South Carolina police officer charged with murder

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**TheMeanDM**

It just seems.....archaic...that's all

**Dreadclaw69**

TheMeanDM wrote:
It just seems.....archaic...that's all

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.

**easysauce**

Peregrine wrote:
Jehan-reznor wrote:
Will there be a riot? If he gets a light sentence?

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)

**Peregrine**

easysauce wrote:
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?

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.

**Grey Templar**

Peregrine wrote:
easysauce wrote:
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?

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.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Grey Templar wrote:
TheMeanDM wrote:
First off, I can't believe that you can get arrested and jailed for failure to pay child support.

Why not?

You can go to jail for far more minor offenses, especially if you are a repeat offender.

Also equally as stupid.

**Grey Templar**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
TheMeanDM wrote:
First off, I can't believe that you can get arrested and jailed for failure to pay child support.

Why not?

You can go to jail for far more minor offenses, especially if you are a repeat offender.
Also equally as stupid.

Repeat offender.

Thats the key words.

**stanman**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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.

http://electronicvillage.blogspot.com/2009/05/taser-related-deaths-in-united-states.html

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.

**easysauce**

Peregrine wrote:
easysauce wrote:
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?

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.

**d-usa**

stanman wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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.

http://electronicvillage.blogspot.com/2009/05/taser-related-deaths-in-united-states.html

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.

**stanman**

d-usa wrote:
stanman wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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.

http://electronicvillage.blogspot.com/2009/05/taser-related-deaths-in-united-states.html

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.

**d-usa**

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.

Now you are just off the deep end, but thanks for stopping by.

**Grey Templar**

stanman wrote:
d-usa wrote:
stanman wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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.

http://electronicvillage.blogspot.com/2009/05/taser-related-deaths-in-united-states.html

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.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Grey Templar wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
TheMeanDM wrote:
First off, I can't believe that you can get arrested and jailed for failure to pay child support.

Why not?

You can go to jail for far more minor offenses, especially if you are a repeat offender.
Also equally as stupid.

Repeat offender.

Thats the key words.

No it really isn't.

You can go to fail for far more minor offense, as you pointed out, more so if you are a repeat offender, as you also pointed out.

Both are equally stupid.

Grey Templar wrote:
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.

**Howard A Treesong**

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.

**sebster**

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.

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

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

**Frazzled**

Grey Templar wrote:
TheMeanDM wrote:
First off, I can't believe that you can get arrested and jailed for failure to pay child support.

Why not?

You can go to jail for far more minor offenses, especially if you are a repeat offender.

Indeed. Putting them in the pokey is an excellent motivational tool. If you don't think its a good plan, don't be vermin who won't pay for his kid.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Is there some unwritten rule about when doing a story on a black man shot by a white man there MUST be a picture of the victim from grade school?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/walter-scott-shooting/walter-scott-man-shot-dead-police-was-father-four-n338036

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.

**cincydooley**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

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?

**OgreChubbs**

He was oblivious running home to get his gun duh...

serious note murder open and closed.

**Xenomancers**

Kanluwen wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Playing Devils Advocate?

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.

**Kanluwen**

Xenomancers wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Playing Devils Advocate?

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 .

**Xenomancers**

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.

**kronk**

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

**Xenomancers**

Kanluwen wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Playing Devils Advocate?

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.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Xenomancers wrote:
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.

**Kanluwen**

Again:
Read Tennessee v. Garner.

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.

**Sigvatr**

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.

**Kanluwen**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

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?