Jump to content

Racism against black people is stil a reality


RobSS
 Share

Recommended Posts

Rob lives in a world of children's cartoons as a substitute for reason and logiic, Jehovah's Witnesses Apocalypse mind control, mixed with Guardian and BBC editorials along with a side-helping of decadent and degraded metro-sexual morals....

 

There's going to be no reasoning with him Macnamara.... Everything you are trying to fight for means nothing to him.

 

It's water off a duck's back.... he's waiting for the world to end so he can climb onto his magic unicorn and ride off into the sunset...

 

 

Edited by Truthspoon
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Macnamara said:

 

that's such an ignorant comment

 

the americans are far shrewder than europeans

 

europeans have given up their guns and allowed their constitutions to be trampled all over. Americans understand the importance of these things and their gun ownership is the only thing stopping the NWO from going full martial law fema camp on the west

Americans are full of shit, just the way it is. Polarised and fecked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Details emerge On Ahmaud Arbery’s Criminal Past: Loaded Gun Brought To HS Game

Apparently, there is a back story here.

In 2013, then 19-year-old Ahmaud Arbery, who was not a student at the school where the incident occurred, brought a loaded gun to a high school basketball game. And one of the suspects now charged in his death was involved in the subsequent investigation.

 

News 4 Jax reported in 2013:

A quick acting police officer in Brunswick stopped a teenager with a loaded gun from entering a high school basketball game Tuesday night.

Police arrested 19-year-old Ahmaud Marquez Avery[sic] (pictured below), who is not a student at Brunswick.

“The man ran through the parking lot. I tried to get him to stop as well. He would not stop for us,” said Glynn County Schools Chief of Police, Rod Ellis. “We ended up chasing him to the back of the school were other officers helped us apprehend him.”

Ellis said the .380 caliber semi-automatic handgun slipped out of the teen’s pants.

 

A parent, who did not want to be identified, told Channel 4 he saw the gun as he was about to enter the school gym. He said police were everywhere.

“They were trying to keep everyone calm and away from the gun that was on the ground. They wouldn’t let anyone in or out of the gym,” said the parent.

 

The basketball game continued without interruption while police arrested Avery.

“The main thing is we stopped him from getting into the event,” Ellis said. “We don’t know what his intentions were but you know it’s never a good combination when you bring a weapon to a school event clearly when it’s posted that you can’t.”

At Friday night’s basketball game, Chief Ellis said they added more officers and from now on, every person will be scanned with a metal detecting wand.

Police said Avery[sic] is out of jail on bond.

Two of the police officers suffered injuries. One has been treated for a fractured hand.

 

The New York Post elaborated on the incident:

Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney George Barnhill revealed Greg McMichael’s ties to the victim in a letter recusing himself from the case — because his own son had a connection to Arbery, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

McMichael, 64, a former Glynn County cop who worked as an investigator in the Brunswick DA’s office, helped prosecute Arbery in the past, Barnhill said.

When Arbery, 25, was in high school, he was sentenced to five years’ probation as a first offender on charges of carrying a weapon on campus, and several counts of obstructing a law enforcement officer, the paper reported.

 

[As seen, Arbery was not a student at the school.]

In 2018, he was convicted of a probation violation after he was charged with shoplifting, according to court documents obtained by the outlet.

McMichael, who retired from the DA’s office in April 2019, never referenced his work on that probe to cops, according to the report. The DA learned about the ties “three or four weeks” earlier, he said.

 

McMichael claimed to cops he recognized Arbery from surveillance video capturing a recent burglary in his mostly white neighborhood — and that he intended to make a citizen’s arrest, the paper reported.

 

Before recusing himself, Barnhill wrote that his office did “not see grounds for an arrest” of Greg and his son, Travis McMichael, 34, according to WJXT.

“It appears Travis McMichael, Greg McMichael and [neighbor] William Bryan were following in hot pursuit of a burglary suspect with solid first-hand probable cause,” Barnhill wrote in a letter to Glynn County police Capt. Tom Jump. “Arbery initiated the fight. … At that point, Arbery grabbed the shotgun (that Travis McMichael was holding). Under Georgia law, McMichael was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself.”

Investigators have not provided any proof that Arbery was responsible for any burglaries, according to the report.

https://conservativedailypost.com/details-emerge-on-ahmaud-arberys-criminal-past-loaded-gun-brought-to-hs-game/

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Macnamara said:

 

i think you are full of shit

But then you might not have noticed, I couldn't give a flying one about what you think. 

Edited by Sheepy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

I hate to break this to you rob but the judiciary can be politicised

 

For example in scotland recently craig murray was thrown on jail for saying that a clique of women around nicola sturgeon had attempted a political character assassination of alec salmond by making false accusations against him. The judiacial system was then used by the political arm of government to silence craig

 

So what i'm talking about is a trend occuring across the system that is about disarming the law abiding section of society who are focussed on running businesses and raising families and then cutting back the police so that those people are then left vulnerable to the criminal element.

 

Then the state is releasing more criminals into society whilst allowing more to flood into the country. Its all part of a sinister agenda and if you are supporting it then you are part of the problem

 

You're deflecting. The three white men had a lawyer and their lawyer represented them in court. Instead of just relying on your memory and instead of deflecting, please look at what was said in court.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Truthspoon said:

 

Rob lives in a world of children's cartoons as a substitute for reason and logiic, Jehovah's Witnesses Apocalypse mind control, mixed with Guardian and BBC editorials along with a side-helping of decadent and degraded metro-sexual morals....

 

There's going to be no reasoning with him Macnamara.... Everything you are trying to fight for means nothing to him.

 

It's water off a duck's back.... he's waiting for the world to end so he can climb onto his magic unicorn and ride off into the sunset...

 

 

I quote cartoons that contain Kabbalistic information. You're too involved in the world of matter to see what truths they contain. That's why JC said, "Unless you become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven". You don't understand the Kabbalah. You look at it with an immature mind.

 

 

Edited by RobSS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sheepy said:

Well, look on the Brightside we both know they will repeat themselves ad nauseum and still be waiting for some kind of messiah to save them rather than realise you have to do something yourself about it. That is how it works, look at you lot being walked all over, never realising they are as well. After all they are higher level beings. LOL

 

I agree, there is no messiah who is going to come to save us. We have to take responsibility for our own personal reality and find a way to the castle in the air. Only then can Rhyme and Reason be saved.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RobSS said:

 

You're deflecting. The three white men had a lawyer and their lawyer represented them in court. Instead of just relying on your memory and instead of deflecting, please look at what was said in court.

 

 

Actually Rob, deflecting is your forum 'special move'.

 

I don't see Mac doing any deflecting. I just see him stating all the facts... which is far more than you're doing.

 

You're just wriggling like a worm on a hook.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Truthspoon said:

 

Actually Rob, deflecting is your forum 'special move'.

 

I don't see Mac doing any deflecting. I just see him stating all the facts... which is far more than you're doing.

 

You're just wriggling like a worm on a hook.

 

 

How am I wriggling or deflecting? You didn't say. Just saying something doesn't automatically make it so!

 

Nice try but nothing t see here!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as an aside, there is an angle to this which nobody ever really considers. This is not directed at any particular person, more everyone.

 

There aren't really any 'black people' or 'white people' as such. There are only varying shades in between. Because the terms are literally polarizing, they make 'othering' easier and keep different racial groups feeling more separate from each other. I have never seen a black or a white person. Humans create divisive language and then wonder why we have a society characterised by division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Macnamara said:

From memory his method as a thief was to run into places and steal things. I think he'd been doing that with shops but i'd need to double check that as this was one story of hundreds i have looked at this year and it wasn't a particularly important one in terms of the grand scheme of the conspiracy (which is the lens through which i view these stories)

 

I think the court was not shown his criminal past.

Evidence the Arbery jury never heard: Storekeepers nicknamed Ahmaud 'The Jogger' for stealing and running away

Before they reached their verdict, the jury - made up of 11 white people and one black person - was presented with hours of testimony, investigator evidence photos, police body camera video, autopsy reports and more, but five arguments were not allowed to be presented. 

They included Arbery's mental health records and criminal history, and the fact that trace amounts of THC were found in his blood after his death.

The judge also refused to allow evidence that claimed Arbery was known as 'The Jogger' in the neighborhood because he would jog to convenience stores, and run out with stolen goods, according to witnesses.

These are the key points the 11 white and one black juror did not hear:  

Judge ruled Ahmaud Arbery's mental health and criminal history were not relevant to the case

Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley ruled the defense could not submit any information regarding Ahmaud Arbery's mental health or criminal history.

The black jogger was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder in 2018 after a June incident in which his mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, called 911 when he refused to hand over her car keys.

According to the filing from defense attorney Robert Rubin, Cooper-Jones told the dispatcher that Arbery would become violent if police were confrontational.

Walmsley also ruled the jury would not hear how Arbery was on probation for two crimes at the time of his death.

He had brought a handgun to school in 2013 and fled when confronted by police. 

Six years later he was caught attempting to shoplift a television.

The defense argued that Arbery's criminal record demonstrated how he 'used running or jogging as a cover to commit crimes' and that he had a pattern of fleeing or responding aggressively to confrontation.

Walmsley ruled it was inadmissible because the defendants were unaware of Arbery's past at the time of the murder. 

 

A trace of THC was found in Ahmaud Arbery's blood

The jury in Ahmaud Arbery's murder trial did not see the toxicology report revealing a small amount of THC, a psychoactive compound in marijuana, found in his blood.

Prosecutors from the Cobb County district attorney's office said initial tests on Arbery's body found no trace of drugs. 

A second test found 3.2 nanograms per milliliter of THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, in his blood, which they called a tiny amount.

The defense argued in favor of presenting the toxicology report to the jury, stating Arbery had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and that smoking marijuana can cause aggression in someone with this condition
 
+37
  •  

The defense argued in favor of presenting the toxicology report to the jury, stating Arbery had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and that smoking marijuana can cause aggression in someone with this condition

Prosecutor Linda Dunikoski said at the time of the ruling that the toxicology reports were irrelevant to the case: 'Why Mr. Arbery did anything he did is completely irrelevant. The question is about what the defendants did, and they knew nothing about what was in his system.'

The defense, however, argued that Arbery had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and that smoking marijuana can cause aggression in someone with this condition. 

Travis McMichael 'called Ahmaud Arbery a racial slur after he shot him'

The prosecution pushed Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley to allow evidence that gunman Travis McMichael called Ahmaud Arbery a racial slur after he shot him to be presented to the jury, however the request was denied. 

A special agent with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) said William 'Roddie' Bryan Jr said during a May 2020 interview that McMichael called Arbery as 'f***ing n*****' as the black jogger laid on the pavement, dying from the gunshot wounds.

Defense attorney Jason Sheffield has denied that his client, Travis McMichael, used the slur.

Prosecutor Linda Dunikoski has argued 'racial animus' behind the slaying throughout the trial and wanted to question McMichael about the comment.

It was not admissible in court as Bryan, who heard the alleged comment, never took the stand to testify. 

Ahmaud Arbery was known as 'The Jogger' by members of his community for 'in-and-out convenience store thefts'

Ahmaud Arbery, who was fatally shot in February 2020, was known by members of his community as 'The Jogger,' according to Georgia court documents filed last December. 

Witnesses claim Arbery would run in and out of local convenience stores, with some alleging he committed crimes while doing so.

'In 2019 and 2020, local convenience store witness interviews reveal Mr. Arbery became known as 'The Jogger' for his repeated conduct and behavior of running up, stretching in front, and then entering several convenience stores where he would grab items and run out before he got caught,' an excerpt from the document read.

Cell phone video from another witness, captured in 2020, revealed that Arbery was confronted by store employees about his alleged thefts.

50879335-10234217-image-a-11_16377831588
 
+37
  •  
Ahmaud Arbery was known by members of his community as 'The Jogger,' according to Georgia court documents (excerpt above) filed last December
 
+37
  •  

Ahmaud Arbery was known by members of his community as 'The Jogger,' according to Georgia court documents (excerpt above) filed last December

'Mr. Arbery, concerned about his thefts, chose to fight a man who worked on location at the adjacent truck stop who tried to confront him about it,' the report stated.

Judge Timothy Walmsley ruled that Arbery's past, including the alleged convenience store thefts, were not relevant to the case because the defendants were not aware of it at the time of the shooting. 

The prosecution also planned to show the jury Arbery's Nike running shoes during medical examiner Dr. Edmund Donoghue's testimony, in effort to support their argument that he was a jogger who was unfairly targeted.

However, the state ultimately changed course after the defense argued the presentation of Arbery's shoes could lead to arguments about his activities the day of the shooting.

http://www.womensystems.com/2021/11/evidence-arbery-jury-never-heard.html

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How Did Ahmaud Arbery's 3 Assailants End Up With 12 Murder Convictions?

 

 There were a lot of guilty verdicts read out last week at the close of the Ahmaud Arbery trial, something that likely came as a shock to very few people. After all, footage showed Travis McMichael killing the Georgia man after he and two others tracked Arbery down in their trucks and blocked him from escaping. But one part may have been confusing: How did three men rack up a collective 12 murder convictions after McMichael shot one person?

For that, we can look primarily to the felony murder rule, which allows the government to charge you with murder while subsequently acknowledging you didn't actually kill anyone, so long as the killing happened while you were committing a related felony. (McMichael was also found guilty of an additional count of malice murder.) 

His father, Gregory McMichael, and friend, William "Roddie" Bryan, were convicted on a slew of charges related to their reprehensible conduct that day: aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and criminal attempt to commit a felony. They were thus found guilty of felony murder associated with each one of those tangential convictions.

The vast majority of the country supported that verdict. That isn't surprising; Arbery's death is—at least in my view—an open and shut moral case. That the murder was undergirded by racism is not speculative. It can be found in the younger McMichael's own words: Bryan, who filmed the encounter, told investigators that, after shooting Arbery dead, McMichael called him a "fucking nigger."

It would thus be tempting now to associate the words "felony murder" with fairness and justice. But high-profile trials are a lousy way of assessing the criminal justice system. It's understandable some would assume that individual proceedings are microcosms for the broader machine. That's not true. The Arbery case is no exception.

The felony murder rule "divorces intent from consequence," says Lara Bazelon, a professor of law at the University of San Francisco. "The concept is that, well, if you went along for the underlying felony, if you went along for the less serious act…then you're just as guilty as [the murderer], even if you didn't know that your co-defendant was armed, and even if you had no intent to kill yourself."

That scenario is not a hypothetical. In May 2020, not long before Arbery's convicted murderers were indicted, Jenna Holm was arrested on a manslaughter charge in Idaho, accused of killing a police officer after he arrived to respond to her apparent mental health crisis. But it wasn't Holm who killed Bonneville County Sheriff's Deputy Wyatt Maser—something the state conceded. It was another cop, who struck Maser in his vehicle when he drove onto the scene.

While an internal investigation revealed the officers disregarded safety procedures that night, the police eschewed introspection and set their sights on Holm, charging her with an "unlawful act" and tacking a manslaughter charge on top. (A judge recently struck it down, but only after Holm sat in jail for 16 months pre-trial.)

There are many more such stories. In December 2018, 16-year-old Masonique Saunders was charged with the felony murder of her boyfriend, who a police officer shot during the commission of a robbery. Because she allegedly helped plan that burglary, Ohio said the teen effectively killed her own partner. But perhaps the most iconic anecdote associated with the felony murder rule is the unfortunate story of Ryan Holle, who was sentenced to life in prison after he lent his car to some friends. Those friends then used it to commit a crime—also a burglary—which went horribly awry after one of the men found a firearm in the house they were robbing and used it to kill 18-year-old Jessica Snyder.

Holle was a mile and a half away from that scene, but he was treated no differently than Charles Miller, Jr., who saw that gun and spontaneously murdered Snyder. "Felony murder says you are just as liable, you are just as guilty as the person who pulled the trigger," notes Bazelon. In 2015, Holle's sentence was commuted to 25 years in prison; he will not be released until 2024.

Indeed, the felony murder rule has long been a popular target among people interested in criminal justice reform. Yet those principles are decidedly more difficult to apply when the defendants are as unsympathetic as those in the Arbery case, which is why someone like Bazelon may find herself on a smaller island than usual.

"If you believe in your heart that felony murder is wrong because it overcriminalizes, and you're a believer that you should be guilty of what you intend to do—no more no less—then you have to stick with that," she says, "even when the people who are convicted are people that you dislike, and in your heart you feel, you know what, they deserve it."

Bazelon admits that she did feel that way toward the two defendants who didn't pull the trigger—that she had to resist the gut urge to celebrate the ruling as just. It's hard to blame her. But ultimately taking issue with Gregory McMichael and Bryan's collective seven murder convictions is not synonymous with hoping they'd walk free. 

Consider Bryan's involvement: The McMichaels' neighbor pursued Arbery in a separate vehicle, admittedly using his truck to cut off Arbery's route of escape and allegedly hitting him in the process. For the latter action alone, he was convicted of aggravated assault, which, under Georgia law, carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. And that's to say nothing of his other convictions.

His behavior was "incredibly reckless and dangerous," Bazelon says. "But there's no evidence that he intended to murder him."

From a purely legal perspective, that Georgia jury still got it right. "It's a correct use of Georgia felony murder law. This is exactly what the law was designed to do," she tells me. "And it makes me uncomfortable….If you are a principled thinker and you are a professor of law, and you have moral principles and beliefs, then you have to apply them to everybody." For that to include the Holms and the Saunderses and the Holles of the world, that necessarily also has to include a McMichael and a Bryan—no matter how unsavory it may be.

https://www.cracknewz.com/2021/12/how-did-ahmaud-arberys-3-assailants-end.html

a comment below the article:

Curmudgeon_49 a month ago
From a purely legal perspective, that Georgia jury still got it right.

 

Did they?
The 3 men didn't "block" Arbery, They were at an intersection. Arbery turned and ran at the younger McMichael. The 9-1-1 call had just finished as Arbery approached, and the call stated their location, and why they were there - to tell the police which way Arbery was going. The McMichaels didn't even know Bryan, or that he was following.
The original DA who wrote a report, and concluded there was nothing to charge them for. All of the evidence, including the Bryan video, supported the McMichaels' version of events, including one wound to Arbery's hand, consistent with him trying to grab the gun. The DA then realized he knew who the older McMichael was, and withdrew from the case in order to prevent any appearance of conflict of interest.
This was a political show trial.

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

How Did Ahmaud Arbery's 3 Assailants End Up With 12 Murder Convictions?

 

 There were a lot of guilty verdicts read out last week at the close of the Ahmaud Arbery trial, something that likely came as a shock to very few people. After all, footage showed Travis McMichael killing the Georgia man after he and two others tracked Arbery down in their trucks and blocked him from escaping. But one part may have been confusing: How did three men rack up a collective 12 murder convictions after McMichael shot one person?

For that, we can look primarily to the felony murder rule, which allows the government to charge you with murder while subsequently acknowledging you didn't actually kill anyone, so long as the killing happened while you were committing a related felony. (McMichael was also found guilty of an additional count of malice murder.) 

His father, Gregory McMichael, and friend, William "Roddie" Bryan, were convicted on a slew of charges related to their reprehensible conduct that day: aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and criminal attempt to commit a felony. They were thus found guilty of felony murder associated with each one of those tangential convictions.

The vast majority of the country supported that verdict. That isn't surprising; Arbery's death is—at least in my view—an open and shut moral case. That the murder was undergirded by racism is not speculative. It can be found in the younger McMichael's own words: Bryan, who filmed the encounter, told investigators that, after shooting Arbery dead, McMichael called him a "fucking nigger."

It would thus be tempting now to associate the words "felony murder" with fairness and justice. But high-profile trials are a lousy way of assessing the criminal justice system. It's understandable some would assume that individual proceedings are microcosms for the broader machine. That's not true. The Arbery case is no exception.

The felony murder rule "divorces intent from consequence," says Lara Bazelon, a professor of law at the University of San Francisco. "The concept is that, well, if you went along for the underlying felony, if you went along for the less serious act…then you're just as guilty as [the murderer], even if you didn't know that your co-defendant was armed, and even if you had no intent to kill yourself."

That scenario is not a hypothetical. In May 2020, not long before Arbery's convicted murderers were indicted, Jenna Holm was arrested on a manslaughter charge in Idaho, accused of killing a police officer after he arrived to respond to her apparent mental health crisis. But it wasn't Holm who killed Bonneville County Sheriff's Deputy Wyatt Maser—something the state conceded. It was another cop, who struck Maser in his vehicle when he drove onto the scene.

While an internal investigation revealed the officers disregarded safety procedures that night, the police eschewed introspection and set their sights on Holm, charging her with an "unlawful act" and tacking a manslaughter charge on top. (A judge recently struck it down, but only after Holm sat in jail for 16 months pre-trial.)

There are many more such stories. In December 2018, 16-year-old Masonique Saunders was charged with the felony murder of her boyfriend, who a police officer shot during the commission of a robbery. Because she allegedly helped plan that burglary, Ohio said the teen effectively killed her own partner. But perhaps the most iconic anecdote associated with the felony murder rule is the unfortunate story of Ryan Holle, who was sentenced to life in prison after he lent his car to some friends. Those friends then used it to commit a crime—also a burglary—which went horribly awry after one of the men found a firearm in the house they were robbing and used it to kill 18-year-old Jessica Snyder.

Holle was a mile and a half away from that scene, but he was treated no differently than Charles Miller, Jr., who saw that gun and spontaneously murdered Snyder. "Felony murder says you are just as liable, you are just as guilty as the person who pulled the trigger," notes Bazelon. In 2015, Holle's sentence was commuted to 25 years in prison; he will not be released until 2024.

Indeed, the felony murder rule has long been a popular target among people interested in criminal justice reform. Yet those principles are decidedly more difficult to apply when the defendants are as unsympathetic as those in the Arbery case, which is why someone like Bazelon may find herself on a smaller island than usual.

"If you believe in your heart that felony murder is wrong because it overcriminalizes, and you're a believer that you should be guilty of what you intend to do—no more no less—then you have to stick with that," she says, "even when the people who are convicted are people that you dislike, and in your heart you feel, you know what, they deserve it."

Bazelon admits that she did feel that way toward the two defendants who didn't pull the trigger—that she had to resist the gut urge to celebrate the ruling as just. It's hard to blame her. But ultimately taking issue with Gregory McMichael and Bryan's collective seven murder convictions is not synonymous with hoping they'd walk free. 

Consider Bryan's involvement: The McMichaels' neighbor pursued Arbery in a separate vehicle, admittedly using his truck to cut off Arbery's route of escape and allegedly hitting him in the process. For the latter action alone, he was convicted of aggravated assault, which, under Georgia law, carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. And that's to say nothing of his other convictions.

His behavior was "incredibly reckless and dangerous," Bazelon says. "But there's no evidence that he intended to murder him."

From a purely legal perspective, that Georgia jury still got it right. "It's a correct use of Georgia felony murder law. This is exactly what the law was designed to do," she tells me. "And it makes me uncomfortable….If you are a principled thinker and you are a professor of law, and you have moral principles and beliefs, then you have to apply them to everybody." For that to include the Holms and the Saunderses and the Holles of the world, that necessarily also has to include a McMichael and a Bryan—no matter how unsavory it may be.

https://www.cracknewz.com/2021/12/how-did-ahmaud-arberys-3-assailants-end.html

a comment below the article:

Curmudgeon_49 a month ago
From a purely legal perspective, that Georgia jury still got it right.

 

Did they?
The 3 men didn't "block" Arbery, They were at an intersection. Arbery turned and ran at the younger McMichael. The 9-1-1 call had just finished as Arbery approached, and the call stated their location, and why they were there - to tell the police which way Arbery was going. The McMichaels didn't even know Bryan, or that he was following.
The original DA who wrote a report, and concluded there was nothing to charge them for. All of the evidence, including the Bryan video, supported the McMichaels' version of events, including one wound to Arbery's hand, consistent with him trying to grab the gun. The DA then realized he knew who the older McMichael was, and withdrew from the case in order to prevent any appearance of conflict of interest.
This was a political show trial.

 

The case I chose to show that racism against coloured people still exists in America may not have been the best example, and Mac is good at smoke and mirror deflections, but there are still many other cases, like the George Lloyd murder. I'm sure I could  find many other examples of hatred directed at coloured people in America and the UK case I cited hasn't been disputed, but to say that such discrimination doesn't exist is just a perversion of the truth, and in reality all people are coloured, anyway. In addition to all that, we also have to address a new form of discrimination... that of the discrimination of people who have not been vaccinated.

 

The lengths some people go to focus on the faults of a coloured person, all the time distracting away from the reality 3 white men were criminal to take the law into their own hands.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RobSS said:

The case I chose to show that racism against coloured people still exists in America may not have been the best example

 

Well the piece i posted above DOES flag up something in that there was an accusation that the shooter used a racial slur and it sounds like that person may have said some other stuff on social media. maybe the guy is a racist or maybe he just takes a dim view of a particular criminal element but not all black people.....i don't know....i have no idea what's in that guys mind

 

I don't think they should have shot the guy (challenging him obviously didn't turn out to be such a good move) so clearly there needs to be some sort of justice so it's not like i'm mounting some sort of defence of their actions here

 

What i'm trying to do though is see whats going on in the context of the wider picture

 

The wider picture looks to me as if there are people trying to stir up racial tensions. The same people behind those moves to create those tensions are also flooding people into the country illegally, defunding the police, paying district attorneys to release criminals into the public, trying to disarm the public, reforming laws to make it harder for citizens to carry out citizens arrests and politicising every crisis in favour of criminals and harshly punishing anyone who takes the law into their own hands (if the police are increasingly cut back or hamstrung then who IS going to stand against criminals?)

 

when you join up all of those dots what picture emerges? what kind of situation do you think the people behind all of that are trying to create? It looks to me like their fantasy is to create a dangerous society and then leave the public completely vulnerable to it

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

The wider picture looks to me as if there are people trying to stir up racial tensions. The same people behind those moves to create those tensions are also flooding people into the country illegally, defunding the police, paying district attorneys to release criminals into the public, trying to disarm the public, reforming laws to make it harder for citizens to carry out citizens arrests and politicising every crisis in favour of criminals and harshly punishing anyone who takes the law into their own hands (if the police are increasingly cut back or hamstrung then who IS going to stand against criminals?)

 

when you join up all of those dots what picture emerges? what kind of situation do you think the people behind all of that are trying to create?

 

I agree with the text I highlighted, but if you were genuinely interested in healing divisions, why do you ignore provocative comments, such as when a poster - one of your allies - says, "the only racism that exists in the UK now is anti-white racism", then you should ask why that person thinks like that because what they've said isn't true. - what you say doesn't make sense.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RobSS said:

one of your allies

 

what connection do you think i have to them?

 

i speak for myself and they speak for themself....end of story

 

I'm no more responsible for what they say then what anyone else says

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Macnamara said:

 

what connection do you think i have to them?

 

i speak for myself and they speak for themself....end of story

 

I have noted that sometimes you do make an effort to create an atmosphere that's good for reconciliation, such as when you wrote, "People of all skin colours are going to need to give consideration to what they value.....what they want to protect so that it carries forward into what's coming next."

 

I'll leave it to the poster who wrote, "the only racism that exists in the UK now is anti-white racism", to speak for themselves.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RobSS said:

 if you were genuinely interested in healing divisions

 

The problem is rob that there are two different schools of thought on how to 'heal' the divisions and the two schools are completely at odds

 

One school says that there is NOTHING wrong with flooding millions of people into the UK and if a person has a problem with that then it is simply that they have a sickness (racism) in their mind that they must cure themself of so that they can stand aside and passively accept what is going on and any consequences of it

 

The second school of thought says that the problem is the massive inflows of people into the country and therefore the solution to the problem is to end those inflows of people

 

One school of thought supports MASS immigration and brands anyone who disagrees with it as a 'racist' and the second school of thought wants MASS immigration to stop before a calamity happens

 

The first school of thought reduces everything down to race whilst the second school of thought is looking at all kinds of impacts of MASS immigration from economics to societal cohesion, to crime, to culture, to religion, to language, to shared history and sense of self and nationhood (identity) and a whole host of other issues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Macnamara said:

 

The problem is rob that there are two different schools of thought on how to 'heal' the divisions and the two schools are completely at odds

 

One school says that there is NOTHING wrong with flooding millions of people into the UK and if a person has a problem with that then it is simply that they have a sickness (racism) in their mind that they must cure themself of so that they can stand aside and passively accept what is going on and any consequences of it

 

The second school of thought says that the problem is the massive inflows of people into the country and therefore the solution to the problem is to end those inflows of people

 

One school of thought supports MASS immigration and brands anyone who disagrees with it as a 'racist' and the second school of thought wants MASS immigration to stop before a calamity happens

 

The first school of thought reduces everything down to race whilst the second school of thought is looking at all kinds of impacts of MASS immigration from economics to societal cohesion, to crime, to culture, to religion, to language, to shared history and sense of self and nationhood (identity) and a whole host of other issues

 

These are all political issues. I'm not a politician and I'm not interested in politics. It's all a pantomime.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RobSS said:

I have noted that sometimes you do make an effort to create an atmosphere that's good for reconciliation, such as when you wrote, "People of all skin colours are going to need to give consideration to what they value.....what they want to protect so that it carries forward into what's coming next."

 

yes because i subscribe to the second school of thought which wants to avoid a calamity and which is asking all the people who currently reside in the country if they really want the country and culture to change towards a form of psuedo-corporate, globalised, spiritual nihilism or if they actually want to maintain some of the good things about british and western culture

 

If they actually want to maintain some of these things like: wagner (which i know you like), christendom, the common law and many other things that would be lost, then they need to be looking to pull the brakes onto mass immigration before britain becomes nothing more than a soup of antagonistic groups with no coherent identity that are all squabbling amongst themselves before a terrible crisis occurs which the globalists then use to justify the imposition of their worldwide technocracy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RobSS said:

These are all political issues. I'm not a politician and I'm not interested in politics. It's all a pantomime.

 

you picked a HIGHLY POLITICISED legal case

 

The other stand out case of the year being the rittenhouse case where a guy who was protecting the business of a non-white family from antifa arsonists who all have ties to the mega corporations that get them to target mom and pop businesses because they want to hollow out middle america so that they can buy up everything and turn it all into a satanic, corporate hellscape, was accused of being a 'white supremacist' by the fake-left CORPORATE media

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

yes because i subscribe to the second school of thought which wants to avoid a calamity and which is asking all the people who currently reside in the country if they really want the country and culture to change towards a form of psuedo-corporate, globalised, spiritual nihilism or if they actually want to maintain some of the good things about british and western culture

 

If they actually want to maintain some of these things like: wagner (which i know you like), christendom, the common law and many other things that would be lost, then they need to be looking to pull the brakes onto mass immigration before britain becomes nothing more than a soup of antagonistic groups with no coherent identity that are all squabbling amongst themselves before a terrible crisis occurs which the globalists then use to justify the imposition of their worldwide technocracy

 

I understand you're looking to politics for a solution. I'm looking for a solution in preserving the culture through art, creativity and working with people.

 

Edited by RobSS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...