Breaking: North Charleston cop about to go free!!!

[JQPublic1]

A fleeing felon is a danger to police officers and "others" as the court has held.
Get into a fight with a cop and you have committed a felony and are subject to getting your head blown off.
Really very simple.

Are you saying that if you get into a fight with a cop you had better kill him or die?

 

[bucs90]

A fleeing felon is a danger to police officers and "others" as the court has held.
Get into a fight with a cop and you have committed a felony and are subject to getting your head blown off.
Really very simple.

Are you saying that if you get into a fight with a cop you had better kill him or die?

No. If you try to use a weapon on a cop....you may as well have asked for it.

 

[bucs90]

Skylar...I'm hitting the bed after this glorious debate beat down I gave you. I'll bump it tomorrow to rub it in.

 

[JQPublic1]

A fleeing felon is a danger to police officers and "others" as the court has held.
Get into a fight with a cop and you have committed a felony and are subject to getting your head blown off.
Really very simple.

Are you saying that if you get into a fight with a cop you had better kill him or die?

No. If you try to use a weapon on a cop....you may as well have asked for it.

Apparently it doesn't matter if you have a weapon or not in cases like the Charleston shooting.

 

[Skylar]

Why We Don’t Find Fingerprints on Firearms | Law Enforcement Today

Here you go Skylar. An expert. Former NYPD specialist. Current college professor on the topic. Appears on temevision shows. His article "Why we don't find fingerprints on firearms".

He says it's rare. 5% or fewer you'll even find one...much less a useful one...ON ANY part of a gun. The grip? I'd say 0% of those 5% found are on the grip.

Now....attack me...saying this expert said "firearm"...not "Glock".

So you've moved from 'impossible', to 5%. About 1 chance in 20.

Do you acknowlege now that your claims that you can't lift a print from a glock or a taser is inaccurate? Or are you going to ignore your own source?

From a grip? Not at all. It's virtually impossible. And you haven't held many Glocks. Many have checkered grips...on the front and rear you idiot.

Your own source says that the chance is about 1 in 20. You are ignoring your source and continuing to cite yourself.

And glocks don't come with a checkered grip. Its not even an option when ordered them. You don't know what you're talking about.

You're nobody.

You want me to source a law mandating lawyers MUST answer question? Doesn't exist...5th amendment wouldn't allow it. However...it DOES allow lawyers the chance to question each other.

Show me the law stating that lawyers get to question one another in a bail hearing. You still haven't quote anyone but yourself.

Federal law does too. I linked both. The original point...can lawyers cross examine at bond court. Yes. State and federal law allows it. I linked both.

You've never cited a single sentence from any law. State or Federal. You've paraphrased what you think the law says.

Yet when challenged to quote the actual law saying it......you run. Giving us sniveling excuses why you can't back anything you've said. You've only quoted yourself.

Keep running.

And getting a print off a textured gun grip? Odds are about the same as you beating LeBron 1 on 1. A million or so chances...and still likely to never happen. Not according to me. But forensics experts.

You can keep grasping. But you lost.

Says you, citing you. Show us your source indicating that you can't get a print off of a taser or glock. You citing yourself isn't evidence of anything. As you're nobody.

See how this works?

Skylar....the source said about 5% of guns get any print at all....from the ENTIRE gun...including the SMOOTH slide, barrel, mag and shells. I'm talking about the GRIP...the rough surfaced grip...which he notes is extremely difficult. See...you can't twist it. I won't allow it haha!!

And of those 5% where a print is actually lifted....it may not be useful. Most prints...from any source...are useless and get no hits or matches in AFIS.

You've said that its impossible to pull a print from a taser or a glock. You've cited no source that indicates this. You've only cited yourself.

You've indicated that SC law states that lawyers can cross examine each other in a bail hearing. You've cited no source that indicates this. Not so much as a single sentence of any law, state or federal. You've only cited yourself.

You citing you isn't evidence. Try again.

I've cited forensics experts who say how extremely difficult it is.....practically impossible. Barrel? Mag? Casing? Maybe. Grip? Ain't happening.

You've said its practically impossible. Your sources have not.

Again, you're only quoting yourself and ignoring yuour sources. Please quote your source indicating that prints can not be lifted from a glock or a taser.

I've cited SC procedural law and federal law. Lawyers can ask each other questions in bond court. It's common practice. It's COURT...afterall.

You haven't cited a single sentence of any law. You've offered us a link and then......paraphrased your ass off. When asked to provide the quote from the law that matches your paraphrase, you run.

Each time, every time.

If you had the quote, you'd have offered it to us. Its been 2 days of excuses because you have no such quote, you can cite no such law.

Show us the SC law that states that lawyers can cross examine each other at a bail hearing. I've been to plenty of bail hearings. The lawyers don't question each other. The lawyers barely talk to one another in a bail hearing. They talk almost exclusively to the judge.

The judge asks plenty of questions to each lawyer as the lawyers present their arguments to the judge.

Show me the law. Don't tell me about it. As your word means nothing.

 

[Skylar]

A fleeing felon is a danger to police officers and "others" as the court has held.
Get into a fight with a cop and you have committed a felony and are subject to getting your head blown off.
Really very simple.

Are you saying that if you get into a fight with a cop you had better kill him or die?

No. If you try to use a weapon on a cop....you may as well have asked for it.

Apparently it doesn't matter if you have a weapon or not in cases like the Charleston shooting.

Not at all. The man had no weapon, was fleeing with his back turned to the officer. Even if he had the taser (which he obviously didn't) it was no threat to the officer as both cartridges had been expended. The taser would have to be pressed against the officer to be used.

And the suspect was 20 feet away, without a taser, facing away from the officer.

There's no 'reasonable fear for one's life' argument to be had. Which was why the officer was fired. And why he was charged with murder.

 

[bucs90]

Why We Don’t Find Fingerprints on Firearms | Law Enforcement Today

Here you go Skylar. An expert. Former NYPD specialist. Current college professor on the topic. Appears on temevision shows. His article "Why we don't find fingerprints on firearms".

He says it's rare. 5% or fewer you'll even find one...much less a useful one...ON ANY part of a gun. The grip? I'd say 0% of those 5% found are on the grip.

Now....attack me...saying this expert said "firearm"...not "Glock".

So you've moved from 'impossible', to 5%. About 1 chance in 20.

Do you acknowlege now that your claims that you can't lift a print from a glock or a taser is inaccurate? Or are you going to ignore your own source?

From a grip? Not at all. It's virtually impossible. And you haven't held many Glocks. Many have checkered grips...on the front and rear you idiot.

Your own source says that the chance is about 1 in 20. You are ignoring your source and continuing to cite yourself.

And glocks don't come with a checkered grip. Its not even an option when ordered them. You don't know what you're talking about.

You're nobody.

You want me to source a law mandating lawyers MUST answer question? Doesn't exist...5th amendment wouldn't allow it. However...it DOES allow lawyers the chance to question each other.

Show me the law stating that lawyers get to question one another in a bail hearing. You still haven't quote anyone but yourself.

Federal law does too. I linked both. The original point...can lawyers cross examine at bond court. Yes. State and federal law allows it. I linked both.

You've never cited a single sentence from any law. State or Federal. You've paraphrased what you think the law says.

Yet when challenged to quote the actual law saying it......you run. Giving us sniveling excuses why you can't back anything you've said. You've only quoted yourself.

Keep running.

And getting a print off a textured gun grip? Odds are about the same as you beating LeBron 1 on 1. A million or so chances...and still likely to never happen. Not according to me. But forensics experts.

You can keep grasping. But you lost.

Says you, citing you. Show us your source indicating that you can't get a print off of a taser or glock. You citing yourself isn't evidence of anything. As you're nobody.

See how this works?

Skylar....the source said about 5% of guns get any print at all....from the ENTIRE gun...including the SMOOTH slide, barrel, mag and shells. I'm talking about the GRIP...the rough surfaced grip...which he notes is extremely difficult. See...you can't twist it. I won't allow it haha!!

And of those 5% where a print is actually lifted....it may not be useful. Most prints...from any source...are useless and get no hits or matches in AFIS.

You've said that its impossible to pull a print from a taser or a glock. You've cited no source that indicates this. You've only cited yourself.

You've indicated that SC law states that lawyers can cross examine each other in a bail hearing. You've cited no source that indicates this. Not so much as a single sentence of any law, state or federal. You've only cited yourself.

You citing you isn't evidence. Try again.

I've cited forensics experts who say how extremely difficult it is.....practically impossible. Barrel? Mag? Casing? Maybe. Grip? Ain't happening.

You've said its practically impossible. Your sources have not.

Again, you're only quoting yourself and ignoring yuour sources. Please quote your source indicating that prints can not be lifted from a glock or a taser.

I've cited SC procedural law and federal law. Lawyers can ask each other questions in bond court. It's common practice. It's COURT...afterall.

You haven't cited a single sentence of any law. You've offered us a link and then......paraphrased your ass off. When asked to provide the quote from the law that matches your paraphrase, you run.

Each time, every time.

If you had the quote, you'd have offered it to us. Its been 2 days of excuses because you have no such quote, you can cite no such law.

Show us the SC law that states that lawyers can cross examine each other at a bail hearing. I've been to plenty of bail hearings. The lawyers don't question each other. The lawyers barely talk to one another in a bail hearing. They talk almost exclusively to the judge.

The judge asks plenty of questions to each lawyer as the lawyers present their arguments to the judge.

Show me the law. Don't tell me about it. As your word means nothing.

So all that....and you're going to ignore the federal statute I posted...and cited...where it clearly states defendants in bond proceedings can have attorneys, and attorneys can cross examine. It's federal law..so not only does SC have it...all 50 states do. You must have missed that.

You also must have missed the forensics experts stating to extreme.difficulty of printing guns in general...but especially the grips.

Dude...you lost so incredibly bad.

OH....and you never admitted you were dead wrong about Glock checkered grips. I proved it...and you went silent and ignored it. Add that to the humiliation of a defeat.

 

[bucs90]

A fleeing felon is a danger to police officers and "others" as the court has held.
Get into a fight with a cop and you have committed a felony and are subject to getting your head blown off.
Really very simple.

Are you saying that if you get into a fight with a cop you had better kill him or die?

No. If you try to use a weapon on a cop....you may as well have asked for it.

Apparently it doesn't matter if you have a weapon or not in cases like the Charleston shooting.

Not at all. The man had no weapon, was fleeing with his back turned to the officer. Even if he had the taser (which he obviously didn't) it was no threat to the officer as both cartridges had been expended. The taser would have to be pressed against the officer to be used.

And the suspect was 20 feet away, without a taser, facing away from the officer.

There's no 'reasonable fear for one's life' argument to be had. Which was why the officer was fired. And why he was charged with murder.

Slager thought he still had it. Which is what the jury must consider. Not hindsight.

And...um...yes...the taser was only a threat if pressed against Slager, which could then incapacitate. AND THAT is why he didn't chase him down and tackle him. At that point...you don't get close to him. And the nationally accepted (by military too) use of force 1+1 principle says if the suspect is armed with a taser or knife or baton or pepper spray....you go to gun. Which Slager did. And at LEAST 3 Supreme Court rulings back his decision.

Which is why the best lawyer in the South....hasn't even considered a plea deal...because he is going to be free as a bird.

 

[Skylar]

A fleeing felon is a danger to police officers and "others" as the court has held.
Get into a fight with a cop and you have committed a felony and are subject to getting your head blown off.
Really very simple.

Are you saying that if you get into a fight with a cop you had better kill him or die?

No. If you try to use a weapon on a cop....you may as well have asked for it.

Apparently it doesn't matter if you have a weapon or not in cases like the Charleston shooting.

Not at all. The man had no weapon, was fleeing with his back turned to the officer. Even if he had the taser (which he obviously didn't) it was no threat to the officer as both cartridges had been expended. The taser would have to be pressed against the officer to be used.

And the suspect was 20 feet away, without a taser, facing away from the officer.

There's no 'reasonable fear for one's life' argument to be had. Which was why the officer was fired. And why he was charged with murder.

Slager thought he still had it. Which is what the jury must consider. Not hindsight.

Genuinely irrelevant. Lets say that Scott did have it. He obviously didn't, but lets say. Both cartriges had been expended. Slager knew this. The only way that the man could have threatened Slager in any way was to push the taser against Slager's body directly. Slager knew this too.

Both are which are physically impossible when Slager began firing. Scott was 20 feet away, running away, and facing away from Slager. There's no credible argument that Slager feared for his life in that scenario.

 

[Skylar]

So you've moved from 'impossible', to 5%. About 1 chance in 20.

Do you acknowlege now that your claims that you can't lift a print from a glock or a taser is inaccurate? Or are you going to ignore your own source?

From a grip? Not at all. It's virtually impossible. And you haven't held many Glocks. Many have checkered grips...on the front and rear you idiot.

Your own source says that the chance is about 1 in 20. You are ignoring your source and continuing to cite yourself.

And glocks don't come with a checkered grip. Its not even an option when ordered them. You don't know what you're talking about.

You're nobody.

You want me to source a law mandating lawyers MUST answer question? Doesn't exist...5th amendment wouldn't allow it. However...it DOES allow lawyers the chance to question each other.

Show me the law stating that lawyers get to question one another in a bail hearing. You still haven't quote anyone but yourself.

Federal law does too. I linked both. The original point...can lawyers cross examine at bond court. Yes. State and federal law allows it. I linked both.

You've never cited a single sentence from any law. State or Federal. You've paraphrased what you think the law says.

Yet when challenged to quote the actual law saying it......you run. Giving us sniveling excuses why you can't back anything you've said. You've only quoted yourself.

Keep running.

And getting a print off a textured gun grip? Odds are about the same as you beating LeBron 1 on 1. A million or so chances...and still likely to never happen. Not according to me. But forensics experts.

You can keep grasping. But you lost.

Says you, citing you. Show us your source indicating that you can't get a print off of a taser or glock. You citing yourself isn't evidence of anything. As you're nobody.

See how this works?

Skylar....the source said about 5% of guns get any print at all....from the ENTIRE gun...including the SMOOTH slide, barrel, mag and shells. I'm talking about the GRIP...the rough surfaced grip...which he notes is extremely difficult. See...you can't twist it. I won't allow it haha!!

And of those 5% where a print is actually lifted....it may not be useful. Most prints...from any source...are useless and get no hits or matches in AFIS.

You've said that its impossible to pull a print from a taser or a glock. You've cited no source that indicates this. You've only cited yourself.

You've indicated that SC law states that lawyers can cross examine each other in a bail hearing. You've cited no source that indicates this. Not so much as a single sentence of any law, state or federal. You've only cited yourself.

You citing you isn't evidence. Try again.

I've cited forensics experts who say how extremely difficult it is.....practically impossible. Barrel? Mag? Casing? Maybe. Grip? Ain't happening.

You've said its practically impossible. Your sources have not.

Again, you're only quoting yourself and ignoring yuour sources. Please quote your source indicating that prints can not be lifted from a glock or a taser.

I've cited SC procedural law and federal law. Lawyers can ask each other questions in bond court. It's common practice. It's COURT...afterall.

You haven't cited a single sentence of any law. You've offered us a link and then......paraphrased your ass off. When asked to provide the quote from the law that matches your paraphrase, you run.

Each time, every time.

If you had the quote, you'd have offered it to us. Its been 2 days of excuses because you have no such quote, you can cite no such law.

Show us the SC law that states that lawyers can cross examine each other at a bail hearing. I've been to plenty of bail hearings. The lawyers don't question each other. The lawyers barely talk to one another in a bail hearing. They talk almost exclusively to the judge.

The judge asks plenty of questions to each lawyer as the lawyers present their arguments to the judge.

Show me the law. Don't tell me about it. As your word means nothing.

So all that....and you're going to ignore the federal statute I posted...and cited...

You've cited nothing. You have yet to quote a single law, State or Federal. You offered us a pair of links....and then empty paraphrases that you can't back up about what you *think* they say. You've never factually established that anything at those links says anything you do. And you've never offered a single quote from either.

If you had the law saying what you do, you'd have offered it. Instead, you've given us a dozen sniveling excuses why you can't back up your claim.

Keep running.

 

[bucs90]

Are you saying that if you get into a fight with a cop you had better kill him or die?

No. If you try to use a weapon on a cop....you may as well have asked for it.

Apparently it doesn't matter if you have a weapon or not in cases like the Charleston shooting.

Not at all. The man had no weapon, was fleeing with his back turned to the officer. Even if he had the taser (which he obviously didn't) it was no threat to the officer as both cartridges had been expended. The taser would have to be pressed against the officer to be used.

And the suspect was 20 feet away, without a taser, facing away from the officer.

There's no 'reasonable fear for one's life' argument to be had. Which was why the officer was fired. And why he was charged with murder.

Slager thought he still had it. Which is what the jury must consider. Not hindsight.

Genuinely irrelevant. Lets say that Scott did have it. He obviously didn't, but lets say. Both cartriges had been expended. Slager knew this. The only way that the man could have threatened Slager in any way was to push the taser against Slager's body directly. Slager knew this too.

Both are which are physically impossible when Slager began firing. Scott was 20 feet away, running away, and facing away from Slager. There's no credible argument that Slager feared for his life in that scenario.

You're right. From that distance...he wasn't a threat to Slager. If it were you or me...absolutely no right to shoot. But...as a sworn officer...Slager has a right to continue that arrest...which Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner says can be accomplished via deadly force if the suspect is armed.

Plumoff v. Rickard SCOTUS 2014 reaffirms officers judgements can't be judged in hindsight, but rather heat of the moment, AND this ruling states cops can use deadly force on a fleeing suspect IF other officers "on foot in the area" may be in danger....and Slager knew Habersham was on the way and Scott had already fought him and took his taser.

However you cut it....what Slager did was STUPID....but NOT illegal. He had no legal obligation to wait for backup. He has 3 SCOTUS rulings that appear to back his actions...and LEAST to a standard of reasonable doubt of a crime.

Do I wish SCOTUS would make a ruling that says if an officer reasonably believes plenty of backup is nearby then their right to use deadly force on a fleeing felon with a weapon should be suspended? YES. That's the smart thing to do. But they havent.

What he did....as ugly and stupid as it was....was not illegal. And court will show it.

 

[bucs90]

From a grip? Not at all. It's virtually impossible. And you haven't held many Glocks. Many have checkered grips...on the front and rear you idiot.

Your own source says that the chance is about 1 in 20. You are ignoring your source and continuing to cite yourself.

And glocks don't come with a checkered grip. Its not even an option when ordered them. You don't know what you're talking about.

You're nobody.

You want me to source a law mandating lawyers MUST answer question? Doesn't exist...5th amendment wouldn't allow it. However...it DOES allow lawyers the chance to question each other.

Show me the law stating that lawyers get to question one another in a bail hearing. You still haven't quote anyone but yourself.

Federal law does too. I linked both. The original point...can lawyers cross examine at bond court. Yes. State and federal law allows it. I linked both.

You've never cited a single sentence from any law. State or Federal. You've paraphrased what you think the law says.

Yet when challenged to quote the actual law saying it......you run. Giving us sniveling excuses why you can't back anything you've said. You've only quoted yourself.

Keep running.

And getting a print off a textured gun grip? Odds are about the same as you beating LeBron 1 on 1. A million or so chances...and still likely to never happen. Not according to me. But forensics experts.

You can keep grasping. But you lost.

Says you, citing you. Show us your source indicating that you can't get a print off of a taser or glock. You citing yourself isn't evidence of anything. As you're nobody.

See how this works?

Skylar....the source said about 5% of guns get any print at all....from the ENTIRE gun...including the SMOOTH slide, barrel, mag and shells. I'm talking about the GRIP...the rough surfaced grip...which he notes is extremely difficult. See...you can't twist it. I won't allow it haha!!

And of those 5% where a print is actually lifted....it may not be useful. Most prints...from any source...are useless and get no hits or matches in AFIS.

You've said that its impossible to pull a print from a taser or a glock. You've cited no source that indicates this. You've only cited yourself.

You've indicated that SC law states that lawyers can cross examine each other in a bail hearing. You've cited no source that indicates this. Not so much as a single sentence of any law, state or federal. You've only cited yourself.

You citing you isn't evidence. Try again.

I've cited forensics experts who say how extremely difficult it is.....practically impossible. Barrel? Mag? Casing? Maybe. Grip? Ain't happening.

You've said its practically impossible. Your sources have not.

Again, you're only quoting yourself and ignoring yuour sources. Please quote your source indicating that prints can not be lifted from a glock or a taser.

I've cited SC procedural law and federal law. Lawyers can ask each other questions in bond court. It's common practice. It's COURT...afterall.

You haven't cited a single sentence of any law. You've offered us a link and then......paraphrased your ass off. When asked to provide the quote from the law that matches your paraphrase, you run.

Each time, every time.

If you had the quote, you'd have offered it to us. Its been 2 days of excuses because you have no such quote, you can cite no such law.

Show us the SC law that states that lawyers can cross examine each other at a bail hearing. I've been to plenty of bail hearings. The lawyers don't question each other. The lawyers barely talk to one another in a bail hearing. They talk almost exclusively to the judge.

The judge asks plenty of questions to each lawyer as the lawyers present their arguments to the judge.

Show me the law. Don't tell me about it. As your word means nothing.

So all that....and you're going to ignore the federal statute I posted...and cited...

You've cited nothing. You have yet to quote a single law, State or Federal. You offered us a pair of links....and then empty paraphrases that you can't back up about what you *think* they say. You've never factually established that anything at those links says anything you do. And you've never offered a single quote from either.

If you had the law saying what you do, you'd have offered it. Instead, you've given us a dozen sniveling excuses why you can't back up your claim.

Keep running.

All the bond hearings you've been to (criminal) didn't have lawyers cross examining....because it's rarely necessary or used. This an extraordinary and uncommon case.

I gave you the FEDERAL statute allowing cross examining. Even the section number (F)2. It clearly states defendants shall be allowed an attorney....and cross examination is allowed in bond proceedings. US code 118 part II chapter 207 section F-2.

But yeah...I never provided the statute right?

 

[Skylar]

Your own source says that the chance is about 1 in 20. You are ignoring your source and continuing to cite yourself.

And glocks don't come with a checkered grip. Its not even an option when ordered them. You don't know what you're talking about.

You're nobody.

Show me the law stating that lawyers get to question one another in a bail hearing. You still haven't quote anyone but yourself.

You've never cited a single sentence from any law. State or Federal. You've paraphrased what you think the law says.

Yet when challenged to quote the actual law saying it......you run. Giving us sniveling excuses why you can't back anything you've said. You've only quoted yourself.

Keep running.

Says you, citing you. Show us your source indicating that you can't get a print off of a taser or glock. You citing yourself isn't evidence of anything. As you're nobody.

See how this works?

You've said that its impossible to pull a print from a taser or a glock. You've cited no source that indicates this. You've only cited yourself.

You've indicated that SC law states that lawyers can cross examine each other in a bail hearing. You've cited no source that indicates this. Not so much as a single sentence of any law, state or federal. You've only cited yourself.

You citing you isn't evidence. Try again.

I've cited forensics experts who say how extremely difficult it is.....practically impossible. Barrel? Mag? Casing? Maybe. Grip? Ain't happening.

You've said its practically impossible. Your sources have not.

Again, you're only quoting yourself and ignoring yuour sources. Please quote your source indicating that prints can not be lifted from a glock or a taser.

I've cited SC procedural law and federal law. Lawyers can ask each other questions in bond court. It's common practice. It's COURT...afterall.

You haven't cited a single sentence of any law. You've offered us a link and then......paraphrased your ass off. When asked to provide the quote from the law that matches your paraphrase, you run.

Each time, every time.

If you had the quote, you'd have offered it to us. Its been 2 days of excuses because you have no such quote, you can cite no such law.

Show us the SC law that states that lawyers can cross examine each other at a bail hearing. I've been to plenty of bail hearings. The lawyers don't question each other. The lawyers barely talk to one another in a bail hearing. They talk almost exclusively to the judge.

The judge asks plenty of questions to each lawyer as the lawyers present their arguments to the judge.

Show me the law. Don't tell me about it. As your word means nothing.

So all that....and you're going to ignore the federal statute I posted...and cited...

You've cited nothing. You have yet to quote a single law, State or Federal. You offered us a pair of links....and then empty paraphrases that you can't back up about what you *think* they say. You've never factually established that anything at those links says anything you do. And you've never offered a single quote from either.

If you had the law saying what you do, you'd have offered it. Instead, you've given us a dozen sniveling excuses why you can't back up your claim.

Keep running.

All the bond hearings you've been to (criminal) didn't have lawyers cross examining....because it's rarely necessary or used. This an extraordinary and uncommon case.

Several problems. First, its still just you citing yourself. You are nobody. Anytime you're citing youself, its useless noise.

Second, your claim was that the lawyers cross examined EACH OTHER according to SC law. That's a load of horseshit. The lawyers present evidence to the judge. They are not witnesses themselves. The lawyers do not talk to one another. They talk to the judge. The judge asks them questions. The lawyers don't cross examine one another.

Making your claim that Savage didn't make any reference to his claim before the press that Scott tried to attack Slager twice witth the taser because Savage was afraid he'd be cross examined another load of horseshit. Savage isn't a witness. He wouldn't be 'cross examined'.

And of course, your babble as to WHY Savage failed to back up his claim made before the press when in court is meaningless noise. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're pretending you're Savage. And you are (say it with me) nobody.

All we know for certain.....is when Savage is before a judge instead of reporters, his story changed. When he had to back up his claims, he omitted his 'twice attempted to use the taser' claim. That's what we know. Your claims as to WHY are baseless speculation backed by jack shit.

I gave you the FEDERAL statute allowing cross examining. Even the section number (F)2. It clearly states defendants shall be allowed an attorney....and cross examination is allowed in bond proceedings. US code 118 part II chapter 207 section F-2.

Three problems. First, this isn't a federal court. Making citations of federal bond proceedings meaingless.

Second, your claims was that the lawyers cross examined EACH OTHER. Which the Federal Statute never says. Its just you, citing you.

And third, you claimed it was SC law. A claim you've never been able to quote, cite, or back in anyway.

You fail again.

 

[bucs90]

I've cited forensics experts who say how extremely difficult it is.....practically impossible. Barrel? Mag? Casing? Maybe. Grip? Ain't happening.

You've said its practically impossible. Your sources have not.

Again, you're only quoting yourself and ignoring yuour sources. Please quote your source indicating that prints can not be lifted from a glock or a taser.

I've cited SC procedural law and federal law. Lawyers can ask each other questions in bond court. It's common practice. It's COURT...afterall.

You haven't cited a single sentence of any law. You've offered us a link and then......paraphrased your ass off. When asked to provide the quote from the law that matches your paraphrase, you run.

Each time, every time.

If you had the quote, you'd have offered it to us. Its been 2 days of excuses because you have no such quote, you can cite no such law.

Show us the SC law that states that lawyers can cross examine each other at a bail hearing. I've been to plenty of bail hearings. The lawyers don't question each other. The lawyers barely talk to one another in a bail hearing. They talk almost exclusively to the judge.

The judge asks plenty of questions to each lawyer as the lawyers present their arguments to the judge.

Show me the law. Don't tell me about it. As your word means nothing.

So all that....and you're going to ignore the federal statute I posted...and cited...

You've cited nothing. You have yet to quote a single law, State or Federal. You offered us a pair of links....and then empty paraphrases that you can't back up about what you *think* they say. You've never factually established that anything at those links says anything you do. And you've never offered a single quote from either.

If you had the law saying what you do, you'd have offered it. Instead, you've given us a dozen sniveling excuses why you can't back up your claim.

Keep running.

All the bond hearings you've been to (criminal) didn't have lawyers cross examining....because it's rarely necessary or used. This an extraordinary and uncommon case.

Several problems. First, its still just you citing yourself. You are nobody. Anytime you're citing youself, its useless noise.

Second, your claim was that the lawyers cross examined EACH OTHER according to SC law. That's a load of horseshit. The lawyers present evidence to the judge. They are not witnesses themselves. The lawyers do not talk to one another. They talk to the judge. The judge asks them questions. The lawyers don't cross examine one another.

Making your claim that Savage didn't make any reference to his claim before the press that Scott tried to attack Slager twice witth the taser because Savage was afraid he'd be cross examined another load of horseshit. Savage isn't a witness. He wouldn't be 'cross examined'.

And of course, your babble as to WHY Savage failed to back up his claim made before the press when in court is meaningless noise. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're pretending you're Savage. And you are (say it with me) nobody.

All we know for certain.....is when Savage is before a judge instead of reporters, his story changed. When he had to back up his claims, he omitted his 'twice attempted to use the taser' claim. That's what we know. Your claims as to WHY are baseless speculation backed by jack shit.

I gave you the FEDERAL statute allowing cross examining. Even the section number (F)2. It clearly states defendants shall be allowed an attorney....and cross examination is allowed in bond proceedings. US code 118 part II chapter 207 section F-2.

Three problems. First, this isn't a federal court. Making citations of federal bond proceedings meaingless.

Second, your claims was that the lawyers cross examined EACH OTHER. Which the Federal Statute never says. Its just you, citing you.

And third, you claimed it was SC law. A claim you've never been able to quote, cite, or back in anyway.

You fail again.

Wow. Just bizarre.

Lawyers cross examine each other's evidence and witnesses. Of course they don't put each other on the stand. I didn't factor in you being too much of a retard to grasp short context. When I say the solicitor could cross examine Savage...it means his presentation...not him personally on the stand. But again....assumed you weren't a full retard and understood that. My bad. You are.

SC judicial handbook. I provided it. It...like all 50 states...mirror federal law. Because...well....it's a federal law, shaped around the 4th, 5th, 6th Amendments which grant due process...including bail proceedings, rights to attorney....and yes...the ability to challenge the presentation of the prosecution or defense (aka cross examine).

Again...I suppose I should've factored in you being a retard.

 

[Skylar]

No. If you try to use a weapon on a cop....you may as well have asked for it.

Apparently it doesn't matter if you have a weapon or not in cases like the Charleston shooting.

Not at all. The man had no weapon, was fleeing with his back turned to the officer. Even if he had the taser (which he obviously didn't) it was no threat to the officer as both cartridges had been expended. The taser would have to be pressed against the officer to be used.

And the suspect was 20 feet away, without a taser, facing away from the officer.

There's no 'reasonable fear for one's life' argument to be had. Which was why the officer was fired. And why he was charged with murder.

Slager thought he still had it. Which is what the jury must consider. Not hindsight.

Genuinely irrelevant. Lets say that Scott did have it. He obviously didn't, but lets say. Both cartriges had been expended. Slager knew this. The only way that the man could have threatened Slager in any way was to push the taser against Slager's body directly. Slager knew this too.

Both are which are physically impossible when Slager began firing. Scott was 20 feet away, running away, and facing away from Slager. There's no credible argument that Slager feared for his life in that scenario.

You're right. From that distance...he wasn't a threat to Slager. If it were you or me...absolutely no right to shoot. But...as a sworn officer...Slager has a right to continue that arrest...which Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner says can be accomplished via deadly force if the suspect is armed.

So you admit that there was no threat to Slager and Slager knew there was no threat to Slager.

Excellent .

Plumoff v. Rickard SCOTUS 2014 reaffirms officers judgements can't be judged in hindsight, but rather heat of the moment, AND this ruling states cops can use deadly force on a fleeing suspect IF other officers "on foot in the area" may be in danger....and Slager knew Habersham was on the way and Scott had already fought him and took his taser.

First, you're making up a narrative for Slager that Slager never offered. Slager never makes such an argument in any incident report. There's no mention of it in dispatch recording. There's no mention of it any police report. Slager cited his OWN fear of being attacked by the suspect.

A fear you've already conceded was unfounded and unjust.

Second, Plumoff was about a driver of a car that tried to hit a police officer as part of a high speed car chase. This wasn't a high speed car chase. This was a man on foot. An unarmed man who had AT MOST an empty taser. And in reality, not even that.

To equate an empty taser with a speeding car fails the 'totality of the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene" test used in Plumoff.

Making your argument double crap.

The fact that Slager went and planted the taser beside Scott's body after killing him demonstrated that Slager knew he'd fucked up. Slager was fired on the spot once these facts were known. Nixing any 'but its standard police procedure to plant the taser beside the unarmed guy you just shot in the back' bullshit.

Its not standard police procedure. His boss saw what slager had done and was appalled. Slager was immediately fired and then rightly charged with murder.

 

[Skylar]

Wow. Just bizarre.

Lawyers cross examine each other's evidence and witnesses.

Holy shit. You can't be this ignorant.

You can't cross examine evidence. You can only cross examine witnesses. You don't understand what cross examination is. Its impossible to cross examine evidence, as evidence in inanimate. Cross examination is the interrogation of a witness.

Your claim was that lawyers cross examined EACH OTHER. Which is bone ignorant horseshit. Lawyers aren't witnesses. Opposing counsels don't talk each other in a bail hearing. They talk to the judge. Its the judge that asks questions.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

You've made up a bullshit story for why Savage didn't make his claims in court about Scott trying to use the taser twice. Backed by nothing. You have no idea why Savage didn't present any such evidence. All you know it that when Savage had to back up his claims with evidence in court.....his story changed from what he told the press. And he omitted all mention of it.

You made up a SC law that lawyers can cross examine one another in a bail hearing. No such law exists.

And you reimagined cross examination itself, imagining it to be something done to inanimate objects. Nope. Its an interrogation of a witness. And lawyers aren't witnesses. They can't be cross examined in a bond hearing.

Its like a fail layer cake with horseshit frosting.

Of course they don't put each other on the stand. I didn't factor in you being too much of a retard to grasp short context. When I say the solicitor could cross examine Savage...it means his presentation...not him personally on the stand. But again....assumed you weren't a full retard and understood that. My bad. You are.

And once again, you demonstrate that you don't know what a cross examination is. Then you just conceded the entire point. As only witnesses can be cross examined. And lawyers aren't witnesses. Its physically impossible to cross examine evidence. As evidence is inanimate.

Its not my fault you don't know what cross examination is. Retard.

 

[bucs90]

Apparently it doesn't matter if you have a weapon or not in cases like the Charleston shooting.

Not at all. The man had no weapon, was fleeing with his back turned to the officer. Even if he had the taser (which he obviously didn't) it was no threat to the officer as both cartridges had been expended. The taser would have to be pressed against the officer to be used.

And the suspect was 20 feet away, without a taser, facing away from the officer.

There's no 'reasonable fear for one's life' argument to be had. Which was why the officer was fired. And why he was charged with murder.

Slager thought he still had it. Which is what the jury must consider. Not hindsight.

Genuinely irrelevant. Lets say that Scott did have it. He obviously didn't, but lets say. Both cartriges had been expended. Slager knew this. The only way that the man could have threatened Slager in any way was to push the taser against Slager's body directly. Slager knew this too.

Both are which are physically impossible when Slager began firing. Scott was 20 feet away, running away, and facing away from Slager. There's no credible argument that Slager feared for his life in that scenario.

You're right. From that distance...he wasn't a threat to Slager. If it were you or me...absolutely no right to shoot. But...as a sworn officer...Slager has a right to continue that arrest...which Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner says can be accomplished via deadly force if the suspect is armed.

So you admit that there was no threat to Slager and Slager knew there was no threat to Slager.

Excellent .

Plumoff v. Rickard SCOTUS 2014 reaffirms officers judgements can't be judged in hindsight, but rather heat of the moment, AND this ruling states cops can use deadly force on a fleeing suspect IF other officers "on foot in the area" may be in danger....and Slager knew Habersham was on the way and Scott had already fought him and took his taser.

First, you're making up a narrative for Slager that Slager never offered. Slager never makes such an argument in any incident report. There's no mention of it in dispatch recording. There's no mention of it any police report. Slager cited his OWN fear of being attacked by the suspect.

A fear you've already conceded was unfounded and unjust.

Second, Plumoff was about a driver of a car that tried to hit a police officer as part of a high speed car chase. This wasn't a high speed car chase. This was a man on foot. An unarmed man who had AT MOST an empty taser. And in reality, not even that.

To equate an empty taser with a speeding car fails the 'totality of the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene" test used in Plumoff.

Making your argument double crap.

The fact that Slager went and planted the taser beside Scott's body after killing him demonstrated that Slager knew he'd fucked up. Slager was fired on the spot once these facts were known. Nixing any 'but its standard police procedure to plant the taser beside the unarmed guy you just shot in the back' bullshit.

Its not standard police procedure. His boss saw what slager had done and was appalled. Slager was immediately fired and then rightly charged with murder.

His fear IF he had tried to apprehend Scott hand to hand...since Scott had a weapon. Remember....unlike us...Slager still had a lawful right to apprehend Scott. That's a HUGE difference in self defense for a cop vs self defense for you or I. How does he apprehend that person....without getting close enough to have that taser used on him?? With a gun. The 1+1 use of force model...used nationwide and even by military MPs...says 1+1 vs a taser (or other weapon) is a gun.

3 SCOTUS rulings support it. Yes...that 2014 case involved a car...but set more precedent for officers using force to protect the other officers who may be in the area.

As I said...what Slager did was ugly and dumb. But not illegal. He was fired and charged in a knee jerk panic reaction....which these days I actually understand. Just modern reality now. Don't want your city to burn? Better hammer the cop immediately without a lot of investigating or delay.

But he's never...ever...ever...gonna be convicted.

 

[dannyboys]

Apparently it doesn't matter if you have a weapon or not in cases like the Charleston shooting.

Not at all. The man had no weapon, was fleeing with his back turned to the officer. Even if he had the taser (which he obviously didn't) it was no threat to the officer as both cartridges had been expended. The taser would have to be pressed against the officer to be used.

And the suspect was 20 feet away, without a taser, facing away from the officer.

There's no 'reasonable fear for one's life' argument to be had. Which was why the officer was fired. And why he was charged with murder.

Slager thought he still had it. Which is what the jury must consider. Not hindsight.

Genuinely irrelevant. Lets say that Scott did have it. He obviously didn't, but lets say. Both cartriges had been expended. Slager knew this. The only way that the man could have threatened Slager in any way was to push the taser against Slager's body directly. Slager knew this too.

Both are which are physically impossible when Slager began firing. Scott was 20 feet away, running away, and facing away from Slager. There's no credible argument that Slager feared for his life in that scenario.

You're right. From that distance...he wasn't a threat to Slager. If it were you or me...absolutely no right to shoot. But...as a sworn officer...Slager has a right to continue that arrest...which Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner says can be accomplished via deadly force if the suspect is armed.

So you admit that there was no threat to Slager and Slager knew there was no threat to Slager.

Excellent .

Plumoff v. Rickard SCOTUS 2014 reaffirms officers judgements can't be judged in hindsight, but rather heat of the moment, AND this ruling states cops can use deadly force on a fleeing suspect IF other officers "on foot in the area" may be in danger....and Slager knew Habersham was on the way and Scott had already fought him and took his taser.

First, you're making up a narrative for Slager that Slager never offered. Slager never makes such an argument in any incident report. There's no mention of it in dispatch recording. There's no mention of it any police report. Slager cited his OWN fear of being attacked by the suspect.

A fear you've already conceded was unfounded and unjust.

Second, Plumoff was about a driver of a car that tried to hit a police officer as part of a high speed car chase. This wasn't a high speed car chase. This was a man on foot. An unarmed man who had AT MOST an empty taser. And in reality, not even that.

To equate an empty taser with a speeding car fails the 'totality of the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene" test used in Plumoff.

Making your argument double crap.

The fact that Slager went and planted the taser beside Scott's body after killing him demonstrated that Slager knew he'd fucked up. Slager was fired on the spot once these facts were known. Nixing any 'but its standard police procedure to plant the taser beside the unarmed guy you just shot in the back' bullshit.

Its not standard police procedure. His boss saw what slager had done and was appalled. Slager was immediately fired and then rightly charged with murder.

You didn't answer my question. Are you negroid in appearance? I'm tired of the 'Special Needs' negros running their mouths defending the illegal actions of every negro solely based on their skin color.
Whatever color you are you're a nothing more than a troll. And that means you're boring and that means you're on permanent PI.

 

[dannyboys]

GLOCK Police and Law Enforcement Firearms | Police Pistols | GLOCK USA
Virtually impossible to get a useable print of a standard police issue Glock.
No problem getting DNA off one though.......like the Defence team has from Scott.

 

[Skylar]

Not at all. The man had no weapon, was fleeing with his back turned to the officer. Even if he had the taser (which he obviously didn't) it was no threat to the officer as both cartridges had been expended. The taser would have to be pressed against the officer to be used.

And the suspect was 20 feet away, without a taser, facing away from the officer.

There's no 'reasonable fear for one's life' argument to be had. Which was why the officer was fired. And why he was charged with murder.

Slager thought he still had it. Which is what the jury must consider. Not hindsight.

Genuinely irrelevant. Lets say that Scott did have it. He obviously didn't, but lets say. Both cartriges had been expended. Slager knew this. The only way that the man could have threatened Slager in any way was to push the taser against Slager's body directly. Slager knew this too.

Both are which are physically impossible when Slager began firing. Scott was 20 feet away, running away, and facing away from Slager. There's no credible argument that Slager feared for his life in that scenario.

You're right. From that distance...he wasn't a threat to Slager. If it were you or me...absolutely no right to shoot. But...as a sworn officer...Slager has a right to continue that arrest...which Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner says can be accomplished via deadly force if the suspect is armed.

So you admit that there was no threat to Slager and Slager knew there was no threat to Slager.

Excellent .

Plumoff v. Rickard SCOTUS 2014 reaffirms officers judgements can't be judged in hindsight, but rather heat of the moment, AND this ruling states cops can use deadly force on a fleeing suspect IF other officers "on foot in the area" may be in danger....and Slager knew Habersham was on the way and Scott had already fought him and took his taser.

First, you're making up a narrative for Slager that Slager never offered. Slager never makes such an argument in any incident report. There's no mention of it in dispatch recording. There's no mention of it any police report. Slager cited his OWN fear of being attacked by the suspect.

A fear you've already conceded was unfounded and unjust.

Second, Plumoff was about a driver of a car that tried to hit a police officer as part of a high speed car chase. This wasn't a high speed car chase. This was a man on foot. An unarmed man who had AT MOST an empty taser. And in reality, not even that.

To equate an empty taser with a speeding car fails the 'totality of the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene" test used in Plumoff.

Making your argument double crap.

The fact that Slager went and planted the taser beside Scott's body after killing him demonstrated that Slager knew he'd fucked up. Slager was fired on the spot once these facts were known. Nixing any 'but its standard police procedure to plant the taser beside the unarmed guy you just shot in the back' bullshit.

Its not standard police procedure. His boss saw what slager had done and was appalled. Slager was immediately fired and then rightly charged with murder.

His fear IF he had tried to apprehend Scott hand to hand...since Scott had a weapon.

You just changed your story....AGAIN. And Slager still didn't say any of this.

You've already conceded the point that from that distance.. Scott wasn't a threat to Slager. Now you're making up yet another imaginary hypothetical that Slager NEVER backs to try and explain away Slager killing a man he KNEW wasn't a threat to him.

That's an illegal killing. That's murder. That's why Slager was charged.

Remember....unlike us...Slager still had a lawful right to apprehend Scott. That's a HUGE difference in self defense for a cop vs self defense for you or I. How does he apprehend that person....without getting close enough to have that taser used on him?? With a gun. The 1+1 use of force model...used nationwide and even by military MPs...says 1+1 vs a taser (or other weapon) is a gun.

Killing a man running away from you that you KNOW isn't a threat to you isn't 'self defense'. Its murder. You've already admitted that at that distance, Scott wasn't a threat to Slager.

And it was at that distance that Slager killed Scott.

3 SCOTUS rulings support it. Yes...that 2014 case involved a car...but set more precedent for officers using force to protect the other officers who may be in the area.

Again you're equating the *possibility* of an empty taser with the certainty of a speeding car in a high speed chase that just tried to hit a police officer.

That fails the 'reasonable officer' test. As demonstrated by Slager's immediate firing by his department once they'd learned what he had done.

You may equate an POSSIBLE empty taser that doesn't actually exist with an actual speeding car. But reasonable person wouldn't. And its reasonable officer standard that Slager is held to. He's fucked. And rightly should be.

The planting of the taser on Scott's body is only loathsome frosting on an already loathsome cake.