Posted on 04/12/2015 3:58:09 AM PDT by IChing
On the first day we saw the North Charleston, South Carolina, shooting video of Walter Scott by Officer Michael Slager we were as shocked as everyone. However, as research now indicates there is much more to the story.
What we cover here in the latest update might just change the entire way the story continues…
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Have you been drinking?
Bingo! Someone gets it. It’s about Slager’s reasonable perception of the situation, and if he truly believed Scott still had control of the taser, after he had already chased and fought with him over several hundred yards(and perhaps even had his own taser used against him), then he did not have the guilty mind that the lynch mob is howling about.
Thanks for the info
Treeper comments are usually part of the meat of the investigation as well.
If he shot the officer with a taser taken from the officer, it is not only a good shooting, but the officer is lucky to be alive. Had the taser been effective on the officer the next thing would be a perp with a Glock 9 and an officer with a bullet to the head.
If there were a bunch of other people around and the area wasn’t secure he may have been trying to make sure a by-stander didn’t pick up the taser.
Um, no, not necessarily, and not usually.
I am afraid you don’t understand murder. Where is the mitigating circumstance that reduces this to manslaughter? The victim is fifty feet away and still running when the officer takes deliberate aim and shoots him five times in the back. Premeditation can occur in an instant. I would argue that somewhere between the first and the fifth shot the officer had to reflect on what was happening and make the consioious decision to kill the man. That’s first degree murder.
Thanks for posting this information. The enhanced videos are helpful.
I remember the Tree House folks from the Zimmerman case.
They’re the real deal.
I do think the object was the taser. It just doesn’t look like Slager was the one who threw it down. It appears to me that Scott had it and threw it.
Not sure what to make of Slager’s moving the taser. Seems damning but I’m going to wait for more info.
Totally agree. When an officer has someone under arrest, uses a command instruction to stop or be shot, that’s it as far as I’m concerned. Running from the cops, on foot on in the car, is the most dangerous thing that can happen to bystanders and innocents.
Reading your disconnected post, I ask.
Where did you get your Critical Thinking card? The grocery store bubblegum dispenser?
Once the perp assaults the cop, the cop is then charged (no pun intended) to PREVENT further and potentially deadly assault on the cop or any other person.
The taser is his police weapon just like his Glock. And, it was on the ground out of his control. He needed to recover it from wherever it was dropped first and foremost. Before CPR, before anything else. Guaranty it is standard police training.
You just proved that you’re the one who doesn’t have the slightest grasp of the legal definitions involved, and being right now on a fishing trip with my wife and son, I’d better not bother myself to try to lecture you on them. Good luck to you in figuring the precise meanings out.
Read the rest of my comments. I said what happened does not necessarily exonerate the cop. But he was assaulted by Mr. Scott. If I assault a cop then flee, I have a reasonable expectation that the cop might shoot me. What do you think a cop might do after you've assaulted him? Blow kisses at you. Use your head.
If you believe he was armed with your weapon?
Damn, this sure seems to drag out the purist libertarians!
It’s a question of murder, firstly. If you watch the video, there is a struggle. If Slager pulls his weapon and fires as an immediate extension of that struggle, regardless of the guy running away *just then*, it’s more of a manslaughter act due to the fact that Slager is in the heat of the moment due to a very serious assault.
Second, there are circumstances where cops can shoot a fleeing suspect in the back if they feel the suspect poses significant deadly risk to the public. Given the limited knowledge Slager had of the suspect, which may wholly consist of, “I pulled this guy over for a traffic stop, he fled, then attacked me, took my taser and tried to shoot me with it...”
Who does that except extremely dangerous people?
I think anyone fleeing a police officer should know they will be shot. If that policy were in place, it would put the responsibility for their own lives squarely on the shoulders of the person being questioned. It would also protect innocent bystanders. There was no reason for Mr. Scott to flee the scene. If he hadn’t he would still be alive.
A few days ago in the wake of this incident, I read an article where the Supreme Court ruled on this type of matter some years ago, and declared a cop could shoot a fleeing suspect...even if the suspect might not be armed.
But even if they hadn't ruled on it or said it was legal, if I put a beating on a cop, take the cop's gun or taser and use it on the cop, then run, like I said, I shouldn't be surprised if the cop takes a shot at me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.