So the title of the thread is a straw man? (I know you're insinuating my argument is but the title is literally "Trayvon Martin all over again." That title isn't really one of a comparison.) How about "Arbery slaying - another Trayvon Martin?"
IMHO the dead man in this case's name should be in the title, not just an old case which was hashed out to death in another thread, but it's happening again here because of said title.
So when someone says "Trayvon Martin all over again" you take that to mean the two cases are literally identical such that when you first find out that the victim's name was Ahmed instead of Trayvon that means the title is bullshit? Think about that. You may think I'm being cute here, but actually that's what you're doing. You're being hyper literal and I'm using a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the point. The fact is, people tend
not to speak or write in a hyper-literal manner.
I'm not questioning your intelligence. Just stating the human tendency to carry bias over from cases where they already have their opinion staunchly made. Maybe this particular tendency doesn't apply to you, as many generalized statements don't apply to me. But this is a sizable community and the rehashing of Trayvon's case is happening.
I wasn't being defensive about my intelligence. I was trying to make the point that only an idiot would interpret that thread title as meaning the cases had to be literally identical for the title to be valid. I don't think even you actually believe that. The language implied a strong comparison, not identical scenarios.
Don't really have much disagreement here. Beside the point that there are more parties involved (including the cameraman apparently) and it happened in broad daylight on a public street. Oh, and the McMichael's were in a truck which itself gave them a clear advantage.
I'm arguing the thread title should be changed. Not that the two can't be compared.
I think the problem is you're mired in certain details which might affect the ultimate guilt or innocence of the parties involved, and you think that is the most important issue here. Yet it's only the most important issue for the people directly involved. For everyone else, there are broader issues which are more important, and which do not in either case depend on ultimate legal guilt or innocence.
Does it really matter if GZ struck the first blow, or if instead Travyon did so because he was angry that GZ seemed be following him because he was black? Similarly, does it matter whether the McMichaels end up guilty or innocent based on the intricacies of GA's laws of assault, felony murder, or citizen's arrest? To the men involved it matters a ton. I will admit that the issue of guilt or innocence is interesting and certainly worth discussing, but I don't think it's what matters most to the outside world in either case.
What really does matter is this: both victims were very likely racially profiled by these men and both would likely still be alive had they been white. That issue is tremendously important to black Americans, and it should be to the rest of us as well.
And there's another issue. Even had both victims been white, what does it say about the case for responsible gun ownership when we have people with guns running around their neighborhoods like they're Wyatt Earp? Vigilantism is one of several reasons why I think the right to carry outside one's home needs to be handled more strictly and background checks need to be exhaustive and applied to every sale.
You can agree or disagree with me about either of those issues but both are important issues and these two cases are essentially identical, or close to it, in relation to those issues. What I'm saying is, the two are identical in the ways that matter most to society, and whatever lessons we may learn are essentially the same for both.