Free Officer Michael Slager

I have every right to point out that you have a right to your opinion, and that no one needs to agree with it.

You are in the small, small minority on this issue. Tough.
I am not in any "minority" I am simply citing the LAW, as it obviously is (which any 10 year old kid 9n the 5th grade can understand)
 
If I were you I wouldn't want to discuss it either. In fact, most people would be very embarrassed to have claimed to have called the cops because someone on a political debate site called them a "dumbass".
I don't have to be. I didn't call any cop. Could have, but didn't. NOW discuss the topic , OK ?

Or are you looking to DERAIL this thread ? Hmmm.
 
I don't recall Matt Dillon shooting people in the back.
He does it just about every episode. I watch Gunsmoke almost every day.

He shoots them in the back just about every episode? You are delusional.

There may have been a couple of occasions where he shot someone in the back to stop them from shooting someone. But It certainly was not common, much less "just about every episode". Matt Dillon faced the other actor down in the street or the bar for a gunfight. He didn't shoot them in the back.
 
If I were you I wouldn't want to discuss it either. In fact, most people would be very embarrassed to have claimed to have called the cops because someone on a political debate site called them a "dumbass".
I don't have to be. I didn't call any cop. Could have, but didn't. NOW discuss the topic , OK ?

Or are you looking to DERAIL this thread ? Hmmm.

So you lied about calling the cops? Figures.
 
Some time ago, a fleeing felon, Walter Scott, was shot and killed by a police officer, Michael Slager, in N. Charleston, South Carolina. Scott, caused all this trouble by first disobeying the cop’s orders, then running away, then physically fighting with the cop (according to an eyewitness), and then running away again. Scott did everything wrong ( and stupid). Slager, seeing Scott running away again, and escaping (thereby posing a danger to the community if he were to escape), shot Scott as he was fleeing away.

All of this (on Slager’s part), is in conformance with the law. According to the Fleeing Felon Rule, a police officer may shoot a felon (which Scott was after fighting with the officer), as he is fleeing, since he could pose a danger to the community, if he got away.

Just about everybody (even some right-wing talk show hosts) blamed Slager, and made a big deal out of Scott having been shot in the back ? Well, where else would/could a fleeing felon ever be shot ? When he’s running away from the cop, it will always be his back that is in front of the cop.

Despite the fact that Slager was within his rights to shoot Scott as he was fleeing (and it was Slager’s DUTY to do that), nevertheless, the N. Charleston city fathers charged the cop with murder, and he remains locked in jail to this day. But why would they charge the cop with murder, when he was just doing his job ? Answer ? >>> Politics.

Scott was black. Slager is white. When black people (egged on by Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and other race hustlers) hear that a black man was shot by a white cop, they generally (often wrongly) think police brutality.

Well, some may say that with the cop being within his rights to shoot the guy (he was, and yes, in the back), it should be justifiable homicide. The people who charged Slager know that. So why would they charge him with murder ? The answer if that N. Charleston is a black majority town, and to not charge Slager, they would be putting themselves at odds with the majority of N. Charleston VOTERS, who tend to see things more in terms of black & white, rather than right & wrong (or legal/illegal).

Explaining the Fleeing Felon rule to these voters would not likely do much good. At least at the time, Obama and his race hustlers were whipping blacks up into a frenzy of anti-police attitude, and N. Charleston’s majority black community was feeling a lot of hostility toward cops, especially white ones.


Slager should be exonerated, freed, and paid compensation for his unjust, false arrest and imprisonment.
Can't shoot an unarmed man in the back and call it justified.

Wh-what's going on here? Odium passes on an opportunity to be a racist shithead? Well, that's the thread. When you're an even bigger piece of racist shit than Odium, you lose as a matter of law.
 
Just by way of an FYI, Matt Dillion killed 303 people in the long running tv series. There were 635 episodes in the series. So he didn't kill someone in every episode. He certainly didn't shoot someone in the back in just about every episode.
 
He shoots them in the back just about every episode? You are delusional.

There may have been a couple of occasions where he shot someone in the back to stop them from shooting someone. But It certainly was not common, much less "just about every episode". Matt Dillon faced the other actor down in the street or the bar for a gunfight. He didn't shoot them in the back.
He shoots them in the back as they're fleeing, all the time. Few things are more common on Gunsmoke than that. You need to comment on things you know about, instead of guessing, and then guessing wrong. :rolleyes:

Sometimes Matt shoots them in the back as they're fleeing on foot, and sometimes when they're fleeing on horseback. Ho hum. I watch the show almost every day.
 
Just by way of an FYI, Matt Dillion killed 303 people in the long running tv series. There were 635 episodes in the series. So he didn't kill someone in every episode. He certainly didn't shoot someone in the back in just about every episode.
Try watching the show to find out what he does, and how often. That's MY source of information. I don't need any other.
 
Wh-what's going on here? Odium passes on an opportunity to be a racist shithead? Well, that's the thread. When you're an even bigger piece of racist shit than Odium, you lose as a matter of law.
Do you have some idea of the topic of this thread ?
 

Forum List

Back
Top