Free Officer Michael Slager

[protectionist]

A court would determine that. Their call, not yours.

A court would point its collective finger at you, laugh mightily, and yell

protectionist, your understanding of the law is merely pathetic.

Joke Starkey excels in hollow rhetoric.

The man in his avatar pic looks like one to me.

The man in the avatar is me. The pic was taken over a year ago. Yep, I'm old.

No you're not. You mentioned your age one time. You're only in your 50s. Middle age - not old.

In Florida, the Abuse of Elderly law starts at 65.

 

[WinterBorn]

snow·flake
(snō′flāk′)
n.
1. A single flake or crystal of snow.
2. Any of several bulbous perennial plants of the genus Leucojum, native to Europe, having nodding white bell-shaped flowers.
3. A snow bunting.
4. Slang A person who is considered to be overly sensitive or too easily offended, especially as a result of believing himself or herself to be unique or special.
5. Protectionist

Tell that to dozens of people serving time in FL prisons for 825.102

Dozens? For calling someone a name? Surely that made the news. Post a link. Or admit you're lying.

 

[WinterBorn]

A court would determine that. Their call, not yours.

A court would point its collective finger at you, laugh mightily, and yell

protectionist, your understanding of the law is merely pathetic.

Joke Starkey excels in hollow rhetoric.

The man in his avatar pic looks like one to me.

The man in the avatar is me. The pic was taken over a year ago. Yep, I'm old.

No you're not. You mentioned your age one time. You're only in your 50s. Middle age - not old.

In Florida, the Abuse of Elderly law starts at 65.

He didn't ask if I was covered by that law. And middle aged would imply I will live to be 116.

 

[WinterBorn]

Neither does calling you a "dumbass" on a political debate website.

A court would determine that. Their call, not yours.

A court? Do you realize how weak this makes you look? Do you realize that, despite your claims, you are one of the most limp-wristed liberals on these forums? You claim to be a conservative. But when someone calls you a fairly innocuous name, you resort to calling for the gov't to prosecute this person? And, in addition, you have called others worse names, for sure.

And no, I have no doubt that calling you a dumbass on a political debate website is certainly not abuse or aggravated assault on a senior citizen. The fact that you try to play this card is simply cowardice and pettiness on your part.

When a post is as much a mess as that, I usually don't dignify it with a response. I feel generous today

1. Calling for law enforcement is conservative, not liberal
2. Calling someone "dumbass" (& other names you called) are verbal abuse. 100%
3. I never said "aggravated assault", you said that
4. Last sentence of your messy post is more violation of FL St 825.102

Calling for law enforcement because someone called you a dumbass on a political debate website is certainly NOT conservative. Wanting the gov't to protect you from name-calling is as leftwing as it gets. You are wanting USMB to be your "safe space".

Nothing I said is a violation of 825.102.

I have asked how being called a dumbass is a violation of 825.102, and you have avoided answering. You claim you have already answered, but I have not seen it.

You PRETEND you haven't.

No pretending here. Nothing in that law comes close to making calling you a dumbass a violation.

 

[JoeMoma]

 

[SavannahMann]

Glad Slager got his just desserts.

Now, if we want REAL justice for victims of police brutality, we need to remove qualified immunity protections from police officers.

So you're hook, line & sinker for the Obama/Sharpton/Jackson race hustle campaign too, huh ? OK...noted.

EARTH TO OSCAR: the police brutality ploys have repeatedly been invalidated in the courts (Wilson, Shelby, Baltimore 6, etc)

Yes. The cops usually go free. But we hope that is changing. We are perhaps naive or silly enough to believe that the thugs in uniform will be held accountable. A dream of ours. A nightmare of yours.

Suckers believe this.

Then you agree that the police are not being held accountable, while you are arguing that a cop shouldn’t be held accountable. Why shouldn’t the cops be held accountable for their crimes? I mean, are we not a nation of laws, where no one is above the law, and no one is below the law, they are all equal before the law?

Of course ALL people should be held accountable - but we've been hit by political BS. Some fall for the police brutality scam. Some don't.

I've already addressed this here.

The problem is they are not held accountable. Look at what was “news” this year. A cop arrested a nurse for refusing to break the law. The investigation went nowhere until the story went public, and national. The camera footage showed how indefensible the actions of the cop were.

But more than that, we saw the institutional mentality of the LEO’s. The “investigation” was plodding forward with the usual glacial pattern. The odd thing is this, when it is a cop who is assaulted, the suspect is arrested, tried, convicted, and halfway done serving their time before the investigation of the cop is concluded.

We saw the results. Rarely, the police were fired. Almost never were they tried, and if tried, even more rarely were they convicted for their behavior. The badge is a license to steal, a license to do anything they want. Anyone who questions this is a cop hater. Anyone who challenges this mentality is accused of wanting anarchy.

So our choice is abusive and corrupt police, or anarchy? Nonsense.

Police lie in one out of five cases according to a survey conducted by lawyers and judges. These are the people who deal with these questions every single day. They believe the cops lie. It might be something minor, or something major. Every year another ten or twelve people are released from death row, because evidence shows they did not commit any crime, much less what they were convicted of. In every single one of those cases, questionable, to put it politely, behavior by the police was literally the norm.

Those cops face no penalties for lying, and sending an innocent man to prison. They retire, and have their golden years paid for by the very citizens they abused and helped falsely convict.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The police have nearly absolute power, and it has corrupted them.

I believe you were a cop. You have all the signs. A desire to protect the fellow members of the brotherhood of the badge. The same above the law mentality. The same us versus them mentality. The same thin skin and threats about punishment for being mean to you.

A Priest will tell you that it is an honor to serve God. That God choose them to spread his word, and care for the flock. When I was a soldier, I was too young to really understand the honor that I had taken on. The one thing I did know was that I would serve with Honor. I would not lie, and I would obey the rules. When I was busted for breaking the rules, I didn’t make excuses, I took the punishment, and soldiered on.

I refused to even consider being a cop. Not out of fear. Not out of anything like that. But because I knew, from watching, and learning that I could not lie to protect another cop. I would not dishonor myself in such a way. I would not go to the next life with my honor in tatters, and that would be what was required to put on the badge.

The police are corrupt. They lie every single day. They plant evidence, and they are little more than a gang of mafia enforcers. The only difference between them, and the real Mob is this. The mob at least admits they are crooks to themselves.

 

[The Professor]

Anyone who thinks that shooting was reasonable use of force is a nutjob. Scott was obviously not a threat.

Anyone who knows the law and is familiar with the facts of the case would have to agree with you. Hell, even officer Slager agrees with you! He entered a guilty plea and agreed to serve 20 years. That was a wise decision on his part. Slager's first trial resulted in a hung jury with 11 jurors voting for conviction and only one juror voting for acquittal. Apparently Slager knew he was lucky to find one nutjob who saved his butt and was afraid he could not find another one. Slager saw the handwriting on the wall and thought it best to cut his losses. His admission of guilt ends debate on the subject.

Refuted earlier in the thread. Even in the OP. .

So you say.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now the Alt Right is yelling about the police.

View attachment 167800

 

[protectionist]

A court would determine that. Their call, not yours.

A court? Do you realize how weak this makes you look? Do you realize that, despite your claims, you are one of the most limp-wristed liberals on these forums? You claim to be a conservative. But when someone calls you a fairly innocuous name, you resort to calling for the gov't to prosecute this person? And, in addition, you have called others worse names, for sure.

And no, I have no doubt that calling you a dumbass on a political debate website is certainly not abuse or aggravated assault on a senior citizen. The fact that you try to play this card is simply cowardice and pettiness on your part.

When a post is as much a mess as that, I usually don't dignify it with a response. I feel generous today

1. Calling for law enforcement is conservative, not liberal
2. Calling someone "dumbass" (& other names you called) are verbal abuse. 100%
3. I never said "aggravated assault", you said that
4. Last sentence of your messy post is more violation of FL St 825.102

Calling for law enforcement because someone called you a dumbass on a political debate website is certainly NOT conservative. Wanting the gov't to protect you from name-calling is as leftwing as it gets. You are wanting USMB to be your "safe space".

Nothing I said is a violation of 825.102.

I have asked how being called a dumbass is a violation of 825.102, and you have avoided answering. You claim you have already answered, but I have not seen it.

You PRETEND you haven't.

No pretending here. Nothing in that law comes close to making calling you a dumbass a violation.

Sure it does. Psychological injury is anything offensive. Insults, verbal abuse, yelling, etc. 100s of people served time for it

I've moved on to other threads. No Slager basher here has diminished the OP one iota. No need to hang around here.

 

[WinterBorn]

A court? Do you realize how weak this makes you look? Do you realize that, despite your claims, you are one of the most limp-wristed liberals on these forums? You claim to be a conservative. But when someone calls you a fairly innocuous name, you resort to calling for the gov't to prosecute this person? And, in addition, you have called others worse names, for sure.

And no, I have no doubt that calling you a dumbass on a political debate website is certainly not abuse or aggravated assault on a senior citizen. The fact that you try to play this card is simply cowardice and pettiness on your part.

When a post is as much a mess as that, I usually don't dignify it with a response. I feel generous today

1. Calling for law enforcement is conservative, not liberal
2. Calling someone "dumbass" (& other names you called) are verbal abuse. 100%
3. I never said "aggravated assault", you said that
4. Last sentence of your messy post is more violation of FL St 825.102

Calling for law enforcement because someone called you a dumbass on a political debate website is certainly NOT conservative. Wanting the gov't to protect you from name-calling is as leftwing as it gets. You are wanting USMB to be your "safe space".

Nothing I said is a violation of 825.102.

I have asked how being called a dumbass is a violation of 825.102, and you have avoided answering. You claim you have already answered, but I have not seen it.

You PRETEND you haven't.

No pretending here. Nothing in that law comes close to making calling you a dumbass a violation.

Sure it does. Psychological injury is anything offensive. Insults, verbal abuse, yelling, etc. 100s of people served time for it

I've moved on to other threads. No Slager basher here has diminished the OP one iota. No need to hang around here.

Bullshit! There has to be an actual psychological injury. Calling you a dumbass does not injure you at all.

I see you are bailing when challenged to provide a link to a news story about someone being jailed for calling someone a name. Typical.

No need to hang around? Yeah, the volume of humiliation you have suffered here would send most people running.

When I hear from Hillsborough County I'll let you know. I may have to write them a 2nd time, because they probably thought the first was a joke.

BTW, I recall you calling people names a few times. That makes you a hypocrite on a remarkable scale.

 

[WinterBorn]

A court? Do you realize how weak this makes you look? Do you realize that, despite your claims, you are one of the most limp-wristed liberals on these forums? You claim to be a conservative. But when someone calls you a fairly innocuous name, you resort to calling for the gov't to prosecute this person? And, in addition, you have called others worse names, for sure.

And no, I have no doubt that calling you a dumbass on a political debate website is certainly not abuse or aggravated assault on a senior citizen. The fact that you try to play this card is simply cowardice and pettiness on your part.

When a post is as much a mess as that, I usually don't dignify it with a response. I feel generous today

1. Calling for law enforcement is conservative, not liberal
2. Calling someone "dumbass" (& other names you called) are verbal abuse. 100%
3. I never said "aggravated assault", you said that
4. Last sentence of your messy post is more violation of FL St 825.102

Calling for law enforcement because someone called you a dumbass on a political debate website is certainly NOT conservative. Wanting the gov't to protect you from name-calling is as leftwing as it gets. You are wanting USMB to be your "safe space".

Nothing I said is a violation of 825.102.

I have asked how being called a dumbass is a violation of 825.102, and you have avoided answering. You claim you have already answered, but I have not seen it.

You PRETEND you haven't.

No pretending here. Nothing in that law comes close to making calling you a dumbass a violation.

Sure it does. Psychological injury is anything offensive. Insults, verbal abuse, yelling, etc. 100s of people served time for it

I've moved on to other threads. No Slager basher here has diminished the OP one iota. No need to hang around here.

YOu have claimed to be a conservative, but which side of the aisle wants law enforcement involved when they have been offended? Yep, the same side that want "Safe Spaces" for the snowflakes to be able to hide.

The law you have quoted is not about being offended. It is not about being insulted. It is about actual abuse. But I guess a dumbass pussy like you just needs a way to hide and wants Big Brother to rescue you.

 

[The Professor]

Hahahahaha what a dope

That's what they all say - right before the mug shots. Your laughs richochet right in your face.

LMAO!!!! Too funny! Did the poor old man get abused?

If you are so thin skinned that arguing with you or calling you stupid causes you "psychological injury", you shouldn't be on USMB.

And exactly what part of 825.102 did he violate?

"The 2017 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 825
ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION OF ELDERLY PERSONS AND DISABLED ADULTS View Entire Chapter
825.102 Abuse, aggravated abuse, and neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult; penalties.—
(1) “Abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult” means:
(a) Intentional infliction of physical or psychological injury upon an elderly person or disabled adult;
(b) An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or psychological injury to an elderly person or disabled adult; or
(c) Active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or psychological injury to an elderly person or disabled adult.
A person who knowingly or willfully abuses an elderly person or disabled adult without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) “Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult” occurs when a person:
(a) Commits aggravated battery on an elderly person or disabled adult;
(b) Willfully tortures, maliciously punishes, or willfully and unlawfully cages, an elderly person or disabled adult; or
(c) Knowingly or willfully abuses an elderly person or disabled adult and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult.
A person who commits aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3)(a) “Neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult” means:
1. A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide an elderly person or disabled adult with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the elderly person’s or disabled adult’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the elderly person or disabled adult; or
2. A caregiver’s failure to make a reasonable effort to protect an elderly person or disabled adult from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.
Neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or omission that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, serious physical or psychological injury, or a substantial risk of death, to an elderly person or disabled adult.

(b) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects an elderly person or disabled adult and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(c) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects an elderly person or disabled adult without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

1. Already answered in previous posts.

2. Anything offensive speech to elderly is punishable under 825.102. Thinskinned irrelevant.

Hahahahaha what a dope

That's what they all say - right before the mug shots. Your laughs richochet right in your face.

LMAO!!!! Too funny! Did the poor old man get abused?

If you are so thin skinned that arguing with you or calling you stupid causes you "psychological injury", you shouldn't be on USMB.

And exactly what part of 825.102 did he violate?

"The 2017 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 825
ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION OF ELDERLY PERSONS AND DISABLED ADULTS View Entire Chapter
825.102 Abuse, aggravated abuse, and neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult; penalties.—
(1) “Abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult” means:
(a) Intentional infliction of physical or psychological injury upon an elderly person or disabled adult;
(b) An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or psychological injury to an elderly person or disabled adult; or
(c) Active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or psychological injury to an elderly person or disabled adult.
A person who knowingly or willfully abuses an elderly person or disabled adult without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) “Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult” occurs when a person:
(a) Commits aggravated battery on an elderly person or disabled adult;
(b) Willfully tortures, maliciously punishes, or willfully and unlawfully cages, an elderly person or disabled adult; or
(c) Knowingly or willfully abuses an elderly person or disabled adult and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult.
A person who commits aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3)(a) “Neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult” means:
1. A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide an elderly person or disabled adult with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the elderly person’s or disabled adult’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the elderly person or disabled adult; or
2. A caregiver’s failure to make a reasonable effort to protect an elderly person or disabled adult from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.
Neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or omission that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, serious physical or psychological injury, or a substantial risk of death, to an elderly person or disabled adult.

(b) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects an elderly person or disabled adult and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(c) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects an elderly person or disabled adult without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

1. Already answered in previous posts.

2. Anything offensive speech to elderly is punishable under 825.102. Thinskinned irrelevant.

A court would determine that. Their call, not yours.

A court would point its collective finger at you, laugh mightily, and yell

protectionist, your understanding of the law is merely pathetic.

Joke Starkey excels in hollow rhetoric.

The man in his avatar pic looks like one to me.

The man in the avatar is me. The pic was taken over a year ago. Yep, I'm old.

No you're not. You mentioned your age one time. You're only in your 50s. Middle age - not old.

In Florida, the Abuse of Elderly law starts at 65.

A court would determine that. Their call, not yours.

A court would point its collective finger at you, laugh mightily, and yell

protectionist, your understanding of the law is merely pathetic.

Joke Starkey excels in hollow rhetoric.

The man in his avatar pic looks like one to me.

The man in the avatar is me. The pic was taken over a year ago. Yep, I'm old.

No you're not. You mentioned your age one time. You're only in your 50s. Middle age - not old.

In Florida, the Abuse of Elderly law starts at 65.

I think you are wrong. This is how Florida defines an elderly person:

'825.101(5) “Elderly person” means a person 60 years of age or older who is suffering from the infirmities of aging as manifested by advanced age or organic brain damage, or other physical, mental, or emotional dysfunctioning, to the extent that the ability of the person to provide adequately for the person’s own care or protection is impaired."

To be covered by the provisions of 825.101 one must be at least 60 years old, not 65 as you falsely claim. You make fun of others accusing them that they do not know the law. Most of the posters on this board know much more about the law than you do. It is you who is ignorant of the law.

I'm curious. Where did you get the idea that an elderly person was defined as being 65 or older under Florida law. Can you quote the applicable statute?

 

[The Professor]

A court? Do you realize how weak this makes you look? Do you realize that, despite your claims, you are one of the most limp-wristed liberals on these forums? You claim to be a conservative. But when someone calls you a fairly innocuous name, you resort to calling for the gov't to prosecute this person? And, in addition, you have called others worse names, for sure.

And no, I have no doubt that calling you a dumbass on a political debate website is certainly not abuse or aggravated assault on a senior citizen. The fact that you try to play this card is simply cowardice and pettiness on your part.

When a post is as much a mess as that, I usually don't dignify it with a response. I feel generous today

1. Calling for law enforcement is conservative, not liberal
2. Calling someone "dumbass" (& other names you called) are verbal abuse. 100%
3. I never said "aggravated assault", you said that
4. Last sentence of your messy post is more violation of FL St 825.102

Calling for law enforcement because someone called you a dumbass on a political debate website is certainly NOT conservative. Wanting the gov't to protect you from name-calling is as leftwing as it gets. You are wanting USMB to be your "safe space".

Nothing I said is a violation of 825.102.

I have asked how being called a dumbass is a violation of 825.102, and you have avoided answering. You claim you have already answered, but I have not seen it.

You PRETEND you haven't.

No pretending here. Nothing in that law comes close to making calling you a dumbass a violation.

Sure it does. Psychological injury is anything offensive. Insults, verbal abuse, yelling, etc. 100s of people served time for it

I've moved on to other threads. No Slager basher here has diminished the OP one iota. No need to hang around here.

You'll be missed. You were good for laughs. Before you go I have something to tell you. I put five letters after my name: MBA and JD. The JD means Juris Doctorate. I have a doctorate in law and I find your interpretation of the law to be amusing. You are really one funny guy.

 

[protectionist]

You'll be missed. You were good for laughs. Before you go I have something to tell you. I put five letters after my name: MBA and JD. The JD means Juris Doctorate. I have a doctorate in law and I find your interpretation of the law to be amusing. You are really one funny guy.

I don't care what letter you have, here, there or wherever. You don't get to change the law. The Fleeing felon rule allows cops to shoot fleeing felons while they are running away (fleeing), when that fleeing felon poses a danger to the community, as Walter Scott obviously could be seen as. (after fighting with a cop). Furthermore, it is a cop's DUTY to shoot that dangerous fleeing felon, and he is derelict in his job, if he doesn't.

Hard to accept that you have a JD, when you contradict basic rule of law. And you don't seem "amusing". You seem stupid.

 

[Coyote]

You'll be missed. You were good for laughs. Before you go I have something to tell you. I put five letters after my name: MBA and JD. The JD means Juris Doctorate. I have a doctorate in law and I find your interpretation of the law to be amusing. You are really one funny guy.

I don't care what letter you have, here, there or wherever. You don't get to change the law. The Fleeing felon rule allows cops to shoot fleeing felons while they are running away (fleeing), when that fleeing felon poses a danger to the community, as Walter Scott obviously could be seen as. (after fighting with a cop). Furthermore, it is a cop's DUTY to shoot that dangerous fleeing felon, and he is derelict in his job, if he doesn't.

Hard to accept that you have a JD, when you contradict basic rule of law. And you don't seem "amusing". You seem stupid.

Was Walter Scott armed?

 

[protectionist]

YOu have claimed to be a conservative, but which side of the aisle wants law enforcement involved when they have been offended? Yep, the same side that want "Safe Spaces" for the snowflakes to be able to hide.

The law you have quoted is not about being offended. It is not about being insulted. It is about actual abuse. But I guess a dumbass pussy like you just needs a way to hide and wants Big Brother to rescue you.

I have no idea what the hell you are babbling about.

 

[protectionist]

Was Walter Scott armed?

Everyone is always armed. Why do you ask ?

 

[candycorn]

Some time ago, a fleeing felon, Walter Scott, was shot and killed by a police officer, Michael Slager, in N. Charleston, South Carolina. Scott, caused all this trouble by first disobeying the cop’s orders, then running away, then physically fighting with the cop (according to an eyewitness), and then running away again. Scott did everything wrong ( and stupid). Slager, seeing Scott running away again, and escaping (thereby posing a danger to the community if he were to escape), shot Scott as he was fleeing away.

All of this (on Slager’s part), is in conformance with the law. According to the Fleeing Felon Rule, a police officer may shoot a felon (which Scott was after fighting with the officer), as he is fleeing, since he could pose a danger to the community, if he got away.

Just about everybody (even some right-wing talk show hosts) blamed Slager, and made a big deal out of Scott having been shot in the back ? Well, where else would/could a fleeing felon ever be shot ? When he’s running away from the cop, it will always be his back that is in front of the cop.

Despite the fact that Slager was within his rights to shoot Scott as he was fleeing (and it was Slager’s DUTY to do that), nevertheless, the N. Charleston city fathers charged the cop with murder, and he remains locked in jail to this day. But why would they charge the cop with murder, when he was just doing his job ? Answer ? >>> Politics.

Scott was black. Slager is white. When black people (egged on by Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and other race hustlers) hear that a black man was shot by a white cop, they generally (often wrongly) think police brutality.

Well, some may say that with the cop being within his rights to shoot the guy (he was, and yes, in the back), it should be justifiable homicide. The people who charged Slager know that. So why would they charge him with murder ? The answer if that N. Charleston is a black majority town, and to not charge Slager, they would be putting themselves at odds with the majority of N. Charleston VOTERS, who tend to see things more in terms of black & white, rather than right & wrong (or legal/illegal).

Explaining the Fleeing Felon rule to these voters would not likely do much good. At least at the time, Obama and his race hustlers were whipping blacks up into a frenzy of anti-police attitude, and N. Charleston’s majority black community was feeling a lot of hostility toward cops, especially white ones.


Slager should be exonerated, freed, and paid compensation for his unjust, false arrest and imprisonment.

Can't shoot an unarmed man in the back and call it justified.

This is the Trump world we live in. I'm surprised he hasn't been pardoned all ready and made undersecretary of defense.

 

[Coyote]

So

Was Walter Scott armed?

Everyone is always armed. Why do you ask ?

so he wasn’t armed?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You'll be missed. You were good for laughs. Before you go I have something to tell you. I put five letters after my name: MBA and JD. The JD means Juris Doctorate. I have a doctorate in law and I find your interpretation of the law to be amusing. You are really one funny guy.

I don't care what letter you have, here, there or wherever. You don't get to change the law. The Fleeing felon rule allows cops to shoot fleeing felons while they are running away (fleeing), when that fleeing felon poses a danger to the community, as Walter Scott obviously could be seen as. (after fighting with a cop). Furthermore, it is a cop's DUTY to shoot that dangerous fleeing felon, and he is derelict in his job, if he doesn't.

Hard to accept that you have a JD, when you contradict basic rule of law. And you don't seem "amusing". You seem stupid.

Nope, protectionist: YOU don't have the right to change the law. You do that all the time. You are not amusing only ignorant. You think your silly opinions are hard facts. They are not.