• 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.
I can't tell you what he picked up because the video isn't clear enough to identify the object. More importantly, I can't tell you WHY he picked it up.

So you are ready to give benefit of the doubt here... but you can see deep into the soul of the victim to say he is a "violent criminal"? Can you see you are biased?
 
Have you been following my comments. Apparently not.

No I have not. Some threads are quite busy and to follow all posts is impossible.
Just caught up with enough of your posts.
If he had not run he would be alive
If the dead man had an character he would be alive
And in my opinion it more than meets the criteria for manslaughter at a minimum.
 
Last edited:
Scott held all the tools necessary to preserve his life and he failed to use them. He has to carry a large part of the blame for eternity

Wow.. Not only do you want the judge and jury's job, but you're after Gods too? You think He knows? There will be no mercy for those who have not shown mercy to others. But if you have been merciful, God will be merciful when he judges you. Jas 2:13
 
His story remains evidence. What is in his own best interest may very well turn out to be the truth.

You are dead right about this... Finally. :) It is always in the best interest for the defendant to tell the truth. If he lies about tampering with evidence for example, it will likely increase his sentence.
 
His story remains evidence. What is in his own best interest may very well turn out to be the truth.

And his false statements also remain evidence. His actions speak louder than any words, shooting an unarmed and non-dangerous man in the back is just plain wrong
 
The 'usual suspects' also tried to make excuses for the 2 law enforcement officers here that shot the wrong man (never identified their target), in the basement, in bed, (after they already had their suspect,) 16 times...and didnt even manage to kill him.

And it's not even surprising that people doubt this cop (in the OP) will be convicted of murder...because those 2 LEs I just mentioned were not criminally charged and still have their jobs. However there have been 2 successful civil suits for about $3 million.

The suits are against the city or county, whatever. Not against the police themselves. We got to start having some accountability, until we do things aren't going to change. THIS case in S.C. might change things, the local cops and the state didn't hesitate, they immediately did and said all the right things.
 
The suits are against the city or county, whatever. Not against the police themselves. We got to start having some accountability, until we do things aren't going to change. THIS case in S.C. might change things, the local cops and the state didn't hesitate, they immediately did and said all the right things.

Yes I know. One point I was trying to make was that the cops didnt really get more than a handslap for their actions.
 
You are dead right about this... Finally. :) It is always in the best interest for the defendant to tell the truth. If he lies about tampering with evidence for example, it will likely increase his sentence.

What was the time frame from the shooting to the release of the video.
Did the Officer have time to provide a statement?
Why did he drop something by the dead man?
Is that action interference with a crime scene?
 
Er, factually, my statement is correct, your personal logic is still suspect.
Factually you are incorrect because Scott died because he ran from a police officer, fought with the police officer and allegedly tried to steal the officer's taser.
 
So you are ready to give benefit of the doubt here... but you can see deep into the soul of the victim to say he is a "violent criminal"? Can you see you are biased?
We know that Scott violated the law and fought with Slager. That makes him a violent criminal. It isn't rocket science
 
Wow.. Not only do you want the judge and jury's job, but you're after Gods too? You think He knows? There will be no mercy for those who have not shown mercy to others. But if you have been merciful, God will be merciful when he judges you. Jas 2:13
Mercy doesn't mean you ignore reality.
 
Factually you are incorrect because Scott died because he ran from a police officer, fought with the police officer and allegedly tried to steal the officer's taser.

Heh, see....you couldnt even counter without using 'allegedly.' My list were all 100% factual. (psst! I covered the other 2 with 'resisting a cop'. Convenient editing you did thar, lol.)

Because he deserved to die for a broken tail light, unpaid child support, and resisting a cop?

What justice system exactly do you prescribe to?

Ah....the apologists have quite the uphill battle on this one.
 
We know that Scott violated the law and fought with Slager. That makes him a violent criminal. It isn't rocket science

Pulling away from an officer you fear is going to hurt is not the same thing as being a violent criminal. But it seems you need to make Scott into a big bad evil criminal to justify the murderous actions of Slager and that is not right.

Scott should not have run away, but running away from a traffic stop and a late child support warrant does not make it OK for some idiot officer to take out his gun and shoot someone in the back.
 
Pulling away from an officer you fear is going to hurt is not the same thing as being a violent criminal. But it seems you need to make Scott into a big bad evil criminal to justify the murderous actions of Slager and that is not right.

Scott should not have run away, but running away from a traffic stop and a late child support warrant does not make it OK for some idiot officer to take out his gun and shoot someone in the back.

You forgot the part about him fighting with Slager.
 
Heh, see....you couldnt even counter without using 'allegedly.' My list were all 100% factual. (psst! I covered the other 2 with 'resisting a cop'. Convenient editing you did thar, lol.)



Ah....the apologists have quite the uphill battle on this one.
It's alleged because we don't know what he picked up or why. Our liberal friends believe they know, but they don't
 
It's alleged because we don't know what he picked up or why. Our liberal friends believe they know, but they don't

Things Slager may have done are alleged according to you.

You forgot the part about him fighting with Slager.

But you seem certain about this.

You are biased. But you are unable to admit it.

One thing I'm willing to bet on. A court of law will find Slager guilty and he will pay for his crime. It's tragic, really.
 
You forgot the part about him fighting with Slager.
Things Slager may have done are alleged according to you.



But you seem certain about this.

You are biased. But you are unable to admit it.

One thing I'm willing to bet on. A court of law will find Slager guilty and he will pay for his crime. It's tragic, really.
His stating facts is a bias for the facts.
The suspect was fighting with the Officer. That is factual.
Or do you not know what the witness reported and the video captured?
 
The 'usual suspects' also tried to make excuses for the 2 law enforcement officers here that shot the wrong man (never identified their target), in the basement, in bed, (after they already had their suspect,) 16 times...and didnt even manage to kill him.
:doh
When something is legal it is not an excuse.
But apparently you do not know that.

Your above statement is as bad as you not understanding that "immediate threat" or "immanent threat" are not the standards used here.


It will be his 'story,' told in his own best interests. We have no reason to believe anything he says without hard evidence to back it up.
Wrong Lursa.
That is evidence that the Prosecutor will have to show isn't true.
 
then they shot him in the back and killed him.
Who is this this "they" you speak of?


Once Scott began running away, he no longer posed any significant physical danger to the police,
Wrong.
He was a significant threat the moment he took the Officer's taser.



For your perusal.
Here we have a video of an Officer shooting at a fleeing suspect four more times after the suspect threw the gun he had. And the Officer knew he threw it.
He was still considered a threat.
That is what the law allows.



That cop is going down, for manslaughter or murder.
Those two things are not the same.
 
Who is this this "they" you speak of?



Wrong.
He was a significant threat the moment he took the Officer's taser.



For your perusal.
Here we have a video of an Officer shooting at a fleeing suspect four more times after the suspect threw the gun he had. And the Officer knew he threw it.
He was still considered a threat.
That is what the law allows.



Those two things are not the same.


Yes, we're aware that the law allows the police to murder people sometimes.
 
Things Slager may have done are alleged according to you.



But you seem certain about this.

You are biased. But you are unable to admit it.

One thing I'm willing to bet on. A court of law will find Slager guilty and he will pay for his crime. It's tragic, really.

We know that Scott ran, resisted arrest. We also know that he fought with Slager. We have video and eyewitness accounts. But we don't know what Slager picked up and dropped or why. Those are the facts
 
Irrelevant.

He was clearly not a threat when shot.
Not a threat to you, because you weren't there. But Slager was there and had to asses the situation in short order
 
Yes, we're aware that the law allows the police to murder people sometimes.
What a lame reply.
A legal killing is not murder.
 
Still ignoring the evidence,
:naughty
No. As already shown, it is you who are ignoring the evidnce and making things up.


threads from the taser into the victim, not the cop.
And? Why are you not paying attention?

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.

Lead1.png



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.
lead2.jpg



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.


Still does not change a frigging thing,
As that is what it is, of course it can not change reality, but it does show you to be wrong.


even if you were right and the dead man threw the taser (even though zero evidence supports that) that would weaken the officers case.
And this is where you are again wrong.
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.


The facts still remain the same:
Yes the facts as I showed them to you remain the same and are not going to change.
What you do not have though are facts as you absurdly claim.


1. running man with nothing in his hands
2. considerable distance from the officer with his back turned to the officer when the officer started shooting
3. there was no legal basis for this shooting
4. you are wrong, your so called evidence says nothing. The video I posted showed the threads from the officer towards the dead man. You have nothing.
1. Not a fact. An assumption.
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. :doh
As for the video.. iLOL :lamo And? You do not seem to understand what it shows (as already shown) or it's significance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom