There seems to be NO excuse shooting this man

[Clipper]

allenbwest.com/2015/04/one-thing-media-pundits-wont-say-about-walter-scotts-shooting/

I am normally one hundred percent behind a police officer when it comes to a justified shooting and the often seen demonstrations, unjustified rioting, and interference by our Attorney General and the federal government's Justice Department.

From all indications, there was no justifiable reason to shoot and kill this man over a traffic stop. If found guilty, this officer deserves to receive the maximum punishment under the law.

One can only pray the this will be dealt with swiftly and correctly and there will be no such demonstrations and unrest such as there was in Ferguson Mo. Hopefully Eric Holder will keep his incendiary rhetoric to himself and will let this play out in the courts of South Carolina, just as any other murder case would be adjudicated at the local and state level.



It seems that there is a movement to collect money for the officer's defense. I don't condemn those that would contribute or support him, but the paragraph justifying his making a "simple misjudgment" after five years of undisciplined service is ridiculous. When a video shows a man obviously running away, presenting NO threat to the safety of the officer, it is horrendous at best when the officer draws his weapon and fires 8 shots at the fleeing suspect over a traffic stop gone bad.

He may have been an exemplary officer, but he obviously made a horrible mistake in shooting this man, and all indications are that it was totally unjustified. Not much that can be said in defense of the actions taken by the police officer.

Did someone stuff a sock in Al Sharpton's mouth or shoot the dumb ass? I am amazed that he has not been heard from on this issue. That big "R word" is bound to come up, and I am surprised that it hasn't been shouted from the rooftops by Sharpton and other race baiters.

[Deleted]

The NBC nightly news show the video that was recorded by some young man who was nearby. It clearly shows the officer shooting at this man as he ran away from him. Shot him in the back. The man had no weapon. This officer has since been fired from the police force.

[Clipper]

I guess I spoke too soon about Sharpton. The shit spewing racist couldn't resist a chance to jump on the bandwagon, saying that he would like to see a nationalization of the country's police forces.

www.ijreview.com/2015/04/291928-al-sharptons-solution-police-brutality-nationalization-americas-police-forces/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Politics

Sharpton, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson, and our illustrious president might be better served by speaking to the black community and advising them to refrain from resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, or running from a police officer when ordered to stop. One would be better off submitting to arrest and taking up the civil rights allegations and issues through proper channels at a later time.

[kit]

The term, "Yes, BUT..." seems to be bandied about in discussions by both sides in this situation as well as others. Everyone has their particular take whether or not they know the whole story or not. Most people only know what they've seen in the media, but there are always other circumstances that they never hear about which must be factored in.

Clipper nailed it when he said for people in the black community (or anyone else for that matter), "to refrain from resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, or running from a police officer when ordered to stop." These behaviors just invite further action regardless of what 'color' they are, and are a good indication that they've done something they don't want the police to find out about.

[Clipper]

I watched the official dashcam video and was appalled to see that the officer opened fire and blatantly riddled the man with bullets. It is alleged that the man ran because he was afraid of being zapped with the taser, but there is also a story out there saying that the man had a warrant for unpaid child support.

I have heard of taking a person's tax return, or suspending a person's driver's license for non-payment of child support, but NEVER have I heard that it could be considered a capital crime for which an individual should be taken dead or alive.

[clarencebunsen]

Apparently you are not alone in your opinion of Rev. Sharpton.

Family of Walter Scott tells Rev. Al Sharpton to keep away

Stay away, Rev. Al.

That was the message from the family of South Carolina police shooting victim Walter Scott to the civil rights activist Thursday two days before the funeral for the slain father of four.

“We don’t want another Ferguson type of circus here,” a source close to the Scott family told The Daily News.

www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/family-walter-scott-shot-dead-preparing-lawsuit-article-1.2179020

[Ralph]

Utterly disgusting actions by an LEO.

[dave]

Couple of thoughts. I wonder what the recommended procedure is for an officer when a suspect is running away. In the movies he'd probably be neatly shot in the leg so he could be apprehended. That's a dangerous technique, of course. But the officer could always say, "He tripped just as I was putting one in his leg and it went in his butt and out his ten year molars." In many cases where the identity is known the cop could just let him go and pick him up later. But police are reluctant to do that for a number of reasons. It's a bad precedent, for one thing, and it also opens up the situation to the possibility of a stand-off at home involving the suspect's family and other innocents.

Second, Sharpton's call for a nationalized police force brings to mind Germany in the 30's. Certainly not a great idea. Unless you're a wana-be dictator (Hitler) or a minority "Sharpton) trying to get the most control by the fewest. Thank your lucky starts J. Edgar Hoover was not successful.

[clarencebunsen]

Ditto on the national police force although we seem to be moving in that direction at times. Every federal agency seems to find a need to be not just armed but heavily armed. Why the heck does Fish & Wildlife need SWAT Teams?

It's been about 100 years since I was in MP school and I don't remember the subject of shooting a fleeing suspect coming up. The standard has to be one of imminent danger to the public or yourself. Danger to the public has to come first. Every bullet fired has to eventually hit something.

If you take a weapon from its holster you have to recognize and accept that you have made a decision which can result in death.

The concept of shoot to wound or disable exists only in movies.

[dave]

From Wiki

U.S. law

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit.[4] Deadly force that is executed by a co-defendant against an accomplice is not justified by the fleeing felon rule.

More at:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule