discussion/thoughts
- Thread starter qazplm
- Start date
It looks like an execution to me. Fry him....
Ironically, this situation is in reality, what the media was reporting erroneously, had occurred in Ferguson.
Ironically, this situation is in reality, what the media was reporting erroneously, had occurred in Ferguson.
Why are you bringing this up?
Why is this a national news story?
If the cop was non-white would it be?
If the victim was white would it be?
If previous stories like this hadn't turned out to be hoaxes would it be?
Unless we're given exonerating information by the cop or somebody else there seems to be universal agreement that the cop is guilty. What's to discuss?
Why is this a national news story?
If the cop was non-white would it be?
If the victim was white would it be?
If previous stories like this hadn't turned out to be hoaxes would it be?
Unless we're given exonerating information by the cop or somebody else there seems to be universal agreement that the cop is guilty. What's to discuss?
This will not be like other shootings, he will be convicted.
What I'll be interested to see is how much about that department comes out. One of the worst encounters I've ever had with an officer occurred just up Rivers Av from where the shooting took place. I definitely got an aggressive vibe and I wonder if it's systemic.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
What I'll be interested to see is how much about that department comes out. One of the worst encounters I've ever had with an officer occurred just up Rivers Av from where the shooting took place. I definitely got an aggressive vibe and I wonder if it's systemic.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Yes because obviously every other shooting was justified except this one. All or nothing right? Every shooting of an AA has been blown out of proportion just like Ferguson, none of them, like the other SC were wrong, am I right? Just another example of the black man trying to get one over on you right? With the help of liberals obviously.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Go tho the post and courier and I would guess they will have something on North Chuck's past racial issues including shootings and then there is the SC State trooper shooting that has been discussed on this board. He has yet to be convicted and they just keep extending it out. Probably were waiting for it blow over.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Even without the video, I don't know what there is to discuss. He shot a guy eight times in the back. Even if the guy was running away with a taser, BFD.
North Charleston is a real ****hole in some places, so I'd understand being a little more jumpy, but this is ridiculous. IMO, that cop's just a murderer.
North Charleston is a real ****hole in some places, so I'd understand being a little more jumpy, but this is ridiculous. IMO, that cop's just a murderer.
Horrible. A bystander with a random phone video captures the event or this would have been chalked up to just another law-breaking black man getting justifiably shot by the police because he "went for the officer's taser".
This has to stop.
We've created a wicked cauldron of components to produce the current culture of police in this country, and you cannot address the issue without talking about every ingredient. Some of those ingredients include:
- Police trained to use force in favor of defusing conflict verbally
- Proliferation of excess military equipment
- A (failed) drug war that we continue to attack from a criminal level
- An armed society where everyone is deemed to be in possession of a weapon, creating a stressful encounter with even the most benign traffic stop
- An economy where those lacking a higher education are increasingly dependent upon outside agencies for their well-being (and more susceptible to criminal activity)
- A lack of understanding, training, and treatment for mental health issues.
Another example: Police kill both a dog and a mentally ill pregnant woman on the same day
And another: Schizophrenic man, wielding a deadly screwdriver, shot 6 times in the chest.
Re: Why are you bringing this up?
Given the national media attention focused on police action and use of force - regardless of race - yes, I think it would be a national story if it was white on white or purple on green polka-dot simply because of the apparent lack of regard for just about anything this particular officer had.
Given the national media attention focused on police action and use of force - regardless of race - yes, I think it would be a national story if it was white on white or purple on green polka-dot simply because of the apparent lack of regard for just about anything this particular officer had.
Get your facts straight. There is little chance this guy would've been ruled "justifiable." He shot the guy 8 times in the back.
It was the forensic evidence that started unraveling the Ferguson "hands up don't shoot" narrative. In this case, the forensic evidence would/will be the nail in the coffin. Not even remotely close to the same thing.
this happened in 2013
IIRC. The guy wasn't charged until the day the video was made public.
That suggests to me the possibility that he wouldn't have been charged, but for the video.
I don't know that...it's possible it's purely coincidental/synchronicity, but I'm quite skeptical.
I think this case speaks to the power of video, and the level of trust we give officers, and the wide ranging possibility that they can abuse that trust.
I also think as each of these cases unfolds in close proximity to each other, police officers lose a little bit of that trust. That's why you are seeing more and more departments implement body cameras (which will end up being a win-win for everyone).
IIRC. The guy wasn't charged until the day the video was made public.
That suggests to me the possibility that he wouldn't have been charged, but for the video.
I don't know that...it's possible it's purely coincidental/synchronicity, but I'm quite skeptical.
I think this case speaks to the power of video, and the level of trust we give officers, and the wide ranging possibility that they can abuse that trust.
I also think as each of these cases unfolds in close proximity to each other, police officers lose a little bit of that trust. That's why you are seeing more and more departments implement body cameras (which will end up being a win-win for everyone).
I've been around long enough to know that "facts" in a court room don't always add up to justice.
Same question I've had about police shootings for many years: Why don't they aim below the waist?
Unless a suspect is armed and aiming a gun at an officer, all police should aim between the belt and the knees. This is true whether the suspect is running toward the officer, e.g. Ferguson, or away from the cop like the recent case in SC.
Unless a suspect is armed and aiming a gun at an officer, all police should aim between the belt and the knees. This is true whether the suspect is running toward the officer, e.g. Ferguson, or away from the cop like the recent case in SC.
because almost no one is that good of a shot
IF you are going to fire your gun, then you need to aim center mass.
1. If you don't, good chance of missing
2. You start aiming anywhere other than COM, the likely trajectory of a miss is a lot harder to predict and you start risking bystanders.
IF you are going to fire your gun, then you need to aim center mass.
1. If you don't, good chance of missing
2. You start aiming anywhere other than COM, the likely trajectory of a miss is a lot harder to predict and you start risking bystanders.
Re: because almost no one is that good of a shot
I'm a long way removed from high school, but I can remember after graduation that the unfulfilled jocks, the bullies, and I'm sorry but yes the most racists guys I grew up with gravitated toward the Police/Fire Dept jobs after high school. After getting their jobs, they relished the yearly training seminars in Indy getting drunk and chasing tail. In other words, they lived like high schoolers well into their 30's & 40's. My point being, how strict are the requirements to be a "city" cop? Back in the day, it's was all who you knew or what your last name was. Should there be a degree requirement? Higher pay? Stricter background checks. It's not an easy job.
I'm a long way removed from high school, but I can remember after graduation that the unfulfilled jocks, the bullies, and I'm sorry but yes the most racists guys I grew up with gravitated toward the Police/Fire Dept jobs after high school. After getting their jobs, they relished the yearly training seminars in Indy getting drunk and chasing tail. In other words, they lived like high schoolers well into their 30's & 40's. My point being, how strict are the requirements to be a "city" cop? Back in the day, it's was all who you knew or what your last name was. Should there be a degree requirement? Higher pay? Stricter background checks. It's not an easy job.
no this happened awhile ago (edited) apparently not
the video was just released. The guy who took it almost deleted it, he was scared of what would happen to him. He eventually, somehow, saw the police report, saw the lies there, and eventually decided to give it to someone (the family I think?).
Eventually it made its way to the press.
Edit:
I'd read that it happened in 2013, but other sites I read to check say it just happened. That doesn't quite jibe with the timeline I've been reading and the interview I heard with the guy who took the video, but it's pretty universal so I'm going to assume it was just Saturday.
I still don't have the same faith Gr8 does that the video wasn't a primary reason for the charging of this officer.
This post was edited on 4/9 1:40 PM by qazplm
the video was just released. The guy who took it almost deleted it, he was scared of what would happen to him. He eventually, somehow, saw the police report, saw the lies there, and eventually decided to give it to someone (the family I think?).
Eventually it made its way to the press.
Edit:
I'd read that it happened in 2013, but other sites I read to check say it just happened. That doesn't quite jibe with the timeline I've been reading and the interview I heard with the guy who took the video, but it's pretty universal so I'm going to assume it was just Saturday.
I still don't have the same faith Gr8 does that the video wasn't a primary reason for the charging of this officer.
This post was edited on 4/9 1:40 PM by qazplm
I hope the one thing we can all dispel for good is that police version of an event is always the truth. Police are humans too and are just capable of telling a lie as anyone. People with reasons to lie, often lie. It doesn't make them good or bad, it just makes them human. When a shooting occurs, and one party is dead, I am always skeptical of the story told by the other party. When the survivors start using canned phrases like "he went for my gun", "I was scared for my life", "he grabbed my taser", I start to believe their version even less. It sound less like a description of what happened and more like the start of a legal defense. What ofen shocks me, even in this board is how many people will take the police version as the absolute truth. I can grudgingly understand why for practical reasons our legal systems do that. But what I don't understand is when individuals on message boards do so as well. Maybe someone can enlighten me, I am genuinely curious.
I am fine with saying, "we have this version of events as told by the survivor and we don't have physical evidence to disprove it." That makes it the best story we have, but still doesn't make it the truth. The truth, if it exists, may never be known.
I am fine with saying, "we have this version of events as told by the survivor and we don't have physical evidence to disprove it." That makes it the best story we have, but still doesn't make it the truth. The truth, if it exists, may never be known.
I am not in any way pro law-enforcement. Heck if there was a police-opt-out list you can sign up for. I will be the first to sign up. I struggle to think of any situation I will even find myself in that I will need to call police excpetions are one in which I am required by law.
Anyways, to answer your question based on answers I have seen from police and military folks. It simply is impractical to aim for the legs. If you are going to shoot, you aim for the biggest area so you don't miss. Consider that in broad day light, trained shooter, perfect stance, relatively close distance, slow moving target, the SC officer still hit about 3 or at most 5 of the 8 shots he fired. Now imagine if he was aiming for the leg, he probably won't hit any.
In my opinion, the discussions about police involved shooting should focus on the decision to use the firearm not how it is used. Once the firearm is to be used. Sadly, there is no other practical way to shoot than aim for the largest mass.
Re: no this happened awhile ago (edited) apparently not
I would like to think that without the video the investigators were waiting for additional evidence to solidify (ex. autopsy) before making the charges. The video cut short the need for additional evidence.
It is interesting that this story didn't make national news until the video appeared. I'm not sure what to make of this. With or without the video, it was another white office shooting a black man.
I would like to think that without the video the investigators were waiting for additional evidence to solidify (ex. autopsy) before making the charges. The video cut short the need for additional evidence.
It is interesting that this story didn't make national news until the video appeared. I'm not sure what to make of this. With or without the video, it was another white office shooting a black man.
Re: no this happened awhile ago (edited) apparently not
I have no doubt that the video accelerated the timeline for charging him, but yeah, I do believe that there would've been charges filed in this case regardless of the video.
well
there was video of Rodney King...he was acquitted.
There was video of Eric Garner...no indictment.
I don't think he's wrong that conviction isn't guaranteed. Now, I think the key thing here that sinks him is not the shooting in the back, it's the moving of the Tazer. That looks like consciousness of guilt, and it looks like planting of evidence. That will likely be the thing that keeps him from walking even if otherwise the jury were looking to give him a wide benefit of the doubt.
there was video of Rodney King...he was acquitted.
There was video of Eric Garner...no indictment.
I don't think he's wrong that conviction isn't guaranteed. Now, I think the key thing here that sinks him is not the shooting in the back, it's the moving of the Tazer. That looks like consciousness of guilt, and it looks like planting of evidence. That will likely be the thing that keeps him from walking even if otherwise the jury were looking to give him a wide benefit of the doubt.
Re: well
That said, as I've noted on Garner many times, I think indictments should've been brought.
I think it's both - really the whole story. Gunshots in the back vs. a non-deadly weapon-carrying man running away, and planting evidence. It's pretty damning.
Granted. That said, I don't believe there was any intent to kill Garner, and neither one involved a "deadly weapon" in the vain that any time you point your gun at someone, you'd better be willing to kill that person. You can beat a person or chokehold a person to death, but the intent is usually to subdue.
That said, as I've noted on Garner many times, I think indictments should've been brought.
I think it's both - really the whole story. Gunshots in the back vs. a non-deadly weapon-carrying man running away, and planting evidence. It's pretty damning.
Re: no this happened awhile ago (edited) apparently not
Without video or the witness, yep, you're losing the taser planting. I'm just not sure how you defend 8 shots to the back as feeling you were in grave danger, nor that you had belief that the person was going to flee to cause an imminent threat to someone else.
I'd be on "your side" if that happened and he wasn't at least charged.
Without video or the witness, yep, you're losing the taser planting. I'm just not sure how you defend 8 shots to the back as feeling you were in grave danger, nor that you had belief that the person was going to flee to cause an imminent threat to someone else.
I'd be on "your side" if that happened and he wasn't at least charged.
read the news reports
on the shooting, pre video, and then post video.
This would have been quietly swept under the rug. I'm not suggesting it's defensible, I'm just suggesting there's a pattern where the police (and DA) seem almost unable to police their own in these situations barring strong media attention.
on the shooting, pre video, and then post video.
This would have been quietly swept under the rug. I'm not suggesting it's defensible, I'm just suggesting there's a pattern where the police (and DA) seem almost unable to police their own in these situations barring strong media attention.
What are you talking about?
You're taking issue with my assumption that the cop would not have faced charges for what looks like a murder had the video not been released. I'll give you the possibility that charges may have been filed anyway, but as Qaz pointed out, the timing is damn peculiar.
This post was edited on 4/9 3:33 PM by Beeazlebub
Who is "crusading"?
You're taking issue with my assumption that the cop would not have faced charges for what looks like a murder had the video not been released. I'll give you the possibility that charges may have been filed anyway, but as Qaz pointed out, the timing is damn peculiar.
This post was edited on 4/9 3:33 PM by Beeazlebub
Re: What are you talking about?
I was talking about the crusade pushing the "hands up don't shoot" story. There, people took a false narrative - regardless of the facts that emerged - and held a crusade (and a small number still are!). Here, you're saying, "the facts won't be good enough in the courtroom, let's be outraged!!" before anything's even happened.
Let the process play out and see if there's reason to get all bent about it.
Why is the timing peculiar? He was charged like four days after the shooting took place! Did the national media attention on the video accelerate it? Maybe.
I was talking about the crusade pushing the "hands up don't shoot" story. There, people took a false narrative - regardless of the facts that emerged - and held a crusade (and a small number still are!). Here, you're saying, "the facts won't be good enough in the courtroom, let's be outraged!!" before anything's even happened.
Let the process play out and see if there's reason to get all bent about it.
Re: no this happened awhile ago (edited) apparently not
you are far more trusting of the system than I am. In the absence of that video, I am willing bet half of my life savings that the officer won't have gotten indicted after months of investigation. The city would later down the road settle with the family of the victim for six figures.
Re: What are you talking about?
"He was charged like four days after the shooting took place! Did the national media attention on the video accelerate it? Maybe."
I was proceeding from the (false) standpoint that the shooting occurred in 2013. It didn't, and you're correct on the timing.
My outrage stems from the excessive use of force used by police in this case and many other similar cases that happen almost every day.
"He was charged like four days after the shooting took place! Did the national media attention on the video accelerate it? Maybe."
I was proceeding from the (false) standpoint that the shooting occurred in 2013. It didn't, and you're correct on the timing.
My outrage stems from the excessive use of force used by police in this case and many other similar cases that happen almost every day.
