that the officer really believed he was in fear for his life in the moment he shot and killed Walter Scott.
yep, i'm always in fear for my life when someone is running away from me
that the officer really believed he was in fear for his life in the moment he shot and killed Walter Scott.
uhh...yeah it is.
Cops shoot fleeing suspects all the time under the legal protection that they presume the fleeing person has the ability to serve as a threat to the community.
That doesn't mean Scott was one at the moment.
The fact you don't understand this shows a blatant disrespect for existing legal proceedings.
fam, he turned a traffic stop into a pursuit, got tased. kept running. fought with the cop. and kept running.what threat did scott create or elevate by running away?
if the cop ran the other way would the threat to scott have been elevated as well?
good god, you done fukked up breh...you bout to get dragged all over this thread
sorry that's not reasonablethat the officer really believed he was in fear for his life in the moment he shot and killed Walter Scott.
Go look it up. I don't have time to be your Bing Search for criminal justice online classes
sorry you are not the source I was looking for
thanks for playing
what threat did scott create or elevate by running away?
if the cop ran the other way would the threat to scott have been elevated as well?
good god, you done fukked up breh...you bout to get dragged all over this thread
lol. So by the media talking about Rev Al, the masses were conditioned, thus the verdict came back not guiltyFam, during the Eric Garner case, all the media talked about was Al sharptons involvement and corruption...Not Eric Garner
Hell, once Sharpton gets involved, its harder to pick unbiased jurors because they hate Sharpton so much
Do you love this nikka or what?
don't cop pleas or distract, don't call me famfam, he turned a traffic stop into a pursuit, got tased. kept running. fought with the cop. and kept running.
He shouldn't have been shot, but he was a threat at that point and you don't have to be 1000% Pro-Scott to see that.
sorry that's not reasonable
thanks for playing
I don't watch the coverageif you don't like what Napoleon's saying you should avoid any coverage of the case altogether because it'll pale in comparison to what Slager's lawyers will have to say, Napoleon is just getting you ready, and Black people should be ready instead of assuming this is a slam dunk case because of this video.
Why do you think Fox News is the highest rated news channels?lol. So by the media talking about Rev Al, the masses were conditioned, thus the verdict came back not guilty
You've made too many connections and assumptions between different entities without any evidence of how each entity affect the others
In other words, you are talking out your azz, pause
The mere fact that you cannot provide clear evidence to support your argument is proof of your agenda. To cause confusion and distraction
You don't have to agree with media, but you have to understand it...and your inability to understand that many people DO NOT filter what is given to them just means that its another component of the argument to be aware of.I don't watch the coverage
it has nothing to do with me liking it or not
it has to do with people making sense
and I don't see why I need to passively let y'all vomit what the media feeds you, with no challenge
and guess what? this is a public forum not a courtroom, so here I get to decide, we all get o decidethat's actually not for you to decide unless you're going to be on the jury.
Life?
I don't know.
Cause to say Slager ain't try to arrest a fleeing suspect isn't true either.
It was a bad decision and deserves serious punishment, but its not 1st degree murder either.
I think he should do like 40 years (w/ NO POSSIBILITY of parole)....PLANTING EVIDENCE, FALSELY WRITING A POLICE REPORT, ILLEGAL DISCHARGE OF WEAPON.....Them some big crimes.Do you personally want this man to do life in prison. Like do you think that would in a perfect world be a fair punishment.