Senator Briggs has it.



https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2019/05/01/briggs-skewers-white-privilege-life-incredible

said "some" for a reason. I'm guessing something like that may have applied in this case. Although there are other less charitable explanations that are also plausible. — Baden

Yeah, but who cares what psychoanalytic musings you arrive at? It's not like it's based on anything. We Americans are as varied as the next bunch, just better.

That's not what happened. But, hypothetically, no. — Hanover

According to the video, it is. They threatened him with a shotgun when he was doing nothing other than jogging through the neighbourhood.

So, the question is whether a racist moron is in violation of the law when someone tries to wrestle his loaded shotgun from him and the guy gets shot? I say not if he has reason to believe the cuckoo wrestler man intended less than a kind gesture after he got the gun in his possession. — Hanover

So by law you are allowed to threaten someone with a gun and then shoot them when they try to defend themselves? Why? You've initiated the confrontation. Why should they not be allowed to defend themselves?

Do you doubt that racism was involved?

Yeah, but who cares what psychoanalytic musings you arrive at? — Hanover

Banno, I presume. As he asked me the question, originally. Why can't you keep up? Pay attention!

you doubt that racism was involved — Banno

Sure seemed like it, but we don't convict people for being pieces of shit. If we did, few would avoid conviction.

Banno, I presume. As he asked me the question, originally. Why can't you keep up? Pay attention! — Baden

Sorry to interrupt your convo with the gentleman from down under. Carry on.

See, here's how it works, when posters ask me questions, I answer them (usually). You can ask me questions too, but you're not required to care about their questions.

See, here's how it works, when posters ask me questions I answer them (usually). You can ask me questions too, but you're not required to care about their questions — Baden

Y'all weren't actually responding to questions. Y'all were just sitting in an echo chamber hearing your own voices bounce out of each other's mouths.

Could an answer to my last question to you bounce out of your mouth, perchance? Why is it illegal for me to defend myself against someone threatening me with a gun by taking that gun from them? Or why is it legal for them to shoot me for doing so?

Y'all were just sitting in an echo chamber hearing your own voices bounce out of each other's mouths. — Hanover

Nice imagery! You do have a way with words.

Sometimes gotta take a compliment from who'll ever give it

Why is it illegal for me to defend myself against someone threatening me with a gun by taking that gun from them? — Baden

That didn't look like self defense to me. You think he was in reasonable fear for his life at the time he ran around the truck toward the gun? I'd say his fear of death likely increased with each step toward the end of the barrel.

...we don't convict people for being pieces of shit. — Hanover

Yep. We can ponder about what leads to their excremental nature. I'm thinking that's what @frank was looking for in his OP. How come these turdish folk almost got away with murder?

You think he was in reasonable fear for his life at the time he ran around the truck toward the gun? — Hanover

You don't? What's your theory then? He felt in no danger but decided to risk death on the off chance he could get to murder these two guys?

Anyway, answer the question.If he was in fear of his life, could he legally defend himself or not?

How come these turdish folk almost got away with murder? — Banno

Well, according to Hanover, it's apparently fine to threaten people with guns and then blow them away when they try to neutralize the threat. I would say that's a bit of a problem with the law right there.

Anyway, answer the question.If he was in fear of his life, could he legally defend himself or not? — Baden

Of course he could. I think he was pissed and kamikazed toward the shotgun. That's what it looked like to me.

That's what it looked like to me. — Hanover

Is this what it's going to come down to in the court? Whether or not he was a kamikaze?

Well, according to Hanover, it's apparently fine to threaten people with guns and then blow them away when they try to neutralize the threat. I would say that's a bit of a problem with the law right there. — Baden

That's not the way it looked, so I don't know why you say this. He came toward the threat that was not being waved at him.

I reckon it does.

You see, lookin' in from over here, I'm just a bit perplexed as to why they had guns at all.

That's why I'm thinking there must be some deeper stuff going on.

He came toward the threat that was not being waved at him. — Hanover

'cause if he had turned and run the other way, it would all have been alright...

So it's all his fault.

I can't make out what the point you are making might be.

He came toward the threat that was not being waved at him. — Hanover

You're telling me you know from the video that a gun wasn't waved at him? Please share the link to the video that shows that. I've said in the last couple of posts he was "threatened" with a gun. It's clear they had guns and they were using them to try to stop him, which involves "threat" (otherwise why would he stop?). Whether or not they actually waved the gun or pointed it at him before he tried to grab it is not discernible from the video I've seen.

Is this what it's going to come down to in the court? Whether or not he was a kamikaze? — Baden

You do realize that you're now arguing for the controversial "stand your ground" law instead of the law you must retreat if possible

But Georgia does have a stand your ground law, so you've arrived at your defense. I still maintain that he didn't stand his ground but that he pursued a guy with a gun in the street, but that's my interpretation of the evidence, not the law.

I still maintain that he didn't stand his ground but that he pursued a guy with a gun in the street, but that's my interpretation of the evidence, not the law. — Hanover

Your interpretation of this is that Arbery pursued a guy with a gun in the street and so was legally shot or not? (On the basis of the evidence you've seen. What is your call?)

the evidence — Hanover

Again, you must have evidence I don't. Because the video I've seen does not show what you claim it shows (i.e. that they did not threaten him with a gun but he instead threatened them).

Those guys need to get locked up. There is no way to spin a defense for them.

If that's all that is learned here, it will have been a lost opportunity.

Are you attempting some sort of defence?

Again, the minutia of the incident are unavailable to us. What we have is that two white guys chased and shot a black guy, and yet they were not going to be charged - the details were not going to be considered - until there was a public outcry.

That is, there was an abject failure of the legal and judicial systems.

And the question in the OP is, how widespread is such failure?

There's the philosophically and ethically significant issue.

There's the philosophically and ethically significant issue. — Banno

But if we talk about that we'll be accused of not being American enough to contribute. Which is a recurring theme lately.