Somehow, there's also some confusion (on other's parts) over the suggestion he planted the taser. Sure, maybe not. He may have just chosen to increase the threat to his own life by placing a dangerous weapon next to the suspect.
And basic incompetance where a cop places a dangerous weapon next to a still living suspect. Hmmm...incompetant? Or dishonesty? LOL
I can literally envision verbal gymnastics worthy of an Olympic athlete in that contorted attempt at speculation.
Somehow, there's also some confusion (on other's parts) over the suggestion he planted the taser. Sure, maybe not. He may have just chosen to increase the threat to his own life by placing a dangerous weapon next to the suspect.
And basic incompetance where a cop places a dangerous weapon next to a still living suspect. Hmmm...incompetant? Or dishonesty? LOL
I can literally envision verbal gymnastics worthy of an Olympic athlete in that contorted attempt at speculation.
A guy who has been shot eight times isn't an imminent threat if you plant a discharged taser nearby but out of arm's reach.
... I really don't know where you were going with this post. A discharged taser isn't a threat, and a guy on the ground after being shot eight times isn't a threat.
I wrote the bold earlier. I 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. But he's trained to do that and if he's afraid to take that risk (then he should quit....too late for that now tho!), then he should have let the guy go and caught him at home, since they had his car and information.
Cop will not be able to prove the man was a threat to him or other cops or the public. And his dishonesty will be the nail in the coffin.
He's going down.
Slager laughed about his 'adrenaline-rush' : Cop Laughed About His Adrenaline Rush After Shooting Walter Scott
What kind of a person can laugh after shooting and killing someone?
That's a non-issue. People often give off a nervous laugh like that under stressHe's going down.
Slager laughed about his 'adrenaline-rush' : Cop Laughed About His Adrenaline Rush After Shooting Walter Scott
What kind of a person can laugh after shooting and killing someone?
That's a non-issue. People often give off a nervous laugh like that under stress
If that was one of your relatives who was shot and killed I seriously doubt that you would see it as a non-issue. :roll:
If it was one of my relatives I would be apologetic for his bad behavior
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 resiting and combative suspect took the taser he was such a significant threat.
Why would you apologize for Slager's bad behavior? That's his problem, which he'll have to deal with.
Why would you try to twist what I said? Oh, that's right.so that this incident falls into an agendaEverything has to be twisted to make Slager look as bad as possible
People react to and handle these sorts of things in all different ways.What kind of a person can laugh after shooting and killing someone?
:dohA judge and jury will make the decision in this case.
As I stated, your narrative was off. His fleeing is not over a traffic violation.The point is they weren't stopping a suspected rapist, murderer, armed robber, drug courier although it shouldn't matter he was. He was pulled over for a broken tail light.
As it has been stated several times differently, you already do know what is being said.I don't even know what that means.Secondly, he wasn't unarmed at the moment the Officer started responding.
And? The law allows for a firearm to be used on such a fleeing suspect..It's simple - he was RUNNING AWAY....
Wrong. That is not a trump card like you apparently think it is.And what matters is whether he was armed when shot in the back.
Wrong. It specifically shows the same thing, an Officer firing on an unarmed fleeing suspect.You keep posting that video but it's apples and dump trucks.
This is you continuing to ignore what was previously said.What threat is a guy with a tazer, which he didn't actually have, to 'the public.' None.
This is you not understanding that a taser is a dangerous weapon that can take the life of a person, especially if used wrongly.He's not a threat to the cop armed with a weapon and the guy running away. How's he going to taze the cop while running away. You keep mentioning the probes - yeah, that's tough to hit someone with probes running away from them.....
Emotive nonsense.Yeah, OK, running away is a license to kill, by shooting them in the BACK. I think we understand your position.
No, they don't.Everyone else sees a cop resorting to deadly force when it's clearly and wildly inappropriate.
More emotive nonsense indicative of your whole position.then he's liable to see grandmas in wheelchairs armed with a fork as a significant threat, etc.
The evidence is that the suspect took the taser. Nothing counters that.I disagree, but let's move on because unless the video imagery is made clearer, there's really no way to tell conclusively if Mr. Scott or Officer Slager had possession of the taser prior to it being knocked or thrown to the ground.
Which as already pointed out he was a threat at the point in time that the Officer was responding . That isn't going to change.Again, assuming that Mr. Scott did possess Officer Slager's taser after the scuffle but before he fled, he certainly didn't have it once he ran the second time.
Of course it was.Arrogance on my part, no.
As continually pointed out, that is not the standard.there was no imminent nor immediate threat to him
Now you are trying to deflect with dishonesty.One can only go with the facts and/or evidence that's before them.
Just stop with your dishonesty.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".
And? Your presentation was dishonest, and pointing out why you hadn't seen it is not being an ass.And I've openly admitted that I had not seen the slow motion CNN video beforehand. Once I did review it, I corrected my position as necessary. But you...you're still an ass no matter what.
[sarcasm]Of course you do![/sarcasm]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.
More dishonest deflection. You had the whole thread with it's entire content before you.Again, based on the evidence I was privy to, yes.
This is again you showing you have not paid attention to the information provided.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.)
And again, as soon as he took the taser he was a significant threat.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.
Why would you try to twist what I said? Oh, that's right. Everything has to be twisted to make Slager look as bad as possible so that this incident falls into an agenda
as soon as he took the taser he was a significant threat.
As already provided from the SCOTUS case of Tennessee v. Garner.
Dicta speaking in regards to what they held.
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 threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasable, some warning has been given.
But for some reason those wishing to argue don't understand that.
Show the Officer knew the suspect threw the taser and was not still in possession of it when he continued responding to the significant threat the suspect was.
Under those conditions no one can logically claim that the Officer's response was unreasonable.
You gave "evidence"? Hardly. An op-ed piece written by a well known right-winger who wrote for the national review is hardly "evidence". Be that as it may....I've heard the same rhetoric from people on all sides of the spectrum. I, absolutely, am left-wing. I don't try to attempt to hide my biases by adopting labels to somehow try to make it seem as if I have no bias, like some try to do. I also recognize that there is left-wing propaganda and there is right-wing propaganda. But to try to pidgoen-hole politifact as a biased liberal shill is a joke. I don't always agree with politifact, but they are one of the most credible sites out there. Sorry.
Not if you shoot him in the heat of the moment
Body cams on cops are 100% worthless. The police depts. would just doctor the body cam videos or else the cops would turn off the cams and/or censor specific footage.
In the event body cam videos were available for the public to see, there would be huge discrepancies in the video picked up by those cams and those picked up by bystander cameras and/or cell phones.
"Safe rule if thumb…if someone tries to tell you a cop murdered someone in broad daylight, on a public street, in front of who knows how many witnesses, with no chance in hell of getting away with it, stop and think about what it is they are asking you to believe. No doubt, there are bad cops out there, but that doesn’t mean they are stupid. Heck, even non-cop criminals know better than that for the most part, except for the ones who don’t care if they get caught."
:doh
Your comment is absurd in light of the fact that this is a debate.
So again, as you were previously asked and didn't answer.
You do understand that this is going to a GJ right?
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?