Who Is The Blame For Walter Scott's Death?

[shanm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

we wont' discuss it.

Can we "discuss" this instead?

Originally Posted by LexusLover

can we leave in the part during which Scott gets control of the taser and shoots the Officer 2x's with taser darts one of which is still "wired" to the taser gun?

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"he shot him in the back"! Speaking of "plain and simple" ...

. has anyone ever seen someone FLEEING by ....

..... running backwards FACING THE POLICE OFFICER?

[Freedom42]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

I apologize if I have muddled my question yet agin. I didn't add the phrase "with Scott not running from the scene of the traffic stop" right after my question at post #210, because I have falsely presumed you and Freedom42 would have known that "running from the scene" was not the scenario since we have been debating this hypothesis for days....

You have not been debating at all, you have been asking questions and have answered none.

Since you have established that reading comprehension is not something you have mastered, so, I'll repeat myself:

Notice how once more, you ask pointless questions and don't answer any of the questions that were asked of you and provide no data or anything (other than your prejudices) to support your outrageous position.

So how about you give some answers or be a man and admit that your position that Scott would have been shot if he didn't run is wrong!!!

To be debating, you need to also answer the questions asked of you, not the ones you are asking yourself in other people name.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by Freedom42

Since you have established that reading comprehension is not something you have mastered.

Maybe his reading comprehension is hindered by the fact that you write like a blind bumbling pillock? ^you're supposed to finish that sentence

Originally Posted by Freedom42

Do be debuting you need to

What "do" he "be debuting" for?

[Freedom42]

Originally Posted by shanm

Maybe his reading comprehension is hindered by the fact that you write like a blind bumbling pillock? ^you're supposed to finish that sentence




What "do" he "be debuting" for?

Yes, you found some typos, thanks I'll correct them.

Did you really didn't understand what the post was about?

Now back to the subject at hand. Do you agree that the position that Scott would have been shot if he had not run has nothing to support it other than prejudices?

[shanm]

Originally Posted by Freedom42

No back to the subject at hand. Do you agree that the position that Scott would have been shot if he had not run has nothing to support it other than prejudices?

"Scott would have been shot if he had not run?" No, he most likely wouldn't have been shot. Thanks for the over-simplification.

Do I think that Slager left his house that morning hoping to shoot an unarmed black man? No, I don't. Do I think he is an officer who lacks proper training on how to deal with and arrest citizens? Yes, I do. And he's not the only one.

He also represents a culture of despotism that has been brewing in LE all over the country for decades now. Let's just let the police shoot whoever the want whenever the want and ask NO questions? Hows that for an oversimplification? The LE are meant to protect and serve, not rain down on the citizens whose very tax dollars comprise their paycheck. The Stanford prison experiment proved that giving one human being undue authority over another can result in dangerous consequences. That's exactly what's happening here. The LE is a tool being used to control the masses. You and your friends would rather sit back and watch that happen than actually do something about it.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by shanm

"Scott would have been shot if he had not run?" No, he most likely wouldn't have been shot. Thanks for the over-simplification.

Do I think that Slager left his house that morning hoping to shoot an unarmed black man? No, I don't. Do I think he is an officer who lacks proper training on how to deal with and arrest citizens? Yes, I do. And he's not the only one.

He also represents a culture of despotism that has been brewing in LE all over the country for decades now. Let's just let the police shoot whoever the want whenever the want and ask NO questions? Hows that for an oversimplification? The LE are meant to protect and serve, not rain down on the citizens whose very tax dollars comprise their paycheck. The Stanford prison experiment proved that giving one human being undue authority over another can result in dangerous consequences. That's exactly what's happening here. The LE is a tool being used to control the masses. You and your friends would rather sit back and watch that happen than actually do something about it.

shanker, you just support the GOOD CRIMINALS, right boy?

[Freedom42]

Originally Posted by shanm

"Scott would have been shot if he had not run?" No, he most likely wouldn't have been shot. Thanks for the over-simplification.

Agreed and you are welcome

Do I think that Slager left his house that morning hoping to shoot an unarmed black man? No, I don't.

Agreed

Do I think he is an officer who lacks proper training on how to deal with and arrest citizens? Yes, I do. And he's not the only one.

Agreed

He also represents a culture of despotism that has been brewing in LE all over the country for decades now. Let's just let the police shoot whoever the want whenever the want and ask NO questions? Hows that for an oversimplification?

too much. I think that you have a valid point and pushed it way to far, especially when you added the "NO questions".

The LE are meant to protect and serve, not rain down on the citizens whose very tax dollars comprise their paycheck.

Agreed

The Stanford prison experiment proved that giving one human being undue authority over another can result in dangerous consequences.

Agreed

That's exactly what's happening here. The LE is a tool being used to control the masses.

Here we disagree, our government in general is so disorganized and LE is so all over the map that to think that anyone is using them to control the masses is something that way above the capabilities of LE in this country.

You and your friends would rather sit back and watch that happen than actually do something about it.

not sure who my friends are on this board since i just joined. In RW, my friends are all over the political map and we have more than a few discussions in which we might agree or disagree.

If I thought that LE in this country had the capability to "control the masses", I would do something about it!!! As it stands LE in this country is under attack (some justified, some not). What is much worse, it seems to be a tool used by political forces to create divides and fears. Our issues are people that make everything D vs R, or use race as the leading factor in deciding which side of the issue to take.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by Freedom42

Here we disagree, our government in general is so disorganized and LE is so all over the map that to think that anyone is using them to control the masses is something that way above the capabilities of LE in this country.

There is no "one government" that is running our country. It's an overall mentality. It's us vs them, simple as that. There's people in power who abuse the system for their own gain and then there's regular hardworking people that get abused, suppressed and taken advantage of. This is no Republican/Democrat issue, and it is not a black/white issue. It's an issue of our civil liberties being taken for granted and this is/will be the civil rights issue of our generation.
Unfortunately, it's usually the right wingers(aka your friends) that are too blind to see what's actually going on and are hell-bent on making this a dem vs republican issue. They love to swallow what their political higher-ups and newsrooms feed them. I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

What is much worse, it seems to be a tool used by political forces to create divides and fears. Our issues are people that make everything D vs R, or use race as the leading factor in deciding which side of the issue to take.

[Freedom42]

Originally Posted by shanm

There is no "one government" that is running our country. It's an overall mentality. It's us vs them, simple as that. There's people in power who abuse the system for their own gain and then there's regular hardworking people that get abused, suppressed and taken advantage of. This is no Republican/Democrat issue, and it is not a black/white issue. It's an issue of our civil liberties being taken for granted and this is/will be the civil rights issue of our generation.

Agreed

Unfortunately, it's usually the right wingers(aka your friends) that are too blind to see what's actually going on and are hell-bent on making this a dem vs republican issue. They love to swallow what their political higher-ups and newsrooms feed them. I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

being neither in the right nor left wing, I can tell you that the issue you are rising here is just as bad on both sides. For every right winger that does what you are describing there is a left winger that does the same. The only difference is that they have a different "political higher-ups and newsrooms". If you agree, great, if not, re-read "too blind to see what's actually going on"

[shanm]

Originally Posted by Freedom42

Agreed


being neither in the right nor left wing, I can tell you that the issue you are rising here is just as bad on both sides. For every right winger that does what you are describing there is a left winger that does the same. The only difference is that they have a different "political higher-ups and newsrooms". If you agree, great, if not, re-read "too blind to see what's actually going on"

The left wingers argue against police brutality. Does that make them paint the situation with broad brushstrokes? Yes, sometimes it does. I personally believe condemning officer Wilson before a courtroom decision had been made was absolutely wrong. But the riots in Ferguson were a long overdue response to a systemic injustice and were, therefore, completely justified.
The right wingers, on the other hand, are so influenced by political dogma that they refuse to budge an inch and admit that there is an overarching inherent problem with law enforcement that leads to these protests and riots. It's the same demagoguery with the same racist undertones. "Black people are out trying to get more than what they're worth".

You tell me which one is worse? For the record, I do not strictly identify with one party or the other. I would vote (and have voted) based on ideas and not based on the candidates political party. Although, I must say, if there was one such party named "anti-republican", I would be very happy to sign up. I hate almost 99% of ideals put forward by those fear-mongering aholes (the vast majority)

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Freedom42

Yes, you found some typos, thanks I'll correct them. He misses his own.

Did you really didn't understand what the post was about? He doesn't.

When he recommended that a cop shoot someone in the leg to keep them from running ... his knowledge of "policing" was exhausted, if not plainly absent.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by shanm

The left wingers argue against police brutality. Does that make them paint the situation with broad brushstrokes? Yes, sometimes it does. I personally believe condemning officer Wilson before a courtroom decision had been made was absolutely wrong. But the riots in Ferguson were a long overdue response to a systemic injustice and were, therefore, completely justified.
The right wingers, on the other hand, are so influenced by political dogma that they refuse to budge an inch and admit that there is an overarching inherent problem with law enforcement that leads to these protests and riots.

Those in midstream prefer to allow the process operate to develop the facts through investigation and disclose the facts to a neutral body to make that decision consistent with our historical processes used to adjudicate guilt or not guilty. Then aggrieved parties, who were not satisfied with the criminal proceeding outcome can seek redress in the civil courts. Ala OJ Simpson.

I will not admit that any "overarching inherent problem with LE leads to this:

[shanm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

When he recommended that a cop shoot someone in the leg to keep them from running ... his knowledge of "policing" was exhausted, if not plainly absent.

Welcome Dipshit! Did you finally get a diaper change?

I said shooting him in the leg as a way of subduing him was miles better than shooting him 8 times in the back. Do you disagree? If so, would you like to add that to the other ASSinine claims that you've made on this thread alone?

Originally Posted by LexusLover

can we leave in the part during which Scott gets control of the taser and shoots the Officer 2x's with taser darts one of which is still "wired" to the taser gun?

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"he shot him in the back"! Speaking of "plain and simple" ...

. has anyone ever seen someone FLEEING by ....

..... running backwards FACING THE POLICE OFFICER?

So, LLDipshit, care to elaborate on:
1) the officer getting shot "2x's with taser darts"?
2) walter scott "running facing backwards"?
3) Why you think shooting someone in the leg and subduing him while potentially saving his life is not a better alternative to shooting him 8 times in the back?

There you go! I even put them in a simple 1,2,3 list for you!

[shanm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Those in midstream prefer to allow the process operate to develop the facts through investigation and disclose the facts to a neutral body to make that decision consistent with our historical processes used to adjudicate guilt or not guilty. Then aggrieved parties, who were not satisfied with the criminal proceeding outcome can seek redress in the civil courts. Ala OJ Simpson.

I will not admit that any "overarching inherent problem with LE leads to this:

You didn't spare any time did you? Posted an irrelevant, nonsensical picture with racist undertones as soon as the word black was mentioned.
Do you remember the draft riots in 1863? You should, you were probably alive back then. Well, putting aside the obvious wrongs, there were also many instances of looting, this time done solely by white people. Hurricane Katrina also resulted in extensive looting and pillaging by both black and white people. Have you ever considered that looting might just be human nature in response to chaos? Nah, that would be too rational...

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
With the one you posted, every one of those words starts with an R and ends with a T.
Let me give you a hint: YOU ARE A FUCKING RACIST!!!

[Freedom42]

Originally Posted by shanm

The left wingers argue against police brutality. Does that make them paint the situation with broad brushstrokes? Yes, sometimes it does. I personally believe condemning officer Wilson before a courtroom decision had been made was absolutely wrong. But the riots in Ferguson were a long overdue response to a systemic injustice and were, therefore, completely justified.
The right wingers, on the other hand, are so influenced by political dogma that they refuse to budge an inch and admit that there is an overarching inherent problem with law enforcement that leads to these protests and riots. It's the same demagoguery with the same racist undertones. "Black people are out trying to get more than what they're worth".

You tell me which one is worse? For the record, I do not strictly identify with one party or the other. I would vote (and have voted) based on ideas and not based on the candidates political party. Although, I must say, if there was one such party named "anti-republican", I would be very happy to sign up. I hate almost 99% of ideals put forward by those fear-mongering aholes (the vast majority)

I disagree with your first statement, show me an example when the left wingers were up in arms over an AA LE shooting or being brutal against anyone? Yet, the same people are just as loud when a AA men is shot by a civilian. Take it farther, if the abuse of power is by someone they support or against a right winger they don't only stay on the sidelines, but give support to the abuse of power. In that respect there is no difference between the two.

The same is true when it comes to fear-mongering, both sides do it all the time. The only difference is what fear they are selling. If you can't see that, I'll use your own words "are too blind to see what's actually going on"