South Carolina Cop Charged with Murder

[GoIrish41]

would like see copy of this cops report which he filed before he knew someone was taping him.

I'm sure it will be come out when the murder trial happens.

 

[GoIrish41]

Walter Scott Shooting: Councilman Says Support 'Hard-Working' Officer - NBC News

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Others have touched upon this already, but there's no such thing as "shooting to wound". Police officers, just like armed civilians, are either justified in killing an aggressor, or they're not justified in shooting a single bullet. There's no middle ground. So you should be angry that the officer here chose to utilize deadly force when it was clearly unjustified; not because he shot "too many" bullets.

As a side note, the reason there's no middle ground is because humans can be remarkably difficult to kill. Some people will instinctively fall over after being shot once, despite there being no strictly physiological reason for doing so (I can't find a link for it right now, but the most recent article I read on the subject suggested that such reactions are likely psychosomatic in origin, having been conditioned through popular media that "people fall over when shot"). But many others will just keep trucking. The only way to reliably incapacitate someone with a firearm is to induce unconsciousness through disruption of a major physiological system.

Disruption of the nervous system via the brain or spine typically incapacitates immediately, but disruptions of the respiratory or cardiovascular systems can take much longer. Point being, there's no way to reliably incapacitate with a firearm without also putting the targets life in grave danger.

 

[Circa]

Others have touched upon this already, but there's no such thing as "shooting to wound". Police officers, just like armed civilians, are either justified in killing an aggressor, or they're not justified in shooting a single bullet. There's no middle ground. So you should be angry that the officer here chose to utilize deadly force when it was clearly unjustified; not because he shot "too many" bullets.

As a side note, the reason there's no middle ground is because humans can be remarkably difficult to kill. Some people will instinctively fall over after being shot once, despite there being no strictly physiological reason for doing so (I can't find a link for it right now, but the most recent article I read on the subject suggested that such reactions are likely psychosomatic in origin, having been conditioned through popular media that "people fall over when shot"). But many others will just keep trucking. The only way to reliably incapacitate someone with a firearm is to induce unconsciousness through disruption of a major physiological system.

Disruption of the nervous system via the brain or spine typically incapacitates immediately, but disruptions of the respiratory or cardiovascular systems can take much longer. Point being, there's no way to reliably incapacitate with a firearm without also putting the targets life in grave danger.

Very true! Also hard to actually shoot someone in the main body area (torso), let alone a knee cap or leg.

 

[IrishGlory]

Others have touched upon this already, but there's no such thing as "shooting to wound". Police officers, just like armed civilians, are either justified in killing an aggressor, or they're not justified in shooting a single bullet. There's no middle ground. So you should be angry that the officer here chose to utilize deadly force when it was clearly unjustified; not because he shot "too many" bullets.

As a side note, the reason there's no middle ground is because humans can be remarkably difficult to kill. Some people will instinctively fall over after being shot once, despite there being no strictly physiological reason for doing so (I can't find a link for it right now, but the most recent article I read on the subject suggested that such reactions are likely psychosomatic in origin, having been conditioned through popular media that "people fall over when shot"). But many others will just keep trucking. The only way to reliably incapacitate someone with a firearm is to induce unconsciousness through disruption of a major physiological system.

Disruption of the nervous system via the brain or spine typically incapacitates immediately, but disruptions of the respiratory or cardiovascular systems can take much longer. Point being, there's no way to reliably incapacitate with a firearm without also putting the targets life in grave danger.

"Is there another kind?"
Col Nathan R. Jessup
USMC

 

[ginman]

Others have touched upon this already, but there's no such thing as "shooting to wound". Police officers, just like armed civilians, are either justified in killing an aggressor, or they're not justified in shooting a single bullet. There's no middle ground. So you should be angry that the officer here chose to utilize deadly force when it was clearly unjustified; not because he shot "too many" bullets.

Or, on this point with questions of whether he should have aimed to wound. If you are firing your weapon, it should be because you are in fear for your life/safety or the life/safety of another and need to stop the imminent threat. If you have time to think that wounding him is a better choice you shouldn't be shooting.

 

[kmoose]

I also think it should be mentioned that, even if the officer is in fear of his life because a suspect has made a swipe for his gun/taser, etc, and the officer feels he has no other choice the officer is supposed to shoot as such to not kill the person (shoot in the shoulder/leg/arm - somewhere where the person will fall/be incapacitated, but won't be necessarily lethal).

Shooting someone in the leg or arm is a damned good way of opening a major artery and causing someone to bleed to death in a hurry.

 

[TK22867]

Others have touched upon this already, but there's no such thing as "shooting to wound". Police officers, just like armed civilians, are either justified in killing an aggressor, or they're not justified in shooting a single bullet. There's no middle ground. So you should be angry that the officer here chose to utilize deadly force when it was clearly unjustified; not because he shot "too many" bullets.

To add onto Whiskey's statement here, my brother-in-law is a highway patrolman. I proposed the "shoot him in the leg" question during the Michael Brown case. His response every time I asked the question, even under different scenarios was always "neutralize the threat". That's what they are taught.

And no, I am not saying this officer was threatened in any way. Just giving a little background.

 

[phork]

I have a problem with the fact that buddy tossed his taser next to the guys body. This cop should fry.

 

[Circa]

True.

Don't get me wrong. Law Enforcement in the US needs a complete overhaul. The ranks are filled with everything from incompetent officers to those who simply do not have the disposition for the position.

But to your comment that gang bangers are expected to commit crimes...that does not mean those crimes should not get the same attention. In fact, I think the issue needs more attention. The gang on gang <> poor on poor crime in the US is simply out of control.

As before, my point is if you look at this just from one side you're not going to accomplish anything. It's nothing more than hot air. It's a waste of time. It's an exercise for those who feel like they need to show social outrage without actually doing something.

If you actually want to fix these issues...you have to be able to look at the whole picture. You have to look at both sides and identify EVERYTHING that's wrong..not just what fits your personal opinions or the narrative you want to take.


To your last point...'that's why no one freak out about a criminal acting like a criminal'...this is the issue. To me, what you're saying is a life killed by a police officer is worth more than a life killed by a gang member. A 50 year old man murdered by a police officer is somehow more important than a 50 year old man murdered by a gang member. That's just simply wrong.

Until everyone takes on responsibility with the issue. Until everyone values each life the same. Nothing of significance is going to change.

Just a simple question.; In which society are you referring to? 1990's or today.

 

[Grahambo]

Stop with the Hollywood, shoot to injure crap. Completely unrealistic and beyond difficult. You are trained to shoot to kill and generally its two to the chest and one to the head..at least in the Marines it was that.

It was the same Hollywood scenario we faced back in '13 with the car chase. People were saying we should've shot the tires out. Just not realistic.

That video disturbs me.

 

[GoIrish41]

Stop with the Hollywood, shoot to injure crap. Completely unrealistic and beyond difficult. You are trained to shoot to kill and generally its two to the chest and one to the head..at least in the Marines it was that.

It was the same Hollywood scenario we faced back in '13 with the car chase. People were saying we should've shot the tires out. Just not realistic.

That video disturbs me.

Not disagreeing but Marines are a whole different thing than cops. One is trained to kill an enemy and the other is supposed to protect the citizens. Blurring that distinction is highly problematic.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Not disagreeing but Marines are a whole different thing than cops. One is trained to kill an enemy and the other is supposed to protect the citizens. Blurring that distinction is highly problematic.

I actually agree with this, and how cops are trained is an (under-appreciated) part of the larger problem re: militarization of the police. That being said, it's not so bad if you think of it as "you only shoot if you want to kill". Framed that way (which I think is the proper way), the maxim is a restraint on application of force. If you frame it as "if you shoot, you kill" it seems much more troublesome because then it seems like it's encouraging police to deploy lethal force when they don't need to. The point is that shooting a gun should always be considered applying lethal force.

 

[BGIF]

South Carolina shooting: Officer Michael Slager fired - CNN.com

South Carolina shooting: Officer charged and fired; protesters demand justice
By Ashley Fantz and Holly Yan, CNN
Updated 9:09 PM ET, Wed April 8, 2015

(CNN)The officer charged with murder in the shooting death of an unarmed black man in South Carolina has been fired as anger continues to build around his case.

A video shows Officer Michael Slager, who is white, shooting 50-year-old Walter Scott eight times as Scott has his back to him and is running away. It appears that Scott was unarmed.

The FBI is investigating, and once again, a shooting involving police has sparked national outrage.

"I have watched the video, and I was sickened by what I saw," North Charleston police Chief Eddie Driggers told reporters Wednesday.

The mayor spoke at the same news conference that was repeatedly interrupted by protesters, who chanted: "No justice! No peace!" They called for Mayor Keith Summey to step down.

Summey told reporters that the city has ordered an additional 150 body cameras "so every officer on the street" in the city will have one. That is in addition to 101 body cameras already ordered, he said.

Just before the conference was set to begin, demonstrators walked in. They were led by a man wearing a "Black Lives Matter" T-shirt who shouted, "This is what democracy looks like!"

 

[Grahambo]

Not disagreeing but Marines are a whole different thing than cops. One is trained to kill an enemy and the other is supposed to protect the citizens. Blurring that distinction is highly problematic.

I know because I was both a Marine and cop. Technically, a fed so the mission was different then in SC but point still stands.

 

[BeauBenken]

All these cases have involved people resisting arrest. It's because of these cases that I know I'll never try that no matter how stupid the arrest is.

 

[Irish YJ]

Obviously this guy did not deserve getting killed but far too many people think it's OK to resist, run, or scuffle with cops. On the flip side, one of my buddies in college 20+ years ago, got nailed for public intox, and the police tacked a resisting charge on top of it for doing absolutely nothing. Yes the guy was drunk, but was not being loud, stumbling, etc.. just walking out of the bar. Happened right in front me. He didn't do anything but say "you gotta be kidding me", and peacefully got cuffed and stuffed into the car.

#bodycams

 

[Irish#1]

I actually agree with this, and how cops are trained is an (under-appreciated) part of the larger problem re: militarization of the police. That being said, it's not so bad if you think of it as "you only shoot if you want to kill". Framed that way (which I think is the proper way), the maxim is a restraint on application of force. If you frame it as "if you shoot, you kill" it seems much more troublesome because then it seems like it's encouraging police to deploy lethal force when they don't need to. The point is that shooting a gun should always be considered applying lethal force.

I don't believe the militarization of the police is as significant as many like to think or plays that big of a role. First, go back to the 20's when gangsters had machine guns and police didn't. The only way police were able to fight crime was to have the same fire power as the criminals. That thought and procedure continues today. Now SWAT teams certainly have the military look, feel and training, but they aren't typically involved in situations like this. Police have incorporated some military training into their system to reduce the possibility of officers and innocent citizens getting killed or harmed.

Having said that, I will repeat the this guy was dead wrong. (no pun intended)

 

[GoIrish41]

Obviously this guy did not deserve getting killed but far too many people think it's OK to resist, run, or scuffle with cops. On the flip side, one of my buddies in college 20+ years ago, got nailed for public intox, and the police tacked a resisting charge on top of it for doing absolutely nothing. Yes the guy was drunk, but was not being loud, stumbling, etc.. just walking out of the bar. Happened right in front me. He didn't do anything but say "you gotta be kidding me", and peacefully got cuffed and stuffed into the car.

#bodycams

Too bad there was not sound on the video of the shooting. I'd like to know what was said that made that man so afraid that he ran away. My viewing of the video showed no resistance until the taser was pulled out. This was a routine stop for a broken tail light. There was no need for any weapons to be drawn.

 

[Irish Insanity]

2 things.

Why are they behind the pawn shop? I don't see either car in the picture.

They haven't released the officers report yet, but they did say in the report it said CPR was performed. When obviously the video shows it wasn't. What else in the report is inaccurate? Is this the first officer in an incident we know about to be fired? What do they know that we don't that caused him to be fired?

 

[IrishLax]

I'll say that the one thing I don't understand are the protesters calling for the mayor/police chief to lose their jobs when:
-They charged the police officer with murder.
-They fired him.
-I read that they ordered 150 more body cameras in addition to the 100 they had already ordered... enough that all officers on the streets will have a camera.

It seems like the response from the top has been appropriate, but maybe I'm missing a crucial detail.

 

[NDdomer2]

I'll say that the one thing I don't understand are the protesters calling for the mayor/police chief to lose their jobs when:
-They charged the police officer with murder.
-They fired him.
-I read that they ordered 150 more body cameras in addition to the 100 they had already ordered... enough that all officers on the streets will have a camera.

It seems like the response from the top has been appropriate, but maybe I'm missing a crucial detail.

haha i couldnt believe when i read that this morning too. IMO, it has become fashionable (i dont know if this is the right word) to protest or have public outcrys. I have been calling it the facebook affect.

Seems the city is handling this exactly the way they should and I dont see how the Mayor has done anything that justifies him needing to be fired.

 

[kmoose]

I'll say that the one thing I don't understand are the protesters calling for the mayor/police chief to lose their jobs when:
-They charged the police officer with murder.
-They fired him.
-I read that they ordered 150 more body cameras in addition to the 100 they had already ordered... enough that all officers on the streets will have a camera.

It seems like the response from the top has been appropriate, but maybe I'm missing a crucial detail.

And people shouting "No Justice, No Peace" at the press conference. The guy is fired, charged with murder, and the state is investigating the crime, not the local cops. People want the police to assume that the people they encounter are just normal law abiding citizens, but they want to be able to assume the worst about police. There's a lot of anger out there, and that anger is keeping people from thinking clearly. I think!

 

[IrishLax]

Nation Hopeful There Will Be Equally Random Chance Of Justice For Future Victims Of Police Abuse | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

“The number of law enforcement officers who have shot unarmed civilians and gone free over the past year has been extremely discouraging, but the fact that this policeman was arrested so swiftly shows that there can be justice for victims so long as a bystander is nearby, has a camera phone on them, captures the whole interaction, and several dozen other circumstances play out in the precise sequence,” said North Charleston, SC resident Jenine Williams, echoing the sentiments of millions of Americans who told reporters they have faith that, as long as a fair-minded eyewitness happens to be passing by at the exact right time; has the inclination to stop and film; an unobstructed view; enough battery life and memory on their phone; a steady hand; the forethought to start filming an interaction with the police before it escalates into violence; is close enough to get detailed footage, but far enough away to avoid being shot themselves or seen by the officer and potentially having their phone confiscated; and it is daytime, then justice would certainly be served.

The Onion is on point sometimes. And why body cameras really should be mandatory... remove as much ambiguity as you can from a situation, attempt to get as much consistent justice as possible.

 

[IrishInFl]

What are the arguments against body cameras? It seems that they would benefit both suspects and police when falsely accused.

 

[phork]

What are the arguments against body cameras? It seems that they would benefit both suspects and police when falsely accused.

I think that comes down to if there was a situation where say a cop caught you doing something (say DUI) but he let you off if you had someone capable of driving not under the influence. Now those situations where you could talk your way out of stuff are now Black & White. Did you do it? Yes or No is the answer. (This is purely hypothetical).

I am all for cameras.

BTW I like the part in the video where the cop/shooter cuffs the guy, then runs back to the initial struggle point, picks up the taser, runs back to the body and tosses the taser next to the guy. This cops only defence now is to admit he did it. He was panicked beyond reasonable thought and needed the taser to complete the scene.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'll say that the one thing I don't understand are the protesters calling for the mayor/police chief to lose their jobs when:
-They charged the police officer with murder.
-They fired him.
-I read that they ordered 150 more body cameras in addition to the 100 they had already ordered... enough that all officers on the streets will have a camera.

It seems like the response from the top has been appropriate, but maybe I'm missing a crucial detail.

We probably don't know enough to fully understand. On the surface, I agree with your point, but what is the history of that community in situations like this? Have there been previous concerns voiced that might have minimized the chances of something like this from happening if acted upon? While they shouldn't be angry about the reaction of officials, maybe they are justified in the lack of a proactive approach. Hard to say unless we have more information. Does not seem logical to be calling for heads based on what little we know, though.

 

[Irish#1]

I'll say that the one thing I don't understand are the protesters calling for the mayor/police chief to lose their jobs when:
-They charged the police officer with murder.
-They fired him.
-I read that they ordered 150 more body cameras in addition to the 100 they had already ordered... enough that all officers on the streets will have a camera.

It seems like the response from the top has been appropriate, but maybe I'm missing a crucial detail.

You're not missing a thing. The steps, speed and efficiency of the mayor should be applauded. The protestors don't take the time to think things through.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

2 things.

Why are they behind the pawn shop? I don't see either car in the picture.

They haven't released the officers report yet, but they did say in the report it said CPR was performed. When obviously the video shows it wasn't. What else in the report is inaccurate? Is this the first officer in an incident we know about to be fired? What do they know that we don't that caused him to be fired?

I'll say that the one thing I don't understand are the protesters calling for the mayor/police chief to lose their jobs when:
-They charged the police officer with murder.
-They fired him.
-I read that they ordered 150 more body cameras in addition to the 100 they had already ordered... enough that all officers on the streets will have a camera.

It seems like the response from the top has been appropriate, but maybe I'm missing a crucial detail.

I don't want to confuse this issue any more, but to simply answer your questions, the best guess may be that there is more to this situation than even this story. I have already heard rumblings of dirt, criminal activity, and racism, affecting this particular police force, (North Charleston.)

• Other sources have indicated that there are previous incidents. (As of yet unsubstantiated.)
• None of the police cars involved appear to have viable dash-cam video of the event, even though they were equipped with said devices.
• Some rumors of "dirty cops", or other malfeasance by officers of this force on an institutional level.
• Parts of all officer reports disputed by video events captured by bystander. In otherwords, more than one cop filed a written report that contridicted the video evidence, that the officers did not know existed at the time they filed their reports.

 

[Irish YJ]

Too bad there was not sound on the video of the shooting. I'd like to know what was said that made that man so afraid that he ran away. My viewing of the video showed no resistance until the taser was pulled out. This was a routine stop for a broken tail light. There was no need for any weapons to be drawn.

very surprised the video (from a phone) did not have audio. I bet it was stripped of before being posted by the services. or, it was so low that it didn't translate well. if the later, i'm sure they can have one of their tech heads amplify it.