Even if they did catch him red handed breaking into a home, it's still straight up murder.
Just like the Trayvon Martin shooting, it's probably a bunch of guys who wanted to be heroes, combined with racial bias against black people. Both times, the police were called and both times they continued to pursue their "suspect," armed with guns and both times there was a confrontation and the unarmed black male died.
Last edited by synth_floyd; 05-07-2020 at 09:32 PM.
Even if they did catch him red handed breaking into a home, it's still straight up murder.
Just like the Trayvon Martin shooting, it's probably a bunch of guys who wanted to be heroes, combined with racial bias against black people. Both times, the police were called and both times they continued to pursue their "suspect," armed with guns and both times there was a confrontation and the unarmed black male died.
Well, Zimmerman was found innocent of all charges, so probably not the perfect comp if you think this was straight up murder.
It's what Zimmerman's lawyer said about Trayvon Martin. "He was no angel." The implication was that he deserved it and/or his alleged poor character was a mitigating factor in the killing.
American media doesn't do a very good job of filling in the details. If you check DailyMail there is a lot more information of what really happened, including the police report.
Why the American media does such a bad job of presenting known information is of course because they are only interested in pushing a narrative, and not interested in actually telling the full story. But that is a matter for a different thread.
Anyways, the men chasing Arbery actually called the police while they were chasing him. Apparently, in their minds he was a burglary/trespassing suspect and in their minds that justified them chasing him and even trying to hold him at gunpoint.
This seems absurd at face value, and yet it seems the first DA actually agreed with this reasoning, so I was definitely interested in seeing if there is actually a justification in Georgia law that would make their actions justifiable.
When reading the daily mail it also helps to know brunswick georgia personally.
What happened is that someone stole a pistol from the ex copsbgarage, a gew days later he ssaw a black man jogging gotvall crazy deliverance style mad and he and his son shot theoff guy because they are backwoods racist bigots from south georgia and that's how **** goes down down there.
I don't think that's relevant within the context of what happened. However there's talk online that his real name was actually Ahmaud Marquez Avery and that the name is deliberately changed so people can't find out his previous history. Does anyone know if this is true? There's an article here but I can't access it ("451 legal reasons") https://************news.com/news/lo...216c042c0.html
And now I can't seem to post the article
The url is the brunswick news . com . news/ local_news / police-arrest-four-in-span-of-an-hour
article_23db5ae1-9e5d-519e-a683-c1a216c042c0.html
if anyone googles Ahmaud Marquez Avery they should find the link
Does the article have a photo and is it the same guy?
There's also a youtube vid highlighting this
I disagree at present with the uploaders conclusions and have commented twice on the vid. Bottom line the McMichaels appear to have instigated things.
But I'm wondering if Arbaury/Avery are the same person as again I can't access the article.
My comments
Quote:
I'm not American and my country while ethnically/racially diverse has far better race relations than the US, no offence. (we don't all hold hands singing Ebony & Ivory but racial issues don't permeate my society like it seems to in America again no offence.)
So I'm not looking at this racially per se the way Americans might. We also have strict gun control so from that perspective, it's very hard for me to wrap my head around fact that in America an armed person can shoot an unarmed person on the street and get away with it. So bear with me.
I respectfully disagree with your saying he was running after the pick up.We simply see it in front of him it may well have overtaken him. Camera turns and when it swings back McMichaels is outside truck with a shot gun and door open so clearly he stopped and got out. Then we see Arbery/Avery t(Will refer to as A due to name change) urning toward him. You ask why he didn't go the other way but that's easy to say from our comfortable vantage point, different story when you're confronted by armed people. Maybe he thought if he ran the other way he'd get shot in the back and in such a situation you've seconds to react.
Secondly just wtf did M get out of the truck for? Why not call cops? Also we don't know if someone else called 911- again I'm not American, is it normal to drive around with a handgun and shotgun over your way? If M had called 911 he shoulda waited for cops to arrive. If he didn't and was suspicious of a potential burglary then he shoulda called cops instead of going out all gung ho and armed. The fact that there were two of them armed intimates they were out looking for a confrontation.
Also sorry but I think you're reaching a bit with the jeans, I've often seen people jogging in all types of attire and even if he wasn't jogging there's no law against running down the street in jeans and again if this was considered suspicious then the cops shoulda been called it's their job to enforce the law, not civilians. As an ex cop McMichaels should have known this better than anyone. Also whether A had a criminal record or not is irrelevant within context as Mcichaels wouldn't have known this and you said yourself that A had been arrested before with a handgun, meaning he didn't resist. If Mcmichaels suspected A had a pistol now, as you say then again- all the more reason to call the cops instead of hopping in your pickup with a shotgun like something outa the wild west.
I agree with you on the name change being wrong but are you really surprised? I commented before on your excellent CP 5 video on MSM narratives and emotive or race baiting articles are par for the course over in America anyway, it seems. Is this irresponsible? Absolutely. Is it surprising especially considering the race issues in the US? Hardly. MSM wish to sell copy, remember they put out that pic of Trayvon Martin when he was about 12 for example just to get emotions going.
I was very impressed with your vid on the CP 5 so I have a lot of respect for you and how you study cases. But at present I respectfully disagree with you on this although I do agree that there's probably more to it than what we're being told.
But the Mcmichaels instigated this by going out armed in a pick up truck and jumping out of the car to confront A instead of waiting for the authorities and that's the bottom line.
Again it's amazing to me how unarmed people can be killed by armed civilians with no repercussions. I felt the same way about George Zimmerman and Roderick Scott. Just boggles my mind even if I'm from a different society/culture with a different history. I think we should wait to see if more facts come to light, personally.
Gotta say though although I respectfully disagree with you on this at present, you're without a doubt one of the most interesting channels on youtube for me and I appreciate your non emotive perspective on things so do keep up the good work.
Cheers.
Comment 2
Quote:
One other thing, they may well not get prosecuted as they're protected by the law, but you guys need to change your laws if that's the case, you can't have civilians going around acting like vigilantes.
Last edited by corpus vile; 05-08-2020 at 06:05 AM.
Odds are he's been around the block a few times because I suspect most people would just do as they're told when a shotgun is pointing at them.
Still, you can't just murder someone for property crimes.
I mean, you can down South if you're white and the guy is black but you know, youtube and all.
I'm sort of amazed that guys like campfire are anxious to tiptoe down this path again after the George Zimmerman debacle. If you stan for civilians who confront and shoot unarmed people, there is a significant chance that, once all the facts come out, you will learn that you have been stanning for a completely terrible person.
I'm sort of amazed that guys like campfire are anxious to tiptoe down this path again after the George Zimmerman debacle. If you stan for civilians who confront and shoot unarmed people, there is a significant chance that, once all the facts come out, you will learn that you have been stanning for a completely terrible person.
That is how tribalism, ideological and physical, works universally. It isn't particular to "guys like campfire." There are plenty of examples going both ways. Willingness to be contrite after the fact once you have tied your horse to a specific wagon would be the exception, not the rule.
Also FWIW the "jogging" narrative the MSM is running with is surely a red herring. As far as I can tell at some point his mother said something to the effect of, "I think maybe he was jogging" and suddenly that turned into a narrative where he was a jogger. It is so typically predictive how the MSM can run with a narrative of their choosing on the flimsiest pretense and all the wokesters will just completely accept it uncritically.
I'm sort of amazed that guys like campfire are anxious to tiptoe down this path again after the George Zimmerman debacle. If you stan for civilians who confront and shoot unarmed people, there is a significant chance that, once all the facts come out, you will learn that you have been stanning for a completely terrible person.
Zimmerman was a punk.
Martin may have been one also but he has the excuse that he was still a boy.
No one should have been shot there because Zimmerman shouldn't have engaged him and after he did he shouldn't have pulled a gun, he should have taken his beating like a man and called it a day.
And this case is very much the same.
These 3 dummies put themselves in a situation where he was either going to surrender to them or get shot. Just following him around would have made it clear to him that he was being watched. That might have been enough to scare him off if he was doing something wrong. But vigilantes aren't rational enough to put things in perspective. They want the violence. Hence this is an easy felony murder imo. We'll see what the jury does. They may let them go because it's GA but you really can't confront people with guns because they're committing property crimes. Let the cops handle it.
Also FWIW the "jogging" narrative the MSM is running with is surely a red herring. As far as I can tell at some point his mother said something to the effect of, "I think maybe he was jogging" and suddenly that turned into a narrative where he was a jogger. It is so typically predictive how the MSM can run with a narrative of their choosing on the flimsiest pretense and all the wokesters will just completely accept it uncritically.
So let's assume he was running because they caught him inside a house.
So let's assume he was running because they caught him inside a house.
Justify his execution.
I’m not justifying it.
I am just pointing out how the media continually lies and manipulated you guys. And you guys have no critical resining capacity at all to discern it. This isn’t a one off. This happens every day all day.
Does it bother you at all your emotions are just a plaything to be manipulated at will by the media for their own ends, and you seem powerless to do anything about it?
So let's assume he was running because they caught him inside a house.
Justify his execution.
guy on the “analysis” video was making a huge deal about how his shorts were “falling off his ass” and “joggers wear sweatpants” so i assume the justification is gonna be “if the pants don’t fit, you must acquit”.
Also FWIW the "jogging" narrative the MSM is running with is surely a red herring. As far as I can tell at some point his mother said something to the effect of, "I think maybe he was jogging" and suddenly that turned into a narrative where he was a jogger. It is so typically predictive how the MSM can run with a narrative of their choosing on the flimsiest pretense and all the wokesters will just completely accept it uncritically.
So you know how I was talking about you reaching conclusions based on ideology rather than reality? This is another perfect example. The jogging thing isn't something that was only mentioned offhand by his mother. It came from everyone who knew him, such as neighbours who say that he was literally known in the neighbourhood as being a regular jogger:
Quote:
One of them was Lauren Bennett, 26, who says running was what Arbery was known for around their Fancy Bluff neighborhood in Brunswick. Her security camera would ping into her phone as he raced by each day.
and his high school football coach who last saw him when they were both out running:
Quote:
The last time Vaughn saw Arbery was when they crossed paths while on a run. Vaughn said he wanted to catch up to Arbery and joke around with him, but Arbery pushed himself hard and he couldn't reach him.
I am just pointing out how the media continually lies and manipulated you guys. And you guys have no critical resining capacity at all to discern it. This isn’t a one off. This happens every day all day.
Does it bother you at all your emotions are just a plaything to be manipulated at will by the media for their own ends, and you seem powerless to do anything about it?
I'm not the one being emotional here though.
I understand that the media's main goal to sell advertising.
That's capitalism (are you against that now too ?)
But in this case we know certain things. We can see what happened and we can draw our own conclusions as to the actions were reasonable if the accusations regarding the property crimes are true.
So you know how I was talking about you reaching conclusions based on ideology rather than reality? This is another perfect example. The jogging thing isn't something that was only mentioned offhand by his mother. It came from everyone who knew him, such as neighbours who say that he was literally known in the neighbourhood as being a regular jogger:
and his high school football coach who last saw him when they were both out running:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor
he was proly running bc 3 crazy dudes with guns were going after him
I am guessing Victor is correct. Give me your gut Wild. Do you think he was really out jogging?
Also again, I am not basing my conclusions on ideology. I am basing them off carefully reading what the articles actually say, and what they don't, which leads me to conclude the whole jogging angle is a big fat red herring.
I understand that the media's main goal to sell advertising.
That's capitalism (are you against that now too ?)
But in this case we know certain things. We can see what happened and we can draw our own conclusions as to the actions were reasonable if the accusations regarding the property crimes are true.
Well, reasonable and legal are 2 completely different things. What really caught my eye about this case is that it seemed possible the vigilante's actions were legal, which was surprising. But the fact they are in jail now indicates that they likely weren't legal, and the original DA who dropped the case was probably not doing his job very well.
I don't think anyone is arguing the vigilante's actions are reasonable.
That is how tribalism, ideological and physical, works universally. It isn't particular to "guys like campfire." There are plenty of examples going both ways. Willingness to be contrite after the fact once you have tied your horse to a specific wagon would be the exception, not the rule.
ahh yes, indeed a good outlook and something should practice
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willd
So you know how I was talking about you reaching conclusions based on ideology rather than reality? This is another perfect example. The jogging thing isn't something that was only mentioned offhand by his mother. It came from everyone who knew him, such as neighbours who say that he was literally known in the neighbourhood as being a regular jogger:
and his high school football coach who last saw him when they were both out running:
surely Kelhus will take his own advice and show contriteness as the truly impartial and non ideological observer he portrays himself as.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelhus100
I am guessing Victor is correct. Give me your gut Wild. Do you think he was really out jogging?
Also again, I am not basing my conclusions on ideology. I am basing them off carefully reading what the articles actually say, and what they don't, which leads me to conclude the whole jogging angle is a big fat red herring.