Charleston police officer shoots man in back

[AUFAN78 3,897]

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.

[cole256 17,080]

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

It's only natural that people will applaud the guy who says what they want to hear. Case in point if for some reason that guy was mistreated and he made a video about it, video wouldn't be viral, nobody would care, and without video footage most wouldn't even believe what he was saying

[cole256 17,080]

Like I could post a vid of a white policeman saying police need to stop the needless violence...in the end what does it really mean?

[AUFAN78 3,897]

"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.

I'll take my chances and comply. I like the odds.

On the 2nd highlighted point we agree.

[AUFAN78 3,897]

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

It's only natural that people will applaud the guy who says what they want to hear. Case in point if for some reason that guy was mistreated and he made a video about it, video wouldn't be viral, nobody would care, and without video footage most wouldn't even believe what he was saying

Given recent events, I suppose I get the applause. But in all seriousness, this happens 1000's of times each day. LE and citizen acting normally.

[JoeBags7277 734]

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

It's only natural that people will applaud the guy who says what they want to hear. Case in point if for some reason that guy was mistreated and he made a video about it, video wouldn't be viral, nobody would care, and without video footage most wouldn't even believe what he was saying

Respect is earned, not woven into the fabric of a magic suit. Some random black dude posts a video playing into the confirmation bias of the boobouisie? Nothing really earth shattering there.

[alexava 6,973]

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

It's only natural that people will applaud the guy who says what they want to hear. Case in point if for some reason that guy was mistreated and he made a video about it, video wouldn't be viral, nobody would care, and without video footage most wouldn't even believe what he was saying

Given recent events, I suppose I get the applause. But in all seriousness, this happens 1000's of times each day. LE and citizen acting normally.

no telling how many could be legally shot and are not.

[JoeBags7277 734]

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

It's only natural that people will applaud the guy who says what they want to hear. Case in point if for some reason that guy was mistreated and he made a video about it, video wouldn't be viral, nobody would care, and without video footage most wouldn't even believe what he was saying

Given recent events, I suppose I get the applause. But in all seriousness, this happens 1000's of times each day. LE and citizen acting normally.

no telling how many could be legally shot and are not.

Depends. Is that legality according to the Natural Law of self defense from a legitimate threat to life or limb, or the artificial law carved out for those who enjoy blue privilege that allows them to escalate and create conflict where there was none, and get away with anything with five little words?

[cooltigger21 0]

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

It's only natural that people will applaud the guy who says what they want to hear. Case in point if for some reason that guy was mistreated and he made a video about it, video wouldn't be viral, nobody would care, and without video footage most wouldn't even believe what he was saying

Given recent events, I suppose I get the applause. But in all seriousness, this happens 1000's of times each day. LE and citizen acting normally.

no telling how many could be legally shot and are not.

Depends. Is that legality according to the Natural Law of self defense from a legitimate threat to life or limb, or the artificial law carved out for those who enjoy blue privilege that allows them to escalate and create conflict where there was none, and get away with anything with five little words?

what is the solution, disarm the police? Nationalize the police? What is the answer?

[JoeBags7277 734]

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

It's only natural that people will applaud the guy who says what they want to hear. Case in point if for some reason that guy was mistreated and he made a video about it, video wouldn't be viral, nobody would care, and without video footage most wouldn't even believe what he was saying

Given recent events, I suppose I get the applause. But in all seriousness, this happens 1000's of times each day. LE and citizen acting normally.

no telling how many could be legally shot and are not.

Depends. Is that legality according to the Natural Law of self defense from a legitimate threat to life or limb, or the artificial law carved out for those who enjoy blue privilege that allows them to escalate and create conflict where there was none, and get away with anything with five little words?

what is the solution, disarm the police? Nationalize the police? What is the answer?

Demilitarizing them- both in mindset and gear- is a must. AUUSN's thoughts on applying adapted counterinsurgency techniques has a role to play as well. I would either drastically limit or do away with entirely the concept of qualified immunity- which provides blanket protection from criminal prosecution for actions taken under color of law. True civilian oversight, a smartphone in the hand of every individual forced to interact with law enforcement, along with the confidence and knowledge that they have every right to use it, truly independent investigations of all shootings, and a culling of the sociopathic personalities that are too common in law enforcement. These are just some solutions. Ultimately, I don't think an entity that enjoys a monopoly on the use of legitimate force can or will put the necessary steps in action, which means the police need to be privatized. Some (conservatives, ironically) say the police are too important to be left to the private sector. If you ask me, its far too important to be left to anything else. But what do I know? I'm just another big government liberal who wants the government to do everything.

[alexava 6,973]

No way in hell I would take gear away from police. Totally agree with getting psyco paths evaluated and out. Maybe change the laws that protect employee previous work records or employer confidentiality. The idiot that killed Tamir Rice should not have even been hired. I understand this does happen and is sickening the other shooting in SC where the guy was out of his truck before he knew he was being pulled over and reached for his license( because he was asked for them) was shot several times is most troubling to me because he did nothing wrong. Yet I hear very little mention of that fom anyone. But the reality is there are a ton of really bad people out there that do really bad things to other people and THE POLICE are the ones called to stop them. This happens hundreds maybe thousands of times every day with no incident. Police need their gear.

[AURaptor 1,125]

\what is the solution, disarm the police? Nationalize the police? What is the answer?

This concept of nationalizing some how equates to doing away with there ever being problems... pure nonsense.

Look at the TSA, the VA hospitals, or the IRS, under Obama and Lerner. Not only do you have incompetence, you have corruption on a NATIONAL level.

I'll pass.

[cole256 17,080]

Can't disarm them, I know in Florence half of them aren't intimidating at all and without their weapons they would be nothing, that means lawless people would run wild. I saw they are passing a bill in Texas that makes it illegal to video them for 25 feet....that's just as dangerous as taking their weapons away. Why would they even want that bill to pass?

[cole256 17,080]

Saw how the officer that killed the man had a claim against him with tasing a guy when he shouldn't have. Funny how you have to go in depth to find his skeletons but in 5 minutes you know the victim child support stuff....What's more relevant to this situation, tasing a man who had surrendered or child support?

[cooltigger21 0]

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

It's only natural that people will applaud the guy who says what they want to hear. Case in point if for some reason that guy was mistreated and he made a video about it, video wouldn't be viral, nobody would care, and without video footage most wouldn't even believe what he was saying

Given recent events, I suppose I get the applause. But in all seriousness, this happens 1000's of times each day. LE and citizen acting normally.

no telling how many could be legally shot and are not.

Depends. Is that legality according to the Natural Law of self defense from a legitimate threat to life or limb, or the artificial law carved out for those who enjoy blue privilege that allows them to escalate and create conflict where there was none, and get away with anything with five little words?

what is the solution, disarm the police? Nationalize the police? What is the answer?

Demilitarizing them- both in mindset and gear- is a must. AUUSN's thoughts on applying adapted counterinsurgency techniques has a role to play as well. I would either drastically limit or do away with entirely the concept of qualified immunity- which provides blanket protection from criminal prosecution for actions taken under color of law. True civilian oversight, a smartphone in the hand of every individual forced to interact with law enforcement, along with the confidence and knowledge that they have every right to use it, truly independent investigations of all shootings, and a culling of the sociopathic personalities that are too common in law enforcement. These are just some solutions. Ultimately, I don't think an entity that enjoys a monopoly on the use of legitimate force can or will put the necessary steps in action, which means the police need to be privatized. Some (conservatives, ironically) say the police are too important to be left to the private sector. If you ask me, its far too important to be left to anything else. But what do I know? I'm just another big government liberal who wants the government to do everything.

Fair ideas all the way around. At least worth considering.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Saw how the officer that killed the man had a claim against him with tasing a guy when he shouldn't have. Funny how you have to go in depth to find his skeletons but in 5 minutes you know the victim child support stuff....What's more relevant to this situation, tasing a man who had surrendered or child support?

The "claim" was dismissed, and the officer apparently was in the right to tase the guy. Not so much a skeleton as someone trying to pile on.

[cole256 17,080]

Oh it was dismissed...Smh. Meanwhile if the guy that was shot was set up right it possibly could have been dismissed too. We see the cop trying to set up the guy on video but we still take his word? Wow

[alexava 6,973]

cole, i the story on the tazer claim very early in the break of this story. he obviously has a quick trigger. but let me ask you this, how many people have been shot, tazed or arrested by force admits they were wrong. like i said from the experience of family in LE, nearly all people claim they were unjustly targeted. The solution to this problem is getting easier the more i think about it. Body cams, dash cams, no he said she said. videos dont lie.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Oh it was dismissed...Smh. Meanwhile if the guy that was shot was set up right it possibly could have been dismissed too. We see the cop trying to set up the guy on video but we still take his word? Wow

smh, huh ? So, had he been reprimanded, you'd be all " see ? He's got a history of over use of force ! ". And that would suggest he does.

But the claim was w/ out merit.

Think EVERY SINGLE time a person makes a claim against the cops, the person is right ?

We see the cop planting evidence, just like ALL the other times he's shot a black guy in the back and killed him....

Oh, this was the first time he's done that ?

Huh.

Bottom line is, Slager did what he did. There is no justification for what he did, and he's clearly going to face justice.

[cole256 17,080]

cole, i the story on the tazer claim very early in the break of this story. he obviously has a quick trigger. but let me ask you this, how many people have been shot, tazed or arrested by force admits they were wrong. like i said from the experience of family in LE, nearly all people claim they were unjustly targeted. The solution to this problem is getting easier the more i think about it. Body cams, dash cams, no he said she said. videos dont lie.

And the police is trying to rid recording them so what does that say??

[cole256 17,080]

Oh it was dismissed...Smh. Meanwhile if the guy that was shot was set up right it possibly could have been dismissed too. We see the cop trying to set up the guy on video but we still take his word? Wow

smh, huh ? So, had he been reprimanded, you'd be all " see ? He's got a history of over use of force ! ". And that would suggest he does.

But the claim was w/ out merit.

Think EVERY SINGLE time a person makes a claim against the cops, the person is right ?

We see the cop planting evidence, just like ALL the other times he's shot a black guy in the back and killed him....

Oh, this was the first time he's done that ?

Huh.

Bottom line is, Slager did what he did. There is no justification for what he did, and he's clearly going to face justice.

No it means just like every time a black guy (this is me bringing up race) has his entire life questioned then the credibility of this murderer should be in question as well, especially if it's directly related to the incident.

[alexava 6,973]

Oh it was dismissed...Smh. Meanwhile if the guy that was shot was set up right it possibly could have been dismissed too. We see the cop trying to set up the guy on video but we still take his word? Wow

smh, huh ? So, had he been reprimanded, you'd be all " see ? He's got a history of over use of force ! ". And that would suggest he does.

But the claim was w/ out merit.

Think EVERY SINGLE time a person makes a claim against the cops, the person is right ?

We see the cop planting evidence, just like ALL the other times he's shot a black guy in the back and killed him....

Oh, this was the first time he's done that ?

Huh.

Bottom line is, Slager did what he did. There is no justification for what he did, and he's clearly going to face justice.

No it means just like every time a black guy (this is me bringing up race) has his entire life questioned then the credibility of this murderer should be in question as well, especially if it's directly related to the incident.

you will have trouble finding a cop white or black that has no complaints filed against them. Probably why your complaint didn't go anywhere. Too hard too sift through all the bogus complaints. Unless there is a pattern with a particular cop.

[alexava 6,973]

Can't disarm them, I know in Florence half of them aren't intimidating at all and without their weapons they would be nothing, that means lawless people would run wild. I saw they are passing a bill in Texas that makes it illegal to video them for 25 feet....that's just as dangerous as taking their weapons away. Why would they even want that bill to pass?

25' is probably for safety purposes. They want you out of the way if you don't even have a phone camera.

[cole256 17,080]

Oh it was dismissed...Smh. Meanwhile if the guy that was shot was set up right it possibly could have been dismissed too. We see the cop trying to set up the guy on video but we still take his word? Wow

smh, huh ? So, had he been reprimanded, you'd be all " see ? He's got a history of over use of force ! ". And that would suggest he does.

But the claim was w/ out merit.

Think EVERY SINGLE time a person makes a claim against the cops, the person is right ?

We see the cop planting evidence, just like ALL the other times he's shot a black guy in the back and killed him....

Oh, this was the first time he's done that ?

Huh.

Bottom line is, Slager did what he did. There is no justification for what he did, and he's clearly going to face justice.

No it means just like every time a black guy (this is me bringing up race) has his entire life questioned then the credibility of this murderer should be in question as well, especially if it's directly related to the incident.

you will have trouble finding a cop white or black that has no complaints filed against them. Probably why your complaint didn't go anywhere. Too hard too sift through all the bogus complaints. Unless there is a pattern with a particular cop.

No problem with that, but this guy is caught, you don't agree that his background isn't being reported as much as someone like Trayvon Martin?

[cole256 17,080]

Can't disarm them, I know in Florence half of them aren't intimidating at all and without their weapons they would be nothing, that means lawless people would run wild. I saw they are passing a bill in Texas that makes it illegal to video them for 25 feet....that's just as dangerous as taking their weapons away. Why would they even want that bill to pass?

25' is probably for safety purposes. They want you out of the way if you don't even have a phone camera.

I haven't seen or heard of an incident yet where something went wrong for a policeman because he was being recorded. This will provide some loop holes and give them a reason to arrest and probably lead to broken phones of videos though....

Was pulled over in Florence one time and was told by the policeman not to use my phone because I could be calling someone to come do harm to him btw....two police cars....