I'll say what I said before...this supposedly new evidence does not necessarily exonerate the cop. What we do know so far looks like a case of a possibly disoriented cop shooting a suspect who had just assaulted him.
Because of being assaulted, does that justify the shooting? I don't know. Maybe not.
But I'll repeat...if I physically assaulted a policeman using the policeman's own weapon on him (or any weapon), and then I fled, I shouldn't be surprised if the cop tried to shoot me.
Let's change things up a bit. The same scenario unfolds, but in the struggle instead of grabbing the cop's taser and using it on him, Scott pulls out a knife and slashes the cop or a hammer and bashes him a good one. Tasers can be just a lethal as many other weapons. The cop is on the ground and then Scott starts running.
Maybe the rules are the cop still isn't supposed to shoot Scott. But if the same thing happened to me as happened to Slager, I'd be mighty irritated to the point of shooting Scott.
The cop isn't disoriented at all in the videos.
Let's change things up a bit. The same scenario unfolds, but in the struggle instead of grabbing the cop's taser and using it on him, Scott pulls out a knife and slashes the cop or a hammer and bashes him a good one. Tasers can be just a lethal as many other weapons. The cop is on the ground and then Scott starts running.
Maybe the rules are the cop still isn't supposed to shoot Scott. But if the same thing happened to me as happened to Slager, I'd be mighty irritated to the point of shooting Scott.
Then you would, and should, be facing criminal charges because irritating a police officer is not a justification for shooting someone. Let's remain on planet Earth. Slager is not harmed. He has not been tazed. Scott has no hammer or knife or any other weapon. He is running and is 20 or 30 feet away from Slager when Slager starts shooting him. Where is the threat to the safety of the officer or any other person?