Who Is The Blame For Walter Scott's Death?

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by Freedom42

In all likelihood, YES!!!

Are you sure?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

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

That doesn't mean you are correct. For instance: Tort law INCLUDES elements of statutes, some of which are codified from the common law and crafted from principles based upon common law, and sometimes statutes are USED in tort law to establish a standard of care and conduct, the violation of which establishes liability. On the other hand most tort law principles are from the common law. Which means for the most part in U.S. jurisprudence "tort laws" (which includes case law decisions for the most part with some statutory interpretation) from one state to the next are sufficient similar to have a pretty good idea what it will be, but any prudent lawyer would check a specific state's "tort laws" before offering advice to a client or potential client on the client's problem.

That's the difference in you and a lawyer, who actually practices law. The lawyer can be held accountable for "advice" or "opinions' he or she gives. You can't, because everyone knows you are full of shit, and even ashamed of being UC.

Your generalized statements do not indicate you have any special knowledge based on legal education or training. It just proves you eat Cracker Jacks.

I also noticed you didn't answer my question about your law school education.

But UC's standards say you are an IGNORAMUS.

Just what are "Civil wrongful death civil suits'?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

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

Oh, I can say all day long I get called names. It really doesn't phase me, because I got over that sometime around the 3rd or 4th grade out at recess. Children do that often. I've just noticed on the Board, and in many other blogs, that some fools think a sufficient response to a substantive argument is to call someone a marginalizing, demeaning name in the mistaken belief that it will "prove" what the person posted is wrong, even though the "name-caller" doesn't have a clue about the person's background and experience on the topic, or even sufficient knowledge about the topic to respond (which is more than likely why they resort to the name-calling and accusations).

And there are always some groupies that buy into it. It's unfortunate, but it's like the road kill on the way to work, there are things to dwell upon that make a positive difference, and occasionally there is a kernel of knowledge or a thought provoking perspective to consider.

It would probably be more productive and rewarding if those same folks would spend their energy on actually learning something and doing some constructive with what they have learned, rather than wasting their time trying to trash what others say, so they will "look better" (from their perspective).

It's also noteworthy that some of these "so-called' liberals on here, who are always getting "choked up" about how "heartless" the conservatives are actually disparage people based on slurs that are used to make derogatory remarks about persons who traditionally vote for liberals.

Example: They chastise people for not wanting "same sex" marriages, but call those same people fags, as well as accuse them of sucking dicks, and butt fucking. Hypocritical? No. It just shows how trashy they are.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

That doesn't mean you are correct. For instance: Tort law INCLUDES elements of statutes, some of which are codified from the common law and crafted from principles based upon common law, and sometimes statutes are USED in tort law to establish a standard of care and conduct, the violation of which establishes liability. On the other hand most tort law principles are from the common law. Which means for the most part in U.S. jurisprudence "tort laws" (which includes case law decisions for the most part with some statutory interpretation) from one state to the next are sufficient similar to have a pretty good idea what it will be, but any prudent lawyer would check a specific state's "tort laws" before offering advice to a client or potential client on the client's problem.

That's the difference in you and a lawyer, who actually practices law. The lawyer can be held accountable for "advice" or "opinions' he or she gives. You can't, because everyone knows you are full of shit, and even ashamed of being UC.

Your generalized statements do not indicate you have any special knowledge based on legal education or training. It just proves you eat Cracker Jacks.

I also noticed you didn't answer my question about your law school education.

But UC's standards say you are an IGNORAMUS.

Just what are "Civil wrongful death civil suits'?

The highlighted portion is exactly what I said a bunch of pages ago. Nice to see you finally catching up. In your exhaustive need to be correct. You can't just agree that a point I made was correct, you must drain it of all vestiges of life and then perform CPR and present it as your own argument pages later. Whatever. One of the first points I made was that statutes can differ from state to state. You went on some fucking bender only to arrive at that very point yourself.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"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."

Requires repeating to stay on point.

[Yssup Rider]

What point?

Have you shat yourself again?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2...-scott-running

Why would a man who has been stopped on a routine traffic violation suddenly run from the scene. What did he fear so much that would compell hi, to take such an action.

Read the link. It's not that long, and gives a good insight into the mentality of men who have a justified fear of any contact with a law enforcement officer.

You might not agree with it, but these arcane laws have resulted in the death of a man, and the ruination of the life of a Police Officer.

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 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.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

What point?

The "Yours is bile" point. It applies to you as well.

[ArisRose]

The cops I know all say the same thing; they wouldn't even bother to chase the man.
Why put your life at risk when you have his ID? Just have the damn car towed and end your shift.

[ArisRose]

It's gonna get to a point where all cops are just going to chill in the police cruiser for their shift and go home. Fuck pursing, engaging, or investigating. My cousin was telling me how now if you even wave at the police driving down the street they will hit the gas.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by ArisRose

The cops I know all say the same thing; they wouldn't even bother to chase the man.
Why put your life at risk when you have his ID? Just have the damn car towed and end your shift.

You're probably right. In fact I am willing to bet on it.


Jim

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by ArisRose

Why put your life at risk when you have his ID? Just have the damn car towed and end your shift.

.. and make sure you give the passenger a "courtesy ride" home.

Motorola is difficult to out run.....

[Freedom42]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

So Slager wouldn't have shot him if he (Scott) didn't run?

Originally Posted by Freedom42

In all likelihood, YES!!!

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Are you sure?

Yes, I'm 100% positive that in all likelihood Scott would NOT have Ben shot by Slager if he hadn't run away.

Am I 100% certain that he wouldn't have been shot? No, but it is way above 99%, hence the use of "in all likelihood".

Do you have any reason to believe that there is even a 1% chance that Scott would have been shot if he stayed in the car as he was told at least twice? If so, please provide it, if not, what is your point?

[IIFFOFRDB]

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Freedom42

Yes, I'm 100% positive that in all likelihood Scott would NOT have Ben shot by Slager if he hadn't run away.

Am I 100% certain that he wouldn't have been shot? No, but it is way above 99%, hence the use of "in all likelihood".

Do you have any reason to believe that there is even a 1% chance that Scott would have been shot if he stayed in the car as he was told at least twice? If so, please provide it, if not, what is your point?

So running AWAY is an offense worthy of death?

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

So running AWAY is an offense worthy of death?

Kind of like strong arm robbing cigarillos. Creepy Ass Crackers want to live too.