Originally posted by Time ImmemorialYouTube video
Where was the car that he got pulled over and why were they in the middle of what looks like a park?
Originally posted by Tzeentch
YouTube video
I really wonder what's it like
The crimes he committed don't provide any sort of meaningful context. Yes, he was a criminal committing crimes, but if the guy had simply been tazed/tackled and arrested with minor injuries, this wouldn't be news and no one would care, because there is no stigma aboout police arresting criminals- that is there job afterall.
The outrage is from shooting a man who has his back to you and is running away... in which case it really doesn't matter what their crimes are.
To reiterate, no one is upset that a law-breaker was confronted by police for breaking the law. The law-breaker is absolutely a victim in this situation however and deserves all of the sympathy and outrage he can get as there is no justification for the police' actions, thus pointing out that the victim might have been a sleaze bag prior to his death is more or less a red herring.
Heh, so the victim deserves no blame here at all for running away from the cop? LOL. I guess this attitude shouldn't surprise me here on KMC. He knew damn well that running away could result in him being shot at. I watched the dash cam video on AOL news earlier and I could hear the officer yelling at the guy to get down on the ground. What is so damn hard about respecting the law and doing what a police officer tells you to do?
I'm not condoning the officer's actions because I think he should've at least yelled at him to stop or else he'd shoot but the victim could've used a little more common sense. He might still be alive in that case. The policeman was wrong in his actions no doubt but do I have sympathy for the criminal who was trying to run away from the cop? Nope. None whatsoever.
I won't lose a second's sleep over him being dead.
So, Star's a racist. Let's move on.
To everyone in the thread who's bringing up Walter Scott having a criminal history or running: that's irrelevant to whether or not this was a case of police murdering an unarmed man and trying to cover it up. It will NEVER be okay for police to shoot an unarmed man in the back and then try to make it look like he was dangerous by planting a weapon on him.
Originally posted by Henry_Pym
"innocent black man shtick"
classic strawman. the actual words were and are "unarmed" and "fleeing".
what the cop did was a straightup execution. i don't care if the perp had recently set a bag of kittens on fire and then proceeded to rape the cop's mother while writing bad checks to the irs.
It's not ok to run from the police.
It's also not ok to substitute continued pursuit of an unarmed suspect with lethal force.
Walter was an idiot and should be in jail (just like Mike Brown should be), but they should both be alive. The lethal force wasn't justified, moreso in this instance than in Brown's, as we can clearly see that the victim posed no threat at the point of lethal force being administered. That's the issue.
Not being able to subdue a suspect with non-lethal means does not justify lethal force when the suspect does not pose a lethal threat. Shooting someone attempting to run away on foot from a speeding ticket, for example, would not be justified. That person would be an idiot, but they shouldn't be a dead idiot, they should be an incarcerated idiot with possible minor injuries from a physical apprehending.
You can't substitute bullets for running.
Originally posted by Bashar Tegso I'm guessing you don't watch the news? It's also not a straw man as I'm not justifying shooting him in the back but "unarmed" and fighting over a taser are not the same thing.
classic strawman. the actual words were and are "unarmed" and "fleeing".what the cop did was a straightup execution. i don't care if the perp had recently set a bag of kittens on fire and then proceeded to rape the cop's mother while writing bad checks to the irs.
Originally posted by Tzeentchyou don't see a difference between driving illegally, getting pulled over then possibly fighting with a cop for a weapon vs a cop just pulling a gun out and shooting a random person in the back?
No, he doesn't, unless you can point me to the law that says police are allowed to shoot an unarmed man running away from them.
Context matters.
Originally posted by MF DELPHTbf in both videos it appears he are stripped of his less lethal weapon, so I can grasp the straws of the thoughts that form this line of taking a shot... He really should have aimed for a leg and definitely shouldn't have fired 8 rounds.
It's not ok to run from the police.It's also not ok to substitute continued pursuit of an unarmed suspect with lethal force.
Walter was an idiot and should be in jail (just like Mike Brown [b]should
be), but they should both be alive. The lethal force wasn't justified, moreso in this instance than in Brown's, as we can clearly see that the victim posed no threat at the point of lethal force being administered. That's the issue.Not being able to subdue a suspect with non-lethal means does not justify lethal force when the suspect does not pose a lethal threat. Shooting someone attempting to run away on foot from a speeding ticket, for example, would not be justified. That person would be an idiot, but they shouldn't be a dead idiot, they should be an incarcerated idiot with possible minor injuries from a physical apprehending.
You can't substitute bullets for running. [/B]
Originally posted by Henry_Pym
so I'm guessing you don't watch the news? It's also not a straw man as I'm not justifying shooting him in the back but "unarmed" and fighting over a taser are not the same thing. you don't see a difference between driving illegally, getting pulled over then possibly fighting with a cop for a weapon vs a cop just pulling a gun out and shooting a random person in the back?Context matters.
Originally posted by Bashar TegI'll let your flaming pass as I know a lot of people take these cases personally, but your analogy is false. It's more apt to a woman walking naked into a men's prison shower. He FOUGHT a cop, and was shot, but to pretend he was out tending to his lawn and a big old evil cop was just out shooting people at random is false.
you're not adding context. you're just being disingenuous and slimy, trying to divert focus from the core issue to justify something while claiming not to. same horseshit as when someone says "i'm not saying she deserved to be raped but look at the slutty skirt she was wearing and the seedy bar she was hanging out in, etc. context matters."
