Breaking: North Charleston cop about to go free!!!

[ClosedCaption]

The only requirement needed for cops to murder is that they say they believed something bad was going to happen.

That's the get out of jail card right there...belief. They should put them on a lie detector everytime they use that tired excuse

 

[bucs90]

The only requirement needed for cops to murder is that they say they believed something bad was going to happen.

That's the get out of jail card right there...belief. They should put them on a lie detector everytime they use that tired excuse

They do. Lie detectors aren't admissible to criminal court. But are admissible to internal affairs investigations...and PDS use them.

You need about a year in basic law 101. You're too dumb for this topic.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The only requirement needed for cops to murder is that they say they believed something bad was going to happen.

That's the get out of jail card right there...belief. They should put them on a lie detector everytime they use that tired excuse

They do. Lie detectors aren't admissible to criminal court. But are admissible to internal affairs investigations...and PDS use them.

You need about a year in basic law 101. You're too dumb for this topic.

Aww, you say that to all the people who dont lick boots

 

[bucs90]

The only requirement needed for cops to murder is that they say they believed something bad was going to happen.

That's the get out of jail card right there...belief. They should put them on a lie detector everytime they use that tired excuse

They do. Lie detectors aren't admissible to criminal court. But are admissible to internal affairs investigations...and PDS use them.

You need about a year in basic law 101. You're too dumb for this topic.

Aww, you say that to all the people who dont lick boots

Like I said...it's obvious which members here are too dumb or immature for this topic. You are one of them. Some lefties here arent. A few are quite good at intelligent debate. You aren't one. Your juvenile and sophomoric style....shows that debating with you is like an adult reasoning with a child over curfew.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'm honored, really. You pull out the same old "I cant explain / you're too dumb" excuse when you run out of police dick licking stories and scenarios. How you type with so many testicles in your mouth is truly a talent

 

[ClosedCaption]

Now maybe you'll start a thread asking USMB if CC is stupid and seek approval that way

 

[bucs90]

Now maybe you'll start a thread asking USMB if CC is stupid and seek approval that way

No. But MORE slow drip evidence of why Slager is going free? Sure.
WCSC : Michael Slager: 'I'm afraid now, is he going to take my weapon and shoot me?'

 

[ClosedCaption]

Now maybe you'll start a thread asking USMB if CC is stupid and seek approval that way

No. But MORE slow drip evidence of why Slager is going free? Sure.
WCSC : Michael Slager: 'I'm afraid now, is he going to take my weapon and shoot me?'

OF COOOOURSE!!! He was afraid that he was going to shoot him old west style

 

[TemplarKormac]

So we may have another cop getting away with cold blooded murder. Isn't that always the case?

Wow. So any time a cop has to use deadly force, he's committing "cold blooded murder?" What? Should we just ignore due process and jump right to the conviction?

Geez, armchair jurists like you are why we are in this mess to begin with, pronouncing guilt before the facts have come out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I so wish the defense would call Bucs90 as an expert witness.

The defendent would be convicted, all appeals denied, and in general population in time for dinner the same day.

 

[bucs90]

I so wish the defense would call Bucs90 as an expert witness.

The defendent would be convicted, all appeals denied, and in general population in time for dinner the same day.

They'll have witnesses far smarter than me...who also agree with me. So does the Supreme Court.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So we may have another cop getting away with cold blooded murder. Isn't that always the case?

Reader, allow me to correct the above drivel... where you see "Cold Blooded Murder", replace it with "Justifiable homicide", and you'll have a morally sound assertion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I so wish the defense would call Bucs90 as an expert witness.

The defendent would be convicted, all appeals denied, and in general population in time for dinner the same day.

They'll have witnesses far smarter than me...who also agree with me. So does the Supreme Court.

No, they don't. There is no blanket of immunity for every shooting. You know that. The world watched a cop unload eight rounds into the back of a man.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The immoral assertion is that the copy was justified.

Only a relativist would argue that it was justified.

 

[bucs90]

I so wish the defense would call Bucs90 as an expert witness.

The defendent would be convicted, all appeals denied, and in general population in time for dinner the same day.

They'll have witnesses far smarter than me...who also agree with me. So does the Supreme Court.

No, they don't. There is no blanket of immunity for every shooting. You know that. The world watched a cop unload eight rounds into the back of a man.

That's true. SCOTUS laid out situations and circumstances which allow cops to use deadly force....in scenarios which wouldn't allow you or I to do it...because cops are granted more leeway due to having the lawful authority to detain a criminal.

Cops arent held by the same self defense standard you and I are. SCOTUS ruled.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So we may have another cop getting away with cold blooded murder. Isn't that always the case?

Wow. So any time a cop has to use deadly force, he's committing "cold blooded murder?" What? Should we just ignore due process and jump right to the conviction?

Geez, armchair jurists like you are why we are in this mess to begin with, pronouncing guilt before the facts have come out.

Nice try! But if you think he's saying every single time a cop shoots means murder then it's YOU who have the problem dummy

 

[JakeStarkey]

I so wish the defense would call Bucs90 as an expert witness.

The defendent would be convicted, all appeals denied, and in general population in time for dinner the same day.

They'll have witnesses far smarter than me...who also agree with me. So does the Supreme Court.

No, they don't. There is no blanket of immunity for every shooting. You know that. The world watched a cop unload eight rounds into the back of a man.

That's true. SCOTUS laid out situations and circumstances which allow cops to use deadly force....in scenarios which wouldn't allow you or I to do it...because cops are granted more leeway due to having the lawful authority to detain a criminal.

Cops arent held by the same self defense standard you and I are. SCOTUS ruled.

That is not what SCOTUS says. You think it means that the cop is judge, jury, and executioner. You know you are wrong, and you do not have the fortitude, the manhood, the LEO integrity to admit it.

When Slager is convicted, it will be appealed using those cases as examples. And when each appellate judge or judges look at the tape, the answer will always be "nope."

 

[bucs90]

I so wish the defense would call Bucs90 as an expert witness.

The defendent would be convicted, all appeals denied, and in general population in time for dinner the same day.

They'll have witnesses far smarter than me...who also agree with me. So does the Supreme Court.

No, they don't. There is no blanket of immunity for every shooting. You know that. The world watched a cop unload eight rounds into the back of a man.

That's true. SCOTUS laid out situations and circumstances which allow cops to use deadly force....in scenarios which wouldn't allow you or I to do it...because cops are granted more leeway due to having the lawful authority to detain a criminal.

Cops arent held by the same self defense standard you and I are. SCOTUS ruled.

That is not what SCOTUS says. You think it means that the cop is judge, jury, and executioner. You know you are wrong, and you do not have the fortitude, the manhood, the LEO integrity to admit it.

When Slager is convicted, it will be appealed using those cases as examples. And when each appellate judge or judges look at the tape, the answer will always be "nope."

That is what SCOTUS says. Fleeing felon rule as an example. It also says that if a suspect threatens a cop with a weapon...and the cop still has a lawful right to make that arrest...they can use force up to deadly force to complete that arrest.

If you get into a fight at a bar...and some guy tries to stab you...then runs...you cannot shoot him in the back.

If a cop tries to make an arrest...and the suspect fights and pulls a knife and tries to stab the cop...then flees...the cop isn't gonna chase him down and risk being stabbed again but still has the right to stop him. Graham v Connor says deadly force can be used.

See the difference?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know the argument, Bucs90.

The fact is that case law is a guide not a requirement.

Slager was not operating under a blanket of immunity, and the film clearly shows his adoption of judge, jury, and executioner.

He will be convicted, he will appeal, it will be denied or he will die in jail before it is denied.

 

[bucs90]

I know the argument, Bucs90.

The fact is that case law is a guide not a requirement.

Slager was not operating under a blanket of immunity, and the film clearly shows his adoption of judge, jury, and executioner.

He will be convicted, he will appeal, it will be denied or he will die in jail before it is denied.

By that logic...wouldn't EVERY shooting be "judge jury executioner"? So...when is a cop shooting someone NOT that?