In this case, I will say that it genuinely does look like this White police officer in North Charleston, SC murdered an unarmed black man. He was charged with murder after the video below surfaced on the internet.
Perhaps there is more to this story, as there was in the cases of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, but I doubt it. Whatever the case, the justice system seems to be working fine, and everyone should wait for more information to come to light before jumping to conclusions, playing Nancy Grace on the internet, or burning down cities.
Pastor L. – thanks for the comments re: my return to the OD, and the Imelda Marcos impersonation suggestion for Crimson Tide, and myself. Highly amusing, which is always a good thing!
Liberty – let it GO.
If Scott was no angel, which he obviously was not – let it GO. The dust must settle. Right NOW, it’s all about seeing a man get shot in the back, as he ran away. That’s a primal sight.
I want body cams on cops. I want the General Public to see what cops see every single day. Most Murkins have NO idea about what’s going on “out there”. I want ’em to see it. We White have plenty of new Trayvons and Gentle Giant Mikey Browns coming up to bat. So don’t fret over Scott.
FYI – lovely, exquisitely beautiful, very pricey Charleston, SC is BOOMING. There’s no “depression” there. I can guarantee you that all the tourists in that area had not one clue about the events of the past few days, and did not care, and did not suffer one tiny little bit, in any way, over this Scott/Slager farce. No one missed a delicious meal. No one stayed away from the beach for one sunny day. No one refrained from dropping a wad on one outrageously expensive trinket, in one gorgeous boutique, after another. Let this one roll down the hill…..
I don’t know if this facebook post of Scott is legit.
The photos of the cop and taser? are interesting too.
http://gotnews.com/breaking-walterscott-called-for-violence-against-george-zimmerman/
Take Me Liberty –
You seem to have misread the article linked in your post of 3:21 pm (April 10). The article says there was, in fact, a bench warrant out on Scott.
Regardless, the legal question, stated briefly, would seem to be whether Slager, at the time of the shooting, thought the fleeing Scott posed a serious danger to him (Slager) or others. Whether there was a warrant out on Scott and whether Slager, at the time of the pursuit and shooting, was aware of any such warrant are questions that, arguably, bear on that; but in themselves, they are far from decisive.
The admittedly-limited research I’ve conducted suggests that the standard of law is indicated, albeit indirectly, in Tennessee versus Garner. That was a 1985 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a Tennessee statute insofar as that statute permitted a police officer to shoot a fleeing suspect whether the suspect posed a physical threat to anyone. (In the case, a policeman, intending solely to prevent a suspect’s escape, had shot a young burglar who had seemed to the policeman to be unarmed. Because the policeman had acted in good faith on the basis of the statute, he himself was not at fault, but there was a question whether governmental parties could be sued in the matter. After invalidating the statute in part, the Supreme Court sent the case back for resolution of that question.)
The said case, Tennessee versus Garner, is cited in an April 7 New York Times article about this Walter Scott shooting and is also cited in Wikipedia’s entry on the “fleeing felon rule.” Those are at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html?_r=0 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule Tennessee versus Garner itself is 471 U.S. 1 (1985) and may be read at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html or http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=1
The case’s holding, in which the court partially invalidated the Tennessee statute, is in the next-to-last paragraph of the opinion’s section IIB and reads as follows:
“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. … Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. … A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.”
In the paragraph right after that, the court opined as follows:
“[The statute] is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. 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.”
That, as you see, is something the Court said “in passing”—“obiter dictum,” as a lawyer would say. In the particular matter the Court was considering, that element—a fleeing suspect who posed a danger—was not involved.
Unless cases subsequent to Tennessee versus Garner bear on this subject, the legal question that would be before a court in this Walter Scott matter would be, I think, exactly that: Did Slager have probable cause to believe that the fleeing Scott posed a threat of serious physical harm, either to him (Slager) or to others?
Here’s a link that shows a slow motion of him dropping the taser next to the dead negro. Also has links to several other shootings in the back. One seems to be justified to me but some aren’t.
Sorry forgot the link.
http://investmentwatchblog.com/what-should-we-make-of-the-videotape-of-the-policeman-shooting-a-man-in-the-back-and-killing-him/
The Kelly Thomas beating to death was really a turning point for me with how I saw the police. They did it on purpose. It was malicious. They had what, four-five cops on him and still beating him for a long period of time while he’s pleading for his life.
“Liberty – let it GO.”
Denise … please.
“Right NOW, it’s all about seeing a man get shot in the back, as he ran away. That’s a primal sight.”
It’s a question of law, not of “primal sights.”
“We White have plenty of new Trayvons and Gentle Giant Mikey Browns coming up to bat. So don’t fret over Scott.”
Is it all right if we fret over Slager?
“FYI – lovely, exquisitely beautiful, very pricey Charleston, SC is BOOMING. There’s no “depression” there. I can guarantee you that all the tourists in that area had not one clue about the events of the past few days, and did not care, and did not suffer one tiny little bit, in any way, over this Scott/Slager farce. No one missed a delicious meal. No one stayed away from the beach for one sunny day. No one refrained from dropping a wad on one outrageously expensive trinket, in one gorgeous boutique, after another.”
If I get a chance, I’ll be sure to pass all of that delightful information along to Slager’s wife, who, I gather, is eight months pregnant. She’ll be pleased, I’m sure, to pass it along to her three children.
“Let this one roll down the hill…..”
What hill are you talking about? The one with a life sentence or the death penalty at the bottom of it? Denise … please: stop talking.
John B. re: “stop talking” – make me.
It’s not a “question of law” in the on-going Race War. NO ONE gives a flying “f” about facts, or dat White Menz Law, in Vibrantly Diverse Murrika 2015.
Perception IS reality.
Keep proving me 100% correct, re: WN tone-deafness, John B. You’re doing a dandy job!
Denise … please.
John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia says:
‘After reading Jared Taylor’s post, which Take Me Liberty linked, above, I posted a comment in response to it. http://www.amren.com/news/2015/04/officer-michael-slager-white-man/#comment-1956835197‘
I don’t understand why Taylor feels the need to jump in so quickly before all the facts are in and the smoke settles.
All that hand wringing about shame and letting us down is silly.
Negros and their many apologists never play that game.
It’s always Whitey’s fault- no matter what. Systemic racism etc.
When the nigger sneaked up on a cop car recently and shot two officers, one in the face, there was no condemnation from the hoodrat community.
When a nigger ambushed and killed 4-5 cops in a restaurant last year what was the reaction from his fellow darkies?
Talk of shame and whining about letting other niggers down?
On the contrary.
Way to go! Let’s kill more pigs!
He was a soldier doing his duty in the race war against honkies.
Denise you retort ‘make me’ to John Bonaccorsi’s request that you stop talking. Why do you feel you have the right to start issuing orders as to how this blog should be run? Let go of us.
There are some articles claiming there was a warrant out for Scott’s arrest, and some claiming there wasn’t. The latter seem to be the more recent reports. I have no clue which are right. (Changing stories is one typical element of psy ops, regardless if this is one or not).
You seem to not recognize that there are dimensions within which cops (or anyone) exercise discretion. I see the imperative to arrest and detain Scott under issuance of a warrant as wielding a far broader ‘jurisdiction’ if you will than if there hadn’t been any, because without one all Scott is is a flighty uninsured ex-driver of a car with a broken tail light. I’m not willing to risk human life for such a profile.
What gets me in all this is that with a warrant Slager had the state’s imprimatur to both chase and detain Scott but without it he mostly has the right to remove Scott from the vehicle and demand he walk his butt home. I got stopped once for something, then realized my insurance had been dropped a few days before because I’d failed to verify my street address. In moving, I’d missed the one notification letter. So the cop who’d stopped me for a license plate that didn’t match told me I just couldn’t drive home.
Big whup. If he’d chased me before we’d decided how to conclude, he’d have only known I was uninsured. That doesn’t give him all this power to take me down, through lethal force especially. If we fought and I kicked him in the nuts, he could punch me back and then charge me with assaulting a police officer.
Even if I’d tried to grab his taser, that would only have been his taser. In the video it’s quite clear Slager knows he has his gun, so if all he knows on Scott is that he’s uninsured, he has absolutely no business shooting so much as one bullet at him. If you can’t take a bit of a tussle as a cop then don’t become one. We don’t pay these assholes to hang out at Dunkin’ Donuts.
Comment just above addressed to John B.
Most of my posts so far have been redressing this notion that Slager could in any way be seen to have murdered Scott. I hadn’t gotten to any conclusion about manslaughter yet, and would have to start by getting its technical definition.
And, John B, if Slager had doubts about whether or not Scott had been able to gain possession of the taser, I still don’t think such a possibility justifies killing a perpetrator who has no other ‘crimes’ or charges hanging over his head. Stealing and running off with a cop’s taser is criminal, yes, but the dimension in which it would be decreases when that’s *all* there is going on. I’m just not clear that once Slager separated Scott from the uninsured vehicle there was this power to apprehend Scott. Or that most reasonable adults would want bullets fired in someone’s body without other measures taken beforehand.
I for one don’t. There are too many question marks in such a situation. Slager would have been compelled to radio help and take things from there. A gun is a life-ending weapon and the start of the affair, a busted tail light and uninsured driver, just isn’t enough to justify using it under our Constitution as far as I can see.
“I don’t understand why Taylor feels the need to jump in so quickly before all the facts are in and the smoke settles.”
That was my feeling exactly, Sam. That’s exactly why I was moved to post a comment in reply to his piece.
“All that hand wringing about shame and letting us down is silly.”
Again: my feeling exactly.
“You seem to not recognize that there are dimensions within which cops (or anyone) exercise discretion. I see the imperative to arrest and detain Scott under issuance of a warrant as wielding a far broader ‘jurisdiction’ if you will than if there hadn’t been any, because without one all Scott is is a flighty uninsured ex-driver of a car with a broken tail light. I’m not willing to risk human life for such a profile.”
Quite possibly, even an outstanding warrant, for a non-violent offense, such as failure to pay child support, wouldn’t have justified the shooting of Scott, if all he’d done was run from the car. As we know, Take Me Liberty, it seems possible he did more than that. Evidently, Slager caught up with him, and Scott struggled with him.
“If you can’t take a bit of a tussle as a cop then don’t become one.”
Since the nature of the struggle that took place between Slager and Scott is not yet clear, I object to your characterizing it as “a bit of a tussle.”
“Stealing and running off with a cop’s taser is criminal, yes, but the dimension in which it would be decreases when that’s *all* there is going on.”
Again: We don’t yet know all that went on. It appears, as I’ve said, that the question will be whether Slager, in the light of everything that had happened, had probable cause to regard the fleeing Scott as a danger.
By the way, I’m still reading the article you linked at Conservative Treehouse. Very illuminating.
You can’t really object to my speculative scenario, as it’s only speculative 😉
The Guardian tries to bridge the warrant gap, which might have been caused last night by the Black Lives Matter mob’s demands at a community meeting. They’re going to form a citizens’ review board or something with full subpeona powers:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/10/walter-scott-no-warrant-issued-child-support-traffic-stop
Jared Taylor’s comments just bolster these unfounded claims to power.
Thanks for the link to the Guardian piece, Take Me Liberty. Yes, Taylor’s comments were just–I can’t even come up with a word.
Without getting into detail, I’ll say I have a vague impression that public perception of the episode is changing–even if only slightly–as details of it are emerging.
PS It just occurs to me–quite belatedly–that the news writers are focusing on the warrant because it bears on the actions of Scott, not those of Slager. The existence of a warrant would not only explain why Scott ran but might lend credence to any claim by Slager that Scott fought him violently to get away.
Yes, and Slager was denied his right to a grand jury. I don’t know the specifics of our laws here, but that seems like the very beginning of a very real lynching – not just a ‘high tech’ one, either.
Jared Taylor’s comments were made without a full apprehension of the facts, and they enable this railroading. Any white advocate who doesn’t decry his remarks has to face that Taylor has gone out of his way to literally help promote lawlessness.
John B, I think the existence of the warrant bears on both Slager’s and Scott’s actions. It would have lent more motivation to both Slager and Scott in their agendas with each other. It also broadens the latitude Slager would have had by law and moral authority, while narrowing Scott’s considerably.
I have to ask, John, if certain discrepancies in the news stories aren’t starting to sound…odd, and leave it at that. First there was this warrant issued in relation to child support payments. But shortly after heated arguing in various hot spot internet sites, the reports changed dramatically – suddenly there wasn’t any warrant. Since when do NBC and ABC differ in reporting what is so verifiable and pivotal an element of a story? Either could have obtained facile verification of a warrant’s existence days earlier.
And as of last night, AP (I think, or maybe The Guardian) was then changing the story about Scott’s honorable discharge. The retraction or ‘update’ clarified that Scott had only been discharged ‘under honorable conditions’ or something like that – a different status that a ‘drug-related’ incident impacted.
Also odd that Scott’s family doesn’t want the ‘Ferguson circus show’ around, or so they say, which hasn’t stopped anyone but still…
It’s just very odd. ‘Never waste a crisis’ might be in effect, here, and taken to mean, recreate Trayvongate but rig the results and process even more this time. Sharpton is supposedly calling for a ‘nationalized police state.’
Conservative Treehouse’s latest on some of the various discrepancies and oddities:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/10/the-passenger-the-walter-scott-vehicle-is-a-curious-concern-to-scott-scheme-team-narrative/#more-99274
Treehouse commenter’s link says there’s going to be a grand jury, which I don’t understand as Slager has already been charged. I’d just been quoting, but here’s LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-south-carolina-shooting-20150410-story.html
There’s also speculation that Scott may not have had a valid license, and that he may have had drugs on his person or in the car. Running as a decoy to allow the passenger to escape with drugs in the car seems unlikely given that the passenger didn’t go anywhere.
Scott may also have suspected there was a warrant out for him even if there hadn’t been, which would still influence his decision. But Slager will be held responsible for what he could have known, not suspected so this recent disputed development bodes better for Scott than Slager.
As Treehouse notes, there’s a LOT that just doesn’t make sense or add up.
Nicholaus Stix as usual has an excellent take on this incident.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/here-we-go-again-walter-scott-michael-slager-and-another-post-american-lynch-mob
I should have known that the cursed MSN was doing the same old, same old.
Edit a video tape to only show the worst seconds that seem to slam dunk convict the cop.
The deceased was an extreme low life, also stupid – fighting with a heavily armed policeman. If you don’t violently resist a policeman, don’t initiate extreme violence towards police, chances are you will not get hurt. That said, the officer apparently lost his cool, lost his reason and shot and killed an ( by that time) an unarmed man. This used to be legal to shoot fleeing suspects (including me in my college days) it no longer is legal.
That vile hispanic teacher who forced little kids to praise cop killer Mumia has now been ‘suspended,’ read both the article and update at the bottom for the latest:
http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2015/04/nj_teacher_under_fire_after_third-graders_letters.html
So I’d like to know why this woman hasn’t been FIRED?! Does anyone know how close Orange, NJ, is to West Orange, NJ – where irish Brendan Tevlin was gunned down by Mumia’s ‘brothers’ in real cold blood last summer? It’s just blocks away.
But somehow a white cop is fired and charged with murder and thrown in jail without any thorough investigation.
Down south in NJ, the cops would have had to answer to the Pasquale family, who are suing the cops for failing to act quickly and diligently enough to search for Autumn as a means of defending her from two black males:
http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2014/10/autumn_pasquale.html
And just days ago in Philly a white homeless man was beaten savagely by a black mother and kids:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150410_Cops__Son_story_leads_mom__friends_to_savagely_beat_homeless_man.html
“Treehouse commenter’s link says there’s going to be a grand jury, which I don’t understand as Slager has already been charged.”
He’s been charged, but he hasn’t been indicted, Take Me Liberty. I have found the links posted by Jack Ryan and you very helpful.
I really don’t see a downside for anyone but Slager on this one. If ZOG wants to replace all the White cops with pavement apes that’s fine with me. Like Napoleon famously said,”Never interrupt the enemy when he’s making a mistake!” If during the Civil War II, the thin blue line is nothing but pavement apes heading to Wal-Mart for free big screen TVs, then there’s nothing between me and the Rat Pack. That’s just fine with me!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkQbUgDbRJ0&feature=youtu.be
Black judge sentences a three year old little girl to a life of black male violence.
The above link is basically the argument for separatism. There’s just no need to delve into this relentless DNA analysis. Different races and tribes just don’t get along. It’s that simple and always has been, more or less – more than less. So by continually explaining or analyzing the black ethnic polity’s hatred of whites in terms of ‘they’re less smart and blah blah’ than us, white liberationists should just keep teaching the vast majority of normal, non-emotionally nuts liberals about the basic facts – which is that Black America, financed by the Nation of Judea, can’t be lived with.
I personally like some black people and even think there are those who are better people than most of everyone else. I’ve even seen some who’ve made stands against ‘the system’ that almost no one of any group will. They just don’t overcome the tribal realism that is hardwired into humanity.
There is absolutely no such jew, however.
– meant to write ‘So instead of continually explaining…’
Liberty – I told JB to make me stop commenting. Hunter runs this blog. Mind your own beeswax.
http://news.yahoo.com/video-sc-police-officer-michael-slager-shot-man-in-the-back-with-a-taser-gun-031940770.html
This is not positive for Slager. Another driver (black) has been stopped, in this case has suspended license, and then refuses to exit the car. Don’t know if South Carolina calls for cops to arrest for suspended license. The guy shouldn’t have resisted so insistently.
But, Slager’s use of the taser does not appear to have been necessary. By the time he uses it, the perp is on his stomach and the two other cops look to be on their way to handcuffing and controlling him well enough – his hands aren’t hidden I don’t think. While Slager may have been concerned about the perp possibly feeling around for a weapon, the video still suggests (it’s not in great focus) that this concern is not very well justified.
Conservative Treehouse had another thread about the taser having been perhaps deployed in Slager’s wrestle with Scott. I think Scott either grabbed it before or after Slager had, and got a hold of the cartridge which caused the wires to be attached to him and Slager, which can be seen in the video. But there’s no evidence it was actually used, and it’s not clear that Slager shouldn’t have realized Scott hadn’t truly made off with it. If he had I would have been for more of some negligent charge, possibly aggravated.
But this new video shifts things again. Scott is obviously a totally different person and situation from the new complainant, and his actions are far less sympathetic. But manslaughter is looking – at this point – like a likely apropos charge against Slager.
The injustice is how distortionist it is to extrapolate black and white relations from this one case, especially when one views videos of the incredible and wholly unjustified police brutality that’s happening to everyone (including whites) by cops all around the US. It’s also totally unfair to sabotage Slager’s chance at a fair trial because Soros and Friends want to make a contrived example of him.
Here’s the fuller version of the video above, if you scroll down the article.:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/new-dash-cam-video-shows-michael-slager-tasering-man-in-separate-incident/
Wilson is not just physically passive aggressive – he takes an attitude from early on that he somehow does not have to follow the law and comply with being arrested, which is called for under South Carolina.
Slager witnessed this and participated in the considerable verbal and physical struggle to subdue Wilson, but the fact is cops aren’t supposed to mete out punishment, and refusing passive aggressively to be arrested just isn’t enough, for me, to justify Slager using the taser. Wilson may have angered Slager, but the offense and potential risks aren’t great enough for Slager to have struck back. I have to think being tasered pretty much sucks.
Delivering the howling mob the bad news, one piece at a time:
“Based on the facts revealed thus far, it does not appear South Carolina’s death penalty provision applies in this case because there are no statutory ‘aggravating circumstances’ present.”
That’s from the Facebook page of Scarlett Wilson, the solicitor for the trial court that has jurisdiction of North Charleston. See https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=919722224716285&id=379440515411128
They’re without a case, and they know it. From Plumhoff v. Rickard, a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case:
In Brosseau [v. Haugen], we held that a police officer did not violate clearly established law when she fired at a fleeing vehicle to prevent possible harm to “other officers on foot who [she] believed were in the immediate area, . . . occupied vehicles in [the driver’s] path[,] and . . . any other citizens who might be in the area.” 543 U.S. 194, 197 (quoting 339 F. 3d 857, 865 (CA9 2003); internal quotation marks omitted).
END QUOTE
“to prevent possible harm” to “any other citizens who might be in the area”
Brosseau v. Haugen, of which the Court is speaking there, involved a suspect who was trying to flee in a vehicle, not on foot, but I wouldn’t say that’s necessarily an important difference. The main thing is that it was lawful to stop the fleeing person because he was a threat to others in the area. (I think the police officer in Brosseau thought the guy in the car had a weapon in the car, but I don’t know whether she’d seen a weapon when she shot the guy.)
Would you say it’s obvious Scott was NOT a threat to others in the area? Take a look at this admittedly-blurry frame from the bystander video: https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/walter-scott-upper-hand.jpg
That’s Slager and Scott on the ground, maybe twelve seconds before Scott bolted. Scott is the green shirt, of course.
I haven’t yet encountered a Supreme Court case in which a fleeing suspect got into a fight like that with a lone policeman and then maybe grabbed the policeman’s taser and then took off again–but how would you like to be a prosecutor who had to prove that after everything that had happened in the chase, Slager had no reason to regard the fleeing Scott as a danger to others?
Here’s the bystander video that brought the case to world attention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEzYcrq3A38
Feidin Santana, who recorded the bystander video, has said he saw Slager and Scott on the ground. He has said Slager “was dominating.” As was said at Conservative Treehouse, where that blurry image of the two on the ground was posted: Who looks to be dominating there?
At 1:35 and 1:45 of his own video, Santana is heard editorializing, under his breath. “F—in’ abuse,” “F—in’ abuse, man,” seems to me to be what he is saying, though my hearing is not acute. Should the case go to court, that will be heard; Santana will be asked about it. On his own video, he’s impeached his evenhandedness.
PS Here’s dashcam video from a police car that arrives after the shooting: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1174432/New-dashcam-video-shows-Walter-Scott-scene-new-angle.html At 00:13 and 00:34, Feidin Santana is highlighted. Look where he’s standing, so close to Slager and other officers—and right out in the open. How is the prosecution going to argue that Santana’s video “caught” Slager or any of the other officers doing things nefarious? Santana wasn’t recording the video from a hidden vantage; he was right there, like someone recording a video of activity in his neighbor’s back yard.
On the other hand, in New York the skepticism towards the media’s coverage of ‘crime’ is building. Comments under a thread about the rape of a young woman in a downtown bar expose the divide between the media’s propagandizing and the average white person’s awareness:
http://news.yahoo.com/nypd-man-hides-bathroom-stall-sports-bar-rapes-112758661.html
Black men and transwhatevers are wanted for lineup. Colin Flaherty’s latest makes you wonder why half the black youth population isn’t being rounded up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mHVb_DxfuQ
Note that a black man tried gallantly to help an elderly white lady avoid the violence of a black mob, only to become its target himself.
Slager’s actions might be seen in the larger context as not so unprovoked, but in the micro one there’s still too much force. The black protesters should be defending the rights of the standup black guy in Flaherty’s video to defend an innocent white lady and the decent blacks like him.
Scott did appear to dominate at some point in that frame John B isolates above.
Here’s an article on the use of tasers:
http://news.yahoo.com/police-stun-guns-eyed-officer-involved-killings-083441809.html
What isn’t mentioned at all is how actively resistant too many black men are to the application of the law, in what I suspect is the South more than where I’m from based on what I’ve seen and can figure out. So the article takes on the attitude that cops should ‘negotiate’ more, while my reaction is that that’s covert lobbying on the author’s or quoted expert’s part (or possibly ignorance). The cops should be ‘negotiating’ more while the black guy in the car and black men generally get more and more of a license to flout the law. Wilson really seems to think he doesn’t have to get arrested simply because he doesn’t feel like it. I suppose one could say that Slager didn’t feel like wrestling with another black guy who stonewalls an otherwise basic process and then makes him work harder than he should have to.
Someone on Treehouse said, ‘An idiot shot another idiot.’
I switched from Wilson to Scott in the second to last sentence above. But the idiot contest applies to both situations, really.
Correction:
Having looked at this matter again, I see I was hasty and erred in examining Plumhoff v. Rickard, as well as Brosseau itself (the Supreme Court case). In Brosseau, the Supreme Court did not decide whether the officer had had the right to shoot Haugen as the latter attempted to flee in a car; the Court said simply that, at the time of the shooting, the law had been unclear enough that Brosseau couldn’t be sued for the shooting. The court specifically said it was not deciding the constitutionality of the shooting itself, which the lower court (9th Circuit Court of Appeals) had said was unlawful. In Plumhoff, the Supreme Court referred to its Brosseau decision only as an example of a case in which an official won protection from suit because the law governing her deed had been unclear at the time of the deed.
Take Me Liberty –
Here’s an instance you might find interesting:
http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2015/01/watch_authorities_release_dashcam_footage_in_bridg.html
This took place in Bridgeton, New Jersey, this past January. What started as a traffic stop for failure to stop at a stop sign ended with the shooting of a black passenger by a black cop and a white cop within about two minutes.
When I first saw this, right around the time it happened, I was astonished, not only by the insistent uncooperativeness of the man who was ultimately shot but by the number of persons at slate.com—a liberal haunt—who thought the shooting completely unjustified. I myself had thought, as I’d watched the video, “Well, this case, at least, is one on which we can all agree; obviously, the man who got shot had it coming. It was clear that, if he were to emerge from the car, he would be shot, but he did so.”
Oddly enough, someone at slate.com said exactly what I’d been thinking—but oppositely. He or she said something like, “Well, this case, at least, is one on which we can all agree; obviously, this man SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN shot.”
It’s amazing to me that human beings could have such starkly different perceptions.
I wonder whether police officers find that this problem—of drivers or passengers who won’t listen to police—has a racial slant. In other words, I wonder whether the percentage of black drivers who fail to cooperate in this way is conspicuously higher than the percentage of white drivers. The Chris Rock video that Mr. W. linked here, at Occidental Dissent, not long ago, must have been made for a reason. (In case you haven’t seen it, here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR465HoCWFQ )
John B that video doesn’t really tell much of a story, other than that the black cop tried his best, it seems, to deal with an escalating situation. But our view is blocked of goings-on in the car, so it’s too hard to tell what went on inside it. All we have is the cop whose behavior seems very on the level from the little I could see.
It does make Slager’s actions seem even odder, doesn’t it? NJ is an intense F-bombing ‘hood, huh. But is that all that’s behind Slager’s bizarre nonchalance?
I’ll tellya, comparing evokes the conspiracy realist in me. It’s just weird as hell.
Also, John B, if you ever get curious go to municipal court. You’ll find that blacks and hispanics both are very resistant to not merely arrest, but to any sense that they have to answer to the same laws everyone else does. It’s pretty much standard for any urban or what’s becoming now semi-urbanized town court to feature an array of black defendants who use the excuse du jour. I saw one recently try the ‘I had my hands up’ defense. He thought this excused him from having to be arrested. It was during the Ferguson riots. I’ve seen hispanics getting public defense, who were given way reduced charges, then scream ‘Not Guilty!’ – the only two words they can bother to learn.
Generally blacks and hispanics walk into court with charges at least halved or even further reduced. Sometimes they walk out with nothing. And sure, white people play their political games with prosecutors and vice versa, so they sometimes get a deal. But if you consider how much more often and dramatically it happens to blacks and hispanics you’d be shocked. This holds particularly true for the offenses that go beyond traffic stuff. I’ve seen white guys get crucified while black guys who did worse skated.
It depends on the court. Wherever the jews or the anti-white traitor types preside on the bench or the prosecution, middle class whites lose. It’s outraging.
So I see the black guy who got tasered, and Scott, in that context. Both have this notion that they are above the law. The jewish-manipulated system has taught them so.
Without getting into detail that is none of my business, can you explain to me how you know what’s going on in all the courtrooms of which you’re speaking, Tell Me Liberty?
Well, for one I’ve made it my business to study interracial crime just because. So my observations aren’t solely from always being inside all these courts, and I’m generalizing from what I’ve observed from my own personal study and experience, so I don’t report with as an ultimate authority. On top of that my area is one of the most overbearing police states there is in certain ways. There is so much surveillance equipment on both the streetlights and also in the cops cars. I recently had to put off getting a new license when I’d had one from out of state, and since my plate didn’t match I was pulled over at least five times within just a couple months. They saw a plate whose state license had expired, when in reality my out of state license was still good. Besides our surveillance state, we also have some of the most draconian laws and punishments for even traffic violations.
But yeah, I’ve studied crime specifically, it’s not just personal experience. The semi-urban towns in my state are indulging blacks and hispanics fairly routinely, from what I can see.
Thanks for the reply, Take Me Liberty.
Some say Florida played to lose in Zimmerman. Once they packed the jury with white women, and one hispanic – but no blacks – I assumed this. Treehouse envisions a similar scenario in Slager, except this one can’t be to promote gun control and killwhitey, since cops are legally allowed to carry and discharge guns, depending. Which makes the goal here more directly menacing, so I’ll also agree it’s going to be one hot summer. Warn your loved ones, folks.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/17/walter-scott-shooting-the-case-for-lesser-charges/#more-99557
I meant the sole goal of Slager being overcharged is to kill whitey. It will be interesting to watch if the DA insists on indicting on a murder charge.
HW- This is what I meant in my comments earlier on this issue, which Cambria has stated far better than I could.
https://cambriawillnotyield.wordpress.com/2015/04/18/the-one-sided-war/