Ahmaud Arbery killing trial

[Chris Wilson]

Who let the speakers corner loonies out again?

When the sycophancy becomes overwhelming they'll occasionally form a raiding party into the wilds of GD before scurrying back to safety

 

[Freakbro]

Is it the size of the chip on your shoulder that causes your knuckles to drag on the floor?

 

[The Running Man]

Surely the only fact that matters is whether he was murdered? Yes he was a **** human being by the look of it but that doesn't mean he deserved to die.

Absolutely. He did not deserve to be killed for what he did 100%.

I'm just pointing out that the narrative is again an angelic looking 13 year old, who dud no harm.

Yet he was actually 25/26, ex con with a history of shoplifting and other worse crimes to his name.

My point is, if you can call the offenders *** hats for their actions what could you also call the victim?


From his mother to the court:

Before Wanda Cooper-Jones gave her plea, she said she wanted to talk directly to her son, saying raising him was the honor of her life.

"Your honor, I'm standing here before you as the mother of Ahmaud Arbery asking you to please give all three defendants who are responsible for the death of my son the maximum punishment in this court, which I do believe is life behind bars without the possible chance for parole."

I bet she didn't say that when he was being charged with taking a firearm to a school campus or after stealing a TV etc.

It's the contrary voice of unreasonable fire and brimstone that troubles me most.

 

[NVP]

What's troubling about motherly love?

 

[C Kent]

Absolutely. He did not deserve to be killed for what he did 100%.

I'm just pointing out that the narrative is again an angelic looking 13 year old, who dud no harm.

Yet he was actually 25/26, ex con with a history of shoplifting and other worse crimes to his name.

My point is, if you can call the offenders *** hats for their actions what could you also call the victim?


From his mother to the court:





I bet she didn't say that when he was being charged with taking a firearm to a school campus or after stealing a TV etc.

It's the contrary voice of unreasonable fire and brimstone that troubles me most.

But it's nothing new though is it, the media have a narrative they need to portray when there's a racially motivated killing so they will find the most innocent looking picture to use when it's a black man killed by another ethnicity. Everyone knows it, but by continuously pointing it out all you are doing is just giving the usual crowd more ammunition in their 'he's a racist' drivel (I know you don't give a flying **** what an anonymous forum user thinks), but you aren't going to change anyone's opinion.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

So you're saying that because he is black and a conservative he must be a grifter.
Oh look these two clowns dismissing a person as a grifter because of the colour of their skin and political position. Colour me surprised.

Any black person that doesn't tow the political or social viewpoint of those on the left is a grifter, surely you've figured that out by now.

No I'm not saying that. I said he could well be a true hardliner conservative. I also said he is paid because he holds/says those views. He is widely quoted on sites like patriots.win, formally donald.win which is about as crazy a hard right/MAGA site as you will find and the most popular website for that crowd. He makes his living by saying what he says. If he changed his tune do you think his YT channel would get the same views? Would his patreon still have as many subscribers? Would his merch store still sell well? Of course his colour and his previous career comes into it, MAGA types love a person of colour that sides with them, they feel it gives them legitimacy. However I wouldn't go to someone on the right or left who's income was completely reliant on towing a political line, especially on something like the law. Impartial he most certainly is not.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Absolutely. He did not deserve to be killed for what he did 100%.

I'm just pointing out that the narrative is again an angelic looking 13 year old, who dud no harm.

Yet he was actually 25/26, ex con with a history of shoplifting and other worse crimes to his name.

My point is, if you can call the offenders *** hats for their actions what could you also call the victim?


From his mother to the court:





I bet she didn't say that when he was being charged with taking a firearm to a school campus or after stealing a TV etc.

It's the contrary voice of unreasonable fire and brimstone that troubles me most.

But it's nothing new though is it, the media have a narrative they need to portray when there's a racially motivated killing so they will find the most innocent looking picture to use when it's a black man killed by another ethnicity. Everyone knows it, but by continuously pointing it out all you are doing is just giving the usual crowd more ammunition in their 'he's a racist' drivel (I know you don't give a flying **** what an anonymous forum user thinks), but you aren't going to change anyone's opinion.

You are talking like this a white/black thing. Every media outlet always finds an angelic looking picture of the victim and a nasty looking one for the perpetrator. It has nothing to do with colour of skin.

This murder did have something to do with colour of skin though, the way you are painting it though is that the media only grabbed hold of it because he was black, which is false. They grabbed hold of it because the state officials tried their very best to bury it and only when the video was released by a lawyer were they left with no choice but to do something. That may well be because he was black and the killers were white, we will have to see what comes out, it might just be because they knew the father but regardless from the first interaction with the police to the district attorneys, the killers were protected and the victim was blamed. It shouldn't take a video being released months later by a lawyer to get justice.

 

[C Kent]

You are talking like this a white/black thing. Every media outlet always finds an angelic looking picture of the victim and a nasty looking one for the perpetrator. It has nothing to do with colour of skin.

This murder did have something to do with colour of skin though, the way you are painting it though is that the media only grabbed hold of it because he was black, which is false. They grabbed hold of it because the state officials tried their very best to bury it and only when the video was released by a lawyer were they left with no choice but to do something. That may well be because he was black and the killers were white, we will have to see what comes out, it might just be because they knew the father but regardless from the first interaction with the police to the district attorneys, the killers were protected and the victim was blamed. It shouldn't take a video being released months later by a lawyer to get justice.

I know it was a racially motivated killing, my very 1st post in this thread was stating that. Justice has prevailed with the conviction. As to the original DA, from what I can see (I haven't looked to hard mine you), was trying to get something swept under the carpet as they knew the murderers?

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

No I'm not saying that. I said he could well be a true hardliner conservative. I also said he is paid because he holds/says those views.

Oh so you were implying that he's a grifter.

He is widely quoted on sites like patriots.win, formally donald.win which is about as crazy a hard right/MAGA site as you will find and the most popular website for that crowd. .

Who quotes him is literally irrelevant. What he says is what is important. The fact that I have had to explicitly say that is a joke. This is you clutching at straws.

He makes his living by saying what he says. If he changed his tune do you think his YT channel would get the same views? Would his patreon still have as many subscribers? Would his merch store still sell well?

By your logic, news channels are grifters.
What came first the chicken or the egg?
Did his political opinion form around making money or did the opportunity to make money form around his political opinions? Because one is grifting and one isn't. Assuming we are using the proper definition of grifting and not some modern age ******** definition

Seems like you just like throwing **** at the wall and hope that something sticks.

Of course his colour and his previous career comes into it, MAGA types love a person of colour that sides with them, they feel it gives them legitimacy.

The exact same thing could be said about the left.

However I wouldn't go to someone on the right or left who's income was completely reliant on towing a political line, especially on something like the law. Impartial he most certainly is not.

The only good point you have raised in your wall of text and it's just an opinion. I hope you apply the same standard to news channels because it would be awkward if you don't.

 

[ianh]

Ah Klinck with another unrepentant "black conservatives are just grifters" attack. Imagine being so bigoted that to them it's impossible than a black person could actually hold conservative views for genuine reasons, because Klinck seems to think that, as all black people are a single homologous group with only one universal opinion, any black person whose opinion differs from what Klinck believes a black person should think must only be doing it as a grift.

 

[VincentHanna]

Ah Klinck with another unrepentant "black conservatives are just grifters" attack. Imagine being so bigoted that to them it's impossible than a black person could actually hold conservative views for genuine reasons, because Klinck seems to think that

I've highlighted the relevant part for you.

He is paid to have that opinion. He makes his money by spouting right wing talking points, its his job. What ever the talking points are on the right he says that. The fact he's an ex cop and doing that is how he makes his money. Now I have no issue with him doing it, fair play to the guy, he's grifting away and doing very well for himself. He probably is very conservative. Just don't expect me to take anything he says seriously.

I love Youtube, but I don't watch anything remotely political on there, right or left.

The problem is that they look at their Youtube creator stats, work out what videos get the most views (and therefore make the most money) and concentrate on that type of content. Which means they are playing to an audience for clicks/money and any impartiality goes out the window.

 

[The Running Man]

But it's nothing new though is it, the media have a narrative they need to portray when there's a racially motivated killing so they will find the most innocent looking picture to use when it's a black man killed by another ethnicity. Everyone knows it, but by continuously pointing it out all you are doing is just giving the usual crowd more ammunition in their 'he's a racist' drivel (I know you don't give a flying **** what an anonymous forum user thinks), but you aren't going to change anyone's opinion.

The killing was crime related (or suspected crime related) not specifically race related.

Unless they literally went rounding up innocent black people shooting them all then there is no definitive reason to believe they were motivated purely by race rather than believing him to be a crime suspect who happened to be black.

Did they have a history or murdering black people?

 

[hurfdurf]

The killing was crime related (or suspected crime related) not specifically race related.

Unless they literally went rounding up innocent black people shooting them all then there is no definitive reason to believe they were motivated purely by race rather than believing him to be a crime suspect who happened to be black.

Did they have a history or murdering black people?

How many white people did they kill in a lynching style? Is it just a coincidence the victim happened to be black?

 

[i-bert]

He is paid to have that opinion.

I also said he is paid because he holds/says those views.

There is a big difference in those two statements.

He gets paid because people agree with what he is saying, hence his popularity. Do you think that if he talked nonsense that he would be so popular? That's not how it works. People are crying out to listen to people with common sense, because it is never shown in the MSM.

 

[ianh]

I've highlighted the relevant part for you.

Allow me to do the same -

If he changed his tune do you think his YT channel would get the same views? Would his patreon still have as many subscribers? Would his merch store still sell well? Of course his colour and his previous career comes into it, MAGA types love a person of colour that sides with them, they feel it gives them legitimacy.

Klinck has seemingly decided that this black man is holding his views as a grift, that he's doing it to earn money by spouting Conservative viewpoints as a way to earn money and Klinck believes he won't risk giving what Klinck believes is the "correct view a black man should hold" (my words not his) incase he loses money.

 

[i-bert]

The arrogance shown in here is shocking. It's like when Biden said that if you didn't vote for him, then you aren't black.

 

[The Running Man]

How many white people did they kill in a lynching style? Is it just a coincidence the victim happened to be black?

These 3 didn't kill any like that as far as I'm aware.

 

[Freddie1980]

Not much to say, guilty of evil crime and sentanced accordingly.

 

[diamount]

Not much to say, guilty of evil crime and sentanced accordingly.

Indeed - what more needs to be said? Thread should be closed imo.

 

[Tony Edwards]

So you're saying that because he is black and a conservative he must be a grifter.
Oh look these two clowns dismissing a person as a grifter because of the colour of their skin and political position. Colour me surprised.

Any black person that doesn't tow the political or social viewpoint of those on the left is a grifter, surely you've figured that out by now.

It is the actual grifting that makes them grifters.

Is this person in the video saying the victim ask to be killed or deserved to be killed or what? What was the actual purpose of the video?