South Carolina Police Officer shoots unarmed man in the back as he flees.

Will207 · April 14, 2015, 6:35pm

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
OH REALLY?

I dare say I can provide plenty of video evidence that proves that statement to be willfully ignorant.

Seriously, is this Germany circa 1934? “papers please?”

What fucking planet do you live on where you think it’s ok to fucking harass someone for walking down the street?

I guess that fucking nigger deserved to be shot in the back, right? I mean, after all, there was a WARRANT… /sarcasm
[/quote]

I guess all you need to prove something is three videos of it happening.

All animals can waterski.

Good job bringing up the Nazis. Bravo.

Was Scott walking down the street? No, he was driving a car and was asked to produce ID which he is legally required to do if he wants to drive a vehicle on a public road.

NickViar · April 14, 2015, 6:52pm

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

So I guess that justifies shooting a man in the back…[/quote]

No, but it wasn’t initially reported.

No, police can’t use tasers anytime they want to.

[/quote]

OH REALLY?

I dare say I can provide plenty of video evidence that proves that statement to be willfully ignorant. [quote]

So there are people in society who should be excluded from police interactions based on previous experiences with law enforcement? Should we pass laws allowing women who have been raped by men to taser any man approaching them withing 30 feet?

[quote]If someone with a blue uniform has harassed and beaten you over and over on random occasions for your entire life and then you are approached by someone in a blue uniform AGAIN, would not the prudent action be to try and defend yourself?
[/quote]

Defend yourself from what? Showing the police officer identification? Scott knew there was a warrant out for his arrest and decided to run and then fight with Slager. Scott was not defending himself at all. [/quote]

On what grounds does a police officer have to demand ANYONE to show them identification?

Seriously, is this Germany circa 1934? “papers please?”

What fucking planet do you live on where you think it’s ok to fucking harass someone for walking down the street?

I guess that fucking nigger deserved to be shot in the back, right? I mean, after all, there was a WARRANT… /sarcasm
[/quote]

Each of those videos featured someone resisting what I assume were lawful demands. What would be a more effective method of gaining compliance than the use of tasers? Note: I’m not agreeing with the actions of the officers, but you have not posted anything proving Will207 wrong-the officers were not just walking down the street and randomly deploying their tasers.

angry_chicken · April 14, 2015, 6:53pm

Will, how about a contest. You post as many videos of animals waterskiing that you can find, and I’ll post as many videos of police officers beating, macing, tasing and killing people that I can find. Who do you think will have more vids?

Also, I am well aware that Scott was driving. I was changing the subject to the police harassing people while they are walking, minding their own business. Or do you contend that, “that never happens either, because they are not allowed to do that”.

In case you haven’t noticed, Will, there are a lot of bad cops out there killing, beating, tasing and macing people for “resisting arrest” or, “not obeying the commands of an officer”…

If I’m walking along the street minding my business and you command me to stop, why should I listen to you? If I’m breaking no laws, what grounds do you have to stop me? If I refuse, will you tase me or shoot me? If I ran from you would you pursue me and attempt to arrest me? On what grounds? Serious question.

JR249 · April 14, 2015, 7:02pm

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

On what grounds does a police officer have to demand ANYONE to show them identification?

Seriously, is this Germany circa 1934? “papers please?”

What fucking planet do you live on where you think it’s ok to fucking harass someone for walking down the street?

I guess that fucking nigger deserved to be shot in the back, right? I mean, after all, there was a WARRANT… /sarcasm
[/quote]

If done during the course of an investigative stop, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada - it was a Supreme Court case. The police can require identification, but it depends on the circumstances surrounding how and why someone was stopped.

NickViar · April 14, 2015, 7:07pm

*I know the questions are not directed at me.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If I’m walking along the street minding my business and you command me to stop, why should I listen to you?[/quote]
-If you are commanded to stop, you stop. If you are asked to stop, you shouldn’t stop.

-None, unless you are known to have an active warrant.

-I hope the answer to all of the above is “no.”

Will207 · April 14, 2015, 7:14pm

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If I’m walking along the street minding my business and you command me to stop, why should I listen to you? If I’m breaking no laws, what grounds do you have to stop me? If I refuse, will you tase me or shoot me? If I ran from you would you pursue me and attempt to arrest me? On what grounds? Serious question.

[/quote]

Depends on why I’m stopping you. If you match the description of a person who just committed a serious crime, I would stop and identify you and begin an investigation, and now you are under investigative detention. If you decided to run away, you would be under arrest for obstructing me in the course of my duties.

I wouldn’t shoot you for refusing to ID yourself, I would simply arrest you. If you decided to fight or resist, I would employ the appropriate use of force.

TooHuman · April 14, 2015, 7:26pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Dude is 10 feet away when the cop shoots him in the back, get the fuck out with this garbage… [/quote]

It doesn’t matter how far away he was legally. Normally a police officer wouldn’t shoot you but they would taze you instead, but they absolutely aren’t legally required to use non-deadly force after the set of circumstances I described above(of course speculative). Further, obviously he couldn’t user his tazer because it was wrapped around scott’s leg and/or on the ground.

Look man. The POLICE ARE NOT HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD OTHER PEOPLE ARE. They can do immoral things LEGALLY. That’s why he might not and probably won’t be convicted and why this situation is so horrible. [/quote]

Wrong:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=1

“Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect’s rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. Pp. 7-12.”

“While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous. Pp. 20-22.”

[quote]
Further, what kind of bullshit hypocrisy is telling me to protest the laws yet supporting a protest of the police if he doesn’t get convicted? [/quote]

I wouldn’t protest the police. I would protest the ruling.

You quoted the position of the Court of Appeals which was REVERSED in this case.

See Justice White’s opinion lower down.

anon50325502 · April 14, 2015, 7:29pm

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Dude is 10 feet away when the cop shoots him in the back, get the fuck out with this garbage… [/quote]

It doesn’t matter how far away he was legally. Normally a police officer wouldn’t shoot you but they would taze you instead, but they absolutely aren’t legally required to use non-deadly force after the set of circumstances I described above(of course speculative). Further, obviously he couldn’t user his tazer because it was wrapped around scott’s leg and/or on the ground.

Look man. The POLICE ARE NOT HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD OTHER PEOPLE ARE. They can do immoral things LEGALLY. That’s why he might not and probably won’t be convicted and why this situation is so horrible. [/quote]

Wrong:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=1

“Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect’s rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. Pp. 7-12.”

“While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous. Pp. 20-22.”

[quote]
Further, what kind of bullshit hypocrisy is telling me to protest the laws yet supporting a protest of the police if he doesn’t get convicted? [/quote]

I wouldn’t protest the police. I would protest the ruling.

You quoted the position of the Court of Appeals which was REVERSED in this case.

See Justice White’s opinion lower down.[/quote]

You aren’t being serious are you?

JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

anon50325502 · April 14, 2015, 7:30pm

"The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered."

TooHuman · April 14, 2015, 7:35pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
GRAHAM v. CONNOR doesn’t give them a free pass either.

It sets the precedent that the officer only has to BELIEVE DURING THE ARREST that the suspect was a danger of harm to the officer or others.

You have to prove without a reasonable doubt that with the information the officer had at the time they made the decision to use deadly force that the suspect didn’t pose a harm to the officer or others.

You can’t use information learned after the fact or from a third party perspective to make that point.

anon50325502 · April 14, 2015, 7:42pm

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
GRAHAM v. CONNOR doesn’t give them a free pass either.

It sets the precedent that the officer only has to BELIEVE DURING THE ARREST that the suspect was a danger of harm to the officer or others. [/quote]

It holds the officer has to believe, under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard that the suspect was a danger to the officer or others.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST
“This case requires us to decide what constitutional standard governs a free citizen’s claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of his person. We hold that such claims are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard.”

[quote]
You have to prove without a reasonable doubt [/quote]

Where does it say this?

[quote]
that with the information the officer had at the time they made the decision to use deadly force that the suspect didn’t pose a harm to the officer or others. You can’t use information learned after the fact or from a third party perspective to make that point.[/quote]

A video of the events isn’t information learned after the fact, at least in my opinion. It’s the events unfolding in real time with no influence from a third party.

The video does not, in my unprofessional opinion, pass the objective reasonableness standard. Not by a country mile.

TooHuman · April 14, 2015, 8:02pm

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Further, if it turns out in the court hearing that there are marks from the taser bolt on slager, then regardless of who tried to use the taser, slager was within his legal rights to use his gun when Scott ran.

[/quote]

Please explain how ANYONE is within legal rights to shoot an unarmed man in the back.

I’ll wait.

If that does come out in court, and this officer is found “not guilty”, can you IMAGINE the civil unrest? LMAO

It’ll make Fergusen look like a walk in the park. And rightfully so.

[/quote]

If you get in a fight with a police officer after they tell you to stop/try to arrest you they can use any necessary means to affect the arrest.

That’s a case law precedent from Tennessee vs Garner
Also Graham VS Conner gives the officer plenty of latitude to prevent an escape if he believes that the suspect is of danger to the officer or others.

For example, if Scott had just fired the taser(speculative) or he believed scott still had the taser as was dragging it away wrapped around his foot (which is clearly seen in the video) when slager pulls out his gun and begins to fire and slager believed he was at risk of being tased, that’s enough for a not-guilty verdict.

If someone is fighting with you and then gets tangled up with your non-deadly weapon, it’s not unreasonable to believe you’d be afraid they would harm you in the moment.

[/quote]But that’s not what happened. Dude was RUNNING AWAY. [quote]

We don’t know for sure what went on with the fight/tazer, but I think it’s likely that there will be a not-guilty verdict.

You shouldn’t confuse that with me thinking that it’s moral, only that’s it’s probably legal.

Also, it’s pretty horrible that you would think that it’s “justifiable” that people riot.

[/quote]I think it’s pretty horrible that there are literally thousands of hours of video footage of officers beating, macing, killing and otherwise violating the civil rights of our citizens and only a FRACTION of them ever face any kind of justice for it. THAT’S what’s horrible.

What I poorly attempted to communicate was that the Fergusen debacle was based on MIS information, while this case we have video of an officer shooting someone in the back. That’s what I meant by “rightfully so”. I meant that they are “rightfully upset”, not that I would condone a riot. I EXPECT a riot if he is found not guilty, and I can see where that could be misconstrued, but I assure you it’s not what I meant. I think those rioters in Fergusen should have been arrested and charged. [quote]

The people who rioted in the Michael brown case were purely racists and/or criminals directing their anger towards 100% innocent people in their community.

In fact, if you’re serious about it being justified to riot, instead of lets say…protesting the laws that put ALL people in confrontations with police for non-violent “offenses”

IF there is no traffic stop there is no dead Walter Scott and if you support the police monopoly on force, you are ultimately in support of the confrontations that escalate to deadly force.
[/quote]

As I told you, I don’t agree with people rioting and burning down privately held businesses. However, I would have no problem whatsoever with people overturning police vehicles or burning down a police station that protected an officer who clearly committed murder. Bad cops should be taught a lesson and if the “justice” system can’t do that, then it’s up to the citizens to do it. But I do NOT advocate burning PRIVATE businesses that have nothing to do with it.

I’ll put it to you like this: if a police officer killed MY son by shooting him in the back while he was running away (or reaching into his pocket to turn off his iPod) and if that officer was found not guilty, I would make it my mission in LIFE to see that officer (and the corrupt department that protected him) brought to justice. By any means unnecessary… (hypothetically, of course)
[/quote]
So on the first point…It doesn’t matter if he was running away. He was running away after a fight with the officer where the officer’s taser was disabled. You can see that before he turns Scott is facing Slager with his arm out and them making contact.
The guy who took the video said right before it they were both on the ground.
So at some point in their confrontation they get up and the taser is discharged.

No taser to stop a fleeing man you just faught you off means you can only stop him by shooting him…in the back if necessary… and it would be 100% legal.

Of course, it could be there was no fight and Slager used the Taser in which case the next step if a taser doesn’t stop the suspect is deadly force.

So basically the prosecution has to prove that other than chasing after scott and and telling him to stop, no other physical altercation occurred and Slager was never at any danger from the taser.

They could try to prove this by pointing out possible lies/fabrications in Slager’s official report, but I really doubt Slager gets convicted.

Your stance on destroying police property is no different than destroying private businesses. Who do you think is going to pay for replacing that property?

Even if you just go and kill people that are responsible for the “injustice”, it’s taxpayers that will foot the huge bill for funerals of officers, court proceedings, etc…

How many people protesting this case would support abolishing vehicle “safety regulations” that this guy got detained for in the first place?

Everyone that wouldn’t is part of the problem.

TooHuman · April 14, 2015, 8:14pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Dude is 10 feet away when the cop shoots him in the back, get the fuck out with this garbage… [/quote]

It doesn’t matter how far away he was legally. Normally a police officer wouldn’t shoot you but they would taze you instead, but they absolutely aren’t legally required to use non-deadly force after the set of circumstances I described above(of course speculative). Further, obviously he couldn’t user his tazer because it was wrapped around scott’s leg and/or on the ground.

Look man. The POLICE ARE NOT HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD OTHER PEOPLE ARE. They can do immoral things LEGALLY. That’s why he might not and probably won’t be convicted and why this situation is so horrible. [/quote]

Wrong:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=1

“Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect’s rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. Pp. 7-12.”

“While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous. Pp. 20-22.”

Further, what kind of bullshit hypocrisy is telling me to protest the laws yet supporting a protest of the police if he doesn’t get convicted? [/quote]

I wouldn’t protest the police. I would protest the ruling.

You should be protesting at the very least the legal precedent allowing police to shoot a fleeing person or the precedent allowing for leeway due to perception of the threat in the moment. [/quote]

As was pointed out you are wrong here.

You quoted the position of the Court of Appeals which was REVERSED in this case.

See Justice White’s opinion lower down.[/quote]

You aren’t being serious are you?

JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

You quoted the wrong part at first. Fleeing from the officer after fighting with him and discharging his taser can be argued as enough probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer.

If the officer believed he had his taser when turning to run away and he started firing…NOT guilty.
If Scott was running toward other police officers and he believed he would try to do them harm to escape…NOT guilty.

It doesn’t matter that the video shows how far away scott was or that the taser was in actuality on the floor.

All that matters is that Slager thought he may have had his taser or was close enough to cause harm.

TooHuman · April 14, 2015, 8:20pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
GRAHAM v. CONNOR doesn’t give them a free pass either.

It sets the precedent that the officer only has to BELIEVE DURING THE ARREST that the suspect was a danger of harm to the officer or others. [/quote]

It holds the officer has to believe, under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard that the suspect was a danger to the officer or others.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST
“This case requires us to decide what constitutional standard governs a free citizen’s claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of his person. We hold that such claims are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard.”

[quote]
You have to prove without a reasonable doubt [/quote]

Where does it say this?

[quote]
that with the information the officer had at the time they made the decision to use deadly force that the suspect didn’t pose a harm to the officer or others. You can’t use information learned after the fact or from a third party perspective to make that point.[/quote]

A video of the events isn’t information learned after the fact, at least in my opinion. It’s the events unfolding in real time with no influence from a third party.

The video does not, in my unprofessional opinion, pass the objective reasonableness standard. Not by a country mile. [/quote]

The video clearly shows how far away Scott was when Slager began firing and where the taser was from a right angle perspective.
However that tells you little about what Slager saw from his perspective.

For example, he says later in the video that he though scott took the taser from him".

If you can’t prove this isn’t what he thought happened when the taser was yanked away from him, you can’t prove he’s guilty.

anon50325502 · April 14, 2015, 8:25pm

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Dude is 10 feet away when the cop shoots him in the back, get the fuck out with this garbage… [/quote]

It doesn’t matter how far away he was legally. Normally a police officer wouldn’t shoot you but they would taze you instead, but they absolutely aren’t legally required to use non-deadly force after the set of circumstances I described above(of course speculative). Further, obviously he couldn’t user his tazer because it was wrapped around scott’s leg and/or on the ground.

Look man. The POLICE ARE NOT HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD OTHER PEOPLE ARE. They can do immoral things LEGALLY. That’s why he might not and probably won’t be convicted and why this situation is so horrible. [/quote]

Wrong:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=1

“Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect’s rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. Pp. 7-12.”

“While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous. Pp. 20-22.”

Further, what kind of bullshit hypocrisy is telling me to protest the laws yet supporting a protest of the police if he doesn’t get convicted? [/quote]

I wouldn’t protest the police. I would protest the ruling.

You should be protesting at the very least the legal precedent allowing police to shoot a fleeing person or the precedent allowing for leeway due to perception of the threat in the moment. [/quote]

As was pointed out you are wrong here.

You quoted the position of the Court of Appeals which was REVERSED in this case.

See Justice White’s opinion lower down.[/quote]

You aren’t being serious are you?

JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

You quoted the wrong part at first. Fleeing from the officer after fighting with him and discharging his taser can be argued as enough probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer.

If the officer believed he had his taser when turning to run away and he started firing…NOT guilty.
If Scott was running toward other police officers and he believed he would try to do them harm to escape…NOT guilty.

It doesn’t matter that the video shows how far away scott was or that the taser was in actuality on the floor.

All that matters is that Slager thought he may have had his taser or was close enough to cause harm.
[/quote]

I didn’t misquote anything. You’re the one that’s wrong. You’ve been wrong this whole time. You don’t even know the outcome of the court case you posted…

This is a waste of time for me.

TooHuman: “It doesn’t matter how far away he was legally. Normally a police officer wouldn’t shoot you but they would taze you instead, but they absolutely aren’t legally required to use non-deadly force after the set of circumstances I described above(of course speculative).”

Usmc: You’re wrong. Read the Supreme Court ruling. Quotes ruling that was upheld by the supreme court

TooHuman: Nah unnn you quoted the wrong part.

Usmc: quotes Justice White verbatim.

TooHuman: Nah unnn you’re wrong.

It’s like arguing with a child.

You’re fucking wrong dude.

anon50325502 · April 14, 2015, 8:26pm

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
GRAHAM v. CONNOR doesn’t give them a free pass either.

It sets the precedent that the officer only has to BELIEVE DURING THE ARREST that the suspect was a danger of harm to the officer or others. [/quote]

It holds the officer has to believe, under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard that the suspect was a danger to the officer or others.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST
“This case requires us to decide what constitutional standard governs a free citizen’s claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of his person. We hold that such claims are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard.”

[quote]
You have to prove without a reasonable doubt [/quote]

Where does it say this?

[quote]
that with the information the officer had at the time they made the decision to use deadly force that the suspect didn’t pose a harm to the officer or others. You can’t use information learned after the fact or from a third party perspective to make that point.[/quote]

A video of the events isn’t information learned after the fact, at least in my opinion. It’s the events unfolding in real time with no influence from a third party.

The video does not, in my unprofessional opinion, pass the objective reasonableness standard. Not by a country mile. [/quote]

The video clearly shows how far away Scott was when Slager began firing and where the taser was from a right angle perspective.
However that tells you little about what Slager saw from his perspective.

For example, he says later in the video that he though scott took the taser from him".

If you can’t prove this isn’t what he thought happened when the taser was yanked away from him, you can’t prove he’s guilty.[/quote]

He shoot a person in the fucking back that was 10+ feet away and can be seen altering the scene ON VIDEO.

If that’s not enough then we truly are fucked as a society.

anon50325502 · April 14, 2015, 8:27pm

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
You quoted the position of the Court of Appeals which was REVERSED in this case.

See Justice White’s opinion lower down.[/quote]

WRONG

NickViar · April 14, 2015, 8:28pm