Southern cop shoots man running away in the back..

[Politico]

It doesn't...but racists will find a way to justify it. My guess, they will next accuse the victim of raping a white woman.

That's what I thought. The cop was probably pissed off the guy tased him and killed him. The cop can't say he was afraid for his life because the guy was running away. And the cop can't use the fleeing felon law because there's nothing to suggest the guy was a threat to anybody.

No he did not tase him. The taser fell to the ground when the perp was trying to take it from him.

Are you sure the officer was not tased? We have seen media stories change so much in this case like all others they report on. At first he was shot 8 times in the back. Then the number fell to 5 and was recently reported as 4. Eight sounds better so that is the number the media chose to report. They said there was no physical fight. Then they had to change that to maybe there was to there actually was. If he tased the officer it is a felony and he was fleeing. I do not know the laws of South Carolina so perhaps it was a legal action on the part of the officer. In most states the above action would not be legal if that is the way it occurred. Hopefully the court will allow the truth to be brought out and the jury will not be influenced by the falsehoods of the media reportings. Justice is sometimes difficult to obtain.

A person who is upright and drawing his gun was not tased.

 

[bornright]

It doesn't...but racists will find a way to justify it. My guess, they will next accuse the victim of raping a white woman.

That's what I thought. The cop was probably pissed off the guy tased him and killed him. The cop can't say he was afraid for his life because the guy was running away. And the cop can't use the fleeing felon law because there's nothing to suggest the guy was a threat to anybody.

No he did not tase him. The taser fell to the ground when the perp was trying to take it from him.

Are you sure the officer was not tased? We have seen media stories change so much in this case like all others they report on. At first he was shot 8 times in the back. Then the number fell to 5 and was recently reported as 4. Eight sounds better so that is the number the media chose to report. They said there was no physical fight. Then they had to change that to maybe there was to there actually was. If he tased the officer it is a felony and he was fleeing. I do not know the laws of South Carolina so perhaps it was a legal action on the part of the officer. In most states the above action would not be legal if that is the way it occurred. Hopefully the court will allow the truth to be brought out and the jury will not be influenced by the falsehoods of the media reportings. Justice is sometimes difficult to obtain.

A person who is upright and drawing his gun was not tased.

Are you sure?

 

[Politico]

Yes.

 

[protectionist]

And this situation condemns the cop, Protectionist.

No it doesn't.

Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[protectionist]

dannyboys is showing his ass yet again.

This cop is in serous trouble, only short of the trouble he gave to Scott.

I wonder if the drugs used in the lethal injections are as horribly painful as described.

it's NOT premeditated murder imo, so no death penalty.

That's what I thought too. We are both wrong. Under South Carolina law when the cop moved the taser to put it next to the dead guy that's despoiling the crime scene making it capital murder and a death penalty case.

First there has to be a reason to charge him, and there isn't because of insufficient evidence. The cop's account can't be refuted because there's no video, and the only witness indicated there was a fight going on. So if the suspect attacked, that puts him in the felon category, and his fleeing the scene puts the cop in legal standing to shoot him in the back, under the Fleeing Felon Rule.

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Why lie? The witness never said there was a fight going on.

Yes he did. And it wouldn't matter if he didn't say there was a fight. The officer said there was. If there is no other evidence about a fight, the officer's account stands.

 

[protectionist]

You touch a cop in the process of doing his duty whether it's traffic stop or anything else you can be charged with committing a Class A felony.
The witness (who believes cops sometimes are only firing blanks. A common myth in the negro community and that's why so many of them 'run' ) said both men "were on the ground".
The jury will find out why. I suggest all you MSNBC LIB negroes at least once stop from once again making complete fools of yourselves and wait until the jury has ruled. THEN you can go burn down the fucking sewers you appear to enjoy living in.

There's no evidence other than the cop's claim that Scott "touched him." That they may have been "on the ground" does not necessarily mean Scott did anything offensive.

If all there is, is the cop's account of the incident, than there is insufficient evidence to charge him. Starting to look like another Zimmerman situation. City fathers afraid of race hustlers and their riot mobs, quickly charge cop to keep rioters from tearing up the town. These goons are beginning to control America.

False. Unlike the Zimmerman case, there is an eyewitness. And he's saying Scott never had possession of Slager's taser, which counters Slager's claim that he did.

That doesn't matter. The simple point of Scott fighting with a cop, puts him in the felon category, and subject to the Fleeing Felon Rule.