Patterico's Pontifications

4/8/2015

South Carolina: Cop Charged With Murdering Man Who Allegedly Struggled with Him Over Taser

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:55 am



Where have we heard this before? White cop shoots “unarmed” black man. Video proves it was “murder”!!!11! Cop is charged with murder. But a closer examination of the facts leads a sober observer to reserve judgment. Percentage of sober observers in the public: unclear, but loooooow.

The shooting happened in North Charleston, South Carolina. Here is the video. It’s graphic, so you have been warned. It looks bad at first glance, but you’re not the type to make up your mind about something after watching a few seconds of video without hearing all the facts, are you?

Compare the slipshod and conclusionary “video proves cop is lying!!!!11!” analysis of the Los Angeles Times to the a (slightly) more careful, frame-by-frame account provided by the local paper. Here is the L.A. Times version:

In the video, Scott, wearing a green T-shirt, appears to drop something near the officer’s feet and sprints in the opposite direction. The officer fires seven times, pauses, and then fires an eighth round as Scott slumps to the ground.

. . . .

The video differs drastically from an account Slager gave Monday. In a statement released through attorney David Aylor, Slager claimed Scott began to wrestle for control of his stun gun after a routine traffic stop.

Police reports filed after the shooting suggest Slager was chasing Scott on foot.

How does the video “differ[] drastically” from Slager’s account? He said he chased Scott on foot; we don’t know that he didn’t, before the video starts. He said Scott tried to wrestle for control of his stun gun; we don’t know that he didn’t, before the video starts.

Here is the local paper’s account:

The three-minute clip of Saturday’s shooting starts shaky, but it steadies as Slager and Scott appear to be grabbing at each other’s hands.

Slager has said through his attorney that Scott had wrested his Taser from him during a struggle.

The video appears to show Scott slapping at the officer’s hands as several objects fall to the ground. It’s not clear what the objects are.

Scott starts running away. Wires from Slager’s Taser stretch from Scott’s clothing to the officer’s hands.

With Scott more than 10 feet from Slager [this part is false — see below — P], the officer draws his pistol and fires seven times in rapid succession. After a brief pause, the officer fires one last time. Scott’s back bows, and he falls face first to the ground near a tree.

A little background on the encounter: the decedent had a previous charge for assault and battery from 1987 and was wanted on a warrant.

About that claim that the suspect was “more than 10 feet from [Officer] Slager” when he drew his pistol? That’s just false.

Here are a couple of screenshots showing the officer starting to reach for his pistol and then having it completely out. Scott is not more than 10 feet from the officer. Most people are just shy of six feet tall. In the first screenshot I would say Scott is perhaps 3-4 feet from the officer as the officer is reaching for his gun. In the second screenshot he is perhaps 5-6 feet away, and the officer already has the gun out and pointed.

Screen Shot 2015-04-08 at 7.25.59 AM

Screen Shot 2015-04-08 at 7.26.21 AM

Later in the video, Scott is much farther away and seemingly running away — but stay patient.

So, let’s sum up what we know. Scott has a (admittedly minimal but not nonexistent) history of violence has a warrant out for him. An officer says that Scott runs from him, and at the end of the chase struggles with him for control of a Taser. A video shows Scott slapping at the officer’s hands, and at least one object falling to the ground. Right around this time the sound of a Taser is heard on the video, corroborating the officer’s account that a Taser was used. Also corroborating the officer’s account is the fact that wires are seen between the suspect and the officer. While the suspect is still less than five feet away from the officer, the officer draws his gun. As the man is running away the officer fires several shots in rapid succession.

Does that sound like “murder”?

Now, the part of the video most people are focusing on, where the man seems to be running away as the officer shoots, does look somewhat bad. If you analyze it while sipping your morning coffee, not taking into account the struggle that clearly just happened, the adrenaline coursing through the officer’s body as a man fights him and tries to wrest his weapon away, and the short amount of time involved, it could look callous. To that end, I would like to remind you of the dangers of reaching a conclusion based on a few seconds of video from one angle.

I noted this again recently, but: back in 2006 I blogged an incident of a fatal police shooting of an unarmed man. Take a look at this video. Note that it looks like a clear execution of an unarmed man:

Add to that the fact that the man was indeed unarmed, and you have an open-and-shut case of murder by police. Right? Throw the book at them, dust off your hands, and pat yourself on the back for being willing to hold dirty and racist police officers accountable for a murder.

Except . . . here is the same shooting from another angle:

That’s a cell phone he’s brandishing in that second video. But it sure looks like he is brandishing a gun and ready to shoot the police.

Video can be misleading. Back to the North Charleston case: there is zero video of anything leading up to the shooting. There seems to have been a struggle over a Taser, and the officer lost control of it. Did he think the suspect still had it when he drew his gun?

Screen Shot 2015-04-08 at 7.49.18 AM

You have newspapers rushing to judgment here. One says the suspect “dropped” an object while another says he slapped on object out of the officer’s hands. One says the officer drew his gun while the suspect was more than 10 feet away, while your eyes tell you something different. There is plenty in the video to corroborate aspects of the officer’s account, yet newspapers tell you the video differs drastically from the officer’s account, but don’t tell you how.

Me, I will wait for all the evidence to come out before making up my mind. I may be the only one in the country to do so, but I still will.

314 Responses to “South Carolina: Cop Charged With Murdering Man Who Allegedly Struggled with Him Over Taser”

  1. I think it’s the latter part of the video, where the officer picks up the taser and drops it near the body that is damning (around 1:40 in the NYTimes video).

    The video certainly doesn’t show the whole story, but that works both ways. Like, why are they in the field and why is the shooting victim out of his car in the first place? Did he flee the vehicle? Why would the officer move the taser or care about the taser when tasers are only two shots (at most)?

    Xmas (bfaacb)

  2. I am curious as to what the officer’s defence will be. I’m not even sure if a taser, especially one that was used already, would count as sufficient justification for the use of deadly force, and I also don’t see the victim brandish an item. This looks very, very bad.

    This might get pled down to manslaughter, but I am not seeing an how this would be justifiable.

    OmegaPaladin (d9cb70)

  3. Does that sound like “murder”?

    Answer 1: Yes.

    Answer 2: Reverse the roles and make it the cop getting shot in the back 7 times with an 8th shot for the coup de grace.

    nk (dbc370)

  4. I would say the suspect clearly had an involvement in his own demise by struggling with the officer…but right now, I’d say the officer should be in jail for shooting him in the back while he was fleeing.

    Does not look good. But the point from the other video about perspective showing more is a valid one.

    Dejectedhead (83e1bc)

  5. “Does that sound like “murder”?”

    – Patterico

    Yes.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  6. Or voluntary manslaughter, if he’s lucky.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  7. You are right to wait for evidence and reserve judgment – I credit you for that patience. But you describe a situation where one person fires seven shots at the back of a fleeing person, and kills him. If the shooter was MS-13 instead of a cop, would that sound like murder to you?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  8. 1) Victim’s warrant was for *child-support*

    2) Victim’s only violent history was from when I was THREE YEARS OLD.

    3) The officer plants the taser near the man’s corpse. HE FABRICATED EVIDENCE AND STAGED A STRUGGLE.

    Here, the facts are absolutely damning.

    JWB (6cba10)

  9. In the first screenshot I would say Scott is perhaps 3-4 feet from the officer as the officer is reaching for his gun. In the second screenshot he is perhaps 5-6 feet away, and the officer already has the gun out and pointed.

    How, on Earth, is this in the police officer’s favor?

    nk (dbc370)

  10. Good point, nk. The officer *immediately* went to lethal force to stop a fleeing suspect. His reflex was to kill, even though the victim de-escalated by fleeing.

    JWB (6cba10)

  11. I’m betting that the one who came to reasonably fear for his life during the “confrontation” and started running away was the victim. But dead men tell no tales.

    nk (dbc370)

  12. we should just run this past one of them jury thingers

    just to err on the side of caution

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  13. To answer your question yes they both look like out of control cops murdering a person for no reason. The fact that both victims were criminals or possible criminals or quasi criminals doesn’t change a thing.

    Thinking a wrench in his hand might be a gun doesn’t give me a right to repeatedly shoot my neighbor who is running/walking away from me.

    Cops are supposed to help a situation, calm things down, lower tempers and coll people off and tHEN arrest whoever deserves it. To just start mowing people down is WRONG.

    Frankly amazed Patterico that you don’t get this.

    Mark Johnson (cf4f16)

  14. Oh great, an arrest warrant for failure to pay child-support. Another reason to be angry about this shooting.

    Xmas (bfaacb)

  15. This looks very bad for the officer, at this point.

    Since the foundation of deadly force use is a fear of death or great bodily injury at the hands of the shootee, that may have existed while control of the taser may have been in doubt, when Mr. Scott broke off contact and fled that fear also fled. Lethal force justification vaporized.

    The taser is significant because if Scott got control and its cartridges had not all been expended, it could have been used to incapacitate the officer leaving him unable to defend himself and/or retain control of his firearm. Again, once Scott broke free and fled, that possibility was gone.

    If what the video shows as a potential altering of the scene by moving something next to the fallen subject turns out to be real, it shows that the officer came to the decision that what he just did was not justified and he had to “clean up” the scene. This is evidence that he did not believe he was in danger when the lead began to fly.

    The nature of the warrant is insignificant, as is the reason for the initial contact (broken tail light). Many possibilities exist, including a just plain “don’t want to go to jail today” attitude or maybe he thought there was something in his car or on his person that might cause him problems if the police found it. We may learn something along that line, either confirming or eliminating it as a possibility, later on.

    Gramps, the original (9e1415)

  16. I sometimes comment here to express disagreement with either the main post or the commenters, but this time I’m pleased to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the other commenters. Too many of these police-shooting videos demonstrate for me that the police are all-too-quick to use deadly force when it’s not clear that the situation calls for it.
    I understand that police have a job that places them in difficult circumstances, and I don’t think that they should ignore their own safety. But the numerous videos make it appear that the police have an “us or them” viewpoint, when perhaps they should use their training to de-escalate, rather than immediately escalate.

    Jonny Scrum-half (f001f1)

  17. I’m with most of the commenters here. If someone with a CCW licencee had done what the officer did in this video, they’d be in jail charged with murder too.

    Walking 30 feet away to pick up the taser and then drop it next to the suspect also has every hallmark of a guilty mind.

    Hoystory (97b8e6)

  18. MURDER_US

    S_UTH

    CAR_LINA

    C_P

    pat i would like to buy a vowel please

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  19. Obviously, what happened was….

    The black guy laid some explosives at the feet of the police officer, then ran away so that he would not be in the blast radius.

    Thinking quickly, the police officer tried to shoot the black guy so that he could not set off the detonation device.

    Kman (fa8ba1)

  20. First take: bad shoot.

    Having thought about it for a while, the first shot was fired about 12′ away (two bodylengths) by my eye, at which point the guy is clearly running away. Which still looks bad.

    Giving the officer the most benefit-of-the-doubt I can muster, he probably decided to shoot when the guy was maybe six feet away, facing away and starting to run. Which still looks bad.

    You might be able to convince me with other evidence that this was a deadly force situation, but… it looks bad.

    matt d (7b78f2)

  21. I really hate typos:

    To answer your question yes they both look like out of control cops murdering a person for no reason. The fact that both victims were criminals or possible criminals or quasi criminals doesn’t change a thing.

    Thinking a wrench in his hand might be a gun doesn’t give me a right to repeatedly shoot my neighbor who is running/walking away from me.

    Cops are supposed to help a situation, calm things down, lower tempers and cool people off and THEN arrest whoever deserves it. To just start mowing people down is WRONG.

    Frankly amazed Patterico that you don’t get this.

    Mark Johnson (77a382)

  22. It’s amazing how advances in technology have changed police work. It used to be that cops carried an untraceable Saturday Night Special in an ankle holster to use as a “drop gun” by the bodies of the people they shot. Now they can count on just about everybody having a cell phone.

    nk (dbc370)

  23. Um, looking at this will drinking my coffee, that other set of videos doesn’t look so good, not either one of them. Sure, there is something in the guy’s hand, but it clearly is not being held as a gun would be, it’s just something in his hand. I found both videos shocking.

    In this case, the guy is moving away and is clearly out of reach at the point the officer fires. The officer knew the man did not have a gun, and even if the Taser was in his hands, the probes are in the other guy from what you say, so it is hardly a threat. Sure, if the guy was a mass killer or someone that could not be allowed to escape into the community, the officer would have cause to shoot even then, but that isn’t what we have here, is it?

    I don’t know what Charleston shooting policy is, but it isn’t unreasonable to investigate this as manslaughter.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  24. Since way back to the Rodney King video (when the defense was able to show that what was on the video could show the opposite) I do not try to make judgements about situations from videos taken by people who happen to be there. So i’ll try to stick to what is known without interpretation.

    This strikes me very much like the case in Cleveland, only worse. A police officer shooting someone in the back more than twice? from more than 6 feet away? for fleeing child support? Either bad training or bad officer.

    As for bringing in that the victim had an assault and battery from 1987 in his record – for shame Mr Patterico, for shame.

    is it murder? don’t know, don’t know all the angles to what is needed for that charge in a case like this. Unjustified homicide? Yes.

    seeRpea (bf1eb5)

  25. Oh great, an arrest warrant for failure to pay child-support.

    Warning: digression:

    Owing child-support can get you in situations very like debtor’s prison. No driver’s license, no passport, permanent wage garnishment (almost always leading to getting fired). And some of the men had no contact at any time with the lady — she just gave a name to the welfare folks, and the guy the bureaucrats picked out of the phone book didn’t hire a lawyer and contest within 60 days.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  26. Does not look good. At least, for once, the rozzers do not appear to be covering it up to save one of their own.

    Gazzer (eae5fa)

  27. re #16: I’m amazed by this thinking.
    Conservatives are not in lock step with excessive force of police apparatus. Just the opposite I would say. Ruby Ridge, Waco, PRISM – Conservatives were in the vanguard , if not alone, of the criticism. When false prosecutions come to light many Conservatives will say that the prosecutors should get the punishment they imposed. The case in Louisiana with the false charges – did not see anything much in the MSM and nothing in liberal blogs about it.

    Maybe I’m taking the wrong angle on this post, and the remarks were not directed against Conservatives but followers of a blog of a DA?

    seeRpea (bf1eb5)

  28. Johnny Half-Scrum agrees with people who agree with him. That’s all he meant to say, SeeRpea.

    nk (dbc370)

  29. The moving of the Taser speaks to guilt and the officer’s mindset as nothing else could.

    What surprises me, though, is the seemingly unreasonable escalation of the situation by both parties. What else was going on? Why was the suspect so anxious to get away? It’s not like he just robbed a bank. Also, the “broken taillight” traffic stop is a hoary chestnut, making me think that this was targeted in for some other reason. In which case, premeditation is not impossible.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  30. Scott ran from a routine traffic stop (broken break light) for the same reason so many others run – because he had an arrest warrant for failure to pay child support – and a long history of Contempt of Court arrests for refusing to pay CS. So Scott ran and Officer Slager pursued the fleeing suspect on foot (Scott’s passenger remained with the car). Officer Slager caught up with Scott on a dirt road in a small park (no cars are in view) and attempted to place him in custody. Scott continued to resist arrest causing Officer Slager to resort to his Taser. Scott continued to resist and struggled with Slager for control of the Taser. Scott was able to break free and run again. It was only then Slager pulled his service pistol and shot at Scott as he fled (8 shots, 5 hits – 1 in the ear and 4 in the back).

    The accusation that Officer Slager tampered with evidence is overreach, Slager knew he was being recorded before he cuffed Scott (it’s in the local paper account). Only after Scott was in custody did Slager go to retrieve the Taser, as the other officer arrived and began examining Scott’s injuries. Slager returned then dropped the Taser on the ground near Scott. Slager’s actions could only be seen as tampering if he misrepresented the location of the struggle over the Taser as occurring at the place Scott fell. The charge may prove to be malicious.

    However, Officer Slager should answer to the charge of excessive use of deadly force against a fleeing subject. The charge of murder is rash, unsupportable, and politically motivated.

    ropelight (c30b7f)

  31. fer chrissakes, don’t struggle with a law enforcement officer! A very simple concept that a portion of the civilian population has a difficult time grasping.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  32. “Let’s not turn this rape into a murder” eh, Haiku?

    nk (dbc370)

  33. And again, we have evidence for police bodycams, dashboard cams (was it really a justified stop?) and secure storage of the recording.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  34. (8 shots, 5 hits – 1 in the ear and 4 in the back)

    From around ten feet distance. He’s not only a backshooting coward, he’s a bad shot too. BTW, is the one in the ear the eighth one?

    nk (dbc370)

  35. It would really help the cop if toxicology comes back with PCP or some such.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  36. From around ten feet distance. He’s not only a backshooting coward, he’s a bad shot too.

    Looked more like 30 feet from the video by the time he finished shooting. I was surprised the guy didn’t fall sooner, though.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  37. Cop shot a guy who was running away. In the back. Multiple times.

    Then handcuffed him and let him die without calling for medical assistance. And planted evidence. And lied in his police report, multiple times.

    Criminal homicide, and obviously so. Maybe he gets lucky and pleads down to manslaughter, but probably not. He’s a murderer.

    Geek, Esq. (f2a108)

  38. And lied in his police report, multiple times.

    Got a link for that?

    ropelight (c30b7f)

  39. seeRpea@27 – I wasn’t trying to make any sweeping statements. Usually I comment only to disagree, and I thought that I’d express my agreement with the commenters for once. I only partially agree with you about conservatives and excessive force – in my observation, the instances in which conservatives have made such arguments usually have been politically motivated, and they have ignored many situations more like this one. I’m just glad to see some internal consistency.

    Jonny Scrum-half (f001f1)

  40. The cop said he fired after Scott turned a Taser on him; video shows otherwise. The cop didn’t perform any first aid, despite saying that he’d performed CPR — letting Scott bleed out so he can’t tell his side of the story. Finally, he plants a Taser near the body. What happened prior to all this is irrelevant, since what happened on video is so clearly murder. (source; planted Taser)

    Wisco (d3e8aa)

  41. I have no opinion yet. I’m waiting on Al Sharpton’s dispassionate analysis…

    Beasts of England (ef9c55)

  42. And do we know if the victim was just about to start college? Future astronaut? Gentle giant?

    Beasts of England (ef9c55)

  43. Once the guy flees without being armed, where is the imminent danger to the cop? So he has a minor struggle with the cop over a taser and then runs. This guy is not wanted for murder, he’s wanted for child support. They have his car, they know who he is, they know where he lives, it is just a matter of time before they pick him up.

    Recently in my neighborhood in Chicago a guy grabbed a cops gun and tried to shoot the cop and he lived!!! God knows how but they didn’t kill him and he didn’t run away, a bunch of guys including civilians, brought him down. He will now spend the next 15 to 20 years in prison. So yes, this looks like murder to me.

    Ipso Fatso (10964d)

  44. Other than he shot some dude over either a tail light out on the car or missing a payment to his former spouse, (don’t care about the particular reason – just to note there was no capital offense. We’re talking about a citation at best), 8 shots. He missed times. Not under duress. Not being hurried or harassed.

    I haven’t seen shooting that crappy since the last Tarantino movie. At least in Django the crappy shooting was integral to the movie (had to keep the hero alive til the credits rolled)

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  45. Here’s an excerpt from the linked local paper (Post and Courier) reports Scott’s continuing attempts to evade arrest: (emphasis added)

    The video appears to show Scott slapping at the officer’s hands as several objects fall to the ground. It’s not clear what the objects are.

    Scott starts running away. Wires from Slager’s Taser stretch from Scott’s clothing to the officer’s hands.

    With Scott more than 10 feet from Slager, (already addressed by Patterico) the officer draws his pistol and fires seven times in rapid succession. After a brief pause, the officer fires one last time. Scott’s back bows, and he falls face first to the ground near a tree.

    After the gunfire, Slager glances at the person taking the video, then talks into his radio.

    The cameraman curses, (identified only as a passerby running parallel to Scott and Slager on the other side of a low chain link fence around the park who made his recording available to members of Scott’s family) and Slager yells at Scott as sirens wail.

    “Put your hands behind your back,” the officer shouts before he handcuffs Scott as another lawman runs to Scott’s side.

    Scott died there.

    So, after the 8th shot and before cuffing Scott, Officer Slager “talks on his radio.” We don’t yet know exactly what was said, but is announcing the suspect is down and calling for medical assistance completely out of the question?

    It’s too soon to say for sure until we get the actual police recording, but dismissing the possibility and accusing Officer Slager of murder – withholding medical treatment and ‘letting Scott bleed out” is not only grossly premature, if not an outright injustice.

    ropelight (c30b7f)

  46. This guy is not wanted for murder, he’s wanted for child support. They have his car, they know who he is, they know where he lives, it is just a matter of time before they pick him up.

    Yeah, but when they go to pick them up they find out that since he now knows he is wanted he has taken the precaution of arming himself, and a cop ends up shot. Wouldn’t we all then be sitting at our computers typing, “Geeze, why didn’t they just arrest him the first time around?”

    JVW (a1146f)

  47. ropelight–

    What is the cop’s perception of danger? An unarmed man who has been shot with a Taser. Even if he thinks Scott still has the Taser control, what’s he going to do with it? Shock himself? If he knew the Taser had fallen, all he had to do was pick it up and push a button and end of incident.

    Yes, police are sometimes put in life-or-death situations where they can make a reasonable mistake. That other set of videos *might* be such. This is not.

    Not even close.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  48. This speaks more to a cop with anger management issues.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  49. Kevin M, please see the last 2 sentences in my comment at #30. I don’t dispute that Officer Slager’s use of deadly force on a fleeing suspect was uncalled for. He should answer for it in court, but the justification for a murder charge is premature, wouldn’t you agree?

    ropelight (c30b7f)

  50. “Let’s not turn this rape into a murder” eh, Haiku?

    nk (dbc370) — 4/8/2015 @ 10:48 am

    I’m not implying this officer’s actions were justified, nk, but struggling with/running from officers never turns out well.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  51. Yeah, Al, we could pay for it with tax payer mon…oh, wait…

    Gazzer (eae5fa)

  52. re #46: I think you are correct in the main about going after the guy, but the cops actions after the guy is fleeing shows severe lack of something on the cop’s part. Is anyone claiming that the victim was presenting a danger? If there was something serious that the victim was afraid of, I would think the police department would have made that known.

    seeRpea (bf1eb5)

  53. the police, they do not value human life the same way you and me do

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  54. re #54: bullshït happyfeet, they care more than most.

    seeRpea (bf1eb5)

  55. To me, a warrant for failure to pay child support is a very serious thing: it means that the non-supportive parent is robbing me, when I have to pay taxes to support his bastard unfortunate child.

    But that still doesn’t mean that a police officer can just shoot him in the back. I really don’t care what happened before: you don’t get to claim that deadly force was necessary to use against someone fleeing from you.

    The penny-pinching Dana (f6a568)

  56. seeRpea wrote:

    re #54: bullshït happyfeet, they care more than most.

    ‘d say it’s more complicated than that: the police care about the lives of people who are not criminals. When they encounter people they believe are criminals, they get very wary.

    The psychologist Dana (f6a568)

  57. It is atrocious how people like Johnny halfsack, sallykohn,and Kmart overtly politicize these issues
    before all the facts are available.

    JD (86a5eb)

  58. it’s just a different culture

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  59. yet when cops are shot in Brooklyn or Boston, it’s stew of squirrel!!

    narciso (ee1f88)

  60. JD they mostly lack credibility because they lump this case, which looks real bad for the cop and justice looks like it will be served, with the other gentle giant, loosie selling cases which, while regrettable, were actually justified.
    Just perpetual outrage, which is Al $harpton’s stock in trade, of course.

    Gazzer (eae5fa)

  61. He JD @58 and Gazzer @61 – Please show me where I “politicized” these issues. My first comment was essentially the same as many of the other commenters here.

    Regarding the other cases, which Gazzer deems “justified”:

    Michael Brown – No video, but I never thought that the story was clear-cut, and the Justice Department from what I understand supported the cop’s story. I never made statements against Darren Wilson because I just didn’t know, and the facts weren’t in.

    Eric Garner – This “loosie selling” guy did not deserve to be choked, although I didn’t think that the cop intended to hurt him in any manner. No way was this justified.

    But I’m more interested in the 13-year-old kid in Cleveland who officers killed seconds after pulling up next to him while he sat in a park by himself, or the 20-something guy killed while he wandered Wal-Mart with a paintgun (or something) that he had picked-up from a shelf. For some reason, those weren’t as publicized as the Ferguson shooting, even though both were far more clear-cut unjustified.

    Jonny Scrum-half (f001f1)

  62. Not even gonna bother with this one. Too nice a day here in AZ.

    Gazzer (eae5fa)

  63. not taking into account the struggle that clearly just happened, the adrenaline coursing through the officer’s body as a man fights him and tries to wrest his weapon away, and the short amount of time involved, it could look callous

    LOL. Of course, if you’re an Oklahoma pharmacist who just had a gun pointed at you (unlike the cop in the above video), you need to be thinking completely rationally and if you shoot the person who pointed a gun at you and kill that person within one minute of having had that gun pointed at you, you should be charged and convicted with FIRST DEGREE MURDER. Well, at least according to Patterico (http://patterico.com/2009/05/30/pharmacist-shoots-armed-robber-is-charged-with-murder/).

    Patterico. One rule for the cops, and another rule for the rest of us plebes.

    CaveUrsine (e68869)

  64. It is murder, plain and simple. I might be able to follow Patterico’s explanation up to the 8th shot, where he clearly took a moment to aim at an unarmed fleeing man, but at that point he was clearly over the line. He needs to do at least 25 years

    CallousD (76a4f7)

  65. It wasn’t only Patterico, Cave Urine. A trial court, a jury(?), and a court of appeals also said Ersland was guilty of first degree murder. http://newsok.com/former-pharmacist-jerome-ersland-loses-appeal/article/3854619

    nk (dbc370)

  66. Of course, “full ” consideration must be given if the suspect is white, and especially if it’s a cop. If they’re black…not so much. This is the same way the kkk approaches hangings….”let’s withhold judgment…” BULLCRAP. This is murder, pure and simple. And you are clearly viewing this from a racist perspective. What. A. Surprise.

    Missile (1c0757)

  67. And Miss Ile, Social Justice Wanker honoris causa, has also put in her two cents worth of rant.

    nk (dbc370)

  68. he justification for a murder charge is premature, wouldn’t you agree?

    No. A jury might find manslaughter instead of murder. But “negligent homicide” would be a bit too light, wouldn’t you agree?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  69. Wow, rare to see so many comments in this safe space for Patty Rico that so strongly disagree with his biased and warped view. Gonna see a lot of deleted posts methinks, or at minimum another feeble effort to twist his comments into a pretzel logic of rationalization.

    Missile (1c0757)

  70. bullshït happyfeet, they care more than most.

    I think coplife is more important than non-coplife. Although perplife is lower still.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  71. Wow, rare to see so many comments in this safe space for Patty Rico that so strongly disagree with his biased and warped view. Gonna see a lot of deleted posts methinks, or at minimum another feeble effort to twist his comments into a pretzel logic of rationalization.

    And to this day I still haven’t encountered anyone who used the term “methinks” without sounding like a complete dipshit.

    JVW (a1146f)

  72. JVW making sure everyone knows that they are ignorant and biased.

    Missile (1c0757)

  73. This post is nothing more than a pathetic and revealing effort to find a way to exonerate the racist cop murderer. Lawyering at its worst.

    Missile (1c0757)

  74. Guilty as charged — no doubt I am biased against dipshits, Missile.

    JVW (a1146f)

  75. Patterico’s post raises several questions that may or may not be resolved in the officer’s favor. He also cautions us not to rush to judgment before we get more information. What is wrong with that? It’s one thing to play judge and jury — it’s what the internet is famous for — but Patterico doesn’t have to join in. I hope the real investigation doesn’t prejudge this incident either.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  76. Of course you are, JVW, among many many other things as well I’m sure. Methinks you be desperate to change said subject to one that you might actually have a chance to win…

    Missile (1c0757)

  77. And I say that as someone who thinks the officer may be at fault, but we need people like Patterico who are willing to keep an open mind. I should be like Patterico because we need people who are willing to withhold judgment until the facts are in. Otherwise every incident becomes about taking sides instead of about a search for truth.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  78. What’s wrong with the approach is its selective application, which reveals more than patty intends.

    Missile (1c0757)

  79. 74.

    Missile (1c0757)

  80. So, one of the things with regard to what would justify the shooting.

    At the beginning of the video, you hear a taser firing.

    Then the video goes to the suspect and cop. The suspect slaps something (a taser I think) from the cops hands.

    The suspect flees and the taser wires are attached to the cop’s upper torso.

    Why are the taser wires attached to the cop if the gun is on the ground? Did the cop get shot by the taser?

    Perhaps the suspect tried to shoot the cop with a taser.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  81. 81.

    74.

    Missile (1c0757)

  82. 81.

    I guessed you missed the part where coward racist “officer” shot suspect in back as he was fleeing.

    Missile (1c0757)

  83. You don’t want to even ask such questions Missile?

    You should see my initial reaction at #4.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  84. Let’s be honest here….the “officer” wanted to shoot someone, and he did, thinking he could get away with it…which he would have were it not for the heroic person who risked personal harm to record it.

    Missile (1c0757)

  85. This post is nothing more than a pathetic and revealing effort to find a way to exonerate the racist cop murderer.

    Yeah, screw due process and all those outdated ideas that get in the way of a bunch of preening narcissists in the Black Lives Matter crowd whose only real goal is to make sure that everyone sees how virtuous they are. Let’s just go straight to sentencing in cases where National Moral Outrage has been stirred up.

    The police department fired the cop earlier today, before he had his day in court. Contrast that swift resolution with how difficult it can be to dismiss LAUSD teachers who are caught molesting students, or stealing money, or showing up drunk to work. Do you suppose the big difference there is that public school teachers’ unions are a key cog in the Democrat party machine and police unions are not?

    JVW (a1146f)

  86. 84.

    The “officer” did not make that claim.

    Missile (1c0757)

  87. 7 seconds…you hear a taser.
    14-15 seconds you hear the cop saying “Let go of my taser or I’m going to shoot you.”

    By the way, I never said these things get the cop off. I’m just saying they are evidence as to why the shooting happened.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  88. 86

    Feel better now that you’ve had a chance to make your racist rant? I hope so…better than shooting someone I suppose.

    Missile (1c0757)

  89. “methinks”… HA!ha! that’s racist.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  90. Feel better now that you’ve had a chance to make your racist rant?

    Q: What’s the definition of a “racist”?
    A: Someone who’s winning an argument with a leftist.

    Don’t you think we’ve seen your type here year in and year out, Missile?

    JVW (a1146f)

  91. 86

    Was the victim granted due process? You’re bias is disgusting.

    Missile (1c0757)

  92. 87. I thought that’s exactly what the officer claimed.

    That the suspect fought with him over his taser and attempted to use it on the officer.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  93. I92

    Pathetic, predictable, meaningless.

    Missile (1c0757)

  94. You are suggesting it was used.

    Missile (1c0757)

  95. It was used. 7 seconds into the video you can hear the taser.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  96. Missile just can’t wait to slither back to Kos or DU or Gawker or wherever the unstable left hangs out today and tell them how it really took it to those righty troglodytes at Patterico’s Pontifications!

    JVW (a1146f)

  97. If I were you, Miss Ile, I’d get a bunch of my friends to loot a convenience store and then send the money to Al Sharpton.

    nk (dbc370)

  98. Was the victim granted due process?

    I wasn’t aware of the theory in the law where two wrongs make a right.

    Sorry, Missile, but you aren’t coming here with trolling skills any better than the rest of your cohort. Where do we apply to Soros to get a higher class of paid troll over at these parts?

    JVW (a1146f)

  99. Missile, I don’t understand you communication by numbers only. If you want to start a conversation, I’ll have it. The officer claimed it was attempted per ThinkProgress, no friend of the officer.

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04/07/3644189/everything-police-said-walter-scotts-death-video-showed-really-happened/

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  100. 13
    64
    2
    Omaha! Omaha!

    Set! Hut! Hut!

    JVW (a1146f)

  101. 95
    95

    nk (dbc370)

  102. 103

    I’m referring to earlier comments that adrenal the issue….

    You are saying it was used . As I said, that claim was not made by “offficer”. Attempt. Stop wasting my time.

    Missile (1c0757)

  103. Address, not “adrenal”.

    Missile (1c0757)

  104. As someone who has had not one, but four, police guns pointed at my head at one time, I think I know a little something about surviving under such circumstances. The victim in this case was wrong to fight with the cop and then run. But there are times that the police are wrong as well and this looks to be one of them.

    In the Ferguson case, from the get go, I believed the cop and in the end I think that most of us here probably agree. When you try to disarm a cop and hit him as Mike Brown did (& remember this was a 6’3″ 290# guy)and then charge him when he orders you to stop, you are going to get shot. Also the cops version of events was backed up by a number of witnesses who were credible (& black!!!). We can go on and on. Patterico is right about one aspect of this, all of the facts are not in and we really should wait to see how they play out. That was very true of Ferguson, not that it mattered to the Al Sharpton’s of the world or the media. Time will tell.

    Ipso Fatso (10964d)

  105. #107. Clearly you’re wasting your own time if you view this as a waste of time Missile.

    The wire is attached to the officer when the taser is behind him why exactly? I just want to know why that’s the case.

    Clearly the officer didn’t receive the affects of the taser. Perhaps only one of the two barbs hit him. That would be an attempt.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  106. 109

    Blame the victim…95.

    Missile (1c0757)

  107. 111
    95
    Hey, this is fun!

    nk (dbc370)

  108. Hey Missile, you need to learn to read.

    Ipso Fatso (10964d)

  109. Patterico is right about one aspect of this, all of the facts are not in and we really should wait to see how they play out.

    Yeah, despite what the trolls want to believe it seems to me that most everyone here agrees that this situation is certainly really, really bad — probably even criminal — policing. I’m amazed that the department fired him so quickly before the matter had been played out in the courts. If only the public school systems, IRS, Homeland Security, Health & Human Services, Veteran’s Administration, etc. acted with such alacrity!

    But for Heaven’s sake, before we sentence this guy to his term in the state pen let’s follow the Constitution and allow him his day in court with an attorney as an advocate. And the Black Lives Matter people ought to be commending the police and DA for acting quickly and decisively in this matter, but I think that crowd generally prefers to caterwaul and whine and draw attention to themselves so I don’t really expect much of them. Hope I am wrong.

    JVW (a1146f)

  110. #114. I bet they fired and arrested the officer so quickly BECAUSE of the racial implications that had already played out in places like Ferguson.

    It’s interesting, initially viewing the film and the reaction to it. But then taking the time to actually view it in detail does work counter to the knee-jerk reaction. Certainly may still be criminal policing, but it isn’t so clear cut.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  111. 867
    5309-eee-yine

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  112. JVW–you just used two of my favorite under-appreciated words–alacrity and caterwaul–in the same post! Very well done.

    elissa (761479)

  113. 853-5937
    She’ll give you a ring when she gets home

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  114. Give the troll a break. It just learned to count – although not very well.

    felipe (56556d)

  115. Don’t be rash, felipe… as a Christian, I get concerned.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  116. JVW–you just used two of my favorite under-appreciated words–alacrity and caterwaul–in the same post! Very well done.

    Thanks! I’m working my way up to “methinks”! (No, not really.)

    JVW (a1146f)

  117. Alas, poor missile. His is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  118. 123
    3.1416

    nk (dbc370)

  119. more is teh pity
    had I but followed the arts
    I’d be richer still

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  120. You know, I joked earlier about Missile being one of the professional trolls on Soros’s payroll, and we have discussed this matter on other threads in the past, but isn’t it weird how he suddenly disappears just before 5:00 pm Pacific Time?

    Of course, it could be that he’s not a paid troll, just another useless government bureaucrat with nothing to do but spend his clock-punching time surfing internet porn and arguing on conservative websites. Probably works in Barbara Boxer’s San Francisco office.

    JVW (a1146f)

  121. When your mom calls down the basement stairs that supper is ready, you gotta move fast if you wanna get one of those porkchop sandwiches, methinks.

    Pious Agnostic (4e1a81)

  122. 119, 123, 136:

    95

    You folks barely qualify as sentient.

    Missile (1c0757)

  123. Miss Lie is clairvoyant. We haven’t even got to 136 yet!

    Gazzer (eae5fa)

  124. 126:

    95…x2.

    You wouldn’t even pass the Turing test with your robotic comments.

    Missile (1c0757)

  125. i used to like this thread now i hate it

    it’s hard to read for one thing

    happyfeet (831175)

  126. 129

    95

    Missile (1c0757)

  127. 128
    2.718281828

    nk (dbc370)

  128. 133

    95

    Missile (1c0757)

  129. If the shooter was MS-13 instead of a cop, would that sound like murder to you?

    Do you not see how that puts a finger on the scales?

    Does an MS-13 member have a duty to take a citizen into custody if they have a warrant?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  130. 134
    98.6

    nk (dbc370)

  131. Hey look, minions…patty Rico finally pops his head up in his racist thread! Does this signify the start of whack-a-mole?

    Missile (1c0757)

  132. Agreed. “Methinks” is such a pretentious and annoying way to say “I think”. Do you suppose that was included on Missile’s troll sheet? I thought that the “safe space” reference was adorable, too.

    elissa (f749fa)

  133. He be trolling… Self-anointed nitwit that he is.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  134. 138

    Honey, let the boys argue ok? I would hate to offend your delicate sensibilities.

    And 95.

    Missile (1c0757)

  135. 139

    95

    Missile (1c0757)

  136. 140

    Just following rand Paul’s example, in case anyone is too dumb to notice.

    Missile (1c0757)

  137. Racist thread. Wow Missile, we’re not even allowed to discuss a guy getting shot by the cops?

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  138. 143

    Never said that. Just offering another viewpoint.

    Missile (1c0757)

  139. 143

    A black guy.

    Missile (1c0757)

  140. Sorry, I made a racist statement in 143. I should have said “we’re not even allowed to discuss a BLACK guy getting shot by the WHITE cops?

    That’s how you make it not racist…you add in the race. Right Missile?

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  141. Man, you walked right into that one.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  142. #144. You said it in #137.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  143. 146

    You clearly do not understand what the word “racist” means.

    Missile (1c0757)

  144. 148

    I never said you couldn’t discuss the issue. Stop wasting my time.

    Missile (1c0757)

  145. #149. I understand completely what it means. It often means #92.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  146. 151

    Based on the evidence presented, you do not.

    Missile (1c0757)

  147. So Missile’s parents are checking out his room while he’s at school, and they find a bunch of S&M and Bondage magazines and videos under his bed. His mom gasps, “Oh dear, what are we going to do?” And his dad says, “We should definitely not spank him”.

    nk (dbc370)

  148. So what is your idea of a discussion? One where everyone agrees and doesn’t actually discuss anything? You don’t seem to like people asking questions pertaining to the video because you feel it is an attempt to justify the shooting….thus you label the thread racist.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  149. #152. What evidence is that? Me mocking you accurately for insisting we talk about things with race included at all times?

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  150. Um, looking at this will drinking my coffee, that other set of videos doesn’t look so good, not either one of them. Sure, there is something in the guy’s hand, but it clearly is not being held as a gun would be, it’s just something in his hand. I found both videos shocking.

    “it clearly is not being held as a gun would be” — are we watching the same video?

    Screen Shot 2015-04-08 at 6.23.28 PM

    Most people I know are shocked when they see the two videos I presented in succession, because what looks like an execution in the first video looks pretty damned reasonable from the second angle.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  151. 156

    Irrelevant.

    Missile (522ec0)

  152. 153

    95

    Missile (522ec0)

  153. At least in California, manslaughter includes a killing where (when all relevant elements are met) the perpetrator has an honest but unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense. I believe this is a pretty typical rule followed in many other jurisdictions. (If the belief is reasonable, it is self-defense and no crime.)

    Saying something is a “bad shooting” (which this looks like it well could be) is not the same as saying it is “murder.” It could be an unreasonable shooting where the cop honestly thought he was defending himself.

    I think it’s a hard road to hoe to prove “murder” beyond a reasonable doubt when you have a police officer with a duty to enforce the law (not an MS-13 gang member who has no such duty) trying to take a man with a warrant into custody, and that man runs, resists arrest, struggles with the officer, is Tased, then possibly slaps something (perhaps the Taser) out of the cop’s hand. The distance between the men and the fact that, from a few seconds of video from one angle, it looks bad, may not negate beyond a reasonable doubt the possibility that the officer (however unreasonably) still honestly feared for his life during the seconds between the suspect’s resistance (not captured on video) and the shooting.

    If he “planted” a Taser (which we don’t know for sure), that could tend to undercut his argument in the honesty of his belief. But he could also be seen to have thought the Taser was in the perp’s hand — then realized it wasn’t and criminally moved to cover up that fact. There are many possibilities. I am keeping my mind open to them.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  154. 154

    79

    Missile (522ec0)

  155. Use your words.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  156. 161

    95

    Missile (522ec0)

  157. ropelight and DRJ have some of the best comments in this thread, I think.

    Some guy on Twitter is saying I am suggesting the shooting is justified. I’m not. I’m saying, let’s wait until the facts are in before we make a definitive judgment, and let’s not call any possibly bad shooting “murder” until we understand what the elements of that crime are, and believe we know enough to judge whether it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  158. 159

    74

    Missile (522ec0)

  159. 163

    79

    Missile (522ec0)

  160. So Missile, what is the selective application that you disagree with? Suggesting that it may be manslaughter instead of murder?

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  161. 166

    67

    Missile (522ec0)

  162. So you’re actively claiming that full consideration should not be given?

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  163. I know, he is playing sudoku!

    kishnevi (adea75)

  164. Who is doing what, kishnevi? I see nothing there.

    nk (dbc370)

  165. How about we 86 Miss Lie?

    Gazzer (eae5fa)

  166. You wouldn’t even pass the Turing test with your robotic comments.

    Says the troll whose current comments are just banal references to his previous expectorations.

    Best thing about leftist trolls is that they so completely lack self-awareness.

    Normally Missile would be a candidate for moderation, seeing as how he has stopped making arguments and is just now citing his earlier unformed thoughts, but since he is so thoroughly beclowning himself I vote that we let him stick around.

    JVW (a1146f)

  167. But you know what might be sneaky? I could go in and delete some of my earlier comments, thus completely throwing off all of Missile’s numerical references. But again, he’s beclowning himself so thoroughly that it isn’t worth the effort.

    JVW (a1146f)

  168. I know, he is playing sudoku!

    kishnevi (adea75) — 4/8/2015 @ 7:15 pm

    I’d rather he play seppuku.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  169. 172, 173

    95

    Missile (522ec0)

  170. 168

    No

    Missile (522ec0)

  171. What are you claiming then?

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  172. 171

    95

    Lol

    Missile (522ec0)

  173. Trolls do not give a hoot about the substance of the discussion. Their purpose is to derail it.

    nk (dbc370)

  174. 178

    74

    Stop wasting my time

    Missile (522ec0)

  175. 180

    95

    Missile (522ec0)

  176. I’ll repost your previous comment.

    “Of course, “full ” consideration must be given if the suspect is white, and especially if it’s a cop. If they’re black…not so much. This is the same way the kkk approaches hangings….”let’s withhold judgment…” BULLCRAP. This is murder, pure and simple. And you are clearly viewing this from a racist perspective. What. A. Surprise.”

    What does this mean if you’re not saying the cop shouldn’t be given full consideration?

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  177. So Missile’s dad has finished telling him about the birds and the bees. Missile asks, “Dad, do you remember your first b___job?” His dad says, “I sure do, son”. Missile asks, “What did it taste like?”

    nk (dbc370)

  178. I can’t find my decoder ring! Seriously, this is the dreariest troll we have had in a while. Not even trying.

    Gazzer (eae5fa)

  179. #184. The S&M joke was better =)

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  180. 184, 185

    95

    Missile (522ec0)

  181. 183

    79, 85, 93

    Missile (522ec0)

  182. Why does it keep over stating its IQ by a factor of two?

    Gazzer (eae5fa)

  183. OK, I am officially bored. Bye to annoying guy.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  184. Sadly, it succeeded in derailing the thread.

    Gazzer (eae5fa)

  185. I can easily go back and remove every comment with a number if you think it will help.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  186. Make it so!

    ropelight (c30b7f)

  187. I can easily go back and remove every comment with a number if you think it will help.

    Nah, let people see just how stupid and wasteful his presence here was.

    JVW (a1146f)

  188. 79. What’s wrong with the approach is its selective application, which reveals more than patty intends.

    85. Let’s be honest here….the “officer” wanted to shoot someone, and he did, thinking he could get away with it…which he would have were it not for the heroic person who risked personal harm to record it.

    93. Was the victim granted due process? You’re bias is disgusting.

    So the answer to the question of what selective application in 79 was 74 previously.

    74. This post is nothing more than a pathetic and revealing effort to find a way to exonerate the racist cop murderer. Lawyering at its worst.

    Let me see if I can piece this message together.

    You feel that it is an effort to find a way to exonerate a racist cop that wanted to shoot someone; violating the due process rights of the victim (by executing him) if you raise points that might show that the cop was not simply out to kill someone from the get go?

    And that we should all just call it murder and look at it no further?

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  189. OK, JVW, I’ll leave the old comments, and I’ll even be a sport and unmoderate any future comment he makes that contains an argument in English as opposed to numbers.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  190. OK, JVW, I’ll leave the old comments, and I’ll even be a sport and unmoderate any future comment he makes that contains an argument in English as opposed to numbers.

    Hey, let’s not go overboard here. . .

    JVW (a1146f)

  191. But I think if he wanders into any other threads just to fling his poo, he should be shown the door.

    JVW (a1146f)

  192. Well he already stumbled into the Paddington the Bear thread, but he left quickly.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  193. Me, I will wait for all the evidence to come out before making up my mind.

    I recall one of your posts from several months ago that showed a video of a black guy in St Louis waving a knife and loitering out in front of what I believe was a liquor store. Two cops pulled up and told the guy to drop the knife. He refused and said something to the effect of “okay, go ahead and shoot me.” His arms were down to his sides spread apart, sort of in a “why me?” pose (or I recall he at least wasn’t in an aggressive, confrontational pose). The cops waited for a few minutes and then sent bullets into the guy. The person videotaping the incident said something like “holy crap, they’ve shot the dude!” This happened not too far away from Ferguson.

    What’s ironic is that so many of the cases involving police killing people who activists (virtually all of the left) want to turn into martyrs often aren’t a fraction as ambiguous as the incident described above or the latest one in South Carolina.

    Between the “no-justice-no-peace” crowds’ common failure to identify people and situations that really deserve some benefit of the doubt, if not sympathy, and, in turn, the reality of so many people being victims of crime involving black perpetrators, this society reaps what it sows.

    What a mess.

    Mark (7f9bc6)

  194. I find it odd that the last thing most of these activists want is dialogue. They claim they want it and claim they want a conversation, but then refuse to have that conversation.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  195. Well he already stumbled into the Paddington the Bear thread, but he left quickly.

    I don’t think that was after I moderated him.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  196. Shockingly, he has left no fewer than 7 comments so far, all with numbers (and an insult mixed in). None of these comments has seen the light of day. Moderation was the right move, clearly.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  197. Dialogue is an intellectual experience, leftists deal in accusation, guilt trips, and emotional immaturity. Although actual dialogue is a losing proposition for them, the appearance of seeking it not only shields them from having to engage in it, it also gives them something to complain about.

    ropelight (c30b7f)

  198. Well, at least Missile’s comments brought me a laugh in 143 through 146.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  199. And, he all but suffocated an important discussion patting himself on the back.

    ropelight (c30b7f)

  200. 156: Among other things, whatever he was holding was never pointed in the direction of the cops, but almost directly away from them. It was “held like a gun” in that it was “held in his hand where you could see it” but that’s about as close as it seems to me.

    Further, since we all have cell phones and we all seem to be using them half our waking lives (in crosswalks, elevators, restaurants, movies(!)) cops had better stop mistaking them for guns PDQ.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  201. 156: Among other things, whatever he was holding was never pointed in the direction of the cops, but almost directly away from them. It was “held like a gun” in that it was “held in his hand where you could see it” but that’s about as close as it seems to me.

    Is that so?

    Screen Shot 2015-04-08 at 9.22.15 PM

    Patterico (9c670f)

  202. That video was suicide by cop, plain and simple — and yet in the first video, it looks like a straight execution.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  203. 159: Patterico, I happen to agree with this almost entirely. For me to find murder here I would have to know a lot more about what happened before and how the situation got here. I see it as manslaughter with maybe a 2nd degree murder possibility. I am assuming that the cop and Scott had no prior contact.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  204. OK, he swung his hand around with the phone in it, in a “get away from me” gesture. That is NOT when the cops started shooting — he had both hands in front of him and had taken several steps. Again, since it was not a gun and only looks like it was a pointed gun in one frame taken from a different angle than either cop, I’d say your freeze is just an artifact of perspective and frame rate than anything the cops saw. A very weak reed.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  205. Further, since we all have cell phones and we all seem to be using them half our waking lives (in crosswalks, elevators, restaurants, movies(!)) cops had better stop mistaking them for guns PDQ.

    It’s not like the guy was walking down the street and happened to be holding a cell phone and the cops shot him. He evaded them, got out of the car, held the cell phone like a gun, as if taking a shooting stance — possibly pointing in the direction of a cop who is off screen but later enters the screen. Then he shoves an officer pointing a gun at him with his left hand while still holding the phone in his right hand, and then after walking away for a second or two, turns around and points the cell phone at a cop as we see in the screenshot two comments up.

    All that happens. It’s not correct to deny that he ever pointed the phone at anyone as if it were a gun. And it’s unreasonable to act as though it’s incumbent on these officers to tell the difference between a cell phone and a gun under these circumstances. I suggest you watch the video (both of them) again. It ought to give people pause about making judgments based on videos lasting only a few seconds, not showing all of a situation, from only one angle.

    That’s not to say the South Carolina cop was justified. He may well not have been.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  206. Patterico, are you actually claiming that citizens who have a phone in their hand when confronted by cops should expect to get shot if they gesture with it?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  207. In any event, I do not see the slam-dunk justification in that video that you see.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  208. OK, he swung his hand around with the phone in it, in a “get away from me” gesture. That is NOT when the cops started shooting — he had both hands in front of him and had taken several steps. Again, since it was not a gun and only looks like it was a pointed gun in one frame taken from a different angle than either cop, I’d say your freeze is just an artifact of perspective and frame rate than anything the cops saw. A very weak reed.

    It’s a metal object, he’s holding it in a firing stance in one part of the video and pointing it directly at an officer in another part of the video. They can’t be expected to tell what it is, and I guarantee you they were screaming for him to “drop the gun” and were not going to take a chance that he would point it again.

    The level of second-guessing going on here is surprising. This is a life and death situation for these cops.

    Nobody ever seems to observe that in all these situations where people get shot, there is a common element: people are resisting. Yes, cops need to behave better, but so do suspects.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  209. Patterico, are you actually claiming that citizens who have a phone in their hand when confronted by cops should expect to get shot if they gesture with it?

    No, I am actually claiming what I actually claimed. Don’t turn me into Missile and make me refer you to a comment I already wrote. I expect you to read what I wrote and not unfairly strip the contextual elements from it.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  210. In any event, I do not see the slam-dunk justification in that video that you see.

    It would look nicer if they shot him a couple of seconds earlier. There is this thing called reaction time. It makes real-life events look different than they would look if portrayed by actors.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  211. Nobody ever seems to observe that in all these situations where people get shot, there is a common element: people are resisting. Yes, cops need to behave better, but so do suspects.

    Yeah, well, the suspects are usually off their tree when they do this. The cops hopefully not. I am willing to accept that, at night, a truly stupid/blotto suspect who waves a glinty object around while repeatedly ignoring the cops might get shot. I don’t know what their training is in the “I think he might have pointed a gun at me” situation. But cell phones are so common that assuming every glinty object is a gun is going to get old soon.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  212. I will also point out that being a street cop is one of those professions that never appealed to me.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  213. All eight shots while the guy is getting farther and farther away? That’s a lot of fear.

    The other thing is, Scott was a pot-bellied, 50-year old man. Slager is 33 and looks normally fit if not especially big. When Slager started pulling his gun, he could have more easily and quickly taken two strides, overtaken Scott and brought him down. He knew — it’s impossible for him not to have known — that Scott had nothing in his hands. I don’t think there was manslaughter type fear. I think there was cowardice. Slager was afraid to mix it up with Scott physically but could not bear to let him “get away with it” either. So he used his substitute for guts.

    nk (dbc370)

  214. Does an MS-13 member have a duty to take a citizen into custody if they have a warrant?

    -Patterico

    Is a police officer’s duty not constrained by the same criminal laws that govern the conduct of the gang member? I’ve already acknowledged that voluntary manslaughter may turn out to be more appropriate than murder, here (for “heat of passion” reasons), but that’s not saying much.

    So no, in short – I don’t see how I’m putting a finger on the scale. You know how he could have fulfilled his duty to arrest? Running after the 50 year old guy who was 10 feet away from him.

    Leviticus (88457c)

  215. Cross-posted with nk, with similar thoughts, on a criminal law thread. Usually a good sign.

    Leviticus (88457c)

  216. The level of second-guessing going on here is surprising. This is a life and death situation for these cops.

    – Patterico

    The level of second-guessing going on HERE, with this video, is not at all surprising. It’s a horrifying video.

    Leviticus (88457c)

  217. Is a police officer’s duty not constrained by the same criminal laws that govern the conduct of the gang member?

    It sure is. But that in your original example you insinuated that the factual scenario — not the laws, but the factual scenario — would be the same if it was a gang member wielding the pistol. (“If the shooter was MS-13 instead of a cop, would that sound like murder to you?”)

    And I am saying that’s just ludicrous. If an MS-13 member ran up to Scott and told him to get his hands in the air and submit to being handcuffed, Scott would be under no legal obligation to comply, because the MS-13 member would be acting criminally. The events that followed would all be viewed through the lens of that lack of duty. But if the officer runs up to Scott and does the same, and has lawful authority to do so because Scott has a warrant out, Scott is under a legal obligation to comply. Now, failure to comply does not justify a shooting — but that’s not my argument. Then you move to the next step in this scenario: a struggle over a Taser. You would view a struggle between Scott and a cop using a Taser to force compliance with his lawful order in a different light than you would view a struggle between Scott and an MS-13 member using a Taser to force compliance with an unlawful order. Then the actions of a cop in responding to that unlawful struggle are viewed in a different light than the actions of the MS-13 member would be in responding to Scott’s lawful struggle. And so on.

    The same laws apply to both when it comes to murder. But to pretend the scenarios are the same is just ludicrous. They are totally different.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  218. The level of second-guessing going on HERE, with this video, is not at all surprising. It’s a horrifying video.

    Well, I think people totally discount reaction time, the fact that they have no clue what happened just before the video started, etc. If this bystander had managed to get his camera on these guys five seconds earlier I guarantee you that the reaction would be more muted even though the underlying facts and analysis would be the same.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  219. My best guess is that the cop probably realized he screwed up; that the object he retrieved probably was the Taser; that he probably moved it to create a phony justification; and that he will probably get convicted of manslaughter at a minimum — in large part because of a) the distance, b) the fact that the victim’s back was turned, and c) the likely evidence tampering. But that’s all a guess. I also think the shooting looks bad but it probably seems less bad to me than it does to the average person because I understand reaction time, the fact that videos don’t capture everything, and so forth. People are always out to condemn cops before even hearing their stories.

    Again: I’m not saying the guy did nothing wrong, but I dislike the bad arguments, like comparing him to a gang member as if it’s the same situation, or ignoring the distinct possibility that had a belief that he was in danger, even if that belief may have been unreasonable. The fact that I see a little more nuance doesn’t translate to “the officer is innocent.”

    Murder, under the definition I am used to, seems like a stretch.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  220. “It sure is. But that in your original example you insinuated that the factual scenario — not the laws, but the factual scenario — would be the same if it was a gang member wielding the pistol. (“If the shooter was MS-13 instead of a cop, would that sound like murder to you?”)”

    – Patterico

    I wasn’t trying to insinuate that, and I don’t think I succeeded in doing so. I was trying to insinuate that large portions of the factual scenario are irrelevant. Describe the situation as comprehensively as you see fit, then replace all references to “the officer” with references to “the MS-13 guy” then ask me if it sounds like murder/manslaughter. The answer will be yes. Then switch it back to “the officer” and ask me again. The answer will be yes. Nobody gets to shoot an unarmed fleeing individual in the back, outside of (maybe) a Castle Doctrine scenario.

    Leviticus (465b8f)

  221. 223. …It’s a horrifying video.

    Leviticus (88457c) — 4/8/2015 @ 10:00 pm

    Really?

    It doesn’t make my top 1000 most horrifying videos. Although admittedly I have a strong stomach.

    Why should that horrify me?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=15&v=OZJMiuTrbyI

    Muslim Brotherhood supporters throw anti Morsi protesters off roof in Alexandria – Egypt

    This does. So do the vidoes I’ve seen of Muslims raping Christian women as part of a forced conversion to Islam. Care to see?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmpMKA7ny04

    Maybe I’m calloused but I don’t see the sort of malice aforethought in that video that I see in the gala production of ISIS burning a Jordanian pilot alive in a cage.

    It may be evidence of a crime, but I don’t find the video particularly horrifying. Why are you so selectively outraged, Leviticus?

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  222. Kevin M. “219.I will also point out that being a street cop is one of those professions that never appealed to me.” And might I add….Thank God. Based on your asinine assumptions and inadequate analysis you really are not fit to be a police officer. You’d get your partner killed if not yourself.

    K9Ranger (93714c)

  223. I wasn’t trying to insinuate that, and I don’t think I succeeded in doing so. I was trying to insinuate that large portions of the factual scenario are irrelevant. Describe the situation as comprehensively as you see fit, then replace all references to “the officer” with references to “the MS-13 guy” then ask me if it sounds like murder/manslaughter. The answer will be yes. Then switch it back to “the officer” and ask me again. The answer will be yes. Nobody gets to shoot an unarmed fleeing individual in the back, outside of (maybe) a Castle Doctrine scenario.

    That’s a different argument. You don’t need to bring a hypothetical gang member into the mix to argue that a cop has no right to shoot a fleeing unarmed man. Just assert it. Bringing a gang member into it puts a thumb on the scale the opposite way from the argument you are trying to make.

    You’re trying to say, I think: “Even if I concede to you x, and y, and z, he still can’t shoot the fleeing guy in the back.” Not a bad argument; in fact, one that may well win the day. But — making the cop similar to a gang member is the opposite of a concession. It is a demand that the facts be interpreted as more sympathetic to the victim than the facts could possibly warrant in any scenario bearing relationship to reality.

    By analogy, imagine a situation where a parent beat a child black and blue for mouthing off. You want to argue concerning the parent: “Even if his child called him an asshole; even if the child called him the f-word, why, even if the child made horrible faces and flipped the dad off, there could be no justification for a beating this bad!” Not a bad argument. But then if you said “if the beater was a stranger rather than a parent, would it sound like excessive force against the child to you?” The answer is: that’s not a concession, that’s twisting the hypo so that the perpetrator has absolutely no right to touch the victim to begin with — but we both know that is not true of parents (or cops!) so why are you offering this ridiculous counterfactual and pointless hypothetical?

    Maybe you have some obscure reason for this argument that I just can’t comprehend, but it seems like the opposite of the argument you’re really trying to make.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  224. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=yazidi+girl+stoined&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=92DF5D20F5383EFE7F8292DF5D20F5383EFE7F82

    Lest anyone think I’m picking on the Muslims, here’s a Yazidi girl getting stoned to death by her coreligionists for dating a Muslim.

    Gleefully videoed and the video placed on the intertubes.

    I really don’t see what’s so horrifying about that NC video. On the spectrum of “Man’s inhumanity to Man” it barely makes the cut. That shooting could even be justified. Dunno that it is, but it could be. As opposed to all these other enraging videos that simply can not be justified.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  225. “Even if I concede to you x, and y, and z, he still can’t shoot the fleeing guy in the back.”

    Shooting somebody in the back is often unavoidable. People tend to do all sorts of things when shot, including twisting and turning. And the guy doing the shooting can’t stop pulling the trigger in the split second when the threat is front-end forward to some other position.

    A lot of justifiable shootings involve someone putting bullets into someone’s back for this reason. It’s why reaction times are important to take into consideration.

    Also, I’ve watched that shooting video another time just to be sure and I’m still not horrified by it.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  226. I suppose I could have been within my rights to be belligerent when the cops came to my door during my SWATting. I could have made an angry gesture with the cell phone in my hand. Who knows, maybe I could have fought them and gotten them to overreact and shoot an “unarmed man.”

    Heck, if someone videotaped it, it could have made a great exhibit in a wrongful death suit.

    I was already in a situation where bad judgment on an officer’s part could have gotten me killed. There was no need to make their judgment calls harder.

    If more citizens followed this simple precept there would be far fewer of these shootings.

    Patterico (839e95)

  227. If you walk into a pool hall on the wrong side of town, approach a guy with more tattoos than teeth, and demand that he perform a sexual act in you, he has no legal right to hit you. You have, however, increased your chances of being assaulted. And in addition to calling for the thug’s prosecution after the inevitable assault, I might also tell you that in the future, repeating such actions is not wise.

    If you resist arrest, the cop may not have the right to shoot you. But you increase your chances. And it is not wise.

    I feel like someone should say that. So I just did.

    Patterico (839e95)

  228. To keep harping on the subject.

    http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/04/07/2007-dua-khalil-aswad-yazidi-honor-killing/

    …On or about this date one year ago, a 17-year-old Kurdish Yazidi (alternatively, Yezidi) girl was stoned to death by her own community for falling in love with a Muslim boy.

    Details on exactly how Du’a Khalil Aswad came to her end are slightly unclear: whether or not she converted to Islam, for instance, and whether she was lured to her death or simply taken by force.

    What is blood-chillingly plain is the end itself — a mob “honor killing,” carried out publicly by (at least in part) men of her family, and anachronistically filmed with cell phones and therefore soon to rocket around the Internet. The existence of this video is what makes this incident notable to the wider world…

    …We have issued this warning before in these pages, but what follows here is of a different character: this is a powerless child, communally beaten to death while she pleads for help, recorded from a couple meters’ distance by someone (one of many, one can see) who felt filming was the most pressing possible occupation of his time at this moment. It’s exceedingly violent, exceedingly personal and exceedingly recent. Even at that, this is only an excerpt of a half-hour ordeal…

    It does a disservice to your own cause, Leviticus, to overplay the “horrifying” nature of the video in question. It looks bad for the cop; that’s about it.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  229. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_James_Napier#Service_in_India

    A story for which Napier is often noted involved Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati by British authorities. This was the custom of burning a widow alive on the funeral pyre of her husband. As first recounted by his brother William, he replied:

    “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

    I realize that to a certain juvenile mindset that Western Civilization is a blight upon humanity. Hence the Freshman Dorm’s agreement with Iran to let the Persians have nukes.

    But the West did bring light into darkness. Which is why I don’t find that video horrifying. It’s evidence, and the cop will have his day in court to refute what, again, looks bad for him. That’s our justice system.

    What I find horrifying is when the mob is the justice system. The NC shooting video can’t even begin to compare to all the videos I could link to of that.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  230. or ignoring the distinct possibility that had a belief that he was in danger, even if that belief may have been unreasonable.

    It would be interesting knowing his philosophy or ideology and the way he’s spoken about people, places, politicians and policies in the past. If he’s been rabidly of the right through the years and sneered at leftist race hustlers and how they’ve inculcated criminality particularly in the black community, that would indicate a person more likely to have strained patience close to the breaking point, now more than ever before. (In a similar vein, teachers in inner-city public schools with a predominantly black student body are known to suffer from battle fatigue.)

    But contradictions may abound. For example, one of the major figureheads of the US presidency, Harry Truman, although a very literary-savvy, generally very learned American who singled out and excoriated conservatives on the campaign trail, favored publicly supported healthcare decades before Obamacare, and desegregated the US military, was the most crude, coarse racist/bigot imaginable behind closed doors. He was vindictive enough to do things like forbidding Jews from entering his home during his years in retirement in the 1960s. So the modus operandi of the cop in South Carolina shooting that fleeing guy could easily run the gamut from A to Z.

    Mark (7f9bc6)

  231. I ws not there then. Murder seems excessive; unjustfied homicide with tamperingwith crime scene. If that call was not for medical assistance, then I can see murder: acting with iitent to cause death.

    htom (4ca1fa)

  232. The video looks very very bad.

    At the time the first shot is fired the suspect is at a full run directly away from the policeman and at a distance probably exceeding 15 feet. By the time the last shot is fired the distance has doubled.

    I read about this case when it first broke, and the fact the suspect is an older man makes the video even worse. That fat suspect running at his best practically waddles rather than sprints. The policeman is taller and almost twenty years younger. So it’s not as if the suspect with a warrant for failure to pay child support is some kind of tremendous flight risk which had to be put down by gunfire.

    Body cams can’t come fast enough.

    Brad (0e7a12)

  233. double standards

    http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2013/jul/10/citylights2-guy-bullying-me-all-time/#

    I couldn’t help but compare the facts in this San Diego case, where Vilkin’s claim of self-defense ended in a conviction for 1st degree murder. Many of the facts are reversed compared to the SC police shooting. The dead man was younger, larger, and approaching Vilkin. What else is different? Most critically, Vilkin was not a policeman.

    I’m not saying that Vilkin was justified, though 1st degree murder considering the circumstances seems outrageous. But it does seem to me that a tremendous double standard is applied when it comes to civilian cases of self-defense vs cases where police shoot people.

    Brad (0e7a12)

  234. This is disappointing. IMO Patterico wrote a post that tries to legally analyze the charge of murder from the perspective of a neutral prosecutor. He didn’t say the officer was innocent or blameless, only that there are reasons that may call a charge of murder into question. He makes valid points and we are all better-informed for reading his analysis of these issues, instead of simply relying on an emotional response to a shocking video.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  235. Brad,

    I think there are different standards for police and civilians because they have different duties and rights. The police have a duty to detain and arrest people and are authorized/have the right to use force, including deadly force, in some cases. Civilians don’t have those duties, and their rights are generally limited to self-defense and defense of others.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  236. Rules to live by:

    When confronted by a cop understand you both have a mutual interest in personal security, remain calm and civil, indicate a clear willingness to cooperate by displaying obviously empty hands and keeping them in plain view. Don’t make any sudden moves. Be patient, follow instructions, provide standard identification when asked, give the authorities time to assess the situation, don’t demand explanations (your time will come), and answer questions with brief, direct, civil and truthful responses.

    Follow these commonsense rules and unless you’re engaged in criminal activity, holding dope, concealing an illegal weapon, or have outstanding arrest warrants, chances are good you’ll sleep in your own bed that very night.

    ropelight (833cd0)

  237. There’s a prima facie case of murder. Felony Review in the Cook County State’s Attorney’s would approve bringing that charge. (The only reason they would not would be the blue shield, not the facts.) Voluntary manslaughter would come up as a jury instruction at trial, if the defense requested it. As a lesser included, evidence from the defendant is not needed for the instruction but I would hope that it would be needed for verdict. (In Orange County, “he was a police officer” would be all that was needed, even for acquittal, but that’s a different story.)

    Steve57, malice aforethought can be that last dram of squeeze on the trigger. Murder is not limited to “lying in wait”. In any event, it’s no longer malice aforethought in most American jurisdictions. It’s causing the death of someone without lawful justification, and with intent to cause death or knowledge that your actions have a strong probability of causing death.

    nk (dbc370)

  238. And here is a simple four-panel graphic instruction on how to survive a police encounter. http://i.imgur.com/iUwFU8I.jpg Safe image. I think it applies to all people, not just blacks.

    Over at Instapundit, the Professor says “. . . America 2015: where everything you have, including your life, belongs to the state. Who won the Cold War, again?”

    nk (dbc370)

  239. yes yes murderous piggy do not pass go do not collect $200

    you need a timeout in one of them rooms where the door only opens from one side

    you need to sit and think about what you done and eat bologna sammiches

    i can’t even belieber what you done on that man

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  240. Ourhost stated:

    ” People are always out to condemn cops before even hearing their stories.”

    I don’t think this is accurate. Historically the average citizen almost always gave the benefit of the doubt to the police.

    Over the past ten years law enforcement has run off the rails and Mom and Pop Americans are starting to realize it.

    Hundreds of cases of the wrong house being raided, family pets being shot, innocent people being shot, and people who are non-innocent but also not deserving of summary execution, being shot, have shaken most people’s faith in the police.

    Mark Johnson (dfa592)

  241. “You’re trying to say, I think: “Even if I concede to you x, and y, and z, he still can’t shoot the fleeing guy in the back.” Not a bad argument; in fact, one that may well win the day. But — making the cop similar to a gang member is the opposite of a concession. It is a demand that the facts be interpreted as more sympathetic to the victim than the facts could possibly warrant in any scenario bearing relationship to reality.”

    – Patterico

    That is the argument I am trying to make, with x,y, and z being all of the duties of a police officer to apprehend or serve/protect or do anything else. Previous versions of my comment also used “the Pope” and “Santa Claus” in addition to “the MS-13 guy,” but those examples felt too snarky so I removed them.

    I’m not trying to draw any analogy between an MS-13 guy and a police officer (or a Pope and a police officer, for that matter). Truth be told, I was trying to appeal to your instincts as a gang prosecutor. If the police officer had not been a police officer, and had been a gang member – all other things being equal – what charge would you be seeking from a Grand Jury? I think you would seek a murder charge.

    And it may well be different with a police officer – this officer’s own unreasonable understanding of his duty to apprehend may have influenced his decision sufficiently to negate the mental state necessary for a murder conviction. I get that.

    But that points to a serious problem as well: do police not understand that their job duties (to apprehend, protect, etc.) are constrained by the same laws that govern everyone else?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  242. What “police officer” does is eliminate the issues of initial aggressor and duty to retreat. Not the issue of reasonable force. Slager did not have to, in fact was not allowed to, back off from Scott. Ok, now that that’s that of the way, was he justified in shooting him eight times as he was running away?

    nk (dbc370)

  243. Over at Instapundit, the Professor says “. . . America 2015: where everything you have, including your life, belongs to the state. Who won the Cold War, again?”

    The political mindset of most of his fellow academicians in the world of the college campus is well known, so I wonder how many of such people really care about and bemoan the power of the state?

    Both sides of the ideological divide may be guilty of doubletalk on various occasions, but the left is far worse in this regards than the right. The very fact the media/intelligentsia crowd will often converge in instances of foolish cause celebre like the one in Ferguson or Zimmerman/Martin, or Henry Louis Gates in Massachusetts — with the usual suspects like Al Sharpton coming out of the woodwork — instead of situations closer to the one in South Carolina illustrates how nonsensical they are. Simply put, they can’t even properly identify when they should or shouldn’t make a ruckus. They’re like the boy who cries wolf in so many instances, that after awhile the public becomes inured and jaded to what exactly is being pointed out and hollered about.

    Mark (7f9bc6)

  244. There’s a thing called excessive force. Once the man started to flee he was no longer a threat to the officer. The officer should of thought about his own family before shooting an UN-ARMED man in the back. It can ONLY constitute murder.

    Mark (ab67fc)

  245. Thank you pity Rico and co. for demonstrating how you react to a taste of your own medicine. Lol.

    Go Cruz!

    Missile (1c0757)

  246. Troll found itself a new hot spot.

    nk (dbc370)

  247. I’m concerned about the video recording, it appears doctored, and with a heavy hand. Take a careful look at the first 2 minutes and decide for yourself. Consider the role of coincidence.

    The previously anonymous passerby who took the footage has come forward, he was interviewed on NBC’s Nightly News by anchor Lester Holt. Feidin Santana says he was walking home from work (about 9:30am Saturday morning) talking on his cell phone when he saw Walter Scott running from Officer Slager – Santana “went to see what was going on.”

    “Scott and Slager were on the ground involved in a struggle…I remember the police had control of the situation. He had control of Scott – Scott was trying just to get away from the Taser.”

    Santana subsequently gave the video to Scott’s family because he “wanted the truth to come out.” At this point accounts differ. The family either gave it to the South Carolina SLED (State Law Enforcement Division) – the SC State Police, or the family gave the to the mayor of North Charleston, or to the town’s Chief of Police. In either case the NY Times somehow acquired it and their version has become prominent (linked above).

    The recording starts out fairly clear but at about the 8 second mark a NY Times graphic violence warning unnecessarily blocks out the center section, there’s plenty of space on either side for the warning yet the Times apparently inexplicably chose to block the recording at the point most likely to show Scott and Slager on the ground struggling for the Taser (described by Santana).

    The recording jumps between clear and blurry images, sometimes so abruptly it strains credulity. See the jump at the 17-18 second mark. Pay particular attention at about 1:32 – 1:39 where Officer Slager drops “something” near Scott’s body – the overall image is blurry yet the area around his right hand is strangely clear (as is a small circular portion of the chain link fence). The Times conveniently includes appropriate notation least such an important point be overlooked.

    There’s much more, happy hunting.

    ropelight (833cd0)

  248. The holes in my comment are supposed to be italicized. I have no explanation.

    ropelight (833cd0)

  249. That guy should really have not provoked the cop like this: http://imgur.com/ld7Z8OL

    CTD (4903a9)

  250. Here’s my comment again with the omissions in bold. I hope it works this time and the problem isn’t my computer. Wish me luck.

    I’m concerned about the video recording, it appears doctored, and with a heavy hand. Take a careful look at the first 2 minutes and decide for yourself. Consider the role of coincidence.

    The previously anonymous passerby who took the footage has come forward, he was interviewed on NBC’s Nightly News by anchor Lester Holt. Feidin Santana says he was walking home from work (about 9:30am Saturday morning) talking on his cell phone when he saw Walter Scott running from Officer Slager – Santana “went to see what was going on.”

    “Scott and Slager were on the ground involved in a struggle…I remember the police had control of the situation. He had control of Scott – Scott was trying just to get away from the Taser.”

    Santana subsequently gave the video to Scott’s family because he “wanted the truth to come out.” At this point accounts differ. The family either gave it to the South Carolina SLED (State Law Enforcement Division) – the SC State Police, or the family gave the to the mayor of North Charleston, or to the town’s Chief of Police. In either case the NY Times somehow acquired it and their version has become prominent (linked above).

    The recording starts out fairly clear but at about the 8 second mark a NY Times graphic violence warning unnecessarily blocks out the center section, there’s plenty of space on either side for the warning yet the Times apparently inexplicably chose to block the recording at the point most likely to show Scott and Slager on the ground struggling for the Taser (described by Santana).

    The recording jumps between clear and blurry images, sometimes so abruptly it strains credulity. See the jump at the 17-18 second mark. Pay particular attention at about 1:32 – 1:39 where Officer Slager drops “something” near Scott’s body – the overall image is blurry yet the area around his right hand is strangely clear (as is a small circular portion of the chain link fence). The NY Times conveniently includes appropriate notation least such an important point be overlooked.

    There’s much more, happy hunting.

    ropelight (833cd0)

  251. Dr. Ben Carson, a potential Republican presidential candidate, on Wednesday condemned the shooting of an unarmed black man by a white South Carolina police officer.

    “It’s horrible to see an execution take place in the street like that,” Carson told Buzzfeed News.

    “Certainly that policeman was too quick to do it. I don’t know if you can always generalize in a situation like that but certainly that officer was wrong,” Carson said when asked if police are sometimes too quick to use their guns. “And I think it’s so obvious that he was wrong — that this provides an excellent opportunity for law enforcement personnel across the country to really come out and condemn this. And if they do that tells us a lot. And if they don’t that tells us a lot.”

    Missile (1c0757)

  252. Probably the only sensible thing I’ve heard this idiot say:

    Dr. Ben Carson, a potential Republican presidential candidate, on Wednesday condemned the shooting of an unarmed black man by a white South Carolina police officer.

    “It’s horrible to see an execution take place in the street like that,” Carson told Buzzfeed News.

    “Certainly that policeman was too quick to do it. I don’t know if you can always generalize in a situation like that but certainly that officer was wrong,” Carson said when asked if police are sometimes too quick to use their guns. “And I think it’s so obvious that he was wrong — that this provides an excellent opportunity for law enforcement personnel across the country to really come out and condemn this. And if they do that tells us a lot. And if they don’t that tells us a lot.”

    Missile (1c0757)

  253. Ourhost stated:

    ” People are always out to condemn cops before even hearing their stories.”

    I don’t think this is accurate. Historically the average citizen almost always gave the benefit of the doubt to the police.

    Over the past ten years law enforcement has run off the rails and Mom and Pop Americans are starting to realize it.

    Hundreds of cases of the wrong house being raided, family pets being shot, innocent people being shot, and people who are non-innocent but also not deserving of summary execution, being shot, have shaken most people’s faith in the police.

    Mark Johnson (dfa592) — 4/9/2015 @ 7:04 am

    Spot on. The ubiquity of video cameras is showing Americans just how routinely cops abuse citizens, and they’re getting sick of it. Without this clip, absolutely nothing would have happened to this violent psycho. He would have planted the tazer next to the poor guy, told his phony story to his union rep, and he’d be back on the streets in a few weeks. This is why people don’t trust cops anymore. Look at the other officer. He stands by and watches the thug plant evidence right in front of him. Care to place any bets as to whether he reported this? Anyone? Bueller? And yet if Officer Killman is convicted, people in law enforcement will be quick to remind us that he’s just one bad egg, not representative at all…

    CTD (4903a9)

  254. Perhaps one day you too will follow his example.

    ropelight (833cd0)

  255. Rules to live by:

    When confronted by a cop understand you both have a mutual interest in personal security, remain calm and civil, indicate a clear willingness to cooperate by displaying obviously empty hands and keeping them in plain view. Don’t make any sudden moves. Be patient, follow instructions, provide standard identification when asked, give the authorities time to assess the situation, don’t demand explanations (your time will come), and answer questions with brief, direct, civil and truthful responses.

    Follow these commonsense rules and unless you’re engaged in criminal activity, holding dope, concealing an illegal weapon, or have outstanding arrest warrants, chances are good you’ll sleep in your own bed that very night.

    ropelight (833cd0) — 4/9/2015 @ 5:20 am

    You are aware that you are basically describing how one would behave when confronted with a mentally disturbed or dangerously psychotic person, aren’t you?

    And you do not have to answer any questions at all. In fact you should not, as there is no benefit to you for doing so. And you are not required to identify yourself unless there is a reasonable articulable suspicion that you have, are, or are about to commit a crime.

    CTD (4903a9)

  256. 261

    How white cops routinely abuse black citizens, that is. There is a civil rights crisis happening in our midst, and it’s a good thing that most rational people are finally waking up to this, and hopefully demands for justice will be heeded and the “blame the victim” racists will lose.

    Missile (1c0757)

  257. 83 64 32… hike!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  258. troll.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  259. #264, CTD, those who “have, are, or are about to commit a crime” often behave as you advise. They get uppity, refuse to answer questions and decline to identify themselves. They “know their rights” and look for opportunities to demonstrate their superior knowledge and assert themselves. It’s a surefire way to convince the authorities to take an acute interest, possibly leading to official entanglements.

    I have other priorities, and since I’m right with the law, I’d prefer to reassure the cops that I’m not one of the droids they’re looking for and be on my way. But, you go right ahead and poke that hornet’s nest. Some of us just have to piss on the electric fence and see for ourselves.

    ropelight (833cd0)

  260. #268 I know of no state that recognizes a failure to identify oneself as a legitimate basis for reasonable suspicion.

    CTD (4903a9)

  261. NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) — The white South Carolina police officer charged with murder for shooting an unarmed black man in the back was allowed to stay on the force despite a 2013 complaint that he used excessive force against another unarmed black man.

    Missile (1c0757)

  262. 268

    If you’re not black, or haven’t been approached aggressively with a malicious intent to elicit or incite even the very mildest of responses, you delude yourself into thinking your simplistic approach would mean a damn thing.

    Is it really so hard to imagine a scenario where white southern cops will have made a prior assumption or judgment that governs their actions regardless of your behavior? If it is, then you have no right to judge those who can, or have been.

    Missile (1c0757)

  263. I am assuming as well that Patty would support a federal,investigation into the s. Charleston police force, based on his call to learn more about the situation,

    Missile (1c0757)

  264. If you’re not black you can still make chex mix at home and have a tasty snack what fits your on-the-go lifestyle

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  265. still hate this thread

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  266. Bye, troll. You are unoriginal, you were warned, and you are boring.

    JD (c90ab3)

  267. “Steve Sailer likes to talk about how the liberal media picks very bad mascots to champion their latest causes. Michael Brown was a good example of it. A violent street thug killed attacking a cop is never going to elicit much sympathy from the public. The fact that smart people in the liberal press keep falling into this “trap” suggests something other than collective stupidity.

    The thing that Steve misses is that burning Ferguson to the ground was a warning. Acts of senseless brutality are a type of display item intended to communicate a message to potential foes. The Mayans built increasing complex public structures using slave labor to show their wealth and power to rivals. ISIS beheads Christians on the Internet to show the rest of the Muslim world that they are the strongest horse in the barn. Obama burned Ferguson to warn flyover country that resistance is futile.

    You can see that in the case of the cop who appears to have shot a suspect in the back. It was caught on video and is certainly looks like a senseless killing. Whether or not it is murder, under the laws of the state of South Carolina is unknown. North Charleston, S.C is not taking any chances. They saw what happened to Ferguson. So, they have fired the cop and charged him with murder.

    Since there is a possibility he could get off or there may be exculpatory evidence out there, they have released his entire personnel file to the public. What’s happening here is the city is washing its hands of the matter and turning it over to the mob. You can be sure the cop’s lawyers will ask for a change of venue and the City will not fight it. They want this case as far from them as possible.

    You can be sure that no one from the Social Justice League will be protesting this violation of the man’s rights or his privacy. While releasing video of Michael Brown beating a store clerk on his rampage was universally condemned, releasing this white guy’s file is celebrated. Everyone knows he is guilty so why get hung up on technicalities?

    I’m fond of saying that you blancos better polish up on your Spanish. In all seriousness, you better study the history of Rhodesia. That’s what’s coming to America in the mid-21st century.”

    http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=4259

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  268. “You can see that in the case of the cop who appears to have shot a suspect in the back.”

    – Colonel Haiku

    FTFY

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  269. Troll does raise one important issue…does Pat support a federal investigation or not? Hate to see anyone run from a softball question like this.

    CastawayPhilly (7c0156)

  270. Why is a federal investigation necessary at this point, CastawayPhilly? Or are you saying that police shootings and/or black deaths require federal supervision?

    DRJ (e80d46)

  271. Leviticus/246:

    The cop has a right to shoot a fleeing dangerous felon; a non-cop may not have that right. There are different rules sometimes.

    That said, while I agree that there are circumstances that could mitigate this, it looks awful.

    Thing I am tiredest of: “White cop shoots unarmed black man, like Ferguson.” This is not Ferguson. In Ferguson, there was legit self-defense, and that was unsurprising. If this one is anywhere within six miles of legit, I will be surprised.

    JRM (cd0a37)

  272. Troll does raise one important issue…does Pat support a federal investigation or not? Hate to see anyone run from a softball question like this.

    Why don’t we wait to see what happens at the local level first? I mean already the locals have brought murder charges against the cop and fired him; why do you think that a federal bureaucrat reporting to Eric Holder has to be brought in to grandstand and preen?

    JVW (a1146f)

  273. Because of allegations and evidence of department wide racial bias. Google it.

    CastawayPhilly (6a9a63)

  274. I love how trolls think they are so cute.

    JD (c90ab3)

  275. Here’s a quote from somewhere:

    I don’t like to reach conclusions about a criminal case based on incomplete information, but it’s tempting to conclude that the video is all you need. […]

    Again: just appalling.

    End quote.

    –JRM

    JRM (cd0a37)

  276. What DRJ said. Every issue is not federal, despite the statist desire to expand the reach of the Feds to everything.

    JD (c90ab3)

  277. Based on your asinine assumptions and inadequate analysis you really are not fit to be a police officer. You’d get your partner killed if not yourself.

    I am reasonably sure that I would have different attitudes had I chosen that path. Just like you have no idea what assumptions I make in the things I am good at and almost everyone else would really suck at.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  278. i’d be an awesome police office i’d say hey there fella stop in the name of the law and if he kept running i’d be really disappointed in his attitude

    and then I’d get like an awesome pension at the age of like 27 or whatever the end

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  279. One of the problems with being a police officer is that you are expected to wield significant power and your mistakes can cause death. Because the mistakes can be so horrific, most citizens want the mistakes to be few and far between and they are going to be really upset if they seem egregious. Are cops held to too high a standard? Perhaps. But not here.

    Every time shootings like this come up, I am reminded of the Rodney King case, where this giant guy, drugged out of his mind, is beaten by a bunch of cops until he stops resisting. They all get fired. Today, this would never happen. Someone would have shot King dead and that would have been the end of it, judging by the “then don’t resist” defense.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  280. *officer* i mean

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  281. RE: 277, Col, I think you are wrong about the decision of the city, North Charleston. Back shooting an unarmed man is murder. (The video is at least evidence of all 4 elements of Murder – imho, the question is between capital murder, or “normal” murder.) It is an atrocity in any but the most extenuating circumstances. Those circumstances are not present in the video, as I see it. The Cop’s lawyer will have his opportunity to present mitigation or justification to excuse the killing, I don’t think it will come close to succeeding. I have heard the cop’s first lawyer quit, due to false statements made by the cop.

    If the cop followed any kind of standard protocol regarding the use of force/deadly force it is not seen in the video – he is drawing down on an unarmed man, aiming at his back, unloading rapidly, pausing and shooting a final aimed shot. The video is evidence of premeditated murder, not policing.

    The video damn’s the cop – the city had no choice but to act. Is it a slam dunk? Here is a version of the jury instructions for a federal murder case – not sure how precisely they match SC, but bet they are not far off:

    The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with murder in the first degree in violation of Section 1111 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

    First, the defendant unlawfully killed [name of victim];

    Second, the defendant killed [name of victim] with malice aforethought;

    Third, the killing was premeditated; and

    Fourth, the killing occurred at [specify place of federal jurisdiction].

    To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.

    Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing.

    I think everyone agrees that the killing was unlawful (element 1)
    Having trained in combat pistol shooting with the FBI, LA SWAT and the USMC – Slager was practicing combat shooting at the back of Scott, as I was trained, with the exception of ammunition control – he should have paused after each pair of shots to take a new aim, instead he shot 7 times rapidly, then took his breath and re-aimed. (I see elements 2 and 3 in the pistol draw, the Marksman stance, the method of shooting). Element 4 is the jurisdictional element, ensuring the correct court hears the case.

    Could a jury decide this is manslaughter instead of murder, sure – but based upon the evidence in the video the city is as obligated to pursue murder charges against Slager, as Slager was obligated to attempt to arrest the Deadbeat dad.

    Steve Malynn (6b1ce5)

  282. I don’t know how many of you had time to read narciso’s link up at 276, but it’s pretty interesting.
    With the familiar people who are already fully “involved” in and working with his family and national media, it appears clear that this is yet another case where there were professional message-rs and agitators out “shopping” for a white cop/unarmed black victim case to agitate over–and this one seemed to fit the bill-so they immediately implemented their action plan using both their extensive media connections and social media. This is not to suggest for a minute that the death of Mr. Scott is not important to understand and mourn, or that the death should not be fully and scrupulously investigated. If it was a bad cop, then justice must be done. But I am suggesting that there are dishonest people whose “job” it is to comb the nation’s news feeds and police reports for cases that can be exploited and pumped and manipulated for specific agendas, and this is at least partly what’s going on right here, right now. Things are not always as they appear or as they are made to appear, as we have found out recently in several high profile cases.

    elissa (a4ab21)

  283. I don’t care for Steve’s standards for justice. That is the same nonsense that was peddled about Trayvon.

    JD (c90ab3)

  284. Yes, elissa, it seems Beasts of England’s comments at #s 41 & 42 were prescient. The usual vultures are circling overhead and virtually the news media, FOX and NewsMax included, is apparently on-board. All we need now is for the Queen to call for sentence first, verdict later.

    ropelight (833cd0)

  285. 281The cop has a right to shoot a fleeing dangerous felon; a non-cop may not have that right. There are different rules sometimes.

    A cop has no more rights than the rest of us. A cop has a duty to shoot a fleeing felon under certain circumstances because they have the responsibility to enforce the law. But it’s not a right.

    Thing I am tiredest of: “White cop shoots unarmed black man, like Ferguson.” This is not Ferguson. In Ferguson, there was legit self-defense, and that was unsurprising. If this one is anywhere within six miles of legit, I will be surprised.
    JRM (cd0a37) — 4/9/2015 @ 12:24 pm

    Which reinforces my point. A cop has no more rights than a citizen. But no less, either.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  286. Why a “federal investigation”? The place would have businesses ransacked and burned-to-the-ground by the time any findings would be released by the DOJ, exculpatory or not. Their objectives are realized irrespective of guilt or innocence.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  287. Just saw dash cam video of the decedent beiing stopped, asked for his license and asked to stay in the car, getting out of his car and again being asked to stay in his car while the officer ran him in the database and then fleeing his car, with the officer soon in hot foot pursuit. No grab for any taser at least on camera.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  288. It didn’t make any difference to race baiting Leftists that Trayvon Martin was sitting astride George Zimmerman’s chest beating his head into the concrete when Saint Trayvon met his maker, and it didn’t make any difference to the Left when Big Mike (the Gentle Giant) Brown, pulled a strong-arm robbery then assaulted Officer Wilson in his squad car attempting to wrest Wilson’s service weapon away from him – or that the 6’4″ 292 lb. bully turned and charged Wilson like a mad bull prior to being shot dead. Back then Hands Up, Don’t Shoot! was the Left’s slogan, and Snitches Get Stitches! was the word on the savage streets of Ferguson.

    Now, it’s Back Turned, Don’t Shoot!. Like now all of a sudden, since Scott was running away, it somehow makes all the difference to Leftists. Are we to understand now all that previous breast-beating and caterwauling was all for show, just a nifty fun way to buffalo the uninformed and Mau Mau the unrepentant. Was it really all about skin color right from the start – Black and White – and the actual facts of who was responsible for initiating deadly violence were irrelevant all along?

    ropelight (833cd0)

  289. Here’s a more complete view. In view of this, we don’t see how there is any way to secure a conviction on murder 1. Maybe negligent manslaughter or something http://www.waff.com/story/28761385/sled-releases-dash-cam-footage-of-michael-slagers-patrol-car?clienttype=generic

    dave h (a24c91)

  290. Re 293, JD I don’t follow you. The Block quote is from actual jury instructions for a murder case. I did not make that up.

    The case against Zimmerman failed in all but the jurisdictional element of the crime: Zimmerman acted in self defense, thus it was not an unlawful killing (element 1); Zimmerman drew his weapon while being pummeled, and did not aim at a fleeing felon, thus malice aforethought and premeditation are lacking (element 2 & 3).

    The Jury did not buy the idea that Zimmerman went looking for a reason to shoot Trayvon. That was justice.

    Are you talking about Sailer?

    Steve Malynn (6b1ce5)

  291. Dave H, all the dashcam shows is Scott fled. Fleeing is not any justification for shooting in this case.

    Steve Malynn (6b1ce5)

  292. 301. …in this case.
    Steve Malynn (6b1ce5) — 4/9/2015 @ 3:43 pm

    Key words. Is the suspect really trying to flee, or is the suspect just trying to gain or regain tactical advantage having failed in the initial attack?

    Film at 11. We’ll see. And I’m comfortable with this going to a Carolina jury because it’s not axiomatically true that benefit of the doubt always goes to the cops.

    Not in a world where if the cop gets lost they roll into your driveway to ask for directions as you’re washing your car, then shoot your chihuahua because they “feared for their lives.”

    Please.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  293. I saw a chihuahua kill a Great Dane once. It got stuck in its throat…

    Gazzer (eae5fa)

  294. Yeah, they’re dangerous that way.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  295. Under Tennesee v. Garner, the police can constitutionally shoot a person if he is fleeing from a violent felony. Technically, scuffling with a cop is aggravated battery, a violent felony. In another time, Slager might have gotten a pat on the back or at least a “the officer acted within the law and departmental procedure”. Among what else Slager is guilty of — no guts, no judgment, no shooting skills — he is also guilty of bad timing.

    nk (dbc370)

  296. Steve – Sentence first. Convict later. No thanks. The same race baiting liars are tied into this already, so you will forgive my desire to see more than what comes out in the first 48 hours. You advocated that murder charges are required because of the video. I disagree. There may be more to it, and there may not. But that is the same nonsense we heard during th skittles and tea fiasco – charges and a trial are demanded because of a sliver of the available evidence. The rush to judgment, regardless of which side of the aisle is doing it, scares me.

    JD (c90ab3)

  297. Bow wow WOW!, Gazzer. Hans Christian Andersen… Now THERE was a Great Dane.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  298. RE 306 – where do you see me advocating sentencing prior to trial?

    Sorry, I don’t accept you lumping me in with the race baiters. And the video is a great deal more than a sliver of evidence.

    I’m even calmed down from yesterday. The instances where a police officer is justified to take the time to aim at a fleeing felon and shoot 8 rounds at his back have to be beyond rare – and when such an unjust shooting happens I am outraged.

    Steve Malynn (6b1ce5)

  299. Probably the only sensible thing I’ve heard this idiot say:

    Dr. Ben Carson, a potential Republican presidential candidate, on Wednesday condemned the shooting of an unarmed black man by a white South Carolina police officer. — Missile (1c0757) — 4/9/2015 @ 8:59 am

    ^ I try to envision what people similar to Missile — disgusting liberals — are like in real life. He’s one of those who I can easily see wanting to roll back civil-rights laws if much of black America were similar to the esteemed, non-loony-leftist Ben Carson. As such, liberals along the lines of Missile (typically ass-backwards time and time again, including labeling a neurosurgeon like Carson “idiot,” while probably calling a deranged character like, say, Al Sharpton as “brilliant!”) must be really dishonest, unreliable, contemptible, flaky and anything but generous or compassionate behind closed doors.

    Yeech.

    Mark (9a387b)

  300. he’s full of flakka, Mark, along with the more common sh*t.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  301. Originally I agreed with everyone that this was a wrongful death; however, I have changed my opinion. The shooting appears to be justified.

    If you try to take a weapon off a cop, I’m going to find it harder to lose sleep over you getting shot. If you use a weapon against a cop then get shot, well ….

    And as for shooting a running man in the back, about the most plausible reason to do so is you think he’s holding a trigger mechanism allowing him to electrically shock you and then take your weapon. The barbs and wire emanating from Slager’s body point to a reasonable basis that that’s what Slager thought.

    While an investigation may reveal something else, from the video, Michael Slager had every reason to believe Walter Scott was armed—even while Scott was running away.

    Scott shot Slager (0ef8b4)

  302. And now I’m not so sure again.

    Quite possibly Slager used the TASER to try to subdue Scott, then Slager got caught up in the wire with his arm (and did not believed he was TASED by Scott), and then just fired several shots at a fleeing Scott.

    In any event, any confrontation with them prior to the shooting is likely to be made an issue of at trial, for whatever good that will do Slager.

    Scott shot Slager??? (02ccf8)

  303. I don’t know if the shooting was justified,
    but given the entire episode I wouldn’t consider it “murder”.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.1318 secs.