Scofflaw with a broken tail light is taught a lesson

[sirs]

In the epic world of "should", he should have never run in the 1st place.  There was no indication that this officer was walking back to his car to pull out a body bag & gloves, in preparation of taking him out

[sirs]

...not to mention, no one can outrun a bullet

[Xavier_Onassis]

That cop was a terrible shot. 

As I knew would happen, now the cop is the hero and the victim deserved what he got. Typical sirs logic.

[sirs]

What the fell are you smoking?   Did you miss every post I've made that points to the reckless judgement this officer demonstrated, which could credibly lead to charges of murder or at making minimum manslaughter??  How the hell do you manage to mutate that into the officer being a "hero" & the fella shot "got what he deserved"??   That'd be the epitome of xo logic.   

[sirs]

So, let's make this so painfully clear, even the good socialist professor would have a hard time mutating it.  From what we know from the video, and the present facts that have been made public:

- NOTHING JUSTIFIED THE SHOOTING OF MR SCOTT
- OFFICER SLAGER DEMONSTRATED EXTREMELY POOR & RECKLESS JUDGEMENT, IF NOT CRIMINAL. 
- Based on the video, and the current facts we've been privy to, he should be brought up on charges. 
- But I also support a full investigation to deal with what happened that led to the incident

Now,
- Mr Scott would still be alive HAD HE NOT RAN.  That doesn't mean he "deserved to be shot".  It's just a fact
- Mr Scott had no legal right to run, after being stopped by a Police officer, and being legally detained.  You don't have to be arrested.  You have to remain where you are, until the officer has completed whatever it is, he stopped you for, and any subsequent investigation that comes from the initial stop
- We can only speculate why he ran, but it wasn't to keep from getting shot, as that wasn't what the officer was attempting to do, prior to his initial running from the car.  It's safe to assume that the warrants he had, played a part in Mr Scott's bad decision, to try and run.  And no, that doesn't mean he deserved to be shot, at that point either.   
- It would appear that Officer Slager caught up to Mr Scott, and despite a struggle, and being shot with a taser, Mr Scott managed to pull away from officer Slager, and begin running again, which is where the video picks up his being shot in the back.  And no, that doesn't mean he deserved to be shot, at that point either.  AT NO TIME DID HE DESERVE TO BE SHOT.  Just in case the good professor missed that the 1st.....2 dozens times its been said

Now, let's see if the professor can twist that into the template he so wished I had adopted that started the thread

[Xavier_Onassis]

He was shot in the back. He is now dead.

All this CRAP you are spewing is what the defense of this murderous cop's lawyers will say to get him off.

[sirs]

Get him off of what?......a death sentence?  Nor am I a member of the defense team.  You don't ignore facts that are problematic or inconvenient, based on some emotionally charged outcome you might want of see. 

The CRAP here is despite my clear cut commentary to the contrary, you continue efforts to paint my position as having to be supportive of the officer's actions & that because Mr Scott was black, he "had it coming".  THAT's the crap you have yet to apologize for

[Plane]

...............................is what the defense of this murderous cop's lawyers will say to get him off.

Yes , his innocence is just not in question, he hasn't got any.

So if we want to discuss anything, it might be the mitigation that his defense will attempt.

One difficult job , with the strength of evidence that this video represents.

If the policeman is convicted on Manslaughter and perhaps also obstruction of justice , he could be in jail for thirty years.

If convicted for premeditated Murder he could have to spend life in jail.

 http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php

SECTION 16-3-10. "Murder" defined.

 "Murder" is the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied.


SECTION 16-3-50. Manslaughter.

 A person convicted of manslaughter, or the unlawful killing of another without malice, express or implied, must be imprisoned not more than thirty years or less than two years.

There is of course quite a lot more detail , with aggravating and mitigating factors spelled out in painful detail. That link is provided by the state, but a real interpretation would require a S.C. lawyer.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't think that the cop stopped Scott with the intent of shooting him in the back. If this was premeditated murder, it was not meditated for long.

I would put the odds of this cop getting actual jail time at 50-50.

[Christians4LessGvt]

This young man is wise beyond his years.....

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

[sirs]

I would put the odds of this cop getting actual jail time at 50-50.

Given your record of proclamations, he'll probably get 25-life now

[Christians4LessGvt]

Given your record of proclamations, he'll probably get 25-life now

I doubt he serves more than ten years.

Like Geraldo says...this is most likely a manslaughter case.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/10/michael-slager-is-not-going-to-prison-for-killing-walter-scott-here-s-why.html

[sirs]

I agree.  Just throwing a dose of reality water to the good professor, when it comes to his record of claims & accusations