Cop charged with murder after shooting

[Subyman]

Live your dream buddy.

Uhm, okay?

 

[Darwin333]

If these jobs (now talking specifically mayor type positions) paid private sector wages maybe we could get people who don't feel the need to exploit the system. Unfortunately because the general population gets worked up seeing public officials earning more than them we are stuck with corrupt assholes instead of competent people. And in the case of police, maybe just assholes.

You guys are missing my point entirely. I'm not talking about the risk of getting killed (and yes it's far less than construction). I'm talking about repeatedly exposing yourself to situations with nothing but downsides for yourself. At least with construction or logging you are largely responsible for your own safety. You have some control over your own fate.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2013/officers-assaulted/assaults_topic_page_-2013

I don't know a single person who has been injured in an assault at work, do you? A 3% chance of being injured in an assault while at work for $52k a year sounds pretty crappy to me.

Viper GTS

So it isn't how often you might get injured or dead and it isn't about the seriousness of the injury or any of that stuff. All that matters is how the injury or death took place?

If I get killed at work I don't think my family would feel any better if I fell off a roof instead of getting shot by some asshole. Dead is dead, a broken arm is a broken arm, paralyzed is paralyzed...

 

[Darwin333]

Because if you fell off a roof you probably did something stupid. Or if it was someone else being stupid it was probably just that and not malicious.

I excluded the accidents and felonious killings from that statistic, a LEO being injured in a traffic accident is probably a closer analogy to being injured in construction.

Viper GTS

When I was 16 I got 3rd degree burns from 650 degree hot roofing asphalt. Sure it was because some dumb asshole pushed the mopcart behind me as I was hauling materials but I don't see how it would have been anymore painful getting my skin quite literally peeled off in the hospital if he had done it with malicious intent. Hell I'd probably feel better about the situation because said asshole would most likely (and in the case of a cop absolutely positively) be convicted of a crime and thrown into jail instead of just losing his job.

So cop gets hurt because some stupid asshole did something stupid and cop gets justice.

Regular joe gets hurt because some stupid asshole did something stupid, except without malice, and nothing happens to the stupid asshole.

The kicker is, if a cop does something stupid that gets someone hurt or dead he generally gets away with it free and clear.

Yup, cops definitely have it worse.....

 

[Darwin333]

Bouncers get paid less and are at greater risk because they aren't allowed to carry weapons. Piss off the wrong drunk customer(s), they walk to their car, grab their gun, and start shooting. Or customers start fighting in the establishment, run into the melee, get punched, kicked, hit/cut with broken glass, or possibly even stabbed.

And when one of them does get hurt in the same way, doing pretty much the same job, they don't get national news attention including funds setup for their families and entire police forces hunting their attacker until he is caught. Not to mention the other huge fringe benefits that cops enjoy.

 

[Darwin333]

I've already disproved your statement and you agreed so just accept that your blanket statement was wrong and move on.

Firefighters show up to a fire and immediately risk life and limb (in the most horrific way imaginable, trust me I know first hand) to save lives. Cops show up and wait for overwhelming force, while innocent people are harmed or killed, to guarantee that they (the cops) have the greatest chance of not getting injured.

The bottom line is very very simple to understand.

Cops protect their own lives before all others, up to and including putting innocent lives at risk for so called "officer safety".

Firefighters do exactly the opposite.

 

[rudeguy]

Firefighters show up to a fire and immediately risk life and limb (in the most horrific way imaginable, trust me I know first hand) to save lives. Cops show up and wait for overwhelming force, while innocent people are harmed or killed, to guarantee that they (the cops) have the greatest chance of not getting injured.

The bottom line is very very simple to understand.

Cops protect their own lives before all others, up to and including putting innocent lives at risk for so called "officer safety".

Firefighters do exactly the opposite.

Fire fighters as a rule are brave.
Cops as a rule are cowards.

 

[Darwin333]

I guess you fall under construction, trades 26.8

You have like a 7 times riskier job then cops. We need to wrap you in the American flag and create institutions that shield you from wrong doing.

Ooh, I fall under roofing which is higher than general construction by quite a bit, do we get a monument or something? We'd be perfectly happy with the same "get out of jail free" cards the cops get though to be honest, like really fucking happy. Hell one of us dies we don't even make the local news much less national news with all kinds of donations for our families streaming in. It's a risk that we know full well before going to work every single day, we accept it and we do our damn jobs. We don't get special privileges or perks for doing a job far more dangerous than cops. We don't get absurdly great benefits at the taxpayers dime when we are to old to work, we don't get badges that allow us to basically do any damn thing you want and we don't protect the bad/dangerous assholes on our jobs.

Following is not directed at you:

So please, cry me a river. Tell me how rough cops have it and how horrible their lives are and how they were evidently forced to do said job. If they weren't forced to continue to do the job, shut the fuck up and quit if you don't like the risks which is the exact same thing I tell my own men. You see, I actually live by the words I speak and despite being in a FAR more dangerous job than them, I don't expect any special privileges. I also like to think that keeping the rain out of your building, your possessions and ensuring you have a livelihood (by ensuring the building you work in stays in operation) is an important job that must be done.

So if one of my guys was to die tomorrow, please explain in very small and detailed words how exactly that would be better than a cop dying trying to arrest some small time criminal that got pulled over for a burned out taillight.

 

[Darwin333]

Fire fighters as a rule are brave.
Cops as a rule are cowards.

I know both and I couldn't agree more. I know a firefighter that got hurt saving someone's life and he said he'd do it again in a heartbeat. I know a cop that says basically the same thing but I know two others that are happier bragging about the asses they kicked, pretending they are all rough and tough because 3 or 4 of them beat someone up that couldn't possibly win.

It's like saying a guy who brings a gun to a knife fight is so much more manlier than his opponent because he won when he only won because he had the gun.

 

[Attic]

Did Scott gain control of the taser and then use it against the officer shortly before the shots were fired?

It appears that the taser was used against the officer prior to the fatal shots that killed Scott. Removing the considerations of a fluke scenario where the taser went off and hit the officer (bullet proof chest and lower leg), it appears to me that the most likely scenario is that Scott gained control of the taser and fired the taser into the officer (>90% chance IMO). This is the officer's original story.

What's the reasonable threat level of a person who has just fled a routine stop, fought against an officer, gained control of the officer's taser, and then used a taser against an officer? I'd say high to very high.



http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/12/game-changer-or-paradigm-shift-walter-scott-shooting-enhanced-video-shows-officer-slager-with-taser-darts/#more-99326

On the first day we saw the North Charleston, South Carolina, shooting video of Walter Scott by Officer Michael Slager we were as shocked as everyone. However, as research now indicates there is much more to the story.

....

The video (void of context that couldn't be known at the time) made it appear the officer immediately shot Scott after a short or non existant scuffle. It looked very clear cut what most of the thread has come to agree on so far.

It appears now that the there was a prolonged struggle between Scott and the officer, during which the taser was taken by Scott and deployed against the officer. That changes things dramatically IMO. No chance for Murder charge to hold for one.


I don't see Murder holding up, I can see clear indications that Slager's judgement would be reasonably heightened for Scott as a threat after a prolonged struggle and the taser being used against Slager. The video appears to show, from an outside perspective, poor judgement from officer slager. Lines up still as involuntary manslaughter to me.


Personally I don't think Scott was a threat when shots were fired (given the birds eye view of available information and time to process it), but I can see where Slager would reasonably believe Scott to be a threat under circumstances of a struggle and having a taser taken and then used against him.



If the racists are having a hard time here, please reverse the races of the Scott and Slager and notify professional help when noticing a nose bleed.
The idea of making things racist when they aren't racist, done in order to gain a self perceived and currently socially tolerated advantage in these dicussions, is not hard to deconstruct.

 

[SheHateMe]

Why don't you go start a GoFundMe for Mr. Slager since you think he is so innocent.

 

[rudeguy]

Did Scott gain control of the taser and then use it against the officer shortly before the shots were fired?

It appears that the taser was used against the officer prior to the fatal shots that killed Scott. Removing the considerations of a fluke scenario where the taser went off and hit the officer (bullet proof chest and lower leg), it appears to me that the most likely scenario is that Scott gained control of the taser and fired the taser into the officer (>90% chance IMO). This is the officer's original story.

What's the reasonable threat level of a person who has just fled a routine stop, fought against an officer, gained control of the officer's taser, and then used a taser against an officer? I'd say high to very high.



http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/12/game-changer-or-paradigm-shift-walter-scott-shooting-enhanced-video-shows-officer-slager-with-taser-darts/#more-99326





The video (void of context that couldn't be known at the time) made it appear the officer immediately shot Scott after a short or non existant scuffle. It looked very clear cut what most of the thread has come to agree on so far.

It appears now that the there was a prolonged struggle between Scott and the officer, during which the taser was taken by Scott and deployed against the officer. That changes things dramatically IMO. No chance for Murder charge to hold for one.


I don't see Murder holding up, I can see clear indications that Slager's judgement would be reasonably heightened for Scott as a threat after a prolonged struggle and the taser being used against Slager. The video appears to show, from an outside perspective, poor judgement from officer slager. Lines up still as involuntary manslaughter to me.


Personally I don't think Scott was a threat when shots were fired (given the birds eye view of available information and time to process it), but I can see where Slager would reasonably believe Scott to be a threat under circumstances of a struggle and having a taser taken and then used against him.



If the racists are having a hard time here, please reverse the races of the Scott and Slager and notify professional help when noticing a nose bleed.
The idea of making things racist when they aren't racist, done in order to gain a self perceived and currently socially tolerated advantage in these dicussions, is not hard to deconstruct.

Except none of that happened.

 

[SheHateMe]

Imagine what he would be saying if there wasn't a video of this shit.

This forum never ceases to amaze.

 

[Ns1]

Firefighters show up to a fire and immediately risk life and limb (in the most horrific way imaginable, trust me I know first hand) to save lives. Cops show up and wait for overwhelming force, while innocent people are harmed or killed, to guarantee that they (the cops) have the greatest chance of not getting injured.

The bottom line is very very simple to understand.

Cops protect their own lives before all others, up to and including putting innocent lives at risk for so called "officer safety".

Firefighters do exactly the opposite.

The bottom line was not the point being argued.

K I'm moving on now.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I wonder if Spideys alt is posting here? I always liked his definition of threat and citing odd statutes.

 

[Darwin333]

Did Scott gain control of the taser and then use it against the officer shortly before the shots were fired?

It appears that the taser was used against the officer prior to the fatal shots that killed Scott. Removing the considerations of a fluke scenario where the taser went off and hit the officer (bullet proof chest and lower leg), it appears to me that the most likely scenario is that Scott gained control of the taser and fired the taser into the officer (>90% chance IMO). This is the officer's original story.

What's the reasonable threat level of a person who has just fled a routine stop, fought against an officer, gained control of the officer's taser, and then used a taser against an officer? I'd say high to very high.



http://theconservativetreehouse.com...s-officer-slager-with-taser-darts/#more-99326





The video (void of context that couldn't be known at the time) made it appear the officer immediately shot Scott after a short or non existant scuffle. It looked very clear cut what most of the thread has come to agree on so far.

It appears now that the there was a prolonged struggle between Scott and the officer, during which the taser was taken by Scott and deployed against the officer. That changes things dramatically IMO. No chance for Murder charge to hold for one.


I don't see Murder holding up, I can see clear indications that Slager's judgement would be reasonably heightened for Scott as a threat after a prolonged struggle and the taser being used against Slager. The video appears to show, from an outside perspective, poor judgement from officer slager. Lines up still as involuntary manslaughter to me.


Personally I don't think Scott was a threat when shots were fired (given the birds eye view of available information and time to process it), but I can see where Slager would reasonably believe Scott to be a threat under circumstances of a struggle and having a taser taken and then used against him.

I don't know, I'm no expert at tasers but the argument they are putting forward is that Scott took Slager's taser and fired it at him from nearly point blank range with one prong hitting Slager in what the photo shows his upper shoulder and the other prong hitting him below the knee. I am 6' tall and on me that is a separation of roughly 3 feet. Granted he might not have been standing straight up and a slew of other positions but I've seen the way tasers deploy and something about that just doesn't seem right. Furthermore, just from the sheer angle of the wire that has been shown in the pictures it appears the wire is over his shoulder, not stuck in his shoulder.

I do believe that they should charge him with voluntary manslaughter at this point though. If SC law allows him to be charged with multiple charges and then allow the jury to decide which to find him guilty (or not) on, then by all means pursue the murder charge. If SC law doesn't allow for that, I'm pretty sure the prosecutor knows full well he won't be able to secure a murder 1 charge against him even if he has a public defender.

From my limited understanding of the law, the fight before the shooting makes voluntary manslaughter a more fitting charge than murder 1. Frankly, if any cop has to serve more than 5 years (actual time served) I am absurdly impressed.

 

[Darwin333]

The bottom line was not the point being argued.

K I'm moving on now.

Here I was thinking that was exactly what was being argued.

Please enlighten me though as to what exactly was being argued or did my post completely destroy the point you were trying to make. Be a good reason to move on from the argument...

 

[Ns1]

Here I was thinking that was exactly what was being argued.

Please enlighten me though as to what exactly was being argued or did my post completely destroy the point you were trying to make. Be a good reason to move on from the argument...

Why is it a firefighter will risk their lives for us but a cop wont?

if # of instances in which cop is willing to risk their life > 1 then statement = not true.

I thought I was done but guess not. Ready for your retort.

 

[Darwin333]

if # of instances in which cop is willing to risk their life > 1 then statement = not true.

I thought I was done but guess not. Ready for your retort.

So now you are down to arguing semantics, I didn't make the statement that you quoted and if that is what you wish to reduce your argument to then fine, you win. I know for a fact that the number of cops who have put their life at risk to save the life of an innocent without putting other innocents at risk is greater than 1. My point, which you refuse to argue or acknowledge, is that it's not only the actions of cops but systematic policy of them to put their lives above all others which is the exact opposite of what firefighters do.

How many firefighters have you heard of throwing flashbang grenades into baby cribs to try and find someone that wasn't even there? Or using swat teams to serve warrants against non-violent people instead of using a dozen other methods that despite being less fun would be just as effective at catching the bad guy but wouldn't put the public at large in more harm? The above, and hundreds of other examples that I could cite, prove my point but you keep going ahead and arguing semantics because you know, it makes you look smart or something.

Unlike you, I don't really anticipate your retort as I highly doubt that it will contain much more than the gotcha bullshit you just tried to pull. I do hope that I will be wrong but nothing I've seen thus far from you has given me reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Ns1]

I was only arguing what I quoted. No more no less.

I believe what y'all doing is called "moving the goalposts".

 

[shady28]

Did Scott gain control of the taser and then use it against the officer shortly before the shots were fired?

It appears that the taser was used against the officer prior to the fatal shots that killed Scott. Removing the considerations of a fluke scenario where the taser went off and hit the officer (bullet proof chest and lower leg), it appears to me that the most likely scenario is that Scott gained control of the taser and fired the taser into the officer (>90% chance IMO). This is the officer's original story.

What's the reasonable threat level of a person who has just fled a routine stop, fought against an officer, gained control of the officer's taser, and then used a taser against an officer? I'd say high to very high.



http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/12/game-changer-or-paradigm-shift-walter-scott-shooting-enhanced-video-shows-officer-slager-with-taser-darts/#more-99326





The video (void of context that couldn't be known at the time) made it appear the officer immediately shot Scott after a short or non existant scuffle. It looked very clear cut what most of the thread has come to agree on so far.

It appears now that the there was a prolonged struggle between Scott and the officer, during which the taser was taken by Scott and deployed against the officer. That changes things dramatically IMO. No chance for Murder charge to hold for one.


I don't see Murder holding up, I can see clear indications that Slager's judgement would be reasonably heightened for Scott as a threat after a prolonged struggle and the taser being used against Slager. The video appears to show, from an outside perspective, poor judgement from officer slager. Lines up still as involuntary manslaughter to me.


Personally I don't think Scott was a threat when shots were fired (given the birds eye view of available information and time to process it), but I can see where Slager would reasonably believe Scott to be a threat under circumstances of a struggle and having a taser taken and then used against him.



If the racists are having a hard time here, please reverse the races of the Scott and Slager and notify professional help when noticing a nose bleed.
The idea of making things racist when they aren't racist, done in order to gain a self perceived and currently socially tolerated advantage in these dicussions, is not hard to deconstruct.

First, I don't think it matters as to guilt.

It looks to me like one of the prongs hit the cop and the other one hit the suspect. It's pretty clear in the pictures. If the cop had shot him once during the physical altercation, maybe it would have been justified. But he didn't, he shot him as the guy was running away, 8 times in the back.

This is what they're talking about. It looks like on of the taser prong wires is connected to Scott and the other to Slager :

 

[Ackmed]

Firefighters show up to a fire and immediately risk life and limb (in the most horrific way imaginable, trust me I know first hand) to save lives. Cops show up and wait for overwhelming force, while innocent people are harmed or killed, to guarantee that they (the cops) have the greatest chance of not getting injured.

The bottom line is very very simple to understand.

Cops protect their own lives before all others, up to and including putting innocent lives at risk for so called "officer safety".

Firefighters do exactly the opposite.

Fire fighters as a rule are brave.
Cops as a rule are cowards.

Two of the most ignorant posts I have ever seen.

What is really pathetic is the media and other people's take on this.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/1...ls-shooting-act-racist-cop/?intcmp=latestnews

Say he was a man of four children and a coast guard veteran. Every comment praises the guy. Then blames the warrant for his arrest as not fair because he can't pay it from jail. Well maybe he should have paid it to begin with an it wouldn't have been 18k. Also states that the officer shot him with the taser then shot him with his pistol. Not mentioning at all about any other facts like the struggle or it looking like the suspect shot the officer with the taser. It is so one sided it's pathetic. So are the minister's comments calling the cop racist based on this one thing. The fact is he was a criminal, with an extensive criminal history, had a warrant for his arrest, wrestled with the officers, then fled. But it's the officers fault for being racist? Please. For idiocy for agenda drumming idiots.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally Posted by Darwin333
Firefighters show up to a fire and immediately risk life and limb (in the most horrific way imaginable, trust me I know first hand) to save lives. Cops show up and wait for overwhelming force, while innocent people are harmed or killed, to guarantee that they (the cops) have the greatest chance of not getting injured.

The bottom line is very very simple to understand.

Cops protect their own lives before all others, up to and including putting innocent lives at risk for so called "officer safety".

Firefighters do exactly the opposite.

One of the most thoughtful and brilliant posts in this thread!!!:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Two of the most ignorant posts I have ever seen.

I thought they were spot on. Although I can totally see how a cop would get his panties all in a bunch over it.

 

[JSt0rm]

if # of instances in which cop is willing to risk their life > 1 then statement = not true.

I thought I was done but guess not. Ready for your retort.

I guess you win the internet then. How could I let myself fall into such a poorly worded sentence. I guess to get my point across in the future I will remember tech forums have lots of people on the autism spectrum and I need to be completely accurate with everything I type or else my point isn't valid (nana) Thank you for this enlightenment.

 

[Meghan54]

Also states that the officer shot him with the taser then shot him with his pistol. Not mentioning at all about any other facts like the struggle or it looking like the suspect shot the officer with the taser. It is so one sided it's pathetic. So are the minister's comments calling the cop racist based on this one thing. The fact is he was a criminal, with an extensive criminal history, had a warrant for his arrest, wrestled with the officers, then fled. But it's the officers fault for being racist? Please. For idiocy for agenda drumming idiots.

I'd like to ask you about the bolded part. Where did the suspect get a new cartridge to fire the taser? When did the suspect reload it? You do realize the taser is essentially a one-use/one-shot weapon that has to be reloaded to fire again?

So how did the suspect shoot the officer with the taser? Yeah, I guess the suspect could've used it as a contact shock device, but he was too busy trying to run.