North Charleston South Carolina Erupts In Anger Over Walter Scott Shooting – Mark O’Mara Weighs In On Walter Scott Shooting –

North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey and Police Chief Eddie Driggers gave a press conference today in the shooting of Walter Scott. The local audience was very angry, and protesters interrupted the questioning frequently.

mayor Keith Summeypolice chief eddie

• The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) has now taken over the investigation. • Police Chief Driggers stated that no other police officer other than the shooting officer Michael Slager witnessed the immediate event. • Officer Slager has been fired and arrested on a murder charge.  • Officer Slager’s wife is 8 months pregnant.

• Mayor Keith Summey stated that immediately body cameras would be ordered and initiated for use on all police officers.   • Both Summey and Driggers, together with a Chaplain met with the family of the victim Walter Scott this morning. • Mayor Summey states there is more video than has been made public.  • Coroner reports Walter Scott received multiple gunshot wounds to his back – cause of death ‘homicide’.

All of the usual media suspects -those who advocate for a specific narrative- are working the story diligently as they begin the process of fueling anger in the local community and push a larger victim narrative into the national coverage.  The arrival of outside agitators should be anticipated within the next 12 to 24 hours. 

North Charleston SC

Toward that end the provocateurs within the media are aided with the familiar voice of Mark O’Mara who has tuned his racism detection psychology meter to new levels of clairvoyance.  CNN legal analyst Mark O’Mara told CNN Wednesday morning that Officer Michael Slager shot Walter Scott because of implicit racism.

“We don’t have the racist statutes we had 50 years ago.  Now the racism that exists, the biases that exist are more subtle and are happening in that limited part of the brain.  For some reason, at least in part because of the color of this man’s skin, that officer felt it was okay [to shoot], it was more threatening, it was more aggressive, even though he was running away.”

Mark O’Mara has become a clairvoyant legal media analyst with the ability to read the mind of the subjects he discusses on television.  Remarkable.

For those who thought this story would not gain the interests of the BGI due to the lack of actual controversy, there is a flaw in that consideration.

Against the backdrop of the Ferguson DOJ report and the collapse of the “Hands Up – don’t Shoot” narrative, and against the recent failures in Madison Wisconsin and Charlottesville Virginia; the national BGI need to utilize this shooting to promote their claims of widespread racist police.

In the suburbs of North Charleston South Carolina the Crump signal is being transmitted…..  Stay tuned.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Abusive Cops, BGI - Black Grievance Industry, CRS, Cultural Marxism, Dept Of Justice, media bias, Police action, propaganda, Racism, Uncategorized, Walter Scott Shooting. Bookmark the permalink.

422 Responses to North Charleston South Carolina Erupts In Anger Over Walter Scott Shooting – Mark O’Mara Weighs In On Walter Scott Shooting –

  1. Just where are the perps car and the police car in the video? Why was the guy running anyway for a tail light that is out?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Why was he outside the car, away from the car. for a broken taillights? What purpose did the cop have to request him to leave the vehicle for a simple taillight infraction? Getting pulled over for things like taillights is often merely a way for police to stop black drivers for further interrogation, searches, etc.. How often have ytou been puled over for a taillight, and asked to exit your vehicle tens of feet way? The murdered man did have past problems with child support payment. However, neither a broken taillight or a child support issue, or fleeing after initially complying with the officer’s requests, is grounds for the officer firing his weapon.

      He has the victims name and car at a minimum. Where is the need for deadly force? And if the officer believed himself justified, why the attempt to plant the taser as evidence of the officer’s initial false report?

      Like

      • auscitizenmom says:

        Excuse me. But, where did you get that he was asked to leave the car? What if he just up and jumped out and took off? Do you have a tape of that or something? Where is the need for him to attack the policeman? Why did he run? What else was he wanted for? Was he into drugs? Did he have drugs in the car? Is that why he ran? Was the car stolen? Had he just robbed some place? Was his registration out of date? Was his license expired?

        Like

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Let’s use common sense and Occam’s Razor here, using the available facts.

          One, we know that the officer attempted to arrest Scott due to an outstanding bench warrant for child support arrears. The officer likely knew of the warrant because he ran the car’s license plate – ergo, the car was not stolen.

          Two, Scott’s priors, as far as I’m aware, all revolved around his failure to pay child support.

          Three, none of your questions, even if true, justify shooting Scott in the back as he fled. There was no probable cause that he was an imminent threat to anyone.

          Like

          • auscitizenmom says:

            I am not arguing that the cop was right to shoot him. My questions were for Jeffrey, who was stating that the cop had ordered him out of the car, etc. I was asking how he knew that. He seemed to be basing his argument on facts not in evidence (so to speak).

            “What purpose did the cop have to request him to leave the vehicle for a simple taillight infraction? Getting pulled over for things like taillights is often merely a way for police to stop black drivers for further interrogation, searches, etc.. How often have ytou been puled over for a taillight, and asked to exit your vehicle tens of feet way?”

            Like

          • Jason says:

            It appears to me that Walter Scott was Very interested in fleeing even though Officer Slager had his drivers license Why ? Child Support I think not. Then he fights with Slager then tries to Tazer Slager does so then it would appear he would have most likely gone for Slagers Weapon.
            I will be very surprised if their is not a whole lot more to Scott the Story be pushed by the Media and their cronies is political. I also wish say “Their is something rotten in Denmark ” the Truth always comes out and the story everyone is pushing is Not the Truth….Scott is innocent and a victim of Race…he is a Felon and when the Real Truth comes out people will hear to Real story…..

            Like

  2. doodahdaze says:

    Everything on the media is going to be as far in the weeds as Fergustan and Zimmerman. I await the actual process where facts and laws count.

    Like

  3. doodahdaze says:

    The first order of biz is to get a reasonable bond set. The BGI will have a hard time stopping it. The man must have a fair trial.

    Like

  4. manickernel says:

    Hey, anybody heard anything new on the Duke noose?

    Like

  5. manickernel says:

    I prefaced a previous statement saying I was not trying to defend the cop. This time I am. If as the witness states they were on the ground fighting it changes a lot. From the time the video shows Scott breaking away and running to the first shot is less than 3 seconds. Prior to Scott running a good case can be made that this officer was most definitely in fear for his life. When you attack an armed officer the response will be getting shot. The counterargument is that the officer should stand down once he ran off. 3 seconds. Think about it.

    Like

    • lovemygirl says:

      I’ve been getting tempering any responses but I do want to see everything so I guess the BGI has muzzled me somewhat. No more. It does look bad for the cop but what on earth should I fear about the facts coming out?

      Like

    • kpm58 says:

      The BGI is not going to like this turn of events.

      Like

      • ImpeachEmAll says:

        Gee, the 2015 SC Watermelon Festival isn’t until July.

        What to do?

        What to do?

        Let’s have a protest.

        Persecute another cop.

        Democrat “Pitchfork Ben” must be stirring in his grave.

        Like

    • art tart says:

      manickernel shared ~ “Prior to Scott running a good case can be made that this officer was most definitely in fear for his life.”

      I’m open to any/all evidence. BUT! The Officer had nothing to fear when the suspect was running from him & shooting him in the back 4 times/ear once. What was the Officer afraid of? The Officer had the gun, the suspect had no weapon. WHY did the Officer feel the need to shoot him in the back? imo, seems the Officer over reacted & will likely miss most of his new born child’s life for his decision. Sad for all involved.

      Like

    • That is what I said too. What on God’s green Earth would make a cop shoot a guy in the back that many times. Then I rewatched the video. When the video trains on the victim and the officer, it appears as though they are interlocked or something is stuck and the victim breaks away, almost yanks away and runs….what piece is missing?

      Like

      • ImpeachEmAll says:

        Peace of mind in knowing the truth.

        Like

      • crossthread42 says:

        What I said Earlier, that it appears in the first Couple seconds, but,, it is there, they BOTH Appear to be on the ground… That man, Fayden Santana, told NBC on Wednesday that he approached the scene because he noticed Slager controlling Scott on the ground and heard the sound of a Taser before Scott got loose and ran away.
        thought so…

        Like

        • lovely says:

          Fayden (viedoe taper guy) said something very close to this They were both on the floor. He had control of Scott he was just trying to get away from the taser (may not be verbatim but it is very close). So here is my problem, I believe that if Scott was trying to get away from the taser and that both Scott and Slager were on the floor (I assume he means ground) that Slager did not have control of the situation and Fayden thinking that a suspect trying to get away from a taser and a suspect and an officer being on the “floor” is an officer in control of a situation is misguided thinking on Fayeden’s part.

          I also found Slagers behavior after the shooting, very odd.

          Like

          • John Galt says:

            “both Scott and Slager were on the floor (I assume he means ground)”

            An English speaker would say “ground.” A Spanish speaker would say “suelo” which is apparently susceptible to multiple different translations including both “floor” and “ground”. So we seem to have a witness who came forward belatedly with an inaptly translated version of events.

            Liked by 1 person

      • manickernel says:

        I am not saying Slager was legally justified in shooting Scott. What I am saying it is understandable. As an example if someone is firing at you and their gun jams, they throw it down and surrender would you be justified in shooting them anyway? Not legally.

        Like

  6. BobNoxious says:

    Here is another interview with the guy who recorded it… This new info about the guy running from the cop twice, and wrestling with him on the ground changes the story somewhat. He still will have serious issues getting around throwing the taser down but I don’t see this as an open and shut case anyone. Perhaps that’s not popular but we can only go where the facts take us…

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/man-who-recorded-walter-scott-video-speaks-out-i-was-scared-almost-erased-it/

    Liked by 1 person

    • art tart says:

      BoxNoxious ~ the problem seems to me to be this: even if there wasn’t a video at all, a man was shot 4 X’s/once in the ear. I can’t see any justification for that act & find it hard to believe a jury would buy it either.

      Defense attorney’s can spin a web but it would have to be believable.

      Like

      • ImpeachEmAll says:

        Justify this action for a traffic stop:

        “EXCLUSIVE: “They were down on the floor before I started recording” – Feidin Santana tells @LesterHoltNBC”

        http://www.scoopnest.com/user/NBCNightlyNews/585935316827168769

        Like

        • art tart says:

          I don’t think anyone doubts there was an altercation on the ground likely over the taser, I don’t think anyone doubts there was good reason for a traffic stop. But once the suspect started to run w/his back to the officer, the suspect wasn’t a threat to the officer though the Officer proceeded to shoot 8 times, hitting the suspect 5 times.

          Liked by 1 person

          • sundance says:

            I think that’s the essential point.

            Anything can go through a lawyerly blender and end up looking like something else. But the essential point as you describe remains most notable.

            Before the officer began shooting, and at the time the officer began shooting, the other guy was not a threat and increasing not so because he was running away.

            Liked by 1 person

            • art tart says:

              Also reported by the Daily Mail, link down thread, was that the officers on the scene claimed to have given Scott CPR, the video disproves that happened.

              Like

          • John Galt says:

            “But once the suspect started to run w/his back to the officer”

            That is not the proper analysis. The evidence must be viewed as a whole, from the perspective of an objectively reasonable officer under the circumstances. Evidence of the altercation and other circumstances prior to flight of the suspect cannot be disregarded. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1 (1985), Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Inasmuch as evidence of the altercation and other circumstances remains unpublished, a rush to judgment is grossly premature.

            “Because “[t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application,” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 441 U. S. 559 (1979), 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 he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. at 471 U. S. 8-9 (the question is “whether the totality of the circumstances justifie[s] a particular sort of. . . seizure”).

            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. See Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 392 U. S. 20-22.”

            490 U. S. at 396.

            Liked by 2 people

        • John Galt says:

          suelo
          soil, floor, ground, land, deck, earth

          Makes me wonder if somebody translated his original version into English for him.

          Like

    • John Galt says:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/21/manuel-diaz-shooting-no-criminal-charges-filed_n_2919301.html

      http://www.ocregister.com/articles/diaz-604485-police-jury.html

      “He stated that he was in fear for his life,” Ross said. “You have to look at the totality of everything. How things transpired from beginning to end.”

      Like

    • crossthread42 says:

      😉

      Like

  7. Yogi says:

    Direct quote from a criminal defense lawyer. “If an officer stops you, do not resist arrest. Usually, a defendant does not have the right to resist arrest, even if the arrest is illegal. Comply with the officers orders. keep your hands visible at all times, and do not make any sudden movements. If you resist arrest, officers are allowed to use force against you. and any physical resistance may lead to a charge of battery against an officer”. Quote on Quote…. Seems like Scott violated all of these

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Monroe says:

    Officials say there have been 11 officer-involved shootings so far in 2015, including the fatal shooting of Walter Scott by a North Charleston police officer. I can understand the concern.

    Wonder how many resisted arrest?.

    http://www.wyff4.com/news/data-shows-steady-rise-in-officerinvolved-shootings-in-sc/32258698

    Like

    • auscitizenmom says:

      This is where all this mess is taking the cops and robbers. Telling the robbers that they are right isn’t a good idea at all for any of us decent folks.

      Liked by 3 people

    • JB from SoCal says:

      Thanks for that timely post, Monroe. Most enlightening are the short, final 3 paragraphs:

      “The same data shows the reasons police officers fired their weapons at suspects. The No. 1 cause was suspects who threatened officers with a weapon, followed by shot at the officers and those who assaulted the officer.
      “The most common age range of suspects who were shot and killed by South Carolina police officers was 21-30.
      “Scott, who was shot and killed by Officer Michael Slager, was 50.”

      Like

    • nivico says:

      “The data shows over the same five-year period [2009-2014], more white suspects were shot and killed by police than black suspects. Of the 91 suspects who were fatally shot by police officers, 42 were white and 36 were black.”

      Kinda puts a crimp in the whole ‘implicit racism’ angle…

      Here’s a link to another article from Aug. 2014 from the NY Times. It ridiculously starts off with the thesis that there is a “plague of shootings of black men by white police officers” and that “maybe now, the nation will begin to address the racism behind it,” but then goes on to admit in so many words that there are no hard numbers to support this inflammatory opinion.

      Which begs the question, couldn’t the enormous amount of time the DOJ spends investigating these individual wOISbs (white Officer Involved Shooting black suspect) incidents be better spent compiling data about OIS as a whole?

      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/sunday-review/race-and-police-shootings-are-blacks-targeted-more.html?_r=0

      Like

  9. auscitizenmom says:

    Time to disconnect. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  10. BBB says:

    .
    “Perhaps” dispatch had advised officer the suspect had felony warrants (not conveying for what) could be for murder rape etc. Suspect runs from the officer, wrestled with him on the ground, runs from him again, (as stated in witness interview) disarmed the officer of the taser. The officer now fatigued from running and fighting, having the suspect already being able to disarm him of his taser he is now in fear of another wrestling episode and could lose his gun he is now in fear for his life. The the officer now shoots a fleeing felon (which some of us on here thought was justified in the MB shooting before we new the facts). There was something else here, you can here backup coming (sirens in background) before suspect starts running on video.
    “Perhaps” the officer retrieves the taser to turn it off. Or due to the aderinelin rush maybe just an unconditioned response without thinking “oh better get my taser”.
    AND “Perhaps” the murder charge and the firing is prevent another Ferguson.

    Like

  11. art tart says:

    ‘Fundraising Effort for Officer Slager’

    Meanwhile, an Indiegogo page has been created to raise money in support of Slager, with donations continuing to come in, and a Facebook page and Twitter account have also been created to support the effort.’

    ‘We’re campaigning to show our Support for Officer Michael T. Slager! We believe in all of our LEOs and want to publicly support them!’ reads the page.

    ‘Although he may have made mis-steps in judgement he was protecting the community.’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3031326/Witness-filmed-Walter-Scott-murder-breaks-silence-describing-emotional-moment-gave-video-victim-s-family-fundraising-site-SUPPORTING-killer-cop-continues-receive-donations.html#ixzz3WmHlDnEj

    I couldn’t locate the link that went directly to the Fund Raising page.

    Like

  12. sundance says:

    With polling complete, she takes a side:

    Like

  13. lovely says:

    Let’s hope and pray the Scott family does not become a puppet of the BGI. So far (from what I have read) they are justly blaming Slager for killing Walter but not because Walter was black.

    We can’t get into the brain of another individual, so we can’t state that,” Scott family attorney Chris Stewart said. “I think it would be irresponsible to say that and try and inflame a community or anything of that nature

    And from Walter’s brother’s words we can’t even accept the BGI’s theory that Walter was running from a white officer in fear of being shot but with the knowledge we have now we know that Walter was indeed running for his life. Anthony Scott, Walter’s brother stated;

    *To Anthony Scott, the videotape shows his brother was “running for his life” away from the officer.

    “I think my brother was thinking he was not going to be shot, no one would have thought that,” Scott said*

    I think the no one would have thought that is indicative of the Scott’s being aware that though Walter was shot down, killed unjustly, it was because an officer behaved in an abhorrent manner not because Walter was black.

    I will continue to pray that the Scott’s honor Walter and not turn his death into a circus. How incredibly admirable that would be, tell Sharpton, Crump, Holder, et al that their Walter was loved and will be honored in his death, not used by a rabble rousing insincere set of clowns to further their ugly agenda.

    Like

    • auscitizenmom says:

      “I think my brother was thinking he was not going to be shot, no one would have thought that,” Scott said* Exactly. Black criminals think that if they run they are scott free. Hm. Not so much.

      Liked by 1 person

      • lovely says:

        But I think the bigger picture is that, so far, the Scott family is not on the band wagon that is is logical thinking for black people to believe that white officers kill black young men for no other reason than they are black.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. lovely says:

    And of course Scott would be alive today if he did not resist arrest.

    But importantly, Scott would be alive today and officer Slager would be alive today if Slager did not shoot a fleeing suspect in the back. And here is the great difference between Officer Wilson and Officer Slager ; If Wilson did not shoot Mike Brown, the evidence strongly suggests that Wilson would have been dead on August 9th, 2014.

    Fleeing suspect, bull rushing felon, there is a difference.

    Like

    • art tart says:

      lovely ~ I agree. This case/officer are completely different from Officer Wilson who was bull rushed by an angry Big Mike. I hate it when the media tries to make a connection but I don’t think anyone is surprised, it’s tiresome though.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. kathyca says:

    I’m in moderation….boo!

    Like

  16. czarowniczy says:

    Wonder if they’ll hire Spike Lee to do an honest, neutral and fact-based documentary on the suicide? Yeah, I know, snarky – meant to be.

    Like

  17. czarowniczy says:

    Jefferson Parish sheriff (‘county’ just outside of New Orleans) went ballistic today when, after his officers shot and killed a drug-dealing thug, the press conference he held turned into a social engineering testbed, The late thug was stopped on a pot bust and decided to go out blazing rather than take the rap, he’d fired so many rounds at the deputies the ground was littered with shell case and there were bullet holes everywhere – in a crowded and populated area.
    During the press conference the issue of legalizing pot to prevent this kind of violence came up, as did some questions on the shooting, and the sheriff just lost it, he went into a justified tirade, even dropping a bad word or two.
    Seems that the issue of legalizing pot in the state’s come up again and even though the majority of voters don’t like the idea it seems that those who can’t quite get whacked out enough on booze alone are still pushing. Let me see – open gambling, booze sold in gas stations, drive through booze bars, 24/7 bars, a slack moral atmosphere to begin with and legal pot – what could possibly go wrong?

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Representative Press says:

    There was a struggle as the guy who made the video said and heard the Taser. The cop lost control of the Taser from what it seems happened, apparently Scott had the grabbed it from him. Is that what the fraction of second shows at the near beginning? I don’t know. Did Scott yank the Taser away from the officer and drop it? Did the officer know that Scott had dropped it? Is it possible that the cop thought that Scott still had the Taser? From looking at the video a few times now it appears that Scott rips the Taser right out of the cop’s hands and flings it behind the cop and I don’t see that the cop notices that happen. What do you guys think? Look behind the cop as his hands are empty and Scott has just pulled away. Has Scott ripped the Taser out of his hands and flung i behind the cop because I see an object moving on the ground. Are there taser wires wrapped around the cops hands? It looks as Scott starts running off that there is a wire being pulled by Scott from the cop a second before the cop starts firing. I think a case could be made that the cop thought Scott still had the Taser. The action happens very fast. I’m just trying to figure out what happened. That is why we have trials. The cop deserves a fair hearing just as anyone else.

    Like

  19. 1.) At about 6 seconds into the video, we can see them struggling before the man runs from the cop.
    2.) As he runs, and the cop is drawing his sidearm, there is clearly visible the cable from the taser hanging from the cops chest.
    3.) as the suspect runs, something falls, and something connected to the taser wire is wrapped around the suspects ankle — or in his hand. (possibly a taser cartridge that came loose?)
    4.) How can a cable be running from the cop’s chest to the suspect if he wasn’t shot with the taser by the suspect at some point? (confirming that aspect of the cop’s story)

    Picture with the taser wire highlighted:

    A slow motion of the moment the camera catches them fighting:
    [video src="http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1428522634132.webm" /]

    And at full speed (notice what appears to be the taser flying behind the cop from the suspect, and something being dragged behind him as he runs):
    [video src="http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1428539897757.webm" /]

    Like

    • P.S. if he did use the cop’s taser on the cop, that is felony assault on an officer. Immediately fleeing a felony assault, is the officer within the law to shoot the fleeing suspect at that point? Demonstrating harful intent, is the suspect then a threat to the public and other officers while fleeing? Does that in any way justify lethal force? I’m not a lawyer, but I suspect it does. If so, why is the cop being fired and charged — is the department he worked for trying to pre-empt the Justice Department treating them the way they treated the Ferguson PD? “Chilling effect”?

      Liked by 1 person

  20. MatildaRose says:

    An important consideration is that South Carolina is one of the dozen or so states that recognizes the right of citizens to resist illegal arrest (remember that right, one that everyone used to have?). Of course this video shows what will happen if someone is actually foolish enough to exercise that right. Walter Scott was running for his life, running in self-defense, trying to get away from the psychopathic thug with the taser, the pathological liar who claimed to be in ‘fear.’ If he weren’t a bald faced liar he’d be a coward — take your pick.

    A police officer can nullify the Fourth Amendment anytime he or she pleases, simply by claiming that the victim committed the supposed crime of resisting. Even when someone does not resist violently, and is only suspected of a trivial misdemeanor — think Eric Garner — police can respond with stunning, crushing, suffocating, murderous violence. And somehow people have accepted that it’s OK. Someone in this post commented that the police have no obligation to do anything other than use force; he said they were not obligated to de-escalate a situation. Why not? People skills, I think they’re called. Cops deal with people, so people skills would come in handy. I think it was my mama who used to say, “use your words.”

    People are actually arrested for resisting arrest, without any other charges. Wrap your head around that one.

    If you give a bunch of cowards a police costume and a gun, you end up with the police force we have now in the US. We have a force of slave-keepers vested with the authority and power to take away a citizen’s constitutional rights — or their life — for any reason they can conjure up. Slager was one of the very few who didn’t get away with it.

    A slave-keeper is somebody who claims the legal right to take ownership of another person at his discretion, and use physical violence to compel submission. We should never be expected to go from citizen to slave when we are being illegally restrained, assaulted, and abducted. And yet we are compelled to do just that.

    The moment a bully in a blue costume engages you, you become a slave. “Yes, Sir. I’ll do whatever you say, Sir. I won’t even question you as to what your reasonable, articulable suspicion is, because it could be construed as “resisting” your will. I understand I no longer have my innate right to self-defense even if I’ve done nothing wrong, and I will passively submit to your order to lie face down in the dirt, I will passively submit to a beating, or a tasing, or a body cavity search on the side of the highway, and even to the loss of my liberty. I won’t dare disobey. Do with me what you will.”

    ‘Officer’ Slager was previously recognized for his “great officer safety tactics” in dealing with suspects. ‘Officer Safety’ takes precedence over everything else, including citizen safety (We the People these cowards are supposed to ‘protect and serve’), and citizen’s constitutional rights. Gee willikers, they have the inalienable right to get home safely and eat a dried-out pork chop at the end of the day, no matter what it takes! Killing someone is as easy as saying “I was scared!” Yeah, right. Just shoot people and figure it out later. 99% of the time, you won’t get into any trouble. The public is your playground, and you’re the Bully in Blue with free reign to do whatever you want.

    In today’s America, it is hardly irrational to fear that a “routine traffic stop” by the costumed bully-cowards could result in one ending up in jail, in a hospital, or even in the morgue. This is what We the Sheeple have allowed the nation to come to.

    Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Like

    • auscitizenmom says:

      Boy, you are not even worth replying too………but, I decided to anyway. 😈

      Liked by 1 person

      • MatildaRose says:

        You quite obviously thought I was worth responding to, since you did.

        I’m not surprised. You were the one who shocked me with your stunning lack of empathy when you said you had absolutely no sympathy for Eric Garner.

        Tell me, how does someone who identifies as a conservative accept a police force given unlimited unilateral power? How does one human see another human as he is choked and crushed, and hear him say he can’t breathe, and listen to those last words, and feel nothing but contempt?

        “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

        Like

        • auscitizenmom says:

          What I read is that you support lawlessness. That is what I got out of what you said.

          Liked by 1 person

          • MatildaRose says:

            I do not support lawlessness. On the contrary.

            Resisting illegal arrest is not lawlessness — but illegally arresting citizens is. Everyone had the common law right to resist illegal arrest until the mid-sixties. 13 states still recognize it. It’s based on our innate rights to self defense, to personal liberty, to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and to freedom from the state depriving us of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

            I see police use of excessive force as lawlessness. I see stripping citizens of their God-given human rights as lawlessness. I see police officers not held accountable for their crimes as lawlessness.

            “The right of personal liberty is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen, and any unlawful interference with it may be resisted. Every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest, and in preventing such illegal restraint on his liberty, he may use such force as necessary.” ~1994 decision State v. Stowe, the Louisiana Supreme Court

            Do I think people should resist an illegal arrest? Not unless they’re suicidal! What I’m really saying is that policing needs a paradigm shift. They need to return to their original mission: To protect and serve. Instead, they continue to go in the opposite direction with increasing militarization.

            Law-abiding citizens should not have to fear the police. This is the United States of America. We have a constitution that limits the government’s power over us. We need to get back to that.

            I believe that many corrupt officers could easily be purged from the ranks — they’re the ones who are repeatedly investigated for excessive use of force, and who have sustained complaints, but allowed to stay in the ranks. It’s well known that most cops would never report a fellow cop when they know they’ve crossed the line. The more corrupt officers there are, the more will join the force, and the less good people will choose a LE career.

            “Power without compassion is the worst kind of evil there is.”
            ~ E.J. Patten

            Like

            • auscitizenmom says:

              Go back to the stop. He was not being arrested, he was stopped for taillights that were out. And, now we know that he didn’t have a DL and no registration on the car. He jumped out and ran. He ran for some reason and I think we know now what part of it was.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Akela says:

              I see police use of excessive force as lawlessness. I see stripping citizens of their God-given human rights as lawlessness. I see police officers not held accountable for their crimes as lawlessness.

              I see you as needing to tone down the hysterics. This is reactionary nonsense. I had absolutely no sympathy for Eric Garner either. He knew exactly what to expect when he did what he did. Neither did I shed a tear for travon martin or “unarmed” michael brown.

              Liked by 1 person

    • Akela says:

      Got a traffic ticket did ya?

      Liked by 2 people

  21. Chip Bennett says:

    The vast majority of police shootings in the US involve gang-bangers and similarly violent criminals. The number of such shootings does not bother me; rather, the number of such violent criminals out on the streets bothers me.

    Like

  22. Chip Bennett says:

    I’m just gonna leave this here:

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      1) Would he attempt to plant evidence with the black cop standing right next to him?
      2) If he intended to plant evidence, why did he pick up the taser shortly thereafter?
      3) Where are the police reports, including the black cop’s report?

      Like

      • Chip Bennett says:

        Perhaps he thought the other officer wouldn’t see what he did – or else thought that the other officer would collude with him?

        Perhaps he realized that he was on camera, or was otherwise seen, and thought better of his original plan? Perhaps the other officer communicated somehow that he wasn’t going to go along?

        I would love to see the reports. I assume they’ll come out at some point.

        Like

  23. Does anyone know what a “kit” is in police terms?

    The shooter keeps telling the black cop to go retrieve his “kit” from his squad car “behind the pawn shop”. First aid kit? Or was he just trying to get rid of the other cop for a minute or two?

    I know what a kit is in military terms, but this obviously isn’t the same meaning.

    Like

  24. Charlotte Lewis says:

    He didn’t run because of broken tail light. He owed $18,000 in child support and had a warrant. He also (i heard but unconfirmed) had a suspended driver license. WAs driving with no insurance. So he probably knew Slager was going to arrest him once he found all that out. So he ran causing Slager to chase and use his taser. The struggled on the ground. He ran again and Slager made a bad decision. Watch what happens when the jury finds 2nd degree not 1st degree murder.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s