[Kenny Bunk]

(A) It was not logical for the man to run, knowing he would be found later on.
(B)It was logical for the policeman to instantly think that the man would be found later on if he didn’t want to chase him down.
(C)Based on the video,
(D)...it looks like murder.

(A)
TRUE.

(B)
FALSE.
By running, Scott committed a crime. Policemen do not have the luxury of unwarranted conclusions. IOW, how was the cop to know Scott would not commit another crime to further his escape? It was absolutely the cop's job to stop Scott. Your quarrel is over the method the cop used to do so. Good jury question.

(C)
TRUE. Statement is accurate.

(D)
However....
Key Words: "looks like." That means it may not be what it looks like.

Whenever these cases come up, I want to qualify as a juryman. No conclusions before the trial, or the defense will throw me out during the voir dire! In this case, the prosecution might well hacve already disqualified me (gasp) for my answer to (B)!

[ansel12]

Sure, that is why as everything was going normal for days, when the police saw the video, they instantly filed murder charges.

The police think it was murder.

[FBD]

"FALSE.. .By running, Scott committed a crime. "

True: Scott committed a crime by resisting and running.
True: Slager also committed a crime, by dropping that taser alongside Scott's body. Honest police officers don't drop things beside a body after a shooting.

http://i.imgur.com/DTYSXXC.gif