• 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.
The NYTimes conveniently puts their disclamer banner in a crucial spot just prior to the officer drawing and shooting.

While I think based on what I viewed, that the officer could have ran after, or somehow physically subdued the suspect, we don't know all the facts surrounding this, and they will come out.

So, I guess all the cop haters, and anarchist can now proceed to gather their lynch mobs, and Sharpton, and Jackson can make more money with lies and ginned up outrage.

Sad really.

If you look on youtube you can find the raw footage from the incident (and I would assume on live-leak too).

What we do know is that:

1. it was not a violent offender
2. his crime was a broken tail light and not paying his child support
3. trying to get away

None of these things warranted the death penalty and that is what he got when an officer gunned him down from a distance in the back (with 8 bullets).

And I do not want lynch mobs, why would I? The officer seems to be having to pay for his offenses (if found guilty) and that is all anyone can ask from the legal system. Sharpton and Jackson can rightfully complain that this is yet another unarmed colored person being gunned down but they can do that from a position of weakness because in this case the wheels of justice are working at the correct speed.

And the really sad thing is that now instead of not getting child support the children of this man are now fatherless. That is what is really sad. The officer choose his own path, I feel sad for his family but I am not that sad for him. He killed a man without there being a justification for it, he was not in danger, he was not justified to gun that unarmed man down like that.
 
Man I'll say. The video on CBS This Morning did show a taser line, so something happened, but the guy ran away in slow motion and that cop could have easily caught him. He's gone. And YOU KNOW that that video is making all the rounds at police shift meetings.

That changes things a little. A taser line? If the guy had ahold of the taser still. Would have to watch the video again.
 
:doh
Unlike you, I haven't made anything up.

But this is again a great example of you making things up.
You have no idea what was moved or why. That all exists in your own imaginative thoughts.

I have made nothing up, the facts are obvious:

1. the man was not a danger to the officer
2. the officer gunned an unarmed man down in the back with 8 shots fired

The man did something wrong and needs to be prosecuted to the proper extend of the law for his crimes.
 
I have made nothing up, the facts are obvious:

1. the man was not a danger to the officer
2. the officer gunned an unarmed man down in the back with 8 shots fired

The man did something wrong and needs to be prosecuted to the proper extend of the law for his crimes.

Wasn't a taser line present? That will change the fact pattern. Depending upon who was hit with it. Forensics can determine that. Especially if he was.

There are only a few cases where shooting someone unarmed in the back is acceptable. They are extreme too. And I'm thinking basically the marshals or fbi are the only ones who would likely have a good argument for such an action.
 

:doh

Which you just confirmed in the quote above this one.

No, what is "illogical" is blame this officer for all the other black unarmed men gunned down by the police, or making this in Ferguson 2.0 because that would be illogical, sending death threats to the officer/his family/attacking fellow officers, shooting at those officers, etc. etc. etc. That is illogical/logic going out the window.

What is also illogical is doing like this is not a case of un-warranted deadly force to an unarmed and totally and utterly none dangerous person. Trying to make excuses like "we don't know what he did before" when what he did before is not a reason for gunning someone down in the back like that with 8 bullets. The man was a non-violent person who had not paid his child support and had a broken window.

There are far too many arrest warrants issued IMHO for things that do not warrant them. Child support is not a case that should be so insane that people go to jail for it in the manner that is happening now. It is important to take non-paying dead beat parents (look, I said parents because not paying your child support has to be seen as gender-neutral) but not with all those arrest warrants and jail time. Make him work for his "offense" of non-payment. Make him do something useful.

Illogical is also defending police officers in cases where defending them is totally illogical. No competent police officer should do such a thing as has happened here (in a case like this one).

One cannot logically explain why this officer did something so senseless and deadly, it cannot be justified and it should be punished in accordance with the law.
 
Evidence is irrelevant. Both the prosecution and public defender will strike out neutral jurors or any that have the slightest bias against cops. Once that's done, a unanimous guilty vote is impossible.

My estimate

Not guilty = 25% chance
Mistrial (hung jury) = 70% chance
Guilty = 5% chance

Evidence is what drives The U.S. legal system.

Both lawyers have a maximum number of challenges that can be made during the voir dire process.

The legal system generally works.
 
Wasn't a taser line present? That will change the fact pattern. Depending upon who was hit with it. Forensics can determine that. Especially if he was.

There are only a few cases where shooting someone unarmed in the back is acceptable. They are extreme too. And I'm thinking basically the marshals or fbi are the only ones who would likely have a good argument for such an action.

If someone was a violent offender who had just killed, raped and maimed and was running towards a group of women with children while wielding a knife ready to strike and kill/take hostages, then yes, fire at will.

But this was a guy with a busted tail light and an arrest warrant for non payment of child support. A 50 year old man on foot with cops coming into the area, this man was not a danger to anyone and he should have either took the trouble of running after the guy and tacking him (he was 20 years the man's junior) or he should have waited for backup and arrested them at their leisure.

What this officer did now was wrong, dead wrong and from what I see and know completely illegal. I doubt there is one police academy where they teach their officers that this is the correct procedure for taking down an unarmed, non-violent offender, tail light busted, 50 year old father of 4 (if I remember correctly) children. If an officer did something like this in my country he would be arrested and prosecuted (not for murder but with a lesser offense and his walking papers) after an official investigation and in this case it seems tragic that the 50 year old man ran into this "loose gun police officer" instead of the tens of thousands of decent police officers who would have been able to solve this case without killing an unarmed fleeing man in the back with 8 bullets.
 
I know that "impossible to hack" isn't achievable. "Very hard to hack without making it obvious" is do-able and should suffice most of the time, I'd think.

In addition to hamper proof measures on the cam itself I'd also probably upload the video real time to a trusted 3rd party.
 
Who is claiming that all cops are murderers?

On the first few pages, posts 4,6,9,20,22,24,37......... you can read through the thread yourself if you want more.

They all leave the impression that cops are liars and the only reason we don't know about it is because there isn't video to prove it. The implication being, cops are getting away with murder.
 
True.



False.

Cops in states like SC can shoot as many Blacks as they want and face no consequences. The cop in this incident will not be convicted (unless the Feds threaten the police dept. in some fashion). The trial will either end in a full acquittal or mistrial.

So you are the seer of all trials?
 
Nope.

The moral is don't break the law, no matter who you are.

Every body breaks a law, every day. Guess I should have just gotten out of my car and punched that cop that pulled me over the other day and just drove off?
 
Evidence is what drives The U.S. legal system.

WRONG. There's no way to enforce the requirement that jurors must decide based on evidence. A pro-cop jury can easily nullify the homicide law, and they will.

Both lawyers have a maximum number of challenges that can be made during the voir dire process.

True, but in cases where cops are on trial, both the prosecution and defense will attempt to exclude jurors that are likely to vote guilty, because prosecutors are always pro-cop. In other words, when cops are on trial, the prosecution and defense are on the same side.

That's not the way it works in other trials, where the prosecution is on one side and the defense on the other--only in those cases, where there's a kick-ass private lawfirm for the defense--can voir dire yield a fair jury.
 




Here ya go, tell me what's the cop doing between the 1:03 and the 1:40 mark btw.


Can't tell. Did Michael j fox film this? I'm also watching on a phone so I can't see. You tell me and can you be certain?
 
for me....yes

if i am sitting on the jury, and all i know is the 30 second video, then its murder 2......

but maybe, there are mitigating circumstances from before that 30 seconds.....

and maybe that gets the charge down to manslaughter

he is guilty of "something".....i would like to ascertain in my mind what that is......

and what happened before may or may not matter......

does that make sense?

He could have burned down an orphanage with everyone in it, that doesn't justify the shooting.
 
Looks very much like he went back picked up the taser, then dropped it next to him.

Like I said. I can't tell. I'm hoping they can slow this footage down to frame by frame. That MIGHT reduce the shaky cam. Honestly it matters. But the first part is damning. The taser would change it only a little bit. And only if the darts were in the officer and not the other guy.
 
The riots after the hung jury/acquittal are going to be total hell.
 
He could have burned down an orphanage with everyone in it, that doesn't justify the shooting.


it will, and would to those on the jury

the cop is guilty.....the question is....of what?

circumstances have swayed juries before.....

if you dont think what happened before has any meaning, fine

i happen to disagree....it MIGHT have meaning once we know what happened

again....it could be the difference between murder ii and manslaughter
 
it will, and would to those on the jury

the cop is guilty.....the question is....of what?

circumstances have swayed juries before.....

if you dont think what happened before has any meaning, fine

i happen to disagree....it MIGHT have meaning once we know what happened

again....it could be the difference between murder ii and manslaughter

Yes theoretically a jury can acquit someone who eats a baby right in front of them.

but a cop is not judge, jury, and executioner. Their job is to apprehend the suspect to be held for due process of law. Lethal force is only justified when a direct physical threat is present to the officer or to a bystander.

Murder 2. Clearly. With additional charges of tampering with a crime scene and providing false statements, obstruction of justice, etc, likely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom