• 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.
It is not procedure to stage the crime scene,
There was no staging of a scene.
Your claim is nothing more than evidnce of convoluted thoughts.


he took the taser from the spot the officer dropped it, from what one can see threw it towards the suspect and later picked it up.
And again, you are assuming he took the taser.
Secondly, if it was the taser, it is procedure to secure it. How that is accomplished is irrelevant.
Finally, suggesting that his taking it, (when it is procedure to secure it) away from the area it was used indicates some kind of malfeasance, is just showing the claimant is ignorant of procedure, and ignorant of the fact that the taser cartridge shoots out id tags to establish and mark were it was used.


There was nothing to secure at the spot mr. Scott was executed at.
Your comment is irrelevant as well as counter to the position you already professed.
Execution is not manslaughter.
So all you are doing is showing you are purposely and obnoxiously making false claims.
And of course the reasons for such nonsense do not speak well of the person making such claims.



Yet more evidence of the lies of mr. Slager.
What lie?
Saying he is lying is a lie in itself.
So again, what lie?
Prove there is a lie.


TASER TASER TASER

Is what officer Slager shouted according to the LA times on the dashcam video.

And they noted that when Slager shouted, "Taser! Taser! Taser!" it meant he was about to use the non-lethal weapon.

'Taser! Taser! Taser!' a possible clue in dashboard camera video - LA Times
:doh
Again showing you do not understand the sequence of events.
Do you not understand that this happened prior to what we see in the video?
Please tell me you didn't so I can laugh even harder.


He was using his taser ... and then he just went for his gun and shot the guy dead.
Your comment just shows you choose to ignore the evidence and are ignorant of the sequence of events.


but must have done it piss poor
What an absurd comment.
1. If it malfunctioned a malfunction may not be attributable to the Officer.
2. It was used while the suspect was resisting both probes may not have landed properly.

But of course to someone who is absurdly biased, it has to be the Officer's fault. :doh
Your comment was lame and truly paints you as a non-objective and significantly biased person.


And his false statements also remain evidence.
No one has been able to show he lied at any point.
Yet here you are continuing to make the same false claim.

Back up what you say.
Prove he lied.


Pulling away from an officer you fear is going to hurt is not the same thing as being a violent criminal.
Your narrative is spin.
In reality he was fighting a cop who was doing his job.
That fighting makes him violent.

And lets not forget his previous police encounter in 1987 either.
Walter Scott was jailed for assault and battery in 1987 and shoved a deputy when he was arrested
Walter Scott was jailed for assault and battery in 1987 | Daily Mail Online

Here he was fighting another person and then pushed a cop doing his job.
Some people never learn.


And don't try to claim he ran because he was fearful of the Officer. That would be nonsense.

He took off while his information was being checked, not because he feared the Officer.
That is indicative of another narrative.

He took off for another unknown reason that he thought was serious enough to run from law enforcement.
 
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

Fact, the coward Slager shot a fleeing unarmed man in the back. Too bad that makes you happy, the normal world reacted with disgust and anger.
 
Fact, the coward Slager shot a fleeing unarmed man in the back. Too bad that makes you happy, the normal world reacted with disgust and anger.
Not fact. Just convoluted imaginative biased nonsense.
 
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.
I'm actually curious about that whole thing...

How did we get to this point where it was considered acceptable for police officers to shoot fleeing suspects if they "were considered a threat"?

It seems...extreme.

Yet also possibly necessary, in the right circumstances.

Are the determining factors we instruct police officers to use too broad?
 
Not fact. Just convoluted imaginative biased nonsense.

Cowards shoot people in the back when they are running away.
 
Others elsewhere have speculated that perhaps when the suspect took the taser he was able to shoot the Officer with it and that the taser lead we see in the following image may be going into the Officers vest.
I dismissed that without any other information to support it.
Lead1.png


Then they speculated that the other lead may have gone into his leg because of his weird leg position in the following image.
Again, I dismiss such without any other information to support such speculation.
lead2.jpg



Now we have this image which shows the same leg that the taser lead followed down in the above image, but with the pants leg up.

8805726881.png

We can also see what appears to be a bottle on the edge of the trunk (sanitizer?).

This could be treating an injury from the scuffle, or an injury from a taser probe entry.

If the suspect fired the taser at him, this will change many a person's view on what happened.


You may also note that his taser is in it's holster but without the additional cartridge one would find in it's handle.
 
Last edited:
No.
Especially not when they are a threat.

A 50 yr old man with no weapon running away when you are the only cop there and there is another person in the car, running away is no threat. Killing him did nothing to lower the crime rate.
 
I'm actually curious about that whole thing...

How did we get to this point where it was considered acceptable for police officers to shoot fleeing suspects if they "were considered a threat"?

It seems...extreme.

Yet also possibly necessary, in the right circumstances.

Are the determining factors we instruct police officers to use too broad?
I think the underlined explains it and why the Officer is given that discretion.
 
A 50 yr old man with no weapon running away when you are the only cop there and there is another person in the car, running away is no threat. Killing him did nothing to lower the crime rate.
And again. At the moment the Officer began responding the suspect had the taser and was a significant threat.
And as also pointed out earlier, the Officer may not have seen him toss it down while responding to it.
 
And again. At the moment the Officer began responding the suspect had the taser and was a significant threat.
And as also pointed out earlier, the Officer may not have seen him toss it down while responding to it.

And again, any cop that shoots an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back, is a freaking coward and a murderer.

He was no threat to anyone running away with nothing in his hand. What do you not get about that?
 
And again, any cop that shoots an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back, is a freaking coward and a murderer.

He was no threat to anyone running away with nothing in his hand. What do you not get about that?
And again you are wrong.
All you are doing is speaking convoluted emotive nonsense.


As already shown, an Officer is allowed to shoot at an unarmed significant threat who is fleeing. Watch the provided video.

As already shown, the Officer in this case was already responding to such a threat. Under the above example an Officer can continue his response even if he knew the weapon had been released by the suspect.
So again, had he not known the taser had been released his continued response was more than justified as reasonable.
You can't change the facts. But you can admit that your expressions are nothing more than emotionally driven.
 
And again you are wrong.
All you are doing is speaking convoluted emotive nonsense.


As already shown, an Officer is allowed to shoot at an unarmed significant threat who is fleeing. Watch the provided video.

As already shown, the Officer in this case was already responding to such a threat. Under the above example an Officer can continue his response even if he knew the weapon had been released by the suspect.
So again, had he not known the taser had been released his continued response was more than justified as reasonable.
You can't change the facts. But you can admit that your expressions are nothing more than emotionally driven.

Fact: He shot 8 times at a fleeing suspect who was unarmed

Please dispute that.

BS traffic stop, cop planting evidence and lying on his report.
 
And again you are wrong.
All you are doing is speaking convoluted emotive nonsense.


As already shown, an Officer is allowed to shoot at an unarmed significant threat who is fleeing. Watch the provided video.

As already shown, the Officer in this case was already responding to such a threat. Under the above example an Officer can continue his response even if he knew the weapon had been released by the suspect.
So again, had he not known the taser had been released his continued response was more than justified as reasonable.
You can't change the fact
But you can admit that your expressions are nothing more than emotionally driven.



The facts are that this cops fate will be decided by a judge and jury.
 
The facts are that this cops fate will be decided by a judge and jury.
:doh
Those are not the facts we are speaking about.
You do understand that this is going to a GJ right?
 
Last edited:
Fact: He shot 8 times at a fleeing suspect who was unarmed
Matters not.
Did you not watch the video?
Once the threat has been established you continue firing until the threat is eliminated.


Please dispute that.
Again, he may not have seen the suspect throw the taser.
If he did not see it get thrown he is operating under the impression that he is still armed, which as pointed out, makes the shooting more than justified as reasonable.


BS traffic stop, cop planting evidence and lying on his report.
:doh
Convoluted emotive nonsense.
 
Matters not.
Did you not watch the video?
Once the threat has been established you continue firing until the threat is eliminated.


Again, he may not have seen the suspect throw the taser.
If he did not see it get thrown he is operating under the impression that he is still armed, which as pointed out, makes the shooting more than justified as reasonable.


:doh
Convoluted emotive nonsense.

Unarmed man shot in the back while fleeing. That is the truth. If not for the video, all the cop apologists would have their own false story to push.
 
For those actually interested in what occurred, a blogger and member of the Conservativetreehouse posted the following video. (Credit to him and the Treehouse.)

It combines all the videos with the dispatch audio and includes a running times tamp to ascertain the length of time between events.

The attempted tasering of the suspect happened more than a minute before the witness started recording his video which showed the shooting.


The suspect getting out of the car happens @ 03:04

As originator stated.
Combined Dispatch and Videos (Timecode starts after Scott runs and when Slager closes car door, last two videos probably out of sync but first three vids good to go)
 
Last edited:
Unarmed man shot in the back while fleeing.
And still, doesn't matter given the circumstances.


If not for the video, all the cop apologists would have their own false story to push.
More emotive nonsense.
The story was already out and the video does not dispute it.
So there was none and is no falsification that your emotive drivel insinuates.
 
Last edited:
This cop will be put on trial for what he did.

Wait and see.
That may be a reasonable assumption, but you do not know that.
And presently, that will depend on a Grand Jury to decide.

But way to deflect from your previous absurd comment. :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
It's alleged because we don't know what he picked up or why. Our liberal friends believe they know, but they don't

Hasnt been my claim, so dont know why you are bringing it up when I just posted factual info, rather than what's been alleged. Referring back to the post of yours that I quoted, apparently you'd believe it's justice to kill someone based on their 'alleged' actions.
 
For those actually interested in what occurred,
a blogger and member of the Conservativetreehouse posted the following video. (Credit to him and the Treehouse.)

It combines all the videos with the dispatch audio and includes a running times tamp to ascertain the length of time between events.

The attempted tasering of the suspect happened more than a minute before the witness started recording his video which showed the shooting.


The suspect getting out of the car happens @ 03:04

As originator stated.
Combined Dispatch and Videos (Timecode starts after Scott runs and when Slager closes car door, last two videos probably out of sync but first three vids good to go)




Since you know so much about this case maybe you should testify at the trial, eh? :roll:
 
Since you know so much about this case maybe you should testify at the trial, eh? :roll:

How sad. You are unable to refute the presented information, so you attempt to make things personal.

Figures.
 
You are unable to refute the presented information, so you attempt to make things personal.

Figures.



Are you going to testify at the trial? You need to let them know. :roll:

There will be a trial and I predict that this killer cop will be found guilty and pay a heavy price.

"If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom