Video Shows Officer Shooting Unarmed Black Man in South Carolina

nota bene · Apr 11, 2015

It remains unclear whether Scott took the taser. What is clear is that he was running away and that he was shot in the back eight times. The officer could have pursued the much older man and subdued him without shooting him in the back. Yes, Scott made some bad life choices and should have paid his child support and fixed the vehicle's light. This doesn't justify shooting him in the back eight times.

Peter King · Apr 11, 2015

Excon said:
:doh You have to hash it first to rehash it, which you definitely have not done.
All you have done is make things up, and assume.

It is not reasonable suspicion. It is probable cause to believe. Different standards.

And again. The suspect taking the taser satisfies the requirement. You haven't been able to refute that, nor could you.

Trial?
It hasn't even gotten past the Grand Jury point yet.

South Carolina shooting case will head to a grand jury
South Carolina shooting case will head to a grand jury - LA Times

That is not a fact. This is you making things up.

Irrelevant. And just shows how weak your arguments are.

Wrong.
His taking the taser made him a significant threat.

Wrong.

Responding appropriately to a threat is not brutality.

This absurd comment just shows that you are not even qualified to be speaking on this subject.
You do not fire warning shots.

As you are the one ignoring reality, it is your problem, not mine.
The moment the suspect took the taser he became a significant threat.
You can not refute that.

In this case your statement is wrong.
The suspect was a significant threat as soon as he took the taser. As such, the Officers response is defensible.
You still haven't been able to refute that.

Yay! Finally, admittance you are assuming.

No it wasn't at his feet.
And again.
The Officer is drawing his firearm while the suspect has the taser.

No, you are wrong and your comments are nonsense as shown.
You still have failed to refute the actual evidence.
The suspect was a significant threat as soon as he took the taser. It is that threat to which the Officer was responding. Saying otherwise is ludicrous.

If you think that why have you been arguing murder and execution? Do you not know they are not the same things as manslaughter?
Or did you change your mind? If not, why the heck have you been arguing with me? Did you not see what I said in my second post?

That black thing was likely the tazer that the guy took as reported by the Officer.

At the moment of the shooting it doesn't appear as the Officer knew he threw it down.
If so, this would indicate that the Officer (in his mind) was responding to an actual threat.

That information and whether he moved the tazer after the fact and why, may be the difference between manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter and that of a murder conviction.

We have rehashed it but you seem to be making your theory up as you go with zero evidence at all.

The taser no suddenly was thrown by Walter Scott? Then please tell us why where the taser wires going into Walter Scott? Most likely the officer dropped it when he was going for his gun while he was holding on to Scott with his other hand. It is very difficult to hold and taser and get your gun out while you are holding on to the suspect with your other hand.

This was an illegal shoot and I could care less if you call it murder or homicide (I call it manslaughter because that is what the Dutch title for his actions would be, homicide without premeditation), as long as he is prosecuted and sentenced for his misdeeds.

nota bene · Apr 11, 2015

I'm sure I'll be corrected if mistaken, LOL, but here I think this is second-degree murder, unpremeditated murder.

Peter King · Apr 11, 2015

Blemonds said:
It's homicide, but more likely manslaughter than murder. And you're confusing imminent threat with heat of the moment. A jury likely will have better understanding of the difference

That hasn't been determined. What he picked up and why will come out later

Really? Then please tell me what he is picking up here?

nota bene · Apr 11, 2015

Peter King said:
Really? Then please tell me what he is picking up here?

I don't know what he's picking up. Video analysts will have to determine this?

Peter King · Apr 11, 2015

nota bene said:
I don't know what he's picking up. Video analysts will have to determine this?

There are not a whole lot of things he is going to put back into his belt (at least that is what it looks like) at that side of his belt. It is not his gun because that is on the side we can see, it is not his handcuffs because they are still on the victim. Not a lot of other things can be found at that particular spot.

Also, he has no business picking anything up at all, it is a crime scene and officers should not do anything like that.

Blemonds · Apr 11, 2015

Peter King said:
Really? Then please tell me what he is picking up here?

I can't tell you what he picked up because the video isn't clear enough to identify the object. More importantly, I can't tell you WHY he picked it up.

jet57 · Apr 11, 2015

nota bene said:
I don't know what he's picking up. Video analysts will have to determine this?

It sure looks like his taser. CBS interviewed an FBI video expert who says when he analyses he tries to give the cops the benefit of the doubt. But in this case the cop moved evidence at murder scene which corrupts everything. So the expert says it is his taser and he's finished.

jet57 · Apr 11, 2015

Blemonds said:
I can't tell you what he picked up because the video isn't clear enough to identify the object. More importantly, I can't tell you WHY he picked it up.

I think he moved his taser in order to corroborate his story. That's bad.

beefheart · Apr 11, 2015

Blemonds said:
If the victim had any decency to his character, he would still be alive today. And nobody has justified the cops actions. It's merely a clarification that it is unlikely his actions rise to the level of murder in the legal sense

Now comes the empty cognitive dissonance. You don't get to decide "decency" nor should the cop have decided with a summary execution. Shame on you for this post.

Excon · Apr 11, 2015

Peter King said:
Because what you are saying is totally untrue.

This is again you making things up.
No it isn't untrue.

Peter King said:
He was not taking the taser from him,

:doh
I didn't say he was taking it, I clearly said he had taken it.

Peter King said:
there is zero evidence to support that,

Wrong.
All you are doing is showing you are not paying attention.
First of all we have the Officers statement that he took it. Whether you like that or not, that is evidence.

And then we have the visual evidence.
The Officer's left hand was grabbing the suspect while his other hand was in a downward motion to grab his firearm.
It is then which we see what is supposedly the taser being thrown in a direction and with force that could not have come from the Officer.

1. It surely couldn't come from his left hand which was holding on to the suspect.
2. It surely couldn't have come from his right hand which was in a downward motion to draw his firearm.

That only leaves one place for it to have come from. Duh! Which corresponds with the direction it is coming from.

His drawing his firearm at that point supports that is when the suspect had it.

Why you choose to ignore the evidence is beyond me. but it is a silly thing to do.

And pay attention to the image.
It shows that you are wrong. The Officer did not have the taser at that point it was thrown.

Peter King said:
the taser lines look like they are inside the clothes of the victim so the officer had the taser and shot at him,

This is irrelevant as that cartridge had already been discharged by the Officer at that point, we already know that. We also know that they both had been on the ground in a struggle.

We are talking about the point in time when the suspect had the taser.

Peter King said:
We have rehashed it but you seem to be making your theory up as you go with zero evidence at all.

Wrong.
You are the one who made things up.
I on the other hand showed you the known evidence.

Peter King said:
The taser no suddenly was thrown by Walter Scott? Then please tell us why where the taser wires going into Walter Scott?

Wow! you really do not pay attention to the evidence, do you?
Everybody already knows the cartridge had been fired at that point. Why don't you?

Peter King said:
Most likely the officer dropped it when he was going for his gun while he was holding on to Scott with his other hand.

What an absurdly ridiculous assertion.
His hand was in a downward movement. Do you really not understand that?
The supposed taser then comes passed him at a velocity and direction that a downward moving hand could not account for.
It had to have come from the suspect, which corresponds with the direction it comes from.
To suggest otherwise is total ignorance.

Peter King said:
This was an illegal shoot and I could care less if you call it murder or homicide (I call it manslaughter because that is what the Dutch title for his actions would be, homicide without premeditation), as long as he is prosecuted and sentenced for his misdeeds.

No it wasn't and nothing you have provided says it was.

beefheart · Apr 11, 2015

Blemonds said:
He did that himself when he took off running and subsequently engaged the officer physically. It cannot be denied that had he not run, he would still be alive today.

If the cop wasn't trolling for quotas by stopping someone for a stupid thing like a center tail light out, he would still be alive today.

Excon · Apr 11, 2015

Peter King said:
Also, he has no business picking anything up at all, it is a crime scene and officers should not do anything like that.

If he is picking up his taser you are wrong.
It is procedure to secure your weapons.

11Bravo · Apr 11, 2015

Excon said:
This is again you making things up.
No it isn't untrue.

:doh
I didn't say he was taking it, I clearly said he had taken it.

Wrong.
All you are doing is showing you are not paying attention.
First of all we have the Officers statement that he took it. Whether you like that or not, that is evidence.

And then we have the visual evidence.
The Officer's left hand was grabbing the suspect while his other hand was in a downward motion to grab his firearm.
It is then which we see what is supposedly the taser being thrown in a direction and with force that could not have come from the Officer.

1. It surely couldn't come from his left hand which was holding on to the suspect.
2. It surely couldn't have come from his right hand which was in a downward motion to draw his firearm.
That only leaves one place for it to have come from. Duh! Which corresponds with the direction it is coming from.

His drawing his firearm at that point supports that is when the suspect had it.

Why you choose to ignore the evidence is beyond me. but it is a silly thing to do.

And pay attention to the image.
It shows that you are wrong. The Officer did not have the taser at that point it was thrown.

This is irrelevant as that cartridge had already been discharged by the Officer at that point, we already know that. We also know that they both had been on the ground in a struggle.

We are talking about the point in time when the suspect had the taser.

Wrong.
You are the one who made things up.
I on the other hand showed you the known evidence.

Wow! you really do not pay attention to the evidence, do you?
Everybody already knows the cartridge had been fired at that point. Why don't you?

What an absurdly ridiculous assertion.
His hand was in a downward movement. Do you really not understand that?
The supposed taser then comes passed him at a velocity and direction that a downward moving hand could not account for.
It had to have come from the suspect, which corresponds with the direction it comes from.
To suggest otherwise is total ignorance.

No it wasn't and nothing you have provided says it was.

Very informative post. You've created plenty of reasonable doubt in my mind. I haven't stopped to examine the evidence as closely as you. Thank you for providing this analysis. I will be following this case more closely.

11Bravo · Apr 11, 2015

Excon said:
If he is picking up his taser you are wrong.
It is procedure to secure your weapons.

Correct. That's a big factor as a lot of people don't know that. Can't have an accomplice or civilian securing the weapon before you (officer).

Excon · Apr 11, 2015

11Bravo said:
Very informative post. You've created plenty of reasonable doubt in my mind. I haven't stopped to examine the evidence as closely as you. Thank you for providing this analysis. I will be following this case more closely.

Thank you.
While the arguments are mine, the supportive visual information like the image in that post comes from someone else who is obviously of similar thought.
It was found at the Conservativetreehouse and they deserve the credit for that.

Blemonds · Apr 11, 2015

beefheart said:
Now comes the empty cognitive dissonance. You don't get to decide "decency" nor should the cop have decided with a summary execution. Shame on you for this post.

Actually, I do get to decide decency. It isn't even that difficult. Shame on others for ignoring actual evidence and jumping to conclusions

beefheart · Apr 11, 2015

Blemonds said:
Actually, I do get to decide decency. It isn't even that difficult. Shame on others for ignoring actual evidence and jumping to conclusions

Nothing he did that day should have led to him being shot in the back by a cop. End of story.

You want a police state? There are plenty of them in the world.

Blemonds · Apr 11, 2015

beefheart said:
If the cop wasn't trolling for quotas by stopping someone for a stupid thing like a center tail light out, he would still be alive today.

The law in S.C. allows for such a stop, so take it up with the lawmakers. More importantly, such stops nab people with outstanding warrants, such as in this case. Simple concept, if Scott obeyed the law, he would be alive today.

Blemonds · Apr 11, 2015

beefheart said:
Nothing he did that day should have led to him being shot in the back by a cop. End of story.

You want a police state? There are plenty of them in the world.

That's arguable. It remains that he sealed his own fate when he chose a criminal act rather than a legal act

JANFU · Apr 11, 2015

Blemonds said:
The law in S.C. allows for such a stop, so take it up with the lawmakers. More importantly, such stops nab people with outstanding warrants, such as in this case. Simple concept, if Scott obeyed the law, he would be alive today.

You class this as a legal kill?

Lursa · Apr 11, 2015

SenorXm/Sirius said:
I would like to say I am surprised there are people trying to excuse this cops actions, but I am not surprised. One reason why many police officers feel they can do anything they want and get away with it is because there are people willing to defend and look the other way no matter what actions the police use, or how many liberties and civil rights they, and the politicians are taking away. But then those excusers and security at any cost police defenders will be the 1st to complain about how the US is turning into a police state.

Sad.

The 'usual suspects' also tried to make excuses for the 2 law enforcement officers here that shot the wrong man (never identified their target), in the basement, in bed, (after they already had their suspect,) 16 times...and didnt even manage to kill him.

And it's not even surprising that people doubt this cop (in the OP) will be convicted of murder...because those 2 LEs I just mentioned were not criminally charged and still have their jobs. However there have been 2 successful civil suits for about $3 million.

beefheart · Apr 11, 2015

Blemonds said:
The law in S.C. allows for such a stop, so take it up with the lawmakers. More importantly, such stops nab people with outstanding warrants, such as in this case. Simple concept, if Scott obeyed the law, he would be alive today.

Just more cops with nothing better to do. Keep sticking up for the cop who shot a fleeing unarmed man in the back 8 times, it is fascinating to watch.

beefheart · Apr 11, 2015

JANFU said:
You class this as a legal kill?

Come on, the policeman "vas juszt followving zee orderzz"

beefheart · Apr 11, 2015

Blemonds said:
That's arguable. It remains that he sealed his own fate when he chose a criminal act rather than a legal act

Nothing he did warranted being shot and killed. Nothing.

Video Shows Officer Shooting Unarmed Black Man in South Carolina

nota bene

Peter King

nota bene

Peter King

nota bene

Peter King

Blemonds

jet57

jet57

beefheart

Ice Cream for Crow?

Excon

beefheart

Ice Cream for Crow?

Excon

11Bravo

11Bravo

Excon

Blemonds

beefheart

Ice Cream for Crow?

Blemonds

Blemonds

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream

Lursa

Tenacious

beefheart

Ice Cream for Crow?

beefheart

Ice Cream for Crow?

beefheart

Ice Cream for Crow?

Video Shows Officer Shooting Unarmed Black Man in South Carolina

Ice Cream for Crow?

Ice Cream for Crow?

Ice Cream for Crow?

Land by the Gulf Stream

Tenacious

Ice Cream for Crow?

Ice Cream for Crow?

Ice Cream for Crow?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency