White Cop Shoots Black Man, Charged With Murder

[johnzo]

 

Whenever a cop kills someone, there has to be scrutiny.

These are taxpayer-funded killings and so taxpayers bear responsibility for ensuring that lethal force is used only when absolutely necessary.

So when the Army kills tonnes of innocent people its OK because America F$$$ Ya?

So when taxpayers pay for criminals in jail and/or pay for social assistance for people who commit murder those don't matter because why?

 

 

You're inventing ****.  You need to show me where in this thread I said either of those things.

 

Here is a thing that grownups know: sometimes multiple things matter at once.

[Fatty Liver]

Here is the video released from the dash-cam of the police car.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmlbnrFa_B0

 

From this video it looks like a standard traffic stop until the guy takes off running.  Apparently car was not his, not registered and not insured.  Real issue was that he had warrants out for his arrest and thus he decided to make a run for it.  Big mistake.  Notice his brother in the passenger seat is well aware of the "law of the land" and stays put even after his brother is shot.  White, black or yellow the cops down there generally give one warning to obey and if that order is not followed bullets are likely to fly.  Excess force is standard operating procedure.

 

This event is nothing more than an everyday occurrence in the "land of the free" but one of the few caught by video.  To date the number of civilians killed by police officers in 2015 stands at 319.  To put it in perspective that is more fatalities than England has produced in 100 plus years of police/public interactions gone bad.

 

http://killedbypolice.net/

[SPuDS]

Here's my two cents.. I've always been an advocate for police. they deal with so many situations and so many dangerous and unpredictable people and problems that unless you or someone very close to you wears a shield then you have no idea what they deal with. now, this case is a different ball of wax because its so blatantly an abuse of power and violence. totally uncalled for and completely devoid of any real reason for such an attack on an unarmed man. i hope he is found guilty of murder. 1 or 2 and rots in Hell. this guy was the exception in my mind,not the norm and deserves everything he gets from here on out

[Brandon]

 

 

Whenever a cop kills someone, there has to be scrutiny.

These are taxpayer-funded killings and so taxpayers bear responsibility for ensuring that lethal force is used only when absolutely necessary.

So when the Army kills tonnes of innocent people its OK because America F$$$ Ya?

So when taxpayers pay for criminals in jail and/or pay for social assistance for people who commit murder those don't matter because why?

 

 

You're inventing ****.  You need to show me where in this thread I said either of those things.

 

Here is a thing that grownups know: sometimes multiple things matter at once.

 

 

I didn't suggest you said it... you brought up the tax payers garbage... so I simply replied that tax money in the states goes to the Army and tax money goes to Jails and social assistance where all 3 areas have a few bad apples who have commited cold blooded murder like this incident.   So how come each of those killings are not highlighted in the news every single day?

 

I'm not justifying what the guy did was right,  I'm simply stating that he shouldn't be held in higher regard compared to a thug with a gun who kills an innocent person.    Just because the guy was white and killed someone black means nothing,  the fact that he killed some one in the wrong is what should be the focus.   People are killed every day so just because a guy has a badge does that mean his murder is more significant then some thug who shoots down an innocent bystander in a drive by??

 

Mr Grownup if you were so smart you would know that more criminals kill innocent cops and also more way more innocent people each year then cops killing innocent criminals.   You should be posting threads for every single one of those incidents!

[StevetheClub]

Whenever a cop kills someone, there has to be scrutiny.

These are taxpayer-funded killings and so taxpayers bear responsibility for ensuring that lethal force is used only when absolutely necessary.

So when the Army kills tonnes of innocent people its OK because America F$$$ Ya?

So when taxpayers pay for criminals in jail and/or pay for social assistance for people who commit murder those don't matter because why?

You're inventing ****. You need to show me where in this thread I said either of those things.

Here is a thing that grownups know: sometimes multiple things matter at once.

I didn't suggest you said it... you brought up the tax payers garbage... so I simply replied that tax money in the states goes to the Army and tax money goes to Jails and social assistance where all 3 areas have a few bad apples who have commited cold blooded murder like this incident. So how come each of those killings are not highlighted in the news every single day?

I'm not justifying what the guy did was right, I'm simply stating that he shouldn't be held in higher regard compared to a thug with a gun who kills an innocent person. Just because the guy was white and killed someone black means nothing, the fact that he killed some one in the wrong is what should be the focus. People are killed every day so just because a guy has a badge does that mean his murder is more significant then some thug who shoots down an innocent bystander in a drive by??

Mr Grownup if you were so smart you would know that more criminals kill innocent cops and also more way more innocent people each year then cops killing innocent criminals. You should be posting threads for every single one of those incidents!

None of that argues against what he said. You just listed more things that, agreed, matter very much.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

Whenever a cop kills someone, there has to be scrutiny.

These are taxpayer-funded killings and so taxpayers bear responsibility for ensuring that lethal force is used only when absolutely necessary.

So when the Army kills tonnes of innocent people its OK because America F$$$ Ya?

So when taxpayers pay for criminals in jail and/or pay for social assistance for people who commit murder those don't matter because why?

 

Im confused by any comparison between this and military action in a warzone especially considering the forces American and Canadian military fights against generally have no problem targeting civilians whereas the Americans spend a ton of money on technology to avoid civilians.  That's a different debate altogether.  And yes, American F!@K ya!

[The Unknown Poster]

Here is the video released from the dash-cam of the police car.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmlbnrFa_B0

 

From this video it looks like a standard traffic stop until the guy takes off running.  Apparently car was not his, not registered and not insured.  Real issue was that he had warrants out for his arrest and thus he decided to make a run for it.  Big mistake.  Notice his brother in the passenger seat is well aware of the "law of the land" and stays put even after his brother is shot.  White, black or yellow the cops down there generally give one warning to obey and if that order is not followed bullets are likely to fly.  Excess force is standard operating procedure.

 

This event is nothing more than an everyday occurrence in the "land of the free" but one of the few caught by video.  To date the number of civilians killed by police officers in 2015 stands at 319.  To put it in perspective that is more fatalities than England has produced in 100 plus years of police/public interactions gone bad.

 

http://killedbypolice.net/

This video is very interesting.  I didnt realise that his brother was in the car with him.  Not excusing the end result but you can almost see the defense coming got the cop.  His lawyers are going to try and take racism out of it.  The officer makes a lawful and proper traffic stop,  His interactions with the victim seem wholly reasonable and professional.  The officer demonstrates no bias or overt suspicion towards the victim whatsoever.  You get the sense had the victim followed directions he's either getting a ticket or, more likely once his name is run, he's going to be arrested for outstanding warrants.

 

Which brings us to the victim.  All the glowing things said about him might be true.  He might have been a wonderful hard working guy that loved his family etc etc.  But he has a long criminal record, he avoided paying child support to the extent he had multiple warrants out for his arrest, he was driving an unregistered car that was not his.

 

According to his brother (before the video came out), he intended to run to avoid jail.  That's going to be a key play at trial.  This was not heat of the moment.  This was not a person fearing for his life.  He ran because he was a miserable prick who didnt pay his child support and got caught. 

 

Once the video came out, the victim's family began changing the narrative from "he ran because he knew he was going to jail" to "he ran because he feared for his life".  We know the truth - he ran to avoid jail.  He was trying to escape what would be lawful custody.

 

We can extrapolate from the video that the officer gave chase.  He evidently caught up to him which is where some sort of physical altercation took place.  The officer attempted to use his stun gun.  On the other video you can see the stun gun leads have been deployed but it looks like they missed the victim.  It's difficult to tell but after watching it several times it appears the stun gun is dropped to the ground but to my eye it's hard to see who drops it, which is key.  If the cop dropped it, then its likely he tried to use it and missed.  If the victim dropped it, it adds weight to the cops story that there was an altercation and the victim took hold of his stun gun.  When I watched it a few times, i thought it was dropped from the direction of the victim.  But the video just isnt clear.

 

The information thus far, including this new video, up until the shooting, completely backs up the officer.  he seemingly did everything correct...until drawing his gun.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

 

 

Whenever a cop kills someone, there has to be scrutiny.

These are taxpayer-funded killings and so taxpayers bear responsibility for ensuring that lethal force is used only when absolutely necessary.

So when the Army kills tonnes of innocent people its OK because America F$$$ Ya?

So when taxpayers pay for criminals in jail and/or pay for social assistance for people who commit murder those don't matter because why?

 

 

You're inventing ****.  You need to show me where in this thread I said either of those things.

 

Here is a thing that grownups know: sometimes multiple things matter at once.

 

 

I didn't suggest you said it... you brought up the tax payers garbage... so I simply replied that tax money in the states goes to the Army and tax money goes to Jails and social assistance where all 3 areas have a few bad apples who have commited cold blooded murder like this incident.   So how come each of those killings are not highlighted in the news every single day?

 

I'm not justifying what the guy did was right,  I'm simply stating that he shouldn't be held in higher regard compared to a thug with a gun who kills an innocent person.    Just because the guy was white and killed someone black means nothing,  the fact that he killed some one in the wrong is what should be the focus.   People are killed every day so just because a guy has a badge does that mean his murder is more significant then some thug who shoots down an innocent bystander in a drive by??

 

Mr Grownup if you were so smart you would know that more criminals kill innocent cops and also more way more innocent people each year then cops killing innocent criminals.   You should be posting threads for every single one of those incidents!

 

Are you suggesting soldiers that kill the enemy is an example of taxpayer funded cold blooded murder?

[The Unknown Poster]

Some more info courtesy of CNN

 

On Thursday, a new witness emerged in the case. Gwen Nichols told CNN's Brian Todd that she saw a scuffle between Scott and Slager at the entrance to a vacant lot.

 

"It was like a tussle type of thing, like, you know, like, 'What do you want?' or 'What did I do?' type of thing," Nichols said. "I didn't hear Mr. Slager saying: 'Stop!' "

 

 

This witness is interesting.  She backs up the officer's assertion that there was a physical altercation.  And yet she seems biased with her remarks (why would the officer have to say Stop?)

 

 

Criminal defense attorney Paul Callan says he believes Slager's defense will play up the scuffle in arguing that this is not a murder case.

 

"Defense attorneys will say this was a heat of passion shooting -- (that) this was something that he did suddenly after some kind of an altercation, a physical altercation with a suspect," Callan said. "And that would constitute manslaughter under law, as opposed to murder, and it makes a huge difference in sentencing."

 

In South Carolina, a murder conviction requires "malice aforethought," Callan said. Some other states say a murder requires premeditation.

 

 

The new video is very helpful to the officer.  I cant see a jury convicting of murder under those standards.  Im sure we'll hear from shrinks who will testify to the mental state of the officer who might reasonably have feared for his own safety seconds before firing.

[Fatty Liver]

Something really odd about these videos other than the fact that a middle aged white man appears to have run down a middle aged black man with a good head start.  The spacing of the second video suggests the victim either stopped running or the cop  caught up to him at which time a physical altercation may have occurred.  Notice how the cop is clutching the back of his head as he approaches the downed victim.

 

The following video has better audio than the first I posted of the dash-cam.  The initial exchange is clear and you can also pick up bits of the audio of the chase and altercation although it's fuzzy "commands" can be heard.

 

 

My take is that the guy initially bolted from the scene, assaulted the officer or at least refused arrest and than fled a second time.  I think the officer is unlikely to be convicted of murder in this case.

[The Unknown Poster]

^^^^

 

Honestly I didnt even realise there was audio...watching at work.

 

I think you're right on the money.  I think there is the potential for this to actually flip around somewhat and there might be a public outcry, deserved or not, that there might have been a rush to charge the cop with murder without a full investigation.  The media (and others) jumped on this as a racially motivated killing.  Nothing about that other then the ethnicities of the two people involved indicates that at all.  I wonder, if it wasnt white cop/black victim coming after Ferguson would the charges have been laid so quickly?

 

And this goes to my earlier point that the victim must share in his part of this altercation.  Even if the shooting was 100% wrong on every level and certainly the outcome was awful, the evidence thus far backs up the cop completely...until the time of the shooting.  And if you are correct that the victim did resist arrest and assault the officer and if that involved the officer attempting to use non-lethal means to make the arrest of a fleeing suspect with outstanding warrants and the victim tried to wrest control of the stun gun...it definitely changes things.

 

It doesnt mean the cop was correct in shooting the fleeing suspect.  But it opens up different defenses and interpretations of the law.  The law allows for a cop to shoot a fleeing suspect if there is probable cause that the suspect is danger to the officer or community.  The cop will argue that in that MOMENT he felt the suspect was a danger and that his training taught him to act in the manner he did.

 

This is a very interesting case, far more than initial stories made it seem.

 

Ofcourse, the cop has one very very bad thing working against him - the fact he immediately planted evidence.  His defense might argue that the officer was "collecting" evidence, but thats a tough pill to swallow.  This isnt Murder though, not with this evidence.

[New_Earth_Mud]

^^^^

 

Honestly I didnt even realise there was audio...watching at work.

 

I think you're right on the money.  I think there is the potential for this to actually flip around somewhat and there might be a public outcry, deserved or not, that there might have been a rush to charge the cop with murder without a full investigation.  The media (and others) jumped on this as a racially motivated killing.  Nothing about that other then the ethnicities of the two people involved indicates that at all.  I wonder, if it wasnt white cop/black victim coming after Ferguson would the charges have been laid so quickly?

 

And this goes to my earlier point that the victim must share in his part of this altercation.  Even if the shooting was 100% wrong on every level and certainly the outcome was awful, the evidence thus far backs up the cop completely...until the time of the shooting.  And if you are correct that the victim did resist arrest and assault the officer and if that involved the officer attempting to use non-lethal means to make the arrest of a fleeing suspect with outstanding warrants and the victim tried to wrest control of the stun gun...it definitely changes things.

 

It doesnt mean the cop was correct in shooting the fleeing suspect.  But it opens up different defenses and interpretations of the law.  The law allows for a cop to shoot a fleeing suspect if there is probable cause that the suspect is danger to the officer or community.  The cop will argue that in that MOMENT he felt the suspect was a danger and that his training taught him to act in the manner he did.

 

This is a very interesting case, far more than initial stories made it seem.

 

Ofcourse, the cop has one very very bad thing working against him - the fact he immediately planted evidence.  His defense might argue that the officer was "collecting" evidence, but thats a tough pill to swallow.  This isnt Murder though, not with this evidence.

 

 

I get what your saying  but the guy was running away.... that defence aint going to work.

 

Nothing in the entire situation gives that cop any right to shoot the guy......  nothing. He wasent at any point putting anyone in danger. Plus the cop had the dudes ID and there was also a passenger in the car.

 

IMO   that cop is and was crap at his job. And some poor dude had to pay with his life because of it.

 

I say give him a rope in his cell and be done with it. But that stupid **** wouldnt have the balls. 

[17to85]

 And some poor dude

hmmm guy with outstanding warrants, driving an unregistered car, running from police, maybe even getting into a physical altercation with them.... yeah it's over board for him to be shot and killed and the loss of life is tragic but your wording of "some poor dude" is just so wrong. 

[The Unknown Poster]

New Earth - the thing is it IS allowable for a cop to shoot a suspect who is running away.

Look at it this way, if someone saw the Boston Bonber running away and a cop shot him in the back he'd be a hero. Now I'm not comparing the two just pointing out that the mere act of a suspect fleeing is not necessarily cause to not be shot. If so, every time a cop pulled you over at gun point you'd just run away.

In this instance I think the argument will be made that in the seconds between the cop being assaulted, fighting for he stun gun (a weapon) that he could have felt imminent danger. The fact he was wronf after the fact might not be enough to say from a purely psychologicsl stand point that the cop didn't feel in danger.

Part of the fight or flight reaction in humans is instinctive. I've been assaulted a lot, with weapons, nearly shot. Sometimes actions happen. We hold cops to a higher standard because of training and experience which is why he is charged but I bet he is never found guilty of murder.

[New_Earth_Mud]

 

 And some poor dude

hmmm guy with outstanding warrants, driving an unregistered car, running from police, maybe even getting into a physical altercation with them.... yeah it's over board for him to be shot and killed and the loss of life is tragic but your wording of "some poor dude" is just so wrong. 

 

 

 

You do understand a cop shot him 5 times in the back right?

 

over board doesent even begin to describe it. He had a warrant for unpaid child support.

 

Nobody was in any danger and that includes the stupid cop that shot him. 5 times yet. So anybody that runs from a cop should just be shot? Ever watch the TV show cops? Good grief if they just start shooting people for running that shows going to be some real fun **** to watch.

 

So yes.....  that poor dude should never have been shot.

 

The cop had the guys ID and there was a passenger in the car. 

[New_Earth_Mud]

New Earth - the thing is it IS allowable for a cop to shoot a suspect who is running away.

Look at it this way, if someone saw the Boston Bonber running away and a cop shot him in the back he'd be a hero. Now I'm not comparing the two just pointing out that the mere act of a suspect fleeing is not necessarily cause to not be shot. If so, every time a cop pulled you over at gun point you'd just run away.

In this instance I think the argument will be made that in the seconds between the cop being assaulted, fighting for he stun gun (a weapon) that he could have felt imminent danger. The fact he was wronf after the fact might not be enough to say from a purely psychologicsl stand point that the cop didn't feel in danger.

Part of the fight or flight reaction in humans is instinctive. I've been assaulted a lot, with weapons, nearly shot. Sometimes actions happen. We hold cops to a higher standard because of training and experience which is why he is charged but I bet he is never found guilty of murder.

 

 

No its not.

 

Watch the cops and lawyers on CNN.  Hes not allowed to discharge his weapon unless either himself or another person is in imminent danger.

 

Neither him nor anyone else was in any imminent danger......  the guy was running away.

 

Like i said above.....  Ever watch the show cops? A ton of people run from cops....  they arnt all being shot.

 

Even if they had some kinda tussle the danger of it was over when the dude ran. You cannot get up and shoot the guy. Thats crazy.

 

Did the cop even know the guy had a warrant at the time he shot him? Dont think he could have.

 

 

Oh and ill take you up on that bet. 

[The Unknown Poster]

I'll try to find the law but read it in an article where the law actually was yes a cop can shoot a fleeing suspect if he is a danger to the officer or community. The word imminent was not used.

[The Unknown Poster]

Also as far as shooting him five times, is the same reason why people get upset when a cop lawfully shoots someone and kills them and people say why can't he shoot him in the leg. Cops aren't trained to shoot in the leg. And they aren't trained to shoot once, stand back and see if it's effective, shoot again, stand back, shoot again. It's shoot shoot shoot shoot shoot until the suspect is down.

Ever see video of an armed suspect being shot by a group of cops? If it's two cops of 50, they all fire.

besides which it's going to come down to definition of danger. If the Boston bomber set off his bomb and ran off and a cop shot him (by the way they did shoot him while he was laying prone in a boat) you could say he was not an imminent threat but his prior actions were enough of a threat tjay he had to be stopped.

The cop will argue perception. He had a fleeing suspect. He was assaulted. He fought over his weapon and he feared for his life when he went for his gun. By the time he fired the suspect was several feet away but the argument will be reasonable fear on behalf of the cop.

[Fatty Liver]

Don't see this killing as racially based per-sea, more of a case of dumb is as dumb does.  Scott must have had a death wish to attempt to escape from an armed police officer way down yonder in Dixie.  The reputation for extreme violence in the American south is well earned and wholly deserved.  It would take significantly less than 8 shots to convince me to embrace old Mother Earth toot sweet, especially if my best recorded 40 was 9.86 circa. 1975.

 

Because of the video and the scrutiny this case has received no doubt the officer is going to pay for his negligence of duty to the full extent of the law.  Charleston and their police force will be in maximum damage control mode from this point forward trying to avoid further scrutiny.  Not likely to help their cause as they've already been convicted in the court of public opinion.

[johnzo]

Because of the video and the scrutiny this case has received no doubt the officer is going to pay for his negligence of duty to the full extent of the law.

I wouldn't be surprised if criminal charges don't stick to him; the Rodney King cops were acquitted.

[New_Earth_Mud]

I'll try to find the law but read it in an article where the law actually was yes a cop can shoot a fleeing suspect if he is a danger to the officer or community. The word imminent was not used.

 

 

The danger to the cop and or community was over. If there was any in the first place.

 

He cannot discharge his weapon in this case. Its against the law and its cold blooded murder.

 

Now if this guy had just killed someone and this all went down then yes he can pull his gun and discharge it.

 

But this was not the case. This was a simple traffic stop that a guy with a warrant freaked out and ran away... cop gives chase and a tussle happens a tazer is used and the guy runs away. The danger is over and the cop cannot get up and pull his gun and shoot the guy dead. Thats called murder. The point of the guy running away it was the cops job to report the guy ran and that he had his ID and a passenger in the car he stopped and ask for backup.

 

Like ive asked.  Ever watch cops on TV?  LOL   They never just start shooting people that fight n run.

[New_Earth_Mud]

Also as far as shooting him five times, is the same reason why people get upset when a cop lawfully shoots someone and kills them and people say why can't he shoot him in the leg. Cops aren't trained to shoot in the leg. And they aren't trained to shoot once, stand back and see if it's effective, shoot again, stand back, shoot again. It's shoot shoot shoot shoot shoot until the suspect is down.

Ever see video of an armed suspect being shot by a group of cops? If it's two cops of 50, they all fire.

besides which it's going to come down to definition of danger. If the Boston bomber set off his bomb and ran off and a cop shot him (by the way they did shoot him while he was laying prone in a boat) you could say he was not an imminent threat but his prior actions were enough of a threat tjay he had to be stopped.

The cop will argue perception. He had a fleeing suspect. He was assaulted. He fought over his weapon and he feared for his life when he went for his gun. By the time he fired the suspect was several feet away but the argument will be reasonable fear on behalf of the cop.

 

 

Boston bomber and a traffic stop?

 

Cmon dude your way smarter then to stretch this into that.

 

That cop was **** at his job and killed someone for no reason at all.

 

We have zero idea if the guy went for the cops gun and even if he did he didnt get it and was running away. He didnt have a gun. And was shot 5 times in the back.

[Fatty Liver]

 

I'll try to find the law but read it in an article where the law actually was yes a cop can shoot a fleeing suspect if he is a danger to the officer or community. The word imminent was not used.

 

 

The danger to the cop and or community was over. If there was any in the first place.

 

He cannot discharge his weapon in this case. Its against the law and its cold blooded murder.

 

Now if this guy had just killed someone and this all went down then yes he can pull his gun and discharge it.

 

But this was not the case. This was a simple traffic stop that a guy with a warrant freaked out and ran away... cop gives chase and a tussle happens a tazer is used and the guy runs away. The danger is over and the cop cannot get up and pull his gun and shoot the guy dead. Thats called murder. The point of the guy running away it was the cops job to report the guy ran and that he had his ID and a passenger in the car he stopped and ask for backup.

 

Like ive asked.  Ever watch cops on TV?  LOL   They never just start shooting people that fight n run.

 

 

That's because they are aware there is a TV camera following them.  Hard to say that none of the other 300 plus shootings this year alone that weren't caught on camera didn't go down the same way.

[Fatty Liver]

 

Because of the video and the scrutiny this case has received no doubt the officer is going to pay for his negligence of duty to the full extent of the law.

I wouldn't be surprised if criminal charges don't stick to him; the Rodney King cops were acquitted.

 

 

Possibly, but I think after the Ferguson nightmare the public relations game has changed significantly.

[New_Earth_Mud]

 

 

I'll try to find the law but read it in an article where the law actually was yes a cop can shoot a fleeing suspect if he is a danger to the officer or community. The word imminent was not used.

 

 

The danger to the cop and or community was over. If there was any in the first place.

 

He cannot discharge his weapon in this case. Its against the law and its cold blooded murder.

 

Now if this guy had just killed someone and this all went down then yes he can pull his gun and discharge it.

 

But this was not the case. This was a simple traffic stop that a guy with a warrant freaked out and ran away... cop gives chase and a tussle happens a tazer is used and the guy runs away. The danger is over and the cop cannot get up and pull his gun and shoot the guy dead. Thats called murder. The point of the guy running away it was the cops job to report the guy ran and that he had his ID and a passenger in the car he stopped and ask for backup.

 

Like ive asked.  Ever watch cops on TV?  LOL   They never just start shooting people that fight n run.

 

 

That's because they are aware there is a TV camera following them.  Hard to say that none of the other 300 plus shootings this year alone that weren't caught on camera didn't go down the same way.

 

 

 

You have got to be kidding. So thats the way the law works? On film or not on film determans how the law comes into play?

 

I wont shot a guy running cuz im on film. Yet if there was no film id shoot the prick dead.

 

The law is the law and no cop can ever ever ever pull his gun and just shoot anyone. That aint the way it works.

 

An imminent danger needs to happen..... Like during a fight and the guys going for a weapon......The guy just killed other people or a person.... Or he pulls a weapon.

 

None of that happened. The guy just ran away. This stupid cop had no clue about that guy. He new he had no insurance for the car but was told a reason why. He had no clue of anything else.