"S.C. police officer charged in fatal shooting"
"
A white North Charleston, S.C., police officer was charged with shooting and killing an apparently unarmed black man during a traffic stop after a video of the confrontation surfaced, authorities said Tuesday."...
A video that shows a North Charleston police officer shooting at [Walter] Scott's back at least eight times as he ran away led to the arrest Tuesday, Police Chief Eddie Driggers said.
"Where would we be without that video?'' said Justin Bamberg, an attorney for Scott's family, expressing relief that charges were filed four days after Scott was shot to death Saturday morning...
Appearing before cameras Tuesday night, Anthony Scott, brother of the dead man, said the family was pleased that the truth was coming out as a result of the video's release.
"I think through the process we have received the truth. We can't get my brother back, and my family is in deep mourning.... But through the process, justice has been served,'' Anthony Scott said. "I don't think that all police officers are bad cops, but there are some bad ones out there. I don't want to see anyone get shot down the way my brother got shot down.''
Walter Scott spent two years in the Coast Guard, had four children and was outgoing and loving, Anthony Scott said. "He was the most outgoing out of all of us," the brother said. "He was well known in the community."
That was quick.
18 comments:
I'm looking at this name Walter Scott leading the twitter trend and I almost made a bad joke... Who is this guy Walter Scott?
Is he Scott Walkers dyslectic secret Welsh half brother?
But, thank goodness I went and looked first. Saved myself possible trouble.
Murder - plain and simple. Under color of authority, which makes it much worse to the American value system.
This is what Ferguson pretends to be about, but I expect that the real thing has less appeal to the kind of people who have made asses of themselves lying when plenty of real and honest examples exist. I predict this has no legs in our "culture". Lying seems to have it's own inherent appeal that spices it up for some.
Looks like the cop case is on super fast track.
I wonder why they are doing that ;)
Assuming the evidence supports what the video shows (and I can't imagine mitigating evidence), this cop should go to jail for life.
We don't need demonstrations, signs, or the President's mouth burnishing his street cred. We need respect for the law, and each other as equals and fellow citizens. That goes for all of us from the President to the cop to the "unarmed" youth.
Drudge doesn't have this yet.
It's hard to get riots going when the facts seem so clear. I can't imagine a scenario that can explain shooting at someone's back as they run away... and I have a *very* good imagination. So he'll get a trial and get to try to explain himself, somehow, and justice will be done.
What is there to riot over?
I'd wondered why it seems like these "movements" always seem to pick situations where the supposed injustice is ambiguous at best and completely effed up at worst.
I think I've figured it out.
No time to riot.
Men commit rapes. Women lie about being raped. Cops commit brutish acts. Criminals lie about just about everything, including police brutality.....My bias is towards believing the woman over the man and the cop over the criminal. I think it's ok to have such a bias, but that bias should not become an article of faith or some kind religious ideal. This cop is guilty and that UVA rape "victim" is a liar.........The cop is on the wrong side of the PC police, and the punishment will be exemplary. The liar is on the right side of the PC police, and her punishment will be nonexistent.
Synova said...
It's hard to get riots going when the facts seem so clear. I can't imagine a scenario that can explain shooting at someone's back as they run away...
Here is a scenario: the police are called to and break in on an armed robbery (or unarmed home invasion) in progress. They ID themselves and the perps run away. Why can't you shoot either of these perps trying to escape from a major felony? You are not obligated to let them escape.
There are a number of possibilities that could make the people running away not even be the ones who did the felony. Even if they did, it does not deserve a death sentence. Sure, bad guys might get away, but the alternative is cops shooting a lot of people, many innocent, all without trial. I find that far worse than the bad guys getting away.
If the cops seen them killing or attempting to kill someone, then I might find the shooting to prevent escape as warranted, but that still leaves a lot room for abuse, and the goal should be saving innocent lives from bad guys AND cops.
Someone's going to prison for a long time.
Glad there is footage.
Send him away for life? Hardly. This wasn't premeditated murder - and it wasn't done for personal reasons. The Officer simply panicked or thought he had the right to shoot a fleeing suspect.
More like manslaughter. If you got 100,000 cops arresting millions of people every years, stuff like this will happen. I just wonder why the liberal media is obsessed with making every single one "the story of the day".
Synova said...
It's hard to get riots going when the facts seem so clear.
Riots are the last thing the Left wants at this point. Ferguson backfired and drove away a lot more support that they're willing to admit.
Tank said...
Synova said...
It's hard to get riots going when the facts seem so clear. I can't imagine a scenario that can explain shooting at someone's back as they run away...
Here is a scenario: the police are called to and break in on an armed robbery (or unarmed home invasion) in progress. They ID themselves and the perps run away. Why can't you shoot either of these perps trying to escape from a major felony? You are not obligated to let them escape.
Unless they present a clear and present danger to the officers or to anyone within the vicinity of where the felony has taken place, then they are not obligated to be killed in an attempt to stop the escape. That is a decision I would hope is made on the ground and that evidence would support that, but if you have two fleeing suspect that are unarmed, you have to defer to apprehending them through non-lethal means unless otherwise shown to not do so. That's what I think.
rcocean said...
Send him away for life? Hardly. This wasn't premeditated murder - and it wasn't done for personal reasons. The Officer simply panicked or thought he had the right to shoot a fleeing suspect.
More like manslaughter. If you got 100,000 cops arresting millions of people every years, stuff like this will happen. I just wonder why the liberal media is obsessed with making every single one "the story of the day".
There is something in the beginning of the video where Scott is running at the officer, drops something or doing something and then turns and runs then gets 8 in the back. Clearly he isn't coming at the officer, he isn't aggressive towards the officer, he isn't even facing the officer and yet, gets shot in the back and dies handcuffed. This isn't manslaughter, it's 2nd degree murder plain and simple. It may get kick to voluntary manslaughter, but in my mind from what I know and see right now, it's 2nd degree murder.
And this is why cops get a bad rap. It's for shit like this. But let's see how the prosecution handles this. If they take kid gloves or throw the book at this piece of shit. Also, have you seen the news conference with the mayor? The first thing that came to my mind was Boss Hog.
NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...
Synova said...
It's hard to get riots going when the facts seem so clear.
Riots are the last thing the Left wants at this point. Ferguson backfired and drove away a lot more support that they're willing to admit.
Uh, you think the left cares about PR in this regard? No way, this is right down into their DNA. They don't care about backfire or blowback. They will do what they need to do to forward the cause. Understand how they think, not what you think they should or shouldn't do.
I wonder what the book says about how a suspect running away is to be dealt with? What is the cop authorized to do if he gives chase but the suspect is increasing the distance? Just give up the chase? Let the suspect get away? Or is the cop authorized to fire his weapon in that circumstance? Asking in all seriousness.
Post a Comment