NYC is considering removing statues of Washington and Columbus

[Curried Goats]

They were convicted for chasing him down and the altercation that ended with Arbery's death.

This is where things get sticky and is why I say morality is not simple: You could say Arbery was defending himself and in the eyes of the law I suppose he was. But the fact remains he attacked physically first. Does this mean I think he shouldn't have attacked? Not necessarily. I will say that, for the sake of his own safety, he probably shouldn't have. But then, he didn't know what the McMichaels' intentions were either.

I'm not asking you what you could say you pussy, I'm asking you to clarify what you are saying. Was Arbery defending himself or not? You can be defending yourself and attacking first. Defending yourself implies that you're already under attack.

So, in the end, the McMichaels initiated the confrontation (their being armed certainly didn't help) so they were ultimately responsible for what happened and is why I say they deserve to be in prison.

What do you mean by confrontation? Do you mean they initiated the assault? In that case they attacked first. If you simply mean they initiated the interaction that wouldn't give Arbery the right to attack them first as you claim so what do you think they should be in prison for?

You ought to know by now I don't give a loose shit in a high wind about mainstream morality. Mainstream morality is even more conflicted than you are. It can't even get its shit together on what defines racism and it also condemns Confederate statues while displaying antisemitism at the same time.

The mainstream also doesn't care about you. We'll use them to stream roll you, cancel you and push your culture towards extinction.

Fuck mainstream morality.

That's the ticket. Embrace being a deplorable mutant.

And yet I never waved a flag.

But you support venerating slavers which is similar.

Just can't let it go, can you?


Why does that bother you?

It doesn't bother me at all. I love watching you Bingos self destruct.

If I say they shouldn't have been sent to prison, I'm a racist. If I say they should have been sent to prison, I'm a racist.

Yep. Now you're getting how the game is played. You going to play to win or be a loser your whole life?

Like I said before, you've got all the bases covered to where you never have to question your own views and morality.

You can question it all you want but who's going to listen to racist piece of shit like you?

But did they actually threaten Arbery with their firearms? I don't believe so. All they were doing up to the point Arbery attacked was holding them.

You watched that video and didn't see a man running for his life from a bunch of racist pieces of shit? We can all guess why.....

It might be what they were charged and convicted on but the Georgia penal code says:

"a A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults:

1. With intent to murder, to rape, or to rob;
2. With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury;
3. With any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in strangulation; or
4. A person or persons without legal justification by discharging a firearm from within a motor vehicle toward a person or persons.

But anyway, like I said, it was a stupid thing to do and they are where they belong.

Holding a gun in your hand and giving orders to people covers number 2. It implies that people should listen to you or else. As I said, legal the threat is implicit. If you're gun owner you should really know these things.

Then you're just as much a race hustler as I am racist, aren't you?

You mean we both have equally subjective opinions? I've been saying that from the start. What we don't have though are equally effective political strategies.

What difference does that make? The investigation report was the preliminary report, not Baker's autopsy report and it was based on Baker's autopsy report.


Why are you linking this? I never said or implied that Baker was pressured.

I'm linking to it because it contains the quote from Baker's testimony that the prosecution released misleading information in their initial charging documents for Chauvin. I even copy and pasted it for you under the link.

After taking him from the claustrophobic confines of his own SUV.

No. They had him in the back of the police car. They took him out of the police car to kneel on his neck.

You're the one who said in the beginning that Baker's autopsy report was preliminary.

I was quoting an article that called it a preliminary report. I thought they meant preliminary autopsy report but they meant the initial charging document from the prosecutors office.

Think whatever you like. But you know as well as I do that officers were getting harassed a lot by bystanders when performing arrests of suspects, even if the suspect was not being mistreated in any way.

I don't know that. Pretending as if I agree with you is some weak shit.

Oh, a race hustler thinks people should burn, loot and destroy even if the officers are innocent or did nothing wrong.

I don't think that.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I'm not asking you what you could say you pussy, I'm asking you to clarify what you are saying.

I'm saying they chased him, he attacked, was killed and they went to prison.

What's confusing you is that, while I agree it was a stupid thing for them to do, I don't think the charges quite fit the crime in some ways. Nevertheless, their stupidity was criminal and, once again, THEY GOT WHAT THEY DESERVED.

Is that clear enough you pussy?

Was Arbery defending himself or not?

I don't know, was he? He clearly thought he was and maybe he was. The law apparently thought so too.

What do you mean by confrontation? Do you mean they initiated the assault?

You're really trying hard to make me wrong in some way.

That's the ticket. Embrace being a deplorable mutant.

If it gives you a sense of purpose, I will.

It doesn't bother me at all. I love watching you Bingos self destruct.

This from a guy who makes up nonsense words like "convulted".

You watched that video and didn't see a man running for his life from a bunch of racist pieces of shit? We can all guess why.....

I thought he was jogging.

Holding a gun in your hand and giving orders to people covers number 2. It implies that people should listen to you or else. As I said, legal the threat is implicit. If you're gun owner you should really know these things.

It says "when used offensively...". Holding it is not using it.

You mean we both have equally subjective opinions? I've been saying that from the start. What we don't have though are equally effective political strategies.

Politics is even less moral than you are.

I'm linking to it because it contains the quote from Baker's testimony that the prosecution released misleading information

"Misleading"? I don't think that was the word they used. As I understood it, they didn't feel enough emphasis was placed on the neck compression. Hence, my allegation that they were biased and looking for a cause of death to fit the narrative.

in their initial charging documents for Chauvin. I even copy and pasted it for you under the link.

I saw it and read it. But I don't think they said what you think they said.

No. They had him in the back of the police car. They took him out of the police car to kneel on his neck.

They took him from his own vehicle, dumbass. He was in his SUV after he left the store and was still parked in the area when the cops approached.

They took him from his own SUV, put him in the back of a police SUV and suddenly he gets claustrophobia.

I was quoting an article that called it a preliminary report. I thought they meant preliminary autopsy report but they meant the initial charging document from the prosecutors office.

I don't know that. Pretending as if I agree with you is some weak shit.

Oh yes you know that.

I don't think that.

Then what is the alternative, wait for the investigation? There's a novel idea.

 

[Curried Goats]

I'm saying they chased him, he attacked, was killed and they went to prison.

If they were the ones who were attacked why are they in prison and why do you think they should be? The more you say about this the less sense you make.

What's confusing you is that, while I agree it was a stupid thing for them to do, I don't think the charges quite fit the crime in some ways. Nevertheless, their stupidity was criminal and, once again, THEY GOT WHAT THEY DESERVED.

Is that clear enough you pussy?

Not really. If the charges don't fit the crime how did they get what they deserve? Being stupid isn't a crime. What crime do you think they committed and should of been charged with?

I don't know, was he? He clearly thought he was and maybe he was. The law apparently thought so too.

I'm asking you. We know he thought he was, we know the law thought he was, we know I know think he was under attack, the question is what do you think? Why do you act like such a bitch?

You're really trying hard to make me wrong in some way.

How can I make you wrong? I'm asking your opinion. I just don't think you're being honest with me. None of the reasoning behind your opinion makes any sense. If what the McMichaels was doing wasn't violent or imply the threat of violence then Arbery has no legal right to attack them first, as you say. It's only self defense if you're actually defending yourself from some assault.

I thought he was jogging.

He was, then they started chasing him and he started running for his life.

It says "when used offensively...". Holding it is not using it.

Holding it and giving people orders is using it offensively. As I said the threat of or else is implicit in your orders to people when you're holding that gun.

Politics is even less moral than you are.

But more useful. You can feel salty about cancel culture or Chauvin being in prison for murder but the power of politics will bow your head regardless.

"Misleading"? I don't think that was the word they used. As I understood it, they didn't feel enough emphasis was placed on the neck compression. Hence, my allegation that they were biased and looking for a cause of death to fit the narrative.

The family was biased about the death of their family member? You don't say!

I saw it and read it. But I don't think they said what you think they said.

Go ahead then and quote the passage from Baker's testimony and give me your read on what he's saying.

They took him from his own vehicle, dumbass. He was in his SUV after he left the store and was still parked in the area when the cops approached.

He was. Then they put him in the back of the squad car only to take him back out and kneel on his neck until they killed him.

They took him from his own SUV, put him in the back of a police SUV and suddenly he gets claustrophobia.

I'm guessing the seat of your own vehicle feels a bit different than being in the back of a police car. Or maybe he was giving them a hard time or just high. None of that excuses them removing him from the back of the police car only to murder him.

Oh yes you know that.

You know that objectively or you feel it subjectively?

Then what is the alternative, wait for the investigation? There's a novel idea.

Because there's never been an issue with the police investigating themselves..... All I can say is thank God we have video footage because there is no level of police abuse racists like you wouldn't support otherwise.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

If they were the ones who were attacked why are they in prison and why do you think they should be? The more you say about this the less sense you make.

Because they initiated it.

I said Arbery was the first to physically attack. I think it was unwise of him to do so but was he justified? If he thought the McMichaels were actively gunning for him or unjustly trying to apprehend him, yes, it was justified.

Not really. If the charges don't fit the crime how did they get what they deserve? Being stupid isn't a crime. What crime do you think they committed and should of been charged with?

They were convicted on aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, among other things. I'm not sure that one applies because the law is clear about intent. Aggravated assault is the use of a firearm with the intent to do bodily harm. While what they did was stupid and rash, I don't believe they actually intended to shoot or kill Arbery.

I think they only intended to detain Arbery, which might fall under attempted kidnapping. In any case, they had no right to do what they did and they deserved to go to prison for that, if nothing else.

I'm asking you. We know he thought he was, we know the law thought he was, we know I know think he was under attack, the question is what do you think? Why do you act like such a bitch?

Do you want me to answer the question?

How can I make you wrong?

In your own mind.

I'm asking your opinion.

No, you're not. You're fishing for reasons to call me racist some more.

I just don't think you're being honest with me.

What do you expect from a racist?

None of the reasoning behind your opinion makes any sense. If what the McMichaels was doing wasn't violent or imply the threat of violence then Arbery has no legal right to attack them first, as you say. It's only self defense if you're actually defending yourself from some assault.

The distinction here is what Arbery thought their intentions were.

As I said above, I don't think the McMichaels intended violence, I think they only intended to detain Arbery. Problem is, even if true, Arbery had no way of knowing that.

This is why I'm always telling you these kinds of matters are very seldom that simple. It's not quite as clear cut as the trial made it out to be but they did nevertheless initiate it and were ultimately responsible for its outcome.

He was, then they started chasing him and he started running for his life.

I've seen the video and it looked like he was jogging to me.

Holding it and giving people orders is using it offensively. As I said the threat of or else is implicit in your orders to people when you're holding that gun.

Perhaps.

But more useful. You can feel salty about cancel culture or Chauvin being in prison for murder but the power of politics will bow your head regardless.

Then none of this has anything to do with morality, does it?

The family was biased about the death of their family member? You don't say!

The independent MEs were biased.

Go ahead then and quote the passage from Baker's testimony and give me your read on what he's saying.

I didn't see the testimony. I'm going by what his autopsy report said.

He was. Then they put him in the back of the squad car only to take him back out and kneel on his neck until they killed him.

They took him back out of the cruiser because he was ranting and raving about being claustrophobic and not being able to breathe.

I'm guessing the seat of your own vehicle feels a bit different than being in the back of a police car. Or maybe he was giving them a hard time or just high. None of that excuses them removing him from the back of the police car only to murder him.

They were probably required by procedure to take him out of the cruiser once the suspect complains of being claustrophobic. They likely wanted to avoid Floyd having some kind of mental or emotional breakdown on the way to the precinct. He was already highly agitated.

You know that objectively or you feel it subjectively?

I know it from common sense and seeing/reading news stories about such confrontations. I also know how you avoid conceding obviously true points so you can continue with your race hustling narrative.

I know that you know that these types of incidents happened.

Because there's never been an issue with the police investigating themselves..... All I can say is thank God we have video footage because there is no level of police abuse racists like you wouldn't support otherwise.

It doesn't matter if there's video or not, people on both sides will see what they want to see.

This, ironically, is why I get called racist in these kinds of discussions. Any time I present a detached, unbiased forensic analysis of events that does not cast the black person in an angelic light, I invariably get called racist.

I've said it a hundred times in this discussion and I'll say it again: It's never that simple.

 

[Curried Goats]

Because they initiated it.

I said Arbery was the first to physically attack. I think it was unwise of him to do so but was he justified? If he thought the McMichaels were actively gunning for him or unjustly trying to apprehend him, yes, it was justified.


They were convicted on aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, among other things. I'm not sure that one applies because the law is clear about intent. Aggravated assault is the use of a firearm with the intent to do bodily harm. While what they did was stupid and rash, I don't believe they actually intended to shoot or kill Arbery.

I think they only intended to detain Arbery, which might fall under attempted kidnapping. In any case, they had no right to do what they did and they deserved to go to prison for that, if nothing else.

Do you want me to answer the question?

The question isn't about what the McMichaels thought, what Arbery thought or what the law thought. It's about what you think. Why are you being such a pussy about it?

In your own mind.


No, you're not. You're fishing for reasons to call me racist some more.


What do you expect from a racist?

And me looking for reasons to call you a racist has neutered you to the point that you're now too pussy to share your own opinion? Sounds to me like shame and ridicule are doing their job exceptionally. Ideas only brave enough to be whispered and shared in dark corners will wither and die and go extinct as I said at the beginning. This is what I mean about pushing your culture to the fringes, to the back waters and ultimately towards extinction. Even on an anonymous message board you're deterred and servile, promising me you've arrived at the right conclusion, however you got there. Good. This is all I want for your people.

The distinction here is what Arbery thought their intentions were.

As I said above, I don't think the McMichaels intended violence, I think they only intended to detain Arbery. Problem is, even if true, Arbery had no way of knowing that.

This is why I'm always telling you these kinds of matters are very seldom that simple. It's not quite as clear cut as the trial made it out to be but they did nevertheless initiate it and were ultimately responsible for its outcome.

The jurors determine what a reasonable person would of thought and how a reasonable person would of acted, not necessarily what Arbery thought or what the McMichaels thought. To a jury, and hopefully a majority, it isn't reasonable to think you have a right to arm yourself, chase down someone you suspect of wrong doing and detain them against their will. Those aren't reasonable choices. The jury did find it reasonable that if you find that happening to you it's reasonable to suspect those people mean you harm and to act accordingly.

What do you think is reasonable, racist?

I've seen the video and it looked like he was jogging to me.

Must be those kkkorrective lenses they hand out to a certain breed of whites.

Perhaps.

Indeed.

Then none of this has anything to do with morality, does it?

It has to do with morality being a useful tool. I don't believe in objective morality. I didn't enslave your mind. You're the one who's self conscious about subjective judgment. I couldn't give less of a fuck personally. I do recognize how useful it is though that a lot of you care deeply about what others think of you. You made yourselves susceptible to judgement from the masses by professing to be good moral Christians even though your own diety tells you other people's judgement is worth piss all. You're such a wonderfully confused set of people.

The independent MEs were biased.

They wouldn't be the defense or the families M.E.'s otherwise.

I didn't see the testimony. I'm going by what his autopsy report said.

I quoted the testimony for you. It was in the link.

They took him back out of the cruiser because he was ranting and raving about being claustrophobic and not being able to breathe.

And so their solution was to kneel on his neck? Does that sound like a reasonable solution to a person in your custody and care complaining about being unable to breathe?

They were probably required by procedure to take him out of the cruiser once the suspect complains of being claustrophobic. They likely wanted to avoid Floyd having some kind of mental or emotional breakdown on the way to the precinct. He was already highly agitated.

It cute that you imagine they manifested their concern for his claustrophobia and shortness of breath by kneeling on his neck until he died. Real compassionate set of people those officers were....

I know it from common sense and seeing/reading news stories about such confrontations. I also know how you avoid conceding obviously true points so you can continue with your race hustling narrative.

Oh, it's so obviously true that those police officers were just concerned for Floyd's safety and that you're totally not a racist....

I know that you know that these types of incidents happened.

It doesn't matter if there's video or not, people on both sides will see what they want to see.

You're seeing what you want to see. Reasonable, non racist people saw the police murder a man.

This, ironically, is why I get called racist in these kinds of discussions. Any time I present a detached, unbiased forensic analysis of events that does not cast the black person in an angelic light, I invariably get called racist.

You get called a racist a lot do you? Why do I not find that the least bit surprising? It never occurred to you to examine why so many people have arrived at the conclusion that you're a deplorable racist?

I've said it a hundred times in this discussion and I'll say it again: It's never that simple.

It is when you're not try to complicate it so you arrive at the racist conclusion you were hoping for.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The question isn't about what the McMichaels thought, what Arbery thought or what the law thought. It's about what you think. Why are you being such a pussy about it?

What I think is based on what I believe were their thoughts and motives and I've already given you that.

An objective look at this will tell you that it's unlikely the McMichaels set out to kill a black man. But people like you are hopelessly bound to hyperbole because you have nothing else.

And me looking for reasons to call you a racist has neutered you to the point that you're now too pussy to share your own opinion?

Are you so fucking thick headed that after seven weeks you still don't understand I don't view things the same way you do? You're not going to get the same type of assessment from me as you would yourself or most others.

Sounds to me like shame and ridicule are doing their job exceptionally.

That's to be expected from an arrogant prick like you.

Ideas only brave enough to be whispered and shared in dark corners will wither and die and go extinct as I said at the beginning. This is what I mean about pushing your culture to the fringes, to the back waters and ultimately towards extinction. Even on an anonymous message board you're deterred and servile, promising me you've arrived at the right conclusion, however you got there. Good. This is all I want for your people.

Blah, buh-blah, bluh-blah-blah-blah.

Don't flatter yourself moron. You are not intelligent enough, wise enough or persuasive enough to make me feel ashamed. You're a mindless buffoon who thinks the sledgehammer is always necessary when sometimes a tack hammer will do.

Your brand of moralizing convinces no one and in fact, only serves to show you are just as much a hypocrite as anyone else.

The jurors determine what a reasonable person would of thought and how a reasonable person would of acted, not necessarily what Arbery thought or what the McMichaels thought. To a jury, and hopefully a majority, it isn't reasonable to think you have a right to arm yourself, chase down someone you suspect of wrong doing and detain them against their will.

Isn't that what I said?

Those aren't reasonable choices. The jury did find it reasonable that if you find that happening to you it's reasonable to suspect those people mean you harm and to act accordingly.

Apparently so. I have no beef with the jury's verdict.

What do you think is reasonable, racist?

Do you expect me to answer that?

Must be those kkkorrective lenses they hand out to a certain breed of whites.

He wasn't "running for his life", he was jogging.

But this doesn't change anything.

It has to do with morality being a useful tool.

So if morality is only a tool then Washington was not a "piece of human shit", was he?

I don't believe in objective morality. I didn't enslave your mind. You're the one who's self conscious about subjective judgment. I couldn't give less of a fuck personally. I do recognize how useful it is though that a lot of you care deeply about what others think of you.

A lot of "you"? Who's "you"?

If I cared that much about what people thought of me I wouldn't be here, would I?

You made yourselves susceptible to judgement from the masses by professing to be good moral Christians even though your own diety tells you other people's judgement is worth piss all. You're such a wonderfully confused set of people.

You fucking moron. I told you already I was an atheist. Your response was "Good for you".

Also, it's "deity", not "diety".

They wouldn't be the defense or the families M.E.'s otherwise.

Even independent MEs should be objective. If they are not then they have no credibility.

I quoted the testimony for you. It was in the link.

So?

And so their solution was to kneel on his neck?

Apparently.

Does that sound like a reasonable solution to a person in your custody and care complaining about being unable to breathe?

They probably didn't really believe him. He was complaining he couldn't breathe before they had him on the ground.

I know this will be hard for you to swallow but the bitter truth always is. The actions of the cops notwithstanding, Floyd would still be alive today if not for the drugs in his system that made him paranoid.

If not for being stoned out of his gourd, he would have simply complied with the officers and none of this would have happened. That doesn't make it his fault per se, but that's one of the factors I was talking about. He contributed to his own death, however unwittingly.

It cute that you imagine they manifested their concern for his claustrophobia and shortness of breath by kneeling on his neck until he died. Real compassionate set of people those officers were....

Then why do you think they took him out of the cruiser after putting him in, dumbass?

Oh, it's so obviously true that those police officers were just concerned for Floyd's safety and that you're totally not a racist....

Obviously.

You're seeing what you want to see. Reasonable, non racist people saw the police murder a man.

"Reasonable" is subjective. So is "racist" for that matter.

You get called a racist a lot do you? Why do I not find that the least bit surprising? It never occurred to you to examine why so many people have arrived at the conclusion that you're a deplorable racist?

1.) As a matter of fact, it has. My conclusion is that race hustlers never consider the other million factors that affect the outcomes of these kinds of situations and that they are too emotionally invested in the issue to be objective.

2.) It's not "so many people", it's like two of them. IM2 is one. But IM2 has tunnel vision and is an even bigger race hustler than you. JoeB is another. You and he share some of the same hypocritical qualities and a penchant for ignoring pertinent details.

It is when you're not try to complicate it so you arrive at the racist conclusion you were hoping for.

Like you did with Sandmann?

 

[Curried Goats]

What I think is based on what I believe were their thoughts and motives and I've already given you that.

An objective look at this will tell you that it's unlikely the McMichaels set out to kill a black man. But people like you are hopelessly bound to hyperbole because you have nothing else.

Who said I think they set out to murder a black man? I think they set out to chase down and put and black man in his place they suspected of wrong doing. They ended up murdering him when he refused to comply with their unlawful actions.

Are you so fucking thick headed that after seven weeks you still don't understand I don't view things the same way you do? You're not going to get the same type of assessment from me as you would yourself or most others.

Of course you don't think like most of us do. You're a deplorable racist.

Don't flatter yourself moron. You are not intelligent enough, wise enough or persuasive enough to make me feel ashamed. You're a mindless buffoon who thinks the sledgehammer is always necessary when sometimes a tack hammer will do.

You already flatter me and my tactics by being too much of a bitch to accept the objective truth that venerators of Washington, venerate a slaver.

Your brand of moralizing convinces no one and in fact, only serves to show you are just as much a hypocrite as anyone else.

So you keep saying yet I've seen the attitude in this country shift over people like the Confederates.

He wasn't "running for his life", he was jogging.

But this doesn't change anything.

He was. The McMichaels themselves admitted to chasing him all around the neighborhood and that he tried to get away from them multiple times.

So if morality is only a tool then Washington was not a "piece of human shit", was he?

Not objectively but what a stupid point you've made. Is anyone a piece of human shit, objectively speaking? You keep asking for objective evidence to judgements that are inherently subjective. How stupid are you?

Even independent MEs should be objective. If they are not then they have no credibility.

That's for the jury to decide. In the end they sided with the county M.E. who ruled it a murder.

They probably didn't really believe him. He was complaining he couldn't breathe before they had him on the ground.

I know this will be hard for you to swallow but the bitter truth always is. The actions of the cops notwithstanding, Floyd would still be alive today if not for the drugs in his system that made him paranoid.

The drugs didn't kill. He'd still be alive today if the cops didn't kneel on his neck and murder him. But of course the racist can't help himself but blame the black man for his own murder.

If not for being stoned out of his gourd, he would have simply complied with the officers and none of this would have happened. That doesn't make it his fault per se, but that's one of the factors I was talking about. He contributed to his own death, however unwittingly.

Per say? This is why you're both a racist and a pussy. Do you say anything confidently you coward fuck?

Then why do you think they took him out of the cruiser after putting him in, dumbass?

Because they were annoyed, but instead of getting him checked out medically Chauvin decided to show him who was boss and ended up killing him.

1.) As a matter of fact, it has. My conclusion is that race hustlers never consider the other million factors that affect the outcomes of these kinds of situations and that they are too emotionally invested in the issue to be objective.

On the contrary it's racists who are looking for a million little things to excuse the big 200+ racist gorilla kneeling on a man's neck.

2.) It's not "so many people", it's like two of them. IM2 is one. But IM2 has tunnel vision and is an even bigger race hustler than you. JoeB is another. You and he share some of the same hypocritical qualities and a penchant for ignoring pertinent details.

The entire world thinks Chauvin murdered Floyd save for a handful of racist pieces of shit like you.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Who said I think they set out to murder a black man?

Nobody. But many people did.

I think they set out to chase down and put and black man in his place they suspected of wrong doing. They ended up murdering him when he refused to comply with their unlawful actions.

No. Again, it's not as simple as that. The guy shot in self defense. Remember, Arbery physically attacked first.

I think they only meant to detain him but when Arbery ran at him and tried to take his gun, he instinctively shot in self defense. It doesn't matter that they initiated the confrontation, when Arbery attacked, he did what anyone would do in that situation: self preservation.

Does this mean it was Arbery's fault that he was shot? Of course not. Ultimately the McMichaels were at fault for the whole thing for starting it. I'm just describing the sequence of events.

Of course you don't think like most of us do. You're a deplorable racist.

Just as I predicted.

You already flatter me and my tactics by being too much of a bitch to accept the objective truth that venerators of Washington, venerate a slaver.

I can accept that Washington was a slaver and I can accept that people admire him in spite of this. I just don't accept the context of their admiration you are trying to convey.

So you keep saying yet I've seen the attitude in this country shift over people like the Confederates.

Even if true, it doesn't make you any less of a hypocrite.

He was. The McMichaels themselves admitted to chasing him all around the neighborhood and that he tried to get away from them multiple times.

Again, I've seen the video: he was jogging.

I don't believe he was running for his life because if he was, he wouldn't have stayed on the fucking road when he knew they were in a truck. He would have run off into the woods or somewhere they couldn't go. Besides all that, before the final confrontation where Arbery gets shot, he is shown at one point turning around and running in the direction of the McMichaels' truck. He apparently ran right by the truck and kept going.

So why would he deliberately turn around and run at the truck following him if he's running for his life?

It's clear that at some point Arbery knew he as being followed but he didn't appear to me to think his life was in danger. It just seems he was trying to avoid them.

Not objectively but what a stupid point you've made. Is anyone a piece of human shit, objectively speaking? You keep asking for objective evidence to judgements that are inherently subjective. How stupid are you?

How stupid are you to keep repeating over and over that Washington was a piece of human shit like it is objectively true while at the same time saying morality is subjective?

I've already said it once and I'll say it again: you think Washington is objectively a piece of human shit. "Morality is subjective" is merely a safety net for you.

That's for the jury to decide.

No it's not.

In the end they sided with the county M.E. who ruled it a murder.

Which, again, makes me wonder why they commissioned independent MEs in the first place.

The drugs didn't kill.

Didn't say that. But he would still be alive if not for the drugs.

He'd still be alive today if the cops didn't kneel on his neck and murder him.

I'm not convinced that's how he died.

But of course the racist can't help himself but blame the black man for his own murder.

Never said it was his fault.

Can you honestly argue that, if not for the drugs in his system, he still would have behaved erratically and paranoid like he did?

Per say?

It's not "per say" you idiot, it's "per se".

This is why you're both a racist and a pussy. Do you say anything confidently you coward fuck?

Do you even understand what it means?

Because they were annoyed, but instead of getting him checked out medically Chauvin decided to show him who was boss and ended up killing him.

Why would they get him checked out medically for claiming claustrophobia when they just took him from his own vehicle?

On the contrary it's racists who are looking for a million little things to excuse the big 200+ racist gorilla kneeling on a man's neck.

Irrelevant. You asked a question, I answered.

The entire world thinks Chauvin murdered Floyd save for a handful of racist pieces of shit like you.

Is that objective or subjective?

 

[Curried Goats]

No. Again, it's not as simple as that. The guy shot in self defense. Remember, Arbery physically attacked first.

He didn't shoot in self defense. If he had he wouldn't be in prison for murder. How are you this confused you racist Bingo?

I think they only meant to detain him but when Arbery ran at him and tried to take his gun, he instinctively shot in self defense. It doesn't matter that they initiated the confrontation, when Arbery attacked, he did what anyone would do in that situation: self preservation.

Trying to detain someone against their will is assault. Doing it with a gun is assault with a deadly weapon.

Does this mean it was Arbery's fault that he was shot? Of course not. Ultimately the McMichaels were at fault for the whole thing for starting it. I'm just describing the sequence of events.

You're describing it from the perspective of a racist who doesn't see or understand that it was Arbery who had the right to self defense from those aggressive thugs.

I can accept that Washington was a slaver and I can accept that people admire him in spite of this. I just don't accept the context of their admiration you are trying to convey.

I'm not asking you what you can accept, emotionally you fuckwit. I'm asking what's objective. It's an objective fact that venerators of Washington venerate a slaver. What excuses you want to make for that come after accepting objective fact you stunted snowflake.

Again, I've seen the video: he was jogging.

Have you heard the testimony or their own admission to the police? Here's a video detailing their account of how they chased Arbery through the neighborhood and how he tried several times to get away from them.

I don't believe he was running for his life because if he was, he wouldn't have stayed on the fucking road when he knew they were in a truck. He would have run off into the woods or somewhere they couldn't go. Besides all that, before the final confrontation where Arbery gets shot, he is shown at one point turning around and running in the direction of the McMichaels' truck. He apparently ran right by the truck and kept going.

We know he was running for his life you clown. We have the benefit of hindsight.

So why would he deliberately turn around and run at the truck following him if he's running for his life?

They chased him through the neighborhood and he was probably tired and exhausted and decided to make his last stand.

It's clear that at some point Arbery knew he as being followed but he didn't appear to me to think his life was in danger. It just seems he was trying to avoid them.

You're only focusing on the last bit of video. We have the McMichaels entire confession of what happened because these privileged fuck's thought there weren't going to be any legal consequences for them chasing down and murdering a black man.

How stupid are you to keep repeating over and over that Washington was a piece of human shit like it is objectively true while at the same time saying morality is subjective?

Why would you think I'm repeating it as if it were objectively true? When is it ever objectively true that someone is a piece of human shit? It's an inherently subjective statement you stupid fuck.

I've already said it once and I'll say it again: you think Washington is objectively a piece of human shit. "Morality is subjective" is merely a safety net for you.

You can say it all you like but I never said Washington was human trash, objectively. The only things I've claimed to be objectively true about Washington is that he was a slaver and that the people who venerate Washington, venerate a slaver. Whether you think slavers are pieces of human trash is entirely subjective.

Which, again, makes me wonder why they commissioned independent MEs in the first place.

Why are you confused about basic legal strategy? Chauvins defense also found an M.E. that agreed with their version of events. They probably spoke to a few before they found one that supported their theory for how Floyd died.

Didn't say that. But he would still be alive if not for the drugs.

That's a statement suggesting it was the drugs that killed it and it wasn't. If he had taken those same drugs and hadn't had his neck knelt on by a racist piece of shit cop he'd still be alive.

I'm not convinced that's how he died.

Well you're a racist. Who's surprised by this?

Never said it was his fault.

Can you honestly argue that, if not for the drugs in his system, he still would have behaved erratically and paranoid like he did?

I can honestly say I don't know if it was the drugs that triggered his claustrophobia. You don't either.

Why would they get him checked out medically for claiming claustrophobia when they just took him from his own vehicle?

They took him from the back of a police car before kneeling on his neck and murdering him. Get your facts straight you stupid fuck. Here's an image of Floyd sitting in the back of the police car before they pulled him back out and murdered him.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

He didn't shoot in self defense. If he had he wouldn't be in prison for murder. How are you this confused you racist Bingo?

McMichaels fired in self defense when Arbery tried to take his gun from him. The murder conviction is irrelevant and was to be expected.

You asked me in your last post: "Who said I think they set out to murder a black man?"
Can I assume from this that you do not believe the McMichaels set out to murder Arbery? If so then logically you must see that McMichaels fired in self defense. If not then you actually do believe they intended to kill him and your question was moot.

Trying to detain someone against their will is assault. Doing it with a gun is assault with a deadly weapon.

So then you're now saying their intention was to murder Arbery?

You're describing it from the perspective of a racist who doesn't see or understand that it was Arbery who had the right to self defense from those aggressive thugs.

That doesn't change the fact that when he ran at McMichaels and tried to take his gun, McMichaels' survival instinct kicked in and he fired to defend himself.

None of this absolves the McMichaels of their actions that day and I'm not saying Arbery was not trying - or should not have tried - to defend himself. That is not what I'm saying.

I'm not asking you what you can accept, emotionally you fuckwit. I'm asking what's objective. It's an objective fact that venerators of Washington venerate a slaver. What excuses you want to make for that come after accepting objective fact you stunted snowflake.

Irrelevant. I do not accept the context you are trying to convey.

Have you heard the testimony or their own admission to the police? Here's a video detailing their account of how they chased Arbery through the neighborhood and how he tried several times to get away from them.

Irrelevant. Of course they will say they chased Arbery but Arbery did not appear to be "running for his life" as you put it. His actions and manner of movement did not suggest to me he was especially afraid or fearing for his life. They suggest to me he was merely trying to avoid them. When he realized they were going to persist in following him, that's when he ran over and confronted Travis at the front of the truck.

And remember this: when Arbery approached and confronted Travis at the front of the truck, he approached from BEHIND the truck. He then ran around to the front to confront Travis.

Now, if he was running for his life as you say, why would he approach the stopped truck from behind? Why would he not just take to the woods or something to get away?

We know he was running for his life you clown. We have the benefit of hindsight.

Did your hindsight notice he approached from behind the truck? Did your hindsight also notice that when the video starts, Arbery is a couple hundred yards behind the truck?

If he was running for his life and was that far away, why not just get the fuck off the road? Why would he continue to run another two hundred yards straight at the truck if he feared for his life?

They chased him through the neighborhood and he was probably tired and exhausted and decided to make his last stand.

"Probably"? Is that fact or your opinion?

You're only focusing on the last bit of video. We have the McMichaels entire confession of what happened because these privileged fuck's thought there weren't going to be any legal consequences for them chasing down and murdering a black man.

But you suggested you do not believe they set out to murder a black man.

Why would you think I'm repeating it as if it were objectively true? When is it ever objectively true that someone is a piece of human shit? It's an inherently subjective statement you stupid fuck.

Of course it's subjective (you stupid fuck). You behave as if it is objectively true.

You can say it all you like but I never said Washington was human trash, objectively.

Not explicitly, no. But it's clear to me you think so.

The only things I've claimed to be objectively true about Washington is that he was a slaver and that the people who venerate Washington, venerate a slaver. Whether you think slavers are pieces of human trash is entirely subjective.

Nah, you use that as a safety net. You're not fooling anybody.

Why are you confused about basic legal strategy? Chauvins defense also found an M.E. that agreed with their version of events. They probably spoke to a few before they found one that supported their theory for how Floyd died.

Which, once again, makes me wonder why they hired the MEs if Baker's autopsy report gave them what they wanted: Homicide.

That's a statement suggesting it was the drugs that killed it and it wasn't.

You don't know that. Baker himself said the drugs and heart condition were likely contributing factors.

But nevertheless, this falls into the category of factors and events that I talked about, that lead up to any incident. The drugs did not kill him but without them, he would likely have just complied and none of this would have happened. Understand?

If he had taken those same drugs and hadn't had his neck knelt on by a racist piece of shit cop he'd still be alive.

True.

Well you're a racist. Who's surprised by this?

Who's surprised that a race hustler calls someone racist?

I can honestly say I don't know if it was the drugs that triggered his claustrophobia. You don't

I didn't say the drugs triggered his claustrophobia. In fact, I don't think he was claustrophobic at all. That was my point in mentioning they pulled him from his own SUV.

I think the drugs made him paranoid and claiming claustrophobia was just a symptom of that.

They took him from the back of a police car before kneeling on his neck and murdering him. Get your facts straight you stupid fuck.

What facts did I get wrong here (you stupid fuck)? I said they pulled him from his own SUV and later put him in the police SUV and then he's suddenly claustrophobic.

Here's an image of Floyd sitting in the back of the police car before they pulled him back out and murdered him.


View attachment 858349

Your point?

 

[BackAgain]

NYC. It has massive problems with roads and traffic and mass transit. It has massive problems with homelessness. Its spending creates major tax burdens on everyone who lives or even commutes there. Its infrastructure is a mess. Crime is much worse now than it’s been there in a couple of damn decades. Businesses are moving out.

So, naturally, the City management focuses on all the truly important topics like naming streets and changing the names of public buildings and writing meaningless phrases on roads.

 

[Curried Goats]

McMichaels fired in self defense when Arbery tried to take his gun from him. The murder conviction is irrelevant and was to be expected.

No. The murder conviction is not irrelevant to whether he fired his gun in self defense. That's a stupid argument. The murder conviction in fact shows that a jury, looking at the evidence, found his actions to be murder rather than self defense. Either you agree with jury that he murdered Arbery or you think they got it wrong and that he was acting in self defense. Which is it? Why is it so hard to get a clear answer from you?

You asked me in your last post: "Who said I think they set out to murder a black man?"
Can I assume from this that you do not believe the McMichaels set out to murder Arbery? If so then logically you must see that McMichaels fired in self defense. If not then you actually do believe they intended to kill him and your question was moot.

That's not how logic works you clown. It's in fact a fallacy of affirming the consequent. Just because the McMichaels didn't set out to murder Arbery doesn't mean their actions didn't result in murder. This is why I mentioned earlier that the jury is tasked with finding murder beyond a reasonable doubt. It has nothing to do with whether the McMichaels left their house with the intention of murdering Arbery. If you chase someone down with a gun and try to threaten and detain them a reasonable person can forsee the outcome of those violent threats to be violent outcomes. Just as if you armed yourself and went into a bank, merely with the intention of robbing it and end up shooting the security guard that is murder. Having to shoot someone is a foreseeable outcome to your violent and threatening use of a firearm during a bank robbery. To every other reasonable individual who isn't a racist trying to make excuses for these white guys with a Confederate flag on their pick up, what they did was murder and at no point where their conceivably acting in self defense. That's stupid.

So then you're now saying their intention was to murder Arbery?

And yet death is an entirely foreseeable outcome of their violent attempts to detain Arbery against his will.

That doesn't change the fact that when he ran at McMichaels and tried to take his gun, McMichaels' survival instinct kicked in and he fired to defend himself.

As a gun owner you don't get to make that excuse. You're responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun and for every situation you bring your gun to.

None of this absolves the McMichaels of their actions that day and I'm not saying Arbery was not trying - or should not have tried - to defend himself. That is not what I'm saying.

What the fuck are you saying? You said previously that Arbery attacked them first and that the McMichaels were acting in self defense. You've talked out of both sides of your mouth so much that you've basically taken every position at this point.

Irrelevant. I do not accept the context you are trying to convey.

In what context do veneraters of Washington not venerate a slaver? That statement is objectively true. There is no context in which it isn't.

Irrelevant. Of course they will say they chased Arbery but Arbery did not appear to be "running for his life" as you put it. His actions and manner of movement did not suggest to me he was especially afraid or fearing for his life. They suggest to me he was merely trying to avoid them. When he realized they were going to persist in following him, that's when he ran over and confronted Travis at the front of the truck.

And remember this: when Arbery approached and confronted Travis at the front of the truck, he approached from BEHIND the truck. He then ran around to the front to confront Travis.

Now, if he was running for his life as you say, why would he approach the stopped truck from behind? Why would he not just take to the woods or something to get away?

It's your opinion of mere seconds of an encounter that are irrelevant to the facts.

Did your hindsight notice he approached from behind the truck? Did your hindsight also notice that when the video starts, Arbery is a couple hundred yards behind the truck?

And ahead of the other car chasing him. I did see all that, what of it.

If he was running for his life and was that far away, why not just get the fuck off the road? Why would he continue to run another two hundred yards straight at the truck if he feared for his life?

Some people choose to meet their fears head on rather than running away from them.

But you suggested you do not believe they set out to murder a black man.

I believe they set out to violently detain him and that death is a foreseeable result of their violent threats and actions.

Of course it's subjective (you stupid fuck). You behave as if it is objectively true.

Not explicitly, no. But it's clear to me you think so.

It's my opinion you stupid fuck. I've said so from the start. I don't know what "behave as if it is objectively true" even means, when I've repeated over and over that that was my subjective opinion.

Which, once again, makes me wonder why they hired the MEs if Baker's autopsy report gave them what they wanted: Homicide.

They asked for the independent autopsy before the actual autopsy came out but after the prosecutors office released the initial charging documents stating that no signs of external trauma from strangulation were found. We've been over this repeatedly you dumb Bingo. No need for weird conspiracies.

You don't know that. Baker himself said the drugs and heart condition were likely contributing factors.

Contributing factors aren't causes you dipshit. If you have asthma and someone kneels on your neck, compresses your airway and you die, that's also a contributing factor, it's doesn't mean you weren't murdered. You seem to want to use the M.E.'s words to draw your own conclusions but the context in which he used those words were in the description of a murder.

But nevertheless, this falls into the category of factors and events that I talked about, that lead up to any incident. The drugs did not kill him but without them, he would likely have just complied and none of this would have happened. Understand?

I understand that you like to make a lot of excuses for murderers when the victims are black people and the murderers are white. That's becoming increasingly apparent.

Who's surprised that a race hustler calls someone racist?

Great! Now that we recognize they're both subjective which of ours is the more socially accepted one, subjectively speaking? That Arbery protesters are race hustlers or that Chauvin apologists are racists? Let's face it, people like you are losers, culturally and politically speaking. Where are the mainstream Chauvin defenders? Where are the mainstream McMichaels defenders letting everyone know they were acting in self defense? If they exist they've been shamed and ridiculed into silence. As I said, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm pointing and laughing at the losing position you've found yourselves in.

I didn't say the drugs triggered his claustrophobia. In fact, I don't think he was claustrophobic at all. That was my point in mentioning they pulled him from his own SUV.

I think the drugs made him paranoid and claiming claustrophobia was just a symptom of that.

What is that point relevant towards? They had him in the back of the police car, if their reason for taking him out was medical why kneel on his neck and compress his airway? How does that help, medically?

What facts did I get wrong here (you stupid fuck)? I said they pulled him from his own SUV and later put him in the police SUV and then he's suddenly claustrophobic.

Your point?

What's your point you dumb Bingo? Nothing Floyd did excused him being murdered you deployable clown.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

No. The murder conviction is not irrelevant to whether he fired his gun in self defense.

What they convicted him of is not necessarily what actually happened. I say he fired in self defense because Arbery attacked and tried to take his gun. What made it murder in the eyes of the prosecutors and the jury was the fact that the McMichaels initiated the confrontation. Get it?

That's a stupid argument. The murder conviction in fact shows that a jury, looking at the evidence, found his actions to be murder rather than self defense.

Because the McMichaels initiated it. In that moment, at that second, Travis fired because Arbery attacked. To say otherwise is to say the McMichaels set out to murder him from the start.

Either you agree with jury that he murdered Arbery or you think they got it wrong and that he was acting in self defense. Which is it? Why is it so hard to get a clear answer from you?

Why do you give a shit what kind of answer you get from a racist anyway?

That's not how logic works you clown. It's in fact a fallacy of affirming the consequent. Just because the McMichaels didn't set out to murder Arbery doesn't mean their actions didn't result in murder.

Didn't say that. This question is predicated on whether you believe they set out to murder a black man.

This is why I mentioned earlier that the jury is tasked with finding murder beyond a reasonable doubt. It has nothing to do with whether the McMichaels left their house with the intention of murdering Arbery.

I wasn't asking the jury, I was asking you.

If you chase someone down with a gun and try to threaten and detain them a reasonable person can forsee the outcome of those violent threats to be violent outcomes.

No you can't. One can only predict a possible outcome if they know the victim's character and personality and how they will react. Arbery chose to confront them even though they were armed. Some people would not. Some would run for their life.

Arbery might still be alive if he had just run away off into the woods. Hell, he might even still be alive if he hadn't snooped around on property that didn't belong to him. That's what sparked the whole thing.

By the same token, he'd still be alive if the McMichaels had not chosen to try and detain him themselves and if they hadn't armed themselves.

Both of these statements are true because the incident happened due to choices made by both Arbery and the McMichaels.

Just as if you armed yourself and went into a bank, merely with the intention of robbing it and end up shooting the security guard that is murder. Having to shoot someone is a foreseeable outcome to your violent and threatening use of a firearm during a bank robbery. To every other reasonable individual who isn't a racist trying to make excuses for these white guys with a Confederate flag on their pick up, what they did was murder and at no point where their conceivably acting in self defense. That's stupid.

What excuses? I did say they deserved prison, didn't I? What part of that constitutes making excuses for them? Why does that confuse you?

And yet death is an entirely foreseeable outcome of their violent attempts to detain Arbery against his will.

No it isn't. Anything is possible but nothing is inevitable.

As a gun owner you don't get to make that excuse. You're responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun and for every situation you bring your gun to.

Not if I'm attacked.

What the fuck are you saying? You said previously that Arbery attacked them first and that the McMichaels were acting in self defense.

Wrong. I said Arbery physically attacked first.

We're just arguing semantics at this point. Travis fired his shotgun when Arbery attacked. The jury may have called it murder but it was the reason he fired.

You've talked out of both sides of your mouth so much that you've basically taken every position at this point.

If you don't know what I'm saying then stop making shit up about me and what I'm saying to fill the empty chasms in your own mind.

Your two dimensional thinking is why you have a hard time with this.

In what context do veneraters of Washington not venerate a slaver? That statement is objectively true. There is no context in which it isn't.

In what context do the admirers of Washington not admire his achievements?

It's your opinion of mere seconds of an encounter that are irrelevant to the facts.

How many seconds would it take for someone running for his life to realize the people gunning for him are right there in front of him in the fucking road?

And ahead of the other car chasing him. I did see all that, what of it.

You said he was running for his life.

Some people choose to meet their fears head on rather than running away from them.

Then he wasn't running for his life, was he?

I believe they set out to violently detain him

When you say "violently", what do you mean? How would violence be manifested if they only meant to detain him?

and that death is a foreseeable result of their violent threats and actions.

No it's not. You're thinking two dimensionally again.

It's my opinion you stupid fuck.

Of course it is (you stupid fuck). But I still say you believe it to be objective. At the very least, I can safely say that the subjectivity of morality and opinions mean nothing to you.

I've said so from the start. I don't know what "behave as if it is objectively true" even means, when I've repeated over and over that that was my subjective opinion.

You behave as if your morality is the correct one or better. And "correct" is a word YOU used early in the discussion.

They asked for the independent autopsy before the actual autopsy came out

No, they did not. The state autopsy was carried out the day after Floyd's death. And you just told me yourself in your last post or the one before that the preliminary report was the preliminary investigation report and that it included the findings of Baker's autopsy.

but after the prosecutors office released the initial charging documents stating that no signs of external trauma from strangulation were found. We've been over this repeatedly you dumb Bingo. No need for weird conspiracies.

I never said anything about a conspiracy, dumbass. All I said was that I think they were biased.

Contributing factors aren't causes you dipshit.

Actually, they are. "Contributing factor" means it contributed to his death. The question then becomes: Would he have died if there were no drugs in his system? Would he have died if he didn't have blocked arteries?

No one can answer these questions for certain but I'm inclined to think he'd still be alive if not for these factors, even with the knee on his neck. At the very least, without the drugs, he probably wouldn't have behaved so erratically.

If you have asthma and someone kneels on your neck, compresses your airway and you die, that's also a contributing factor, it's doesn't mean you weren't murdered. You seem to want to use the M.E.'s words to draw your own conclusions but the context in which he used those words were in the description of a murder.

I drew my own conclusions before I ever saw that quote from Baker.

I understand that you like to make a lot of excuses for murderers when the victims are black people and the murderers are white. That's becoming increasingly apparent.

So I guess you don't understand. Not surprising.

Great! Now that we recognize they're both subjective which of ours is the more socially accepted one, subjectively speaking? That Arbery protesters are race hustlers or that Chauvin apologists are racists? Let's face it, people like you are losers, culturally and politically speaking. Where are the mainstream Chauvin defenders? Where are the mainstream McMichaels defenders letting everyone know they were acting in self defense? If they exist they've been shamed and ridiculed into silence. As I said, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm pointing and laughing at the losing position you've found yourselves in.

An entire country was complicit or looked the other way during the Holocaust; our own country supported slavery at one point and a good portion of the country right now is engaging in antisemitism.

National moral consensus doesn't mean shit.

What is that point relevant towards?

His being stoned, dumbass.

They had him in the back of the police car, if their reason for taking him out was medical why kneel on his neck and compress his airway? How does that help, medically?

So what's your theory for their taking him back out of the cruiser?

What's your point you dumb Bingo? Nothing Floyd did excused him being murdered you deployable clown.

My point is he was stoned, idiot.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Can I pull down any Obama statues because I do not agree with any of his policies?

He is evil. He killed millions of innocent people all over the globe.

Nancy Pelosi said of mobs tearing down statues: "People will do what they do." Sounds like she doesnt mind at all if I tear down Obama statues.

 

[Curried Goats]

What they convicted him of is not necessarily what actually happened. I say he fired in self defense because Arbery attacked and tried to take his gun. What made it murder in the eyes of the prosecutors and the jury was the fact that the McMichaels initiated the confrontation. Get it?

But was it murder to you? What I still don't get is what your position is. You start off telling me what you think happened but then you switch back to reiterate what the jury concluded even though you see events differently. Was it murder to you or not? Why are you always this big of a bitch about sharing your opinion if not for the prospect of shame or ridicule?

Because the McMichaels initiated it. In that moment, at that second, Travis fired because Arbery attacked. To say otherwise is to say the McMichaels set out to murder him from the start.

No..... that's not real logic. Like I said they didn't have to set out to murder anyone to have ended up committing murder anymore than back robbers have to set out to commit murder before one can occur during the commission of the crime they set out to do.

Why do you give a shit what kind of answer you get from a racist anyway?

To shame and ridicule you of course.

Didn't say that. This question is predicated on whether you believe they set out to murder a black man.

It's not. That's simply premeditated murder. There are other types of murder.

I wasn't asking the jury, I was asking you.

I too find it a reasonable possibility that harm could come to the person you're attempting to violently detain.

No you can't. One can only predict a possible outcome if they know the victim's character and personality and how they will react. Arbery chose to confront them even though they were armed. Some people would not. Some would run for their life.

That's not what finding beyond a reasonable doubt entails you fucking moron. We don't have to know what Arbery would do, or ignore that others might of acted differently. We only need to ask if acting in self defense is a reasonable response to an attempt by a few violent thugs attempting to detain you and the answer to that is yes.

Was it the McMichaels who shot Arbery beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes.

Is there any reasonable doubt the arbery has a right to defend himself from being accosted by armed and violent thugs? No.

Arbery might still be alive if he had just run away off into the woods. Hell, he might even still be alive if he hadn't snooped around on property that didn't belong to him. That's what sparked the whole thing.

More disgusting, racist victim blaming. Neither of those things murdered him. What sparked his death were a few violent thugs attempting to violently accost him.

By the same token, he'd still be alive if the McMichaels had not chosen to try and detain him themselves and if they hadn't armed themselves.

Not the same token you racist dipshit. The only token. Do you also blame rape victims for wearing short skirts or getting inebriated you deplorable mutant?

Both of these statements are true because the incident happened due to choices made by both Arbery and the McMichaels.

Nope. The violent incident happened because of choices of the McMichaels to act violently.

What excuses? I did say they deserved prison, didn't I? What part of that constitutes making excuses for them? Why does that confuse you?

The excuse making and victim blaming you just engaged in you clueless moron.

Not if I'm attacked.

That's what the McMichaels thought and they fucked around and found out.

Wrong. I said Arbery physically attacked first.

And that the McMichaels were acting in self defense. You don't get to violently threaten people with your gun and then claim self defense. Learn the law you irresponsible fucking clown.

We're just arguing semantics at this point. Travis fired his shotgun when Arbery attacked. The jury may have called it murder but it was the reason he fired.

The jury called it murder because it was murder. If not, what was it you coward racist?

In what context do the admirers of Washington not admire his achievements?

No you bozo. Your question is irrelevant. You claimed there was some context in which it isn't objectively true that venerators of Washington venerate a slaver. Go ahead and attempt to give me that context if you can.

How many seconds would it take for someone running for his life to realize the people gunning for him are right there in front of him in the fucking road?

Your irrelevant questions don't change the fact that the McMichaels themselves confessed to chasing Arbery through the neighborhood and that he made repeated attempts to escape them. You go ahead and keep asking irrelevant questions for which you yourself have no objective answer for and I'll keep relaying the facts.

When you say "violently", what do you mean? How would violence be manifested if they only meant to detain him?

Through their use of firearms. They could of tried to wrestle him to the ground but I guess they were too pussy for that. Instead they brought their guns to threaten his compliance with.

Of course it is (you stupid fuck). But I still say you believe it to be objective. At the very least, I can safely say that the subjectivity of morality and opinions mean nothing to you.

You're such a confused Bingo. The fact that morality is subjective is why a can easily dismiss yours as irrelevant to my life.

You behave as if your morality is the correct one or better. And "correct" is a word YOU used early in the discussion.

It is. For me. That's what subjective means you dumb Bingo. Find what subjectively works for you.

No, they did not. The state autopsy was carried out the day after Floyd's death.

And? Does that mean that's when the autopsy was released?

And you just told me yourself in your last post or the one before that the preliminary report was the preliminary investigation report and that it included the findings of Baker's autopsy.

No. I thought it was a preliminary autopsy report from a news report that I read. I later clarified with a link that it was the prosecutors initial charging document of Chauvin that only stated from the autopsy that there were no signs of external trauma from strangulation.

I never said anything about a conspiracy, dumbass. All I said was that I think they were biased.

No shit. Why wouldn't the family of Floyd be biased to the prosecution of Chauvin for murder and the the defense biased towards the exoneration of Chauvin? That's normal trial shit. You keep bringing it up like it's some important piece of information to his conviction.

Actually, they are. "Contributing factor" means it contributed to his death. The question then becomes: Would he have died if there were no drugs in his system? Would he have died if he didn't have blocked arteries?

No it doesn't because there were those health realities and you don't get off of murder because the person you murdered wasn't in perfect health. There is no legal defense of, well if he hadn't eaten big macs all his life then me kneeling on his neck wouldn't of been fatal. That's not a real thing.

No one can answer these questions for certain but I'm inclined to think he'd still be alive if not for these factors, even with the knee on his neck.

No ones needs to because they're irrelevant to the fact that Chauvins action killed Floyd and in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable as to not be an accident.

At the very least, without the drugs, he probably wouldn't have behaved so erratically.

That's not an excuse for you to murder anyone.

An entire country was complicit or looked the other way during the Holocaust; our own country supported slavery at one point and a good portion of the country right now is engaging in antisemitism.

National moral consensus doesn't mean shit.

It means pieces of racist human shit like Chauvin spend the rest of their lives in prison.

Apparently you still think I care about your feelings. I don't. I care about pushing you and your people around to achieve favorable social and political outcomes.

So what's your theory for their taking him back out of the cruiser?

To be cruel assholes who thought they could fuck around with a prisoner until they fucked around too much and found out. What's yours?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

But was it murder to you?

I don't know. Second degree, maybe.

I don't tend to look at this one from a perspective of murder. My perspective is that the McMichaels are guilty of sheer stupidity that ended with the needless death of a young man. For that they deserve prison.

What I still don't get is what your position is. You start off telling me what you think happened but then you switch back to reiterate what the jury concluded even though you see events differently. Was it murder to you or not? Why are you always this big of a bitch about sharing your opinion if not for the prospect of shame or ridicule?

Do you expect me to answer this? If you are sincerely curious, I'll try to clarify my position. If you are not sincere or if you keep going on about me being a bitch or about shame and ridicule, well, fuck off.

No..... that's not real logic. Like I said they didn't have to set out to murder anyone to have ended up committing murder anymore than back robbers have to set out to commit murder before one can occur during the commission of the crime they set out to do.

Yeah, second degree. Which I already mentioned.

To shame and ridicule you of course.

Dream on Lumpy.

That's not what finding beyond a reasonable doubt entails you fucking moron.

I'm not the one talking about beyond a reasonable doubt, you are.

We don't have to know what Arbery would do, or ignore that others might of acted differently.

Didn't say we did.

We only need to ask if acting in self defense is a reasonable response to an attempt by a few violent thugs attempting to detain you and the answer to that is yes.

That's not what this line of discussion is about. It's about whether or not Arbery's death was inevitable given the actions of the McMichaels. It was not.

As I said before, I'm not picking sides here, I'm just laying out the sequence of events as I understand them. The reason I'm doing that is because of the way race hustlers like you tend to conflate and sensationalize.

Was it the McMichaels who shot Arbery beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes.

That's not how reasonable doubt is applied in this type of case (you fucking moron). Everyone knows who shot Arbery. The question before the jury and one that the prosecutors had to prove was: Was it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was murder?

Is there any reasonable doubt the arbery has a right to defend himself from being accosted by armed and violent thugs? No.

Agreed.

Surprised? If so, it's only because you can't grasp where I'm coming from.

There was never any doubt that Arbery had the right to defend himself in this case and I never said otherwise. However, he did try to take Travis' shotgun from him, prompting Travis to fire to defend himself. That is the unadultered, unbiased truth.

More disgusting, racist victim blaming. Neither of those things murdered him. What sparked his death were a few violent thugs attempting to violently accost him.

Call me what you will but it's the truth.

I'm not blaming Arbery, I'm just telling you what he did and how and why Travis shot him.

Not the same token you racist dipshit. The only token. Do you also blame rape victims for wearing short skirts or getting inebriated you deplorable mutant?

As a rule, I don't use emojis because I think it's the lazy, semi-literate man's dictionary/thesaurus. But in this case:

Nope. The violent incident happened because of choices of the McMichaels to act violently.

Are you saying Arbery made no choices that day?

The excuse making and victim blaming you just engaged in you clueless moron.

Like what (you clueless moron)?

That's what the McMichaels thought and they fucked around and found out.

You said you have firearms. What the fuck are they for if not self defense?

And that the McMichaels were acting in self defense.

Wrong. I said Travis fired in self defense when Arbery attacked him.

What's baking your noodle is that they both acted in self defense. Arbery attacked a couple guys because they were chasing him and Travis fired when he did.

You don't get to violently threaten people with your gun and then claim self defense. Learn the law you irresponsible fucking clown.

Who claimed self defense?

The jury called it murder because it was murder. If not, what was it you coward racist?

Irrelevant. It was the reason Travis fired his gun.

No you bozo. Your question is irrelevant.

If mine is irrelevant then so is yours. To expand on this, if Washington's achievements are irrelevant then so is his owning slaves.

You claimed there was some context in which it isn't objectively true that venerators of Washington venerate a slaver.

I said no such thing.

I said I didn't agree with the context you were trying to convey with their admiring historical figures.

Your question:

"In what context do veneraters of Washington not venerate a slaver?"

My question:

"In what context do the admirers of Washington not admire his achievements?"

It's the same question from the opposite perspective.

Go ahead and attempt to give me that context if you can.

Strawman.

Your irrelevant questions don't change the fact that the McMichaels themselves confessed to chasing Arbery through the neighborhood and that he made repeated attempts to escape them.

Didn't say they did.

When the video starts, Arbery is about two hundred yards or so from the truck and running towards them.

You've been saying he was running for his life but at the same time saying two other things:

1.) He ran at the threat and confronted it head on. Meaning, he wasn't running for his life.

2.) He couldn't tell in the time it took to run two hundred yards that the white truck that had been chasing him was right in front of him. Meaning, he was half blind or stupid or; he wasn't running for his life.

You go ahead and keep asking irrelevant questions for which you yourself have no objective answer for and I'll keep relaying the facts.

Like what, that he was running for his life?

Through their use of firearms. They could of tried to wrestle him to the ground but I guess they were too pussy for that. Instead they brought their guns to threaten his compliance with.

Okay.

You're such a confused Bingo. The fact that morality is subjective is why a can easily dismiss yours as irrelevant to my life.

Then why are you here?

It is. For me. That's what subjective means you dumb Bingo. Find what subjectively works for you.

That's not what you said at the time.

And? Does that mean that's when the autopsy was released?

Does it matter?

No. I thought it was a preliminary autopsy report from a news report that I read. I later clarified with a link that it was the prosecutors initial charging document of Chauvin that only stated from the autopsy that there were no signs of external trauma from strangulation.

In other words, like I said, it included the findings of Baker's autopsy.

No shit. Why wouldn't the family of Floyd be biased to the prosecution of Chauvin for murder and the the defense biased towards the exoneration of Chauvin?

That's not what they were biased about. They were biased towards the neck compression aspect of it.

That's normal trial shit. You keep bringing it up like it's some important piece of information to his conviction.

If true, it might very well be.

I have no illusions about any of this. I know it is highly unlikely this will ever be retried or anything. Chauvin will just finish out his prison term.

No it doesn't because there were those health realities and you don't get off of murder because the person you murdered wasn't in perfect health. There is no legal defense of, well if he hadn't eaten big macs all his life then me kneeling on his neck wouldn't of been fatal. That's not a real thing.

That's my point, dumbass. He probably wouldn't have died in the first place if not for the drugs and heart condition, even with Chauvin's knee.

No ones needs to because they're irrelevant to the fact that Chauvins action killed Floyd and in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable as to not be an accident.

Chauvin's actions might NOT have killed Floyd without the drugs and heart condition you idiot.

I can say with a fair amount of certainty that if there had been no drugs in Floyd's system, he would not have been paranoid and would have simply complied with the officers.

As I understand it, the officers would have only talked to him to see where he got the bill. They may not have even arrested him.

That's not an excuse for you to murder anyone.

Didn't say it did.

It means pieces of racist human shit like Chauvin spend the rest of their lives in prison.

Irrelevant. It still doesn't mean shit.

Apparently you still think I care about your feelings. I don't. I care about pushing you and your people around to achieve favorable social and political outcomes.

Laugh Emoji

To be cruel assholes who thought they could fuck around with a prisoner until they fucked around too much and found out. What's yours?

You call that a theory?