The justice system sat on its hands and did nothing until social media made people aware of the situation. So naturally chez thinks the real problem is racists getting their feelings hurt on the internet.

ok your just trolling now. Not your best effort - c'mon you can do better than that

You'll understand that I'm working within certain constraints here.

I feel for you mate. Still at least you have another place where the important business of trolling is unrestricted.

And don't lose heart, you can do better even under this evil repressive regime if you put the hard yards in.

Technically, I was taking issue with you saying it wasn't racist.

You are joking, but this is pretty close to true. Prosecutors don't have to prove motive in a murder case. Prosecutors obviously like to explain the motive because jurors are human and humans want to understand why bad things happen, but it isn't required.

Motive obviously becomes relevant if the defendant argues that he was acting in self-defense, but the defendant has the burden of proof if he relies on that defense.

I am aware it's not one of the elements they have to prove, but they usually argue it though to make their case more persuasive, right? Or have I been watching too much TV?

Edit - answered in your edit, thanks.

Can you explain what I have wrong here? The police refused to press charges or arrest anyone for ten weeks until the video hit social media. Collect your thoughts and explain for us why you think Twitter is the villain here.

Did someone not file charges on the lady in OK city ?

Kelhus imagines that the employees were white, based solely on the fact that their races weren't mentioned, because that fits his narrative. And if you show an example that definitively doesn't fit his narrative, that's just one of those fluke times argle bargle, it was local news, whatever.

To be fair, how is Kel supposed to know these things if the Daily Mail doesn't cover them?

And this is why the prosecution will likely avoid/ignore motive altogether. There is no legal justification for chasing a person with a gun. If they argue it was a racist motivation, that will lead a jury to consider the motive as a relevant factor, and that consideration can slice both ways.

I don't think twitter is the villain here. Totally the reverse, I think it's part of the vital political job of making sure the justice system is used when it needs to be

you ok now?

Actually, I would guess all three workers Hispanic, all else being equal. The point is the media decided for us that race wasn't an issue in this story, decided not to even give us that information, and no one questioned this. The problem is the media has carte blanche to decide when race is or is not an issue, for their own motives which don't always align with the public good, and way too many people are ok with this IMO.

OKC is only slightly more Hispanic than black, so it hardly seems like a lock that they're all Hispanic. But OK, what do you propose?

What an incredibly stupid think to ask.

You’re implying that because they only killed one person that day, it must have been motivated by his race? Has everyone who’s only killed one person in a day, wrongfully or not, committed a racial hate crime? Goodness.

But previously:


chez, give us some credit for being able to recall the things you posted earlier, this is just insulting.

trolly troll troll

You're deliberately ignoring that that's once there's a trial. Trial by media is a very bad idea - you may disagree on that of course - do you?

I don't know how you can possibly be so certain about whether there is evidence of a racist motivation for these crimes. You and I have no idea what these guys told their wives or friends or anyone else. There very well could be incriminating evidence about their motivations.

What is the burden of proof for you to accept there was racism motivation in this crime?

Do the accused have to actually say the words: I did XYZ or reacted in ABC way because the deceased was black?

Would a device that can read their thoughts and intentions with 99.99% accuracy suffice?

Please be specific as to what evidence or discovery would meet your minimum threshold for accepting that there was racial motivation behind the actions of the accused.

Again, please be specific.

Is there public outrage connected to the Arbery killing and is that outrage based on the fact that the incident is perceived to be racial by some in the community or did the media just report it that way and then the outrage started ?

It seems to me this wasn't reported until the video went viral and then the media picked up on it. That was likely because (at least in part) no arrest was made.

The OK shooting was handled in a more routine matter. The shooter was arrested in a timely manner and charged as one would expect. The victims don't seem to be saying it was racial. I don't think the two situations are the same which is why they're not being reported the same.

It's possible that the killing was not racially motivated. I mean, there is such a thing as a gun-toting vigilante who is no more racist than the average person. What I don't get is why itshot believes it is highly improbable that there was a racial component to the killing. That makes no sense to me at all.

This is shifting the burden of proof. First, according my understanding of the law, which I think is accurate, the motive doesn't matter.

Second, you have to prove it's a racist motive. You do that with evidence, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't have any other prerequisites, and there is no specific requirement that needs to be met. Right now, the evidence we have available indicates these murderers were illegally trying to stop a trespasser. To me, that's pretty strong evidence of a motive that does not include race, which is reasonable doubt to the racist motive.

Third, why are you so concerned this is associated with racism? You should be more concerned they get convicted of murder, not that this is called a hate crime, or racist. If you convict them of murder, it does not matter what the motive is. By making the motive relevant, you are saying motive is relevant, and if it's relevant, then any other motive becomes relevant and you open the door to an acquittal of the murder charge. Keep screaming racism, I'm going to continue to say that will lead to bigger than should be chance at an acquittal, and that's a far greater injustice than someone not buying into the racist angle.

If you want justice, you don't want race anywhere near this.

This narrative of me saying it's not racist, or highly improbable, is a straw man. Show me the evidence indicating it was racially motivated as asserted by many people here. All they have is conjecture. On the other hand, we have evidence indicating the motive was something else. Saying there is no evidence of a racist motivation (Which is what I'm arguing) is not the same thing as saying it's not racist, or it's highly improbable, as you all are pretending I'm arguing. It's not my fault you all can't understand that nuanced distinction. I'm arguing against those asserting something, and they are trying to flip it, as if I'm the one asserting something.

Yep, too nuanced for me.