To see a black life snuffed out by a fellow cop is especially painful to police officers who spend much of their careers trying to protect black lives. One New York City officer wrote me to say, “This cop also just shot all of law enforcement in the back.” At home and in roll calls around the nation, cops watched the video of Scott’s killing and cringed not only at his death, but also at the officer’s betrayal of the police uniform and everything it stands for....
१२ एप्रिल, २०१५
"Think Walter Scott’s death is 'another Ferguson'? Cops don't."
Writes Peter Moskos, who is a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and was a Baltimore police officer.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६२ टिप्पण्या:
Heck, I would expect anger and outrage from other Police if the victim had worn white skin.
This officer drew and fired at a fleeing suspect who is (A) not a danger to the officer, (B) not showing that he is like a danger to members of the public, and (C) can likely be tracked to his home address.
Talk about unprofessionalism!
No, it's another Madison.
It might be a sign of progress that it's been a while since I've heard anybody claim that Jewish physicians are injecting black babies with the AIDS virus.
You know you now have a tag for fergu?
"You know you now have a tag for fergu?"
I will never get used to the way Blogger stopped doing autocomplete in the tags. Thanks for pointing that one out.
Principles do not matter...
#AllLivesArePolitical
But if you check Sundance's post under Lucianne, you find that someone has freeze-framed the video, and the freezed shots clearly show the taser wires attached to the cop.
If you taser a cop, you should not be too surprized if he fires his gun at you.
In fact, according to what Sundance and this other person have put together, there is a lot more to this story than what has been ballyhooed by the MSM, and it looks like there is more to come.
Of course, it is too late, since the narrative has been set.
@Hagar
Do you have a link?
Of course it's not Ferguson. Mike Brown was a violent thug whose death was justified.
I found the link that Hagar mentioned. Not sure it's as clear as the author thinks it is. And I still don't think that you get to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back, regardless of circumstances.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/12/game-changer-or-paradigm-shift-walter-scott-shooting-enhanced-video-shows-officer-slager-with-taser-darts/
AA can be the law expert on this, but with just common sense, if an officer is stung and dazed from a suspect tasering him, I think it entirely reasonable that he uses his gun.
The sequence of events here also makes me think there was more to this Walther Scott than a fear of been called for non-payment of alimony. His actions were not reasonable.
And in a previous post Sundance said that there was in fact no outstanding warrant for his arrest.
Peter Moskos, a professor of criminal justice, should know better and keep his trap shut until all we've seen all the evidence.
My guess is he's just another libtard using black bodies as a prop to promote himself.
Douche.
It just means that some people shouldn't be cops.
But everybody knew that from their own experience.
The sequence of events here also makes me think there was more to this Walther Scott than a fear of been called for non-payment of alimony. His actions were not reasonable.
I believe there's no reason (or very little reason) to start shooting a man in the back.
But yeah, Hagar. His actions don't make sense. He didn't only run once- he ran after the officer apparently caught up with him once.
I've been surprised to hear so many pundits say the cop shouldn't have chased him at all when he ran. They wouldn't have said the same thing if the guy running had gone into someone's house and taken a hostage. Then they'd be outraged the cop just let him get away.
Anyway people. Don't run away from cops. No matter what color you are.
Also - don't shoot at cops - not even with their own tasers!
If only Mr. Scott had a gun to protect himself.
Also, regarding the Eric Garner case, just about everybody, including Prof. Moskos in this article, refer to the "chokehold" and at least imply it being the cause of death, though the coroner's report says it wasn't a "chokehold," and regardless of what it is called, it wasn't the cause of death.
The "narrative" stays, regardless of the factual information provided too little, too late.
Does anyone know if warrants (or the notice cope receive) show the reason a person is wanted? Can they tell the difference between a dead beat dad and a serial rapist?
Its true, everyone in my office cringed upon watching the video.
But its hard to believe. I realize some people think this confirms a narrative. Its like getting footage of Bigfoot. See, we told you! Would be the cry.
But in this case, it just makes me cringe. You can shoot a fleeing felon, but only for a few reasons. Are they running towards a weapon? Do you suspect they're going to be hurting others because they were just on a killing spree? Etc.
In this case though, it makes no sense.
My bias is to take the word of the cop over that of the criminal. It's a bias, and sometimes it leads to a wrong conclusion. That said, I wouldn't want to live in a society where the criminals are viewed as more credible and trustworthy than the cops........This cop is in the wrong and deserves criminal prosecution. I would hope that people's sense of decency don't allow him to be prosecuted for all past police misconduct. I don't think this is first degree murder.
Some are calling the shooting racist, without the slightest evidence of a racial motivation.
What (if indeed anything) Scott was wanted for is irrelevant.
What matters is that he took off running, fought with the cop when the cop caught up with him, and managed to get the cop's taser and tasered the cop, before he took off running again.
And Mr. Scott was definitely wanted on at least half a dozen felony charges by then.
The Sundance video dissection and compilation is useful and illuminating. It adds continuity and context to a complicated human interaction that otherwise could be easily missed.
If I were to prejudge this, however, that evidence is mitigating, but under present law I don't think it is entirely exculpatory for Slager.
BTW, what is with this sudden clamor from the left that "deadbeat dads" should not be jailed?
I though the standard position was that they not only should be jailed, but get 50 lashes and be set in stocks for 5 consecutive Sundays on the courthouse green?
@ Fritz -
Yes, almost always, when an officer is notified that someone has a warrant, the officer will also be told what the warrant is for, in a general sense, but something like -in this case -" writ of attachment, nonpayment of child support", possibly "contempt of court, no bond", something like that. Typically, warrants will specify common crimes like robbery, burglary, murder, etc.
As for whether an officer can shoot a fleeing felon, each state has a slightly different legal standard and some departments may choose to add rules which are more restrictive, but as a general rule, an officer may use force up to deadly force to complete an arrest only a) to overcome the same level of violent resistance from a suspect, in effect, self defense or b) to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon whose escape would represent a threat to others. So, for instance, an armed suspect running toward a school, or maybe a serial rapist whose escape would obviously be a theat to women at a later time. I'm not sure either would apply in this case, although I'm guessing the officer's attorney will suggest "b", alleging that anyone who would attack an armed and trained officer would also be a threat to any unarmed and untrainined civilian he might later encounter. Something like that. That the civilian was running away would seem to negate any claim of self defense by the officer, but maybe he's going to claim the deadly force was required to effect the arrest. I don't think that will fly.
If the Cop had been tasered that would explain -but not justify the shooting. It'd probably mean no murder charge, probably just manslaughter.
I feel I'm being manipulated every time I see this story. You have hundreds of thousands of Cops arresting Millions every year in the USA. There are unlawful shooting by the Police every year, and every year hundreds of police are killed or injured by crooks.
So why now? Why are we are talking about this one instance now? Why is the NYT pushing all these Cop shootings?
If Sir Walter tasseled the cop, as is beginning to seem likely, based on Diwataman claims, then I'd say Slager was justified in shooting him dead.
@Char Char, I respectfully disagree. We do not pay cops to shoot unarmed people in the back. In rare circumstances it may be necessary (as eric points out upthread, the shooting may be justified if the person is running towards a weapon or represents a serious threat to the community). That gun the officer carries is not for personal retaliation.
Bullshit. They were lining up to defend that asshole until the citizen videotape was leaked to the New York times.
"YOU DO NOT SHOOT AN INNOCENT MAN IN THE BACK EIGHT TIMES IN COLD BLOOD LIKE THIS," said Sean Hannity at "Fair and Balanced" Fox News. Vox loves it!
Again, why not? It seems like the perfect excuse. "Shot while resisting arrest" is a great way to clear the streets. Enough times and the little darlings might stop fleeing. Enough times and they might, conceivably, quit with the crimes. He has a Mercedes and doesn't pay child support? If that isn't a capital crime why not? He tased the cop and then fled? You're right, he should have been captured; then his thumbs tied behind him and shot in the back of the head. Anybody who would attack a police officer is a mad dog to be put down at the first opportunity.
Innocent of what?
You are getting bamboozled by the impact of that selected sequence first published of the video - not showing the hand-to-hand fight and the tasering, or Officer Slager's reaction to the voltage, and the taser wires not visible on the TV screen resolution.
Don't tase me, bro.
I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out the "hero" Santana actually erased some of the video that didn't support the #BlackLivesMatter Narrative. I'm beginning to think Officer Slager was the true hero, and completely justified in killing that deadbeat dirtbag dad Walter Scott.
Huh.
The link provided by Hagar provides lots of details.
Definitely better than the usual comments.
Which means I might be wrong.
If the deceased did offer violence to the officer, and if the sequence wasn't as simple as "suspect leaves traffic-stop at dead run, and is then shot in the back by the officer", then there may be something to be said in the officer's defense.
With that in mind...
I think I need to remind myself. The skin color of the officer, and the skin color of the deceased, are much less important than the behaviors that each exhibited during those few moments.
Hagar said...
But if you check Sundance's post under Lucianne, you find that someone has freeze-framed the video, and the freezed shots clearly show the taser wires attached to the cop.
This post?
http://www.lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=826582
No video or link to a video.
...In fact, according to what Sundance and this other person have put together, there is a lot more to this story than what has been ballyhooed by the MSM, and it looks like there is more to come.
I'll betcha a dollar that Scott was driving a stolen car. If so, nearly everyone else is better off that he's dead.
The good cops have to stop putting up with the bad (or in this case, evil) cops. Shooting him was bad. Plant evidence to hide the crime was evil. What is scary is what we're learning about bad cops because of video - and it's obvious this small minority of bad cops has been allowed to operate for years because of the silence of bad cops. It's time for the to change.
Everybody that has been asked about that car has had a different story about it. Something else that is puzzling and needs to be cleared up. Buying a used car from a friend should not be that complicated and mysterious.
That also goes for the other allegations about "planted evidence" and reports of who said what to whom.
A lot of such things have been caused by jumping to conclusions and officials and reporters speaking without knowing what they were talking about in several recent cases, and it sure sounds like it here too.
I find it a bit sickening how many commenters are attempting to justify this absolutely horrific act of "law enforcement."
You are no better than the liberal retards who blame police under all circumstances.
A hearty "go fuck yourself" to every single one of you trying to justify this.
Pres., Santana's own vid proves he was lying about there being no fight. In fact, he was running to record the "no-fight", which is why he turned on his camera in the first place. Scott fought with Slager, resisting lawful arrest, and the video even shows Scott ON TOP during the fight that Santana said never happened. Fighting with a cop, and shooting him with his own taser, is a violent felony, or maybe two felonies, and Slager had the right, even duty, to shoot a fleeing felon. I love it when bad things happen to bad people.
Well, no. He had the right to shoot at a fleeing felon if a reasonable man in his place considered him to be a danger to the police officer or anyone else around him.
If the link is correct and they had been fighting for two minutes prior to the shooting, and the cop had been shot with his own taser, there's nothing "cold-blooded" about the shooting at all.
If you think there is, you're an idiot who's never been in an all-out street fight lasting two minutes. Or even one full minute. Go outside and shadow box at full 100 percent intensity, all out, for 1 minute. Or sprint for a full minute. All out sprint. See how cold-blooded you are, then!
What's interesting is why during this fight the cop wasn't able to pull back and draw a weapon and get a decisive edge before that.
If there was a long fight, the only thing I can think of was that Scott was tenacious and determined in his attack. I cannot imagine pressing such an attack to that extent if he wasn't desperately trying to grab the cops' gun.
If one side has a gun, any grappling is deadly. Period. The person with the gun MUST assume that if he loses, the other will disarm him and kill him.
This is going to be a tough case - and if the DA overcharges, I can easily see an acquittal.
A damned good reason for SC officials to keep Sharpton the hell out of town.
Gadfly: you don't shoot an innocent man in the back.
"HIS BACK WAS TO ME!!!"
To put things in perspective, here's a video of a recent incident in Boston where a suspect was lawfully shot in the back as he was fleeing.
Of course, in the video you first see him shoot a cop in the face (as he opens the driver's door and the assailant emerges).
With all the different stories about that car and Scott's panicky behavior when pulled over, I hope the police have the car and is giving a thorough check over.
Wait. For. All. The. Evidence.
Sheesh.
Well, well, pig fuckers killing citizens for fun. It must be great to be a cop and have that job benefit.
And pig suckers here to defend them. Does it taste good, guys?
Cops can lawfully shoot fleeing felons, and that usually means in the back. Perps seldom flee by running backwards.
This is not another Ferguson because Ferguson is not a Ferguson, except in name only.
This should be the case by which other cops wrongfully shooting blacks should be judged.
And in this case he's facing murder charges. So the system is working.
jason wrote:f the link is correct and they had been fighting for two minutes prior to the shooting, and the cop had been shot with his own taser, there's nothing "cold-blooded" about the shooting at all.
and this wasnt part of the video we saw. I just heard that he got out of the car and ran and the cop shot him. Why can't we get to full story before the story is Put on the news?
"Why can't we get to full story before the story is Put on the news?"
Why can't we realize that the story on the news is hardly ever the full story?
I have not seen the video, but I am concerned that our society now has such high regard for video as the way to understand the actual facts.
Video only shows what is in front of the camera. In fact, we go to movies to see that very effect--do we want to see the director, the camera operator, and whatever is sitting around on the other side of the room where a movie scene is filmed? No, but they are all there.
Video shows partial truth. That is why we love it so much. Let's not start using partial truth as the basis of criminal trials.
Why is the NYT pushing all these Cop shootings?
Why is Mark Steyn pushing all these cop shootings?
Wait -- the officer had been tased? The shooting might still not have been justified, but it certainly changes it from how it was originally portrayed.
It definitely needs to go through the legal process to get sorted out at this point though -- we don't really know what happened, and we need to figure that out.
It always, and only, needed to go through the legal process.
Don't they understand that the mob can turn on them? That there may be more than one mob?
Matthew, and Big Mike the officer was tased a split second before he fired. The taser wires can be seen hanging from his body, and later video shows blood on Slager's calf. He couldn't pursue Scott on foot BECAUSE HE HAD JUST BEEN TASED. He lawfully shot a dangerous, fleeing felon.
Judging by the video, I'd have shot him too. Maybe not 8 times (though sometimes it's hard to really count your own shots, and maybe the Taser was causing the officer's shooting hand to convulse - nobody has considered that yet), and maybe I would have aimed lower, but in pistol training one is always drilled to shoot for 'center mass' and we can't fault a man for shooting the way he was trained too. The issue - the real issue - here is whether he should have shot at all. Fleeing is not a felony. Fighting/assaulting a cop is, however, as is shooting the cop with his own Taser. At that point, the officer has direct evidence that the man in front of him is willing to commit at least 2 VIOLENT FELONIES of the worst sort, as well as whatever he was originally stopped for and a selection of other crimes (fleeing the police, possibly more).
The officer could argue that he was convinced the suspect would continue to resist arrest with force. If this had happened - well, let's say instead of shooting, the officer tried to run the man down again. The suspect already won control of the Taser, so the officer is both down a non-lethal compliance option and worried that the suspect might also win control of the gun during the next scuffle. The next best option is his club, but again, the suspect might win control of that. Frankly, another foot-chase-leading-to-ground-scuffle could have been the end of the officer's life. And when that potential variable enters the equation, the math works out only one logical way - escalation of force via a ranged weapon to prevent the suspect from disarming the cop further. The only other thing the cop could have done was just let him run away, and who knows what this desperate, violent felon might do if allowed to just scamper off?
Actually, after writing all that down, I find myself in full agreement with what happened. This officer had no good option, and unless we learn that backup had been called and was already converging on the scene, I'd say this officer did what I would have done.
Kyzer, I have to agree with you wholeheartedly. I also have to correct myself: The "blood" on Slager calf may actually have been a shirt stay. But he apparently was tased, and he definitely had just been in a violent "tussle" (which seems to be the preferred euphemism for "black man beating down a cop", in the parlance of our times), with Scott on top.
I'm glad to hear that, Char Char. Does anyone else have a different take on the scenario I spelled out above? Am I missing anything about this? Do we know what sort of backup was dispatched, and what their ETA on the scene was projected to be? Did the officer involved know about backup at the time of the shooting (assuming backup was at least alerted, if not actively converging on the scene)? Do we know - REALLY know - why the traffic stop happened in the first place? That's also crucially important. A stop for a busted taillight (which would be nothing more than a minor ticket at worst) provides a far different context to the entire encounter than a stop for a stolen car or reckless driving or something like that.
I mean, if you pull a guy over for a busted taillight and he bolts, you're gonna be thinking something like "what the heck is this guy running for?"
A stop for a stolen car, and you'd be thinking more along the lines of "so this guy stole a car, and is now running - what other crimes might he have committed/be about to commit?"
My standard is this - if everything being said by the "hands up don't shoot,Trayvon Martin crowd" is true then the cop is a murderer. But is it true.
Here I was, again, all set to say this cop was a cold blooded killer, but that's because I never saw video of him being tased by his own taser. should the cop have still shot him in the back? Maybe not, but its nowhere near the White cops shot fleeing black for no reason after simple traffic stop meme.
Word to all of that. I actually posted to FB that the cop should be hanged (when the story first broke), because that grainy video made it really seem like he just lost his temper and started pumping rounds out of frustration.
Given the context of the chase, the multiple scuffles, the perp wresting control of the Tazer, the ambiguity surrounding the circumstances of the original stop, the lack of knowledge about this perp's mental state (intoxicated? worried about warrants for child support? worse?), and the fact that there were at least 2 violent felonies committed by this perp with a cop as a witness (actually, the cop was the TARGET of that aforementioned violence), I see this case heading another direction - and gaining speed as more facts come out.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा