Posted on 04/08/2015 1:06:17 PM PDT by Citizen Zed
The video appears to be damning: a white police officer fatally shooting a black man in the back as he ran away.
The shooting of Walter Scott by North Charleston, S.C., police Officer Thomas Stager has generated national outrage. Stager has been fired and charged with murder.
Legal and police tactics experts said the video would be powerful evidence in the criminal case. But they say it still leaves Stager’s defense with options.
One likely defense focus will be what is not on the video. The interaction between Scott and Stager before the shooting is not seen, nor is the traffic stop that began the incident. Defense attorneys will probably push on this, the experts said, telling jurors that the video doesn’t tell the whole story.
“What was the conversation and interaction between the officer and the subject?” said retired Los Angeles police Capt. Greg Meyer. “Why did the subject run away?”
(Excerpt) Read more at touch.latimes.com ...
Thank you for your clarification.
So cops are Judge Dredd?
The fact that the cop planted the taser next to his victim, precludes any likelihood of the decedent having had a weapon. Had he had a weapon that his murderer knew about, the murderer would not have felt compelled to plant one on the scene.
Its standard procedure to cuff them, even if they’ve been shot.
Too bad America justice no longer has innocent until proven guilty. Lynching is a far more fair way to convict.
Pray America is waking
get your facts right, shot 5 times, one nipped ear, 8 shots fired.
Yes to the first. No to the 2nd. Only because I shoot far better than most the cops I know. Lol.
You forget that for the first couple of days this was just a routine cop shooting and the cops had everyone’s statements and knew what happened, so there were no “grenades” or “unseen knife”.
Then on Monday, this video surfaced, now it is a murder investigation.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that all of that occurred. How does that change the facts in this case?
The man was running away. Any perceived threat was neutralized after the second shot. He was unable to reach or use any weapons to which he had access. What was the purpose of the subsequent six shots by the officer?
Granted, this was not an episode of Cops, but any episode of Cops provides evidence of what a reasonable officer might do in such a situation. The perp runs; the cops give chase. Even when said officers have been actually assaulted by the perp, they don’t fire eight shots into his back.
Well thats what I mean... and I agree somewhat.
If you are fighting, and someone gives up and starts to run from you, then no you should not shoot them because you are no longer in imminent danger.
But if I were in a store... and my kids were on the other side... and some lunatic with a knife was rushing toward my kid... yeah... he’s gone.
But we could do this scenario thing back and forth all day. I think we generally know what we are saying and agree.
Thanks for giving a beautiful example of paranoia.
And, BTW, you know armed civilians are legal in this country, right?
What exactly do you believe is the purpose of police work? What I mean is, how do you see it being different than what the Gestapo did? DO you see a difference?
???
Here's what I wrote...once again.
Ummmm....thru out the years and wars. Enemies retreating were shot at..and killed.
I never said anything about police. I'm sorry you both misunderstood...what I said.
You can have the last word..............
Well I agree with that...........
That’s the problem with the encounter. They knew who he was. Whatever the situation, they could have picked him up later.
The officer was not in fear for his life, the deceased was not threatening anyone else.
The cop just didn't want to have to chase him down, it seems.
The cop had the car, easily traceable, if it wasn't stolen. ...his, a friend, a family member.
It also seems to me the cop knew immediately he screwed up, the first thing he does after he unloads 8 shots is look at the person videoing the murder.
I support law enforcement, but we all know there are bad cops and this is one of them.
Show me evidence to the contrary.
Fleeing violent felons can be shot. It's called the Fleeing Felon Rule. I don't think that applies here, but it is a standard policy.
Quick. Spray eight rounds in that direction.
I'm sure this guy was an upright citizen, perhaps going to his church to meet about adopting an orphan, then headed for a "vote for honesty" rally with the mayor, and then stopping for flowers for his wife. Minding his own business, driving along to a drug drop (oops) and happened to smile at a very mean cop. Sure, bob.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.