Police Abuse

Walter Scott Dashcam Video Released

Michael Slager had possession of Walter Scott's driver's license and car when he decided to chase him anyway.

|

dashcam

The authorities in South Carolina have released dashcam video of the moments before Officer Michael Slager fatally shot Walter Scott as Scott tried to run away from him.  The video shows Scott trying to exit the car and being ordered back in and then a couple of minutes later getting out of the car and running away. At the time, Slager had possession of Scott's driver's license. Scott also left his Mercedes behind and a passenger in the car. Nevertheless, Slager chose to pursue Scott, eventually shooting him eight times in the back, as caught by bystander video.

In between the two videos, eyewitnesses say a struggle ensued between Scott and Stagler but that Stagler appeared to be in control. Before the video of the shooting was released, Slager claimed he felt threatened for his life, that Scott tried to take his Taser, and that he believed he followed all his department's policies and procedures during the entire encounter with Scott. He continues to maintain that in light of the video, although his first defense attorney dropped him after that video came out.

Scott apparently ran from Slager because he had a bench warrant for nearly $20,000 in back child support payments. Slager has not explained why he chose to pursue Scott rather than, say, meet him at the address on his license or wait for him to try to retrieve his Mercedes from police custody. Criminal defendants don't generally make statements explaining their actions as it could hurt their defense. But, neither has the North Charleston Police Department repudiated that decision as not part of their departmental policy. Slager was fired after the video of his fatal shooting of Scott was made available to authorities—shooting a fleeing suspect in the back is against official departmental policy in (hopefully) every department in the country.

But the decision to pursue Scott and "suspects" like him, and escalate the situation, may not be. Seven other officers, white and black, joined Slager after he shot Scott. At least one may have seen Slager drop an object (likely a Taser) near Scott's body. The object may not have been a Taser—but it's hard to imagine any object it would be appropriate to lay next to the body of a man you just shot and killed. Slager also handcuffed Scott after shooting him—surveying many videos of fatal police shootings, this appears to be a widespread practice. Another common feature of such videos  is the police officer barking commands at the person he just shot—Slager did that too.

North Charleston's mayor said on Wednesday he was ordering 150 more body cameras for the police department—the city bought 115 for its 340 police officers using $275,000 in federal money last year, but Slager was not equipped with one. Without video of the shooting of Walter Scott, Slager's boilerplate story about feeling threatened during a tense encounter would go unchallenged, as such narratives usually do. The case stresses the importance of the right to record police and why police disregard and hostility toward that right is dangerous.

Slager, however, is at least the fourth South Carolina cop in the last eight months charged for shooting at an unarmed person. As the Washington Post suggested, the national attention given to the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases "probably played a role." Importantly, in at least one of those cases, that of the 2011 fatal shooting of Bernard Bailey, state authorities had been pursuing charges since before Ferguson made police violence a national issue. Prosecutors pursued the charges even when the Department of Justice said they didn't see enough evidence to pursue civil rights charges.

Conservatives like former Rep. Allen West, who claim the murder charge against Michael Slager shows "the justice system clearly worked," are being obtuse at best and dishonest at worst. Without video there wouldn't have been charges. After all, not a single officer involved in the aftermath challenge Slager's incredulous story. Yet South Carolina has managed to, relatively, put police shootings in their state under more scrutiny than places like, say, New York City. More cameras on cops will inevitably lead to even more scrutiny, even in places (like New York?) most resistant to it.

NEXT: The Seriousness of Rand Paul's Budget

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You’re on candid camera. Bitch.

    1. With a soundtrack no less. Uncle Cracker. Was that coming from the cop car?

  2. Yet South Carolina has managed to, relatively, put police shootings in their state under more scrutiny than places like, say, New York City.

    SC pigs aren’t unionized, right?

    1. I was going to ask that.

      1. But as the election approaches, you’ll still see articles by New Yorkers about backward Southerners.

        “Ha ha, you reactionaries hate unions so much, I bet you don’t even guarantee your cops the right not to be interviewed in the wake of a fatal shooting!”

        1. Yeah, but police cameras are coming even to NYC too. Eventually. And that’s a great thing.

          1. This video is brought to you by Robert Zemeckis and Arthur Schmidt.

  3. Yeah, ‘the system worked’ after he was caught red-handed.

    1. Reposted from the last thread:

      echoing the sentiments of millions of Americans who told reporters they have faith that, as long as a fair-minded eyewitness happens to be passing by at the exact right time; has the inclination to stop and film; an unobstructed view; enough battery life and memory on their phone; a steady hand; the forethought to start filming an interaction with the police before it escalates into violence; is close enough to get detailed footage, but far enough away to avoid being shot themselves or seen by the officer and potentially having their phone confiscated; and it is daytime, then justice would certainly be served.

      1. Missed that last time, but yeah, exactly!
        ‘Course the miscreant could simply confess; that’s roughly the same sort of probabliity.

  4. Murder caught on camera. Murderer charged with murder. News at forever.

    1. Only, we’ve seen recently that having video isn’t always enough. Even here, there’s just a charge. Who the hell knows what a jury will do.

    2. He won’t be convicted of murder and the dashcam is actually evidence of that. There is no malice and Scott initiated the runaway on his own not because he felt threatened. This is probably criminally negligent manslaughter

      1. Running away from a cop, even by their standards, is not grounds for the use of lethal force. Which is what firing 8 times is. There is nominally supposed to be a threat to the officer or the public. Neither of those existed here.

        I also don’t know how anyone can say there is no malice. If a regular individual shot someone unarmed running away from them 8 times, that would not end up as manslaughter, but murder.

        1. Look at the dashcam. Where is the malice? It’s a cop making a normal traffic stop and asking questions. The guy has a license – but no registration, no insurance, and doesn’t own the (very expensive) car. The cop goes back to his car with license – and the guy bolts. The guy’s family says he was probably trying to evade arrest on something completely different. From the cops perspective, it is reasonable to believe at the time if he was wondering if car theft was the issue (which is a different category than the reason for the stop – broken brake light).

          Do police departments have rules for pursuit of someone evading arrest? Yes – and they probably all pursue. Should they pursue? Probably but that’s a different question and irrelevant here. But once a cop does pursue, you are in the realm of hesaidshesaid and heat of the moment and all. NOT malice.

          You don’t know anything more about the ACTUAL circumstances/facts of ‘8 shots fired’ (or allegedly 8) than I do and I don’t know why the media would be credible on this when they are credible on nothing else. I’m sure that stuff will be determined in court. But unless there was some very clear (ie forensics – not something the media says) execution, this is criminally negligent manslaughter.

          1. Apparently in your world shooting a guy who poses a threat to nobody 8 times doesn’t count as “malice?”

            1. In your world does assuming the conclusion count as an argument?

              You don’t actually know how many shots were fired. You don’t know how many hit the victim. Even the number ‘8’ doesn’t mean much unless the gun only holds 6 bullets – because in the real world people OFTEN empty the gun once they pull the trigger. Like or not, that’s how adrenaline works.

              You actually don’t know much at all about this case at all. Neither do I. But ‘malice aforethought’ (even implied – unless there is forensics evidence of execution) means that the officer intended to harm the guy when he stopped the car.

              1. Why does the intent to harm have to have occurred at the time the car was stopped?

                1. That’s the ‘aforethought’. If he doesn’t stop the car, there is no opportunity for the crime to occur.

                  1. That is not how the law works. It is not required to have intent to kill before any contact with the person for it to be murder. It might get you out of first degree charges, but not murder as a whole. When he pulled the trigger, he intended to kill him, despite the fact that he was running away and did not pose a threat to anyone.

                    1. I feel like the next best move for JFree would be to employ the”Nuh Uh, You’re Wrong” defense. Always a solid move in any argument.

                    2. When he pulled the trigger he willfully committed an act likely to cause death. We cannot know he intended death, but that really does not matter for a murder charge in the state of SC.

                      SC 16-3-10

                      “Murder” is the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied.

                      Eight shots at person who poses no threat is certainly evidence of malice.

              2. Try reading up on this maybe you can get a little info. He shot at him eight times. Apparently he was hit five times, in the back. Dunphy, is that you, you little cop fellator.

                http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..tened.html

                http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/…..ter-scott/

        2. Running away from a cop, even by their standards, is not grounds for the use of lethal force.

          Roughly, cops can use lethal force if they reasonably believe that the person running away poses a threat to others. (I don’t think that standard is met in this case, but that’s for a jury to decide.) I’m not passing judgment on whether that’s a good or a bad law, those are simply the facts. You can pretend the world works differently, but pretending doesn’t change reality.

          Furthermore, when cops shoot, it’s always to kill, and they always fire off many shots. There is no non-lethal use of guns.

          1. Slager stands by his assertion that he followed all appropriate use of force guidelines. He asserts this knowing that the video is going to be in evidence against him. I think his defense is going to be that he believed that Scott was running away with his taser.

            Now Scott did not in fact have control of the taser. But if you watch the video closely there are objects the fell at the officer’s feet and behind him. One of these should be the taser. Some objects are out of Slager’s field of vision, especially if he is focused on the running suspect.

            He can make a plausible (not necessarily credible, that’s for a jury)—but a plausible argument that he mistakenly believed Scott was a danger because he was fleeing with a stolen police weapon. If so and they believe him a jury could find manslaughter or even justified homicide here.

            At this point I’m not defending Slager’s decision. But like so many things this may not be as open and shut as it seems.

          2. Yes. I stated that in my comment. He was unarmed. When the cop talks about his tazer being taken, he was probably trying to establish just that. Only, said tazer was never in the dead guy’s possession.

            And no non-lethal use of a gun being cop policy was, again, my point. He took his weapon out and fired with the intent to kill.

            A lawyer could definitely argue various things to try and undermine those positions, but this was an unarmed guy running about 12 mph from the looks of it. The cop made no effort to pursue and went right to shooting. If that’s not malice from a cop, I don’t really know what is. If the cop couldn’t catch this suspect, he’s pretty pathetic.

      2. There is no malice and Scott initiated the runaway on his own not because he felt threatened.

        Uh, I’m pretty sure you’re not allowed to shoot someone 8 times in the back when they’re no longer a threat to you. That is definitely murder.

        1. I’m even more sure that ‘criminally negligent manslaughter’ is not ‘allowed’. The penalty is 2 to 5 years in prison.

          I am 100% sure that in SC, ‘murder’ is defined as ‘the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied’.
          http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php
          So like it or not, its up to the prosecution to prove malice aforethought as well as the act of homicide.

          1. On edit – the penalty for criminally negligent manslaughter may be 2 to 30 years in prison. There are two different paragraphs there and I don’t know which would apply

        2. Uh, I’m pretty sure you’re not allowed to shoot someone 8 times in the back when they’re no longer a threat to you.

          Well, you are wrong. Police are allowed to use deadly force against fleeing suspects, roughly, if they believe those suspects pose a threat to others. That’s why it’s always dangerous to run from police, even if you are innocent.

          1. Police are allowed to use deadly force against fleeing suspects, roughly, if they believe those suspects pose a threat to others.

            I’m aware of that. There was, of course, no conceivable way this case meets that standard, however.

            1. But, if you totally don’t watch the video, it could so.. things and stuff.

            2. There is. I’ve outlined it above. https://reason.com/blog/2015/04…..nt_5220181

              1. A tazer itself is considered non-lethal, per the cops. I’d enjoy seeing him make that argument in court. His defense will undoubtedly focus on the tazer that, from the video, it appears he moved next to the corpse afterwards.

                A jury can buy that shit. That defense would not fly for a normal individual. It’s the special cop defense, basically.

            3. Sure, there are many ways in which that might apply here: if the car had been carjacked, if the officer thought the fugitive matched the description of a violent felon, etc.

              The reason cops get away with shooting people is not because police are corrupt, or because of police unions, or because we hire bad cops; those things may all be true, but they don’t get to the root of the problem. The reason cops get away with shooting people is because most people want them to because they are scared. If you don’t understand that, you aren’t going to change anything.

  5. Murder caught on camera. Murderer charged with murder. News at forever.

  6. Did I stutter, bitch?

  7. I bet the guy who shot Walter Scott was “a laggard in love and a dastard in war.”

  8. Look, the cop probably feels bad, what more do you want ?

    1. To be sure he serves his time in General Population?

      1. Yes, please. As Mike Ehrmantraut recently taught us, there is nothing a cop fears more than going to prison.

  9. When can we have a national conversation about requiring police officers to carry liability insurance as a requirement for the job? Just as much as body cameras knowing that they could get hit in the wallet for thuggery would be a restraining influence.

    1. That’s an interesting idea. The municipalities are usually insured. I think a long time ago the legal system decided on a policy of indemnification for law enforcement instead of insurance. But we the electorate are free to revisit the matter of course.

  10. Just a comment, but according to the NYT, Scott did not own the Mercedes. How he came to be driving it is a question that will probably be answered sometime soon.

    1. Why, yes, Mr. Pedant, that would explain how running away became a capital offense right there!

      1. Well, Mr. Sloppy, it certainly makes a difference in the trial of the cop: if the car was stolen, for example, the cop probably would be found “not guilty”.

        1. I’m confused, where in the US does Grand Theft Auto come with summary execution as legal penalty?

          Even if the car was stolen – which the cop doesn’t *know* – that’s not enough.

          Lethal force is justified in the stopping of *violent* felonies, not felonies in general.
          Its also only justified when its necessary to *stop* a violent felony, but not *after* the felony has been committed.

          The only exception to this is to stop the escape of someone who’s committed a violent felony if its *reasonably* believed that this is necessary to prevent the commission of another violent felony (in the near future – as part of the suspect’s attempt to evade the police).

          Stealing a car is not, in and of itself, a violent felony, nor is running from a GTA charge sufficient on its own to support a ‘reasonable belief’ that the suspect is a serious danger to others.

          And, for God’s sake – the cop had his license in hand.

          1. He had someone’s license in hand. Handed to him by a person who subsequently demonstrated a willingness to run from a traffic stop, which is to say confound and elude detention. Maybe the policeman should have relied on the magical piece of plastic to maintain control of the situation. Or maybe it’d be perfectly reasonable to compare the license to someone in custody.

          2. You’re a bit confused calling shooting a fleeing fugitive a “summary execution” or a “legal penalty”. When police shoot people, it’s not a legal penalty. Also, I said “the cop would probably be found not guilty”, not that he clearly was authorized to use deadly force. The reason is that the legal situation is fuzzy and juries give police the benefit of the doubt.

            Your argument is essentially that what the police did is already clearly illegal; starting with that premise, it follows that the reason cops keep getting away with killing must be corrupt prosecutors, police unions, and all that. But that analysis is wrong; the fundamental problem is that the law gives police wide latitude for using violence.

            And the law does that because voters want it do: most people don’t mind the current situation, they don’t want to carry guns themselves or use violence to defend themselves, but they do want people with guns to protect them against what they think of is a dangerous world. In practice, the vast majority of voters never have any contact with police and aren’t afraid of getting shot by police. That’s why things are the way they are, and you’re not going to change that with your self-righteous indignation or by pretending that the legal situation is clear.

            Try pushing for legislation in your community that calls for unarmed patrolling and see how far it gets.

  11. It seems clear that the cop is in the wrong this time, but once again, it took some idiocy on the part of the victim to make it all happen. Don’t get into struggles with cops, treat them as nervous and armed and potentially dangerous, and many (most?) of these incidents stop happening.

    1. OBEY

    2. And here comes PapayaSF to blame the victim. Like clockwork when cops murder people.

      1. Look, if you weren’t breathing, then the cops bullets never would have killed you. See ?

        1. It’s really his fault for not having the body-type of an ankylosaurus.

      2. It’s not “blaming the victim” to point out the victim’s contribution to their fate, nor does it exonerate the cop. Not all victims are “pure” victims, and if everyone avoided stupid actions, the problem would be greatly reduced.

        The goal is fewer people shot by cops, correct? And because there are often many contributing factors to these events, why not work to reduce all the contributing elements? I’m not disagreeing with punishing bad cops, requiring body cameras, etc., I’m just saying that common sense is also needed.

        Cripes, libertarians can be as dense about police abuse as feminists can be about rape. To say “Passing out drunk upstairs at a frat party is bad idea” is not to “blame the victim” or “excuse rape.” It’s just reality. It is a bad idea, because it makes you more vulnerable to possible rape.

        If I tell you to lock your car in a bad neighborhood, I’m not “blaming the victims” of car theft, or excusing care thieves.

        And so, and I hope everyone is following along by now, not giving the police a reason to shoot you is a good way of reducing your chances of being shot.

        Get it?

      3. If you don’t want to become a victim yourself, keep your hands visible to the cop, don’t get out of the car, and don’t run away.

        1. And speak only when spoken to, don’t talk back and God sake don’t quote your rights.

          1. Correct. That’s the situation we have right now and we have had for a long time, because that’s the system voters voted for.

            If you want to change things, bellyaching isn’t going to help, you need to figure out what you want to change and then convince voters to adopt your changes.

            For example, one reason Europe has far less contact between police and civilians is because police don’t make traffic stops, they simply mail the ticket to the registered owner of the car. Are you willing to make that tradeoff?

            Personally, I would favor a lot of unarmed patrolling. Would you support that? How would you convince voters to vote for it?

    3. Yeah. Yeah, that’s it. The problem is we just spooked the animals. It isn’t an animal’s fault if it follows its nature.

      1. I am clearly not saying the cop was right. What I am saying is that faced with the reality that some cops are trigger-happy, there is something that can make a big difference: don’t give them an excuse to be trigger-happy.

        Why is this so hard to accept? This is like anti-racists insisting that all problems that blacks face are due to racism, and so it’s pointless or counterproductive or somehow excusing of racism to encourage blacks to better their lot as individuals, and not wait around for all racism to end.

        The view about police abuse around here seems to be 1) police abuse is a huge problem, 2) all solutions involve reforming the police, and 3) suggesting that individuals can do a lot to avoid being abused by the police is somehow counter-productive or “pro-police” or “authoritarian.”

        #3 does not fit with #1 and #2.

        1. Police are always going to encounter people that aren’t necessarily compliant and obedient. We expect them to handle that task without murdering people like this. And we hope that they’ll be held accountable for when they do mess up, which usually doesn’t happen. Those are the systemic issues that one would hope could be resolved by politics (haha I know). “People should stop doing dumb shit so cops won’t have a reason to kill you” is a nice sentiment, but not exactly a realistic outcome given the nature of the job.

          1. On the contrary, it’s quite realistic. In the real world, my advice greatly decreases your chances of being shot. How much more “realistic” can advice be?

            It’s not a guarantee, it’s not a panacea, it’s not an excuse for this cop or others, it doesn’t mean we should expect cops to shoot people unnecessarily, it’s not supporting authoritarianism, it’s just realistic.

            1. You know what else is realistic? People get nervous when confronted by authority, and without experience, they do things that aren’t wise. We all have experiences with this – getting called to the principal’s office, having a cop following you behind your car, being confronted by a wild animal. You tense up and sometimes act irrationally, especially if you’ve never experienced it before.

              1. Exactly. So it’s good idea to explain to people what can happen in this unfamiliar situation and give them a framework for handling it.

                1. Send them to education camps, eh?

                  Or, have cops storm children’s classrooms with guns drawn?

            2. You know what else is realistic? People get nervous when confronted by authority, and without experience, they do things that aren’t wise. We all have experiences with this – getting called to the principal’s office, having a cop following you behind your car, being confronted by a wild animal. You tense up and sometimes act irrationally, especially if you’ve never experienced it before.

            3. It’s not realistic in the sense that cops are never not going to encounter people doing dumb things or disobeying their commands. To think otherwise is utopian fantasy. Sure, it’s good advice on a personal level, but it’s not a valid or feasible solution to the systemic problem here.

            4. And furthermore, given that this is a cop that tasered a guy who wasn’t even suspected of a crime, and was not resisting (because he supposedly got him mixed up with his brother, even though the tasered guy doesn’t match his description at all, assuming it wasn’t Dave Chappelle-esque), I think it’s counterproductive to imply that this animal was only dangerous because he was provoked. The real issue here is that this guy was given a gun and a badge, and kept it even after proving himself dangerous with it, not that some random guy made a dumb decision and ran from a cop.

              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..suing.html

              1. I am not implying that police are “only dangerous when provoked.” Sheesh. I don’t know how much clearer I can make it. I am saying: police are often dangerous, and more needs to be done about that, and it is wise to not provoke them.

                1. No shit. But why do you always bring that up as if people doing dumb shit is as great a societal concern as police misconduct and lack of accountability? Should he have ran? No – but the cop shouldn’t have shot 1000x more than he shouldn’t have ran. It’s pretty widely accepted that running from cops or assaulting them isn’t a good idea. It’s not like there’s a widespread sentiment that those are smart actions. At the end of the day, you’re never going to get 100% compliance from everyone in society, and cops are supposed to be able to deal with that without resorting to lethal force the moment someone doesn’t obey. If you feel the need to be Captain Obvious lecturing the dead victim on their missteps then go ahead, but don’t be surprised when people don’t exactly find that to be the most important part of the case.

                  1. I bring it up because it’s an essential part of the overall problem. Problems of police abuse are different. Some are avoidable only if the police act differently. That’s what you and most others want to emphasize. I don’t disagree. However, a large percentage are avoidable by not doing stupid things. The principle of not doing stupid things seems essential to libertarianism to me. Why not to you?

                    1. “The principle of not doing stupid things seems essential to libertarianism to me. Why not to you?”

                      It’s not that I don’t think not doing stupid things is important. It’s that it’s inevitable that some people will do dumb things in human society. You might as well try to stop the tides. I’m not saying people shouldn’t be encouraged to not do dumb things – I’m saying that some people are going to do so anyways, and my big concern is that cops don’t unjustifiably resort to brutality and lethal force when that happens, and that they are held accountable when they do so. That’s the policy issue here that, while difficult to foresee being resolved in the current context, is more solvable than expecting 300 million people to never do dumb things.

                      “However, a large percentage are avoidable by not doing stupid things.”

                      Dumb or not, running away from cops should not be something that makes it expected for you to get shot in the back by police while posing a threat to nobody. The fact that we have to have this attitude is pathetic and indicative of the problem. Police are always going to encounter people who run away from them. My primary concern is ensuring this isn’t punished by execution, and that officers are held accountable when it does happen.

                      “I bring it up because it’s an essential part of the overall problem.”

                    2. Sorry, last line got pasted in there, and I forgot to delete it

                    3. Dumb or not, running away from cops should not be something that makes it expected for you to get shot in the back by police while posing a threat to nobody.

                      You should always expect to get shot in the back if you run away from cops. The reason is that there is always a pretty good chance that the cop has a legitimate reason to believe that you do pose a threat to society, given that he stopped you in the first place. For example, he may think that the car you’re in is used by a dangerous fugitive or that you match the description of a violent felon.

                      My primary concern is ensuring this isn’t punished by execution,

                      Well, then try to formulate a coherent policy around that; good luck, because I don’t see one, and I don’t know of any country that does.

                      What one can do is reduce the frequency of these incidents by having a lot of unarmed patrols, replacing traffic stops with mailed tickets, etc. I don’t see much support for such changes in the US though.

                2. Perhaps if TV shows showed this more realistically. Replacing these silly foot chases with a few warning shots in the back. It worked was working for smoking right up until they stopped harping on that.

                  Maybe some Obey or Die “The More You Know” spots.

                  1. I’m not sure what TV shows you watch, but police frequently shoot and kill people in the TV shows I have seen.

                    Furthermore, in real life, people getting killed by police isn’t all that common; most of the time, people who run away from police don’t get shot. Of course, when people don’t get shot, there isn’t a big news story, so you don’t hear about it.

    4. Running away from a cop isn’t supposed to be an automatic death sentence. Had Scott been shot during the struggle, the cop could have had the cover that Scott was attempting to reach for his weapon. This is very difficult to (dis)prove and is justification for deadly force.

      But once the subject is bolting, and has achieved remarkable distance between the officer and himself, being shot 8 times in the back carries zero justification.

      Even had Scott been armed, the cop might have had a thin veneer of cover that he was a potential danger to the neighborhood he was fleeing into.

      1. But he had a tazer! It was right next to him!

        1. yep. cop knew he fucked up and planted evidence. that will come up in trial.

    5. I’d agree the victim acted rather stupidly but I think we need to be willing to let a criminal escape if the only manner of capturing them is deadly force. Does this mean we should only make things crimes if we are willing to accept deadly force as a consequence? Yes.

      1. As slow as that guy was running, I don’t think he was escaping anywhere. The cop was just lazy and angry.

        1. I don’t think its hard to believe he could escape, but they had his name and didn’t appear to be a threat to anyone’s life.

          1. Seriously, if that cop can’t catch that guy, he shouldn’t be a cop in the first place. The 50 year old black dude doesn’t look like he could make it a block running. He was moving like molasses.

      2. but I think we need to be willing to let a criminal escape if the only manner of capturing them is deadly force.

        The rules are generally that cops may use deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect if they believe that the suspect poses a threat to others. The idea is that cops, say, shouldn’t let a potential murderer escape into the community and hurt people.

        1. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be willing to let a criminal escape if the only manner of stopping them is lethal force. Not all crimes are death worthy – even if the suspect is trying to avoid capture.

          Or are you saying that shooting someone running from a jaywalking ticket is justified?

          1. Officers aren’t judges; they don’t know what crimes you are actually guilty of. If you run away from an officer who stopped you, all they can do is make a guess whether you are dangerous. They may reasonably believe that you are dangerous simply because your description matches that of a fugitive, for example.

            Since you don’t know what the officer may reasonably believe, it is always very dangerous to run away from a police officer who has stopped you. They can legitimately kill you even in some situations where you have done nothing wrong and are completely innocent and harmless.

      3. I’d agree the victim acted rather stupidly but I think we need to be willing to let a criminal escape if the only manner of capturing them is deadly force

        The rule is (roughly) that police can’t use deadly force against non-violent criminals, but they can use deadly force against suspected violent criminals.

        Note the emphasis on suspected. Ultimately, this is a judgment call by police. You may be completely innocent, but if (for example) you match the description of a violent criminal in the area, that may be sufficient justification to shoot you in the back if you run.

        I’m not saying that’s a good rule (or a bad rule), it’s just the way it is. I’m pretty sure voters are not going to adopt your rule (“never stop fleeing criminals with deadly force”).

        Does this mean we should only make things crimes if we are willing to accept deadly force as a consequence?

        No, it simply means: don’t run away from a police officer who is stopping you lawfully.

    6. Yeah, Trotsky probably would have lived longer if he hadn’t gotten on the wrong side of Stalin.

  12. I know this is old news, but it’s been a very busy day for me and so I got to get my lolz for the day:

    COLORADO: Paul 44 – Clinton 41
    IOWA: Paul 43 – Clinton 42
    VIRGINIA: Clinton 47 – Paul 43

    Hillary is leading all Republicans by 49 points!

    /Shreektard

    /Botard

    /Tonytard

    /Alltards

    1. That’s just because he has better name recognition.

      /yes sarc

      1. More likely everyone knows Clinton. Of the people who said ‘Paul’, 25% think its the biblical Paul, 15% think its the point guard, 15% thinks its Ron Paul, and 40% would vote for Satan over Clinton.

        1. Satan called. He said,

          “How dare you compare me to that bitch!”

        2. Interesting. What are Satan’s views on free-market economics?

      2. Well, if 2 days of name recognition for declaring is enough to topple the ancient cankle beast, I think it’s all down hill for her from here.

  13. So 2.4k for a camera? Sounds legit.

    1. Well, you can’t expect this kind of purchase to happen without a whole lot of kickbacks and graft, can you?

    2. Well, that would be a hell of a deal for a Nikon D4S.

      1. Hell, it’d be a hell of a good deal for a D810.

    3. The latest GoPro costs $400.

    4. They probably claimed they had to hire a bunch of people to “manage” them.

  14. … although his first defense attorney dropped him after that video came out.

    He had a thing.

    1. I believe this is where Defense attorneys say, “My client lied to me”

    2. Slager didn’t get that thing he sent him.

      1. Ha ha! References.

  15. Have to say that handcuffing corpses is a nice “fuck you” touch by the cop.

    1. Unfortunately it’s a ‘standard procedure’.

      The idea being that the cop may not be able to accurately determine if the injured subject is a danger or not– probably a procedure that came from someone who went down after being shot, then sprang up while the cop was smoking a ciggie and waiting for the backup.

      I’m not super-concerned with the procedure. My issue has more to do with the circumstances of the shooting (obviously) and lag time between the shooting and when (or if) medics are called. On the last part, it’s important to note if medics are even allowed to treat the subject. We’ve seen situations where it appears the cops let the victim bleed out, actually barring medics from entering the scene in what seemed an obvious attempt to eliminate testimony from the only witness: the guy bleeding on the ground.

      1. I’m waiting for the moment when someone videotapes a cop walking over for a finishing shot at close range. You know this will happen.

        1. He made a furtive twitch.

      2. It’s really amazing to me that cops aren’t required to provide medical aid to the people they just shot. Presumably they get that training, yet they slap the cuffs on and then just sit there and wait (while calling their union reps).

        1. This bugs me also.

          I can understand the cuffing – but there are several videos running around where its obvious the victim is still alive but the cops just stand around and let him bleed.

    2. They remember pulling the legs off spiders as a child and how they twitched. That is, the spider legs twitched. I’m little future cop got and endorphin rush.

    3. Scott was alive when he was handcuffed. And it’s a standard procedure. http://trevor-reid.com/police-…..-shooting/

  16. I think you guys all missed the nutpunch here:
    .
    the city bought 115 [bodycams] for its 340 police officers using $275,000 in federal money last year.
    .
    Unless “$275,000 in federal money” equals about $14,000 in US dollars, SC must not know about Amazon yet.

    1. We’re desensitized to the usual corruption and graft.

      1. For realz. I admit that part didn’t even register.

    2. And are those solar powered? Didn’t think so. Why do you hate Gaia?

      1. NotAnotherSkippy|4.9.15 @ 9:34PM|#
        “And are those solar powered? Didn’t think so. Why do you hate Gaia?”

        Elon Musk to the rescue! They’re TESLA’s new, non-automotive product!

    3. Goddammit I am slow. I don’t post very fast, either.

    4. They made up for it by buying in volume. Imagine if they had only bought one.

    5. Look, it works like this.

      The cameras cost $200
      Then the price is jacked up to ‘government contractor standards’ – $400
      That’s $46k for the cameras.

      Then there’s the $230k training, service, and maintenance contract (that is for 2 years).

      That’s where they take one guy, give him the camera’s user manual and a cell phone and he’s on call 24/7 for whenever the PD has a problem.

      He gets paid $25k a year.

  17. Watching two neuroscientists give a talk. One describes poutine as “the shemale porn of international cuisine”.

    1. So you’re saying I should give shemale porn a try?

      1. If you don’t try it, how do you know you won’t like it?

      2. Well, if you like phallic strips of starch dipped in creamy liquid….

        1. Don’t forget about the curd.

    2. I actually have that talk bookmarked (well, “Pocketed”).

      1. Went ahead and watched the talk. I found it.. handwavey. I wonder if whatever they’ve published is more compelling.

  18. You know, I’d like to say one thing in regards to the oft-heard retort “well, he ran away, so…”

    We’ve been treated to dozens of stories of cops who forced women into sexual encounters during traffic stops. Imagine had one of those women tried to run away from a cop who was forcing himself on her?

    According to the ‘he ran away’ officer’s defense, shooting her in the back would then be fully justified and “understandable”.

    If we continue to insist on this ‘never ever run away’ logic, I say turnabout is fair play: how do we know that the officer didn’t try to stick his dick in Scott’s face?

    1. Don’t some places also technically allow for resistance/self-defense to unlawful arrests? I mean, in reality it doesn’t work that way, but it is the law in some places.

      1. Technically *every* place in the US allows that – well, except for Indiana where you’re only recourse to an illegal search or police misconduct is to allow it and then take it to the courts.

        Officer safety doncha’ know.

        1. The Indiana legislature passed a law specifically allowing for self defense against cops after that ruling.

          1. I believe that only applies in your own home – at least that was the incident that prompted the whole thing.

  19. “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?”

    A forthcoming production of *Our American Cousin,* the play Lincoln was watching at Ford’s Theater when he was shot.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/ae…..1504090048

    1. Is that play actually any good or is it only famous because of a certain assassination?

      Mr. Fatla is getting his second chance to stage the 1858 play, which he described as being part farce, part comedy-of-manners and part 19th century melodrama.

      This makes me think the play is kind of shit.

      1. Given that brief description, it could be very Gilbert and Sullivan-esque.

        1. But I’d bet it at least refers to then-current social conventions and prolly won’t be appreciated by modern audiences.
          Hell, the Keystone Cops movie comedies really don’t ‘work’ anymore.

        2. I haven’t read it myself, but Gutenberg has it:

          http://www.gutenberg.org/files…..3158-h.htm

    2. I suppose sending the Obamas a pair of tickets would be bad form.

  20. An insight into what some of the fine officers of the progressive utopia of San Francisco have to say to each other via text message:

    “Fourteen San Francisco officers and department employees are alleged to have sent or received the text messages in 2011 and 2012. The messages included slurs against black people, Mexicans, Filipinos and gay people, police said. The phrase ‘white power’ was used repeatedly.

    One read: ‘All niggers must fucking hang.’ Another said: ‘Cross burning lowers blood pressure! I did the test myself!'”

    “In one exchange, Furminger asked an unnamed officer if he should be worried that the husband of his wife’s friend, who was black, had visited his home, according to court filings.

    ‘Get ur pocket gun. Keep it available in case the monkey returns to his roots. Its [sic] not against the law to put an animal down,’ the officer advised.

    Furminger replied: ‘Well said!’

    ‘You may have to kill the half-breeds too,’ the unnamed officer responded. ‘Don’t worry. Their [sic] an abomination of nature anyway.'”

    SF’s finest on display. To Protect and Serve ladies and gentlemen.

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-…..t-messages

    1. I would expect something that blatant would be a national news story.

      1. I would expect something that blatant would be a national news story.

        They’re not southerners so progressives can’t declare it to be an example of Rethuglican racism and evidence of nascent southern neo-confederatism. It therefore will be memory holed.

        “In one exchange, Furminger asked an unnamed officer if he should be worried that the husband of his wife’s friend, who was black, had visited his home, according to court filings.

        ‘Get ur pocket gun. Keep it available in case the monkey returns to his roots. Its [sic] not against the law to put an animal down,’ the officer advised.

        Furminger replied: ‘Well said!’

        ‘You may have to kill the half-breeds too,’ the unnamed officer responded. ‘Don’t worry. Their [sic] an abomination of nature anyway.'”

        Jesus Christ.

        1. I don’t think it’s necessarily that – the Garner case got a lot of attention and that was in NYC.

          Also, just cause it’s SF doesn’t mean they were all Democrats, especially since a lot of cops in big cities live in the suburbs (Bay Area suburbs tend to be liberal, but not nearly as much as SF is), although at the same time it’s seriously doubtful they’re all Republicans.

          A more likely explanation is that the media only cares about racism when convenient. This is the kind of story that gets people to say “Damn that’s fucked up” but most people are going to go back to their normal lives. Some people will rightly make a big deal out of it, but there’s not controversy to exploit. This doesn’t generate ratings the way an ambiguous, controversial shooting does.

    2. ‘You may have to kill the half-breeds too,’ the unnamed officer responded. ‘Don’t worry.

      Bring it, unnamed officer. Bring it.

      1. *blam blam blam*

        Freeze, put your hands up, get on the ground!

      2. Could’ve been referring to shemales. No need to personalize it. Or…

      3. Just tell him you live on They’re Dr.

        He won’t ever find you.

    3. Adachi said: “Training and reinforcement is the only way to ensure that racial bias by police does not harm our citizenry.”

      Give the government more power and money, and this will finally go away.

    4. I have a relative who’s in the SFPD. I would like to think he’s a good guy, but I just have no faith anymore.

      1. I feel somewhat the same way about a cousin in the LAPD. I’ve always loved him and he’s always been a good guy to me, but who knows what he’s done or passively accepted on patrol? It’s fucked I even have to contemplate this

      2. I had a coworker/friend who joined the Buffalo PD when I was living there for college and working a shit grocery store job. Really nice guy – openly gay too and I saw him at clubs and stuff. (Incidentally, he was the first cop to respond when I got held up at the first shit hotel job that I took after the shit grocery store job.) This was almost 20 years ago. Sometimes I wonder what became of him.

    5. Gotta point out that:
      “SF Police Chief Plans To Fire Cops Over ‘Despicable’ Racist Texts”
      […]
      “Several cops had allegedly exchanged messages with former SFPD Sgt. Ian Furminger. The messages were discovered when Furminger was recently convicted on federal corruption charges.”
      http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l…..xt-dismiss

      And the guy was facing the charges since Suhr forced the issue.
      Until 2011, the SFPD was run by G. Newsom appointees whose primary skills were not getting between a camera and Gavin. Suhr has been successful in actually firing some of the assholes he inherited and is not popular with the union reps.

      1. Suhr has been successful in actually firing some of the assholes he inherited and is not popular with the union reps.

        Good for him. Being hated by the police union is a sign of moral character.

        1. Being hated by the police union is a sign of moral character.

          One of the very few things I like about Deblasio. Of course he’s trying to walk it all back because the cops basically run NYC but still.

  21. In other fascist news apparently the President of Ecuador tweeted this.

    Rafael CorreaVerified account
    ?@MashiRafael
    @WKybalion ?Heil Hitler!

    I have no Spanish. Is this legit?

    1. The person he tweeted at basically said “Ex-president Osvaldo Hurtado explains in court* that the regime of @MashiRafael is fascist”

      In context, it seems that Correa’s tweet is clearly sarcastic.

      *foro has multiple meanings, it could also mean forum and I’m too lazy to check where he said it

      1. In context, it seems that Correa’s tweet is clearly sarcastic

        Kinda figured it had to be something like that but even as sarcasm it seems.. off. Guess the rules are a bit different down there.

        1. I agree, it does seem like something a President would not touch with a 10 foot pole even sarcastically.

          1. I doubt El Presidente runs his own twitter account.

            1. True, but you would expect quick damage control in that case.

  22. Time for an anti-nutpunch:

    Child-raping ex-cop killed in prison

    http://thefreethoughtproject.c…..9-yo-girl/

    1. Wow. Put the child rapist in a cell with a guy serving a life sentence (W/O parole?). 90% of me is happy with that. Yet in a corner of my head Doystoyevsky still speaks.

      1. Of course, we’re assuming the guy was rightfully convicted…maybe he was in this case, but in the next case of vigilantism, and the next?

        (not to mention that murder is a crime)

        1. Child Rapist Ex-Cop Killed by Cellmate in Prison for Continually Talking about Raping 9-yo Girl

          If this is true, I think it’s relatively safe to say he was rightfully convicted.

          1. That’s the killer’s account, isn’t it?

        2. If a child rapist were to slip and impale him/herself on a garden nome, yeah, cool. The state setting that up to happen is another story.

          1. Murderlocity: The Killer Gnome

            “Don’t forget my wrath.”

            1. Don’t forget my “G”.

          2. Back when I worked at the Mayberry jail people used to tell stories about the Sheriff from the 70s. He was pretty much every stereotype of a small town southern Sheriff. Story was that over the decade and a half he was Sheriff he several convicted child rapists had “accidents” while working. Each time it happened the Sheriff would show up, ask what happened, and get an answer along the lines of “he fell into a hay bailer”. To which he would reply “Yep, them perverts are clumsy sumbitches.”

      2. That’s a bit strange, Ex cops and pedophiles are usually the two categories of prisoners that never go into general population.

    2. The commenters are posting links and descriptions of how to add to this guy’s commissary account.

      I think the public is beginning to feel riled.

  23. OT. I noticed last night that Michael Hihn was posting using an unadorned handle (no link). He previously posted using the handle with the libertyissues.com link. Tonight, he’s back with the link. So, I checked on previous posts and it seems we have two Hihn’s posting. In fact, in this corpse-fucking post from 3 days ago both Hihn’s show up. Here adorned. Here unadorned. He even posted today on that post both unadorned (early morning) and adorned (this afternoon).

    Conspiracy theories, anyone?

    1. I don’t know if this counts as a “conspiracy theory” or not but… He’s probably too damned senile to remember his password and had to create a new account. Then later on he found the old cocktail napkin with his password on it.( It’s 1 2 3 4 5 BTW)

      1. That’s the stupidest combination I’ve ever heard in my life. That’s the kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage.

      2. I suspect he’s using 2 different computers and is permanently logged onto reason using the different accounts.

        Of course, it doesn’t explain how he can post with the same handle when reason doesn’t allow this. Unless he changed his adorned handle in order to post under the same unadorned handle, and then changed his unadorned handle to now post again under his adorned handle. That would definitely explain his insanity.

      3. That’s amazing! I’ve got the same combination on my luggage.

        1. That was my virgin-alarm. It’s programmed to go off before you do!

    2. As long as both accounts remain redacted by reasonable, I don’t give a shit.

    3. “Conspiracy theories, anyone?”
      Dunno. At one time he supposedly was someone worth listening to, but I wonder if that wasn’t a result of a change in references.
      Now he seems to be a blithering fool, claiming to have the secret of libertopia and proposing nothing other than what has been pitched for lo, these many years. He also seems totally unable to understand that others don’t buy it; Bo^2.

  24. So I just folded time and back from a yahoo story with comments. And yes, that is a dark and derptastic region of the webosphere.

    But once again, it’s a story about Rand leading Hillary in some state polls already, a theoretical impossibility in proggytopia.

    It’s completely derpastic, the left are absolutely shitting their pants all over the thread.

    1. For instance. One commenter out there a couple of weeks ago was saying things like:

      Hillary’s up on all the GOP by 49 points, deal with it!

      Same poster tonight:

      It’s too early for polls, Rand will lose, Hillary wins! Deal with it!

    2. ‘shindigg 14 hours ago

      I guess the people of Colorado and Iowa want to see an economic depression like we’ve never seen before and Somalia-like response to it, which is what we will get with so called reich wing libertarian Rand Paul.

      With Rand Paul at the helm, and a republican Congress, right wing power brokers get as much freedumb to consolidate their and concentrate their already completely obscene and quite immoral power and wealth and EVEN MORE, and HORDE like there’s no tomorrow EVEN MORE, and suck up the people’s resources without having to give back anything in return!!…Ron Paul will provide FREEDUMB for big business to do WHATEVER THEY WANT TO WHOMEVER AND STEP ON AND OVER WHATEVER IS IN THEIR WAY. That’s what we get with Rand Paul: A cheap labor republicon paradise!!! Oh, GOODBYE SSI, No more Medicare, either. Truly free stooges, I mean FREEDUMB-LOVING citizens who love liberty, don’t need no stinkin’ SSI or Medicare benefits!!!. That’s what coupons are for! A real freedumb panacea!! LMAO “”

      Its going to be an ugly year

  25. Dare we hope that the pressure being placed on cops by the media (including Reason) is having some effect on holding these shitbags responsible? I was shocked when I heard he was being fired and tried.

    1. We can hope, I guess. Still a very long way to go, and it seems that if a story doesn’t serve some racial narrative it doesn’t get so much attention, but its still progress.

    2. I would like to think this, but unfortunately, it seems like unless it’s a white cop shooting a black guy, there is virtually zero coverage of it at all.

      So, the cops will just learn to only shoot white people in the future.

  26. Kevin Williamson, in National Review, with a sympathetic discussion of Rand Paul, coupled with lowered expectations.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..ce=twitter

    1. I’m too drunk to read that now + he is like the more male version of Ann Coulter. Is it worth a read?

      1. A quick read, yes. A quick drunk read.

        1. Drunk is the only way to read NR.

        2. All right – not bad.

      2. Williamson is always worth a read.

      3. the more male version of Ann Coulter

        *snort*, that conjures images of the alpha beta-male.

        KW is pretty damn good, better than most of what you see in NR.

  27. Oh, and stop the presses:

    “VA struggling to shorten waits

    “Months after reforms, patients still face long delays in getting care”

    http://www.newsobserver.com/ne…..rylink=cpy

    1. “NHS hospital waiting time figures worst in seven years”
      http://www.theguardian.com/soc…..me-figures

      “Reality Check: Are NHS waiting times shorter?”
      http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-32130437

      In breaking news, the DMV is still staffed with large, nasty women who don’t give a shit! Pictures at 11, but why would you look?

  28. “BARNEY FRANK ADVISES POLITICIANS TO STAY IN THE ‘ATHEISM CLOSET’: VIDEO

    “In a new video for Big Think, former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank offers some subtle advise for atheists with political ambitions: be careful referring to yourself as an atheist, Frank cautions.

    “Frank acknowledges the importance of stopping oppression of “nonbelievers,” and that he himself doesn’t have a particularly “theistic approach.” But Frank asks political hopefuls: “Why pick a fight that doesn’t have to be waged?”

    “Says the former congressman:

    “”The problem with atheism, politically, starts with the phrase. I’ve advised people who are themselves nonbelievers not to use the word “atheist.” It has a harshness to it. Not necessarily literally, but it comes off as a repudiation of religion. And religion is very important to many people, a source of good feelings for many of them. It is not always, unfortunately a motive for good behavior.””

    http://www.towleroad.com/2015/…..video.html

    1. Are you trying to summon Almighty Sevo for and start a fight, Eddie?

      1. Certainly not!

        Atheism: Women, people of color hardest hit –

        http://www.bloombergview.com/a…..theism-gap

        1. OK, just one more piece of trolling, and then to bed:

          “4 reasons I’m glad I came out as an atheist”

          http://www.salon.com/2015/03/2…..t_partner/

          1. Here is some relaxing non-christian music to help you sleep.

          2. My own parents were comfortably secular themselves, which no doubt made the task a whole lot easier.

            Ugh.

            This *opens* with the guy basically saying that he came out gay to his *gay parents* and we’re supposed to accept that this was some ‘struggle’.

    2. I’d prefer politicians who just kept silent about religion rather than pretend, which is what I suspect a lot of them do.

      It is silly to argue about unprovable things. I respect the honesty of people who admit to taking it on faith.

    3. Well, he’s not *wrong*.

      Most people see anyone who says they do things differently as attacking the way they do things. That’s why you have this vicious pressure to conform.

      If I say I’m an atheist, that pretty much says that I see no value in religion and, to the religious, it is an attack.

      The very fact that people like me exist is a threat to ‘warm fuzzy’ they get for being part of a group.

      And its not just the religious – think of how many people go nuts if you voice the slightest criticism of their country.

      This tendency is a major reason why the left is out of control with this SJW and PC crap – at least the religious have had a few centuries to nail down the conformity guidelines. Leftists have rejected religion but not mass conformity – so they’re eating each other alive to show who’s the most *in* by moving the goalposts.

      1. So I agree – any atheist political candidate should keep that quiet, unless he’s running for office in a (non-existent) hardcore atheist district.

        Same as a gay political candidate should avoid making a big point of his sexuality – the fewer reasons people can find to write you off the better you’ll do at the polls.

        And, ultimately, religion/non-religion *shouldn’t* matter as to how well you can do your job.

        I mean, its not like the religious can say, with a straight face, that atheist candidates are inherently less trustworthy than *any* of the religious officeholders. If nothing else, we’ve got near a century’s worth of data comparing the religious to the non-religious and neither come out looking good.

        1. Or maybe, just maybe, that atheists are dicks? And constantly insulting and belittling others (as is pretty common here) rubs them the wrong way?

          I used to be an atheist from about 15 to 25. In retrospect, I cringe at how much of a dick I was.

          The biggest enemy atheists have is themselves and how they behave. And frankly, if you look at the history of when atheists gain political power, they are just as bad as any religious types, be it ISIS or the Inquisition. Look at France after the revolution, China, Russia.

      2. I was watching Thom Hartmann today because you know, derp, and a lady called in and explained that white women were more oppressed than black men because black men could vote before white women could.

        Oppression Olympics.

        Later on Rachel Maddow, she took exception to his slogan “Defeat the Washington Machine” because it was plastered on a podium where he gave a speech in front of an aircraft carrier. She said that the carrier is a Washington Machine, so does Paul oppose that?

        herp herp herpaderp

        1. Well, it *is* a ‘Washington Machine’ and, if presidential candidates could actually be honest, he’d come out and say “yeah, I oppose it. Why the hell are we staffing to be able to fight two wars and another major conflict simultaneously? Its time to seriously look at *all* the budget, including the military and see what needs to be re-aligned (such as the Navy’s big platform/blue water focus) and what needs to go.”

          ‘Course, Maddow doesn’t actually care about that – to her this is just a ‘gotcha!’

        2. “Oppression Olympics.”
          Just for Eddie (and John):

          “Cecil Bothwell, an atheist who in 2009 won an election for a Asheville, North Carolina city council seat, was almost unseated by local critics who pointed to a provision in North Carolina’s constitution that prohibited nonbelievers from being elected. This provision of the state constitution is similar to provisions in Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The provisions follow:”
          http://americanhumanist.org/HN…..it-godless

          I wonder if women are prohibited from elective office? With Pelosi as an example, you’d hope so.

  29. Guess who endorsed Seattle Socialist Kshama Sawant. Go on, guess:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkwhunJW9aU

  30. When a driver flees a traffic stop it is that detainee, not the police, who have escalated the situation. Pursuing the fleeing suspect makes sense to keep the initiative and regain control of the detention. Called for by radio additional officers can locate and secure the vehicle, and cooperating passenger which are at a known and easily indicated location. In contrast once a suspect on foot is out of sight he’s harder to deal with.

    I’m not defending the shooting but Mr. Krayewski is trying to second guess police procedure with common sense where a specialized sense is actually called for. Slager was the only officer on scene at the moment Scott decided to run.He chose to deal with the most pressing issue: a fleeing detainee.

    1. “I’m not defending the shooting but…”

      Then you should not have written “but”. The guy was a moron to run from the cop, sure. The cop was absolutely wrong to shoot.

      1. You’ve just illustrated why such a conjunction was called for. The comment addresses this article’s errors about police procedure aside from the shooting. This was expressly pointed out for you using the word “but” and others.

    2. DIAF

    3. Then maybe the ‘specialized sense’ the cops have should be questioned.

    4. Trevor Reid|4.10.15 @ 12:19AM|#
      “When a driver flees a traffic stop it is that detainee, not the police, who have escalated the situation.”

      Gotta be sarc! Just gotta be! Stupidity of this level means typing is probably not possible.

    5. He chose to deal with the most pressing issue: a fleeing detainee.

      Chose to deal with him by shooting the unarmed detainee in the back from a considerable distance.

      I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

      You are correct, Scott “escalated” the situation by running. By “escalating”, Scott had greatly exposed himself to increased charges, probable jail time, fines and further difficulties in life maintaining a job, etc.

      But if what you mean by “escalating” is that he forced Slager’s hand (bullets into his back, really) you’re wrong. Procedurally wrong, legally wrong and morally wrong.

      1. No. I was only answering to the article’s bizarre contention that Slager’s decision to chase Scott is somehow odd. It’s pretty standard.

        1. Chasing him wasn’t the questionable part – shooting him in the back was.

  31. In other police professionalism news: Southern California sheriff orders probe into recorded beating of horse thief

    The footage then shows the horse appearing to veer or shy as a helicopter sweeps over it. The man then falls or is thrown off the horse.

    A deputy runs up, falls, gets up again and uses an electric shock gun on the man. However, the Sheriff’s Department statement said the Taser was ineffective because Pusok was wearing loose clothing.

    The video shows the man falling face-down with his arms and legs outstretched, then rising briefly and falling again spread-eagled. Two deputies then appear to come up and kick him in the head and crotch. They then appear to begin pounding him.

    Other deputies arrive moments later.

    KNBC-TV said up to 13 deputies eventually surrounded the man, and some of them kicked, hit and punched him dozens of times over a two-minute period.

    1. Two deputies suffered dehydration, a third was kicked by the horse and all were taken to a hospital for treatment, the statement said.

      Pussies. I suffered dehydration cleaning brush out of my backyard last summer.

      1. I assume that the hospital trip was so they could charge him with harming leos somehow.

    2. Isn’t proper procedure to promptly hang a horse thief?

  32. For those that like to know where murderers walk among us:

    http://blogs.ocweekly.com/nave….._coach.php

    Former Fullerton cop Manuel Ramos was outed last week as a PONY League coach in the city, but apparently he’s not alone. Jay Cicinelli, Ramos’ fellow FPD-er who, in his own words, took the face of Kelly Thomas one July night in 2011 and “just smashed it to hell,” is also coaching youth baseball–in La Mirada.

  33. The Trayvon Martin Lied

    “There’s no need to fear — Underzog is here.”

  34. Note how Slager, as he first approached Scott;s car, places his hand on the vehicle just above the tail light. That is intentional?.to leave his fingerprints on the car.

  35. My co-worker’s step-sister makes $80 /hour on the laptop . She has been out of work for seven months but last month her paycheck was $21155 just working on the laptop for a few hours. find out here now
    ????????????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.