Posted on Apr 7, 2015
Police officer charged with murder in South Carolina after shooting unarmed man in the back. What do you think of cases like this?
66.8K
727
326
24
23
1
As if the act of murder wasn't bad enough, the end of the video shows him handcuffing the victim... who may have been still alive, and walking away. Watching how care free he was about the whole thing, including walking away at the end, leads me to believe that this isn't the kind of thing a good cop just did on a bad day. I imagine that this police officer has victimized people to various degrees throughout his entire career. How his peers on the force have not done anything about it is a little worrisome. Law enforcement do so much good in this country, it's so unfortunate to see this be how they are perceived by so many.
More on the story: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/us/south-carolina-officer-charged-murder/index.html
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXO3Ix_GIyI
More on the story: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/us/south-carolina-officer-charged-murder/index.html
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXO3Ix_GIyI
Police
Murder
Law Enforcement
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 111
1
1
0
The police officer got caught. That's why some conservative states are creating laws to prevent the citizens from recording police officer in case something like this happen.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Tou Lee Yang
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=6745
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/04/arkansas-governor-vetoes-bill-that-would-have-required-written-consent-to-photograph-strangers/
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/gov-quinn-urged-veto-illinois-latest-eavesdropping-bill
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/illinois-felony-citizens-record-police-media-silent/
These are just some of the intent of the conservatives trying to prevent the public from use their video camera to record. Just the prospect that such law can be put into effect remove all doubts about the goals of silencing the public.
So recording a phone conversation also means video taping? Perhaps my English is quite bad, after all, it is my second language. However, last I remember, you need consent to record a phone conversation in most states.
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/04/arkansas-governor-vetoes-bill-that-would-have-required-written-consent-to-photograph-strangers/
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/gov-quinn-urged-veto-illinois-latest-eavesdropping-bill
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/illinois-felony-citizens-record-police-media-silent/
These are just some of the intent of the conservatives trying to prevent the public from use their video camera to record. Just the prospect that such law can be put into effect remove all doubts about the goals of silencing the public.
So recording a phone conversation also means video taping? Perhaps my English is quite bad, after all, it is my second language. However, last I remember, you need consent to record a phone conversation in most states.
Carolina Journal Online: Covering news, politics, and policy in North Carolina | Videotaping...
RALEIGH The case of the Maryland motorcyclist facing 16 years in prison for videotaping an out of control police officer has spurred a national debate over the legality of the practice.
(0)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
Your right , therefor that means that the 'STATE' really works for the companies that pay the bills during the political campaigns. And if a lowly Jar-Head (No-Pun-Intended) can see that truth. Than any person seeking the truth can also see it. Provided at least half of their brain is turned on. ** We need a new Political Party in America ( the Trust & Justice Party) run and controlled by former members of the Armed Forces of The USA.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Probably happens more than we think. If it wasn't for the video it would be another "self defense" shooting. If he broke the law, WHATEVER IT WAS, chase him, cuff him, arrest him, and its over. To shoot someone on the back show the coward he is.
(1)
(0)
3
1
2
Several of my old military buddies entered law enforcement.  If this video is for real…..WOW.  Yet, I have no problem with shooting the enemy in the back, so did the officer have lawful reason to do so?  The video shows what occurred, but does not in anyway indicate what lead up to the shooting.  It would seem the individual could have stopped. If you did nothing wrong….why are you running.  I don’t buy the excuses that the police will shoot me anyway.  Its crap to say the least!!!  So, what really happened…..the whole story?
(3)
(2)
SFC (Join to see)
LTC Paul Labrador , sir I'm speaking from a military point of view and in my perspective I couldn't see a military person being allowed these same privilege of shooting a fleeing unarmed civilian.. I just don't understand how police officers are allowed to have these types of rules of engagement. . When our military personnel are not privilege to these same type of protections. If anyone has been downrange recently then they should know we get attacked (hit) all the time and even beforehand when the suspect are identified and in the process of setting up an attack; we still were not permitted to defend ourselves, the rule was to get to cover, and our danger was clear and imminent, so why can officers protect themselves from a perceived threat but service members in a foreign country where the threat is even more dangerous are not given these same rights
(1)
(0)
CPT Ahmed Faried
MSgt Steve Miller many things that I disagree with in your response. First why are we applying the term "enemy" here? Are police officers now Soldiers and our fellow citizens enemy combatants? Secondly, this man was fleeing and no longer a threat. Even in war our ROE would make it a crime if an enemy was no longer a threat (i.e fleeing with no weapon) and you shot him. Thirdly, you seem to be doing a lot to excuse this Officer. But you bring up a point about the video showing the shooting and not what preceded it. It still does not make him any less guilty of the shooting. The Supreme Court has ruled that the only way the act we all see in the video would be justified is if the person fleeing would be a threat to the public or to the officer. Where was that criteria met? "If you did nothing wrong.." Really?? Ok. Let's say he ran a traffic light, theereby meeting the threshold of doing something wrong. And let's say that after he pulled over he foot bailed. Would any of that be a capital offense? If after seeing that video you still wonder what really happened then your ignorance is willful and your empathy is lacking.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
MSgt Steve Miller The man shot was not a saint and no one hear is defending his integrity but rather his rights under the color of law.
Fact: A policeman cannot shoot a fleeing suspect unless they feel they are a danger to you the police officer or the general public. see Tennesse vs Garner USC decision 1984 which invoked the fourth amendement specifically the rules regarding seizure
Fact: The officers taser was deployed as evidenced from the string attached to the man while he was escaping
Fact: The police officer is seen tampering with a crime scene and consequently impeding an investigation both are illegal acts
Fact: He lied on an official police report that they rendered aid, as evidenced by the video and witness testimony this did not happen
Police Officers do a tough job however when they violate the public trust they should be held to the same standard as anyone else who violates the law
Fact: A policeman cannot shoot a fleeing suspect unless they feel they are a danger to you the police officer or the general public. see Tennesse vs Garner USC decision 1984 which invoked the fourth amendement specifically the rules regarding seizure
Fact: The officers taser was deployed as evidenced from the string attached to the man while he was escaping
Fact: The police officer is seen tampering with a crime scene and consequently impeding an investigation both are illegal acts
Fact: He lied on an official police report that they rendered aid, as evidenced by the video and witness testimony this did not happen
Police Officers do a tough job however when they violate the public trust they should be held to the same standard as anyone else who violates the law
(0)
(0)
MSgt Steve Miller
CPT Ahmed Faried and SGT Samuel Karoki, its okay that you don't agree with me, some have and some have not agreed. Here's the biggest fact of all....the officer is not guilty of anything until he has been tried. Enough energy has been spent on this posting from my fingers. I'm moving on!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Whats even more disturbing than the actual killing is the fact that the officers can hide behind anonymity, faces blurred and names withheld. They get full benefit of the doubt and have countless people telling others condescendingly they "don't know what its like to be in that situation" (ironically 90% of the folks who make that comment have never been in that situation either). People make snide remarks like "play stupid games win stupid prizes". The victim on the other hand gets no such treatment their name is released instantly and hours later their entire life is on display for the public to dissect. They are instantly found guilty in the court of public opinion and cant defend themselves because the side of the brain that can make cognitive arguments is dripping out the back of their skull. That bar fight you got in at age 22? That makes you a violent offender... That suspended license from accumulated points? That makes you an individual who has a "pattern of breaking the rules"... He smoked weed??? Hang him now!!!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
What was the underlying offense?
Did this offender pose a risk to others if not stopped?
Did this offender pose a risk to others if not stopped?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Murder is murder. That said many departments have a policy (fed included) that all arrestees must be cuffed including those injured or shot. DHS has that policy
(0)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
Even if they are dead and unarmed? Or what about just bleeding to death, unconscious, and unarmed? It just seems like a rather unusual blanket policy.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It's very disturbing to think that the correct course of action for the police against unarmed people is to shoot them.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This is just a murder, plain and simple. Zero justification under any rule of force analysis. I went to 2 police academies and one law school. I used to advise on "use of Force" issues. This is just wrong and I know it happens way more than is reported. If 500 Americans are already dead this year at the hands of the police and this is news as you read the words, tells me we have a huge problem. It all starts with recruitment and selection. We need to fix this in an era when Departments don't have the resources to hire or train the very best. Maybe a national curriculum taught at regional academies. Might make good fiscal sense as well and provide cops who can transfer to any state or city. Like the Brits.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Down-voted because " If we keep talking about the issues how will they go away"
(0)
(0)
SFC Emerson "Zeus" Hazzard
That is an outstanding line of reasoning sir. Too bad you were not there to advise Dr king and Nelson Mandela.
(0)
(0)
CPT Ahmed Faried
hahaha no that was my tongue-in-cheek response to this general topic receiving a "down-vote". I will put a sarcasm disclaimer in future.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google