Who Is The Blame For Walter Scott's Death?

Kind of like strong arm robbing cigarillos. Creepy Ass Crackers want to live too. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Like crackers that follow little black kids through neighborhoods when they've been told to stop?

The cop is to blame, plain and simple. He's not in any apparent danger, shoots the victim(not once, but EIGHT times) IN THE BACK! I think when you become cop you should be held to a higher standard than some gamer running gung-ho in call of duty. Deadly force should only be used if you are ABSOLUTELY sure that you yourself are in life threatening danger. Being trigger happy is no excuse. Maybe we should stop worrying about the cops and worry about ourselves instead. They are the ones with the guns.

So running AWAY is an offense worthy of death? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Not in this case.


Jim

... Deadly force should only be used if you are ABSOLUTELY sure that you yourself are in life threatening danger. ... Originally Posted by shanm

Seating at home today, it is easy to say that In this case, deadly force should not have been used!!!

With the above in mind the standard that you are setting is a very bad one.

If we follow your logic, if a policeman sees that a civilian is being attacked and is about to be murdered he can't used deadly since he is not the victim someone else is.

What if the policeman/women is being raped, at this point not life threatening danger, but it might become one. Let's say that all they have is a gun, should they wait before using deadly force?

Combine the two, a policewoman sees someone being about to be gang raped, is she allows to use deadly force, or is she supposed to first put herself in life threatening danger first?

Yes, I'm 100% positive that in all likelihood Scott would NOT have Ben shot by Slager if he hadn't run away.

Am I 100% certain that he wouldn't have been shot? No, but it is way above 99%, hence the use of "in all likelihood".

Do you have any reason to believe that there is even a 1% chance that Scott would have been shot if he stayed in the car as he was told at least twice? If so, please provide it, if not, what is your point? Originally Posted by Freedom42

Please rewind the tape of this whole incident and take out the running part of it, only the running part, and replay it again, then feel free to share your thought.

Seating at home today, it is easy to say that In this case, deadly force should not have been used!!!

With the above in mind the standard that you are setting is a very bad one.

If we follow your logic, if a policeman sees that a civilian is being attacked and is about to be murdered he can't used deadly since he is not the victim someone else is.

What if the policeman/women is being raped, at this point not life threatening danger, but it might become one. Let's say that all they have is a gun, should they wait before using deadly force?

Combine the two, a policewoman sees someone being about to be gang raped, is she allows to use deadly force, or is she supposed to first put herself in life threatening danger first? Originally Posted by Freedom42

This is a stupid post. Not the same situation.

Like crackers that follow little black kids through neighborhoods when they've been told to stop? Originally Posted by WombRaider

You've had that stupid, lying notion shoved up your "#Grubered" ass and twisted before, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Regarding this Scott case: a cop pulls over a motorist for a busted tail light, and the motorist cannot produce either a title or insurance for the vehicle ... then the driver bolts and runs. For all the cop knew (which is very little at the time), he has just stopped a felonious car thief/hijacker who is attempting to elude.

Think I'll await the grand jury and/or the petit jury decisions. Originally Posted by LexusLover

+1

Please rewind the tape of this whole incident and take out the running part of it, only the running part, and replay it again, then feel free to share your thought. Originally Posted by andymarksman

Please post that part of the tape that shows the physical altercation between Scott and the cop.

Please rewind the tape of this whole incident and take out the running part of it, only the running part, and replay it again, then feel free to share your thought. Originally Posted by andymarksman

In your revision of the incident, can we leave in the part during which Scott fought with the officer over a distance of about 100 yards? .... and put that in perspective .... the length of a football field ... a fight to get someone down on the ground for the length of a football field .... AND

can we leave in the part during which Scott gets control of the taser and shoots the Officer 2x's with taser darts one of which is still "wired" to the taser gun?

Even in South Carolina ... aggravated assault on a police officer is a high felony and it can justify the use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felon based on nothing more than the officer's reasonable concern that Scott would do harm to another person, like another officer, trying to stop him from fleeing further.

Here is the standard:

"Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. ___ (2014)

"A claim that law-enforcement officers used excessive force to effect a seizure is governed by the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness” standard. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386 (1989); Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1 (1985). In Graham, we held that determining the objective reasonableness of a particular seizure under the Fourth Amendment “requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” 490 U. S., at 396 (internal quotation marks omitted). The inquiry requires analyzing the totality of the circumstances. See ibid.

"We analyze this question from the perspective “of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Ibid. We thus “allo[w] for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Id., at 396–397."

Martin, Brown, Garner, and now Scott.

The same crowd on here who tossed out the Garner video as "Proof" ...

.. is tossing out the the Scott video as THE PROOF!

Too bad the citizen who saw the fight for 100 yards didn't video that fight and the "ending" of the fight when Scott shot the officer with the officer's weapon.

It no doubt wouldn't change the minds of the race-baiting/cop-haters on here, but it would clearly be added to ...

...."the totality of the circumstances" for "reasonable minds" to consider.

I hope none of you gun-toting, cowboys with CHL's get in a fight with someone for 100 yards who finally takes your weapon away from you and shoots you with it .... and then you pull out "your other" one and shoot them ... OR is it "different" when it is your ass on the line?

This is a stupid post. Not the same situation. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

But the same legal principles are involved. That's THE POINT.

When the SCOTUS sets principles to overlay on a set of facts, which it has done for YEARS regarding "use of force" and "seizures," there has always been an undercurrent often stated and often used to determine the outcome of a case...

..."officer safety" ... the other principle that is applied is ...

..."exigent circumstances" .... both present in the Scott-Slager confrontation.

Like crackers that follow little black kids through neighborhoods when they've been told to stop? Originally Posted by WombRaider

You ARE a racist.

In your revision of the incident, can we leave in the part during which Scott fought with the officer over a distance of about 100 yards? .... and put that in perspective .... the length of a football field ... a fight to get someone down on the ground for the length of a football field .... AND

can we leave in the part during which Scott gets control of the taser and shoots the Officer 2x's with taser darts one of which is still "wired" to the taser gun?

Even in South Carolina ... aggravated assault on a police officer is a high felony and it can justify the use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felon based on nothing more than the officer's reasonable concern that Scott would do harm to another person, like another officer, trying to stop him from fleeing further.

Here is the standard:

"Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. ___ (2014)

"A claim that law-enforcement officers used excessive force to effect a seizure is governed by the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness” standard. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386 (1989); Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1 (1985). In Graham, we held that determining the objective reasonableness of a particular seizure under the Fourth Amendment “requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” 490 U. S., at 396 (internal quotation marks omitted). The inquiry requires analyzing the totality of the circumstances. See ibid.

"We analyze this question from the perspective “of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Ibid. We thus “allo[w] for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Id., at 396–397."

Martin, Brown, Garner, and now Scott.

The same crowd on here who tossed out the Garner video as "Proof" ...

.. is tossing out the the Scott video as THE PROOF!

Too bad the citizen who saw the fight for 100 yards didn't video that fight and the "ending" of the fight when Scott shot the officer with the officer's weapon.

It no doubt wouldn't change the minds of the race-baiting/cop-haters on here, but it would clearly be added to ...

...."the totality of the circumstances" for "reasonable minds" to consider.

I hope none of you gun-toting, cowboys with CHL's get in a fight with someone for 100 yards who finally takes your weapon away from you and shoots you with it .... and then you pull out "your other" one and shoot them ... OR is it "different" when it is your ass on the line? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Here's what Pat Lynch of NY said of the Garner death:

"There was a loss of life that both a family and a police officer will always have to live with. … No police officer starts a shift intending to take another human being’s life and we are all saddened by this tragedy.”

It fit Brown and Garner .. and it fits Scott.

The "hue and cry" of the race-baiting/cop haters on Garner was he wasn't "resisting" arrest or doing "anything" to the cops ... so NOW we have ...

probable cause for a felony at a traffic stop, fleeing from a felony, resisting arrest, and aggravated assault on a police officer, but ...... what is the "cry"..

"he shot him in the back"! Speaking of "plain and simple" ...

.. has anyone ever seen someone FLEEING by ....

..... running backwards FACING THE POLICE OFFICER?

Please rewind the tape of this whole incident .... Originally Posted by andymarksman

Where is "the tape" of the "whole incident"?

I want to review it. I still haven't made up my mind.

Seating at home today, it is easy to say that In this case, deadly force should not have been used!!!

With the above in mind the standard that you are setting is a very bad one.

If we follow your logic, if a policeman sees that a civilian is being attacked and is about to be murdered he can't used deadly since he is not the victim someone else is.

What if the policeman/women is being raped, at this point not life threatening danger, but it might become one. Let's say that all they have is a gun, should they wait before using deadly force?

Combine the two, a policewoman sees someone being about to be gang raped, is she allows to use deadly force, or is she supposed to first put herself in life threatening danger first? Originally Posted by Freedom42

You're taking my post completely out of context. If you want to take my words literally that's on you. My understanding is that officers need to be trained to a higher standard that doesn't result in them whipping out their weapon at every turn. There's so many alternatives. Rubber bullets, tasers, police batons etc etc.
For the record, I would consider rape a life/death situation. Simply because it is one. You never know what could happen and so do whatever you have to do.

But look at the video above and tell me if that is the equivalent of a policewoman getting gangbanged.

can we leave in the part during which Scott gets control of the taser and shoots the Officer 2x's with taser darts one of which is still "wired" to the taser gun? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Can you provide a link as to where the perp actually shot the officer? My understanding was that he tried to take the taser and it fell to the ground. My guess is, this is more hyperbole on your part created solely for the purpose of falsely substantiating your useless, retarded argument. You are such a fucking idiot LL.

I hope none of you gun-toting, cowboys with CHL's get in a fight with someone for 100 yards who finally takes your weapon away from you and shoots you with it .... and then you pull out "your other" one and shoot them ... OR is it "different" when it is your ass on the line? Originally Posted by LexusLover

ikr? How dare we hold cops to a higher standard than the average citizen!

probable cause for a felony at a traffic stop, fleeing from a felony, resisting arrest, and aggravated assault on a police officer, but ...... what is the "cry"..

"he shot him in the back"! Speaking of "plain and simple" ...

.. has anyone ever seen someone FLEEING by ....

..... running backwards FACING THE POLICE OFFICER? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Jesus Christ, there is no end to the sea of stupid you swim in. Do you see him running facing backwards? WTF are you even trying to say? He's fleeing; instead of pursuing him, or even aiming for his leg and popping off once, the officer shoots him 8 FUCKING TIMES in the BACK! Reckless disregard for the life of a citizen that he is paid to protect.

But the same legal principles are involved. That's THE POINT.
Originally Posted by LexusLover

No they're not. Shut the fuck up. Is anyone here surprised that this idiot dullard is on the cops side? You might feel safe and cozy in your nursing home but this is a real problem facing many of our citizens today. I don't want to be harassed by some power-tripping moron next time I get pulled over. The police need to learn their place as public servants to the populace and nothing more. They should be accommodating our faults instead of the other fucking way around.

Please rewind the tape of this whole incident and take out the running part of it, only the running part, and replay it again, then feel free to share your thought. Originally Posted by andymarksman

I did, Scott stays in the car, probably told to fix the broken taillight and get off without a ticket.

What do you see happing if Scott doesn't run?

This is a stupid post. Not the same situation. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The OP said "Deadly force should only be used if you are ABSOLUTELY sure that you yourself are in life threatening danger." There was no situation mentioned in his post, it was posted as an absolute standard to be used in all cases. The stupid post was made by the OP, regardless if you agree with his motives, which might be valid, the original post was less than thought out.

If the the OP wants to take it back and bring forward a different standrd for deadly force use I'll be happy to comment on it (positively or negatively)