Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[Cow Poke]

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

That's a rather unfair assessment of my thoughts on this whole matter. Can you deny the fact that this played a role in his death? Had he not been in there, would the actors have confronted and killed him?

What's the object of the exercise? Is it to prevent somebody from being dead because we value human life? Or is it to advance the liberal narrative that white people unjustly killed a black man -- something I have never disputed.

By the way, it's only speculation that he went in to get a drink. We don't know that, but it fits the narrative, so it keeps being repeated. I don't know that he did NOT go in to get a drink, but I'm doing my best to deal with facts, not speculation.

[oxmixmudd]

That's a rather unfair assessment of my thoughts on this whole matter. Can you deny the fact that this played a role in his death? Had he not been in there, would the actors have confronted and killed him?

What's the object of the exercise? Is it to prevent somebody from being dead because we value human life? Or is it to advance the liberal narrative that white people unjustly killed a black man -- something I have never disputed.

By the way, it's only speculation that he went in to get a drink. We don't know that, but it fits the narrative, so it keeps being repeated. I don't know that he did NOT go in to get a drink, but I'm doing my best to deal with facts, not speculation.

The facts are that whatever he was doing there, he did not damage or steal anything. I've not responded to you posts on this track CP because I'm not sure they are entirely rational and we could maintain civil conversation. but I will point out that the need to try to do something special to make it safe for Arbery is what this is all about. There shouldn't need to be anything special for Arbery to have done different from what others did. The issue that brings this to light over the hundreds of other murders in the US on a daily basis is that it is an example of the fact that a Black person occupies a different and more unsafe position in our society than a white person. It illustrates not just the different underlying attitudes that would single this man out over the others in the surveillance video, but it also brings to light, in the earlier police video that you noticed, and in the GPD handling of this case, the disparate and unfail way that black people are treated (overall) by law enforcement.

[Cow Poke]

The facts are that whatever he was doing there, he did not damage or steal anything.

Have I ever claimed, or even suggested, that he did? I can't understand why you and others don't get that. I have NEVER indicated that he did anything illegal, and EVEN addressed the fact that his prior encounter with the local police appeared to be NOT HIS FAULT.

I've not responded to you posts on this track CP because I'm not sure they are entirely rational and we could maintain civil conversation. but I will point out that the need to try to do something special to make it safe for Arbery is what this is all about. There shouldn't need to be anything special for Arbery to have done different from what others did.

So far, we TOTALLY agree --- there shouldn't NEED to be anything, but the facts are what they are. And, since we're being honest, that's why I didn't respond to your example about friends riding with you, and you let them get out and go into a house under construction to get a drink. That just totally seems irrational.

The issue that brings this to light over the hundreds of other murders in the US on a daily basis is that it is an example of the fact that a Black person occupies a different and more unsafe position in our society than a white person.

And knowledge is power. Knowing things - regardless of how ugly those things are - can often keep us from tragedy. Is it not wise to consider 'ugly facts' in an interest to stay alive?

It illustrates not just the different underlying attitudes that would single this man out over the others in the surveillance video, but it also brings to light, in the earlier police video that you noticed, and in the GPD handling of this case, the disparate and unfail way that black people are treated (overall) by law enforcement.

EXACTLY! Which is exactly why Juan Williams has "the talk" with his son. Because he KNEW that there were these injustices, he KNEW that certain situations could be deadly to his son, and because he loved him, he helped him understand that sometimes a perfectly legal or moral thing might not be an expedient thing. As Paul said, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient."

[Charles]

[...]
What's the object of the exercise? Is it to prevent somebody from being dead because we value human life? Or is it to advance the liberal narrative that white people unjustly killed a black man -- something I have never disputed. [...]

Incomplete enumeration.

Rather telling that the idea is that the "or" is necessarily there. Seemingly one cannot both have an interest in preventing somebody from being dead AND advanve the "narrative" that white people unjustly killed a black man. They idea it is one or the other is rather telling and would seemingly only be promoted if one had a problem with the so called "liberal narrative" which CP - by the way - claims he never refuted. One needs to wonder why he describes it as a "liberal narrative" then.

So, tell us, CP, do you understand the simple truth that one can have a focus on both?

[Cow Poke]

Incomplete enumeration.

I hesitate to enter into discussion with you, Charles, because I don't believe you to be an honest broker. however, I have been saying, all along, do BOTH.

Rather telling that the idea is that the "or" is necessarily there. Seemingly one cannot both have an interest in preventing somebody from being dead AND advanve the "narrative" that white people unjustly killed a black man. They idea it is one or the other is rather telling and would seemingly only be promoted if one had a problem with the so called "liberal narrative" which CP - by the way - claims he never refuted. One needs to wonder why he describes it as a "liberal narrative" then.

If you don't want to take the time to read my actual thoughts on this, it'd be best you stay out of it.

So, tell us, CP,

Unduly combatitive.

do you understand the simple truth that one can have a focus on both?

That's EXACTLY what I've been saying all along. But when I bring that up, your buddy JimL accuse me of "changing the subject". Your buddies are the ones who can't seem to fathom "both".

[oxmixmudd]

Have I ever claimed, or even suggested, that he did? I can't understand why you and others don't get that. I have NEVER indicated that he did anything illegal, and EVEN addressed the fact that his prior encounter with the local police appeared to be NOT HIS FAULT.



So far, we TOTALLY agree --- there shouldn't NEED to be anything, but the facts are what they are. And, since we're being honest, that's why I didn't respond to your example about friends riding with you, and you let them get out and go into a house under construction to get a drink. That just totally seems irrational.

Oh! Wow - this was a total miscommunication. I am sorry. Let's reset this - no wonder you were confused about my reference.

By 'ride' and 'group ride', I'm not talking about in a car. I'm talking about a group of 15 to 20 cyclists on a group ride out in the country. Cyclists tend to ride together, it is more efficient and typically faster due to drafting and trading the lead, and more fun to be in a group. So - I was out on a group club ride with about 15 do 20 guys and we were coming up on a new subdivision under development and that is where we stopped to take a break. Again tying into Arbery's apparent break at the house. It offers some shade and quiet place out of the traffic to stretch, catch one's breath. While we were there, some folks filled their water bottles up using the working spickit I talked about. I didn't give anyone permission, I was not the ride leader, we were just a bunch of guys out for a ride, some knew the area better than others and had apparently stopped there before and gotten water. Those guys didn't see anything at all wrong with getting some water from the working spicket at the house under construction we stopped at. So - sorry for the misunderstanding, but perhaps now you can see why I see it as analogous to what Arbery was apparently doing.

And knowledge is power. Knowing things - regardless of how ugly those things are - can often keep us from tragedy. Is it not wise to consider 'ugly facts' in an interest to stay alive?



EXACTLY! Which is exactly why Juan Williams has "the talk" with his son. Because he KNEW that there were these injustices, he KNEW that certain situations could be deadly to his son, and because he loved him, he helped him understand that sometimes a perfectly legal or moral thing might not be an expedient thing. As Paul said, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient."

Not sure the point. The problem here is that 'the talk' is necessary. And this situation brings that into sharp focus. The "Driving while black","napping while black" etc into which this "jogging while black" fits is a real problem in our society, something that needs changing. There should not be some people in our culture that have to be extra careful, and others that are privileged and don't have any worries. And especially that dividing line should not be the color of a person's skin. That is the racism that is ingrained into our culture I've been talking about. And because it is there, black people live 'behind' in many ways their white counterparts. That IS the point. That is why this is news. That is why we are talking about it. Arbery should have been just as safe as any of the other people caught on those videos, any other person out for a walk or jog in that neighborhood.

[Cow Poke]

Oh! Wow - this was a total miscommunication. I am sorry. Let's reset this - no wonder you were confused about my reference.

Treading very carefully here, but that's why I rephrased the scenario for you and asked you if I misunderstood.

Might I kindly suggest that both of us slow down a bit and actually read what the other is saying? And, when in doubt, ask for clarification?

By 'ride' and 'group ride', I'm not talking about in a car. I'm talking about a group of 15 to 20 cyclists on a group ride out in the country. Cyclists tend to ride together, it is more efficient and typically faster due to drafting and trading the lead, and more fun to be in a group. So - I was out on a group club ride with about 15 do 20 guys and we were coming up on a new subdivision under development and that is where we stopped to take a break. Again tying into Arbery's apparent break at the house. It offers some shade and quiet place out of the traffic to stretch, catch one's breath. While we were there, some folks filled their water bottles up using the working spickit I talked about. I didn't give anyone permission, I was not the ride leader, we were just a bunch of guys out for a ride, some knew the area better than others and had apparently stopped there before and gotten water. Those guys didn't see anything at all wrong with getting some water from the working spicket at the house under construction we stopped at. So - sorry for the misunderstanding, but perhaps now you can see why I see it as analogous to what Arbery was apparently doing.

OK, again, treading very lightly ... IF you were a bunch of black guys in a predominantly white neighborhood in an area where there was already racial tension and you had already had a run-in with the law in the recent past......

Not sure the point. The problem here is that 'the talk' is necessary.

EGGzackly! So, is the purpose of the talk "just to talk", or is it in hopes that his son might avoid a problem where he might unjustly end up dead?

And this situation brings that into sharp focus. The "Driving while black","napping while black" etc into which this "jogging while black" fits is a real problem in our society, something that needs changing.

And, for the umpteenzillionth time (slight exaggeration there) I don't dispute that even the TINIEST bit.

There should not be some people in our culture that have to be extra careful, and others that are privileged and don't have any worries.

ABSOLUTELY AGREE!!! Again!

That is the racism that is ingrained into our culture I've been talking about. And because it is there, black people live 'behind' in many ways their white counterparts. That IS the point. That is why this is news. That is why we are talking about it. Arbery should have been just as safe as any of the other people caught on those videos, any other person out for a walk or jog in that neighborhood.

OK, gonna try this one more time, but I feel like it will be ignored, but I'll try....

Given all that you said, let's assume....

You are the black father of a young black man.
You are fully aware of the unjust racial components of our culture.
He has been in trouble with the law in the same area in which he will be jogging, albeit, from everything I can tell, NOT HIS FAULT, but he has had a run-in with the law there.
He tells you, "Dad, I'm gonna go jogging in that neighborhood, and there's this house under construction where I stop (let's assume) to get a drink of water on my jog.
You love him and want him to come home to you alive and well.
You would not suggest that might not be the best idea - to stop in a home under construction in that neighborhood?

[Cow Poke]

... do you understand the simple truth that one can have a focus on both?

I quite obviously do, and have all along....

...
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!

You can apologize any time, Charles, then go on to educate your buddy, JimL....

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

That's clearly an "either / or". No possibility of --- as you said --- "a focus on both".

[oxmixmudd]

Treading very carefully here, but that's why I rephrased the scenario for you and asked you if I misunderstood.

Might I kindly suggest that both of us slow down a bit and actually read what the other is saying? And, when in doubt, ask for clarification?



OK, again, treading very lightly ... IF you were a bunch of black guys in a predominantly white neighborhood in an area where there was already racial tension and you had already had a run-in with the law in the recent past......



EGGzackly! So, is the purpose of the talk "just to talk", or is it in hopes that his son might avoid a problem where he might unjustly end up dead?



And, for the umpteenzillionth time (slight exaggeration there) I don't dispute that even the TINIEST bit.



ABSOLUTELY AGREE!!! Again!



OK, gonna try this one more time, but I feel like it will be ignored, but I'll try....

Given all that you said, let's assume....

You are the black father of a young black man.
You are fully aware of the unjust racial components of our culture.
He has been in trouble with the law in the same area in which he will be jogging, albeit, from everything I can tell, NOT HIS FAULT, but he has had a run-in with the law there.
He tells you, "Dad, I'm gonna go jogging in that neighborhood, and there's this house under construction where I stop (let's assume) to get a drink of water on my jog.
You love him and want him to come home to you alive and well.
You would not suggest that might not be the best idea - to stop in a home under construction in that neighborhood?

I would most definitely offer that advice - but it's not the point of the discussion. He's also 25 and may well just ignore me (do you have any kids in the 15 to 30 age range? I have a son that in his 20's and early 30's sometimes liked to stand on the edges of cliffs when hiking. Not one of my warnings about that was ever heeded. And since he's still alive, I'm sure he feels I was just being over-cautious)

I would not run full on at a fellow with a gun either. But again - that is not the point.

And again, the point is that the fact such advice is necessary IS the problem that has made this national news.

[Charles]

I hesitate to enter into discussion with you, Charles, because I don't believe you to be an honest broker. however, I have been saying, all along, do BOTH.



If you don't want to take the time to read my actual thoughts on this, it'd be best you stay out of it.



Unduly combatitive.



That's EXACTLY what I've been saying all along. But when I bring that up, your buddy JimL accuse me of "changing the subject". Your buddies are the ones who can't seem to fathom "both".

So, an ad hominem again. I don't think you are really asking people to do both. I think you are putting too much emphasis on the side that speaks in favour of preventing death in order to avoid too much talk about the "liberal narrative". Why are you even calling it that if it is something you agree with, if it is just one of the two things that we should do? Seems your "both" is a little convenient, doesn't it. And - just admit - you were the one who promoted the incomplete enumeration. If it is wrong to think along those lines, you should not try to push someone into chosing one and not both.

Believe it or not but is based on a reading of your actualt statements that I see a strong tendency towards a rahter one side approach covered under the statement that we should do both. And your talk about "liberal narrative" "buddies" and whatever makes it obvious that you are thinking in boxes.

[Cow Poke]

I would most definitely offer that advice - but it's not the point of the discussion.

Well, as Charles pointed out, why can't it be BOTH?

He's also 25 and may well just ignore me (do you have any kids in the 15 to 30 age range? I have a son that in his 20's and early 30's sometimes liked to stand on the edges of cliffs when hiking. Not one of my warnings about that was ever heeded. And since he's still alive, I'm sure he feels I was just being over-cautious)

My daughter was 40 and had been ignoring me for over 25 years, but one day it WORKED! Praise God! I loved her so I never gave up.

I would not run full on at a fellow with a gun either. But again - that is not the point.

So, and I mean this most humbly and respectfully ---- isn't the point that we didn't want him dead in the first place? Or do we just "use that" to, as Jim said, "get upset" and endlessly talk about it?
Do we want to "work the problem", or just use the problem to advance an agenda?

And again, the point is that the fact such advice is necessary IS the problem that has made this national news.

Yes, so why not include it? Even Charles agrees!

[Charles]

[...]
And again, the point is that the fact such advice is necessary IS the problem that has made this national news.

Exactly.

And some are seemingly blind to that problem and try to call it a "narrative" to make it less of a problem.

[Cow Poke]

Exactly.

And some are seemingly blind to that problem and try to call it a "narrative" to make it less of a problem.

Ah, so what happened to your little speech about "both"?

[Cow Poke]

So, an ad hominem again.

Oh, Lord, back to THAT again?!?!?!

I don't think you are really asking people to do both.

Then you'll have to call me a liar, because I am emphatically claiming yes, BOTH, and my "day job" bears that out.

I think you are putting too much emphasis on the side

You mean the side that everybody keeps trying to censor because it doesn't fit the narrative?

that speaks in favour of preventing death in order to avoid too much talk about the "liberal narrative".

Yes, God forbid that we should actually do anything to PREVENT a death, rather than "GET UPSET" after the fact!

Why are you even calling it that if it is something you agree with, if it is just one of the two things that we should do?

And, again, I have clearly been advocating BOTH, but since only ONE SIDE is allowed here, I haven't had to represent the "other side".

Seems your "both" is a little convenient, doesn't it. And - just admit - you were the one who promoted the incomplete enumeration. If it is wrong to think along those lines, you should not try to push someone into chosing one and not both.

Believe it or not but is based on a reading of your actualt statements that I see a strong tendency towards a rahter one side approach covered under the statement that we should do both. And your talk about "liberal narrative" "buddies" and whatever makes it obvious that you are thinking in boxes.

How did I know you weren't the least bit sincere when you said "both" --- you only did that because you thought you had trapped me, and were too ingorant to realize you were actually indicting JimL.

But, yeah, I get it ---- now you have to distance yourself from your phony "both". I was right - you are NOT an honest broker.

[oxmixmudd]

Well, as Charles pointed out, why can't it be BOTH?



My daughter was 40 and had been ignoring me for over 25 years, but one day it WORKED! Praise God! I loved her so I never gave up.



So, and I mean this most humbly and respectfully ---- isn't the point that we didn't want him dead in the first place? Or do we just "use that" to, as Jim said, "get upset" and endlessly talk about it?
Do we want to "work the problem", or just use the problem to advance an agenda?



Yes, so why not include it? Even Charles agrees!

No, the point is he ended up dead and should not have. On any given day, there are literally thousands of people that would still be alive if they had made a different choice.

This is about the fact that his death was not due to the choices he made, but due to the choices his killers made. Again, you are effectively making this someone else's fault other than the shooters themselves. The fault lies with the men who pursued and killed him.