Geraldo weighs in

[MechAg94]

As far as looks, I thought they already were. In terms of feel, what else is there?

Yeah, I thought that normal people get opportunities to plea down. 

If the case becomes a media circus, no one wins.

[Angel Eyes]

As far as looks, I thought they already were. In terms of feel, what else is there?

Not sure I understand your question.

While it's not my area of expertise, I notice that devices like the X26 and M26 Tasers are very pistol-like in shape and controls.  If they were shaped like, say, this:



 

mistaking a firearm for a Taser would be less likely IMO.

Of course, proper training, practice, and mindset are more important. 

[Balog]

Well put, but at this point we know there was a 1.45 minute fight with a police officer, before a taser was used (and that potentially on the officer). I don't know if that makes him a violent felon but it does make him a felon who had a 1.45 minute fight with a cop.

Please provide a link to the statute authorizing lethal force against someone who is unarmed and running away from you, if you had just been in a fight with them.

[Perd Hapley]

Not sure I understand your question.

While it's not my area of expertise, I notice that devices like the X26 and M26 Tasers are very pistol-like in shape and controls.  If they were shaped like, say, this:



 

mistaking a firearm for a Taser would be less likely IMO.

Of course, proper training, practice, and mindset are more important. 

My guess would be that tasers are shaped like pistols for the same reasons that pistols are shaped like pistols, even down to having the same grip angle as the department's duty pistol. How much could we deviate from that, and still have a weapon that can be aimed at a target, while under duress?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Couple points i never considered
http://www.vdare.com/letters/a-law-enforcement-veteran-speaks-in-defense-of-michael-slager


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

And grahm vs connor might come into play

Graham pressed charges for excessive force, claiming that his constitutional rights were violated. When the case eventually went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the fundamental aspects of the decision centered around the word "reasonable" and determined that what is reasonable in the use of force by an officer has to be viewed from the perspective of what was reasonable in the moment of force and not in 20/20 hindsight.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

And hers an analysis from a guy who wants slager to go to jail. And why its not gonna happen
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/10/michael-slager-is-not-going-to-prison-for-killing-walter-scott-here-s-why.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Blakenzy]

I think that the arguments presented in the first article (assuming they are correct) are ridiculous. "Man slaughter at most..."  

Technicalities don't outweigh Natural Rights, mkay?

[RoadKingLarry]

He's toast. And he should be. This is the way it should be. No more free passes because you are a cop. You screw up, you get charged and a jury will decide.  This will happen more often, as it should.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-reserve-deputy-73-charged-degree-manslaughter-stun/story?id=30277587

I've been watching that one pretty close. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. Also kind of interesting to see that the Tulsa county Sherriff says he didn't do anything wrong.

[MechAg94]

Please provide a link to the statute authorizing lethal force against someone who is unarmed and running away from you, if you had just been in a fight with them.

Well, since you say it in that manner:  If he was running away with the officers pistol and he shot him with a backup gun, that would be one option.  There are probably others that also don't fit this case.

[Blakenzy]

Well, since you say it in that manner:  If he was running away with the officers pistol and he shot him with a backup gun, that would be one option.  There are probably others that also don't fit this case.

If he were running away with the officer's pistol, then that would make him ARMED.. right?

[Perd Hapley]

Hypothetical:

Say an officer attempts to lawfully use his Taser during an arrest, and a suspect takes it, and uses it against him. Say the officer still has barbs in his flesh, and the suspect runs a short distance. While running, the suspect is obviously facing away from him. Let's say the officer believes, or has reason to believe, that the suspect still has the Taser, and the ability to use it against him by simply energizing the wires again. (I don't know whether Tasers work that way. It is my current understanding that they do.) As the suspect, if he has the Taser, does not need to turn around to do this, would the officer be justified in shooting the suspect in the back? He has reason to believe that the suspect may tase him, and then cause him further injury or death.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

If he had the taser he would be too right?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Marnoot]

(I don't know whether Tasers work that way. It is my current understanding that they do.)

It do. Or at least the LEO-versions do. The plebe version just energizes when fired and stays that way for some quantity of seconds (enough to hoof it out of dodge while the bad guy rides the wires being the idea), and then is done.

[Jocassee]

Please provide a link to the statute authorizing lethal force against someone who is unarmed and running away from you, if you had just been in a fight with them.

What I was driving at is that the defense will use that fight, combined with the Tasering of the officer (if that happened) to say that Slager thought Scott was an immediate threat to the public at large--like in Scouts case with the female MP.

[Blakenzy]

But was he an immediate threat? How would you articulate that? What possible scenarios could develop in which he would immediately cause sufficient harm that merited his immediate death on the spot? In other words, who would have died right then and there if Scott did not die first? It was not a defensive shoot, it was a hunting shoot, predatory, offensive, capture by bullet, call it what you will. "I'm going to "get" that man running over there" is what the pictures say.

[Hawkmoon]

Couple points i never considered
http://www.vdare.com/letters/a-law-enforcement-veteran-speaks-in-defense-of-michael-slager

See? No need to defend the officer, he has a whole country full of defenders -- all of whom wear blue uniforms.

Regarding Slager’s action in picking up the Taser, there’s not anything particularly wrong with it. Following a shooting incident an officer may not be completely focused on exactly what steps should be taken to secure what has now become a scene to be processed. Remember, he was picking up his own Taser—you don’t normally think in terms of your own equipment being evidence.

Another very important point is this (and I have myself picked up weapons at an open and fluid scene which is as yet unsecured): the Taser is a weapon and it was lying on the ground uncontrolled. Picking up the Taser prevents it from being used on the officer by another person—or simply being taken from the scene and disappearing.

Just ... WOW! With friends like this, Officer Slager doesn't need enemies. Here's a former cop trying to explain why it's not only acceptable but even desirable for a police officer to tamper with evidence. It takes a lot to leave me stunned, but this did it.

[De Selby]

The fact is, anyone who doesn't immediately comply with an order may someday become a threat to officer safety.  After all, if SOP is to shoot you for not submitting to arrest, then of course word is going to get out and people will start behaving like every encounter is a lethal threat.

Seriously folks - the shooter might as well have been wearing a sport coat and using dogs.

[Perd Hapley]

Are dogs considered lethal, or less-lethal?

[Hawkmoon]

Hypothetical:

Say an officer attempts to lawfully use his Taser during an arrest, and a suspect takes it, and uses it against him. Say the officer still has barbs in his flesh, and the suspect runs a short distance. While running, the suspect is obviously facing away from him. Let's say the officer believes, or has reason to believe, that the suspect still has the Taser, and the ability to use it against him by simply energizing the wires again. (I don't know whether Tasers work that way. It is my current understanding that they do.) As the suspect, if he has the Taser, does not need to turn around to do this, would the officer be justified in shooting the suspect in the back? He has reason to believe that the suspect may tase him, and then cause him further injury or death.

Yes, you can re-engage the jolt in a police taser -- it's good for up to 150 ten-second jolts. And the wires are only about 35 feet long (or less -- 35 feet is the maximum). The victim was farther away from the officer than 35 feet when the first shot was fired.

https://www.taser.com/images/support/downloads/downloads/mk-inst-x26c-001_rev_a_x26c_manual.pdf

According to C&SD's link to an article written by an anonymous, purported retired cop, Scott was "armed" because he had a taser. But the barbs had been deployed. If there was another cartridge, it would have been in a pouch on the officer's duty belt -- Scott wouldn't have had one, and you can't buy them at Wal-Mart.

[Hawkmoon]

Are dogs considered lethal, or less-lethal?

Depends on when they were last fed.

[Balog]

What I was driving at is that the defense will use that fight, combined with the Tasering of the officer (if that happened) to say that Slager thought Scott was an immediate threat to the public at large--like in Scouts case with the female MP.

I'm sure the defense will say many laughable things.

[Firethorn]

mistaking a firearm for a Taser would be less likely IMO.

Of course, proper training, practice, and mindset are more important. 

I LOL'd because that's what I was getting ready to post. 

And yes, you do run into the problem that if you change the shape that much, learning how to aim the thing becomes problematic.

What I was driving at is that the defense will use that fight, combined with the Tasering of the officer (if that happened) to say that Slager thought Scott was an immediate threat to the public at large--like in Scouts case with the female MP.

Problem is that the barbs were in/on Scott, not Slager.  While the taser can apparently also be used as a contact weapon with the barbs deployed, I can't help but think the most likely outcome of pulling the trigger in that case would have been Scott zapping himself, not Officer Slager.

Even the discredited story says that Slager wasn't shocked, merely that Mr. Scott attempted to do so.  Instead it looks mostly like when the taser failed to work, Mr. Scott decided to run again(and fairly slowly at that, he wasn't any gazelle), and Slager chucked it behind himself and pulled his service pistol.

[Jocassee]

Problem is that the barbs were in/on Scott, not Slager.  While the taser can apparently also be used as a contact weapon with the barbs deployed, I can't help but think the most likely outcome of pulling the trigger in that case would have been Scott zapping himself, not Officer Slager.

You can look at the screenshots here and tell me what you think. Whether you buy what CTH is selling or not, the screenshots do not seem to lie.

Does that make it a good shoot? I don't know. There is still information we need to have.