I'm pretty sure that a surprising amount of people, after being attacked by a member of another identity group, punching them and trying to take their shotgun, probably for nefarious purposes, would say something along the lines of "fucking <insert identity of the attacker>".
Again, you seem to want to ignore everything else that happened. First, that's not what happened at all, they hunted him down in cars. Second, he was also quite fond of the phrase on social media. Third, yeah, even in such a hypothetical situation, coming out with a slur as your first response still says something about you that isn't great.
To be fair, if the guy grew up in a 50%+ black neighborhood he could have just picked up the N-Word by osmosis, blacks throw around the N-word and pretty much every other slur in the book in casual conversation all the time in every city I lived in throughout all of the USA. Heck I even had black teachers call anyone who was acting out a "F-ing N***** whose mama was a fat N***** whore" pretty much all the time. That or the old man just played a lot of Call of Duty, from what I can tell the N-word is still quite prevalent among the 9-year old CoD player-base.
Yes, but as noted, this is a white adult. If a kid does it, that kid just doesn't know better. Meanwhile, the excuses given are getting increasingly thin as time goes on. And still none of them apply to this situation.
Spare us the terminology abuse. He was followed, perhaps even in a threatening manner, and verbally harassed. But certainly not hunted down.
It's unusual that someone just after a tense situation resulting in a "close one" with the grim reaper would... use extremely harsh language aimed at the person who caused it?
34 year old from Georgia, dad is a retired cop, we don't know much about him but seems like quite a blue collar type who owns a pickup truck and a shotgun, rather than someone who works in a corporate office in NYC or SF with speech codes and HR manager. So the social environment explanation is not as implausible as you are implying.
If the guy grew up in a majority black neighborhood, he would have gotten used to the casual use of racist slurs said by black people all the time. You seem to underestimate how much a consistent attitude/culture surrounding a person throughout their childhood and teenage years will shape a person, that stuff makes up the bedrock of a person's personality and behavior for the rest of their life. The thing is, if the person grew up in that specific environment or one that is similar enough he may just view the N-word as similar to the F-bomb.
One person saying they said it is not enough of a reason.
Happens with Soldiers in combat as well.
He was chased by two cars, on video, and hit by one of them. That's hunted to me.
Soldiers in combat frequently devolp a soft 'racism' to them, directed at the enemy. It comes out of dehumanizing the enemy to preserve your mind. This 'racism' is included in calling the german's huns, etc, but usually isn't brought. If a non-soldier was doing that, I'd be concerned. A soldier's mind isn't a completely healthy mind, by design. There is a definite purpose to the 'racism' there, which is part of the dehumanization of the enemy needed to get someone who isn't a sociopath to willingly kill another. In a perfect world, this wouldn't be necessary, but then neither would soldiers. We don't live there, so we need this for soldiers to operate and protect America.
People recently struck by a car don't run and fight like that. Maybye bumped. Still, would hold off on that fact, didn't see it on video.
That he was raised in a (sub)culture where it's not as big of a deal as in the mainstream current day US one?
A whole lot of blacks use the n-word very frequently, does it make them self-hating racists?
Wait, are we talking of the dad or the son?
It was announced in the indictment hearing, which was in the linked article. Maybe read it? They found a dent in the truck with fibers in it, along with Arbery's hand print on the truck, and Bryan admitted to hitting him. All of this was from the linked article.
The N-Word has always been a racial slur. If he called him colored, maybe.
It's not the use of the word, it's the repeated violation of a norm, and doing so in a way the degenerates a race. If you can't see this, under what evidence would you need to convict somebody of racism?
Both used it, just at different times. The son specifically used it after the murder and in the email about his job. I did confuse them slightly. Travis also thought that they should have 'blown that n-----'s head off' in response to the robber. This isn't a good person.
That does sound like a hard bump, or more complicated incident. "Hit" implies something like you would see in a crossing accident with at least visible scrapes or other minor injuries.
You can't convict someone of racism because it's not a crime and it shouldn't be.
In that case, it wasn't the person who killed Arbery, because the dad was the one that fired the killing shot. Travis was someone who was fighting for his life a moment ago. If the struggle for the shotgun went slightly differently, there could well be 2, or even 3 deaths in the end.
Yes, it is.
Really? What evidence of that do you have? Hit implies forcible contact. I also described it as swiping. You describing it as a complicated incident is hilarious though. You seem desperate to find these people innocent. Are you related by any chance? Because that's the only reason I could see spending so much effort on a lost cause.
I wasn't using convict in the literal, criminal sense, but in the more figurative way. And this person basically falls in every definition of racism you can come up with. There were basically two extreme ways to read his actions if there weren't slurs: either as racists trying to lynch someone, or a citizens arrest gone wrong. The new info definitely makes the lynching hypothesis much more likely.
No, the dad didn't fire at all. You don't even have the facts right. The shotgun fired 3 times, the first fatally. Christ, just read some of the facts. You don't even look up anything, or read any of the many articles I've linked which talk about this.
Bullshit on the details not matching. In every detail, it pretty much matches. You have made bad argument after bad argument here.
Forcible contact does not necessarily mean simply hit by the car. I refer you to the many recent riot videos with vehicles being swarmed as examples of complicated incidents involving forcible contact and vehicle damage.
You are putting exactly as much effort in trying to shape this situation into the designated stereotype of your choice as i do in trying to argue that it's not necessarily such.
The bone of contention here is that i seem to give a lot less less weight and meaning to harsh language during an intense situation (especially coming from the kind of people who do curse a lot) than you do. For me, it doesn't change the outlook in any meaningful way.
Watched the video. The third shot came after the dad drawing and with the son not exactly holding the shotgun in fire ready position, if i'm wrong that's what confused me.
For one the run-up moment leading to the struggle over the shotgun is a very juicy and not well documented key detail that likely doesn't fit the stereotype and meaningfully impacts the situation.
My position is that maybe he is, maybe he's not.
Which would be fair, if the legal system did not differentiate between crimes that are prejudice-motivated based on social group or race, and crimes that are not; unfortunately, that is not the case under US law. If he committed a crime that was motivated by his racism, that carries a heavier penalty than it otherwise would. Now, I don't know if using slurs is enough to prove that he's racist, but if they do try to convict him under hate crime statutes, I suspect the prosecution will have more evidence to present to the jury than just that.
I know, but even with this taken into account, that is supposed to matter in sentencing, not in establishing whether a crime has happened and if so, what it was (murder or manslaughter or something else).
It could be used to establish intent, which would make the difference between murder and manslaughter.
That's even dodgier than with just involving it into sentencing.
One could also argue that they were simply idiots who never thought about the best way to go about what they intended to do, in addition to murderers; but that's a question for the jury, I believe. If it were me on that jury, I think I'd need more evidence before I could decide one way, or the other.
