Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on April 08, 2015, 10:00:35 AM
-
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.
-
Videos like this are why some cops and politicians would like to make it illegal to video police . . . :facepalm:
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
Uhm. Pretty sure that's murder.
Which is why the officer was arrested, charged with murder, and denied bail.
-
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.
-
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
Officer safety!
The video is pretty much the verdict. He f'ing squared up and took aim like it was target practice. Might as well have had a pack of dogs for the hunt.
He didn't look at all confused as to the location of the drop-item afterwards.
-
Lots of side issues related to the incident. SC has been under the gun so to speak for the number of police shooting after which offending LE is deemed clean and pure. Ferguson prompted some locales to reconsider the enthusiasm with which they purse shooting cops. Along comes this story which will attract the attention of the Usual Suspects. If they could put down the bullhorn for a while and investigate the entire pattern police shooting they could have everything they sought to create in Ferguson.
One immediate consequence will be expedited approval of bodycams. Necessary but hardly sufficient to highlight and fix the problem. This cop was busted by a private citizen filming a cop at work. Any legislation stopping the filming police at work should be canned immediately.
One last angle yet to receive attention is the initial explanation the officer put forward and how it varied from the event as recorded. Lots more on this one to come. Cop's attorney bailed out immediately upon seeing the video.
http://www.fitsnews.com/2015/04/08/sc-white-on-black-shooting-drama-the-latest/
-
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?
That was a rhetorical question, yes?
-
That was a rhetorical question, yes?
Sort of. He had free representation and the police were already reporting, on the basis of his statements that Mr. Scott was struggling with him for the taser, indeed, that he attempted to USE the taser on the officer.
The second part is my cynicism showing. Basically, from the video and reports of officer testimony, there should have been enough evidence to fire him and probably to charge him with murder even without the video, but sadly I think the video was necessary to actually get this result.
Evidence such as - location of shell casings, shot from behind, 5 times, rather than in front. Lack of flash burns indicating point blank range of shooting(within range of struggle). Etc...
-
Cops statement of incident was not at all similar to the video. That says it all that needs to be said. The idiot with a badge is a murderer. Plain and simple.
-
Cops statement of incident was not at all similar to the video. That says it all that needs to be said. The idiot with a badge is a murderer. Plain and simple.
I hope the person who took the video is able to remain anonymous -- cuz the cops will burn his house down if they find out who it is.
ETA: Associate Press just published the guy's name. :facepalm:
-
I hope the person who took the video is able to remain anonymous -- cuz the cops will burn his house down if they find out who it is.
ETA: Associate Press just published the guy's name. :facepalm:
Yep, they are going to Dorner his house down.
-
Officer safety!
The video is pretty much the verdict. He f'ing squared up and took aim like it was target practice. Might as well have had a pack of dogs for the hunt.
He didn't look at all confused as to the location of the drop-item afterwards.
Well, now that De Selby's chimed in, my mind is made up.
-
Well, now that De Selby's chimed in, my mind is made up.
Well, say what you want ..... something very unusual has happened.......
De Selby was right!!!
-
And mike geragos is on board too
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Well, say what you want ..... something very unusual has happened.......
De Selby was right!!!
More like if Me, you and others all agree with De Selby, then there is something so there that it can't be refuted- like 'water is wet.'
-
Well, say what you want ..... something very unusual has happened.......
De Selby was right!!!
Does this prove that he is capable of rational thought after all or was it just a once in a millennia alignment of the stars?
=D
-
Does this prove that he is capable of rational thought after all or was it just a once in a millennia alignment of the stars?
=D
Broken clock effect.
-
Does this prove that he is capable of rational thought after all or was it just a once in a millennia alignment of the stars?
=D
He has yet to tell us whether the police officer looks like a pervert. I await his judgment on the matter.
-
Getting back on topic: there is a crowdfunding effort for the officer's legal defense:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/04/09/sf-based-indiegogo-hosts-crowdfunding-for-defense-of-cop-accused-in-south-carolina-murder/
Apparently gofundme did not allow it, so they went to indiegogo.
-
We’re campaigning to show our Support for Officer Michael T. Slager! We believe in all of our LEOs and want to publicly support them! Although he may have made mis-steps in judgement he was protecting the community.
From what? This wasn't a "mis-step" that resulted in someone getting a parking ticket he didn't deserve. This was a "mis-step" that ended a person's life.
Michael is a former Coast Guardsman ...
So was the guy he killed.
... with two stepchildren and a wife who is expecting a child, served for more than five years with the department without being disciplined. Please help in any way you can. He has served five years with the department without being disciplined.
From the "damned by faint praise" department, I guess. So what we're saying is that Officer Slager is a bit on the slow side, and it took him five years before he stepped on his crank. (Although he did seem to move fairly briskly when he jogged back to move the taser over next to the victim's body.)
-
Fundraiser is a good example of the fact that some people don't care if the cops commit murder, if they don't like the victim.
-
Does this prove that he is capable of rational thought after all or was it just a once in a millennia alignment of the stars?
=D
Remember that the APS definition of rational thought requires comparison to tea party media releases - the general rule here is that if your posts could be from the comments box at a Ted Cruz rally, they will be deemed reasonable.
Anything else, like say, citing studies or putting together an argument that challenges the party line, is inherently irrational. Questioning basic American conservative beliefs here is like burning the Koran in Tehran.
If there hadn't been a video no doubt there'd be a great controversy and much attacking of the racial equality types who claim that police have an easier time shooting black people. An interesting hypothetical to consider is whether this video is at all realistic with a white victim.
-
Does the witness to the tussle change anything?
I would love to read the statements of all the cops. If the shooter or anyone else lied about where the taser ended up it's done. If they tell the truth I think he can beat the criminal charges, he could beat the firing too if there was a police union but I suspect there is not. If he beats the rap it's gonna get noisy
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Remember that the APS definition of rational thought requires comparison to tea party media releases - the general rule here is that if your posts could be from the comments box at a Ted Cruz rally, they will be deemed reasonable.
Anything else, like say, citing studies or putting together an argument that challenges the party line, is inherently irrational. Questioning basic American conservative beliefs here is like burning the Koran in Tehran.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa174%2FAniAmi14%2F10o2pzrjpg.gif&hash=e5cced03b221bb6071c6c7e2198e4766a6937b77)
If there hadn't been a video no doubt there'd be a great controversy and much attacking of the racial equality types who claim that police have an easier time shooting black people.
Any time there is little available evidence in a controversial case there are people who make broad statements without facts to back it up, and who will get very invested in the outcome on either side. Some or all of them will be wrong as to the facts of the specific case. Not sure why that is supposed to be interesting.
An interesting hypothetical to consider is whether this video is at all realistic with a white victim.
What do you mean? Whether or not it is realistic that a bad cop might (apparently) overreact and murder a white guy?
BeenDoneBro.pdf
-
Does the witness to the tussle change anything?
I would love to read the statements of all the cops. If the shooter or anyone else lied about where the taser ended up it's done. If they tell the truth I think he can beat the criminal charges, he could beat the firing too if there was a police union but I suspect there is not. If he beats the rap it's gonna get noisy
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You are very optimistic.
-
Remember that the APS definition of rational thought requires comparison to tea party media releases - the general rule here is that if your posts could be from the comments box at a Ted Cruz rally, they will be deemed reasonable.
Anything else, like say, citing studies or putting together an argument that challenges the party line, is inherently irrational. Questioning basic American conservative beliefs here is like burning the Koran in Tehran.
And you hang around, why? Bringing enlightenment to the fuzzy-wuzzies?
-
Plenty of shooting cases where the officer alleged that the suspect "charged towards" him in the absence of weapons or even physical contact. Maybe this guy could use the "charged away into the wild green yonder" defense/justification...
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jury trial=conviction in this case. I look at this video again and again and I see nothing but contempt for life in the officer's actions. There was a clear calculated and determined decision to kill the man. Look at the last shot that put him down. Pause... good sight alignment... bam!
-
I don't know with a jury all you need is one guy outa 12 to walk. A bench trial you get a judge who generally is more inclined to rule based on the law which is why in a case like this some guys chose a bench trial. A lot will depend on his lawyer and the assessment of the type of judge they will likely get
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
It's a shame there is no video of them on the ground and how it got from there to their feet again
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Despite what may have happened before the camera was rolling, at the time the shooting began there was no opportunity (distance), or intent (increasing distance/fleeing) to harm Slager. Specially notable at the moment of the last shot.
The whole thing just reeks of "you disrespected me so now I'm going to show you who is boss".
-
It's a shame there is no video of them on the ground and how it got from there to their feet again
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
How would that be relevant? Every time these threads come up, I'm most surprised to see the bizarre views on self defense. Multiple lawyers (and a magistrate) often chime in, but still we get the "castle shoot!" "I don't have to deescalate nothin!" and "he twitched!" type comments. Great for chest pounding, but not so great if any of the posters end up in a real life pickle.
I suppose jury nullification is possible. Not likely.
-
I think it will be relevant in that the cops story hinges upon " he grabbed my taser. If he can credibly articulate that he believed the guy to be armed with a weapon he had just taken the next level of force is bang. Its less an issue of what you or i see on video or feel than what he felt and experienced. According to the witness the cop was in control when they were on the ground. Somehow that changed. How that changed will either establish or fail to establish the degree of threat the cop felt. All that will be out the door if he lied about picking up the taser.
I know how desperate that guy felt seeing the lights come on behind him knowing he had warrants. And that much support he was not getting out. It sucks. Your whole life is collapsing your job will be gone likely car too and place to live. Its a trainwreck .
When his brother described him as running for his life it was accurate. But that decision is the last bad one in a series that gets a lot of guys jacked up.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
How would that be relevant? Every time these threads come up, I'm most surprised to see the bizarre views on self defense. Multiple lawyers (and a magistrate) often chime in, but still we get the "castle shoot!" "I don't have to deescalate nothin!" and "he twitched!" type comments. Great for chest pounding, but not so great if any of the posters end up in a real life pickle.
And even people who were doggedly, insistently, high-handedly, 100% wrong about a high-profile shooting still come back with the same arrogance, about the next high-profile shooting.
-
And even people who were doggedly, insistently, high-handedly, 100% wrong about a high-profile shooting still come back with the same arrogance, about the next high-profile shooting.
Ah yes - fistful lecturing on forum etiquette. That is even more funny than considering how one might escape the murder rap when caught on video taking careful aim at a guy who is running away at distance.
-
Ah yes - fistful lecturing on forum etiquette.
Lecturing you on etiquette? No. I'm just expressing my amazement that you would ever again express an opinion, in this forum, on whether or not a shooting is justified.
OK, probably too harsh. Even the lofty and venerable fistful has been wrong at times. The internet is a silly place.
-
Remember that the APS definition of rational thought requires comparison to tea party media releases - the general rule here is that if your posts could be from the comments box at a Ted Cruz rally, they will be deemed reasonable.
Anything else, like say, citing studies or putting together an argument that challenges the party line, is inherently irrational. Questioning basic American conservative beliefs here is like burning the Koran in Tehran.
If there hadn't been a video no doubt there'd be a great controversy and much attacking of the racial equality types who claim that police have an easier time shooting black people. An interesting hypothetical to consider is whether this video is at all realistic with a white victim.
If you really feel that way, why do you stay?
There's been plenty of debate and disagreement on this forum; few here "tow any party line," many here disdain standard republican puffery as much as libtard lunacy.
As far as the video is concerned, while it atleast does show, rather convincingly, that the police officer actually did commit a murder, it does not explain (to me, atleast) precisely what the officer's motives were.
Was he the long sought after white racist cop hunting down the proverbial black man?
Or did the cop simply shoot the guy because (whatever his skin color was) he was commiting "contempt of cop" by running?
Do you have any incisive thoughts on the matter? [tinfoil] Enlighten me, please. :angel:
-
Fundraiser is a good example of the fact that some people don't care if the cops commit murder, if they don't like the victim.
Or just have unconditional support for the police. After all, in 2-3 days, he only managed to get 55 people to pony up less than $30 each.
I remember a guy promising to use the money to learn how to bake cupcakes got more money.
-
I've stayed out of this one until now. Frankly, I've been busy with work and life. I've also been thinking this shooting through, trying to think of the arguments on both sides. It's what a lawyer does, or at least should do.
I will fully admit that the Martin outcome surprised me. Not to speak for him, but I'd bet a box of .45 that it surprised DeSelby, too. But, would the outcome of that trial change the way I approach defense situations? Not at all. And I would give the same advice to someone after that verdict as I did before. I still think Zimmerman made a bad choice to leave his car, and it cost him. Fortunately for him, not his life.
Also, I freely admit that I am in general an LEO supporter. Too many years carrying my own badge as a prosecutor, working with LEOs every day. It's who I am.
Now, in this situation, I can't find a way to defend this officer. The video just lays out a factual scenario I can't find a defense for. The shooting of a man running away is bad enough. Then you have what very much appears to be the cop tampering with the crime scene by taking the taser from the spot where he had fired the shots and dropping it next to the body. You add lies in the statements about providing first aid and performing CPR on the subject...
Like I said, I support LEOs. But I have also prosecuted LEOs. And it looks to me that this one needs prosecuted.
-
I have to agree with our resident councilors. (Da boat of dem :P). This was an execution pure and simple. Once the suspect/subject broke contact and started running away the option to use (any) force ends. Whatever had happened prior to that does not matter.
This was murder, tampering with a crime scene, and falsifying a police report among others.
The officer deserves the death penalty. (which surely would have been the case had the officer been killed)Both for what he did and pour encourager les autres.
-
I will fully admit that the Martin outcome surprised me. Not to speak for him, but I'd bet a box of .45 that it surprised DeSelby, too. But, would the outcome of that trial change the way I approach defense situations? Not at all. And I would give the same advice to someone after that verdict as I did before. I still think Zimmerman made a bad choice to leave his car, and it cost him. Fortunately for him, not his life.
It surprised a lot of people; me included. Some people were just more high-handed in predicting that outcome (or even advocating for it).
-
Sure, I think a lot of us were surprised by Zimmerman's acquittal. Recall the blatantly dishonest media narratives and tremendous social/political pressures against Zimmerman. I didn't expect a fair trial, I expected a thinly-veiled lynching, and I was pleasantly surprised to be wrong.
I think the difference is that De Selby still believes Zimmerman deserved that lynching.
-
To be honest, the past history with Treyvon Martin and Mike Brown has me wary of the current episode in South Carolina. In both of the earlier cases the media portrayals were completely wrong and completely dishonest, even including doctored tapes and photos.
At this same point in the Zimmerman story, if you believed the media you thought that Zimmerman was a racist and that he chased Martin around the subdivision. Both of those proved to be false.
I've not seen the raw video of the Walter Scott shooting, only media reports and replays. How can I trust that the media hasn't somehow cooked the books on this one, too, just like they did in the past?
-
Really? How could the video be misinterpreted? (That's an honest question)
Unless Slager can convincingly argue that he knew Scott had a firearm on his person, there was ZERO threat to him at the time of the shooting. You know, I could go as far as to forgive one or two shots, adrenaline, fear and confusion and all, but by the time the 8th shot was fired, Scott was nothing that could be called a threat. Slager shot to put Scott down. The word that best describes his actions would be "predatory", not defensive. It was comparable to a scene from a hunting shoot.
So here is another question: do police have the right to kill you for not submitting to authority?
-
Really? How could the video be misinterpreted? (That's an honest question)
Don't know. But I do know they've done stuff like that before, and I do know not to trust them.
As an example only, the video doesn't show the whole encounter between Scott and the cop. At least, not the video I saw. It starts with Scott turning and running and the cop drawing and firing. Why did either man do what he did? Can't tell from the video. Maybe that makes a difference. Maybe not
I feel like I don't have the whole story, and I feel like I can't trust the media to play straight with incomplete evidence.
-
FWIW CNN and their corporate bimbo Erin whatshername immediately went with the WHITE COP SHOOTS BLACK MAN headline. Clearly sensationalist to say the least. So I do share your distrust of media portrayal of events. Not objective at all. But man, that video is damning.
-
You know, I could go as far as to forgive one or two shots, adrenaline, fear and confusion and all,
Are you joking. You can forgive one or two shots!! Murder lite??? If he can't control his composure, adrenaline, overcome fear (he applied for a job that you deal with unknowns), and if he is confused easily....HE HAS NO NEED TO BE NEAR A BADGE, GUN, OR WALKING AROUND IN SOCIETY.
one or two shots. Jeez
-
An interesting analysis
It will not fit the narrative
Pay attention to the frame by frame of the cop and the dead guy where the taser is visible
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/10/the-walter-scott-shooting-backstory-begins-to-surface-a-newer-bolder-julison-strategy/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Are you joking. You can forgive one or two shots!! Murder lite??? If he can't control his composure, adrenaline, overcome fear (he applied for a job that you deal with unknowns), and if he is confused easily....HE HAS NO NEED TO BE NEAR A BADGE, GUN, OR WALKING AROUND IN SOCIETY.
one or two shots. Jeez
Well yes, one or two shots could have been argued for as being taken during a moment of uncertainty of what Scott's next move would be, and when it was clearly apparent that he was disengaging, if no further shots were taken, that would show restraint and that Slager did not intend to kill Scott, just keep him away. Shooting while Scott was 20+ yards away until he collapsed is an entirely different thing. Personally, I think that Slager knew from moment one that Scott was fleeing and not interested in fighting, but I'm playing a bit devils advocate here OK?
-
That would work were it not for the witnessed fight
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Sure, I think a lot of us were surprised by Zimmerman's acquittal. Recall the blatantly dishonest media narratives and tremendous social/political pressures against Zimmerman. I didn't expect a fair trial, I expected a thinly-veiled lynching, and I was pleasantly surprised to be wrong.
I think the difference is that De Selby still believes Zimmerman deserved that lynching.
I was less surprised by the verdict I guess. I was hoping for acquittal and would have been disappointed in anything else. At the beginning, I ignored the story for a few days or a week. By the time I read through all the discussion, a lot of the misinformation and lies had been called out and the events that transpired were more straightforward. After that, no credible new evidence ever showed up that went against the Zimmerman.
On this case, I have not watched the video, but have heard and seen lots of discussion. I can't come up with a good reason for shooting the unarmed, guy who is fleeing. I keep trying to double check to make I am not being a Monday Morning Quarterback, but I can't come with any good reason to do it. Yes, I need to go watch the videos and want to see all the video, but mainly to see if anything occured that wasn't known. I don't want to see anyone railroaded, but if he shot the guy for no good reason it should be at least manslaughter or worse.
I have heard there was dash cam video and the officer had a micophone on his person. I am not sure if that video/audio has been released or not.
-
It was released yesterday its pretty tame till you can hear audio of the cop hollering taser. I heard someone say they heard shots but i haven't
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
An interesting analysis
It will not fit the narrative
Pay attention to the frame by frame of the cop and the dead guy where the taser is visible
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/10/the-walter-scott-shooting-backstory-begins-to-surface-a-newer-bolder-julison-strategy/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
And? He was fleeing and no longer had control of the taser.
But you and your cop love, you'll hunt for any justification.
-
And? He was fleeing and no longer had control of the taser.
But you and your cop love, you'll hunt for any justification.
That article is quite funny - Marion Barry fans should do a parody breakdown of the crack bust.
-
Thats same folks that uncovered some of the travon case nonsense as well as the audio of the witness to the mike brown shooting.
They are 2for 2 so far
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
I think it will be relevant in that the cops story hinges upon " he grabbed my taser. If he can credibly articulate that he believed the guy to be armed with a weapon he had just taken the next level of force is bang. Its less an issue of what you or i see on video or feel than what he felt and experienced.
True, the legal doctrine is based on what the shooter reasonably believed to the the facts, rather than what the facts might have been. But ... the legal doctrine is based on what the shooter REASONABLY believed to be the facts. The video clearly shows the victim running away from the officer. What difference would it make if the officer believed that the victim had possession of the taser? Even if the victim had the officer's taser in his hand, he was making no attempt to deploy it, and he was not in any way posing a threat to the officer. He was running away.
The officer did not look, as he started shooting, like a man in fear for his life. He looked like a man plinking targets at a shooting range on a Saturday afternoon.
If the face of the video, I don't think his "I was in fear for my life" claim is going to go anywhere.
-
Cop would still have to take him in. If he had the taser the allowable methodology took a shift. If he did not guild the lily in his statement hes got a shot .
Remember those 2 border patrol guys got shafted for shooting the dope smuggler in the butt? What screwed them was lies and coverup. If they had told the truth it woukda ended up with an unpaid vacation and a reprimand. They lies their way into the penitentiary. And it was testimony from other agents that sank the hook
What does a man in fear for his life look like?
I think the audio of his dispatch calls as well as from his mic recording tomdash cam will be important
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
What does a man in fear for his life look like?
Afraid.
Remember a year or two back when two NYPD officers took down a guy who had just shot someone in (or near) the Empire State Building? They were closer than this guy. The two officers fired a total of 16 shots -- resulting in nine wounded pedestrian bystanders. IIRC, they hit the actual perp twice.
That's what a man in fear for his life looks like. He be a sprayin' an' a prayin'. [FYI, I have been that man -- when my M16 jammed during a night firefight in Vietnam. I don't actually know what it looked like, but I sure as bleep know what it felt like.]
-
Cop would still have to take him in. If he had the taser the allowable methodology took a shift. If he did not guild the lily in his statement hes got a shot .
Remember those 2 border patrol guys got shafted for shooting the dope smuggler in the butt? What screwed them was lies and coverup. If they had told the truth it woukda ended up with an unpaid vacation and a reprimand. They lies their way into the penitentiary. And it was testimony from other agents that sank the hook
What does a man in fear for his life look like?
I think the audio of his dispatch calls as well as from his mic recording tomdash cam will be important
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Sorry, but the facts did in the BP agents, not the lies. Your understanding of the legal system from an "insiders" perspective doesn't substitue for advice.
Hawkmoon is spot on here. The officers gun, btw, is not a compliance tool. It's a self defense tool. It isn't to be rolled out because the cuffs failed - no jurisdiction in America recognises an LE right to use lethal force to achieve compliance with a direction.
-
Lecturing you on etiquette? No. I'm just expressing my amazement that you would ever again express an opinion, in this forum, on whether or not a shooting is justified.
OK, probably too harsh. Even the lofty and venerable fistful has been wrong at times. The internet is a silly place.
The Internet is awash with clowns and clown like behaviour.
-
Sorry, but the facts did in the BP agents, not the lies. Your understanding of the legal system from an "insiders" perspective doesn't substitue for advice.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Afraid.
Remember a year or two back when two NYPD officers took down a guy who had just shot someone in (or near) the Empire State Building? They were closer than this guy. The two officers fired a total of 16 shots -- resulting in nine wounded pedestrian bystanders. IIRC, they hit the actual perp twice.
That's what a man in fear for his life looks like. He be a sprayin' an' a prayin'. [FYI, I have been that man -- when my M16 jammed during a night firefight in Vietnam. I don't actually know what it looked like, but I sure as bleep know what it felt like.]
I thought the officer in this case hit the guy 5 out of 8 times and that was shooting fairly fast. I would say that was pretty good shooting for doing it fast under stress.
Regarding NYPD, there are multiple cases of officers from that department spraying and praying. I don't know if they are good examples to draw useful conclusions except as examples of the low end.
-
Doesn't NY require a heavier trigger pull?
-
Doesn't NY require a heavier trigger pull?
Yep. 11 lbs rather than 5.5 lbs.
-
The Internet is awash with clowns and clown like behaviour.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsforum.org%2Fimages%2Fflame_warriors%2Fclown.jpg&hash=c542da99c619578aadbd87ebe1e34045aec0a06c)
http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/flame_34.php
(I have a signed print of this in my office)
-
I thought the officer in this case hit the guy 5 out of 8 times and that was shooting fairly fast. I would say that was pretty good shooting for doing it fast under stress.
That is correct. I submit that's proof enough for me that he wasn't afraid for his life. Then look at the video. He wasn't shooting one-handed, wildly, spraying and praying. He stood there, assumed a classic Weaver stance, and took eight AIMED shots. I assure you, that's not a man who was afraid for his life.
Regarding NYPD, there are multiple cases of officers from that department spraying and praying. I don't know if they are good examples to draw useful conclusions except as examples of the low end.
They are useful to demonstrate the difference between a man who is in fear for his life, and a man who is taking target practice with a human target.
-
Your understanding of the legal system from an "insiders" perspective doesn't substitute for advice.
But, CSD, if you find out the cop looks like a pervert, that could be vital information.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=33872.msg678208#msg678208
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=34534.msg693483#msg693483
You make it too easy, dude. :P
-
But, CSD, if you find out the cop looks like a pervert, that could be vital information.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=33872.msg678208#msg678208
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=34534.msg693483#msg693483
You make it too easy, dude. :P
I love it - you're stretching to try and relate Zimmerman to this case, and you end up quoting posts that perfectly describe how Zimmerman has behaved since the trial (multiple dv calls, road rage, traffic offences). He was always bad news for gun owners, still is. I think bob's photo is the best description of your behaviour on this thread.
-
I'm not a mod and I don't aspire to be a mod but I say the personal sniping at each other needs to go.
230RN has pointed out the slide in the "polite" part of this site and I agree. Also I'm aware and know I have stepped out of line many times myself much to my own chagrin.
Lets just self police ourselves better.
-
This is done for now. Debate the issue and not the person, no matter how much you dislike him/her.