• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Video Shows Officer Shooting Unarmed Black Man in South Carolina

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unarmed man shot in the back while fleeing. That is the truth. If not for the video, all the cop apologists would have their own false story to push.

One has to wonder about the "threat" that a taser that has already been shot poses to anyone...cops or public. "Attempted tasering?" seems like it's been expended. Cop is dead in the water on this....esp. since, if it was still able to do harm, why would he take it and place it next to a suspect still alive where he could grab it? *snicker* will be fun to see that maneuver explained within department policy, rather than being secured safely.

The posted apologetic acrobatics are amusing tho. Just like those where they tried to justify 2 LEs shooting the wrong, unarmed man, in his bed, without identifying him, after they already had the suspect they had a warrant for, and shot him 16 times...and still didnt manage to kill him.
 
Are you going to testify at the trial? You need to let them know. :roll:
Still unable to focus on the actual topic, huh? How sad.
What is even more sad is you know what you are doing is wrong yet continue to do it.
 
One has to wonder about the "threat" that a taser that has already been shot poses to anyone...cops or public. "Attempted tasering?" seems like it's been expended. Cop is dead in the water on this....esp. since, if it was still able to do harm, why would he take it and place it next to a suspect still alive where he could grab it? *snicker* will be fun to see that maneuver explained within department policy, rather than being secured safely.

The posted apologetic acrobatics are amusing tho. Just like those where they tried to justify 2 LEs shooting the wrong, unarmed man, in his bed, without identifying him, after they already had the suspect they had a warrant for, and shot him 16 times...and still didnt manage to kill him.
This is again you not paying attention to the provided information and are even assuming it was a taser he threw down. :doh

Seems expended? :doh iLOL :lamo

The taser has two ways of being used.
By cartridge or by it's prongs.
Once the cartridge is expended, it can be reloaded with the spare cartridge in the handle or it's prongs can be used.

If you don't get the drift, the prongs are still there and can be used.


It is funny how you read these replies anyways, ignore what has been said, and continue to present false bs that has already been dispelled.
It must be purposeful.

Again; When something is legal it is not an excuse.
Which is not apologetic acrobatics. Funny that you think it is.
 
Last edited:
A man who's been shot in the back and killed is no threat to anyone.
 
That may be a reasonable assumption, but you do not know that.
And presently, that will depend on a Grand Jury to decide.

But way to deflect from your previous absurd comment. :thumbs:

Don't you think the video and eyewitness testimony provides the grand jury with enough evidence to indict?
 
Don't you think the video and eyewitness testimony provides the grand jury with enough evidence to indict?

How so?

Maybe you are missing it? The video and evidence shows he is reacting to a significant threat which is a legal reaction and therefore shouldn't be charged.

The only reason he may be charged is if incomplete evidence is presented to the GJ.
 
Last edited:
The video shows him shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. At the time the weapon was fired, what significant threat was Scott?
 
The video shows him shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. At the time the weapon was fired, what significant threat was Scott?
So what you are saying is that you have not paid attention to what has been presented in this thread?

As already presented (see below), we have a video of an Officer who was cleared of shooting a fleeing suspect in the back even after the suspect had tossed his weapon.
In that case the Officer knew he tossed it.
This is in accordance with the being able to shoot a fleeing suspect who is a significant threat, which is allowed under the ruling SCOTUS made.
You continue to shoot until the threat is eliminated. His tossing the weapon didn't automatically make him a non-threat, his ceasing to move did.

In this case the Officer was in the process of drawing his weapon to fire (which is part of the process of firing) prior to the suspect tossing the weapon and beginning to flee.
He is already in the process, and you fire until the threat is eliminated.

But then we have the possibility that the Officer did not see the suspect toss the weapon. If he did not see him toss it, he is then definitely acting under a reasonable assumption that the suspect is still an actual threat.

In either scenario, his actions were in accordance with the law.





 
Last edited:
I guess we'll just have to see what the grand jury decides. I think Slager will be indicted.
 
I guess we'll just have to see what the grand jury decides. I think Slager will be indicted.
Saying he shouldn't be, and saying he wont, are two different things.
 
I said neither.
 
I said neither.
Did I say you did?
Did you say I said you did?

Let me answer those for you. No!

I am glad we were able to clear that up for each other.
 
Last edited:
Who is this this "they" you speak of?
Watch the video.

Excon said:
Wrong.
He was a significant threat the moment he took the Officer's taser.
You are wrong. A taser is a non-lethal weapon, and after it has been fired, as the eye witness said that it was fired, it can't be fired again without a reloading process that takes some time. The taser was on the ground when Scott took off running, so clearly he was no longer any significant threat when he is unarmed and 20 ft. away. This has been stated by every expert witness I have seen interviewed on TV. They are all disturbed by what they see on the video and I have not hear one expert attempt to justify the policeman's action.


Excon said:
For your perusal.
Here we have a video of an Officer shooting at a fleeing suspect four more times after the suspect threw the gun he had. And the Officer knew he threw it.
He was still considered a threat.
That is what the law allows.
Every case has to be judged on its own merits. Why has the police dept. already fired Slager? Because Scott did not pose a significant danger to anyone when Slager shot him.



Excon said:
Those two things are not the same.
I know, that is why there are two different words to describe the legal act, so each can have its own definition. Did I ever say they were the same? No. Looks like a bad assumption on your part.
 
I do think that his department having already fired him is significant.
 
"Think Walter Scott’s death is ‘another Ferguson’? Cops don’t."

* The author of this op/ed piece is Peter Moskos, a former police officer and an associate professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Without the North Charleston video, most cops would have similarly given Slager the benefit of the doubt. When things go wrong, they go wrong quickly. Sure, it’s easy to imagine many ways in which a situation could have been handled differently and better. That’s the luxury of hindsight. Cops need the benefit of the doubt to do their job. But it wasn’t so much that Scott was unarmed — unarmed people can kill, too — it was that Scott was running away.

...In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that police may not shoot at unarmed fleeing suspects, even felons. In line with that decision, shooting without an immediate threat is against the law in every state, and it’s against department policy in every jurisdiction. It’s also an obvious violation of the most basic human right to life. Any innocent death is a tragedy, but it’s worse at the hands of police. It’s not too much to ask our civil servants not to murder us.

During his attempt to catch Scott, Slager fired his Taser. When that failed, Slager could have chased Scott or let him run away (worse things have happened). But instead, Slager drew his gun and shot. This is why cops see this case so differently: The criminal was the police officer. And Slager was arrested and charged with murder. That is the way the criminal justice system is supposed to work. (Slager was also fired immediately, which can happen only in states hostile to labor unions and civil-service protection.)
Think Walter Scott
 
I do think that his department having already fired him is significant.

His own sheriff has admitted the policeman lied.

Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon said he went to the demonstration Wednesday to meet with community members and keep an eye on what was a peaceful protest. His jurisdiction includes North Charleston.

The sheriff said his department started reviewing its policies dealing with minorities after a white officer fatally shot a black man in Ferguson, Missouri. A grand jury did not bring any charges in that case.

Cannon said he understands that heavy-handed police tactics of the past few decades have fostered mistrust of law enforcement. He thinks investigators would have seen through the officer’s lies without the video, but the video made their job easier.[/QUOTE]


Don't really know if race played a part in this shooting but now we are seeing the racists take on the support of the officer's action. Don't be surprised if the KKK starts up a fund for the officer which will only make the situation worst.
South Carolina officer who fatally shot man fired | KRQE News 13
 
Watch the video.
So you have absolutely no answer.
There is no "they" that did anything.


You are wrong.
No I am not. And the following replies tell you why.

Also, did you not see the video I provided? The Officer was shooting at a fleeing suspect who already discarded his weapon.
According to you, that means he was no longer a threat, yet he was cleared of any wrong doing.
His being a significant threat didn't change simply because he discarded his weapon.


A taser is a non-lethal weapon,
Never said it wasn't.

Yet it is still a weapon that can cause "serious physical injury" and incapacitate the Officer, which would enabling the suspect to take the Officers firearm. That makes him a significant threat as soon as he took it.


and after it has been fired, as the eye witness said that it was fired, it can't be fired again without a reloading process that takes some time.
Two things.
1. You are wrong. It takes hardly anytime to reload another cartridge. And as we can tell from the available videos, he used/or lost his secondary cartridge in the fray.
2. You are wrong. The taser does not need to be reloaded to be used. It has it's prongs. I provided an image of it earlier. Look at it.


The taser was on the ground when Scott took off running, so clearly he was no longer any significant threat when he is unarmed and 20 ft. away.
Wrong and a lame argument in light of what has already been provided and said.

The Officer was already in the process of responding to the threat prior to the threat leaving and prior to the threat throwing the weapon.


This has been stated by every expert witness I have seen interviewed on TV. They are all disturbed by what they see on the video and I have not hear one expert attempt to justify the policeman's action.
:doh iLOL
:lamo:lamo:lamo
Your appeal to authority is noted and dismissed for the logical fallacy it is.
And your appeal to authority is even more funny when you consider how many of the so-called authority's were wrong in the Zimmerman case.

Just like the Zimmerman case, none of the so-called experts have reviewed the evidence closely enough to render any meaningful opinion.
All you really see from these is what you noted, emotive responses. Not logical ones.


While Geraldo Rivera has a JD, he really isn't an expert, but he at least he gave the Officer the benefit of the doubt without a careful examination of the video and realized that the Officer was already responding to the threat. He was as sure as I am that murder is inappropriate and believed some type of manslaughter was warranted.


Why has the police dept. already fired Slager?
Appearances. It sure nipped the BGI in the bud. No massive local protestors, looting, damages, disruptions and all cost associated with them.


Because Scott did not pose a significant danger to anyone when Slager shot him.
Because? No.
The suspect was a significant threat at the moment the Officer was responding.


Did I ever say they were the same? No. Looks like a bad assumption on your part.
iLOL D'oh!
That was a statement of fact, not an assumption.
 
"Think Walter Scott’s death is ‘another Ferguson’? Cops don’t."

* The author of this op/ed piece is Peter Moskos, a former police officer and an associate professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Without the North Charleston video, most cops would have similarly given Slager the benefit of the doubt. When things go wrong, they go wrong quickly. Sure, it’s easy to imagine many ways in which a situation could have been handled differently and better. That’s the luxury of hindsight. Cops need the benefit of the doubt to do their job. But it wasn’t so much that Scott was unarmed — unarmed people can kill, too — it was that Scott was running away.

...In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that police may not shoot at unarmed fleeing suspects, even felons. In line with that decision, shooting without an immediate threat is against the law in every state, and it’s against department policy in every jurisdiction. It’s also an obvious violation of the most basic human right to life. Any innocent death is a tragedy, but it’s worse at the hands of police. It’s not too much to ask our civil servants not to murder us.

During his attempt to catch Scott, Slager fired his Taser. When that failed, Slager could have chased Scott or let him run away (worse things have happened). But instead, Slager drew his gun and shot. This is why cops see this case so differently: The criminal was the police officer. And Slager was arrested and charged with murder. That is the way the criminal justice system is supposed to work. (Slager was also fired immediately, which can happen only in states hostile to labor unions and civil-service protection.)
Think Walter Scott
Appeals to authority are nonsense.
Especially as the underlined standard was gotten wrong. It is not an immediate threat that is required.
 
His own sheriff has admitted the policeman lied.

Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon said he went to the demonstration Wednesday to meet with community members and keep an eye on what was a peaceful protest. His jurisdiction includes North Charleston.

The sheriff said his department started reviewing its policies dealing with minorities after a white officer fatally shot a black man in Ferguson, Missouri. A grand jury did not bring any charges in that case.

Cannon said he understands that heavy-handed police tactics of the past few decades have fostered mistrust of law enforcement. He thinks investigators would have seen through the officer’s lies without the video, but the video made their job easier.


Don't really know if race played a part in this shooting but now we are seeing the racists take on the support of the officer's action. Don't be surprised if the KKK starts up a fund for the officer which will only make the situation worst.
South Carolina officer who fatally shot man fired | KRQE News 13
:doh
Oy vey!
What lies?
These claims keep getting made, yet no one has been able to point to any.


What lies?
 
You forgot the part about him fighting with Slager.

I did not forget the alledged fight (even though the eyewitness denies there was one) but that is not at all of any importance. At the time of the shooting, the suspect was not any danger to the officer. He should not have shot the man, clear and simple. What is wrong is wrong, his employers understand that, a lot of experts have stated comments to that effect, he is under arrest for murder and most logically there is no evidence that the shooting took place because of a struggle about a taser.

In fact evidence suggests that Slager was using his taser so how could it be that a presumed struggle over an already deployed taser could be the reason for shooting someone in the back 8 times when that person was running away from the officer. The supreme court has already decided that there has to be a danger element to the officer or others to justify such a shooting and no matter what nonsense people throw at this issue, it does not change the images on the video which show a cop executing/slaughtering someone who was no danger to him or anybody else.
 
There was no staging of a scene.
Your claim is nothing more than evidnce of convoluted thoughts.


And again, you are assuming he took the taser.
Secondly, if it was the taser, it is procedure to secure it. How that is accomplished is irrelevant.
Finally, suggesting that his taking it, (when it is procedure to secure it) away from the area it was used indicates some kind of malfeasance, is just showing the claimant is ignorant of procedure, and ignorant of the fact that the taser cartridge shoots out id tags to establish and mark were it was used.



Your comment is irrelevant as well as counter to the position you already professed.
Execution is not manslaughter.
So all you are doing is showing you are purposely and obnoxiously making false claims.
And of course the reasons for such nonsense do not speak well of the person making such claims.



What lie?
Saying he is lying is a lie in itself.
So again, what lie?
Prove there is a lie.


:doh
Again showing you do not understand the sequence of events.
Do you not understand that this happened prior to what we see in the video?
Please tell me you didn't so I can laugh even harder.


Your comment just shows you choose to ignore the evidence and are ignorant of the sequence of events.


What an absurd comment.
1. If it malfunctioned a malfunction may not be attributable to the Officer.
2. It was used while the suspect was resisting both probes may not have landed properly.

But of course to someone who is absurdly biased, it has to be the Officer's fault. :doh
Your comment was lame and truly paints you as a non-objective and significantly biased person.


No one has been able to show he lied at any point.
Yet here you are continuing to make the same false claim.

Back up what you say.
Prove he lied.


Your narrative is spin.
In reality he was fighting a cop who was doing his job.
That fighting makes him violent.

And lets not forget his previous police encounter in 1987 either.
Walter Scott was jailed for assault and battery in 1987 and shoved a deputy when he was arrested
Walter Scott was jailed for assault and battery in 1987 | Daily Mail Online

Here he was fighting another person and then pushed a cop doing his job.
Some people never learn.


And don't try to claim he ran because he was fearful of the Officer. That would be nonsense.

He took off while his information was being checked, not because he feared the Officer.
That is indicative of another narrative.

He took off for another unknown reason that he thought was serious enough to run from law enforcement.

This whole nonsense story just reminds me of a song text of Rage against the Machine:

When ignorance reigns, life is lost, lost!

And I am sorry because I do not want to insult anyone, but if you defend the actions of this police officer than you are ignoring reason and reasonablity in a manner that is just mindboggling.

The supreme court is clear, only in case of danger is the officer allowed to use deadly force, and a running away unarmed suspect of a broken tail light is not a danger. No matter what nonsense you post here, it just isn't. What, the black back of the suspect running away from him was so threatening that he needed to execute him? Sorry, that is nonsense. The man was no danger, there was no reasonable reason to even draw the weapon let alone shoot to kill.

And a 28 year old case in which the man pushed an officer is proof for a violent man :roll: stop making this case even more ridiculous from the apologist side as it already is.

This police officer will see his day in court, and if you get your wish he will be found not guilty, if it goes like I think it will go down he will be sentenced for the unlawful taking of Walter Scott's life.

We can keep posting this "yes" and "no" game for another 100 pages but you are determined to say that the police officer did shoot him legally and I will never see it that way. It is that way and no other way so I do not think me yet again pointing to the facts (which you keep disputing even though they are for all to see) is going to help.
 
Appeals to authority are nonsense.
Especially as the underlined standard was gotten wrong. It is not an immediate threat that is required.

You are wrong. The police officer that wrote that piece is right. You are even in the vast minority for right leaning people (like myself). I defended the cop in the Ferguson event. Still do. This one is different. WAY different.

Both men in this tragedy did something wrong. Scott ran from and MAY HAVE struggled with a policeman. Slager shot a fleeing Scott in the back and killed him unnecessarily, and I believe the court will find him in the wrong.
 
This whole nonsense story just reminds me of a song text of Rage against the Machine:

When ignorance reigns, life is lost, lost!
Hey, that sounds just like your babblings.


And I am sorry because I do not want to insult anyone, but if you defend the actions of this police officer than you are ignoring reason and reasonablity in a manner that is just mindboggling.
You are the one ignoring reason and reasonability here.
All your assumptions and false claims show just that.


The supreme court is clear, only in case of danger is the officer allowed to use deadly force, and a running away unarmed suspect of a broken tail light is not a danger.
Your understanding of what the SCOTUS held is flawed.


Again;
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.


Had you bothered to take the time to read the case you would have read the following dicta in relevance to the holding.
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. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.”


No matter what nonsense you post here, it just isn't.
:doh
You are the one posting nonsense and not addressing what has been provided.


The man was no danger, there was no reasonable reason to even draw the weapon let alone shoot to kill.
Wrong. The suspect was threat at the moment the Officer started responding.
Yet you continually ignore that.


And a 28 year old case in which the man pushed an officer is proof for a violent man :roll: stop making this case even more ridiculous from the apologist side as it already is.
:lamo
Look at you conveniently trying to avoid the fact that it was about him fighting, which is violence.


We can keep posting this "yes" and "no" game for another 100 pages but you are determined to say that the police officer did shoot him legally and I will never see it that way. It is that way and no other way so I do not think me yet again pointing to the facts (which you keep disputing even though they are for all to see) is going to help.
Your rantings are non responsive to the information provided.
Which just shows everybody that you have no real argument.
 
Last edited:
So you have absolutely no answer.
There is no "they" that did anything.
Of course, Slager shot and killed Scott.


Excon said:
Also, did you not see the video I provided? The Officer was shooting at a fleeing suspect who already discarded his weapon.
According to you, that means he was no longer a threat, yet he was cleared of any wrong doing.
His being a significant threat didn't change simply because he discarded his weapon.

I did, and it does not apply in this case. Your suspect HAD a gun, he had fired it at people so he clearly posed a significant threat to the community, and he had it on him when he started running. He threw the gun away during the chase, did the officer see that while he was aiming at the suspect, probably not, or one could make that case. None of that applies in the case of Mr. Scott. He was not armed, he had not been a threat to the community, and he was not a threat to Slager. Totally different ball of wax.


Excon said:
Never said it wasn't.

Yet it is still a weapon that can cause "serious physical injury" and incapacitate the Officer, which would enabling the suspect to take the Officers firearm. That makes him a significant threat as soon as he took it.

But he ceased to be a significant threat when he dropped the taser.

Excon said:
Two things.
1. You are wrong. It takes hardly anytime to reload another cartridge. And as we can tell from the available videos, he used/or lost his secondary cartridge in the fray.
2. You are wrong. The taser does not need to be reloaded to be used. It has it's prongs. I provided an image of it earlier. Look at it.
If the taser can be reloaded in hardly any time, then Slager should have reloaded it and run down Scott. Scott was 50 and not fast. Prongs are useless 20 ft. away, even if Scott had the taser, which he did not. Slager immediately went back and picked up the taser so he knew where it was, and it was not with Scott when Slager shot Scott.

Wrong and a lame argument in light of what has already been provided and said.

The Officer was already in the process of responding to the threat prior to the threat leaving and prior to the threat throwing the weapon.
What a wrong and lame argument, as all the experts have stated. Scott never fired anything at anyone, he dropped the taser and ran away.

Excon said:
:doh iLOL
:lamo:lamo:lamo
Your appeal to authority is noted and dismissed for the logical fallacy it is.
And your appeal to authority is even more funny when you consider how many of the so-called authority's were wrong in the Zimmerman case.

Just like the Zimmerman case, none of the so-called experts have reviewed the evidence closely enough to render any meaningful opinion.
All you really see from these is what you noted, emotive responses. Not logical ones.
In the Zimmerman case there was no video to review. There was a great deal of speculation until the trial, and I was not a participant in the speculation, I waited for the trial to see all the evidence. But now we have a video and authoritative experts can give a much more sound analysis and yes, I do give them much more credence than I give you, since they state their experience and qualifications and you don't.


Excon said:
While Geraldo Rivera has a JD, he really isn't an expert, but he at least he gave the Officer the benefit of the doubt without a careful examination of the video and realized that the Officer was already responding to the threat. He was as sure as I am that murder is inappropriate and believed some type of manslaughter was warranted.
So, this is different than the video you posted, as you believe some type of manslaughter is warranted.

Excon said:
Appearances. It sure nipped the BGI in the bud. No massive local protestors, looting, damages, disruptions and all cost associated with them.
Firing Slager was more than appearances, it was based on an evaluation of the video evidence available and a judgement about the incorrectness of Slager's action. You don't fire a man who is clearly in the right just to appease the community. Your opinion is so incomplete that it is wrong.

Excon said:
Because? No.
The suspect was a significant threat at the moment the Officer was responding.
No, the suspect was never a significant threat.

Excon said:
iLOL D'oh!
That was a statement of fact, not an assumption.
To state that there is a difference between murder and manslaughter is a fact. For you to think that you need to tell me that is an assumption that I don't know the difference, and there you are wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom