• 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.
The officer clearly needs more firearms training. Other than that, what's the problem. He ran. He got shot. Sucks to be him, but he chose to run.
Local law enforcement saw fit to charge him with murder.
So, there's that.
:shrug:
 
The officer clearly needs more firearms training. Other than that, what's the problem. He ran. He got shot. Sucks to be him, but he chose to run.

I too think the stupidity of these criminals leads to their demise...but doesn't excuse the other party. If this man is guilty, it's because he should have radioed an unarmed suspect on foot and asked for assistance, rather than resorting to the lethal force. We'll need to wait for all of the facts to emerge first though.
 
I too think the stupidity of these criminals leads to their demise...but doesn't excuse the other party. If this man is guilty, it's because he should have radioed an unarmed suspect on foot and asked for assistance, rather than resorting to the lethal force. We'll need to wait for all of the facts to emerge first though.
That's what he did
 
I too think the stupidity of these criminals leads to their demise...but doesn't excuse the other party. If this man is guilty, it's because he should have radioed an unarmed suspect on foot and asked for assistance, rather than resorting to the lethal force. We'll need to wait for all of the facts to emerge first though.

Before apprehension and search, how does the officer know the suspect is unarmed?
 
Before apprehension and search, how does the officer know the suspect is unarmed?
Another consideration is how much info did Slager get before Scott ran. It could be that he knew there were outstanding warrants but not what the warrants were for which would affect his mindset during the ensuing chase and fight
 
Local law enforcement saw fit to charge him with murder.
So, there's that.
:shrug:

Actually, that would be the District Attorney's office, Officers don't charge anyone. The District Attorney is usually an elected position and thus subject to political, instead of legal, considerations. Now it will be up to a jury. Of course, knowing the current Justice Department, even if found innocent, he will lose his job and be subject to a Federal investigation.
 
Slager's wife is eight months pregnant with his first child (he apparently has stepkids), and I feel terribly, terribly sorry for her.

Yeah. That part is a big bag of stink. I feel for the unborn kid too.
 
Before apprehension and search, how does the officer know the suspect is unarmed?

Your argument assumes we should err on the side of killing suspects.

That goes full force against the founding principals of our constitution.
 
Before apprehension and search, how does the officer know the suspect is unarmed?

I'm sorry, in what police policy and procedure document can you show me an officer is supposed to assume every suspect is armed?

If that were the case, officers would be able to get a way with A LOT more killings.

"You see that 16 year old kid? He's running from us! He must be armed! Shoot him!"
 
Actually, that would be the District Attorney's office, Officers don't charge anyone. The District Attorney is usually an elected position and thus subject to political, instead of legal, considerations. Now it will be up to a jury. Of course, knowing the current Justice Department, even if found innocent, he will lose his job and be subject to a Federal investigation.
Your assertion is that a DA is not a part of local law enforcement?
Not that it's a relevant point anyway. But I am just curious if I understood you.

Point being that even though you are unable to see the issue with Slager's behavior, the problems with Slager's behavior are obvious to many--including law enforcement professionals and former professionals, like the various people who charged Slager, fired Slager, and refused to provide funding for his defense.

Given those assessments by presumably qualified personnel, your inability to recognize the the problem with Slager's actions is on you.
 
Last edited:
... even if found innocent, he will lose his job and be subject to a Federal investigation.
Thought I should point out that Slager has already lost his job.
Slager is already the subject of a federal investigation.
 
Surprising? Yes, as he was an Officer at the time of the incident.

Damning? How so?

If they are following policy, there is nothing damning about it.





And such thoughts can be immediately dismissed given the reality ...
that he knows he is wearing a body mic which would supposedly be capturing the sound of when the taser was employed.
that he knows he is being recorded. (as confirmed by the witness who was recording)
that he knows the taser cartridge fires out many id tags which indicates where it was deployed.​




You can't justify shooting a fleeing suspect in the back.

You can't justify him picking up that taser and dropping it next to the victim.


Policy does not trump law.
 
The officer clearly needs more firearms training. Other than that, what's the problem. He ran. He got shot. Sucks to be him, but he chose to run.




You can't shoot a fleeing suspect.


Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]


Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit.[4] Deadly force that is executed by a co-defendant against an accomplice is not justified by the fleeing felon rule.


Even if he had a partner who was shooting at the cop, he couldn't shoot the dood in the back like that.
 
I'm sorry, in what police policy and procedure document can you show me an officer is supposed to assume every suspect is armed?

If that were the case, officers would be able to get a way with A LOT more killings.

"You see that 16 year old kid? He's running from us! He must be armed! Shoot him!"
An officer should assume every suspect is armed. That's why they do the pat downs
 
He's a member of their union, yet the union dropped him like a bad habit. That's damning. Before he is even convicted of anything they drop him? I never heard of that before, but no one here knows the by-laws of this particular union, so who knows?

The union's not paying for his defense which means his wife and kids are going to be saddled with $100,000's in legal bills. For that reason and for that reason alone I wish the union was paying for his defense. Not for him, but for them.

The union ought to pay for his insurance, he got into trouble when he was a police officer so his union should carry the legal cost at least partly. He might be a murderer but he too deserves a good defense and without his union that most likely risk him getting a second rate legal defense.

This does not change the fact that I think he needs to be jailed for what I think is a crime but only with a decent defense.
 
So, police should treat everyone as armed and likely to use deadly force, justifying shooting citizens in the back.

An officer should always assume a suspect is armed until proven otherwise. As to shooting "citizens", no one said anything about that, we are talking about criminals, which fleeing and fighting with an officer proves. If they don't want to get shot, don't fight with or run from the police.
 
Your argument assumes we should err on the side of killing suspects.

That goes full force against the founding principals of our constitution.

Only those who don't surrender and then fight with or flee from officers. Better a dead scumbag than a dead citizen later because the cops had their hands tied by a bunch of bleeding heart criminal lovers.
 
Thought I should point out that Slager has already lost his job.
Slager is already the subject of a federal investigation.

And I should point out there is a good possibility of someone like me being on the jury. The Fed investigation is nothing but political bull****, it's purely a local matter.
 
An officer should always assume a suspect is armed until proven otherwise. As to shooting "citizens", no one said anything about that, we are talking about criminals, which fleeing and fighting with an officer proves. If they don't want to get shot, don't fight with or run from the police.


That's nonsense, and makes me glad you are not a cop, though you wouldn't be one for long with that mindset.
 
How is the police shooting a suspect resisting lawful arrest and fleeing worse than the criminals?
Iirc, the Supreme Court found it was unlawful seizure vis-a-vis the Fourth Amendment.

rights to be secure in person vs govt seizure > state's interest in stopping suspects/criminals who are not some sort of a grave danger to someone.

I think that's how they framed it.

You seem to be saying that the value of the state's interest in stopping offenders is greater than the value of your own life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom