DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

147 Responses to “The real reason Michael Brown is dead”

  1. 101

    George+Wells

    @Ink #95:
    “Michael Brown’s character got him killed.”
    True.
    I would put the blame for Brown’s death more directly on his specific poor choice of behavior in response to the cop’s “instruction.”
    I’m a Social Darwinist, and I tend to put young Black males in a class that seems to be particularly ill-suited for survival. Fitness for survival in a social context depends on considerably more than athletic ability – the ability to do tricks with basketballs, for example, or to run fast with televisions in hand. Young black males will continue to die disproportionately because they fail to adapt to the reality of their environment: Law Enforcement is deadly serious business. Processes of Natural Selection will continue to weed out those individuals who can’t figure this out.

  2. 102

    Wade Wilson

    Yeah, and we all know that the President writes his own material…people need to stop paying attention to politics. It’s a waste of time, and a distraction for stupid people.

  3. 103

    Liz

    Michael Brown died because of Michael Brown. So many people don’t look at the facts and apparently most of the the black community where I live (MO) chooses to turn a blind eye because he was “brother”. Give me a damn break! I don’t give a shit what color skin you have, if you charge an officer and get shot down, I’m not going to cry for you!

    I am still in shock and awe that I served time in the military to defend some of these people. People are scared of terrorist??!! Look at what trash and hood rats are in our backyards!! SMGDH

  4. 104

    gregory latimer

    Micheal brown was killed. , because he was commiting a real criminal behavior in city, what stirred up black community was callus treatment of his body. He may have been criminal but his dead body must not be in sun stinking for hours.the dumb fergunson police dept gave black
    Criminals reason to tear up there city for good

  5. 106

    George Wells

    @Bill #105:

    “What stirred up the black community was left wing race baiters looking for a profitable stage.”

    And wasn’t it stupid to give them something to work with?
    When you KNOW that “left-wing race-baiters” are waiting for an excuse to start trouble, and you GIVE them an excuse, you are complicit in whatever mischief they commit. How dumb do you have to be to miss this?

    “Race-baiting”?
    Sure. Protected by the First Amendment. So what.
    It’s our Constitution. Live with it.

  6. 107

    Bill

    @George Wells:

    And wasn’t it stupid to give them something to work with?
    When you KNOW that “left-wing race-baiters” are waiting for an excuse to start trouble, and you GIVE them an excuse, you are complicit in whatever mischief they commit. How dumb do you have to be to miss this?

    GIVE them something to work with? These are the people who, to this day, still chant “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” despite there being NO evidence this ever occurred and even the biased DOJ admitting it never occurred. When have facts ever mattered to the left when it wants to use race as a political weapon? What, exactly, was “given” to the corrupt media and the leftist race baiters? No doubt, had the body been moved, we would have accusations of a cover-up and botched investigation.

    Sure, it is a First Amendment right to lie about all the circumstances involved in the Brown shooting. Does, however, that right extend to shouting “Burn this bitch down”, based on complete lies? Is this what YOU support?

    Don’t hand me that crap; you know damned well what has been going on. Now, all of a sudden, you deep-seated “conservatism” gives way to supporting those who lie to justify destroying a community? How does the destruction of Ferguson or the murder of cops benefit your gay agenda, since that is all you care about?

  7. 108

    George Wells

    @Bill #107:

    You sound… unhappy.
    Sorry about that.
    It is entirely understandable that it is more often than not white cops shooting black males. All of the statistics suggest that it should be this way for a host of reasons that nobody in their right minds can dispute.
    The problem is that every time a white cop summarily executes a black civilian, REGARDLESS of provocation or justification, the Black community takes it badly. Yes, race-baiting plays a role, I already agreed that it does. But I don’t need to be either a liberal or a conservative to recognize that this course of events that repeats itself with such unnecessary and alarming frequency is producing much more net harm that it does good.

    THIS is what I am TRYING to get through your thick skull. The successful arrest of a black man who is behind in his child-support payments has some value to the community, but it isn’t worth burning the community down over. Sometimes it is better to let the bad guy get away. No, it isn’t always easy to figure out when that might be, given the impromptu nature of most apprehension situations. But unloading your magazine into the back of someone lumbering away should be a no-brainer. Especially if you have a lick of sense that killing the guy will inflame the BS that you are already sick of.

    No, what I support is a better sense of the difference between “self-defense” and “apprehension”. In “Self defense,” use of deadly force is warranted only when and if and SO LONG AS your life is being threatened. Not after the suspect has turned tail and is running away. At that point, no matter what happened earlier, the killing becomes an act of revenge. And in a “apprehension,” killing a suspect is only warranted if you have good reason to believe the suspect will cause imminent harm (or death) to someone else. Not knowing WHY the suspect is fleeing isn’t a good reason to kill him.

  8. 109

    Bill

    @George Wells:

    The problem is that every time a white cop summarily executes a black civilian,

    No, George; the problem is anti-law and order types describing a police action, much more often than not fully legal and warranted, as a “summary execution”. This is, of course, why the black community is so easy to stir up to action, protest and violence. Perhaps you can provide an example of a “summary execution” (that is, a black person, doing no wrong, breaking no laws, being simply executed)? For, to my knowledge, there have been none and certainly none discussed here.

    Unless, of course, you want to classify the shooting of Michael Brown as a “summary execution” which it seems you do, since that is the shooting discussed here. To which, I would have to reply, “What a dumbass you must be.”

    THIS is what I am TRYING to get through your thick skull. The successful arrest of a black man who is behind in his child-support payments has some value to the community, but it isn’t worth burning the community down over.

    Now, we shift to Slager shooting Scott. Though Slager has been roundly condemned for his shooting of Scott, and, certainly, Scott did not do anything to deserve being shot, this was still not a “summary execution” because Scott fought with Slager, apparently even shot Slager with his own taser.

    You veered off on a bizarre tangent that I don’t think anyone disputes; no, cops are not allowed to make the decision to shoot people because they are running away. Note: Slager will be standing trial for this. However, what is the point of using the stupid description of “summary execution”? How does that help?

    It mattered not one whit that Michael Brown’s punk body was left out for any period of time longer than whatever was absolutely necessary. Ferguson was wrecked based on “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” which, along with descriptions such as “summary execution” was a lie; a KNOWN lie.

    The black community is goaded to take shootings badly. If they weren’t, we would not see them stupidly driven to riot and destroy of the loss of a life such as Brown’s. But then again, we saw Obama and Holder come down on the side of 300 lb punks being allowed to beat a cop and take his weapon, so what should we expect from the general public? Further, they are instigated to act by ignorant (or purposefully inflammatory) remarks like “summarily executed”.

  9. 110

    George Wells

    @Bill #109:

    “Unless, of course, you want to classify the shooting of Michael Brown as a “summary execution” which it seems you do, since that is the shooting discussed here.”

    Perhaps YOUR intention was to remain focused on the Brown killing, as Scott’s killing fit different parameters, but it wasn’t MY intention. I guess that you FAILED to notice that I didn’t mention Brown in either of my posts here. Yes, this thread brought up Brown, but I addressed the larger problem of cops killing black men IN GENERAL, and Scott makes a fine example of a summary execution.

    “A summary execution is a variety of execution in which a person is accused of a crime and then immediately killed without benefit of a full and fair trial.”

    Seems to me that Slager took all of about a half of a second to reach his verdict. If Scott’s killing wasn’t a “summary execution,” what was it? Can you think of a NICE way to put it? Something dull and antiseptic? I’m not sure that avoiding “inflammatory rhetoric” serves a greater purpose, as history is littered with the corpses of people who were too timid to raise their voices against oppression. If that inflammatory rhetoric emboldens people to press for better justice, it serves a useful purpose. Since you evidently want to bring gay rights into this discussion, gays would be exactly nowhere today if they had simply waited patiently for Republicans AND DEMOCRATS to give them fair and equal rights. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

    But why just blame me and other more sympathetic folk for this problem? Can’t you deal with the reality here? “If only things were different, the World would be a better place” seems to be the Miss Universe version of your thesis here. The reality is that the Black community IS easy to manipulate. It’s racist, angry, jealous, drug-addled, and anarchy-prone, too. I think that we need a better strategy for dealing with this community than simply blaming Democrats every time something bad happens, as the evidence suggests that doing so has no effect.

  10. 111

    Bill

    @George Wells:

    Perhaps YOUR intention was to remain focused on the Brown killing, as Scott’s killing fit different parameters, but it wasn’t MY intention. I guess that you FAILED to notice that I didn’t mention Brown in either of my posts here

    Oh, well, perhaps you can forgive my confusion and ignorance, but I made certain assumptions base don the fact that THIS IS A DISCUSSION OF BROWN’S DEATH.

    Seems to me that Slager took all of about a half of a second to reach his verdict. If Scott’s killing wasn’t a “summary execution,” what was it?

    A half a second? There was a chase, a struggle, Slager was shot with his own taser and another chase, then the shooting. Care to guess again?

    Though nothing excuses Slager shooting Scott (it is only due to liberal ignorance that such qualifications have to be continually entered), it was a bit more than a half a second and certainly no “summary execution”. That characterization is nothing but an attempt to invoke the elements of a race-based killing, which neither episode contains. The question is, why is it so important and necessary to some to HAVE that racial element in the discussion?

    I am dealing with reality; you are not because, sadly for you and your ilk, the reality does not contain summary executions of blacks due to race.

  11. 112

    George Wells

    @Bill #111:
    “sadly for you and your ilk, the reality does not contain summary executions”

    Ilk?
    What’s “ilk”?
    Do you get “ilk” by filtering out the “m” from milk?
    Sorry, Bill, but I don’t have any “ilk.”

    You don’t like me calling what Slager did to Scott a “summary execution”?
    Fine. What do YOU want to call it?

    The two of them scuffled, tazed… AND THEN…(and we have this much on video)…
    while Scott is seen lumbering slowly away, Slager composes his posture, takes aim, and unloads his magazine clip INTO SCOTT’S BACK.

    At that point, I don’t give a rat’s ass what the two of them were up to while they were dancing together. When the bullets started flying, Scott was in retreat, as in NOT ATTACKING WITH DEADLY FORCE, and Slager executed him.
    He MURDERED Scott.
    YOU find that inflammatory, blame Slager!

    Don’t hand me your bitter acknowledgement that there was no excuse for what Slager did and then complain that you are being MADE to admit that as if you’d rather NOT.
    There is no “We have to wait for the investigation to be completed before we know what to call it” here.
    We don’t. This isn’t a court of law. It’s the court of public opinion. I saw enough to render a decision: Slager executed Scott. It was MURDER. It rises way above the definition of manslaughter. Slager’s immediate termination was fully justified, and the immediate condemnation of his unnecessary use of lethal force was ALSO justified. I’m happy enough to allow a court to decide what precise punishment Slager deserves, but I certainly won’t wait to condemn what he did.

    Don’t inflame the natives? Is that what you counsel? How about covering up those cases of priests sexually abusing children? Why? Because the priests were doing so much good otherwise? Huh?
    When is holding one’s tongue in the face of the commission of an outrageous crime a good thing?
    NEVER.

  12. 113

    Nanny G

    @George Wells: This isn’t a court of law. It’s the court of public opinion. I saw enough to render a decision: Slager executed Scott. It was MURDER. It rises way above the definition of manslaughter.

    As long as you remember that you are only rendering an opinion, you can think anything you like.
    From a legal standpoint, many are saying that if the State of South Carolina takes only a murder charge to trial they will lose.
    Agents of the government were concerned about how to avoid or manage a controversy. In this shooting the political machine made an arrest decision based entirely on a portion of a video.
    The political entity (SLED) didn’t even interview the videographer or the officer!
    SLED’s investigation only started AFTER the arrest of the officer for murder.
    When a person attacks and gains control of a police officer’s taser what is the reasonable conclusion the officer might reach if he is hit repeatedly with it?
    That the guy is only tasing him so he can escape OR, much more likely, that the guy is going to tase him, incapacitate him, take his gun and kill him?
    How long between the use of the taser til the shooting started?
    Why were those taser wires still attached to both men when the shooting started?

    When I was a young girl, I was friends with an Inuit.
    He told me why he hated Californians so much.
    One day he was sledding and a polar bear took a swipe at him from behind.
    It knocked him away from his sled.
    But he regained his composure and killed the bear…..before it could attack him again.
    Californian tourists he told this to said he should have allowed himself to be the ”magnificent beast’s lunch.”
    How dare he live at the expense of such an animal.
    And, this was in the 1960’s!

  13. 114

    Bill

    @George Wells:

    How about covering up those cases of priests sexually abusing children? Why? Because the priests were doing so much good otherwise? Huh?

    No, that is a very good point. Once the priest-abuse issue was revealed, it should have become law that no homosexuals could be in any position to abuse children again. This would include, of course, priests, but also scout leaders, daycare attendants, nurses, teachers, amusement park workers or party clowns. Since homosexuality is a genetic condition rather than something that is chosen, there is no possible way to assure that a gay individual could be entrusted with the care of children; gay males will abuse male children and gay females will abuse female children.

    Because, when something bad happens, we can, without any proof or evidence, always assume the WORST intentions was behind the action and further extrapolating that assumption, act to block any other actions taken in situations with like elements involved (in this case, gays and children).

    This is my summary decision. I am more than certain you will concur.

    One would think that after Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, you leftists would learn to take in a bit more of the facts before jumping to your police-hating conclusions fed by your own prejudices. Perhaps not.

  14. 115

    Erick

    @gregory latimer: I really don’t remember the ,”pick up my dead body signs ” at the protests. This sounds like something the media would MAKE UP to continue the division of American citizens. Sorry but your case dosnt hold ANY water.

  15. 116

    Erick

    George,
    Not sure bout your ,”statistics” but more white males are shot/killed by officers white/black than blackmales. Whites just don’t have an al sharpton in our corner,thank God,to race bait in times of crisis. Look at the protests and what do you see but a majority of white liberals who believe what the press and the likes
    of sharpton tell them. It’s a sad day when race baiters like good ol al basically have an office at the whitehouse but Bebe can’t get a visit in prior to speech.
    N

  16. 117

    Erick

    @George Wells: George ,
    Erick again. Sorry for late dialogue but just started reading these posts. As far as brown case goes I think you are way off base but in the SC shooting you are 100% accurate. Investigation pendingy ass. That man ,at the time of shooting, was of no danger to the officer. He was running away for Christs sake. You are right, he took a shooting stance, I’m a gun owner and shooter,took aim and unloaded his clip. He murdered that man and I will not say innocent man but a murder non the less.
    As far as outlawing any gay person from being allowed to work w/kids this is absurd. I’m not gay but have friends who are and I KNOW that my child ,4 y old girl, is safe w/ a lesbian or gay friend. I AMA conservative but I don’t believe that stops me from being fair. Let’s not let our fears rule our lives. Remember as a kid you were scared of grave yards well now you know it’s a place to honor our past not to be scared of. That’s our future. You guys/gals have a wonderful day.
    Erick

  17. 118

    Redteam

    @Erick:

    As far as outlawing any gay person from being allowed to work w/kids this is absurd. I’m not gay but have friends who are and I KNOW that my child ,4 y old girl, is safe w/ a lesbian or gay friend. I AMA conservative but I don’t believe that stops me from being fair.

    I think most persons would agree with that. I don’t think it’s the gays persons you have to be wary of, I think it’s the persons, some gay some not, that are inclined to abuse children. It certainly should be understood that pedophiles can’t be left alone around children. Unfortunately there are too many adults that will abuse children.

  18. 119

    Bill

    @Redteam: No, Erick, I do not actually recommend such actions against gays, but was merely using George’s logic upon the issue he brought up about the priests.

    True, Scott was running away. True, running away is not a direct threat. True, shooting Scott was unjustified and criminal.

    True also is that Scott led Slager on a long foot-chase. True also is that Slager tackled Scott (did NOT shoot him) and tried to wrestle him into submission. True also that Scott turned Slager’s own taser on him, putting Slager in a very dangerous situation. Though inexcusable and criminal (as a trial will definitely bear out), Slager in NO WAY “summarily executed” Scott.

  19. 120

    George Wells

    @Erick #117:

    Thanks for the support.
    In your #116, you may have misconstrued my meaning regarding black males getting shot by white cops. My comment was meant to draw attention to the facts that 1. there are relatively more white cops than black ones, and 2. There is a relatively high proportion of black males committing crimes and getting shot by cops in the process. You just had to connect the dots.

    And as I pointed out to Bill, I entered this thread late and skipped over the Brown case entirely, because I concluded that the issues everyone was really bitching about had little to do with Brown, but were better illuminated by Scott. I do believe that the “Blue Line’s” resistance/intransigence/denial of it’s own racist/hyper-testosterone-driven aggression is part of the bigger problem.

    Now here’s a funny one:
    Bill’s #114:
    “Once the priest-abuse issue was revealed, it should have become law that no homosexuals could be in any position to abuse children again. This would include, of course, priests, but also scout leaders, daycare attendants, nurses, teachers, amusement park workers or party clowns. Since homosexuality is a genetic condition rather than something that is chosen, there is no possible way to assure that a gay individual could be entrusted with the care of children; gay males will abuse male children and gay females will abuse female children.”

    I think… I HOPE that this little tid-bit was meant as irony. Bill was positing “ad absurdum” to make the point that I was making a similar leap of logic by condemning Slager – a parallel argument that only works if I was actually condemning ALL cops (and not just Slager), something that I clearly didn’t do. Bill wrongly ASSUMES too much.

    Even Redteam recognized the absurdity of Bill’s speculation regarding gay pedophilia. The same argument could obviously be used to exclude all heterosexuals from working with children, since SOME heterosexuals are pedophiles. But Bill was hoping I’d take the bait and argue off into the sunset over something … absurd.
    Notice this:
    “This is my summary decision.”
    Don’t miss the “summary decision” parody of my “summary execution.” Bill is exposing his dry wit.
    And his:
    “I am more than certain you will concur.”
    is about as tongue-in-cheek as you can get.
    Again playing the thread for laughs.
    BRAVO!

  20. 121

    Bill

    @George Wells: Yes, it was absurd… intended to be so. Almost as absurd as expecting every cop to be Mr. Ice Water In His Veins and not violently overreact to a fleeing suspect and fight. Notice that Slager did not shoot Scott when he bolted from the car, or as he chased him down the first street. Notice Slager did not shoot Scott when he was shot by Scott with his own taser. The characterization of a “summary execution” is the sticking point and, yeah, it indicts all police because anyone is capable of losing their composure in a conflict and taking lethal action.

    In the end, not only is Scott dead but Slager is ruined and destroyed. Oh, but Slager simply chose, in a matter of a second or two, to “summarily execute” Scott. No, not hardly. And, if this seems like nitpicking or belaboring a point, no, wrong again. Without the pertinent details and the summary of a “summary execution” all that is left is a racist white guy shooting a “lumbering” black guy which, of course, could not be further from the facts. That sort of rhetoric is what ignites places like Ferguson, destroys the livelihoods and lives of thousands and wrecks communities. For the sake of brevity?

    Notice, I have the right to say whatever I want about gays… up to the point that FA kicks me off. However, aside from wishing to elicit a response, what good is it to falsify the facts? Does it promote discussion or rancor? Does it help or hurt mutual understanding about lifestyles? So, what possible good does it do to chant “Don’t Shoot, Hands Up” or “summary execution” when neither relates to any situation being discussed?

  21. 122

    George Wells

    @Bill #121:

    How curious that on the one hand, you adamantly DON’T defend Slager – but at the same time insist that what he did WASN’T an “execution” – and on the other hand you refuse to put a label on WHAT HE DID. Why is that, Bill? Can’t you find a WORD that captures all of those different “wrongs” that you attribute to Slager without stumbling over the term “execution”?

    Now here’s another curious issue that you keep wanting to interject into this discussion of ours:

    “Without the pertinent details and the summary of a “summary execution” all that is left is a racist white guy shooting a “lumbering” black guy.”

    I haven’t accused Slager of being a racist. Did you miss that? I don’t know if he is or isn’t. Knowing the answer might speak to the reason why Scott is dead and it might not. But I haven’t seen anything to suggest how SLAGER feels about race, one way or the other.

    Neither was my comment…
    “I do believe that the “Blue Line’s” resistance/intransigence/denial of its own racist/hyper-testosterone-driven aggression is part of the bigger problem.”
    …an indictment of all cops, any more than the pedophile priest comment was an indictment of all priests. What was wrong with the “priest” case was that the “leadership” went out of its way to protect its own and deny that the problem was anything more than trivial. What was wrong with the “Blue Line” case was that the “leadership” went out of its way to protect its own and deny that the problem was anything more than trivial.
    See a pattern there?

    “The characterization of a “summary execution” is the sticking point and, yeah, it indicts all police because anyone is capable of losing their composure in a conflict and taking lethal action.”

    A person who is CAPABLE of losing his head and executing an escaping criminal isn’t guilty of murder. He isn’t guilty until the deed is done – and technically not until a jury of his peers says he did it. Your confusion over this point is baffling, as is your imagined complicity of all police with Slager’s (whatever you want to call it.)

    The point of dwelling on this particular issue is an important one. The point is that while many different mistakes were made (and many of them by Scott) and while Scott was no saint, Scott alone paid the ultimate price. No one else did. Not you, perhaps, but certainly SOME people will always have a problem with anyone who looks for OTHER guilty parties when they see a video of a murder like we see here.
    Call it what you will.

  22. 123

    Redteam

    @George Wells: Nanny G said:

    From a legal standpoint, many are saying that if the State of South Carolina takes only a murder charge to trial they will lose.

    I agree with that, I think at most, Voluntary manslaughter is the most that he can be charged with. He certainly did not premeditate the killing so that rules out Murder one.

    Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable “heat of passion”; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender’s obvious lack of concern for human life. – See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-overview.html#sthash.jWNb5wOP.dpuf

    As defined, I’m pretty sure murder 2 is off the table, because I think it can reasonably be said to have occurred in a reasonable “heat of passion”, having just been tasered, more than once.

    Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender had no prior intent to kill and acted during “the heat of passion”, under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed.

    Most of the discussion is about whether it was a ‘summary execution” I think to call it that, it would have to be murder one, which it certainly isn’t.

    I don’t think the killing is justified in any way, it just happened due to the circumstances happening at the time. No pre planning. Had the taser event not occurred, the death would probably not have happened. you said: “The characterization of a “summary execution” is the sticking point and, yeah, it indicts all police because anyone is capable of losing their composure in a conflict and taking lethal action.” So even you are admitting that it was likly because of loss of composure (in the heat of passion) so a Summary execution may be a little harsh, probably just a voluntary manslaughter at most.

  23. 124

    Bill

    @George Wells:

    How curious that on the one hand, you adamantly DON’T defend Slager – but at the same time insist that what he did WASN’T an “execution”

    “Curious”, George? What it is is FAIR. What it is is HONEST. It happens to be what happens when someone dispenses of a political agenda and examines what actually happens.

    I haven’t accused Slager of being a racist. Did you miss that?

    Why don’t you fill in the blanks as to what is left? Did Slager, the psychopathic killer, take the job as a policemen to be able to cold-bloodedly kill a running suspect?

    Scott alone paid the ultimate price

    Really? Setting aside your accusation of the “summary execution”, Slager pays a substantial price as well. Unlike you, I give Slager the benefit of the doubt of being an executioner. I think Scott’s own actions led to a series of events that, along with emotions, spun out of control, resulting in Slager shooting Scott in the back. Because of this cascading of tragic circumstances, Slager faces prison where he will face really bad conditions. All on account of a traffic stop gone terribly wrong.

    And, Scott is dead.

  24. 125

    George Wells

    @Bill #124:

    Bill, I’m seeing something in your discussion here that resembles an acknowledgement of the truth, but which at the same time still resists that truth.
    You have repeatedly attacked my use of the word “execution” in describing what Slager did, and have refused to answer my three requests for a better word to describe the killing.
    What are you afraid of?
    This so perfectly mirrors the GOP’s abhorrence of Obama’s Affordable Care Act, voting over 50 times to destroy it while never once producing legislation to replace it with something better.

    “Scott alone paid the ultimate price”
    “Really?”

    Yes. The ultimate price is one’s life. No number of years behind bars – if it even comes to that – approaches the significance of death.

    Yes, I feel for Slager. He’s IS ruined. Probably should be on a suicide watch. In the Japan of old, he’d be EXPECTED to honorably fall on his sword. But our culture places a higher value on miserable life than on noble death, and so living with what he has done becomes Slager’s ignoble fate.

    Nothing that can be done to Slager at this point would mitigate the circumstances of this case. We are left, though, with a responsibility to find a posture that helps correct the damage rather than increase it. Where you and I differ is in our approaches to this problem. You seek to console police who feel threatened by the public outcry that Slager’s action precipitated. You seek to place the burden of responsibility for the tragedy on Scott’s poor decisions that led to his murder. You seek to blame Al Sharpton, “leftists” and me for “race-baiting.” None of these things have any positive effect on the pain that Scott’s family and the Black community is experiencing.

    I seek to salve the wound, to mend the damaged relationship between the Black community and law enforcement, and to fine alternative perspectives that might prevent more similar tragedies from occurring. I believe that the mayor’s and the Police chief’s actions immediately following the murder did a wonderful service to this goal. And I believe that every white person who raises his or her voice in sympathy for Scott and his family, who acknowledges that every possible step must be taken to prevent such tragedies in the future, and who first and foremost condemns such barbaric and unnecessary taking of life – does also serve this goal.
    Waffling on the details, focusing on Slager’s loss, and blaming “race-baiters” does not.

  25. 126

    Bill

    @George Wells:

    You have repeatedly attacked my use of the word “execution” in describing what Slager did, and have refused to answer my three requests for a better word to describe the killing.

    I believe I have frequently used a much better (and with less intentional inflammatory result) term; murder, manslaughter, killing. Sure, I guess, depending on how you want to use a person’s death, execution would describe, but it wasn’t an execution, was it? For it to be an execution, Slager would have had to have a reason to execute Scott; what was that reason?

    What are you afraid of?

    Do I exhibit fear? I am afraid of nothing but the out-of-control use of race as a weapon, the use of race to incite unrest and violence. No, you haven’t mentioned race (overtly), but why else would you continue along this line? Why are you so afraid (you and most of the left) to wait until most or all of the details are confirmed before throwing terms like “summary execution” around? While you are no longer interested in the Brown shooting, the exact same accusations, and more, were made there and take a look back at how that turned out. Why are you so afraid that some justification might suddenly appear?

    I don’t know if I feel sorry for Slager, but I realize that had Scott remained in his car, Slager’s life would be much different today. Again, NOT blaming Scott or excusing Slager; simply stating a fact. But, what chances of survival would you put on Slager were he put in the general population of a S. Carolina prison? He faces a bit more than a lack of freedoms. But, however tragic, he DID it.

    I seek to salve the wound, to mend the damaged relationship between the Black community and law enforcement, and to fine alternative perspectives that might prevent more similar tragedies from occurring

    Perhaps you do. I cannot say. However, describing EVERY shooting of a black person by a white cop as “murder”, “execution”, “summary execution”, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” does not serve that purpose, nor does it make the black community feel the personal responsibility for many of these situations (not saying these are YOUR arguments, specifically). Not all, but many. As long as they have the “victim” card to play, how quickly are THEY going to address the social issues that cause the crime statistics to lean so heavily in their direction? Whatever your intentions, this dialogue does not help the situation.

    Waffling on the details, focusing on Slager’s loss, and blaming “race-baiters” does not.

    And so it continues….

    What details have I waffled on? Please explain. How have I “focused” on Slager’s loss? Please explain. Blaming race baiters? Notice the stark contrast between Ferguson (with Sharpton there stirring the pot) and N. Charleston, where the Scott family (most highly commendably) demanded Sharpton keep his big mouth out of the tragedy. Yeah, I blame race-baiters for taking advantage of tragedies (there is one going on in Baltimore where the desire to stir up social unrest outweighs finding the details and facts) for their own personal benefit, while the community (many black as well) suffers. Many of those who claim to have the interests of the black community at heart demonstrably do NOT.

  26. 127

    George Wells

    @Redteam #123:

    I’m not so sure that Slager’s crime doesn’t rise to 2nd degree murder. The fact is that he assumed a “shooter’s stance,” steading himself, aimed, and emptied his clip. If he had INTENDED only to stop Scott, he certainly didn’t ACT in that manner. Scott started to go down, either having tripped or been struck by one of the first bullets fired, and Slager continued shooting. That’s the point at which the “apprehension” transitioned into a murder. Or execution, or whatever. But once the suspect has been subdued – even if he just tripped – and you keep shooting your gun at him, you’re doing something that goes beyond accidental.

    I’ll be generous and give you that if Slager had been tazed, he might have a defense for murder 2 by reasons of temporary insanity. (“Temporary insanity” is a defense, “loss of composure in the heat of passion” is not.) I’d be cautious, though, in granting temporary insanity to anyone who had just been tazed, as it opens up a can of worms that prosecutors don’t want to deal with. Once a perp had been tazed, you wouldn’t even be able to “mirandize” him.

  27. 128

    George Wells

    @Bill #126:

    I’ll concede that we are largely in agreement over the details of the Scott/Slager tragedy, and simply enjoy bickering over our respective perspectives.
    However, this little bit of your logic has me scratching my head:

    “For it to be an execution, Slager would have had to have a reason to execute Scott; what was that reason?:

    Whether it is an execution, or a murder, or a killing or manslaughter, there is ALWAYS a reason. Sometimes it’s intentional, sometimes it isn’t. Slager assumed a “shooter’s stance” and continued to fire until his clip was empty, actions that don’t look accidental to me. They looked intentional. What was his reason? I doubt that we’ll ever really know, and maybe it’s only God’s business to know.
    What I DO know is that the commandment “READY! AIM! FIRE!” that one hears in movie depictions of executions seems to have been in play here, and while it may simply reflect Slager’s professional training, in the context of what happened here, it’s damning.

  28. 129

    Bill

    @George Wells:

    Whether it is an execution, or a murder, or a killing or manslaughter, there is ALWAYS a reason.

    OK. If Slager knew Scott before, had some sort of grudge or picked Scott out of a crowd because he was black, pulled him over and shot him for no reason… there you have an execution and you have your pick of reasons.

    However, Slager pulled Scott over for a broken tail light lens. Slager did NOT shoot Scott then. Scott got out of his car and Slager told him to get back in, which Scott did. Slager did NOT shoot Scott then. Scott jumped from his car and ran; Slager gave chase… he did NOT shoot Scott then. Slager catches up with Scott, struggles with him, tasers him, GETS tasered… Slager does NOT shoot Scott then, either. Only when Scott runs, with the grip of the taser (the cartridge had come out, but Slager may not have known this) does Slager shoot Scott.

    It would appear, to all reasonable parties, that it took quite a bit to finally cause Slager to lose all personal restraint and shoot Scott. Yet, to you, this sounds like an executions.

    OK, lay Scott next to a condemned prisoner executed by lethal injection and both bodies will be the same dead. However, as with anything else, there is context.

    Slager assumed a “shooter’s stance” and continued to fire until his clip was empty, actions that don’t look accidental to me.

    How do police usually fire their weapon? Gangsta-style, tilted sideways or, as they have been trained extensively, in the proper stance? How often do police, when they resort to lethal force, fire the entire contents of the magazine? Almost always. Note that life is not a Sam Peckinpah movie and when someone is shot, a great gusher of blood does not erupt. You try far to hard to make this something other than what it is and you failed to answer my questions.

  29. 130

    George Wells

    @Bill:

    “you failed to answer my questions.”

    Did you mean THESE questions?

    “Why are you so afraid (you and most of the left) to wait until most or all of the details are confirmed before throwing terms like “summary execution” around?”
    “Why are you so afraid that some justification might suddenly appear?”

    Because if you meant THOSE questions, I thought you were being rhetorical. I can’t see how you connected any dots and came up with me being afraid of something (which I’m not), so I concluded that you were AGAIN being witty and ironic, and not asking a REAL question.
    If I missed something important, I’m sorry – I didn’t intend to.
    Try again.

  30. 131

    Bill

    @George Wells:
    Your statement: Waffling on the details, focusing on Slager’s loss, and blaming “race-baiters” does not.

    My questions:

    What details have I waffled on? Please explain. How have I “focused” on Slager’s loss? Please explain.

  31. 132

    George Wells

    @Bill #131:
    Oh.
    OK.
    Here’s how I am looking at this:
    You have offered numerous details that seem designed to defend Slager. Yes, you agreed that he was partly responsible for Scott’s death – I’m not disputing that. But Slager doesn’t NEED your defense. He will have plenty of lawyers for that. But Scott won’t. He’s DEAD.
    Who tells Scott’s side of the story?
    Who are HIS lawyers?
    Al Sharpton? The mob in the street? The general public?
    Some of Scott’s story will doubtless come out during Slager’s trial, well and fine. But Scott’s loss is 100%, and I grieve that far more than whatever might happen to Slager during incarceration. Maybe it would be a good thing for cops to reflect on that possibility as they are reaching for their guns.

    Does this rise to “waffling” or “focusing”?
    I think it does, primarily in the sense that I don’t get the outrage in your message. When you point out that what did Slager was wrong and yet understandable under the circumstances, yes, that’s waffling. You’re trying to have it both ways, like you don’t know who the cheer for. Every time you agree that Scott is dead by Slager’s hand (or gun), you then remind us that Slager might well suffer the same (or worse) fate in Jail. That’s focusing. What MIGHT happen in jail is irrelevant. Scott’s dead, Slager isn’t.
    (To beat a dead horse.)

  32. 133

    Redteam

    @George Wells:

    I’m not so sure that Slager’s crime doesn’t rise to 2nd degree murder. The fact is that he assumed a “shooter’s stance,” steading himself, aimed, and emptied his clip. If he had INTENDED only to stop Scott, he certainly didn’t ACT in that manner.

    I have no problem with you believing that but as I pointed out:

    Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable “heat of passion”;

    Not premeditated, not planned, not committed in a reasonable’ heat of passion’. As I said, I think being tasered would create a ‘heat of passion’ circumstance, and be an excuse for the policeman to ‘take action’. I wouldn’t claim it to be ‘loss of composure’, just ‘heat of passion’ causing ‘immediate reactions’.

    you said:

    I’ll be generous and give you that if Slager had been tazed, he might have a defense for murder 2 by reasons of temporary insanity.

    That was my point, so as I pointed out, the state had better go with voluntary manslaughter or less. Murder would be a stretch and likely wouldn’t result in a conviction.

    I’ll repeat that I do not condone the policeman’s action and I do not condone the dead guys actions.

  33. 134

    Bill

    @George Wells:

    Does this rise to “waffling” or “focusing”?
    I think it does, primarily in the sense that I don’t get the outrage in your message.

    Hmm… no, it doesn’t. I haven’t waffled a bit. And pointing out the FACT that this tragedy is going to negatively affect Slager’s future is not exactly “focusing” on it. See, “focusing” would be clinging desperately to the “execution” premise. You have to focus on it because otherwise, there would be no execution premise at all. It has to be manufactured.

    And, what would Scott’s story be? We actually have a video of those final moments, especially when you look at ALL the video. So, what details are missing, other than why Scott decided to run and fight with Slager?

    Suppose Scott had not been stopped, was not even driving, but walking along the sidewalk. He decides to run, sprinting across an intersection… WITHOUT the walk light. Meanwhile, Slager is driving his personal car, speeding, and decides to send a text. As he looks down at his phone, Scott runs, illegally, across the intersection. Slager nails him, dead center of his grill, and throws Scott 30 feet, killing him instantly.

    Scott is dead (he would have been better advised not to have run into the intersection) and Slager is guilty of manslaughter because his actions resulted in Scott’s death, though killing Scott was not his initial intention.

    I suppose that is an execution. One of them “summary” executions. It’s what happened here. Mundane events spun out of control and a man died. Another man will go to prison for it. Period.

  34. 135

    George Wells

    @Redteam #133:

    Regarding your “heat-of-passion” defense, I’m just not sure how long that “heat-of-passion” lasts. If you go with the science that says that once your adrenal gland pumps you full of adrenaline, you’ve got what, a good half hour or more before your blood-adrenaline levels return to normal? Does that give you a free pass to murder any time within that 30 minutes?

    I take the composure Slager demonstrated in conducting his kill professionally as an indication that he WASN’T under the influence of an adrenaline-induced temporary insanity. Any “heat-of-passion” Slager was having was under enough control for him to shoot not wildly, but efficiently and all too effectively. He may have been temporarily insane, but his actions on videotape certainly don’t show it.

  35. 137

    George Wells

    @Bill #134:

    Rather than argue further, especially over your irrelevant attempt to correlate Scott’s murder to a hypothetical jay-walking accident, I’ll stipulate that your concluding paragraph is essentially correct.

  36. 138

    George Wells

    @Redteam #136:

    Does the prosecutor HAVE to pick one or the other?
    I thought that a perp could be charged with multiple counts, and the jury gets to decide which charge fits the evidence. That seems to be how it works here, but maybe SC is different…

  37. 141

    Bill

    @George Wells:

    Rather than argue further, especially over your irrelevant attempt to correlate Scott’s murder to a hypothetical jay-walking accident, I’ll stipulate that your concluding paragraph is essentially correct.

    Assuming you are aware of the massive quantity of sarcasm in the first two sentences and admitting the correlation is totally lost on anyone with such deep-seated prejudices and suspicions, we do, indeed, agree.

  38. 142

    Redteam

    @Bill: .

    But, what chances of survival would you put on Slager were he put in the general population of a S. Carolina prison?

    I’m relatively sure they don’t put police officers into general population in prisons. To do so would be a death sentence.
    I agree that the word ‘execution’ is not the correct word. An execution is considered to be the carrying out of a sentence toward a condemned person. I don’t think that fits the situation.
    I watched the video of Slager stopping the car. He walked up, very calmnly to the driver’s side. He talked for quite some time and never seemed to show any emotion, then he went back to his car to ‘i assume’ talk on the radio. I never saw him getting ‘pumped up’ to go execute anyone. Then Scott ran and when he was caught he ‘apparently’ took Slager’s taser from him and shot him with it, then ran again and was shot.
    My prediction, if any prison time at all, less than 10 years.

  39. 143

    Redteam

    @George Wells: Now I don’t get it George, just when you’ve convinced me that being gay isn’t a choice, that it’s a birth defect of poor brain internal wiring, Along comes Bruce Jenner. Clearly he’s doing this by choice. I don’t believe he’s lived 65 years and didn’t know what gender he wants to claim he is. I guess he could say he didn’t reveal it sooner because he would have to give back his Olympic gold medal because he was competing in the wrong class. However, I do believe that his performance proves that he is a male. I don’t believe a ‘closet’ female could outperform all the best male athletes in the world at the time. Females can’t even successfully get through Marine training. Nope, I don’t know what’s behind this, but one thing is sure, he’s doing it by choice, not the fall of the sperm cells.

  40. 145

    Redteam

    @Bill: Yeah, you’ve got a point there Bill. I’ll bet his butt started growing the day he joined the clan.

    Note to admins. Every time I attempt to post, it makes me do a verify (several times) because it is seeing it as spam. I then have to fool it by putting in a one word comment then going back and editing it.
    Hope you don’t have me identified as ‘spam’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *