Who Is The Blame For Walter Scott's Death?

"I" posted? When did I post anything about "shooting on sight". Originally Posted by LexusLover

this is you, right

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 followed by me asking you some questions

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. Originally Posted by Freedom42

My original statement about "shoot on sight" was just that a statement not a question.

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.

yes, you are right. Did you really not get what I was trying to say in that paragraph? Even when someone is in agreement with you it seems that you want to find a way to nitpick and make a meaningless point.


The fact still remains that you took my statement out of context and when this was pointed to you you switched to a different statement I made and took it out of context as well.

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.

i never said that this wasn't the case, why are you arguing with me about this?

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

See above. Notice how you write a great deal and attribute your own thoughts to others, but you don't answer simple questions.

[/QUOTE]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."[/QUOTE]what facts did I alter. I simply made two true statements as foundation to the point I was making.



What's next, I can't say that the sun will raise tomorrow because it's facts not in evidence?


BTW, when did thread become a court of law. I didn't realize that anyone here was on trial or that I was defending anyone. Please PM me your address so that I can bill you for my time.

this is you, right


Which followed by me asking you some questions
My original statement about "shoot on sight" was just that a statement not a question.


yes, you are right. Did you really not get what I was trying to say in that paragraph? Even when someone is in agreement with you it seems that you want to find a way to nitpick and make a meaningless point.


The fact still remains that you took my statement out of context and when this was pointed to you you switched to a different statement I made and took it out of context as well.

i never said that this wasn't the case, why are you arguing with me about this?


See above. Notice how you write a great deal and attribute your own thoughts to others, but you don't answer simple questions.
Originally Posted by Freedom42

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."[/QUOTE]what facts did I alter. I simply made two true statements as foundation to the point I was making.



What's next, I can't say that the sun will raise tomorrow because it's facts not in evidence?


BTW, when did thread become a court of law. I didn't realize that anyone here was on trial or that I was defending anyone. Please PM me your address so that I can bill you for my time.[/QUOTE]

Blah, blah,blah.

"... I can't say that the sun will raise tomorrow ..."

You just did. What will the Sun "raise" tomorrow?

I hope it's not cloudy ... I want to see this!

Reasonable, rational people will agree with the following two statements
1) an arrest warrant does not give LE the license to "shoot on sight".
2) an arrest warrant does not give the offender the right to run away from LE with impunity.


With the above in mind, was Scott caught in a downward spiral? Probably
Originally Posted by Freedom42

Now tell me again you meant that to be a "hypothetical"!!!

Please don't paint Scott as the "victim" as he ran from the traffic stop.

Now tell me again you meant that to be a "hypothetical"!!!

Please don't paint Scott as the "victim" as he ran from the traffic stop. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Victims usually run...

Now tell me again you meant that to be a "hypothetical"!!!

Please don't paint Scott as the "victim" as he ran from the traffic stop. Originally Posted by LexusLover

No I did not mean it to be a hypothetical!!!

Is that clear enough for you.


I'll try to be as clear as I can and explain it to you one more time.


These are absolutely true statements. They were made as foundation to what follows.


I have said before and I'll say it again. Scott has his share of the blaim to what happened and clearly if he hadn't run, he would not have been shot.


Is that clear enough for you, or is this also "facts not in evidence"? Yes, blah, blah, blah is an appropriate answer from you since clearly you have a hard time expressing yourself in a meaningful way.


The above does not contradict the fact that Scott was a victim of a system which might have been designed with good intentions. That FACT, does NOT justify him running away.


For someone who claims to have a legal mind, it is incredible that you have a hard time grasping such simple and basic concepts. It is also amazing how you keep ignoring any question you are asked, take what others have said out of context and worse, make up what you think they have said.


Yes, the answer again is going to be blah, blah,blah. I answered for you, now you can move to the next post and make something up.


Enjoy

No I did not mean it to be a hypothetical!!!
Originally Posted by Freedom42

Then the comment I made about your scenario being irrelevant* is valid.

Can I make that any clearer?

*You are presuming facts that are not in evidence.

Scott was NOT "SHOT ON SIGHT"!

If I need to put that on a Big Chief Tablet, let me know.

These are absolutely true statements. Originally Posted by Freedom42

The Sun "rises in the East," but it's not really "rising"! It's the Earth's rotation.

Your "legal conclusion" about "arrest warrants" is not relevant either.

The Sun "rises in the East," but it's not really "rising"! It's the Earth's rotation.

Your "legal conclusion" about "arrest warrants" is not relevant either. Originally Posted by LexusLover

4 in the morning? You shit the bed again, didn't you? Orderlies!

4 in the morning? You shit the bed again, didn't you? Orderlies! Originally Posted by WombRaider

Why do you keep talking to yourself, about yourself?

Why do you keep talking to yourself, about yourself? Originally Posted by LexusLover

You can tell how old someone is by how funny they think their comebacks are. Judging by how proud you are of these lame, dusty things you keep tossing out, you're about 80 I'm guessing.

Victims usually run... Originally Posted by WombRaider

No perpetrators run. Victims call the police to chase or find the perpetrator. In the case of Walter Scott, the Police represent society who is the victim.

Jim

No perpetrators run. Victims call the police to chase or find the perpetrator. In the case of Walter Scott, the Police represent society who is the victim.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I'm pretty sure victims run as well. Not run after the perpetrator. Then we're all responsible for his death...

Carry on, Private No Class, Turdfly!
. Originally Posted by bigtex

WTF must have just changed your diaper. Good to see she is doing well.
Carry On!

I'm pretty sure victims run as well. Not run after the perpetrator. Then we're all responsible for his death... Originally Posted by WombRaider

The moment Walter Scott decided to run he was a perpetrator of a crime, actually two. The defective tail light and fleeing to elude the police. At the time of his death however he became the victim of an unjustifiable homicide, perpetrated by the police. But that was not foreseeable as he was running away. Initially he wasn't a victim.

Jim

The moment Walter Scott decided to run he was a perpetrator of a crime, actually two. The defective tail light and fleeing to elude the police. At the time of his death however he became the victim of an unjustifiable homicide, perpetrated by the police. But that was not foreseeable as he was running away. Initially he wasn't a victim.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

He was black... he was a victim before the officer got involved.