Here is a clue. If the guy was white, your racist brethren would have never killed him.

The day they hunted down Arbery, they undoubtedly saw white people out and about. Yet they didn’t kill a single one of them. Just the black guy they saw.

Your position strongly supports that the murderers were extreme racists.

There had been “significant crime” in the neighborhood but not a single act reported to the police in more than half a year. Seems like at least one person in this crime wave would have contacted the police.

Regardless of that killing people because they are black is not okay because some guy lost a car stereo or a fishing pole.

We've noticed.

Yeah the guy trapped between two vehicles with armed gun men is the aggressor.

“Both sides” everybody. Don’t jump to any conclusions with only some of the facts.

Lol.

But what if he's wearing Timberland boots?

You think people with 700 subs are in it for the money?

Can you fix your quote dude? It looks like you're responding to me there. It's because that genius LDLC ****ed up the quotes on his initial response, so whenever you quote that response it all goes haywire.

It is shocking to learn luckbox values random internet crackpots as information sources.

Just kidding. It is why you can not take anything luckbox says seriously. He is ignorant af.

Lol. Do you think you could beat me in an IQ test or Jeopardy because I definitely think I'm both smarter and more knowledgeable than you fwiw. (And I'm not even that smart).
And lol at you guys acting like the billionaire owned media has your best interests

A lot of crackpots aren't in it for the money. Doesn't make them any less crackpotty.

Who do we give the benefit of the doubt to: billionaires or randoms? That was basically the question that Rococo posed. The answer there should be obvious but a lot of people here love their billionaires.
Also--blame Rococo for bringing me up in this thread. We can move this discussion to the media thread

I don't think that is the proper context. I'm not going to question Goodfellas that much, despite it being based on a true story, but I will question the mainstream NY media reports on organized crime from the 70's and 80's. DUCY? One is not taken as serious as the other. Keep in my mind, I'm not coming from the same perspective as LB.

So your only criterion for judging the credibility of a source of information is whether they're a billionnaire or a random?

That's not what I meant at all. I don't believe they started with the intention to hurt him, just that they decided to try to catch the alleged thief themselves rather than report it to the police. Having looked up the specific definition vigilantism probably wasn't the best word because it commonly has an implication of punishment when what I was really meaning was something more like "taking unofficial action to prevent crime".

To be clear, I don't disagree with this:

but that is literally the definition of a citizen's arrest and they had no legal justification for performing a citizen's arrest.

Trying to detain someone in defiance of the law, is delivering street justice though. Its against the law and, again, Arbaury would legally justified to shoot the McMichaels, if he was a 2A carrier, via Stand your Ground.

I think calling them vigilante's is the proper response.

Vigilante -

"...a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, ..."

No I've got other criteria as well. I could elaborate but involved in a kitten rescue.

You claim Diego Perez had something stolen from his vehicle. What is the source for this, what was stolen, was it caught on camera, is there a police report and was it a different incident from the stolen gun?

You also claim that Diego Perez asked Larry English if he could be notified if Larry's motion sensor went off so that he could go after the trespasser(s) himself. Source?

From the texts here, it doesn't appear that Diego Perez said he wanted to know if the motion sensor was triggered so he could "go after the trespasser(s) himself".

It also isn't clear from the text if Perez "went after the guy with Travis McMichael", he could have just went to check out the property for English and waited for police to arrive, so a source for this is required as well.

Also need a source for him being "irate" and "concerned about people constantly trespassing and stealing firearms and other things from their vehicles". Where does he say this, or are you just making **** up?

Being concerned doesn't make him racist at all, it's what you do with that concern that can make you a racist and a murderer. I also see no evidence of him being an irate person trying to chase down trespassers as you claim, rather just a concerned neighbor who went to check out a property when asked.

There are only reports of a handgun being stolen out of a car in front of the McMichael's house by the McMichaels, what else was reported to be stolen, or even stolen but not reported? We already know nothing was stolen from Larry English. It doesn't prove the McMichael's weren't lying because they actually said there were a bunch of burglaries, and there's only been one police report of a stolen handgun and, again, nothing was stolen from English, so what source do you have that refutes this? It also doesn't prove, as you claim, that other people wanted to go after the trespassers without the police involved, that's especially true of English. Where is the proof that Perez wanted to go after them vigilante style? From the texts I've seen, this is not true and wild speculation. None of this "proves the entire narrative that was initially presented is absolute bullshit and race baiting nonsense". It only proves that as new information comes in, you will continue to view it through your skewed lens, generate wild speculation from it and create a false narrative to excuse these men of racism/murder. So far, its two of you down and one to go, two of your racist buddies already left the chat, won't be long before you do too.

In b4 Kelhus finds an MSM article referring to Diego Perez as "white hispanic" and loses his ****

As I said before, I doubt that these idiots had a well-formulated plan to kill Arbery. If they did, they probably would not have called the cops before they killed him. But as you probably know, if the McMichaels committed a felony under Georgia law by chasing down and attempting to detain Arbery at gunpoint, then the prosecutor won't have to prove intent to kill unless Georgia has a very wacky felony murder statute.

A manslaughter charge also would not require the prosecutor to prove that they jumped in the truck with a plan to kill Arbery.

Bad camera work and no sound notwithstanding, I think most any reasonable juror would conclude that the McMichaels were brandishing weapons.

I do not share your confidence that evidence about whether Arbery was the neighborhood thief likely would be admissible. But it's hard to predict such things without all the facts.

You can't possibly believe this. To take an obvious example, if I look for youtube videos about the health benefits of colloidal silver, how many of those videos will be directing me to sites where I can buy silver supplements? If I look up videos for ear candling, how many of them will be directing me to places where I can buy candles. If I look up videos on ancient astronauts, pretty soon I'm going to start hearing about how I should buy my own copy of Chariot of the Gods, or whatever book has replaced it by now.

Ditto if I look for videos on cupping therapy, magnet therapy, paleo diets, or any number of other things.

The question I posed has very little to do with whether billionaires are inherently more credible than random people. Really rich people can be crackpots just like anyone else.

For example, if you won the world's biggest lottery and decided to buy a major media publication, it wouldn't turn you into a reliable interpreter of world events.

I'm curious. Do you know anyone who has worked for a MSM outlet? If yes, did those people tell you that they felt like the editorial board (or even less likely, the owner) of the publication required them to lie on the reg in their stories.

How many 'randoms' do you think are actually randoms? Most of those youtube channels are just pulling info from already available sources anyway ultimately.
Not like many are actually out pounding the pavement on their own. For the most part any real value would be in commentary/analysis/opinion/specific expertise on a subject of basically the same info available to everyone else.

Is Luckbox a flat earther perchance?

That's true but those on-the-ground sources can be incredibly valuable. With covid for example--unfiltered interviews with doctors and nurses 'on the front lines' or with the Venezuelan youtubers I watch--as what I consider good information from msm on either of those topics is hard to come by.
But plenty of randoms are actually randoms. It isn't all a rightwing conspiracy to make people apathetic about voting.