Thread: Video Shows Officer Shooting Unarmed Black Man in South Carolina

Originally Posted by Blemonds

The law in S.C. allows for such a stop, so take it up with the lawmakers. More importantly, such stops nab people with outstanding warrants, such as in this case. Simple concept, if Scott obeyed the law, he would be alive today.

You class this as a legal kill?

Originally Posted by SenorXm/Sirius

I would like to say I am surprised there are people trying to excuse this cops actions, but I am not surprised. One reason why many police officers feel they can do anything they want and get away with it is because there are people willing to defend and look the other way no matter what actions the police use, or how many liberties and civil rights they, and the politicians are taking away. But then those excusers and security at any cost police defenders will be the 1st to complain about how the US is turning into a police state.

Sad.

The 'usual suspects' also tried to make excuses for the 2 law enforcement officers here that shot the wrong man (never identified their target), in the basement, in bed, (after they already had their suspect,) 16 times...and didnt even manage to kill him.

And it's not even surprising that people doubt this cop (in the OP) will be convicted of murder...because those 2 LEs I just mentioned were not criminally charged and still have their jobs. However there have been 2 successful civil suits for about $3 million.

Originally Posted by Blemonds

The law in S.C. allows for such a stop, so take it up with the lawmakers. More importantly, such stops nab people with outstanding warrants, such as in this case. Simple concept, if Scott obeyed the law, he would be alive today.

Just more cops with nothing better to do. Keep sticking up for the cop who shot a fleeing unarmed man in the back 8 times, it is fascinating to watch.

Originally Posted by JANFU

You class this as a legal kill?

Come on, the policeman "vas juszt followving zee orderzz"

Originally Posted by Blemonds

That's arguable. It remains that he sealed his own fate when he chose a criminal act rather than a legal act

Nothing he did warranted being shot and killed. Nothing.

This cites a supreme court ruling on the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect:

Can police officers shoot at fleeing individuals?

Only in very narrow circumstances. A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner, held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk.

In other words, a police officer who fires at a fleeing man who a moment earlier murdered a convenience store clerk may have reasonable grounds to argue that the shooting was justified. But if that same robber never fired his own weapon, the officer would likely have a much harder argument.

“You don’t shoot fleeing felons. You apprehend them unless there are exigent circumstances — emergencies — that require urgent police action to safeguard the community as a whole,” said Greg Gilbertson, a police practices expert and criminal justice professor at Centralia College in Washington state.

Gilbertson said he thought the video of the shooting of Walter Scott in North Charleston, South Carolina, was “insane” given what he said was the apparent lack of justification.

When can police use lethal force against a fleeing suspect?

I have not seen or heard a real expert attempt to justify the police action in this shooting. None.

Once Scott began running away, he no longer posed any significant physical danger to the police, then they shot him in the back and killed him. That cop is going down, for manslaughter or murder.

Originally Posted by Blemonds

I can't tell you what he picked up because the video isn't clear enough to identify the object. More importantly, I can't tell you WHY he picked it up.

Me neither, I hope it can be determined by further forensic studies, but whatever it is, the officer should not have touched it.

Originally Posted by nota bene

It remains unclear whether Scott took the taser. What is clear is that he was running away and that he was shot in the back eight times. The officer could have pursued the much older man and subdued him without shooting him in the back. Yes, Scott made some bad life choices and should have paid his child support and fixed the vehicle's light. This doesn't justify shooting him in the back eight times.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Lursa

Under certain circumstances, like if they pose a reasonable and immediate threat to the cops or the public's safety. (that's my wording, I dont have the actual decision handy).

A man fleeing in fear for his own life, after being pulled over for a tail light out, who could legitimately (and obviously justified) be afraid of cops after recent cops killing blacks.....who struggles and runs will not meet the bar in any jury's eyes as a threat to the cop or public safety. The current climate of fear that incompetent cops have created will not be ignored by a jury.

(And esp. since altho the cop likely knew the suspect didnt have the taser, the taser was already expended and he would have known that. Again, he loses even that in his defense.)

Originally Posted by Lursa

I think he deserves some level of a murder charge. His decision and actions were deliberate and the *personal* impression I get from the video is that he just couldnt be bothered to run after the man and restrain him. He (dead guy) was a big guy, it would have been a PIA probably, with some risk as in any physical encounter however cops are trained and expected to do deal with this.

So just *my* impression from the video is a complete disregard for a life and a lazy POS cop that couldnt be bothered to do his job properly.

Originally Posted by Excon

This is again you making things up.
No it isn't untrue.



I didn't say he was taking it, I clearly said he had taken it.


Wrong.
All you are doing is showing you are not paying attention.
First of all we have the Officers statement that he took it. Whether you like that or not, that is evidence.

And then we have the visual evidence.
The Officer's left hand was grabbing the suspect while his other hand was in a downward motion to grab his firearm.
It is then which we see what is supposedly the taser being thrown in a direction and with force that could not have come from the Officer.

1. It surely couldn't come from his left hand which was holding on to the suspect.
2. It surely couldn't have come from his right hand which was in a downward motion to draw his firearm.

That only leaves one place for it to have come from. Duh! Which corresponds with the direction it is coming from.

His drawing his firearm at that point supports that is when the suspect had it.

Why you choose to ignore the evidence is beyond me. but it is a silly thing to do.

And pay attention to the image.
It shows that you are wrong. The Officer did not have the taser at that point it was thrown.



This is irrelevant as that cartridge had already been discharged by the Officer at that point, we already know that. We also know that they both had been on the ground in a struggle.

We are talking about the point in time when the suspect had the taser.


Wrong.
You are the one who made things up.
I on the other hand showed you the known evidence.



Wow! you really do not pay attention to the evidence, do you?
Everybody already knows the cartridge had been fired at that point. Why don't you?


What an absurdly ridiculous assertion.
His hand was in a downward movement. Do you really not understand that?
The supposed taser then comes passed him at a velocity and direction that a downward moving hand could not account for.
It had to have come from the suspect, which corresponds with the direction it comes from.
To suggest otherwise is total ignorance.


No it wasn't and nothing you have provided says it was.

Still ignoring the evidence, threads from the taser into the victim, not the cop.

Still does not change a frigging thing, even if you were right and the dead man threw the taser (even though zero evidence supports that) that would weaken the officers case.

The facts still remain the same:

1. running man with nothing in his hands
2. considerable distance from the officer with his back turned to the officer when the officer started shooting
3. there was no legal basis for this shooting
4. you are wrong, your so called evidence says nothing. The video I posted showed the threads from the officer towards the dead man. You have nothing.

Originally Posted by Excon

If he is picking up his taser you are wrong.
It is procedure to secure your weapons.

It is not procedure to stage the crime scene, he took the taser from the spot the officer dropped it, from what one can see threw it towards the suspect and later picked it up.

There was nothing to secure at the spot mr. Scott was executed at.