• 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.
Wrong.
His taking the taser made him a threat and allowed the Officer to shoot him.

That is pathetically wrong, as usual.
 
A misfiring/useless weapon could be quickly tossed aside or dropped by the cop in order to save time retrieving his gun.

Some people will justify anything. There was no imminent, lethal threat to the cop when he shot the guy and the video shows this clearly.

There absolutely was no imminent threat to the cop. When you are fleeing with your back to a gun, you are at your most vulnerable.

The cop had no reason to shoot him.
 
There absolutely was no imminent threat to the cop. When you are fleeing with your back to a gun, you are at your most vulnerable.

The cop had no reason to shoot him.

And there is serious suspicion that he tried to "stage" the shoot to justify his illegal use of deadly force, that makes his crime go from a lesser case of homicide to a much more serious version of homicide charges.
 
No consequences? Why didnt the cop run after him and restrain him and arrest him? Or just go to his house and arrest him for the child support and assault?

Assault and resisting arrest charges are consequences.

Yep, you're right....When I posted that I was on the road, and hadn't seen the dash cam footage....Now that I have seen that, I can't for the life of me understand what threat this cop thought that guy was....All things considered, at this point I am willing to say this, now ex cop, murdered this man and I hope that, and have confidence that our justice system will come to the right conclusion and convict him of such.

This is so sad for both families...The mom of the ex cop just looked devastated, and ofcourse the victims family was as expected torn up...My sympathies and prayers go out to both.

So sad.
 
From the NY Times:

In the legal test of whether an officer is justified in shooting a fleeing person, certain factors must be present, including a belief by the officer that the suspect committed or was about to commit a dangerous and serious felony such as an assault, legal experts said. The other factors include whether the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or whether the officer believes the suspect will cause death or serious injury to the officer, other officers or to the public if not apprehended.

Law professors, former prosecutors and police officers who watched the North Charleston video said it did not appear to them that the circumstances of the shooting met any of those legal parameters, and they said that based on what they saw in the video, the officer was not legally justified in opening fire.

,,,A narrow set of circumstances must be in play for an officer to be justified in shooting a fleeing suspect, including that the suspected crime was a serious felony, legal experts said. Kenneth Williams, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston who is an expert on police use of force, used a hypothetical situation as an explanation. “Let’s say I shoplifted out of Macy’s and I started running away from the police,” Professor Williams said. “The police would not be justified in that circumstance with shooting me.” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/u...NextInCollection&region=Footer&pgtype=article
 
And there is serious suspicion that he tried to "stage" the shoot to justify his illegal use of deadly force, that makes his crime go from a lesser case of homicide to a much more serious version of homicide charges.

That fact in South Carolina is why he was charged with "Capital" Murder, and not just Murder.
 
Excon is obviously running away from the facts... I wonder why that is?

Probably just another gun nut where the use of firearms is envied admired and fetishised at any and every opportunity :(

This is a peculiarly American phenomenon
 
Last edited:
Unless you are in the middle of the Sahara Desert odds are you are on a video cam. It is truly wonderful how many crimes have been solved by a security video cam or a public member with a video camera.

Video cameras and DNA technology have added so much to solving crime in our time. The best would be if we can ever create a 100% accurate lie detector .
 
HPs help protect the public. The drama around HPs is ridiculous.

I'm not dramitizing it. HP's cause more damage than FMJ's. That's why there is an agreement not to use them in war, but we use them on our own civilians. Just pointing it out.
 
That fact in South Carolina is why he was charged with "Capital" Murder, and not just Murder.

I think manslaughter should be what the officer is convicted of. The number of years he has to sit in jail is for others to decide, not me.
 
That is pathetically wrong, as usual.

It is that same crowd who supported Michael Dunn for shooting into a car of teens and then running away.
Always wrong. All I can say is, Mr Dunn you have a new cell mate.
 
I think manslaughter should be what the officer is convicted of. The number of years he has to sit in jail is for others to decide, not me.

Not me...He stopped, planted, and methodically took aim, then proceeded not to just shoot once, or twice, but 8 freakin' times....I think manslaughter should be for cases where you don't intend on killing someone, but it happens...This was murder.
 
I think manslaughter should be what the officer is convicted of. The number of years he has to sit in jail is for others to decide, not me.

1st degree Manslaughter would be a gift for this cop actually - I'd be more apt to side with 2nd degree murder as shooting at someone 8 times in the back (in this case) was not premeditated (no evidence to show premeditation) but where death would be a distinct possibility.
 
Not me...He stopped, planted, and methodically took aim, then proceeded not to just shoot once, or twice, but 8 freakin' times....I think manslaughter should be for cases where you don't intend on killing someone, but it happens...This was murder.

Here's one for thought. The police officer does not appear to be angry at all. You would almost expect him to be so mad he would be swearing at the guy. Wouldn't surpize me if his attorneys demand a mental evaluation. His demeanor almost reminds me of robcop.
 
Not me...He stopped, planted, and methodically took aim, then proceeded not to just shoot once, or twice, but 8 freakin' times....I think manslaughter should be for cases where you don't intend on killing someone, but it happens...This was murder.

I was thinking from the way the Dutch legal system looks at it, murder in our system is planned/premeditated and "doodslag" which to us is "manslaughter" where it is not a premeditated act of homicide.

Because I do not think he premedidated this killing so for me it is manslaughter (homicide without prior premedidation).
 
I was thinking from the way the Dutch legal system looks at it, murder in our system is planned/premeditated and "doodslag" which to us is "manslaughter" where it is not a premeditated act of homicide.

Because I do not think he premedidated this killing so for me it is manslaughter (homicide without prior premedidation).

Can't "pre meditation" occur even seconds before the act?
 
He was not fired because of his actions. He was fired in an attempt by the dept. to convey a better image of itself after the video splashed all over national TV.

The NCPD will most likely re-hire him after his acquittal.

I find that notion to be completely absurd. But, it's your opinion. You seem very biased against cops so it would make sense that you'd feel that way.
 
The officer felt justified in his actions because he didn't have all the information.

He didn't know he was being recorded.
 
JUst saying ...
If that is the case it would be wrong because he was an Officer when the incidnent happened.

Maybe. But that certainly might be a motive.
 
Can't "pre meditation" occur even seconds before the act?

I don't think so. I think that would still qualify as in the moment. If the argument was that this was premeditated...it wasn't. Unless this officer knew he was going to be stopping this guy at this time and had made the decision to kill him. Good luck proving that.
 
I'm not dramitizing it. HP's cause more damage than FMJ's. That's why there is an agreement not to use them in war, but we use them on our own civilians. Just pointing it out.

HP would would stop the target faster. They also would reduce over penetration. We SHOULD allow them in war. Especially in places where targets won't have armor. FMJs will just go right through. HP rounds are the only logical defensive round. They reduce risk to bystanders.
 
Not me...He stopped, planted, and methodically took aim, then proceeded not to just shoot once, or twice, but 8 freakin' times....I think manslaughter should be for cases where you don't intend on killing someone, but it happens...This was murder.
1st degree Manslaughter would be a gift for this cop actually - I'd be more apt to side with 2nd degree murder as shooting at someone 8 times in the back (in this case) was not premeditated (no evidence to show premeditation) but where death would be a distinct possibility.
I was thinking from the way the Dutch legal system looks at it, murder in our system is planned/premeditated and "doodslag" which to us is "manslaughter" where it is not a premeditated act of homicide.
Because I do not think he premedidated this killing so for me it is manslaughter (homicide without prior premedidation).
Can't "pre meditation" occur even seconds before the act?
I don't think so. I think that would still qualify as in the moment. If the argument was that this was premeditated...it wasn't. Unless this officer knew he was going to be stopping this guy at this time and had made the decision to kill him. Good luck proving that.

SC Judicial Department

Murder is the killing of a person with malice aforethought, either express or implied. Id. With the exception of the death of the victim, each and every element of murder must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order for a jury to convict a defendant of ABIK. Id.​

“Malice aforethought” is defined as “the requisite mental state for common-law murder” and it utilizes four possible mental states to encompass both specific and general intent to commit the crime. Black’s Law Dictionary 969 (7th ed. 1999). These four possibilities are intent to kill, intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, extremely reckless indifference to the value of human life (abandoned and malignant heart), and intent to commit a felony (felony murder rule).[3] Id. “General intent” is defined as “the state of mind required for the commission of certain common law crimes not requiring specific intent” and it “usually takes the form of recklessness . . . or negligence.” Black’s Law Dictionary 813 (7th ed. 1999).​

Clearly, the above definitions illustrate that malice aforethought encompasses both the specific and general intent to commit murder. As ABIK encompasses each of the required elements of murder except for the death of the victim, it is axiomatic that malice aforethought be the mental state required to commit ABIK. Further, the South Carolina Supreme Court has stated “the required mental state for ABIK, like murder, is malice aforethought.” State v. Fennell, 340 S.C. 266, 275, 531 S.E.2d 512, 517 (2000).​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom