It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

North Charleston cop charged with murder after video surfaces of him shooting man in the back

page: 21
89
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I have not kept up with the conversation, and have no idea why a cop would kill someone in this horrific manner,

Makes me wonder if there is something more going on, a vendetta? a hit?

I have been a supporter of police when they deserve support, I just don't get this one, and why are cops so angry and on edge?

It's not just the police, I read the insane stories everyday of brutality around the world.

sad




posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Harvin

He was running towards a fence, where there was another cop waiting to catch him. Which makes shooting him even more inexplicable.


Is this true?



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Harvin

He was running towards a fence, where there was another cop waiting to catch him. Which makes shooting him even more inexplicable.


Is this true?


Yep, don't know how close the other cop was exactly but he was there seconds after the shooting.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
The officer cuffing the man after he was shot is standard practice, nothing wrong with that. However there is so much that went wrong, I do not know where to begin.

Someone fleeing an officer for a misdemeanor or even most felonies does not alone warrant the use of deadly force. This shooting was NOT justified, no matter how this is spun.

What is alarming is, had this video NOT surfaced, this officer would likely be still in the blue and had the officer(s) on the scene known this was being recorded they would have likely confiscated and destroyed the video.

Now the video is public record, they police and more importantly their lawyers have no choice but to hang the officer out to dry, hence the murder charges.

We all know what would happen if there was no video.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Harvin

He was running towards a fence, where there was another cop waiting to catch him. Which makes shooting him even more inexplicable.


Is this true?


Yep, don't know how close the other cop was exactly but he was there seconds after the shooting.

In a weird sorta way the Blue wall is much tighter than the Black which is almost admirable.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Harvin

He was running towards a fence, where there was another cop waiting to catch him. Which makes shooting him even more inexplicable.


Is this true?


Yep, don't know how close the other cop was exactly but he was there seconds after the shooting.

In a weird sorta way the Blue wall is much tighter than the Black which is almost admirable.


That's the real problem..... If cops policed each other there would be no issue...



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
apparently, only an hour or so after this, off. slager was caught laughing about this!

www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: blackthorne

@ your link


"They’re gonna tell you you’re gonna be out for a couple of days and we'll come back and interview you then," the senior officer is heard saying in the clip. "They’re not going to ask you any kind of questions right now. They’ll take your weapon and we’ll go from there. That’s pretty much it.”

The senior officer also urged Slager to write down his recollections of the incident.

“The last one we had, they waited a couple of days to interview officially, like, sit down and tell what happened. By the time you get home, it would probably be a good idea to kind of jot down your thoughts on what happened,” he advised. “You know, once the adrenaline quits pumping.”


What shocks me here is the easy going..."They’re not going to ask you any kind of questions right now"..."a couple of days to interview officially"...

So ...If a suspect is in any way involved in ANY crime...it is Standard for police to sit them in a room and hammer them with questions for hours and hours IMMEDIATELY, having them tell their story over and over while be grilled for inconsistencies and challenged on every detail.

A Police Officer is involved in shooting and he is told to kick back ,go home, get his story straight and they will interview him in a few days?????????????????????



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: blackthorne
apparently, only an hour or so after this, off. slager was caught laughing about this!

www.huffingtonpost.com...


ALSO...

This is the second leak...Of Dash-Cam audio, before that Dash cam footage was leaked.

Those people wishing the Police would police their own??

Somebody inside the Police Department is leaking as much as they can to the press.

Which might also hint to their being more than this one incident. Someone inside the department is frustrated enough to be leaking evidence in a high profile investigation...as if they don't trust the Audio wouldn't disappear before an independent investigator digs in. IMO this speaks to someone on the inside who has had enough...their are other cases here.
edit on 13-4-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Yeah, it looks like that cop is a bad man, who was trying to arrest a dead beat dad.

I think the important thing to remember is not all cops are good people, but how we interact with them as citizens often dictates the outcome.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: jefwane
a reply to: xxPUSH0Noo

Hate something like this happened in your neighborhood. What's the mood there right now? How have relations historically been with the police in that neighborhood? What is the racial and economic makeup of the neighborhood? I'm asking these questions for more perspective on the setting of this tragic event.


I would say the racial makeup is about 50-50. The area is low income for sure. Historically relations with police have always been an issue. I am beyond surprised this happened in North Charleston before Summerville. I have to give credit for the n Chas police to do what is right and lock Slager up for murder because the good ol boy system is alive and well.

the people that live in my neighborhood I've had discussions with and we all feel the same about the incident regardless of race. Tensions overall are high right now though (among those who do not know each other). The police were waiting for something to happen which is one reason I believe the officer was arrested so quickly (besides the undeniable evidence). Charleston was one of the biggest ports if not the biggest and most instrumental during the slave trade which has historically tramatized some African Americans. This was not the place for something like this to happen and go unchecked.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stuship
a reply to: windword

Yeah, it looks like that cop is a bad man, who was trying to arrest a dead beat dad.

I think the important thing to remember is not all cops are good people, but how we interact with them as citizens often dictates the outcome.



I think the real fix is to only care about the reality of the situation. Not the cops feelings at the time.

Shoot some one reaching in there pockets, you better hope you choose right. Because if it turns out to be his wallet he was reaching for, then you just bought yourself at least an involuntary manslaughter charge.

Now they just have to claim they they FELT threatened... Something so subjective it's no wonder they always walk without video...



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
I have not kept up with the conversation, and have no idea why a cop would kill someone in this horrific manner,

Makes me wonder if there is something more going on, a vendetta? a hit?


sad


I wonder too if there wasn't something more going on. The cop touch the tail light when he got out. Touching an object is a non-verbal way of saying you control the object/person. For some reason he felt control over that tail light.

Now what I'm going to say is pure speculation but it's something I thought about. His wife was 8 months pregnant. Is it possible he wanted some paid leave to be with his wife? Cops always get put on admin leave at least for a time after a shooting. I suppose it would have been easier to fake a back injury though.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daughter2

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
I have not kept up with the conversation, and have no idea why a cop would kill someone in this horrific manner,

Makes me wonder if there is something more going on, a vendetta? a hit?


sad


I wonder too if there wasn't something more going on. The cop touch the tail light when he got out. Touching an object is a non-verbal way of saying you control the object/person. For some reason he felt control over that tail light.

Now what I'm going to say is pure speculation but it's something I thought about. His wife was 8 months pregnant. Is it possible he wanted some paid leave to be with his wife? Cops always get put on admin leave at least for a time after a shooting. I suppose it would have been easier to fake a back injury though.


I think the most telling part was him tossing the tazer at the victims feet right before he runs the second time. I kinda think the cop tossed the tazer at his feet. Then evil as anything said "run" then shot him up.

Looks totally premeditated to me.....


PS: I mean the first time he dropped the tazer. Pre shooting.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Absolutely.

In the current case being discussed, the officer is in the wrong, of this there is no doubt.

On the other hand... IF one is pulled over, or confronted by the police, is it not the height of stupidity to do anything but behave rationally and behave with civility?

I am 60 years old...I didnt reach this age by acting stupidly in critical situations. It does not take genius level intelligence, nor anything but just a tad bit of common sense to realize that a) running from police will never turn out well for you, no matter what the results. b) becoming aggressive with the police will never turn out well, no matter what the results are.

I see 2 problems with the most recent well publicized events: The "victim" behaves in a totally stupid manner when confronted by police. Either they respond aggressively, they resist arrest or they run. How stupid do you have to be to not realize that those 3 responses will not turn out well for you? Problem #2 is how the police react...but that has been discussed ad nauseum.

In the media, it is almost never discussed how the "victim" could have avoided a bad situation.

This is a discourse that needs to take place.





Thank you!!! Apparently for some people around here, if you don't simply hate and "join the club", you are defending a criminal (the cop). Personally...I think as a 50 year old that THAT is part of our society's problems. Join the riot or become a target.



The police are paid, trained and armed to be professional and not to retaliate. They're job is specifically to be above the fray and handle themselves professionally in any situation.

It doesn't matter what the offender has done. That's for the courts to decide any punishment. But that's not how police are being trained to deal with the citizenry.


Exactly like the cop who punched a hand cuffed 110lb female hard enough to break her orbital bone and wasn't charged. She was hand cuffed in the back seat of the squad car. Once she realized she wasn't gonna talk her way out of a trip to jail. She freaked out turned on her side and kicked the officer in the leg. This 200lb cop punches the already subdued woman in the face like a man. It was 100% retaliation. Yet it was considered lawful by the state. Even with video evidence....


Should she have been charged with striking an officer? Of course! Should an officer be allowed to retaliate against a citizen? Absolutely not!

I don't disagree with you and I'm not going to speak to an incident based solely upon your brief overview. But let me ask you this...if I, a 6'2" 250lb adult were confronted by a cop and punched him in the face. And when he came at me, I punched him in the face again. Exactly at what point is a taser or gun permitted to be used? Five punches? After I draw blood? After he can't stand? When??? No...this has nothing to do with the crime this thread is about...but I'm curious when you would consider a taser or gun used. If I punch him in the face...can he punch me or is that brutality? An eye for an eye? Turn the other cheek? Where do you want this cop, maybe with a wife and children to decide he can protect himself while still doing his job of arresting me (as in my example).

Or...once I punch him do you expect him to walk away, leave me alone to run away and not do his job of arresting me?


I would say they would have the right to gaze you the second you refused an order then walked tward them in a combative stance. There is a massive difference from useing the least force required to subdue a suspect and retaliation.


A gun now that's a totally different story...


I think one of the major problems is the wording of the laws protecting police officers.

A police officer can use deadly force anytime they FEEL their life or the life of others are threatened. The police officers life need not actually be endanger....he just has to be able to show that he felt endangered. Feelings are subjective, feelings can be wrong.

First off we should definatly body can all police officers.

Then I would make the police officer responsible for the facts or the case, not how he felt about it.

For example; some one reaches in there coat as the cop orders there hands up and the cop shoots them dead.

If the citizen had a gun and was reaching for it. Your aces well done!

If it was some freaked our citizen reaching for there wallet, it's manslaughter.

No excuses, no giving passes for police jumping the gun. They are armed and armored to the teeth. They can wait the 3 seconds it will take to confirm it's a gun.

I think just those 2 changes would help tons!


We wouldn't need body cams and such if the good cops wouldn't protect the bad ones. If police officers held there brothers to the same standard they hold regular folk. This problem would have gone away decades ago...


Yet again...I don't disagree. But consider this. As you noted, a cop may use force when he feels life threatened or when others are threatened. What if this cop had decided to let the man run and hope to catch up with him another day. And what if this man five minutes later killed someone.

Now...I'm not suggesting this would have happened. But if it had...people would be crying for the cop's head because he didn't stop the guy when he had the chance, leading to the death of another person. We can all sit back and make a hindsight decision about a situation with hours of discussion but the cop only has seconds. Often they are wrong or would change the choice they made. But we put them there to make their best choice.

I assume you believe cops need to be able to deliver deadly force in the right circumstances. But the only reason that is so, is because our society is so messed up. If people weren't running, fighting, shooting at cops...this would be a different story. But when we act like animals, the police need to be armed to protect themselves and others.

So my comments reflect this. If we were nice, pleasant and not a threat, police wouldn't need to have access to guns and this situation in particular wouldn't have happened. So lets follow the "problem" vs "symptom" argument for a sec. The symptom is that this man was shot by a cop and died. The problem, tracing it back is that they guy ran, the guy had a warrant and that society is a bunch of asses that can't always be dealt with easily. While the cop screwed up...the problem is how we act toward others and how violent and disrespectful we have become.

Yes...we are part of the problem and the reason this poor man died. Consider that at least a little while we condemn this man to a life in hell or death.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daughter2

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
I have not kept up with the conversation, and have no idea why a cop would kill someone in this horrific manner,

Makes me wonder if there is something more going on, a vendetta? a hit?


sad


I wonder too if there wasn't something more going on. The cop touch the tail light when he got out. Touching an object is a non-verbal way of saying you control the object/person. For some reason he felt control over that tail light.

Now what I'm going to say is pure speculation but it's something I thought about. His wife was 8 months pregnant. Is it possible he wanted some paid leave to be with his wife? Cops always get put on admin leave at least for a time after a shooting. I suppose it would have been easier to fake a back injury though.

Really? I mean...REALLY??? I need a few days off so I'm going to kill someone??? And I thought I was jaded.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Spider879

Thing is, if there hadn't been a video of this murder, MANY people here would be stating, "Scott stole the cop's taser and was a threat to other people! The cop had the right to shoot him!" They would be buying the cop's story 100%, just like they did in the Travon Martin, Michael Brown, and every other case of a black man being killed by a cop (or wanna be cop) case.

So, smearing the victim doesn't surprise me one bit. While I haven't read THIS thread, I've seen a few instances where people have asked, "why was Scott running?" As if the REASON he was running makes ANY difference at all. It's like they're looking for every reason they can to justify the murder.

I never thought I'd see the day when we would be watching cold blooded murders and trying to justify them... It's freaking SICK! That's why I'm staying away from this topic here.

And I see the same crap I've been talking about on this page. People are SICK! I'm out.

Ummm...Trevon and Michael were found to be physically threatening the life of the people who shot them based upon the rule of law, a court and witnesses. Just sayin.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Spider879

Thing is, if there hadn't been a video of this murder, MANY people here would be stating, "Scott stole the cop's taser and was a threat to other people! The cop had the right to shoot him!" They would be buying the cop's story 100%, just like they did in the Travon Martin, Michael Brown, and every other case of a black man being killed by a cop (or wanna be cop) case.

So, smearing the victim doesn't surprise me one bit. While I haven't read THIS thread, I've seen a few instances where people have asked, "why was Scott running?" As if the REASON he was running makes ANY difference at all. It's like they're looking for every reason they can to justify the murder.

I never thought I'd see the day when we would be watching cold blooded murders and trying to justify them... It's freaking SICK! That's why I'm staying away from this topic here.

And I see the same crap I've been talking about on this page. People are SICK! I'm out.

Ummm...Trevon and Michael were found to be physically threatening the life of the people who shot them based upon the rule of law, a court and witnesses. Just sayin.

Yeah and so would this latest incident ended just like the above for as old saying goes dead men tell no tales..without hidden camera..just saying!!



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stuship
a reply to: windword

Yeah, it looks like that cop is a bad man, who was trying to arrest a dead beat dad.

I think the important thing to remember is not all cops are good people, but how we interact with them as citizens often dictates the outcome.


From a pure logic, legal and well.. reality...perspective..

"how we interact with them as citizens often dictates the outcome."

The outcome of any interaction is dictated by the EVERY PARTICIPANT that is interacting.

We have an entire justice system. The Police Officer is not a judge, jury and executioner. At best a police officer's legal authority ends at safe apprehension. A police officer does not determine guilt. He is only authorized to use lethal force when his own safety or the safety of others is at indisputable, justifiable risk.

The idea that the outcome of an encounter is the sole responsibility of whatever citizen the police officer chooses to confront....is plainly false.

In this scenario the officer had a documented record of unjustifiably using his Taser on innocent suspects and witness testimony and video suggest the same happened here.

If an officer decides to "penalty" tase you despite you being already subdued and apprehended, on the ground etc. ... At what point is the human instinct to flee the torture justifiable? And what would justify shooting a weaponless Walter Scott fleeing that situation? Zero threat to officer and public.

Why not begin your causation fallacy with...Walter Scott was justifiably shot eight times in the back because he failed to get his taillight repaired before driving his vehicle.

Poor choices do not justify a Police Officer shooting a suspect...nor torturing one. Their was no threat to the officer or public.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Absolutely.

In the current case being discussed, the officer is in the wrong, of this there is no doubt.

On the other hand... IF one is pulled over, or confronted by the police, is it not the height of stupidity to do anything but behave rationally and behave with civility?

I am 60 years old...I didnt reach this age by acting stupidly in critical situations. It does not take genius level intelligence, nor anything but just a tad bit of common sense to realize that a) running from police will never turn out well for you, no matter what the results. b) becoming aggressive with the police will never turn out well, no matter what the results are.

I see 2 problems with the most recent well publicized events: The "victim" behaves in a totally stupid manner when confronted by police. Either they respond aggressively, they resist arrest or they run. How stupid do you have to be to not realize that those 3 responses will not turn out well for you? Problem #2 is how the police react...but that has been discussed ad nauseum.

In the media, it is almost never discussed how the "victim" could have avoided a bad situation.

This is a discourse that needs to take place.





Thank you!!! Apparently for some people around here, if you don't simply hate and "join the club", you are defending a criminal (the cop). Personally...I think as a 50 year old that THAT is part of our society's problems. Join the riot or become a target.



The police are paid, trained and armed to be professional and not to retaliate. They're job is specifically to be above the fray and handle themselves professionally in any situation.

It doesn't matter what the offender has done. That's for the courts to decide any punishment. But that's not how police are being trained to deal with the citizenry.


Exactly like the cop who punched a hand cuffed 110lb female hard enough to break her orbital bone and wasn't charged. She was hand cuffed in the back seat of the squad car. Once she realized she wasn't gonna talk her way out of a trip to jail. She freaked out turned on her side and kicked the officer in the leg. This 200lb cop punches the already subdued woman in the face like a man. It was 100% retaliation. Yet it was considered lawful by the state. Even with video evidence....


Should she have been charged with striking an officer? Of course! Should an officer be allowed to retaliate against a citizen? Absolutely not!

I don't disagree with you and I'm not going to speak to an incident based solely upon your brief overview. But let me ask you this...if I, a 6'2" 250lb adult were confronted by a cop and punched him in the face. And when he came at me, I punched him in the face again. Exactly at what point is a taser or gun permitted to be used? Five punches? After I draw blood? After he can't stand? When??? No...this has nothing to do with the crime this thread is about...but I'm curious when you would consider a taser or gun used. If I punch him in the face...can he punch me or is that brutality? An eye for an eye? Turn the other cheek? Where do you want this cop, maybe with a wife and children to decide he can protect himself while still doing his job of arresting me (as in my example).

Or...once I punch him do you expect him to walk away, leave me alone to run away and not do his job of arresting me?


I would say they would have the right to gaze you the second you refused an order then walked tward them in a combative stance. There is a massive difference from useing the least force required to subdue a suspect and retaliation.


A gun now that's a totally different story...


I think one of the major problems is the wording of the laws protecting police officers.

A police officer can use deadly force anytime they FEEL their life or the life of others are threatened. The police officers life need not actually be endanger....he just has to be able to show that he felt endangered. Feelings are subjective, feelings can be wrong.

First off we should definatly body can all police officers.

Then I would make the police officer responsible for the facts or the case, not how he felt about it.

For example; some one reaches in there coat as the cop orders there hands up and the cop shoots them dead.

If the citizen had a gun and was reaching for it. Your aces well done!

If it was some freaked our citizen reaching for there wallet, it's manslaughter.

No excuses, no giving passes for police jumping the gun. They are armed and armored to the teeth. They can wait the 3 seconds it will take to confirm it's a gun.

I think just those 2 changes would help tons!


We wouldn't need body cams and such if the good cops wouldn't protect the bad ones. If police officers held there brothers to the same standard they hold regular folk. This problem would have gone away decades ago...


Yet again...I don't disagree. But consider this. As you noted, a cop may use force when he feels life threatened or when others are threatened. What if this cop had decided to let the man run and hope to catch up with him another day. And what if this man five minutes later killed someone.


Without digging into the logic or legality of this line of thought...

The pace at which the unarmed Walter Scott was "Running"???

Officer Slager could have "Speed Walked" and caught him...if not then that cop had no business being on the street.

And while the officer shouted for him to put his hands behind his back after he shot him 8 times...at no point did I hear "stop" or "stop or I'll shoot" or anything at all prior to him opening fire.

All of that apart from the fact another Cop was nearby and approaching from the opposite direction.



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join