Free Officer Michael Slager

[protectionist]

In Garner, Memphis police had fatally shot Edward Garner, a 15-year-old African American, as he tried to tried to jump a fence to escape from a burglary. He had stolen $10 and a purse. The court ruled police could not use deadly force to seize a fleeing felon who is unarmed and non-dangerous.

Read Post # 19, and stop making a fool out of yourself. We don't need to see that.

 

[protectionist]

The man was unarmed, fleeing, and posed no danger to the community.

The officers knew who he was and would have easily caught him.

Of course he posed a danger to the community. He had just engaged in a physical fight with a police officer. If he would do that, he would even more easily engage in violence with civilians in the community. And there's no reason to believe that the cops would have easily caught him (known or not). He could have 100 friends, and hide out in any of their homes (or where ever)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bucs90 used argue the fleeing felon rule all the time, and always lost.

Slagle will be convicted, and you can cry about it then. Right now your opinion is only that, and so what.

It is not my opinion. It is FACT and THE LAW.

The DA does not agree with you. Sux to be you.

You are fine with the "he was black so he got what he deserved" argument. OK.

 

[Preacher]

Try again....from your own link. Unarmed obviously suspect CAN NOT be shot in back while running away.

YOU try again. Here's what YOU need to read from that very same link.

"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]

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

And how is an unarmed man running AWAY a serious violent threat?

 

[Preacher]

In Garner, Memphis police had fatally shot Edward Garner, a 15-year-old African American, as he tried to tried to jump a fence to escape from a burglary. He had stolen $10 and a purse. The court ruled police could not use deadly force to seize a fleeing felon who is unarmed and non-dangerous.

Read Post # 19, and stop making a fool out of yourself. We don't need to see that.

Go ahead ignore what the SC says....IDC....

 

[protectionist]

The DA does not agree with you. .

Yes he does. He's just an unscrupulous, gutless coward who knuckles under to the politics that is adjusting to the black voting majority in N. Charleston (in addition to fear of riots)

And you know it - you just pretend not to. Must be toiugh to have to do that all the time. Sux to be you, one would think.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The DA does not agree with you. .

Yes he does. He's just an unscrupulous, gutless coward who knuckles under to the politics that is adjusting to the black voting majority in N. Charleston (in addition to fear of riots)

And you know it - you just pretend not to. Must be toiugh to have to do that all the time. Sux to be you, one would think.

You are giving your silly opinions as if they are facts again. They are not. The DA does not agree with cowards like you who think shooting blacks is A OK. Those days are gone, protectionist. Slager is going to have a miserable short life to go.

 

[Timmy]

He wasn't committing a felony when the cop confronted him. If he was being pursued for armed bank robbery, you may have a point .

 

[boilermaker55]

The man was unarmed, fleeing, and posed no danger to the community.

The officers knew who he was and would have easily caught him.

Of course he posed a danger to the community. He had just engaged in a physical fight with a police officer. If he would do that, he would even more easily engage in violence with civilians in the community. And there's no reason to believe that the cops would have easily caught him (known or not). He could have 100 friends, and hide out in any of their homes (or where ever)

 

[hjmick]

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.

Walter Scott had been arrested once in 1987 for Assault and Battery, between then and the time he was shot and killed he had been arrested nine times for failure to pay child support. At the time he was pulled over for the broken tail light he had a two year old outstanding bench warrant for failure to pay child support. So far there's not a felony or felony conviction in the bunch... and certainly nothing that warranted a death sentence.

He ran, unlawfully, because he didn't want to go back to jail. Most likely because he would lose his job. Again, while not lawful, running from the police, in my opinion, does not warrant the death penalty. They had his car, they had his driver's license, there was no need to shoot him.

Michael Slager posted bail on January 4, 2016. Nine months after being arrested. A mistrial was declared in the murder trial on December 5, 2016. Michael Slager remains free. They plan on retrying the case. After the first jury rejected the murder charge, one is left to wonder if they will reduce the charge... The state is scheduled to start his retrial in August. Between now and then the Feds will be trying him for violating Scott's civil rights. All the while, Slager remains free.

As for "N. Charleston’s majority black community was feeling a lot of hostility toward cops", things have been tense between the community and the police for quite a while. Why? Mainly because the police have had a habit of pulling residents over for ticky-tack violations like a broken tail light in hopes of, ultimately, bigger charges. How do I know this? Because I live so close to North Charleston I could spit from my doorstep and hit the city limits.

The big picture here is this, your OP was stunningly ignorant, absent of any real facts, and a waste of space.



Perhaps you'd like to tackle the Dylan Roof case next...

 

[protectionist]

And how is an unarmed man running AWAY a serious violent threat?

Slow learner aren't you ? To the COMMUNITY. Get it ?

AGAIN >> (this time, pay attention)

"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]

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

 

[Crixus]

Can't shoot an unarmed man in the back and call it justified.

Yes you can. When he's a fleeing felon.

Read the law and LEARN it before you post.

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

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

Try again....from your own link. Unarmed obviously suspect CAN NOT be shot in back while running away.

Maybe in your state, but in most I have lived in yes, you can get shot in the commission of a crime. Being a thug means you can get shot. Don't give two fucks what the state is inbreads says.

 

[protectionist]

You are giving your silly opinions as if they are facts again. They are not. The DA does not agree with cowards like you who think shooting blacks is A OK. Those days are gone, protectionist. Slager is going to have a miserable short life to go.

I often wonder if I should even be dignifying your imbecile comments with a response.

Of course I don't think shooting blacks (or anybody) is OK, unless there is a good REASON, which in the Slager case, there was, in conformance with THE LAW, pea brain.

As for the DA, as I said >> He's just an unscrupulous, gutless coward who knuckles under to the politics that is adjusting to the black voting majority in N. Charleston (in addition to fear of riots)

 

[protectionist]

He wasn't committing a felony when the cop confronted him. If he was being pursued for armed bank robbery, you may have a point .

This was answered in Post # 22. Try reading the thread.

 

[protectionist]

The LAW is the LAW.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can't shoot an unarmed man in the back and call it justified.

Yes you can. When he's a fleeing felon.

Read the law and LEARN it before you post.

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

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]

 

[JakeStarkey]

protectionist's post-truth analysis is Alt Fact, nothing more.

 

[bodecea]

The man was unarmed, fleeing, and posed no danger to the community.

The officers knew who he was and would have easily caught him.

Of course he posed a danger to the community. He had just engaged in a physical fight with a police officer. If he would do that, he would even more easily engage in violence with civilians in the community. And there's no reason to believe that the cops would have easily caught him (known or not). He could have 100 friends, and hide out in any of their homes (or where ever)

Anyone can engage in physical fights at any time....using your logic, the police can shoot ANYONE in the back as they are running away.

 

[bodecea]

The DA does not agree with you. .

Yes he does. He's just an unscrupulous, gutless coward who knuckles under to the politics that is adjusting to the black voting majority in N. Charleston (in addition to fear of riots)

And you know it - you just pretend not to. Must be toiugh to have to do that all the time. Sux to be you, one would think.

You are giving your silly opinions as if they are facts again. They are not. The DA does not agree with cowards like you who think shooting blacks is A OK. Those days are gone, protectionist. Slager is going to have a miserable short life to go.

The OP believes that it's ok for the police to shoot people in the back as they are running away.......of course, is that ALL people?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You are giving your silly opinions as if they are facts again. They are not. The DA does not agree with cowards like you who think shooting blacks is A OK. Those days are gone, protectionist. Slager is going to have a miserable short life to go.

As for the DA, as I said >> He's just an unscrupulous, gutless coward who knuckles under to the politics that is adjusting to the black voting majority in N. Charleston (in addition to fear of riots)

Looters' Extortion

That's exactly why the prosecution purposely lost the O.J. Simpson trial.