He was no angelIt doesn't justify the actions of the two shooters, but the narrative that this is some innocent kid out jogging is losing its luster.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He was no angelIt doesn't justify the actions of the two shooters, but the narrative that this is some innocent kid out jogging is losing its luster.
Because it is immaterial?Just read that Gregory McMichael investigated Ahmaud Arbery some years prior. Arbery received 5 years probation for bringing a gun to school and obstructing law enforcement.
And less than two years ago, Arbery was convicted of shoplifting while McMichael was an investigator. Unknown if McMichael knew about the shoplifting.
note: I read this on a May 7, 2020 article from Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Why haven’t we seen this information in other MSM articles?
How is this immaterial? The perp appears to have known the victim. I would say this could be extremely material. Any prosecutor worth his salt would look into this? Same for defense attorney.Because it is immaterial?
I think "known" is a stretchHow is this immaterial? The perp appears to have known the victim. I would say this could be extremely material. Any prosecutor worth his salt would look into this? Same for defense attorney.
Be nice to see a white conservative weigh in with some of their usual anger rrserved for this poor kid.
Ibut the narrative that this is some innocent kid out jogging is losing its luster.
Just read that Gregory McMichael investigated Ahmaud Arbery some years prior. Arbery received 5 years probation for bringing a gun to school and obstructing law enforcement.
And less than two years ago, Arbery was convicted of shoplifting while McMichael was an investigator. Unknown if McMichael knew about the shoplifting.
note: I read this on a May 7, 2020 article from Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Why haven’t we seen this information in other MSM articles?
Shocked that you view potential prior interaction between a shooter and a victim irrelevant.Have to agree with @07pilt on this one. This really is irrelvant. Unless the defense is going to change their story and claim that the defendant immediately recognized the victim from these past incidents, grabbed his son and their guns, jumped in his truck and chased him down because he knew who he was.
Two questions for you cableok . . . do you think that would be wise for the defense to do? And if so, how would such a change in story help the defendants' defense against felony murder?
You have made it very clear due to your bias you think any negative interaction between a white person and a black person is race related. Most of us, however, don’t think that way. We view people as individuals.
I don’t know if their prior interaction is material, but if I was a prosecutor or a defense attorney I certainly would investigate.
Then I start doing a little more digging and start seeing the narrative start changing (still doesn't justify the shooting) just not near the racial overtones as at the beginning.
Things I'm curious about are why did it take so long to arrest these guys and what if any laws or procedures weren't followed for not doing so.
I know some don't like hearing this, but white privilege was a factor for why they were not arrested immediately. As stated before, had this been two black men who chased down a white jogger with guns and shut him, those two black men would have been arrested on the spot. Even if those two black men "had friends," they still would have been arrested.
.
Unless you have evidence that hasn’t been released publicly, there is not any evidence this shooting has anything to do with race.
I am having a discussion with someone with such an extremely strong bias that facts are made-up without any supporting evidence.
Ah, white privilege. The bot programming has returned!
Over and over again you state that shooting was racist just because it was a white man that shot a black man.
Let’s look at some of the facts “prosecutor”.As I stated, some don't like hearing it. Nevertheless, it is there for all to see who are willing to see it.
No need for facts, personal bias works.
Let’s look at some of the facts “prosecutor”
The shooter knew the victim was recently arrested for stealing.
Nope, never said that. The facts are more than just a white man shooting a black man. And I gave those facts. There is a context here cable, and I continue to give you the context. I never just say white man shot black man.
Again, a black man jogged by a white man's house. That white man, based on how that black man looked, called out to his white son and they got their guns, got in their truck, chased the black man down, and shot him three times. Twice in the chest.
Sounds to me like you think race is the main motivation.
Personally, I think the death penalty is appropriate for both of them.
Why does race even need to be mentioned?
As more details comes out it sounds less and less like just some random shooting because the kid was black.
you could say they were profiling but then he was seen going in and out of houses it kind of ends that narrative too.
the question will be what do they think they can charge them with and make stick.
I do think privilege played a role in why they weren't immediately arrested but I don't think it's because they were white. Probably has more to do with the elder accused having worked in law enforcement and then two DA's recusing themselves (one at the request of the victims families).
Look you are looking for reasons to support your need to make this a racial incident. Who knows, maybe some kind of evidence or information will be uncovered in the future that supports your bias.What are those details that make it sound less and less likely?
But there is no evidence that these two men knew (at the time) about the victim going into one house under construction and looking around right before the shooting.
Felony murder, what they have been charged with.
That can be part of white privilege too though.
Look, it is ok for people, especially white people, to admit that there is white privilege. It is ok for a white person to awaken to how the system is often slanted in the favor of white Americans. Actually, this is what needs to happen with most Americans, especially white Americans.
There is a reason you are shocked by this incident. There is a reason this incident is hard for you to understand and explain. Comprehending those reasons, admitting them, and not seeking to make excuses or find an easy way out is what we need here in America, especially from white America.
Unfortunately our judicial system can be very frustrating with the amount of time it takes.
Look you are looking for reasons to support your need to make this a racial incident.
The shooter knew the victim was recently arrested for stealing.
The Atlanta Journal Constitution quoted District Attorney George Barnhill when he was talking about how Gregory McMichael knew Ahmaud Arbery. Barnhill said “(McMichael) helped with the previous prosecution of Arbery”.No I am not. You are the one flailing about trying to find anything to throw up to distract from the racial factors at play in this incident. And I am sure you will continue to do so. For some reason, you just can't bring yourself to admit what is clear for many to see.
But getting back to your desire to talk about the "facts," again, do you really claim this is a fact...
If so, please provide the evidence. If not, can you admit you included something that wasn't a fact but an assumption on your part?
If not, can you admit you included something that wasn't a fact but an assumption on your part?
I think it is fair to assume that a person like McMichael that was connected to law enforcement and close to both DA’s ...that he knew about Arbery’s shoplifting charge.
So, since your claim on racism is based in fact, when did you interview the 2 suspects and they turned in their KKK cards?
There are no facts that race was involved
I would not be surprised if race was a factor
Lol
I am operating in facts cable, not assumptions like you now are. And if you want to talk about facts, I am all ears. But I won't talk about assumptions as if they are facts.
He typed that while claiming to be a "prosecutor," as if that claim somehow transforms his blithering gibberish into intelligible and coherent arguments.Lol
Seriously, did you type that while laughing uncontrollably?
Rinse. Repeat. This is the reality of my_Tooncents.
"Prosecutor."lol, I salute toon. Whoever he is, he definitely lives rent free in Meds' head.
"Prosecutor."
Carry on, lol.
Nah. Toon is actually much smarter than you. He was the dumbest member to grace this board before you, so the comparison was as close to accurate as I could get.Everyone on here likes to make bets. So let's make a bet.
You willing to bet that I am this toon poster? I am willing to make such a bet, and the odds is a one year ban from posting on the board.
You game?