# Stuff and Things > Guns and Self Defense >  North Charleston, SC, officer to face murder charge after video shows him shooting

## Roadmaster

This is the video that led to his arrest.

----------

St James (04-07-2015)

----------


## HoneyBee

He's in big trouble. He should be too.

----------

East of the Beast (04-08-2015),St James (04-07-2015)

----------


## sooda

> This is the video that led to his arrest.



I just heard about this.. Sorry damned cop....... I hope they put him under the jail.

----------


## Daily Bread

Sure don't sounds like my buddy sooda - is it REALLY you?

----------


## St James

............didn't you see it? The guy was grabbing the tazer, got the gun instead and shot himself.................all of them thar bullets were just pure magical

----------


## Katzndogz

Why didn't the guy stop running?  Surely the gunshots made some impression.

----------


## St James

...maybe some one was trying to kill him? especially since he was unarmed................

----------

cable2 (04-08-2015)

----------


## Katzndogz

When the police say stop - stop.  It's not that hard.  When the police say stop  and you hear gunshots STOP.  Lay down with your hands behind your back.  This guy's brain  must have been pickled.

----------


## DonGlock26

There is no excuse for resisting an officer, when he is trying to arrest you lawfully. There is no excuse for attempting to disarm an officer either.
You certainly increase your chances of being killed, when you try to disarm a police officer.The dead man was a dirtbag criminal with a warrant 
for his arrest- pure and simple.

 That said, the officer appears to be in the wrong on this shooting and has been charged with
murder fairly quickly. This is not an attempt at framing an officer like the media, the racial grievance industry,
 and the Obama admin tried to do in Missouri. I say, let the criminal justice system continue to run its
course and get all the facts out at trial. 

This case is a perfect example of why every cop on patrol should have a body cam.

----------


## Rudy2D

> When the police say stop - stop.  It's not that hard.  When the police say stop  and you hear gunshots STOP.  Lay down with your hands behind your back.  This guy's brain  must have been pickled.


*U.S. Law[edit]*

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by _Tennessee v. Garner,_ 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

vd. also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

----------

St James (04-07-2015)

----------


## DonGlock26

> *U.S. Law[edit]*
> 
> Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by _Tennessee v. Garner,_ 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
> —Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule


The defense will likely be that the violent wanted criminal had assaulted an officer and disarmed or attempted to disarm him. 
The officer thought he had his taser and shot him to stop him from using the taser on other police officers coming into the area. The taser being able to disable an armed officer and allowing the violent wanted criminal to then arm himself with an officer's gun. 

These cases across the country are also an argument against one man patrol cars. Lone officers are more likely to be opposed and therefore 
required to use force.

----------

Rudy2D (04-07-2015)

----------


## Katzndogz

> *U.S. Law[edit]*
> 
> Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by _Tennessee v. Garner,_ 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
> Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
> 
> vd. also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner


Obviously this law didn't save this man's life.  I wouldn't bet my life on it.

----------


## RMNIXON

The White Officer shot an unarmed black man dead...............

The MSM is going nuts right now with coverage!

----------

St James (04-07-2015)

----------


## RMNIXON

*South Carolina Officer Is Charged With Murder in Black Mans Death*

*WASHINGTON  A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.

*http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us...eath.html?_r=0

----------

St James (04-07-2015)

----------


## Roadmaster

It doesn't say why he was being pursued (I don't know if he killed someone) but and this is a big but, SC doesn't play as I have said before. They have inedited more cops than any state. The media just refused to report them.

----------

sooda (04-08-2015)

----------


## DonGlock26

> The White Officer shot an unarmed black man dead...............
> 
> The MSM is going nuts right now with coverage!



This will allow them to change the story from the attempted lynching of Officer Darren Wilson.

The often media reported and endlessly repeated slogan "hands up, don't shoot" was a lie cooked up by local blacks 
in an attempt to frame a police officer for murder.

----------


## DonGlock26

> It doesn't say why he was being pursued (I don't know if he killed someone) but and this is a big but, SC doesn't play as I have said before. They have inedited more cops than any state. The media just refused to report them.





> Mr. Scott had been arrested about 10 times, mostly for failing to pay child support or show up for court hearings, according to The Post and Couriernewspaper of Charleston. He was arrested in 1987 on an assault and battery charge and convicted in 1991 of possession of a bludgeon, the newspaper reported. Mr. Scott’s brother, Anthony, said he believed Mr. Scott had fled from the police on Saturday because he owed child support.
> 
> “He has four children; he doesn’t have some type of big violent past or arrest record,” said Chris Stewart, a lawyer for Mr. Scott’s family. “He had a job; he was engaged. He had back child support and didn’t want to go to jail for back child support.”
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us...eath.html?_r=0

----------


## St James

> It doesn't say why he was being pursued (I don't know if he killed someone) but and this is a big but, SC doesn't play as I have said before. They have inedited more cops than any state. The media just refused to report them.


as of this morning, it was determined that the guy had a warrant for child support. Unarmed, non-violent...I don't care about his color. That is irrelevant. 
This was a despicable act by a coward. I watched that video 6 times. It never showed him reaching for a damned thing, AND, what in the hell did the officer drop next to the body? His tazer? Trying to falsify evidence for his actions?
He's been brought before a judge, but has not entered a plea. His own attorney bailed out on him..........
If someone is shooting at me, I'm running or returning fire. This guy ran and was shot 5 times in the back........

----------


## Beevee

> When the police say stop - stop.  It's not that hard.  When the police say stop  and you hear gunshots STOP.  Lay down with your hands behind your back.  This guy's brain  must have been pickled.


Perhaps he thought, since he was black, that if he stopped and turned to face the officer, he would have been shot in the chest. With no video to prove otherwise, the cop would not have been questioned regarding the shooting. 

And what about the cop's partner? Will he be charged with complicity, since it's evident he did not report the true nature of the shooting. I think not!

----------


## sooda

> It doesn't say why he was being pursued (I don't know if he killed someone) but and this is a big but, SC doesn't play as I have said before. They have inedited more cops than any state. The media just refused to report them.


The officer's defense is " I was afraid for my life"... We've hear that one before.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> This is the video that led to his arrest.


I saw it, this cop needs to fry.

----------

East of the Beast (04-08-2015)

----------


## protectionist

> I saw it, this cop needs to fry.


1.  Does South Carolina have a *fleeing felon rule* ?

2.  Did Walter Scott fight with the officer (as the New York Times video claimed) ?

If the answer to both of these is yes, the officer should  not have even been arrested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

In 2015, we must be wary of police departments and mayors (ex. DeBlasio) throwing their own officers under the bus, to appease race hustlers (ex Al Sharpton) who threaten rioting (ex. Zimmerman case) if the officer is not arrested.

----------


## St James

the guy was not a felon. He was wanted on child support payments. Hardly a felon or warrants getting shot in the back 5 times.
He didn't threaten the officer. he wasn't armed. he never grabbed for anything. 
Funny how running from someone trying to kill you automatically becomes a death sentence. Regardless, this cop will have to face this alone. That's good enough for me until the verdict.
I cannot believe that anyone would think that no cop can be a murderer, just because he wears a badge.
His own buddies arrested him. They probably think this was over-kill. no pun intended.
I think someone here thinks that just because a cop stops you, you are automatically a wanted dangerous felon..... bah

----------

cable2 (04-08-2015),sooda (04-08-2015)

----------


## East of the Beast

The cop should swing on this one.He had plenty of time to think the situation through.Fire a warning shot in the air if he doesn't stop, you don't kill someone for a bad tail light and back child support.You can always pick him up later.

----------

St James (04-08-2015)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> 1.  Does South Carolina have a *fleeing felon rule* ?
> 
> 2.  Did Walter Scott fight with the officer (as the New York Times video claimed) ?
> 
> If the answer to both of these is yes, the officer should  not have even been arrested.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
> 
> In 2015, we must be wary of police departments and mayors (ex. DeBlasio) throwing their own officers under the bus, to appease race hustlers (ex Al Sharpton) who threaten rioting (ex. Zimmerman case) if the officer is not arrested.


I don't care if he was a fleeing felon or not, there is no reason to shot someone in the back 8 times.

----------

Corruptbuddha (04-08-2015),sooda (04-08-2015),St James (04-08-2015)

----------


## NuYawka

> *U.S. Law[edit]*
> 
> Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by _Tennessee v. Garner,_ 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
> Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
> 
> vd. also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner


There is so much ambiguous doublespeak in this Judge's statement that it's no wonder people get confused when they only have a couple of seconds to make a life-altering decision.

----------


## sooda

> 1.  Does South Carolina have a *fleeing felon rule* ?
> 
> 2.  Did Walter Scott fight with the officer (as the New York Times video claimed) ?
> 
> If the answer to both of these is yes, the officer should  not have even been arrested.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
> 
> In 2015, we must be wary of police departments and mayors (ex. DeBlasio) throwing their own officers under the bus, to appease race hustlers (ex Al Sharpton) who threaten rioting (ex. Zimmerman case) if the officer is not arrested.


Stupid cop thought he was a lawyer..

----------


## Corruptbuddha

This appears to be a clear cut case of 'bad cop' meting out angry 'justice'.  If it is...I hope he fries.

In any case, he'd better have a damned good reason for shooting that man in the back....8 times.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (04-08-2015),St James (04-08-2015)

----------


## cable2

> When the police say stop - stop.  It's not that hard.  When the police say stop  and you hear gunshots STOP.  Lay down with your hands behind your back.  This guy's brain  must have been pickled.


which is why the 'good cop' had to throw his stun-gun by the side of the dead body and call in the fact the prep had attacked the 'good cop' and stolen the said stun-gun then ran off....

the most important thing that comes from the video is, the stripping of the police of any value their word has... let's hope it's will be the most important thing to come from the murder trial... not just this 'good cop's word but the word of ALL 'cops'... 

never again should any one believe the word of a cop... and every one should film every police encounter they see..

keep filming guys.... but the worry is, will any jury trial in America bring justice to the murdered man and the community... history makes it a worrying, Rodney King was filmed but the police still walked away untouched..

I wonder why this story, debate is hidden away down in a sub-forum which few are likely to see... could it be our 'extreme-right-winger-and-cop-lovers' want to hide it... mayhap, mayhap!

----------

Corruptbuddha (04-08-2015),Old Ridge Runner (04-08-2015),sooda (04-08-2015)

----------


## Micketto

> *U.S. Law[edit]*
> 
> Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by _Tennessee v. Garner,_ 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
> Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
> 
> vd. also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner



I don't think this really matters, and is pointless in your response to someone that says "when the cop says stop... stop".

Unless, you plan on reading that law to the cop before you start your escape.

----------


## Micketto

> There is so much ambiguous doublespeak in this Judge's statement that it's no wonder people get confused when they only have a couple of seconds to make a life-altering decision.


Which matters when the cops life is in danger.

This cop clearly F'd up, and shot to death someone who was causing him no danger.  Simply so he wouldn't get away.

He needs to be tried.... and in these times they have to go with "murder" or risk another bout of protests.

----------


## cable2

> Originally Posted by *NuYawka* 
> _There is so much ambiguous doublespeak in this Judge's statement that it's no wonder people get confused when they only have a couple of seconds to make a life-altering decision._





> Which matters when the cops life is in danger.
> 
> *This cop clearly F'd up*, and shot to death someone who was causing him no danger.  Simply so he wouldn't get away.
> 
> He needs to be tried.... and in these times they have to go with "murder" or risk another bout of protests.


NO, the 'cop' did not 'F' up.... he was filmed carrying out his would-be duty.

the first time a murdering 'cop' was caught on film, radioing in BS to justify his murderous action...

----------

St James (04-08-2015)

----------


## Roadmaster

They are only going to see the facts. They can bring all the protest they want but SC puts more in prison and goes to trial than other states. One, the officer was not in danger for his life, two he wasn't chasing a armed or person that just committed a felony crime. Three child support is not a reason to kill a person. Unless something happened before we couldn't see and some camera caught it, the guy will go to prison. Just like the two last year. Stop looking at race, the media loves this but I don't see race when I watch this. Let the rest of the facts come out. These protestors also need to be careful which parts of SC they visit. The guy is in prison awaiting trial, leave it alone.

----------

sooda (04-08-2015)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Stupid cop thought he was a lawyer..


No, stupid cop thought he could get away with murder.

----------

St James (04-08-2015)

----------


## sooda

> No, stupid cop thought he could get away with murder.


You are probably right.. He's claiming he was "in fear of his life".. Shades of George Zimmerman.

The victim served honorably in the US Coast Guard.. and the cop was from NJ..

I just can't get my head around why he would shoot the man in the back and keep shooting him.. Didn't he cuff the dead body??????

----------


## St James

> They are only going to see the facts. They can bring all the protest they want but SC puts more in prison and goes to trial than other states. One, the officer was not in danger for his life, two he wasn't chasing a armed or person that just committed a felony crime. Three child support is not a reason to kill a person. Unless something happened before we couldn't see and some camera caught it, the guy will go to prison. Just like the two last year. Stop looking at race, the media loves this but I don't see race when I watch this. Let the rest of the facts come out. These protestors also need to be careful which parts of SC they visit. The guy is in prison awaiting trial, leave it alone.


the question of propping evidence....have they verified that it was the tazer the cop dropped next to the body?

----------


## St James

> You are probably right.. He's claiming he was "in fear of his life".. Shades of George Zimmerman.
> 
> The victim served honorably in the US Coast Guard.. and the cop was from NJ..
> 
> I just can't get my head around why he would shoot the man in the back and keep shooting him.. Didn't he cuff the dead body??????


...might just be me, but I fail to make the connection between getting your ass kicked after an ambush and running away from a cop? I don't think the running man was attempting to beat up anyone, and Martin sure wasn't running for his life.

----------


## RMNIXON

*South Carolina shooting: Officer is fired; protesters demand justice*

(CNN)The officer charged with murder in the shooting death of an unarmed black man in South Carolina has been fired as anger continues to build around his case.

A video shows Officer Michael Slager, who is white, shooting 50-year-old Walter Scotteight times as Scott has his back to him and is running away. It appears that Scott was unarmed.

*Slager is charged with murder, the FBI is investigating, and once again a police-involved shooting has sparked national outrage.*

*"I have watched the video, and I was sickened by what I saw," North Charleston police Chief Eddie Driggers told reporters Wednesday.

**The mayor spoke at the same news conference that was repeatedly interrupted by protesters, who chanted: "No justice! No peace!" They called for Mayor Keith Summey to step down.*



http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/sou...d-with-murder/



His Guilt sounds very solid to me and I hope this goes very bad for him. 

With that said he should still get a fair trial, not a media lynching. The race baiters and cop conspiracy nuts are already having a field day.

----------


## sooda

> ...might just be me, but I fail to make the connection between getting your ass kicked after an ambush and running away from a cop? I don't think the running man was attempting to beat up anyone, and Martin sure wasn't running for his life.


Well, when I look at a person's history and the facts are fuzzy, I really don't see any hard evidence to suggest "ambush"... Doesn't really matter since Zimmerman was acquitted. 

It was just a week or so ago that GZ released the 13 minute video saying the killing of Martin was God's will and to wish otherwise was blastphemy ... Sort of sticks in my craw... and I just remember he defense was that he feared for his life....... Things in north Charleston seem to be heating up even though the family has called for calm.. I hope they can't get any sort of violent protest going.

----------


## Corruptbuddha

> *South Carolina shooting: Officer is fired; protesters demand justice*
> 
> (CNN)The officer charged with murder in the shooting death of an unarmed black man in South Carolina has been fired as anger continues to build around his case.
> 
> A video shows Officer Michael Slager, who is white, shooting 50-year-old Walter Scotteight times as Scott has his back to him and is running away. It appears that Scott was unarmed.
> 
> *Slager is charged with murder, the FBI is investigating, and once again a police-involved shooting has sparked national outrage.*
> 
> *"I have watched the video, and I was sickened by what I saw," North Charleston police Chief Eddie Driggers told reporters Wednesday.
> ...



Why would they want the mayor to step down?  He wasn't involved at all.

----------

NuYawka (04-08-2015)

----------


## sooda

> Why would they want the mayor to step down?  He wasn't involved at all.


I'd love to know WHO is demanding the Mayor step down and where they are from.

----------


## Katzndogz

> Why would they want the mayor to step down?  He wasn't involved at all.


That's what I thought too.  The mayor acted appropriately.  The cop is going to go down.  No doubt about it.  Manslaughter probably ten years.

----------

sooda (04-08-2015)

----------


## protectionist

> *U.S. Law[edit]*
> 
> Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by _Tennessee v. Garner,_ 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
> Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
> 
> vd. also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner


All of which would indicate the cop was within his rights to  shoot Scott who _"poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."  S_o if this is the case, why is the cop being arrested ? And why are people calling the cop a cold-blooded killer ?

----------


## garyo

This is one Hell of a money maker for sharpless.

----------


## protectionist

> You are probably right.. He's claiming he was "in fear of his life".. Shades of George Zimmerman.
> 
> The victim served honorably in the US Coast Guard.. and the cop was from NJ..
> 
> I just can't get my head around why he would shoot the man in the back and keep shooting him.. Didn't he cuff the dead body??????


Can you get your head around a cop trying to stop a fleeing felon (who poses a risk to the public) from fleeing ?  Is every cop supposed to just let felons run away ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

----------


## sooda

> All of which would indicate the cop was within his rights to  shoot Scott who _"poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."  S_o if this is the case, why is the cop being arrested ? And why are people calling the cop a cold-blooded killer ?


When did you get your JD???

Being behind in child support is not any indicator that one is a felon or a danger to anyone.

----------


## hoytmonger

Another state goon that thought he could get away with murder by stating the all too common mantra that the suspect was going for his weapon and he feared for his life. If there wasn't video, he probably _would_ get away with it.

----------


## St James

> Well, when I look at a person's history and the facts are fuzzy, I really don't see any hard evidence to suggest "ambush"... Doesn't really matter since Zimmerman was acquitted. 
> 
> It was just a week or so ago that GZ released the 13 minute video saying the killing of Martin was God's will and to wish otherwise was blastphemy ... Sort of sticks in my craw... and I just remember he defense was that he feared for his life....... Things in north Charleston seem to be heating up even though the family has called for calm.. I hope they can't get any sort of violent protest going.


you do know Z would have faded off the radar, but the media needs to sell papers and bandwidth. The only reason he gets any attention now is because folks that have little else to do, like stirring shit up.

----------


## HoneyBee

> All of which would indicate the cop was within his rights to  shoot Scott who _"poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."  S_o if this is the case, why is the cop being arrested ? And why are people calling the cop a cold-blooded killer ?





Incorrect. The cop shot a fleeing man in the back. Then he lies saying the man had his taser gun. Bull, the cop cuffed a dead man, ran back, picked up the taser and dropped it near the dead guy.

----------

hoytmonger (04-08-2015),sooda (04-08-2015)

----------


## Roadmaster

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/wal...ks-out-n338126

The young man is speaking out and sounds like he is telling the truth, also they should release the camera from the cops car soon. So there was a fight, both on the ground before this. Why did the officer put the Taser near the body. Why did the report of both cops say they gave him cpr.

----------


## St James

> All of which would indicate the cop was within his rights to  shoot Scott who _"poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."  S_o if this is the case, why is the cop being arrested ? And why are people calling the cop a cold-blooded killer ?





> _"poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." _


Where? Who? He shoots a guy 8 times in the back just in case?

----------


## sooda

> you do know Z would have faded off the radar, but the media needs to sell papers and bandwidth. The only reason he gets any attention now is because folks that have little else to do, like stirring shit up.



George seeks the limelight.. with videos on youtube, getting detained for domestic violence, "guarding" a gunshop in the middle of the nights.... hawking his "ART".

----------


## East of the Beast

> Why didn't the guy stop running?  Surely the gunshots made some impression.


Those impressions went pretty deep

----------


## East of the Beast

> which is why the 'good cop' had to throw his stun-gun by the side of the dead body and call in the fact the prep had attacked the 'good cop' and stolen the said stun-gun then ran off....
> 
> the most important thing that comes from the video is, the stripping of the police of any value their word has... let's hope it's will be the most important thing to come from the murder trial... not just this 'good cop's word but the word of ALL 'cops'... 
> 
> never again should any one believe the word of a cop... and every one should film every police encounter they see..
> 
> keep filming guys.... but the worry is, will any jury trial in America bring justice to the murdered man and the community... history makes it a worrying, Rodney King was filmed but the police still walked away untouched..
> 
> I wonder why this story, debate is hidden away down in a sub-forum which few are likely to see... could it be our 'extreme-right-winger-and-cop-lovers' want to hide it... mayhap, mayhap!


So did OJ....just saying"

----------


## St James

> George seeks the limelight.. with videos on youtube, getting detained for domestic violence, "guarding" a gunshop in the middle of the nights.... hawking his "ART".


like most irritants, if you ignore them, they will go away.  Many people do what he does, and you hardly ever see their names in print, maybe just once...maybe then the quietly disappear. 
I don't think he desires the limelight. He sure didn't call the police and file a false report on himself then call the papers just minutes before hand...
I'm not gong through an entire list if what he's done. Just leave the man alone. If you see his name in the paper, burn it or use it in the bottom of a bird cage.

----------


## Roadmaster

If you watch it again now that we know they were fighting on the ground, it starts off with the victim right beside the Taser as if he had taken it from the cop and dropped it. So the guy as it stands attacked the officer. Now we have to ask ourselves did he think it was the cops gun at first. Was he planning on using this on the cop. Dropped it realizing it wasn't and ran. If he was afraid to go back to jail on child support, this would have been worse. I don't know, just speculating.

----------


## Roadmaster

Still a lawyer for this cop is going to have a hard time explaining the cop moving the taser to another location thinking he was covering himself, and firing 8 shots. He should have left the taser alone so they could get prints showing the guy grabbed it, if he did. Also his lawyer just quit after seeing this video, so his story wasn't adding up to what he told him. Or did he just move the taser thinking it was evidence and didn't want it to disappear because it was on the street. Hummm questions. One bad decision can land you in prison.

----------


## sooda

> Still a lawyer for this cop is going to have a hard time explaining the cop moving the taser to another location thinking he was covering himself, and firing 8 shots. He should have left the taser alone so they could get prints showing the guy grabbed it, if he did. Also his lawyer just quit after seeing this video, so his story wasn't adding up to what he told him.


Why were they wrestling on the ground over a traffic stop???

----------


## hoytmonger

> If you watch it again now that we know they were fighting on the ground, it starts off with the victim right beside the Taser as if he had taken it from the cop and dropped it. So the guy as it stands attacked the officer. Now we have to ask ourselves did he think it was the cops gun at first. Was he planning on using this on the cop. Dropped it realizing it wasn't and ran. If he was afraid to go back to jail on child support, this would have been worse. I don't know, just speculating.


It looks as if you're trying to find a reason to excuse the cop.

From your link...




> "Before I started recording, they were down on the floor. *I remember the police [officer] had control of the situation,*" Santana said. "*He had control of Scott. And Scott was trying just to get away from the Taser*. But like I said, he never used the Taser against the cop."


It doesn't state that they were 'fighting' nor does it state that Scott had possession or even attempted to gain possession of the cops weapon(s).

Being that there have been numerous cases where state goons have killed unarmed civilians and have claimed that the civilian was attempting to take the goon's weapon and the goons feared for their lives, it would then be logical to disarm the goons for their own safety... since they collectively seem to be having trouble maintaining possession of their weapons.

----------


## sooda

You mean they were fighting before the cop started filming????

----------


## Katzndogz

So far, there isn't much to excuse the cop.

----------


## Roadmaster

> You mean they were fighting before the cop started filming????





> Before I started recording, they were down on the floor


 That's what he means, they were  both on the ground. He heard the taser go off.

----------


## Roadmaster

> It looks as if you're trying to find a reason to excuse the cop.
> 
>  From your link...


 No I don't know any of them, just trying to connect the dots.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Why were they wrestling on the ground over a traffic stop???


 He knew he had warrants for back child support.

----------


## Roadmaster

> You mean they were fighting before the cop started filming????


 That's what the kid filming said. That they were both on the floor, which means ground.

----------


## Roadmaster

> So far, there isn't much to excuse the cop.


 Lets see the cops video in his car first. Without this young man I didn't either. If he attacked this officer meaning to kill or do harm to him because he didn't want to go to jail and that was his own fault, grabbing for a gun or taser, then he was a danger and any other officer trying to arrest him. If and a big IF the cops car shows this.

----------

protectionist (04-09-2015)

----------


## RMNIXON

> *Why would they want the mayor to step down?  He wasn't involved at all.*


The Mayor, the entire Police Department...............

They are all legitimate targets of Holder Street Justice. 

We have entered an age not of individual rights and responsibilities, but collectivist outrage and media driven mob demands parading as justice.

----------


## RMNIXON

> *So far, there isn't much to excuse the cop.*


Unlike Ferguson I think you are correct. 

But there is a legal process that should be respected. Not the lynching mentality I am reading about on the news. And I use the word "lynching" intentionally. You now have blacks acting the same way some very racist whites did not that long ago. They should be told to knock it off, not be encouraged for the nightly news.

----------


## sooda

> That's what he means, they were  both on the ground. He heard the taser go off.


There must be TWO films.. One shot by a bystander from a distance and one from the police officer.......

----------


## sooda

> Unlike Ferguson I think you are correct. 
> 
> But there is a legal process that should be respected. Not the lynching mentality I am reading about on the news. And I use the word "lynching" intentionally. You now have blacks acting the same way some very racist whites did not that long ago. They should be told to knock it off, not be encouraged for the nightly news.


South Carolina still has tough lynch laws.

----------


## Trinnity

> This is the video that led to his arrest.

----------


## protectionist

> When did you get your JD???
> 
> Being behind in child support is not any indicator that one is a felon or a danger to anyone.


Maybe you're not following this too closely.  The cop claims the suspect ATTACKED him and fought with him.  That IS a felony, and would make that suspect a violent criminal and danger to everyone. Getting more clear for you now ?

----------


## St James

> Maybe you're not following this too closely.  The cop claims the suspect ATTACKED him and fought with him.  That IS a felony, and would make that suspect a violent criminal and danger to everyone. Getting more clear for you now ?


the cop can lie all he wants, Eye witness testimony and the video will toss his murdering ass in a Graybar Hotel. He never laid one hand on the cop. The cop also clearly planted evidence, what some would call propping the evidence. 
He'd say _anything_ to avoid facing a sentence from a judge..............

----------


## protectionist

> 


This video is inconclusive and does not provide enough information to validate an arrest of the officer.  The first showing of the officer and the suspect are at the very beginning at 0.08, and there they are separate from each other, and the suspect is already starting to run away.  In order for this video to be valid for an arrest, it would have to show the time before this video started, and would have to show no attack upon the officer (as the officer claimed there was).

  If there is no evidence to indicate the absence of an attack, then the officer's account (that he was attacked) would stand, by virtue of the principle of innocent until proven guilty.  In the case that there was an attack against the cop, the cop would have had justification to shoot a fleeing felon, in accordance with the principle set by the US Supreme Court in the Tennessee vs Garner case.  The cop would be not guilty by reason of insufficient evidence.

If anyone has a video of the minutes which preceded this video, let's see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...71/1/case.html

----------


## protectionist

> the cop can lie all he wants, Eye witness testimony and the video will toss his murdering ass in a Graybar Hotel. He never laid one hand on the cop. The cop also clearly planted evidence, what some would call propping the evidence. 
> He'd say _anything_ to avoid facing a sentence from a judge..............


WHERE is your evidence that _"he never laid one hand on the cop" ? _ I haven't see a shred of it so far.

----------


## protectionist

> So far, there isn't much to excuse the cop.


Yes there is.  The lack of evidence to charge him.  You got a video of the WHOLE incident ?  Traffic stop to shooting, and everyting in between ?  That's what you'll need to  be able to say what you said in Post # 61.  And that video would have to show that there was no attack against the officer.

Also, the statements of the police chief that he saw the video (it is inconclusive), and the speed with which he and the mayor rushed to charge the cop with murder make me very suspicious.  Looks possibly like another Zimmerman case.  No video. Insufficient evidence.  Just city fathers looking to keep black mobs from rioting, and throwing one of their own cops to the wolves to do it.

----------


## oscarmitre

> This video is inconclusive and does not provide enough information to validate an arrest of the officer.  The first showing of the officer and the suspect are at the very beginning at 0.08, and there they are separate from each other, and the suspect is already starting to run away.  In order for this video to be valid for an arrest, it would have to show the time before this video started, and would have to show no attack upon the officer (as the officer claimed there was).
> 
>   If there is no evidence to indicate the absence of an attack, then the officer's account (that he was attacked) would stand, by virtue of the principle of innocent until proven guilty.  In the case that there was an attack against the cop, the cop would have had justification to shoot a fleeing felon, in accordance with the principle set by the US Supreme curt in the Tennessee vs Garner case.  The cop would be not guilty by reason of insufficient evidence.
> 
> If anyone has a video of the minutes which preceded this video, let's see it.



There's much more to it than those points and they will come out in the trial (assuming there is no plea bargain). 


But to your argument. I think your position is that the cop, now known as the defendant, has claimed that the deceased assaulted him. If that is going to be part of his defence then he will need to show that. Of course the prosecution should be in a position to negate that assertion, but it seems to me that if the defendant is making that claim as exculpation then he is going to have to prove it. 


If the prosecution can show there was no evidence of an attack and that it was made up then the defendant is in a world of hurt, even more than he is facing now. 


But what is telling is the demeanour of the defendant and his actions after shooting Scott. Casual, unconcerned, moving the Taser...a half decent prosecutor should be able to get a jury frothing over those points.

----------


## protectionist

> Lets see the cops video in his car first. Without this young man I didn't either. If he attacked this officer meaning to kill or do harm to him because he didn't want to go to jail and that was his own fault, grabbing for a gun or taser, then he was a danger and any other officer trying to arrest him. If and a big IF the cops car shows this.


Absolutely.  And this is the crux of the case. >> what happened BEFORE Scott ran away.  If he attacked the officer, the officer walks, and the police chief and mayor should be handing in their resignations.  I could almost say the same about Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Scott Walker et al, all of whom already have got this cop convicted, on national TV.

----------


## protectionist

> There's much more to it than those points and they will come out in the trial (assuming there is no plea bargain). 
> 
> 
> But to your argument. I think your position is that the cop, now known as the defendant, has claimed that the deceased assaulted him. If that is going to be part of his defence then he will need to show that. Of course the prosecution should be in a position to negate that assertion, but it seems to me that if the defendant is making that claim as exculpation then he is going to have to prove it. 
> 
> 
> If the prosecution can show there was no evidence of an attack and that it was made up then the defendant is in a world of hurt, even more than he is facing now. 
> 
> 
> But what is telling is the demeanour of the defendant and his actions after shooting Scott. Casual, unconcerned, moving the Taser...a half decent prosecutor should be able to get a jury frothing over those points.


Here is a very BASIC point of* American law* for you.  The BURDEN OF PROOF is always on the ACCUSER, not the accused.  *The defendant is innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution.*  It is they who must show there was no attack.  The defense could remain 100% silent and still win the case, if the prosecution has no evidence to show what they claim.  This is what happened in the OJ Simpson case, the Zimmerman case, and thousands of others like them.

----------


## protectionist

> Why would they want the mayor to step down?  He wasn't involved at all.


He should step down for accusing someone of murder, if it turns out the cop is not guilty because of insufficient evidence.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Absolutely.  And this is the crux of the case. >> what happened BEFORE Scott ran away.  If he attacked the officer, the officer walks, and the police chief and mayor should be handing in their resignations.  I could almost say the same about Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Scott Walker et al, all of whom already have got this cop convicted, on national TV.


At least we have some sort of picture of what happened now and I hope the dash cam in the police car tells the rest, guilty or not.  He was stopped for a taillight, the cop ran his license, went back to the car let the guy know he came back with a warrant for his arrest. He didn't want to be arrested. Then the bystander says they were both on the ground, when the film starts you see the taser around 4 feet away from the cop, so something happened.

----------


## Micketto

> No, stupid cop thought he could get away with murder.


I don't think he was trying to get away with murder.

There was a fight before the video started, they were both on the ground.
I think he acted out of anger.
Ultimately he murdered him, but I don't think that was the intent.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (04-09-2015)

----------


## Micketto

> Didn't he cuff the dead body??????


No.  He was still alive when he cuffed him.  He died while in cuffs.

----------


## sooda

> No.  He was still alive when he cuffed him.  He died while in cuffs.


There have to be two films.......

----------


## Micketto

> There have to be two films.......


Is that some law?

----------


## sooda

> Is that some law?


Evidently the police officer had one of those body cams.... The film taken from a distance was taken by a bystander... so there must be two.

See what I mean?

----------


## Micketto

> Evidently the police officer had one of those body cams.... The film taken from a distance was taken by a bystander... so there must be two.
> 
> See what I mean?


I've only read about the existence of a dash cam.... not a body cam.

Still, the man's neck was stiff as he was being cuffed... not limp.  Start at 0:47 in the vid.

He was definitely dying... but looks like he was still alive at that point.


Unimportant.  I was just correcting the statement.

----------


## cable2

it has not taken long before the extreme right to pick up crumbs so they can defend this murdering piece of blue shat.... if their crumbs had any substance that piece of blue shat would have been stripped of his job and held with out bail... but that don't matter to our extreme right wingers, the boys in blue can do no wrong..

we will have to wait for the trial to see if justice will be done... or will we see another 'Rodney King' whitewash of the police..

----------


## Trinnity

The man who filmed the incident is Feidin Santana. He says he was scared enough to erase it and leave the city. Yeah, I would be too. This is bad. Really bad. It appears the cop murdered the man and planted evidence.

----------


## sooda

> I've only read about the existence of a dash cam.... not a body cam.
> 
> Still, the man's neck was stiff as he was being cuffed... not limp.  Start at 0:47 in the vid.
> 
> He was definitely dying... but looks like he was still alive at that point.
> 
> 
> Unimportant.  I was just correcting the statement.


OK.. there were two films because there was a dash cam.. The police officer didn't try to give the guy CPR and he's not qualified to judge the condition of a man he just shot in the back 5 times..

So If he was alive enough to cuff, wasn't he alive enough for CPR?

----------


## Micketto

> OK.. there were two films because there was a dash cam.. The police officer didn't try to give the guy CPR and he's not qualified to judge the condition of a man he just shot in the back 5 times..
> 
> So If he was alive enough to cuff, wasn't he alive enough for CPR?


I don't know if the dash cam has any usable footage.  Probably nothing nearly as good as what the witness provided.

As for trying to challenge me on the cops decision not to administer CPR, you would have to ask him.
Did he "judge the condition" of this guy ?   That makes no sense.  He unjustly shot the man and handcuffed him.
You're pretty random, eh.

If you're just arguing because you like to argue.... look elsewhere.

----------


## sooda

> I don't know if the dash cam has any usable footage.  Probably nothing nearly as good as what the witness provided.
> 
> As for trying to challenge me on the cops decision not to administer CPR, you would have to ask him.
> Did he "judge the condition" of this guy ?   That makes no sense.  He unjustly shot the man and handcuffed him.
> You're pretty random, eh.
> 
> If you're just arguing because you like to argue.... look elsewhere.


No.. I watched the video.. I see no justification for the Officer shooting this guy in the back and failing to render emergency assistance... and then to have the audacity to say: "I feared for my life"..

BTW.. I have deep roots in Charleston... so it matters.

----------


## Micketto

> it has not taken long before the extreme right to pick up crumbs so they can defend this murdering piece of blue shat.... if their crumbs had any substance that piece of blue shat would have been stripped of his job and held with out bail... but that don't matter to our extreme right wingers, the boys in blue can do no wrong..


I was noticing while reading your deep, partisan whining..... you seem miserable.

----------


## Micketto

> No.. I watched the video.. I see no justification for the Officer shooting this guy in the back and failing to render emergency assistance... and then to have the audacity to say: "I feared for my life"..


That's nice.





> BTW.. I have deep roots in Charleston... so it matters.


I have deep roots in humanity.... so it matters.

----------

St James (04-09-2015)

----------


## Beevee

> Maybe you're not following this too closely.  The cop claims the suspect ATTACKED him and fought with him.  That IS a felony, and would make that suspect a violent criminal and danger to everyone. Getting more clear for you now ?


Does that justify four bullets in the back from a distance then?

----------


## Beevee

> He should step down for accusing someone of murder, if it turns out the cop is not guilty because of insufficient evidence.


Strange you should claim that, since that is what America does best, accuse everyone of everything and use Constitutional Amendments to do so. 
Are you now opposed to what every American does on every forum every day?

----------


## sooda

> That's nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have deep roots in humanity.... so it matters.


For Christ's sake.. I am not challenging you personally.

----------


## cable2

> * Originally Posted by cable2* 
> _it has not taken long before the extreme right to pick up crumbs so they can defend this murdering piece of blue shat.... if their crumbs had any substance that piece of blue shat would have been stripped of his job and held with out bail... but that don't matter to our extreme right wingers, the boys in blue can do no wrong.._





> I was noticing while reading your deep, partisan whining..... *you seem miserable*.


just wishful thinking on your part...  :Wink:

----------


## Roadmaster

We have to be careful of the media lies on this one. When the bystander was first interviewed he said they were on the floor. Now he is saying no struggle. How did the taser get 4 to 5  feet away from the officer on the ground, if something didn't happen. One more thing, where are the cars. When the bystander first starting filming and moving around the cars were nowhere near, how far did he chase him and what happened before, how did he first get away out of his car, looks like the bystander got there in the end.

----------


## Roadmaster

The media looks like they fabricated some facts. It wasn't the officer that shot him saying he did cpr, it was the black officer that said  he applied pressure to the gunshot wounds and another that came onto the scene said he witnessed it. Both of these are being questioned.

----------


## Roadmaster

Ok hear it is, if you notice you don't hear shots yet so they were running and scuffling for a while.

http://www.wistv.com/story/28761385/...f-walter-scott

----------


## goosey

It was a crime of rage but I feel sorry for him because he's been sent out on his own. Who wouldn't snap and shoot someone if you are getting roughed up like that every day. 

I'm surprised that he held off that long because where I come from, if you lay hands on a police person, game over.

----------


## protectionist

Neither of the 2 videos shows a scuffle or Scott attacking the cop,  with insufficient evidence to show that the cop was NOT attacked, the officers's account that he was, can't be refuted. Thus, the definition of Scott as a felon cant be refuted either.  Since we know he was fleeing, and the possibility exists that he was a felon who had attacked a cop, this falls under the fleeing felon rule established by the US Supreme Court, and a justification for the shooting. With all evidence shown so far, the officer should not have been charged.

If another video surfacing with the missing (crucial) middle time period, this could change.

----------


## oscarmitre

> Here is a very BASIC point of* American law* for you.  The BURDEN OF PROOF is always on the ACCUSER, not the accused.  *The defendant is innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution.*  It is they who must show there was no attack.  The defense could remain 100% silent and still win the case, if the prosecution has no evidence to show what they claim.  This is what happened in the OJ Simpson case, the Zimmerman case, and thousands of others like them.




I understand about the burden of proof. I also understand about the need to construct a defence. If you believe that the defence has to prove nothing then you've never set foot in a courtroom. In this case the prosecution needs to prove that the defendant murdered Scott. 


_"Murder" is the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied._


The prosecution is going to try to prove that the defendant killed Scott with malice aforethought. In other words, the defendant knew what he was doing and had no excuse for it. If he has an excuse then he has to prove it.

----------


## Katzndogz

> Neither of the 2 videos shows a scuffle or Scott attacking the cop,  with insufficient evidence to show that the cop was NOT attacked, the officers's account that he was, can't be refuted. Thus, the definition of Scott as a felon cant be refuted either.  Since we know he was fleeing, and the possibility exists that he was a felon who had attacked a cop, this falls under the fleeing felon rule established by the US Supreme Court, and a justification for the shooting. With all evidence shown so far, the officer should not have been charged.
> 
> If another video surfacing with the missing (crucial) middle time period, this could change.


Wrong.  There is no application of the felony use of force rule if there is a possibility that someone is a felon.  We could all possibly be felons.  A felony has been committed and there is a reasonable belief that the suspect committed the felony.  

I just saw the second video and there was no scuffle.   Based on that video the cop should just plead to murder2 and work out a deal without a trial.

----------

sooda (04-09-2015)

----------


## sooda

> Neither of the 2 videos shows a scuffle or Scott attacking the cop,  with insufficient evidence to show that the cop was NOT attacked, the officers's account that he was, can't be refuted. Thus, the definition of Scott as a felon cant be refuted either.  Since we know he was fleeing, and the possibility exists that he was a felon who had attacked a cop, this falls under the fleeing felon rule established by the US Supreme Court, and a justification for the shooting. With all evidence shown so far, the officer should not have been charged.
> 
> If another video surfacing with the missing (crucial) middle time period, this could change.



Neither video shows the cop getting roughed up.. and his word isn't worth spit....... Rentacops shouldn't try to practice law.

----------


## sooda

> Neither of the 2 videos shows a scuffle or Scott attacking the cop,  with insufficient evidence to show that the cop was NOT attacked, the officers's account that he was, can't be refuted. Thus, the definition of Scott as a felon cant be refuted either.  Since we know he was fleeing, and the possibility exists that he was a felon who had attacked a cop, this falls under the fleeing felon rule established by the US Supreme Court, and a justification for the shooting. With all evidence shown so far, the officer should not have been charged.
> 
> If another video surfacing with the missing (crucial) middle time period, this could change.


And if pigs had wings they could fly.. This cop is a dumb ass.. Funny .. both men served in the US Coast Guard.

----------


## Trinnity

Something happened between this ^ and that  :Sign16: 




If the shooting was somehow justified, the missing footage would tell the tale. As it is, there is no footage of that time. It looks like the cop murdered the man. He's in deep deep doo doo.

----------


## Roadmaster

If he was going to shoot the guy he should have when the guy had his taser. That's just my feelings. I was trying not to take sides.

----------


## Katzndogz

Assuming the guy had the taser.  So far it looks like not only did the guy not have the taser but there never was a taser struggle.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Assuming the guy had the taser.  So far it looks like not only did the guy not have the taser but there never was a taser struggle.


 There is no evidence only the recording of the officer when he said he had it either in the chase before or then. Timing is important. If he said he got my taser before this then it may be believable, when this camera started, if he said it then, he is toast.

----------


## Karl

> There is no evidence only the recording of the officer when he said he had it either in the chase before or then. Timing is important. If he said he got my taser before this then it may be believable, when this camera started, if he said it then, he is toast.


uh @roadmaster hate to "Break Your Heart" but the guy was RUNNING AWAY and SHOT in the BACK like a WILD ANIMAL....THEN the "doofus" handcuffs a DEAD BODY

He was also a TERRIBLE SHOT out of EIGHT ROUNDS fired only ONE actually hit the guy

----------


## Katzndogz

> uh @roadmaster hate to "Break Your Heart" but the guy was RUNNING AWAY and SHOT in the BACK like a WILD ANIMAL....THEN the "doofus" handcuffs a DEAD BODY
> 
> He was also a TERRIBLE SHOT out of EIGHT ROUNDS fired only ONE actually hit the guy


5 hit Scott in the back.  Only one was an instant kill shot.

keep in mind this guy took four bullets before one brought him down.   When gun grabbers want guns that have smaller capacity think about it.

----------


## Karl

> 5 hit Scott in the back.  Only one was an instant kill shot.
> 
> keep in mind this guy took four bullets before one brought him down.   When gun grabbers want guns that have smaller capacity think about it.


Kind of A BAD POINT to Make when we are talking about a guy shot in the back tens of yards AWAY

Now don't get me wrong @Katzndogz it's a VALID PREMISE yes I give Ya that but Given the Circumstances that are on video well just DIS-TASTEFUL outright

----------


## Roadmaster

> uh @roadmaster hate to "Break Your Heart" but the guy was RUNNING AWAY and SHOT in the BACK like a WILD ANIMAL....THEN the "doofus" handcuffs a DEAD BODY
> 
> He was also a TERRIBLE SHOT out of EIGHT ROUNDS fired only ONE actually hit the guy


 They always put handcuffs unless they know their dead. What's going to happen is white officers are not going to or refuse to work in black neighborhoods like back in the old days. Not because of this one but the others the media blows out of proportion and then you will hear blacks complain like they use to that cops don't care about them, never show up.

----------


## cable2

the dashcam video 



our RW'er will need to find more crumbs if they want to carry on their defense of this killer cop.

read RT's version of the story....http://Dashcam footage from SC shoot...shcam-footage/

----------


## Micketto

> the "doofus" handcuffs a DEAD BODY


He was clearly not dead yet.





> He was also a TERRIBLE SHOT out of EIGHT ROUNDS fired only ONE actually hit the guy


Also quite wrong.

----------


## Micketto

> Assuming the guy had the taser.  So far it looks like not only did the guy not have the taser but there never was a taser struggle.


So you're discounting the witness' own statement about the two struggling on the ground before he started filming ?

----------


## cable2

go hear the killer cop's BS interchange with dispatch... http://Officer Michael Slager Tells ... Scott (AUDIO) the killer cop's audio he even claimed he gave CPR.

let's hear our extreme right wingers find the crumbs out of the audio to defend the killer cop.

----------


## Micketto

> go hear the killer cop's BS interchange with dispatch... http://Officer Michael Slager Tells ... Scott (AUDIO) the killer cop's audio he even claimed he gave CPR.
> 
> let's hear our extreme right wingers find the crumbs out of the audio to defend the killer cop.


A little advice:

1) No need to repeat the "crumb" line, we've read it a few times already.
2) Ease up on your anti-Conservative hate-filled rants.... this isn't a left/right issue.  And... is there anyone here actually defending the cop? Or would a more rational mind see that they are only saying he at least deserves his trial?
3) Set your anger aside long enough to learn how to post a F'ing link if you want someone to use it.


You're welcome.

----------


## Roadmaster

Slow the video down. 0017 stop there, a tazer was deployed. You can see the lines.

----------


## NuYawka

Nobody anywhere, and I mean NOBODY, has asked this question yet - 

Why, oh WHY is some idiot that's driving a Mercedes (that he had just bought, mind you) so friggin behind on Child Support?????? 














Oh, I know why...... 


He was 'KEEPIN IT REAL'. 



Fuckin ass.

----------

DeadEye (04-14-2015)

----------


## St James

that's like asking why black women show up at local grocery stores at 9 o'clock at night dressed to the nines with furs and jewelry while driving brand new SUV's using food stamps........

----------

DeadEye (04-14-2015),NuYawka (04-14-2015)

----------


## NuYawka

> that's like asking why black women show up at local grocery stores at 9 o'clock at night dressed to the nines with furs and jewelry while driving brand new SUV's using food stamps........


And living in Section 8 housing.

----------

DeadEye (04-14-2015),St James (04-14-2015)

----------


## DeadEye

C'mon guys,, black lives matter.

----------

NuYawka (04-14-2015),St James (04-14-2015)

----------


## NuYawka

> C'mon guys,, black lives matter.


 :Smile:

----------

St James (04-14-2015)

----------


## sotmfs

> Why didn't the guy stop running?  Surely the gunshots made some impression.


He did stop running.Yes,the gunshots made some impressions.In his back.

----------


## sotmfs

> Nobody anywhere, and I mean NOBODY, has asked this question yet - 
> 
> Why, oh WHY is some idiot that's driving a Mercedes (that he had just bought, mind you) so friggin behind on Child Support?????? 
> 
> No one asked because it has no relevancy to the incident,in my opinion. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## sotmfs

> that's like asking why black women show up at local grocery stores at 9 o'clock at night dressed to the nines with furs and jewelry while driving brand new SUV's using food stamps........


Is that a common thing?
It occurs often?
I do not go to grocery stores at 9 pm,I am unaware.

----------


## sotmfs

> that's like asking why black women show up at local grocery stores at 9 o'clock at night dressed to the nines with furs and jewelry while driving brand new SUV's using food stamps........


Definitely a relevant question needing to be asked.

----------


## sotmfs

> And living in Section 8 housing.


Another pertinent question needing to be asked in this incident.

----------


## Katzndogz

How old was the Mercedes?  How much did the car cost?

----------


## sotmfs

What the hell is a Black guy driving a Mercedes to begin with?
If there is no White guy in the back seat and the driver wearing a chauffeur uniform it is a problem.

----------


## sotmfs

> How old was the Mercedes?  How much did the car cost?


The answers to those questions could vindicate the officer.

----------

Micketto (04-15-2015)

----------


## DeadEye

Why did he resist? Why did he run?

----------


## NuYawka

> Another pertinent question needing to be asked in this incident.


That wasn't a question.

----------


## St James

> Is that a common thing?
> It occurs often?
> I do not go to grocery stores at 9 pm,I am unaware.


when I lived in Fart Wayne, there was a local grocery called Rogers. It was located 1 block from the old homestead. 
Yes, it happened on a regular basis, like 6 days a week. When you have kids and a wife, a grocery around the corner is mighty damned convenient, especially at 9 pm.

----------


## goosey

Fart, wayne and Rogers???

Great.

----------


## St James

> Fart, wayne and Rogers???
> 
> Great.


we lived in Fort Wayne for 20 years and I hated every last freakin second of it................ When we got this place out in the country, I couldn't get out of there fast enough. It's pretty bad when your sister calls from CA to tell you that your own police department is rated the 4th most corrupt police force on the US.....of course, people in Fort Wayne never got the new story _OR_ the memo

----------


## Roadmaster

I hope justice is served in this case. If the guy not only ran, fought with the cop down the street before this, got his taser, who knows could have went for his gun and tried to taze the cop at that point, then it was self defense no matter how bad the video looks. If the taser had worked he could have overcame the cop and shot him. It's all if's here but if that is what happened the cop should walk. If not the cop needs to serve time.

----------


## sooda

> I hope justice is served in this case. If the guy not only ran, fought with the cop down the street before this, got his taser, who knows could have went for his gun and tried to taze the cop at that point, then it was self defense no matter how bad the video looks. If the taser had worked he could have overcame the cop and shot him. It's all if's here but if that is what happened the cop should walk. If not the cop needs to serve time.


All my family in Charleston think the cop screwed up..

----------


## NuYawka

> All my family in Charleston think the cop screwed up..


Unless they know ALL the facts (the missing chunk of time between videos), they can't think anything.

----------


## sooda

> Unless they know ALL the facts (the missing chunk of time between videos), they can't think anything.


We see the man exit his car and run...

Charleston doesn't like this sort of crap from cops. We have had good law enforcement for a long, long time.

----------


## NuYawka

> We see the man exit his car and run...
> 
> Charleston doesn't like this sort of crap from cops. We have had good law enforcement for a long, long time.


Unless you (or anyone) know(s) all the facts, it's just speculation (whether you or they live in Charleston or Chile).

----------


## Micketto

> Unless you (or anyone) know(s) all the facts, it's just speculation (whether you or they live in Charleston or Chile).




We've all seen the same videos, but apparently living closer to the incident adds an extra level of expertise.

----------

NuYawka (04-16-2015)

----------


## Rudy2D

> We've all seen the same videos, but apparently living closer to the incident adds an extra level of expertise.


Only if they can see North Charleston from their back-porch.   :Biglaugh:

----------

NuYawka (04-16-2015)

----------


## sooda

> We've all seen the same videos, but apparently living closer to the incident adds an extra level of expertise.


I think it boils down to judgment and attitudes about race and law enforcement.. and what constitutes a killing offense. Charleston is a very genteel city in most respects.

----------


## NuYawka

> We've all seen the same videos, but apparently living closer to the incident adds an extra level of expertise.


lol

----------


## NuYawka

> I think it boils down to judgment and attitudes about race and law enforcement.. and what constitutes a killing offense.


No. 

What it should boil down to is the facts, and nothing else.

----------


## sooda

> No. 
> 
> What it should boil down to is the facts, and nothing else.


If you kill a man, any man of any color, over a busted tail light and past due child support, It goes to lack of judgment and self control on the part of the officer.. Charleston isn't Newark.. Maybe the police officer thought he was still in New Jersey.

----------


## NuYawka

> If you kill a man, any man of any color, over a busted tail light and past due child support, It goes to lack of judgment and self control on the part of the officer.. Charleston isn't Newark.. Maybe the police officer thought he was still in New Jersey.


Do you know all the facts that occurred after he was pulled over and before he was shot?

----------


## sooda

> Do you know all the facts that occurred after he was pulled over and before he was shot?


We know he spoke courteously to the officer.....  and we saw the policeman chase him and shoot 8 shots at his back... 

Is this a "racial" incident to you... or are all crimes and misdemeanors equally worthy of extreme enforcement?

----------


## Micketto

> If you kill a man, any man of any color, over a busted tail light and past due child support


That's not why he killed him.


(You'd think the people in Charleston would know this, since they live close to it and all...)

----------

NuYawka (04-16-2015),Rudy2D (04-16-2015)

----------


## NuYawka

> We know he spoke courteously to the officer.....  and we saw the policeman chase him and shoot 8 shots at his back... 
> 
> Is this a "racial" incident to you... or are all crimes and misdemeanors equally worthy of extreme enforcement?


You still haven't answered my question.

----------


## NuYawka

@sooda 

Do you know all the facts that occurred after he was pulled over and before he was shot?

----------


## sooda

> @sooda 
> 
> Do you know all the facts that occurred after he was pulled over and before he was shot?


I watched both videos... Consider that it was a traffic stop and the outstanding warrants were not for crimes of violence..

----------


## NuYawka

> I watched both videos... Consider that it was a traffic stop and the outstanding warrants were not for crimes of violence..


Hmmm...... 

Do you know all the facts that occurred after he was pulled over and before he was shot?

----------


## sooda

> Hmmm...... 
> 
> Do you know all the facts that occurred after he was pulled over and before he was shot?


We saw him stop and respond to the officer's questions.. and then we saw him run while the cop was back in the squad car..

----------


## NuYawka

> We saw him stop and respond to the officer's questions.. and then we saw him run while the cop was back in the squad car..


Yeah um..... 


Do you know all the facts that occurred after he was pulled over and before he was shot?

----------

Rudy2D (04-16-2015)

----------


## sooda

> Yeah um..... 
> 
> 
> Do you know all the facts that occurred after he was pulled over and before he was shot?


You mean while the man was running and the officer was sitting in his car?

----------


## NuYawka

> You mean while the man was running and the officer was sitting in his car?


Am I speaking Hindu? 

I mean: The time-frame that occurred after he was pulled over and before he was shot.


All the facts, please.

----------


## sooda

> Am I speaking Hindu? 
> 
> I mean: The time-frame that occurred after he was pulled over and before he was shot.
> 
> 
> All the facts, please.


Oh you are saying that there was time for the police officer to chase him down, catch him, struggle with him, tase and let him run off again with a 40 foot head start.

----------


## NuYawka

> Oh you are saying that there was time for the police officer to chase him down, catch him, struggle with him, tase and let him run off again with a 40 foot head start.


I'd like you to show me where I said that.




And then answer the question.

----------


## sooda

> I'd like you to show me where I said that.


Well be specific.. a lot must have happened in the space of a few seconds.

----------


## NuYawka

> Well be specific.. a lot must have happened in the space of a few seconds.


Nobody can be specific without the facts. 

So when will you give them to us?

----------


## sooda

> Nobody can be specific without the facts. 
> 
> So when will you give them to us?


OK.. but listen to the cops claim.. The dead guy had a running head start on the cop when he fled the car.. So a whole lot must have happened in the space of a few seconds and the cop must be an Olympic sprinter.

----------


## Micketto

> OK.. but listen to the cops claim.. The dead guy had a running head start on the cop when he fled the car.. So a whole lot must have happened in the space of a few seconds and the cop must be an Olympic sprinter.


So...we know he did catch up with him, since:

1) the witness said they were on the ground fighting.
2) the second video begins with the two of them separating.

Then we establish there was obviously more than "a few seconds" between videos.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-16-2015)

----------


## NuYawka

> OK.. but listen to the cops claim.. The dead guy had a running head start on the cop when he fled the car.. So a whole lot must have happened in the space of a few seconds and the cop must be an Olympic sprinter.


Sooooo.... can you please tell us what happened after he was pulled over and before he was shot?

----------

Rudy2D (04-16-2015)

----------


## sooda

> Sooooo.... can you please tell us what happened after he was pulled over and before he was shot?


Watch the two videos... unless they took a break from the action, the cop is a liar. Wait and see.

----------


## Micketto

> Watch the two videos... unless they took a break from the action, the cop is a liar. Wait and see.


"break from the action"... lol

Two separate videos, two separate sources, of two different areas.
One shows a runner 30 yards ahead of the cop.... the next shows the two scuffling.

You've already established there was a length of time between them.
Of course there is more that took place than you can claim to know.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-16-2015),NuYawka (04-16-2015)

----------


## sooda

> "break from the action"... lol
> 
> Two separate videos, two separate sources, of two different areas.
> One shows a runner 30 yards ahead of the cop.... the next shows the two scuffling.
> 
> You've already established there was a length of time between them.
> Of course there is more that took place than you can claim to know.


Exactly.. The victim was 30 yards ahead of the officer and running like a jack rabbit.

----------


## Micketto

> Exactly.. The victim was 30 yards ahead of the officer and running like a jack rabbit.


.. and ?

----------


## NuYawka

uploadfromtaptalk1429204696930.jpg

----------


## NuYawka

Checkmate.

----------


## Rudy2D

> Checkmate.


Too much work.   :Smile:

----------


## NuYawka

> Too much work.


But it was worth it.  :Smile:

----------


## NuYawka

uploadfromtaptalk1429233237222.jpg

----------

Rudy2D (04-17-2015)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Exactly.. The victim was 30 yards ahead of the officer and running like a jack rabbit.


He was actually the slowest black man that I have ever seen.

----------


## Micketto

> He was actually the slowest black man that I have ever seen.


You obviously don't watch much Lions football.

----------

NuYawka (04-17-2015)

----------


## Micketto

> Checkmate.


I think he realized that a while ago.

Last half dozen posts were those random one-liners having nothing to do with the point being made.

We call that "pulling a Margot".

----------

DonGlock26 (04-19-2015)

----------


## NuYawka

> I think he realized that a while ago.
> 
> Last half dozen posts were those random one-liners having nothing to do with the point being made.
> 
> We call that "pulling a Margot".


Yep.

----------


## sotmfs

> That wasn't a question.


No ? ,you are correct!!

----------


## sotmfs

> when I lived in Fart Wayne, there was a local grocery called Rogers. It was located 1 block from the old homestead. 
> Yes, it happened on a regular basis, like 6 days a week. When you have kids and a wife, a grocery around the corner is mighty damned convenient, especially at 9 pm.


I know going to a grocery store at 9 pm can be and is a common event.I am unsure if  black women showing up at local grocery stores at 9 o'clock at night  dressed to the nines with furs and jewelry while driving brand new SUV's  using food stamps.......is a common event.

----------


## DonGlock26

> You obviously don't watch much Lions football.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

You can't outrun referee corruption, but I digress. 

Homie had that 50 year old walk-jog thing going. That's why the cop with 30 pounds of shit on was able to catch him. 
That and the Newports.  :Smile:

----------


## DonGlock26

> I think he realized that a while ago.
> 
> Last half dozen posts were those random one-liners having nothing to do with the point being made.
> 
> We call that "pulling a Margot".


There is a lot of Margot-ism going on these days. They all seem to be stuck at exactly the same point of mental dysfunction too.

----------

