Well, even if he had turned over his license, there would have been no time to look up any details about him.
click on the pic: US Army mechanical smoke generator
bolobaby wrote: Do you think Slager had enough time to develop a profile on Scott before Scott began to run away, marking him as guilty of *something* (God knows what)?
Ah, "guilty until proven innocent", is that it?
Papieren, bitte...
I got your license, I got your license plate, I got your car, I got your pal. I can find you.
Given the question of the ownership of the vehicle, I’d say the safest assumption the cop could make at that moment is, “Holy crap - the reason he didn’t have insurance and registration is because he stole the car! Now he’s running!”
And he looks like his license photo, but they all look alike! Come to think of it, he kind of looks like Habersham!
Guilty until proven innocent...? Are you serious?
Question: if you get pulled over by a cop, who tells you to stay in your car, and you then flee on foot, are you innocent?
Let’s not start with the “shooting offense” question at this point. Just answer whether the cop has the right to arrest you for fleeing. (Hint: Answer=Yes)
Next up... you are fleeing a cop who orders you to stop. You choose not to and instead run a hundred yards away. When the cop orders you to get on the ground, you instead decide to engage in a struggle. Guilty of anything yet? (Hint: Answer=Yes)
Have we reached shooting offense yet? No, but... and this is the part that is unclear, but for which I see some reasonable doubt...
If you are struggling with the cop and MAYBE you get a hold of his taser and MAYBE you attempt to discharge the weapon at the cop but MAYBE don’t get a clean hit off. At this point, you MAYBE have shown yourself to be interested in disabling the cop (much akin to trying to knock him out with a brick to the head). In the 1 second following the struggle where you MAYBE attempted to tase the cop, does he have the right to assume you still mean him or someone else serious harm and have the right to stop you with deadly force?
Here’s the problem: you’re incoherent posts keep making some tangential comments about smokescreens and racism and all black men looking alike. You make plenty of assumptions about what you THINK happened, but afford no possible assumptions on the officer’s part even though the whole thing happened fast, with little time for him to carefully contemplate his actions.
While I am certain you are absolutely flawless in every way and have never made snap decisions while being attacked by someone, I think there are still some outstanding questions regarding this case.
Your comment about “guilty until proven innocent” is particularly inane, because Scott MADE himself guilty of several crimes *up to the shooting* while the police officer was lawfully executing his duties. Notice that I said “up to” the shooting. I have made no judgment yet whether the shooting was lawful because... well... I’m not sitting on the jury hearing ALL the evidence.
It is people like me for which we have trial by jury. It is people like you for which we have lynchings and mobs.
