Ward Cleaver wrote:
What is this Stormfront Trooper Deflector stuff you keep tossing out there??
The dumb “role” suits you well. But it’s not working. You have looked everything up to this point by not Stormfront? That’s because you already know what it is Deflector.
shavas wrote:
Ward Cleaver wrote:
Ron, and your parents - what is the issue with Stefan Molyneux? I have never heard of the guy and didn't heard him share anything new and didn't feel either stated anything outlandish. The guy being interviewed stated a couple times he was unsure of some things because he isn't a lawyer and wasn't completely sure about GA law.
What makes this video "the stupidest pile of krapp I've sen yet, and why do you feel the younger guy is an idiot?
The people who call Stefan a racist and worse are the same people who call Trump a nazi when there is zero supporting evidence Stefan speaks intelligently and logically using facts on a variety of subjects and makes no effort to appease or bend the knee to the woke crowd or those using strong feelings as the basis of having moral superiority over those with different viewpoints. He does speak on race and about the race baiting the left uses to create racial division and how the left will call anyone, especially white males, who may be completely polically center, racist for commenting on anything racial related. Ie. when talking about crime and Stefan comments that blacks commit 10x + more violent crime, murder, rape etc. per population and tries to analyze the reason for this large discrepancy, he is called racist by leftist even though he is talking factually and expressing no supremecist viewpoints. He has also talked about race and IQ although he does not claim to be an expert on the subject. but has interviewed scientist who are experts on the subject. Different populations, countries, ethnic groups have different IQ's and IQ research is actually the most researched and understood area of pyschology and has the most direct relation to outcomes of how a person might do in life. Ie how they do in jobs, education, family life, relationships, crime etc... and even though ethnic Europeans are no where near the top of the IQ curve, Stefan takes heat for that from leftist (which he roundly ignores). The racist card has been played to death by the left and I don't think many take them seriosly anymore even though they are loud and beat their war drums constantly.
I’ve never called Trump a Nazi but Stefan is without a doubt a white supremacist.
Yea ok Mr. Cleaver!
"Screaming 'racism' at people because blacks are collectively less intelligent...is insane."
—YouTube video, The Death of Europe | European Migrant Crisis, October 4, 2015
“Took my daughter to see my old graduate school desk in the University of Toronto Library, couldn't help but notice the almost complete absence of white males in the entire building.
Next time we build a civilization, we should really aim to hang onto it.“
This is the definition of supremacist speak. This is not “just telling it like it is”.
your parents wrote:
“Took my daughter to see my old graduate school desk in the University of Toronto Library, couldn't help but notice the almost complete absence of white males in the entire building.
Next time we build a civilization, we should really aim to hang onto it.“
This is the definition of supremacist speak. This is not “just telling it like it is”.
You’re conversing with his follower. It’s protocol for them to deny, play clueless, and use reverse tactics! A common strategy in recent years is to make everything a “leftist” political conspiracy.
sea lion alert if anyone hasn't figured it out.
Ward Cleaver wrote:
Ernest wrote:
Facts are facts.
You don't have to like them or agree with them, but if you're objective, you should be prepared to reconcile them. Or argue against them with reason and contrary facts.
Ad hominen attacks or emotional appeals are not logical arguments.
You can be sure ppening arguments at trials for Bryan and McMichael's will not begin with the prosecution claiming "The defence lawyers are racist, and so is anyone who doesn't find these men guilty..."
Well said!
For those that haven't been following along
KudzuRunner wrote:
This thread has devolved into crosstalk and ideological simplifications. It's time for somebody to say, "Here's what we know, or think we know, at the present moment."
I hoped for much better.
Parsing the encounter in purely legal terms, btw, is merely one way of seeking understanding. I'm not sure if everybody gets that. A novelist would try to understand motivations, whether or not they have legal weight. Americans sometimes expect the legal system to do more than it was designed to do.
I'm still curious, for example, about why Arbery walked around inside the building. Was he gazing at it with the eyes of a future electrician? Was he casing the joint? Was he looking for water? That question is probably irrelevant to the legal case, but it's interesting. I'm intrigued by the fact that other people, black and white, visited that same house. The white people who visited didn't seem to set off alarms in the minds of local residents.
I'm surprised that as a man of the world you were hoping for something other than the usual range of social media responses. It was to be inevitable that the killing of a black man by white vigilantes in the South would hit the nerve of racism that runs through American society.
You draw comparisons with what a novelist would be interested in. This isn't a work of fiction - unfortunately - it is a murder. No conjecture about what happened and why can escape that context. Unfortunately there has been sustained disinformation about both the facts and the law. There are agendas being pursued here.
We will likely never have answers to some of the things that you might wish to know, but curiosity for its own sake is an indulgence when it is justice that is at stake. And not just for Ahmaud Arbery. With the nature of this crime, and the way the authorities failed for some months to bring the killers to account, justice itself is also on trial here.
Ward Cleaver wrote:
KudzuRunner wrote:
This thread has devolved into crosstalk and ideological simplifications. It's time for somebody to say, "Here's what we know, or think we know, at the present moment."
I hoped for much better.
Parsing the encounter in purely legal terms, btw, is merely one way of seeking understanding. I'm not sure if everybody gets that. A novelist would try to understand motivations, whether or not they have legal weight. Americans sometimes expect the legal system to do more than it was designed to do.
I'm still curious, for example, about why Arbery walked around inside the building. Was he gazing at it with the eyes of a future electrician? Was he casing the joint? Was he looking for water? That question is probably irrelevant to the legal case, but it's interesting. I'm intrigued by the fact that other people, black and white, visited that same house. The white people who visited didn't seem to set off alarms in the minds of local residents.
This is probably one of the better videos relating to your expectations -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxhIL2iMdM8
Excellent piece. I'd urge everybody watch it. There are several key lines. One of them is at 19:55-20:00.
It's a pretty down-the-middle factual report. It's curious that it repeatedly refers to the McMichaels by their first names: Mr. Travis, Mr. Greg. That's quirky.
In the brisk survey of surveillance footage, it also doesn't include some footage of several white kids (not adults) on bicycles pausing to visit the house.
By offering us several earlier 911 calls at length, giving us a chance to hear Travis McMichael report intruders, is 1) makes him seem more like a concerned neighbor than a racist vigilante; and 2) makes clear that by the time of the deadly encounter, he was primed to see Arbery as THE "black guy" who had been visiting the construction-house on previous occasions AND, crucially, although this isn't said in so many words, he almost surely made the leap and assumed, with zero evidence, that Arbery was also the person who had stolen a gun out of his truck. He felt himself besieged and the neighborhood besieged. He had an enough-is-enough response. Since one of the earlier 911 calls had him, shaken, saying that the black male intruder had put his hand into his pants or shorts as though he had a gun, he also assumed that the person he was chasing--Arbery, as it happened--might be armed.
I see no reason to assume that he grabbed his gun and chased Arbery with the depraved intent of killing him. That's silly, frankly, and it's why--speaking here as a scholar of lynching--I don't this the lynching accusation current being batted around is justified.
Travis got in way over his head, though, and there is, as far as I know, zero evidence that Arbery 1) stole anything from the site; 2) was in fact the same guy as the earlier black "intruder"; 3) deserved in any way to be singled out for this armed stop. He was, in fact, a jogger, somebody who enjoyed and kept in shape through running.
Travis made a series of mental leaps and Arbery ultimately got trapped in them. Arbery was not required to stop and speak with the two men who were threatening them. They felt, based on a series of judgments about neighborhood activities that saw ONLY young black male visitors to the construction site as a problem and discounted white visits, that they had the right to chase and stop him while brandishing weapons. They didn't.
That's how I'm seeing this.
Here's a decent CNN story and video:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/24/us/georgia-ahmaud-arbery-killing-narrative/index.htmlI think that felony murder for both McMichaels is sustainable and will be sustained.
KudzuRunner wrote:
I think that felony murder for both McMichaels is sustainable and will be sustained.
As the commentary in the video posted by Ward Cleaver makes clear, Travis McMichael will NOT be able to claim that in the struggle for his own rifle he engaged in self-defense against Arbery, because he had no legal basis for initially brandishing the gun. Arbery, in grabbing the gun, was in fact--it will be argued, and sustainable, I believe--engaging in self-defense, trying to protect himself against an imminent and illegal threat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pX19TA2n58KudzuRunner wrote:
KudzuRunner wrote:
I think that felony murder for both McMichaels is sustainable and will be sustained.
As the commentary in the video posted by Ward Cleaver makes clear, Travis McMichael will NOT be able to claim that in the struggle for his own rifle he engaged in self-defense against Arbery, because he had no legal basis for initially brandishing the gun. Arbery, in grabbing the gun, was in fact--it will be argued, and sustainable, I believe--engaging in self-defense, trying to protect himself against an imminent and illegal threat.
According to this, from what I can tell, what you are predicting is not true.
It's an hour and forty minute video. Would you mind directing us towards the portion of it that you're talking about?
KudzuRunner wrote:
Ward Cleaver wrote:
This is probably one of the better videos relating to your expectations -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxhIL2iMdM8Excellent piece. I'd urge everybody watch it. There are several key lines. One of them is at 19:55-20:00. Wow, that has been debunked numerous times...even by your own acknowledgment of the TM 911 call.
It's a pretty down-the-middle factual report. It's curious that it repeatedly refers to the McMichaels by their first names: Mr. Travis, Mr. Greg. That's quirky.
In the brisk survey of surveillance footage, it also doesn't include some footage of several white kids (not adults) on bicycles pausing to visit the house.
By offering us several earlier 911 calls at length, giving us a chance to hear Travis McMichael report intruders, is 1) makes him seem more like a concerned neighbor than a racist vigilante; and 2) makes clear that by the time of the deadly encounter, he was primed to see Arbery as THE "black guy" who had been visiting the construction-house on previous occasions AND, crucially, although this isn't said in so many words, he almost surely made the leap and assumed, with zero evidence, that Arbery was also the person who had stolen a gun out of his truck. He felt himself besieged and the neighborhood besieged. He had an enough-is-enough response. Since one of the earlier 911 calls had him, shaken, saying that the black male intruder had put his hand into his pants or shorts as though he had a gun, he also assumed that the person he was chasing--Arbery, as it happened--might be armed.
I see no reason to assume that he grabbed his gun and chased Arbery with the depraved intent of killing him. That's silly, frankly, and it's why--speaking here as a scholar of lynching--I don't this the lynching accusation current being batted around is justified.
Travis got in way over his head, though, and there is, as far as I know, zero evidence that Arbery 1) stole anything from the site;
Apparently there is footage of him removing items from his pocket and dropping them while running away from the construction site.
2) was in fact the same guy as the earlier black "intruder";
Others have said it has been verified that he was seen at that home and others at night
3) deserved in any way to be singled out for this armed stop.
HE was at minimum trespassing...and that alone is enough to warrant the neighbor to call 911 and report him. If he was just there to grab a drink of water why snoop around the place before getting the water and why go there prior nights, and why bolt away when leaving if he had done nothing wrong, and why not stop and talk with those asking him to do so if he had done nothing wrong?
He was, in fact, a jogger, somebody who enjoyed and kept in shape through running.
Travis made a series of mental leaps
based on prior knowledge and a personal run in with AA
and Arbery ultimately got trapped in them. Arbery was not required to stop and speak with the two men who were threatening them.
How do you know they were threatening him? Why not stop and answer a question if JUST a jogger?
They felt, based on a series of judgments about neighborhood activities that saw ONLY young black male visitors to the construction site as a problem and discounted white visits,
so the white couple that went in with nothing and went out with nothing along with the little kids and nothing was reported missing after their images surfaced should be considered a problem because why?
that they had the right to chase and stop him while brandishing weapons. They didn't.
Are you not allowed to brandish a weapon during a Citizens Arrest?
If you believe that should this Black man go to jail for making this Citizens Arrest even though the white guy wanted to steal his car?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLjI6o1JJ1U&list=PLv7zcBPxDxVrMnjbpnVYppjS_pwgHYBQR&index=70&t=68sThat's how I'm seeing this.
You make some great points but I struggle with some of your other thoughts.
Here's a decent CNN story and video:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/24/us/georgia-ahmaud-arbery-killing-narrative/index.html
Responses in bold above
20 minutes into that video all this Barnes cat does is speculate and insert his own opinion not based on any statutes. At that point I stopped watching.
KudzuRunner wrote:
It's an hour and forty minute video. Would you mind directing us towards the portion of it that you're talking about?
I believe the Civil Rights Lawyer starts talking about 10 minutes in. Nothing needed to watch, just crank up the volume and listen while doing something productive. Although there are plenty of great questions and comments that people type in while the two are talking.
From my understanding this Banes guy has represented a ton of minorities in Civil Rights suits.
Ronald Dump wrote:
20 minutes into that video all this Barnes cat does is speculate and insert his own opinion not based on any statutes. At that point I stopped watching.
Lots of great discussion on laws and court cases after...your loss
Ward Cleaver wrote:
Ronald Dump wrote:
20 minutes into that video all this Barnes cat does is speculate and insert his own opinion not based on any statutes. At that point I stopped watching.
Lots of great discussion on laws and court cases after...your loss
Right because an attorney's "hunches" are going to drive this case.
The first video which outlines the case with the available evidence vs. the Georgia statutes make sense and is more applicable to the case than Mr. Hunch.
Ronald Dump wrote:
Ward Cleaver wrote:
Lots of great discussion on laws and court cases after...your loss
Right because an attorney's "hunches" are going to drive this case.
The first video which outlines the case with the available evidence vs. the Georgia statutes make sense and is more applicable to the case than Mr. Hunch.
I would believe an attorney who knows the laws much more than a media driven video. It is hard to know who to believe and that is why I like to wait for the facts before making judgement on such a case.
Ward Cleaver wrote:
Ronald Dump wrote:
Right because an attorney's "hunches" are going to drive this case.
The first video which outlines the case with the available evidence vs. the Georgia statutes make sense and is more applicable to the case than Mr. Hunch.
I would believe an attorney who knows the laws much more than a media driven video. It is hard to know who to believe and that is why I like to wait for the facts before making judgement on such a case.
....and the sealion returns. LOL!
I have to admit. You're pretty good at it. Let's keep this going.
So apparently according to you, a guy getting out of an SUV after chasing you around for 4 mins or so for no apparent reason and he's brandishing a rifle is not threatening to you.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Rest in Peace Adrian Lehmann - 2:11 Swiss marathoner. Dies of heart attack.