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.

 feeder wrote:


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?

There is no middle ground when you wear the black and white. (oh wait thats cruisers)

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.

Here's where it gets tricky...

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 )

 whembly wrote:
Here's where it gets tricky...

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.

Pretty much. As soon as he turned his back to run, he was no longer presenting a threat, which means the use of deadly force was no longer authorized.

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!"

 whembly wrote:
Here's where it gets tricky...

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.

 whembly wrote:
Here's where it gets tricky...

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.

Meanwhile in Oklahoma:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/us/tulsa-shooting-robert-bates-volunteer-deputy/index.html

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.

http://ktla.com/2015/04/14/new-audio-captures-s-c-police-officer-laughing-after-fatally-shooting-walter-scott/
http://wtnh.com/2015/04/13/second-officer-may-be-charged-in-south-carolina-police-shooting/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/13/second-officer-south-carolina-shooting_n_7055980.html

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.

Especially now that we're shifting the definition of "violent" to "ran away".

 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 Dredd says hai!

nkelsch wrote:

 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.

http://ktla.com/2015/04/14/new-audio-captures-s-c-police-officer-laughing-after-fatally-shooting-walter-scott/
http://wtnh.com/2015/04/13/second-officer-may-be-charged-in-south-carolina-police-shooting/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/13/second-officer-south-carolina-shooting_n_7055980.html

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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

 Ouze wrote:
Especially now that we're shifting the definition of "violent" to "ran away".

Thus was the end of brave Sir Robin...

 d-usa wrote:
Meanwhile in Oklahoma:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/us/tulsa-shooting-robert-bates-volunteer-deputy/index.html

Moral of the story?

Don't arm untrained volunteers.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

Pretty easy for any prosecution to use though, IMO. Something along the lines of "he had the chance to stop shooting and didn't."

The purpose of firing on him was to stop him. He fired until he was stopped. he cannot be prosecuted for being an terrible shot.

Has reality ever stopped a lawyer? Little things like that can get a jury on your side. Half-truths and such.

 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

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

 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.

 d-usa wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

 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.

 d-usa wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

 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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

 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.