What a sh*t column, even by The Nation's standards.going4roses said:
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/coronavirus-police-brutality/tnamp/?__twitter_impression=true
What a sh*t column, even by The Nation's standards.going4roses said:
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/coronavirus-police-brutality/tnamp/?__twitter_impression=true
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.
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.
going4roses said:
See any trends? Can you identify the problem?
I'm not sure what you're point is in highlighting that story in this thread.going4roses said:
See any trends? Can you identify the problem?
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.
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.
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
Just put him on ignore like the rest of us have.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.
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.dimitrig said:Remember when we had an eloquent President who inspired people? That was nice.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
Lucas Lee said: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.dimitrig said:Remember when we had an eloquent President who inspired people? That was nice.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
Eloquence just makes it easier to get people not to pay attention to all the bad stuff you do.
I got no problem with saying he was better than George W. Bush and Trump. But was he better than George H.W. Bush? If so, only marginally. At least George H.W. Bush spent far less money in the Middle East than Obama did.dimitrig said:Lucas Lee said: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.dimitrig said:Remember when we had an eloquent President who inspired people? That was nice.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
Eloquence just makes it easier to get people not to pay attention to all the bad stuff you do.
Obama was not a perfect President, but he's the best President we've had in quite a while. You have to look at it in context of who came before him and who came after him. In that context he's like Abe Lincoln.
What precisely am I misrepresenting? You issued an ambiguous unsupported accusation that demonstrated nothingBearNIt 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.
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.GBear4Life said:What precisely am I misrepresenting? You issued an ambiguous unsupported accusation that demonstrated nothingBearNIt 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.
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.
Your rebuttals are shyte. You can't even point out which "THEORY" is shyte.BearNIt said: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.GBear4Life said:
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.
I suppose I'll just have to put you on ignore until you stop replying to him.BearNIt said: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.GBear4Life said:What precisely am I misrepresenting? You issued an ambiguous unsupported accusation that demonstrated nothingBearNIt 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.
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.
GBear4Life said:
These jogger murders never seemed to stimulate much conversation. Because the victim and/or perp did not fit the race baiting narrative
Correct, that is certainly A factor that distinguishes the two crimes. But it is not THE factor driving the difference of coverage and the propaganda that underpins it. If you think this is just my opinion, reference the manner in which folks in this thread and our MSM disingenuously engage with being confronted with the facts of the incident.bearister said:
Horrible crime. The distinguishing factor being the killer in her case never claimed he had the legal right to kill, unlike the vigilantes in the case at hand.
Quote:
*Since this might be relevant to thoughts you may have had when posting that video, Black on White violent crime gets a lot more media coverage than Black on Black violent crime, which if covered at all gets a couple of lines deep in the news source.
Your warm prejudice and bigotry may fool the Leftists who bathe in that kind of malevolent sanctimony, but it doesn't fool me. Why truly try to understand the facts and circumstances of a case with research when you can just say ignorant and racist sh*t?bearister said:
"Can't you acknowledge that there is no evidence that the McMichael's intended to cause harm on Ahmaud period, let alone because he was black..."
I am not going to do the research to respond to your question, but like our POTUS, from time to time I go with my "gut" feelings and my gut tells me that two boys looking like those two, and coming from Georgia, probably haven't log a lot of hours watching the Cosby Show.