[norton]

"he" did not have to feel (still) threatened. He'd made a legitimate stop, then been shot with his own taser, by a guy who had simply run a red light, fought him & then fled, he was still hurting from the taser, the light runner (no pun) had shown he was violent and capable, not to mention eager to escape a simple misdemeanor (why) and therefore posed a potential threat to anyone else he might encounter in the process.

I promise you I'd have shot him in the same situation and "threat to others' is sufficient to justify a police shooting.

PS, I promise that, having a very spotty history with them, I'm not used to building alibis for police.
But I wouldn't start a fight over a traffic ticket either.

[kiryandil]

by a guy who had simply run a red light

Well, that, or Slager stopped Walter Scott for a broken taillight.

I can see back-shooting Walter Scott for running a red light, but maybe just winging him for the broken taillight... LOL! :)

Perhaps you should read a little more closely, and maybe you pick even moar things up.

This is kind of like the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case.

Evryone who wanted Zimmerman's hide said he should have just stayed in the truck. Michael Slager should have just stayed in his squad car. He had Walter Scott's license, his car, and his passenger. He had NO duty to go after Scott, per the Supreme Court.

I might even define what he did as "police vigilantism*".

*Vigilantism. Taking the law into one's own hands and attempting to effect justice according to one's own understanding of right and wrong

Michael Slager was wrong to pursue Walter Scott.