Walter Scott MURDERED in Cold Blood by a Killer Cop

[ShadMan]

I read that there was a 2 minute struggle before the video began during which Scott overpowered the officer, took his taser, and fired it, hitting the officer in the chest and leg. Don't rush to judgment until all the facts are known. If Scott had the taser, which it appears in the video he did, that is a game changer. The officer drew his weapon while still physically touching Scott, and adrenaline may have taken over from there. I'll reserve judgment until all facts come out at trial.

[jbert22]

Originally Posted by shadman

i read that there was a 2 minute struggle before the video began during which scott overpowered the officer, took his taser, and fired it, hitting the officer in the chest and leg. Don't rush to judgment until all the facts are known. If scott had the taser, which it appears in the video he did, that is a game changer. The officer drew his weapon while still physically touching scott, and adrenaline may have taken over from there. I'll reserve judgment until all facts come out at trial.

thank you!!!!

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by ShadMan

I read that there was a 2 minute struggle before the video began during which Scott overpowered the officer, took his taser, and fired it, hitting the officer in the chest and leg. Don't rush to judgment until all the facts are known. If Scott had the taser, which it appears in the video he did, that is a game changer. The officer drew his weapon while still physically touching Scott, and adrenaline may have taken over from there. I'll reserve judgment until all facts come out at trial.

Must not have traded him too much...

You haven't reserved judgement because you are already leaning on the adrenaline excuse.

If the perp is running and you aren't in harms way anymore, why shoot? Adrenaline and anger are two different things. Plus, if he didn't have enough sense to cease fire due to adrenaline, then how did he miraculously come to his senses seconds later, pick up the taser and throw it next to the body to make the scene look more in his favor?

Some of the facts you seek may be hidden in logic.

[ShadMan]

Originally Posted by Goooh

Must not have traded him too much...

You haven't reserved judgement because you are already leaning on the adrenaline excuse.

If the perp is running and you aren't in harms way anymore, why shoot? Adrenaline and anger are two different things. Plus, if he didn't have enough sense to cease fire due to adrenaline, then how did he miraculously come to his senses seconds later, pick up the taser and throw it next to the body to make the scene look more in his favor?

Some of the facts you seek may be hidden in logic.

If I still have taser darts in me and perp still has the trigger mechanism, doesn't matter to me if he's running. You can run and squeeze a trigger at the same time.

Just saying, don't lynch the guy until we have the facts. He is innocent until proven guilty. There is no law stating that you can't shoot someone in the back of you fear bodily harm. I have no idea if the article is credible or not, but it seems like a plausible situation.

What bothers me the most about the entire thing is that the officer appeared to try to doctor the crime scene afterwards by dropping something next to Smith. Not sure what that was all about, but I'm sure it will come out at trial.

Here's the article if anyone wants to read it. Someone shared it on Facebook and I saw it on my Newsfeed. No idea if this is a credible source or if it's garbage:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...h-taser-darts/

[jbert22]

Originally Posted by ShadMan

If I still have taser darts in me and perp still has the trigger mechanism, doesn't matter to me if he's running. You can run and squeeze a trigger at the same time.

Just saying, don't lynch the guy until we have the facts. He is innocent until proven guilty. There is no law stating that you can't shoot someone in the back of you fear bodily harm. I have no idea if the article is credible or not, but it seems like a plausible situation.

What bothers me the most about the entire thing is that the officer appeared to try to doctor the crime scene afterwards by dropping something next to Smith. Not sure what that was all about, but I'm sure it will come out at trial.

Here's the article if anyone wants to read it. Someone shared it on Facebook and I saw it on my Newsfeed. No idea if this is a credible source or if it's garbage:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...h-taser-darts/

Thank you again! Too many people want to jump to conclusions over one persons cell phone video! Wait and hear the facts before stating murder geeze. What if the perp grabbed his pistol (which looks just like the taser the officer got SHOT with and killed the cop? Oh well the poor lil criminal just thought it was a taser?

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by jbert22

Oh well the poor lil criminal just thought it was a taser?

Interesting... This same excuse is flying for a cop that did the same exact thing. Shot a guy with what he thought was his taser, but it was adrenaline so it's all good.

Citizens first

[youmyboyblue]

Originally Posted by Goooh

Interesting... This same excuse is flying for a cop that did the same exact thing. Shot a guy with what he thought was his taser, but it was adrenaline so it's all good.

Citizens first

And this cop has been charged with manslaughter

[Renegade]

Originally Posted by ShadMan

If I still have taser darts in me and perp still has the trigger mechanism, doesn't matter to me if he's running. You can run and squeeze a trigger at the same time.

Just saying, don't lynch the guy until we have the facts. He is innocent until proven guilty. There is no law stating that you can't shoot someone in the back of you fear bodily harm. I have no idea if the article is credible or not, but it seems like a plausible situation.

What bothers me the most about the entire thing is that the officer appeared to try to doctor the crime scene afterwards by dropping something next to Smith. Not sure what that was all about, but I'm sure it will come out at trial.

Here's the article if anyone wants to read it. Someone shared it on Facebook and I saw it on my Newsfeed. No idea if this is a credible source or if it's garbage:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...h-taser-darts/

Well, one fact you don't have to wait for is the guy didn't have the Taser in his hand when the cop was firing. It was at the cop's feet. That's factual.

I understand people are hoping, wishing and looking for any means to justify this killing, but - even after all of the facts come out - it's going to be hard to prove this officer's life was in any danger when he shot at this guy. Eight times. In the back.

[swampman46]

Originally Posted by ShadMan

I read that there was a 2 minute struggle before the video began during which Scott overpowered the officer, took his taser, and fired it, hitting the officer in the chest and leg. Don't rush to judgment until all the facts are known. If Scott had the taser, which it appears in the video he did, that is a game changer. The officer drew his weapon while still physically touching Scott, and adrenaline may have taken over from there. I'll reserve judgment until all facts come out at trial.

Where did you read this?