Posted on 04/15/2015 7:49:36 AM PDT by SteveH
Lawsuit alleges suspect wasnt a threat when he was shot in the back
Allegations of excessive force used on minorities are mounting against the South Carolina police officer recently caught on video fatally shooting unarmed suspect Walter Scott in the back.
Julius Garnett Wilson alleges in a new lawsuit that he was tased by officer Michael Slager last August while lying face-down on the pavement.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Some of these guys defending thugs would change their attitude if they had to spend a few nights as police officers in a ghettos.
The taser was supposed to be an alternative to using deadly force whenever possible. It was never meant to be a substitute for what used to be regular police behavior, i.e. verbal attempts to reason with a suspect or the judicious use of a nightstick. Zapping the s#it out of someone or shooting them repeatedly in the back for a minor traffic infraction is not what I’m paying taxes for under the guise of police protection.
BTW, I’ve worked with my local police for many years as a member of our local citizens’ auxiliary patrol. I’m not a cop hater by any stretch.
If they don’t cooperate, I don’t care if they get zapped. This guy wasn’t cooperating.
Thugs need to learn they have to obey police orders. If you have a better way of controlling them, let’s see you do it.
You don't care about a lot of things. Starting with differentiating between citizens and inmates.
So that’s what a cop’s job consists of? Controlling people? I sincerely hope you aren’t in law enforcement. If you are, the people in your community have my sympathy.
i would imagine that driving without a valid license would be a misdemeanor, not an infraction. However, IANAL. Maybe a lawyer could clarify.
In any case, the suspect was not cooperative. If he was anything other than limp, eg holding the steering wheel, then he was resisting arrest, which would be another misdemeanor.
I imagine that the LE POV would be that an uncooperative and resisting suspect could become highly dangerous to the LE at any time, simply by reason of proximity to the LEO’s weapons.
If the LEOs are seeing this type of resistance every day, then they are in danger every day.
Also, it is night time and there i autos traffic, which could also increase danger to the LEOs, the suspect, people in passing vehicles, pedestrians, and thhe general public.
I imagine that all these factors combine to allow the arresting LEO considerable latitude in how he or she makes an arrest and what weapon or weapons he/she chooses to make the arrest with.
This might be behind the constant barrage of responses to the effect that it is better to cooperate with an LEO instead of running, and resisting is an even worse idea.
Generally, I am no fan of LE. However, I try to take the POV of LE before casting aspersions. It is essential to fair to everyone, suspect and LE alike.
“... it is better to cooperate with an LEO instead of running...resisting...”
Absolutely. That’s the difference between, “See about getting that broken windshield fixed this week, OK?” and going to jail for behaving stupidly. Usually, courtesy is responded to in kind.
But not always. The first speeding ticket I ever got (I’ve been driving 53 years and have two) the cop got me doing 35 in a 30 zone. Hoping for a break, I mentioned that it was going to spoil my clean record. His response? “Better yours than mine. Sign here.” That cop was a total jerk.
So thats what a cops job consists of? Controlling people?
Well it is part of it.
No. I am not in law enforcement.
A lot of these ghetto beasts would kill a cop for nothing. An officer has to be on high alert at all times.
Lots of brave cowboys on this site. Most police officers just want to do their job and make it home to his family.
It's right in front of you, but you don't see it.
The Managerial State wants things this way:
Anarcho-tyranny:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_T._Francis#Anarcho-tyranny
Sam Francis wrote: What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through "sensitivity training" and multiculturalist curricula, "hate crime" laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.
And he also wrote: The laws that are enforced are either those that extend or entrench the power of the state and its allies and internal elites ... or else they are the laws that directly punish those recalcitrant and "pathological" elements in society who insist on behaving according to traditional norms people who do not like to pay taxes, wear seat belts, or deliver their children to the mind-bending therapists who run the public schools; or the people who own and keep firearms, display or even wear the Confederate flag, put up Christmas trees, spank their children, and quote the Constitution or the Bible not to mention dissident political figures who actually run for office and try to do something about mass immigration by Third World populations.
===============
The police don't necessarily want things the way that they are, but our Owners do. That way they can use "the fear" to justify the constant police presence.
Your "ghetto" reference is a good example. What is the "ghetto" but a UniParty plantation, albeit a feral one?
These police boosters sound like they play too many first person shooter video games (breathlessly: "It's all SO DANGEROUS out there!!!")...
Nowhere is this more evident than in the encouragement of self-destructive actions against the police.
It's right in front of you, but you don't see it.
IMO, many of us see it, but have yet to figure out exactly what to do about it. This is problem is made much worse because responsible citizens do not have effective representation in a government that rewards its operatives with not only direct moral encouragement, but with substantial financial incentive paid from public funds.
What a huge difference it would make if Erik Holder were to go on a news program and simply say
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.