Free Officer Michael Slager

[SavannahMann]

One little problem with your theory. The Video shows Slager planting the Taser near Scott's body. By changing the scene of the incident, the fleeing felon rule is probably not going to fly with the Jury. When you plant evidence, you fall outside the protection of the law.

Does officer who shot Walter Scott have a defense? State law there — like in Missouri — is confusing

You see when the cops plant the evidence, then their actions go from justifiable, to criminal. I know it's confusing for you. Cops can become bad guys too. Lies almost always accompany the bad act.

 

[protectionist]

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]

All you did here was repost what I already posted, and agree with me.

 

[protectionist]

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

It is fact. It is the LAW. Nothing more.

 

[protectionist]

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.

1. I am not using logic. I am using THE LAW.

2. Using the LAW (Fleeing Felon Rule), the police can shoot ANYONE Who IS A FELON, in the back as they are running away.

3. Regarding physical fights, they can be either misdemeanors, or felonies, depending on the circumstances.
In Florida, simply physical fighting (the one who starts it) is a battery (1st degree misdemeanor) However if the battery is committed against a cop, it's a felony. Same with committed against a senior citizen (person over 65)

 

[protectionist]

I hope we won't have to be saying >>> Free Betty Shelby

 

[protectionist]

Looters' Extortion

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

And many other cases. Hopefully, they'll (the jury) have some spine in the Betty Shelby case (who shouldn't even have been charged)

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

It is fact. It is the LAW. Nothing more.

No, it is not. It is your Alt Fact.

 

[protectionist]

No, it is not. It is your Alt Fact.

You're making a fool out of yourself. But this is liberal methodology. If you don't like something (ex, a LAW) Just pretend it doesn't exist.

Pheeeew! (high-pitched whistle;

Once again, here's the LAW >> Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

 

[protectionist]

One little problem with your theory. The Video shows Slager planting the Taser near Scott's body. By changing the scene of the incident, the fleeing felon rule is probably not going to fly with the Jury. When you plant evidence, you fall outside the protection of the law.

Does officer who shot Walter Scott have a defense? State law there — like in Missouri — is confusing

You see when the cops plant the evidence, then their actions go from justifiable, to criminal. I know it's confusing for you. Cops can become bad guys too. Lies almost always accompany the bad act.

You are confusing planting evidence with the FFR. They are 2 separate things. You may charge Slager with planting evidence, but you cannot take away the LAW of the fleeing felon rule. That applies, no matter what Slager did after the shooting. No, there is NO "little problem" - and it's not a "theory" It is a LAW.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it is not. It is your Alt Fact.

You're making a fool out of yourself. But this is liberal methodology. If you don't like something (ex, a LAW) Just pretend it doesn't exist.

Pheeeew! (high-pitched whistle;

Once again, here's the LAW >> Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

Says the neo-fascist. If you don't understand the law, fine, but you are acting silly.

The DA charged the miscreant appropriately, imo, and we will let the jury decide it. That you disagree: tough.

 

[protectionist]

Says the neo-fascist. If you don't understand the law, fine, but you are acting silly.

The DA charged the miscreant appropriately, imo, and we will let the jury decide it. That you disagree: tough.

"fascist" HA HA Yes, you are absurd and bizarre, Indeed. I understand the law fine. What is there to not understand ? The guy committed a felony (fighting with the cop) He also fled. Those 2 simple things together bring about the fleeing felon rule. Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

Want me to introduce you to my 10 year old grandson ? He could explain it to you also.

As usual, liberal nutjobs side with the criminal, and typical endanger all us law-abiding folks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Says the neo-fascist. If you don't understand the law, fine, but you are acting silly.

The DA charged the miscreant appropriately, imo, and we will let the jury decide it. That you disagree: tough.

"fascist" HA HA Yes, you are absurd and bizarre, Indeed. I understand the law fine. What is there to not understand ? The guy committed a felony (fighting with the cop) He also fled. Those 2 simple things together bring about the fleeing felon rule. Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

Want me to introduce you to my 10 year old grandson ? He could explain it to you also.

As usual, liberal nutjobs side with the criminal, and typical endanger all us law-abiding folks.

You are babbling. I understand your arguments, and I accordingly dismiss them.

 

[candycorn]

Says the uninformed OP.

Be kind. He just got out of combat. LOL

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Slager has been sentenced to 20 years. It’s a good day for justice.

Michael Slager, Officer in Walter Scott Shooting, Gets 20-Year Sentence

 

[Vastator]

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.

Slager was railroaded...

 

[Vastator]

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.

Depending on the circumstances; one most certainly can.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You neo-fascists and neo-communists in America are subject to the law just like all of us.

Slager is where he belongs morally and legally.

 

[sartre play]

Slager would not be in jail if all of us had been taught that we are all equal, if you are afraid of, think less of any race, that fear or lack of concern would make it much easier to shoot some one.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

Slager was railroaded...

Nah. He should have gotten life in the electric chair.

 

[Vastator]

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.

Slager was railroaded...

Nah. He should have gotten life in the electric chair.

On what grounds?