patrick.net

Does Vegas offer an 'over/under' on child support payment delinquencies?

this is the commonality between all these sensationalized shootings.

Call it Crazy says

Also, running from authority, resisting arrest and physically assaulting ARMED authority is a recipe for disaster.

zzyzzx says

So if I understand this correctly, the real problem is that it's currently illegal to off a thug that's running away from the police.

The issue of who is the thug is up for discussion, but yes, fleeing suspects may only be shot if they are deemed to pose a threat to others. I suppose the deceased SC victim could have posed a threat to other partners when he stopped paying child support.

If that guy had gotten a vasectomy in time, he would still be alive today.

Obligatory:

Or perhaps an extreme makeover:

Call it Crazy says

But, "he was a loving father of 4 children".

CIC-you are making a bigger idiot of yourself than you usually do. The bottom line is that a man was shot in the back multiple times while running/walking quickly away from a police officer. There is absolutely no rationale that can justify it. NONE. There was no imminent threat to anyone.

Call it Crazy says

That was a quote from your favorite MSM sources... Apparently shirking responsibility for child support for years is OK with your favorite liberal media sources..

Great job trying to shift the story to the deadbeat Dad. Do you ever think about why you are sticking up for a cop that shot an unarmed man that was running AWAY from him?

If being behind on child support is an executable offense, is it open hunting season on bankers? Dead or alive?

It's pretty obvious the cop is guilty and will be strung up accordingly.
However, that does not give the perp a free ride for initiating the sequence of events.
Put all the facts on the table. Then string up the cop.
Fuck being "PC"....

tatupu70 says

Call it Crazy says

That was a quote from your favorite MSM sources... Apparently shirking responsibility for child support for years is OK with your favorite liberal media sources..

Great job trying to shift the story to the deadbeat Dad. Do you ever think about why you are sticking up for a cop that shot an unarmed man that was running AWAY from him?

Call it Crazy says

tatupu70 says

Do you ever think about why you are sticking up for a cop that shot an unarmed man that was running AWAY from him?

Would you like to show ONE instance where I said that here in this thread?

Where you said what?

tatupu70 says

Do you ever think about why you are sticking up for a cop that shot an unarmed man that was running AWAY from him?

Because if all cops did that, we would have a lot less crime, and less people in prison too.

zzyzzx says

Because if all cops did that(*), we would have a lot less crime, and less people in prison too.

(*)THAT == shoot all fleeing suspects

Many right-wingers are insane. It is as simple as that. They have no morals, no understanding of justice, do not support the rule of LAW, and have no understanding what freedom is.

What does being behind on child support, have to do with the matter at hand?

it provides motive for the perp running away while in his car....MAYBE scuffling with the cop....and finally just trying to get the fuck out of there.
it completes the picture.
It gives a better understanding of why the events unfolded as they did from the perps perspective...

errc says

What does being behind on child support, have to do with the matter at hand?

errc says

What does being behind on child support, have to do with the matter at hand?

It's all Obama's fault!!!

errc says

What does being behind on child support, have to do with the matter at hand?

It speaks to the character of the summarily executed.

1) Pat.net member - an innocent victim of flagitious and rebarbative family law courts - owing back child support --> Respectable and completely justifiable (women are crap!)
2) Black dude in South Carolina behind on child support --> Repulsive disgusting bad father

Simple enough to understand.

tatupu70 says

CIC-you are making a bigger idiot of yourself than you usually do. The bottom line is that a man was shot in the back multiple times while running/walking quickly away from a police officer. There is absolutely no rationale that can justify it. NONE. There was no imminent threat to anyone.

Certainly not ~$7k in Child Support, the $18k is probably with penalties and interest. Wow, a guy on the margins couldn't always find employment - something Matriarchy I.H.L. run Courts don't care about.

Call it Crazy says

"I believe he didn't want to go to jail again," Walter Scott Sr. told TODAY. "He just ran away."

I don't want to go to jail either. Does that make it OK to shoot me in the back as I run away?

SoftShell says

it provides motive for the perp running away while in his car

wtf does that even mean? If I have a "motive" to run away, it's OK to shoot me?

Call it Crazy says

And you wonder why I call you an idiot?

No, I'm well aware of why you call me an idiot--it's your reflex action when you've been shown to be wrong...

Call it Crazy says

thunderlips11 says

the $18k is probably with penalties and interest.

How about back payments?

Call it Crazy says

His last payment was on July 20, 2012

What is the issue with reading comprehension here??

Let's see, guy hadn't made a payment since 2012, probably couldn't find a job. We aren't exactly short of unskilled black guys desperate for any kind of work. Probably the same reason his tailight was busted.

In the old days, if you kept your head down, they generally didn't fuck with poor people unless you were really unlucky and a white chick claimed you raped her after she came on to you. These days, poor people are target #1 for fees and fines - and they know they can't pay 'em back, so they get to impound their shit and sell it for even more money at auction, plus they still owe the fine, AND maybe go to private prison, which makes money for those gangsters too.

"I believe he didn't want to go to jail again," Walter Scott Sr. told TODAY. "He just ran away."

You seem to keep posting this, as if its some additional piece of information that adds to understanding the issue at hand. A piece of the puzzle that leads to more complete knowledge.

I dont give a shit if he had bags of crack and a gun. Lets assume the guy is the biggest piece of shit on the planet. Maybe he has a couple young girls locked up in a storage unit somewhere.

Do you still want the police shooting him eight times in The back as he slowly attempts to run away?

These days, poor people are target #1 for fees and fines - and they know they can't pay 'em back, so they get to impound their shit and sell it for even more money at auction, plus they still owe the fine, AND maybe go to private prison, which makes money for those gangsters too.

Thanks, bill clinton!

errc says

"I believe he didn't want to go to jail again," Walter Scott Sr. told TODAY. "He just ran away."

BLACK! BLACK BLACK BLACK BLACK BLACK!

In conclusion: Black.

Shoot 'im, boys!

Hanging around some of these idiots too much might be making me stupid, but i still dont understand why his back child support is being made an issue. When the cop goes to trial, will the jury be instructed to consider that information?

Cept taint splain that,,,,Says law

Call it Crazy says

errc says

Hanging around some of these idiots too much might be making me stupid,

No, smoking so much pot is making you stupid...

Amazingly, anyone who disagrees with you is drunk, stoned or a tweaker.

Such people will wake up tomorrow morning sober; you'll wake up tomorrow morning as a low-voltage authoritarian wingnut douchebag.

No. It informs you as to why the perp ran away.
It has nothing to do with whether it is OK or not OK to shoot someone in the back.
Don't you have any interest at all as to what motivated the perp to run??

tatupu70 says

SoftShell says

it provides motive for the perp running away while in his car

wtf does that even mean? If I have a "motive" to run away, it's OK to shoot me?

SoftShell says

No. It informs you as to why the perp ran away.

Motive usually only comes up when we're considering whether or not an act was committed.

Since we have footage of the guy running away, it seems weird that we must explore motive, because nobody's arguing that he wasn't running away.

Call it Crazy says

HydroCabron says

you'll wake up tomorrow morning as a low-voltage authoritarian wingnut douchebag.

And you'll just wake up tomorrow continuing to be an ass!

The idea of the last word is that you say something inventive or scathing which makes people feel sorry for your opponent, instead of something which just makes people feel sorry for you.

Motive to run appears obvious, so no need to explore.
I don't know why making this observation upsets so many...
It's an open and shut case. cop will go down for it. it's on video.
Time to fill in the cracks to complete the picture...
why would anyone run away from their car for a simple traffic stop?
SOME inquiring minds would like to know...

HydroCabron says

it seems weird that we must explore motive,

Rashard Brown, 30, said he had been pulled over twice in less than two months, including one instance when an officer trailed him for about three miles. “If I broke down on the side of the road with a flat tire, he’d ride right past like he didn’t even see me,” he said. “But if I look like I’m riding clean and I’ve got a lot of money, next thing you know you’ve pulled me over and you stick your head in the car, smell and see what’s going on and see if you see anything.”

Doris Brown, who lives in Charleston but owns a hair salon in North Charleston, said she, too, was pulled over for a broken taillight but believed she may have been stopped because she was a black woman driving a luxury car. “After I left, my friend went behind and there was nothing wrong with my taillight,” she said. “Everything was working with my car, so I felt as though I was being profiled.”
...
After the shooting on Saturday, Mr. Scott’s older brother, Anthony Scott, 52, went to the crime scene. He stood taking pictures of his brother’s covered body with his phone when police officers and detectives approached. Three of them surrounded him, telling him to turn over his phone, he said.

“So, are you going to kill me, too, now?” Mr. Scott said he asked them.

He eventually handed them his phone. Hours later, Chief Driggers arrived, returned Mr. Scott’s phone and offered his condolences.

You bet those officers wanted his camera.

Call it Crazy says

What happened during that period of time that would have made the cop go from calm and professional at the traffic stop to needing to pull his gun and shoot Scott?

Also, the cop was in the Coast Guard (this matters, for some reason).

We need to know why the cop (once in the Coast Guard) shot a fleeing, unarmed man in the back. Otherwise we must assume the cop is innocent.

Coast Guard.

And unless we can firmly establish motive for the man fleeing, we will have to assume that this Coast Guard shooting was justifiable.

Call it Crazy says

It does matter, as he would have been trained in following protocol, would have been regimented and disciplined...

Really?

Interesting how the whitest person in every encounter gets the benefit of the doubt.

Call it Crazy says

Interesting, that YOU are the only one injecting "race" into the discussion...

What the fuck is wrong with you?

I don't know what comes over me.

A white South Carolina cop shoots a black guy in the back, and I can't help injecting race into the discussion!

Call it Crazy says

Skin color had NOTHING to do with this situation except to help sensationalize it for "entertainment" value in the news.

Yes, if a cop had shot a white guy in the back, we wouldn't be hearing about it.

I'll give you one thing: since you love firm, jack-booted authority so much, you'd still be looking at the Coast Guard background to justify the cop's actions. So in that one way you're not racist.

Well, scott tried to run away, and shlager fired eight bullets at him. Seems like shlager is 100% responsible for scott dying. Wouldn't you?

Call it Crazy says

responsible background

This reminds me of when judges spare white gang members prison time, because they're from "good families".

WTF is a "responsible background"?

Why does CiC fail to mention that scott was also in the coast guard.

Hell, i think both guys were both stationed in baltimore, years apart.

Coast guard brother, having his coast guard brethrens back