• 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.
stonewall50 said:
Stereotyping white southerners is acceptable? I'm a white southerner and republican. I would fry this guy.
Click to expand...

Then you'd be dropped from the jury panel in SC if you were ever called to serve on the case.
 
The Mark said:
You're assuming it will happen here.
Click to expand...

If the Feds do not threaten SC, the NC DA's office, or the police dept. in any way prior to the trial, the cop WILL BE ACQUITTED, period.
 
solletica said:
Then you'd be dropped from the jury panel in SC if you were ever called to serve on the case.
Click to expand...
Well of course.

The defense would nix him straight off, if he flat-out stated he had already decided this...person...was guilty.
 
reinoe said:
You're right. Cops are a privileged class in this country like politicians and other government employees.
Click to expand...

I really don't share your contempt for police or authority. Rather, it is how the legal system tends to work for police, but that is largely due to the public itself. Often, politicians are treated more harshly now than ordinary citizens for the publicity.
 
solletica said:
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.
Click to expand...

So it is ok to violate the constitution and everything it stands for if the ends justify the means?
 
The Mark said:
Why?


12345
Click to expand...

Cops are armed agents of the (local) govt. and should therefore be subjected to tribunals, not civilian trials.

Regrettably, the system doesn't work that way :(
 
solletica said:
If the Feds do not threaten SC, the NC DA's office, or the police dept. in any way prior to the trial, the cop WILL BE ACQUITTED, period.
Click to expand...

He'll be convicted. Absolutely. But a lighter sentence than many would want.
 
solletica said:
If the Feds do not threaten SC, the NC DA's office, or the police dept. in any way prior to the trial, the cop WILL BE ACQUITTED, period.
Click to expand...
From what I read, it sounds like the governor of that state might take care of any "threats" necessary.

But I suppose it if falls through in the end the feds will become involved.


Personally I'd give SC a chance to **** up first.
 
solletica said:
Then you'd be dropped from the jury panel in SC if you were ever called to serve on the case.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have of this? Or is this based on your extensive "experience" with southern white Republicans? Or just your perception? Your stereotypes?
 
This happens. Not all the time, but it does happen. And when it does, it SHOULD be investigated, prosecuted where warranted, and punished accordingly.

But the only time it matters (and the OP so very clearly illustrates it) is when it is a WHITE cop and a black victim.

Not a ton of outrage when it is a white guy shot by a cop. or a Latino. And if the cop is black? Fuggedaboudit....




But what do the headlines say in THIS case?

"Video Shows Officer Michael Slager Shooting Unarmed Black Man In The Back In South Carolina"

Cause it only matters when the victim is a black man.
 
solletica said:
Cops are armed agents of the (local) govt. and should therefore be subjected to tribunals, not civilian trials.

Regrettably, the system doesn't work that way :(
Click to expand...

They are not the military. They are civilians. They operate within the borders of the United States. What you are suggesting would further militarize the police. Not to mention make them further protective of each other since they would no longer be treated justly or concern for their constitutional rights.
 
The Mark said:
Well of course.

The defense would nix him straight off, if he flat-out stated he had already decided this...person...was guilty.
Click to expand...

You don't understand how courts function in states like SC.

During the voir dire process of jury selection, the prosecution and public defender will ask the jurors questions to determine if they're biased towards or against cops, and after that both attorneys will drop jurors (via peremptory challenges) that are deemed to be either neutral or biased against cops, leaving only those that tend to favor the police, esp. in cases where the cops shot Black individuals.

Although it isn't strictly a necessity, it's a fair bet that the remaining jurors will be all White and racist.
 
stonewall50 said:
They are not the military. They are civilians. They operate within the borders of the United States. What you are suggesting would further militarize the police.
Click to expand...

They're already militarized, so it's irrelevant.

stonewall50 said:
Not to mention make them further protective of each other
Click to expand...

They already are, so that's also irrelevant.

stonewall50 said:
since they would no longer be treated justly or concern for their constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Constitutional rights were intended for the People, not cops. Errant cops can be dealt with in tribunals, which are more cost-effective for taxpayers than civilian trials.
 
VanceMack said:
Cause it only matters when the victim is a black man.
Click to expand...

No matter the races involved, the actions I saw in that video IMO deserve serious consequences.

Personally, I'd say the police officer intentionally killed an unarmed, fleeing person.

For no ****ing reason that I could see.

If SC has the death penalty, this (probably former, now) cop deserves it.

If anyone does.


Edit: Assuming there are not some seriously mitigating circumstances that do not show up in that video.
 
solletica said:
Body cams on cops are 100% worthless. The police depts. would just doctor the body cam videos or else the cops would turn off the cams and/or censor specific footage.

In the event body cam videos were available for the public to see, there would be huge discrepancies in the video picked up by those cams and those picked up by bystander cameras and/or cell phones.
Click to expand...

To add to that, I did hear of this case in New Mexico where the cops were ordered to release video of an incident and they did release, the video- but they encrypted it so that you couldn't watch anything. (Albuquerque PD encrypts videos before releasing them in records request - Boing Boing)
 
The Mark said:
No matter the races involved, the actions I saw in that video IMO deserve serious consequences.

Personally, I'd say the police officer intentionally killed an unarmed, fleeing person.

For no ****ing reason that I could see.

If SC has the death penalty, this (probably former, now) cop deserves it.

If anyone does.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. I dont think anyone denies it happens and it certainly 'happened' in this case. That was an unjustified shooting. But...if it happens (and it does) then WHY is it always the headlines about THE BLACK MAN?



There ARE some things that dont make a ton of sense about the case and some that support there was some sort of a struggle prior to the shooting. EMPHASIS...that does NOT justify shooting the man in the back.

He was reportedly pulled over for a traffic violation. How did they end up in the lot? Also...stop the tape 17 seconds into it. At 18 seconds you will see the victim (yes...I said victim) dropping a black object after some sort of physical contact with the cop, then he turns and runs.

When he shot, it is obvious he was not at risk and should NOT have shot. What happened prior doesnt justify the shooting, but it may give it some context.
 
VanceMack said:
I agree completely. I dont think anyone denies it happens and it certainly 'happened' in this case. That was an unjustified shooting. But...if it happens (and it does) then WHY is it always the headlines about THE BLACK MAN?



There ARE some things that dont make a ton of sense about the case and some that support there was some sort of a struggle prior to the shooting. EMPHASIS...that does NOT justify shooting the man in the back.

He was reportedly pulled over for a traffic violation. How did they end up in the lot? Also...stop the tape 17 seconds into it. At 18 seconds you will see the victim (yes...I said victim) dropping a black object after some sort of physical contact with the cop, then he turns and runs.

When he shot, it is obvious he was not at risk and should NOT have shot. What happened prior doesnt justify the shooting, but it may give it some context.
Click to expand...

I may watch it in more detail when I get home from work.

But I think that the reason they put "black" in the title is because....

Well, frankly, people are primed to hear about potential racial violence now. It gets good ratings, whether there was actually a racial component involved or not.
 
VanceMack said:
This happens. Not all the time, but it does happen. And when it does, it SHOULD be investigated, prosecuted where warranted, and punished accordingly.

But the only time it matters (and the OP so very clearly illustrates it) is when it is a WHITE cop and a black victim.

Not a ton of outrage when it is a white guy shot by a cop. or a Latino. And if the cop is black? Fuggedaboudit....

But what do the headlines say in THIS case?

"Video Shows Officer Michael Slager Shooting Unarmed Black Man In The Back In South Carolina"

Cause it only matters when the victim is a black man.
Click to expand...
The color of the victim seems to be more important when s/he is Black. In many other cases color, or race, is never mentioned.

This shouldn't interfere with the other facts of the case. The officer, if guilty, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law but making it about race, again, does not serve any public good.
 
Goshin said:
As it says, he's been arrested and charged with murder. As should be.
Click to expand...
If there wasn't a cell phone video he would likely get away with it. The video shows the cop placing his stung gun near the body.
 
solletica said:
They're already militarized, so it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It is irrelevant that you want to further justify that they are not civilian?

They already are, so that's also irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No. Further justifying that is not ok.

Constitutional rights were intended for the People, not cops. Errant cops can be dealt with in tribunals, which are more cost-effective for taxpayers than civilian trials.
Click to expand...

Constitutional rights were intended for civilians. At the writing of the constitution there were no police. Additionally police are not military.

The ends justifying the means is not realistic. It is not Justice.
 
stonewall50 said:
It is irrelevant that you want to further justify that they are not civilian?



No. Further justifying that is not ok.



Constitutional rights were intended for civilians.
Click to expand...

Cops are not civilians; they're armed agents of the local govt. Armed govt. agents should never have the same rights as the People. To allow them the same rights compromises freedoms.
 
joko104 said:
I really don't share your contempt for police or authority. Rather, it is how the legal system tends to work for police, but that is largely due to the public itself. Often, politicians are treated more harshly now than ordinary citizens for the publicity.
Click to expand...
OK, yeah. You go ahead and keep believing government employees like politicians are treated MORE HARSHLY than the average citizen. I'll be over here laughing at you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom