# Ex-cop Michael Slager sentenced to 20 yrs for killing Walter Scott



## applecruncher (Dec 7, 2017)

Federal sentence - means no parole. He will have to serve to entire 20 yrs.

_Charleston, South Carolina (CNN)Michael Slager, the former South Carolina police officer who shot and killed Walter Scott, was sentenced Thursday to 20 years in federal prison, a decision the Scott family said gave it a "sense of justice."
_
_"This is an historic day for civil rights, in particular for officer-involved shootings," said Chris Stewart, one of the Scott family's attorneys, at a press conference following the sentencing._
_US District Court Judge David Norton made his decision after hearing emotional statements from members of both families. Norton earlier Thursday had said the "appropriate underlying offense" for Slager, who is white, was second-degree murder._​
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/07/us/michael-slager-sentencing/index.html


----------



## rgp (Dec 7, 2017)

applecruncher said:


> Federal sentence - means no parole. He will have to serve to entire 20 yrs.
> _Charleston, South Carolina (CNN)Michael Slager, the former South Carolina police officer who shot and killed Walter Scott, was sentenced Thursday to 20 years in federal prison, a decision the Scott family said gave it a "sense of justice."
> _
> _"This is an historic day for civil rights, in particular for officer-involved shootings," said Chris Stewart, one of the Scott family's attorneys, at a press conference following the sentencing._
> ...





   If Mr,Scott had followed the commands of the police officer....he would still be alive. 

   He killed himself.

   Pulled over for a tail light true but.....once he jumped out & ran the officer had no idea of what he may have just done. He could have well been running from a homicide , perhaps a rape . The officers job is to stop the criminal, that is exactly what he did.

I feel no sorrow for Mr,Scott or his family.

I do feel sorrow for officer Slager & his family.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 14, 2017)

Sorry to disagree.  Cops have been killings blacks, and other minorities far too often.  If the suspect is TRULY attempting to attack the cop, that is one thing. But, in way too many cases the suspect has done nothing wrong, unless you consider simply being black is an offense. I recall a case where a mentally ill patient, in the hospital, was holding a pencil, and threatening the cops, who had been called to the scene. The patient was out-numbered 8 to 1.  The cops shot and killed him. The cops claimed that they "felt their lives were in danger" and later, they walked free. 
8 cops against one mental patient !  No bean-bag guns ? No rubber bullets ? No flash/bang stun bombs ? No Electric shock devices ?  The patient was in a locked ward and everyone else had been evacuated. The patient was not going anywhere. Nor was he a danger to anyone. If the cops were so afraid of the mental patient, they could easily have just waited him out. 
I find the behavior of the cops to be reprehensible and cowardly. It makes me ashamed !


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 14, 2017)

I can't imagine thinking because someone is running away from me, that automatically means he has done something and I should shoot him in the back. It's more likely Mr. Scott could tell the cop was dangerous and wanted to get away from him.


----------



## applecruncher (Dec 14, 2017)

Slager should have gotten a longer sentence.


----------



## rgp (Dec 14, 2017)

Smiling Jane said:


> I can't imagine thinking because someone is running away from me, that automatically means he has done something and I should shoot him in the back. It's more likely Mr. Scott could tell the cop was dangerous and wanted to get away from him.



So an officer pulls a person over for a tail-light out, the  person jumps out & runs, and you really believe he is innocent of anything else ?

What if had he turned out to be Ted Bundy ? The officer would have been hailed as a hero...and AT THAT TIME the officer had no way of knowing.


----------



## rgp (Dec 14, 2017)

applecruncher said:


> Slager should have gotten a longer sentence.



Should have been found not guilty & returned to work , to continue protecting us.


----------



## rgp (Dec 14, 2017)

Traveler said:


> Sorry to disagree.  Cops have been killings blacks, and other minorities far too often.  If the suspect is TRULY attempting to attack the cop, that is one thing. But, in way too many cases the suspect has done nothing wrong, unless you consider simply being black is an offense. I recall a case where a mentally ill patient, in the hospital, was holding a pencil, and threatening the cops, who had been called to the scene. The patient was out-numbered 8 to 1.  The cops shot and killed him. The cops claimed that they "felt their lives were in danger" and later, they walked free.
> 8 cops against one mental patient !  No bean-bag guns ? No rubber bullets ? No flash/bang stun bombs ? No Electric shock devices ?  The patient was in a locked ward and everyone else had been evacuated. The patient was not going anywhere. Nor was he a danger to anyone. If the cops were so afraid of the mental patient, they could easily have just waited him out.
> I find the behavior of the cops to be reprehensible and cowardly. It makes me ashamed !



Makes me proud & I give them my full support....I don't care what color the CRIMINAL is !


----------



## Traveler (Dec 14, 2017)

rgp said:


> Should have been found not guilty & returned to work , to continue protecting us.



I would not want him "protecting" me, I'd be in gave danger from him. I am deaf and if he told me to do something, I could not possibly hear what he said.  The result would be that that S.O.B. would have shot and killed me. 
I hope Slager becomes some other prisoners "wife".


----------



## applecruncher (Dec 14, 2017)

Traveler said:


> I would not want him "protecting" me, I'd be in gave danger from him. I am deaf and if he told me to do something, I could not possibly hear what he said.  The result would be that that S.O.B. would have shot and killed me.
> I hope Slager becomes some other prisoners "wife".



:yes:

So an unarmed person running away from someone is a threat?    What a crock.

His excuse was pure BS.  GUILTY!  :clap:


----------



## Traveler (Dec 14, 2017)

rgp said:


> Makes me proud & I give them my full support....I don't care what color the CRIMINAL is !



Did you ever hear the expression, "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?"

I remember, quite recently, that a young man was shot and killed by a cop for stealing a candy bar.  Judge, jury and executioner !


----------



## rgp (Dec 14, 2017)

Traveler said:


> Did you ever hear the expression, "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?"
> 
> I remember, quite recently, that a young man was shot and killed by a cop for stealing a candy bar.  Judge, jury and executioner !




    "Did you ever hear the expression, "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?"

 Exactly...then the suspect should surrender when told too,...and have his day in court.

 When a person defies the commands of an officer, in a situation such as this.....he [that person] sets the stage for increased danger. For both himself &the officer.

What if the suspect was a serial rapist ? Do you want him to elude & be free to place a female [you] love in danger ?


----------



## rgp (Dec 14, 2017)

Traveler said:


> Did you ever hear the expression, "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?"
> 
> I remember, quite recently, that a young man was shot and killed by a cop for stealing a candy bar.  Judge, jury and executioner !



 I believe there is more to that story, and I would have to hear it, before making a specific comment.


----------



## rgp (Dec 14, 2017)

applecruncher said:


> :yes:
> 
> So an unarmed person running away from someone is a threat?    What a crock.
> 
> His excuse was pure BS.  GUILTY!  :clap:




   "So an unarmed person running away from someone is a threat?"

    If he is eluding a police officer attempting to effect an arrest?...he may indeed be a threat , to the officer....or you and I . And at that moment in time no one is sure . If a person is innocent?...why run ? Stop,...and have your day in court.

 If this person continues to run, after being ordered to stop? the suspicion of his/her guilt escalates . As does the survival instinct / fear of the officer involved.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 14, 2017)

Too many cops are mentally unbalanced. their credo, "Shoot first, and ask questions later" 
If faced with a choice of having a 3am run-in with a cop or a gang member, I'll chose the gang member every time.

 As a young man I occasionally went to my in-laws house for dinner. My father-in-law was a New Orleans cop. I'll never forget the story he once told about arresting a black youth (only he did not use the word "black") and handcuffing him to a parking meter. He said, and I quote, "I cuffed that N***er to the meter, and beat the hell out of him with my nightstick and then I arrested him for assault on a police officer" unquote.  My father-in-law cop,  then proceeded to laugh.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Dec 14, 2017)

I agree that people should comply with an officer's commands and I agree that an officer is often faced with split second life and death decisions.

In this particular situation the tape, that I saw, appeared to show a murder and the officer's effort to _tidy up _the scene confirmed it for me.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 14, 2017)

> So an officer pulls a person over for a tail-light out, the  person  jumps out & runs, and you really believe he is innocent of anything  else ?
> 
> What if had he turned out to be Ted Bundy ? The officer would have been  hailed as a hero...and AT THAT TIME the officer had no way of knowing.



So then you believe that the only reason a scared black guy would start running away from a clearly demented white cop in the deep south would be because he had just committed a violent crime? Yeah, right.

Turned out to be Ted Bundy? Come on, rgp, now you're clutching at straws.  What if any cop walking down the street decides that someone else on the street looks like he could be another Ted Bundy?  Mean expression on his face, or whatever?  So it would be OK for the cop to murder him?


----------



## rgp (Dec 14, 2017)

Traveler said:


> Too many cops are mentally unbalanced. their credo, "Shoot first, and ask questions later"
> If faced with a choice of having a 3am run-in with a cop or a gang member, I'll chose the gang member every time.
> 
> As a young man I occasionally went to my in-laws house for dinner. My father-in-law was a New Orleans cop. I'll never forget the story he once told about arresting a black youth (only he did not use the word "black") and handcuffing him to a parking meter. He said, and I quote, "I cuffed that N***er to the meter, and beat the hell out of him with my nightstick and then I arrested him for assault on a police officer" unquote.  My father-in-law cop,  then proceeded to laugh.




    I acknowledge that are bad officers. But this incident does not indicate that this officer was one of them. 

   Since you are broad-brushing...do you want each & every officer just to let suspects go / run ? 

    I suspect not...you would just rather sit in judgement after the fact....when you don't even know the facts. Were you there ?


----------



## rgp (Dec 14, 2017)

Aunt Bea said:


> I agree that people should comply with an officer's commands and I agree that an officer is often faced with split second life and death decisions.
> 
> In this particular situation the tape, that I saw, appeared to show a murder and the officer's effort to _tidy up _the scene confirmed it for me.




    He [the officer] ordered  the suspect to stop. He continued to run, warning shots were fired, he continued to run, he was even hit in the leg, he continued to run....Sounds pretty damn desperate to me. 

It was not a murder, it was an attempt to stop a fleeing suspect that turned deadly, due to the suspects defiant behavior .


----------



## rgp (Dec 14, 2017)

Sunny said:


> So then you believe that the only reason a scared black guy would start running away from a clearly demented white cop in the deep south would be because he had just committed a violent crime? Yeah, right.
> 
> Turned out to be Ted Bundy? Come on, rgp, now you're clutching at straws.  What if any cop walking down the street decides that someone else on the street looks like he could be another Ted Bundy?  Mean expression on his face, or whatever?  So it would be OK for the cop to murder him?



    "So then you believe that the only reason a scared black guy would start running away from a clearly demented white cop in the deep south would be because he had just committed a violent crime? Yeah, right."

   So you are qualified to deem him demented?...on what professional credentials would that be?

   I'm not clutching at anything, I merely made a comparison ...If he had turned out to be a Bundy type....the officer would have been hailed a hero ....plain & simple.


----------



## applecruncher (Dec 14, 2017)

rgp, you can continue to plaster the thread with repetitious, convoluted posts all you like, but it won't change the fact that Slager is *guilty* and going to *prison for 20 yrs*.

And since you feel so sorry for him, you have the right to send care packages to him in prison, and a sympathy card to his family.  Since you feel so strongly about it, maybe you can go with them to visit him.  Talk is cheap - do something.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 14, 2017)

rgp said:


> I'm not clutching at anything, I merely made a comparison ...If he had turned out to be a Bundy type....the officer would have been hailed a hero ....plain & simple.



How many Ted Bundy's are out there ? A few every decade ? How many people drive on a suspended license ? Many thousands /year. No-body wants to go to jail and scared people often make stupid decisions. So, how likely is it that a cop is going to come across a Ted Bundy compared to how likely is it that a cop will come across a suspended license driver ? 10,000 to 1 against finding Ted Bundy. So, what do you propose ? Killing every stupid, scared, un-licensed driver in America, just because he is running away ?  Let's face facts. Teenagers, and young men are not known for making the best life decisions. Are the cops going to be allowed kill every young, scared, stupid, boy in America ? Unfortunately, the answer to that is yes --- especially if they are black.  
Every one has heard of D.W.I.   There is another quite common traffic offense in America and it is called D.W.B.  Driving While Black !


----------



## rgp (Dec 14, 2017)

Traveler said:


> How many Ted Bundy's are out there ? A few every decade ? How many people drive on a suspended license ? Many thousands /year. No-body wants to go to jail and scared people often make stupid decisions. So, how likely is it that a cop is going to come across a Ted Bundy compared to how likely is it that a cop will come across a suspended license driver ? 10,000 to 1 against finding Ted Bundy. So, what do you propose ? Killing every stupid, scared, un-licensed driver in America, just because he is running away ?  Let's face facts. Teenagers, and young men are not known for making the best life decisions. Are the cops going to be allowed kill every young, scared, stupid, boy in America ? Unfortunately, the answer to that is yes --- especially if they are black.
> Every one has heard of D.W.I.   There is another quite common traffic offense in America and it is called D.W.B.  Driving While Black !



   Do you really want to go there ?


----------



## rgp (Dec 14, 2017)

applecruncher said:


> rgp, you can continue to plaster the thread with repetitious, convoluted posts all you like, but it won't change the fact that Slager is *guilty* and going to *prison for 20 yrs*.
> 
> And since you feel so sorry for him, you have the right to send care packages to him in prison, and a sympathy card to his family.  Since you feel so strongly about it, maybe you can go with them to visit him.  Talk is cheap - do something.



   I didn't say he wasn't found guilty, only that I believe the wrong sentence was arrived at, and I do not agree with it.

 As for the rest of it, you're just being ridiculous .


----------



## applecruncher (Dec 14, 2017)

^^ I'm being ridiculous? Oh, that's rich.  :laugh:


----------



## rgp (Dec 14, 2017)

applecruncher said:


> ^^ I'm being ridiculous? Oh, that's rich.  :laugh:



 In deed you are.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 14, 2017)

rgp said:


> Do you really want to go there ?



Sure, why not?  It all part of the cops attitude of a culture of extreme violence, especially toward blacks. Sorry, RGP, but your argument is entirely based on a person disobeying a cop.  In other words, "Disobey a cop, and you will die"  That is not the kind of America we need or want.


----------



## applecruncher (Dec 14, 2017)

<click> bye rgp


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 14, 2017)

Wasn't Ted Bundy stopped for a broken tail light and let go? Then again, Bundy was a very glib, upper middle class white guy. No surprise there. Most serial killers are white men, so that's not a good excuse for shooting a black guy in the back.


----------



## rgp (Dec 14, 2017)

Traveler said:


> Sure, why not?  It all part of the cops attitude of a culture of extreme violence, especially toward blacks. Sorry, RGP, but your argument is entirely based on a person disobeying a cop.  In other words, "Disobey a cop, and you will die"  That is not the kind of America we need or want.



  So you prefer anarchy ? If one disobeys an officer it might lead to his death yes....that is entirely up to the one disobeying . 

Obey the demands of the officer, and argue / fight it out in court. That is our system.....don't disobey & attempt to fight it out on the street / at the scene....you will lose.

If anyone does not like our system /...change it...through the proper channels. Do not try to do it in a police encounter street scene.

When someone does defy , and looses 'big-time' , even if the officer is found to be wrong /  Perhaps tried & convicted even...if the one that deified is still dead ?...is that better ?

Or how'bout if the police become so concerned with being second-guessed, that they do hold back? And hardened criminals flee to freedom, to go on committing their crimes ?....is that better ?

Can't have both, either we support our police, or we will slip into anarchy I guarantee it.


----------



## rgp (Dec 14, 2017)

Smiling Jane said:


> Wasn't Ted Bundy stopped for a broken tail light and let go? Then again, Bundy was a very glib, upper middle class white guy. No surprise there. Most serial killers are white men, so that's not a good excuse for shooting a black guy in the back.



So he shot a black guy in the back? And that is all you saw ? all there is to it ?

How about he shot a fleeing suspect, that he had no idea what crime he may have just committed, or what crime he may commit , & on who if he gets away.....

Or, would it have been more on the OK side if the suspect had been white ?

I have stated my position...I don't care what color a suspect or a criminal is...stop him .


----------



## Traveler (Dec 14, 2017)

applecruncher said:


> ^^ I'm being ridiculous? Oh, that's rich.  :laugh:



I totally agree with Applecruncher.  We need an entirely new cop culture. A wide, sweeping overhaul of all police Departments in America. The cops have literally been getting away with murder, planting evidence, perjury, framing suspects, beating confessions out of people and routinely, willfully, with malice of forethought, violating their constitutional rights. 

What I have personally witnessed cops doing to people would stand your hair on end. Right now, some of the most dangerous people in America are cops. What we desperately need is a few hundred more convictions of cops who commit murder, and then they MIGHT get the message.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 14, 2017)

rgp said:


> How about he shot a fleeing suspect, that he had no idea what crime he *may *have just committed, or what crime he *may commit* , & on who if he gets away....




*May *have committed ? *May *commit ?   Professional assassins !


----------



## rgp (Dec 14, 2017)

Traveler said:


> I totally agree with Applecruncher.  We need an entirely new cop culture. A wide, sweeping overhaul of all police Departments in America. The cops have literally been getting away with murder, planting evidence, perjury, framing suspects, beating confessions out of people and routinely, willfully, with malice of forethought, violating their constitutional rights.
> 
> What I have personally witnessed cops doing to people would stand your hair on end. Right now, some of the most dangerous people in America are cops. What we desperately need is a few hundred more convictions of cops who commit murder, and then they MIGHT get the message.



Care to explain / relate some of this 'personally-witnessed' you speak of ?

What we need is more strict enforcement of the law and support of those that enforce it....then maybe THEY the criminal thugs MIGHT get the message.


----------



## rgp (Dec 14, 2017)

Traveler said:


> *May *have committed ? *May *commit ?   Professional assassins !



Wrong...the thin blue line between us & the criminals. 

I'd rather bury the criminal *BEFORE* the crime, than bury the victim afterwards.....


----------



## Traveler (Dec 14, 2017)

rgp said:


> I'd rather bury the criminal *BEFORE* the crime, than bury the victim afterwards.....



What a horrifying statement. THIS IS AMERICA !  NOT NAZI GERMANY !


----------



## rgp (Dec 14, 2017)

Traveler said:


> What a horrifying statement. THIS IS AMERICA !  NOT NAZI GERMANY !



   Don't be a criminal, then no worries. 

What is horrifying is the thought that some would make it easy for the criminal element to prey on victims.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 14, 2017)

Traveler said:


> I totally agree with Applecruncher.  We need an entirely new cop culture. A wide, sweeping overhaul of all police Departments in America. The cops have literally been getting away with murder, planting evidence, perjury, framing suspects, beating confessions out of people and routinely, willfully, with malice of forethought, violating their constitutional rights.
> 
> What I have personally witnessed cops doing to people would stand your hair on end. Right now, some of the most dangerous people in America are cops. What we desperately need is a few hundred more convictions of cops who commit murder, and then they MIGHT get the message.



Our local police department is being monitored by the DOJ. They are directly overseeing the hiring and training process to weed out the guys who were joining the force because they wanted to kill people. They're retraining the existing officers, doing psychological testing and getting rid of potential murderers.

I never believed any of this was possible until I was working in a hospital OR and one of the anesthesiologists was laughing that his son had graduated from the police academy the day before and couldn't wait to make his first kill. I thought he was joking until the other guys and he convinced me that's the only reason anyone would become a cop. What was even scarier is that they all acted like it was normal. I had one of those now I know I've lived too long moments that has not gone away.

Our cops were killing a wide variety of people, sort of equal opportunity murderers. The homeless were some of their favored targets, but they killed a neighbor who objected (verbally only) when the SWAT team broke into a home. Oops, turned out they had the wrong address and too bad the neighbor disapproved.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 14, 2017)

Smiling Jane said:


> Our local police department is being monitored by the DOJ. They are directly overseeing the hiring and training process to weed out the guys who were joining the force because they wanted to kill people. They're retraining the existing officers, doing psychological testing and getting rid of potential murderers.
> 
> I never believed any of this was possible until I was working in a hospital OR and one of the anesthesiologists was laughing that his son had graduated from the police academy the day before and couldn't wait to make his first kill. I thought he was joking until the other guys and he convinced me that's the only reason anyone would become a cop. What was even scarier is that they all acted like it was normal.



I have been wondering lately, what is wrong with some of these cops. I believe they actually enjoy hurting people in much the same way that school yard bullies enjoyed hurting people. Part of the definition of a psychopath is that they have no conscience. 
The thought that cops kill people based on what the "suspect" MIGHT do in the future, as RPG stated, is terrifying.

As I see it, the only way to stop the cops is to join protests and raise such a holy stink that the politicians will be forced to take action. If 50,000 people march on city hall, or the main cop shop, the media will also be forced to report on why ,every day people are protesting.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 15, 2017)

rgp said:


> Don't be a criminal, then no worries.




Wrong ! Every American citizen is in mortal danger of being murdered by the cops. During a traffic stop, the slightest twitch can get you killed.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 15, 2017)

Traveler said:


> I have been wondering lately, what is wrong with some of these cops. I believe they actually enjoy hurting people in much the same way that school yard bullies enjoyed hurting people. Part of the definition of a psychopath is that they have no conscience.
> The thought that cops kill people based on what the "suspect" MIGHT do in the future, as RPG stated, is terrifying.
> 
> As I see it, the only way to stop the cops is to join protests and raise such a holy stink that the politicians will be forced to take action. If 50,000 people march on city hall, or the main cop shop, the media will also be forced to report on why ,every day people are protesting.



According to the anesthesiologist and his friends, there is no thrill comparable to killing a human being. That's what his son and other police recruits were after. They wanted to kill legally, so they could get all of the thrill and none of the punishment. I figure that makes them far worse than the non-sanctioned murderers they want to bring to justice.

It took a combination of protests and a video that went viral showing cops shooting a homeless man who was camped in the foothills. The mayor and police officials wanted to pretend none of it was happening, but they weren't allowed to continue the charade. Then the DOJ showed up with warrants and they had to cooperate or else. At least that police chief and mayor are now gone and we're hoping for better days.

This is how bad the legally-sanctioned murders got. The drug enforcement squad got together to make a bust at a local McDonald's at lunch time. A white drug squad officer was sitting in a drug squad vehicle with two black suspects and another white cop when he was shot 9 times at close range by another cop. The shooter knew the suspects were black and he directly violated protocol when he came up behind the wounded cop. He continued shooting when the wounded officer was crawling away begging him to stop shooting. 

Although it cost Albuquerque taxpayers a $6.5 settlement plus all of the wounded officer's medical expenses and a lifelong paycheck, we have never been told the truth about the shooting or what motivated the shooter. Everyone I know figures it was about either sex or money.

This is what payback looks like in Albuquerque:

[video]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3518665/Oh-s-t-Jacob-horrifying-moment-cop-accidentally-shoots-undercover-colleague-NINE-times.html[/video]


----------



## rgp (Dec 15, 2017)

Traveler said:


> I have been wondering lately, what is wrong with some of these cops. I believe they actually enjoy hurting people in much the same way that school yard bullies enjoyed hurting people. Part of the definition of a psychopath is that they have no conscience.
> The thought that cops kill people based on what the "suspect" MIGHT do in the future, as RPG stated, is terrifying.
> 
> 
> ...




   "The thought that cops kill people based on what the "suspect" MIGHT do in the future, as RPG stated, is terrifying."

   That is BS & a spin on what I said & you know it........

   I never said an officer shoots/kills because of what a suspect might do. I said he shoots because the suspect defies his order to stop, which is breaking yet another law.


----------



## rgp (Dec 15, 2017)

Traveler said:


> Wrong ! Every American citizen is in mortal danger of being murdered by the cops. During a traffic stop, the slightest twitch can get you killed.



   Might be some reality there....because the police are so on edge, due to people with an attitude such as yours.

Of course every American citizen is in danger of being hit on the head with a meteor as well....but neither are likely to happen.


----------



## treeguy64 (Dec 15, 2017)

This is a hornet's nest, stirred up.  I will say, plain and simple, the cop deserved a longer sentence.  He murdered the guy.  You can NEVER assume that someone fleeing you has done something he deserves to be executed for.


----------



## hollydolly (Dec 15, 2017)

I really don't want to get into an argument about this but I've read just about everything there is to read on this subject...there's no question about it IMO  the Cop is a murderer plain and simple, and for once it has been taken seriously and he's been given the proper sentence...


----------



## Traveler (Dec 15, 2017)

rgp said:


> How about he shot a fleeing suspect, that he had no idea what crime he may have just committed, or what crime he *may commit* , & on who if he gets away....
> 
> I'd rather bury the criminal *BEFORE* the crime, than bury the victim afterwards.....




Traveler said
"The thought that cops kill people based on what the "suspect" MIGHT do in the future, as RPG stated, is terrifying."


RPG said
   That is BS & a spin on what I said & you know it........

   I never said an officer shoots/kills because of what a suspect might do. 


Traveler says,
 RPG said *twice *that he would shoot a person, *BEFORE *the crime. It is precisely that kind of attitude which must be removed from all police agencies. It is that kind of attitude that causes cops to murder people. It is that kind of attitude which causes so many people, especially blacks, to be terrified of cops


----------



## rgp (Dec 15, 2017)

Traveler said:


> Traveler said
> "The thought that cops kill people based on what the "suspect" MIGHT do in the future, as RPG stated, is terrifying."
> 
> 
> ...




   You're spinning again..

 I never said he shot because he didn't know what the suspect may have done....I said he shot because the suspect was fleeing....

 And I never said a single thing about me shooting anyone...

   I said.....I would rather bury the criminal before the crime, than the victim afterwards.....DO NOT put words in my mouth !


----------



## Stormy (Dec 15, 2017)

hollydolly said:


> I really don't want to get into an argument about this but I've read just about everything there is to read on this subject...there's no question about it IMO  the Cop is a murderer plain and simple, and for once it has been taken seriously and he's been given the proper sentence...



The evidence was there and the cop was guilty and like hollydolly it's good that for once an unjust murder by a cop comes to some kind of justice even if it wasn't enough. The man was stopped for a traffic violation and he shouldn't have run when he remembered he had a warrant for child support payments but he should not have been killed over this and what the cop did in the video is corrupt and common
https://youtu.be/7Xnaabg7Q7Q

https://youtu.be/CBg_gJXdlxY


----------



## Traveler (Dec 15, 2017)

rgp said:


> I never said he shot because he didn't know what the suspect may have done....I said he shot because the suspect was fleeing....




So, what do we have here ? RPG feels that a cop has every right to shoot people in the back just because they are running away.  Hmm.  A person is caught driving without a license, he gets scared and he runs ---- KILL HIM !  A person has a warrant on him for failure to appear in traffic court (broken headlight) he gets scared and he runs --- KILL HIM !   RPG feels it is perfectly alright to shoot people in the back for minor traffic offenses.  What next RPG ? Do you advocate killing 16 year old kids who shop-lift, if they try to run ?


----------



## 911 (Dec 15, 2017)

hollydolly said:


> I really don't want to get into an argument about this but I've read just about everything there is to read on this subject...there's no question about it IMO  the Cop is a murderer plain and simple, and for once it has been taken seriously and he's been given the proper sentence...



OK, so I have read all of the posts and the referenced material. IMPO, this post is the most sensible. Traveler and rgp, both of you have little to no idea what it is that you are talking about. Neither of you know what the “rules” of engagement are and what protocol is to be followed. Most all police departments that I am aware of do have some sort of rules regarding when it is permissible for officers to draw their weapon and when they are permitted by department protocol as to when they are permitted to fire their weapon. 

If I make a routine traffic stop for a burned out brake light, which is highly unlikely, but if I should, before I exit my vehicle, I will run his tag on my computer inside my car. If it comes back that there are no wants or warrants for the driver or the car was not stolen, I would then exit my car and if he would run, I’d let him run or I may give chase. If I don’t see a weapon, I would more than likely believe that he’s running because he has no license, insurance or other minor offense. You would not believe some of the reasons why people do what they do. 

If if there was a “BOLO” or a warrant on the car or driver, that’s an all together different story and the procedure has now changed, including what I am trained to do with my weapon. (“BOLO is a Be On the Look Out.”)


----------



## hollydolly (Dec 15, 2017)

Thank you 911,   I know you well enough by now  to know you're an intelligent, Knowledgeable  and Honest Police Officer


----------



## rgp (Dec 15, 2017)

Traveler said:


> So, what do we have here ? RPG feels that a cop has every right to shoot people in the back just because they are running away.  Hmm.  A person is caught driving without a license, he gets scared and he runs ---- KILL HIM !  A person has a warrant on him for failure to appear in traffic court (broken headlight) he gets scared and he runs --- KILL HIM !   RPG feels it is perfectly alright to shoot people in the back for minor traffic offenses.  What next RPG ? Do you advocate killing 16 year old kids who shop-lift, if they try to run ?




   The officer has every right, dare I say duty to stop a fleeing suspect. He has many tools wit which to do this. First is his voice command STOP...the suspect chooses to run, the next, is likely his Taser, it may or may not do the job ? The next is likely his weapon, snap decision made, he shoots, the suspect is killed. The suspect had two or more previous opportunities to STOP...he chose to continue fleeing...he killed himself.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 15, 2017)

Thanks for the sane summary, 911.  Could you tell us what is the standard protocol for dealing with someone who unexpectedly starts running, with no weapon in view?  Is there ever any justification for shooting him? You mention "if the car is not stolen," sometimes just letting him run.  What if the car is stolen?  Is shooting the suspect then considered OK?  I'm not arguing, I'm really just curious. Do the rules given to the police vary from one jurisdiction to another?

I also wonder why in these situations the police don't seem to aim at their legs instead of an upper part of their body.

Holly, I believe the police in England are unarmed. Is that true?  If so, how would they deal with, say, a car thief?


----------



## rgp (Dec 15, 2017)

911 said:


> OK, so I have read all of the posts and the referenced material. IMPO, this post is the most sensible. Traveler and rgp, both of you have little to no idea what it is that you are talking about. Neither of you know what the “rules” of engagement are and what protocol is to be followed. Most all police departments that I am aware of do have some sort of rules regarding when it is permissible for officers to draw their weapon and when they are permitted by department protocol as to when they are permitted to fire their weapon.
> 
> If I make a routine traffic stop for a burned out brake light, which is highly unlikely, but if I should, before I exit my vehicle, I will run his tag on my computer inside my car. If it comes back that there are no wants or warrants for the driver or the car was not stolen, I would then exit my car and if he would run, I’d let him run or I may give chase. If I don’t see a weapon, I would more than likely believe that he’s running because he has no license, insurance or other minor offense. You would not believe some of the reasons why people do what they do.
> 
> If if there was a “BOLO” or a warrant on the car or driver, that’s an all together different story and the procedure has now changed, including what I am trained to do with my weapon. (“BOLO is a Be On the Look Out.”)




   If you are a policeman, I do not need t tell you that running the tag, only tells you about the car....assuming that the car & the tag are a match. I does not tell you anything about the person driving the car. And [if] said person exits the car & starts fleeing, you have no idea just how dangerous he may be, &/or what he may be guilty of.

At that time a decision must be made by the officer. That decision his alone to make. I am not going to second guess him. Again....in every  case i am aware of, he [the suspect] has had every opportunity to stop & did not.


----------



## hollydolly (Dec 15, 2017)

Sunny, the police by and large are unarmed here...that is no lethal weapon, they do have batons, and mace sprays  but they are largely unarmed ( except in Northern Ireand)... however they do have specialist armed units who are called on if needed.

if the police suspected a car was stolen and they gave chase then they would radio other patrol cars ahead who would employ the use of a stinger (or tyre strip) to bring the car to a halt , and the driver would be dragged out of the car and arrested.. 

if on the other hand there was a stop and check  as in this case we're discussing now, and the driver ran off or attacked the officer ,  90% of the time would give chase and arrest calling for backup , and if the car thief got away and they suspected he was involved in something more serious , a helicopter search , and a dog team would be employed to find him. Otherwise if it was just a simple stop, and the driver ran away...they'd just try and discover who the car belonged to...and he'd be arrested at a later date..


----------



## Sunny (Dec 15, 2017)

You Brits are indeed civilized. And how amazing that you don't have thousands of crazed killers running around as a result of the (relatively) unarmed police.

At least, I don't think you do. If you watch enough Netflix and Acorn murder mysteries, you might begin to wonder. 

Just trying to lighten things up here a bit. Seriously, rgp, if you are just trying to fan the flames of a heated discussion, you've succeeded.  If you are really an advocate of the kind of stuff you are suggesting, you and your
ilk are frightening. Your philosophy on this really does sound like Nazi Germany.


----------



## applecruncher (Dec 15, 2017)

911, aren't officers trained to aim for leg to stop person from running?  Everyone who saw the video saw that Slager shot Mr. Scott *in the back eight (8) times*.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/07/us/michael-slager-sentence-walter-scott.html


----------



## 911 (Dec 15, 2017)

rgp said:


> If you are a policeman, I do not need t tell you that running the tag, only tells you about the car....assuming that the car & the tag are a match. I does not tell you anything about the person driving the car. And [if] said person exits the car & starts fleeing, you have no idea just how dangerous he may be, &/or what he may be guilty of.
> 
> At that time a decision must be made by the officer. That decision his alone to make. I am not going to second guess him. Again....in every  case i am aware of, he [the suspect] has had every opportunity to stop & did not.



Nonetheless, it does not give the officer a right to draw his weapon and shoot the man when the officer has no idea of any wrong doing. 

Look, I am not going to be dragged into an argument over when a police officer has a "right" to fire his weapon because all of the when and wheres would take up too much space and time. Each officer is trained to obey his department's protocol as to when and in what situation their weapon may or should be used. The first thing that is always considered is public safety. Would I chase a speeding car through a city or a small town going 80 mph or higher, just to catch a speeder? Not likely, unless of course, there is a criminal element also involved. 

Let's stick to the case that started this thread. Do you really believe that the officer was in his right, given all that you know now, to fire his weapon? If the officer followed his training and checked for wants, warrants and BOLO's before he exited his vehicle and found none, the driver committed no offense, other than to have a burned out taillight, why would he shoot at the driver? A police officer cannot shoot at a suspect(?) just because he may have committed a crime. The officer had better be darned sure he knows who he is shooting at. In today's society, it is just not done the way you have described. 

The officer probably should have called for backup, given a description of the driver and the direction he was running and then given chase. And, the bottom line here is that the officer admitted at his sentencing that he was wrong and apologized to the family, which to me at least, goes a long way in allowing the family something to lean on and gives them at least a little peace.


----------



## 911 (Dec 15, 2017)

applecruncher said:


> 911, aren't officers trained to aim for leg to stop person from running?  Everyone who saw the video saw that Slager shot Mr. Scott *in the back eight (8) times*.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/07/us/michael-slager-sentence-walter-scott.html




Well, you're putting me on the spot. Again, it depends on the situation. If we are chasing a known suspect that has committed a serious offense, say a homicide, and he is firing at me, I am going to take the best shot that I can to stop him. There may be other policeman lurking here, so I hope that they understand that I am only trying to educate the public as to how police approach and handle situations. Here's what's taught at the academy. If your being shot at, you will return fire. Depending how far away from the victim you are, shooting to hit a leg may be very difficult. The torso is a much bigger target and so, that's where most police officers are taught to shoot. 

If the police has a suspect cornered or barricaded in a building or home, it's handled differently. No one wants to be the first man through the door. That's when, in most cases, we will use a mediator and a SWAT team, that if necessary, will perform the extraction of the suspect. They are specially trained officers that wear special equipment that will hopefully repel any shots that may hit the SWAT team member. It's not a prestigious job, that's for certain. 

In Slager's case, I just cannot give you an honest answer. I wish he wore a body or lapel camera and it would have been made public. All that I have to go on is what the testimony was and sometimes that varies by witness. I know that some officers will aim for a leg, but it's dependent upon the factors at the time. At the State Police Academy, we spend hours upon hours training the Cadets and Troopers the many different situations that they may find themselves in and what course of action should be used in each situation, but at the end of the day, if his or her life is threatened, then the officer has to make that ultimate decision as to what course of action they will take. 

Personally, I have been shot at five time during my 37 year career. One time, there were several of us chasing two armed robbers that had just held up a bank and had an undetermined amount of cash in their possession. I was about two miles in front of their car coming toward them. I was ordered to lay down a spike strip or tire shredder as some call them, which I did. Then, I went about a mile back up the road turned my car 90 degrees and waited. When their car hit the spike strip, they saw me standing behind my open driver's door, so they exited their car and started to fire at me. Of course, as soon as I saw their gun and before they fired, I ducked down behind my car door. I had a .45 on my hip, but decided to use the shotgun due to how close we were. My fear was that one of them would try to come around the back of me. Just as I was ready to fire the shotgun, two more Troopers arrived. Once they knew the party was over, they surrendered. 

I hope this helps you to understand that there is just too many situations when and when not to take that shot.


----------



## 911 (Dec 15, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Thanks for the sane summary, 911.  Could you tell us what is the standard protocol for dealing with someone who unexpectedly starts running, with no weapon in view?  Is there ever any justification for shooting him? You mention "if the car is not stolen," sometimes just letting him run.  What if the car is stolen?  Is shooting the suspect then considered OK?  I'm not arguing, I'm really just curious. Do the rules given to the police vary from one jurisdiction to another?
> 
> I also wonder why in these situations the police don't seem to aim at their legs instead of an upper part of their body
> 
> ...




We don't shoot car thieves, unless they are also wanted for a more heinous crime, like a homicide. I read a story not too long ago about an officer following a car and he decided to run the tag. The tag came back that the car was stolen. We always also get a description of the car, just to make sure the car's tag matches up with the vehicle. We also get the VIN. We get the make, year and VIN. The officer turned on his lights and beeped his siren. The driver pulled over and began to run. The officer made a bad decision and fired at the suspect and hit him in the cervical area of his neck making him a paraplegic. He was found guilty and sentenced, but that's not the end of the story. 

The suspect sued the officer and the police force. He won the suit and I believe it was somewhere between $4-6 million dollars. In fact, now that I think about it, the officer was actually a deputy sheriff in Florida.

It's not like the days back in the wild west where they were allowed to shoot or hang a horse thief.


----------



## applecruncher (Dec 15, 2017)

> Well, you're putting me on the spot. ​



Nah.:love_heart:

Sometimes reading your posts is like watching a movie/TV show.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 15, 2017)

Thank you Trooper 911 for giving us a calm, rational, view of proper procedure when a person runs away. At one time I lived in Pennsylvania and I know Pa State Troopers to be highly trained and professional.  Other jurisdictions, however, are not necessarily as professional. This is especially true in the south. 
But, whatever the jurisdiction, it is my strongly held belief that blacks are unfairly targeted by the police. A black man, driving late at night, is much more likely to be stopped for the slightest infraction of traffic laws, than a white man. Thus, we have what is widely known as "driving while black". It is this "targeting of blacks" that preceded the killing of the of the black driver. If ex-cop Slager had not stopped the black man for a burned out stop light then the unlawful killing never would have happened.


----------



## rgp (Dec 15, 2017)

911 said:


> Nonetheless, it does not give the officer a right to draw his weapon and shoot the man when the officer has no idea of any wrong doing.
> 
> Look, I am not going to be dragged into an argument over when a police officer has a "right" to fire his weapon because all of the when and wheres would take up too much space and time. Each officer is trained to obey his department's protocol as to when and in what situation their weapon may or should be used. The first thing that is always considered is public safety. Would I chase a speeding car through a city or a small town going 80 mph or higher, just to catch a speeder? Not likely, unless of course, there is a criminal element also involved.
> 
> ...




    " If the officer followed his training and checked for wants, warrants and BOLO's before he exited his vehicle and found none, the driver committed no offense, other than to have a burned out taillight, why would he shoot at the driver? "

    All that information is about the license plate....It means nothing regarding the person. They are quite often not the same. Particularly in the criminal world.


----------



## rgp (Dec 15, 2017)

Traveler said:


> Thank you Trooper 911 for giving us a calm, rational, view of proper procedure when a person runs away. At one time I lived in Pennsylvania and I know Pa State Troopers to be highly trained and professional.  Other jurisdictions, however, are not necessarily as professional. This is especially true in the south.
> But, whatever the jurisdiction, it is my strongly held belief that blacks are unfairly targeted by the police. A black man, driving late at night, is much more likely to be stopped for the slightest infraction of traffic laws, than a white man. Thus, we have what is widely known as "driving while black". It is this "targeting of blacks" that preceded the killing of the of the black driver. If ex-cop Slager had not stopped the black man for a burned out stop light then the unlawful killing never would have happened.




 So because the driver was black...you want him [the officer] to ignore an infraction of the law ?

 If the suspect had not fled, there would have been no killing.

  Just curious, what other laws broken do you want police officers to ignore , just because the suspect is black ?


----------



## Traveler (Dec 15, 2017)

rgp said:


> " If the officer followed his training and checked for wants, warrants and BOLO's before he exited his vehicle and found none, the driver committed no offense, other than to have a burned out taillight, why would he shoot at the driver? "
> 
> The answer is quite simple. Slager was a racist and thought he was above the law. I'd be willing to bet everything I own that Slager thought, as he exited his vehicle, "I got me another ni**er !"


----------



## applecruncher (Dec 15, 2017)

Slager didn't know he was being recorded by a witness who later testified in court. Otherwise he probably would have gotten away with the crime.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/man-filmed-walter-scotts-death-testifies-court/story?id=43299999

Video of the shooting:

[video]https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000003615939/video-shows-fatal-police-shooting.html[/video]


----------



## rgp (Dec 15, 2017)

Traveler said:


> rgp said:
> 
> 
> > " If the officer followed his training and checked for wants, warrants and BOLO's before he exited his vehicle and found none, the driver committed no offense, other than to have a burned out taillight, why would he shoot at the driver? "
> ...


----------



## Traveler (Dec 15, 2017)

applecruncher said:


> Slager didn't know he was being recorded by a witness who later testified in court. Otherwise he probably would have gotten away with the crime.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/man-filmed-walter-scotts-death-testifies-court/story?id=43299999




Exactly right !  The one hope I have for the future is that nearly every American has a cell phone with a camera. This is, hopefully, going to make the cops think twice before beating and murdering people.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 15, 2017)

RPG is sure going to a lot of trouble attempting to make excuses for a convicted murderer. The video evidence, testimony of an eye-witness and physical evidence is over-whelming, yet RPG continues to defend that killer cop.  What can possibly be going through RPG's mind ?       What ever it is, it is very sad.


----------



## rgp (Dec 15, 2017)

Sunny said:


> You Brits are indeed civilized. And how amazing that you don't have thousands of crazed killers running around as a result of the (relatively) unarmed police.
> 
> At least, I don't think you do. If you watch enough Netflix and Acorn murder mysteries, you might begin to wonder.
> 
> ...





  I cannot change your opinion on my philosophy...so I won't waste my time.

   My 'philosophy' is...if the truth matters too you...I am sick & tired of crime & criminals, and their 'philosophy'/mantra...that if they run & get away, no harm - no foul , it's all good. Well it's not all good.

 I am for getting them off the street . If it means that a few of them meet an early demise, at the hand of law enforcement I really don't care. DO NOT RUN....is all they need learn. 

 This guy Scott had a bench warrant , and was $18,000 behind in child support, he decided...let me say again, he decided....that was enough to make him bolt. Had he met & been meeting his responsibility all along,...very likely none of this , from the stop to his death would have ever happened....He killed himself.

Did officer Slager fall short of departmental protocol / procedure/training? I do not know, if he did ? that is an employment issue . I do not believe he set out that day to kill anyone, and I believe the charge of murder , and the sentence were just over the top. All this does is lead to a reduced quality of people that might enter into police work. Due to...the more level headed among those considering, to think...hell no why should I put myself in that potential trick bag.


----------



## rgp (Dec 15, 2017)

Traveler said:


> RPG is sure going to a lot of trouble attempting to make excuses for a convicted murderer. The video evidence, testimony of an eye-witness and physical evidence is over-whelming, yet RPG continues to defend that killer cop.  What can possibly be going through RPG's mind ?       What ever it is, it is very sad.





  It is no trouble at all...I feel I am defending a man that went to work that day, intending to protect us from the bad people, the criminals.

 The video is a video of him doing just that. Trying to effect an arrest of a man that arrogantly thought that it was [he] that was above the law.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 15, 2017)

rgp said:


> It is no trouble at all...I feel I am defending a man that went to work that day, intending to protect us from the bad people, the criminals.
> 
> The video is a video of him doing just that. Trying to effect an arrest of a man that arrogantly thought that it was [he] that was above the law.




Strange way to arrest someone !  Put 8 slugs in his back. If I had been on the jury, I'd have voted for life in prison without any possible parole. 20 years locked up ?  The killer cop got off easy.

However, some good MIGHT come of all this.  Maybe, just maybe, a few thick-headed cops will get it through their heads that they can not kill someone unless they (the cops) are absolutely 100 % certain that the person they are shooting is a very serious criminal. Examples : escaped convicts, murderers, serial rapists, armed robbers, and other violent criminals.  Being late on child support does not qualify as a danger to anyone and because he was running away from the cop, it is not possible that the cop thought his life was in any danger.


----------



## rgp (Dec 15, 2017)

Traveler said:


> Strange way to arrest someone !  Put 8 slugs in his back. If I had been on the jury, I'd have voted for life in prison without any possible parole. 20 years locked up ?  The killer cop got off easy.
> 
> However, some good MIGHT come of all this.  Maybe, just maybe, a few thick-headed cops will get it through their heads that they can not kill someone unless they (the cops) are absolutely 100 % certain that the person they are shooting is a very serious criminal. Examples : escaped convicts, murderers, serial rapists, armed robbers, and other violent criminals.  Being late on child support does not qualify as a danger to anyone and because he was running away from the cop, it is not possible that the cop thought his life was in any danger.





  If  I had been on the jury, I would have voted not guilty.

 And if we support our police, maybe, just maybe the thugs will realize we the people are tired of their criminal ways.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 15, 2017)

rgp said:


> If  I had been on the jury, I would have voted not guilty.
> 
> And if we support our police, maybe, just maybe the thugs will realize we the people are tired of their criminal ways.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


----------



## dpwspringer (Dec 16, 2017)

applecruncher said:


> :yes:
> 
> So an unarmed person running away from someone is a threat?    What a crock.
> 
> His excuse was pure BS.  GUILTY!  :clap:


If you can just turn and run away from the police with no fear of being stopped as long as you can out run them, then our system falls apart. I'm white (and I only say that because this is not about color) and have always known that if I did that I would likely get shot... how else can the police be effective? They have to be in control of situations.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Dec 16, 2017)

Somehow the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 16, 2017)

Aunt Bea said:


> Somehow the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime.



And there you have it in a nutshell.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 16, 2017)

Springer, read answer no. 55 above, where Holly describes the British system, with the unarmed police doing their job just fine. They manage to apprehend criminals without shooting them on the spot.

Also, for the information of you and your gun-totin' buddy, many of the people who have been killed by overzealous cops were not guilty of anything. Several of them that I have read about were what used to be called retarded (I think "mentally challenged" is the term now). and also guilty of being black. In one case, a young man, little more than a child, was killed because he didn't understand that he was supposed to vacate his movie seat when the picture was over. In another case, people have been killed by police for minor traffic infractions. And then there was the Travon Martin case, in which an unarmed teenager was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, who was acquitted because of "lack of evidence?" Zimmerman had a history of calling the police and reporting "suspicious" people walking in his neighborhood. Trayvon Martin was guilty of being black and wearing a hoodie.


----------



## rgp (Dec 16, 2017)

Traveler said:


> rgp said:
> 
> 
> > If  I had been on the jury, I would have voted not guilty.
> ...


----------



## hollydolly (Dec 16, 2017)

rgp said:


> Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > I'll repeat as many times as I can, because it is what needs to be said.
> ...


----------



## rgp (Dec 16, 2017)

hollydolly said:


> rgp said:
> 
> 
> > OH dear Lord, you just can't accept that you're wrong...that you're in  the minority ..slings and arrows....if someone disagrees with your  opinion then they must be guilty themselves ...dear oh dear...  I'm  sorry, but I hope you never serve on a jury where an innocent person is  on trial, your views are dangerous.
> ...


----------



## Traveler (Dec 16, 2017)

We can argue back and forth until doomsday, but it will never change the simple fact that Slager was found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced to 20 years in a federal prison.

By now, I imagine that every cop in America has heard about this.  It can only be hoped that they might think about the consequences of their actions and learn that they can not kill people unless there is darn good reason.  Simply saying, "I feared for my life is no longer good enough". The physical evidence must back-up what the cop says. 

With those words, I sign off this thread.


----------



## rgp (Dec 16, 2017)

Traveler said:


> We can argue back and forth until doomsday, but it will never change the simple fact that Slager was found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced to 20 years in a federal prison.
> 
> By now, I imagine that every cop in America has heard about this.  It can only be hoped that they might think about the consequences of their actions and learn that they can not kill people unless there is darn good reason.  Simply saying, "I feared for my life is no longer good enough". The physical evidence must back-up what the cop says.
> 
> With those words, I sign off this thread.





 Well, that may be true, but this is as well...If we do not support our police we will have anarchy...I guarantee .


----------



## 911 (Dec 16, 2017)

rgp said:


> " If the officer followed his training and checked for wants, warrants and BOLO's before he exited his vehicle and found none, the driver committed no offense, other than to have a burned out taillight, why would he shoot at the driver? "
> 
> All that information is about the license plate....It means nothing regarding the person. They are quite often not the same. Particularly in the criminal world.




That’s partly correct. For ID purposes at that given moment, when we are in pursuit of a vehicle, with the new scanners we are using, I could scan the tag and if the tag comes back and matches up to a licensed driver, (same addresses), I will also get a copy of his/her picture license. If the driver in the vehicle matches up with the picture ID, I can be fairly certain that the driver also is the vehicle’s owner.


----------



## dpwspringer (Dec 17, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Springer, read answer no. 55 above, where Holly describes the British system, with the unarmed police doing their job just fine. They manage to apprehend criminals without shooting them on the spot.
> 
> Also, for the information of you and your gun-totin' buddy, many of the people who have been killed by overzealous cops were not guilty of anything. Several of them that I have read about were what used to be called retarded (I think "mentally challenged" is the term now). and also guilty of being black. In one case, a young man, little more than a child, was killed because he didn't understand that he was supposed to vacate his movie seat when the picture was over. In another case, people have been killed by police for minor traffic infractions. And then there was the Travon Martin case, in which an unarmed teenager was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, who was acquitted because of "lack of evidence?" Zimmerman had a history of calling the police and reporting "suspicious" people walking in his neighborhood. Trayvon Martin was guilty of being black and wearing a hoodie.


You and I see things differently. Trayvon Martin was shot while beating up a man (who Trayvon knocked to the ground, pounced on, and was continuing to pound on him while he was on the ground) who was trying to perform a community service in his neighborhood, which had a high incidence of burglaries. He was on the phone with the police as part of a community watch program and was trying to keep an eye on a suspicious character who he was not familiar with until the police arrived to check out what he was up to. Zimmerman never tried to get between Trayvon and where Trayvon was trying to go, they only came into physical contact because Trayvon decided that's what he wanted. All that came out in the trial. What also came out in the trial was how the some of the media purposely tried to make it out different than it was and unfortunately a huge part of the population hang on to that twisted, dishonest version of what happened.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Dec 17, 2017)

I believe if you've been a police officer for some time, you have developed some skill at reading people. And if you are in such an emotional state that you believe your life is always in imminent danger, maybe police work is not for you. The job does require you to put yourself in danger, whenever you interact with the community. (No way, I'd do it.)  The White cop/Black shot incidents are flash points because we've never dealt with racism in the US. We see a Black face at the head table and think aren't we great. We over police Black communities ( stop any Black for any reason). The Police say that's where crime is. Or is the over policing causing Black males to start out life with having bogus criminal records, when they are 13-14.  You think this is exaggeration? If you're White, how many times have your kids been stopped and frisked on their way to school?


----------



## rgp (Dec 17, 2017)

fuzzybuddy said:


> I believe if you've been a police officer for some time, you have developed some skill at reading people. And if you are in such an emotional state that you believe your life is always in imminent danger, maybe police work is not for you. The job does require you to put yourself in danger, whenever you interact with the community. (No way, I'd do it.)  The White cop/Black shot incidents are flash points because we've never dealt with racism in the US. We see a Black face at the head table and think aren't we great. We over police Black communities ( stop any Black for any reason). The Police say that's where crime is. Or is the over policing causing Black males to start out life with having bogus criminal records, when they are 13-14.  You think this is exaggeration? If you're White, how many times have your kids been stopped and frisked on their way to school?




   "because we've never dealt with racism in the US." 

  You don't think that the KKK at it's height was racism ?

  Human nature has proven over the millennia that people tend to prefer their own kind. That is why there has always been war. The great wall, etc.

Right or wrong ? I'm not going there because I have no answer...& I don't think one has been found.

My personnel opinion?...Don't care for someone ? fine! avoid them, don't attack them.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 17, 2017)

> Well, that may be true, but this is as well...If we do not support our police we will have anarchy...I guarantee .



Support what police, rgp?  Should anyone wearing a police uniform be "supported," just because he is a cop?  Wasn't that mentality exactly what led to Nazi Germany, and leads to fascist brutality everywhere?  

Yes, we should "support" (whatever that means) our decent, law-abiding police, who of course are the majority of police officers.  No one should be supported, no matter what he does, simply because he is wearing a uniform.
Good grief, man, listen to what you are saying!


----------



## Olivia (Dec 17, 2017)

Ooh--interesting debate. 

The only time that the police can do no wrong is in a police state, and that's only if they don't tick off the dictator. That's coming from a background where relatives died in the Holocaust. Makes one quite sensitive about things like that.

Just my 1-1/2 cents.


----------



## rgp (Dec 17, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Support what police, rgp?  Should anyone wearing a police uniform be "supported," just because he is a cop?  Wasn't that mentality exactly what led to Nazi Germany, and leads to fascist brutality everywhere?
> 
> Yes, we should "support" (whatever that means) our decent, law-abiding police, who of course are the majority of police officers.  No one should be supported, no matter what he does, simply because he is wearing a uniform.
> Good grief, man, listen to what you are saying!



 Good grief woman? listen to what you are saying . Don't you know who your police are ? 

  Support means just that , support them...they are the only line between us & pure anarchy...do you really want increased numbers of even more sinister criminals running the streets ?

Too many want to scrutinize the officers every move / step, after the confrontation with these thugs. Why is it that so few want to look so closely at the actions of the thug. Yes , indeed sometimes things go badly, officers make mistakes, and when guns & split-second decisions are involved .....people can be hurt & killed in a heartbeat. 

 And ALL of this can be prevented if the criminal(s) weren't just that....criminals. But that is seldom mentioned. Their fate is in their hands. Behave...period.

This guy Walker had a bench warrant , & was thousands of dollars behind in child support. Turn yourself in, and make arrangements to get caught up on the child support. That's called being responsible . But instead he chose not to. As such he is riding around with this guilt / fear.....all keyed up and when the police car pulled behind him....irrational thinking & behavior began to take over. He jumps out, & bolts. If you were an officer, would you not think , damn this guy must be guilty of something serious? It his job, at that time to stop the fleeing suspect. 

It all went bad from there....Mr Walker brought about his own death...pure & simple. 

And it just amazes me the number of people, that proclaim to know what was in the officers mind & thoughts...and somehow arrived that he WANTED to kill. 

Do you all want timid, hesitant officers out there?...afraid to engage / approach ? For fear of the situation going bad, his every move under a microscope , and if these non-professional people decide he acted improperly , he should go to prison?.....I do not !

I would much rather send the message of intimidation to the criminals .

And that message of intimidation is WE SUPPORT OUR POLICE !


----------



## Olivia (Dec 17, 2017)

I think we might need some definitions here:

Define:  suspect
Define:  criminal


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Dec 17, 2017)

Today, there's no discrimination of non-White races in our hiring practices, we just don't hire them.  There's absolutely no discrimination in home buying, as long as non-Whites buy homes in the non White sections of town. And because non-Whites live in statistically higher crime rate areas; their home loans, and their  home/auto insurances rates reflect that higher exposure. That's just the way things are.


----------



## applecruncher (Dec 18, 2017)

Getting back to the subject of Michael Slager, when he gets out of prison he will be 55 yrs old - only 5 yrs older than Walter Scott was when Slager murdered him.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 18, 2017)

Ditto, Olivia.  And the expression "Never again!" that came out of the Holocaust certainly applies here.

I wonder if by the time the criminal, Michael Slager, gets out of prison, it will be safe to have him on the streets.  I think the philosophy is that a lot of these hotheaded idiots have gained a little wisdom in their later years, or at least have slowed down. Maybe there's less adrenaline pumping through their system.  Does anybody know, are there any cases of recidivism among older criminals who have finished serving their sentence?


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Dec 18, 2017)

adv


----------



## Traveler (Dec 18, 2017)

Trying to get Slager supporter's to see common sense, is like trying to get a wife beater to take responsibility for his actions.
The wife beater will always say, "She was asking for it"  or  "She made me do it".
Neither of them, "get it".

Our society is at a cross-roads. We either advance toward a more civilized, non-racist society or we slide into a police state where rogue cops can do anything, to anyone, any time they feel like it.


----------



## rgp (Dec 18, 2017)

Traveler said:


> Trying to get Slager supporter's to see common sense, is like trying to get a wife beater to take responsibility for his actions.
> The wife beater will always say, "She was asking for it"  or  "She made me do it".
> Neither of them, "get it".
> 
> Our society is at a cross-roads. We either advance toward a more civilized, non-racist society or we slide into a police state where rogue cops can do anything, to anyone, any time they feel like it.




   Yeah , for sure let's hobble our law enforcement and fall into total anarchy....There's an attractive future.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 18, 2017)

rgp said:


> Yeah , for sure let's hobble our law enforcement and fall into total anarchy....There's an attractive future.



RPG seems to feel that we have only 2 choices:  letting cops shoot people in the back OR total anarchy.  RPG obviously prefers letting cops shoot anyone, at any time. There's an attractive future !  That MAY have worked in the old wild west, but we have hundreds of newer options. The days of shooting first and asking questions later is long passed. We MUST winnow out the Neanderthals and replace them with people who have some common sense and a feeling of humanity. Psychopathic cops are no longer acceptable.


----------



## rgp (Dec 19, 2017)

Traveler said:


> RPG seems to feel that we have only 2 choices:  letting cops shoot people in the back OR total anarchy.  RPG obviously prefers letting cops shoot anyone, at any time. There's an attractive future !  That MAY have worked in the old wild west, but we have hundreds of newer options. The days of shooting first and asking questions later is long passed. We MUST winnow out the Neanderthals and replace them with people who have some common sense and a feeling of humanity. Psychopathic cops are no longer acceptable.



Apparently liberal traveler , and the other morons cannot deal with the honest fact that without strict law enforcement, we will return to the 'wild-west' . We are headed there already, just look at the number of folks carrying a sidearm now, compared to just a few years back. 

And more applying for CCW every day.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 19, 2017)

rgp said:


> Apparently liberal traveler , and the other morons cannot deal with the honest fact that without strict law enforcement, we will return to the 'wild-west' . We are headed there already, just look at the number of folks carrying a sidearm now, compared to just a few years back.
> 
> And more applying for CCW every day.



Not only does RPG think cops should be allowed to shoot people in the back, he also thinks that those who have the gall to disagree with him are, morons.  Hmm.


----------

