- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 3,188
- Reaction score
- 1,082
- Location
- Dallas Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I can't tell you what he picked up because the video isn't clear enough to identify the object. More importantly, I can't tell you WHY he picked it up.
Have you been following my comments. Apparently not.
Scott held all the tools necessary to preserve his life and he failed to use them. He has to carry a large part of the blame for eternity
His story remains evidence. What is in his own best interest may very well turn out to be the truth.
His story remains evidence. What is in his own best interest may very well turn out to be the truth.
The 'usual suspects' also tried to make excuses for the 2 law enforcement officers here that shot the wrong man (never identified their target), in the basement, in bed, (after they already had their suspect,) 16 times...and didnt even manage to kill him.
And it's not even surprising that people doubt this cop (in the OP) will be convicted of murder...because those 2 LEs I just mentioned were not criminally charged and still have their jobs. However there have been 2 successful civil suits for about $3 million.
The suits are against the city or county, whatever. Not against the police themselves. We got to start having some accountability, until we do things aren't going to change. THIS case in S.C. might change things, the local cops and the state didn't hesitate, they immediately did and said all the right things.
You are dead right about this... Finally.It is always in the best interest for the defendant to tell the truth. If he lies about tampering with evidence for example, it will likely increase his sentence.
Factually you are incorrect because Scott died because he ran from a police officer, fought with the police officer and allegedly tried to steal the officer's taser.Er, factually, my statement is correct, your personal logic is still suspect.
We know that Scott violated the law and fought with Slager. That makes him a violent criminal. It isn't rocket scienceSo you are ready to give benefit of the doubt here... but you can see deep into the soul of the victim to say he is a "violent criminal"? Can you see you are biased?
Mercy doesn't mean you ignore reality.Wow.. Not only do you want the judge and jury's job, but you're after Gods too? You think He knows? There will be no mercy for those who have not shown mercy to others. But if you have been merciful, God will be merciful when he judges you. Jas 2:13
Factually you are incorrect because Scott died because he ran from a police officer, fought with the police officer and allegedly tried to steal the officer's taser.
Because he deserved to die for a broken tail light, unpaid child support, and resisting a cop?
What justice system exactly do you prescribe to?
We know that Scott violated the law and fought with Slager. That makes him a violent criminal. It isn't rocket science
Pulling away from an officer you fear is going to hurt is not the same thing as being a violent criminal. But it seems you need to make Scott into a big bad evil criminal to justify the murderous actions of Slager and that is not right.
Scott should not have run away, but running away from a traffic stop and a late child support warrant does not make it OK for some idiot officer to take out his gun and shoot someone in the back.
It's alleged because we don't know what he picked up or why. Our liberal friends believe they know, but they don'tHeh, see....you couldnt even counter without using 'allegedly.' My list were all 100% factual. (psst! I covered the other 2 with 'resisting a cop'. Convenient editing you did thar, lol.)
Ah....the apologists have quite the uphill battle on this one.
It's alleged because we don't know what he picked up or why. Our liberal friends believe they know, but they don't
You forgot the part about him fighting with Slager.
His stating facts is a bias for the facts.Things Slager may have done are alleged according to you.You forgot the part about him fighting with Slager.
But you seem certain about this.
You are biased. But you are unable to admit it.
One thing I'm willing to bet on. A court of law will find Slager guilty and he will pay for his crime. It's tragic, really.
:dohThe 'usual suspects' also tried to make excuses for the 2 law enforcement officers here that shot the wrong man (never identified their target), in the basement, in bed, (after they already had their suspect,) 16 times...and didnt even manage to kill him.
Wrong Lursa.It will be his 'story,' told in his own best interests. We have no reason to believe anything he says without hard evidence to back it up.
Who is this this "they" you speak of?then they shot him in the back and killed him.
Wrong.Once Scott began running away, he no longer posed any significant physical danger to the police,
Those two things are not the same.That cop is going down, for manslaughter or murder.
You forgot the part about him fighting with Slager.
Who is this this "they" you speak of?
Wrong.
He was a significant threat the moment he took the Officer's taser.
For your perusal.
Here we have a video of an Officer shooting at a fleeing suspect four more times after the suspect threw the gun he had. And the Officer knew he threw it.
He was still considered a threat.
That is what the law allows.
Those two things are not the same.
Things Slager may have done are alleged according to you.
But you seem certain about this.
You are biased. But you are unable to admit it.
One thing I'm willing to bet on. A court of law will find Slager guilty and he will pay for his crime. It's tragic, really.
Not a threat to you, because you weren't there. But Slager was there and had to asses the situation in short orderIrrelevant.
He was clearly not a threat when shot.
What a lame reply.Yes, we're aware that the law allows the police to murder people sometimes.
:naughtyStill ignoring the evidence,
And? Why are you not paying attention?threads from the taser into the victim, not the cop.
As that is what it is, of course it can not change reality, but it does show you to be wrong.Still does not change a frigging thing,
And this is where you are again wrong.even if you were right and the dead man threw the taser (even though zero evidence supports that) that would weaken the officers case.
Yes the facts as I showed them to you remain the same and are not going to change.The facts still remain the same:
1. Not a fact. An assumption.1. running man with nothing in his hands
2. considerable distance from the officer with his back turned to the officer when the officer started shooting
3. there was no legal basis for this shooting
4. you are wrong, your so called evidence says nothing. The video I posted showed the threads from the officer towards the dead man. You have nothing.
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?