Ahmaud Arbery's Murderer On His Way To His Dirt Nap

[Faun]

Trespassing through homes under construction. He was not going for a nature walk.

Not a crime. There was no "no trespassing" sign on the property or a fence around it. According to Georgia law, being on that property wasn't even a crime. Not even a misdemeanor. And there's no evidence he ever stole anything from that property, or even considered stealing anything. Plus others were also seen checking out that property. So no, he did nothing wrong.

Even had he committed criminal trespassing, which he didn't, that would have been a misdemeanor. At that time, it was illegal to perform a citizen's arrest on someone who had committed a misdemeanor. That's why these fuckers are rotting in prison. They had no legal right to do what they did, culminating in the death of Ahmaud Arbery.

 

[Godboy]

Convicted murderer. Gregory McMichael is being moved to a medical prison. That means he's not too long for this world.



They did say he won't get out of prison alive, looks like it's coming to pass sooner, rather than later.

At least he cleaned the streets of this Arbery scumbag. His sacrifice will not be forgotten.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This event underlines the importance for every patriot to KNOW THE LAW. It's not what is morally right that counts, it's WHAT THE LAW IS that counts.

These men thought they were making a "Citizen's Arrest" of a potential thief, (Arbery had at least one previous conviction for shoplifting.) There had been burglaries in the area. So they may well have been right. But that is irrelevant.

Every patriot should read at least the Wiki article:
[ Citizen's arrest - Wikipedia ]

Now ... suppose Ahmed Arbury had been white, doing the exact same things, and his killers had been black. 75 years ago in Georgia they may well have been lynched before a trial, and would certainly have been convicted if they lived long enough to stand trial.

Today, though, I believe they would have been acquitted.

These men should have been convicted of something ... ignorance of the law is no excuse ... but this was not a murder.

However, America is hurtling towards a situation in which justice will take second place to politics, as it does in most Third World and authoritarian countries.

Therefore: learn the law, and prepare for what's coming.

It was a hate crime.
At some point you dopes might figure out that the general public doesn’t support the degenerate white supremacist ideology like you do.

 

[Faun]

At least he cleaned the streets of this Arbery scumbag. His sacrifice will not be forgotten.

And took 3 rednecks off the streets too,

 

[Chillicothe]

CALL: "At least he cleaned the streets of this Arbery scumbag.."

RESPONSE: "And took 3 rednecks off the streets too,"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that, gentle readers, is a clear and clean 'Bazinga'! by the earnest poster Faun.
Even Russian judges would give him a 10.

A hat-tip!

 

[surada]

If Ahmaud had been white and the shooters were black I would have said EXACTLY the same thing. Did that help you understand my point of view?

You support vigilantes? You think these illiterate rednecks should be judge and jury?

 

[MarathonMike]

You support vigilantes? You think these illiterate rednecks should be judge and jury?

You provide the typical emotional, irrational response of Leftists. I stated very clearly that the shooters were wrong. I also said that their crime does not meet the requirements for First degree murder. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Doug1943]

You provide the typical emotional, irrational response of Leftists. I stated very clearly that the shooters were wrong. I also said that their crime does not meet the requirements for First degree murder. Do you disagree with that?

As America goes down, one of the ways the Left will help in its destruction, is to destroy the paintfully-constructed, still-imperfect, always-fragile Rule of Law, which orders those in power, from policeman to Supreme Court judge, to take no account of skin color or political views when applying the law. 'Equality' means, or should mean, among other things, equality before the law.

A Black policeman on 6 January shot dead a woman who was not armed, who was not attacking a person, but who was banging on a door. If she had been a BLM rioter the previous summer, doing the exact same thing, and the policeman had been white, is there anyone here who thinks he would have been exonerated, as the Black policeman, Mr Byrd, was? Our side did not riot in response, did not go out and burn down courthouses or torch police cars. What do you think the other side would have done?

So, a precedent has been set, the 'Byrd rule': rioters who are destroying property may be shot dead without warning. That's the new law, as set by precedent.

The little pipsqueaks exulting over her death, and over the life sentences given to three men because they were white and their victim was Black, are moving us backwards, towards the 'law' as it's interpreted in most African and many Latin American and Asian countries, plus Russia: the law as a weapon in the hands of those with the greatest power at the moment.

Although our side should remain calm and collected as these events occur, and still cherish the equal application of the law, and proportionate response ... it's unrealistic to expect it to do so.

Too bad.

Rudyard Kipling's The Beginnings, about the effect of World War I on the previously relatively unemotional English, is relevant here:

The Beginnings​

It was not part of their blood,​

It came to them very late​

With long arrears to make good,​

When the English began to hate.​

​

They were not easily moved,​

They were icy-willing to wait​

Till every count should be proved,​

Ere the English began to hate.​

​

Their voices were even and low,​

Their eyes were level and straight.​

There was neither sign nor show,​

When the English began to hate.​

​

It was not preached to the crowd,​

It was not taught by the State.​

No man spoke it aloud,​

When the English began to hate.​

​

It was not suddenly bred,​

It will not swiftly abate,​

Through the chill years ahead,​

When Time shall count from the date​

That the English began to hate.​

​

 

[Skylar]

Convicted murderer. Gregory McMichael is being moved to a medical prison. That means he's not too long for this world.



They did say he won't get out of prison alive, looks like it's coming to pass sooner, rather than later.

In fairness, he looks like the avatar for coronary heart disease *before* he went to prison.

 

[surada]

No, that's factually untrue. Conservatives now are pretty much like you liberals. They pay lipservice to Black equality -- equality before the law -- and in their great majority, they are overjoyed to find Black conservatives in their ranks.

When people like Herman Cain, or Ben Carson, entered the lists for the Republican Presidential nomination, they got a lot of white conservative support. And these white conservatives were perfectly happy to vote for Herschel Walker for Senator in Georgia. (All three men were totally unsuited for the office, by the way.)

Thomas Sowell, a Black conservative economist, is practically worshipped by conservatives.

However, like white liberals, they know social reality. So they make sure they live as far away as possible from areas of heavy Black concentration, because they -- both liberals and conservatives -- know that these will be areas with high violent crime rates.

There are, of course, some explicit Black-haters on the Right, and some 'racial realists' (who are really 'racial pessimists' with respect to America's multi-racial future). But their influence -- at the moment -- is slight.

And sweet little liberal white boys would be shocked if they could hear what some Hispanics and some Asians think about Blacks.

[ Tensions Mounting Between Blacks and Latinos Nationwide]
[ Black attacks on Asians: racism or opportunity? ]

But in fact, America is remarkably free of the sorts of horrible tribal hatreds you find in many non-white societies, like almost any Muslim country where both Shia's and Sunni's live; or India [whose current leader, Mr Modi, told his police to allow Hindus to slaughter Muslims for three days about 20 years ago; any African country ...see Ethiopia for corrent mass rapes and killings -- where the tribal hatreds routinely result in mass murders. (The Chinese, like the Jews, are hated by people not as smart and hard-working as they are, and so periodic targets of pogroms in places like Malaysia and Indonesia.)

America is in fact a paradise for racial minorities, compared to countries run by those racial minorities. If they work hard, they get ahead.

Take immigrants from Asia, many of them dark-skinned, not having English as a first language ... I suppose idiot-Leftists must think dumb white racists make an exception for Asians, because in the US, the median annual family income for people originating from Asia is $100 000 , whereas for white families, it's $70 000.

These Asian immigrants are smarter than white people and they work harder, so they reap the rewards. Good for them!

[ Median household income by race or ethnic group U.S. 2021 | Statista ]

Some racism! But Lefties are not just ignorant of the facts, they have no interest in them, since the facts undermine their comfortable, smug self-satisfaction as 'anti-racists'.

So serious people can dismiss them with a wave of the hand. But then we have to ask ... why has America become so inter-racially tolerant, given its white racist past? And will this last forever?

I don't think it has to last forever. I can foresee circumstances -- not improbable ones, too -- occurring that will push us towards the human norm, ie horrible inter-tribal warfare. But that's another discussion.

Do you live in the Middle East? What is your experience with Shia and Sunni?

 

[Faun]

As America goes down, one of the ways the Left will help in its destruction, is to destroy the paintfully-constructed, still-imperfect, always-fragile Rule of Law, which orders those in power, from policeman to Supreme Court judge, to take no account of skin color or political views when applying the law. 'Equality' means, or should mean, among other things, equality before the law.

A Black policeman on 6 January shot dead a woman who was not armed, who was not attacking a person, but who was banging on a door. If she had been a BLM rioter the previous summer, doing the exact same thing, and the policeman had been white, is there anyone here who thinks he would have been exonerated, as the Black policeman, Mr Byrd, was? Our side did not riot in response, did not go out and burn down courthouses or torch police cars. What do you think the other side would have done?

So, a precedent has been set, the 'Byrd rule': rioters who are destroying property may be shot dead without warning. That's the new law, as set by precedent.

The little pipsqueaks exulting over her death, and over the life sentences given to three men because they were white and their victim was Black, are moving us backwards, towards the 'law' as it's interpreted in most African and many Latin American and Asian countries, plus Russia: the law as a weapon in the hands of those with the greatest power at the moment.

Although our side should remain calm and collected as these events occur, and still cherish the equal application of the law, and proportionate response ... it's unrealistic to expect it to do so.

Too bad.

Rudyard Kipling's The Beginnings, about the effect of World War I on the previously relatively unemotional English, is relevant here:

The Beginnings​

It was not part of their blood,​

It came to them very late​

With long arrears to make good,​

When the English began to hate.​

​

They were not easily moved,​

They were icy-willing to wait​

Till every count should be proved,​

Ere the English began to hate.​

​

Their voices were even and low,​

Their eyes were level and straight.​

There was neither sign nor show,​

When the English began to hate.​

​

It was not preached to the crowd,​

It was not taught by the State.​

No man spoke it aloud,​

When the English began to hate.​

​

It was not suddenly bred,​

It will not swiftly abate,​

Through the chill years ahead,​

When Time shall count from the date​

That the English began to hate.​

​

How sad you have to lie and falsely claim Ashes Targetpractice was shot for "banging on a door."

But like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

 

[Chillicothe]

A Black policeman on 6 January shot dead a woman who was not armed, who was not attacking a person, but who was banging on a door.

-----------------------------
Let's offer an alternative view about the Babbitt shooting than the one presented by the poster Doug1943:

Babbitt was attacking officers on the other side of that door.

She participated with an armed mob to batter an opening into a barricade specifically erected to bar them.
Once a breach was effected she was warned to 'back off', to not enter, to leave.
Instead, she took it upon herself to charge towards those same officers who were warning her. And she did so knowing a police firearm was unholstered and brandished at the mob.
She was shrouded in a cloth concealing from those officers her weapons, if any. And her sudden movement towards them prevented them from checking her backpack for explosives or other weaponry.
And yet, she continued to aggressively moving towards them.

Ashli Babbitt is dead because of Ashli Babbitt.
May her family find peace.
---------------------------------------------

The little pipsqueaks exulting over her death, and over the life sentences given to three men because they were white and their victim was Black.......

"exulting over" the sentences given the three men is NOT because they are white.

It is because of the near universal perception by the American populace----and most importantly, the jury ----- that the egregiousness of this murder required the severest of penalties.

Putting a period to the issue was this revelation: After the victim was shot and bleeding out on the pavement....the shooter approached, kicked him in the head....and called him a ni**er!

If that is NOT egregious......

 

[Faun]

-----------------------------
Let's offer an alternative view about the Babbitt shooting than the one presented by the poster Doug1943:

Babbitt was attacking officers on the other side of that door.

She participated with an armed mob to batter an opening into a barricade specifically erected to bar them.
Once a breach was effected she was warned to 'back off', to not enter, to leave.
Instead, she took it upon herself to charge towards those same officers who were warning her. And she did so knowing a police firearm was unholstered and brandished at the mob.
She was shrouded in a cloth concealing from those officers her weapons, if any. And her sudden movement towards them prevented them from checking her backpack for explosives or other weaponry.
And yet, she continued to aggressively moving towards them.

Ashli Babbitt is dead because of Ashli Babbitt.
May her family find peace.
---------------------------------------------


"exulting over" the sentences given the three men is NOT because they are white.

It is because of the near universal perception by the American populace----and most importantly, the jury ----- that the egregiousness of this murder required the severest of penalties.

Putting a period to the issue was this revelation: After the victim was shot and bleeding out on the pavement....the shooter approached, kicked him in the head....and called him a ni**er!

If that is NOT egregious......

Your account is far closer than Doug1943's but I still take some issue with it. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

1. I don't know if she knew Byrd had drawn his firearm. I don't know that she could have seen it from her vantage point. And while someone was yelling, "he's got a gun, he's got a gun," I can't say with any certainty that she heard that as she was on the opposite side of that hallway and there was a lot of screaming.

2. My recollection is Byrd said he didn't see her until she appeared in that busted out window frame and then he fired. He didn't see she was draped in a Trump flag, potentially concealing a weapon; nor did he see she was wearing a backpack, also potentially concealing a weapon.

The rest, I agree with.

 

[MarathonMike]

As America goes down, one of the ways the Left will help in its destruction, is to destroy the paintfully-constructed, still-imperfect, always-fragile Rule of Law, which orders those in power, from policeman to Supreme Court judge, to take no account of skin color or political views when applying the law. 'Equality' means, or should mean, among other things, equality before the law.

A Black policeman on 6 January shot dead a woman who was not armed, who was not attacking a person, but who was banging on a door. If she had been a BLM rioter the previous summer, doing the exact same thing, and the policeman had been white, is there anyone here who thinks he would have been exonerated, as the Black policeman, Mr Byrd, was? Our side did not riot in response, did not go out and burn down courthouses or torch police cars. What do you think the other side would have done?

So, a precedent has been set, the 'Byrd rule': rioters who are destroying property may be shot dead without warning. That's the new law, as set by precedent.

The little pipsqueaks exulting over her death, and over the life sentences given to three men because they were white and their victim was Black, are moving us backwards, towards the 'law' as it's interpreted in most African and many Latin American and Asian countries, plus Russia: the law as a weapon in the hands of those with the greatest power at the moment.

Although our side should remain calm and collected as these events occur, and still cherish the equal application of the law, and proportionate response ... it's unrealistic to expect it to do so.

Too bad.

Rudyard Kipling's The Beginnings, about the effect of World War I on the previously relatively unemotional English, is relevant here:

The Beginnings​

It was not part of their blood,​

It came to them very late​

With long arrears to make good,​

When the English began to hate.​

​

They were not easily moved,​

They were icy-willing to wait​

Till every count should be proved,​

Ere the English began to hate.​

​

Their voices were even and low,​

Their eyes were level and straight.​

There was neither sign nor show,​

When the English began to hate.​

​

It was not preached to the crowd,​

It was not taught by the State.​

No man spoke it aloud,​

When the English began to hate.​

​

It was not suddenly bred,​

It will not swiftly abate,​

Through the chill years ahead,​

When Time shall count from the date​

That the English began to hate.​

​

Great post!

 

[Doug1943]

Do you live in the Middle East? What is your experience with Shia and Sunni?

No, I do not live in the Middle East. As for my experience with Shia and Sunni I've got a good Muslim friend (I assume he's Sunni) and this gives me an excuse to advertise a great book he's written. -- you can buy iton Amazon and I urge everyone reading this to do so. Evidently you can't post links to Amazon directly on this forum, but the book is

The Story of Our Amazing Universe ​

by Athar Shareef | Jan 13, 2022

He wrote it for his grandchildren. Highly recommended. He's got a degree in astrophysics but it's a fairly easy read for a bright 12-year old -- no second-order partial differential equations or the equivalent.

Now as for the relationships between Sunni and Shia. I do keep up with the news, and often it has stories about this subject. I assume that Wikipedia is more or less correct:

In recent years, Sunni–Shia relations have been increasingly marked by conflict, particularly the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. Sectarian violence persists to this day from Pakistan to Yemen and is a major element of friction throughout the Middle East and South Asia. Tensions between communities have intensified during power struggles, such as the Bahraini uprising, the Iraqi Civil War, the Syrian Civil War, the War in Iraq (2013–2017), and the formation of the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq and Syria that has launched a genocide against Shias.

[ Shia–Sunni relations - Wikipedia ]

However, I've had my own quarrels with Wikipedia in the past, since it's mainly edited by liberals, so perhaps you have some corrections to make to the above? If so, let's hear them!

 

[Doug1943]

Your account is far closer than Doug1943's but I still take some issue with it. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

1. I don't know if she knew Byrd had drawn his firearm. I don't know that she could have seen it from her vantage point. And while someone was yelling, "he's got a gun, he's got a gun," I can't say with any certainty that she heard that as she was on the opposite side of that hallway and there was a lot of screaming.

2. My recollection is Byrd said he didn't see her until she appeared in that busted out window frame and then he fired. He didn't see she was draped in a Trump flag, potentially concealing a weapon; nor did he see she was wearing a backpack, also potentially concealing a weapon.

The rest, I agree with.

Okay, let's assume that everything that was said about Ashli Babbit is true: she was 'charging' toward officers, and could have had a gun concealed on her -- just as you and I could have one concealed on us right now.

So you're saying that in this situation, a policeman is justified in shooting the rioter dead? And you'll be perfectly happy when the next BLM/AntiFa riot occurs, and rioters charging toward policemen -- unless the rioter is stark naked -- are shot dead? Really?

Well, as Julius Caesar would have said, 'In war, the laws are silent'. The Left is happy, or at least not unhappy, that this woman was killed, because she was a Trump supporter. That's the long and the short of it. We all know that if the tables had been turned, if she had been Black, shot by a white policemen in abolutely identical circumstances, the Left would be shrieking blue murder.

Let me make something clear: this woman was foolish, like all the 6 January rioters. Like them, she deserved and should have received the same punishment a group of Leftist rioters would receive in similar circumstances. So long as we believe in the Rule of Law, that's what every decent person should believe.

But we're clearly moving away from the Rule of Law. A pity, because, since about 1970 or so, we had been making great progress towards establishing it for everyone.

And I don't need any lectures about the egregious departures from the Rule of Law that we saw in the past. I grew up in Houston Texas, and saw one friend jailed for six months because he wore a good imitation of a military uniform in an anti-war guerilla heatre performance -- he appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, and won. A step forward for the Rule of Law [Schacht v. United States - Wikipedia]

Another acquaintance was sentenced to 30 years in prison, and served four, for giving a marijuana cigarette to an undercover policemean. The real reason for his sentence was that he was a Black radical activist and a thorn in the side of the Houston Police Department.
[ Release of Black Activist Ordered in Marijuana Case (Published 1972) ]

In the summer of 1964 the Houston Socialist Forum sponsored a meeting on the upcoming presidential elections. One of the speakers was a member of the Communist Party. The John Birch Society showed up and disrupted the meeting and prevented it from continuing. We [I was a Socialist then] called the police, the disrupters were arrested ... but in court, their lawyer got up and said just once sentence, a famous quote from the Republican Presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater: "Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice!"

So if you were a Leftist then, in Texas for sure, you could not count on the protection of the law. Things changed, and it's a good thing they did. [I give the examples above because I witnessed them. There were far, far worse examples: for instance the leaders of the Communist Party were sent to prison in 1949 for violating the Smith Act. (A friend of mine, on the National Committee of the Communist Party, was waiting in prison in Boston to go to trial when the Supreme Court pulled the teeth of the Smith Act in the Yates decision.) [ Yates v. United States - Wikipedia ]

And everyone should know the names of the heroes Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner. The Rule of Law finally caught up with at least one of their murderers. Good.

But now it is the Left who disrupts and attacks conservative meetings and rallies. And, under the pressure of the threat of more violent riots, it's white conservatives who cannot count on the fair application of the Rule of Law in many areas.

Too bad.

I hope that we see a reversal of this trend, and return to equal justice for all, Black militants and rednecks alike, but I doubt very much that it will happen.

At the moment, many people on the Right still, nominally, adhere to a belief in the rule of law. (They rationalize 6 January by saying it was the work of provocateurs, which shows they know it was wrong to do what the rioters did.) But if things continue as they are ... and there is no reason to think they won't ... then this will change.

Too bad.

So, any patriot reading this, remember that, as old Bismarck said, "All the great questions of humanity are settled not by parliamentary majorities, but by iron and blood." Act accordingly, remaining within the law as long as we can.

But the law is not a suicide pact. The Left is destroying it. (Yes, a certain leader of the Republican Party is helping them. History is a series of accidents, and we got really lucky with the Founders, with Lincoln, with Churchill and FDR. Now apparently history has decided we've had enough good luck.)

Too bad.

 

[surada]

As America goes down, one of the ways the Left will help in its destruction, is to destroy the paintfully-constructed, still-imperfect, always-fragile Rule of Law, which orders those in power, from policeman to Supreme Court judge, to take no account of skin color or political views when applying the law. 'Equality' means, or should mean, among other things, equality before the law.

A Black policeman on 6 January shot dead a woman who was not armed, who was not attacking a person, but who was banging on a door. If she had been a BLM rioter the previous summer, doing the exact same thing, and the policeman had been white, is there anyone here who thinks he would have been exonerated, as the Black policeman, Mr Byrd, was? Our side did not riot in response, did not go out and burn down courthouses or torch police cars. What do you think the other side would have done?

So, a precedent has been set, the 'Byrd rule': rioters who are destroying property may be shot dead without warning. That's the new law, as set by precedent.

The little pipsqueaks exulting over her death, and over the life sentences given to three men because they were white and their victim was Black, are moving us backwards, towards the 'law' as it's interpreted in most African and many Latin American and Asian countries, plus Russia: the law as a weapon in the hands of those with the greatest power at the moment.

Although our side should remain calm and collected as these events occur, and still cherish the equal application of the law, and proportionate response ... it's unrealistic to expect it to do so.

Too bad.

Rudyard Kipling's The Beginnings, about the effect of World War I on the previously relatively unemotional English, is relevant here:

The Beginnings​

It was not part of their blood,​

It came to them very late​

With long arrears to make good,​

When the English began to hate.​

​

They were not easily moved,​

They were icy-willing to wait​

Till every count should be proved,​

Ere the English began to hate.​

​

Their voices were even and low,​

Their eyes were level and straight.​

There was neither sign nor show,​

When the English began to hate.​

​

It was not preached to the crowd,​

It was not taught by the State.​

No man spoke it aloud,​

When the English began to hate.​

​

It was not suddenly bred,​

It will not swiftly abate,​

Through the chill years ahead,​

When Time shall count from the date​

That the English began to hate.​

​

The Brits called the brown skinned people in the empire wogs and coolies.

No, I do not live in the Middle East. As for my experience with Shia and Sunni I've got a good Muslim friend (I assume he's Sunni) and this gives me an excuse to advertise a great book he's written. -- you can buy iton Amazon and I urge everyone reading this to do so. Evidently you can't post links to Amazon directly on this forum, but the book is

The Story of Our Amazing Universe ​

by Athar Shareef | Jan 13, 2022

He wrote it for his grandchildren. Highly recommended. He's got a degree in astrophysics but it's a fairly easy read for a bright 12-year old -- no second-order partial differential equations or the equivalent.

Now as for the relationships between Sunni and Shia. I do keep up with the news, and often it has stories about this subject. I assume that Wikipedia is more or less correct:


[ Shia–Sunni relations - Wikipedia ]

However, I've had my own quarrels with Wikipedia in the past, since it's mainly edited by liberals, so perhaps you have some corrections to make to the above? If so, let's hear them!

I lived in the Middle East for two decades.. the Shia Sunni thing is far more nuanced.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

As America goes down, one of the ways the Left will help in its destruction, is to destroy the paintfully-constructed, still-imperfect, always-fragile Rule of Law, which orders those in power, from policeman to Supreme Court judge, to take no account of skin color or political views when applying the law. 'Equality' means, or should mean, among other things, equality before the law.

A Black policeman on 6 January shot dead a woman who was not armed, who was not attacking a person, but who was banging on a door. If she had been a BLM rioter the previous summer, doing the exact same thing, and the policeman had been white, is there anyone here who thinks he would have been exonerated, as the Black policeman, Mr Byrd, was? Our side did not riot in response, did not go out and burn down courthouses or torch police cars. What do you think the other side would have done?

So, a precedent has been set, the 'Byrd rule': rioters who are destroying property may be shot dead without warning. That's the new law, as set by precedent.

The little pipsqueaks exulting over her death, and over the life sentences given to three men because they were white and their victim was Black, are moving us backwards, towards the 'law' as it's interpreted in most African and many Latin American and Asian countries, plus Russia: the law as a weapon in the hands of those with the greatest power at the moment.

Although our side should remain calm and collected as these events occur, and still cherish the equal application of the law, and proportionate response ... it's unrealistic to expect it to do so.

Too bad.

Rudyard Kipling's The Beginnings, about the effect of World War I on the previously relatively unemotional English, is relevant here:

The Beginnings​

It was not part of their blood,​

It came to them very late​

With long arrears to make good,​

When the English began to hate.​

​

They were not easily moved,​

They were icy-willing to wait​

Till every count should be proved,​

Ere the English began to hate.​

​

Their voices were even and low,​

Their eyes were level and straight.​

There was neither sign nor show,​

When the English began to hate.​

​

It was not preached to the crowd,​

It was not taught by the State.​

No man spoke it aloud,​

When the English began to hate.​

​

It was not suddenly bred,​

It will not swiftly abate,​

Through the chill years ahead,​

When Time shall count from the date​

That the English began to hate.​

​

Criminal laws are designed to curb and punish undesirable human behaviors. Acting against another based on white supremacist ideation is an undesirable human behavior.

 

[Doug1943]

Criminal laws are designed to curb and punish undesirable human behaviors. Acting against another based on white supremacist ideation is an undesirable human behavior.

No. You're on the road to Thoughtcrime there.

And you're also implying that if these men had been, say, Hispanic, or 'rooftop Koreans', then they could have killed Arbery and you would be okay with that.

They killed him because they tried to make a citizen's arrest of someone they sincerely thought was a burglar. It was a stupid thing to do.

And, true, if he had been a Korean, they might have acted differently ... not because of any ideation -- they very probably had the unpleasant 'ideation' of many older whites -- but for the same reason that YOU, yes, YOU, if you were walking down a dark street at night, heard footsteps behind you, turned around ... and saw that the people following you were white, not Black, would feel relieved.

You would feel relieved, wouldn't you? Regardless of your progressive ideation?

 

[surada]

No. You're on the road to Thoughtcrime there.

And you're also implying that if these men had been, say, Hispanic, or 'rooftop Koreans', then they could have killed Arbery and you would be okay with that.

They killed him because they tried to make a citizen's arrest of someone they sincerely thought was a burglar. It was a stupid thing to do.

And, true, if he had been a Korean, they might have acted differently ... not because of any ideation -- they very probably had the unpleasant 'ideation' of many older whites -- but for the same reason that YOU, yes, YOU, if you were walking down a dark street at night, heard footsteps behind you, turned around ... and saw that the people following you were white, not Black, would feel relieved.

You would feel relieved, wouldn't you? Regardless of your progressive ideation?

Korean? What is this hogwash? This is about ignorant vigilantes. There was zero evidence that Aubrey stole anything.