One thing that's dismaying about some people's reaction to the Ahmaud Arbery case is that when they consider it, they only put themselves in the role of the vigilantes. "Well, if he'd just listened and stopped..." Why not ALSO put yourself in the role of the jogger?
-
-
10/ I think the problem in the analysis is that there are two axises: * was he out jogging or was he ne'er do well * were a bunch of randos justified in forming a vigilante posse, pointing a gun at him, and pulling the trigger the entire legal question is the second one >
Show this thread -
11/ if he was a pure jogger, they randos had no right to intercept him or point a gun at him IF HE WAS A THIEF, THIS IS STILL TRUE
Show this thread -
12/ but folks want to wish away this complexity and * turn two distinct questions (was he breaking the law? were they?) into 1 (was he a thief?) * use the result of "was he a thief?" to justify anything / everything
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.