• 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.
This cites a supreme court ruling on the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect:

Can police officers shoot at fleeing individuals?

Only in very narrow circumstances. A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner, held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk.

In other words, a police officer who fires at a fleeing man who a moment earlier murdered a convenience store clerk may have reasonable grounds to argue that the shooting was justified. But if that same robber never fired his own weapon, the officer would likely have a much harder argument.

You don’t shoot fleeing felons. You apprehend them unless there are exigent circumstances — emergencies — that require urgent police action to safeguard the community as a whole,” said Greg Gilbertson, a police practices expert and criminal justice professor at Centralia College in Washington state.

Gilbertson said he thought the video of the shooting of Walter Scott in North Charleston, South Carolina, was “insane” given what he said was the apparent lack of justification.
When can police use lethal force against a fleeing suspect?

I have not seen or heard a real expert attempt to justify the police action in this shooting. None.

Once Scott began running away, he no longer posed any significant physical danger to the police, then they shot him in the back and killed him. That cop is going down, for manslaughter or murder.
 
Last edited:
I can't tell you what he picked up because the video isn't clear enough to identify the object. More importantly, I can't tell you WHY he picked it up.

Me neither, I hope it can be determined by further forensic studies, but whatever it is, the officer should not have touched it.
 
It remains unclear whether Scott took the taser. What is clear is that he was running away and that he was shot in the back eight times. The officer could have pursued the much older man and subdued him without shooting him in the back. Yes, Scott made some bad life choices and should have paid his child support and fixed the vehicle's light. This doesn't justify shooting him in the back eight times.

Agreed.

Under certain circumstances, like if they pose a reasonable and immediate threat to the cops or the public's safety. (that's my wording, I dont have the actual decision handy).

A man fleeing in fear for his own life, after being pulled over for a tail light out, who could legitimately (and obviously justified) be afraid of cops after recent cops killing blacks.....who struggles and runs will not meet the bar in any jury's eyes as a threat to the cop or public safety. The current climate of fear that incompetent cops have created will not be ignored by a jury.

(And esp. since altho the cop likely knew the suspect didnt have the taser, the taser was already expended and he would have known that. Again, he loses even that in his defense.)

I think he deserves some level of a murder charge. His decision and actions were deliberate and the *personal* impression I get from the video is that he just couldnt be bothered to run after the man and restrain him. He (dead guy) was a big guy, it would have been a PIA probably, with some risk as in any physical encounter however cops are trained and expected to do deal with this.

So just *my* impression from the video is a complete disregard for a life and a lazy POS cop that couldnt be bothered to do his job properly.
 
Last edited:
This is again you making things up.
No it isn't untrue.


:doh
I didn't say he was taking it, I clearly said he had taken it.


Wrong.
All you are doing is showing you are not paying attention.
First of all we have the Officers statement that he took it. Whether you like that or not, that is evidence.

And then we have the visual evidence.
The Officer's left hand was grabbing the suspect while his other hand was in a downward motion to grab his firearm.
It is then which we see what is supposedly the taser being thrown in a direction and with force that could not have come from the Officer.
1. It surely couldn't come from his left hand which was holding on to the suspect.
2. It surely couldn't have come from his right hand which was in a downward motion to draw his firearm.​
That only leaves one place for it to have come from. Duh! Which corresponds with the direction it is coming from.

His drawing his firearm at that point supports that is when the suspect had it.

Why you choose to ignore the evidence is beyond me. but it is a silly thing to do.

And pay attention to the image.
It shows that you are wrong. The Officer did not have the taser at that point it was thrown.
walter-scott-tazer.png



This is irrelevant as that cartridge had already been discharged by the Officer at that point, we already know that. We also know that they both had been on the ground in a struggle.

We are talking about the point in time when the suspect had the taser.


Wrong.
You are the one who made things up.
I on the other hand showed you the known evidence.



Wow! you really do not pay attention to the evidence, do you?
Everybody already knows the cartridge had been fired at that point. Why don't you?


What an absurdly ridiculous assertion.
His hand was in a downward movement. Do you really not understand that?
The supposed taser then comes passed him at a velocity and direction that a downward moving hand could not account for.
It had to have come from the suspect, which corresponds with the direction it comes from.
To suggest otherwise is total ignorance.


No it wasn't and nothing you have provided says it was.

Still ignoring the evidence, threads from the taser into the victim, not the cop.

Still does not change a frigging thing, even if you were right and the dead man threw the taser (even though zero evidence supports that) that would weaken the officers case.

The facts still remain the same:

1. running man with nothing in his hands
2. considerable distance from the officer with his back turned to the officer when the officer started shooting
3. there was no legal basis for this shooting
4. you are wrong, your so called evidence says nothing. The video I posted showed the threads from the officer towards the dead man. You have nothing.
 
If he is picking up his taser you are wrong.
It is procedure to secure your weapons.

It is not procedure to stage the crime scene, he took the taser from the spot the officer dropped it, from what one can see threw it towards the suspect and later picked it up.

There was nothing to secure at the spot mr. Scott was executed at.
 
It is not procedure to stage the crime scene, he took the taser from the spot the officer dropped it, from what one can see threw it towards the suspect and later picked it up.

There was nothing to secure at the spot mr. Scott was executed at.

It was his own weapon. If he wanted to 'secure' it, he would not have placed it next to a still-living suspect. It would have gone somewhere safe, like maybe back in his belt.
 
It was his own weapon. If he wanted to 'secure' it, he would not have placed it next to a still-living suspect. It would have gone somewhere safe, like maybe back in his belt.

One of the most damaging parts of the video. It was panic time to create a better story.

Am certain it isn't police policy to throw a weapon down near a still living "violent criminal".
 
Just more cops with nothing better to do. Keep sticking up for the cop who shot a fleeing unarmed man in the back 8 times, it is fascinating to watch.
Cops get paid to catch the criminals, Slager was doing just that. Had Scott done what he's supposed to do, stay n the car, nobody here would have ever heard about the stop. He sealed his own fate
 
According to you. We don't know what went through Slager's mind. Time will tell

It will be his 'story,' told in his own best interests. We have no reason to believe anything he says without hard evidence to back it up.
 
Cops get paid to catch the criminals, Slager was doing just that. Had Scott done what he's supposed to do, stay n the car, nobody here would have ever heard about the stop. He sealed his own fate

He should not have run. But former officer Slager is the one who sealed Scott's fate.
 
It was his own weapon. If he wanted to 'secure' it, he would not have placed it next to a still-living suspect. It would have gone somewhere safe, like maybe back in his belt.

All of this just points to the officer doing something wrong, pure and simple. I re-watched the video screen by screen and you can see him pick up something at the spot where the first scuffle was and throw it besides Scott. It just reeks of police brutality.
 
It will be his 'story,' told in his own best interests. We have no reason to believe anything he says without hard evidence to back it up.
We have no reason to reject what he says either, without hard evidence to do so
 
He should not have run. But former officer Slager is the one who sealed Scott's fate.
Scott held all the tools necessary to preserve his life and he failed to use them. He has to carry a large part of the blame for eternity
 
Scott held all the tools necessary to preserve his life and he failed to use them. He has to carry a large part of the blame for eternity

He's already paid his upaid child support and broken light debt here and more; he forfeited his life. As for eternity, let's leave off attempting to render justice there.
 
He's already paid his upaid child support and broken light debt here and more; he forfeited his life. As for eternity, let's leave off attempting to render justice there.
We may find that justice has already been rendered, and we may not. Time will tell
 
We have no reason to reject what he says either, without hard evidence to do so

Of course we do, just like with any suspect, read it again, I bolded it this time:

It will be his 'story,' told in his own best interests. We have no reason to believe anything he says without hard evidence to back it up.

It is not objective testimony.
 
Of course we do, just like with any suspect, read it again, I bolded it this time:



It is not objective testimony.
His story remains evidence. What is in his own best interest may very well turn out to be the truth.
 
We may find that justice has already been rendered, and we may not. Time will tell

Because he deserved to die for a broken tail light, unpaid child support, and resisting a cop?

What justice system exactly do you prescribe to?
 
Because he deserved to die for a broken tail light, unpaid child support, and resisting a cop?

What justice system exactly do you prescribe to?
Twisted logic not based on what really happened
 
Twisted logic not based on what really happened

Er, factually, my statement is correct, your personal logic is still suspect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom