Southern cop shoots man running away in the back..

[2aguy]

No you're wrong. The officer had no justification to discharge his weapon, that's why he out of a job and being charged with murder.

Except the law says different.

Note the caveat "reasonably believes".

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.


​

-------------------------------------------

A legal definitions from South Carolina:

SECTION 16-23-10. Definitions.

When used in this article:

(4) "Fugitive from justice" means any person who has fled from or is fleeing from any law enforcement officer to avoid prosecution or imprisonment for a crime of violence.​

An appeals court ruling:

November 02, 2011
Is a stun gun a dangerous weapon capable of inflicting deadly force? That is a question we have raised here on several occasions and suggested that they should be treated as deadly weapons.

Yesterday (11-1-11) the N. C. Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, agreed with our reasoning.

In the case of the State v. Riveria the court ruled that a stun gun (an X26 Taser) "is a dangerous weapon that endangered or threatened Scott's (victim) life." You can read the actual decision by clicking here.

Court of Appeals rules stun guns are deadly weapons
​

-------------------------------------

And a South Carolina Law:

SECTION 16-23-415. Taking firearm or other weapon from law enforcement officer.

An individual who takes a firearm, stun gun, or taser device from the person of a law enforcement officer or a corrections officer is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned for not more than five years, or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both, if all of the following circumstances exist at the time the firearm is taken:

(1) the individual knows or has reason to believe the person from whom the weapon is taken is a law enforcement officer or a corrections officer;

(2) the law enforcement officer or corrections officer is performing his duties as a law enforcement officer or a corrections officer, or the individual's taking of the weapon is directly related to the law enforcement officer's or corrections officer's professional responsibilities;

(3) the individual takes the weapon without consent of the law enforcement officer or corrections officer;

(4) the law enforcement officer is authorized by his employer to carry the weapon in the line of duty; and

(5) the law enforcement officer or corrections officer is authorized by his employer to carry the weapon while off duty and has identified himself as a law enforcement officer.

HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 3, eff June 9, 2006.​

Other than the officer's claim, there is no evidence Scott committed any "crime of violence." He was pulled over for a traffic violation (non-violent) and was purportedly being arrested for not being up to date on child support payments (non-violent).

Other than the officer's claim, there is no evidence he took the taser from the cop.

Other than the officer's claim, there is no evidence his own safety was in danger from the taser.

Basically, nothing you highlighted above seems to apply here.

Regardless of anything to do with the tazer...once he turned and ran no shots should have been fired, at all....sadly, adrenaline took over and the cop couldn't control it......

 

[Faun]

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.

There is no evidence in that video that Scott attacked the cop.

What you're seeing in that initial frame where the two can first be seen is the cop holding Scott's arm with his left hand...

... the taser goes flying from Slager's grip, not because Scott "knocked" it out of the cop's hand but because the taser's wires were still attached to Scott as he began to flee...

The witness who took the video said they were on the ground when he walked up...........

So? He also said the cop had control. Sounds like they were on the ground because the cop was possibly trying to arrest Scott.

 

[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
​

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?

Running away from a cop is a threat to everyone if the suspect is a violent criminal, and he escapes. His escape puts him in position to attack anyone and everyone, after this event. That is where/how he is a threat.

As for the cop lying on a report, IF he did, then he could be prosecuted for THAT, not capital murder.

Maybe you didn't watch the video, it was an execution.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Oh my heavens! I just saw the stills at the Daily Mail. Unfreaking real.

Cold blooded murder. Thank goodness someone captured this. All over a lousy broken tail light.

I can't believe what I'm looking at.

Yeah, shot for the tail light.

Not for resisting arrest, and running from warrants for the lowest crime of all, failure to support children he fathered.

It's all about the tail light, yeah, right.

It is all about karma.

Pay your fuckin' child support, and you don't have these problems.

Notice how the lefties turn it into about being about a tail light. They also missed the part about Michael Brown attacking Darren Wilson. It's about convenience to them.

Lets talk someday, when you white mother****** began getting the same treatment minorities get in this effin country......trust me, yaw do the same exact shttt, you just live to talk about it, we don't!!

I've been pulled over with an outstanding warrant. My "survival" had nothing to do with my skin color. I turned the vehicle off, rolled down the window, placed the keys on the roof and put both hands out the window.

I didn't run away, I didn't fight with the police, I knew I was wrong and I took my medicine...I'd like to say "like a man" but that's not true...a man wouldn't have gotten himself in that position in the first place.

So, I walked away not because of my skin color, but because I understood the process of being arrested.

Black racists will riot anyway.

Has anyone called Sharpton yet?

The question should be, HOW WILL FOX NEWS SPIN THIS?

If you're suggesting FOX will rally around the officer, you're wrong.

 

[Conservative65]

Oh my heavens! I just saw the stills at the Daily Mail. Unfreaking real.

Cold blooded murder. Thank goodness someone captured this. All over a lousy broken tail light.

I can't believe what I'm looking at.

Yeah, shot for the tail light.

Not for resisting arrest, and running from warrants for the lowest crime of all, failure to support children he fathered.

It's all about the tail light, yeah, right.

It is all about karma.

Pay your fuckin' child support, and you don't have these problems.

Notice how the lefties turn it into about being about a tail light. They also missed the part about Michael Brown attacking Darren Wilson. It's about convenience to them.

Lets talk someday, when you white mother****** began getting the same treatment minorities get in this effin country......trust me, yaw do the same exact shttt, you just live to talk about it, we don't!!

I've been pulled over with an outstanding warrant. My "survival" had nothing to do with my skin color. I turned the vehicle off, rolled down the window, placed the keys on the roof and put both hands out the window.

I didn't run away, I didn't fight with the police, I knew I was wrong and I took my medicine...I'd like to say "like a man" but that's not true...a man wouldn't have gotten himself in that position in the first place.

So, I walked away not because of my skin color, but because I understood the process of being arrested.

When I get pulled, I can behave how ever I like. I can stare down the cop when he comes to my window, I can use the vilest language you've ever heard. I can point my guns at him, or The cop and I usually fist bump, and nod at each other.

Black racists will riot anyway.

Has anyone called Sharpton yet?

The question should be, HOW WILL FOX NEWS SPIN THIS?

If you're suggesting FOX will rally around the officer, you're wrong.

People can act however they want. Problem is when they act certain ways and the cop reacts to it in a way they don't like, they wonder what happened.

 

[Dana7360]

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 need to learn more of the details of this case.

The police reports were released to the public yesterday. In that police report they claim they did CPR on him. Which they didn't do. I would have to go and read the reports again for the other lies, that was the one I could remember. Better yet, why don't you read those reports?

A broken taillight isn't a felony. The law says to be able to shoot a fleeing person they have to be a felon and have to be a serious risk to the community.

The cop ran his background when he was first stopped. That's just proper police procedure.If he had been a felon then the cop would have arrested him on the spot. The police would have already released his arrest record to the public and not charged the police who shot him with murder.

Which that man wasn't a felon. A broken tail light isn't a serious risk to the community. If it was then the penalty for it would be death not just a fine and a misdemeanor.

You're incorrect in your analysis.

If the situation was what you claim it to be, then why did the police force stop defending him and charge him with murder?

And please tell me what felony the man committed.

I didn't say the cop planted at tazer. I said the cop planted evidence. Which he clearly did in the video. We don't know what it was that he planted but the video clearly shows he planted something in an effort to cover his own butt for murdering that man.

 

[Liminal]

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]

"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
​

The officer in question is a murderer and a coward, he deserves whatever happens to him.

 

[Dana7360]

Watch the witness on the TV shows tomorrow morning.

I think you will find him quiet, articulate, sad for both families, and convincing.

That seems like a good post to end on. Let's see what the witness says, and I'll be interested to find out what the object was that the officer moved.

Good night all.

Lawrence O'Donnell played the interview on his show last night.

The thing is you would have to turn off fox news and turn the channel to MSNBC which I have a feeling is something you wouldn't do.

He also showed the police reports and read parts of it on the air.

 

[Papageorgio]

Watch the witness on the TV shows tomorrow morning.

I think you will find him quiet, articulate, sad for both families, and convincing.

That seems like a good post to end on. Let's see what the witness says, and I'll be interested to find out what the object was that the officer moved.

Good night all.

Lawrence O'Donnell played the interview on his show last night.

The thing is you would have to turn off fox news and turn the channel to MSNBC which I have a feeling is something you wouldn't do.

He also showed the police reports and read parts of it on the air.

Gee, FOXNews or MSNBC, I don't watch either. Lol! I don't trust either to be fair or accurate.

 

[Dana7360]

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?

Running away from a cop is a threat to everyone if the suspect is a violent criminal, and he escapes. His escape puts him in position to attack anyone and everyone, after this event. That is where/how he is a threat.

As for the cop lying on a report, IF he did, then he could be prosecuted for THAT, not capital murder.

How is having a tail light out being a violent felon? What proof do you have that he was a violent felon? If he had a felony record I'm sure that it would have been released by now. It's a public record and I'm sure some right winger would have found it by now and let us all know about it.

I have read the reports. I have seen the reports presented on the news.

In that report the cops claim they did CPR on him. Do you see anyone doing CPR on that dead man? I saw the cop search the man and put handcuffs on him then walked back to pick something up to plant something close to his body.

If he was a violent felon the police department would know all about it by now and the never would have charged the cop with murder.

I think it's disgusting for anyone with the exemption of his lawyer, to even try to defend this murder by a cop.

Here's a detail that I approve of from the police department. The cop's wife is 8 months pregnant. The police will continue health insurance on her and the baby once it's born. Even though they fired the policy holder and don't have to keep covering his wife. Which I think is the right thing to do.

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

Running away from a cop is a threat to everyone if the suspect is a violent criminal, and he escapes. His escape puts him in position to attack anyone and everyone, after this event. That is where/how he is a threat.

As for the cop lying on a report, IF he did, then he could be prosecuted for THAT, not capital murder.

How is having a tail light out being a violent felon? What proof do you have that he was a violent felon? If he had a felony record I'm sure that it would have been released by now. It's a public record and I'm sure some right winger would have found it by now and let us all know about it.

I have read the reports. I have seen the reports presented on the news.

In that report the cops claim they did CPR on him. Do you see anyone doing CPR on that dead man? I saw the cop search the man and put handcuffs on him then walked back to pick something up to plant something close to his body.

If he was a violent felon the police department would know all about it by now and the never would have charged the cop with murder.

I think it's disgusting for anyone with the exemption of his lawyer, to even try to defend this murder by a cop.

Here's a detail that I approve of from the police department. The cop's wife is 8 months pregnant. The police will continue health insurance on her and the baby once it's born. Even though they fired the policy holder and don't have to keep covering his wife. Which I think is the right thing to do.

COBRA laws say they do, she may have to continue paying premiums however they have to cover, even if they didn't, she could get Obamacare.

 

[dannyboys]

You touch a cop in the process of doing his duty whether it's traffic stop or anything else you can be charged with committing a Class A felony.
The witness (who believes cops sometimes are only firing blanks. A common myth in the negro community and that's why so many of them 'run' ) said both men "were on the ground".
The jury will find out why. I suggest all you MSNBC LIB negroes at least once stop from once again making complete fools of yourselves and wait until the jury has ruled. THEN you can go burn down the fucking sewers you appear to enjoy living in.

 

[Dana7360]

Watch the witness on the TV shows tomorrow morning.

I think you will find him quiet, articulate, sad for both families, and convincing.

That seems like a good post to end on. Let's see what the witness says, and I'll be interested to find out what the object was that the officer moved.

Good night all.

Lawrence O'Donnell played the interview on his show last night.

The thing is you would have to turn off fox news and turn the channel to MSNBC which I have a feeling is something you wouldn't do.

He also showed the police reports and read parts of it on the air.

Gee, FOXNews or MSNBC, I don't watch either. Lol! I don't trust either to be fair or accurate.

I don't watch fox at all.

I do watch MSNBC but not every day. My television isn't turned on until the evening.

I had seen a report on the MSN site that the person who recorded it on their phone had been interviewed and would be on the Today show Thursday morning. I didn't want to wait and I don't watch the Today show so I turned on MSNBC last night and caught Lawrence O'Donnell's show.

I get my news from a variety of sources. None of them are fox. I find that the Christian Science Monitor, the BBC and Canadian News to be the most honest and best sources of REAL news.

However it seems that by watching MSNBC last night I have more details of the facts of this situation than some on this board.

 

[JakeStarkey]

dannyboys is showing his ass yet again.

This cop is in serous trouble, only short of the trouble he gave to Scott.

I wonder if the drugs used in the lethal injections are as horribly painful as described.

 

[Conservative65]

dannyboys is showing his ass yet again.

This cop is in serous trouble, only short of the trouble he gave to Scott.

I wonder if the drugs used in the lethal injections are as horribly painful as described.

I thought you were opposed to the death penalty?

 

[Faun]

You touch a cop in the process of doing his duty whether it's traffic stop or anything else you can be charged with committing a Class A felony.
The witness (who believes cops sometimes are only firing blanks. A common myth in the negro community and that's why so many of them 'run' ) said both men "were on the ground".
The jury will find out why. I suggest all you MSNBC LIB negroes at least once stop from once again making complete fools of yourselves and wait until the jury has ruled. THEN you can go burn down the fucking sewers you appear to enjoy living in.

There's no evidence other than the cop's claim that Scott "touched him." That they may have been "on the ground" does not necessarily mean Scott did anything offensive.

 

[EverCurious]

Maybe I'm just being a chicken-shit here, but if ANYONE attacks an armed and trained officer, then they sure as hell become a suspected threat to the public. What is going to happen if that person comes across an untrained civilian and attacks them? (see "knock out game" videos for one fairly well documented example of what happens when you mix violent people with random civilians on the streets.)


That said, I don't have enough evidence to say if the officer was actually attacked or not yet, but the witness did state that they were down on the ground at some point. He said that it looked like the officer had the suspect under control, but that's rather irrelevant, it is clear that the officer lost control of the suspect - twice actually, the first time when the suspect ran and they had to catch him, then again moments before the fatal shooting. (Note, I've only had time to watch the initial short clip and read the witness guy with the phone camera's interview so far.)

 

[Bush92]

North Charleston officer faces murder charge after video shows him shooting man in back

North Charleston officer faces murder charge after video shows him shooting man in back - Post and Courier

He did have a good Weaver Stance when he fired though. Helluva shot at a moving target.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Watch the witness on the TV shows tomorrow morning.

I think you will find him quiet, articulate, sad for both families, and convincing.

That seems like a good post to end on. Let's see what the witness says, and I'll be interested to find out what the object was that the officer moved.

Good night all.

Lawrence O'Donnell played the interview on his show last night.

The thing is you would have to turn off fox news and turn the channel to MSNBC which I have a feeling is something you wouldn't do.

He also showed the police reports and read parts of it on the air.

Not too many people are watching MSNBC these days. Their ratings continue to tank further and further.

 

[Dot Com]

Thangod this concerned citizen was there to catch the taxpayer-financed, white devil's treachery: Witness to S.C. police shooting thought about erasing the video - Yahoo News

*** just saw the vid in that link and wished I hadn't watched it. That fat cop was within walking distance to the suspect. He didn't even attempt to run after the guy who was within "spittin' distance" of him. He should have been on the "fat boy club" and forced to run around a track on his lunch break.Sick & sad. Lets hope he gets the royal welcome in prison guno