Walter Scott
-
MontyBrunswick
Yeah, that would've totally prevented this from happening. :RpS_glare:ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720041 wrote:Exactly why every cop should wear POV cameras that thay can't turn off and can't remove. -
ZWICK 4 PREZ
If he had known he was video taped by a bystander it wouldn't have happened... let alone by himself, genius.MontyBrunswick;1720055 wrote:Yeah, that would've totally prevented this from happening. :RpS_glare: -
gut
That presumes he was fully in control of and aware of his emotions. I don't think there's a rational thought process that says "hey, no one's looking I'll just shoot this guy 8 times"ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720059 wrote:If he had known he was video taped by a bystander it wouldn't have happened... let alone by himself, genius. -
gut
I'm pretty sure more than a few liberals have said deadbeat dads should be shot. Going to have to walk a fine line coming up with these talking points.iclfan2;1720053 wrote: I'll also add that the suspect was a retard and deserved jail time, but straight murder was obviously not warranted. -
ZWICK 4 PREZ
The thought process is " I'm a cop so everyone will automatically side with me no matter the truth. "gut;1720061 wrote:That presumes he was fully in control of and aware of his emotions. I don't think there's a rational thought process that says "hey, no one's looking I'll just shoot this guy 8 times" -
like_that
Except he still would most likely be charged with murder if there wasn't any camera on scene.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720041 wrote:Exactly why every cop should wear POV cameras that thay can't turn off and can't remove. -
like_that
Exactly, it is the same logic as "he should have shot him in the (insert body part that won't lead to death)!!"gut;1720061 wrote:That presumes he was fully in control of and aware of his emotions. I don't think there's a rational thought process that says "hey, no one's looking I'll just shoot this guy 8 times" -
gut
And that's clearly not rational, because it's 100% untrue. And after Ferguson you know it will be heavily scrutinized.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720064 wrote:The thought process is " I'm a cop so everyone will automatically side with me no matter the truth. "
I don't think he consciously chose to shoot that guy. I think it happened, and then his mind went in to overdrive trying to cover it up. If his thought process was "everyone will side with me because I'm a cop", he wouldn't have started the stolen tazer bit. -
ZWICK 4 PREZ
It's easy to say "most likely" since we don't know. If the issue got pressed, probably. If it got pushed thru like everything else, no way.like_that;1720065 wrote:Except he still would most likely be charged with murder if there wasn't any camera on scene. -
gut
Pshhaw....semantics :RpS_glare:like_that;1720065 wrote:Except he still would most likely be charged with murder if there wasn't any camera on scene. -
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Bullshit it's not true. Law will always side with a cop till proven otherwise. The video proved it otherwise.gut;1720068 wrote:And that's clearly not rational, because it's 100% untrue. And after Ferguson you know it will be heavily scrutinized.
I don't think he consciously chose to shoot that guy. I think it happened, and then his mind went in to overdrive trying to cover it up. If his thought process was "everyone will side with me because I'm a cop", he wouldn't have started the stolen tazer bit. -
Gardens35
I'm OK with the cams............regarding your "can't turn off and can't remove", what happens at quittin' time?ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720041 wrote:Exactly why every cop should wear POV cameras that thay can't turn off and can't remove. -
gut
That Michael Brown wasn't shot in the back was a pretty critical piece of forensic evidence. This guy was fucked with or without the video. Plus I don't think that taser can be discharged without being re-set, so even if he actually had the cop's taser it's not a weapon at that point. He shot an unarmed man in the back, and the guy isn't 6'5" 300 lbs.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720069 wrote:It's easy to say "most likely" since we don't know. If the issue got pressed, probably. If it got pushed thru like everything else, no way. -
gut
As would the forensics. It's not only not bullshit, it's absolutely true. All the video really does in this case is provide for a very expedient finding of facts (i.e. no need to wait for forensics).ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720071 wrote:Bullshit it's not true. Law will always side with a cop till proven otherwise. The video proved it otherwise.
And, yes, law will always side with a cop, or anyone, until proven otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty, and all. -
ZWICK 4 PREZ
The "tazor bit" was to cooberate his story.
-
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Forensics would never be used against a cop who's story was cooberated unless a push like we saw in Ferguson came about. Would it have? Probably now since Ferguson. Chances are still it would have been pushed thru as a cop doing his job.gut;1720075 wrote:As would the forensics. It's not only not bullshit, it's absolutely true. All the video really does in this case is provide for a very expedient finding of facts (i.e. no need to wait for forensics).
And, yes, law will always side with a cop, or anyone, until proven otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty, and all. -
gut
Of course. And the stun gun had been fired - something you don't need video to corroborate. It's the kind that shoots wires, apparently, so it would have to be reset. Thus it's not a weapon, and so he used lethal force on an unarmed man....one he shot in the back...8 times. Fucked with or without that video.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720076 wrote:The "tazor bit" was to cooberate his story. -
gut
Bullshit. Cops have been convicted before Ferguson. Now you're just sounding like an idiot.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720079 wrote:Forensics would never be used against a cop who's story was cooberated unless a push like we saw in Ferguson came about..
And what exactly was "corroborating" the cops story? -
ZWICK 4 PREZ
I'm talking about the act of him picking up the tazer and placing it by his dead body like that's where the struggle was.gut;1720081 wrote:Of course. And the stun gun had been fired - something you don't need video to corroborate. It's the kind that shoots wires, apparently, so it would have to be reset. Thus it's not a weapon, and so he used lethal force on an unarmed man....one he shot in the back...8 times. Fucked with or without that video. -
gut
I don't think you understand what "corroborate" means. And you do realize what you're referring to is actually forensic evidence - it goes both ways in determining if a shoot was justified. Again, a discharged stun gun is not a weapon.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720083 wrote:I'm talking about the act of him picking up the tazer and placing it by his dead body like that's where the struggle was. -
Crimson streak
This same scenario pretty much happened here where I live. A women cop pulled a guy over bc his inspection sticker was out he ran, she tased him twice and shot him in the back 3 times while he was face down on the ground. She ended up being charged for murder. Complete bitch of a cop. Harasses people in town all the time. She had it coming to her. I call it karma
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
ZWICK 4 PREZ
apparently you don't.gut;1720084 wrote:I don't think you understand what "corroborate" means. And you do realize what you're referring to is actually forensic evidence - it goes both ways in determining if a shoot was justified. Again, a discharged stun gun is not a weapon.
he stated he shot him because he was fighting for his stun gun and trying to use it on him. The stun gun was dropped some 30 feet from where he was shot and killed, thus no cooborating the cops story. Which is why he picked up the gun, and placed it by his dead body like that's where it took place. -
Laley23
I'm not even gonna pretend to lie, I would be way closer to 50-50 at this point without the video.
I would have no way of knowing evidence was planted or anything like that. I'm not saying id side with the cop, but without video, I'm willing to admit I wouldn't be as quick to side with the victim. -
gut
They don't just see a stun gun next to the body and say "it all checks out". You need to figure out the difference between what it means to corroborate and what constitutes "corroborating evidence".ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720087 wrote:apparently you don't.
he stated he shot him because he was fighting for his stun gun and trying to use it on him. The stun gun was dropped some 30 feet from where he was shot and killed, thus no cooborating the cops story. Which is why he picked up the gun, and placed it by his dead body like that's where it took place. -
ZWICK 4 PREZ
They do see one laying 30 ft from a body an immediately say "that doesn't check out with your story" though.gut;1720091 wrote:They don't just see a stun gun next to the body and say "it all checks out". You need to figure out the difference between what it means to corroborate and what constitutes "corroborating evidence".
Which is why he did it.