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

[protectionist]

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.

No need to ask around. Just the condemnation of the board's # 1 racist idiot (YOU) is more than enough praise to satisfy me.

 

[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.

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

You don't know that.

 

[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 ?

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

So the fact that the man is in jail and charged means he is guilty in your view ? LOL. So you've never heard of someone being charged where evidence wasn't there to charge him ? Ever hear of George Zimmerman ? Ever hear of OJ Simpson ? And especially nowadays, when the race hustlers have all but taken over the country, with mayors scared to death of rioting commencing, if they don't immediately arrest a white guy who killed a black guy, done legally or not.

Convicting this guy as you are , makes YOU look like a moron. I've given you enough information in this thread, that you should know that you don't have a leg to stand on. Not a toe.

 

[Katzndogz]

For the fleeing felon rule to apply there must actually have been a felony. All thats been said is that Scott was behind in child support.

From the dash cam video it looks worse for the cop than the cell phone video.

 

[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".

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.

1. Are saying you have evidence that the 2 guys did not fight for the taser, or fight at all ? I haven't seen any evidence of that. The cell phone guy said he saw them both on the ground. So why would they be on the ground other than fighting ? The only evidence is that they WERE fighting.

2. And what "claims" of mine are you referring to ?

3. Upon what do you base your claim that > "the man posed no serious threat of physical harm to anyone". You would need a video of the ENTIRE incident, from the traffic stop to the shooting, start to finish, to conclude that. You have it ?

 

[protectionist]

For the fleeing felon rule to apply there must actually have been a felony. All thats been said is that Scott was behind in child support.

From the dash cam video it looks worse for the cop than the cell phone video.

1. The cop said the suspect attacked him ( a felony). With no evidence to refute that, the cop can't have a charge against him based on evidence that does not exist.

2. I saw nothing in the dash cam video that goes against the cop. Quite the contrary, his traffic stop behavior was impeccable.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

So the fact that the man is in jail and charged means he is guilty in your view ? LOL. So you've never heard of someone being charged where evidence wasn't there to charge him ? Ever hear of George Zimmerman ? Ever hear of OJ Simpson ? And especially nowadays, when the race hustlers have all but taken over the country, with mayors scared to death of rioting commencing, if they don't immediately arrest a white guy who killed a black guy, done legally or not.

Convicting this guy as you are , makes YOU look like a moron. I've given you enough information in this thread, that you should know that you don't have a leg to stand on. Not a toe.

I never said he was guilty. I opposed your support for him and pointed out that not one official is supporting him.

Yet the department fired him and the prosecutor charged him with murder.There is obviously sufficient evidence and support for those actions. It's obvious to everyone but those who cheer such actions.

 

[Jackson]

For the fleeing felon rule to apply there must actually have been a felony. All thats been said is that Scott was behind in child support.

From the dash cam video it looks worse for the cop than the cell phone video.

1. The cop said the suspect attacked him ( a felony). With no evidence to refute that, the cop can't have a charge against him based on evidence that does not exist.

2. I saw nothing in the dash cam video that goes against the cop. Quite the contrary, his traffic stop behavior was impeccable.

I would disagree here. Dropping the tazer near the body was not "impeccable behavior." I am assuming the cop was going to make up the story that the "felon" took the tazer and dropped when he was shot. The cop was probably scared ("Oh shit!" being heard on the tape twice) and reacted foolishly by dropping the tazer.

 

[protectionist]

I never said he was guilty. I opposed your support for him and pointed out that not one official is supporting him.
Yet the department fired him and the prosecutor charged him with murder.There is obviously sufficient evidence and support for those actions. It's obvious to everyone but those who cheer such actions.

There is obviously NOT ANY evidence to support for those actions, and the evidence of that, is Tennessee vs Garner. That principle of LAW is what determines guilt or innocence, not what some political officials do or think.

 

[protectionist]

I would disagree here. Dropping the tazer near the body was not "impeccable behavior." I am assuming the cop was going to make up the story that the "felon" took the tazer and dropped when he was shot. The cop was probably scared ("Oh shit!" being heard on the tape twice) and reacted foolishly by dropping the tazer.

Dropping the tazer wasn't part of the traffic stop. It came afterward. If anyone wanted to charge the cop for dropping the tazer so be it, but that has nothing to do with murder.