Charleston police officer shoots man in back

[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.

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....

when someone is being arrested with resistance cops will tell bystanders to get back and this has been happening since before cell phones existed. safety for all involved, cops, suspects, and bystanders. hell ambulance and firefighters need a perimeter to work in.

[AURaptor 1,124]

Really ? The police are trying to rid recording them ?

[cooltigger21 0]

Really ? The police are trying to rid recording them ?

I do see and hear about quite a few instances of that.

[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.

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?

Who is doing this reporting you speak of? Are you watching Fox? The reporting on background is usually more vocal when the info initially released is contradicted like (Gentle Giant spreading the word of God all morning vs robbing a tobacco store).... Travon's family released photos that were 4 or 5 years old him being about half the size and a cute smile vs. 6foot + giving the double middle finger and talking about fighting on social media. you are correct all the background info is relevant. almost any cop will have some record of use of force. the background of the complaint filer will be considered which is why you filing a complaint is going to hold more water than a career criminal. i still dont understand the lack of interest in the Tamir Rice shooting. The background of the cop revealed he was incompetent for the job.

[alexava 6,973]

Really ? The police are trying to rid recording them ?

i think he is talking about the 25' rule.

[AURaptor 1,124]

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?

One of the problems with how Trayvon was portrayed was in how the MSM tried to make him out to be an adorable 12 yr old kid, just coming home w/ soda and candy.

Officer Slager really doesn't have much of a background. One report in which he was exonerated. Yeah ? And... ?

[cole256 17,080]

Raptor is funny.

[AURaptor 1,124]

Raptor is funny.

Factual is funny?

Alrighty then.

[cole256 17,080]

You're not factual. You just like to argue which can be seen a couple posts back, but you continued without skipping a beat. You'd argue the most vile things are ok or is on somebody else. But that's you, karma always works out though

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

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?

Cause you got idiots like Kory Watkins running around Arlington with powder shot pistols showing and long rifles strapped in the open, getting as close to officers as they can while they work, trying to film them and interacting with them and interfering with their work. They purposefully try and cause conflict. They also like to go around and warn people about DUI checkpoints. Then when the cops ask them to back up, even in polite respectful manner, the group starts yelling stuff like don't shoot me, please don't shoot me.

So then you have routine traffic stops that involve one officer. Then 5 plus of these guys show up, overtake the site, and the officer then calls for backup. So then you have multiple officers taken away from potentially other things cause you have a group of armed, camera wielding, aholes that are trying to incite a conflict to put on youtube.

[cole256 17,080]

So change an entire law because of that but you have more cases of officers being exposed by cameras....Just like the opposite view of some police have used firearms wrongly but it would be CRAZY to disarm them because of this case and a few others. Example you use don't hold weight

[AURaptor 1,124]

You're not factual. You just like to argue which can be seen a couple posts back, but you continued without skipping a beat. You'd argue the most vile things are ok or is on somebody else. But that's you, karma always works out though

Well, I'll argue your claim about the most vile things are o.k., as I've never done any such thing here. I know you won't back up that claim.

[cole256 17,080]

Right...because you back up what you say....

[AURaptor 1,124]

Right...because you back up what you say....

Actually, I do, but that doesn't get to where you think I support " the most vile things ".

Name one. And explain why you think it's vile.

ETA

But that's you, karma always works out though

Does bearing false witness work out too ? Because that's just you.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

So change an entire law because of that but you have more cases of officers being exposed by cameras....Just like the opposite view of some police have used firearms wrongly but it would be CRAZY to disarm them because of this case and a few others. Example you use don't hold weight

Yes. I have no issue with the change. They aren't saying they can't film the officers, the officers don't even care about the filming. What they care about is a pack of armed individuals interfering with their work. They just have to stay 25 ft back from the scene. Tell me. What is so dangerous about requesting that citizens stay back 25 feet from a scene?

Do you even get what they are doing? This group is finding traffic stops that involve one officer. There are 5-10 people in these camera groups. They are tracking them down on radio. The 5-10 then show up at the scene ARMED with pistols and rifles. They then circle the officer, and if the officer asks them to back away they try and incite conflict.

Then what happens? The officer calls for back-up and now you have multiple cops taken off the street to deal with these aholes.

And it isn't a example that doesn't hold weight. It was the reason the bill was proposed. It was proposed by a Rep from Dallas and is also the reason the distance was 100ft if armed. But given what happened in SC they decided to drop the bill plus the the heat from both the left and the right.

“We thought when we wrote our bill that we were making it safe not only for the police officers by that [25-foot] buffer zone, but also for those individuals that are seeking to keep law enforcement accountable to give them a safe zone to film,” Villalba said.

Frederick Frazier, first vice president of the Dallas Police Association, said a rash of incidents involving police officers antagonized on the job prompted the bill. They were dangerous situations, “almost like a setup to try to get officers to do something stupid,” he said.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20150410-bill-to-limit-filming-of-police-activity-is-dropped.ece

If you are going to tell me my examples don't hold weight, next time make sure you know exactly what is going on with the bill and the reason the bill was formed.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Ha, found it. Talking about karma since that is getting tossed in this thread.

Here is what ole Kory Watkins was doing one night out on his cop watch:

Watkins had been alerting other drivers to the checkpoint — which courts have upheld as constitutional but the libertarian activist describes as revenue-generating scheme — and shouting “You criminals!” at officers as they stopped drivers.

So I guess he got tired and decided to go home and ooops:

“A drunk driver was going around 100 mph and smashed into the back of me,” Watkins said on his Facebook page. “I could not control the car, I went sideways, then flipped 3 times, hit a cement piller to stop my roll and put me in a ditch on The side of (Interstate) 287. I was 2 miles from being home. I am incredible lucky to be breathing. I can’t tell you how lucky I am to be alive.”

Now if you have seen Kory, he likes to tell you the laws on the black powder pistol he keeps holstered and likes to flash it at cops to incite them. Then he will give the I'm a law abiding citizin speech. Apparently though unlike you and I, he doesn't need a valid license to drive. He also believes you should be able to drive drunk.

“I don’t ask for permission to drive a car I paid for on a road I paid for,” Watkins said.

He posted on Facebook that he did not advocate drinking and driving, but he also said he didn’t believe there should be laws against drunken driving.

So Kory wants to hold cops accountable with his "cop watch" group and causes them to bring in back up and wants them to enforce the law correctly then says:

Was it the part where they showed up 15 minutes after the crime or was it when they wrote me a 300$ ticket after my car was totaled?”

Maybe Kory if you didn't have armed groups stalking police officers someone could of been there earlier! or maybe the guy would of been caught at a checkpoint you were stirring people around.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/gun-nut-yells-at-cops-conducting-dui-checkpoint-later-hit-by-drunk-driver-on-way-home/comments/#disqus

This idiot and his group are the reason Texas police officers and representatives wanted a 25ft law. Cause as the lady at the local Chili's they went to said Texas retards and their dumbasses.

[cole256 17,080]

So change an entire law because of that but you have more cases of officers being exposed by cameras....Just like the opposite view of some police have used firearms wrongly but it would be CRAZY to disarm them because of this case and a few others. Example you use don't hold weight

Yes. I have no issue with the change. They aren't saying they can't film the officers, the officers don't even care about the filming. What they care about is a pack of armed individuals interfering with their work. They just have to stay 25 ft back from the scene. Tell me. What is so dangerous about requesting that citizens stay back 25 feet from a scene?

Do you even get what they are doing? This group is finding traffic stops that involve one officer. There are 5-10 people in these camera groups. They are tracking them down on radio. The 5-10 then show up at the scene ARMED with pistols and rifles. They then circle the officer, and if the officer asks them to back away they try and incite conflict.

Then what happens? The officer calls for back-up and now you have multiple cops taken off the street to deal with these aholes.

And it isn't a example that doesn't hold weight. It was the reason the bill was proposed. It was proposed by a Rep from Dallas and is also the reason the distance was 100ft if armed. But given what happened in SC they decided to drop the bill plus the the heat from both the left and the right.

“We thought when we wrote our bill that we were making it safe not only for the police officers by that [25-foot] buffer zone, but also for those individuals that are seeking to keep law enforcement accountable to give them a safe zone to film,” Villalba said.

Frederick Frazier, first vice president of the Dallas Police Association, said a rash of incidents involving police officers antagonized on the job prompted the bill. They were dangerous situations, “almost like a setup to try to get officers to do something stupid,” he said.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20150410-bill-to-limit-filming-of-police-activity-is-dropped.ece

If you are going to tell me my examples don't hold weight, next time make sure you know exactly what is going on with the bill and the reason the bill was formed.

You trip me out. You like to write paragraphs of fluff to drain out a point you don't agree with. I do know what was going on with the bill which is why I brought it up. The point is you talking about this one guy means nothing. If policemen were getting hurt or killed and this law was protecting them from dangers they had been experiencing that's one thing, I haven't seen any cases where a policemen was hurt or lost his life because he was tricked by a cell.

Then my second part of the point was you HAVE had cases of people being hurt by policemen with firearms. Just like it's still not a good idea to take their firearms away because some messed up it's not necessarily a good idea to form a law because you want to talk about Kory what's his face. All that other stuff I don't care. And policemen like to bait people too. Guess we should make a law for that too

[alexava 6,973]

25 feet is close enough. damn this scott video was probably at least 5 times that far.

[cole256 17,080]

To me it's not about anything other than having some loopholes. How many vids have you seen where you're like damn that's too close? But with this traffic stops it would be illegal to record them...Why create a law where it hasn't even been a major problem?

Just sit back and wait for the case to happen where the video can't be used in court and the guilty officer get off because of inadmissible evidence and you guys say it was thrown out it's a non issue

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

So change an entire law because of that but you have more cases of officers being exposed by cameras....Just like the opposite view of some police have used firearms wrongly but it would be CRAZY to disarm them because of this case and a few others. Example you use don't hold weight

Yes. I have no issue with the change. They aren't saying they can't film the officers, the officers don't even care about the filming. What they care about is a pack of armed individuals interfering with their work. They just have to stay 25 ft back from the scene. Tell me. What is so dangerous about requesting that citizens stay back 25 feet from a scene?

Do you even get what they are doing? This group is finding traffic stops that involve one officer. There are 5-10 people in these camera groups. They are tracking them down on radio. The 5-10 then show up at the scene ARMED with pistols and rifles. They then circle the officer, and if the officer asks them to back away they try and incite conflict.

Then what happens? The officer calls for back-up and now you have multiple cops taken off the street to deal with these aholes.

And it isn't a example that doesn't hold weight. It was the reason the bill was proposed. It was proposed by a Rep from Dallas and is also the reason the distance was 100ft if armed. But given what happened in SC they decided to drop the bill plus the the heat from both the left and the right.

"We thought when we wrote our bill that we were making it safe not only for the police officers by that [25-foot] buffer zone, but also for those individuals that are seeking to keep law enforcement accountable to give them a safe zone to film," Villalba said.

Frederick Frazier, first vice president of the Dallas Police Association, said a rash of incidents involving police officers antagonized on the job prompted the bill. They were dangerous situations, "almost like a setup to try to get officers to do something stupid," he said.

http://www.dallasnew...-is-dropped.ece

If you are going to tell me my examples don't hold weight, next time make sure you know exactly what is going on with the bill and the reason the bill was formed.

You trip me out. You like to write paragraphs of fluff to drain out a point you don't agree with. I do know what was going on with the bill which is why I brought it up. The point is you talking about this one guy means nothing. If policemen were getting hurt or killed and this law was protecting them from dangers they had been experiencing that's one thing, I haven't seen any cases where a policemen was hurt or lost his life because he was tricked by a cell.

Then my second part of the point was you HAVE had cases of people being hurt by policemen with firearms. Just like it's still not a good idea to take their firearms away because some messed up it's not necessarily a good idea to form a law because you want to talk about Kory what's his face. All that other stuff I don't care. And policemen like to bait people too. Guess we should make a law for that too

Lol you knew so much about it that you you thought it was about to be passed.

The one guy and his group means everything. It is the reason Villalba and Frazier designed the bill in the first place. They are actively trying to incite the police while they are working a call, interfering with the call, and resulting in additional resources to have to be brought in.

I disagree with police baiting people also. Called them out on it in downtown Auburn Thursday night.

[cole256 17,080]

I just didn't know the exact term to use as I don't have or ever claimed to have knowledge of law making or whatever but I read up on it and know what I'm talking about. So instead of saying passing a bill I should have said proposed. My bad you're the man lol

[AURaptor 1,124]

So, nothing ?

[Mims44 1,869]

Officers don't go by that raptor.

Ft Sill, Lawton OK area. I saw a kid pulled over, 4 squad cars, 8 police around his vehicle... I pulled out my phone to tape (no real reason, I was young and found it interesting) an officer comes up to me, and with one hand on his side arm tells me I better put away my phone if i know what's good for me.

No "back up some" no "give 25ft" (which I was likely 30-40ft away)

The stop btw was on a 15 year old kid driving his parents car without permission and only with a learners permit... also DWB I guess.

[alexava 6,973]

To me it's not about anything other than having some loopholes. How many vids have you seen where you're like damn that's too close? But with this traffic stops it would be illegal to record them...Why create a law where it hasn't even been a major problem?

Just sit back and wait for the case to happen where the video can't be used in court and the guilty officer get off because of inadmissible evidence and you guys say it was thrown out it's a non issue

i have many times seen police making an arrest and repeatedly ordering onlookers to back up. most of this was before everyone had a video camera in their pocket. not just arrests, hell a car wreck, people come nosing in on a crash site and have to be moved back. sometimes with the yellow tape. i think you are over suspicious on this one.

[AURaptor 1,124]

Mims? That wasn't my discussion.