South Carolina Officer Is Charged With Murder of Walter Scott

More fallacy, the officer didnt pull his weapon until he began to run.

And on what basis do you dismiss even the possibility that had he escaped capture here after fighting with theofficer officer, after having been TASED he would not have sought a weapon to now use to further resist.

Unarmed does not equal not dangerous, have you not learned that yet?

I'm not defending nor condemning. I'm liking at the facts while you are making things up and mistating the facts.

There was no way they were not going to arrest him else have riots on their hands.

Not 50 as you claimed was it.

 

Well lets see you just tried to tase me and it didn't work, what is he going to pull next? A writing pen.

That's why you chase him down or do police not do that anymore, they just pull out their guns and shoot unarmed men in the back.

Yea because he was going to suddenly turn around and spit 30' and knock him down.

The fact is he shot an unarmed man in the back and killed him. Now that's a fact for your ass.

BS, black men are unjustly murdered everyday and we don't see any riots.

Not 10' as you claimed.

 

Brilliant! An unarmed man running away from a cop who has tased him gets shot in the back. Where was the threat and to whom? Or are you going to suggest that 'might have been a threat' is sufficient grounds for murder?

 

Didn't you know he had a gun stashed in the bushes, that is where he was running to.

 

Careful or you'll be giving the 'might have been' crowd more ammunition.

 

How do you know he didn't ? Or how do you know he didn't have a small pistol in his sock that he was going to reach for after getting enough space between him and cop ? At first I agreed with you that this cop overreacted, but to be honest - in that moment, the cop assumed the worst. The question will never be answered as to why the guy decided to run away. But I do feel the cop did go overboard. He could have - at worst, shot him in the legs since he was running away.

 

Thanks for this. You just verified my earlier prophecy that the 'what if' conspiracies were soon going to surface.

 

Your right because he knew he was going to get pulled over in that part of town or maybe he just has weapons stashed all over town in the bushes.

How do I know he didn't have one stuffed in the crack of his butt.

Your right he probably said, "Hmmmm this guy is running away, maybe he will turn around and throw his shoe at me."

Uh because he didn't want to go to jail.

Police officers are taught to shoot to kill, that's TV police that shoot folks in the leg.

 

I'm not saying I believe it - most likely he was running away to just get away. But you don't understand how or why law enforcement and armed security personnel think because you've never been in our shoes.

 

Thanks WOG. I would have thought he'd be out by now.

 

Why was he resisting in the first place and where did you get the idea resisting arrest would not provoke a reaction? How about cuffs next if I do not continue to resist and fight back? That never occur to you?

You seem to have the idea that not only do you have a right to resist a lawful arrest but a duty to do so including using violence, no wonder the black community is in such disarray. Just look at the animals in Baltimore burning down their city this afternoon.

Dodge noted try again

And on what basis do you dismiss even the possibility that had he escaped capture here after fighting with the officer officer, after having been TASED he would not have sought a weapon to now use to further resist.

Trayvon Martin was unarmed and he could have easily killed Zimmerman. Michael Brown was unarmed and could have easily killed Officer Wilson. Unarmed does not equal not dangerous, learn that fact.

With lots more inbetween. Why did you leave out the fact the officer had a reasonable suspicion he was dealing with a felon? Why did you leave out the fact Scott violently resisted arrest? Why did you leave out the fact that the non-lethal means did not work? Why did you leave out the fact Scott, a second time try to flea the arrest now being a violent felon?

You have a tendency to leave out facts along with making them up.

Got your TV on? The fact is there was no way they were not going to arrest a police officer, you left that fact out, in such a case and unfortunately that seems to be the only way to appease the animals who like to burn down their own cities while attacking the police.

And I corrected myself did I not. Let's see I was 5' off and you were 35' off, who was more correct?

- - - Updated - - -

And having given the police officer reasonable suspicion he was had committed a felon during the traffic stop, and then on top of the committing a felony during the attempt to arrest him and now attempting to flee again.................

 

The threat would be him getting away and obtaining a more secure place to resist along with a weapon. Fleeing violent felons who have already engaged in violence while resisting arrest are outlaws and subject to lethal force.

Unarmed does not equal not dangerous.

- - - Updated - - -

What is the premise for your claim he was just running to go hide in the bushes?

 

And that is what a police officer has to deal with in a matter of a split second. The suspect had NOT been searched. The police officer already had a reasonable suspicion he was a felon and that became a reality when the suspect violently resisted arrest. The fact is there is every possibility had he escaped, even if unarmed at the time, he could have obtained a weapon whether at his home, can you tell me how far away he lived from the scene of the attempt arrest? Then the next police officer WOULD have been facing an ARMED violent criminal.

 

Uh because he didn't want to get arrested, pretty self explanatory.

Suspects run from the police everyday and then police give chase.

Hmmmm, can you pull up the post where is said its ok for black folks to resist arrest or did you just pull that out of the thin air.

Yep a bunch of fools that should be arrested for breaking the law.

Uh here is a newsflash for you, suspects run from the police everyday and most don't draw their weapon and shot them in the back for what they MIGHT do.

Trayvon Martin was never going to kill Zimmerman, that is BS.

Well lets see Trayvon is dead and Michael Brown is dead, you might have an argument if they had killed somebody but since neither one did it is not a fact.

So that means he has the green light to shoot him the back.

So shooting him in the back was justified, well the Charleston Police arrested and charged an innocent man.

The fact you seem to keep leaving out is he shot an unarmed man in the back and killed him and he is sitting in jail with a charge of murder. Now those are two facts that are undeniable. The rest of it is opinion.

Why didn't they arrest him when it first took place? The dept was behind him 100%.

I don't know who was more correct, did you go to Charleston and measure it?

- - - Updated - - -

Can you give us the part of the SOP that states you can shoot someone in the back if they have priors, eventhough, they are unarmed.

 

There are two reasons for resisting arrest and running, one is fear and the other is they are a threat to the public. This officer knew the difference from the video because of how he casually drew his weapon and fired into someone's back.

He was too lazy to give pursuit, and felt murder would be easier for him to do his job since he could get away with it.

 

And there is a price to pay if you do so especially in a violent manner. So is that what you do or would do if the police were lawfully placing you under arrest? Do not wanting to be arrested grant you license to resist that arrest and do so by fighting with the police and disobeying their lawful orders?

See above where you are using it to defend and mitigate the actions of the person who was killed resisting arrest. Else what is your point?

So if they don't want to be arrested they shouldn't have to be and the police should just let them run away? What if one of them attacks a police officer violently, does not succumb to a TASER and trys to escape capture. How much force can be used when they police have reasonable suspicion he we continue to violently resist arrest? Can they use their weapons against him to stop his escape?

And many times the police do so what is your point?

But he easily could have and he was VERY dangerous AND unarmed. Just as with Michael Brown

Yep because of their own actions making them unarmed and dangerous.

We don't know yet but the fact you already have to leave out salient facts about the incident in order to make your case look better speaks volumes.

So shooting him in the back was justified, well the Charleston Police arrested and charged an innocent man.

I've been quite clear on those facts AND the other facts we know which you have to dance around.

And there are other facts that are undeniable you want to ignore unlike me.

Go ask them. it does take a little time you know. But we do know that these days suspension until the facts can be learned is not a viable option as the animals will riot and burn down the city. And those who prejudge the case as you do feed the flames that do so, you do realize that.

You know exactly how I derived it and you can watch the video yourself and you also know what is more correct. Dodge noted.

Why, where have I claimed they can simply because they have priors. Post the statement or withdraw the question.

 

He had already pursued did you not watch the second video release? And the fleeing person, who he had a reasonable belief to be a felon, engaged in a physical fight with him and was able to get up and attempt to flee again when the TASER was pulled and the non-lethal force did not work.

And you left out, they don't want to go to jail, as a reason they flee and an officer can reasonable assume that if they do flee it is because they fear something very serious from the law.

 

It's hard to get out of jail when you're booked on a murder charge.

 

The guy that died was wrong, but that didn't excuse an officer to go out of their way to execute someone for not paying child support. The cop only ran a few yards and then his taser was knocked out of his hand because he didn't care to have a firm grip. Then he was too lazy to run after him again and shot him in the back.

 

It shouldn't be with your life when you are obviously no threat to the officer.

What does what I would do have to do with this guy?

If everyone did everything in accordance with the law we wouldn't need police officers would we? Now does the SOP say, "if an unarmed suspect runs from you, you have the green light to shoot him in the back."

I am not defending the guy's actions, what he did didn't warrant him being shot in the back.

Lets stay on point.

How many times was this officer struck?

They do so when the person is armed and is a threat to them.

No he couldn't and no he wasn't. Zimmerman was no where near being killed. Funny that Michael Brown was the only person who sustained any injuries, so how was he close to killing officer Wilson?

Actually Trayvon is dead because of a coward with a gun actions. Come to think of it we have never found out how either one of those events got started.

I didn't leave out anything.

So you say a (*)(*)(*)(*)house lawyer.

I haven't danced around anything, two things in this case are fact. He shot an unarmed man in the back and he has been charged with murder and is sitting in jail.

See above.



[qute]Go ask them. it does take a little time you know. But we do know that these days suspension until the facts can be learned is not a viable option as the animals will riot and burn down the city. And those who prejudge the case as you do feed the flames that do so, you do realize that.[/quote]

Really how much rioting took place when Sean Bell was murdered? How much rioting took place when Amadou Diallo was murdered? How much rioting took place when Oscar Grant was murdered?

I know you work for the Charleston Medical Examiners Office. I will give you credit you get around, you worked for the Sanford Medical Examiners Office and then you were employed in Ferguson.

 

The new rule seems to be that when the cops cover up their murders it riles up the locals and riots flare up. In the case of Slager they threw his behind in jail and haven't had any problems. In Baltimore the cops are beating around the bush so there's a good chance that the unrest will continue.

 

"Think" is precisely what that dumb cop didn't do. I understand that very well.

 

Luckily your interpretation of the law didn't hold up, the cop just got 20 years in prison

 

Yep, this one didn't get away with it after all.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/emotional-testimony-expected-ex-officers-sentencing-ends-092953960.html

 

What interpretation?

"As I said in THIS particular case, we don't have all the evidence yet to justify whether it was a lawful shooting or outright murder as you are claiming."

And
"Still, Slager pleaded guilty in federal court to violating Scott's civil rights. As part of the plea agreement reached in May, prosecutors dropped state murder charges. A year ago, a state judge declared a mistrial when jurors deadlocked in that case."