Southern cop shoots man running away in the back..

[Liminal]

Won't work, Missourian. You can game play all the defense tricks, and they won't work.

The officer in question had plenty of time to consider his decision, took his time, aimed carefully, and shot a man who obviously couldn't even run away.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Black racists will riot anyway.

A man is dead, a human being got 8 motherfkkken bullets in his back, because some coward racist white mf got gun crazy........riot????? How about morning a loss, you (&(&(^*&%%%*((*))))^^^$%$*&^))))_*(*

Go ahead and mourn. Spell it correctly.
Doesn't have anything to do with psychopathic political opportunists like sharpton and obama getting involved.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Black racists will riot anyway.

Has anyone called Sharpton yet?

The question should be, HOW WILL FOX NEWS SPIN THIS?

The question should be how long before Al Sharpton benefits financially from this and Obama say if I had another brother, he'd look like this.

I live for the day, you people find a new way to attack dead black men, this bs line is getting old.

What's getting old is the contradictory way things are treated when it's white on black vs. black on white.

Or black on black.

 

[Missourian]

Won't work, Missourian. You can game play all the defense tricks, and they won't work.

The more I watch the video, the more positive I am that the officer will be acquitted.

Like I said, the crux of the defense will be if the tazer had been discharged, and if so is it capable of firing a second time without reloading.

Here the defense case:

The officer attempted to use non-lethal force to subdue suspect Scott. Suspect Scott turned on the officer and grabbed for the tazer gun, the tazer gun was, unbeknownst to the officer, knocked from his grasp outside of his field of vision.

The officer believed that suspect Scott was in possession of the officers unfired tazer (or second shot capable tazer). That belief made suspect Scott a danger to the officer, and other officers pursuing suspect Scott. Pursuant to the fleeing dangerous felon portion of South Carolina revised statute Blankity-blank point blank blank, the officer used deadly force to end the threat and the pursuit.

You may not like it, but it's the law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Won't work, Missourian. You can game play all the defense tricks, and they won't work.

The more I watch the video, the more positive I am that the officer will be acquitted.

Like I said, the crux of the defense will be if the tazer had been discharged, and if so is it capable of firing a second time without reloading.

Here the defense case:

The officer attempted to use non-lethal force to subdue suspect Scott. Suspect Scott turned on the officer and grabbed for the tazer gun, the tazer gun was, unbeknownst to the officer, knocked from his grasp outside of his field of vision.

The officer believed that suspect Scott was in possession of the officers unfired tazer (or second shot capable tazer). That belief made suspect Scott a danger to the officer, and other officers pursuing suspect Scott. Pursuant to the fleeing dangerous felon portion of South Carolina revised statute Blankity-blank point blank blank, the officer used deadly force to end the threat and the pursuit.

You may not like it, but it's the law.

Your version of the law, and it won't work.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Won't work, Missourian. You can game play all the defense tricks, and they won't work.

The more I watch the video, the more positive I am that the officer will be acquitted.

Like I said, the crux of the defense will be if the tazer had been discharged, and if so is it capable of firing a second time without reloading.

Here the defense case:

The officer attempted to use non-lethal force to subdue suspect Scott. Suspect Scott turned on the officer and grabbed for the tazer gun, the tazer gun was, unbeknownst to the officer, knocked from his grasp outside of his field of vision.

The officer believed that suspect Scott was in possession of the officers unfired tazer (or second shot capable tazer). That belief made suspect Scott a danger to the officer, and other officers pursuing suspect Scott. Pursuant to the fleeing dangerous felon portion of South Carolina revised statute Blankity-blank point blank blank, the officer used deadly force to end the threat and the pursuit.

You may not like it, but it's the law.

If he is acquitted, I truly hope he is snatched off the street and tortured to death.

 

[Conservative65]

Won't work, Missourian. You can game play all the defense tricks, and they won't work.

The more I watch the video, the more positive I am that the officer will be acquitted.

Like I said, the crux of the defense will be if the tazer had been discharged, and if so is it capable of firing a second time without reloading.

Here the defense case:

The officer attempted to use non-lethal force to subdue suspect Scott. Suspect Scott turned on the officer and grabbed for the tazer gun, the tazer gun was, unbeknownst to the officer, knocked from his grasp outside of his field of vision.

The officer believed that suspect Scott was in possession of the officers unfired tazer (or second shot capable tazer). That belief made suspect Scott a danger to the officer, and other officers pursuing suspect Scott. Pursuant to the fleeing dangerous felon portion of South Carolina revised statute Blankity-blank point blank blank, the officer used deadly force to end the threat and the pursuit.

You may not like it, but it's the law.

If he is acquitted, I truly hope he is snatched off the street and tortured to death.

Why don't you be the one to try it?

 

[Missourian]

NBC just showed the whole video in slow motion, the officer clearly attempts to plant evidence.

I thought he was too, when I first saw the video. I don't know what that is that he runs back and picks up...but what it ISN'T is the tazer. The tazer flies back behind the officer and rolls end over end in the grass 10-15 feet straight back. Whatever that is that he picks up is already on the ground when the tazer is knocked out of the officers hand.

Watch at second 17-18, just as the camera is turned and set on the fence...watch behind the officer.

What do you suppose that object is the officer tosses on the ground next to the suspect?

I have no idea. When I first saw the video, I thought it was the tazer too...and I also said that moving that tazer was going to sink any defense he was attempted, as moving the tazer was a defacto admission that, at a minimum, he felt the need to bolster his justification for the use of deadly force.

Now, i just don't know...it will definitely be an important fact that hopefully will be released in the coming days.

But like Michael Brown and "Hands up, don't shoot", the "Planted tazer" will be the tagline for this story in the MSM.

 

[Missourian]

Won't work, Missourian. You can game play all the defense tricks, and they won't work.

The more I watch the video, the more positive I am that the officer will be acquitted.

Like I said, the crux of the defense will be if the tazer had been discharged, and if so is it capable of firing a second time without reloading.

Here the defense case:

The officer attempted to use non-lethal force to subdue suspect Scott. Suspect Scott turned on the officer and grabbed for the tazer gun, the tazer gun was, unbeknownst to the officer, knocked from his grasp outside of his field of vision.

The officer believed that suspect Scott was in possession of the officers unfired tazer (or second shot capable tazer). That belief made suspect Scott a danger to the officer, and other officers pursuing suspect Scott. Pursuant to the fleeing dangerous felon portion of South Carolina revised statute Blankity-blank point blank blank, the officer used deadly force to end the threat and the pursuit.

You may not like it, but it's the law.

Your version of the law, and it won't work.

That's a very compelling argument. [/sarcasm]

 

[ScienceRocks]

The guy was not armed and was running away with his back turned. Cop is a guilty as hell.

 

[Liminal]

NBC just showed the whole video in slow motion, the officer clearly attempts to plant evidence.

I thought he was too, when I first saw the video. I don't know what that is that he runs back and picks up...but what it ISN'T is the tazer. The tazer flies back behind the officer and rolls end over end in the grass 10-15 feet straight back. Whatever that is that he picks up is already on the ground when the tazer is knocked out of the officers hand.

Watch at second 17-18, just as the camera is turned and set on the fence...watch behind the officer.

What do you suppose that object is the officer tosses on the ground next to the suspect?

I have no idea. When I first saw the video, I thought it was the tazer too...and I also said that moving that tazer was going to sink any defense he was attempted, as moving the tazer was a defacto admission that, at a minimum, he felt the need to bolster his justification for the use of deadly force.

Now, i just don't know...it will definitely be an important fact that hopefully will be released in the coming days.

But like Michael Brown and "Hands up, don't shoot", the "Planted tazer" will be the tagline for this story in the MSM.

So then the officer tossing an unidentified object on the ground next to the suspect doesn't pique your interest.

 

[Ame®icano]

I watched shooting video again few times.

Did cop said that Walter Scott tazed him? What if he did? Maybe we don't know all that happen.

Here is the screenshot... to me, it looks like tazer wires hanging from his arm...

Those wires could also be evidence in the officers mind that the suspect has the tazer gun in his possession. The tazer is actual behind the officer, outside of his field of vision (circled in red)...the object the red arrow is pointing to is what the officer ran back to get...I have no idea what it is, but it is definitely not the tazer.


View attachment 39331

I kept running this in a loop, there are wires hanging, from cop's hand.

View My Video

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup and Missourian thinks Whizzer White is going to get him off scot free.

 

[Missourian]

NBC just showed the whole video in slow motion, the officer clearly attempts to plant evidence.

I thought he was too, when I first saw the video. I don't know what that is that he runs back and picks up...but what it ISN'T is the tazer. The tazer flies back behind the officer and rolls end over end in the grass 10-15 feet straight back. Whatever that is that he picks up is already on the ground when the tazer is knocked out of the officers hand.

Watch at second 17-18, just as the camera is turned and set on the fence...watch behind the officer.

What do you suppose that object is the officer tosses on the ground next to the suspect?

I have no idea. When I first saw the video, I thought it was the tazer too...and I also said that moving that tazer was going to sink any defense he was attempted, as moving the tazer was a defacto admission that, at a minimum, he felt the need to bolster his justification for the use of deadly force.

Now, i just don't know...it will definitely be an important fact that hopefully will be released in the coming days.

But like Michael Brown and "Hands up, don't shoot", the "Planted tazer" will be the tagline for this story in the MSM.

So then the officer tossing an unidentified object on the ground next to the suspect doesn't pique your interest.

Sure it does. But I can't speculate one way or the other until I know what exactly the object is.

That the MSM is reporting something that a hillbilly in the backwoods of Missouri with nothing but a 10 year old laptop positively identified as patently false doesn't pique yours?

 

[Dot Com]

not only did he shoot him in the back but he shot him in the back 8- TIMES

 

[Kondor3]

Whom are you suggesting should shoot when in doubt?

Yourself if you keep asking stupid questions.

How rude. And unprovoked, no less. OK. Fine. Your choice. What stupid question did I ask of you, my little asswipe? And this time, answer the phukking question.

Oh I see, I take it back then, my mistake, it was really a very intelligent question.

You facetiously opine that (someone) should shoot, when in doubt - problem solved - without specifying which party you're referring to, and then somebody else asks whom you are referring to - the cops or the suspects - and then you get your panties in a twist, when somebody asks you to be more specific. Lighten up, Francis.

Still playing dumb? Maybe you aren't playing.

I have no idea what you're babbling about, but, then again, neither do you, so, it's a wash.

 

[emilynghiem]

Im struggling to see why this is STILL a story. A man murdered someone...and got arrested.

A man...yes..who is a cop...

And the reason its news is because of how often this has been coming up.

Plus it was released last night....what do you mean "Still" a story?

How often it has been coming up.....but in all those other cases the attacker attacked the cop or resisted arrest and brought on their own death....then the left went nuts about the criminal bringing about his own death...........and blamed the cops....

In this case it looks like the cop lost control and killed this guy....he has been arrested, fired, and now faces murder charges....end of story......

"bringing on his own death" as if the cops werent even there. The cop didnt lose control he aim and controlled well enough to shoot him in the back then had enough control to plant the evidence.

Before the video came out the police were defending him the same way. Until the vid came out then they were caught red handed

I would have to see where they said he didn't do it because they were covering up the evidence....or did they simply stand by his testimony until the investigation showed otherwise....you guys really need to learn what "reality," "the truth," and "thinking" are.......and once the evidence came back......considering the ballistics are all bad for the cop...
they arrested him didn't they....

What? And the fact that someone shoots someone in the back on video and gets arrested is something to be applauded? That should be the norm..

Would you applaud the arrest of someone caught with a bloody knife in their hand?

Hi ClosedCaption
What I'd like to see as the norm
is that people do not glamourize either thug culture or rogue cops gone wrong.

If all the people and officers who CAN help themselves and NOT go rogue, acted uniformly as law abiding; then the few who DO have criminal issues they can't help would stand out.
Those would be the exception, and could be more easily identified earlier in order to get help
and prevent from becoming a criminal statistic.

Why not make it the norm for citizens and police and teachers to have open, good faith, working relations. And not ANY of this one-upmanship of trying to rebel against authority, commit crimes and get people jailed or killed.

Why don't we strive to help each other to SUCCEED
instead of competing to make people wrong or fail?

 

[Liminal]

NBC just showed the whole video in slow motion, the officer clearly attempts to plant evidence.

I thought he was too, when I first saw the video. I don't know what that is that he runs back and picks up...but what it ISN'T is the tazer. The tazer flies back behind the officer and rolls end over end in the grass 10-15 feet straight back. Whatever that is that he picks up is already on the ground when the tazer is knocked out of the officers hand.

Watch at second 17-18, just as the camera is turned and set on the fence...watch behind the officer.

What do you suppose that object is the officer tosses on the ground next to the suspect?

I have no idea. When I first saw the video, I thought it was the tazer too...and I also said that moving that tazer was going to sink any defense he was attempted, as moving the tazer was a defacto admission that, at a minimum, he felt the need to bolster his justification for the use of deadly force.

Now, i just don't know...it will definitely be an important fact that hopefully will be released in the coming days.

But like Michael Brown and "Hands up, don't shoot", the "Planted tazer" will be the tagline for this story in the MSM.

So then the officer tossing an unidentified object on the ground next to the suspect doesn't pique your interest.

Sure it does. But I can't speculate one way or the other until I know what exactly the object is.

That the MSM is reporting something that a hillbilly in the backwoods of Missouri with nothing but a 10 year old laptop positively identified as patently false doesn't pique yours?

You can't speculate? Seems you've indulged in more than a little speculation already. Why is this different?

 

[Liminal]

Yourself if you keep asking stupid questions.

How rude. And unprovoked, no less. OK. Fine. Your choice. What stupid question did I ask of you, my little asswipe? And this time, answer the phukking question.

Oh I see, I take it back then, my mistake, it was really a very intelligent question.

You facetiously opine that (someone) should shoot, when in doubt - problem solved - without specifying which party you're referring to, and then somebody else asks whom you are referring to - the cops or the suspects - and then you get your panties in a twist, when somebody asks you to be more specific. Lighten up, Francis.

Still playing dumb? Maybe you aren't playing.

I have no idea what you're babbling about, but, then again, neither do you, so, it's a wash.

Don't play dumb, you know exactly what you're babbling about.

 

[Missourian]

Yup and Missourian thinks Whizzer White is going to get him off scot free.

Yeah, those pesky laws, trials and juries...irritating how they tend to undermine good old fashion knee-jerk mob justice.