Ahmaud Arbery

[wufan]

Shot in a scuffle over a gun. Nobody involved should have been there in the first place. This is the kind of story where multiple dissenting perspectives seem reasonable.

My take:

I haven’t seen anything (yet) that this is related to racism. There is evidence that Ahmaud made multiple entries into a property under construction...sometimes at night. He was not “jogging” in work boots in this neighborhood several miles from home.

There was an alleged B&E in progress at the time of the incident. It is legal to make a citizens arrest in that state if you see a felony in progress. It’s not clear that the McMichael’s had this knowledge at the time of the event. Whether they did or didn’t, that’s really no reason to pursue with guns drawn.

If two dudes with guns told me to stop and/or whatever else, would I stop? I don’t think so. If I had a gun on a felon and he rushed me, would I shoot? Yup!

[ShockingButTrue]

It's probably not a leap to believe the McMicahael's had knowledge of the breaking and entering, then and before, as the evidence shows.

Unless one believes they were literally just hunting down any black man that they could find to kill in broad daylight in the middle of the street. There seems to be a not-so-small chorus of people who believe that's the case though.

[wufan]

It's probably not a leap to believe the McMicahael's had knowledge of the breaking and entering, then and before, as the evidence shows.

Unless one believes they were literally just hunting down any black man that they could find to kill in broad daylight in the middle of the street. There seems to be a not-so-small chorus of people who believe that's the case though.

Their exact knowledge of the incident is extremely important to the defense. There is specific verbiage in the law about when you can and can’t execute a citizens arrest. If they weren’t lawfully executing a citizens arrest, then it’s murder during an attempted kidnapping.

[wsushox1]

Just because something is legal, does not make it morally or ethically right. Of that I am sure we can all agree.

I don't know much about citizen arrest law, its history, its regular application, or its place in modern society. So I'm not going to comment on the legality of the stop. But setting a trap, which they did, as private citizens and shooting him three times is hard for me to morally or ethically square with. I've entered construction sites before they have finished numerous times. With my parents as a kid in a new sub-development so they could see what the plans were looking like!

You can argue that race wasn't a factor, but race, prejudice and the way certain white americans treat african americans as less than is pervasive. It doesn't have to be "Let's go kill that *racial epithet" in order for one to know or think that race is involved.

[ShockingButTrue]

On your initial post, right after "my take:" re-read your second sentence. I agree with it (the first also). Your first sentence of the next paragraph; I agree with that too.

There's evidence to show that they weren't just looking to gun down any black man in the middle of the street just because they "felt like it," as you yourself posted (concerning evidence, that is). The final video shows the "jogger" attacking the man with the gun, as the man with the gun has claimed.

To cry screams of injustice is a little premature at this point.

[ShockingButTrue]

Just because something is legal, we all agree.

I don't know much about citizen arrest law, its history, its regular application, or its place in modern society. So I'm not going to comment on the legality of the stop. But setting a trap...

Contrary much?

So you believe they just decided to kill a "random jogger" because that type of activity happens all the time in America? Although, looking at it now, there was an incident in Delaware recently that's a relevant part of the discussion. I'm hoping you'll answer in a manner that opens up rational and mature debate, and not hyperbole.

[wsushox1]

Contrary much?

So you believe they just decided to kill a "random jogger" because that type of activity happens all the time in America? Although, looking at it now, there was an incident in Delaware recently that's a relevant part of the discussion. I'm hoping you'll answer in a manner that opens up rational and mature debate, and not hyperbole.

I'd be happy to engage in rational and mature debate. But..

1: You edited my post in your quote to make it look like I said something I didn't.
2: I don't know what part of my post is contrary.
3: I'm not sure what you're asking me to explain?

I literally said that an action being legal does not make that action morally or ethically right. I then stated that I'm not going to comment on the legality of their stop, because I don't know anything about it. I then stated, in agreement with my first statement, that I thought, even if it was legal, the stop and escalation was morally and ethically hard for me to square as right.

[pinstripers]

Was the victim dressed in jogging attire?

[ShockingButTrue]

I'd be happy to engage in rational and mature debate. But..

1: You edited my post in your quote to make it look like I said something I didn't.
2: I don't know what part of my post is contrary.
3: I'm not sure what you're asking me to explain?

I literally said that an action being legal does not make that action morally or ethically right. I then stated that I'm not going to comment on the legality of their stop, because I don't know anything about it. I then stated, in agreement with my first statement, that I thought, even if it was legal, the stop and escalation was morally and ethically hard for me to square as right.

"But setting a trap, which they did..."

They just decided to kill a random "jogger" for no good reason other than he was a black man? Because that type of thing is "pervasive?" If that's your stance, then let's discuss what happened in Delaware because it would be a part of any inferred insertion (and assertion) by you. You posted it.

[wsushox1]

"But setting a trap, which they did..."

In what world is waiting in a truck with a gun while he was on his jogging route not setting a trap? That's what it was. Why you are picking that particular syntax to be picking at.

[ShockingButTrue]

In what world is waiting in a truck with a gun while he was on his jogging route not setting a trap? That's what it was. Why you are picking that particular syntax to be picking at.

It nullifies any legality, which you stated may have been the case here. So was it legal or a trap? Then we can discuss/debate further, like mature adults, without getting hysterical.

We can discuss morality in some other thread about your President, or even the prior one. Fair?

[wsushox1]

Was the victim dressed in jogging attire?

Yes

[ShockerPrez]

I don't know if they are racists or not, but what they did should be a prime example of "just friggin call the cops if you think someone is up to something wrong and leave it alone." I can't stand guys like this, the redneck Karens of our society.

[wsushox1]

It nullifies any legality, which you stated may have been the case here. So was it legal or a trap? Then we can discuss/debate further, like mature adults.

But traps can be legal. I don't want to argue semantics here but you seem intent on it.

[pinstripers]

The jogger was doing a walk-thru at a construction site. Did they see him? Probably, Was he trespassing? Well, sure, but that does not mean he was casing the joint.