He paid his child support.
Funny how tender you are towards the feelings of a dead guy while busily accusing a living one of murder.
We’ll both have to live with our consciences. I am comfortable describing this person, with his history of assault and battery, being kicked out of the military for drug offenses, and buying cars instead of paying the tens of thousands he owed in child support, as “not much of a dad”.
You’ll have to live with yours.
Regards,
Shodan
Thats a relief, for a minute I thought you were saying the Walter Scott shooting was justified, but you were being sarcastic. My mistake.
Regards,
Shodan
I’d say it’s about the dead guy’s family, which I’ll admit to being far more concerned about than the killer’s family. I accuse Slager (without the force of law, while understanding that he has the right to a fair trial) of murder because that’s what the video seemed to show – he shot a man that posed no immediate danger to anyone, then immediately recognized that he did something wrong and tried to stage evidence to exonerate himself. No video showed Scott being a poor father, or trying to cover up bad fatherhood.
You’re a lot more trusting of various media allegations (without video evidence) than I am. Maybe Scott did all those things, but “media source says he bought cars instead of paying child support” isn’t enough for me to insult a dead man. Or maybe he did all those things but is mentally disturbed through no fault of his own. In such I case I choose to err on the side of “don’t risk insulting the memory of an unjustly killed person”.
And as I said before, no described sin of Scott’s comes remotely close to Slager pulling the trigger and killing him.
In the scheme of things, if one of us is wrong it doesn’t really matter. I just found your statement extremely callous, and I couldn’t imagine so describing a man who was unjustly killed myself. In normal human communication, your statement is an implicit “good riddance”.
Are you as comfortable as you seem with calling that a capital offense, trial not required? With defaming a dead man in order to rationalize excusing his killer?
I’ll make that choice the same way every time.
I suppose everyone’s allowed one shooting, right? I guess we’ve been a bit mean towards the poor ole thing; he only meant to taze Harris a few times.
Now that “that’s that;” what about that scum Harris who was shot in the back, on the floor, while in custody, and mocked as he lay dying, pleading for help… what a horrible person, totally deserved to die.
As it turns out I’m not in the shooting death thread about Harris, but an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT thread. Damn, I’ve got to keep these murder threads straight.
(Of course it seems that this death was equally as pointless and sad as Eric Harris’)
No, I don’t seem to have said anything of the sort.
Yes, you do seem to respond to things I didn’t say a lot.
[QUOTE=iiandyiii]
You’re a lot more trusting of various media allegations (without video evidence) than I am.
[/QUOTE]
So you won’t believe that he was kicked out of the Coast Guard for drug offenses until you see videotape? Do you believe he owed child support, or does someone need to record it on their cell phone?
My gosh, the knots you people tie yourselves into.
Regards,
Shodan
Is that an admission that the many details of the dead man’s life you have offered us here are not, in fact, relevant to the situation? If you do think they’re relevant, then you have a reason for thinking so, a reason that you are reluctant either to defend or withdraw.
For me, I believe these things are not only completely irrelevant, but offensively irrelevant. Unless you’re saying that any of these things justify the shooting, they have nothing to do with the thread.
And no, there’s no parity between saying nice things about the deceased and saying awful things about the deceased, unless when you go to funerals you get up and say, “To be fair, your grandma was arrested three times for DWI, so she really was kind of an asshole.” When someone dies, we remember the best things about them, so people saying kind things about Scott are working in that tradition. When someone commits homicide, we evaluate their actions specifically, and consider the actions of the deceased only to the degree it might legally justify the homicide.
That’s why folks are asking you if Scott’s failure to pay child support mandates a death sentence–because if it doesn’t, it has no relevance to the thread.
For me to believe with the certainty necessary for me to insult the unjustly killed? Yes (and I’m not even sure if that would be enough). Your assertions have no relevance to the thread, except to express “good riddance to bad rubbish”.
No, I am pointing out that your version of what I have said in this thread is, shall we say, imaginative rather than realistic.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
For me, I believe these things are not only completely irrelevant, but offensively irrelevant. Unless you’re saying that any of these things justify the shooting, they have nothing to do with the thread.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry to have to decline your application to be arbiter of what is or isn’t relevent. Whether you think general discussion, and opinions other than your own, are relevant to the thread or not will have no effect on what I post. Thanks just the same.
Regards,
Shodan
So, neither support nor withdraw, just pretend it didn’t happen, once again. Sad.
So how was it relevant? Did you not intend it as “good riddance to bad rubbish”?
I can’t find that, Shodan. Do you have a cite?
Thanks,
Plant.
If I may be so bold as to offer an interjection, Shodan’s comments were made in answer to Scott’s children being without a dad, and in support of the observation that he wasn’t much of a father. I cannot imagine how anyone, let alone several people, might manage to interpret that to mean that Shodan is therefore implying that Scott deserved to die or that his death was “good riddance to bad rubbish”.
There was no purpose to asserting that Scott wasn’t much of a father (and therefore his children aren’t really missing anything important) that I can conceive of other than “good riddance to bad rubbish”.
Yes, there was. It was to say that given his history there isn’t likely to have been too much of a father there for his children to miss, and therefore concern over their loss might be somewhat misplaced.
That’s who there is to defend Shodan on the point - someone with that much well-demonstrated concern for the welfare of children.
*You *wanna tell the kids they really haven’t lost all that much? What words would you use?