Who Is The Blame For Walter Scott's Death?

Talking to yourself again LLIdiot?

Try hiring a whooker. She'll listen to you drone on and on...

She'll make you feel better about your miserable, solitary lie of a life.

Talking to yourself again LLIdiot?

Try hiring a whooker. She'll listen to you drone on and on...

She'll make you feel better about your miserable, solitary lie of a life. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Case in point! You got nothing to contribute but bile.

What point did you make to which my comment applies, you monologuing old fop?

The name-calling is endless and childish. Do I really care? No!

This board doesn't define me, and I don't make a dime off it. Just mental exercise and some typing practice....more like a morning stretch. Originally Posted by LexusLover

...your miserable, solitary lie of a life. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Point!

"Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. ___ (2014)

"A claim that law-enforcement officers used excessive force to effect a seizure is governed by the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness” standard. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386 (1989); Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1 (1985). In Graham, we held that determining the objective reasonableness of a particular seizure under the Fourth Amendment “requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” 490 U. S., at 396 (internal quotation marks omitted). The inquiry requires analyzing the totality of the circumstances. See ibid.


"We analyze this question from the perspective “of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Ibid. We thus “allo[w] for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Id., at 396–397."

Yours is bile.

If you're using this for typing practice... you need more typing practice.

As for this thread, we all know that with LL, it's the black man's fault, right? Cops never fuck up in LL's world.

Do you mean ... a guy will run from the police, get in a 100 yard fight with the police to resist arrest, shoot the police officer 2xs, and then run again?

And it will continue to happen as long as the media AUTOMATICALLY blames the police officer and selectively reports the facts to support the blame.....and then FAILS TO ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG when they are proven wrong.

See: Rolling Stone! Al Sharpton, Erick Holder, Barrack Obaminable, et al. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yeah, probably something similar. With the common denominator being white cop, black unarmed male being chased for some misdemeanor bullshit crime, crappy grainy video presentation with the end result being suspect being shot and dies. Media coverage will be extensive and scripted and full of shit like all the other psyops. The sad thing is 80% will believe the incident is authentic because the media says it is.

Jim

Do you mean ... a guy will run from the police, get in a 100 yard fight with the police to resist arrest, shoot the police officer 2xs, and then run again? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Point!

"Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. ___ (2014)

"A claim that law-enforcement officers used excessive force to effect a seizure ....

The inquiry requires analyzing the totality of the circumstances. See ibid.


"We analyze this question from the perspective “of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Ibid. We thus “allo[w] for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Id., at 396–397." Originally Posted by LexusLover

BTW: Plumhoff was a civil rights case involving "wrong death"!

That is the standard ...

1. totality of the circumstances (meaning ALL the FACTS); and
2. from the perspective “of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

That's not me: That's the SCOTUS.

Not some amateur video analyst on a hooker board, who spews bile when he doesn't have any substance to contribute to the ..... FACTS.... and doesn't have a clue as to what "the perspective “of a reasonable officer on the scene" is.

BTW: Plumhoff was a civil rights case involving "wrong death"!

That is the standard ...

1. totality of the circumstances (meaning ALL the FACTS); and
2. from the perspective “of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

That's not me: That's the SCOTUS.

Not some amateur video analyst on a hooker board, who spews bile when he doesn't have any substance to contribute to the ..... FACTS.... and doesn't have a clue as to what "the perspective “of a reasonable officer on the scene" is. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Civil wrongful death civil suits involve tort law. Tort law involves statutes. These statutes vary from state to state. That's not bile, that's just facts. Go look it up. And YOU have the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene? Who says what is reasonable?

YOU'RE the one who was all over that map with the shit all plotted out. Amateur cocksucker hell, you're a pro.

Tort law involves statutes. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Obaminable must have been your law professor. You deserve each other.

When you took torts at Harvard Law School did you all spend a lot of time studying statutes of various states to determine the scope and elements necessary to prove torts? Prosser's book on torts does not have a lot of statutory material, and I was wondering if perhaps Obaminable memeographed some supplemental statutory material to augment "Prosser on Torts."

Professor Keeton (Robert) taught torts up there at Harvard also. He was the guru on comparative negligence. Did you study under him as well?

You keep studying up on that torts shit ok?

Obaminable must have been your law professor. You deserve each other.

When you took torts at Harvard Law School did you all spend a lot of time studying statutes of various states to determine the scope and elements necessary to prove torts? Prosser's book on torts does not have a lot of statutory material, and I was wondering if perhaps Obaminable memeographed some supplemental statutory material to augment "Prosser on Torts."

Professor Keeton (Robert) taught torts up there at Harvard also. He was the guru on comparative negligence. Did you study under him as well?

You keep studying up on that torts shit ok? Originally Posted by LexusLover

You defiantly are pissing off the POM-POM girls the BGI... Thanks!

Civil wrongful death civil suits involve tort law. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Are those "lawsuits" THE OPPOSITE OF ...


......... UnCivil wrongful death civil suits".....

According to UC you are an IGNORAMUS.

Are those "lawsuits" THE OPPOSITE OF ...


......... UnCivil wrongful death civil suits".....

According to UC you are an IGNORAMUS. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I notice that nowhere in your bullshit did you say I was wrong...

No one got shot because of a busted tail light.

I suppose the undercurrent of those who ignore Scott's behavior in this process is ... fuck the police ... and it's ok to kick their asses, shoot them, or do whatever you can to get away from them with impunity....and the "excuse" for his felonious behavior is .... "it wasn't that bad"! But you (all) want the police to behave like gentlemen and ladies!!!!! with their kid gloves on.

The legal right to use deadly force does not end when the suspect throws down his weapon....(you are not familiar with the legal definition of "deadly force" apparently and when an officer can use "deadly force") ... so that is just your social opinion .. not a valid legal one.

I'm not "justifying" what the officer did, and I said so. The question I raised is whether or not it is "murder" .... or any criminal homicide offense .. because of the additional information that is being reported ... I am always willing to allow ALL THE FACTS to be developed and not just those that support someone's theory or agenda as to what happened.

The cop may have been "wrong" ...but that doesn't mean he committed a crime, particularly murder. I would apply the same level of inquiry to a citizen or an officer and to any one irrespective of the ethnicity or race.

These threads end up the same place lately. After the officer or villian is exonerated, then the chant of the system doesn't work cranks up again ... until the next one ... that looks like it might "hold water"! Same bullshit.

Like I said:

"My track record on here on Martin, Brown, and Garner is good."

And I got the same accusations from being "Pro-LE" to "racism" to ...

.. you name it. The name-calling is endless and childish. Do I really care? No!

This board doesn't define me, and I don't make a dime off it. Just mental exercise and some typing practice....more like a morning stretch. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I haven't called anyone a name, that's not something you can say though.

I haven't called anyone a name, that's not something you can say though. Originally Posted by dirty dog

LL is the biggest bullshitter of them all. He reserves the right to change his mind if and when the facts change. Really going out on a limb there, LL. Way to be, baby. Way to be.

His track record as if anybody gives a good goddamn.

Is anybody keeping score? Hey, scorekeeper, put LL down for the cop was right. Unless some shit changes, then he's down for the cop was wrong.

Ruh-Roh, looks like Officer Slager tased somebody last year, here's the video.

http://news.yahoo.com/video-sc-polic...031940770.html