Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 10:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 9:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 9:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/14/2015 7:02:00 AM (view original):
Part of the comprehension problem BL seems to have is that he thinks the law applies the discharge of a firearm the same way for a civilian walking down the street and a police officer during a crime.    It doesn't. 

Also, in a court of law, what happened doesn't matter nearly as much as what you can prove.    In this case, you're trying to prove intent of a police officer while attempting to apprehend a criminal after a struggle. 

1) Murder laws apply the same to everyone.

2) Intent is evident in actions. The struggle was over and Scott was running away.

1) Nope. Police get much more leniency because of the risk their job entails, as they should. Go look at the statistics of cops charged with murder where the charge actually sticks.... I want to say its 12% of the cases. Its much higher for civilians charged with murder.

2) If you believe intent is evident 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in actions then how do you describe the middle east? Did Obama 'intentially' allow ISIS to thrive out there by withdrawing troops and drawing fake red lines in the sand? Because his actions suggest he did based on your statement.... Or maybe Obama made mistakes when he withdrew the troops and now we are seeing the results of those bad decisions (I.e. reckless endangerment). Point being there is gray area.... And gray area creates reasonable doubt... All it takes to get acquitted is reasonable doubt.

1) a legally justifiable shooting isn't murder.

2) there isn't mich grey area in the Scott shooting. It's on video.

We haven't even touched on 'when' a cop can shoot someone...

1) when they feel they are in danger
2) when they feel a fleeing suspect is a threat to others.


A case can be made that a guy arrested 10 times (including assault and carrying a bludgeoning weapon) who tried to attack an officer and take his taser is a threat to others.

There are so many angles that leave 'reasonable doubt' that can be played out in court. Scott will be vilified and has a horrible arrest history, and was on video fleeing. The cop will have his national guard time and 5 years on the force serving the community flaunted for good will.

You seem to think the video will be the ONLY piece of evidence. It will not be.

Both of those criteria have to be objectively reasonable. I don't think either one applies in this case.

That's funny - I don't think you're being objectively reasonable.

All Mike and I are saying is the cop was reckless and probably should do time for manslaughter - and that there is a risk he walks with a murder charge. You are hellbent on sentencing the guy to 30 years or even death because you saw a PORTION of a video.

What more would you need to see? The suspect was running away. Deadly force isn't justifiable.

IMO - if you attack a cop (and grabbing for his weapon is just that) that's doing his job you are a serious threat to others.

I'll expand on this....

Let's say there is a prison break and murderers and other felons will get back out on the streets - do the police have the right to shoot the fleeing felons because they are a threat to others? The legal answer is yes. They can shoot the fleeing felons while they are running away.


This case can be paralleled to that concept. I said it can be. Again - gray area.

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 10:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/14/2015 9:54:00 AM (view original):
Think about it.   You're pulled over for a broken tail light.   The cop returns to his car.   You flee.    He catches you and you fight him for his taser.   WTF is he supposed to think?    You're getting a $50 ticket and you run.   You leave a car that's registered to you behind.   They know who you are and where you live but you still run.   Over a $50 ticket?    Hell, you could be a wanted cop killer as far as the cop knows.

He may or may not have run Scotts ID through the system... Add in the fact it would have shown the guy running has been arrested 10 times (including assault and carrying a bludgeoning weapon). More time will flush out what Slager knew at the time.

Slager will be better off, IMO, if he didn't have time to run Scott's record.     Assault and weapon charges are good but he was running away.   Possible murder charges, even if only in Slager's head, would be a much better reason to fire at a fleeing suspect.

"I pulled him for a broken tail light.  He fled.   When I caught him, he fought me for my taser.   After it failed to discharge, he broke free and ran again.  I couldn't understand why he would run and assault a police officer over a minor traffic offense.   I thought he might pose a danger to the community if he wasn't apprehended."

NO

Convincing argument.   Will you be on the prosecutor's team?

NO

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 10:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 10:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 9:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/14/2015 9:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/14/2015 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/14/2015 7:02:00 AM (view original):
Part of the comprehension problem BL seems to have is that he thinks the law applies the discharge of a firearm the same way for a civilian walking down the street and a police officer during a crime.    It doesn't. 

Also, in a court of law, what happened doesn't matter nearly as much as what you can prove.    In this case, you're trying to prove intent of a police officer while attempting to apprehend a criminal after a struggle. 

1) Murder laws apply the same to everyone.

2) Intent is evident in actions. The struggle was over and Scott was running away.

1) Nope. Police get much more leniency because of the risk their job entails, as they should. Go look at the statistics of cops charged with murder where the charge actually sticks.... I want to say its 12% of the cases. Its much higher for civilians charged with murder.

2) If you believe intent is evident 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in actions then how do you describe the middle east? Did Obama 'intentially' allow ISIS to thrive out there by withdrawing troops and drawing fake red lines in the sand? Because his actions suggest he did based on your statement.... Or maybe Obama made mistakes when he withdrew the troops and now we are seeing the results of those bad decisions (I.e. reckless endangerment). Point being there is gray area.... And gray area creates reasonable doubt... All it takes to get acquitted is reasonable doubt.

1) a legally justifiable shooting isn't murder.

2) there isn't mich grey area in the Scott shooting. It's on video.

We haven't even touched on 'when' a cop can shoot someone...

1) when they feel they are in danger
2) when they feel a fleeing suspect is a threat to others.


A case can be made that a guy arrested 10 times (including assault and carrying a bludgeoning weapon) who tried to attack an officer and take his taser is a threat to others.

There are so many angles that leave 'reasonable doubt' that can be played out in court. Scott will be vilified and has a horrible arrest history, and was on video fleeing. The cop will have his national guard time and 5 years on the force serving the community flaunted for good will.

You seem to think the video will be the ONLY piece of evidence. It will not be.

Both of those criteria have to be objectively reasonable. I don't think either one applies in this case.

That's funny - I don't think you're being objectively reasonable.

All Mike and I are saying is the cop was reckless and probably should do time for manslaughter - and that there is a risk he walks with a murder charge. You are hellbent on sentencing the guy to 30 years or even death because you saw a PORTION of a video.

What more would you need to see? The suspect was running away. Deadly force isn't justifiable.

IMO - if you attack a cop (and grabbing for his weapon is just that) that's doing his job you are a serious threat to others.

I'll expand on this....

Let's say there is a prison break and murderers and other felons will get back out on the streets - do the police have the right to shoot the fleeing felons because they are a threat to others? The legal answer is yes. They can shoot the fleeing felons while they are running away.


This case can be paralleled to that concept. I said it can be. Again - gray area.

Escaped prisoners are different from a fleeing suspect. From the NYTimes article:

"Whatever happened, this suspect was running away,” said Stephen A. Saltzburg, a professor at the George Washington University Law School in Washington and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division of the Justice Department. “That is, the suspect was trying to avoid the officer. It is highly doubtful that the officer could legitimately claim that he thought that the suspect posed a danger to the life or the serious health of anybody else in the community.”

"A narrow set of circumstances must be in play for an officer to be justified in shooting a fleeing suspect, including that the suspected crime was a serious felony, legal experts said."

I find it hard to believe that a man who would flee from a routine traffic stop, fight an officer, attempt to taze an officer and then run off towrads whatever neighborhood, isn't a threat and doesn't pose a danger to that community.

I also like how BL keeps going "DId you see the video? He was 10-15 feet away".

Which takes all of about two running steps. Surely by then the officer should have been over whatever adrenaline and/or uncertainty. I mean how long does it take to come back down off that adrenaline rush? Probably only a second or two I'm sure.

Posted by mchales_army on 4/14/2015 10:51:00 AM (view original):
I find it hard to believe that a man who would flee from a routine traffic stop, fight an officer, attempt to taze an officer and then run off towrads whatever neighborhood, isn't a threat and doesn't pose a danger to that community.

Probable cause doesn't work that way. There has to be a specific reason to believe Scott posed a threat. Resisting arrest and running away aren't enough.

"Did you see the video?" will be the prosecution's argument.   "Well, yeah, but did you see the video?"

Truthfully, the first time I saw it, I was "Holy ****.  That officer is guilty as ****."   But, if you step back, read the law and take into account any other number of circumstances, it's not that cut and dry.    As I said, what happened isn't nearly as important as what you can prove in the court.    And proving that Slager intended to kill, or do great bodily harm, to Scott in the line of duty is going to be tough. 

Posted by mchales_army on 4/14/2015 10:55:00 AM (view original):
I also like how BL keeps going "DId you see the video? He was 10-15 feet away".

Which takes all of about two running steps. Surely by then the officer should have been over whatever adrenaline and/or uncertainty. I mean how long does it take to come back down off that adrenaline rush? Probably only a second or two I'm sure.

Even ************* Sean Hannity called this murder. You guys are nuts.

Also, I might be wrong about the 10-15 feet part:

Has anyone pointed out that the police officer lied repeatedly about the altercation? Or that the video shows the police officer tossing something (taser?) into the area of the the dying man?

Lying and tampering with evidence does not indicate murder.

No one is saying the officer is without fault.    He's a horrible cop.  He might be a horrible person.   He should get significant jail time.   But I don't think he's going to get convicted of murder for shooting a man in the line of duty.   His intentions are going to be hard to prove.