Originally Posted by Axtol:
“The difference (as you well know) is that I feel comfortable in assuming someone is innocent until I see proof of their guilt. What you are asking of me is to assume guilt until I see proof of innocence, and I'm not willing to do that. There is no evidence to suggest that race played a part in any of this, so for the time being it isn't relevant. If and when evidence emerges that it did play a part we can discuss it again but tbh I'd prefer we got back on topic, instead of talking about irrelevant things like the colour of the victims skin. It's not at all relevant to this, either the cop was justified in shooting Scott or he wasn't, you CANNOT say "oh if he was black then it wouldn't be justified" because as I've said multiple times, if you can justify shooting someone, it shouldn't matter what colour skin they are.”
It's relevant for the following reasons:-
a) Many more black people than white people are shot dead by the US police
b) It's a huge issue with black people in the States
c) Walter Scott was shot dead whilst running away - Slager has been arrested for his murder. The public may well assume the murder has a racial motive, or at any rate that a white guy wouldn't have been shot dead by Officer Slager.
d) The race angle is one which will undoubtedly be examined by both the media and in the subsequent trial.
e) There is a large black population in the area in which Mr Scott was shot dead.
To even pretend it's not relevant is stupendously naive.
Also, as Mes quite correctly says, you are the one saying everybody should wait before passing judgement, but here you are dismissing the race angle before it's even been examined.