Further, if it turns out in the court hearing that there are marks from the taser bolt on slager, then regardless of who tried to use the taser, slager was within his legal rights to use his gun when Scott ran.
[/quote]
Please explain how ANYONE is within legal rights to shoot an unarmed man in the back.
I’ll wait.
If that does come out in court, and this officer is found “not guilty”, can you IMAGINE the civil unrest? LMAO
It’ll make Fergusen look like a walk in the park. And rightfully so.
[/quote]
If you get in a fight with a police officer after they tell you to stop/try to arrest you they can use any necessary means to affect the arrest.
That’s a case law precedent from Tennessee vs Garner
Also Graham VS Conner gives the officer plenty of latitude to prevent an escape if he believes that the suspect is of danger to the officer or others.
For example, if Scott had just fired the taser(speculative) or he believed scott still had the taser as was dragging it away wrapped around his foot (which is clearly seen in the video) when slager pulls out his gun and begins to fire and slager believed he was at risk of being tased, that’s enough for a not-guilty verdict.
If someone is fighting with you and then gets tangled up with your non-deadly weapon, it’s not unreasonable to believe you’d be afraid they would harm you in the moment.
We don’t know for sure what went on with the fight/tazer, but I think it’s likely that there will be a not-guilty verdict.
You shouldn’t confuse that with me thinking that it’s moral, only that’s it’s probably legal.
Also, it’s pretty horrible that you would think that it’s “justifiable” that people riot.
The people who rioted in the Michael brown case were purely racists and/or criminals directing their anger towards 100% innocent people in their community.
In fact, if you’re serious about it being justified to riot, instead of lets say…protesting the laws that put ALL people in confrontations with police for non-violent “offenses”
IF there is no traffic stop there is no dead Walter Scott and if you support the police monopoly on force, you are ultimately in support of the confrontations that escalate to deadly force.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Dude is 10 feet away when the cop shoots him in the back, get the fuck out with this garbage… [/quote]
It doesn’t matter how far away he was legally. Normally a police officer wouldn’t shoot you but they would taze you instead, but they absolutely aren’t legally required to use non-deadly force after the set of circumstances I described above(of course speculative). Further, obviously he couldn’t user his tazer because it was wrapped around scott’s leg and/or on the ground.
Look man. The POLICE ARE NOT HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD OTHER PEOPLE ARE. They can do immoral things LEGALLY. That’s why he might not and probably won’t be convicted and why this situation is so horrible.
Further, what kind of bullshit hypocrisy is telling me to protest the laws yet supporting a protest of the police if he doesn’t get convicted?
You should be protesting at the very least the legal precedent allowing police to shoot a fleeing person or the precedent allowing for leeway due to perception of the threat in the moment.
That doesn’t do anything to the root of the problem which is the monopoly on the initiation of force the police have, but at least it’s not hypocritical.
Further, if it turns out in the court hearing that there are marks from the taser bolt on slager, then regardless of who tried to use the taser, slager was within his legal rights to use his gun when Scott ran.
[/quote]
Please explain how ANYONE is within legal rights to shoot an unarmed man in the back.
I’ll wait.
If that does come out in court, and this officer is found “not guilty”, can you IMAGINE the civil unrest? LMAO
It’ll make Fergusen look like a walk in the park. And rightfully so.
[/quote]
If you get in a fight with a police officer after they tell you to stop/try to arrest you they can use any necessary means to affect the arrest.
That’s a case law precedent from Tennessee vs Garner
Also Graham VS Conner gives the officer plenty of latitude to prevent an escape if he believes that the suspect is of danger to the officer or others.
For example, if Scott had just fired the taser(speculative) or he believed scott still had the taser as was dragging it away wrapped around his foot (which is clearly seen in the video) when slager pulls out his gun and begins to fire and slager believed he was at risk of being tased, that’s enough for a not-guilty verdict.
If someone is fighting with you and then gets tangled up with your non-deadly weapon, it’s not unreasonable to believe you’d be afraid they would harm you in the moment.
We don’t know for sure what went on with the fight/tazer, but I think it’s likely that there will be a not-guilty verdict.
You shouldn’t confuse that with me thinking that it’s moral, only that’s it’s probably legal.
Also, it’s pretty horrible that you would think that it’s “justifiable” that people riot.
The people who rioted in the Michael brown case were purely racists and/or criminals directing their anger towards 100% innocent people in their community.
In fact, if you’re serious about it being justified to riot, instead of lets say…protesting the laws that put ALL people in confrontations with police for non-violent “offenses”
IF there is no traffic stop there is no dead Walter Scott and if you support the police monopoly on force, you are ultimately in support of the confrontations that escalate to deadly force.
[/quote]
So based on this the average person should have a 50/50 survival rate when they encounter a cop.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Dude is 10 feet away when the cop shoots him in the back, get the fuck out with this garbage… [/quote]
It doesn’t matter how far away he was legally. Normally a police officer wouldn’t shoot you but they would taze you instead, but they absolutely aren’t legally required to use non-deadly force after the set of circumstances I described above(of course speculative). Further, obviously he couldn’t user his tazer because it was wrapped around scott’s leg and/or on the ground.
Look man. The POLICE ARE NOT HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD OTHER PEOPLE ARE. They can do immoral things LEGALLY. That’s why he might not and probably won’t be convicted and why this situation is so horrible. [/quote]
Wrong:
“Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect’s rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. Pp. 7-12.”
“While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous. Pp. 20-22.”
[quote]
Further, what kind of bullshit hypocrisy is telling me to protest the laws yet supporting a protest of the police if he doesn’t get convicted? [/quote]
I wouldn’t protest the police. I would protest the ruling.
[quote]
You should be protesting at the very least the legal precedent allowing police to shoot a fleeing person or the precedent allowing for leeway due to perception of the threat in the moment. [/quote]
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
That’s a case law precedent from Tennessee vs Garner
Also Graham VS Conner gives the officer plenty of latitude to prevent an escape if he believes that the suspect is of danger to the officer or others.
[/quote]
Me thinks you need to read Tennessee vs Garner again.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Murder for a police officer is legally not the same as murder for everyone else. [/quote]
Sure it is.
[quote]
You could be detained for selling raw milk or for running a lemonade stand without a license and if you resist enough(which is completely moral to do with anyone else trying to detain you) and they will escalate until they kill you. [/quote]
Hyperbole aside, we give the police the authority to enforce the law. That’s kinda the point.
[quote]
Police officers aren’t some kind of magical people that somehow can initiate force without expecting an escalation of violence. [/quote]
Well ya, they kind are…
[quote]
The only “good” cop is one that doesn’t ever enforce non-violent “crimes”, which is exactly ZERO cops. [/quote]
Lol, whut? It’s an officers job to enforce The Law, not some of the laws they think are good to go. Blame your state government and/or Congress. They’re the ones that pass the laws, even the dumb ones.
[quote]
You cannot be a cop without being EXPECTED to commit assault and murder eventually, because enforcing most laws will eventually lead to someone escalating to that point in self-defense.[/quote]
You’ve got an interesting outlook on life… [/quote]
You cannot commit homicide other than in certain instances of self defense without it being criminal. [/quote]
You most certainly can. The initiation of deadly force is authorized, under certain circumstance, for individuals and certain groups unrelated to self defense.
[quote]
A police officer can detain/assault a person for selling raw milk(or any other voluntary non-violent transaction/activity that is banned) and then kill them for acting in self defense. [/quote]
Raw milk laws are not law enforcement concern. That is a legislative matter. Police officers have been granted, by us, the legal use of deadly force when a citizen resists arrest. That is also a legislative matter.
Resisting arrest =/= self defense.
[quote]
If you believe someone is wrong for selling raw milk and you did the same, you would be tried for murder. The police officer will not. [/quote]
If I believe is a law is unlawful I would take it up with law makers and the judicial branch. I wouldn’t resist, in most case, the enforcement officers who are authorized to use deadly force when warranted.
[quote]
It’s not Hyperbole,[/quote]
Am I unaware of a lemonade stand citation turning into a use of deadly force occurrence? Please link, I;d love to read about.
[quote]
police can and HAVE in fact arrested/fined people for selling raw milk and threatened arrest/fines for little girls in several cases selling lemonade without a license. [/quote]
I get it, you don’t like the laws against these things. I tend to agree. That is still a legislative matter. It is not law enforcement job, thank God, to determine which laws are just and which laws are not.
[quote]
WE don’t GIVE the police ANYTHING. [/quote]
Yes, we do.
[quote]
How can you possibly GIVE the police the authority to do something you as an individual cannot do? [/quote]
We have collectively give the executive branch(s) of our government the ability to enforce laws the legislative branch(s) have created. That’s how.
[quote]
And don’t give me the democracy bullshit. [/quote]
Well, we don’t live in the People Republic of Magic Thoughts now do we?
[quote]
A collective doesn’t magically gain the rights an individual doesn’t have. that argument defeats all individual right for the rights of the majority. [/quote]
You could argue the enforcement of laws ratified by the collective is an extension of individual rights.
[quote]
And NO…limits through checks and balances don’t make any difference because once certain people have a monopoly on the initiation of force they have always and will always used it to manipulate the language to circumvent those checks. [/quote]
So, human nature. Good luck changing that. The balance of power can change and has numerous times thought out history. If you don’t like it, change it.
[quote]
You don’t seriously believe police officers are magical do you? [/quote]
No I don’t think they’re fucking magical.
[quote]
NO I’m going to blame you and others who support those laws by participating(legitimizing) the voting process and further speaking out in the support of ANY initiation of force which makes it possible for politicians to do what they do instead of being ostracized like the sociopaths they are.[/quote]
Okay, do whatever you want. It’s a free country because of those so called illegitimate institutions initiating force in your name so you can cry about it on the internet. [/quote]
Where is the contract I or You signed authorizing any kind of “special” use of force by certain individuals? [/quote]
Are you a U.S. citizen? Do you have a social security number? Your parents signed it for you, their parents signed it for them, so on and so forth all the way back to 1776.
You don’t like it, it’s up to you to leave.
[quote]
Governments are in fact just magical thoughts where people are deluded into believing that such a contract was ever signed by anyone that is subject to the monopoly on force the government and police have. [/quote]
That’s called reality.
Dude this thread has been nice and civil up to this point. Please don’t initiate name calling and insults into what has been a good debate. It not only annoys people but it backs people into a corner and makes everyone dig their heels into the ground on whatever position they started with.
Because I have not been rude or aggressive I could, based on the facts, change my opinion without people mocking me or being douchey to me.
When you insult people and maintain you are 100% right you then have to stick by it because you don’t want to lose face. Don’t be that guy. Be nice and people generally will be nice back, even if they disagree.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
That’s a case law precedent from Tennessee vs Garner
Also Graham VS Conner gives the officer plenty of latitude to prevent an escape if he believes that the suspect is of danger to the officer or others.
[/quote]
Me thinks you need to read Tennessee vs Garner again. [/quote]
Yes, if I remember correctly, what Tennessee v. Garner established is almost the opposite of TooHuman’s claim.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
That’s a case law precedent from Tennessee vs Garner
Also Graham VS Conner gives the officer plenty of latitude to prevent an escape if he believes that the suspect is of danger to the officer or others.
[/quote]
Me thinks you need to read Tennessee vs Garner again. [/quote]
Yes, if I remember correctly, what Tennessee v. Garner established is almost the opposite of TooHuman’s claim.[/quote]
It is the exact opposite of what TooHuman is claiming.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Anyone seen the latest story of the reserve deputy who shot the guy fleeing from police…said he thought he pulled a taser, but pulled a real gun instead.
interesting audio on there…[/quote]
Even more disturbing than what happened is the official explanation released by the sheriff’s office.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Anyone seen the latest story of the reserve deputy who shot the guy fleeing from police…said he thought he pulled a taser, but pulled a real gun instead.
interesting audio on there…[/quote]
Even more disturbing than what happened is the official explanation released by the sheriff’s office.
If that were true, they certainly shouldn’t be cops any more or allowed to carry guns. They are basically saying they can’t function rationally or even hear correctly when under stress. Um, okay, good reason to prevent them from having weapons and being in that situation.
Further, if it turns out in the court hearing that there are marks from the taser bolt on slager, then regardless of who tried to use the taser, slager was within his legal rights to use his gun when Scott ran.
[/quote]
Please explain how ANYONE is within legal rights to shoot an unarmed man in the back.
I’ll wait.
If that does come out in court, and this officer is found “not guilty”, can you IMAGINE the civil unrest? LMAO
It’ll make Fergusen look like a walk in the park. And rightfully so.
[/quote]
If you get in a fight with a police officer after they tell you to stop/try to arrest you they can use any necessary means to affect the arrest.
That’s a case law precedent from Tennessee vs Garner
Also Graham VS Conner gives the officer plenty of latitude to prevent an escape if he believes that the suspect is of danger to the officer or others.
For example, if Scott had just fired the taser(speculative) or he believed scott still had the taser as was dragging it away wrapped around his foot (which is clearly seen in the video) when slager pulls out his gun and begins to fire and slager believed he was at risk of being tased, that’s enough for a not-guilty verdict.
If someone is fighting with you and then gets tangled up with your non-deadly weapon, it’s not unreasonable to believe you’d be afraid they would harm you in the moment.
[/quote]But that’s not what happened. Dude was RUNNING AWAY. [quote]
We don’t know for sure what went on with the fight/tazer, but I think it’s likely that there will be a not-guilty verdict.
You shouldn’t confuse that with me thinking that it’s moral, only that’s it’s probably legal.
Also, it’s pretty horrible that you would think that it’s “justifiable” that people riot.
[/quote]I think it’s pretty horrible that there are literally thousands of hours of video footage of officers beating, macing, killing and otherwise violating the civil rights of our citizens and only a FRACTION of them ever face any kind of justice for it. THAT’S what’s horrible.
What I poorly attempted to communicate was that the Fergusen debacle was based on MIS information, while this case we have video of an officer shooting someone in the back. That’s what I meant by “rightfully so”. I meant that they are “rightfully upset”, not that I would condone a riot. I EXPECT a riot if he is found not guilty, and I can see where that could be misconstrued, but I assure you it’s not what I meant. I think those rioters in Fergusen should have been arrested and charged. [quote]
The people who rioted in the Michael brown case were purely racists and/or criminals directing their anger towards 100% innocent people in their community.
In fact, if you’re serious about it being justified to riot, instead of lets say…protesting the laws that put ALL people in confrontations with police for non-violent “offenses”
IF there is no traffic stop there is no dead Walter Scott and if you support the police monopoly on force, you are ultimately in support of the confrontations that escalate to deadly force.
[/quote]
As I told you, I don’t agree with people rioting and burning down privately held businesses. However, I would have no problem whatsoever with people overturning police vehicles or burning down a police station that protected an officer who clearly committed murder. Bad cops should be taught a lesson and if the “justice” system can’t do that, then it’s up to the citizens to do it. But I do NOT advocate burning PRIVATE businesses that have nothing to do with it.
I’ll put it to you like this: if a police officer killed MY son by shooting him in the back while he was running away (or reaching into his pocket to turn off his iPod) and if that officer was found not guilty, I would make it my mission in LIFE to see that officer (and the corrupt department that protected him) brought to justice. By any means unnecessary… (hypothetically, of course)
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Anyone seen the latest story of the reserve deputy who shot the guy fleeing from police…said he thought he pulled a taser, but pulled a real gun instead.
interesting audio on there…[/quote]
Even more disturbing than what happened is the official explanation released by the sheriff’s office.
If that were true, they certainly shouldn’t be cops any more or allowed to carry guns. They are basically saying they can’t function rationally or even hear correctly when under stress. Um, okay, good reason to prevent them from having weapons and being in that situation.[/quote]
I’m not justifying or defending the parties involved, but auditory exclusion is a recognized symptom of stress.
So I guess that justifies shooting a man in the back…[/quote]
No, but it wasn’t initially reported.
No, police can’t use tasers anytime they want to.
So there are people in society who should be excluded from police interactions based on previous experiences with law enforcement? Should we pass laws allowing women who have been raped by men to taser any man approaching them withing 30 feet?
[quote]If someone with a blue uniform has harassed and beaten you over and over on random occasions for your entire life and then you are approached by someone in a blue uniform AGAIN, would not the prudent action be to try and defend yourself?
[/quote]
Defend yourself from what? Showing the police officer identification? Scott knew there was a warrant out for his arrest and decided to run and then fight with Slager. Scott was not defending himself at all.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Anyone seen the latest story of the reserve deputy who shot the guy fleeing from police…said he thought he pulled a taser, but pulled a real gun instead.
interesting audio on there…[/quote]
Even more disturbing than what happened is the official explanation released by the sheriff’s office.
If that were true, they certainly shouldn’t be cops any more or allowed to carry guns. They are basically saying they can’t function rationally or even hear correctly when under stress. Um, okay, good reason to prevent them from having weapons and being in that situation.[/quote]
I’m not justifying or defending the parties involved, but auditory exclusion is a recognized symptom of stress. [/quote]
And if you’ve shown yourself so susceptible in situations like making an arrest, you probably shouldn’t be a police officer. The department is basically saying that these guys can’t hear things like the pleas for help from a dying man if they are stressed. You don’t think that’s kinda bad if you’re a cop?
I wish that all of these recent police shootings would generate a demand for more Andy’s and fewer Barney’s in police work, but I’m sure that won’t happen. Barney(in all his forms: tiny girls, Eagle Scouts, guys that saw high school from the inside of a locker, military and ex-military guys that don’t grasp the idea that Americans are not enemy combatants, etc.-just so long as they enforce the rules without question) is what’s in demand, while Andy must worry about his job. Let’s blame the democratization of police work.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Anyone seen the latest story of the reserve deputy who shot the guy fleeing from police…said he thought he pulled a taser, but pulled a real gun instead.
interesting audio on there…[/quote]
Even more disturbing than what happened is the official explanation released by the sheriff’s office.
If that were true, they certainly shouldn’t be cops any more or allowed to carry guns. They are basically saying they can’t function rationally or even hear correctly when under stress. Um, okay, good reason to prevent them from having weapons and being in that situation.[/quote]
I’m not justifying or defending the parties involved, but auditory exclusion is a recognized symptom of stress. [/quote]
And if you’ve shown yourself so susceptible in situations like making an arrest, you probably shouldn’t be a police officer. The department is basically saying that these guys can’t hear things like the pleas for help from a dying man if they are stressed. You don’t think that’s kinda bad if you’re a cop?[/quote]
The guy was believed to be high on PCP armed with a handgun at the time of the arrest. There was also a foot pursuit, so that would elevate the heart rate even more. These factors make for a very stressful situation, increasing the chance for auditory exclusion. It’s not a predictable thing.
Having said that, I don’t think the department’s explanation was very good. I also would like to know why a 73 year old man is allowed to be on the road.
So I guess that justifies shooting a man in the back…[/quote]
No, but it wasn’t initially reported.
No, police can’t use tasers anytime they want to.
[/quote]
OH REALLY?
I dare say I can provide plenty of video evidence that proves that statement to be willfully ignorant. [quote]
So there are people in society who should be excluded from police interactions based on previous experiences with law enforcement? Should we pass laws allowing women who have been raped by men to taser any man approaching them withing 30 feet?
[quote]If someone with a blue uniform has harassed and beaten you over and over on random occasions for your entire life and then you are approached by someone in a blue uniform AGAIN, would not the prudent action be to try and defend yourself?
[/quote]
Defend yourself from what? Showing the police officer identification? Scott knew there was a warrant out for his arrest and decided to run and then fight with Slager. Scott was not defending himself at all. [/quote]
On what grounds does a police officer have to demand ANYONE to show them identification?
Seriously, is this Germany circa 1934? “papers please?”
What fucking planet do you live on where you think it’s ok to fucking harass someone for walking down the street?
I guess that fucking nigger deserved to be shot in the back, right? I mean, after all, there was a WARRANT… /sarcasm
In my opinion, the South Carolina incident looks like voluntary manslaughter. I think it certainly looks like a “heat of passion” or provoked homicide(as far as the law that authorizes police officers to stop cars and apprehend people is concerned). I also hope that folks who believe it silly to mention that ridiculous laws are ultimately punishable by death will rethink that position, and demand that we start eliminating some of those laws.
