• 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.
Well if you believe that there's no way to prevent cop coverups then I don't know what to say.


My understanding was body cam footage was supposed to be very hard to tamper with.

Cops lie. They do it to get people to admit to things, they do it to protect their own.
 
What ever happen to the days on the tv show COPS where you see a cop jumping over a fence and chasing down a suspect? The photographer comes huffing and puffing behind and you see the cop with the defendant down on the ground with the cop on his phone telling others the chase is over.
On this video the cop seems to be casually just walking through the grocery store.
 
South Carolina Officer Is Charged With Murder in Black Man’s Death

There is no doubt this one, the policeman shot the man the back 8 times as he was running away.
Had there been cell phone video he probably would have gotten away with it. The man was stopped because had a broken taillight.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/u...in-black-mans-death.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0


WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.


The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
 
The way to prevent it is to do exactly what the brave videographer did in this scenario.

Retaliation against the police is, of course, another way to prevent it. Although it's illegal, in towns like the one depicted in the video, it would likely be extremely effective considering there are apparently few, if any, public-area surveillance cameras around.



That's what cops say.




Gotcha. "Kill all the pigs!" right?




pbunny.jpg
 
My understanding was body cam footage was supposed to be very hard to tamper with.

If there's one thing I know about electronics and software: nothing is undefeatable.

I remember hunting for special security software a year ago so I could encrypt sensitive emails. Supposedly there were a bunch "not even the NSA could hack!" It came out half a year later: yep they hacked it.
 
Re: South Carolina Officer Is Charged With Murder in Black Man’s Death

There is no doubt this one, the policeman shot the man the back 8 times as he was running away.
Had there been cell phone video he probably would have gotten away with it. The man was stopped because had a broken taillight.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/u...in-black-mans-death.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0


WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.


The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.

Watch people try to defend the officer..
 
If there's one thing I know about electronics and software: nothing is undefeatable.

I remember hunting for special security software a year ago so I could encrypt sensitive emails. Supposedly there were a bunch "not even the NSA could hack!" It came out half a year later: yep they hacked it.



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.
 
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.

At some point I think we're going to reach a point where cops will HAVE to have body cams with near-unimpeachable security just to protect themselves against possible out-of-context videos.
 
Murder. No question. Outright. 2nd degree. Indefensible. Every officer knows you can't shoot a fleeing person in the back who poises no danger - and that man didn't.

Unfortunately, it only takes ONE police groupie on the jury to let him walk or a trivial sentence, or a police groupie judge if not a jury trial.

*Let me specify for the MORONS that always read into comments...this is NOT reflective of the case at hand. This is not my view of the current case*



I think the only time it is acceptable under current law depending on the suspect. Aka they "pose a legitimate threat." Like they have already shown a willingness to harm people. That kind of thing. The other part is that there is an imminent escape.
 
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.

Meh. All it takes is one guy with a few weekends and an open mind. Once a process is created, that's the end of it.

I'm certainly not saying police shouldn't have cameras on them, I just believe in a healthy combination of those and civilians filming at all times.
 
The first reports BEFORE the vid showed up....

CCBkEXbW0AE75rf.png

The video of course shows us that that account is not true. Let me ask you this; do you think that the video validates what blacks in Fugasen other areas have said about how they are treated? I mean, in this instance, at the traffic stop, the guy might have had some weed or something, he got scared and ran... Even if there was some sort of struggle, it was clearly over, the officer was uninjured, so it looks like the cop just got mad and shot that guy in the back. THEN it does look as though he throws his taser down...
 
At some point I think we're going to reach a point where cops will HAVE to have body cams with near-unimpeachable security just to protect themselves against possible out-of-context videos.

I think that that is a very good point. The cops are the ones who stand to loose big if something goes wrong, and if they know outright that they're being watched then it may go a long way toward preventing this sort of stuff.
 
Shoot an unarmed guy 7 times, then walk over and pick up the taser and plant it near the body, handcuff the body, and don't perform CPR.

Think of how many times this has happened when someone did not have a cell phone camera.

If this cop is found guilty, I hope he roasts in prison for the rest of his life.

Unbelievable.....

Did you hear the cop yell "Place your hands behind your back!" ? He's ordering a dead man to surrender.
 
Murder. No question. Outright. 2nd degree. Indefensible. Every officer knows you can't shoot a fleeing person in the back who poises no danger - and that man didn't.

Unfortunately, it only takes ONE police groupie on the jury to let him walk or a trivial sentence, or a police groupie judge if not a jury trial.

A private defense attorney w/nothing to lose could offer to take the cop's case and then betray him in court (i. e. during the peremptory challenges, drop jurors that are pro-cop).

Or the DOJ could threaten SC w/a full-blown civil rights investigation (a la Ferguson), forcing the dept. to face million$ in civil suits unless the cop was convicted.
 
It is too hard to tell if that is exactly what happened when the taser FIRST went on the ground. Experts with the video will be able to tell. IF the officer himself dropped the tazer THEN to justify the shooting, it becomes 1st degree pre-meditated. In some states that's potential death penalty or if not then life without parole.

Dropping it later? That is calculating a lie.

I bet that officer does less than 5 years hard time - at worse. Anyone disagree?

Let's hear our police junkies defend this one?

Interesting point. It looks like it's a throw down attempt. I think the cop was going just a little bit crazy when it started to sink in.
 
Meh. All it takes is one guy with a few weekends and an open mind. Once a process is created, that's the end of it.

I'm certainly not saying police shouldn't have cameras on them, I just believe in a healthy combination of those and civilians filming at all times.




I have no problem with civilians filming cops while they are conducting public operations; it should be entirely legal everywhere and encouraged.


Bear in mind civilian videos can be biased too, though, in what they show and what they don't, and can be edited.
 
Being arrested for, and convicted of are two completely different animals. This is America. Just because we all see it one way doesn't mean the prosecutors and the defense lawyers wont spin it another way.

Now the campaign begins of the police dept making Walter Scott look like the bad guy. There will be talk of his arrest/criminal record (if any). Then it will be the weed in his system (if any). Then the character assassination will begin. All in the attempt to create another poor victim of this cop. All a cop has to say is "I felt that my like was in danger...." And everyone automaticly believes him. Had this video not been revealed...he would (and still, may) get away with it.

The interesting thing is - was there really a struggle? Body positions at the beginning of the video suggest that, but I think that the only one who will know is the guy that shot the video. He'll be someone to watch.
 
95% chance the cop is acquitted, unless the Feds get involved.
 
I have no problem with civilians filming cops while they are conducting public operations; it should be entirely legal everywhere and encouraged.


Bear in mind civilian videos can be biased too, though, in what they show and what they don't, and can be edited.

Agreed.

12345678910
 
95% chance the cop is acquitted, unless the Feds get involved.
No ****ing way.

If that actually happens I will be horrified at the court system in SC.
 
No ****ing way.

If that actually happens I will be horrified at the court system in SC.

Yes, SC justice (i. e. all White jurors acquitting cops) is very much horrific.
 
A private defense attorney w/nothing to lose could offer to take the cop's case and then betray him in court (i. e. during the peremptory challenges, drop jurors that are pro-cop).

Or the DOJ could threaten SC w/a full-blown civil rights investigation (a la Ferguson), forcing the dept. to face million$ in civil suits unless the cop was convicted.

Sounds like coercion or violation of rights. Even criminals have rights. Isn't that part of this whole problem? Why bother with all that anyway? The video has this guy dead to rights.
 
Yes, SC justice (i. e. all White jurors acquitting cops) is very much horrific.

Stereotyping white southerners is acceptable? I'm a white southerner and republican. I would fry this guy.
 
Sounds like coercion or violation of rights.

Legally (and technically), it isn't. But for all practical purposes, it is, obviously. And I like it that way :)

Even criminals have rights. Isn't that part of this whole problem? Why bother with all that anyway? The video has this guy dead to rights.

Cops shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom