I'm wondering if the officer's defence will now be that the scuffle for the taser had turned the arrest into a "violent" confrontation, and as such the shooting was justified under "fleeing felon" rules? You are really inviting trouble trying to grabbing the equipment or weapons of an arresting officer.
Of course this guy hasn't helped himself by falsifying his version of events and moving the taser to try and reinforce them, and might have been better to be truthful in his report and leave the taser where it fell. What will matter now is not what observers perceive from watching the video, but whether the officer's perception of danger is believed.
I think that this may end up being a simple misconduct incident.
I'm going to go for unlawful killing but manslaughter. Wouldn't surprise me if he pleas that either and accepts a lesser sentence.
I'm wondering if the officer's defence will now be that the scuffle for the taser had turned the arrest into a "violent" confrontation, and as such the shooting was justified under "fleeing felon" rules? You are really inviting trouble trying to grabbing the equipment or weapons of an arresting officer.
It's not a carte blanche to shoot any fleeing felon. They still need "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." The fact that he may have touched the guy's taser (while in the process of being tased by it) would in no way make him a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm later on, when he was running away and didn't even have the taser on him.
It's not a carte blanche to shoot any fleeing felon. They still need "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." The fact that he may have touched the guy's taser (while in the process of being tased by it) would in no way make him a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm later on, when he was running away and didn't even have the taser on him.
What I am trying to suggest is that from the officer's point of view, the earlier scuffle might be enough to convince a jury that his "probable cause to believe..." was reasonable. If he did go for the taser during the arrest, the officer might well be able to argue that his perception of events was that this guy did pose a risk, even if as outside observers, we see something different.
British soldiers in Ireland were always taught to aim for the chest or the back. It is pretty standard behavior with what are perceived as second class citizens.
Soldiers are not police.
The RUC certainly weren't trained to do that. (Even if they felt they could behave with impunity at times).
Not even sure why the taser was making an appearance before Walter Scott allegedly grabbed it, it was a cracked light! Who wouldn't try not to be tasered, if that is indeed what happened.
Slager went to the man’s Delaware Avenue home in September 2013 to investigate a burglary. When the resident opened the door for Slager, the burglary victim yelled that he wasn’t the suspect, the documents stated.
The man also insisted that he wasn’t the perpetrator, but he later told internal investigators that Slager threatened to use a Taser against him if he didn’t come outside. When the man followed the order and stepped outside, he said Slager “Tased (him) for no reason and ... slammed him and dragged him.”
But another officer there said Slager had been forced to use the device during a struggle. The investigators exonerated Slager of wrongdoing.
I was actually referring to the implication that the police force in Northern Ireland was an army trained to view certain parts of the population as 'second class citizens' rather than specific firearms training.
The British army was not a police force and the RUC was not an army. It may not have seemed like it sometimes but the RUC was trained to police; not look upon half the population as enemy combatants.
The British army in Northern Ireland were trained in combat.
I was actually referring to the implication that the police force in Northern Ireland was an army trained to view certain parts of the population as 'second class citizens' rather than specific firearms training.
This isn't the movies. You aim at the torso because it's the biggest target that you're most likely to hit and take someone down. But it's all moot anyway because this guy should never have been shot.
I was actually referring to the implication that the police force in Northern Ireland was an army trained to view certain parts of the population as 'second class citizens' rather than specific firearms training.
The British army was not a police force and the RUC was not an army. It may not have seemed like it sometimes but the RUC was trained to police; not look upon half the population as enemy combatants.
The British army in Northern Ireland were trained in combat.
The Army and Police are trained to aim for the body if they have grounds to shoot.
Because that's how you bring a person down very quickly without killing them......assuming you can shoot of course, and if he couldn't hit his legs from the distance he was firing then quite frankly he shouldn't have a gun.
They are Police Officers in a supposedly 'civilised' country......not front line infantry soldiers facing IS.
If you have grounds to shoot someone, you have to have grounds to believe life is in immediate danger, and if that's the case, you fire at the body, which is likely to stop them completely.
You don't shoot people in the legs to stop them running away.
Because that was the lie put out by the murderer to cover what he did?
The victim can't have grabbed the taser, the killer shot him with it in the back before deciding to finish him off with the gun.
You can see the taser being grabbed then falling on the ground as the video starts. It's not clear whether the officer knew that the suspect had dropped the taser, in fact given we know he shot him, he may well have thought he did have it.
So if it is not clear daylight, it's okay to shoot people who are running away in the back.
This is where it's rather complicated and we can't judge an incident on face value.
I bet that if you ask all Americans if the would shoot an intruder fleeing from their house, they would. They have guns and feel it's within their right to shoot someone on their property, combine that with adrenaline, fear etc and that's why they make that judgement call.
It's likely this officer has done the same thing. An altercation with the taser, the guy has made off and in panic he has shot him.
Had there been no struggle, no altercation and the guy just run you have a clear case of murder.
In this case you have mitigating circumstances, albeit for us it's easy just to label it as, shot him in the back when running therefore must be murder.
For me it's manslaughter and chuck a bit of perverting the course of justice in there for messing about with the scene.
Of course I could be totally wrong and evidence could come out that he was a nazi supporter who vowed to kill a black man.
This is where it's rather complicated and we can't judge an incident on face value.
I bet that if you ask all Americans if the would shoot an intruder fleeing from their house, they would. They have guns and feel it's within their right to shoot someone on their property, combine that with adrenaline, fear etc and that's why they make that judgement call.
It's likely this officer has done the same thing. An altercation with the taser, the guy has made off and in panic he has shot him.
Had there been no struggle, no altercation and the guy just run you have a clear case of murder.
In this case you have mitigating circumstances, albeit for us it's easy just to label it as, shot him in the back when running therefore must be murder.
For me it's manslaughter and chuck a bit of perverting the course of justice in there for messing about with the scene.
Of course I could be totally wrong and evidence could come out that he was a nazi supporter who vowed to kill a black man.
I would agree that this is a voluntary manslaughter / deliberate homicide level incident most likely, because I suspect that the officer will testify that he believed that he was justified to shoot following the taser grabbing incident.
It was a general point to cover how the thread was developing.
I'm choosing to say little actually.
I'm uncomfortable with this thread as although the US doesn't have laws covering pre-trial coverage; this is all in pretty bad taste as the officer has only been charged.
Comments
I'm going to go for unlawful killing but manslaughter. Wouldn't surprise me if he pleas that either and accepts a lesser sentence.
Personally I can't see him going down for murder.
It's not a carte blanche to shoot any fleeing felon. They still need "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." The fact that he may have touched the guy's taser (while in the process of being tased by it) would in no way make him a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm later on, when he was running away and didn't even have the taser on him.
You legs contain your femoral artery, you hit or nick that with a bullet and you'll bleed to death in less then 10 minutes.
What I am trying to suggest is that from the officer's point of view, the earlier scuffle might be enough to convince a jury that his "probable cause to believe..." was reasonable. If he did go for the taser during the arrest, the officer might well be able to argue that his perception of events was that this guy did pose a risk, even if as outside observers, we see something different.
Because that was the lie put out by the murderer to cover what he did?
The victim can't have grabbed the taser, the killer shot him with it in the back before deciding to finish him off with the gun.
What's our new version? He grabbed the taser shot himself in the back with it, fled and threatened the policeman...?
I actually wouldn't find it surprising.
Soldiers are not police.
The RUC certainly weren't trained to do that. (Even if they felt they could behave with impunity at times).
Where on a target were the RUC trained to aim at?
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150406/PC16/150409558
So what we're the RUC certainly trained to aim at when firing their service firearms?
I was actually referring to the implication that the police force in Northern Ireland was an army trained to view certain parts of the population as 'second class citizens' rather than specific firearms training.
The British army was not a police force and the RUC was not an army. It may not have seemed like it sometimes but the RUC was trained to police; not look upon half the population as enemy combatants.
The British army in Northern Ireland were trained in combat.
Fair enough.
But Walter Scott wasn't carrying a gun. He wasn't carrying any kind of weapon. I don't think he was carrying anything at all.
The Army and Police are trained to aim for the body if they have grounds to shoot.
Shooting at legs is the stuff of movies.
If you have grounds to shoot someone, you have to have grounds to believe life is in immediate danger, and if that's the case, you fire at the body, which is likely to stop them completely.
You don't shoot people in the legs to stop them running away.
I see what you're doing here.
So if it is not clear daylight, it's okay to shoot people who are running away in the back.
This is where it's rather complicated and we can't judge an incident on face value.
I bet that if you ask all Americans if the would shoot an intruder fleeing from their house, they would. They have guns and feel it's within their right to shoot someone on their property, combine that with adrenaline, fear etc and that's why they make that judgement call.
It's likely this officer has done the same thing. An altercation with the taser, the guy has made off and in panic he has shot him.
Had there been no struggle, no altercation and the guy just run you have a clear case of murder.
In this case you have mitigating circumstances, albeit for us it's easy just to label it as, shot him in the back when running therefore must be murder.
For me it's manslaughter and chuck a bit of perverting the course of justice in there for messing about with the scene.
Of course I could be totally wrong and evidence could come out that he was a nazi supporter who vowed to kill a black man.
I never suggested people shoot at legs.
Stop responding to stuff that isn't there.
It was a general point to cover how the thread was developing.
It's NOT OK. That's why the nasty nazi bigot Tony Martin was convicted of a criminal offence.
I would agree that this is a voluntary manslaughter / deliberate homicide level incident most likely, because I suspect that the officer will testify that he believed that he was justified to shoot following the taser grabbing incident.
I'm choosing to say little actually.
I'm uncomfortable with this thread as although the US doesn't have laws covering pre-trial coverage; this is all in pretty bad taste as the officer has only been charged.