Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just show the videotape. Perhaps he'll be a great cellmate, but the tape is all the prosecution needs. His lawyers will be seeking a deal, and I pray any deal short of life w/o parole is denied.
Slager killed in cold blood. Not a trait of a good dad.
Kudos, I hope you are a microcosm of your force, and not an anomaly. I also applaud how the North Charlestown force has handled this murder case.
Macrocosm.. there fixed it for you... I also agree with the way it was handled... be as open and as forthcoming as possible with as much information as possible that doesn't compromise someones rights.. safety and integrity of investigation
Unfortunately for Darren Wilson.. he still has a target and contract out on him and is in hiding with 24/7 protection.. he has moved and lost his career.. and he was innocent
This case demanded full and open disclosure... but there is more to come.. which is why the process must be allowed to work.
I have seen the best in the parents of Scott.. I cannot imagine their pain...and their ability to let police officers escort their dead (responsible for his own actions) son to his grave tells me a lot about them...
Well, let's just Pray that when the facts of the case are revealed Justice will prevail and the Officer will be set free to be a great husband and father.
What more facts do you need than the video? He clearly shoot a fleeing man, unarmed, of no threat, in the back. Directly violating this order: FindLaw | Cases and Codes
A 33yo officer, chasing down a 50yo, who couldn't even yell "STOP, OR I'LL SHOOT", who couldn't even tackle the guy who was about 30 feet out, "running" at a tortoise pace, but instead pulls his sidearm and fires 8 times? Get real.
Lethal force is the LAST measure. Escalation of force, read up on it.
I'm not sure if child support is a felony warrant there... warrant in and of itself even if a felony..does not fall into supremes decision about use of deadly force ... and fleeing felons
I would be happy if there were justifiable circumstances so I don't have to read every sicko along with regular citizens how we murder people routinely... but.. in this case.. given all available evidence and benefit of doubt nothing has come forth supporting such use of force.
Its time and trial... nothing will bring back Scott... city should prepare for millions in civil liability
Why was he buying a Mercedes if behind on child support?
Because he is a deadbeat Dad. Anyone who would not spend a dime towards his 4 kids in 3 years is a deadbeat. He wasn't man living up to his responsibilities.
What more facts do you need than the video? He clearly shoot a fleeing man, unarmed, of no threat, in the back. Directly violating this order: FindLaw | Cases and Codes
What more do you need? A 33yo officer, chasing down a 50yo, who couldn't even yell "STOP, OR I'LL SHOOT", who couldn't even tackle the guy who was about 30 feet out, "running" at a tortoise pace, but instead pulls his sidearm and fires 8 times? Get real. Lethal force is the LAST measure. Escalation of force, read up on it.What more do you need to know?
Your failure here is that you didn't even read the legal decision that you quoted. The relevant part is right in the first paragraph.
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect;such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Until it is established as to exactly what happened between the time of the first video and the time of the second video no conclusion can be drawn in regards to this decision by the Supreme Court. A tazer was discharged. Why? What did happen? Answer - We don't know.
Therefore your statement "He clearly shoot a fleeing man, unarmed, of no threat, in the back.", is based on emotion. Not fact or evidence. It would not stand up in court.
Your failure here is that you didn't even read the legal decision that you quoted. The relevant part is right in the first paragraph.
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect;such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Until it is established as to exactly what happened between the time of the first video and the time of the second video no conclusion can be drawn in regards to this decision by the Supreme Court. A tazer was discharged. Why? What did happen? Answer - We don't know.
Therefore your statement "He clearly shoot a fleeing man, unarmed, of no threat, in the back.", is based on emotion. Not fact or evidence. It would not stand up in court.
I'm looking for a rationale for this to be a justified homicide.
Will Stager claim he felt what could have been a weapon during the struggle ? That he was protecting other people from a fleeing suspect ? What gave Stager the probable cause to believe Scott posed a significant threat to him or others ?
He wasn't on drugs. Here's the thing - he actually worked for a friend of mine and they drug test their employees. I can tell you, this guy wasn't on drugs. At one point in his life, he absolutely did have a drinking problem (which he no longer had) - which he admitted to readily - but Scott was working, behind on child support, and all of this is known and even his family has been upfront about this.
I'd bet the residents of your city are furious/sad/confused that this happened and all the negative attention being heaped upon it afterwards. I'm glad to see the residents are for the most part taking the civilized route dealing with this situation instead of the Fergeson route of burning the city down and rioting.
I think your mayor and police chief did very well jumping on this right away, calling in outside investigators and allowing the process to play out legally.
Maybe a protest to toss out all east coast transplants still on the P.D.? I mean, might as well beat Sharpton and Co to the punch right?
Your failure here is that you didn't even read the legal decision that you quoted. The relevant part is right in the first paragraph.
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect;such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Until it is established as to exactly what happened between the time of the first video and the time of the second video no conclusion can be drawn in regards to this decision by the Supreme Court. A tazer was discharged. Why? What did happen? Answer - We don't know.
Therefore your statement "He clearly shoot a fleeing man, unarmed, of no threat, in the back.", is based on emotion. Not fact or evidence. It would not stand up in court.
Police later said that Scott was hit with the Taser at least once, because part of it was still attached to him when other officers arrived on the scene. But city officials said that Scott was clearly too far away to use a Taser if he did have it.
Here, here. As someone who lives here, we sure as hell would prefer to not have this happen, to not have this cop be crooked. We now have to deal with all the crackpots who say things about the South, South Carolina, Charleston, etc and malign us all down here because of this bad cop's actions. Yet, overwhelmingly, the residents here believe the cop was wrong because we've seen it all unfold from the beginning - the cop's statements, the press conferences, the reports, the video - all of it.
I'd like to add a thought to all of this. This one incident does not make this cop a crooked or bad cop unless it's shown that he killed Scott with malice and forethought or has a history of doing things like this.
Cops like everyone else make mistakes, get all jacked up on adrenaline and do something that they'd otherwise never do but that in and of itself does not make them a bad person. As for the lying on the report, not surprising and can be explained a couple of ways one of which is the adrenaline rush I referenced earlier which can create confusion or "fog of war". The other is pure self preservation after realizing you really "F"d up. Something many if not most people will do after royally messing up.
Did he shoot and kill the guy without reason? Looks that way and he'll now pay the penalty for it. We still have no idea WHY he did what he did which is important when it comes to charging/sentencing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
