Police officer charged with murder in South Carolina after shooting unarmed man in the back. What do you think of cases like this?

I can't imagine the difficulty of being a police officer the same way I can't imagine the optempo that combat arms Soldiers who are out front in the thick of the fight. With that being said, I suspect these types of jobs require a lot of training concentrating on making "good" decisions in a split second. The perception from the video is pretty bad, but I'd be interested to know the whole story.

I have viewed this video multiple times and it comes down to this point and this point is also happening here. Ferguson, rather before Ferguson, Albequerque PD has multiple uncalled for shootings by police and that last one, they shot a retarded person. The shooting, in Pasco, WA, three officers unloaded 8 rounds in a man holding a rock. Spokane County Deputy, prior military, threatened people with bodily harm, in an interview.

Police departments are getting Bearcats and all those things are for is threats and intimidation; not to protect the public. The 1033 federal program that allows police departments to get these things are doing nothing more than militarizing the police.

Why do they have them? They are super expensive to maintain. How much does it cost for a mine-resistant tire? I would not want the maintenance headache that comes with these things.

Generally, SSG Clayton has a point. The soldier is guilty of a few innocents killed in combat. While it is admirable that he has arrested 4 cops and a CID agent, cops in general, get a free pass. I tend to ask this question. When the balloon goes up, who in reality is my enemy? In Viet Nam, it was simple; everyone is your enemy. You never know when a child comes into your position wearing a satchel charge. Everyday, I am slowly losing my trust of the police. But, at least that Deputy was being truthful of what he said. I can keep going, but I think there will be a turning point, where the communities will start policing the police.

There are far more good officers than bad officers but not everyone in uniform is a hero and, like most humans, good officers can often get tainted and compromised with department politics and city politics or supporting the questionable actions of a buddy. It is a tough job that not everyone can do. Like the military, hours of crap and boredom and more paperwork than the recruiter told you about, highlighted by moments of intense excitement and instant decisions.

The analogy of the stock broker is a bad choice and the entire financial industry is in need of more oversight. Furthermore, the stock broker cannot take away my liberty.

Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) should be held to a higher standard and rightfully so but it seldom seems to occur. Not only are the few bad apples guilty, but so is each and every LEO that remains silent about the actions of the bad apples and does not actively drive the bad apples out of the profession. I believe the legal term for far too many police officers is accessory after the fact. In most cases, LEOs give each other a free pass.

The video goes on to show the officer picking up his Taser and placing it next to his victim so the crime scene could justify the shooting. I believe the officer also radioed in within the first few moments after the shooting (say 6 sec) that his victim had taken possession of the officers Taser to create evidence that the shooting was justified which would be recorded by dispatch.

The "criminal" was wanted on a warrant for failure to pay child support. Witnesses said he ran away to avoid being Tasered by the officer, which is why the Taser was on the ground after the shooting. The dead beat dad is now just a dead dad and won't ever be able to support his child.

What "the rule is" shouldn't even be an issue. What's right should be the ultimate measure.

The fact that within 24 hours he is fired and charged is rather damning too MSG Brad Sand I've been involved with a couple Use of Deadly force situations and have seen brother officers go thru those situations thru the years. I'm on the side of the cops 99.99999% of the time....but just a busted tail lite AND the guy trying to run away is too much. Makes me very sad this morning brother.

SSG Buddy Kemper

I too am with Law Enforcement is these matters, and I think Law Enforcement is on the side of victim on this one BUT I am not ready to convict this officer with what I have seen...there is normally a lot more than the 46 seconds of video I saw? When I learned that even the video was three time longer, it made me wonder, why are we not seeing it all?

2LT (Join to see)

In this case, the officer had been suspended and I believe charged, or had charges pending, before the video had come to light...so the answer APPEARS justice was being sought before the video, and the video just helps law enforcement. I HOPE even without the video, justice was coming for this man.

Actually there are times to shoot someone who has turned...an armed terror suspect turning and heading toward a elementary school, I'm dropping him/her. When they ask me why I (only) shot him/her eight times, my answer would be "I ran out of bullets." The times you would shoot someone who has turned their back are very limited BUT there are times when it is necessary, and I think in those cases you would pull the trigger too.

MSG Brad Sand I'm with you on that. Let the justice system play out. It looks like hell on the video, but I don't know everything and have been wrong a lot. Gonna be interesting to see how Al Sharpton responds....don't ya think? On a liter note....yesterday on my way back from bank i was pulled over in my POV by a new deputy...FROM MY OWN DEPARTMENT!!!! Hahhahahaah!!!! Had a brake lite out. When he walked up I showed him both hands and said, "I'm a deputy, I'm unarmed....and I'm on YOUR side!!!" He about fell over! ps. Gonna get brake lite fixed after work today. Blessings to you all. I hate this situation in South Carolina for all who are involved.

MAJ, while I agree that it is often cheaper and easier to deal with the aftermath of a dead suspect than a wounded subject, I disagree with your civil authority financial liability theory even if you heard it directly from a bunch of cynical political attorneys. LEOs are not instructed to "shoot to kill" to save taxpayers' money.

With various levels of humor, some LEOs will "confess" that it is better to kill the suspect rather than allow him to survive so he can never testify against the officer or have a jury feel sympathy for the long term disabilities caused by the shooting. However, LEOs are not instructed to "shoot to kill" to eliminate witnesses either.

Modern LE training teaches that when an LEO employs lethal force the intent should be to stop the suspect's threatening behavior as quickly as possible. The torso (center of mass) presents the body's largest target and it contains large blood vessels and vital areas. The movement of the torso is slower and more predictable than that of extremities. Extremities are much smaller targets, contain much smaller blood vessels, and move unpredictably very rapidly. Bigger targets are easier to hit. Disrupting large blood vessels and/or vital areas makes it easier to incapacitate and stop the threat faster.

LEO firearms training does not teach to kill or wound. The training focuses on improving the LEOs ability to determine when lethal force is necessary (shoot/don't shoot) and ability to stop the threat, eliminate the threat, neutralize the threat or whatever threat terminology the LEA has in their policy. While employing lethal force may indeed result in death, the LEO is not taught to kill suspects to save money.

Is that what is taught to the Army's Military Police these days? "The budget is tight guys. Be sure to "shoot to kill" so we don't have to expend extra funds treating injured subjects". I suppose the Army will save extra money payroll because MP's may shoot Soldiers as frequently as other suspects. No sir, I doubt MPs are taught "shoot to kill" to protect the budget and LEOs are not taught shoot to kill to save taxpayers' money.

However, if you can produce any current LE academy curriculum, state LE standard, "civil authority" documentation, or white paper that supports your shoot to kill to avoid financial liability theory I will gladly vote up your post and unhappily shift my view of the US justice system to match the new information you provide me. Show me your comments are on target and I will adjust fire to match your reliable new found intel on the subject.

Veronica fulgham-Blais.... So this weekend I had a guy walk out right in front of my patrol car, say, "fuck you" and extend his middle finger in my direction for the entire time he crossed the road... I exited the car and asked if that was for me. He responded, "I didn't like what you cops did in South Carolina" crazy... He was arrested as he did thing right by a crowded beach.... Disorderly conduct and used a fake name... These are the idiots that are popping up all around

Oh Mylanta CPO (Join to see) like you have anything to do with SC. Stoopid. Ahhhh!!! That was like jury duty yesterday. "It's a conspiracy!!!" Give me a f*ing break. That stuff kills me. Really does

CPO (Join to see) - So now free speech is a crime? You arrested this guy for giving you the finger? You're serious?

MA1, nice reference to the Garner case. It was being argued through the court system when I was at the police academy and the ultimately along with the Conner v Graham decision became the standard by which police use of force is measured. As a use of force instructor, I frequently invoke the language from this opinion when teaching police officers about their responsibilities/duties/limitations.

Good post!

Completely agree with your post except for the "To add more drama to the case, a white cop attacking a black man". I don't care what color either of them were. Had it been a black cop with a white man being shot in the back, I would feel exactly the same. I fail to see this as "adding more drama" except for in the eyes of our racist media.

My point, SSgt (Join to see), as much as I'd hate to throw around the race card, recent cases such as with Trayvon Martin, Eric Gardner, or Michael Brown involving white officers on black civilians only served as dramatic catalysts to the current situation. Sad but true. Our only hope here is that true justice would be served and I applaud the one who video taped the whole ordeal.

I understand your point completely, just feel that it should not be a factor, however I do realize that it is. The simple fact that it is I feel is stupid and shows signs of de-evolution of our society.

Anyone who says they have not seen a bad cop has not watched this video, because - to me, at least - that individual is one bad cop. Granted, we don't know the whole story, and I'm sure the police officer will claim some reason for shooting the man as he's running away, but the guy was running away (for crying out loud). To stand there and shoot him down like an animal is just plain wrong, in my opinion.

PO2 William Allen Crowder, I know you're a good and patriotic American citizen, Mr. Crowder. And I know that respect for authority is an important value to you personally. Aside from your Navy career, I do not know where else you have lived, sir, but I have spent a good amount of time in Wyoming, and I have several good friends in various law enforcement agencies there, including your Casper PD and Natrona County Sheriff's Department.

In comparison to the vast majority of the country today, it has been my personal observation and experience that the approach to policing in your state is far more relaxed than it is most other places at present. That this is the reality you live in Mr. Crowder is a true blessing for you. To observe law enforcement in your state harkens back to a more relaxed time, back to the 80s, when I was a teen and interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement myself. Cops and deputies were far more relaxed back then; even in a major city like Minneapolis or St. Paul You could BS with cops back then. Today when you encounter and engage a law enforcement officer in these areas it is not the same. The officers are constantly vigilant; on edge, tense. They know they are either someone's potential target or under someone's microscope for scrutiny. This is the reality of cops, deputies, and patrolmen across most of the nation; yet when I get out to Wyoming and Montana, law enforcement professionals seem unaffected by these national trends and still treat people with human kindness and decency. That is your reality, Mr. Crowder, and it is understandably easy to defend law enforcement professionals who discharge their duties in this manner.

Unfortunately, Mr. Crowder, law enforcement across the nation; particularly in our largest metropolitan areas and the South have a long notorious history of police brutality, corruption, racism, and officer misconduct. At it's most benign, people of color are pulled over at a disproportionately higher number of times than are whites for little to no probable cause. At it's most heinous, innocent people, but mostly men, have been wrongfully accused of, charged, convicted, and sentenced to prison and even death for crimes that they did not convict. Sadly, yes, men wrongfully convicted of crimes in which they played no part have been put to death, only to later be exonerated by DNA or other forensic testing. These are just a few of the many reasons this issue which you see through the prism of black and white, or good versus evil in moral absolutes is anything but.

During my 23 years as an MP Mr. Crowder, I have worked with Reservists and Guardsmen who have worked in their civilian careers for a wide variety of agencies across the nation. I know two former officers of the Chicago PD who are currently in prison for corruption and connections to organized crime. Yeah, that one about knocked me over, too! Army Reservists and organized crime? Fugetta 'bout it, right?
I know of another instance where a couple of Army Retirees who were members of the Milwaukee PD were forced to resign over police brutality and excessive use of force charges that were substantiated with video.

I share these things with you to help you see that I agree with you, you've got life pretty good where you're living out there in Wyoming; but to caution you that what you're seeing and witnessing everyday firsthand is not the reality everyone else is currently experiencing in their sector of fire.

Although we do not see any video, or at least none has surfaced yet, of the actual traffic stop, from what we do see on the video its pretty apparent that the officer is guilty of murder as he opened fire while the suspect was running away. I don't know how else to see it as anything but murder. Unless some other video evidence comes out showing the victim being a threat to the officer I have my doubts that there is anything to help this officer.

PO2 William Allen Crowder - I see respect for authority touted often both by military people and by police and other government types. What ever happened to respect for freedom? To me, that's a much higher value.

Shooting a fleeing suspect who isn't a clear danger to the community is also a felony...It's not been procedure for quite some time and is illegal.

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.

You are absolutely right, and that is the bigger issue for a lot of people.

The fact that it's an assumption that is accepted is a reflection of race/police relations in some areas.

It's sad. The video is sad. And the fact that there is such a divide between law enforcement views and some of the people they are supposed to protect is sad.

SMSgt Thomas V. Senior, I'm curious...

Do you typically give your troops a poor rating without feedback as to what they did wrong?

The only reason I ask is because of how many times you've down voted someone without even the semblance of an explanation of what you felt was so wrong with an individual's post that it merited a down vote from you.

You can disagree with someone and not down vote them. It's been my understanding that down votes should be used sparingly and to highlight a serious lack in professionalism.

MSG Earley - The application of lethal force is to immediately stop the threat. Lethal force is not to assist in capturing an unarmed fleeing suspect that does not pose an immediate threat. Shoot center of mass to both improve the chance of hitting the target and cause enough damage to stop the threat as quickly as possible. Continue applying lethal force until the threat is stopped and then immediately halt all use of lethal force unless a threat reappears. Deliberately shooting at hands, arms, and legs is pretty much a Hollywood thing. Small targets that move readily are too had to hit and any round that does hit is frequently (99%) insufficient to stop an immediate threat justifying the use of lethal force.

FYI - it appears that immediately after the shooting, the officer went back to get his taser which was on the ground, and then planted it next to the dead victim, and then picks it up again later after another officer arrives. This is all shown on the extended video which is now available. That is probably why he left the body so quickly, he had to go plant evidence to support his story. Even the city's police chief supports the murder charges.

I am always cautious of these internet video clips as they appear. While it does appear that it is a bad shoot, what other factors do we know vs not know? My issue I have always had with law enforcement is that they can grade their own papers. Sure the DA may make a decision to convene a Grand Jury but most of the time it's that department's internal affairs division that investigates. I know a guy that is an officer who was involved in a fatal shooting. The first thing that happened is that the officers were called "Murderers" and the only story that people knew was what was on the news. This gets dangerous to listen to one side since naratives are created that cause separation and disharmony among the people. Of course I heard an argument I thought was fair. None of the officers that responded had their dashcams running. Was it a training problem? A maintenance problem? What about a leadership problem? In this case the subject was armed with a piece of metal that he was going to strike an officer with that had fallen. He was ordered multiple times "According to officers" to drop his weapon and they shot him. Prior to getting to this point the officers did attempt to apply taser, but the subject ran and the tazer leads did not create the circuit required to work properly. I wasn't satisfied with that story so I did more checking. What I heard was two 9-1-1 calls from brothers of the subject who were not on site. The first call was "My Brother is Killing my father". He goes on to mention a number of issues "He's schitzophrenic and off his medication. He thinks I raped his girlfriend and is emotionally distraught. He might have a warrant." When asked if he would have a weapon the answer was "Probably." This is how I interpreted that conversation. First the brother who is not on site reports that his brother who has mental health issues he's not managing and has had previous issues with law enforcement is committing an act of violence at this moment. The brother points out that he's emotionally distraught and not thinking clearly and might have a weapon. My first thought (though I knew what had happened to the subject) was "This is goign to go bad." The second brother called from yet another city stating "My brother is holding my father hostage"... He repeats the same information from the brother and also confirms the possiblity of weapons. I interpret that as an escalation. A barricated subject is certainly not going to be thinking straight and he could end up hurting others and the police. Limiting your news to what you see on TV is dangerous. More than once narratives have told strories that certainly weren't true or were determined to be untrue. When the final determinations were made about many of these incidents all these people wound up looking completely uneducated. I do disagree that the police shouldn't be allowed to "Grade the papers" of the officers in their department. There's bias and prejudice which makes sound decisions impossible in certain situations. However I do believe that these cases that do go around will be more closely scrutinized as I feel they should be. When the four Lakewood Police Officers were killed in Washington in 2009, the Police Departement handed the case to the county because they were too close to it. I tend to think that's how officer involved fatalities should be handled. A friend of mine close to the investigation revlealed that they knew who the shooter was before he left the scene because the barista girls at the coffee shop where this happened happend to see him get into his truck and leave while they had clear and unobstructed view of the license plate. The man was shot a day or two later in a different city by a cop. Even in that situation many tried to call the shooting racially motivated even though the man had previously threatened to kill cops, was witnessed carrying out his threat, had a bullet from a dead cop's gun in his gut as well as the gun that put the bullet there on his person. Still civil rights groups still tried to scream racism. We have to be smarter than that and decide to educate ourselves. If its a bad shoot, that cop will pay for it.

I think all cases of lethal force by LEO's should be reviewed by an external party such a FBI. After I posted I read about a case in Chicago where a kid was shot some 16 times. This case is being investigated by the FBI.

I agree with that statement because too many police officers have broken the law without any check and balance to verify their actions.

Always take video. There are a lot of cops out there that'll tell you it's illegal, but it's upheld by the US Supreme court that there is no expectation of privacy in a public space.
My only issue though with the external party argument is you cannot have ANYONE from that party comment on the issue until the investigation is concluded. Eric Holder's Justice Department did that for Michael Brown case and the ballistics evidence supported the officer's claims based on body positions. This of course led to more rioting and anger because you had the top guy from the DOJ use this incident to race bait and not truth bait. This led to a larger emotional response of betrayal by the people and even led to cops being hurt. You can't have executives pre-judging the investigation because the end result is worse than if you say nothing, do the investigation and release a truthful transparent report.

The video is just not clear enough for me to say if the officer actually planted a weapon. I'm sure they have enhancement equipment that will make it more clear. If he did plant a weapon, he is most likely done.

I think there was a child support issue. It might have resulted in federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 228- Failure to pay legal child support obligations. However I agree with you Cpl Phil Mason this one looks like a bad shoot.

The old just follow the law argument. What a fantastic concept! Possessing alcohol during Prohibition...you deserve prison time! Required to capture and return fugitive slaves to the South...get back to work for no pay! Did you cut down that cactus in Arizona....off the prison for your 25 year sentence!

The reality is that true patriots are those who stand up to their government when their government is in the wrong. Why the need for jury nullification if every law our leaders (master??) approve are so perfect? Why do those same leaders exempt themselves from many of those same laws that are dictated for you and I? The reality is that you may not be doing anything wrong now, but according to our good old Sheriff Deputy in Spokane Count, Washington, you might be doing something wrong one day simply because you are a veteran and could be considered a danger to the community: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEaxypTrOeM

SFC John Humphrey,

Look at the caption you posted. Do you see what I see? No stove-pipes, or steel shorts. Anything below the waist is fit for the pickin'. If the balloon goes up, do not fail to clear your field of fire; I guarantee they will never stand again.