Originally posted by Henry_Pym
the one you quoted/agreed with, just because your back is turned doesn't mean your not a threat. All I'm saying is wait for the facts to come out, not sure why anyone would oppose that.
What fact are we waiting for exactly? It is a fact that his back was turned and running away. Nothing indicates or says that he was running away to go and hurt someone else or run and get a gun or anything.
Originally posted by Wei Phoenix
What fact are we waiting for exactly? It is a fact that his back was turned and running away. Nothing indicates or says that he was running away to go and hurt someone else or run and get a gun or anything.
Like Bill Maher said: obviously the cop thought the kid was running at him with his back turned while shrinking.
Originally posted by Henry_Pym
the one you quoted/agreed with, just because your back is turned doesn't mean your not a threat. All I'm saying is wait for the facts to come out, not sure why anyone would oppose that.
The video is clear as day. It's not ambiguous like Martin or Brown, or even like Garner. He was killed running away and then the cop planted a weapon on him. There is no dispute.
Originally posted by Henry_Pym
...the video which doesn't show the start of the incident... Only leftists hate waiting for facts, you realize the officer is already in prison, let the IA do thier investigation and don't freak out when it's turned into a manslaughter conviction.
What could've happened before that part of the video that justifies shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back?
Originally posted by Henry_Pym
...the video which doesn't show the start of the incident... Only leftists hate waiting for facts, you realize the officer is already in prison, let the IA do thier investigation and don't freak out when it's turned into a manslaughter conviction.
yes lets ignore the obvious and wait indefinitely for some freak plot-twist that will justify the desperate and nonsensical narrative of the "all cops r good guys PERIOD!!!" crowd.
meanwhile, in the real world, the only question is which classification of unlawful killing he will be convicted of. but don't let that confuse and dampen your vibrant imagination.
I could understand if Scott was running for a gun on the ground, if he was running to attack someone or use them as a hostage, but he was running away out of fear. Witnesses say that it looked like he was running for his life and just to escape. Scott should be arrested and Slager shouldn't be in jail.
Seems that police officers need to have some sort of insurance policy they have to carry to be bonded and insured.
Some sort of Errors and Omissions and general liability umbrella policy. Now the city and county will have to pay millions to the family of this guy and his kids will get social security until they are 21 and taxes will go up that taxpayers have to pay.
Add all the rating experience of law enforcement, local, state and federal and have the cops pay a few hundred a month or whatever that amount would be.
Similar to some sort of malpractice for doctors.
One must wonder if this is due to an increase in police brutality or merely the nation finally paying more attention to it due to the advanced spread of information that the internet, social media, and video sharing sites. If it's the latter, it's a horrifying situation, but the same can be said about the former as well, especially with newfound access to military grade weapons.
Originally posted by Lestov16
One must wonder if this is due to an increase in police brutality or merely the nation finally paying more attention to it due to the advanced spread of information that the internet, social media, and video sharing sites. If it's the latter, it's a horrifying situation, but the same can be said about the former as well, especially with newfound access to military grade weapons.
It is sad, but it does point out that police brutality does exist.
Seems there should be a protocol in these things.
Pepper spray, taser, bean bags, rubber bullets, batons, cop dog pile the suspect and then use real bullets last.
Originally posted by Wei Phoenixif the officer was tased, and wasn't sure if his "suspect" was still armed and looking for a hostage. I get it, your a sheltered millennial that's never been in any situation even close to this, and everything is black/white (not race) in your thoughts. I'm Not sure why your anti fact.
What could've happened before that part of the video that justifies shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back?
Originally posted by Omega Visionso you have never heard of retreating? Lol at assumptions being greater than facts, your last statement is highly ironic to that statement you made.
It means exactly that if you're running away, you've given no indication of being armed, and the other person has a gun. C'mon, this is weapons-grade stupidity.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg...you be anti fact, I'll live in the real world.
yes lets ignore the obvious and wait indefinitely for some freak plot-twist that will justify the desperate and nonsensical narrative of the "all cops r good guys PERIOD!!!" crowd.meanwhile, in the real world, the only question is which classification of unlawful killing he will be convicted of. but don't let that confuse and dampen your vibrant imagination.
Originally posted by Wei Phoenix"witnesses" also said Brown was on his knees with his hands up... Can we just just let the facts come out before we devolve into bloodthirsty mobs.
I could understand if Scott was running for a gun on the ground, if he was running to attack someone or use them as a hostage, but he was running away out of fear. Witnesses say that it looked like he was running for his life and just to escape. Scott should be arrested and Slager shouldn't be in jail.
Originally posted by Lestov16i think it's more cause/effect. Ferguson was a clean shoot, but people lied about it, New York was a tragedy but it was at best a horrible lapse in judgement on the officers part; not a case of brutality. We are lying to unintelligent people and making them afraid of police and when brutality against officers lead to brutality from officers you can't act surprised.
One must wonder if this is due to an increase in police brutality or merely the nation finally paying more attention to it due to the advanced spread of information that the internet, social media, and video sharing sites. If it's the latter, it's a horrifying situation, but the same can be said about the former as well, especially with newfound access to military grade weapons.
Originally posted by SayWhatthere is, don't be dumb.
It is sad, but it does point out that police brutality does exist.Seems there should be a protocol in these things.
Pepper spray, taser, bean bags, rubber bullets, batons, cop dog pile the suspect and then use real bullets last.
Originally posted by Henry_Pym
"witnesses" also said Brown was on his knees with his hands up... Can we just just let the facts come out before we devolve into bloodthirsty mobs.
No one is talking about Brown, those witnesses are different from the ones involved in the Scott death. What they are saying goes along with what is seen, he's running away and trying to escape.
Originally posted by Henry_Pym
if the officer was tased, and wasn't sure if his "suspect" was still armed and looking for a hostage. I get it, your a sheltered millennial that's never been in any situation even close to this, and everything is black/white (not race) in your thoughts.
You are completely wrong about everything you just said here outside of me not being in a situation close to this. You're right, I have never had to run out of fear of the cops or been in a situation where I tussled with the cops.
I'm not sure I understand your first sentence though, are you saying that he tased the officer?
Originally posted by Tzeentchactually, yes it does... You might want to look at the law beforehand so as not to look foolish.
That wouldn't provide legal justification for shooting a man walking away from you in the back.You're basically just making this up as you go, aren't you?
The court exists as for them to prove reasonable "feelings"
Originally posted by Wei Phoenixyour saying witnesses should be taken as facts when a similar case had multiple cases of fraudulent witnesses.
No one is talking about Brown, those witnesses are different from the ones involved in the Scott death. What they are saying goes along with what is seen, he's running away and trying to escape.You are completely wrong about everything you just said here outside of me not being in a situation close to this. You're right, I have never had to run out of fear of the cops or been in a situation where I tussled with the cops.
I'm not sure I understand your first sentence though, are you saying that he tased the officer?
I'm wrong about everything except the first and last sentence... In a two sentence post but w/e sorry about the flaming. I said >IF< so if so, being tased can make your eyes water, your heart race, hell it could have just pissed him off and made him make a poor decision but in the witness tape you see what appears to be the taser on the ground after the shooting,(it appears the officer moved it to the body for what appears to be tampering reasons), and on the dash cam tape we hear the officer screaming "Taser, Taser, Taser" andthen scream like he was possibly tased
Originally posted by Henry_PymAnd yet...
actually, yes it does... You might want to look at the law beforehand so as not to look foolish.
Nation wide- an officer may use any and all force up to and including deadly force if they FEEL threatened.
The court exists as for them to prove reasonable "feelings"So why even throw that in my face? The statute you've provided allows an Officer to use lethal force if he "feels" threatened, but by your own admission simply "having a feeling" is not a carte blanche justification for using deadly force, in court, I.E. the context of the discussion.
Technically, being 6'3 and black could make the officer "feel threatened" and thus give him the power to use deadly force, however that would not be a valid justification in a court of law. Similarly, the scenario you outlined above may well have led to the officer "feeling threatened" and thus compelled to use deadly force, but the visible lack of weaponry in the man's hands combined with the fact that he was retreating from the officer with his back to him means that that "feeling" of threat wasn't justified.