Guys, wether or not the cop thought his life was in danger at the point he pulled the trigger is immaterial.

(04-08-2015 01:39 PM)ODU06 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:35 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:12 PM)ODU06 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:07 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 11:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  No one is arguing that these sorts of things happen, but the facts remain it's not a particularly deadly profession. Especially when one takes deaths due to traffic accidents out of the equation.

By the very nature of the job and the vigilance needed to still alive makes law enforcement dangerous. The question I have is how did the prep get the tazer? Because if there was a confrontation between the two then the idea that he was 'no longer a threat' is off the table.

Why?

Because if the two fought then surrender is the only way to deescalate the threat level.

Are you stating an opinion? Or are you stating that is the law in South Carolina?

Pure opinion. Just because someone is running away doesn't automatically bar them from being a threat. When manhunts are issued the suspect is typically running and is still labelled as dangerous.

wether or not the cop thought his life was in danger at the point he pulled the trigger is immaterial.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

and THIS is what needs to change in my humble opinion.

(04-08-2015 01:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  wether or not the cop thought his life was in danger at the point he pulled the trigger is immaterial.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

and THIS is what needs to change in my humble opinion.

No, if a cop thinks his/her life is in danger is good enough reason for me for him/her to defend his/herself. This guy was running away and was still being shot. Once the guy started running away no way the cop could have thought his life was in danger unless the dude had gun and was turning around, etc.

(04-08-2015 01:27 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Scott didn't comply with the Officer. When will these idiots figure it out.

Even that doesn't work sometimes.

(04-08-2015 01:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Guys, wether or not the cop thought his life was in danger at the point he pulled the trigger is immaterial.

Dude, you've got to give longer explanations that this.

(04-08-2015 01:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Guys, wether or not the cop thought his life was in danger at the point he pulled the trigger is immaterial.

The standard is whether the officer believed there is probable cause that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, right?

I think that is going to be a hard argument to make, but what occurred prior to the video being shot could influence this, yes?

(04-08-2015 01:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Guys, wether or not the cop thought his life was in danger at the point he pulled the trigger is immaterial.

Are you saying that is up to the prosecutor, GJ, and Jury to decide.

(04-08-2015 01:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Guys, wether or not the cop thought his life was in danger at the point he pulled the trigger is immaterial.

The standard is whether the officer believed there is probable cause that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, right?

I believe the deadly force must also have been necessary to prevent escape. That will be another determination for the jury.

(04-08-2015 01:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Guys, wether or not the cop thought his life was in danger at the point he pulled the trigger is immaterial.

The standard is whether the officer believed there is probable cause that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, right?

I think that is going to be a hard argument to make, but what occurred prior to the video being shot could influence this, yes?

Well seeing how the officer is not remotely close to his cruiser or Scott's vehicle, some sort of chase took place. Add in the fact that the if you enlarge the frame shot of the officer after the physical altercation with Scott, you can see that the wires of the Taser are visibly discharged and hanging near the officer and the Taser.

It will not be difficult for the officer to prove any of these facts. Completely understandable why the officer might have an elevated heart rate and fear for his safety.

(04-08-2015 01:47 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:39 PM)ODU06 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:35 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:12 PM)ODU06 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:07 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  By the very nature of the job and the vigilance needed to still alive makes law enforcement dangerous. The question I have is how did the prep get the tazer? Because if there was a confrontation between the two then the idea that he was 'no longer a threat' is off the table.

Why?

Because if the two fought then surrender is the only way to deescalate the threat level.

Are you stating an opinion? Or are you stating that is the law in South Carolina?

Pure opinion. Just because someone is running away doesn't automatically bar them from being a threat. When manhunts are issued the suspect is typically running and is still labelled as dangerous.

I agree with that statement and that is why there is the standard that deadly force is justified if probable cause to believe the suspect causes a threat to others (paraphrasing). The obvious example would be if a suspect with an assault rifle turns and runs towards a crowd--deadly force would be justifiable under the law.

Your first statement seemed a little different to me (seemed to say that if there was a confrontation then he was automatically still a threat (rather than the fact that he fled does not automatically mean he is not a threat--which I agree with)).

Once the man turned to run the situation shifted. We are talking a pursuit, not a confrontation.

In order to use force to stop an escape the officer need only articulate a justification for having used force. The officer's personal wellbeing is no longer a central issue but a supporting one. The argument is that a man who just assaulted an officer is a threat to others or society at large. Which, has generally worked.

(04-08-2015 02:26 PM)ODU06 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:47 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:39 PM)ODU06 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:35 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:12 PM)ODU06 Wrote:  Why?

Because if the two fought then surrender is the only way to deescalate the threat level.

Are you stating an opinion? Or are you stating that is the law in South Carolina?

Pure opinion. Just because someone is running away doesn't automatically bar them from being a threat. When manhunts are issued the suspect is typically running and is still labelled as dangerous.

I agree with that statement and that is why there is the standard that deadly force is justified if probable cause to believe the suspect causes a threat to others (paraphrasing). The obvious example would be if a suspect with an assault rifle turns and runs towards a crowd--deadly force would be justifiable under the law.

Your first statement seemed a little different to me (seemed to say that if there was a confrontation then he was automatically still a threat (rather than the fact that he fled does not automatically mean he is not a threat--which I agree with)).

It's fine, I was definitely unclear. And its seems as though HoD has put into better perspective.

http://news.yahoo.com/protest-planned-wh...32016.html


It would appear this officer is in a heap of trouble and should be.

(04-08-2015 01:33 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:29 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:27 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Scott didn't comply with the Officer. When will these idiots figure it out.

If an officer is being unjustified, I most certainly will not comply.

That is stupid fit. Cops makes mistakes, arrest the wrong people or detain them.
Follow their orders, stay in the car, get out of the car, get on the ground etc., do it.
Everything can be figured 5 minutes later or the next morning when you get out of
jail.

Giving those kinds of orders isn't unjustified. That's not what I'm talking about.

(04-08-2015 01:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 01:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Guys, wether or not the cop thought his life was in danger at the point he pulled the trigger is immaterial.

The standard is whether the officer believed there is probable cause that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, right?

I think that is going to be a hard argument to make, but what occurred prior to the video being shot could influence this, yes?

No, probable cause isn't a part of the discussion at this point in time as it relates to this particular charge.

Certain things can but not everything is relevant. Only the facts of the prior conversation and altercation which make a fact more or less likely to be true. The fact that is directly related to an element of the offense.

Fit,...What are you talking about then?

How tolerant would you be if a child student didn't comply with your commands and assaulted you? Just because he did not feel the need to listen to his teacher.

(04-08-2015 02:53 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Fit,...What are you talking about then?

How tolerant would you be if a child student didn't comply with your commands and assaulted you? Just because he did not feel the need to listen to his teacher.

You are asking two different situations.

As a teacher, obviously an assault would result in my protecting myself and the student and then letting administration deal the punishment.

As a cop. If the guy is running and is unarmed, why not call for backup and persue. I see no need to shoot a guy who is running unless he is armed and dangerous.

(04-08-2015 02:53 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Fit,...What are you talking about then?

How tolerant would you be if a child student didn't comply with your commands and assaulted you? Just because he did not feel the need to listen to his teacher.

Someone being 'wrong' for doing something doesn't mean we as a society should view it as acceptable for them to be killed because of it.

Play stupid games you wins stupid prizes! Scott was in complete control of how much force would be used upon him to comply,..period!