• 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.
Warrants are based upon probable cause, but do not have any bearing on guilt or innocence.

That is why courts exist.

He is innocent until proven otherwise, period.

His warrants, BTW, were for non-payment of child support, not that it matters.

Rather than arresting and jailing this guy for his warrants (now no longer possible due to an incurable condition named shot in the back by cop), they should have seized his car (a mercedes with blingy wheels) and sold that for the outstanding child support.
 
knowing few facts other than the video I will still give the cop the benefit of the doubt until I hear more.

the man killed had an arrest warrant out for him. Don't we need to know if the warrant was for a violent crime(or worse) before we call the man innocent?

don't jump to conclusions like some did on Ferguson only to end up with egg on their face.

Unarmed, running away and no danger whatsoever to the officer and being shot from a considerable distance in the back with 8 bullets. That is all we need to know when it comes to this case.

Even if he had been a violent offender in his past, there is no need to gun an unarmed man in the back like that.
 
Unarmed, running away and no danger whatsoever to the officer and being shot from a considerable distance in the back with 8 bullets. That is all we need to know when it comes to this case.

Even if he had been a violent offender in his past, there is no need to gun an unarmed man in the back like that.
Let me just say that I don't think this officer was justified in killing this man.

With that said, Peter, do you really believe that people should just be able to get physical with cops, then run and get away with no consequences? Really?

You might as well just declare law dead, and open season.
 
Let me just say that I don't think this officer was justified in killing this man.

With that said, Peter, do you really believe that people should just be able to get physical with cops, then run and get away with no consequences? Really?

You might as well just declare law dead, and open season.

The job of the police is arresting someone, not being judge and jury.

And trying to get away from a cop should not lead to gunning down. Police officers in countless countries around the world and in loads of cities in the US can deal with a suspect running away from them after pulling free from an officer without using a gun, much less kill them.

I am very pro-police officer safety but then their safety has to be in danger, not like in this case.
 
Let me just say that I don't think this officer was justified in killing this man.

With that said, Peter, do you really believe that people should just be able to get physical with cops, then run and get away with no consequences? Really?

You might as well just declare law dead, and open season.

There is consequences for assaulting a law enforcement officer. You can do time in jail and fined. The officer does not have the right to be the judge and decide the punishment.

Unfortunately we do not have the initial interaction of the two men. There was no reason for the person with the video camera to film just an ordinary traffic stop. The victim is dead and has the word of the police officer is not reliable at all. For a broken tail light offense this sure got offensive for some reason. Did one of the two men have a badass attitude or did they both have a badass attitude?
The only thing we have is this video and the officer's demeanor is very damaging to his case.
 
The job of the police is arresting someone, not being judge and jury.

And trying to get away from a cop should not lead to gunning down. Police officers in countless countries around the world and in loads of cities in the US can deal with a suspect running away from them after pulling free from an officer without using a gun, much less kill them.

I am very pro-police officer safety but then their safety has to be in danger, not like in this case.
I agree with you that this officer was wrong. BUT, the SCOTUS has upheld that police are justified in shooting a fleeing suspect.
 
There is consequences for assaulting a law enforcement officer. You can do time in jail and fined. The officer does not have the right to be the judge and decide the punishment.

Unfortunately we do not have the initial interaction of the two men. There was no reason for the person with the video camera to film just an ordinary traffic stop. The victim is dead and has the word of the police officer is not reliable at all. For a broken tail light offense this sure got offensive for some reason. Did one of the two men have a badass attitude or did they both have a badass attitude?
The only thing we have is this video and the officer's demeanor is very damaging to his case.
That's classic Monday morning quaterbacking. And without having ALL the facts to boot.
 
Did one of the two men have a badass attitude or did they both have a badass attitude?
That's classic Monday morning quaterbacking. And without having ALL the facts to boot.

What could there be prior to the start of the video which could have an impact on whether or not the fleeing Scott was a grave and imminent danger to the officer or the community at large?
Well...I mean a something which could have that sort of an impact AND which the officer may have forgotten to mention?

Obviously if Scott said he was running off to his secret Mad Scientist Lab to release his flying poison spraying robotonator on the tri-state area and Slager had reason to believe this was a real thing, that'd be reason for shooting Scott.
However, it seems Slager would have led with that tidbit.

So is there something which
a) could have been likely to occurr prior to the beginning of the video recording which would have an impact on the propriety of shooting someone in the back?
and
b) is likely to have been something which Slager would have failed to mention already?

At the moment, my imagination fails me.
But I am open to ideas from the more insightful and creative among us.
 
That's classic Monday morning quaterbacking. And without having ALL the facts to boot.

How's your throwing arm.

My question was how did this escalate from a broken tail light traffic stop? I said we don't have the facts to the origin of this and likely we will never know for sure. Yes, it is truly a shame the video didn't include the initial confrontation. And that all very well may be something to ponder for most but all we do have is the video which shows without question a unjustified shooting and odd response afterwards.
 
What could there be prior to the start of the video which could have an impact on whether or not the fleeing Scott was a grave and imminent danger to the officer or the community at large?
Well...I mean a something which could have that sort of an impact AND which the officer may have forgotten to mention?

Obviously if Scott said he was running off to his secret Mad Scientist Lab to release his flying poison spraying robotonator on the tri-state area and Slager had reason to believe this was a real thing, that'd be reason for shooting Scott.
However, it seems Slager would have led with that tidbit.

So is there something which
a) could have been likely to occurr prior to the beginning of the video recording which would have an impact on the propriety of shooting someone in the back?
and
b) is likely to have been something which Slager would have failed to mention already?

At the moment, my imagination fails me.
But I am open to ideas from the more insightful and creative among us.
Nothing in this post indicates you are open to anything other than complete guilt of the officer. That is clear.
 
I'm not assuming anything. I'm posing a question: black folks have been screamin abut this kind of thing and low and behold, one shows up on video. It's like proving a UFO.

Of course you are assuming. Nobody has ever argued that there are no bad police officers, but using this video to try and prove anything about police officers as a whole is obscene fear mongering.

Use your same logic on a convenience store video of a robbery by a Hispanic man, would you then conclude that Hispanic men are all criminals?
 
How's your throwing arm.

My question was how did this escalate from a broken tail light traffic stop? I said we don't have the facts to the origin of this and likely we will never know for sure. Yes, it is truly a shame the video didn't include the initial confrontation. And that all very well may be something to ponder for most but all we do have is the video which shows without question a unjustified shooting and odd response afterwards.
I don't know, nor could I know what transpired before the video. Neither do you.
 
Even with a warrant for murder, the actor is a suspect, and innocent under the law until proven otherwise.

I don't disagree with you. I was just saying there is a precedent where an officer can shoot a fleeing suspect if he believes that the person is a threat to society. I'm not familiar enough with the "rule" to tell you the circumstances under which it is warranted, but I can imagine examples where shooting a fleeing suspect might be justified. In this case, even if Mr. Scott was wanted for murder, I don't think a 50 year old man, without an apparent weapon, running through an open field on a clear day, presented a real credible threat to the officer and that the officer could not have made some attempt to capture Mr. Scott rather than shoot him.

My argument has always been that the shooting was unjustified and that I can't imagine a circumstance where the officer in this case will be exonerated.
 
I'm not assuming anything. I'm posing a question: black folks have been screamin abut this kind of thing and low and behold, one shows up on video. It's like proving a UFO.

This is but a single incident and has no bearing on other "similar" incidents. Unlike the UFO analogy, not many deny the possibility of police officers committing crimes. Like the UFO analogy, finding one alien spacecraft does not mean that all sitings of "unidentified" flying objects are indeed alien spacecraft.
 
I agree with you that this officer was wrong. BUT, the SCOTUS has upheld that police are justified in shooting a fleeing suspect.

Really? Because from what I just read in Tennessee v. Garner from 1985 the SCOTUS held the opinion upright that:

This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html

And in this case the suspect was not a felon. He was running and if the officer ran after him over an open field there was an excellent chance of capturing him (with another officer coming onto the scene shortly after the shooting) so it was not even about preventing an escape.
 
How's your throwing arm.

My question was how did this escalate from a broken tail light traffic stop? I said we don't have the facts to the origin of this and likely we will never know for sure. Yes, it is truly a shame the video didn't include the initial confrontation. And that all very well may be something to ponder for most but all we do have is the video which shows without question a unjustified shooting and odd response afterwards.

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.
 
Yeah, it seems logic seems go out the door when this kind of discussion is going on (from both sides to some extend even) and in some cases I am going to have to err on the side of the police officer (that is usually the case, without clear and real evidence to persuade me differently) but in that case there cannot be anything on the side of the police officer. What he did is clearly illegal and not defendable in any way shape or form.

Hmm... can you tell or show us what occurred prior to the video provided in the OP? Basing your entire case on what happened after the suspect decided to flee is assuming that the shooting was a direct result of only that action. One could assume that a confrontation of some sort preceded that decision and caused the bystander (witness?) to start recording the affair. I am of the opinion that shooting someone in the back as they are fleeing is usually unjustified but that there may be circumstances where that action is legal. Just because you don't know what preceded the decision to shoot a fleeing perp does not make it indefensible - that is exactly why we have trials.
 
I am of the opinion that shooting someone in the back as they are fleeing is usually unjustified but that there may be circumstances where that action is legal. Just because you don't know what preceded the decision to shoot a fleeing perp does not make it indefensible - that is exactly why we have trials.

What could there be prior to the start of the video which could have an impact on whether or not the fleeing Scott was a grave and imminent danger to the officer or the community at large?
Well...I mean a something which could have that sort of an impact AND which the officer may have forgotten to mention?


Obviously if Scott said he was running off to his secret Mad Scientist Lab to release his flying poison spraying robotonator on the tri-state area and Slager had reason to believe this was a real thing, that'd be reason for shooting Scott.
However, it seems Slager would have led with that tidbit.

So is there something which
a) could have been likely to occurr prior to the beginning of the video recording which would have an impact on the propriety of shooting someone in the back?​
and
b) is likely to have been something which Slager would have failed to mention already?​


At the moment, my imagination fails me.
But I am open to ideas from the more insightful and creative among us.

Nothing in this post indicates you are open to anything other than complete guilt of the officer. That is clear.
You couldn't imagine any such situation either?

Hopefully, the defense can imagine something which would
mitigate/justify shooting the fleeing Scott in the back
AND
be something the officer might forget to mention.​
 
What could there be prior to the start of the video which could have an impact on whether or not the fleeing Scott was a grave and imminent danger to the officer or the community at large?
Well...I mean a something which could have that sort of an impact AND which the officer may have forgotten to mention?


Obviously if Scott said he was running off to his secret Mad Scientist Lab to release his flying poison spraying robotonator on the tri-state area and Slager had reason to believe this was a real thing, that'd be reason for shooting Scott.
However, it seems Slager would have led with that tidbit.

So is there something which
a) could have been likely to occurr prior to the beginning of the video recording which would have an impact on the propriety of shooting someone in the back?​
and
b) is likely to have been something which Slager would have failed to mention already?​


At the moment, my imagination fails me.
But I am open to ideas from the more insightful and creative among us.

You couldn't imagine any such situation either?

Hopefully, the defense can imagine something which would
mitigate/justify shooting the fleeing Scott in the back
AND
be something the officer might forget to mention.​

You make a very good point. The fact that the officer used the "taking" of his non-lethal stun gun, as his justification for the shooting, which he later moved to be near the (then dead) suspect makes me doubt his chances for a successful defense.
 
How is there 40 pages of debate on this video? This is an open and shut case, literally nothing to argue about.
 
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.

One would think a shooting would have been justified to stop a perp from committing a violent deadly act on the officer or public. Neither of these were seen in the video. By the officer's calm approach to the prone victim it doesn't appear the perp is threatening at all. The officer doesn't even look for any weapon on the perp.

I would hate to have to be the defense attorney for the officer. I find it hard that a 33 year old policeman could not outrun what looks like a slow jog by this 50 year old man. That's is just crazy.
 
I would hate to have to be the defense attorney for the officer.
His original attorney is no longer representing him I noticed.
The case turned into a different kind of case after the video surfaced.
 
It appears that the general consensus of posters here that the shooting was unjustified.

The question is if there was no video taken would have any of the other officers questioned the shooting? Of course no way to know but it makes you wonder.
 
Hmm... can you tell or show us what occurred prior to the video provided in the OP? Basing your entire case on what happened after the suspect decided to flee is assuming that the shooting was a direct result of only that action. One could assume that a confrontation of some sort preceded that decision and caused the bystander (witness?) to start recording the affair. I am of the opinion that shooting someone in the back as they are fleeing is usually unjustified but that there may be circumstances where that action is legal. Just because you don't know what preceded the decision to shoot a fleeing perp does not make it indefensible - that is exactly why we have trials.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom