• 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.
There is legal precedence and justification for shooting at a fleeing suspect.

Tell that to the police chief who was absolutely disgusted by the video and immediately fired that officer.

Yes, there's legal justification for shooting a fleeing suspect... when they are a significant physical threat to the officer or community. That was not the case here.
 
Last edited:
Tell that to the police chief who was absolutely disgusted by the video and immediately fired that officer.

Yes, there's legal justification for shooting a fleeing suspect... when they are a significant physical threat to the officer or community. That was not the case here.

Its strange that such positions are rarely seen in the liberal progressives. I wonder why the far right is always quick to defend the most apparent police excess and abuse of their power when we see it.
 
Don't we need to know if the warrant was for a violent crime(or worse) before we call the man innocent?

It was reported the arrest warrant was for not paying child support.
 
It was reported the arrest warrant was for not paying child support.

One has to wonder that if you can get shot for a felony as benign as this then what sort of instance would a shooting possibly be non justifiable ? This sort of thing would be dealt with by social workers here in the UK not trigger happy law enforcement
 
Last edited:
To qualify as a "hater", one must be hatin' on real people, not SC cops.



Thank you for proving my point. Dehumanizing an entire group of people is the essence of hate and arguably a form of hate speech.
 
Its strange that such positions are rarely seen in the liberal progressives. I wonder why the far right is always quick to defend the most apparent police excess and abuse of their power when we see it.


how about most cons/pubs wait for evidence and then try to make a reasonable decision based upon facts

most libs/prog want to yell murder anytime a black man is shot

and they arent waiting a lot of the time to find out what happened before the yelling starts

michael brown and trayvon martin are two perfect examples

in this case, based upon the video the cop is guilty.....i doubt you can find anyone that doesnt think so

some of us are asking what happened in the prior five minutes before the video was shot.....

does that change the fact the cop is guilty....no.....but it might change the charge from murder II to manslaughter based on what the evidence finds

again...evidence...sometimes it matters
 
Dehumanizing an entire group of people is the essence of hate and arguably a form of hate speech.

ISIS is a bunch of monsters who should be wiped off the face of the Earth.

;)
 
ISIS is a bunch of monsters who should be wiped off the face of the Earth.

;)



ISIS dehumanized their self by torturing people to death just for being different.



"Cops" as a class don't do such things as a matter of policy or common practice. Apples and Orangutans....
 
Despite court rulings, people are still getting arrested for recording on-duty cops

When you see one of these stories, please remember that it is perfectly legal to record on-duty police in every state in the country. That includes states that require all parties to a conversation to consent in order for that conversation to be recorded. Those laws all also contain a provision that the non-consenting party has a reasonable expectation of privacy. So far, every court to rule on this issue has found that on-duty cops in public spaces have no expectation of privacy and that recording them is protected by the First Amendment.​

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.
 
A man running from you with no weapons is not a danger to you or anybody else and shooting him down like this is illegal, unlawful, immoral and wrong, wronger and totally and utterly devoid of any defensibility whatsoever.

And an armed suspect can be a danger to you or other officers/other people, so yes, shooting to kill might be reasonable at that point.

That is an interesting attitude considering that the fleeing suspect was suspected of driving with a broken tail light. ;)
 
Your law enforcement has a track record of using disproportionate lethal response to petty offences and then getting away with it . This guy got unlucky by being filmed when doing so. How many others like him are equally culpable of such excesses and weren't filmed ?

I have no idea and neither do you.
 
Of course you are assuming. Nobody has ever argued that there are no bad police officers, but using this video to try and prove anything about police officers as a whole is obscene fear mongering.

Use your same logic on a convenience store video of a robbery by a Hispanic man, would you then conclude that Hispanic men are all criminals?

Never tried to prove anything of the sort. Just asked if it validated anything.

Your trying to use a strawman.
 
This is but a single incident and has no bearing on other "similar" incidents. Unlike the UFO analogy, not many deny the possibility of police officers committing crimes. Like the UFO analogy, finding one alien spacecraft does not mean that all sitings of "unidentified" flying objects are indeed alien spacecraft.

That is true.
 
how about most cons/pubs wait for evidence and then try to make a reasonable decision based upon facts

most libs/prog want to yell murder anytime a black man is shot

and they arent waiting a lot of the time to find out what happened before the yelling starts

michael brown and trayvon martin are two perfect examples

in this case, based upon the video the cop is guilty.....i doubt you can find anyone that doesnt think so

some of us are asking what happened in the prior five minutes before the video was shot.....

does that change the fact the cop is guilty....no.....but it might change the charge from murder II to manslaughter based on what the evidence finds

again...evidence...sometimes it matters

Dude!!!!!!! He's been charged with MURDER, by the guys holding the evidence. Never mind that he was black. If this was the same video but the man was White, the pos cop is a murderer. And he's been charged with murder because of it.
 
So then, in your view the video doesn't validate anything.



That's dumb, for me the video is clear, he shoots the dude in the back, goes back grabs the other weapon and drops it next to the victim.


No speculation required.
 
While I agree, did the officer indicate this in his own report? Of not, do you think your comment has anything to do with this case or were you just making a general statement?

We don't know yet. That video was about the 4th Act of a 4 Act Play. The guy who shot the vid, has stated when he first saw the confrontation, (before he started filming) the two were on the ground wrestling for what he thought was the tazer. And that was probably the 3rd Act in the Play.
 
Never mind that he was black. If this was the same video but the man was White, the pos cop is a murderer. And he's been charged with murder because of it.



It certainly looks that way, barring some evidence we haven't seen or heard.


I've always been cautious about video since Rodney King, where the media repeatedly showed him getting beat down on every channel for months, but almost never showed the first part where he was beating up several cops and throwing them around like tenpins.
 
That's dumb, for me the video is clear, he shoots the dude in the back, goes back grabs the other weapon and drops it next to the victim.


No speculation required.

He has prior complaints of excessive force and another SC cop just shot a black guy as well...?
 
He has prior complaints of excessive force and another SC cop just shot a black guy as well...?


Complaints are accusations, the discuss seen by the chief, the quickness to charge, it doesn't seem likely that you can accurately jump to racism, though I know you want to.

What other shooting? Do you have a link?
 
It certainly looks that way, barring some evidence we haven't seen or heard.


I've always been cautious about video since Rodney King, where the media repeatedly showed him getting beat down on every channel for months, but almost never showed the first part where he was beating up several cops and throwing them around like tenpins.

Yes, I agree, they didn't show that. That doesn't change the fact that the police went beyond the necessary force to neutralise him, had King thrown them around like tenpins and then ran off, they'd have been wrong to shoot him in the back. If I confront a burglar in my home in the middle of the night, we have a struggle and he runs off out the back door and I shoot him in the back, I'm charged, just as this cop has been. Why do you think this cop has been charged with murder, and so quickly? Furthermore, knowing, KNOWING that he had done wrong, he retraced his steps retrieving the taser and then dropped it next to the guy to provide alibi!!
 
Tell that to the police chief who was absolutely disgusted by the video and immediately fired that officer.

What a joke!!!!

Do you really think after the beatings the respective Chiefs took in Ferguson and NY in the media/public, this Chief would act objectively!??!!??! Really!??!!?! LOL. Unless it is absolutely obvious it was a justified shoot, the lesson learned is for Chiefs to cover their own a$$es. From now on the cop is guilty until proven innocent, just like in Ferguson.

All that said, this cop is going to jail at least on a man-slaughter charge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom