Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[MaxVel]

We have 120+ pages now without the slightest compassion for Arbery.

(1) Compassion is a deep feeling of sympathy and sorrow for another's misfortune. You simply don't know what anyone else is feeling. You have never actually asked, you just assume and then attack them for not expressing whatever they might feel in the way you think they should.

(2) Plenty of posters - including AFAICT ALL of the ones you disagree with - have said that it was a tragedy, horrible, or awful. No-one has said that Arbery 'deserved' what happened, or that he should have been killed. That is - unless you are being uncharitable (and you are) - an expression of compassion

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.

Go argue with Georgia law. It is a fact that Arbery broke at least one law. Nothing else necessarily entails from that, except that it may (may) provide legal grounds for a citizen's arrest. You don't want anyone to even talk about that, you don't know the law, and you attack people who do want to talk about it.


YOU have been (at least in part) responsible for the adversarial atmosphere of this thread, from it's very beginning. YOU have helped create a situation where people feel compelled to defend themselves for wondering in public what exactly happened. That means people are going to focus on the McMichaels, and whether what they did was legal, or justifiable, or whatever... because if anyone shows the slightest hesitation over whether this was a 'racist murder' or not, you attack them.

YOU have made it so that people either immediately accept the narrative you prefer, or have to repeatedly, and in depth, justify their doubts or questions over that narrative. And now you're whining like a baby over the fact that honest people just want to talk about the details of what happened? And impugning their motives and integrity?

Really?


Imagine if you had come into this thread ready to discuss all possibilities (even if you had already made up your mind what the truth was) with other posters, ready to question your own ideas and beliefs - along with your fellow posters - and work together with others to ALL come to the truth, whatever that is.

If you had taken that approach, and then been met with refusal to even discuss some topics as mere possibilities, personal attacks, suggestions that you were racist, and so on, then I would be with you here.

But it is you who have done that latter above - you have tried to bully and browbeat and coerce people into a particular conclusion.

That is not the way to end racism. That is merely trying to bully people into outwardly assenting to your narrative. Instead of reducing racism, you're creating doubts and reasons why people will reject your narrative.

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.

Factually false.

Broadbrush stereotype of others, based on your own issues and problems.

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.

You're just projecting your own stereotypes onto people here, and contributing to them acting in ways that reinforce those stereotypes. When you attack someone so personally as you have, repeatedly in this thread, you encourage them to dig in deeper and defend their position. You take away the potential space for them to accept new information or new perspectives and change. You create a resistance to what you are saying, even if you are right.


A: You know, I think you're not completely correct about this. Here's how I see it (adds information and reasoned argument).


B: I can't believe that you could support racism in this way! Anyone who's not a closet racist can see that you asking these questions is racist, too!



Tell me which approach is more likely to get a response of evaluating and questioning openly one's ideas and understanding.

Hint: the answer is A.

Your approach (exaggerated slightly) is B.

That's why you are alienating people and people don't take you seriously anymore. Because of your approach.


Not because of what you believe - heck people can have reasonable conversations with everyone here from firstfloor to demiconservative to mikewhitney to Bill the Cat to Darth Ovious to MaxVel to JimL to Cow Poke to Juvenal to... so it's NOT because you believe something they can't deal with. That's a cop-out on your part.

You (as always) assume the moral high ground, rain down imprecations on all who don't immediately crawl under your umbrella, and then whine about negative feedback and people not willing to go along with your narrative. Yet, somehow, everyone else here is bad, and you're the sole hold-out for righteousness. Pah-leese.

Grow up, dude. You're making your positions detestable and only for those who are craven cowards. I despise your attempts to bully others. It's pathetic, and a discredit to what you claim you believe. Call me a supporter of systematic racism all you want - I'm just going to laugh in your face, because I know you aren't seeking the truth, whatever it may be.

[oxmixmudd]

(1) Compassion is a deep feeling of sympathy and sorrow for another's misfortune. You simply don't know what anyone else is feeling. You have never actually asked, you just assume and then attack them for not expressing whatever they might feel in the way you think they should.

(2) Plenty of posters - including AFAICT ALL of the ones you disagree with - have said that it was a tragedy, horrible, or awful. No-one has said that Arbery 'deserved' what happened, or that he should have been killed. That is - unless you are being uncharitable (and you are) - an expression of compassion





Go argue with Georgia law. It is a fact that Arbery broke at least one law. Nothing else necessarily entails from that, except that it may (may) provide legal grounds for a citizen's arrest. You don't want anyone to even talk about that, you don't know the law, and you attack people who do want to talk about it.


YOU have been (at least in part) responsible for the adversarial atmosphere of this thread, from it's very beginning. YOU have helped create a situation where people feel compelled to defend themselves for wondering in public what exactly happened. That means people are going to focus on the McMichaels, and whether what they did was legal, or justifiable, or whatever... because if anyone shows the slightest hesitation over whether this was a 'racist murder' or not, you attack them.

YOU have made it so that people either immediately accept the narrative you prefer, or have to repeatedly, and in depth, justify their doubts or questions over that narrative. And now you're whining like a baby over the fact that honest people just want to talk about the details of what happened? And impugning their motives and integrity?

Really?


Imagine if you had come into this thread ready to discuss all possibilities (even if you had already made up your mind what the truth was) with other posters, ready to question your own ideas and beliefs - along with your fellow posters - and work together with others to ALL come to the truth, whatever that is.

If you had taken that approach, and then been met with refusal to even discuss some topics as mere possibilities, personal attacks, suggestions that you were racist, and so on, then I would be with you here.

But it is you who have done that latter above - you have tried to bully and browbeat and coerce people into a particular conclusion.

That is not the way to end racism. That is merely trying to bully people into outwardly assenting to your narrative. Instead of reducing racism, you're creating doubts and reasons why people will reject your narrative.





Factually false.

Broadbrush stereotype of others, based on your own issues and problems.







You're just projecting your own stereotypes onto people here, and contributing to them acting in ways that reinforce those stereotypes. When you attack someone so personally as you have, repeatedly in this thread, you encourage them to dig in deeper and defend their position. You take away the potential space for them to accept new information or new perspectives and change. You create a resistance to what you are saying, even if you are right.


A: You know, I think you're not completely correct about this. Here's how I see it (adds information and reasoned argument).


B: I can't believe that you could support racism in this way! Anyone who's not a closet racist can see that you asking these questions is racist, too!



Tell me which approach is more likely to get a response of evaluating and questioning openly one's ideas and understanding.

Hint: the answer is A.

Your approach (exaggerated slightly) is B.

That's why you are alienating people and people don't take you seriously anymore. Because of your approach.


Not because of what you believe - heck people can have reasonable conversations with everyone here from firstfloor to demiconservative to mikewhitney to Bill the Cat to Darth Ovious to MaxVel to JimL to Cow Poke to Juvenal to... so it's NOT because you believe something they can't deal with. That's a cop-out on your part.

You (as always) assume the moral high ground, rain down imprecations on all who don't immediately crawl under your umbrella, and then whine about negative feedback and people not willing to go along with your narrative. Yet, somehow, everyone else here is bad, and you're the sole hold-out for righteousness. Pah-leese.

Grow up, dude. You're making your positions detestable and only for those who are craven cowards. I despise your attempts to bully others. It's pathetic, and a discredit to what you claim you believe. Call me a supporter of systematic racism all you want - I'm just going to laugh in your face, because I know you aren't seeking the truth, whatever it may be.

Feel better now ?

The only person actually bullied here would be Arbery, a man killed unjustly and brutally whose name and character have been maligned by mostly white men for 120+ pages. Much like the lynchings in the south where the white families would gather after church no less to watch a black man be hanged for looking at a white woman the wrong way.

[Whateverman]

(1) Compassion is a deep feeling of sympathy and sorrow for another's misfortune. You simply don't know what anyone else is feeling.

It can be reasonably inferred from what they've written here that anyone suggesting Arbery is somehow responsible for his death lacks compassion for him.

Sure, none of us know the minds of anyone else posting to these forums, but that's never been an impediment for attributing all kinds of ideas and motivations to people we disagree with. I mean, with standards like you suggest, no one here should ever be called a liar, even when they repeatedly tell falsehoods.

For that reason, I think it's reasonable to infer what a person thinks from what they write in a thread. This inference can be misused or inaccurate, but those are problems that can easily be dealt with: just correct the person and move on.

[MaxVel]

It can be reasonably inferred from what they've written here that anyone suggesting Arbery is somehow responsible for his death lacks compassion for him.

I think that's a non-sequitur. You can (of course) feel compassion for someone who has in some way injured themselves, or made a poor choice that results in their misfortune.

At most, AFAICS, people here have suggested that Arbery made some poor choices that contributed to the circumstances leading to his death, just as those same people have said that the McMichaels also made poor choices that resulted in Arbery getting shot. It seems to be to be Ox who is arguing for the simplistic attribution of all the responsibility to one side, and all the fault to the other side, based solely on the race of the people involved. I believe that is the textbook definition of racism, ironically.

Sure, none of us know the minds of anyone else posting to these forums, but that's never been an impediment for attributing all kinds of ideas and motivations to people we disagree with.

Sure. Go ahead. But it's not an argument to post 'You're only saying that because you feel....'.

And here, particularly, it goes deeper than that - the implication that you somehow support some form of racism because you haven't posted in a particular way. The failure to ask people why they are making the posts they have made, instead the assumption that they must have X motivation since they haven't made Y posts.

I mean, with standards like you suggest, no one here should ever be called a liar, even when they repeatedly tell falsehoods.

Oddly enough, there is a high standard for calling someone a liar here.

For that reason, I think it's reasonable to infer what a person thinks from what they write in a thread. This inference can be misused or inaccurate, but those are problems that can easily be dealt with: just correct the person and move on.

Is it just as reasonable to infer what a person thinks from what they didn't write? Not directly refusing to answer an actual question put to them, but not writing about things that the poster thinks they should have?


Post #17

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.

(1) Doesn't know all the facts

(2) Already has a conclusion "nothing here that can justify what was done". (Charitably, this may mean 'on the data so far'..), and "but it doesn't matter."

(3) Assumes racism, based solely on the races of the people involved. "if this had been a white kid..."

(4) Proceeds in subsequent posts throughout the thread to attack other posters for being racist when they are discussing the facts and trying to reach their own conclusion as to whether the McMichaels were acting from a racist motivation or not.

(5) Concludes that other posters are racist because they haven't spent as much time discussing how innocent Arbery is of any responsibility as he would like them to.

[MaxVel]

Feel better now ?

The only person actually bullied here would be Arbery, a man killed unjustly and brutally whose name and character have been maligned by mostly white men for 120+ pages. Much like the lynchings in the south where the white families would gather after church no less to watch a black man be hanged for looking at a white woman the wrong way.

Still classy, I see. Can't deal with people pointing out your own faults, you have to resort to the worst kind of scurrilous allegations. A new low.

[Watermelon]

Then it looks like your issue is with Georgia law, not the McMichaels.

[Watermelon]

I think that's a non-sequitur. You can (of course) feel compassion for someone who has in some way injured themselves, or made a poor choice that results in their misfortune.

At most, AFAICS, people here have suggested that Arbery made some poor choices that contributed to the circumstances leading to his death, just as those same people have said that the McMichaels also made poor choices that resulted in Arbery getting shot. It seems to be to be Ox who is arguing for the simplistic attribution of all the responsibility to one side, and all the fault to the other side, based solely on the race of the people involved. I believe that is the textbook definition of racism, ironically.




Sure. Go ahead. But it's not an argument to post 'You're only saying that because you feel....'.

And here, particularly, it goes deeper than that - the implication that you somehow support some form of racism because you haven't posted in a particular way. The failure to ask people why they are making the posts they have made, instead the assumption that they must have X motivation since they haven't made Y posts.






Oddly enough, there is a high standard for calling someone a liar here.





Is it just as reasonable to infer what a person thinks from what they didn't write? Not directly refusing to answer an actual question put to them, but not writing about things that the poster thinks they should have?


Post #17




(1) Doesn't know all the facts

(2) Already has a conclusion "nothing here that can justify what was done". (Charitably, this may mean 'on the data so far'..), and "but it doesn't matter."

(3) Assumes racism, based solely on the races of the people involved. "if this had been a white kid..."

(4) Proceeds in subsequent posts throughout the thread to attack other posters for being racist when they are discussing the facts and trying to reach their own conclusion as to whether the McMichaels were acting from a racist motivation or not.

(5) Concludes that other posters are racist because they haven't spent as much time discussing how innocent Arbery is of any responsibility as he would like them to.

[Mountain Man]

Still classy, I see. Can't deal with people pointing out your own faults, you have to resort to the worst kind of scurrilous allegations. A new low.

Unfortunately, it's not new for ox.

[MaxVel]

Let me start with a correction:

On re-reading the law, Arbery was trespassing if either (a) he had an unlawful purpose in going in to the house; or (b) there was some identification that entry was forbidden.

(a) could be established either by what was done in the premises (from the security footage it appears nothing much), or by some other means of establishing intent (say he had burglary tools on him, or a stolen item, etc, or admitted unlawful purpose). That would mean stopping him and talking to him, ideally by a police officer.

(b) would require either a person saying something to him (it appears this didn't happen), or there being some kind of notice or sign. No idea exactly what Georgia law requires this to be. Also no idea if having it fenced off in some way would qualify under the law. I don't know if there was or wasn't a sign anywhere.

So it's possible that he did not in legal terms, trespass. However, the McMichaels (or even a police officer) could not have known this unless they were able to talk to him. So, in principle, I have no problem with them - as concerned neighbours - trying to talk to him. The way they went about it seems over the top, however.


What about burglary?

A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the first degree shall be guilty of a felony

My reading of this is that all that is required is that you enter with the intent to commit a felony or a theft. No requirement on the owner to tell you you're not allowed in, have a sign up, etc. So - if he had intent - Arbery committed a burglary by going in to the property.

Again, like trespass, establishing intent would require talking to, and possibly searching a suspect.

Interestingly, I saw a news report that said the McMichaels said in their 911 call that they were chasing a burglary suspect (or words to that effect). This was before the shooting. I'm not saying that they were correct, but it does speak to motivation, and to possible legal justification for chasing and trying to stop him. If true, they can argue that as a legal defense against a murder charge, possibly.


on citizen's arrests

O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
17-4-60. Grounds for arrest


A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

The first sentence applies if they can show Arbery trespassed (difficult unless there was some signage) and they had immediate knowledge of it (whatever exactly that means, legally).

The second applies if they had "...reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.", since burglary is a felony. Here the 911 call is important, I think. At the least, they can argue that they honestly believed they were pursuing an escaping burglary suspect. Remember Arbery ran off immediately on coming out (IIRC) - that may give them some legal grounds for suspicion.

MaxVel how would you see the situation if the victim hadnt been trespassing?

Differently. I think it's a tragedy, even if he was trespassing / preparing a burglary. However, we are applying our hindsight here, the McMichaels had no way of knowing that he wasn't trespassing or committing a burglary. (If he wasn't. Since he's dead, we have no access to his thinking or statements. We can neither clear him on intent, nor condemn him.)

Is that just bad luck

In that case, I would say more than bad luck.

and he still shouldn’t have attempted to grab the gun?

Yeah, grabbing for the gun was just about the worst thing to do. Understandable, perhaps, but very unwise. And the McMichaels should never have gotten into a situation where that was even a possibility.

You’ve stated several times that the victim trespassing is a fact but it’s not. The fact is that the victim entered and left that site and that’s all we know. Claiming he was trespassing is an assertion which needs to be backed up by evidence. What evidence is there for that?

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. I had forgotten that trespassing requires either unlawful intent, or notice from the owner / owner's representative. We can't presently say for sure that he was trespassing, nor likewise that he wasn't. I suspect that there wasn't a notice up, because someone would have reported it... maybe. But I don't know exactly what Georgia law requires - does some kind of barrier suffice?

What if I told you that there are three other houses under construction within 3 miles of his house and the victim has visited each one of them and asked each owner or builder if there was any labour work available for him? This particular site was visited several times because each time he went there he was unable to find anyone there. He approached the site and called out ‘hello?’ and when he didn’t hear an answer walked in to see if he could find anyone inside. When he couldn’t find anyone he left. Is that crime under Georgia law?

Not as far as I know, unless there was a sign saying 'No entry' or 'Private', or "Authorized personnel only" or somesuch.

I’m making this up of course but that’s just one of many reasons he may have been there. Maybe he just wanted to ask a question like when it would be finished and whether it would be available for rent? Who knows? We can’t know now because he’s dead. Other facts are that he was only inside for a brief moment and nothing was stolen. Why is it assumed the victim was there for the criminal reasons?

It's not assumed, as far as I know, it's argued that he may have been there for criminal reasons. It's argued that he did some things which made him look suspicious, and possibly gave legal grounds for a citizen's arrest. Which, ideally, would be 'You're not going anywhere until the police get here. They're on their way, you can explain to them.' 'OK. I need a break from my jog anyway. I was looking for a faucet.' Also facts like he didn't steal anything weren't known to the McMichaels - that's possibly why they were trying to stop him, and may be irrelevant to grounds for a citizen's arrest, anyway.

Everyone that is arguing that the pursuit was warranted is assuming the victim had acted with underlying criminal intent while giving the defendants the benefit of the doubt when it’s the victim who should be getting the benefit of the doubt in this situation since he’s unable to defend himself.

Well, the whole thread started off with the assumption that the McMichaels were racist murderers, and devolved from there. So in that environment, much of the focus is going to be on 'what exactly happened, and why?'. You're (in a nice way) doing it here - they are 'the defendants' and he is 'the victim'. That - most likely true, perhaps - is an assumption on your part.


Imagine - like your job-seeking scenario above - that someone had been looking for easy money via theft. They had already seen the property, been inside at night at least once and nothing had happened. They had stolen a gun from a car and sold it. They were passing through the neighbourhood, and saw the place, went in to 'check it out' - maybe there was nothing easy to steal, or maybe they saw something and were planning another night visit. On leaving, they see someone on the phone, obviously reporting them to the police. They take off at a run. They are pursued by two vehicles, but manage to dodge them, and they certainly aren't going to answer any questions about why they were there. After a couple of minutes, they come around the corner to see the truck parked in the road, with one of their pursuers out, and the other in the truck bed. They run up, planning to go for the man on the ground. Maybe they can knock him out, or get the keys. As they get closer they see, to their horror two things that shake them: the guy standing on the ground has a gun, and they gun in the truck bed is someone they know - someone who will be able to name them to the police. Escaping is now no longer an option - they've been identified. All this goes through their head in a few seconds. They change course, dodge around the front of the truck, and go for the gun. Get the gun, grab the truck, and make an escape. Get out of town, dump the truck, go to their cousin's place in Alabama.

We know how this ends, now. In tears and blood and tragedy for everyone. But in this (possible) scenario, the McMichaels were good citizens, trying, legally, to arrest a criminal.

I'm also making this up, but it does more or less fit with what little we know of the circumstances on the day. That's why we have to have dispassionate discussions like this - what exactly are the facts, and what, if anything can we infer from them? IN this case I dodubt we'll ever know absolutely for sure, especially since it's now such a hot topic, and since Arbery is dead.


Racism in America is like a disease. IMHO it's never going to be cured unless it is clearly and objectively identified - a diagnosis on a case by case basis.

Cries of 'racism' every single time a white person kills or hurts a black person do not help.

They shut down dialogue. They make racism (which exists) look a bigger problem than it actually is. They contribute to an atmosphere of fear and emotionalism, where people don't respond rationally. They allow for the (few?) truly racist people out there to justify their racism - 'See, that was not racism, just being white is enough to be found guilty of racism'. I want every single actual racist to be held accountable, and to have no wriggle room at all, because no-one ever accuses anyone of racism unless it is absolutely and clearly true. I also want every single non-racist scumbag criminal to be just that, and that alone - a scumbag criminal.

I'm delighted to see you asking real questions, and both listening and - politely - challenging the answers.

[Mountain Man]

I'm delighted to see you asking real questions, and both listening and - politely - challenging the answers.

Watermelon is one of "good guys". I don't always agree with him, but he's thoughtful, open-minded, and doesn't play "gotcha" games.

[Cow Poke]

It can be reasonably inferred from what they've written here that anyone suggesting Arbery is somehow responsible for his death lacks compassion for him.

Unfortunately, if you depart in any way from the liberal narrative - that is - look at ALL the facts and STILL conclude that Arbery did not deserve to die - you are still accused of "lacking compassion" for him.

ETA: AND, "blaming the victim".

[oxmixmudd]

Still classy, I see. Can't deal with people pointing out your own faults, you have to resort to the worst kind of scurrilous allegations. A new low.

Max,

Your crusade to 'fix me' is misguided. You'd be better to aim your arrow at other participants in arbery's virtual lynching in this thread. But I will not back off this theme. What we see in these pages is a bunch of white men armchair quarterbacking the last desperate act of a black man that knew he was being hunted to the death. It is a sickening, putrid example of the very worst that has ever been seen on this website.

And you get to sit in one of those chairs as you try to defend its putrid odor of death and hell rising from its pit.

[Cow Poke]

Max,

Your crusade to 'fix me' is misguided. You'd be better to aim your arrow at other participants in arbery's virtual lynching in this thread.

"virtual lynching"? wow

[MaxVel]

Max,

Your crusade to 'fix me' is misguided. You'd be better to aim your arrow at other participants in arbery's virtual lynching in this thread. But I will not back off this theme. What we see in these pages is a bunch of white men armchair quarterbacking the last desperate act of a black man that knew he was being hunted to the death. It is a sickening, putrid example of the very worst that has ever been seen on this website.

And you get to sit in one of those chairs as you try to defend its putrid odor of death and hell rising from its pit.

Still keeping it classy, huh? A whole lot of assumptions in your post, none of which you're really defended or argued for. But everyone else is the armchair quarterback. The mud you're throwing is all over your hands, you're wiping them on your shirt, and now you're even licking it off your fingers.

[oxmixmudd]

Unfortunately, if you depart in any way from the liberal narrative - that is - look at ALL the facts and STILL conclude that Arbery did not deserve to die - you are still accused of "lacking compassion" for him.

ETA: AND, "blaming the victim".

Repent pastor. You have no business on these pages justifying the words of men voicing the thoughts of demons.Find in you the compassion and mercy of Christ and stand against those that would condemn a black man for trying to live. Who would mock him for trying to take from his murderer the instrument of his death as they watch his last moments over and over so they can find just one more reason to condemn him.