The Derek Chauvin Trial

Haven't seen you do so yet, and I've seen you comment on a lot of such incidents. Of course it's impossible to link what you haven't written (you supporting a black person when in conflict with a white person), for both me, and you.

Could you narrow that down? Chauvin committed a crime/murder in front of the whole world, it was a naked display of cruel and unusual practices. Crimes/murders like this are usually out of the view of the public. He simply forgot he doesn't get to be the Angel of Death when he wants to show how powerful he is in front of rookies.

Actually you have seen me do so. Of course, you may have been too busy falsely accusing me of racism to pay attention to what I was actually saying.

I was asking what you would compare it to. You included a lot of very loaded phrases. I'm not saying they are wrong - I'm saying they are loaded. Justice requires comparison. What types of killings, or aspects of killings, would you compare them to, in order to arrive at a just sentence?

(I provided what I thought would be compared)

If you are talking about the very tokenistic admission that had to be dragged out of you in relation to Arbery and the McMichaels - that is what it was - tokenistic. You spent 97% of the time supporting them, and essentially saying they did very little wrong, and if Arbery had just laid down in front of the people that hunted him down and bailed him up at gunpoint - he wouldn't be dead.

Well it's 3 AM on the east coast of the US (EST)...I'm very tired so how about I read your threads again tomorrow (after 8 hours of sleep) and check to see if it makes more sense to me in the morning. We may be having a language problem....because you speak GB English and I speak US English. Occasionally wires get crossed.

Your characterization of that conversation is completely dishonest.

Nothing had to be dragged out of me. I represented my position quite vocally, at least until I got pissed off at your false accusations of racism and stopped addressing your posts.

And if my saying that I thought they committed manslaughter is saying that they did very little wrong, then your statement that you don't think Derek Chauvin killed intentionally is saying that Derek Chauvin did very little wrong.

You want to know where you racism resides? In your use of subjective words, and your choice of interpretations. You do admit to legalities (see bottom of page), but the rest reads as 'it is the black persons fault and the white person is the actual victim' (even when the black person ends up dead). Your words and interpretations favour only the white person. This runs through all your similar posts.

Oralloy's interpretations of the circumstance & video in favour of Arbery
None

Oralloys interpretations of video in favour of McMichaels
All the rest, including how it started (see example below) and how it ended (see further down page)

oralloy wrote The wording does not show anything more sinister than an honest belief that the jogger was an escaping burglar.; his honest belief that the jogger was a fleeing burglar; I've yet to see any evidence for anything more sinister than a genuine belief that the jogger was an escaping burglar.

My comment: Arbery wasn’t escaping anything – he was out jogging. McMichael knew that (seeing a person in jogging gear running at a jogging gate is very obvious). There was no just completed burglary that Arbery could be fleeing. And McMichael also had no solid grounds for thinking Arbery was a burglary suspect - being a former police officer & DA assistant, he knew Arbery hadn’t stolen anything (only way he could know Arbery was a ‘suspect’ from CCTV); knew there was no complaint, and that he couldn’t conduct a citizens arrest…but still described the jogger as hauling ass, armed up (on a jogger), hunted him down, and they killed him….but Oralloy supports them anyway.
-----------------------------------------------------


Oralloy's use of subjective words that favour Arbery
None

Oralloys use of subjective words that favour the McMichaels
Killed when he charged at someone and tried to wrestle their shotgun away from them.; they were only trying to ask the jogger some questions and Travis only opened fire when the jogger charged at him.; Having someone who is holding a shotgun say that they'd like to ask you some questions does not justify violently attacking them.; shows the jogger charging at Travis McMichael and not breaking off his attack until; Two to the chest because the jogger doesn't break off his attack until; The jogger was killed in self defense when he violently attacked someone.;He was killed in self defense as he violently attacked someone.;The jogger would still be alive today if he had not violently attacked anyone.;He was killed in self defense as he was violently attacking someone.;Travis McMichael only opened fire when the jogger charged at him.;It looks to me like the jogger is charging at him when the first shot is fired.

Holding a shotgun while asking questions doesn't threaten anyone's life. Had the jogger guy not violently attacked anyone, he would still be alive today.

I know that progressives really want black people to be allowed to kill whoever they want to

My Comment: The black man is the dead victim, and didn’t try to kill anyone. He tried to stop the white man from shooting him, and had to wrestle the shotgun to prevent his death. This according to oralloy is 'charging and violently attacking’ rather than ‘defending his life’

----------------------------------------------------------

I stopped here…it shows exactly where this is going
– all oralloys use of subjective language favours the white people, over and over again. No use of subjective words favours the black person.
- All oralloys interpretations favour the white people. No interpretation of events favours the black person.
This theme of how he uses subjective words and his interpretations against black people in favour of white people - runs through all his posts where black people are in conflict with white people.



-----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Commentary by Oralloy re Arbery / McMichaels
The one place he shows less bias than above.

If they committed a misdemeanor by chasing someone down in the street with a shotgun, that makes the death involuntary manslaughter.

I've said that they committed a misdemeanor by chasing down and confronting a jogger in the middle of the street with a shotgun, and I've said that manslaughter charges are appropriate for the resulting death.

Had this jogger lived, it would have been appropriate to prosecute him for battery. Had the jogger killed Travis or Gregory McMichael for trying to question him, that would have been involuntary manslaughter.

Without that loophole, chasing down and confronting that jogger in the middle of the street would be charged as reckless conduct (a misdemeanor). A death connected to a misdemeanor is only involuntary manslaughter under Georgia law.

There is now a push to close this loophole:
….However given the way the jogger was attacking them, murder charges are clearly wildly inappropriate.

That's a lie. In no place did I say anything even remotely like "it's the black person's fault and the white person is the actual victim".

All I did was note some of the mitigating circumstances, exactly as you've just done with Derek Chauvin. So have you just said that it's the black person's fault and Derek Chauvin is the actual victim??

No, the reason why you falsely accuse people of racism is because you use personal attacks as a crutch because you can't support your demented arguments with facts or logic.

Subjective words being subjective - how you use of them shows your background thoughts and inclinations. How you interpret things shows your background thoughts and inclinations.

Your support/favourable view towards Arbery through subjective words and your interpretations
- Nil

Your support/favourable view towards the McMichaels through subjective words and your interpretations
- All of the rest

Yet it is Arbery, out jogging, who was hunted down and killed by the McMichaels.

These are all evidenced. You can't deny links to your own words.

Two can play this game. Shame on you for saying that George Floyd's death is his own fault and Derek Chauvin is the actual victim.

Dude - that doesn't even make sense. The issue that shows your racism, that I've specifically pointed out over and over again - is that you do what you did in the McMichaels / Arbery saga with ALL incidents involving conflict between black & white people.

Yes it does. I merely apply the same standard to your words that you apply to my words.



The issue that shows your racism, that I've specifically pointed out several times now, is the way you blame George Floyd for his own death and say that Derek Chauvin is the real victim.

Face it Vikorr. You're a racist through and through.

Not at all. Racism lies in double standards. Individual incidents can be judged on their own merits. In each case you've brougt up - it is the black person who has been killed in circumstances where the black person should not have been killed:

- support only in favour of the killer is not expected, because it will inevitably involve an underlying bias;

- harshness against the killer can be expected, because what the killer did was wrong / poorly thought out / etc. ie. There is no double standard in saying for a person a person who is killed (who should not have been killed), that the killer made bad decisions, did the wrong things, etc in killing another person (this is usually obvious) - otherwise the charging person/entity would be racist, and the convicting Jury would also all be racist - which is nonsensical.

But if such harshness carried across into ALL your views when interpreting multiple conflicts between black people and white people (even say, down to a nonviolent altercation between two people in a park)....then that would show an ingrained bias (ie racism)

And you know for that incident I readily admitted that Mr Cooper's statement would have been menacing, and I too would have kept my dog away (but also that his follow up behaviour would have alleviated the menace), and that I don't think she should have lost he job (it was bad behaviour, but not job loss worthy).....your behaviour there though...mirrored exactly what you did with the McMichaels / Arbery incident.

Seriously though - normal people understand how this works. It shouldn't need explaining.

That's why your support only for Derek Chauvin shows what a horrible racist you are.

Right, me who said:
- he should be charged with murder
- he should spend time in jail
.... am a supporter of his.....

Your arguments are now delusional.

My arguments against you are delusional only in the sense that I am copying your delusional arguments against me.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I guess we can add whiny hypocrisy to your long list of character flaws.

Making up a blatant lie (regarding what another has said) as the basis for 'copying your argument' is plain delusional if you think it has any substance or logic to it. As for the argument - you haven't pointed out any actual problem with what I said constitutes racism. Calling it delusional is just your way of ignoring / not thinking about your ongoing behaviour.

I guess from here, you'll give another substanceless, non-evidenced reply.

You absolutely have to be kidding. His arguments against you have nothing at all to do with his arguments. You just have to be smarter than this.