# I'm simply stunned



## paratrooper

No matter what I do, I cannot twist / contort my mind in such a way, as to understand why the officer shot.

White SC officer charged with murder for shooting black man


----------



## SouthernBoy

I just love how they probably couldn't wait to say, "white officer shoots black man in back". That ought to put a smile on Holder's racist face and place the faux reverends (Jackson and Sharpton) in the thick of it. Yep, get ready for some more riots and looting.


(mind you, this does not appear to be a justifiable use of deadly force)


----------



## paratrooper

For me, it has nothing to do with race. 

I simply cannot understand why the officer shot. Not in a hundred years, will that officer be able to justify doing what he did.


----------



## denner

paratrooper said:


> No matter what I do, I cannot twist / contort my mind in such a way, as to understand why the officer shot.
> 
> White SC officer charged with murder for shooting black man


It stopped him from fleeing for sure.


----------



## denner

"white officer shoots black man in back"

Yes, it just can't be "officer shoots black man in back"

or "black officer shoots white man in back."


----------



## denner

Don't run from police would be my advice.


----------



## Gruesome

I think "Don't shoot people in the back" trumps "Don't run from the police."

I really like the part where the cop drops a weapon on the ground near the guy. Insult, meet injury. Er...vice versa, actually.

Have fun in prison, Smokey!


----------



## paratrooper

Some of you are missing the whole point. Each and every police officer has a duty and obligation to legally enforce the law. Just because someone runs from you, or takes a jab at you and makes contact, does not mean you have the right to kill them.

This is some very serious stuff going on here. It doesn't matter what the guy may have said to the cop. It doesn't matter why he was stopped while in his car. All that matters is what ultimately happened.

The victim turned away from the officer and ran away from him. The officer's well-being and/or life was *NOT* in jeopardy, and yet, he chose to stand there and fire not one shot, but a total of 8 shots.

The officer's actions should be very alarming to all of us. I can guarantee you that he's not the only one out there. What if it had been one of your sons that had been stopped by this officer, and he chose to run from the officer?

A quote like "you should not run from the police", isn't going to cut it this time. I can't even begin to count the number of times I gave foot chase, for a variety of reasons, vs. shooting them in the back.

Race does not play any part in this situation. The officer was 100% wrong and acted grossly irresponsibly. It's about a cop who's life was not in jeopardy, deciding to shoot someone as they were running away.

The only "snowball's chance in Hell" excuse he might use would be temporary insanity. And good luck with that one.


----------



## SouthernBoy

paratrooper said:


> *For me, it has nothing to do with race.
> *
> I simply cannot understand why the officer shot. Not in a hundred years, will that officer be able to justify doing what he did.


From my own perspective, I agree. Unfortunately the rabid black racists love this stuff. It's the biggest source of funds to their coffers.


----------



## SouthernBoy

paratrooper said:


> Some of you are missing the whole point. Each and every police officer has a duty and obligation to legally enforce the law. Just because someone runs from you, or takes a jab at you and makes contact, does not mean you have the right to kill them.
> 
> This is some very serious stuff going on here. It doesn't matter what the guy may have said to the cop. It doesn't matter why he was stopped while in his car. All that matters is what ultimately happened.
> 
> The victim turned away from the officer and ran away from him. The officer's well-being and/or life was *NOT* in jeopardy, and yet, he chose to stand there and fire not one shot, but a total of 8 shots.
> 
> The officer's actions should be very alarming to all of us. I can guarantee you that he's not the only one out there. What if it had been one of your sons that had been stopped by this officer, and he chose to run from the officer?
> 
> A quote like "you should not run from the police", isn't going to cut it this time. I can't even begin to count the number of times I gave foot chase, for a variety of reasons, vs. shooting them in the back.
> 
> Race does not play any part in this situation. The officer was 100% wrong and acted grossly irresponsibly. It's about a cop who's life was not in jeopardy, deciding to shoot someone as they were running away.
> 
> The only "snowball's chance in Hell" excuse he might use would be temporary insanity. And good luck with that one.


You're right with your assessment.

I shall await my judgement on this one until all the facts are presented but I do admit that this does not look good at all for the officer. Him being charged with murder does not appear to being railroaded because of the race issue. Furthermore, it appears that he tried to cover his actions up immediately after taking the man down. In a nutshell, I would NOT want to be in this officer's shoes.

There certainly are situations where shooting someone in the back is not only prudent but warranted, this does not look like one of them. Still the facts need to be made known so that we can all better understand what led up to this tragic incident.

And while you may say that "Race does not play any part in this situation", the race hustlers will beg to disagree with you on this one. They will take advantage of any straw they can grasp to line their pockets and incite people to loot and destroy. I was in North Charleston last September and it is a busy and thriving city just outside of Charleston proper. This is indeed a sad time for them and for everyone.


----------



## ybnorml

Shooting a person in the back as they are running away from you........???
I'm wondering what else there is to this situation that we don't know...


----------



## SouthernBoy

ybnorml said:


> *Shooting a person in the back as they are running away from you........???*
> I'm wondering what else there is to this situation that we don't know...


There are even some incidences where this is warranted. Not many but a few.


----------



## ybnorml

SouthernBoy said:


> There are even some incidences where this is warranted. Not many but a few.


I understand this....Just wondering what we don't know about this situation that would qualify for shots to the back,
and from 15ft to 30ft away.


----------



## Goldwing

Looks like a cold blooded execution to me. I have no doubt that Officer Slager would have had no problem chasing down Scott who took off at a trot. I heard a mention that 

Scott had made a grab for Slagers Taser at one point but he didn't gain control of it. I think that the D.A. got the charge correct at murder.

GW


----------



## SailDesign

goldwing said:


> Looks like a cold blooded execution to me. I have no doubt that Officer Slager would have had no problem chasing down Scott who took off at a trot. I heard a mention that
> 
> Scott had made a grab for Slagers Taser at one point but he didn't gain control of it. I think that the D.A. got the charge correct at murder.
> 
> GW


That was my take, too.


----------



## SouthernBoy

ybnorml said:


> I understand this....Just wondering what we don't know about this situation that would qualify for shots to the back,
> and from 15ft to 30ft away.


Yes, I agree with this and would rather wait for the facts to come out before having a definitive opinion.


----------



## SouthernBoy

goldwing said:


> Looks like a cold blooded execution to me. I have no doubt that Officer Slager would have had no problem chasing down Scott who took off at a trot. I heard a mention that
> 
> Scott had made a grab for Slagers Taser at one point but he didn't gain control of it. I think that the D.A. got the charge correct at murder.
> 
> GW


They're going to know a lot more about this case than does the general public at this point. To have charged him this soon means either they have what they need to bring such a charge or it was a political move. I'm guessing the former. Either way, it does not look good for this officer.


----------



## GCBHM

ybnorml said:


> Shooting a person in the back as they are running away from you........???
> I'm wondering what else there is to this situation that we don't know...


One thing we can count on is that there is more to the story. Ferguson taught us all that...or it should have.


----------



## muckaleewarrior

This is very sad but it's good there is video footage showing this officer was in no danger when he cowardly shot this man in the back multiple times. And some wonder why people don't trust the police! SMDH


----------



## paratrooper

I'm sure that there's something more to the story. What it is, will come out eventually. 

I'm looking at the situation thru the eyes of a retired police officer. I put myself in that scenario and tried to imagine the incident that would make me want to shoot at someone as they were running away from me, as in the video. 

Obviously, the officer was not injured and his life was not in immediate jeopardy. As hard as I tried to come up with some form of excuse to shoot, I could not. I couldn't even come close to coming up with one. 

The officer supposedly had 5 yrs. of service on the force. A seasoned veteran officer he was not. 

As far as this incident being comparable to Ferguson, it's not. It's a whole different animal. It's on video, and there's nothing to dispute. The officer's action speaks for itself.


----------



## SouthernBoy

paratrooper said:


> I'm sure that there's something more to the story. What it is, will come out eventually.
> 
> I'm looking at the situation thru the eyes of a retired police officer. I put myself in that scenario and tried to imagine the incident that would make me want to shoot at someone as they were running away from me, as in the video.
> 
> Obviously, the officer was not injured and his life was not in immediate jeopardy. As hard as I tried to come up with some form of excuse to shoot, I could not. I couldn't even come close to coming up with one.
> 
> The officer supposedly had 5 yrs. of service on the force. A seasoned veteran officer he was not.
> 
> As far as this incident being comparable to Ferguson, it's not. It's a whole different animal. It's on video, and there's nothing to dispute. The officer's action speaks for itself.


At the risk of being charged with being patronizing, your position on this speaks highly of your character as a man and a law enforcement officer (former).


----------



## SailDesign

paratrooper said:


> I'm sure that there's something more to the story. What it is, will come out eventually.
> 
> I'm looking at the situation thru the eyes of a retired police officer. I put myself in that scenario and tried to imagine the incident that would make me want to shoot at someone as they were running away from me, as in the video.
> 
> Obviously, the officer was not injured and his life was not in immediate jeopardy. As hard as I tried to come up with some form of excuse to shoot, I could not. I couldn't even come close to coming up with one.
> 
> The officer supposedly had 5 yrs. of service on the force. A seasoned veteran officer he was not.
> 
> As far as this incident being comparable to Ferguson, it's not. It's a whole different animal. It's on video, and there's nothing to dispute. The officer's action speaks for itself.


It's the running away part that seals it. The officer was not in harm's way, and to his knowledge, nor was anyone else.

Anyone that excuses his actions is not welcome on my back porch... Ever.


----------



## RK3369

This happened in our local community. The local news has been all over this since last evening. The guy was stopped for a broken tail light, the officer ran his record and found an outstanding warrant for failure to pay child support. The officer was attempting to affect an arrest for that warrant, they scuffled, taser was used or fought over, the black guy took off running away and the officer drew and fired at him. 

Although the news said the officer claimed he feared for his life, it's hard to see how a fight over a taser could have escalated to a fear for his life. Also, it's very difficult to see how the black fellow running away from the officer was an immediate threat to the officer's safety. 

They have charged the officer with murder, the judge allowed no bond, so the officer is in jail presently. Based on what I have seen and heard from the local media, which I think is a little less biased than the national media, I don't see any justification for the shooting. I am also quite sure that the officials here, once the video was made public, decided they had to act quickly to bring charges rather than allow a riot to ensue. So far, things are quiet locally with a peaceful protest being held at the North Charleston City Hall this morning. Have not heard any reports of local problems to this point. 

Honestly, I can see no justification for this shooting. I don't think there is much else that is going to come out about it. Officer was trying to affect an arrest for an outstanding failure to pay child support warrant (they do lock you up for that down here), guy struggled and resisted, tried to run away, but the nature of the offense in my opinion does not justify use of deadly force to affect the arrest. Also, as someone mentioned, this officer was mid 30's the black guy was late 50's. The officer probably could have simply run him down rather than to shoot him in the back. A very unfortunate situation however this officer is going to serve time, perhaps even be sentenced to the death penalty for this act. There simply has been nothing come out yet that excuses the shooting.


----------



## GCBHM

RK3369 said:


> Although the news said the officer claimed he feared for his life, it's hard to see how a fight over a taser could have escalated to a fear for his life.


Granted, there is going to be difficulty proving that the officer had just cause to use deadly force at the time that he shot, but none of us can say with any validity whether or not the officer feared for his life. A fight over a pistol turned out to be enough to prove Darren Wilson was in legitimate fear for his life. Had this officer drawn his weapon and shot the man during the scuffle, there would be no question here. We cannot just determine the officer's state of mind in this situation. That is for the legal system to determine once and for all. Of course, it looks bad and the media has already seen to it that the cop is guilty before the trial even begins, but at the end of the day, this cop is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> Granted, there is going to be difficulty proving that the officer had just cause to use deadly force at the time that he shot, but none of us can say with any validity whether or not the officer feared for his life.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ... but at the end of the day, this cop is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.


On the first part, if someone is running away from you, unless you can see a BFG that they're running towards (that's "Big Fcuking Gun" in case it isn't obvious) then your life is NOT in danger from them.

On the second, I believe I have been informed in this very forum that although that phrase is bandied about, it is in fact NOT a part of the American legal code anywhere. The Fifth Amendment comes closest to expressing it, but merely states "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Which stops short of innocence or guilt.


----------



## RK3369

GCBHM said:


> Granted, there is going to be difficulty proving that the officer had just cause to use deadly force at the time that he shot, but none of us can say with any validity whether or not the officer feared for his life. A fight over a pistol turned out to be enough to prove Darren Wilson was in legitimate fear for his life. Had this officer drawn his weapon and shot the man during the scuffle, there would be no question here. We cannot just determine the officer's state of mind in this situation. That is for the legal system to determine once and for all. Of course, it looks bad and the media has already seen to it that the cop is guilty before the trial even begins, but at the end of the day, this cop is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.


yes, agreed. Nonetheless, it's still difficult to see how someone running away from you represents an imminent threat to your health and safety. The officer could have been scared due to the fight and rightfully so, but when the suspect broke loose and started running away, there was no longer an imminent threat and therefore no reason to use deadly force, in my opinion.

One thing that also is present here is that in this community (North Charleston) there has long been reports of "strongarm" policing by the mostly white police force against the mostly black population. I work with blacks who have told me they've been subjected to it, so it appears to be an ongoing community problem. I'm actually surprised the black community has not taken a more aggressive response to this so far. When the Justice Department gets involved in the North Charleston police force, there may be many changes up and down the ladder as a result. I'm all for law and order and respecting an LEO, but the justification for this shooting is still difficult for me to see at this point.


----------



## CW

It is a tenet of Jewish law not to judge a man before hearing the matter. Innocent until proven guilty is a paraphrase of such.

Having done accident investigations, I've regularly found such a tenet is wise as facts unfold. It helps keep you impartial - which can be difficult.


Yet many times circumstantial evidence is both damming and confirmed by the facts.


----------



## Goldwing

GCBHM said:


> Granted, there is going to be difficulty proving that the officer had just cause to use deadly force at the time that he shot, but none of us can say with any validity whether or not the officer feared for his life. A fight over a pistol turned out to be enough to prove Darren Wilson was in legitimate fear for his life. Had this officer drawn his weapon and shot the man during the scuffle, there would be no question here. We cannot just determine the officer's state of mind in this situation. That is for the legal system to determine once and for all. Of course, it looks bad and the media has already seen to it that the cop is guilty before the trial even begins, but at the end of the day, this cop is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.


What you say may be absolutely correct. If you believe that any court is going to find him innocent you are absolutely incorrect.

The reason I say this is that every person in the U.S. has either seen the video, or been told about it by now. That has swayed any possible jury pool to the point that almost

everyone should be disqualified. Also with the video as damning proof of his guilt, were he to be found innocent this entire country could be set ablaze so the government

will make certain that he is found guilty. JMHO YMMV

GW


----------



## RK3369

CW said:


> It is a tenet of Jewish law not to judge a man before hearing the matter. Innocent until proven guilty is a paraphrase of such.
> 
> Having done accident investigations, I've regularly found such a tenet is wise as facts unfold. It helps keep you impartial - which can be difficult.
> 
> Yet many times circumstantial evidence is both damming and confirmed by the facts.


agreed, not trying to prejudge the officer, just saying that nothing has surfaced so far to justify the shooting. I guess if a smart defense lawyer can somehow convince a jury that the officer feared for his life despite the fact that the suspect was fleeing the scene, well they may just acquit the officer. Kinda hard to imagine right now based on what has been published, but it is certainly possible.


----------



## paratrooper

CW said:


> It is a tenet of Jewish law not to judge a man before hearing the matter. Innocent until proven guilty is a paraphrase of such.
> 
> Having done accident investigations, I've regularly found such a tenet is wise as facts unfold. It helps keep you impartial - which can be difficult.
> 
> Yet many times circumstantial evidence is both damming and confirmed by the facts.


There are times, when something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and if you have experience with ducks, you can safely assume it's nothing more than a duck.

Having said that, I am ashamed and out-raged by the officer's actions. The video speaks for itself, and only a fool would try to condone or explain it away. (Insert defense lawyer here).

It's a sad day for LE and for all the good cops that go to work each and every day of their career, and doing the right thing over and over.


----------



## paratrooper

https://gma.yahoo.com/shooting-vict...nexpected-165849760--abc-news-topstories.html

http://news.yahoo.com/protest-planned-white-sc-officer-charged-murder-092432016.html


----------



## RK3369

paratrooper said:


> There are times, when something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and if you have experience with ducks, you can safely assume it's nothing more than a duck.
> 
> Having said that, I am ashamed and out-raged by the officer's actions. The video speaks for itself, and only a fool would try to condone or explain it away. (Insert defense lawyer here).
> 
> It's a sad day for LE and for all the good cops that go to work each and every day of their career, and doing the right thing over and over.


admittedly those in power felt the same way about the evidence. It absolutely puts a bad face on all law enforcement when these things happen. I think a defense attorney may try to make the case that the LEO just "lost it". Doesn't excuse it, just explains how and why it happened. That said, I don't see a jury convicting on a lesser charge, such as manslaughter or something like that. I think this officer is going away for life or perhaps for death.


----------



## Scorpion8

paratrooper said:


> I simply cannot understand why the officer shot. Not in a hundred years, will that officer be able to justify doing what he did.


I don't think it has to do with race either. But I do think our police are becoming tired of being disrespected. It used to be as kids we were taught to say "yes sir, or no sir" to police and now, with the help of reality TV, we've learned to refuse to answer police even at routine stops. Why did the guy run away? Why didn't he just comply, answer the questions, and be polite? I recall an incident just recently where our police stopped a young man that I know and asked if he had a loaded weapon in the car (as all gangsta' kids think they ought to). Instead of just complying and following along, since it IS legal here, the bozo had to make an argument with the police office about what gave "him" the right to carry, and what gave "him" the right to stop this bozo, etc.

I know for a fact that it is becoming a thankless job that our zero-defect PC-mentality is making more and more worse every day.


----------



## RK3369

Scorpion8 said:


> I don't think it has to do with race either. But I do think our police are becoming tired of being disrespected. It used to be as kids we were taught to say "yes sir, or no sir" to police and now, with the help of reality TV, we've learned to refuse to answer police even at routine stops. Why did the guy run away? Why didn't he just comply, answer the questions, and be polite? I recall an incident just recently where our police stopped a young man that I know and asked if he had a loaded weapon in the car (as all gangsta' kids think they ought to). Instead of just complying and following along, since it IS legal here, the bozo had to make an argument with the police office about what gave "him" the right to carry, and what gave "him" the right to stop this bozo, etc.
> 
> I know for a fact that it is becoming a thankless job that our zero-defect PC-mentality is making more and more worse every day.


Yes, but he made the situation worse by being a smart ass with the LEO. What did he think he was going to prove by that action? You ain't gonna win that contest because the police have more guns, ammo and radios than you do. There is no reason to act like that to an LEO who is just doing his job. People acting like that is what subsequently sets them off. The kid's lucky he wasn't cuffed and hauled in for being such a dumb ass.

That said, if you can't stand the heat,, get out of the kitchen. You'd better expect that type of behavior as a LEO and if you can't stand it, time to get out. Part of the job. It's truly thankless until you have to save somebody's ass.


----------



## pic

ybnorml said:


> I understand this....Just wondering what we don't know about this situation that would qualify for shots to the back,
> and from 15ft to 30ft away.


Good question,

Example for shooting someone in the back while they're running away.

Hmm?

He just knifed the officer who is internally bleeding, possibly a fatal wound to the officer.

I agree , it may not appear as it seems, based on only the initial video.


----------



## PT111Pro

Well I don't believe in that video at all. It came out under very, and I mean very strange conditions and came very late out.
And why do I believe that there is much more to the story than the media is telling us?

I don't believe in that story. Sure something really happen but what happen, we will never know. Half-truth is the tools that liberals use everywhere and not only in the US and not since yesterday. Remember the Reichtstagsbrand 1933. Hitler blamed the Jews for it and 5 days later he could even present pictures how and when the Jews did it. 

I’ll believe the video is manufactured after some thing happen. The true fact we will never know. 
Herr Goering the Propaganda Minister of the 3th Reich said, show the people picture and let the Pastor confirm it and the People believe in the Nububli Man from Mars.

I told U guys a while ago in the Ferguson discussion that manufactured incidents including videos will be created in the near future and this will happen soon. Well here we go. If they get caught they say, “but it could happen like this” or they just ignore the facts and just don’t mention it anymore creating something new, if they didn't get caught they smile. The Agenda of this liberal religion is more than a Christian or Muslim God. Marxist/Leninist liberalism is more than the Universe, at least for the disciples of that Religion. 

We will see in videos more and more half-truth and plain inventions. Once they hucked the people on homemade videos on manufactured incidents with a crying mother, we will be bombarded with that crap and there will be no end. We will experience that they get sometimes couth doing it but they don't care, people get used to it and after a while no one ask anyway what they did.

If you tell me that you believe that incident had happen like this, you must believe in Santa Clouse too.
Do you really believe that a LEO in any given City goes out and just randomly stops someone bulls him or her out of the car and then shoot someone? I have met as... that’s true and many going over board or overachieve. But shooting someone in cold blood in front of witnesses and broad day-light and let film him while he is doing it. That is just liberal bullshit out of Hollywood. What do U guys smoke?


----------



## paratrooper

Scorpion8 said:


> I don't think it has to do with race either. But I do think our police are becoming tired of being disrespected. It used to be as kids we were taught to say "yes sir, or no sir" to police and now, with the help of reality TV, we've learned to refuse to answer police even at routine stops. Why did the guy run away? Why didn't he just comply, answer the questions, and be polite? I recall an incident just recently where our police stopped a young man that I know and asked if he had a loaded weapon in the car (as all gangsta' kids think they ought to). Instead of just complying and following along, since it IS legal here, the bozo had to make an argument with the police office about what gave "him" the right to carry, and what gave "him" the right to stop this bozo, etc.
> 
> I know for a fact that it is becoming a thankless job that our zero-defect PC-mentality is making more and more worse every day.


Society changes, we all know that. And, it's not always for the good. LE cannot remain static. It too, must change and keep up.

LE can be frustrating, trying, challenging and intimidating, as well as many other negative aspects. I knew that going in, and I wasn't promised a rose garden by any means.

Continuing on-going education and updated training can play a vital role in allowing you to cope with it. If you don't keep up, it will catch up to you later.


----------



## GCBHM

goldwing said:


> What you say may be absolutely correct. If you believe that any court is going to find him innocent you are absolutely incorrect.
> 
> The reason I say this is that every person in the U.S. has either seen the video, or been told about it by now. That has swayed any possible jury pool to the point that almost
> 
> everyone should be disqualified. Also with the video as damning proof of his guilt, were he to be found innocent this entire country could be set ablaze so the government
> 
> will make certain that he is found guilty. JMHO YMMV
> 
> GW


Oh, let there be no doubt, he will be found guilty.


----------



## paratrooper

pic said:


> Good question,
> 
> Example for shooting someone in the back while they're running away.
> 
> Hmm?
> 
> He just knifed the officer who is internally bleeding, possibly a fatal wound to the officer.
> 
> I agree , it may not appear as it seems, based on only the initial video.


Maybe the suspect / victim cursed at the officer? Maybe the officer's feelings were hurt.

If I had a clue that something other than what the video recorded had happened, my thoughts would be different.

From observing the officer's shooting stance, and the way he was able to run back to where he had previously stood, and the fact that he showed no indications of having been assaulted, I'm going to go out on a limb and stick with my initial impression.


----------



## RK3369

I used to think that I was a pretty biased conspiracy theorist, but I think I've been outdone. The video came from an unidentified source. I'm sure the LEO did not know it was being filmed. It wasn't a dash cam. 

the news media have reported that this guy had an outstanding warrant for unpaid child support. Yes, they do lock you up for not paying child support here in SC, but last I knew, they don't 'shoot anyone for it. You say something else was going on, fine, it could well be. Regardless, you don't shoot someone in the back who is running away from you because you are in fear of your life, especially when that guy is 20 or 30 or 40 feet from you. Unless as someone said, you fear he is running somewhere to pick up another gun, but I don't think that has been put out as justification for the shooting yet. And as mentioned, I don't think the courts are now allowing those with unpaid child support to be shot on sight, at least the last I knew that was not an acceptable method of apprehension. They go round them up and lock them up according to the judge's sentence since many of them dont' work or quit work as soon as their wages are garnished. The judges feel they have no option and the system is paying for their offspring, so the judges lock them up rather than just let them go scot fee. I think either this LEO temporarily "lost it" of he is definitely a bad apple.

the local media is not particularly liberal, at least not as bad as places like NY or DC, so it will be interesting to see what the local spin is in relation to the national spin. I'm sure the national news will be having us preparing for another Ferguson down here. IF the cameras are around, people will show up. We'll see.


----------



## GCBHM

RK3369 said:


> We'll see.


According to reports, we've already seen. He's guilty.


----------



## Bisley

I can see no way that this can be ruled a 'righteous' use of lethal force, but he should have a chance to make his case before being convicted by the media.


----------



## GCBHM

Bisley said:


> I can see no way that this can be ruled a 'righteous' use of lethal force, but he should have a chance to make his case before being convicted by the media.


Exactly! Granted, it really does not look good at all. There just does not seem to be any evidence to justify use of lethal force, but if Mike Brown was innocent until proven guilty, surely this guy is also.


----------



## RK3369

GCBHM said:


> Exactly! Granted, it really does not look good at all. There just does not seem to be any evidence to justify use of lethal force, but if Mike Brown was innocent until proven guilty, surely this guy is also.


yes, that has to be the legal presumption unless the defense decided not to argue the point. Case in point, the Boston Bomber, Dzohkar Tsarnaev. His defense team already acknowledged he participated in the bombings because of the video tape evidence. What they are trying to do to get his sentence reduced is to claim that he was "led" by his older brother and did not really "plan" all the heinous activity. IT may work, it may not, but this guy was also already basically convicted in advance of the trial due to the presence of video evidence, and his defense team acknowledged it. They did not decide to force the prosecution to make their case to the jury. That could also happen here. Yes, legally he is innocent until proven guilty but the weight of the evidence may not require that proof if his defense attorney thinks that there is no way to prove his innocence.

all I'm saying is that the weight of the evidence may have already sealed his fate.


----------



## SailDesign

Scorpion8 said:


> <snip>
> 
> But I do think our police are becoming tired of being disrespected.
> 
> <more snip>


And I don't blame them one iota - BUT - the answer to increasing disrespect is NOT to become the antagonist, but to rise above it. Not to is how to become a bully.


----------



## GCBHM

RK3369 said:


> all I'm saying is that the weight of the evidence may have already sealed his fate.


I believe it has. The video evidence may be all that is considered beyond the political outcome. I mean, they fired the guy and charged him with murder and they still shouted the police chief down and organized demonstrations. They have been looking for a victim ever since Wilson was cleared, and now they have him. Unfortunately, the guy probably deserves it.


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> <snip>
> 
> They have been looking for a victim ever since Wilson was cleared, and now they have him.
> 
> <more snip>


"They?" Who are "they?"

I would never, ever cast this cop as a "victim." Get off my porch.


----------



## GCBHM

SailDesign said:


> "They?" Who are "they?"
> 
> I would never, ever cast this cop as a "victim." Get off my porch.


They would be those organizing demonstrations. I don't think I've ever been on your porch, but you typically took what I said completey out of context.


----------



## pic

paratrooper said:


> Maybe the suspect / victim cursed at the officer? Maybe the officer's feelings were hurt.
> 
> If I had a clue that something other than what the video recorded had happened, my thoughts would be different.
> 
> From observing the officer's shooting stance, and the way he was able to run back to where he had previously stood, and the fact that he showed no indications of having been assaulted, I'm going to go out on a limb and stick with my initial impression.


What if the suspect already took a shot at the officer before the video started and suspect was not running away, but running for defensive cover.

I truly have not read or followed up on the current coverage of the situation.

I'm only creating a justified shooting based on the video.

My thoughts are more likely in agreement with your position.


----------



## pic

GCBHM said:


> I believe it has. The video evidence may be all that is considered beyond the political outcome. I mean, they fired the guy and charged him with murder and they still shouted the police chief down and organized demonstrations. They have been looking for a victim ever since Wilson was cleared, and now they have him. Unfortunately, the guy probably deserves it.


Your right,
If the video is what it appears, this guy will be the example.


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> They would be those organizing demonstrations. I don't think I've ever been on your porch, but you typically took what I said completey out of context.


Mayhap you should phrase it in such a way so as not to be taken out of context...


----------



## GCBHM

SailDesign said:


> Mayhap you should phrase it in such a way so as not to be taken out of context...


Or perhaps you should read it the way it was written instead of taking it out of context. Noval as the concept may be, it is still sound.


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> Or perhaps you should read it the way it was written instead of taking it out of context. Noval as the concept may be, it is still sound.


Novel spelling there... 

One or the other - we have time to experiment with this.....


----------



## pic

paratrooper said:


> Maybe the suspect / victim cursed at the officer? Maybe the officer's feelings were hurt.
> 
> If I had a clue that something other than what the video recorded had happened, my thoughts would be different.
> 
> From observing the officer's shooting stance, and the way he was able to run back to where he had previously stood, and the fact that he showed no indications of having been assaulted, I'm going to go out on a limb and stick with my initial impression.


Went back to watch the video again ,Wow. I must have seen the short version on your initial post, lol. I never seen the officer going back to where he had previously stood. Plus another officer arrives on scene. 
I can't get the video with your link anymore. Might be my IPad


----------



## paratrooper

pic said:


> What if the suspect already took a shot at the officer before the video started and suspect was not running away, but running for defensive cover.
> 
> I truly have not read or followed up on the current coverage of the situation.
> 
> I'm only creating a justified shooting based on the video.
> 
> My thoughts are more likely in agreement with your position.


If the suspect had taken a shot at the officer, or in some way, had physically assaulted him, believe me, it would have been made abundantly known from the very start.


----------



## paratrooper

Outrage spreads with bystander video of police shooting


----------



## GCBHM

SailDesign said:


> Novel spelling there...
> 
> One or the other - we have time to experiment with this.....


Slip of the finger...


----------



## Greybeard

paratrooper said:


> For me, it has nothing to do with race.
> 
> I simply cannot understand why the officer shot. Not in a hundred years, will that officer be able to justify doing what he did.


I have the utmost respect for anyone who goes in harms way such as police officers. In this case the police officer made a very bad decision that will probably ruin his life and the lives of many others. Nothing good will come from any of this.


----------



## pic

paratrooper said:


> If the suspect had taken a shot at the officer, or in some way, had physically assaulted him, believe me, it would have been made abundantly known from the very start.


Does the video show the taser being applied ?


----------



## SailDesign

pic said:


> Does the video show the taser being applied ?


No - it shows the cop dropping it next to the victim just before hand-cuffing him.... No attempt to save his life, just handcuffs so he can't escape after being shot in the back.


----------



## desertman

> Just as every cop is a criminal
> And all the sinners saints
> As heads is tails just call me Lucifer
> I'm in need of some restraint--Sympathy for the Devil--Rolling Stones 1968


Sorry, couldn't help it. And no I do not think that every cop is a criminal.


----------



## paratrooper

pic said:


> Does the video show the taser being applied ?


From what I understand, the officer used the taser w/o any success. At some point, a struggle ensued and the taser was either knocked out of the officer's hands, or it was dropped by the officer, and at that point, his sidearm was deployed.


----------



## shaolin

The cop was wrong! He knows it because he tried to plant evidence on a dead man. You hear the statement if you shoot someone drag them inside. If you mess with the crime scene then your guilty of something for sure. He should be charged with Murder/Manslaughter, using a firearm during the commission of a felony, tampering with evidence, breach of oath of office, ect.... 
Cops are killing people for the reason of you better do as your told and as I say or I will kill you over a misdemeanor or code violation. The individual may be wrong by not listening but it doesn't warrant killing a person.


----------



## Bisley

Personally, I am avoiding judgment on this by waiting until the clamor subsides. The officer is fired, and in jail, so the damage has been contained, and careful investigation can begin. Until there is proof of a cover-up or unlawful manipulation of the evidence, my outrage can be put on hold, in favor of the possibility that justice will be served. Any person who would be fit as a juror in this case should be capable of the same.


----------



## ybnorml

Bisley said:


> Personally, I am avoiding judgment on this by waiting until the clamor subsides. The officer is fired, and in jail, so the damage has been contained, and careful investigation can begin. Until there is proof of a cover-up or unlawful manipulation of the evidence, my outrage can be put on hold, in favor of the possibility that justice will be served. Any person who would be fit as a juror in this case should be capable of the same.


I agree Bisley.......trying not to pass judgement until all facts come to light.


----------



## pic

I'm not to sorry about the guy who had four children, with warrants out for not paying child support. Dead victim Also made a fatal decision to scuffle and run. IMO the suspect was the individual aggressor who escalated the situation.

Unfortunately the police officer got caught up in a real life situation alone on patrol.
I think the officer feared and STRESS played not in his favor.


Impact of Stress on Human Performance

In a high-stress situation, individuals actually can lose the ability to use some portions of their brain. In nonstress situations, humans generally use three levels of brain activity: the primitive or reptilian brain (in charge of survival, sustenance, and reproduction), the mammalian brain (the type of activity humans share with other intelligent mammals), and the neomammalian brain (activity that allows humans to complete more complex tasks than other mammals can, such as calculus equations or music composition). Many high-stress situations lead to so-called regressive behavior, where the two higher-level types of brain activity are almost completely incapacitated. This causes humans to respond very primitively—much like reptiles.

To compensate for the loss of high-level brain activity in high-stress situations, individuals automatically cut off as much information as possible and process only the most relevant information, if they can get it. For instance, individuals in high-stress situations might experience something called “cognitive tunneling,” where a person might see only certain things that are relevant to the perceived threat, to the exclusion of all others.

“The human body is marvelously designed to deal with both threat and challenge. However, while our mechanisms, like the effects of adrenaline, are in place, they can become excessive and impair performance,” says Dr. Michael Asken, a clinical and police psychologist and the author of MindSighting: Mental Toughness Skills for Police Officers in High Stress Situations.2


----------



## CW

paratrooper said:


> There are times, when something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and if you have experience with ducks, you can safely assume it's nothing more than a duck.
> 
> .....


unless its a merganser... 

And there is the real danger, when we try to justify and/or explain away the obvious. Observations and opinions are fine so long as we are open to additional facts to make the conclusion.

Again, it does seem the preamble to the encounter is missing. Hopefully that will turn up and give an even better picture of events.


----------



## paratrooper

CW said:


> unless its a merganser...
> 
> And there is the real danger, when we try to justify and/or explain away the obvious. Observations and opinions are fine so long as we are open to additional facts to make the conclusion.
> 
> Again, it does seem the preamble to the encounter is missing. Hopefully that will turn up and give an even better picture of events.


What you have stated is true. But then again, there are things in life that occur that are so obvious and blatant, that you don't need a whole lot of time to sit back, reflect, and think about it.

When you've spent 30 yrs. of your life serving and protecting others, you get a pretty good feel for what is right and what is wrong. Policing is all about making the most out of what you have been dealt. Rarely, do you get the whole picture from the start. You deal with what you have and go from there.

From what I saw on the video, the officer reacted in such a way, that it shook me to my very core. That doesn't happen very often to me. In the back of my mind, there's a corner, and in that corner is some plausible explanation as to why the officer acted as he did. Whether or not, that will ever be known is anyone's guess.

I'm sticking to an adrenaline rush that the officer couldn't deal with. Or, put another way, he got caught up in the moment.


----------



## heefageLA

What makes it worse is the guy running was 50 years old and slow as molasses. 
That 30 year old officer could have caught up with him very quickly. 

And the officer dropping the stun gun beside the runners body is crazy! 
That is clearly planting evidence to support his story.


----------



## RK3369

Personally, I can't see how this shooting can ever be justified? This guy had an outstanding warrant for "*unpaid child suppor*t". This is a very commonplace occurrence in SC. Yes, there are a lot of Black males who end up in jail over unpaid child support. The judges sentence them because a lot of them don't work and have no income( that is legitimate) , thus they claim they can not pay the child support. The judges sentence them to jail because they have no alternative. Yes, although the officer was trying to make an arrest for the outstanding warrant, you don't kill somebody over *unpaid child support*. The officer's actions are completely unjustified. He's going to be convicted of murder, imo.


----------



## GCBHM

heefageLA said:


> What makes it worse is the guy running was 50 years old and slow as molasses.
> That 30 year old officer could have caught up with him very quickly.
> 
> And the officer dropping the stun gun beside the runners body is crazy!
> That is clearly planting evidence to support his story.


Yeah, when I read that I thought why did you do that? Goes to the mindset of this guy. There was no reason the guy should have shot him. None. I can understand being afraid for your life during the struggle, but once the guy broke free and took off, like paratrooper said, I can't imagine what he was thinking. Still, the video does not capture the entire incident, so we'll have to defer to the legal system, but it does not look good for the ex-cop as more info emerges.


----------



## GCBHM

RK3369 said:


> Personally, I can't see how this shooting can ever be justified? This guy had an outstanding warrant for "*unpaid child suppor*t". Yes, although the officer was trying to make an arrest for the outstanding warrant, you don't kill somebody over *unpaid child support*. The officer's actions are completely unjustified. He's going to be convicted of murder, imo.


Well, the cop did not shoot the guy for unpaid child support. That is totally misleading. They guy scuffled with the cop, and had the cop shot him during that scuffle, there would be little said of it. The issue is that the guy was running away...clearly not trying to harm the cop at all. I wonder if the cop tried to grap the guy as he started to run, and the guy was just trying to get away and the taser just came loose instead of the guy reaching for the taser, as the cop states. I thought it was curious that the cop went over and got the taser and dropped it next to the body. IDK, but to be clear, the cop did not shoot the guy over unpaid child support. He will have to be convicted of something though. Not first degree murder, but at the least, it must be manslaughter. There was no call to shoot.


----------



## RK3369

my point exactly. You're trying to arrest someone for a nickel and dime infraction. It' does not require a "stop at all costs due to great imminent danger to the public" level of response. So what if the guy got away, they'd find him eventually and a few officers would go to wherever he was hiding out and affect the arrest. Yes, there was a scuffle, still does not justify a response that should have only been used in a "stop at all costs" situation. This guy was no threat to the general public. If we allow officers to respond in this manner regardless of the infraction, you will definitely see the Homeland Police force kicking your door down soon. Ridiculous use of force, imo. And if the cop got away with it because maybe there had been no video, then he was and is a bad cop and should be out of a job anyhow. I could understand the shooting more if maybe the cop shot the suspect during the struggle, but not when he was running away. No great threat to anyone running away, deadly force not called for. the cop was caught in the heat of the moment and probably mad because he lost control of the situation. Doesn't justify the outcome.


----------



## GCBHM

I agree 100%! Ok, so he was behind on child support. Why not run him down and taser him? Why not just go to his address and pick him up later? There are so many things that could have been done here, and now he's ruined two families. His wife is eight months pregnant, and this guy had four kids. Tragic.


----------



## RK3369

GCBHM said:


> I agree 100%! Ok, so he was behind on child support. Why not run him down and taser him? Why not just go to his address and pick him up later? There are so many things that could have been done here, and now he's ruined two families. His wife is eight months pregnant, and this guy had four kids. Tragic.


absolutely, for all parties. Today the Mayor of North Charleston signed an order requiring all officers to wear body cameras at all times on duty. I think we are likely to see many problems uncovered in this department by a DOJ probe. From local scuttlebutt, there will be many issues raised by the Feds as a result of this tragic event. There have been long standing issues between the local PD and the population which , as noted, is almost 50% African American. From what I hear, a lot of the complaints will have some basis in fact.


----------



## KeithC.

To me the officer looked rather relaxed as he fired. Like he was taking out a rabid dog or something. Then the pause before the 8th round just to make sure he stays down. He did not appear to be an officer in fear of anything. The one eye witness claimed the officer was in control the entire time and the suspect was just trying to escape being tasered.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

_(I wrote the following for the discussion of this very same occurrence on another forum. I know that I'm posing it here quite late in the game.)_

It kinda depends upon what the fleeing person had in his hands. We don't get to see that clearly.

We do know, however, that the cop stopped the guy for a broken tail-light.
In the bad old days, a bad old cop in the South would do that to a Black man-especially one driving a nice car-just to "keep him in his place."
Often, evidently, the officer would covertly break the tail-light lens as he walked up to the Black man's car to issue a citation. Such a traffic stop was therefore completely fraudulent, and based solely upon bigotry.

I wonder whether this might not be the case here. A bigoted cop made a fraudulent stop. The fearful Black man fled the officer. The bigoted officer killed the Black man.
Or, equally possible, the traffic stop was righteous, the Black man had contraband in his car and feared that it would be found, and so the Black man tried to escape. (But even so, the shooting still wouldn't have been righteous.)

According to the video taken by a nearby witness, the officer shot the fleeing guy, and then the officer picked up his own expended TASER from the ground, walked over to the dead or dying guy, and dropped the TASER right next to him.
This is an old, nasty cop trick, used to make an unrighteous shooting appear to be righteous. In the bad old days, a bad old cop would carry a wiped-clean "Saturday-night special" in his pocket, to drop near a person he'd shot (or even to put in his hands).
If it can be shown in court that this is exactly what happened, then that cop deserves to be placed among the general prison population, preferably in a cell to be shared with someone he once had arrested, while awaiting his death sentence to be carried out.

In the case of a truly righteous shooting, one or more of the following scenarios might apply.

*General Example #1:* If the fleeing person had taken the cop's TASER, he probably shouldn't've been shot, since a TASER is non-lethal. A broadcast description with an address would suffice. (The officer already was in control of the guy's car.)

*General Example #2:* If the fleeing person was armed with a firearm-his own or stolen-than it was appropriate to shoot and kill him, even though he was fleeing. An upset, armed, fleeing possible-miscreant is a danger to the community because he is capable of killing an innocent person, maybe at random.

*General Example #3:* If the fleeing person was armed with a knife or a club, it would be the officer's choice whether or not to kill him, based upon clues received during the interaction which began this event. The officer must be able to articulate, _in either case_, why he did whatever he decided to do. Was the guy disturbed enough to attack and seriously harm an innocent person? (See Example #1, above.)


----------



## KeithC.

Authorities release dash cam footage from Michael Slager's patro - WALB.com, South Georgia News, Weather, Sports


----------



## shootbrownelk

denner said:


> "white officer shoots black man in back"
> 
> Yes, it just can't be "officer shoots black man in back"
> 
> or "black officer shoots white man in back."


 White Officer shoots UNARMED Black man in the back....you forgot the most important part Bud.


----------



## shootbrownelk

shaolin said:


> The cop was wrong! He knows it because he tried to plant evidence on a dead man. You hear the statement if you shoot someone drag them inside. If you mess with the crime scene then your guilty of something for sure. He should be charged with Murder/Manslaughter, using a firearm during the commission of a felony, tampering with evidence, breach of oath of office, ect....
> Cops are killing people for the reason of you better do as your told and as I say or I will kill you over a misdemeanor or code violation. The individual may be wrong by not listening but it doesn't warrant killing a person.


 What got me was the other officer (black) strolling up slowly, and from what I read rendering no first aid, even though in his report he states that he did CPR on the victim. He's a liar too.
How many times was the guy shot? The video shows 8 shots, how many connected? Anyone know?
I'll tune in to O'Really tonight...it'll be the big story...again.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

OK, let's see, now...

Scott's car exhibited a tail-light that was out, not broken.
The dash-cam video seems to show that Scott was not carrying a weapon, as he left his car.
The warrant out for Scott was for a non-violent failure to pay child support.

According only to what I think that I see in this video. and in the other one too, I suggest that there was not even a reason to use the TASER, much less to fire eight shots and kill Scott.


----------



## KeithC.

I heard he got 4 hits


----------



## TurboHonda

Steve M1911A1 said:


> OK, let's see, now...
> 
> Scott's car exhibited a tail-light that was out, not broken.
> The dash-cam video seems to show that Scott was not carrying a weapon, as he left his car.
> The warrant out for Scott was for a non-violent failure to pay child support.
> 
> According only to what I think that I see in this video. and in the other one too, I suggest that there was not even a reason to use the TASER, much less to fire eight shots and kill Scott.[/QUOTE
> 
> Just to stoke the embers of uncertainty, I submit the following:
> 
> The brake light was inoperative, which says the cop didn't break it.
> The dash cam shows an individual with his shirt not tucked in. That's the way I carry, so the dash cam is inconclusive about whether he was armed.
> The dash cam shows the individual getting out of his car twice in the short period of time that the license was being checked. So, did the officer have the warrant information yet?
> 
> When the man broke and run, the officer may or may not have known whether he was armed or the extent of the warrant information.
> 
> Giving chase seemed logical. I'll stop at that.


----------



## KeithC.

After looking at both videos and pondering on the relaxed way he squeezed off those 8 rounds it does not look like a fear response at all. I see three possible reasons for the shoot. Psyc problems, anger issues (his filter failed him) or just for the fun of it. 

If he is an officer with issues it will come out in the investigation.


----------



## Goldwing

If the taser was brought to bear by Slager, you can deduce that he had no concern about a concealed deadly weapon. I agree that to give chase was logical. I cannot find

the logic in not finishing the chase with either a call to dispatch that the suspect is in custody or a call for backup. If Slager didn't have the skill to do the first, his 

training should have prompted him to do the second. 

Instead of the aforementioned options Slager drew his pistol and spent eight rounds trying option #3. Deadly force on an unarmed man that you have already identified.

SH!++y choice Slager.

GW


----------



## paratrooper

Eight shots were fired, and the victim was struck five times.

BTW......Slager's body language speaks volumes in and of itself. It's just unsettling all the way around.

Also saw Slager's mother's interview on tv tonight. Seems like a nice woman. I felt really bad for her. She has no idea that her son will never be coming home again.


----------



## RK3369

.........and now it begins...........

The Rev. Al Sharpton coming to N. Charleston for church service, vigil for Walter Scott - Post and Courier

Daily News: Rev. Sharpton Told To Stay Away From Walter Scott Funeral « CBS New York

Sharpton to visit North Charleston amid Walter Scott shooting - WMBFNews.com, Myrtle Beach/Florence SC, Weather

I sincerely hope things do not get out of control here. It will help no one if this situation erupts into civil unrest.


----------



## SouthernBoy

RK3369 said:


> .........and now it begins...........
> 
> The Rev. Al Sharpton coming to N. Charleston for church service, vigil for Walter Scott - Post and Courier
> 
> Daily News: Rev. Sharpton Told To Stay Away From Walter Scott Funeral « CBS New York
> 
> Sharpton to visit North Charleston amid Walter Scott shooting - WMBFNews.com, Myrtle Beach/Florence SC, Weather
> 
> I sincerely hope things do not get out of control here. It will help no one if this situation erupts into civil unrest.


Please South Carolina, keep things under control. I love your state and your people.


----------



## PT111Pro

Does anyone have an idea what you can do with a video? How long is this video uncut?
Are the noises real or after the fact played on? Modern technic and what they can do with a video is unbelievable. I trust the media and the politicians not for a second to show what really happen because it is used not for the truth it is used to support a racist agenda.


> Bisley
> I can see no way that this can be ruled a 'righteous' use of lethal force, but he should have a chance to make his case before being convicted by the media


Exactly


> Sail
> "They?" Who are "they?"


Now Sail, you don't really ask this question, do you? I'll think you are much smarter than that.

I'll think whatever happen, it is not for the media professional career racists to show. Yesterday evening they showed in the Local new (ABC) 25 minutes nothing than White police shooting innocent back people. And this video in all channels goes day and night to create hate against any police officer. What else should be the reason for that when they show the video 24/7 and make comments to create hate?

Really it becomes in a way that only a very stupid person becomes a police officer in the future. A White or Hispanic police applicant must be the stupidest thing on earth, because they get immediately blamed by the liberals for crucifying Christ 2000 years ago, only because they exist. Only by the Al.. proven Racists that protect career criminals when they are black should be LEO.
Doesn't matter how many people get killed in the process, they have to be protected, as long they belong to a certain race, street gang or a religion of freedom. It is so sad and for this ideology even today our soldiers have to die around the globe. Funny is, that this progressives/liberals or however they name it at the moment, are not even ashamed.

Whatever happen, it does not belong in TV and should not be thrown in front of liberals that arousing themselves on the misery of a death person. It belongs to a court of law and it is a shame that liberals using the death of a person for their political agenda. I'll think that is disgusting and is the real tragedy of this case.


----------



## RK3369

If the situation here results in civil unrest, it will be only because outside forces (Sharpton, other outside agitators) have come in here to fan the flames. So far, there have been protests, but they have been peaceful. Everyone here is strongly questioning how this could have happened and it surely is not being portrayed anywhere locally in the sense that it was justified. In general, the entire community is shocked and dismayed by what has happened and nobody condones it. At least no one I have spoken with condones it. 

If violence occurs here, it will be because outside forces have started it. If that happens, we will truly know the agenda of people like Al Sharpton and his chronies.


----------



## SailDesign

RK3369 said:


> <snippage>
> 
> If violence occurs here, it will be because outside forces have started it. If that happens, we will truly know the agenda of people like Al Sharpton and his chronies.


Sad, but undoubtedly true....


----------



## Bisley

The New York Daily News claims that Sharpton was asked by the family not to attend the funeral. He denies that he ever intended to, but is promising to preach at a memorial, later. Also, he commended the police chief for charging the policeman, so maybe the police force got on top of this in time to minimize the riots. It probably won't help them, though, when the race activists get 'spooled up,' and a full investigaton of their department finds all kinds of problems.


----------



## RK3369

I am sure there are likely many problems to be found with the department. I do credit the Mayor and Police Chief for getting on top of this very quickly. As soon as the video was released, they decided to charge the officer. I'm sure that kept the agitation in the community under control. At least it sent the message that something is being done about it. What has happened locally is that some of the protesters are demanding a citizen review board of the police force with subpoena powers, etc. Not sure if that's going to happen but it won't be resolved quickly. I think we will likely see some larger, more organized protests on the national news over this weekend with Sharpton railing about what has happened. Hopefully it will stay peaceful and the community can move forward without more disruption. I think the promised DOJ probe, although I'm sure it's going to take quite a while, is going to come out with some real problems within the department. It may be that the some in the local administration will be replaced because of those problems. Time will tell, but above all, I hope this situation remains calm and law abiding. It will get ugly in a big hurry if violence and looting begins. I do not think the local administration or the Governor will allow that to happen without a pretty quick reaction. Just sayin.


----------



## paratrooper

Just heard on the national news, that Scott was initially stopped because the _3rd brake light_ on his car was out.

If I had stopped each and every vehicle on the road because their 3rd brake light wasn't functioning, I wouldn't have got much else done during my shift.

Just sayin...........:watching:


----------



## RK3369

Monday update. Rev Al was here yesterday, preached at the new Baptist church. Demonstrated solidarity with the masses, commended the local authorities for acting quickly and charging the officer. There will be some peaceful protests today but I think the larger fear of civil unrest is largely passed, due to the actions of the Mayor and the Police Department. There will be much in the local media yet concerning this situation but I think all parties seem to be on board with letting the legal process proceed as it should.


----------



## hud35500

I'm just as baffled as you paratrooper! I had incidents in my career that required drawing my service pistol and aiming at a perp, but when the perp turned and ran(which they do most of the time), the pistol was re-holstered and the pursuit began! One reason I believe may be that hiring standards have dropped significantly over the last few years. That was my experience anyway. I keep in touch with some of my old partners and they confirm what I saw. Just my observations.


----------



## RK3369

paratrooper said:


> Just heard on the national news, that Scott was initially stopped because the _3rd brake light_ on his car was out.
> 
> If I had stopped each and every vehicle on the road because their 3rd brake light wasn't functioning, I wouldn't have got much else done during my shift.
> 
> Just sayin...........:watching:


I think definite profiling led to the stop. Black Mercedes with dark black window tine, jacked up body and 26" wheels/tires. The kind of setup that says" go ahead, pull me over". Just sayin'. Not your average commuter vehicle. Personally anybody does their car up that way they better expect to be stopped and checked over. Seems like they're just asking for trouble to begin with.


----------



## PT111Pro

I wonder, when all this happen in the US with the LEO, how the US could go and teach police forces in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and a lot more countries around the entire world, if they have such lunatics in the police force themselves and obviously don't know the first thing about police work themselves.

I watched yesterday night the local 6 O’clock and the 10 O'clock news. 52 Minutes out of 60 Minutes including weather forecast were reports about white police man killing innocent black kids. That must be the truth otherwise the citizens would complain and stop that. Right?

Watching the news ultimately forces the question, how the USA can even think of going out there in other countries and teach there how police forces have to work.

Should we not just kick out all the white police officers to get rid of all the racists? In the news reports they never ever complained or showed a black, yellow, blue, green, brown, red police officer that misbehaved. So why just not get rid of the evil white ones?
Don't you think this question is not legitimate after watching the nation and local news for months how 24/7 white police officer chacing innocent black people?

As a second step, should the USA not request trainers from Hamas, Hezbollah or ISIS, the new high prized alliances of the US government, to train the US LEO how to do the job right? Obviously they are right, the liberal government refused even to call this Hamas, Hezbolah or Isis criminals. 

I mean with all that problems with the white LEO that since months now in the national and local news reported are those questions legitimate.

But sometimes I ask myself, when I watch the national and local evening news of the Department of the absolutely truths, how the police force did in the past do their jobs. Did white police officers always kill innocent black babies or is that a new discovery of the Liberal correctness? 

But one statement is for sure right. The USAmericans should first clean their own police departments before they go around the world and tell the others countries how to do police work. Ha.... I was called a racist and a NAZI by the USAmericans even in the late 1990 and early 2000. But if that killing of innocent black peoples by the white elitist police force is true, than this nation should be ashamed of themselves. I lived on all continents but I didn't hear and (TV) see this wide spread racism nowhere else. We are after all even in the USA in the 21first Centaury. Right?
That is my thoughts and outcome based of the mainstream news. And I have toi say, when I talk to my frienbds in Europe and Asia, they see that the same way.


----------



## SailDesign

RK3369 said:


> I think definite profiling led to the stop. Black Mercedes with dark black window tine, jacked up body and 26" wheels/tires. The kind of setup that says" go ahead, pull me over". Just sayin'. Not your average commuter vehicle. Personally anybody does their car up that way they better expect to be stopped and checked over. Seems like they're just asking for trouble to begin with.


RK - I thought better than that of you.... So someone mods their ride, albeit a bit extreme, and they're "asking for trouble?"
Did you mod your car in ANY way after you bought it? Mild window tint, maybe a winch if it's a 4X4 - ladder racks? Did you, FFS, alter your HOUSE? Add a front porch or garage? Change the color and put non-UV windows in? Are *you* asking for trouble by doing that?

Thought not.

Edit: To put it in different terms, there is no difference between your quote there ^^ and someone saying "no-one needs an 'assualt rifle' to hunt deer."


----------



## RK3369

PT111Pro said:


> But one statement is for sure right. The USAmericans should first clean their own police departments before they go around the world and tell the others countries how to do police work. Ha.... I was called a racist and a NAZI by the USAmericans even in the late 1990 and early 2000. But if that killing of innocent black peoples by the white elitist police force is true, than this nation should be ashamed of themselves. I lived on all continents but I didn't hear and (TV) see this wide spread racism nowhere else. We are after all even in the USA in the 21first Centaury. Right?
> That is my thoughts and outcome based of the mainstream news. And I have toi say, when I talk to my frienbds in Europe and Asia, they see that the same way.


Do you really think it is true that "innocent" black people are being killed by 'whte elitist police force" every day as a routine happening? Certainly there are bad apples in every police force but do you really believe that racism is truly that bad in this country, far worse here than anywhere else? 
And why should that be the case? I think you may be the subject of exactly what the liberal press and the race baiters want you to believe, that the black man is definitely down trodden and held under the heel of the white man. I just don't believe that any more. If there still exist racial problems it's because certain individuals are trying to constantly capitalize on those differences and make political and social gains for themselves at the expense of everyone else concerning those issues.


----------



## RK3369

SailDesign said:


> RK - I thought better than that of you.... So someone mods their ride, albeit a bit extreme, and they're "asking for trouble?"
> Did you mod your car in ANY way after you bought it? Mild window tint, maybe a winch if it's a 4X4 - ladder racks? Did you, FFS, alter your HOUSE? Add a front porch or garage? Change the color and put non-UV windows in? Are *you* asking for trouble by doing that?
> 
> Thought not.


nope, I drive a Mitsubishi SUV, no tinted windows, no big wheels and tires, nothing special. Sail, you mean to tell me that when you see a car like that that you don't think it is "unusual"? Doesnt' raise any questions in your mind about who the driver might be or what his attitude about life, society in general and the police might be? So you're thinking that that type of vehicle is just a regular "Sunday go to meetin" car? Cmon. Like it or not, you can't honestly say that seeing a vehicle like that does not raise certain questions in your mind. I believe you're a Concealed Weapon Carrier, right? Where's your situational awareness training?


----------



## TAPnRACK

That's the problem PT111Pro... your basing your opinion on the view or slant provided by the media. The media wants a race war and they have been proven to show poor journalism and reporting false information in it's rush to be first with a story.

I find your ignorance disturbing as you think only white officers are involved in shootings. You don't think other races of officers are involved in shootings? They are... ITS JUST NOT AS NEWSWORTHY and don't further the agenda of the Gov/media to divide the people of this nation. There are black on black shootings in Detroit every day, some involving black officers... but no one cares! No News coverage... no outcry of injustice? Why?

The notion that all these shootings involve innocent blacks being killed by corrupt white cops is ridiculous... obviously it happens from time to time, but it also involves officers of every race and nationality... not just white cops. There are bad cops out there... just like there are bad doctors, dentists and lawyers.... we are human beings after all. There are far more good ones than bad... but that's not interesting news. The guys who improve their communities, catch bad guys or save lives get lumped in with the ones who are shown on the evening News.

Apparently in this day and age... only whites can be racists. Your views perpetuate this stereotype since you follow the media's agenda and buy their BS hook, line & sinker. 

Maybe it bothers me because I AM one of the many white cops you think should be fired... because i'm white. One of the many that uphold the law and serve with honor and integrity. 

Getting rid of white cops... I'm sure that's the cure for racism in America. 

I am not a racist and I treat everyone equally... even criminals. I'm sure you think all of the criminals that have died as a result of being involved police shootings are innocent too.


----------



## SailDesign

RK3369 said:


> nope, I drive a Mitsubishi SUV, no tinted windows, no big wheels and tires, nothing special. Sail, you mean to tell me that when you see a car like that that you don't think it is "unusual"? Doesnt' raise any questions in your mind about who the driver might be or what his attitude about life, society in general and the police might be? So you're thinking that that type of vehicle is just a regular "Sunday go to meetin" car? Cmon. Like it or not, you can't honestly say that seeing a vehicle like that does not raise certain questions in your mind. I believe you're a Concealed Weapon Carrier, right? Where's your situational awareness training?


My kid makes rally cars - for fun, to race, because that's what interests him and amuses him. He even drives them to work sometimes for fun.
There is not a whit of difference between that and modding a car in the manner you describe. It was what tickled the guy's fancy. God alone knows it didn't make it a better getaway car, or armor-plated police-teaser. He. Modded. His. Car....

Big f-ing deal.

Do you honestly mean to tell me that every single thing you own is EXACTLY as it was when you bought it?

And No - no CCW here because I'm not paranoid enough to see spooks in a modded car. I don't like rap, either, but it doesn't mean I think every person listening to it is a gang-banger.


----------



## SailDesign

TAPnRACK said:


> That's the problem PT111Pro... your basing your opinion on the view or slant provided by the media. The media wants a race war and they have been proven to show poor journalism and reporting false information in it's rush to be first with a story.
> 
> <major snip>


Tap, I want to know why the media is apparently all distorted, and Liberal. is it because no Conservatives are wealthy enough to buy a TV stati.... No - can't be that.

Is it because all writers are Liberal, which might imply that Conservatives are illitera.... No - I doubt it - some of my friends are Cons and write very well.

Could it be because a lot of people want to read THEIR slant and they aren't seeing it?


----------



## TAPnRACK

I never used the "L" word Sail... not sure where your going with this...


----------



## Goldwing

SailDesign said:


> RK - I thought better than that of you.... So someone mods their ride, albeit a bit extreme, and they're "asking for trouble?"
> Did you mod your car in ANY way after you bought it? Mild window tint, maybe a winch if it's a 4X4 - ladder racks? Did you, FFS, alter your HOUSE? Add a front porch or garage? Change the color and put non-UV windows in? Are *you* asking for trouble by doing that?
> 
> Thought not.
> 
> Edit: To put it in different terms, there is no difference between your quote there ^^ and someone saying "no-one needs an 'assualt rifle' to hunt deer."


Sail, your house and truck analogies would cause the casual observer to think that the owner of the truck and the house was making practical upgrades to their property.

Jacking up a car and installing huge wheels and tires effectively ruins the cars handling and practicality and the only purpose is to get attention. It's not illegal, but it is a

waste of money that does attract attention, sometimes that attention comes from an unwelcome source.

GW


----------



## RK3369

SailDesign said:


> My kid makes rally cars - for fun, to race, because that's what interests him and amuses him. He even drives them to work sometimes for fun.
> There is not a whit of difference between that and modding a car in the manner you describe. It was what tickled the guy's fancy. God alone knows it didn't make it a better getaway car, or armor-plated police-teaser. He. Modded. His. Car....
> 
> Big f-ing deal.
> 
> Do you honestly mean to tell me that every single thing you own is EXACTLY as it was when you bought it?
> 
> And No - no CCW here because I'm not paranoid enough to see spooks in a modded car. I don't like rap, either, but it doesn't mean I think every person listening to it is a gang-banger.


Never said anything like that. I said mod your car that way, you're asking for trouble. When I was a teen kids used to drag race cars on local streets. Put wide tires on them, loud mufflers. Yeah, I did it too. Guess what, got stopped plenty of times by local LEO checking me out. Why? Because they were sending us a message that drag racing was not going to be tolerated on the streets. Take it to the strip if you wanted to do that. If you didn't expect to be stopped, drive your mother's car on a Saturday night.

People do things, doesn't make them bad because they don't conform to what others might see as "normal". but when you get outside what the locals see as "normal" you're just plain asking for trouble. Sorry, fact of life. Can't help it if you don't like it. Has your son been stopped? IF not, he will be because some LEO will see his car and think it 'unusual" and decide to check it out.

and no, I don't like rap either nor do I think everyone who listens to it is a gang banger ether. Nor do I think that everyone who drives a jacked up car is a drug dealer, but then, what kind of message is that sending? Certainly it's not illegal, but what is it saying? Maybe nothing, maybe something. The Police might just want to ask the question.


----------



## SailDesign

RK3369 said:


> <major snippage>
> 
> Nor do I think that everyone who drives a jacked up car is a drug dealer, but then, what kind of message is that sending?
> 
> <snip>


Not "sending" any message, except that he likes the look of jacked-up cars. Period.


----------



## SailDesign

RK3369 said:


> Never said anything like that. I said mod your car that way, you're asking for trouble.
> 
> <major f-ing snip>.


Seriously? Are you listening to yourself here?


----------



## pic

When I hear an unusual noise I check it out. When I see something out of place it raises an eyebrow.

Do I always react? No.

Did the officer see something out of place ? Yes. He pulled the individual over. Driver decided to run very fast. Lol :smt170

Officer was correct up to that point.


----------



## SailDesign

pic said:


> When I hear an unusual noise I check it out. When I see something out of place it raises an eyebrow.
> 
> Do I always react? No.
> 
> Did the officer see something out of place ? Yes. He pulled the individual over. Driver decided to run very fast. Lol :smt170
> 
> Officer was correct up to that point.


And that's all there is to it. Third brake light was out.


----------



## TurboHonda

Note to self and PT111Pro:

Irony and sarcasm are pretty much ineffective, if not totally missed, in a 6 page shouting match.


----------



## RK3369

SailDesign said:


> Seriously? Are you listening to yourself here?


yes, I am. Go ahead, see how things turn out.


----------



## pic

SailDesign said:


> And that's all there is to it. Third brake light was out.


I really believe , even if the light was not out, they would have been pulled over anyway.

There were two individuals in the car ? And what time of day was it ?


----------



## SailDesign

RK3369 said:


> yes, I am. Go ahead, see how things turn out.


Honestly, I couldn't give a rat's butt for how things turn out - I'm as willing to believe one side as I am the other. But in terms of bias, "I said mod your car that way, you're asking for trouble." stands out above the crowd.

The guy was stopped for a minor traffic issue, was found to be wanted for non-payment of child support - neither of those is deserving of death no matter how much you argue it, they are deserving of "I know where you live - we'll be calling!" as he runs away.


----------



## GCBHM

Can I just get the last word here! LOL...sorry...couldn't resist. :anim_lol:


----------



## SailDesign

goldwing said:


> Sail, your house and truck analogies would cause the casual observer to think that the owner of the truck and the house was making practical upgrades to their property.
> 
> Jacking up a car and installing huge wheels and tires effectively ruins the cars handling and practicality and the only purpose is to get attention. It's not illegal, but it is a
> 
> waste of money that does attract attention, sometimes that attention comes from an unwelcome source.
> 
> GW


"Huge" wheels? Did you watch the video? That was no donk, GW


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> Can I just get the last word here! LOL...sorry...couldn't resist. :anim_lol:


Too early, GC - wait for it.....


----------



## Steve M1911A1

Is there a law in SC which states that a car must have three working tail-lights?
Used to be, all states required "at least one" working tail- and stop-light. That was because very old cars that were still on the streets came with only one light in back.
My present truck came with only two rear lights...which always work, I assure you. Would it be legal in SC, if I were driving it there?

I have been guilty of driving a car in California with only one working rear light (out of two).
I was never stopped, although a cop pulled his car up next to mine at a traffic light, and informed me that one of my tail-lights was out.
I thanked him, and replaced it as soon as I could.

I understand about "suspicious" vehicles. Think "red Corvette." They bear watching.
But stopping an adult driver merely because his car has "race" modifications is pure harassment. Now then, what about that tail-light?
(On the other hand, stopping a 'teen driving a "jacked-up" car, or a "low rider," might be beneficial to both the 'teen and society as a whole. It's the "scared straight" thing.)


----------



## pic

If there is a vehicle code violation then they get stopped. Good police work and many arrests/solved crimes comes from a cop acting legally on his instinct. If something doesnt look/feel/taste/smell right then it probably isnt.


----------



## GCBHM

I have to say that based on what I've seen, there is just no way that officer should have shot him; however, there is a truth to the point that had the guy not run, he would very likely be alive today. My question is this: What's your life worth? 

Clearly this was not the only bad decision Watts made. Folks, no matter what happens in life, no one else is responsible for the decisions we make. Unfortunately, these two have found out the hard way. Scott paid with his life, and Slager is wishing he had not shot now, rest assured. We are where we are today b/c of the decisions we have made.


----------



## RK3369

SailDesign said:


> ......... But in terms of bias, "I said mod your car that way, you're asking for trouble." stands out above the crowd.
> 
> The guy was stopped for a minor traffic issue, was found to be wanted for non-payment of child support - neither of those is deserving of death no matter how much you argue it, they are deserving of "I know where you live - we'll be calling!" as he runs away.


If you think that I agree with what that police officer did because he stopped a "jacked up" car, you certainly don't know me nor do you even comprehend what I am saying. 
First of all, the LEO went overboard, pure and simple. Kill somebody for a child support warrant? Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous and I do think the officer should at least be found guilty of manslaughter. He lost it, pure and simple, and way overreacted, and an innocent person is dead as a result. There is no possible way in the world that anyone should be put to death over an unpaid child support warrant. That's just purely ridiculous. the officer should absolutely pay for his misdeeds. If I was the LEO and the guy ran, I would have shouted at him exactly what you said, "I'll catch up with you another time".

Am I surprised because he was stopped in a "jacked up" car? Absolutely not. Happens all the time, everywhere in this country. Is it right, probably not, but it happens none the less. Should it change" Probably but I am not the one doing the stopping, it has to change in the LEO community if it's going to change anywhere. On the other hand, should the guy have run from the scene because he was wanted on an unpaid child support warrant> NO, but he obviously didn't want to go back to jail, and if arrested he was definitely going to go back to jail. People are locked up every day down here un unpaid child support sentences. Happens every day here. Just the way the judges are required to sentence the offenders, because most of them don't have jobs, there are no wages to garnish, they have to money to pay, and the kids are being paid for by welfare. Result??? Judges sentence them to jail if they can't pay their child support. Right or wrong? Don't know but it happens here all the time.

I don't condone any of what happened in this episode. But one thing you don't do if you want to avoid problems is to drive something that draws attention to yourself, nor do you run from an LEO after you go through a physical altercation with him or her, nor do you get involved in a physical altercation with an LEO to begin with. This guy did three no, no's. NO, he certainly didn't deserve to die, but he didn't help his situation by his actions either. I think his actions are what caused the officer to loose it and shoot. His actions certainly don't justify the shooting, but they didn't help matters either. Terrible tradgedy, a man lost his life, and an police officer may loose his as a result.


----------



## SailDesign

RK3369 said:


> If you think that I agree with what that police officer did because he stopped a "jacked up" car, you certainly don't know me nor do you even comprehend what I am saying.
> First of all, the LEO went overboard, pure and simple. Kill somebody for a child support warrant? Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous and I do think the officer should at least be found guilty of manslaughter. He lost it, pure and simple, and way overreacted, and an innocent person is dead as a result. There is no possible way in the world that anyone should be put to death over an unpaid child support warrant. That's just purely ridiculous. the officer should absolutely pay for his misdeeds. If I was the LEO and the guy ran, I would have shouted at him exactly what you said, "I'll catch up with you another time".
> 
> Am I surprised because he was stopped in a "jacked up" car? Absolutely not. Happens all the time, everywhere in this country. Is it right, probably not, but it happens none the less. Should it change" Probably but I am not the one doing the stopping, it has to change in the LEO community if it's going to change anywhere. On the other hand, should the guy have run from the scene because he was wanted on an unpaid child support warrant> NO, but he obviously didn't want to go back to jail, and if arrested he was definitely going to go back to jail. People are locked up every day down here un unpaid child support sentences. Happens every day here. Just the way the judges are required to sentence the offenders, because most of them don't have jobs, there are no wages to garnish, they have to money to pay, and the kids are being paid for by welfare. Result??? Judges sentence them to jail if they can't pay their child support. Right or wrong? Don't know but it happens here all the time.
> 
> I don't condone any of what happened in this episode. But one thing you don't do if you want to avoid problems is to drive something that draws attention to yourself, nor do you run from an LEO after you go through a physical altercation with him or her, nor do you get involved in a physical altercation with an LEO to begin with. This guy did three no, no's. NO, he certainly didn't deserve to die, but he didn't help his situation by his actions either. I think his actions are what caused the officer to loose it and shoot. His actions certainly don't justify the shooting, but they didn't help matters either. Terrible tradgedy, a man lost his life, and an police officer may loose his as a result.


No arguments with most of that, RK - but in a country built and populated by "rugged individuals" (or the place would still be British) it is silly to think that something that makes you "stand out" should be a negative thing.

"What's the difference being different when it's difference now that looks alike?" Vive la difference!

I drive a Fiat 500 (bright red) with Minilite wheels and fat tires. Have not been profiled yet. it is NOT about the car.


----------



## paratrooper

Just so I'm clear, what is everyone's definition of a "jacked-up car"? I just want to make sure I'm on the same page as some of you.

From what I have read, the stop was conducted because the third brake light was out. I read nothing about the vehicle in question being profiled because of it's make, model, or physical overall condition.


----------



## RK3369

SailDesign said:


> No arguments with most of that, RK - but in a country built and populated by "rugged individuals" (or the place would still be British) it is silly to think that something that makes you "stand out" should be a negative thing.
> 
> "What's the difference being different when it's difference now that looks alike?" Vive la difference!
> 
> I drive a Fiat 500 (bright red) with Minilite wheels and fat tires. Have not been profiled yet. it is NOT about the car.


I don't think "FIATS" have yet been added to the list of approved "gangsta rides". Maybe eventually when the drivers need a little more fuel economy. (yes, you have been 'profiled" because I just did it to you by saying that FIATS were not approved Gangsta rides, therefore likely not harboring "gangstas" :mrgreen.


----------



## paratrooper

RK3369 said:


> I don't think "FIATS" have yet been added to the list of approved "gangsta rides". Maybe eventually when the drivers need a little more fuel economy.


I spent three years in Italy, and even in Italy, I don't think the Mafia uses Fiats. :watching:


----------



## RK3369

paratrooper said:


> Just so I'm clear, what is everyone's definition of a "jacked-up car"? I just want to make sure I'm on the same page as some of you.
> 
> From what I have read, the stop was conducted because the third brake light was out. I read nothing about the vehicle in question being profiled because of it's make, model, or physical overall condition.


You are correct. The official accounts are tying it to a third brake light not working. I was not aware that was a violation here, Guess I need to check or I'll be stopped next. Actually, I don't think mine has a third brake light. I can not see how that is a violation if your vehicle does not have one. so I can not see how it is a violation. It would seem it may have been a convenient excuse to stop the car to check things over for some other reason. Don't know, nothing has been said regarding that issue.


----------



## PT111Pro

> RK3369
> Do you really think it is true that "innocent" black people are being killed by 'whte elitist police force" every day as a routine happening?


Just wait a moment.
Welll - You know when I said I don't believe that could be true, I get called a conspiracy terrorist no theorist. Even here I was attacked by the liberal good doers.

So this message about the evil white racist supremist police officers goes on and on now since months and months, without an end 24/7 in 400 TV channels in every given nation on earth, and I don't know how many www blocks around the entire globe in all known languages. 
Why should anyone believe it would be not true?

The police forces, local and nationwide, keeps the head down, is ashamed and their Majors and Police Chiefs, in Cities and Counties apologizing for their entire police department. Sheriffs and Police Chiefs stepping under the inferiors noise of deep satisfaction down and the nation applaud of the elitist liberals witch-hunt. No one really, absolutely no one ever said stop. What do you think that people should think, that get bombarded with this messages around the entire world (CNN, BBC etc) 24/7. Do you really think if I tell my Sister in Munich Germany that this is just political noise from people hating supremists in the US, that she believes me? What reason should she have not to believe the US Media broadcasting the entire World? 
Do you think my friends in Brisbane Australia (Queensland) see something different? Do you really think that a Nation would blame themselves falsely over and over again for nothing? Does someone really believe that?
I mean at least the Police Forces or some Police Chiefs should say stop to this liberal witch-hunt that harms the reputation of the US Citizens worldwide more than the accusations of torture in Quantanamo and secret weapon deals of the US government to ISIS.

If the citizens of the US would have somewhere at least a little piece of the capability to be ashamed left, they would stop that racist witch-hunt. Don't you think? So nothing happen everyone just accepts and goes on whit their lives murning about white police officers. Right?

Or? It is true and then the people around the world finally find out the truth about the USA. Right?

Let say it this way, if something like that would happen in a different nation, you would not hear a single word about it. The police leaders would very quietly but also very effective take car on the problem without making a joke out of the nation and without exposing the entire citizens to the world as racist. But only if the incidents really happen and not a different agenda, created by Hollywood Studio incidents, are more important.

3th Reich Gobbels said, what you can present the people in a picture, not even Jesus or Walhall can wipe that out of fanatic mind. They swear they have seen it with their own eyes. So create pictures is an easy task.


----------



## paratrooper

RK3369 said:


> You are correct. The official accounts are tying it to a third brake light not working. I was not aware that was a violation here, Guess I need to check or I'll be stopped next. Actually, I don't think mine has a third brake light. I can not see how that is a violation if your vehicle does not have one. so I can not see how it is a violation. It would seem it may have been a convenient excuse to stop the car to check things over for some other reason. Don't know, nothing has been said regarding that issue.


When I was still working, I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to 3rd brake lights. Come to think of it, I can't recall ever stopping a vehicle for that and that alone. There's a whole lot of vehicles running around w/o their 3rd brake light functioning.

As long as the typical brake lights worked, I was good with that. It can be a PITA to change out the bulb(s) in a 3rd brake light. Not everyone has the skill to do it.

Also, there's still a lot of older(er) vehicles on the road that don't have the 3rd brake light. If that was the one and only reason the officer stopped the car, he must have been very bored, and/or, it was a very slow day at work.


----------



## TAPnRACK

Most motor vehicle codes allow 2 of 3 (if there is a 3rd brake light) brake lights to function before there is a violation.


----------



## blueknight57

SouthernBoy said:


> From my own perspective, I agree. Unfortunately the rabid black racists love this stuff. It's the biggest source of funds to their coffers.


just playing the devils advocate, when was the last time we saw a white guy killed running AWAY from the police?


----------



## pic

This is from 2011,

He called the program "Sell-the-Stop," and told his officers they were required to engage drivers and explain why they were being pulled over, keeping the contact casual and polite, whether it was for a burned-out taillight or questionable window tinting.

Zumalt said the tactic has worked by checking the movements of criminals targeting rival neighborhoods. As evidence, he said, North Charleston has gone from the seventh-most violent city in the United States in 2006 to seeing a better than 50 percent reduction in the most violent crimes.

Zumalt is most proud of the drop in murders, which he attributes to his increased number of stops and interactions, and efforts to head off retaliatory shootings.

Link Window tinting tickets biased? - Post and Courier


----------



## pic

blueknight57 said:


> just playing the devils advocate, when was the last time we saw a white guy killed running AWAY from the police?


Those incidents don't make national news.

The white baby that was shot in the face by a black man robbing a white woman never made much news.

How about the knockout game , which was mostly blacks knocking out or punching out white men n women.


----------



## pic

The worst of it is , the law abiding black person can not even walk his own neighborhood after dark.

Blacks shooting blacks, drive by shootings , that's practically an everyday occurrence in every major city.


----------



## BackyardCowboy

pic said:


> The worst of it is , the law abiding black person can not even walk his own neighborhood after dark.
> 
> Blacks shooting blacks, drive by shootings , that's practically an everyday occurrence in every major city.


Ummm, so where are Sharpton and Jackson doing something about these type of events?


----------



## Goldwing

BackyardCowboy said:


> Ummm, so where are Sharpton and Jackson doing something about these type of events?


The people who are the perpetrators of the crime need to look like the "ruling class" in order to make them feel guilty enough to throw money at the problem. Short of that it's seen by Rev. Al as a victim on victim crime. IMHO YMMV

GW


----------



## pic

BackyardCowboy said:


> Ummm, so where are Sharpton and Jackson doing something about these type of events?


Good question , :smt033

It looks as though the cop screwed up in South Carolina.

How is law enforcement supposed to act when the streets are a battle zone.

Cops are supposed to be civil servants in a civil society, but this officer and many others are working under conditions that are not civil at all.

It's a war zone in many areas.

According to the liberal minded, maybe we should just send in a squad of therapists.
I'm not to sure the liberals are even concerned.

They may BE too busy saving the WHALE or TURTLE , CORAL REEFS, GLOBAL WARMING . :smt033


----------



## BackyardCowboy

pic said:


> Good question , :smt033
> 
> They may BE too busy saving the WHALE or TURTLE , CORAL REEFS, GLOBAL WARMING . :smt033


SHave the Whales!!


----------



## pic

BackyardCowboy said:


> SHave the Whales!!


Probably , should not have added the LIBERAL MINDED COMMENT.

Thought maybe my friend "SailDesign" was still awake, lol 
:smt033


----------



## SailDesign

pic said:


> Probably , should not have added the LIBERAL MINDED COMMENT.
> 
> Thought maybe my friend "SailDesign" was still awake, lol
> :smt033


Pah!

Anything that's plain wrong I'll call you on - anything that's simply misguided conservative rhetoric I simply ignore as I don't have time to stoop to that level. 

(Is that elitist enough for ya? I wouldn't want to disappoint!  )


----------



## PT111Pro

> pic
> According to the liberal minded, maybe we should just send in a squad of therapists.
> I'm not to sure the liberals are even concerned


No they are not. Killings, murder, rape, burglaries are only interesting for them when they can use it for their political agenda. People itself have less value than a fly on the wall for the liberals. In their minds the world contains to many people anyway and they have to get rid of at least 60% of it. That is the environmental movement BTW. That is not new, It's proven facts since 4000 years. And since 4000 years are people out there that follow that insanity. 
We said: "If you are 18 and you are not a liberal, you don't have a heart. But if you are 25 and you are still a liberal you have no brain". 
Liberalism is a anarchistic murder-show wit warmth nice words and dreams that's all. The wrapping words are different but the package contains still the same ingredients.

You see that is this way. Without poor people and without anarchist and career criminals there is no liberalism. Who in his clear mind would vote for liberals if they would not produce poor people and keep crime areas alive?

How many liberals in the past were in power only in the USA, I don't want to point out how many there were worldwide? And did they change anything to the better? Liberalism means to make a living for the citizen on the lowest standards of bear survival completely depending on liberal politicians and their handouts, and a feudal living for the politician class. That is liberalism all the other stuff is just daydreaming. Its by the way proven since they have invented that system 4000 years ago. And every time it get destroyed and comes up again the people think "But this time we make it". And than it ends up in anarchy and Millions and Millions of death people. And this since 4000 years. So people are not able to elevate their minds upon a certain level otherwise they don't follow such insanity.

It's like Halliburton and War. Just imagine they would stop killing people around the world. Halliburton and Cheney would be devastated. The stocks would break in. That is the reason we will have in all future War and War-Zones, may be even on USA soil (liberals couldn't care less), and our Soldiers will be senseless killed and crippled for Dick Cheney stocks. There are not so many that comprehend that because it is to evil to think about.

It becomes real evil if the liberal need for poverty and the protection of criminals and endless power over the people meet the hunger of War and greed and power of the republicans. I don't want to live than anymore because it will happen. The question is not if, the question is when they merge together. The signs already there. That is very scarry.


----------

