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.
I must agree, but it is the way they go over there, and it is pretty much trial by media, with everyone having their say before any trial.
I prefer our system, and don't like to see any pre trial discussion really, because it is all limited to what the media says.
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.
The taser was already discharged. The taser plugs were in Scott's body, which caused him to run.
Does it matter. Whatever he did he was in danger of assault Record of Slagers last victim -no video then but two civilian witnesses word against two civilians. The man didn't run and was reporting a robbery...
“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.”
"It could have been prevented," Givens, 33, told the Associated Press about Scott's death. "If they had just listened to me and investigated what happened that night, this man might be alive today.""It could have been prevented," Givens, 33, told the Associated Press about Scott's death. "If they had just listened to me and investigated what happened that night, this man might be alive today."
Is it really a coincidence that there are so often similar incidents In the past of those caught out? Or is the lack of will to hold policemen responsible for their actions encouraging them to be more complacent and casual about abuse of their position?
Notice that the complainant was there saying they had the wrong man and police refused to take the statements of neighbours who witnessed events.
That's incorrect, it depends on the circumstances. Self defence doesn't just apply to you protecting yourself, it applies to protecting other people as well (So if someone tries to hit me, and you stop them, you have technically acted in self defence even though you weren't actually in any danger from the original attack)
Hang on. Walter Scott was running away. On what basis can shooting the fleeing guy be seen as self defence? I'm not on about other hypothetical scenarios (such as he had a gun and was planning on going on a killing spree or he was a rapist on his way to find his next victim), but on this occasion, what justifiable reason could there be to shoot him?
Hang on. Walter Scott was running away. On what basis can shooting the fleeing guy be seen as self defence? I'm not on about other hypothetical scenarios (such as he had a gun and was planning on going on a killing spree or he was a rapist on his way to find his next victim), but on this occasion, what justifiable reason could there be to shoot him?
Well one of the problems of making this video so widely available so soon after the shooting is it gives him plenty of time before any trial to make up a scenario.
Our sub-judice rules aren't there just to protect the defendant but also the prosecution.
Not sure at this point, but I would suspect that the sight of the taser could have been why he ran, as I stated before no one will stand there and let themselves be tasered.
But hopefully the truth will all come out and justice will prevail.
Hang on. Walter Scott was running away. On what basis can shooting the fleeing guy be seen as self defence? I'm not on about other hypothetical scenarios (such as he had a gun and was planning on going on a killing spree or he was a rapist on his way to find his next victim), but on this occasion, what justifiable reason could there be to shoot him?
How do you know that one of those possibilities wasn't the reason the officer shot him? The problem with judging a video by itself is that you often lack context, you don't have the full facts available to the person in the video, and sometimes what looks completely wrong turns out to be completely justified and vice versa. I've seen it and I agree it looks like the officer doesn't have a leg to stand on but murder is a very serious offence, and there can't be any margin for error when declaring someone guilty. I will therefore wait to listen to any developments before being absolutely confident in declaring him guilty. I think the officer is probably guilty but "probably" isn't being sure beyond reasonable doubt.
I was responding to someone who appeared to suggest that there shooting someone who is running away can never be justified, and I was pointing out that there are times when shooting a man running away from you can be justified. The obvious example is self defence; If the person running away from the officer posed an immediate threat to the life of another person, the officer could justify shooting that person in self defence, even though the suspect didn't pose a threat to that specific officer.
Well one of the problems of making this video so widely available so soon after the shooting is it gives him plenty of time before any trial to make up a scenario.
Our sub-judice rules aren't there just to protect the defendant but also the prosecution.
If it weren't widely available there probably would be no trial.
Well one of the problems of making this video so widely available so soon after the shooting is it gives him plenty of time before any trial to make up a scenario.
Our sub-judice rules aren't there just to protect the defendant but also the prosecution.
Ok then. Give me an example of what Scott could have done that would have justified being shot in the back while running away?
Grabbed the tazer therefore Slager was fearful that Scott may have also tried to grab his gun? Nope, he was running away so posed no threat.
Concerned that Scott had a weapon and was going to use it? Nope, he was running away and at no point had a weapon drawn or attempted to use one, so posed no threat.
Scott was on the phone requesting an army of his cop killing friends should immediately rush to where he was to help him out? Nope, for obvious reasons!
There may be reasons why Slager doesn't get convicted of murder, such as the defence is so convincing in making out a threat was there that justified shooting Scott, that one of the jurors couldn't reach a guilty verdict, but in reality, there is no justification in this instance for shooting him in the back.
I'd love to be proved wrong because I think the police should be above reproach and should try and uphold the law, not be the criminals themselves, so I'd like to think that there was something that caused Slager to unload his weapon into Scott other than rage, a lack of professionalism, poor training or something equally abhorrent.
...on this occasion, what justifiable reason could there be to shoot him?
I think the only thing that might swing it is the fact that seconds earlier, there was a scuffle involving the officer's taser. That could then shift the perception of the suspect from "co-operating" to "violent" in the eyes of the officer, and may well be considered justification then for him to believe he could shoot.
I think the only thing that might swing it is the fact that seconds earlier, there was a scuffle involving the officer's taser. That could then shift the perception of the suspect from "co-operating" to "violent" in the eyes of the officer, and may well be considered justification then for him to believe he could shoot.
True. And that's why arming an entire police force, not training them properly to use such a deadly weapon, then allowing them to go for the nuclear option (opening fire) without any non-fatal steps in-between is so ludicrous.
I'm so glad that only a select bunch of people in the UK are legally allowed to carry weapons and the discharge of any of them on the public is so rare.
If you shoot someone in the legs and he is carrying a gun, he could still turn and shoot you.
Exactly. And that's the precise reason why the police are trained to shoot the thumbs off gun-toting bad guys because they can't grip the gun anymore and the threat is subdued.
Effective AND non-fatal. Win-win as far as I'm concerned, don't you agree Bulletguy... ;-)
True. And that's why arming an entire police force, not training them properly to use such a deadly weapon, then allowing them to go for the nuclear option (opening fire) without any non-fatal steps in-between is so ludicrous.
I'm so glad that only a select bunch of people in the UK and legally allowed to carry weapons and the discharge of any of them on the public is so rare.
The blanket issue of firearms to every police officer in the US is undoubtedly going to lead to a dilution of overall competence and quality.
However, what will be important now is not what you, or I, or even the jury, take from the footage, but how the officer comes across in the courtroom, and whether he can persuade the jury that from where he was standing, he perceived a real danger during the arrest.
The blanket issue of firearms to every police officer in the US is undoubtedly going to lead to a dilution of overall competence and quality.
No it isn't. The standards are set in stone, if you don't meet them then you aren't going to be a cop. As far as budgets allow they will take anyone who meets the high standards, whether that is 1/100, or 100/100.
That's absolute b*llox based on little else than assumption.
I'll simplify it for you.
What body parts does a person use to run with? His arms, head, torso or legs? The clue is in 'run'.
You got it....he uses his legs to run with. Shoot there and they will drop like a sack of spuds. In other words, you will stop them.
Want to kill somebody with a gun? Upper torso area or head shot.
Utter crap.
Policemen don't shoot people to stop them from fleeing any more than they shoot out the tyres of a vehicle involved in a traffic offence or shoot the lock off a door to gain entry to a building.
A gun is a tool intended for a single purpose: to neutralise a potentially lethal threat.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
When you're considering whether the use of a firearm is justified, that's where you have to start.
A gun shouldn't even be drawn from it's holster unless there's a potential for a situation to escalate with lethal consequences.
And, once you accept that, any talk of "shooting people in the arms/legs" becomes irrelevant because the threat should be severe enough to warrant responding with the use of lethal force.
Course, that's why the tazer is so important in this case.
If the guy did have the tazer then the cop can claim that he fired because there was a justifiable risk of the black guy going on to do something naughty with it.
If, OTOH, the guy was just running away from a cop because of a broken tail-light and some unpaid alimony and the cop decided to shoot him to stop him from fleeing then it should be murder.
It's also interesting that it's another case of a 80% white police service in a nearly 50% black area. Hardly representative.
See, that's something that I've been wondering about too.
We've got a situation where a disproportionately small number of black people seem to want to join the police force and where a disproportionately large number of black people are criminals.
I can't help thinking that some of the claims about endemic racism within the US police force are intended to make US cops reluctant to detain black people for fear of being branded as a racist.
Which, of course, will be very convenient for the disproportionately large black criminal population.
True. And that's why arming an entire police force, not training them properly to use such a deadly weapon, then allowing them to go for the nuclear option (opening fire) without any non-fatal steps in-between is so ludicrous.
I'm so glad that only a select bunch of people in the UK are legally allowed to carry weapons and the discharge of any of them on the public is so rare.
I agree with all above...but no doubt some will dispute it.
Exactly. And that's the precise reason why the police are trained to shoot the thumbs off gun-toting bad guys because they can't grip the gun anymore and the threat is subdued.
Effective AND non-fatal. Win-win as far as I'm concerned, don't you agree Bulletguy... ;-)
Except Scott didn't have a gun.....but no doubt some will dispute that too.
Policemen don't shoot people to stop them from fleeing any more than they shoot out the tyres of a vehicle involved in a traffic offence or shoot the lock off a door to gain entry to a building.
A gun is a tool intended for a single purpose: to neutralise a potentially lethal threat.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
Yes "neutralise" sounds so much better doesn't it? I'm surprised you didn't chuck in other garbage like 'collateral damage' for good measure too.
Course, that's why the tazer is so important in this case.
If the guy did have the tazer then the cop can claim that he fired because there was a justifiable risk of the black guy going on to do something naughty with it..
Summey said Scott was hit with the officer's Taser weapon, and they know that, Summey said, because one of the Taser projectiles was still attached.
See, that's something that I've been wondering about too.
We've got a situation where a disproportionately small number of black people seem to want to join the police force and where a disproportionately large number of black people are criminals.
I can't help thinking that some of the claims about endemic racism within the US police force are intended to make US cops reluctant to detain black people for fear of being branded as a racist.
Which, of course, will be very convenient for the disproportionately large black criminal population.
Or is the disproportionately high black jail population a result ofcthe actions of a predominantly white police force?
A valid question is why are so few black citizens joining the police?
Comments
I must agree, but it is the way they go over there, and it is pretty much trial by media, with everyone having their say before any trial.
I prefer our system, and don't like to see any pre trial discussion really, because it is all limited to what the media says.
The taser was already discharged. The taser plugs were in Scott's body, which caused him to run.
Does it matter. Whatever he did he was in danger of assault Record of Slagers last victim -no video then but two civilian witnesses word against two civilians. The man didn't run and was reporting a robbery...
Is it really a coincidence that there are so often similar incidents In the past of those caught out? Or is the lack of will to hold policemen responsible for their actions encouraging them to be more complacent and casual about abuse of their position?
Notice that the complainant was there saying they had the wrong man and police refused to take the statements of neighbours who witnessed events.
I guess they should have just recorded it.
Hang on. Walter Scott was running away. On what basis can shooting the fleeing guy be seen as self defence? I'm not on about other hypothetical scenarios (such as he had a gun and was planning on going on a killing spree or he was a rapist on his way to find his next victim), but on this occasion, what justifiable reason could there be to shoot him?
Well one of the problems of making this video so widely available so soon after the shooting is it gives him plenty of time before any trial to make up a scenario.
Our sub-judice rules aren't there just to protect the defendant but also the prosecution.
Not sure at this point, but I would suspect that the sight of the taser could have been why he ran, as I stated before no one will stand there and let themselves be tasered.
But hopefully the truth will all come out and justice will prevail.
How do you know that one of those possibilities wasn't the reason the officer shot him? The problem with judging a video by itself is that you often lack context, you don't have the full facts available to the person in the video, and sometimes what looks completely wrong turns out to be completely justified and vice versa. I've seen it and I agree it looks like the officer doesn't have a leg to stand on but murder is a very serious offence, and there can't be any margin for error when declaring someone guilty. I will therefore wait to listen to any developments before being absolutely confident in declaring him guilty. I think the officer is probably guilty but "probably" isn't being sure beyond reasonable doubt.
I was responding to someone who appeared to suggest that there shooting someone who is running away can never be justified, and I was pointing out that there are times when shooting a man running away from you can be justified. The obvious example is self defence; If the person running away from the officer posed an immediate threat to the life of another person, the officer could justify shooting that person in self defence, even though the suspect didn't pose a threat to that specific officer.
If it weren't widely available there probably would be no trial.
Ok then. Give me an example of what Scott could have done that would have justified being shot in the back while running away?
Grabbed the tazer therefore Slager was fearful that Scott may have also tried to grab his gun? Nope, he was running away so posed no threat.
Concerned that Scott had a weapon and was going to use it? Nope, he was running away and at no point had a weapon drawn or attempted to use one, so posed no threat.
Scott was on the phone requesting an army of his cop killing friends should immediately rush to where he was to help him out? Nope, for obvious reasons!
There may be reasons why Slager doesn't get convicted of murder, such as the defence is so convincing in making out a threat was there that justified shooting Scott, that one of the jurors couldn't reach a guilty verdict, but in reality, there is no justification in this instance for shooting him in the back.
I'd love to be proved wrong because I think the police should be above reproach and should try and uphold the law, not be the criminals themselves, so I'd like to think that there was something that caused Slager to unload his weapon into Scott other than rage, a lack of professionalism, poor training or something equally abhorrent.
I think the only thing that might swing it is the fact that seconds earlier, there was a scuffle involving the officer's taser. That could then shift the perception of the suspect from "co-operating" to "violent" in the eyes of the officer, and may well be considered justification then for him to believe he could shoot.
True. And that's why arming an entire police force, not training them properly to use such a deadly weapon, then allowing them to go for the nuclear option (opening fire) without any non-fatal steps in-between is so ludicrous.
I'm so glad that only a select bunch of people in the UK are legally allowed to carry weapons and the discharge of any of them on the public is so rare.
Exactly. And that's the precise reason why the police are trained to shoot the thumbs off gun-toting bad guys because they can't grip the gun anymore and the threat is subdued.
Effective AND non-fatal. Win-win as far as I'm concerned, don't you agree Bulletguy... ;-)
The blanket issue of firearms to every police officer in the US is undoubtedly going to lead to a dilution of overall competence and quality.
However, what will be important now is not what you, or I, or even the jury, take from the footage, but how the officer comes across in the courtroom, and whether he can persuade the jury that from where he was standing, he perceived a real danger during the arrest.
No it isn't. The standards are set in stone, if you don't meet them then you aren't going to be a cop. As far as budgets allow they will take anyone who meets the high standards, whether that is 1/100, or 100/100.
Utter crap.
Policemen don't shoot people to stop them from fleeing any more than they shoot out the tyres of a vehicle involved in a traffic offence or shoot the lock off a door to gain entry to a building.
A gun is a tool intended for a single purpose: to neutralise a potentially lethal threat.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
When you're considering whether the use of a firearm is justified, that's where you have to start.
A gun shouldn't even be drawn from it's holster unless there's a potential for a situation to escalate with lethal consequences.
And, once you accept that, any talk of "shooting people in the arms/legs" becomes irrelevant because the threat should be severe enough to warrant responding with the use of lethal force.
Course, that's why the tazer is so important in this case.
If the guy did have the tazer then the cop can claim that he fired because there was a justifiable risk of the black guy going on to do something naughty with it.
If, OTOH, the guy was just running away from a cop because of a broken tail-light and some unpaid alimony and the cop decided to shoot him to stop him from fleeing then it should be murder.
See, that's something that I've been wondering about too.
We've got a situation where a disproportionately small number of black people seem to want to join the police force and where a disproportionately large number of black people are criminals.
I can't help thinking that some of the claims about endemic racism within the US police force are intended to make US cops reluctant to detain black people for fear of being branded as a racist.
Which, of course, will be very convenient for the disproportionately large black criminal population.
Except Scott didn't have a gun.....but no doubt some will dispute that too.
Sick.
Claiming he was making off with the taser at this point is as silly as claiming he was trying to steal the officers bullets.
Or is the disproportionately high black jail population a result ofcthe actions of a predominantly white police force?
A valid question is why are so few black citizens joining the police?
1) Some people are put off joining an organisation that is perceived to be hostile to them
2) Some black people will be reluctant to join an organisation where they will be expected to cover for colleges who abuse people like them
3) Beating up and killing blacks might not appeal to them as much as a hobby or sport
4) joining an organisation know for it's internal racism isn't really the best career path...
Wasn't there a case where NYC cops were talking smack about obama's color?