jdholmes
Regular Member
I agree, but again: the characterization of Scott "arguing" came from those with jobs and money at stake in the outcome of the investigation and inquest.
Arguing, versus discussing, versus asking for clarification, are all matters of degree and perception. When only one party is alive to recount the conversation, and it happens to be someone whose ass is on the line, the details and perception just might change a bit, don't you think?
And all of the disputing facts came from who? People who also had an agenda - like clearing the name of a loved one.
None of us were there, at least that I am aware of.
Not justifying the cops unjustifiable killing, but I have seen a lot of sketchy 'facts' argued either way in this case and really there is a lot we will never know for sure.
Last edited: