This is you showing your ignorance again.the running man had ample opportunity to 'reload' a cartridge he doesnt have for a weapon he's never used before (uh, yeah), while attempting his escape.
And again this is you assuming he did.And again...such a dangerous weapon! Why put it right down next to the suspect, still alive on the ground? Yeah, he'll have fun explaining why he didnt secure the weapon instead.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! :dohI think the cop was just too lazy to run after him and didnt want to have to restrain such a big guy on his own.
Go to that link right up there, and watch the slow mo. They were on the ground.
Or better yet, just pay attention to what the witness has said.
From the witness.
The Story
The Rutherford Law Firm, LLC, undertook to represent Feidin Santana after Feidin witnessed the horrific shooting of Walter Scott on April 4, 2015.
“As I was walking to work, I saw a scuffle ensue between two men (who have since been identified as Officer Michael Slager and Walter Scott) in a grassy, open area. After observing the two men struggle on the ground and hearing the sound of a Taser gun, I began filming the altercation with my cell phone. The video shows Officer Slager draw his gun and fire eight shots at Mr. Scott as Mr. Scott attempted to run in the opposite direction. When I later learned that Mr. Scott died from the gunshot wounds inflicted by Officer Slager, I mustered up the courage to show the recording of the incident to Mr. Scott’s family. While I initially thought about erasing the video, fearing that my life would be in danger if I came forward, I soon realized I needed to take a stand against such brutality. I realized the importance of serving as a voice for Mr. Scott and the many others who no longer have one.”
https://life.indiegogo.com/fundraisers/1220154
Clearly you didn't do any type of thorough examine of the evidence.
The suspect throwing it is that evidence.
If the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatening infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used, if necessary, to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.
You may wish to carefully consider how much energy you expend engaging Excon.
His posts have a formidable logic and unassailable facts which are all their own.
The special pleading is powerful with this one.
:shrug:
Berate? No.I'll ignore the rest of your attempt to berate me
Which is your fault for trying to engage in debate without familiarizing yourself with that which came before.which I had not seen before until now.
This is ignoring the evidence.However, I'm still not convinced that Mr. Scott had possession of Officer Slager's taser.
And this is again wrong.the fact that at no time did Mr. Scott pose a threat to society and certainly wasn't a threat to Officer Slager after the fact as he was unarmed and running away from Officer Slager,
It is not an assumption. We have evidenced that the taser could not have been in the Officer's hands at that point in the video. We also have direct evidence from the Officer saying the suspect had the taser.* What weapons did Mr. Scott possess? The assumption is Officer Slager's taser. But after watching the video footage including the slow motion video provided by CNN, a reasonable person should ask "How does Mr. Scott pose a threat to Officer Slager after neither himself or Officer Slager possess the taser?" Both the eye witness video and the slow motion video clearly show the taser is knocked to the ground.
Stop. All that can be definitively said is that the leads are wrapped around both of them. Not who specifically was shot by it or who they were embedded in.The taser leads are still embedded in Mr. Scott as he attempts to flee as evidenced by the fact that the taser tether are extending away from Officer Slager as Mr. Scott attempts to flee.
And again, that does not matter.Furthermore, the slow motion video makes clear that: 1) Officer Slager steps on the taser tether as Mr. Scott is fleeing; and, 2) the tether is being dragged on the ground as Mr. Scott is fleeing. So, even if Mr. Scott did possess Officer Slager's taser just prior to him attempting to flee the scene again, he didn't have the taser as he fled. So, where's the threat to Officer Scott after the fact?
Irrelevant. He had the taser and the Officer was responding to the significant threat it made him.You could argue that Officer Slager didn't have an opportunity to conduct a through pat down and, as such, he didn't know if Mr. Scott had any other weapons on him. But if he did have another weapons, such as a gun or a knife, wouldn't it have made sense for Mr. Scott to use them instead of going after Officer Slager's taser?
How do you know he didn't?Furthermore, if Mr. Scott were truly a violent threat to Officer Slager, don't you think he would have gone after his gun and not his taser?
It was thrown by the suspect. It was impossible for it to be in the Officer's hand at that point.* I've stated before that just prior to Mr. Scott attempting to flee a second time and before being shot, Officer Slager could be heard warning Mr. Scott that he'd shot him if he ran again. You could say this was Mr. Scott's warning per the above quote, but again where was the threat to Officer Slager after the weapon in question - the taser - was dislodged from his or Officer Slager's hand?
As your whole take here has been wrong and continued to be wrong, this take is no different. You are wrong.No matter how you slice it, Officer Slager was wrong here.
As your whole take here has been wrong and continued to be wrong, this take is no different. You are wrong.
No matter how you slice it, by the evidence and the law, the Officer was not in the wrong.
I am sorry. You are wrong here.
It is true he should not run from the cop. That's a misdemeanor. But that misdemeanor does not justify murder, which is a capital offense.
Running was wrong. But it pales to nothing in the face of cold blooded murder. Without some serious new evidence it is my sincere hope the shooter gets the maximum penalty. And I hope justice is swift.
No. Your narrative is off.If the officer wasn't "in the wrong," then that's a FAR bigger problem than this one death. He shot an unarmed man, in the back, fleeing a routine traffic stop.
You seem to be missing the fact that others haven't been civil. Strange.There is no need to be snide or condescending to others, and this you have been on this thread. A more civil tone just might foster more engaged and civil debate.
Thank you.
While the arguments are mine, the supportive visual information like the image in that post comes from someone else who is obviously of similar thought.
It was found at the Conservativetreehouse and they deserve the credit for that.
No. Your narrative is off.
He started fleeing while his info was being checked.
His fleeing is not over a traffic violation.
Secondly, he wasn't unarmed at the moment the Officer started responding.
As for a far bigger problem? No it really isn't a problem for anybody but the significant threat fleeing.
Berate? No.
Condescending to your arrogance declaring you did something you obviously didn't do, all in an attempt to add more credence to your argument? Yes.
Which is your fault for trying to engage in debate without familiarizing yourself with that which came before.
You obviously have been doing this long enough, so you must know that opens you up to being wrong.
And yet here you were making definite statements while claiming you gave a "careful review" when none of it was true.
This is ignoring the evidence.
Again, it could not have come from the Officer's hands.
The movement of the taser does not allow for it to come from either of his hands, that only allows for it to have come from the suspect. Which corresponds with the Officer's claim.
And this is again wrong.
The Officer was already responding to the threat the suspect was before he threw the taser and before he fled.
And again, as previously shown, once the threat has been established the Officer can continue to respond regardless if the weapon is tossed away.
Once the resisting and combative suspect took the taser, he was such a significant threat.
You continue to ignore the fact that as soon as he took the taser he was a significant threat.
If the officer wasn't "in the wrong," then that's a FAR bigger problem than this one death. He shot an unarmed man, in the back, fleeing a routine traffic stop.
And I'm questioning that discretion.I think the underlined explains it and why the Officer is given that discretion.
You seem to be missing the fact that others haven't been civil. Strange.
That in itself is a bias problem.
But if you say you did something and it is obviously is not true, I am not going to let that go unchecked.
Dishonesty needs to be pointed out.
I'm confused about some of the titles being used. Aren't those who are supervised by a sheriff referred to as "deputies"? Was Slager a county or a city employee?
There is no need to be snide or condescending to others, and this you have been on this thread. A more civil tone just might foster more engaged and civil debate.
First off, I notice you've stopped using the terms "immediate" or "imminent" threats to describe the perceived position Officer Slager believed himself to be in and downgraded such to "significant". Unfortunate for your position, a "significant threat" doesn't measure up to "imminent or immediate danger".
Second, I totally disagree with your assessment that the tether lines from the taser were wrapped around the victim or the officer. Mr. Scott wouldn't have been able to run and Officer Slager wouldn't have been able to walk unimpeded if they were.
Third, assuming that the tether was wrapped around (at least) Mr. Scott, common sense would still lead one to conclude that the "significant threat" had abated since the taser leads had already been ejected from the device and the tether remained expelled. You can also conclude that the taser itself had already be discharged since Officer Slager choose not to use it again. (Of course, by then it was on the ground and the tether training the assailant.)
My point here just as others who have commented against Officer Slager's actions is that Mr. Scott, an unarmed man at the time of his death, was not a threat to the would-be arresting officer. I don't disregard the fact that there was a struggle. I don't disregard the likelihood that Mr. Scott may have possessed Officer Slager's taser. I'm just saying as have others that despite what occurred moments prior to the shooting, Mr. Scott wasn't an "imminent or immediate or significant" threat to Officer Slager or the public at the time he fled unarmed and was subsequently shot multiple times.
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?