Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
South Carolina trooper shoots unarmed man (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Raider Nation
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
There are reasons for that perception unfortunately. All stereotypes have reasons for their existence. That doesn't make them legitimate. Do we really want a society where it's legitimate for authorities to view people negatively based in skin color? That's the definition of institutionalized racism.
In The Zone
Footballguy
The Shell station is on Broad River road near the St. Andrews intersection. Actually it's only a few miles down the road from SLED.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/3000+Broad+River+Rd,+Columbia,+SC+29210/@34.0487641,-81.1048599,18z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x88f8a3091579096d:0x694051e3ed245bfb
Yeah, probably not the best part of town to be at night. The best sushi in Columbia isn't far from there though.
Going to the game tomorrow?
In The Zone
Footballguy
No, I've been sick all week and out of work. While I am feeling a little better I think I'm just going to watch from the house.
tdoss
Footballguy
I'm saying you drag your baggage and BS from thread to thread like a damned slug covering the entire board with it's slime.
timschochet
Footballguy
All right. I thought we were having a discussion. I also thought you made some interesting and reasonable points. Then for no reason you starting attacking me, and then for no reason you started insulting me. Whatever makes you happy I guess.
T Bell
Footballguy
Golden Gopher
Footballguy
I don't disagree with any part of your post. But, if I'm pulled over, I might not be sure of what I'm being pulled over for. I'm usually going to assume that I have a head/tail/brake light out, or maybe that I'm being pulled over for speeding, etc. But, just on the off-chance that it's something else, I try to proceed with caution, and cooperate as much as I can. In other words, let's say I (and/or my vehicle) fit the description of somebody the police are looking for (for something far more serious than a traffic violation). Or, let's say the cop just happens to be in that small group of cops who DO act unprofessionally (or are trigger-happy, or whatever). I don't want to take that chance. I'm not saying that's right or wrong (that I should have to worry about that), but I'd rather err on the side of caution.WTF should a citizen who has been pulled over for a traffic violation have to worry AT ALL that a police officer might shoot them?Maybe the guy was issued a pellet gun, because of how trigger-happy he was, sort of like Barney Fife (except Barney always had a gun with no bullets, IIRC).
I think there is definitely a racial component, for sure. If I get pulled over, and the officer asks me for my license/registration, I'm probably going to ask him if I can reach into the glove compartment to get the registration. I'm certainly not going to make any sudden quick movements, towards the back seat, etc. And, if I'm standing outside of the car, I'm certainly not going to reach quickly into the car, no matter what they've asked me to do. On top of all of that, if I was black, multiply all of that times 10. In other words, I'd be extra damn sure that I don't do anything to give them any cause for alarm. So, in other words, it probably wasn't in the guy's best interest to move as quickly as he did (whether he wanted to win the "shot in the leg" lottery or not).
That said, what he did (reaching quickly into his vehicle) certainly does not justify being shot (in the back, no less). Not to mention, as others have said, the cop didn't stop shooting until well after the situation was under control (at least in terms of the other guy clearly being of no harm to him). And shooting in a gas station parking lot, with people all over the place? Are you kidding me?
I mentioned this story to my wife yesterday, and we actually got into a pretty big argument over it. Her brother is a CHP sergeant in SoCal (not a trigger-happy type of guy, at all, in my opinion, by the way), and according to her, he would say that this shooting is justified (based on the cop feeling that he was at risk). Now, I don't think that my wife has actually talked to her brother about this particular incident (they have chatted about the one in Missouri, though), so I don't know for sure what he would say. From what she has told me, though (based on their conversations), times have changed. I was always under the impression that cops don't shoot people unless they see that the person in question has a weapon (or maybe not even unless the weapon is being pointed in the cop's direction). According to my BIL, that's not the case. If someone is being aggressive to the point where a cop feels threatened, they have the right to shoot to kill.
I do know that cops are put in life-threatening situations every day, and I understand people like my wife being worried (for her brother's safety). He has lost members of his department (to shootings), and was involved in a pretty serious accident this spring, as a result of a high-speed chase. So, I get that it's a dangerous job, and the situations are not always black and white (no pun intended). But, I have a hard time believing that it's OK (in any rational person's mind) to shoot someone in the back, particularly when there is no reason to believe that they are armed (after all, this was in relation to a potential seat belt violation, right?).
This seems like a classic case of how one (or a few) bad apple(s) ruin things for everyone else. The cop, in the sense that knuckleheads like him give cops (in general) a bad reputation. And, the victim, in the sense that he probably doesn't get shot if he isn't black. In other words, unfortunately, enough people in his situation HAVE pulled guns from their vehicles that every cop is going to at least have that potential scenario in the back of their mind. Most react and handle the situation appropriately. This cop clearly did not.
That is what is wrong here - I should not have to think that if I get pulled over for speeding, I better not reach for my license and insurance in any kind of awkward manner or I might die. Nobody should feel that scared of the police that a routine stop will result in death - based strictly on how someone else is feeling - are they having a bad day, are the edgy because the girlfriend left them, are they just pissed off at the world?
That is not acceptable.
Police officers shooting unarmed civilians is not acceptable.
I'll say this until I am blue in the face from a choke hold, but police officers need to be trained on how to deal with these situations. And then they need to be trained again, and again - until they learn that deadly force is a last resort - not a first resort.
This guy's first reaction was to shoot, and then figure out what was going on. That cannot be the policy - ever. Nobody will convince me that is a good policy for police officers to take - even taking into account the dangerous situations they find themselves in. Deadly force must be a last resort - meaning you have tried other options to contain the situation.
Realistically, though, the reason I cooperate (and proceed with caution) is because I think it's generally in your best interest to do so, not because I'm worried that I'm going to get shot. In other words, I think most cops appreciate somebody who cooperates, as opposed to someone who is confrontational (or maybe just someone who doesn't appear to want to cooperate). And, if I cooperate (and state my intentions before doing anything), there just MIGHT be a chance that I get off with a warning, instead of that speeding ticket, tail light ticket, etc. On the other hand, if I'm a dlck, I can only assume he/she is going to give me a hard time, and maybe even look to pin an extra ticket/violation on me, just because they can.
Also, cops do get killed at routine traffic stops, from time to time (one did in this area just a couple of months ago). So, I think they appreciate it when people make their job a little bit easier. So, if I can do that (by informing them that I'm opening my glove compartment, as opposed to lunging/reaching for it), I have no problem doing so. Maybe that's because I know people who are good cops, and get to hear their side of the story (and all of the crazy shlt that they put up with). I'm not saying that there aren't bad cops out there (people who shouldn't have a badge, much less a gun), but I think that's a very small percentage.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Of course the problem is that the guy was fully cooperating.I don't disagree with any part of your post. But, if I'm pulled over, I might not be sure of what I'm being pulled over for. I'm usually going to assume that I have a head/tail/brake light out, or maybe that I'm being pulled over for speeding, etc. But, just on the off-chance that it's something else, I try to proceed with caution, and cooperate as much as I can. In other words, let's say I (and/or my vehicle) fit the description of somebody the police are looking for (for something far more serious than a traffic violation). Or, let's say the cop just happens to be in that small group of cops who DO act unprofessionally (or are trigger-happy, or whatever). I don't want to take that chance. I'm not saying that's right or wrong (that I should have to worry about that), but I'd rather err on the side of caution.WTF should a citizen who has been pulled over for a traffic violation have to worry AT ALL that a police officer might shoot them?Maybe the guy was issued a pellet gun, because of how trigger-happy he was, sort of like Barney Fife (except Barney always had a gun with no bullets, IIRC).
I think there is definitely a racial component, for sure. If I get pulled over, and the officer asks me for my license/registration, I'm probably going to ask him if I can reach into the glove compartment to get the registration. I'm certainly not going to make any sudden quick movements, towards the back seat, etc. And, if I'm standing outside of the car, I'm certainly not going to reach quickly into the car, no matter what they've asked me to do. On top of all of that, if I was black, multiply all of that times 10. In other words, I'd be extra damn sure that I don't do anything to give them any cause for alarm. So, in other words, it probably wasn't in the guy's best interest to move as quickly as he did (whether he wanted to win the "shot in the leg" lottery or not).
That said, what he did (reaching quickly into his vehicle) certainly does not justify being shot (in the back, no less). Not to mention, as others have said, the cop didn't stop shooting until well after the situation was under control (at least in terms of the other guy clearly being of no harm to him). And shooting in a gas station parking lot, with people all over the place? Are you kidding me?
I mentioned this story to my wife yesterday, and we actually got into a pretty big argument over it. Her brother is a CHP sergeant in SoCal (not a trigger-happy type of guy, at all, in my opinion, by the way), and according to her, he would say that this shooting is justified (based on the cop feeling that he was at risk). Now, I don't think that my wife has actually talked to her brother about this particular incident (they have chatted about the one in Missouri, though), so I don't know for sure what he would say. From what she has told me, though (based on their conversations), times have changed. I was always under the impression that cops don't shoot people unless they see that the person in question has a weapon (or maybe not even unless the weapon is being pointed in the cop's direction). According to my BIL, that's not the case. If someone is being aggressive to the point where a cop feels threatened, they have the right to shoot to kill.
I do know that cops are put in life-threatening situations every day, and I understand people like my wife being worried (for her brother's safety). He has lost members of his department (to shootings), and was involved in a pretty serious accident this spring, as a result of a high-speed chase. So, I get that it's a dangerous job, and the situations are not always black and white (no pun intended). But, I have a hard time believing that it's OK (in any rational person's mind) to shoot someone in the back, particularly when there is no reason to believe that they are armed (after all, this was in relation to a potential seat belt violation, right?).
This seems like a classic case of how one (or a few) bad apple(s) ruin things for everyone else. The cop, in the sense that knuckleheads like him give cops (in general) a bad reputation. And, the victim, in the sense that he probably doesn't get shot if he isn't black. In other words, unfortunately, enough people in his situation HAVE pulled guns from their vehicles that every cop is going to at least have that potential scenario in the back of their mind. Most react and handle the situation appropriately. This cop clearly did not.
That is what is wrong here - I should not have to think that if I get pulled over for speeding, I better not reach for my license and insurance in any kind of awkward manner or I might die. Nobody should feel that scared of the police that a routine stop will result in death - based strictly on how someone else is feeling - are they having a bad day, are the edgy because the girlfriend left them, are they just pissed off at the world?
That is not acceptable.
Police officers shooting unarmed civilians is not acceptable.
I'll say this until I am blue in the face from a choke hold, but police officers need to be trained on how to deal with these situations. And then they need to be trained again, and again - until they learn that deadly force is a last resort - not a first resort.
This guy's first reaction was to shoot, and then figure out what was going on. That cannot be the policy - ever. Nobody will convince me that is a good policy for police officers to take - even taking into account the dangerous situations they find themselves in. Deadly force must be a last resort - meaning you have tried other options to contain the situation.
Realistically, though, the reason I cooperate (and proceed with caution) is because I think it's generally in your best interest to do so, not because I'm worried that I'm going to get shot. In other words, I think most cops appreciate somebody who cooperates, as opposed to someone who is confrontational (or maybe just someone who doesn't appear to want to cooperate). And, if I cooperate (and state my intentions before doing anything), there just MIGHT be a chance that I get off with a warning, instead of that speeding ticket, tail light ticket, etc. On the other hand, if I'm a dlck, I can only assume he/she is going to give me a hard time, and maybe even look to pin an extra ticket/violation on me, just because they can.
Also, cops do get killed at routine traffic stops, from time to time (one did in this area just a couple of months ago). So, I think they appreciate it when people make their job a little bit easier. So, if I can do that (by informing them that I'm opening my glove compartment, as opposed to lunging/reaching for it), I have no problem doing so. Maybe that's because I know people who are good cops, and get to hear their side of the story (and all of the crazy shlt that they put up with). I'm not saying that there aren't bad cops out there (people who shouldn't have a badge, much less a gun), but I think that's a very small percentage.
Gandalf the Grey
Footballguy
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
Would be more relevant in the MO thread.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
This video is more thread relevant
Indiana Police Smash Car Window to Taser Man During Seat Belt Traffic Stop
Clifford
Footballguy
Not until he receives all 20-years of pound me in the ### prison time in general population. Then they will have gotten it right.
Clifford
Footballguy
If someone is being aggressive to the point where a cop feels threatened, they have the right to shoot to kill.
This is the scariest thing about law enforcement right now and stems from the SYG law shift in self-defense. Feeling threatened should never ever give anyone the right to kill another human being. Being threatened is a different story. We have allowed "feeling threatened" to become a 1:1 substitute and it has to be stopped. We need a new overarching federal law that completely contradicts this belief that feeling threatened is a right to kill.
This cop serving time is not enough if that is truly how officers feel. We need a national effort to rewrite every aspect of this, and it should start with the Ferguson cop going to jail, the cops who beat the homeless guy to death going to jail, and many, many others.
We are getting to the point where the cops feel as free to kill citizens as the criminals. They automatically treat anyone as a threat, which of course sets their mindset that the person is a threat. Which leads to them "feeling threatened" by the slightest move the person makes. And now we are apparently training these people to shoot to kill if they feel threatened.
WTF are we doing as a country allowing this to happen?
This is the scariest thing about law enforcement right now and stems from the SYG law shift in self-defense. Feeling threatened should never ever give anyone the right to kill another human being. Being threatened is a different story. We have allowed "feeling threatened" to become a 1:1 substitute and it has to be stopped. We need a new overarching federal law that completely contradicts this belief that feeling threatened is a right to kill.
This cop serving time is not enough if that is truly how officers feel. We need a national effort to rewrite every aspect of this, and it should start with the Ferguson cop going to jail, the cops who beat the homeless guy to death going to jail, and many, many others.
We are getting to the point where the cops feel as free to kill citizens as the criminals. They automatically treat anyone as a threat, which of course sets their mindset that the person is a threat. Which leads to them "feeling threatened" by the slightest move the person makes. And now we are apparently training these people to shoot to kill if they feel threatened.
WTF are we doing as a country allowing this to happen?
fatness
Footballguy
Um, let's be realistic. It's "some cops" who are the problem, not all cops or cops in general. It's only fair to say that.
Clifford
Footballguy
Actually I think this is rooted in training. Otherwise we wouldn't see the same behavior popping by different cops all over the country. But right, this is not all cops. Many cops are way better than the people described in this thread.
But the belief that "feeling threatened" gives one the right to kill, coupled with treating everyone they stop as a threat is a recipe for disaster that needs to corrected immediately before more innocent people lose their rights and lives at the hands of cops who have been trained in a way that is completely contradictory to their authority and our rights as citizens.
I, nor anyone else, should ever have to fear being killed by a cop simply because of that cop's mental state when they stop me. We need to start prosecuting these cases and making examples of the cops who engage in this behavior.
We also, IMO, need a federal task force to examine how police are trained and whether that training contributes to this problem.
But the belief that "feeling threatened" gives one the right to kill, coupled with treating everyone they stop as a threat is a recipe for disaster that needs to corrected immediately before more innocent people lose their rights and lives at the hands of cops who have been trained in a way that is completely contradictory to their authority and our rights as citizens.
I, nor anyone else, should ever have to fear being killed by a cop simply because of that cop's mental state when they stop me. We need to start prosecuting these cases and making examples of the cops who engage in this behavior.
We also, IMO, need a federal task force to examine how police are trained and whether that training contributes to this problem.
T Bell
Footballguy
But any cop working a beat or in contact with the public can find themselves in a situation where deadly force might arguably be used based upon a judgment call.
The problem is bigger than just those cops who are "bad seeds". Think of it this way- the debate after deadly force was used typically devolves to police procedure, picking apart the cop's decision making. Even in this SC case, admittedly an extreme example, some are arguing that the driver's furtive movements and failure to obey some instructions or use common sense "justified" the cop shooting him. Instead, the far more relevant question (which I'm happy to see more commonly being asked here) is whether deadly force is ever necessary in a seat belt stop, absent some other extreme conduct/circumstance.
Cops certainly have the right to protect themselves, but that right isn't absolute and it seems like that's not talked about enough. Yes, in 1/10,000 routine seat belt stops some driver who unbeknownst to the cop is e.g. a parole-violating felon) is going to pull a gun, but that doesn't allow the cop to operate on a hair trigger when your garden variety jumpy driver (like this guy in SC) makes the proverbial sudden movement.
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
If I were in law enforcement, I'd want the body cams as soon as possible. Especially with the growing public opinion that has been expressed in here that generalizes all police officers as the same as the "bad seeds".
T Bell
Footballguy
I'm totally for that. I think it actually protects cops as much as the general public, and will pay for itself with cost savings and probably some better behavior by cops who know they're being "watched".
Clifford
Footballguy
Where do you see that? I am just saying we need a federal review of how they are trained, and that the "bad seeds" as you put are made examples out of by being sent to prison for actions that would get anyone sent to prison.
We also need to seriously step back from this belief that feeling threatened gives you the right to shoot someone, for police and private citizens alike.
Case in point: open carry dbags. Someone walks into a Chile's with an AK I feel immediately threatened. Should I be protected by law if I shoot someone for engaging in one of these demonstrations? What if I held a sincere, reasonable belief my life was in danger?
I don't understand how anyone can not see the powder keg this line of thinking has created.
We also need to seriously step back from this belief that feeling threatened gives you the right to shoot someone, for police and private citizens alike.
Case in point: open carry dbags. Someone walks into a Chile's with an AK I feel immediately threatened. Should I be protected by law if I shoot someone for engaging in one of these demonstrations? What if I held a sincere, reasonable belief my life was in danger?
I don't understand how anyone can not see the powder keg this line of thinking has created.
Clifford
Footballguy
Same Hammond police who tasered the passenger in front of a 7-yo girl apparently like beating up helpless old men
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/elderly-man-beaten-police-after-calling-ambulance-his-wife-dementia-video
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/elderly-man-beaten-police-after-calling-ambulance-his-wife-dementia-video
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
Gandalf the Grey
Footballguy
Did nothing wrong. Followed proper procedure. Don't know the whole story. We are in the process of investigating. Reasonably perceived an imminent threat. Refused to comply with a direct order. Was holding something that appeared to be a weapon in his hand. Made a sudden move. Became hostile and aggressive.Clifford said:
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
El Floppo
Footballguy
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
is Gandalf one of the men?El Floppo said:
Similar threads
