Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[Ronson]

Without accusing you specicially of racism, unfortunately, that is the sort of 'perspective' I would expect to see from a neo-Nazi or a white supremacist, not a person that wants to see Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" fulfilled. Because of the history of racism in this country and the continued instances of racially motivated attacks in this country, anytime white people single out a black person with no justification and kill them, it is a big deal. The perspective you are missing is a history of centuries of slavery and abuse, the KKK, of lynchings and harassment that continues in some places to this very day, of the uptick in such events and racially motivated groups the last 4 years especially, of deference to whites when such events happen (how long was this thing put on 'hold' by Georgia law enforcement?) THERE is your perspective Ronson. This is a big deal because it is evidence of the fact there still is not equal treatment under the law of black people relative to white people. The continued bias in this thread towards exaggerating this man's presence on the property of a home under construction, even when there is no evidence whatsoever he was doing anything other than taking a break during his run, is also strong evidence for the (often unconscious) racial bias that sits hidden from view in the white community.

So after all of that, you are saying it is "white supremacist" of me to point out that a single instance of injustice in a local jurisdiction has less weight than daily injustices happening all over the country? There is nowhere to go from that premise.

This is a big deal both because of the event AND because of the legacy of slavery, racism, and lynching of blacks by whites in this country. That is a reality that will elevate an event like this that will not bring the same focus on the reverse. This is evidence not merely of depravity by the two white men, but also of a continuation of that legacy.

But you are also wrong about what draws media focus. When black youths randomly targeted white patrons with no motivation, we heard about it.

I didn't.

When jewish synagogues are defaced, we hear about it. Any evidence of the sorts of bigotry and racism that we as a society are trying to stamp out will make the news.

I've read about synagogue attacks when they were local, or if there is a developing trend.

Heinous crimes make the news. Hate crimes make the news. Random violence with no cause makes the news. This is all three.

Doesn't make them all right. The news media is looking for click bait for revenue. They are betting that this type of story (or others you list) can get a lot of mileage for them from their sponsors. There is nothing altruistic about their motives.

[JimL]

This incident is primarily noteworthy (to me) because of an ex police officer possibly getting preferential treatment by local police. People in that jurisdiction should be aware of this and correct it if it is applicable.

Agreed, and it is apparently an ongoing problem in that area.

[oxmixmudd]

So after all of that, you are saying it is "white supremacist" of me to point out that a single instance of injustice in a local jurisdiction has less weight than daily injustices happening all over the country? There is nowhere to go from that premise.

Well, I'm trying not to accuse you specifically of anything, but what I am saying is that treating this as no big deal is the sort of rhetoric I would expect from a white supremacist. But thinking about it a little more, maybe that expectation is wrong in this case. A white supremacist would be all over the injustice to the white shooters. Much more so than is evidenced in this thread. But you are dismissing the importance of the facts in this case that raise it to a level of a hate crime, so perhaps it would be more appropriate to view that as more evidence of ignorance of the history of american racism and how such an event is an example of it. There are three elements of racism being evidenced in the case so far. (1) There are the people chasing the black fellow down without justification and ultimately killing him. (2) There is the Georgia law enforcement mishandling of the case and deference to the white perpetrators, (3) and there is the ongoing effort to try to make it the black mans fault he died. So when a person augments or supports one or more of those 3 elements, Unfortunately, either knowingly or unknowingly, that person is in fact supporting the racially motivated underpinnings that have produced them.

I didn't.

That doesn't mean a great deal. Those events were captured and reported on extensively. And that is the point, The media is not reacting to this story any less than it would any similar story involving the fundamental elements I outlined.

I've read about synagogue attacks when they were local, or if there is a developing trend.



Doesn't make them all right. The news media is looking for click bait for revenue. They are betting that this type of story (or others you list) can get a lot of mileage for them from their sponsors. There is nothing altruistic about their motives.

There is partial truth in your first comment - that is one motivation. But that can only be used to dismiss stories that truly have no merit on their own. This is not such a story. There is nothing manufactured here. This is a big deal, and it is in the news because it is a big deal.

[Cow Poke]

You haven't shown that Jim knows what he is saying is untrue. You haven't even shown that what he's saying is actually untrue, you've only claimed that it's untrue. It seems to me that Jim thinks you are fooling yourself - in which case Jim is not lying.

Unless you can show that Jim knows what he is saying is untrue, you should withdraw your accusation.

Without taking sides, this is a pretty good explanation of the accusation of lying. You can't just call somebody a liar because they disagree, or even because the incorrectly state something. There has to be some evidence that they know that what they are saying is not true.

[Cow Poke]

That he had visited the site on multiple occasions at night ...

In my discussions with JimL, he kept overlooking that and insisting he has actually walked through homes under construction. So have I. So have Mrs CP and I. But I've never gone 10 miles away from home to walk through a site at NIGHT, let alone, on multiple occasions.

[Cow Poke]

The DOJ is no longer an independent entity, Trump is now in control...

And before that it was Obama. The DOJ was weaponized by Obama's team.

[seanD]

So after all of that, you are saying it is "white supremacist" of me to point out that a single instance of injustice in a local jurisdiction has less weight than daily injustices happening all over the country? There is nowhere to go from that premise.

We're all racist for not buying the false leftist narrative of the account, even if we're not white, in the Christian mind of Ox.

[Cow Poke]

This incident is primarily noteworthy (to me) because of an ex police officer possibly getting preferential treatment by local police. People in that jurisdiction should be aware of this and correct it if it is applicable.

That struck me, as well.... It's like another case of "the coverup is worse than the crime" situation. Now, note that I am saying "like", and recognizing the fact that a man is actually dead from the original incident, so it's MORE like "adding insult to injury" not to have a thorough investigation done.

When there is an officer-involved shooting in Texas, it's not at all unusual for the case to be turned over to the Texas Rangers for investigation. (Yeah, I know, this wasn't an active duty police officer)

[oxmixmudd]

We're all racist for not buying the false leftist narrative of the account, even if we're not white, in the Christian mind of Ox.

Are you knowingly distorting what I've said (i.e. lying), or do you just not understand what I have said?

In either case, what you've just said is false.

[Mountain Man]

You haven't shown that Jim knows what he is saying is untrue. You haven't even shown that what he's saying is actually untrue, you've only claimed that it's untrue. It seems to me that Jim thinks you are fooling yourself - in which case Jim is not lying.

Unless you can show that Jim knows what he is saying is untrue, you should withdraw your accusation.

He knows it's untrue because I told him it was untrue and also because in my initial post, I explicitly said that I was not justifying the actions of the men ("I'm not saying he deserved to be shot, or that the guys were necessarily right to approach him while armed..."). This didn't stop him from flatly accusing me of attempting to justify their actions without bothering to substantiate his accusation. After I explained my position, he repeated his accusation, again without substantiation, but he did go an extended rant about racism, which had nothing to do with anything I said.

So not only did I tell him that it was untrue, he couldn't even substantiate his original accusation. Therefore, I think it is fair to call it a lie considering he had no valid reason to believe his accusation was true.

[Cow Poke]

He knows it's untrue because I told him it was untrue and also because in my initial post, I explicitly said that I was not justifying the actions of the men ("I'm not saying he deserved to be shot, or that the guys were necessarily right to approach him while armed..."). This didn't stop him from flatly accusing me of attempting to justify their actions without bothering to substantiate his accusation. After I explained my position, he repeated his accusation, again without substantiation, but he did go an extended rant about racism, which had nothing to do with anything I said.

So not only did I tell him that it was untrue, he couldn't even substantiate his original accusation. Therefore, I think it is fair to call it a lie considering he had no valid reason to believe his accusation was true.

Quite honestly, in JimL's case, I think he just loves saying things to push buttons. Like calling everybody who doesn't hate Trump as much as he does "Trumpsters" and "Trump Supporters". But I'm allowing for the possibility that he's so screwed up in the head that he actually believes that crap, hence, he's technically not lying.

It was perfectly clear to me that you were NOT justifying the killing, and said so, and it's ignorant and or dishonest to keep claiming you WERE justifying it.

[seanD]

Are you knowingly distorting what I've said (i.e. lying), or do you just not understand what I have said?

In either case, what you've just said is false.

Unfortunately - you are engaging in racial stereotypical behavior likely without realizing it. To me, that does not make a person racist. It makes them a product of a culture that has certain racist elements embedded within it. And being in that culture, immersed in it, we can't help it when we do that unless we know what those elements are and make a conscious effort to avoid them. I pointed out some of what was happening here. But I never accused anyone of actually BEING racist. To me that means the person consciously despises others because of their race and is very different from what I've been talking about in this thread, and is not something I have ever seen evidenced on these pages.

the problem here is that there are a lot of racist sources on this particular event. And many of you are buying into what they are saying. The truth is not quite what is being shown here, at least to the extent of my research on the situation, and what is being said here is riddled with racist assumptions - perhaps derived from those same sources. Am I to be silent about that?

You pretty much said "Y'all look, walk, and sound like ducks, but I'm NOT calling you ducks."

[Mountain Man]

Quite honestly, in JimL's case, I think he just loves saying things to push buttons. Like calling everybody who doesn't hate Trump as much as he does "Trumpsters" and "Trump Supporters". But I'm allowing for the possibility that he's so screwed up in the head that he actually believes that crap, hence, he's technically not lying.

It was perfectly clear to me that you were NOT justifying the killing, and said so, and it's ignorant and or dishonest to keep claiming you WERE justifying it.

For the record, it's ox who I initially accused of lying. JimL just jumped on the bandwagon.

[Cow Poke]

For the record, it's ox who I initially accused of lying. JimL just jumped on the bandwagon.

Not surprised. Thanks for the correction.

[oxmixmudd]

You pretty much said "Y'all look, walk, and sound like ducks, but I'm NOT calling you ducks."

The problem here is you don't understand how racism can be inculcated into a culture without those in the culture being consciously aware of what is happening. If I said 'you are racist', that would not be at all fair. Most of us don't want to be racist and we reject any overt racism that we see. But there are elements of racism built into our culture, and it is not necessarily easy to recognize them for what they are. But I am fighting two blockages in trying to raise this issue. One is the general lack of goodwill, "The Ox must be trying to disparage us" - which I'm not. But then there is just the general unwillingness to see in ourselves that which we do not want to be part of us - which is racism. So for a moment convince yourself I'm not attacking anyone here and try to read the next two paragraphs with an open mind, without prejudice.*

Here in this thread there is this underlying message that this black man must have been up to no good. And that is part of the underlying racist mindset that is part of our entire culture. It is very hard to get away from. Each time it's pointed out, a large cry goes forward. No - I'm NOT being racist! And yet, there it is. How many words in this thread express true outrage at what the white men actually did? And how many words are focused on what the black fellow might have been doing? There are also repetitions of racist based accusations that have already been shown to be false. Accusations he was 'casing' the place, when the actual evidence is that however many times he happened to wander through that house, nothing was ever taken or disturbed or damaged. This guy may have been going over there for no other reason than that the roads are isolated and not heavily traveled, speed limits are low, and it's just a really nice place to run. I regularly drive 35 minutes from my house to ride on the C&O trail because it's just a nice place to ride a bike.

Yet those sorts of possibilities are not raised at all. I'm the only one I think so far that has proposed reasons that have no nefarious origin for everything we know about this case. Why? Is it because this fellow is black and deep in our subconsciousness are images of black violence and crime (another issue) and we just tend to be more suspicious of a black guy doing these things than a white guy? Is it because these shooters are white and we sorta don't really want them to be the racists they appear to be? We can't really help it - unless we consciously fight it - unless we make the effort to look it over carefully and ask - what would my reaction be if this was a young white man instead of a young black man. Would I just assume a young white man walking through a house under construction was there to 'case' it? Especially after we learn the ONLY theft that had occurred involved something stolen from one of the perpetrators? And that their claim there had been 'burglaries' (plural) was false?

ETA*: keep in mind that 'under the covers' racism of the sort I'm talking about can affect the thinking of ALL members of a culture - even the non-white ones.