Total Posts:95|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Walter Scott Incident

YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 4:18:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'll tell you all...

I am not a fan of Black Lives Matter. I think they're bad for the Left and worse for the Democratic party. I think they offer no meaningful solutions, and that their methods make bad situations worse.

But... this Walter Scott thing is really reframing how I see this issue. I've never been pro-cop on these race issues because I know that cops shoot black people, and specifically black men and boys, far more than anyone else.

What I never expected was a hung jury when the evidence was so overwhelmingly clear in the way of pointing towards the officer's guilt.

That cop shot Walter Scott in cold blood, with precisely no moral, legal, or ethical justification. The video plainly and clearly shows Scott walking away, unarmed, when he was shot in the back multiple times by a white cop.

I've personally been involved with two civil rights cases in which I know, for an unquestionable fact that racist jurors were the reason that justice was not served. It looks like this is another one of those situations.

For the jury to be hung in this case... it is mindboggling.
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 4:21:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What it tells me is that there is at least one juror who, without question, is seeing all of this through the evidence of "white cop" who, because he is white, is necessarily justified in shooting and killing a black man for no reason other than that the cop had an interaction with the black man.

The only difference between this Cop and George Zimmerman was a badge. They're both human trash.
Procrastine
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 5:17:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm the opposite. I am a fan of black lives matter, but I also have sympathy for the hung jury. The policeman was doing his job, he was attacked, and he panicked. He made a mistake at work, in a dangerous job. Maybe. I'm not sure about the details of the trial, but I don't think he should be sent to prison for making a mistake, if that's what happened.
imabench
Posts: 20,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 5:22:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 5:17:06 AM, Procrastine wrote:

The policeman was doing his job, he was attacked

I dont think you know much about the actual case here. The guy literally just started running AWAY from the officer, who then fired into his back a dozen times. He even handcuffed him after he had died. For there to be a hung jury is, as YYW basically said, utterly retarded.
DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

12/14/14 to 1/1/15 = VP of DDO
8/4/18 to 8/6/18 = Start of the Worst Spam Attack in DDO History (61 Hours, 21 Minutes, and 37 seconds... Estimated 63,175 Spam Posts during the main attack)

Be Today's Hero and Tomorrow's Hero
The trash from yesterday will still be trash from every day onwards
ken1122
Posts: 1,737
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 5:24:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 4:21:41 AM, YYW wrote:
What it tells me is that there is at least one juror who, without question, is seeing all of this through the evidence of "white cop" who, because he is white, is necessarily justified in shooting and killing a black man for no reason other than that the cop had an interaction with the black man.

The only difference between this Cop and George Zimmerman was a badge. They're both human trash.

From what I heard from the news, it was only 1 juror who stood in the way of a conviction

Ken
Procrastine
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 5:25:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 5:22:04 AM, imabench wrote:
At 12/6/2016 5:17:06 AM, Procrastine wrote:

The policeman was doing his job, he was attacked

I dont think you know much about the actual case here. The guy literally just started running AWAY from the officer, who then fired into his back a dozen times. He even handcuffed him after he had died. For there to be a hung jury is, as YYW basically said, utterly retarded.

It's true, I know very little about the case. But the policeman was attacked, and then the guy started running away. Of course he shouldn't have shot him. That was absolutely wrong. But was it maliciously intended? I don't know, but I imagine that it's possible that he panicked. If we are going to give the police guns and make them responsible for handling violent situations, then there are going to be mistakes made as there are in any industry.
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 5:34:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 5:25:42 AM, Procrastine wrote:
At 12/6/2016 5:22:04 AM, imabench wrote:
At 12/6/2016 5:17:06 AM, Procrastine wrote:

The policeman was doing his job, he was attacked

I dont think you know much about the actual case here. The guy literally just started running AWAY from the officer, who then fired into his back a dozen times. He even handcuffed him after he had died. For there to be a hung jury is, as YYW basically said, utterly retarded.

It's true, I know very little about the case. But the policeman was attacked, and then the guy started running away. Of course he shouldn't have shot him. That was absolutely wrong. But was it maliciously intended? I don't know, but I imagine that it's possible that he panicked. If we are going to give the police guns and make them responsible for handling violent situations, then there are going to be mistakes made as there are in any industry.

The cop was not attacked.
Procrastine
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 5:38:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 5:34:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2016 5:25:42 AM, Procrastine wrote:
At 12/6/2016 5:22:04 AM, imabench wrote:
At 12/6/2016 5:17:06 AM, Procrastine wrote:

The policeman was doing his job, he was attacked

I dont think you know much about the actual case here. The guy literally just started running AWAY from the officer, who then fired into his back a dozen times. He even handcuffed him after he had died. For there to be a hung jury is, as YYW basically said, utterly retarded.

It's true, I know very little about the case. But the policeman was attacked, and then the guy started running away. Of course he shouldn't have shot him. That was absolutely wrong. But was it maliciously intended? I don't know, but I imagine that it's possible that he panicked. If we are going to give the police guns and make them responsible for handling violent situations, then there are going to be mistakes made as there are in any industry.

The cop was not attacked.

Okay, I went back over it. I got the wrong idea the first time.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 5:42:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 4:21:41 AM, YYW wrote:
What it tells me is that there is at least one juror who, without question, is seeing all of this through the evidence of "white cop" who, because he is white, is necessarily justified in shooting and killing a black man for no reason other than that the cop had an interaction with the black man.

The only difference between this Cop and George Zimmerman was a badge. They're both human trash.

Nice to know 1 in 12 randomly selected people are racists.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
tejretics
Posts: 6,869
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 5:58:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 5:42:22 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/6/2016 4:21:41 AM, YYW wrote:
What it tells me is that there is at least one juror who, without question, is seeing all of this through the evidence of "white cop" who, because he is white, is necessarily justified in shooting and killing a black man for no reason other than that the cop had an interaction with the black man.

The only difference between this Cop and George Zimmerman was a badge. They're both human trash.

Nice to know 1 in 12 randomly selected people are racists.

lol @ the misrepresentation

One of these *specific* twelve randomly selected people was a racist. So, even if a very small percentage of the population was racist, at least *one* of the possible groups of twelve would have a racist. Do the math.
Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real.
tejretics
Posts: 6,869
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 5:59:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Greyparrot's argument:

"It's impossible for a juror to be a racist since 1/12th of the population is not a racist!"
Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 6:08:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 4:21:41 AM, YYW wrote:
What it tells me is that there is at least one juror who, without question, is seeing all of this through the evidence of "white cop" who, because he is white, is necessarily justified in shooting and killing a black man for no reason other than that the cop had an interaction with the black man.

The only difference between this Cop and George Zimmerman was a badge. They're both human trash.

At least the guy got to punch Zimmerman in the face, the other guy got to do nothing for being shot.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
Procrastine
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 7:00:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 4:21:41 AM, YYW wrote:
What it tells me is that there is at least one juror who, without question, is seeing all of this through the evidence of "white cop" who, because he is white, is necessarily justified in shooting and killing a black man for no reason other than that the cop had an interaction with the black man.

The only difference between this Cop and George Zimmerman was a badge. They're both human trash.

There's absolutely no evidence that this was motivated by racism. Yes, I'm sure that there is racism in juries, but there's no evidence that this particular juror was racist. There are all kinds of bigotries that could have inspired him or her. Racism is evident in the pattern of jury findings across time. If you're convinced because you disagree with one particular case, you're not being reasonable. That's okay by me because you're going from the wrong opinion to the right opinion (black lives matter), but I'm just pointing it out.
Procrastine
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 7:01:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If a particular juror gets vilified as a racist bigot only because they produce the wrong answer, with no other evidence, then that's the kind of left wing oppression that people are talking about.
Bennett91
Posts: 8,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 7:24:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 4:18:42 AM, YYW wrote:
I'll tell you all...

I am not a fan of Black Lives Matter. I think they're bad for the Left and worse for the Democratic party. I think they offer no meaningful solutions, and that their methods make bad situations worse.

But... this Walter Scott thing is really reframing how I see this issue. I've never been pro-cop on these race issues because I know that cops shoot black people, and specifically black men and boys, far more than anyone else.

What I never expected was a hung jury when the evidence was so overwhelmingly clear in the way of pointing towards the officer's guilt.

That cop shot Walter Scott in cold blood, with precisely no moral, legal, or ethical justification. The video plainly and clearly shows Scott walking away, unarmed, when he was shot in the back multiple times by a white cop.

I've personally been involved with two civil rights cases in which I know, for an unquestionable fact that racist jurors were the reason that justice was not served. It looks like this is another one of those situations.

For the jury to be hung in this case... it is mindboggling.

You say all this yet you reject the concept of white privilege ... where's the disconnect??
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [][]
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 7:48:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 7:24:41 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/6/2016 4:18:42 AM, YYW wrote:
I'll tell you all...

I am not a fan of Black Lives Matter. I think they're bad for the Left and worse for the Democratic party. I think they offer no meaningful solutions, and that their methods make bad situations worse.

But... this Walter Scott thing is really reframing how I see this issue. I've never been pro-cop on these race issues because I know that cops shoot black people, and specifically black men and boys, far more than anyone else.

What I never expected was a hung jury when the evidence was so overwhelmingly clear in the way of pointing towards the officer's guilt.

That cop shot Walter Scott in cold blood, with precisely no moral, legal, or ethical justification. The video plainly and clearly shows Scott walking away, unarmed, when he was shot in the back multiple times by a white cop.

I've personally been involved with two civil rights cases in which I know, for an unquestionable fact that racist jurors were the reason that justice was not served. It looks like this is another one of those situations.

For the jury to be hung in this case... it is mindboggling.

You say all this yet you reject the concept of white privilege ... where's the disconnect??

I embrace it, white culture is superior.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 12:56:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You say all this yet you reject the concept of white privilege ... where's the disconnect??

Where everyone falls over themselves over a white cop shooting a stoned out PCP addled dude that parks his car in the middle of the road and shouts its going to blow up as a victim, and where a guy has a gun on him, gets out of the car, the narrative is that he was holding a book, and everyone falls over themselves to make him a victim, too.

White privilege apparently is only checked against a black victim.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 8,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 1:11:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 12:56:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
You say all this yet you reject the concept of white privilege ... where's the disconnect??


Where everyone falls over themselves over a white cop shooting a stoned out PCP addled dude that parks his car in the middle of the road and shouts its going to blow up as a victim, and where a guy has a gun on him, gets out of the car, the narrative is that he was holding a book, and everyone falls over themselves to make him a victim, too.


White privilege apparently is only checked against a black victim.

It runs far deeper than that and you know it.
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [][]
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 1:24:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 5:42:22 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/6/2016 4:21:41 AM, YYW wrote:
What it tells me is that there is at least one juror who, without question, is seeing all of this through the evidence of "white cop" who, because he is white, is necessarily justified in shooting and killing a black man for no reason other than that the cop had an interaction with the black man.

The only difference between this Cop and George Zimmerman was a badge. They're both human trash.

Nice to know 1 in 12 randomly selected people are racists.

are you assuming the 1 juror is white? you racist.
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 2:26:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 7:24:41 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/6/2016 4:18:42 AM, YYW wrote:
I'll tell you all...

I am not a fan of Black Lives Matter. I think they're bad for the Left and worse for the Democratic party. I think they offer no meaningful solutions, and that their methods make bad situations worse.

But... this Walter Scott thing is really reframing how I see this issue. I've never been pro-cop on these race issues because I know that cops shoot black people, and specifically black men and boys, far more than anyone else.

What I never expected was a hung jury when the evidence was so overwhelmingly clear in the way of pointing towards the officer's guilt.

That cop shot Walter Scott in cold blood, with precisely no moral, legal, or ethical justification. The video plainly and clearly shows Scott walking away, unarmed, when he was shot in the back multiple times by a white cop.

I've personally been involved with two civil rights cases in which I know, for an unquestionable fact that racist jurors were the reason that justice was not served. It looks like this is another one of those situations.

For the jury to be hung in this case... it is mindboggling.

You say all this yet you reject the concept of white privilege ... where's the disconnect??

White privilege is when something bad happens to a black person and Someone says it wouldn't happen if they were white, and illogical projections ensue. Its just a useless assumption. He's dead. No amount of white privilege pseudo theory is going to change that.
Bennett91
Posts: 8,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 2:49:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 2:26:17 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 12/6/2016 7:24:41 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/6/2016 4:18:42 AM, YYW wrote:
I'll tell you all...

I am not a fan of Black Lives Matter. I think they're bad for the Left and worse for the Democratic party. I think they offer no meaningful solutions, and that their methods make bad situations worse.

But... this Walter Scott thing is really reframing how I see this issue. I've never been pro-cop on these race issues because I know that cops shoot black people, and specifically black men and boys, far more than anyone else.

What I never expected was a hung jury when the evidence was so overwhelmingly clear in the way of pointing towards the officer's guilt.

That cop shot Walter Scott in cold blood, with precisely no moral, legal, or ethical justification. The video plainly and clearly shows Scott walking away, unarmed, when he was shot in the back multiple times by a white cop.

I've personally been involved with two civil rights cases in which I know, for an unquestionable fact that racist jurors were the reason that justice was not served. It looks like this is another one of those situations.

For the jury to be hung in this case... it is mindboggling.

You say all this yet you reject the concept of white privilege ... where's the disconnect??

White privilege is when something bad happens to a black person and Someone says it wouldn't happen if they were white, and illogical projections ensue.

It's not illogical seeing how even the OP can personally attest to it.

Its just a useless assumption. He's dead. No amount of white privilege pseudo theory is going to change that.

It's not useless if its application/understanding can prevent further harm.
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [][]
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 2:49:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 1:11:58 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/6/2016 12:56:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
You say all this yet you reject the concept of white privilege ... where's the disconnect??


Where everyone falls over themselves over a white cop shooting a stoned out PCP addled dude that parks his car in the middle of the road and shouts its going to blow up as a victim, and where a guy has a gun on him, gets out of the car, the narrative is that he was holding a book, and everyone falls over themselves to make him a victim, too.


White privilege apparently is only checked against a black victim.

It runs far deeper than that and you know it.

It does and it doesn't.

Me getting the benefit of the doubt or not getting looked at side ways when I enter a convenience store isn't because I am white.

Its because I don't carry a threatening posture, its because I present myself in an open and friendly manner, its because I talk in an easily understood, usually slang-free method, its because I take pains to look like a functioning member of society.

Why is it all these white homeless dudes have no privilege?

Why is it all these white biker-types have no privilege?

Its not about skin color. What we are observing is whether or not the perks of living in a Huuuuuge social contract are worth extending to those around us, and those that have the semblance of honoring said contract are given that benefit of the doubt.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 2:49:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 2:26:17 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 12/6/2016 7:24:41 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/6/2016 4:18:42 AM, YYW wrote:
I'll tell you all...

I am not a fan of Black Lives Matter. I think they're bad for the Left and worse for the Democratic party. I think they offer no meaningful solutions, and that their methods make bad situations worse.

But... this Walter Scott thing is really reframing how I see this issue. I've never been pro-cop on these race issues because I know that cops shoot black people, and specifically black men and boys, far more than anyone else.

What I never expected was a hung jury when the evidence was so overwhelmingly clear in the way of pointing towards the officer's guilt.

That cop shot Walter Scott in cold blood, with precisely no moral, legal, or ethical justification. The video plainly and clearly shows Scott walking away, unarmed, when he was shot in the back multiple times by a white cop.

I've personally been involved with two civil rights cases in which I know, for an unquestionable fact that racist jurors were the reason that justice was not served. It looks like this is another one of those situations.

For the jury to be hung in this case... it is mindboggling.

You say all this yet you reject the concept of white privilege ... where's the disconnect??

White privilege is when something bad happens to a black person and Someone says it wouldn't happen if they were white, and illogical projections ensue. Its just a useless assumption. He's dead. No amount of white privilege pseudo theory is going to change that.

your solid logic will fall on deaf ears unfortunately, I haven't really looked into this matter much, and I guess there's no real point until we actually know what the deal is with the juror in question. I would have to think justifying shooting someone in the back running away could only be done in the most extreme and extenuating circumstances.
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
vortex86
Posts: 874
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 3:13:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't see any evidence of racial motivation. You might come to that conclusion if you watched a cut up gif from reddit which does in fact show him throw a taser by the body. I am confident that it was not a justified shooting, however the facts behind the motivation for the cop shooting him do not point to a racially motivated cause, nor is there any for the juror.

1. Felon with history of assault/battery with arrest warrant
2. Felon flees during routine traffic stop
3. Scuffle ensues when trying to apprehend the suspect
4. Taser was taken allegedly by said felon
5. Taser was discharged, appears to have struck officer as is evidenced by his injuries
6. Officer believed individual had taser/stun gun or this is his claim

None of those facts establish this is racially motivated. The demeanor of the cop during the initial stop and pulling the suspect over would not indicate any malice or charged situation. After the confrontation and upon closer examination it appears he realized he made an egregious mistake and he attempted to cover it up (dropping the taser by the suspect). He picked it up after dropping it perhaps changing his mind about what he was willing to do to fit his narrative.

A police officer is not a judge/juror and should use great restraint in deciding when it is necessary to subdue/kill a suspect and I don't think this passes the litmus test. He issued no commands (audibly) when the suspect was fleeing to stop or even threaten to shoot verbally. The officer should have shown more restraint in this case as the suspect's back was to him and even under his belief that the suspect had his taser (already discharged and required reloading to pose any imminent threat from a distance) was not life threatening and the officer had already regained the upper hand.

Context needs to be heeded in a given situation as looking at the video without them paints an entirely different picture, especially when you oversimplify things (white vs black). When media crops footage to further push a narrative that treads into dangerous territory and obvious manipulation for the purposes of telling their story instead of the whole story.

I think the officer obviously is not capable of making quality decisions in heated situations, and as such should not further be allowed to continue in the capacity he was in law enforcement. I don't believe the officer is guilty of malice in the shooting so I think he is guilty of manslaughter not murder. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the subject, but I feel my opinions are warranted given the facts of the case. As the judge allowed for the lesser charge, I don't feel there is any room for a not guilty on that charge especially. Guessing the intent behind the 1 hold out juror doesn't help the situation any, and further perpetuates false narratives.
Fernyx
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 3:23:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 4:18:42 AM, YYW wrote:
I'll tell you all...

I am not a fan of Black Lives Matter. I think they're bad for the Left and worse for the Democratic party. I think they offer no meaningful solutions, and that their methods make bad situations worse.

But... this Walter Scott thing is really reframing how I see this issue. I've never been pro-cop on these race issues because I know that cops shoot black people, and specifically black men and boys, far more than anyone else.

The only part of what you said I do not agree with.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

What I never expected was a hung jury when the evidence was so overwhelmingly clear in the way of pointing towards the officer's guilt.

That cop shot Walter Scott in cold blood, with precisely no moral, legal, or ethical justification. The video plainly and clearly shows Scott walking away, unarmed, when he was shot in the back multiple times by a white cop.

I've personally been involved with two civil rights cases in which I know, for an unquestionable fact that racist jurors were the reason that justice was not served. It looks like this is another one of those situations.

For the jury to be hung in this case... it is mindboggling.

As far as BLM goes, they are still a bad group who will praise Michael Brown and Treyvon Martin more than this case of actual unjustified killing. I think that cops are given too much power but the issue should be focused on police brutality not racism. This is one case and I do not believe that one case can define and re-justify a movement throwing many false flags and narratives. I will say that in this case the cop was not justified, and there is likely racism as a driving factor.
Fernyx
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 3:24:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 5:17:06 AM, Procrastine wrote:
I'm the opposite. I am a fan of black lives matter, but I also have sympathy for the hung jury. The policeman was doing his job, he was attacked, and he panicked. He made a mistake at work, in a dangerous job. Maybe. I'm not sure about the details of the trial, but I don't think he should be sent to prison for making a mistake, if that's what happened.

Have you seen the video? Walter Scott was jogging away and the cop calmly drew his gun and shot.
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 3:29:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 3:13:57 PM, vortex86 wrote:
I don't see any evidence of racial motivation.

You would be "that juror."
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 3:30:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would have to think justifying shooting someone in the back running away could only be done in the most extreme and extenuating circumstances.

If some one had a weapon on him, used a weapon, etc. Darting to cover is really just making it easier to shoot again.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
vortex86
Posts: 874
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2016 3:30:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2016 3:29:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2016 3:13:57 PM, vortex86 wrote:
I don't see any evidence of racial motivation.

You would be "that juror."

Dispute anything else I posted. I clearly said I would have found him guilty of manslaughter, good job on reading comprehension.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.