Southern cop shoots man running away in the back..

[TemplarKormac]

Watch WHAT ? WHERE ? And what kind of tazer it was, has nothing to do with this

And what kind of tazer he used has plenty to do with it. If it had 3 charges as the X3 does, Slager would have a more solid case. But using an X26 which he already deployed, means that what Scott had was a paperweight. Scott was unarmed.

It is useless to deny it. Slager committed murder.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And no more wildgoose chases, OK ?

This wasn't anything of the sort. My knowledge of the incident clearly surpasses your own.

You have not shown that, one iota. Show the incident from the traffic stop to the shooting, or take your football and go home.

There is no footage of the traffic stop, only footage showing the altercation. Consider that this footage was shot FROM A CELL PHONE.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I have not defending the cop, but I have defended due process of law.

With all due respect, due process of law does not involve summary execution.

 

[cnm]

You said he attacked the police officer. Who's account is this?

It's on the video. You can see the end of the attack and with the tazer being knocked out of the officers hand at around the 17 second point...you can infer that the struggle has been protracted...what else would have attracted the attention of the videographer?

Initially, I thought that the officer moved the tazer closer to the victem, but that is clearly not the case after multiple viewings of the recording. The tazer goes flying behind the officer...I have no idea what that was on the ground that he picked up, but it wasn't the tazer.

'what else would have attracted the attention of the videographer?'

A chase.

 

[cnm]

We have all of infinity to second guess this officers decisions, he had a split second.

After the guy started running away? What is going on here?

 

[Politico]

And no more wildgoose chases, OK ?

This wasn't anything of the sort. My knowledge of the incident clearly surpasses your own.

You have not shown that, one iota. Show the incident from the traffic stop to the shooting, or take your football and go home.

There is no footage of the traffic stop, only footage showing the altercation. Consider that this footage was shot FROM A CELL PHONE.

From the cellphone of a Millennial who doesn't know how to keep a camera still. Seriously are you folks all suffering from Parkinsons or are you just retarded?

 

[Kondor3]

How rude. And unprovoked, no less. OK. Fine. Your choice. What stupid question did I ask of you, my little asswipe? And this time, answer the phukking question.

Oh I see, I take it back then, my mistake, it was really a very intelligent question.

You facetiously opine that (someone) should shoot, when in doubt - problem solved - without specifying which party you're referring to, and then somebody else asks whom you are referring to - the cops or the suspects - and then you get your panties in a twist, when somebody asks you to be more specific. Lighten up, Francis.

Still playing dumb? Maybe you aren't playing.

I have no idea what you're babbling about, but, then again, neither do you, so, it's a wash.

Don't play dumb, you know exactly what you're babbling about.

Hmmmmm.... are you one of those silly twits who won't answer a straight question when backed into a corner?

When you served-up your facetious remark, to the effect: "When in doubt, shoot. Problem solved."... whom were you talking about, as the shooter?

The Cops or the Suspects?

I have no idea why you're dragging your feet and trying to weasel-out of answering a straightforward question; consequently, I have no idea why you are carrying-out and resisting the simple courtesy of a straightforward answer, and resorting to unprovoked insult; in effect, I have no idea what you're babbling about.

Are you really one of those gutless, nutless types who won't serve-up a direct and straightforward answer, to a direct and straightforward question?

You seem to be really big on throwing rocks at other people, but your deer-in-the-headlights reaction to simple questions - when pressed - your obtuse approach - doesn't speak very well of your own ability to interact and play well with others.

Ah, well, I tried... no great loss.

Next time, be sure you can finish what you start, eh?

 

[Kondor3]

And no more wildgoose chases, OK ?

This wasn't anything of the sort. My knowledge of the incident clearly surpasses your own.

You have not shown that, one iota. Show the incident from the traffic stop to the shooting, or take your football and go home.

There is no footage of the traffic stop, only footage showing the altercation. Consider that this footage was shot FROM A CELL PHONE.

From the cellphone of a Millennial who doesn't know how to keep a camera still. Seriously are you folks all suffering from Parkinsons or are you just retarded?

Yeah, I'll say that much... some of these fools don't understand the need to minimize movement while filming... something most folks with even an average IQ figure out the very first time they handle a video camera and look at the results of their filming of a moving or action sequence. I understand that the shock and excitement of the moment, and that a need to re-position during the course of an ongoing filming, can play a part in this, but, once you've planted both feet firmly on the ground for your next sequence, point, zoom, focus and stay-the-phukk still and just record. Jesus-H-Tap-Dancing-Christ but some of these twits lose soooooooo much precious (and oftentimes important) footage due to such twitching.

What a damned shame.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Witness Who Recorded Shooting Of Walter Scott Speaks Out

Watch what he said.

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"...

But if the man running never gained control of the taser, he was in fact unarmed. No threat to the public. If the cop used the taser as Santana claims, it would be useless to Scott. There is no way to justify this. None.

The officer only has to BELIEVE that Scott was in possession of his Taser.

But he didn't. In Americano's article, Santana claims Slager had already deployed his taser. So what if he tried to take it? He failed.

I twisted nothing, watch the video.

At the 20 second mark, as Slager draws his firearm you can see something on the ground at his feet. Was that the taser? Might or might not have been.

At the 1:30 mark Slager drops what appears to be the taser next to Scott. This immediately could disprove the idea that Scott presented an imminent threat to the officer or that he had the taser in his possession. He didn't have the taser when he was shot. He was unarmed.

Moreover, in the Garner ruling the language is explicit:

"A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead..."

Scott was unarmed when he ran, making him a nondangerous suspect. This case is open and shut. Your interpretation of the law is flawed.

draws his firearm you can see something on the ground at his feet.

it might have been the holster for the taser or the taser hard to tell

 

[dannyboys]

not only did he shoot him in the back but he shot him in the back 8- TIMES

The cop shot eight rounds. Four hit the deceased in the back.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Do you have some proof to refute the officer's claim ?

I just posted it. Please, feel free to read the last two pages.

OK. I just spent 10 worthless minutes tracking down your worthless posts, none of which show one shred of evidence that the officer's story of the suspect attacking and fighting him is untrue. Wen you have some of THAT, let me know. And no more wildgoose chases, OK ?

Just notice that Missourian missed the fact that Slager was using an X26 model taser, not an X23. Therefore it was impossible for the taser to be useful to Scott at the time he gained possession of it, because Slager had already used its one and only shot.

I also pointed out in my posts key parts of the video with specific citations of the time. Go watch it if you like.

Ok?

Therefore it was impossible for the taser to be useful to Scott at the time he gained possession of it

in one of the pictures it shows the wires for the taz in the cops hands or hooked to his hands i dont know which

however could the person holding the taz pull the trigger more then once sending a jolt or another jolt into the officer

which would make it a useful tool

 

[Faun]

You said he attacked the police officer. Who's account is this?

It's on the video. You can see the end of the attack and with the tazer being knocked out of the officers hand at around the 17 second point...you can infer that the struggle has been protracted...what else would have attracted the attention of the videographer?

Initially, I thought that the officer moved the tazer closer to the victem, but that is clearly not the case after multiple viewings of the recording. The tazer goes flying behind the officer...I have no idea what that was on the ground that he picked up, but it wasn't the tazer.

There is no evidence in that video that Scott attacked the cop.

What you're seeing in that initial frame where the two can first be seen is the cop holding Scott's arm with his left hand...

... the taser goes flying from Slager's grip, not because Scott "knocked" it out of the cop's hand but because the taser's wires were still attached to Scott as he began to flee...

 

[dannyboys]

The witness told the reporter he saw the "two" men on the ground".
Obviously they were fighting each other.
I'm not ready to pass judgement against the cop like all the fuck-wits at MSNBC have already done.
Wait for the trial.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The witness told the reporter he saw the "two" men on the ground".
Obviously they were fighting each other.
I'm not ready to pass judgement against the cop like all the fuck-wits at MSNBC have already done.
Wait for the trial.

exactly

 

[Faun]

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.​

It appears the cop lied....

“Shots fired, and the subject is down,” he said into his radio, according to an incident report. “He took my Taser.”

The video does not show Scott taking the taser from the officer, unless by "took my taser," he meant Scott began to flee with his taser still attached to his leg.

Also in that article, Slager claims he got into a "foot chase." The video doesn't show that unless by "foot chase," he meant he "chased" after Scott to handcuff him while he lied dying on the ground.

And lastly, Slager is also seen on the video tampering with evidence at the crime seen.​

 

[Faun]

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.

Except the law says different.

Note the caveat "reasonably believes".

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.


​

-------------------------------------------

A legal definitions from South Carolina:

SECTION 16-23-10. Definitions.

When used in this article:

(4) "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.​

An appeals court ruling:

November 02, 2011
Is a stun gun a dangerous weapon capable of inflicting deadly force? That is a question we have raised here on several occasions and suggested that they should be treated as deadly weapons.

Yesterday (11-1-11) the N. C. Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, agreed with our reasoning.

In the case of the State v. Riveria the court ruled that a stun gun (an X26 Taser) "is a dangerous weapon that endangered or threatened Scott's (victim) life." You can read the actual decision by clicking here.

Court of Appeals rules stun guns are deadly weapons
​

-------------------------------------

And a South Carolina Law:

SECTION 16-23-415. Taking firearm or other weapon from law enforcement officer.

An individual who takes a firearm, stun gun, or taser device from the person of a law enforcement officer or a corrections officer is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned for not more than five years, or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both, if all of the following circumstances exist at the time the firearm is taken:

(1) the individual knows or has reason to believe the person from whom the weapon is taken is a law enforcement officer or a corrections officer;

(2) the law enforcement officer or corrections officer is performing his duties as a law enforcement officer or a corrections officer, or the individual's taking of the weapon is directly related to the law enforcement officer's or corrections officer's professional responsibilities;

(3) the individual takes the weapon without consent of the law enforcement officer or corrections officer;

(4) the law enforcement officer is authorized by his employer to carry the weapon in the line of duty; and

(5) the law enforcement officer or corrections officer is authorized by his employer to carry the weapon while off duty and has identified himself as a law enforcement officer.

HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 3, eff June 9, 2006.​

Other than the officer's claim, there is no evidence Scott committed any "crime of violence." He was pulled over for a traffic violation (non-violent) and was purportedly being arrested for not being up to date on child support payments (non-violent).

Other than the officer's claim, there is no evidence he took the taser from the cop.

Other than the officer's claim, there is no evidence his own safety was in danger from the taser.

Basically, nothing you highlighted above seems to apply here.

 

[Bush92]

Whats being from the South have to do with anything? It's 2015 not 1935. Wake up.

 

[Faun]

The witness told the reporter he saw the "two" men on the ground".
Obviously they were fighting each other.
I'm not ready to pass judgement against the cop like all the fuck-wits at MSNBC have already done.
Wait for the trial.

No, not so obvious. That witness said, "they were down on the floor. I remember the police had control."

That does not sound like they were "wrestling" to me. Sounds like Slager was attempting to subdue Scott.

 

[2aguy]

How often it has been coming up.....but in all those other cases the attacker attacked the cop or resisted arrest and brought on their own death....then the left went nuts about the criminal bringing about his own death...........and blamed the cops....

In this case it looks like the cop lost control and killed this guy....he has been arrested, fired, and now faces murder charges....end of story......

"bringing on his own death" as if the cops werent even there. The cop didnt lose control he aim and controlled well enough to shoot him in the back then had enough control to plant the evidence.

Before the video came out the police were defending him the same way. Until the vid came out then they were caught red handed

I would have to see where they said he didn't do it because they were covering up the evidence....or did they simply stand by his testimony until the investigation showed otherwise....you guys really need to learn what "reality," "the truth," and "thinking" are.......and once the evidence came back......considering the ballistics are all bad for the cop...
they arrested him didn't they....

What? And the fact that someone shoots someone in the back on video and gets arrested is something to be applauded? That should be the norm..

Would you applaud the arrest of someone caught with a bloody knife in their hand?

I get it....you are a lefty and rationality is beyond you....it just isn't in your DNA....did I say it was a good thing...no....did I say it should be the norm...no.....and yes if someone was caught at the scene of a murder with the murder weapon and had done the murder I would applaud the arrest....

Enough of the insults. Enough about what you arent saying. You said "they arrested him didnt they" for a reason. What was that reason?

Now.......to repeat the simple truth...the cop shot a fleeing suspect in the back 8 times...this is wrong and because of that he was arrested, fired and now faces murder charges.....please try to overcome your leftiness and see that I have simply stated facts......as a conservative/libertarian/tea party supporter, I support arresting cops who commit murder.....and I also believe if they are convicted of murder they should get the death penalty...not life in prison....

What is my leftiness? LMAO...You said "they arrested him didnt they" for a reason...what was that reason?

So please, take your left wing emotionality somewhere else.......

Thats cute...you gonna type another book and tell me about how I"M emotional?

You do realize there was an investigation going on.....that they have to follow something called procedure...and considering how wrong you lefties have been in most of the other famous cases it is nice to know they were investigating the case...as per normal procedure, when the video came out.....once they saw the video it sped up the arrest ....but with 8 shots in the back, with eyewitnesses, this time going against the cops testimony, that he was going to be in the same place as he is now.....

I know.....you guys keep getting stung by your martyrs turining out to be nothing more than thugs....but this time the cop was in the wrong...and he is being punished for it.......

what was that reason?

They arrested him because the evidence shows he shot the guy when he was running away....of course it was after he resisted arrest in the beginning, but the cop was arrested for shooting him while there was no threat.....and again the ballistics and eyewitness testimony....you know, the guy who filmed the incident even without the camera, would have had this guy arrested and charged eventually as well......

 

[2aguy]

You said he attacked the police officer. Who's account is this?

It's on the video. You can see the end of the attack and with the tazer being knocked out of the officers hand at around the 17 second point...you can infer that the struggle has been protracted...what else would have attracted the attention of the videographer?

Initially, I thought that the officer moved the tazer closer to the victem, but that is clearly not the case after multiple viewings of the recording. The tazer goes flying behind the officer...I have no idea what that was on the ground that he picked up, but it wasn't the tazer.

There is no evidence in that video that Scott attacked the cop.

What you're seeing in that initial frame where the two can first be seen is the cop holding Scott's arm with his left hand...

... the taser goes flying from Slager's grip, not because Scott "knocked" it out of the cop's hand but because the taser's wires were still attached to Scott as he began to flee...

The witness who took the video said they were on the ground when he walked up...........