(CNN)A South Carolina officer has been charged with murder after a video surfaced that appears to show him shooting an unarmed man who was running away.
Michael Slager, an officer with the North Charleston Police Department, was arrested Tuesday, according to a statement from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, or SLED. If found guilty of murder, he could face up to life in prison or death.
The shooting took place Saturday after a traffic stop, SLED said. Video obtained by The New York Times shows what happened.
A black man breaks away from the white officer. Something falls, and the officer fires eight shots at the man as he runs away. The man, who appears to be unarmed, drops to the ground.
"I can tell you that as the result of that video and the bad decision made by our officer, he will be charged with murder," North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey told reporters Tuesday. "When you're wrong, you're wrong. And if you make a bad decision -- don't care if you're behind the shield or just a citizen on the street -- you have to live by that decision."
CNN affiliate WCIV identified the victim as 50-year-old Walter Scott. His family spoke to WCIV over the weekend, before the officer was arrested, describing Scott as a good man who was about to be married.
"All we want is the truth, and we'll go any length to get that so that my brother can rest in peace," Anthony Scott told the affiliate.
A moment from the video shows the officer, right, and a running man.
A moment from the video shows the officer, right, and a running man.
According to WCIV, Slager initially said through his attorney, David Aylor, that he followed the appropriate policies and procedures. Aylor later told CNN that he no longer represents the officer, and it was unclear whether Slager had obtained new representation.
The Justice Department released a statement Tuesday saying it would "take appropriate action in light of the evidence and developments in the state case."
"The South Carolina Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation has opened an investigation concurrent with the S.C. Law Enforcement Division and are providing aid as necessary to the state investigation. The Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and the South Carolina U.S. Attorney's Office will work with the FBI in the investigation," it read.
North Charleston Police Chief Eddie Driggers, who spoke to CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront," described the shooting as tragic.
He said the incident began when the officer stopped Scott for driving with a brake light being out.
When asked whether he thought race played a role in what happened, Driggers did not rule it out.
"I want to believe in my heart of hearts that it was a tragic set of events after a traffic stop," Driggers said. "I always look for the good in folks, and so I would hope that nobody would ever do something like that."
CNN's Chandler Friedman and Evan Perez contributed to this report.
Well, seeing as the policeman apparently lied about what happened, I'm given to believe he's guilty of murder. Plus the video shows no reason he should have killed him. It's up to the courts now though.
Wouldn't surprise me, and the anger would be entirely justified. If video evidence of murder isn't enough to get the same sentence that a "normal" person would get for the crime then it would be a blatant admission that the police are above the law and will never be punished appropriately for their crimes. If that happens I can absolutely sympathize with the desire to burn the entire legal and government system to the ground.
WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers’ using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
A White House task force has recommended a host of changes to the nation’s police policies, and President Obama sent Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to cities around the country to try to improve police relations with minority neighborhoods.
North Charleston is South Carolina’s third-largest city, with a population of about 100,000. African-Americans make up about 47 percent of residents, and whites account for about 37 percent. The Police Department is about 80 percent white, according to data collected by the Justice Department in 2007, the most recent period available.
“When you’re wrong, you’re wrong,” Mayor Keith Summey said during the news conference. “And if you make a bad decision, don’t care if you’re behind the shield or just a citizen on the street, you have to live by that decision.”
The shooting unfolded after Officer Slager stopped the driver of a Mercedes-Benz with a broken taillight, according to police reports. Mr. Scott ran away, and Officer Slager chased him into a grassy lot that abuts a muffler shop. He fired his Taser, an electronic stun gun, but it did not stop Mr. Scott, according to police reports.
Moments after the struggle, Officer Slager reported on his radio: “Shots fired and the subject is down. He took my Taser,” according to police reports.
But the video, which was taken by a bystander and provided to The New York Times by the Scott family’s lawyer, presents a different account. The video begins in the vacant lot, apparently moments after Officer Slager fired his Taser. Wires, which carry the electrical current from the stun gun, appear to be extending from Mr. Scott’s body as the two men tussle and Mr. Scott turns to run.
Something — it is not clear whether it is the stun gun — is either tossed or knocked to the ground behind the two men, and Officer Slager draws his gun, the video shows. When the officer fires, Mr. Scott appears to be 15 to 20 feet away and fleeing. He falls after the last of eight shots.
The officer then runs back toward where the initial scuffle occurred and picks something up off the ground. Moments later, he drops an object near Mr. Scott’s body, the video shows.
The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, the state’s criminal investigative body, has begun an inquiry into the shooting. The F.B.I. and the Justice Department, which has opened a string of civil rights investigations into police departments under Mr. Holder, is also investigating.
For several minutes after the shooting, Walter L. Scott remained face down with his hands cuffed behind his back.
The Supreme Court has held that an officer may use deadly force against a fleeing suspect only when there is probable cause that the suspect “poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”
Officer Slager served in the Coast Guard before joining the force five years ago, his lawyer said. The police chief of North Charleston did not return repeated calls. Because police departments are not required to release data on how often officers use force, it was not immediately clear how often police shootings occurred in North Charleston, a working-class community adjacent to the tourist destination of Charleston.
Mr. Scott had been arrested about 10 times, mostly for failing to pay child support or show up for court hearings, according to The Post and Courier newspaper of Charleston. He was arrested in 1987 on an assault and battery charge and convicted in 1991 of possession of a bludgeon, the newspaper reported. Mr. Scott’s brother, Anthony, said he believed Mr. Scott had fled from the police on Saturday because he owed child support.
“He has four children; he doesn’t have some type of big violent past or arrest record,” said Chris Stewart, a lawyer for Mr. Scott’s family. “He had a job; he was engaged. He had back child support and didn’t want to go to jail for back child support.”
Mr. Stewart said the coroner had told him that Mr. Scott was struck five times — three times in the back, once in the upper buttocks and once in the ear — with at least one bullet entering his heart. It is not clear whether Mr. Scott died immediately. (The coroner’s office declined to make the report available to The Times.)
Police reports say that officers performed CPR and delivered first aid to Mr. Scott. The video shows that for several minutes after the shooting, Mr. Scott remained face down with his hands cuffed behind his back. A second officer arrives, puts on blue medical gloves and attends to Mr. Scott, but is not shown performing CPR. As sirens wail in the background, a third officer later arrives, apparently with a medical kit, but is also not seen performing CPR.
The debate over police use of force has been propelled in part by videos like the one in South Carolina. In January, prosecutors in Albuquerque charged two police officers with murder for shooting a homeless man in a confrontation that was captured by an officer’s body camera. Federal prosecutors are investigating the death of Eric Garner, who died last year in Staten Island after a police officer put him in a chokehold, an episode that a bystander captured on video. A video taken in Cleveland shows the police shooting a 12-year-old boy, Tamir Rice, who was carrying a fake gun in a park. A White House policing panel recommended that police departments put more video cameras on their officers.
Mr. Scott’s brother said his mother had called him on Saturday, telling him that his brother had been shot by a Taser after a traffic stop. “You may need to go over there and see what’s going on,” he said his mother told him. When he arrived at the scene of the shooting, officers told him that his brother was dead, but he said they had no explanation for why. “This just doesn’t sound right,” he said in an interview. “How do you lose your life at a traffic stop?”
Anthony Scott said he last saw his brother three weeks ago at a family oyster roast. “We hadn’t hung out like that in such a long time,” Mr. Scott said. “He kept on saying over and over again how great it was.”
At the roast, Mr. Scott got to do two of the things he enjoyed most: tell jokes and dance. When one of Mr. Scott’s favorite songs was played, he got excited. “He jumped up and said, ‘That’s my song,’ and he danced like never before,” his brother said.
That video came out yesterday. His lawyer quit yesterday. Coincidence?
This LEO also has had serious issues in the past with police brutality in the past
Thats not how it works. For cap murder there usually has to be additional circumstances.
He's a police officer charged with protecting the public. Usually it goes the other way - they have all sorts of protections against prosecution - but the penalties should be more severe for LEOs given that they're provided power by the state.
I'll never understand how a criminal who kills a cop is prosecuted more strongly than a cop who murders an innocent person. Of the criminal, we expect that behavior, and at least he didn't target a private citizen. Of the cop, he's betrayed the trust of the community.
There are situations where you can legally shoot someone in the back. A fleeing felon for example. This does not look like one of those situations.
Hang the fether.
Though it is worth pointing out that several cops are going on trial for in the line of duty shootings, but they don't fit the narrative and are thus being ignored.
Hang on guys - lets not ignore the fact that the officers "tazer" was knocked out of his hands - it's perfectly acceptable for the officer to shoot the perpetrator at that point if he believes he has one of his weapons. From the video it sure looks like the black man grabs something and some things fly into the ground in front and behind the officer. About the taking 8 shots...How many hit the man? article doesn't say - from the way the guy was running I think it's obvious the first several were misses.
Theres no doubt that the cop altered the scene after the incident (probably once he realized that the dude didnt steal his tazor)- for that he should be charged.
This video though - takes place in a park of some kind - with no car visible in the video and this was for a traffic stop. It's quite clear that the black man had already run away once. most likely resisting arrest. (cops don't make you get out of your car unless you are going to jail or if you are about to take an impairment test.)
I'm not defending the dudes actions or calling the black man a criminal - just pointing out the things I see that should be relevant in a court of law.
1 thing is clear - if the dude didn't get shot - hed be going to jail for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer - don't forget that. I wouldn't call this murder in any case. I'd call it 1st degree manslaughter.
Also another thing - how convenient that the seconds leading up to the point the black man knocks the cops hand are ommited - clearly the video was recording previously to that - well...where is?
Xenomancers wrote: Hang on guys - lets not ignore the fact that the officers "tazer" was knocked out of his hands - it's perfectly acceptable for the officer to shoot the perpetrator at that point if he believes he has one of his weapons. From the video it sure looks like the black man grabs something and some things fly into the ground in front and behind the officer. About the taking 8 shots...How many hit the man? article doesn't say - from the way the guy was running I think it's obvious the first several were misses.
Theres no doubt that the cop altered the scene after the incident (probably once he realized that the dude didnt steal his tazor)- for that he should be charged.
This video though - takes place in a park of some kind - with no car visible in the video and this was for a traffic stop. It's quite clear that the black man had already run away once. most likely resisting arrest. (cops don't make you get out of your car unless you are going to jail or if you are about to take an impairment test.)
I'm not defending the dudes actions or calling the black man a criminal - just pointing out the things I see that should be relevant in a court of law.
1 thing is clear - if the dude didn't get shot - hed be going to jail for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer - don't forget that. I wouldn't call this murder in any case. I'd call it 1st degree manslaughter.
Also another thing - how convenient that the seconds leading up to the point the black man knocks the cops hand are ommited - clearly the video was recording previously to that - well...where is?
Horse poop. A Taser is not a lethal weapon. The officer was not in fear for his life or the lives of others.
Frazzled, aren't tazers "less lethal" options, aka, they can potentially cause death but it's unlikely?
Also, from what I can tell the taser had already been discharged and was unloaded. It'd need a new cartridge (that the officer would have I assume) to be used again (unless it's one with contact options).
MrDwhitey wrote: Frazzled, aren't tazers "less lethal" options, aka, they can potentially cause death but it's unlikely?
Also, from what I can tell the taser had already been discharged and was unloaded. It'd need a new cartridge (that the officer would have I assume) to be used again (unless it's one with contact options).
Versus a normal person its not lethal. Things can happen.
And yes those are typically cartridge based tasers, not the old hand held tasers that civilians had (used to have).
At the start of the video you can see the object (presumably the taser) fall and hit the ground behind the officer.
They were both fighting over it (you can sorta tell if you play in slowmotion) and at no point does it seem to end up in full control of the victim. It's more like he flung it away and the officer let go at the same time.
MrDwhitey wrote: Frazzled, aren't tazers "less lethal" options, aka, they can potentially cause death but it's unlikely?
Also, from what I can tell the taser had already been discharged and was unloaded. It'd need a new cartridge (that the officer would have I assume) to be used again (unless it's one with contact options).
You are correct. To date I believe that only one death has ever been attributed to tazer use in the line of duty, and that is because there was gasoline in the vicinity at the time the device was deployed
MrDwhitey wrote: Frazzled, aren't tazers "less lethal" options, aka, they can potentially cause death but it's unlikely?
Also, from what I can tell the taser had already been discharged and was unloaded. It'd need a new cartridge (that the officer would have I assume) to be used again (unless it's one with contact options).
You are correct. To date I believe that only one death has ever been attributed to tazer use in the line of duty, and that is because there was gasoline in the vicinity at the time the device was deployed
MrDwhitey wrote: Frazzled, aren't tazers "less lethal" options, aka, they can potentially cause death but it's unlikely?
Also, from what I can tell the taser had already been discharged and was unloaded. It'd need a new cartridge (that the officer would have I assume) to be used again (unless it's one with contact options).
You are correct. To date I believe that only one death has ever been attributed to tazer use in the line of duty, and that is because there was gasoline in the vicinity at the time the device was deployed
A recently released dashboard cam video off of a California Border Patrol agent’s cruiser captures the moment the agent’s Taser causes a car to explode.
The incident began in Pine Valley, in March 2012 when Border Patrol agents in an unmarked car tried to pull over Alex Martin.
Martin was allegedly driving the wrong way on Interstate 8, but refused to pull over because it was dark and the car was unmarked.
After chasing Martin for three minutes, he was finally brought to a stop using spike strips.
The dashcam video shows a plainclothes agent trying to open the passenger side door, then smashing the window of Martin’s car before firing the Taser into the vehicle.
That’s when a fireball engulfs the car, blowing the officer back.
Dashcam video then captures the patrol agents quickly pulling away from Martin’s burning vehicle.
Martin’s family is now suing the federal government, claiming wrongful death.
Their lawyer, Eugene Iredale, states that the agents should have smelled the spilled gas in the car, which was ignited by the Taser’s spark.
He also claims that none of the agents tried to save Martin, despite all three patrol agent’s cruisers having fire extinguishers.
The federal government is looking to dismiss the lawsuit though, focusing on previous issues Martin had had with the law.
Co'tor Shas wrote: That's not good. Doesn't really seem to be the officers' fault though.
There could be a prima facie claim of negligence concerning the smell of gas and the tasers being deployed. The issue over the fire extinguishers could be interesting; were they the right type for the class of fire, and if so could they be used safely with a person being trapped in such a confined space (especially if it was a CO2 extinguisher). What I found strange was that the Government's response wasn't to deny liability. Instead it was to focus on the deceased's criminal past.
It's a moot thing to ponder but sometimes I wonder what is going through the heads of 'bad cops' that are actually guilty.
Like, was it lack of training, bad judgement and panic? Or was it hate and anger? Or just plain indifference and disregard? Not that we will ever really know.
Btw, my own personal opinion is that the Michael Brown case was justified based on the evidence that was released to the public but in this case, the video looks really bad for that officer.
KiloFiX wrote: It's a moot thing to ponder but sometimes I wonder what is going through the heads of 'bad cops' that are actually guilty.
Like, was it lack of training, bad judgement and panic? Or was it hate and anger? Or just plain indifference and disregard? Not that we will ever really know.
Btw, my own personal opinion is that the Michael Brown case was justified based on the evidence that was released to the public but in this case, the video looks really bad for that officer.
I have a feeling it was a mixture of resentment, some flavor of superiority complex, and the complete misunderstanding that the system will not throw him under the bus.
KiloFiX wrote: It's a moot thing to ponder but sometimes I wonder what is going through the heads of 'bad cops' that are actually guilty.
Like, was it lack of training, bad judgement and panic? Or was it hate and anger? Or just plain indifference and disregard? Not that we will ever really know.
Btw, my own personal opinion is that the Michael Brown case was justified based on the evidence that was released to the public but in this case, the video looks really bad for that officer.
What do you expect out of a guy who got Cs in high school?
First off, I can't believe that you can get arrested and jailed for failure to pay child support.
WTF?! Now, granted, if he wasn't paying to begin with...then a vacation in the pokey isn't going to *make* him pay or otherwise put a burden on him (besides loss of freedom).
Second....
I don't think that he will get First Degree Murder charges...that would be hard to prove pre-meditation.
My interweb armchair lawyering degree says that even Second Degree Murder may be hard to convict on:
Second Degree Murder: Definition. 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.
He could argue "it wasn't intentional" and "it was in the heat of passion". However, it was obviously (in my opinion) 100% fulfilling of #2.
I am thinking some kind of manslaughter charge would be far easier to convict on.
And really...if he were to be found not guilty of the higher charge, then he couldn't be prosecuted again for a lesser charge for the same crime (double jeopardy).
So, I say try to go for the sure conviction....that would be the start of justice, and then let the prisoners exact their own to finish the job.
Usually it is at the end of a long process. Typically before a warrant is issued and there is a possibility of jail time wages are garnished, and some States revoke driving licenses until arrears are paid.
Wouldn't surprise me, and the anger would be entirely justified. If video evidence of murder isn't enough to get the same sentence that a "normal" person would get for the crime then it would be a blatant admission that the police are above the law and will never be punished appropriately for their crimes. If that happens I can absolutely sympathize with the desire to burn the entire legal and government system to the ground.
conversely,
if he is convicted of murder and sentenced to a harsh prison sentence or death,
will we have an admission/acceptance that the system does in fact work and in most cases can tell the difference between justified and non justified shootings?
either way, goes to show how important having video evidence is, and should encourage more surveillance cameras (probably a good thing)
if he is convicted of murder and sentenced to a harsh prison sentence or death,
will we have an admission/acceptance that the system does in fact work and in most cases can tell the difference between justified and non justified shootings?
Not really, because it's just one case where the system worked in contrast to the many cases where the police got token punishments at most for doing things that would have sent ordinary civilians to prison for a long time. Proving that the system works would require a consistent pattern of appropriate punishments, not just one isolated incident.
if he is convicted of murder and sentenced to a harsh prison sentence or death,
will we have an admission/acceptance that the system does in fact work and in most cases can tell the difference between justified and non justified shootings?
Not really, because it's just one case where the system worked in contrast to the many cases where the police got token punishments at most for doing things that would have sent ordinary civilians to prison for a long time. Proving that the system works would require a consistent pattern of appropriate punishments, not just one isolated incident.
You'd need to prove that there are more than just a few isolated cases of police getting only token punishments.
Do you have reliable proof that there is an overwhelming trend of police brutality coupled with the court system giving them light sentences? Because most things I see regarding this are really just conspiracy theory level horse gak.
MrDwhitey wrote: Frazzled, aren't tazers "less lethal" options, aka, they can potentially cause death but it's unlikely?
Also, from what I can tell the taser had already been discharged and was unloaded. It'd need a new cartridge (that the officer would have I assume) to be used again (unless it's one with contact options).
You are correct. To date I believe that only one death has ever been attributed to tazer use in the line of duty, and that is because there was gasoline in the vicinity at the time the device was deployed
Only one? Seems like tasers BBQ people's hearts a bit more often than that.
I'm sure the FBI has official stats on public file but I'm too tired to go digging. It may not be what the blog suggests but I'm sure as hell that more than one person has died as a result of being tased. Middle age lard licking obese Americans don't have very good heart health and it's very easy for a taser to induce heart failure if they hit in the wrong spots. They also create a handy means by which the user can torture other people without leaving much visible evidence.
If the blogs are correct 800-900 people have died in taser related incidents sure as heck doesn't sound like it's a "safe" device, it's likely better than taking a bullet but it's sure as hell not safe. Even if they are only partially correct on their numbers it's still hundreds of people that have died as a result of their use.
if he is convicted of murder and sentenced to a harsh prison sentence or death,
will we have an admission/acceptance that the system does in fact work and in most cases can tell the difference between justified and non justified shootings?
Not really, because it's just one case where the system worked in contrast to the many cases where the police got token punishments at most for doing things that would have sent ordinary civilians to prison for a long time. Proving that the system works would require a consistent pattern of appropriate punishments, not just one isolated incident.
actually, the real incidents of racism related murders are the minority.
The majority of the time the cops are justified in their actions, and the majority of the time, are punish or dealt with appropriately.
But somehow every isolated incident of a bad shoot, is indicative of a wide spread systemic problem, while the day to day good choices/actions that are the majority are not even a factor.
Then we also get things like the brown killing, which was justified, legal, and proven as such, yet its still touted as proof of corruptions/racism/ect as a systemic, integral, and purposeful part of policing.
MrDwhitey wrote: Frazzled, aren't tazers "less lethal" options, aka, they can potentially cause death but it's unlikely?
Also, from what I can tell the taser had already been discharged and was unloaded. It'd need a new cartridge (that the officer would have I assume) to be used again (unless it's one with contact options).
You are correct. To date I believe that only one death has ever been attributed to tazer use in the line of duty, and that is because there was gasoline in the vicinity at the time the device was deployed
Only one? Seems like tasers BBQ people's hearts a bit more often than that.
I'm sure the FBI has official stats on public file but I'm too tired to go digging. It may not be what the blog suggests but I'm sure as hell that more than one person has died as a result of being tased. Middle age lard licking obese Americans don't have very good heart health and it's very easy for a taser to induce heart failure if they hit in the wrong spots.
I think it may be just one that was directly caused by the Tazer, with the other ones being caused by "drugs" or "heart problems" with the Tazer 'just' contributing.
MrDwhitey wrote: Frazzled, aren't tazers "less lethal" options, aka, they can potentially cause death but it's unlikely?
Also, from what I can tell the taser had already been discharged and was unloaded. It'd need a new cartridge (that the officer would have I assume) to be used again (unless it's one with contact options).
You are correct. To date I believe that only one death has ever been attributed to tazer use in the line of duty, and that is because there was gasoline in the vicinity at the time the device was deployed
Only one? Seems like tasers BBQ people's hearts a bit more often than that.
I'm sure the FBI has official stats on public file but I'm too tired to go digging. It may not be what the blog suggests but I'm sure as hell that more than one person has died as a result of being tased. Middle age lard licking obese Americans don't have very good heart health and it's very easy for a taser to induce heart failure if they hit in the wrong spots.
I think it may be just one that was directly caused by the Tazer, with the other ones being caused by "drugs" or "heart problems" with the Tazer 'just' contributing.
And if you go grab a live 240 line and your heart explodes or you stop breathing it was surely your "medical condition" that killed you. Sorta like how bullets "incidentally" enable for your blood to spill out everywhere and "just" contribute but aren't the cause.
And if you go grab a live 240 line and your heart explodes or you stop breathing it was surely your "medical condition" that killed you. Sorta like how bullets "incidentally" enable for your blood to spill out everywhere and "just" contribute but aren't the cause.
Now you are just off the deep end, but thanks for stopping by.
MrDwhitey wrote: Frazzled, aren't tazers "less lethal" options, aka, they can potentially cause death but it's unlikely?
Also, from what I can tell the taser had already been discharged and was unloaded. It'd need a new cartridge (that the officer would have I assume) to be used again (unless it's one with contact options).
You are correct. To date I believe that only one death has ever been attributed to tazer use in the line of duty, and that is because there was gasoline in the vicinity at the time the device was deployed
Only one? Seems like tasers BBQ people's hearts a bit more often than that.
I'm sure the FBI has official stats on public file but I'm too tired to go digging. It may not be what the blog suggests but I'm sure as hell that more than one person has died as a result of being tased. Middle age lard licking obese Americans don't have very good heart health and it's very easy for a taser to induce heart failure if they hit in the wrong spots.
I think it may be just one that was directly caused by the Tazer, with the other ones being caused by "drugs" or "heart problems" with the Tazer 'just' contributing.
And if you go grab a live 240 line and your heart explodes or you stop breathing it was surely your "medical condition" that killed you. Sorta like how bullets "incidentally" enable for your blood to spill out everywhere and "just" contribute but aren't the cause.
Sure, but the voltage in a Taser isn't lethal unless there are complicating factors. In which case it definitely is the complicating factor that killed you.
When Superman loses because he gets stabbed with a kryptonite dagger, he doesn't lose because he got stabbed, he loses because he's allergic to kryptonite.
stanman wrote: And if you go grab a live 240 line and your heart explodes or you stop breathing it was surely your "medical condition" that killed you. Sorta like how bullets "incidentally" enable for your blood to spill out everywhere and "just" contribute but aren't the cause.
Sure, but the voltage in a Taser isn't lethal unless there are complicating factors. In which case it definitely is the complicating factor that killed you.
That's true because voltage (energy) isn't really what is lethal, it's amperage (current). Tasers and the like produce a high-voltage, low-amperage electrical shock; somewhere between 20,000 and 150,000 volts but only around 3 mA. It's enough to knock you on your ass, possibly even render you unconscious, but typically not enough to cause any lasting damage (cardiac arrest will occur at 30 mA [60 Hz] with AC and around 300-500 mA of DC). Prolonged exposure to high voltage will case severe burns and trauma, which can be fatal.
The US standard household power (120 V, 60 Hz) can be plenty fatal.
When some kid tried to snatch my phone off a friend I pursued them through a shopping mall. It was only afterwards I found out they'd failed to take it. They snatched and ran and I just assumed they had it and bolted after them. So I can well imagine the police officer thought he had taken the taser, and I suppose while not lethal, it could be used to shoot the officer and then take his gun. I seem to recall some high statistic of the numbers of police shot with their own weapons.
But it's still a stretch to excuse shooting eight times at someone running away and then trying to cover up the circumstances.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You are correct. To date I believe that only one death has ever been attributed to tazer use in the line of duty, and that is because there was gasoline in the vicinity at the time the device was deployed
Nah. There's been a couple of hundred deaths after people have had tasers used on them. That said, there's only about a dozen where the taser was identified as the primary cause of the death (in the rest of the cases either drug use or other injuries were to blame, or it given the presence of those factors it was unclear how much of a role the taser played). And there's a bunch more cases where the taser led to the suspect falling and suffering serious injury.
So there's really no argument to be made at this point that tasers can't be lethal. We know from the number of dead people that they can be. The issue is whether they are less lethal than the alternative means of tackling suspects. From my reading (which is far from complete) it seems the taser is much safer for everyone... but also much easier for officer's to employ, meaning that when used as a replacement for tackling/striking a suspect it is much better, but the issue is that it is often used where previously the officer might have attempted to continue non-physical methods on the suspect.
In a country like the USA where officers are armed with real guns (and used them frequently) tazers are far less lethal, and preferable to guns
In the UK where most officers are not armed with guns (and the few armed officers are used for special occasions and even then are much less likely to shoot) tazers are a much risker proposition simply because their perceived non-lethality makes the users more likely to fire
Walter Scott appears on the bottom row in his middle school yearbook in 1979-1980.
On Topic: this cop really screwed the pooch here. No excuses for the shoot. Someone running away from you should never be cause for a shoot. I can understand him picking stuff up in the heat of the moment though. Looks like from the video he picked up his items, then dropped them near the body (possibly by accident) and then picked them back up. If he had some nefarious motive he wouldn't have picked it back up.
THIS is the shooting that the Black Community should rally behind, not the other incidents that have proven to be good shoots. Let's stop hearing about Brown/Martin and focus on this one. Of course it's equally as useless to their agenda as well because the officer has been rightly charged.
THIS is the shooting that the Black Community should rally behind, not the other incidents that have proven to be good shoots. Let's stop hearing about Brown/Martin and focus on this one. Of course it's equally as useless to their agenda as well because the officer has been rightly charged.
Why?
Are there a lot of people claiming it was a good shoot like in the Ferguson case?
One look at the poster's history should tell you it's not Devil's Advocacy, but rather it's trolling.
Why do you insult me for introducing logical points of debate? Oh yeah thats right - cause you don't agree with me. Rather than have a discussion - lets resort to ad hominem attacks. Sounds splendid.
One look at the poster's history should tell you it's not Devil's Advocacy, but rather it's trolling.
Why do you insult me for introducing logical points of debate? Oh yeah thats right - cause you don't agree with me. Rather than have a discussion - lets resort to ad hominem attacks. Sounds splendid.
"Introducing logical points of debate" would mean doing that.
You basically just dumped inflammatory commentary and then went offline. Call what I said an ad hominem attack if you want, but even a cursory glance of your posting history in off topic would lead a reasonable person to think that you were not interested in anything beyond getting reactions.
Anyways, this case is open and shut. It's murder. Anyone suggesting otherwise needs to introduce themselves to the case law of Tennessee v. Garner(471 U.S. 1 1985). Police cannot use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect unless it is necessary and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to others .
Jihadin wrote: The fact he killed a man who was running away. Hell his Lawyer quit the case.
The LEO was not endanger of his life
The lawyer quit because the officer lied to him about the crime scene. Any lawyer would do that. I doesn't make him any more guilty of murder though. It makes him guilty of altering a crime scene. He's a bad cop - he needs to be convicted of a crime. Not murder though - this is manslaughter.
I'd call it Murder 2, but it depends on the jurisdiction.
First degree murder involves a premeditated killing. In other words, the killer made a plan to kill the victim and then carried that plan out. Second degree murder does not require premeditation, however. Instead, there are three typical situations that can constitute second degree murder:
A killing done impulsively without premeditation, but with malice aforethought
A killing that results from an act intended to cause serious bodily harm
A killing that results from an act that demonstrates the perpetrators depraved indifference to human life
One look at the poster's history should tell you it's not Devil's Advocacy, but rather it's trolling.
Why do you insult me for introducing logical points of debate? Oh yeah thats right - cause you don't agree with me. Rather than have a discussion - lets resort to ad hominem attacks. Sounds splendid.
"Introducing logical points of debate" would mean doing that.
You basically just dumped inflammatory commentary and then went offline. Call what I said an ad hominem attack if you want, but even a cursory glance of your posting history in off topic would lead a reasonable person to think that you were not interested in anything beyond getting reactions.
Anyways, this case is open and shut. It's murder. Anyone suggesting otherwise needs to introduce themselves to the case law of Tennessee v. Garner(471 U.S. 1 1985). Police cannot use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect unless it is necessary and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to others .
Nothing about my post was inflammatory. I was literally just pointing out observations from the video and how you can interpret them. Your comment was indeed inflammatory. You called me a troll for stating my opinion - which was a pretty well grounded opinion factually.
In regards to that case - I wonder if believing a suspect who just assaulted you and has a weapon qualifies a "threat". I'm almost certain it would.
Jihadin wrote: The fact he killed a man who was running away. Hell his Lawyer quit the case.
The LEO was not endanger of his life
The lawyer quit because the officer lied to him about the crime scene. Any lawyer would do that. I doesn't make him any more guilty of murder though. It makes him guilty of altering a crime scene. He's a bad cop - he needs to be convicted of a crime. Not murder though - this is manslaughter.
Plenty of people would disagree with you on that.
"Heat of the moment" shouldn't apply to hardcore bad ass stress-induction trained law enforcement operators who are the only ones who can be trusted to protect the public, right?
Obviously I'm being facetious, and have very little respect for LEOs and their lack of training, but this seems to be the prevailing mindset in the United States.
Police cannot use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect unless it is necessary and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to others.
The fact that he put not one, not two, not three but eight rounds into the fleeing suspect?
That's what makes this murder.
Xenomancers wrote: Hang on guys - lets not ignore the fact that the officers "tazer" was knocked out of his hands - it's perfectly acceptable for the officer to shoot the perpetrator at that point if he believes he has one of his weapons. From the video it sure looks like the black man grabs something and some things fly into the ground in front and behind the officer. About the taking 8 shots...How many hit the man? article doesn't say - from the way the guy was running I think it's obvious the first several were misses.
Theres no doubt that the cop altered the scene after the incident (probably once he realized that the dude didnt steal his tazor)- for that he should be charged.
This video though - takes place in a park of some kind - with no car visible in the video and this was for a traffic stop. It's quite clear that the black man had already run away once. most likely resisting arrest. (cops don't make you get out of your car unless you are going to jail or if you are about to take an impairment test.)
I'm not defending the dudes actions or calling the black man a criminal - just pointing out the things I see that should be relevant in a court of law.
1 thing is clear - if the dude didn't get shot - hed be going to jail for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer - don't forget that. I wouldn't call this murder in any case. I'd call it 1st degree manslaughter.
Also another thing - how convenient that the seconds leading up to the point the black man knocks the cops hand are ommited - clearly the video was recording previously to that - well...where is?
Really? The man was running away and he already made the distance of a few meters and THEN the coward decides to shoot him in the back despite him not posing a threat to anyone. Shooting an unarmed, running man in the back for 8 (!) times isn't manslaughter. It's murder.
Obviously I'm being facetious, and have very little respect for LEOs and their lack of training, but this seems to be the prevailing mindset in the United States.
You want better trained LEOs?
Then there needs to be a concentrated effort to start making the job something which people WANT to do as a career, rather than what local law enforcement is considered by many people going in it:
A stepping stone to working for the state or federal agencies or an easy "fallback" career for someone who can't make it anywhere else.
As it stands, it's a relatively low paying job with decent benefits and the opportunity to be reviled for the actions of others in your profession.
Who wouldn't want that, right?
Police cannot use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect unless it is necessary and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to others.
The fact that he put not one, not two, not three but eight rounds into the fleeing suspect?
That's what makes this murder.
To clarify - it doesn't matter how many times you shoot someone. If deadly force is justified then it's justified. You could drop a piano on their head like Wiley Coyote and it would still be either justified, or not justified, depending on the circumstances.
But yeah - if he kills an unarmed man while he's fleeing, then attempts to cover up the evidence, then he just earned himself a trip to the pokey.
Police cannot use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect unless it is necessary and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to others.
The fact that he put not one, not two, not three but eight rounds into the fleeing suspect?
That's what makes this murder.
How many rounds hit the fleeing man? I haven't seen it reported in any of my research.
Obviously I'm being facetious, and have very little respect for LEOs and their lack of training, but this seems to be the prevailing mindset in the United States.
You want better trained LEOs?
Then there needs to be a concentrated effort to start making the job something which people WANT to do as a career, rather than what local law enforcement is considered by many people going in it:
A stepping stone to working for the state or federal agencies or an easy "fallback" career for someone who can't make it anywhere else.
As it stands, it's a relatively low paying job with decent benefits and the opportunity to be reviled for the actions of others in your profession.
Who wouldn't want that, right?
We've disagreed on many things but in this instance you have 100% agreement.
Obviously I'm being facetious, and have very little respect for LEOs and their lack of training, but this seems to be the prevailing mindset in the United States.
You want better trained LEOs?
Then there needs to be a concentrated effort to start making the job something which people WANT to do as a career, rather than what local law enforcement is considered by many people going in it:
A stepping stone to working for the state or federal agencies or an easy "fallback" career for someone who can't make it anywhere else.
As it stands, it's a relatively low paying job with decent benefits and the opportunity to be reviled for the actions of others in your profession.
Who wouldn't want that, right?
Fair enough...and I completely agree.
While we're on the subject, I'd also like to see institutional reforms to judges as well especially regarding accountability for signing bad warrants. Right now, if a judge signs a warrant for a no-knock warrant on the wrong house, and the entry team kills an innocent person, then they all "go home safe" and the judge isn't held accountable. I'd like to see liability measures put in place removing any and all legal protections from LEOs and judges in these "we got the wrong guy!" cases. In other words, - kick in the wrong person's door and kill them, and you go to jail for murder 1: everyone from the cop watching the street to the judge who signed the warrant. After all, they planned it, they executed it, and they murdered someone, and they're all complicit. Then we'd see some real movement in reducing these absurd "tactics."
Police cannot use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect unless it is necessary and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to others.
The fact that he put not one, not two, not three but eight rounds into the fleeing suspect?
That's what makes this murder.
How many rounds hit the fleeing man? I haven't seen it reported in any of my research.
This guy shot a little better than I expected - still - hes a terrible shot. 3 shots off target 1 hit in the ear and hits ranging across a huge area. Can we start training our officers to shoot please.
Police cannot use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect unless it is necessary and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to others.
The fact that he put not one, not two, not three but eight rounds into the fleeing suspect?
That's what makes this murder.
How many rounds hit the fleeing man? I haven't seen it reported in any of my research.
I think I read 5 of the 8.
And being that at most, he was picking him up on a warrant for child support, and there was never a weapon involved... There is no argument that he was in the act of committing a felony or a danger to the public at large which means even in the states with loose deadly force laws, attempting to flee arrest in this case wouldn't have justified it.
You have his car, know his identity... Let him run and let police car 2, which arrived really soon pick him up.
The story of the guy who filmed it is fascinating too. He almost deleted it because he feared for his life. When he heard the bs explanations on the news he knew he had to do something. I was afraid if the cop was going to murder someone, and then have the train of thought to stage a cover-up... what more is killing one more person to defend your actions? Very scary to not only witness a murder but have it on film and know you can't go to the police for protection.
Cameras for all... Maybe citizens need to begin carrying personal clothing cameras so they can always have a trailing 30 minutes of interactions for personal protection? In Russia, Dash cams are practically mandatory due to the accidents and the lies. I could see people in cities who have high chance of being harassed, (police or otherwise) may want to have a hidden camera running at all times. If the police won't use cameras, the citizens can.
This guy shot a little better than I expected - still - hes a terrible shot. 3 shots off target 1 hit in the ear and hits ranging across a huge area. Can we start training our officers to shoot please.
I agree.
But the money to do so has to come from somewhere.
Police cannot use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect unless it is necessary and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to others.
The fact that he put not one, not two, not three but eight rounds into the fleeing suspect?
That's what makes this murder.
How many rounds hit the fleeing man? I haven't seen it reported in any of my research.
I think I read 5 of the 8.
And being that at most, he was picking him up on a warrant for child support, and there was never a weapon involved... There is no argument that he was in the act of committing a felony or a danger to the public at large which means even in the states with loose deadly force laws, attempting to flee arrest in this case wouldn't have justified it.
You have his car, know his identity... Let him run and let police car 2, which arrived really soon pick him up.
The story of the guy who filmed it is fascinating too. He almost deleted it because he feared for his life. When he heard the bs explanations on the news he knew he had to do something. I was afraid if the cop was going to murder someone, and then have the train of thought to stage a cover-up... what more is killing one more person to defend your actions? Very scary to not only witness a murder but have it on film and know you can't go to the police for protection.
Cameras for all... Maybe citizens need to begin carrying personal clothing cameras so they can always have a trailing 30 minutes of interactions for personal protection? In Russia, Dash cams are practically mandatory due to the accidents and the lies. I could see people in cities who have high chance of being harassed, (police or otherwise) may want to have a hidden camera running at all times. If the police won't use cameras, the citizens can.
Cameras seem like a great idea. I think theres a lot of bad unintended consequences to making them a mandatory part of a police uniform though. In this case if there hadn't had been an observer this cop might have got away with concealing a crime. I can think of a ton of other situations cops will just refuse to go into certain situations with a camera for fear of self incrimination and their word meaning nothing. It will reduce the effectiveness of law enforcement IMO.
Police cannot use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect unless it is necessary and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to others.
The fact that he put not one, not two, not three but eight rounds into the fleeing suspect?
That's what makes this murder.
How many rounds hit the fleeing man? I haven't seen it reported in any of my research.
I think I read 5 of the 8.
And being that at most, he was picking him up on a warrant for child support, and there was never a weapon involved... There is no argument that he was in the act of committing a felony or a danger to the public at large which means even in the states with loose deadly force laws, attempting to flee arrest in this case wouldn't have justified it.
You have his car, know his identity... Let him run and let police car 2, which arrived really soon pick him up.
The story of the guy who filmed it is fascinating too. He almost deleted it because he feared for his life. When he heard the bs explanations on the news he knew he had to do something. I was afraid if the cop was going to murder someone, and then have the train of thought to stage a cover-up... what more is killing one more person to defend your actions? Very scary to not only witness a murder but have it on film and know you can't go to the police for protection.
Cameras for all... Maybe citizens need to begin carrying personal clothing cameras so they can always have a trailing 30 minutes of interactions for personal protection? In Russia, Dash cams are practically mandatory due to the accidents and the lies. I could see people in cities who have high chance of being harassed, (police or otherwise) may want to have a hidden camera running at all times. If the police won't use cameras, the citizens can.
Cameras seem like a great idea. I think theres a lot of bad unintended consequences to making them a mandatory part of a police uniform though. In this case if there hadn't had been an observer this cop might have got away with concealing a crime. I can think of a ton of other situations cops will just refuse to go into certain situations with a camera for fear of self incrimination and their word meaning nothing. It will reduce the effectiveness of law enforcement IMO.
They're afraid to go into certain situations because people will find out what they're doing in those situations?
Sounds like a bunch of fething scumbags who have no business in a profession that involves protecting the public. Fire and replace them.
Cameras are necessary for law enforcement. You work in the public, carry a weapon in public, and are charged with protecting the public, but don't want to wear a camera in public for fear of people finding out what you do to the public? See ya later.
Yeah, I can't think of a valid reason a camera would reduce the effectiveness of law enforcement. It has worked wonders for Dashcams.
If a camera contradicts the word of a police officer then his word SHOULD mean nothing. If you think officers need the ability to push the line and infringe upon the rights of the general public to effectively do their job, then there need to be other changes which happen, especially as we enter a world with recording devices on every person and streetcorner.
The point about having a camera is that in the event of a trial the jury will have two different pieces of evidence about the same incident, the recording and the testimony of the police officer. If these are contradictory then it will be the jury's job to decide which to believe. However in most cases the two accounts will be basically the same, meaning that a camera is a good protection for an honest officer.
This guy shot a little better than I expected - still - hes a terrible shot. 3 shots off target 1 hit in the ear and hits ranging across a huge area. Can we start training our officers to shoot please.
I agree.
But the money to do so has to come from somewhere.
Consistent target practice isn't cheap.
It's not simply an issue of cost. You also have to consider the time it takes to constantly have officers being evaluated for marksmanship.
That's time where officers are either pulled from duty rosters to ensure that they go through evaluation that really means anything.
I think if I were a cop and someone snatched my Tazer from me then there and then I'd probably shoot him. Less lethal or not, they could taze you and / or then do more bodily harm.
But if the guy had my Tazer and and was already running away, I don't think that's threat enough to shoot them in the back.
Now if they turned around and charged back that would be different.
Thats pretty good actually. Recover from a confrontation and hit a target multiple times while they are on the run.
If he was from NY he would have hit 7 bystanders and wounded another cop...
Yeah I suppose it could have been worse. Like I said he shot a little better than I expected - lol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: That is true, if they had the taser they have the possibility of tasering the cop and then taking the gun and/or doing other terrible things.
Right, which has been my only reason for defending that this is not murder. If there is any chance that the officer believed that the taser was in the fleeing mans hands - he had a reasonable threat. So at the time he believed the man was a threat and shot him. What he did next is inexcusable - altering the crime scene. He should serve a full sentence on that regardless of the outcome of this trial.
Kilkrazy wrote: The point about having a camera is that in the event of a trial the jury will have two different pieces of evidence about the same incident, the recording and the testimony of the police officer. If these are contradictory then it will be the jury's job to decide which to believe. However in most cases the two accounts will be basically the same, meaning that a camera is a good protection for an honest officer.
>> Camera shows officer shooting someone
>> Officer denies the shooting
Grey Templar wrote: That is true, if they had the taser they have the possibility of tasering the cop and then taking the gun and/or doing other terrible things.
What if the taser was a MP5? Think of it, then the officer would be a hero for protecting the public from the fleeing suspect firing wildly as he fled!
Playing the "what if" game is pointless in this instance. Stop bringing it up.
The officer wasn't being advanced upon, the suspect didn't even have the taser when he was fleeing.
He was fleeing and the officer shot him in the back, repeatedly.
It's murder. Defending it is pointless and devalues any time where there ARE justifiable shootings.
Grey Templar wrote: That is true, if they had the taser they have the possibility of tasering the cop and then taking the gun and/or doing other terrible things.
What if the taser was a MP5? Think of it, then the officer would be a hero for protecting the public from the fleeing suspect firing wildly as he fled!
Playing the "what if" game is pointless in this instance. Stop bringing it up.
The officer wasn't being advanced upon, the suspect didn't even have the taser when he was fleeing.
He was fleeing and the officer shot him in the back, repeatedly.
It's murder. Defending it is pointless and devalues any time where there ARE justifiable shootings.
Actually if the dude had the taser - this would have been a justified shooting - it would constitute a reasonable threat. That's why he told the story and staged the scene to make it look that way. There still would have been controversy but no chance at a murder conviction. Now since the officer staged the scene after he was assualted (possibly believing that the man stole his taser) he is a murderer? I'm not going to speculate on the cops intentions. I tend to always assume someone is innocent until I see otherwise contrary evidence. What I see is a man resisting and assaulting a police officer (which is a crime) and then i see a dude get gunned down. I'm going to assume the cop thought he had a reasonable threat because that would be the proper reaction. It's going to be real hard to prove the cop didnt think the guy fleeing had the weapon. All he has to say is "he grabbed for my taser and I lost it and he started running" "I got to the victim and realized he didn't have it and I panicked because I didn't want to be lynched by the black panthers." I'm also of the party of people that believe if cops want to go killing random blacks - they could probably find a better way to do it than shooting 8 shots at a dude running away in a park in broad day light and witnesses.
Grey Templar wrote: That is true, if they had the taser they have the possibility of tasering the cop and then taking the gun and/or doing other terrible things.
What if the taser was a MP5? Think of it, then the officer would be a hero for protecting the public from the fleeing suspect firing wildly as he fled!
Playing the "what if" game is pointless in this instance. Stop bringing it up.
The officer wasn't being advanced upon, the suspect didn't even have the taser when he was fleeing.
He was fleeing and the officer shot him in the back, repeatedly.
It's murder. Defending it is pointless and devalues any time where there ARE justifiable shootings.
This.
If the officer had shot the man while he was resisting arrest and grabbing at the taser it would have been justified. Once the man was unarmed and fleeing he was no longer an imminent threat to anyone. Without a threat there is no justification for shooting him. That's been upheld in numerous shootings involving armed citizens and is the crux of self defense cases. Imminent threat = justification. No threat = no justification.
Grey Templar wrote: That is true, if they had the taser they have the possibility of tasering the cop and then taking the gun and/or doing other terrible things.
What if the taser was a MP5? Think of it, then the officer would be a hero for protecting the public from the fleeing suspect firing wildly as he fled!
Playing the "what if" game is pointless in this instance. Stop bringing it up.
The officer wasn't being advanced upon, the suspect didn't even have the taser when he was fleeing.
He was fleeing and the officer shot him in the back, repeatedly.
It's murder. Defending it is pointless and devalues any time where there ARE justifiable shootings.
Actually if the dude had the taser - this would have been a justified shooting - it would constitute a reasonable threat. That's why he told the story and staged the scene to make it look that way. There still would have been controversy but no chance at a murder conviction. Now since the officer staged the scene after he was assualted (possibly believing that the man stole his taser) he is a murderer? I'm not going to speculate on the cops intentions. I tend to always assume someone is innocent until I see otherwise contrary evidence. What I see is a man resisting and assaulting a police officer (which is a crime) and then i see a dude get gunned down. I'm going to assume the cop thought he had a reasonable threat because that would be the proper reaction. It's going to be real hard to prove the cop didnt think the guy fleeing had the weapon. All he has to say is "he grabbed for my taser and I lost it and he started running" "I got to the victim and realized he didn't have it and I panicked because I didn't want to be lynched by the black panthers." I'm also of the party of people that believe if cops want to go killing random blacks - they could probably find a better way to do it than shooting 8 shots at a dude running away in a park in broad day light and witnesses.
Just a couple of pages back we were all looking up the relatively low rate of Taser caused harm by police officers Tasing civilians. Now, having a Taser while running away as fast as possible is a credible threat?
@Kilkrazy: I could see a tazer itself being a thread since it would make it quite a bit easier to disarm the cop and get the gun if there was an active struggle. But not from far away and especially not, like you point out, while running away.
The cop doesn't look like he thought that the guy had his tazer, he shoots and then casually picks up the dropped tazer and nothing in his body language screams "crap, he didn't have it". His posture and behaviors just seems way to casual for everything that is happening and looks more like "feth it, I don't feel like chasing anyone today" and then he just casually walks over while calling it in, casually cuffs the guy as he is dying, and has no sense of urgency of any kind. It's just such a stark contrast to the video a short while ago of the cop shooting a drugged up guy.
Jihadin wrote: WHy the Hell did Scott run...saw the dash cam video
Saw Scott step out or attempt to step out but was told to get back in which he did.....then next thing he runs....off screen....
Yet I heard the LEO say "DANGER DANGER DANGER" at the end to dispatch.........
Edit
Yet there was no danger.......I saw Scott hands in motion which were empty....
linky for dashcam?
I was personally wondering how in the heck the police dashcam wasnt the *first* video released of this...
Especially considering it was a traffic stop, and the phone cam vid is in a park.
Just hit Youtube
edit
Probably didn't see it at first due to the 2nd individual in the car. Have to wait till investigation of that individual is done I believe before its release
According to what's been posted on news forums there was an altercation that took place in the time between the dash cam and the bystander cam where the runner and the officer engaged each other, he engaged with the runner they struggled and the taser was fired before he began running again. The bystander footage starts after the taser was already fired, the runners hands appear to be reaching for the cops belt or hands, something appears to fall to the ground at the start of the video (the taser possibly?) and it's picked up and moved later. While it's quite short the bystander video does appear to show that the runner had been in physical contact with the cop, and he's certainly resisting arrest in both videos. (although that in itself does not justify the shooting)
It will be interesting to see how the audio sync's up, the "danger danger"' portion of the broadcast could be from when they were wrestling? which would be an accurate call if they were struggling or engaged in a physical exchange. When a cop is attempting to subdue somebody without backup, fists are certainly dangerous.
Jihadin wrote: WHy the Hell did Scott run...saw the dash cam video
Saw Scott step out or attempt to step out but was told to get back in which he did.....then next thing he runs....off screen....
Yet I heard the LEO say "DANGER DANGER DANGER" at the end to dispatch.........
Edit
Yet there was no danger.......I saw Scott hands in motion which were empty....
This surely is the key point of the whole issue of police shootings. Are the police to be allowed generally to shoot people for resisting arrest by running away or trying to close a door on them or other such marginally violent resistances of authority?
I mention these several points as the overall issue takes in a number of cases where police officers have roughed up or shot people on what turned out to be incorrect reasons.
Is there a general police culture of shoot first, ask questions later, or just a few bad apples in the police barrel?
Jihadin wrote: WHy the Hell did Scott run...saw the dash cam video
Saw Scott step out or attempt to step out but was told to get back in which he did.....then next thing he runs....off screen....
Yet I heard the LEO say "DANGER DANGER DANGER" at the end to dispatch.........
Edit
Yet there was no danger.......I saw Scott hands in motion which were empty....
This surely is the key point of the whole issue of police shootings. Are the police to be allowed generally to shoot people for resisting arrest by running away or trying to close a door on them or other such marginally violent resistances of authority?
I mention these several points as the overall issue takes in a number of cases where police officers have roughed up or shot people on what turned out to be incorrect reasons.
Is there a general police culture of shoot first, ask questions later, or just a few bad apples in the police barrel?
It's more the bad apple. There is no shoot first culture. If there was, we'd have thousands of these shootings a day.
I am using "shoot first" as a description of a general pattern of behaviour in which police officers tend to use their weapons to resolve situations that involve action and resistance but not obvious gun use by the civilian.
It seems to me that the strong gun culture of the US, with many citizens and all police being armed, would tend to bias the police towards this kind of resolution.
Kilkrazy wrote: I am using "shoot first" as a description of a general pattern of behaviour in which police officers tend to use their weapons to resolve situations that involve action and resistance but not obvious gun use by the civilian.
It seems to me that the strong gun culture of the US, with many citizens and all police being armed, would tend to bias the police towards this kind of resolution.
As has been said repeatedly in here, the firearm is the measure to fall back on when faced with deadly force, which encompasses a lot more then someone else just having a gun. Now in instance like this, its use was clearly wrong.
Kilkrazy wrote: I am using "shoot first" as a description of a general pattern of behaviour in which police officers tend to use their weapons to resolve situations that involve action and resistance but not obvious gun use by the civilian.
Overgeneralization. If you're physicall assaulted by a, let's say, very bulky person who is said to have robbed a store before, then shooting is a perfectly legit option. Shooting at someone who's running away and who isn't a threat to anyone, especially when you CBA to even /check/ for any mission weapon on you before cowardly shooting another man in the back for 8 times, isn't.
Kilkrazy wrote: I am using "shoot first" as a description of a general pattern of behaviour in which police officers tend to use their weapons to resolve situations that involve action and resistance but not obvious gun use by the civilian.
"[A} general pattern of behaviour". Do you have any evidence that supports this general pattern claim?
There really isn't. We have hundreds of thousands of police officers in this nation, with probably thousands of violent encounters between them, and others, a day. Yet these instances really aren't all that common.
The Killed By Police Facebook page, which aggregates links to news articles on police-related killings and keeps a running tally on the number of victims. The creator of the page does not seek to determine whether police killings are justifiable
Facebook page
links to news articles
not seek to determine whether police killings are justifiable
The Killed By Police Facebook page, which aggregates links to news articles on police-related killings and keeps a running tally on the number of victims. The creator of the page does not seek to determine whether police killings are justifiable
Facebook page
links to news articles
not seek to determine whether police killings are justifiable
Maximus facepalmicus
1) The article also linked to the FBI source. 2) A Facebook page linking to actual articles is not really a horrible source. (It's at least as dependable as random Dakka posters facepalming) 3) I made no claim that any of the police killings included in the total were justifiable or not justifiable.
The question was "how common are shootings really". The article linked gives as good an answer as we can get: FBI says ~400/year which is probably under reported, an aggregate of news sources says ~1,000/year. So the number of police shootings is most likely somewhere between 400-1000, with some of them being non-justified but it's hard to get accurate numbers.
1) The article also linked to the FBI source.
2) A Facebook page linking to actual articles is not really a horrible source. (It's at least as dependable as random Dakka posters facepalming)
3) I made no claim that any of the police killings included in the total were justifiable or not justifiable.
.
The "Really?" wasn't directed at you, but rather the poorly done article. You were just the messenger and...don't shoot the messenger. The article has a very strong bias and doesn't even attempt to hide it (headline). It mentions the FBI report and states that it only refers to justified shootings but then goes on and directly compares that number to numbers reported in news articles that incorporate all shootings - and glances over the fact that most shootings reported in the news are vastly overblown and emotional reports. I.e: Brown shooting.
Articles with such a strong bias disqualify themselves immediately for any proper discussion.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, no, apparently the police man is being prosecuted for murder, not theft.
Talking about the dude that got shot. The dude that was in the Mercedes. The one that bolted out of the Mercedes during a routine traffic stop for a taillight.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, no, apparently the police man is being prosecuted for murder, not theft.
Talking about the dude that got shot. The dude that was in the Mercedes. The one that bolted out of the Mercedes during a routine traffic stop for a taillight.
His family and their lawyer have claimed that he ran because he knew he had an outstanding warrant for unpaid child support, knew that it would come up with the cop ran his license and therefore ran to avoid getting taken into custody. Not a particularly smart line of thought but certainly a believable one.
And even so - he was no danger at all. So he ran. You got him on camera. You got his license plate. Track him down, take him into custody. There was no reason to assume that he'd run and take a hostage or something. Call for backup, maybe catch him immediately, maybe not, then catch him later.
I will enjoy seeing this "cop" sent to prison. He will soon wish he had gotten executed instead of being sent to prison. Heard that an ex-cop in prison isn't much fun.
d-usa wrote: The question was "how common are shootings really". The article linked gives as good an answer as we can get: FBI says ~400/year which is probably under reported, an aggregate of news sources says ~1,000/year. So the number of police shootings is most likely somewhere between 400-1000, with some of them being non-justified but it's hard to get accurate numbers.
Sigvatr wrote: And even so - he was no danger at all. So he ran. You got him on camera. You got his license plate. Track him down, take him into custody. There was no reason to assume that he'd run and take a hostage or something. Call for backup, maybe catch him immediately, maybe not, then catch him later.
I will enjoy seeing this "cop" sent to prison. He will soon wish he had gotten executed instead of being sent to prison. Heard that an ex-cop in prison isn't much fun.
No doubt in my mind hes going to prison. The question is under what charge. I think that ex cops aren't put into regular prison populations. That would be a death sentence.
Grey Templar wrote: That is true, if they had the taser they have the possibility of tasering the cop and then taking the gun and/or doing other terrible things.
What if the taser was a MP5? Think of it, then the officer would be a hero for protecting the public from the fleeing suspect firing wildly as he fled!
Playing the "what if" game is pointless in this instance. Stop bringing it up.
The officer wasn't being advanced upon, the suspect didn't even have the taser when he was fleeing.
He was fleeing and the officer shot him in the back, repeatedly.
It's murder. Defending it is pointless and devalues any time where there ARE justifiable shootings.
I'm definitely not saying that this was justified in any way, shape, or form. But there is validity to the fear of a subject getting a hold of your Taser. Its not in this case, but in others it would definitely be a concern.
Jihadin wrote: Training makes them announce Tazer Tazer Tazer
Then he proceeded shoot and miss him with the tazer? Jezz. Like I said if only this guy knew how to shoot - this man would still be alive.
Not as easy to hit with an ECD (Electronic Control Device) as you would assume. You need to make two contact points that stay connected. Wind/clothing/movement/etc can make a huge difference, as can how close/far apart the contact points are and if you hit muscle or fatty tissue.
The TASER TASER TASER call is training. We do the same thing with OC (pepper spray). You drill it into the head of the guys you are training so you don't get cross contamination/friendly fire.
if he is convicted of murder and sentenced to a harsh prison sentence or death,
will we have an admission/acceptance that the system does in fact work and in most cases can tell the difference between justified and non justified shootings?
Not really, because it's just one case where the system worked in contrast to the many cases where the police got token punishments at most for doing things that would have sent ordinary civilians to prison for a long time. Proving that the system works would require a consistent pattern of appropriate punishments, not just one isolated incident.
You'd need to prove that there are more than just a few isolated cases of police getting only token punishments.
Do you have reliable proof that there is an overwhelming trend of police brutality coupled with the court system giving them light sentences? Because most things I see regarding this are really just conspiracy theory level horse gak.
I wanted to reply earlier because discrediting someone's point of view as conspiracy theory because you did not agree is pretty low.
Then I thought: You know, I actually have no clue if it is true or not. Occam's razor is valid, and we have been reading about such cases for quite some time now. But while this guy might appear like a (EDIT: ) reproachable guy, his argument might be valid, and its all just a problem of media reception and how our brain construes certainties and rules from singular cases that fit a pattern.
if he is convicted of murder and sentenced to a harsh prison sentence or death,
will we have an admission/acceptance that the system does in fact work and in most cases can tell the difference between justified and non justified shootings?
Not really, because it's just one case where the system worked in contrast to the many cases where the police got token punishments at most for doing things that would have sent ordinary civilians to prison for a long time. Proving that the system works would require a consistent pattern of appropriate punishments, not just one isolated incident.
You'd need to prove that there are more than just a few isolated cases of police getting only token punishments.
Do you have reliable proof that there is an overwhelming trend of police brutality coupled with the court system giving them light sentences? Because most things I see regarding this are really just conspiracy theory level horse gak.
I wanted to reply earlier because discrediting someone's point of view as conspiracy theory because you did not agree is pretty low.
Then I thought: You know, I actually have no clue if it is true or not. Occam's razor is valid, and we have been reading about such cases for quite some time now. But while this guy might appear like a (EDIT: ) reproachable guy, his argument might be valid, and its all just a problem of media reception and how our brain construes certainties and rules from singular cases that fit a pattern.
And while this is no proof in itself, I do trust the WP enough to assume that the author did his homework better than you.
Its definitely thought provoking, but its simply far too little evidence to say there is a trend of officers wrongfully shooting people and getting away scott free.
The article itself admits that in the cases where officers were not charged there was simply too little evidence of wrongdoing.
You can see that taser gun or cartridge on the ground... and one of the line caught on Scott's leg. That supports the premise that he had the tazer? o.O
Okay... duh... I knew two wires are fired, and I thought it was a failsafe (fire 2 and hope one to connect).
That doesn't sound all that...effective.
:shrug:
I thought that this was an open/shut case... but, with the new details coming out... I don't think the officers will be indicted now. If he does go to court... there's enough to cast doubt.
Ugh... it's Ferguson all over again*. And I got snookered too...
whembly wrote: Okay... duh... I knew two wires are fired, and I thought it was a failsafe (fire 2 and hope one to connect).
That doesn't sound all that...effective.
:shrug:
I thought that this was an open/shut case... but, with the new details coming out... I don't think the officers will be indicted now. If he does go to court... there's enough to cast doubt.
Ugh... it's Ferguson all over again*. And I got snookered too...
*stupid media
which is the entire point, to snooker people in .
Hate sells papers, its an easy emotion to manipulate en masse unfortunately.
Unfortunately, even after all the facts come to light as we saw with fergison, this incident will still be called out as more proof that cops are systemically racist, and shoot black people because of this inherant, systemic, racism.
whembly wrote: Okay... duh... I knew two wires are fired, and I thought it was a failsafe (fire 2 and hope one to connect).
That doesn't sound all that...effective.
:shrug:
I thought that this was an open/shut case... but, with the new details coming out... I don't think the officers will be indicted now. If he does go to court... there's enough to cast doubt.
Ugh... it's Ferguson all over again*. And I got snookered too...
*stupid media
No if the suspect is running away and is not armed then the PoPo can't legally shoot at him.
whembly wrote: Okay... duh... I knew two wires are fired, and I thought it was a failsafe (fire 2 and hope one to connect).
That doesn't sound all that...effective.
:shrug:
I thought that this was an open/shut case... but, with the new details coming out... I don't think the officers will be indicted now. If he does go to court... there's enough to cast doubt.
Ugh... it's Ferguson all over again*. And I got snookered too...
*stupid media
No if the suspect is running away and is not armed then the PoPo can't legally shoot at him.
Right now, I'm sure what the law says in SC.
My gut feeling is you're absolutely right.
Keep in mind though that the evidence is coming out that there was a struggle AND a tazor was fired on the officer. How does this play in a legal sense? If it's true that Scott attacked the officer, stole his tazor and actually used it on the officer... then what?
Here's the real legal question: If someone assaults an officer, and used a weapon on them (a tazor), then attempts to flee... is the officer ever justified in shooting back to prevent the individual from fleeing? Even if it means shooting them in the back?
how many mississippi's does an officer have before the suspect changes from "guy who is resisting arrest and/or assaulting him (possibly with a weapon)"
to
"innocent person who poses no threat to the officer or anyone else."
can you walk up to an officer, punch them, or attempt to shoot them with a tazer/ect ect
then immediately turn around and run, and expect no response?
how many mississippi's does an officer have before the suspect changes from "guy who is resisting arrest and/or assaulting him (possibly with a weapon)"
to
"innocent person who poses no threat to the officer or anyone else."
can you walk up to an officer, punch them, or attempt to shoot them with a tazer/ect ect
then immediately turn around and run, and expect no response?
Here's the real legal question: If someone assaults an officer, and used a weapon on them (a tazor), then attempts to flee... is the officer ever justified in shooting back to prevent the individual from fleeing? Even if it means shooting them in the back?
Again, if he is fleeing and is unarmed, absent the potential for him imminently to harm another, YOU CAN"T SHOOT HIM. [u]
Ferguson was different as the BG turned and charged the police after the police officer pursued him.
The answer is "a rage killing is a rage killing, and a shooting is never justified when a cop calmly shoots a fleeing suspect in the back, plants evidence on the person he shot, and fails to render first aid to and then lies about what happened on his official report."
Of course this thread is developing as expected and I'm glad to see that the committee now has a quorum.
d-usa wrote: The answer is "a rage killing is a rage killing, and a shooting is never justified when a cop calmly shoots a fleeing suspect in the back, plants evidence on the person he shot, and fails to render first aid to and then lies about what happened on his official report."
Of course this thread is developing as expected and I'm glad to see that the committee now has a quorum.
Who is on the committee and do we get coffee breaks?
d-usa wrote: The answer is "a rage killing is a rage killing, and a shooting is never justified when a cop calmly shoots a fleeing suspect in the back, plants evidence on the person he shot, and fails to render first aid to and then lies about what happened on his official report."
Of course this thread is developing as expected and I'm glad to see that the committee now has a quorum.
how many mississippi's does an officer have before the suspect changes from "guy who is resisting arrest and/or assaulting him (possibly with a weapon)"
to
"innocent person who poses no threat to the officer or anyone else."
can you walk up to an officer, punch them, or attempt to shoot them with a tazer/ect ect
then immediately turn around and run, and expect no response?
There is a middle ground between "no response" and five bullets in the back.
This is cop is a bad cop.
Do you think you would face no charges if you shot someone dead as they ran away, even if they had just punched you?
I don't see where the ambiguity is here. If I, as a member of the public, am attacked, and my attacker subsequently flees unarmed, I cannot chase him down and beat him to death and then try to claim it was justifiable force.
This guy was fleeing and unarmed, the officer casually gunned him down, it's murder.
The question will be whether this struggle with the officer could be considered “probable cause to believe that Scott has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm” in which case the USSC has ruled “deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape.”
Alledgedly, there was a struggle/tussle/fight..
Scott appears to fire the tazor on the officer (tazor failed to work at it only stuck one barb)...
Is that anywhere remotely falls under what I've underlined above?
Is being tazored a "infliction" or a threat of "serious" physical harm?
I honestly don't see it... but, we don't have all the facts in this event either. (never been tazored either )
The question will be whether this struggle with the officer could be considered “probable cause to believe that Scott has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm” in which case the USSC has ruled “deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape.”
Alledgedly, there was a struggle/tussle/fight..
Scott appears to fire the tazor on the officer (tazor failed to work at it only stuck one barb)...
Is that anywhere remotely falls under what I've underlined above?
Is being tazored a "infliction" or a threat of "serious" physical harm?
Probably only in a very technical sense, and I think it would be very difficult to say the officer was thinking of that during the situation.
If the officer was incapacitated due to being tazered there's no limit to what could have been done to him. If I were in a physical altercation with someone I know I'd be terrified by what could happen if they knocked me out.
Which is why if he had shot the guy during the attempted tazing this probably wouldn't even be news-worthy. Instead he shot him after the tazer was on the ground and the guy was fleeing unarmed with his back to the officer, which casts doubt on the whole "defending my life or the life of another" angle. Even when looking at it from the perspective of the guy being a potentionally dangerous criminal fleeing into the population-center, at that distance (they were a handful of meters away from each other) and with the guy being completely unarmed, it was well within the officer's capability to dispatch him non-lethally. Deadly force is supposed to be a last-resort, used to prevent immediate serious harm or loss of life in situations where there is no time or room to pursue a non-lethal alternative. The video makes it clear that this is is not one of those cases, and nothing leading up to Walker turning his back on the officer and then getting shot can really change that.
The question will be whether this struggle with the officer could be considered “probable cause to believe that Scott has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm” in which case the USSC has ruled “deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape.”
Alledgedly, there was a struggle/tussle/fight..
Scott appears to fire the tazor on the officer (tazor failed to work at it only stuck one barb)...
Is that anywhere remotely falls under what I've underlined above?
Is being tazored a "infliction" or a threat of "serious" physical harm?
I honestly don't see it... but, we don't have all the facts in this event either. (never been tazored either )
That gak won't wash. The suspect has to remain an immediate threat in order to use deadly force.
this dude is going down.
The question will be whether this struggle with the officer could be considered “probable cause to believe that Scott has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm” in which case the USSC has ruled “deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape.”
Alledgedly, there was a struggle/tussle/fight..
Scott appears to fire the tazor on the officer (tazor failed to work at it only stuck one barb)...
Is that anywhere remotely falls under what I've underlined above?
Is being tazored a "infliction" or a threat of "serious" physical harm?
I honestly don't see it... but, we don't have all the facts in this event either. (never been tazored either )
Oh I've no doubt they'll find some excuse, my point was that if an ordinary member of the public can't get away with it, there's no reason a police officer should. The boundaries around what is and is not reasonable force are clearly delineated, and aside from some modest leeway to allow for officers to apply what's within those boundaries in defence of other people as well as just themselves, that should be that. The fact it isn't, and that officers can find exceptions and loopholes aplenty to walk away scot-free from situations that would see you or I in jail for 20 to life, more than anything else that's what convinces me there's something rotten in the way many modern police forces operate.
You guys have got to stop thinking with your feelings. Your feelings don't matter. Matters of law are usually made by technicalities and guess what - theres a lot of them here.
It matters not where he shot the man. It matters not how many times he shot him. It is ether justified because he was a threat, or it is not because he was not a threat. The officer was attacked and his own weapon was used on him - knowing this - how could the officer let him escape? If he is willing to harm a police officer, there is no doubt in a reasonable persons mind that he'd be willing to harm another to facilitate his escape. Also - the officer does not know he's unarmed - how could he know? There was no frisk? The subject resisted arrest.
With the further release of evidence we aslo find that the cop wasn't setting up the scene at all - he was simply retrieving the tazer that fell out of his body! Propaganda is such a powerful tool isn't it?
Xenomancers wrote: You guys have got to stop thinking with your feelings. Your feelings don't matter. Matters of law are usually made by technicalities and guess what - theres a lot of them here.
It matters not where he shot the man. It matters not how many times he shot him. It is ether justified because he was a threat, or it is not because he was not a threat. The officer was attacked and his own weapon was used on him - knowing this - how could the officer let him escape? If he is willing to harm a police officer, there is no doubt in a reasonable persons mind that he'd be willing to harm another to facilitate his escape. Also - the officer does not know he's unarmed - how could he know? There was no frisk? The subject resisted arrest.
With the further release of evidence we aslo find that the cop wasn't setting up the scene at all - he was simply retrieving the tazer that fell out of his body! Propaganda is such a powerful tool isn't it?
Incorrect. It does matter how many times he was shot. Even with a good shoot you are legally only entitled to enough hits sufficient to stop the threat. In this case, this will be a question of fact for the jury.
Xenomancers wrote: The officer was attacked and his own weapon was used on him - knowing this - how could the officer let him escape?
How do we know this? the words of a lying cop who is proven to have made a false police report?
There is no direct evidence of this... Remember... Resisting arrest and exercising self defense is not the same as assaulting an officer. There is a world of difference between a tazer being used on a perp and the perp attempting to stop it... a Perp fighting for a weapon and it goes off and a perp taking a weapon by force, and then instead of fleeing, using it on the officer. You have proof what happened? No? then stop making false claims.
If he is willing to harm a police officer, there is no doubt in a reasonable persons mind that he'd be willing to harm another to facilitate his escape.
No... Resisting arrest does not make someone a violent murderer who will kill every person who gets in his way. Only if you are predisposed to being a bigot can you think that. There is zero evidence that he was a violent individual or would 'harm another' to escape. Resisting arrest and self defense while resisting is not the same as assault. If he had gotten the upper hand and stuck around to beat the officer to go from 'trying to escape' to 'trying to incapacitate or kill' then maybe he might have a point. There is zero evidence of this, and it appears if at no time did Walker ever escallate force and as soon as he had a chance he broke off.
Also - the officer does not know he's unarmed - how could he know? There was no frisk? The subject resisted arrest.
All running black men are now armed murderers ready to kill the first old lady they see now? If you don't submit to arrest or resist any way you will be assumed to be an armed violent murderer in waiting? That pretty much justifies every shooting ever if you allow that train of thought to work.
With the further release of evidence we aslo find that the cop wasn't setting up the scene at all - he was simply retrieving the tazer that fell out of his body! Propaganda is such a powerful tool isn't it?
No, that is not what the evidence shows...
Besides the fact he was joking about it and laughing after he killed him and the fact he had "NO IDEA WHY HE RAN" means all this "I was stopping a violent killer who was possibly armed and would kill whomever got in his way" is all bs.
Second officer is going to be held accountable for his false and incomplete report and attempting to line up stories with Slager to cover up the crime. They 'claim' to have attempted to give aid and CPR to the victim when they were actually casually chatting about how to make it through the incident interview without getting caught.
I'm glad that in the future we will no longer have to arrest, trial, and detain "violent" offenders now that police officers have been turned into Judges with summary execution powers.
d-usa wrote: I'm glad that in the future we will no longer have to arrest, trial, and detain "violent" offenders now that police officers have been turned into Judges with summary execution powers.
Xenomancers wrote: The officer was attacked and his own weapon was used on him - knowing this - how could the officer let him escape?
How do we know this? the words of a lying cop who is proven to have made a false police report?
There is no direct evidence of this... Remember... Resisting arrest and exercising self defense is not the same as assaulting an officer. There is a world of difference between a tazer being used on a perp and the perp attempting to stop it... a Perp fighting for a weapon and it goes off and a perp taking a weapon by force, and then instead of fleeing, using it on the officer. You have proof what happened? No? then stop making false claims.
If he is willing to harm a police officer, there is no doubt in a reasonable persons mind that he'd be willing to harm another to facilitate his escape.
No... Resisting arrest does not make someone a violent murderer who will kill every person who gets in his way. Only if you are predisposed to being a bigot can you think that. There is zero evidence that he was a violent individual or would 'harm another' to escape. Resisting arrest and self defense while resisting is not the same as assault. If he had gotten the upper hand and stuck around to beat the officer to go from 'trying to escape' to 'trying to incapacitate or kill' then maybe he might have a point. There is zero evidence of this, and it appears if at no time did Walker ever escallate force and as soon as he had a chance he broke off.
Also - the officer does not know he's unarmed - how could he know? There was no frisk? The subject resisted arrest.
All running black men are now armed murderers ready to kill the first old lady they see now? If you don't submit to arrest or resist any way you will be assumed to be an armed violent murderer in waiting? That pretty much justifies every shooting ever if you allow that train of thought to work.
With the further release of evidence we aslo find that the cop wasn't setting up the scene at all - he was simply retrieving the tazer that fell out of his body! Propaganda is such a powerful tool isn't it?
No, that is not what the evidence shows...
Besides the fact he was joking about it and laughing after he killed him and the fact he had "NO IDEA WHY HE RAN" means all this "I was stopping a violent killer who was possibly armed and would kill whomever got in his way" is all bs.
Second officer is going to be held accountable for his false and incomplete report and attempting to line up stories with Slager to cover up the crime. They 'claim' to have attempted to give aid and CPR to the victim when they were actually casually chatting about how to make it through the incident interview without getting caught.
Again a bunch of emotional responses. Don't care if he was laughing because it doesn't matter. Being charged doesn't mean gak - it's a political move to prevent riots - which are inevitably coming as soon as the public realizes that this officer is not going to be convicted of murder.
Also - You aren't entitled to self defense against an officer of the law - you are entitled to comply to him if he is trying to arrest you. Any "defensive actions" are actually assault on a police officer.
Question - if a dude tazes you runs away are you to assume he is a good person that wouldn't hurt a fly? It's on his ass if he gets away and hurts someone - don't forget that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I'm glad that in the future we will no longer have to arrest, trial, and detain "violent" offenders now that police officers have been turned into Judges with summary execution powers.
Judge dred woulda blasted this guy the second he stepped outta the car man.
Again a bunch of emotional responses. Don't care if he was laughing because it doesn't matter. Being charged doesn't mean gak - it's a political move to prevent riots - which are inevitably coming as soon as the public realizes that this officer is not going to be convicted of murder.
Also - You aren't entitled to self defense against an officer of the law - you are entitled to comply to him if he is trying to arrest you. Any "defensive actions" are actually assault on a police officer.
Question - if a dude tazes you runs away are you to assume he is a good person that wouldn't hurt a fly? It's on his ass if he gets away and hurts someone - don't forget that.
Wrong, Resisting arrest is legal in cases of excessive force and unlawful arrest. You have every right to defend yourself if you feel you are at risk of being killed even from an officer. While it is best to handle those issues via the courts, (and you will probably get hurt less) don't pretend you have to submit yourself to summary execution or a lawful beatdown of an officer. And misdemeanor resisting arrest is not always felony assault of an officer. The simple act of resisting does not mean you are assaulting the officer in the eyes of the law. It can sometimes, but considering black men get felony assault for 'smashing their head into an officers boot', it shows there is a lot of grey area in the eyes of the legal system.
You have evidence he took control of the tazer and leveled it at Slager? Did the person actually have a tazer and used it to incapacitate me? Or did it go off when I was trying to use it on him? Or did it go off in a defensive struggle? Considering two officers tried to cover up the crime, gave false reports and there is zero evidence Walker ever had control of or attempted to use the tazer on Slager, your hypothetical means nothing.
And guess what? Even using a tazer doesn't justify lethal force as soon as the dude runs, especially if he dropped it simply because it is a non-lethal weapon, and he immediately de-escalated force.
You can claim it is all emotional, but your version of the law which you think is black and white is wrong and uninformed and based upon emotion where you are making up fake evidence to support your position because you are wanting to justify the shooting.
Xenomancers wrote: You guys have got to stop thinking with your feelings. Your feelings don't matter. Matters of law are usually made by technicalities and guess what - theres a lot of them here.
It matters not where he shot the man. It matters not how many times he shot him. It is ether justified because he was a threat, or it is not because he was not a threat. The officer was attacked and his own weapon was used on him - knowing this - how could the officer let him escape? If he is willing to harm a police officer, there is no doubt in a reasonable persons mind that he'd be willing to harm another to facilitate his escape. Also - the officer does not know he's unarmed - how could he know? There was no frisk? The subject resisted arrest.
With the further release of evidence we aslo find that the cop wasn't setting up the scene at all - he was simply retrieving the tazer that fell out of his body! Propaganda is such a powerful tool isn't it?
Incorrect. It does matter how many times he was shot. Even with a good shoot you are legally only entitled to enough hits sufficient to stop the threat. In this case, this will be a question of fact for the jury.
From the video it looks like the last shot fired was the one that stopped him. Seems like an argument for the defense.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Except for the ruling that Whembly described. If the LEO thought Scott had his tazer as he ran away it would fall under that.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just trying to figure what the cop was thinking. It's hard for me to believe it was "Ya I get to shoot a Black Guy!"
Tazers are single shot weapons, and it had (apparently been fired),
so even if the officer thought he still had the tazer it would not have been reasonable
Edit: I now find that some tasers are multi-shot, so IF the one the LEO was carrying was one of those there might be arguable justification, if not my previous statement stands
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Except for the ruling that Whembly described. If the LEO thought Scott had his tazer as he ran away it would fall under that.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just trying to figure what the cop was thinking. It's hard for me to believe it was "Ya I get to shoot a Black Guy!"
Tazers are single shot weapons, and it had (apparently been fired),
so even if the officer thought he still had the tazer it would not have been reasonable
Edit: I now find that some tasers are multi-shot, so IF the one the LEO was carrying was one of those there might be arguable justification, if not my previous statement stands
Watching the video the cop shoots, then puts away his gun, then bends down to pick up the Tazer without really looking for it or appearing surprised that it was on the ground near him. It almost appears as if he knew that the guy running away from him didn't have it.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Except for the ruling that Whembly described. If the LEO thought Scott had his tazer as he ran away it would fall under that.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just trying to figure what the cop was thinking. It's hard for me to believe it was "Ya I get to shoot a Black Guy!"
Tazers are single shot weapons, and it had (apparently been fired),
so even if the officer thought he still had the tazer it would not have been reasonable
Edit: I now find that some tasers are multi-shot, so IF the one the LEO was carrying was one of those there might be arguable justification, if not my previous statement stands
Watching the video the cop shoots, then puts away his gun, then bends down to pick up the Tazer without really looking for it or appearing surprised that it was on the ground near him. It almost appears as if he knew that the guy running away from him didn't have it.
I'm not sure I'd buy that link of thinking... as, he was just in a struggle and shot someone.
But... I'll submit his "posture" immediately does seem a bit too cavalier... so that's disconcernting.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Except for the ruling that Whembly described. If the LEO thought Scott had his tazer as he ran away it would fall under that.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just trying to figure what the cop was thinking. It's hard for me to believe it was "Ya I get to shoot a Black Guy!"
Tazers are single shot weapons, and it had (apparently been fired),
so even if the officer thought he still had the tazer it would not have been reasonable
Edit: I now find that some tasers are multi-shot, so IF the one the LEO was carrying was one of those there might be arguable justification, if not my previous statement stands
Watching the video the cop shoots, then puts away his gun, then bends down to pick up the Tazer without really looking for it or appearing surprised that it was on the ground near him. It almost appears as if he knew that the guy running away from him didn't have it.
I think some parts of the argument have changed. We had no idea the tazer was used on the officer. If it was - I'm pretty sure this case is over and he wont even be prosecuted. You just can't do that - taze a police officer? Were I come from we call doing stuff like that suicide by cop.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Except for the ruling that Whembly described. If the LEO thought Scott had his tazer as he ran away it would fall under that.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just trying to figure what the cop was thinking. It's hard for me to believe it was "Ya I get to shoot a Black Guy!"
Tazers are single shot weapons, and it had (apparently been fired),
so even if the officer thought he still had the tazer it would not have been reasonable
Edit: I now find that some tasers are multi-shot, so IF the one the LEO was carrying was one of those there might be arguable justification, if not my previous statement stands
Watching the video the cop shoots, then puts away his gun, then bends down to pick up the Tazer without really looking for it or appearing surprised that it was on the ground near him. It almost appears as if he knew that the guy running away from him didn't have it.
I think some parts of the argument have changed. We had no idea the tazer was used on the officer. If it was - I'm pretty sure this case is over and he wont even be prosecuted. You just can't do that - taze a police officer? Were I come from we call doing stuff like that suicide by cop.
And if the cop drops him while he is running at him with the tazer in his hand, nobody here would question him.
But you cannot be shot after the fact for a threat that is already over and no longer present, especially when you are running away and the weapon making you a threat is lying on the ground in full view of the officer.
But please, continue to explain how not being armed and fleeing is enough of a threat for the cop to shoot him, alter the crime scene, let him die on the ground in front of you after making sure you placed the tazer next to him, laugh with some of the other officers that responded, and then lie about giving him CPR.
I'm not sure about "in full view." He could easily still believe the guy still had the tazer and not realize it had been dropped until after. Looking down your sites tends to obscure your view of everything else, especially the ground around your feet.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: I'm not sure about "in full view." He could easily still believe the guy still had the tazer and not realize it had been dropped until after. Looking down your sites tends to obscure your view of everything else, especially the ground around your feet.
Well, he saw it well enough to casually pick it up as soon as he puts his gun back in his holster.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: I'm not sure about "in full view." He could easily still believe the guy still had the tazer and not realize it had been dropped until after. Looking down your sites tends to obscure your view of everything else, especially the ground around your feet.
Well, he saw it well enough to casually pick it up as soon as he puts his gun back in his holster.
Reasonable doubt. "It fell and I didn't see it." Perfectly reasonable . Short of mind-reading - or dosing him with sodium pentothal. I don't think we will ever know. Reasonable doubt is not overwritten by the fact that this was a white shooter and a black victim - which is the only reason this is getting attention.
Also I don't think it matters at that point whether he has the tazer or not - he has already proven he is able and willing to inflict harm to others. To me this means hes a threat to others. I'd really like to know how you rationalize against this.
What is the time frame for summary execution powers for police against people who have previously been "violent"?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: I rationalize it by realizing that trusting a a cop who is a proven liar is a very stupid thing, and by realizing that people who were previously a threat are to be dealt with via the courts and not executed on sight.
Also I don't think it matters at that point whether he has the tazer or not - he has already proven he is able and willing to inflict harm to others. To me this means hes a threat to others. I'd really like to know how you rationalize against this.
There is no evidence of this... Resisting unlawful arrest is not evidence of violence or a risk to others. Otherwise every person who attempts to run from the police or resist arrest could legally be executed by your POV because lethal force would be warranted in every case of resisting arrest. People like you are why victims get charged with assault for bleeding on an officer while being beaten to near death by them when they are offering zero resistance. It empowers police to lie and do whatever they want.
You still keep hanging your hat on "walker tazed the officer" when there is zero evidence of that outside the word of a lying cop who laughed about the incident while sitting next to the dead man's body while plotting how to beat the investigation and how to corroborate stories and have matching false police reports.
At the time, Slager had no knowledge of warrants. Slager had ZERO idea why Walker was running and zero justification for initiating an arrest. (Outside the fact he was driving while black and Slager knew Walker was guilty, just not 'of what' yet.)
d-usa wrote: What is the time frame for summary execution powers for police against people who have previously been "violent"?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: I rationalize it by realizing that trusting a a cop who is a proven liar is a very stupid thing, and by realizing that people who were previously a threat are to be dealt with via the courts and not executed on sight.
Not asking you to trust him, you don't need to trust him at all - there is evidence of multiple struggles though and there is evidence that the tazer might have been used against the officer. If the tazer was used against the officer - do you agree this was a justified shooting, or no?
Ummm if he'd shot him just the once or twice, then maybe manslaughter. He didn't though. He shot him 8 TIMES . That to me says murder.
I can see how you could come to that conclussion - but as was pointed out by Christopher Walken and me early in this thread. He kept shooting till the man went down - that's actually what hes supposed to do. Gruesome yes, it's also what hes trained to do. Plus he missed 3 times of those 8 shots and 1 hit him in the ear.
At the time, Slager had no knowledge of warrants. Slager had ZERO idea why Walker was running and zero justification for initiating an arrest. (Outside the fact he was driving while black and Slager knew Walker was guilty, just not 'of what' yet.)
I think you'd be surprised what a cop can find out about you with their little computer lap top - they already know everything they need to know before they come to your window. In this case he didn't the car was registered to a different person I'm assuming - but he did get his licence and was in his car for about 2 minutes before he ran - I'm gonna say he most likely knew about the warrants or at least his arrest history with 2 violent offense on it. Again...none of this matters - evading the police is a serious enough offense to warrant an arrest. Resisting arrest makes it even more serious. Using a cops tazer on him makes it a felony.
I think you'd be surprised what a cop can find out about you with their little computer lap top - they already know everything they need to know before they come to your window. In this case he didn't the car was registered to a different person I'm assuming - but he did get his licence and was in his car for about 2 minutes before he ran - I'm gonna say he most likely knew about the warrants or at least his arrest history with 2 violent offense on it. Again...none of this matters - evading the police is a serious enough offense to warrant an arrest. Resisting arrest makes it even more serious. Using a cops tazer on him makes it a felony.
Except... In this case... His laptop showed nothing... Why?
The plates were not his.
And Slager EXPLICITLY SAID TO DISPATCH "I have no idea why he is running" which means he had not yet successfully run gak on his little laptop. Which means he chased him, and shot him dead with zero evidence of an actual crime having been committed and zero legal reason to take him into custody. This is Slager's own words. He had no legal reason because he didn't even commit a traffic violation.
I like how you make up evidence, like saying he knew things he has been proven not to know, Claiming violent assault which hasn't been proven since resisting arrest is not felony assault, claiming Walker shot the officer with a Tazer when there is zero evidence of that outside the word of a lying officer...
Even if your lies were true, the second Walker 'broke off' he was unarmed and not escalating force, and was not an eminent risk to the community at large and was not commissioning a felony. The second broke off, the officer lost the justification to use lethal force. You can't pretend a violent person is going to start throat stabbing every 10-year old they come across like a wild animal. Even if you thought he had a already fired, single shot stun gun in his possession, by definition, that is a non-lethal weapon, and him 'fleeing' means the imminent threat is over. Dirty cop was mad and shot him for making him run and not respecting his authoritah.
No matter how many lies and fake evidence and hypothetical you make up, it never escalates to justifiable lethal force int his situation, and all the facts not only prove that, but show your hypothetical are impossible and false. There is a reason the local police chief immediately backed charges, because he knew this was a bad cop and a bad shooting.
I think you'd be surprised what a cop can find out about you with their little computer lap top - they already know everything they need to know before they come to your window. In this case he didn't the car was registered to a different person I'm assuming - but he did get his licence and was in his car for about 2 minutes before he ran - I'm gonna say he most likely knew about the warrants or at least his arrest history with 2 violent offense on it. Again...none of this matters - evading the police is a serious enough offense to warrant an arrest. Resisting arrest makes it even more serious. Using a cops tazer on him makes it a felony.
Except... In this case... His laptop showed nothing... Why?
The plates were not his.
And Slager EXPLICITLY SAID TO DISPATCH "I have no idea why he is running" which means he had not yet successfully run gak on his little laptop. Which means he chased him, and shot him dead with zero evidence of an actual crime having been committed and zero legal reason to take him into custody. This is Slager's own words. He had no legal reason because he didn't even commit a traffic violation.
I like how you make up evidence, like saying he knew things he has been proven not to know, Claiming violent assault which hasn't been proven since resisting arrest is not felony assault, claiming Walker shot the officer with a Tazer when there is zero evidence of that outside the word of a lying officer...
Even if your lies were true, the second Walker 'broke off' he was unarmed and not escalating force, and was not an eminent risk to the community at large and was not commissioning a felony. The second broke off, the officer lost the justification to use lethal force. You can't pretend a violent person is going to start throat stabbing every 10-year old they come across like a wild animal. Even if you thought he had a already fired, single shot stun gun in his possession, by definition, that is a non-lethal weapon, and him 'fleeing' means the imminent threat is over. Dirty cop was mad and shot him for making him run and not respecting his authoritah.
No matter how many lies and fake evidence and hypothetical you make up, it never escalates to justifiable lethal force int his situation, and all the facts not only prove that, but show your hypothetical are impossible and false. There is a reason the local police chief immediately backed charges, because he knew this was a bad cop and a bad shooting.
woh chill out buddy. I'm not lying about anything - I think you made a good point about what he said to dispatch - I guess that means he didn't know about the warrant. Like I said though - that doesn't even matter. He already has justification to arrest him for evading him in the first place. Like others have said - try it sometime and see what happens. Next time you get a ticket for speeding - make a run for it. See what happens. Even if you are white you will get chased and tazed - race has nothing to do with it.
Ummm if he'd shot him just the once or twice, then maybe manslaughter. He didn't though. He shot him 8 TIMES . That to me says murder.
Number of shots has no bearing on anything based on this video.
But he still shot the guy in the back. That's a pretty big problem, right?
I believe cops should be able to defend themselves with lethal force if they're attacked and in danger.
I just can't reconcile a dude running away as that danger.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nkelsch wrote: it never escalates to justifiable lethal force int his situation, and all the facts not only prove that, but show your hypothetical are impossible and false. There is a reason the local police chief immediately backed charges, because he knew this was a bad cop and a bad shooting.
I don't quite agree with all of what you wrote, but I certainly agree with this.
I really hope this doesn't turn into another Casey Anthony.
S.C. Supreme Court: Judge outside Charleston area to handle Michael Slager murder case
The S.C. Supreme Court on Tuesday assigned a judge from outside the 9th Judicial Circuit to preside over every step of the criminal case against former North Charleston police officer Michael T. Slager.
Third Circuit Judge Clifton Newman of Kingstree “shall decide all matters pertaining to this case” and will “retain jurisdiction ... regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court,” Chief Justice Jean Toal wrote in the order.
The move came unexpectedly for 9th Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson, who announced the news Tuesday night on her Facebook page. Wilson said she had been informed by email.
Though he is based outside the circuit where Slager is set to be prosecuted, Newman, like other judges, hears cases in Charleston from time to time.
“While I was unaware this was in the works,” Wilson said on Facebook, “it is not without precedent for the chief justice to assign judges to cases.”
But Slager’s attorney, Andy Savage of Charleston, said Toal’s “unprecedented but long overdue” decision would ensure that constitutional due process provisions will be followed and would be well-received by attorneys statewide.
The high court’s order gives Newman the authority to set hearings regardless of whether a term of court is scheduled.
“Judge Newman enjoys an excellent reputation as a jurist and we look forward to working under his guidance,” Savage said. “A more competent member of the judiciary could not be found.”
Slager faces a murder charge in the April 4 death of 50-year-old Walter L. Scott. A video showed the officer shooting Scott five times as Scott ran away.
Slager has said that he feared that Scott would use his own Taser against him.
The case has been tinged with questions about the role of race in policing. Slager is white. Scott was black.
Newman, the 63-year-old judge now handling the case, decided to pursue a career in law after playing an attorney in a high school play about the 1954 school desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education, his state Judicial Department Web page says.
The Cleveland-Marshall College of Law graduate succeeded for 24 years as a private attorney before serving for 17 years as a prosecutor. The General Assembly elected him to the bench in 2000.
Wilson did not comment further, and she has not responded to some calls for her to relinquish the case to a prosecutor outside the 9th Circuit Solicitor’s Office, which prosecutes most of the North Charleston Police Department’s cases. Wilson has said in earlier statements that she plans to see the case through and diligently update the public on any developments.
On other legal blogs, many are opining that this is 100% damage control now. The SC Justice assigned essentially an outsider to insure judicial credibility because many believe that murder charges seemed over promised, which could lead to the collapse of their case.
At the time, Slager had no knowledge of warrants. Slager had ZERO idea why Walker was running and zero justification for initiating an arrest. (Outside the fact he was driving while black and Slager knew Walker was guilty, just not 'of what' yet.)
the officer pulled him over for traffic violati, not driving while black.
the suspect then ran which actually *is* justification to arrest him.
weather or not the actual shooting ends up being justified, if you are really going to try to argue that the cops shouldnt be stopping people for traffic violations chasing down people who run from them, Id say you have a very biased opinion that isnt in line with how these things work in reality.
as soon as the guy ran, the cop can safely assume he has priors, as people who are not criminals generally just take the traffic ticket instead of risk their life, and the officers life, with a chase/fight/resisting arrest.
looks like a clean shoot to me.
how was the officer supposed to know that he wasn't running to just put some distance between the two of them so he could then turn and fire on him?
was he armed, not that I've seen but did the officer know that?
bottom line to me is if you get stopped by a cop don't run.
it sure does look like there are a bunch of people simply out to hang a cop.
white cop shoots a black man... kill whitey right?
usernamesareannoying wrote: looks like a clean shoot to me.
how was the officer supposed to know that he wasn't running to just put some distance between the two of them so he could then turn and fire on him?
was he armed, not that I've seen but did the officer know that?
bottom line to me is if you get stopped by a cop don't run.
it sure does look like there are a bunch of people simply out to hang a cop.
white cop shoots a black man... kill whitey right?
usernamesareannoying wrote: looks like a clean shoot to me.
how was the officer supposed to know that he wasn't running to just put some distance between the two of them so he could then turn and fire on him?
was he armed, not that I've seen but did the officer know that?
bottom line to me is if you get stopped by a cop don't run.
it sure does look like there are a bunch of people simply out to hang a cop.
white cop shoots a black man... kill whitey right?
usernamesareannoying wrote: looks like a clean shoot to me.
how was the officer supposed to know that he wasn't running to just put some distance between the two of them so he could then turn and fire on him?
was he armed, not that I've seen but did the officer know that?
So every person is armed until proven otherwise? That means that a cop can execute anyone for any reason with that line of thought. That is not how the laws are written, so any police who think like that and follow that behavior to its logical conclusion will be arrested for murder. You don't get to assume 'All people who run are bad men, All bad men are violent and have guns, Violent men with guns make me scared for my life. I can shoot people who run'
usernamesareannoying wrote: it's a big difference between a man that attacks you and runs verses a guy who just run. a big difference.
And there is a big difference between someone who is resisting arrest and someone who attacks and officer. Remember, people get charged with assault for bleeding on an officer beating them to near death. Considering the eye witness said there was no struggle for the tazer, and Walker never had or fired the tazer, and the cop lied about his account which was proven to be wrong due to video evidence... It makes it hard to argue that 'Walker was probably armed and that was a good shoot because people who run have guns and he was trying to get space to shoot the cop'.
And the law doesn't allow the officer to 'assume' intentions and summarily execute him out of a perceived threat with no evidence of actual threat.
If your justification is to assume all bad people are armed so all actions can be interpreted as 'attempting to kill the officer' then an officer can kill any one at any time as long as he believes the person is armed with zero evidence. If 'running away' is the same as 'making distance to turn around and gun down the officer with a yet unseen, unconfirmed deadly weapon' then there is no such thing as a bad shoot ever when it comes to police.
Co'tor Shas wrote: But he obviously wasn't a threat, he was scared and running away.
says the guy watching it from his safe comfy home. Did the cop know it was obvious that he was scared and running away? What was he supposed to do, let him go? It's easy to judge after the fact.
Co'tor Shas wrote: But he obviously wasn't a threat, he was scared and running away.
says the guy watching it from his safe comfy home. Did the cop know it was obvious that he was scared and running away? What was he supposed to do, let him go? It's easy to judge after the fact.
Again, your train of thought returns us to: "Cops can execute anyone at any time with no evidence of risk because anyone can be a threat potentially in the mind of the officer."
Co'tor Shas wrote: But he obviously wasn't a threat, he was scared and running away.
says the guy watching it from his safe comfy home. Did the cop know it was obvious that he was scared and running away? What was he supposed to do, let him go? It's easy to judge after the fact.
Been there. Done that.
One does not shoot an individual fleeing. There was significant time gap and distance for the officer to see both hands were clear and breaking contact. Since Charleston has not been declared a combat zone one does not shoot an individual in the back while running away. Even in a combat zone if the individual was a threat and started running away one does not shoot the individual in the back while the individual hands are "clear" of weapons. The Officer did a 5/2 Stryker kill
Why shoot the individual who was fleeing when the officer in question has the individual driver license.
Resisting arrest is not attacking a police officer. Since an already fired tazer on the ground is not an imminent threat, Especially if the victim was fleeing without it. Any assumptions about 'may be armed' are not legal as that would allow police to summarily execute anyone they want due to an 'unknown unknown'.
The eye witness who saw everything said Walker never attacked the officer, never was struggling or even had control of the tazer to fire it. There were two eye witnesses, one at the entrance to the alley and the one with the camera who saw things before film started rolling. Neither saw Walker ever attack or be the aggressor towards Slager. There is zero evidence of Walker ever taking, controlling or firing the tazer. The only 'evidence' of the 'attack' is Slager's word.
Again... You basically come back to "Police can execute anyone they deem as 'bad' by assuming they are violent and secretly armed. Anyone who resists or runs is doing so to better murder the officer, even though there is no evidence of that."
And when that happens and said criminal goes and kills a family the next day you'll be the same person crying why didn't the police stop him when they had the chance. Give me a break.
usernamesareannoying wrote: And when that happens and said criminal goes and kills a family the next day you'll be the same person crying why didn't the police stop him when they had the chance. Give me a break.
The victim was not a suspect in any charge of a violent crime, had not committed a violent crime, and did not appear to have the intent of going and committing a violent crime after his running away.
What if the next day he saved a family of 4.5 from a house fire. Now they're dead because that cop shot him. Equally as absurd given the histories.
Plus, and I can't fething believe I need to say this, you don't execute someone on a ridiculous hypothetical that never fething happened and has no indication of doing so.
It is against the rules of this site to call what you are doing what it is.
usernamesareannoying wrote: And when that happens and said criminal goes and kills a family the next day you'll be the same person crying why didn't the police stop him when they had the chance. Give me a break.
If we kill everyone, like, literally everyone, then there will be no more families murdered.
Why has that not been thought of before?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ooh, no, better still. What if the guy was going to have a family? And his children could have had families of their own!
That cop just prevented potentially hundreds of people from being born. He's, like, the most powerful contraceptive known to man.
Wait.....we're suppose to have emotions? What if emotions are all burned out over a time? The Officer cannot even claim that either by being in the Coast Guard. I can't call it a fun kill 5/2 style but to me it was a Rage Kill.
Yeah, should have just let him go.
Let me go find my rose colored glasses.
I guess I just think that a guy that puts his life on the line for crap pay and no thanks deserves a bit better treatment than this thread is giving him.
usernamesareannoying wrote: And when that happens and said criminal goes and kills a family the next day you'll be the same person crying why didn't the police stop him when they had the chance. Give me a break.
If your only options are "shucks, he got away" and "shucks, I'll kill him and lie about everything" then letting him get away is the best option.
Of course the real world option is to realize that a fleeing subject is not an acute threat so you let him flee and utilize the resources at your disposal to search the area for him, use the footage from the dash cam to print a picture, use the car that is physically in your possession to search for clues as to who he is (maybe that weird plate on each end will tell you) and where he could be located.
If at any point he actually doesn't pull a Sir Robin anymore and becomes a threat, then you deal with the threat that exists at that point.
At least the old idiot pay-to-play cop from Oklahoma had the decency to say "sorry" after accidentally killing a man.
I guess I just think that a guy that puts his life on the line for crap pay and no thanks deserves a bit better treatment than this thread is giving him.
Well, considering that he didn't get killed by getting shot in the back and that they already said the death penalty is off the table I would say that he is already getting better treatment than what he gave to the guy he killed.
You guys win. Resume your cop bashing.
There is a minor difference between "cop bashing" and pointing proven liar is a piece of scum, badge or no badge.
We know for a fact that he is a liar and that he falsified his report and the crime scene.
Or get a rope as I think someone said.
Well, if the cop wouldn't have acted like that is what he was thinking this thread wouldn't exist.
Of course the real world option is to realize that a fleeing subject is not an acute threat so you let him flee and utilize the resources at your disposal to search the area for him, use the footage from the dash cam to print a picture, use the car that is physically in your possession to search for clues as to who he is (maybe that weird plate on each end will tell you) and where he could be located.
So just a quick summary of our Oklahoma guy (because having two bad cop threads seems spammy):
- 72 year old reserve sheriff deputy participates in an undercover gun buy
- while the suspect is being arrested the deputy decides that using his tazer would be a great idea despite the other cops being in control of the guy
- pulls out his gun instead and shoots the guy that is in the process of being arrested, says "oops"
- as bad guy was dying he talked about being unable to breathe because he was shot, other deputy tells him "feth your breath" and later states he didn't hear the gun shoot right next to his head and didn't know anyone was shot.
- 72 year old reserve deputy is a long time friend to the sheriff
- he donated money and cars to the sheriff department
- he served as the campaign manager for the sheriff's reelection campaign and was his biggest donor
- he takes the sheriff on vacations to Vegas
- sheriff insists that he is a good guy and that there is nothing wrong with him participating in dangerous undercover operations and that there was no pay-to-play going on there
From experience when the blood is up and what not. A weapon going off beside my head not going register till after the fact. Its like firing a cannon off. Its not really loud when your on the piece but its damn loud when your in front of the piece and less loud when your not near the muzzle. Also if ones use to range firing the discharge is not going to register to you being your use to the round going "down range". You will though turn a quick head when a discharge sounds "off" then what your use to.
Edit
State going to get the crap sued out of them for sure
Guy's probably got some manslaughter charges headed his way too. Probably wan't on purpose, but it's like a car crash. You may not have meant to do it, but it's still your fault.
I think the cops in NY are relived from in the field duty after they reach like 35 or something. I know my cousin just retired from being a NY state trooper, and he's in his 30's. I'll have to ask him.
I think the cops in NY are relived from in the field duty after they reach like 35 or something. I know my cousin just retired from being a NY state trooper, and he's in his 30's. I'll have to ask him.
This wasn't a sworn officer, it was someone who was a 'volunteer'. Though the perception is that the guy was paying via donations and trips to play at cop.
I think the cops in NY are relived from in the field duty after they reach like 35 or something. I know my cousin just retired from being a NY state trooper, and he's in his 30's. I'll have to ask him.
This wasn't a sworn officer, it was someone who was a 'volunteer'. Though the perception is that the guy was paying via donations and trips to play at cop.
Are you sure he wasn't sworn? A lot of departments have part-time reserve deputies and officers that are still sworn officers, even if they aren't full-time.
Well, a reserve deputy is a real cop. They do get the training, they are armed, and they can perform the role of part time police. My dad does it, he's in his 50's and retired from working for the BOP and works as a director of emergency management for the county. He does a few regular shifts when they really need him, but for the most part he does what most reserve deputies do: pull shifts at events with large crowds (county fairs, festivals, races, etc).
Most reserve programs do a good job supplementing the regular deputies during events where there are a lot of crowds and you need extra help with crowd control, or looking for drunks, or staff DUI checkpoints.
I don't think the problem is with having volunteer reserve deputies, a small problem is the presence of a volunteer at a high risk gun buy (which he participated in frequently) with the bigger problem being the presence of an apparent "pay-to-play" long time friend and former campaign manager of the sheriff who is 72 years old and who couldn't tell a tazer from a gun.
MrDwhitey wrote: Plus that's a pretty pathetic appeal to emotion.
What if the next day he saved a family of 4.5 from a house fire. Now they're dead because that cop shot him. Equally as absurd given the histories.
My favorite part of this thread is you trying to rebut bootlicker logic with actual arguments.
Everybody will be a hero if this thread makes me quit the internet and causes me to have more spare time to get healthy resulting in me living an extra 6.7 years before dying.
Jihadin wrote: From experience when the blood is up and what not. A weapon going off beside my head not going register till after the fact. Its like firing a cannon off. Its not really loud when your on the piece but its damn loud when your in front of the piece and less loud when your not near the muzzle. Also if ones use to range firing the discharge is not going to register to you being your use to the round going "down range". You will though turn a quick head when a discharge sounds "off" then what your use to.
As a brief tangent, I have no idea how soldiers don't go deaf.
The other day I went to the range right after work (outdoors) and was there alone. This has never happened before. I go set up for a shoot with short barreled AR (7.5"). I fire a shot and realize I had forgotten to put my headset on. See, usually, the range sounds like a live-action re-enactment of Vietnam from the parking lot so tons of time to put on your cans.
I lost some hearing on that one, I think, I couldn't hear anything for about 20 seconds. And that was one shot! Granted, it's a short barrel but still, I can only imagine how much worse it is when you're in an extended shoot, or on auto.
Jihadin wrote: From experience when the blood is up and what not. A weapon going off beside my head not going register till after the fact. Its like firing a cannon off. Its not really loud when your on the piece but its damn loud when your in front of the piece and less loud when your not near the muzzle. Also if ones use to range firing the discharge is not going to register to you being your use to the round going "down range". You will though turn a quick head when a discharge sounds "off" then what your use to.
As a brief tangent, I have no idea how soldiers don't go deaf.
The other day I went to the range right after work (outdoors) and was there alone. This has never happened before. I go set up for a shoot with short barreled AR (7.5"). I fire a shot and realize I had forgotten to put my headset on. See, usually, the range sounds like a live-action re-enactment of Vietnam from the parking lot so tons of time to put on your cans.
I lost some hearing on that one, I think, I couldn't hear anything for about 20 seconds. And that was one shot! Granted, it's a short barrel but still, I can only imagine how much worse it is when you're in an extended shoot, or on auto.
I think the simple answer to that is that they probably do, unless they use some form of earplugs which will dampen the higher decibel levels or main frequencies of the shots without affecting their overall sensitivity to less damaging noises (some musicians use something similar to avoid damage from playing live).
So wait... the real cops had the suspect contained and were cuffing him, and the fake cop* thought that would be a good time to tazer the suspect?
Ignoring the fact that Fake Deputy Grampaw drew the wrong weapon, isn't that how a police brutality case gets started?
*Not that I consider reserve cops "fake", but it's clear this guy was only in the reserves because he bought his place there with favors and gifts to the Sherrif. That, to me, is a fake cop.
Jihadin wrote: From experience when the blood is up and what not. A weapon going off beside my head not going register till after the fact. Its like firing a cannon off. Its not really loud when your on the piece but its damn loud when your in front of the piece and less loud when your not near the muzzle. Also if ones use to range firing the discharge is not going to register to you being your use to the round going "down range". You will though turn a quick head when a discharge sounds "off" then what your use to.
As a brief tangent, I have no idea how soldiers don't go deaf.
The other day I went to the range right after work (outdoors) and was there alone. This has never happened before. I go set up for a shoot with short barreled AR (7.5"). I fire a shot and realize I had forgotten to put my headset on. See, usually, the range sounds like a live-action re-enactment of Vietnam from the parking lot so tons of time to put on your cans.
I lost some hearing on that one, I think, I couldn't hear anything for about 20 seconds. And that was one shot! Granted, it's a short barrel but still, I can only imagine how much worse it is when you're in an extended shoot, or on auto.
One of the guys I work with (he's retiring in the next year) was in the Navy and worked on the deck of an Aircraft Carrier in the 1970s (before hearing protection).
Grey Templar wrote: Just to play devil's advocate, they probably feel fairly similar on your belt. Not that that excuses anything.
Maybe tasers could stand to have a redesigned handle that feels nothing like a gun.
Isn't that a big part of the reason why you usually (at least around here) see officers wearing it on the opposite hip than their gun?
Having it on a different side and utilizing a completely different movement to draw it (and hopefully developing a different muscle memory) would seem like it would help minimize that problem. Although I do wonder if having the Taser face forward would make it easier to grab. Is a Taser secured in the holster like a gun would be?
Forgive me for not reading all 10 pages, but I just watched the video. One of the most horrifying things I've seen this year.
The videographer has to be some kind of hero. If a cop is wiling to shoot a man down in the back, move (possibly plant) evidence, and then handcuff rather than try to save a shot man, who know's what he'd do to someone videotaping his offense. Respect to you sir/madam.
Current law is pretty unequivocal that a fleeing suspect that is unarmed is not to be shot in the back. In most places you can tazer them, run them down tackle them and put your knee in their back, you can even sic a dog on them if you're a K9 officer. What you can't do is shoot them dead. There is simply no excuse for this kind of act.
Isn't that a big part of the reason why you usually (at least around here) see officers wearing it on the opposite hip than their gun?
Spoiler:
Having it on a different side and utilizing a completely different movement to draw it (and hopefully developing a different muscle memory) would seem like it would help minimize that problem. Although I do wonder if having the Taser face forward would make it easier to grab. Is a Taser secured in the holster like a gun would be?
That arrangement is what I think I've seen as well. I think the Taser in the picture is facing forward (The sticker is the bottom of the grip, yes?) allowing for a right handed officer to cross draw.
Tazer is located opposite of your dominant hand. MP's standards which follow Federal Standards which some State LEO follows which even fewer local/county LEO follow.
Its to prevent the Frak Up that Chucklehead did by shooting instead of tazing the victim. The other thing is that the arrangement is enforced in said departments. I can see both sides of the fence being able to draw it faster if on dominant hand side to not being on the dominant hand side. The big thing is Chucklehead was 73 with no training being in a active Sting Operation.
People crash their cars all the time "because they thought they were hitting the brake" when they hit the gas, those pedals look different, you only have two options really, and yet it happens all the time in those quickly made, under stress decisions on the road.
No one argues the guy made a mistake, sure maybe some people would not make the same mistake but many people would also make the same mistake.
The media (predictably) seems to want everyone to assume it was intentional and racially motivated to boot which is a stretch.
Actually, the racial aspect is pretty much the only aspect of the story that really hasn't been mentioned much in the news here.
They are all focusing on the whole "72 year old personal friend of the sheriff and former campaign manager who donates money to the sheriff and the department was allowed to play cop and kills someone due to stupidity and now it looks like his paperwork was forged by someone higher up in the department" problem.
I could possibly understand perhaps *drawing* the wrong weapon, maybe reaching out of instinct or something.
But once that's in your hand you should know exactly what's there long before you aim, much less pull the trigger.
So many things had to go wrong there. Either he's too old to trust him to drive by himself much less handle a firearm, or he's straight up lying. Even disregarding normal human intelligence, there's just too much tactile information your hands would be feeding you to mistake those two weapons without being something being *extremely* wrong.
I'm concerned about the media portrayal of this situation because while this guy obviously messed up and probably had no business being out there to begin with, and the whole situation of him being a reserve deputy seems very sketchy.
But even before that bit about him donating a ton of money to the department came out, the media was already gaking on his status as a part-time reserve deputy (a status that he pretty clearly didn't deserve), but I feel like they are generally casting part-time reserve and volunteer officers in a bad light. Which is unfortunate because unlike him, most of them are trained and do a fine job, while also donating their time, energy, and personal safety to their communities for little or no pay.
I could possibly understand perhaps *drawing* the wrong weapon, maybe reaching out of instinct or something.
But once that's in your hand you should know exactly what's there long before you aim, much less pull the trigger.
So many things had to go wrong there. Either he's too old to trust him to drive by himself much less handle a firearm, or he's straight up lying. Even disregarding normal human intelligence, there's just too much tactile information your hands would be feeding you to mistake those two weapons without being something being *extremely* wrong.
Judging from his reaction after the shooting in the video, I don't think he was lying. I think he was unbelievably incompetent.
Judging from his reaction after the shooting in the video, I don't think he was lying. I think he was unbelievably incompetent.
Same. Though I am starting to wonder if the 'oops, wrong device' is just the excuse he came up with, when he actually meant to have his gun out, but not shoot. That, to most observers, would sound a lot worse than "I thought it was my taser".
Judging from his reaction after the shooting in the video, I don't think he was lying. I think he was unbelievably incompetent.
Same. Though I am starting to wonder if the 'oops, wrong device' is just the excuse he came up with, when he actually meant to have his gun out, but not shoot. That, to most observers, would sound a lot worse than "I thought it was my taser".
Didn't he announce he was going to taze the guy before he fired?
Jihadin wrote: From experience when the blood is up and what not. A weapon going off beside my head not going register till after the fact. Its like firing a cannon off. Its not really loud when your on the piece but its damn loud when your in front of the piece and less loud when your not near the muzzle. Also if ones use to range firing the discharge is not going to register to you being your use to the round going "down range". You will though turn a quick head when a discharge sounds "off" then what your use to.
As a brief tangent, I have no idea how soldiers don't go deaf.
The other day I went to the range right after work (outdoors) and was there alone. This has never happened before. I go set up for a shoot with short barreled AR (7.5"). I fire a shot and realize I had forgotten to put my headset on. See, usually, the range sounds like a live-action re-enactment of Vietnam from the parking lot so tons of time to put on your cans.
I lost some hearing on that one, I think, I couldn't hear anything for about 20 seconds. And that was one shot! Granted, it's a short barrel but still, I can only imagine how much worse it is when you're in an extended shoot, or on auto.
I do have tinnitus myself... As I understand it, Artillery guys, it's SOP to be deaf when they are done.
Didn't he announce he was going to taze the guy before he fired?
Yeah, he actually did. You can hear him say it, i think, twice.
Which leads us back to the utter incompetence line, or a far more disturbing, "planned it all out and yelled taser even though I knew it wasn't because I wanted to shoot someone."
Judging from his reaction after the shooting in the video, I don't think he was lying. I think he was unbelievably incompetent.
Same. Though I am starting to wonder if the 'oops, wrong device' is just the excuse he came up with, when he actually meant to have his gun out, but not shoot. That, to most observers, would sound a lot worse than "I thought it was my taser".
Didn't he announce he was going to taze the guy before he fired?
You may be conflating incidents. The old guy definitely did not say 'Taser' in the video, so far as I could tell. The officer in South Carolina did say Taser.
I see alot of mention here in regards to both incidents of statments like 'he thought it was", "he mistakenly grabbed", etc.
Such sentiments seem to miss the fact that while we give a certain amount of understanding to officers based on the difficulty of the job and the dangers involved, that is not an excuse for poor judgement or behavior. Society holds -and rightfully so- those bearing lethal force on US soil and under the banner of the state, to a HIGHER standard of conduct not a lower one.
That an officer may have spray, taser and firearm does not mean he get's more leway to mistakenly shoot someone, it means he gets LESS because he had the non/less lethal option and used the lethal option.
@Hordini: the local media haven't really been hard on reserve deputies in general. They note that reserve perform an important job, but note that the job usually isn't to participate in high risk undercover sting operations.
I don't care what he "thought" he was reaching for. If you are entrusted to be a police officer and carry, its on you. I guarantee if I'm ccing and I think I pull pepper spray on someone but end up perforating them, the police, DA, jury, and judge aint gonna give jack gak about what i thought.
)
