- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 30,545
- Reaction score
- 14,776
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Local law enforcement saw fit to charge him with murder.The officer clearly needs more firearms training. Other than that, what's the problem. He ran. He got shot. Sucks to be him, but he chose to run.
The officer clearly needs more firearms training. Other than that, what's the problem. He ran. He got shot. Sucks to be him, but he chose to run.
That's what he didI too think the stupidity of these criminals leads to their demise...but doesn't excuse the other party. If this man is guilty, it's because he should have radioed an unarmed suspect on foot and asked for assistance, rather than resorting to the lethal force. We'll need to wait for all of the facts to emerge first though.
I too think the stupidity of these criminals leads to their demise...but doesn't excuse the other party. If this man is guilty, it's because he should have radioed an unarmed suspect on foot and asked for assistance, rather than resorting to the lethal force. We'll need to wait for all of the facts to emerge first though.
Another consideration is how much info did Slager get before Scott ran. It could be that he knew there were outstanding warrants but not what the warrants were for which would affect his mindset during the ensuing chase and fightBefore apprehension and search, how does the officer know the suspect is unarmed?
Local law enforcement saw fit to charge him with murder.
So, there's that.
:shrug:
Slager's wife is eight months pregnant with his first child (he apparently has stepkids), and I feel terribly, terribly sorry for her.
Before apprehension and search, how does the officer know the suspect is unarmed?
That's what he did
Before apprehension and search, how does the officer know the suspect is unarmed?
Your assertion is that a DA is not a part of local law enforcement?Actually, that would be the District Attorney's office, Officers don't charge anyone. The District Attorney is usually an elected position and thus subject to political, instead of legal, considerations. Now it will be up to a jury. Of course, knowing the current Justice Department, even if found innocent, he will lose his job and be subject to a Federal investigation.
Thought I should point out that Slager has already lost his job.... even if found innocent, he will lose his job and be subject to a Federal investigation.
Surprising? Yes, as he was an Officer at the time of the incident.
Damning? How so?
If they are following policy, there is nothing damning about it.
And such thoughts can be immediately dismissed given the reality ...
that he knows he is wearing a body mic which would supposedly be capturing the sound of when the taser was employed.
that he knows he is being recorded. (as confirmed by the witness who was recording)
that he knows the taser cartridge fires out many id tags which indicates where it was deployed.
The officer clearly needs more firearms training. Other than that, what's the problem. He ran. He got shot. Sucks to be him, but he chose to run.
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has 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]
Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit.[4] Deadly force that is executed by a co-defendant against an accomplice is not justified by the fleeing felon rule.
Before apprehension and search, how does the officer know the suspect is unarmed?
An officer should assume every suspect is armed. That's why they do the pat downsI'm sorry, in what police policy and procedure document can you show me an officer is supposed to assume every suspect is armed?
If that were the case, officers would be able to get a way with A LOT more killings.
"You see that 16 year old kid? He's running from us! He must be armed! Shoot him!"
He's a member of their union, yet the union dropped him like a bad habit. That's damning. Before he is even convicted of anything they drop him? I never heard of that before, but no one here knows the by-laws of this particular union, so who knows?
The union's not paying for his defense which means his wife and kids are going to be saddled with $100,000's in legal bills. For that reason and for that reason alone I wish the union was paying for his defense. Not for him, but for them.
You can't shoot a fleeing suspect.
Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Even if he had a partner who was shooting at the cop, he couldn't shoot the dood in the back like that.
So, police should treat everyone as armed and likely to use deadly force, justifying shooting citizens in the back.
Your argument assumes we should err on the side of killing suspects.
That goes full force against the founding principals of our constitution.
Thought I should point out that Slager has already lost his job.
Slager is already the subject of a federal investigation.
He should be able to.
An officer should always assume a suspect is armed until proven otherwise. As to shooting "citizens", no one said anything about that, we are talking about criminals, which fleeing and fighting with an officer proves. If they don't want to get shot, don't fight with or run from the police.
I disagree, police should not be worse than the criminals they chase.
Iirc, the Supreme Court found it was unlawful seizure vis-a-vis the Fourth Amendment.How is the police shooting a suspect resisting lawful arrest and fleeing worse than the criminals?
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?