I'm not judging anyone as guilty because I haven't seen enough evidence to make a decision either way. I'm simply suggesting possible reasons why things occurred as they did, that's a long way from saying that Slager was innocent. I don't like to judge people based on unclear video footage. We don't see what happened before Scott ran away. While I personally think it's unlikely there's anything in those missing moments that justify this, there's enough doubt that I'm holding off on condemning Slager until we have all the facts. We lose nothing by being patient on this, Slager is in custody, he's secured, he's not going anywhere, I'd just need to see all the facts before I'm willing to condemn a man for murder.

Please tell me you are not serious, given the debate on this issue in America?

I can't believe you can say that with a straight face.

Watch my very straight face...


Skin colour has absolutely nothing to do with it.


Skin colour very very rarely has anything to do with it in regards to the shooter and the victim.


It has everything to do with it for the noisy minority who revel in playing the victim for their gains, afterwards.

Either a cop is justified in killing someone or he is not, skin colour doesn't play a part in that decision making process, so why are you hellbent on making it one. Do you WANT skin colour to play a part in a cops decision making process, maybe like "I'm justified in shooting this person but they are black so I better not just in case I'm seen as racist"?

Isn't it your own policy to wait and find out the facts before making a judgement? Colour can play a part in a decision making process but shouldn't you wait for some convincing before dismissing it as a possibilty entirely?

According to him racism is a factor to be instantly dismissed as it doesn't exist.

Double standards anybody?

I watched your face very carefully... for some reason you forgot to add the "In my opinion" that would have qualified your plucked out of the air figures and theory.

Strangely enough in countries whereby there are strict gun laws there is less gun crime and certainly less massacres.

You would have armed police, just more specialised.

When part of your culture is to have a gun with you at all times, or certainly in your house then you are asking for trouble.

Or, " I'm not justified in shooting this person but he's black - therefore less than in some people's eyes (particularly the people who matter) - so where's the harm in sticking a few bullets in his back as he's probably up to no good".

Just putting an opposing view for objectivity.

Skin colour is a highly relevant factor in US police shootings, and to pretend it's not is a piss take.

Take a look at this link

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/10/8382457...ootings-racism

Oops, someone just beat me to it

Some interesting FACTS from death row USA:


Race of Defendants Executed in the U.S. Since 197
BLACK 486 34%
LATINO 113 8%
WHITE 782 56%
OTHER 24 2%


Race of Victims Since 1976
BLACK 312 15.2%
LATINO 141 6.6%
WHITE 1567 76.0%
OTHER 45 2.2%



Persons Executed for Interracial Murders in the U.S. Since 1976

White Defendant / Black Victim (31)


Black Defendant / White Victim (293)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race...-executed-1976

What's your point?

So white people are almost ten times more likely to be killed by a black person than a white person ?

What has that got to with psychopathic, murdering nazi , smelly ugly, state executioners gunning down nice elderly black men going to church ?

[ sorry, I've been reading too many of Blueblade's posts, the red mist came down ]

What the hell seriously? I never said anything like that. We aren't talking about racism, we're talking about a cop who shot a fleeing suspect. Hence my confusion about why some people seem determined to bring race into it. I don't understand why you feel the need to specifically mention the suspects skin colour. It's like if newspapers suddenly decided to start referring to our PM as "white man David Cameron". While it's true that he is white, it would be a rather odd statement to make, because it has no relevance to the story. While Walter Scott was black, I don't see the need to bring up such an irrelevant pieces of information. It's like mentioning the football team he supported - Absolutely no relevance to the shooting. Either the cop was justified in shooting him or he wasn't, skin colour isn't relevant to that decision.

You may have missed this bit from the same link:-

I am totally bemused that you can spout such total and utter tripe. To suggest that race doesn't enter into this debate - even in the face of the evidence presented to you - is too farcical to even laugh at.

I'll leave you to it.

Absolutely. There is no evidence that this cop was racist, or that he allowed such a racist opinion (if it did exist) to influence his decision to shoot Scott. In the absence of such evidence we have to assume that there was no racism involved. This is the principle that I believe everyone is entitled to, you are presumed innocent until it can be proven otherwise. If you find evidence that this cop was racist AND that he allowed that racist opinion to influence his decision to shoot Scott then I'll revisit my comment.

I don't know why people seem determined to play the race card. There are a minority of racists in America just like any other country and those who are guilty of racist attacks do deserve to be punished. But it worries me how quickly some people are to assume guilt every time a white officer hurts or kills a black man instead of having patience, waiting for the full facts to become known. This applies for every case not just this one; Why shouldn't we be waiting to hear what both sides of the story? In other situations, a white officer may have killed a black man in self defence, but the public will just see "white cop kills black man" and assume it to be racism even though it could be completely justified self defence.

Do what you need to do. But if you return, I have a question for you. You insist that race does play a part in this debate - In other words, Scott should have got preferential treatment because of his skin colour. I'd like you to explain which skin colours should get preferential treatment and why.

Maybe in this country but not over there. States who have less gun control legislation are often less violent while the opposite holds true in major cities where there is lots of gangland gun crime. What you propose would cost lives in America. There is no way this "specialized" armed police you propose would be able to respond to an incident as quickly as "regular" police. You are applying British logic about British culture, to an entirely different culture. While I more or less accept what you're saying if it was Britain, America simply isn't the same and what you propose would not work. Much more people would die.

there`s a report today of eight officers in california beating a man senseless.

i`ll fetch a link.

apologies if it`s already posted.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...er-camera.html

Please do because that statement is completely meaningless without proper context. Depending on the exact circumstances it could be completely justified or completely unjustified.

see above.

Thanks. I could only have a quick look because I'm going out soon but it looks unjustified from what I saw.

The cops dashcam footage has now been released and clearly shows that the guy was sat in his car, no trouble, when the cop returned to his car, the guy ran off, there was absolutely no justification for the cop to draw his gun given that he had not been threatened, to his knowledge ( at the time all he knew) the only offence was a busted tail light. Something he could have let the guy run for given that he had his car and Identity.
So lets face it, he killed the guy for a broken tail light. He then tried to call it in as having shot him while they struggled for his stun gun ( another lie) but his dashcam footage contradicted what he said and clearly shows who was to blame.