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 ...
It’s an X26 Taser. Everyone knows by now, exactly how it operates. It was no threat to Slager.
Slager dodges the Taser. He knows it’s behind him.
All of this will be public testimony, unless Slager makes a plea deal, which he just about has to.
your argument is moot since it in no way resembles the situation at the point in time when scott was killed.
are you a cop?
Guilty until proven innocent...? Are you serious?
Question: if you get pulled over by a cop, who tells you to stay in your car, and you then flee on foot, are you innocent?
Let’s not start with the “shooting offense” question at this point. Just answer whether the cop has the right to arrest you for fleeing. (Hint: Answer=Yes)
Next up... you are fleeing a cop who orders you to stop. You choose not to and instead run a hundred yards away. When the cop orders you to get on the ground, you instead decide to engage in a struggle. Guilty of anything yet? (Hint: Answer=Yes)
Have we reached shooting offense yet? No, but... and this is the part that is unclear, but for which I see some reasonable doubt...
If you are struggling with the cop and MAYBE you get a hold of his taser and MAYBE you attempt to discharge the weapon at the cop but MAYBE don’t get a clean hit off. At this point, you MAYBE have shown yourself to be interested in disabling the cop (much akin to trying to knock him out with a brick to the head). In the 1 second following the struggle where you MAYBE attempted to tase the cop, does he have the right to assume you still mean him or someone else serious harm and have the right to stop you with deadly force?
Here’s the problem: you’re incoherent posts keep making some tangential comments about smokescreens and racism and all black men looking alike. You make plenty of assumptions about what you THINK happened, but afford no possible assumptions on the officer’s part even though the whole thing happened fast, with little time for him to carefully contemplate his actions.
While I am certain you are absolutely flawless in every way and have never made snap decisions while being attacked by someone, I think there are still some outstanding questions regarding this case.
Your comment about “guilty until proven innocent” is particularly inane, because Scott MADE himself guilty of several crimes *up to the shooting* while the police officer was lawfully executing his duties. Notice that I said “up to” the shooting. I have made no judgment yet whether the shooting was lawful because... well... I’m not sitting on the jury hearing ALL the evidence.
It is people like me for which we have trial by jury. It is people like you for which we have lynchings and mobs.
Would you want to walk into, say, the bad section of Detroit and let some teens tase you? Or might that wind up being a potentially deadly situation?
what is the relevance of your question about what i would do in an apparently unrelated hypothetical situation to this topic?
Have we learned nothing from Martin and Brown?
Have we learned nothing from Ruby Ridge and Waco?
If it's not my car, and he doesn't catch me, AND I haven't given him my license, yes, I'm innocent.
You Police Staters make me laugh when you start extolling the beauty of the shiny prison bars, and how WONDERFUL it is to feel "safe" in Prison Merika. LOL! :)
Next up... you are fleeing a cop who orders you to stop. You choose not to and instead run a hundred yards away. When the cop orders you to get on the ground, you instead decide to engage in a struggle.
I'm pretty sure Officer Feared-For-My-Authority decided to engage in a struggle. Betcha he's rueing his decision right about now. I also bet if you gave Slager a do-over, he'd opt for the pick-him-up-later plan so fast it would make your head spin. :)
Here’s the problem: you’re incoherent posts keep making some tangential comments about smokescreens and racism and all black men looking alike.
I didn't say anything about racism. I don't think this has ANYTHING to do with racism, which is why the family doesn't want that tax-evading unprosecuted felon scum Sharpton around.
I think it has to do with Copism, and why they "fear for their authority", and why we have so many around, and why some few of them can't use their big heads instead of their little heads.
Slager had Scott's license, his car, and his pal. He just didn't have Scott's grovel to his authority. Bad call, Slager.
While I am certain you are absolutely flawless in every way and have never made snap decisions while being attacked by someone,..
I don't bring attacks on myself by trying to prove how manly I am, and how I'm not going to be dissed by some peasant, unlike Officer Feared-For-My-Authority.
Your comment about “guilty until proven innocent” is particularly inane, because Scott MADE himself guilty of several crimes *up to the shooting* while the police officer was lawfully executing his duties.
Once again, in your little Bizarro Police State World, all the peasants are apparently "guilty" by mere contact with a Blue-Suited Superhero.
I have made no judgment yet whether the shooting was lawful because... well... I’m not sitting on the jury hearing ALL the evidence.
LOL! Juries rarely, if ever, hear ALL the evidence. How old are you, anyway?
I think what bolo MEANT to ask you (in order to make his question relevant to the current situation) was: 'Would you want to walk into, say, the bad section of Detroit and let some teens tase you try to prove how manly & authoritative you are to the local fauna? Or might that wind up being a potentially deadly situation?
If a tazer is a deadly weapon, then police are using deadly force in instances when they should not, or when they claim they are not.
You can't have it both ways.
Don’t worry, SteveH. You can always tell a Police State buff by the hyperventilating, bodice-ripping “scenarios” they invent to explain the actions of their superheroes.
The relevance is simple: it is a threat assessment question.
If I sneak into your house attempt to cover your face with a chloroform soaked rag but you manage to wriggle free, what is your threat assessment? It’s not lethal, so I must not mean you any harm, right? You should have no right to defend yourself against any further attack, right? Maybe I’m running away, but your family is in the house, too. You can’t use any means to stop me before I get through the door, right? You have no obligation to protect your family from a potentially dangerous interloper, right?
Another hypothetical, but put it together...
1. We still don’t know whether or not Slager was hit with the taser for certain. I’m simply arguing this point because there seems to be some evidence to suggest he was, and I learned from Martin and Brown that we should probably wait until all evidence is in before passing judgment.
2. IF Scott did turn Slager’s taser on him, what is Slager’s threat assessment? Is it equivalent to me trying to chloroform you?
3. IF Scott did turn Slager’s taser on him, does Slager have time enough to determine if Scott still has possession of it? From the moment they break contact to the moment Slager is drawing is less than a second.
4. IF Scott did still have Slager’s taser, does Slager have time to determine whether or not the barbs have enough contact to incapacitate if Scott triggered the charge? (Do you want to find out if I put enough chloroform on the rag to knock you out?)
5. IF Scott is willing to attack a police officer with his own taser, is that considered “serious harm?” Officers can respond with deadly force if they believe a suspect intends them *or others* serious harm!
6. IF Scott ran off and Slager had not discharged, AND Scott grabbed a passing woman and drew a knife to her throat, wouldn’t we all be wondering, “Why didn’t the cop shoot him when he had the chance???”
EVERYTHING is hypothetical at this point because the cop *reacted*. Not knowing the full details, I can’t be entirely sure what he reacted to or if his reaction was within legal boundaries.
I can say this for sure: *I* personally believe that *if* Scott did attack Slager with the taser, and hit him, then the shooting *might* be justified because there wasn’t enough time for Slager to determine the full disposition of all potential threats. With less than 1 second between separation and drawing of the weapon, *I* believe that the shooting would be an extension of active conflict which represented possible serious harm to Slager.
So, in the end, the taser does represent a serious threat, potentially deadly, in the same way my chloroform rag represents a potentially deadly threat.
(Disclaimer, because some people don’t get this: I want to hear the facts of the case. I want to consider things like “reasonable doubt.” BUT... I also *do* believe that cops often get high on their own power and conduct themselves in unlawful and potentially murderous ways. Cops have been trained to act as if everything is a threat and EVERY threat is serious. That’s why you see grandpas reaching for their canes in the bed of their truck getting shot, or black men reaching in their car to retrieve their license *as ordered* getting shot. This is a serious problem for law enforcement and makes us look at situations like Slager/Scott with a strong bias that may not be fair. This one is not as black and white as the old man and the guy getting his license, so I’m awaiting more information and possibly a jury verdict.)
Has anyone ever died from having a tazer used on them? If so, then a tazer can be a deadly weapon.
Um... Please stop responding to my posts and I’ll stop responding to yours. Your responses are actually so juvenile, they’re painful.
See my disclaimer in 691. I’m partially with you...
One is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, judged by his or her peers or by a judge and having access to competent legal counsel.
Because it is less lethal than a firearm. Not nonlethal. Less lethal.
A screwdriver is a tool which is designed to put in screws. If turn it against you, is it a deadly weapon? I mean, according to your argument I can stab you repeatedly with a screwdriver, and because it was engineered as a tool for screws you cannot die. Or, for that matter, be in imminent jeopardy of death or serious bodily injury, which is the standard for use of deadly force.
Is this how your mind works?
I, too, want to see all the evidence. But, I am certainly NOT willing to make blanket statements exonerating Slager of all charges possible and pending, based upon the graphic video that has been widely disseminated.
Being familiar with shooting at targets, I am stunned by the calm and mechanical actions taken to draw down on a fleeing suspect and squeeze off 8 rounds, 5 apparently finding their mark. I did not detect one bit of apprehension in Slager's mannerisms or attitude as he set and fired and then walked upon the likely deceased Scott.
Here's a hyperventilating, bodice-ripping “scenario” from earlier, as I just pointed out to SteveH:
I’d say the safest assumption the cop could make at that moment is, “Holy crap - the reason he didn’t have insurance and registration is because he stole the car! Now he’s running!”
Do you guys live in a Medal of Honor video game?
Why don't you join the rest of us peasants out in the real world, where not everyone is a dangerous serial-murdering perp?
Perhaps Mr. Scott would like you to interview him later, at your leisure, seeing as how he thoughtfully left you his "business card"...
There is a place for tazers. As there is for gas, rubber bullets, beanbags, watercannon and truncheons.
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.