• 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.
OK, yeah. You go ahead and keep believing government employees like politicians are treated MORE HARSHLY than the average citizen. I'll be over here laughing at you.

Um. What happens to cops in jail? People try to shoot politicians. Their personal life is aired. Even the regular day to day government workers are treated like crap. I mean...often times they are crappy workers, but I've seen some people treat government people like crap. Usually because they are bound by stupid laws they have no control over.
 
Cops are not civilians; they're armed agents of the local govt. Armed govt. agents should never have the same rights as the People. To allow them the same rights compromises freedoms.

They ARE civilians. Anyone not actively serving in the military is a civilian. Working for the government and being armed doesn't make you NOT a civilian. Nor does it trump your rights as a citizen.

Your argument is that rights of civilians should be canceled because those rights "compromise" freedom of other civilians. You are arguing that some individual's freedoms don't matter.
 
This happens. Not all the time, but it does happen. And when it does, it SHOULD be investigated, prosecuted where warranted, and punished accordingly.

But the only time it matters (and the OP so very clearly illustrates it) is when it is a WHITE cop and a black victim.

Not a ton of outrage when it is a white guy shot by a cop. or a Latino. And if the cop is black? Fuggedaboudit....




But what do the headlines say in THIS case?

"Video Shows Officer Michael Slager Shooting Unarmed Black Man In The Back In South Carolina"

Cause it only matters when the victim is a black man.


It means something because he was pulled over and he was driving a nice car. There is a term for that, "driving while black", and it happens a lot. Yeah, it is relevant.
 
They ARE civilians. Anyone not actively serving in the military is a civilian.

Wrong. To qualify as a civilian, one must be unaffiliated w/any kind of military role, regardless of whether that military is called the "police force" of the national military.

Since US cops are already militarized, they serve in a military role and are therefore not civilians.
 
I think we can guess how things would have played out if not for that video.
 
Wrong. To qualify as a civilian, one must be unaffiliated w/any kind of military role, regardless of whether that military is called the "police force" of the national military.

Since US cops are already militarized, they serve in a military role and are therefore not civilians.

No, just because they are armed with military weapons doesnt mean they are military, to be military you have to fall under UCMJ and cops are not under that, they are civilians.
 
I think we can guess how things would have played out if not for that video.

The video will not cause the cop to be convicted. However, it will guarantee a sizeable sum in a civil lawsuit and/or settlement.
 
Last edited:
No, just because they are armed with military weapons doesnt mean they are military

Whether they're officially designated "military" or fall under the UCMJ is irrelevant. To qualify as civilian, one must not serve in any military role.

However, in the US, cops today do serve as a domestic military force. Therefore, they're not civilians.

The only way cops can be civilians is if they were de-militarized.

The fundamental problem in the US is that cops are still subject to the civilian justice system in spite of their military role, and that creates problems.
 
No, just because they are armed with military weapons doesnt mean they are military, to be military you have to fall under UCMJ and cops are not under that, they are civilians.

Here's the flaw in that logic: suppose, hypothetically, that Congress passed a law that no longer made US military members subject to the UCMJ.

By your definition, then, members of the US military would automatically become civilians.
 
This happens. Not all the time, but it does happen. And when it does, it SHOULD be investigated, prosecuted where warranted, and punished accordingly.

But the only time it matters (and the OP so very clearly illustrates it) is when it is a WHITE cop and a black victim.

Not a ton of outrage when it is a white guy shot by a cop. or a Latino. And if the cop is black? Fuggedaboudit....




But what do the headlines say in THIS case?

"Video Shows Officer Michael Slager Shooting Unarmed Black Man In The Back In South Carolina"

Cause it only matters when the victim is a black man.


And yet another right winger posts links to the media reporting on a story to prove that such stories are ignored.
 
Whether they're officially designated "military" or fall under the UCMJ is irrelevant. To qualify as civilian, one must not serve in any military role.

However, in the US, cops today do serve as a domestic military force. Therefore, they're not civilians.

The only way cops can be civilians is if they were de-militarized.

The fundamental problem in the US is that cops are still subject to the civilian justice system in spite of their military role, and that creates problems.

Nearly.
I looked up civilian and military in several dictionaries and civilian does not mean 'not military'. Picking Merriam-Websters as an example, a civilian is, " a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force". They all agree that military has to do with armed forces.
 
Here's the flaw in that logic: suppose, hypothetically, that Congress passed a law that no longer made US military members subject to the UCMJ.

By your definition, then, members of the US military would automatically become civilians.
There is no hypothetical when it comes to UCMJ- that is what separates military from civilian. Its as simple as that.
 
TRANSLATION: over on some right wing websites, they are defending this cop. sigh

I can think of at least one usual suspect here that would.

Shouldnt have to wait long.
 
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.

Some protection will be that in many cases, the police depts wont know if there are public videos out there, with videos that will conflict with theirs.
 
This happens. Not all the time, but it does happen. And when it does, it SHOULD be investigated, prosecuted where warranted, and punished accordingly.

But the only time it matters (and the OP so very clearly illustrates it) is when it is a WHITE cop and a black victim.

Not a ton of outrage when it is a white guy shot by a cop. or a Latino. And if the cop is black? Fuggedaboudit....

But what do the headlines say in THIS case?


Cause it only matters when the victim is a black man.

Uh, no. We have a case here in Pasco, WA where a Latino man was shot 17 times by cops for throwing rocks at cars and then at them. Big deal here...civil suits threatened, further investigations, people marching and having vigils.

Washington state police shot 17 times at Hispanic man accused of throwing rocks ? RT USA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-0uqFTBclo
 
There is no hypothetical when it comes to UCMJ- that is what separates military from civilian. Its as simple as that.

Illogical. According to that reasoning, the members of all non-US military forces would be considered civilians, since they're not to the UCMJ.
 
What do you base that on?

Cops in SC rarely, if ever, get convicted for murder when they commit it--this is a well-documented fact.

For all practical purposes, they have a license to kill any non-White person they want at anytime.

But this should be a no-brainer, because when a cop is on trial, both the prosecuting attorney and the cop's public defender work to exonerate the cop, both prior to and during a trial.

Whereas when a civilian is on trial, only the civilian's (private) defense attorney(s) works to exonerate him/her, while the prosecution aims for a guilty verdict.
 
Illogical. According to that reasoning, the members of all non-US military forces would be considered civilians, since they're not to the UCMJ.
Youre not making any sense. What "non-US military forces" are you talking about? :roll:
 
It means something because he was pulled over and he was driving a nice car. There is a term for that, "driving while black", and it happens a lot. Yeah, it is relevant.
It means something because you want it to. It is an opportunity to salivate over racial injustice. Nothing more.
 
Youre not making any sense. What "non-US military forces" are you talking about? :roll:

The members of the militaries of all other countries. None of them are subject to the UCMJ.
 
And yet another right winger posts links to the media reporting on a story to prove that such stories are ignored.
To the contrary. My point is that why is it ONLY the one story that is 'celebrated'?

Its funny...you...people like you...you are like little **** eating fish swimming around ignoring the day to day **** til the right kind of **** comes along for you to swarm in and feast on.
 
The members of the militaries of all other countries. None of them are subject to the UCMJ.
Obviously they are not US military. Other countries have their own versions of UCMJ.
 
It means something because he was pulled over and he was driving a nice car. There is a term for that, "driving while black", and it happens a lot. Yeah, it is relevant.
Really? He was pulled over for being black and driving a nice car?

Assuming you have watched the video...what is your interpretation of the occurrence beginning at the 17 second point of the film? What was the physical altercation, what was the black thing the guy dropped on the ground, and why did he run from the cop?
 
-- He was reportedly pulled over for a traffic violation. How did they end up in the lot? Also...stop the tape 17 seconds into it. At 18 seconds you will see the victim (yes...I said victim) dropping a black object after some sort of physical contact with the cop, then he turns and runs.

When he shot, it is obvious he was not at risk and should NOT have shot. What happened prior doesnt justify the shooting, but it may give it some context.

This video speaks volumes about training or lack of. There seems a worrying trend of poorly prepared, badly trained and trigger happy policing - in this case the victim was black but I've seen other video including the homeless mentally disturbed white man killed by numbers of police who sat on him till he couldn't breathe anymore.

Situations escalate when good policing should seek to de-escalate the potential for violence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom