Posted: 6/8/2015 12:45:49 PM EDT
|
Press conference today announced indictment. My personal opinion is that theres still not enough evidence to give the man a 30yr sentence. This leads me to also believe we may be faced with a Baltimore type situation if not convicted. I love being a SC native and am proud of our history. I would HATE to see historic sites threatened by rioting. I almost feel obligated to defend them. However, I have no personal stake in any significant property so being around for my family's sake is more important.
How do you guys feel? Not about the case itself, but the aftermath. If citizens felt compelled to repel rioters, would you join in? Would it even be legal? There must be a stand against destruction of property by these vandals and looters. Baltimore police couldn't do it and I'm certain departments all over are "scared" of doing it also. Is it up to the citizen at this point? Thoughts please. |
|
I'd say the case is being handled appropriately. I also heard that the family of the victim told Sharpton they don't want his shenanigans here.
At this point, I don't expect trouble. As for the other issue, there's no real debate over citizens defending private property. For example, if you owned a business downtown and asked a couple of friends to help you defend it, in my opinion (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one in the movies.) that would be legit. As for defending public property from damages, my guess is that would be the responsibility of the local government (police). I really can't predict what Summey's call would be on that. |
|
Quoted:
Slager's atty will have some work to do. It doesn't look good that he planted the stun gun, but at the same time when the guy runs you can see the cords from the stun gun hanging off him. It will be an interesting case to watch. That's how it appeared, then later in the video he picks it up and holsters it. The key question only he can answer is what was he thinking. a) He took the taser from where it was dropped and put it by the body to create the appearance of an imminent threat, then realized it was wrong, or b) He was collecting it up trying to keep things contained, dropped it next to the body, then after he calmed down thought, "That doesn't belong on the ground." Beats me. 
|
|
Quoted:
Press conference today announced indictment. My personal opinion is that theres still not enough evidence to give the man a 30yr sentence. This leads me to also believe we may be faced with a Baltimore type situation if not convicted. I love being a SC native and am proud of our history. I would HATE to see historic sites threatened by rioting. I almost feel obligated to defend them. However, I have no personal stake in any significant property so being around for my family's sake is more important. How do you guys feel? Not about the case itself, but the aftermath. If citizens felt compelled to repel rioters, would you join in? Would it even be legal? There must be a stand against destruction of property by these vandals and looters. Baltimore police couldn't do it and I'm certain departments all over are "scared" of doing it also. Is it up to the citizen at this point? Thoughts please. It's possible... You had a whole group of young thundacats running around hassling CofC students a few weeks back. Have you ever tried to host a SCHTF meet? I'll probably be the only one to show up. |
|
i'm usually on the side of the police but i can't do it this time. this guy should not have run from or fought with the police and he is partly to blame but from what i saw he was running away and was shot in the back. if he had a knife or gun on him i would feel different. |
|
Quoted:
i'm usually on the side of the police but i can't do it this time. this guy should not have run from or fought with the police and he is partly to blame but from what i saw he was running away and was shot in the back. if he had a knife or gun on him i would feel different. Yep. My above comment was focused solely on the appearance of planting the taser near the body. In the Big Picture, I can't find an excuse for shooting him in the back. Heck, they had his DL and car. They could have found him. |
|
Fleeing felons and violent offenders...... I say shoot em in the back all day.
If I shot a guy who just robbed a store and attacked the cashier in the process it would be justified because I'm fearful of him leaving the scene and hurting others in future crime. At least that's how I understand it. If this guy attacked Slager, I could see him getting shot in order to prevent future violent offenders. Wish we knew what happened between the car and the start of video. It was a decent chase. Anything could have happened. From what I SEE, I dont think Mr Scott should have lost his life. But I haven't seen enough to convince me either way. |
|
Quoted:
Fleeing felons and violent offenders...... I say shoot em in the back all day. If I shot a guy who just robbed a store and attacked the cashier in the process it would be justified because I'm fearful of him leaving the scene and hurting others in future crime. At least that's how I understand it. If this guy attacked Slager, I could see him getting shot in order to prevent future violent offenders. Wish we knew what happened between the car and the start of video. It was a decent chase. Anything could have happened. From what I SEE, I dont think Mr Scott should have lost his life. But I haven't seen enough to convince me either way.  out of
|
|
Quoted:
Fleeing felons and violent offenders...... I say shoot em in the back all day. If I shot a guy who just robbed a store and attacked the cashier in the process it would be justified because I'm fearful of him leaving the scene and hurting others in future crime. At least that's how I understand it. If this guy attacked Slager, I could see him getting shot in order to prevent future violent offenders. Wish we knew what happened between the car and the start of video. It was a decent chase. Anything could have happened. From what I SEE, I dont think Mr Scott should have lost his life. But I haven't seen enough to convince me either way. Scott was neither a "fleeing felon" nor a "violent offender". He was avoiding a warrant for failure to pay child support. What the fuck is wrong with you? "Turd corn" would be just about right. You just earned a place on my ignore list. |
|
Quoted:
Scott was neither a "fleeing felon" nor a "violent offender". He was avoiding a warrant for failure to pay child support. What the fuck is wrong with you? "Turd corn" would be just about right. You just earned a place on my ignore list. Quoted:
Quoted:
Fleeing felons and violent offenders...... I say shoot em in the back all day. If I shot a guy who just robbed a store and attacked the cashier in the process it would be justified because I'm fearful of him leaving the scene and hurting others in future crime. At least that's how I understand it. If this guy attacked Slager, I could see him getting shot in order to prevent future violent offenders. Wish we knew what happened between the car and the start of video. It was a decent chase. Anything could have happened. From what I SEE, I dont think Mr Scott should have lost his life. But I haven't seen enough to convince me either way. Scott was neither a "fleeing felon" nor a "violent offender". He was avoiding a warrant for failure to pay child support. What the fuck is wrong with you? "Turd corn" would be just about right. You just earned a place on my ignore list. WRONG!!! That was his prior record. Noone knows what happened between the car and the moment the film starts. What I do know, is that the taser is deployed and theres a struggle. If he survived the shooting, he could have possibly been charged with assaulting a police officer but u can't charge a dead man. But ill give him credit.... He aint gotta pay child support no more.... If he ever did. |
|
Some food for thought. All it will take is the defense convincing a jury that Mr. Scott was a "threat" to the officer or others while or after fleeing.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "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." As far as the rioting or looting or whatever, I will not protect public property. I will be home protecting MY property and my family. Keep that shit off my street and out of my yard and all will be well. BUT, I am prepared to defend my property at all costs. |
|
Quoted:
Fleeing felons and violent offenders...... I say shoot em in the back all day. If I shot a guy who just robbed a store and attacked the cashier in the process it would be justified because I'm fearful of him leaving the scene and hurting others in future crime. . Let me first state that I'm no lawyer, but i did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I dont think that would work out very well in your favor. Not unless you shot the guy while in the process of robbing the store and attacking the cashier in the process. The difference is in the "immediate" or "imminent" danger of death or serious bodily harm. Fear of someone hurting someone in a future crime probably wouldnt be considered an imminent threat. As for this case, I think it will be hard pressed to find a jury that will discard such damning evidence as the video of him shooting Scott. Yeah, there are signs of tazer lines and all that, but at face value, it looks like Slager got pissed off with Scott resisting, got tired of chasing the guy, so he ended the whole fiasco by deading him. Then there's the moving of the tazer next to the body; tampering with a crime scene. And as stated before, even though Scott fled, his identification was in possesion of the PD - you can run, but you cant hide. Slager will serve time for this. I expect no less than a 20 year sentence will be handed to him. |
|
Quoted:
Some food for thought. All it will take is the defense convincing a jury that Mr. Scott was a "threat" to the officer or others while or after fleeing. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "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." As far as the rioting or looting or whatever, I will not protect public property. I will be home protecting MY property and my family. Keep that shit off my street and out of my yard and all will be well. BUT, I am prepared to defend my property at all costs. Actually, just one member of the jury, who has the stamina to hang the jury. Although in this case, I expect in an 11-1 or 10-2 , the State will go for a re-trial. If they try to use Garner but don't let the officer explain his beliefs, he's going to be in rough shape. Once he goes on to the stand, it will be a prosecution field day. I expect that most of us would prefer to not see a "He struggles and that was a felony, so it was ok to shoot him running away." become a viable defense of police misconduct. Tampering with evidence, doesn't help either. |