So you too are relying solely on what was shown on the video as evidence of what happened?
South Carolina Officer Is Charged With Murder in Black Man’s Death
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
So you too are relying solely on what was shown on the video as evidence of what happened?
Oh. Apparently I was mistaken. Although, running from the police can be a felony, in certain circumstances, according to this.
Frankly, I think that it should be a felony in all cases. A felony should involve a serious injury against the common good or, else, a serious violation of justice. Running from the police puts the police officer, who is an authority set over the common good, in serious danger.
Realistically, our policeman could give the following argument:
That guy ran from me. I had no idea if he was armed or not. I had no idea if he had accomplices or not. I had no idea if he was high on drugs or not. In other words, I had no idea what kind of threat he actually posed. However, as a policeman, it was my duty to stop him. Had I chased him, who knows in what danger I would have been? I felt that the safer course of action was to stop him with bullets. And, in fact, look! I was right! It was safer! I'm perfectly fine now.
Do I think that this argument would work in a divine court? No way.
Should it work in a human court? You betcha.
Had you gotten gunned down, it would have been your own fault. :idunno:
Nothing in the video tells us that he shot the suspect because he was black. You're reading too much into it.
The video is the only thing there is. The video does not match up with the officers radio communications of the event. Simple facts of the case.
You can see from the video that the officer had his service weapon in his holster and the suspect never made a grab for it. You can also see in the video that there are taser leads between the suspect and the officer as the suspect starts to run. This is not a liberal or conservative, it is a simple case facts.
Why don't you tell us why the officer was justified to fire 8 rounds at the back of a fleeing suspect who had no weapon of his own.
He was shot in the back running away. Thats clear.
Quincy
New member
Has anyone ever asked about or mentioned why this man was outside of his vehicle, to begin with? Did the man get out on his own or did the cop make him? Is it normal procedure for people to be asked to exit their car when pulled over in SC over minor traffic violations?
I doubt it.
I doubt it.
You like what this cop did because it fits in with your Judge Dredd philosophy. I think it does far more to show why your idea is so terrible.Oh. Apparently I was mistaken. Although, running from the police can be a felony, in certain circumstances, according to this.
Frankly, I think that it should be a felony in all cases. A felony should involve a serious injury against the common good or, else, a serious violation of justice. Running from the police puts the police officer, who is an authority set over the common good, in serious danger.
Realistically, our policeman could give the following argument:
That guy ran from me. I had no idea if he was armed or not. I had no idea if he had accomplices or not. I had no idea if he was high on drugs or not. In other words, I had no idea what kind of threat he actually posed. However, as a policeman, it was my duty to stop him. Had I chased him, who knows in what danger I would have been? I felt that the safer course of action was to stop him with bullets. And, in fact, look! I was right! It was safer! I'm perfectly fine now.
Do I think that this argument would work in a divine court? No way.
Should it work in a human court? You betcha.
He had outstanding warrants related to failure to pay child support. He was originally pulled over for a broken tail light and stopped in the parking lot of a convenience store. After the officer ran his ID, he asked the suspect to get of his car. That is when the man fled into the field where the video was captured.
shagster01
New member
Why? What would I have done worthy of death?
I bet this cop wouldn't have fired if it was his own sister though.... :think:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So you too are relying solely on what was shown on the video as evidence of what happened?
So that would be a "Yes" to the question?
Don't you find it rather odd that the video footage started the very second that the felon ran?
I'd be interested in learning more about Feidin Santana and if he has a beef with law enforcement.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/wa...ed-walter-scott-being-shot-speaks-out-n338126
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So you too are relying solely on what was shown on the video as evidence of what happened?
So that would be a "Yes" to the question?
Don't you find it rather odd that the video footage started the very second that the felon ran?
I'd be interested in learning more about Feidin Santana and if he has a beef with law enforcement.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/wa...ed-walter-scott-being-shot-speaks-out-n338126
It's rare. A felony of this sort usually involves some physical struggle/altercation with the police or act of wreckless endangerment.
What's serious injury entail? Actual harm? The threat of actual harm? Sure, to people, not to ideas.
Well, not usually, no. But it can and often will put others at risk and there's the assault and/or endangerment.
Then you have no idea whether or not lethal force is justified. I mean, you could make the same claims about someone sitting in their car before you have time to reasonably examine them. Doesn't mean you should walk up shooting or start pumping lead into the car if they pull away at, say, five miles an hour and you don't feel like running to your car.
Just doesn't appear reasonable or proportionate in relation to what's actually known. "Your honor, for all I know he had a very tiny nuclear device on his person and there was a school somewhere within the potential blast radius," by way of example, won't usually fly with a judge. *
* Excepting, potentially, parts of Texas.
But then, we've already established you don't know very much about human courts. Thankfully, it's a curable condition, if you've of a mind to inform yourself.
Feel free to drop a question in the legal thread. Unsurprisingly, there's a lot of idle time there.
Again, 8 times in the back of a man running away? Hows that a threat?
And what would that mean for the video? How would it in any way change that the cop fired at the back of an unarmed fleeing suspect while attempting to claim he was in fear for his life?
I'm just pointing out. If you run from the police, you are at a much higher risk of getting shot by the police. Therefore, had you gotten gunned down, it would have been your own fault. You could have avoided that outcome by surrendering.
What's your point? In that case, he wouldn't have shot because there would have been fewer unknowns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
A lot isn't revealed in the video. Wait, are you relying solely on what is shown in the video as proof of what happened? (Of course he is, he's a liberal).
A video that started the very second the suspect took flight from the officer in the field. Probably a coincidence huh?
Give us a detailed text of the officer's radio communication with NCPD Dispatch please.
Quote:
So what you're saying is that the deceased criminal didn't even attempt to take the officer's service weapon and the officer dropped it on the ground all by himself and then shot the fleeing criminal for failing to comply to the officer's lawful commands to stop?
(Liberalism truly is a mental disorder).
A taser is also considered a service weapon and had it been used against the officer would have at a minimum rendered him helpless.
Review my post on page 1 regarding the SCOTUS ruling on fleeing felons.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
A lot isn't revealed in the video. Wait, are you relying solely on what is shown in the video as proof of what happened? (Of course he is, he's a liberal).
A video that started the very second the suspect took flight from the officer in the field. Probably a coincidence huh?
Give us a detailed text of the officer's radio communication with NCPD Dispatch please.
Quote:
So what you're saying is that the deceased criminal didn't even attempt to take the officer's service weapon and the officer dropped it on the ground all by himself and then shot the fleeing criminal for failing to comply to the officer's lawful commands to stop?
(Liberalism truly is a mental disorder).
A taser is also considered a service weapon and had it been used against the officer would have at a minimum rendered him helpless.
Review my post on page 1 regarding the SCOTUS ruling on fleeing felons.
I completely agree with this. Based on the video, we do not know the context in which the shooting took place. Yes, we know that the policeman shot an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back 8 or so times. But what happened right before? What was the context?
True enough. And if you're just walking around in the field of fire too.
That doesn't follow reasonably. If the officer doesn't have the right/authority to use lethal force then it isn't the victim's fault, even though their activity was instrumental in the result.
So I can jaywalk and if I'm hit by a car it's on me, but if a policeman guns me down over it then it's not really.
That's true. It's also possible that the office could have avoided killing me by not using lethal force absent justification. Chase me, call for back up, that sort of thing.
Do you walk around with your video camera at the ready every second of the day? I don't. If I came upon a situation like this it would take a bit of time to get my phone out, unlock it and start the camera app.
Watch the video on the various news sources, they have the radio communications.
Note that I said taser leads meaning that the weapon had already been fired. It was useless at this point.
So "Yes" you are relying solely on what the video showed as evidence.
It's difficult to have an intelligent conversation with people who aren't familiar with the law nor the criminal element.
The officer, based on the SCOTUS ruling that I posted on page 1, was legally allowed to use deadly force against the fleeing suspect (who committed a felony by attempting to take his service weapon away from him) if he did indeed believe that said felon would be a danger to him or others.
Forgive me for not relying on the words of the Obama owned media or the video of some Hispanic kid who coincidentally started the video footage the very second that the suspect took flight, as I know there is more to the story.
What is the officers probable cause for believing that other citizens or officers were in trouble? Your claim, you support it.