Let's argue about Mike Brown!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32213482

A Charleston Cop, Michael Slager, will be charged with the murder of Anthony Scott. The incident occurred after the 50 year old Scott was stopped for having a broken rear light. Scott got out of the car, and after a brief scuffle, he tried to run away but was shot dead by Slager. Of course, you're going to focus on Scott having a record and running away from the cop. Forget the fact that a fit 33 year old cop refused to chase down a 50 year old overweight man.

Will there be an indictment so this case can go to trial? Don't count on it.

 
detectiveconan16 said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32213482

A Charleston Cop, Michael Slager, will be charged with the murder of Anthony Scott. The incident occurred after the 50 year old Scott was stopped for having a broken rear light. Scott got out of the car, and after a brief scuffle, he tried to run away but was shot dead by Slager. Of course, you're going to focus on Scott having a record and running away from the cop. Forget the fact that a fit 33 year old cop refused to chase down a 50 year old overweight man.

Will there be an indictment so this case can go to trial? Don't count on it.
Click to expand...
So he's been charged with murder... but you don't think it'll go trial? Explain.

 
The police and the district attorney can charge you with crimes. Indictment is a formal recognition by a grand jury of the crimes you are charged with according to the case presented by the prosecutor. This means the case can go to trial, where you can be convicted by the jury. Then you are sentenced. That's all I got from a cruddy education. Of course this can change state by state.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing is...everything about this case is almost the opposite of the Mike Brown case. Even if the cop took a haymaker to the jaw, there is rock-solid evidence that the guy was running away. And the autopsy will back that up by showing GSWs in the back. The law states plain as day that your life is no longer in danger and self defense is no longer applicable when the threat has retreated.

The only way I could see them refuting that would be if the guy had been a mass murderer and allowing him to escape would endanger society. Obviously, the cop has his side of the story to tell...and he has a right to defend his actions. But I just don't see where his argument justifying this shooting comes from.

What this seems to boil down to is poor judgment based on fear, anger, and embarrassment...which are probably the three worst emotions to have your decisions influenced by.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
n8rockerasu said:
The thing is...everything about this case is almost the opposite of the Mike Brown case. Even if the cop took a haymaker to the jaw, there is rock-solid evidence that the guy was running away. And the autopsy will back that up by showing GSWs in the back. The law states plain as day that your life is no longer in danger and self defense is no longer applicable when the threat has retreated.

The only way I could see them refuting that would be if the guy had been a mass murderer and allowing him to escape would endanger society. Obviously, the cop has his side of the story to tell...and he has a right to defend his actions. But I just don't see where his argument justifying this shooting comes from.

What this seems to boil down to is poor judgment based on fear, anger, and embarrassment...which are probably the three worst emotions to have your decisions influenced by.
Click to expand...
Self defense for average citizens and use of lethal force for officers aren't completely the same. There's a significant overlap but there are also some narrow circumstances in which an officer can use lethal force on a fleeing suspect. If you're curious, the guiding case on this issue is Tennessee v. Garner.

The problem with this case is not just the fact that it looks like he dropped the taser by the body but also that it's going to be difficult for him to prove he was a dangerous suspect who posed a danger to others, particularly considering the reason for the stop was for a light being out and the attempted arrest was for non-payment of child support. Neither of those are violent crimes and the video evidence doesn't support an argument that he was violent. He fled but that's about it, still no violence.

This one is the least gray area of all the recent police shootings, in my opinion. The only hope this officer has is a plea deal cause he's done.
 
That's interesting. I will openly admit I'm not as familiar with self defense concerning law enforcement. I guess I was mostly operating on an assumption that they wouldn't have MORE leniency in the right to kill someone who is no longer a threat.

Regardless, there's a lot of fault to be found with the officer here. I didn't even really hear him yell "Stop!" or anything at the guy before opening fire. There is something said briefly at the beginning of the video, but I can't make it out. You can hear the "put your hands behind your back" later (after he's lit the guy up with gunfire), but the camera guy had also moved a bit closer by that point.

But God damn...just straight up shooting somebody in the back. I don't know what was going through his head. I've seen articles mentioning a scuffle, but I'd love to see what damage (if any) the officer sustained. This is the type of situation though where I question what impact the other shootings have had on it. It's entirely possible both the officer and victim came into it with a heightened sense of anxiety. There's just a huge disconnect right now, and it's bad for everybody.

 
n8rockerasu said:
But God damn...just straight up shooting somebody in the back. I don't know what was going through his head. I've seen articles mentioning a scuffle, but I'd love to see what damage (if any) the officer sustained. This is the type of situation though where I question what impact the other shootings have had on it. It's entirely possible both the officer and victim came into it with a heightened sense of anxiety. There's just a huge disconnect right now, and it's bad for everybody.
Click to expand...
I wonder if it was a shot in the back to say "hey motherfucker, don't you run away from me!" You know, to make a point to the guy.

Of course 8 shots are not 1 in the air to scare a guy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
n8rockerasu said:
But God damn...just straight up shooting somebody in the back. I don't know what was going through his head. I've seen articles mentioning a scuffle, but I'd love to see what damage (if any) the officer sustained. This is the type of situation though where I question what impact the other shootings have had on it. It's entirely possible both the officer and victim came into it with a heightened sense of anxiety. There's just a huge disconnect right now, and it's bad for everybody.
Click to expand...
Cleveland still hasn't dealt with that case where the 12 year old boy was shot dead after the cop pulled up to him, yelled at him to put down the gun, and shot him all within five seconds.

 
Apparently the guy in the mobile phone video was already tazed before running according to the witness/guy that recorded it.

"I was on a phone call and I decide to walk over there and see what was going on," Santana said. "They were down on the floor before I started recording."

He continued, "I remember police had control of the situation, he (Slager) had control of Scott and Scott was trying to get away from the Taser."

"I believe he (Scott) was trying to get away from the Taser," Santana said.

He explained he then saw Scott get shot and go down.

 
detectiveconan16 said:
Cleveland still hasn't dealt with that case where the 12 year old boy was shot dead after the cop pulled up to him, yelled at him to put down the gun, and shot him all within five seconds.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's such a weird case because at least there it APPEARED that the kid was a threat. He APPEARED of legal age. He APPEARED to have a real weapon. It doesn't mean the cops handled the situation properly, but there's at least a line of thinking to follow.

slowdive21 said:
Apparently the guy in the mobile phone video was already tazed before running according to the witness/guy that recorded it.

"I was on a phone call and I decide to walk over there and see what was going on," Santana said. "They were down on the floor before I started recording."

He continued, "I remember police had control of the situation, he (Slager) had control of Scott and Scott was trying to get away from the Taser."

"I believe he (Scott) was trying to get away from the Taser," Santana said.

He explained he then saw Scott get shot and go down.
Click to expand...
Ehh...if I were a judge, I'd probably toss out that testimony. Too much bias and sketchiness going on these days to give any "eye witness" much credibility. Just use facts and science that you can measure. Short of a giant conspiracy where the victim's fingerprints are planted on the officer's taser and gun (and if that's the case, then we might as well pack it in as a society), you shouldn't need someone to tell you what they think they saw happening to figure out what actually happened.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And on the two sides to every coin front...this happened at the end of March. How many people heard about it?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/boston-shot-face-traffic-stop-reports-article-1.2165184

I still question if the methods LEOs currently use to stop and question people are the safest for all parties involved. Maybe getting on the bullhorn and giving commands would appear to be more rigid and frightening, but if it's the safest thing for everyone involved, maybe that should be standard procedure.

If the officer's safety is endangered by assuming that I DON'T have a gun...and if my safety is endangered by the officer assuming that I DO have a gun...then what the hell are you supposed to do? I would think maintaining a safe distance and staying behind some form of cover would be the best approach. And on the street...I don't know, some variant of that. Just walking up to people and engaging is just making everybody jumpy as hell.

 
I wasn't taking a side, I was just posting the update. In theory it helps the cop because an eye witness is explaining what happened before he started recording. At the very least it shows the man was resisting arrest and a non lethal approach was taken to apprehend him.

 
slowdive21 said:
I wasn't taking a side, I was just posting the update. In theory it helps the cop because an eye witness is explaining what happened before he started recording. At the very least it shows the man was resisting arrest and a non lethal approach was taken to apprehend him.
Click to expand...
Oh, yeah. I'm not saying all information shouldn't be taken into consideration. I guess it just sometimes feels like people think having a witness is some kind of case-closed, be-all-end-all proof. But when you consider the studies that have been done on how people remember things in stressful situations and/or people's bias or personal beliefs, I just don't really think much of any witness in most any case, haha.

Maybe that says more about me though. If I were a judge, I'd be like "Come at me like Mr. Spock or GTFO!" :lol:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top