That's a bit of a simplistic view.

I mean, even in a case like that of Duggan, a big part of the reason for taking such decisive action is because if the target escapes they are likely to go on to do bad things using the gun thought to be in their possession.

That being the case, I don't really have any fundamental issue with the idea of shooting somebody in the back if the circumstances warrant it.

But that, of course, is where we have to start thinking about the real issue here; the idea that (as in the example I gave earlier) cops need to consider whether or not the suspect is involved in an offence that warrants the use of deadly force.
It seems quite common, in these cases, for the cops to get drawn into a spiral of escalation which leads to a death rather than ever actually stopping to think "Y'know, this just isn't worth taking a life for".

Course, it might turn out that this guy was actually Public Enemy #1 and shooting him before he could escape and commit more horrible crimes was completely justified, in which case I guess a lot of people are going to have egg on their faces.

Regardless of whether he had a charge sheet as long as his arm.
Regardless of whether he made a grab for the officer's tazer.
Regardless of whether he was known to the officer.

He was running away. He posed no threat to the officer's life. There is no reason for the officer to shoot him dead.

The police have a responsibility to defend the safety of the public in general as well as themselves.

Not saying it was justified in this case but it'd be daft to suggest that, for example, an armed rapist or murderer might be allowed to escape simply because it's "unsporting" to shoot them in the back.

They are supposed to be police officers not judge, jury and executioner.

I'm talking about this incident, not police policy in general, so when the hypothetical rapist or murderer is shot and killed, I'll discuss that situation then.

What could Scott have done to justify Office Slager opening fire on him? The park is empty. Scott's running away from the officer. The video is poorly filmed, granted, and doesn't start until mid-way through the action, but really, what other scenario can there be that justifies Scott being shot, other than him perhaps actually having a weapon and drawing it?

I think the US has a kind of "fleeing felon" law in which deadly force can be used by an officer to stop a running suspect if the officer has probable cause to believe there is a serious risk of harm to himself or others. It will now be up to a jury to determine whether the officer's belief was reasonable if that is what he argues in his defence.

When will the rioting and looting start.?

After shooting him in the back as he runs away, the officer then plants the stun gun next to him. So he must be in no state to use it. Yet he remains handcuffed and face down in the dirt. Walter Scott was a human being, not an animal. What does that make the officer?

The whole thing is horrific and incredibly sad.

Very different. To use force such as this, there has to be an immediate threat to life. The Officer in the Duggan case believed that.

With what we know, and see here, that threat is not there.

Do we know the police officer knew the suspect had not taken the taser?

When the guy is found innocent.

That's odd because in the post I quoted you went to great lengths to suggest that the specifics of the incident don't matter.

https://vimeo.com/124336782

Something tells me that justice might not be done in this case. Anything other than a guilty murder verdict will not be justice.

Whether I do or not, is utterly irrelevant to this thread. You never even commented on what I actually said. Pathetic.


Well then you don't look very hard do you?

and yes, you absolutely do mean offence otherwise you'd have commented on my post and not on me.

Well done, keep it bookmarked.

I know no more than linked, but even if he had the taser, which appears not to be the case, there were no grounds to perceive an immediate threat to life.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the jury aquits him.

But he would have remained so, had he not been filmed in the act.

Nor me - there really will be trouble this time though, if they do - and rightly so.

Because nothing says you care about the unjust death of a guy more than stealing 50 pairs of Nike Air Jordans.

You might try speaking in understandable English, instead of strangely cryptic riddles.

Yeah... but nothing starts an outbreak of lawlessness better than a racist cop shooting someone in the back.

Indeed...

As mention the legal system is there, if a jury finds him not guilty, what more can be done?

So if the public don't get what they want they all go looting to 'prove a point?'.

Logic

How do you know he is racist?

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)