Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, I did not.I didn't ignore any part of your post. You said that as long as Slager's story is "plausible", there's no need for a trial.Why did you choose to ignore the first 5 words of my post?"I heard what his lawyer said, that's enough for me. He's clearly innocent"Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.Scott wrestled the taser away from Slager, stood and pointed it at him
Facing his own taser...Slager drew his firearm as trained and initiated stopping the threat
Scott turned to flee and slung the taser away
Slager...looking through his pistol sights...never saw the taser be thrown and thought he was aiming at an armed Scott
That's for the prosecutor and/or the jury to decide -- your opinion on the matter is meaningless.Its not.Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.Scott wrestled the taser away from Slager, stood and pointed it at him
Facing his own taser...Slager drew his firearm as trained and initiated stopping the threat
Scott turned to flee and slung the taser away
Slager...looking through his pistol sights...never saw the taser be thrown and thought he was aiming at an armed Scott
Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.Scott wrestled the taser away from Slager, stood and pointed it at him
Facing his own taser...Slager drew his firearm as trained and initiated stopping the threat
Scott turned to flee and slung the taser away
Slager...looking through his pistol sights...never saw the taser be thrown and thought he was aiming at an armed Scott
"I heard what his lawyer said, that's enough for me. He's clearly innocent, no need for a trial"
You lefties believed Mike Browns lawyer. Why not this one?
That's for the prosecutor and/or the jury to decide -- your opinion on the matter is meaningless.Its not.Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.Scott wrestled the taser away from Slager, stood and pointed it at him
Facing his own taser...Slager drew his firearm as trained and initiated stopping the threat
Scott turned to flee and slung the taser away
Slager...looking through his pistol sights...never saw the taser be thrown and thought he was aiming at an armed Scott
No, I did not.I didn't ignore any part of your post. You said that as long as Slager's story is "plausible", there's no need for a trial.Why did you choose to ignore the first 5 words of my post?"I heard what his lawyer said, that's enough for me. He's clearly innocent"Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.Scott wrestled the taser away from Slager, stood and pointed it at him
Facing his own taser...Slager drew his firearm as trained and initiated stopping the threat
Scott turned to flee and slung the taser away
Slager...looking through his pistol sights...never saw the taser be thrown and thought he was aiming at an armed Scott
I said that f those points were demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your preconceptions?
That's for the prosecutor and/or the jury to decide -- your opinion on the matter is meaningless.The facts however, are immediately....That's for the prosecutor and/or the jury to decide -- your opinion on the matter is meaningless.Its not.Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.Scott wrestled the taser away from Slager, stood and pointed it at him
Facing his own taser...Slager drew his firearm as trained and initiated stopping the threat
Scott turned to flee and slung the taser away
Slager...looking through his pistol sights...never saw the taser be thrown and thought he was aiming at an armed Scott
Who said I did?What makes you "presume" that any of those points are "demonstratively plausible"?No, I did not.I didn't ignore any part of your post. You said that as long as Slager's story is "plausible", there's no need for a trial.Why did you choose to ignore the first 5 words of my post?"I heard what his lawyer said, that's enough for me. He's clearly innocent"Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.
I said that f those points were demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your preconceptions?
Plausible deniability is the very soul of reasonable doubt."Plausibility" is also not the same thing as "reasonable doubt".
That's for the prosecutor and/or the jury to decide -- your opinion on the matter is meaningless.The facts however, are immediately....That's for the prosecutor and/or the jury to decide -- your opinion on the matter is meaningless.Its not.Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.Scott wrestled the taser away from Slager, stood and pointed it at him
Facing his own taser...Slager drew his firearm as trained and initiated stopping the threat
Scott turned to flee and slung the taser away
Slager...looking through his pistol sights...never saw the taser be thrown and thought he was aiming at an armed Scott
That is, you interpretation of events has absolutely no meaning whatsoever as you are neither the prosecutor no r part of the jury.
YOU don't get to decide. THEY do.
YOUR opinion means nothing.
That's for the prosecutor and/or the jury to decide -- your opinion on the matter is meaningless.Its not.Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.Scott wrestled the taser away from Slager, stood and pointed it at him
Facing his own taser...Slager drew his firearm as trained and initiated stopping the threat
Scott turned to flee and slung the taser away
Slager...looking through his pistol sights...never saw the taser be thrown and thought he was aiming at an armed Scott
The facts however, are immediately relevant. And they don't back any of Slager's revised account. Even Slager doesn't back Slager's revised account. He never mentions any of it in any report, any dispatch recording, any video, any incident report, any police report. Not Slager or anyone else who responded.
Nor are any of Scott's finger prints on the taser.
And its been 3 days. I don't think 'about to' means what you guys think it means. Slager isn't going anywhere.
Shooting a guy in the back isn't the very soul of plausible deniability.Who said I did?What makes you "presume" that any of those points are "demonstratively plausible"?No, I did not.I didn't ignore any part of your post. You said that as long as Slager's story is "plausible", there's no need for a trial.Why did you choose to ignore the first 5 words of my post?"I heard what his lawyer said, that's enough for me. He's clearly innocent"
I said that f those points were demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your preconceptions?
You under stand the meaning of "if", right?
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your inability to comprehend what you read?
Plausible deniability is the very soul of reasonable doubt."Plausibility" is also not the same thing as "reasonable doubt".
That's for the prosecutor and/or the jury to decide -- your opinion on the matter is meaningless.The facts however, are immediately....That's for the prosecutor and/or the jury to decide -- your opinion on the matter is meaningless.Its not.Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.
That is, you interpretation of events has absolutely no meaning whatsoever as you are neither the prosecutor no r part of the jury.
'Interpretation'? There's no mention of anything that Slager described anywhere. I've listened to all 30 minutes of the dispatch recording. I've read the incident report. I've read Slager's account and the account of every responding officer.
Its simply not there. I defy you to show us any mention of Scott trying to use the taser against Slager twice until Savage 'revealed it', backed with nothing.
You can't. It doesn't exist.
YOU don't get to decide. THEY do.
YOUR opinion means nothing.
With Slager's ass still parked dutifully in prison with a murder indictment hanging over his head, there's clearly something you're missing.
Who said I did?What makes you "presume" that any of those points are "demonstratively plausible"?No, I did not.I didn't ignore any part of your post. You said that as long as Slager's story is "plausible", there's no need for a trial.Why did you choose to ignore the first 5 words of my post?"I heard what his lawyer said, that's enough for me. He's clearly innocent"
I said that f those points were demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your preconceptions?
You under stand the meaning of "if", right?
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your inability to comprehend what you read?
Plausible deniability is the very soul of reasonable doubt."Plausibility" is also not the same thing as "reasonable doubt".
Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.
You choose to not pay attention to what I said.Shooting a guy in the back isn't the very soul of plausible deniability.Who said I did?What makes you "presume" that any of those points are "demonstratively plausible"?No, I did not.I didn't ignore any part of your post. You said that as long as Slager's story is "plausible", there's no need for a trial.Why did you choose to ignore the first 5 words of my post?
I said that f those points were demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your preconceptions?
You under stand the meaning of "if", right?
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your inability to comprehend what you read?
Plausible deniability is the very soul of reasonable doubt."Plausibility" is also not the same thing as "reasonable doubt".
Again:Who said I did?What makes you "presume" that any of those points are "demonstratively plausible"?No, I did not.I didn't ignore any part of your post. You said that as long as Slager's story is "plausible", there's no need for a trial.Why did you choose to ignore the first 5 words of my post?
I said that f those points were demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your preconceptions?
You under stand the meaning of "if", right?
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your inability to comprehend what you read?
Plausible deniability is the very soul of reasonable doubt."Plausibility" is also not the same thing as "reasonable doubt".I don't see any "if" in there...Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.
Defense court documents: Walter Scott had drugs in system before pointing Taser at police officer
Take this how you may. The North Charleston ex cop is about to get bonded out.
After a 3 month investigation by SC attorney Andy Savage...renowned as one of the best in the entire South....he has new evidence that SLED intestigators missed or ignored in a rush to file charges.
He had an expert video analyst breakdown the tape...AND retrieve footage which wasn't shown publicly. Got DNA testing done. CBS NEWS interviewed Savage. He said the following will be made public after the bond and for trial...and that he has unquestioned proof:
The new facts-
Walter Scott had cocaine and alcohol in his system...driving in the morning hours.
Scott was on top of Slager at some point in the fight
The fight lasted much longer than portrayed
Scott's DNA was on the taser.
Scott wrestled the taser away from Slager, stood and pointed it at him
Facing his own taser...Slager drew his firearm as trained and initiated stopping the threat
Scott turned to flee and slung the taser away
Slager...looking through his pistol sights...never saw the taser be thrown and thought he was aiming at an armed Scott
Folks....ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE the prosecutor gets a murder conviction.
Folks.....ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE she gives him a plea deal. She'll be crucified in the media and made public enemy #1
Folks......ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE he'll be convicted of murder...and will go free.
Take it for what it is.
You all realize that Slager has to prove that he was justified.
We have all seen the vid. There is no question he shot the suspect 8 times in the back. He is guilty of that act.
He has to prove it was a righteous shoot. I don't think he can.
Defense court documents: Walter Scott had drugs in system before pointing Taser at police officer
Take this how you may. The North Charleston ex cop is about to get bonded out.
After a 3 month investigation by SC attorney Andy Savage...renowned as one of the best in the entire South....he has new evidence that SLED intestigators missed or ignored in a rush to file charges.
He had an expert video analyst breakdown the tape...AND retrieve footage which wasn't shown publicly. Got DNA testing done. CBS NEWS interviewed Savage. He said the following will be made public after the bond and for trial...and that he has unquestioned proof:
The new facts-
Walter Scott had cocaine and alcohol in his system...driving in the morning hours.
Scott was on top of Slager at some point in the fight
The fight lasted much longer than portrayed
Scott's DNA was on the taser.
Scott wrestled the taser away from Slager, stood and pointed it at him
Facing his own taser...Slager drew his firearm as trained and initiated stopping the threat
Scott turned to flee and slung the taser away
Slager...looking through his pistol sights...never saw the taser be thrown and thought he was aiming at an armed Scott
Folks....ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE the prosecutor gets a murder conviction.
Folks.....ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE she gives him a plea deal. She'll be crucified in the media and made public enemy #1
Folks......ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE he'll be convicted of murder...and will go free.
Take it for what it is.
you could see the cop had been shot by a taser in the original footage
Again:Who said I did?What makes you "presume" that any of those points are "demonstratively plausible"?No, I did not.I didn't ignore any part of your post. You said that as long as Slager's story is "plausible", there's no need for a trial.
I said that f those points were demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your preconceptions?
You under stand the meaning of "if", right?
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your inability to comprehend what you read?
Plausible deniability is the very soul of reasonable doubt."Plausibility" is also not the same thing as "reasonable doubt".I don't see any "if" in there...Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.
I said that if those points were demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your inability to comprehend what you read?
Apparently you do NOT have a meaningful response to what I said and you DO plan to speak only from your preconceptions and your inability to comprehend what you read.That's not what you said, no matter how much you try to walk it back. The post is still here - you said that you presume it to be "demonstratively plausible", and therefore the officer will "rightfully" will not see a trial.Again:Who said I did?What makes you "presume" that any of those points are "demonstratively plausible"?No, I did not.
I said that f those points were demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your preconceptions?
You under stand the meaning of "if", right?
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your inability to comprehend what you read?
Plausible deniability is the very soul of reasonable doubt."Plausibility" is also not the same thing as "reasonable doubt".I don't see any "if" in there...Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.
I said that if those points were demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your inability to comprehend what you read?
You only added an "if" when the ridiculousness of your argument was pointed out.
