Who Is The Blame For Walter Scott's Death?

No, no, no, you shouldn't highlights half my statement to try and make a point. . Originally Posted by Freedom42

You don't "highlight" half a statement ... you just make up shit to make a point. Example:
"shoot on sight".

Faggot. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

HARD TO ARGUE WITH THAT WHEN YOU SELF IDENTIFY AS ONE!

"He lost what he called “the best job I ever had” when he spent two weeks in jail. Some years he paid. More recently, he had not. Two years ago, when his debt reached nearly $8,000 and he missed a court date, a warrant was issued for his arrest. By last month, the amount had more than doubled, to just over $18,000." [Quote from the article, a portion of which came from Scott.]

Do you see a "problem" with these two "concepts"..?

“the best job I ever had” vs. in two years arrears increased $10,000.

"Child support" is not "a debt" ... ITS supporting your children.

I can't remember, but did you claim selling illegal cigarettes was ok? Originally Posted by LexusLover

You can't be serious. But thanks for proving my point.

In 2 years with “the best job I ever had” and he only paid $2,000, if that much.

Where did you read he was only paying $500 a month?

Child support is not considered a "debt" ... so talking shit about "debtor's prison" is hysteria at its finest. But that's your MO.

For instance: Debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy. Child support is not. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Where did I say anything about a debtor's prison?? You mention that his debt increased from $8K to $18K in two years. Debt from what? Any debt but the child support could have been erased by simply taking back whatever it was that put him in debt to begin with. If he's $18K behind in child support, I'm not sure how you can't see that happening over a two-year period. At $500 a month, like I posited, he would be $12K behind in two year, easily reaching the $10K number you seemed incredulous about. I didn't say I read the $500 amount anywhere and if you could read above kindergarten level, you would've understood that.

You don't "highlight" half a statement ... you just make up shit to make a point. Example:
"shoot on sight". Originally Posted by LexusLover

He was shot on sight, do you argue that?

You don't "highlight" half a statement ... you just make up shit to make a point. Example:
"shoot on sight". Originally Posted by LexusLover

Which of my statements you disagree with? I didn't say that either occur or didn't occur in this case. Please don't make up what you think I was trying to say, read what I said.

Funny how when I prove that you have taken some of what I said out of context, your response is to switch to something else I said and take it out of context as well. What did I make up? I never claimed that either of my first two statements was about this case, What I said was that reasonable rational people will agree with both these statements.


Do you think that an arrest warrant does give LE the license to "shoot on sight"?


Not asking if it happened in this case or not. I'm asking if it give LE license or not.


Do you think that an arrest warrant does give the offender the right to run away from LE with impunity?


Again not asking if it happened in this case or not. Asking if the offender has the right to run away or not.

He was shot on sight, do you argue that? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Yes, I would argue with that. He was shot after he run away, had some type of a fight with LE over about 100 yards, and run away again. That is not "shot on sight" the way I read the phrase.

Now, if that all that happened than shooting him is still not justified. If on the other hand you add shooting the LE officer with his own taser, putting the officer in reasonable fear of bodily injury and running away with the taser (at least as far as the officer knows) then shooting might be justified.


I'm not saying that this happened in this case. I'm pointing out that there is a difference between shot on sight, shooting after an altercation which doesn't justify shooting, and justified shooting.

He was shot on sight, do you argue that? Originally Posted by WombRaider

The videos and witnesses do. I wasn't there. Were you?

Let me guess ... you are going to claim the statement is "true" because the officer was "looking at him when he fired his weapon" .... you ARE A FOOL....if you do.

If on the other hand you add shooting the LE officer with his own taser, putting the officer in reasonable fear of bodily injury and running away with the taser (at least as far as the officer knows) then shooting might be justified.


I'm not saying that this happened in this case. I'm pointing out that there is a difference between shot on sight, shooting after an altercation which doesn't justify shooting, and justified shooting. Originally Posted by Freedom42

Before I comment you might want to clarify your use of the word "justified."

If you are speaking of a "legal" concept, then #1 it must be from the perspective of the officer at the time ... not a third-party, Monday morning quarterbacking, with 20-20 hindsight after days, if not weeks, of analysis, which include frame-by-frame examination of videos.

I agree with the legal principles repeatedly established by the SCOTUS, which were clearly stated in Tennessee vs. Garner and re-affirmed just this past year.

Saw this on my News feed this morning. Had to share:



Smh, when are some people going to wake up and realize what's actually going on.

Again not asking if it happened in this case or not. Originally Posted by Freedom42

Perhaps THE "flaw' in my evaluation of your comments is ... yours are hypothetical and not relevant to the facts of the OP and this thread.

I customarily don't engage in "What if?" discussions ...

... I'll leave that to the News Anchors and the pundits the interview to agree with them.

As for your hypothetical assertions with fictional variables ... I'm not interested in engaging in a conversation in which someone makes a variety of fictional statements and the asks which ones are "disagreeable"!

Chicago Homicide Watch

http://homicides.suntimes.com/

Before I comment you might want to clarify your use of the word "justified."

If you are speaking of a "legal" concept, then #1 it must be from the perspective of the officer at the time ... not a third-party, Monday morning quarterbacking, with 20-20 hindsight after days, if not weeks, of analysis, which include frame-by-frame examination of videos.

I agree with the legal principles repeatedly established by the SCOTUS, which were clearly stated in Tennessee vs. Garner and re-affirmed just this past year. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yes, justified is from the perspective of the officer at the time it was happening (that is why I said "at least as far as the officer knows").

Perhaps THE "flaw' in my evaluation of your comments is ... yours are hypothetical and not relevant to the facts of the OP and this thread.

I customarily don't engage in "What if?" discussions ...

... I'll leave that to the News Anchors and the pundits the interview to agree with them.

As for your hypothetical assertions with fictional variables ... I'm not interested in engaging in a conversation in which someone makes a variety of fictional statements and the asks which ones are "disagreeable"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

No, these were not put forward as "what if" or "hypocritical" for discussion, they were put forward as a foundation that we can agree on, and so we can move the the discussion forward. The use of "With the above in mind" could have been a hint.

Notice how no one else took these as a "what if" and initially neither did you. The only reason you brought this up is because I pointed out that you took a totally different point I was making and cut it half way though. So you went some else in my post and took something out of context.


None of my questions to you were about "what if" they were all about items that you posted.

None of my questions to you were about "what if" they were all about items that you posted. Originally Posted by Freedom42

"I" posted? When did I post anything about "shooting on sight"?

And please don't get the "concepts" confused ... "justified" is not from the perspective of the officer .... the evaluation of what is LEGALLY "justified" is from the perspective of the officer against a template of what a "reasonable" officer would do under the same or similar circumstances, and the SCOTUS set that standard, not me.

There are are a sufficient number of SCOTUS opinions on officers shooting at a suspect AFTER the suspect "disengaged" with direct contact with the officer or officers being accused of "excessive force" for me to take the "reasonable" approach that the SCOTUS is not "weighing" the exact moment of the shooting like some frozen frame view ... as others have done in this thread ... the "totality" of the circumstances AS KNOWN AND OBSERVED by the officer from the officer's perspective ... is what is weighed.

Now where is this shit about "shooting on sight" you attribute to me?

BTW .. when you alter the facts it becomes a "what if" question and clearly hypothetical. The "proper" objection in the legal inquiry is ...

"it presumes facts that are not in evidence."

Perhaps THE "flaw' in my evaluation of your comments is ... yours are hypothetical and not relevant to the facts of the OP and this thread.

I customarily don't engage in "What if?" discussions ...

... I'll leave that to the News Anchors and the pundits the interview to agree with them.

As for your hypothetical assertions with fictional variables ... I'm not interested in engaging in a conversation in which someone makes a variety of fictional statements and the asks which ones are "disagreeable"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Now that's a good one. I nearly pissed myself laughing. All you DO is engage in what if discussions. Jesus Christ. Cleanup on aisle 5, LL has shit himself again. Orderlies come quick, his seizings are quickly turning it into a biohazard.