Trayvon Martin all over again.

[pmv]

No. If they were forced into the marriage and arranged marriages still happen, then they certainly could be. You do know what the definition of racism is right? The belief that your race is superior to all others. That other races are inferior. If you chose to love someone of a different race to the point of raising a family with them, that doesn't fit the definition of racism.

Some of my own forebears, in mixed-race relationships, were fairly blatantly racist against their own mixed-race children.
Shadism operates similarly - I've known black people who were looked at askance by their own families owing to being 'too dark'.

 

[amrnuke]

Since I don't want to just re-quote everything again. About the wealth issue factor for criminology and how strong a correlation it is:

(https://www.policeone.com/correctio...t-lead-to-criminal-behavior-QKg2lpUaZbdKL1ot/)

Doesn't talk about wealth. Is also an opinion piece, not peer-reviewed. If you want to state something as a theory, rather than just a hypothesis, it must be tested/reviewed.

(https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/39844/dravhandling-abrahamsen.pdf?sequence=1)

Doesn't substantively talk about wealth. This is from Norway, one of those homogeneous countries you talk about (86%+ ethnic Norwegian), that has a huge social safety net, much better than the one in the US.

Neither article "ranks" risk factors. Just because they didn't study the effect in those papers doesn't mean that the effect isn't a significant one.

There are in fact several studies ranking the risk factors for criminal behavior and what leads to it. Poverty isn't in the top 5.

Can you provide your sources?

You can argue that early life experiences are impacted by poverty, and they can be

This doesn't need to be argued -- e.g. https://www.keranews.org/post/exploring-connection-between-violent-crime-and-poverty

but there is many a person that has bad early life experiences from all economic levels as well as good life experiences too. That is why poverty isn't as high of a risk factor as what tends to be ranked.

1) Biological (people being born as psychopaths for instance)
2) Broken homes
3) Substance abuse
4) Criminal peers

Those typically are the top statistical correlations that tend to lead a person to be a criminal. These have always been labeled as the BIG FOUR for determining criminal behavior and recommitting criminal offenses in criminology. It's easy to look up. Notice poverty is not there. It plays a factor, but hasn't ever been considered a strong factor for determining if someone intends to become a criminal as a way of life.

Yes it has.

Also... if someone "INTENDS" to become a criminal as a way of life? I don't think many 5 year olds grow up thinking, "I intend to be a criminal." Rather, their childhoods are shaped by their experiences and they see it as the most viable way to go, or they have no other options, or they are forced into it via threats on their own lives.

1) Biological: in thhose papers includes both genetic and environmental factors (including substance abuse in utero). Many of these environmental factors have strong links to income.
2) Broken homes: I assume you mean homes where there is domestic violence? no father/mother due to one being jailed? divorce? Well, of course, single-parent homes are closely correlated to poverty.
3) Substance abuse: tied to poverty
4) Criminal peers: tied to poverty

Poverty is heavily correlated with all of these factors. Whether it's chicken or egg is never going to be easily discovered. But absolutely, poverty plays a role in all of these. Just because some papers haven't investigated it when they investigated other things doesn't mean that there isn't a link.

As for the minorities comparison, like it or not, it is the only comparison that can be made. There were many a black immigrant that came over to America after the civil war but before the Civil Rights movement. They were not any more educated or less impoverished than the recently freed slaves.

Care to provide a source for that statement?

They were also treated with racism. Their progenitors however, don't suffer the same issues that many black communities that were here during slavery times do in terms of social mobility and opportunity.

Again, please cite your sources on this demographic group, social mobility and opportunity, education levels, and income levels of black immigrants who came between the end of the Civil War and beginning of Civil Rights Movement.

The issue is that only black communities in certain areas of the country face issues with high crime and potential legal prejudices more than minority groups elsewhere in this country. Each of the minority groups faced hardships that gave them all a low bar starting line when the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s made progress finally in America on going about removing legal racism and systemic issues. As more systemic issues were removed, some minorities groups flourished and others didn't. They may not have all faced the exact same hardships which made them all start in a bad situation, but what they did from there was dramatically different. That is the point I was making.

But if someone faced more hardships, you wouldn't expect them to do exactly the same, would you?

As for the US, I didn't say we don't have racism here still.

I didn't ever claim you said there was no racism here.

I said we are one of the least racist countries on the planet. What we do have though is groups that are racist that other countries due to their homogeneity don't usually have a need for to be racist. Like China for example.

Don't give a shit about other countries' treatment of minorities, we are talking about the US. If France were 100 times as racist as the US, it wouldn't change my opinion that we need to recognize our racism problem here and address it. Racism shouldn't be graded on a curve.

As for your example of Mexico, they don't actually publish their census numbers correctly. 47% light skinned Mexicans may or may not be actual white people. That category is for people that either identify as white or mostly white, which the later is left up to interpretation.

Of course "they don't actually publish their census numbers correctly" because it doesn't fit with your statement. Are you moving the goalposts? You said all other countries on earth are extremely homogeneous. The fact is that this is NOT true. Whether you look at Mexico, Brazil, Cuba, and any number of other Central or South American countries, they are not extremely homogeneous. In fact the racial profile of Brazil is about as heterogeneous (possible more) as the US.

This, however, is a distraction, and carries absolutely ZERO influence on whether racism is an issue we must continue to address in the US.

There is certainly no large portion of black communities, pacific islanders, pure europeans such as Germans or French, Asians, or middle easterners. It just isn't as diverse in racial demographics as the US at all. That isn't to say it doesn't have diversity, and is far more diverse than many other countries like China again. Racism in Mexico is far worse than the US though.

I don't know what your definition of "large portion" is. I assume you're looking at the official nationwide surveys the Mexican government conducted, and are defining it based on percentage, and have some number in your head you're not sharing. I consider hundreds of thousands to be substantial, often because they localize together, but perhaps you don't. That's opinion. And again, it's a distraction from our discussion about the US. If you want your statement disproven, about all other nations being extremely homogeneous, one need only to look to Central and South America to show how incorrect that statement was. Again, a distraction, you are wrong, let's stop arguing it. It has no bearing on whether we need to address racism in the US.

 

[ecogen]

Doesn't talk about wealth. Is also an opinion piece, not peer-reviewed. If you want to state something as a theory, rather than just a hypothesis, it must be tested/reviewed.


Doesn't substantively talk about wealth. This is from Norway, one of those homogeneous countries you talk about (86%+ ethnic Norwegian), that has a huge social safety net, much better than the one in the US.

Neither article "ranks" risk factors. Just because they didn't study the effect in those papers doesn't mean that the effect isn't a significant one.



Can you provide your sources?


This doesn't need to be argued -- e.g. https://www.keranews.org/post/exploring-connection-between-violent-crime-and-poverty


Yes it has.

Also... if someone "INTENDS" to become a criminal as a way of life? I don't think many 5 year olds grow up thinking, "I intend to be a criminal." Rather, their childhoods are shaped by their experiences and they see it as the most viable way to go, or they have no other options, or they are forced into it via threats on their own lives.

1) Biological: in thhose papers includes both genetic and environmental factors (including substance abuse in utero). Many of these environmental factors have strong links to income.
2) Broken homes: I assume you mean homes where there is domestic violence? no father/mother due to one being jailed? divorce? Well, of course, single-parent homes are closely correlated to poverty.
3) Substance abuse: tied to poverty
4) Criminal peers: tied to poverty

Poverty is heavily correlated with all of these factors. Whether it's chicken or egg is never going to be easily discovered. But absolutely, poverty plays a role in all of these. Just because some papers haven't investigated it when they investigated other things doesn't mean that there isn't a link.


Care to provide a source for that statement?


Again, please cite your sources on this demographic group, social mobility and opportunity, education levels, and income levels of black immigrants who came between the end of the Civil War and beginning of Civil Rights Movement.


But if someone faced more hardships, you wouldn't expect them to do exactly the same, would you?


I didn't ever claim you said there was no racism here.


Don't give a shit about other countries' treatment of minorities, we are talking about the US. If France were 100 times as racist as the US, it wouldn't change my opinion that we need to recognize our racism problem here and address it. Racism shouldn't be graded on a curve.


Of course "they don't actually publish their census numbers correctly" because it doesn't fit with your statement. Are you moving the goalposts? You said all other countries on earth are extremely homogeneous. The fact is that this is NOT true. Whether you look at Mexico, Brazil, Cuba, and any number of other Central or South American countries, they are not extremely homogeneous. In fact the racial profile of Brazil is about as heterogeneous (possible more) as the US.

This, however, is a distraction, and carries absolutely ZERO influence on whether racism is an issue we must continue to address in the US.


I don't know what your definition of "large portion" is. I assume you're looking at the official nationwide surveys the Mexican government conducted, and are defining it based on percentage, and have some number in your head you're not sharing. I consider hundreds of thousands to be substantial, often because they localize together, but perhaps you don't. That's opinion. And again, it's a distraction from our discussion about the US. If you want your statement disproven, about all other nations being extremely homogeneous, one need only to look to Central and South America to show how incorrect that statement was. Again, a distraction, you are wrong, let's stop arguing it. It has no bearing on whether we need to address racism in the US.

Are you the fucking Buddha? I seriously envy people with patience like yours.

 

[dank69]

If you are trying to talk about the paradigm of police and black encounters being racist prima facia, that is something that will take a moment to unwind. Police have more encounters with black people per year for a very long time. It had actually gone down significantly in the 70's to only spike and stay high in the 80s if memory of the stats I once looked up holds true. The problem is that there 13% of the US population, around 40-44 million people, are black in this country but commit 50% of the murders. More if you count homicides. News sites will just point out that 76% of police encounters are with black people who make up 13% of the population so it must be racism, but that story isn't the full story. Which means that conclusion is wrong. I am not saying there aren't racist cops and racist encounters out there, but there is a problem with certain areas of the country and black communities in those areas. It is not a problem everywhere, because outside those areas, you'll find that police encounters tend to match the demographics. Areas I am talking about are heavily gang controller urban areas. This is where the vast majority of police encounters in this nation happen. Especially homicides and murders. A racist would look at that and say black people just have a propensity for it, and that is what makes them racist. It has nothing to do with that. There are many a paper, journal, and research project into this dynamic as to why this has happened, and there are a ton of variables to deal with. None of them are causation, but I think the sum of the issues has led to the current situation. Everyone wants an easy answer though and racism is easy. Either by applying racist labels, like it just what black people are, or responding that it is the result of only racism from whites that has put these communities where they are.

Here is a decent article about this topic.

Police Aren’t Targeting and Killing Black Men | National Review

Race has little or no direct effect on the rate at which black men are shot by police.

www.nationalreview.com

Basically this article, like many that have done this research, have stated that the number one predictor of someone growing up to be a violent criminal is a single/no parent household. It is the same statistically correlation across all races, all socioeconomic levels, all ages, all sexes, and darn near all countries. Those areas of the countries with the highest crimes rates also have the highest concentrations of single/no households. Until that changes in those communities, I doubt there will be significant changes to other criminal stats.

Just automatically assigning racism as the answer though is a cop-out for an easy answer. It solves nothing. This country is far less racist today than any other country on the planet or any country in history. Race baiters though want to have you looking at every instance of wrong done to you has being something that was racially derived. Either directly or systemically. It makes people angry and afraid. People afraid and angry are easy to control. Fear and sex sells for a reason, ask any marketing firm. Baser human emotions are easy to exploit.

I am pretty sure though the usual gang of posters will come after my post and ask me again something stupid like is the KKK giving me a paycheck, or how I have too much white privilege to even understand racism, or something else along those lines. They rather spout epithets than have an actual discussion.

National Review has never once posted a decent article. They are pure propaganda for idiots.

 

[dank69]

What To Know About The Killing Of Ahmaud Arbery

The February 23 fatal shooting of Georgia man Ahmaud Arbery and the arrests of two white suspects two months later have drawn national attention for the nature of the crime and public officials’ handling of the case, particularly after video evidence of the killing became public. The Onion looks...

www.theonion.com

As usual, The Onion puts a nice fine point on it.

 

[HomerJS]

What To Know About The Killing Of Ahmaud Arbery

The February 23 fatal shooting of Georgia man Ahmaud Arbery and the arrests of two white suspects two months later have drawn national attention for the nature of the crime and public officials’ handling of the case, particularly after video evidence of the killing became public. The Onion looks...

www.theonion.com

As usual, The Onion puts a nice fine point on it.

The Onion gets a big, AMEN!

Q: What are we doing to prevent something like this from happening again?
A: America’s top scientists are working around the clock to determine the precise speed at which a black man can move without appearing like a threat.

 

[HumblePie]

Doesn't talk about wealth. Is also an opinion piece, not peer-reviewed. If you want to state something as a theory, rather than just a hypothesis, it must be tested/reviewed.
Doesn't substantively talk about wealth. This is from Norway, one of those homogeneous countries you talk about (86%+ ethnic Norwegian), that has a huge social safety net, much better than the one in the US.
Neither article "ranks" risk factors. Just because they didn't study the effect in those papers doesn't mean that the effect isn't a significant one.
Can you provide your sources?
This doesn't need to be argued -- e.g. https://www.keranews.org/post/exploring-connection-between-violent-crime-and-poverty
Yes it has.
Also... if someone "INTENDS" to become a criminal as a way of life? I don't think many 5 year olds grow up thinking, "I intend to be a criminal." Rather, their childhoods are shaped by their experiences and they see it as the most viable way to go, or they have no other options, or they are forced into it via threats on their own lives.

1) Biological: in those papers includes both genetic and environmental factors (including substance abuse in utero). Many of these environmental factors have strong links to income.
2) Broken homes: I assume you mean homes where there is domestic violence? no father/mother due to one being jailed? divorce? Well, of course, single-parent homes are closely correlated to poverty.
3) Substance abuse: tied to poverty
4) Criminal peers: tied to poverty

Poverty is heavily correlated with all of these factors. Whether it's chicken or egg is never going to be easily discovered. But absolutely, poverty plays a role in all of these. Just because some papers haven't investigated it when they investigated other things doesn't mean that there isn't a link.

As I have said it is a risk factor, just not one of the most determining one or one with the strongest correlation. There are books on this like:

(https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199747238.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199747238)

Even your link says the risk factor is murkier and not that clear. Why is it not as strong of a determining risk factor? Lets break it down:

1) If you are born a psychopath, literally defined as someone who can't tell right from wrong, it doesn't matter if you grow up rich or poor. There is a very likely outcome you will be a criminal. Just the nature of your crimes changes. The types of crimes are not what we are talking about here, just that people at some point in their life determine they are going to lead a life of crime. There are plenty of other genetic disorders that also will more than likely lead a person to criminal behavior. Other factors here include exposure to high amounts of lead while growing up as well as what you pointed out substance abuse in utero. There are links to some of the environmental/biological risk factors to poverty, but weak links not strong. The lead problem with Flint Michigan affected all communities there for example regardless of income levels.

2) Broken homes does not have any link to poverty. Single parent homes, no parent homes, and abusive homes are not linked in anyway to poverty. There is a strong link in certain black communities to single parent homes, but this problem has no stronger link to wealth than anything else. Houses of any income level can have major development problems on children that shape them into becoming criminals. While rates of domestic violence are higher in poverty areas, rates of domestic abuse are not. Abuse isn't just violence here.

3) Substance abuse again has no bearing on poverty. People of all income levels abuse drugs. What do you think the current perscription pill epidemic plaguing America this past decade is all about? It isn't really affecting impoverish homes. It is affecting mostly the middle class. It has killed more people in the past 10 years than every war or conflict America has ever been in combined.

4) Criminal peers again doesn't have a link with poverty unless you are talking specific crimes. I think that is where you are getting confused. I am talking criminals, and you are probably thinking drug runners or gang rapists or something. Yah those types of criminals tend to be from the lower economic standpoint. You think the people at Enron back in the day were from impoverish backgrounds? Criminal includes white collar crime, drug use, stealing, embezzling, and all criminal behavior except I think we can ignore people that get the occasional speeding ticket but that is about it. If your group of friends are the type that are looking to fleece people through a pyramid scheme, then you are likely to join in. Poverty has no link with whom people choose to associate with.


(https://www.oarnova.org/images/criminogenic_risk_factors_final.pdf)
(https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093854813511432)
(https://info.nicic.gov/nicrp/system/files/028172.pdf)


The only difference I've seen in papers with the big four is some label Substance Abuse as one, while others have Anti-social behavior instead with substance abuse as part of the big 8. I am not sure if one is more for recidivism, or not. I know the swap is basically those studies talking about RNR (risk-need-responsivity), but that tends to be applied to people on parole or probation in the studies I see. Even when looking at the top 8 factors, poverty is not list among them. Economics is never listed as a top indicator of criminal behavior. No one says it isn't a factor, it just isn't a major factor.

Again, please cite your sources on this demographic group, social mobility and opportunity, education levels, and income levels of black immigrants who came between the end of the Civil War and beginning of Civil Rights Movement.

(http://www.inmotionaame.org/print.cfm;jsessionid=f8303428711589426969912?migration=5&bhcp=1)
(https://www.historytoday.com/archive/african-americans-after-civil-war)

As for other groups

(https://classroom.synonym.com/difficulties-chinese-immigrants-late-1800s-21290.html)

All sorts of legislation, especially against Chinese, against Asians to include China, Japan, India, Russia, and others was enacted to prevent certain groups of people from immigrating to the US. The justification was that these immigrants were too poor, or were being forced against their wills to be cheap labor like pseudo slaves, or were after the gold and land rush at the time. There were a lot of factors in this, but rest assured, the Asians were not welcomed and faced significant issues akin to what blacks were facing at the same time period in history. As I already said, there were lots of Immigrants coming from Haiti, Cuba, and South America at the time too. They were mostly poor and coming over for the gold rush and land rush that was happening. This is literally where the idea of the American Dream started to become about. As people started making wealth and doing better from the late 1800's to the early/mid 1900s, more immigrants came over in massive waves.

If we want to talk about the Hard Sellers immigration act and it's affect which happened at the end of the Civil Rights movement here some info on that:
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3407978/)

There was huge waves of mostly Latin and South American immigration to the US. Much was still even illegal. Most of whom was impoverish. There were still a good amount of African immigrants coming from all over Africa

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_immigration_to_the_United_States)

While they are some of the more educate and successful minority groups now, that is not how they came. They formed community enclaves and helped each other to get there. They started small businesses and strove for a better outcome in life for themselves and their descendants. It is true some did come with better education or economic situation, that was relatively few in number. Most of Africa was, and in many ways still is, mostly impoverish with low education levels. Africa still has the most number of least developed countries on the planet to this very day. Immigrants coming from there are still mostly poor and under educated. When they arrive here they still do better than many black communities in certain areas of this country. The point I am making here is that they have the same starting line as many black communities. The difference is that they haven't been told all their lives that white Americans are out to stop them through racism from succeeding.

Of course "they don't actually publish their census numbers correctly" because it doesn't fit with your statement. Are you moving the goalposts? You said all other countries on earth are extremely homogeneous. The fact is that this is NOT true. Whether you look at Mexico, Brazil, Cuba, and any number of other Central or South American countries, they are not extremely homogeneous. In fact the racial profile of Brazil is about as heterogeneous (possible more) as the US.

This, however, is a distraction, and carries absolutely ZERO influence on whether racism is an issue we must continue to address in the US.

First, Mexico Census asks specifically if people identify as white-non hispanic or white-hispanic in their census. Then they lump those together when they report. They ask for similar things to the US, but report differently. It is not moving the goal posts but pointing out it is a bad example. As for South America countries:

Demographics of South America - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They are still mostly predominated by a relatively few racial ethic groups. Usually 1 or 2 big populations, and everything else is closer to 1% or less. While many countries in South America are not nearly as homogeneous as other countries, they still are more so than the US these days. No if we are talking about the US of 30+ years ago then no. Immigration since the Hard Selllers act of 1965 has dramatically changed the demographics of America since which has only ramped up even more so in the last 30 years.

When I say all other countries are extremely homogeneous, that is of course in relation to the US. Hence the all other part. Not ALL countries all extremely homogeneous, but all OTHER. There is a reason for that qualifier there. Also, it is very hard to do a cross comparison with the data is that listed out there without digging into it yourself on this topic. Take for example Uganda on some lists as the most diverse country. What makes it diverse? They have a lot of different African tribes living there. Baganda, Banyankole, Basoga, and so on. The problem is that they are still all black Africans. America has people from those same tribes here, but we label them all as African American or Black. Not as individual tribes. You won't find many Whites, Asians, or Hispanics listed a citizens of the country of Uganda. We don't break out every ethnic origin in the US of the major categorical race groups unlike most of the demographic info released by other countries. I am not saying that info isn't important to be used, but just it makes comparisons really bad.

The main thing I am trying to point out is the perception of racism versus reality. In America we have racist organizations dedicated to racist causes because of our massive immigration over time that led to the formations of various groups. Other countries don't have anything close to the groups we have here. They don't need it. I am pointing out how racism is so ingrained in human "everything" that it is literally a way of life all over the planet. That the US is one of the few places that has been taking massive steps to stop it or at least reduce the effects of it. The issue I have though is that many groups of people in America these days are trying to promote the idea that racism is worse in this country than ever. This is not true at all. People use this narrative because it scares people and scared people are easily manipulated. If you don't believe that, just look at the current covid scare we have going on and how many local governments are trying to control people in new ways because of it. When it comes to perception it is easy to see. If you are told all your life that white people are racist, that you always have to be looking over your back, that it is the white man keeping you down what do you think is going to be the outcome of such a narrative told to large swaths of the population? When parents, teachers, politicians, and media keep reinforcing statements like that what do you think will happen? It will make people look for racism in everything in life. They view each action or event through a lens of what was racist about that. This is why we end up with people claiming Math is racist. It is literally bonkers. It ends up a self fulfilling prophecy of a sort. People that blame why they don't succeed in life on racism will not succeed and perceive racism everywhere.

Look, I know racism will never fully go away I believe. The human brain being designed to look for patterns and stereo types as a defensive mechanism will be the reason for that.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Some people refuse to admit that they are either a racist or that they are flat out wrong!!!

 

[uallas5]

Gee now here's a surprise. Apparently he missed the required Use of Force trainings on MULTIPLE occasions.

Ex-detective charged in death of Ahmaud Arbery lost power to make arrests after skipping use-of-force training

Gregory McMichael’s certification was suspended in February 2019 after repeated failures to complete required training, according to documents from the Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, including a warning in 2014 that McMichael had neglected to finish mandatory firearms and use-of-force courses.

 

[HumblePie]

Although posted a couple of days ago on youtube, I'm pretty much still of the same mindset regarding this case still.

 

[HomerJS]

I noticed the comments in this video.

Arbury wasn't jogging - false
Arbury was stealing - false
Arbury was in the wrong for defending himself. Imagine that!!
Arbury bumb rushed the guys with guns. Ignoring the guys with guns chased him with their truck

Apparently a black man defending himself is an attack. Small wonder why Trayvon didn't have a chance of self defense absent a recording.

 

[dank69]

I noticed the comments in this video.

Arbury wasn't jogging - false
Arbury was stealing - false
Arbury was in the wrong for defending himself. Imagine that!!
Arbury bumb rushed the guys with guns. Ignoring the guys with guns chased him with their truck

Apparently a black man defending himself is an attack

Textbook uppity behavior.

 

[cytg111]

Some of my own forebears, in mixed-race relationships, were fairly blatantly racist against their own mixed-race children.
Shadism operates similarly - I've known black people who were looked at askance by their own families owing to being 'too dark'.

Stereotyping is a fundamental part of our nature isnt it? Lots of things are fundamental parts of our nature that we *learn* to control in a civilized context. If no-one is teaching you this is how your mind works, plays tricks on you, how are you gonna mitigate it? Of course people are "racist", "racism" is just a subset of one of our basic "cognitive reflexes" (can you say that?).

 

[BUTCH1]

I noticed the comments in this video.

Arbury wasn't jogging - false
Arbury was stealing - false
Arbury was in the wrong for defending himself. Imagine that!!
Arbury bumb rushed the guys with guns. Ignoring the guys with guns chased him with their truck

Apparently a black man defending himself is an attack. Small wonder why Trayvon didn't have a chance of self defense absent a recording.

Thing is, even if he was scoping it out for a possible petty theft later the situation never, ever, should have been escalated by those two. Follow and report position to LEO if you'd like but since no person was in any danger or any loss of property just report and be done with it. And the whole, "he attacked!" is laughable, probably thought when he saw the shotgun-wielding idiot that he was gonna get shot at anyway.

 

[Gabe323]

Ah the predictable last ditch effort of the people who are always defending this shit....post youtubes from black vloggers thinking nobody will dare question them.

 

[Jaskalas]

And the whole, "he attacked!" is laughable...

Actually, with the guy as a retired cop... think about it.

Police regularly use that justification. They start conflicts and have the authority to end them with lethal force. All the time. It's a giant problem with our society.

So this old man still thought like he was on the job, with the same protections for starting armed and deadly conflicts.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Ah the predictable last ditch effort of the people who are always defending this shit....post youtubes from black vloggers thinking nobody will dare question them.

I am not a a racist! I have black friends!!

 

[darkswordsman17]

I am not a a racist! I have black friends!!

You anti-Semite!

National Review has never once posted a decent article. They are pure propaganda for idiots.

National Review, more like Diarrhea Spew. Get it, cause its dripping with poopy!

What kind of a clownfucker cites the National Review? Oh that's right the poor wittle baby that was emotionally scarred because Dick's wasn't gonna give him his surrogate penis and made baby Jesus cry.

 

[hal2kilo]

You anti-Semite!



National Review, more like Diarrhea Spew. Get it, cause its dripping with poopy!

What kind of a clownfucker cites the National Review? Oh that's right the poor wittle baby that was emotionally scarred because Dick's wasn't gonna give him his surrogate penis and made baby Jesus cry.

I don't think even William F. Buckley would be proud.

 

[BUTCH1]

Actually, with the guy as a retired cop... think about it.

Police regularly use that justification. They start conflicts and have the authority to end them with lethal force. All the time. It's a giant problem with our society.

So this old man still thought like he was on the job, with the same protections for starting armed and deadly conflicts.

It appears he thought if gunplay resulted the local DA would not file charges, they were right, initially.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It appears he thought if gunplay resulted the local DA would not file charges, they were right, initially.

The thin blue line!!

 

[HumblePie]

Ah the predictable last ditch effort of the people who are always defending this shit....post youtubes from black vloggers thinking nobody will dare question them.

Last ditch what? What the fuck kind of statement is that? If I posted a blogger that was not black you'd say I was posting something from a racist or KKK member I bet. If I post something that a black person says you come up with this shit or would call him an uncle tom or some other racist bullshit. Are you seriously this fucking delusional in your argument that you would stoop so low?

He basically iterates what I have said, that both parties were stupid and in the wrong morally, but as for legally in the wrong at most the McMichaels are going to get manslaugher. Which really would only apply to the son and not the father. The father only gets charged if felony assault applies which allows felony murder to be potentially applied to both. If felony assault doesn't apply or can be applied legally in the court, then the father isn't legally culpable for a crime in this case. Doesn't absolve the son though and he may very well get at least manslaughter or negligent homicide. Depending on the case in court it may be he gets off scott free if he can prove he was protected under the citizens arrest statute.

Oh, for reference I misspoke earlier about the GA citizens arrest statute to some degree. That statute is protections on top of existing common law citizens arrest. Meaning if someone witnesses a felony or commission of one, they are pretty much protected like cops when affecting an arrest. That doesn't mean citizen's arrest only applies in the case of a felony in Georgia, but that they have stronger protections for people there for citizen's arrest for felony charges. Meaning they can still be protected for citizen's arrest for misdemeanor charges as well. I don't quite agree with the application of the later, but it a protected action in GA currently none the less.

I still say the McMichaels should have just followed in their vehicle and never gotten out. I think the son's decision to get out was more than likely racially motivated still, and I think that the decision to get out caused a criminal offense of negligent homicide. Which I believe he will go to jail for. I've been accurate in all my assessments on cases I've discussed like this thus far with this much evidence in the past on these forums. I believe what I stated is going to be the outcome here. I don't think any hate crime charge at the federal level is ever going to go through let alone be brought to court.

 

[HumblePie]

You anti-Semite!



National Review, more like Diarrhea Spew. Get it, cause its dripping with poopy!

What kind of a clownfucker cites the National Review? Oh that's right the poor wittle baby that was emotionally scarred because Dick's wasn't gonna give him his surrogate penis and made baby Jesus cry.

First off, I won that lawsuit and got a decent payout from it. Secondly, sounds like you like using logic fallacies a whole lot.

 

[Hans Gruber]

Is it possible that this young man was on the run from a property crime? The father and son were waiting for him because they had surveillance video of him trespassing many times. The dash cam video was not a dash camera but a hand held cell phone by one of the property crime victims. Why was he filming a runner? Things didn't go according to plan because the young man was shot and killed. Then everybody's story changed. The mother of the deceased said her son was on a cross country run. Was he wearing running shoes? Did he often go out for run? Or is everybody lying?

 

[Vic]

It doesn't matter if Arbury was stealing or not because of the simple fact is that it's illegal to hunt someone down and kill them over a misdemeanor property crime.
Many years ago, in an old neighborhood I used to live in, some guy decided to do something about the teenage kids stealing change out of his unlocked beater pickup, so he waited up with his shotgun and shot one of the kids in the back while they were running away. The guy thought he would be a hero. Instead, he got life. And for good fucking reason. I don't see why this should be any different.