Scott didn’t have to have a weapon to be considered dangerous. Keep in mind that the law says an officer must see the perp as a danger to himself or “others” in order to justifiably shoot him as he flees. The wording is from the 1985 SCOTUS ruling in the Tennessee v. Garner case that narrowed the so-called fleeing felon rule. You can look it up. What it means is that if you have a suspect who has committed a felony — like assaulting a police officer — and is dangerous, you can shoot him as he flees in order to keep him from endangering other people. He doesn’t need a gun or a tazer to enter a home or business and seriously hurt someone.
If the police officer, Slager, was assaulted, it appears to me that he created the conditions for the assault by seeking confrontation with Walter Scott at all costs.
Slager had Scott's details, his car, and his passenger.
Why did Slager seek out a confrontation?
I mean, what you're saying is that all I would have to do is get in your face till you swung on me, then you're my meat, in whatever way, shape or form I choose to dine on you...
Slager is either dense, or he's a predator.
Info on the use of the taser here.
Coroner: Walter Scott died from multiple gunshot wounds to the back
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3278555/posts
And on what’s being done with the case (see “inconsistencies,” etc.).
SLED: Video confirmed investigators’ early suspicions of Walter Scott’s death
http://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3278558/posts