Free Officer Michael Slager

[protectionist]

protectionist, you are wrong on this issue as so many others in your career on the Board.

Your opinion is your opinion, it is not supported on fact.

It is supported in fact, and that fact >> THE LAW, has been posted as proof. >> Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

You are just talking nonsense, as you typically do.

 

[protectionist]

Protectionist: by pandering to voter populations of deranged, ignorant, and paranoidly, racist blacks

Okay Protectionist- which 'racist blacks' does this apply to- in your opinion?

What percentage? 5% 50% 95% 99.5%?

Because it sure looks to me like you have applied your racist bigotry towards all.

NO reason for it to look like that to you (unless the you are deeply programmed to think that way by your liberal masters)
You must apologize for saying I have racial bigotry.

The racist blacks it applies to are those in the majority of voters in the district where Slager was charged.

 

[protectionist]

You make all sorts of shit up.

So you think I made up the fleeing felon rule ? LOL

Or South Carolina criminal law SECTION 16-9-320 ? LOL.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fighting with police is not always a felony. I have fought the police physically in the past and never been charged with a felony. Resisting arrest is not a felony. If I can punch & headbutt a cop and not be charged as a felon for it then this situation is not any different.

I am not saying anything about the merits of this case, just commenting on your idea of what constitutes a felon.

This isn't about my "idea" of "what constitutes a felon", it is about what constitutes a felon under South Carolina law >>

SECTION 16-9-320. Opposing or resisting law enforcement officer serving process; assaulting officer engaged in serving process.

(B) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly and wilfully assault, beat, or wound a law enforcement officer engaged in serving, executing, or attempting to serve or execute a legal writ or process or to assault, beat, or wound an officer when the person is resisting an arrest being made by one whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer, whether under process or not. A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

You have posted FALSE "information". You stand corrected.

The judge would cite you for contempt of law if he knew what you are writing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You make all sorts of shit up.

So you think I made up the fleeing felon rule ? LOL

Or South Carolina criminal law SECTION 16-9-320 ? LOL.

You make up your silly interp of it, yes.

 

[Syriusly]

You make all sorts of shit up.

So you think I made up the fleeing felon rule ? LOL

Or South Carolina criminal law SECTION 16-9-320 ? LOL.

You make up your interpretation of it.

But Officer Slager understood it when he pled guilty- as did the Judge when he convicted him.

Shame you don't.

 

[Syriusly]

Protectionist: by pandering to voter populations of deranged, ignorant, and paranoidly, racist blacks

Okay Protectionist- which 'racist blacks' does this apply to- in your opinion?

What percentage? 5% 50% 95% 99.5%?

Because it sure looks to me like you have applied your racist bigotry towards all.

The racist blacks it applies to are those in the majority of voters in the district where Slager was charged.

Okay- so you just think that the majority of black voters in that district are racists......

Yeah- nothing racist about that at all

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Walter Scott was stopped for a broken taillight! WTF? He had been arrested prior to this for missing child support payments. This is what you call a danger to society?

YOu claim Walter Scott was a felon. What felony charge was he ever convicted of?

And as for the officer, he first claimed that Walter Scott had his hand on the officer's taser, so the officer feared for his life. But the video evidence said he was approximately 20 feet away from Scott when he tased him. So the officer is a murderer AND a liar. There are several points in the video that show the officer trying to blame the victim.

The case was independently investigated by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, the FBI, the Office of the District Attorney for South Carolina, and the Dept of Justice Civil Rights Division. None of them found anything to back what you say.

The officer shot a man IN THE BACK as he was running away. The ONLY way that is allowed is if the officer "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others". What do you think Walter Scott was going to do? Go on a rampage of not paying child support and driving with a broken taillight?

The officer pleaded guilty to violating Walter Scott's civil rights. In exchange, he was not tried for murder. So murder is not just a "violation of civil rights"?



That you defend the despicable actions of officer Slater is disgusting. He should have been tried for murder and sent away for the rest of his life.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

"Outlaw" Means "Outside the Protection of the Law"

What ever happened to "Stop or I'll Shoot"? I have to believe it was the actual law at one time, or there would have been protests about it being in movies and misleading the police and the public.

The ONLY way an officer is allowed to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect is if "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others"

 

[WinterBorn]

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

Yes you can. When he's a fleeing felon.

Read the law and LEARN it before you post.

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

From your link: "Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others.""

Walter Scott did not have a felony conviction on his record. He had a warrant for his arrest for being 2 years behind in child support. That does not qualify as posing a "significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others"

Read your own posts and learn.

 

[WinterBorn]

Bucs90 used argue the fleeing felon rule all the time, and always lost.

Slagle will be convicted, and you can cry about it then. Right now your opinion is only that, and so what.

It is not my opinion. It is FACT and THE LAW.

The FACT and LAW is that an officer may ONLY use deadly force on a fleeing suspect if the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others. Walter Scott did not.

 

[WinterBorn]

Try again....from your own link. Unarmed obviously suspect CAN NOT be shot in back while running away.

YOU try again. Here's what YOU need to read from that very same link.

"Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

You need to go back to your link and look at what US Law says.

From your link:
"U.S. law
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]
Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit.[4] Deadly force that is executed by a co-defendant against an accomplice is not justified by the fleeing felon rule."

 

[hjmick]

Slager plead guilty to violating Scott's Federal Civil Rights. PLEAD GUILTY. End of story.

And, having seen more of the story and having heard more of the facts than a lot of folks here (I do live here after all), I assure you that he had no call to shoot Walter Scott. That they acquitted him in the state trial was a gift.

You "assure" WRONG. Your assurance is in violation and contradiction of law. Slager had an OBLIGATION to shoot Scott, as he did, to prevent his escape. Try reading the LAW * before you post. In the meantime, we'll be on guard to not blindly accept your assurances.

As for the plea deal, Slager knew he was being tried POLITICALLY, and took a plea only within that context. Elementary.

* Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

What felony was he suspected of?

 

[JakeStarkey]

protectionist does not know the law, suffers from incipient dementia, and now this thread is the third strike.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Fighting with police is not always a felony. I have fought the police physically in the past and never been charged with a felony. Resisting arrest is not a felony. If I can punch & headbutt a cop and not be charged as a felon for it then this situation is not any different.

I am not saying anything about the merits of this case, just commenting on your idea of what constitutes a felon.

This isn't about my "idea" of "what constitutes a felon", it is about what constitutes a felon under South Carolina law >>

SECTION 16-9-320. Opposing or resisting law enforcement officer serving process; assaulting officer engaged in serving process.

(B) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly and wilfully assault, beat, or wound a law enforcement officer engaged in serving, executing, or attempting to serve or execute a legal writ or process or to assault, beat, or wound an officer when the person is resisting an arrest being made by one whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer, whether under process or not. A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

You have posted FALSE "information". You stand corrected.

I haven't posted false info lol. Are you retarded? I gave you my actual life experience dumbass.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Slager plead guilty to violating Scott's Federal Civil Rights. PLEAD GUILTY. End of story.

And, having seen more of the story and having heard more of the facts than a lot of folks here (I do live here after all), I assure you that he had no call to shoot Walter Scott. That they acquitted him in the state trial was a gift.

You "assure" WRONG. Your assurance is in violation and contradiction of law. Slager had an OBLIGATION to shoot Scott, as he did, to prevent his escape. Try reading the LAW * before you post. In the meantime, we'll be on guard to not blindly accept your assurances.

As for the plea deal, Slager knew he was being tried POLITICALLY, and took a plea only within that context. Elementary.

* Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

What felony was he suspected of?

Being black?

 

[protectionist]

Walter Scott was stopped for a broken taillight! WTF? He had been arrested prior to this for missing child support payments. This is what you call a danger to society?

YOu claim Walter Scott was a felon. What felony charge was he ever convicted of?

And as for the officer, he first claimed that Walter Scott had his hand on the officer's taser, so the officer feared for his life. But the video evidence said he was approximately 20 feet away from Scott when he tased him. So the officer is a murderer AND a liar. There are several points in the video that show the officer trying to blame the victim.

The case was independently investigated by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, the FBI, the Office of the District Attorney for South Carolina, and the Dept of Justice Civil Rights Division. None of them found anything to back what you say.

The officer shot a man IN THE BACK as he was running away. The ONLY way that is allowed is if the officer "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others". What do you think Walter Scott was going to do? Go on a rampage of not paying child support and driving with a broken taillight?

The officer pleaded guilty to violating Walter Scott's civil rights. In exchange, he was not tried for murder. So murder is not just a "violation of civil rights"?



That you defend the despicable actions of officer Slater is disgusting. He should have been tried for murder and sent away for the rest of his life.

I already posted the SC law (felony) Scott committed. Try reading the thread before coming in late and posting.

Since Scott fought with the cop, it's reasonable to believe he'll fight with others in the community, posing threat of injury or even death to them. Elementary (and all already posted here)

As for the authorities, don't make me laugh. The OP explained their MO.

 

[protectionist]

I haven't posted false info lol. Are you retarded? I gave you my actual life experience dumbass.

I just SHOWED you the SC law tat showed your comment to be FALSE. You can go back to sleep now.

SECTION 16-9-320. Opposing or resisting law enforcement officer serving process; assaulting officer engaged in serving process.

(B) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly and wilfully assault, beat, or wound a law enforcement officer engaged in serving, executing, or attempting to serve or execute a legal writ or process or to assault, beat, or wound an officer when the person is resisting an arrest being made by one whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer, whether under process or not. A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

PS - YOU also committed a felony (by Florida law), when you called me "dumbass" FL Statute 825.102 (Abuse of Elderly)

Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 825

ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION OF ELDERLY PERSONS AND DISABLED ADULTS

F.S. 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;

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I haven't posted false info lol. Are you retarded? I gave you my actual life experience dumbass.

I just SHOWED you the SC law tat showed your comment to be FALSE. You can go back to sleep now.

SECTION 16-9-320. Opposing or resisting law enforcement officer serving process; assaulting officer engaged in serving process.

(B) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly and wilfully assault, beat, or wound a law enforcement officer engaged in serving, executing, or attempting to serve or execute a legal writ or process or to assault, beat, or wound an officer when the person is resisting an arrest being made by one whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer, whether under process or not. A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

PS - YOU also committed a felony (by Florida law), when you called me "dumbass" FL Statute 825.102 (Abuse of Elderly)

You are not a felon until convicted.
If what you state were as factual as you seem to think it is the cop wouldn't be behind bars to begin with...DUMBASS

 

[protectionist]

The FACT and LAW is that an officer may ONLY use deadly force on a fleeing suspect if the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others. Walter Scott did not.

He most certainly DID by virtue of the fact that he fought with a cop. If you don't see that as posing a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to others throughout the community, that says something about the warped way you think about violent behavior.