Post: #51

(04-08-2015 11:14 AM)Samseau Wrote:  I am serious: you guys are out to lunch. If not for the threat of force why would anyone obey the law? The laws are shit, no one would follow them.

By the way, on Cops episodes, they often resort to shooting at fleeing suspects. That's why the show got such high ratings because people love violence.

Seeing as how the Tennessee v. Garner ruling came down in 1985 and prohibited cops from shooting fleeing felons except under very limited circumstances, I highly doubt what you say is accurate here. I'm not some expert on the show and I've only seen a handful of episodes, but that sounds too outrageous to be true.

Quote:"FREEZE OR I'LL SHOOT!" And they point the gun at them. Pretty routine, not sure what America you're living in.

Cops no longer say that.

Quote:Personally I'm with other guys who say they need more effective long-range stun guns to subdue suspects, but they don't have that right now not to mention these "non-lethal" weapons are probably proven to get more cops killed which is why they don't use them often.

The current PR spin is that "This cop shouldn't have fired, etc. etc." but in truth this guy was following orders, just like all the other cops who shoot down unarmed people everyday. The cops do their best to maintain order by making this cop out to be the bad guy when in fact the cops are just doing their jobs.

On the contrary, tasers have probably saved the lives of thousands of people cops would've shot in the past before their widespread usage.

Furthermore, there is not a single department in the country where cops are officially taught to shoot a fleeing unarmed man in the back. So the "just following orders" defense does not hold up.

Quote:I think the likelihood is extremely high the cop will walk free, but he will lose his job. The reason he will not be convicted: who is going to work as a police officer if your orders get you thrown in jail? No one. Sending this cop to prison will weaken police forces in the area if not the nation. Weaker police forces = weaker control for America's plutocracy. America's plutocracy cannot stomach anything less than complete control, so they know they need to keep protections for the Cops or else no one will become a hired goon (I mean Cop) for them.

Maybe he will walk free, but he needs to be put on trial for this.

Quote:If the cop is arrested and sent to prison, then fewer cops will do their job and fewer recruits will sign up to be a cop. Crime then increases. The people are victimized. Eventually the politicians in power are thrown out and America's plutocracy loses money, which spurs action. Guys like Rudy Giuliani are given all the money they need to win an election and reinstitute a strong police force with huge unconstitutional protections to shoot down anyone they please plus stuff like "stop and frisk." Order is then restored, and then people who run away from cops are gunned down again. The people feel safe again and America's plutocrats may resume plundering the nation without worrying about pesky elections.

Given how egregious this incident is, if it causes someone not to become a cop..GOOD! They likely had bad motives to become a cop in the first place.

Quote:If anyone would like to correct me they are more than welcome to but from everything I've seen and presented over my lifetime indicates the above is the truth.

You might see it as true, but I think you make plenty of hand-wringing assumptions that are unfounded.

Post: #52

This just makes me more in favour of making sure that cops are under video surveillance whenever they are on their beat. I realize that in recent times we've seen SJWs getting in hysterics every time we hear about a cop shooting someone but I don't see how anyone can defend the cop in this case.

Obviously there needs to be the threat of force for people to obey the law, but I don't see how it translates into the reasoning that cops always need to resort to lethal force.

Post: #53

.

Google: The suspect was "apprehended after a foot chase."

A lot of search results of incidents from that one phrase.

Just think of the carnage if all those guys were just shot in the back. People run from the cops all of the time, if you live in a city you see it. If the cops acted like this guy, there'd be 100 cop shootings a day.

I watched the press conference of the victim's brother. A class act.

I also watched the press conference of Mayor Summey. He's a good pol, playing it right.

Gives me some hope for America.

Post: #54

Another instance where technology disproves the testimony of the officer. +1 for iPhone.

Post: #55

(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.

Post: #56

(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.

Police training excludes that as an idea. You can still kill someone from bleeding or shock. The training is you aim for the center of the torso, and only fire to save your life or the lives of others.

Post: #57

(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.

I don't think that's ever been an accepted police practice anywhere. If you have a legitimate reason to shoot someone you have a legitimate reason to kill them.

Plus it's not easy to hit someone in the limbs and such a thing could do permanent damage or inadvertently kill them if you strike an artery.

Tasering or physically chasing down the suspect and subduing them is what cops are supposed to do in this situation.

Post: #58

(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.

Why shoot someone at all if they are fleeing unless the person is a dangerous criminal, is armed or an escaped felon from prison etc? Especially in a case like this there's no defense for him shooting a 50 year old guy running away from him who was also unarmed. I know this one idiot is not representative of all cops but if he wanted to arrest him he should have called for back-up and gone after him as Sp5 is saying.

Post: #59

(04-08-2015 01:07 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(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.

Why shoot someone at all if they are fleeing unless the person is a dangerous criminal, is armed or an escaped felon from prison etc? Especially in a case like this there's no defense for him shooting a 50 year old guy running away from him who was also unarmed. I know this one idiot is not representative of all cops but if he wanted to arrest him he should have called for back-up and gone after him as Sp5 is saying.

And how do we know if the man is dangerous or not? Is the cop supposed to gamble his life?

Wastelander:

Quote:Seeing as how the Tennessee v. Garner ruling came down in 1985 and prohibited cops from shooting fleeing felons except under very limited circumstances, I highly doubt what you say is accurate here. I'm not some expert on the show and I've only seen a handful of episodes, but that sounds too outrageous to be true.

That ruling says if the cop has reason to believe his life is in danger he is allowed to shoot. The cop can just say, "I saw his hands reaching down to his pockets," and for all we know that could pass as sufficient reason to believe his life is in danger. It's actually an extremely flexible law when you think about it.

As for whether or not this South Carolina officer is going to use this defense successfully is another story, from the video it does appear he is using his gun indiscriminately, but there may be more to the situation we are unaware of that will be presented in court.

Post: #60

(04-08-2015 01:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  And how do we know if the man is dangerous or not? Is the cop supposed to gamble his life?

How is it a gamble if the guy is running away from him and the cop can call for back-up while chasing him from a safe distance? Or not pursue him at all? The guy was leaving his car behind and I am sure they would have been able to ascertain from that who was the driver and arrest him later. How about the fact that the guy was unarmed? If certain cops feel endangered by unarmed men running away from them then they really shouldn't be cops.

Simply put, the cop fucked up and made the wrong decision. He shouldn't be excused just because he's a cop.

Post: #61

Glad a cop who killed someone is finally getting charged with straight up murder.

Some of the recent fiascos have been BS but it is undeniable that many cops do abuse their power. I wish cases were really evaluated on a case-by-case basis instead of everyone choosing sides based on race. If you always think someone is innocent because they look like you, well then, we're not doing so hot really...

Post: #62

(04-08-2015 01:23 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  And how do we know if the man is dangerous or not? Is the cop supposed to gamble his life?

How is it a gamble if the guy is running away from him and the cop can call for back-up while chasing him from a safe distance?

Safe distance? From a possible pistol?

Post: #63

(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?

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

So a summary execution is more expedient than consuming the resources necessary to apprehend the guy without killing him?

The justification for shooting fleeing suspects generally boils down to:

1. Its too much bother to call for backup (wastes too much of other officer's valuable time)

2. The suspect might get away if not shot.

On the first issue. If police departments are streatched so thin that they have to resort to killing people from lack of manpower, there are some serious issues with funding.

The second one it the reasoning that really bothers me. What has to go so wrong in a person's head for them to say that stopping a suspect from getting away is so important its better to kill them than allow for a small possibility that they might get away with some minor crime.

As for shooting the guy because he "you never know, he might be a dangerous murderer so we have to stop him at all costs" ... just grab a machine-gun and go to the nearest high crime area and let'er rip.

Shooting people on the off chance they might deserve it is rather unethical to put it mildly.

Post: #64

(04-08-2015 11:14 AM)Samseau Wrote:  If the cop is arrested and sent to prison, then fewer cops will do their job and fewer recruits will sign up to be a cop.

You seem very sure of this. Do you have evidence to backup this particular statement that I've cut out of your larger comment?

Should we not arrest cops and send them to prison when they are proven to have perpetrated crime?

Post: #65

(04-08-2015 01:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:23 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  And how do we know if the man is dangerous or not? Is the cop supposed to gamble his life?

How is it a gamble if the guy is running away from him and the cop can call for back-up while chasing him from a safe distance?

Safe distance? From a possible pistol?

Are you deliberately being obtuse now?

What possible pistol? The guy was unarmed. Instead of resorting to these straw man arguments where you cut-out my post and left out the part where I said he could have simply called for back-up and not pursued him at all, why don't you make a credibly argument that the cop should have shot a man running away from him?

Post: #66

The cop shot the guy in the back then threw his taser on the ground next to the victim in an attempt to change the story... and the other (black) cop let it happen.

If this isn't a clean cut case of conspiracy and second degree murder I don't know what is.

Post: #67

(04-08-2015 01:47 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:23 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  And how do we know if the man is dangerous or not? Is the cop supposed to gamble his life?

How is it a gamble if the guy is running away from him and the cop can call for back-up while chasing him from a safe distance?

Safe distance? From a possible pistol?

Are you deliberately being obtuse now?

What possible pistol? The guy was unarmed.

You don't know that, and neither do I. The unarmed part comes only after the fact. The cop has no clue if the dude is armed or not. The cops are trained to assume dangerous until subdued, and they are trained this way because thousands of cops have been murdered from being Mr. Nice Guy.

Honestly, people here aren't considering just how difficult it is to run law enforcement effectively, nor are they considering the motivations of those in power. The plutocrats want control, and to do that the citizens must feel safe. Whether or not a bunch of dudes get shot up is completely irrelevant to them.

But again, lets not get too side tracked into bickering here. My original point was, and remains:

I won't be surprised at all if this guy gets off without any punishment, given what I know about this country and what I know about running a law enforcement agency.

Post: #68

(04-08-2015 11:14 AM)Samseau Wrote:  If the cop is arrested and sent to prison, then fewer cops will do their job and fewer recruits will sign up to be a cop.

If a bad cop is arrested and thrown in jail it will deter bad cops from joining not good ones.

If a guy needs to be able to shoot suspects whenever he wants with no consecuences to be willing to join the force, thats probably someone you don't want to give a gun and badge to in the first place.

Post: #69

(04-08-2015 01:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:23 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  And how do we know if the man is dangerous or not? Is the cop supposed to gamble his life?

How is it a gamble if the guy is running away from him and the cop can call for back-up while chasing him from a safe distance?

Safe distance? From a possible pistol?

Obviously, there was no indication this guy had a gun.

You're not making serious arguments.

On the one hand, you justify the shooting by saying it's not "practical" to run after a suspect wanted for a misdemeanor, even though it's standard police procedure and done scores if not hundreds of times a day in the USA.

On the other hand, you're saying shootings like this are necessary to sustain a corrupt system of "control for America's plutocracy" because the only way people will obey "shit" laws is the indiscriminate use of force by "hired goon[s]."

So it was a murder by "hired goons" in the service of "America's plutocracy" enforcing "shit laws," but it was ok because it was too hard to chase him and call for back up?

Either you're consciously trolling or your political philosophy is very confused.

Post: #70

(04-08-2015 01:50 PM)RIslander Wrote:  The cop shot the guy in the back then threw his taser on the ground next to the victim in an attempt to change the story... and the other (black) cop let it happen.

If this isn't a clean cut case of conspiracy and second degree murder I don't know what is.

If these are the facts, then that's something else.

Post: #71

(04-08-2015 01:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  But again, lets not get too side tracked into bickering here. My original point was, and remains:

Samseau, there's no bickering to be had here. Maybe you see a grey area in this but to me this is as black and white as it gets. If the cop felt threatened by the guy he had the option of not pursuing him and calling for backup. Plain and simple.

Post: #72

It's wild that you want anyone who runs from a cop shot Samseau.

Am I understanding you right there? You think anyone who runs from a cop should be shot, and that cops should just make up something about "I saw him reaching for his waistband" to justify it even if that is a lie?

I mean as kids I knew plenty of situations where people ran from the cops, at a party that was getting busted up or caught drinking somewhere. You think cops should've just wasted everyone who ran in those situations?

Post: #73

(04-08-2015 01:57 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  So it was a murder by "hired goons" in the service of "America's plutocracy" enforcing "shit laws," but it was ok because it was too hard to chase him and call for back up?

I never said it was okay for anyone to do anything. You are reading things that are not there. I am talking about expediency; of course cops will resort to force when they can in order to facilitate the arrest. How can anyone expect them not to? Some sort of moral conscious guiding them? Come on guys. You may as well believe in the tooth fairy. Cops are usually not any better than the criminals they chase.

Those arrest stories you showed via the google search all talk about suspects that managed to escape police via car or some other means; no where did I see suspects who run from a cop at point blank range. Obviously I think most suspects know that would be asking for a possible death sentence.

Post: #74

Do you think cops should be able to operate like old school South American death squads because someone might have a gun?

If you become a cop you take the job knowing there are going to be certain risks to it. You can minimize those risks in a lot of sensible ways but shooting unarmed people down isn't part of that, or at least it shouldn't be.

Post: #75

(04-08-2015 01:59 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  It's wild that you want anyone who runs from a cop shot Samseau.

Am I understanding you right there? You think anyone who runs from a cop should be shot, and that cops should just make up something about "I saw him reaching for his waistband" to justify it even if that is a lie?

I mean as kids I knew plenty of situations where people ran from the cops, at a party that was getting busted up or caught drinking somewhere. You think cops should've just wasted everyone who ran in those situations?

What's wild is your reading comprehension. You're basically making stuff up I never wrote in order to feel outrage concerning this story.

How about reading what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote? You guys are concerned with right and wrong; I am concerned with what exists. Good and bad do not exist for most of these cops, and I am trying to alert you guys to this fact. The idea that we can change it is also extremely unlikely given the political situation we live in today. Sorry if this offends anyone, but the world is a fucked up place.