Justice Finally

[Rey C.]

IS there any SPECIFIC details about the excessive force...like was he arresting a drunk driver, or a child murderer. I just wonder where his adrenalin level was, not that it makes it okay, but sometimes it's hard to keep your temper when a kid is hurt, or something horrid. This guy probably shouldn't have been a cop in the first place, but some how there's always a couple that can beat the tests.

Sounds like his adrenaline level was always running high. He's your typical Barney Fife type cop. I know four cops like that (three former and one still a cop). There was a damn good reason why Andy only allowed Barney to have one bullet... and even then, only on special occasions.

Police had received a 911 call from the ex-girlfriend of Givens’ brother. The woman, Maleah Kiara Brown, told police that Givens’ brother entered her home without permission while she was sleeping.
Brown, the woman who had made the complaint, saw what transpired — and couldn’t believe Slager didn’t realize he was focusing on the wrong man. Givens stands well over 6 feet, but his brother is just 5-foot-5.

“He looked nothing like the description I gave the officers,” Brown said. “He asked the officer why he was at the house. He did it nicely. The police officer said he wanted him to step outside. Then he asked, 'Why, why do you want me to step outside?' Then the officer barged inside and grabbed him.”

Brown said she was appalled by Slager’s use of a Taser. “He was screaming, in pain,” she said of Givens. “He said, ‘You tased me. You tased me. Why?’ It was awful. Terrible. I asked the officer why he tased him and he told me to get back.”

Brown said she kept trying to tell Slager and the other cop that they had the wrong Givens, but they ignored her — and Slager then zapped Givens with the Taser while he was on the ground.

She described Slager as “cocky.”

“It looked like he wanted to hurt him,” she added. “There was no need to tase him. No reason. He was no threat — and we told him he had the wrong man.”

 

[Jagger69]

Again, all you, and most of the "Fuckin pigs suck", and "another racist cop kills a black man" crowd, could care less about justice, you're all a vengeful mob, and all you care about, is seeing a white man pay the ultimate price. It sickens me that there is a group of members here that have the unmitigated gall to call and label others as racist, when non of you are any fucking better.

Other than the OP of this thread (who, for whatever reason, has decided to close his account), to whom exactly are you referring regarding these comments? :dunno:

 

[Mr. Daystar]

You're the one who didn't listen very well :
1:32
Rivera : [...] I think it saves him from the murder wrap
Hasselbeck : [can't hear clearly the begining of her sentence] shooting him in the back dead ?
Rivera : Elizabeth this is an excellent point. This is a horrible horrible shooting but thre was no premeditation, this is manslaughter. I believe this is manslaughter

Then he mentions the lawyer and the plea but he clearly stated that, to him, this does not qualify for murder


And you mised the part where he agrees that, it is true in absolut numbers but not in proportion.


There was no warrant. His folks reported that the reason he ran away could be that he feared there may be a warrant and then some Fox News "reporter" started to say there was one but according to the Associated Press, there wasn't.
Walter Scott had somme issues with Justice by the past but nothing serious:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/there-was-no-arrest-warrant-for-walter-scott/

Actually what you cal "the ultimate price" would be the death sentence, which I'm against. What I wanna see is cops who kill unarmed people behind bars.

I heard just fine. Your post is clearly presumptuous, just because Geraldo "thinks" something, doesn't mean it will magically happen, and just because Elizabeth "believes" something, doesn't mean she's right. I could give a fuck less about what his parents said, that's not proof. The mother of every fucking scumbag, in every jail on earth thinks their little baby boy was an angel, but guess what? EVERY good lawyer tries to plea...that's why a good portion of the criminals, that kill don't get sent to death row. You still are clearly showing disappointment, that this cop is going to get his day in court, and not convicted and hanged by the media, or mob justice. No matter how bad, and undeserving of that badge he was, doesn't give him any less of a right to due processes. You, and your ilk, are no better then the cop shooting the guy in the back. As far as the ultimate price, yes it means death, but it doesn't necessarily mean from a court appointed death sentence....I can see an angry mob exacting revenge.

 

[Johan]

I heard just fine. Your post is clearly presumptuous, just because Geraldo "thinks" something, doesn't mean it will magically happen, and just because Elizabeth "believes" something, doesn't mean she's right. I could give a fuck less about what his parents said, that's not proof.

You moiss the point : Rivera is not teling what WILL happen, he's telling what SHOULD happen
The only one who says that it WILL happen is me. What Fox News is doing here is preparing the public opinion, preparing their audience, tring to convince conservatives that Slager shouldn't have been charged with murder

No matter how bad, and undeserving of that badge he was, doesn't give him any less of a right to due processes. You, and your ilk, are no better then the cop shooting the guy in the back.

Then how would you qualify Rivera's attitude ? Whatever you may say, I'm just a french dude posting on a porn board, He's a contributor on the most watched news channel. He's the one who give people his opinion, as if it was facts, about the case and what should be the charges. He's the one who acts as if he was the proecutor. I'm just outraged that he has the audacity to do so.

My point is that we already know how things go in such cases, we already know the scenari of these stories : the prosecutor needs the support of cop unions for his re-election so he can't allow himself to do things that would piss them ofgf. Therefore the charges are gonna be dropped or the trial will end with a "not guilty" verdict or the murder charge will be changed into something lightet (manslaughter for example).
And what's happening on Fox is just the beginning, it's just the preambule of what I've just described you

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Other than the OP of this thread (who, for whatever reason, has decided to close his account), to whom exactly are you referring regarding these comments? :dunno:

I'll not start shit, I've been asked not to be a trouble maker. Check your pm's. I know it's a bitch move, but I was asked not to help stir the pot.

 

[Supafly]

I know how much anbody seems to enjoy throwinh wild punches from behind his / her keyboard. Just to clear things up:

1. Do we at least all agree that in this case, the man who shot the other man (Who happens to be a sworn-in officer of the law) did the wrong thing?

2. The next question is: Was there ANY legal reason that could give him cause to stop the other man literally dead?

3. Is a warrant, if a possibilty in question, a legal cause to use deadly force?

If we can clear up our stance on these three issues, we might get further ahead, if we can't talk and argue about these, this is just another useless thread that just will result in people getting forum consequences.

 

[Jagger69]

Yes, no & no.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

He had a reason to pull him over, the guy had no reason, or right to run, or scuffle with the cop, but the cop should have stopped at a round to the leg, or ass (if it could have been pulled off safely)

I think it depends on the warrant. If it existed, and it was for something that would consider him armed and extremely dangerous, maybe, depending on the situation, but again, he was running away, and got shot in the back. If he was firing at the officer over his shoulder, yes.

As it stands, it seems clear this guy shouldn't have been a cop in the first place, but I still want to see the missing footage, and see this go through a trial, to hear all of the details.

 

[Johan]

I think it depends on the warrant. If it existed, and it was for something that would consider him armed and extremely dangerous, maybe, depending on the situation, but again, he was running away, and got shot in the back. If he was firing at the officer over his shoulder, yes.

There was no warrant

As it stands, it seems clear this guy shouldn't have been a cop in the first place, but I still want to see the missing footage, and see this go through a trial, to hear all of the details.

There's no missing footage : There is a dashcam video of him being pulled over by Slager and then fleeing and o,e other vidoe of the shooting that was filmed by a random guy who happened to be around when the shooting happened. As far as we know there's no footage of what happened between those two videos.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

:coolthumb::jester:artysml::crowdgrin

He'll probably be trolling under a new name soon, but this made me happy.

 

[Rey C.]

He had a reason to pull him over, the guy had no reason, or right to run, or scuffle with the cop, but the cop should have stopped at a round to the leg, or ass (if it could have been pulled off safely)

I don't know the laws in South Carolina on deadly force or shot placement, but all shooting him in the leg or anywhere else (from behind) would have done is gotten the cop a charge for malicious wounding, etc. The Supreme Court ruled in 1985 (so no matter what the South Carolina law states): "Where a suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so," Justice Byron R. White wrote for the court.

The person who taught me to shoot a pistol was a cop (Federal). And with pistols, you do not shoot to wound. You shoot to kill. The chest is the preferred target area. Only if the suspect is reaching for a gun, has a gun, or some other dangerous weapon, or poses some sort of IMMEDIATE threat to the officer or others, would you shoot him from behind. Police snipers have more options on shot placement. They can go for hands, heads, legs, etc., depending on the situation. But they can't just shoot people from behind, because they're too far away to apprehend them, either.

 

[Jagger69]

The Supreme Court ruled in 1985 (so no matter what the South Carolina law states): "Where a suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so," Justice Byron R. White wrote for the court.

This is correct. You cannot use deadly force against someone whose only intent it to escape.

Still, in today's world, it appears that this message has somehow become lost on certain law enforcement entities and individuals. My advice to anyone who is being detained by a police officer for whatever reason would be to do exactly as he says. If you don't, apparently you run a fairly significant risk of being seriously wounded or killed...either by taser, gun or chokehold. But, hell, even in the case of Eric Garner he got killed by doing as the officer said so :dunno:.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

I don't know the laws in South Carolina on deadly force or shot placement, but all shooting him in the leg or anywhere else (from behind) would have done is gotten the cop a charge for malicious wounding, etc. The Supreme Court ruled in 1985 (so no matter what the South Carolina law states): "Where a suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so," Justice Byron R. White wrote for the court.

The person who taught me to shoot a pistol was a cop (Federal). And with pistols, you do not shoot to wound. You shoot to kill. The chest is the preferred target area. Only if the suspect is reaching for a gun, has a gun, or some other dangerous weapon, or poses some sort of IMMEDIATE threat to the officer or others, would you shoot him from behind. Police snipers have more options on shot placement. They can go for hands, heads, legs, etc., depending on the situation. But they can't just shoot people from behind, because they're too far away to apprehend them, either.

I know, I can't say why I posted something so obviously unrealistic, I guess I'm just very, very tired of all of this stupid shit. If you tase a guy, it's excessive force, if you kill them, it's murder. Everyone wants a safe street, but no one wants any one to pay the price. I realize this cop crossed the line, but for fuck sakes, he hasn't even had his day in court, and people are acting a fool about it. If he would have let the guy run away, and someone would have ended up dead, they would be screaming for his badge. It's getting to the point where I truly believe, we need wild west justice back. And don't even get me started about the whole racial bullshit, or the fact that people that don't even live in this country seem to think they should flap their cake holes every second of every day.

 

[Rey C.]

It's getting to the point where I truly believe, we need wild west justice back.

My concern is, that seems to be the direction that we're already trending toward. I expect cops to enforce the laws, not make their own laws.


But anyway, here's a story with a rather dramatic dashcam video, that shows an officer running over an armed suspect with his patrol car. From what I've read and seen so far, even though the suspect's lawyer says otherwise, the cop was in the right... though using a car to mow him down on a public street may have put bystanders at unnecessary risk. In this case, sure, shoot him (from the back or the front). The suspect launched a round and was a suspect in felony level crimes.

If you wanted to argue for the cop in this case, I'd likely be with you. The only point of debate (as I see it) is using a car instead of a firearm to take the suspect out.

One thing I encourage you to think about: when (more so than "if", at this point) President Hillary is sworn in, she may issue an Executive Order involving firearms ownership. Do you want to take a chance that when her jack-booted thugs knock on your door, one of them may get his taser mixed up with his sidearm? Here's lies Rev. All the cops in the room agree that he didn't immediately cooperate and Officer Barney got his taser mixed up with his Glock... so he shot Citizen Rev 12 times. Oh well, too bad. If Rev hadn't owned firearms in the first place, he'd be alive today, right? Do you think that Ruby Ridge was legit, just because it involved law enforcement shooting suspects? If you want the wild west back, remember, the goose today could be the gander tomorrow. Race and other issues aside, to me, injustice or excessive force is injustice or excessive force. I do not care to live in a police state, where cops are in the right, no matter what they do.

 

[Rey C.]

This is correct. You cannot use deadly force against someone whose only intent it to escape.

Still, in today's world, it appears that this message has somehow become lost on certain law enforcement entities and individuals. My advice to anyone who is being detained by a police officer for whatever reason would be to do exactly as he says. If you don't, apparently you run a fairly significant risk of being seriously wounded or killed...either by taser, gun or chokehold. But, hell, even in the case of Eric Garner he got killed by doing as the officer said so :dunno:.

This^^^

When one of these cases involves a cute little blonde haired college coed, then I'm sure the "cops are always in the right" crowd may have a change of heart. Then and only then...

 

[Jagger69]

When one of these cases involves a cute little blonde haired college coed, then I'm sure the "cops are always in the right" crowd may have a change of heart. Then and only then...

Sad but undoubtedly true. Interesting that we somehow place more value on some lives than others....after all, we're all human.

 

[Whit]

Possibly. But this same cop has had at least one other complaint filed against him for using excessive force. The department swept that one under the rug... until this happened. Now it looks as if that entire police department has lots of explaining to do.

If the guy had done as requested, he *may* not have gotten shot. He still may have gotten beaten up or tased. Given this cop's alleged past history, we just don't know what provokes him to use excessive force. The only thing we know right now is that the cop appears to have violated the rules on when it is permissible to fire on a fleeing suspect. So while I get your point, it's also true that had Officer Michael Slager not drawn his weapon and fired at a man's back (who posed no threat to him), none of this would have happened either. That he lied about it and apparently staged a scene to make it seem like self-defense, just makes the hole deeper for him... and any other cops who went along with his story.

Assuming the cop was going to hurt/kill him is BS! If he wouldn't have run this would NOT have happened! He was in a busy parking lot with lots of witnesses. All of these latest shootings would not have happened had they followed the cop instructions.
The only one was the 73 year old and he admitted it was an accident.

 

[Jagger69]

All of these latest shootings would not have happened had they followed the cop instructions.

Sorry, but no way can you make this kind of statement with absolute certainty.

 

[Whit]

Sorry, but no way can you make this kind of statement with absolute certainty.

Sorry, I don't feel sorry for these people. These cases are few and far between, the media fuels this like shark attacks and child abductions.





Yadi yadi

 

[MMMariah]

It was hilarious sitting in the sky club watching fox news and seeing Hannity trying not to burst when they were discussing the cop shooting the guy in the back. He did say a few times "Well we don't know what was really said" He wanted to defend that cop so badly it was unreal. He didn't even condemn it...he said that more information would be available soon. Fucking racist