Post: #101

(04-08-2015 06:24 PM)Ronald Reagan Wrote:  Police shoot to kill in the US. Like other informed members have said if you shoot a person in the leg there is a chance that the person will die from blood loss or shock. If a civilian shoots someone in the leg you can't say "oh I wasn't trying to kill him I only shot him in the leg" you will be charged with attempted murder.

So shoot to kill, but don't shoot them in the leg because they might die?

Post: #102

(04-08-2015 12:56 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 04:08 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Serious question: What should a cop do when a suspect runs from him? The cop has orders to bring the guy in so how is he supposed to get the guy to stop?

What happened to the idea of just shooting someone in the leg if they are fleeing but not putting the cop in any physical danger? That's what I'd do if I was in such a situation. I don't know why a cop should be judge, jury and executioner.

Have you ever fired a gun?

Post: #103

(04-08-2015 07:40 PM)Game_Started Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 06:24 PM)Ronald Reagan Wrote:  Police shoot to kill in the US. Like other informed members have said if you shoot a person in the leg there is a chance that the person will die from blood loss or shock. If a civilian shoots someone in the leg you can't say "oh I wasn't trying to kill him I only shot him in the leg" you will be charged with attempted murder.

So shoot to kill, but don't shoot them in the leg because they might die?

No, you don't shoot them in the leg because it's an incredibly difficult shot to make even under the best conditions.

Last summer as part of my course training I qualified on the SigSauer P226 9mm handgun. The sights on these pistols are incredibly small, which makes it hard to reliably hit a target at a distance further than a few feet. It took all my mental concentration to aim centre mass and hit with each round ... at a stationary target ... 15 feet away from me ... and in a relatively calm state.

Now take the situation where you've just been in a fight. Adrenaline's racing, it's hard to focus, your hands are shaking.
Now add a moving target.
Now add the stress of thinking that you could be dead in the next few seconds.
Now add the fact that you only fire your weapon maybe twice a year reliably (to do a periodic qualification or whatever.)

The people talking about 'aiming at the legs' or trying to make non-lethal shots have with absolute certainty never fired a weapon before. Centre mass is the most reliable target, so that's where you aim. End of story.

Not only that, allowing people to aim for non-lethal shots (at least in our service) is expressly prohibited. Cause if you miss, you (or buddy next to you) might be dead before you get a second shot. Plus it lowers the 'threshold', so to speak, for using deadly force. We're expressly told that once you come up on target, the target goes down. No exceptions.

You can't use lethal force non-lethally.

HSLD

Post: #104

I'll just add to the above - I'm one who usually leans sympathetic to police officers, but not this case. Absolutely no justification whatsoever for that cop did.

HSLD

Post: #105

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/...cott-fired

Per this article, it seems even his union is not going to help with his defense. I doubt he will be found innocent, this case is not like the other recent police brutality cases weve seen. I wouldn't be surprised if he kills himself. . .I don't think ex cops fair very well in jail. . .

Post: #106

(04-08-2015 08:16 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 07:40 PM)Game_Started Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 06:24 PM)Ronald Reagan Wrote:  Police shoot to kill in the US. Like other informed members have said if you shoot a person in the leg there is a chance that the person will die from blood loss or shock. If a civilian shoots someone in the leg you can't say "oh I wasn't trying to kill him I only shot him in the leg" you will be charged with attempted murder.

So shoot to kill, but don't shoot them in the leg because they might die?

No, you don't shoot them in the leg because it's an incredibly difficult shot to make even under the best conditions.

Last summer as part of my course training I qualified on the SigSauer P226 9mm handgun. The sights on these pistols are incredibly small, which makes it hard to reliably hit a target at a distance further than a few feet. It took all my mental concentration to aim centre mass and hit with each round ... at a stationary target ... 15 feet away from me ... and in a relatively calm state.

Now take the situation where you've just been in a fight. Adrenaline's racing, it's hard to focus, your hands are shaking.
Now add a moving target.
Now add the stress of thinking that you could be dead in the next few seconds.
Now add the fact that you only fire your weapon maybe twice a year reliably (to do a periodic qualification or whatever.)

The people talking about 'aiming at the legs' or trying to make non-lethal shots have with absolute certainty never fired a weapon before. Centre mass is the most reliable target, so that's where you aim. End of story.

Not only that, allowing people to aim for non-lethal shots (at least in our service) is expressly prohibited. Cause if you miss, you (or buddy next to you) might be dead before you get a second shot. Plus it lowers the 'threshold', so to speak, for using deadly force. We're expressly told that once you come up on target, the target goes down. No exceptions.

You can't use lethal force non-lethally.

HSLD

then shoot him in the ass.

Post: #107

(04-08-2015 07:40 PM)Game_Started Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 06:24 PM)Ronald Reagan Wrote:  Police shoot to kill in the US. Like other informed members have said if you shoot a person in the leg there is a chance that the person will die from blood loss or shock. If a civilian shoots someone in the leg you can't say "oh I wasn't trying to kill him I only shot him in the leg" you will be charged with attempted murder.

So shoot to kill, but don't shoot them in the leg because they might die?

It's to discourage shooting as much as possible. It's the same reason why you can use a gun in self defense, but you're not allowed to fire warning shots. It's to encourage gun use as a last resort.

Post: #108

Quote: It's not about race it's about overpowered institutions that act like they are above reproach.

Of course it's about race because the mainstream media made it about race. "White cop shoots Black man" is the headline in every major paper. White on black crime is shouted from the mountain tops. Black on white crime is 3/4th of a page down with races removed. Black on black crime is background noise to mainstream media.

This story is not about a man making a poor decision and being a victim of a trigger happy cop. It's also not about abuse of police power. It's about perpetuating a race narrative that began with Ferguson. Luckily for the mainstream media, they found the perfect story with clear video and a defenseless, sympathetic victim.

My point is if this happened even 5 years ago with an identical video, you probably would have never heard about it. The story serves a purpose, but it's not the purpose you think it is.

Post: #109

(04-08-2015 09:23 PM)Repo Wrote:  http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/...cott-fired

Per this article, it seems even his union is not going to help with his defense. I doubt he will be found innocent, this case is not like the other recent police brutality cases weve seen. I wouldn't be surprised if he kills himself. . .I don't think ex cops fair very well in jail. . .

Especially if he forgets to wash behind his ears:

Post: #110

Dude was slow as fuck - There was no reason for shots to be fired.

That being said, I don't think this is going to spark a race war like some people are saying.

(04-07-2015 08:38 PM)RawGod Wrote:  Does not look good. Could be a much better spark for race war than Ferguson or Trayvon Martin.

Think about it - There was clear video evidence of unnecessary shots fired on a person who posed no threat whatsoever. Plus he planted his taser next to the body. All of this means that no one, minus a small percentage of uninformed people, is going to side with the officer. Everyone will agree that his actions were unjust. Whereas with the Michael Brown case, there was a fine 50/50 divide of people who were on either side of the argument, hence the race war.

So no I don't think this is going to spark any type of race war; more or less it will spark a one-sided, in-depth look, discussion, and evaluation of how corrupt our police system is (and yes, how racist it is).

Post: #111

It looks like the officers that responded may have fudged the truth in the incident reports. A couple of them mentioned that the black officer gave the guy CPR. But the black officer never mentioned CPR in his report and the video doesn't show anyone giving CPR. The mayor also mentioned that not all officers know CPR. I would have expected all officers knew CPR.

When I saw that officer drop what appears to be the taser, I couldn't believe it. But maybe the black officer told him to pick it up. He wouldn't cover for him on that move.

Post: #112

(04-08-2015 10:46 PM)Goldhawkstar Wrote:  There was clear video evidence of unnecessary shots fired on a person who posed no threat whatsoever. Plus he planted his taser next to the body. All of this means that no one, minus a small percentage of uninformed people, is going to side with the officer.

(04-08-2015 05:03 AM)Samseau Wrote:  So for every guy who runs away you need 5 officers to chase them? And how do you subdue him when finally confronted?

Post: #113

(04-08-2015 06:19 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  You can tell who's really down with the manosphere with this scenario.

A man is running from an agent of the state because he had child support warrants. A group of women are using the government to extract resources out of him at the pain of liberty, or in this case death.

Guys would rather stand with predatory women and an authoritarian police state because...

Hmm I wonder

WIA

All reason seems to go out the window when you put an emotional issue like race in front of seemingly level headed men. Another interesting one is false rape. We're very aware of the false rape accusations, and their ability to destroy lives. Yet...

Does anyone remember this little gem...mandatory reading in high school.

Post: #114

(04-08-2015 11:00 PM)Chowder Head Wrote:  The mayor also mentioned that not all officers know CPR. I would have expected all officers knew CPR.

Me too. Where did you read or hear this? I'd be curious to see for my own eyes. I have an extremely difficult time believing that a police officer wouldn't know CPR. Even the lowliest of security guards have to be CPR/AED trained in order to get licensed. Either SC law enforcement has horrible training standards, or the Mayor is trying to throw his cops under the bus to look good in the eyes of the...community.

Post: #115

I'm no copper but in Holland the proper procedure is to shoot in the air first as a warning, then aim for the legs. Of course this is in fleeing position or mildly dangerous situations when there's some distance between the cop and the criminal. In case of acute danger (criminal actively trying to kill the officer with knife, axe, gun, sword whatever) they will shoot you down anyway possible.

I don't see how shooting in the legs is more dangerous than going for the romp of a person unless you accidentally hit the guy in the leg aortas next to his groin. Going for the romp means highly increasing the chance of a shot in the throat, heart, longs or other vital organs.

But like I said, in this case it's plain execution. The criminal runs away, the cop takes a clear shooting stance, aims and fires 8 times.

Post: #116

(04-09-2015 07:11 AM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 11:00 PM)Chowder Head Wrote:  The mayor also mentioned that not all officers know CPR. I would have expected all officers knew CPR.

Me too. Where did you read or hear this? I'd be curious to see for my own eyes. I have an extremely difficult time believing that a police officer wouldn't know CPR. Even the lowliest of security guards have to be CPR/AED trained in order to get licensed. Either SC law enforcement has horrible training standards, or the Mayor is trying to throw his cops under the bus to look good in the eyes of the...community.

The mayor said it at his press conference. Then he and the Chief of Police ran off the stage. It was funny. It was on Anderson Cooper's show (CNN).

Post: #117

(04-08-2015 09:23 PM)Repo Wrote:  Per this article, it seems even his union is not going to help with his defense. I doubt he will be found innocent, this case is not like the other recent police brutality cases weve seen. I wouldn't be surprised if he kills himself. . .I don't think ex cops fair very well in jail. . .

If the union or some PPL doesn't back you, you're dead in the water and fucked.

He's not getting off this case at all, hell his original lawyer bailed on him as soon as the lawyer saw the video.

And rightfully so he should be charged and found guilty with murder.

If there was no video....well we know what would of happened.

At least the Police Chief is immediately changing some policies

Walter Scott Shooting: North Charleston Orders 250 Body Cameras for Officers

Post: #118

Jesus, what's wrong with people sympathizing with the cop?

Imagine your slightly underage son having a little too much vodka or enjoying some LSD. What do you think he's gonna do when a cop shows up? And it's ok to shoot him now?

Ridiculous.

Murder is what this is. Period.

Post: #119

Dashcam Video. Around 2:30, a little after he runs.

Post: #120

With the current racial political climate the way that it is and let's say you're a dirty cop it might actually be more cost effective to kill a suspect if you're going to go that route than to wound them.

Incapacitating someone for life means they can sue the department, the city, you and everyone else involved for huge sums of money. They can drag it out indefinitely and they can provide endless testimony and become martyrs for the cause.

If you kill them on the other hand you get some jail time, a civil suit, and the city will settle with the family but it's still less than a lifetime of hospital bills.

Post: #121

(04-09-2015 08:35 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  With the current racial political climate the way that it is and let's say you're a dirty cop it might actually be more cost effective to kill a suspect if you're going to go that route than to wound them.

Incapacitating someone for life means they can sue the department, the city, you and everyone else involved for huge sums of money. They can drag it out indefinitely and they can provide endless testimony and become martyrs for the cause.

If you kill them on the other hand you get some jail time, a civil suit, and the city will settle with the family but it's still less than a lifetime of hospital bills.

A Filipino friend of mine tells me he has a bus-driver uncle who was told during training if he hits a pedestrian to reverse and finish them off: A funeral is cheaper than a drawn-out lawsuit/medical bills.

It's more cost-effective for the city and department, not the cop.

The individual cop:
1) Could Lose his job(income),
2)runs the risk of incarceration,
3) Spends a fortune on counsel, win or lose.
4) if convicted could face many years of his only life in prison and/or the death penalty.

Granted the law is less inclined to convict a cop and will look to cut him slack but I see it as playing Russian roulette with your time, freedom, and income, you never know when it'll backfire, too many variables can fuck you over. Slager would be on the beat right now if it wasn't for that dude with the camera.

Post: #122

samsam, is that video a remake cos I saw the perp run for over a min without any hot foot pursuit by the policeman.

Post: #123

(04-09-2015 08:08 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

Am I seeing a head moving around in the car?

Someone was with him?

This is just sad, that man is gone, and those were his last moments alive.

His existence is no more.

I guess it's easy to not care about that reality if you're not him nor have any attachment to him, but to me it's still sad.

Wouldn't wish that on anybody.

Post: #124

(04-08-2015 05:03 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 04:24 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 04:08 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Serious question: What should a cop do when a suspect runs from him? The cop has orders to bring the guy in so how is he supposed to get the guy to stop?

There was a retired NYPD guy on CNN who said that you radio for backup with a direction and a description of the suspect, then try to keep him in sight. The radio can bring multiple police into the area in minutes.

So for every guy who runs away you need 5 officers to chase them? And how do you subdue him when finally confronted?

Your suggestion isn't practical nor does it answer the question of how to apprehend.

Police have radios ,helicopters, and sufficient backup to in fact make 5 officers chasing one guy very practical. If you run from the police unarmed he radios your description, what area he is in and the direction you were last headed when he saw you and they cordon you in until there is nowhere to run. You make it sound as if every person police attempt to pull over ultimately is a runner, most just pull over and obey commands. If somehow every potential fleeing suspect was pulled over at the exact same time and all decided to run at the exact same time it may become burdensome, but even the most rural police departments are well prepared for daily pursuit of individuals if necessary.Even with this shooting he had multiple officers on the scene within minutes, Walter was not going anywhere even if he was not shot, he was trapped.

Post: #125

(04-09-2015 12:22 PM)micha Wrote:  Murder is what this is. Period.

A fuckin' men...and he WILL be convicted, no doubt in my mind.