Wrongful death won't have to take that into consideration. And he was employed at the time of his death. Do a little research, please. Originally Posted by WombRaiderWrongful death won't take what into consideration?
Hey LexusLover check this out. Don't anybody else look... http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...ts/#more-99326 Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDBThey don't want to look, "trust me"!!!!
They don't want to look, "trust me"!!!!Yup... "Throw Down Taser" is some of the funniest shit, I have ever heard... LOL,<-- 1007!
"This means when the Taser fired during the struggle, the darts actually penetrated Slager, not Scott.
"Factually this aligns with the recorded statement of Slager and the reports of his initial debriefing.
"It could be that one dart is in the leg of Slager and the other is in the upper torso region as evidenced below."
If the physical/medical evidence shows Scott shot the officer with the officer's taser during their 100 yard fight ... even one time ... much less two times ... the "murder" charge is out the window ... and very likely any civil rights/wrongful death action. This is additional reason why:
.. if Scott had the business end of the taser the officer might not know what was fixing to happen and he was at risk of serious bodily injury and potential death. Who could have easily feared for his life when he shot Scott.
Like Zimmerman/Martin and Brown/Wilson ... I'm willing to wait this one out to see what washes up with the forensics, autopsy, and medical. Originally Posted by LexusLover
They don't want to look, "trust me"!!!!Even if he did shoot the officer with the tazer, the officers "fear" of injury ended when the man ran away. If you cant see that then your racial bias is blinding you.
"This means when the Taser fired during the struggle, the darts actually penetrated Slager, not Scott.
"Factually this aligns with the recorded statement of Slager and the reports of his initial debriefing.
"It could be that one dart is in the leg of Slager and the other is in the upper torso region as evidenced below."
If the physical/medical evidence shows Scott shot the officer with the officer's taser during their 100 yard fight ... even one time ... much less two times ... the "murder" charge is out the window ... and very likely any civil rights/wrongful death action. This is additional reason why:
.. if Scott had the business end of the taser the officer might not know what was fixing to happen and he was at risk of serious bodily injury and potential death. Who could have easily feared for his life when he shot Scott.
Like Zimmerman/Martin and Brown/Wilson ... I'm willing to wait this one out to see what washes up with the forensics, autopsy, and medical. Originally Posted by LexusLover
Wrongful death won't take what into consideration?Since you seem to need everything explained to you as if you were a small child, here goes. A civil wrongful death suit falls under tort law, which relies on statutes. These statutes vary depending on the state. So, it's POSSIBLE that his future earning potential is not considered in the final judgement. So, yes I do believe that depending on the state statutes, his future income is irrelevant.
You actually believe his past work history isn't relevant on damages?
Just because he was "employed" doesn't mean his dependents were benefiting.
"Do a little research, please."
BTW: I NEVER "do a LITTLE research"!
Stick with your "freelance writing" ... Stress on the "free"! Originally Posted by LexusLover
Even if he did shoot the officer with the tazer, the officers "fear" of injury ended when the man ran away. If you cant see that then your racial bias is blinding you. Originally Posted by dirty dogIn my short experience in this forum, LL is one of our resident pointy-hat members. He is always willing to assume the worst about the black man. He also deals in absolutes, so he's fun to debate...
Apparently the officer used his tazer on him, and the tazer didn't work. Assault on a peace officer in most states is a felony, and it is obvious after the guy ran, the officer caught up to him and some sort of physical altercation occurred. Originally Posted by LexusLoverright, but the cop shot the guy in the back..he was running, he was of no harm to the cop
Even if he did shoot the officer with the tazer, the officers "fear" of injury ended when the man ran away. If you cant see that then your racial bias is blinding you. Originally Posted by dirty dogDid you read the interpretations of the stills from the video?
Did you read the interpretations of the stills from the video?You have yet to provide a source of this info. You've provided a crudely illustrated map and some words. Forgive me if that doesn't mean shit. Also, since you have the inside source to this 'info', maybe you can tell us what the officer dropped on the ground next to the dead man? A taser perhaps, to make his story more believable?
And FYI your "assumption" that my opinions have anything to do with "race" is misguided by your own racial bias... or is that just a bias against law enforcement officers?
His fear doesn't have to be about himself .. his fear could be this man would cause serious bodily injury to someone else...but as I said if this man had hold of the business end of the taser or believed he did then his fear was justified.
Your "interpretation" of whether he was afraid or should have been afraid is not relevant to the legal test. It must be from the eyes of the officer at the time of the incident....and the video frames are apparently consistent with what he reported in his initial debriefing (BEFORE he saw the video, BTW). At least that is what is being reported in the information provided, which was not previously reported in the news media or on this thread.
You're playing the race card a bit early aren't you. Obaminable hasn't yet. Originally Posted by LexusLover
right, but the cop shot the guy in the back..he was running, he was of no harm to the copActually, reread the information in the interpretation and explanation of the frames from the family's friend's video ... Scott had the taser and was running and the officer could see the line straightening out in front of him and could have reasonably feared Scot would activate the taser and disable him. He just finished a 100 yard fight with this guy ... been shot with the taser, apparently, 2 x's, and now Scott was running away with the taser ... one pop and the officer is down and helpless. That's when he started shooting ...The question is what was in the officer's mind.
ok there I said it
Originally Posted by bigcockpussylicker
Actually, reread the information in the interpretation and explanation of the frames from the family's friend's video ... Scott had the taser and was running and the officer could see the line straightening out in front of him and could have reasonably feared Scot would activate the taser and disable him. He just finished a 100 yard fight with this guy ... been shot with the taser, apparently, 2 x's, and now Scott was running away with the taser ... one pop and the officer is down and helpless. That's when he started shooting ...The question is what was in the officer's mind.Interpretation. That's one person's version. Nothing more. Sounds like you're pulling a lot of this out of your ass. Since you STILL won't provide a link.
I'm just saying: If the physical evidence shows Scott shot him and Scott had the taser when he ran, then the officer could reasonably fear for his life....on top of the 100 yard fight Scott had put up.
Sir, you can't fucking shoot a cop! OK? I know you know that. Originally Posted by LexusLover
