Officer charged with murder after shooting man in back

[skycop 0]

Quote

Given any level of objective reasoning from the most fundamental to the most complex and nuanced, it is rare, very, very rare to see an added layer of craven stink added to the putrified pile of bullshit of the above quote.

So in other words you don't have an answer.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

skycop

Quote

That makes me wonder whether the cop told the guy to turn and run.

Wow,
Any credibility, see ya...............

How do you know?

Where you there?

Is there video?

Maybe the cop pulled out his stick and raised it to hit the dead guy.
Maybe the cop raised his hand to punch the guy.
Maybe he said "If you run fast enough, I won't chase you."

Or maybe the guy just decided to take off running (most likely, I will admit).

But we don't know. And the only testimony so far comes from the cop that shot an unarmed, fleeing suspect in the back. And then dropped a Taser on him.

The credibility gap is with the cop, IMO.

And while I agree that the vast majority of the cops in this country are good, hardworking people who put their lives on the line every day, there are "Bad Apples" out there.

And more often than not, the good cops know who they are and what they do. And say nothing. Cops hate snitches as bad as the criminals do. Along with IAD, and Justice investigators.

Edit to add:

Almost forgot - The North Charleston Police Chief announced today that all cops on the force will wear body cameras. Heard it on All Things Considered on NPR.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Boomerdog 0]

Answer for what?

[mpohl 1]

I have to further analysis this.
But it is certainly a unique, very original contribution.

I just can't fathom yet what it means.

:)

Boomerdog

Given any level of objective reasoning from the most fundamental to the most complex and nuanced, it is rare, very, very rare to see an added layer of craven stink added to the putrified pile of bullshit of the above quote.

[billvon 3,087]

>So you think the meat packer and construction worker's risks are
>the same as the police, soldier, firefighter?

Yes, it's about the same. Construction workers see about 17.7 deaths out of 100,000 employees. Cops see about 19 deaths out of 100,000 employees.

Other occupations with greater risk of death than cops:

Loggers 91.3 deaths out of 100,000
Fishermen 75
Pilots 50.6
Roofers 38.7
Recycling workers 33.0
Mining equipment operators 26.9
Commercial drivers 22
Farmers 21.8
Linemen 21.5

[skycop 0]

Quote

Answer for what?

An actual answer to a factual statement.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[wmw999 2,558]

The victim has some culpability in much the same way that a jumper has some culpability in bouncing from a bad out-of-date reserve pack job. He could have not jumped; he could have checked his own gear more carefully. He could have repacked it in time. Any of those would have "prevented the problem."

But it doesn't particularly mitigate the awfulness of the officer's apparent behavior. I'm sure more will come out at trial, but I'm equally sure that it would not have mattered without outside video.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[skycop 0]

Quote

But it doesn't particularly mitigate the awfulness of the officer's apparent behavior. I'm sure more will come out at trial, but I'm equally sure that it would not have mattered without outside video.

I never said it mitigated ANYTHING, but the statement is very true. If one looks at trends in all the recent "incidents" there is one very large reoccurring theme.

ALL the recent situations absolutely would have different outcomes if there was compliance. In this case there is no mitigation of the situation, the officer was COMPLETELY wrong in his actions and will pay a heavy price.

To take your analogy a step further;

A pilot knowingly flies an airplane with a timed-out engine and it crashes, do think the FAA would cut him any slack from a causational standpoint? We both know the answer to that question.
I'm looking at this issue in the same unemotional way, hard facts and factors, period.

A pilot recently intentionally crashed an airplane (from all indications) and killed over 100 people, yet there is not a thread bashing pilots.

This is no different, this officer just made my job more difficult. I'm curious to see his service record, there are usually red flags from previous incidents. This guy could be a "bad apple" or he could have made an incredibly bad and potentially criminal decision.
The facts will come out, and I'll call a spade a spade if the need be. Either way this guy is done, and from all appearances should be.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[billvon 3,087]

"But the "victim" has some culpability in this as well, his actions precipitated the entire situation, many are ignoring that fact."


>I'm looking at this issue in the same unemotional way, hard facts and
>factors, period.

>A pilot recently intentionally crashed an airplane (from all indications) and
>killed over 100 people, yet there is not a thread bashing pilots.

Yes. Now imagine someone posted "the passengers bear some culpability for their deaths, since if they had not gotten on the airplane they would now not be dead." You could also claim that was an unemotional fact - but it would also be a very foolish thing to say.

[normiss 868]

So planting a weapon on a dead suspect you just murdered is cool with you. Check.

[skycop 0]

Quote

Now imagine someone posted "the passengers bear some culpability for their deaths, since if they had not gotten on the airplane they would now not be dead." You could also claim that was an unemotional fact - but it would also be a very foolish thing to say.

The passengers would have no idea of the maintenance history of the airplane.
Our "victim" had an outstanding warrant for his arrest and ran from the officer. Those are intentional acts that have consequences. We both agree the consequence was far out of line for the offense. But it does not negate the intentional act that started the chain of events.

Your analogies have been really lacking lately Bill..........

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[kallend 2,114]

billvon

>So you think the meat packer and construction worker's risks are
>the same as the police, soldier, firefighter?

Yes, it's about the same. Construction workers see about 17.7 deaths out of 100,000 employees. Cops see about 19 deaths out of 100,000 employees.

Other occupations with greater risk of death than cops:

Loggers 91.3 deaths out of 100,000
Fishermen 75
Pilots 50.6
Roofers 38.7
Recycling workers 33.0
Mining equipment operators 26.9
Commercial drivers 22
Farmers 21.8
Linemen 21.5

In 2010 (last year for which I could get detailed data) the risk of death from enemy action in the US military (all branches) was 27.1 per 100,000

And that was a year in which the US was engaged in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,087]

>The passengers would have no idea of the maintenance history of the airplane.

Agreed. However in this case, the plane's maintenance history didn't matter - and the statement is still very true. The passengers would have had very different outcomes if they had simply refused to get on the plane. This is just looking at the issue from the same unemotional way you looked at it. Hard facts, period.

[BartsDaddy 7]

skycop

Quote

But it doesn't particularly mitigate the awfulness of the officer's apparent behavior. I'm sure more will come out at trial, but I'm equally sure that it would not have mattered without outside video.

I never said it mitigated ANYTHING, but the statement is very true. If one looks at trends in all the recent "incidents" there is one very large reoccurring theme.

ALL the recent situations absolutely would have different outcomes if there was compliance. In this case there is no mitigation of the situation, the officer was COMPLETELY wrong in his actions and will pay a heavy price.

To take your analogy a step further;

A pilot knowingly flies an airplane with a timed-out engine and it crashes, do think the FAA would cut him any slack from a causational standpoint? We both know the answer to that question.
I'm looking at this issue in the same unemotional way, hard facts and factors, period.

A pilot recently intentionally crashed an airplane (from all indications) and killed over 100 people, yet there is not a thread bashing pilots.

This is no different, this officer just made my job more difficult. I'm curious to see his service record, there are usually red flags from previous incidents. This guy could be a "bad apple" or he could have made an incredibly bad and potentially criminal decision.
The facts will come out, and I'll call a spade a spade if the need be. Either way this guy is done, and from all appearances should be.

I am really sorry that this officer just made your job harder. Really I am. I am a lot more sorry for the individual that did not deserve to die. It happens to often lately for officer safety.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[Amazon 7]

BartsDaddy

***

Quote

But it doesn't particularly mitigate the awfulness of the officer's apparent behavior. I'm sure more will come out at trial, but I'm equally sure that it would not have mattered without outside video.

I never said it mitigated ANYTHING, but the statement is very true. If one looks at trends in all the recent "incidents" there is one very large reoccurring theme.

ALL the recent situations absolutely would have different outcomes if there was compliance. In this case there is no mitigation of the situation, the officer was COMPLETELY wrong in his actions and will pay a heavy price.

To take your analogy a step further;

A pilot knowingly flies an airplane with a timed-out engine and it crashes, do think the FAA would cut him any slack from a causational standpoint? We both know the answer to that question.
I'm looking at this issue in the same unemotional way, hard facts and factors, period.

A pilot recently intentionally crashed an airplane (from all indications) and killed over 100 people, yet there is not a thread bashing pilots.

This is no different, this officer just made my job more difficult. I'm curious to see his service record, there are usually red flags from previous incidents. This guy could be a "bad apple" or he could have made an incredibly bad and potentially criminal decision.
The facts will come out, and I'll call a spade a spade if the need be. Either way this guy is done, and from all appearances should be.

I am really sorry that this officer just made your job harder. Really I am. I am a lot more sorry for the individual that did not deserve to die. It happens to often lately for officer safety.


Perhaps there needs to be a test for Bullies when hiring those we expect to "protect and serve us" that seems to have morphed into Comply or Die

[jakee 1,568]

Quote

Let's play:
The "incident" involved a legal traffic stop, the person stopped then decided to run on foot. Once the officer yells stop, that by definition is verbal force, according to the use of force continuum. At this point this would be an "altercation" because of the use of force. This guy didn't want to be taken into legal custody, so who started the "altercation"?

In that version, the officer. That's what the words mean.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Kadde 0]

skycop

Quote

But it doesn't particularly mitigate the awfulness of the officer's apparent behavior. I'm sure more will come out at trial, but I'm equally sure that it would not have mattered without outside video.

I never said it mitigated ANYTHING, but the statement is very true. If one looks at trends in all the recent "incidents" there is one very large reoccurring theme.

ALL the recent situations absolutely would have different outcomes if there was compliance. In this case there is no mitigation of the situation, the officer was COMPLETELY wrong in his actions and will pay a heavy price.

To take your analogy a step further;

A pilot knowingly flies an airplane with a timed-out engine and it crashes, do think the FAA would cut him any slack from a causational standpoint? We both know the answer to that question.
I'm looking at this issue in the same unemotional way, hard facts and factors, period.

A pilot recently intentionally crashed an airplane (from all indications) and killed over 100 people, yet there is not a thread bashing pilots.

This is no different, this officer just made my job more difficult. I'm curious to see his service record, there are usually red flags from previous incidents. This guy could be a "bad apple" or he could have made an incredibly bad and potentially criminal decision.
The facts will come out, and I'll call a spade a spade if the need be. Either way this guy is done, and from all appearances should be.

How is this even remotely the same thing?

If you wanna compare that crash with the work of a cop the closest thing would probably be a cop taking his assualtrifle to a shoppingmal, shoot 20 people and then off himself.

Pilots doesnt have monopoly on violence,
They dont investigate thier own incidents
They dont have a history of covering thier own killings up

The Police work as a group and cover things up as a group. When things like this comes to surface its gonna hit the whole force because it is obvious that these things happen but sure as fuck wont be reported by the police themselves. In these cases the police looks more like a criminal gang and the pilot is still a loony who dodged and covered up his illness.

I dont see many similarities in pilots and police officers apart from the fact that they both are spelled with a "p".

[stayhigh 2]

Too bad he will get out on a probation after a year or two due to POT SMOKERS overcrowding the prison.

Those damn stoners.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[SkyDekker 1,465]

skycop

Altercation + incident= Semantics

Running towards you = running away = semantics
Taser over here + taser right beside the body = semantics
CPR + no CPR = semantics

[Coreeece 2]

skycop

Our "victim" had an outstanding warrant for his arrest and ran from the officer.

I don't think people care about that as much. We hear about it all the time. If I turned on the tv right now, I could probably find 3 shows where bad guys are running away from cops...that's what bears do, they shit in the woods.

skycop

Those are intentional acts that have consequences. We both agree the consequence was far out of line for the offense. But it does not negate the intentional act that started the chain of events.

Nobody cares about that except maybe the lawyer that's going to represent the city in a civil lawsuit and try to save them some money.

Tho I have my problems with the overreaching arm of the law, I generally agree with the majority of your posts - but I'm just not sure what you're trying to accomplish by emphasizing this particular point so boldly...

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The passengers would have no idea of the maintenance history of the airplane.

But this guy should have been aware he was dealing with a cop who was going to shoot him in the back and then plant the tazer beside his dead body?

By the way, shouldn't the second officer be charged with felony murder? That's what they do with civilians.

Lastly, the whole issue is that cops have shifted the assumption of risk for their job. It used to be that cops assumed the risks of their jobs. They took responsibility for their actions.

Now, they feel that the public should assume the risk for their job. We have seen it in actions and we have seen it in the justifications for those actions after the fact.

Lastly, when a cop plants "evidence" that easily and calmly, he certainly creates a perception that it wasn't the first time he had done so.

[skypuppy 1]

lawrocket

***

The lesson to be learned is, this was 100% preventable. If the guy would have paid his child support, this wouldn't have happened. If he would not have run and started some type of altercation, this wouldn't have happened.
The officer failed to follow policy and applicable law, if he would have, this wouldn't have happened

If the cop wasn't a mursering piece of suit cocksucker it wouldn't have happened. I guess that child support will remain unpaid, eh?

Saying that had the guy not turn and run it wouldn't have happened? That makes me wonder whether the cop told the guy to turn and run. This scene was just cold blooded. The way that cop just calmly planed that taser. Was like he had rehearsed it

I'm guessing his kids are set up for life, now. Of course they'll be a law suit. talking about the child support going unpaid is just hyperbolly.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I'm guessing his kids are set up for life, now.

Yes I am sure they will be very thankful.

[Coreeece 2]

SkyDekker

But this guy should have been aware he was dealing with a cop who was going to shoot him in the back and then plant the tazer beside his dead body?

I'm wondering - If the cop honestly believed that the guy took his taser, would he've been legally justified shooting the suspect?

The video showed something falling on the ground - presumably the taser? Perhaps the cop thought the guy had possession of the taser and then shot him - but when he couldn't find it by the body, he was like "oh, shit" and then searched for it and planted it near the suspect?

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Coreeece

***But this guy should have been aware he was dealing with a cop who was going to shoot him in the back and then plant the tazer beside his dead body?

I'm wondering - If the cop honestly believed that the guy took his taser, would he've been legally justified shooting the suspect?

The video showed something falling on the ground - presumably the taser? Perhaps the cop thought the guy had possession of the taser and then shot him - but when he couldn't find it by the body, he was like "oh, shit" and then searched for it and planted it near the suspect?

Maybe that will be his defence.

My understanding is that a cop is justified shooting somebody in the back if they have reason to believe the individual poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to the officer or others.

IMHO that would be hard to argue even if the guy actually had taken the taser and is running away.