Amazing video of South Carolina police shooting

[MillCreek]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-charged-with-murder/

I liked the part where the officer picked up the Taser and carried it over to drop it next to the body.

[HankB]

Videos like this are why some cops and politicians would like to make it illegal to video police . . . 

[Monkeyleg]

WTF was that cop thinking? Even without the video, I would think that forensics would show the guy was shot in the back from quite a distance.

[RevDisk]

Uhm. Pretty sure that's murder.

Unless something very serious is missing from the video, the officer used lethal force on a fleeing suspect. SC might have significantly different laws, but I was taught that you were only allowed to use lethal force to stop a threat to yourself or a third party. Someone running away from you is usually a sign that they are not a threat.

The officer is alleging that the suspect tried to take his taser. I'm not sure if that would qualify for using lethal force by itself. This is ignoring the possibility suggested but not proved in the video that he actually planted the taser next to the body.

Someone more knowledgeable would have to chime in. I have always wondered. If a cop is trying to hit you with a nightstick, and how illegal is it to stop or take the nightstick away from them, assuming you caused them no physical harm?

[zxcvbob]

Uhm. Pretty sure that's murder.

Unless something very serious is missing from the video, the officer used lethal force on a fleeing suspect. SC might have significantly different laws, but I was taught that you were only allowed to use lethal force to stop a threat to yourself or a third party. Someone running away from you is usually a sign that they are not a threat.

The officer is alleging that the suspect tried to take his taser. I'm not sure if that would qualify for using lethal force by itself. This is ignoring the possibility suggested but not proved in the video that he actually planted the taser next to the body.

Someone more knowledgeable would have to chime in. I have always wondered. If a cop is trying to hit you with a nightstick, and how illegal is it to stop or take the nightstick away from them, assuming you caused them no physical harm?

AFAIK, the Supreme Court has never reversed its John Bad Elk v. U.S. decision.  I don't know why that case doesn't get cited more often regarding self defense against the police.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I think cop shoulda left taser where it was. I suspect his defense will be that he thought the guy had the taser still. He may be able to fly the theory that the fact he was wrong does not negate the defense.mi suspect another circus of demonstrations is about to start. If he is successful in using that defense either at trial or on appeal it will get crazy


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[roo_ster]

I think cop shoulda left taser where it was. I suspect his defense will be that he thought the guy had the taser still. He may be able to fly the theory that the fact he was wrong does not negate the defense.mi suspect another circus of demonstrations is about to start. If he is successful in using that defense either at trial or on appeal it will get crazy


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Me, too.  Easier to explain he was mistaken and thought his opponent still had the taser than to plant it.

This looks really bad, as in "pound me in the *ss prison" bad.

Even in Texas, his goose would likely be cooked.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Yup. Though his radio call that guy had his taser came before he found it and brought it back. Previously courts have held that if he believed the guy still had the weapon it's what he believed that counts. I also suspect he may opt for a bench trial. But he could roll the dice with jury.
A lot would depend on whether he can sell the idea that he did not know taser was on ground and used lethal force against that less than  lethal weapon. Could be interesting



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[vaskidmark]

Even if the guy still had the TASER it will be a difficult sell that he presented a threat to the cop or the community.  Nothing showed him using it.

From the rumor mill of corrections I am hearing that with budget tightenings the use of protective custody is being reduced.  Not a good sign for our hero.

stay safe.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

If he had the taser and cop was trying to arrest him closing with him would be out and the next step would be lethal force


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MillCreek]

So here is an interesting question: does a Taser barb require contact with bare skin to close the circuit?  If an officer is wearing a Kevlar vest and a Taser is fired at center mass, would the officer be incapacitated by the Taser?  If the barb does not penetrate the vest, is the officer essentially immune to Taser fire, assuming that the barbs impact the vest?

[roo_ster]

If shootercop moved the taser to keep it secured, I might understand that.  Suspect over HERE, taser over THERE, one cop to secure BOTH...tough spot.  DOn;t want a pack of feral local kids getting their hands on a taser to hurt themselves or others.

In that case, specifically mentioning what he did and why in any reports is crucial.

Yeah, closing to go nonlethal against someone with a taset is a bad idea.

Still looks bad for shootercop.

So here is an interesting question: does a Taser barb require contact with bare skin to close the circuit?  If an officer is wearing a Kevlar vest and a Taser is fired at center mass, would the officer be incapacitated by the Taser?  If the barb does not penetrate the vest, is the officer essentially immune to Taser fire, assuming that the barbs impact the vest?

Likely requires close contact, though the high voltage will allow it to jump a bit.  Still, taser works on non-kevlar bits of flesh, like the guy my wife witnessed who got a taser barb in the eye.

[Firethorn]

Discussing/examining this elsewhere, I'll note that the officer had already discharged the taser at/into Mr. Scott, and presumably angle/normal clothing prevent a circuit.  So when shooting Mr. Scott, he should have known that it was a taser that had been reduced to not only a contact hazard only, but that chance movement could have Mr. Scott tasing himself if the barbs happen to make the right contact.

I also didn't really a struggle.  It looked to me that the officer tried to tase Mr. Scott, then practically chucked the taser to the ground, drawing his firearm as Mr. Scott ran.  5 out of 8 shots into Mr. Scott later, all into the back.

Given his initial story of the struggle, how the heck was he planning to justify 5 shots into the back, at a distance?   Or is he being tossed under the bus due to the video, while the police wouldn't have bothered to look too closely if it hadn't surfaced?

I'm not saying that Mr. Scott shouldn't have faced consequences for running away from an officer, but that's where you call for more officers and sort things out.  Not shoot a non-threatening running man in the back.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Once they fire the barbs it's still usable in drive/stun.
The mayor is saying there is more video.
I wonder how far from traffic stop they were.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Blakenzy]

Unless the video is "inadmissible" that cop is going to be a pro salad tosser soon enough.

Seems to me: confrontation... failed taser-ing attempt... frustrated cop says "screw it" and puts an end to it...

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Video is admissible. I wanna see the other vid the mayor mentions.
The video in conjunction with his calls to dispatch will give a rare concrete record


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[French G.]

I've already seen a sign that says "Back turned, don't shoot." Since the last narrative failed so badly. Yes, in this case it is murder. No, it is not always. There have been plenty of defensive shooters cleared after the shootee ended up with holes in their back either from rapidly changing positions at contact range or from someone temporarily fleeing while still possessing lethal means. Why no, I'm not going to call a play fair timeout while you run to cover. So pretty soon we'll have another simplistic false narrative that if a back is turned it's always a bad shoot. Like "unarmed" has become. unarmed Mike Brown. Unarmed kid with an airsoft gun. Unarmed guy who kills you with a punch to the head.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I think this is gonna be what this case turns on
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner


And it will come down to whether the court believes the cops assertion that hecwas in fear for his safety.
If cops had the option of just letting them go it would be different but generally once they go hands on its root hog or die

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Blakenzy]

Very difficult to assert that he was in fear for his life, at least not in a reasonable way. He clearly seized a fleeing suspect by shooting him in the back.

My guess is that there was quite a bit of running before the face to face taser confrontation, both men were out of breath, cop said enough and shot him down to avoid further exertion.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I believe it will all hinge on whether he can be convincing in saying he thought guy had his taser. And whether he or the other cops lied on their reports. If he claims the guy still had tazer when he shot him and tries to fly that the tazer was found where cop dropped it hes toast. If hes truthful in his reports hes got a chance of remaining credible.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Monkeyleg]

I don't see how a guy who was pulled over for a busted tail light, and who tried to take a cop's taser, represents a threat to the cop or society when running away.

I wonder if there will still be riots now that the cop has been charged with murder?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Why do you think he was running? Why do folks run? And how do you determine why without grabbing them?
Contrary to popular tv most bad guys do not get caught by forensics or slick police work. They get caught for dead tags or something simple. When someone tries bush parole on a broken tail light it raises suspicions that they have more serious issues


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[brimic]

The guy was shot in the back running away.
Regardless of what happened the seconds before he ran, it's still murder- it doesn't matter if the runner hurt the cop's feelings/pride/nose, catch him later or another day.
If the runner was an escaped convict, or had just molested someone's kid, there is not the smallest doubt that the police union would already have had their press releases and propaganda machine running already.

[Boomhauer]

Uhm. Pretty sure that's murder.

Which is why the officer was arrested, charged with murder, and denied bail.

[Regolith]

Why do you think he was running?

He had a warrant for failure to pay child support (which is in itself stupid, because he can't pay it if he's in jail). Not exactly Al Capone.