Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
You're right DDM,
Most people are not neutral they either accuse you, Stringer for instance, or Bash, your pals.
Stringer openly admits he's trolling and he also touted a pedo-bear avatar for years. He spent barely any time in GS chat. He's not a "witness" or a good character witness for any of this. He's just a troll who is bored. PVS doesn't have a posse and it isn't a "team dadudemon vs. team PVS."
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I think my position is quite clear and i hope you notice i always say accusations and never regurgitate said accusations because they are distasteful in both directions
Well, I do think there is a tiny bit of merit to your point about the mid to late 2000s being a slightly different time on the internet. But there's only so much you can blame on "it was new" before you put culpability on the adults in those scenarios. We can chat more about this when we meet up in person.
By the late 00s the people we are talking about were young adults DDM. And yes we certainly can talk about it then. I think as I have said many times before limits have to exist on and off the internet. There are places people have to be very careful if they go there. People are both fragile and volatile things. I have seen lots of people cross lines it's foolish to cross online. Because real life impact on people is all too easy. When I used this forum in a similar way to Surt my real-life had issues, same I think for Broly.
So anyways, I don't think we'll ever be able to say for sure why this happened. But when you look at the evidence it seems to point to them being dumb vigilantes than it does them being dumb racists.
And there was a talking point played up by the media that for weeks and weeks there had been nothing reported to the cops. One CNN article I read said there was nothing reported in the 7 weeks prior to the incident.
If they had done any real research they would have discovered that is not the case.
EDIT: And keep in mind I am not saying Arbery deserved to die. I still maintain that no attempt at a citizens arrest should have even been made.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This is sure to get the Hangouts gang to accept you. You are not like the other gender nonconforming people they relentlessly mock. I am sure everyone is really impressed with threats of violence from a 90 lb. halfling. You are pathetic.
I’d also kick you in the throat, pissant. Enough of your arrogance and falsities.
Oh, and I can assure you Bashar is not “quite thin”.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This is sure to get the Hangouts gang to accept you.
The gang would have to exist for him to get accepted into it.
If it did exist, he'd be the leader. 😐
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If a white person is tired of break-ins, he gets to murder any black person that resembles the intruder with impunity?
Anyone can see my posts in this thread and my take on the topic so they'd realize this loaded strawman question you asked me is not the correct approach with me.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He does not need 100% proof that the suspect is in fact the perpetrator,
The law is "first hand knowledge" so unless their defense can prove that, it was not a lawful pursuit and they will get, at the least, involuntary manslaughter.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
..but others need 100% proof he has implicit racial biases or that his actions were even partially racially-motivated?
Speaking in absolutes like this is also a dishonest way to approach the topic.
To get the hate crime charge, there needs to be a body of evidence that supports that. Usually, when legit hate crimes based on race are legit committed, there is a vast body of evidence such as screaming racist terms during the fight, a 911 call that either directly or hints that the person is motivated by race, social media, text messages, etc. None of those things have been brought to the surface of this case, yet. However, we still do not have any of the facts. Making this about race and a hate crime is looking impossible at this point without something solid. Which was Surtur's point, originally.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The basis for his actions is effectively 1.) black people look alike
The two dudes on the camera footage are similar height and similar build.
Not everyone has a memory like Robtard, right? Months later, it looks like the same person. Black, lots of hair up top (that stands out). The dude from October 2019 had lighter skin and a tattoo sleeve on his right arm. Other than that, they do look similar on the camera footage.
It doesn't help that they had the same style of shorts.
But it looks like Arbery or someone who looked like Arbery broke in just days prior to the shooting. You can claim it's racist to say that McMichael thinks Arbery was that same person. But if Arbery had a cellphone with him, the police can subpoena the carrier for his tower connection logs (and you can pretty much triangulate from that data). If it places Arbery close to the neighborhood, it's a pretty good defense for the McMichael's. They now have first hand knowledge and it becomes a lawful pursuit.
If not, it is just a material witness at that point saying the home invader looked like Arbery.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
2.) white people are justified in shooting them if they do not comply with orders, even if it is not in defense of person or property, and even if they are unarmed and pose no threat.
I don't think anyone said that the McMichael's were justified in kill Arbery 100%. There is supposedly a 3rd video of the conflict that moved the first prosecutor to want to dismiss the case. About 1 second of video might reveal that Arbery ran up on McMichael and grabbed his gun.
Like Silent Master keeps repeating - we have to wait and see. They are sitting on evidence and keeping it secret, on purpose. They didn't release the video of Arbery entering English's home minutes prior to the confrontation for weeks. And then when they finally did, the only released 3 seconds.
To me, something's f*cky.
Edit - I do appreciate you taking the time to outline these points, Adam_Poe. Without being a piece of shit about it. It's much more enjoyable to talk about these topics if the childish antics are left out.
2.) white people are justified in shooting them if they do not comply with orders, even if it is not in defense of person or property, and even if they are unarmed and pose no threat.
In regards to this particular point, didn't the person in question get shot BECAUSE they ran over and tried to take the shotgun away from the guy holding it, he didn't get shot because he refused to cooperate. He got shot because he tried to disarm the guy with the shotgun.
I could be wrong but that's what I've read and what the video seems to show.
Originally posted by snowdragon
In regards to this particular point, didn't the person in question get shot BECAUSE they ran over and tried to take the shotgun away from the guy holding it, he didn't get shot because he refused to cooperate. He got shot because he tried to disarm the guy with the shotgun.I could be wrong but that's what I've read and what the video seems to show.
It's not clear in Brian's video that this is exactly what happened. Many are saying that this is what happened but we can't see it. There is a "third video" of the altercation and it apparently was "good enough" to make the first prosecutor want to throw out the case.
However, there are 2 points to the case:
1. First hand knowledge is needed to justify pursuing Arbery. If they never had it, then it becomes, at the least, an involuntary manslaughter charge. This is under Georgia laws.
2. If Arbery ran up on McMichael sr., and 1 is true, then they will be acquitted. If not, they will be convicted on one or more of 3 charges.
Originally posted by dadudemon
There is a "third video" of the altercation and it apparently was "good enough" to make the first prosecutor want to throw out the case.
Have they explained why this 3rd video has not yet been made public? Has Arbery's family been calling for the release of this 3rd video?
Originally posted by Surtur
Have they explained why this 3rd video has not yet been made public? Has Arbery's family been calling for the release of this 3rd video?
No but it's pretty obvious why: it either harms the prosecutors case or harms the defense's case.
That's usually why those vids don't get released that can fairly definitively change the narrative of such a public case.