• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Video Shows Officer Shooting Unarmed Black Man in South Carolina

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nope, it does not, it totally does not.

It does not matter that the maybe even slapped the officer and then ran away, he still was an unarmed man who was running away and not a threat to anybody at all.

Sorry but there is no conceivable action that this 50 year old man could have done after being stopped with a broken tail light to take your gun out and shoot an unarmed man 8 times in the back.

There is no defense for something that has no legal, moral or acceptable excuse/reason or defense. Gunning down an unarmed, non threatening suspect is not legal.

That is an interesting caveat that you chose to include, implying that being armed (alone?) makes someone threatening. Does that mean that it is OK (legal according to you) to shoot an armed fleeing suspect in the back?
 
And now you know why many police don't want to be recorded on audio and visual.
 
Legally (and technically), it isn't. But for all practical purposes, it is, obviously. And I like it that way :)



Cops shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as people.

Really? Should they have more or less rights than 'people' do?
 
Really? Should they have more or less rights than 'people' do?

Well shooting unarmed petty felons running away from them shouldnt be one right they should have. Would the police forces of any other developed nation on earth have responded to incidents such as this with this level of grossly disproportionate force I wonder ?
 
His original attorney is no longer representing him I noticed.
The case turned into a different kind of case after the video surfaced.

As it should have. He will still end up with an attorney who will try to defend him, but I can't come up with anything in my mind that would make me as a juror think he had any reason to do what he did. This is about as clear cut as case as can be. Maybe it won't end up as Murder 1, maybe he'll plea out (that's the best option for him IMO), but he will not walk away from this.
 
Well shooting unarmed petty felons running away from them shouldnt be one right they should have. Would the police forces of any other developed nation on earth have responded to incidents such as this with this level of grossly disproportionate force I wonder ?

You seem to be terribly confused. This was not a matter of police rights or even SC police policy; it was considered not only grounds for the officer's immediate termination but for criminal murder charges.
 
Right, but let's think about all those times when there wasn't a video camera. The department said on the news that 'there were no witnesses except that video, and without it, they'd never know what really happened.
They would know that the man was shot in the back from over twenty feet. They would know that they man was running away and the cop would have been arrested by now to mitigate the riots that would have been ongoing at this point.

Clearly the professional protesters and rioters don't care about the dead , dead beat dad who has a warrant for not paying child support. Leaving Black kids without supportive fathers is the worse crime in the Black community but now this stupid cop will leave his soon to be born child without a father.

That is an interesting caveat that you chose to include, implying that being armed (alone?) makes someone threatening. Does that mean that it is OK (legal according to you) to shoot an armed fleeing suspect in the back?
Attacking a policeman makes you dangerous to the public but not enough to be shot in the back when the cop has the guy's car. Attacking a policeman while being armed makes you more dangerous and somewhat ot t a threat to the cop even as the man runs away but this guy dropped the tazer so he wasn't much of a threat other than being unsupportive of his kids.

Really? Should they have more or less rights than 'people' do?
Cops have the same rights but more responsibility.

I can't think of anything that might justify this shooting. I can't imagine what this cop was thinking and have to assume that he wasn't thinking. maybe he is the cop that the Black race hustles have been telling us about and you can bet that all cops will be painted with the same shade of stupid that this cop has shown.

I expect 0bama to say "I told you so!!!" today or tomorrow.
 
If it wasn't as clear as day on video....we would have the same ones on here defending the cop and saying the black man obviously did something that he deserved to be killed. Even so...it would not surprise me in the least for a jury to find this cop not guilty. Jurors bend over backwards to find any way not to convict a cop....even when the video is a plain as day.
 
Really? Should they have more or less rights than 'people' do?

It's inappropriate for govt. agents acting in a military capacity (as a domestic police force, defense force, etc.) to have access to the civilian court system.

Cops should be subject to tribunals in cases like this. The court system is for the people.
 
Seeing this video along with other recent incidents tell me that something is seriously wrong in America today. We have racist thugs that believe they are above the law simply because they carry a badge and we have bigots who believe that they can use their religion as an excuse to discriminate. Many want to claim that we are a "Christian Nation". If this is true....perhaps there is no better time than the present to step back and evaluate ourselves and determine is any of these actions are consistent with the principles that Christ taught.
 
Because cops aren't people.

Right?

They're local govt. agents acting as a force charged w/maintaining order through force.

That should automatically exclude them from being able to enjoy Constitutional rights and have the same privileges as civilians (the People).

A separate system should be set up to handle abusive police officers.
 
I'll ask you the same question I asked DA60.

Speculate for me and tell me a scenario where the shooting of a man moving away, with his back to the officer, approx 20ft at the time of the shooting. We know Mr. Scott didn't possess a gun, or it would have been mentioned in the officer's report. So please, speculate for me, under what circumstances could you imagine that might of taken place that would have justified what we saw.


the shooting will NEVER be justified

but what is there was a confrontation in the five minutes before the video came on....

the officer and the guy rolling around the ground, and neither getting the upper hand

what happened before only matters in the fact that it MAY be enough justification to take it down to manslaughter instead of murder

my opinion is that is a small chance.....but it would be nice to have knowledge of what transpired before the video
 
They're local govt. agents acting as a force charged w/maintaining order through force.

That should automatically exclude them from being able to enjoy Constitutional rights and have the same privileges as civilians (the People).

A separate system should be set up to handle abusive police officers.

So no government agents are entitled to Constitutional rights, because it clearly says in the Constitution that government agents are excluded. Yes, of course it does.
 
Seeing this video along with other recent incidents tell me that something is seriously wrong in America today. We have racist thugs that believe they are above the law simply because they carry a badge and we have bigots who believe that they can use their religion as an excuse to discriminate. Many want to claim that we are a "Christian Nation". If this is true....perhaps there is no better time than the present to step back and evaluate ourselves and determine is any of these actions are consistent with the principles that Christ taught.
You cant reasonably draw that conclusion (or any other for that matter) from this single incident. Despite all the hyperventilating by the left, this is the first incident of clear wrongdoing by a police officer. Wrongdoing by black 'thugs' is rampant but ignored by the left for political reasons, not rational ones.
 
Seeing this video along with other recent incidents tell me that something is seriously wrong in America today. We have racist thugs that believe they are above the law simply because they carry a badge and we have bigots who believe that they can use their religion as an excuse to discriminate. Many want to claim that we are a "Christian Nation". If this is true....perhaps there is no better time than the present to step back and evaluate ourselves and determine is any of these actions are consistent with the principles that Christ taught.




How can you claim racism? his partner is black, and didn't speak up when he planted the taser.
 
Of course. And I'll bet they'll get Judge Wapner to come out of retirement to preside over the trial, too.

Wapner is too old to be a judge. And Judge Milian is of Hispanic descent so SC won't pick her.
 
I'll ask you the same question I asked DA60.

Speculate for me and tell me a scenario where the shooting of a man moving away, with his back to the officer, approx 20ft at the time of the shooting. We know Mr. Scott didn't possess a gun, or it would have been mentioned in the officer's report. So please, speculate for me, under what circumstances could you imagine that might of taken place that would have justified what we saw.
But the man did have a gun. The officer put on the police report "he tried to take my gun" and then planted the tazer on him. That's the retro-active proof.
 
If it wasn't as clear as day on video....we would have the same ones on here defending the cop and saying the black man obviously did something that he deserved to be killed. Even so...it would not surprise me in the least for a jury to find this cop not guilty. Jurors bend over backwards to find any way not to convict a cop....even when the video is a plain as day.

And don't forget that prosecutors are often in league with the cops. The DA may botch the case on purpose.
 
They're local govt. agents acting as a force charged w/maintaining order through force.

That should automatically exclude them from being able to enjoy Constitutional rights and have the same privileges as civilians (the People).

A separate system should be set up to handle abusive police officers.



?

Please cite the part of the constitution that says police officers are exempted from rights?

That is the most outrageous statement I have encountered in a long, long time.

And since when are police mandated to maintain order with "force". You have a terribly misguided idea of law and order I suspect is based on Bruce Willis movies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom