Posted on 04/14/2015 11:41:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
“The scumbag was buying a car, the helle with child support payments.”
It’s pretty hard getting a job to pay child support if you don’t have a car, you know.
“The scumbag also was fleeing/resisted arrest THREE times, assaulted the officer TWO times including with stun gun, and wrestled with officer on the ground.”
None of which actually justifies the police shooting him in the back when he was no longer a threat.
The officer shot a fleeing man in the BACK at a range that I would estimate was about 35 to 50 feet. NO THREAT, NO SHOOT.
You shoot to eliminate a threat; some body at that range, still running away as fast as they can does NOT CONSTITUTE A THREAT.
It's why Scott ran. He had a pay-up or else warrant.
He didn't want to go back to the cage that day.
And the failure to pay penalty fees I believe made up over half of what he owed at about 18k. He originally had paid about 7k...Then got way behind due to all the court penalties and lack of money for whatever reason.
He was never going to get out of debt.
I excerpted enough for you to understand (I hope).
'Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions,'
I really don't think that's the line conservatives should be taking, here.
Is that not why Scott was stopped?
I don’t know why he was running away, scared maybe? Irregardless the officer shot him in the back without cause or need. I don’t know what was going through the officers mind, only he does, but I’m pretty sure no department has a policy in place that says shooting a fleeing non threat in the back is a righteous shooting.
[charlesjohnson 4/10/15]
....The key part comes next, and was also cited in the recent DOJ report on the Mike Brown shooting:
It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, 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 feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.
Read more at http://bit.ly/1Gxj7bU
“A bench warrant had been issued for his arrest for failure to pay enough child support. “
News reports (AP and others) say no warrant had been issued.
All the media and race hustlers are interested in is the color of the cop and the criminal. Not a peep when the colors are reversed, that does not fit their agenda.
You DO find some good ones.
That photo is very troubling. It’s hard to imagine anything, short of the fleeing person being armed and threatening the officer, that could justify that.
“Why is someone who the law is looking for driving around with a broken tail light?”
You might find this interesting.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-carolina-details-walter-scott-michael-slager/
The cages are full of men for failure to pay $. And they don't come out of this "rehabilitated" but quite angry. Throw in biased slanted divorce laws and many of these guys get looted for decades. Hundreds of thousand have their wages garnished if they have jobs. Throw in all the court penalties for failure to pay when they won't or can't pay, and their done. Not saying they don't owe, but this system creates total financial chaos. Many times turning into very violent chaos.
Sure, I understand we call them “civil”, but we are sending people to jail over these offenses, so they are criminal offenses, no matter what we call them.
She is arguing that these stupid child support laws, with automatic jail time, is what started this bad cycle, and suggests repealing them.
Read the article.
“This is what they tried with George Zimmerman and failed.”
Zimmerman’s case was different because he fired his weapon when he was in imminent danger. This officer waited until after the danger was over, then calmly took aim and shot a man in the back who was no longer a threat. That’s certainly a situation where a good case for a homicide charge can be made.
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.