• 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

It's hard to understand how it would ever be justified to shoot an unarmed man in the back.
When one understands the parameters of when it is legally an option, not at all.





Apparently you are not aware that I didn't use a legal term.
iLOL
Besides your being wrong, we are discussing a legal issue. Your general use definition does not apply.
The suspect was the aggressor here, not the Officer.


Lol, no. The officer is factually the one the started the situation due to the suspect not following the law.
And again you show you are wrong and choosing to focus on an irrelevancy.
The suspect is the one involved in unlawful aggression here, not the Officer. The Officer is the one responding to the unlawful aggression.


I have seen no evidence of this being the case.
Just showing you choose not to be familiar with the evidence in this case especially as links where you can garner said information were previously given.


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.
Hardly? iLOL
What his family speculates on is irrelevant.

Had Scott not bolted from the vehicle the Officer would have received the following information about Scott; “Wanted person. Caution. Armed and dangerous. Violent tendencies.”
That is what was revealed in trial.





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 again provide nothing of substance to support your earlier bs.
You made claims about me that you can not support.

Again.
No. How your absurd thoughts apply to and about me, as you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

That you do not understand that the part of you not knowing what you are talking about refers to the first part of the sentence (you speaking about me), is absolutely hilarious.





It appears that exactly one of twleve jurors, after seeing all of the evidence presented in this case, agrees with you.
Irrelevant.


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.
Your appeal to the masses/numbers is a logical fallacy.
Nor do you have a clue to to their individual reasoning.
For all anyone knows, the Jurors you speak of may have simply failed to grasp the significance of the evidence.

As for who determines that threat? In such situations it is and always has been the Officer making that decision and is predicated on a number of factors. That is not an unreasonable allowance given their job. It's not just some willy-nilly decision.


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.
No. Simply no. Familiarize yourself with the standard of review on the use of deadly force by an Officer.
 
Clearly you do not know the video evidence enough to even be speaking about it as you are wrong.

Clearly your post reeks ignorance by eschewing common sense and the reality of evidence that shows that the deceased was moving away from the guilty cop, who moved the taser to try and cover his lying ass after shooting the unarmed guy in the back.

Cop needs to fry for murder and spend his remaining days getting raped in prison.
 
When one understands the parameters of when it is legally an option, not at all.





iLOL
Besides your being wrong, we are discussing a legal issue. Your general use definition does not apply.
The suspect was the aggressor here, not the Officer.


And again you show you are wrong and choosing to focus on an irrelevancy.
The suspect is the one involved in unlawful aggression here, not the Officer. The Officer is the one responding to the unlawful aggression.


Just showing you choose not to be familiar with the evidence in this case especially as links where you can garner said information were previously given.


Hardly? iLOL
What his family speculates on is irrelevant.

Had Scott not bolted from the vehicle the Officer would have received the following information about Scott; “Wanted person. Caution. Armed and dangerous. Violent tendencies.”
That is what was revealed in trial.






You again provide nothing of substance to support your earlier bs.
You made claims about me that you can not support.

Again.
No. How your absurd thoughts apply to and about me, as you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

That you do not understand that the part of you not knowing what you are talking about refers to the first part of the sentence (you speaking about me), is absolutely hilarious.





Irrelevant.


Your appeal to the masses/numbers is a logical fallacy.
Nor do you have a clue to to their individual reasoning.
For all anyone knows, the Jurors you speak of may have simply failed to grasp the significance of the evidence.

As for who determines that threat? In such situations it is and always has been the Officer making that decision and is predicated on a number of factors. That is not an unreasonable allowance given their job. It's not just some willy-nilly decision.


No. Simply no. Familiarize yourself with the standard of review on the use of deadly force by an Officer.

You are giving the officer's "mindset" far too much weight - effectively saying only that single officer can be right. What you wish to ignore is the power of a jury (we the people?) to have the final say. If an officer's word must be taken as fact and, of course, the other party is dead from being shot multiple times in the back then why ever have a trial? Humans possess a fight or flight reflex triggered by a hormone in response to a dangerous (threatening?) situation - what this trial is primarily about is shooting to kill someone that is clearly fleeing.
 
When one understands the parameters of when it is legally an option, not at

Okay....

While I'm fairly certain states DIFFER in their deadly force standards, here's Connecticut's.

STATUTORY STANDARDS FOR USING DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE

The law authorizes law enforcement officers to use deadly physical force only when they reasonably believe it is necessary to:

1. defend themselves or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or

2. make an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom they reasonably believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and, where feasible, they have given warning of their intent to use deadly physical force (CGS § 53a-22 (c)).

The law defines “deadly physical force” as physical force that can be reasonably expected to cause death or serious physical injury (CGS § 53a-3(5)). It defines “serious physical injury” as physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ (CGS § 53a-3(4)).

The law specifies that a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which, if true, would constitute an offense. If the believed facts or circumstances would not constitute an offense, an erroneous though not unreasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not make the use of physical force justifiable to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody (CGS § 53a-22(a)).
.......

CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR USING DEADLY FORCE

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent the escape of a suspect unless the police officer reasonably believes that the suspect committed or attempted to commit crimes involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and a warning of the intent to use deadly physical force was given, whenever feasible (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)). Thus, our statutory standards for using deadly force seem to parallel the federal constitutional standards.

The Court has said that the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of “precise definition” or “mechanical application.” “[T]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight….” Moreover, “allowance must be made for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” The question is whether the officers' actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them “(Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 396, 397 (1989)).
........

If I'm on that jury, I want to know why the officer didn't taser the subject. If he were going to physically engage a running man, he most definitely had the advantage. So how did the officer lose control? And why? Did he warn the subject as the subject ran away? Why did he shoot? What was his reasoning?

Since neither you nor I are privy to his thought process, I don't think either one of us can determine right or wrong. Personally, I would caution an officer that he will be hard pressed to defend his choice to shoot an unarmed man in the back. And I think that's the way it ought to be. We cannot allow officers to intentionally kill unarmed people because they are running away from a traffic ticket.
 
Okay....

While I'm fairly certain states DIFFER in their deadly force standards, here's Connecticut's.
It seems you are missing something here.
The relevant NC law was already provided. That quote linked to a thread that contains all the information regarding how it must fall in line with the SCOTUS decision in Tennessee v. Garner.


If I'm on that jury, I want to know why the officer didn't taser the subject. If he were going to physically engage a running man, he most definitely had the advantage. So how did the officer lose control? And why? Did he warn the subject as the subject ran away? Why did he shoot? What was his reasoning?

Since neither you nor I are privy to his thought process, I don't think either one of us can determine right or wrong. Personally, I would caution an officer that he will be hard pressed to defend his choice to shoot an unarmed man in the back. And I think that's the way it ought to be.
The jury was informed of this as well as that Scott took the taser and tasered the Officer.
And though you may not, I do know what has been reported in regards to what he said about it and of his available testimony.

And don't take offense to this; Please familiarize yourself with this case before continuing to speak about it.



We cannot allow officers to intentionally kill unarmed people because they are running away from a traffic ticket.
Exaggerated nonsense. That is not what happened here.
 
Clearly your post reeks ignorance by eschewing common sense and the reality of evidence that shows that the deceased was moving away from the guilty cop, who moved the taser to try and cover his lying ass after shooting the unarmed guy in the back.

Cop needs to fry for murder and spend his remaining days getting raped in prison.
No, as usual it is clearly your post which reeks of ignorance of the reality of the facts in this case.
He was in the process of responding to the threat as the threat turned and ran. His running didn't make him any less of a threat.

There is no evidence that he moved the taser to cover anything up.
That is a ridiculous assertion on your part.

Your hyperbolic nonsense just certifies your ignorance.





You are giving the officer's "mindset" far too much weight - effectively saying only that single officer can be right.
No. I am given the evidence the weight that it deserves absent evidence to the contrary, and I am applying that evidence to the known law regarding this issue.
It must be viewed from the perspective of another similarly situated officer.
In this case he was already responding the the threat that Scott made himself to be. Responding to that threat in that manner is a reasonable action.
Then the augment goes to Scott having thrown the taser prior to the first shot. This becomes irrelevant in the equation as the Officer was not aware of it.


What you wish to ignore is the power of a jury (we the people?) to have the final say.
You are using it as an appeal to authority which is a logical fallacy. If you want to argue that what a jury decided is correct you have to rely on the evidence as it applies to the law.
So either you argue the evidence as known under the law or you have no valid argument.


If an officer's word must be taken as fact and, of course, the other party is dead from being shot multiple times in the back then why ever have a trial?
You are ignoring the fact that no evidence exists to suggest his account is not accurate.


Humans possess a fight or flight reflex triggered by a hormone in response to a dangerous (threatening?) situation -
Irrelevant to whether or not the actions are unlawful.


what this trial is primarily about is shooting to kill someone that is clearly fleeing.
This ignores all of the evidence that he was a threat to the Officer and reasonably remained that threat in the Officers mind because he was not aware he tossed the taser. His fleeing is irrelevant to this because under such circumstances an Officer is allowed to fire on said fleeing suspect.
 
No, as usual it is clearly your post which reeks of ignorance of the reality of the facts in this case.
He was in the process of responding to the threat as the threat turned and ran. His running didn't make him any less of a threat.

There is no evidence that he moved the taser to cover anything up.
That is a ridiculous assertion on your part.

Your hyperbolic nonsense just certifies your ignorance.





No. I am given the evidence the weight that it deserves absent evidence to the contrary, and I am applying that evidence to the known law regarding this issue.
It must be viewed from the perspective of another similarly situated officer.
In this case he was already responding the the threat that Scott made himself to be. Responding to that threat in that manner is a reasonable action.
Then the augment goes to Scott having thrown the taser prior to the first shot. This becomes irrelevant in the equation as the Officer was not aware of it.


You are using it as an appeal to authority which is a logical fallacy. If you want to argue that what a jury decided is correct you have to rely on the evidence as it applies to the law.
So either you argue the evidence as known under the law or you have no valid argument.


You are ignoring the fact that no evidence exists to suggest his account is not accurate.


Irrelevant to whether or not the actions are unlawful.


This ignores all of the evidence that he was a threat to the Officer and reasonably remained that threat in the Officers mind because he was not aware he tossed the taser. His fleeing is irrelevant to this because under such circumstances an Officer is allowed to fire on said fleeing suspect.

You ignore clear video proof that the officer lied.

According to Slager, Scott was able to climb back to his feet after gaining control of the Taser and point the weapon at him. Describing himself as in a state of “total fear that Mr. Scott was coming toward” him, Slager said he “fired until the threat was stopped, like I’m trained to do.”

Focusing on discrepancies between Slager’s recollection and eyewitness video of the shooting, DuRant and assistant solicitor Chad Simpson would press witnesses on the former officer’s mindset after Scott’s death. While Slager claims that Scott was approaching him with the Taser when he decided to open fire, expert witnesses have examined the video to estimate that Scott was at least 17 feet away with his back turned when Slager first pulled the trigger.

Michael Slager testifies, recalls the shooting of Walter Scott | The Battery

When one key part of a witness's testimony is shown (by both video & physical evidence and other expert testimony) to be false then other aspects of that witness's testimony are apt to carry far less weight. Fear that someone at least 17 feet away and fleeng with their back to you is coming toward you is quite a stretch for most of us.
 
Last edited:
You ignore clear video proof that the officer lied.



Michael Slager testifies, recalls the shooting of Walter Scott | The Battery

When one key part of a witness's testimony is shown (by both video & physical evidence and other expert testimony) to be false then other aspects of that witness's testimony are apt to carry far less weight. Fear that someone at least 17 feet away and fleeng with their back to you is coming toward you is quite a stretch for most of us.

Fleeing from a cop after physically assaulting him or her is deserving of a bullet in the back. At the time of the incident, we have an unknown suspect running from a vehicle with no tags. For all that cop knew, he was chasing a guy who murdered a family and stole their car.

If you don't want to be shot by cop, don't push him and try to run away. Pretty simple stuff. I hope the jury agrees.
 
Said the one with the over active imagination who was already proven wrong.

Ah, yes. Yet again you play with posts so that who you're responding to gets no notice. It's about the only way you can ever claim a victory. Highly dishonest, and speaks volumes to your insecurities.
:lamo
Said the one who was proven wrong and is only stomping their feet.
You project quite well.

Oh, I admitted I was wrong but, unfortunately for you, there is no physicl evidence that the taser was, indeed, used on him.
:doh
Random pic on the net? iLOL
Wrong as usual.

I know you have to cling to the fantasy that you are/were a cop, but it's not working, sport. Why pretend otherwise? Why not face reality?
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.

Your ignorance of the physical evidence and ignorning of what's on the video duly noted.
But that's it? iLOL No that isn't it.
You were wrong as usual.

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

Good of you to admit to your dishonesty. Glad to see you coming to terms with it.

What's less clear is why you're so fearful of having other posters notified of you replies.

Some sort of dominance pathology is my guess. Good thing you were never a cop.
 
You ignore clear video proof that the officer lied.



Michael Slager testifies, recalls the shooting of Walter Scott | The Battery

When one key part of a witness's testimony is shown (by both video & physical evidence and other expert testimony) to be false then other aspects of that witness's testimony are apt to carry far less weight. Fear that someone at least 17 feet away and fleeng with their back to you is coming toward you is quite a stretch for most of us.

You're asking the impossible of the profoundly incapable.

Some people are simply immune to reason in any measure.
 
Fleeing from a cop after physically assaulting him or her is deserving of a bullet in the back. At the time of the incident, we have an unknown suspect running from a vehicle with no tags. For all that cop knew, he was chasing a guy who murdered a family and stole their car.

If you don't want to be shot by cop, don't push him and try to run away. Pretty simple stuff. I hope the jury agrees.

That doesn't constitute a reasonable belief that the suspect is an imminent threat to cause great bodily harm or death. The video doesn't show anything that warrants the use of deadly force.
 
That doesn't constitute a reasonable belief that the suspect is an imminent threat to cause great bodily harm or death. The video doesn't show anything that warrants the use of deadly force.

Depends on how you feel about letting fleeing criminal go or shooting them dead. I personally prefer the latter. I understand most people think differently.
 
Depends on how you feel about letting fleeing criminal go or shooting them dead. I personally prefer the latter. I understand most people think differently.

The circumstances where it's warranted to use deadly force against a fleeing suspect are few and far between. Basically, unless the guy is armed and has just committed ADW it's not justifiable.
 
The circumstances where it's warranted to use deadly force against a fleeing suspect are few and far between. Basically, unless the guy is armed and has just committed ADW it's not justifiable.

Which is why the guy was rightfully fired. I'd still vote to acquit though.
 
Ah, yes. Yet again you play with posts so that who you're responding to gets no notice. It's about the only way you can ever claim a victory. Highly dishonest, and speaks volumes to your insecurities.
You are speaking irrelevancy to what you quoted. You have been shown to be wrong and will continue to be.
Whether or not you are personally notified is irrelevant to your being wrong. Clearly you are responding, so I do not care what you make up to believe. That is on you and always will be.
All you have shown and continue to show, is that you can not argue the evidence.


Oh, I admitted I was wrong but, unfortunately for you, there is no physicl evidence that the taser was, indeed, used on him.
Wrong! Again you show that you do not know the evidence to even be discussing this case.

Michael Slager’s defense called witnesses Monday to make a case that the white former South Carolina patrolman was stunned by his own Taser in a struggle before he shot a fleeing black motorist in the back.

[...]

Mark Kroll, an expert on the effects of electrical shocks, testified that melted fibers on Slager’s uniform could only have been caused by being stunned with a Taser at close range.
“There’s really no alternative source for the damage,” Koll testified. ...

[...]

A South Carolina Law Enforcement analyst also testified earlier that the uniform damage was likely caused by a stun gun. Megan Fletcher said the fibers on the left pocket of Slager’s uniform shirt had melted, requiring a temperature of 480 degrees Fahrenheit.

“I’m not aware of any other source that could create that heat,” she testified. She added that she couldn’t definitively say a stun gun did the damage.

[...]

Defense lays out case officer stunned by own Taser


I know you have to cling to the fantasy that you are/were a cop, but it's not working, sport. Why pretend otherwise? Why not face reality?
1. You again choose to make up things to believe. That is on you. Stop making things up to believe.
2. You again choose to go personal to deflect from your being wrong. That too is on you. Stop trying to make things personal. You know it is wrong and I will report it if you do not cease.


Your ignorance of the physical evidence and ignorning of what's on the video duly noted.
Oh look. You made up something to believe again. In other words, what you said was a complete fabrication, a lie.

At no point have I ignored any of the evidence or anything on the video.
Matter of fact, you have repeatedly shown you do not know the evidence to even be discussing this case.


Good of you to admit to your dishonesty. Glad to see you coming to terms with it.

What's less clear is why you're so fearful of having other posters notified of you replies.

Some sort of dominance pathology is my guess. Good thing you were never a cop.
You are projecting and only speaking of yourself.
 
You ignore clear video proof that the officer lied.
According to Slager, Scott was able to climb back to his feet after gaining control of the Taser and point the weapon at him. Describing himself as in a state of “total fear that Mr. Scott was coming toward” him, Slager said he “fired until the threat was stopped, like I’m trained to do.”

Focusing on discrepancies between Slager’s recollection and eyewitness video of the shooting, DuRant and assistant solicitor Chad Simpson would press witnesses on the former officer’s mindset after Scott’s death. While Slager claims that Scott was approaching him with the Taser when he decided to open fire, expert witnesses have examined the video to estimate that Scott was at least 17 feet away with his back turned when Slager first pulled the trigger.
1. Wrong, nothing has been ignored on my part.
2. Proof? Hilarious. It's not even evidence of a lie. He never said he was firing upon him as he came at him.
You have a belief in a created dichotomy that does not exist and stems from poor reporting and conflating the two separate quotes as being from the same moment in time when they are not.

1. The moment in time when he decided to use deadly force (when Scott was facing him and according to the Officer coming toward him)
and​
2. The moment in time he was able to start actually firing. (which was when Scott was fleeing)​
So of course it is a stretch to you and the others you have taken upon yourself to speak for.
On a side note.
Scott being able to move that 17 feet in such a short period of time just exemplifies the rational behind shooting a knife wielding threat. A person can get to you before you draw your weapon to eliminate the threat they pose.​

It's like you don't want recognize that there was a point where there was a struggle between the two and Scott took the taser and turned it on the Officer.
This is what he testified to, not that he was shooting him as he came toward him.

Here is a reporter quoting two things from the same moment in time.


And then there is this report.


And this one.



Do you see the difference between what these reports quote and/or the difference in what was reported and of that you provided?



At the moment he decided to fire, Scott was a threat and was facing him at that point in time, period.


(Continued below)
 
(Continued from above)

As already stated on page one of this thread.
At the moment he decided to fire, Scott was a threat.
The Officer was already in the process responding (drawing his firearm to shoot him) to the threat Scott made himself to be while facing the Officer when he turned and ran.
and
The point which you seemed to miss was that he was already in the process of responding to the threat Scott made himself to be.
That threat did not cease to exist simply because he turned and ran.


He decided to use deadly force and started the process of drawing his firearm as Scott faced him.

Because Scott was able to get 17 feet away before the first shot was fired is irrelevant to the law as written.
You can shoot a fleeing felon who has established themselves a threat as Scott did.

Earlier you took issue with the following comment, but so you know, it was reflection of what was testified to by an expert witness.

This all happened is a matter of moments and would require more time for the brain to register what was happening to be able to stop what was already decided upon.

You replied with the nonsense about his back facing the Officer.
His back facing the Officer was irrelevant as he was already determined to be a threat, and running away didn't make him any less of a threat at that moment.


I regards to it being a reflection of expert testimony.

Charles Morgan, a forensic psychiatrist and University of New Haven (Conn.) criminal justice professor, took the witness stand for the defense.

[...]

His testimony was designed to tell jurors that Michael Slager had no time to rethink his decision to open fire on Walter Scott.

"Under stress," Morgan said, "you don’t have time to second-guess things when you’re operating on that level.

"That behavior is pretty automatic."


WATCH: Slager trial jury will continue deliberating

Slager had already made the decision to fire, Scott turning and running with his back to the Officer didn't change that.

By the experts testimony, the decision to shoot was irreversible.
In the 1.5 seconds it took him to draw, aim, and fire, he had to act on what was a perceived threat, which could, at any moment, turn around and clear the same distance of 17 feet in 1.5 seconds and attacked him again. Or he could have even encountered someone else and harmed them in his need to get away.


When one key part of a witness's testimony is shown (by both video & physical evidence and other expert testimony) to be false then other aspects of that witness's testimony are apt to carry far less weight. Fear that someone at least 17 feet away and fleeng with their back to you is coming toward you is quite a stretch for most of us.
As shown, you conflated things and are therefore wrong.
 
1. He had resisted arrest, attacked the Officer, took his tazer and tazed the him.
2. At the moment he decided to fire, Scott was a threat.
The Officer was already in the process responding (drawing his firearm to shoot him) to the threat Scott made himself to be while facing the Officer when he turned and ran.
This all happened is a matter of moments and would require more time for the brain to register what was happening to be able to stop what was already decided upon.

The cop CLAIMED he took his tazer, but the video shows him putting what looks like his tazer next to the body after he killed him..
 
The cop CLAIMED he took his tazer, but the video shows him putting what looks like his tazer next to the body after he killed him..
And? It shows him picking it back up also. Picking it up indicates it wasn't to plant evidence.

1. Evidence in this case is that Scott had the taser and tased the Officer.
2. Physical evidence suggests he was tased.
3. One experts testimony on the physical evidence concludes the melted fabric was from a taser.
3. Another expert would not conclude it was from a taser but can not think of anything else it could be from except a taser.​

And you want to sit there and suggest it was to plant evidence? iLOL

He knew he was tased and didn't have to plant anything to substantiate it.

Secondly, thinking he would make an effort to plant evidence in front of another Officer and a civilian who is present and recording is absurdly irrational to an extreme.
"Safe rule if thumb…if someone tries to tell you a cop murdered someone in broad daylight, on a public street, in front of who knows how many witnesses, with no chance in hell of getting away with it, stop and think about what it is they are asking you to believe. No doubt, there are bad cops out there, but that doesn’t mean they are stupid. Heck, even non-cop criminals know better than that for the most part, except for the ones who don’t care if they get caught."


Based on training, instinctually, it would be to secure weapon on the scene as an Officer is supposed to do.

In this specific case the Officer had no conscious idea why he did it so we are only left with what is instinctual, not irrational speculation unsupported by the totality of the evidence.

But noooooo, you want to be irrational about it. Doh!


But, don't you know? Police NEVER lie.
Oh look, another ridiculous comment by you.
 
Back
Top Bottom