Ahmaud Arbery

blinding

Stateofyou wrote: »

Short answer - no. Please look into why reverse racism isn't a thing. Could he/she be prejudiced against white people? Yes.

Can the Chinese be racist ?

Can Indians be racist ?

Can Arabs be Racist ?

Can Iranians/ Persians be Racist ?

But for some reason a Powerful Wealthy Black Person cannot be Racist or any Black person for that matter Are you saying a Black Person ‘ Is not of enough quality “ to be Racist ?:eek:

Are you saying Black people are better than other People so cannot be Racist ?:eek:

ohnonotgmail

blinding wrote: »

Can the Chinese be racist ?

Can Indians be racist ?

Can Arabs be Racist ?

Can Iranians/ Persians be Racist ?

But for some reason a Powerful Wealthy Black Person cannot be Racist or any Black person for that matter Are you saying a Black Person ‘ Is not of enough quality “ to be Racist ?:eek:

Are you saying Black people are better than other People so cannot be Racist ?:eek:

what does any of this have to do with a massive racist murdering a black man?

Stateofyou

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Anyone from any race can be racist.

No...that isn't correct. Again, you need to understand that racism is about structural and systemic power. In the US, black people have been disadvantaged in many ways since the time of slavery. They continue to be disadvantaged and marginalised in their society. This isn't an opinion it's backed up by statistics such as income, arrest rates, drug rates, policing rates, home mortgages, college rates, etc. There's a long list. The racial demographic that still holds the most power is white people. White privilege doesn't mean its easy for white people or all white people. It means that there's no historically established system in the US culture (and others) that's an active force against succeeding (or staying alive) in society.

That is why reverse racism isn't a thing. Historically people aren't equal in some society's. But all of us have predjudice and bias.

Guy:Incognito

I see we're succeeding in diverting the conversation aware from a person's murder.

Stateofyou

blinding wrote: »

Can the Chinese be racist ?

Can Indians be racist ?

Can Arabs be Racist ?

Can Iranians/ Persians be Racist ?

But for some reason a Powerful Wealthy Black Person cannot be Racist or any Black person for that matter Are you saying a Black Person ‘ Is not of enough quality “ to be Racist ?:eek:

Are you saying Black people are better than other People so cannot be Racist ?:eek:

They can all be racially prejudiced or biased. Racism is about power.

raze_them_all_

Stateofyou wrote: »

No...that isn't correct. Again, you need to understand that racism is about structural and systemic power. In the US, black people have been disadvantaged in many ways since the time of slavery. They continue to be disadvantaged and marginalised in their society. This isn't an opinion it's backed up by statistics such as income, arrest rates, drug rates, policing rates, home mortgages, college rates, etc. There's a long list. The racial demographic that still holds the most power is white people. White privilege doesn't mean its easy for white people or all white people. It means that there's no historically established system in the US culture (and others) that's an active force against succeeding (or staying alive) in society.

That is why reverse racism isn't a thing. Historically people aren't equal in some society's. But all of us have predjudice and bias.

There are other countries apart from america

Stateofyou

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

There are other countries apart from america

I literally said "in the US." :rolleyes: This case is happening in the US.

I agree with Guy Incognito that this discussion is diverting from a man's murder. If anyone wants to separately understand what racism actually stems from, what it means and why reverse racism isn't a thing in this discussion then start with google and see what you learn.

jam_mac_jam

Stateofyou wrote: »

I literally said "in the US." :rolleyes: This case is happening in the US.

I agree with Guy Incognito that this discussion is diverting from a man's murder. If anyone wants to separately understand what racism actually stems from, what it means and why reverse racism isn't a thing in this discussion then start with google and see what you learn.

Or a dictionary

blinding

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what does any of this have to do with a massive racist murdering a black man?

I think you should wait until the Court decide what happened here. Even if the McMichaels were wrong in trying to stop some one they thought had committed a crime you have not one shred of evidence to say / show that the McMichaels are in any way what so ever Racist ! ! !

If I said without one shred of evidence that Mr Arbery was obviously Racist for trying to attack the McMichael man you would rightly be all over it like a rash.

But heh, I suppose you want your Lynching ! ! !

blinding

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I see we're succeeding in diverting the conversation aware from a person's murder.

No Court has decided a Murder Occurred. Are you in a hurry for your Lynching ? ?

Stateofyou

blinding wrote: »

No Court has decided a Murder Occurred. Are you in a hurry for your Lynching ? ?

Interesting you used the word "lynching" when that's essentially what happened to Ahmaud. Poor taste in words, no?

Guy:Incognito

blinding wrote: »

I think you should wait until the Court decide what happened here. Even if the McMichaels were wrong in trying to stop some one they thought had committed a crime you have not one shred of evidence to say / show that the McMichaels are in any way what so ever Racist ! ! !

If I said without one shred of evidence that Mr Arbery was obviously Racist for trying to attack the McMichael man you would rightly be all over it like a rash.

But heh, I suppose you want your Lynching ! ! !

Why were they not jumping in their cars and chasing down the white people that had been in the house?

Did they hunt down white people in the area that looked like the others in the videos?

They certainely lend an air of racism to the conversation by their actions (or lack of them)


Either way, whatever race they are or the race of the person they killed, imo , it wasnt justifiable.

silverharp

Stateofyou wrote: »

No...that isn't correct. Again, you need to understand that racism is about structural and systemic power. In the US, black people have been disadvantaged in many ways since the time of slavery. They continue to be disadvantaged and marginalised in their society. This isn't an opinion it's backed up by statistics such as income, arrest rates, drug rates, policing rates, home mortgages, college rates, etc. There's a long list. The racial demographic that still holds the most power is white people. White privilege doesn't mean its easy for white people or all white people. It means that there's no historically established system in the US culture (and others) that's an active force against succeeding (or staying alive) in society.

That is why reverse racism isn't a thing. Historically people aren't equal in some society's. But all of us have predjudice and bias.

I was assured bolloxolgy for US campuses wouldnt arrive on our shores, It seems I was wrong

blinding

Stateofyou wrote: »

Interesting you used the word "lynching" when that's essentially what happened to Ahmaud. Poor taste in words, no?

A Lynching is exactly what some of the Posters here are baying for ! !

blinding

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why were they not jumping in their cars and chasing down the white people that had been in the house?

Did they hunt down white people in the area that looked like the others in the videos?

They certainely lend an air of racism to the conversation by their actions (or lack of them)


Either way, whatever race they are or the race of the person they killed, imo , it wasnt justifiable.

How do you know they did not make citizens arrests of other People ? ?

Stateofyou

silverharp wrote: »

I was assured bolloxolgy for US campuses wouldnt arrive on our shores, It seems I was wrong

Lol that education around and awareness of history and statistical studies in another country = bolloxology to some. Knowledge is knowledge. People actually study and live all over the world these days, imagine! Embarrassed for ya.

Stateofyou

blinding wrote: »

A Lynching is exactly what some of the Posters here are baying for ! !

Lynching is a premeditated extrajudicial killing by a group. It is most often used to characterize informal public executions by a mob in order to punish an alleged transgressor, punish a convicted transgressor, or intimidate a group. It also has an ugly history towards black people in the US.

Jesus, that's enough dictionary work for me today.

joe40

blinding wrote: »

A Lynching is exactly what some of the Posters here are baying for ! !

No, not a single person is looking for a lynching. Justice is what people are looking for.
If the video hadn't surfaced the men would not even have been arrested, so I wouldn't expect to much in terms of justice.
This has to go through due process, and the presumption of innocence has to apply.
But for me from the video evidence this was an unlawful killing. Maybe not premeditated murder but definitely unlawful.
As Bob Dylan says "you don't need a weather man to tell you which way the winds blowing"

Guy:Incognito

blinding wrote: »

How do you know they did not make citizens arrests of other People ? ?

Because if they did theyd be falling over themselves to tell everyone.

Are we really going to go through this childish line of spelling out every single thing to adults? You know anything that might be able to help their case would be leaked.

As soon as the question of why only a black man was targeted was started, the proof of the white people also targeted would have been on the table.

magma69

Lynching black men is absolutely fine if they have previously committed a crime. That's essentially what a load of people on this thread are saying.

blinding

joe40 wrote: »

No, not a single person is looking for a lynching. Justice is what people are looking for.
If the video hadn't surfaced the men would not even have been arrested, so I wouldn't expect to much in terms of justice.
This has to go through due process, and the presumption of innocence has to apply.
But for me from the video evidence this was an unlawful killing. Maybe not premeditated murder but definitely unlawful.
As Bob Dylan says "you don't need a weather man to tell you which the winds blowing"

There would be No Wind without Weather ! !

Donald Trump

It is a difficult one. Even though people might form the opinon that it is black and white (no pun intended).

In the US, you'd be mad to confront someone you thought was up to no good, in an area with not too many people around, without a gun.
But then if you bring a gun you need to be prepared to use it or risk having it taken from you. If I understand correctly, was it the fella standing on the truck who pulled the trigger and not the one who the dead man ran at and grappled with?

The way I heard the story first is almost as if the shot fella was out for his usual daily jog and some people just randomly decided to shoot him.

I am not saying that the people who shot him were in the right. Not at all. The critical decision on their part was the one to confront him in the first place. Once that was made, then it was possibly going to end up this way depending on his reaction. If they hadn't confronted him, he'd still be alive. If he hadn't ran at your man holding the gun he'd probably also still be alive. If your man was acting the bollix, then he didn't deserve to die as a punishment but it does remove some of the blame from the shooters and put it on his shoulders.

ohnonotgmail

Donald Trump wrote: »

It is a difficult one. Even though people might form the opinon that it is black and white (no pun intended).

In the US, you'd be mad to confront someone you thought was up to no good, in an area with not too many people around, without a gun.
But then if you bring a gun you need to be prepared to use it or risk having it taken from you. If I understand correctly, was it the fella standing on the truck who pulled the trigger and not the one who the dead man ran at and grappled with?

The way I heard the story first is almost as if the shot fella was out for his usual daily jog and some people just randomly decided to shoot him.

I am not saying that the people who shot him were in the right. Not at all. The critical decision on their part was the one to confront him in the first place. Once that was made, then it was possibly going to end up this way depending on his reaction. If they hadn't confronted him, he'd still be alive. If he hadn't ran at your man holding the gun he'd probably also still be alive. If your man was acting the bollix, then he didn't deserve to die as a punishment but it does remove some of the blame from the shooters and put it on his shoulders.

armed men approach him and he is responsible somehow for them shooting him?

Donald Trump

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

armed men approach him and he is responsible somehow for them shooting him?

Is that what you think?


Because I never said that.


BTW, in the video, the armed men do not approach him. They do set up in his way, but it is him who runs towards them if you want to be pedantic.

ohnonotgmail

Donald Trump wrote: »

Is that what you think?


Because I never said that.

eh, you really did. they initiated the confrontation. they are responsible for what happens as a result of that decision. there have been some really ****ty takes on this thread.

If your man was acting the bollix, then he didn't deserve to die as a punishment but it does remove some of the blame from the shooters and put it on his shoulders.

Muahahaha

Kidchameleon wrote: »

He is from Brunswick. Satilla Shores, the neighborhood where the incident happened is 8-10 miles from Brunswick going by Google Earth. He attended Brunswick High School so I am going to assume he lived quite near there, is 12 miles from Satilla Shores.

A NYT reconstruction is not a good source IMHO, the actual video of the incident is the best source of info. We can see clearly the the NYT is biased & lying about his homes proximity to the incident, probably to make it look more probable that he was jogging. So again, not a great source of impartial information.

.

So basically in making this claim that he was 12 miles from his house you looked up Brunwick on Google Earth, measured the distance to Satilla Shores and then (in your own words) assumed that he had to of been 12 miles from his house.

And then when presented with a Pulitizer Prize winning Irish journalist working for the NYT stating that he was 2 miles from his house the NYT is suddenly "biased and lying"

The only person who is "biased and lying" here is you. I'll happily take the word of the journalist Malachy Browne who has verified his sources and story over you firing up Google Earth, measuring a distance, making assumptions and then coming onto Boards and writing is as fact.

This is what you claimed-

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The neighborhood where the indecent happened. IMHO, this man could not have been cornered, take a look, he could have ran ANYWHERE but chose to charge at the people making a citizens arrest. Also note that this estate is 12 miles from where Arbury lived. If he was jogging there, he had just run a mini marathon and still had to get home! He wasnt jogging by the way as we can see from the video's in the OP.

Yet you have no source for where he lived except your amateur detective work on Google Earth followed by assumptions.

Amazing how Kid Chameleon comes on here inventing fake news and then when called out on it his immediate reaction is to call the New York Times fake news. Very Trumpian indeed.

Gatling

blinding wrote: »

How do you know they did not make citizens arrests of other People ? ?

It would be all over the media ,

Donald Trump

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

eh, you really did. they initiated the confrontation. they are responsible for what happens as a result of that decision. there have been some really ****ty takes on this thread.

Hi. there are a few simple words in that sentence that you might want to look up the definitions. On is if and one is some. You can look them up online.


There is a scale between the extremes of randomly shooting a person for no reason and a case of shoot first or be shot. Where along this scale this incident lies is not known, but it unlikely that it resides at either absolute extreme.





Do you remember Padraig Nally shot Frog Ward in the back as he was running down his driveway? Do you think that Wards previous actions, or action in entering the house, removed some of the blame from Nally? Or do you think Nally should have gotten life the same as if he was a hired hitman shooting a fella for money? we will assume that you are not of the opinion that summary execution should be an appropriate punishment for attempted burglary.

ohnonotgmail

Donald Trump wrote: »

Hi. there are a few simple words in that sentence that you might want to look up the definitions. On is if and one is some. You can look them up online.


There is a scale between the extremes of randomly shooting a person for no reason and a case of shoot first or be shot. Where along this scale this incident lies is not known, but it unlikely that it resides at either absolute extreme.

it has already been established that you cannot claim self defence if you initiate a confrontation. what part of that do you not understand?

ELM327

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it has already been explained that you cannot claim self defence if you initiate the confrontation. and shooting one man who charges at two is hardly reasonable force.

By whom, and referring to which act in GA law.
State? Federal? Otherwise it's just some randomer's opining on the internet which is quite frankly not worth the paper it ain't written on.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I see we're succeeding in diverting the conversation aware from a person's murder.

No murder has occurred yet, that can only be decided by a court.
A death has occurred.