Summations Only

Sorry I missed your post on it.True, it's not clear if it was racism but I'd say it's about 99% certain it was. But there is no way the cop felt threatened, it was out and out murder and he obviously lied about what happened.

I'm inclined to put at least part of the blame on police culture. "Scott's parents told TODAY on Wednesday they thought Scott fled from Slager because of the child support he owed." http://www.nbcnews.com/...ead-police-was-father-four-n338036 I don't think it counts as resisting arrest unless there was an attempted arrest. This is what makes it look particularly bad. Police should not be faking evidence.

How likely is it that it will matter why he ran? The Supreme Court has already said that the police cannot shoot criminals just to keep them from escaping. If this guy wasn't a threat to the policeman or the public, then he should not have been shot at even once. Just how many shots (less than eight I guess) do you think would be justified by running away? If the unofficial policies are the ones that get used, then they are the system because there are no working safeguards against people doing whatever the heck they want. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That is one place that racism can bias how the prosecution is handled. But ignoring things that would exonerate a person in order to get a conviction could just be a bias to get a conviction and put another notch in their record. Well, one also has to look at how racism has caused poverty in the past, how much that affects the present, and whether such discrimination is still at work. It is pretty much the same everywhere people are ghettoized. Keep "them" poor, keep "them" down ...

If you haven't seen this I think it is instructional. It's a white honkey redneck going on about racism. Honkey SpeaksEdited by AZPaul3, : title

Oh, come on. I like debating Faith as much as the next guy, but she did write:

She did indeed say exactly that. But she followed up with what seemed to me to some justification for shooting at the fleeing perp some number of times.In my view the dead, running away, no child support paying miscreant was clearly wrong and his reasons for running are no good. There is no question that there was a struggle with the police and that he as trying to avoid capture. But he still should not be dead.His life should have mattered. That's my point. Perhaps you might see some parallel between this miscreant and Eric Garner, because I certainly do.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

How much does it cost for the chance to shoot an unarmed black man? Ask insurance company executive Robert Bates; he'll be able to tell you.

quote:

---

"Tulsa Reserve Deputy who Fatally Mistook Gun for a Taser Turns Himself In" from The Washington Post:

​

Bates is not a real police officer. He's a reserve sheriff's deputy. And some fear he wasn’t qualified to be one.
...

​

Bates, who worked for a year as a police officer in 1964-65, served as chairman of the Re-elect Sheriff (Stanley) Glanz Committee in 2012 and donated $2,500 to Glanz's campaign that year.

---

Okay, so using his gun was a 'mistake' and he was technically only paying for a chance at tasing himself some black folk, but still, what the fuck?

I merely wondered why he ran because it's why he got shot, although I SAID there was no justification for shooting him -- even ONCE. Outright murder is outright murder. And in my opinion Slager should get the death penalty.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Whoa.I explained why I made my comment. I may very well be wrong about what your words implied, but I felt the comment was warranted. I still feel that way. Perhaps it should not have been directed at you.With respect to the death penalty though, as best as I can tell, the law simply does not support it in this instance. Absent some kind of hate crime statute, there simply is no basis for asking for the death penalty in this case. And that's despite the fact that South Carolina has no problem with the death penalty per se. If you think such a penalty is warranted in this case, then I guess you have a problem with the system.ABE: No one seems to be talking about this, but there was an actual struggle between Scott and the officer that involved the two men tussling on the ground. It is entirely possible that the Scott got a hold of the officer's taser. The officer might have been within the law to have shot Scott at that point.However, at the time of the shooting, Scott had succeeded in breaking free, and clearly did not have the taser. I cannot read the officer's mind, but he might well have shot Scott out of frustration, anger, and some fear. But despite what some police will tell you, resisting arrest is not the type of dangerous felony that authorizes you to shoot a fleein' perp in the back. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I DO have a problem with the "system." Willfully take a man's life, as Slager did, without one iota of justification, not a shred, and you should forfeit your own.

And where does the other cheek come into in all this?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Must be all of those liberals in South Carolina. They've watered down the criminal justice system so that you cannot execute a policeman for murder anymore.

ABE: First, Slager didn't slap me on the cheek, and I'll grant that I need to learn to turn my cheek when people insult me. But Slager didn't insult me.Second, poor Walter Scott is dead. I'll grant that perhaps he could have stopped in his tracks and faced Slager and said "Shoot me again" and that might have had quite an effect on Slager. Too bad that's no longer possible. /ABEThe other cheek does not come into this because it is not what Jesus was talking about. He was teaching individuals, not state authorities, not to retaliate against personal insults to themselves, but state authorities administer God's justice for the sake of having a peaceful and righteous society for everybody. Look it up in any commentary. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why would I look up South Carolina law in a commentary? Quite clearly the authorities in that state are not drawing on what you consider to be God's justice when they don't execute Officer Slager. It's quite apparently that South Carolina, like every other of the 50 states uses a quite different philosophy of crime and punishment.This is a perfect example of how law is not Bible based. Besides that, if has John cited an inappropriate verse (and I could argue that he has not), he could very well have talked about stoning a woman of ill repute to much better effect.I find it quite amusing that some Christians claim not to live under the law until the time arises to apply the law to others. Here is yet another example.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.