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.
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.
Truth, and justice both become casualties in "plea deals".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.
What a doofus. You need to start paying more attention to "fake news":
https://nypost.com/2017/05/02/former-cop-admits-shooting-walter-scott-was-unnecessary/
Ex-officer Michael Slager pleads guilty in shooting death of Walter Scott - CNN
Ex-cop who fatally shot unarmed Walter Scott pleads guilty in civil rights trial
Who are you calling a doofus ? And what are you talking about ? Which "fake news" ?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.
What a doofus. You need to start paying more attention to "fake news":
https://nypost.com/2017/05/02/former-cop-admits-shooting-walter-scott-was-unnecessary/
Ex-officer Michael Slager pleads guilty in shooting death of Walter Scott - CNN
Ex-cop who fatally shot unarmed Walter Scott pleads guilty in civil rights trial
There's nothing to dismiss. When you dismiss the LAW, YOU are the babbler.You are babbling. I understand your arguments, and I accordingly dismiss them.
That was 2 years ago, and I only flew over the combat (in Iraq) LOLBe kind. He just got out of combat. LOL
You have never understood the law is your problem.There's nothing to dismiss. When you dismiss the LAW, YOU are the babbler.You are babbling. I understand your arguments, and I accordingly dismiss them.
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.
Slager has been sentenced to 20 years. It’s a good day for justice.
Michael Slager, Officer in Walter Scott Shooting, Gets 20-Year Sentence
YOU should be quiet. Slager shot felon Scott in the back, as he was fleeing, as the law prescribes, ....despite all your liberal lunacy ravings.Snowflake Doofus 7th Class protectionist: be quiet unless you have something to offer.
Slager is exactly where he belongs.
The law precribes that police can shoot people in the back as they are fleeing?YOU should be quiet. Slager shot felon Scott in the back, as he was fleeing, as the law prescribes, ....despite all your liberal lunacy ravings.Snowflake Doofus 7th Class protectionist: be quiet unless you have something to offer.
Slager is exactly where he belongs.
What's to not understand ? Law protects the public by allowing/requiring cops to shoot felling felons, such tst thy don't escape into the community, to endanger citizens. Rocket science. Not!You have never understood the law is your problem.
Yes it does. Try READING it.The law precribes that police can shoot people in the back as they are fleeing?
Yes it does. Try READING it.The law precribes that police can shoot people in the back as they are fleeing?
I'm looking it up, but people get sentenced when they did nothing wrong, if the community's POLITICS sets it up that way. Your answer is in the OP.If Slager did nothing wrong, why did he try covering it up, tard? And why did he just get sentenced to 20 years for murder?
I'm looking it up, but people get sentenced when they did nothing wrong, if the community's POLITICS sets it up that way. Your answer is in the OP.If Slager did nothing wrong, why did he try covering it up, tard? And why did he just get sentenced to 20 years for murder?
He should not have apologized. He did nothing wrong and followed the law properly. Apologies in criminal cases, are ordinarily done to minimize a sentence.and Slager apologized to the family after the sentencing and I don't think they're appealing the sentence.
so I'm confused as to why the o/p is whining?
I know exactly what I'm talking about, and you're are either lying (pretending you don't see the truth here), or you're quite dumbThe answer is you don't know what you're talking about.
Undeniably.Slager was railroaded...
FALSE! Read the law. And you shouldn't be commenting when you haven't.Can't shoot an unarmed man in the back and call it justified.
Hard to imagine why anyone would want that job knowing they might become fodder for political optics.Undeniably.Slager was railroaded...
Quite amazing the treachery of politicians, when they fear being voted down.
