• 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.
Wrong Black Dog you are making things up and being dishonest again.
You clearly do not know the difference between "shouldn't" and "wont".

Intellectual dishonesty will get you nowhere...

No trap was set. That is nothing but a lie which you continue to spout without any actual evidence that it was. And you have absolutely nothing that says he asked his gf to do anything.
Especially as he didn't and even took down things she put up only to have her put them back up.
What there is independent evidence of is that she put the purse out so "if" taken, to help "catch" the thief, not as a trap.
You are again simply showing you do not know the evidence and make false things up..

So please tell me what is "should" vs "wont" about you denying evidence?

Bwahahahaha! He was convicted on exactly that "lie" you kept talking about. In fact your boy got 70 years with no parole for 20 years.

District Judge Ed McLean said Markus Kaarma was hunting, not safeguarding his home when he shot 17-year-old Diren Dede early one April morning.

So see you after another conviction. :2wave:
 
Do your own research and stop make absurdly wrong claims.

No one. not one person in this thread I have seen agrees with you. How is this a lie?

And with that. I am out of here.

No use banging your head against a brick wall. Until the officer is convicted. :2wave:
 
Intellectual dishonesty will get you nowhere...

No trap was set. That is nothing but a lie which you continue to spout without any actual evidence that it was. And you have absolutely nothing that says he asked his gf to do anything.
Especially as he didn't and even took down things she put up only to have her put them back up.
What there is independent evidence of is that she put the purse out so "if" taken, to help "catch" the thief, not as a trap.
You are again simply showing you do not know the evidence and make false things up..

Said the one being intellectually dishonest.
What you quoted of me is true. No trap was set. And she placed it there so if taken it could help find the thief. That is not a trap top kill anyone.

And you have nothing to counter it because it is a factual statement.

But of course you absurdly think it was, which is as lame as it is illogical.


So please tell me what is "should" vs "wont" about you denying evidence?
:doh
Oy vey!
This is you conflating two desperate things.
The above was just part of the total reason he should not have been convicted.


He was convicted on exactly that "lie" you kept talking about.
Prove it.
All you are doing is assuming the reasons why the jury found him guilty.
You have no idea why they found the way they did and therefore have nothing factual to base that assertion on. So just stop with your absurd assertions,.
It is far more likely that they found his outburst far more incriminating that the bs (which he didn't do) you are pointing out. :doh
Your whole position is logical.
So stop cluttering up this thread with your absurdities. If you want to discuss that case take to one of it's threads.


District Judge Ed McLean said Markus Kaarma was hunting, not safeguarding his home when he shot 17-year-old Diren Dede early one April morning.
A Judge's comment s after conviction? ilol :doh :lamo Irrelevant.


So see you after another conviction.
The current evidence in the present case does not allow for a murder conviction.'
It is funny that you do not understand that.
 
No one. not one person in this thread I have seen agrees with you. How is this a lie?
:lamo:lamo:lamo
Where did he claim this thread? D'oh!

All you are really doing is showing an ignorance of what has been said.
 
Last edited:
Is there any new evidence on this?

If that was directed at me:

Report: Tulsa reserve officer's training record - CNN.com

Looks like Old Bob is stupid enough to be speaking publicly about this.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...ns-media-offensive-by-lying-on-The-Today-Show

Oh, **** - here is his interview this morning.
When he explains the radically different locations of the taser and his handgun, he looks like a complete simpleton.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...ns-media-offensive-by-lying-on-The-Today-Show
 
Last edited:
:lamo:lamo:lamo
Where did he claim this thread? D'oh!

All you are really doing is showing an ignorance of what has been said.

Oh you mean this one...

Fortunately, no rational person agrees with your statements.

You thought he was talking about the world? :lamo
 
:laughat:
Oh you mean this one...
:doh
Look at you being dishonest again.

He did not say this thread.

Obviously you do not understand that?


So again; All you are really doing is showing an ignorance of what has been said.
 
:laughat::doh
Look at you being dishonest again.

He did not say this thread.

Obviously you do not understand that?


So again; All you are really doing is showing an ignorance of what has been said.

And so my point has exactly the same chance of being correct as yours, but I am being dishonest? :lamo

I will bet you a platinum subscription he will say I am correct.
 
And so my point has exactly the same chance of being correct as yours, but I am being dishonest? :lamo

I will bet you a platinum subscription he will say I am correct.
Your argument is absurd. You have no chance of being correct.
I care not if he now agrees with you or not. Words have meaning and it is not what he said.
Even if it is what he meant, it is not what he said.


So besides my saying that the Officers actions do not amount to the crime of murder.
Do you have any clue as to what I previously stated in regards to this topic?
Be honest, because it is obvious you do not.
 
Your argument is absurd. You have no chance of being correct.
I care not if he now agrees with you or not. Words have meaning and it is not what he said.
Even if it is what he meant, it is not what he said.


So besides my saying that the Officers actions do not amount to the crime of murder.
Do you have any clue as to what I previously stated in regards to this topic?
Be honest, because it is obvious you do not.

I figured you would not take it. You seem unable to connect with our reality.

I can live with that.
 
I figured you would not take it. You seem unable to connect with our reality.

I can live with that.
Take what? Your dishonesty?
You clearly are unable to accept reality.
 
Take what? Your dishonesty?
You clearly are unable to accept reality.

:lamo

Yea keep telling yourself that. Maybe you will believe it. :)
 
:lamo

Yea keep telling yourself that. Maybe you will believe it. :)
It is not something I am telling myself, it is something that you are engaged in.
It is there for all to see. You were dishonest.
 
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.

Yeah, the moving of the taser is very damning. Restrained or not, you dont place a duty weapon next to a still alive suspect (or dead one...I mean, why? Why not secure it?) And if he knew the weapon was not still dangerous, then it's a clear admission that he knew the fleeing suspect had not had a viable weapon as he escaped and was not actually a danger to the cop or the public (not worthy of lethal force).

So, it's a lose lose situation for the cop either way. Oh well.
 
If that was directed at me:

Report: Tulsa reserve officer's training record - CNN.com

Looks like Old Bob is stupid enough to be speaking publicly about this.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...ns-media-offensive-by-lying-on-The-Today-Show

Oh, **** - here is his interview this morning.
When he explains the radically different locations of the taser and his handgun, he looks like a complete simpleton.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...ns-media-offensive-by-lying-on-The-Today-Show

Thanks. Was just wondering.
 
If that was directed at me:

Report: Tulsa reserve officer's training record - CNN.com

Looks like Old Bob is stupid enough to be speaking publicly about this.

Tulsa Deputy Bob Bates begins media offensive by lying on the Today Show

Oh, **** - here is his interview this morning.
When he explains the radically different locations of the taser and his handgun, he looks like a complete simpleton.

Tulsa Deputy Bob Bates begins media offensive by lying on the Today Show

What bearing does the situation on Tulsa have to do with the topic here, a shooting in South Carolina?
 
What bearing does the situation on Tulsa have to do with the topic here, a shooting in South Carolina?

Maybe the fact that some moron might have been posting in the wrong thread.......oops.
 
All the above shows you not paying attention to what you yourself quoted.

Again; "... the X26 once discharged can use the prongs to tase again."
Did you not understand that?
Did you not see the image provided of the X26?

The suspect taking the X26 made him a significant threat.


iLOL No, it doesn't disprove any thing.
Since you think it does here is your chance. Prove it.
Please provide each item you think it disproves so I can dispel these false beliefs.


Your sarcasm is unwarranted.
You are quibbling over the specific wording while ignoring what is being spoken about.
It is being insinuated that the Police lied about the assistance they provided.

From his interview.
Witness Who Filmed Police Shooting Says Victim Walter Scott Didn't Fight for Taser Video - ABC News
@ 02:18
Q: At any point did you see anyone attempting to resuscitate him, save his life?

A: (much is garbled) like I said, the only thing I saw after the scene, there was a cop who, the back up cop, um, he put his glove, he lift down on the shirt of the victim he decided no looking at the um, at wound of the, of the bullet and (garbled) pulse of the victim
after that no I stay there for a little bit, not a long, maybe for a few minutes.

Q: So you didn't see anyone perform CPR?
A: I didn't see any CPR.

Q: Try breathing into his mouth?
A: No, no.

Q: Compress his chest?
A: Nothing.

Q: Try to revive him?
A: Nothing like that.


What he is speaking about in the interview came prior to what the image from his own video later shows.
This is what he was speaking about.
glovb.jpg

But for some reason he conveniently leaves out the actual assistance later being provided that his own video shows.
walter-scott-aid.png


While he may not have been there when they were actually performing CPR, when he says they did "nothing" he is not being truthful, as the image shows they were involved in assistance. Such assistance is an effort to save his life, which is what he was asked.
While possible, it is unlikely that he didn't understand the totality of what he was being asked.

And the fact that he said the suspect definitely did not grab the taser when we can see he had, just further makes what he says suspect.

And so, after pages and pages of "iLOL" and condescension from you to defend killing an unarmed man, Michael Slager pleaded guilty to having “used deadly force even though it was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.”

He will now go forward to sentencing, probably for 2nd degree murder.
 
And so, after pages and pages of "iLOL" and condescension from you to defend killing an unarmed man, Michael Slager pleaded guilty to having “used deadly force even though it was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.”

He will now go forward to sentencing, probably for 2nd degree murder.
1. iLOL Hilarious.
Nothing I argued has been wrong.
It is why he got a hung jury. And that Jury was hung on the lessor charge of ‘voluntary manslaughter’, not the murder charge.

2. His receiving bad counsel, being broken by the system, or a combination of both, does not negate any argument I previously made.
So your post is as nonsensical as it is silly in regards to your comments about me.


3. As for your quip about probably being sentenced for 2nd degree murder? iLOL No.
He was not convicted of such.
I am sure you took away from the report exactly what the author wanted you to think, but no, sentencing guidelines that are "in effect" equivalent to does not mean for. Duh!



That said.

Matter of fact, he will never be convicted of murder or manslaughter.

From the article.
The plea deal effectively resolves all of the pending charges against Mr. Slager, 35, who had also been indicted on a charge of murder in state court.


Try again.
 
~ Nothing I argued has been wrong ~

Yeah, you were right (in your mind) but he pleaded guilty. You are deluded and arrogant which makes how wrong you are all the more funny.

You just keep turning up on these threads and pretending murder by police when it happens isn't murder and I'll just keep laughing at you.
 
Yeah, you were right (in your mind) but he pleaded guilty. You are deluded and arrogant which makes how wrong you are all the more funny.

You just keep turning up on these threads and pretending murder by police when it happens isn't murder and I'll just keep laughing at you.

Look at all the nonsense you are speaking out of arrogance. iLOL

1. The jury chose not to go with murder. They hung on manslaughter. Do you not understand that?
Nothing you provided says my arguments were wrong.

2. He is no longer charged with murder. Do you really not understand that?
That is what the article you provided makes very clear, but for some reason you can't accept that and instead want to arrogantly criticize me when you are iin the wrong with your claims.
That is hilarious.


Again.
Matter of fact, he will never be convicted of murder or manslaughter.

From the article.

The plea deal effectively resolves all of the pending charges against Mr. Slager, 35, who had also been indicted on a charge of murder in state court.
 
Look at all the nonsense you are speaking out of arrogance. iLOL

1. The jury chose not to go with murder. They hung on manslaughter. Do you not understand that?
Nothing you provided says my arguments were wrong.

2. He is no longer charged with murder. Do you really not understand that?
That is what the article you provided makes very clear, but for some reason you can't accept that and instead want to arrogantly criticize me when you are iin the wrong with your claims.
That is hilarious.


Again.
Matter of fact, he will never be convicted of murder or manslaughter.

From the article.

The plea deal effectively resolves all of the pending charges against Mr. Slager, 35, who had also been indicted on a charge of murder in state court.

He pleaded guilty. He knows better what he did than you do.

End of story.
 
He pleaded guilty. He knows better what he did than you do.

End of story.
Oy vey! Your argumentation is stupid.

He plead to a civil rights violation, not to murder. Do you really not understand that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom