Southern cop shoots man running away in the back..

[saveliberty]

When you shoot eight times, you aren't protecting the public, you are out to kill.

 

[tinydancer]

The manner in which the cop blew him away and then when the man is bleeding out he yells at him to put his hands behind his back and handcuffs him the officer appears to be trying to set up a scenario that people would buy into because he knew at this point he was caught on camera.

Wow. Just wow.

"After the gunfire, Slager glances at the person taking the video, then talks into his radio.

The cameraman curses, and Slager yells at Scott as sirens wail.

“Put your hands behind your back,” the officer shouts before he handcuffs Scott.

As another lawman runs to Scott’s side.

Scott died there."

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

 

[Missourian]

If policemen fear for his life, fine, shoot him. But once he flees policemen is not defending anything.

So he can attack another police officer?

Dunno details. But based on what we got now, it doesn't make sense. Why he would run from one towards the other, it there was the other.

Very true. I'm just going by what I read. That when the tazer misfired, the offender attacked the officer. The, when the officer broke free and reached for his gun, the offender attempted to flee again.

So the question is...what could have been the offenders plan when he attacked the officer?

He couldn't just hold him and wait for help. He had to either completely incapacitate the officer, of kill him, in order to escape.

There is no third option...except surrender, which was the best option all along, and one the offender never chose.

That made the offender a significant risk to other officers. Which made lethal force an justifiable under the modification to the fleeing felon rule under Tennessee v Garner to prevent his escape.

The idea that shooting someone in the back to prevent their escape is unconscionable is a fallacy born of the Old West.

The job of the police is to protect the lives and well being of the public, including other officers...not worry about what might or might not be considered fair, chivalrous, or gentlemanly.

That's my take on it.

 

[Ame®icano]

Black racists will riot anyway.

Most likely, since they think that justice only happens because of how much they break and burn and how loud they cry.

 

[Missourian]

When you shoot eight times, you aren't protecting the public, you are out to kill.

I didn't see the offender get down on the ground, put his hands up or even stop running...until he could no longer run.

 

[tinydancer]

Black racists will riot anyway.

Has anyone called Sharpton yet?

From what I just read they don't want him or any agitators to come round. People just hijack the situation like Sharpton and others.

"Pastor Thomas Dixon, a community activist, said that he is concerned about outsiders coming into the community to incite violence and rallies. He said the outcry of anger so often ends up “tearing down our communities,” and emotions should be diverted to something more constructive than violence.

“Good people get caught up with crazy people,” he said. “The smart reaction is to just gather and peacefully let your voice be heard without any foolishness or craziness.”

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

 

[saveliberty]

If policemen fear for his life, fine, shoot him. But once he flees policemen is not defending anything.

So he can attack another police officer?

Dunno details. But based on what we got now, it doesn't make sense. Why he would run from one towards the other, it there was the other.

Very true. I'm just going by what I read. That when the tazer misfired, the offender attacked the officer. The, when the officer broke free and reached for his gun, the offender attempted to flee again.

So the question is...what could have been the offenders plan when he attacked the officer?

He couldn't just hold him and wait for help. He had to either completely incapacitate the officer, of kill him, in order to escape.

There is no third option...except surrender, which was the best option all along, and one the offender never chose.

That made the offender a significant risk to other officers. Which made lethal force an justifiable under the modification to the fleeing felon rule under Tennessee v Garner to prevent his escape.

The idea that shooting someone in the back to prevent their escape is unconscionable is a fallacy born of the Old West.

The job of the police is to protect the lives and well being of the public, including other officers...not worry about what might or might not be considered fair, chivalrous, or gentlemanly.

That's my take on it.

Yet a citizen cannot use that very defense in most states Missourian. It is considered manslaughter at a minimum.

 

[saveliberty]

When you shoot eight times, you aren't protecting the public, you are out to kill.

I didn't see the offender get down on the ground, put his hands up or even stop running...until he could no longer run.

I suppose waiting until backup arrived before engaging the person was not an option. Oh wait, we were knee deep in cops within seconds of the shooting.

 

[Missourian]

If policemen fear for his life, fine, shoot him. But once he flees policemen is not defending anything.

So he can attack another police officer?

Dunno details. But based on what we got now, it doesn't make sense. Why he would run from one towards the other, it there was the other.

Very true. I'm just going by what I read. That when the tazer misfired, the offender attacked the officer. The, when the officer broke free and reached for his gun, the offender attempted to flee again.

So the question is...what could have been the offenders plan when he attacked the officer?

He couldn't just hold him and wait for help. He had to either completely incapacitate the officer, of kill him, in order to escape.

There is no third option...except surrender, which was the best option all along, and one the offender never chose.

That made the offender a significant risk to other officers. Which made lethal force an justifiable under the modification to the fleeing felon rule under Tennessee v Garner to prevent his escape.

The idea that shooting someone in the back to prevent their escape is unconscionable is a fallacy born of the Old West.

The job of the police is to protect the lives and well being of the public, including other officers...not worry about what might or might not be considered fair, chivalrous, or gentlemanly.

That's my take on it.

Yet a citizen cannot use that very defense in most states Missourian. It is considered manslaughter at a minimum.

That is true. But there is a difference between the responsibility and training of an officer and that of a citizen. A citizen is limited to the immediate threats, not apprehension or future theoretical threats.

 

[Missourian]

When you shoot eight times, you aren't protecting the public, you are out to kill.

I didn't see the offender get down on the ground, put his hands up or even stop running...until he could no longer run.

I suppose waiting until backup arrived before engaging the person was not an option. Oh wait, we were knee deep in cops within seconds of the shooting.

I'll have to rewatch the video, but I only remember seeing one other officer...and there is no telling if he/she was visible at the time of the shooting.

Officers have to make split second decisions, while we have the luxury of second guessing them for months after the fact.

 

[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.

 

[Roadrunner]

If policemen fear for his life, fine, shoot him. But once he flees policemen is not defending anything.

He is in many cases defending the public.

In this case, an arrest has been made, the cop has been charged, a grand jury will convene, and if the cop is indicted, a jury will decide his fate.

Is there a problem here?

Or, should we just return to lynching based on internet outrage?

If that's the case, no argument here.

However, I think our cops are too easy on the trigger. Not this case only, most of them.

Why shoot to kill anyways. Wounding him would prevent many other things.

How do you shoot to wound?

Have you ever actually seen what a bullet does?

This ain't Roy Rogers, where you just "wing 'em with a flesh wound".

Most likely that was a .40 caliber HP.

A hit in the elbow or wrist can blow enough arteries and veins to bleed a guy out.

Shoot to wound is a hippy dream.

I have seen it way too many times. I felt it two times.

Sure, you can bleed out from one wound. From eight you bleed much faster. Was it necessary?

Was it necessary?

I don't know, I wasn't there.

Would the cop have been reprimanded for letting him get away, if he had done nothing?

Is there a policy in place on when and why you shoot at a man who has physically resisted arrest?

Did the man say something we cannot hear, like a threat?

We do not have the information to make a decision, that is why we have grand juries and juries.

The cop may have only been arrested to protect him and placate the public.

We do not know these things.

What we do know, is the guy was a deadbeat dad not paying his child support.

I won't grieve for him.

 

[tinydancer]

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.

I'm no fucking leftie.

 

[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.

I'm no fucking leftie.

When it quacks like a duck . .

 

[Dana7360]

If policemen fear for his life, fine, shoot him. But once he flees policemen is not defending anything.

He is in many cases defending the public.

In this case, an arrest has been made, the cop has been charged, a grand jury will convene, and if the cop is indicted, a jury will decide his fate.

Is there a problem here?

Or, should we just return to lynching based on internet outrage?

If that's the case, no argument here.

However, I think our cops are too easy on the trigger. Not this case only, most of them.

Why shoot to kill anyways. Wounding him would prevent many other things.

How do you shoot to wound?

Have you ever actually seen what a bullet does?

This ain't Roy Rogers, where you just "wing 'em with a flesh wound".

Most likely that was a .40 caliber HP.

A hit in the elbow or wrist can blow enough arteries and veins to bleed a guy out.

Shoot to wound is a hippy dream.

I have seen it way too many times. I felt it two times.

Sure, you can bleed out from one wound. From eight you bleed much faster. Was it necessary?

Was it necessary?

I don't know, I wasn't there.

Would the cop have been reprimanded for letting him get away, if he had done nothing?

Is there a policy in place on when and why you shoot at a man who has physically resisted arrest?

Did the man say something we cannot hear, like a threat?

We do not have the information to make a decision, that is why we have grand juries and juries.

The cop may have only been arrested to protect him and placate the public.

We do not know these things.

What we do know, is the guy was a deadbeat dad not paying his child support.

I won't grieve for him.

I spent several years garnishing deadbeat dads. Every time I got new garnishment papers and found another one it made my day. I had two file cabinets of nothing but garnishments on deadbeat dads. They ranged from cashiers to managers to executives.

Deadbeat dads need to pay their child support.

They DON'T need to be killed.

Now the children don't have a dad and no way to get child support from their dad.

Their dad is dead.

Not because he didn't pay his child support. Because some stupid cop killed him.

I know what it's like for your dad to be dead. Mine died of cancer in 2001 and I still to this day miss him very much. I got to grow up with my dad.

Those children won't have that luxury.

 

[tinydancer]

When you shoot eight times, you aren't protecting the public, you are out to kill.

I didn't see the offender get down on the ground, put his hands up or even stop running...until he could no longer run.

I suppose waiting until backup arrived before engaging the person was not an option. Oh wait, we were knee deep in cops within seconds of the shooting.

I'll have to rewatch the video, but I only remember seeing one other officer...and there is no telling if he/she was visible at the time of the shooting.

Officers have to make split second decisions, while we have the luxury of second guessing them for months after the fact.

I'm reading one of the first statements when the officer was still trying to spin that he felt threatened. Back up came after the shooting from what I can tell.

Bottom line is that there was an eyewitness who kept filming.

And Scott was 10 feet away running for his freaking life when he started firing from what I can tell from the stills but the officer still claimed that when he fired seven times as the man was running away from him that he felt "threatened".

Yet all shots were in his back. And he paused before he hit him with the eighth shot.

Here's another link for you Missourian.

Attorney North Charleston police officer felt threatened before fatal shooting - Post and Courier

 

[tinydancer]

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.

I'm no fucking leftie.

When it quacks like a duck . .

Go blow dead bears asshole.

 

[Ame®icano]

Was it necessary?

I don't know, I wasn't there.

Would the cop have been reprimanded for letting him get away, if he had done nothing?

Is there a policy in place on when and why you shoot at a man who has physically resisted arrest?

Did the man say something we cannot hear, like a threat?

We do not have the information to make a decision, that is why we have grand juries and juries.

The cop may have only been arrested to protect him and placate the public.

We do not know these things.

What we do know, is the guy was a deadbeat dad not paying his child support.

I won't grieve for him.

I am not disagreeing with you on most of the things you said.

What I can't get over is shooting in the back someone that is running away. Even if cop had legal right to do so, and I don't know if he did or not, I don't see justification in that. Honor neither.

 

[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.

I'm no fucking leftie.

When it quacks like a duck . .

Go blow dead bears asshole.

Go fuck yourself bitch.

 

[tinydancer]

Here's the sequence I've got in stills at DM.

Here's where the cop starts to draw his weapon

Opens fire here. This is being threatened? Kiss my ass.

Eighth shot to take him out.

Cop is charged with black man s murder after opening fire eight times and shooting him in the back as he ran away... and saying he did it because he felt threatened Daily Mail Online