South Carolina Police Officer shoots unarmed man in the back as he flees.

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Hard to tell DD

"The duty to retreat also does not apply if one is attacked in one’s own home. “[A] man faced with the danger of an attack upon his dwelling need not retreat from his home to escape the danger, but instead may stand his ground and, if necessary to repel the attack, may kill the attacker.” Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361, 190 A.2d 538, 541 (1963). The Court of Appeals said in Crawford, a case in which the defendant fatally shot a younger man who was attempting to break into his home to beat and rob him:
“* * * A man is not bound to retreat from his house. He may stand his ground there and kill an[y] person who attempts to commit a felony therein, or who attempts to enter by force for the purpose of committing a felony, or of inflicting great bodily harm upon an inmate. In such a case the owner or any member of the family, or even a lodger in the house, may meet the intruder at the threshold, and prevent him from entering by any means rendered necessary by the exigency, even to the taking of his life, and the homicide will be justifiable.”[/quote]

Wait, wait, wait. I can kill anyone who attempts to commit a felony in my home out there in Maryland? I fucking like it! So if some piece of shit walks into my home and happens to let it be known that he is carrying an ounce and a half of pure Cambodian smack, I can fucking kill him right there on the spot?

62

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
MD is a duty to retreat state because we care more about criminals than law abiding citizens. [/quote]

Even in your home?[/quote]

I threw a quick edit up with a wiki reference to a MD case that address it. [/quote]

Doesn’t seem to apply in the home.

Furthermore, it is important to note that, in all US jurisdictions that I am aware of, the duty to retreat is only present if it can be done in complete safety to yourself and those under the mantle of your protection.

But this is getting off-track from the incident in SC. Duty to retreat is a non-factor with and LEO in a situation like that.
[/quote]

It’s not clear. It looks like it doesn’t apply when trying to prevent a violent offense. I don’t see anything regarding application after the event has occurred and the perpetrator is no longer an imminent threat.

63

"However, even in one’s own home, the degree of force used in self-defense must not be “excessive.” Crawford v. State, supra, 231 Md. at 362, 190 A.2d at 542. Quoting a treatise on criminal law, the Court of Appeals said in Crawford:
"It is a justifiable homicide to kill to prevent the commission of a felony by force or surprise.
The crimes in prevention of which life may be taken are such and only such as are committed by forcible means, violence, and surprise, such as murder, robbery, burglary, rape, or arson.

“It is also essential that killing is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony in question. If other methods could prevent its commission, a homicide is not justified; all other means of preventing the crime must first be exhausted.”

64

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
which is why the whole fabricated taser justification came up.

[/quote]

Just caught this. Didn’t know it had been determined to be fabricated.

?[/quote]

The taser or cartridge, is the black thing on the ground in the beginning of the video that the cop picks up and places next to the body later in the video.

65

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I did not even know about the guy supposedly taking the officer’s taser, until today. If the guy took the officer’s taser, I can see this being justifiable or, at most, something less than murder. Every “fight” in which a police officer(or any openly armed person) is involved is a gun fight. If someone has a tool that can incapacitate the armed individual, the armed individual is justified in feeling that his life is in danger. That stress can, I imagine, lead to some somewhat altered perceptions of what is happening.[/quote]

The cop is saying he took his taser, some people are saying the cop USED the taser on him, we aren’t going to know. How calm the officer is while pulling the trigger on a guy who can barely run is horrifying. Just puts the rounds in him like it’s no big deal and goes about his business. [/quote]

We’d know if he used the taser because there’d be marks in his skin where the dart-like electrodes hit him, wouldn’t there?

66

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
MD is a duty to retreat state because we care more about criminals than law abiding citizens. [/quote]

Even in your home?[/quote]

I threw a quick edit up with a wiki reference to a MD case that address it. [/quote]

Doesn’t seem to apply in the home.

Furthermore, it is important to note that, in all US jurisdictions that I am aware of, the duty to retreat is only present if it can be done in complete safety to yourself and those under the mantle of your protection.

But this is getting off-track from the incident in SC. Duty to retreat is a non-factor with and LEO in a situation like that.
[/quote]

It’s not clear. It looks like it doesn’t apply when trying to prevent a violent offense. I don’t see anything regarding application after the event has occurred and the perpetrator is no longer an imminent threat. [/quote]

The way I read it was that the presence of an intruder in your home is a de-facto imminent threat, especially if said intruder has already committed violence inside your home.

Regarding the application after the event has taken place, well, if there is no imminent threat, what would you be retreating from anyway?

In very simple terms, the concept of “duty to retreat” would be illustrated with the following example.

A man with a knife yells at you to get out of your car while you are at a stop sign. You take out your gun and shoot him. Prosecutor charges you with , arguing that you violated your duty to retreat by failing to put your foot on the gas pedal and escape the threat.

67

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
MD is a duty to retreat state because we care more about criminals than law abiding citizens. [/quote]

Even in your home?[/quote]

I threw a quick edit up with a wiki reference to a MD case that address it. [/quote]

Doesn’t seem to apply in the home.

Furthermore, it is important to note that, in all US jurisdictions that I am aware of, the duty to retreat is only present if it can be done in complete safety to yourself and those under the mantle of your protection.

But this is getting off-track from the incident in SC. Duty to retreat is a non-factor with and LEO in a situation like that.
[/quote]

It’s not clear. It looks like it doesn’t apply when trying to prevent a violent offense. I don’t see anything regarding application after the event has occurred and the perpetrator is no longer an imminent threat. [/quote]

The way I read it was that the presence of an intruder in your home is a de-facto imminent threat, especially if said intruder has already committed violence inside your home.

Regarding the application after the event has taken place, well, if there is no imminent threat, what would you be retreating from anyway?

In very simple terms, the concept of “duty to retreat” would be illustrated with the following example.

A man with a knife yells at you to get out of your car while you are at a stop sign. You take out your gun and shoot him. Prosecutor charges you with , arguing that you violated your duty to retreat by failing to put your foot on the gas pedal and escape the threat.
[/quote]

Right, I’m going off the example I threw out there. Guy breaks in, rapes my wife, and goes to leave. I walk in and then shoot him as he’s leaving. I’m going to jail.

That’s how it reads to me.

68

Reaching for a cops weapon is essentially committing suicide by cop. If you’re that stupid, then good riddance.

69

[quote]Aggv wrote:
Reaching for a cops weapon is essentially committing suicide by cop. If you’re that stupid, then good riddance. [/quote]

According to the guy who MURDERED another guy running away he said he grabbed it (his taser.)

The other guy can’t tell his story because as he attempted to get away from the cop he calmly stood there and fired 8 times at him. After he was on the ground the cop ATTEMPTED to move an item (presumably the taser) near the VICTIM. And placed the dead man in handcuffs just in case the dead man tried to run.

Good riddance though?

Apparently some have no issues with cops playing judge, jury, and executioner usmc.

70

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:
Reaching for a cops weapon is essentially committing suicide by cop. If you’re that stupid, then good riddance. [/quote]

According to the guy who MURDERED another guy running away he said he grabbed it (his taser.)

The other guy can’t tell his story because as he attempted to get away from the cop he calmly stood there and fired 8 times at him. After he was on the ground the cop ATTEMPTED to move an item (presumably the taser) near the VICTIM. And placed the dead man in handcuffs just in case the dead man tried to run.

Good riddance though?

Apparently some have no issues with cops playing judge, jury, and executioner usmc. [/quote]

That’s pretty fucking stupid to go for a cops weapon

71

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

If a guy breaks in my house, rapes my wife, and runs away I am not allowed to shoot him in the back. [/quote]

There are places in America, where irrelevant of what the letter of the law says, aren’t going to charge you in this instance.

I live in MA, so I’d be going to prison for a long, long time. However other states are going to be a bit more understanding, depending on the circumstances. [/quote]

I live in MD so I’d be going to jail…[/quote]

I can’t think of any US jurisdiction where you wouldn’t. States may vary on things like duty to retreat, but the common denominator I’ve observed is that lethal force is only justified when there is an immediate threat to yourself or those under the mantle of your protection.

Not a past threat, not a future anticipated threat. The threat has to be present right there, right then, which a fleeing person is generally not.

Perhaps Beans can show me cases where this hasn’t been the case?
[/quote]

I’m saying you walk into you home and catch someone raping your wife… As you draw he gets up to leave and by the time you fire his back is turned…

There are LEO in America that aren’t going to put cuffs on you.

There have been father’s that beat their children’s attacker to death with their fists, meaning they could have stopped once the threat was incapacitated, and didn’t, that were not charged.[/quote]

In states that have a castle doctrine, you can usually shoot someone in the back if they are in your home. Being present inside your house is considered to put you in reasonable fear for your life.

Duty to retreat (stand your ground) only refers to the person using the force. It tells if you legally have the obligation to run away to avoid violence or not. It doesn’t deal with if you can shoot someone running away.
[/quote]

The castle doctrine just shifts the burden of proof further to the party on which it belongs(the state). It just means that the shooting is PRESUMED justifiable if it happens in the shooter’s abode. Being inside one’s home is not a get out of jail free card. It doesn’t grant any privilege to the homeowner.

Edit: I’m quite sure that you understand the doctrine, but I wanted to clarify.

72

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:
Reaching for a cops weapon is essentially committing suicide by cop. If you’re that stupid, then good riddance. [/quote]

According to the guy who MURDERED another guy running away he said he grabbed it (his taser.)

The other guy can’t tell his story because as he attempted to get away from the cop he calmly stood there and fired 8 times at him. After he was on the ground the cop ATTEMPTED to move an item (presumably the taser) near the VICTIM. And placed the dead man in handcuffs just in case the dead man tried to run.

Good riddance though?

Apparently some have no issues with cops playing judge, jury, and executioner usmc. [/quote]

That’s pretty fucking stupid to go for a cops weapon
[/quote]

How do you know he did? What are you basing any of your stuff on? The word of a man you don’t know and the actions of a video you won’t watch? Are you just blindly skipping anything that doesn’t fit what you seem to hope happened?

The video begins in the vacant lot, apparently moments after Officer Slager fired his Taser. Wires, which carry the electrical current from the stun gun, appear to be extending from Mr. Scott’s body as the two men tussle and Mr. Scott turns to run.

I guess I can’t understand people who think the government is ran by corrupt people but seems shocked at the assumption a government employee overstepped his bounds.

73

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:
Anytime someone is murdered, the first thing you look for is a motive… [/quote]

The video shows an unarmed man being killed. Even if he had just broken the law he should not have been gunned down.

[quote]
If it turns out this guy was just a fucked up homicidal maniac, then how did he get hired to be cop in the first place? [/quote]

Signs are missed all the time.

No, a police officer may not necessarily shoot a fleeing (even violent) felon. The officer must have probable cause to believe that the fleeing subject poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to the officer or others.

74

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I did not even know about the guy supposedly taking the officer’s taser, until today. If the guy took the officer’s taser, I can see this being justifiable or, at most, something less than murder. Every “fight” in which a police officer(or any openly armed person) is involved is a gun fight. If someone has a tool that can incapacitate the armed individual, the armed individual is justified in feeling that his life is in danger. That stress can, I imagine, lead to some somewhat altered perceptions of what is happening.[/quote]

The cop is saying he took his taser, some people are saying the cop USED the taser on him, we aren’t going to know. How calm the officer is while pulling the trigger on a guy who can barely run is horrifying. Just puts the rounds in him like it’s no big deal and goes about his business. [/quote]

He sounds like sniper material…

75

The interview with the kid who shot the video says before he started rolling, the cop had the guy on the ground. He said he couldn’t believe the cop shot the guy since before he got up and started running, he was down on the ground.

if you don’t believe me:

76

Come on, how is the guy running away an ongoing and immediate threat to the officer or the public?

Let’s say he did go for the taser prior to where the video picks up. Why would he go for a cop’s taser if he’s armed himself? Because he wasn’t. So he’s evading (running away) unarmed…

You don’t take a life over that. That officer is a murderer, barring some new information that I can’t even imagine.

77

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Come on, how is the guy running away an ongoing and immediate threat to the officer or the public?

Let’s say he did go for the taser prior to where the video picks up. Why would he go for a cop’s taser if he’s armed himself? Because he wasn’t. So he’s evading (running away) unarmed…

You don’t take a life over that. That officer is a murderer, barring some new information that I can’t even imagine.[/quote]

This.

If the cop ran up to him and blasted him a couple times with a night stick… I’d say “well that is what happens when you run from cops”.

If he beat him bloody with a night stick? Eh, I’d say the cop went overboard and is kinda a dick.

Shoot the guy? No. It isn’t like he was Usan Bolt out there, my 3 year old could have caught that dude.

Maybe there is some evidence out there that says I’m wrong, but I just don’t think this is going to come back a clean shoot, and this cop is going to have a real rough time in prison.

78

Let me start off by saying the cop was very wrong to shoot the man in the back and then plant evidence next to the body. But now that we have the dash cam video we also get to see the other side of this. Walter Scott did a dumb thing by getting out of his car and running.

This is a recurring theme with these incidents. Someone does something which gives the police a reason or excuse to impose their authority on them and they over react. The moral of the story is when having an encounter with the police remain calm, civil and orderly.

79

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Come on, how is the guy running away an ongoing and immediate threat to the officer or the public?

Let’s say he did go for the taser prior to where the video picks up. Why would he go for a cop’s taser if he’s armed himself? Because he wasn’t. So he’s evading (running away) unarmed…

You don’t take a life over that. That officer is a murderer, barring some new information that I can’t even imagine.[/quote]

This.

If the cop ran up to him and blasted him a couple times with a night stick… I’d say “well that is what happens when you run from cops”.

If he beat him bloody with a night stick? Eh, I’d say the cop went overboard and is kinda a dick.

Shoot the guy? No. It isn’t like he was Usan Bolt out there, my 3 year old could have caught that dude.

Maybe there is some evidence out there that says I’m wrong, but I just don’t think this is going to come back a clean shoot, and this cop is going to have a real rough time in prison. [/quote]

I gotta tell you, the way that officer drew down on that guy, nice and calm like, makes me think the guy might have done it before, or at least envisioned it so many times in his head that when the moment for action actually arrived, he was more than ready to act.

I thought the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown shootings were legitimate. Zimmerman wasn’t a cop, so I suppose he’s a little irrelevant to this topic, but Officer Wilson obviously was. Aside from that, though, after seeing this video there is simply no way I am going to give a police officer the benefit of the doubt until more information becomes available.

I mean, the fucking guy drew down on a person running away, who presented absolutely zero threat to the officer, and then he even makes an attempt to alter the crime scene and compromise evidence.

Like I said in my first post in this thread, this doesn’t mean that every cop who kills a black guy is another version of this fucking murderer, but it undeniably does lend a little bit of credence to that argument. Naturally, people will take this example and run with it far more than is appropriate.

It’s like stereotypes. They are applied way too liberally, but they’re typically rooted in truth.

80

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Let me start off by saying the cop was very wrong to shoot the man in the back and then plant evidence next to the body. But now that we have the dash cam video we also get to see the other side of this. Walter Scott did a dumb thing by getting out of his car and running.

This is a recurring theme with these incidents. Someone does something which gives the police a reason or excuse to impose their authority on them and they over react. The moral of the story is when having an encounter with the police remain calm, civil and orderly.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/09/us/south-carolina-police-shooting/[/quote]

Sounds to me like you’re saying the moral of the story is to remain calm and civil, or you’ll get fucking shot. If that’s the way encounters with the police go, then we need new police.