Let's take one thing at a time.Originally Posted by RandBlade
Do you think they would have shot him if he hadn't gone for the gun?
Let's take one thing at a time.
Do you think they would have shot him if he hadn't gone for the gun?
Yes if in this scenario Lewk is black. See Trayvon Martin. You're never going to get through to a racist coward like Lewk.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Maybe.
Now your turn:
Do you think as an innocent person being attacked by criminals he had a right to go for a gun?
Did Lewk just make an argument to remove weapons from a population that very obviously is unable to properly handle them?
Good for you Lewk, its a baby step, but an important one.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Tit for tat RB. Maybe.
No, I'm focusing on RB's absurd notion that they went out while filmed and having 911 contacted to go kill a person. You can absolutely make the argument from a legal perspective that if they didn't act within the guidelines of citizen arrest laws that they could be tried for the dude's killing. But the idea that they "lynched him" and "went out to kill someone for the crime of jogging" is absolute cancerous bullshit.
It's funny how you think that's a sharp comeback even though "maybe" is a dumb answer to RB's question, whereas it was a perfectly reasonable answer to your question.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Today I saw this video on the NYT website and it was surprising how deeply ingrained racism is in the USA. Full disclosure, I have a cocker spaniel myself and I think that it's bad form to offer my dog treats and I think the dog in the video is getting a rough treatment. Though I think it's not very unlike the heavy duty control taking cockers sometimes need.
However, I was utterly shocked by the number of comments in the New York Times, that jumped passed the racism on show, to the risk the dog might have been under by being given a treat. Even the possibility of the dog potentially being allergic to treats was brought up. Also there were many many comments that entirely focused on the dog being 'strangled', again totally ignoring the man being threathened not just on the basis of his colour but with his colour. It was shocking to see the supposedly liberal readers of the NYT thought it was ok to focus on the animal over the man.
Congratulations America
I have literally never seen you express any doubt with a white hand holding the gun.
Congratulations America
On a fiction note I had the same response to everyone freaking out over the puppy killing scene in Elfen Lied. You have hundreds of humans being dismembered (including children) but the puppy having its skull smashed in got all the attention. People have a very weird obsession with animals.
Read the exchange again and figure out what I'm actually saying. Y'all make my head hurt, its like talking to a toddler who takes everything literally. I'm not even being subtle, RB doesn't answer the question in a meaningful way so I respond the exact same way. RB answering the question in a meaningful will have me answer his in kind.
Remember, the public was never supposed to see this video. People film themselves doing all kinds of illegal shit cause they're idiots who think they won't be held accountable, for example child porn rings (or these guys):
You trying to rationalize the thinking of 3 racist murders is akin to people on this board trying to rationalize your murder fetish.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Except, the basic problem you have here, the fundamental issue with your position, is that that is not in any sense a valid justification.
As a matter of law, as well as common sense and basic decency, you do not have the right to use lethal force in self-defense *if you initiated the conflict in the first place*. Otherwise, people could just provoke a fight, shoot the other person and then claim it was 'self-defense' and then the victim would obviously not be able to give their side of the story.
Which is pretty much exactly what happened in this case but for the fact that the incident was caught on camera.
It was the McMichaels who had the duty to back off (again, as a matter of law as well as every day morality) once the situation became a physical confrontation, not Arbery's because they are the ones who started shit.
As to whether or not they were out to kill him... it doesn't matter, kill him is what they did and if justice is done then they're going to have to answer for that.
However, the fact that they didn't shoot him from the car or run him down doesn't necessarily mean they weren't out to kill him, they could have been looking to create a situation where they had some kind of excuse (which, again, was exactly what happened) or they could genuinely have intended to "detain" him - something they had absolutely no right to do. In either case, they're shitbags who are too dangerous to be walking around free.
Last edited by Steely Glint; 05-27-2020 at 10:51 PM.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Oh my god you fucking moron, RB was responding to a question that required an assessment of something unknowable—what two other people would have done in a hypothetical scenario—whereas you were responding to a question about something that is, to you, perfectly knowable—what you personally consider to be right or wrong in a well-defined hypothetical scenario. The appropriate answer to the question you asked RB is "maybe"—he has no basis for confidently answering the question with a yes or a no; the appropriate answer to the question he asked you is either "yes" or "no"—you must know what you yourself believe is acceptable or not in the scenario he describes (the right answer, incidentally, is "yes"). Get your head outta your ass.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
In the absence of evidence one way or another it would be irresponsible to state that it was a lynching and that they set out to kill him. He didn't phrase his language in anyway that left any doubt that he was pushing the notion that a couple of racists decided to go out and kill a black dude for jogging. And then he comes back with a "maybe" response. We see this happen far too frequently, the casual bigotry that because a crime was done on an interracial basis (typically white on black... even tho black on white crime is actually more statistically likely) it must mean that the perpetrator is racist. If two black dudes got into their pickup and shot a Hispanic person trespassing at a construction site would you have assumed racism was the motive? Why or why not?
You're asking me to psychically read people's minds, I'm asking if he had the right under self-defence to reach for a gun. Not the same question.
You're more hung up on the race issue than the murder issue for some reason too. Even if race isn't a factor this would still be murder.
I'm hung up on you and other people's racism - yes. We can argue until we are blue in the face if you think the community should help police break ins but I do think there is room for y'all to acknowledge that you have a default assumption that a white person carrying out a crime on a black person has a racist motivation. And that is worth examining because if that is your default assumption that is just as racist as a store owner seeing a black person come into their store and thinking they are likely a thief. Making assumptions about individuals based on what other individuals sharing that skin color (or other trait) have done in the past is basic racism.
So you do agree it's murder?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/tucke...111609428.html
Lewk is nothing if consistent in repeating Tucker Carlson's talking points.
Hope is the denial of reality
^Fixed.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
If it helps move the conversation on the murderers may have lynched the man because he was black.
Or they may have lynched the man because they felt like killing someone and he just happened to be there.
Or they may have lynched the man for any other reason.
Doesn't matter, they lynched someone. They had no right to kill him.
Now answer my question. If someone is being attacked on the street do they have the right to reach for a gun?
Twitter Link
Antisemitic fucking moron.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
And a racist to boot. I hope the 15 minutes of fame are worth it. Can't imagine she has many friends left.
Hope is the denial of reality
Nah, messed-up people tend to gravitate towards one another. I guess many people might not recognize how they relate to one another as being something akin to friendship rather than a purely transactional arrangement to satisfy a basic human need.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes, if you are being attacked you have the right to defend yourself.
According to liberals (Probably on your college campus) she's black so can't be racist.
Now we are getting somewhere.
So we know this guy was being attacked illegally and unprovoked. He had the right to reach for a gun because he was being attacked.
Now do you think that an attacker has the right to kill their victim if they reach for a gun to defend themselves?
Unprovoked though? He trespassed, appears to have been observed doing it and ran. If they had probable cause to believe he had stolen something they would be justified. Just as he's justified if he thought they were attacking him and didn't know why.
One of the things I'm curious about and haven't seen mentioned is, did he have a cell phone on him? Most people take their phones everywhere. If he was being chased why wouldn't he call someone/call 911? Seems like he knew the reason why they were chasing and he was worried about getting in trouble. Now that's pure speculation, maybe he's one of those folks who doesn't like taking phone everywhere (rare) or maybe he broke it the day before but it'd be interesting to find out. I think the trial will be interesting.
I'm someone who takes their phone with them everywhere. Know what the one exception is? When I'm jogging or running. And you wanna know something that's hard to do? Unlocking a phone while being chased. I've got no clue how to make an emergency connection with it while it's locked either. I know there's a way, I just don't know what it is. Not that I would want to dial 911 if I was being chased while black either, since this thread has been amply demonstrating that's he'd be the one targeted by the police if and when they showed up, with the ensuing risk of being wrongfully shot by those police. Which you would, of course, promptly be celebrating since you say he's a criminal and should be shot for that anyway.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
You realize that the motives a dead person could have had can not be established to a satisfying level?
I personally doubt that I could place a call while running for my life. I would be surprised if this is going to play any role at all in the court case.
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote