# Police officer charged with murder



## MO_cows

It appears that the justice system is working properly in this case, and the race rabble rousers didn't even have to show up, and nobody had to burn down a town or anything. The (black) man ran from the (white) police officer after getting pulled over, which he shouldn't have. But a busted brake light and evading is no excuse for the use of deadly force.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/us/south-carolina-officer-charged-murder/


----------



## Woolieface

Wonder why police brutality against white and other ethnicities don't ever get a mention. Just had it come in to my life, so I surely know it happens.


----------



## Harry Chickpea

Saw the clip. The death penalty is too good for that excuse for a human.


----------



## HDRider

I saw the clip too. That certainly looked indefeasible and inexcusable. 

It looked horrific.


----------



## MoonRiver

MO_cows said:


> It appears that the justice system is working properly in this case, and the race rabble rousers didn't even have to show up, and nobody had to burn down a town or anything. The (black) man ran from the (white) police officer after getting pulled over, which he shouldn't have. But a busted brake light and evading is no excuse for the use of deadly force.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/us/south-carolina-officer-charged-murder/


You're leaving out what happened between when he initially ran away and when he was shot. There is no evidence that I have seen that indicates he was shot because of a busted tail light and evading the police.

He was stopped because of a busted tail light. That much everyone seems to agree with. So why did he flee from the car? This we don't know.

_The policeman caught up with him. We don't know what happened at this point, but it appears there was some type of physical altercation. 
_
Then the man flees again and is shot.

Until we know the circumstances of the italicized paragraph, we really don't why the policeman shot the man. At this point, the shooting seems to be unjustified, but we don't have all the facts.

If the policeman believed the man had taken his Taser from him, would that be enough of a threat to shoot him? Maybe the 1st shot when it looks like the man might be trying to pick up the Taser, but once he runs away I would think the policeman should have stopped shooting. Maybe he thought the man still had the Taser and that made him armed and dangerous.

Unfortunately, we have another case where a person refuses to follow a cops instructions and it ends in his death. If the guy hadn't run from the car in the 1st place, he would still be alive; but that point seems to be lost by everyone.


----------



## mmoetc

MoonRiver said:


> You're leaving out what happened between when he initially ran away and when he was shot. There is no evidence that I have seen that indicates he was shot because of a busted tail light and evading the police.
> 
> He was stopped because of a busted tail light. That much everyone seems to agree with. So why did he flee from the car? This we don't know.
> 
> _The policeman caught up with him. We don't know what happened at this point, but it appears there was some type of physical altercation.
> _
> Then the man flees again and is shot.
> 
> Until we know the circumstances of the italicized paragraph, we really don't why the policeman shot the man. At this point, the shooting seems to be unjustified, but we don't have all the facts.
> 
> If the policeman believed the man had taken his Taser from him, would that be enough of a threat to shoot him? Maybe the 1st shot when it looks like the man might be trying to pick up the Taser, but once he runs away I would think the policeman should have stopped shooting. Maybe he thought the man still had the Taser and that made him armed and dangerous.
> 
> Unfortunately, we have another case where a person refuses to follow a cops instructions and it ends in his death. If the guy hadn't run from the car in the 1st place, he would still be alive; but that point seems to be lost by everyone.


You mean the taser that the officer appears to have picked up, walked over and dropped next to the dead man?


----------



## where I want to

I can't see any reason that would justify what I saw on the section of video that the news played. The officer could not have been in fear of his life. He appeared to do it in very cold blood. I can't concoct any story that would account for it. For the officer to have not even attempted anything else before shooting even if the deceased was identified as armed and dangerous from a previous activity.
I would not convict him based on the video but it certainly merits a trial. No question as in other cases having been in the news. I suspect that would be true even if there were no video- shot in the back because he had a tazer? It might have been a slower process, waiting for the autopsy but the same conclusion.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

mmoetc said:


> You mean the taser that the officer appears to have picked up, walked over and dropped next to the dead man?


That s the truly scary and disturbing part. 
I have a feeling that, if it turns out that the officer's AAR was written before the private video hit the media, the officer will have stated that the suspect took his taser and was pointing it at him as he ran away.

If this is the case, or was the officer's intent (as it clearly appears to have been), then, if the private video wasn't there to catch it, this situation, at worst, would have been drummed up into another Ferguson-esque episode, but the officer would have gotten away with it.

It has to make one wonder how often this happens, and we never get the real story.

The aspect of this event that I wish would get reported, but will never see the light of day, is how, in general, the right/conservative/white populace is viewing this as a pretty clear case of murder and law enforcement abuse of power. Several guys I work with had this conversation this morning.

Those of us who viewed the killing of Brown as a justified use of force were accused of only seeing it that way because we were racists. However, the same group of conservative, god-fearing, Caucasians look at this event and see it as murder. 

All that considered, when the chips fell in Ferguson, and even the DOJ couldn't find a way, desperately as they wanted, to bring down charges, the rhetoric became "the 'hand's up, don't shoot' mantra was indicative of how sick our society is and just illustrated the true racist underpinnings of our LE community". Even though it wasn't true in Ferguson, it was somehow proof that it was true and happening everywhere else.

...then it happened, on video, in North Charleston. 

This event will be twisted to bolster the fabricated injustice claimed in Ferguson when, viewed honestly, it should be taken to prove that when this sort of thing happens, the people are (almost) universally outraged, but, when events are falsified to show racism where there was none, most of us are mature and thoughtful enough to recognize it for what it is - race-baiting. Instead, this event will be used to manipulate the less-thoughtful among us.


----------



## mmoetc

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That s the truly scary and disturbing part.
> I have a feeling that, if it turns out that the officer's AAR was written before the private video hit the media, the officer will have stated that the suspect took his taser and was pointing it at him as he ran away.
> 
> If this is the case, or was the officer's intent (as it clearly appears to have been), then, if the private video wasn't there to catch it, this situation, at worst, would have been drummed up into another Ferguson-esque episode, but the officer would have gotten away with it.
> 
> It has to make one wonder how often this happens, and we never get the real story.
> 
> The aspect of this event that I wish would get reported, but will never see the light of day, is how, in general, the right/conservative/white populace is viewing this as a pretty clear case of murder and law enforcement abuse of power. Several guys I work with had this conversation this morning.
> 
> Those of us who viewed the killing of Brown as a justified use of force were accused of only seeing it that way because we were racists. However, the same group of conservative, god-fearing, Caucasians look at this event and see it as murder.
> 
> All that considered, when the chips fell in Ferguson, and even the DOJ couldn't find a way, desperately as they wanted, to bring down charges, the rhetoric became "the 'hand's up, don't shoot' mantra was indicative of how sick our society is and just illustrated the true racist underpinnings of our LE community". Even though it wasn't true in Ferguson, it was somehow proof that it was true and happening everywhere else.
> 
> ...then it happened, on video, in North Charleston.
> 
> This event will be twisted to bolster the fabricated injustice claimed in Ferguson when, viewed honestly, it should be taken to prove that when this sort of thing happens, the people are (almost) universally outraged, but, when events are falsified to show racism where there was none, most of us are mature and thoughtful enough to recognize it for what it is - race-baiting. Instead, this event will be used to manipulate the less-thoughtful among us.


It it shouldn't take video to justify an independent investigation. What if the videographer hadn't done such a good job? What if he only had eye witness testimony to give? How many of those you say are outraged this morning would be equally dismissive and claim it was just another trumped up Ferguson? The questions a&#322;ways deserve to be asked.


----------



## Old Vet

Why wait on a trial just hang him and get it over with. No need to spend tax money on something like this just hang him.


----------



## MoonRiver

mmoetc said:


> You mean the taser that the officer appears to have picked up, walked over and dropped next to the dead man?


But you don't know that the officer knew the man had dropped the Taser. He might have thought he still had it. At some point he knew it was on the ground, but when he knew it is an unknown.

I'm not defending the officer, but I believe there are many unknowns at this point.


----------



## mmoetc

MoonRiver said:


> But you don't know that the officer knew the man had dropped the Taser. He might have thought he still had it. At some point he knew it was on the ground, but when he knew it is an unknown.


And the justification for tampering with evidence and disturbing the scene by picking up the taser and dropping it next to the body( alledgedly) was to make it easier to find, right? To keep someone from accidently stumbling across it and hurting them self? I'm willing to withhold final judgement until a trial and the officer can explain his actions.


----------



## MO_cows

mmoetc said:


> It it shouldn't take video to justify an independent investigation. What if the videographer hadn't done such a good job? What if he only had eye witness testimony to give? How many of those you say are outraged this morning would be equally dismissive and claim it was just another trumped up Ferguson? The questions a&#322;ways deserve to be asked.


I would think the eye witnesses would be telling the truth and therefore be more consistent and believable than the ones in Ferguson. Many of the Ferguson witnesses persisted in the "hands up" fantasy or changed their stories too many times to be believed. 

I haven't seen the autopsy mentioned, maybe it's not complete, but that will tell the tale here just as it did with Brown. It should be compelling evidence to corroborate the witness accounts. 

You sell a lot of people here short! Nobody wants a bad cop to get away with murder and would look at the case objectively without "stereotyping" it.


----------



## MO_cows

MoonRiver said:


> You're leaving out what happened between when he initially ran away and when he was shot. There is no evidence that I have seen that indicates he was shot because of a busted tail light and evading the police.
> 
> He was stopped because of a busted tail light. That much everyone seems to agree with. So why did he flee from the car? This we don't know.
> 
> _The policeman caught up with him. We don't know what happened at this point, but it appears there was some type of physical altercation.
> _
> Then the man flees again and is shot.
> 
> Until we know the circumstances of the italicized paragraph, we really don't why the policeman shot the man. At this point, the shooting seems to be unjustified, but we don't have all the facts.
> 
> If the policeman believed the man had taken his Taser from him, would that be enough of a threat to shoot him? Maybe the 1st shot when it looks like the man might be trying to pick up the Taser, but once he runs away I would think the policeman should have stopped shooting. Maybe he thought the man still had the Taser and that made him armed and dangerous.
> 
> *Unfortunately, we have another case where a person refuses to follow a cops instructions and it ends in his death. *If the guy hadn't run from the car in the 1st place, he would still be alive; but that point seems to be lost by everyone.


I guess if we follow that logic, we'll start issuing rocket launchers or grenades to cops and they can just blow up the cars that won't pull over?


----------



## Nevada

MO_cows said:


> I would think the eye witnesses would be telling the truth and therefore be more consistent and believable than the ones in Ferguson. Many of the Ferguson witnesses persisted in the "hands up" fantasy or changed their stories too many times to be believed.


They why do you suppose Michael Slager wasn't charged with murder days earlier based on eye witness accounts?


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> They why do you suppose Michael Slager wasn't charged with murder days earlier based on eye witness accounts?


Sometimes charges are filed before the body gets cold, sometimes it takes more time. 

Again, haven't seen the autopsy mentioned so they might have been waiting for it, but then the video surfaced. 

The wheels of justice are turning yet you want to nit pick about how they roll. There wasn't a media blitz and demonstrations and that whole dog and pony show, yet people are still doing the right thing for the victim and pressing charges. The glass is half full.


----------



## Harry Chickpea

"*Unfortunately, we have another case where a person refuses to follow a cops instructions and it ends in his death. *If the guy hadn't run from the car in the 1st place, he would still be alive; but that point seems to be lost by everyone."

My automatic kick-in of "examine your emotions before you post" tripped on this.

What seems to be lost on you is that there is no guarantee that he would still be alive. We do have evidence that unreasonable force WAS used and no evidence that the officer was acting in accordance with any standard of law that would be acceptable in this country.

What seems to be lost on you is that defending the indefensible weakens any arguments you may have supporting police that actually do their jobs and act in the best interest of society and the citizenry.

What seems to be lost on you is that shooting someone in the back is a heinous, cowardly and evil action that has been despised long before the days of the wild west.

What seems to be lost on you is that allowing such behavior by an enforcement agency will ultimately result in vigilante justice and the growth of gangs to counter the unbridled power of a group out of control.


----------



## Nevada

MO_cows said:


> Sometimes charges are filed before the body gets cold, sometimes it takes more time.
> 
> Again, haven't seen the autopsy mentioned so they might have been waiting for it, but then the video surfaced.
> 
> The wheels of justice are turning yet you want to nit pick about how they roll. There wasn't a media blitz and demonstrations and that whole dog and pony show, yet people are still doing the right thing for the victim and pressing charges. The glass is half full.


I'm skeptical. I believe that without the video the cop would have gotten away with it.


----------



## where I want to

mmoetc said:


> It it shouldn't take video to justify an independent investigation. What if the videographer hadn't done such a good job? What if he only had eye witness testimony to give? How many of those you say are outraged this morning would be equally dismissive and claim it was just another trumped up Ferguson? The questions a&#322;ways deserve to be asked.


Because the scene and autopsy would have confirmed witnesses testimony in an investigation here and would have needed the time to arrive before arrest. The video just provided enough evidence earlier.
Whereas that was just the opposite in the Ferguson case- the autopsy and scene data did not confirm the wildly inaccurate and various witnesses.
There is a world of difference between conducting an investigation with the intent of determining the facts then making an arrest if appropriate and assuming the officer is guilty arresting him then getting the facts to prove the case later.
If you assume that the police are guilty of a crime in each case, then nothing they can do will make you happy- it does not matter if they are right or wrong. If you assume that a delay in making an arrest is proof of wrong, the same. 
Should it surprise anyone that, if a policeman thinks himself that he did wrong, he would plant evidence to justify himself? Does that make every policeman guilty because the evidence might be planted? Or does it make it clear that such cases are hard to resolve correctly even with the best efforts? That it is simply never going to be as simple as a TV?
If everyone stopped acting from their own emotions and anger it would be much more likely to resolved.


----------



## mmoetc

MO_cows said:


> I would think the eye witnesses would be telling the truth and therefore be more consistent and believable than the ones in Ferguson. Many of the Ferguson witnesses persisted in the "hands up" fantasy or changed their stories too many times to be believed.
> 
> I haven't seen the autopsy mentioned, maybe it's not complete, but that will tell the tale here just as it did with Brown. It should be compelling evidence to corroborate the witness accounts.
> 
> You sell a lot of people here short! Nobody wants a bad cop to get away with murder and would look at the case objectively without "stereotyping" it.


So you believed the initial eyewitness testimony in Ferguson? Before stories were changed. Why would this person be more or less believable than the initial accounts in Ferguson. I'm selling no one short. Many here are are capable of looking at things and making rational decisions. Some aren't.


----------



## MoonRiver

MO_cows said:


> I guess if we follow that logic, we'll start issuing rocket launchers or grenades to cops and they can just blow up the cars that won't pull over?


A does not imply B.

But compliance does tend to keep one alive.


----------



## MoonRiver

Harry Chickpea said:


> "*Unfortunately, we have another case where a person refuses to follow a cops instructions and it ends in his death. *If the guy hadn't run from the car in the 1st place, he would still be alive; but that point seems to be lost by everyone."
> 
> My automatic kick-in of "examine your emotions before you post" tripped on this.
> 
> What seems to be lost on you is that there is no guarantee that he would still be alive. We do have evidence that unreasonable force WAS used and no evidence that the officer was acting in accordance with any standard of law that would be acceptable in this country.
> 
> What seems to be lost on you is that defending the indefensible weakens any arguments you may have supporting police that actually do their jobs and act in the best interest of society and the citizenry.
> 
> What seems to be lost on you is that shooting someone in the back is a heinous, cowardly and evil action that has been despised long before the days of the wild west.
> 
> What seems to be lost on you is that allowing such behavior by an enforcement agency will ultimately result in vigilante justice and the growth of gangs to counter the unbridled power of a group out of control.


All assumptions on your part.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

mmoetc said:


> It it shouldn't take video to justify an independent investigation. What if the videographer hadn't done such a good job? What if he only had eye witness testimony to give? How many of those you say are outraged this morning would be equally dismissive and claim it was just another trumped up Ferguson? The questions a&#322;ways deserve to be asked.


I don't think that anyone is saying that "questions" shouldn't be asked. 

All that us watching these events unfold have to base our opinions on is the evidence. 

In this case, the video is pretty damning. Now, granted, there could be circumstances that we don't see there that caused the officer to feel the need to shoot him, but what we CAN see pretty clearly shows the officer shooting a man that he had other _options_ in dealing with.

In the Ferguson case, the evidence that came out showed, with a relatively high level of confidence, that Brown created a situation where the officer could have very reasonably felt his life and/or others were in danger and he needed to kill Brown to eliminate the threat. 

I had no problem with the prosecutor in Ferguson investigating or even taking it to a Grand Jury. I think it was appropriate (the investigation, at least), and brought us closer to the transparent truth. 

If, though, I read your implication correctly regarding an "independent investigation", I believe that points exactly to the problem I was trying to illustrate in my last post. The push for the "independent investigation", and then the DOJ investigation in the Ferguson case, were seen by many as an attempt to keep shaking the tiles until you got the result some were expecting/hoping for. 

It seems that many on the "right" want to say that anytime a white/black shooting occurs, that the black person had it coming, and any investigation is a thinly veiled lynch mob. Likewise, it seems like many on the "left" see every white/black shooting as proof that whites with guns are just latter-day KKK out to kill a black person anytime they see an opportunity. In both instances, these people seem to take the view they hope to see, and fight for it to be true, even when the preponderance of evidence points the other way.

At the end of the day, we should all be willing/able to step back from our preconceived notions, look at the evidence with eyes open, and judge for ourselves. We certainly wouldn't all agree all the time, but I believe we would agree more often.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> Because the scene and autopsy would have confirmed witnesses testimony in an investigation here and would have needed the time to arrive before arrest.


Again, I'm not convinced. Physical evidence, even autopsy evidence, is open to interpretation. Again, I believe that without the video the cop would have gotten away with it. They would have assumed that the eye witnesses lied or were inconsistent enough to be meaningless, and that the the only way the taser ended up next to the body was if he took it, just like the cop said. That would have been the end of it.

If the cop had been arrested, or even suspected, three days earlier then it would be different. But the cop was walking around free right up until the video was released. The police didn't believe the eye witnesses, and the physical evidence was interpreted in the cop's favor.

If anything, this incident show how badly the system works.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> I'm skeptical. I believe that without the video the cop would have gotten away with it.


Because a policeman is rarely convicted? For you to assume that, you must assume it is really common for police to murder and cover up the crime. It is just as possible to assume that police are mostly justified in their actions and such a murder is truly simply rare.
Wouldn't it be best to develop a less arbitrary standard of evaluation? Unfortunately, because the police are put in this position by their work, they do get the benefit of the doubt if the results are unclear and that will never satisfy haters.


----------



## HDRider

Eye witnesses have proven highly unreliable.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> Because a policeman is rarely convicted? For you to assume that, you must assume it is really common for police to murder and cover up the crime. It is just as possible to assume that police are mostly justified in their actions and such a murder is truly simply rare.
> Wouldn't it be best to develop a less arbitrary standard of evaluation? Unfortunately, because the police are put in this position by their work, they do get the benefit of the doubt if the results are unclear and that will never satisfy haters.


I would prefer to be less arbitrary, but I have no reason to be. I know how they take care of their own. They even admit it openly.


----------



## Nevada

HDRider said:


> Eye witnesses have proven highly unreliable.


What do you say about the reliability of a cop's testimony now?


----------



## mnn2501

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Those of us who viewed the killing of Brown as a justified use of force were accused of only seeing it that way because we were racists. However, the same group of conservative, god-fearing, Caucasians look at this event and see it as murder.


Correct

But I have to ask, why do some people choose to run away from cops?
My guess (as someone who has never had anything other than speeding tickets) is that they have a criminal background and possibly an open warrant or something on them they don't want the cops to find. That's no reason to kill them, but I have to wonder at the mentality of the runners -- of course I was always taught, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.


----------



## Woolieface

MoonRiver said:


> You're leaving out what happened between when he initially ran away and when he was shot. There is no evidence that I have seen that indicates he was shot because of a busted tail light and evading the police.
> 
> He was stopped because of a busted tail light. That much everyone seems to agree with. So why did he flee from the car? This we don't know.
> 
> _The policeman caught up with him. We don't know what happened at this point, but it appears there was some type of physical altercation.
> _
> Then the man flees again and is shot.
> 
> Until we know the circumstances of the italicized paragraph, we really don't why the policeman shot the man. At this point, the shooting seems to be unjustified, but we don't have all the facts.
> 
> If the policeman believed the man had taken his Taser from him, would that be enough of a threat to shoot him? Maybe the 1st shot when it looks like the man might be trying to pick up the Taser, but once he runs away I would think the policeman should have stopped shooting. Maybe he thought the man still had the Taser and that made him armed and dangerous.
> 
> Unfortunately, we have another case where a person refuses to follow a cops instructions and it ends in his death. If the guy hadn't run from the car in the 1st place, he would still be alive; but that point seems to be lost by everyone.


You know, people are afraid of the cops now. They have a reason to be. Fleeing is sometimes instinctive even if it is a bad idea. THESE ARE NOT REASONS TO MURDER SOMEONE. Saying no to a cop is not a reason to get murdered. Ever. Murder is murder. These people are not gods nor even deserve respect if what they amount to is bullies with a god complex.

The point is not lost on me. I get it. You say no to a cop and you might end up dead. But that is inexcusable.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> I would prefer to be less arbitrary, but I have no reason to be. I know how they take care of their own. They even admit it openly.


And with such unreasonable ideas abounding, is that any surprise?


----------



## where I want to

Deleted as not established


----------



## Nevada

mnn2501 said:


> GunMonkeyIntl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those of us who viewed the killing of Brown as a justified use of force were accused of only seeing it that way because we were racists. However, the same group of conservative, god-fearing, Caucasians look at this event and see it as murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct
Click to expand...

The problem is still there. You go along with this one because there is absolute proof of wrongdoing and lying, but absent that proof you assume that the eye witnesses were mistaken and interpret the evidence in favor of the cop.

The underlying problem is that black lives are just not as big of a deal as they should be in this country, so without absolute proof these cases don't usually go far.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> The problem is still there. You go along with this one because there is absolute proof of wrongdoing and lying, but absent that proof you assume that the eye witnesses were mistaken and interpret the evidence in favor of the cop.
> 
> The underlying problem is that black lives are just not as big of a deal as they should be in this country, so without absolute proof these cases don't usually go far.


Such a lot of assumption. Certainly black lives are held cheaply among black communities. This whole idea is way too simplistic to have any chance of being an explanation of anything. It's an emotion, not a thought.


----------



## MoonRiver

Woolieface said:


> You know, people are afraid of the cops now. They have a reason to be. Fleeing is sometimes instinctive even if it is a bad idea. THESE ARE NOT REASONS TO MURDER SOMEONE. Saying no to a cop is not a reason to get murdered. Ever. Murder is murder. These people are not gods nor even deserve respect if what they amount to is bullies with a god complex.
> 
> The point is not lost on me. I get it. You say no to a cop and you might end up dead. But that is inexcusable.


Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and now Walter Scott would all still be alive if they had complied with the police. 

There is a simple lesson here. Resisting arrest is a dangerous thing to do. Don't do it.

This is not an excuse for the police to use excessive force, but the fact that all 3 of these men took actions that resulted in their deaths should not be ignored.


----------



## where I want to

Same as above


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> Well, it turns out that the deceased and policeman knew each other.


I didn't see that. I read that they were both in the Coast Guard, but I don't know that they ever actually crossed paths. Do you have a link?


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> Such a lot of assumption. Certainly black lives are held cheaply among black communities. This whole idea is way too simplistic to have any chance of being an explanation of anything. It's an emotion, not a thought.


With0out the video how would you have explained away the taser being next to the body and the cop saying he took it? Now honestly, wouldn't you assume that he took the cops taser, just like the cop said?


----------



## doingitmyself

So class what have we learned here?

1. Don't resist arrest, it's not good for your health.

2. Don't attempt to take an Officers taser, it's bad for your health.

3. Don't drive with a broken tail light, you will get pulled over. It could be bad for your health.

4. Don't run from the cops, it's bad for your health.

Some folks just don't think they have to follow the rules of common sense, and rules that govern us all. The thing is there are more folks that think the same way, then they wonder why bad things like this happen. 

The man that got shot made A LOT of mistakes, some of the blame has to go on his shoulders as well. He paid a dear price for that. It may well be proven the cop made mistakes as well, if that happens I hope he will be held accountable as well.


----------



## AmericanStand

mnn2501 said:


> Correct
> 
> But I have to ask, why do some people choose to run away from cops ?.


My guess from my experience is because the cop told him he was going to kill him.


----------



## AmericanStand

doingitmyself said:


> So class what have we learned here?
> 
> 1. Don't resist arrest, it's not good for your health.
> 
> 2. Don't attempt to take an Officers taser, it's bad for your health.
> 
> 3. Don't drive with a broken tail light, you will get pulled over. It could be bad for your health.
> 
> 4. Don't run from the cops, it's bad for your health.
> 
> Some folks just don't think they have to follow the rules of common sense, and rules that govern us all. The thing is there are more folks that think the same way, then they wonder why bad things like this happen.
> 
> The man that got shot made A LOT of mistakes, some of the blame has to go on his shoulders as well. He paid a dear price for that. It may well be proven the cop made mistakes as well, if that happens I hope he will be held accountable as well.


Do you have ANY evidence for your points?


----------



## AmericanStand

Nevada said:


> The underlying problem is that black lives are just not as big of a deal as they should be in this country, so without absolute proof these cases don't usually go far.


I don't think its got anything to do with being black.
Its bring poor that gets them killed.
OJ ran a long ways in a car he could have killed with and they didn't shoot him.....


----------



## HDRider

Nevada said:


> What do you say about the reliability of a cop's testimony now?


Ferguson.


----------



## HDRider

Nevada said:


> The underlying problem is that black lives are just not as big of a deal as they should be in this country, so without absolute proof these cases don't usually go far.


That is a disgusting thing to say or think.


----------



## AmericanStand

MoonRiver said:


> Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and now Walter Scott would all still be alive if they had complied with the police.


LOL I think you have that backwards , Each of them would have been far better off if they had ran sooner .


----------



## MoonRiver

AmericanStand said:


> LOL I think you have that backwards , Each of them would have been far better off if they had ran sooner .


Do you mean instead of breaking the law?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Nevada said:


> The problem is still there. You go along with this one because there is absolute proof of wrongdoing and lying, but absent that proof you assume that the eye witnesses were mistaken and interpret the evidence in favor of the cop.


I think this statement just proves that you're in the "left" camp that is going to sympathize with the "victim" every time. You're conveniently forgetting, when posing your summation of how I came to my conclusion, that there were eye witnesses in the Ferguson case that came in favor of the cop. 

In that situation, we had witnesses that said that Brown put his hands up and said, "don't shoot", and we had witnesses who said that he attacked the cop through the window, and then charged back at him. So, one or both sides of the witness story were questionable - until the evidence came out and described exactly the scenario that the cop and those witnesses stated. 

Ferguson was not a case of witnesses vs. evidence. It was a case of witnesses' who's story matched the evidence vs. witnesses' who's stories did not.

Choosing to side with the witnesses who's story didn't align with the evidence shows a bias toward the side who's story is told the loudest and most often. 



Nevada said:


> The underlying problem is that black lives are just not as big of a deal as they should be in this country, so without absolute proof these cases don't usually go far.


Depending on what your metric is for a "big...deal", which, I assume, is public attention, empathy, and outcry, then black lives apparently matter more than others, especially when that life is snuffed out by a white person. The reason that we're talking about these two cases is specifically _because_ the ones who died were black. 

The real racists are calling the rest of us "racist" as a vehicle to advance their own racist agendas...and we're buying it. We gnash our teeth and rend our hair, castigating ourselves for not caring enough about black lives, while we have a national debate and devote a huge portion of our collective attention to the analysis of two dark skinned people killed by light skinned people. 

Lives matter.

The fact that we're arguing about why black lives don't matter more just shows that the things that now matter to us, are the things that shouldn't matter at all.


----------



## joseph97297

I agree that the 'victim' shoulders some responsibility. But to shoot a man in the back as he runs from you, that is just murder. 

When the cop has his trial, I wonder if his testimony will change due to the video? This is why it should be mandated that all officers have body-cams. Takes all of the he said, he said out of the equation. Protects both the cop and the citizen.

As for my personal view, someone who shoots another in the back as they are running away deserves the chair, or firing squad.


----------



## MoonRiver

The officer had no attorney and today was fired. I thought they were usually put on administrative leave when something like this happens. This guy has been found guilty by the media, the police department, the mayor, and just about everyone else. Sad.

Can he receive a far trial? I'm guessing he is likely to get convicted of murder 2, but he does deserve a fair trial with a presumption of innocence. I think the city was wrong to fire him. Leave with or without pay seems more appropriate.


----------



## painterswife

He deserves a fair trial and there may of course be evidence that we are not privy to. If I was asked to render a verdict on the evidence presented so far. ( of course it is not evidence until it is presented in court).

The police officer said he was in fear for his life because the man wrestled his taser away from him in his report.

The video shows him shooting at a man running away from him and then picking up a taser from many feet away and dropping it beside the body.

Guilty of murder.


----------



## AmericanStand

MoonRiver said:


> Do you mean instead of breaking the law?


:shrug:Either way would have been better than dead , don't you think?


----------



## AmericanStand

I have to wonder when people are saying in defense of the cops actions "Don't break the law and you wont die" If they have really been so perfect as to never have had a burnt out tail light?
Do people really believe that they THEMSELVES deserve to die for a burnt out bulb ,obscured plate, chipped windshield or some other random made up violation?


----------



## Roadking

Didn't take too long for Al "not so" Sharpton jumped in...
http://observer.com/2015/04/al-sharpton-calls-for-fedeal-police-laws-after-south-carolina-killing/

Matt


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> With0out the video how would you have explained away the taser being next to the body and the cop saying he took it? Now honestly, wouldn't you assume that he took the cops taser, just like the cop said?


First I have to apologize that not only can I not find the article that I thought said they knew each other but in checking around, it seems that all anyone seems to know now is that they both were in the Coast Guard, which means absolutely nothing. But my mistake points out that waiting for information that hasn't been disclosed might change the whole picture. 
Why people feel the rush to judge on such serious matters- it only makes their opinions unimportant- right or wrong it was not from understanding.

Now re: the taser- even if the deceased had taken it, it would have been no reason for him to have been shot in the back from 20 feet away. So I suspect it would be dismissed as evidence of anything relevant. It would be an inconsistency. Or even raised suspicions about the policeman's story.
But if the policeman had successfully covered up his crime, how would you been able to know, really know not just want it to be true, he actually committed a crime? You would have assumed so because you wanted that answer. Others would have assumed the opposite on the same reasoning. That means that neither is right. One has made a luckier choice than the other but no one will be able to prove it. And will continue emotion ridden and angry arguments that create nothing good. That is more typical of real life than an irrefutable answer.
No- the video makes things clearer, at least I think so at this point, easier maybe on this particular incident. And may lead to other things. But nothing more.


----------



## KentuckyDreamer

Harry Chickpea said:


> "*Unfortunately, we have another case where a person refuses to follow a cops instructions and it ends in his death. *If the guy hadn't run from the car in the 1st place, he would still be alive; but that point seems to be lost by everyone."
> 
> My automatic kick-in of "examine your emotions before you post" tripped on this.
> 
> What seems to be lost on you is that there is no guarantee that he would still be alive. We do have evidence that unreasonable force WAS used and no evidence that the officer was acting in accordance with any standard of law that would be acceptable in this country.
> 
> What seems to be lost on you is that defending the indefensible weakens any arguments you may have supporting police that actually do their jobs and act in the best interest of society and the citizenry.
> 
> What seems to be lost on you is that shooting someone in the back is a heinous, cowardly and evil action that has been despised long before the days of the wild west.
> 
> What seems to be lost on you is that allowing such behavior by an enforcement agency will ultimately result in vigilante justice and the growth of gangs to counter the unbridled power of a group out of control.


My heart flipped when I read your post.....I wish I could "like" this post until the cows come home!


----------



## Nimrod

This is the first of the recent incidents where a black man has been killed by the police that I think it was murder. The video shows an unarmed black man running away and he gets shot in the back. There is no way that the officer can claim that he feared for his life and was justified in killing the man. I am sure there will be a trial and the verdict will come down based on the evidence. 

I do not believe the whole nonsense about "black lives matter". In most of the country black lives matter. We are about to see an example of that in this case. 

I think what is happening is an attempt to divide the citizens of the US along racial lines, income lines, and any other divisive issue the current administration can use to get us fighting amongest ourselves while they seize power.


----------



## MoonRiver

Wlover said:


> He deserves a fair trial and there may of course be evidence that we are not privy to. If I was asked to render a verdict on the evidence presented so far. ( of course it is not evidence until it is presented in court).
> 
> The police officer said he was in fear for his life because the man wrestled his taser away from him in his report.
> 
> The video shows him shooting at a man running away from him and then picking up a taser from many feet away and dropping it beside the body.
> 
> Guilty of murder.


We don't have all the facts yet, but I'm thinking manslaughter.


----------



## KentuckyDreamer

AmericanStand said:


> I have to wonder when people are saying in defense of the cops actions "Don't break the law and you wont die" If they have really been so perfect as to never have had a burnt out tail light?
> Do people really believe that they THEMSELVES deserve to die for a burnt out bulb ,obscured plate, chipped windshield or some other random made up violation?


This premise can be far reaching. I am 60 years old and received my first traffic ticket on my 50th birthday ( for speeding ). Prior to that, clean record. Yet I was once pulled over and feared for my safely because I had bought a car from someone the police knew well. Not only was I inadvertently targeted, since I know I was doing nothing wrong, I can only assume that person would have been pulled over as a result of his past or grudges held.


----------



## MoonRiver

AmericanStand said:


> I have to wonder when people are saying in defense of the cops actions "Don't break the law and you wont die" If they have really been so perfect as to never have had a burnt out tail light?
> Do people really believe that they THEMSELVES deserve to die for a burnt out bulb ,obscured plate, chipped windshield or some other random made up violation?


Have you even read the article? He ran from the car when pulled over. The officer pursued him and caught up with him. Something happened at that point and he fled again. That's when he was shot.

The guy ran from the officer over a traffic stop! Then when he was caught, he ran again. You make it sound like the officer pulled him over and shot him because the tail light wasn't working.


----------



## AmericanStand

MoonRiver said:


> Have you even read the article? He ran from the car when pulled over. The officer pursued him and caught up with him. Something happened at that point and he fled again. That's when he was shot.
> 
> The guy ran from the officer over a traffic stop! Then when he was caught, he ran again. You make it sound like the officer pulled him over and shot him because the tail light wasn't working.



UM
Do you have some evidence he didn't?


From whats in evidence so far it sounds like the only mistake the victim made was to not run fast enough!
No mater what he did how can you justify the cop deciding on a death penalty?
Unless the cop just wanted to kill someone .

Do you even have any proof there was a burnt out tail light?


----------



## doingitmyself

AmericanStand said:


> Do you have ANY evidence for your points?


Anyone that needs more proof of these points is not worth the effort. You just seen what happens when you don't get with the plan., and follow directions. Get with the plan, and follow directions when authorities give you orders or get shot in the back, how much more proof would you need to have? Seriously.....


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> The problem is still there. You go along with this one because there is absolute proof of wrongdoing and lying, but absent that proof you assume that the eye witnesses were mistaken and interpret the evidence in favor of the cop.
> 
> The underlying problem is that black lives are just not as big of a deal as they should be in this country, so without absolute proof these cases don't usually go far.





Nevada said:


> The problem is still there. You go along with this one because there is absolute proof of wrongdoing and lying, but absent that proof you assume that the eye witnesses were mistaken and interpret the evidence in favor of the cop.
> 
> *The underlying problem is that black lives are just not as big of a deal as they should be in this country,* so without absolute proof these cases don't usually go far.


The WHOLE FREAKING WORLD, including the UN, followed the Brown case. That's about as "big a deal" as it gets! The current case is from North Carolina and yet all of us from all over the country know about it and care enough about it to post here. 

Where there is not enough concern and attention to black lives, it is black on black violence and never ending killings due to gangs and criminals in the "young black men" population. They kill each other and innocent bystanders on a daily basis, but where is all your concern for that? 

You have never posted a word about Angel Hooper or Machole Stewart, why don't you go look those cases up. White guilt liberals want to take up the causes of Martin and Brown, and assume that every black person killed by police is automatically a victim, yet nobody belches up a word when innocent little girls become collateral damage from criminal activity in their own neighborhoods. Machole could use a champion, nobody has come forward with any information yet. A sickening double standard. Just sickening.


----------



## Nevada

MO_cows said:


> The WHOLE FREAKING WORLD, including the UN, followed the Brown case. That's about as "big a deal" as it gets!


Black lives are a big deal to the UN, and even in Europe. Certainly a bigger deal that it is in the USA.


----------



## AmericanStand

doingitmyself said:


> Anyone that needs more proof of these points is not worth the effort. You just seen what happens when you don't get with the plan., and follow directions. Get with the plan, and follow directions when authorities give you orders or get shot in the back, how much more proof would you need to have? Seriously.....





doingitmyself said:


> So class what have we learned here?
> 
> 1. Don't resist arrest, it's not good for your health......


On the other hand he could just kill you anyway.



doingitmyself said:


> 2. Don't attempt to take an Officers taser, it's bad for your health......


On the other hand he could just kill you anyway.


doingitmyself said:


> 3. Don't drive with a broken tail light, you will get pulled over. It could be bad for your health......


On the other hand he could just kill you anyway.



doingitmyself said:


> 4. Don't run from the cops, it's bad for your health......


On the other hand he could just kill you anyway.



doingitmyself said:


> Some folks just don't think they have to follow the rules of common sense, and rules that govern us all. The thing is there are more folks that think the same way, then they wonder why bad things like this happen.
> 
> The man that got shot made A LOT of mistakes, some of the blame has to go on his shoulders as well. He paid a dear price for that. It may well be proven the cop made mistakes as well, if that happens I hope he will be held accountable as well.


But his mistakes didn't kill a cop.

So like I asked do you have any facts behind your points?


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> The officer had no attorney and today was fired. I thought they were usually put on administrative leave when something like this happens. This guy has been found guilty by the media, the police department, the mayor, and just about everyone else. Sad.
> 
> Can he receive a far trial? I'm guessing he is likely to get convicted of murder 2, but he does deserve a fair trial with a presumption of innocence. I think the city was wrong to fire him. Leave with or without pay seems more appropriate.


Aside from the criminal charge is the issue of his fitness to be a law enforcement officer. His story filed in the police report didn't match the events seen in the video clip. That means he filed a false police report, which is justified cause for termination. The police department doesn't need to hold a trial to fire an officer for cause.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> Aside from the criminal charge is the issue of his fitness to be a law enforcement officer. His story filed in the police report didn't match the events seen in the video clip. That means he filed a false police report, which is justified cause for termination. The police department doesn't need to hold a trial to fire an officer for cause.


It just seems like a rush to judgement to me. I don't know how long it takes to do an internal investigation, but I doubt if they completed one. The mayor thinks he can make it go away by firing the officer.


----------



## joseph97297

Manslaughter? Really? To shoot someone in the back as they run "FROM" you is nothing more than a cowardly act that is deserving to be labelled murder. Even if the man had stolen the cops taser, pepper spray, collapsible baton he was still running *AWAY*.

Funny, I hear all these people talk about obeying cops but who knows what was said or done before this? 

And yet, you can still get on many a site and read how cops and the powers that be will have to pry firearms from cold, dead hands..... gotta get the message out to those folks to obey cops....right?

Without the video, the cop would get the courtesy of doubt, no matter what was said. With the video, cop would be guilty in my eyes, shooting someone in the back as they were running from you is murder.

I am just wondering how many shots hit the target.


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> Black lives are a big deal to the UN, and even in Europe. Certainly a bigger deal that it is in the USA.


No matter how many times you repeat it, that doesn't make it true.


----------



## Woolieface

MoonRiver said:


> Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and now Walter Scott would all still be alive if they had complied with the police.
> 
> There is a simple lesson here. Resisting arrest is a dangerous thing to do. Don't do it.
> 
> This is not an excuse for the police to use excessive force, but the fact that all 3 of these men took actions that resulted in their deaths should not be ignored.


You know what...a family member of mine was just thrown on the ground and tased twice for "resisting arrest" and she didn't. Not only that...there was no cause for an arrest.

Yes..I get it...resisting or not complying can get you killed. Funny how that fact is identical in a situation where you are being mugged. That's how criminals operate.


----------



## Woolieface

doingitmyself said:


> So class what have we learned here?
> 
> 1. Don't resist arrest, it's not good for your health.
> 
> 2. Don't attempt to take an Officers taser, it's bad for your health.
> 
> 3. Don't drive with a broken tail light, you will get pulled over. It could be bad for your health.
> 
> 4. Don't run from the cops, it's bad for your health.
> 
> Some folks just don't think they have to follow the rules of common sense, and rules that govern us all. The thing is there are more folks that think the same way, then they wonder why bad things like this happen.
> 
> The man that got shot made A LOT of mistakes, some of the blame has to go on his shoulders as well. He paid a dear price for that. It may well be proven the cop made mistakes as well, if that happens I hope he will be held accountable as well.


Common sense - Don't try to defeat an armed robber with your awesome ninja skills you learned on youtube. Whether or not I'm stupid enough to try that, the one trying to rob and murder me is still the criminal.

Can we stop having the focus be the fact that people made bad decisions with cops? Yes, they might have made bad decisions but it seems real obvious that it is seriously not ok to murder people for these things and that's a MUCH bigger issue in society.

Instead of repeating "people should not flee, resist, etc" how about "police officers should not kill people who aren't threatening another life"


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> It just seems like a rush to judgement to me. I don't know how long it takes to do an internal investigation, but I doubt if they completed one. The mayor thinks he can make it go away by firing the officer.


It was his employer. He's allowed to rush to judgment.


----------



## bluemoonluck

My husband is a cop, and I firmly believe that the vast majority of cops out there are just regular men and women doing the job the best they can.

However, there are bad apples in the bunch in ANY career. There are Priests who molest kids. There are teachers who sleep with their students. There are doctors who pass along pneumonia to patients by not washing their hands after examining someone with pneumonia. And yes, there are cops who abuse their authority.

I never assume that anyone is a bad person simply because of their chosen line of work, as long as that work is legal. 

If a cop shoots someone who is running away from them, and the runner was holding a gun and firing at a crowd that he's running toward, that's probably a clean kill (don't want the runner to kill a bunch of people in the crowd ahead of him, right?). If a cop shoots someone who is running away from them, and the runner had just slaughtered 12 homeless orphans, that's probably a clean kill (don't want to let that runner go free to slaughter another dozen kids, right?). But if a cop shoots someone who is running away from them, but the runner is unarmed and is just trying to outrun the cop to avoid being given a parking ticket, that's murder, and the cop should be tried by a jury of his peers just like any other murderer out there.

Just like teachers hate it when they hear of another teacher having sex with their minor students, and priests hate it when they hear of another priest molesting kids, cops hate it when they hear of another cop doing something dirty. They know that the majority will be judged by the actions of a few, it makes them all look bad by association, and the end result of that is it makes their job harder.

I know my husband got really weary after being repeatedly told "Y'all are just driving around looking for excuses to kill black people" after the Michael Brown incident. And even though Darren Wilson has been exonerated, people are still running around yelling "hands up, don't shoot" like a battle cry. It's disheartening and frustrating.


----------



## AmericanStand

Woolieface said:


> Instead of repeating "people should not flee, resist, etc" how about "police officers should not kill people who aren't threatening another life"


People shouldn't have to fear for their life, health and wealth every time they encounter a cop.


----------



## MoonRiver

Woolieface said:


> Common sense - Don't try to defeat an armed robber with your awesome ninja skills you learned on youtube. Whether or not I'm stupid enough to try that, the one trying to rob and murder me is still the criminal.
> 
> Can we stop having the focus be the fact that people made bad decisions with cops? Yes, they might have made bad decisions but it seems real obvious that it is seriously not ok to murder people for these things and that's a MUCH bigger issue in society.
> 
> Instead of repeating "people should not flee, resist, etc" how about "police officers should not kill people who aren't threatening another life"


There are very few cases where "police officers kill people who aren't threatening another life". We are not even 100% sure that happened in this case.

But we know that if A results in B and B results in C, if A doesn't happen neither does B or C.


----------



## Nevada

doingitmyself said:


> Anyone that needs more proof of these points is not worth the effort. You just seen what happens when you don't get with the plan., and follow directions. Get with the plan, and follow directions when authorities give you orders or get shot in the back, how much more proof would you need to have? Seriously.....


But the cop knew what it did was wrong, and probably even illegal. If the cop didn't know that then he wouldn't have lied about it.

Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure why he ran. One thing we know is that the cop's word isn't worth anything. He'll say anything to save his hide at this point.


----------



## MoonRiver

AmericanStand said:


> People shouldn't have to fear for their life, health and wealth every time they encounter a cop.


And they don't.


----------



## greg273

Nevada said:


> Black lives are a big deal to the UN, and even in Europe. Certainly a bigger deal that it is in the USA.


 Of course black lives matter. Maybe the blacks need to be reminded of that, since they are doing more violence to their own than anyone else.


----------



## greg273

AmericanStand said:


> On the other hand he could just kill you anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand he could just kill you anyway.
> 
> On the other hand he could just kill you anyway.
> 
> 
> On the other hand he could just kill you anyway.


 Of course a man with a gun can kill you, however, your odds of surviving an encounter with law enforcement increases dramatically by not attacking him, reaching for his gun, or reaching for his tazer. Its pretty simple, really.


----------



## bluemoonluck

greg273 said:


> Of course black lives matter. Maybe the blacks need to be reminded of that, since they are doing more violence to their own than anyone else.


Exactly. Black-on-black crime results in more black lives being lost than white cops shooting blacks. 

Ask yourself this: why was there no outcry when these men lost their lives?


----------



## Shine

MoonRiver said:


> And they don't.


I do.


----------



## MO_cows

AmericanStand said:


> People shouldn't have to fear for their life, health and wealth every time they encounter a cop.


No, they shouldn't...and they don't. Most officer/citizen interactions are downright dull, only the few that go bad come to the public's attention. Just in the time this thread has been going, how many traffic stops and other interactions do you suppose have taken place?

But conversely the cops DO have to fear for their life, health and wealth every time they pull over a car or try to detain someone. Very few people are complaining about that!


----------



## MO_cows

bluemoonluck said:


> Exactly. Black-on-black crime results in more black lives being lost than white cops shooting blacks.
> 
> Ask yourself this: why was there no outcry when these men lost their lives?


This is a great example of the pathetic, sickening double standard that exists. Black on black violence, not sensational enough for the media or the public. Business as usual, tragic as that may be. And what a shame that those police officers were killed in the line of duty and nobody outside their community even knows. The rabble rousers don't hold a news conference, the president doesn't say a word. I sure hope their killers are caught and will face justice. No matter who murders who, they should be held accountable.


----------



## AmericanStand

MoonRiver said:


> There are very few cases where "police officers kill people who aren't threatening another life". We are not even 100% sure that happened in this case.
> 
> But we know that if A results in B and B results in C, if A doesn't happen neither does B or C.


Care to prove any of that?
The point made in the OPs video Is that you cant trust the cops version of A B or C

The cop says there was a light out.
Well they have lied about that when they stopped me EVEN with other cops there so I know cops Lie.
if B is don't resist arrest Ive been in that one too so I know thy lie about that too,

I think Ive just been lucky not to be killed BUT I take very active steps to prevent it.
I stay away from places and times where cops are on the prowl.
I am as nice as I can possibly be when stopped and I drop the names of any local cops I know if stopped.

It saves me hassle but I deeply resent MY SERVANTS TREATING ME THIS WAY!


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Maybe you should concentrate more on not being stopped. I have never been stopped for no reason. I find it curious how many times others claim to be stopped for no reason. Maybe you should change your activities if it happens regularly.


----------



## MoonRiver

nchobbyfarm said:


> Maybe you should concentrate more on not being stopped. I have never been stopped for no reason. I find it curious how many times others claim to be stopped for no reason. Maybe you should change your activities if it happens regularly.


That's exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## SunsetSonata

Seems to me that the kind of cop who would empty a gun on a fleeing unarmed driver might just have given the victim an idea that his safety or even his life was in danger. Hence the running.

Has anyone seen the video of the cop heaping completely out-of-line abuse at the Uber driver? He was downright scary. I doubt it was the first time he had a tirade over someone pulled over for a minor traffic stop. Driver was compliant and calm, but the cop was making things up about the driver's attitude and blowing things up out of proportion. Because of the cop's power, the driver could not defend himself without risking arrest. Completely unjustified.

A lot of cops are downright scary. This cop was willing to empty a firearm for frivolous reasons. You're right, MoonRiver, there's a lot we don't know... like what kind of impression he gave to this vulnerable unarmed black man who apparently had every reason to fear for his life or at least a beating. Seems the options are limited - sit there and take it, or run.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

What I saw last night on the TV was so disturbing....I changed the channel.

One human being, murdered another human being.
In cold blood.
In broad daylight.
In public.

One human being murdered another human being, w/o reservation, or cause.

What's sickening?
I watched it on TV.
I watched as one human being murdered another human being.
I watched that man, take his last steps; his last breath.
I watched the man pull the trigger that took away another mans life.

I saw, no color.
I saw, no race.
I saw, no religion.
I saw, no sexual orientation.
I saw, no political views.
I saw, NO LABELS.

What I DID see is one human being taking away the life of another human being.
And so did God.

If stupid humans would stop making everything out to be the label they attach to themselves, and make it about "what one human does to another" a lot of this nonsense would stop......
All this "labeling" perpetuates the madness.


----------



## MoonRiver

Laura Zone 5 said:


> What I saw last night on the TV was so disturbing....I changed the channel.
> 
> One human being, murdered another human being.
> In cold blood.
> In broad daylight.
> In public.
> 
> One human being murdered another human being, w/o reservation, or cause.
> 
> What's sickening?
> I watched it on TV.
> I watched as one human being murdered another human being.
> I watched that man, take his last steps; his last breath.
> I watched the man pull the trigger that took away another mans life.
> 
> I saw, no color.
> I saw, no race.
> I saw, no religion.
> I saw, no sexual orientation.
> I saw, no political views.
> I saw, NO LABELS.
> 
> What I DID see is one human being taking away the life of another human being.
> And so did God.
> 
> If stupid humans would stop making everything out to be the label they attach to themselves, and make it about "what one human does to another" a lot of this nonsense would stop......
> All this "labeling" perpetuates the madness.


This was a 3 act play and we have only seen act 3. I'm waiting for act 1 and 2 before I make a decision.


----------



## Woolieface

MoonRiver said:


> And they don't.


Wrong.


----------



## doingitmyself

AmericanStand said:


> People shouldn't have to fear for their life, health and wealth every time they encounter a cop.


Care to prove that statement? LOl

I have never been scared for my life when i have been pulled over both times in my life, both times I was speeding. 

Seems to me if you are so scared for your life when pulled over perhaps counciling could help you some. Or change the habits that you are doing that make you a target, do you run drugs? Do you engage in any other suspicious activity. Maybe you are just so special that your local cops just like messing with you. Likely when one is pulled over it is for good reason. But maybe they are trying to harrass you to move to another location so they don't have to deal with your special sort of trouble, whatever that is.


----------



## arabian knight

greg273 said:


> Of course a man with a gun can kill you, however, your odds of surviving an encounter with law enforcement increases dramatically by not attacking him, reaching for his gun, or reaching for his tazer. Its pretty simple, really.


 You know if a person watches closely after 9 shots and the guy goes down.
WHERES the BLOOD????


----------



## where I want to

arabian knight said:


> You know if a person watches closely after 9 shots and the guy goes down.
> WHERES the BLOOD????


I admit that videos can be doctored (news media does it all the time), but I saw nothing in that video that makes me question it was what it was. More than enough to pursue a court case.
Just people who seem to insist that police are willy nilly running around murdering citizens are way ouy there, insisting that there are no cases of police murdering is equally unreal.
This is one case where I think the evidence is more than enough to need a trial but neither does one clear cut case validate the unsupported allegations in other shootings.

BTW I have never been pulled over by the police at all, even though I have routinely not put my new license tags on in a timely manner, nor have I obeyed all speed limits or fixed every light immediately. I don't think there are flocks of rogue police looking to trap innocent citizens. I do think that there are some citizens who feel that rules are not meant for them and can't keep a hold of their temper when it doesn't prove true. They then blame someone else for what they create.


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> You know if a person watches closely after 9 shots and the guy goes down.
> WHERES the BLOOD????


What are you suggesting here? That he wasn't really shot at all?


----------



## AmericanStand

nchobbyfarm said:


> Maybe you should concentrate more on not being stopped. I have never been stopped for no reason. I find it curious how many times others claim to be stopped for no reason. Maybe you should change your activities if it happens regularly.



Did you read my post. ? 
I put a lot of effort into reducing my contacts with the cops. 

Perhaps you are just lucky. ? Perhaps you live in a area that has fairly good cops ? Perhaps you seem to be wealthy enough not to get their interest. ? Maybe you are known to them. 
The cops have never mistreated me when I was driving a caddy , Lincoln , Hummer or new moterhome. But in a old truck or on foot I might as well have a target on me. 
It's hard for me to belive a cop isn't crooked when he goes from jerk to nice guy as soon as he finds the truck is owned by a corporation or that I'm walking to my plane. 

This country wasn't founded on the idea of making things easy for the cops. For someone to suggest that a citizen change their legal activities to placate the cops seems like treason to me.


----------



## Woolieface

doingitmyself said:


> Care to prove that statement? LOl
> 
> I have never been scared for my life when i have been pulled over both times in my life, both times I was speeding.
> 
> Seems to me if you are so scared for your life when pulled over perhaps counciling could help you some. Or change the habits that you are doing that make you a target, do you run drugs? Do you engage in any other suspicious activity. Maybe you are just so special that your local cops just like messing with you. Likely when one is pulled over it is for good reason. But maybe they are trying to harrass you to move to another location so they don't have to deal with your special sort of trouble, whatever that is.


I am not a criminal, nor am I mentally unstable.


----------



## AmericanStand

bluemoonluck said:


> My husband is a cop, and I firmly believe that the vast majority of cops out there are just regular men and women doing the job the best they can.
> 
> I never assume that anyone is a bad person simply because of their chosen line of work, as long as that work is legal.
> .




We agree !
But as best they can isn't always acceptable.
I expect them to be well trained. 
I expect them to put their personnel wants desires and prejudices aside while on the job. 
Yes I know that's VERY hard to do but I think it's a reasonable requirement of the job. Just like many jobs require.


----------



## vicker

It looks as if the officer, and his fellows, have a history of using excessive force, lying about it and filing false reports to cover up their their actions. 
http://wgntv.com/2015/04/09/south-c...-in-back-had-prior-excessive-force-complaint/

Alright! I posted the wrong article. 
See the followup.


----------



## AmericanStand

Woolieface what was your attitude towards the cops before your personal incident. ?


----------



## MoonRiver

vicker said:


> It looks as if the officer, and his fellows, have a history of using excessive force, lying about it and filing false reports to cover up their their actions.
> http://wgntv.com/2015/04/09/south-c...-in-back-had-prior-excessive-force-complaint/


One complaint in 5 years that was investigated and dismissed is hardly a history of using excessive force.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> This is one case where I think the evidence is more than enough to need a trial but neither does one clear cut case validate the unsupported allegations in other shootings.


It's not just that the evidence exists, but that it was also made public. Remember, the police department had the dash cam video of the incident, yet still made a public statement backing the cop. That concerns me.

They're supposed to release the dash cam video later today. We'll see what it shows.


----------



## where I want to

AmericanStand said:


> Did you read my post. ?
> I put a lot of effort into reducing my contacts with the cops.
> 
> Perhaps you are just lucky. ? Perhaps you live in a area that has fairly good cops ? Perhaps you seem to be wealthy enough not to get their interest. ? Maybe you are known to them.
> The cops have never mistreated me when I was driving a caddy , Lincoln , Hummer or new moterhome. But in a old truck or on foot I might as well have a target on me.
> It's hard for me to belive a cop isn't crooked when he goes from jerk to nice guy as soon as he finds the truck is owned by a corporation or that I'm walking to my plane.
> 
> This country wasn't founded on the idea of making things easy for the cops. For someone to suggest that a citizen change their legal activities to placate the cops seems like treason to me.


As I said- I have never been stopped. I drive a 20 year old truck with a giant dent in the side where I slid it into a fence post while trying to pull out a stump. Maybe, could be an old beater has more things wrong with it that might get police attention? Maybe you worry so much that your behavior becomes suspicious when police are around? 
But as for the idea that modifying your behavior to avoid looking guilty when engaged in a legal activity is an affront- maybe that is something to look at because mine is that I prefer to look as innocent as I am and have no problem with changing something so the whole world- including police- don't get the wrong idea. It may be legal to dress in an tee shirt with cuss words all over it, but I prefer that my right to insult everyone I meet does not make sure to cause someone to take up the issue with me.


----------



## vicker

Sorry, that link only published a small part of the story. 
Here is the AP article. 
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/53e7...-man-back-had-prior-excessive-force-complaint


----------



## gapeach

South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy is one of the highest rated in the country and the officer in this case has even extra law enforcement training because he was USCG officer.
Still, he was dead wrong. I feel so sorry for everyone involved. The victim may have run because he had an outstanding child support warrant on him. It is just so sad for him and his family for him to lose his life that way.


----------



## MO_cows

vicker said:


> It looks as if the officer, and his fellows, have a history of using excessive force, lying about it and filing false reports to cover up their their actions.
> http://wgntv.com/2015/04/09/south-c...-in-back-had-prior-excessive-force-complaint/


How did you extrapolate all of that from the 3 measly paragraphs at the link?

It is worth noting that at least one excessive force complaint had been filed on this officer, but let's not make a mountain range out of that molehill until more info. comes out.


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> Still, he was dead wrong.


Sure, everyone agrees he was wrong, but why did he do it? Was it an expedient to make his job easier? Did he shoot in anger because there was a struggle? Did it have anything to do with racism? Was he "badge heavy?"

He lied to save his own hide, of course, but why did he shoot in the first place?


----------



## where I want to

MO_cows said:


> How did you extrapolate all of that from the 3 measly paragraphs at the link?
> 
> It is worth noting that at least one excessive force complaint had been filed on this officer, but let's not make a mountain range out of that molehill until more info. comes out.


Ha- I charge you with excessive temperance. Keeping your head in the presence of evil is bigotry. You are to be forced to be as angry and irrational as myself immediately. You must be discriminating. Oh wait- there is something going astray here.........


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> Sure, everyone agrees he was wrong, but why did he do it? Was it an expedient to make his job easier? Did he shoot in anger because there was a struggle? Did it have anything to do with racism? Was he "badge heavy?"
> 
> He lied to save his own hide, of course, but why did he shoot in the first place?


Ask him or wait for more information or the results of the trial to see if answered. Anything else comes from the bigotry of the responder. Speculation for titillation.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> It's not just that the evidence exists, but that it was also made public. Remember, the police department had the dash cam video of the incident, yet still made a public statement backing the cop. That concerns me.
> 
> They're supposed to release the dash cam video later today. We'll see what it shows.


It will be interesting. Maybe informative. Or not.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> Ask him or wait for more information or the results of the trial to see if answered. Anything else come from the bigotry of the responder. Speculation for titillation.


I think "why" is a fair question.


----------



## vicker

They're saying the dash cams show nothing, only the vehicles arriving. I haven't seen them, but that is what is being said.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> I think "why" is a fair question.


Yes. But expecting an answer without facts is to demand an ill informed opinion based on the bias of the responder. Why would you ask it now? What will you get from it if someone does answer without enough information to have any knowledge?


----------



## where I want to

vicker said:


> They're saying the dash cams show nothing, only the vehicles arriving. I haven't seen them, but that is what is being said.


Looking at the video with the car behind the policeman while he shoots, that would have seemed most likely. But a close examination is always worthwhile.


----------



## MDKatie

MoonRiver said:


> This was a 3 act play and we have only seen act 3. I'm waiting for act 1 and 2 before I make a decision.


It doesn't matter what happened before. All that matters is the cop shot a man who was a safe distance away, running AWAY from the cop. There is absolutely NO reason to shoot a man who is not threatening your life. It doesn't matter what happened a minute before. If he is running away, he is not threatening your life. Run after him, call for back up, etc. Do not murder him. Simple concept.


----------



## where I want to

MDKatie said:


> It doesn't matter what happened before. All that matters is the cop shot a man who was a safe distance away, running AWAY from the cop. There is absolutely NO reason to shoot a man who is not threatening your life. It doesn't matter what happened a minute before. If he is running away, he is not threatening your life. Run after him, call for back up, etc. Do not murder him. Simple concept.


I can't think of anything that would be a reasonable scenario to justify it. But that is also why an immediate arrest and subsequent trial is important. There is possibly something I haven't thought of. That is why trials exist.
But it would be a great surprise if there is any justification.


----------



## gapeach

Nevada said:


> Sure, everyone agrees he was wrong, but why did he do it? Was it an expedient to make his job easier? Did he shoot in anger because there was a struggle? Did it have anything to do with racism? Was he "badge heavy?"
> 
> He lied to save his own hide, of course, but why did he shoot in the first place?


South Carolina Law Enforcement Division is handling the whole investigation. They are not going to say a lot before they finish. They never do but they are very good investigators.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> But that is also why an immediate arrest and subsequent trial is important.


But there wasn't an immediate arrest. The police department backed the cop until the video came out, about 3 days. I'm skeptical that other cops weren't complicit. In addition to the dash cam, another cop was there when he dropped the taser gun next to the body.


----------



## gapeach

They arrested him as soon as they had the video evidence and that is when they called SLED in to take over the investigation. They did just as they should have done.


----------



## Nevada

There's more today. The victim had a passenger in the car, who was arrested and detained in the back seat of a police cruiser.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/09/us/south-carolina-police-shooting/index.html

It's getting harder to believe that other police weren't complicit in this.


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> They arrested him as soon as they had the video evidence and that is when they called SLED in to take over the investigation. They did just as they should have done.


Well, yeah. After seeing the video and knowing it would go public they knew that the ruse was over. But they still backed the cop for 3 days, another cop was there when he planted the gun, and they had an eye witness in the back of the police cruiser. And that's not to mention that they had a body that was shot in the back 5 times, and even a dash cam video of the incident.

If these cops were doing their jobs and didn't smell a fish then they aren't very good at what they do. It's difficult for me to believe that the police weren't complicit right up until the video was released.


----------



## gapeach

As we learned in the Ferguson investigation, wait until the investigation is completed and all of the facts are in before you start comdemning people in the police department. The police in North Charleston have done the right thing to charge the officer with murder and to call in the state investigation office. They could have done the investigation themselves, but it is much better to call in SLED.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> Sure, everyone agrees he was wrong, but why did he do it? Was it an expedient to make his job easier? Did he shoot in anger because there was a struggle? Did it have anything to do with racism? Was he "badge heavy?"
> 
> He lied to save his own hide, of course, but why did he shoot in the first place?


That's why I'm thinking manslaughter instead of murder 2. This happened on a Saturday morning, not a Saturday night. There must be a lot more to this story than what we know.


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> As we learned in the Ferguson investigation, wait until the investigation is completed and all of the facts are in before you start comdemning people in the police department. The police in North Charleston have done the right thing to charge the officer with murder and to call in the state investigation office. They could have done the investigation themselves, but it is much better to call in SLED.


Sorry, but we've got a video this time. I wish we had a video of the Ferguson incident.


----------



## gapeach

I talked to my cousin this morning. He is a long time police chief at a beach in Charleston. He is also USCG retired. He told me that it is standard procedure to call in the State Law Enforcement when someone is shot by an officer. Early on he was a police chief in Ga and he said it was same way, Georgia Bureau of Investigation would be called in if there is a shooting by a policeman.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> That's why I'm thinking manslaughter instead of murder 2. This happened on a Saturday morning, not a Saturday night. There must be a lot more to this story than what we know.


I don't follow you. Why do you think manslaughter is more appropriate?


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Nevada said:


> I wish we had a video of the Ferguson incident.


ME TOO!! Then we would not have had to put up with all the nonsense based on the lies. The video would have shown right away what the evidence proved. A thug died because he foolishly attacked a police officer!


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> Sorry, but we've got a video this time. I wish we had a video of the Ferguson incident.


Well, duh, who doesn't? I'm one of the taxpayers picking up the tab for the Ferguson debacle. All those months and months of extra law enforcement there to keep order and prevent the rest of the town from burning. Mo. has a balanced budget, the money to pay for all that will be cut from somewhere else. 

But justice has been done for many years before video imaging was invented. And most of the time it's done right. 

Too bad there wasn't video of who shot those cops in Ferguson, either. But somehow I don't think that's what you had in mind.......


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> I don't follow you. Why do you think manslaughter is more appropriate?


Nothing to indicate it was premeditated, so that rules out murder 1. 



> A person convicted of manslaughter, or the unlawful killing of another without malice, express or implied, must be imprisoned not more than thirty years or less than two years. S Carolina code


I think when all the information comes out malice will be ruled out, which means manslaughter, not murder.


----------



## arabian knight

And that is why there is a few days after this that they charged him. Not unusual at all. Even happen in WI a few months ago. Yo-u don't get a FULL story NOR do you get charges brought until ALL the T's are crossed and the I's are doted .


----------



## bluemoonluck

MDKatie said:


> It doesn't matter what happened before. All that matters is the cop shot a man who was a safe distance away, running AWAY from the cop.* There is absolutely NO reason to shoot a man who is not threatening your life.* It doesn't matter what happened a minute before. If he is running away, he is not threatening your life. Run after him, call for back up, etc. Do not murder him. Simple concept.


I can think of quite a few times when it would be appropriate for a cop to shoot someone who was unarmed and running away from him. I'll give an example: 

Joe killed an innocent child an hour ago, and he has threatened to kill more innocent children. Cop sees him, Joe sees cop, Joe runs away from the cop. If your kid was the next one on Joe's list, would you want the cop to shoot Joe, or let him run away? Joe's not armed, after all, and he's running away from the cop, right?

Granted, things like that are the exception, not the rule, but it happens.

Truth about being a cop is that if you do your job, everyone gets the luxury of playing Monday Morning Quarterback for months afterwards, picking apart the decision you had fractions of a second to make. If you don't do your job, everyone still gets the luxury of picking apart the consequences of that too. 

Shoot someone? You killed an innocent, gentle kid who never hurt a fly. Don't shoot him, and he goes on to slaughter 2 people a block away? The blood of those people is on your hands, why didn't you just shoot that thug when you had the chance?


----------



## Woolieface

AmericanStand said:


> Woolieface what was your attitude towards the cops before your personal incident. ?


Honestly, I could count the number of police officers I've ever spoken to on one hand. Have never been even charged with a crime apart for a safety belt violation. All of those four or five times I have been in the presence of a police officer, I behaved as I would toward any human being - with the due respect that I would want, myself.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> Sorry, but we've got a video this time. I wish we had a video of the Ferguson incident.


I suspect that if there hadn't been such damning video of the Boston Bombers, you would have claimed police murdered him too. Your standard seems to be in the absence of proof of clear, absolute innocence, the police are always guilty. And you demand a level of proof that rarely exists in the real world.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> But there wasn't an immediate arrest. The police department backed the cop until the video came out, about 3 days. I'm skeptical that other cops weren't complicit. In addition to the dash cam, another cop was there when he dropped the taser gun next to the body.


So every policeman who shoots someone should be subject to immediate arrest until he can manage to prove himself innocent? And if he is not arrested immediately, that proves all the other police are covering up a murder? Because there is no other premise to allow your statements to be considered reasonable.


----------



## MDKatie

bluemoonluck said:


> I can think of quite a few times when it would be appropriate for a cop to shoot someone who was unarmed and running away from him. I'll give an example:
> 
> Joe killed an innocent child an hour ago, and he has threatened to kill more innocent children. Cop sees him, Joe sees cop, Joe runs away from the cop. If your kid was the next one on Joe's list, would you want the cop to shoot Joe, or let him run away? Joe's not armed, after all, and he's running away from the cop, right?
> 
> Granted, things like that are the exception, not the rule, but it happens.
> 
> Truth about being a cop is that if you do your job, everyone gets the luxury of playing Monday Morning Quarterback for months afterwards, picking apart the decision you had fractions of a second to make. If you don't do your job, everyone still gets the luxury of picking apart the consequences of that too.
> 
> Shoot someone? You killed an innocent, gentle kid who never hurt a fly. Don't shoot him, and he goes on to slaughter 2 people a block away? The blood of those people is on your hands, why didn't you just shoot that thug when you had the chance?


I understand cases where there is imminent danger to the public or to the officer, and I didn't mention those because that's not the case in this case.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> So every policeman who shoots someone should be subject to immediate arrest until he can manage to prove himself innocent? And if he is not arrested immediately, that proves all the other police are covering up a murder? Because there is no other premise to allow your statements to be considered reasonable.


Why hasn't the cop who was there when the taser gun was dropped been arrested?


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> Why hasn't the cop who was there when the taser gun was dropped been arrested?


Nice redirect. You couldn't rebut the post you quoted, so take a different angle. 

To answer your question, probably because he is a small potato in the case. Priorities, man, priorities.

Try to calm down and let the wheels of justice turn. No such thing as instant gratification in the justice system. 

Maybe Zimmerman will do something in the interim to help you take your mind off it..........


----------



## mnn2501

AmericanStand said:


> People shouldn't have to fear for their life, health and wealth every time they encounter a cop.


I don't and neither does the majority of the country.
I maintain that except in select circumstances, the only time you'll encounter a cop is when you're doing something illegal.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> Why hasn't the cop who was there when the taser gun was dropped been arrested?


So not only should the policeman who shoots be immediately arrested every other policeman in the vicinity should be too?
This has become a down the rabbit hole exchange where serious answers seem to be demanded to irrational questions.
Because maybe he didn't see anything or went quietly to his boss to report or didn't want to accuse based on being unsure or the issue was being developed or whatever I'm not privy to.


----------



## where I want to

mnn2501 said:


> I don't and neither does the majority of the country.
> I maintain that except in select circumstances, the only time you'll encounter a cop is when you're doing something illegal.


Or having something illegal done to you and you called for help.


----------



## vicker

Here is an interesting interview with the president of a group the defends LEOs involved in shootings. 
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7029748


----------



## Woolieface

mnn2501 said:


> I don't and neither does the majority of the country.
> I maintain that except in select circumstances, the only time you'll encounter a cop is when you're doing something illegal.


I submit that "select circumstances" are getting a lot less select.


----------



## Shine

Man o man, we gots to have a sale on all the extra Strawmen in this thread... must be two dozen....

And one. What if the officer did not fire on him and he ran off and went directly to the Piggley Wiggley down the road, bought two gallons of distilled water, a stick of butter and a quart of Olive oil... then whilst coming back to the scene of the confrontation crossing the roadway illegally at a turn in the road, due to the weight not being properly balanced his foot strikes the curb causing him to lose his balance, he falls onto the stick of butter causing a cartwheel effect, both gallon jugs go one into each of the opposing curbs, breaking open whilst the olive oil goes straight up into the air. He grabs for it and misses it, it strikes the asphault just as a School bus full of children rounds the bend, he tries to get out of the way but slips in the water/butter/olive oil mix and is struck by the bus, his body flying all the way back into the park where it strikes the police office and kills him. The Bus is now out of control and slides into the other lane after rumbling over the median, the kids screaming and with a heroic effort the Bus Driver regains control of the bus just an instance before seeing the cement truck..... Shooting Justified - case closed.


----------



## 7thswan

stills and more.http://gotnews.com/breaking-walterscott-called-for-violence-against-george-zimmerman/


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> So not only should the policeman who shoots be immediately arrested every other policeman in the vicinity should be too?


Of course not, but if another policeman was complicit in changing the murder scene to cover up the murder then he's committed a serious crime. The cop who was there when the gun was dropped has some explaining to do.


----------



## Evons hubby

bluemoonluck said:


> I can think of quite a few times when it would be appropriate for a cop to shoot someone who was unarmed and running away from him. I'll give an example:
> 
> Joe killed an innocent child an hour ago, and he has threatened to kill more innocent children. Cop sees him, Joe sees cop, Joe runs away from the cop. If your kid was the next one on Joe's list, would you want the cop to shoot Joe, or let him run away? Joe's not armed, after all, and he's running away from the cop, right?
> 
> Granted, things like that are the exception, not the rule, but it happens.
> 
> Truth about being a cop is that if you do your job, everyone gets the luxury of playing Monday Morning Quarterback for months afterwards, picking apart the decision you had fractions of a second to make. If you don't do your job, everyone still gets the luxury of picking apart the consequences of that too.
> 
> Shoot someone? You killed an innocent, gentle kid who never hurt a fly. Don't shoot him, and he goes on to slaughter 2 people a block away? The blood of those people is on your hands, why didn't you just shoot that thug when you had the chance?


Would it not be better to overpower Joe and arrest him... then give him a fair trial prior to the hanging? (or shooting) This way everyone is safe and everyones rights are preserved.


----------



## vicker

The dash cam videos have been released. The only one that shows anything is Slager's. It shows Mr Scott run out of the frame. 
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dashcam-footage-released-of-michael-slager-pulling-over-walter-scott/


----------



## vicker

The questions will be about what happened between the time Scott ran out of the frame, and when the cellphone video begins. The courts and jurors put a lot of weight on an officer's testimony. That is why it is such a shame when they are caught in a lie, and lie some of them do. They should be held to the highest mark.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> Of course not, but if another policeman was complicit in changing the murder scene to cover up the murder then he's committed a serious crime. The cop who was there when the gun was dropped has some explaining to do.


How do you know he didn't write it up in his report?


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> Of course not, but if another policeman was complicit in changing the murder scene to cover up the murder then he's committed a serious crime. The cop who was there when the gun was dropped has some explaining to do.


Too bad you didn't phrase it as if he saw the taser being dropped and if he didn't report it, then he has some explaining to do.


----------



## 7thswan

Here is another video,not the one I saw on TV.http://www.infowars.com/south-carol...s-him-shooting-unarmed-black-man-in-the-back/


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> Too bad you didn't phrase it as if he saw the taser being dropped and if he didn't report it, then he has some explaining to do.


He could deny that he saw it, I suppose, but it happened right in front of him. Actually, he's already in hot water because he said in the police report that he rendered first aid and started CPR, yet the video doesn't show that. Pretty sloppy work if you ask me.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> He could deny that he saw it, I suppose, but it happened right in front of him. Actually, he's already in hot water because he said in the police report that he rendered first aid and started CPR, yet the video doesn't show that. Pretty sloppy work if you ask me.


Please give a link.


----------



## gapeach

This investigation will not be over in a couple of days. The policeman is charged with murder, there are many details that the police know that are not going to be revealed quickly. These state law enforcement people don't speed through and do a sloppy job. Besides their investigation, the FBI is on the scene too.
The police chief has already said that there will be no interviews to the national press until after the funeral.
None of the people involved are going anywhere.


----------



## vicker

Actually, I believe Slager said in his report that the other officer render life saving aid and performed CPR, and that the other officer made no mention of it. I'll see if I can find the article.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> Please give a link.


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/man-who-filmed-scott-shooting-never-saw-cops-perform-cpr/


----------



## vicker

This article gives the most detail I can find on what the incident report (IT IS CLAIMED) says. 
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/09/second-officer-walter-scott-video-sued-stomping 

You really have to take everything that you hear or read someone says someone says with a lot of salt. I think the truth will come out but, it's still very early in the game.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

AmericanStand said:


> Did you read my post. ?
> I put a lot of effort into reducing my contacts with the cops.
> 
> Perhaps you are just lucky. ? Perhaps you live in a area that has fairly good cops ? Perhaps you seem to be wealthy enough not to get their interest. ? Maybe you are known to them.
> The cops have never mistreated me when I was driving a caddy , Lincoln , Hummer or new moterhome. But in a old truck or on foot I might as well have a target on me.
> It's hard for me to belive a cop isn't crooked when he goes from jerk to nice guy as soon as he finds the truck is owned by a corporation or that I'm walking to my plane.
> 
> This country wasn't founded on the idea of making things easy for the cops. For someone to suggest that a citizen change their legal activities to placate the cops seems like treason to me.


I have no idea why they target you! If I live in a better area, maybe you should consider a move if it bothers you so much. 

We drive a Ford SUV, a Ford 3/4 ton regular cab pickup and a Chevy 3/4 ton regular cab pickup all of which are over ten years old. I don't own a corporation truck nor an airplane but congrats to you for both. I work a public job and am trying to learn to farm. I conduct myself as I was raised which is to behave in a civil society. If I break a law and get caught, I am polite to the cop because I chose the behavior. But I still bet you do something to place the target on your back whether you realize the behavior or not. But I have lost bets before........


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> This investigation will not be over in a couple of days. The policeman is charged with murder, there are many details that the police know that are not going to be revealed quickly.


Maybe the investigation will take awhile, but he was charged very quickly. I don't think that would have happened if the prosecutor didn't believe he already had plenty of evidence to convict.


----------



## MDKatie

mnn2501 said:


> I don't and neither does the majority of the country.
> I maintain that except in select circumstances, the only time you'll encounter a cop is when you're doing something illegal.


I've been pulled over before simply for leaving a dining establishment late at night. I had not had a single drink, and I was not speeding (I saw the cop sitting there in the first place, and my cruise control was set). I don't remember what he gave as the reason for pulling me over, but it was an attempt at catching someone driving while intoxicated. He checked my license, and sent me on my way. He had absolutely no reason to pull me over.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Nevada said:


> Maybe the investigation will take awhile, but he was charged very quickly. I don't think that would have happened if the prosecutor didn't believe he already had plenty of evidence to convict.


You now exclaim he was charged quickly. Really?

Let's review,
Post 15- you ask why Slager wasn't charged days earlier
Post 18- you believe he would have gotten away with it without the video
Post 24- again claim he would have gotten away with it without the video
Post 116- you complain that no immediate arrest was made
Post 119- you complain about the dept backing Slager for 3 days

Do you change positions on subjects just to get a reaction out of others?


----------



## Nevada

nchobbyfarm said:


> You now exclaim he was charged quickly. Really?
> 
> Let's review,
> Post 15- you ask why Slager wasn't charged days earlier
> Post 18- you believe he would have gotten away with it without the video
> Post 24- again claim he would have gotten away with it without the video
> Post 116- you complain that no immediate arrest was made
> Post 119- you complain about the dept backing Slager for 3 days
> 
> Do you change positions on subjects just to get a reaction out of others?


OK, how was it going for the cop the day before the video surfaced? From what I'm reading everyone was buying the cop's story. I'm totally confident that he would have gotten away with it if it weren't for the video. I think you know it also.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Nice deflection!


----------



## vicker

A cop caught lying should face the fullest weight of the law. They should be fired, jailed, blackballed, made an object of derision, and never hired in law enforcement again. It has gone on for too long. There are lots of really good LEOs. They should not have to bear the weight of the jerks and "cowboys". I apologize for any insult to Cowboys.


----------



## TxHorseMom

I thought that in this country that you were assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Hmmm. Well, I've been wrong before, and I'm sure it won't be the last time.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> Maybe the investigation will take awhile, but he was charged very quickly. I don't think that would have happened if the prosecutor didn't believe he already had plenty of evidence to convict.


After all the past intimidation by Obama, Holder, the media, and other race baiters, what choice did they have?


----------



## MoonRiver

TxHorseMom said:


> I thought that in this country that you were assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Hmmm. Well, I've been wrong before, and I'm sure it won't be the last time.


Really only applies to courts and trials. We are free to make any judgements we want regardless of how little information or facts we have.


----------



## TxHorseMom

MoonRiver said:


> Really only applies to courts and trials. We are free to make any judgements we want regardless of how little information or facts we have.


That's true. I just hate to see anyone tried in the court of public opinion. IF it was murder, he deserves the book at him. I am just sick of everything being race related. The ONLY ones who REALLY know what happened is the cop and the victim. There's a saying; there's three sides to every story. Your side, my side, and the truth.


----------



## arabian knight

TxHorseMom said:


> That's true. I just hate to see anyone tried in the court of public opinion. IF it was murder, he deserves the book at him. I am just sick of everything being race related. The ONLY ones who REALLY know what happened is the cop and the victim. There's a saying; there's three sides to every story. Your side, my side, and the truth.


----------



## mmoetc

TxHorseMom said:


> That's true. I just hate to see anyone tried in the court of public opinion. IF it was murder, he deserves the book at him. I am just sick of everything being race related. The ONLY ones who REALLY know what happened is the cop and the victim. There's a saying; there's three sides to every story. Your side, my side, and the truth.


And there's only one alive who gets to tell that story. That's the problem with many of these cases. The truth can't be known because dead men tell no tales. iPhones, on the other hand, do.


----------



## gapeach

This is a statement made last night made by the Fraternal Order of the Police that serves Charleston and North Charleston:
"Do not allow the professional race agitators to seize this moment to advance their often self-serving opinions of what is wrong in South Carolina. Do not allow them to bemoan the lack of trust of police by the minority community," the statement reads.


I was wondering how long it would take for people to rally against the police chief and the mayor. Even though they did everything right in the eyes of the family, community, the nation and the law. They moved swiftly and professionally by arresting and charging one of their own with murder.

At rallies this week in North Charleston both inside City Hall chambers and outside the municipal building, protesters called for Police Chief Eddie Driggers and Mayor Keith Summey to be fired.


----------



## Mike CHS

We have had a notice going around work that the bridge leading out of Charleston into Mt. Pleasant may be closed this afternoon due to the demonstators. 

I'm interested in seeing all of the facts come out about this case. I do know that the SLED officers were really suspicious of what had really transpired as soon as they got to the crime site.


----------



## Nevada

TxHorseMom said:


> I thought that in this country that you were assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Hmmm. Well, I've been wrong before, and I'm sure it won't be the last time.


After seeing the video, what kind of proof would satisfy you?

The video proves he was shot in the back while running away, he wasn't struggling for the cop's gun, and you even saw the cop drop the gun nest to the body. We have an eye witness to the same events that the video shows. The film also proves that the cop lied about all of those things.

Tell me, what's the best you can hope the cop might prove in court?


----------



## Nevada

Mike CHS said:


> I do know that the SLED officers were really suspicious of what had really transpired as soon as they got to the crime site.


All accounts I've seen indicate that they were buying the cop's story right up until the video surfaced.


----------



## gapeach

There has been no kind of cover up. The PD knew that SLED needed to handle the case so that there could be no criticism of just that very thing.
It would do no good to fire the Chief or the Mayor. All that kind of protesting is rabble rousing.

Now just allow justice to continue to take place and focus on preventing this from happening again.


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> There has been no kind of cover up.


I'm not aware of a cover up. The allegation here is that the PD, even SLED, was inclined to take the cop at his word. I'm confident that it would have come down that way if the video hadn't surfaced.


----------



## Truckinguy

So, the passenger who stayed in the car was detained and placed in the back of the police car and the man who ran ended up dead? 

As far as I can see there was no justification for this shooting. However, I think that if Mr. Scott had remained in the vehicle his chances of dying would have plummeted drastically.

For one thing, after the traffic stop Mr. Scott's vehicle was on constant surveillance from the camera in the police vehicle. The officer would have known that and would have been less likely to do anything on camera that would have been out of line. The final confrontation and shooting occurred in an area where the officer didn't realize he was being filmed so it increased the likelihood of bad behavior, although, in this day of cell phone cameras and surveillance cameras in the least likely places, everyone should operate as if they were being filmed anyway.


----------



## Nevada

Truckinguy said:


> The final confrontation and shooting occurred in an area where the officer didn't realize he was being filmed so it increased the likelihood of bad behavior


Police departments don't seem to take that into account. I think that's all anyone is asking. The assumption today is that there is no likelihood of bad behavior without concrete proof to the contrary.


----------



## Truckinguy

Nevada said:


> Police departments don't seem to take that into account. I think that's all anyone is asking. The assumption today is that there is no likelihood of bad behavior without concrete proof to the contrary.


Yup, I'm just saying that I would rather be constantly on camera rather than moving the confrontation somewhere else more remote.


----------



## gapeach

Nevada said:


> I'm not aware of a cover up. The allegation here is that the PD, even SLED, was inclined to take the cop at his word. I'm confident that it would have come down that way if the video hadn't surfaced.


I know you did not say cover up. The whole thing is that nobody knows what went on with the different branches of law enforcement on Monday. Very likely the some of the local FBI was on the scene too. It is a real tragedy that Scott was killed and nothing will help the grief of his family. The policeman was wrong. He will pay for his crime. He has a family too, I saw his mother on tv this morning. She is reaching out to the Scott family. She is devastated.
I am sorry for the people of Charleston too and it is very important not to let what happened in Ferguson go on there with the burning and looting. There is no reason for any of that to happen.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> All accounts I've seen indicate that they were buying the cop's story right up until the video surfaced.


I think you made a typo. That should be "No accounts...".



> After the State Law Enforcement Division released the dash video, its chief, Mark Keel, publicly addressed the investigation for the first time by saying *agents had already grown suspicious of Slagerâs account from what they saw at the shooting scene and from Scottâs wounds.*
> *The agents reported their concerns to Keel within a few hours of Scottâs death*, Keel said in a statement.
> *âWe believed early on that there was something not right,â* he said. âThe cellphone *video shot by a bystander confirmed our initial suspicions*.â


http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150409/PC16/150409311


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> agents had already grown suspicious of Slagerâs account


Yes, I saw that in the news this morning. While they might be telling the truth about being suspicious, none were relaying those suspicions to the press. In fact without the video they may never have gone public with their suspicions. That would have the same effect as siding with the cop.


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> After seeing the video, what kind of proof would satisfy you?
> 
> The video proves he was shot in the back while running away, he wasn't struggling for the cop's gun, and you even saw the cop drop the gun nest to the body. We have an eye witness to the same events that the video shows. The film also proves that the cop lied about all of those things.
> 
> Tell me, what's the best you can hope the cop might prove in court?


So as long as there is video, we can just skip the trial? Come on now.


----------



## Nevada

MO_cows said:


> So as long as there is video, we can just skip the trial? Come on now.


Oh no, he still deserves a trial. I just don't see him overcoming the video evidence. Even if he's found no guilty of murder there is still the issue of lying in the police report and dropping the gun, which are both serious offenses.


----------



## gapeach

They are not supposed to be relaying anything to the press. The Chief of police of N. Charleston said that there would be no interviews til after the funeral. Even Chief Keel did not have to say any thing. It seems to me that you are looking for something to criticize.


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> They are not supposed to be relaying anything to the press.


They relayed plenty to the press, all of it supporting the cop's story.


----------



## gapeach

My DH said that he saw an interview with Mr. Scott's family this morning and that they told Al Sharpton that they do not want him there in North Charleston.


----------



## gapeach

Nevada said:


> Oh no, he still deserves a trial. I just don't see him overcoming the video evidence. Even if he's found no guilty of murder there is still the issue of lying in the police report and dropping the gun, which are both serious offenses.


I don't know why you think that people who investigate for a living every day would not charge the man with every crime that he is suspected of.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> Yes, I saw that in the news this morning. While they might be telling the truth about being suspicious, none were relaying those suspicions to the press. In fact without the video they may never have gone public with their suspicions. That would have the same effect as siding with the cop.


You sure are making a lot of assumptions.

About all we know for sure is the cop stopped a driver, the driver ran, the cop chased the driver and they had some time of altercation, the driver ran again, the cop shot and killed him.

We know the opening act and the closing act. What happened in between is generally unknown. Why the driver ran is unknown, although he said he didn't have registration or license. What the police know is generally unknown.

The cop's demeanor at the traffic stop seemed calm and professional. To go from that to shooting the guy in the back doesn't make sense to me with what we know. We need to know what when on in the 2nd act for this to make sense.


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> I don't know why you think that people who investigate for a living every day would not charge the man with every crime that he is suspected of.


Cops take care of their own.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> To go from that to shooting the guy in the back doesn't make sense to me with what we know. We need to know what when on in the 2nd act for this to make sense.


OK, give me a circumstance where shooting the guy in the back like that makes sense?


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> OK, give me a circumstance where shooting the guy in the back like that makes sense?


Since 1985, no one can, not under the circumstances seen in that video.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=1


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> OK, give me a circumstance where shooting the guy in the back like that makes sense?


I don't know. My guess is the driver didn't run because he had a summons for child support. Learning what caused him to run might give us a clue. Then we need to know what happened when the cop caught up to Scott. Did they fight? Why did Scott run again? What happened with the Taser? Was anything found in the car? Was the car stolen? 

My guts telling me there was provocation and the cop made a poor decision. But as I said before, I don't think the shooting was with malice. I don't know why it escalated as quickly as it did, and when we learn that, we will likely know why the cop fired and killed Scott.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> OK, give me a circumstance where shooting the guy in the back like that makes sense?


That block has a rut worn down 6 feet by now. You declare the police guilty without allowing any questioning. Then when the police do arrest him because there is enough evidence that waiting longer is not appropriate, you say that is proof there was a cover up and that no policeman can ever be trusted. You ask for a hypothetical explanation only to dismiss it.
Frankly what you want is lynch law and everyone else to agree with you.
There is zero sense in arguing further as your extreme views drive the argument into opposing extremes.


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> OK, give me a circumstance where shooting the guy in the back like that makes sense?


See post 129.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> I don't know why it escalated as quickly as it did, and when we learn that, we will likely know why the cop fired and killed Scott.


What we know so far is the the reason he gave after the shooting can't be true. The cop said Scott had his gun so he was afraid for his life. At the very least he'll need to change his story. That's not good.


----------



## Nevada

MO_cows said:


> See post 129.


How can the cop claim that the victim was a dangerous killer when he hadn't killed anyone?


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> What we know so far is the the reason he gave after the shooting can't be true. The cop said Scott had his gun so he was afraid for his life. At the very least he'll need to change his story. That's not good.


If by gun you mean service revolver, that's a new one on me.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> If by gun you mean service revolver, that's a new one on me.


No, the cop said he had his taser gun.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> No, the cop said he had his taser gun.


Maybe he did. There's no proof (yet) he didn't have it at some point.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> You ask for a hypothetical explanation only to dismiss it.


I wasn't asking for a hypothetical explanation, I was asking for a plausible explanation in this case.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> I wasn't asking for a hypothetical explanation, I was asking for a plausible explanation in this case.


And the difference is?


----------



## AmericanStand

The problem is time after time after time there's a court case the civilian says one thing the cop said something else the judge asks the civilian do you have proof that the cop is lying ? 
usually they don't become and the judge says I'm going to take the cops word for it because cops don't lie. 
this case proves otherwise yes it's one isolated case but it makes the cop dirty and by extension tars all cops.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> And the difference is?


The difference is that a hypothetical explanation for this type of shooting might be that the victim was a homicidal maniac, but we have no reason to believe that's the case here.


----------



## Nevada

AmericanStand said:


> The problem is time after time after time there's a court case the civilian says one thing the cop said something else the judge asks the civilian do you have proof that the cop is lying ?
> usually they don't become and the judge says I'm going to take the cops word for it because cops don't lie.
> this case proves otherwise yes it's one isolated case but it makes the cop dirty and by extension tars all cops.


While that's of course true I don't see that ever changing. If it's your word against a cop's word, you're going to be at a disadvantage. The judge will assume that the cop was just doing his job and the cop doesn't have it in for you.

I'll be interested in how cop cams change conviction statistics. That's how we'll know how much cops have been getting away with all these years.


----------



## MoonRiver

AmericanStand said:


> The problem is time after time after time there's a court case the civilian says one thing the cop said something else the judge asks the civilian do you have proof that the cop is lying ?
> usually they don't become and the judge says I'm going to take the cops word for it because cops don't lie.
> this case proves otherwise yes it's one isolated case but it makes the cop dirty and by extension tars all cops.


Show me just one occasion where the judge said "I'm going to take the cops word for it because cops don't lie" or anything close to it.


----------



## where I want to

AmericanStand said:


> The problem is time after time after time there's a court case the civilian says one thing the cop said something else the judge asks the civilian do you have proof that the cop is lying ?
> usually they don't become and the judge says I'm going to take the cops word for it because cops don't lie.
> this case proves otherwise yes it's one isolated case but it makes the cop dirty and by extension tars all cops.


And you see nothing wrong with taking the same stance only in 180 degrees where the police are to prove their innocence on every civilian accusation? Maybe that is why a deliberate evaluation rather than instant outrage is a better choice? 
But, in the light of zero evidence if that is all there is, what other possible choice is there than finding a person, even the police, innocent? Many a criminal has made use of that part of American law to walk away.
Frankly if I knew your postings here, and the only evidence of police wrong doing was your testimony which was contradicted by police testimony, why should it be suddenly assumed that you are unbiased? It would be nice to have a truth wand to sort it out but that has not yet happened.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> While that's of course true I don't see that ever changing. If it's your word against a cop's word, you're going to be at a disadvantage. The judge will assume that the cop was just doing his job and the cop doesn't have it in for you.
> 
> I'll be interested in how cop cams change conviction statistics. That's how we'll know how much cops have been getting away with all these years.


Not really as both the accuser and defenders will know what the camera shows, so behavior of both is likely to be more circumspect.


----------



## Shine

Until the actual facts come out there is not enough room to use this case as a bellwether. To stand firmly one one side or the other of the prescribed evil: - Bad cops or Bad people, you have to make assumptions. Point being that there are bad cops and there are bad people. 

I am comfortable, so far, in letting the facts be ferreted out. Will they be the absolute tell-all that provides justice? I can only take them in, digest them and then present my "Opinion" of the results. That's all anyone of has available to them as an option.

If I were able to trot out one of my favorite analogies, then I would offer that Murphy, the unlucky person that we made into Robo-Cop with a biological computer assisted brain, his methodology of executing the law was black and white, no grey areas, in an unemotional manner, if he witnessed someone breaking the established law, that person was placed under arrest, no matter who (s)he was. [the movie was sensationalized] - It would be refreshing if the Law Enforcement personnel could learn how to exclude their emotions...


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> Not really as both the accuser and defenders will know what the camera shows, so behavior of both is likely to be more circumspect.


If that's all the cop cameras accomplish it will be worth it.


----------



## gapeach

If this terrible tragedy had happened in a small town with and a small local police force was doing the investigation then we might have some reason to suggest that favoritism might occur. N. Charleston is the 3rd largest city in South Carolina with incorporated areas in Berkeley, *Charleston*, and Dorchester counties . The professionalism of SLED and the FBI should not be in question.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> If that's all the cop cameras accomplish it will be worth it.


I think it will certainly help although will be far from a panacea.


----------



## where I want to

Shine said:


> Until the actual facts come out there is not enough room to use this case as a bellwether. To stand firmly one one side or the other of the prescribed evil: - Bad cops or Bad people, you have to make assumptions. Point being that there are bad cops and there are bad people.
> 
> I am comfortable, so far, in letting the facts be ferreted out. Will they be the absolute tell-all that provides justice? I can only take them in, digest them and then present my "Opinion" of the results. That's all anyone of has available to them as an option.
> 
> If I were able to trot out one of my favorite analogies, then I would offer that Murphy, the unlucky person that we made into Robo-Cop with a biological computer assisted brain, his methodology of executing the law was black and white, no grey areas, in an unemotional manner, if he witnessed someone breaking the established law, that person was placed under arrest, no matter who (s)he was. [the movie was sensationalized] - It would be refreshing if the Law Enforcement personnel could learn how to exclude their emotions...


I don't think you mean all emotions but just how to see when it is not helpful and how to deal with them if needed. But frankly, a cold blooded policeman would be terrifyingly dangerous.


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> The professionalism of SLED and the FBI should not be in question.


I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason to believe that either SLED or the FBI had a clue until the video surfaced. If you can find something that indicates that they were questioning the cops word before the video was released I'd like to see it.


----------



## gapeach

Nevada said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason to believe that either SLED or the FBI had a clue until the video surfaced. If you can find something that indicates that they were questioning the cops word before the video was released I'd like to see it.


Read this article:
*NCPD: Traffic stop over brake light led to fatal officer-involved shooting*
"This is part of the job that no one likes and wishes would never happen," North Charleston Police Chief Eddie Driggers said on Saturday. "This type of situation is unfortunate and difficult for everyone. We are confident that SLED will conduct a complete and thorough investigation in to the incident and provide their findings to all concerned."

http://www.live5news.com/story/2872...r-involved-fatal-shooting-in-north-charleston


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> Read this article:
> *NCPD: Traffic stop over brake light led to fatal officer-involved shooting*
> "This is part of the job that no one likes and wishes would never happen," North Charleston Police Chief Eddie Driggers said on Saturday. "This type of situation is unfortunate and difficult for everyone. We are confident that SLED will conduct a complete and thorough investigation in to the incident and provide their findings to all concerned."
> 
> http://www.live5news.com/story/2872...r-involved-fatal-shooting-in-north-charleston


I read it, but I didn't see where it said SLED or the North Charleston Police doubted the cop's story. Could you be more specific?


----------



## gapeach

Nevada said:


> I read it, but I didn't see where it said SLED or the North Charleston Police doubted the cop's story. Could you be more specific?


I am talking about SLED being on the job on Saturday. They have agents who live in Charleston and N Charleston. Their chief has said the agents were thinking early on that something was not right. They are not going to flat out tell you word for word what there conversations were. Since you were not there to hear them, you will just have to wait til the investigation is over and that will not be a short time.


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> They have agents who live in Charleston and N Charleston. Their chief has said the agents were thinking early on that something was not right.


But when did they say that. All accounts I've seen say it after the video was released. Cops are always going to say that they saw through it all along, after the fact. It gives the impression that they're savvy.


----------



## gapeach

Well, with your generalizing "all cops", there is no need to pick at this anymore.


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> Well, with your generalizing "all cops", there is no need to pick at this anymore.


Sure, all cops want others to think they're savvy. They want you to think nothing gets past them. Is saying that a problem?


----------



## AmericanStand

MoonRiver said:


> Show me just one occasion where the judge said "I'm going to take the cops word for it because cops don't lie" or anything close to it.



No problem at all , just trot on down to your local court room.


----------



## AmericanStand

where I want to said:


> But, in the light of zero evidence if that is all there is, what other possible choice is there than finding a person, even the police, innocent? .


 Actually I think we partially agree the difference is I would apply that standard to both cops and the citizens they work for. 
As professionals I think cops should be held to a higher standard. But no one should be convicted of anything without evidence. 
Since I've never met a honest cop I don't accept their word as evidence.


----------



## vicker

gapeach said:


> My DH said that he saw an interview with Mr. Scott's family this morning and that they told Al Sharpton that they do not want him there in North Charleston.



They did indeed ask mr. Sharpton to stay away, however, I doubt he'll care for their wishes. If he does come, I hope he is disappointed. SC is not Missouri and, Charleston is not Ferguson. There have been times when I have tried explain the differences between race relations here, and in other places, further north of here, I have lived. It is about impossible to explain. Our racism is more visible and, often, louder but, it is not so very deep, for the most of us. I'm not saying it's not there, it is, but we live much more together. 
Here is a pretty good article that came out yesterday. Of course, it is written by a white Charlestonian, of a certain class, but I think he does a decent job. 
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/walter-scott-shooting-south-carolina


----------



## gapeach

vicker said:


> They did indeed ask mr. Sharpton to stay away, however, I doubt he'll care for their wishes. If he does come, I hope he is disappointed. SC is not Missouri and, Charleston is not Ferguson. There have been times when I have tried explain the differences between race relations here, and in other places, further north of here, I have lived. It is about impossible to explain. Our racism is more visible and, often, louder but, it is not so very deep, for the most of us. I'm not saying it's not there, it is, but we live much more together.
> Here is a pretty good article that came out yesterday. Of course, it is written by a white Charlestonian, of a certain class, but I think he does a decent job.
> http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/walter-scott-shooting-south-carolina


That is a good article and very true. Your post is good. People who were not born and raised here don't understand how we feel about each other, black and white. We do live very much together. Most of us natives of all races are hard working people who had absolutely nothing to do with our states' histories, however it is a part of history. The last thing any of us wants today is racial trouble in our towns. We have come a very long way. Our policemen work side by side to keep us safe.


----------



## MoonRiver

I rarely agree with Geraldo, but in this case he is agreeing with me, so I guess it's OK. As I posted earlier in the thread, I believe the officer will be found guilty of manslaughter, not murder. Here's Geraldo agreeing with me.



> Speaking on &#8220;Fox & Friends&#8221; Friday morning, Rivera believes that * the facts paint a different story, especially because they don&#8217;t show premeditation, which is one of the important factors for a murder charge*.
> 
> &#8220;I&#8217;m extremely glad they released the dash cam video because it gives context to the event, however horrific, tragic and outrageous the shooting in the back is,&#8221; he began. &#8220;It shows that it started as a righteous traffic stop. There was a light out. The driver was acting hanky, very edgy. He got out of the car, was told to get back in the car. Clearly the officer involved was checking to see whether there were outstanding warrants. The victim knew there was the outstanding warrant for him for child support. He bolts. The taser comes out.
> 
> &#8220;There is a struggle you don&#8217;t see. But there is a reliable, I think, eyewitness account that there is a struggle after the taser. So up until that point the cop with his adrenaline pumping, now he&#8217;s been in a physical tussle, now the perpetrator has reached for the taser allegedly, now it gives you the context of his blood boiling. *He has done everything professional and now this civilian has dared to physically have this altercation with the officer. Put that into the officer&#8217;s head now: I think it saves him from the murder rap.*&#8221;


The Blaze


----------



## nchobbyfarm

AmericanStand said:


> Since I've never met a honest cop I don't accept their word as evidence.


What a statement. No wonder you attract cops attention, I am sure your hatred shows. That explains a lot.


----------



## Woolieface

I'm just tired of the indefensible getting a defense from the general populace because of a uniform. The only thing that happened here was a guy getting shot in the back 8 times and dying on the ground. 

There's a problem with the police in this country. I know we've all been raised to respect them, but it's time to see that. There's no excuse for this stuff. None. There's no excuse for being a bully and a terrorist to the people you are to protect and serve. As for the good cops. Time to turn on the rotten apples...if you are "good"...because the whole bushel is starting to stink. 

I'm sick of "you did something to get pulled over...you had a brake light out, you mouthed off, you...blah blah blah." Nothing excuses the way some of these cops respond to these things. Do a youtube check for videos of police brutality and you'll find that these few media hyped incidents are not, by far, the limit of what's going on. These are just the ones that have good potential for being spun into propaganda and testing the public's sensitivity to both race relations and police/civilian relations. 

This country will be a police state without a greater outcry, and it's not going to skip your town.


----------



## MoonRiver

Woolieface said:


> I'm just tired of the indefensible getting a defense from the general populace because of a uniform. The only thing that happened here was a guy getting shot in the back 8 times and dying on the ground.
> 
> There's a problem with the police in this country. I know we've all been raised to respect them, but it's time to see that. There's no excuse for this stuff. None. There's no excuse for being a bully and a terrorist to the people you are to protect and serve. As for the good cops. Time to turn on the rotten apples...if you are "good"...because the whole bushel is starting to stink.
> 
> I'm sick of "you did something to get pulled over...you had a brake light out, you mouthed off, you...blah blah blah." Nothing excuses the way some of these cops respond to these things. Do a youtube check for videos of police brutality and you'll find that these few media hyped incidents are not, by far, the limit of what's going on. These are just the ones that have good potential for being spun into propaganda and testing the public's sensitivity to both race relations and police/civilian relations.
> 
> This country will be a police state without a greater outcry, and it's not going to skip your town.


The cop wasn't the one with a brake light that wasn't working. The cop wasn't the one with no registration or license. The cop wasn't the one that ran from the scene. The cop wasn't the one with open warrants against him. The cop wasn't the one with a criminal history. 

The video from the police car shows a police officer acting professionally.

Your post makes no sense to me.

I have never had an experience with a policeman where he was anything but pleasant and professional. I bet at least 75% of all American citizens have had similar experiences. Like all jobs, some people are very good and some not so good. If anything, police are probably a little better than most other careers because of the training they get plus public scrutiny.


----------



## Woolieface

MoonRiver said:


> The cop wasn't the one with a brake light that wasn't working. The cop wasn't the one with no registration or license. The cop wasn't the one that ran from the scene. The cop wasn't the one with open warrants against him. The cop wasn't the one with a criminal history.
> 
> The video from the police car shows a police officer acting professionally.
> 
> Your post makes no sense to me.
> 
> I have never had an experience with a policeman where he was anything but pleasant and professional. I bet at least 75% of all American citizens have had similar experiences. Like all jobs, some people are very good and some not so good. If anything, police are probably a little better than most other careers because of the training they get plus public scrutiny.



The cop isn't the one dead. If you have a brake light out, do you want to end up dead for it?


----------



## arabian knight

nchobbyfarm said:


> What a statement. No wonder you attract cops attention, I am sure your hatred shows. That explains a lot.


 You got that right. i can't understand some that seem to think everyone they have meant are bad ones. It all depends how you answer things, your actions, you voice reflections. ALL can turn a officer off from just being another person just doing their job. A persons body actions and such tells a officer of the law a lot about you.
Calm collected and never Argumentative goes a Whole long way when in a situation of being stopped by a LEO.
I haven't been stopped but I sure was given a 'talking to' When I was acting like a teenager and driving like on a race track doing a 180Âº ON A TWO LANE ROAD. LOL
They came to my house and asked me was I driving on such an such, YES, is that your car YES, is that a Police Car YES. 
I was just trying it out officer to see if I could avoid a child in the middle od the road. Ya Right. LOL

Well they just gave men a warning even if after measuring all the black marks I left was way over 100 feet if added all together. LOL

Boy that old squad car more. a old 1976 Ford LTD with a Complete police package still on it. Even the spot light left on on, that 460 Police interceptor could MOVE. And Turn on a Dime. LOL


----------



## AmericanStand

MoonRiver said:


> The cop wasn't the one with a brake light that wasn't working. The cop wasn't the one with no registration or license. The cop wasn't the one that ran from the scene. The cop wasn't the one with open warrants against him. The cop wasn't the one with a criminal
> 
> I have never had an experience with a policeman where he was anything but pleasant and professional. I bet at least 75% of all American citizens have had similar experiences. .




What makes you think the victim did any of the stuff you mention. ? After all the cop is a confirmed liar. 
Lol if we use you numbers then 25% of the population has been mistreated. 
I think that's unacceptable.


----------



## AmericanStand

nchobbyfarm said:


> What a statement. No wonder you attract cops attention, I am sure your hatred shows. That explains a lot.



Hatred. ? Do you think you have ever met a honest cop? You know a cop that you could ask " have you lied?" And have him honestly say no and pass a lie detector ?

I have met some good cops but I don't think Jesus ever wore a badge .


----------



## vicker

One, there is no requirement of premeditation in SC for a murder charge. All that is required is that you intended to kill, or cause great bodily harm. 

Two
I worked as an emergency dispatcher for ten years in the 80s and 90s and knew a lot of LEOs. There were plenty of good ones, not so good ones and down right bad ones. I've known cops who said out right that they like the job because they get to beat the ---- out of people. I saw a big change in many LEOs in the early 90s onward, towards more aggressive and confrontational policing. I have known plenty of cops who will lie on the stand and tell you, "take my advice, when they put you on the stand, lie like hell". On grand jury duty in Boston I caught a Boston PD officer in lie while he was trying to send a fellow up on trumped up charges. I called him on it and, I am sure, if he could have yanked me out of the jury box I wouldn't be as pretty as I am today. Not all LEOs are there to protect and serve. Not by a long shot, and it's time they start getting called on it.


----------



## AmericanStand

I just don't understand why you think it's acceptable the citizen fear the cops , for the citizen to need to be excessively polite to their servant. 
They work for us using a portion of our rights delegated to them. 
The master should not fear the servant.


----------



## MO_cows

AmericanStand said:


> I just don't understand why you think it's acceptable the citizen fear the cops , for the citizen to need to be excessively polite to their servant.
> They work for us using a portion of our rights delegated to them.
> The master should not fear the servant.


They aren't "servants". We give them authority to do their jobs and citizens have to respect that authority or else the whole system is a waste of our money. But there isn't some giant police conspiracy like you seem to think. Like any other group of people, you get the good the bad and the ugly. The selfish, the stupid and any other human flaw. Then the elected pass all kinds of ridiculous laws they have to enforce. A very hard job to do well. If you think every cop is bad they will pick up on that and it soon becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## suzfromWi

They think he ran because he had unpaid child support. Like if he had gotten away, they couldn't look him up? That didnt warrent his murder.


----------



## Shine

MO_cows said:


> They aren't "servants". We give them authority to do their jobs and citizens have to respect that authority or else the whole system is a waste of our money. But there isn't some giant police conspiracy like you seem to think. Like any other group of people, you get the good the bad and the ugly. The selfish, the stupid and any other human flaw. Then the elected pass all kinds of ridiculous laws they have to enforce. A very hard job to do well. If you think every cop is bad they will pick up on that and it soon becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.


They are servants. The collective society gave them increased powers and was to hold them to a higher bar due to these advanced powers. No one holds them to this higher bar any longer. Sure there are bad people out there. Does that allow them free range to treat the whole as bad people? I am not a bad person but I came a hair's breadth away from being piled upon... it was a touchy situation. Their stated purpose for getting in my face? - I stumbled while walking. That is a statement that cannot be refuted without having their videos, 2 officers screeched to a halt in front of me blocking two lanes of traffic, another car came from the other direction - same stop technique, before they have gotten near me two other cars came in in a less urgent fashion. Here I am looking at 8 officers looking like US military and I have 0 defenses.

Acting in a jovial fashion as if there was no threat because I had done nothing wrong probably saved the day. Should I have received the death penalty or a severe beating if I had been upset at their intrusion? 

You tell me...


----------



## Shin

> If it's your word against a cop's word, you're going to be at a disadvantage. The judge will assume that the cop was just doing his job and the cop doesn't have it in for you.


Actually, interesting note this. A family member of mine was dismissed from jury duty by the judge during the initial questioning because she was asked whether she would give more weight to a police officer's testimony than a regular citizen's, and she said yes.

She was questioned about it, said that was just the way she was raised, and was kicked off just like that, the judge had a problem with it.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

AmericanStand said:


> I just don't understand why you think it's acceptable the citizen fear the cops , for the citizen to need to be excessively polite to their servant.
> They work for us using a portion of our rights delegated to them.
> The master should not fear the servant.


So because they work for the local jurisdiction being paid with tax dollars, they are a slave to all citizens? That is a warped view.

No one said excessively polite. We just said polite. Even your post is dripping with disdain! I am convinced it shows in person.


----------



## MoonRiver

vicker said:


> One, there is no requirement of premeditation in SC for a murder charge. All that is required is that you intended to kill, or cause great bodily harm.


SC Code of Laws


> *SECTION 16-3-10.* "Murder" defined.
> 
> "Murder" is the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied.
> *
> SECTION 16-3-50.* Manslaughter.
> 
> A person convicted of manslaughter, or the unlawful killing of another without malice, express or implied, must be imprisoned not more than thirty years or less than two years.


I haven't seen or read anything to indicate there was malice.


----------



## MoonRiver

AmericanStand said:


> Hatred. ? Do you think you have ever met a honest cop? You know a cop that you could ask " have you lied?" And have him honestly say no and pass a lie detector ?
> 
> I have met some good cops but I don't think Jesus ever wore a badge .


No reasonable person expects a cop to be perfect. Humans don't have it in them to be perfect.


----------



## MoonRiver

Shin said:


> Actually, interesting note this. A family member of mine was dismissed from jury duty by the judge during the initial questioning because she was asked whether she would give more weight to a police officer's testimony than a regular citizen's, and she said yes.
> 
> She was questioned about it, said that was just the way she was raised, and was kicked off just like that, the judge had a problem with it.


The judge or the defense attorney? I can certainly see a defense attorney doing that.


----------



## mmoetc

MoonRiver said:


> SC Code of Laws
> 
> 
> I haven't seen or read anything to indicate there was malice.


I'd say shooting someone repeatedly in the back is a malicious act in and of itself. The question may be how much "aforethought" is necessary.


----------



## MoonRiver

mmoetc said:


> I'd say shooting someone repeatedly in the back is a malicious act in and of itself. The question may be how much "aforethought" is necessary.


When I look at both videos, I don't see malice. When only looking at the shooting video, it might appear differently, but I think the entirety has to be seen to determine malice. It appears to be a heat of the moment event.

There doesn't appear to be anything in the officer's past to indicate he was a mean or malicious person. If he had that type of history, CNN would be running it nonstop.


----------



## AmericanStand

MO_cows said:


> They aren't "servants". We give them authority to do their jobs and citizens have to respect that authority.


Um When you hire someone to do your work and you "Give" them the tools to do it with they are your servant THEY WORK FOR YOU!





MO_cows said:


> But there isn't some giant police conspiracy like you seem to think. .


Really? So The cops I know lie to me about that too?



nchobbyfarm said:


> So because they work for the local jurisdiction being paid with tax dollars, they are a slave to all citizens? That is a warped view..


Not a slave a servant.



nchobbyfarm said:


> No one said excessively polite. We just said polite. Even your post is dripping with disdain! I am convinced it shows in person.



Right as I drive along at 55 mph and 100 yards distant My dislike of bad policing radiates like a magic Aura.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

AmericanStand said:


> Um When you hire someone to do your work and you "Give" them the tools to do it with they are your servant THEY WORK FOR YOU!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So The cops I know lie to me about that too?
> 
> 
> 
> Not a slave a servant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right as I drive along at 55 mph and 100 yards distant My dislike of bad policing radiates like a magic Aura.


In your post you used the words master and servant. Those terms together are slave terms. As an employee, I am never a servant to my employer. I am hired to perform a task that my employer receives a benefit. I am paid for the employer receiving the benefit. If they don't like me or the benefit, fire me! But NEVER refer to me as a servant. And I would never look at any of the employees I have had through the years that way. 

As to your disdain, I am betting it only takes seconds after first contact for the officer to recognize it.


----------



## Woolieface

That attitude of giving the police the benefit of the doubt without question while always assuming the worst of the civilian is a dangerous habit. Police are, and always have been, by the way, described as "public servants"


----------



## Shine

nchobbyfarm said:


> In your post you used the words *master *and *servant*. Those terms together are *slave terms*. As an employee, _I am never a servant to my employer_. I am hired to perform a task that my employer receives a benefit. I am paid for the employer receiving the benefit. If they don't like me or the benefit, fire me! But NEVER refer to me as a servant. And I would never look at any of the employees I have had through the years that way.
> 
> As to your disdain, I am betting it only takes seconds after first contact for the officer to recognize it.


You are unaware of Semantics? You seem not to understand the real meaning of servant.

*servant*



[sur-vuh nt]
noun 


1. a person employed by another, especially to perform domestic duties. 
2. a person in the service of another. 
3. a person employed by the government: a public servant.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/servant

So you say that if one is a servant then that classification means that they are a slave doing the bidding of another.

So you say that if one is an employee then that classification removes them from the category of being a servant doing the bidding of another.

Boy o boy things can get really wound up when one parses stuff in a method that avoids common rules of communication.


----------



## Nevada

MO_cows said:


> But there isn't some giant police conspiracy like you seem to think.


I don't think there's an ongoing conspiracy with a nefarious agenda, but I do think they look out for their own. When a cop makes a mistake or even gets caught doing something he shouldn't have, the rest will back him and probably cover up for him. As we saw in the clip, another cop stood by while a gun was dropped and said nothing. He was taking care of his own.

But whether isn't a giant conspiracy with a nefarious agenda or cops just covering up for each other, when it happens to you there is little difference. You can tell the God's truth while cops fabricate a story that makes you look bad and them look good. There's not a lot you can do about it either.


----------



## arabian knight

they are servants they "Protect And Serve" US, the American public. That is servants. They serve and protect you and me.


----------



## where I want to

But not personal servants.


----------



## gapeach

Nevada said:


> I don't think there's an ongoing conspiracy with a nefarious agenda, but I do think they look out for their own. When a cop makes a mistake or even gets caught doing something he shouldn't have, the rest will back him and probably cover up for him. As we saw in the clip, another cop stood by while a gun was dropped and said nothing. He was taking care of his own.
> 
> But whether isn't a giant conspiracy with a nefarious agenda or cops just covering up for each other, when it happens to you there is little difference. You can tell the God's truth while cops fabricate a story that makes you look bad and them look good. There's not a lot you can do about it either.


You really don't know what the other policeman said to his superiors when he was questioned just like no one knows what the passenger with Mr. Scott said when he was questioned.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> I don't think there's an ongoing conspiracy with a nefarious agenda, but I do think they look out for their own. When a cop makes a mistake or even gets caught doing something he shouldn't have, the rest will back him and probably cover up for him. As we saw in the clip, another cop stood by while a gun was dropped and said nothing. He was taking care of his own.
> 
> But whether isn't a giant conspiracy with a nefarious agenda or cops just covering up for each other, when it happens to you there is little difference. You can tell the God's truth while cops fabricate a story that makes you look bad and them look good. There's not a lot you can do about it either.


Maybe if there were policies that respected that human, especially humans in pressured situations, will make mistakes, there would be less need to feel that they were walking targets for some people. 
I find it painful to see that people will climb on the public opinion bandwagon based on statements from people who have a direct benefit in spinning the facts for their own advantage. If those statements did not serve their preconceived ideas, they would otherwise find them very questionable. If thay applies to the police, it applies equally or more so to the people they arrest.


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> You really don't know what the other policeman said to his superiors when he was questioned just like no one knows what the passenger with Mr. Scott said when he was questioned.


No, but I know what wasn't in the police reports. I read them online. There was no mention of dropping a gun. Are you suggesting that the cop told his superiors that a gun was dropped and that the superiors were in on the cover up?


----------



## gapeach

No, I don't think there was any cover up.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/master

You left out the words master and together. Look at my post again. Words do matter. And you left ones out that changed my meaning. 

But you guys just continue your bashing of Law Enforcement officers to your delight.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> Maybe if there were policies that respected that human, especially humans in pressured situations, will make mistakes, there would be less need to feel that they were walking targets for some people.
> I find it painful to see that people will climb on the public opinion bandwagon based on statements from people who have a direct benefit in spinning the facts for their own advantage. If those statements did not serve their preconceived ideas, they would otherwise find them very questionable. If thay applies to the police, it applies equally or more so to the people they arrest.


I don't think that's what police want. The current system is a good thing for cops who are accepted within the police community. Their records show that they make virtually no mistakes because others will cover for them.

The system also has the added advantage of weeding out cops who aren't playing ball. All they do is not cover for them and let common mistakes, which are bound to happen, be the end of the rogue cop's career.

Why would cops want to change that?


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> No, I don't think there was any cover up.


You don't believe the other cop saw the gun being dropped?


----------



## gapeach

Of course I do. Everything will come out at the trial.


http://news.yahoo.com/protest-plann...-092432016.html;_ylt=A0LEVre3SSlVy1QAmUcnnIlQ
Slager walks back to pick up what appears to be the Taser, then return and drop it at Scott's feet as another officer arrives to check the dying man's condition. Then he picks it up again after exchanging words with the other officer.


----------



## gapeach

Once again I bit. It is obvious that you are just looking for something to be critical about in the investigation. You are not privy to what the law enforcement agencies know. 
Have at it!


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> Once again I bit. It is obvious that you are just looking for something to be critical about in the investigation. You are not privy to what the law enforcement agencies know.
> Have at it!


No, I'm wondering why something that critical wasn't in the police report. Moving a critical piece of evidence from one place to another, possibly compromising fingerprint & DNA evidence, is certainly something that should have been mentioned.

Are you comfortable with cops moving evidence around before investigators arrive?


----------



## gapeach

I am confident that the the policeman was wrong to have shot and murdered Scott. I am confident that every thing will come out at the trial. I am confident that the policeman will pay for the rest of his life whether he gets the murder 1 charge or not. There was a witness sitting in the back of the car whose story no one has heard. Justice will be done in North Charleston, SC.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> No, but I know what wasn't in the police reports. I read them online. There was no mention of dropping a gun. Are you suggesting that the cop told his superiors that a gun was dropped and that the superiors were in on the cover up?


He picked it back up. Why would he do that if he was trying to plant evidence?


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> I don't think that's what police want. The current system is a good thing for cops who are accepted within the police community. Their records show that they make virtually no mistakes because others will cover for them.
> 
> The system also has the added advantage of weeding out cops who aren't playing ball. All they do is not cover for them and let common mistakes, which are bound to happen, be the end of the rogue cop's career.
> 
> Why would cops want to change that?


Your allegation is again all police are self serving liars? That not one will have a sense of honor? For liars exist in the public too, at a significantly higher rate I suspect. 
I think that prisons are full to overflowing with people saying that they were framed by the police. It is a handy dandy excuse which they are never called to prove. A few would be right but the vast majority, if somehow forced to answer honestly, would mean by being framed that the police 'violated' their rights by not swallowing whole an incredibly excuse.

The same sort of reasoning that a speeder give for why his getting a ticket was wrong- not that he wasn't speeding but that the man drving in front of him was going just as fast but wasn't stopped. Therefore the police were obviously targeting him.

So what protection from the blame shifters do you think the police should have?


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> I am confident that the the policeman was wrong to have shot and murdered Scott. I am confident that every thing will come out at the trial. I am confident that the policeman will pay for the rest of his life whether he gets the murder 1 charge or not. There was a witness sitting in the back of the car whose story no one has heard. Justice will be done in North Charleston, SC.


Yeah, everything's fine now. It's just that I saw everything wrong with crooked cops in this case -- unjustified shooting, planting evidence, inaccurate police reports, the department covering for the cop, you name it and it happened here.

The cop who did the shooting will have to be sacrificed, but there's something bigger for them to protect here; the department and the system. Those will survive this and the problems will continue.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> Your allegation is again all police are self serving liars?


I used to be a firefighter. I know how the system works. Most of the time cops are just conducting business, but when a mistake is made by a cop they will protect their own.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> Yeah, everything's fine now. It's just that I saw everything wrong with crooked cops in this case -- unjustified shooting, planting evidence, inaccurate police reports, the department covering for the cop, you name it and it happened here.
> 
> The cop who did the shooting will have to be sacrificed, but there's something bigger for them to protect here; the department and the system. Those will survive this and the problems will continue.


Or you assumed those based on a shooting in which you had little information, but , based on no information, were quite will to assume what suited you. These were the same allegations you made every time in every shooting but in this case, there actually appeared something that supported them. If those same assumption are applied all the time and everywhere, sooner or later the facts and assumptions are going to align. By accident.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> So what protection from the blame shifters do you think the police should have?


I don't understand the question. Who are the "blame shifters" and why do police need protection from them?


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> I used to be a firefighter. I know how the system works. Most of the time cops are just conducting business, but when a mistake is made by a cop they will protect their own.


And what happened when you reported such things?


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> And what happened when you reported such things?


Report it to who? The cops? LOL


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> I don't understand the question. Who are the "blame shifters" and why do police need protection from them?


Criminals for one, looking to get out of consequences. People who already hold an opinion and editing to support their drive to get approval for it. People with an axe to grind.
Since police are in the business of interrupting and interfering with illegal behavior, they are in almost constant contact with those looking to shift blame and likely to hold a grudge.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> Report it to who? The cops? LOL


Well, I would have started there.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> Criminals for one, looking to get out of consequences. People who already hold an opinion and editing to support their drive to get approval for it. People with an axe to grind.
> Since police are in the business of interrupting and interfering with illegal behavior, they are in almost constant contact with those looking to shift blame and likely to hold a grudge.


What kind of protection are you suggesting cops should have from that?


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> What kind of protection are you suggesting cops should have from that?


I prefer that unless supported by physical evidence or by doubt cause by conflicting or impossible evidence or In the case of unified, non conflicting testimony- not to be mistaken for opinion- it not be assumed that a policeman, in the pursuit of his work, is guilty. That taking time to develop the above is not considered a cover up. And that trial by media be considered the ugliness it is.
How would you provide protection to police from people who have an axe to grind and are not particularly honorable in how they go about it?


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> I prefer that unless supported by physical evidence or by doubt cause by conflicting or impossible evidence or In the case of unified, non conflicting testimony- not to be mistaken for opinion- it not be assumed that a policeman, in the pursuit of his work, is guilty. That taking time to develop the above is not considered a cover up. And that trial by media be considered the ugliness it is.
> How would you provide protection to police from people who have an axe to grind and are not particularly honorable in how they go about it?


A defendant is assumed to be capable of saying anything he has to in the interest of saving his own skin. Judges and juries expect that. The assumption will always be that the cop is telling the truth about what he saw. And 95% of the time that's the case.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> A defendant is assumed to be capable of saying anything he has to in the interest of saving his own skin. Judges and juries expect that. The assumption will always be that the cop is telling the truth about what he saw. And 95% of the time that's the case.


But not for all posting in forums.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> But not for all posting in forums.


The only time I think you'll find cops lying is when a mistake was made and they're trying to cover it up. But the mistake may have nothing to do with the crime, or even you. It could just be a simple procedural error that you don't even understand.

In this case the cop knew that he screwed up. If he didn't know that he wouldn't have moved the taser. He was setting up the scene to make it look as much like he had justification to shoot as possible. The other cops were either complicit or they believed it.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> A defendant is assumed to be capable of saying anything he has to in the interest of saving his own skin. Judges and juries expect that. The assumption will always be that the cop is telling the truth about what he saw. And 95% of the time that's the case.


It's legal.for cops to lie, illegal for regular citizens. 95% of the time...cops lie on the witness stand. That's been my experience.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> It's legal.for cops to lie, illegal for regular citizens. 95% of the time...cops lie on the witness stand. That's been my experience.


It's legal for a cop to lie to you during an interrogation. For example, he could say that your friend is telling the story in the next room and is saying it was all your idea, when in truth your friend hadn't said anything. But it's not legal for a cop to lie under oath. Sure, cops lie on the witness stand sometimes, but it's not legal. If you can prove that a cop lied in court, or even in a police report, then he's in a lot of trouble.

I doubt the frequency of cops lying is anywhere near 95%. I suspect that it's closer to them not lying 95% of the time. There's no reason for them to lie most of the time.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> It's legal for a cop to lie to you during an interrogation. For example, he could say that your friend is telling the story in the next room and is saying it was all your idea, when in truth your friend hadn't said anything. But it's not legal for a cop to lie under oath. Sure, cops lie on the witness stand sometimes, but it's not legal. If you can prove that a cop lied in court, or even in a police report, then he's in a lot of trouble.


I did on 2 separate occasions. One I appealed and won. The cops got off scott free and the other, the judge knew the cop was lying, he stated two different things on the witness stand and when the judge sided with him the courtroom let out a gasp which the judge heard. It was for a traffic ticket so.i wasn't going to waste any more time. The fine was $125 my payment including court fees was $860. I took traffic school. I couldn't get any of my cop friends to get this one taken care of. Seems none of them liked this guy, and he didn't like them, so no reciprocating on tickets.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> I did on 2 separate occasions. One I appealed and won. The cops got off scott free and the other, the judge knew the cop was lying, he stated two different things on the witness stand and when the judge sided with him the courtroom let out a gasp which the judge heard. It was for a traffic ticket so.i wasn't going to waste any more time. The fine was $125 my payment including court fees was $860. I took traffic school. I couldn't get any of my cop friends to get this one taken care of. Seems none of them liked this guy, and he didn't like them, so no reciprocating on tickets.


There's a difference between a judge not believing someone and proving perjury. Something being untrue isn't enough to establish perjury. For perjury you have to show that:

* The person was under oath.
* The false information was a material fact in that case (lying about your age under oath wouldn't be perjury unless your age was at issue in the trial).
* You can prove that the person knew the information was a lie.
* The person had an intent to mislead the court.

Proving intent to mislead and knowledge that the information was untrue can be problematic. Saying you forgot is always useful in defending perjury.


----------



## Shine

nchobbyfarm said:


> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/master
> 
> You left out the words master and together. Look at my post again. Words do matter. And you left ones out that changed my meaning.
> 
> But you guys just continue your bashing of Law Enforcement officers to your delight.


I gave the definition of "Servant" because YOU changed ITS meaning. If you agree to work for someone it is simple, you are a servant, yea, I guess that DOES change your meaning...


----------



## AmericanStand

where I want to said:


> I think that prisons are full to overflowing with people saying that they were framed by the police. It is a handy dandy excuse which they are never called to prove. A few would be right but the vast majority, if somehow forced to answer honestly, would mean by being framed that the police 'violated' their rights by not swallowing whole an incredibly excuse.


Would proof that over half of a prison population was wrongly convicted sway your opinion?


----------



## DEKE01

Nevada said:


> No, I'm wondering why something that critical wasn't in the police report. Moving a critical piece of evidence from one place to another, possibly compromising fingerprint & DNA evidence, is certainly something that should have been mentioned.
> 
> Are you comfortable with cops moving evidence around before investigators arrive?


who is it you want to mention moved evidence, the second cop at the scene? If so, look at the vid again. It isn't clear when cop 2 shows up but there is no real indication he should understand what cop 1 did dropping the taser and then picking it up. 

I'm not defending either cop here. Just pointing out that you are drawing conclusions unjustifiably...

again.


----------



## vicker

The moving of anything associated with the scene is a very serious breech of protocol.


----------



## vicker

I read earlier today and, now cannot find any article referring to it, that officer Slager's Union has also left him in the cold. Has anyone else heard as much?

ETA
He's had, at least, two fund me sites shut down. I do believe he should be fairly represented by counsel.


----------



## vicker

On another note, if you google it you will see most of the news outlets tripping over one another to correct their stories that they got from Associated Press, which corrected it's stories early Saturday morning. The correction is that Mr. Scott received a "general discharge under honorable conditions" from the Coast Guard, as opposed to an honorable discharge. Evidently he had some minor drug incident that led to the slightly lesser label. 
I'm just posting it as I've not seen it mentioned here. It doesn't change anything.


----------



## mmoetc

vicker said:


> I read earlier today and, now cannot find any article referring to it, that officer Slager's Union has also left him in the cold. Has anyone else heard as much?
> 
> ETA
> He's had, at least, two fund me sites shut down. I do believe he should be fairly represented by counsel.


The law provides for his defense. If he cannot afford counsel the state will provide one for him. It is a right I'm sure he's familiar with. He's also likely familiar with the general quality of said counsel.


----------



## DEKE01

vicker said:


> The moving of anything associated with the scene is a very serious breech of protocol.


Of course it is. Again, I'm not defending cop 2 because we don't know enough yet. If he assisted in an "under reporting" of the facts, I hope he gets appropriately punished. We just can't assume he got there and understood everything that we see in the vid. He was on the dead man's back when the officer dropped and picked up something. I've seen paramedics do the same thing and no one, AFAIK, assumed it was part of a cover up.


----------



## mmoetc

For those of you who think being polite and following directions make you safe. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/justice/south-carolina-trooper-shooting/index.html

He was pulled over for an alleged "seat belt violation". Gotta love revenue stops gone bad.


----------



## 7thswan

I just listened to the tape of the cop while he was in pursuit -he says the perp. took his tazer and tazed the Cop.


----------



## tarbe

vicker said:


> The correction is that Mr. Scott received a "general discharge under honorable conditions" from the Coast Guard, as opposed to an honorable discharge. Evidently he had some minor drug incident that led to the slightly lesser label.



Sorry...an off-topic nit-pick here....


In my experience (and opinion) a General Discharge is not a "slightly lesser label" relative to an Honorable Discharge.

Dopers and major trouble-makers received General Discharges. I saw many folks who had multiple Non-Judicial Punishments (even some drug charges) still manage to get Honorable Discharges. 

You had to screw up pretty badly to get a General.


----------



## Nevada

DEKE01 said:


> who is it you want to mention moved evidence, the second cop at the scene? If so, look at the vid again. It isn't clear when cop 2 shows up but there is no real indication he should understand what cop 1 did dropping the taser and then picking it up.
> 
> I'm not defending either cop here. Just pointing out that you are drawing conclusions unjustifiably...
> 
> again.


The second cop heard the police call saying the defendant had his taser. If he didn't think dropping the taser next to the body was a big deal then he's an idiot.


----------



## DEKE01

Nevada said:


> The second cop heard the police call saying the defendant had his taser. If he didn't think dropping the taser next to the body was a big deal then he's an idiot.


Do you know cop2 heard that? 

Did you see what cop2 was doing when cop1 dropped the tazer?


----------



## Nevada

DEKE01 said:


> Do you know cop2 heard that?
> 
> Did you see what cop2 was doing when cop1 dropped the tazer?


He heard it. He responded to the call.

Not sure what the second cop was doing but he was facing that direction and was less that 3 feet away. I'm sure he's got questions to answer about that.


----------



## DEKE01

Nevada said:


> He heard it. He responded to the call.
> 
> Not sure what the second cop was doing but he was facing that direction and was less that 3 feet away. I'm sure he's got questions to answer about that.


Assumptions on your part. You don't know what call he responded to. Look at the vid, he was looking at the dead guy. I would hope that it was somewhat of a traumatic experience for cop2. 

And yes, he does need to be questioned. He might be guilty as sin, but it is wrong to say with certainty that exists only in your biases that he purposely did something wrong.


----------



## michael ark

It will never end until a lot of current polices change .Like guaranteed prison occupancies.http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-01/buying-prisons-require-high-occupancy/53402894/1 
http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/prison-populations-private-profits/18248-prison-populations-private-profits
OR the other militarization programs.[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7JKfZ1pULc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7JKfZ1pULc[/ame]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcvyHMyhpaA
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFSQgCc_4LI"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFSQgCc_4LI[/ame]


----------



## MO_cows

mmoetc said:


> For those of you who think being polite and following directions make you safe. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/justice/south-carolina-trooper-shooting/index.html
> 
> He was pulled over for an alleged "seat belt violation". Gotta love revenue stops gone bad.


There is no such thing as "safe". However the right demeanor does make you "safer". 

The cop in that video made a terrible error in judgement, he was way too jumpy and trigger happy. He deserves to face charges for that shooting, but I also can't help but feel some degree of empathy because cops are getting shot all the time, too, the media just doesn't put it in our face. It's only the sensational cases we hear about, unless it happens locally.


----------



## michael ark

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P6tVHWHiNg&index=3&list=PLkhuXbNmy_ydU0j4xa6JOio6DVkmjgGk_"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P6tVHWHiNg&index=3&list=PLkhuXbNmy_ydU0j4xa6JOio6DVkmjgGk_[/ame]


----------



## DEKE01

I remember that one Michael. Was it ever resolved? Every last one of those cops up to the police chief should be at least fired and tried for rape or some similar crime. Same with the doctor that did the deed.


----------



## mmoetc

There's been a lot of coverage in the last two days of the audio of the police officer laughing while talking about this incident. People react to stress in different ways so the laughter doesn't really bother me. What does is the conversation about how the investigation was going to be handled. The officer was told to go home, calm down and write up his statement. That he would be contacted and questioned in a couple of days. Does anyone else find it strange that he wasn't to be questioned right away? If you or I had shot someone would we be allowed to go home, collect our thoughts, and only be questioned a couple of days later? Should there be a different standard for investigating police officers.


----------



## gapeach

mmoetc, 
where did you read that?


----------



## mmoetc

gapeach said:


> mmoetc,
> where did you read that?


Here's a link. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7052618


----------



## gapeach

Thanks, I've been reading mostly South Carolina publications on this case this week and did not see that.


----------



## mmoetc

gapeach said:


> Thanks, I've been reading mostly South Carolina publications on this case this week and did not see that.


No worries. I just found the emphasis of everything I've read or heard on the laughter to have missed the point. The reserve officer in Tulsa who made the tazer error is voluntarily turning himself in today. Would you or I have been walking free for days had we shot someone, even accidentally?


----------



## gapeach

Probably not. The laughing part was probably a nervous reaction. I have a friend who laughs at everything and she really can't help it. It is an anxiety thing, I do think that the SC officer will receive due justice.


----------



## AmericanStand

"Due justice " ? I think he will be punished but I don't think it will be justice just a little punishment.


----------



## gapeach

AmericanStand said:


> "Due justice " ? I think he will be punished but I don't think it will be justice just a little punishment.


Well, none of us ever knows what a jury will do but he is charged with murder as he should be.


----------



## Woolieface

mmoetc said:


> There's been a lot of coverage in the last two days of the audio of the police officer laughing while talking about this incident. People react to stress in different ways so the laughter doesn't really bother me. What does is the conversation about how the investigation was going to be handled. The officer was told to go home, calm down and write up his statement. That he would be contacted and questioned in a couple of days. Does anyone else find it strange that he wasn't to be questioned right away? If you or I had shot someone would we be allowed to go home, collect our thoughts, and only be questioned a couple of days later? Should there be a different standard for investigating police officers.


The laughter bothers me. People react with nervous laughter sometimes but hey, call me crazy, it seems a little psycho to giggle after shooting someone 8 times in the back.


----------



## vicker

Large doses of adrenaline can be euphoric. Some people even get hooked on it.


----------



## DEKE01

Woolieface said:


> The laughter bothers me. People react with nervous laughter sometimes but hey, call me crazy, it seems a little psycho to giggle after shooting someone 8 times in the back.


When I was the age of that cop, I had an almost uncontrollable tactic when faced with great stress. Others find it can be a calming influence while some find it extremely stupid and annoying. I make a joke about the situation. As I've matured, I've learned to shut my yap more often, but it still gets me in trouble. 

At one of the gun schools I went to, they taught that if you ever survive a gun fight, assume you are being filmed. Don't give into the normal human urge to cheer or laugh because you are so happy you are alive. Apparently it happens a lot and in court the opposing side is going to use it against you because the jurors have most likely never experienced anything like that.


----------



## AmericanStand

Didn't they tell you to treat the entire event like you are being filmed. ?

I learned in Sunday School to treat my entire life like I would be on film and God would be watching. 
I wish I had paid closer attention.


----------



## DEKE01

AmericanStand said:


> Didn't they tell you to treat the entire event like you are being filmed. ?
> 
> I learned in Sunday School to treat my entire life like I would be on film and God would be watching.
> I wish I had paid closer attention.


:spinsmiley: :umno:

No, they taught me to verify I had a safe shot (where will a miss go?) as I went thru a procedure of a smooth draw from concealment, focus on the front sight, and *fire two shots* into the chest or *one shot* into the cranial ocular cavity, depending on circumstances. There's a bit more involved than that, but it is hard to condense my initial 40 hour class into a paragraph. 

That's what you do to win and not kill an innocent along the way. After you win/survive, you can focus on other things. 

They taught us to NOT fire at a man running from us unless there was clear and immediate danger to a 3rd party. They taught us to NOT fire 8 rapid shots at one man because that is an execution, that is not an act to protect yourself or others. 

Not to change the subject, but when people say guns belong in the hands of cops, it just blows my mind. Cops are trained to a much lower standard than a lot of other citizens.


----------



## michael ark

DEKE01 said:


> I remember that one Michael. Was it ever resolved? Every last one of those cops up to the police chief should be at least fired and tried for rape or some similar crime. Same with the doctor that did the deed.


[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb2q8ytaPvk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb2q8ytaPvk[/ame]


----------



## Shine

...getting a "not found" error from that link...


----------



## po boy

Some additional footage.

A fight and Scott Tasered the Officer????


----------



## michael ark

Try it now.:shrug:
Here is another.[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVmGWLsn0iM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVmGWLsn0iM[/ame]


----------



## Ziptie

So, a couple questions/thoughts.

Will it change things for the police officer if the suspect tazered the cop first? How bad does the cop have to get beat up till they can try and stop the other person?

Second, if blacks are being targeted by cops why did the guy run away? Why not make sure at all times you stand in front of the dash camera on the cop car so if something goes bad it is all caught on tape. Esp. when you have another person in the car with you as a witness.

Third, I always thought that if a cop says stop or I will shoot. That means you stop moving or expect to start dodging some bullets. Are cops not allowed to do this?

I guess my main concern is that the cops hands are going to get so tied that they are not allowed to catch the criminals anymore.

What comes to mind is the laws such as home security. I can't put a board with nails sticking up outside of my house window because someone might want to break into my house through that window and get hurt. Even though they are committing a crime I am the one who gets in trouble.

So, am I way off on things?


----------



## Shine

My goodness, the video was very unsettling, the video was not opinion, the video was just that, actual video. In many of the situations that went downhill quickly with little to no provocation from the individual I have witnessed here where I live, the cops put themselves in a confrontational stance in both words and deeds. It is as if you must completely surrender before them, I have seen a few situations where the person needing the help of the officers were trashed because of an apparent personality clash with any of the officers, which in turn had an immediate cascade effect allowing the other officers to rally to the one officers perception. 

For those that do not live in the city, the video speaks volumes, the clamp down is real. It is now. 

My city was nicknamed the "City of the Newlyweds and Nearly Deads". The "Nearly Deads" portion of that nickname was regarding the area's retirement haven, now I am not so sure any more...

ZipTie said: "I guess my main concern is that the cops hands are going to get so tied that they are not allowed to catch the criminals anymore."

What is your view of how much an innocent person should surrender in the presence of a LEO? Completely? Substantially with a Reservation of their Rights? Minimally with an expectation of Repercussions in the cases of Rights Violation?

Now, answer that question again after viewing that video. It is expected that you Surrender COMPLETELY or face their wrath up to and including death. -> very often without true Justice prevailing.


----------



## michael ark

I think the british have it right, if a cops does not have a gun they are less likely to be so aggressive.:shrug:I would also take the taser away too.Too many deaths from them.


----------



## gapeach

10 years ago, My DH and I were amazed when we were in Dublin, Ireland on St Patrick's day for the parade along with another couple. There were so many people there and the parade was very long. The police were not wearing any guns and there were no incidents. We were surprised for sure and had discussed the fact of how well the crowd was behaved. There were iron fences used as barriers in the street but people were very orderly. 

I can't see this working in the US because of the diverse population but it sure was nice to be able to watch the parade there.


----------



## Ziptie

Shine said:


> What is your view of how much an innocent person should surrender in the presence of a LEO? Completely? Substantially with a Reservation of their Rights? Minimally with an expectation of Repercussions in the cases of Rights Violation?
> 
> Now, answer that question again after viewing that video. It is expected that you Surrender COMPLETELY or face their wrath up to and including death. -> very often without true Justice prevailing.



You know I don't know the answer. I guess that was my question. I watched just a few min of the video. Are there bad cops. Yep, one not to long ago was caught around here. Got caught, lost his retirement pension then killed himself.

I wish I was better at explaining myself... We humans have a way of going to extremes. It seems finding a balance is one of the hardest things for us. We don't seem to try to find the core of the problem but just keep trying to patch things up with quick fixes. 

So, I guess the question is why are the police acting this way and how is it fixed? Does being exposed to such human horror(for lack of a better word) day in and out is so wearing on the soul that they become what they despise? Should their be a limit on how long one can be a police officer?


----------



## Woolieface

Ziptie said:


> You know I don't know the answer. I guess that was my question. I watched just a few min of the video. Are there bad cops. Yep, one not to long ago was caught around here. Got caught, lost his retirement pension then killed himself.
> 
> I wish I was better at explaining myself... We humans have a way of going to extremes. It seems finding a balance is one of the hardest things for us. We don't seem to try to find the core of the problem but just keep trying to patch things up with quick fixes.
> 
> So, I guess the question is why are the police acting this way and how is it fixed? Does being exposed to such human horror(for lack of a better word) day in and out is so wearing on the soul that they become what they despise? Should their be a limit on how long one can be a police officer?


I believe the reason that the cops are trending this way is because there is an agenda higher up in the food chain to promote the hiring of a certain personality type, train this new breed of cop to have an inherent disdain and distrust of civilians, and provide this amped up style of police force with military grade provisions.

The problem doesn't originate in the police force, I suspect, it originates at the Federal level. As this becomes the rule across the country I would expect the old school police to find it harder and harder to keep their jobs, or even want to.


----------



## DEKE01

I don't know that it is any worse today than it ever was. Read posts throughout HT and you'll see people allude to, "in the old days, the cop would have taken that (pedo, wife beater, trouble maker, or ?) out and beaten some sense into him." I think are standards and expectations have improved and some cops are slow to realize the old ways are no longer allowed. 

That doesn't mean I excuse the behavior in any way. Sunlight...disinfectant...we need more video to stop bad cops and politicians willing to reward good cops and punish bad cops. Too many bad cops get treated better than citizens. This OP case, no citizen would be allowed to go home for a few days and plan his testimony. Even if the cop did everything right, he was treated wrong by the system. 

AFA the new info on the taser issue, it may make the first shot justifiable. It still doesn't explain 8 shots. 

And as to cops having a hard job. Yep, I agree. Teachers, nurses, doctors, and lots of other people have hard jobs. I didn't take any of those jobs because I'm not cut out for them. Maybe some cops should have made a better life choice. Maybe when the bullies find out a badge is no longer a free pass to being a bully with power, we'll get better cops. But making excuses for bad behavior is just going to get is more bad behavior, more dead citizens, and more oppression.


----------



## Shine

Funny things.... For Christmas one year I was given a wireless Saws-All. You know what? I loved that tool. I could do some much more with it, I kept thinking how was it possible for me to have done any work without that tool. Wow, it changed my whole perception regarding what projects that I could/should start. 

I wonder if their receiving all of those new toys and armor might have something to do with their perception of what role that they need to play. When you're outfitted to go into combat but yet are in a civilian realm, what does that do to your mindset? It's like you're going to a Black Friday Sale at the Mall, you got a stack of cash in your hand to get the best sales and you're decked out in a Green Bay Packers linebacker get up, pads and all. You WILL be able to get to the front of the lines if you so choose...

When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

When your only tool is the Law, everyone looks like a Criminal.

...jest sayin'


----------



## gapeach

http://www.wistv.com/story/28772115...affic-stops-is-going-viral?clienttype=generic
*Man's candid, honest video about race and traffic stops goes viral*

_Apr 13, 2015 _ By Jack Kuenzie 


Will Stack spoke candidly and love his honesty and acceptance. Thankfully, we are blessed that he was in the military watching out for us too and speaking honestly about a recent traffic stop. (Source: Will Stack) LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC (WIS) -


What an impressive young man with his head on straight too. Good luck, Will in your job hunt now since your deployment is over.
Lexington, SC is a few miles from Columbia, SC.


----------



## michael ark

Ziptie how i would fix it.1)There would be formed a civilian review board over all complaints of abuse.All complaints will go through them directly. 2)The police would have monthly psychological evaluation if they are fit for duty.3)All 1033 equipment they have would be sold to the citizens.4)S.w.a.t would be shut down .5)No more special treatment for them if they get convicted of a crime they go in the same general population as everyone else.6)They would always have to have their badge displayed so you can identify your attacker.7)Body camera that cant be shut off.8)A honest revaluation of the duty of police if they are not their to protect and serve then what is their purpose?9)Removal of laws that are nothing more than revenue generation regulations.10)Enact laws that limit the % amount of revenue a police force or the state can make over and above taxes from they system.11)Take their guns and tasers away.That would be my start. It's sad that they the news media has to brag about a video where someone was grateful that the cop just did his job that he was paid for and didn't abuse him in the process.:grit:


----------



## 7thswan

I guess nooone is looking at the info po-boy posted, it's "just" a blog. I stated in post #289 that the perp. tazed the cop:took his tazer and used it against the cop; in what looks like in video a fight/takedown possibley more than once. The recording I listened to was of the Cop, his mic. as he was in pursuit.


----------



## DEKE01

7thswan said:


> I guess nooone is looking at the info po-boy posted, it's "just" a blog. I stated in post #289 that the perp. tazed the cop:took his tazer and used it against the cop; in what looks like in video a fight/takedown possibley more than once. The recording I listened to was of the Cop, his mic. as he was in pursuit.


Seen it, Now explain EIGHT shots into the back of a fleeing man.


----------



## mmoetc

DEKE01 said:


> I don't know that it is any worse today than it ever was. Read posts throughout HT and you'll see people allude to, "in the old days, the cop would have taken that (pedo, wife beater, trouble maker, or ?) out and beaten some sense into him." I think are standards and expectations have improved and some cops are slow to realize the old ways are no longer allowed.
> 
> That doesn't mean I excuse the behavior in any way. Sunlight...disinfectant...we need more video to stop bad cops and politicians willing to reward good cops and punish bad cops. Too many bad cops get treated better than citizens. This OP case, no citizen would be allowed to go home for a few days and plan his testimony. Even if the cop did everything right, he was treated wrong by the system.
> 
> AFA the new info on the taser issue, it may make the first shot justifiable. It still doesn't explain 8 shots.
> 
> And as to cops having a hard job. Yep, I agree. Teachers, nurses, doctors, and lots of other people have hard jobs. I didn't take any of those jobs because I'm not cut out for them. Maybe some cops should have made a better life choice. Maybe when the bullies find out a badge is no longer a free pass to being a bully with power, we'll get better cops. But making excuses for bad behavior is just going to get is more bad behavior, more dead citizens, and more oppression.


The city of Chicago is preparing to pay victims and their families for torture and abuse by a police commander in the 1970's and 80's.http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ns-jon-burge-police-torture-victims/25766531/ Things aren't worse today or likely better. There are just more eyes watching and more resources to bring to bear. 

I, too, am a bit amazed and appalled that someone who just shot and killed another human being would be allowed to walk away without being thoroughly questioned about the incident.


----------



## Woolieface

A part of me thinks that some defend the indefensible because the thought of armed, power hungry people with authority to use force on the populace is scarier than crack dealers and thieves. It's just too frightening of a truth to come to terms with, so denial and justification feel safer.


----------



## DEKE01

Woolieface said:


> A part of me thinks that some defend the indefensible because the thought of armed, power hungry people with authority to use force on the populace is scarier than crack dealers and thieves. It's just too frightening of a truth to come to terms with, so denial and justification feel safer.


Agreed. And even I have to admit, when I see something like that LA Bank of America robbery several years back where the 2 perps fired off thousands of rounds, shot up an entire neighborhood, there was no doubt of their guilt and the city, state, country, at least in the short run, is better off they died at the scene. But in the long run, giving cops that much power to be judge, jury, and executioner hurts is all. In that case, the cops refused to let the paramedics treat the still living perp while the cops gave him enough time to bleed out. 

There is also the element of people being indoctrinated in school about the cops are the good guys. It is hard to say to yourself you've been wrong for decades, at least about a minority of cops. And just maybe it is the fact that people don't like to admit that they share responsibility for the local bad cop's deeds because the bad cop was hired by the bad sheriff/chief of police they voted for and that guy reports to the bad mayor they voted for.


----------



## JeffreyD

DEKE01 said:


> Agreed. And even I have to admit, when I see something like that LA Bank of America robbery several years back where the 2 perps fired off thousands of rounds, shot up an entire neighborhood, there was no doubt of their guilt and the city, state, country, at least in the short run, is better off they died at the scene. But in the long run, giving cops that much power to be judge, jury, and executioner hurts is all. In that case, the cops refused to let the paramedics treat the still living perp while the cops gave him enough time to bleed out.
> 
> There is also the element of people being indoctrinated in school about the cops are the good guys. It is hard to say to yourself you've been wrong for decades, at least about a minority of cops. And just maybe it is the fact that people don't like to admit that they share responsibility for the local bad cop's deeds because the bad cop was hired by the bad sheriff/chief of police they voted for and that guy reports to the bad mayor they voted for.


That b of a shooting happened about 2 miles from my house. If it hadn't been for B&B gun sales...the cops would have had a problem. A huge problem! There are virtually no gun stores in Los Angeles any more, a couple in Burbank. I have some spent ak cases from that deal!!!


----------



## DEKE01

JeffreyD said:


> That b of a shooting happened about 2 miles from my house. If it hadn't been for B&B gun sales...the cops would have had a problem. A huge problem! There are virtually no gun stores in Los Angeles any more, a couple in Burbank. I have some spent ak cases from that deal!!!


ya know...I used to like you. But now that I know you live/lived in LA, I've lost all respect for you.


----------



## 7thswan

DEKE01 said:


> Seen it, Now explain EIGHT shots into the back of a fleeing man.


Nothing I can explain. I don't know what the Cop was thinking.


----------



## JeffreyD

DEKE01 said:


> ya know...I used to like you. But now that I know you live/lived in LA, I've lost all respect for you.


Yeah...i get that a lot!!! I also have a residence in Arizona!!!!! Can we be friends again???? :buds:


----------



## DEKE01

JeffreyD said:


> Yeah...i get that a lot!!! I also have a residence in Arizona!!!!! Can we be friends again???? :buds:


Your application for friendship is currently under review. Before issuing a ruling, the committee will need to know that if you are voting in the next AZ republican primary, that you'll be supporting the candidate whose name is not John McCain.


----------



## Oontry4

spin it all you want............Irrespective of "what happened" off camera..............a retreating person, shot MULTIPLE times in the back,20-30ft away is NOT a threat. the cop was REALLY ------,and we all know it............he got his "pound-of-flesh".hopefully, they will one day put a needle in his arm.........after.......maybe8-10yrs being an anal "love-doll". I DO expect MORE from anyone that pins on a badge


----------



## AmericanStand

I didn't think SC had a death penalty ? Well except at a cops discretion.....


----------



## JeffreyD

DEKE01 said:


> Your application for friendship is currently under review. Before issuing a ruling, the committee will need to know that if you are voting in the next AZ republican primary, that you'll be supporting the candidate whose name is not John McCain.


Hehe......i couldn't do that....vote for McCain that is!! He should retire, and/or just fade away. I hope the committee takes that into consideration! ! :grin:


----------



## DEKE01

Application accepted. 

:grouphug:


----------



## gapeach

AmericanStand said:


> I didn't think SC had a death penalty ? Well except at a cops discretion.....


South Carolina does indeed have a death penalty and they still use the electric chair. The last time the electric chair was in 2008. Reed chose the electric chair for his execution.

_James Earl Reed, 49, was convicted in 1996 of shooting Joseph and Barbara Lafayette multiple times, including execution-style shots in the heads, after they refused to tell him where their daughter was. He had dismissed his attorney during his trial and tried to defend himself in court.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/06/21/us-usa-southcarolina-execution-idUSN2130755920080621_


Most states use lethal injection as their primary method of execution. But some, like South Carolina, give death row inmates other options, like the electric chair, or gas chamber. Hanging and firing squad are still used in a small number of states.


----------



## gapeach

This may clear up some of the confusion about the investigation of Officer Slager on the day that he shot Walter Scott.


SLAGER'S ARREST

Thom Berry, a spokesman for the State Law Enforcement Division, provided more details Tuesday about the arrest of Slager.

He said SLED agents wanted to talk to Slager the day of the shooting but stopped when he told them he had an attorney.

Agents interviewed Slager at the office of his then-attorney, David Aylor, three days later. A spokesman for Scott's family said they had given the cellphone video to SLED the night before.

The questioning began the morning of April 7 and continued into the afternoon when Scott was charged. Later Aylor announced he no longer represented Slager.

http://www.richmond.com/news/latest-news/ap/article_1efdda12-46f4-562a-aa6c-f023076438b8.html


----------



## mmoetc

http://www.grandforksherald.com/new...e-officer-who-shot-unarmed-man-charged-murder

The grand jury has spoken.


----------



## DEKE01

mmoetc said:


> http://www.grandforksherald.com/new...e-officer-who-shot-unarmed-man-charged-murder
> 
> The grand jury has spoken.


Based on the limited info I know about this incident, I agree with the Grand Jury, but to be fair, there's still a lot of work to be done before we know the full story.


----------

