JoeB131
Diamond Member
Hannity is such a crank that even Faux News wants to bury his show. He glorified Bundy, at least until the tape about his racial views came out. Then he didn't want to be caught having a drink with the guy.
Walter Scott Hadn't Paid Child Support since 2012 but was Buying a Mercedes
- Thread starter Meathead
- Start date
Hannity is such a crank that even Faux News wants to bury his show. He glorified Bundy, at least until the tape about his racial views came out. Then he didn't want to be caught having a drink with the guy.
ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,723
- 1,830
Because it is irrelevant. Just like the fact he was black.He was in the coast guard too but no one seems to mention that
But the Mercedes IS relevant
Ravi
Diamond Member
No black person should own a 1991 Mercedes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Because it is irrelevant. Just like the fact he was black.He was in the coast guard too but no one seems to mention that
But the Mercedes IS relevant
Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,392
- 1,170
EverCurious
Gold Member
I think it is only relevant to show character (not the skin color part, of course, but buying a car when owing back child support) Of course, we cannot judge the character with such limited information. IF one is going to judge character we would actually need more information; what did Scott do for a living? what circumstances put him $7.5k behind in child support? and so forth.
Yes he was (behind in child support, again if reports are correct. That said, his children are reportedly 16, and the other three "in their 20s." So while he might indeed have been behind, it does /not/ necessarily argue that he was a bad father to his teen and now adult children. Perhaps he simply couldn't keep up with the payments child support was calculated to be because it was based on his previous military pay as "anticipated income" despite the fact that in reality he made no where near that since he go out of the
military - I've seen that happen a LOT up here in Alaska because a large portion of our peeps are military or ex-military. Or perhaps he had recently lost his job because his other car died; which if my memory serves me he mentioned during the traffic stop. Or conversely, perhaps he was a drug dealer and refusing to pay child support because he felt the mother of his children was a bitch; I've also seen this.
Personally, I think all information is appreciated as the rest of us internet warriors try to sort out where we stand on this particular incident; and perhaps more-so the bigger picture it might represent.
In any event, it is typical of many people to simply presume, we're kind of biologically programmed to make snap judgments about a person and their intentions based on limited information. The bigger problem here, and in society as a whole really, is those people who cannot (or will not) /change/ their snap judgment when presented new evidence in a situation, simply because they wish to push their "bias" as the "truth." A tactic that unfortunately attempts to shut down analysis of new information, because in the mind of the biased, nothing else matters but /their/ version of the truth.
Yes he was (behind in child support, again if reports are correct. That said, his children are reportedly 16, and the other three "in their 20s." So while he might indeed have been behind, it does /not/ necessarily argue that he was a bad father to his teen and now adult children. Perhaps he simply couldn't keep up with the payments child support was calculated to be because it was based on his previous military pay as "anticipated income" despite the fact that in reality he made no where near that since he go out of the
military - I've seen that happen a LOT up here in Alaska because a large portion of our peeps are military or ex-military. Or perhaps he had recently lost his job because his other car died; which if my memory serves me he mentioned during the traffic stop. Or conversely, perhaps he was a drug dealer and refusing to pay child support because he felt the mother of his children was a bitch; I've also seen this.
Personally, I think all information is appreciated as the rest of us internet warriors try to sort out where we stand on this particular incident; and perhaps more-so the bigger picture it might represent.
In any event, it is typical of many people to simply presume, we're kind of biologically programmed to make snap judgments about a person and their intentions based on limited information. The bigger problem here, and in society as a whole really, is those people who cannot (or will not) /change/ their snap judgment when presented new evidence in a situation, simply because they wish to push their "bias" as the "truth." A tactic that unfortunately attempts to shut down analysis of new information, because in the mind of the biased, nothing else matters but /their/ version of the truth.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Ever Curious, well said.
Real people are more complicated than the thumbnails people want to paint on them. I doubt Officer Slager went to work that morning thinking, "I'm going to shoot someone today." He made bad snap judgements, and he's going to pay for them.
Similarly, Scott is not a simple character. He fell behind on his child support, true. He also served his country in the USCG. Point was, nothing he did merited getting shot in the back.
Real people are more complicated than the thumbnails people want to paint on them. I doubt Officer Slager went to work that morning thinking, "I'm going to shoot someone today." He made bad snap judgements, and he's going to pay for them.
Similarly, Scott is not a simple character. He fell behind on his child support, true. He also served his country in the USCG. Point was, nothing he did merited getting shot in the back.
New Topics
-
Here we go again. Covid is still hanging around.- Started by CrazyTrader55
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
