Slager Will Walk

Gaius46 · Apr 25, 2015

Excon said:
No, it is indicative of what is and should be allowed.

Again, that is one argument, an argument that those I am discussing this with can more easily understand.

The other argument, as provided, is not dependent on that, but on the fact that he is already responding to the threat before the threat throws the weapon.

Not focusing on his hands when he concentrating on center-mass is what is likely.

Once the suspect has established himself as a threat and you are responding with said force you do not cease until the suspect is no longer a threat, even if the suspect then throws the weapon he had, as exemplified in the other case's video.
And in shooting to stop escape, you shoot until the flight ceases.

:doh
Without any evidence to say he did.

Pure unadulterated bs.
You have nothing to suggest "pissed off".
What we do have is the Officer already responding to the threat when the threat then throws the weapon, just like in the other video.

No it isn't, and; Wrong.
His flight predisposes us to that fact that he would be shot in the back and as such you shoot (in the back) until the fleeing ceases.
The Officer was responding at the point the suspect had the taser and was a threat, and you continue to respond until that threat is eliminated.

You are conveniently ignoring the fact that he was already responding to the threat when the suspect threw the weapon.
Nor does one automatically become a non-threat once they have established them self as a threat simply because they threw away the weapon they possessed.
This is exemplified by the other video where the Officer was cleared and not charged.

:doh iLOL
You haven't been able to show any evidence of any credibility problem.

All you have is nonsensical speculation.

iLOL No.
It highlights no problem.
It doesn't even establish that there is a problem to begin with, while it does ignore the known evidence and the possibility that the officer did not see him throw it.

But it does highlight why such issues (the one mentioned in the blog) should not be before juries to begin with.

Had you followed that blog entry to the one it referenced and read it and it's replies, you would have found the Jury instructions regarding the use of deadly force in SC which reflects the SCOTUS ruling and not the state's law of "immanent" threat.

Police officer - arrest

During an arrest for a felony, if the arresting officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, the officer may prevent the escape by using deadly Force. [SUP]71[/SUP]

http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/juryCharges/GS InstructionsJune2013.pdf

See below post for the complete instruction.

Those felonies would have been his initial assault on the Officer while resisting, then taking the Officer's taser and attempting to use it against the Officer.

A combative, assaultive suspect is a threat to anybody he encounters.
To think that such a suspect wouldn't attempt to inflict serious physical harm on other to further his escape, as he already attempted on the Officer, is absurd.
The reasonable assumption is that he would, as it coincides with his previous actions.

I'm a regular reader and occasional commenter on that blog. I read the original and the comments the day they were published. I had forgotten that the SC charging instructions had been listed.

In either case what this entire discussion boils down to is whether Scott represented a threat to Slager or someone else. You contend, if I understand you correctly, that he represented a threat because he went after the officers taser, scuffled with him etc and that the threat continued to exist and would continue to do so until Slager dealt with it.

Does that same line of reasoning hold if Slager waited 10 additional seconds and shot Scott when he was 100 feet away? A minute later? An hour later? At what point does the officer lose the right to respond with deadly force to a fleeing suspect who had previously threatened him?

Excon · Apr 25, 2015

Gaius46 said:
because he went after the officers taser,

Went after? iLOL
The evidence is that he took the taser and attempted to use it against the Officer.
We see the taser land off to the left side of the Officer. Based on it's force and direction of travel it could only have come from the suspect.

A statement released by North Charleston police spokesman Spencer Pryor said a man ran on foot from the traffic stop and an officer deployed his department-issued Taser in an attempt to stop him.

That did not work, police said, and an altercation ensued as the men struggled over the device. Police allege that during the struggle the man gained control of the Taser and attempted to use it against the officer.

The officer then resorted to his service weapon and shot him, police alleged.

Man shot and killed by North Charleston police officer after traffic stop; SLED investigating - Post and Courier

And that release is supported by closer examination of the available video and audio.

Gaius46 said:
scuffled with him

Scuffle? A struggle over the weapon.
The suspect wasn't just resisting he was combative.

And while this image doesn't give us much more detail, we can certainly ascertain that they we on the ground struggling.

Of course any Officer would be in fear of his life if the suspect was able to take his taser (which the evidence says this suspect did).

Gaius46 said:
Does that same line of reasoning hold if Slager waited 10 additional seconds and shot Scott when he was 100 feet away? A minute later? An hour later? At what point does the officer lose the right to respond with deadly force to a fleeing suspect who had previously threatened him?

:doh So you are trying the lame **** that Simon was trying. :doh

The Officer was acting in the moment to the threat and in the moment of the felon's escape.
Not at a later time, so your inquiry is irrelevant.

Gaius46 · Apr 25, 2015

Excon said:
Went after? iLOL
The evidence is that he took the taser and attempted to use it against the Officer.
We see the taser land off to the left side of the Officer. Based on it's force and direction of travel it could only have come from the suspect.

A statement released by North Charleston police spokesman Spencer Pryor said a man ran on foot from the traffic stop and an officer deployed his department-issued Taser in an attempt to stop him.

That did not work, police said, and an altercation ensued as the men struggled over the device. Police allege that during the struggle the man gained control of the Taser and attempted to use it against the officer.

The officer then resorted to his service weapon and shot him, police alleged.

Man shot and killed by North Charleston police officer after traffic stop; SLED investigating - Post and Courier

And that release is supported by closer examination of the available video and audio.

Scuffle? A struggle over the weapon.
The suspect wasn't just resisting he was combative.

And while this image doesn't give us much more detail, we can certainly ascertain that they we on the ground struggling.

Of course any Officer would be in fear of his life if the suspect was able to take his taser (which the evidence says this suspect did).

:doh So you are trying the lame **** that Simon was trying. :doh

The Officer was acting in the moment to the threat and in the moment of the felon's escape.
Not at a later time, so your inquiry is irrelevant.

Use whatever words you want to describe what happened. They're irrelevant.

It's a legit question and if it was ever put before an appeals court that would be one of the first questions asked. If you're going to say that a fleeing person still represents a danger you have to have a rule for when he is no longer a danger and the cop is no longer justified in shooting him or, to take the ridiculous extreme, the cop can find him hours later sleeping in bed and still legally shoot him. I'm curious when for you that is.

For me the minute he's no longer objectively a threat - if you like as a reasonable person would see it - the justification goes away. That's essentially the justification that would be used for a civilian in the same situation and I see no reason it should be any different for a officer in a defense of self situation. Defense of others and apprehension of a dangerous person are different situations and would require different rules. If I as a non cop shot Scott in the exact same circumstances I'd be jail. It should be no different for a cop.

Somerville · Apr 25, 2015

Those who refuse to accept what can be seen on the video and continue to defend the indefensible actions of Officer Slager might want to pause for a day or so.

S.C. investigators say they thought fatal police shooting was suspicious before video emerged

Officials of the state agency investigating the shooting say that even before the video came out, they “were concerned” about inconsistencies they quickly found.
<snip>
The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division was alerted to the shooting shortly after it occurred on Saturday morning, dispatching agents and crime scene technicians to the grassy stretch where Scott was killed.

“There were inconsistencies including what appeared to be multiple gunshot wounds in Mr. Scott’s back,” Mark Keel, chief of the agency, said in a statement. “We believed early on that there was something not right about what happened in that encounter.”
<snip>
Slager’s initial lawyer told The Post shortly before the footage went public that he was no longer representing Slager

radcen · Apr 25, 2015

Somerville said:
Those who refuse to accept what can be seen on the video and continue to defend the indefensible actions of Officer Slager might want to pause for a day or so.

Interesting.

I wondered from early on... don't they do autopsies? Wouldn't they be able to tell Scott was shot in the back, and from a distance?

Excon · Apr 26, 2015

Gaius46 said:
Use whatever words you want to describe what happened. They're irrelevant.

:doh
Accuracy isn't irrelevant.

Gaius46 said:
It's a legit question and if it was ever put before an appeals court that would be one of the first questions asked.

No it wouldn't, and no it isn't relevant.
As his actions were in the moment to stop his escape, your inquiry is outside of the scope of the events in this case.

Gaius46 said:
If you're going to say that a fleeing person still represents a danger you have to have a rule for when he is no longer a danger and the cop is no longer justified in shooting him or, to take the ridiculous extreme, the cop can find him hours later sleeping in bed and still legally shoot him. I'm curious when for you that is.

You are again ignoring the reality of the situation.
The Officer's actions were in the moment and was to stop an escape. Once the escape ceases the conditions no longer exist, just as in the other video.

Gaius46 said:
For me the minute he's no longer objectively a threat - if you like as a reasonable person would see it - the justification goes away.

That is not how it is judged and you already know that.

You must look at the circumstances that appeared to the officer at the time the deadly force was used and decide whether an ordinary and reasonable person, acting with the same knowledge and in the same situation as the officer, would have believed that the force used was necessary.

(The federal standard would be from the point of another reasonable Officer.)

In this case, the evidence we have says that the suspect resisted, engaged in a felony against the Officer by being combative and taking the Officer's taser.

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

[...]

(d) Use of Force in Arrest. -

[...]

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

[...]

[...]

GS_15A-401

The suspect's own actions establishes him to be such a threat to the Officer and to those he would encounter while fleeing.
And stop ignoring that he was responding to the suspect when the suspect was a threat.

Gaius46 said:
That's essentially the justification that would be used for a civilian in the same situation

No, "objectively" is not the standard.

Again:

"You must look at the circumstances that appeared to the officer ..."

The Officer was responding to the threat at the time he was a threat to prevent his escape.

Gaius46 said:
for a civilian in the same situation and I see no reason it should be any different for a officer in a defense of self situation.

Civilians are not charged with apprehending criminals. :doh

Gaius46 said:
Defense of others and apprehension of a dangerous person are different situations and would require different rules. If I as a non cop shot Scott in the exact same circumstances I'd be jail. It should be no different for a cop.

Yeah, it should be different as the Police are charged with apprehending criminals. :doh
Civilians are not authorized to shoot to prevent escape as Law Enforcement Officers are.
So of course it is and should be different.

Excon · Apr 26, 2015

Somerville said:
Those who refuse to accept what can be seen on the video and continue to defend the indefensible actions of Officer Slager might want to pause for a day or so.

:doh
You are a little late to the debate.
That report is already known and lacks substance.
There are no known inconsistencies.

And apparently it is you who does not see what is in the video, as your assertion of "indefensible actions" is indefensible.

So do you want to debate what is in the video or do you just want to do a drive-by with an unsubstantiated report?

radcen said:
Interesting.

I wondered from early on... don't they do autopsies? Wouldn't they be able to tell Scott was shot in the back, and from a distance?

Interesting?
iLOL :lamo

The witness said the Officer knew he was being recorded.
To suggest he wasn't truthful in light of his knowing that, is absurdity

Are you ever going to back up your previous absurd claim?

Excon said:
radcen said:

Let me see if I get this straight. The parts that show up on video have proven beyond doubt that Slager lied on most points, if not all points... and you still give him credibility when he says they struggled just because he said so?

Wow. Just... wow.

Rational thought is not your strong suit, is it?

Click to expand...

Proven beyond a doubt?
:doh
No lies have been proven beyond a doubt.
No one has been able to point out any lie yet, just an accusation by the chief.

So what lies?
Huh?
Point them out so your false assertions can be dispelled.

Gaius46 · Apr 26, 2015

Excon said:
:doh
Accuracy isn't irrelevant.

No it wouldn't, and no it isn't relevant.
As his actions were in the moment to stop his escape, your inquiry is outside of the scope of the events in this case.

You are again ignoring the reality of the situation.
The Officer's actions were in the moment and was to stop an escape. Once the escape ceases the conditions no longer exist, just as in the other video.

That is not how it is judged and you already know that.

You must look at the circumstances that appeared to the officer at the time the deadly force was used and decide whether an ordinary and reasonable person, acting with the same knowledge and in the same situation as the officer, would have believed that the force used was necessary.

(The federal standard would be from the point of another reasonable Officer.)

In this case, the evidence we have says that the suspect resisted, engaged in a felony against the Officer by being combative and taking the Officer's taser.

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

[...]

(d) Use of Force in Arrest. -

[...]

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

[...]
[...]

GS_15A-401

The suspect's own actions establishes him to be such a threat to the Officer and to those he would encounter while fleeing.
And stop ignoring that he was responding to the suspect when the suspect was a threat.

No, "objectively" is not the standard.

Again:

"You must look at the circumstances that appeared to the officer ..."

The Officer was responding to the threat at the time he was a threat to prevent his escape.

Civilians are not charged with apprehending criminals. :doh

Yeah, it should be different as the Police are charged with apprehending criminals. :doh
Civilians are not authorized to shoot to prevent escape as Law Enforcement Officers are.
So of course it is and should be different.

Slager has no Garner defense. If this is about stopping a fleeing felon he may as well get sized for prison stripes right now.

On the point of how far is a cop allowed to go with deadly force I noted three different scenarios: Defense of self, defense of others, stopping a fleeing felon. In the defense of self situation the rules for cops and the rest of us should be the same. I noted that different rules would apply to defense of others (possibly) and stopping a fleeing felon.Your last comments:

Yeah, it should be different as the Police are charged with apprehending criminals. :doh
Civilians are not authorized to shoot to prevent escape as Law Enforcement Officers are.
So of course it is and should be different.

lead me to believe that you didn't read what I wrote.

Seeing as how we'll never agree here I am going to bow out of this discussion. It's much too beautiful a day to spend inside uselessly arguing this point.

Excon · Apr 27, 2015

Gaius46 said:
It's much too beautiful a day to spend inside uselessly arguing this point.

And yet here you were first thing in the morning making your opinion known. iLOL :lamo

Gaius46 said:
Slager has no Garner defense. If this is about stopping a fleeing felon he may as well get sized for prison stripes right now.

:doh
Wrong. The evidence says otherwise.

And again:

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.

Gaius46 said:
On the point of how far is a cop allowed to go with deadly force I noted three different scenarios: Defense of self, defense of others, stopping a fleeing felon. In the defense of self situation the rules for cops and the rest of us should be the same. I noted that different rules would apply to defense of others (possibly) and stopping a fleeing felon.Your last comments:

lead me to believe that you didn't read what I wrote.

You obviously don't know what you wrote then. Especially as those that precluded the specif quote were also given reply.

So let me re-quote the sequence to refresh your memory.

Excon said:
Gaius46 said:

If I as a non cop shot Scott in the exact same circumstances I'd be jail. It should be no different for a cop.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it should be different as the Police are charged with apprehending criminals. :doh
Civilians are not authorized to shoot to prevent escape as Law Enforcement Officers are.
So of course it is and should be different.

Gaius46 said:
I am going to bow out of this discussion.

Still having yet to refute the original assertion that he lied.

Excon · Dec 7, 2016

Gaius46 said:
I'd wager your drink of choice though that assuming this goes to trial Slager gets convicted.

It went to trial, he wasn't convicted.

You had no other restriction on that. :shrug:

Château Margaux, 1787, please. :wink:

braindrain · Dec 8, 2016

Joe Steel said:
Slager said he had to secure his vehicle. That may be interpreted as securing his equipment which would have included the taser. In other words, he had to recover the weapon. His reason for dropping it may be entirely innocent.

Wow man. You are making some pretty big leaps to defend this guy. Is there a reason you are jumping through such hoops to make him look innocent.

Gaius46 · Dec 9, 2016

Excon said:
It went to trial, he wasn't convicted.

You had no other restriction on that. :shrug:

Château Margaux, 1787, please. :wink:

At 225K a bottle you should be shot for drinking that stuff.

.

radcen · Dec 10, 2016

Excon said:
It went to trial, he wasn't convicted.

You had no other restriction on that. :shrug:

Château Margaux, 1787, please. :wink:

You always struck me as more of a "Ruinite on ice, that's nice" kind of guy.

Excon · Dec 12, 2016

Gaius46 said:
At 225K a bottle you should be shot for drinking that stuff. .

Just going for impact of open ended wagering. :mrgreen:

radcen said:
You always struck me as more of a "Ruinite on ice, that's nice" kind of guy.

I don't know why you always want to project your frailties on others, but when you do, you sure don't reveal anything positive about yourself.

Slager Will Walk

Gaius46

Excon

Gaius46

Somerville

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Excon

Excon

Gaius46

Excon

Excon

braindrain

Gaius46

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Excon