Abuse of Power Thread (Cops, Governments, Etc.) - Part 1

[Breogan]

The witness who filmed it said at no point did the man take the cops taser

Actually in the unedited vid, (check vimeo), it looks like it is Scott who drops the taser, so yeah he might have grabbed it when they were fighting on the ground.

Still even if the cop thought Scott had run off with an already discharged police taser, nothing will justify shooting him in the back because of it.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Exactly

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

I guess some people try to run instead of comply, thinking they will not be shot at by the cop and avoid the arrest. You just never know if there will be that cop (minority of officers) who loses it and does something extreme

edit: question

Are there missing frames from the footage? There is a freeze frame showing them on ground fighting... then it cuts to like a second before the shooting.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Dash cam vid of Scott taking off- https://***********/AC360/status/586277504899534848

Why did he run?

At some point cop shouts - "taser...taser..taser.." Don't know if it's to his partner or to Scott?

Just saw the dash cam video.



Very sketchy answers, and then he jumped out and ran.
I wonder if this was a stolen vehicle situation which is why he ran?

Certainly not reason to shoot in the end of course.

It seems in these cop shootings that if they committed a crime and got caught, they should just comply instead of running or even attacking the cop to avoid arrest.

How many times was Garner arrested for example? 31 or something. This guy was arrested 10 times for charges like assault, battery, and child support.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Just saw the dash cam video.



Very sketchy answers, and then he jumped out and ran.
I wonder if this was a stolen vehicle situation which is why he ran?

Certainly not reason to shoot in the end of course.

It seems in these cop shootings that if they committed a crime and got caught, they should just comply instead of running or even attacking the cop to avoid arrest.

How many times was Garner arrested for example? 31 or something. This guy was arrested 10 times for charges like assault, battery, and child support.

Trying to avoid or resist arrest isn't a capital offense.

You shouldn't be choked to death or shot in the back just because you don't comply with an arrest.

And then this cop plants a weapon next to a suspect he flat out murdered to support his version of events.

Indefensible.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

He ran because he had warrants for child support. That doesn't mean you shoot him in the back.

 

[Tempest]

What is the officer supposed to do when someone runs? I'm just curious. What if this guy had warrants out for something dangerous? What if he was armed, and ran until he grabbed a hostage?

How about, when you get pulled over, you don't ****ing run?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

What is the officer supposed to do when someone runs? I'm just curious. What if this guy had warrants out for something dangerous? What if he was armed, and ran until he grabbed a hostage?

How about, when you get pulled over, you don't ****ing run?

I a lot of ifs here. But I will say this. You don't shoot someone you don't know is armed or dangerous. You don't do it. Everyone on Cops wrestles with suspects. What stopped this cop from attempting to physical restrain the man?

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

What is the officer supposed to do when someone runs? I'm just curious. What if this guy had warrants out for something dangerous? What if he was armed, and ran until he grabbed a hostage?

How about, when you get pulled over, you don't ****ing run?

True. Any sane intelligent person should be able to tell I don't condone the actual shooting event. I just feel that there is little being done to work on the other part of the equation. The criminal who gets stopped and decides that running/attacking a cop is the solution, is actually a huge part of problem.

Every mainstream case in terms of the media, has had a shooter that simply didn't comply when being ceased by the officer who is trying to sort out a situation.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

I a lot of ifs here. But I will say this. You don't shoot someone you don't know is armed or dangerous. You don't do it. Everyone on Cops wrestles with suspects. What stopped this cop from attempting to physical restrain the man?

Some of the video was either missing or just not shot by the camera. There is a freeze frame moment of them on the ground. Perhaps during their fight, or before it there was a legit grab of the taser.

Regardless I know the final act of shooting was too much though I doubt anyone would argue that aspect.

My thing is that everytime this happens it seems we only focus on the wrong act of the shooting by the cop. There is never a focus on the other part of the problem of either being involved in a criminal act or creating one by not complying/attacking cops.

If in these cases they said "Yes sir" and answered honestly and directly the outcomes wouldn't have involved any shootings.

 

[Tempest]

Some of the video was either missing or just not shot by the camera. There is a freeze frame moment of them on the ground. Perhaps during their fight, or before it there was a legit grab of the taser.

Regardless I know the final act of shooting was too much though I doubt anyone would argue that aspect.

My thing is that everytime this happens it seems we only focus on the wrong act of the shooting by the cop. There is never a focus on the other part of the problem of either being involved in a criminal act or creating one by not complying/attacking cops.

If in these cases they said "Yes sir" and answered honestly and directly the outcomes wouldn't have involved any shootings.

Don't blame the 'victim'. The thing is, there are very few instances where police just randomly shoot someone standing around doing nothing wrong. Almost all these cases that are in the news involve people who were actively engaging in illegal activity, or attempting to get away from the offices to avoid getting into trouble for illegal activity they didn't want to go to jail for.

I'm getting sick of the narrative that people don't deserve to die for small crimes. That's true, but those small crimes aren't the reasons they're getting shot. They get shot because they run.

Let's put it this way; some officers in Florida tonight attempted to stop a mentally ill man armed with a sword by using 'non-lethal' methods ( a beanbag gun). As an officer tried to speak with the armed man, he was attacked, and is now in the hospital. It just happened, so I don't have his condition, but it sounds like it could be pretty serious. The suspect was shot after he attacked the officer.

Where should the line be drawn on what is reasonable action? How much do officers need to risk in order to do things in a way to appease the public. At what point is it all right for an officer to stop someone?

And again, while I think the officer was wrong if he actually planted the evidence (is this a fact, or another media distortion of the truth?), the amount of shots fired was not unreasonable. You shoot until the person stops moving. That's how it works.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Tempest it's always funny how no matter what you defend the cops without even having the full story. You can clearly see the cop pick up the taser and put it next to the man he just shot. Why would an officer do that? He was fired and his lawyer refused to take his case. What more needs to be shown? Lethal force is only justified when someone poses immediate life threatening danger to the officer or the public. Obviously running from the police is stupid but it's every Americans God given right to run if they feel like it's somehow in their best interest. Just because they have a gun and a badge does not mean they somehow know best and we all must comply or be shot. And in the case of mental illness why does someone deserve to die because they are not in full control of their actions?

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Isn't there something to be said about the running from officers, attacks even, as having an affect on the situation? Surely complying in all of these situations would have lead to a normal outcome.

 

[Breogan]

You shoot until the person stops moving. That's how it works.

Yeah if they are coming at you with a weapon, or trying to get at yours.

But not while they're running away form you.

That's where this cop is shown clearly in the wrong. And then suspiciously moving evidence (a weapon) to put it near the victim. It's damning.

That said, if the rest of the video ( CNN and others are now only showing after he starts running from the fight) if it shows there was a struggle for the weapon before he ran, and he did go for the taser, and that is why the cop no longer had his non-lethal weapon,...but still had to apprehend the guy, he now considered a physical and active threat.

Then SC law might find a way to rationalize his actions and not convict.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I personally always comply with the cops since I'm not stupid but being stupid and running on the off chance you can get away should not lead to being killed. If you attack an officer than you deserve whatever force that officer deems necessary to stop you. My only clause for that is if the person is reported as mentally ill the cops need to come prepared with other options than killing them unless if possible

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Don't blame the 'victim'. The thing is, there are very few instances where police just randomly shoot someone standing around doing nothing wrong. Almost all these cases that are in the news involve people who were actively engaging in illegal activity, or attempting to get away from the offices to avoid getting into trouble for illegal activity they didn't want to go to jail for.

I'm getting sick of the narrative that people don't deserve to die for small crimes. That's true, but those small crimes aren't the reasons they're getting shot. They get shot because they run.

Let's put it this way; some officers in Florida tonight attempted to stop a mentally ill man armed with a sword by using 'non-lethal' methods ( a beanbag gun). As an officer tried to speak with the armed man, he was attacked, and is now in the hospital. It just happened, so I don't have his condition, but it sounds like it could be pretty serious. The suspect was shot after he attacked the officer.

Where should the line be drawn on what is reasonable action? How much do officers need to risk in order to do things in a way to appease the public. At what point is it all right for an officer to stop someone?

And again, while I think the officer was wrong if he actually planted the evidence (is this a fact, or another media distortion of the truth?), the amount of shots fired was not unreasonable. You shoot until the person stops moving. That's how it works.

There's a reason this cop was charged with murder.

It's against the law for cops in South Carolina to shoot an unarmed person dead for simply evading capture.

So you're not defending reasonable behavior of a cop on duty. You're defending criminal behavior from someone who happens to be a cop.

And the cop is obviously sketchy if he moves the taser closer to the dead body and lies about performing CPR.

But no some people always defend the police, even when their actions are obviously wrong.

Cops are allowed to shoot unarmed people in the back. They're allowed to plant evidence to justify murder. They're allowed to lie about performing CPR on a suspect they shot dead.

Why?

This is beyond defending cops in general as good, honest people. This is justifying criminal behavior from the police which is just terrifying.

 

[Asgard]

Don't blame the 'victim'. The thing is, there are very few instances where police just randomly shoot someone standing around doing nothing wrong. Almost all these cases that are in the news involve people who were actively engaging in illegal activity, or attempting to get away from the offices to avoid getting into trouble for illegal activity they didn't want to go to jail for.

This cop just shot an unarmed man trying to run away. He had outstanding warrants for not paying child support.

I'm getting sick of the narrative that people don't deserve to die for small crimes. That's true, but those small crimes aren't the reasons they're getting shot. They get shot because they run.

Scott was defenseless and was running away from the cop. He had no weapon on him and the officer didnt even try to chase and subdue like theyre trained to do. He simply took out his gun, carefully aimed at the back of Scott and fired 8 shots at him, 5 of which hit him.

Let's put it this way; some officers in Florida tonight attempted to stop a mentally ill man armed with a sword by using 'non-lethal' methods ( a beanbag gun). As an officer tried to speak with the armed man, he was attacked, and is now in the hospital. It just happened, so I don't have his condition, but it sounds like it could be pretty serious. The suspect was shot after he attacked the officer.

Where should the line be drawn on what is reasonable action? How much do officers need to risk in order to do things in a way to appease the public. At what point is it all right for an officer to stop someone?

Lets put it this way: Unless the guy poses a serious threat to the officer's life or the public he CANNOT shoot him. He must use non lethal means to subdue someone.

Again, Scott was unarmed and posed no threat to the officer. How is this shooting justified in any way?

And again, while I think the officer was wrong if he actually planted the evidence (is this a fact, or another media distortion of the truth?), the amount of shots fired was not unreasonable. You shoot until the person stops moving. That's how it works.

So hes wrong for planting the taser near Scott, but what about the part where he shoots him 8 times in the back of a defenseless man?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

True. Any sane intelligent person should be able to tell I don't condone the actual shooting event. I just feel that there is little being done to work on the other part of the equation. The criminal who gets stopped and decides that running/attacking a cop is the solution, is actually a huge part of problem.

Every mainstream case in terms of the media, has had a shooter that simply didn't comply when being ceased by the officer who is trying to sort out a situation.

There is a huge difference between running from the police or resisting arrest and attacking the police.

Blending them all in the same category is a huge part of the problem.

Even the cop himself realized he broke the law and planted the stun gun closer to the dead suspect and reported to the dispatcher that he was attacked with it in order to justify the killing.

 

[Tempest]

Isn't there something to be said about the running from officers, attacks even, as having an affect on the situation? Surely complying in all of these situations would have lead to a normal outcome.

Well based on how many people I know who have interacted with police, and who have even been caught doing illegal things have all managed to stay alive, I would guess that running, attacking, or moving in a threatening manner plays a huge role in how things are viewed.

Tempest it's always funny how no matter what you defend the cops without even having the full story. You can clearly see the cop pick up the taser and put it next to the man he just shot. Why would an officer do that? He was fired and his lawyer refused to take his case. What more needs to be shown? Lethal force is only justified when someone poses immediate life threatening danger to the officer or the public. Obviously running from the police is stupid but it's every Americans God given right to run if they feel like it's somehow in their best interest. Just because they have a gun and a badge does not mean they somehow know best and we all must comply or be shot. And in the case of mental illness why does someone deserve to die because they are not in full control of their actions?

I already said that the officer should never have moved the taser. That was a stupid move on his part.

What I find funny is that you always defend the person who was shot. You don't wait to see what evidence is out there. You just hear "unarmed, shot by officer", and presume the officer was in the wrong.

Now that we've had days of reports that this guy was unarmed and just running away from the officer, we finally hear more info. Like the fact that this was a dead-beat loser who'd been arrested several times before, and who had yet another warrant out. This same guy fled from the officer first chance he got, and when the officer caught him the first time, he struggled and fought.

It makes a difference, and I don't give a damn if the guy was jay walking or had a body stuffed in the trunk of his car. If you act like a suspicious jackass, you're putting your life at risk.

Officers shouldn't have to try to discern whether fleeing means that a person has a minor violation, or whether they are the most evil dirt bag ever. If they attack an officer and then flee, then as far as I'm concerned, take them down. There's no way to know if they're armed. There's no way to tell if they won't attack a civilian in order to keep police at bay.

It's a hard line to draw, but I'm comfortable with that line. Better to be overly cautious and shoot someone who isn't armed than to allow them the chance to hurt someone else.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Wow

 

[Tempest]

There is a huge difference between running from the police or resisting arrest and attacking the police.

Blending them all in the same category is a huge part of the problem.

Even the cop himself realized he broke the law and planted the stun gun closer to the dead suspect and reported to the dispatcher that he was attacked with it in order to justify the killing.

Was it because he broke the law, or because he was afraid of the media response?

 

[Tempest]

Wow

You say wow that I draw the line. I say wow that you would risk lives based on the assumption that the officers are always in the wrong.

And I know took the polar opposite stance on what people say happened. It's not because I think this officer used the best judgement or that he followed the law.

It's because I want to force people to examine more than one side of the issue. The media proclaims that someone was unjustly shot, and people parrot it like it's the whole truth, without once considering that there might be more to the story.

I want corrupt officers off the street. But I don't want the good guys to end up getting hurt or killed because the media prevents them from being able to properly defend themselves. There has to be a balance.

 

[Asgard]

What I find funny is that you always defend the person who was shot. You don't wait to see what evidence is out there. You just hear "unarmed, shot by officer", and presume the officer was in the wrong.

The evidence is out there. That cop shot at an unarmed man who was running away. Thats murder. Point blank.

Now that we've had days of reports that this guy was unarmed and just running away from the officer, we finally hear more info. Like the fact that this was a dead-beat loser who'd been arrested several times before, and who had yet another warrant out. This same guy fled from the officer first chance he got, and when the officer caught him the first time, he struggled and fought.

Oh yeah, warrants for unpaid child support what a heinous and dangerous thug. Surely he deserved to get shot in the back while trying to run away.

It makes a difference, and I don't give a damn if the guy was jay walking or had a body stuffed in the trunk of his car. If you act like a suspicious jackass, you're putting your life at risk.

Officers shouldn't have to try to discern whether fleeing means that a person has a minor violation, or whether they are the most evil dirt bag ever. If they attack an officer and then flee, then as far as I'm concerned, take them down. There's no way to know if they're armed. There's no way to tell if they won't attack a civilian in order to keep police at bay.

BS. Its an officer's job to make sound judgements on the threat level of anyone theyre dealing with. They cant just shoot someone down because they shove a taser out of their hand and run away.

It's a hard line to draw, but I'm comfortable with that line. Better to be overly cautious and shoot someone who isn't armed than to allow them the chance to hurt someone else.

Wow, this is a pretty disgusting and dangerous line of thought. Its also against the law. I cant believe someone is actually ok with cops shooting unarmed people just because they think they might be a threat instead of using non lethal means to apprehend them. ****ing sick.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

If you chose to be an officer you take up the responsibility of protecting the citizens in your area. If you decide to kill one of those citizens it better damn we'll be because either your life or someone else's life was in danger. Time and time again cops have killed people for the most minor infractions and got away with it. Those people deserve to be punished, just because they have a badge does not give them a license to kill indiscriminately. Being a cop is a damn hard job with tons of responsibility and if you aren't ready to serve the citizens and just want to wield power you don't deserve the badge. This cop had a history of attacking black men and had been cleared in previous instances even though he was in the wrong and now he murdered someone

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Well based on how many people I know who have interacted with police, and who have even been caught doing illegal things have all managed to stay alive, I would guess that running, attacking, or moving in a threatening manner plays a huge role in how things are viewed.



I already said that the officer should never have moved the taser. That was a stupid move on his part.

What I find funny is that you always defend the person who was shot. You don't wait to see what evidence is out there. You just hear "unarmed, shot by officer", and presume the officer was in the wrong.

Now that we've had days of reports that this guy was unarmed and just running away from the officer, we finally hear more info. Like the fact that this was a dead-beat loser who'd been arrested several times before, and who had yet another warrant out. This same guy fled from the officer first chance he got, and when the officer caught him the first time, he struggled and fought.

It makes a difference, and I don't give a damn if the guy was jay walking or had a body stuffed in the trunk of his car. If you act like a suspicious jackass, you're putting your life at risk.

Officers shouldn't have to try to discern whether fleeing means that a person has a minor violation, or whether they are the most evil dirt bag ever. If they attack an officer and then flee, then as far as I'm concerned, take them down. There's no way to know if they're armed. There's no way to tell if they won't attack a civilian in order to keep police at bay.

It's a hard line to draw, but I'm comfortable with that line. Better to be overly cautious and shoot someone who isn't armed than to allow them the chance to hurt someone else.

You're saying everyone who runs away from the police should be assumed to be murderers?

You're just bending over backwards to justify shooting unarmed people in the back. It's ridiculous.

Lots of people run from the police. Why? Because NO ONE wants to be arrested.

You want people who evade police to be charged for an additional crime? Fair enough, most people would agree. But exterminating everyone who runs from the cops is draconian and flat out evil. Godwin's Law be damned, this isn't Nazi Germany.

Shooting unarmed people in the back is cowardly and wrong and it will always be cowardly and wrong, no matter who does the shooting.