Southern cop shoots man running away in the back..

[Liminal]

These laws?

SUBCHAPTER IV. ARREST.

GS 15A-401

(2) A law-enforcement officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection only when it is or appears to be reasonably necessary thereby:

a. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;

b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; or

c. To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon him as a result of conviction for a felony. ​

Yes, those laws.

Did you read them?

Specifically subsection b.

b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; ​

Sounds exactly like what I posted in post #4 of this thread.

"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 felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
​

I've seen no indication the man shot and killed committed a felony.

He attacked the police officer after the officers tazer either misfired or failed to make adequate contact with the offender. The offender is grappling with the officer at the beginning of the video, and the tazer that the officer said the offender stripped from him is laying on the ground. When the officer breaks away from the offender grip, the officer reaches for his service weapon. When the offender realize the officers gun hand was free of his restraint, he attempts to flea a second time.

I said it earlier...what was the offenders plan attacking the officer? He could jst hold him waiting for help to arrive, and he couldn't release him while the officer was in possession of his sidearm. That only leaves three alternatives, one of which we can dismiss out of hand...which is surrender. The two others are to incapacitate the officer or kill him. That is the definition of grievous bodily harm or death.

The officer was no longer in any kind of danger while the suspect was running away.

The officer has also been arrested and charged.

The system is working.

Where's the beef?

No beef with the law, only with ignorant people.

 

[Asclepias]

These laws?

SUBCHAPTER IV. ARREST.

GS 15A-401

(2) A law-enforcement officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection only when it is or appears to be reasonably necessary thereby:

a. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;

b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; or

c. To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon him as a result of conviction for a felony. ​

Yes, those laws.

Did you read them?

Specifically subsection b.

b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; ​

Sounds exactly like what I posted in post #4 of this thread.

"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 felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
​

I've seen no indication the man shot and killed committed a felony.

He attacked the police officer after the officers tazer either misfired or failed to make adequate contact with the offender. The offender is grappling with the officer at the beginning of the video, and the tazer that the officer said the offender stripped from him is laying on the ground. When the officer breaks away from the offender grip, the officer reaches for his service weapon. When the offender realize the officers gun hand was free of his restraint, he attempts to flea a second time.

I said it earlier...what was the offenders plan attacking the officer? He could jst hold him waiting for help to arrive, and he couldn't release him while the officer was in possession of his sidearm. That only leaves three alternatives, one of which we can dismiss out of hand...which is surrender. The two others are to incapacitate the officer or kill him. That is the definition of grievous bodily harm or death.

The officer was no longer in any kind of danger while the suspect was running away.

The officer has also been arrested and charged.

The system is working.

Where's the beef?

Who said there was a beef? The post is talking about whether or not the cop was justified.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You DO know what the "normal fashion" is when it comes to convicting cops dont you?

I'm referring to the legal process. This being the system where we grant a charged individual their day in court.
Hopefully these people and you are not calling for the man to be dragged from his cell and lynched in the public square.

I asked you if you know what the normal fashion is when it comes to convicting cops?

Because you seem to believe that people should wait and see...but if you know what the "normal fashion" is we can predict it pretty easily

Regardless of outcomes in the past, this guy will still get his day to defend himself, and right now he's in jail and has been properly charged. That's the most we can do for now, unless you are calling for a new system that allows instantaneous punishments.

Well thats the only way you can avoid answering what the "normal fashion" is when it comes to killer cops. Ignore the past.

What is the "normal" fashion to you ? Cops NEVER getting convicted ? Not that it has anything to do with this case.

Its not about what I THINK is normal fashion all you have to do is look at the past as an indicator.

 

[cnm]

Yes, those laws.

Did you read them? [...]

​

Yes. They don't apply here.

 

[Asclepias]

Now that the monkey Conservative has left, can someone please explain why the victim is being accused of grabbing the taser or even resisting arrest? Are we taking this off the officers original report?

 

[guno]

Looks like my original title was changed on this thread

 

[Missourian]

You said he attacked the police officer. Who's account is this?

It's on the video. You can see the end of the attack and with the tazer being knocked out of the officers hand at around the 17 second point...you can infer that the struggle has been protracted...what else would have attracted the attention of the videographer?

Initially, I thought that the officer moved the tazer closer to the victem, but that is clearly not the case after multiple viewings of the recording. The tazer goes flying behind the officer...I have no idea what that was on the ground that he picked up, but it wasn't the tazer.

 

[Asclepias]

You said he attacked the police officer. Who's account is this?

It's on the video. You can see the end of the attack and with the tazer being knocked out of the officers hand at around the 17 second point...you can infer that the struggle has been protracted...what else would have attracted the attention of the videographer?

Initially, I thought that the officer moved the tazer closer to the victem, but that is clearly not the case after multiple viewings of the recording. The tazer goes flying behind the officer...I have no idea what that was on the ground that he picked up, but it wasn't the tazer.

You can also infer that the office attacked for no reason and the victim was defending himself. That would attract my attention and has in the past.

 

[Missourian]

Now that the monkey Conservative has left, can someone please explain why the victim is being accused of grabbing the taser or even resisting arrest? Are we taking this off the officers original report?

Watch the video, just as the camera is put on the fence. I had to really slow it down to see it...pause, play, pause, play, rewind and do it again.

 

[Conservative65]

Yes, those laws.

Did you read them?

Specifically subsection b.

b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; ​

Sounds exactly like what I posted in post #4 of this thread.

"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 felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
​

I've seen no indication the man shot and killed committed a felony.

He attacked the police officer after the officers tazer either misfired or failed to make adequate contact with the offender. The offender is grappling with the officer at the beginning of the video, and the tazer that the officer said the offender stripped from him is laying on the ground. When the officer breaks away from the offender grip, the officer reaches for his service weapon. When the offender realize the officers gun hand was free of his restraint, he attempts to flea a second time.

I said it earlier...what was the offenders plan attacking the officer? He could jst hold him waiting for help to arrive, and he couldn't release him while the officer was in possession of his sidearm. That only leaves three alternatives, one of which we can dismiss out of hand...which is surrender. The two others are to incapacitate the officer or kill him. That is the definition of grievous bodily harm or death.

The officer was no longer in any kind of danger while the suspect was running away.

The officer has also been arrested and charged.

The system is working.

Where's the beef?

No beef with the law, only with ignorant people.

Problem is unless someone thinks like you, they're ignorant to you.

 

[Missourian]

You said he attacked the police officer. Who's account is this?

It's on the video. You can see the end of the attack and with the tazer being knocked out of the officers hand at around the 17 second point...you can infer that the struggle has been protracted...what else would have attracted the attention of the videographer?

Initially, I thought that the officer moved the tazer closer to the victem, but that is clearly not the case after multiple viewings of the recording. The tazer goes flying behind the officer...I have no idea what that was on the ground that he picked up, but it wasn't the tazer.

You can also infer that the office attacked for no reason and the victim was defending himself. That would attract my attention and has in the past.

No, you can't. The officer was in pursuit of a person illegally fleeing a traffic stop...therefore he cannot "attack for no reason". Scott attacking the officer and stripping away his less-than-legal device was a felony.

What Wilson Scott SHOULD have done is surrender...not attack the officer.

 

[Asclepias]

You said he attacked the police officer. Who's account is this?

It's on the video. You can see the end of the attack and with the tazer being knocked out of the officers hand at around the 17 second point...you can infer that the struggle has been protracted...what else would have attracted the attention of the videographer?

Initially, I thought that the officer moved the tazer closer to the victem, but that is clearly not the case after multiple viewings of the recording. The tazer goes flying behind the officer...I have no idea what that was on the ground that he picked up, but it wasn't the tazer.

You can also infer that the office attacked for no reason and the victim was defending himself. That would attract my attention and has in the past.

No, you can't. The officer was in pursuit of a person illegally fleeing a traffic stop...therefore he cannot "attack for no reason". Scott attacking the officer and stripping away his less-than-legal device was a felony.

What Wilson Scott SHOULD have done is surrender...not attack the officer.

How do we know the stop wasn't illegal?

 

[Asclepias]

Now that the monkey Conservative has left, can someone please explain why the victim is being accused of grabbing the taser or even resisting arrest? Are we taking this off the officers original report?

Watch the video, just as the camera is put on the fence. I had to really slow it down to see it...pause, play, pause, play, rewind and do it again.

I saw that but what I'm wondering is if the cop lied about killing the guy what makes the rest of his story any more believable if that video can be interpreted in many different ways? You see him resisting arrest I see someone trying to protect themselves.

 

[Missourian]

You said he attacked the police officer. Who's account is this?

It's on the video. You can see the end of the attack and with the tazer being knocked out of the officers hand at around the 17 second point...you can infer that the struggle has been protracted...what else would have attracted the attention of the videographer?

Initially, I thought that the officer moved the tazer closer to the victem, but that is clearly not the case after multiple viewings of the recording. The tazer goes flying behind the officer...I have no idea what that was on the ground that he picked up, but it wasn't the tazer.

You can also infer that the office attacked for no reason and the victim was defending himself. That would attract my attention and has in the past.

No, you can't. The officer was in pursuit of a person illegally fleeing a traffic stop...therefore he cannot "attack for no reason". Scott attacking the officer and stripping away his less-than-legal device was a felony.

What Wilson Scott SHOULD have done is surrender...not attack the officer.

How do we know the stop wasn't illegal?

Do you have any evidence that it was? And I'm not crappin' on the idea, I've been stopped illegally more than once. "You veered onto the yellow line." Bullcrap, you just wanted to stop me an see what I was doing at 2am.

 

[initforme]

Why 8 times? 8 shots? I totally don't understand that. And can't the cop subdue the guy without lethal force? Is he that out of shape? Well it is south Carolina. That does say ALOT.

 

[Missourian]

Now that the monkey Conservative has left, can someone please explain why the victim is being accused of grabbing the taser or even resisting arrest? Are we taking this off the officers original report?

Watch the video, just as the camera is put on the fence. I had to really slow it down to see it...pause, play, pause, play, rewind and do it again.

I saw that but what I'm wondering is if the cop lied about killing the guy what makes the rest of his story any more believable if that video can be interpreted in many different ways? You see him resisting arrest I see someone trying to protect themselves.

That might me a valid argument if Scott didn't have an outstanding warrant. When you have an outstanding warrant, there is nothing to defend yourself from. The officer is lawfully apprehending Scott.

I

 

[Missourian]

I saw that but what I'm wondering is if the cop lied about killing the guy what makes the rest of his story any more believable if that video can be interpreted in many different ways? You see him resisting arrest I see someone trying to protect themselves.

Also, I'm wondering what you contend the officer lied about?

He could have very easily been in fear for his life if Scott was attempting to take his tazer.

I'm not sure how many separate tazer deployments are available in a police issue tazer without reloading...but if it is more than one, there was a very real threat.

It's very possible the officer didn't know where the tazer ended up, and that Scott had taken it. The tazer ends up behind the officer and outside his field of view. It took several viewing of the video for me to locate it...imagine how quick it was real time.

This is what I mean by Monday Morning Quarterbacking. We have all of infinity to second guess this officers decisions, he had a split second.

 

[Missourian]

Why 8 times? 8 shots? I totally don't understand that. And can't the cop subdue the guy without lethal force? Is he that out of shape? Well it is south Carolina. That does say ALOT.

It appears in the video that the officer believes that Scott is in possession of his tazer. When a criminal possesses a stun gun, it can be considered under law a dangerous or deadly weapon.


Court of Appeals rules stun guns are deadly weapons

 

[Liminal]

I've seen no indication the man shot and killed committed a felony.

He attacked the police officer after the officers tazer either misfired or failed to make adequate contact with the offender. The offender is grappling with the officer at the beginning of the video, and the tazer that the officer said the offender stripped from him is laying on the ground. When the officer breaks away from the offender grip, the officer reaches for his service weapon. When the offender realize the officers gun hand was free of his restraint, he attempts to flea a second time.

I said it earlier...what was the offenders plan attacking the officer? He could jst hold him waiting for help to arrive, and he couldn't release him while the officer was in possession of his sidearm. That only leaves three alternatives, one of which we can dismiss out of hand...which is surrender. The two others are to incapacitate the officer or kill him. That is the definition of grievous bodily harm or death.

The officer was no longer in any kind of danger while the suspect was running away.

The officer has also been arrested and charged.

The system is working.

Where's the beef?

No beef with the law, only with ignorant people.

Problem is unless someone thinks like you, they're ignorant to you.

Please stop claiming to be white, you are an embarrassment to your race.

 

[Faun]

We all know both you pink pig skinned monkeys together wouldnt be brave enough to look me in the eye. You would ten of you monkeys with guns before you would even give me a stern look.

Keep dreaming ape.

Why would I dream ape? I'm Black and not a cave monkey like you are.

You're not black. You're a greasy n*gger and there's a difference.

Wow. Your true colors are shining through... Thank god for the anonimity of the internet..

My true color is white. How about yours?

Why is it that virtually every racist like you on this website is conservative?