• 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.
How could this world-class loser look any worse than he does right now?

Fill us in. :roll:

Once you're sitting on the bottom that's as low as you can go.
He only sits at the bottom for those pushing the agenda. The real bottom is occupied by the likes of Walter Scott, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, et al.
 
He only sits at the bottom for those pushing the agenda. The real bottom is occupied by the likes of Walter Scott, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, et al.

Thought of you when I saw this liberal rag arguing the death penalty could even be appropriate here... when will the liberals ever stop I ask you?

National Review
 
He only sits at the bottom for those pushing the agenda.
The real bottom is occupied by the likes of Walter Scott, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, et al
.



It all depends on what agenda you're pushing. :roll:

Did you ever think about that? Did that thought ever cross your mind?




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself."
~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Thought of you when I saw this liberal rag arguing the death penalty could even be appropriate here... when will the liberals ever stop I ask you?

National Review
An article written before the facts started to surface. Your point?
 
It all depends on what agenda you're pushing. :roll:

Did you ever think about that? Did that thought ever cross your mind?




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself."
~ Robert Green Ingersoll
My agenda seems to be that Slager is innocent until proven guilty. Yours appears not to line up with that agenda. So much for tolerance which you define as:

"...giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

Ouch!!
 
I read this morning in the NY Times that the Police Union Slager belongs to is NOT paying for his defense.

That's a little surprising, and very damning.
 
I read this morning in the NY Times that the Police Union Slager belongs to is NOT paying for his defense.

That's a little surprising, and very damning.
It might also be actionable on Slager's part
 
My agenda seems to be that Slager is innocent until proven guilty.
Yours appears not to line up with that agenda. So much for tolerance which you define as:

"...giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

Ouch!!


Did you see the video of him shooting an unarmed, fleeing black man in the back and killing him? :roll:

I'm all for the man getting a fair trial, but that doesn't stop me from having an opinion.

And right now my opinion is that Slager is going down.

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
 
Last edited:
No, I am serious, almost what 30 years ago, 98% on the test, was told flat out I wasn't black or a woman, so "sorry"....


Dinkins expanded the plan after that as well.

If that were the case then that would be grounds for a discrimination suit. It would be one thing if it came down between a white and a minority and they went with the minority, but totally another to flat out say "no whites."
 
Yes, *I* know that. :mrgreen:

But one does not lay a dangerous duty weapon, out of one's control, near *anyone*, esp not someone still living. Such things are supposed to be properly secured...not dropped next to suspects.

And if it was no longer charged (a threat), then the cop obviously knew that some imagined 'retention' of the taser by the suspect meant he was not a threat at all. :)

I believe the intent of moving the taser was to twist the timeline, to make it appear as though the taser was discharged about the time the cop opened fire. Not sure how he planned to get around the "bullets were all in the suspect's back" issue.

(btw, has the medical examiner said yet how many times he was hit? I know he fired 8 shots...)
That I don't know.
 
Did you see the video of him shooting an unarmed, fleeing black man in the back and killing him? :roll:

I'm all for the man getting a fair trial, but that doesn't stop me from having an opinion.

Yeah, the biggest straw man in the universe is something like this. Anytime anyone disagrees on a criminal case, you hear it. "HES NOT GUILTY THERE HASNT BEEN A TRIAL YET!"

No ****, sherlock. At no point did anyone suggest we skip due process of law.
 
No, I am serious, almost what 30 years ago, 98% on the test, was told flat out I wasn't black or a woman, so "sorry"....


Dinkins expanded the plan after that as well.

NYPD hires white people roughly in proportion to the white population there.

Maybe you were just a bad candidate.
 
Yeah, the biggest straw man in the universe is something like this. Anytime anyone disagrees on a criminal case, you hear it. "HES NOT GUILTY THERE HASNT BEEN A TRIAL YET!"

No ****, sherlock. At no point did anyone suggest we skip due process of law.

Idk if you watch the news...but someone suggests it every damn time. The lynch mobs are not uncommon.
 
If that were the case then that would be grounds for a discrimination suit. It would be one thing if it came down between a white and a minority and they went with the minority, but totally another to flat out say "no whites."



It was what it was, turned out best for me anyway.
 
NYPD hires white people roughly in proportion to the white population there.

Maybe you were just a bad candidate.




I scored in the 98% percentile, I was the perfect candidate, you can show links to this in the late 80's?
 
I read this morning in the NY Times that the Police Union Slager belongs to is NOT paying for his defense.

That's a little surprising, and very damning.

Even I'm not sure that is fair. He paid his dues, he is/was a member. It seems they are convicting him before a trial.

However they may not be obligated to defend him since he was fired.
 
I believe the intent of moving the taser was to twist the timeline, to make it appear as though the taser was discharged about the time the cop opened fire. Not sure how he planned to get around the "bullets were all in the suspect's back" issue.


That I don't know.

Or just that the suspect still had it as he ran and remained an active threat.

We'll see how it plays out but it's very damning.
 
Even I'm not sure that is fair. He paid his dues, he is/was a member. It seems they are convicting him before a trial.

I agree. I'm not saying if it's right or wrong. I'm just saying it is telling.

However they may not be obligated to defend him since he was fired.

Well 1st they should fight his firing, but they're not doing that either. Again, telling.
 
Did you see the video of him shooting an unarmed, fleeing black man in the back and killing him? :roll:

I'm all for the man getting a fair trial, but that doesn't stop me from having an opinion.

And right now my opinion is that Slager is going down.

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
Yes, I saw the video plus I saw the part where he fought the police officer creating a threat
 
 j-mac ;1064522699 said:
I have a question for ya....
You are doing the same damn thing others have been doing.
The answer you seek has already been provided.


 j-mac ;1064522699 said:
but if you look at the video captured by the bystander, it appears more like the suspect slapped the taser from Slager's hand, or even that Slager threw the taser to the ground as the suspect started to take flight, in order to draw his gun....So, what evidence do you see that the suspect "took" possession of the taser?
No, it really does not appear that way when one carefully and thoroughly examines the video.

Examine the following frames in the below quote.

The Officer's hands are occupied. The left hand is holding on to the suspect, and the right hand is already in a downward movement to draw his firearm prior to the supposed taser coming into the frame.
(a downward movement, not a backwards movement.)
The force and direction of the supposed taser's movement shows it is impossible for it to have come from the downward movement of the Officer's hand.
And it can clearly be seen that the Officer's hand is not in a position for a taser to have been knocked from it. That simply didn't happen.

Then the second frame shows that the Officer is already drawing his firearm before the taser touches the ground, again showing it hadn't come from, or knocked from, the Officer's hands.

 Excon ;1064518067 said:
Here it can be seen that the Officer is already reaching for his firearm prior to the taser being thrown by the suspect.
walter-scott-tazer.png



 j-mac ;1064522699 said:
and I think it's reasonable to assume that the Chief of Police for N. Charleston also knows the law, yet, he still fired Slager, and had him placed under arrest for Murder....
Dismissible on three fronts
1. That is an appeal to authority, and as such, irrelevant.
2. Given what the video actually shows, it is unlikely that the Chief gave it a careful or thorough examination. Nor was he or his department the ones who made the charge for arrest purposes.
3. Knows the law? Officers have a general knowledge, but are not any more informed to the intricacies of the law and how it is applied.
e.g.: The detective who wanted to charge Zimmerman even though the evidence wasn't there to support such charge.​


 j-mac ;1064522699 said:
What you are saying is something that the court has to decide...
Irrelevant to debate.


 j-mac ;1064522699 said:
Police are trained observers...Or should be...
A myth.
Like the populace in general, some Officer's are better at observation than others.

Most observational skills an Officer has are innate or come from on the job experience.

Officers are trained to react to stimuli.
This training helps them overcome the heightened traumatic state they may find themselves in during encounters, and though not always, it better prepares them to act without freezing.

But none of this eliminates the possibility that the Officer will experience tunnel vision which such a heightened state may induce.
So of course he may not have seen the suspect throw the taser.


 j-mac ;1064522699 said:
It is clear that the suspect is running with NOTHING in his hands, why?
Irrelevant to the point that the had it when the Officer began to draw his firearm.


 j-mac ;1064522699 said:
Because he didn't "take" the taser, instead slapped it out of Slager's hand.
It clearly does not show that. The thrown taser could have only come from the suspect.
Why would he throw it?
Because he saw the Officer drawing his firearm after he received a warning.
 
 SenorXm/Sirius ;1064523066 said:
That's a little surprising, and very damning.
Surprising? Yes, as he was an Officer at the time of the incident.

Damning? How so?

If they are following policy, there is nothing damning about it.





 Deuce ;1064523124 said:
I believe the intent of moving the taser was to twist the timeline, to make it appear as though the taser was discharged about the time the cop opened fire.
And such thoughts can be immediately dismissed given the reality ...
that he knows he is wearing a body mic which would supposedly be capturing the sound of when the taser was employed.
that he knows he is being recorded. (as confirmed by the witness who was recording)
that he knows the taser cartridge fires out many id tags which indicates where it was deployed.​
 
Surprising? Yes, as he was an Officer at the time of the incident.

Damning? How so?

If they are following policy, there is nothing damning about it.

He's a member of their union, yet the union dropped him like a bad habit. That's damning. Before he is even convicted of anything they drop him? I never heard of that before, but no one here knows the by-laws of this particular union, so who knows?

The union's not paying for his defense which means his wife and kids are going to be saddled with $100,000's in legal bills. For that reason and for that reason alone I wish the union was paying for his defense. Not for him, but for them.
 
And such thoughts can be immediately dismissed given the reality ...
that he knows he is wearing a body mic which would supposedly be capturing the sound of when the taser was employed.
that he knows he is being recorded. (as confirmed by the witness who was recording)
that he knows the taser cartridge fires out many id tags which indicates where it was deployed.
Of course!
I hope Slager's defense realizes that fundamental truism.
As long as Slager doesn't think he did anything wrong, he didn't do anything wrong.
/jk

Excon's assessment of Slager's assessment of Slager's culpability and liability may not actually have that much legal bearing.


I agree that it seems like neither Slager nor Habersham(?) think that they're doing anything but SOP.
...which makes the whole thing seem so much worse.
 
He's a member of their union, yet the union dropped him like a bad habit. That's damning. Before he is even convicted of anything they drop him? I never heard of that before, but no one here knows the by-laws of this particular union, so who knows?

The union's not paying for his defense which means his wife and kids are going to be saddled with $100,000's in legal bills. For that reason and for that reason alone I wish the union was paying for his defense. Not for him, but for them.

Slager's wife is eight months pregnant with his first child (he apparently has stepkids), and I feel terribly, terribly sorry for her.
 
The officer clearly needs more firearms training. Other than that, what's the problem. He ran. He got shot. Sucks to be him, but he chose to run.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom