Im not sure how you make the quantum leap that if Scott had a firearm on him slager would have been justified in using deadly force. . Great assumption but your wrong.. at no point in the initial contact did Scott raise awareness or suspicion that deadly force was a option.. Scott could of had a firearm barring him being a felon and verbalize to slager he was armed.. not saying Scott was justified in running, but certainly didn't deserve to get murdered by slager.. what I'm saying is if Scott complied with the traffic stop and slager made a move to implement deadly force my way I'd have to assume I'm in grave danger and there fore would deploy matching deadly force and see who wins...So now you are advising OTHERS put down dirty cops?
Who decides which cops are dirty, and what is the bar to put them down? YOU?
IF Scott had been armed Slager would have been justified in using deadly force. So he would still be just as dead, and Slager would be free.
Well your assuming Scott would have fled had he had a fire arm.. another assumption on your part.. the facts are that Scott did not deserve to get shot in the back.. that qualifies as a tyranny in my book.. I'd say you pretty much don't know about the rights of the individual in this country from a god given , constitutional right.. Scott could of run a marathon from the cop and wouldn't of deserved to get shot.. but had he obeyed the traffic stop and been armed and slager showed depraved indifference to life , Scott could of lit slager up to protect himself... again I'm sorry if you don't understand that. . Sad reallyMaybe you missed the point that Scott fled a lawful stop/detainment. That is resisting arrest, a felony in SC. Had he been armed he would have met the criteria for a threat. Plus Scott resisted arrest with force. There would be no question at all to the shooting then becoming justified.
It really is troubling that some people have absolutely no idea about the law.