In the Wee Hours of the Morning, (AKA The First Death of Innocence)

[laughing dog]

Something happening to others does not mean it happened in this case. You are arguing for racial profiling.

Using personal knowledge and knowledge of history in a region to conclude that a story about a white sheriff getting away with murder of a black man is credible is not arguing for or using  Racial_profiling because no one is arguing that all white men or all white sheriffs are likely to behave in such a manner. Moreover, it was common for all white juries in the South during that time to give the benefit of the doubt to white defendants when the victims were black.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why are you convinced he is a racist murderer? This story is enough to convince you?

Yes. I see no reason why AA would make up a story of a tragedy that follows the same pattern as countless other events, just to stir ire in this forum. Do you?

The story itself, on the face of it, doesn't implicate racism. You've got two guys in a bar who have an argument (doesn't say about what) and one pulls out a gun on the other. The other is later accused of being the one who murdered the first, but isn't convicted of the murder. Where exactly does racism get suggested in the facts as presented? Other than one being white, the other black, and the time in history? Are you really that quick, based on the story as presented alone, to cry racism and declare the accused should have been convicted?

 

[laughing dog]

Why are you convinced he is a racist murderer? This story is enough to convince you?

Yes. I see no reason why AA would make up a story of a tragedy that follows the same pattern as countless other events, just to stir ire in this forum. Do you?

The story itself, on the face of it, doesn't implicate racism. ..

When you take the circumstances out of context, you are correct. However viewing the entirety of the story which includes the history and sociology and ethos of that region at the time, it does implicate racism.

 

[Elixir]

... viewing the entirety of the story which includes the history and sociology and ethos of that region at the time, it does implicate racism.

That's one reason a lot of people prefer to limit their acknowledgment of racism to those very few and very far between cases where there is overwhelming objective evidence of the subjective state if the perpetrator. It makes racism seem like not much of a problem when
a) so little of it can be objectively verified, and
b) it ain't happening to them.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You are a man. You have lived in a time of misogyny. You are American and Trump is your President. Should I attribute your actions to sexism and presume you pro-Trump? Or should I actually care about what's actually going on in a particular instance and with a particular person, and ask questions and gather facts before leaping to such conclusions ?

 

[laughing dog]

You are a man. You have lived in a time of misogyny. You are American and Trump is your President. Should I attribute your actions to sexism and presume you pro-Trump? Or should I actually care about what's actually going on in a particular instance and with a particular person, and ask questions and gather facts before leaping to such conclusions

Since Trump did not even get half of the votes that is silly. Add in that Trump did not carry my state and you have no evidence that I had engaged is some sexist actions, your example is truly stupid. But neither is true. Instead of wasting your time with these poorly constructed examples, examine why you feel the need to deny the main elements of the murder. You are tacitly assuming the eye witnesses are mistaken (or worse) without any rationale. You are tacitly ignoring the milieu of the crime. All on the pretext of less than perfect information.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You are tacitly assuming the eye witnesses are mistaken (or worse) without any rationale. You are tacitly ignoring the milieu of the crime. All on the pretext of less than perfect information.

Wrong on both. This is a crime allegation and you're calling to convict somebody based on extremely little, and refusing to consider relevant questions that would be key in such a trial.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

"...Uncle Will and the sheriff exchanged words, the kind of words two married men exchange over a woman neither one of them is married to."

This part intrigued me.
Wasn't this, rather than racial identity, the real catalyst?

Of the shooting? Or the acquittal?

There are many things to consider

Had my uncle been white, would this have happened? Had he not taken the gun from under the counter and backed the sheriff down in front of witnesses?

- - - Updated - - -

No.
Exhonerated in a court of law does not mean..."got away with cold-blooded murder"
That "parade of witnesses" might have been what got him acquitted.

Be careful what you say on the internet. There's enough here to potentially identify the person you're defaming.

the parade of witnesses was against him.

 

[laughing dog]

You are tacitly assuming the eye witnesses are mistaken (or worse) without any rationale. You are tacitly ignoring the milieu of the crime. All on the pretext of less than perfect information.

Wrong on both. This is a crime allegation and you're calling to convict somebody based on extremely little, and refusing to consider relevant questions that would be key in such a trial.

I am not calling for him to be convicted. Not only do I not know whether he is alive, he has already been found not guilty so he cannot be retried for this crime under US law due to double jeopardy. Something anyone who knows even a modicum about the US justice system knows.

And the questions you posted were not relevant at all to the issue of racism. The issue is that a black man was murdered by a shot in the back of the head (the reason is irrelevant) while walking unarmed by an identified white man (the sheriff) and the identified killed was not convicted by an all white jury during the Jim Crow era in the South.

To most people who lived through that era and to most people who know US history understand that is reasonable to conclude that racism played a major role this tragedy and travesty.

Yet here you are, tacitly assuming the witnesses were wrong, and ignoring the milieu of the time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Tragic story. Is it raised to allege racism? Because if it is, what in it convinces you that either the crime or the verdict were racially motivated? Is it just because the victim is black and the accused is white?

So many questions unanswered:

What was said in this argument in the bar? Was it racial. Story doesn't say so. If it was, why wasn't this mentioned in the story?

Is there any history between this particular officer and this particular victim? Did the others with the uncle in the bar have any history with this officer? If so, what is it?

While I can easily see the murder itself not being racism (he in effect threatened the cop with a gun. Legally, but that sort of thing is likely to cause trouble) it's pretty hard to see the verdict not being racism. Since they had enough to bring it to trial there must have been physical evidence showing he was the shooter as the story as presented doesn't contain enough. Thus it should have been a fairly simple case.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Tragic story. Is it raised to allege racism? Because if it is, what in it convinces you that either the crime or the verdict were racially motivated? Is it just because the victim is black and the accused is white?

So many questions unanswered:

What was said in this argument in the bar? Was it racial. Story doesn't say so. If it was, why wasn't this mentioned in the story?

Is there any history between this particular officer and this particular victim? Did the others with the uncle in the bar have any history with this officer? If so, what is it?

While I can easily see the murder itself not being racism (he in effect threatened the cop with a gun. Legally, but that sort of thing is likely to cause trouble) it's pretty hard to see the verdict not being racism. Since they had enough to bring it to trial there must have been physical evidence showing he was the shooter as the story as presented doesn't contain enough. Thus it should have been a fairly simple case.

Loren, how was my Uncle threatening anyone walking to his house with his back to the car from which the shot came? Threats have to be immediate in order to be considered as a reason for self defense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Tragic story. Is it raised to allege racism? Because if it is, what in it convinces you that either the crime or the verdict were racially motivated? Is it just because the victim is black and the accused is white?

So many questions unanswered:

What was said in this argument in the bar? Was it racial. Story doesn't say so. If it was, why wasn't this mentioned in the story?

Is there any history between this particular officer and this particular victim? Did the others with the uncle in the bar have any history with this officer? If so, what is it?

While I can easily see the murder itself not being racism (he in effect threatened the cop with a gun. Legally, but that sort of thing is likely to cause trouble) it's pretty hard to see the verdict not being racism. Since they had enough to bring it to trial there must have been physical evidence showing he was the shooter as the story as presented doesn't contain enough. Thus it should have been a fairly simple case.

Loren, how was my Uncle threatening anyone walking to his house with his back to the car from which the shot came? Threats have to be immediate in order to be considered as a reason for self defense.

I didn't say the shooting was valid. I said that threatening a cop with a gun is likely to provoke retaliation of some type. What he did was dangerous no matter what his skin color so we can't assume racism.

 

[ZiprHead]

Loren, how was my Uncle threatening anyone walking to his house with his back to the car from which the shot came? Threats have to be immediate in order to be considered as a reason for self defense.

I didn't say the shooting was valid. I said that threatening a cop with a gun is likely to provoke retaliation of some type. What he did was dangerous no matter what his skin color so we can't assume racism.

The stupidity precludes me from posting.

 

[laughing dog]

Loren, how was my Uncle threatening anyone walking to his house with his back to the car from which the shot came? Threats have to be immediate in order to be considered as a reason for self defense.

I didn't say the shooting was valid. I said that threatening a cop with a gun is likely to provoke retaliation of some type. What he did was dangerous no matter what his skin color so we can't assume racism.

If you really think a white sheriff in that part of the South in those times thought he might get away from blowing away a white man in a premeditated murder, I can let you have the Brooklyn Bridge at a deep discount.

 

[ZiprHead]

Loren, how was my Uncle threatening anyone walking to his house with his back to the car from which the shot came? Threats have to be immediate in order to be considered as a reason for self defense.

I didn't say the shooting was valid. I said that threatening a cop with a gun is likely to provoke retaliation of some type. What he did was dangerous no matter what his skin color so we can't assume racism.

If you really think a white sheriff in that part of the South in those times thought he might get away from blowing away a white man in a premeditated murder, I can let you have the Brooklyn Bridge at a deep discount.

The rejection of history is astounding.

 

[Ford]

Loren, how was my Uncle threatening anyone walking to his house with his back to the car from which the shot came? Threats have to be immediate in order to be considered as a reason for self defense.

I didn't say the shooting was valid. I said that threatening a cop with a gun is likely to provoke retaliation of some type.

If recent history is any indication, then "threatening a cop with a gun" covers a wide range of actions.

Are you a black man who reaches for his waistband while cornered by cops? Are you a black man being held on the ground who reaches for his waistband? Are you a black teenager who reaches for his cell phone? Are you a black man who is sitting in his car and calmly informs the officer that you have a legal firearm in the vehicle? Are you a young black teenager with a bag of candy in your pocket?

These actions have all lead to the deaths of black men at the hands of police officers (or in the last case, neighborhood security). We're at the point now where walking away with your hands in the air = "threatening a cop with a gun" if you happen to be black.

And this is 2019. The same action in the Jim Crow era in the South? Come on.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If you really think a white sheriff in that part of the South in those times thought he might get away from blowing away a white man in a premeditated murder, I can let you have the Brooklyn Bridge at a deep discount.

The rejection of history is astounding.

Sure... Because there was no shortage of cops doing horrible things to black people at this time for race reasons, this particular cop for sure did this particular horrible thing to this particular black person (despite having had an argument wherein the person pulled a gun on him) due to race reasons. Yeah ok.

 

[laughing dog]

If you really think a white sheriff in that part of the South in those times thought he might get away from blowing away a white man in a premeditated murder, I can let you have the Brooklyn Bridge at a deep discount.

The rejection of history is astounding.

Sure... Because there was no shortage of cops doing horrible things to black people at this time for race reasons, this particular cop for sure did this particular horrible thing to this particular black person (despite having had an argument wherein the person pulled a gun on him) due to race reasons. Yeah ok.

The people who see this cold-blooded premeditated murder as racist do so for two frequently stated rationales that your synopsis completely ignores: the sheriff would not have done this to a white man because he would expect to be convicted, and that a white jury did not convict because the victim was black and the perpetrator was white. These rationales are consistent with the historical context of the time and the story. This is a tragic story of racial injustice, it is not a call for a retrial or conviction.

Why you feel the need to posture for perfect information as if this is a trial is your choice, but no one has to buy your rationale for your posturing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Loren, how was my Uncle threatening anyone walking to his house with his back to the car from which the shot came? Threats have to be immediate in order to be considered as a reason for self defense.

I didn't say the shooting was valid. I said that threatening a cop with a gun is likely to provoke retaliation of some type. What he did was dangerous no matter what his skin color so we can't assume racism.

If you really think a white sheriff in that part of the South in those times thought he might get away from blowing away a white man in a premeditated murder, I can let you have the Brooklyn Bridge at a deep discount.

Weren't two of the of the Neshoba County victims white? The South made it quite clear their position on anyone who dared question white dominance over blacks, and of course, their position on blacks who didn't understand where they stood in the South.

I definitely applaud LP's position though. He is providing skepticism based on not knowing all of the details... a position he often holds in such situations... like when he was very skeptical about claims of Trayvon Martin doing drugs, being a MMA pro, or casing places to rob because of the lack of any evidence whatsoever.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sure... Because there was no shortage of cops doing horrible things to black people at this time for race reasons, this particular cop for sure did this particular horrible thing to this particular black person (despite having had an argument wherein the person pulled a gun on him) due to race reasons. Yeah ok.

The people who see this cold-blooded premeditated murder as racist do so for two frequently stated rationales that your synopsis completely ignores: the sheriff would not have done this to a white man because he would expect to be convicted

Pure speculation.

and that a white jury did not convict because the victim was black and the perpetrator was white.

More pure speculation.

Speculation based on the time and place, sure. But speculation. You refuse to consider the questions I listed in my first post in this thread above, because you want to leap to conclusions. That's all you. That's got nothing to do with me.

This is a tragic story of racial injustice

Is it? Is it a story about what often happened, and we are to take the racial animus as a given written into the story, or is it an actual claim about what happened in a particular person (possibly Athena's actual uncle; or that of someone she cut and pasted from)?

Why you feel the need to posture for perfect information as if this is a trial is your choice, but no one has to buy your rationale for your posturing.

It isn't posturing to not want to leap to wild and slanderous conclusions without having some actual facts. This story at no time gives any indication that this particular sherriff was motivated by race, except for the time this took place in. For example, it doesn't specify that the argument was racially toned, before the victim pulled a gun out on his later assailant, or that this particular sheriff had harassed or attacked black people before, or that he made statements against black people. That would at least be something, and probably not hard to find if this was his motivation, yet it is not presented. What you are actually going on and leaping to isn't so different than were I to decide you are a Trump supporting misogynist who hates brown people, because you are male and from the USA, and these are so common in this time and place.