Ex-S.C. cop gets 20 years in prison for fatally shooting Walter Scott, an unarmed black man

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: intrptr

Is this the part where you say random things and act like you've made a point?

I really have no idea what would be gained by an ex-cop by him giving an interview saying he was in GP until somebody recognized him and then he went into PC. Nor do I have any idea what a prison administrator would have to gain by lying about putting ex-cops in GP until there's a reason to move them in to PC.

If you want to believe that every ex-cop immediately gets put into PC, all the time, in every prison, then...okay? Super

Obviously you don't know what its like to be a prisoner in General Population inside Prisons in the US.

Or this is argument for arguments sake.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Not even a traffic warrant, it was for child support.

a reply to: intrptr

Am I an ex-con? No.

Am I gonna go with what convicts have had to say about their own prison stays over what some random dude on the internet says? Yea.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: intrptr

Is this the part where you say random things and act like you've made a point?

I really have no idea what would be gained by an ex-cop by him giving an interview saying he was in GP until somebody recognized him and then he went into PC. Nor do I have any idea what a prison administrator would have to gain by lying about putting ex-cops in GP until there's a reason to move them in to PC.

If you want to believe that every ex-cop immediately gets put into PC, all the time, in every prison, then...okay? Super

Obviously you don't know what its like to be a prisoner in General Population inside Prisons in the US.

Do you personally know?

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Liquesence

Sad it even happened and someone got killed. Justice was fair if not quick.

Sadly, multiple lives were ruined, including Slager's.

Yes, at least there was justice.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Edumakated

I don't find it unreasonable to believe that the officer thought his life was in danger.

When the guy is 20 feet away and also running away from you as you shoot him in the back multiple times, it is quite unreasonable.

The court agreed.

20 feet away AFTER assaulting the officer and trying to get his weapon but don't let me break the narrative.

a reply to: DrStevenBrule

So is attempting to grab an officers weapon (allegedly), failing, then running away, grounds for summary execution?

If not, then why else did the officer shoot him down?

Surely when someone is 20ft away and running you can't argue that the officer was in fear of his life?
Where was he running to to make the officer so afraid? Did he have an Abrams tank idling by the side of the road or a cache of weapons hidden in next doors post box?

Honestly, I can often see these things from the officer's point of view, but on this occasion I just can't see the justification for his actions at all..

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Edumakated

I don't find it unreasonable to believe that the officer thought his life was in danger.

When the guy is 20 feet away and also running away from you as you shoot him in the back multiple times, it is quite unreasonable.

The court agreed.

20 feet away AFTER assaulting the officer and trying to get his weapon but don't let me break the narrative.

That's grounds for shooting him in the back multiple times and killing him as he was running away, unarmed?

Glad the court didn't think so.

Not an execution. A tragic result of doing something stupid such as fighting with a police officer. The officer has all kinds of adrenaline / fear pumping after a confrontation. While it may seem rational to not shoot to a third party observer, it doesn't mean it is rational to the one who is actually in the confrontation.

a reply to: Edumakated

They're trained to be better than that.

They're expected to be better than that.

Our military rules of engagement are MUCH stricter than the standards expected of the police, yet the military are in arguably much greater danger.

Even having a gun pointed at you is not grounds to shoot a person if you're in the military.

Yet someone having a bit of a push and shove and then running away is grounds to shoot someone to death, in the back, if you're a copper?

If they can't control their reactions when under duress then they should not be employed by the police.

a reply to: Liquesence

This officer probably saved lives by putting this dog down. Don't forget we are talking about a man who abandoned his children. Anybody that runs from the police is bound to not give a damn about laws or anyone else for that matter.

a reply to: Saiker

Anybody that runs from the police is bound to not give a damn about laws or anyone else for that matter.

Same could be said for people who shoot people in the back who are running away.

Laws? Guess who was just convicted of giving false statements to authorities (lying) as well as second degree murder.

Nice try.

a reply to: Indrasweb

Even having a gun pointed at you is not grounds to shoot a person if you're in the military.

Where in the # was that true?

Positive ID and hostile intent was the rule the entire time I was in the military. And there were times where the hostile intent requirement went out the window.

a reply to: Shamrock6

British troops in Helmand were instructed not to fire unelss they were first fired upon.

Also, rules of engagement do state that there must be evidence of hostile intent. That is something that is open to interpretation.

a reply to: Indrasweb

Ah okay. I am neither British nor an Afghan vet.

That's asinine, but at least they didn't send you fellas out with Martinis this time around I guess.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Haha..


A few came back with them though...

Oh and I agree btw, it's a ridiculous approach

shocked i've not heard of this case before. Looked up the video, watched it, now im so angry i have tears in my eyes.

originally posted by: Indrasweb
a reply to: DrStevenBrule

So is attempting to grab an officers weapon (allegedly), failing, then running away, grounds for summary execution?

If not, then why else did the officer shoot him down?

Surely when someone is 20ft away and running you can't argue that the officer was in fear of his life?
Where was he running to to make the officer so afraid? Did he have an Abrams tank idling by the side of the road or a cache of weapons hidden in next doors post box?

Honestly, I can often see these things from the officer's point of view, but on this occasion I just can't see the justification for his actions at all..

Change the scenario. You come home and find a burglar in your home. The burglar assaults you. You are wrestling with the guys thinking you might die. Your adrenaline is pumping. You had a taser and it went off during the struggle. It was knocked out of your hands, but you think the burglar may have it and may use it against you. You are a CCW holder and within the span of 1 second you've pulled your firearm and unload on the guy as he turns and runs.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'm surprised you hadn't until today. It was all over the news for quite a while.

a reply to: Edumakated

Ok, look, I get where you're coming from. I don't really like to second guess decisions made in high stress situations. From what ive seen and heard, being a copper in the UK is bad enough and we have nowhere near the issue you guys have with crims carrying firearms. I can't really imagine what it does to you to work in a job where every day, every stop, every inquiry (however innocent) may turn into a fight for your life.

I get it, I truly do.

But man, the scenario you outlined is nothing like what happened here. Surely you know that?

He wasn't in an enclosed environment with no egress.

He's a trained professional and not a lay-person.

The individual did not have his weapon and it would have been obvious to the officer that was the case (though I guess you would have a hard time 100% proving that I admit)

The delay between the victim releasing the hands of the officer and the officer drawing his weapon, aiming and shooting was much longer than a single second and he had ample time to appraise the situation and evaluate whether the victim was a threat.

The distance between the officer and the victim was perhaps 20 ft. If that was someone in your house then they'd be out of your front door and halfway down your garden before you opened fire. And you'd likely be charged with murder as it was evident the burglar was fleeing the scene and not posing a threat (as in this case).

I just can't support the actions of this officer no matter what. Usually I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the police in incidents like this. The ones where known, armed, drug dealers and other criminals are killed resisting arrest; I find it difficult to criticise the police in those circumstances and it's rare that there's substantial evidence the police had no grounds whatsoever for their actions.

However, I do believe this is one of the rare occasions where they acted entirely unprofessionally and, as a result, a man is dead over an otherwise almost inconsequential misdemeanour.