Well...I mean a something which could have that sort of an impact AND which the officer may have forgotten to mention?
Obviously if Scott said he was running off to his secret Mad Scientist Lab to release his flying poison spraying robotonator on the tri-state area and Slager had reason to believe this was a real thing, that'd be reason for shooting Scott.
However, it seems Slager would have led with that tidbit.
So is there something whicha) could have been likely to occurr prior to the beginning of the video recording which would have an impact on the propriety of shooting someone in the back?andb) is likely to have been something which Slager would have failed to mention already?
At the moment, my imagination fails me.
But I am open to ideas from the more insightful and creative among us.
I may be wrong.
My question was how did this escalate from a broken tail light traffic stop? I said we don't have the facts to the origin of this and likely we will never know for sure. Yes, it is truly a shame the video didn't include the initial confrontation. And that all very well may be something to ponder for most but all we do have is the video which shows without question a unjustified shooting and odd response afterwards.
Use your same logic on a convenience store video of a robbery by a Hispanic man, would you then conclude that Hispanic men are all criminals?
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.
My argument has always been that the shooting was unjustified and that I can't imagine a circumstance where the officer in this case will be exonerated.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary (or faith) depends upon his not understanding it.”
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...71/1/case.htmlThis 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.
And in this case the suspect was not a felon. He was running and if the officer ran after him over an open field there was an excellent chance of capturing him (with another officer coming onto the scene shortly after the shooting) so it was not even about preventing an escape.
If his own campaign does not trust him with a twitter account, how can anyone trust Donald Trump with the nuclear codes?