Not if the assailant is running away and the officer is in no current danger. The courts have ruled on this.
Upvote
0
Enhanced Video of Walter Scott Shooting Changes Complexity
- Thread starter Veritas
- Start date
Not if the assailant is running away and the officer is in no current danger. The courts have ruled on this.
Personally, I couldn't make out any taser darts from that video.
What I see is a taser on the ground near the officer. I then see the officer pick it up and put it beside the victim. That spells cover-up to me.
He may very well have been in fear of his life a few minutes earlier when he was struggling with the victim, if the victim actually grabbed his taser. But when he shot him in the back, he wasn't scared, he was mad.
I know he shot a man in the back who was clearly running away and therefore of no immediate danger to him. Whatever proceeded that act, is to my thinking irrelevant.
Upvote
0
Even assuming this scenario is true (and I'm not persuaded it is) the key word here is had . He did not have a weapon and was running away when he was short numerous times in the back. This changes nothing except some people's sympathies.
Upvote
0
He had a warrant against him for child support. No insurance on his vehicle. Sounds like his biggest crime was being poor.
Upvote
0
All of that is hypothetical at this point because we don't really have any evidence that he was tazed. He never says that in the tape. If he had been tazed, shooting the guy might be understandable, but not justifiable. He was in no danger at the time of the shooting, and therefore it is still murder. All this does is provide the police officer motive, not an excuse.
Upvote
0
If the cartridge is being drugged behind Scott then he is the one with the taser darts in him!
He could have, until Scott started running away.
Upvote
0
No he wasn't. He just helped himself to the officer's taser weapon is all.
The taser is at the officer's feet at the time he is shooting the victim. I think it highly unlikely the victims simply 'helped himself' to the officers taser. If he grabbed it at it is likely because he was being tazed, a rather normal reaction if you ask me. Might he have tazed the officer back? Possibly. Fact remains that at the time the victim is shot in the back, he has no weapon.
Upvote
0
blueapplepaste
the purpose of life is a life of purpose
Nice to see small government conservatives defending the right of police to be jury and judge and murder people.
Upvote
0
Uh, the 'underlying crime' was failure to pay child support.
Not necessarily. Maybe just a guy terrified of going to jail for being poor.
It may well be evidence the person has a warrant for their arrest. But there is no reason to think the person is either dangers or a felon. People get sent to jail for misdemeanors all the time, especially when they are poor and can't pay the fines. Here in Mississippi our jails have turned into debtor's prisons. I don't doubt that is true in South Carolina as well:
https://www.schr.org/our-work/debtors-prisons
There were at least two eyewitnesses.
You can't kill someone for assaulting you. You can only use lethal force when your life or that of another is in imminent danger.
I don't think the victim could have possibly gotten a hold of the taser if the officer wasn't using it on him. And this particular officer has a number of complaints against him for using a taser without justification.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Not only does he not mention being tazered on the tape, but when he phones his wife he says the following:Hey. Hey, everythings OK. OK? I just shot somebody." He grabbed my Taser, yeah. Yeah, says Slager. He was running from me. Im fine.
No mention of being shot with a taser. Sounds like the right went through a lot of trouble to see something that wasn't there.
Upvote
0
Queller
I'm where?
- May 25, 2012
- 6,446
- 681
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Divorced
- Politics
- US-Others
You do if you want your conclusions to be taken seriously.
I finally saw what you are talking about. The taser cartridge is being dragged behind Scott as he runs away. This supports the conclusion that Scott, not Slager is the one who was tasered, as there is no logical or rational explanation for why a taser cartridge would be drug behind someone who was not shot with the darts and away from the person who was shot with the darts.
Yes, one can see a taser cartridge being dragged behind a fleeing man. Trying to explain that away as being drug behind the man who was not shot by the taser is nothing but a personal opinion, and an absurd one at that.
I'm going by what the police say about what's in the reports and Slager's own words.
Before investigators had the chance to interview him, Slager released a statement April 6 through Aylor's office. The statement claimed the two had wrestled for control of his stun gun and Slager felt threatened, which led him to use his firearm.
Do you think that Slager only "felt threatened" after being shot with his own taser?
Upvote
0
And so far that is all we know he did.
Not yet established. The officer does not claim he was assaulted. He does not claim he was tazered.
The only evidence for this is some creative interpretations of the video. And the only evidence we have that the victim even took the taser is the statement from the same officer who shot him in the back then picked up a taser at his feet and then put it next to the victim, thus tampering with the evidence.
Let's put aside the clear evidence that he shot the victim in the back. Do you think good cops tamper with evidence?
I don't know about repeatedly, but we do know from other incident where this officer used his taser, that he is easily provoked.
He doesn't look like he is in pain to me. I'm sure the adrenalin was flowing. He was likely hopping mad.
I don't think it would be need to deliberate very long.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Your missing the point. It is not a question of what they are assaulting you with, it is a question of whether they are assaulting you at the time you shot them. If you are not in any imminent danger and there is no 'castle doctrine' in play, you can't respond by shooting them.
Upvote
0
It doesn't occur to you that the officer would have been attacking the victim? Admittedly that was justifiable given the victim was trying to flee.
The only evidence we have this the officers word, he who is not only recorded as shooting the victim in the back but also tampering with the evidence.
One eyewitness said it looked more like an argument. The other eyewitness says the cop was on top.
No evidence of assault.
Not unless you hit him.
He'd been running.
It is homicide whether it is murder or manslaughter.
I disagree. Of course, they do get the benefit of a doubt and there is no doubt this cop would have gotten off scot free were it not for video, but officers should be held to a higher standard. We need to outfit all of them with video cameras will sure help, but in some states have tried to outlaw citizens recording police officers.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jul 19, 2012
- 15,312
- 14,322
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Married
I don’t know what surprises me more, people thinking a Taser cartridge somehow attaches itself to the person firing the Taser, or that a defense attorney has a conscious and would remove themselves after seeing their client might be guilty after all.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
