Of course, that won't stop us.

Curious.

We Americans are as varied as the next bunch, just better. — Hanover

A throw away line, doubtless. However 'mercans seem to feel obligated to make such assertions, and this despite all evidence being to the contrary. What might once have been waived off as quaint self-congratulation might now be seen as defensive self-delusion.

As opposed to the Celtic self-depreciation inherited by my country.

Never.

Non fuckin' sequitur. :shade:

The overwhelming majority of murders are "same race" killings - Whites kill Whites & Blacks kill Blacks. And even when Blacks kill more Whites than Whites kill Blacks, White perps clearly do so with impunity and are Profiled, Arrested, Prosecuted & Convicted far less often than Black perps. Especially in the south, a legacy of jim crow, etc ...

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls

we don't convict people for being pieces of shit — Hanover

Is motivation not a factor in criminal law in the US? Malice aforethought and stuff? In the UK being a piece of shit is the difference between murder and manslaughter.

It appears from the video that Arbery rushed McMicheals before the rifle fired. Arbery was either really stupid or really desperate.

Either way, it doesnt look premeditated. Manslaughter?

Manslaughter? — frank

Second degree murder.

How would you characterize the motive without committing the very wrong were attributing to McMichaels?

The wrong of racism is that it fails to account for the humanity of a target group, but also their individuality. The racist assumes all blacks are lazy. Should we assume in return that all whites are racist?

White perps clearly do so with impunity and are Profiled, Arrested, Prosecuted & Convicted far less often than Black perps. Especially in the south, a legacy of jim crow, etc ... — 180 Proof

You make 2 comments: (1) whites are prosecuted less, and (2) it's due to racism. Neither comment is addressed by the cite.

My comment was that whites were killed at higher rates by blacks than blacks by whites. Why do you state that is not the result of racisn, but you do if reversed?

Did McMichaels brandish a firearm? Isnt that a felony?

Is motivation not a factor in criminal law in the US? Malice aforethought and stuff? In the UK being a piece of shit is the difference between murder and manslaughter. — unenlightened

Motive.is distinct from intent, and intent must be proved, but not motive. If I kill my wife because she cheated on me, that's my motive and the jury can consider that, but all that is required is that you show I intended to kill her, even if you can't prove my motive was that she cheated on me.

But yes, if you can show intent and you can show the imotivation was to kill all the blacks (or some deeper motivation) that would be evidence of a more deliberate intent and greater depravity, which world result in a higher level of crime and more severe penalty.

My point was if the evidence shows lack of intent due to self defense, his motivation for being there becomes irrelevant. Assiming (and I will) he was there because he's an idiot racist motivated to make a citizen's arrest, he's not guilty of murder unless he had the intent to murder, absent a legal defense (I.e. self defense).

Did McMichaels brandish a firearm? Isnt that a felony — frank

The question is whether he assaulted him with a weapon. Carrying a gun is not an assault, which is why the allegation by Baden he was "waving the gun in his face" isn't a quibble, but is a critical distinction.

So if the article had stated "black person" it would be a racist thing? Or if he was described as a black, fat, stuttering, shy, ugly, young man, we are to investigate whether there is a possibility they just didn't like shy people? — Benkei

So, if the article said that "black people" and it showed data that blacks of both sexes and all age groups were being rounded up, then yes you would certainly have good evidence that racism is systematic. However, that isn't what the data shows. What is it about young black men that distinguishes them from the behavior of black women, black children, or black elderly?

why the allegation by Baden he was "waving the gun in his face" isn't a quibble, but is a critical distinction. — Hanover

Misrepresentation. I clarified that that from the video we can't actually know that he literally "waved a gun in his face'.

Whether or not they actually waved the gun or pointed it at him before he tried to grab it is not discernible from the video I've seen. — Baden

But it's fairly obvious he threatened him with a gun. I also asked you to clarify your position in several follow up posts. E.g. You claim the gun wasn't waved at him.

He came toward the threat that was not being waved at him. — Hanover

Where's your evidence for that? It appears you just made it up. Also, here you acknowledge a threat. So I think we agree that an unarmed black man was threatened with a gun by a racist and tried to neutralize that threat by removing the gun. Now tell me why that means it was his fault that he got shot and not the racist's with the gun?

The question is whether he assaulted him with a weapon. Carrying a gun is not an assault, which is why the allegation by Baden he was "waving the gun in his face" isn't a quibble, but is a critical distinction. — Hanover

Threatening someone with a gun is brandishment. It's illegal, right?

So you're asking me to consider the possibility that this ex-cop just always carries a rifle around wherever he goes. He goes to Piggly Wiggly for some chicken salad, he takes his rifle.

It seems more likely that he took his weapon out because he wanted to threaten someone.

"Threat, criminal threatening (or threatening behavior) is the crime of intentionally or knowingly putting another person in fear of bodily injury. "Threat of harm generally involves a perception of injury...physical or mental damage...act or instance of injury, or a material and detriment or loss to a person."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation

Threatening someone with a gun is brandishment. It's illegal, right? — frank

You're trying to impart legal significance to "brandishment," a term not used in the Georgia statute of aggravated assault. An assault is threatening to do imminent harm and it's aggravated if with a deadly weapon. Carrying a gun is not a assault. Threatening is. That's the question for the jury. It's a fact question (as opposed to a legal one) they'll have to decide by looking at the evidence and considering whatever defenses are brought up.

Incidentally, not only did Arbery do absolutely nothing wrong, people were going in and out of the site he supposedly trespassed at regularly, including the same day he did. But @Hanover appears to think it's his own fault he's dead because the racist was just standing there threatening him with a gun without actually waving it in his face (though actually we don't know he didn't do that too) and Arbery did a "kamikaze" run at him (also no evidence for this). I say a more plausible explanation given the evidence available is that Arbery was threatened, realized his life was at risk, and tried to defend himself.

I see. Thanks

. But Hanover appears to think it's his own fault he's dead because the racist was just standing there threatening him with a gun without actually waving it in his face (though actually we don't know he didn't do — Baden

Some questions. Answer, ignore, or ridicule as you see fit:

If Arbery could have avoided the altercation, do you believe he was required to, or do you believe he had the right to stand his ground?

Do you believe If Arbery was not threatened by the gun, but just went to grab it because he was pissed off at Billy bad ass with his gun, do you think the shooter should still be prosecuted?

Do you believe Arbery is guilty of trespassing even if he didn't steal anything and even if others entered that site without permission from time to time?

Do you think hate is a protected right and should not add to or subtract from the seriousness of a crime?

↪180 Proof How would you characterize the motive without committing the very wrong were attributing to McMichaels? — frank

The perps lied in their statements to police about the killing. Attempted cover-up is circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt. I'm not attributing anything to the perps sans what is already reported about the circumstances of the killing and the context within which the local authorities initially failed and then were very slow to respond.

The wrong of racism is that it fails to account for the humanity of a target group, but also their individuality.

My outlook flips this script: racism asserts the "superhumanity" - superiority, thus supremacy - by a "race"-color-ethnic In-Group over the mere humanity of a "race"-color-ethnic Out-Group; in other words, idolatrous self-deification by demonizing - scapegoating - the other. "The wrong" is the banal inhumanity of ego-fantasy (i.e. rabid tribalism).

The racist assumes all blacks are lazy. Should we assume in return that all whites are racist?

Strawman. Of course not. But it's a fact that all nonwhites (in North America? and in Eurasia?) suffer daily from threats from and/or exercises of de facto systemic racism which apparently most whites fail to actively oppose while they benefit from its historical, or institutional, legacies as well as by, in many cases, being functionaries of its 'policing powers'. Do you dispute that?

outlook flips this script: racism asserts the "superhumanity" - thus supremacy - by a "race"-color-ethnic In-Group over the mere humanity of a "race"-color-ethnic Out-Group; in — 180 Proof

"Levelling" can be either one. You deflate me to raise yourself, or inflate yourself relative to my baseline. Either one is an attempt to compensate.

I don't think either is the reason the DA in Georgia thought she could get away with ignoring a violent death. I think it's because she thinks of blacks as powerless. Power came in the form if a journalist looking for a story. The journalist said that as he gathered facts, he knew the story would be explosive.

Is it explosive because only blacks are concerned about it? If that were true, none of us would know the name Arbery.

I just wanted his name spoken, btw.

Of course not. But it's a fact that all nonwhites (in North America? and in Eurasia?) suffer daily from threats from and/or exercises of de facto systemic racism which apparently most whites fail to actively oppose while they benefit from its historical, or institutional, legacies as well as by, in many cases, being functionaries of its 'policing powers'. Do you dispute that? — 180 Proof

I don't. I believe bitterness is a prison, though. I think there's a way to escape it that has to do with a kind of spirituality. Do you know what i mean?

If Arbery could have avoided the altercation, do you believe he was required to, or do you believe he had the right to stand his ground? — Hanover

Depends on presence, relative level, and direction of threat. E.g. If I have a gun and the other guy doesn't but is threatening me, I'm in considerably less danger than if he had one, and I should be obligated to avoid/de-escalate a potentially lethal altercation if reasonably possible. If the tables are turned (the case with Arbery), I should be free to do whatever is most effective in defending myself. (I don't know the ins and outs of stand your ground laws btw, so I'm not commenting specifically on them.)

Do you believe If Arbery was not threatened by the gun, but just went to grab it because he was pissed off at Billy bad ass with his gun, do you think the shooter should still be prosecuted? — Hanover

If someone who is unthreateningly open-carrying is attacked and has reasonable justification to believe that shooting the attacker is the only effective means of self-defence, that option should be legally available to them. That doesn't imply they should have an unqualified right to shoot dead anyone who tries to take their gun even if they believe them to be a threat. As per my previous answer, the level of threat and the opportunity to neutralize it or deescalate the situation short of deadly force would need to be examined. In this case, I believe Billy bad ass was must have been more of a threat to Arbery than vice versa, in which case, yes, he should be prosecuted. It's not absolutely inconceivable he wasn't more of a threat. But that seems to me at least to be very implausible.

Do you believe Arbery is guilty of trespassing even if he didn't steal anything and even if others entered that site without permission from time to time? — Hanover

I don't know if he's technically guilty of trespassing. My claim was he did nothing wrong, which he didn't. The owner of the property confirmed that. We can be technically guilty of jaywalking when we cross a road with no cars around, but who cares?

Do you think hate is a protected right and should not add to or subtract from the seriousness of a crime? — Hanover

I'm pro hate-crime legislation whereby it's not hate per se that's outlawed but its violent expression against minorities. That's an important distinction, which your question obscures. Racists can go hate themselves into pretzels for all I care. That is, I accept their right to stew in corners over perceived/imagined grievances should be protected.

I'm pro hate-crime legislation whereby it's not hate per se that's outlawed but its violent expression against minorities. That's an important distinction, which your question obscures. Racists can go hate themselves into pretzels for all I care. That is, I accept their right to stew in corners over perceived/imagined grievances should be protected. — Baden

:shade: :up:

Do you dispute that?
— 180 Proof

I don't. — frank

:point:

I believe bitterness is a prison, though.

Well, i believe it's being nonwhite, born raised living & dying, in a "prison" of White Privilege (i.e. structural inequalities policed by systemic, institutionalized anti-nonwhite discrimination) that reinforces and normalizes "bitterness".

Lived experience, frank.

Surviving daily micro-struggles for some dignity & peace of mind.

Too many of us nonwhite citizens are PTSD'd by the operations (& operatives) of this racist Panopticon.

"I don't wanna live in the park (live in the park);
Can't trust no shadows after dark (shadows after dark), yeah-eh!
So, my friend,
I wish that you could see,
Like a bird in the tree,
the prisoners must be free, yeah!" ~BMW

I think there's a way to escape it that has to do with a kind of spirituality. Do you know what i mean?

No. I really don't.

It appears from the video that Arbery rushed McMicheals before the rifle fired. Arbery was either really stupid or really desperate.

Either way, it doesnt look premeditated. Manslaughter? — frank

They went there with the intent of killing him. He apprehended that and so he was desperate. His only hope was to disarm.

Assiming (and I will) he was there because he's an idiot racist motivated to make a citizen's arrest, he's not guilty of murder unless he had the intent to murder, absent a legal defense (I.e. self defense). — Hanover

There was no crime committed, therefore no citizen's arrest to be made. He was not there to make a citizen's arrest. He was there with the intent of killing that man.

There was no crime committed, therefore no citizen's arrest to be made. He was not there to make a citizen's arrest. He was there with the intent of killing that man. — Metaphysician Undercover

You'll acknowledge that is your assessment. Others may assess differently.

Of course. I just thought I'd add my two cents worth.

addendum

Murder accomplice arrested -

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/21/860593300/georgia-authorities-arrest-third-man-in-ahmaud-arbery-killing

:clap:

My question is: how common is this in Georgia? In the US? In the world? — frank

"How common?"

What factors make it more likely to happen?

:point: A badge. A gun. A "local" prosecutor ...