Sorry, but not knowing if someone might do something is not probable cause for shooting a fleeing felon. Chip explained it over that the "other site" and people treated him about how they treated me.

If you look at the links I posted above, you will see more information about what the litmus test is for shooting someone who is fleeing. There has to be a valid belief that if the officer doesn't use deadly force that person fleeing will do more harm to the officer or other people. I don't see how there would be any reasonable belief that Scott was going to hurt anyone, he simply wanted to run away. Add to the fact that there doesn't seem to be any reason that he should have even tased Scott in the first place, well....

From CTH...

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I have read much of what has been posted about the lawfulness of shooting a fleeing felon. And I did not suggest that not knowing if someone is going to do something" is probable cause, I suggested that a man who lies to an officer, a man who flees twice, resists arrest, tries to disarm an officer of his taser, has a tussle as witnessed by two witnesses and seems to be the likely scenario from the video footage and is likely what Slager will attest to (or how else will Scott have gotten his hands on Slager's taser?) has become in the eyes of the law a dangerous fleeing felon and that it was reasonable for Slager to believe Scott posed a physical threat to anyone who might come into his immediate path thus justifying the shooting.

And how would Slager know, and especially how would do you know that Scott simply wanted to run away? Slager went hand to hand, face to face with Scott, so Slager gets the benefit of the doubt on that one.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

From CTH.. H/T Sundance



Officer Michael Slager Dispatch Audio:
Walter Scott Shooting by Tom Cleary via #soundcloud

https://soundcloud.com/tom-cleary-17/of ... t-shooting

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

From CTH...

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Yes Slager has to show that he reasonably thought that Scott (if he was a fleeing violent felon) and I believe that the known facts of the case point toward Scott meeting the legal criteria of a fleeing violent felon, posed the threat of physical harm to anyone he immediately encountered.

Slager put his own life in jeopardy twice already by physically engaging with Scott, why should he think the third time was going to be the charm, especially if Scott had hands on Slager's taser at some point in the "tussle"?

I should add there may be completely damning evidence against Slager but so far that damning evidence has not been presented.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

This whole thing just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser.

I had to laugh out loud when I read Santana's money grab when I saw At the conclusion of his baseball career in 2013 good gravy, the end of what career? How old is he? There is a whole lot of bullshit, a whole lot of sanctifying of people by the MSM, I wonder why?


Feidin was born and spent most of his childhood in the Dominican Republic. At the age of thirteen, he moved to the United States when his grandmother—who was a permanent resident—petitioned for her children and minor grandchildren to join her in New Jersey. His family lived in New Jersey for a year and a half before relocating to New York. After spending a year in New York, Feidin’s parents decided that Rhode Island was a better location—as residing there would allow for more comfort and better opportunity—and uprooted the family once again. When Feidin turned eighteen years old, he elected to move back to the Dominican Republic to pursue a baseball career. At the conclusion of his baseball career in 2013, Feidin returned to the United States, making his home in North Charleston, South Carolina. He currently resides there and supports his family, some of whom still live in the Dominican Republic—by working as a barber. Unfortunately, Feidin does not have a vehicle to travel to and from his place of employment. As such, any donations received would be used for the purchase of a vehicle and the continued support of his family. Thank you, in advance, for your kindness and your generosity.


Simply amazing another altruist and he even had a baseball career.

Just wow!

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

Dman on the case at CTH.....

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

At the 5:45 mark it looks like Officer Habersham picks something up? I thought at first he was maybe just checking for breathing but his hand was down there so briefly that doesn't seem reasonable. But he does then put on his gloves so maybe he started to check Scott's vitals and then decided to put on his gloves first.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

From CTH....

Game Changer OR Paradigm Shift ? – Walter Scott Shooting: Enhanced Video Shows Officer Slager With Taser Darts…
Posted on April 12, 2015 by sundance

On the first day we saw the North Charleston, South Carolina, shooting video of Walter Scott by Officer Michael Slager we were as shocked as everyone. However, as research now indicates there is much more to the story.

What we cover here in the latest update might just change the entire way the story continues…

Day #1 April 7th – The shock of the video
Day #2 April 8th – The community reaction/response
Day #3 April 9th – The video witness comes forth – The Dash Cam Video released
Day #4 April 10th – Facts Being Assembled – Ryan Julison Discovered – The Passenger researched and Responding Officers statements reviewed
Day #5 April 11th – Research reveals media manipulating narrative – Uncomfortable evidence kept from public.

Today, April 12th – We share alarming discoveries within the non-discussed details.
[.....]
What is potentially a game changer occurs when you review Officer Slager stating he had lost control/custody of the x26 Taser he deployed to restrain a non compliant Scott – and recognize the Taser actually appears to have been used against him.

At least one dart appears lodged in the upper torso, chest, shirt of Officer Slager.



If you review the raw footage (source New York Times) of the witness shooting video you can clearly see the wire from the Taser connected to Officer Slager.

Additionally, if you follow the wire you also recognize the cartridge from the Taser itself is being dragged behind the fleeing Walter Scott.

This is critical because the darts are on one end of the wire, and the cartridge is on the other end – usually cartridge remaining in the trigger assembly. However, the cartridge is obviously dislodged in the struggle.

...more at link
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... ser-darts/

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Or.....that is Slager shooting Scott with the taser in the leg. But I guess it depends on which side you are trying to vilify.

How exactly did Scott shoot the taser from that position as he was running away? Also, why has it taken anyone this long to notice that, I saw the leads the first day.

The leads were mentioned before yesterday, people are trying to put the information together. I don't think anyone is claiming Scott shot the taser while he was running away but rather the taser was deployed during the struggle.

Why does someone have to vilify either side? Why can't people just be trying to figure out what really happened leading up to the fatal shooting of Scott by way of gathering information available and discussing it? There is an officer in prison sitting with a murder charge, his child will likely be born while Slager is in prison, doesn't Slager deserve a vigorous scouring of the details as to why he is there? Doesn't the Scott family deserve a vigorous scouring of the details to find out why Scott is dead?

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

The media does it again and although it looks cut and dried it may be a whole different story once we get all the facts.

Yep.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

I don't know why they feel the need to vilify either party, but they sure seem to be grasping for anything they can.

But mark my words, that was Slager that fired the taser at Scott, not the other way around.

HN4 In order to invoke the defense of justifiable killing in apprehending a fleeing felon, defendant at a minimum must show that he had certain information that a felony had been committed, S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-10(b) (1985), and he used reasonable means to effect the arrest. Whether reasonable force was used to apprehend a fleeing felon is a factual question left to the jury. The determination of reasonableness depends upon the facts of the case and is a question for the jury unless there is no evidence to support a finding of reasonableness.




HN5 Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment requires careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.


HN3Go to the description of this Headnote. All claims that law enforcement officers used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure of a free citizen should be analyzed under the reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that people have a right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable seizures


Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Scope
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Scope of Protection
Criminal Law & Procedure > Criminal Offenses > Miscellaneous Offenses > Resisting Arrest > Elements
HN6Go to the description of this Headnote. Although the Fourth Amendment recognizes that police have the right to use some force in making an arrest, courts must look to the totality of the circumstances and determine whether the use of force was "reasonable" from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation. Factors to consider in determining reasonableness are "the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.


Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Scope
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Scope of Protection
HN7 The question as to whether a search and seizure is unreasonable is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. An officer's evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer's good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional.

Criminal Law & Procedure > Criminal Offenses > Miscellaneous Offenses > Resisting Arrest > Elements
HN4Go to the description of this Headnote. Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake. Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it. Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether the suspect is resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.


Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Search & Seizure > Scope of Protection
HN5Go to the description of this Headnote. The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers, violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments--in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving--about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.

“A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead…however…Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.”

—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner

The bigger question is if Slager even had justification for attempting to arrest and especially use his taser on Scott in the first place.

Can he arrest him for simply fleeing at a traffic stop? I have yet to hear that there was any arrest-able offence at the time of the chase.
Does an officer have justification to taze someone who is not under arrest at the time and simply runs from their vehicle during a traffic stop?