The Ahmaud Arbery affair

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by commonsense »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:39 pm
commonsense wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:11 pm I agree that a lesser charge would have been more appropriate. Also, depending on Georgia law and what evidence is gathered concerning intentionality, there may have been grounds to prosecute this situation as a hate crime.
Another bullshit non-term. Offensive in a grammatical sense and offensive in every other sense. Dead is dead. Murder is murder. And people don't tend to murder out of 'love'.
I see your point. I used this non-term to denote what it is that “hate crime” references. As you point out, there are no such things as love crimes.
commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by commonsense »

commonsense wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:11 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:08 pm It seems to me that, given the circumstances, that voluntary manslaughter is more fitting:
(a) A person commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter when he causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would otherwise be murder and if he acts solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person; however, if there should have been an interval between the provocation and the killing sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, of which the jury in all cases shall be the judge, the killing shall be attributed to deliberate revenge and be punished as murder.

(b) A person who commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.
I agree that a lesser charge would have been more appropriate. Also, depending on Georgia law and what evidence is gathered concerning intentionality, there may have been grounds to prosecute this situation as a hate crime.
On second thought, IF the facts bore out that the shooter had been prepared ahead of time to inflict deadly force on Mr. Arbery, say by virtue of having a shotgun loaded and readily at hand, then a charge of murder would be most appropriate.

IF the time between Arbery running by and the three catching up to him were extremely short, motor vehicles notwithstanding, that might weigh toward a plan having been made ahead of time, and murder would be the appropriate charge as well.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

I can't believe that anyone is even arguing about this. Just shows how sick American society is.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by henry quirk »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:22 pm I can't believe that anyone is even arguing about this. Just shows how sick American society is.
Let them count angels on pinheads: it keeps 'em out of trouble.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

commonsense wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:51 pm On second thought, IF the facts bore out that the shooter had been prepared ahead of time to inflict deadly force on Mr. Arbery, say by virtue of having a shotgun loaded and readily at hand, then a charge of murder would be most appropriate.
Those who keep weapons, and know how to use them (the man who shot Arbery had some police training and served in the police force at one time, in addition to the Coast Guard) keep their weapons more or less at the ready -- loaded, but not necessarily with a chambered round, though those who carried concealed handguns are advised to keep a round chambered but obviously uncocked and with the safety on.

The issue of their guns was gone over during the trial. Travis McMichael kept weapons and knew how to use them. And his shotgun required two steps before it would be ready to fire. So, his weapon was always in this state of readiness and as I say those who have weapons will not keep them in an unready state.
IF the time between Arbery running by and the three catching up to him were extremely short, motor vehicles notwithstanding, that might weigh toward a plan having been made ahead of time, and murder would be the appropriate charge as well.
I guess anything is possible but it seems inconceivable to me that either of these men had the intention to shoot and kill Arbery. However, in today's political and social climate people do believe more or less what they want to believe.

I am not suggesting that this is your case rather only that I think that this is common.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:46 pm
commonsense wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:51 pm On second thought, IF the facts bore out that the shooter had been prepared ahead of time to inflict deadly force on Mr. Arbery, say by virtue of having a shotgun loaded and readily at hand, then a charge of murder would be most appropriate.
Those who keep weapons, and know how to use them (the man who shot Arbery had some police training and served in the police force at one time, in addition to the Coast Guard) keep their weapons more or less at the ready -- loaded, but not necessarily with a chambered round, though those who carried concealed handguns are advised to keep a round chambered but obviously uncocked and with the safety on.

The issue of their guns was gone over during the trial. Travis McMichael kept weapons and knew how to use them. And his shotgun required two steps before it would be ready to fire. So, his weapon was always in this state of readiness and as I say those who have weapons will not keep them in an unready state.
IF the time between Arbery running by and the three catching up to him were extremely short, motor vehicles notwithstanding, that might weigh toward a plan having been made ahead of time, and murder would be the appropriate charge as well.
I guess anything is possible but it seems inconceivable to me that either of these men had the intention to shoot and kill Arbery. However, in today's political and social climate people do believe more or less what they want to believe.

I am not suggesting that this is your case rather only that I think that this is common.
Right, so the shooter didn't know what happens when you pull the trigger of a loaded gun that is pointed at another person who is right in front of him. What the fuck is wrong with you? It wasn't even their building site, and what if it was anyway? My childhood friends and I used to love to play around houses under construction when we were children. I suppose we would all be dead now if this was the US.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Sun Nov 28, 2021 1:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by commonsense »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:46 pm
commonsense wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:51 pm On second thought, IF the facts bore out that the shooter had been prepared ahead of time to inflict deadly force on Mr. Arbery, say by virtue of having a shotgun loaded and readily at hand, then a charge of murder would be most appropriate.
Those who keep weapons, and know how to use them (the man who shot Arbery had some police training and served in the police force at one time, in addition to the Coast Guard) keep their weapons more or less at the ready -- loaded, but not necessarily with a chambered round, though those who carried concealed handguns are advised to keep a round chambered but obviously uncocked and with the safety on.

The issue of their guns was gone over during the trial. Travis McMichael kept weapons and knew how to use them. And his shotgun required two steps before it would be ready to fire. So, his weapon was always in this state of readiness and as I say those who have weapons will not keep them in an unready state.
IF the time between Arbery running by and the three catching up to him were extremely short, motor vehicles notwithstanding, that might weigh toward a plan having been made ahead of time, and murder would be the appropriate charge as well.
I guess anything is possible but it seems inconceivable to me that either of these men had the intention to shoot and kill Arbery. However, in today's political and social climate people do believe more or less what they want to believe.

I am not suggesting that this is your case rather only that I think that this is common.
Thanks for the info.

I didn’t take offense at your post.

Let me add that if someone has a deadly weapon with them, they will be willing to use it. At most, a deadly weapon is capable of being used to cause a death.

Since the shooter brought a shotgun, wouldn’t he be planning to execute Arbery? I don’t know. It’s a stretch anyway.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:50 pm Right, so the shooter didn't know what happens when you pull the trigger of a loaded gun that is pointed at another person who is right in front of him. What the fuck is wrong with you? It wasn't even their building site, and what if it was anyway? My childhood friends and I used to love to play around houses under construction when we were children. I suppose we would all be dead now if this was the US.
Perhaps the question you are asking -- and if you are not it is still a good one -- is Why am I interrogating these events and approaching them with seeming doubt or suspicion?

My answer is that I have developed a methodology whereby I start from a doubting position, but moreover one that opposes or challenges the prevailing view. My approach comes out of a methodology I picked up through a (loose, unofficial) reading of texts pertaining to 'media studies'. In my case the sort of reading (examination) I am speaking about was developed by Noam Chomsky but in fact he elaborated ideas that had been developed by Walter Lippmann. I also would include Edward Bernays who wrote, in Propaganda, these pithy analyses:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
“Universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control his environment. Once he could read and write he would have a mind fit to rule. So ran the democratic doctrine. But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber stamps, rubber stamps inked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with published scientific data, with the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of history, but quite innocent of original thought. Each man's rubber stamps are the duplicates of millions of others, so that when those millions are exposed to the same stimuli, all receive identical imprints. It may seem an exaggeration to say that the American public gets most of its ideas in this wholesale fashion. The mechanism by which ideas are disseminated on a large scale is propaganda, in the broad sense of an organized effort to spread a particular belief or doctrine.”
So in my case, and stated in the most direct terms, I regard the Media System, and certainly the media system of the US, to operate under what I might term *rules* or *approaches* that distort, misrepresent, mis-portray, and obfuscate. At this point it is not an issue of the political Right and the political Left with different value-sets and ideological underpinning, but something more and different -- and thus something that needs to be defined. So my suggestion is to regard the present 'system' (the state, and state managers) as part of a regime. The term regime implies a top-down relationship and also implies authoritarianism, and authoritarianism melds at a certain point into totalitarianism. The term totalitarian is hyperbolic, to a degree, but the tendency is there and shows itself. And the nexus I refer to has become especially manifest in the last 10 years but, in my view, largely in the post-9/11 era.

And I must also say that I have profound suspicions of the way that 'race conflict' is being employed by those I define as state managers. Radical strains of identity politics ideology have been and are being weaponized and are being used for purposes different (ulterior) to what is presented, on the surface, as being the case. However, this should not be taken to mean that I am opposed to the tenets of identity postures -- Blacks defining an identity posture, and Latinos, American Indians, Asians and also Whites -- in fact I am very much in pro of those identifications and oppose the ideology of destroying or weakening identification through an ideology of 'diversity' and 'multi-culturalism' which, rather obviously in fact, lead to the destruction of real diversity.

In this connection I identify centripetal and centrifugal forces that we can discern and talk about. State forces, elite forces 'global' forces represent the centripetal tendency, and the centrifugal tendency pertains to what I see as *authentic* social forces that resist the former. Refer to the Bernay's quotes to get a sense of what I am referring to.

The crisis in the United States (you referred recently to 'sickness', and I do not disagree with the term but the meaning of that term would have to be developed more) is an outcome of the Multi-Cultural Project that was set in motion, not by popular forces and popular motives, but by the managerial elites I refer to with the term 'regime'. These are capital interests and, more often than not, elite interests. The social conflicts that are brewing and which have become obvious will not abate. Yet in relation to them, and in response to them, the State (the Federal regime to put it somewhat dramatically) will have to intervene and will do so through authoritarian and *totalitarian* methods.

In relation to the entire affair (the Ahmaud Arbery affair) I do not think that they could have gotten what we call a *fair trial*. The reasons are various and the legal points I went over already (ambiguity in the way the law is written and the fact of lenity in jurisprudence). But there is another level to this and I think Walker and Commonsense indicated what it was: the Cracker is going on trial for the perceived historical mistreatment of Blacks. And the Cracker must be found *guilty* in this particular, and peculiar, social, ideological and cultural climate. (I refer to the way that the South and Southerners are viewed in the present. This is related to very old sectional divisions and prejudices, going back the early 19th century, that can only be understood if the ideological and descriptive history is grasped. These prejudicial attitudes are part-and-parcel of a slow-moving cultural war).

So -- but please note that I have not yet come to a definite conclusion and my approach is exploratory -- I start from the POV that it is likely (and in any case possible) that what really happened in this situation is different, perhaps some, perhaps little, and perhaps also a good deal, from what it was portrayed as being. Again, this is a tentative posture, not a decided one. (And to help you to gain a better view of my position I regard the George Floyd incident, and Chauvin's actions, not as murder but as callous manslaughter. So in regard to that entire incident -- the even itself and everything that spun out of it -- I notice *social hysteria* and the in-flow of a whole array of other agendas.

My view is that one needs to find a way to *keep one's wits about one* as one examines the stories and narratives that are provided to us and distributed to us for consumption but also for political, social and ideological manipulation.
commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by commonsense »

In response to the above post, I note:

Emptor caveat. Buyer (of information in the media) beware.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by Skepdick »

commonsense wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:53 pm Since the shooter brought a shotgun, wouldn’t he be planning to execute Arbery? I don’t know. It’s a stretch anyway.
You can't make such jumps in conclusion towards establishing mens rea.

Carrying a gun is no more indication of intent to kill; than wearing a seatbelt is an intent to have a car accident.
commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by commonsense »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 4:46 pm
commonsense wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:53 pm Since the shooter brought a shotgun, wouldn’t he be planning to execute Arbery? I don’t know. It’s a stretch anyway.
You can't make such jumps in conclusion towards establishing mens rea.

Carrying a gun is no more indication of intent to kill; than wearing a seatbelt is an intent to have a car accident.
As I said, it’s a stretch.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 2:51 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:50 pm Right, so the shooter didn't know what happens when you pull the trigger of a loaded gun that is pointed at another person who is right in front of him. What the fuck is wrong with you? It wasn't even their building site, and what if it was anyway? My childhood friends and I used to love to play around houses under construction when we were children. I suppose we would all be dead now if this was the US.
Perhaps the question you are asking -- and if you are not it is still a good one -- is Why am I interrogating these events and approaching them with seeming doubt or suspicion?

My answer is that I have developed a methodology whereby I start from a doubting position, but moreover one that opposes or challenges the prevailing view. My approach comes out of a methodology I picked up through a (loose, unofficial) reading of texts pertaining to 'media studies'. In my case the sort of reading (examination) I am speaking about was developed by Noam Chomsky but in fact he elaborated ideas that had been developed by Walter Lippmann. I also would include Edward Bernays who wrote, in Propaganda, these pithy analyses:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
“Universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control his environment. Once he could read and write he would have a mind fit to rule. So ran the democratic doctrine. But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber stamps, rubber stamps inked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with published scientific data, with the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of history, but quite innocent of original thought. Each man's rubber stamps are the duplicates of millions of others, so that when those millions are exposed to the same stimuli, all receive identical imprints. It may seem an exaggeration to say that the American public gets most of its ideas in this wholesale fashion. The mechanism by which ideas are disseminated on a large scale is propaganda, in the broad sense of an organized effort to spread a particular belief or doctrine.”
So in my case, and stated in the most direct terms, I regard the Media System, and certainly the media system of the US, to operate under what I might term *rules* or *approaches* that distort, misrepresent, mis-portray, and obfuscate. At this point it is not an issue of the political Right and the political Left with different value-sets and ideological underpinning, but something more and different -- and thus something that needs to be defined. So my suggestion is to regard the present 'system' (the state, and state managers) as part of a regime. The term regime implies a top-down relationship and also implies authoritarianism, and authoritarianism melds at a certain point into totalitarianism. The term totalitarian is hyperbolic, to a degree, but the tendency is there and shows itself. And the nexus I refer to has become especially manifest in the last 10 years but, in my view, largely in the post-9/11 era.

And I must also say that I have profound suspicions of the way that 'race conflict' is being employed by those I define as state managers. Radical strains of identity politics ideology have been and are being weaponized and are being used for purposes different (ulterior) to what is presented, on the surface, as being the case. However, this should not be taken to mean that I am opposed to the tenets of identity postures -- Blacks defining an identity posture, and Latinos, American Indians, Asians and also Whites -- in fact I am very much in pro of those identifications and oppose the ideology of destroying or weakening identification through an ideology of 'diversity' and 'multi-culturalism' which, rather obviously in fact, lead to the destruction of real diversity.

In this connection I identify centripetal and centrifugal forces that we can discern and talk about. State forces, elite forces 'global' forces represent the centripetal tendency, and the centrifugal tendency pertains to what I see as *authentic* social forces that resist the former. Refer to the Bernay's quotes to get a sense of what I am referring to.

The crisis in the United States (you referred recently to 'sickness', and I do not disagree with the term but the meaning of that term would have to be developed more) is an outcome of the Multi-Cultural Project that was set in motion, not by popular forces and popular motives, but by the managerial elites I refer to with the term 'regime'. These are capital interests and, more often than not, elite interests. The social conflicts that are brewing and which have become obvious will not abate. Yet in relation to them, and in response to them, the State (the Federal regime to put it somewhat dramatically) will have to intervene and will do so through authoritarian and *totalitarian* methods.

In relation to the entire affair (the Ahmaud Arbery affair) I do not think that they could have gotten what we call a *fair trial*. The reasons are various and the legal points I went over already (ambiguity in the way the law is written and the fact of lenity in jurisprudence). But there is another level to this and I think Walker and Commonsense indicated what it was: the Cracker is going on trial for the perceived historical mistreatment of Blacks. And the Cracker must be found *guilty* in this particular, and peculiar, social, ideological and cultural climate. (I refer to the way that the South and Southerners are viewed in the present. This is related to very old sectional divisions and prejudices, going back the early 19th century, that can only be understood if the ideological and descriptive history is grasped. These prejudicial attitudes are part-and-parcel of a slow-moving cultural war).

So -- but please note that I have not yet come to a definite conclusion and my approach is exploratory -- I start from the POV that it is likely (and in any case possible) that what really happened in this situation is different, perhaps some, perhaps little, and perhaps also a good deal, from what it was portrayed as being. Again, this is a tentative posture, not a decided one. (And to help you to gain a better view of my position I regard the George Floyd incident, and Chauvin's actions, not as murder but as callous manslaughter. So in regard to that entire incident -- the even itself and everything that spun out of it -- I notice *social hysteria* and the in-flow of a whole array of other agendas.

My view is that one needs to find a way to *keep one's wits about one* as one examines the stories and narratives that are provided to us and distributed to us for consumption but also for political, social and ideological manipulation.
There is no such word as 'gotten' (the only noteworthy part of your disingenuous pompous drivel).
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by Walker »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 2:51 pm
My answer is that I have developed a methodology ...
How's it working out?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 6:44 pmThere is no such word as 'gotten' (the only noteworthy part of your disingenuous pompous drivel).
Light up everyting gwarn be iree . . .
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: The Ahmaud Arbery affair

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Walker wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 7:27 pm How's it working out?
Very very well.
Post Reply