Quote: (04-08-2015 01:59 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

It's wild that you want anyone who runs from a cop shot Samseau.

Am I understanding you right there? You think anyone who runs from a cop should be shot, and that cops should just make up something about "I saw him reaching for his waistband" to justify it even if that is a lie?

I mean as kids I knew plenty of situations where people ran from the cops, at a party that was getting busted up or caught drinking somewhere. You think cops should've just wasted everyone who ran in those situations?

I always wondered about the mentality of running from cops to begin with, but I see your point. The biggest difference here is that the person that ran already had been struggling with the cop, he wasn't just fleeing from a teenage house party.

With that said, I really have no idea how to deal with people who run. It's not always practical to chase them, even at a distance, and it's also not great to shoot them in the back. (Though, to be honest, if you struggle with a cop, then flee, well, I'm not going to say that you shouldn't be shot just on general principle.)

Samseau I'm not making anything up you said:

Quote: (04-08-2015 11:14 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I am serious: you guys are out to lunch. If not for the threat of force why would anyone obey the law? The laws are shit, no one would follow them.

By the way, on Cops episodes, they often resort to shooting at fleeing suspects. That's why the show got such high ratings because people love violence.

"FREEZE OR I'LL SHOOT!" And they point the gun at them. Pretty routine, not sure what America you're living in.

Quote: (04-08-2015 01:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

That ruling says if the cop has reason to believe his life is in danger he is allowed to shoot. The cop can just say, "I saw his hands reaching down to his pockets," and for all we know that could pass as sufficient reason to believe his life is in danger.

There is nothing we can do to change how cops behave?

How about trying cops for murder if they shoot someone who is unarmed and not a threat?

You yourself said that this would change how cops behave.

I really don't understand what you're advocating. Do you think it's right to shoot people who flee, even if they're not posing any threat?

Quote: (04-08-2015 02:04 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

Do you think cops should be able to operate like old school South American death squads because someone might have a gun?

If you become a cop you take the job knowing there are going to be certain risks to it. You can minimize those risks in a lot of sensible ways but shooting unarmed people down isn't part of that, or at least it shouldn't be.

I agree it shouldn't be, but practicality triumphs over morals any day of the week.

As for old school death squads... How about current school?

http://www.guns.com/2013/10/14/nsfw-unde...ief-video/

^ Apparently shoot first, ask questions later, isn't just an American policy! Although the thief was armed so we cannot say it was unjust, but imagine if the situation had been the man was stealing back his bike from an existing thief who stole it from him in the first place? The cop would have shot the innocent man while giving the bike back to the thief.

The world is a violent, chaotic place, and as far as I am aware it has always been that way.

The fact that there is such a large Pro-Government/Executive Overreach sentiment on the forum is shocking and frightening.

Quote: (04-08-2015 02:10 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Samseau I'm not making anything up you said:

Quote: (04-08-2015 11:14 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I am serious: you guys are out to lunch. If not for the threat of force why would anyone obey the law? The laws are shit, no one would follow them.

By the way, on Cops episodes, they often resort to shooting at fleeing suspects. That's why the show got such high ratings because people love violence.

"FREEZE OR I'LL SHOOT!" And they point the gun at them. Pretty routine, not sure what America you're living in.

Quote: (04-08-2015 01:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

That ruling says if the cop has reason to believe his life is in danger he is allowed to shoot. The cop can just say, "I saw his hands reaching down to his pockets," and for all we know that could pass as sufficient reason to believe his life is in danger.

There is nothing we can do to change how cops behave?

How about trying cops for murder if they shoot someone who is unarmed and not a threat?

You yourself said that this would change how cops behave.

I really don't understand what you're advocating. Do you think it's right to shoot people who flee, even if they're not posing any threat?

I never advocated a single thing in any of your bolded quotes. I am describing things as I see them, not as I want them to be.

^Ok then

Quote: (04-08-2015 08:30 AM)lemko Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2015 07:56 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

The real tragedy is that the reason he ran in the first place was because he had a warrant for his arrest due to failure to pay child support. It appears to be a victim of the debtors prison, one of the concerns of our founding fathers.

I found it upsetting this man felt he had to run because of a warrant for unpaid child support. Many times court-ordered child support is so burdensome and disproportionate to a man's income it leaves him little to nothing on which to live. There is no proof that money is supporting his children but rather his ex-wife's or ex-girlfriend's prodigal lifestyle while the children are neglected and/or abused. I'd say the so-called "Family Court" contributed to this man's death making him so desperate he felt he had to flee from the police despite it being for a stop for a minor traffic violation.

The guy had prior convictions, probably had trouble getting a job, maybe would have lost whatever job he had after being arrested and spending time in jail for that. Maybe the guy would've liked to pay his child support, but he's so fucking far in arrears from previous legal trouble that he can't.

Dead men don't pay child support. Now his kids have no child support and no father. Whatever social policy they hoped to implement with the whole "deadbeat dads" thing has claimed another victim.

Quote: (04-08-2015 02:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2015 02:04 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

Do you think cops should be able to operate like old school South American death squads because someone might have a gun?

If you become a cop you take the job knowing there are going to be certain risks to it. You can minimize those risks in a lot of sensible ways but shooting unarmed people down isn't part of that, or at least it shouldn't be.

I agree it shouldn't be, but practicality triumphs over morals any day of the week.

As for old school death squads... How about current school?

http://www.guns.com/2013/10/14/nsfw-unde...ief-video/

^ Apparently shoot first, ask questions later, isn't just an American policy! Although the thief was armed so we cannot say it was unjust, but imagine if the situation had been the man was stealing back his bike from an existing thief who stole it from him in the first place? The cop would have shot the innocent man while giving the bike back to the thief.

The world is a violent, chaotic place, and as far as I am aware it has always been that way.

You don't know that and I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Are you just arguing that the system sucks and that it'll fundamentally never change? If so, I'm inclined to mostly agree with that but in this world I'll take a little justice over no justice whatsoever.

Motorcycle-jacking thief gets gunned down in the street like a rabid dog? Justice.

Cop gets put on trial for shooting down an unarmed man? Might result in justice, but it's a far better start than him getting off scot-free after an internal affairs "investigation."

Quote: (04-08-2015 02:19 PM)RockHard Wrote:  

The guy had prior convictions, probably had trouble getting a job, maybe would have lost whatever job he had after being arrested and spending time in jail for that. Maybe the guy would've liked to pay his child support, but he's so fucking far in arrears from previous legal trouble that he can't.

Dead men don't pay child support. Now his kids have no child support and no father. Whatever social policy they hoped to implement with the whole "deadbeat dads" thing has claimed another victim.

How to revive slavery in 5 simple steps.

1. Change the name.

2. Say it's OK because it's for the children.

3. Target a group the nobody cares about. (straight males)

4. Shame anyone that objects.

5. Profit.

Quote: (04-08-2015 12:56 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

What happened to the idea of just shooting someone in the leg if they are fleeing but not putting the cop in any physical danger? That's what I'd do if I was in such a situation. I don't know why a cop should be judge, jury and executioner.

In police academies you are trained to unload your clip on a suspect until your he or she has been completely neutralized. It sounds horrible to say but it's true, our police officers aren't trained to injure, they are trained to kill in the event they have to use their firearm.

Samseau, your bickering and hair-splitting about this comes across as bizarre to say the least. This isn't the Michael Brown case where there were conflicting witnesses and forensic evidence that backed up the officer's story. Even if one didn't believe Officer Wilson did the right thing in shooting Michael Brown, there was a very strong case to be made that he was acting in self-defense.

In this particular situation, there are no doubts left. The footage in all its graphic detail is right in front of us to see. A dude got shot 8 times in the back who in no way can be interpreted as a threat to the officer. This man was executed. This is the type of behavior I expect in 3rd world dictatorships. You would NEVER see something like this in any other Western country.

Quote: (04-08-2015 03:07 PM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2015 12:56 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

What happened to the idea of just shooting someone in the leg if they are fleeing but not putting the cop in any physical danger? That's what I'd do if I was in such a situation. I don't know why a cop should be judge, jury and executioner.

In police academies you are trained to unload your clip on a suspect until your he or she has been completely neutralized. It sounds horrible to say but it's true, our police officers aren't trained to injure, they are trained to kill in the event they have to use their firearm.

I see. And to clarify, I'm not saying any shooting was justified in this case in South Carolina. I'm just saying that in the case that a someone who is potentially dangerous is fleeing, if you are going to shoot, why not try to shoot for the leg rather than to kill. I admit, I'm not a marksman so maybe this is difficult to do while running after a suspect.

Who watches the watchmen ?

You don't shoot a fucking dude in the back, so far it seems he was unarmed, fat, and the cop could of easily tackled his ass.

This should be instant grounds for firing and murder charges.

Feared for his life ? Bullshit. The go to excuse to get away with whatever action a LEO takes.

Police are above the law, they need a reality check to realize they SERVE the public, they don't control and intimidate the public.

It is easy to hide behind "realism" in these cases and say that nothing can be changed.

But then why are we on this forum. This forum is a subversive group plotting freedom. If we are here to just learn to deal with the injustices of life, then this forum is nothing more than a circle jerk.

We know things are bad, but we are here to highlight that, show real outrage over it, and then spread the message and/or actively try to change it.

Anyone who has even mentioned race in this thing has already lost the game. This is about the government against us. When you kill a man you take all he has, and all he is ever going to have. It is final. I have said it many times before, but risk has to come with the power that officers wield.

If we are going to fight for a man's right to due process and a fair trial in other cases, why not in such cases of ultimate fate? Life is precious, in fact it is the MOST precious thing. We must value it as such. Anyone who takes a life must be examined using the strictest standards.

These standards should be held even if this weren't an epidemic, which it sadly is. If such a murder is considered "protocol", then you change the bloody protocol and we fight for that.

Apparently there was a GoFundMe Page setup for the officer which was getting almost zero donations and which has since been removed.

And in further news (note that questions were bold in original article text so I added them in for clarity below):

Quote:Quote:

David Aylor on his ex-client who’s been charged with murder after he was recorded shooting Walter Scott eight times in the back.
The lawyer who first represented Michael Slager, the North Charleston police officer charged with murdering Walter Scott on Saturday, said he dropped his client soon after a video emerged showing Slager shooting Scott eight times as he ran away.

Charleston attorney David Aylor told The Daily Beast that he took on Slager as a client on Saturday, the day of the shooting, and removed himself as counsel on Tuesday afternoon. Aylor said he wouldn't go into detail about his brief representation of Slager thanks to attorney-client privilege but he spoke generally about the situation. The following has been lightly edited for clarity.

You were quoted as Officer Slager's attorney in the aftermath of this high-profile shooting but before the video came out. Now you're not his attorney anymore. What happened?

I can't specifically state what is the reason why or what isn't the reason why I'm no longer his lawyer. All I can say is that the same day of the discovery of the video that was disclosed publicly, I withdrew as counsel immediately. Whatever factors people want to take from that and conclusions they want to make, they have the right to do that. But I can't confirm from an attorney-client standpoint what the reason is.

David Aylor on his ex-client who’s been charged with murder after he was recorded shooting Walter Scott eight times in the back.
When you were representing Slager, you said, “I believe once the community hears all the facts of this shooting, they’ll have a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding this investigation.”

That was my belief at the time, that's why I made that statement.

Now that the video is out, it seems the community has a much better understanding about what actually happened, and not necessarily in the officer's favor. What's your take on that new information?

I think that there's been a release of information that was not public information at the time, or not discovered at the time at least to any knowledge of mine or anyone else publicly— at least the video. I can't comment on the specifics of what I think the video says. I'm not going to analyze the video, but again ... the video came out and within the hours of the video coming out, I withdrew my representation of the client.

How did you come across the video?

I can't say where I saw it first. I first became aware of it via the media. In fact, a reporter sent it to me via e-mail.

These days, more and more people are carrying video recording devices on their phones and it's hard to not know if everything we do isn't being captured somehow. How do you, as an attorney, know to trust what you're saying about a client is true—and what do you do if you find out information that seems to refute it after you've made a statement?

All I can say is that the same day of the discovery of the video that was disclosed publicly I withdrew as counsel immediately.
I'm not going to speak specifically to this case, but generally speaking as an attorney, when you're looking at a case you have to look at a number of different factors. One part is when you have a high-profile case, on behalf of your client and at the time due to their encouragement or what they're directing you to do, you make public statements based on the information you have. It's common in any type of case when you're a defense attorney that any kind of information that you're provided is limited throughout as far as what information you're given from your client compared to when you actually get to discovery or the evidence, moving all the way to the point of more additional evidence or witnesses coming out as the case progresses. So I think with any case it's always a changing situation, or it can be.

Do you know whether Officer Slager knew someone was taping the incident?

I can't say what my client did and didn't tell me, but I can tell you that I was not aware of the video, and I'm still not aware of who filmed the video, where the video came from, how the video got disclosed and who it was disclosed to first. As far as whether it was disclosed to authorities first or whether it went straight to the media, I don't even know the answer to that question now.

Any other thoughts on this situation as his former attorney?

Not so much as his former attorney, just as someone in the community, I feel that it's a tragic situation that occurred. I feel for all of those who are affected by the incident and of course the loss of life. At no point, not specific to this case, just generally speaking, is anybody above the law. And I think that's why we have process and court systems and everybody deserves their day in court, but I won't be participating in anything related to this case moving forward in that regard.

Quote: (04-08-2015 01:50 PM)RIslander Wrote:  

The cop shot the guy in the back then threw his taser on the ground next to the victim in an attempt to change the story... and the other (black) cop let it happen.

If this isn't a clean cut case of conspiracy and second degree murder I don't know what is.

And I wonder if the media will implicate that black officer or ignore it as he doesn't fit the narrative.

The cop lied and moved the tazer; he's going to prison. Had he stayed truthful he probably would have been let off, but lying and trying to plant evidence is just too damning.

I no longer think this man's conviction will deter anyone from becoming a police officer, they will dismiss this guy as a liar they would never be.

What happened to shooting a guy in the legs? This is what Dutch police officers are instructed to do. I agree that its not wise to fight cops. There's no good end to fighting a cop. Even if you escape, they hunt you down afterwards with great numbers, choppers and such.

This case is a clear murder. Cop should be locked up or death sentenced. Shooting a 50 year old guy that's running away from you, 8 (!?) times is plain execution. One shot to the legs, would have put him down and the cop could have called for back up. No one runs with a bullet in his legs, this ain't the movies.

The cops name is officer Slager. Slager is the dutch word for butcher. Suits the guy.

Some of you are missing the point here. The main talking point should be the overreach of police forces- resulting in what looks like murder. When your first reaction is that it will be unfairly portrayed and make white people look bad you're just playing into the media's hands. It's not about race it's about overpowered institutions that act like they are above reproach.
As long as people go round in circles arguing whether it was the black guys fault or the white guys fault, you ignore the real culprit.

Quote:Quote:

What happened to shooting a guy in the legs? This is what Dutch police officers are instructed to do. I agree that its not wise to fight cops. There's no good end to fighting a cop. Even if you escape, they hunt you down afterwards with great numbers, choppers and such.

That's not standard procedure in America. Cops are trained to shoot the center of mass(torso). Dump the whole magazine. An uncle of mine in law enforcement used to tell me: "Never aim a gun at someone you don't plan on killing."

I agree with the bolded part...Since there's no video, we don't know how the traffic stop escalated to a chase. When adrenaline kicks in logic goes out the window.

Maybe the cop hit him. Maybe the Walter started it. We'll never know for sure: Two people know the truth, one of them is dead, and the other is inclined to do whatever it takes to save his ass.

What's shocking about the video is how casual the cop stays throughout the whole ordeal. It was simply "business as usual" to him. I'd love to see what this guys police record looks like. I actually hope that this isn't the first incident like this that he's been involved in.

Just reading through some of these comments has made me come up with a probably crazy theory.

What if they use these police shootings to come after guns and the 2nd amendment? When Spike talked about the protocol of Dutch police officers, I was reminded of the fact that British cops don't carry guns [right?]. In America it is protocol to shoot to kill. So what if they come after the guns of the civilians saying that cops are shooting people because they MIGHT have guns. They could say we have a protocol to shoot to kill, unlike in other countries, and that is because of the easy access to guns in America?

Their argument would obviously not make much sense because a criminal could still get a gun and be dangerous. If he is a criminal willing to commit felonies, he doesn't necessarily care about carrying an illegal weapon, etc, etc.

It's a long shot, but if it happens then I called it here first.

You can tell who's really down with the manosphere with this scenario.

A man is running from an agent of the state because he had child support warrants. A group of women are using the government to extract resources out of him at the pain of liberty, or in this case death.

Guys would rather stand with predatory women and an authoritarian police state because...

Hmm I wonder

WIA

Police shoot to kill in the US. Like other informed members have said if you shoot a person in the leg there is a chance that the person will die from blood loss or shock. If a civilian shoots someone in the leg you can't say "oh I wasn't trying to kill him I only shot him in the leg" you will be charged with attempted murder.

Never run from the cops unless you pre-planned a flawless get away ahead of time because you expected to be chased. If you get randomly stopped while going about your day don't run because you will most likely get caught. Just act calm and respectful because your life can be ruined by a pissed off cop especially if it is your word versus his. If there are a crowd of witnesses around and you are being recorded and you also know the laws inside and out then run your mouth all you want, but most people don't and as such shouldn't provoke anything. I'm not saying let police walk all over you but know when you are at a disadvantage. Learn your basic rights then learn how and when it is appropriate to exercise those rights.

Based on the video this guy should not have been shot, based on a non-violent criminal record I don't see a reason for the man to be shot. The officer appeared in the wrong....but we shall see what happens as it all unravels throughout the next few weeks.

This is how the local paper described the incident, per the officer, before video evidence emerged. I find it fascinating because it makes me wonder how many falsified stories there are out there and without video evidence, we will never know.

Quote:Quote:

A North Charleston police officer felt threatened last weekend when the driver he had stopped for a broken brake light tried to overpower him and take his Taser.

That’s why Patrolman 1st Class Michael Thomas Slager, a former Coast Guardsman, fatally shot the man, the officer’s attorney said Monday.

Slager thinks he properly followed all procedures and policies before resorting to deadly force, lawyer David Aylor said in a statement.


“This is a very tragic event for all of the families,” Aylor said. “I believe once the community hears all the facts of this shooting, they’ll have a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding this investigation.”

Monday’s developments filled in some of the blanks in what was South Carolina’s 11th police shooting of the year. Authorities publicly identified Slager, an officer with the city since December 2009, and gave his reason for the traffic stop that led to the fatal confrontation. Police documents also revealed that Slager announced within seconds why he had fired.

“Shots fired, and the subject is down,” he said into his radio, according to an incident report. “He took my Taser.”

Walter Lamer Scott, 50, of Meadowlawn Drive in West Ashley died soon after the encounter near Craig Street and Remount Road.

He has been arrested about 10 times in his lifetime, mostly for failure to appear for court hearings and to pay child support.

The only indicator of violence in his past came with his first arrest in 1987 on an assault and battery charge.

Slager, 33, served honorably in the military before joining the North Charleston Police Department more than five years ago, Aylor said.

He has never been disciplined during his time on the force, the attorney added.

A complaint
Slager was on a boarding team when he served in the Coast Guard in Port Canaveral, Fla., his personnel file showed. The 91 pages of documents were released Monday after The Post and Courier filed a S.C. Freedom of Information Act request.

He passed courses on how to use the Taser X26 when he was hired in North Charleston and performed well on shooting tests with his .45-caliber Glock 21. Supervisors indicated in performance reviews that he met expectations as an officer and kept a tidy patrol car.

Of the two complaints in his file, one dealt with a resident’s allegation of unnecessary use of force.

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.

Slager will keep working during a State Law Enforcement Division investigation into whether Saturday’s shooting was justified, but Pryor said he would be on administrative duty.

While the police released Slager’s file, one lawmaker said the episode again points out the need for body-mounted cameras whose footage can stave off community speculation.

The city is expected to get 115 of the devices through $275,000 in state funding for that and other anti-crime initiatives.

Rep. Wendell Gilliard, D-Charleston, said it can’t come soon enough. Gilliard has authored legislation to require police agencies to outfit their officers with cameras. As an alternative, he also offered a bill calling for a study of such programs. But he expressed frustration because the measures had not advanced.

“People will say I’m using this (shooting) as a springboard,” he said. “But I’ve said these types of incidents will continue, and when they do, it’s going to be unfortunate that we are not using modern-day technology to stop the speculation and rumors.”

The authorities have not said whether anyone else saw Slager’s struggle with Scott.

No one called Charleston County’s 911 Center after the gunfire, and Slager’s communications with dispatchers will not be made public until SLED approves it, county spokeswoman Natalie Hauff said.

SLED spokesman Thom Berry said prosecutors also would have to review the recordings and be “agreeable and amenable” to their release.

‘Quickly escalated’
North Charleston community leaders have mentioned the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., in urging residents not to grow violent in light of Scott’s death. But, like Missouri police said of Brown, Slager saw Scott as a threat when the officer decided to pull the trigger.

Around 9:30 a.m. Saturday, Slager noticed a Mercedes-Benz sedan with a brake light that was “out and not working,” the police spokesman said. He stopped his cruiser behind the sedan that had pulled into Advance Auto Parts at 1945 Remount Road.

“What started out as a routine traffic stop quickly escalated after the driver fled,” Slager’s attorney said.

Scott ran down Craig Road, which parallels the store’s parking lot and stretches southward toward the Singing Pines community. A passenger in his car stayed put.

Slager told other officers through his radio that he had gotten into a foot chase, according to the report. The police have not given details about the confrontation that followed behind the Mega Pawn shop at 5654 Rivers Ave.

But with other officers on the way to help, Slager announced on his radio that he had “deployed” his Taser, according to the report. But it didn’t work.

The statement from Slager’s attorney, though, did not say that Slager actually fired the device. Aylor said he could not offer further clarification until the officer talks with investigators.

“When confronted, Officer Slager reached for his Taser — as trained by the department — and then a struggle ensued,” Aylor said. “The driver tried to overpower Officer Slager in an effort to take his Taser.”

‘Felt threatened’
Seconds later, the report added, he radioed that the suspect wrested control of the device. Even with the Taser’s prongs deployed, the device can still be used as a stun gun to temporarily incapacitate someone.

Slager “felt threatened and reached for his department-issued firearm and fired his weapon,” his attorney added.

The report indicated that Slager fired multiple times, but it was not specific.

Backup officers did first aid and CPR on Scott until paramedics showed up. But Scott was pronounced dead.

Loved ones have said that Scott was a family man who recently got engaged. They insisted that he wasn’t violent.

His most serious arrests came decades ago, according to his SLED rap sheet.

County police officers arrested him in 1987 on a charge of assault and battery, and he was convicted in 1991 of possession of a bludgeon.

Ten years passed before he was arrested twice in 2001 on contempt charges. He would face several similar charges occasionally during the next decade until his last arrest in 2012.

He also had convictions from 2008 for driving under suspension and having an open alcohol container in his car.

Anthony Scott met with the police near the scene soon after his brother was shot. The report did not specify, though, whether he had been the passenger in the Mercedes.

The police took his cellphone as evidence. The next day, he promised in a public statement to find out the truth about what happened.

What I bolded in red is interesting. I wonder if Scott was pulling into the auto parts place to buy a new bulb for the busted light.

Also, per SC Code, you can drive around with one working tail light. So there was no real reason to have pulled him over; but I'll give the cop a pass for that since they don't know every single code out there.