Walter Scott murder video

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2015 11:34 PM GMT
    Even the most ardent police defender can't BS their way of this video.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html

  • Import

    Posts: 7193

    Apr 09, 2015 11:48 PM GMT
    I hope that fuckin pig who murdered the dude gets the death penalty.

    even tho i know he wont cuz hes not being charged with murder 1, but still...a girl can hope.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2015 11:55 PM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidHe fired his gun eight times at this man while he was fleeing?!

    I'm very glad that someone had their smartphone to record a police man murdering an unarmed man. That is just disgusting.


    Not trying to defend his actions at all, but I think police are trained to shoot in bursts instead of a single shot.
  • venue35

    Posts: 4644

    Apr 10, 2015 11:35 AM GMT
    S34n05 said
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidHe fired his gun eight times at this man while he was fleeing?!

    I'm very glad that someone had their smartphone to record a police man murdering an unarmed man. That is just disgusting.


    Not trying to defend his actions at all, but I think police are trained to shoot in bursts instead of a single shot.
    there is no logic in that. Just another trigger happy police man. Glad they aren't given uzisicon_rolleyes.gif
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Apr 10, 2015 11:42 AM GMT
    Eight bullets in an unarmed, fleeing man is excessive force. Doubtless, the officer felt his life was in danger!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2015 12:56 PM GMT
    Quite the video, saw it a few days ago.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2015 1:14 PM GMT
    phucking ignorant police
    they know people are watching them but this junk continues to surface. They are really trying to get the "least trust" award for every city they work in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2015 2:55 PM GMT
    Let's put a little law, and less emotion, into this discussion. Yes, it was unjustified use of lethal force, but no, it wasn't murder; it was most likely voluntary manslaughter. And no, Scott wasn't as innocent as initially portrayed to be, given he was apparently driving w/o registration and proof of insurance. But yes, neither of those is a crime deserving of death, even if he was actively fleeing an otherwise lawful attempted detention, if not arrest, when he was wrongly shot and killed. I believe the SC D.A. is overreacting by charging murder, and that a good defense lawyer will get it knocked down to manslaughter.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 10, 2015 3:42 PM GMT
    @MGINSD

    He pursued a fleeing suspect who was older and unarmed. At no point had the suspect attacked or otherwise threatened the officer. The suspect simply bolted away.

    Want to talk law? How about Supreme Court jurisprudence. Garner's precedent will NOT protect this officer as the suspect was unequivocally not a threat.

    What's more, malice aforethought (premeditation) can be formed in the blink of an eye. You don't have to plot for days, buying the bullets and making lists. Malice aforethought could be formed as he raised his weapon and pointed it at the fleeing suspect's backside.

    I don't think the defense has as easy a battle as you imagine. The video WILL be admitted into evidence, and it's pretty much over from there. He'll be convicted of Murder One, as he should. The real question is sentencing and whether he'll have enough aggravating factors to get the death penalty. I do not see ANY aggravating factors other than the number of shots. I see mitigating factors insofar that he was a police officer and ostensibly was "protecting the community."

    Murder One. Guilty. Death Penalty? Unlikely. Looks for a sentence of life, possibly with parole.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2015 4:01 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said@MGINSD

    He pursued a fleeing suspect who was older and unarmed. At no point had the suspect attacked or otherwise threatened the officer. The suspect simply bolted away.

    Want to talk law? How about Supreme Court jurisprudence. Garner's precedent will NOT protect this officer as the suspect was unequivocally not a threat.

    What's more, malice aforethought (premeditation) can be formed in the blink of an eye. You don't have to plot for days, buying the bullets and making lists. Malice aforethought could be formed as he raised his weapon and pointed it at the fleeing suspect's backside.

    I don't think the defense has as easy a battle as you imagine. The video WILL be admitted into evidence, and it's pretty much over from there. He'll be convicted of Murder One, as he should. The real question is sentencing and whether he'll have enough aggravating factors to get the death penalty. I do not see ANY aggravating factors other than the number of shots. I see mitigating factors insofar that he was a police officer and ostensibly was "protecting the community."

    Murder One. Guilty. Death Penalty? Unlikely. Looks for a sentence of life, possibly with parole.


    Thanks for approaching this "legalistically," however some might chafe at that term. My post focused on the murder charge, which I still think is overcharged; Garner's irrelevant, as I noted in my post ("... even if he was actively fleeing an otherwise lawful attempted detention, if not arrest, when he was wrongly shot and killed."). But can the requisite m.a. be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, even if it can be formed as quickly as you state? I don't think so. And, I never said the defense would have an easy time of it; thus the need for "a good defense lawyer." As for the sentence, I know better than to go there. You and I should be on the jury; but we'd be sure to get dinged.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2015 4:03 PM GMT
    You can also see him plant something in the video. He throws an object to the ground and he claimed the guy took his taser but really didn't. So he basically made up a whole scenario that wasn't true. It's too bad because he is giving cops a bad name even though most are good people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2015 4:06 PM GMT
    bk11789 saidYou can also see him plant something in the video. He throws an object to the ground and he claimed the guy took his taser but really didn't. So he basically made up a whole scenario that wasn't true. It's too bad because he is giving cops a bad name even though most are good people.


    I didn't see that, but I'd like to, if possible. Can you provide a time frame?

    PS - I re-reviewed the video and saw the NYT's caption stating that the officer dropped something, but to claim he planted anything is a stretch, particularly this early. The testimony of the other, black officer present when that drop occurred may clear that up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2015 4:09 PM GMT
    He could easily have outrun that guy and could have easily tackled him to the ground !!
    That police officer is a bloody COWARD , who hides behind his weapon , bloody disgusting icon_sad.gificon_sad.gificon_sad.gificon_sad.gif
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 10, 2015 4:10 PM GMT
    @MGINSD

    I would love to serve on a jury. But you're right, we'd get dinged for sure. I was called for jury service a week after I turned 18, but during voir dire when I answered that my profession was a high school student (senior) and that I merely WANTED to be a lawyer in the future, the attorney's face fell and I was dismissed an hour later along with an actual attorney, a doctor, and some woman who was unremarkable.

    In Oklahoma, lawyers per se cannot be jurors. I'm not sure of Florida's stance. In New York, lawyers can serve as jurors, but are almost always dinged during voir dire. The only time a lawyer serves in NY is when they sit on a Grand Jury. My colleague had to do this for a month, and it really hurt his hours/work life.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2015 4:18 PM GMT
    So you were a smart-ass even back in HS, huh? Actually, LOL - good response! In CA, we're free to serve, but almost always dinged. Not sure how I'll be treated now that I'm retired. I get called for state duty at least every year, and federal every 3-4.

    "Would YOU want me on a jury?" icon_twisted.gif
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 10, 2015 4:25 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidSo you were a smart-ass even back in HS, huh? Actually, LOL - good response! In CA, we're free to serve, but almost always dinged. Not sure how I'll be treated now that I'm retired. I get called for state duty at least every year, and federal every 3-4.

    "Would YOU want me on a jury?" icon_twisted.gif


    @MGINSD

    I can almost guarantee you that you 'retirement' won't change a thing. You're going to get knocked every time. And it makes sense: if you're in a jury room, and understandably confused about the jury instructions, it makes sense that people would turn to the lawyer for guidance. This would then carry over and allow you an inordinate de facto influence (i.e., if you, a lawyer votes guilty/liable, then "I" should too, right?).

    I would ding you so fast during voir dire your head would spin icon_cool.gif Also, as a plaintiff's lawyer, you don't fit any demographic that I'd favor (colored, younger, urban, less-educated, Democrat/liberal, vegetarian, non-religious, poorer, blue collar). You're literally the antithesis of what I'd desire in an ideal juror icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2015 4:35 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    MGINSD saidSo you were a smart-ass even back in HS, huh? Actually, LOL - good response! In CA, we're free to serve, but almost always dinged. Not sure how I'll be treated now that I'm retired. I get called for state duty at least every year, and federal every 3-4.

    "Would YOU want me on a jury?" icon_twisted.gif


    @MGINSD

    I can almost guarantee you that you 'retirement' won't change a thing. You're going to get knocked every time. And it makes sense: if you're in a jury room, and understandably confused about the jury instructions, it makes sense that people would turn to the lawyer for guidance. This would then carry over and allow you an inordinate de facto influence (i.e., if you, a lawyer votes guilty/liable, then "I" should too, right?).

    I would ding you so fast during voir dire your head would spin icon_cool.gif Also, as a plaintiff's lawyer, you don't fit any demographic that I'd favor (colored, younger, urban, less-educated, Democrat/liberal, vegetarian, non-religious, poorer, blue collar). You're literally the antithesis of what I'd desire in an ideal juror icon_cool.gif


    No! You're kidding! Actually, when I practiced plaintiffs PI, I had the same standards. My colleagues always said I was great in trial, but I MUCH preferred "trying" cases in law and motion practice. I somewhat miss both/it all, but I'm very happily retired, TYVM!
  • YBNB

    Posts: 28

    Apr 11, 2015 4:13 AM GMT
    MGINSD saidLet's put a little law, and less emotion, into this discussion. Yes, it was unjustified use of lethal force, but no, it wasn't murder; it was most likely voluntary manslaughter. And no, Scott wasn't as innocent as initially portrayed to be, given he was apparently driving w/o registration and proof of insurance. But yes, neither of those is a crime deserving of death, even if he was actively fleeing an otherwise lawful attempted detention, if not arrest, when he was wrongly shot and killed. I believe the SC D.A. is overreacting by charging murder, and that a good defense lawyer will get it knocked down to manslaughter.



    All I'm gonna say is Fuck You sir
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2015 4:23 AM GMT
    MGINSD saidLet's put a little law, and less emotion, into this discussion. Yes, it was unjustified use of lethal force, but no, it wasn't murder; it was most likely voluntary manslaughter. And no, Scott wasn't as innocent as initially portrayed to be, given he was apparently driving w/o registration and proof of insurance. But yes, neither of those is a crime deserving of death, even if he was actively fleeing an otherwise lawful attempted detention, if not arrest, when he was wrongly shot and killed. I believe the SC D.A. is overreacting by charging murder, and that a good defense lawyer will get it knocked down to manslaughter.


    The New York Times covered this. I only read articles about this; I don't really feel like watching someone get shot in real life.

    He was someone's son; he was someone's grandchild; he was also a father -- now his children are left without a father.

    We have all been in nasty arguments -- heck when I was a kid we used to play base ball against another block, and I remember one summer there was a fist fight and VERY ugly things said... The difference is nobody killed anyone -- even if the C-word and venomous things were said, because A) It's wrong and B) They knew they couldn't get away with murder. This officer was possibly on a power trip. For what it's worth I think being a police officer is one of the hardest jobs in the world -- I think it has the ability to easily taint their view on life and lose faith in humanity. BUT it is never within their right to take out their frustrations on another human being.

    The man in the video did NOT need to be shot SEVERAL times in the back -- period end of story... I don't care what was exchanged prior -- if he wasn't armed and wasn't a threat to society, he didn't need to be murdered.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2015 4:34 AM GMT
    MGINSD saidLet's put a little law, and less emotion, into this discussion. Yes, it was unjustified use of lethal force, but no, it wasn't murder; it was most likely voluntary manslaughter. And no, Scott wasn't as innocent as initially portrayed to be, given he was apparently driving w/o registration and proof of insurance. But yes, neither of those is a crime deserving of death, even if he was actively fleeing an otherwise lawful attempted detention, if not arrest, when he was wrongly shot and killed. I believe the SC D.A. is overreacting by charging murder, and that a good defense lawyer will get it knocked down to manslaughter.


    I'm sorry, but I've got to call you out. You can't shoot someone who is fleeing unarmed in the back. You can throw in that little "wasn't deserving of death" line to make your argument look better, but you are still justifying what happened. Again, you can't shoot and kill an unarmed person in the back while they are fleeing, because that is murder.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2015 4:41 AM GMT
    YBNB said
    MGINSD saidLet's put a little law, and less emotion, into this discussion. Yes, it was unjustified use of lethal force, but no, it wasn't murder; it was most likely voluntary manslaughter. And no, Scott wasn't as innocent as initially portrayed to be, given he was apparently driving w/o registration and proof of insurance. But yes, neither of those is a crime deserving of death, even if he was actively fleeing an otherwise lawful attempted detention, if not arrest, when he was wrongly shot and killed. I believe the SC D.A. is overreacting by charging murder, and that a good defense lawyer will get it knocked down to manslaughter.



    All I'm gonna say is Fuck You sir


    Yeah that guy is a jerk. And he likes guys that could be his grandchildren -- he's a piece of work. He's probably a republican too icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2015 4:52 AM GMT
    The cop will get off easy, even if he is convicted. He'll get at most a couple of years, maybe even just probation. White cops never get long sentences for shooting down Blacks, if they're charged & convicted at all
  • Jeepguy2

    Posts: 165

    Apr 11, 2015 5:16 AM GMT
    The cop won't get the death penalty or go to jail they never do. There is a gap between the end of the dash cam video and the beginning of the cell phone video. Cop will claim the guy grabbed his taser and tried to shoot him with it, and fearing for his life he pulled his gun and kept firing until the suspect was on the ground (which is what LE is trained to do BTW). The murder charges will be thrown out and the cop will walk.

  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14395

    Apr 12, 2015 5:30 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    MGINSD saidSo you were a smart-ass even back in HS, huh? Actually, LOL - good response! In CA, we're free to serve, but almost always dinged. Not sure how I'll be treated now that I'm retired. I get called for state duty at least every year, and federal every 3-4.

    "Would YOU want me on a jury?" icon_twisted.gif


    @MGINSD

    I can almost guarantee you that you 'retirement' won't change a thing. You're going to get knocked every time. And it makes sense: if you're in a jury room, and understandably confused about the jury instructions, it makes sense that people would turn to the lawyer for guidance. This would then carry over and allow you an inordinate de facto influence (i.e., if you, a lawyer votes guilty/liable, then "I" should too, right?).

    I would ding you so fast during voir dire your head would spin icon_cool.gif Also, as a plaintiff's lawyer, you don't fit any demographic that I'd favor (colored, younger, urban, less-educated, Democrat/liberal, vegetarian, non-religious, poorer, blue collar). You're literally the antithesis of what I'd desire in an ideal juror icon_cool.gif
    Would you ding me during voir dire because I am independent and moderateicon_question.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2015 6:57 AM GMT
    JuanPablomv89 said
    Art_Deco saidThe cop will get off easy, even if he is convicted. He'll get at most a couple of years, maybe even just probation. White cops never get long sentences for shooting down Blacks, if they're charged & convicted at all

    What about fat white women like Hilary Clinton whose husbands cheated on them with white young women?. Abortion is legal in your country so killing a harmless unborn fetus is applaude by bitter angry man hater feminists but a white men killing a black man is disgusting?. CONTRADICTION, killing is killing so do you have something to say?


    Dear JuanWereYouDroppedOnYourHeadAsABaby89,

    You are an A-HOLE...

    I personally don't believe in abortion, BUT you don't have a right to tell a women what they should do with their body... NEXT if a female gets pregnant unexpectedly and isn't prepared financially or mentally to bring a child in the world are you going to help babysit or help pay for that child's food?!?!

    You need to keep your mouth shut and how dare you bring up someone's public humiliation to try and justify your asinine and idiotic logic. Please never come to the USA you scum. Why don't you tell everyone in your community you're gay and let's see how wonderful your political system is GO AWAY YOU JERK!

    You are just jealous ladies like Hillary Clinton are superior in education, finances, and lifestyle compared to dirt like you!

    Ideally everyone should practice celibacy until marriage, but some people like to gamble; others like to eat; others drink too much; some people have sex; others smoke; the smart ones find hobbies and positive creative outlets and jerk off a lot >_<

    Anyway you're a JERK and yes idiots shouldn't be allowed to have opinions.

    I also want to note, being adopted as a baby, I realize I could've have easily been aborted. I personally do not believe in abortion, but I also realize a lot of people's circumstances are different. I'd hate to say this, but life can be so difficult that you truly want to bring a child into the world in the best of circumstances, even then things can go wrong.

    I also don't get this thing about gays wanting to pass on their DNA lately, because there are a lot of children that could use loving homes... I mean even if you want your child to look like you there are plenty of children in all different shapes and colors that could use a loving home.