- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 43,759
- Reaction score
- 10,985
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Of course. The strong vein of racism in police depts. tends to be found mostly in Southern right-wing dumps like SC.
Anyone who thinks that there is a strong vein of racism that infects the police force of pretty much every major city in America is fooling themselves.
Yep. If many of these lefties were to take a citizenship test, they would likely fail.
Notice that these are people who have to be schooled on the United States Constitution....by a Canadian.
Meet the "New Amerikan" left.
I love that clip.
The guy is so stoned on whatever he doesn't even realize he's so stupid kids are laughing.
I mean no one can get that dense without either brain surgery or substances of great power to distort
And people are wondering why Obama was elected twice?!?
Do you have anything to add to the discussion other then baiting?
There are times where someone should be arrested. I'm thinking specially interference or being close enough to pose an additional hazard for police to worry about. I can only imagine the lawsuit if a suspect harms an idiot with a camera, especially if said suspect is scuffling with an officer.
I agree with you. Good move to fire him.
I stopped at the first one:
“Michael Brown learned a lesson about a messin’
With a badass policeman
And he’s bad, bad Michael Brown
Baddest thug in the whole damn town
Badder than old King Kong
Meaner than a junkyard dog.
Two men took to fightin’
And Michael punched in through the door
And Michael looked like some old Swiss cheese
His brain was splattered on the floor
And he’s dead, dead Michael Brown
Deadest man in the whole damn town
His whole life’s long gone
Deader than a roadkill dog.”
how is that racist?
He was not fired because of his actions. He was fired in an attempt by the dept. to convey a better image of itself after the video splashed all over national TV.
The NCPD will most likely re-hire him after his acquittal.
"every major city in America..." has a racist police force?
First, it is amusing how the left exaggerates every claim. It is not sufficient anymore to say "racism is still an issue in some quarters in our country" but we have to condemn the entire nation as "pretty much every major city in the country"
That's one **** of a list, including Seattle, San Fransisco, LA, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Buffalo, the entire eastern seaboard from Boston to Miami not to mention...New York city.
The situation is so widespread it infests them all, and yet the great Barrack Hussein Obama who has come to fix everything with his little pen and his sward has never mentioned it.
Now that's incompetence! To have every major city police force, "pretty much" infested with racists, and not do anything?
You know, I wonder how blacks have survived at all especially the blacks on those police forces.
I hope the new left will impeach Obama for sweeping this wonton racism under the rug!
No you are not.
You are seeing what you want to see which is make believe.
:doh
As I already knew, you are assuming. Which again is make believe.
:doh
Obviously you didn't know until it was pointed out to you.
And in this case at the point in time the Officer responded, the guy was such a threat.
But I am sure you will continue to ignore that in pursuit of your make believe bs.
And you are wrong.
At the point in time the Officer responded the guy was a threat.
It didn't fall. The guy who grabbed it threw it away.
:doh
His resistance is part of the whole.
And again. Pay attention. At the point in time the Officer was responding to a known threat. To say otherwise you are going to have to show the Officer knew the suspect relived himself of the weapon.
And? Officers shoot until the threat ceases to be a threat. That just happens to be when they stop their movement.
If you do not like that, lobby to get policy changed.
You do not know that. That is all an assumption on your part.
You have no idea what he picked up, or what he tossed down. So just stop with the make believe.
He may not have committed a crime.
Wrong. It was all your nonsense.
:doh
Actual danger versus that of a reasonable belief is very different.
You should try to learn the difference.
He said that towards the end of the war if a person was walking towards him with a weapon he would have to wait until the actual weapon was pointed at him, or shots fired before he could respond.
After reading pretty much the entire thread (48 pages), watching the video at least 5 times, reading 3 different articles from three different sources concerning the shooting and now watching the dash-cam video of the initial routine traffic stop (see video below), I could find no concrete evidence to support claims that Officer Slager's life was in danger or any justification for Mr. Scott being shot to death. Here are the facts based on video footage (both on the scene of the shooting and during the traffic stop) and from information as reported by HuffingtonPost.com (see OP) and NYTimes.com:
- Mr. Walter Scott was stopped by Officer Slager on a routine traffic violation - a broken taillight.
- Mr. Scott did not have proper documentation (i.e., bill of sale, vehicle registration, proof of insurance) to prove that he had purchased the vehicle he was driving (a used Mercedes-Benz) or was in the process of purchasing the vehicle.
- Officer Slager was in the process of verifying Mr. Scott's ID when Mr. Scott fled from his vehicle on foot.
- During the foot chase, you can hear Officer Slager shout "Get on the ground," in the dash-cam video.
- From the original video that captures the shooting, you initially see Mr. Scott and Officer Slager standing calmly facing each other.
- It's barely audible, but if you listen closely around the 12-18 second mark, you can hear Officer Slager warn Mr. Scott, "If you [flee?] I will shoot you".
- Within seconds, Mr. Scott attempts to flee the scene for the second time. If you watch closely, you'll notice the tether wire from Officer Slager's stun gun extends between Mr. Scott and Officer Slagere as Mr. Scott is fleeing. This at least confirms that Officer Slager did discharge his stun gun during the initial chase.
- Ms. Scott tosses something on the ground prior to fleeing the second time. It's unclear if this was Officer Slager's stun gun as he alleges that Mr. Scott had taken it or if it's something else. (But let's go with it was Officer Slager's stun gun as it appears that the object Officer Slager retrieves and tosses next to Mr. Scott's body was in the shape of a "gun".)
- Officer Slager fires 8 rounds, 3 of which reportedly hits Mr. Scott in the back(side).
- Officer Slager neither attempts to pursue Mr. Scott as he attempts to flee the scene a second time, nor does he call for backup to inform other police in the area that he was pursuing his victim. He does, however, report that shots were fired after the fact.
- Officer Slager goes back to spot where he and Mr. Scott initially stopped and picks up whatever was dropped. He is filmed seconds later dropping the same item next to Mr. Scott's body (which he later retrieves after a second police officer comes onto the scene).
- Officer Slager makes no attempt to resuscitate Mr. Scott when it becomes clear the victim has become non-responsive. (You see Officer Slager check Mr. Scott at his neck for a pulse with two fingers on his left hand, but that's all he does as far as checking Mr. Scott for signs of life.)
Dash Cam Footage of Walter Scott - Video - NYTimes.com
Two questions:
1. If Mr. Scott had taken Officer Slager's taser as he alleges AND he believed his life was in danger, why didn't he cuff Mr. Scott immediately after he had initially stopped him?
2. If Mr. Scott had taken Officer Slager's taser, why didn't he retrieve it immediately after stopping him once the initial pursuit had ended?
It seems obvious to me that the above would have been the obvious things to do as a cop when a perp takes your weapon of any sort - you subdue him and retrieve your gear. Why was neither of these things done?
Regardless of why Mr. Scott ran, nothing on either video warranted him being shot. Mr. Scott did not appear to be a threat to Officer Slager. The fact that they are initially standing face-to-face AND Mr. Scott is not in handcuffs after the initial pursuit gives strong indication this was a non-violent, non-threatening situation.
IMO, Officer Slager was rightfully charged with murder.
I understand this. I understand it if all true it will lead to the officer being convicted of murder.
it still doesn't allow me to have an ounce of remorse or sorrow for the victim. If you run from an officer, are caught, are warned not to run again or you will be shot, and you run again, as far as I'm concerned whatever happens after that is on the victim. He took his chances and(unfortunately) paid the price for it. If you or I were in that EXACT SAME situation, and chose to flee, we take our lives in our own hands. and we are AWARE we are doing it, so there is no victim in my honest opinion.
Right, but let's think about all those times when there wasn't a video camera. The department said on the news that 'there were no witnesses except that video, and without it, they'd never know what really happened.
What specifically makes it a "half truth"
Politifact is notoriously biased, so you would have to convince me where I am wrong.
Wrong.No, you are denying what is obvious for all to see.
OMG! :dohEven Judge Napolitano said it :
Most folks have not payed attention to the video showing the guy throwing the taser down or considering the circumstances his taking it caused.Everyone is wrong except you it seems. Almost everybody clearly sees the officer committing homicide by shooting an unarmed and non dangerous man.
Wrong.No, it is pointing to your denial of even the most basic facts:
Again, this is you ignoring reality that he took the taser and made himself a threat.1. the victim was unarmed
2. he was not a danger to anybody whatsoever
This is you ignoring that the quote pointed out that it isn't illegal when the suspect is a threat just as this suspect was.Wow, I didn't know until it was pointed out? What that it is illegal for police officers to shoot unarmed people who flee and pose no threat to anyone in the back? Yeah, I already knew that.
Sad. I haven't posted any untruths, while you sure have made things up.I would assume you have not seen this video once or you would not be posting utter untruths about this case time and time again.
Wrong.The man was at the moment of the first shot being fired, no danger whatsoever and to say otherwise is denying the reality of what is on that video.
Irrelevant.Even Ben Carson ...
Irrelevant.The boss of this police officer has called it sickening what his officer did to that poor man.
Well when you show everybody like you have that you have not bothered to analyze the video, make things up and make false assertions, it is obvious that you are not seeing it "like it is". D'oh!But I guess you are one of the few who sees it "like it is" and the rest of us is just talking nonsense :roll: Sorry, but you denials and distortions do not add up to a truthful story.
Irrelevant.No, being 20 feet away with your back turned to the officer you are not a threat and to say that he is is and obvious untruth.
Anyone who thinks that there is a strong vein of racism that infects the police force of pretty much every major city in America is fooling themselves.
This is you not paying attention to the video. It is clear he threw it.Says who? Says you? Because there is zero evidence for that.
:doh He was already drawing before the taser hit the ground, showing that the Officer was responding to his taking the taser.The taser was on the ground and a non-issue in the shooting homicide of this man.
His combativeness and taking of the taser makes him a threat.You can tell yourself that until you are blue in the face but even a judge says that is nonsense.
Wrong. The Officer was responding to a threat. You are going to have to show that the Officer knew he threw the taser to say otherwise.No, running away from the officer with absolutely nothing in his hands is not a threat to that officer and to say anything else like I have said here before is nonsense.And again. Pay attention. At the point in time the Officer was responding to a known threat. To say otherwise you are going to have to show the Officer knew the suspect relived himself of the weapon.
This was never a threat when he started shooting. Your story does not hold water, it is totally in direct contradiction to the facts.
You have no business assuming.He had no business picking anything up and he most certainly did not have any business throwing it besides the victim. He contaminated the crime-scene and did not follow any police procedure known to man.
:dohThat is your opinion, I think you are not just a little bit wrong but extremely and completely wrong.
Wrong again.Wrong, it was factual, unlike your claims and assertions.
Oy vey! Again showing that you do not understand the difference between an actual threat and a perceived one and that their is no difference in how you respond to them.And you should learn the difference between being a threat (like the guy in Ferguson was) and someone who was no threat whatsoever (which is what we have in this case).
It is very apparent that you have no knowledge of the U.S. legal system.
I understand this. I understand it if all true it will lead to the officer being convicted of murder.
it still doesn't allow me to have an ounce of remorse or sorrow for the victim. If you run from an officer, are caught, are warned not to run again or you will be shot, and you run again, as far as I'm concerned whatever happens after that is on the victim. He took his chances and(unfortunately) paid the price for it. If you or I were in that EXACT SAME situation, and chose to flee, we take our lives in our own hands. and we are AWARE we are doing it, so there is no victim in my honest opinion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?