• 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!

(Off Topic from another thread) Walter Scott / Michael Slager

Excon

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,615
Reaction score
9,087
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I am bring this here because it is "Off-Topic" in that thread.

SkyFox76 said:
Excon said:
*Sigh*
Interesting. From where I came from that is called an allegation.
And in this case, an unproven one.

And as already stated:
As for "lying"? You haven't shown any lie. I suspect we both could show an untruth that was made, but I have no way of showing it was made with the intent to deceive, and neither could you.​
So, from wherever you are from, you have been mistaught. It is an untrue statement that neither you or I could show was made with the intent to deceive.
Click to expand...
This is more than simple to prove you know? This is the exact moment Slager takes his first shot. Does that look like Scott is going toward him? Therefore telling SLED that Scott was heading toward him was......a LIE. And yes I suppose we both could, however I've given you information proving my point while you're just all words. Done with this as it's not the thread topic.

View attachment 67329114
Click to expand...
To which I responded.

Excon said:
Wrong.
It was an untrue statement. You can not show it was made with the intent to deceive, and neither can I.
Click to expand...
Here is the problem with what you are doing.
You are using one image to suggest something that reflects more than just that one moment in time.

Why would I say that you may ask?
Because just prior to, and obviously after Slager had already made the decision to draw and fire, Scott had the taser and was facing him. (see image below)
Just because the video does not show him moving toward Slager does not mean that he hadn't.
Or did you forget that Scott attacked Slager and took his stun-gun?
He very well could have made the decision to fire when he was coming towards him and that would be what he was relaying to the the person interviewing him.
So again. You can not show it was a lie.

Slager.jpg
 
Excon said:
I am bring this here because it is "Off-Topic" in that thread.

To which I responded.


Here is the problem with what you are doing.
You are using one image to suggest something that reflects more than just that one moment in time.

Why would I say that you may ask?
Because just prior to, and obviously after Slager had already made the decision to draw and fire, Scott had the taser and was facing him. (see image below)
Just because the video does not show him moving toward Slager does not mean that he hadn't.
Or did you forget that Scott attacked Slager and took his stun-gun?
He very well could have made the decision to fire when he was coming towards him and that would be what he was relaying to the the person interviewing him.
So again. You can not show it was a lie.

View attachment 67329116
Click to expand...

iLoL

I was pretty into this incident when it happened. I remember the video of Slager giving his version of events back at his car after the shooting that afternoon. Then the bystander video emerged. It didn't pan out to "I shot him because he was coming toward me". And now you're trying to peddle that he could have made the decision to fire when he was coming toward him but......he didn't and then fired when Scott was running away.

I'll say again, Slager is exactly where he should be. He admitted to his crime and it's done.
 
SkyFox76 said:
It didn't pan out to "I shot him because he was coming toward me". And now you're trying to peddle that he could have made the decision to fire when he was coming toward him but......he didn't and then fired when Scott was running away.
Click to expand...
No.
I said he could have made the decision to fire when he was coming towards him. How do you not understand that it then takes time to draw and fire?
You can see in the image I provided that Scott had been facing him. You can also see he is already in the process of drawing his weapon to fire it.
So he made that decision just prior to that moment.
How in the world do you not understand this?


SkyFox76 said:
I'll say again, Slager is exactly where he should be. He admitted to his crime and it's done.
Click to expand...
Yes. He took a Federal plea that requires an admittance to the charge. But not to supposed lying.
We know that in doing so the State charge of murder was dropped. (their first attempt ended in a hung jury)
You do not know why he plead and neither do I. For all any of us know, he got bad advice.
But we are not debating this conviction. We are debating one specific point from the case.
You can not show he was "lying".
Again. You may be able to show the statement was untrue, but not that it was made with the intent to deceive. (which is what "lying" actually is.)
 
Excon said:
No.
I said he could have made the decision to fire when he was coming towards him. How do you not understand that it then takes time to draw and fire?
You can see in the image I provided that Scott had been facing him. You can also see he is already in the process of drawing his weapon to fire it.
So he made that decision just prior to that moment.
How in the world do you not understand this?


Yes. He took a Federal plea that requires an admittance to the charge. But not to supposed lying.
We know that in doing so the State charge of murder was dropped. (their first attempt ended in a hung jury)
You do not know why he plead and neither do I. For all any of us know, he got bad advice.
But we are not debating this conviction. We are debating one specific point from the case.
You can not show he was "lying".
Again. You may be able to show the statement was untrue, but not that it was made with the intent to deceive. (which is what "lying" actually is.)
Click to expand...

If this were still up for debate I might take the time to dig up his statements where he mislead the investigators with false narrative. But, as I said, the man admitted to his crime, and now he's crying incompetent defense. Oh well.
 
Last edited:
No clue what's going on here but I promise to take another look at it soon.
 
lemmiwinx said:
No clue what's going on here but I promise to take another look at it soon.
Click to expand...
Excon is bringing up an old police shooting, perhaps because he believes the white guy committing the murder of an unarmed black man by shooting him in the back is innocent. Beyond that....shrug
 
calamity said:
Excon is bringing up an old police shooting, perhaps because he believes the white guy committing the murder of an unarmed black man by shooting him in the back is innocent. Beyond that....shrug
Click to expand...

I've had a second look see and I'm worse off than I was before. I'm passing on this one sorry if I disappoint.
 
SkyFox76 said:
If this were still up for debate I might take the time to dig up his statements where he mislead the investigators with false narrative. But, as I said, the man admitted to his crime, and now he's crying incompetent defense. Oh well.
Click to expand...
Cop-out.
We are not debating whether or not he was convicted,plead, or claiming now.
We are debating one specific where you claim he was lying.
You can not show he was.
 
calamity said:
Excon is bringing up an old police shooting, perhaps because he believes the white guy committing the murder of an unarmed black man by shooting him in the back is innocent. Beyond that....shrug
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual Calamity.
I am not the one who brought him up.
I am the one that moved the discussion here because it was off-topic in the other thread.
 
calamity said:
Excon is bringing up an old police shooting, perhaps because he believes the white guy committing the murder of an unarmed black man by shooting him in the back is innocent. Beyond that....shrug
Click to expand...

To be fair, Excon didn't bring in the topic of Slager in the other thread. He moved it here because I said I was no longer going to discuss it on a thread with a different topic.

But regardless, Slager is serving a 20 yr sentence which Scott's family has said they are good with (as good as one can be) so if they're good then that's what counts.
 
Excon said:
Cop-out.
We are not debating whether or not he was convicted,plead, or claiming now.
We are debating one specific where you claim he was lying.
You can not show he was.
Click to expand...

You're right. I've shown my point, Slager admitted to guilt, and he's serving 20.
 
SkyFox76 said:
To be fair, Excon didn't bring in the topic of Slager in the other thread.
Click to expand...
Hey, you finally got something right. (y) Good for you.

SkyFox76 said:
He moved it here because I said I was no longer going to discuss it on a thread with a different topic.
Click to expand...
Wrong. What you said had nothing to do with why I took it here. And I do have a history of moving "off-topic" discussions to a new thread of it's own. Nor would have I cared one way or the other if you responded to this thread or not.


SkyFox76 said:
But regardless, Slager is serving a 20 yr sentence which Scott's family has said they are good with (as good as one can be) so if they're good then that's what counts.
Click to expand...
Besides your commentary being irrelevant and biased nonsense -
Again.
Cop-out.​
We are not debating whether or not he was convicted, plead, or claiming now.​
We are debating one specific where you claim he was lying.​
You can not show he was.​
And you still have failed to show he was.​
 
This.

1618960700824.png

Does not justify this.

1618960801482.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom