I'm not really sure what your takeaway is here because you've left it kind of vague, but we know that the truck that the shooter was in was chasing Arbery and had attempted to cut him off several times. This is not disputed. Like, you seem to be so focused on "what do we have on video", but for most homicides, we don't even have this much. It seems like a strange thing to zero your focus on, because if video is the end-all-be-all, then we would we would almost never be prosecuting anyone...

I like video. It attests without bias.

When video is not available, one has to try to gather information and try to reconstruct what happened and I'd rather leave that up to lawyers and courts to take care of. They're at least getting paid for it.

"How far are you going to push those goal posts?"

>What goal posts were set up to begin with?

"First you had incorrect information about the case.

Then I told the specifics of the case.

Then you said, "I still need to see what sort of verbal interaction occurred between the gunmen and Arbery."

Then I told you what McMichael said to Arbery."

>Yeah, I asked I needed to SEE what sort of verbal interactions occurred. You simply TOLD me without providing video evidence (if it exists). In this day and age where every smart phone comes equipped with cameras, this is not such an unusual request.

"Now you're asking for a recording of this statement.

No matter what we provide, you're going to push it further all in a thinly veiled attempt at due diligence."

>Now you're being paranoid. Recall earlier in this thread when I asked for video of Arbery's shooting. Torillian provided it and I accepted it in good faith. Video is the ultimate evidence for me.

You gotta show me x happened, you can't just tell me x happened. My standards are high, annoyingly so I admit.

"Funny, because to me "without bias" would mean assuming the guy that got murdered was the victim and it wasn't his fault."

>But this IS bias. You're assuming the person who was shot in an altercation was the original victim when that's not always so...

"And if you're not biased a video that shows that the murdered guy was black wouldn't change that..."

>I'm not biased then. The fact that Arbery was black makes zero difference to me. I just wanna know what happened and who did what and when.

I would say your standards are not high but low.  You really have not defended why you would need to hear verbal statements from the people who killed the victim.  You have not explain why this would have any meaning since armed people who are chasing a civilian without any police authority has the right to kill a civilian or confront that civilian with guns. You have not presented any arguments on why one of the gunmen in the truck with a shotgun got out of the Truck after blocking the victim path.  Instead what you have done is just give everyone the run around on needing to know what armed gunmen chasing a civilian says as if that matter.

The main fact of the situation is that armed men, chased a civilian by their own account of the situation, tried to force the victim to stop without any authority from the police and shot and killed that civilian by their carelessness.  The armed gunmen forced the situation by first impeding the civilian route, then they escalated the situtation by the gunmen getting out of the truck to confront the civilian with a shutgun.  If you have any way to dispute these simple issues lets here it, if not please stop with the pretend standards because its evident you care little about the details of the situation.

I doubt you would be here arguing about needing to hear what armed people chasing you are saying if you got shot in the process.  Hell, they could have told the victim they just want to take him to get ice cream would that make a difference.

And thats fine, but essentially what you are doing is railroading the conversation. You are free to not participate, but to participate in a means which continually demands further information towards a fairly impossible standard is just pointless. You are not pushing the conversation in any direction, refuting any point or presenting any of your own. When you continually respond to people who are making points, asking for more information which you could easily google yourself, you are just wasting everyone's time, and I'd say that is reasonably frustrating.

It approaches the conversation from a purely selfish perspective.

"You need to do this for me to meet my own personal, arbitrary set of standards" isn't a perspective conducive to a discussion. The only argument which can logically come out of this perspective is a denial that we should even be talking about this in the first place. It is fundamentally subtractive...

"assuming a civilian that shot somebody was in the wrong isn't biased. People just shouldn't be shooting other people, full stop"

>Well we don't live in a perfect world. Sometimes, people shoot other people for evil reasons. Other times, they do it for good reasons.

I could assume the former was done for evil reasons and would be right. I could assume the same for the latter case and I would be wrong.

Assuming someone who shot someone else was in the wrong based solely on the fact that the act was a shooting is a biased point of view.

If you don't want to meet my personal standards, that's fine. Allow me to tell you what you just told me: you are free to not participate.

I have my standards and I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head demanding that they meet my standards.

If you want to believe mere hearsay, do so at your own risk. If you want to persuade me, you have to go the extra mile. Ignore my posts if you don't want to bother going the extra mile.

By the way, I'd love to see the day a lawyer in court, when given the chance to present their case, asks the jury to 'google it' rather than actually putting together some sort of case or having within reach that which holds up their claims.

By what metric are did these two get schooled? From a third person perspective, at the very least SpokenTruth is one of the only ones actually taking the time to, you know, actually PROVE their side with logic, facts, and counterpoints. 

Once again, RolStoppable is the opposite of correct! 

I try to give people the same benefit of the doubt that I expect from others. There are certainly times when I ask someone for more information or a source for what they are saying, but it always in service of a point or an argument. There is always something I am trying to say to contribute to the discussion instead of just trying to satisfy myself with this information. So when someone else asks for more sources or more information, I'll do what I can to assist, in the expectation that they are going to contribute in some way. When they don't, I feel like that's pretty shitty.

That said, its kind of ridiculous that you are trying to discredit all the information we do have as "mere hearsay" just because it isn't on video. When someone says "I said this and I did this", that is not hearsay. It is actually direct evidence and it would, 100% of the time, be admissible in court. There is no substantive or legal justification to ignoring this information that we do have. It is important to take into consideration that this is the actor's account of what happened, and it is possible that they were lying to protect themselves, but when that account is incriminating, there isn't really any reason to believe that the truth would make them look less guilty.

As for your last statement, we aren't in court and you are not a jury member. Your role in this conversation is not to be the trier of fact or to passively sit back and see if you will be convinced. Your role is closer to that of the lawyer. You are assumed to be a contributing party to a discussion, who is making a point or an argument. I'd love to see a defense lawyer, wholly unprepared for court, asking for the prosecution to spoonfeed them information so they can maybe make a case...

Actually I wouldn't. That would suck.

And it does.

This conversation sucks.

No.  Assuming that someone shot someone was in the wrong based on the fact that they shot someone is the way the law works.  Shooting someone is in fact illegal.  If you do something illegal, you have to explain why it was justified.  That's the whole purpose of a legal defense.

Again, I have to ask, what legal standard are you suggesting?  The standard you seem to be suggesting is that you can walk up to a person with guns drawn, and if they then respond in a way that makes you feel threatened, you have the right to shoot them.  And that's absolutely absurd and has no basis in our legal system.  

Nope.  Check the forum rules, there are no justification statutes :p