Black Jogger Gunned Down In The Street

[Derec]

What is the distinction, keeping in mind that white Americans do more illicit drugs than black Americans? There is some indication of what you're arguing here:

HuffPost? Really? HuffPost is a rag!
That headline alone - "When It Comes To Illegal Drug Use, White America Does The Crime, Black America Gets The Time" is some major league bullshit.

Nearly 20 percent of whites have used cocaine, compared with 10 percent of blacks and Latinos, according to a 2011 survey from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration — the most recent data available.

Relying on self-reporting surveys is very dubious methodologically.

...blacks are arrested for drug possession more than three times as often as whites, according to a 2009 report from the advocacy group Human Rights Watch.
[...]
“The race issue isn’t just that the judge is going, ‘Oh, black man, I’m gonna sentence you higher,’” [author of the HRW report] said. “The police go into low-income minority neighborhoods and that’s where they make most of their drug arrests. If they arrest you, now you have a ‘prior,’ so if you plead or get arrested again, you’re gonna have a higher sentence. There’s a kind of cumulative effect.”

She should have left the 'just' out. There is zero evidence judges are thinking like that at all.

But it begs the question

Begging the question is a fallacy. The author means "raises the question" but he is right despite himself - he is being fallacious.

as to why the police make most of their drug arrests in low-income minority neighborhoods in the first place when whites do more drugs than people of color. Is that driven by "implicit bias" or racism?

Neither. It is simply the case that in low-income neighborhoods drug use is more visible, which means more attention. If you buy drugs at street corner and maybe even smoke weed in front of your apartment building, that attracts attention. If you do stuff in private, it is less likely to attract police attention.

And again, I would take that self-reporting survey about drug use with a whole salt mine, not just a grain!

And, again, do you think the same cops would have had the same bias if they saw Timothy Brooks in the same park hanging out by his car,

I think they would have. Drug park is a drug park. If anything, a white guy loitering in a drug park would raise even more suspicions than a black guy who is saggin and wearing a winter jacket unzipped with nothing underneath.

 

[Derec]

And white people can walk into a government building with semi-automatic long guns and shut the place down without consequences.

It's not like these guys were arrested.


And in present day, it is BLACK heavily armed militias marching all around Glynn County, not white militias.


But I guess you find those militias intimidating people with "semiautomatic long guns" to be a good thing, right?

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Absolutely

 

[Arctish]

So what does the shoplifting charge have to do with the McMichaels and Roddy chasing after Arbery in their trucks and Travis killing him?

I was just correcting the claim that he wasn't a thief. He took something that wasn't his. That's a thief.

Are you implying that Greg McMichael recognized Arbery from that case, judged him guilty of being a burglar despite the absence of burglaries, and hunted him down?

I wasn't implying anything, I was merely setting the record straight.
That said, I think it is conceivable, albeit unlikely, that he was recognized from that previous case.
However, the mere fact that he was a thief makes it more likely he was looking for stuff to steal (rather than "looking around" or "looking for water") compared to a random person.

Even if that's true, it's irrelevant.

The McMichaels didn't see him take anything. The homeowner said that nothing was ever taken and there are suggestions Greg McMichael knew it. The only thing happening at that property was occasional trespassing.

McMichael didn't even see Arbery trespassing that day, he just saw him running down the street. Apparently that was enough for Greg and Travis McMichael to grab their guns and repeatedly cut Arbery off so that the confrontation they wanted would take place. If they weren't trying to stop him at gunpoint because Greg McMichael recognized Arbery as someone he had once arrested for shoplifting, that's even worse. It means the McMichaels would have gone after any black man jogging in their neighborhood on the presumption he was a burglar because he was black, and a black man had been seen trespassing.

 

[lpetrich]

More than 80 lawmakers call for federal probe into Ahmaud Arbery shooting | TheHill

A group of more than 80 lawmakers is calling for a federal criminal civil rights investigation into the case of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old African-American man who was shot and killed in a Georgia neighborhood after allegedly being chased by two white men.

...
They write that because Georgia does not have a law prohibiting or acknowledging bias-based crimes, "the DOJ Civil Rights Division is uniquely suited to investigate whether or not the tragic death of Mr. Arbery was a hate crime, or another violation of federal civil rights law."

"There must be a fair and independent investigation into the handling of Mr. Arbery’s case to determine any constitutional violations by Glynn County District Attorney’s Office or Police Department," they added.

The letter itself: 05132020_DOJ Ahmaud Arbery Letter_FINAL copy.pdf

The letter's primary signers are Rep. Ayanna Pressley and Sen. Cory Booker. Its secondary signers include AOC, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, etc.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But it begs the question as to why the police make most of their drug arrests in low-income minority neighborhoods in the first place when whites do more drugs than people of color. Is that driven by "implicit bias" or racism?

Actually, there are two reasons for this:

1) It's much easier to bust poor people for drugs than to bust rich people for drugs. Rich people drug activity is usually behind closed doors, it's much harder to catch them.

2) Cops often are after the secondary crimes that stem from drugs. Rich people have the money for drugs, there are far fewer secondary crimes. Remember the big ruckus about sentencing disparity for crack vs cocaine? That was because crack users do far more harm to society than cocaine users, not about race.

 

[laughing dog]

What happened to your “innocent until proven guilty” mantra? Or is thst only whenever someone is accused of a sexual assault?

He was proven guilty, given his conviction for that theft.

Try to keep up. He was a thief. That crime is not relevant to his killing. The killers did not view him committing any crime whatsoever. So, at the time these vigilantes went after him. he was innocent. At that time, he was not a thief.

Unlike all the cases where you and other radfems presume guilt just because a woman claims it.

You surprise me. I would expect such irrelevant nonsense from a kneejerk misogynistic rape apologist, not from you.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And white people can walk into a government building with semi-automatic long guns and shut the place down without consequences.

It's not like these guys were arrested.
View attachment 27787

Actually, first they were disarmed--which, they willingly complied with--then given their weapons back when it was clear they had broken no law, then, later that day they were unjustifiably taken to jail and their weapons taken away once again:

Following their release by the state police, the men left the Capitol and rejoined some companions who remained outside during the incident. They then drove off.

Four or five carloads of the Black Panther group later drove into a service station at 15th and L Streets. Several police officers took the demonstrators to the city jail.

An officer said they had not been charged with any offense, but added: “We’re going to take them all down and check them all out and we’re going to check out all these weapons.”

So, yeah, technically they weren't "arrested," they were just taken to jail by the police so that they could "check them all out" and their perfectly legal guns--which had already been taken from them once that day by the police--were taken again by the police at the jail so they could "check" them out too. You know, s.o.p. for anyone open carrying anywhere that it's legal in the US, right? I mean it happens every single time white guys open carry. The police take their weapons, give them back, then later "arrest" them (but not really) and take them to jail and take away their guns again just to check them and their guns out. Samey samey.

And then, specifically because of that protest, the conservatives in the California legislature banned open carry in the state:

When the armed group entered the chamber, Democrats and Republicans dived under their desks as the president pro tem called for order. Meanwhile, one of the armed men began a harangue about “gun control.” Speaking to the TV cameras, he denounced “the racist California Legislature” for “keeping the black people disarmed and powerless.”

After about five minutes, three State Capitol Police officers showed up at the back of the chamber, and asked the demonstrators to hand over their guns. In a startling gesture, the little army complied.

The officers then led the way to another part of the building. The news crowd followed along, shouting questions: “Who are you? What are you here for?”

But the armed demonstrators had made their point; they weren’t talking any more. The Capitol Police determined that the guns were not loaded. (Some reporters’ accounts said the guns were brought in loaded, and later unloaded inside the Capitol, but I don’t remember it that way). Even if they had been, that was legal under state law, so long as they weren’t pointed at anyone. The demonstrators took their weapons back to the cars on 10th Street, and drove away.
...
[T]the Black Panther Party, founded the year before in Oakland, was engaged in perfectly legal, if unorthodox, lobbying. Its leaders, including Seale and Huey Newton, openly carried loaded guns to protect black people from racist police. In response, Oakland’s Republican Assemblyman Don Mulford had proposed a measure abolishing open carry in California. He called it the “Panther Bill.”

As it turned out, the Panthers’ opposition was a dismal failure. The “Panther Bill” — gun control that it was — had the support of the National Rifle Association of the day. The 120-member Legislature (with six blacks, three women, and all the rest white men) overwhelmingly passed the measure. Reagan signed it into law saying, “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”

How far the Republicans have fallen.

And in present day, it is BLACK heavily armed militias

And why are they there in "present day"? Because, once again, an unarmed, innocent black man was killed for being black and they are there to protest the injustice.

And those are members of the same party (Black Panthers). You know, the ones who willingly disarmed when the police in San Francisco asked them too, instead of saying something completely idiotic like, "You'll pry this gun out of my cold, dead fingers" like that means something REALLY IMPORTANT instead of MONUMENTALLY STUPID?

marching all around Glynn County

Well, not so much "all around" as directly to the courthouse. Look how scarrrrrry the "militia" are:







Run and hide!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

View attachment 27787

Holy Bejeebus. So predictable.

 

[laughing dog]

View attachment 27787

Holy Bejeebus. So predictable.

I thought 20+ years old anecdotes were not convincing anymore.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So what does the shoplifting charge have to do with the McMichaels and Roddy chasing after Arbery in their trucks and Travis killing him?

I was just correcting the claim that he wasn't a thief. He took something that wasn't his.

Actually, he was accused of trying to take something that wasn't his--a 65 inch TV--and later pleaded guilty to attempted theft, not actual theft and for that he got five years probation. Imagine what kind of time they threatened him with to plead out like that.

In the cop cam video at the link you can clearly see that the cop chose Arbery due to his age (the other three guys with him were underraged, and thus not worth the cop's time, evidently). You can also clearly see that none of them have the TV.

So not only is your observation completely irrelevant, it's not even accurate.

 

[marc]

About that right to bear arms. (humor)

 

[Derec]

Actually, he was accused of trying to take something that wasn't his

Not just accused. He was convicted.

--a 65 inch TV--and later pleaded guilty

Pleading guilty means HE GOT CONVICTED.

to attempted theft, not actual theft

If you catch a thief then the theft is obviously not successful. You can still be charged and convicted of theft. There is no such a thing as "attempted shoplifting". If you are caught trying to shoplift, you get prosecuted for shoplifting.

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 8 - OFFENSES INVOLVING THEFT
ARTICLE 1 - THEFT
§ 16-8-14 - Theft by shoplifting

(a) A person commits the offense of theft by shoplifting when he alone or in concert with another person, with the intent of appropriating merchandise to his own use without paying for the same or to deprive the owner of possession thereof or of the value thereof, in whole or in part, does any of the following:
(1) Conceals or takes possession of the goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment;
(2) Alters the price tag or other price marking on goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment;
(3) Transfers the goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment from one container to another;
(4) Interchanges the label or price tag from one item of merchandise with a label or price tag for another item of merchandise; or
(5) Wrongfully causes the amount paid to be less than the merchant's stated price for the merchandise.

As you can see, it is not necessary to complete the shoplifting to be guilty of "theft by shoplifting".

and for that he got five years probation. Imagine what kind of time they threatened him with to plead out like that.

He did not have to do any jail time though. In any case, he had a prior from a few years earlier for which he was still on probation. He had brought a gun to a high school basketball game.

In the cop cam video at the link you can clearly see that the cop chose Arbery due to his age (the other three guys with him were underraged, and thus not worth the cop's time, evidently).

All of them were detained and told to sit on the ground. The cop chose to arrest and handcuff Arbery because he stood up. It is not clear from the video or your Daily Mail what happened to his little friends.

You can also clearly see that none of them have the TV.

Difficult to try to escape with a bulky, heavy item. Once they got discovered, they obviously jettisoned it. But them abandoning stolen property does not mean they did not steal it.

So not only is your observation completely irrelevant, it's not even accurate.

Bullshit. He got convicted. Whether the conviction is effected by a guilty plea or a trial is immaterial. This is lamest attempt at apologetics since that protege of Michael Moore tried to feebly claim that St. Michael of the Blessed Swisher Sweets wasn't a robber but a drug dealer with a layaway plan.

 

[Derec]

I thought 20+ years old anecdotes were not convincing anymore.

You can't use an anecdote to prove something. But you can certainly use them as a counterexample to falsify a general claim, such as Zipr's claim that only white people can walk into government buildings while heavily armed. But it may be too much to ask for you to comprehend that.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Zipr's claim that only white people can walk into government buildings while heavily armed.

Wait, so you mean those white people were also disarmed like the Black Panthers were in the sixties and then later rounded up and taken to jail where they were forced once again to disarm while the cops "checked them" and their weapons out as well and as a result of their actions, the NRA has ALSO backed gun control legislation like they also did in the sixties? Let's call it "White Cuck Laws"! GREAT!

I must have missed that anecdote.

 

[laughing dog]

I thought 20+ years old anecdotes were not convincing anymore.

You can't use an anecdote to prove something. But you can certainly use them as a counterexample to falsify a general claim, such as Zipr's claim that only white people can walk into government buildings while heavily armed. But it may be too much to ask for you to comprehend that.

An 20 year old anecdote can only disprove some claim about the past, but not the present. I guess that may be too much to ask for you to comprehend.

 

[Derec]

Actually, first they were disarmed--which, they willingly complied with--then given their weapons back when it was clear they had broken no law, then, later that day they were unjustifiably taken to jail and their weapons taken away once again:

How is it "unjustifiable". Panthers were and are nothing but a bunch of racist, Communist, murderous thugs.
That same year Black Panther leader Huey Newton murdered Oakland police officer John Frey.
Less than a year after the Capitol occupation a group of 15 Black Panthers, led by Elridge Cleaver, ambushed police officers in Oakland.

But no, police are the bad guys because they briefly detained them and took their guys away.

An officer said they had not been charged with any offense

I.e. black people most definitely can get away with intimidating people with armed force. Even in the 1960s and continuing to the present day, as the armed Black Panther presence in Glynn County shows.

And then, specifically because of that protest, the conservatives in the California legislature banned open carry in the state:

I thought leftists were supposed to be against 2nd Amendment excesses such as "open carry". I guess not if those open carrying are a bunch of racist Maoist blacks that ambush and murder cops, rob banks and generally advocate the overthrow of the United States government.

Speaking to the TV cameras, he denounced “the racist California Legislature” for “keeping the black people disarmed and powerless.”

It's ironic since there are literal tons of guns in possession by black people in the US today. How is that working out for them?

[T]the Black Panther Party, founded the year before in Oakland, was engaged in perfectly legal, if unorthodox, lobbying. Its leaders, including Seale and Huey Newton, openly carried loaded guns to protect black people from racist police. In response, Oakland’s Republican Assemblyman Don Mulford had proposed a measure abolishing open carry in California. He called it the “Panther Bill.”

Again, that was not all they were doing.

And in present day, it is BLACK heavily armed militias

And why are they there in "present day"? Because, once again, an unarmed, innocent black man was killed for being black and they are there to protest the injustice.

Those racists are there to intimidate people. They want to pressure the court to convict by threatening violence.
And Arbery was hardly innocent. We know he was a thief and we know he trespassed at that construction site, most likely looking for stuff to steal.

You know, the ones who willingly disarmed when the police in San Francisco asked them too,

When was that?

Look how scarrrrrry the "militia" are

Existence of non-militia people with balloons does not negate or disprove the fact that racist "Black Panther" militia marched while heavily armed.

 

[Derec]

An 20 year old anecdote can only disprove some claim about the past, but not the present. I guess that may be too much to ask for you to comprehend.

Are you saying the 1960s were better for armed black people than 2020?

That nothing is happening to heavily armed Black Panther thugs marching in Glynn County is proof that you are full of shit!

Also, you obviously can't count. 1960s were over 50 years ago, not 20.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I thought 20+ years old anecdotes were not convincing anymore.

You can't use an anecdote to prove something. But you can certainly use them as a counterexample to falsify a general claim, such as Zipr's claim that only white people can walk into government buildings while heavily armed. But it may be too much to ask for you to comprehend that.

An 20 year old anecdote can only disprove some claim about the past, but not the present. I guess that may be too much to ask for you to comprehend.

Add it to the list.

 

[laughing dog]

An 20 year old anecdote can only disprove some claim about the past, but not the present. I guess that may be too much to ask for you to comprehend.

Are you saying the 1960s were better for armed black people than 2020?

You are the one who dismissed "old anecdotes", yet here you are using one to supposedly prove your point. At a minimum, that is a double standard.

[
That nothing is happening to heavily armed Black Panther thugs marching in Glynn County is proof that you are full of shit!

You are babbling. I made no claim about the present. Koy did point out that your 1960s "anecdote" failed because those individuals were disarmed and arrested. So, to use your vernacular, your first example was full of shit.

Nice to see you refer to black people carrying guns as "thugs" while refraining to do so about the white people in this thread.