• 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.
Somehow, there's also some confusion (on other's parts) over the suggestion he planted the taser. Sure, maybe not. He may have just chosen to increase the threat to his own life by placing a dangerous weapon next to the suspect.

And basic incompetance where a cop places a dangerous weapon next to a still living suspect. Hmmm...incompetant? Or dishonesty? LOL

I can literally envision verbal gymnastics worthy of an Olympic athlete in that contorted attempt at speculation.

A guy who has been shot eight times isn't an imminent threat if you plant a discharged taser nearby but out of arm's reach.

... I really don't know where you were going with this post. A discharged taser isn't a threat, and a guy on the ground after being shot eight times isn't a threat.
 
Somehow, there's also some confusion (on other's parts) over the suggestion he planted the taser. Sure, maybe not. He may have just chosen to increase the threat to his own life by placing a dangerous weapon next to the suspect.

And basic incompetance where a cop places a dangerous weapon next to a still living suspect. Hmmm...incompetant? Or dishonesty? LOL

I can literally envision verbal gymnastics worthy of an Olympic athlete in that contorted attempt at speculation.

You've yet to see any acrobatics. Just wait until the cop is convicted. Then you'll really see some folks lose their collective ****s and tell us how they know better than everyone else how this case should have gone. ;)
 
A guy who has been shot eight times isn't an imminent threat if you plant a discharged taser nearby but out of arm's reach.

... I really don't know where you were going with this post. A discharged taser isn't a threat, and a guy on the ground after being shot eight times isn't a threat.

Yes, *I* know that. :mrgreen:

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

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

(btw, has the medical examiner said yet how many times he was hit? I know he fired 8 shots...)
 
Last edited:
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.



He's going down.

Slager laughed about his 'adrenaline-rush' : Cop Laughed About His Adrenaline Rush After Shooting Walter Scott

What kind of a person can laugh after shooting and killing someone?
 
If that was one of your relatives who was shot and killed I seriously doubt that you would see it as a non-issue. :roll:

If it was one of my relatives I would be apologetic for his bad behavior
 
Berate? No.
Condescending to your arrogance declaring you did something you obviously didn't do, all in an attempt to add more credence to your argument? Yes.


Which is your fault for trying to engage in debate without familiarizing yourself with that which came before.
You obviously have been doing this long enough, so you must know that opens you up to being wrong.
And yet here you were making definite statements while claiming you gave a "careful review" when none of it was true.


This is ignoring the evidence.
Again, it could not have come from the Officer's hands.
The movement of the taser does not allow for it to come from either of his hands, that only allows for it to have come from the suspect. Which corresponds with the Officer's claim.

And this is again wrong.
The Officer was already responding to the threat the suspect was before he threw the taser and before he fled.

And again, as previously shown, once the threat has been established the Officer can continue to respond regardless if the weapon is tossed away.

Once the resiting and combative suspect took the taser he was such a significant threat.



A judge and jury will make the decision in this case.
 
Why would you apologize for Slager's bad behavior? That's his problem, which he'll have to deal with.

Why would you try to twist what I said? Oh, that's right. Everything has to be twisted to make Slager look as bad as possible so that this incident falls into an agenda
 
Why would you try to twist what I said? Oh, that's right.
Everything has to be twisted to make Slager look as bad as possible
so that this incident falls into an agenda



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

Fill us in. :roll:

Once you're sitting on the bottom that's as low as you can go.
 


"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."








A judge and jury will make the decision in this case.
:doh
Your comment is absurd in light of the fact that this is a debate.

So again, as you were previously asked and didn't answer.

You do understand that this is going to a GJ right?
 
The point is they weren't stopping a suspected rapist, murderer, armed robber, drug courier although it shouldn't matter he was. He was pulled over for a broken tail light.
As I stated, your narrative was off. His fleeing is not over a traffic violation.
And your current point is irrelevant to the specific circumstance of the shooting.


Secondly, he wasn't unarmed at the moment the Officer started responding.
I don't even know what that means.
As it has been stated several times differently, you already do know what is being said.

The suspect had the taser which made him a significant threat. The Officer was already responding to that threat when the suspect threw the taser and began fleeing.


It's simple - he was RUNNING AWAY....
And? The law allows for a firearm to be used on such a fleeing suspect..


And what matters is whether he was armed when shot in the back.
Wrong. That is not a trump card like you apparently think it is.

What matters is the Officer's probable cause to believe he was a significant threat, as was already shown by the provided court case.
Any reviewer of the facts, whether judge or jury, will understand that the suspect having the taser makes him a threat and the Officer's response to that threat was reasonable.


You keep posting that video but it's apples and dump trucks.
Wrong. It specifically shows the same thing, an Officer firing on an unarmed fleeing suspect.

Again, you are arguing that the Officer in the current case is prohibited from firing on a fleeing suspect who is unarmed because the suspect being unarmed makes him a non-threat.
If your argument held water the Officer in the video would not have been cleared because he too was firing on a fleeing suspect who was unarmed.

If you argue that they are not the same because the suspect in the video had been a threat prior to his throwing the gun, then you also have to consider what occurred prior to the suspect fleeing in this case, which also made him a significant threat.


And the video was provided to show that it is permissible to fire on unarmed fleeing suspect.

Nothing you can say changes that.


What threat is a guy with a tazer, which he didn't actually have, to 'the public.' None.
This is you continuing to ignore what was previously said.
His taking it made him a significant threat.
It is when he had it that the Officer started responding.


He's not a threat to the cop armed with a weapon and the guy running away. How's he going to taze the cop while running away. You keep mentioning the probes - yeah, that's tough to hit someone with probes running away from them.....
This is you not understanding that a taser is a dangerous weapon that can take the life of a person, especially if used wrongly.
And I keep mentioning probes and prongs, they are not the same. The taser can be used in either fashion.


Yeah, OK, running away is a license to kill, by shooting them in the BACK. I think we understand your position.
Emotive nonsense.

The law allows a firearm to be used to stop significant threats from fleeing.

If you do not like the law, lobby to get it changed.
But it is a stupid position to think society should allow a criminal to get the best of an Officer and be able to flee with no recourse at the time.


Everyone else sees a cop resorting to deadly force when it's clearly and wildly inappropriate.
No, they don't.
And I highly doubt you know what everyone believes.

The fact that you would even say such nonsense just says you have no valid argument.


then he's liable to see grandmas in wheelchairs armed with a fork as a significant threat, etc.
More emotive nonsense indicative of your whole position.
 
I disagree, but let's move on because unless the video imagery is made clearer, there's really no way to tell conclusively if Mr. Scott or Officer Slager had possession of the taser prior to it being knocked or thrown to the ground.
The evidence is that the suspect took the taser. Nothing counters that.
The downward motion of the Officer's arm attempting to draw his weapon could not account for the direction or force of the thrown taser.
The fact that the Officer is in the process of drawing his firearm at that point is just supportive of the evidence that the suspect had it.


Again, assuming that Mr. Scott did possess Officer Slager's taser after the scuffle but before he fled, he certainly didn't have it once he ran the second time.
Which as already pointed out he was a threat at the point in time that the Officer was responding . That isn't going to change.


Arrogance on my part, no.
Of course it was.
You declared you did something you obviously didn't do, all in an attempt to add more credence to your argument.
That is not only arrogance at work, but deception as well.


there was no imminent nor immediate threat to him
As continually pointed out, that is not the standard.
Probable cause to believe the suspect was a significant threat is the standard.


One can only go with the facts and/or evidence that's before them.
Now you are trying to deflect with dishonesty.

You had the whole topic and all the information provided in it before you.
 
First off, I notice you've stopped using the terms "immediate" or "imminent" threats to describe the perceived position Officer Slager believed himself to be in and downgraded such to "significant". Unfortunate for your position, a "significant threat" doesn't measure up to "imminent or immediate danger".
Just stop with your dishonesty.

I have been the one who has continually pointed out that "immediate or imminent" is not the standard, and pointed out what it is.

Probable cause to believe the suspect was a significant threat is the standard.
Which is what SCOTUS concluded.


And I've openly admitted that I had not seen the slow motion CNN video beforehand. Once I did review it, I corrected my position as necessary. But you...you're still an ass no matter what.
And? Your presentation was dishonest, and pointing out why you hadn't seen it is not being an ass.


Second, I totally disagree with your assessment that the tether lines from the taser were wrapped around the victim or the officer. Mr. Scott wouldn't have been able to run and Officer Slager wouldn't have been able to walk unimpeded if they were.
[sarcasm]Of course you do![/sarcasm]
That would be because you are not paying attention to the information already provided.


Again, based on the evidence I was privy to, yes.
More dishonest deflection. You had the whole thread with it's entire content before you.
Yet you did not even bother.


Third, assuming that the tether was wrapped around (at least) Mr. Scott, common sense would still lead one to conclude that the "significant threat" had abated since the taser leads had already been ejected from the device and the tether remained expelled. You can also conclude that the taser itself had already be discharged since Officer Slager choose not to use it again. (Of course, by then it was on the ground and the tether training the assailant.)
This is again you showing you have not paid attention to the information provided.
Pay attention this time and learn something.
The taser can be used two different ways. By cartridge which fires probes/darts that stick in the body, and by contact prongs.
The fact that a cartridge has been expended is irrelevant to the taser still being a viable weapon.


My point here just as others who have commented against Officer Slager's actions is that Mr. Scott, an unarmed man at the time of his death, was not a threat to the would-be arresting officer. I don't disregard the fact that there was a struggle. I don't disregard the likelihood that Mr. Scott may have possessed Officer Slager's taser. I'm just saying as have others that despite what occurred moments prior to the shooting, Mr. Scott wasn't an "imminent or immediate or significant" threat to Officer Slager or the public at the time he fled unarmed and was subsequently shot multiple times.
And again, as soon as he took the taser he was a significant threat.
The video previously provided shows that an unarmed fleeing suspect can be fired upon as the law allows.

As already provided from the SCOTUS case of Tennessee v. Garner.
Dicta speaking in regards to what they held.
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 feasable, some warning has been given.


But for some reason those wishing to argue don't understand that.


So for argument purposes let's switch to the other point I made.

Show the Officer knew the suspect threw the taser and was not still in possession of it when he continued responding to the significant threat the suspect was.
Under those conditions no one can logically claim that the Officer's response was unreasonable.
 
Why would you try to twist what I said? Oh, that's right. Everything has to be twisted to make Slager look as bad as possible so that this incident falls into an agenda

Mornin' Blemonds...Look, I think you know that more than often I fall on the side of agreement with you and other conservatives on a broad range of issues...But after viewing the videos, and reading a great deal of the coverage, and Police statements on this from SLED, I have to say that the officer was wrong, and he knew it immediately after dropping the suspect. I'll tell you why I think this is so....

1. Slager first tazed the suspect, and was in close enough proximity to take him down right there...Why didn't he? I want to hear that explanation.

2. When the suspect slapped the tazer out of Slager's hand and proceeded to run, is not the same as trying to "take" his tazer. And the jury will have to decide if that constituted a threat to Slager, or others in the course of deciding justification of firing on the suspect.

3. Slager is on video moving the slapped away tazer after the suspect was down, instead of rendering first aid as he tried to say he did...That goes to his own knowledge of guilt after the fact...Not good.

Now I will say, that it isn't over until Slager gets his day in court, and is allowed to explain why it is he felt he had to fire 8 shots instead of chasing the suspect down and rendering him under arrest...He'll have to explain why it is he moved the tazer over to near the downed suspect after he was on the ground instead of rendering first aid...And what I hope is investigated further is how other officers immediately tried to cover the incident by also saying things like they rendered CPR when they didn't....Training is key to any good Police dept. and I want to know that if there is a training issue in some of these departments they are exposed, and addressed...But don't immediately just jump to the conclusion that Slager is innocent of charges because he was a cop, cops make mistakes too, and are subject to acting outside the law...And when they do they need to be held accountable just like the people they are out there to police.
 
as soon as he took the taser he was a significant threat.

Mornin' Excon....I have a question for ya....You're using the terminology that the suspect "took" the taser from Slager...but if you look at the video captured by the bystander, it appears more like the suspect slapped the taser from Slager's hand, or even that Slager threw the taser to the ground as the suspect started to take flight, in order to draw his gun....So, what evidence do you see that the suspect "took" possession of the taser?

As already provided from the SCOTUS case of Tennessee v. Garner.
Dicta speaking in regards to what they held.
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 feasable, some warning has been given.


But for some reason those wishing to argue don't understand that.

I understand that, and I think it's reasonable to assume that the Chief of Police for N. Charleston also knows the law, yet, he still fired Slager, and had him placed under arrest for Murder....What you are saying is something that the court has to decide....I don't think we have all the information that will be brought out at trial yet...

Show the Officer knew the suspect threw the taser and was not still in possession of it when he continued responding to the significant threat the suspect was.
Under those conditions no one can logically claim that the Officer's response was unreasonable.

Police are trained observers...Or should be...It is clear that the suspect is running with NOTHING in his hands, why? Because he didn't "take" the taser, instead slapped it out of Slager's hand....I think Slager knew that, and chose to use lethal force instead of expending the energy needed to run down, and subdue the suspect...For that bad decision Slager is accountable.
 
You gave "evidence"? Hardly. An op-ed piece written by a well known right-winger who wrote for the national review is hardly "evidence". Be that as it may....I've heard the same rhetoric from people on all sides of the spectrum. I, absolutely, am left-wing. I don't try to attempt to hide my biases by adopting labels to somehow try to make it seem as if I have no bias, like some try to do. I also recognize that there is left-wing propaganda and there is right-wing propaganda. But to try to pidgoen-hole politifact as a biased liberal shill is a joke. I don't always agree with politifact, but they are one of the most credible sites out there. Sorry.




I have an extreme individual liberty bias. that said, like I said, your sig is funny, and even if the national review dude was the rightest winged person in history, you failed to address his statistics, which are indeed fact.
 
What is sad is that across the country there is a move for the police to improve their relationship with their communities.
This has been going on for some time with such simple things as getting out of the squad car and intermingling with the populace. It is often common to say there is a cop up ahead with his car pulled over but refer to him as the policeman walking ahead of you on the sidewalk. It is good for the community and for the police to have contact other than for speeding in a 25 zone. In our community the police have had different functions with kids which has been very successful.
Then we have this kind of crap along with the reserve officer in Oklahoma who mistook his gun for his taser and it just sets things back a few steps.
 
Body cams on cops are 100% worthless. The police depts. would just doctor the body cam videos or else the cops would turn off the cams and/or censor specific footage.

In the event body cam videos were available for the public to see, there would be huge discrepancies in the video picked up by those cams and those picked up by bystander cameras and/or cell phones.



departments that use body cams have an 80% reduction in abuse complaints.


Body-worn police cameras in Southern California 'cut complaints' - BBC News


so "100%" worthless seems, ..... wrong.
 


"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."








:doh
Your comment is absurd in light of the fact that this is a debate.

So again, as you were previously asked and didn't answer.

You do understand that this is going to a GJ right?



I do believe that this killer cop will be going on trial.

You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. :roll:
 
What the cop did, was wrong. However, he derserves his day in court and to argue his side of the story. That's America people, like it or not. And if he argues well enough, and the prosecution does not present their case well, he could possibly get away with murder. This problem is not relegated to police, it happens throughout our justice system. The large variable being the accused ability to defend and present their case.

Based on what I saw, it was murder. But I only saw a portions of the entire confrontation. I don't know if he had a weapon at one point, or if the officer had a reasonable fear of his life if the guy got away from him and had the ability to acquire a weapon. The courts will hear the case and decide.

Last thing: If you don't fight with, argue, or run from the police, you wont get shot or hurt. Fight your case in court, not on the street with an officer (who is human) with a firearm. There are no humans on the face of this planet who are immune from rash decisions in stressful situations. And yes, police, are human. Just take your fight to court instead of on the side of the road.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom