Judge tells Michael Slager jurors to keep deliberating

[poweRob]

Can you bs, the only mental gymnastics are on the side ignoring the totality of the evidence.

Still waiting for you to ever see a case of a black man getting shot by a cop that you think didn't deserve to die. Here we have one on video, running away and getting shot in the back and you are in here declaring he was somehow still a threat. We all know your position. Just drop into all the cop shooting a black man threads and just post "Ditto to last time" and you could save a lot of hassle and typing.

 

[poweRob]

Was this the guy who moved the weapon after he'd already killed the suspect?

Yes. It's that one.

 

[Ikari]

Clearly you do not know the video evidence enough to even be speaking about it as you are wrong.

You mean a cop who shot an unarmed person in the back? What would happen to any other citizen under that circumstance? That's what the cop should get.

 

[Henrin]

You need to put yourself in the Officer's shoes not seeing the taser being thrown. Based on Scott's behavior, he would have remained a threat to others regardless if he turned and ran.

Bull****. Scott was only resisting arrest because he was GETTING arrested. Nothing he did showed he was threat to anyone in general public with a taser. You're reaching so far down in the bowl of bull**** that you're scrapping the bottom.

 

[Excon]

There is no evidence or testimony that Scott tazed the officer.

iLOL
I see you didn't follow the trial.
Figures. Wrong as usual.


As his account was reported.

It’s at this point that Slager claims Scott was able to wrestle the Taser from his hands and use the weapon against him.

Michael Slager testifies, recalls the shooting of Walter Scott ​

As his lawyer argued in closing.

“They are controlled by the solicitor, not Mr. Slager,” says Savage. “Yet they have evidence that Slager was tased, they didn’t tell you that. I guess [SLED] thought that you would think that if it’s not on the video it didn’t happen.”
Jury Deliberates in the Michael Slager Trial​

You should back out of this discussion as you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

At the time he fired Scott was not an immanent threat.

At the time he decided to fire, he was. And to the Officer's perception at the time he fired, he was.

You clearly have no clue as to what you speak.

Game over. You lose. Again.

iLOL
Said the one not familiar with the actual evidence.
Just makes you wrong as usual.

You've haven't offered anything rational or fact-based to refute.

It's your M.O. I never expect anything less from you.

Wrong as usual.

---

No, running away with the taser, he would have remained a potential (key word) threat to others armed with a largely non lethal weapon.

It was a weapon that can be lethal and can be used to take another Officer's fire arm.
He was a threat.

Simply put, we don't execute people in the United States because they are simply potential threats. That goes doubly so when the potential threat involves having a non lethal weapon, and not say, a dirty bomb.

iLOL
Your exaggeration is as hilarious as it is absurd. He wasn't executed.
A threat was stopped.

---

Bull****. Scott was only resisting arrest because he was GETTING arrested. Nothing he did showed he was threat to anyone in general public with a taser. You're reaching so far down in the bowl of bull**** that you're scrapping the bottom.

Yes, your reply is Bs.
His actions made him a threat, not just to this Officer but to anyone else he may encounter.

 

[Henrin]

His actions made him a threat, not just to this Officer but to anyone else he may encounter.

Nope. His intent was to get away from the officer.

 

[Excon]

Still waiting for you to ever see a case of a black man getting shot by a cop that you think didn't deserve to die.

[...]

We all know your position. Just drop into all the cop shooting a black man threads and just post "Ditto to last time" and you could save a lot of hassle and typing.

1. No you are not waiting. All you ever had to do was search the forum. That is on you not me.
2. Absurdly stupid and irrelevant deflection. And a logical fallacy in regards to the evidence of this issue. You fail again.

Here we have one on video, running away and getting shot in the back and you are in here declaring he was somehow still a threat.

All you are saying is you wish to ignore the totality of the situation and the law that applies to it. In other words, you are making excuses for not debating the the evidence and you know that doesn't fly.

---

You mean a cop who shot an unarmed person in the back? What would happen to any other citizen under that circumstance? That's what the cop should get.

This is not about any one other than this Office under the specific evidence of this situation.
So stop deflecting and actually argue the available evidence or push on.

 

[apdst]

Bull. He continued to fire until the suspect was on the ground. If it was merely a situation of being unable to stop in time he wouldn't have fired so many shots.

No, he stopped shooting after Scott hit the ground.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

Nonsense. Your "matter of moments" being equated to the speed of thought and reaction is ridiculous. If one has time to draw, aim and see the back of a fleeing person then they still have time to evaluate whether to fire. One that sees a green traffic light that "moments later" turns yellow is still expected to stop. The idea that the detection of a threat "moments earlier" entitles you to respond to that prior threat "moments later" is not being accepted by at least one jurror.

 

[Excon]

Nope. His intent was to get away from the officer.

You are ignoring the totality of the situation.
He was a threat to anyone he may encounter.

 

[Cryptic]

It was a weapon that can be lethal and can be used to take another Officer's fire arm.
He was a threat.

Sure, that is why the officer was justified in pointing a fire arm at him.

Once he turned and ran away, however, he was no longer a threat to the officer. Likewise, the fact that he had a non lethal weapon did not make him an imminent threat to the community. Nor did the officer have reason to believe that he was an aggravated rapist or murderer who might pose a future imminent (key word) danger to the community.

Game over- you lose.

 

[Henrin]

It was a weapon that can be lethal and can be used to take another Officer's fire arm.
He was a threat.

He was not going to approach another officer. The only way this assumption on your part would make sense is if he approached the officer here, but clearly the officer approached him, not the other way around.

 

[Henrin]

No, he stopped shooting after Slaeger hit the ground.

Exactly. He kept firing shots until the suspect was down. This was not a case of merely continuing an action already in motion.

 

[apdst]

Nope. His intent was to get away from the officer.

Slager had no reson to believe that Scott wasn't a threat to him, or a citizen.

 

[Henrin]

You are ignoring the totality of the situation.
He was a threat to anyone he may encounter.

No, he wasn't.

 

[Henrin]

Slager had no reson to believe that Scott wasn't a threat to him, or a citizen.

At the time of the shooting Slager had no reason to think Scott was threat to his person.

 

[apdst]

At the time of the shooting Slager had no reason to think Scott was threat to his person.

Sure did. Scott had already resisted arrest.

 

[Henrin]

Sure did. Scott had already resisted arrest.

So resisting arrest warrants being shoot in the back several times when running away? And people wonder why I can't consent to the state. :lol:

 

[poweRob]

1. No you are not waiting. All you ever had to do was search the forum. That is on you not me.
2. Absurdly stupid and irrelevant deflection. And a logical fallacy in regards to the evidence of this issue. You fail again.


All you are saying is you wish to ignore the totality of the situation and the law that applies to it. In other words, you are making excuses for not debating the the evidence and you know that doesn't fly.

---

This is not about any one other than this Office under the specific evidence of this situation.
So stop deflecting and actually argue the available evidence or push on.

I guess it bothers you that only one of the twelve jurors saw it your way.

 

[apdst]

So resisting arrest warrants being shoot in the back several times when running away? And people wonder why I can't consent to the state. :lol:

A cop only has to assess the threat to himself and the public.

 

[poweRob]

He continued to fire until the suspect was on the ground.

No, he stopped shooting after Scott hit the ground.

You know you are refuting him while agreeing with him at the same exact time don't you?

 

[Henrin]

A cop only has to assess the threat to himself and the public.

Which obviously you can't do since you think a suspect trying to escape you is a threat to your person.

 

[apdst]

Which obviously you can't do since you think a suspect trying to escape you is a threat to your person.

That's just it, you don't know what the suspect might do once he's escaped. Afterall, he just assaulted a cop.

 

[apdst]

You know you are refuting him while agreeing with him at the same exact time don't you?

I misread his post. So what?

 

[Excon]

I guess it bothers you that only one of the twelve jurors saw it your way.

What are you talking about?
Do you even know or are you assuming again?