• 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.
US News is right wing?


I really don't care, you are free to live in delusion all you want. *shrug*



Pants On Fire: PolitiFact Tries To Hide That It Rated 'True' in 2008 Obamacare's 'Keep Your Health Plan' Promise - Forbes



But you keep livin the dream man. /facepalm

Forbes said:
PolitiFact rarely troubles itself with evaluating actual facts, instead considering itself a kind of super-objective think tank that can omnisciently predict the future.

There’s nothing wrong with trying to assign realism to the predictions about the future that politicians make. But that’s not fact-checking. It’s prediction-checking. And that is why PolitiFact’s very name is itself a “Pants on Fire” lie; it should instead be called “PolitiPrediction.” But that wouldn’t provide as much opportunity for self-righteous preening.

:thumbs:
 
this story just proves a little theory I've been working on: If you fight with a policeman and will probably end up dead

I got a theory too.

If you shoot a man in the back as he flees, fail to render aid, and falsify evidence you will be tried for murder (and hopefully executed).
 
You can't deprive yourself of human qualities. It's an action applied on to someone else just like humanizing.



I disagree, Hat. There are some things that, once you've deliberately done them, you just don't come back from.
 
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 even if he'd had a functional taser.....it wouldnt work from that distance. The cop was in no danger.
 
Like I said to Stonewall, that may be the case, but if I had to guess I'd say that less than 50% of shots fired hit their targets, that means there are a lot of HP's flying around....

Here is an excerpt that says that NY City Police hit their target 34% of the time....



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So I'm not sure that the 66% of HP's that missed make the world a safer place....

NYPD is s horrid example, as their lack of accuracy has become legendary!

I referred to over-penetration, not misses - big difference.
 
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.

And they have much less chance of penetrating their target and harming innocent bystanders. I prefer the philosophy that it's better to do real harm to suspects (since the bar for lethal force is a high one, despite the POS cop in this OP) than to do incidental harm to innocent people in the vicinity.

Again, it is a life or death situation...so death is the presumed outcome when *lethal* force is warranted.
 
Last edited:
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.

Honestly? I dont. 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.
 
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.

Ha ha, that would be great.
 
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.

Agreed. Cops are trained to be cool in stress situations but it's not as easy to do.

But his deliberateness (Is that a word? lol) and lack of emotion will hurt him big time in court.
 
They are "more likely" to kill a bystander. That is your argument? Never mind that the risk will be greater with a perfect shot? That an fmj will go through more and create more bystanders? Even on the other side of a wall? Seriously?

The only logical round is HP. It stops. Maybe not fast, but faster than an fmj.


And that is paramount to me if I am being attacked.

The point is to STOP....why use something that may take longer to do so and put you (and others) at greater risk?
 
Of course there is the cop script about what to write in the police report so you can get away with murder. I was in fear for my life.

The second thing I notice about these police shootings is that they shoot way too many rounds. It seems to part of the police "script" that if you have to shoot someone, be sure he's DEAD so there is only ONE version of what happened before the grand jury. Dead men can't testify against you.

In this case, the victim was never a threat, but he certainly didn't need to be fired at 8 times. How many police shooting victims survive the shooting?

It's despicable.

I dont know that he was hit 8 times...has that been released tho?

And cops and civilians are taught to shoot until the threat stops. While this guy wasnt a threat to begin with, in general you are trained to shoot until the attack or the attacker stops. I dont think the cop shot the guy once he was on the ground (didnt notice that but would have to see if I can tell from the video).
 
No my argument is that 66% of HP's miss their target, which means that bystanders that are hit are injured more grievously then they would have if hit with FMJ.

What percent of FMJs miss? Are you claiming that the type of bullet affects accuracy? And how much is the secondary damage to bystanders by fragmented bullets?
 
No my argument is that 66% of HP's miss their target, which means that bystanders that are hit are injured more grievously then they would have if hit with FMJ.

Look, this isn't a point I really want to stand on. It might be the case that it's the difference between getting hit by a car and a bus, but my understanding is that FMJ's cause less damage than do HP's and with 66% or more (LA county police miss 73% of their shots fired). Add to that the undocumented numbers of people shot on purpose who were innocent, I'm saying it's worth having a conversation about how badly we want the bullets we use to harm the people we shoot. Again, not that I disagree with you about the millitary, but the fact is, we use FMJ's in war because the don't cause the same kind of damage that HP's do, but we use them on our own people in situations where the police often don't have enough information to make decisions.

The government doesn't keep handy statistics about the number of peoples who's homes are raided by mistake, the number of people that are shot by bullets that miss their targets, the number of people shot because they looked like someone else......But here is a site of alleged accidental incedents that often involve shootings.

https://the7thpwr.wordpress.com/accidental-police-shootings/

Military probably uses FMJs because they're cheaper.

No idea if that's true but it wouldnt surprise me. :(
 
I hope he's convicted of murder, and im sure his family will file a civil suit so they will get his house:lamo, not to mention he will probably go broke with legal fees, this POS COPS life is pretty much ruined!!:applaud..
If he has a wife and kids, they won't.
 
The witness made a very peculiar statement that would not have been made had the suspect not had the taser.

I remember the police [officer] had control of the situation,” he said. “He had control of Scott. And Scott was trying just to get away from the Taser.
But like I said, he never used the Taser against the cop.”

Man who filmed S.C. police shooting: Maybe God ‘put me there for some reason’ - The Washington Post

That is an indication that he had the taser but didn't use it.
And the Officer never said he did used it either. Only that he took it.

So, if Mr. Scott "took" Officer Slager's taser but never used it against him AND given the fact that the taser never discharged (assuming it malfunctioned), how is it that Officer Slager's life was in danger? Wouldn't it had made sense for Officer Slager to subdue Mr. Scott at this point, i.e., put him in cuffs?

You are speaking nonsense.
Yes his statement is evidence and no it is not a blatant lie. That is a ridiculously false claim.

And what do you think he did with this taser?
Are you assuming like everyone else that he picked it up and then dropped it by the suspect to set the suspect up?
That's certainly how it looks on the video. If it was the victim's wallet or some other personal possession, do you think Officer Slager would have gone back to retrieve it? And even if he did, why would he pick it up after dropping it next to the victim's body? In fact, why would the officer pick up anything from the crime scene except his weapon? And in so doing, why would he drop it next to the victim's body and then subsequently pick it back up later? There's only one reason a cop would do something like that: To plant evidence. But I think Officer Slager was either talked out of going through with it once the other cop came on the scene OR he realized he was being filmed and quickly changed his mind. Either way, he tampered with evidence on the scene and that alone hurts his credibility as to what actually happened.

If that is the case, then why can he be seen picking it up again and placing it in his utility belt? Obviously it wouldn't be to plant anything. Duh!

No, but Officer Slager clearly attempted to plant evidence initially. That much is undeniable.

If you knew procedure, he was securing his weapon just as he called to have is car secured.

WRONG, 110% incorrect!!!

Officer Slager had the opportunity to secure his service weapon immediately after firing 8 rounds at Mr. Scott, but he didn't. He fires the shots starting at the :20 mark, radios "Shots fired" around the :29 second mark and can still be seen carrying his gun in his right hand as he does so. The video gets shaky from this point until around the :56 second mark where Officer Slager is clearly seen cuffing Mr. Scott and looking over his body. Therefore, it can be assumed that Officer Slager holstered his weapon sometime between the :29 and :56 mark - a full 37 seconds after firing his weapon.

At the 1:00 mark, Officer Slager returns to the spot where shots were fired and retrieves the object that fell to the ground. (Or rather, the item that Mr. Scott knocked out of his hand; it wasn't something that was purposely dropped.) At the 1:22 mark, Officer Slager can be seen holding the item in his right hand while once again talking in his shoulder radio with his left hand. At the 1:33 mark, it's clear that Officer Slager drops the item next to Mr. Scott's body. What was it? By all accounts, it was the taser gun. So, if Mr. Scott "had" Officer Slager's taser, why did he have to go "retrieve" it? The only way Officer Slager's life would have been in danger is if Mr. Scott had Officer Slager's taser gun in his possession AND was attempting to use it against him at the time the shots were fired. None of that appears to have been the case in this situation.
 
I can keep going if you want, but I think you are going to dismiss anything that doesn't fit your left agendad world view.


read the "analysis"

PolitiFact.com - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"University of Minnesota political science professor Eric Ostermeier did an analysis of 511 selected PolitiFact stories issued from January 2010 through January 2011. He said "PolitiFact has generally devoted an equal amount of time analyzing Republicans (191 statements, 50.4 percent) as they have Democrats (179 stories, 47.2 percent)..." Republican officeholders were considered by Politifact to have made substantially more "false" or "pants on fire" statements than their Democratic counterparts. Of 98 statements PolitiFact judged "false" or "pants on fire" from partisan political figures, 74 came from Republicans (76 percent) compared to 22 from Democrats (22 percent) during the selected period reviewed. Ostermeier concluded "By levying 23 Pants on Fire ratings to Republicans over the past year compared to just 4 to Democrats, it appears the sport of choice is game hunting - and the game is elephants."[24] The study was criticized by PolitiFact editor Bill Adair and the MinnPost, with Adair responding, "Eric Ostermeier's study is particularly timely because we've heard a lot of charges this week that we are biased — from liberals ... So we're accustomed to hearing strong reactions from people on both ends of the political spectrum. We are a news organization and we choose which facts to check based on news judgment.[25] A writer with the left-leaning magazine The Nation argued that findings like this are a reflection of "fact-checkers simply doing their job... Republicans today just happen to be more egregiously wrong...."[26] A writer with the right-leaning Human Events claimed that after looking at Politifact's work on a case by case basis a pattern emerged whereby Politifact critiqued straw man claims; that is, "dismissed the speaker’s claim, made up a different claim and checked that instead." The conservative magazine noted Politifact's use of language such as "[although the speaker] used [a specific] phrase... in his claim, [it] could fairly be interpreted to mean [something more general that is false]..." Human Events cited Bryan White's PolitiFactBias blog to state that "from the end of that partnership [with the Congressional Quarterly] to the end of 2011, the national PolitiFact operation has issued 119 Pants on Fire ratings for Republican or conservative claims, and only 13 for liberal or Democratic claims".[27]"



but you probably really believe them.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the reason why Politifact issues more "pants on fire" to Republicans than Democrats is because maybe....just maybe.....Republicans tend to tell more lies?



I'm sure that you probably wouldn't give that any consideration and would dismiss anything that doesn't fit your right-wing world view.


Sorry....but politifact calls it and disses on left-wing as well as right-wing. You can dismiss them all you want it doesn't change the facts.
 
NYPD is s horrid example, as their lack of accuracy has become legendary!

I referred to over-penetration, not misses - big difference.

Sure, and I agree, the problem is, I was referring to the misses. NYC miss rate of 66% is pretty representative of the national miss rate for all the statistics I can find.
 
The only open racism I've ever seen from the NYPD as a matter of policy was thier "We aint hirin whites" when I went for a job. lol

Someone was obviously yanking your chain.
 
And they have much less chance of penetrating their target and harming innocent bystanders. I prefer the philosophy that it's better to do real harm to suspects (since the bar for lethal force is a high one, despite the POS cop in this OP) than to do incidental harm to innocent people in the vicinity.

Again, it is a life or death situation...so death is the presumed outcome when *lethal* force is warranted.

I'll say again, what about the misses that outnumber the hits by 2:1, what if they hit innocent bystanders? The rational you're using for HP's is exactly the opposite when dealing with projectiles that don't hit a suspect first.
 
What percent of FMJs miss? Are you claiming that the type of bullet affects accuracy? And how much is the secondary damage to bystanders by fragmented bullets?

No I'm saying that wounds caused by FMJ's are less devastating, which is why we don't use them in war.
 
Sure, and I agree, the problem is, I was referring to the misses. NYC miss rate of 66% is pretty representative of the national miss rate for all the statistics I can find.

Several years ago several NYPD cops began shooting at a gun wielding suspect on the streets, with crowds, and IIRC hit at least 2 bystanders.

Of course, those Glock New York triggers did not help, either.

Still pretty pathetic marksmanship.

ETA - This NYPD shoot bystanders; unarmed target gets charged with assault - Salon.com
 
To risk not getting crucified in the public, risking their careers and to prevent their towns from being looted and set on-fire, chiefs will have a propensity to fire or arrest officers before all the facts are known.

I haven't noticed this as a common occurrence. Usually the chiefs will defend the accused officer (which is understandable usually). This most recent incident is not a good example. Any sensible chief would have done the same as this one. The evidence is enough to arrest the man, officer or not.
 
Military probably uses FMJs because they're cheaper.

No idea if that's true but it wouldnt surprise me. :(

Actually, I have in previous posts attributed the use of FMJ's to the Geneva Convention, turns out I was mistaken, it goes back to the The Hague Convention of 1899 that prohibits bullets that expand or flatten easily within the body.

From a warfare point of view, a wounded soldier who is incapacitated is better than a dead soldier as the wounded require men and resources to care for.

For police FMJ's are less likely to kill immediately than HP's, this is both good and bad. If you are in a gun fight with an armed suspect and you shoot him and he dies, that's good, if you miss and it hits a bystander, that's bad. If you accidently shoot the wrong person, FMJ could be the difference between aggravated assault and manslaughter/ murder.

I'm not saying that I'm necessarily right. perhaps cops should keep both FMJ's and HP's, maybe HP's save lives as they are more likely to be stopped by walls, car doors ect....I'm just saying, this isn't a slam dunk issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom