• 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!

Judge tells Michael Slager jurors to keep deliberating

I misread his post. So what?

Perhaps you should apologize for telling him "No" then and implying he was wrong when you actually agreed with him?
 
Nonsense. Your "matter of moments" being equated to the speed of thought and reaction is ridiculous. If one has time to draw, aim and see the back of a fleeing person then they still have time to evaluate whether to fire. One that sees a green traffic light that "moments later" turns yellow is still expected to stop. The idea that the detection of a threat "moments earlier" entitles you to respond to that prior threat "moments later" is not being accepted by at least one jurror.
Your reply is nonsense.
Scott made himself a threat. He did not cease being a threat. The Office was responding the that threat.


§ 15A-401. Arrest by law-enforcement officer.

[...]

(d) Use of Force in Arrest. -

[...]

(2)b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; or

[...]
[...]

GS_15A-401


I find it more than reasonable to believe a combative resisting suspect armed with a taser is an imminent threat of serious physical injury to the Officer and anyone he would encounter while fleeing. His own combative conduct shows that he is more than willing to harm others.
From the information we know.
The suspect committed felony assault and took the Officer's taser which would enable him to use it against the Officer and then take his firearm.
That is how he would be in fear of his life from the suspect.

[...]

As already provided in the other thread from the SCOTUS case of Tennessee v. Garner.

We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and 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.

As soon as the suspect took the taser he became a significant threat of serious physical injury to not just the Officer, but to others also if he was allowed to flee with it.
If the Officer did not see the suspect throw the taser he is still operating under a reasonable impression that the suspect still had it.

This is much like the following video of an Office firing on a suspect who had already tossed the gun that made him a threat.






Sure, that is why the officer was justified in pointing a fire arm at him.

Once he turned and ran away, however, he was no longer a threat to the officer. Likewise, the fact that he had a non lethal weapon did not make him an imminent threat to the community. Nor did the officer have reason to believe that he was an aggravated rapist or murderer who might pose a future imminent (key word) danger to the community.

Game over- you lose.
Wrong as usual

His turning and running is irrelevant to the fact hat he already established himself as a threat.
Read the above response.





He was not going to approach another officer. The only way this assumption on your part would make sense is if he approached the officer here, but clearly the officer approached him, not the other way around.
WTF? You reply is beyond stupid. He attacked an Officer. Are you really oblivious to that fact?


No, he wasn't.
Wrong.
 
Perhaps you should apologize for telling him "No" then and implying he was wrong when you actually agreed with him?

Maybe you should mond your business?
 
WTF? You reply is beyond stupid. He attacked an Officer. Are you really oblivious to that fact?

Lol. The officer was actually aggressing on his person with the arrest, factually speaking. Due to his lack of consent to being arrested he decided to attempt to escape the officer. If the officer never approached him then the officer would have never been in danger in the first place. To take that situation and assume that somehow that means the suspect is a danger to the community is completely ridiculous.


Nope.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you should mond your business?

It's an open forum. I'll mond whatever I want. Especially egregious nonsense such as someone disagreeing and agreeing with another in the same post.
 
Oy Vey!
No. How your absurd thoughts apply to and about me, as you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

meh... you just post in these kinds of thread declaring some sort of victory because something went your way... well, you kind of got your way and here you are saying evidence, evidence and evidence... one other guy on the jury agreed with you. 11 did not. This seems to bother you.
 
It's an open forum. I'll mond whatever I want. Especially egregious nonsense such as someone disagreeing and agreeing with another in the same post.

But, I'm not the topic of the thread.
 
meh... you just post in these kinds of thread declaring some sort of victory because something went your way... well, you kind of got your way and here you are saying evidence, evidence and evidence...
I argue the evidence within the bounds of the law and what it establishes.
If you can not do that, don't participate.
It's that simple. Are you not aware of that?


... one other guy on the jury agreed with you. 11 did not. This seems to bother you.
And that is where you go wrong.

Get a clue and stop making assumptions.
 
Lol. The officer was actually aggressing on his person with the arrest, factually speaking. Due to his lack of consent to being arrested he decided to attempt to escape the officer. If the officer never approached him then the officer would have never been in danger in the first place.


Nope.
Technically speaking? iLOL Your argument is absurdly ridiculous.
The Officer has a right in "aggressing" a resisting suspect.
Are you not aware of that?
The suspect does not have the right to resist here as he was in the wrong, nor does he have the right to attack the Office as he did, or take the Officer's taser and taser him as he did.


Nope? As usual, you are wrong.
 
iLOL
I see you didn't follow the trial.
Figures. Wrong as usual.


As his account was reported.

It’s at this point that Slager claims Scott was able to wrestle the Taser from his hands and use the weapon against him.

Michael Slager testifies, recalls the shooting of Walter Scott

As his lawyer argued in closing.
“They are controlled by the solicitor, not Mr. Slager,” says Savage. “Yet they have evidence that Slager was tased, they didn’t tell you that. I guess [SLED] thought that you would think that if it’s not on the video it didn’t happen.”
Jury Deliberates in the Michael Slager Trial

You should back out of this discussion as you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

Oh, my bad, there was testimony, you're correct: it just wasn't credible, and there was no physical evidence that the officer was actually tazed. Got it.

Oh, and I see you're back to your games of altering a response so that the person you're replying to is unable to see you responded. I'll take that as your admission that you have no credible case to make, as always.
At the time he decided to fire, he was. And to the Officer's perception at the time he fired, he was.

You clearly have no clue as to what you speak.

Oh, the delicious irony. I am intimately familiar with what goes on in an officer's mind at times like this. More so than you ever will be.
iLOL
Said the one not familiar with the actual evidence.
Just makes you wrong as usual.

Yet more irony. I notice you utterly failed to note that what the officer claimed was at the scene doesn't appear in the video, and that his own testimony is contradicted by what's on the video.
Wrong as usual.

Sorry you can't face reality and that your fantasies about LEOs are just that: fantasies.

Have you ever considered being less dishonest?
 
Technically speaking? iLOL Your argument is absurdly ridiculous.
The Officer has a right in "aggressing" a resisting suspect.
Are you not aware of that?
The suspect does not have the right to resist here as he was in the wrong, nor does he have the right to attack the Office as he did, or take the Officer's taser and taser him as he did.

Arresting someone is aggression by definition. The fact is the situation was started by the officer and the suspects lack of consent to the arrest was in fact the reason for his desire to escape. If I remember correctly the suspect was wanted for not paying child support, which I'm sure you are aware is not a violent crime and does not provide any reason whatsoever to believe he is danger to other people. Saying that, the police officer was in fact in line with the law in his attempt to arrest him for his failure to pay child support in the state in question. That however doesn't change the motives of the suspect or who exactly put the situation into motion in the first place.
 
Oh, my bad, there was testimony, you're correct: it just wasn't credible, and there was no physical evidence that the officer was actually tazed. Got it.

Oh, and I see you're back to your games of altering a response so that the person you're replying to is unable to see you responded. I'll take that as your admission that you have no credible case to make, as always.
Wrong as usual.


Oh, the delicious irony. I am intimately familiar with what goes on in an officer's mind at times like this. More so than you ever will be.
Wrong as usual.
It is also apparent that whenever you choose to engage me you never know what the heck you are talking about.

And yeah, that is a department issued G22.

DSC08972.jpg

Yet more irony. I notice you utterly failed to note that what the officer claimed was at the scene doesn't appear in the video, and that his own testimony is contradicted by what's on the video.
Really? What would that be?
It is more than likely you are wrong, but go ahead and actually try to argue evidence for once.


Sorry you can't face reality and that your fantasies about LEOs are just that: fantasies.
Wrong as usual.


Have you ever considered being less dishonest?
Apparently you do not know what dishonesty is either as I haven't been.

You have already been shown to be wrong. You really need to give up.





Arresting someone is aggression by definition.
Apparently you are not aware of the distinction between an Officer and a resisting suspect or that there are different laws that govern both of their actions.


The fact is the situation was started by the officer and the suspects lack of consent to the arrest was in fact the reason for his desire to escape.
iLOL
1. The suspect started this encounter by not following the law.
Then he exasperated the situation by running.
It was the suspect that started this.
Not the Officer.
2. This is irrelevant bs to the issue of the shooting.


If I remember correctly the suspect was wanted for not paying child support, which I'm sure you are aware is not a violent crime and does not provide any reason whatsoever to believe he is danger to other people.
iLOL
Totally hilarious.
And again. He established himself as a threat when he attacked the Officer took his taser and used it on him.


Saying that, the police officer was in fact in line with the law in his attempt to arrest him for his failure to pay child support in the state in question. That however doesn't change the motives of the suspect or who exactly put the situation into motion in the first place.
His failure to pay had nothing to do with why he was pulled over, and it is only speculation as to the reason he ran.
 
Wrong as usual.

In your overactive imagination, perhaps, but not in reality.
Wrong as usual.

Stomp your feet harder when you post that. It might make it more credible.
It is also apparent that whenever you choose to engage me you never know what the heck you are talking about.

LOL! Ironically enough, you wouldn't know.

You'll have to to better than a random pic on the Internet to impress me, sport. Wanna-be cops are so predictable.
Really? What would that be?
It is more than likely you are wrong, but go ahead and actually try to argue evidence for once.

So again, you admit you're not familiar with the trial. Got it. Thanks.
Wrong as usual.

It's OK that you desperately want to be a cop. A lot of guys like you do.
Apparently you do not know what dishonesty is either as I haven't been.

You have already been shown to be wrong. You really need to give up.

Oh, I admit I was mistaken about the testimony, but that's it.

Sorry to have exposed your dishonesty again. You're likely used to it by now.
 
Judge tells Michael Slager jurors to keep deliberating

(CNN)The judge in the trial of former South Carolina police Officer Michael Slager told jurors to keep deliberating Friday afternoon after they told him they don't believe they can reach a consensus.
Slager is charged with murder in the April 2015 shooting death of Walter Scott, an unarmed black man, after a traffic stop in North Charleston.
"You have a duty to make every reasonable effort to reach a unanimous verdict," Judge Clifton Newman told the jury in a Charleston courtroom.

[...]​

Judge tells Michael Slager jurors to keep deliberating



The Jury is made up of 11 White and 1 Black.



Tweet

Andrew Knapp- 2 Dec 2016
Jury is deadlocked, saying nothing would change mind of "the juror." Sounds like lone holdout.
#SlagerTrial #WalterScott


Tweet


The Jury was given three options. Murder, Manslaughter and Not Guilty.

He should be found not guilty if it was argued correctly.

It's hard to understand how it would ever be justified to shoot an unarmed man in the back.

Body cameras ought to be required equipment for any armed police officer. That's way overdue. We cannot give cops a license to kill and, when the technology is available, not mandate its use to hold them accountable.
 
Apparently you are not aware of the distinction between an Officer and a resisting suspect or that there are different laws that govern both of their actions.

Apparently you are not aware that I didn't use a legal term.

iLOL
1. The suspect started this encounter by not following the law.
Then he exasperated the situation by running.
It was the suspect that started this.
Not the Officer.
2. This is irrelevant bs to the issue of the shooting.

Lol, no. The officer is factually the one the started the situation due to the suspect not following the law. Understand the distinction between things better.

iLOL
Totally hilarious.
And again. He established himself as a threat when he attacked the Officer took his taser and used it on him.

I have seen no evidence of this being the case.


His failure to pay had nothing to do with why he was pulled over, and it is only speculation as to the reason he ran.

Hardly. If you knew anything about what his family said on the matter you would know he didn't want to go to jail, which is why he decided to run away.
 
I argue the evidence within the bounds of the law and what it establishes.
If you can not do that, don't participate.
It's that simple. Are you not aware of that?



And that is where you go wrong.

Get a clue and stop making assumptions.

Lone Juror Says He Can't Convict Ex-Cop in Walter Scott Killing

Why do you deny the truth put right in your face? You do this a lot.

Why don't you go ahead and take a stab at redefining the word "Lone"?
 
You're trying to make the thread about me. Nothing new, there.

Its OK to be wrong. It's not ok to run away from it. That's you making this thread about you.
 
Still waiting for you to ever see a case of a black man getting shot by a cop that you think didn't deserve to die. Here we have one on video, running away and getting shot in the back and you are in here declaring he was somehow still a threat. We all know your position. Just drop into all the cop shooting a black man threads and just post "Ditto to last time" and you could save a lot of hassle and typing.
He's been asked, and he always ignores the question.
 
Your reply is nonsense.
Scott made himself a threat. He did not cease being a threat. The Office was responding the that threat.


§ 15A-401. Arrest by law-enforcement officer.

[...]

(d) Use of Force in Arrest. -

[...]

(2)b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; or

[...]
[...]

GS_15A-401


I find it more than reasonable to believe a combative resisting suspect armed with a taser is an imminent threat of serious physical injury to the Officer and anyone he would encounter while fleeing. His own combative conduct shows that he is more than willing to harm others.

This is much like the following video of an Office firing on a suspect who had already tossed the gun that made him a threat.






Wrong as usual

His turning and running is irrelevant to the fact hat he already established himself as a threat.
Read the above response.






WTF? You reply is beyond stupid. He attacked an Officer. Are you really oblivious to that fact?


Wrong.


It appears that exactly one of twleve jurors, after seeing all of the evidence presented in this case, agrees with you. I am not disputing your interpretation of the "letter of the law" or that of the lone juror - as that is your right and the right of that juror. The fact that the vast majority of the jurors and I see the clear danger of allowng any "peace officer" to decide what past or present level of alleged aggression towards himself poses a threat to some unnamed "others" is grounds to kill that person.

Clearly, a law granting that power to anyone, LEO or otherwise, is permission to kill anyone deemed "dangerous" by that one person. For example, an officer may observe what he perceives as a violent attack in progress apt to result in serous inury (e.g. a "serious" bar fight), say "stop - you are under arrest" and then shoot dead either party, to that alleged violent crime, who decides to flee rather than to obey his command. Hey, he was beating up that guy pretty good - by killing him as he fled I stopped a potential serious threat to others.
 
Last edited:
Judge tells Michael Slager jurors to keep deliberating

(CNN)The judge in the trial of former South Carolina police Officer Michael Slager told jurors to keep deliberating Friday afternoon after they told him they don't believe they can reach a consensus.
Slager is charged with murder in the April 2015 shooting death of Walter Scott, an unarmed black man, after a traffic stop in North Charleston.
"You have a duty to make every reasonable effort to reach a unanimous verdict," Judge Clifton Newman told the jury in a Charleston courtroom.

[...]​

Judge tells Michael Slager jurors to keep deliberating



The Jury is made up of 11 White and 1 Black.



Tweet

Andrew Knapp- 2 Dec 2016
Jury is deadlocked, saying nothing would change mind of "the juror." Sounds like lone holdout.
#SlagerTrial #WalterScott


Tweet


The Jury was given three options. Murder, Manslaughter and Not Guilty.

He should be found not guilty if it was argued correctly.

I'd vote not guilty based on what I saw in the video. But, I'm apt to be pro-cop. I probably would convict only if a cop shot someone who had their hands up and said, "Don't shoot."

If you push a cop and run, twice, you deserve to get shot.
 
In your overactive imagination, perhaps, but not in reality.
Said the one with the over active imagination who was already proven wrong.


Stomp your feet harder when you post that. It might make it more credible.
:lamo
Said the one who was proven wrong and is only stomping their feet.
You project quite well.


Ironically enough, you wouldn't know.
Said the one who is always wrong as demonstrated in this thread.
Stop projecting.


You'll have to to better than a random pic on the Internet to impress me, sport. Wanna-be cops are so predictable.
:doh
Random pic on the net? iLOL
Wrong as usual.


So again, you admit you're not familiar with the trial. Got it. Thanks.
Oh look. More projection from the one who showed they were not familiar with the trial testimony in an attempt to deflect from actually arguing the evidence in this case.
You were given the chance and all you chose to do was deflect. That just shows how absurd your position is.


Oh, I admit I was mistaken about the testimony, but that's it.
But that's it? iLOL No that isn't it.
You were wrong as usual.


Sorry to have exposed your dishonesty again.
The only dishonesty you have exposed is your own.
Of that I am sure you are used to it being shown.
 
Back
Top Bottom