Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[Cow Poke]

You just made my point.

What is 'ugly' is that a black man can go out for a jog and end up perused by armed white men and end up dead for no valid reason.

So, if somebody were genuinely concerned about the black man, and others following his lead, it would be prudent to help them understand that WHILE WE WORK ON THE RACISM PART, there is wisdom in anticipating unintended consequences.

Sure, it's a shame that a black man can't go jogging in a white neighborhood without serious risk, including potential bodily harm or even death.
And, sure, it might make somebody to feel good to make a bunch of commotion AFTER THE FACT, but the LOVING thing... the CARING thing.... would be to help educate them that in such a manner that they don't end up dead.

As Leon and I were discussing - work BOTH sides of the equation.
Currently, anybody who says anything other than "THE WHITE DUDES DID IT" is accused of "making excuses" or "justifying the killing".

No, a thousand times no!

If this had been MY son, and I knew he was jogging in a predominantly white neighborhood where he had ALREADY had run-ins (or, at least one run-in) with the local police (as far as I can tell, NOT HIS FAULT), I'd do my best to persuade him not to put his life in jeopardy like that. NOT because I'm racist, but because I love my son and I want him to stay alive.

So, yeah, it IS 'ugly' that a black man can't go out for a jog without ending up dead, but if it were my son, I'd do my best to help him understand that's the world we live in, sad as that is.

It's like the whole "she deserved to be rape because she was scantily dressed in a bar, so she was asking for it". NO.... that is NOT an excuse for somebody to rape her.
But if this were MY DAUGHTER (and, PRAISE GOD my daughter has come OUT of that lifestyle) I would do everything in my power (and I did) to help her understand the risk she's taking.
Because I think it's OK for men to rape girls who dress like that? H-E-Double-HockeySticks NO!!!!! Because I love her and want her to stay alive.

But, we're not allowed to have that conversation, because it doesn't fit the liberal narrative.

(somehow, it would not surprise me if some pinhead (not you, Jim) interpreted this as "CP IS JUSTIFYING THE MURDER!!!!!"

[Watermelon]

Pretty sure this would fall under the rule of common law trespassing. Just because there's not a "Keep Out!" sign on private property doesn't mean that people have a right to waltz on in.

Yes but it also falls under the legal permission by acquiescence as the owner was aware of people coming into the property. There’s an argument there if reasonable limitations haven’t been defined. We know it applies to open land but I don’t know if there’s any limiting factors preventing it’s application to be extended to structures with open access.

[Watermelon]

Right, but it at least gets us past the ugly "jogging while black" narrative. He was observed trespassing. That's what attracted their attention.

But they’re not in a position to determine if someone is trespassing on someone else’s land without some authorisation from the owner.

If the police happened to be passing by and saw the victim exiting the property would they have had any reason to stop and detain the victim?

[Cow Poke]

Yes but it also falls under the legal permission by acquiescence as the owner was aware of people coming into the property.

Got a cite for that? Cause that usually pertains to boundary disputes, not the legal rights of owners in their own homes.

There’s an argument there if reasonable limitations haven’t been defined. We know it applies to open land but I don’t know if there’s any limiting factors preventing it’s application to be extended to structures with open access.

No, it's more like the principle that a woman can have consensual sex with a man multiple times, but she never gives up the right to say no. If and when she says no, and the man continues under the premise that "she allowed me a dozen times in the past", it's still rape.

And the fact that the homeowner had cameras installed indicates that he was not, in any way, giving up his right to prosecute trespassers.

[Cow Poke]

But they’re not in a position to determine if someone is trespassing on someone else’s land without some authorisation from the owner.

I don't believe that's correct.

If the police happened to be passing by and saw the victim exiting the property would they have had any reason to stop and detain the victim?

Absolutely. If they had any reason to believe he was not the property owner, they have every right - you could argue even responsibility - to establish that fact. If it's not the homeowner, their next step would be to contact the homeowner to ascertain whether the individual had permission to be on the property.

[JimL]

So, if somebody were genuinely concerned about the black man, and others following his lead, it would be prudent to help them understand that WHILE WE WORK ON THE RACISM PART, there is wisdom in anticipating unintended consequences.

Sure, it's a shame that a black man can't go jogging in a white neighborhood without serious risk, including potential bodily harm or even death.
And, sure, it might make somebody to feel good to make a bunch of commotion AFTER THE FACT, but the LOVING thing... the CARING thing.... would be to help educate them that in such a manner that they don't end up dead.

As Leon and I were discussing - work BOTH sides of the equation.
Currently, anybody who says anything other than "THE WHITE DUDES DID IT" is accused of "making excuses" or "justifying the killing".

No, a thousand times no!

If this had been MY son, and I knew he was jogging in a predominantly white neighborhood where he had ALREADY had run-ins (or, at least one run-in) with the local police (as far as I can tell, NOT HIS FAULT), I'd do my best to persuade him not to put his life in jeopardy like that. NOT because I'm racist, but because I love my son and I want him to stay alive.

So, yeah, it IS 'ugly' that a black man can't go out for a jog without ending up dead, but if it were my son, I'd do my best to help him understand that's the world we live in, sad as that is.

It's like the whole "she deserved to be rape because she was scantily dressed in a bar, so she was asking for it". NO.... that is NOT an excuse for somebody to rape her.
But if this were MY DAUGHTER (and, PRAISE GOD my daughter has come OUT of that lifestyle) I would do everything in my power (and I did) to help her understand the risk she's taking.
Because I think it's OK for men to rape girls who dress like that? H-E-Double-HockeySticks NO!!!!! Because I love her and want her to stay alive.

But, we're not allowed to have that conversation, because it doesn't fit the liberal narrative.

(somehow, it would not surprise me if some pinhead (not you, Jim) interpreted this as "CP IS JUSTIFYING THE MURDER!!!!!"

No, it's not you justifying murder, it's just a change of subject. That Arbery was not smart enough to know that he needed to stay out of that area because it might be dangerous for a black man to be in that area, is irrelevant to the case.
It is a shame that people, both black and white have to sometimes understand the the dangers that might exist in certain neighborhoods, but that one doesn't take that into consideration, has nothing to do with the case.

[Cow Poke]

No, it's not you justifying murder, it's just a change of subject.

Ah, wanting to beat the same drum, to the exclusion of other factors, eh? Like I said --- we're not allowed to have that conversation, because it doesn't fit the narrative.

That Arbery was not smart enough to know that he needed to stay out of that area because it might be dangerous for a black man to be in that area, is irrelevant to the case.

Except, of course, that he probably wouldn't be dead now, but you don't give a flyin' flip about that as long as you can keep the focus on race.

What's more important here, Jim --- keeping a man alive, or winning an argument?

[JimL]

Ah, wanting to beat the same drum, to the exclusion of other factors, eh? Like I said --- we're not allowed to have that conversation, because it doesn't fit the narrative.



Except, of course, that he probably wouldn't be dead now, but you don't give a flyin' flip about that as long as you can keep the focus on race.

What's more important here, Jim --- keeping a man alive, or winning an argument?

Nope, we can discuss that all you want, but it's a derail. It has nothing to do with the legal issues, the facts, dealing with the case otself.

[Cow Poke]

Nope, we can discuss that all you want, but it's a derail.

Actually, the man wouldn't be dead if he hadn't exercised poor judgment. But, again, you don't really care about the dead man.

It has nothing to do with the legal issues, the facts, dealing with the case otself.

I fully expected you'd respond that way because that's the way you're wired. This dead man is only useful to you as an object for sticking to the liberal narrative.

[DivineOb]

It's like the whole "she deserved to be rape because she was scantily dressed in a bar, so she was asking for it". NO.... that is NOT an excuse for somebody to rape her.
But if this were MY DAUGHTER (and, PRAISE GOD my daughter has come OUT of that lifestyle) I would do everything in my power (and I did) to help her understand the risk she's taking.
Because I think it's OK for men to rape girls who dress like that? H-E-Double-HockeySticks NO!!!!! Because I love her and want her to stay alive.

But, we're not allowed to have that conversation, because it doesn't fit the liberal narrative.

(somehow, it would not surprise me if some pinhead (not you, Jim) interpreted this as "CP IS JUSTIFYING THE MURDER!!!!!"

Can I ask whether you see the difference between you treating your daughter that way (the same way I intend to treat my daughter) and tolerating others saying something similar about someone after they were raped? To me its obvious that the extreme cultural headwinds towards blaming women for getting raped require a virtual prohibition on such talk simply to move society away from the natural center of gravity (i.e. "she was asking for it").

I agree with your general angle here but I think placing the both factors contributing to the murder (or rape) on anywhere close to equal footing gives society too much of a free pass at the expense of the victim (in both cases).

[JimL]

Actually, the man wouldn't be dead if he hadn't exercised poor judgment. But, again, you don't really care about the dead man.

There you go, blaming the victim again. What is it with you guys?

I fully expected you'd respond that way because that's the way you're wired. This dead man is only useful to you as an object for sticking to the liberal narrative.

Oh yes, lets not stick to the liberal narrative that 3 white men took it upon themselves to chase down an unarmed innocent black man an with guns in hand block his way and end up killing him. Lets change the subject and talk about how stupid the black man was. The man wouldn't be dead if the McMichaels gang didn't use poor judgement. How about that! And yeah, actually we do care, CP, that's why we get upset when we see this kind of thing going on.

[Watermelon]

Got a cite for that? Cause that usually pertains to boundary disputes, not the legal rights of owners in their own homes.



No, it's more like the principle that a woman can have consensual sex with a man multiple times, but she never gives up the right to say no. If and when she says no, and the man continues under the premise that "she allowed me a dozen times in the past", it's still rape.

And the fact that the homeowner had cameras installed indicates that he was not, in any way, giving up his right to prosecute trespassers.

The wiki page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquiescence

Apply your analogy to this situation, did the owner say no to the victim to make it ‘rape’? Acquiescence makes the default position to be consensual in trespassing until told otherwise.

[Charles]

[...]What is 'ugly' is that a black man can go out for a jog and end up perused by armed white men and end up dead for no valid reason.

This one bears repeating since it is what a number of posters want us to forget.

[Watermelon]

I don't believe that's correct.



Absolutely. If they had any reason to believe he was not the property owner, they have every right - you could argue even responsibility - to establish that fact. If it's not the homeowner, their next step would be to contact the homeowner to ascertain whether the individual had permission to be on the property.

Are you serious? Do you think the police should be establishing that anyone they see on any property has permission to be there?

[rogue06]

Right, but it at least gets us past the ugly "jogging while black" narrative. He was observed trespassing. That's what attracted their attention.

But none of that fits the narrative that the MSM is so desperate to push.