No scenario backs a cop shooting a guy in the back 5 times when he is not a threat to anyone. Period, end of story.
...
That’s true, but we don’t know if Scott did or said something (witnesses have said there was a physical altercation) that caused Slager to believe he was a dangerous threat.
Sitting in your easy chair watching an incomplete video on the Internet isn’t the legal standard that applies.
I REPEAT no scenario where the guy that got shot in the back is not an immediate threat is justified. I don’t care what he may or may not have said to the cop. More cops were already coming. This shooter was just wrong and the court will bear that out - if it goes to court. It will most likely be plead out to manslaughter.
What’s incomplete? The video clearly shows the cop drawing and shooting a retreating unarmed man in the back.
“That’s true, but we don’t know if Scott did or said something (witnesses have said there was a physical altercation) that caused Slager to believe he was a dangerous threat.”
But I think mad_as_he$$ sees - correctly I might add - that there is no plausible and justifiable explanation as to why the officer shot the man RUNNING AWAY FROM HIM in the BACK multiple times. The only thing I can think of is if the officer claims, “Well, I thought he was reaching for a gun while he was running away from me so I shot him.” But the police arrested the officer even BEFORE this video came to light so they must have already discounted that as a possibly valid claim (if it was ever even made).
I’m all for a full investigation. I’m all for a fair trial. I just don’t see how the officer can explain his actions away - even if he said he made a gross error (”Oh, I thought he was reaching for a gun but he wasn’t”) really won’t cut it.
Why would he leave such a critical fact out of his report?