implies that I intentionally knew that you were laughing about something else and still decided to paint your post in such a way that it seemed like you were laughing about what happened to BtC when you "clearly" ( ) were talking about him never talking to you again. But if that is what you were really laughing about I apologize for misunderstanding you.

As for the "complete lack of compassion" on BtC's part, I wouldn't trust your assessment on that further than I can smell my own farts. You clearly have some sort of "covert/systemic/institutionalized racism" narrative going on in your head (and much of that narrative is no doubt backed up by actual data) and it seems like about every statement by anyone who does not agree with you on this matter has to be forcibly made to fit into that narrative, even if it means reading their posts in the most uncharitable manner possible.

[oxmixmudd]

Twisting implies that I intentionally knew that you were laughing about something else and still decided to paint your post in such a way that it seemed like you were laughing about what happened to BtC when you "clearly" ( ) were talking about him never talking to you again. But if that is what you were really laughing about I apologize for misunderstanding you.

As for the "complete lack of compassion" on BtC's part, I wouldn't trust your assessment on that further than I can smell my own farts. You clearly have some sort of "covert/systemic/institutionalized racism" narrative going on in your head (and much of that narrative is no doubt backed up by actual data) and it seems like about every statement by anyone who does not agree with you on this matter has to be forcibly made to fit into that narrative, even if it means reading their posts in the most uncharitable manner possible.

Thanks for the apology

Primarily chrawnus I dont toe the conservative party line. That is my sin, and that is why you and others dismiss what I say without logical consideration of its correctness or supporting data.

In this case, BTC is quite focused on the narrative that says Arbery should have just let them capture him, with the assumption he had no reason to suspect he was in mortal danger.

Something I find despicable.

Now whether the cause of his complete lack of empathy for being chased like a rabbit in a fox hunt is racism or some other moral failure I do not know.

But my point was to bring out the fact he knows that what he is doing is wrong. And that is evidenced by the fact that he is offended to the extreme by my 'wishing'* on him the same circumstances wrt the chase as Arbery endured. He knows how horrible and terrifying that would be.

Yet his focus is on what Arbery did wrong, and why the McMichaels weren't really responsible for his death.

ETA:* of course I don't actually wish such evil on BTC, or anyone. What I'm searching for is some way to wake the conservative elements in this thread up to their blind participation in these god awful callous, unsympathetic and morally pathetic attempts to blame this man for the outcome of the horrible situation forced upon him by the McMichaels.

[Whateverman]

It makes it a lot harder to make that argument when the defendant passed up a perfect opportunity to pull the trigger. If it was his intent to shoot Arbery then what was he waiting for? Did he think a better opportunity would present itself?

I can think of half-a-dozen reasons for him not opening up like a cowboy. Maybe he wanted Arbery to stop running, and just watched him go by; maybe he was drunk at the time; maybe he was waiting for Dad to tell him what to do. Either way, it's a safe bet that you can't use that pause to reliably understand what was in the younger McMichael's head...

I think the fact that no shots were fired until they began wrestling over the gun is significant, as is the fact that McMichaels immediately lowered his weapon and backed away when it was clear that Arbery was no longer a threat. In my mind, those do not strike me as the actions of someone with an intent to kill.

I guess we'll find out at the trial.

[Mountain Man]

I can think of half-a-dozen reasons for him not opening up like a cowboy. Maybe he wanted Arbery to stop running, and just watched him go by; maybe he was drunk at the time; maybe he was waiting for Dad to tell him what to do. Either way, it's a safe bet that you can't use that pause to reliably understand what was in the younger McMichael's head...

I suppose you could try and rationalize it that way, but the fact is, he didn't shoot when he had the perfect opportunity, so unless the prosecution has some very good evidence to make their case, it's going to be almost impossible to spin that as "intent to kill".

[JonathanL]

Thanks for the apology

Primarily chrawnus I dont toe the conservative party line. That is my sin, and that is why you and others dismiss what I say without logical consideration of its correctness or supporting data.

I have absolutely no idea what the "the conservative party line" is supposed to be so you "toeing" it or not doesn't make the slightest difference to me. And I'm not even objecting to your statements about systemic/institutionalized/covert/whatever racism in the US. Clearly there's still racism going on in the US and much of it seems to be ingrained in the culture.

What I'm objecting to is your tendency to misinterpret people's words on these forums in the most uncharitable manner possible and inventing motivations as to why people are arguing the way they are. A prime example of that being the part of your post that I cut off where you start imagining you're able to see a "complete lack of empathy" on BtC's part when you're simply not justified in making that conclusion. And then you start making up stuff about how people are blaming Arbery and giving excuses for the McMichaels, when most of the posts have been trying to understand why the McMichaels decided to act in the way they did, NOT trying to shift the blame, while other posts have been on the issue what sort of legal (not moral/ethical) case the McMichaels have got going for them. As far as I can tell (and if you know any specific instances that would disprove this you're welcome to show me wrong) no one has tried to argue that Arbery was morally culpable in any way for what happened.

[oxmixmudd]

I have absolutely no idea what the "the conservative party line" is supposed to be so you "toeing" it or not doesn't make the slightest difference to me. And I'm not even objecting to your statements about systemic/institutionalized/covert/whatever racism in the US. Clearly there's still racism going on in the US and much of it seems to be ingrained in the culture.

What I'm objecting to is your tendency to misinterpret people's words on these forums in the most uncharitable manner possible and inventing motivations as to why people are arguing the way they are. A prime example of that being the part of your post that I cut off where you start imagining you're able to see a "complete lack of empathy" on BtC's part when you're simply not justified in making that conclusion. And then you start making up stuff about how people are blaming Arbery and giving excuses for the McMichaels, when most of the posts have been trying to understand why the McMichaels decided to act in the way they did, NOT trying to shift the blame, while other posts have been on the issue what sort of legal (not moral/ethical) case the McMichaels have got going for them. As far as I can tell (and if you know any specific instances that would disprove this you're welcome to show me wrong) no one has tried to argue that Arbery was morally culpable in any way for what happened.

We have 120+ pages now without the slightest compassion for Arbery. Every mention of what happened makes a big deal of him being on the construction property (of the same 'illegality' as driving a few miles an hour over the speed limit) to the point this is listed as justification for an aggressive,armed chase. One that literally tried to corral that man and even hit him with the truck at least one time in the process. We also have 120+ pages that focus on how Arbery must have been 'attacking' Mr. McMichaels, the fellow actually holding a gun that Arbery tried to wrestle from him. Not one word ever acknowledges the obvious from these folks - that a man violently, aggressively chased in two trucks by three men, at least two of them armed, would be in fear of his life and would do whatever he could to survive. I've mentioned it over and over, and it is never acknowledge as a legitimate possibility. I am told we can not know what was in the man's mind.

Well, if we had an ounce of compassion we might get a pretty good idea.


No - the focus is on all those things that diminish the harm to Arbery, and diminish the GUILT of the McMichals.

So you can call me 'uncharitable' if you like. I'll gladly be called that for trying to speak against what is happening here. I am not the sort that can stand by and watch a innocent man who was unjustly killed be maligned page after page and post after post without getting angry, and without speaking my mind on it. It is - in a word - disgusting.

[Whateverman]

I suppose you could try and rationalize it that way

Hey, you're the one who started rationalizing, not me.

but the fact is, he didn't shoot when he had the perfect opportunity

So he's not a cowboy. Big deal.

[Littlejoe]

Already been there in North Omaha in the late 80s. I complied with the armed man's request. And nothing happened to me. And mark this. This will be the last time I ever respond to you.

I've had a gun pointed at me 3 times in my life by upset people...no one was ever shot. Compliance and de-escalating words resulted in no one being harmed. I absolutely did not attack the person with the gun even though in 2 out of the three times I could have...because I didn't want to get shot.

[Mountain Man]

So he's not a cowboy. Big deal.

Right, so like I said, unless the prosecution has some very good evidence to make their case, it's going to be almost impossible to spin the fact that he didn't shoot when he had the perfect opportunity as "intent to kill".

[JimL]

Already been there in North Omaha in the late 80s. I complied with the armed man's request. And nothing happened to me. And mark this. This will be the last time I ever respond to you.

And what was the armed mans request, why did the armed man stop you? Also, it's not the same, unless your saying that 3 armed black men in a predominantly black neighborhood chased you for several blocks until they cornered you? Is that what happened Bill? So what was the request that you complied with?

[Watermelon]

If you see a person coming out of a neighbour's unoccupied house, which is under construction, and which has had problems with prowlers; and the person resembles one of the prowlers seen on security camera footage; and the person immediately runs off at some speed on realizing they have been observed; and there is no building work going on, so no site visitors; do you have the right to chase him down using force in making a citizen's arrest?

[Bill the Cat]

And what was the armed mans request, why did the armed man stop you?

He wanted to know why I was in a "black neighborhood" and I told him I was looking for a tattoo parlor, if you must know.

Also, it's not the same, unless your saying that 3 armed black men in a predominantly black neighborhood chased you for several blocks until they cornered you?

It was one armed man, and he followed me for 4 blocks in my car before following me into a 7-11 where he demanded I stop and turn around and answer why I was there. He displayed his weapon tucked in his belt, then suggested that I leave the store and get back to the "white side" of Omaha if I knew what was good for me.

Is that what happened Bill? So what was the request that you complied with?

Satisfied?

[Charles]

If you see a person coming out of a neighbour's unoccupied house, which is under construction, and which has had problems with prowlers; and the person resembles one of the prowlers seen on security camera footage; and the person immediately runs off at some speed on realizing they have been observed; and there is no building work going on, so no site visitors; do you have the right to chase him down using force in making a citizen's arrest?

I am not sure you are describing what actually happened.

The owner of the home that was under construction told CNN that, while his CCTV captured four short clips of a man that appeared to be Mr Arbery "trespassing" on his properly on 23 February, he had not reported any crime to the police.

"I don't want it to be put out and misused and misinterpreted for people to think that I had accused Mr Arbery of stealing or robbery, because I never did," he said.

A lawyer for the homeowner later said its their belief that Mr Arbery had been looking for water. Security footage shows he was not the only person to enter the construction site - children from the neighbourhood were also filmed playing at the site. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52623151

[rogue06]

He wanted to know why I was in a "black neighborhood" and I told him I was looking for a tattoo parlor, if you must know.



It was one armed man, and he followed me for 4 blocks in my car before following me into a 7-11 where he demanded I stop and turn around and answer why I was there. He displayed his weapon tucked in his belt, then suggested that I leave the store and get back to the "white side" of Omaha if I knew what was good for me.



Satisfied?

It is not uncommon for black police inside the city of Atlanta to stop whites and ask them what they're doing driving in any of the poorer black neighborhoods. They pretty much assume that if you're white you must be looking for drugs or prostitutes