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. Would it have? Probably now since Ferguson. Chances are still it would have been pushed thru as a cop doing his job.

They might not bring charges down as quickly as they would with a camera, but if they see somebody shot they are going to investigate plain and simple. When they notice he was shot in the back numerous times, it would raise eye brows. Cameras are a waste of taxpayer money, and as I have said before I much rather the police in my city not worry about people like you and the media crucifying them for their actions. We all know even if his actions were justified, the media would turn this into a frenzy. Second guessing typically does not go well with that line of work.

like_that;1720121 wrote:They might not bring charges down as quickly as they would with a camera, but if they see somebody shot they are going to investigate plain and simple. When they notice he was shot in the back numerous times, it would raise eye brows. Cameras are a waste of taxpayer money, and as I have said before I much rather the police in my city not worry about people like you and the media crucifying them for their actions. We all know even if his actions were justified, the media would turn this into a frenzy. Second guessing typically does not go well with that line of work.

he never denied shooting him in the back though. he just said he feared for his life bc the guy stole his taser. Without video we have no idea the guy didn't steal his taser since he planted it by him.


There's no second guessing when you follow your training. That's a bogus excuse. If you do everything by the book, you have nothing to second guess.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720124 wrote:he never denied shooting him in the back though. he just said he feared for his life bc the guy stole his taser. Without video we have no idea the guy didn't steal his taser since he planted it by him.


There's no second guessing when you follow your training. That's a bogus excuse. If you do everything by the book, you have nothing to second guess.

Officer Wilson followed his training in Ferguson and yet for 6 months, he lived in hiding and I am sure he lost plenty of sleep waiting to see what happened. Oh and then he lost his job...

Second guessing in these situations has nothing to do with the officer's training.

Glory Days;1720150 wrote:Officer Wilson followed his training in Ferguson and yet for 6 months, he lived in hiding and I am sure he lost plenty of sleep waiting to see what happened. Oh and then he lost his job...

Second guessing in these situations has nothing to do with the officer's training.

yeah and if he had a POV cam who knows what we would have really seen. The truth for one.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720152 wrote:yeah and if he had a POV cam who knows what we would have really seen. The truth for one.

Lol

You're really pushing this camera agenda to catch the 0.0001% of cops who do the wrong thing.

MontyBrunswick;1720175 wrote:Lol

You're really pushing this camera agenda to catch the 0.0001% of cops who do the wrong thing.

I don't think it'd have to be the extreme for these to serve their purpose though. Think about how many times a cop uses intimidation during a traffic stop for things. This isn't the best example, but I remember a Michigan State Police pulling me over. He said I was going 70 in a 55 construction, but he wrote it as 60 to "take it easy on me" as he put it. The last thing he said was, "You better not try to fight this ticket in court, or I'll change it to 70." I thought it was weird that he picked me in a line of about 15 cars to pull over, when I was in the middle of the pack, and I was the only one with Ohio plates that I could see. His "threat" made me think about it, but I was an 19 year old dumb kid.

My point is that things overall could be different with these cameras.

Let make this simple, clear for all to understand.

You run, officers pull their gun and you’re done…
You flee from the police, weapon will be drawn and you will be gone …

I'm not defending this policeman action, he clearly had additional option other that 8 shots.

Here is where I have a problem, blame the police, blame the police process, blame, blame and more blame of the authorities and the system. How about place the blame where the blame begins... with the criminal, the individual with the drugs, the back child support, the 12 time DUI, 4 time felon and disrespect of the law, authority and the police.

Activist, Politicians, media, legal authorities away wants to do a patch job of the issue problems of today but never want to address the real problem and cause. The legal system should stop defending the criminals and start to protect the honest, productive citizens that provide the opportunities to all to prosper.

MontyBrunswick;1720175 wrote:Lol

You're really pushing this camera agenda to catch the 0.0001% of cops who do the wrong thing.

No I'm pushing it bc im currently on my second stint on a grand jury and it's the first time with POV cameras in use and it's astounding how much cops lie.

Belly35;1720182 wrote:Let make this simple, clear for all to understand.

You run, officers pull their gun and you’re done…
You flee from the police, weapon will be drawn and you will be gone …

And the fact that you accept this is the problem.

I think its funny that this cop said he "feared for his life" because the guy was able to get the stun gun. You feared your life?? ***** ass POS!!! Should have chased this guy down, tackled him, knocked him in the head a few times and then cuffed his ass.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720185 wrote:No I'm pushing it bc im currently on my second stint on a grand jury and it's the first time with POV cameras in use and it's astounding how much cops lie.

There it is. "I've experienced this, so obviously I am right" card.

Also lol at thinking cops wouldn't second guess. It's human nature. Training never always means perfect execution, especially with a lot of grey area. I am just going to agree to disagree, it's a waste of tax payer money.

Belly35;1720182 wrote:Let make this simple, clear for all to understand. You run, officers pull their gun and you’re done… You flee from the police, weapon will be drawn and you will be gone … I'm not defending this policeman action, he clearly had additional option other that 8 shots. Here is where I have a problem, blame the police, blame the police process, blame, blame and more blame of the authorities and the system. How about place the blame where the blame begins... with the criminal, the individual with the drugs, the back child support, the 12 time DUI, 4 time felon and disrespect of the law, authority and the police. Activist, Politicians, media, legal authorities away wants to do a patch job of the issue problems of today but never want to address the real problem and cause. The legal system should stop defending the criminals and start to protect the honest, productive citizens that provide the opportunities to all to prosper.

None of that has anything to do with excessive police force. There are plenty of cops who arrest people with these very same offenses without incident. But there are a select few who abuse this power.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720152 wrote:yeah and if he had a POV cam who knows what we would have really seen. The truth for one.

Seriously Zwick? The truth came out with the forensics and all the witnesses. The truth about what happened in Ferguson is most certainly known right now.

You are losing credibility when you are insinuating that what we know about Ferguson was not the truth.

Old Rider;1720187 wrote:I think its funny that this cop said he "feared for his life" because the guy was able to get the stun gun. You feared your life?? ***** ass POS!!! Should have chased this guy down, tackled him, knocked him in the head a few times and then cuffed his ass.

This is getting off topic almost because this cop looks super guilty, and should be charged with murder.

However, this line of thinking is so stupid. Cops are not supposed to be able to hand to hand combat everyone. It's super dangerous and sets a horrible precedent. Cops cannot, and should not have to decide on the spot who can hurt them in hand to hand combat and only draw weapons on those they don't think they can "take." This is right up there with shoot the weapon out of his hand type stuff.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720186 wrote:And the fact that you accept this is the problem.

The problem is you don’t understand that as a Liberal you can't keep trying to control others with new agenda, new laws, different process, wear this, do this , don’t do that and blame the system ( millions and millions follow the present system of laws and have no problems) ….

People have to take responsibility for their actions. Stupid does what is stupid

As a society we can’t keep defending the criminals, it not our fault they are a criminal, let start to protect and defend the honest citizens. I’m tried of hand holding the dredge of society, rule are rules, laws are laws simple and direct, we all live under those requirements deal with it or at some point pay the piper.

The offices in SC stepped over the line, without question "responsibility of his actions".

Let’s look at many of those situation in the past few months, where does the problem begin... lack of taking responsibility of their (criminal) action, which leads to a even more dramatic, dangerous and destructive aftermath and it all could have been prevented …. How?
Wearing a camera, new and better laws, new agenda for dealing with criminals, rubber bullets…. Really if they run now, pull guns on cops and fight with police at time of arrest now, what makes you think changing anything will make any differences?

Don’t touch the hot stove, it will burn you? Simple direct and to the point ….
I’m pretty sure criminal don’t touch hot stoves…

Leave to a liberal idiot like ZWICK to make a non-issue an issue.

The forensic evidence on this case would be overwhelming enough to convict this cop with or without video.

sleeper;1720209 wrote:Leave to a liberal idiot like ZWICK to make a non-issue an issue.

The forensic evidence on this case would be overwhelming enough to convict this cop with or without video.

How do you figure?

Did you not read his statement?

He admitted to shooting him in the back. He said Scott stole his taser and was afraid for his life. He planted the taser by his dead body. Everything he said happened, except that Scott didn't steal his taser.

like_that;1720190 wrote:There it is. "I've experienced this, so obviously I am right" card.

Ok... so explain how it's not relevant or valid? I've watched the cops videos and heard their testimony for going on 2 months now. Often they don't coincide with each other.

Belly35;1720202 wrote:The problem is you don’t understand that as a Liberal you can't keep trying to control others with new agenda, new laws, different process, wear this, do this , don’t do that and blame the system ( millions and millions follow the present system of laws and have no problems) ….
…

No the problem is murder isn't ok just because "it is what it is".

our entire civilization demands progress to survive... you want to keep living in the same shitty system.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720216 wrote:How do you figure?

Did you not read his statement?

He admitted to shooting him in the back. He said Scott stole his taser and was afraid for his life. He planted the taser by his dead body. Everything he said happened, except that Scott didn't steal his taser.

The fact that the forensics would have shown that the victim was running away. With his taser or not, it would be hard to prove "scared for his life" with the victim running away.

jmog;1720225 wrote:The fact that the forensics would have shown that the victim was running away. With his taser or not, it would be hard to prove "scared for his life" with the victim running away.

No it wouldn't. We bend over backwards to give a cop the benefit of the doubt. If he said he was scared for his life and public safety, we'd all be more than happy to trust him since "we weren't there". Forensics would show he was shot in the back, just like Slager said. And we'd have to assume he had the taser on him the whole time.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1720229 wrote:No it wouldn't. We bend over backwards to give a cop the benefit of the doubt. If he said he was scared for his life and public safety, we'd all be more than happy to trust him since "we weren't there". Forensics would show he was shot in the back, just like Slager said. And we'd have to assume he had the taser on him the whole time.

Not considering the way he fell (running) and witness testimony (girl with video if she didn't take the video) I believe you are incorrect. The video just made this easier/go faster.

jmog;1720225 wrote:...it would be hard to prove "scared for his life" with the victim running away.

Exactly!!

I think we should just change the laws that black people are immune to laws and all cops are by default racist. Arrest a black guy? You get the same sentence as he does. Shoot a black guy? Doesn't matter if he punched you in the mouth, took your gun, shot you in the leg 5 times; and you finally shoot him and kill him. He didn't deserve to die and didn't get due process, so the cop deserves the death penalty.

This is what liberals want.

Pieces of shit run on just about every episode of Cops. Thankfully the overwhelming majority of officers know how to handle the situation in the appropriate manner.