Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You facetiously opine that (someone) should shoot, when in doubt - problem solved - without specifying which party you're referring to, and then somebody else asks whom you are referring to - the cops or the suspects - and then you get your panties in a twist, when somebody asks you to be more specific. Lighten up, Francis.How rude. And unprovoked, no less. OK. Fine. Your choice. What stupid question did I ask of you, my little asswipe? And this time, answer the phukking question.Whom are you suggesting should shoot when in doubt?...Whom are you suggesting should shoot?
Yourself if you keep asking stupid questions.
Oh I see, I take it back then, my mistake, it was really a very intelligent question.
The video clearly shows the officer had no fear for his life or others. Yup, the video is a just view of the event.
The man who was shot attacked the officer and stripped him of his tazer.
A valid criticism would be that the officer tampered with evidence. But the is nothing unlawful in shooting a dangerous fleeing felon...back front or sideways, armed or unarmed, in most states."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
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
Stupid citizens! Everyone can agree that the officer was in the wrong. In fact, he is in jail charged with murder. So what do the idiots do after the Chief of Police has a meeting to talk about the crime? The dumb-assed citizens start chanting " no justice, no peace". Are they so fucking stupid they don't realize justice is being served? The cop is in jail..charged with murder. I can't understand such stupidity from a group of people. When are they going to get an IQ over room temperature?
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
How is running away from a cop being a threat to anyone?
The man was stopped for a broken tail light. Not because he robbed a bank or was a serial killer.
A broken tail light isn't the same thing as being a threat to anyone.
I don't know how you come to your conclusions but please tell me this, if you're right then why did the cop lie on his report? Why did the cop plant evidence to frame that man?
Yeah...I probably do have you confused with someone else.I have seen the guys posts...it is a plausible assumption.
You must be thinking of someone else. I try to be respectful to everyone, regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or political position. I ain't perfect, but I do my best.
Although I do seem to remember saying that your screen name complied with all known truth-in-packaging laws.
And, undoubtedly, the judge will not allow the defense to use it.I do wonder though what the law is in South Carolina. But even if that state has no Fleeing felon rule, the cop's attorney can still go to the SCOTUS decison in Tennesse vs Garner, and claim justifiable homicide.
NBC just showed the whole video in slow motion, the officer clearly attempts to plant evidence.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
How is running away from a cop being a threat to anyone?
The man was stopped for a broken tail light. Not because he robbed a bank or was a serial killer.
A broken tail light isn't the same thing as being a threat to anyone.
I don't know how you come to your conclusions but please tell me this, if you're right then why did the cop lie on his report? Why did the cop plant evidence to frame that man?
He didn't plant evidence...or I should say he didn't plant the tazer. I have no idea what that was, but it wasn't the tazer.
The tazer is knocked out of the officers hand by the offender. I believe that the officer will argue that he believed that Scott had the tazer in his possession.
Having a broken tail light is a crime. Defective equipment. Your issue is with the law, not the officer.
Then the guy ran from the officer...for all the officer knows the guy IS a bank robber or serial killer. Fleeing from the scene of a traffic stop is also a crime.
I am unsure what lie the officer is accused of telling.
If the tazer was capable of firing a second shot without reloading, the officer wasn't lying when he claimed to be in fear for his life.
That right there is going to be the crux of his defense...and if the tazer COULD fire again without reloading, this officer is going to walk...that's my cast iron guaranty.
You facetiously opine that (someone) should shoot, when in doubt - problem solved - without specifying which party you're referring to, and then somebody else asks whom you are referring to - the cops or the suspects - and then you get your panties in a twist, when somebody asks you to be more specific. Lighten up, Francis.How rude. And unprovoked, no less. OK. Fine. Your choice. What stupid question did I ask of you, my little asswipe? And this time, answer the phukking question.Whom are you suggesting should shoot when in doubt?...Whom are you suggesting should shoot?
Yourself if you keep asking stupid questions.
Oh I see, I take it back then, my mistake, it was really a very intelligent question.
The witness who saw the incident will fill in the beginning of the actions. That and the vid will fry the cop.
White cop shoots black man and it's all over national news.
However, news like this will pass by as something normal today... Philly Teens Charged in Shooting of Man Walking Dog
They don't even mention black teens and white victim. It's not important.
The video clearly shows the officer had no fear for his life or others. Yup, the video is a just view of the event.
The man who was shot attacked the officer and stripped him of his tazer.
A valid criticism would be that the officer tampered with evidence. But the is nothing unlawful in shooting a dangerous fleeing felon...back front or sideways, armed or unarmed, in most states."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 do wonder though what the law is in South Carolina. But even if that state has no Fleeing felon rule, the cop's attorney can still go to the SCOTUS decison in Tennesse vs Garner, and claim justifiable homicide.
Yeah...I probably do have you confused with someone else.I have seen the guys posts...it is a plausible assumption.
You must be thinking of someone else. I try to be respectful to everyone, regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or political position. I ain't perfect, but I do my best.
Although I do seem to remember saying that your screen name complied with all known truth-in-packaging laws.
No sweat...it happens.
NBC just showed the whole video in slow motion, the officer clearly attempts to plant evidence.
I watched shooting video again few times.
Did cop said that Walter Scott tazed him? What if he did? Maybe we don't know all that happen.
Here is the screenshot... to me, it looks like tazer wires hanging from his arm...
NBC just showed the whole video in slow motion, the officer clearly attempts to plant evidence.
I thought he was too, when I first saw the video. I don't know what that is that he runs back and picks up...but what it ISN'T is the tazer. The tazer flies back behind the officer and rolls end over end in the grass 10-15 feet straight back. Whatever that is that he picks up is already on the ground when the tazer is knocked out of the officers hand.
Watch at second 17-18, just as the camera is turned and set on the fence...watch behind the officer.
