New leaked video of black jogger gunned down by a white father and son duo

originally posted by: teapot

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: FellowHuman
...i would say is biased/his personal interpretation of events...

The rest of your post is you trying to rationalize your personal definitions to yourself.

And with copious use of sophistry.

Yup, a bit long winded..so to speak, sounds like a former member!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So being clear about what we are saying and mean is a problem? And you have not refuted anything i say, you always simply make declarative statements without any explanation that is enough to invoke understanding. Just claims that you then just call facts. Of which many times you have been wrong about in this thread, like the 9-11 phone call you claimed was made by the "vigilantes," which it wasnt, it was by someone who never got into any truck.

What are you even saying? I said it could be biased, i gave my explanation and you said nothing except, No. Just repeated what you said before (in a different way that is even more confusing and vague) without refuting anything I said. I dont even understand what you are disagreeing with.

What exactly is your point? That people cant be biased? That they cant bring up facts for a biased purpose? To weave a narrative? Which they are biased towards? The act of stating something is an act done by a human, and therefore that act can be biased, because the human is biased.

Are you saying the GBi investigator is not biased? That he defies human nature? I'm pretty sure he was on the stand to defend the charging and arresting of the McMichales, that seems like a bias. He was defending that position. It was about whether there was probable cause for the arrest.

It really seems your purpose is to just deflect and gaslight. I really dont understand why an understanding cant be reached.

originally posted by: FellowHuman
And you have not refuted anything i say...

Because it's mostly you in a one person circle jerk trying to rationalize away what the reality is in favor of your desired reality.

There's nothing to refute since you deal in your opinions and the rest of us are discussing the facts.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I suppose i can do all the work(by having to mind read). I suspect you misunderstood my original statement, and that is where all this confusion arose, where i asked "what are the facts exactly?" And then I gave a snarky response that the answer you were going to give me was simply going to be the opinion of the biased GBI investigator.

I'm guessing you took this as me saying everything that he said or implied werent facts, but just his opinion. And that isnt what i meant nor said.

It was me preempting (in a teasing way, no doubt obviously hard to tell many things just through text) the response you would give me, and that it would not be simply pure facts. But instead something he saw or read (like watching the video) and him putting what he saw into his own words.

Which is fine, but people see different things, and how they may describe what goes on may be different than how other people describe it. And very often the words people choose is the result of inherent biases, because they see what they want to see, or they word it in a way that is more supportive of what they want to be true. But this doesnt mean they are intentionally lying.

So i think this is what you were stuck on. Is this correct? You thinking that i was claiming that the facts he said werent facts, or that he said no facts? When what i was actually alluding to were the moments when he was putting things into his own words, and that is then where biases also enter the picture. And why I said i would prefer to see the videos myself.

And it wasnt me saying he would be legally liable for anything or would be doing anything illegal, just that he was subtly (in a way he would not get into trouble) framing/wording things in a way that would lead people to a conclusion he wants.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I didn’t realise I was trying, I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said in this thread other than I’d have ran the other way not toward the gun.

Doesn't feel like there are any laws now. If domestic terrorists can break the law and get away with it, we're not far from people regularly getting gunned down in the street anyway.
Isn't this what BLM and Antifa are demanding?

originally posted by: FellowHuman
I suppose i can do all the work(by having to mind read). I suspect you misunderstood my original statement, and that is where all this confusion arose, where i asked "what are the facts exactly?" And then I gave a snarky response that the answer you were going to give me was simply going to be the opinion of the biased GBI investigator.

The facts are they chased him, corralled him, ran him into a ditch, shot him and then called 911 while calling him a 'f****** n*****'. That's what the reported and testified.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Doesn't feel like there are any laws now. If domestic terrorists can break the law and get away with it, we're not far from people regularly getting gunned down in the street anyway.
Isn't this what BLM and Antifa are demanding?

Who's 'we', you live somewhere else.

originally posted by: Grenade
I didn’t realise I was trying, I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said in this thread other than I’d have ran the other way not toward the gun.

That wasn't directed at you, we're cool.

popculture.com... s8sk well all three have been indicted by grand jury now we wait for trial

On Wednesday, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that there has been a major update regarding the killing of Ahmaud Arbery. The publication reported that a grand jury has indicted all three individuals who were allegedly involved in Arbery's murder — Travis McMichael, Greg McMichael, and William Bryan. All three men are currently being held without bond in Glynn County jail in Georgia.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I didn’t realise I was trying, I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said in this thread other than I’d have ran the other way not toward the gun.

I understand the temptation. I know from experience that you feel like a whimp if you concede to a person who is pointing a gun at you. It might be an instinct or something. However, a wise person will also realize that there is more at stake than your pride.

But for some people, I think all they've got is their pride.


Arbury was almost certainly the thief. Getting caught on camera trespassing is just too big a coincidence for any other thing to be likely.

And, although we may guess whether he was the thief or not, Arbury himself knew for certain whether it was true. If true, he wasn't responding out of outrage. (What basis could he have to be outraged that people he has been stealing from want to detain and positively identify him? He knows he gave the first offense. )

It was probably a combination of bravado, and the fear they might actually have enough evidence to prove his actions. The walls started closing in, so he he decided to escape or die trying.