• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Video Shows Officer Shooting Unarmed Black Man in South Carolina

Status
Not open for further replies.
So fired, had to pay a million bucks and is now facing manslaughter charges? Not sure what you are trying to prove here.

Just making a point. I asked at the opening if the video validated anything that black folks have been yelling about and apparently it does.
 
Just making a point. I asked at the opening if the video validated anything that black folks have been yelling about and apparently it does.


White folks get shot by police too. again, this is a policing issue, not a race issue.
 



Oh I agree there is plenty enough evidence to charge him with murder, and most likely convict him. It would be incredibly hard to justify shooting a fleeing unarmed man whose worst warrant was child support.


Just sayin' in general, sometimes video doesn't tell the whole story.
 

But again I ask, would it matter if Mr. Scott took the officers tazer, or even his gun? Unless he got control of the firearm and tried to shoot the officer with it then dropped it and ran, then would there be any justification for shooting Mr. Scott? I don't have to have seen the report filed to know nothing like this occured, because we know that if Mr. Scott had taken the actions above the police department wouldn't have fired him.
 
James Clyburn blames this on voter ID laws and stand your ground laws....

Wow
 
What a joke!!!!

Do you really think after the beatings the respective Chiefs took in Ferguson and NY in the media/public, this Chief would act objectively!??!!??! Really!??!!?! LOL.

The chief could have put the guy on desk duty until "all the information is released" as they tend to do. No, it was clear this officer killed in cold blood and planted evidence immediately after. I don't know the chief or what motivated him, I can only go by what was reported.


Unless it is absolutely obvious it was a justified shoot, the lesson learned is for Chiefs to cover their own a$$es. From now on the cop is guilty until proven innocent, just like in Ferguson.

How exactly did Ferguson PD make Darren Wilson appear guilty?

All that said, this cop is going to jail at least on a man-slaughter charge.

Hope its 2nd degree murder but I agree, it will probably be manslaughter.

Thank God for that video though. Without it he probably would have been acquitted (if charges were ever brought against him).
 

Oh I don't know about that

The autopsy in this case would have shown that he actually was shot in the back 8 times.
 
I don't care if he threw a live grenade at the officers feet.

Does not justify what I saw on that video.
What you think saw and reality are two separate things.





Explain to me what could justify shooting a fleeing man in the back.
:doh
First of all, you obviously do not know my position on this shooting.
Secondly, there are many variables that could justify shooting someone in the back as they are fleeing.
The most obvious reason being that they are a threat, as upheld by SCOTUS.





Irrelevant.
While you may want it to be, it isn't their job.
Furthermore, aid was being given at the end of the video we were able to see. Nor do you know the point in time which the guy stopped breathing.
That does not mean that CPR was not later performed, which is not disturbing in the least.
 
Last edited:
Oh I don't know about that

The autopsy in this case would have shown that he actually was shot in the back 8 times.

Which is why I think there would have been an investigation. But, in the end, by planting the taser next to the body he could argue the man was armed and therefore a threat. I could definitely see a jury acquitting him if it got as far as a trial.
 
Lol !!

Yea I just heard hom tie this shooting to " legislating " like Voter Id and Stand your ground laws.

Our Congressional reps need to worry about far more pressing issues, like Guam capsizing. Then they don't say stupid things.
 
Which is why I think there would have been an investigation. But, in the end, by planting the taser next to the body he could argue the man was armed and therefore a threat. I could definitely see a jury acquitting him if it got as far as a trial.

True, but even a jury would have a hard time believing a taser that's how many feet away is an imminent threat. And the number of shots he took would also work against him.
 

I agree with you. Good move to fire him. The video is too damning. This video shows him killing an unarmed man attempting to flee, rather than radioing in a suspect on foot- since he's unarmed. Do we know the WHOLE story? No. But that's enough for the cop to lose his job. What a coward.
 
Cops are not civilians; they're armed agents of the local govt. Armed govt. agents should never have the same rights as the People. To allow them the same rights compromises freedoms.

wrong, cops are civilians unless they are military police and they are accountable in CIVILIAN COURT not military court. The rest of your comment is beyond silly. Of course civilians should have the same rights as other civilians and police officers, like Judges, Prosecutors, medical examiners, fire marshals, DEA agents, FBI Agents, poultry inspectors, Postal inspectors, IRS Criminal Investigation Division agents etc have additional "powers" that other civilians do not have
 
A man running from you with no weapons is not a danger to you or anybody else and shooting him down like this is illegal, unlawful, immoral and wrong, wronger and totally and utterly devoid of any defensibility whatsoever.
:doh

There you go again engaged in make believe. :doh


But walking back, picking up the tazer and throwing it beside the dying man,
Has this been confirmed, or are you still operating on what you want to believe?



Yes really.
Do you not understand what you yourself quoted?


In this case the guy had taken the Officers taser.
At the point the Officer was reacting he had "probable cause to believe that the suspect" posed "a significant threat of death or serious physical injury".
Matters not that the guy threw it down.



And btw, upon analysis the two can be seen to be in a scuffle on the ground prior to being upright.


The guy was resisting arrest on his warrant, was combative, and took the Officers taser.
 
Dude!!!!!!! He's been charged with MURDER, by the guys holding the evidence. Never mind that he was black. If this was the same video but the man was White, the pos cop is a murderer. And he's been charged with murder because of it.

charges with murder

do charges sometimes change?

and did i say he wasnt guilty?

but i do like to hear and read all the evidence before i make up my mind....no matter how guilty one may appear
 
Or beaten to death, like in the case of Kelly Thomas.
Kelly Thomas was not beaten to death.
It was the combined weight of the Officers need to subdue him that compressed his chest causing an inability to breath.
 
True, but even a jury would have a hard time believing a taser that's how many feet away is an imminent threat.

Police have gotten away with less than that.

And the number of shots he took would also work against him.

Well the defense would certainly have used that against him. It probably wouldn't have mattered. When you fire your gun your intent is to kill or "eliminate the threat." Doesn't matter whether it was 1 shot or 100 shots.
 
I don't disagree about ferguson,

Ferguson isn't the exception to the rule.


but you can't apply one to all.

I didn't say all. But there is a notably racist culture within many of our nation's police departments. LAPD, Maricopa County, and NYPD are notorious examples.
 

If he is fired I don't believe he can be represented by a union lawyer. Seems it is the right move if that is the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…