South Carolina Officer Is Charged With Murder in Black Man’s Death

[Daerio]

One of the most myopic and pitiful exchanges I've ever read, honestly. So programmed, so hardwired into your hatred of opposing political ideologies, cognitive dissonance commands you have to believe conservatives are faking outrage because they are outraged at the case caught on tape but by and large rejected the fiction (confirmed as such by DOJ) of "hands up don't shoot". You should be ashamed.

I think glimpses of real personality can be had into the likes of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Beck. I'm not so sure about Hannity. But they are not to be confused with actual human beings. They are mouth pieces, they spew the rhetoric and that's it. If they did any more than that publicly they probably would lose a lot of viewers.

But also don't think I affiliate myself with the other side of the aisle either, that's false dichotomy. Just because I recognize how utterly ridiculous Hannity (usually) is doesn't mean I consider myself a democrat.

Though, I do find Bill Maher entertaining sometimes. Certainly a lot easier to watch/listen to than his counterparts. When I turn on the radio and listen to Hannity talking about a US invasion of Iran as if it's already a foredrawn conclusion, (for example) I feel an aneurysm coming on and have to cut it off.

[AdamC]

Looks like a worthy life sentence.

[cuafpr]

and more info:
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/04/2975...campaign=Media

given this new information if it pans out... no charges imo. (second place i've heard this, first was on local news as I live in SC).

[Masark]

and more info:
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/04/2975...campaign=Media

given this new information if it pans out... no charges imo. (second place i've heard this, first was on local news as I live in SC).

I fail to see the relevance.

[Themius]

and more info:
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/04/2975...campaign=Media

given this new information if it pans out... no charges imo. (second place i've heard this, first was on local news as I live in SC).

How does this change the following:

1) Shooting man in back who was running away and pose no threat.
2) The placing of the weapon at his dead body.

[Bakis]

How does this change the following:

1) Shooting man in back who was running away and pose no threat.
2) The placing of the weapon at his dead body.

The article try to make the case that the officer got fired by his own taser by(?) Mr Scott and thus the officer can claim that he feared for severe bodily damage or death to the public if he got away.
That is what I get out of it and stranger things happened. At the extremely rare occasions that a police officer is convicted for such a crime, the average time in jail is 4 years.

WP: Thousands dead few prosecuted
Good read on the issues with accountability in terms of the legal system.

[cuafpr]

The article try to make the case that the officer got fired by his own taser by(?) Mr Scott and thus the officer can claim that he feared for severe bodily damage or death to the public if he got away.
That is what I get out of it and stranger things happened. At the extremely rare occasions that a police officer is convicted for such a crime, the average time in jail is 4 years.

WP: Thousands dead few prosecuted
Good read on the issues with accountability in terms of the legal system.

pretty much, as if the suspect did indeed 1) get into a scuffle, 2) get the officers tazer and shoot the officer with the tazer the use of deadly force is authorized imo, running away makes no difference at that point. 3) moving the tazer was the wrong thing to do but not punishable by criminal charges. (and some say it was him unhooking the tazer from his own cloths but i'm not sure about that from what i see).

and since i know the shooting in the back thing will come up, you can't just say oh he is running no longer a threat or else you make it so a person can take a shot at someone then run away, nope sorry that does't fly with me. Once you prove you are willing to use a weapon its to late, either give up and drop to the ground or be ready to get shot while running.

[Tackhisis]

The victim committed assault on the police officer and tried to escape. I'm completely fine with use of lethal force in this case, and consider those charges a perversion of justice.

[Bakis]

pretty much, as if the suspect did indeed 1) get into a scuffle, 2) get the officers tazer and shoot the officer with the tazer the use of deadly force is authorized imo, running away makes no difference at that point. 3) moving the tazer was the wrong thing to do but not punishable by criminal charges. (and some say it was him unhooking the tazer from his own cloths but i'm not sure about that from what i see).

and since i know the shooting in the back thing will come up, you can't just say oh he is running no longer a threat or else you make it so a person can take a shot at someone then run away, nope sorry that does't fly with me. Once you prove you are willing to use a weapon its to late, either give up and drop to the ground or be ready to get shot while running.

It doesnt authorize anything at all in itself, it is the threat at the moment of shooting that matters.
That being said, since the whole system is built around reasonable doubt + officer claims he/she percieved it as large enough threat it will effectively be an acquittal most likely if it went to trial.

People dont like to second guess what went on inside the head of a police officer and frankly nothing easy about that but since the legislation is so lax on what they are able to claim as being a threat they can basically get away with anything almost every time.
As the article mention there need to be the extreme of the extreme circumstances for an conviction or even a chanse that a prosecutor want to touch it knowing he will most likely look at a loss.

[Themius]

The victim committed assault on the police officer and tried to escape. I'm completely fine with use of lethal force in this case, and consider those charges a perversion of justice.

How is assault worthy of a death penalty? You do realize that he wasn't a threat, but a fleeing suspect.

[Booshman]

pretty much, as if the suspect did indeed 1) get into a scuffle, 2) get the officers tazer and shoot the officer with the tazer the use of deadly force is authorized imo, running away makes no difference at that point. 3) moving the tazer was the wrong thing to do but not punishable by criminal charges. (and some say it was him unhooking the tazer from his own cloths but i'm not sure about that from what i see).

and since i know the shooting in the back thing will come up, you can't just say oh he is running no longer a threat or else you make it so a person can take a shot at someone then run away, nope sorry that does't fly with me. Once you prove you are willing to use a weapon its to late, either give up and drop to the ground or be ready to get shot while running.

Yeah, this sounds like complete nonsense.

How did Scott shoot the officer with the tazer, if the officer in his own incident report said that he shot Scott with the tazer? The wire, from that article that is mentioned, is no doubt one of the prongs that didn't hit Scott. (With the other being confirmed as hitting him, by the police and city officials.) Which was still attached to the tazer, that was still in possession by Slager, before he dropped it himself.