GBear4Life said:

---

bearister said:

---

"He was shot and killed for wrestling a man for his weapon, which in isolation, is a legal act of self defense."
If it turns out they had no right to point loaded weapons at him then it was the decedent that acted in self defense and the vigilantes are going to be the ones coming out of the proverbial restroom with just their dicks in their hands.

---

Yes, I agree that's plausible (I don't know how the law will be interpreted) -- hence, "in isolation"...and "It is also *logically possible* for Ahmaud to be a felonious piece of sh*t AND the McMichaels to be liable for his death due to an illegal pursuit of a criminal suspect"

On the moral landscape, I find more empathy for the well intentioned party than the party with nefarious intentions, even if the law, whether fair or unjust, demands the well intentioned party is liable for their loss of life.

The video also doesn't show Travis stopping him with gun pointed at suspect. Though that may have been what happened. And maybe the law renders that point moot. Maybe the manner in which they conducted the stop -- getting out of the vehicle and attempting to block the suspect while armed -- renders everything before and after moot, legally.

---

GBear4Life said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

bearister said:

---

"He was shot and killed for wrestling a man for his weapon, which in isolation, is a legal act of self defense."
If it turns out they had no right to point loaded weapons at him then it was the decedent that acted in self defense and the vigilantes are going to be the ones coming out of the proverbial restroom with just their dicks in their hands.

---

Yes, I agree that's plausible (I don't know how the law will be interpreted) -- hence, "in isolation"...and "It is also *logically possible* for Ahmaud to be a felonious piece of sh*t AND the McMichaels to be liable for his death due to an illegal pursuit of a criminal suspect"

On the moral landscape, I find more empathy for the well intentioned party than the party with nefarious intentions, even if the law, whether fair or unjust, demands the well intentioned party is liable for their loss of life.

The video also doesn't show Travis stopping him with gun pointed at suspect. Though that may have been what happened. And maybe the law renders that point moot. Maybe the manner in which they conducted the stop -- getting out of the vehicle and attempting to block the suspect while armed -- renders everything before and after moot, legally.

---

When you have to use phrases like "in isolation and logically possible" it seems to me that the explanation runs counter to what was actually seen on the recordings.

---

Keep the deflection and misdirections coming.

---

bearister said:

---

Read the Full Transcript of Obama's H.B.C.U. Commencement Speech


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/16/us/obama-hbcu-speech-transcript.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/05/16/us/obama-hbcu-speech-transcript.amp.html

---

BearNIt said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

bearister said:

---

"He was shot and killed for wrestling a man for his weapon, which in isolation, is a legal act of self defense."
If it turns out they had no right to point loaded weapons at him then it was the decedent that acted in self defense and the vigilantes are going to be the ones coming out of the proverbial restroom with just their dicks in their hands.

---

Yes, I agree that's plausible (I don't know how the law will be interpreted) -- hence, "in isolation"...and "It is also *logically possible* for Ahmaud to be a felonious piece of sh*t AND the McMichaels to be liable for his death due to an illegal pursuit of a criminal suspect"

On the moral landscape, I find more empathy for the well intentioned party than the party with nefarious intentions, even if the law, whether fair or unjust, demands the well intentioned party is liable for their loss of life.

The video also doesn't show Travis stopping him with gun pointed at suspect. Though that may have been what happened. And maybe the law renders that point moot. Maybe the manner in which they conducted the stop -- getting out of the vehicle and attempting to block the suspect while armed -- renders everything before and after moot, legally.

---

When you have to use phrases like "in isolation and logically possible" it seems to me that the explanation runs counter to what was actually seen on the recordings.

---

Keep the deflection and misdirections coming.

---

As long as your misrepresentations persist, I am obliged to use the recordings to dispel your theories.

---

dimitrig said:

---

bearister said:

---

Read the Full Transcript of Obama's H.B.C.U. Commencement Speech


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/16/us/obama-hbcu-speech-transcript.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/05/16/us/obama-hbcu-speech-transcript.amp.html

---

Remember when we had an eloquent President who inspired people? That was nice.

---

Lucas Lee said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

bearister said:

---

Read the Full Transcript of Obama's H.B.C.U. Commencement Speech


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/16/us/obama-hbcu-speech-transcript.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/05/16/us/obama-hbcu-speech-transcript.amp.html

---

Remember when we had an eloquent President who inspired people? That was nice.

---

I remember when we had an eloquent President who inspired people as a candidate and then hired Wall Street to run financial policy. I remember when we had an eloquent President who bailed out Wall Street and banks, but not homeowners.

Eloquence just makes it easier to get people not to pay attention to all the bad stuff you do.

---

GBear4Life said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

bearister said:

---

"He was shot and killed for wrestling a man for his weapon, which in isolation, is a legal act of self defense."
If it turns out they had no right to point loaded weapons at him then it was the decedent that acted in self defense and the vigilantes are going to be the ones coming out of the proverbial restroom with just their dicks in their hands.

---

Yes, I agree that's plausible (I don't know how the law will be interpreted) -- hence, "in isolation"...and "It is also *logically possible* for Ahmaud to be a felonious piece of sh*t AND the McMichaels to be liable for his death due to an illegal pursuit of a criminal suspect"

On the moral landscape, I find more empathy for the well intentioned party than the party with nefarious intentions, even if the law, whether fair or unjust, demands the well intentioned party is liable for their loss of life.

The video also doesn't show Travis stopping him with gun pointed at suspect. Though that may have been what happened. And maybe the law renders that point moot. Maybe the manner in which they conducted the stop -- getting out of the vehicle and attempting to block the suspect while armed -- renders everything before and after moot, legally.

---

When you have to use phrases like "in isolation and logically possible" it seems to me that the explanation runs counter to what was actually seen on the recordings.

---

Keep the deflection and misdirections coming.

---

As long as your misrepresentations persist, I am obliged to use the recordings to dispel your theories.

---

What precisely am I misrepresenting? You issued an ambiguous unsupported accusation that demonstrated nothing

This story is only a story based on the pretense of racial bias leading to a modern day lynching. A woman was murdered jogging the other day it has not gotten a post let alone a thread dedicated to it.

The race-angle, and the "good ole boy jogging" narrative has been completely debunked.

What's being misrepresented in this thread is the intent of both parties -- and its driven by racial bias.

If McMIchaels were in the driveway of the vacated house as Ahmaud ran out of it -- and assuming eveything else on the video remains the same minus the pursuit -- this doesn't get beyond the local news and the McMichaels are drinking beers.

What made it murder was the illegal pursuit and stop. What the video shows is Ahmaud aggressively attacking Travis and wrestling the gun, which if happened on private property with Travis' immediate knowledge of a crime, is legally self defense.

We don't need to see Ahmaud snooping inside the property multiple times to understand the McMichael's suspicion was reasonable. Ahmaud's character is irrelevant to the legal realities the McMichael's face except for how Ahmaud's behavior in that time lends credence to their testimony and what they claim to be their motive.

What Ahmaud's character and behavior that day does impact is where the public places their sorrow on the spectrum of remorse. We determine as individuals how much we grieve the victims of tragedies that don't scale with their behavior in that moment in time. If we had discovered that Ahmaud was on camera the previous day raping a woman and eating her children, and learned he was shot in the same manner by the McMichaels, the McMichael's would be facing the same legal realities -- BUT the public would NOT eulogize Ahmaud. They would not grieve (or grieve less). Take an extreme example: if Hitler stole a candy bar and was shot in the head by the clerk, the clerk would be guilty of a crime just as if it were Mother Teresa, but we would not care. We would not be playing mental gymnastics to craft a narrative around Hitler or to demonize the clerk (even though she's just as guilty, as she had no idea he was Hitler).

It's not difficult to understand why charges weren't brought against the McMichael's absent of racial bias. The video shows they were not engaged in cold blooded murder, were responding to a reasonable suspicion of a robbery suspect and a reasonable suspicion that the suspect may be armed, and only used force after the suspect engaged in physical aggression.

What appears to make the McMichael's liable here is their illegal pursuit and stop. You cannot "pursue" somebody even with probably cause and confront them with a weapon. But it's hard to imagine they could sniff a conviction on anything other than manslaughter, and that should be a victory for the justice system unless you like to move the goal posts on "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" depending on what color the suspect and perps are.

---

BearNIt said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

bearister said:

---

"He was shot and killed for wrestling a man for his weapon, which in isolation, is a legal act of self defense."
If it turns out they had no right to point loaded weapons at him then it was the decedent that acted in self defense and the vigilantes are going to be the ones coming out of the proverbial restroom with just their dicks in their hands.

---

Yes, I agree that's plausible (I don't know how the law will be interpreted) -- hence, "in isolation"...and "It is also *logically possible* for Ahmaud to be a felonious piece of sh*t AND the McMichaels to be liable for his death due to an illegal pursuit of a criminal suspect"

On the moral landscape, I find more empathy for the well intentioned party than the party with nefarious intentions, even if the law, whether fair or unjust, demands the well intentioned party is liable for their loss of life.

The video also doesn't show Travis stopping him with gun pointed at suspect. Though that may have been what happened. And maybe the law renders that point moot. Maybe the manner in which they conducted the stop -- getting out of the vehicle and attempting to block the suspect while armed -- renders everything before and after moot, legally.

---

When you have to use phrases like "in isolation and logically possible" it seems to me that the explanation runs counter to what was actually seen on the recordings.

---

Keep the deflection and misdirections coming.

---

As long as your misrepresentations persist, I am obliged to use the recordings to dispel your theories.

---

What precisely am I misrepresenting? You issued an ambiguous unsupported accusation that demonstrated nothing

This story is only a story based on the pretense of racial bias leading to a modern day lynching. A woman was murdered jogging the other day it has not gotten a post let alone a thread dedicated to it.

The race-angle, and the "good ole boy jogging" narrative has been completely debunked.

What's being misrepresented in this thread is the intent of both parties -- and its driven by racial bias.

If McMIchaels were in the driveway of the vacated house as Ahmaud ran out of it -- and assuming eveything else on the video remains the same minus the pursuit -- this doesn't get beyond the local news and the McMichaels are drinking beers.

What made it murder was the illegal pursuit and stop. What the video shows is Ahmaud aggressively attacking Travis and wrestling the gun, which if happened on private property with Travis' immediate knowledge of a crime, is legally self defense.

We don't need to see Ahmaud snooping inside the property multiple times to understand the McMichael's suspicion was reasonable. Ahmaud's character is irrelevant to the legal realities the McMichael's face except for how Ahmaud's behavior in that time lends credence to their testimony and what they claim to be their motive.

What Ahmaud's character and behavior that day does impact is where the public places their sorrow on the spectrum of remorse. We determine as individuals how much we grieve the victims of tragedies that don't scale with their behavior in that moment in time. If we had discovered that Ahmaud was on camera the previous day raping a woman and eating her children, and learned he was shot in the same manner by the McMichaels, the McMichael's would be facing the same legal realities -- BUT the public would NOT eulogize Ahmaud. They would not grieve (or grieve less). Take an extreme example: if Hitler stole a candy bar and was shot in the head by the clerk, the clerk would be guilty of a crime just as if it were Mother Teresa, but we would not care. We would not be playing mental gymnastics to craft a narrative around Hitler or to demonize the clerk (even though she's just as guilty, as she had no idea he was Hitler).

It's not difficult to understand why charges weren't brought against the McMichael's absent of racial bias. The video shows they were not engaged in cold blooded murder, were responding to a reasonable suspicion of a robbery suspect and a reasonable suspicion that the suspect may be armed, and only used force after the suspect engaged in physical aggression.

What appears to make the McMichael's liable here is their illegal pursuit and stop. You cannot "pursue" somebody even with probably cause and confront them with a weapon. But it's hard to imagine they could sniff a conviction on anything other than manslaughter, and that should be a victory for the justice system unless you like to move the goal posts on "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" depending on what color the suspect and perps are.

---

Again, your theories are shyte. We are talking about a specific incident not one that happened the other day but nice try in trying to equate one with the other. Also, Ahmaud didn't rape a woman and eat her children and to use this type of imagery is reprehensible. Last but not least using Hitler in an argument is in extremely poor taste when trying to make a point or win an argument but you keep swinging away.

---

going4roses said:

---

---