• 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.
cAPSLOCK said:
You are wrong.
Click to expand...
No I am not. He is wrong.
That is not what the Court concluded.

As I posted right after your post.
Again;
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.​


Had you bothered to take the time to read the case you would have read the following dicta in relevance to the holding.
Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.”​
 
beefheart said:
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.
Click to expand...
Interesting how you have to make things up in order to present an argument
 
beefheart said:
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.
Click to expand...
Was he also not a threat when he fought with Slager the first time?
 
You may wish to carefully consider how much energy you expend engaging Excon.
His posts have a formidable logic and unassailable facts which are all their own.
The special pleading is powerful with this one.

:shrug:
 
Blemonds said:
"Santana told NBC's Lester Holt on Wednesday that he saw the two men struggling on the ground.
"They were down on the (ground) ... before I started recording," Santana said."
That puts the shooting "in the heat of the moment" which doesn't rise to the level of murder. It means that due to a physical fight with a violent criminal, Slager made a bad decision in the heat of the moment.
Click to expand...
Do you have a cite from SC code regarding the assertion you're making here?

Blemonds said:
If they charge him with murder and don't allow for the lesser charge, he'll likely be acquitted and walk
Click to expand...
Do you have a cite for SC code not using the lesser included charges?
 
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...
Scott's actions aren't alleged. We know what he did and he gambled with his life, and he lost
 
The Mark said:
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?
Click to expand...
Joaquin Ortega was arguably a grave, imminent, and continuing threat to himself and others around him.

He had been out carjacking and attempting to drive while intoxicated--apparently he had difficulty keeping the vehicle on the road.
Ortega was going to cause some great harm to someone else.
A markedly different situation than that of Scott's.
afaict anyway

APD: Joaquin Ortega never pointed his gun at police | Albuquerque News - KOAT Home
 
Exon said:
Had you bothered to take the time to read the case you would have read the following dicta in relevance to the holding:

Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.”
You're really going out of your way to defend this police officer's actions. Not even the "enhanced/spliced" dispatch video you've presented below support your above claim that Office Slager had justification for shooting Mr. Scott.

Excon said:
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)
​
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I've watched the original video, the dash-cam video and now the above video and from the above video, here are the relevant points:

* Officer Slager pulls Mr. Scott over not for a broken tail light but because his center tail light wasn't working. Mr. Scott's left brake light was working, as was his left turn signal. Both casings around his vehicle's right and left tail lights are fully intact. But why does Office Slager tap Mr. Scott's left tail light if he pulled him over for a non-functioning tail light? (See dash-cam video) I know the answer to it, but do you?

* 3:04 mark - Mr. Scott flees his car.

* 3:21 mark - Officer Slager can be heard over his dash-cam yelling "Taser, Taser, Taser".

* 3:43 mark - Officer Slager can be heard over his dash-cam yelling "Get on the ground, Get on the Ground".

* 4:08 mark - Officer Slager can be heard over his dash-cam more calmly saying to Mr. Scott "On the ground".

Note: This would indicate that Officer Slager had tased Mr. Scott by this time and the foot chase had stopped. But notice the "deescalation" at this point. Do you hear signs of a struggle? Does it sound as if Officer Slager was still in a high state of anxiety?

* 4:46 mark - If you watch closely (because it happens very fast once Mr. Scott and Officer Slager appear in the witness' video footage), you will see Mr. Scott slap something (presumably the taser gun) out of Officer Slager's hand.

*4:48-5:04 mark - Officer Slager fires off 8 rounds. He then radios dispatch reporting "Shots fired, subject is down" and then falsely claiming [Mr. Scott] "He grabbed my taser".

Note: The only thing you don't hear quite clearly is Officer Slager's warning to Mr. Scott around the 4:43-45 mark. I had to turn my volumn all the way up to hear it. Officer Slager warns Mr. Scott, "If you flee I will shoot you." The question everyone should ask is why did he feel compelled to give such a warning?

(Continued...)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
(...continued...)

A careful review of all the video footage leads me to conclude that Officer Slager's life was NOT in immediate or imminent danger throughout this entire ordeal.

1) There's no evidence of a struggle. Look at both Mr. Scott and Officer Slager's attire in the witness video. Both person's clothing are clean. No grass, leave, dirt or any other debris can be seen on their clothing. So, unless both men took the time to brush off their clothes, I'd say this is visual proof that a physical struggle did not take place.

2) There's no visual evidence to support Officer Slager's claim that Mr. Scott grabbed or had possession of Officer Slager's taser gun. All we know for sure is Officer Slager warned him that he would execute the use of his taser by yelling "Taser, Taser, Taser". We can rightly conclude that Officer Slager's taser gun was discharged by Officer Slager himself. You come to that conclusion from the fact that a taser tether line can be seen extending from Mr. Scott as he attempts to flee Officer Slager the second time prior to being shot.

3) We do know that something fell to the ground prior to Mr. Scott feeling the area behind the pawn shop where he was gunned down. However, my firm believe is that Mr. Scott knocked the object from Officer Slager's hand, not that he threw the object down. Watch the first few seconds of footage carefully and you'll see both Mr. Scott and Officer Slager's hands go in a downward motion. If Mr. Scott threw something to the ground, it's logical to conclude that only his hands would be in such a downward motion. This also leads me to conclude that Officer Slager was still in possession and full control of his taser throughout until it was dislodged from his hands just prior to Officer Slager unhostering his weapons and firing it at Mr. Scott ultimately killing him.

By all accounts, Officer Slager was in the wrong here. He shot an unarmed man who posed no immediate or imminent threat to himself or society.
 
Last edited:
finebead said:
Of course, Slager shot and killed Scott.
Click to expand...
Dishonesty.
You have been avoiding admitting being wrong, and now you are trying to spin what you said.
finebead said:
then they shot him in the back and killed him.
Click to expand...
There was no "they" as you claim.


finebead said:
I did, and it does not apply in this case. Your suspect HAD a gun, he had fired it at people so he clearly posed a significant threat to the community, and he had it on him when he started running. He threw the gun away during the chase, did the officer see that while he was aiming at the suspect, probably not, or one could make that case. None of that applies in the case of Mr. Scott. He was not armed, he had not been a threat to the community, and he was not a threat to Slager. Totally different ball of wax.
Click to expand...
Wrong. This is you not paying attention to what was provided.
The Officer knew he thew it.
Once he threw it he was no longer a threat according to you as he did not have a weapon.
Yet the Officer continued to fire and was cleared of wrong doing.
This would be the same here. An Officer firing on a unarmed fleeing suspect.


finebead said:
But he ceased to be a significant threat when he dropped the taser.
Click to expand...
See. There you go and doing it again.
Wrong. As in the above, he doesn't cease being a significant threat.

As already posted.
Again;
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.​


Had you bothered to take the time to read the case you would have read the following dicta in relevance to the holding.
Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.”​



finebead said:
If the taser can be reloaded in hardly any time, then Slager should have reloaded it and run down Scott.
Click to expand...
This is you ignoring the events.
The suspect was resisting.
He was combative.
They were on the ground together.
The video shows they both had taser leads on their bodies.
He secondary cartridge can be seen to be missing from the handle when it was present at the stop.


finebead said:
Scott was 50 and not fast.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. As soon as he took the taser he was a significant threat.


finebead said:
Prongs are useless 20 ft. away, even if Scott had the taser,
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. As soon as he took the taser he was a significant threat.


finebead said:
which he did not.
Click to expand...
Which he did take.
 
finebead said:
Slager immediately went back and picked up the taser so he knew where it was, and it was not with Scott when Slager shot Scott.
Click to expand...
This is you again ignoring the evidence. The taser was thrown there by the suspect.



finebead said:
What a wrong and lame argument, as all the experts have stated.
Click to expand...
Yes your argument is wrong as it is lame.


finebead said:
Scott never fired anything at anyone, he dropped the taser and ran away.
Click to expand...
You do not know what he did when he took the taser or how long he had it.


finebead said:
In the Zimmerman case there was no video to review.
Click to expand...
:doh
There was evidence to review. Like then, and now here, they did not give it a thorough review and only responded emotionally. Just like you pointed out. "Disgusted."

finebead said:
But now we have a video and authoritative experts can give a much more sound analysis and yes, I do give them much more credence than I give you, since they state their experience and qualifications and you don't.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.
They haven't given it a thorough review. We can see that by the false claims they make regarding the incident.
And even more irrelevant because it is a logical fallacy as an appeal to authority.


finebead said:
So, this is different than the video you posted, as you believe some type of manslaughter is warranted.
Click to expand...
This is you again not paying attention.
As I said.
"While Geraldo Rivera has a JD, he really isn't an expert,"


finebead said:
Firing Slager was more than appearances, it was based on an evaluation of the video evidence available and a judgement about the incorrectness of Slager's action. You don't fire a man who is clearly in the right just to appease the community. Your opinion is so incomplete that it is wrong.
Click to expand...
No, it was for appearances. Basically a gutless damage control measure designed to placate the Black community.


finebead said:
No, the suspect was never a significant threat.
Click to expand...
As soon as he took the taser he was.


finebead said:
To state that there is a difference between murder and manslaughter is a fact. For you to think that you need to tell me that is an assumption that I don't know the difference, and there you are wrong.
Click to expand...
Oy vey. No.
That is your assumption. You are assuming the reason I stated the fact.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I thought Slager was already charged with murder.

Isn't it a little late for a GJ?
Click to expand...
Had you been paying attention you would have see the linked article stating it was going to a GJ.
 
Excon said:
Hey, that sounds just like your babblings.


You are the one ignoring reason and reasonability here.
All your assumptions and false claims show just that.


Your understanding of what the SCOTUS held is flawed.


Again;
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.​


Had you bothered to take the time to read the case you would have read the following dicta in relevance to the holding.
Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.”​


:doh
You are the one posting nonsense and not addressing what has been provided.


Wrong. The suspect was threat at the moment the Officer started responding.
Yet you continually ignore that.


:lamo
Look at you conveniently trying to avoid the fact that it was about him fighting, which is violence.


Your rantings are non responsive to the information provided.
Which just shows everybody that you have no real argument.
Click to expand...

You seem to be very very hard of hearing, I do not give a flying whatever about your babbling and your untruths:

The ruling of the supreme court:

Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if 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.
Click to expand...

1. he did not even try to prevent escape, he just shot the man in the back
2. the ruling of the supreme court was during the night and an offender going over a fence, in this case it was daylight, no fence hopping, other officers in the area and no real risk of the suspect getting away
3. there was NO probable cause to suspect that the suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officers or others
4. the police force themselves have ruled what the officer did is against their rules and regulations
5. it was ruled that what he did was murder and he was arrested for that
6. he is innocent (legally seen) of his crime until he is convicted
7. I am of the opinion (as are many other, including the police in his town, the prosecution, experts) that he is guilty of illegally gunning this man down.

Fact is that you have no evidence to disprove that, simple, obvious from the video.

Or as a professor (and former prosecutor) said:

What are the factors that go into a justified police shooting? When can the police use force?

The rules vary somewhat based on state law and local police regulations, but the floor is set by the federal Constitution, which allows police to use only "reasonable" force. The Supreme Court ruled 30 years ago that it's not reasonable for the police to use lethal force to stop a fleeing suspect unless there's probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or to others. And even then the officer has to give a warning first, if that's feasible.
Click to expand...

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/april/shooting-law-sklansky-041015.html

No warning, no nothing, no danger, only one officer throwing caution and the law to the wind and shooting a suspect that is no danger at all to him.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
You're really going out of your way to defend this police officer's actions. Not even the "enhanced/spliced" dispatch video you've presented below support your above claim that Office Slager had justification for shooting Mr. Scott.
Click to expand...
1. No I am not.
2. Yes the video still supports what it originally supported, even when spliced together with other audio and video. Duh!
The Officer was still responding prior to the taser being thrown. That has not changed, nor could it.
But way to ignore the reason it was posted. :doh


Objective Voice said:
I've watched the original video, the dash-cam video and now the above video and from the above video, here are the relevant points:

* Officer Slager pulls Mr. Scott over not for a broken tail light but because his center tail light wasn't working. Mr. Scott's left brake light was working, as was his left turn signal. Both casings around his vehicle's right and left tail lights are fully intact. But why does Office Slager tap Mr. Scott's left tail light if he pulled him over for a non-functioning tail light? (See dash-cam video) I know the answer to it, but do you?

* 3:04 mark - Mr. Scott flees his car.

* 3:21 mark - Officer Slager can be heard over his dash-cam yelling "Taser, Taser, Taser".

* 3:43 mark - Officer Slager can be heard over his dash-cam yelling "Get on the ground, Get on the Ground".

* 4:08 mark - Officer Slager can be heard over his dash-cam more calmly saying to Mr. Scott "On the ground".

Note: This would indicate that Officer Slager had tased Mr. Scott by this time and the foot chase had stopped. But notice the "deescalation" at this point. Do you hear signs of a struggle? Does it sound as if Officer Slager was still in a high state of anxiety?
Click to expand...
:doh
Everyone should know by now that the audio from the Officers mic was cutting out. So absence of sound is expected. Duh!
Everyone should know by now that the witness and shooter of the video actually saw the struggle on the ground, which is not a deescalation.


Objective Voice said:
* 4:46 mark - If you watch closely (because it happens very fast once Mr. Scott and Officer Slager appear in the witness' video footage), you will see Mr. Scott slap something (presumably the taser gun) out of Officer Slager's hand.
Click to expand...
This is you making things up to believe and ignoring the evidence.
The Officers hands were occupied.
The left was holding on to the suspect and the right was in a downward motion to draw his firearm in a response to the suspect having the taser.

We can clearly see in the following capture that the Officer's right hand was reaching for his firearm.
No taser could have been thrown from it with as much force as it had in the direction it was going.
Nor was it knocked from it as it was preoccupied retrieving his firearm from his holster.


Excon said:
Here it can be seen that the Officer is already reaching for his firearm prior to the taser being thrown by the suspect.
CCMUwTDWMAAIj4y.png
Click to expand...
 
Objective Voice said:
A careful review of all the video footage leads me to conclude that Officer Slager's life was NOT in immediate or imminent danger throughout this entire ordeal.
Click to expand...
iLOL :doh
Your careful review was flawed as shown.
And your use of "immediate or imminent danger" after already being corrected is asinine. That is not the standard.


Objective Voice said:
1) There's no evidence of a struggle.
Click to expand...
Oy vey! And you say you did a careful review. What bs!
The struggle can be seen in the video. You clearly didn't do a careful review.
And then we have the witness saying they were on the ground, not just in the previously provided interview but on his own funding site..
And yet here you are saying there is no evidence. That is asinine.

But let's continue.

Objective Voice said:
Look at both Mr. Scott and Officer Slager's attire in the witness video. Both person's clothing are clean. No grass, leave, dirt or any other debris can be seen on their clothing. So, unless both men took the time to brush off their clothes, I'd say this is visual proof that a physical struggle did not take place.
Click to expand...
Keep digging that hole deeper.
Excon said:
Excon said:
And btw, upon analysis the two can be seen to be in a scuffle on the ground prior to being upright.
point.jpg
Click to expand...


In addition, here is a link to the video highlighted and slowed down showing they are both on the ground.
https://vid.me/B54T
Click to expand...
Go to that link right up there, and watch the slow mo. They were on the ground.

Or better yet, just pay attention to what the witness has said.

From the witness.
The Story

The Rutherford Law Firm, LLC, undertook to represent Feidin Santana after Feidin witnessed the horrific shooting of Walter Scott on April 4, 2015.

“As I was walking to work, I saw a scuffle ensue between two men (who have since been identified as Officer Michael Slager and Walter Scott) in a grassy, open area. After observing the two men struggle on the ground and hearing the sound of a Taser gun, I began filming the altercation with my cell phone. The video shows Officer Slager draw his gun and fire eight shots at Mr. Scott as Mr. Scott attempted to run in the opposite direction. When I later learned that Mr. Scott died from the gunshot wounds inflicted by Officer Slager, I mustered up the courage to show the recording of the incident to Mr. Scott’s family. While I initially thought about erasing the video, fearing that my life would be in danger if I came forward, I soon realized I needed to take a stand against such brutality. I realized the importance of serving as a voice for Mr. Scott and the many others who no longer have one.”

https://life.indiegogo.com/fundraisers/1220154​


Clearly you didn't do any type of thorough examine of the evidence.


Objective Voice said:
2) There's no visual evidence to support Officer Slager's claim that Mr. Scott grabbed or had possession of Officer Slager's taser gun.
Click to expand...
The suspect throwing it is that evidence.
 
Excon said:
Appeals to authority are nonsense.
Especially as the underlined standard was gotten wrong. It is not an immediate threat that is required.
Click to expand...

You may need to study up on your fallacies. I wasn't appealing to authority, and I identified the piece as an op/ed.
 
finebead said:
Watch the video.


You are wrong. A taser is a non-lethal weapon, and after it has been fired, as the eye witness said that it was fired, it can't be fired again without a reloading process that takes some time. The taser was on the ground when Scott took off running, so clearly he was no longer any significant threat when he is unarmed and 20 ft. away. This has been stated by every expert witness I have seen interviewed on TV. They are all disturbed by what they see on the video and I have not hear one expert attempt to justify the policeman's action.
Click to expand...

The apologists dont need to watch it again. They can justify anything, the contortions are fascinating. Just remember, this rare bird may also show up on a jury and not be so amusing then.


Of course, the running man had ample opportunity to 'reload' a cartridge he doesnt have for a weapon he's never used before (uh, yeah), while attempting his escape. :doh

And again...such a dangerous weapon! Why put it right down next to the suspect, still alive on the ground? Yeah, he'll have fun explaining why he didnt secure the weapon instead.
 
nota bene said:

During his attempt to catch Scott, Slager fired his Taser. When that failed, Slager could have chased Scott or let him run away (worse things have happened). But instead, Slager drew his gun and shot. This is why cops see this case so differently: The criminal was the police officer. And Slager was arrested and charged with murder. That is the way the criminal justice system is supposed to work. (Slager was also fired immediately, which can happen only in states hostile to labor unions and civil-service protection.)
Think Walter Scott
Click to expand...


I wrote the bold earlier. I think the cop was just too lazy to run after him and didnt want to have to restrain such a big guy on his own. But he's trained to do that and if he's afraid to take that risk (then he should quit....too late for that now tho!), then he should have let the guy go and caught him at home, since they had his car and information.

Cop will not be able to prove the man was a threat to him or other cops or the public. And his dishonesty will be the nail in the coffin.
 
Blemonds said:
Scott's actions aren't alleged. We know what he did and he gambled with his life, and he lost
Click to expand...

Well, one of us was sticking with what we know are factual...and it wasnt you.

Lursa said:
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?
Click to expand...

Blemonds said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
nota bene said:
You may need to study up on your fallacies. I wasn't appealing to authority, and I identified the piece as an op/ed.
Click to expand...
:doh
It is being introduced into an argument and is subject specific. It's introduction is an appeal to authority.
Saying otherwise is lame.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom