The ruling of the supreme court:
1. he did not even try to prevent escape, he just shot the man in the backLaw enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if 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.
2. the ruling of the supreme court was during the night and an offender going over a fence, in this case it was daylight, no fence hopping, other officers in the area and no real risk of the suspect getting away
3. there was NO probable cause to suspect that the suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officers or others
4. the police force themselves have ruled what the officer did is against their rules and regulations
5. it was ruled that what he did was murder and he was arrested for that
6. he is innocent (legally seen) of his crime until he is convicted
7. I am of the opinion (as are many other, including the police in his town, the prosecution, experts) that he is guilty of illegally gunning this man down.
Fact is that you have no evidence to disprove that, simple, obvious from the video.
Or as a professor (and former prosecutor) said:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/a...ky-041015.htmlWhat are the factors that go into a justified police shooting? When can the police use force?
The rules vary somewhat based on state law and local police regulations, but the floor is set by the federal Constitution, which allows police to use only "reasonable" force. The Supreme Court ruled 30 years ago that it's not reasonable for the police to use lethal force to stop a fleeing suspect unless there's probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or to others. And even then the officer has to give a warning first, if that's feasible.
No warning, no nothing, no danger, only one officer throwing caution and the law to the wind and shooting a suspect that is no danger at all to him.
Last edited by Peter King; 04-12-15 at 11:26 AM. Reason: Forgot to post source of quotation
the First Amendment gives everyone “the right to be very critical of a Petty, handicapped mocking, unbalanced, whiny so-called President and criticize him strongly.”
2. Yes the video still supports what it originally supported, even when spliced together with other audio and video. Duh!
The Officer was still responding prior to the taser being thrown. That has not changed, nor could it.
But way to ignore the reason it was posted.
Everyone should know by now that the audio from the Officers mic was cutting out. So absence of sound is expected. Duh!
Everyone should know by now that the witness and shooter of the video actually saw the struggle on the ground, which is not a deescalation.
The Officers hands were occupied.
The left was holding on to the suspect and the right was in a downward motion to draw his firearm in a response to the suspect having the taser.
We can clearly see in the following capture that the Officer's right hand was reaching for his firearm.
No taser could have been thrown from it with as much force as it had in the direction it was going.
Nor was it knocked from it as it was preoccupied retrieving his firearm from his holster.
“The law is reason, free from passion.”
❈ Aristotle ❈
Your careful review was flawed as shown.
And your use of "immediate or imminent danger" after already being corrected is asinine. That is not the standard.
The struggle can be seen in the video. You clearly didn't do a careful review.
And then we have the witness saying they were on the ground, not just in the previously provided interview but on his own funding site..
And yet here you are saying there is no evidence. That is asinine.
But let's continue.
Or better yet, just pay attention to what the witness has said.
From the witness.
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.”
Clearly you didn't do any type of thorough examine of the evidence.
“The law is reason, free from passion.”
❈ Aristotle ❈
Of course, 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.
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.
Cop will not be able to prove the man was a threat to him or other cops or the public. And his dishonesty will be the nail in the coffin.