Walter Scott Killing, Ex Cop may walk.

a reply to: Crumbles

Ok, I see you are in the "badge is a license" crowd, so there is really no point.

I hope you are never in a situation where that "do what I say or die" just doesn't work out for you. Because apparently you agree, cops gotta make it home in time for supper. You, me, everyone else without a badge, we can be cold meat on the curb with holes in our back. As long as "the man" don't miss a meal.

Cops being allowed to walk away, and people defending court decisions like this, is why people have a "Wild West" mentality with the police. What's the point of trying to do the right thing? I am still going to get shot. I might as well take my chances putting the cop down first and running. Which is what we are seeing more and more of and will continue to see more and more of.

Blame the criminal scum if you want to, but only one man in the video has five holes IN HIS BACK.

a reply to: 200Plus

Blame the criminal scum if you want to, but only one man in the video has five holes IN HIS BACK.

That right there is manslaughter, that POS excuse of a cop didn't have the energy to chase his victim who was equally outta shape, so he did lazy.

a reply to: greydaze

Yes, a lowlife POS, as are those defending a guy who shoot's people in the back..especially when in no danger.
Who else get's away with shooting someone in the back..not you or me.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: Crumbles

Ok, I see you are in the "badge is a license" crowd, so there is really no point.

I hope you are never in a situation where that "do what I say or die" just doesn't work out for you. Because apparently you agree, cops gotta make it home in time for supper. You, me, everyone else without a badge, we can be cold meat on the curb with holes in our back. As long as "the man" don't miss a meal.

Cops being allowed to walk away, and people defending court decisions like this, is why people have a "Wild West" mentality with the police. What's the point of trying to do the right thing? I am still going to get shot. I might as well take my chances putting the cop down first and running. Which is what we are seeing more and more of and will continue to see more and more of.

Blame the criminal scum if you want to, but only one man in the video has five holes IN HIS BACK.

Well said. Its not only a very worrying mindset that is accepted it is also causing a backlash that, of course, should not be happening.

originally posted by: tikbalang
Follow thread [ American Culture ]

---

The victim was shoot in the back numerous times, LEO went up to victim "alone" within a feet, LEO does have a tazer..

Intention of shoot was to kill the victim, second degree Murder.

Victim irrational fear.

--

Its second degree murder

I agree it is murder. "Victim irrational fear." Care to explain that further?


"Follow thread [ American Culture ] "?
Do you have a template to follow and reply to threads here?

a reply to: dreamingawake

What will happen?

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Spider879

The evidence isnt as straight forward as that clip shows. Mr. Scott attacked the police officer and tried to take his weapon.

Again, the DA over charged initially due to the political pressure. Even the lesser manslaughter charge isnt all that strong on light of the actual facts.

You speak of "actual facts be rely on hearsay. ZERO evidence to show the guy tried to take the officers weapon. The evidence we do see is the guy running away (not a threat to the officer), only to be shot in the back. We also see the officer planting his taser next to the body.

a reply to: 200Plus

I've been in a very similar situation. When I was young and dumb/inlove. I was kicking this girl out of my house. Shebwas trying to take my things. I needed a mediator so I called the cops. Well they send out 4 cars for god knows what reason. Well a small town coupled with a family name you get slick talking cops. He asked me to leave my house. I said uh no I called you to mediate not get me to leave. I said leave now you're no longer needed here. He said oh big boy lets step out in the yard and handle this. I threw my shirt off irate at this point and said come on. He simply put his head down went back to the cop car and the others actually helped. So yes I've had a fair share of run ins.

That same cop got his revenge he wanted though. A few days later as I'm sleeping he knocks on my door saying my ex said I hit here. Well I had not seen her since they left that night. He said to bad she said you did and has bruises to prove it. I said that's bull# I have not been around her. He said you're under arrest. I complied to fight another day in court. Spent a night in jail and got released. She admitted she lied before state could pick up the case. It was her way to get me back. Either way I complied with the officer allowed him to take me in. Not try to fight grab his taser and run. You see I'm not ignorant to the way police operate.

a reply to: Spider879

I don't understand, the Police clearly unloaded(About 9 rounds) his firearm into a unarmed/disarmed Man who was running away from him in the opposite direction. There was no fear for his life, and when did it become acceptable to shoot people in the back?

The Juror is obviously biased or mentally incompetent and should be replaced. As to the Police, that's murder and the officer in question should get a life sentence.

a reply to: greydaze

yeah but being a coward isnt against the law. the justice system is fuuuuuuuucked up.

This is crazy, was telling my fam about this. They have the cop shooting the guy in the back as he ran away. And also, have him dropping a weapon near his lifeless body a damn shame.

a reply to: andy06shake

The juror won't say but his racial bias clouded his judgement. No problem tossing guilty verdicts at black folks but they are willing to give their white counterparts the benefit of the doubt.

And yes, there is precedent for that statement.

a reply to: cenpuppie

When the Police goes back and picks up the weapon/taser, then returns to the poor black guy and drops it next to his body plainly indicates his guilt.

I really don't see why the juror or anyone else could possibly be in any doubt of the officers guilt in the matter.

a reply to: [post=21605526]Crumbles

Thug life, keeping it real gone wrong. Don't wanna get shot by Police, comply with lawful order's it's really that simple.

Love seeing the same suspects yet again on another thread with bleeding hearts trying to start a movement while they ignore the fact that the thug brought it on himself!

a reply to: cenpuppie

Nice, trying to make a racial issue out of the jury while you know nothing of any of the juror's.

The only precedent for that statement is a racist mindset that only see's racism in everything, gotta grow up and out of that mindset one day!

a reply to: vonclod

A low life POS thug didn't comply with lawful orders, tried to take a weapon from an officer and got shot feeling. Put them blinders back on and go watch sesame street you can relate to sesame street easier then the real world!

a reply to: Spider879
I agree that by the facts we have seen this should be an open and closed case of murder, or manslaughter at the very least.

If this plays out like I think it will, things may get really really ugly.

So one jack off on a jury holds out and it's OK for things to get "really really ugly"?
Won't there not be another trail if there is a mis-trail? This does not mean the cop gets off. (Please correct me if I am wrong)

Oh and btw in another story an ex football player was shot to death in a road rage incident, the shooter was allowed to go home investigation is still on going .i'll leave it up to you guys to fill in the ethnic identity of the shooter and victim.

Way to take the high road...
The man who shot Joe McKnight has a very serious anger problem that should have been dealt with way before now. Why make this into a race issue when it looks like something totally different?

Before Ronald Gasser admitted to shooting and killing ex-NFL player Joe McKnight in what police describe as a “road rage” incident near New Orleans on Thursday, Gasser was involved in another road rage incident at the same intersection in 2006, the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office said in a news release late Friday.
...
Investigators located Gasser and issued a misdemeanor summons for simple battery, but the charge was later dismissed for what remain unknown reasons.

Washington Post

I see a LOT wrong with this case, #1 being why was Gasser still on the streets? Why were the charges dropped the first time? But race does NOT seem to be one of them.

Sad when people think shooting people in the back should be normal policing.

a reply to: Floridagoat

Nice, trying to make a racial issue out of the jury while you know nothing of any of the juror's.

I'm not trying, it IS a racial issue.

Research participants were shown one of four simulated trial videotapes. The videos were identical except for the race of the defendant and the race of the victim. Participants who viewed the case with a black defendant were more likely to sentence the defendant to death, particularly in the scenario with a white victim. Participants' questionnaires revealed that the jurors gave more weight to mitigating evidence when the defendant was white than when he was black, and were significantly more likely to improperly use mitigating evidence in favor of a death sentence when the defendant was black.

STUDIES: Racial Bias Among Jurors in Death Penalty Cases .

Even though that applies to capital murder case. But this shows the bias that a jury might have. It's why sometimes juries get pruned. I'm not saying it's all the time but there is a bias and this case shows it.

originally posted by: Echo007

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Spider879

The evidence isnt as straight forward as that clip shows. Mr. Scott attacked the police officer and tried to take his weapon.

Again, the DA over charged initially due to the political pressure. Even the lesser manslaughter charge isnt all that strong on light of the actual facts.

You speak of "actual facts be rely on hearsay. ZERO evidence to show the guy tried to take the officers weapon. The evidence we do see is the guy running away (not a threat to the officer), only to be shot in the back. We also see the officer planting his taser next to the body.

There are plenty of facts to show that was the case. The fact is Mr. Scott assaulted the police officer, attempted to take his weapon and actually tazed the officer in the struggle. This is all in the video.

The officer very well may be guilty of manslaughter. I am not the judge. However, the point is that this is not just a simple case of some innocent guy being shot in the back for no reason.

When you assault an officer and attempt to take their weapon, all bets are off. Police are not mind readers as to what your actual intentions may be. After fighting with Mr. Scott and having him attempt to take his weapon, I can fully see why the officer shot him in the heat of the moment. Officers are trained to stop the threat, not wound. Not fire warning shots. They will absolutely unload on you center mass until you are down per their training. With semi-auto handguns, you can pump three or four rounds in less than a second.

I'd advise you to visit ConservateTreeHouse and read the research on this case if you have any desire whatsoever to educate yourself as to the facts rather than parrot some social justice drivel you saw on twitter.

There are links and more research in one place than you will find anywhere as to the situation with the lone juror, the implications, and links to all the facts leading up to this point.

Walter Scott