Another cop "fears for his life" - Officer Michael Slager Shooting Unarmed Black Man In The Back

[RavenSky]

Watch the goddamned video before you start in with your asinine justifications. The "dropped taser" was not at any point in Scott's hands. After the cop murdered Scott, the cop ran BACK to where HE dropped the taser, picked it up and then planted it next to Scot's dead body. It is on the video.

I've seen the video and it's very incriminating no doubt about it. But ever stop and think that this particular cop, as are many in African/American areas, probably reacting after having previous bad experiences with them? Just a thought!

The man is a cop. I would expect that the majority of his interactions with the public are "bad" - or would be if police were actually out looking for criminals instead of shooting people for broken taillights. This is absolute no excuse for shooting an unarmed man in the back. A cop is supposed to be a trained professional, not an overly emotional reactionary idiot.

as are many in African/American areas,

^^^ that is a purely racist statement.

 

[RavenSky]

On the positive side, Slager has already been fired from the police force in addition to being arrested for his crime.

 

[RavenSky]

Completely uncalled for!

What is completely uncalled for is the CONSTANT contorted justifications for the killing of black men. Sorry Derec, but your continued slandering of Trayvon Martin supports the validity of my statement. Even in this thread you attempt to put blame on the black man Scott instead of on the killer Slager.

Even if you think running away from cops is always stupid, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that a cop shot him 5 times (8 shots total) & killed him. But by bringing it up in this thread, you did what you generally do, deflect from the murderous behavior of the cop to shift blame to the dead black man.

At least in this incidence you had the good grace and common sense to acknowledge that Slager was out of line. Loren can't even do that. He is still defending Slager's actions.

 

[RavenSky]

Attempting to plant evidence is very bad indeed.

However, from what I heard right before the video started rolling there was an altercation where the dead guy knocked the taser out of the cop's hands. That explains why he had to pick it up to drop it next to the body rather than just taking it from its holster. If true, that behavior certainly raised the threat level in the eyes of the officer.

Right IN the video you can see the taser being tossed or dropped BY THE COP behind the cop. It appears to me that the cop tossed the taser in order to unholster hisshootings tart shooting at the retreating Scott.

A few more facts for you and Loren, and your claims that the taser was a threat:

1. The taser was never in Scott's hands
2. Even if Scott somehow knocked the taser out of Slager's hand, that does not pose a threat to Slager because Scott was retreating and did not have the taser
3. The taser had already been fired. It could not be fired again. So even if Scott really did grab the taser (which he didn't), even if he pointed it right at Slager (which he didn't), it was not and could not be a threat to Slager.

Also note that the cop never tells the retreating Scott to stop. Simply starts shooting him in the back.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Incredible. A man running away from an Officer... a man running away from an Officer who clearly doesn't have a taser... Officer is right in shooting man ruunning away from him because he may have had the taser at one point. Christ, there are a couple people here that should apply for the White House Press Secretary job.

I went looking for any rebuttal to this and found something interesting:

There's what appears to be a dropped Taser involved.

Thus this guy might not have actually been unarmed at the time the cop decided to shoot--he very well might have grabbed the officer's taser and that turns it into an armed conflict--shooting would be appropriate.

I think I just vomited a little in my mouth.

Need to get some coffee.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A cop is supposed to be a trained professional, not an overly emotional reactionary idiot.

Which really is one of the main points of all the cop-killing threads. The police have more power than the average civilian and therefore have higher standards of responsibility than the average civilian.

 

[braces_for_impact]

On a marginally related note, how is arresting someone for not paying child support in any way a valid action? With an arrest, he's probably going to lose whatever job he has and hamstring any potential future employment opportunities and therefore lose the ability to pay the child support even if he wanted to. Wouldn't that kind of thing be better handled by a civil case where his wages get automatically garnished?

I'm just not sure what it is that the arrest was supposed to accomplish.

This is what happens when the state takes a vested interest along with the prosecution, but the defense is left to themself.

 

[KeepTalking]

Simply being arrested is generally not going to lose him his job, he should be able to post bail for the offense, and be out of jail in a few hours. An arrest for something like failure to pay child support will not even get you a mention in the paper. A felony arrest or conviction would be a different story, but I don't believe failure to pay child support is a felony offense.

Google around for the latest John Oliver video. It had to do with the effects of arresting people over the failure to pay parking tickets and the effect that this had on their employment and ability to pay their unpaid parking tickets. It's nowhere near as minor an inconvenience as you're making it out to be. I can't search YouTube videos at work, so I can't link to it myself.

As an example, when the cop arrests this guy after pulling him over, his car is towed away. Assuming he can get his hands on enough cash to make bail that day (not actually a decent assumption) and get to see a judge to present that bail in short order (not actually a decent assumption), he then has to additionally pay more money to go and get his car back (not actually a decent assumption he can do that). If this causes him to miss work, he can get fired for that without much trouble, even absent the employer finding out the reason.

I am only speaking from my own experience. I have been arrested several times, and the only time it affected my employment was when it was on a felony charge, and it made the news. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[scombrid]

but your continued slandering of Trayvon Martin

Come on, you know that if a strange man is following you in his truck that the reasonable thing to do isn't to duck behind buildings to evade him but is to openly approach him and pull out your wallet and show him your I.D. If he gets out of his truck and chases after you then you are required to find the nearest wall and assume the position. Any other behavior deserves death.

 

[Tigers!]

As an outside (Australia) looking in what appalls me is the propensity of americans to attack each other. Cop vs. civilian, white vs. black, black vs. black etc.
Why are you so keen to do violence each other? (I did not use the term shoot as I believe you would use whatever is at hand to attack each other).

Why?

 

[Derec]

"Your side"?
"Your side"?

Yes, the side that cries "murder" any time a white cop shoots a black suspect, no matter the circumstances. A clearly bad shoot is bound to have happened sooner or later, just like even a blind hen sometimes finds a grain of corn.

You fascists constantly complain

Nice name calling.

that "big government" is the problem and that "big government" is oppressing us all, but yet somehow every time the government directly abuses its power over citizens, you make constant excuses for big government. By saying "your side," do you realize that you are declaring your own side to be exactly the thing you claim to be against?

First of all, you must be confusing me with somebody else. Second, I am not excusing the abuse of power. However, I am questioning the uncritical way people shot by the police are treated by some here - even in this case, when we actually agree that it was most likely a bad shoot, a mere acknowledgement that the victim also did wrong is seen as some sort of threat. That sort of uncritical approach is the reason for my much maligned appellation of "Saint" in previous cases of police shootings.

 

[Derec]

What is completely uncalled for is the CONSTANT contorted justifications for the killing of black men.

It is important to see the whole picture in these cases

Sorry Derec, but your continued slandering of Trayvon Martin supports the validity of my statement.

I never slandered Trayvon. And in fact, I always acknowledged that both of them made mistakes and errors of judgment that evening. It is your side which steadfastly denies that Trayvon did anything wrong. Just like now there are denials that Scott did anything wrong.
Just like Trayvon didn't "die for Skittles", Michael Brown wasn't "killed for jaywalking" and Nicholas Thomas (the guy killed in a customer's Maserati in Smyrna, GA) wasn't "killed over a traffic violation", so Scott wasn't killed because he had a busted taillight either.

Even in this thread you attempt to put blame on the black man Scott instead of on the killer Slager.

The fact is that he did several things that were not only wrong but also stupid, and but for those things he'd still be alive. That doesn't excuse the shooting, but it does put things in perspective.

Even if you think running away from cops is always stupid, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that a cop shot him 5 times (8 shots total) & killed him. But by bringing it up in this thread, you did what you generally do, deflect from the murderous behavior of the cop to shift blame to the dead black man.

It is important to "keep it 100" and acknowledge that Scott does share a portion of the blame here. Even if he was black and pointing this out is not considered politically correct.

At least in this incidence you had the good grace and common sense to acknowledge that Slager was out of line.

Unlike you I am willing to look at the whole picture.

 

[Derec]

Right IN the video you can see the taser being tossed or dropped BY THE COP behind the cop. It appears to me that the cop tossed the taser in order to unholster hisshootings tart shooting at the retreating Scott.

What kind of tart?
The video only pans to the two of them as Scott is already running away. We do not see whether he knocked the taser out of officer's hands but we do know that they were in close proximity before Scott broke away and started running.

1. The taser was never in Scott's hands
2. Even if Scott somehow knocked the taser out of Slager's hand, that does not pose a threat to Slager because Scott was retreating and did not have the taser

If true, it does show that Scott engaged in a physical scuffle with the police officer before breaking away and running.

3. The taser had already been fired. It could not be fired again. So even if Scott really did grab the taser (which he didn't), even if he pointed it right at Slager (which he didn't), it was not and could not be a threat to Slager.

And if the taser barbs connected with Scott why was he apparently impervious to it? I wonder if he was on drugs (like PCP).

Also note that the cop never tells the retreating Scott to stop. Simply starts shooting him in the back.

True. They both committed stupid mistakes and they both have or will pay for it. One with his life, the other with his freedom.

 

[Derec]

As an outside (Australia) looking in what appalls me is the propensity of americans to attack each other. Cop vs. civilian, white vs. black, black vs. black etc.
Why are you so keen to do violence each other? (I did not use the term shoot as I believe you would use whatever is at hand to attack each other).

Why?

Not enough native fauna that's trying to kill us on a daily basis so it tends to get boring.

 

[Rhea]

A clearly bad shoot is

A "shoot." That sounds so vulgar, so dehumanizing. So disgustingly hateful.
A man is DEAD and you say it was "a shoot."

A shoot is what happens when you are having a deer-culling event.
A shoot is what happens when you line up and kill things.

And, apparently, it's a thing that police do. "A shoot." We're're going to have a shoot from time to time." And, apparently, there are also bad shoots that aren't, for example, "clearly" bad.
And of course, this also implies that there is a thing that is a "good shoot" that Police ca do from time to time.
Is there a Season for that? Tags? Bag limits?

A clearly bad shoot is bound to have happened sooner or later,

Really. Why. Why is something like "bound to happen"? Because erring on the side of humane law enforcement is not worthwhile? Because FUCKING MURDERING PEOPLE WHEN YOU WEAR A BADGE is a thing that is "bound to happen"?

Are you fucking KIDDING me?

just like even a blind hen sometimes finds a grain of corn.

Yes.... Yes. Just like that. A murder is a thing that can be an unexpected prize even to the incompetent.


This is so deeply disturbing.

 

[Failte]

Thus this guy might not have actually been unarmed at the time the cop decided to shoot--he very well might have grabbed the officer's taser and that turns it into an armed conflict--shooting would be appropriate.

My understanding is that cops have the same limitations on their rights/abilities to fire their weapon as everyone else does -- in clear defense of their own lives, or the lives of others.

If you shoot someone who is running away from you, especially at that distance -- well, the parameters aren't met, and you are wrong and it's murder. There are clear rules for dealing with someone running away, and shooting them in the back is not one of them.

Even if there was a physical scuffle, there is no threat to bodily harm from someone who is running away from you.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, if you shoot someone in the back while he's running away from you then you committed murder. Full stop. There really aren't any extenuating circumstances which change that. It doesn't matter what kind of scuffle happened beforehand.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, the side that cries "murder" any time a white cop shoots a black suspect, no matter the circumstances.

If the guy was white, I don't think people in here would have turned a blind eye to the video. Your claim of racism is wholly unsubstantiated and a sign of desperation.

A clearly bad shoot is bound to have happened sooner or later, just like even a blind hen sometimes finds a grain of corn.

But you aren't even convinced this was a bad shoot.

You fascists constantly complain

Nice name calling.

You are calling him racist, so pot and kettle?

that "big government" is the problem and that "big government" is oppressing us all, but yet somehow every time the government directly abuses its power over citizens, you make constant excuses for big government. By saying "your side," do you realize that you are declaring your own side to be exactly the thing you claim to be against?

First of all, you must be confusing me with somebody else. Second, I am not excusing the abuse of power. However, I am questioning the uncritical way people shot by the police are treated by some here - even in this case, when we actually agree that it was most likely a bad shoot, a mere acknowledgement that the victim also did wrong is seen as some sort of threat. That sort of uncritical approach is the reason for my much maligned appellation of "Saint" in previous cases of police shootings.

Uncritical approach? That is your baseless opinion.

 

[bigfield]

As an outside (Australia) looking in what appalls me is the propensity of americans to attack each other. Cop vs. civilian, white vs. black, black vs. black etc.
Why are you so keen to do violence each other? (I did not use the term shoot as I believe you would use whatever is at hand to attack each other).

Why?

Not enough native fauna that's trying to kill us on a daily basis so it tends to get boring.

No, it's because too many of you are full of fear, full of hate, and spectacularly ignorant.

The excuses you come up with to justify these murders just sound so fucking pathetic.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Ya, if you shoot someone in the back while he's running away from you then you committed murder. Full stop. There really aren't any extenuating circumstances which change that. It doesn't matter what kind of scuffle happened beforehand.

But you can draw a full circle around the Earth that shows that he was running *toward* the office, just the long way around.