I still think I did a good job, but you're right in that I didn't give you the genesis of the idea. Maybe it was whoever wrote this:
or this:
I don't know. It's a pretty common (and logical and supportable) idea was my point. Not sure it's genesis matters much. But I've certainly tried to answer your question again.
True. My mistake. We have no idea what you think is any common understanding of what a "lynching" is. You're just here to ask questions, not express opinions.
Here, I rewrote the offending paragraph and sentence to exclude any attribution to you:
Keep in mind that some people (not you, of course) are already expanding the definition of "lynching" to include, e.g., killings committed with a gun or a vehicle, in order to analogize and evoke powerful images of extra-judicial lynchings of blacks in the South circa 1880s-1930s. So it shouldn't be surprising to anyone when someone else points out to someone all the reasons that, e.g., Ahmad Marberry wasn't "lynched," even under their new, expansive view of the term. If every black person killed by a white person is said to have been "lynched," then people other than you have reduced the term to something quite meaningless (and, in my opinion, done a disservice to those who actually were "lynched").