Posted on 04/12/2015 3:58:09 AM PDT by IChing
On the first day we saw the North Charleston, South Carolina, shooting video of Walter Scott by Officer Michael Slager we were as shocked as everyone. However, as research now indicates there is much more to the story.
What we cover here in the latest update might just change the entire way the story continues…
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Thanks for your opinion. You might be surprised how many people agree with me. Conservatives have a deep respect for the rule of law. How many innocent people do you know who run from a police officer?. This police officer had done nothing out of line with Mr. Scott. You may think it is fine for a police officer to be assaulted, but as someone who has stood by her best friend at the grave of her son, who was killed in the line of duty pursuing a criminal, I have a differnt take on it.
I said a police officer should have the authority to shoot a fleeing suspect. They are taught to try to wound without killing in order to apprehend a suspect. In this case, a sane person who had been shot would have stopped after the first bullet hit him. If he had he would be alive.
Conservatives do not embrace breaking the law.
We don’t live in a totalitarian society. Our laws do not reflect that. We have more laws on the books to protect ciminals in many cases than we do to protect their victims.
Parents teach your kids to respect and obey police officers Do not teach your kids comtempt for authority.
If every household would teach this, our crime rate would drop drastically. In the meantime, don’t expect me to be a bleeding heart over anyone who does what Mr. Scott did.
What is so hard for you people to comprehend? The man had his back turned and was fleeing, yet so many of you have no problem with a stumbling, ambling, fleeing person being shot in the back.
Did the officer really believe he was going to jump over the fence and attack someone or did the officer see a chance to blow away an alleged criminal? remember, at one time a person was innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It seems too many here wish to do away with trials by jury and see no issues with unarmed people gunned down to save the hassle of trials, juries, lawyers, judges, Constitutional rights and presumption of innocence.
How many more times will you people claim: "No one who runs away from a cop is innocent of anything."
Think carefully about what sort of nation you want to live in and raise children in. Giving up any rights to due process or illegal searches or Constitutional carry bodes ill for everyone.
Both were unarmed. I am sure the King cheered his troops blasting away unarmed folks. Just as you are cheering an unarmed man being shot in the back.
That’s all well and good. But, you’re not a conservative.
It’s good that you recognize your statist tendencies.
The police are servants of the people. Not their betters nor their masters. When a citizen guns down an unarmed and fleeing assailant, the citizen is rightfully charged with murder. To issue special rights to one group, in this case the police, is unAmerican. The claim that "no one is above the law" rings hollow while you defend cold blooded murder.You place some above others in the rights and responsibilities totem pole. It is sickening and disgusting. There will come a time when your own ox is gored by those you hold in special privilege and when that happens and you are left spitting into the wind, you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
Just as special rights for any so-called class of citizens is wrong. That would include affirmative action, so-called hate crimes and the well connected and influential being allowed to carry firearms in NYC or any other Liberal cesspool.
I personally don’t care what colors any of the actors are here in this case.
The important thing to me is to protect people from being falsely accused, with planted evidence. We’ve all heard it has happened, but this is one of the rare times it’s actually been caught on camera.
All the more reason to allow citizens to be able to film the police in public.
I would argue that your position is a liberal one. Just because I don’t agree with you, you resort to attacks and name calling. That generally signals that you really don’t have a convincing arguement for your position. It shows how far we’ve fallen when enforcing laws is considered “statist”. No need to reply to me again. I find liberal flack a waste of time.
You replied:
“Oh sure...only a blog will tell the “truth”.....like that isnt trutherism 101.”
Tell me, in the end, whose reporting of the Trayvon Martin/ George Zimmerman incident did you find to be more truthful, NBC’s and the other sources I cited, or the Treehouse?
From the link I posted:
“Generally the media will only/can only report on data presented to them. The data presenter, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), which, despite its rather LEO sounding name, is, in actuality, a political element of the South Carolina Solicitor General Scarlett A Wilson whose history does not show she -or her office- supports police officers.
Initial review shows Scarlett A Wilson, has a very similar disposition/outlook and political world view to Jacksonville Special Prosecutor Angela Corey (Zimmerman case).
Imagine if Zimmerman’s prosecutor was a State Attorney General – yeah, now you begin to see the problem. The information is released which supports your ideology/motive, and the information retained is that which does not support your ideology/motive.”
You’ve made it abundantly clear what your position on this matter is so there’s no point in arguing it with you. You’ve made your decision and you’re standing by it.
If my post did nothing else, at least it prompted you to go there to find the link you posted in your reply to me, even if it doesn’t show that you read any of the accompanying material they reported.
With what? A toaster poptart bitten into the shape of a gun? he was unarmed. Was he going to jog to a gunshop and buy a pistol to do so? I am pretty sure that had the cops wanted to, they could have chased him down. He wasn't going very far, very fast. And, with backup on the way, I doubt he'd have made it very far.
Depends on what source you believe. Some are saying there was a bench warrant out. Some are saying there were no warrants. Regardless, that is no justification for shooting him.
And while we're on the topic of dead unarmed suspects, have you caught the news out of Tulsa? Police catch man in sting selling them an illegal firearm. Suspect runs for it. Police chase man. Police catch man. During the attempt to subdue the suspect, part of the backup in the form of a seventy-three year old reserve Deputy comes up and shoots the suspect, killing him. The reserve Deputy claimed he was going for his tazer and grabbed his gun by mistake. Link
I'm sure folks around here will have no trouble justifying this one as well.
It's hard to argue with visual proof, yet too many here would excuse Bill Clinton of rape, even with video evidence. At least, using the standards they seem to hold. he said/she said/no proof/a special class of American versus a common citizen.
It was reported that whatever that was, it wasn’t the taser. I wish they would release all the information. By now we have seen what having only a part of the facts leads to.
Newsflash, genius, cops don’t prosecute cases, and if you’d followed the Treeper posts you’d know that SLED is not a police agency.
So he’s “planting” a weapon that likely has the victims prints on it, with the full knowledge there’s a witness filming everything.
But it's illegal to drop, or move evidence of any kind at a crime scene.
Surely you've seen the little yellow evidence markers in photos of crime scenes that indicate where everything *was* at the time of the shooting.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/1324406-3x2-940x627.jpg
The legal standard is “serious physical injury.”
...
Garner states that deadly force “may not be used unless necessary to prevent (an) escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”
The 1985 SCOTUS ruling that narrowed the fleeing felon rule does not refer to “bystanders”. The word used is “others”, which would seem to include people not in the immediate vicinity. And the legal standard is not 20/20 hindsight but the officer’s reasonable judgement at the time. From what I’ve seen so far, I don’t think Slager had probable cause to believe that Scott posed a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others. But given the adrenaline of the moment and the fact that Scott had assaulted him and apparently taken his weapon, I’m not sure of that beyond a reasonable doubt. I just don’t think it’s as clear cut as you’re making it out to be.
Honest police officers don't move things, or drop things next to a suspect after a shooting.
http://www.evidencetrail.net/uploads/4/5/8/1/4581768/6955356_orig.png
http://i.imgur.com/DTYSXXC.gif
Accusing me of an attack merely because I accuratly Identified you as a statist is...well, what a statist would do.
I hope you get the tyranny you wish on the rest of us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.