Charleston police officer shoots man in back

[AUFAN78 3,912]

Trust me, it is not the first nor last time I'll make a grammatical error. 3 beers down.

I'm well into a fifth of whiskey, get on my level.

I've got a stash of Maker's in the cellar. Don't tempt me. I might start talkin smack. (so say's my better half)

[AUDub 11,158]

Trust me, it is not the first nor last time I'll make a grammatical error. 3 beers down.

I apologized for a reason.

Don't feel bad. I've been learning English for close to 30 years and I still don't does it right.

[AUDub 11,158]

Are you sad that "irregardless" is now in Merriam-Webster, and without absolutely scathing criticism for anyone looking it up?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

Merriam-Webster don't does English right, neither.

[AUFAN78 3,912]

Trust me, it is not the first nor last time I'll make a grammatical error. 3 beers down.

I apologized for a reason.

Don't feel bad. I've been learning English for close to 30 years and I still don't does it right.

No need for pologizing. No offense takein.

I feel good. Really, I do. (well, other than you thinking I'd attack my buddy Ben)

[AUDub 11,158]

(well, other than you thinking I'd attack my buddy Ben)

Hey! Don't forget you've accused me of being a rock before!

[AUFAN78 3,912]

(well, other than you thinking I'd attack my buddy Ben)

Hey! Don't forget you've accused me of being a rock before!

Ha! Thanks for the reminder. At least it was a 10 pounder.

I almost brought the rock back to life earlier in conversation with Cole. Since it kept moving, I figured it was a marble and not applicable.

[cole256 17,084]

I know that. I'm talking about the what if this was passed nationally, I don't care about individually what a guy is doing in Texas. That's what you entered in the conversation. And the last video I posted the officer said the guy assaulted him so yeah everybody lies, but we already know that

You brought the Texas law into this. The guy and his group are the reason for the formation and proposal of the law and thus are important.

You are posting videos that have nothing to do with the law proposed in Texas. All your videos are cops saying do not film period. The law in Texas does not stop filming, Texas has upheld it is legal to film officers already. I

In fact when it comes to police not wanting to be filmed:

Several high profile court cases have taken up the issue, and in each case, the judge has either struck down the law or ruled that the police can't reasonably expect privacy while out in public

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/filming-police-officers_n_5676940.html

I brought the bill up as to what if this pass anywhere. Police already use a law that was made for an entire different reason as a loop hole to say you can't record their audio...You can't dictate MY conversation....

[cole256 17,084]

Probably so, if that was the intent of the law. It wasn't. The way I read it anyway. It still allows video taping beyond 25'.

Right so since you can't get a ticket 25' away then we can agree if we follow the letter of the law that would wipe out taping of police when you get pulled over. That's just basic physics right?

So now you are talking about the driver or passengers? LOL. OK. I don't know that there is a law against doing so. I don't see or have a problem with that aspect.

LMAO. That's what I was talking about in the first place, you missed it. But lol at you saying so now to me

[cole256 17,084]

You have to see this video but I'm on my phone I'll post it later

Looks like another BS charge. I think it is possible the 25' law could assist here as well.

A 25 rule wouldn't do crap here. The guy was far away police walked up on him. Now if you guys are saying NOW the policeman can now know the law that may me the funniest stuff ever. Policemen running around that don't know the law.....and you're good with that..

[AUFAN78 3,912]

Probably so, if that was the intent of the law. It wasn't. The way I read it anyway. It still allows video taping beyond 25'.

Right so since you can't get a ticket 25' away then we can agree if we follow the letter of the law that would wipe out taping of police when you get pulled over. That's just basic physics right?

So now you are talking about the driver or passengers? LOL. OK. I don't know that there is a law against doing so. I don't see or have a problem with that aspect.

LMAO. That's what I was talking about in the first place, you missed it. But lol at you saying so now to me

Cole, my apologies for not being able to follow your conversation. Apparently, it was over my head!

[AUDub 11,158]

I don't recall stating I was pro 25' law? Maybe I did? I did state, given some of the shared video, that I felt the law may have prevented confrontation. Seeing the law wasn't enacted, it's really a mute point. So, where does that leave us? Back where we began. LOL.

The aforementioned posts that ostensibly support the bill.

Technically, if the guy video taping moves back 25' it wouldn't be. Right? Regardless, the cops a jerk.

But it wouldn't lead to video not being used. The law, as I understand it, simply prevents interference. Video all you want from 25' or more. I hope we can at least agree these folks were doing more than video taping. Appeared to me they were purposely interfering/distracting.

Technically, if the guy video taping moves back 25' it wouldn't be. Right? Regardless, the cops a jerk.

I don't see the guy videoing doing anything wrong here either. I do think a 25' law would have helped.

Probably so, if that was the intent of the law. It wasn't. The way I read it anyway. It still allows video taping beyond 25'.

But it wouldn't lead to video not being used. The law, as I understand it, simply prevents interference. Video all you want from 25' or more. I hope we can at least agree these folks were doing more than video taping. Appeared to me they were purposely interfering/distracting.

Here are the problems laid out against the bill as it was drawn up.

It's redundant. There's already a sufficient law in the books for "interfering with public duties." That's sufficiently nebulous and it should be satisfactory. This is the rub with you, Tex. You're defending a rewritten bill you've cooked up in your head. You've moved the goalposts to make it defensible. What right do they have to set some arbitrary minimum distance in which the constitution no longer applies?

It violates current legal precedent. The right to record the police has already been ruled upon. Paraphrasing William Jacobson, professor and director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell University Law School.

The First Amendment allows for citizens to videotape police who are acting in plain view and videotaping in such a manner that does not impede the officer's ability to perform his or her duties. The police may feel that the spotlight on them does inhibit their ability to act, but that subjective feeling cannot trump the First Amendment.

It prevents individuals from holding police accountable. The officer in the video I shared earlier was fired as a result of his behavior. What if that video didn't exist or was not allowed in evidence? Would the officer have been kind enough to allow the individual recording him to step away some arbitrarily set distance and continue filming? Cole brings up traffic stops. You know what? He's correct. With the ubiquity of cameras these days, most of these videos aren't going to be recorded by news crews. They're going to be recorded by citizens on the fly.

[AUFAN78 3,912]

You have to see this video but I'm on my phone I'll post it later

Looks like another BS charge. I think it is possible the 25' law could assist here as well.

A 25 rule wouldn't do crap here. The guy was far away police walked up on him. Now if you guys are saying NOW the policeman can now know the law that may me the funniest stuff ever. Policemen running around that don't know the law.....and you're good with that..

I don't know about "you guys" but, I do not agree with cops not knowing the law.

[AUFAN78 3,912]

I don't recall stating I was pro 25' law? Maybe I did? I did state, given some of the shared video, that I felt the law may have prevented confrontation. Seeing the law wasn't enacted, it's really a mute point. So, where does that leave us? Back where we began. LOL.

The aforementioned posts that ostensibly support the bill.

Technically, if the guy video taping moves back 25' it wouldn't be. Right? Regardless, the cops a jerk.

But it wouldn't lead to video not being used. The law, as I understand it, simply prevents interference. Video all you want from 25' or more. I hope we can at least agree these folks were doing more than video taping. Appeared to me they were purposely interfering/distracting.

Technically, if the guy video taping moves back 25' it wouldn't be. Right? Regardless, the cops a jerk.

I don't see the guy videoing doing anything wrong here either. I do think a 25' law would have helped.

Probably so, if that was the intent of the law. It wasn't. The way I read it anyway. It still allows video taping beyond 25'.

But it wouldn't lead to video not being used. The law, as I understand it, simply prevents interference. Video all you want from 25' or more. I hope we can at least agree these folks were doing more than video taping. Appeared to me they were purposely interfering/distracting.

Here are the problems laid out against the bill as it was drawn up.

It's redundant. There's already a sufficient law in the books for "interfering with public duties." That's sufficiently nebulous and it should be satisfactory. This is the rub with you, Tex. You're defending a rewritten bill you've cooked up in your head. You've moved the goalposts to make it defensible. What right do they have to set some arbitrary minimum distance in which the constitution no longer applies?

It violates current legal precedent. The right to record the police has already been ruled upon. Paraphrasing William Jacobson, professor and director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell University Law School.

The First Amendment allows for citizens to videotape police who are acting in plain view and videotaping in such a manner that does not impede the officer's ability to perform his or her duties. The police may feel that the spotlight on them does inhibit their ability to act, but that subjective feeling cannot trump the First Amendment.

It prevents individuals from holding police accountable. The officer in the video I shared earlier was fired as a result of his behavior. What if that video didn't exist or was not allowed in evidence? Would the officer have been kind enough to allow the individual recording him to step away some arbitrarily set distance and continue filming? Cole brings up traffic stops. You know what? He's correct. With the ubiquity of cameras these days, most of these videos aren't going to be recorded by news crews. They're going to be recorded by citizens on the fly.

I think you've consumed more than me. (you'll laugh tomorrow)

Regardless, I disagree these obscure points define one as pro anything. Devil's advocate? Maybe.

[AUDub 11,158]

Ed Brayton weighed in.

Another day, another ridiculous and disingenuous bill from the Texas legislature. State Rep. Jason Villalba has submitted a bill that would greatly restrict the right of individuals to record police officers making an arrest, something that has proven irreplaceable in discovering misconduct and brutality.

The House Bill 2918 introduced by Texas Representative Jason Villalba (R-Dallas) would make private citizens photographing or recording the police within 25 feet of them a class B misdemeanor, and those who are armed would not be able to stand recording within 100 feet of an officer.

As defined in the bill, only a radio or television that holds a license issued by the Federal Communications Commission, a newspaper that is qualified under section 2051.044 or a magazine that appears at a regular interval would be allowed to record police.

"(My bill) just asks filmers to stand back a little so as to not interfere with law enforcement," said

But if it’s actually about not wanting people around to possibly interfere with law enforcement, why not include those with press credentials? And if you’re going to allow radio and television stations, why not newspapers and magazines as well? This is quite inconsistent. Is there any evidence whatsoever that observers who are not licensed by the FCC are routinely or even occasionally interfering with a crime scene? If they genuinely are doing so, they can be arrested. Of course, we know of lots and lots of situations where the police have arrested people on that premise only to have the video show they were doing no such thing and the police were lying (stop me if you’ve heard that one before).

We all know what this is really all about. It’s very unlikely that a radio or TV station is going to be able to get to a scene to film an arrest situation, but much more likely that someone with a cell phone walking by will be able to film it. The goal and the result of this bill is to make it far less likely that the police will be caught engaging in abuse, brutality or misconduct.

[AUDub 11,158]

I think you've consumed more than me. (you'll laugh tomorrow)

Regardless, I disagree these obscure points define one as pro anything. Devil's advocate? Maybe.

Well, I snuck ostensibly on there thinking that might be the case, but you did say you think it would have helped. That's a tacit endorsement right there.

Guilty as charged on having imbibed, though.

[AUFAN78 3,912]

I think you've consumed more than me. (you'll laugh tomorrow)

Regardless, I disagree these obscure points define one as pro anything. Devil's advocate? Maybe.

Well, I snuck obstensibly on there thinking that might be the case, but you did say you think it would have helped. That's a tacit endorsement right there.

Guilty as charged on having imbibed, though.

Your vocab is flowing along with.....let me guess....Torpedo.

[AUDub 11,158]

I think you've consumed more than me. (you'll laugh tomorrow)

Regardless, I disagree these obscure points define one as pro anything. Devil's advocate? Maybe.

Well, I snuck obstensibly on there thinking that might be the case, but you did say you think it would have helped. That's a tacit endorsement right there.

Guilty as charged on having imbibed, though.

Your vocab is flowing along with.....let me guess....Torpedo.

Going less hoppy tonight. Victory Golden Monkey.

Really need to get to sleep. My oldest has some sort of awards ceremony tomorrow.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I know that. I'm talking about the what if this was passed nationally, I don't care about individually what a guy is doing in Texas. That's what you entered in the conversation. And the last video I posted the officer said the guy assaulted him so yeah everybody lies, but we already know that

You brought the Texas law into this. The guy and his group are the reason for the formation and proposal of the law and thus are important.

You are posting videos that have nothing to do with the law proposed in Texas. All your videos are cops saying do not film period. The law in Texas does not stop filming, Texas has upheld it is legal to film officers already. I

In fact when it comes to police not wanting to be filmed:

Several high profile court cases have taken up the issue, and in each case, the judge has either struck down the law or ruled that the police can't reasonably expect privacy while out in public

http://www.huffingto..._n_5676940.html

I brought the bill up as to what if this pass anywhere. Police already use a law that was made for an entire different reason as a loop hole to say you can't record their audio...You can't dictate MY conversation....

You brought up the bill and asked why would they pass this, go back and look at your own quote. You didn't identify where. I discussed the topic with you like an adult, I didn't try and dictate anything.

[cole256 17,084]

Probably so, if that was the intent of the law. It wasn't. The way I read it anyway. It still allows video taping beyond 25'.

Right so since you can't get a ticket 25' away then we can agree if we follow the letter of the law that would wipe out taping of police when you get pulled over. That's just basic physics right?

So now you are talking about the driver or passengers? LOL. OK. I don't know that there is a law against doing so. I don't see or have a problem with that aspect.

LMAO. That's what I was talking about in the first place, you missed it. But lol at you saying so now to me

Cole, my apologies for not being able to follow your conversation. Apparently, it was over my head!

Your attempts of sarcasm is beyond lame.....I'm not saying anything like that, fact is that's my original and entire point so you saying now I want to talk about drivers like it's moot is funny. As usual you were eager to disagree.

[cole256 17,084]

I know that. I'm talking about the what if this was passed nationally, I don't care about individually what a guy is doing in Texas. That's what you entered in the conversation. And the last video I posted the officer said the guy assaulted him so yeah everybody lies, but we already know that

You brought the Texas law into this. The guy and his group are the reason for the formation and proposal of the law and thus are important.

You are posting videos that have nothing to do with the law proposed in Texas. All your videos are cops saying do not film period. The law in Texas does not stop filming, Texas has upheld it is legal to film officers already. I

In fact when it comes to police not wanting to be filmed:

Several high profile court cases have taken up the issue, and in each case, the judge has either struck down the law or ruled that the police can't reasonably expect privacy while out in public

http://www.huffingto..._n_5676940.html

I brought the bill up as to what if this pass anywhere. Police already use a law that was made for an entire different reason as a loop hole to say you can't record their audio...You can't dictate MY conversation....

You brought up the bill and asked why would they pass this, go back and look at your own quote. You didn't identify where. I discussed the topic with you like an adult, I didn't try and dictate anything.

Right then you brought up it didn't pass and the stupid YouTube dude. After that nobody is talking about Texas but you. I'm posting videos to show how cops already abuse authority with videos that they do not have. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THAT KORY GUY he is one guy with missile multiple YouTube's. He will not supersede all the videos of policemen violating people within 25 feet. If I post a video showing that I know it's not in Texas because I don't give a damn about that guy. I'm saying this pass then other states follow sit it's a problem. Unless you show me video and statistics of people interfering with cases that lead to police getting hurt or criminals getting away because of people taping you're really not making a case of why starting a law for one guy outweighs giving up the chance of potentially catching people getting violated across the NATION, of this potentially became a national law.

[autigeremt 6,652]

Have you seen this video post by a Midlands man following a traffic stop in Lexington County, SC? The two-minute clip has gone viral since it was posted yesterday, and it might surprise you. After watching the video, click here to see an exclusive interview with Will Stack: http://shout.lt/0s0W. #LexingtonSC #TrafficStop #WalterScott #MichaelSlager #NorthCharleston #scnews

Posted by WIS TV on Friday, April 10, 2015

[cole256 17,084]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3020956/Two-college-campus-cops-suspended-cell-phone-video-emerges-harassing-group-black-students-hitting-one.html

[cole256 17,084]

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Yawn.

[AUDub 11,158]

Have you seen this video post by a Midlands man following a traffic stop in Lexington County, SC? The two-minute clip has gone viral since it was posted yesterday, and it might surprise you. After watching the video, click here to see an exclusive interview with Will Stack: http://shout.lt/0s0W. #LexingtonSC #TrafficStop #WalterScott #MichaelSlager #NorthCharleston #scnews

Posted by WIS TV on Friday, April 10, 2015

Here it is, folks. Your one single proof that negates police misconduct.