I am not going to rehash the truth and reality for you time and time again.
:doh You have to hash it first to rehash it, which you definitely have not done.
All you have done is make things up, and assume.
To legally be allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect the officer has to have a reasonable suspicion that he poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others,
It is not reasonable suspicion. It is probable cause to believe. Different standards.
And again. The suspect taking the taser satisfies the requirement. You haven't been able to refute that, nor could you.
until the end of this officers trial,
Trial?
It hasn't even gotten past the Grand Jury point yet.
the fact that at the time this officer executed
That is not a fact. This is you making things up.
(according to republican presidential candidate Ben Carson)
Irrelevant. And just shows how weak your arguments are.
the fleeing victim was NOT a threat of any kind to the officer and thus his actions where illegal.
Wrong.
His taking the taser made him a significant threat.
but most people with eyes in their heads and a modicum of common sense realize that what this officer did was illegal.
Wrong.
This is a classic example of police brutality
Responding appropriately to a threat is not brutality.
The officer did not fire a warning shot
This absurd comment just shows that you are not even qualified to be speaking on this subject.
You do not fire warning shots.
that you want to ignore the reality and legal position that allows officers to shoot is not my problem.
As you are the one ignoring reality, it is your problem, not mine.
The moment the suspect took the taser he became a significant threat.
You can not refute that.
There is no defense for the indefensible and this shooting is indefensible.
In this case your statement is wrong.
The suspect was a significant threat as soon as he took the taser. As such, the Officers response is defensible.
You still haven't been able to refute that.
Yay! Finally, admittance you are assuming.
Watch the above video and please tell us what Slager is seen picking up from the ground besides the killed Walter Scott and put back in his belt? It's not his handcuffs because they are still on the dying/dead man. It isn't his gun because that is situated on the other side of the officers belt. I would assume/am almost certain of it that this is the taser that originally was laying far away from where the body is dying on the ground. Because when the shooting starts the taser was on the ground at the officers feet.
No it wasn't at his feet.
And again.
The Officer is drawing his firearm while the suspect has the taser.
You are wrong in your comments, this was the officer perverting the course of justice, interfering with the evidence, staging the scene and trying to get away with murder.
No, you are wrong and your comments are nonsense as shown.
You still have failed to refute the actual evidence.
The suspect was a significant threat as soon as he took the taser. It is that threat to which the Officer was responding. Saying otherwise is ludicrous.
manslaughter should be what the officer is convicted of.
If you think that why have you been arguing murder and execution? Do you not know they are not the same things as manslaughter?
Or did you change your mind? If not, why the heck have you been arguing with me? Did you not see what I said in my second post?
That black thing was likely the tazer that the guy took as reported by the Officer.
At the moment of the shooting it doesn't appear as the Officer knew he threw it down.
If so, this would indicate that the Officer (in his mind) was responding to an actual threat.
That information and whether he moved the tazer after the fact and why, may be the difference between manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter and that of a murder conviction.