DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Xavier_Onassis on April 08, 2015, 09:18:05 AM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html?_r=0)
Of course, the officer was endangered because the guy was running away with his taser and therefore his life was threatened.
We CANNOT permit people just running around with busted tail lights.
And of course, this happened in South Carolina, a state where Southern Hospitality replaced racism long ago, when the people started voting for Republicans.
-
This appears to be a horrible over-reaction by a Police officer.
He has been charged with murder.
All professions have people that make poor decisions for all kinds of reasons.
We just saw a pilot crash his plane on purpose killing over a 100 people in a single incident
You want to sensationalize a police error and the South in general....which makes no logical sense.
Was it the "North's fault" when a Ferguson Police officer supposedly murdered Michael Brown?
Was it the "North's Fault" when a NY Police Officer rammed a broken piece of a broom into the rectum of a Haitian immigrant?
Blacks are brutally murdered daily by other Blacks and all you & your ilk seem concerned about
is when an event can be made racial.....if there is not a way to divide people....you aren't interested.
It's sad that you spread and breed hatred and race-baiting to further your political agenda.
-
Leave it to the professor to try and make this horrid excuse of a police officer's judgement, the supposed SOP by Police across the country ::)
-
Where did I say that all police had the custom of executing Black guys who dared to provoke them with busted tail lights?
-
Where do you get the idea that anyone that defended the actions of Wilson defending himself from an attacking Michael Brown would think that this shooting was justified "overreaction" by the police??
-
I just saw this on CNN.
The news crew and assembled experts are running the video practically frame at a time.
It looks very bad for this officer, to all appearances with the film and the report the officer filed it looks as if the killing was a murder and the subsequent actions were attempts at coverup.
The other officer that walks up a moment later is also going to be in trouble if his report also falsely says that aid was rendered , it is pretty clear that all the man got as aid was handcuffs.
As evidence goes , this is unusually good, most murders aren't on camera , the "reasonable doubt" that the defense must build is pretty much blown off by this video.
It is a good thing that this officer didn't observe the cameraman, there would have been a lot of motive for an other shooting.
-
From every account I've read, having not even seen the video yet, this officer behaved not just recklessly, not just demonstrating bad judgement, but criminally.
And yet, here's the professor trying to lay some twisted comparison to what happened in the 2 previous media saturated officer involved killings of a black man, 1 who was killed for simply "selling cigarettes", and the other shot for simply.....being big and black apparently. Because those things can't be permitted, just like a broken tail light. Ignore all the extenuating circumstances and facts, when there's an agenda to push (racist police officers), those items can simply get in the way
-
Perhaps this officer was a racist or perhaps he just liked shooting people for recreational purposes.
They should throw the book at him. He claimed that the perp (a 50 year old guy who was driving a Mercedes) took away his tazer and was therefore a threat to him.
How does one threaten a cop with a taser while running away from him?
-
Perhaps this officer was a racist or perhaps he just liked shooting people for recreational purposes.
Perhaps he had a brain tumor. Who knows what his motivation or intent was. The issue is the facts surrounding the incident. This appears to be a clear cut case of one officer who acted so irresponsibly, he could, and should be brought up on charges, even possibly murder. That's just based on what's initially been reported.
YOU, on the other hand had officer Wilson convicted of murder, almost immediately, and a hate crime to boot, ....and still defend your initial accusations, despite all the facts to the contrary. Then you portray the NY cops as having killed someone for simply selling cigarettes, when that was hardly all that was involved. Now you're using this killing, as some sort of "similarity" to those past events. Who here, actually believes ANYONE, much less a black person be shot for "a broken tail light"? None. Nor does anyone believe someone should be killed for selling cigarettes, or for simply being big & black.
-
I sort of expected you to say that this guy deserved to be shot because he failed to hold still and allow himself to be tased and ran away from an officer who clearly did not want him to run.
But no, now you are rattling on about possible brain tumors.
NONE of these men should have been killed. That is what they have in common, other than, of course, being Black.
-
why is it when a policeman kills a black it's OMG MUST BE RACISM
but when a policeman kills a white....well...uh...ummm.... it's for other reasons?
of course there are more whites than blacks
but policeman kill more whites (about double) than blacks.
-
I realize xo has a very narrow view of what anyone who doesn't tow the liberal line is supposed to think. It's why blacks who are not allowed to think for themselves are somehow traitors to their race, and referred to as uncle toms. It just reinforces the ignorance that permeates liberal group think
Let's repeat for those visitors who may have missed it the 1st time
sirs never claimed or even implied that ANYONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED, including Brown.
There are accidents and there are intentional acts. The circumstances that brought about the deaths, absolutely should be investigated. Prejudgment THAT POLICE ARE RACIST BECAUSE A BLACK PERSON WAS KILLED, without recognition of any of the facts behind how it came to be is the height of irresponsible accusations. Such a tactic, is merely s screen to push an ideological agenda....a bogus one at that. The FACTS demonstrated that Wilson acted in defense. We'll wait to see what the all the facts are in this case, but it would appear, as I've already referenced before, that this officer was at minimum, criminally reckless, and at worst, murdered this man.
-
Walter Scott was a 50 years old Black man who dared to drive a Mercedes. Officer Slager was a White cop who sees the Black guy driving a Mercedes, and says to hisself, Whoa Nellie! Thass a White man's car! so he pulls him over and pops out the brake light as he proceeds to interview the perp and order him out of the car, where he tells him about he broken brakelight and perhaps adds, "You in a heapa trouble, boy! and pulls out his taser. Scott does not relish being tasered and turns and runs with only one electrode sticking in him. Brave Officer Salget pulls off six shots until Scott falls and then goes to cuff the fallen corpse and then he heads back to plant the taser on Scott.
The only thing he misses is that someone filmed the whole thing and after Officer Slager has written up in his report that he feared for his life because Scott took his non-lethal weapon. He had a good story going there until the guy turned in his video.
How many times have we seen this in the movies?
But no.
That is not how it went a-tall. sirs has the answer, Officer Slager had a BRAIN TUMOR.
\
Yessir, that's it, a brain tumor, thass ekzackly what he had!
-
Amazing mind reading.
How are you sure that there is no brain tumor?
Given time, one could concoct some even less likely excuse, but were I on the jury that heard it, I would try to ignore speculation that didn't have logic or evidence supporting.
When we call on brain tumors as excuses, there needs to be an X-ray.
When we call upon racism as an accusation, there needs to be evidence of that .
When we accept all speculation and allow the thinnest shadow of doubt, then racism will be the motive of all crimes and all crimes will be committed by time travelers.
-
it was brought up here before and I`ll form it into a question.
if two men of both races who are legally allowed to carry a gun in public in whatever state that allows it. would those men be treated the same if they carry those guns in public. note those men will be apart so one cannot vouch for the other.
-
would those men be treated the same if they carry those guns in public.
it depends
if I was at a Walmart and saw two lines available at the checkout counters
one line had a white skinhead looking dude in line #1 vs a black guy wearing a suit/tie in line #4....
and they were both wearing guns
there is no doubt I choose the line with the black guy
if it's a thug looking black guy with jeans half way down his ass vs a white guy in suit/tie
there is no doubt which line I choose....I choose the line with the white guy
is that kind of instant impulse decision always accurate?
no....but we live by the odds on many choices in life
-
Of course, we can assume that neither Mr Skinhead with a gun nor Rico, played by Michael Thomas in a suit with a gun caused the slightest disturbance. No one was shot, pistol whipped, threatened or otherwise bothered. So your decision to judge these two by their haircuts, race and apparel was preetty much a waste of time, since it really made no difference.
-
Do you mean the dead guy would be deader if he had had a weapon?
-
That is not how it went a-tall. sirs has the answer, Officer Slager had a BRAIN TUMOR.
\
Yessir, that's it, a brain tumor, thass ekzackly what he had!
Idiocy on grand display. You just can't read for squat can you. You have your mind made up on something specific, and everything has to be bent to fit that narrative (in this case, that sirs believes that a brain tumor caused the officer to act as he did). The brain tumor crack was simply analogous to the non-existent officer must have been racist crap
-
it was brought up here before and I`ll form it into a question.
if two men of both races who are legally allowed to carry a gun in public in whatever state that allows it. would those men be treated the same if they carry those guns in public. note those men will be apart so one cannot vouch for the other.
Regardless of race, its a BAD idea to carry you weapon openly. It defeats the purpose of the effectiveness of a CCW. Open carry paints a HUGE target on you, for the bad guy. The bad guy knows precisely who he's going to shoot 1st with his concealed weapon, if he has intentions of doing such harm. So, in general, I'd opine that carrying guns openly in public, is a bad idea, regardless of race.
But to address the question, IF they were legal to carry their firearm openly, I would have no problem with anyone's race. If they're walking around, doing whatever it is that they're doing, and they have visible sidearm, and they're not causing any kind of a rukus, nor have they been approached by any law enforcement, I treat them both the same way....as in they are either off duty law enforcement, or they're legal to openly carry gun owners. Race not mattering, what-so-ever
-
(in this case, that sirs believes that a brain tumor caused the officer to act as he did).
"Brain tumors may affect your cognition, which is your ability to think, reason, and remember.
Many people with brain tumors have problems with these kinds of cognition skills as well:
Concentration, Language skills. Memory"
http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=34&ContentID=18064-1
-
hehe......oh absolutely that's a "possibility". Minus any facts of the events that led to that moment, just as much a possibility as him having shot the man, because the officer was racist. Yet the professor seems to embracing one scnario while pfft'ing the other
-
Of course I have no idea whether the police officer's brain tumor played
into his terrible decision to shoot a guy in the back running away from him.
-
He certainly didn't deserve to die, but the guy the police officer shot had a
warrant our for his arrest and he had been arrested about 10 times previously.
-
I can understand why he'd was running away from the police now (and NO, xo, that doesn't justify him being shot or killed. We're just addressing various facts, being presented, as I was not aware of any arrest warrant)
-
Of course, we can assume that neither Mr Skinhead with a gun nor Rico, played by Michael Thomas in a suit with a gun caused the slightest disturbance. No one was shot, pistol whipped, threatened or otherwise bothered. So your decision to judge these two by their haircuts, race and apparel was preetty much a waste of time, since it really made no difference.
Since most people's house never burns down it is pretty much a waste of time having fire insurance! ::)
-
So choosing the checkout like is the same thing as buying fire insurance?
-
In all the Western movies, everyone carries their gun where everyone can see it. It's the Code of the West.
sirs is against "The Code of the West".. The Ghost of Charleton Heston is gonna swoop down and revoke his NRA membership.
-
So choosing the checkout like is the same thing as buying fire insurance?
Yes in the sense of avoiding a bad result.
Avoiding certain lines at a store could avoid a rare but possible bad event.
Paying for fire insurance could avoid a rare but possible bad event.
We make those kind of split decisions all day every day.
Would the event be likely to happen?
Probably not....but why not try to make the best logical choice given multiple choices?
I don't buy a lot in the ghetto and build a nice big new house...because I want to avoid a possible bad event.
I don't walk around in downtown Dallas at 3AM wearing jewelry because I want to avoid a possible bad event.
I don't refuse to buy fire insurance on my house knowing a fire will probably never burn down my house!
-
Good for you!
You are obviously a genius.
I am glad people cannot wear guns in Florida.
Too bad Texas is so dangerous these dorks need to packing heat.
-
Again with the error - riddled responses. This isn't the old west, so we can simply ignore that irrational injection, and it has nothing to do with "need". It has to do with the right own/carry a firearm. My 1st amendment right doesn't trump yours. And your 1st amendment right doesn't trump my 2nd
-
Good for you! You are obviously a genius.
I am glad people cannot wear guns in Florida.
Too bad Texas is so dangerous these dorks need to packing heat.
Texas is no more dangerous than most places...
And please don't put words in my mouth.
I do not support people wearing guns openly.
-
Dashcam of dude bolting from his car as police officer was running his DL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7In0VlT6XI
-
Dashcam of dude bolting from his car as police officer was running his DL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7In0VlT6XI
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/new-video-shows-south-carolina-man-fleeing-traffic-stop-before-shooting/ar-AAaFk8J
This explains a lot.
But this is probably not enough ,the policeman might build a defense if this was enough to give him reasonable expectation that this was a dangerous character.
Just not enough there, not to make it seem reasonable to shoot.
Then to falsify the evidence and lie in the incident report.
There would need to be a lot more and a lot worse.
-
Dashcam of dude bolting from his car as police officer was running his DL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7In0VlT6XI
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/new-video-shows-south-carolina-man-fleeing-traffic-stop-before-shooting/ar-AAaFk8J
This explains a lot.
.
Then to falsify the evidence and lie in the incident report.
THAT's the kicker......it demonstrates he knew what he did was wrong. Wrong, on so many levels
-
If he was not under arrest ( and it seems that he was not) he had every right to get out of his car and run away.
-
No, he doesn't. He's being lawfully detained. He has zero right to run
-
If he was not under arrest ( and it seems that he was not) he had every right to get out of his car and run away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_stop
-
Professor Wrong, strikes again 8)
-
Running away would have been better than letting this murderous cop shoot him in the back.
-
Just saw Geraldo Rivera discussing this, his opinion is that the most successful prosecution would be on charges of manslaughter, also perhaps obstruction of justice.
I don't know if South Carolina is the same , but in Georgia someone like this might be accused of a range of offenses and the Jury allowed to pick one.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/geraldo-dashcam-video-gets-officer-slager-off-his-murder-charge/
Geraldo makes a good case for this , but there seems to be a strong public desire for strong measures, less than the maximum might not be satisfying.
Perhaps this should not influence a jury or a prosecutor, but I expect it will.
-
I do not see how this is not an unprovoked attack.
Is a person suppose to just stand there and allow himself to be tasered?
Still this being South Carolina, I will be surprised if the cop even gets any jail time.
-
Running away would have been better than letting this murderous cop shoot him in the back.
You have that bassackwards......had he not run, the "murderous cop" wouldn't have shot him now, would he have
-
I do not see how this is not an unprovoked attack.
Is a person suppose to just stand there and allow himself to be tasered?
Still this being South Carolina, I will be surprised if the cop even gets any jail time.
You really don't know North Charleston S.C.
I lived there a few years , if I were the defense in this case I would try to get a change of venue.
Of course now an uncontaminated jury would not be found this side of the Amazon.
-
He should have run away FASTER.
-
In the epic world of "should", he should have never run in the 1st place. There was no indication that this officer was walking back to his car to pull out a body bag & gloves, in preparation of taking him out
-
...not to mention, no one can outrun a bullet
-
That cop was a terrible shot.
As I knew would happen, now the cop is the hero and the victim deserved what he got. Typical sirs logic.
-
What the fell are you smoking? Did you miss every post I've made that points to the reckless judgement this officer demonstrated, which could credibly lead to charges of murder or at making minimum manslaughter?? How the hell do you manage to mutate that into the officer being a "hero" & the fella shot "got what he deserved"?? That'd be the epitome of xo logic. :o
-
So, let's make this so painfully clear, even the good socialist professor would have a hard time mutating it. From what we know from the video, and the present facts that have been made public:
- NOTHING JUSTIFIED THE SHOOTING OF MR SCOTT
- OFFICER SLAGER DEMONSTRATED EXTREMELY POOR & RECKLESS JUDGEMENT, IF NOT CRIMINAL.
- Based on the video, and the current facts we've been privy to, he should be brought up on charges.
- But I also support a full investigation to deal with what happened that led to the incident
Now,
- Mr Scott would still be alive HAD HE NOT RAN. That doesn't mean he "deserved to be shot". It's just a fact
- Mr Scott had no legal right to run, after being stopped by a Police officer, and being legally detained. You don't have to be arrested. You have to remain where you are, until the officer has completed whatever it is, he stopped you for, and any subsequent investigation that comes from the initial stop
- We can only speculate why he ran, but it wasn't to keep from getting shot, as that wasn't what the officer was attempting to do, prior to his initial running from the car. It's safe to assume that the warrants he had, played a part in Mr Scott's bad decision, to try and run. And no, that doesn't mean he deserved to be shot, at that point either.
- It would appear that Officer Slager caught up to Mr Scott, and despite a struggle, and being shot with a taser, Mr Scott managed to pull away from officer Slager, and begin running again, which is where the video picks up his being shot in the back. And no, that doesn't mean he deserved to be shot, at that point either. AT NO TIME DID HE DESERVE TO BE SHOT. Just in case the good professor missed that the 1st.....2 dozens times its been said
Now, let's see if the professor can twist that into the template he so wished I had adopted that started the thread
-
He was shot in the back. He is now dead.
All this CRAP you are spewing is what the defense of this murderous cop's lawyers will say to get him off.
-
Get him off of what?......a death sentence? Nor am I a member of the defense team. You don't ignore facts that are problematic or inconvenient, based on some emotionally charged outcome you might want of see.
The CRAP here is despite my clear cut commentary to the contrary, you continue efforts to paint my position as having to be supportive of the officer's actions & that because Mr Scott was black, he "had it coming". THAT's the crap you have yet to apologize for
-
...............................is what the defense of this murderous cop's lawyers will say to get him off.
Yes , his innocence is just not in question, he hasn't got any.
So if we want to discuss anything, it might be the mitigation that his defense will attempt.
One difficult job , with the strength of evidence that this video represents.
If the policeman is convicted on Manslaughter and perhaps also obstruction of justice , he could be in jail for thirty years.
If convicted for premeditated Murder he could have to spend life in jail.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php
SECTION 16-3-10. "Murder" defined.
"Murder" is the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied.
SECTION 16-3-50. Manslaughter.
A person convicted of manslaughter, or the unlawful killing of another without malice, express or implied, must be imprisoned not more than thirty years or less than two years.
There is of course quite a lot more detail , with aggravating and mitigating factors spelled out in painful detail. That link is provided by the state, but a real interpretation would require a S.C. lawyer.
-
I don't think that the cop stopped Scott with the intent of shooting him in the back. If this was premeditated murder, it was not meditated for long.
I would put the odds of this cop getting actual jail time at 50-50.
-
This young man is wise beyond his years.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocmhhhvgusY
-
I would put the odds of this cop getting actual jail time at 50-50.
Given your record of proclamations, he'll probably get 25-life now
-
Given your record of proclamations, he'll probably get 25-life now
I doubt he serves more than ten years.
Like Geraldo says...this is most likely a manslaughter case.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/10/michael-slager-is-not-going-to-prison-for-killing-walter-scott-here-s-why.html
-
I agree. Just throwing a dose of reality water to the good professor, when it comes to his record of claims & accusations