MC Prussian

I try to abstain from the game or the coverage as much as possible, just clinging onto reviews that offer little to no spoilers. It's a PS exclusive until April next year, so I need to wait a little longer. But I've heard the ending must be something else. Literally.

I'm not saying he deserves it, just based on his past, I have less sympathy than I'd have with other players. If your Southampton or Norwich player had a history of behaving like a dick on and off the pitch just like Alli, then yeah, the reaction would be the same.

Alli isn't really the most likable of characters in football, a young, and sometimes still immature attention-seeker. To me, he's still more famous for rolling over on football pitches than for playing football. Thrust into the limelight too quickly, ill-advised. Maybe this is the wake-up call for him to stop playacting and start life as a more grown-up person.

I agree. It's not as if flag burning is one of the more popular past times. It happens so rarely, I suppose the vast majority of people will never be affected by it. And why burning a flag in the first place? The act in itself is a ludicrous waste of time and space. This kind of forced and cheap symbolism isn't really luring people from behind the over any longer.

To each his own. You live in South Korea, probably one of the more nationalist countries on this planet. And I don't see much criticism aimed at them in the media. I don't subscribe to nationalism myself, yet I can see the purpose of a national identity and some of the (positive) idiosyncrasies of your own country of origin to be somewhat proud of. Otherwise, it becomes all a bit wishy-washy. Would you want each country to be pretty much alike?

He was only "jogging" once he was spotted inside the house. Do you see him sweating or being out of breath at any given point in the video material available? But keep on pushing the "innocent jogger" version. Like I've said before, it's a shame he had to die. Police should've solved this issue instead. However, he shouldn't have punched the other guy and wrestled for that shotgun. Let's not make it out as if Arbery was completely faultless.

Hard not to dwell in Schadenfreude here. But yeah, I wouldn't want this to happen to anyone. I've been victim to a burglary myself and the feeling of helplessness is quite numbing.

White Lines - any good?

They have/had the right to detain, it just never got to that point. I think there's nuance, and we should also be wary when we quote "experts" or lawmakers. There's room for interpretation, and it'll be interesting to see what the final verdict is against the McMichaels. They don't necessarily need to be actual witnesses, the right to detain is also based on another factor, as specified above. They made a mess of it and for that they deserve their rightful punishment. You continue to promote the "racism" line and "he was only jogging" theory, when there is no actual/factual evidence right now that this is a case of racial profiling or that Arbery was an "innocent" jogger, "hunted down" by two "rednecks/racists". If Arbery had been white - you think they wouldn't have chased him down? It's not his race that defines this case or the outcome, it's his actions. What a fool for trying to pry that shotgun out of McMichael's hands. He wanted the confrontation (as seen in the video), when he could've made it all so much easier, especially for himself. Theft or no theft is irrelevant here, he was (seen) trespassing in the same area multiple times. Misdemeanor at least. Cause enough to try to stop and question him in the absence of police. The questions I raised are reasonable and justified. Just as much as is calling out racism where racism is actually due. We have no proof of that here, just opinions and bias.

I don't concur with society being "inherently right-wing", I'd like to think that as you get older and have more responsibilities (job, family, kids, etc.) more people tend to sway to the right - to the right of where they stood as a young adult. That doesn't necessarily make them "right-wing", just more conservative than they used to be. But the term "conservative" is relative. A former Communist can turn conservative by becoming a socialist or social democrat. He'd still be on the left. A social democrat can turn into a social liberal or libertarian, the question remains how far "right-wing" applies here. "Right-wing" to me is a term for a rather extremist position on the political spectrum, and maybe it's been overused against its actual meaning. It has gotten some kind of a bad connotation over the past few years, thanks to a more extreme debate in general.

Who said anything about Hatchett being entirely neutral or not biased? Her own opinion plays into the statement, as well. If you read her last sentence correctly, you'll notice the word "detain" in it. They would've loved to detain the guy, sadly he opted to grab the shotgun before that could happen, a scuffle ensued and he was shot dead. There goes detention. And trespassing is at least a misdemeanor (if you don't steal anything). The question remains whether they saw the incident directly or heard about it immediately. People should hold back with terms such as "hate crime", "lynching" or "racism" until the investigation comes to a closure. It's pathetic to rush to such rash and subjective conclusions, usually just serves self-promotion, especially on Social Media. Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it's the black community's fault he went for the shotgun, that's silly. When I refer to the black community taking responsibility, I'd love for them play less of the victim card when the circumstances aren't clear or at least not at first sight, as is the case here. You can't just go around and blame others all the time, at some point, oppression, racism, prejudice are terms that wear out quickly. I'd like to think they'd be able to achieve more if they were able to deal with that complex in a better, more positive way. Today's society is as progressive as never before. Just because racism exists, doesn't mean it's everywhere or applies that easily. If Arbury was indeed trespassing (with the intent to steal - based on his numerous visits to the same house), then there's no defending of his actions or character. It was a mental move to grab somebody else's loaded shotgun and not expect any sort of reaction (up to this point, there hadn't been any shots fired as far as we know).

That's nothing you can control, guide or influence here. You are only responsible for your own actions, and not for people's reactions, especially on an online forum. Words don't cause bodily harm. Don't take it overly serious, and you'll be fine.

"Jogging" 14 miles from home, in that outfit? Does Arbery look like sweating to you at all or out of breath, judging from the videos? In what twisted way does "jogging" include trespassing/entering other people's property/houses? He only started "jogging" that day once another person saw him come out of the building. Of course his family will try to protect his name and his image, that's what families do most of the time. Would you expect for them openly admit that their son could've done something wrong and that he (allegedly) had a criminal history? Seeing that you've noticed the initial surveillance video, I'm sure you're aware of the fact that Arbery was spotted in the same building multiple times, and that even at night (Source: WSAV-3 news). Just because the 911 calls fail to mention any wrongdoing doesn't mean he did nothing wrong (trespassing is at least a misdemeanor). And the McMichaels were in the right to detain him under Georgia law, according to this report: https://www.wabe.org/atlanta-judge-examines-georgias-citizens-arrest-law-state-bureau-of-investigation-gives-updates-on-arbery-investigation/ Listen, I've got to admit I've made a mistake, and I'm here to set it straight. I initially claimed the person who made the video should be charged, as well. Turns out he was a neighbor, a witness who followed the McMichaels out of curiosity. According to latest reports and his testimony, he had nothing to do with the shooting directly. But thanks to the initial media reports, he's now receiving death threats aplenty. https://newschannel9.com/news/local/man-who-shot-video-in-ahmaud-arbery-killing-gets-death-threats-attorney-says There's also the case of an African-American setting up a fake Facebook profile, pretending to be in support of the McMichaels. Way to alienate a population and stir more trouble than necessary. https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/crime-and-law/ahmaud-arbery-gbi-aware-facebook-post-containing-threat-future-protests/EEDVA6LAYFFDVIRBTH5HUIXURM/ Oh, America. When does the Black community in the US start to take (collective) responsibility for their own misguided actions? Arbery shouldn't have died. Arbery should also never have tried to grab that shotgun, though. I'm fed up with this one-sided US (and UK) media frenzy and selective outrage, made even worse by social media. Where's the outrage over the deaths of or attacks on Korean or Hispanic people in the US, for example? Where were you when Andy Ngo was attacked, for instance? This is consistent with a smeary, sensationalist media coverage. Always remember Jussie Smollett. The more you cry "racist" when racism isn't warranted, the more the term loses its meaning. Then real racism comes along, and no one bats an eyelid.

Voicing an opinion always brings offense with it. It's being able to put the "fear" of offending people aside and stand for what you think. Foxestalk isn't real life, the best one can hope for is to take some food for thought out of the discussions. You have to learn not to take it personal. For me, partaking in discussions on here doesn't mean it's affecting my personal health, it'd kind of foolish to let it come that far. Ultimately, comments on here can never replace a direct conversation in real life. I think that's why some folks tend to get a wrong or slightly wrong impression of one another. For example, the political labels that have been attached to me lately are ridiculous, as they don't represent me as a person at all - the difficult part is not becoming (overly) personal when replying, take it on the chin and move on. People attach too much power to words on a football forum, sometimes it's best to take a step back and take a deep breath, then come back and continue enjoying the conversations.

I think leagues should continue, whether the games are to be played at the original or at new, neutral venues isn't really the point. Ideally, regular home and away games should carry on, traveling will be involved for at least one team, anyway. Not overly happy that different leagues have called it quits already. The whole "no relegation" scenario leaves a bitter taste. I feel for the teams in the divisions below that cannot get promotion now. And in the other cases where relegation has been forced, I feel for the clubs that have now been kicked down the latter, even though they would've stood a chance if the remaining games had been played. The game must go on. If teams are forced to field weaker squads due to still ongoing infection cases, so be it. Gives more youth players the chance to shine. In a life without any proper football on you realize what you're missing.

The thing is, we're acting on a private forum that for some has become such a part of their life, it feels practically public, so people do have the tendency to behave as if they were at home. I mean, it's great we can voice our opinion, that's what a debate is all about, but I'm guilty of it myself for forgetting that I'm merely a guest by invitation on here, and that I can be hit with a ban any day, without any reason given. Technically, bans are warranted, because the owner and the moderators can act as they wish. They own this. What you can argue is the missing line sometimes, the bans usually do come across as rather erratic. I do hope you find a way of expressing your views in General Chat in one way or another. It's up to you to find out how far you can go.

Sorry to hear that, I do hope the people in charge reconsider. Not sure about the echo chamber and "only one opinion allowed" part, there are still plenty of healthy discussions between different sides ongoing without getting overly hostile. Maybe cutting down on curse words could do the trick? Looking forward to your comeback, @Toddybad. No bad word from me here.

On a sidenote, Tomas "Trinche" Carlovich, one of Argentina's most famous footballers has died at age 74 due to a fall sustained after an attack: https://www.croatiaweek.com/argentine-croatian-football-icon-tomas-carlovich-passes-away-after-attack/

It has to be proven in court that shooting a man who is about to snatch a shotgun out of your hands is/was self-defense or manslaughter. It's rather far-fetched to call this a "lynching" or a murder, as some media outlets suggest. At no point do you see the two dumbbells shooting at Arbury as he approaches the truck (which would be "cold-blooded murder", of course), it's out of the tragic melee that the two/three shots are fired. No, the assumption is because he as a burglary suspect is not stopping, then proceeds to attack one of the two vigilantes. How could they know he was unarmed? We also don't know how "intimidating" the second car was, or simply following at a distance. Even if he had survived and hadn't been found guilty of a crime, but only a misdemeanour, the McMichaels would've probably gotten their fair share of a sentence, too, for excessive use of force and whatnot. It's not racist to chase after a burglary suspect. Even if he happens to be black. You're still insinuating that the McMichaels are racist and that they shot him because of the color of his skin, nothing of which has yet been proven. I'm not excusing what the McMichaels did by shooting Arbury, they'll try to stand their ground and argue self-defense. I don't think it was a smart move and I think Arbury could and should still be alive, if it wasn't for a chain of (yuck) unfortunate events. But let's equally not excuse Arbury's actions, which do raise suspicion. What was he doing so far away from his own neighborhood, inside a building under construction? Just "taking a few minutes to catch his breath"? Really? How much further do you want to go in order to defend this man in this case? Fact is you don't enter other buildings just like that. Given all the tools and machinery on site and the general amount of thefts on construction sites, he was rightfully reported by another person who saw him inside. Arbury only started "jogging" once he was spotted. He made it all the worse himself also. You're stuck in this mindset that the McMichaels are all evil and Arbury was completely innocent. The truth is much more complicated. And sadly, one side will never be able to speak the truth because they are no more. If Arbury had done "nothing wrong", as you suggest, then he wouldn't have had a problem handing himself in just like that.

How is he supposed to use "deadly" force when he is unarmed? Was he "chased"? Do we know he saw them "wielding shotguns"? You seem to read a lot into it with this. The video footage shows the one pickup truck waiting for Arbury in the middle of the road, he then runs towards them, makes a right, then decides to have a go at the younger McMichael. The question remains: Who attacked whom first?

https://www.georgiacriminallawyer.com/self-defense

Well, yeah - I agree, I think this is a tragic loss of a life. But sadly they had every right to shoot under Georgia Law once Arbury grabbed the shotgun, which was a very stupid and irresponsible move on his behalf. Why do that? Makes things just worse. And as I said, the police report states Arbury went after T McMichael first, a notion supported by the video footage. Fully agree with the second part, but that's easy to say now and from a distance. That's why I wonder how other people would react when confronted with such a situation where you see a struggle over a shotgun and fear that you could be shot with that weapon yourself. Then again, this is America. Many things over there just don't make sense to a European.

I find it disingenuous to assume that I belong to the "alt-right" or that I am using "alt-right talking points", as I'm neither active on that side of the political spectrum, nor do I have any ties to people over there. Why is it not appropriate to talk about the McMichaels' guilt whilst simultaneously discuss about what Arbury could've done differently in order to defuse the situation? That's only fair. Has it been proven that Arbury was shot down because of the color of his skin or because he was the suspect in a reported burglary? This is a fair question. Georgia law allows civilians to chase after suspects and detain them until the police arrive. Latest reports indicate that there is surveillance video showing Arbury entering a property in the area, a house under construction, with supplies aplenty. https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/gbi-reviewing-new-video-footage-ahmaud-arbery-case/xvSWFTbaD0k9cr80R7CTnL/ https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2020/05/10/additional-video-footage-in-ahmaud-arbery-case-draws-different-opinions/ What was Arbury doing "jogging" 14 miles from his home, in board shorts and boots? The police report also states that Arbury struck Travis McMichael first. You do know that many burglaries in the US (or Canada, for that matter) go unreported, because the victims know the police won't or can't do nothing about the incidents? I've experienced such a case myself in Vancouver. It's not very uplifting when the police tell you they don't care about your case because they have more important things to take care of. Have I been "proven wrong" here? I'm simply raising the question why this is supposed to be a racist act. As far as we know right now (based on the video footage available), Arbury was shot down based on the struggle over a shotgun. Who would let a stranger grab your shotgun, trying to take it away from you and risk being shot in the process? It makes no sense. Let me stress again, it is unquestionable that the loss of a life under these circumstances is tragic and unnecessary. The use of force excessive. Yes, this is not justice. They should've left it to the police instead. The rest of your own argumentation is somewhat warped. In no way have I insinuated that one is racist when bringing up alleged racism. What kind of logic is that? Where does that come from? What I don't get is why so many people jump to conclusions so quickly because of initial one-sided media coverage and sudden public outcry of an incident that took place two months ago. They see a man who happens to be black tragically shot down and the first thing they do is shout "racism". It's like Twitter 2.0, a self-serving, ego-friendly echo chamber. I think we should all calm down a bit here and wait for further evidence to emerge.

Sis is so Austrian. More appropriate for Hamburg would be "Tach auch!" (good day to you).

Who said anything about racism? You're the first one to bring it up here in the context of this case. Whether the two dimwits went after him because of his race is pure conjecture, as far as we know today, they went after him because he was a suspect in a burglary. They have to answer to the law as to how their checkpoint antics went so out of control. As much as they are at fault for letting it get that far, Arbury could've made the whole situation easier also.