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 ...
I’ve learned from the Martin and Brown cases to wait a bit before condemning a man.
This is the age old liberal cry. “They shot my boy 16 times. Why didn’t they just shoot him once or twice?”
Police are trained to shoot until the subject does not move. You can love it or hate it, but it is exactly what they are supposed to do.
No Sir, Conservatives believe in the Rule of Law. Either you do not know the law or you are spouting a LIBERTARIAN train of thought where any control is bad.
Oh, relax. It will get much more confusing when the officer’s lawyer starts creating scenarios to justify the officer’s actions.
This thing has just begun. A year from now you won’t even recognize the facts you are so tied up with today.
Either you haven’t read Tenn v Garner, or didn’t understand it. The SCOTUS voided the preexisting common law “fleeing felon” doctrine, and said the fleeing person must still pose an imminent threat for deadly force to be justified in apprehending them. The real issue here is Slaver’s state of mind and factors contributing to whether he actually believed Scott to be a continued imminent threat.
South Carolina has a murder charge only, not degrees of murder.
No, not for murder.
Background: Teenager breaks into home, steals woman's purse, she calls police. Police show up in time to chase teenager with purse. This crime is a felony in Tennessee at the time. Kid tries to hop fence, cop shoots kid in the head in accordance with TN state law regarding fleeing felons. The officers involved were cleared because they were following the law. Family files complaints, goes all the way to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS find that use of deadly force must be justified by either an immediate threat of serious harm or the expectation of the suspect harming someone else in the future.
When all the facts are considered in this case, that is the legal standard the officer will have to satisfy to avoid being found guilty.
Now since he has been fired by his department, all of that will be on his own dime. He better have some healthy liability insurance.
Good job
I am not a liberal by any means, and I am very accomplished at shooting many types of weapons I own and I can tell when I hit even at the distance in this case. By your account, policy and procedure (even training) demands the full 9 yards then.
Here’s a prediction. The family or estate gets $10 Million for each of the 8 shots. Put that in your policy and procedures. This was murder.
Conservatives believe in God’s law. Murder is wrong. Period.
Name calling and now conjecture. You have no problem calling people boot lickers, why don’t you accuse some people of being racist, too.
As long as the darts are still in the subject making contact with the skin and the wires are intact, an additional charge can be delivered.
Who claimed complete exoneration was coming? And how do you claim murder? Murder requires malice aforethought. This was a cop fighting for what he MAY have believed was his life.
When British troops fired into a crowd of unarmed colonists and killed Crispus Attucks, they were following the law. That, and other instances, led to revolt and the USA.
Really.. the point.of a taser gun is to incapacitate you.... its a weppon.. Scott took one of the cop weppons and fired it at the cop... an you do not see that as an issue... he turn and ran equal hands up..so that it ....
If Scott fires a gun ..misses and turn an run...that a free shot ?
so question what if the turned and running guy still.has the weppon?..
Is the cop to assume the guy will not turn and fire again...
Because want to get the rules of engagement down here....you can fire weapons ..turn run... and the cop can only fire back if you stop to turn around and fire back a second time..
And the cop must confirm that you’re actually turning and poiting a weapon back at him a second time before he can actually fire at you?
so its the one free shot at a cop rule..
does this count for civilians too?
if someone comes up to you on the street takes a shot at you and turns... and you happen to have a weapon too ...well...what...???
we’ve established the universal one free shot rule ???
Thank you for your remarks. They are basically what I thought, that a cop should not whack someone posing no threat who is running away from a traffic violation when they can just go get them later when things calm down.
I really think your explanation is a good one.
Cops are people, they can be just as evil as any other person, or they can be just a good as any other person, it depends on the individual. I have personally known both kinds.
If the cop that shot this guy in the back is proven to be the evil variety, then he should be thrown in prison with the general population with other murderers.
It's called opinion.
If opinion distresses you, best you find a different forum.
The reports state Slager “deployed” his taser.....there is no mention of Slager getting tasered anywhere in the reports.
It was a 1985 Supreme Court decision, Tennessee v Garner. But the court ruled the police could shoot at a fleeing suspect 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." So what was the significant threat of death or injury to the officer or others in this case?
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.