Who Is The Blame For Walter Scott's Death?

The guy made a mistake by running. That does not justify killing him. We expect our cops to be mature and use good judgment. We don't expect that from suspects. The circumstances do not support the officer's actions. Charge him with manslaughter if it makes you feel better, but the cop killed an unarmed man who presented no physical threat to himself or others. It is the cop's fault. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You certainly won't be sitting on the jury.

The leap to convictions (judgments) here is similar to Zimmerman and Wilson.

Did I mention OJ?

"We expect our cops to be mature and use good judgment."

And I imagine they say....

"We expect our CITIZENS to be mature and use good judgment."

In fact if CITIZENS were mature and used good judgment "we" would need MUCH FEWER cops, who would be assigned to "escort" funerals for the most part!

Here's a novel idea: If you want cops to be lawyers, counselors, medics, referees, life-savers, friends, and "community organizers"... then make sure they get paid enough by the hour to do all those things with a "crystal ball" and "20-20 hindsight" insight with copious amounts of mind reading ... along with generous benefits and continuing education to keep up with the latest philosophical, political, cultural, and psychological training and the latest nonlethal weapons and techniques to assure they do not offend anyone they encounter (regardless of how the citizens treat them) and unnecessarily cause anyone any discomfort when they piss on the cops, spit on them, hit them, shoot them, run from them, or try to run them down with their vehicle to avoid being taken to jail.......and have the ability to respond through all of those layers of information, learning, training, and response options in 1-2 seconds of time.

This isn't Rocket surgery. There's plenty of evidence to make a just decision.

Unless there's some racial evidence keep the race baitors and politics out.

Mr. Policeman......you fucked up.

RIP Mr. Scott.....you shouldn't have ran. You also fucked up.

Mr. Policeman......you fucked up.

RIP Mr. Scott.....you shouldn't have ran. You also fucked up. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Yes and Yes.

There are only a handful of "cops" whose careers were "enhanced" by killing someone in the line of duty. It's not something a high % look forward to having to do. The best most recent example is Officer Wilson formerly of the Ferguson Police Department. Even though the shooting of Brown was "righteous" and "legal," it ended his career with the FPD and most agencies won't touch him, at least to put him on the street.

I watching Sean Hannity tonight and Travis Smiley kept referring to Scott as a "young man". I don't think Smiley knows too much about this case other than what he was told. FYI, Travis Smiley is also 50 years old. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I think you might be having mini strokes too with all the syntax errors present in your postings. The guy is named TAVIS, not TRAVIS. I don't think you know too much either, seeing as how you supposedly watched this interaction and still couldn't be bothered to get it right.

Have you seen the dashcam video where the officer stops Scott and his interaction with him? The officer seems very cordial and by the book. Seconds later, Scott tries to leave the car but the officer tells him to get back in the car. Scott complies but then takes off.

There's nothing in it to suggest the officer has a chip on his shoulder.

What I don't get is why the media is showing what appears to be at least a 10 year old picture of Scott in his Coast Guard Uni? Although his service is admirable it shows a media prejudice of showing the black victim in the best possible light. If you asked me who got shot, I'd say a 30 yo, not a guy in his mid 50s.

The good news is the South Carolina Officer was fired from the police force but was hired by the Secret Service where he's now their top agent. Originally Posted by gnadfly

If they have the opportunity to show an official picture, that's what they use. Think about it; where would they get a picture of a private citizen other than a military service picture, etc.?

If they have the opportunity to show an official picture, that's what they use. Think about it; where would they get a picture of a private citizen other than a military service picture, etc.? Originally Posted by WombRaider

His current driver's license perhaps?

You know. The one the officer had when the fool ran!!!

Or how about his latest mug shot when he was last arrested.

That's what they use on most of the "Hollywood" crowd!

I guess one day we'll find out about his discharge from "military service"!

Was he given an order and he ran and jumped overboard so he wouldn't have to follow the instructions of his immediate "superior" who gave the order?

His current driver's license perhaps?

You know. The one the officer had when the fool ran!!!

Or how about his latest mug shot when he was last arrested.

That's what they use on most of the "Hollywood" crowd! Originally Posted by LexusLover

How would they get the DL photo? And why a mug shot? The guy is dead, you want to show his mug shot? That's as far the other way as showing his CG photo is.

If they have the opportunity to show an official picture, that's what they use. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Who is "they"?

How would they get the DL photo? And why a mug shot? The guy is dead, you want to show his mug shot? That's as far the other way as showing his CG photo is. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Who is "they"?

The mug shot doesn't show him dead. It is a recent "official photo"!

That's not "far away" ... that is a current photo. What one says to the family .. we want a recent photo (I mean .. surely they have one since he is such a cherished family member and participant in the family activities) ... and when they admit they don't have one ... then apologize to the WORLD and print they asked the family for a recent photo so we used this one, which is the most recent one we have. It's called factual reporting..."freelance writing" of "facts"!!!!!

What you are doing is what they were doing. Trying to distort who and what he is, by wrapping him in a uniform and the U.S. flag.....painting him like he is some sort of war hero who deserves "special treatment"! Or is it to make it look like they were in the service together so there is something "else" going on here....like has been speculated on this board?

They did that shit with Martin, and Brown. Propoganda.

It is Scott's fault because he ran, and it is Slager's fault for shooting him in the back. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

This isn't Rocket surgery. There's plenty of evidence to make a just decision.

Unless there's some racial evidence keep the race baitors and politics out.

Mr. Policeman......you fucked up.

RIP Mr. Scott.....you shouldn't have ran. You also fucked up. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Rocket Science/Brain Surgery baby aside

You are both right and this is truly as simple as that. Both of them are at fault to some degree, one has paid for it and the other will pay (already started paying). Either could have prevented it, but neither did

I can't believe all the defense of a cop shooting an unarmed, non-violent man in the back. There were less violent ways to resolve this. This guy would have turned up. Killing him was not the answer, regardless of whether he fucked up or not. Why do you want to give the police so much power?

Who is "they"?

The mug shot doesn't show him dead. It is a recent "official photo"!

That's not "far away" ... that is a current photo. What one says to the family .. we want a recent photo (I mean .. surely they have one since he is such a cherished family member and participant in the family activities) ... and when they admit they don't have one ... then apologize to the WORLD and print they asked the family for a recent photo so we used this one, which is the most recent one we have. It's called factual reporting..."freelance writing" of "facts"!!!!!

What you are doing is what they were doing. Trying to distort who and what he is, by wrapping him in a uniform and the U.S. flag.....painting him like he is some sort of war hero who deserves "special treatment"! Or is it to make it look like they were in the service together so there is something "else" going on here....like has been speculated on this board?

They did that shit with Martin, and Brown. Propoganda. Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's Propaganda, first off. Don't you think using a mugshot would be just as damning the other way? Either way, you're painting him in a light. Most newspapers, that's the 'they' you were so curious about that you posted twice, choose not to stomp on a dead man's memory. No one said he was a war hero. Never read that in any of the countless stories I read about this incident in the last three or four days. Special treatment? I'd say getting shot in the back by a cop you are running AWAY from is special treatment alright. Just not the kind you want. It doesn't really matter with people like you, which photo they show. Once you see the color of the skin, you're already forming an opinion in your mind. It's subconscious, you can't even help it.

I can't believe all the defense of a cop shooting an unarmed, non-violent man in the back. There were less violent ways to resolve this. This guy would have turned up. Killing him was not the answer, regardless of whether he fucked up or not. Why do you want to give the police so much power? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

"Hate, in the long run, is about as nourishing as cyanide"

-Kurt Vonnegut

Oh, BTW, "owing child support" is no reason to be fleeing from the police or resisting arrest (assaulting a police officer, which is an aggravated felony). Originally Posted by LexusLover

You are not a NKVD officer, correct?

I can't believe all the defense of a cop shooting an unarmed, non-violent man in the back. There were less violent ways to resolve this. This guy would have turned up. Killing him was not the answer, regardless of whether he fucked up or not. Why do you want to give the police so much power? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

There's no reason to defend anybody in this case. But this is how it should have all gone down. Cop makes a lawful traffic stop for a burnt out tail light. The violator seeks a safe spot to pull over and picks the parking lot of an auto parts store. The officer makes contact with the driver informs him why he is being stopped and requests to see the driver's DL, Reg and Insurance info. Once the officer is satisfied all documents are valid and up to date he instructs the driver since he pulled into a auto parts store to carry his ass into the store and get a fucking tail light bulb. Finished business.

Jim