Protect and Serve . . . yeah right !
- Thread starter Sliver
- Start date
Of course not, as they would just have accepted the cops version of events without any other external information, like eyewitnesses etc
Hence why dropping that taser/stun gun next to the body in an obvious attempt to incriminate the suspect only compounds the cops situation
But thinking about it, the murder charge is probably more a political thing anyway due to the media attention on these types of incidents now, as even with the video evidence, previously it would still have tried to be brushed under the carpet.
Last edited:
It doesn't matter, the guy was running away, guns are carried for self defense, you don't need to defend yourself when someone is running away from you.
Just because someone is running away doesn't mean they won't stop, turn around and attack you. Maybe if the chap hadn't attacked the cop in the first place he'd still be alive today. Anyhow, I can see you're getting emotional now, all I'm saying is that you don't know what you had till it's gone, if you keep on attacking the police and don't allow them to defend themselves then the police will just not bother putting themselves in harms way.
Did the man stop turn and charge at the Police man? No he didn't.
Had he done so he would have been shot in the front, not the back.
You're talking in what if's, the truth of the matter is, an unarmed man was shot in the back whilst fleeing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
I'm sorry but you are talking nonsense, just stop.
That's not how it works, the man would have to turn around and run back at least 15-20 yards at the officer with his imaginary close quarters weapon before the officer would have the right to defend him self. You cannot shoot someone running away, who doesn't even offer or suggest he's going to turn around especially considering the cop is armed with a gun with plenty of distance between the two men. Not to mention the officer seemed pretty aware exactly where the stun gun was and then planted it on the victim.
What you are saying is complete nonsense, the discussion isn't about not letting the police defend themselves, especially given this murder isn't one even related to defence given the circumstances. The discussion is about police using extreme, unnecessary and illegal force on a defenceless man running in the opposite direction who was not even 1% a threat to the officer at the time of the shooting. In the broader discussion it is still not about not allowing police to defend themselves, it's yet again a discussion about police using extreme and unnecessary force on unarmed black men, where they keep on dying.
It is pretty much as clear cut as you can get but you still get people like you trying to muddy the waters, why, I can only guess.
Last edited:
All I'm saying is that it's all very well micro-analysing everything with the benefit of a video replay, but none of us have had to patrol the mean streets of Charleston's ghettos. What gets me is in both this incident and the one in Ferguson the police officer was on his own, perhaps this makes him more vulnerable to attack, maybe if he'd had some support the suspect wouldn't have bothered going for his weapon.
The media really need to stop this witchhunt of police officers, weren't two policemen gunned down in cold blood in NY in some sort of retribution for the Ferguson incident? I fear more of the same if this level of vindictiveness continues.
Heh, especially after that other black guy got shot at at the petrol pumps when he was actually obeying the officers commands, it seems comply, flee....don't matter y'all, we're gonna shoot ya anyway!
But there's only a 'witchhunt' because they actually are using excessive force against certain demographics of their society...
"It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you"
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
What video did you just watch? the dude ran 25 yards in the opposite direction ffs with his back turned to the officer and was still going before he was shot 8 times. Its not micro analysing, its plain as day. This is nothing like the Ferguson one, its all on tape.
Is it a witch hunt when it keeps happening over and over again. Is it a witch hunt when a officer shoots a fleeing man 8 times in the back who is a tleast 25 yards away from him still running?
Now tell me if this had not been recorded, what would have happened, well it would probably end up like the countless others that get brushed over every week. No one would be none the wiser that the officer planted the weapon on the dead man and would go down as another "self defence" lawful killing. How you are defending and apologising for this is beyond me....
@scorza ... it may have been possible the white cop said something to the black guy along the lines or he was going to kill him and that's what made the black guy try running .. because of previous situtations in America?
Also the cop could have called for backup or picked up his tazer or got his gun out and pointed it at the victim incase he felt he was going to turn around and run at him? To shoot him 5 times out of 8 then handcuff him after and plant the tazer next to him... you can't defend that.
running away deserves death? derp
Yes, why not. Judge Dread Style Justice is need more than ever for some sections of the community.
Heh, especially after that other black guy got shot at at the petrol pumps when he was actually obeying the officers commands, it seems comply, flee....don't matter y'all, we're gonna shoot ya anyway!
Yep!
I have a feeling there is going to be the mother of all enquiries and then a sustained focus on American law enforcement in the coming months. All of the previous shootings are bound to be reevaluated in light of this one case, if not by official means then by the public.
It's too coincidental to write it off as an isolated event, and that policeman looked like he knew what he was doing after he shot at the back of an unarmed man running away. Too calm, too collected. Like he done that, or had seen that done before.
I reckon there's a view of "we can get away with it" that pervades law enforcers in the US, and he probably would have done too if it wasn't for that pesky smartphone video.
People don't question authority enough, to quote the Simpsons...
Lisa: "But if you're the police, who will police the police?"
Homer: "I dunno, coastguard?"
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
If only we had Dread justice for folk who struggle to arrange coherent sentences together.
If that's not a ban worthy post, I don't know what is.
Last edited: