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

[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.

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

OK, that's a fair rebuttal. I concede the point.

 

[Archimedes]

Unarmed dude gets shot in the back while running away from a police officer and people are actually excusing it? The mind boggles.

 

[Archimedes]

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!

If I think about it enough am I supposed to conclude that shooting an unarmed person in the back while fleeing away from you is a reasonable or excusable thing for a police officer to do?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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!

If I think about it enough am I supposed to conclude that shooting an unarmed person in the back while fleeing away from you is a reasonable or excusable thing for a police officer to do?

I wonder what previous bad experience he could have had to make shooting someone in the back while they're running away a reasonable response? I really don't see how thinking about it more would somehow lead to a justification or excuse.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We do see the victim running away with Taser barbs hanging from his back.

Clearly, after he wrestled the taser from the bewildered and terrified officer, this master criminal made one fatal mistake. He fired his new found weapon, but while doing so spun around to launch a devastating karate kick at the cop, leading to the taser barbs hitting him in the back instead. Ignoring the barbs with his super-human power of blackness, he then ran from the cop in order to gain some distance so he could launch a flying kick and finally take out his brave but clearly outmatched opponent.

None of this was caught on video, of course, as the person shooting the video was black and they're not to be trusted because Al Sharpton.

What we're really seeing on the video is an almost miraculous recovery by the cop where he gets off a lucky shot or eight while his assailant is vulnerable in the only way black people are ever vulnerable...when their back is turned as they run away in preparation for a killing strike.


Of course the "murder" charges will probably stick because political correctness reverse racism Jesse Jackson liberal media.

More likely the cop fired the taser but at least one barb didn't set and it had no effect. At that point the suspect grabbed the taser away from the cop and the cop reacted as would be expected when facing an armed, combative opponent.

 

[Sarpedon]

It must have been that time someone ran away from him, only to grab a flamethrower and torch a preschool.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

First of all, only a small percentage of people who flee from the police get killed. It is hardly a "near certainty" but nevertheless the non-negligible risk of getting killed is one of the reasons why running from the police is a stupid thing to do.

There are three cases where the cops are likely to shoot someone who is running away:

1) They are guilty of something sufficiently serious that the police are allowed to shoot to prevent their escape.

2) Based on their behavior the cop considers them a threat to others around. (These are normally crazies or high on certain drugs.)

3) They are armed with a ranged weapon and their behavior shows that they are a threat to the cop. The cop (or a civilian) is not required to magically distinguish whether they are seeking cover or leaving combat entirely if it's not apparent from their actions.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

It may have spooked the cop. It may have pissed him off too.
The problem I see is that the cop pretty clearly knew that the taser was back on the ground, which seems to indicate that he shot an unarmed man in the back who posed no threat

After the fact the cop knew the taser was on the ground. That doesn't mean the cop knew it at the time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bullshit "we" don't. Everyone except you saw perfectly well how the taser ended up on the ground BEHIND the cop, nowhere near Scott as Scott limped away and the copy shot him multiple time in the back.

You have to be pulling our collective legs at this point, because you cannot possibly seriously mean what you are posting here.

The key point here is whether the cop knew where the taser was at the time. If all he knew is that the taser was taken from him he's in a very dangerous situation--when cop's weapons are taken they're often turned on the cop.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

More likely the cop fired the taser but at least one barb didn't set and it had no effect. At that point the suspect grabbed the taser away from the cop and the cop reacted as would be expected when facing an armed, combative opponent.

How exactly does being ten to fifteen feet away and running in the opposite direction without a weapon count as either "armed" or "combative"? The officer realized immediately that he needed to pick up the taser, carry it over and put it on the ground next to the body in order to look like he was under threat. He was clearly not confused about the situation or anything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

And the cop knows this for sure? He certainly knows the taser has been taken from him. He certainly can't see it.

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.

While it can't be fired again as a taser they have a secondary mode as a stun gun that still does work.

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

This proves nothing at all. A warning about shooting a fleeing felon is normal. There's no such requirement when one is shooting because of the threat--warnings take time, something you often don't have in a threatening situation.

 

[Nexus]

While it can't be fired again as a taser they have a secondary mode as a stun gun that still does work.

Its impossible to use a stun gun on someone if you are running away from them.

 

[crispy]

And the cop knows this for sure? He certainly knows the taser has been taken from him. He certainly can't see it.

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.

While it can't be fired again as a taser they have a secondary mode as a stun gun that still does work.

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

This proves nothing at all. A warning about shooting a fleeing felon is normal. There's no such requirement when one is shooting because of the threat--warnings take time, something you often don't have in a threatening situation.

Loren, there was not threat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

1) The laws are a bit different for cops. They can legally shoot fleeing felons, civilians generally can't. (This varies a bit, though--we had a case here a few years back where the victim turned the tables and then chased down and killed one of his torturers: legal. The key factor was that they were torturing him.)

2) The defense of others also varies. AFIAK you are always allowed to defend family but not always others. There are states where you can't defend someone not related to you--even if they're your live-in partner.

3) Neither of these are even relevant here as there is a case where both cops & civilians can shoot someone in the back. The key point is what they were doing at the time--were they repositioning or disengaging? There's no requirement to be a magical mind reader in this regard, if it's not clear you can shoot.

 

[marc]

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!

If I think about it enough am I supposed to conclude that shooting an unarmed person in the back while fleeing away from you is a reasonable or excusable thing for a police officer to do?

Maybe the question should be "In what case is an officer NOT justified to use lethal force?". What is the extent of the range of actions between total immediate submission to the cop, and shoot to kill?

 

[Rhea]

You missed my points.

First of all, only a small percentage of people who flee from the police get killed. It is hardly a "near certainty" but nevertheless the non-negligible risk of getting killed is one of the reasons why running from the police is a stupid thing to do.

Only an assumption of near-certainty turns running into stupid for a person trying to evade capture.

If they have any chance of evading, delaying or confusing the issue, it behooves them to run. If, separately, they have fear from actions at your hands like a beating, maiming or unreasonably harsh jailing, it makes sense to try to run.... unless the overriding assumption is, "if you try to run, I will try to kill you." At that point running may become stupid. And what a horrible civilization that contains such assumptions.

AND not face any discipline over it.

That does not really enter the equation whether the running from the police is stupid.

You missed this point, too. That is, the lack of consequences to the cop makes the first assumption more likely. The cop is actually more likely to try to unreasonably kill the fleeing person if they sense that there will never be consequences from their attempt.

 

[marc]

While it can't be fired again as a taser they have a secondary mode as a stun gun that still does work.

I have never heard that a taser could be used as a stun gun before this incident. I've tried searching, but did not find anything about tasers with a secondary stun-gun mode. Do you know of anywhere that this can be substantiated?

 

[Sarpedon]

I have heard that some can do both.

I haven't heard of any taser or stun gun that can be used while it is sitting on the ground by someone who is running in the opposite direction.

 

[Rhea]

If I think about it enough am I supposed to conclude that shooting an unarmed person in the back while fleeing away from you is a reasonable or excusable thing for a police officer to do?

Maybe the question should be "In what case is an officer NOT justified to use lethal force?". What is the extent of the range of actions between total immediate submission to the cop, and shoot to kill?

It overlaps. Because even if they DO immediatly and totally submit, yoou STILL shoot them.
Remember the guy who was told to get his ID and when he reached for it immediately, he got shot?

Remember the guy who had both hands up _saying_ "I am getting out I don;t want to get shot?"

BLAM.

Blam blam blam.

or, wait...

Maybe the question should be "In what case is an officer NOT justified to use lethal force?".

Answer: when the victim is white. Then, you talk to them for 45 minutes to get the situation resolved peacefully.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And the cop knows this for sure?

Probably can see the taser on the ground right by him.

He certainly knows the taser has been taken from him. He certainly can't see it.

What? Did this happen in Beijing?

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.

While it can't be fired again as a taser they have a secondary mode as a stun gun that still does work.

Stun guns are notoriously useless as a weapon when you are running away from the person you'd use it against.

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

This proves nothing at all. A warning about shooting a fleeing felon is normal. There's no such requirement when one is shooting because of the threat--warnings take time, something you often don't have in a threatening situation.

What... is he worried that if he barks a warning, that'll give the guy more time to flee?

Seriously, it seems like the Officer could have sodomized the guy's dead body and you'd defend it as checking for contraban, because he must have been packing something into his colon if he were to run away from the officer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are three cases where the cops are likely to shoot someone who is running away:

1) They are guilty of something sufficiently serious that the police are allowed to shoot to prevent their escape.

Not the case here.

2) Based on their behavior the cop considers them a threat to others around. (These are normally crazies or high on certain drugs.)

Not the case here.

3) They are armed with a ranged weapon and their behavior shows that they are a threat to the cop. The cop (or a civilian) is not required to magically distinguish whether they are seeking cover or leaving combat entirely if it's not apparent from their actions.

A stun gun is not a ranged weapon, therefore not the case here.