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

[Derec]

There does not seem to be any evidence of a struggle. Looks like he started running and got shot because of that.

Two witnesses say that there was a struggle. The guy who shot the video and a woman.

Feidin Santana was walking to work when he saw Slager and Scott struggle on the ground, he told NBC's Lester Holt on Wednesday. Santana then took out his phone and started recording video.
"I remember the police (officer) had control of the situation. He had control of Scott," Santana said. Then, Santana said, he heard the sound of a Taser.
It seemed to Santana that Scott was trying to get away and avoid being zapped with the Tasered[sic] again.

Note that Santana is sympathetic to Scott.

On Thursday, a second witness spoke to CNN about what she saw. Gwen Nichols said she was in the neighborhood when she heard police cars speeding by and, curious, she followed them.
She saw Scott and Slager at the entrance to a vacant lot.
"It was like a tussle type of thing, like, you know, like, 'What do you want?' or 'What did I do?' type of thing," said Nichols, who said she has not yet talked to police about what she saw.

She also appears very eager to make Scott sound as sympathetic as possible but she also mentions a "tussle".

- - - Updated - - -

Did your mother have you tested?

No. Did yours?

 

[Derec]

This is you yet again blaming the dead black victim.

If a person is to be blamed for something we should not refrain from doing it just because he is black and a victim.
Neither of these insulate somebody from having done wrong.
Slager could have committed murder but that would not mean that Scott did nothing blameworthy. In fact, he ran from a lawful stop. He struggled with the police. That's enough to show a degree of blame.

This is not you "looking at the big picture". This is you "speculating" a/k/a slandering the victim on the basis of nothing more than your own prejudices.

Yes, the thing with drugs is a speculation (based on irrational decision to run and being impervious to taser which is common with certain drugs), clearly indicated as such by the use of a question mark. It's not slander. Well first of all, it would be libel anyway, but it's not as I did not state it as a fact, just a speculation, and it wasn't shown that he wasn't on drugs. Triple fail.

 

[Derec]

I think you regularly mix up your predujiced imagination for facts, unless you think you are psychic :rolling eyes:

I think somebody is projecting their own "predujices"(sic). The post I replied to claimed that Scott's decision to run was rational because he was running from the person who shot him.

Again your selective memory allows you to blame the dead black victim. There have, unfortunately, been several recent cases of black men shot and killed for NOT running, for actually complying with police orders and still being shoot dead.

I do not doubt there have been cases like that. But far fewer than people getting killed for attacking police or brandishing a gun. So you have a much greater number of total cases. But it gets worse as you have millions of cases where people who are stopped are "actually complying with police orders" vs. a much smaller number of people who resist or flee. So you have a much smaller number divided by a very large number and you get a very small probability. Or you divide a bigger number by a smaller number of total cases and you get a much larger probability.
Is any of this getting through?

But neither here nor there, how come when YOU speculate -always in a manner slanderous to the dead black victim - it is fine, but when anyone else speculates you dance around having hissy fits?

The only people throwing hissy fits in this thread are on your side of the political spectrum.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Excuse me for finding some degree of levity in a tragic situation.

We possibly could if there was something funny.

Two witnesses say that there was a struggle. The guy who shot the video and a woman.

Feidin Santana was walking to work when he saw Slager and Scott struggle on the ground, he told NBC's Lester Holt on Wednesday. Santana then took out his phone and started recording video.
"I remember the police (officer) had control of the situation. He had control of Scott," Santana said. Then, Santana said, he heard the sound of a Taser.
It seemed to Santana that Scott was trying to get away and avoid being zapped with the Tasered[sic] again.

Note that Santana is sympathetic to Scott.

On Thursday, a second witness spoke to CNN about what she saw. Gwen Nichols said she was in the neighborhood when she heard police cars speeding by and, curious, she followed them.
She saw Scott and Slager at the entrance to a vacant lot.
"It was like a tussle type of thing, like, you know, like, 'What do you want?' or 'What did I do?' type of thing," said Nichols, who said she has not yet talked to police about what she saw.

She also appears very eager to make Scott sound as sympathetic as possible but she also mentions a "tussle".

Which we know is bullshit because of the bruises and broken facial bones on the officer.

 

[Derec]

Can someone explain to me the mentality behind the continual cries of "the victim did something stupid" whenever there's a thread about a cop shooting someone dead. There's a bizarre implication that a cop shooting someone is an acceptable response to them doing something stupid. If that's not the implication, then what relevance does it have?

It doesn't make it acceptable but it shows that one increases the change of a bad outcome by acting stupid. Even if he wasn't shot he would have had to be brought down with some use of force and arrested which could have caused injury (the guy is 50 after all). Taser is not only painful but can cause cardiac arrest or an injury can be sustained when falling. And at the end of it he would be looking at additional charges, possibly including a felony. And it's not like he had any reasonable change of evading the police what with being on foot and the cop having his licence.
And yet some people think running from a traffic stop is a smart tactic because cops are all racists hell bent on killing black people in their cars.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't find stupidity to be a remotely justifiable excuse for armed agents of the state to shoot people dead.

It's not about whether it is justified or not. Frankly, Scott is beyond caring whether the shooting was justified or not. Not even a murder conviction would help him. But he could have decreased his chances not only of death but of other bad outcomes by several orders of magnitude by not behaving stupidly.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think Derec is having trouble understanding the concept and finality of death.

 

[Derec]

What does come as a surprise is that a few people seem to think that their observation that jumping out of a car in a police stop being a bad idea is somehow a unique interpretation on their part and they feel it necessary to explain to us.

That came as a surprise to me as well. But some of the posters here seem to think it wasn't such a bad move.

- - - Updated - - -

I think Derec is having trouble understanding the concept and finality of death.

No, I understand the concept entirely (see my earlier post where I referenced GTA as the way real life isn't).

 

[Derec]

The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias (or assumption) that a person's actions are inherently inclined to bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person, to the end of all noble actions being eventually rewarded and all evil actions eventually punished. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of—a universal force that restores moral balance.

It's not that a "universal force that restores moral balance". And it's not about outcomes being just either. Scott being shot dead is not a just outcome. But he placed himself in a situation where such an outcome was much more likely than otherwise.

What is true however, is that actions have consequences. That is an amoral statement of fact. Flee from the police and engage them in a struggle and you face an aggressive response by the police in return. You also risk the police overreacting and, I don't know, shooting you five times. Or beating the crap out of you, like with the horse thief.

As they say, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. That does not mean they deserve it, just that they stand a much bigger chance of something bad happening.

 

[fast]

If a person is to be blamed for something we should not refrain from doing it just because he is black and a victim.
Neither of these insulate somebody from having done wrong.
Slager could have committed murder but that would not mean that Scott did nothing blameworthy. In fact, he ran from a lawful stop. He struggled with the police. That's enough to show a degree of blame.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose a few things. Let's suppose that 1) you hold the opinion that the shooting was unjustified, and let's say 2) you're correct. You may not soon solidify such an opinion, but let's just suppose.

Also, let's say that 3) the guy would not have gotten shot and killed had he not done the wrong things he did, but additionally, let's also say that 4) the guy would not have gotten shot had the officer had an extra moment of critical thought before taking aim and shooting.

The issue of justification is settled in the 2nd assumption. The truth of the 3rd assumption doesn't change that.

The issue of justification is different than the issue of explanation. To answer why he got shot is to explain why he got shot. Both the 3rd and 4th assumption seems to explain in parts why the car thief (if he was) that ran both before and after the scuffle (if there was) eventually got shot and killed.

People have a tendency to misalign explanation with justification, especially when an act is justified. For instance, my speeding explains why I got a speeding ticket, as if I wasn't speeding, I wouldn't have gotten a speeding ticket, but because the ticket was justified, people sometimes forget the explanation that I would not have gotten a speeding ticket had the cop not been out doing his job. Notice that both explanations are independent of justification.

But, the topic of blame can be touchy and tricky. Consider the hypothetical where the blameless girl wearing skimpy clothes wouldn't have been raped had she not been wearing skimpy clothes. By the same token (while covering explanations), she wouldn't have been raped had the creep had a shred of decency.

To blame is to say who is at fault, and that surrounds the justification issue, not the explanation side of things, so the 3rd assumption that appears to give you cause to lay blame needs to be rethought, as that surrounds the explanation side of things instead of the justification issue.

 

[Will Wiley]

From what I can see the guy ran from the car (afraid of something). The officer chased him and ordered him to get on the ground and at some point tasered him. Then the guy tries to get away from the taser by running away. At this point the cop shoots him. Have I got the story right?
I think a lot of officers would have done the same thing. A lot of police IMHO would have shot the guy. Agree? Disagree? Is there some kind of culture or idea in police that is the root of the problem?

 

[Arctish]

The dashboard cam video shows Scott running. There are background noises and witness statements that indicate Slager caught up to Scott and attempted to restrain him. Let's all suppose that is what happened: Slager caught up to Scott and attempted to place him in handcuffs. Slager might also have attempted to use his taser on Scott. The cell phone recording shows that Scott broke away and began running again. Slager then shot Scott in the back at a distance of 30' and increasing.

How does Scott's poor decision making in any way lessen the responsibility of the officer to respond appropriately to the non-life-threatening situation of having to chase Scott some more?

 

[Will Wiley]

The dashboard cam video shows Scott running. There are background noises and witness statements that indicate Slager caught up to Scott and attempted to restrain him. Let's all suppose that is what happened: Slager caught up to Scott and attempted to place him in handcuffs. Slager might also have attempted to use his taser on Scott. The cell phone recording shows that Scott broke away and began running again. Slager then shot Scott in the back at a distance of 30' and increasing.

How does Scott's poor decision making in any way lessen the responsibility of the officer to respond appropriately to the non-life-threatening situation of having to chase Scott some more?

It wouldn't. I just wonder if there is some kind of culture where cops think they can kill people with impunity, and have some kind of right to shoot if the situation becomes too difficult.
Or perhaps Police Forces, in some places, attract a certain kind of individual?

 

[barbos]

From what I can see the guy ran from the car (afraid of something). The officer chased him and ordered him to get on the ground and at some point tasered him. Then the guy tries to get away from the taser by running away. At this point the cop shoots him. Have I got the story right?
I think a lot of officers would have done the same thing. A lot of police IMHO would have shot the guy. Agree? Disagree? Is there some kind of culture or idea in police that is the root of the problem?

Yeah, this appears what's happened. I think officer was confused by attempt to flee from such a minor thing. Something must have clicked neurons in his head toward "I must stop this guy at any cost". He might have thought he was some serious criminal or something.
I have watched a lot of "Cops" shows and there were a lot of similar incidents where people act stupidly during police stops and they were not shot, of course if they were they would not have shown it.

 

[Jokodo]

It's probably alredy been said, but would this be such a big deal had the cop been black and the runner white?

The only difference this reversal would make is that you wouldn't be motivated to say "In this case, the evidence is indeed incrimating, but won't you all stop and think about how this could be a reaction to the racist abuses he has suffered from white civilians"?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias (or assumption) that a person's actions are inherently inclined to bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person, to the end of all noble actions being eventually rewarded and all evil actions eventually punished. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of—a universal force that restores moral balance.

It's not that a "universal force that restores moral balance". And it's not about outcomes being just either. Scott being shot dead is not a just outcome. But he placed himself in a situation where such an outcome was much more likely than otherwise.

What is true however, is that actions have consequences. That is an amoral statement of fact. Flee from the police and engage them in a struggle and you face an aggressive response by the police in return. You also risk the police overreacting and, I don't know, shooting you five times. Or beating the crap out of you, like with the horse thief.

As they say, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. That does not mean they deserve it, just that they stand a much bigger chance of something bad happening.

I agree with Derec, the shooting was immoral and the officer should be charged in the man's death.

 

[angelo]

It's probably alredy been said, but would this be such a big deal had the cop been black and the runner white?

The only difference this reversal would make is that you wouldn't be motivated to say "In this case, the evidence is indeed incrimating, but won't you all stop and think about how this could be a reaction to the racist abuses he has suffered from white civilians"?

Exactly the point I was trying to make!

 

[Archimedes]

The only difference this reversal would make is that you wouldn't be motivated to say "In this case, the evidence is indeed incrimating, but won't you all stop and think about how this could be a reaction to the racist abuses he has suffered from white civilians"?

Exactly the point I was trying to make!

Your point was that if the situation was reversed you wouldn't be motivated to say "In this case, the evidence is indeed incrimating, but won't you all stop and think about how this could be a reaction to the racist abuses he has suffered from white civilians"?

 

[Archimedes]

It doesn't make it acceptable but it shows that one increases the change of a bad outcome by acting stupid.

Was anyone in doubt that behaving stupidly can result in negative outcomes? How is it relevant to the case at hand? I find it disturbing that when an unarmed man gets shot five times in the back while fleeing from a police officer who then planted a taser beside the body to incriminate the victim, that some people's most prominent thoughts on the matter are "well that victim was stupid!" instead of thinking "well that cop just straight up killed that guy for no good reason and planted evidence to incriminate the victim!"

What's very telling is that the victim is being blamed (and yes, it is victim blaming even if you insist it isn't) for "panicking and doing something stupid" while the cop is simultaneously being defended for "panicking and doing something stupid" (see Loren's earlier post about planting the taser beside the victim).

When you've been shot five times in the back by a cop you were running away from, it's not that bad because you "panicked and did something stupid". And if you're a cop and plant evidence beside a dead body, that also isn't too bad because you "panicked and did something stupid". It's just amazing to see the hoops people will jump through to excuse gross abuse of power by a cop.

 

[Jokodo]

The only difference this reversal would make is that you wouldn't be motivated to say "In this case, the evidence is indeed incrimating, but won't you all stop and think about how this could be a reaction to the racist abuses he has suffered from white civilians"?

Exactly the point I was trying to make!

So the point you're trying to make is that you, the guy from Western Australia who goes by the nick of "angelo", only ever make half-assed excuses for white murderers, declaring their acts morally understandable even when they're not legally kosher, but never do the same for black murderers.

Interesting point you have there. I couldn't agree more.

 

[NobleSavage]

18 pages... is anyone taking Slager side? I hope not. I sure wouldn't want to be Slager in prison.