South Carolina officer charged with murder after shooting man in the back

[Tenacity]

Tenacity:

I would never get up on any public forum and say that the Justice System isn't flawed, it's totally flawed, and one can make a serious case that minorities aren't treated as fairly in GENERAL by the Justice System.

But those minorities that are being mistreated the most are those that are repeat offenders, I know this from the research I've done on this issue. Even in my personal life, I have been stopped by the police numerous of times and never have I gotten beat down or shot. Hell, I even got a DUI when I was 22.

I think that if we are really going to work towards fixing the flawed Justice System, we have to also address the flawed actions of people that are repeatedly in FRONT of this flawed Justice System.

I really truly do not see how you are going to address a flawed system, by using Troy Davis as an example of how flawed it is, when Troy Davis has a history of criminal shyt. I don't know how you are going to use Eric Garner, when he has a history of criminal shyt. I don't know how you are going to use ANY black man as the face of the flawed Justice System, if those black men at the time of their encounter with the cops were doing INSANE shyt like fighting the cop or resisting arrest. I just don't get how you create Change by using Perpetrators as your Poster Boy.

This stuff is so insane that it's almost like you could have a Black Guy that just raped 50 women, and he's pulled over by the cops and they discover who he is...and the guy ends up resisting arrest leading to a cop shooting him. The Pro Black Liberals will say, "Why didn't they just tase him?" Then they will begin their usual marching, social media bytching and protesting. All of this...to get "justice"...for a guy that raped 50 women.

 

[Jaylan]

You make a lot of assumptions and state them as facts. Maybe Slager did see the guy recording. Slager appeared to look towards the camera. If I was going to make an assumption, Slager probably believed he was justified in shooting Scott. Why don't we just make assumptions like Scott was so desperate to get away he was trying to get the taser and was going for the officer's gun next.

There is no present evidence that backs this up. And heck, you even have officers all over the internet and tv saying Slager was in the wrong. Our own member whos a cop says the same. Keep defending the murderer if you want though.

Also, if in fact Slager knew the camera was rolling during the shooting and during his tampering of evidence, he's a fvking idiot to continue such actions on film.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The only other possible way this could be a justified shoot exactly as it happened is if the guy was a known escaped convict who would present a danger to society if he got away. THEN the officer would have been justified in shooting him exactly like he did.

Man, that's a lot of judgment to make in such a brief moment. I don't want to be in that position. I know the allowable circumstances for shooting anyone in the back justifiably are extremely limited. And remember there are two legal standards: civil as well as criminal.

As a citizen and not a police officer, I think I would have to witness someone shoot a cop in front of me before I would shoot them in the back as they ran away. I'd still probably get sued.

 

[logicallefty]

Man, that's a lot of judgment to make in such a brief moment. I don't want to be in that position. I know the allowable circumstances for shooting anyone in the back justifiably are extremely limited. And remember there are two legal standards: civil as well as criminal.

As a citizen and not a police officer, I think I would have to witness someone shoot a cop in front of me before I would shoot them in the back as they ran away. I'd still probably get sued.

Yes it a lot of Judgement. And that is exactly why being a cop isn't for everyone. You have to be able to make these kinds of judgement calls. And you are right, you'd probably be sued. As would I. Especially in our State.

 

[Tenacity]

Your point makes sense of course from a marketing or sales standpoint...these are not good poster children for riling up white conservatives to want to change things.

However, the principle doesn't change. Justice is blind, and that includes repeat offenders.

I agree, Justice should be blind because Justice should be based solely on the actual Law. But, Justice isn't blind, not directly or indirectly.

It's not blind directly because repeated offenders of something are given lawful longer sentences and higher sanctions than first time offenders.

It's not blind indirectly because when Cops are familiar with who a person is (because they had to arrest them so many times or because the guy's record is so long) then the Cop is NOT going to go as soft in policing that individual compared to how they would for an individual that doesn't have such a long rap sheet. The Judge will do the same, when that person comes back into the Court as a repeated offender, the Judge is going to be harder on him both directly and indirectly.

My overall point has always been the following:

- The Justice System is flawed

- Cops at times will over-police people who reside in ghetto, ratchet or lower class areas (black or white). To top this off, they usually hate the people they are policing.

- The people who reside in ghetto, ratchet or lower class areas (black or white) are too frequently out of control, animalistic, and involved in continual criminal lifestyles. To top this off, they hate the Cops.

When you mix all three of these things together, you are only going to get continued situations of these types of people being over-charged, over-policed and over-sentenced.

The solution is to FIRSTLY, get the people in lower class areas to eliminate their ghetto and ratchet ways. Listen, you can be lower class and working class, without being ghetto and ratchet. The decision to not be ghetto and ratchet comes from having a particular set of morals and ethical values. Doing this is going to significantly change the situations over there, not over night, but over time, as the 911 calls go down, the crime goes down and the community displays more of a "together-ness" type of attitude rather than a "destruction" type.

The solution NEXT, is to make sure that the police are not over-policing and over-charging, but instead providing a fair and balanced policing. I believe a lot of the cops are afraid of the people in these areas when they are acting ratchet, having NON-RATCHET PEOPLE will allow most of these Cops to relax more.

The final solution, which will be the hardest, is to change some of the Justice System's laws in terms of charging and sanctions.

But it all starts with the Community. I live in Clinton Township, MI which is a Suburb area. I rarely see a Police Officer over here. Our USPS Post Office Lobbies are open 24 hours a day that allow P.O. Box owners to come in and check their box at anytime of the day or night. You rarely hear of crime and the crime rates are extremely low here, so low they don't register.

When I was growing up in Flint, MI, there was a Cop on ever FVCKIN corner but the crime rate was through the ROOF.

If you change the Community, you will stop all of these problems. There's nobody getting over-policed or shot down by Cops in Clinton Township, because our Community isn't full of ghetto, ratchet savages.

 

[Stagger Lee]

The claim that the justice system treats blacks and "people of color" worse than it does whites is a false narrative to get blacks and "people of color" further preferred treatment and to take further control over the criminal justice system.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewsubcategory.asp?id=1627

The reality is much the same vis à vis the issue of police brutality, which the vast majority of blacks in the U.S. consider more likely to be directed at them than at whites. There is a considerable body of empirical evidence suggesting that black suspects are treated no worse than white suspects—when their demeanors toward the police are similar and their crimes are equivalent.[4] Research further shows that both white and black police officers are more likely to use excessive force against antagonists of their own race than against those of another race.[5] Black officers as a group, for instance, are more likely than their white colleagues to shoot black suspects. While this may be partly because black officers more frequently patrol black neighborhoods, black and white officers who work only in black neighborhoods are equally likely to shoot black civilians.[6]

The most exhaustive, best-designed study of sentencing patterns ever conducted—a 1990 analysis of more than 11,000 recently convicted criminals in California—found that the severity of sentences depended heavily on such factors as prior criminal records, the seriousness of the crimes, and whether guns were used in the commission of those crimes; race was found to have no effect whatsoever.[12] Likewise, a 1991 RAND Corporation study found that a defendant's racial or ethnic background bore little or no relationship to conviction rates; far more important than race were such factors as the amount of evidence presented, and whether or not a credible eyewitness testified.[13]

In 1993 a Justice Department study tracked the experience of more than 10,000 accused felons in America's 75 largest cities found that black defendants fared better than their white counterparts—66% of black defendants were actually prosecuted, versus 69% of white defendants. Among those prosecuted, 75% of blacks were convicted, as compared to 78% of whites.[14] Also in 1993, criminologist Alfred Blumstein found that when comparing black arrests for homicide and the presence of blacks in prison for that crime, African Americans were significantly underrepresented among incarcerated inmates. Liberal criminologist Michael Tonry wrote in 1995: “Racial differences in patterns of offending, not racial bias by police and other officials, are the principal reason that such greater proportions of blacks than whites are arrested, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned.”

A 1996 analysis of 55,000 big-city felony cases found that black defendants were convicted at a lower rate than whites in 12 of the 14 federally designated felony categories.[15] This finding was consistent with the overwhelming consensus of other, previous, well-designed studies, most of which indicated that black defendants were slightly less likely to be convicted of criminal charges against them than white defendants.[

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

And Santana wasnt very far away...but Slager just casually went and did everything he did as if he was in a darkened alley. Its broad daylight in the middle of a park and he nonchalantly planted evidence. I just dont get how people get caught up in bad situations in this information technology age of ours.

But why did he run in the first place? His buddy didn't.

 

[speed dawg]

But why did he run in the first place? His buddy didn't.

You'll never get a liberal opportunist to approach this side of the argument. If you do, they'll say that he never should have been pulled over because his tail light is out. They will never condone taking responsibility for your own actions, unless you're the cop.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

You'll never get a liberal opportunist to approach this side of the argument.

Yeah, but I'd like to be surprised by someone like this actually acknowledging that they are the masters of the choices that they make and the subsequent gains or consequences they bear.

 

[Tenacity]

But why did he run in the first place? His buddy didn't.

What speed dawg just said, you see if we were to discuss THIS side of the situation it would shatter the Pro Black/Liberal narrative. The entire point of the Pro Black/Liberal narrative is that you aren't responsible for your own actions, and that if you are black and acting a damn fool...you are only doing it because your ancestors were in slavery, or because your grandma went through Jim Crow, or because you are held back today by some white guy "over there" who controls your actions way "over here".

So we can't start discussing personal responsibility, oh no, that's not the narrative

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

So are we to assume that there hasn't been a site on the web that tells why the guy ran in the first place? Is that why no one is cutting and pasting the propaganda?

 

[Stagger Lee]

It's been reported that Scott ran because he was way delinquent on child support. Besides the running, I'm more concerned that he was fighting the officer and on the ground and grabbing at the taser that in photos appear to have leads attached to the officer. That's what made Scott a threat more than just the running.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

So where are all of his supporters to support his right to life, fight and flee from authorities and be delinquent on his familial obligations? Is it alright to omit everything that led to his death? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'd like to hear from his supporters.

I will still say that if he did not brandishing a weapon while he was fleeing, there would be no reason to use deadly force, especially if civilians weren't in immediate danger, there was no need to use deadly force. But again, his chances of still being alive if he had stayed in his car was higher than him attempting to escape.

Well; supporters?

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

You'll never get a liberal opportunist to approach this side of the argument. If you do, they'll say that he never should have been pulled over because his tail light is out. They will never condone taking responsibility for your own actions, unless you're the cop.

Since it's been so quite I guess "responsibility" is the silver bullet to keep these types of people at bay.

 

[backseatjuan]

the cop was charged with murder. So what is it you want here

Your verbal vomit aside, you have a good point. Your point states, if we extrapolate and connect the dots, that police occasionally shoot and kill people. Immediate question is that normal?

In United States you could be shot over a traffic stop simply by not placing your hands on the wheel or by reaching for your driver license. Is that normal?

You claim that Jaylan is slow and stupid, but how about you. What does the police have to think of you the citizen to just shoot you?

 

[Tictac]

In Russia, you can be murdered by Vlad Putin for no reason at all.

And that happens with some frequency. So is that normal?

Is it normal to be shot by a policeman in the U.S.? Not in the least. It is vanishingly rare.

So 'extrapolate' (with no data - heh) all you like.

 

[Pardner]

I bet stuff like this happened all the time and was just covered up before technology caught all the footage on video.

 

[FairShake]

Is it normal to be shot by a policeman in the U.S.? Not in the least. It is vanishingly rare.

It's not "vanishingly rare." In fact police shootings were the highest in two decades last year. This despite crime, arrests, and police interactions being down.

Certain law enforcement segments in the United States are out of control. Not all but way too many.

 

[( . )( . )]

Certain law enforcement segments in the United States are out of control. Not all but way too many.

And? An overzealous law enforcement is the natural progression of a big gov, low trust and atomized (dieverse) society. Getting all (pretend) pissy over it makes as much sense as moving to the Sahara and whining that it's hot.

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

 

[Stagger Lee]

It's not "vanishingly rare." In fact police shootings were the highest in two decades last year. This despite crime, arrests, and police interactions being down.

Certain law enforcement segments in the United States are out of control. Not all but way too many.

Just like your claim that police shootings are in a two decade high is meaningless or at best a half-truth, no way are you going to sell that certain groups haven't been carrying on their violent behavior more lately. They've been rioting and antagonizing the police encouraged by Obama and liberals.

are-deaths-police-shootings-highest-20-years?

"The number of killings of citizens by police is at a two-decade high."

Morial was quoting a USA Today analysis based on FBI statistics. In that sense, Morial seemed to have good sources. But digging deeper showed the information is hardly reliable.

Only a fraction of law enforcement agencies provide this data to the FBI, and the agencies reporting changes every year. These problems are not new and were in fact noted in the USA Today story he referenced.

Normally we would put more stock in FBI statistics. But in this case there are many known problems with the data. We rate the claim Half True