From comments to Steve Sailer:
* If you recall the Brock Turner case, he was forcibly held against his will by two Swedes on bicycles. He was in the process of digitally penetrating a woman who at some point had lost consciousness.
Potential lessons from the eager hate mob in the media regarding Arbery are as follows:
– Just because A.A. was trespassing, you have no proof from a court of law that he did anything felonious inside the property. He could just be a curious well-wisher.
– Even if A.A. did commit a felony, citizens have no right to intervene, that is what we have police for
– A.A. had a right to use deadly force against his pursuers because they were trying to infringe on his right to bodily autonomy and free movement and may have felt threatened. This is the only explanation for excusing Arbery’s attempt to get the gun. A struggle for a weapon is always a deadly force situation.
Parallels for the Brock Turner case would go something like this:
– Just because Brock’s date was very drunk and possibly unconscious, she could have signed consent-to-have-drunk-sex forms at a previous and sober time. The Swedes had no proof from a court of law that Brock Turner was doing anything illegal. He could have been her husband and this is their kink. The Swedes had no clue.
– Even if Brock Turner kidnapped and drugged the victim who he was violently raping, the Swedes had no right to intervene. That’s what we have police for.
– At the moment the Swedes used physical force to infringe on Brock Turner’s free movement, Brock had the right to use deadly force against the cyclists because his rights were violated and he felt threatened.
Is that how the story was laid out in the media? Obviously not. The cycling Swedes were lauded as heroes. Why? Because Brock Turner is white, and Ahmoud Arbery was black.
* Black on Black crime is boringly routine, and receives little attention in the media unless one or both parties happen to be celebrities.
Black on White crime is seen as a dangerous and potentially volatile storyline to be downplayed as much as possible.
White on Black crime is seen as a precious resource to be magnified and sensationalized as much as possible, i.e. “hunting Black men.”
White self defense against Black perpetrators can easily be re-cast into White on Black crime, particularly when a White policeman is involved.
* Charlotte Allen: Look, I watched the video. I’m sure that Arbery, with his criminal record, was up to no good. He was spotted by the father and son at the construction site peering into a window of an unfinished house and maybe casing it for tools he could sell or whatever. Then he continues running down the road. So the father and son drive past him and decide to do a “citizen’s arrest.” They get out of the truck with their guns. The son positions himself in front of the truck to the left with his gun to stop Arbery as he jogs past the right of the truck while the father is up in the back of the truck with his own gun, presumably covering for the son. Arbery spots the son (and maybe the father, too), who’s in plain sight from a distance and crosses in front of the trunk, tries to wrest the gun out of the son’s hands and punches him. Then, it seems, the father (coming to the son’s defense) or the son, or both, shoot Arbery and kill him.
I’m sorry, but both father and son acted like idiots. A “citizen’s arrest” over someone casing a place and then jogging off? Really? Sure, Arbery might have been up to no good, but the only crime they actually saw committed was a minor trespass: stepping onto private property. Just for starters, how did they know Arbery wasn’t armed himself?
And frankly, if some rando non-cop with a gun trained on me tried to stop me on a public road by telling me I was “under arrest,” I’d say, “Eff you!” And I’d feel perfectly justified in punching him out and grabbing the gun, if I could. People are under no obligation to submit to being stopped by armed randos, “citizen’s arrest” or no “citizen’s arrest.” They’re entitled to fight back.
Again, I’m sure that Arbery was up to no good. And I’m not sure that either McMichael committed a crime–although manslaughter is a distinct possibility. But the two acted like morons. This was not the Trayvon Martin case: nighttime, on private property, peering into people’s homes, jumping Zimmerman to the ground. It was broad daylight on a public road.
Sure, Arbery was not the holy martyr that the press has made him out to be. But the McMichaels don’t deserve a lot of sympathy, either.
