• 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.
How is the police shooting a suspect resisting lawful arrest and fleeing worse than the criminals?



Because taking a human life for a tailight and running is abhorrent. "Resisting lawful arrest" should not be a death sentence.

Death is final, is running away, egregious enough to be shot in the back and killed for? If so, then why plant the taser on him?
 
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.



Look up at my link on this
 
Because taking a human life for a tailight and running is abhorrent. "Resisting lawful arrest" should not be a death sentence.

Death is final, is running away, egregious enough to be shot in the back and killed for? If so, then why plant the taser on him?

The fact that this even needs to be explained is gut wrenching to me.
 
Because taking a human life for a tailight and running is abhorrent. "Resisting lawful arrest" should not be a death sentence.

Death is final, is running away, egregious enough to be shot in the back and killed for?

Life was not take for a "taillight". Life was taken for resisting arrest/fleeing. I see no problem with it as a non-criminal would have no reason to do so. The life of a criminal has no positive value to a society. If by killing one, you prevent others from doing the same thing, then it is of value. If shooting a few that are fleeing prevents others from fleeing, it is definitely worth the life of a few criminal scum.
 
Life was not take for a "taillight". Life was taken for resisting arrest/fleeing. I see no problem with it as a non-criminal would have no reason to do so. The life of a criminal has no positive value to a society. If by killing one, you prevent others from doing the same thing, then it is of value. If shooting a few that are fleeing prevents others from fleeing, it is definitely worth the life of a few criminal scum.

When I was 16, I ran from the police when they showed up to bust us for skinny dipping in the local public pool. There were about 40 of us including the mayors daughter, the chief of polices son, and the athletic directors daughter. (I got away)..

So in your estimation.. if the police had opened fire on us as we fled.. then it would be a "good shoot"?
 
Life was not take for a "taillight". Life was taken for resisting arrest/fleeing. I see no problem with it as a non-criminal would have no reason to do so. The life of a criminal has no positive value to a society. If by killing one, you prevent others from doing the same thing, then it is of value. If shooting a few that are fleeing prevents others from fleeing, it is definitely worth the life of a few criminal scum.

So let's say a cop shoots you in the back and claims you were fleeing....Dead mean don't testify. How can you be sure in the absence of video evidence that the person was actually fleeing and not simply staged execution?

Let's say a person flees and....

What if the person has a mental illness?

What if the person is experiencing a medical illness?

What if a person is having a reaction to a medication and aren't in a "normal" state of mind?

What if a person is severely distraught over the loss of a loved one?

How does a cop differentiate on the spot?


How does the punishment fit the crime? Running is punishable by death? Are we in N. Korea?
 
Last edited:
Life was not take for a "taillight". Life was taken for resisting arrest/fleeing. I see no problem with it as a non-criminal would have no reason to do so. The life of a criminal has no positive value to a society. If by killing one, you prevent others from doing the same thing, then it is of value. If shooting a few that are fleeing prevents others from fleeing, it is definitely worth the life of a few criminal scum.

Wow....authoritarians.

You're using a lot of "ifs" for government force that takes life. Instead of "ifs" do you have numbers? Proof? Evidence?
 
When I was 16, I ran from the police when they showed up to bust us for skinny dipping in the local public pool. There were about 40 of us including the mayors daughter, the chief of polices son, and the athletic directors daughter. (I got away)..

So in your estimation.. if the police had opened fire on us as we fled.. then it would be a "good shoot"?

If you had known the cops would shoot you if you ran, would you have ran?
 
Wow....authoritarians.

You're using a lot of "ifs" for government force that takes life. Instead of "ifs" do you have numbers? Proof? Evidence?

Check the international crime stats. Countries with the strictest enforcement and harshest punishments always have lower crime rates. True, that sometimes what they consider a crime does not hold up under our value systems, but it definitely proves that harsh, strict handling of criminals gives the lowest crime rates.
 
So let's say a cop shoots you in the back and claims you were fleeing....Dead mean don't testify. How can you be sure in the absence of video evidence that the person was actually fleeing and not simply staged execution?

Let's say a person flees and....

What if the person has a mental illness?

What if the person is experiencing a medical illness?

What if a person is having a reaction to a medication and aren't in a "normal" state of mind?

What if a person is severely distraught over the loss of a loved one?

How does a cop differentiate on the spot?


How does the punishment fit the crime? Running is punishable by death? Are we in N. Korea?

Punishment doesn't have to fit the crime. Punishment has to deter others from committing the same offence. No, running should not be punishable by death, lots of people do it for exercise. However, fleeing to avoid prosecution for criminal activities, I fully support shooting the scumbags.

No, we are not North Korea, at least not yet, give the liberals and other socialist leaning factions a few more decades and we will be there.
 
Because taking a human life for a tailight and running is abhorrent. "Resisting lawful arrest" should not be a death sentence.

Death is final, is running away, egregious enough to be shot in the back and killed for? If so, then why plant the taser on him?

It isn't egregious enough, in fact I think even pulling away from the taser is not enough to shoot someone in the back 8 times.
 
Check the international crime stats. Countries with the strictest enforcement and harshest punishments always have lower crime rates. True, that sometimes what they consider a crime does not hold up under our value systems, but it definitely proves that harsh, strict handling of criminals gives the lowest crime rates.
Assuming that the stats released from a totalitarian society would be reliable, you're just saying that you value safety and authority more than you value liberty and life.
That's totally alright for you to hold that opinion.

However, that's not the American way.
We have the Constitution.
 
No, we are not North Korea, at least not yet, give the liberals and other socialist leaning factions a few more decades and we will be there.
And folks like yourself who find the Bill of Rights inconvenient for the State. You guys are also pushing for us to become more like NK.

To each his own.
 
Punishment doesn't have to fit the crime. Punishment has to deter others from committing the same offence. No, running should not be punishable by death, lots of people do it for exercise. However, fleeing to avoid prosecution for criminal activities, I fully support shooting the scumbags.

No, we are not North Korea, at least not yet, give the liberals and other socialist leaning factions a few more decades and we will be there.

And yet you're the one espousing shooting people in the back....

Also I would remind you it's in the Constitution....

Amendment VIII - Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Pretty sure that death for running from a cop, without judge or jury falls under "cruel and unusual punishment"....
 
Last edited:
Wow....authoritarians.

You're using a lot of "ifs" for government force that takes life. Instead of "ifs" do you have numbers? Proof? Evidence?

I don't know who you are lumping in with him... or did you mean "authoritarian" singular?
 
Yeah the cop will probably get away with a lighter sentence but if the places were reversed the person would probably receive the death penalty. So unfair.
 
Check the international crime stats. Countries with the strictest enforcement and harshest punishments always have lower crime rates.

And the least freedom.

/thread
 
Excon's assessment of Slager's assessment of Slager's culpability and liability may not actually have that much legal bearing.
Stop with the asininity Simon.

This isn't about me.
If you can refute what I present, do so, otherwise save it.

So far, in accordance with the evidence he clearly didn't commit a murder and what he may or may not have believed at the moment does make a difference.





You can't justify shooting a fleeing suspect in the back.
Wrong. The SCOTUS clearly says otherwise.



You can't justify him picking up that taser and dropping it next to the victim.
Wrong.
It can easily be explained as already stated.

So far though, all we have is those like you making unsupported assertions that is was a plant when there is nothing that supports that assertion.



Policy does not trump law.
:doh
Clearly you know not of what you speaking.
So let's show everybody you don't.

In reference to the "policy" reply you quoted, what law are you speaking about?
 
If you can refute what I present, do so, otherwise save it.
The point was that what you said was irrelevant and not worth refuting.
:shrug:
So far, in accordance with the evidence he clearly didn't commit a murder and what he may or may not have believed at the moment does make a difference.
You keep using that word--"clearly."
I do not think it means what you think it means.

If it were obvious that Slager did not commit murder, then he would not have been charged. If he had been charged anyway, the relevant Policeman Benevolent Associations would be helping Slager. But Slager was charged with murder and the PBAs are not helping him.

On the other side of the fence we have, the local law enforcement, the relevant PBAs, much of the media, and, apparently, most of the posters here.
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if contrary to your assertion, that most people who have viewed the video decided that it "clearly" was murder.

Given all of these things, your use of the word "clearly" seems to be clearly questionable.


I am quite willing to concede that you are unable to see how Slager's actions could constitute murder.
There's plenty of evidence to indicate that you are having trouble understanding how a reasonable person could see what Slager did as murder.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. The SCOTUS clearly says otherwise.

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrong. He wasn't a threat when he was running away, you can see that the officer knew that when he planted the taser on him,.



Wrong.
It can easily be explained as already stated.

So far though, all we have is those like you making unsupported assertions that is was a plant when there is nothing that supports that assertion.



There are good cops, there are bad cops, "Good cops" that make excuses for bad cops, are not good cops. keep that in mind.

There is NO explaination for tampering of evidence that can be justified by the law here.

If you disagree, please show me relevant case law.


:doh
Clearly you know not of what you speaking.
So let's show everybody you don't.

In reference to the "policy" reply you quoted, what law are you speaking about?


Tennesee vs Garner:

"Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."


You are once again, wrong.
 
If you had known the cops would shoot you if you ran, would you have ran?

Never in a million years.. would I.. a white, lower middle class kid, have thought back then.. that the police would EVER.. think of shooting me for skinny dipping in the local pool. Back then, we respected the police. (other than not wanting to get caught) . Police weren't dicks.

Heck.. when I was a young man. I drove to a party and didn't plan to drink. Well, I had some drinks and decided not to drive but to walk home (3 miles away). Along the way, the local sheriff pulled over and came out to ask me how I was doing. I told him that I had been drinking, and didn't want to drive. He asked me if I wanted a ride home. I said yes.. and he drove me home. Oh.. I got the speech about walking on the side of the road after drinking.. and how people get hit etc. But he asked if he should stop at the bottom of our drive and he let me out.

If something got broken or was happening in the neighborhood and that officer or any officer asked us what was going on.. we'd tell them.

Now? I tell my kid you say nothing to the police other than.. I would answer your questions but I need my father present. I don't trust the police.. I have no reason to now. I have seen way to much abuse... and I am a former reserve officer!. So better to say nothing. And I fear.. by son is large, he is interracial.. and I can totally see him arguing with a policeman if he thinks he is right in the eyes of the law.

And now..thats a recipe to get shot.
 
The point was that what you said was irrelevant and not worth refuting.
:naughty
Just more asininity.
No Simon, as usual it is you who are spouting foolish and irrelevant nonsense.

What I said was relevant, as It was an on point reply to what the other person thought.

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 keep using that word--"clearly."
I do not think it means what you think it means.
:doh
Clearly that would be you, as the evidence clearly does not allow for a murder charge.


If it were obvious that Slager did not commit murder, then he would not have been charged. If he had been charged anyway, the relevant Policeman Benevolent Associations would be helping Slager. But Slager was charged with murder and the PBAs are not helping him.

On the other side of the fence we have, the local law enforcement, the relevant PBAs, much of the media, and, apparently, most of the posters here.
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if contrary to your assertion, that most people who have viewed the video decided that it "clearly" was murder.

Given all of these things, your use of the word "clearly" seems to be clearly questionable.
Oy vey! :doh
1. He was not charged.
They jumped the gun and he was arrested without a full and proper investigation.
They didn't even interview the witness who took the video until after the Officer's arrest.
2. Your appeal to authority is nonsense.
3. They clearly did not give the video a proper review. Had they he would not have been arrested for murder.


I am quite willing to concede that you are unable to see how Slager's actions could constitute murder.
There's plenty of evidence to indicate that you are having trouble understanding how a reasonable person could see what Slager did as murder.
You are again speaking foolish nonsense, as this is not about me.
So far you have failed to refute anything that has been presented. Nor could you, which is why you resort to personal nonsense. You have nothing else.

As I already told you.

Stop with the asininity Simon.

This isn't about me.
If you can refute what I present, do so, otherwise save it.

So far, in accordance with the evidence he clearly didn't commit a murder and what he may or may not have believed at the moment does make a difference.

This is an Officer responding to a significant threat to prevent his flight. It is not premeditation or malice aforethought in an attempt kill someone or commit a crime.
Your participation in the "Slager Will Walk" thread should have clued you into what the standard of review is going to be.
This isn't murder, not by a long shot.
 
Wrong. The SCOTUS clearly says otherwise.
Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrong. He wasn't a threat when he was running away, you can see that the officer knew that when he planted the taser on him,.
Wrong.
The Officer was responding to his being a threat when the suspect threw the taser. He is allowed to continue to respond.

But since most folks do not understand that, the following argument fits just the same.
If the Officer did not see the suspect throw the taser, the Officer is still responding to what he reasonably believed is a threat.

Secondly, what is hilariously is that you provided a wiki article when I previous provided the SCOTUS holding regarding the issue. Especially as the wiki articlwe shows you to be wrong as well.
:doh
:lamo

Wrong.
It can easily be explained as already stated.

So far though, all we have is those like you making unsupported assertions that is was a plant when there is nothing that supports that assertion.
There are good cops, there are bad cops, "Good cops" that make excuses for bad cops, are not good cops. keep that in mind.

There is NO explaination for tampering of evidence that can be justified by the law here.

If you disagree, please show me relevant case law.
:doh
Nothing you said refutes what you quoted.
While there are bad cops, this isn't one of them.
Nor was there tampering with evidence, that is a complete fabrication on your part.
Protocol would be to secure the weapons.


Tennesee vs Garner:

"Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."


You are once again, wrong.
:doh
And once again it is you who are wrong.
That is exactly what the Officer was reacting to.
As soon as the suspect took the taser he became a significant threat.


As already posted.
Again;
We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.


Had you bothered to take the time to read the case you would have read the following dicta in relevance to the holding.

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. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.”


The moment he took the taser he was a significant threat, not just to the Officer but people he may have encountered if allowed to flee.
And if any of the other criteria fits, he was able to shoot him.


And then there is the standard of review.
If the Officer believed he still had the taser when he fired, he is legally in the clear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom