Yeah, you always turn tail when you know you've been had. Have fun totally-not-defending the racist murderers.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean that if it was a racist motive, they would have just shot him, and the fact that they didn't is an indicator that the motive was not racist? I mean, that can't be what you're suggesting, because murder is still kinda illegal, even against black people, and I'm sure they know that.

It's wild that people are more upset about these guys being called racists than murderers. Like, oh, sure they just ****ing killed a guy for no reason, but don't you dare call them racist!

It's wild that the people who claim they are against profiling and stereotyping constantly do it. Yeah, those two clowns would definitely chase a white guy down. Unless you think it is impossible for members of one race or ethnic group to 'look down' on other members.

It's not as if the two motivations being argued are mutually exclusive. Their behavior might not be exclusively motivated by racial animus, and yet things might not have happened the same way if not for racial prejudices. Both in terms of how the killers acted, but also in the investigation.

We're talking about conjectures, so we don't really know that much with any great certainty. But that means that itshot should also be more humble about the strength of his conviction that there wasn't a racial component.

Perhaps we'll hear some testimony at trial that speaks to their motivations. But either way, I think it's hard to sustain a strong belief that a racial component is unlikely. Not given an appreciation for American history and the social context in which this happened, where race has loomed over these types of events for our entire history. It is entirely reasonable for one's priors to be that a racial element is more likely a factor than not. And also reasonable not to speak with too much certainty about the role it may or may not have played.

Lets keep something in perspective here.

In a previous discussion Wookie and Trolly argued that a middle aged man verbally abusing teenage girls with horrible racist and misogynist insults was neither problematic or racist.

So why anybody should be taking either of them seriously when they start their faux moral outrage routines is completely beyond me. Proceed at your own discretion.

This is clearly just another (seemingly successful) attempt to ruin an otherwise productive (arguable) thread with their racism bit, which is pretty much their MO at this point. Once again the proven adage that the more Wookie and Trolly get involved in a thread, the more the thread becomes exponentially worse and civil discussions just turn into name calling holds true.

Which caper was that again?

Assuming you're referring to Covington, I think your characterization of that conversation is inaccurate, although perhaps you really did read it that way.

Note that I don't necessarily always agree with how wookie or trolly pursue conversations (though I probably agree with them more than you), but it was clear to me that the dispute was about the relevance to the conversation, not whether or not the behavior was problematic in and of itself.

Also note that I don't really care to re-litigate any of that, and I think that as usual in this thread you're stretching way too hard to try to fit things into your preferred worldview (an irony, for sure, given your complaints about everyone else). But, on the off chance you'll pay more attention to me than to wookie calling you a liar, I'm just throwing it out there :P

I hope you mean you agree with their general worldview; and not that calling people liars, racists and antisemites (and bringing little else to the table besides name calling) is how to go about having message board conversations.

Not sure of the law in the USA, but in the UK they could be charged with a racially aggravated crime that would examine if racial prejudice was part of the motivation.

You would agree that this should be seriously considered by the prosecution given what we know so far?

If we are going to assume that racism was involved in how this incident went down (it probably was) maybe we should be exploring that it was involved in the woman in Oklahoma City who shot the 3 McDonalds employees. I noticed the media didn't provide any names or descriptions of the employees. I wonder why?

The main problem I have with all these racism discussions as it relates to current events, is that we completely allow the media to dictate the narrative for their own ends. They completely get to decide when we are supposed to talk about race, and when we aren't. And I don't think this dynamic is doing society at large any favors.

Apparently Georgia is one of only 2 states that doesn't have such "hate-crime" legislation on the books.

So should it have such laws? and if it did should it be seriously considered in this case

Also, again don't know much about usa law, but can't it apply at a federal level in a case like this? Again if it could, should it be seriously considered by the prosecution authorities?

Grunching...

Charges are easy as they used a gun to detain someone. So they were either committing a robbery or a kidnapping. In either case they used a firearm in the commission of another felony.

Props to twitteridiots who think the penalty for trespassing is the death penalty. That is a very informed take.

Tl;dr Racist father and son try to force black man who was doing nothing wrong to stop at gunpoint. Black man ends up dead.

Not sure where it is not literally black and white.

Hey, remember the beginning of this thread when you were totally baffled by what they could be charged with and when we told you "murder, ldo" you started babbling about the media?

Now they've been charged with murder like we told you, funny how that works out.

You fail to appreciate that he was wearing unusual jogging shoes, ergo it's perfectly legal to do a citizen's arrest execution. I'm learning so much about the law from this thread, it's great.

I dunno. I think now that things are so political prosecutors would like to charge the suspects with hate crimes for purely political reasons. Apparently the DoJ (federal) is investigating whether to file a hate-crime charge.

But with the information we have at least, I don't know if there is any legal basis for doing so. They would probably have to start digging into the suspects histories to see if they could come up with any dirt to build a hate-crime narrative. I have no doubt people are working on this as we speak, and the lack of stuff being leaked to the media so far means they haven't found anything yet IMO.

The only evidence we have that this was racially motivated was the color of the peoples skin, and that's not evidence, that's explicit racial profiling. We do have evidence the motivation was to stop a trespasser, which again does not make it any less of a murder. You know as well as I do Mrwookie and some others only cares about calling something racist, not that a murder occurred, whether there is actual evidence of racial malice. You know they are being disingenuous when they consistently state that I'm defending them. They only care about the racial angle, and projecting their moral inferiority. You also know this because the same people make the same claims in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE, where as I only comment on several they get wrong.

White guy jogging in boots--look at this patriot out practicing to be a soldier. god bless America.

Black guy jogging in boots--the suspect's getting away. get him.

For all we know, this shooting was triggered by a passionate disagreement over footwear fashion, and any talk of a racial animus is completely irresponsible.

Yes!

Ok, here is a question which I think it relevant to this conversation:

-If no further evidence (which is to say no evidence, just conjecture) comes out that the motives of the suspects involved racism should they be charged with a hate crime by the DoJ?

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion, but it's not my experience at all. In my experience, people have lots of conversations about whatever they want, and at least half the time when people are discussing cases like this the media being bad is a large part of what people argue about. My default is to avoid news coverage of these kinds of cases in general, so I definitely don't think the media is dictating to me what sorts of opinions I'm allowed to venture.

I also think (from some comments you made in other threads that I didn't get around to replying to) you probably underestimate the willingness of the average "woke liberal" (so to speak) to criticize media coverage as also racist.

A poor kid just got shot gunned to death over nothing and we are here discussing the real issue. Whether or not father and son were definitively "racist" or not.

Treyvon 2.0

Yes!