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

[MikeK]

Many illegal drugs seriously impair the person taking them. Ever seen someone who's just taken illegal drugs try to drive a car?

I can't say I have. But I have seen some who have consumed beverage alcohol driving a car. What are your thoughts on alcohol Prohibition. How much good did it do?

Would you want your family driving on the same road as an impaired driver?

I have no problem with laws against impaired driving being enforced.

Ever seen a twelve year old girl high on CM?

No. Ever see a twelve year-old girl (or boy) smoking cigarettes?

Would you be OK if the girl was your daughter?How would you feel about the sub-human scum who got your little girl addicted to CM?

About the same as I would feel toward a child molester/rapist. These are the type of criminals the police should focus their efforts on, not ordinary, peaceful adults who enjoy the effects of marijuana and harm absolutely no one -- not even themselves.

As far as such serious drugs as opiates and amphetamines are concerned, inasmuch as the law-enforcement approach has proven itself to be absolutely ineffective, and in some ways totally counterproductive, there is no reason why it should not be approached like the medical problem it is and subjected to an intensive public education program, such as has successfully reduced cigarette smoking by more than 75% -- without arresting a single individual or supplier. This in spite of the fact that nicotine is more addictive than heroin, powder or freebase cocaine, and crystal methamphetamine.

 

[bucs90]

Slager's audio transmission said "He got my taser".

Scott took the taser. He was under arrest...just resisitng...and not cuffed. He had cocaine and alcohol in his system.

The Supreme Court has ruled that cops CAN use deadly force if...during an arrest...they are threatened with a weapon. Graham v. Connor. Slager's academy...like most...teach 1 + 1 force. 1 over what the suspect has. Taser + 1 = gun.

He's going free folks. Go ahead and get some popcorn for the riot.

He radioed that Scott had "taken his taser" after Scott was already dead - right about the same time he placed the taser next to Scott's body.

Um...yeah...he's not gonna radio in "He's taking my taser" DURING the fight haha! How stupid.

Watch the video. When Scott turns to flee....the taser is not on the ground...and both Slager's hands are on the gun. Scott's right hand is hidden...his left empty. As he turns and runs...you see the taser bouncing along the ground like it was thrown.

Scott had it. And when he saw Slager bringing a gun to a taser fight...he tried to throw it and run. Too late.

He's going free.

 

[The Professor]

If everything in the article is true, the officer is still going to jail. A policeman can use deadly force in only two situations: (1) he has a reasonable belief that such force is necessary to prevent someone from inflicting death or serious bodily injury to himself or another party; and (2) to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon (a dangerous felon is described as a suspect who has inflicted or threatened to inflict serious bodily injury or death). Since Scott was running away, the officer's a claim of self defense is laughable; therefore his only legal defense is that Scott was a dangerous felon. Here is what the law says

“In Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) examined a Tennessee State statute which allowed the police to use deadly force against ALL fleeing felony suspects. The SCOTUS disagreed, ruling that deadly force could only be used to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. The following are pertinent portions of the Supreme Court's Court's findings (highlights are my own):

“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

“However, it is not unconstitutional on its face. 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. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.”

Tennessee v. Garner | Cop Block

It all boils down to this: At the time deadly force was used against him was Walter Scott a dangerous felon. I say no way. Mere nonpayment of child support certainly doesn't cut it. Wrestling with a police officer doesn't cut it either. Even trying to disarm the officer by reaching for his gun doesn't cut it since there is no proof of any kind that he intended to use it against the officer (perhaps he just didn't want to get shot, and in this case he had a reasonable basis for his belief). There is but one remaining question: Is the attempted use of a taser a threat of serious bodily injury or death? Reasonable people may disagree on this issue but my personal opinion is that the it is not. My research has shown that the use of a taser poses no threat of death or serious bodily injury to a person in normally good health. Since police offers are presumed to be in normally good health being tasered is not big a deal. I have read about people volunteering to be tasered multiple times to show the effects of being tasered and in each case the effects were temporary. Temporary pain is not a serious bodily injury

Now, here comes a complicated legal issue: If the use of a taser poses a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury, then police should be prohibited from using it except in cases of self defense or to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. The use of a taser to prevent the escape of most criminals would be illegal and would subject the police departments to lawsuits against which there is no defense.

But all of this is only my own personal and very humble opinion (and yes I lied about the humble part).

 

[hjmick]

Judge didn't make a decision today. Maybe tomorrow...

 

[bucs90]

If everything in the article is true, the officer is still going to jail. A policeman can use deadly force in only two situations: (1) he has a reasonable belief that such force is necessary to prevent someone from inflicting death or serious bodily injury to himself or another party; and (2) to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon (a dangerous felon is described as a suspect who has inflicted or threatened to inflict serious bodily injury or death). Since Scott was running away, the officer's a claim of self defense is laughable; therefore his only legal defense is that Scott was a dangerous felon. Here is what the law says

“In Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) examined a Tennessee State statute which allowed the police to use deadly force against ALL fleeing felony suspects. The SCOTUS disagreed, ruling that deadly force could only be used to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. The following are pertinent portions of the Supreme Court's Court's findings (highlights are my own):

“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

“However, it is not unconstitutional on its face. 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. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.”

Tennessee v. Garner | Cop Block

It all boils down to this: At the time deadly force was used against him was Walter Scott a dangerous felon. I say no way. Mere nonpayment of child support certainly doesn't cut it. Wrestling with a police officer doesn't cut it either. Even trying to disarm the officer by reaching for his gun doesn't cut it since there is no proof of any kind that he intended to use it against the officer (perhaps he just didn't want to get shot, and in this case he had a reasonable basis for his belief). There is but one remaining question: Is the attempted use of a taser a threat of serious bodily injury or death? Reasonable people may disagree on this issue but my personal opinion is that the it is not. My research has shown that the use of a taser poses no threat of death or serious bodily injury to a person in normally good health. Since police offers are presumed to be in normally good health being tasered is not big a deal. I have read about people volunteering to be tasered multiple times to show the effects of being tasered and in each case the effects were temporary. Temporary pain is not a serious bodily injury

Now, here comes a complicated legal issue: If the use of a taser poses a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury, then police should be prohibited from using it except in cases of self defense or to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. The use of a taser to prevent the escape of most criminals would be illegal and would subject the police departments to lawsuits against which there is no defense.

But all of this is only my own personal and very humble opinion (and yes I lied about the humble part).

From all that...."If the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon".

Scott did. With Slager's taser. He then became a fleeing felon. You aren't gonna run down and tackle him after he threatened you with the taser. Or use spray. Or a baton. He's armed. That's what Slager THOUGHT at the moment...and law says he's judged on THAT...not what's known in hindsight.

He's going free.

12 jurors.....only takes 1. Half this forum is split on it. A 12 person jury in far right, pro-gun, pro-police South Carolina??? He's going free.

 

[The Professor]

If everything in the article is true, the officer is still going to jail. A policeman can use deadly force in only two situations: (1) he has a reasonable belief that such force is necessary to prevent someone from inflicting death or serious bodily injury to himself or another party; and (2) to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon (a dangerous felon is described as a suspect who has inflicted or threatened to inflict serious bodily injury or death). Since Scott was running away, the officer's a claim of self defense is laughable; therefore his only legal defense is that Scott was a dangerous felon. Here is what the law says

“In Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) examined a Tennessee State statute which allowed the police to use deadly force against ALL fleeing felony suspects. The SCOTUS disagreed, ruling that deadly force could only be used to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. The following are pertinent portions of the Supreme Court's Court's findings (highlights are my own):

“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

“However, it is not unconstitutional on its face. 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. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.”

Tennessee v. Garner | Cop Block

It all boils down to this: At the time deadly force was used against him was Walter Scott a dangerous felon. I say no way. Mere nonpayment of child support certainly doesn't cut it. Wrestling with a police officer doesn't cut it either. Even trying to disarm the officer by reaching for his gun doesn't cut it since there is no proof of any kind that he intended to use it against the officer (perhaps he just didn't want to get shot, and in this case he had a reasonable basis for his belief). There is but one remaining question: Is the attempted use of a taser a threat of serious bodily injury or death? Reasonable people may disagree on this issue but my personal opinion is that the it is not. My research has shown that the use of a taser poses no threat of death or serious bodily injury to a person in normally good health. Since police offers are presumed to be in normally good health being tasered is not big a deal. I have read about people volunteering to be tasered multiple times to show the effects of being tasered and in each case the effects were temporary. Temporary pain is not a serious bodily injury

Now, here comes a complicated legal issue: If the use of a taser poses a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury, then police should be prohibited from using it except in cases of self defense or to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. The use of a taser to prevent the escape of most criminals would be illegal and would subject the police departments to lawsuits against which there is no defense.

But all of this is only my own personal and very humble opinion (and yes I lied about the humble part).

From all that...."If the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon".

Scott did. With Slager's taser. He then became a fleeing felon. You aren't gonna run down and tackle him after he threatened you with the taser. Or use spray. Or a baton. He's armed. That's what Slager THOUGHT at the moment...and law says he's judged on THAT...not what's known in hindsight.

He's going free.

12 jurors.....only takes 1. Half this forum is split on it. A 12 person jury in far right, pro-gun, pro-police South Carolina??? He's going free.

You consider a taser to be a weapon designed to inflict serious bodily injury and I do not. If you are right, he walks, and if I am right he doesn't. We shall see.

Now I am done with this thread.

 

[whitehall]

"Bonded out" isn't the same as "going free". It's just bail.

 

[bucs90]

If everything in the article is true, the officer is still going to jail. A policeman can use deadly force in only two situations: (1) he has a reasonable belief that such force is necessary to prevent someone from inflicting death or serious bodily injury to himself or another party; and (2) to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon (a dangerous felon is described as a suspect who has inflicted or threatened to inflict serious bodily injury or death). Since Scott was running away, the officer's a claim of self defense is laughable; therefore his only legal defense is that Scott was a dangerous felon. Here is what the law says

“In Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) examined a Tennessee State statute which allowed the police to use deadly force against ALL fleeing felony suspects. The SCOTUS disagreed, ruling that deadly force could only be used to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. The following are pertinent portions of the Supreme Court's Court's findings (highlights are my own):

“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

“However, it is not unconstitutional on its face. 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. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.”

Tennessee v. Garner | Cop Block

It all boils down to this: At the time deadly force was used against him was Walter Scott a dangerous felon. I say no way. Mere nonpayment of child support certainly doesn't cut it. Wrestling with a police officer doesn't cut it either. Even trying to disarm the officer by reaching for his gun doesn't cut it since there is no proof of any kind that he intended to use it against the officer (perhaps he just didn't want to get shot, and in this case he had a reasonable basis for his belief). There is but one remaining question: Is the attempted use of a taser a threat of serious bodily injury or death? Reasonable people may disagree on this issue but my personal opinion is that the it is not. My research has shown that the use of a taser poses no threat of death or serious bodily injury to a person in normally good health. Since police offers are presumed to be in normally good health being tasered is not big a deal. I have read about people volunteering to be tasered multiple times to show the effects of being tasered and in each case the effects were temporary. Temporary pain is not a serious bodily injury

Now, here comes a complicated legal issue: If the use of a taser poses a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury, then police should be prohibited from using it except in cases of self defense or to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. The use of a taser to prevent the escape of most criminals would be illegal and would subject the police departments to lawsuits against which there is no defense.

But all of this is only my own personal and very humble opinion (and yes I lied about the humble part).

From all that...."If the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon".

Scott did. With Slager's taser. He then became a fleeing felon. You aren't gonna run down and tackle him after he threatened you with the taser. Or use spray. Or a baton. He's armed. That's what Slager THOUGHT at the moment...and law says he's judged on THAT...not what's known in hindsight.

He's going free.

12 jurors.....only takes 1. Half this forum is split on it. A 12 person jury in far right, pro-gun, pro-police South Carolina??? He's going free.

You consider a taser to be a weapon designed to inflict serious bodily injury and I do not. If you are right, he walks, and if I am right he doesn't. We shall see.

Now I am done with this thread.

If I taze you...you can't fight...and I can take your gun. And kill you. Which is why you don't fight up close vs a taser.

He's gonna walk. We both know it.

 

[MikeK]

You consider a taser to be a weapon designed to inflict serious bodily injury and I do not. If you are right, he walks, and if I am right he doesn't. We shall see.

Now I am done with this thread.

I regularly watch the TV reality documentary, COPS, in which use of the TASER is becoming increasingly common and is always used aggressively, never defensively. In a recent episode a cop used the TASER on a woman who refused to get out of her car, holding onto the wheel as he attempted to drag her out by an arm. He just stepped back, aimed, and let her have it.

If the TASER can be categorized as a "deadly" weapon there is no question that this cop committed a serious crime.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Defense court documents: Walter Scott had drugs in system before pointing Taser at police officer

Take this how you may. The North Charleston ex cop is about to get bonded out.

After a 3 month investigation by SC attorney Andy Savage...renowned as one of the best in the entire South....he has new evidence that SLED intestigators missed or ignored in a rush to file charges.

He had an expert video analyst breakdown the tape...AND retrieve footage which wasn't shown publicly. Got DNA testing done. CBS NEWS interviewed Savage. He said the following will be made public after the bond and for trial...and that he has unquestioned proof:

The new facts-

Walter Scott had cocaine and alcohol in his system...driving in the morning hours.
Scott was on top of Slager at some point in the fight
The fight lasted much longer than portrayed
Scott's DNA was on the taser.
Scott wrestled the taser away from Slager, stood and pointed it at him
Facing his own taser...Slager drew his firearm as trained and initiated stopping the threat
Scott turned to flee and slung the taser away
Slager...looking through his pistol sights...never saw the taser be thrown and thought he was aiming at an armed Scott



Folks....ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE the prosecutor gets a murder conviction.
Folks.....ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE she gives him a plea deal. She'll be crucified in the media and made public enemy #1
Folks......ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE he'll be convicted of murder...and will go free.

Take it for what it is.

you could see the cop had been shot by a taser in the original footage

Clear as day.

And Taser + 1 = gun.

He'll be a quitted before new years eve.

if not sooner

 

[jon_berzerk]

You all realize that Slager has to prove that he was justified.

We have all seen the vid. There is no question he shot the suspect 8 times in the back. He is guilty of that act.

He has to prove it was a righteous shoot. I don't think he can.

Supreme Court Graham v. Connor already has. A suspect threatens a cop with a weapon...the cop can use deadly force to make the arrest. Even if fleeing.

His academy teaches the nationally accepted 1 + 1 model. Taser + 1 = Gun.

He's gonna walk. He'll open Christmas presents with his family December 25th as a free man.

You all realize that Slager has to prove that he was justified.

exactly

there is photographic evidence that he (the cop) was shot by the suspect with the cops tazer

that is pretty justified

 

[jon_berzerk]

You consider a taser to be a weapon designed to inflict serious bodily injury and I do not. If you are right, he walks, and if I am right he doesn't. We shall see.

Now I am done with this thread.

I regularly watch the TV reality documentary, COPS, in which use of the TASER is becoming increasingly common and is always used aggressively, never defensively. In a recent episode a cop used the TASER on a woman who refused to get out of her car, holding onto the wheel as he attempted to drag her out by an arm. He just stepped back, aimed, and let her have it.

If the TASER can be categorized as a "deadly" weapon there is no question that this cop committed a serious crime.

maybe it is edited

but it looks like plenty of cops are bad apples on the cops show

 

[jon_berzerk]

What makes you "presume" that any of those points are "demonstratively plausible"?

Who said I did?
You under stand the meaning of "if", right?
Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your inability to comprehend what you read?

"Plausibility" is also not the same thing as "reasonable doubt".

Plausible deniability is the very soul of reasonable doubt.

Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.

I don't see any "if" in there...

Again:

I said that if those points were demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your inability to comprehend what you read?

That's not what you said, no matter how much you try to walk it back. The post is still here - you said that you presume it to be "demonstratively plausible", and therefore the officer will "rightfully" will not see a trial.
You only added an "if" when the ridiculousness of your argument was pointed out.

Apparently you do NOT have a meaningful response to what I said and you DO plan to speak only from your preconceptions and your inability to comprehend what you read.

seems to be the case

 

[bucs90]

You consider a taser to be a weapon designed to inflict serious bodily injury and I do not. If you are right, he walks, and if I am right he doesn't. We shall see.

Now I am done with this thread.

I regularly watch the TV reality documentary, COPS, in which use of the TASER is becoming increasingly common and is always used aggressively, never defensively. In a recent episode a cop used the TASER on a woman who refused to get out of her car, holding onto the wheel as he attempted to drag her out by an arm. He just stepped back, aimed, and let her have it.

If the TASER can be categorized as a "deadly" weapon there is no question that this cop committed a serious crime.

It's better than fighting them. Fights injure people. Tasers rarely injure. So yeah...cops have decided to go the easy route.

If someone uses a taser on a cop....they can take his gun afterwards. That's why cops dont fight vs a taser.

 

[GHook93]

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

No we have another cop getting off on justifiable homicide in the performance of his duties as a police officer.

Trying reading the evidence and you might not sound so arrogant.

Facts of the matter this is another shining example of a bad egg the black community supports.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dannyboys]

Presuming this is demonstratively plausible -- the officer, rightfully, either does not see a trial or is acquitted.

"I heard what his lawyer said, that's enough for me. He's clearly innocent, no need for a trial"

You lefties believed Mike Browns lawyer. Why not this one?

Must deflect! Must deflect! Must deflect!

Haha...deflect? Hardly. Just a footnote.

But Scott's DNA is on the taser. He had it. And 1 + 1 vs taser is a gun. SCOTUS allows it. His academy teaches it.

Or it was dropped next to his body after he was shot like the videos shows. All that DNA pouring out of the multiple gun shot wounds.

No fingerprints makes the revised account of slager's remarkably implausible

Nope dummy.
The DNA was not from blood. It was from sweat.
The Taser didn't creep over to the the dead thug's hand and rub itself in it.
But keep trying. HAAA HAAAA!

 

[dannyboys]

Defense court documents: Walter Scott had drugs in system before pointing Taser at police officer

Take this how you may. The North Charleston ex cop is about to get bonded out.

After a 3 month investigation by SC attorney Andy Savage...renowned as one of the best in the entire South....he has new evidence that SLED intestigators missed or ignored in a rush to file charges.

He had an expert video analyst breakdown the tape...AND retrieve footage which wasn't shown publicly. Got DNA testing done. CBS NEWS interviewed Savage. He said the following will be made public after the bond and for trial...and that he has unquestioned proof:

The new facts-

Walter Scott had cocaine and alcohol in his system...driving in the morning hours.
Scott was on top of Slager at some point in the fight
The fight lasted much longer than portrayed
Scott's DNA was on the taser.
Scott wrestled the taser away from Slager, stood and pointed it at him
Facing his own taser...Slager drew his firearm as trained and initiated stopping the threat
Scott turned to flee and slung the taser away
Slager...looking through his pistol sights...never saw the taser be thrown and thought he was aiming at an armed Scott



Folks....ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE the prosecutor gets a murder conviction.
Folks.....ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE she gives him a plea deal. She'll be crucified in the media and made public enemy #1
Folks......ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE he'll be convicted of murder...and will go free.

Take it for what it is.

you could see the cop had been shot by a taser in the original footage

Of course the video proves the cop was shot by the thug with the Taser.
Anyone see this happen with their own eyes.
The 'Ya But' crowd of dummy LIB/Anarchist pyjama-boys here are pretending it didn't happen.
It did and the cop was 100% within his legal right to shoot the fleeing felon anywhere as many times as he chose.

 

[dannyboys]

Again:

I said that if those points were demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

Now, did you have a meaningful response to what I said or do you plan to speak only from your inability to comprehend what you read?

That's not what you said, no matter how much you try to walk it back. The post is still here - you said that you presume it to be "demonstratively plausible", and therefore the officer will "rightfully" will not see a trial.
You only added an "if" when the ridiculousness of your argument was pointed out.

Apparently you do NOT have a meaningful response to what I said and you DO plan to speak only from your preconceptions and your inability to comprehend what you read.

Is that supposed to be one of those "meaningful responses" you were talking about?
How about that you admit you "misspoke" in your initial post, rather than denying the posts in front of your face, and then we can try to have a "meaningful" conversation.

3rd time:
If those points are demonstrably plausible there would either be no trial -- the prosecutor knows he cannot meet reasonable doubt -- or that the jury will acquit -- the defense will raise reasonable doubt.

So now you're saying that if Slager's lawyer makes a good case, he'll win.

Well, no shit.

What is it that you think needs to be discussed?

Now we're getting somewhere.
You are now admitting if Slager's lawyer makes "a good case" Slager will win.
Don't you worry about the "good case' the lawyer will make.
He'll start buy showing the video of Scott shooting at and hitting Slager with the Taser.
Don't think THAT won't stay with the jurors?
Think again.

 

[bucs90]

Fact is this.

Scott took Slager's taser and tried to use it on him. SCOTUS and state academy both say under this circumstance the officer can use a firearm to finish the arrest.

Was it DUMB? YES. He should've waited for more officers....he had plenty on the way.

BUT.....was he legally OBLIGATED to wait for backup? NO. NO he wasnt.

What he did was ugly and dumb. But it was NOT illegal by SCOTUS law and his academy training. You DON'T chase down and fight a man armed with a taser. Especially if you have a gun...because if he tasers the cop...he can take the gun.


Charleston will burn like Ferguson and Baltimore. But hell....our city went through the Revolutionary War, Civil War, Great Fire of 1889, massive 8.9 earthquake, multiple Cat 3-5 hurricanes.....and always came out strong.

 

[dannyboys]

Slager's audio transmission said "He got my taser".

Scott took the taser. He was under arrest...just resisitng...and not cuffed. He had cocaine and alcohol in his system.

The Supreme Court has ruled that cops CAN use deadly force if...during an arrest...they are threatened with a weapon. Graham v. Connor. Slager's academy...like most...teach 1 + 1 force. 1 over what the suspect has. Taser + 1 = gun.

He's going free folks. Go ahead and get some popcorn for the riot.

He radioed that Scott had "taken his taser" after Scott was already dead - right about the same time he placed the taser next to Scott's body.

Let's clear up a few ******* FACTS!
Scot was following his training to 'secure the scene' when he picked up the Taser the SCOTT HAD SHOT SLAGER WITH AS PROVEN IN THE VIDEO!!!!. The Taser was still capable of being used as a stun-gun. You think the Taser should sit on the ground where anyone could have picked it up? Wake up!
Scoot walked back the Scotts body and dropped the Taser beside him.
FACT! There was another PO standing beside Scott's body........remember? This officer also knew proper police procedure.
"Whatever you do don't tell anyone I tried to plant the Taser beside the body OK? We cops have to stick together right pal?" Ya ******* right. A PO is going to put his career, possibly his freedom on the line by agreeing to be part of evidence tamping?
Maybe in the movies but not in real life.