Here we go again... cop shoots/kills man

[simpleman68]

Guess what color each one just happens to be....

I know we haven't seen the entire video but I can't for the life of me imagine ANY reason to shoot a man while he's running away from you with nothing in his hands to boot. WTF
Scott

South Carolina officer charged with murder - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-charged-with-murder/index.html)

[five-oh]

I usually try not to Monday morning quarterback an officer, but from what I've saw, I can't imagine how the shoot will be ruled justified. Looks bad for the officer. Ain't no winners in this one, I think..just another black eye on law enforcement and more turmoil between the races.

[DAB]

saw that on the news too. they described that the video continues after the shooting, and at one point the officer (now fired) goes back to where he was standing, picks up something, and then comes back to the body and places something on the ground. sounds like he was planting evidence (taser).

i agree, the 'threat' is going away from you, no reason to fire. he's on foot, he won't get far. police have radios, call for help.

contrast this with another video i saw a few days ago, guy is pumping gas, three thugs approach, one sticks a gun the guy's face, the guy gets a little space and time, pulls his own gun, shoots the first bad guy in the head, he drops, the other two take off, and the good guy scans and checks for more threats. that was a good shoot.

the cop: murder.

[Sea Six]

Guess what color each one just happens to be....

I know we haven't seen the entire video but I can't for the life of me imagine ANY reason to shoot a man while he's running away from you with nothing in his hands to boot. WTF
Scott

South Carolina officer charged with murder - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-charged-with-murder/index.html)

I usually try not to Monday morning quarterback an officer, but from what I've saw, I can't imagine how the shoot will be ruled justified. Looks bad for the officer. Ain't no winners in this one, I think..just another black eye on law enforcement and more turmoil between the races.

TN vs Garner

[five-oh]

TN vs Garner

Given today's political climate, and admittedly limited only to what is being shown-the officer's lawyer better have a silver tongue to articulate the danger that he believed Scott presented.
I stand by my thoughts- I can't imagine it being ruled justifiable. Not impossible, but it'd be a stretch. IMHO

[boracayjohnny]

Having spent some time at Charleston AFB, SC, I know North Charleston is known as the 'hood. I'm not making excuses for the po-po but one often reacts to the area they are in. So, I agree there's no reason for multiple shots in the back to an unarmed individual. I also know, as usual in these high profile and controversial cases, there is more to the story.

[Sea Six]

At this point, we don't know. As is usually the case.



And when we do get all the facts, it's usually the case that the cop was justified after all.


One thing for sure, these cases are usually presented in such a way as to suggest the cop was RONG. This is more or less intentional in my opinion, since the underlying motivation of the folks that put these things together is to advance what inevitably turns out to be a liberal agenda.

[Mike Mercury]

there are bad cops from time to time; this may be one of those times...

[DAB]

i can't fathom any set of facts that justify shooting someone running away from an officer, unarmed, not heading toward someone else.

has long been case law that police can't shoot you just for running away. that's why police have to chase you down somehow.

[Cybercowboy]

i can't fathom any set of facts that justify shooting someone running away from an officer, unarmed, not heading toward someone else.

has long been case law that police can't shoot you just for running away. that's why police have to chase you down somehow.

Me neither. This cop is going to serve time. At this point the only question is how many years. I think it's highly likely that the absolute minimum charge would be voluntary manslaughter. More likely it will be murder one with a plea to murder two.

[Aerovette]

I recall being a kid and mimicking what I would hear on TV when me and my friends played cops and robbers and a very common phrase was "Stop or I'll shoot". That phrase had to come from some police action. Perhaps this is a situation where shooting used to be acceptable and now is not, but I was still under the impression a fleeing suspect could be shot.

Not "should be" but "could be".

[Aerovette]

Me neither. This cop is going to serve time. At this point the only question is how many years. I think it's highly likely that the absolute minimum charge would be voluntary manslaughter. More likely it will be murder one with a plea to murder two.

Murder one? Where do you see premeditation? I thought murder one was "planned" or laying in wait ?

[DAB]

interesting article:

North Charleston shooting: How “investigatory” traffic stops unfairly affect blacks and can lead to tragedy. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/04/north_charleston_shooting_how_investigatory_traffic_stops_unfairly_affect.1.html)

[NCC-1701]

I saw the video the cop shot 8 times...as he was running away..:skia:

[LATB]

and if the dead man was a thug...and he runs away...and kills someone the next day...the cries would be: "why didn't that cop shoot him when he had the chance? he could have saved an innocent life"

[Cybercowboy]

Murder one? Where do you see premeditation? I thought murder one was "planned" or laying in wait ?

Because it looks like that immediately after he shot him, the officer then went and retrieved the taser that he claims was the reason for the whole thing, and planted it on the dying man.

And, well, if they could charge George Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder in an attempt to get a plea to manslaughter, they can charge this guy with 1st degree murder with the death penalty, and will get a plea to at least voluntary manslaughter.

[Cybercowboy]

and if the dead man was a thug...and he runs away...and kills someone the next day...the cries would be: "why didn't that cop shoot him when he had the chance? he could have saved an innocent life"

This guy sure doesn't fit the profile of the dangerous young gang banger. He was 50, father of four, engaged to be married, etc.

Like I said in my first post, this cop is going to do time.

[Montehall]

both were in the Coast Guard at some point, too

[Kerrmudgeon]

Eight times in the back....murder, not one though. Do they have the death penalty in that state?.....they should.

Poor old bugger was guilty of child support fraud, nothing to kill over. BUT....why the feck do these fools keep running away from these trigger happy cops? :doh:

[Cybercowboy]

Eight times in the back....murder, not one though. Do they have the death penalty in that state?.....they should.

Poor old bugger was guilty of child support fraud, nothing to kill over. BUT....why the feck do these fools keep running away from these trigger happy cops? :doh:

They do but in order to be eligible for the death penalty, it has to be capital murder (murder one), at least that's what I heard on one of the talk shows today.

[Norm]

Made a bad decision, will pay for it. Sad for both.

[NCC-1701]

and if the dead man was a thug...and he runs away...and kills someone the next day...the cries would be: "why didn't that cop shoot him when he had the chance? he could have saved an innocent life"

That does not matter because the cop would not be charged with murder and got to go home to his family. If someone else got killed later time as a result of the guy escaping that would be murder charges on the suspect not the cop. That in my book is a better scenario...

[Aerovette]

Because it looks like that immediately after he shot him, the officer then went and retrieved the taser that he claims was the reason for the whole thing, and planted it on the dying man.

And, well, if they could charge George Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder in an attempt to get a plea to manslaughter, they can charge this guy with 1st degree murder with the death penalty, and will get a plea to at least voluntary manslaughter.

No premeditation though. It would constitute special circumstances which will weigh against the officer. The cop was a complete idiot, but I don't think the victim was hunted or a plot to kill him was in play. It will add "aggravated" to whatever he is charged with.

What's really stupid is that police deal with witnesses everyday yet for some reason don't think there are witnesses to their own actions.

[Rob]

Made a bad decision, will pay for it. Sad for both.

Yeah. Not going to turn out good.

[Chuck A]

very sad, indeed LEO was wrong, i mean how come he couldn't aim for his legs, that's just plain wrong

[Norm]

very sad, indeed LEO was wrong, i mean how come he couldn't aim for his legs, that's just plain wrong

In my 42 years as a LEO (local, military, federal), not once was I trained to wound, all the firearms training to stay certified is shoot to kill, as it should be. All shots were center mass or body armor drill, two to the chest, one to the head. I was never taught to shoot at a fleeing suspect.

This officer made a very bad decision, and besides that, I'll bet the firearms training wasn't that good as well.

Heat of the moment, yada yada, not going to fly here.

[Chuck A]

In my 42 years as a LEO (local, military, federal), not once was I trained to wound, all the firearms training to stay certified is shoot to kill, as it should be. All shots were center mass or body armor drill, two to the chest, one to the head. I was never taught to shoot at a fleeing suspect.

This officer made a very bad decision, and besides that, I'll bet the firearms training wasn't that good as well.

Heat of the moment, yada yada, not going to fly here.

while i agree, if he would have just wounded him , this wouldn't have ended up his career as a LEO, and probably spending life in Jail

[Norm]

while i agree, if he would have just wounded him , this wouldn't have ended up his career as a LEO, and probably spending life in Jail

The subject had survived, major lawsuit, officer still would had lost his job. Major violation of departmental shooting instruction and training.

[Vet4jdc]

running away....shot in the back multiple times....not justified IMHO.

that cop is going down.

[Chuck A]

running away....shot in the back multiple times....not justified IMHO.

that cop is going down.

especially as many shots that he shot, dayum!!!

[LATB]

Y'all are correct. Cop is toast. His attorney will plea. It will never go to trial.

[Chuck A]

Y'all are correct. Cop is toast. His attorney will plea. It will never go to trial.

Al Sharpton is on standby:yesnod:

[NCC-1701]

Police are not trained to wound if they have to pull their gun it is because deadly force is to be used if they wound the subject it is because they were a bad aim. Tasers are used when deadly force is not justified at that moment and are used to subdue violent suspects or non compliant individuals. The taser gods spoke to me several times.....:D

[VITE1]

He shot someone in the back 5 times.

Fry him.

[Bill]

Look, the guy who got shot allegedly committed a traffic violation. That's good enough for me. Gun him down, damn the torpedos.

[island14]

News report video here talking to the eye witness that filmed the video of the shooting.

Man Who Filmed S.C. Shooting: 'You Pay For Your Decisions In This Life' : The Two-Way : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/08/398385654/man-who-filmed-s-c-shooting-you-pay-for-your-decisions-in-this-life)

[Cybercowboy]

Here he is planting the taser.

http://i.imgur.com/DTYSXXC.gif

[Hoog]

Heat of the moment, yada yada, not going to fly here.
He looked pretty damn casual about it to me.

Look, the guy who got shot allegedly committed a traffic violation. That's good enough for me. Gun him down, damn the torpedos.
Has anyone heard what this supposed violation was? DWB maybe?

[onedef92]

Shooting Victim Walter Scott and Police Officer Had Unexpected Connection

Apr 8, 2015, 9:55 PM ET

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m111/onedef92/ht_michael_slager_walter_scott_jc_150408_16x9_992_zpsalwztujb.jpg

An unexpected connection has emerged between the South Carolina police officer and the man he is accused of shooting after a traffic stop -- the fatal incident caught on video.

Both Officer Michael Slager and Walter "Lamar" Scott served in the U.S. Coast Guard years before their confrontation on Saturday in North Charleston left Scott dead and led to Slager being charged with murder on Tuesday.

A Coast Guard spokesman confirmed to ABC News that Slager was honorably discharged in 2009 after enlisting in 2003. He was last based at Port Canaveral in Florida.

Scott was enlisted from 1984 to 1986 and was involuntarily separated for a drug-related offense but still received a general discharge under honorable conditions.

Scott's older brother Anthony first revealed his brother's connection to the Coast Guard at a news conference Tuesday night.

"Out of my brothers, he was the most outgoing out of all of us," Anthony Scott said Tuesday night. "He knew everybody. He knew family I didn't know, he had friends I didn't know. He was well known in the community, everywhere."

Scott, 50, was a father of four and a Dallas Cowboy's fan, his brother said. The Scott family's attorney said Tuesday that he had a warrant out for his arrest stemming from outstanding child support payments when he was pulled over by Slager during Saturday's traffic stop, which the attorney said could be a reason why Scott began to run away from the officer.


In the immediate aftermath of Saturday's shooting, Slager's history on the force was reported by ABC affiliate WCIV, which stated he had been a member of the North Charleston Police Department since 2009 and served in the Coast Guard before then. No further information about his service has been made public, and the Coast Guard did not immediately respond to ABC News' calls for comment.

The investigation into the shooting is being handled by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, and Slager, 33, was interviewed by their team on Tuesday, just hours before he was charged with Scott's murder, according to North Charleston's mayor and police chief. He appeared at a bond hearing Tuesday night but has not yet entered a plea.

Over the weekend, Slager was represented by attorney David Aylor, who gave a statement to WCIV saying that the incident was "tragic" but that Slager "followed all the proper procedures and policies." That attorney told ABC News on Tuesday he is no longer representing Slager.

[simpleman68]

He looked pretty damn casual about it to me.


THAT and how Scott ran away like a winded old man is what I noticed above and beyond everything else. :sadangel:

Scott

[onedef92]

THAT and how Scott ran away like a winded old man is what I noticed above and beyond everything else.

Well, he had just been stunned moments before by the Tazer. I'm sure that explains his slow gait.

[simpleman68]

THAT and how Scott ran away like a winded old man is what I noticed above and beyond everything else.

Well, he had just been stunned moments before by the Tazer. I'm sure that explains his slow gait.

:yesnod: That's what I can't get my head around. How was this guy a threat?

I'm no LEO but I worked alongside hardened criminals, druggies etc for 15 years in NY City at Rykers Island as well as a half way house.

I've had my nose broken, knives pulled on me, attacked from behind out of nowhere and had dogs unleashed on me etc etc.

I get how things can turn from calm to deadly instantly; I've been there. This guy wasn't one of those guys and that officer knew it from the moment he called in this guys plates etc and found what, a warrant related to child support?

Then you see he's in an enclosed perimeter (tall chain link fence) barely able to hobble away, with nobody else in sight and THEN the officer shoots.
Scott

[Hoog]

What we don't see...

How did they get to where they were when the guy gets shot? His car was in the parts place parking lot, but the shooting was behind the "flee market". How far away is that? How'd they get there?

How was this guy a threat?

Scott
Something happened before the tasering, but based on what we see in the cell phone footage....he wasn't.

[simpleman68]

What we don't see...

How did they get to where they were when the guy gets shot? His car was in the parts place parking lot, but the shooting was behind the "flee market". How far away is that? How'd they get there?


Something happened before the tasering, but based on what we see in the cell phone footage....he wasn't.

I was wondering what took place with that as well once I heard it started as a traffic stop.
Will be interesting to hear what the officer says. I'm guessing the guy tried to flee after a scuffle of some sort.

I'm flying to Charleston tonight for a few days to see family and my SIL retirement party at the 315th AW.
Scott

[Dave]

Eight times in the back....murder, not one though. Do they have the death penalty in that state?.....they should.

Poor old bugger was guilty of child support fraud, nothing to kill over. BUT....why the feck do these fools keep running away from these trigger happy cops? :doh:

Because you have the right to flee/resist arrest when unnecessary force is being used which my result in great bodily injury or death. He was clearly justified in this case as the cop DID use unnecessarily great force against him.

[Dave]

while i agree, if he would have just wounded him , this wouldn't have ended up his career as a LEO, and probably spending life in Jail

Shooting at someone is using deadly force. If you shoot with the intent to wound, then deadly force was not required, was it? So why would you use deadly force when it wasn't necessary?

[island14]

I was wondering what took place with that as well once I heard it started as a traffic stop.
Will be interesting to hear what the officer says. I'm guessing the guy tried to flee after a scuffle of some sort.


I think I read it did start over a traffic stop, tail light or something simple.

They did scuffle a bit before the camera started filming the guy who took the video says.

But at that point he was running away.. so he was no threat, when he was getting shot at.

The bad thing is, without the video most people would have bought the tazer story, when it clear this cop was already planning his defense within split seconds of the shooting, possibly even before he shot him.

And then calmly planted the tazer near him after.

I will be interesting to see what the other cop has to say that was standing there when he tossed the tazer down.


Man Who Filmed S.C. Shooting: 'You Pay For Your Decisions In This Life' : The Two-Way : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/08/398385654/man-who-filmed-s-c-shooting-you-pay-for-your-decisions-in-this-life)

[onedef92]

Something happened before the tasering, but based on what we see in the cell phone footage....he wasn't.

Crooked cop on the take who decided to terminate his connection for twinking on him? I get the feeling somehow the cop and the victim knew one another. :confused5:

[island14]

THAT and how Scott ran away like a winded old man is what I noticed above and beyond everything else.

Well, he had just been stunned moments before by the Tazer. I'm sure that explains his slow gait.


And may have had a bullet or two in him..

[onedef92]

And may have had a bullet or two in him..

It appears he may have caught one or more in the thigh/lower leg.

[Norm]

He looked pretty damn casual about it to me.


Has anyone heard what this supposed violation was? DWB maybe?

The heat of the moment I was referring to is possibly the officer's excuse for shooting him, "it was in the heat of the moment, yada yada".

[Rob]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WQa9zmxanZY

[Dave]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WQa9zmxanZY

Fleeing is certainly no reason to shoot the guy.

Someone remind me why police in this country routinely carry firearms

[MrPeabody]

Fleeing is certainly no reason to shoot the guy.

Someone remind me why police in this country routinely carry firearms

Because most bad guys do?

Doesn't apply to this case, of course.

[LATB]

Fleeing is certainly no reason to shoot the guy.

Someone remind me why police in this country routinely carry firearms

Are you advocating disarming American law enforcement officers?

[Dave]

Because most bad guys do?

Doesn't apply to this case, of course.

Most? I highly doubt it.

Are you advocating disarming American law enforcement officers?

Just throwing it out there. UK police kill almost nobody by comparison. If the option of shooting was not available to this cop, what would we have seen on the video taken by the bystander?


What percentage of the time is a firearm pertinent to the duties of a police officer in this country? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%?

[LATB]

I think we should get rid of all law enforcement officers. Install cameras everywhere. And a bunch of .gov geeks sit at monitors all day. If they see you do something illegal they send you a nice letter or email asking you to please not of that again, Thank you.

[Rob]

I think we should get rid of all law enforcement officers. Install cameras everywhere. And a bunch of .gov geeks sit at monitors all day. If they see you do something illegal they send you a nice letter or email asking you to please not of that again, Thank you.

I do think cameras at every intersection is a good idea. I also have stated that rfid should be installed in every license plate and drivers license so we can track everyone.

If there is a crime - we will know who was nearby.

[Cybercowboy]

With the context of the driver bolting, running for several blocks, and a subsequent struggle with the taser, I'd say he's going to get manslaughter.

[onedef92]

More video footage was released Thursday which shows Scott suddenly bolting from his car after the officer detained him to verify his driver's license. At least we definitively know who initiated the pursuit.

It may be Scott feared being arrested again over what he thought was a bench warrant for his arrest, but it appears no warrant had in fact been issued. In either case, BOTH men chose poorly.

Walter Scott Shooting: No Warrant Over Child Support, Report Says

Posted Thurs, April 09/2015

Walter Scott was nearly $7,500 behind in child support payments at the time he was fatally shot by a South Carolina police officer — but no bench warrant had been issued for him, according to court records cited by The Associated Press.

With court fees added, Scott, 50, owed more than $7,800. Records cited by the AP show that he last paid child support in July 2012. But there was no bench warrant ordering police officers to bring him in to face a family court judge.

Scott had been behind bars three times over child support. In 2008, following a traffic stop in which he was charged with an open-container violation and driving under suspension, he was sent to jail in Charleston for half a year for failing to pay around $6,800, according to the AP.

In 2011, bench warrants ordered deputies to bring in Scott, and he spent a night in jail when he was $7,500 behind. In 2012, he spent another night in jail when he owed $3,500, the AP reported.

Family members have said he may have run from Saturday's traffic stop because he feared going back to jail over more back child support. A police dashboard camera video released Thursday shows Scott running from his car after he was pulled over by Officer Michael Slager.

[mrvette]

I do think cameras at every intersection is a good idea. I also have stated that rfid should be installed in every license plate and drivers license so we can track everyone.

If there is a crime - we will know who was nearby.

Too much with the motorist harASSment already, without making it even worse....all that crap would be is just revenue flow/enhancement..,,:issues:

[Dave]

With the context of the driver bolting, running for several blocks, and a subsequent struggle with the taser, I'd say he's going to get manslaughter.

I disagree. 2nd Degree Murder at least. The cop made a conscious decision to shoot and kill, rather than chase a fleeing person.

[island14]

With the context of the driver bolting, running for several blocks, and a subsequent struggle with the taser, I'd say he's going to get manslaughter.

He might get a plea bargain like that, might.. but people will be screaming for blood, and rightfully so I think in this case.

In some states if the officer can show probable cause that someone fleeing the scene is a danger to other officers, or citizens, he may have an argument of defense for shooting him.

That will be the only hope he has... but the fact that he immediately tried to set up a legal alibi over the tazer is not going to go well for him.

I don't think the cop had any intention of shooting the guy when he pulled him over, and in the heat of the moment he made a piss poor choice that cost a man his life.

This is unacceptable! any civilian shooting even a fleeing felon in the back would be charged with murder, and the police should be held to that.. or a higher standard.

Just the fact that he tries to plant the tazor on the guy to cover his own ass, shows his own criminal intent.

I still want to hear what the other officer has to say that was standing there when he planted the tazor, that cop looked black in the video, but I bet he went blue..

If so.. he needs to be charged also.. :yesnod:

[island14]

I disagree. 2nd Degree Murder at least. The cop made a conscious decision to shoot and kill, rather than chase a fleeing person.

I tend to agree on 2nd degree, I think they would need to show an intent of premeditation to make it first degree.

Politically I think they will have trouble trying to go with manslaughter.


Waiting for Spence to weigh in on this.

:waiting:

[Bill]

One thing is certain. The kids this guy failed to support in life will be getting a good chunk of change due to the way the guy died. In death, he will finally take care of the kids he sired.

He gots money for a Mercedes with the pimpin' wheels, but not for his progeny. Yes, he was murdered. He was also a douchebag who failed in his most basic responsibility....paying for the kids he made.

[Dave]

I do think cameras at every intersection is a good idea. I also have stated that rfid should be installed in every license plate and drivers license so we can track everyone.

If there is a crime - we will know who was nearby.

Pretty much the last thing we ever should have imho.

[Bill]

I do think cameras at every intersection is a good idea. I also have stated that rfid should be installed in every license plate and drivers license so we can track everyone.

If there is a crime - we will know who was nearby.

We have always been at war with Eurasia.

[Aerovette]

Stepping out of the car once was a mistake.
Stepping out again was a stupid mistake.
Running from the police was a lethal mistake.

Stay in the car, hands visible and you stand a 100% chance of surviving the whole ordeal.

I'm not saying he should die, but it was by his own actions that he did. There would be NO decision about whether he was a threat or whether deadly force was necessary had he kept is dead-beat ass in the seat.

I'll offer this, drug users are often not taken down by a taser and are a threat if they get away. There was obvious desperation to flee and the officer can't possibly know the fleeing man's intent. Grab a kid and take a hostage. Carjack the nearest driver. No telling. Again, death was not necessary but he accepted all possible outcomes when his feet hit the road.

[Hoog]

Running from the police was a lethal mistake.


...and he even got away with that the first time.

[island14]

Running from the police was a lethal mistake.


:iagree:

Yes it was... and clearly his stupid choice that led up to his own death.

But he did not deserve to die for that stupid choice.

Sadly now he lost his life, and his family with have to live with the pain of that loss.

And the Police Officer who may have been a good guy up to that life changing split second moment, will probably be haunted with this for the rest of his life.

[Cybercowboy]

I disagree. 2nd Degree Murder at least. The cop made a conscious decision to shoot and kill, rather than chase a fleeing person.

There was a fight, lasting about a minute. When the guy ran away from that fight, at that point a cogent argument could be made that he was a dangerous fleeing felon, and that is indeed the argument this officer will use in his defense. Legally, lethal force is allowed in such an instance, although the fact that the "dangerous fleeing felon" was unarmed at the time will make for a tough go of it. If all the cop did was run the guy down and shoot him, murder. But the fight taking place prior to this, with the guy purportedly trying to grab weapons from the officer, changes things drastically.

[Cybercowboy]

One thing is certain. The kids this guy failed to support in life will be getting a good chunk of change due to the way the guy died. In death, he will finally take care of the kids he sired.

He gots money for a Mercedes with the pimpin' wheels, but not for his progeny. Yes, he was murdered. He was also a douchebag who failed in his most basic responsibility....paying for the kids he made.

It wasn't his car, it was the passenger's car. And the passenger is nowhere to be found.

[Aerovette]

Has anyone considered that the department already knows he will not be found guilty of murder and simply pressed charges quickly to avoid protests like those in Ferguson because that officer was not charged ?

As time passes we are going to learn a LOT more about the situation. More than those few seconds of video reveal.

[Dave]

There was a fight, lasting about a minute. When the guy ran away from that fight, at that point a cogent argument could be made that he was a dangerous fleeing felon, and that is indeed the argument this officer will use in his defense. Legally, lethal force is allowed in such an instance, although the fact that the "dangerous fleeing felon" was unarmed at the time will make for a tough go of it. If all the cop did was run the guy down and shoot him, murder. But the fight taking place prior to this, with the guy purportedly trying to grab weapons from the officer, changes things drastically.

Standard go-to excuse for a cop shooting someone, isn't it? "He reached for my gun" except that he then ran away from the fight. If I'm on the jury, the alleged "fight" is irrelevant.

[Bill]

Standard go-to excuse for a cop shooting someone, isn't it? "He reached for my gun" except that he then ran away from the fight. If I'm on the jury, the alleged "fight" is irrelevant.

I disagree. If there was a fight, like the gentle giant grabbing for the officer's gun in Ferguson, that would change things for me a little bit. At that point, the guy has assaulted an officer. Felony?

If there was a fight, though, it would have to have been off camera. The guy takes off running, and then we see him take bullets to the back. Did the cop catch him, struggle with him, lose him, then resume the chase? That's the only thing that would make this slightly less bad than it looks.

[Aerovette]

I disagree. If there was a fight, like the gentle giant grabbing for the officer's gun in Ferguson, that would change things for me a little bit. At that point, the guy has assaulted an officer. Felony?

If there was a fight, though, it would have to have been off camera. The guy takes off running, and then we see him take bullets to the back. Did the cop catch him, struggle with him, lose him, then resume the chase? That's the only thing that would make this slightly less bad than it looks.

That is what happened. They guy that filmed it said they were on the ground first and then they both were back on their feet when he started recording.

[Bill]

It wasn't his car, it was the passenger's car. And the passenger is nowhere to be found.

On the traffic stop video, I think he makes mention of the fact that he is going to buy the car. Of course, he could have been lying.

[Aerovette]

The passenger was interviewed at the scene and released. The passenger did not witness the shooting.

[Dave]

I disagree. If there was a fight, like the gentle giant grabbing for the officer's gun in Ferguson, that would change things for me a little bit. At that point, the guy has assaulted an officer. Felony?

If there was a fight, though, it would have to have been off camera. The guy takes off running, and then we see him take bullets to the back. Did the cop catch him, struggle with him, lose him, then resume the chase? That's the only thing that would make this slightly less bad than it looks.

Felony? Pure speculation. If the cop was using excessive force to stop him, he has the right to defend himself and "assault" the officer, so no assault actually occurred. Speculation? You bet.

The video shows two people standing up, "post fight". One guy runs, the other draws a firearm and shoots the fleeing guy in the back. At that point in time, the fight is irrelevant. So what if the guy "grabbed for the cop's gun" or there was a fight over a taser? Ancient history at the time the gun is fired. The cop isn't defending himself. The fleeing guy showed no signs of being armed until the taser was planted alongside him. Was the cop pissed that this guy got away from him? Pissed that the guy tried to not get shot with a taser? Irrelevant. The cop has watched too many movies if he thinks that "stop or I'll shoot" is a valid means of taking an unarmed person into custody in the real world.

[Aerovette]

Felony? Pure speculation. If the cop was using excessive force to stop him, he has the right to defend himself and "assault" the officer, so no assault actually occurred. Speculation? You bet.

The video shows two people standing up, "post fight". One guy runs, the other draws a firearm and shoots the fleeing guy in the back. At that point in time, the fight is irrelevant. So what if the guy "grabbed for the cop's gun" or there was a fight over a taser? Ancient history at the time the gun is fired. The cop isn't defending himself. The fleeing guy showed no signs of being armed until the taser was planted alongside him. Was the cop pissed that this guy got away from him? Pissed that the guy tried to not get shot with a taser? Irrelevant. The cop has watched too many movies if he thinks that "stop or I'll shoot" is a valid means of taking an unarmed person into custody in the real world.

Why is it that three or four officers chasing a guy into the woods are able to have their weapons drawn? Why are they able to fire at a car that is fleeing the scene of a robbery? If a gun cannot be used against someone fleeing, then those guns should all be holstered, no?

[VatorMan]

All your supposition is thrown out as soon as he threw the taser by the guy and he and his buddies said they preformed CPR. Liars-all. I would put them on the same level as a pimp or hooker.

[Dave]

Why is it that three or four officers chasing a guy into the woods are able to have their weapons drawn? Why are they able to fire at a car that is fleeing the scene of a robbery? If a gun cannot be used against someone fleeing, then those guns should all be holstered, no?

Huh? Chasing a guy into the woods for what? Someone who just committed an ARMED robbery perhaps? Someone who is known to be ARMED and dangerous perhaps? Or maybe an ARMED robber who is believed to be an imminent threat to the safety and well-being of others where using lethal force may be appropriate?

Are you seriously trying to compare something like that to a 50 year old unarmed guy lumbering away from a cop and getting shot for it?

Show me where that's justified in the law. It's pretty easy to find where it's NOT.

[Aerovette]

Huh? Chasing a guy into the woods for what? Someone who just committed an ARMED robbery perhaps? Someone who is known to be ARMED and dangerous perhaps? Or maybe an ARMED robber who is believed to be an imminent threat to the safety and well-being of others where using lethal force may be appropriate?

Are you seriously trying to compare something like that to a 50 year old unarmed guy lumbering away from a cop and getting shot for it?

Show me where that's justified in the law. It's pretty easy to find where it's NOT.

Cops chasing someone for anything will pull their guns when they close in on the perp. Regardless of shoplifting or murder.

I would not say his exit from that car was "lumbering" at all.

The shooting was not justified but the victim instigated the entire event from the very start. When he chose to run, he accepted any and all possible outcomes. Period. If a good Samaritan saw him running from the cops and ran into him with their car, should they go to jail?

The shooting was not justified (saying it again for clarification) but it was invited by him running in the first place. A thousand...no million, possible outcomes "could have" happened but they all share a common starting point...his decision to run.

[simpleman68]

North Charleston officer chuckled about adrenaline rush after shooting Walter Scott (http://news.yahoo.com/walter-scott-shooting-north-charleston-police-officer-michael-slager-audio-183104915.html)