Charleston police officer shoots man in back

[Mims44 1,869]

No, I acknowledged it with this sentence:

"Just as predicted, there are those on this forum who will argue the case for the LEO, in principle if not in particular."

Which means: if you can't argue the particular case from the LEO's perspective, then make a generalized argument the victim is partly responsible for his own death by running.

This might be me trying to play the middle man again, I haven't read all 25 pages of this topic.

But isn't it possible to recognize that this man put himself in danger, while acknowledging that the cop was wrong? To put it in another context, let's say a girl is raped and someone says "It was a mistake for her to walk into that dark alley at 2AM".... that doesn't mean that the rapist was in the right, it simply means that had she not made the decisions she made it might not have happened, the rapist still deserves punishment. Along the same lines, you can say this dude shouldn't have ran, but the cop was still in the wrong.

[autigeremt 6,628]

No, I acknowledged it with this sentence:

"Just as predicted, there are those on this forum who will argue the case for the LEO, in principle if not in particular."

Which means: if you can't argue the particular case from the LEO's perspective, then make a generalized argument the victim is partly responsible for his own death by running.

This might be me trying to play the middle man again, I haven't read all 25 pages of this topic.

But isn't it possible to recognize that this man put himself in danger, while acknowledging that the cop was wrong? To put it in another context, let's say a girl is raped and someone says "It was a mistake for her to walk into that dark alley at 2AM".... that doesn't mean that the rapist was in the right, it simply means that had she not made the decisions she made it might not have happened, the rapist still deserves punishment. Along the same lines, you can say this dude shouldn't have ran, but the cop was still in the wrong.

Good analogy and a fair assessment. Problem is......the country no longer cares. The lines have been drawn, and the sides have been taken. Open minds be damned.

[AUFAN78 3,896]

No, I acknowledged it with this sentence:

"Just as predicted, there are those on this forum who will argue the case for the LEO, in principle if not in particular."

Which means: if you can't argue the particular case from the LEO's perspective, then make a generalized argument the victim is partly responsible for his own death by running.

This might be me trying to play the middle man again, I haven't read all 25 pages of this topic.

But isn't it possible to recognize that this man put himself in danger, while acknowledging that the cop was wrong? To put it in another context, let's say a girl is raped and someone says "It was a mistake for her to walk into that dark alley at 2AM".... that doesn't mean that the rapist was in the right, it simply means that had she not made the decisions she made it might not have happened, the rapist still deserves punishment. Along the same lines, you can say this dude shouldn't have ran, but the cop was still in the wrong.

I have to be honest. I'm just not sure it's possible. Everyone does not have an open mind on the topic and if it doesn't fit their agenda they will not embrace your perspective.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

No, I acknowledged it with this sentence:

"Just as predicted, there are those on this forum who will argue the case for the LEO, in principle if not in particular."

Which means: if you can't argue the particular case from the LEO's perspective, then make a generalized argument the victim is partly responsible for his own death by running.

This might be me trying to play the middle man again, I haven't read all 25 pages of this topic.

But isn't it possible to recognize that this man put himself in danger, while acknowledging that the cop was wrong? To put it in another context, let's say a girl is raped and someone says "It was a mistake for her to walk into that dark alley at 2AM".... that doesn't mean that the rapist was in the right, it simply means that had she not made the decisions she made it might not have happened, the rapist still deserves punishment. Along the same lines, you can say this dude shouldn't have ran, but the cop was still in the wrong.

Obviously you need to review the board rules. Left/Right...Conservative/Liberal...Christian/Muslim....Democratic/Republican only sir!

To think in the middle is evil, and as one poster here said more dangerous than either of those defined rules as you don't know where those evil middle people stand!

You will choose!

[JoeBags7277 734]

I envy those of you capable of finding middle ground and being open to both sides here. I really mean that, in more ways than one. Some of us are simply no longer capable of doing so. Every time I have a conversation with my older brother, I have to do so with six feet of dirt in between us, because of the actions of an overzealous cop with a Napoleon Complex and an axe to grind. It should be clarified that my brother was a firefighter and a small business owner with a spotless criminal record, and a wonderful, loving husband and father, since that is of such grave importance to some. Not only that, the P.O.S. district attorney is on record stating that were he alive today, there is not a crime they could charge him with, even in the events that led to his death. Nonetheless, he's gone, the cops will see no jail time, and our only hope at some semblance of justice appears to be a taxpayer funded jackpot courtesy of a civil trial.

I don't claim to be an unbiased observer with no agenda, I absolutely have one. I wish I didn't and were still capable of being as open minded as I generally am on other issues. But going through an ordeal like this changes a man. Just though a little real world from the other end of the spectrum might be in order.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

No, I acknowledged it with this sentence:

"Just as predicted, there are those on this forum who will argue the case for the LEO, in principle if not in particular."

Which means: if you can't argue the particular case from the LEO's perspective, then make a generalized argument the victim is partly responsible for his own death by running.

This might be me trying to play the middle man again, I haven't read all 25 pages of this topic.

But isn't it possible to recognize that this man put himself in danger, while acknowledging that the cop was wrong? To put it in another context, let's say a girl is raped and someone says "It was a mistake for her to walk into that dark alley at 2AM".... that doesn't mean that the rapist was in the right, it simply means that had she not made the decisions she made it might not have happened, the rapist still deserves punishment. Along the same lines, you can say this dude shouldn't have ran, but the cop was still in the wrong.

Good analogy and a fair assessment. Problem is......the country no longer cares. The lines have been drawn, and the sides have been taken. Open minds be damned.

The analogy depends on equating interactions with police officers with people you might meet in dark alleys at 2am.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

No, I acknowledged it with this sentence:

"Just as predicted, there are those on this forum who will argue the case for the LEO, in principle if not in particular."

Which means: if you can't argue the particular case from the LEO's perspective, then make a generalized argument the victim is partly responsible for his own death by running.

This might be me trying to play the middle man again, I haven't read all 25 pages of this topic.

But isn't it possible to recognize that this man put himself in danger, while acknowledging that the cop was wrong? To put it in another context, let's say a girl is raped and someone says "It was a mistake for her to walk into that dark alley at 2AM".... that doesn't mean that the rapist was in the right, it simply means that had she not made the decisions she made it might not have happened, the rapist still deserves punishment. Along the same lines, you can say this dude shouldn't have ran, but the cop was still in the wrong.

The man put himself in risk of reasonable measures. If he had been properly tased and died from some rare reaction to a taser that would be tragic, but not reprehensible and we would not be having this conversation. A man wholly unsuited for wearing a uniform and carrying a firearm got upset and responded by firing his weapon 8 times at a man's back who was running from him. How many rounds were in his chamber? That's the central issue of this case. That's the element that puts society at an unreasonable risk of harm.

[alexava 6,973]

No, I acknowledged it with this sentence:

"Just as predicted, there are those on this forum who will argue the case for the LEO, in principle if not in particular."

Which means: if you can't argue the particular case from the LEO's perspective, then make a generalized argument the victim is partly responsible for his own death by running.

This might be me trying to play the middle man again, I haven't read all 25 pages of this topic.

But isn't it possible to recognize that this man put himself in danger, while acknowledging that the cop was wrong? To put it in another context, let's say a girl is raped and someone says "It was a mistake for her to walk into that dark alley at 2AM".... that doesn't mean that the rapist was in the right, it simply means that had she not made the decisions she made it might not have happened, the rapist still deserves punishment. Along the same lines, you can say this dude shouldn't have ran, but the cop was still in the wrong.

Good analogy and a fair assessment. Problem is......the country no longer cares. The lines have been drawn, and the sides have been taken. Open minds be damned.

The analogy depends on equating interactions with police officers with people you might meet in dark alleys at 2am.

it is a piss poor analogy. It is not a crime to wander into a dark ally at 2am. It is not the rapist job to rape or teach you a lesson.

[cole256 17,080]

No, I acknowledged it with this sentence:

"Just as predicted, there are those on this forum who will argue the case for the LEO, in principle if not in particular."

Which means: if you can't argue the particular case from the LEO's perspective, then make a generalized argument the victim is partly responsible for his own death by running.

This might be me trying to play the middle man again, I haven't read all 25 pages of this topic.

But isn't it possible to recognize that this man put himself in danger, while acknowledging that the cop was wrong? To put it in another context, let's say a girl is raped and someone says "It was a mistake for her to walk into that dark alley at 2AM".... that doesn't mean that the rapist was in the right, it simply means that had she not made the decisions she made it might not have happened, the rapist still deserves punishment. Along the same lines, you can say this dude shouldn't have ran, but the cop was still in the wrong.

lol they really going to come for you now....

[cole256 17,080]

I still can't understand the he brought it on himself stuff. Like I said it can be said if he didn't get out of bed that day this wouldn't have happened......yeah I guess. This shouldn't have been an option whatsoever. And I don't agree with the having to sit and take whatever a policeman offer you. You know the likelihood of you getting any kind of justice if you are mistreated and don't get a lawyer? I filed a complaint to the police department and NEVER heard anything back when I was literally kicked by a policeman (boy). He was around my age. If we were both in high school and he kicked me I'd whoop his a$$ and he'd never put a hand/foot on me ever again. Couple of years go by and now he can do that to me and if I had defended myself they would have killed me and I'd be a paragraph story in a paper.....why? What transpired that he can have this type of sovereign authority over me? I could go through his physical training better than him, I could go through his mental training. Higher percentage that he couldn't have gone through my curriculum. What has he done to prove that he should have such authority? When do we look at the screening and training protocols of hiring these guys? It's EXTREMELY hard to get into what I do. On getting a nuclear security clearance alone, do policemen have a strenuous hiring process? If not why?

[alexava 6,973]

He initially pulled the guy over for a broken tail light....This is scary man

This is the quote alexava keeps mentioning somebody said he was killed because of a tail light....he likes to say it to make a point, but clearly it wasn't said. I asked him to quote it but of course he wouldn't. My saying this was because of my incident in Madison and the one in Cullman I posted on this forum about around 4 or 5 months ago....but keep saying I said that, it makes great talk for a soap box

my apologies cole. I detest having words put in my mouth too. I do believe i read a post containing that statement, maybe someone else.

However let's focus on your statement. Why is it scary ? When did it get scary? You saw the stop, heard the conversation. Did this officer do anything that seemed threatening to you prior to mr. Scot bolting?

[cole256 17,080]

"Respect for authority" raises a few immediate questions if it is to be discussed. First, what is the authority, and what does it represent? Second, is it considered to be worthy of respect? The second question is where perception becomes important, and I addressed this indirectly in a previous post.

As I said previously, I think most poor people look at the police as the front door to what they see as a defunct and possibly corrupt criminal justice system. To a poor person, being arrested can be validly considered to be synonymous with convicted. They lack the means to hire an attorney that will vigorously defend them, and representing yourself in a modern court is about as effective toward proving your innocence or having yourself heard as simply pleading guilty. Meanwhile, the time they have spent in jail pending trial (since they could not afford bond) has done nothing but fester frustration with the criminal justice system that sticks with them after they have served whatever sentence they were given or paid whatever fines. That frustration spreads quickly among people that have either experienced the same thing themselves, or known someone that did. Those fines are also a source of hardship to those that are poor; they carry the penalty of further incarceration if unpaid, and it does not matter if you are capable of paying them or not.

Whether we agree or disagree with that perception is irrelevant. It is real, and it must be dealt with if progress is to be made. While it may seem like the obvious answer is addressing "respect for authority", that is impossible to address without first addressing why the lack of said respect exists.

Outstanding points and I agree in total. Can we also agree this is an educational issue? And if so, where does the education begin?

That depends entirely on how you define "educational issue". I tend to think it is a systemic issue. The War on Drugs has given us nothing more than a high incarceration rate, and it leads the criminal justice system to concentrate on poor communities, where drugs can often be found with minimal effort. Finding drugs among the poor equals convictions, and convictions equal positive exposure for law enforcement and prosecutors. Does that end up with the police being perceived as a positive force among those communities, or does it end up with the police being perceived as a predatory element by those communities?

There is no one simple answer to this, just as there is no single element in the chain that can be isolated as having brought us here. It's not the police's fault, and it isn't the people's fault. The criminal justice system is nothing more than another symptom of the bureaucracy that people like to joke about when it involves a federal agency of some sort. If you want justice instead of being a number, you best have money. If you lack money, you best come to terms with that number. As the front end to that system, the police are easy to blame. When someone fights back for whatever reason, in whatever fashion, they also become easy to blame.

Meanwhile, in the "land of the free", roadblocks have become both normal and accepted. Police stopping anyone is considered acceptable as long as you "comply" and simply deal with minor inconvenience. The conversation shifts to "respecting authority". Last time I looked, we were second only to Seychelles with regard to incarceration rate. Were the people that signed the Declaration of Independence "respecting authority"? Were they more suspicious of the people, or government, and by extension, the police? I frequently think the United States could best be defined as the country that started off with the question of "why should we comply?"

Really good points. Not a fan of our "war on drugs" either. Seems to me we should be targeting the big boys not some dude with a small bag of weed or a $10 rock. Makes no sense. I could be wrong, but I think the quota system in LE is a culprit. The end result on targeting the little guy is "cops are bad." If you were the little guy you'd feel the same I'm sure.

So, why should we comply? This gets to the heart of the educational piece I referenced. I think about the conversations I have with my children or those with my Little Brothers. And this is unfortunate, but true. You have no idea what to expect when you are pulled over by a cop. Are they going to be an ass or cool? I tell kids all the time just say yes sir, no sir, your right, I was wrong, I apologize, it won't happen again, etc. In no shape or form should you disrespect them regardless of how they act. Stay the course, obey their instruction and live to see another day. If that day is in court so be it. My father taught me this and it worked. I hope the kids I've mentored stay the course. My greater hope is for all kids to be mentored to stay the course.

Yeah but what about when they do that and things still happen? What if they don't get their day in court or they do just don't get justice? Just be happy to be alive and take what you can get? Policemen should be held accountable for everything they do just like most important positions. And clearly this guy didn't handle this right but some people don't handle pressure well. Everyone is not the same. Some people are viewed as abrassive when they speak and they don't mean anything by it. Some people are more sensitive than others. Some people miss some points and understand other points. Some people focus on one thing and not the other. Some people are more intelligent than others. Some people can be so distraught at maybe getting a ticket it will break the bank for them. Other people could care less about a ticket and be very arrogant or mouth off. Somebody may have already been mistreated by someone in the department so they don't trust anybody associated with it. I go to schools and mentor kids every chance I get and I can tell them different variables to be successful and they may or may not do them but that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be successful. No dude should not have run but if you had a test bank of what all could happen if he did getting shot in the back multiple times and hand cuffed while the guy who shot you stands over you and watches you die shouldn't be one of them.

[alexava 6,973]

I still can't understand the he brought it on himself stuff. Like I said it can be said if he didn't get out of bed that day this wouldn't have happened......yeah I guess. This shouldn't have been an option whatsoever. And I don't agree with the having to sit and take whatever a policeman offer you. You know the likelihood of you getting any kind of justice if you are mistreated and don't get a lawyer? I filed a complaint to the police department and NEVER heard anything back when I was literally kicked by a policeman (boy). He was around my age. If we were both in high school and he kicked me I'd whoop his a$$ and he'd never put a hand/foot on me ever again. Couple of years go by and now he can do that to me and if I had defended myself they would have killed me and I'd be a paragraph story in a paper.....why? What transpired that he can have this type of sovereign authority over me? I could go through his physical training better than him, I could go through his mental training. Higher percentage that he couldn't have gone through my curriculum. What has he done to prove that he should have such authority? When do we look at the screening and training protocols of hiring these guys? It's EXTREMELY hard to get into what I do. On getting a nuclear security clearance alone, do policemen have a strenuous hiring process? If not why?

probably because it starts out at about 15$ hour. If you are not willing to follow up on a complaint until you get heard then you shouldn't complain about it. You could have possibly gotten that cop off the job with a few phone calls. Now he is probably harassing someone else and you are scared. So you don't have to take what he offered you, you chose to.

[cole256 17,080]

He initially pulled the guy over for a broken tail light....This is scary man

This is the quote alexava keeps mentioning somebody said he was killed because of a tail light....he likes to say it to make a point, but clearly it wasn't said. I asked him to quote it but of course he wouldn't. My saying this was because of my incident in Madison and the one in Cullman I posted on this forum about around 4 or 5 months ago....but keep saying I said that, it makes great talk for a soap box

my apologies cole. I detest having words put in my mouth too. I do believe i read a post containing that statement, maybe someone else.

However let's focus on your statement. Why is it scary ? When did it get scary? You saw the stop, heard the conversation. Did this officer do anything that seemed threatening to you prior to mr. Scot bolting?

Different variables are scary to me. I've been pulled over multiple times for light citations or warnings.....(only one seemed legit) Yes I understand dude ran, yes I understand that he shouldn't and I wouldn't but still the thought that if things do not go exactly the way the officer think they should go that's my a$$ is scary. The calm way and how quick the policeman killed and started to cover his tracks is scary. My incident with the police in Florence (the worst one I've had) dude handled me very rough and kicked me and had I not been recently removed and still hurt from the hospital maybe I jerk away from him, maybe my instince turns fast and faces him after he kicked me and almost knocks me off my feet. Then what? IF and that's a big if the truth ever comes out after whatever happens to me the most that's done is I'm a story and half of you would say that shouldn't have happened the other half would raise doubt on what really happened and either way I'm gone. My one chance at life is over because I didn't want to be humilated and berated?

But I was hurt from a kidney surgery (only have one and that one was operated on) so I guess it was a blessing. There was another policeman standing there the entire time and he didn't have a problem with what his partner was doing. That's scary. No peer checking or coaching up. Being helpless while two men do what they want to you they have guns and watching you with their hand close to it.....It was one of the scariest things ever. The feeling sitting in your car when you drive down the street and have to pull over and just cry about what just happened to you.......worst feeling ever. Well besides funerals of my grand parents.

[cole256 17,080]

I still can't understand the he brought it on himself stuff. Like I said it can be said if he didn't get out of bed that day this wouldn't have happened......yeah I guess. This shouldn't have been an option whatsoever. And I don't agree with the having to sit and take whatever a policeman offer you. You know the likelihood of you getting any kind of justice if you are mistreated and don't get a lawyer? I filed a complaint to the police department and NEVER heard anything back when I was literally kicked by a policeman (boy). He was around my age. If we were both in high school and he kicked me I'd whoop his a$$ and he'd never put a hand/foot on me ever again. Couple of years go by and now he can do that to me and if I had defended myself they would have killed me and I'd be a paragraph story in a paper.....why? What transpired that he can have this type of sovereign authority over me? I could go through his physical training better than him, I could go through his mental training. Higher percentage that he couldn't have gone through my curriculum. What has he done to prove that he should have such authority? When do we look at the screening and training protocols of hiring these guys? It's EXTREMELY hard to get into what I do. On getting a nuclear security clearance alone, do policemen have a strenuous hiring process? If not why?

probably because it starts out at about 15$ hour. If you are not willing to follow up on a complaint until you get heard then you shouldn't complain about it. You could have possibly gotten that cop off the job with a few phone calls. Now he is probably harassing someone else and you are scared. So you don't have to take what he offered you, you chose to.

Well they should choose something else to do because it's an important job, one that should be done with integrity and diligence. And I moved to Chattanooga right when this happened and I literally worked 72 hours a week on night shift while taking classes in the day. week days I only had 3 hours to sleep so no I didn't have the time to keep at them to do their job. As far as I'm scared, yes because they can kill me and get away with it. As far as if we were all civilians no they would be scared of me. Which I personally think is another problem, you have low self esteem guys running at the chance to take this job and make up for it (not all policemen but IMO some) Zimmerman for example. Didn't pass but you can see how bad he wants to be one

[Mims44 1,869]

I still can't understand the he brought it on himself stuff. Like I said it can be said if he didn't get out of bed that day this wouldn't have happened......yeah I guess. This shouldn't have been an option whatsoever. And I don't agree with the having to sit and take whatever a policeman offer you. You know the likelihood of you getting any kind of justice if you are mistreated and don't get a lawyer? I filed a complaint to the police department and NEVER heard anything back when I was literally kicked by a policeman (boy). He was around my age. If we were both in high school and he kicked me I'd whoop his a$$ and he'd never put a hand/foot on me ever again. Couple of years go by and now he can do that to me and if I had defended myself they would have killed me and I'd be a paragraph story in a paper.....why? What transpired that he can have this type of sovereign authority over me? I could go through his physical training better than him, I could go through his mental training. Higher percentage that he couldn't have gone through my curriculum. What has he done to prove that he should have such authority? When do we look at the screening and training protocols of hiring these guys? It's EXTREMELY hard to get into what I do. On getting a nuclear security clearance alone, do policemen have a strenuous hiring process? If not why?

probably because it starts out at about 15$ hour. If you are not willing to follow up on a complaint until you get heard then you shouldn't complain about it. You could have possibly gotten that cop off the job with a few phone calls. Now he is probably harassing someone else and you are scared. So you don't have to take what he offered you, you chose to.

Well they should choose something else to do because it's an important job, one that should be done with integrity and diligence. And I moved to Chattanooga right when this happened and I literally worked 72 hours a week on night shift while taking classes in the day. week days I only had 3 hours to sleep so no I didn't have the time to keep at them to do their job. As far as I'm scared, yes because they can kill me and get away with it. As far as if we were all civilians no they would be scared of me. Which I personally think is another problem, you have low self esteem guys running at the chance to take this job and make up for it (not all policemen but IMO some) Zimmerman for example. Didn't pass but you can see how bad he wants to be one

That, exactly. Lack of training, lack of scrotum.... causes a lot of problems.

[alexava 6,973]

I still can't understand the he brought it on himself stuff. Like I said it can be said if he didn't get out of bed that day this wouldn't have happened......yeah I guess. This shouldn't have been an option whatsoever. And I don't agree with the having to sit and take whatever a policeman offer you. You know the likelihood of you getting any kind of justice if you are mistreated and don't get a lawyer? I filed a complaint to the police department and NEVER heard anything back when I was literally kicked by a policeman (boy). He was around my age. If we were both in high school and he kicked me I'd whoop his a$$ and he'd never put a hand/foot on me ever again. Couple of years go by and now he can do that to me and if I had defended myself they would have killed me and I'd be a paragraph story in a paper.....why? What transpired that he can have this type of sovereign authority over me? I could go through his physical training better than him, I could go through his mental training. Higher percentage that he couldn't have gone through my curriculum. What has he done to prove that he should have such authority? When do we look at the screening and training protocols of hiring these guys? It's EXTREMELY hard to get into what I do. On getting a nuclear security clearance alone, do policemen have a strenuous hiring process? If not why?

probably because it starts out at about 15$ hour. If you are not willing to follow up on a complaint until you get heard then you shouldn't complain about it. You could have possibly gotten that cop off the job with a few phone calls. Now he is probably harassing someone else and you are scared. So you don't have to take what he offered you, you chose to.

Well they should choose something else to do because it's an important job, one that should be done with integrity and diligence. And I moved to Chattanooga right when this happened and I literally worked 72 hours a week on night shift while taking classes in the day. week days I only had 3 hours to sleep so no I didn't have the time to keep at them to do their job. As far as I'm scared, yes because they can kill me and get away with it. As far as if we were all civilians no they would be scared of me. Which I personally think is another problem, you have low self esteem guys running at the chance to take this job and make up for it (not all policemen but IMO some) Zimmerman for example. Didn't pass but you can see how bad he wants to be one

understand

[homersapien 11,373]

No, I acknowledged it with this sentence:

"Just as predicted, there are those on this forum who will argue the case for the LEO, in principle if not in particular."

Which means: if you can't argue the particular case from the LEO's perspective, then make a generalized argument the victim is partly responsible for his own death by running.

This might be me trying to play the middle man again, I haven't read all 25 pages of this topic.

But isn't it possible to recognize that this man put himself in danger, while acknowledging that the cop was wrong? To put it in another context, let's say a girl is raped and someone says "It was a mistake for her to walk into that dark alley at 2AM".... that doesn't mean that the rapist was in the right, it simply means that had she not made the decisions she made it might not have happened, the rapist still deserves punishment. Along the same lines, you can say this dude shouldn't have ran, but the cop was still in the wrong.

I have to be honest. I'm just not sure it's possible. Everyone does not have an open mind on the topic and if it doesn't fit their agenda they will not embrace your perspective.

I don't know what it is exactly you are implying or even if it's directed at me.

I just find it revealing that the same people who go to great efforts to excuse police over-reactions take the trouble to point out the victim's culpability by running. It's just like the Gardner case only the LEO's actions are way too egregious to be excused.

No matter how many times you say the LEO was wrong, you are essentially arguing the case the victim instigated the whole thing by running. The real issue here is the guy set up and fired 8 rounds as if he were on a firing range, then walked over to him and cuffed him without even checking his condition. The running is a moot point.

[cole256 17,080]

Don't forget throwing the taser by him to blame him for that too...

[alexava 6,973]

No, I acknowledged it with this sentence:

"Just as predicted, there are those on this forum who will argue the case for the LEO, in principle if not in particular."

Which means: if you can't argue the particular case from the LEO's perspective, then make a generalized argument the victim is partly responsible for his own death by running.

This might be me trying to play the middle man again, I haven't read all 25 pages of this topic.

But isn't it possible to recognize that this man put himself in danger, while acknowledging that the cop was wrong? To put it in another context, let's say a girl is raped and someone says "It was a mistake for her to walk into that dark alley at 2AM".... that doesn't mean that the rapist was in the right, it simply means that had she not made the decisions she made it might not have happened, the rapist still deserves punishment. Along the same lines, you can say this dude shouldn't have ran, but the cop was still in the wrong.

I have to be honest. I'm just not sure it's possible. Everyone does not have an open mind on the topic and if it doesn't fit their agenda they will not embrace your perspective.

I don't know what it is exactly you are implying or even if it's directed at me.

I just find it revealing that the same people who go to great efforts to excuse police over-reactions take the trouble to point out the victim's culpability by running. It's just like the Gardner case only the LEO's actions are way too egregious to be excused.

No matter how many times you say the LEO was wrong, you are essentially arguing the case the victim instigated the whole thing by running. The real issue here is the guy set up and fired 8 rounds as if he were on a firing range, then walked over to him and cuffed him without even checking his condition. The running is a moot point.

so this should not be used to show young impressionable people why it is a bad idea to run or resist? It's all about that boogyman that kills people for having a broken taillight. Spread fear that civilians have no control over what happens to them or show them how to GREATLY reduce the chance of being a victim of over reactions. Easy choiCe for me. As for the murderer, that will be dealt with too. Body cameras are a start and i suggest more open transparent ways of dealing with complaints like cole had when he was kicked after a serious surgery. that makes me just as ill as it does anyone else. I am close to this as my mom is a 30 year LEO. Jail administrator now but dispatch, corrections, processing inmates. Over half arrested claim brutalty, wrongful arrest, discrimination or some BS. She has been sued dozens of times never successfully. It's just too simple for me i guess. When told to put your hands out, you're under arrest you are going to jail. The easy way or the hard way, you have the choice. If you are told to get out of the street you simply get out of the gd street. Stay in your car, not much too ask of a man, is it?

[cooltigger21 0]

When I say that Scott should not have run I am by no means saying he brought it on himself. He did not deserve that. Nobody does. What this cop was thinking, when he decided to shoot a man who is running away and he already knows who his identity, I will never understand. He will spend, probably, the rest of his life in prison. That is as it should be.

[AUFAN78 3,896]

No, I acknowledged it with this sentence:

"Just as predicted, there are those on this forum who will argue the case for the LEO, in principle if not in particular."

Which means: if you can't argue the particular case from the LEO's perspective, then make a generalized argument the victim is partly responsible for his own death by running.

This might be me trying to play the middle man again, I haven't read all 25 pages of this topic.

But isn't it possible to recognize that this man put himself in danger, while acknowledging that the cop was wrong? To put it in another context, let's say a girl is raped and someone says "It was a mistake for her to walk into that dark alley at 2AM".... that doesn't mean that the rapist was in the right, it simply means that had she not made the decisions she made it might not have happened, the rapist still deserves punishment. Along the same lines, you can say this dude shouldn't have ran, but the cop was still in the wrong.

I have to be honest. I'm just not sure it's possible. Everyone does not have an open mind on the topic and if it doesn't fit their agenda they will not embrace your perspective.

I don't know what it is exactly you are implying or even if it's directed at me.

I just find it revealing that the same people who go to great efforts to excuse police over-reactions take the trouble to point out the victim's culpability by running. It's just like the Gardner case only the LEO's actions are way too egregious to be excused.

No matter how many times you say the LEO was wrong, you are essentially arguing the case the victim instigated the whole thing by running. The real issue here is the guy set up and fired 8 rounds as if he were on a firing range, then walked over to him and cuffed him without even checking his condition. The running is a moot point.

Put down the pipe homes! Your idiocy on this topic is embarrassing. Stop for your own sake or should i say for the remnants of at least being considered remotely intelligent? Yes. Yes I should let you know.

[homersapien 11,373]

No, I acknowledged it with this sentence:

"Just as predicted, there are those on this forum who will argue the case for the LEO, in principle if not in particular."

Which means: if you can't argue the particular case from the LEO's perspective, then make a generalized argument the victim is partly responsible for his own death by running.

This might be me trying to play the middle man again, I haven't read all 25 pages of this topic.

But isn't it possible to recognize that this man put himself in danger, while acknowledging that the cop was wrong? To put it in another context, let's say a girl is raped and someone says "It was a mistake for her to walk into that dark alley at 2AM".... that doesn't mean that the rapist was in the right, it simply means that had she not made the decisions she made it might not have happened, the rapist still deserves punishment. Along the same lines, you can say this dude shouldn't have ran, but the cop was still in the wrong.

I have to be honest. I'm just not sure it's possible. Everyone does not have an open mind on the topic and if it doesn't fit their agenda they will not embrace your perspective.

I don't know what it is exactly you are implying or even if it's directed at me.

I just find it revealing that the same people who go to great efforts to excuse police over-reactions take the trouble to point out the victim's culpability by running. It's just like the Gardner case only the LEO's actions are way too egregious to be excused.

No matter how many times you say the LEO was wrong, you are essentially arguing the case the victim instigated the whole thing by running. The real issue here is the guy set up and fired 8 rounds as if he were on a firing range, then walked over to him and cuffed him without even checking his condition. The running is a moot point.

Put down the pipe homes! Your idiocy on this topic is embarrassing. Stop for your own sake or should i say for the remnants of at least being considered remotely intelligent? Yes. Yes I should let you know.

Thanks for highlighting the statements. I stand by them.

[cooltigger21 0]

Here is how one young black male handled getting stopped by police. http://www.wistv.com/story/28772115/mans-candid-honest-video-about-race-and-traffic-stops-is-going-viral?clienttype=generic

[AURaptor 1,125]

Here is how one young black male handled getting stopped by police. http://www.wistv.com...enttype=generic

Yeah, but...

I saw that on FB this morning. Was gonna post it when I had a chance.