Yup.......
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
Now an LEO is charged with murder here...
- Thread starter rwsmith
- Start date
- Status
Yup.......
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
138477513 said:
General Reminder to all -
Racial issues is banned from discussion. Good, bad, complimentary or derogatory.... doesn't matter. Banned from discussion.
Also remember that general LEO bashing is banned. Critiquing the actions in this event is perfectly fine, but we aren't going to lapse into any general negative comments about LEOs.
Last edited:
Maybe he was just out for that proverbial walk in the park, and heard the commotion, then realized this was something worth capturing on video?
Could explain him not recording the incident before the guy started to run, he was out of view, but had the video going.
Anyways, him and his video will be highly scrutinized by the prosecutors, investigators, and defense lawyers, I suppose.
Last edited:
vigil617
US Veteran
Scott was hit by several of the shots fired by the officer: three in the back (one of which pierced his heart), one just above the buttocks, and one in one of his ears, IIRC from the story I read.
I post this only because someone wondered how many times he was hit, that's all. Nothing further insinuated.
I post this only because someone wondered how many times he was hit, that's all. Nothing further insinuated.
oneflycowboy
Member
"qualified as a danger to the community"
What danger would that be? Driving with a broken tail light? Skipping out on child support?
He had no other criminal record.
How was the "community" in danger?
Sounds like the dangerous one was the guy with the gun in this story....
GatorFarmer
Member
The reason for the initial stop is irrelevant. The shooting did not follow from a broken tail light or lax child support payments. The shooting resulted from an attempt to violently evade arrest. Reportedly the deceased did not want to go to jail...who does? So he broke away, fought the police, a less lethal means of subduing him failed - the deceased being angry or stubborn or tough enough that the Taser had no effect on him - and then he was fleeing attempting to continue to avoid arrest.
At that point he was not a guy with a broken tail light. He was a dangerous fleeing felon once he resisted arrest and opted to flee and he was "stopped".
What I see is a city throwing this poor cop under the bus because that is what is best for business. No one has yet pulled up the relevant SC law about fleeing felons. My hunch is that this was a legal shooting.
This is actually classic police work as traditionally practiced in America for most of American history. Felon flees. Felon gets shot to prevent said flight. Case law in most states will tend to support this.
Was the dead man a felon? Well he was if he violently resisted arrest probably, by the act of violently resisting, etc.
Did he flee? Looks like he did.
At that point he was not a guy with a broken tail light. He was a dangerous fleeing felon once he resisted arrest and opted to flee and he was "stopped".
What I see is a city throwing this poor cop under the bus because that is what is best for business. No one has yet pulled up the relevant SC law about fleeing felons. My hunch is that this was a legal shooting.
This is actually classic police work as traditionally practiced in America for most of American history. Felon flees. Felon gets shot to prevent said flight. Case law in most states will tend to support this.
Was the dead man a felon? Well he was if he violently resisted arrest probably, by the act of violently resisting, etc.
Did he flee? Looks like he did.
LVSteve
Member
Indeed. IMHO America has moved on rather from the "traditional" ways of dealing with fleeing felons. Shooting unarmed folk in the back is just not acceptable any more unless they are running to trigger a dirty bomb.
I have yet to discuss this with an LEO, and I know a google, who did not shake his head, look down at the floor, and go "Wow . . . " All, of course, based on what we know from the media. I feel bad for the officer's family.
Why hasn't, or maybe he has, the 2nd officer said anything about the apparent dropping of some sort of object next to the body?
LVSteve
Member
No doubt because he has been advised to drink a large cup of ****.
You bring up a well reasoned argument, with some valid points, but ultimately you are wrong.
First, the 1985 USSC ruling overrides state laws on the matter.
The decedent did in fact resist arrest to some degree, but that doesn't mean that he was a threat to the officer at the time of the shooting.
He was running away and I have to think that he officer could have caught up with him and used his service baton (assuming he had one) or chemical spray (again assuming he had one).
It's going to be hard, if not impossible, to convince a jury or even one juror that there was a threat to the officer here.
Even if he had a history of violence, the officer is unlikely to have known that and based on what seems to have happened, it's a high mountain to climb to convince a jury that this was a justified shooting.
Then there is the matter of whatever object the officer picked up and then dropped next to the suspect. That, plus it appears that he might have changed his story and lied to his former counsel.
First, the 1985 USSC ruling overrides state laws on the matter.
The decedent did in fact resist arrest to some degree, but that doesn't mean that he was a threat to the officer at the time of the shooting.
He was running away and I have to think that he officer could have caught up with him and used his service baton (assuming he had one) or chemical spray (again assuming he had one).
It's going to be hard, if not impossible, to convince a jury or even one juror that there was a threat to the officer here.
Even if he had a history of violence, the officer is unlikely to have known that and based on what seems to have happened, it's a high mountain to climb to convince a jury that this was a justified shooting.
Then there is the matter of whatever object the officer picked up and then dropped next to the suspect. That, plus it appears that he might have changed his story and lied to his former counsel.
Wyatt p. Tato
Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2014
- Messages
- 282
- Reaction score
- 284
This was a bad shoot. That is why the officer has been charged with murder. This incident hurts Every police officer trying to do their already difficult job. In turn everyone will be affected by the diminished ability of the police to protect and serve.
We all loose.
We all loose.
OP
I don't think so...
I think that whenever an LEO pulls somebody over the cameras start rolling right away.
I think that whenever an LEO pulls somebody over the cameras start rolling right away.
OP
I understand your position, but in light of the release of the timeline and the partial transcript of the radio calls by the officer, what in your opinion could possibly have occurred prior to the start of that video that allows that officer to shoot a person who is 6 to 8 feet away from him without a weapon and turns and runs away? This is not a hill to die on . . .
okiegtrider
Member
Wyatt is right. This is a bad shoot. Very bad, and yes, we all lose.
This thread, and the subject of it, breaks my heart. As much as I would like him to be right, the officer is way wrong, and he'll pay for it for the rest of his days.
This officer has thrown his own life away in the couple seconds it takes to squeeze off a few rounds. Took the life of a guy few will genuinely mourn, save the family and those who will capitalize on this to incite more drama to further an agenda. All of it seems hardly worth the strife that is left in the wake this sad incident.
Yup, we all lose.
GatorFarmer
Member
Tenn vs Garner did not over rule all state laws allowing for the shooting of fleeing felons.
Officer Slager and the deceased were fighting hand to hand and on the ground before the tape started. This detail comes from the guy who took the footage, and appears on CNN. The witness said the officer seemed to have control of the situation, though obviously this was not the case as the suspect was able to flee.
The deceased suspect was attempting to physically over power the officer and escape.
In the confusion of the incident, it was not readily apparent to the officer if the deceased was armed or unarmed, and the officer apparently believed that the deceased had control of the officer's Taser.
Violent felon, who assaulted an officer, tried to flee...less than lethal option was tried and failed... this forced an escalation to deadly force.
Slager in his confusion initially picked up the Taser, then holsters it securing it, being momentarily stunned. Perhaps the other officer told him to pick it up. We don't know.
What we do know is the media and his own department have seen fit to throw Slager to the wolves for obvious reasons.
Wow. Sometimes a bad shoot is actually a bad shoot. Not defending the indefensible is what separates me from the rabble.
- Status
