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.
I thought he was too, when I first saw the video. I don't know what that is that he runs back and picks up...but what it ISN'T is the tazer. The tazer flies back behind the officer and rolls end over end in the grass 10-15 feet straight back. Whatever that is that he picks up is already on the ground when the tazer is knocked out of the officers hand.
Watch at second 17-18, just as the camera is turned and set on the fence...watch behind the officer.
What do you suppose that object is the officer tosses on the ground next to the suspect?
I have no idea. When I first saw the video, I thought it was the tazer too...and I also said that moving that tazer was going to sink any defense he was attempted, as moving the tazer was a defacto admission that, at a minimum, he felt the need to bolster his justification for the use of deadly force.
Now, i just don't know...it will definitely be an important fact that hopefully will be released in the coming days.
But like Michael Brown and "Hands up, don't shoot", the "Planted tazer" will be the tagline for this story in the MSM.
So then the officer tossing an unidentified object on the ground next to the suspect doesn't pique your interest.
Sure it does. But I can't speculate one way or the other until I know what exactly the object is.
That the MSM is reporting something that a hillbilly in the backwoods of Missouri with nothing but a 10 year old laptop positively identified as patently false doesn't pique yours?
You can't speculate? Seems you've indulged in more than a little speculation already. Why is this different?
I have no idea what you're talking about.What do you suppose that object is the officer tosses on the ground next to the suspect?
I have no idea. When I first saw the video, I thought it was the tazer too...and I also said that moving that tazer was going to sink any defense he was attempted, as moving the tazer was a defacto admission that, at a minimum, he felt the need to bolster his justification for the use of deadly force.
Now, i just don't know...it will definitely be an important fact that hopefully will be released in the coming days.
But like Michael Brown and "Hands up, don't shoot", the "Planted tazer" will be the tagline for this story in the MSM.
So then the officer tossing an unidentified object on the ground next to the suspect doesn't pique your interest.
Sure it does. But I can't speculate one way or the other until I know what exactly the object is.
That the MSM is reporting something that a hillbilly in the backwoods of Missouri with nothing but a 10 year old laptop positively identified as patently false doesn't pique yours?
You can't speculate? Seems you've indulged in more than a little speculation already. Why is this different?
There's no evidence to speculate on. I literally have no clue what that is. Do you have a theory?
It didn't go unnoticed that you skipped this question...
That the MSM is reporting something that a hillbilly in the backwoods of Missouri with nothing but a 10 year old laptop positively identified as patently false doesn't pique yours?
Here you go Jake...try a rebuttal. "Because I don't like it" just isn't going to cut it.
The more I watch the video, the more positive I am that the officer will be acquitted.
Like I said, the crux of the defense will be if the tazer had been discharged, and if so is it capable of firing a second time without reloading.
Here the defense case:
The officer attempted to use non-lethal force to subdue suspect Scott. Suspect Scott turned on the officer and grabbed for the tazer gun, the tazer gun was, unbeknownst to the officer, knocked from his grasp outside of his field of vision.
The officer believed that suspect Scott was in possession of the officers unfired tazer (or second shot capable tazer). That belief made suspect Scott a danger to the officer, and other officers pursuing suspect Scott. Pursuant to the fleeing dangerous felon portion of South Carolina revised statute Blankity-blank point blank blank, the officer used deadly force to end the threat and the pursuit.
You may not like it, but it's the law.
I have no idea what you're talking about.missourian said:That the MSM is reporting something that a hillbilly in the backwoods of Missouri with nothing but a 10 year old laptop positively identified as patently false doesn't pique yours?
No you're wrong. The officer had no justification to discharge his weapon, that's why he out of a job and being charged with murder.
He also had a warrant.These laws?
SUBCHAPTER IV. ARREST.
GS 15A-401
(2) A law-enforcement officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection only when it is or appears to be reasonably necessary thereby:
a. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;
b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; or
c. To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon him as a result of conviction for a felony.
Yes, those laws.
Did you read them?
Specifically subsection b.
b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay;
Sounds exactly like what I posted in post #4 of this thread.
"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 felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
How is running away from a cop being a threat to anyone?
The man was stopped for a broken tail light. Not because he robbed a bank or was a serial killer.
A broken tail light isn't the same thing as being a threat to anyone.
I don't know how you come to your conclusions but please tell me this, if you're right then why did the cop lie on his report? Why did the cop plant evidence to frame that man?
I doubt it.The witness who saw the incident will fill in the beginning of the actions. That and the vid will fry the cop.
It's more than clear that the officer is guilty of first degree murder, he made a very deliberate decision.
To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay
Fugitive from justice" means any person who has fled from or is fleeing from any law enforcement officer to avoid prosecution or imprisonment for a crime of violence.
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead
Ahh, thank you for this.
From your article:
"I remember the police had control of the situation," Santana said during the interview (above). "You can hear the sound of a Taser... I believe [Scott] was just trying to get away from the Taser."
Now if this is true, the black man did not have the Taser, nor did he attempt to take the Taser. He was un.armed.
The author of this thread would be wise to drop this subject.
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead
Ahh, I like how you tried to twist this ruling.
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead
Ahh, I like how you tried to twist this ruling.
Watch the witness on the TV shows tomorrow morning.
I think you will find him quiet, articulate, sad for both families, and convincing.
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead
Ahh, I like how you tried to twist this ruling.
I twisted nothing, watch the video. The officer only has to BELIEVE that Scott was in possession of his Taser. Watch the video. You can see Scott and the officer struggle over the Taser, then the Taser goes flying BEHIND the officer.
The Tazer wires are wrapped around the officers hand, and it appears that they have detached from the Tazer itself. The only place the wires seam to lead is to Scott.
So, the officer believes that the suspect is now armed with his Taser, and that it could be used against himself, or another officer. He has NO IDEA what this guy has done has done that he is running, how desperate he is to escape, or what he is willing to do to escape.
We get to play a video, rewind it, play it again, and have a panoramic view of the whole scene. We have a pile of facts at our disposal. The officer doesn't have that luxury. He must make a decision with the facts he has on the spot.
Let's speculate. What is Scott is a murderer (for all the officer knew, he was). What if Scott did have the Taser in his hand, the officer didn't shoot him, and Scott ran around the corner Tased a different officer and took his or her sidearm?
Could you make that decision in that span of time? I'm glad I don't have too, and I am willing to give those who do every benefit of every doubt, especially when they are put in that position by a criminal (fugitive from justice).
Ahh, thank you for this.
From your article:
"I remember the police had control of the situation," Santana said during the interview (above). "You can hear the sound of a Taser... I believe [Scott] was just trying to get away from the Taser."
Now if this is true, the black man did not have the Taser, nor did he attempt to take the Taser. He was un.armed.
The author of this thread would be wise to drop this subject.
Apparently there was some struggle before the shooting.
In video from the link witness said "they were down on the floor"...
The officer only has to BELIEVE that Scott was in possession of his Taser.
I twisted nothing, watch the video.
So, the officer believes that the suspect is now armed with his Taser, and that it could be used against himself, or another officer.
He has NO IDEA what this guy has done has done that he is running, how desperate he is to escape, or what he is willing to do to escape.
What if Scott did have the Taser in his hand, the officer didn't shoot him, and Scott ran around the corner Tased a different officer and took his or her sidearm?
We get to play a video, rewind it, play it again, and have a panoramic view of the whole scene. We have a pile of facts at our disposal. The officer doesn't have that luxury. He must make a decision with the facts he has on the spot.
