Story of shooting BEFORE the cellphone video showed up, "He took my tazer"

[Godboy]

Let's not try and convict the Officer please.

Have you seen the video?
At what point were 8 shots fired into a man from behind justifiable?
The officer hasn't been convicted but he has been judged as wrong. The murder charge shows as much.
Stop trying to defend him.

How many shots he fired is irrelevent, and so is the fact that he was shot in the back. IF the officer had a good reason to suspect the criminal was a danger to society, then he can shoot him a million times in the back. If there isnt a good reason to suspect he was a danger to society, then the cop goes to jail, and rightly so. Your problem is you are debating the wrong points.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Let's not try and convict the Officer please.

Have you seen the video?
At what point were 8 shots fired into a man from behind justifiable?
The officer hasn't been convicted but he has been judged as wrong. The murder charge shows as much.
Stop trying to defend him.

How many shots he fired is irrelevent, and so is the fact that he was shot in the back. IF the officer had a good reason to suspect the criminal was a danger to society, then he can shoot him a million times in the back. If there isnt a good reason to suspect he was a danger to society, then the cop goes to jail, and rightly so. Your problem is you are debating the wrong points.

Bullshit!
At the time the cop drew down on Scott he was no threat to anyone. He was retreating.
The cop had more options than to shoot. Your point assumes the worst case, I'm arguing the best case where the officer exercises good judgement and no one dies.

 

[Godboy]

Let's not try and convict the Officer please.

Have you seen the video?
At what point were 8 shots fired into a man from behind justifiable?
The officer hasn't been convicted but he has been judged as wrong. The murder charge shows as much.
Stop trying to defend him.

How many shots he fired is irrelevent, and so is the fact that he was shot in the back. IF the officer had a good reason to suspect the criminal was a danger to society, then he can shoot him a million times in the back. If there isnt a good reason to suspect he was a danger to society, then the cop goes to jail, and rightly so. Your problem is you are debating the wrong points.

Bullshit!
At the time the cop drew down on Scott he was no threat to anyone. He was retreating.
The cop had more options than to shoot. Your point assumes the worst case, I'm arguing the best case where the officer exercises good judgement and no one dies.

Wait, i think we are miscommunicating here. Before we attemp to discuss the specifics of this case, lets establish a fact. Are you under the impression that a cop cannot under any circumstances shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back? Cops can absolutely do that, legally. Do we agree on that fact, or do we disagree?

 

[Camp]

2nd Degree implies malice aforethought as well. Just not planned. IIRC the difference is the planning part. Both imply malice, both imply pre-meditation, the First degree means there was planning. That's where the planting of the weapon comes in.

Either way the cop should go down for life.

Second Degree Murder is typically defined as followed:

1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or
2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. -

See more at: Second Degree Murder Overview - FindLaw

Though we're arguing the color of deck chairs on the titanic with this case. We both agree this cop is fucked. And should be.

Why should he be ? Isn't he within his rights to shoot a fleeing felon, as established by the SCOTUS case > Tennessee vs. Garner ?

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your own link answers your question. The felon must be posing an imminent threat. A man running away rather than being arrested for a broken taillight and a failure to pay child support does not pose an imminent threat, even it he resisted arrest and while doing so may have committed the felony offense of assaulting the officer attempting the arrest. All felonies do not pose immediate or even predictable imminent danger to the public.

FALSE! All that is necessary for a suspect to be shot while fleeing is for the officer to have "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] There is not a word in this decision about anything being "imminent".

You are such an idiot. You have a problem with what, the word imminent?

 

[protectionist]

FALSE! Simply suspicion of a felony is enough.

"At Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight." >> Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Failure to pay child support isn't a felony last time I checked.

That's not the issue. Attacking a cop is.

It's pretty damned obvious the cop was never attacked. Run away from yes...but attacked? Not by a long mile.

How can you say that ? Do you have a shred of evidence to back it up ?

The cop is untouched. Not a wisp of hair out of place.

I just saw a UFC fight on TV. The undefeated champ Weidman went 5 rounds with the challenger Machida. Weidman won the fight. He didn't have a wisp of hair out of place. Looks like you don't have any response to the Fleeing Felon rule, and Slager rights within it. Are we seeing another attempt to railroad an innocent cop to appease the race hustlers and their angry mobs ?

 

[protectionist]

2nd Degree implies malice aforethought as well. Just not planned. IIRC the difference is the planning part. Both imply malice, both imply pre-meditation, the First degree means there was planning. That's where the planting of the weapon comes in.

Either way the cop should go down for life.

Second Degree Murder is typically defined as followed:

1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or
2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. -

See more at: Second Degree Murder Overview - FindLaw

Though we're arguing the color of deck chairs on the titanic with this case. We both agree this cop is fucked. And should be.

Why should he be ? Isn't he within his rights to shoot a fleeing felon, as established by the SCOTUS case > Tennessee vs. Garner ?

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your own link answers your question. The felon must be posing an imminent threat. A man running away rather than being arrested for a broken taillight and a failure to pay child support does not pose an imminent threat, even it he resisted arrest and while doing so may have committed the felony offense of assaulting the officer attempting the arrest. All felonies do not pose immediate or even predictable imminent danger to the public.

FALSE! All that is necessary for a suspect to be shot while fleeing is for the officer to have "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] There is not a word in this decision about anything being "imminent".

You are such an idiot. You have a problem with what, the word imminent?

I have a whole lot of problem with the word imminent. It's not part of the law. Do you go around just injecting words into the law. Once again here is Justice Byron White's quote from the Tennessee vs Garner ruling. >>

"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."

Guess what word I don't see there.

 

[protectionist]

Why should he be ? Isn't he within his rights to shoot a fleeing felon, as established by the SCOTUS case > Tennessee vs. Garner ?

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your own link answers your question. The felon must be posing an imminent threat. A man running away rather than being arrested for a broken taillight and a failure to pay child support does not pose an imminent threat, even it he resisted arrest and while doing so may have committed the felony offense of assaulting the officer attempting the arrest. All felonies do not pose immediate or even predictable imminent danger to the public.

FALSE! All that is necessary for a suspect to be shot while fleeing is for the officer to have "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] There is not a word in this decision about anything being "imminent".

Yeah....watching the video where oh where is the victim a threat? To anyone.....anyone at all.

Nowhere. But so what ? The video doesn't show the whole episode. The video only begins after the physical confrontation between the cop and Scott, if there was one. The cop says there was.

The same cop who we all watched dump 8 rounds into Scott's back. Was that officer's life in danger as he did that?

His life doesn't have to be in danger at that point. It's not a matter of that. It is a matter of a fleeing suspect whom the cop says is a felon, who had attacked and fought with him. Do you have some evidence to show otherwise ? If so, let's hear it.

 

[protectionist]

And thank heavens whoever it was on the spot that took the video, God bless them for being there at the right time. Whoever it was is a hero in my books.

Has anyone seen this? First up the fairy tale.

"POLICE VERSION

Police officer Michael Slager said in a statement earlier this week that his encounter with Walter Scott began at around 9.30am on Saturday.

He said he pulled Scott's Mercedes over as a routine traffic stop for a broken brake light.

He said Scott then ran away into a vacant grassy lot where, at some point during the chase, the victim confronts Slager.

The officer then tried to use his Taser to subdue Scott, but claims the suspect grabbed the stun gun during the struggle, according to the statement.

According to police reports, Slager fired the stun gun, but it did not stop Scott.

At that point, the officer fired at Scott several times because he 'felt threatened,' Slager's statement said.

He added that his actions were in line with procedure.

Police then said Slager reported on his radio moments after the struggle: 'Shots fired and the subject is down. He took my Taser.'

His department said the officers then performed CPR and delivered first aid to the victim. "

Then the nightmare that is truth.

WHAT THE VIDEO SHOWS

Slager’s account has been called into question after the video appears to show him shooting Scott in the back.

The footage begins in the vacant lot apparently moments after Slager fires his Taser.

Wires which administer the electrical current appear to be extending from Scott's body.

As Scott turns to run, Slager draws his pistol and, only when he is 15 to 20 feet away, starts to fire the first of the eight shots at his back.

The video shows Slager handcuffing Scott's lifeless body.

Footage then appears to show Slager jogging back to the point where the Taser fell to the ground, bringing it over to Scott's body around 30 feet away and dropping it next to him.

It is only after two-and-a-half minutes that Slager is seen placing his hand on Scott's neck in an apparent attempt to check his pulse.

A black colleague then arrives and puts on blue medical gloves before handling the body, but is not seen performing first aid.

They are joined by a third officer, who also does not appear to tend to the victim. "

Daily Mail is doing a great job reporting this. The stills are really good.

Walter Scott shot in the back FIVE TIMES by cop Michael Slager in Charleston Daily Mail Online

Is every cop supposed to just let suspects run away ? How would you propose to stop them ? Maybe throw a lasso around them, like a cowboy roping a steer ?

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Was the victim a convicred felon professor?

Irrelevant, student.

 

[protectionist]

The media is TOTALLY on board with the people who are condemning this cop (who appears to have followed the law approriately). All reporting seems to be slanted against the cop. Even on the Hannity Show he is interviewing the "victim's" brother, and I keep seeing relatives of Scott talking. How about the relatives of the officer, Slager ? Or how about asking Supreme Court Justice Byron White for HIS input ? (although we already have it right on this page)

 

[protectionist]

Let's not try and convict the Officer please.

Have you seen the video?
At what point were 8 shots fired into a man from behind justifiable?
The officer hasn't been convicted but he has been judged as wrong. The murder charge shows as much.
Stop trying to defend him.

How many shots he fired is irrelevent, and so is the fact that he was shot in the back. IF the officer had a good reason to suspect the criminal was a danger to society, then he can shoot him a million times in the back. If there isnt a good reason to suspect he was a danger to society, then the cop goes to jail, and rightly so. Your problem is you are debating the wrong points.

Bullshit!
At the time the cop drew down on Scott he was no threat to anyone. He was retreating.
The cop had more options than to shoot. Your point assumes the worst case, I'm arguing the best case where the officer exercises good judgement and no one dies.

Godboy has it right. You have it wrong. The suspect has committed a violent felony crime (so says the cop) That makes him a threat to everyone and anyone, if he escapes. That's why the SCOTUS laid down the Fleeing Felon Rule. Why are you trying to twist this ?

 

[xdangerousxdavex]

I have doubts. Watched the video one more time and wondered why he was running so slowly... Just doubts, no more.

 

[Mad Scientist]

How come no chants of "USA! USA! USA!" this time?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Let's not try and convict the Officer please.

Have you seen the video?
At what point were 8 shots fired into a man from behind justifiable?
The officer hasn't been convicted but he has been judged as wrong. The murder charge shows as much.
Stop trying to defend him.

How many shots he fired is irrelevent, and so is the fact that he was shot in the back. IF the officer had a good reason to suspect the criminal was a danger to society, then he can shoot him a million times in the back. If there isnt a good reason to suspect he was a danger to society, then the cop goes to jail, and rightly so. Your problem is you are debating the wrong points.

Bullshit!
At the time the cop drew down on Scott he was no threat to anyone. He was retreating.
The cop had more options than to shoot. Your point assumes the worst case, I'm arguing the best case where the officer exercises good judgement and no one dies.

Wait, i think we are miscommunicating here. Before we attemp to discuss the specifics of this case, lets establish a fact. Are you under the impression that a cop cannot under any circumstances shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back? Cops can absolutely do that, legally. Do we agree on that fact, or do we disagree?

Given the circumstances shown in the video,
I indeed believe there was no legal justification for the officer's action.
Obviously the prosecutor and the department agreed as he was fired and charged with murder. Your position is the outlier.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And thank heavens whoever it was on the spot that took the video, God bless them for being there at the right time. Whoever it was is a hero in my books.

Has anyone seen this? First up the fairy tale.

"POLICE VERSION

Police officer Michael Slager said in a statement earlier this week that his encounter with Walter Scott began at around 9.30am on Saturday.

He said he pulled Scott's Mercedes over as a routine traffic stop for a broken brake light.

He said Scott then ran away into a vacant grassy lot where, at some point during the chase, the victim confronts Slager.

The officer then tried to use his Taser to subdue Scott, but claims the suspect grabbed the stun gun during the struggle, according to the statement.

According to police reports, Slager fired the stun gun, but it did not stop Scott.

At that point, the officer fired at Scott several times because he 'felt threatened,' Slager's statement said.

He added that his actions were in line with procedure.

Police then said Slager reported on his radio moments after the struggle: 'Shots fired and the subject is down. He took my Taser.'

His department said the officers then performed CPR and delivered first aid to the victim. "

Then the nightmare that is truth.

WHAT THE VIDEO SHOWS

Slager’s account has been called into question after the video appears to show him shooting Scott in the back.

The footage begins in the vacant lot apparently moments after Slager fires his Taser.

Wires which administer the electrical current appear to be extending from Scott's body.

As Scott turns to run, Slager draws his pistol and, only when he is 15 to 20 feet away, starts to fire the first of the eight shots at his back.

The video shows Slager handcuffing Scott's lifeless body.

Footage then appears to show Slager jogging back to the point where the Taser fell to the ground, bringing it over to Scott's body around 30 feet away and dropping it next to him.

It is only after two-and-a-half minutes that Slager is seen placing his hand on Scott's neck in an apparent attempt to check his pulse.

A black colleague then arrives and puts on blue medical gloves before handling the body, but is not seen performing first aid.

They are joined by a third officer, who also does not appear to tend to the victim. "

Daily Mail is doing a great job reporting this. The stills are really good.

Walter Scott shot in the back FIVE TIMES by cop Michael Slager in Charleston Daily Mail Online

Is every cop supposed to just let suspects run away ? How would you propose to stop them ? Maybe throw a lasso around them, like a cowboy roping a steer ?

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Was the victim a convicred felon professor?

Irrelevant, student.

Thankfully your legal position is not shared by either the department or the prosecutor.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Let's not try and convict the Officer please.

Have you seen the video?
At what point were 8 shots fired into a man from behind justifiable?
The officer hasn't been convicted but he has been judged as wrong. The murder charge shows as much.
Stop trying to defend him.

How many shots he fired is irrelevent, and so is the fact that he was shot in the back. IF the officer had a good reason to suspect the criminal was a danger to society, then he can shoot him a million times in the back. If there isnt a good reason to suspect he was a danger to society, then the cop goes to jail, and rightly so. Your problem is you are debating the wrong points.

Bullshit!
At the time the cop drew down on Scott he was no threat to anyone. He was retreating.
The cop had more options than to shoot. Your point assumes the worst case, I'm arguing the best case where the officer exercises good judgement and no one dies.

Godboy has it right. You have it wrong. The suspect has committed a violent felony crime (so says the cop) That makes him a threat to everyone and anyone, if he escapes. That's why the SCOTUS laid down the Fleeing Felon Rule. Why are you trying to twist this ?

The man is in jail charged with murder and I'm twisting?
Keep it up. Defending this guy makes you look like a moron.

 

[Asclepias]

Let's not try and convict the Officer please.

Have you seen the video?
At what point were 8 shots fired into a man from behind justifiable?
The officer hasn't been convicted but he has been judged as wrong. The murder charge shows as much.
Stop trying to defend him.

How many shots he fired is irrelevent, and so is the fact that he was shot in the back. IF the officer had a good reason to suspect the criminal was a danger to society, then he can shoot him a million times in the back. If there isnt a good reason to suspect he was a danger to society, then the cop goes to jail, and rightly so. Your problem is you are debating the wrong points.

Bullshit!
At the time the cop drew down on Scott he was no threat to anyone. He was retreating.
The cop had more options than to shoot. Your point assumes the worst case, I'm arguing the best case where the officer exercises good judgement and no one dies.

Godboy has it right. You have it wrong. The suspect has committed a violent felony crime (so says the cop) That makes him a threat to everyone and anyone, if he escapes. That's why the SCOTUS laid down the Fleeing Felon Rule. Why are you trying to twist this ?

The man is in jail charged with murder and I'm twisting?
Keep it up. Defending this guy makes you look like a moron.

Too late. Protectionist already has proven himself a moron with idiotic tendencies numerous times long before this thread. He is at the level of Shootspeeder if you ask around.

 

[Liminal]

Already a thread on this...go read it.

Southern cracker cop shoots man running away in the back.. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Not much to see there.

 

[Skylar]

Second Degree Murder is typically defined as followed:

Though we're arguing the color of deck chairs on the titanic with this case. We both agree this cop is fucked. And should be.

Why should he be ? Isn't he within his rights to shoot a fleeing felon, as established by the SCOTUS case > Tennessee vs. Garner ?

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your own link answers your question. The felon must be posing an imminent threat. A man running away rather than being arrested for a broken taillight and a failure to pay child support does not pose an imminent threat, even it he resisted arrest and while doing so may have committed the felony offense of assaulting the officer attempting the arrest. All felonies do not pose immediate or even predictable imminent danger to the public.

FALSE! All that is necessary for a suspect to be shot while fleeing is for the officer to have "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] There is not a word in this decision about anything being "imminent".

You are such an idiot. You have a problem with what, the word imminent?

I have a whole lot of problem with the word imminent. It's not part of the law. Do you go around just injecting words into the law. Once again here is Justice Byron White's quote from the Tennessee vs Garner ruling. >>

"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."

Guess what word I don't see there.

You should have a much larger problem with the officer planting evidence on the man he just murdered, dropping a taser at this side AFTER he'd shot the man. And then writing in his police report that the man and he had been fighting for his taser....and it was that fight that motivated

If your claims were valid, why would the officer have had to plant evidence and lie about it in a police report? Simple: the man posed no serious threat of physical harm to anyone. And was murdered by the police officer......who should be tried for his crimes.

 

[Skylar]

Have you seen the video?
At what point were 8 shots fired into a man from behind justifiable?
The officer hasn't been convicted but he has been judged as wrong. The murder charge shows as much.
Stop trying to defend him.

How many shots he fired is irrelevent, and so is the fact that he was shot in the back. IF the officer had a good reason to suspect the criminal was a danger to society, then he can shoot him a million times in the back. If there isnt a good reason to suspect he was a danger to society, then the cop goes to jail, and rightly so. Your problem is you are debating the wrong points.

Bullshit!
At the time the cop drew down on Scott he was no threat to anyone. He was retreating.
The cop had more options than to shoot. Your point assumes the worst case, I'm arguing the best case where the officer exercises good judgement and no one dies.

Godboy has it right. You have it wrong. The suspect has committed a violent felony crime (so says the cop) That makes him a threat to everyone and anyone, if he escapes. That's why the SCOTUS laid down the Fleeing Felon Rule. Why are you trying to twist this ?

The man is in jail charged with murder and I'm twisting?
Keep it up. Defending this guy makes you look like a moron.

Too late. Protectionist already has proven himself a moron with idiotic tendencies numerous times long before this thread. He is at the level of Shootspeeder if you ask around.

I dunno. I haven't seen Protectionist cite Satire Websites as his primary source any time lately.

 

[Godboy]

Let's not try and convict the Officer please.

Have you seen the video?
At what point were 8 shots fired into a man from behind justifiable?
The officer hasn't been convicted but he has been judged as wrong. The murder charge shows as much.
Stop trying to defend him.

How many shots he fired is irrelevent, and so is the fact that he was shot in the back. IF the officer had a good reason to suspect the criminal was a danger to society, then he can shoot him a million times in the back. If there isnt a good reason to suspect he was a danger to society, then the cop goes to jail, and rightly so. Your problem is you are debating the wrong points.

Bullshit!
At the time the cop drew down on Scott he was no threat to anyone. He was retreating.
The cop had more options than to shoot. Your point assumes the worst case, I'm arguing the best case where the officer exercises good judgement and no one dies.

Wait, i think we are miscommunicating here. Before we attemp to discuss the specifics of this case, lets establish a fact. Are you under the impression that a cop cannot under any circumstances shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back? Cops can absolutely do that, legally. Do we agree on that fact, or do we disagree?

Given the circumstances shown in the video,
I indeed believe there was no legal justification for the officer's action.
Obviously the prosecutor and the department agreed as he was fired and charged with murder. Your position is the outlier.

I think you might be right about this case, but in general it doesn't matter how many shots were fired, or that they were fired into someones back. That was my point.