Racism in America (with data)

[LordMortis]

That answers that for me.

[hepcat]

It's why they're in a spoiler tag.

That really drives home what happened for me.

[Smoove_B]

I don't care if he was running down the street and carrying a comically oversized burlap sack with a giant "$" on the side, in no way should these three clowns have confronted him while holding a shotgun. It's bad enough people in America would be defending an officer of the law arriving on scene and shooting him, but three random private citizens roll up in a truck and this is up for debate over adherence to what is apparently the international code of conduct for joggers? We've lost our minds.

[hepcat]

If they get away with this, we've effectively endorsed violent vigilantism.

[Isgrimnur]

It's why they're in a spoiler tag.

That really drives home what happened for me.

I mean, there's video, too. I'm'a go dry-heave for a few minutes.

[Zaxxon]

If they get away with this, we've effectively endorsed violent vigilantism.

We did that with Rittenhouse already.

[Dan256]

You were being serious? Your reply to me is the very definition of disingenuous, in my opinion. Why in God's name would a defense lawyer refer to "Jogger's Toe" in her closing arguments? That's just nonsense.

Now I'm back to thinking you're just messing with folks.

Alright, let me try to clear this up. It won't be easy, methinks.

I came here today, as I do often these past 20 years, (since the days of Gone Gold, actually), but I do not often comment as someone pointed out, I just read YOUR comments and don't say much.

So, why am I commenting today? (oh, noes, he must be a racist!) Well, the truth is I saw the thread title and I happen to be a life-long resident of Kenosha, and I clicked on the thread thinking that I may have something to add about the Rittenhouse case. But I found you guys were talking about Arbery at this point.

It's a case that I admittedly know not a lot about, but many here seemed confused, befuddled and bewildered that the defense would say the line about "long dirty toe-nails". None of you seemed to understand the correct implication of this line as the defense meant it. Instead, many are up in arms about how this harkens back to slavery, and "OMG, I am outraged by this!" which seems to be quite the wrong interpretation.

The prosecution is trying to paint a picture in which Arbery is an innocent jogger who was racially profiled; the defense is merely countering that claim by pointing out that Arbery is not innocent, and not even a jogger. "Dirty long toe-nails" speaks to the argument that Arbery is not a jogger. The claim being made is that a jogger would not have dirty long toe-nails. It's simple. It's not nefarious. It's a legitimate claim that the defense was trying to make, and I'm not trying to claim that it's proof of anything. It' is what it is. And it is not, what it is not.

It is not harkening back to slavery. It's not some outrageous racist rant aimed at racists on the jury. You all really seem to have this opinion, that I believe is completely incorrect. I do take issue with the addition of the word "dirty", but as I've explained you can sort of make a stretch as to why they might add that. But even adding the word dirty is not at all racist. The defense has the right, and the obligation to paint this victim as a dirty thief. It's a legit paint job. I'm disappointed that many here are so quick to jump to a racist interpretation of this.

And to be clear - I do believe Arbery was a victim, I do believe Arbery was also a sneaky little thief, (I have a low opinion of thieves,) and I do think the "red-necks" who ran him down are guilty; they were likely not within their rights to chase this man under Georgia State laws. And I do think the "red necks" were likely racist; I just don't think "dirty long toe-nails' is as racist as you guys seem to think it is.

[stimpy]

You were being serious? Your reply to me is the very definition of disingenuous, in my opinion. Why in God's name would a defense lawyer refer to "Jogger's Toe" in her closing arguments? That's just nonsense.

Now I'm back to thinking you're just messing with folks.

Alright, let me try to clear this up. It won't be easy, methinks.

I came here today, as I do often these past 20 years, (since the days of Gone Gold, actually), but I do not often comment as someone pointed out, I just read YOUR comments and don't say much.

So, why am I commenting today? (oh, noes, he must be a racist!) Well, the truth is I saw the thread title and I happen to be a life-long resident of Kenosha, and I clicked on the thread thinking that I may have something to add about the Rittenhouse case. But I found you guys were talking about Arbery at this point.

It's a case that I admittedly know not a lot about, but many here seemed confused, befuddled and bewildered that the defense would say the line about "long dirty toe-nails". None of you seemed to understand the correct implication of this line as the defense meant it. Instead, many are up in arms about how this harkens back to slavery, and "OMG, I am outraged by this!" which seems to be quite the wrong interpretation.

The prosecution is trying to paint a picture in which Arbery is an innocent jogger who was racially profiled; the defense is merely countering that claim by pointing out that Arbery is not innocent, and not even a jogger. "Dirty long toe-nails" speaks to the argument that Arbery is not a jogger. The claim being made is that a jogger would not have dirty long toe-nails. It's simple. It's not nefarious. It's a legitimate claim that the defense was trying to make, and I'm not trying to claim that it's proof of anything. It' is what it is. And it is not, what it is not.

It is not harkening back to slavery. It's not some outrageous racist rant aimed at racists on the jury. You all really seem to have this opinion, that I believe is completely incorrect. I do take issue with the addition of the word "dirty", but as I've explained you can sort of make a stretch as to why they might add that. But even adding the word dirty is not at all racist. The defense has the right, and the obligation to paint this victim as a dirty thief. It's a legit paint job. I'm disappointed that many here are so quick to jump to a racist interpretation of this.

Good luck and God speed......
It's been nice "knowing" ya.......lol

[LordMortis]

I happen to be a life-long resident of Kenosha

I bet you have some interesting perspective for the last year + has been like there going all the way back Jacob Blake.

[Skinypupy]

EDIT: NVM, this horse has been beaten to death already.

Carry on.

[YellowKing]

I'd be inclined to side with Dan's interpretation if it hasn't been proven time and time and time and time again the racial injustices inherent in our judicial system. You can pretend it doesn't exist, or come up with convuluted explanations for every example of it, but a lot of us here just default to it because that seems to be the norm rather than the exception.

This is a case absolutely rife with racial implications - it would be incredibly naive to think the defense somehow isn't aware of that and isn't using it to their advantage.

[malchior]

And to be clear - I do believe Arbery was a victim, I do believe Arbery was also a sneaky little thief, (I have a low opinion of thieves,) and I do think the "red-necks" who ran him down are guilty; they were likely not within their rights to chase this man under Georgia State laws. And I do think the "red necks" were likely racist; I just don't think "dirty long toe-nails' is as racist as you guys seem to think it is.

I get this whole train but if this statement was one out of the blue line I'd agree. But in full context, it is hard to dismiss it for the racist statement it almost certainly is. This is a jury of 11 white people and 1 black person. They just need to hang the jury. That's their best play right now.

To get there, the three lawyers have been throwing a litany of us vs. them imagery at the jury throughout the trial. Much of it wasn't based on law or doubt or the facts. It was largely white vs. black. What was he doing in that (white) neighborhood? Why was he wearing odd clothes for jogging (white people don't jog in those clothes)? Why were his feet not manicured like a (white) jogger? That statement was meant to further that us vs. them story. Is it explicitly racist? No. Is it hoping to play on chance that there are racist sentiments in the jury? Unless the lawyer has a moment of conscience we'll never know but it certainly fits the theme and the history of trials like this in the south.

[hepcat]

It's a case that I admittedly know not a lot about, but many here seemed confused, befuddled and bewildered that the defense would say the line about "long dirty toe-nails". None of you seemed to understand the correct implication of this line as the defense meant it. Instead, many are up in arms about how this harkens back to slavery, and "OMG, I am outraged by this!" which seems to be quite the wrong interpretation.

Literally one person (me) mentioned that and only while citing a civil rights lawyer who I thought made an interesting comparison (look it up, it's not as flippant as you want to make it out to be). Every other person who brought it up did so in the context of "yeah, that's a stretch". So let's not try to make it sound like everyone on OO was bringing it up/agreeing with it. That is simply not true.

The prosecution is trying to paint a picture in which Arbery is an innocent jogger who was racially profiled; the defense is merely countering that claim by pointing out that Arbery is not innocent, and not even a jogger. "Dirty long toe-nails" speaks to the argument that Arbery is not a jogger. The claim being made is that a jogger would not have dirty long toe-nails. It's simple. It's not nefarious. It's a legitimate claim that the defense was trying to make, and I'm not trying to claim that it's proof of anything. It' is what it is. And it is not, what it is not.

What happened to your assertion that we should all read "long dirty toenails" as just "Jogger's Toenail"?

That aside, why even mention "dirty"? Does being dirty make you slower due to wind drag, and thus out the window goes any defense tactic saying he was out jogging? (note: i'm not arguing that he was out jogging. but as even you believe, cornering a suspected thief and brandishing guns at him is wrong)

But even adding the word dirty is not at all racist.

To some, it is. What makes you right and them wrong?

And I do think the "red necks" were likely racist; I just don't think "dirty long toe-nails' is as racist as you guys seem to think it is.

Thus we go from "not at all racist" to "not as racist as you think".

But at the end of the day, I think we agree on the important issues at stake here. But for some reason, you seem angry about that.

[Dan256]

It's a case that I admittedly know not a lot about, but many here seemed confused, befuddled and bewildered that the defense would say the line about "long dirty toe-nails". None of you seemed to understand the correct implication of this line as the defense meant it. Instead, many are up in arms about how this harkens back to slavery, and "OMG, I am outraged by this!" which seems to be quite the wrong interpretation.

Literally one person (me) mentioned that and only while citing a civil rights lawyer who I thought made an interesting comparison (look it up, it's not as flippant as you want to make it out to be). Every other person who brought it up did so in the context of "yeah, that's a stretch". So let's not try to make it sound like everyone on OO was bringing it up/agreeing with it. That is simply not true.

The prosecution is trying to paint a picture in which Arbery is an innocent jogger who was racially profiled; the defense is merely countering that claim by pointing out that Arbery is not innocent, and not even a jogger. "Dirty long toe-nails" speaks to the argument that Arbery is not a jogger. The claim being made is that a jogger would not have dirty long toe-nails. It's simple. It's not nefarious. It's a legitimate claim that the defense was trying to make, and I'm not trying to claim that it's proof of anything. It' is what it is. And it is not, what it is not.

What happened to your assertion that we should all read "long dirty toenails" as just "Jogger's Toenail"?

That aside, why even mention "dirty"? Does being dirty make you slower due to wind drag, and thus out the window goes any defense tactic saying he was out jogging? (note: i'm not arguing that he was out jogging. but as even you believe, cornering a suspected thief and brandishing guns at him is wrong)

But even adding the word dirty is not at all racist.

To some, it is. What makes you right and them wrong?

And I do think the "red necks" were likely racist; I just don't think "dirty long toe-nails' is as racist as you guys seem to think it is.

Thus we go from "not at all racist" to "not as racist as you think".

But at the end of the day, I think we agree on the important issues at stake here. But for some reason, you seem angry about that.

I'm not going to answer all of your misinterpretations of what I've said so far. But on the point of "dirty long toe-nails" (which is the only point we've been talking about here) I maintain that had Arbery been white, the phrase "dirty long toe-nails" would still be there. If I have read you correctly, you say it's racist, and I say it's not.

We do agree that the killers are likely racist. I just don't think the attorneys are.

[hepcat]

I'm curious as to what you think I misinterpreted.

p.s. i never said the attorney's are racist. i implied they were playing with racist language though in an attempt to appeal to a jury I think they believe may respond to such.

[Alefroth]

You were being serious? Your reply to me is the very definition of disingenuous, in my opinion. Why in God's name would a defense lawyer refer to "Jogger's Toe" in her closing arguments? That's just nonsense.

Now I'm back to thinking you're just messing with folks.

Alright, let me try to clear this up. It won't be easy, methinks.

I came here today, as I do often these past 20 years, (since the days of Gone Gold, actually), but I do not often comment as someone pointed out, I just read YOUR comments and don't say much.

So, why am I commenting today? (oh, noes, he must be a racist!) Well, the truth is I saw the thread title and I happen to be a life-long resident of Kenosha, and I clicked on the thread thinking that I may have something to add about the Rittenhouse case. But I found you guys were talking about Arbery at this point.

It's a case that I admittedly know not a lot about, but many here seemed confused, befuddled and bewildered that the defense would say the line about "long dirty toe-nails". None of you seemed to understand the correct implication of this line as the defense meant it. Instead, many are up in arms about how this harkens back to slavery, and "OMG, I am outraged by this!" which seems to be quite the wrong interpretation.

The prosecution is trying to paint a picture in which Arbery is an innocent jogger who was racially profiled; the defense is merely countering that claim by pointing out that Arbery is not innocent, and not even a jogger. "Dirty long toe-nails" speaks to the argument that Arbery is not a jogger. The claim being made is that a jogger would not have dirty long toe-nails. It's simple. It's not nefarious. It's a legitimate claim that the defense was trying to make, and I'm not trying to claim that it's proof of anything. It' is what it is. And it is not, what it is not.

It is not harkening back to slavery. It's not some outrageous racist rant aimed at racists on the jury. You all really seem to have this opinion, that I believe is completely incorrect. I do take issue with the addition of the word "dirty", but as I've explained you can sort of make a stretch as to why they might add that. But even adding the word dirty is not at all racist. The defense has the right, and the obligation to paint this victim as a dirty thief. It's a legit paint job. I'm disappointed that many here are so quick to jump to a racist interpretation of this.

And to be clear - I do believe Arbery was a victim, I do believe Arbery was also a sneaky little thief, (I have a low opinion of thieves,) and I do think the "red-necks" who ran him down are guilty; they were likely not within their rights to chase this man under Georgia State laws. And I do think the "red necks" were likely racist; I just don't think "dirty long toe-nails' is as racist as you guys seem to think it is.

Some people see racism, some don't.

Just curious, out of everything discussed on the board, why did this one elicit such a response from you?

Why do you believe Arbery is a 'sneaky little thief'? You admitted you know little about the case.

[Dan256]

I'm curious as to what you think I misinterpreted.

p.s. i never said the attorney's are racist. i implied they were playing with racist language though in an attempt to appeal to a jury I think they believe may respond to such.

Hepcat, I literally said to you "I'm not going to answer all of your misinterpretations of what I've said so far." And you responded with, "I'm curious as to what you think I misinterpreted." It's not one or two things, it's about half of everything I've said, you've gotten wrong, and I do not at all want to go through it point by point with you.

We don't disagree on much of any substance here; we just have both misinterpreted some of each other's posts and I suspect that we don't see eye to eye on the matter of race; we don't know each other's standpoint on the issue of race; yet you seem very suspicious of me and I am certainly very suspicious of your stand.

I'm of the opinion that people who see racism around every corner, behind every bush and up every telephone pole are inherently BAD for America and are making race relations in this country decidedly worse. We weren't doing this ten years ago.

Racism is around every damn corner, but it's not behind every bush nor up every pole. I was pushing back on the notion that "dirty long toe-nails" was inherently racist because I do not want to see the race card being over-played, I just don't see the racism in that at all, and it troubles me that you, and others here do.

I don't think that you see the nasty rate at which the race card is being played and how much damage the misplays of that card are having on society.

[Alefroth]

I guess that answers my questions.

[Isgrimnur]

I don't think that you see the nasty rate at which the race card is being played and how much damage the misplays of that card are having on society.

I'm going to suggest that it's less than the damage that systemic racism has caused.

[hepcat]

I'm curious as to what you think I misinterpreted.

p.s. i never said the attorney's are racist. i implied they were playing with racist language though in an attempt to appeal to a jury I think they believe may respond to such.

Hepcat, I literally said to you "I'm not going to answer all of your misinterpretations of what I've said so far." And you responded with, "I'm curious as to what you think I misinterpreted." It's not one or two things, it's about half of everything I've said, you've gotten wrong, and I do not at all want to go through it point by point with you.

We don't disagree on much of any substance here; we just have both misinterpreted some of each other's posts and I suspect that we don't see eye to eye on the matter of race; we don't know each other's standpoint on the issue of race; yet you seem very suspicious of me and I am certainly very suspicious of your stand.

I'm of the opinion that people who see racism around every corner, behind every bush and up every telephone pole are inherently BAD for America and are making race relations in this country decidedly worse. We weren't doing this ten years ago.

Racism is around every damn corner, but it's not behind every bush nor up every pole. I was pushing back on the notion that "dirty long toe-nails" was inherently racist because I do not want to see the race card being over-played, I just don't see the racism in that at all, and it troubles me that you, and others here do.

I don't think that you see the nasty rate at which the race card is being played and how much damage the misplays of that card are having on society.

If you accuse someone of being disingenuous and misinterpreting you repeatedly, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to try to understand why that is.

Honestly, more than half of what you just said about me is dead wrong, so I guess in each other’s eyes were both guilty of misinterpretation.

I’ve posted numerous times condemning cancer culture…even when the subject is racism. I don’t see racism around every corner. I do hope I can see it when it pokes its head out of a corner though.

It appears as if you’re overly sensitive about coming off as a racist. Enough so that it seems you’re assuming that’s what I’m accusing you of. Please read what I’ve written as that is one huge misinterpretation on your part.

[$iljanus]

Pay up, Nazis!

Prominent white supremacists Richard Spencer, Jason Kessler and Christopher Cantwell and others engaged in a conspiracy to intimidate, harass or harm in advance of the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017, a jury has ruled.
The jury did not reach a verdict on two federal conspiracy charges, but did find that every defendant was liable for civil conspiracy under Virginia law.
The jury then awarded a total of $26 million in damages against the 12 individual defendants and five white nationalist organizations on trial. More than half that money is owed by James Fields, who is serving a life sentence for ramming into a crowd of counterprotesters with his car during the rally and killing Heather Heyer.
The 11 jurors needed only to find “a preponderance of the evidence,” rather than the higher bar of “beyond reasonable doubt” in criminal trials. But they deadlocked on two federal claims of a race-based conspiracy, while agreeing that there was a conspiracy under Virginia state law and that the victims were entitled to compensation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... e-updates/

[hepcat]

Dirty, long toe nailed nazis.

[Dan256]

Some people see racism, some don't.

Just curious, out of everything discussed on the board, why did this one elicit such a response from you?

Why do you believe Arbery is a 'sneaky little thief'? You admitted you know little about the case.

Since you asked, I don't normally wander out of the "Video Games" forum at all when I come here. I like to read people's opinions about games here, but for opinions about "Religion and Politics" or "Everything But Gaming" I generally go somewhere else on the internet. I didn't realize you guys lean so far to the left on these issues, or maybe it's just that the conservatives here mostly know not to wander into a thread of this nature and title.

But "Why here?" "Why now?" Well, I'm retired; I'm from Kenosha; I just watched three weeks of the Rittenhouse trial, and I was curious as to what some of you knuckleheads had thought. And so, I wandered in to see.

As to why I think he was a "sneaky little thief" it's because he was filmed inside that building under construction many, many times. The police were called many times about that specific man.

Now, during the Rittenhouse trial I watched over on Rekeita Law, and the one lawyer on the panel that had been following the Arbery case more closely than the Rittenhouse case was https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD5_QI ... h9AwZv3soA
(He is the black lawyer and former prosecutor that I previously spoke of in this thread.) What I do know of the Arbery trial I got from him, and I found him to be a very fair and impartial expert on the trial. I heard Nate's opinions, and I agreed with him. I didn't watch the Arbery trial; I was watching the Rittenhouse trial. Nate watched the Arbery trial for the most part and I respect his viewpoints.

[$iljanus]

Dirty, long toe nailed nazis.

Now Hepcat, everyone knows that you can’t properly march in your jackboots if you don’t have trimmed toe nails.

[hepcat]

As to why I think he was a "sneaky little thief" it's because he was filmed inside that building under construction many, many times. The police were called many times about that specific man.

Were there calls about the numerous other people caught on video trespassing on the site?

From another article:

BRUNSWICK, Ga. -- Jurors in the trial of three white men charged in Ahmaud Arbery’s killing watched security camera videos Thursday that show other people entering a home under construction in the months before the 25-year-old Black man was chased and gunned down after running from the site.

They saw two white boys with bicycles walk into the open garage to drag away plywood. They watched a clip of a white man and woman strolling into the home at night, the man carrying a small bag in one hand.

[$iljanus]

As to why I think he was a "sneaky little thief" it's because he was filmed inside that building under construction many, many times. The police were called many times about that specific man.

Were there calls about the numerous other people caught on video trespassing on the site?

Among the people seen entering the site on separate occasions: A man and woman, a man and even children.

It’s a plot out of Dickens with a ring of dirty street urchins going into construction sites.

[Alefroth]

As to why I think he was a "sneaky little thief" it's because he was filmed inside that building under construction many, many times. The police were called many times about that specific man.

All those times on camera, did any ever see him take anything? Was anything ever reported missing from the house?

[malchior]

As to why I think he was a "sneaky little thief" it's because he was filmed inside that building under construction many, many times. The police were called many times about that specific man.

Were there calls about the numerous other people caught on video trespassing on the site?

Yup. This came up during the trial several times and the prosecutor referred to this in her close. This is the problem when information is coming from "trusted" sources that ultimately often have an agenda. I have no idea about this Nate the Lawyer guy but if he is downplaying the racial aspect of this case then he isn't telling the whole story.

Also the multiple police reports didn't happen. One of the men involved claimed it but it was never substantiated. In fact, the owner of the site claimed the opposite saying no crimes were reported. Misinformation for the win.

Edit: Updated with an article referring to this that was contemporaneous but generally lines up with the information presented at the trial.

[Blackhawk]

*Peeks in to see if we're still on mani-pedis and clown shoes.*

[hepcat]

Are you looking for style advice again?

[Dan256]

Misinformation for the win.

Edit: Updated with an article referring to this that was contemporaneous but generally lines up with the information presented at the trial.

You give two not very credible sources from May of 2020 and offer up only what is in lockstep with the prosecution's opinion. You realize the prosecution is a bit biased here, right? Nate said that on cross examination the owner of the home under construction admitted that he reported several trespasses to the police, specifically about Arbery.

I'm thinking that you're the one posting misinformation, but I didn't watch the trial. Did you watch the cross examination of that man, or are you just spouting lies told by the prosecutor. You realize lawyers lie, right? You realize witnesses get things wrong and also lie sometimes, right? What doesn't lie is the camera on that site. Arbery was trespassing many times. You seem to think he was thirsty, while I think he was prowling around for things to steal.

The only thing at issue here is whether Arbery is a thief or not. That is all that I am speaking to here. I don't believe a man does the things Arbery was doing without being a thief.

And to be clear, NONE of this has any bearing on the case. I'm merely answering as to why I thought Arbery was a thief. What man trespasses in the dark of night, into a building under construction, time and time again? A thief. It's an opinion, not something that I presented as fact.

[Smoove_B]

Even if he was a thief and was seen literally carrying something from the construction site by the three guys currently on trial, on what planet is it remotely justifiable that they armed themselves and approached him - visibly carrying a shotgun - to see what he was doing running through their neighborhood?

Attacking his character in an effort to somehow justify what happened is horrific. In the same way that people all over social media are lauding Rittenhouse as a hero for killing felons and pedophiles. Like Rittenhouse, these three intentionally injected themselves into what would have been (at best) a heated confrontation (verbal). But go figure, the side that brought guns with them ended up shooting the other side.

[hepcat]

So you believe the numerous other people caught on video prowling around the site are also thieves?

p.s. the owner of the site, in his recorded testimony, stated nothing had been stolen. He stated that he had called the police because he was worried about safety issues. The testimony is readily available and a matter of public record.

And his testimony to the police?

"Nothing was ever stolen from the English property," the statement said. "Even if theft or damage had occurred, however, the Englishes would never have wanted a vigilante response. The Englishes did not know the McMichaels. The Englishes never enlisted the McMichaels to do what they did and do not want to be part of any effort to justify the McMichaels' actions."

Graddy said English told officials he didn’t think Arbery was doing anything wrong that day and may have come onto the property to get a drink of water.
English also offered his condolences to Arbery’s family.

[malchior]

Misinformation for the win.

Edit: Updated with an article referring to this that was contemporaneous but generally lines up with the information presented at the trial.

You give two not very credible sources from May of 2020 and offer up only what is in lockstep with the prosecution's opinion. You realize the prosecution is a bit biased here, right? Nate said that on cross examination the owner of the home under construction admitted that he reported several trespasses to the police, specifically about Arbery.

Hepcat and I have never been seen in the same room but I assure you we are 2 different people. But still claiming #fakenews and a source of truth who is essentially a YouTube channel? Think it's time to dig up the 'Just asking questions' meme.

[Dan256]

So you believe the other people caught on video prowling around the site are also dirty thieves? If not, why not?

p.s. the owner of the site, in his recorded testimony, stated nothing had been stolen.

Why do you care what I think about the other people? They aren't dead. I've never referred to them at all. What's your opinion of why Arbery was in there so many times? It does not matter whether he stole anything from that building or not. I never said he stole anything from that building. I said that I think he was a thief. I stand by it. I think the man was a thief, what do you think he was? He was clearly, in my opinion, looking for stuff to steal and if you don't see it that way, I dunno what to say to you.

[hepcat]

Multiple white people do the same thing Aubrey did, yet the only person who is dead is the black guy. That doesn’t make you question why?

[Zaxxon]

I'm confused as to why you believe whether or not he was a thief would be relevant.

[Dan256]

Misinformation for the win.

Edit: Updated with an article referring to this that was contemporaneous but generally lines up with the information presented at the trial.

You give two not very credible sources from May of 2020 and offer up only what is in lockstep with the prosecution's opinion. You realize the prosecution is a bit biased here, right? Nate said that on cross examination the owner of the home under construction admitted that he reported several trespasses to the police, specifically about Arbery.

Hepcat and I have never been seen in the same room but I assure you we are 2 different people. But #fakenews and a source of truth who is essentially a YouTube channel? Think it's time to dig up the 'Just asking questions' meme.

Heh, I didn't even notice Hepcat had posted there, I thought that was your link.

As to your #fakenews and my "source of truth" - This entire sub-thread is about my OPINION, nothing else. I've explained to you why I think he's a thief; would you explain to be why you think he's not a thief? Why is he in the building if he isn't scoping it out, looking for things to steal, what's your OPINION on that. I have only heard the story that he was looking for a drink of water, and I'm not buying that, are you?

[Skinypupy]

Let say you’re right and he’s the thiefiest thief to ever thieve. He was literally lifting up the entire house that was under construction and carrying it off in his back.

How does that change the facts in the case, specifically as it relates to him being gunned down in the street?

[malchior]

Misinformation for the win.

Edit: Updated with an article referring to this that was contemporaneous but generally lines up with the information presented at the trial.

You give two not very credible sources from May of 2020 and offer up only what is in lockstep with the prosecution's opinion. You realize the prosecution is a bit biased here, right? Nate said that on cross examination the owner of the home under construction admitted that he reported several trespasses to the police, specifically about Arbery.

Hepcat and I have never been seen in the same room but I assure you we are 2 different people. But #fakenews and a source of truth who is essentially a YouTube channel? Think it's time to dig up the 'Just asking questions' meme.

Heh, I didn't even notice Hepcat had posted there, I thought that was your link.

As to your #fakenews and my "source of truth" - This entire sub-thread is about my OPINION, nothing else. I've explained to you why I think he's a thief; would you explain to be why you think he's not a thief? Why is he in the building if he isn't scoping it out, looking for things to steal, what's your OPINION on that. I have only heard the story that he was looking for a drink of water, and I'm not buying that, are you?

How about answering the question about *all the other* people who did the same thing?

Also, I visited a house under construction about 250 feet from my property line several times. I wasn't looking to steal anything. I was just checking out the progress. Anyway that is partly why the leap to absolute belief he was looking to steal is just ponderous to me. It is one of many possibilities.