[Theophilus]

"What does it matter?"

Exactly, this ought not to be a national issue, but I'm a hypocrite so here is my two cents:

• Glad that guy got this on video, sorry I'm such a prurient schmuck to have watched it.
• Glad I'm not Scott.
• Glad I'm not Slager.
• Glad I don't owe $18,000 in child support and have a warrant out for me.
• Glad I don't have a broken taillight.
• Glad I'm not a SC LEO or any LEO for that matter.
• Glad I won't be in that court or on that jury.
• Hopefully I'd never be stupid enough to tussle with a LEO, otherwise resist arrest, or run away.
• Hopefully I'd never be stupid and hotheaded enough to shoot someone in the back.
• Why is the fact that Scott was "black" relevant?
• Why is the fact that Scott was "unarmed" relevant?
• If Scott was armed, does that make it more OK or less bad to shoot him in the back five times?
• Why aren't almost all felonies a capital crime?

[RedStateRocker]

I think the only argument for shooting him in the back was if he was KNOWN to be armed and dangerous; the reasoning would be that he might take hostages or such.

[combat_boots]

In all the cases that are being/have been made national causes, blacks resist and it appears, fight with or come at LEO.

[FreeReign]

Why is the fact that Scott was "unarmed" relevant?

For a guy who is armed and who is resisting, the fact that he is armed is indeed relevant.

[Osage Orange]

I can think of plenty of scenarios...where I’d have no problem shooting someone in the back.