or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 110

post #1636 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


And it looks like the taser was pulled from the cop's hands during the fight. The cop says he thought the guy had it. The video doesn't disprove that subjective belief, even if it turns out he was wrong.

 

On the video, you can see the electrical wires from the taser around the 19-20 second mark of the video in the NY Times article someone linked to earlier in this thread. I'm not sure what else those "wires" would be. Has anybody offered an alternative for what the curly line extending from the cop's hand is? Calling it the taser wire seems pretty close to a fact.

 

The "taser wires" appear to be extending from the cops hand towards the guy's body as he's running away. I'll call that speculation. However, the image sure seems to show the "wires" going from the cops hand towards the man's back. I'm not sure what would be an alternative. If the guy did, in fact have the taser as the cop said, would the alternative be that the guy was shooting it backwards? And it happened to hit the cop's hand? That seems like a stretch. This would seem to be a further stretch, considering the cop didn't indicate he was shot by the taser, just that the guy had taken it.

 

The video seems to disprove the cop's account that he thought the guy had the taser, considering the video strong seems to indicate that the cop has the taser.

 

 

And, for what it's worth, the media (including non-MSM and right-leaning sources like the Post and Courier) are reporting just as much. One example: "Wires from Slager’s Taser stretch from Scott’s clothing to the officer’s hands."

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150407/PC16/150409468


Edited by zalb916 - 4/8/15 at 7:20pm
post #1637 of 6095
Apparently there is a higher resolution video than the one I'd seen previously.

You can see the taser wire, yes, but it's not coming from the cop's hand; you can see for a moment that it's draped down from his hand too. The thing that goes flying behind the cop as they disconnect is almost certainly the taser body. Whether the cartridge is still connected to or not, I have no idea. The wires don't seem to be attached to the taser body. They may have broke or the cop may have been trying to reload after a missed or ineffective shot. Tasers don't work reliably from close range. If his hand was tangled up in it he may have been zapped himself.

FYI, a taser with a spent cartridge (or no cartridge) can still be used as a stun gun.
post #1638 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

During the discussion about Michael Brown, it was seemingly implicit that reaching for a cop's weapons = justification for shooting, but I've never seen a solid rational for it. You grab for the weapon, don't get it, retreat...and you're still a lethal threat?

According to every piece of credible evidence, eye witnesses and forensic, Michael Brown was not shot while he was retreating.


Anyway, this new incident looks very bad for the officer. Hard to imagine any new evidence that would justify that shooting.
post #1639 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

According to every piece of credible evidence, eye witnesses and forensic, Michael Brown was not shot while he was retreating.

He had retreated though, since he wasn't shot at close range. He wasn't close enough to actually reach for the gun again, so clearly he had backed up. Certainly it wasn't shooting him in the back as he ran away like this South Carolina case, but the argument that Brown was actively a lethal threat because he had previously gone for the gun isn't convincing to me.
post #1640 of 6095
What do you suppose the odds that the person is going to kill you if you don't shoot them have to be before you're allowed to defend yourself?
post #1641 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

What do you suppose the odds that the person is going to kill you if you don't shoot them have to be before you're allowed to defend yourself?

What do you suppose the odds of Brown killing Wilson were?
post #1642 of 6095
Probably not all that high. Of course there's no way to determine it with any degree of certainty, and obviously I was not in the best position to evaluate the danger Brown posed.

But, still, what do you consider to be the "reasonable" risk for the innocent party to have to accept?
post #1643 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

What do you suppose the odds of Brown killing Wilson were?

I put the odds at 65 percent that he would've killed Wilson.
post #1644 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Probably not all that high. Of course there's no way to determine it with any degree of certainty, and obviously I was not in the best position to evaluate the danger Brown posed.

But, still, what do you consider to be the "reasonable" risk for the innocent party to have to accept?

It is an obviously fuzzy standard.

I'm not trying to make a general rule for police use of force, rather questioning this apparently implicit assumption that "he tried for the officer's gun" was an obvious lethal threat. It seemed to pass without question, that if you believed he tried to get the gun, it was a justified shooting. The only question anyone ever asked was "did he really go for the gun," not whether that should even count as an ongoing lethal threat.

Tying that back to the South Carolina case, "he tried for my taser" sure doesn't seem to justify shooting the guy in the back as he ran off. But that was the original story and would likely have passed without question if the video hadn't surfaced.
post #1645 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

It is an obviously fuzzy standard.

Not just obviously, but deliberately. There are a lot of legal standards that are like this.
Quote:
I'm not trying to make a general rule for police use of force, rather questioning this apparently implicit assumption that "he tried for the officer's gun" was an obvious lethal threat. It seemed to pass without question, that if you believed he tried to get the gun, it was a justified shooting. The only question anyone ever asked was "did he really go for the gun," not whether that should even count as an ongoing lethal threat.

Cops carry guns, and so anybody who can physically overpower a cop has access to a lethal weapon. A cop who's at risk of being overpowered has to choose between either "preemptively" using lethal force, or leaving himself utterly defenseless. This exists in every case irrespective of whether the "victim" went for the gun or not, but going for the gun makes this situation more obvious and evidences an intent on the part of the "victim" to at least put himself in a position to kill.
Quote:
Tying that back to the South Carolina case, "he tried for my taser" sure doesn't seem to justify shooting the guy in the back as he ran off. But that was the original story and would likely have passed without question if the video hadn't surfaced.

A taser allows the same advantage as superior physical size, probably more since it's harder to stop. The cop gets hit with that and he's at the mercy of the "victim." Also, I really doubt that the shooting would have gone unquestioned, though the video definitely makes prosecution more likely, for any number of reasons, but especially since it starts exactly as the guy starts to flee and fails to capture the fight beforehand. This time nobody needed to deceptively edit it, like they did in the Rodney King case, the Eric Garner case, etc.

Also, we don't really know what the original story was. All I've seen are cursory, second or third hand accounts. The cop looks right at the camera immediately after the shooting. Good chance he knew he was on film during. If he's telling lies he's pretty stupid. At any rate exactly what he said will come out sooner or later.
post #1646 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Good chance he knew he was on film during. If he's telling lies he's pretty stupid.

 

For what it's worth, we already know that he has lied, to some extent, based on several statements he made following the shooting that do not align with the video.

post #1647 of 6095
Would you elaborate? I am not following this case as it develops.
post #1648 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Not just obviously, but deliberately. There are a lot of legal standards that are like this.

That's pretty much what I meant. The "any average officer would reasonably feel threatened in that situation" standard is something that can't be quantified from an outsider perspective. It probably the best standard we can came up with (if not implemented the best way possible), given the amount of training and experience required to make those judgement.
Quote:
Cops carry guns, and so anybody who can physically overpower a cop has access to a lethal weapon. A cop who's at risk of being overpowered has to choose between either "preemptively" using lethal force, or leaving himself utterly defenseless. This exists in every case irrespective of whether the "victim" went for the gun or not, but going for the gun makes this situation more obvious and evidences an intent on the part of the "victim" to at least put himself in a position to kill.
That's not true though (unless you mean imminently in danger of being overpowered, which wasn't the case here). Police have a number of other force multiplying weapons, for exactly the situations where lethal force isn't entirely necessary but they're unable to rely solely on their physical abilities. There's a continuum of force for a reason.

In the Wilson case, simply rolling up the window would have done a lot to protect the officer. I can understand how split second necessity would lead to choosing one option over others, but that doesn't mean shooting Wilson was the optimal choice there.
Quote:
A taser allows the same advantage as superior physical size, probably more since it's harder to stop. The cop gets hit with that and he's at the mercy of the "victim." Also, I really doubt that the shooting would have gone unquestioned, though the video definitely makes prosecution more likely, for any number of reasons, but especially since it starts exactly as the guy starts to flee and fails to capture the fight beforehand. This time nobody needed to deceptively edit it, like they did in the Rodney King case, the Eric Garner case, etc.

Also, we don't really know what the original story was. All I've seen are cursory, second or third hand accounts. The cop looks right at the camera immediately after the shooting. Good chance he knew he was on film during. If he's telling lies he's pretty stupid. At any rate exactly what he said will come out sooner or later.

Except that we do know he didn't have possession of the taser. That's sort of critical. A cop shooting someone who has actually taken possession of his taser would be rather reasonable, likely even if the guy was fleeing. It's entirely different to shoot that same guy in the back once he fails to take control of the taser.

Even if there was a fight, it would be very difficult to see how the victim was a lethal threat to the officer at the time of the shooting. You could perhaps make an argument for having the gun drawn, assuming there had been a scuffle, but shooting appears unjustified.
post #1649 of 6095
What's surprising about this case is that even on cop message boards which are almost always fully supportive of police in any and all situations, except for the blatantly racist trolls, all the posters are calling this a bad shoot. I've never seen such a widespread collective agreement on this murderer's guilt between such varied sectors of the public.
post #1650 of 6095

Your understanding of some of the particulars of the case (such as noticing that cop knew he was being filmed, your comments about the media's irresponsible coverage, your theory on the reason for the cop dropping the unidentified object near the body) are impressive for not following its developments.

 

The following were not really developments, but were includes in some of the initial news reports.

 

1. The police report states that CPR was performed. The video does not show the police performing CPR.

 

2. He reported on his radio, “Shots fired and the subject is down. He took my Taser." The video shows that the cop had possession of the taser.

 

Those are the two misrepresentations that the cop has made.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?