April 12, 2015

Once Again The Media Hyperventilates

Q: Why is the cop's pant leg rolled up?
A: Because because the idiot perp shot him with the officer's Taser.

There's a lot more to the shooting of Walter Scott but you wouldn't know that from the limited information the media supplies.

From The Conservative Treehouse:
On the first day we saw the North Charleston, South Carolina, shooting video of Walter Scott by Officer Michael Slager we were as shocked as everyone. However, as research now indicates there is much more to the story.
As we have heard, "In war the first victim is truth." The liberal media is at war with conservatives and has been for decades.

There is no lie too small that they will not hysterically bleat to the world, nor any truth so large that they will not bury it.
The South Carolina Walter Scott shooting -by Police Officer Michael Slager- is absolutely filled with intentionally missing elements in an effort by ALL INTERESTED PARTIES to sell a narrative useful for their purposes.

What does that mean? It means this is not just a legal issue; it means the shooting is being manipulated for a political benefit; it means the substance in the media reports are there to sell a purposeful narrative from one singular perspective.

EXAMPLE: All of the police officers initial incident reports have been released, except Officer Slager.

Why omit Officer Slager’s statement?

Perhaps missing because that only way the narrative sellers can claim discrepancies, ie. “lies” in the Slager report. That’s how you embed a belief in the public when the truth is divergent. Promote the lie, hide the inconvenient truth. Then, eventually, when the truth comes out, the lie has already embedded – “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”…

And, yes, the victim was administered first aid at the scene, just as the police said.


LL said...

I just have to stop watching the news.

WoFat said...

There should be another name for it; "news" has a meaning. This doesn't.

Gorges Smythe said...

No doubt the dead guy was a scumbag. Still, shooting a normally non-violent fellow in the back as he runs away doesn't look good. Sometimes, only the Lord knows the full story, and HE ain't tellin'.

Doom said...

I already knew that. Anything the "media" offers, is a lie. It's just a matter of figuring out which angle they are using... abusing. That story was rigged as soon as I saw it pop. Another good riddance being handed his negro saint card.

Longbow said...

A cop shot a man in the back, who was running away at the time. The man being shot posed no threat to the cop at the time he was shot. The cop then retrieved the "taser", from where it had been dropped initially, very close to the position from whence the cop shot the fleeing man, and placed it next to the body of the man who was shot, thus altering the "crime scene". The man who was shot, was cuffed and left to bleed out before any "aid" was provided, thus ensuring only one side of the story would be told. The controversy will boil down to this: A cop shot a fleeing man who posed no threat at the time he was shot. He was shot eight times. The shooting was deliberate. Was the actual shooting and homicide lawful?

I say no.

Longbow said...


Put yourself in the same position. A scumbag approaches you at a Super Wally and attempts to use a taser on you. He is unsuccessful and begins to run away. You draw your lawfully carried sidearm and begin shooting at him as he runs away from you. You hit the scumbag several times and he dies as a result. Would you be charged with Murder?

Or, is a cop some form of super-citizen who possesses special authority to dispense final justice as he sees fit and at his whim? Does being a State employee grant him special rights? Does wearing a Super-Hero costume and bearing a Magic Shield make him impervious to being wrong?

OK, the man who was shot may have been a scumbag. If that fact is granted does that justify Murder?

I say no.

sig94 said...

The definition of Murder varies from state to state. So does the application of deadly physical force. If that officer did not comply with state law then he most likely will be convicted.

My problem is this: whipping up public sentiment and poisoning the jury pool before the man can even be indicted.

This post was about the media's manipulation of pubic opinion. I see they may have been successful by some of the commentators remarks here.

This post was never about the officer's guilt, I don't know about that and neither does anyone else. That is for a jury to decide once all the cards have been placed on the table. And the media are making sure that doesn't happen.

Kid said...

I have to agree that this went off the rails when the officer fired several shots into the guys back. He was not that far away. I could have hit him in the legs and I'm not an officer. I don't see an officer redeeming story here.

What happened to no one is faster than a radio. I can't imagine this guy was getting away.

sig94 said...

It is training at play. I was never instructed to shoot someone in the legs or to wound them. In fact, we were instructed to always go for the K5 - mid chest, heart region.

There were reasons for this. Under NY State law the exercise of deadly physical force means just that - you go for the kill. The use of this type of force is very strictly defined - look at Article 35 of the NYS Penal Law. This is what I have trained under for 40 years.

However, prior to 1968, officers in NY were authorized to shoot at any fleeing felon under the old Penal Code.

Also, it is much too hard under combat circumstances to try and hit someone's extremities, it is far easier to move your arms and legs out of a bullet's path than it is to move the center of your body. We were penalized with lower qualification scores if we missed the K5. It is drummed into your heads on the range, always shoot for the center of the chest and the head if close enough - within 7 yards.

Kid said...

Sig, Under all circumstances? Running away from you unarmed?

If I were to shoot someone, I better be able to say I was in fear form my life, and I couldn't do that if there was video showing the guy running away. Nor would I shoot him in the back if he was running away unless he'd killed a family member or something.

It's just not going to play.

Kid said...

fwiw - I certainly understand and agree with that training in a mike brown situation. He was shot several times and kept coming. Took one to the head to stop him.

sig94 said...

Kid - it was my understanding that any fleeing felon could be shot under the old penal code.

Forty-plus years ago we had a few old timers still working the road that just couldn't get the new guidelines through their heads (some were WWII vets who just didn't GAF). It did make for some interesting foot pursuits as you never knew who was tossing lead round and why.

Kid said...

In the current environment I don't see that as the worst thing. But it is cop as judge and jury and ultimately it isn't going to work out. Bottom line, the real problem is that the libtards don't see perps and be willing to hand out equitable sentences "with the victim in mind". Doesn't seem they GAF about the victims anymore. Their victim is the perp in too many situations.
I'd be happier if they reported the three black punks who killed that guy in Philly when he was no threat at all. had his hands p pleading don't shoot. And how many times has that happened and gone unreported. As far as I'm concerned obama and holder are guilty of inciting these punks to kill white people.

macko1958 said...

I didn't know that he shot the cop with the tazer. I did find it odd that the cop didn't seem surprised that the perp didn't have the tazer when he had used that for the reason he shot him. In some states police are allowed to use deadly force on fleeing felons. I don't know about SC but, if he fought the cop, gained possession of the tazer and shot him with it I would venture to call him a fleeing felon. As a civilian you can't use deadly force against someone who is fleeing from you unless you can prove a threat to others but, a cop in SC might be able to.

Kid said...

"As a civilian you can't use deadly force against someone who is fleeing from you"

Good luck with That.