BREAKING: Dashcam Video Just Released Shows Cop Murder Zachary Hammond

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Bone75

So avoid the question, to me that means the answer is that you don't mind the trial by media for the victim/suspect that was shot. He isn't innocent until proven guilty I guess...

The cop wasn't in front of the car, he was next to it.

You've made it about as clear as it can possibly be.

The officer that shot him was in no danger whatsoever. Any threat he may have felt, he placed himself in that position, contrary to protocol.

This was absolute murder.

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
The kid would have drove off, the cops follow and he would have pulled over in a block or 2 and gave himself up.

That is exactly how it would have played out..

I love all of the makeshift scenarios you folks come up with. They're hilarious.

a reply to: Bluntone22

cop didn't do a whole bunch to try to prevent needing to shoot either

a reply to: mbkennel

The worse part is he could've simply gotten the license plate number and called backup while pursuing the suspect. And with today's technology, he wouldn't even need to pursue the suspect. They could've just tracked him down after the incident. In fact, if the cops had high definition body cameras, the footage would be perfect for identifying any suspects, their cars, the offenses, etc. There's literally no need to shoot the suspect in this situation.

"Comply or die" isn't the way the criminal justice system is supposed to work here.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

wow you really have to play the video back over and over again to tell the car was never fulling in front of the police officer however at first glance it looks justifiable. WOW instant replay to the rescue. Maybe I getting old but at first i could of swore the car almost ran over the police officer then after watching again and again it became clear your right. Question how many shots fired? I saw one at very close range

www.greenvilleonline.com... well seems the feds are getting involved so the officer may not be out of the woods yet

COLUMBIA - Federal authorities are continuing their investigation into the shooting of a Seneca teen by a police officer even though a state prosecutor has decided not to press any charges. Beth Drake, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles, on Tuesday told The Greenville News a federal civil rights probe into the death of Zachary Hammond is ongoing, but she declined to release any other details. Tenth Circuit Solicitor Chrissy Adams on Tuesday announced she would not file any charges against Officer Mark Tiller in the case. But in a letter to the State Law Enforcement Division explaining her decision, she said it was her understanding that federal authorities are still "evaluating the matter in order to determine if any federal charges, not available under state law, would be appropriate." Federal prosecutors already had acknowledged they were looking at the case in tandem with state prosecutors.

so this may not be over quite yet ,so we will have to wait for feds report on this and see if that goes any where

so let me get this straight... im out selling drugs.. a cop comes up to my car bc im selling drugs and the cop pulls out his gun to arrest me.... are u saying i am allowed to ignore the cop and start a high speed chase? wow, id like to laugh if this wasnt all so tragic. sorry folks even if this cop goes away, usa justice system wont let u just RUN AWAY when a cop pulls a gun on u.. especially if your breaking the law on camera! and u decide to start a high speed chase and endanger others.. how can u all be so #ing stupid.. this kid just thought it was ok to run away from a cop who had his gun out.. how would u feel if the cop missed and this kid killed somone with his car bc he started a #in high speed chase? I bet bernie sanders and whatever political party u actually think is gonna change your life would say "i wish that cop didnt miss shooting that drug dealer before he started a high speed chase and killed somone" really people... u cant have anarchy.. sorry.. the system isnt going to change.. your all wrong... and if there is really a racial problem them how come i never ever ever hear about any of the asian or white people being wrongfully killed by cops on the news... bc this whole situation is the dark side of going viral online.. .. it took root with some kid robbing a store and being killed and now its popular to bring up new criminals being killed.. but only of they r black.. does anyone else really buy this horse #? or is it just the profiteers slight of hand manipulation.. we should all know here its the latter, like most of whats on ATS... lets sum this up and make it really really easy... if you think you can freely run away when a cop pulls a gun on you, your balls are square.

heres some advice



and dont #ing move or talk or anything.. just go with the flow and stfu until u talk to your lawer... if u can afford an iphone you can afford a lawyer. welcome to adulthood and taking responsibilty for your stupid decisions.

a reply to: tonycodes

You can have the rule of law and not anarchy without cops shooting unarmed kids in the freaking back!

Why couldn't the cop just have noted his registration number and picked him up later?

Why does selling a plant warrent summary execution?

In every other civilized country in the western world a police officer would not have even pulled a gun unless there was evidence a suspect had a weapon and even then only fire if he was posing a direct threat to the public or officer.

Shooting people that run is cowardly and lazy police work.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: crazyewok

Are you Americans such cowards you have to shoot a pot dealer driving away rather than get his details and pick him up alive later and arrest him?

Your blanket statements about Americans is getting a bit old. Be glad you don't live here and MYOFB.
If you were here and anyone knew the # you spew here, you likely would get shot.

You realise you are going a long way to confirming his generalisation about Americans..don't you?

The irony is palpable around here sometimes.

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: crazyewok

Are you Americans such cowards you have to shoot a pot dealer driving away rather than get his details and pick him up alive later and arrest him?

Your blanket statements about Americans is getting a bit old. Be glad you don't live here and MYOFB.
If you were here and anyone knew the # you spew here, you likely would get shot.

You realise you are going a long way to confirming his generalisation about Americans..don't you?

The irony is palpable around here sometimes.

Plus he misses the the fact I said not all Americans, just the subset that thinking you can solve any problem by shooting it. Which I will assume are a minority.

a reply to: tonycodes

Perhaps you ought to inform your Police departments about those four, puffy round things attached to the corners of most vehicles...apparently if they go from puffy and round to flat and loose, the vehicle is incapable of a 'high speed chase' as you put it.

Or was the Cop close enough to pump multiple rounds into the kids head, but not close enough to shoot out the tyres?

a reply to: MysterX

The chance of bullet hitting someone when doing something like shooting out the tires is a risk most are not willing to take, and it most likely would slow the car very much.

I had to digging in the local law books but there is a section 70 that pretty much grant immunity to police when arresting. I'm betting that's what they're using the clear the officer of all charges. It basically states that an officer may arrest someone they see committing a felony with out a warrant and are granted some immunity and protection at this time. I'll have to find to law itself and read up to have more details on it.

But I should point out the with out this immunity. As shown in SECTION 16-23-410. Pointing firearm at any person.

It is unlawful for a person to present or point at another person a loaded or unloaded firearm.

A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined in the discretion of the court or imprisoned not more than five years. This section must not be construed to abridge the right of self-defense or to apply to theatricals or like performances.

HISTORY: 1962 Code § 16-141; 1952 Code § 16-141; 1942 Code § 1119; 1932 Code § 1119; Cr. C. '22 § 17; Cr. C. '12 § 162; 1910 (26) 694; 1993 Act No. 184, § 46.

South Carolina Laws

Also see SECTION 16-23-440. Discharging firearms at or into dwellings, structures, enclosures, vehicles or equipment; penalties.

(A) It is unlawful for a person to discharge or cause to be discharged unlawfully firearms at or into a dwelling house, other building, structure, or enclosure regularly occupied by persons. A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(B) It is unlawful for a person to discharge or cause to be discharged unlawfully firearms at or into any vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, or other conveyance, device, or equipment while it is occupied. A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

HISTORY: 1962 Code § 16-142; 1952 Code § 16-142; 1942 Code § 1120; 1932 Code § 1120; Cr. C. '22 § 18; Cr. C. '12 § 163; 1910 (26) 785; 1988 Act No. 469; 1993 Act No. 184, § 49; 2001 Act No. 98, § 1.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
cops are allowed to shoot when their lives are in danger. That is the only time. At no point was he in danger. Especially not when the car was heading away from him.

Actually, you're incorrect. LEOs can also use deadly force when other peoples' lives are in danger as well--you seem to only offer up part of the facts in order to support your stance on this issue.

You can claim that he was in no danger at any point, but you are wrong.

Like I've said, 20/20 hindsight tells us that things probably could have been handled differently, but both people in this scenario made the decisions that they made, and as far as the officer goes, I agree that he could have reasonably feared for his personal safety at the time, just like the suspect could have reasonably expected that things wouldn't go his way when he made the ignorant decision to flee in his vehicle in the direction of the officer.

But for the last time--I agree that things could have been handled differently, but that's with hindsight and no adrenaline racing through my body as a suspect of unknown intentions and capabilities is steering his moving vehicle in my direction.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
So i should just believe you?

No, like I said:

...if you want proof, Google it like I did at the time...

I thought I was being pretty clear on that one.

originally posted by: crazyewok
In every other civilized country in the western world a police officer would not have even pulled a gun unless there was evidence a suspect had a weapon and even then only fire if he was posing a direct threat to the public or officer.

Hmmm...would love to see the data that proves this statement.

I'll wait for you to cite the study...

a reply to: hknudzkknexnt

Yeah that whole new walking away from screaming cops ends up with someone dead, when will they learn that you aren't supposed to do that.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: crazyewok
In every other civilized country in the western world a police officer would not have even pulled a gun unless there was evidence a suspect had a weapon and even then only fire if he was posing a direct threat to the public or officer.

Hmmm...would love to see the data that proves this statement.

I'll wait for you to cite the study...

Well the 90% of British police that dont even have guns kinda speaks for that!

a reply to: alienjuggalo

The officer intentionally ran in front of the car...

a reply to: alienjuggalo

the cop could shoot the tires.

originally posted by: Zhennn
a reply to: alienjuggalo

the cop could shoot the tires.

Or he could just run the plates and pick him up later?