No. As already shown, it is you who are ignoring the evidnce and making things up.
Just why do you think this matters?
Everybody but you apparently knows that the taser was discharged prior to what we see.
Why do you not understand this?
They were on the ground struggling. But you again do not seem to understand that.
You just continue to ignore the sequence of events.
Had you bothered to pay attention, this lead (leads?) actually travels down to the suspect's ankle area.
But of course you ignore that in your rush to judgment.
And to not understand that those leads would have gotten tangled around both of them as the suspect fought the Officer on the ground, is showing a person who doesn't understand or doesn't know the sequence of event.
The lead (leads) which can be seen above, appears to travel over the Officer's arm and then down to what appears to be the used cartridge by his feet.
And had you paid attention to the video you would have seen what appears to be the cartridge being dragged by the fleeing suspect.
Your focus on this is irrelevant, as clearly you do not understand it's relevance.
The moment he grabbed the taser he became a significant threat. The Officer is already responding to this threat prior to it being thrown. That is a major point and does not weaken his case at all, but actually supports it.
Review the video provided to finebead. The Officer continues to fire on a fleeing suspect after he throws his weapon and was cleared because the suspect established himself as a significant threat.
So maybe you should brush up your understanding of the law and of what is and is not permissible.
What you do not have though are facts as you absurdly claim.
2. Ignores the fact that the Officer was already in the process of responding to the threat he made himself prior to his fleeing.
3. Again not a fact as there clearly is legal basis. He was a significant threat the moment he took the taser.
4. More non-facts.
As for the video.. iLOL And? You do not seem to understand what it shows (as already shown) or it's significance.
"The law is reason, free from passion."
Your claim is nothing more than evidnce of convoluted thoughts.
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.
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.
Saying he is lying is a lie in itself.
So again, what lie?
Prove there is a lie.
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.
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.
Your comment was lame and truly paints you as a non-objective and significantly biased person.
Yet here you are continuing to make the same false claim.
Back up what you say.
Prove he lied.
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.
"The law is reason, free from passion."
How did we get to this point where it was considered acceptable for police officers to shoot fleeing suspects if they "were considered a threat"?
Yet also possibly necessary, in the right circumstances.
Are the determining factors we instruct police officers to use too broad?
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller