Racism in America (with data)

[Dan256]

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

I'm pretty damn sure I've said that I don't believe it was relevant at all. Other people here are asking me for my OPINION.

And to be clear, as I've been misinterpreted many times, I believe, in my oh so humble opinion that Arbery is only guilty here of trespassing or prowling, and that these misdemeanors are irrelevant in this particular case.

[hepcat]

Wait, I thought he was definitely a “sneaky thief”?

[malchior]

Back on the other side of Hazzard. This didn't take long.

https://mobile.twitter.com/feliciasonme ... 3419314182

[hepcat]

I wonder where that thumb went after that.

Also, who’s Joe Pesci lite on the right end?

[malchior]

I wonder where that thumb went after that.

:vomit:

[hepcat]

Trump needs a culture war to stay relevant. So he’s going to do everything in his power to stoke one.

[malchior]

Trump needs a culture war to stay relevant. So he’s going to do everything in his power to stoke one.

Indeed. And he will get it. The time leading up to the mid-terms is going to be super.

[Dan256]

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?

The other people didn't return over and over again. But I've already said I think the killers were probably racist. I have not been defending them at all. You don't seem to understand that I don't think Arbery should have been chased down for what he did. I think he was a thief because he was PROWLING in that building. I do not think thieves or trespassers should be run down like that.

[Dan256]

Wait, I thought he was definitely a “sneaky thief”?

So now you have a problem with the word sneaky? Wonderful. What's your point?

[hepcat]

I understand that. I just don’t understand why you keep calling him a thief when there’s no proof that he ever stole anything, if he kept coming back repeatedly, don’t you think he would’ve taken something?

And I’m not attacking you. I’m just questioning the narrative you’ve been going with.

Wait, I thought he was definitely a “sneaky thief”?

So now you have a problem with the word sneaky? Wonderful. What's your point?

That you went from definitely a thief to now just a trespasser or prowler.

[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?

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.

250 feet from your property and you'd like everyone here to believe you don't know the people? You did know them didn't you? Did you wander in there at 3 am? Several times? I don't believe you're a thief, I believe Arbery was a thief. There are distinct differences in these scenarios.

And to edit: I don't know that the other people were there at odd hours, several times. I've already answered that I don't think they're the subject of this trial and haven't offered my opinion on them, why do you want my opinion on them.

[malchior]

The other people didn't return over and over again.

I think he was a thief because he was PROWLING in that building.

Yet nothing was ever reported stolen. Can't you at least get that this overly strong opinion based on an unprovable premise could sound like a red flag?

[malchior]

250 feet from your property and you'd like everyone here to believe you don't know the people? You did know them didn't you?

I have no clue who they are. I also don't know my neighbors durectky across the street from me either. This is not unusual where I live though.

Did you wander in there at 3 am? Several times? I don't believe you're a thief, I believe Arbery was a thief. There are distinct differences in these scenarios.

Not 3 am but several times? Yep. So did the old guy who lives next door to him. I saw him over there several times. I never thought thief. It was more along the lines of what the heck is this monstrosity they are building on the lake. In any case, I'm just saying that there are many possibilities including thievery but you've settled strongly on thief. I think it's unfounded. You don't. Cool.

[Dan256]

I understand that. I just don’t understand why you keep calling him a thief when there’s no proof that he ever stole anything, if he kept coming back repeatedly, don’t you think he would’ve taken something?

And I’m not attacking you. I’m just questioning the narrative you’ve been going with.

Wait, I thought he was definitely a “sneaky thief”?

So now you have a problem with the word sneaky? Wonderful. What's your point?

That you went from definitely a thief to now just a trespasser or prowler.

I said I think he's a thief. I've explained why. Many, many, many times you and others have come back asking me the same question over and over and over again.

I think he's a thief because he was prowling in that building; it's my OPINION. I didn't go from one viewpoint to another as you have once again misinterpreted. I don't think he stole anything from THIS building; he was prowling. You seem to think that it is VERY ODD that I've arrived at this thought. I am not trying to convince you that this man is guilty of stealing from this building or any other, but I am confident that this man was a thief.

[Dan256]

250 feet from your property and you'd like everyone here to believe you don't know the people? You did know them didn't you?

I have no clue who they are. I also don't know my neighbors durectky across the street from me either. This is not unusual where I live though.

Did you wander in there at 3 am? Several times? I don't believe you're a thief, I believe Arbery was a thief. There are distinct differences in these scenarios.

Not 3 am but several times? Yep. So did the old guy who lives next door to him. I saw him over there several times. I never thought thief. It was more along the lines of what the heck is this monstrosity they are building on the lake. In any case, I'm just saying that there are many possibilities including thievery but you've settled strongly on thief. I think it's unfounded. You don't. Cool.

Ok, I really couldn't ever imagine doing that to someone's house if I didn't know them. I didn't think you would either.

[malchior]

250 feet from your property and you'd like everyone here to believe you don't know the people? You did know them didn't you?

I have no clue who they are. I also don't know my neighbors durectky across the street from me either. This is not unusual where I live though.

Did you wander in there at 3 am? Several times? I don't believe you're a thief, I believe Arbery was a thief. There are distinct differences in these scenarios.

Not 3 am but several times? Yep. So did the old guy who lives next door to him. I saw him over there several times. I never thought thief. It was more along the lines of what the heck is this monstrosity they are building on the lake. In any case, I'm just saying that there are many possibilities including thievery but you've settled strongly on thief. I think it's unfounded. You don't. Cool.

Ok, I really couldn't ever imagine doing that to someone's house if I didn't know them. I didn't think you would either.

It was built over a three year span and no one started living there until a couple of months ago. It has been a local curiosity but as kids we used to do similar as well. I think it's far more common than people realize to be interested in how homes are built or different styles. Which was my curiosity. I also never went in. That was more a safety concern obviously. Still there was no fences or no trespassing signs so totally legal here.

[Dan256]

The other people didn't return over and over again.

I think he was a thief because he was PROWLING in that building.

Yet nothing was ever reported stolen. Can't you at least get that this overly strong opinion based on an unprovable premise could sound like a red flag?

It only seems like an overly strong opinion because you and others have asked me over and over and over again to explain this one opinion. I am aggravated in a thread called Racism in America where people are repeatedly mischaracterizing my statements. Can you see why that would become annoying? I can see perfectly well why I might come across as a red flag in a thread were people are prone to seeing racism where there often is no racism.

I think some of you guys see racism where it is not, and you think that I see thieves where they are not. Does that make us even? Probably not.

Honestly, it seems like some of the mischaracterizations and such are being done on purpose - "How can I trip this guy up?"

But anyway, we should end this part of the conversation, you guys aren't really interested in my views, and I'm growing weary of yours now.

[Zarathud]

How does one tell if someone is prowling rather than being nosy or curious?

My dad had a habit of stopping to look at new construction sites as the suburbs replaced the farmland near where he grew up. My favorite was when he told the new owners the pig pen used to be a few feet away from their front door so the grass would come in really well.

There is a house being gut rehabbed across the street in Chicago and my wife and I have both entered the yard to look into the house when the windows were out. We’ll go to the open house, too. Our elderly neighbors probably can name the different work crews.

[gbasden]

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.

My house was the first built in a new neighborhood and my wife and I walked through all kinds of homes under construction because it's interesting. I know a ton of other people did as well, as I saw them on my daily walks. Being inside a house under construction is not in and of itself an indicator of theft.

[malchior]

The other people didn't return over and over again.

I think he was a thief because he was PROWLING in that building.

Yet nothing was ever reported stolen. Can't you at least get that this overly strong opinion based on an unprovable premise could sound like a red flag?

It only seems like an overly strong opinion because you and others have asked me over and over and over again to explain this one opinion.

It isn't the repetitiveness IMO. It seems overly strong to me at least because the opinion has been stated with certainty (though only in the opinion sense) but has little to support it other than he went there repeatedly. And it's been pointed out again and again that he wasn't alone in his visits. Yet you seem to be expressing tautologies as evidence. Why was he a thief? Because he was prowling. It is an argument based on the premise. Yet there are many alternatives that are equally as plausible considering what we do and don't know.

The children and other adults who went there might have gone there often but perhaps didn't raise any alarms. Perhaps the reason there was a lack of alarm could have been racism or actual evidence or nothing at all. I have no idea but the point is that because of the events that occurred a lot of the focus on Arbery was amplified. Whatever we are seeing is the output of that focused look at his actions. All that other stuff is in the periphery and it naturally makes his role perhaps more outsized than it might have been. And I won't dismiss that maybe he was hoping to find something to steal but I won't embrace it either. I'm comfortable with not knowing because it is pretty much irrelevant.

I am aggravated in a thread called Racism in America where people are repeatedly mischaracterizing my statements. Can you see why that would become annoying? I can see perfectly well why I might come across as a red flag in a thread were people are prone to seeing racism where there often is no racism.

Your aggravation was coming right through. It isn't a red flag because it sounds like racism for what it is worth. It is that perceived certainty without much basis. Can't you get the skepticism?

Honestly, it seems like some of the mischaracterizations and such are being done on purpose - "How can I trip this guy up?"

What you see as wanting to trip you up is the reaction to seeing you offer up an opinion and appearing defensive when some of us pressed how you can be so sure. It is trying to scratch beyond your aggravation and defensiveness to find out where it comes from to gain an understanding. In retrospect it was too aggressive.

[hepcat]

I think some of you guys see racism where it is not

I will simply say that I think you may be guilty of the opposite at times.

I am not trying to convince you that this man is guilty of stealing from this building or any other, but I am confident that this man was a thief.

Based on this reply, you've chosen a narrative to believe in and that's that. I have grown as weary as you now of discussing it.

[LawBeefaroni]

Back on the other side of Hazzard. This didn't take long.

https://mobile.twitter.com/feliciasonme ... 3419314182

Well, he's made his choice and it certainty sheds light on his motives and intentions that night in Kenosha.

[malchior]

Well, he's made his choice and it certainty sheds light on his motives and intentions that night in Kenosha.

He said he supports BLM too! He's so mysterious. I can't wait to hear about his every move.

[hepcat]

You’re in luck! Kyle’s new show on TRUTH will be premiering early next year. Kyle Explains It All promises to be a rousing expose of what’s wrong with America and how Trump’s 79.99* picture book can solve those problems!

*299.99 if you want the signed Patriot Edition!

[LordMortis]

If this were 2014, that would be hyberbole. Today, I read that and it looks like something I would have to google to determine if it is factual or not. There is nothing in that statement that is over the top.... Maybe the use of picture book...

[hepcat]

The picture book is real.

[Blackhawk]

FWIW, I've also wandered abandoned and under-construction buildings, and have taken close-up looks at construction equipment. Trespassing, yes, but with no ill will, and no harm or damage done beyond exposing the owner to potential liability if a brick fell on my head.
And yet as a teenager I was occasionally known to PROWL. Hell, I read books and practiced on how to PROWL better!
I can tell you that they are different things.

I'm not accusing you of anything, but his mere presence doesn't mean he was up to no good. There is no real basis to make the jump from "he was present" to "he was present to do harm."

And again, in regards to this case, it really doesn't matter. Whether he was prowling or strolling, the response and end result were equally unjustified.

Well, he's made his choice and it certainty sheds light on his motives and intentions that night in Kenosha.

Nah, his motives and intentions that night will never be known to anybody but him and (maybe) his therapist. He may have just been an impressionable, lonely teenager that night, hoping to gain approval and show he was as cool as everyone else - just like we all tended to do (in different ways) at that age. I certainly did some dangerous, harmful, and stupid things as a teenager while hoping for approval and acceptance with my peers that I've spent decades regretting. Or he may have been there hoping to get to kill some of those pesky Libs he heard about on Twitter. We'll never know, as short of a manifesto, the outward appearance would have been the same.

What this sheds light on is his character now, based on how he's choosing to respond to a tragedy he was responsible for.

That night could have been him in a panic. This is a deliberate decision, either from his own nature (he was a shit all along), or due to the love and adoration of the extremists hoping to influence him (which would tie into the 'teen looking for approval' idea.) Again, the outward appearance would be the same, and we'll never be able to tell which is the truth.

But while I said that I don't like judging what could be a teenager doing something stupid and getting in over his head, I will absolutely judge the deliberate, considered actions he takes now.

[Isgrimnur]

CNN

[Breaking news update, published at 1:44 p.m. ET]
A jury found Travis and Gregory McMichael guilty of murder Wednesday on charges they chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man, as he jogged last year through their neighborhood in Glynn County, Georgia.

[Breaking news update, published at 1:39 p.m. ET]
Jurors found Travis McMichael guilty of murder Wednesday for chasing and fatally shooting Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man, as he jogged last year through a neighborhood in Glynn County, Georgia.

[Octavious]

Thank god... I don't think I would be able to mentally handle watching them go to Florida to get praised by the totally not racist Florida man.

[Skinypupy]

Whew.

[Isgrimnur]

WaPo

Travis McMichael; his father, Greg McMichael; and their neighbor William “Roddie” Bryan were all convicted of felony murder in the fatal shooting of Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man — meaning they committed felonies that caused his death. But Bryan and the elder McMichael were acquitted of malice murder, which involves intent to kill.

[Octavious]

Well they are all fucked which is exactly what should have happened. Just imagine if 3 black dudes chased down a white dude and shot him in the street? You think it would take 2 freaking months to charge them with a crime? So ridiculous...

[Alefroth]

Thank god... I don't think I would be able to mentally handle watching them go to Florida to get praised by the totally not racist Florida man.

You should still prepare yourself for what the totally not racist Florida man is going to say.

[stimpy]

Shit....there goes my parlay.......


(Joke. They got what they deserved.)

[hepcat]

Thank god... I don't think I would be able to mentally handle watching them go to Florida to get praised by the totally not racist Florida man.

You should still prepare yourself for what the totally not racist Florida man is going to say.

I wonder if he’ll opine on this, or if his immediate circle of lackeys will dissuade him from wading in.

[Jaymann]

Maybe Florida Man could call the judge and ask if he can just find 11,000 sympathetic jurors.

[Octavious]

I'm perfectly fine for whatever he says if they still rot for the rest of their lives in jail. Assuming he doesn't get into office again and pardon them of course. Oh god please make him just go away.

[Isgrimnur]

President can't pardon state crimes.

[Octavious]

President can't pardon state crimes.

Whew thank you. That man has made me instantly think worst case scenarios now.

[Jaymann]

President can't pardon state crimes.

Wouldn't stop him from trying. More likely he will start a defense fund and keep the money.