Who Is The Blame For Walter Scott's Death?

It's too bad the officer couldn't sit down and review it with you today.

The wire is stuck to the officer. Not Scott. It doesn't matter what you think.

In more ways than one.

Of course, you overlook that she had a 100 yard fight and scuffle, don't you? Originally Posted by LexusLover

In the scuffle it could have gone off and struck the officer. Regardless, you can clearly see the taser fall to the ground before he pulls his sidearm. At least you're being honest now. You have your agenda and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind.

Interpretation. That's one person's version. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Isn't yours .... "one person's version"?

From media reports and "your" analysis of a video cut????

Do you mean with your vast wealth of investigative knowledge in murder cases?

I think "the point" is ... the officer is innocent. That's the presumption.

Then there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt ... and if there is a "reasonable doubt" .. he is "not guilty."

Just like OJ Simpson. As far as I am concerned the State failed to prove him guilty so he is still "innocent" of his ex-wife's murder and her lap pet.

At least you're being honest now. You have your agenda and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind. Originally Posted by WombRaider

What on Earth are you babbling about?

You're the one who has made up his mind. And no conflicting evidence will change it. Is that because Scott is Black and the Officer is White. Or is that because Slager IS A POLICE OFFICER?

I think you are the racist. The more you whine the more it shows.

What on Earth are you babbling about?

You're the one who has made up his mind. And no conflicting evidence will change it. Is that because Scott is Black and the Officer is White. Or is that because Slager IS A POLICE OFFICER?

I think you are the racist. The more you whine the more it shows. Originally Posted by LexusLover

You are the king of flipping shit around. I think I'm going to dub you King FlipShit.

the truth is we don't know enough yet. how bout we let the lawyers hash it out. I'm racist? I dated a black woman for almost 10 years. Nice try, though.

You are the king of flipping shit around. I think I'm going to dub you King FlipShit.

the truth is we don't know enough yet. how bout we let the lawyers hash it out. I'm racist? I dated a black woman for almost 10 years. Nice try, though. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Thank you ignore list.

This isn't Rocket surgery. There's plenty of evidence to make a just decision.

Unless there's some racial evidence keep the race baitors and politics out.

Mr. Policeman......you fucked up.

RIP Mr. Scott.....you shouldn't have ran. You also fucked up. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

It won't be long the same shit will happen again probably sooner rather than later.


Jim

In the scuffle it could have gone off and struck the officer. Regardless, you can clearly see the taser fall to the ground before he pulls his sidearm. At least you're being honest now. You have your agenda and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind. Originally Posted by WombRaider

For about 100 yards Scott fought with the officer. So you think a taser can come out of the holster, turn on the officer, and shoot the officer 2x's by itself. Or do you think the officer shot himself 2x's with the taser and then threw it down on the ground 15-20 feet away in front of him where Scott was standing?

You have an agenda. Just like Al Sharpton and Eric Holder.... et al.

And part of it is that you think citizens ought to be able to shoot the police.

It won't be long the same shit will happen again probably sooner rather than later. Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Do you mean ... a guy will run from the police, get in a 100 yard fight with the police to resist arrest, shoot the police officer 2xs, and then run again?

And it will continue to happen as long as the media AUTOMATICALLY blames the police officer and selectively reports the facts to support the blame.....and then FAILS TO ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG when they are proven wrong.

See: Rolling Stone! Al Sharpton, Erick Holder, Barrack Obaminable, et al.

....the truth is we don't know enough yet.....I'm racist?. Originally Posted by WombRaider

As for the first statement ... go back and look at this thread.

On the second point ... when you automatically side with one or the other because of race, you are a racist. It doesn't matter which side you are on. It doesn't matter to me the skin color or the uniform.

What does matter to me is the rush to judgment based on preliminary media reports, which have historically been inaccurate and incomplete. For the sake of an agenda or ratings or both there is flawed and distorted reporting.

"Rolling Stone"??? Unfortunately, as more facts (truth) emerge and the it does not "fit" the original conclusions of the "pundits' who have already convicted the people involved they either attack the messenger or start picking apart the contradictory evidence UNLIKE they did the FIRST REPORTS. On here the name-calling replaces common sense.

My track record on here on Martin, Brown, and Garner is good.

How about you race baiters? How's your record holding up?

In the scuffle it could have gone off and struck the officer. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Really?



The other retention on the holster involves a positive release built into the holster that must be depressed to extract the weapon and held while the weapon is being extracted.

I guess things could be worse for the officer. Scott could have gotten his pistol loose and shot him 2x's with the pistol .... thrown it down ... and continued on his way.

We wouldn't have a thread .... would we?

I can't believe all the defense of a cop shooting an unarmed, non-violent man in the back. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

a better question is WHY DID the cop shoot him? did the cop know he was a felon? It seems that there was no reason to shoot him, why did the cop shoot him? Originally Posted by bigcockpussylicker

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.

I'm not "justifying" the shooting for this reason: Options: The officer has the vehicle and the driver's license of the guy. What ever his warrant was based upon he then would have at least two or more charges for warrants (the traffic offense for which he was stopped, no insurance, possibly possession of stolen vehicle, fleeing, resisting arrest, and/or assault on a peace officer). Apparently the guy was local or from the general area (I am not clear on that). The officer submits his paper work, files his complaints, follows up on the warrants being issued, and confirms the warrants get in the system, along with his the existing warrant. The vehicle is impounded with a "evidence hold" on it, not to be released without the officer's approval, a supervisor, and/or court order (most evidence must be released with a court order signed by a judge to protect the agency).

Hopefully the kid who took the damning video would also provide the video in which the officer disengaged the confrontation and did not shoot the suspect to document the officer was assaulted and the suspect resisted and fled again.

A problem with all this "second guessing" is "we" are sitting in here DAYS LATER .. what ... A WEEK ... ALMOST 11,000 minutes or about 600,000 seconds later ... analyzing and discussing what the officer did and did not do, should and should not have done, in the comfort of the location in front of our computers after viewing at least 2 different videos .... and passing judgment on an event in which "we" were not present, and with which most (if not all) have had no experience in dealing, for which another HUMAN BEING had 1-2 seconds to make a decision. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I understand it's was a "throw down" taser. This was another case of a cop "enforcing the law" by turning a person into Swiss cheese.

Judge Dredd. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

url]http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/12/game-changer-or-paradigm-shift-walter-scott-shooting-enhanced-video-shows-officer-slager-with-taser-darts/#more-99326[/url] Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

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 dog

In 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...

Witness his above post. He doesn't even know what happened but he's already making absolute statements as if it did. Originally Posted by WombRaider

As for the first statement ... go back and look at this thread.

On the second point ... when you automatically side with one or the other because of race, you are a racist. It doesn't matter which side you are on. It doesn't matter to me the skin color or the uniform.

What does matter to me is the rush to judgment based on preliminary media reports, which have historically been inaccurate and incomplete. For the sake of an agenda or ratings or both there is flawed and distorted reporting.

"Rolling Stone"??? Unfortunately, as more facts (truth) emerge and the it does not "fit" the original conclusions of the "pundits' who have already convicted the people involved they either attack the messenger or start picking apart the contradictory evidence UNLIKE they did the FIRST REPORTS. On here the name-calling replaces common sense.

My track record on here on Martin, Brown, and Garner is good.

How about you race baiters? How's your record holding up? Originally Posted by LexusLover

There was a post in here that totally ignored the officer chased and fought with Scott trying to arrest him...asserting ... the officer was "lazy" for not chasing after him and just shot him in the back.

Like Martin, Brown, and Garner, I'll await the final result from ALL the evidence.

Don't turn your back on lexie, he will back shoot you.

Thank you ignore list. Originally Posted by gnadfly

That sounds like good advice.

Think I'll await the grand jury and/or the petit jury decisions.

For about 100 yards Scott fought with the officer. So you think a taser can come out of the holster, turn on the officer, and shoot the officer 2x's by itself. Or do you think the officer shot himself 2x's with the taser and then threw it down on the ground 15-20 feet away in front of him where Scott was standing?

You have an agenda. Just like Al Sharpton and Eric Holder.... et al.

And part of it is that you think citizens ought to be able to shoot the police. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yeah my agenda is that in American you shouldn't get shot in the back over a traffic stop for a tail light, you shouldn't be assumed to be a hardened criminal just because you have been pulled over and you shouldn't be executed because you run from the Police. The use of deadly force ends when the threat to the officer ends. Even if the man had been shooting at the officer, stops and throws the weapon down, the officer's right to use deadly force ends when the weapon hits the ground, period. You state your not trying to justify the officers actions but that Is exactly what your doing. In this case the cop was wrong, period. By the way I supported the Police in Ferguson and NY.

Yeah my agenda is that in American you shouldn't get shot in the back over a traffic stop for a tail light,

..... The use of deadly force ends when the threat to the officer ends. Even if the man had been shooting at the officer, stops and throws the weapon down, the officer's right to use deadly force ends when the weapon hits the ground, period.

You state your not trying to justify the officers actions but that Is exactly what your doing.

In this case the cop was wrong, period. By the way I supported the Police in Ferguson and NY. Originally Posted by dirty dog

No one got shot because of a busted tail light.

I suppose the undercurrent of those who ignore Scott's behavior in this process is ... fuck the police ... and it's ok to kick their asses, shoot them, or do whatever you can to get away from them with impunity....and the "excuse" for his felonious behavior is .... "it wasn't that bad"! But you (all) want the police to behave like gentlemen and ladies!!!!! with their kid gloves on.

The legal right to use deadly force does not end when the suspect throws down his weapon....(you are not familiar with the legal definition of "deadly force" apparently and when an officer can use "deadly force") ... so that is just your social opinion .. not a valid legal one.

I'm not "justifying" what the officer did, and I said so. The question I raised is whether or not it is "murder" .... or any criminal homicide offense .. because of the additional information that is being reported ... I am always willing to allow ALL THE FACTS to be developed and not just those that support someone's theory or agenda as to what happened.

The cop may have been "wrong" ...but that doesn't mean he committed a crime, particularly murder. I would apply the same level of inquiry to a citizen or an officer and to any one irrespective of the ethnicity or race.

These threads end up the same place lately. After the officer or villian is exonerated, then the chant of the system doesn't work cranks up again ... until the next one ... that looks like it might "hold water"! Same bullshit.

Like I said:

"My track record on here on Martin, Brown, and Garner is good."

And I got the same accusations from being "Pro-LE" to "racism" to ...

.. you name it. The name-calling is endless and childish. Do I really care? No!

This board doesn't define me, and I don't make a dime off it. Just mental exercise and some typing practice....more like a morning stretch.