Another fatal police shootin

Von Tonner · 04-08-15, 04:50 AM

Here we go again. With the video there appears to be very little wriggle room for the officer.

On one hand I have sympathy for the officer. You are the law and should be obeyed if you tell someone to stop. By running away the fugitive is not only trying to escape but is also directly challenging the officers authority which can, human nature being what it is, make him become angry and over-react. I understand that.

But on the other hand, why fire to kill? Why not shoot for the legs or very least waist down. Why the head? If you can hit his head you can hit his legs.

As the article states the Supreme court has ruled that the law can shoot to kill a fleeing suspect only if he or she is a threat to the officer or those in the immediate area.

I think in SA our police are under similar legislation with a proviso that they have to fire a warning shot first.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us...=top-news&_r=1

Jimbuna · 04-08-15, 05:23 AM

Excessive force may well be viewed as a massive understatement...it certainly doesn't look good for the police officer.

Von Tonner · 04-08-15, 05:36 AM

Yes. And a few things strike one on viewing the video. One the fugitive is overweight while the officer appears in good shape. So why not holster your gun and chase him calling for back up. As it appears in the video another officer soon appeared in the direction to which the fugitive was running to.

Secondly, it appears it was a park like area with a fence running around it. Not much of a chance for an over weight guy clearing that in a hurry with a police officer on his tail. In fact, no built up area it seems, so little place to run and hide.

NeonSamurai · 04-08-15, 05:30 AM

Quote:

But on the other hand, why fire to kill? Why not shoot for the legs or very least waist down. Why the head? If you can hit his head you can hit his legs.

No cop should ever attempt something like that. Guns are for killing, not incapacitating. Also most cops are trained to shoot the body not the head; hitting the legs of a running target at distance is a tough shot, and your risk having your rounds ricochet off the ground and possibly hitting someone else.

Quote:

As the article states the Supreme court has ruled that the law can shoot to kill a fleeing suspect only if he or she is a threat to the officer or those in the immediate area.

Frankly I hope they throw the book at this officer. He had absolutely no justification to shoot that man.

Quote:

I think in SA our police are under similar legislation with a proviso that they have to fire a warning shot first.

Warning shots are a bad idea written by stupid politicians. There is the strong risk you can injure someone else with a warning shot, even if you fire into the air (the bullet will eventually come back down). Also people are even more likely to flee in panic or shoot back when they hear shots.

04-08-15, 05:40 AM

Do they have the death penalty in SC?
Well, doesn't matter, no cop would ever end there, even after such video footage.

I am the first to defend cops in the line of duty, it is a risky job, especially today and you'll never know. But... what the hell!?
He mowed him down like nothing, for nothing.

Good job officer!

Bilge_Rat · 04-08-15, 05:45 AM

why chase at all? its a traffic stop and there were no outstanding warrants against the victim.

The officer was not in danger so he cant claim self- defence.

Unless there are facts we don't know, it is a clear case of murder.

HunterICX · 04-08-15, 06:00 AM

This is what disturbs me from the video as the officer claimed the suspect had his stun gun.

Right at the start you see something thrown behind the officer which I think is the is taser he used to try to incapicate the suspect who started to run off.
Then after the suspect is down after being shot the officer runs back to where they started out in the video picks up something and walks back dropping it next to the body of the suspect.

If that's the taser..... then it's very disturbing to what this officer was trying to achieve.

Rockstar · 04-08-15, 06:31 AM

Murder is by its very nature disturbing no matter who did it or how they went about it. Based on the information we have so far it may be fair to say authorities are not circling the wagons around one of their own. Instead they are I think taking a step in the right direction by coming right out and charging the shooter with murder.

Von Tonner · 04-08-15, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Murder is by its very nature disturbing no matter who did it or how they went about it. Based on the information we have so far it is fair to say authorities are not circling the wagons around one of their own. Instead they are I think taking a step in the right direction by coming right out and charged the shooter with murder.

Quite right. The police, having charged the officer with murder have done the right thing. Not only is is the right action to take but it also cuts the ground out from any misfits hoping to get mileage out of this for their own dubious gains.

first degree murder
n. although it varies from state to state, it is generally a killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, by poison or as part of a scheme), in conjunction with felonies such as rape, burglary, arson, involving multiple deaths, the killing of certain types of people (such as a child, a police officer, a prison guard, a fellow prisoner), or with certain weapons, particularly a gun. The specific criteria for first degree murder are established by statute in each state and by the United States Code in federal prosecutions. It is distinguished from second degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill."

So would I be correct in my thinking that he will face a first degree charge? His intent was surely to kill - you don't aim for a persons head and try claim you had no intention to kill them.

Rockstar · 04-08-15, 07:11 AM

Did read an article saying bond was denied and if convicted the shooter could face the death penalty or a term of 30 years to life in prison.

August · 04-08-15, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

you don't aim for a persons head and try claim you had no intention to kill them.

I'd say it'd be very difficult to prove that the cop actually aimed for the victims head. That's an Annie Oakley type of shot that most people, including cops don't have the skill to pull off. He most likely just aimed for center mass and that's where one of the rounds happened to land.

AngusJS · 04-23-15, 03:27 AM

The audio that's surfaced in the Walter Scott has a supervisor in his department telling him that he'll be interviewed "in a few days."

Excuse me? SOP for a cop who kills someone is that he doesn't have to explain himself for a few days?

If I were to shoot somebody, the cops would rightly try to get my story ASAP. But a cop gets a few days to either mold his story in the best possible light (assuming the worst), or to start to forget details of the incident (assuming the best). Either way, it's a bad idea. So why do it?

AngusJS · 04-23-15, 03:38 AM

A woman filming US Marshals gets her cell phone grabbed from her and smashed on the ground by one of them.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/...-it-on-ground/

WTF? You're that afraid of accountability that you destroy other's property just because you "can"?

Wolferz · 04-23-15, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngusJS

A woman filming US Marshals gets her cell phone grabbed from her and smashed on the ground by one of them.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/...-it-on-ground/

WTF? You're that afraid of accountability that you destroy other's property just because you "can"?

Two words can sum it up succinctly...

Police State

Schroeder · 04-23-15, 09:16 AM

I think a big part of the problem is the lack of training, organization and weeding out people who are unfit (both physical and character wise) for the job. Some US officers just get 14 weeks of training (Alaska State Troopers) before they are let loose on the public. Over here it's between 2.5 and 3 years (according to a documentary I watched 90% of German applicants for a job at law enforcement get rejected before they make it into the force). Another thing is that law enforcement is organized on states and federation level alone. So is the training. No patchwork of local counties and sheriffs offices which can do whatever they want to (Sheriff Joe Arpaio anyone?). We still have jerks among the police but I don't think it's nearly as bad as in the US (or we're better at suppressing the news...).
I think something big needs to change in order to get the trust back that was lost recently.

04-08-15, 04:50 AM	#1
Von Tonner Seasoned Skipper Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Africa Posts: 711 Downloads: 44 Uploads: 0	Another fatal police shootin Here we go again. With the video there appears to be very little wriggle room for the officer. On one hand I have sympathy for the officer. You are the law and should be obeyed if you tell someone to stop. By running away the fugitive is not only trying to escape but is also directly challenging the officers authority which can, human nature being what it is, make him become angry and over-react. I understand that. But on the other hand, why fire to kill? Why not shoot for the legs or very least waist down. Why the head? If you can hit his head you can hit his legs. As the article states the Supreme court has ruled that the law can shoot to kill a fleeing suspect only if he or she is a threat to the officer or those in the immediate area. I think in SA our police are under similar legislation with a proviso that they have to fire a warning shot first. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us...=top-news&_r=1 __________________ "Knowledge is like a lion:it cannot be gently embraced" - South African proverb

04-08-15, 05:23 AM	#2
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 191,380 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Excessive force may well be viewed as a massive understatement...it certainly doesn't look good for the police officer. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

04-08-15, 05:36 AM	#3
Von Tonner Seasoned Skipper Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Africa Posts: 711 Downloads: 44 Uploads: 0	Yes. And a few things strike one on viewing the video. One the fugitive is overweight while the officer appears in good shape. So why not holster your gun and chase him calling for back up. As it appears in the video another officer soon appeared in the direction to which the fugitive was running to. Secondly, it appears it was a park like area with a fence running around it. Not much of a chance for an over weight guy clearing that in a hurry with a police officer on his tail. In fact, no built up area it seems, so little place to run and hide. __________________ "Knowledge is like a lion:it cannot be gently embraced" - South African proverb

04-08-15, 05:45 AM	#6
Bilge_Rat Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: standing watch... Posts: 3,856 Downloads: 344 Uploads: 0	why chase at all? its a traffic stop and there were no outstanding warrants against the victim. The officer was not in danger so he cant claim self- defence. Unless there are facts we don't know, it is a clear case of murder. __________________

04-08-15, 06:00 AM	#7
HunterICX Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2006 Location: Malaga, España Posts: 10,750 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	This is what disturbs me from the video as the officer claimed the suspect had his stun gun. Right at the start you see something thrown behind the officer which I think is the is taser he used to try to incapicate the suspect who started to run off. Then after the suspect is down after being shot the officer runs back to where they started out in the video picks up something and walks back dropping it next to the body of the suspect. If that's the taser..... then it's very disturbing to what this officer was trying to achieve. __________________

04-08-15, 05:40 AM	#5
Nippelspanner Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Do they have the death penalty in SC? Well, doesn't matter, no cop would ever end there, even after such video footage. I am the first to defend cops in the line of duty, it is a risky job, especially today and you'll never know. But... what the hell!? He mowed him down like nothing, for nothing. Good job officer!

04-08-15, 06:31 AM	#8
Rockstar In the Brig Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Zendia Bar & Grill Posts: 12,614 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Murder is by its very nature disturbing no matter who did it or how they went about it. Based on the information we have so far it may be fair to say authorities are not circling the wagons around one of their own. Instead they are I think taking a step in the right direction by coming right out and charging the shooter with murder.

04-08-15, 07:11 AM	#10
Rockstar In the Brig Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Zendia Bar & Grill Posts: 12,614 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Did read an article saying bond was denied and if convicted the shooter could face the death penalty or a term of 30 years to life in prison.

04-23-15, 03:27 AM	#12
AngusJS Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 746 Downloads: 62 Uploads: 0	The audio that's surfaced in the Walter Scott has a supervisor in his department telling him that he'll be interviewed "in a few days." Excuse me? SOP for a cop who kills someone is that he doesn't have to explain himself for a few days? If I were to shoot somebody, the cops would rightly try to get my story ASAP. But a cop gets a few days to either mold his story in the best possible light (assuming the worst), or to start to forget details of the incident (assuming the best). Either way, it's a bad idea. So why do it? Last edited by AngusJS; 04-23-15 at 03:41 AM.

04-23-15, 03:38 AM	#13
AngusJS Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 746 Downloads: 62 Uploads: 0	US Marshall destorys woman's cell phone while she's filiming A woman filming US Marshals gets her cell phone grabbed from her and smashed on the ground by one of them. http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/...-it-on-ground/ WTF? You're that afraid of accountability that you destroy other's property just because you "can"?

04-23-15, 09:16 AM	#15
Schroeder Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Banana Republic of Germany Posts: 6,170 Downloads: 62 Uploads: 0	I think a big part of the problem is the lack of training, organization and weeding out people who are unfit (both physical and character wise) for the job. Some US officers just get 14 weeks of training (Alaska State Troopers) before they are let loose on the public. Over here it's between 2.5 and 3 years (according to a documentary I watched 90% of German applicants for a job at law enforcement get rejected before they make it into the force). Another thing is that law enforcement is organized on states and federation level alone. So is the training. No patchwork of local counties and sheriffs offices which can do whatever they want to (Sheriff Joe Arpaio anyone?). We still have jerks among the police but I don't think it's nearly as bad as in the US (or we're better at suppressing the news...). I think something big needs to change in order to get the trust back that was lost recently. __________________ Putting Germ back into Germany.