Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[DivineOb]

Right, like I said, your source makes a distinction between "white" and "Hispanic" as we can see in the screenshot (thanks for pointing it out), and the term "white Hispanic" was not something anybody had ever heard of until the liberal media used it to describe George Zimmerman.

It's kinda funny that now liberals refer to Hispanics as "brown" and insist that the only reason Trump wants to stop illegal immigration is because he only wants white people entering the country. So if the story were reported today, Zimmerman would be described as a "brown Hispanic".

Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself, MM?

Here is an article from 2004 which uses the term "white Hispanic" (page 7)

Ok, so you are unambiguously wrong. Let's be done with this irrelevant nonsense.

census.jpg

[Cow Poke]

He did what he did CP.

So, lemme see if I'm following this. You had guy riding with you, who wanted to stop and get a drink of water at a house under construction, so you stopped and let him out, and didn't do anything to intervene? Just trying to understand.

[Mountain Man]

Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself, MM?

Here is an article from 2004 which uses the term "white Hispanic" (page 7)

Ok, so you are unambiguously wrong. Let's be done with this irrelevant nonsense.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44972[/ATTACH]

Fair enough, but the term certainly wasn't in wide use and most people had never heard of a "white Hispanic" until the media used it to describe George Zimmerman because simply referring to him as the more common "Hispanic" wouldn't have advanced the narrative.

[Mountain Man]

He did what he did CP. And what he did should not have been a big deal. Why is that so hard to accept?

Do you accept it? Because you're the one throwing around false accusations of racism simply because some of us have pointed out that Arbery was trespassing. The reason it's relevant is because it counters the ugly "jogging while black" narrative that you and others are desperately clinging to. There is nothing that I have heard to support the claims that this was racially motivated.

Edit: Ah, just realized you were talking about your friend and not Arbery, but I'll let my comments stand.

[shunyadragon]

Fair enough, but the term certainly wasn't in wide use and most people had never heard of a "white Hispanic" until the media used it to describe George Zimmerman because simply referring to him as the more common "Hispanic" wouldn't have advanced the narrative.

It nonetheless is an accepted widely used term and specific to a racial and cultural identity.

[Mountain Man]

It nonetheless is an accepted widely used term and specific to a racial and cultural identity.

I have never heard a single Hispanic person ever refer to themselves as a "white Hispanic".

[Cow Poke]

Do you accept it? Because you're the one throwing around false accusations of racism simply because some of us have pointed out that Arbery was trespassing. The reason it's relevant is because it counters the ugly "jogging while black" narrative that you and others are desperately clinging to. There is nothing that I have heard to support the claims that this was racially motivated.

Edit: Ah, just realized you were talking about your friend and not Arbery, but I'll let my comments stand.

I was a little confused, too, which is why I politely asked for a clarification.

[Watermelon]

Do you accept it? Because you're the one throwing around false accusations of racism simply because some of us have pointed out that Arbery was trespassing. The reason it's relevant is because it counters the ugly "jogging while black" narrative that you and others are desperately clinging to. There is nothing that I have heard to support the claims that this was racially motivated.

Edit: Ah, just realized you were talking about your friend and not Arbery, but I'll let my comments stand.

If the victim had been to the site multiple times and the owner knew that people were entering the site and took no steps to prevent that then it’s no longer trespassing until the owner tells him or takes some steps to prevent people from entering like putting up a door or barricade or putting up a no trespassing sign.

Until then it could be seen as permission to enter by acquiescence from the owner so trespassing isn’t really a given here either.

[shunyadragon]

I have never heard a single Hispanic person ever refer to themselves as a "white Hispanic".

Your driving square pegs in a round hole to dig yourself out of dumb dumb.

[oxmixmudd]

Do you accept it? Because you're the one throwing around false accusations of racism simply because some of us have pointed out that Arbery was trespassing. The reason it's relevant is because it counters the ugly "jogging while black" narrative that you and others are desperately clinging to. There is nothing that I have heard to support the claims that this was racially motivated.

Edit: Ah, just realized you were talking about your friend and not Arbery, but I'll let my comments stand.

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.

[Mountain Man]

If the victim had been to the site multiple times and the owner knew that people were entering the site and took no steps to prevent that then it’s no longer trespassing until the owner tells him or takes some steps to prevent people from entering like putting up a door or barricade or putting up a no trespassing sign.

Until then it could be seen as permission to enter by acquiescence from the owner so trespassing isn’t really a given here either.

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.

[Mountain Man]

You just made my point.

No I didn't.

[JimL]

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.

Non issue. The only thing that matters is how the Mcmichaels gang decided to handle the situation.

[Cow Poke]

If the victim had been to the site multiple times and the owner knew that people were entering the site and took no steps to prevent that then it’s no longer trespassing until the owner tells him or takes some steps to prevent people from entering like putting up a door or barricade or putting up a no trespassing sign.

Meh.... it's still trespassing, but there needs to be a complainant.

Until then it could be seen as permission to enter by acquiescence from the owner so trespassing isn’t really a given here either.

In a practical sense, yes. In a legal sense, no. The fact that the homeowner had cameras installed is a step toward regaining a sense of "there's a limit here". It's very possible that he didn't want to cause trouble by complaining, but didn't want things to get out of hand. There is absolutely no requirement for somebody to post "no trespassing" on their own private property.

[Mountain Man]

Non issue. The only thing that matters is how the Mcmichaels gang decided to handle the situation.

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