South Carolina Officer Is Charged With Murder of Walter Scott

You would be wrong...once again.

There is more to what happened but still I do not see how this shooting is justified.

I probably will not comment on Ruby Ridge, knitting, baseball or any other off topic subject in this thread.

 

I thought you were a law and order type of guy. A lawful jury said OJ was not guilty. You don't like the law in this case? How about the Zimmerman verdict?

What more could there be?

Why not? You just commented on the OJ verdict.

 

So it was based on race? He wouldn't have done the same if it were a white running since the officer would have presumed he had a better reason for running, like late for employment.

 

Ruby Ridge and now OJ? Having trouble sticking to the topic?

 

Feeling uncomfortable with your obvious double standards?

 

ROTFLMAO , outstanding this has to be one of the funniest post I have ever read on PF.

- - - Updated - - -

We don't agree much, actually we have probably never agreed with each other. I have to give it to you on this one, the same people who applaud the Zimmerman jury claim that the OJ jury was tainted.

 

So, if shooting to "stop someone in the act of a felony", and "running to evade arrest" is a felony, then shooting someone in the back because they ran to evade arrest could be construed as a good shoot. If so, this needs to be changed.

 

I always call 'em as I see 'em. Color has never been my problem.

 

As usual you have no material and so you have nothing better to avoid discussing the topic. If you do not mind NSA spying on you that is fine.

What is a joke is your claiming that this is not an infringement on the right to privacy.

 

What material? How do you prove a negative? You say you lost rights, show me. It isn't that hard if it's true.

Define what a right to privacy means to you.

 

So now you want to discuss me? I guess you do since you are clueless about the topic at hand.

 

Just asked a simple question. You seem rather hostile when I ask you a pertinent question since what I asked can be directly applicable to this case. Threads evolve. If you are uncomfortable, fine. Ignore my posts then <shrugs>

 

Depends on the state as far as the law goes. Just because the cop has been charged doesn't mean he will be convicted and I agree the law is something that needs to be looked at.

 

Depends on what kind of lies the officer could come up with.

 

I did not ask you to prove a negative. Right to privacy means that the government is not spying on all citizens en masse.

Right not to be arbitrarily stopped and searched is another.

 

Too bad. Both have been going on forever. Move to Cuba.

 

Well, we can agree that him running at the end of the day, caused his death. There had to have been a reason. If this was simply a case of him running because he was mentally ill, it would have made this story even better. Yet we have not heard that at all. The most ridiculous thing about this whole story is that its touted as, Cop kills black man, I mean a man is a man, and there are so many questions then answers. People stop learning after they hear the story they want.

 

No running didn't cause his death, 4 bullets in his back caused his death.

 

LOL! Nothing you have mentioned is directly applicable except where you do not know the facts of this case. No wonder you want to discuss OJ.

 

Sure it is. Perfect parallels. No wonder you're uncomfortable with my questions.

 

No it is not. Prove me wrong.

 

Already did.

 

No you didn't. Try again.

 

Asked and answered. Move on.

 

Nah, you have to do better than saying "nuh uh". If you have facts then bring them otherwise move on. I have already corrected you for your mistake earlier and you insist on deflecting from your mistake. Any further response that doesn't have facts from you is just cyber stalking.