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.
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".Originally posted by qazplm:
on the shooting in SC?
Get your facts straight. There is little chance this guy would've been ruled "justifiable." He shot the guy 8 times in the back.Originally posted by Beeazlebub:
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".Originally posted by qazplm:
on the shooting in SC?
LoL. You're so full of shit.Originally posted by GMM:
Something tells me that if this happened before the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown hoaxes blew up in the left's face this wouldn't get anywhere near the attention its getting. This is about making up for lost ground.
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.Originally posted by buygreekbonds:
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.
Got it. Let's assume the worst and crusade based on that... where have I seen this before?Originally posted by Beeazlebub:
I've been around long enough to know that "facts" in a court room don't always add up to justice.
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.Originally posted by qazplm:
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
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.Originally posted by qazplm:
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.
Who is "crusading"?Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
Got it. Let's assume the worst and crusade based on that... where have I seen this before?Originally posted by Beeazlebub:
I've been around long enough to know that "facts" in a court room don't always add up to justice.
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.Originally posted by Beeazlebub:
Who is "crusading"?Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
Got it. Let's assume the worst and crusade based on that... where have I seen this before?Originally posted by Beeazlebub:
I've been around long enough to know that "facts" in a court room don't always add up to justice.
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.
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.Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
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.Originally posted by qazplm:
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