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.
The Scott family is the least reliable source in this whole thing. The media putting them on TV is just pure sensationalism. They are 100% biased, and when interviewed on the Hannity Show, appeared to be lying continuously. Whatt a joke to hear Don Lemon, on CNN, say the words "according to the Scott family". Good grief!Some of the rest of the story.... UPDATE Walter Scott Shooting Witness Feidin Santana Speaks Out UPDATE The Professional Handler Steps In The Last Refuge
Walter Scott “running from the auto-parts store“? “Wrestling on the ground“? Mr. Scott “being tazed during struggle“? Etc.
Of course none of that negates what is seen in the video; nor does it essentially change the absence of justification; but it does, well, broaden the picture somewhat…. Your thoughts?
UPDATE: WOAH !! Talk about broadening the picture – Video’s removed? Social Media Scrubbed? An “unknown” passenger in the vehicle of Walter Scott when it was pulled over by Officer Michael Slager?….
….and, wait for it…. all of a sudden we find out that Scott Family attorney Chris Stewart has been working with Ryan Julison? Who is person who crafted all the Trayvonn lies....... more than meets the eye again
Cops can slaughter people far more than in this case, 100% legally. It all depends on the situation.1. Was the suspect fleeing an imminent danger to the cop or others?
2. Were the eight shots fired at the back of the suspect proportional in nature?
3. In light of 1 and 2, was the cop's actions reasonable?
This cop slaughtered the guy.
Actually the last one burns the arteries so they can't function, and if the sedative is not working, the pain is unbelievable.The drugs used in lethal injections aren't painful at all.dannyboys is showing his ass yet again.
This cop is in serous trouble, only short of the trouble he gave to Scott.
I wonder if the drugs used in the lethal injections are as horribly painful as described.
The first injection puts the person into a deep sleep. The second is a paralytic to immobilize the muscles. The last one stops the heart. It's like dying in your sleep.
False. Unlike the Zimmerman case, there is an eyewitness. And he's saying Scott never had possession of Slager's taser, which counters Slager's claim that he did.If all there is, is the cop's account of the incident, than there is insufficient evidence to charge him. Starting to look like another Zimmerman situation. City fathers afraid of race hustlers and their riot mobs, quickly charge cop to keep rioters from tearing up the town. These goons are beginning to control America.There's no evidence other than the cop's claim that Scott "touched him." That they may have been "on the ground" does not necessarily mean Scott did anything offensive.You touch a cop in the process of doing his duty whether it's traffic stop or anything else you can be charged with committing a Class A felony.
The witness (who believes cops sometimes are only firing blanks. A common myth in the negro community and that's why so many of them 'run' ) said both men "were on the ground".
The jury will find out why. I suggest all you MSNBC LIB negroes at least once stop from once again making complete fools of yourselves and wait until the jury has ruled. THEN you can go burn down the fucking sewers you appear to enjoy living in.
Why lie? The witness never said there was a fight going on.First there has to be a reason to charge him, and there isn't because of insufficient evidence. The cop's account can't be refuted because there's no video, and the only witness indicated there was a fight going on. So if the suspect attacked, that puts him in the felon category, and his fleeing the scene puts the cop in legal standing to shoot him in the back, under the Fleeing Felon Rule.That's what I thought too. We are both wrong. Under South Carolina law when the cop moved the taser to put it next to the dead guy that's despoiling the crime scene making it capital murder and a death penalty case.it's NOT premeditated murder imo, so no death penalty.dannyboys is showing his ass yet again.
This cop is in serous trouble, only short of the trouble he gave to Scott.
I wonder if the drugs used in the lethal injections are as horribly painful as described.
Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
When he got out of the vehicle he had a cap on. When he was shot he did not have a cap on. This could be evidence that the so called witness lied if he said there was no fight.Why lie? The witness never said there was a fight going on.First there has to be a reason to charge him, and there isn't because of insufficient evidence. The cop's account can't be refuted because there's no video, and the only witness indicated there was a fight going on. So if the suspect attacked, that puts him in the felon category, and his fleeing the scene puts the cop in legal standing to shoot him in the back, under the Fleeing Felon Rule.That's what I thought too. We are both wrong. Under South Carolina law when the cop moved the taser to put it next to the dead guy that's despoiling the crime scene making it capital murder and a death penalty case.it's NOT premeditated murder imo, so no death penalty.dannyboys is showing his ass yet again.
This cop is in serous trouble, only short of the trouble he gave to Scott.
I wonder if the drugs used in the lethal injections are as horribly painful as described.
Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
bornright, you fit the Hank Hill line of
it's NOT premeditated murder imo, so no death penalty.dannyboys is showing his ass yet again.
This cop is in serous trouble, only short of the trouble he gave to Scott.
I wonder if the drugs used in the lethal injections are as horribly painful as described.
A missing cap does not mean a fight took place. It certainly is not evidence of a fight. The eyewitness said the two men were on the ground and that the officer had control of Scott just prior to recording it. The cap could have come off then, for all anyone knows.When he got out of the vehicle he had a cap on. When he was shot he did not have a cap on. This could be evidence that the so called witness lied if he said there was no fight.Why lie? The witness never said there was a fight going on.First there has to be a reason to charge him, and there isn't because of insufficient evidence. The cop's account can't be refuted because there's no video, and the only witness indicated there was a fight going on. So if the suspect attacked, that puts him in the felon category, and his fleeing the scene puts the cop in legal standing to shoot him in the back, under the Fleeing Felon Rule.That's what I thought too. We are both wrong. Under South Carolina law when the cop moved the taser to put it next to the dead guy that's despoiling the crime scene making it capital murder and a death penalty case.it's NOT premeditated murder imo, so no death penalty.dannyboys is showing his ass yet again.
This cop is in serous trouble, only short of the trouble he gave to Scott.
I wonder if the drugs used in the lethal injections are as horribly painful as described.
Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
No amount of convoluted logic can change the reality that the cop shot the guy in the back while he was running away - No excuse - no way - no how - he executed that man and than lied about the circumstances.Fleeing felon rule...for the 100th time. Officer attempted non lethal force via tazer.
Now, you want to make a valid complaint? Tampering with evidence by moving the tazer closer to the victim.
That's what is going to sink this guy.
The thing is you would have to turn off fox news and turn the channel to MSNBC which I have a feeling is something you wouldn't do.
Five hit him. Get it right.The cop shot eight rounds. Four hit the deceased in the back.not only did he shoot him in the back but he shot him in the back 8- TIMES
It was the taser as admitted by the guy who said they were on the ground fighting before he started his Parkinsons video.
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
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 ?Do you have some proof to refute the officer's claim ?
I just posted it. Please, feel free to read the last two pages.
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
The traffic footage says otherwise. It appears Slager used his taser as he was chasing Scott. The taser was therefore useless.
Actually the last one burns the arteries so they can't function, and if the sedative is not working, the pain is unbelievable.The drugs used in lethal injections aren't painful at all.dannyboys is showing his ass yet again.
This cop is in serous trouble, only short of the trouble he gave to Scott.
I wonder if the drugs used in the lethal injections are as horribly painful as described.
The first injection puts the person into a deep sleep. The second is a paralytic to immobilize the muscles. The last one stops the heart. It's like dying in your sleep.
Five hit him. Get it right.The cop shot eight rounds. Four hit the deceased in the back.not only did he shoot him in the back but he shot him in the back 8- TIMES
It was the taser as admitted by the guy who said they were on the ground fighting before he started his Parkinsons video.
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
Five hit him. Get it right.The cop shot eight rounds. Four hit the deceased in the back.not only did he shoot him in the back but he shot him in the back 8- TIMES
It was the taser as admitted by the guy who said they were on the ground fighting before he started his Parkinsons video.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
thanks
