Police Officer shoots dead unarmed man

Micky12

Well-Known Member
"A white South Carolina police officer has been charged with murder after video emerged of him shooting a black man running away from him. State investigators arrested North Charleston police officer Michael Slager on Tuesday after viewing the mobile phone video of the shooting. Authorities say victim Walter Lamer Scott was shot after the officer had already targeted him with a stun gun.

The US Department of Justice is set to launch an investigation.

'When you're wrong, you're wrong,' North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey said, announcing the arrest. 'When you make a bad decision, I don't care if you're behind the shield or a citizen on the street, you have to live with that decision.'

Police officers in the US fatally shoot and kill hundreds of people each year, but only a handful of cases result in the officer facing criminal charges.

The incident on Saturday began after Scott's car was stopped for having a broken rear light, local media reported. A video of the incident published by the New York Times shows a brief scuffle before Scott begins running away. The video then shows the officer firing several shots at Scott, who falls to the ground." (sourced from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32213482)

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/10/us/south-carolina-police-shooting/

"This is hopefully the beginning of the reversal of the deadly trend of the horrific behaviour of the police who murder innocent citizens without dire consequences.

These police must be arrested, and put on trial for first degree murder, (in most cases), and other serious charges that will result in lengthy years behind bars. There are too many cold blooded killers who are employed by city/town/state police who should not be allowed a position with authority and control over the citizens.

Mandatory CEO's need to be a standard for all officials; health checks; and psychological testing, when a problem seems to warrant one, and yearly for all.

Finally, training for job related situations ongoing, including seminars on why, how and what their purpose as officers is truly about. Anyone found to be racist, prejudiced, hateful, harmful, or other seriously disturbing character flaws, warrants an immediate dismissal from the force, and disqualifies anyone from ever working anywhere in the capacity of a police officer, private guard, prison guard, etc.. All misplaced employees' files must be sent to all agencies across the country; we must keep these deadly killers off the forces throughout our nation." (sourced from http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/09/south-carolina-shooting-passenger-walter-scotts-car-during-traffic-stop#comment-50189314)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Big John1970

The problem seems to be a number of things in these cases. Firstly, police seem to have a higher esteem in the eyes of fellow law-enforcers than the general public. Briefly going off on a tangent - here in the UK, a man was arrested for indecently assaulting a 15 year-old girl. He admitted that he touched her, but nothing else. He was sent to prison for two and a half years. A young policeman who had only been on the force for 6 months, had actual coitus with a 15 year old girl. He was sent to prison for 1 year and got out in 6 months - because of his 'service to the public'.
Going back to the original post though. The second thing that seems to be wrong is, police officers have to go through regular psych-eval's. These can easily be faked by someone who knows what he is doing. Police officers who hold racist views can easily suppress these views during these evaluations. Yet so much stock is put in them that when a white police officer shoots dead a black man, the officer can simply say something like, "He looked like he was going for a gun." and he will get away with it 99.9% of the time.
There is now talk of police officers wearing body-cameras. There is also talk of British police getting these.
These can only be a good thing as far as I can see. Rather than having to take the policeman (or woman - but let's face it, it is the men who do these things) at their word, the 'higher-ups' will have actual video evidence.
It has been confirmed that in the case you listed, if the other man hadn't submitted that video, the police officer would have gotten away with it scot-free.
Police body-cams is the only real way to go. Maybe - someday - they won't be necessary as racism - like some diseases - might be eradicated from the planet.
We can only hope.
 

Big John1970

I think it was the cameras thing myself. I know in my post, I went off on a tangent, but if all police had body-cam's, it would mean a lot less police get away with murdering someone in cold-blood. If there were any tampering with the camera, the 'powers that be' would know.
 

Kidd Kalypso

Well-Known Member
I think it was the cameras thing myself. I know in my post, I went off on a tangent, but if all police had body-cam's, it would mean a lot less police get away with murdering someone in cold-blood. If there were any tampering with the camera, the 'powers that be' would know.
I know this is an old post, but I felt I should toss a comment out there on this statement. Who pays for all of this new technology? Last time I checked, it was coming out of my taxes :blink:
So........ why would I wish my taxes to go up for something as this? That should be the debate.
 

Big John1970

In that case, why pay for the Police at all? Why not keep our money, not pay any taxes and we make our own law? In my opinion, having security to be able to walk down the street without being attacked or killed is worth a small addition to my taxes.
Cameras remove any doubt. Too long, it has been 'their word against ours' and we all know that although the vast majority of Police are good, decent people - like every profession they have their 'bad-eggs'. Cameras recording crimes eliminates any doubt and will make the world a safer place.
Look at London. In England there are about 25% of the CCTV cameras in the entire WORLD! Seems like a major invasion of privacy and a waste of taxpayers money. Yet just how many crimes have those camera solved? How many muggings, robberies and murders that would otherwise have been unsolvable have been solved because the culprits were caught on camera?
Yes we need a balance between total security and people's freedom, but sometimes these things are necessary. If they start installing cameras in my home and watch me there, THENI will have a problem. Until then, let the criminals beware,
[Just briefly going off on a tangent here.] It's like speed-cameras. Everyone hates speed-cameras. Yet speed-limits are the law. If you drive at or below the speed limit, you have nothing to worry about. If you constantly speed, putting yourself and others at risk, you will be caught on camera. These are the people who are most vocal about cameras, those who actually break the law - because they don't want to be caught out.
 

Kidd Kalypso

Well-Known Member
Let's see.....invasion of privacy vs. security......think I will pass on the big brother thing. And in my area of the world, speed cameras and red light cameras are illegal so that point is moot (at least for me anyway). But back on point......cameras are only good if they are turned on. A lot of police here are issued them, but......batteries die, not turned on, etc. It is up the local govt's to issue them, not a federal thing. Is it a good idea, of course.....can the even camera be abused? Again, of course. People are not infallible machines.
 
Last edited:

braetwalda

Well-Known Member
The body camera only works if it can't be turned off and its just as much a defense for a policeman than it is for whoever he's arresting as it stops some scumbag from shouting "Brutality!" when in fact the guy is just doing his job.
As for speed camera's I think we've already had that debate somewhere else, but I've always thought it safer to be doing a steady 70 (on the appropriate road obviously) than it is for me to be continously taking my eyes off the road to make sure that I am still doing the limit and not about to be done by an average speed camera.
 

Big John1970

I believe (although I could be wrong) that indeed the body-cameras cannot be turned off by the officer. I'm sure I saw on TV that they are controlled by the base and they can only be turned on/off there. This is to probably stop the 'accidentally not recording' when an officer does something they're not supposed to do. If I've got my facts wrong, feel free to correct me. :)
As for the 'Brutality' claim, you're right, the cameras should be able to answer that too. If someone claims Police-brutality and they view the footage to see that the officer only used reasonable-force, the guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. (In the metaphorical sense.) :)
 

Kidd Kalypso

Well-Known Member
I believe (although I could be wrong) that indeed the body-cameras cannot be turned off by the officer. I'm sure I saw on TV that they are controlled by the base and they can only be turned on/off there. This is to probably stop the 'accidentally not recording' when an officer does something they're not supposed to do. If I've got my facts wrong, feel free to correct me. :)
In fact, it is totally up to the officers in question to turn their cameras off and on. Same as the dash cams. At least the ones in the states, I am sure there are different makes and models with different features.
 

nashy19

Nashy (as himself)
For the ones in the UK, they are used to gather evidence at incidents usually at the polices benefit (it's desirable for them to record rather than fight accusations). They don't have to be turned on all the time, and can be turned off at the request of a victim, however otherwise failing to record an incident would require an explanation in court.