• 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.
So this all started because the government demanded he pay child support. So basically it all started with a law that forces people to support something they never consented to. Sorry, but I can't help but laugh at that.
 
the running man had ample opportunity to 'reload' a cartridge he doesnt have for a weapon he's never used before (uh, yeah), while attempting his escape.
This is you showing your ignorance again.
The extra cartridge is on the bottom of it's handle.
Nor does he need to reload, as he can use the prongs instead.

And again...such a dangerous weapon! Why put it right down next to the suspect, still alive on the ground? Yeah, he'll have fun explaining why he didnt secure the weapon instead.
And again this is you assuming he did.
But let's go with that assumption.
1. The witness said he made it clear to the Officer he was being recorded.
2. The witness also stated that the Officer knew that he was being recorded.
3. The Officer dropped it in plain view of another Officer as well as the witness.

To suggest that this was an attempt at a plant in light of this information, is ludicrous and nothing more than convoluted thoughts.

The Officer just experienced a traumatic incident. It is normal for there to be some manifestation of abnormal behavior after this.
His duty, as trained, was to secure the weapons, which unless there is evidence indicating otherwise, is the thing that should be assumed he is doing.
While he may have made a mistake dropping it next to the unconscious suspect in his attempt to secure the scene, he shortly thought better of it and secured it in it's holster, but it is not indicative of a plant.

You sarcastically insinuating otherwise is just sinister folly.


I think the cop was just too lazy to run after him and didnt want to have to restrain such a big guy on his own.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! :doh
That is why he gave chase and involved himself in a ground struggle to subdue the suspect.
It's like you put no effort into your thoughts. They just run off of bias.








Still waiting for all those claiming the Officer lied to prove it.
 
Last edited:
Go to that link right up there, and watch the slow mo. They were on the ground.

Or better yet, just pay attention to what the witness has said.

From the witness.
The Story

The Rutherford Law Firm, LLC, undertook to represent Feidin Santana after Feidin witnessed the horrific shooting of Walter Scott on April 4, 2015.

“As I was walking to work, I saw a scuffle ensue between two men (who have since been identified as Officer Michael Slager and Walter Scott) in a grassy, open area. After observing the two men struggle on the ground and hearing the sound of a Taser gun, I began filming the altercation with my cell phone. The video shows Officer Slager draw his gun and fire eight shots at Mr. Scott as Mr. Scott attempted to run in the opposite direction. When I later learned that Mr. Scott died from the gunshot wounds inflicted by Officer Slager, I mustered up the courage to show the recording of the incident to Mr. Scott’s family. While I initially thought about erasing the video, fearing that my life would be in danger if I came forward, I soon realized I needed to take a stand against such brutality. I realized the importance of serving as a voice for Mr. Scott and the many others who no longer have one.”


https://life.indiegogo.com/fundraisers/1220154


Clearly you didn't do any type of thorough examine of the evidence.


The suspect throwing it is that evidence.

I'll ignore the rest of your attempt to berate me as that seems to be your debate pattern when you come up against someone who disagrees with you, and instead address both the eye witnesses' testimony and the slow motion CNN video which I had not seen before until now.

Upon further review, the CNN video makes it clear there was a struggle between Mr. Scott and Officer Slager. However, I'm still not convinced that Mr. Scott had possession of Officer Slager's taser. But even if he did, the mere fact that the taser was dislodged and thrown to the ground by whomever possessed it at the time AND the fact that at no time did Mr. Scott pose a threat to society and certainly wasn't a threat to Officer Slager after the fact as he was unarmed and running away from Officer Slager, convinces me that Officer Slager's actions after he had apprehended his assailant were wrong here.

(Continued...)
 
(...continued...)

In the slow motion video which you've provided, there's a portion of the TN -v- Garner opinion that reads:

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 threatening infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used, if necessary, to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.

* What weapons did Mr. Scott possess? The assumption is Officer Slager's taser. But after watching the video footage including the slow motion video provided by CNN, a reasonable person should ask "How does Mr. Scott pose a threat to Officer Slager after neither himself or Officer Slager possess the taser?" Both the eye witness video and the slow motion video clearly show the taser is knocked to the ground. The taser leads are still embedded in Mr. Scott as he attempts to flee as evidenced by the fact that the taser tether are extending away from Officer Slager as Mr. Scott attempts to flee. Furthermore, the slow motion video makes clear that: 1) Officer Slager steps on the taser tether as Mr. Scott is fleeing; and, 2) the tether is being dragged on the ground as Mr. Scott is fleeing. So, even if Mr. Scott did possess Officer Slager's taser just prior to him attempting to flee the scene again, he didn't have the taser as he fled. So, where's the threat to Officer Scott after the fact? You could argue that Officer Slager didn't have an opportunity to conduct a through pat down and, as such, he didn't know if Mr. Scott had any other weapons on him. But if he did have another weapons, such as a gun or a knife, wouldn't it have made sense for Mr. Scott to use them instead of going after Officer Slager's taser? Furthermore, if Mr. Scott were truly a violent threat to Officer Slager, don't you think he would have gone after his gun and not his taser?

* Why did Officer Slager pull Mr. Scott over? Was it because he was responding to a recent crime alert towhich Mr. Scott and/or his vehicle met the description? No. He was pulled over for a routine traffic stop. Of course, once he fled it's reasonable to assume that Officer Slager didn't know if Mr. Scott had a criminal background. But here again, by all accounts according to legal professionals, Officer Slager was wrong to pursuit Mr. Scott alone and certainly without knowing what he was getting into. Regardless, no violent crime was committed by Mr. Scott at this point as far as Officer Slager knew. So, again, where's the threat except that which is presented during the pursuit and apprehension of the suspect, i.e., the officer running into an unknown, unpredictable situation? You could argue probably cause, but again, Officer Slager was NOT responding to a criminal activity call from dispatch prior to pulling Mr. Scott over. He was conducting a routine traffic stop.

* I've stated before that just prior to Mr. Scott attempting to flee a second time and before being shot, Officer Slager could be heard warning Mr. Scott that he'd shot him if he ran again. You could say this was Mr. Scott's warning per the above quote, but again where was the threat to Officer Slager after the weapon in question - the taser - was dislodged from his or Officer Slager's hand?

No matter how you slice it, Officer Slager was wrong here. Both parties made bad decisions, but Officer Slager's judgement in the end was extremely poor.
 
You may wish to carefully consider how much energy you expend engaging Excon.
His posts have a formidable logic and unassailable facts which are all their own.
The special pleading is powerful with this one.

:shrug:

Yeah I'm done. Nothing I can do to stop that unstoppable force. Doesn't matter that I clearly see the unmovable object. I'll stand back and watch.
 
Also I notice the font size keeps getting bigger.
 
I'll ignore the rest of your attempt to berate me
Berate? No.
Condescending to your arrogance declaring you did something you obviously didn't do, all in an attempt to add more credence to your argument? Yes.


which I had not seen before until now.
Which is your fault for trying to engage in debate without familiarizing yourself with that which came before.
You obviously have been doing this long enough, so you must know that opens you up to being wrong.
And yet here you were making definite statements while claiming you gave a "careful review" when none of it was true.


However, I'm still not convinced that Mr. Scott had possession of Officer Slager's taser.
This is ignoring the evidence.
Again, it could not have come from the Officer's hands.
The movement of the taser does not allow for it to come from either of his hands, that only allows for it to have come from the suspect. Which corresponds with the Officer's claim.

the fact that at no time did Mr. Scott pose a threat to society and certainly wasn't a threat to Officer Slager after the fact as he was unarmed and running away from Officer Slager,
And this is again wrong.
The Officer was already responding to the threat the suspect was before he threw the taser and before he fled.

And again, as previously shown, once the threat has been established the Officer can continue to respond regardless if the weapon is tossed away.

Once the resiting and combative suspect took the taser he was such a significant threat.
 
* What weapons did Mr. Scott possess? The assumption is Officer Slager's taser. But after watching the video footage including the slow motion video provided by CNN, a reasonable person should ask "How does Mr. Scott pose a threat to Officer Slager after neither himself or Officer Slager possess the taser?" Both the eye witness video and the slow motion video clearly show the taser is knocked to the ground.
It is not an assumption. We have evidenced that the taser could not have been in the Officer's hands at that point in the video. We also have direct evidence from the Officer saying the suspect had the taser.

Unless other evidence indicates otherwise, you go with the evidence you have.


The taser leads are still embedded in Mr. Scott as he attempts to flee as evidenced by the fact that the taser tether are extending away from Officer Slager as Mr. Scott attempts to flee.
Stop. All that can be definitively said is that the leads are wrapped around both of them. Not who specifically was shot by it or who they were embedded in.
Then we could go even further to suggest that had the Officer had the taser at this point he surely would have been implementing it instead of reaching for his firearm.
But that isn't what happened because he didn't have his taser, the suspect did making him a significant threat and is the reason the Officer was going for his firearm.


Furthermore, the slow motion video makes clear that: 1) Officer Slager steps on the taser tether as Mr. Scott is fleeing; and, 2) the tether is being dragged on the ground as Mr. Scott is fleeing. So, even if Mr. Scott did possess Officer Slager's taser just prior to him attempting to flee the scene again, he didn't have the taser as he fled. So, where's the threat to Officer Scott after the fact?
And again, that does not matter.
The Officer was already responding to the significant threat the suspect was prior to the suspect throwing the taser and fleeing.


You could argue that Officer Slager didn't have an opportunity to conduct a through pat down and, as such, he didn't know if Mr. Scott had any other weapons on him. But if he did have another weapons, such as a gun or a knife, wouldn't it have made sense for Mr. Scott to use them instead of going after Officer Slager's taser?
Irrelevant. He had the taser and the Officer was responding to the significant threat it made him.
That is the evidence.
Not anything else.


Furthermore, if Mr. Scott were truly a violent threat to Officer Slager, don't you think he would have gone after his gun and not his taser?
How do you know he didn't?
For all you know he did and got the taser instead.


* I've stated before that just prior to Mr. Scott attempting to flee a second time and before being shot, Officer Slager could be heard warning Mr. Scott that he'd shot him if he ran again. You could say this was Mr. Scott's warning per the above quote, but again where was the threat to Officer Slager after the weapon in question - the taser - was dislodged from his or Officer Slager's hand?
It was thrown by the suspect. It was impossible for it to be in the Officer's hand at that point.
That is the only evidence we have.
And you continue to ignore the fact that as soon as he took the taser he was a significant threat.


No matter how you slice it, Officer Slager was wrong here.
As your whole take here has been wrong and continued to be wrong, this take is no different. You are wrong.
No matter how you slice it, by the evidence and the law, the Officer was not in the wrong.
 
There is no need to be snide or condescending to others, and this you have been on this thread. A more civil tone just might foster more engaged and civil debate.
 
As your whole take here has been wrong and continued to be wrong, this take is no different. You are wrong.
No matter how you slice it, by the evidence and the law, the Officer was not in the wrong.

If the officer wasn't "in the wrong," then that's a FAR bigger problem than this one death. He shot an unarmed man, in the back, fleeing a routine traffic stop.
 
I am sorry. You are wrong here.

It is true he should not run from the cop. That's a misdemeanor. But that misdemeanor does not justify murder, which is a capital offense.

Running was wrong. But it pales to nothing in the face of cold blooded murder. Without some serious new evidence it is my sincere hope the shooter gets the maximum penalty. And I hope justice is swift.

He ran, then was caught up to. Then physically engaged the officer. That is a felony.
 
If the officer wasn't "in the wrong," then that's a FAR bigger problem than this one death. He shot an unarmed man, in the back, fleeing a routine traffic stop.
No. Your narrative is off.
He started fleeing while his info was being checked.
His fleeing is not over a traffic violation.

Secondly, he wasn't unarmed at the moment the Officer started responding.


As for a far bigger problem? No it really isn't a problem for anybody but the significant threat fleeing.


As previously presented.
Fleeing suspect gets rid of weapon rendering him an unarmed fleeing suspect, the Officer continues to shoot knowing this and was cleared.
This is what the law allows regardless if the suspect tosses the weapon.
 
There is no need to be snide or condescending to others, and this you have been on this thread. A more civil tone just might foster more engaged and civil debate.
You seem to be missing the fact that others haven't been civil. Strange.
That in itself is a bias problem.

But if you say you did something and it is obviously is not true, I am not going to let that go unchecked.
Dishonesty needs to be pointed out.
 
Thank you.
While the arguments are mine, the supportive visual information like the image in that post comes from someone else who is obviously of similar thought.
It was found at the Conservativetreehouse and they deserve the credit for that.

I'm interested in reading the full report once it's out.
 
No. Your narrative is off.
He started fleeing while his info was being checked.
His fleeing is not over a traffic violation.

The point is they weren't stopping a suspected rapist, murderer, armed robber, drug courier although it shouldn't matter he was. He was pulled over for a broken tail light.

Secondly, he wasn't unarmed at the moment the Officer started responding.

I don't even know what that means. At what moment did the Officer 'start responding?' What you seem to be saying is he may have been, fleetingly, 'armed' with a tazer, and that's enough to shoot him dead in the back, running away, and not threatening the Officer in any way. It's simple - he was RUNNING AWAY....

And what matters is whether he was armed when shot in the back. You keep posting that video but it's apples and dump trucks. The last bit of the video describes the many ways the guy in THAT incident proved himself a danger to the public, and he had a FIREARM, that can kill at long distances. I can't tell for sure, but it looks like he's run out of ammo in the magazine - the slide looks locked back to me in the video.

What threat is a guy with a tazer, which he didn't actually have, to 'the public.' None. He's not a threat to the cop armed with a weapon and the guy running away. How's he going to taze the cop while running away. You keep mentioning the probes - yeah, that's tough to hit someone with probes running away from them.....

As for a far bigger problem? No it really isn't a problem for anybody but the significant threat fleeing.

Yeah, OK, running away is a license to kill, by shooting them in the BACK. I think we understand your position.

Everyone else sees a cop resorting to deadly force when it's clearly and wildly inappropriate. If he imagines a "significant threat" is some guy unarmed running away from him, then he's liable to see grandmas in wheelchairs armed with a fork as a significant threat, etc.
 
Berate? No.
Condescending to your arrogance declaring you did something you obviously didn't do, all in an attempt to add more credence to your argument? Yes.

Condescending for sure! That's you all over!! Arrogance on my part, no. One can only go with the facts and/or evidence that's before them. And I've openly admitted that I had not seen the slow motion CNN video beforehand. Once I did review it, I corrected my position as necessary. But you...you're still an ass no matter what.

Which is your fault for trying to engage in debate without familiarizing yourself with that which came before.

Again, I based my assessment on the evidence I had before me as anyone would do. Until new evidence presented itself or I was made aware of it, my position need not change.

You obviously have been doing this long enough, so you must know that opens you up to being wrong.

Same as everyone else. What's your point?

And yet here you were making definite statements while claiming you gave a "careful review" when none of it was true.

Again, based on the evidence I was privy to, yes.

This is ignoring the evidence.
Again, it could not have come from the Officer's hands.
The movement of the taser does not allow for it to come from either of his hands, that only allows for it to have come from the suspect. Which corresponds with the Officer's claim.

I disagree, but let's move on because unless the video imagery is made clearer, there's really no way to tell conclusively if Mr. Scott or Officer Slager had possession of the taser prior to it being knocked or thrown to the ground.

And this is again wrong.
The Officer was already responding to the threat the suspect was before he threw the taser and before he fled.

And again, as previously shown, once the threat has been established the Officer can continue to respond regardless if the weapon is tossed away.

Once the resisting and combative suspect took the taser, he was such a significant threat.

Again, assuming that Mr. Scott did possess Officer Slager's taser after the scuffle but before he fled, he certainly didn't have it once he ran the second time. And as I've previously stated, until Officer Slager gave chase, there was no imminent nor immediate threat to him. Such a perceived thread didn't present itself until after the scuffle ensued. In any case, clearly, law enforcement officials believe that Mr. Scott stopped being a threat once the "weapon" - the taser - was no longer in his possession (assuming he did posses such at any point) making him an unarmed man WITH his back turned as he attempted to flee.

Now, maybe after reviewing all the evidence a grand jury may conclude that Officer Slager was justified in his actions every step of the way. Maybe they won't. From what I've seen and based on a reading of the statue as you've provided, I firmly believe that Officer Slager went too far. But I'm sure you disagree and that's okay. Ultimately, the courts will decide Officer Slager's fate as he certainly decided Mr. Scott's.
 
Last edited:
You continue to ignore the fact that as soon as he took the taser he was a significant threat.

First off, I notice you've stopped using the terms "immediate" or "imminent" threats to describe the perceived position Officer Slager believed himself to be in and downgraded such to "significant". Unfortunate for your position, a "significant threat" doesn't measure up to "imminent or immediate danger".

Second, I totally disagree with your assessment that the tether lines from the taser were wrapped around the victim or the officer. Mr. Scott wouldn't have been able to run and Officer Slager wouldn't have been able to walk unimpeded if they were.

Third, assuming that the tether was wrapped around (at least) Mr. Scott, common sense would still lead one to conclude that the "significant threat" had abated since the taser leads had already been ejected from the device and the tether remained expelled. You can also conclude that the taser itself had already be discharged since Officer Slager choose not to use it again. (Of course, by then it was on the ground and the tether training the assailant.)

My point here just as others who have commented against Officer Slager's actions is that Mr. Scott, an unarmed man at the time of his death, was not a threat to the would-be arresting officer. I don't disregard the fact that there was a struggle. I don't disregard the likelihood that Mr. Scott may have possessed Officer Slager's taser. I'm just saying as have others that despite what occurred moments prior to the shooting, Mr. Scott wasn't an "imminent or immediate or significant" threat to Officer Slager or the public at the time he fled unarmed and was subsequently shot multiple times.
 
Last edited:
If the officer wasn't "in the wrong," then that's a FAR bigger problem than this one death. He shot an unarmed man, in the back, fleeing a routine traffic stop.

The officer was wrong and the authorities acted correctly and swiftly. There are most certainly more details that none of us here have liberty to. For the sheriff to basically call the officer a liar and the police chief to fire him within a day is an ominous sign. I suspect the other officers have played a pivotal role in what they observed.

One wonders what the outcome would have been without the video. The most pathetic scene was the officer tossing the weapon down near the still alive man and not doing immediate CPR as he lied to.
 
I think the underlined explains it and why the Officer is given that discretion.
And I'm questioning that discretion.

In the SC case, it led to the unnecessary death of a man (at least, given the info I have currently).
 
So far as I can tell, the argument supporting the Police officer here is that it was TOTALLY LEGAL for this police officer to shoot an unarmed, fleeing man in the back, simply because he considered him still a threat?


Why?!
 
You seem to be missing the fact that others haven't been civil. Strange.
That in itself is a bias problem.

But if you say you did something and it is obviously is not true, I am not going to let that go unchecked.
Dishonesty needs to be pointed out.

You can do that without being snide. And I made my comment because I am among those to whom you have been snide with all your comments about "If you had bothered to read" and etc.
 
I'm confused about some of the titles being used. Aren't those who are supervised by a sheriff referred to as "deputies"? Was Slager a county or a city employee?
 
I'm confused about some of the titles being used. Aren't those who are supervised by a sheriff referred to as "deputies"? Was Slager a county or a city employee?

I believe he was a city policeman. But usually when a city policeman is involved in a shooting as such the sheriff dept takes over investigation. I think you need a separate dept to investigate such an act.
 
There is no need to be snide or condescending to others, and this you have been on this thread. A more civil tone just might foster more engaged and civil debate.

Exactly. Such limiting shortcomings of a weak position to debate are displayed by statements, for example, where an apologist implies that a cop 'chose' to struggle on the ground with a suspect...lololol.
 
Last edited:
First off, I notice you've stopped using the terms "immediate" or "imminent" threats to describe the perceived position Officer Slager believed himself to be in and downgraded such to "significant". Unfortunate for your position, a "significant threat" doesn't measure up to "imminent or immediate danger".

Second, I totally disagree with your assessment that the tether lines from the taser were wrapped around the victim or the officer. Mr. Scott wouldn't have been able to run and Officer Slager wouldn't have been able to walk unimpeded if they were.

Third, assuming that the tether was wrapped around (at least) Mr. Scott, common sense would still lead one to conclude that the "significant threat" had abated since the taser leads had already been ejected from the device and the tether remained expelled. You can also conclude that the taser itself had already be discharged since Officer Slager choose not to use it again. (Of course, by then it was on the ground and the tether training the assailant.)

My point here just as others who have commented against Officer Slager's actions is that Mr. Scott, an unarmed man at the time of his death, was not a threat to the would-be arresting officer. I don't disregard the fact that there was a struggle. I don't disregard the likelihood that Mr. Scott may have possessed Officer Slager's taser. I'm just saying as have others that despite what occurred moments prior to the shooting, Mr. Scott wasn't an "imminent or immediate or significant" threat to Officer Slager or the public at the time he fled unarmed and was subsequently shot multiple times.

Somehow, there's also some confusion (on other's parts) over the suggestion he planted the taser. Sure, maybe not. He may have just chosen to increase the threat to his own life by placing a dangerous weapon next to the suspect.

And basic incompetance where a cop places a dangerous weapon next to a still living suspect. Hmmm...incompetant? Or dishonesty? LOL

I can literally envision verbal gymnastics worthy of an Olympic athlete in that contorted attempt at speculation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom