• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Man shot reaching for license.

#181
skychief said:
I strongly disagree. Anytime an officer-involved shooting occurs, the incident is closely scrutinized for compliance with deadly-force protocols.

By watching the dash-cam video, a 3rd-grader could tell this was a bad shooting.

The cop would have been charged with assault regardless of whether or not the victim survived the shooting.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but most "thorough investigations" are performed by people who are pro-police and work with the police. Unless the evidence is overwhelming, the police are excused. Even at trial, they always get sympathetic juries.
 
#183
Dr. Cheese said:
I'm sorry, but most "thorough investigations" are performed by people who are pro-police and work with the police. Unless the evidence is overwhelming, the police are excused. Even at trial, they always get sympathetic juries.
Click to expand...

Yes. And in this particular case, the dash-cam evidence is overwhelming.

Theres not a juror on the planet that would construe it as a "good" shooting.(gawd, i would hope so, anyway)

The 1 thing that DID get the cop criminally charged was the dash-cam video. Without it, I agree it would likely have been a "he said - she said" thing and the cop would have been granted some wiggle room on his report.

Fortunately its only a matter of time before all officers will be wearing body-cams to document any confrontations/arrests with civilians. There is much evidence that indicates a cops behavior is directly affected by being equipped with the devices. Total number of arrests go down, and the number of complaints and grievances by the folks arrested goes down also.

edit: And when the day comes where all officers are equipped with the body-cams, if some officer wants to disable his body-cam during an arrest so he can mete out a little 'street justice', he is immediately suspect of withholding evidence and just the act of turning off the body-cam would be a criminal act.
 
Last edited:
#185
Downunderwonder said:
To make that argument you would have to prove malice. The skin colour difference doesn't go to any such proof. You'd need some actual evidence the cop had it in for the victim.
Click to expand...

The authorities in South Carolina charged him with attempted murder, we will see what happens. I did not say the actual charge stemmed from race, but from shooting after the victim surrendered.
 
Last edited:
#186
ShoeManiac said:
Yes, he did. And he scared this poor excuse for a police officer.

But seriously, as law enforcement professionals, isn't it the DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY of the officers in these cases to be able to recognize a weapon? Because this guy got shot going for his wallet. And in New York there was the very famous case of Amadou Diallo who was killed in similar circumstances at the hands of the NYPD. He was producing his wallet for officers when 6 police fired on him and killed him with 41 gunshots.

The stakes here are life and death. That shouldn't be understated. But those stakes are the same for both police AND the citizens that may have a police weapon drawn on them. It certainly seems that the officers involved in these deadly force incidents need to be thoroughly investigated
Click to expand...
For sure. That cop shouldn't have had a gun. In the US I think that means you can't be a cop. It used to be that NZ cops had to qualify on weapons to have them available, not qualifying meant make do with baton. That may have changed now to compulsory pass to enter the police force.

I used to fence olympic foil. Very het up "life and death reactions" required. I think if the tips were taken off and made sharp my form would disintegrate. So I can understand when cops pass training to a high level, yet sometimes end up shooting when they shouldn't.
 
#188
Downunderwonder said:
The sceptic in me says they did that so he can beat the charge and walk. Somehow I don't think they found his journal where he wrote about going to work and shooting the first jumpy black guy he comes across.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, he is not being charged with a hate crime. Attempted murder stems from shooting at a man who has surrendered by putting up his hands.
 
#190
Downunderwonder said:
The sceptic in me says they did that so he can beat the charge and walk. Somehow I don't think they found his journal where he wrote about going to work and shooting the first jumpy black guy he comes across.
Click to expand...

wouldnt doubt it AT ALL! they would have a slam dunk with reckless endangerment, aggravated assualt, assault with a deadly weapon, brandishing, etc etc.... Attempted murder however may be harder to convict and guarantees a walk.
 
#191
Dr. Cheese said:
As I said earlier, he is not being charged with a hate crime. Attempted murder stems from shooting at a man who has surrendered by putting up his hands.
Click to expand...
Could that have been the intention of charging him with attempted murder?
I also think the most important thing it to make sure this guy is never in a position where he can legally carry a weapon and endanger the lives of people when it is not necessary.
 
#192
slobake said:
Could that have been the intention of charging him with attempted murder?
I also think the most important thing it to make sure this guy is never in a position where he can legally carry a weapon and endanger the lives of people when it is not necessary.
Click to expand...

When would it be necessary for him to carry a gun and endanger lives again? You have me a little confused.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back