solletica
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2011
- Messages
- 6,073
- Reaction score
- 926
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Ohhhhhhhh... I see. A hater.
To qualify as a "hater", one must be hatin' on real people, not SC cops.
Ohhhhhhhh... I see. A hater.
Nope, it does not, it totally does not.
It does not matter that the maybe even slapped the officer and then ran away, he still was an unarmed man who was running away and not a threat to anybody at all.
Sorry but there is no conceivable action that this 50 year old man could have done after being stopped with a broken tail light to take your gun out and shoot an unarmed man 8 times in the back.
There is no defense for something that has no legal, moral or acceptable excuse/reason or defense. Gunning down an unarmed, non threatening suspect is not legal.
Legally (and technically), it isn't. But for all practical purposes, it is, obviously. And I like it that way
Cops shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as people.
Really? Should they have more or less rights than 'people' do?
To qualify as a "hater", one must be hatin' on real people, not SC cops.
His original attorney is no longer representing him I noticed.
The case turned into a different kind of case after the video surfaced.
Well shooting unarmed petty felons running away from them shouldnt be one right they should have. Would the police forces of any other developed nation on earth have responded to incidents such as this with this level of grossly disproportionate force I wonder ?
They would know that the man was shot in the back from over twenty feet. They would know that they man was running away and the cop would have been arrested by now to mitigate the riots that would have been ongoing at this point.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.
Attacking a policeman makes you dangerous to the public but not enough to be shot in the back when the cop has the guy's car. Attacking a policeman while being armed makes you more dangerous and somewhat ot t a threat to the cop even as the man runs away but this guy dropped the tazer so he wasn't much of a threat other than being unsupportive of his kids.That is an interesting caveat that you chose to include, implying that being armed (alone?) makes someone threatening. Does that mean that it is OK (legal according to you) to shoot an armed fleeing suspect in the back?
Cops have the same rights but more responsibility.Really? Should they have more or less rights than 'people' do?
Really? Should they have more or less rights than 'people' do?
Because cops aren't people.
Right?
I'll ask you the same question I asked DA60.
Speculate for me and tell me a scenario where the shooting of a man moving away, with his back to the officer, approx 20ft at the time of the shooting. We know Mr. Scott didn't possess a gun, or it would have been mentioned in the officer's report. So please, speculate for me, under what circumstances could you imagine that might of taken place that would have justified what we saw.
As it should have. He will still end up with an attorney who will try to defend him,
They're local govt. agents acting as a force charged w/maintaining order through force.
That should automatically exclude them from being able to enjoy Constitutional rights and have the same privileges as civilians (the People).
A separate system should be set up to handle abusive police officers.
The DA will defend him. He doesn't need an attorney.
You cant reasonably draw that conclusion (or any other for that matter) from this single incident. Despite all the hyperventilating by the left, this is the first incident of clear wrongdoing by a police officer. Wrongdoing by black 'thugs' is rampant but ignored by the left for political reasons, not rational ones.Seeing this video along with other recent incidents tell me that something is seriously wrong in America today. We have racist thugs that believe they are above the law simply because they carry a badge and we have bigots who believe that they can use their religion as an excuse to discriminate. Many want to claim that we are a "Christian Nation". If this is true....perhaps there is no better time than the present to step back and evaluate ourselves and determine is any of these actions are consistent with the principles that Christ taught.
So no government agents are entitled to Constitutional rights, because it clearly says in the Constitution that government agents are excluded.
Yes, of course it does.
Seeing this video along with other recent incidents tell me that something is seriously wrong in America today. We have racist thugs that believe they are above the law simply because they carry a badge and we have bigots who believe that they can use their religion as an excuse to discriminate. Many want to claim that we are a "Christian Nation". If this is true....perhaps there is no better time than the present to step back and evaluate ourselves and determine is any of these actions are consistent with the principles that Christ taught.
Of course. And I'll bet they'll get Judge Wapner to come out of retirement to preside over the trial, too.
But the man did have a gun. The officer put on the police report "he tried to take my gun" and then planted the tazer on him. That's the retro-active proof.I'll ask you the same question I asked DA60.
Speculate for me and tell me a scenario where the shooting of a man moving away, with his back to the officer, approx 20ft at the time of the shooting. We know Mr. Scott didn't possess a gun, or it would have been mentioned in the officer's report. So please, speculate for me, under what circumstances could you imagine that might of taken place that would have justified what we saw.
If it wasn't as clear as day on video....we would have the same ones on here defending the cop and saying the black man obviously did something that he deserved to be killed. Even so...it would not surprise me in the least for a jury to find this cop not guilty. Jurors bend over backwards to find any way not to convict a cop....even when the video is a plain as day.
The Constitution says "We the People", not "We the security forces"
Your welcome.
They're local govt. agents acting as a force charged w/maintaining order through force.
That should automatically exclude them from being able to enjoy Constitutional rights and have the same privileges as civilians (the People).
A separate system should be set up to handle abusive police officers.