North Charleston cop charged with murder after video surfaces of him shooting man in the back

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Spider879

Thing is, if there hadn't been a video of this murder, MANY people here would be stating, "Scott stole the cop's taser and was a threat to other people! The cop had the right to shoot him!" They would be buying the cop's story 100%, just like they did in the Travon Martin, Michael Brown, and every other case of a black man being killed by a cop (or wanna be cop) case.

So, smearing the victim doesn't surprise me one bit. While I haven't read THIS thread, I've seen a few instances where people have asked, "why was Scott running?" As if the REASON he was running makes ANY difference at all. It's like they're looking for every reason they can to justify the murder.

I never thought I'd see the day when we would be watching cold blooded murders and trying to justify them... It's freaking SICK! That's why I'm staying away from this topic here.

And I see the same crap I've been talking about on this page. People are SICK! I'm out.

Ummm...Trevon and Michael were found to be physically threatening the life of the people who shot them based upon the rule of law, a court and witnesses. Just sayin.

Absense of evidence is not evidence of innocence. That seems to get lost in much of the media coverage of those cases.
Put simply both of those cases found insufficient evidence of guilt...not complete evidence of innocence.
And both of those cases had contradictory and incomplete witness testimony.
Whether either of those shootings were justified? Absent clear video, only God knows for sure.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Spider879

Thing is, if there hadn't been a video of this murder, MANY people here would be stating, "Scott stole the cop's taser and was a threat to other people! The cop had the right to shoot him!" They would be buying the cop's story 100%, just like they did in the Travon Martin, Michael Brown, and every other case of a black man being killed by a cop (or wanna be cop) case.

So, smearing the victim doesn't surprise me one bit. While I haven't read THIS thread, I've seen a few instances where people have asked, "why was Scott running?" As if the REASON he was running makes ANY difference at all. It's like they're looking for every reason they can to justify the murder.

I never thought I'd see the day when we would be watching cold blooded murders and trying to justify them... It's freaking SICK! That's why I'm staying away from this topic here.

And I see the same crap I've been talking about on this page. People are SICK! I'm out.

Ummm...Trevon and Michael were found to be physically threatening the life of the people who shot them based upon the rule of law, a court and witnesses. Just sayin.

Absense of evidence is not evidence of innocence. That seems to get lost in much of the media coverage of those cases.
Put simply both of those cases found insufficient evidence of guilt...not complete evidence of innocence.
And both of those cases had contradictory and incomplete witness testimony.
Whether either of those shootings were justified? Absent clear video, only God knows for sure.

Absolutely!!!! I personally believe trayvon was manslaughter in reality, but innocent till proven guilty...


Wilson I think shot brown while fleeing but was so gray area good luck finding a law to apply.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Absolutely.

In the current case being discussed, the officer is in the wrong, of this there is no doubt.

On the other hand... IF one is pulled over, or confronted by the police, is it not the height of stupidity to do anything but behave rationally and behave with civility?

I am 60 years old...I didnt reach this age by acting stupidly in critical situations. It does not take genius level intelligence, nor anything but just a tad bit of common sense to realize that a) running from police will never turn out well for you, no matter what the results. b) becoming aggressive with the police will never turn out well, no matter what the results are.

I see 2 problems with the most recent well publicized events: The "victim" behaves in a totally stupid manner when confronted by police. Either they respond aggressively, they resist arrest or they run. How stupid do you have to be to not realize that those 3 responses will not turn out well for you? Problem #2 is how the police react...but that has been discussed ad nauseum.

In the media, it is almost never discussed how the "victim" could have avoided a bad situation.

This is a discourse that needs to take place.

Thank you!!! Apparently for some people around here, if you don't simply hate and "join the club", you are defending a criminal (the cop). Personally...I think as a 50 year old that THAT is part of our society's problems. Join the riot or become a target.

The police are paid, trained and armed to be professional and not to retaliate. They're job is specifically to be above the fray and handle themselves professionally in any situation.

It doesn't matter what the offender has done. That's for the courts to decide any punishment. But that's not how police are being trained to deal with the citizenry.


Exactly like the cop who punched a hand cuffed 110lb female hard enough to break her orbital bone and wasn't charged. She was hand cuffed in the back seat of the squad car. Once she realized she wasn't gonna talk her way out of a trip to jail. She freaked out turned on her side and kicked the officer in the leg. This 200lb cop punches the already subdued woman in the face like a man. It was 100% retaliation. Yet it was considered lawful by the state. Even with video evidence....


Should she have been charged with striking an officer? Of course! Should an officer be allowed to retaliate against a citizen? Absolutely not!

I don't disagree with you and I'm not going to speak to an incident based solely upon your brief overview. But let me ask you this...if I, a 6'2" 250lb adult were confronted by a cop and punched him in the face. And when he came at me, I punched him in the face again. Exactly at what point is a taser or gun permitted to be used? Five punches? After I draw blood? After he can't stand? When??? No...this has nothing to do with the crime this thread is about...but I'm curious when you would consider a taser or gun used. If I punch him in the face...can he punch me or is that brutality? An eye for an eye? Turn the other cheek? Where do you want this cop, maybe with a wife and children to decide he can protect himself while still doing his job of arresting me (as in my example).

Or...once I punch him do you expect him to walk away, leave me alone to run away and not do his job of arresting me?

I would say they would have the right to gaze you the second you refused an order then walked tward them in a combative stance. There is a massive difference from useing the least force required to subdue a suspect and retaliation.


A gun now that's a totally different story...


I think one of the major problems is the wording of the laws protecting police officers.

A police officer can use deadly force anytime they FEEL their life or the life of others are threatened. The police officers life need not actually be endanger....he just has to be able to show that he felt endangered. Feelings are subjective, feelings can be wrong.

First off we should definatly body can all police officers.

Then I would make the police officer responsible for the facts or the case, not how he felt about it.

For example; some one reaches in there coat as the cop orders there hands up and the cop shoots them dead.

If the citizen had a gun and was reaching for it. Your aces well done!

If it was some freaked our citizen reaching for there wallet, it's manslaughter.

No excuses, no giving passes for police jumping the gun. They are armed and armored to the teeth. They can wait the 3 seconds it will take to confirm it's a gun.

I think just those 2 changes would help tons!


We wouldn't need body cams and such if the good cops wouldn't protect the bad ones. If police officers held there brothers to the same standard they hold regular folk. This problem would have gone away decades ago...

Yet again...I don't disagree. But consider this. As you noted, a cop may use force when he feels life threatened or when others are threatened. What if this cop had decided to let the man run and hope to catch up with him another day. And what if this man five minutes later killed someone.

Now...I'm not suggesting this would have happened. But if it had...people would be crying for the cop's head because he didn't stop the guy when he had the chance, leading to the death of another person. We can all sit back and make a hindsight decision about a situation with hours of discussion but the cop only has seconds. Often they are wrong or would change the choice they made. But we put them there to make their best choice.

I assume you believe cops need to be able to deliver deadly force in the right circumstances. But the only reason that is so, is because our society is so messed up. If people weren't running, fighting, shooting at cops...this would be a different story. But when we act like animals, the police need to be armed to protect themselves and others.

So my comments reflect this. If we were nice, pleasant and not a threat, police wouldn't need to have access to guns and this situation in particular wouldn't have happened. So lets follow the "problem" vs "symptom" argument for a sec. The symptom is that this man was shot by a cop and died. The problem, tracing it back is that they guy ran, the guy had a warrant and that society is a bunch of asses that can't always be dealt with easily. While the cop screwed up...the problem is how we act toward others and how violent and disrespectful we have become.

Yes...we are part of the problem and the reason this poor man died. Consider that at least a little while we condemn this man to a life in hell or death.

See I don't think it's problem vs. Symptom. I think it's problem + problem. IMHO we have hired WAY too many bullies as police officers and we are training them to be Martin Riggs (lethal weapon) instead of Andy Griffith.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Absolutely.

In the current case being discussed, the officer is in the wrong, of this there is no doubt.

On the other hand... IF one is pulled over, or confronted by the police, is it not the height of stupidity to do anything but behave rationally and behave with civility?

I am 60 years old...I didnt reach this age by acting stupidly in critical situations. It does not take genius level intelligence, nor anything but just a tad bit of common sense to realize that a) running from police will never turn out well for you, no matter what the results. b) becoming aggressive with the police will never turn out well, no matter what the results are.

I see 2 problems with the most recent well publicized events: The "victim" behaves in a totally stupid manner when confronted by police. Either they respond aggressively, they resist arrest or they run. How stupid do you have to be to not realize that those 3 responses will not turn out well for you? Problem #2 is how the police react...but that has been discussed ad nauseum.

In the media, it is almost never discussed how the "victim" could have avoided a bad situation.

This is a discourse that needs to take place.

Thank you!!! Apparently for some people around here, if you don't simply hate and "join the club", you are defending a criminal (the cop). Personally...I think as a 50 year old that THAT is part of our society's problems. Join the riot or become a target.

The police are paid, trained and armed to be professional and not to retaliate. They're job is specifically to be above the fray and handle themselves professionally in any situation.

It doesn't matter what the offender has done. That's for the courts to decide any punishment. But that's not how police are being trained to deal with the citizenry.


Exactly like the cop who punched a hand cuffed 110lb female hard enough to break her orbital bone and wasn't charged. She was hand cuffed in the back seat of the squad car. Once she realized she wasn't gonna talk her way out of a trip to jail. She freaked out turned on her side and kicked the officer in the leg. This 200lb cop punches the already subdued woman in the face like a man. It was 100% retaliation. Yet it was considered lawful by the state. Even with video evidence....


Should she have been charged with striking an officer? Of course! Should an officer be allowed to retaliate against a citizen? Absolutely not!

I don't disagree with you and I'm not going to speak to an incident based solely upon your brief overview. But let me ask you this...if I, a 6'2" 250lb adult were confronted by a cop and punched him in the face. And when he came at me, I punched him in the face again. Exactly at what point is a taser or gun permitted to be used? Five punches? After I draw blood? After he can't stand? When??? No...this has nothing to do with the crime this thread is about...but I'm curious when you would consider a taser or gun used. If I punch him in the face...can he punch me or is that brutality? An eye for an eye? Turn the other cheek? Where do you want this cop, maybe with a wife and children to decide he can protect himself while still doing his job of arresting me (as in my example).

Or...once I punch him do you expect him to walk away, leave me alone to run away and not do his job of arresting me?

I would say they would have the right to gaze you the second you refused an order then walked tward them in a combative stance. There is a massive difference from useing the least force required to subdue a suspect and retaliation.


A gun now that's a totally different story...


I think one of the major problems is the wording of the laws protecting police officers.

A police officer can use deadly force anytime they FEEL their life or the life of others are threatened. The police officers life need not actually be endanger....he just has to be able to show that he felt endangered. Feelings are subjective, feelings can be wrong.

First off we should definatly body can all police officers.

Then I would make the police officer responsible for the facts or the case, not how he felt about it.

For example; some one reaches in there coat as the cop orders there hands up and the cop shoots them dead.

If the citizen had a gun and was reaching for it. Your aces well done!

If it was some freaked our citizen reaching for there wallet, it's manslaughter.

No excuses, no giving passes for police jumping the gun. They are armed and armored to the teeth. They can wait the 3 seconds it will take to confirm it's a gun.

I think just those 2 changes would help tons!


We wouldn't need body cams and such if the good cops wouldn't protect the bad ones. If police officers held there brothers to the same standard they hold regular folk. This problem would have gone away decades ago...

Yet again...I don't disagree. But consider this. As you noted, a cop may use force when he feels life threatened or when others are threatened. What if this cop had decided to let the man run and hope to catch up with him another day. And what if this man five minutes later killed someone.

Now...I'm not suggesting this would have happened. But if it had...people would be crying for the cop's head because he didn't stop the guy when he had the chance, leading to the death of another person. We can all sit back and make a hindsight decision about a situation with hours of discussion but the cop only has seconds. Often they are wrong or would change the choice they made. But we put them there to make their best choice.

I assume you believe cops need to be able to deliver deadly force in the right circumstances. But the only reason that is so, is because our society is so messed up. If people weren't running, fighting, shooting at cops...this would be a different story. But when we act like animals, the police need to be armed to protect themselves and others.

So my comments reflect this. If we were nice, pleasant and not a threat, police wouldn't need to have access to guns and this situation in particular wouldn't have happened. So lets follow the "problem" vs "symptom" argument for a sec. The symptom is that this man was shot by a cop and died.

Yes...we are part of the problem and the reason this poor man died. Consider that at least a little while we condemn this man to a life in hell or death.

Also no one is saying cops should let people flee, but how about, get your lazy self up and chase them rather then shoot them in the back....

Arnt you letting police treat every citizen as the "worst case senerio" in your analogy? Since some citizens are dangerous, they have the right to manhandle the rest of us? Us who are not armed paid and trained to deal with such situations?

Some how we decided a police officers life was more important then those we pay them to protect.

a reply to: Indigo5 yes , I reposted later after I read some more. I am very very sorry about what happened to Mr Scott. The police officer could have easily run after him and tackled him instead of shooting him.

a reply to: Indigo5

You are right, until you are wrong. So you can continue to have idealistic views towards the world or you can accept how things actually work.

When two bad people meet up one of them loses every single time.

This fact applies to the police too. If you are a good person, and you meet up with a bad cop, don't give them a reason to jack with you. Just accept whatever they say and move on.

If you want to change the world, don't be the guy who's on the next videotape.