Do I agree with his take? Mostly no. However, him responding to others' take with his own interpretation doesn't mean he is guilty of what Sycasey accused him of being. We probably could have done without his extreme examples. The reason I disagree with him is that, while we know how evil Hitler is now, we don't know anything about the victim. And us not caring if Hitler was shot isn't because we think being shot is justifiable action to stealing candy but justifiable for the millions he killed. Without knowing the true character of the victim, all we know was that he was someone who was in a neighborhood and was approached with guns by couple of yahoos. And that action led to a confrontation that ended a young man's life.BearNIt said:Please review his postings:calbear93 said:When did he do that? I think you are confusing him with someone else. And I think it's the progressive posters who invoke facism and Hitler when they run out of arguments. If you do a search for those terms here, you will find more leftish posters using those terms than the conservatives. Sign of weak thinking when they resort to that, irrespective of whether they are conservative or liberal.BearNIt said:I don't think that is it at all. I think it is the misrepresentation of what actually happened in light of the phone and surveillance recordings, the use imagery that involves rape and the eating of children, the use of Hitler when trying to illustrate a point, wild theories, and the attempt to bring in provocative videos scoured from the internet when the discussion is about a specific incident. This is why he was called out.calbear93 said:I think you kind of missed the point. But thank you for giving me permission.sycasey said:You are welcome to stop responding to them as well.calbear93 said:I see others doing that A LOT more than GB4L, but we all only see what we want to see.sycasey said:I'll just say here: you do you, but from past interactions with GB4L most of us have learned that replying and countering his points leads nowhere. He'll say whatever it takes to keep the argument going. Only way to end it is to stop responding.BearNIt said:As long as your misrepresentations persist, I am obliged to use the recordings to dispel your theories.GBear4Life said:Keep the deflection and misdirections coming.BearNIt said: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.GBear4Life said: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"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.
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.
My point is that, since you call out GB4L when others are so much worse in doing what you accuse GB4L of doing, your real problem with him is that he takes positions that are not aligned with yours.
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.
Then review the YouTube postings of unrelated incidents that were used to illustrate what?
I will say this. I truly believe that the murder was grounded on racial stereotype and assumption that someone has certain intent or characteristics because of their skin color. It is disgusting and horrifying. And racism is one of the greatest stain that continues to paint this country.
But you know what I also see? People excusing racism because it is directed at those they don't value politically just because of the color of the target's skin, whether against Asians or Caucasians. They take a basic and inherent concept that human dignity requires us to be judged on who we are in our soul and in our character and not on our skin color and pervert that into a debate on who has power, who was born when, who has better education and who has more money. They turn a universal evil into a political point where true racist on both sides of the aisle can disguise their racism as a political cause. If you want to mitigate the evils of racism, admit that the evil resides in all of us, we all need to call it out where ever and whenever it appears and continue to fight against our lazy tendency to group people based on narrow and often irrelevant characteristics (whether sexual orientation, color, creed, etc.). That is my conservative take.
