Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have an issue with people acting like this was an innocent, law abiding citizen who did nothing wrong.
I haven't read every post in this thread, so I have to ask, has anybody claimed the cop is innocent?
Keep in mind, I didn't ask about people posting about the man who was shot, I want to know if anybody has actually said the cop was innocent. Out of the dozen or so pages I've read so far, I haven't seen that once.
We aren't idiots. There are good cops, and there are bad cops. This cop is a bad cop. We have him dead to rights, and defending him is what is stupid. The lengths some people are going to to find some justification for him is very telling. Walk away. Just walk away and leave him to us. Guaranteed, he will be treated better here by angry black people, than a black cop that shot a white perp in cold blood would be treated by angry white people.
The only thing I see being said is the cop deserves his day in court. Don't assume he is automatically guilty. You apparently have already done this, and in as such, are guilty of the very thing that you accuse others of.
That's not the issue here. The issue is what happened to Scott in S. Carolina. You said if he'd complied he'd be just fine. I was pointing out that it's certainly not always the case.
Look, I'm not a cop hater by any means. To the contrary, I respect the profession and believe that the vast majority of police officers are good people doing a difficult and dangerous job.
But to the blame for what happened to Scott at the feet of anyone but the cop is ridiculous. People are bending over backward to say if only Scott had done X,Y or Z he'd be fine when the truth is if only the cop hadn't shot Scott, he'd be fine.
That's not the issue? I'm not the one who posted a video of an entirely different situation that happened over 3 years ago. I was simply responding to it. You can't bring up another case and then say that isn't the issue when I bring up other facts and statistics to show that it isn't common.
I won't even pretend to know what the exact numbers are, but you are SO much more likely to keep your life if you respect and don't fight with a police officer... or any person with a gun for that matter.
You're entirely correct that it's the cop's fault. The cop screwed up. That's what he's going to be on trial for murder, just like anyone else who murders someone should be. But saying that the victim couldn't have made other choices to avoid even getting to that point is ridiculous. He made the choice to fight with the officer and run. Clearly SOMETHING was going on when the video starts. It doesn't start with him just running. There was some sort of struggle. That generally only happens if someone is resisting. Again, not defending the cop's actions. He's guilty. But I don't think the victim was totally innocent either.
Hmm. Not so fast. There was obviously an encounter (still unknown) that caused him to run in the first place. Until the details are known, then it's absolutely incorrect to say that it doesn't fulfill those requirements. There is, for example, a criminal who runs who has assaulted an officer who turns and attacks again. The officer is allowed to use deadly force to stop it before it happens.
On the other hand, I'm thinking the cop did wrong or otherwise the police force would not have been as quick to arrest him. But not for the reason you state.
Actually, I don't believe that cops are allowed to kill a fleeing man in anticipation that he might turn back around and attack again. Clearly, if he does turn around that's a different story. Scott did not turn around.
So why do you think the police force was so quick to arrest him?
I haven't read every post in this thread, so I have to ask, has anybody claimed the cop is innocent?
Keep in mind, I didn't ask about people posting about the man who was shot, I want to know if anybody has actually said the cop was innocent. Out of the dozen or so pages I've read so far, I haven't seen that once.
I was referring to the victim being treated as he was innocent, not the officer.
Actually, I don't believe that cops are allowed to kill a fleeing man in anticipation that he might turn back around and attack again. Clearly, if he does turn around that's a different story. Scott did not turn around.
So why do you think the police force was so quick to arrest him?
Whether or not the party turns around isn't relevant to what I said. What is relevant is what happened before the running started. Every case is different. There is no generalization. If the cop is charged then it will be the court who will decide if law was broken based on evidence provided.
I think they arrested him because they felt he broke the law and have the evidence to prove it. Whether or not they prevail will be up to the court system. Obviously that tape is damning but it's too early to convict him without hearing all the details.
That's not the issue? I'm not the one who posted a video of an entirely different situation that happened over 3 years ago. I was simply responding to it. You can't bring up another case and then say that isn't the issue when I bring up other facts and statistics to show that it isn't common.
I won't even pretend to know what the exact numbers are, but you are SO much more likely to keep your life if you respect and don't fight with a police officer... or any person with a gun for that matter.
You're entirely correct that it's the cop's fault. The cop screwed up. That's what he's going to be on trial for murder, just like anyone else who murders someone should be. But saying that the victim couldn't have made other choices to avoid even getting to that point is ridiculous. He made the choice to fight with the officer and run. Clearly SOMETHING was going on when the video starts. It doesn't start with him just running. There was some sort of struggle. That generally only happens if someone is resisting. Again, not defending the cop's actions. He's guilty. But I don't think the victim was totally innocent either.
No, but you're the one who said if Scott hadn't run all would have been well, which is why I posted the video. I didn't intend to turn this into a discussion about the rates of police brutality v. rates of police arresting people without incident. Of course the huge majority of arrests occur without incident.
It will be interesting to see what the cop says about what preceded the shooting. Of course, given the relocation of the taser, his credibility is already an issue.
Except anyone trained to use a gun knows not to do this. It will get you killed.
This only proves that you are not trained to use a gun.
You don't fire a gun to warn people
You don't fire a gun to disable people
You don't point a gun to scare people
You don't use a gun to prove manhood (or womanhood)
The ONLY reason to point and fire a weapon is because you intend to kill the party you are shooting at. Too many people who watch too much TV think otherwise and this is what gets them killed. And once you start shooting, you keep shooting until you know they are dead. Otherwise, they may pull a gun that you didn't know about and kill you instead.
Best to avoid it all together, but this is the way it's done.
It makes the rest of your argument pointless.
No, I am not trained in the use firearms. But I don't think the German police fired 45 warning shots in violation of proper handgun protocols. So.... somewhere, it IS permissible to fire warning shots, and if doing such could possibly endanger an officers life, it would not be SOP. That officer was in about as much danger of being shot by Scott as you are in danger of having a fatal heart attack while tying your shoelaces. If you look up "smart" in the dictionary there is a picture of a German illustrating the definition. If firing warning shots is good enough for German Police Academies it is more than good enough for me. And you too. We escaped speaking German by the thinnest of human hairs. C'est dommage, and please don't bother to tell me that that was French, not German. I know that.
Its a LOT simpler than you are making it out to be Johnny. First thing... when you are stopped for a busted taillight... are you usually subject to a warrants search? The answer is no.
Sorry, the answer is YES. Whenever a traffic stop occurs the first thing that is done is the cop calls the stop in and reports the license plate and a description of the stop. Then they input the plate in the computer to see if the vehicle is reported stolen. Next the cop gets the drivers license and puts that into the system to see if there are any open warrants. That is why it takes so long before the officer comes back to give you the ticket or to let the white middle aged man off with his obligatory warning. It doesn't take that long to fill in the blanks on the form and he is not watching I Love Lucy reruns while you wait.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
I know that in the present situation their 'might' have been an active warrant for his arrest that would have flashed up when his plates were run but... when I am stopped by police. And it happens often. And I got my license at age 33 and rarely drive anymore due to eyesight issues.. But when I am stopped I am always subjected to a half hour long (minimum) extensive search of my possible criminal history going back as many years as the officer has patience for. Always. Sometimes the officer even tells me the ticket he has written is bogus and won't result in any fine. But he got what he wanted... the opportunity to try and see if there was anything worse than a minor bicycle or motor vehicle infraction that could have lead to an arrest.
I am married to a white person. I have dated white people. I go to dinner parties where I am the only black person. I will be in a room full of people who have been driving since they were 16 and have never been stopped, ever, or, if they were stopped, were on their way with a warning or a ticket in less than 10 minutes. I have been a passenger in a car being driven by a white person that was stopped for a bad taillight and she did not even have ID on her or any registration documents in the glove compartment. The officer just gave her a verbal notification of the bad taillight.
I am a white person and I married a minority person. I have been stopped for a bad tail light. Twice. I got a warning once and a ticket the other. They were years apart and on different cars so it was not a case of you got a warning now you get a ticket. The cop did not care if I was white or purple with yellow polka dots. He was in the mood to give a ticket and I got it.
I was even arrested once on a traffic stop because my wife wrote a bad check on our joint account and did not tell me. So dont tell me they don't pull a warrant search on a routine traffic stop. I am proof otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
So... I don't know... I just don't know. The story did NOT say warrants were found. The family speculates that fear over the warrants may have made the victim panicky. What I know is that when they stop black motorists, officers always run for outstanding warrants and that this is an optional step! We don't know if he got that far on Saturday. The take-away is that there was no justification for shooting Scott eight times. Your thoughtful analysis is very much an overreach.
H
The story I saw on TV DID report multiple warrants were found at the time of the stop and that was the reason he was going to be arrested and ran. What I know is officer always run a warrant search for EVERYONE they stop and it is NOT an optional step.
Watch the video again and you will see that through all eight shots Scott is still running. Only after the shooting stops does he hit the ground. There are no shots fired after he falls.
I don't know that race had any play in this incident and I don't know that the cop did not have a racial bias in his judgement. From the video I would say that Scott could have been ANY color and it could have still happened in exactly the same way.
I know racism exists, even today. I don't think it is as pervasive in everyone's thought process as you seem to want to believe. I was told a story by a lawyer about a court incident in Texas many years ago. It was a traffic court case where he was defending a man who was speeding in a school zone. Before the trial started the judge called the lawyers to the bench and stated "No Ni**er is every going to win in my court. You have 30 minutes to request a new court venue." Blatant racism and the lesson was that in court the judge IS the law regardless of what is written. To beat the judge you have to have a bigger judge.
From my own experience, I was driving with an acquaintance and a group of people walked out in traffic mid-street, with no regard for traffic and I stated that "Darwinism was invented for people like them." My new friend was offended because he instantly assumed I was saying something about Black people. It took me a while to figure out what he was upset over since I was commenting on people stupid enough to walk out in heavy traffic without looking and away from a crossing as if they own the road. My expression of contempt for their stupidity had no basis in their race, only their actions, yet he jumped to a wrong conclusion because they were black.
Not everything is as simple as black vs the world. There are other factors that fit into decisions and judgements. Even when black is part of it, it is not always the deciding or even most important part.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
