Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[rogue06]

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?

If they know that isn't the owner (easy enough in a small town) and the owner had complained to the police about trespassers^[1] they would be remiss in their duties if they didn't stop him





1. Given that the police actually told the homeowner that if saw anyone trespassing he should call Gregory McMichael for assistance it is safe to presume that he expressed concern.

[Cow Poke]

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?

Treating my daughter what way? Loving her and wanting her to be safe?

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 think it's about "personal responsibility". No, it's NOT her fault she got raped (praise God she wasn't), but there are often things we can do that put us in greater jeopardy than we need to be in. I think, often, it's worth going against the "cultural headwinds" to protect those we love.

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).

Meh... why does it have to be "equal footing" - or not? There are at least two parts to every story. What happened - why did it happen - what could have prevented or mitigated it..... In the case of a human life, why not do EVERYTHING to prevent a needless death?

[Cow Poke]

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

I fully expected that would be totally incapable of having this adult discussion. Nobody is BLAMING THE VICTIM, but I knew you would see it that way.

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.

It's a shame that you're incapable of going beyond that and looking at other factors that could have saved the life of this man.

Lets change the subject and talk about how stupid the black man was.

a) It's not "changing the subject", it's expanding the conversation, and it does not surprise me that you are incapable of doing that.
2) Making an error in judgment in no way implies the man is stupid - it's RACIST for you to assume that.

The man wouldn't be dead if the McMichaels gang didn't use poor judgement.

In many tragedies, there are series of events that happen, and there are often multiple points where the tragedy could be prevented.

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.

Yeah, cause "getting upset" brings him back to life. That's the problem with liberals like you - it's all about FEELINGS and EMOTIONS -- not about actually doing something.

[Cow Poke]

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

I'm fully aware of what acquiescence is, and your wiki page (not the best source) gives the exact example I mentioned - boundaries. Specifically - property lines. Because they can be vague.
If you have PERMISSION to be on Wilson's property, and you're playing ball in the backyard, and you wander onto Benson's property, he can come out and warn you that you are on his property, or he can allow you to play, giving you the impression it is acceptable to him. While that would be a defense against him later filing a complaint that you were trespassing, that's different than where there's an actual physical barrier or demarcation. A dwelling has confines that are visible to a would-be tresspasser.

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.

Bad analogy on my part. Consensual sex is not illegal to begin with (aggravating factors absent). Trespassing is.

Wandering onto somebody's property by mistake is not the same as entering a dwelling that a reasonable person would know is NOT permissible.

[Cow Poke]

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

I agreed 100%. Do we care enough to help others avoid that tragedy? Do we care enough to work both sides of the equation?

[Cow Poke]

Here is EXACTLY what's wrong with the liberal approach.....

...And yeah, actually we do care, CP, that's why we get upset when we see this kind of thing going on.

This is the kind of insane rationale (if you can call it rationale) that is so characteristic of so many liberals --- it's all about EMOTIONS, not results. It's a phony baloney "I can feel better because I'm outraged" without having an honest conversation about how we could have actually done more to prevent the death in the first place.

If ANYBODY tries to look at other factors, you gotta label them RACIST for not being incensed that white people killed a black person.

It's the TINY BRAIN syndrome that demands that we focus on "being upset" to the exclusion of any other aspect that doesn't fit the liberal agenda.

I keep going back to Quannell X after being forced to look at reality ---- it was a wake-up that we can't just "get upset" when people get killed needlessly - there is MORE than can be done.

But, hey, if it doesn't fit the liberal agenda, the by all means, let's just "get upset", and then get MORE upset when somebody tries to broaden the discussion.

Hey, a black man got killed --- let's GET UPSET, but not actually look at ALL options to try to prevent something like this from happening in the first place!!!!

[Cow Poke]

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?....

Coming back to this, because it's actually a very probing question.

It's a shame that we live in a society where any decent man would want to tell his daughter PRIVATELY that "going out dressed like that might put you in jeopardy because the nature of man is....." --- but we have to say that PRIVATELY, because otherwise somebody will jump down our throat (as happened in this thread) and accuse us of "blaming the victim".

I remember Juan Williams talking about having "the talk" with his own son about how to respond to the police, and that there are unjust inequities in life, but "I love him, and I want him to be safe, so I do my best to help him understand...." That's what LOVE does. This is the same conclusion that Quannell X came to. We have to have "the talk".

But, what do liberals do? They want to censure any part of the conversation that doesn't meet their narrative. IF you disagree with a liberal (and I have to remember what Leon told me --- the liberals we have here are not typical of liberals in general, as I well know because I work MOSTLY with liberals all week) then you get branded a RACIST or falsely accused of "justifying the murder". If you actually try to work ALL ASPECTS of a problem, you're "changing the subject", because, dammit, we want to BE UPSET!!!!!

Thank you, Leon, for bringing me back to reality --- our Tweb liberals are in no way representative of liberals in general, and the outspoken liberals we see on TV.....

Thanks again Leon.

[JimL]

Here is EXACTLY what's wrong with the liberal approach.....



This is the kind of insane rationale (if you can call it rationale) that is so characteristic of so many liberals --- it's all about EMOTIONS, not results. It's a phony baloney "I can feel better because I'm outraged" without having an honest conversation about how we could have actually done more to prevent the death in the first place.

If ANYBODY tries to look at other factors, you gotta label them RACIST for not being incensed that white people killed a black person.

It's the TINY BRAIN syndrome that demands that we focus on "being upset" to the exclusion of any other aspect that doesn't fit the liberal agenda.

I keep going back to Quannell X after being forced to look at reality ---- it was a wake-up that we can't just "get upset" when people get killed needlessly - there is MORE than can be done.

But, hey, if it doesn't fit the liberal agenda, the by all means, let's just "get upset", and then get MORE upset when somebody tries to broaden the discussion.

Hey, a black man got killed --- let's GET UPSET, but not actually look at ALL options to try to prevent something like this from happening in the first place!!!!

I notice this argument coming from the right all the time, Oh, the bleeding heart liberals, there they go again. Perhaps the problem with injustice in the world rests with the conservative mindset, not the liberal, in that they don't have feelings or emotions, lacking empathy for others, they don't get upset. What would be done to correct the injustice in the world if it weren't for the so called bleeding heart liberals, if people didn't get angry about injustice. Nothing, that's what. It would be swept under the rug, just as was happening in this case. And getting upset over it doesn't equate to doing nothing about it as you suggest, getting upset over it is exactly what causes the authorities to do something about it.

[DivineOb]

Treating my daughter what way? Loving her and wanting her to be safe?

Yes. We've already started talking to her about not interacting with people online she doesn't know etc.

I think it's about "personal responsibility". No, it's NOT her fault she got raped (praise God she wasn't), but there are often things we can do that put us in greater jeopardy than we need to be in. I think, often, it's worth going against the "cultural headwinds" to protect those we love.

You're missing my point (or I wasn't clear). Going back a few decades I believe the prevailing view was that if you dress provocatively then you are asking for whatever happens to you (I'm only 42 so I don't know how things were too far back but that's the impression I get). If we present a neutral observer with two reasons that something happened then it implicitly puts them on similar footing. I know that's how my brain works so I assume it applies to many.

So the point I was trying to make was that presenting a minor contributing factor (i.e. dressing provocatively / "jogging while black") as part of the equation when then major reason (i.e. people who are too dangerous to be a part of our society) is where our focus should be gives the listener the "out."

I hope you didn't take what I said as criticizing how you raised your daughter (it wasn't totally clear to me). I agree 100% with what you said. I actually know someone who's sister was murdered in college in the aftermath of some party so I am well aware of the dangers young women face.

Meh... why does it have to be "equal footing" - or not? There are at least two parts to every story. What happened - why did it happen - what could have prevented or mitigated it..... In the case of a human life, why not do EVERYTHING to prevent a needless death?

The reason I say this is because it is obvious that this is how humans think -- when presented with two reasons why something happened people will exaggerate the role of their preferred reason. You can just look at the conversations on this board to see that in practice. Many people, when faced with the choice between blaming the victim and recognizing the sickness of our current society, will blame the victim. You can look at MM's posts in this thread for all the proof you need.

If we as a society condone the message of "PoC need to stay out of all white neighborhoods for their own safety" then how would we ever move towards a society where PoC are treated the same as whites? We'd be sanctioning the racism which prompts that very message.

[Roy]

You're a bald-faced liar. I never said "Arbery must have been up to no good".

"The neighborhood in question was ten-miles from his home, and he had cased the place at night on multiple occasions."

That's an assumption that Arbery was up to no good.

[Cow Poke]

I notice this argument coming from the right all the time, Oh, the bleeding heart liberals, there they go again.

You said it, Jim -- you are the POSTER BOY for "let's control the dialogue, and if it doesn't match out narrative, then shut up!".

Perhaps the problem with injustice in the world rests with the conservative mindset, not the liberal, in that they don't have feelings or emotions, lacking empathy for others, they don't get upset.

What a steaming pile of horsiepoo.

What would be done to correct the injustice in the world if it weren't for the so called bleeding heart liberals, if people didn't get angry about injustice. Nothing, that's what. It would be swept under the rug, just as was happening in this case. And getting upset over it doesn't equate to doing nothing about it as you suggest, getting upset over it is exactly what causes the authorities to do something about it.

Wow, you vented! Feel better now?

[Charles]

"The neighborhood in question was ten-miles from his home, and he had cased the place at night on multiple occasions."

That's an assumption that Arbery was up to no good.

Mountain Man is certainly not very consistent in taking about this case. He completely contradicted himself at an earlier point which I pointed out: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post738878

He was unable to give a coherent response. No surprise.

[Cow Poke]

Yes. We've already started talking to her about not interacting with people online she doesn't know etc.

Because you love her and want the best for her!

You're missing my point (or I wasn't clear). Going back a few decades I believe the prevailing view was that if you dress provocatively then you are asking for whatever happens to you (I'm only 42 so I don't know how things were too far back but that's the impression I get). If we present a neutral observer with two reasons that something happened then it implicitly puts them on similar footing. I know that's how my brain works so I assume it applies to many.

So the point I was trying to make was that presenting a minor contributing factor (i.e. dressing provocatively / "jogging while black") as part of the equation when then major reason (i.e. people who are too dangerous to be a part of our society) is where our focus should be gives the listener the "out."

But what if that "minor contributing factor" played a part in the rape never happening?

I hope you didn't take what I said as criticizing how you raised your daughter (it wasn't totally clear to me). I agree 100% with what you said. I actually know someone who's sister was murdered in college in the aftermath of some party so I am well aware of the dangers young women face.

No -- I didn't take it as criticism - I took it as adult conversation that made me think.

The reason I say this is because it is obvious that this is how humans think -- when presented with two reasons why something happened people will exaggerate the role of their preferred reason. You can just look at the conversations on this board to see that in practice. Many people, when faced with the choice between blaming the victim and recognizing the sickness of our current society, will blame the victim. You can look at MM's posts in this thread for all the proof you need.

Sometimes, the smallest detail can be a major factor, or there can be a series of points at which something can go terribly wrong. Many times, we see a tragedy that was a combination of a number of events, ANY ONE OF WHICH could have prevented the tragedy.

All I'm saying is - if this is a crucial issue (and it is) why not do EVERYTHING we can to intervene besides just "GETTING UPSET".

If we as a society condone the message of "PoC need to stay out of all white neighborhoods for their own safety" then how would we ever move towards a society where PoC are treated the same as whites? We'd be sanctioning the racism which prompts that very message.

There is absolutely NO WAY I'm calling for "PoC" (as you call them) to "stay out of all white neighborhoods for their own safety" --- that wasn't the only factor involved here. Had he never gone in that house, we wouldn't even be discussing this. Now, does that mean he's STUPID, as one poster stupidly claimed was my intent, or does it just illustrate the fact that there are often things that we do that have unintended consequences.

Look, DO, I know you've been battling conservatives, but as far as I know, you and I haven't had a beef. We tend to lump people into "us and them" -- you have shown me no reason to "do battle" with you - you asked some good questions, and as far as I know, we're having an adult conversation, and I'm ready and willing to continue it. I actually find it refreshing.

You're not doing the knee-jerk "Oh, so you're saying he's STUPID" and nutty stuff like that.

[Charles]

You're a bald-faced liar. I never said "Arbery must have been up to no good".

He never claimed you said it exactly like that. He did not use quotation marks. He said it was your narrative. Get the facts straight before accusing others of lying.

And let's just see your narrative:

First of all, entering a property under construction is trespassing.

Secondly, this guy wasn't out jogging, and he didn't just happen to wander by and poke his head in out of curiosity. The neighborhood in question was ten-miles from his home, and he had cased the place at night on multiple occasions. Furthermore, let's not pretend that construction sites aren't a popular target for thieves.

Third, he was shot as a direct result of his own aggressive actions. If he had quietly waited for the police to arrive then he would still be alive.

I'm not saying he deserved to be shot, or that the guys were necessarily right to approach him while armed, or any nonsense like, but this lie that he was just some innocent black man out for a jog needs to be rejected. Come on, ox, I thought you were a defender of the truth.

So, according to you he was trespassing, you associate him with thieves and you claim he was shot as a direct result of his own aggresive actions. Own it.

[Roy]

Come on, Jim, you wouldn't say, "hey, let's stop at the Circle K and I'll buy you a Big Gulp"? You'd REALLY let the black guy go into a house under construction to 'get a drink', knowing the problems it might cause?

Friends don't let friends get dead.

You seem to be admitting that a black guy going into a house under construction to get a drink might get killed.