I sat through the entire Rodney King Simi Valley trial. The jury had seen video that portrayed a portion of the incident, but not the whole incident. Once they saw the rest of the video, they voted not to convict. Not necessarily on point, but the parallels about the media selling the public a story that left out many facts, and the public being quick to rush to judgment have some redolence here.
Funny, though, that here the LA Times is urging taking the time to get it right, whereas the King case was actually the capper of their ten year long campaign against the LAPD and they formed a media lynch mob before the ink on the first edition was dry.
However the "good" news is that the number of people stopped by the police who decide to turn their backs and run will be down, way down.
The Police still don’t have a right to shoot an unarmed man in the back!
Ya know.....The perp is running...its not like yu don’t know who he is,ya got his car and stuff..let his ass go...Let’em chill out realize he is screwed and arrest him ASAP.
Shooting him in the back is a bit to much ASAP
Cop F’ed up
“Even the LA Times thinks there is more to this story. “
LA Times just wants to fan flames.
They like these bread and circuses stories for their political exploitation.
They're just handicapping the upcoming legal contest. They don't supply any new facts.
The murder part is fully on the video.
Is the cop going to claim it was a revenge killing for something we didn’t see?
This thread is absurd!
.
It looks very much unjustified, but it doesn’t matter. He is already convicted.
Oh well, if the LATIMES thinks so, then there must be!!!!
It is heartening to me that folks with opinions such as yours on this matter are a very small minority here.
When the officer corrupted the crime scene by moving the taser the answer should be self evident.
The LAT wants clicks on their site.
I saw a copy of the video, where the person doing the video kept Scott and Stager out of it for some time. The camera was aimed at the scenery away from them, until Scott started to run.
Short of the dead guy running towards someone else with deadly intent, what would *possibly* justify this shooting?
Temporary insanity is the only thing that *might* mitigate the penalty this cop faces - He could claim he was so enraged that he temporarily lost control of his senses. No one will buy that, but it’s the only thing I can think of.
Once the dead guy broke off the attack and was 10 feet away, unarmed and getting further away, there was no justification for deadly force. I don’t care if he grabbed the officers taser and said he was going to rape the officers wife with it — no justification for this shooting.
Now, I don’t know the CJ system tendencies in S.Carolina or what may actually unfold, but morally and ethically, that was murder, plain and simple. And the cop knows it. Else he would not have tampered with the scene by planting the taser closer to the dead guy.
There is that moment in the video where the camera focuses away for the dead guy and on the cops.
At that moment, we do not know what the dead guy did with his weapon.
Maybe the dead uh got up, handcuffs and all and ditched the gun in a nearby lake.
I heard an interview with the eye witness and he said before he started videoing the incident, the victim and the cop were on the ground wrestling.....