White Police Kills Black Man as He Runs-Away.....

Post Reply New Topic

If you attack an officer with potential lethal force, and then flee when you're "losing", it's reasonable to assume you'll be a threat to others, so if the officer couldn't make the arrest, then using a sidearm to stop the felon from fleeing isn't unreasonable ("we" can't do it, as we always have a duty to retreat, unless you live in Florida or such).

I don't know anything about this case (other than pew pew pew by white copper on black person fleeing; when are they going to quit with the color stuff?), but the above is one way that shooting a felon fleeing is justified.

Just putting that out there.

No need to point it out, it shows. All you need to do is watch the video and see the police officer (soon to be convicted felon) plant the taser on the dead man's person to know that this wasn't justifiable in any fashion. Police don't plant evidence unless they have no evidence to begin with. In one ten second clip I can tell that the officer (soon to be convicted felon) has less morals than 95% of the population, he's also more cowardly than most-- shooting a slow moving 50 year old in the back and all.

Probably when white police stop killing unarmed black people. It's not like it's anything new, but in today's world where everyone and their grandma has a camera phone, you're gonna be seeing a lot more of it captured on video and thus more media exposure. I personally believe that anyone the state grants permission to use deadly force should have a body camera on them-- it's not jay walking or a speeding ticket we're talking about, it's literally life and death. If an officer shoots and kills someone in the line of duty then the camera would prove them justified, if not, well, with a complete lack of judgement they shouldn't be an officer anyhow. Plus, there's nothing more American than letting citizen's have an eye on the state's agents.

You don't provide any actual verifiable facts there.

-Planting taser = it's impossible to tell what is happening in that part of the video
-Unarmed black people getting killed = just the same as unarmed white people. If black people are overrepresented in crime, they'll be killed more (one valid reason for such)

The courts will probably find the answer in this case.

The main point though, is that police can shoot fleeing individuals. It's not clear from the video what happened leading up to the shooting. The officer may have had no reason to do such, but he may have had a justifiable reason. Jumping in one camp by just looking at the end of the encounter is showing bias.

Not if you're actually paying attention. This isn't some grammar parsing argument, it's a man leaning over and placing a weapon on a deceased persons body. If you can't see it, it's because you don't WANT to see it.

I agree, I'm not for the police killing any unarmed person in the back. As for the allusion that black people commit more crime, there's no statistics out there that verify that. There are statistics that say they're arrested and convicted more, but that doesn't prove they actually COMMIT more crime, just that they're easier to catch and prosecute. When was the last time you saw a white banker arrested and convicted? Doesn't mean the white banker doesn't commit crime (hello financial meltdown of '08), just that he's harder to catch and convict.

Congratulations on the hypocrisy.

[/quote]
The police can't just shoot fleeing individuals, that would be a violation of the fifth amendment-- due process. There are, however, concessions in which a police officer may use his firearm on a fleeing suspect, namely danger to self and others. This case shows neither were true-- the man was unarmed, had no history of violence, nor showed any inclination of using violence in the event that occurred.

Also, the main video is only the last part, true, and had the officer not used deadly force and just chased the guy down (ya know, his job) it wouldn't even be an issue; but, he did discharge his firearm and so the last bit of video holds ALL the relevance to this case. That being said there's also the officer's dashcam video out there and numerous witnesses. At no point in the dashcam video does the suspect show violence, he exits his car and runs. According to witnesses the police officer tackled him then tased him. When the suspect got up he ran again and the police officer decided just to shoot him instead of chasing him-- according to eye witnesses. Basically what I gather from the evidence we have, four witnesses and two videos, the police officer was just poor at his job and lazy to boot-- both of those resulted in a death.

I do agree that race shouldn't be an issue here, but police officers unnecessarily shooting unarmed men in the back should. It's a direct violation of the Constitution, as well as the main principles that our nation was founded on-- the government, nor it's agents, are above the citizens.

Precisely!

It seems that cops now think that just because they're cops, they think of themselves as above everyone else, when it's obvious cops are not.

I don't think you understand what that means.

I said it's impossible to tell what's happening. If it's a weapon, why do you assume it's being "planted"? Why couldn't they be policing up the evidence and keeping it in one area (especially when it's a weapon; you don't leave such out in the open at a crime scene that's unsecured)? "Planting" means the weapon is placed there to incriminate someone, but we have zero evidence of that being the intent. Not to mention there's another officer at the scene, so you now have a witness and possible accomplice to any "plant". No one has been charged with planting a weapon as far as I can tell, just the homicide.

Jumping to the conclusion that it must be "planted" is showing inherent bias. It could be planted, but there's many other possible explanations.

(Black crime rates are for another thread.)

If you want to look for wrongdoing on the officer's part, you look at what led up to the shooting, and the shooting itself. From the video, we have a scuffle of some sort, where it's hard to determine what's happening (officer has his hand on his sidearm in the holster, and the other hand engaged with the suspect's hand/arm), then the suspect runs. The officer draws his firearm calmly (like on a practice range), and fires several shots. This is all we can look at to determine what happened. (You also need to read the criminal code/laws of justifiable homicide and fleeing suspects and apply them to what you see. You aren't seeing the majority of the incident, which is something to remember.)

To add, you'll need to provide evidence for the "plant" (and that it was in fact a "plant").

No news site gives anything other than the video, and the eyewitness saying something was placed. Yes, something was dropped, but going from that to "planting a weapon" is a leap in logic.

It was planted there to incriminate the victim. The taser was nowhere near the victim. It was moved there to collaborate the cop's story that that the vicim had grabbed his taser.

The area was not unsecured. Other cops were there to secure the area. It was immediately roped off with crime scene tape.

A basic rule of processing a crime scene is that photos must be taken prior to moving or removing any evidence. That did not happen when the cop moved that taser.

Forensics: Assessing the Scene of the Crime By Douglas P. Lyle from Forensics For Dummies

Once again a Police Officer has killed a person. I have respect for the Police and other First Responders, but the Police in this country have become "Out of Control." Before my DX as having Asperger's a patrol car followed me from my apartment complex on the way to the post office about three miles away. I knew he was following me, but did not know why. I pulled into the post office parking lot and the patrol car "boxed" me in.The officer thought ,I was wanted but said he was wrong. He kept asking me if,I live at the apartment complex. He saw me pull out of the complex but ,I said yes. I tried to keep a personal space between me and him. I am more careful now because I have heard some police have targeted those DX with AS.

Incorrect. You can see the wires going to the taser. The object that was seen being planted by Slager is in the same place that the taser was found by the other police witnesses to the scene. It is really not in doubt that the taser was planted to support Slager's fabricated justification for his unlawful killing.

About that taser...

Some interesting comments from Ron Hosko, former FBI Assistant Director and head of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/0 ... 29748.html

Another aspect of bad law enforcement that will come out in this case is the misuse of tasers as torture devices by Police:

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/14/the_wal ... ing_about/

More will come out as local and federal investigations continue.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/us/south-carolina-police-shooting/

10 seconds into the clip:
Officer Slager (soon to be convicted felon Slager): "I just shot a guy. Yeah, he got my Taser."

Obviously that's a lie, and seeing as how that's what his entire justification for shooting a man in the back was, seems like it's just plain murder.

It's possible that the taser was taken and used, and dropped by the suspect. It's possible that the taser was picked up and put near the body for security afterwards. That's equally likely to be what happened (or more so, really). It's possible the officer is lying and the taser was never controlled by the suspect.

The suspect's fingerprints being on the taser would be the main point here.

I read that the suspect and officer were fighting on the ground for several minutes. There's a lot of reasonable doubt there regarding a murder.

I'm through arguing. I'd rather go with the evidence that's been presented than suppositions based on ideology. I'll wait until the officer is convicted, then I'll re-post on this thread...shouldn't take more than a year it's a fairly open and close case.

What evidence? All we have is the video so far, and some statements.

You need to prove what you saw in the video is murder if you're basing your case on that.

You can't just say shooting someone fleeing, and dropping an object near the body, equals murder and false witness/evidence.

You can. Many have--including the prosecutor.

You need more than that to prove murder in court.

You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he wanted to kill the individual fleeing for unjust reasons; you've got the act, which is the shooting (which we see), but you don't have the reason for the shooting, as we only see the act. You can't prove anything regarding the "planting" from what we see.

It very well could be murder, but it very well could be a justified homicide or lesser charge than murder (manslaughter, for example). The point being, just shooting someone fleeing doesn't mean it's murder for a police officer (it usually is for us, though).

(Jumping the gun is a big problem with cases like this and the media circus surrounding it -- that can cause equal or more problems than the initial case itself. Case in point, Michael Brown.)