I said neither.
Last edited by Excon; 04-12-15 at 06:52 AM.
“The law is reason, free from passion.”
❈ Aristotle ❈
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.Originally Posted by Excon
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.Originally Posted by Excon
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.Originally Posted by Excon
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
[QUOTE]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
There is no "they" that did anything.
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.
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.
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 Officer was already in the process of responding to the threat prior to the threat leaving and prior to the threat throwing the weapon.
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.
The suspect was a significant threat at the moment the Officer was responding.
That was a statement of fact, not an assumption.
“The law is reason, free from passion.”
❈ Aristotle ❈