• 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.
Of course. The strong vein of racism in police depts. tends to be found mostly in Southern right-wing dumps like SC.

Do you have anything to add to the discussion other then baiting?
 
Anyone who thinks that there is a strong vein of racism that infects the police force of pretty much every major city in America is fooling themselves.

"every major city in America..." has a racist police force?

First, it is amusing how the left exaggerates every claim. It is not sufficient anymore to say "racism is still an issue in some quarters in our country" but we have to condemn the entire nation as "pretty much every major city in the country"

That's one **** of a list, including Seattle, San Fransisco, LA, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Buffalo, the entire eastern seaboard from Boston to Miami not to mention...New York city.

The situation is so widespread it infests them all, and yet the great Barrack Hussein Obama who has come to fix everything with his little pen and his sward has never mentioned it.

Now that's incompetence! To have every major city police force, "pretty much" infested with racists, and not do anything?

You know, I wonder how blacks have survived at all especially the blacks on those police forces.

I hope the new left will impeach Obama for sweeping this wonton racism under the rug!
 
I love that clip.

The guy is so stoned on whatever he doesn't even realize he's so stupid kids are laughing.

I mean no one can get that dense without either brain surgery or substances of great power to distort

And people are wondering why Obama was elected twice?!?
 
There are times where someone should be arrested. I'm thinking specially interference or being close enough to pose an additional hazard for police to worry about. I can only imagine the lawsuit if a suspect harms an idiot with a camera, especially if said suspect is scuffling with an officer.

Well not all instances of videoing is legal. You still can't interfere with the arrest. And that can be very subjectively interpreted.
 
I agree with you. Good move to fire him.

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 stopped at the first one:


“Michael Brown learned a lesson about a messin’
With a badass policeman
And he’s bad, bad Michael Brown
Baddest thug in the whole damn town
Badder than old King Kong
Meaner than a junkyard dog.

Two men took to fightin’
And Michael punched in through the door
And Michael looked like some old Swiss cheese
His brain was splattered on the floor

And he’s dead, dead Michael Brown
Deadest man in the whole damn town
His whole life’s long gone
Deader than a roadkill dog.”



how is that racist?

 
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.

Bull**** - you have no more insight than anyone else.
 
"every major city in America..." has a racist police force?

First, it is amusing how the left exaggerates every claim. It is not sufficient anymore to say "racism is still an issue in some quarters in our country" but we have to condemn the entire nation as "pretty much every major city in the country"

That's one **** of a list, including Seattle, San Fransisco, LA, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Buffalo, the entire eastern seaboard from Boston to Miami not to mention...New York city.

The situation is so widespread it infests them all, and yet the great Barrack Hussein Obama who has come to fix everything with his little pen and his sward has never mentioned it.

Now that's incompetence! To have every major city police force, "pretty much" infested with racists, and not do anything?

You know, I wonder how blacks have survived at all especially the blacks on those police forces.

I hope the new left will impeach Obama for sweeping this wonton racism under the rug!

Are you saying you would support the federal government taking over the nations local police forces? Even if your hyperbolic diatribe were even close to being true what would you expect the Feds to do about a municipal problem?
 
After reading pretty much the entire thread (48 pages), watching the video at least 5 times, reading 3 different articles from three different sources concerning the shooting and now watching the dash-cam video of the initial routine traffic stop (see video below), I could find no concrete evidence to support claims that Officer Slager's life was in danger or any justification for Mr. Scott being shot to death. Here are the facts based on video footage (both on the scene of the shooting and during the traffic stop) and from information as reported by HuffingtonPost.com (see OP) and NYTimes.com:

- Mr. Walter Scott was stopped by Officer Slager on a routine traffic violation - a broken taillight.

- Mr. Scott did not have proper documentation (i.e., bill of sale, vehicle registration, proof of insurance) to prove that he had purchased the vehicle he was driving (a used Mercedes-Benz) or was in the process of purchasing the vehicle.

- Officer Slager was in the process of verifying Mr. Scott's ID when Mr. Scott fled from his vehicle on foot.

- During the foot chase, you can hear Officer Slager shout "Get on the ground," in the dash-cam video.

- From the original video that captures the shooting, you initially see Mr. Scott and Officer Slager standing calmly facing each other.

- It's barely audible, but if you listen closely around the 12-18 second mark, you can hear Officer Slager warn Mr. Scott, "If you [flee?] I will shoot you".

- Within seconds, Mr. Scott attempts to flee the scene for the second time. If you watch closely, you'll notice the tether wire from Officer Slager's stun gun extends between Mr. Scott and Officer Slagere as Mr. Scott is fleeing. This at least confirms that Officer Slager did discharge his stun gun during the initial chase.

- Ms. Scott tosses something on the ground prior to fleeing the second time. It's unclear if this was Officer Slager's stun gun as he alleges that Mr. Scott had taken it or if it's something else. (But let's go with it was Officer Slager's stun gun as it appears that the object Officer Slager retrieves and tosses next to Mr. Scott's body was in the shape of a "gun".)

- Officer Slager fires 8 rounds, 3 of which reportedly hits Mr. Scott in the back(side).

- Officer Slager neither attempts to pursue Mr. Scott as he attempts to flee the scene a second time, nor does he call for backup to inform other police in the area that he was pursuing his victim. He does, however, report that shots were fired after the fact.

- Officer Slager goes back to spot where he and Mr. Scott initially stopped and picks up whatever was dropped. He is filmed seconds later dropping the same item next to Mr. Scott's body (which he later retrieves after a second police officer comes onto the scene).

- Officer Slager makes no attempt to resuscitate Mr. Scott when it becomes clear the victim has become non-responsive. (You see Officer Slager check Mr. Scott at his neck for a pulse with two fingers on his left hand, but that's all he does as far as checking Mr. Scott for signs of life.)

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000003620562/dash-cam-footage-of-walter-scott.html

Two questions:

1. If Mr. Scott had taken Officer Slager's taser as he alleges AND he believed his life was in danger, why didn't he cuff Mr. Scott immediately after he had initially stopped him?

2. If Mr. Scott had taken Officer Slager's taser, why didn't he retrieve it immediately after stopping him once the initial pursuit had ended?

It seems obvious to me that the above would have been the obvious things to do as a cop when a perp takes your weapon of any sort - you subdue him and retrieve your gear. Why was neither of these things done?

Regardless of why Mr. Scott ran, nothing on either video warranted him being shot. Mr. Scott did not appear to be a threat to Officer Slager. The fact that they are initially standing face-to-face AND Mr. Scott is not in handcuffs after the initial pursuit gives strong indication this was a non-violent, non-threatening situation.

IMO, Officer Slager was rightfully charged with murder.
 
Last edited:
So I was listening to XM radio, one of the political channels and they were talking about this. A vet from the Iraq war called in and said that the justification for shooting a potential combatant was stricter in some cases, than the police have when dealing with citizens. He said that towards the end of the war if a person was walking towards him with a weapon he would have to wait until the actual weapon was pointed at him, or shots fired before he could respond.

As a side note the Geneva convention calls for FMJ bullets in fields of battle, where police are allowed to use HP's on civilians. Again, some real bass aquards thinking....
 
No you are not.
You are seeing what you want to see which is make believe.

No, you are denying what is obvious for all to see. Even Judge Napolitano said it :

‘This Is What People Said Ferguson Was’

Everyone is wrong except you it seems. Almost everybody clearly sees the officer committing homicide by shooting an unarmed and non dangerous man.

:doh
As I already knew, you are assuming. Which again is make believe.

No, it is pointing to your denial of even the most basic facts:

1. the victim was unarmed
2. he was not a danger to anybody whatsoever

:doh
Obviously you didn't know until it was pointed out to you.
And in this case at the point in time the Officer responded, the guy was such a threat.
But I am sure you will continue to ignore that in pursuit of your make believe bs.

Wow, I didn't know until it was pointed out? What that it is illegal for police officers to shoot unarmed people who flee and pose no threat to anyone in the back? Yeah, I already knew that.

I would assume you have not seen this video once or you would not be posting utter untruths about this case time and time again.

The man was at the moment of the first shot being fired, no danger whatsoever and to say otherwise is denying the reality of what is on that video.

Even Ben Carson the republican candidate realizes it, he is calling it an execution: " “It’s horrible to see an execution take place in the street like that.”

The boss of this police officer has called it sickening what his officer did to that poor man.

But I guess you are one of the few who sees it "like it is" and the rest of us is just talking nonsense :roll: Sorry, but you denials and distortions do not add up to a truthful story.

And you are wrong.
At the point in time the Officer responded the guy was a threat.

No, being 20 feet away with your back turned to the officer you are not a threat and to say that he is is and obvious untruth.

It didn't fall. The guy who grabbed it threw it away.

Says who? Says you? Because there is zero evidence for that. It appeared on the video that the strings of the taser were going towards the victim, not the police officer. The taser was on the ground and a non-issue in the shooting homicide of this man.

:doh
His resistance is part of the whole.

You can tell yourself that until you are blue in the face but even a judge says that is nonsense.

"This is not Ferguson. In Ferguson, there was a bona fide fight over the officer’s gun and the officer won the fight," Judge Nap said. "This is two disparate cases. This is a victim running away from the police, shot in the back. This is what some people said Ferguson was, but it turned out it wasn't."

When he was shot he was not resisting, he was not a danger to the officer or anybody else and his shooting is therefore a homicide.

And again. Pay attention. At the point in time the Officer was responding to a known threat. To say otherwise you are going to have to show the Officer knew the suspect relived himself of the weapon.

No, running away from the officer with absolutely nothing in his hands is not a threat to that officer and to say anything else like I have said here before is nonsense.

And? Officers shoot until the threat ceases to be a threat. That just happens to be when they stop their movement.
If you do not like that, lobby to get policy changed.

This was never a threat when he started shooting. Your story does not hold water, it is totally in direct contradiction to the facts.

You do not know that. That is all an assumption on your part.
You have no idea what he picked up, or what he tossed down. So just stop with the make believe.

He had no business picking anything up and he most certainly did not have any business throwing it besides the victim. He contaminated the crime-scene and did not follow any police procedure known to man.

He may not have committed a crime.

That is your opinion, I think you are not just a little bit wrong but extremely and completely wrong.

Wrong. It was all your nonsense.

Wrong, it was factual, unlike your claims and assertions.

:doh
Actual danger versus that of a reasonable belief is very different.
You should try to learn the difference.

And you should learn the difference between being a threat (like the guy in Ferguson was) and someone who was no threat whatsoever (which is what we have in this case).
 
He said that towards the end of the war if a person was walking towards him with a weapon he would have to wait until the actual weapon was pointed at him, or shots fired before he could respond.

That is more of a sad commentary on Obama's disdain for the military and appeasement of the enemy. Yes putting soldiers is harms way then hand-cuffing them with such sniveling rules of engagement is disdain and contempt to the military.
 
After reading pretty much the entire thread (48 pages), watching the video at least 5 times, reading 3 different articles from three different sources concerning the shooting and now watching the dash-cam video of the initial routine traffic stop (see video below), I could find no concrete evidence to support claims that Officer Slager's life was in danger or any justification for Mr. Scott being shot to death. Here are the facts based on video footage (both on the scene of the shooting and during the traffic stop) and from information as reported by HuffingtonPost.com (see OP) and NYTimes.com:

- Mr. Walter Scott was stopped by Officer Slager on a routine traffic violation - a broken taillight.

- Mr. Scott did not have proper documentation (i.e., bill of sale, vehicle registration, proof of insurance) to prove that he had purchased the vehicle he was driving (a used Mercedes-Benz) or was in the process of purchasing the vehicle.

- Officer Slager was in the process of verifying Mr. Scott's ID when Mr. Scott fled from his vehicle on foot.

- During the foot chase, you can hear Officer Slager shout "Get on the ground," in the dash-cam video.

- From the original video that captures the shooting, you initially see Mr. Scott and Officer Slager standing calmly facing each other.

- It's barely audible, but if you listen closely around the 12-18 second mark, you can hear Officer Slager warn Mr. Scott, "If you [flee?] I will shoot you".

- Within seconds, Mr. Scott attempts to flee the scene for the second time. If you watch closely, you'll notice the tether wire from Officer Slager's stun gun extends between Mr. Scott and Officer Slagere as Mr. Scott is fleeing. This at least confirms that Officer Slager did discharge his stun gun during the initial chase.

- Ms. Scott tosses something on the ground prior to fleeing the second time. It's unclear if this was Officer Slager's stun gun as he alleges that Mr. Scott had taken it or if it's something else. (But let's go with it was Officer Slager's stun gun as it appears that the object Officer Slager retrieves and tosses next to Mr. Scott's body was in the shape of a "gun".)

- Officer Slager fires 8 rounds, 3 of which reportedly hits Mr. Scott in the back(side).

- Officer Slager neither attempts to pursue Mr. Scott as he attempts to flee the scene a second time, nor does he call for backup to inform other police in the area that he was pursuing his victim. He does, however, report that shots were fired after the fact.

- Officer Slager goes back to spot where he and Mr. Scott initially stopped and picks up whatever was dropped. He is filmed seconds later dropping the same item next to Mr. Scott's body (which he later retrieves after a second police officer comes onto the scene).

- Officer Slager makes no attempt to resuscitate Mr. Scott when it becomes clear the victim has become non-responsive. (You see Officer Slager check Mr. Scott at his neck for a pulse with two fingers on his left hand, but that's all he does as far as checking Mr. Scott for signs of life.)

Dash Cam Footage of Walter Scott - Video - NYTimes.com

Two questions:

1. If Mr. Scott had taken Officer Slager's taser as he alleges AND he believed his life was in danger, why didn't he cuff Mr. Scott immediately after he had initially stopped him?

2. If Mr. Scott had taken Officer Slager's taser, why didn't he retrieve it immediately after stopping him once the initial pursuit had ended?

It seems obvious to me that the above would have been the obvious things to do as a cop when a perp takes your weapon of any sort - you subdue him and retrieve your gear. Why was neither of these things done?

Regardless of why Mr. Scott ran, nothing on either video warranted him being shot. Mr. Scott did not appear to be a threat to Officer Slager. The fact that they are initially standing face-to-face AND Mr. Scott is not in handcuffs after the initial pursuit gives strong indication this was a non-violent, non-threatening situation.

IMO, Officer Slager was rightfully charged with murder.

I understand this. I understand it if all true it will lead to the officer being convicted of murder.

it still doesn't allow me to have an ounce of remorse or sorrow for the victim. If you run from an officer, are caught, are warned not to run again or you will be shot, and you run again, as far as I'm concerned whatever happens after that is on the victim. He took his chances and(unfortunately) paid the price for it. If you or I were in that EXACT SAME situation, and chose to flee, we take our lives in our own hands. and we are AWARE we are doing it, so there is no victim in my honest opinion.
 
I understand this. I understand it if all true it will lead to the officer being convicted of murder.

it still doesn't allow me to have an ounce of remorse or sorrow for the victim. If you run from an officer, are caught, are warned not to run again or you will be shot, and you run again, as far as I'm concerned whatever happens after that is on the victim. He took his chances and(unfortunately) paid the price for it. If you or I were in that EXACT SAME situation, and chose to flee, we take our lives in our own hands. and we are AWARE we are doing it, so there is no victim in my honest opinion.

It is very apparent that you have no knowledge of the U.S. legal system.
 
Right, but let's think about all those times when there wasn't a video camera. The department said on the news that 'there were no witnesses except that video, and without it, they'd never know what really happened.

What about all those times where people are trying making a Racial mountain out of a color blind mole hill.
 
What specifically makes it a "half truth"

Politifact is notoriously biased, so you would have to convince me where I am wrong.

Politifact is biased? Where did you come up with that? They are probably the LEAST biased source out there. If you bothered to look at the link you would see that the claim you made, perpetuated by Bill O'Reilly and other right-wing radio propogandists, is technically correct. However, when you see that there are 5x as many whites in America as blacks you see that it is disproportionately blacks who are killed by police.
 
No, you are denying what is obvious for all to see.
Wrong.
You are assuming that which you can not. And ignoring that at the moment he was drawing his firearm the suspect was a threat.
It is what he was responding to.
But of course you sadly wish to ignore that.


Even Judge Napolitano said it :
OMG! :doh
Judge Napolitano is not the dictator of what did and didn't happen.


Everyone is wrong except you it seems. Almost everybody clearly sees the officer committing homicide by shooting an unarmed and non dangerous man.
Most folks have not payed attention to the video showing the guy throwing the taser down or considering the circumstances his taking it caused.

He was clearly a threat when he had it which you want to conveniently disregard in your rush to judgement.


No, it is pointing to your denial of even the most basic facts:
Wrong.


1. the victim was unarmed
2. he was not a danger to anybody whatsoever
Again, this is you ignoring reality that he took the taser and made himself a threat.


Wow, I didn't know until it was pointed out? What that it is illegal for police officers to shoot unarmed people who flee and pose no threat to anyone in the back? Yeah, I already knew that.
This is you ignoring that the quote pointed out that it isn't illegal when the suspect is a threat just as this suspect was.


I would assume you have not seen this video once or you would not be posting utter untruths about this case time and time again.
Sad. I haven't posted any untruths, while you sure have made things up.


The man was at the moment of the first shot being fired, no danger whatsoever and to say otherwise is denying the reality of what is on that video.
Wrong.
You have to show that the Officer knew he threw the taser down to even make such an argument.


Even Ben Carson ...
Irrelevant.


The boss of this police officer has called it sickening what his officer did to that poor man.
Irrelevant.
Also irrelevant, and apparently he didn't analyze the video. Had he, he would have seen they had been on the ground before hand and that the suspect had taken the Officers taser making the suspect a threat at the moment the Officer was reaching for his firearm.


But I guess you are one of the few who sees it "like it is" and the rest of us is just talking nonsense :roll: Sorry, but you denials and distortions do not add up to a truthful story.
Well when you show everybody like you have that you have not bothered to analyze the video, make things up and make false assertions, it is obvious that you are not seeing it "like it is". D'oh!


No, being 20 feet away with your back turned to the officer you are not a threat and to say that he is is and obvious untruth.
Irrelevant.
He was responding to a threat. You fire until the threat ceases to be a threat. That is when he stops moving.

Again, if you do not like that, lobby to get that changed.
 
Anyone who thinks that there is a strong vein of racism that infects the police force of pretty much every major city in America is fooling themselves.

You are either living in a very small town or under a rock.
 
Says who? Says you? Because there is zero evidence for that.
This is you not paying attention to the video. It is clear he threw it.

The taser was on the ground and a non-issue in the shooting homicide of this man.
:doh He was already drawing before the taser hit the ground, showing that the Officer was responding to his taking the taser.


You can tell yourself that until you are blue in the face but even a judge says that is nonsense.
His combativeness and taking of the taser makes him a threat.
No judge would say otherwise, nor did he.


And again. Pay attention. At the point in time the Officer was responding to a known threat. To say otherwise you are going to have to show the Officer knew the suspect relived himself of the weapon.
No, running away from the officer with absolutely nothing in his hands is not a threat to that officer and to say anything else like I have said here before is nonsense.
This was never a threat when he started shooting. Your story does not hold water, it is totally in direct contradiction to the facts.
Wrong. The Officer was responding to a threat. You are going to have to show that the Officer knew he threw the taser to say otherwise.


He had no business picking anything up and he most certainly did not have any business throwing it besides the victim. He contaminated the crime-scene and did not follow any police procedure known to man.
You have no business assuming.
You do not know what or if.

All you are doing is assuming. Why can't you recognize that?


That is your opinion, I think you are not just a little bit wrong but extremely and completely wrong.
:doh
Obviously you do not understand what the word "may" means.


Wrong, it was factual, unlike your claims and assertions.
Wrong again.
It was all your nonsense as stated.


And you should learn the difference between being a threat (like the guy in Ferguson was) and someone who was no threat whatsoever (which is what we have in this case).
Oy vey! Again showing that you do not understand the difference between an actual threat and a perceived one and that their is no difference in how you respond to them.

The Officer was correct in his perception that the suspect was lethal threat to his person when he took the taser, as such was allowed to respond to the threat with lethal force.
Again, you are going to have to show that the Officer knew he threw the taser while he was in the middle of responding to the threat to show he shouldn't have responded the way he did.


As for not being like Ferguson. : iLOL
It is definitely like Ferguson in that people are jumping to conclusions and not looking at the totality of the evidence like you are doing.
 
It is very apparent that you have no knowledge of the U.S. legal system.

read the first sentence in my post. I said he will be found guilty. Does your "knowledge of the legal system" tell you something different?
 
I understand this. I understand it if all true it will lead to the officer being convicted of murder.

it still doesn't allow me to have an ounce of remorse or sorrow for the victim. If you run from an officer, are caught, are warned not to run again or you will be shot, and you run again, as far as I'm concerned whatever happens after that is on the victim. He took his chances and(unfortunately) paid the price for it. If you or I were in that EXACT SAME situation, and chose to flee, we take our lives in our own hands. and we are AWARE we are doing it, so there is no victim in my honest opinion.

Well thankfully we have far more people that disagree with you, including the police chief. Did you hear that Slager has been charged with murder, apparently authorities didn't agree that Scott's running away twice was grounds for being killed. :roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom