• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Video Shows Officer Shooting Unarmed Black Man in South Carolina

Status
Not open for further replies.
Simon W. Moon said:
Just because you don't realize that

something has been done doesn't mean that it hasn't happened
Click to expand...
Just because you say something has been done does not mean it has been done.

Which doesn't change the fact that you have not refuted what has been presented.


Simon W. Moon said:
I wish that I could,
Click to expand...
You are the only one who controls what you post, so stop with your asininity Simon.


Simon W. Moon said:
or when you post.
Click to expand...
Just more asininity on your part. You are the one engaged in such behavior.


Clearly you can not refute what I presented, nor could you, which is why you focus on me and not on what was provided.


Simon W. Moon said:
The reason why so many people think Slager may have committed murder, the reason why Slager has been charged with murder is because it is so amazingly clear that Slager did not commit murder that it is literally incredible--people cannot believe how clear it is that Slager did not commit murder so they had to charge him with murder.
Click to expand...
Sill spouting nonsense.
Figures.
As an appeal to authority as well as an appeal to assumed masses, you are again engaged in a logical fallacy.


Simon W. Moon said:
That's the exact textbook definition of

something being clear and obvious--hardly anyone can tell.
Click to expand...
Oy vey! Speaking nonsense is all you are doing.
In accordance with the evidence he clearly did not commit a murder, and all you have done is ignore the evidence.

Your continued use of logical fallacies do not refute what I presented.
Funny that you think they do.
 
Most people abide by the rules because they don't want to be punished. Who wants it anyway? If they felt that the enforcement is strict, they will just behave or leave and find another place to resume their ways.
 
DVSentinel said:
Life was not take for a "taillight". Life was taken for resisting arrest/fleeing. I see no problem with it as a non-criminal would have no reason to do so. The life of a criminal has no positive value to a society. If by killing one, you prevent others from doing the same thing, then it is of value. If shooting a few that are fleeing prevents others from fleeing, it is definitely worth the life of a few criminal scum.
Click to expand...
Sorry but you sound like the early 20th century progressive George Bernard Shaw here when he proposed a panel to screen citizens under the premise of "justifying their existence"...
 
 Simon W. Moon ;1064537699 said:
:2wave:
Click to expand...
:doh
Still unable to refute I see.
 
 Simon W. Moon ;1064537804 said:
I earnestly believe that is what you see.
Click to expand...
:doh

Still failing to refute the presented info let alone address the actual topic. :doh
So typical.
 
SMTA said:
The cop is a murderer, period.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that he will be found guilty.

I still hope to hear his explanation of why he purposely placed one of his duty weapons next to a still living, unrestrained (yet) suspect, rather than securing it.

Cuz if he wants to use 'it wasnt capable of harm anymore' as an excuse, there goes his excuse that he believed that the suspect was a threat even if he had he been running off with it.

I hope that transcripts eventually released will show this line of questioning.
 
Lursa said:
Cuz if he wants to use 'it wasnt capable of harm anymore' as an excuse, there goes his excuse that he believed that the suspect was a threat even if he had he been running off with it.
Click to expand...

Bing - to the freaking - O
 
Excon said:
No you haven't.

As you were already told, the X26 has two cartridges and then can be used as a drive-stun device. You haven't refuted that.

Even the information you provided shows you to be wrong.


:doh
All you are doing is showing your own biases which are based on convoluted thoughts.


:doh
This is you showing you do not even understand the information you provided let alone read it. :doh

The electrodes are not the probes. Get that through your head.
Look at the pdf and the diagram you provided and educate yourself.



Wrong.
It is the probes which are launched and the electrodes that remain part of the taser.
Again; Look at the pdf and the diagram you provided and educate yourself.


iLOL At you being dishonest? No.
At you being wrong? No.
That you continually ignore the facts? No.
You saying he is scumbag and a murder just shows it is you who are irrationally mad.



Just stop, you are wrong.



Wrong again. You failed to read and comprehend, which is not my fault but yours.
And you are just exemplifying why things need to be repeated.


As you were the one who has been shown to have failed on multiple levels; Wrong.
You comment only applies to you.
Click to expand...





hey, I guess this scumbag murderer needs one cheerleader. *shrug*
 
Lursa said:
Pretty sure that he will be found guilty.
Click to expand...
Not of murder.


Lursa said:
I still hope to hear his explanation of why he purposely placed one of his duty weapons next to a still living, unrestrained (yet) suspect, rather than securing it.
Click to expand...
Again showing you do not know what you are talking about.
He was restrained by handcuff that he put on him prior to walking over and picking up what you assume was the taser.
And moving it into the view of the Officers on the scene would be securing it as the suspect was restrained and not moving.


Lursa said:
Cuz if he wants to use 'it wasnt capable of harm anymore' as an excuse, there goes his excuse that he believed that the suspect was a threat even if he had he been running off with it.
Click to expand...
That is lame to even suggest such.
The taser can continued to be used as a drive-stun device.
As there is much that isn't known, for all you know the suspect may have fired the taser at the Officer. If that is the case the Officer shooting the suspect is justifiable.




ReverendHellh0und said:
hey, I guess this scumbag murderer needs one cheerleader. *shrug*
Click to expand...
I am not cheerleader for you, but I do cheer-lead for the facts which you seem bound and determined to ignore.


Have you figured out that you have been wrong about the taser yet?
 
j-mac said:
Sorry but you sound like the early 20th century progressive George Bernard Shaw here when he proposed a panel to screen citizens under the premise of "justifying their existence"...
Click to expand...

Their ability to exist on their own without reliance on the Government and to do so in accordance with established law is what would "justify their existence", otherwise, they should not exist.
 
Lursa said:
Pretty sure that he will be found guilty.

I still hope to hear his explanation of why he purposely placed one of his duty weapons next to a still living, unrestrained (yet) suspect, rather than securing it.

Cuz if he wants to use 'it wasnt capable of harm anymore' as an excuse, there goes his excuse that he believed that the suspect was a threat even if he had he been running off with it.

I hope that transcripts eventually released will show this line of questioning.
Click to expand...

Probably also going to cost the Sheriff his job.

Falsified training records look to be the Achilles Heel of this situation, and we have only seen the tip of the iceberg.
 
Is there any new evidence on this?
 
SMTA said:
Probably also going to cost the Sheriff his job.

Falsified training records look to be the Achilles Heel of this situation, and we have only seen the tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...

Honestly we should stop electing sheriffs: we should elect people to hire a sheriff.
 
Excon said:
Not of murder.


Again showing you do not know what you are talking about.
He was restrained by handcuff that he put on him prior to walking over and picking up what you assume was the taser.
And moving it into the view of the Officers on the scene would be securing it as the suspect was restrained and not moving.


That is lame to even suggest such.
The taser can continued to be used as a drive-stun device.
As there is much that isn't known, for all you know the suspect may have fired the taser at the Officer. If that is the case the Officer shooting the suspect is justifiable.




I am not cheerleader for you, but I do cheer-lead for the facts which you seem bound and determined to ignore.


Have you figured out that you have been wrong about the taser yet?
Click to expand...

This makes me laugh. You were wrong then...

Montana man convicted in German exchange student's death - Markus Kaarma, Montana man, convicted in death of German exchange student Diren Dede - CBS News

And you are just as wrong now.
 
:laughat:
Black Dog said:
This makes me laugh. You were wrong then...

Montana man convicted in German exchange student's death - Markus Kaarma, Montana man, convicted in death of German exchange student Diren Dede - CBS News

And you are just as wrong now.
Click to expand...
This makes me laugh as you obviously do not understand the difference between "shouldn't be" and "wont be".
Those are two vastly different things.
So all you are doing is showing you wish to make false statements. :doh


:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Excon said:
:laughat:This makes me laugh as you obviously do not understand the difference between "shouldn't be" and "wont be".
Two vastly different things.
Click to expand...

No. I understand completely. I understand you "shouldn't be" firing into any area blind. It is one of the rules of safe gun ownership. I understand you "wont be" correct this time either because you ignore any common sense and instead twist things to fit your own imagination backed by facts or not.

Excon said:
So all you are doing is showing you wish to make false statements. :doh

:lamo:lamo:lamo
Click to expand...

Not at all. What I am showing is how again you were wrong then...

Excon said:
Wrong.
Besides quoting from articles, I have shown you to be wrong by what you provided.
Your claims were false as shown.
Click to expand...

And yet he was convicted for exactly what I pointed out.

No number of smileys can change the fact you are repeating the same thing in this thread.
 
Black Dog said:
No. I understand completely. I understand you "shouldn't be" firing into any area blind. It is one of the rules of safe gun ownership. I understand you "wont be" correct this time either because you ignore any common sense and instead twist things to fit your own imagination backed by facts or not.
Click to expand...
You obviously do not understand.
There is a difference between "shouldn't" and "wont". Learn it.
You also show you do not know what has been argued all because you want to make false assertions.


Black Dog said:
Not at all. What I am showing is how again you were wrong then...
Click to expand...
Again showing you do not know what was argued.
There is a difference between "shouldn't" and "wont". Learn it.


Black Dog said:
And yet he was convicted for exactly what I pointed out.
Click to expand...
Holy assumptive bs batman. Wrong. You have no idea why he was convicted, that remains with the jury.



Black Dog said:
No number of smileys can change the fact you are repeating the same thing in this thread.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
I have pointed out facts, what is and isn't likely under those facts and argued the law.
What have you done?
His actions do not raise to the level of murder. You can't change that.
 
Excon said:
You obviously do not understand.
There is a difference between "shouldn't" and "wont". Learn it.
You also show you do not know what has been argued all because you want to make false assertions.


Again showing you do not know what was argued.
There is a difference between "shouldn't" and "wont". Learn it.



Holy assumptive bs batman. Wrong. You have no idea why he was convicted, that remains with the jury.



Wrong.
I have pointed out the facts and argued the law.
What have you done?
His actions do not raise to the level of murder. You can't change that.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, no rational person agrees with your statements.
 
Excon said:
You obviously do not understand.
There is a difference between "shouldn't" and "wont". Learn it.
You also show you do not know what has been argued all because you want to make false assertions.


Again showing you do not know what was argued.
There is a difference between "shouldn't" and "wont". Learn it.



Holy assumptive bs batman. Wrong. You have no idea why he was convicted, that remains with the jury.



Wrong.
I have pointed out the facts and argued the law.
What have you done?
His actions do not raise to the level of murder. You can't change that.
Click to expand...

Just like then I will say the same thing and then throw it back at you later...

He got convicted and yes I know exactly what the jury said, it was 5 months ago and the transcripts are all out there. I was right again and you were as usual wrong.

This time you will be wrong again and I will do this same thing to remind you how wrong you were yet again. :)
 
Black Dog said:
Just like then I will say the same thing and then throw it back at you later...

He got convicted and yes I know exactly what the jury said, it was 5 months ago and the transcripts are all out there. I was right again and you were as usual wrong.

This time you will be wrong again and I will do this same thing to remind you how wrong you were yet again. :)
Click to expand...
Wrong Black Dog you are making things up and being dishonest again.
You clearly do not know the difference between "shouldn't" and "wont".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom