What's new
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)

apparently the cop was a previous cop of the year winner. Makes me wonder about the rest of the police department
Wonder how that happens when your file is full of citizen complaints. This guy should have been fired long ago. Now instead they get to write a nice check. This is why people don't trust cops. No real critical self policing going on. None. Must have dashcams and body cameras on every cop everywhere and tampering with them should be a serious felony. In cities that have added body cameras civilian complaints have fallen by over 70%.

 
apparently the cop was a previous cop of the year winner. Makes me wonder about the rest of the police department
Wonder how that happens when your file is full of citizen complaints. This guy should have been fired long ago. Now instead they get to write a nice check. This is why people don't trust cops. No real critical self policing going on. None. Must have dashcams and body cameras on every cop everywhere and tampering with them should be a serious felony. In cities that have added body cameras civilian complaints have fallen by over 70%.
have to figure body cameras would be a great learning tool for cops too- ability to review real-time situations without the bias of being recounted by a person. learn what does and doesn't work in different situations.

 
apparently the cop was a previous cop of the year winner. Makes me wonder about the rest of the police department
Wonder how that happens when your file is full of citizen complaints. This guy should have been fired long ago. Now instead they get to write a nice check. This is why people don't trust cops. No real critical self policing going on. None. Must have dashcams and body cameras on every cop everywhere and tampering with them should be a serious felony. In cities that have added body cameras civilian complaints have fallen by over 70%.
have to figure body cameras would be a great learning tool for cops too- ability to review real-time situations without the bias of being recounted by a person. learn what does and doesn't work in different situations.
Yeah but that would require them to actually have to do stuff so...

 
apparently the cop was a previous cop of the year winner. Makes me wonder about the rest of the police department
Wonder how that happens when your file is full of citizen complaints. This guy should have been fired long ago. Now instead they get to write a nice check. This is why people don't trust cops. No real critical self policing going on. None. Must have dashcams and body cameras on every cop everywhere and tampering with them should be a serious felony. In cities that have added body cameras civilian complaints have fallen by over 70%.
have to figure body cameras would be a great learning tool for cops too- ability to review real-time situations without the bias of being recounted by a person. learn what does and doesn't work in different situations.
Absolutely would be a great training tool.

 
Law enforcement organizations are traditionally against mandatory dash-cams, body-cams, and taped witness/suspect interviews, but video is obviously the best way to weed out the bad cops, protect the good cops, and keep the mid-range cops working in a professional manner.

They don't want to get caught doing something bad but ignore the fact that video will "catch" them doing the right thing most of the time and help change both the reality and perception of cop misbehavior.

 
Law enforcement organizations are traditionally against mandatory dash-cams, body-cams, and taped witness/suspect interviews, but video is obviously the best way to weed out the bad cops, protect the good cops, and keep the mid-range cops working in a professional manner.

They don't want to get caught doing something bad but ignore the fact that video will "catch" them doing the right thing most of the time and help change both the reality and perception of cop misbehavior.
Which leads me to believe we should do it right now.

 
Law enforcement organizations are traditionally against mandatory dash-cams, body-cams, and taped witness/suspect interviews, but video is obviously the best way to weed out the bad cops, protect the good cops, and keep the mid-range cops working in a professional manner.

They don't want to get caught doing something bad but ignore the fact that video will "catch" them doing the right thing most of the time and help change both the reality and perception of cop misbehavior.
The proliferation of smart phones is basically going to force them to use more cameras themselves. Or they're going to be the ones always on the wrong side of the video.

 
Law enforcement organizations are traditionally against mandatory dash-cams, body-cams, and taped witness/suspect interviews, but video is obviously the best way to weed out the bad cops, protect the good cops, and keep the mid-range cops working in a professional manner.

They don't want to get caught doing something bad but ignore the fact that video will "catch" them doing the right thing most of the time and help change both the reality and perception of cop misbehavior.
Which leads me to believe we should do it right now.
We'll send you the bill. I'm going to guess you want a system where you can't tamper with or delete the video. That'll run you about $5k per officer just for the in car camera - the Panasonic Arbitrator 360.

Now I agree with the fact they should have them and any law enforcement that says they don't is hiding something because it wins them court cases when some loser claims something happened and the officer rolls the tape in court, but this is not cheap. THAT is why they don't have them.

 
Law enforcement organizations are traditionally against mandatory dash-cams, body-cams, and taped witness/suspect interviews, but video is obviously the best way to weed out the bad cops, protect the good cops, and keep the mid-range cops working in a professional manner.

They don't want to get caught doing something bad but ignore the fact that video will "catch" them doing the right thing most of the time and help change both the reality and perception of cop misbehavior.
Which leads me to believe we should do it right now.
We'll send you the bill. I'm going to guess you want a system where you can't tamper with or delete the video. That'll run you about $5k per officer just for the in car camera - the Panasonic Arbitrator 360.Now I agree with the fact they should have them and any law enforcement that says they don't is hiding something because it wins them court cases when some loser claims something happened and the officer rolls the tape in court, but this is not cheap. THAT is why they don't have them.
They have enough money for tanks though...
 
Law enforcement organizations are traditionally against mandatory dash-cams, body-cams, and taped witness/suspect interviews, but video is obviously the best way to weed out the bad cops, protect the good cops, and keep the mid-range cops working in a professional manner.

They don't want to get caught doing something bad but ignore the fact that video will "catch" them doing the right thing most of the time and help change both the reality and perception of cop misbehavior.
Which leads me to believe we should do it right now.
We'll send you the bill. I'm going to guess you want a system where you can't tamper with or delete the video. That'll run you about $5k per officer just for the in car camera - the Panasonic Arbitrator 360.

Now I agree with the fact they should have them and any law enforcement that says they don't is hiding something because it wins them court cases when some loser claims something happened and the officer rolls the tape in court, but this is not cheap. THAT is why they don't have them.
I'm guessing that is going to be cheaper than the million(s) this guy gets in a lawsuit.

 
Law enforcement organizations are traditionally against mandatory dash-cams, body-cams, and taped witness/suspect interviews, but video is obviously the best way to weed out the bad cops, protect the good cops, and keep the mid-range cops working in a professional manner.

They don't want to get caught doing something bad but ignore the fact that video will "catch" them doing the right thing most of the time and help change both the reality and perception of cop misbehavior.
Which leads me to believe we should do it right now.
We'll send you the bill. I'm going to guess you want a system where you can't tamper with or delete the video. That'll run you about $5k per officer just for the in car camera - the Panasonic Arbitrator 360.Now I agree with the fact they should have them and any law enforcement that says they don't is hiding something because it wins them court cases when some loser claims something happened and the officer rolls the tape in court, but this is not cheap. THAT is why they don't have them.
I'm guessing that is going to be cheaper than the million(s) this guy gets in a lawsuit.
I wonder if their liability insurance company would subsidize the investment. You'd have to think the cameras would cut down on police misconduct.
 
What a ####in loon. One of the scariest things...unstable idiot cops. Just too many of em.

 
Law enforcement organizations are traditionally against mandatory dash-cams, body-cams, and taped witness/suspect interviews, but video is obviously the best way to weed out the bad cops, protect the good cops, and keep the mid-range cops working in a professional manner.

They don't want to get caught doing something bad but ignore the fact that video will "catch" them doing the right thing most of the time and help change both the reality and perception of cop misbehavior.
Which leads me to believe we should do it right now.
We'll send you the bill. I'm going to guess you want a system where you can't tamper with or delete the video. That'll run you about $5k per officer just for the in car camera - the Panasonic Arbitrator 360.

Now I agree with the fact they should have them and any law enforcement that says they don't is hiding something because it wins them court cases when some loser claims something happened and the officer rolls the tape in court, but this is not cheap. THAT is why they don't have them.
They have been shown to pay for themselves in the form of vast reductions in use of force complaints. It's a no brainer.

 
Law enforcement organizations are traditionally against mandatory dash-cams, body-cams, and taped witness/suspect interviews, but video is obviously the best way to weed out the bad cops, protect the good cops, and keep the mid-range cops working in a professional manner.

They don't want to get caught doing something bad but ignore the fact that video will "catch" them doing the right thing most of the time and help change both the reality and perception of cop misbehavior.
Which leads me to believe we should do it right now.
We'll send you the bill. I'm going to guess you want a system where you can't tamper with or delete the video. That'll run you about $5k per officer just for the in car camera - the Panasonic Arbitrator 360.Now I agree with the fact they should have them and any law enforcement that says they don't is hiding something because it wins them court cases when some loser claims something happened and the officer rolls the tape in court, but this is not cheap. THAT is why they don't have them.
I'm guessing that is going to be cheaper than the million(s) this guy gets in a lawsuit.
I wonder if their liability insurance company would subsidize the investment. You'd have to think the cameras would cut down on police misconduct.
How about they just see about trading in some of the tanks for some cameras...that would probably get them a couple anyway

 
Law enforcement organizations are traditionally against mandatory dash-cams, body-cams, and taped witness/suspect interviews, but video is obviously the best way to weed out the bad cops, protect the good cops, and keep the mid-range cops working in a professional manner.

They don't want to get caught doing something bad but ignore the fact that video will "catch" them doing the right thing most of the time and help change both the reality and perception of cop misbehavior.
Which leads me to believe we should do it right now.
We'll send you the bill. I'm going to guess you want a system where you can't tamper with or delete the video. That'll run you about $5k per officer just for the in car camera - the Panasonic Arbitrator 360.

Now I agree with the fact they should have them and any law enforcement that says they don't is hiding something because it wins them court cases when some loser claims something happened and the officer rolls the tape in court, but this is not cheap. THAT is why they don't have them.
They have been shown to pay for themselves in the form of vast reductions in use of force complaints. It's a no brainer.
They also pay for themselves in reduced litigation. I'd file far fewer Motions to Suppress car stops/searches/confessions if there was video contesting my client's version of events. And in other cases prosecutors would be quicker to concede error rather than defend bad cops if the video showed my guy was right.

Video is a win for justice and the budget

 
I love that the cop's response to why he shot was he "dove head first" back into the car, then came back out of the car... after being told to come back out of the car.
I must say that the guy who was shot was very enthusiastic in going for his license. Guess he was trying to be very cooperative and then ends up getting gunned down. So nice to see that this cop is being put up on aggravated assault charges.

 
Law enforcement organizations are traditionally against mandatory dash-cams, body-cams, and taped witness/suspect interviews, but video is obviously the best way to weed out the bad cops, protect the good cops, and keep the mid-range cops working in a professional manner.

They don't want to get caught doing something bad but ignore the fact that video will "catch" them doing the right thing most of the time and help change both the reality and perception of cop misbehavior.
Which leads me to believe we should do it right now.
We'll send you the bill. I'm going to guess you want a system where you can't tamper with or delete the video. That'll run you about $5k per officer just for the in car camera - the Panasonic Arbitrator 360.

Now I agree with the fact they should have them and any law enforcement that says they don't is hiding something because it wins them court cases when some loser claims something happened and the officer rolls the tape in court, but this is not cheap. THAT is why they don't have them.
I'm guessing that is going to be cheaper than the million(s) this guy gets in a lawsuit.
He would not have received the millions without the camera system so this camera system just tacked on millions to the price of it. That's a hidden cost of the systems....and I am for the systems.

 
Law enforcement organizations are traditionally against mandatory dash-cams, body-cams, and taped witness/suspect interviews, but video is obviously the best way to weed out the bad cops, protect the good cops, and keep the mid-range cops working in a professional manner.

They don't want to get caught doing something bad but ignore the fact that video will "catch" them doing the right thing most of the time and help change both the reality and perception of cop misbehavior.
Which leads me to believe we should do it right now.
We'll send you the bill. I'm going to guess you want a system where you can't tamper with or delete the video. That'll run you about $5k per officer just for the in car camera - the Panasonic Arbitrator 360.

Now I agree with the fact they should have them and any law enforcement that says they don't is hiding something because it wins them court cases when some loser claims something happened and the officer rolls the tape in court, but this is not cheap. THAT is why they don't have them.
They have been shown to pay for themselves in the form of vast reductions in use of force complaints. It's a no brainer.
They also pay for themselves in reduced litigation. I'd file far fewer Motions to Suppress car stops/searches/confessions if there was video contesting my client's version of events. And in other cases prosecutors would be quicker to concede error rather than defend bad cops if the video showed my guy was right.

Video is a win for justice and the budget
It's not winning for the budget for this dept., now is it?

 
I love that the cop's response to why he shot was he "dove head first" back into the car, then came back out of the car... after being told to come back out of the car.
I must say that the guy who was shot was very enthusiastic in going for his license. Guess he was trying to be very cooperative and then ends up getting gunned down. So nice to see that this cop is being put up on aggravated assault charges.
One of the many crazy things about this is that the victim was so enthusiastically compliant - probably because he was afraid of being yet another black guy shot by cop. The speed with which he followed directions is what freaked the cop out.

 
Law enforcement organizations are traditionally against mandatory dash-cams, body-cams, and taped witness/suspect interviews, but video is obviously the best way to weed out the bad cops, protect the good cops, and keep the mid-range cops working in a professional manner.

They don't want to get caught doing something bad but ignore the fact that video will "catch" them doing the right thing most of the time and help change both the reality and perception of cop misbehavior.
Which leads me to believe we should do it right now.
We'll send you the bill. I'm going to guess you want a system where you can't tamper with or delete the video. That'll run you about $5k per officer just for the in car camera - the Panasonic Arbitrator 360.

Now I agree with the fact they should have them and any law enforcement that says they don't is hiding something because it wins them court cases when some loser claims something happened and the officer rolls the tape in court, but this is not cheap. THAT is why they don't have them.
I'm guessing that is going to be cheaper than the million(s) this guy gets in a lawsuit.
He would not have received the millions without the camera system so this camera system just tacked on millions to the price of it. That's a hidden cost of the systems....and I am for the systems.
You don't know that that's the case, and in fact it may well not be. He pulled into a gas station, which may itself have security cameras; it also seemed to have witnesses.

Also, nobody's claiming that dash/officer cams eliminate police abuse, only that they reduce them. So what we're seeing may be the 15-20% of those cases that are going to happen regardless.

 
Law enforcement organizations are traditionally against mandatory dash-cams, body-cams, and taped witness/suspect interviews, but video is obviously the best way to weed out the bad cops, protect the good cops, and keep the mid-range cops working in a professional manner.

They don't want to get caught doing something bad but ignore the fact that video will "catch" them doing the right thing most of the time and help change both the reality and perception of cop misbehavior.
Which leads me to believe we should do it right now.
We'll send you the bill. I'm going to guess you want a system where you can't tamper with or delete the video. That'll run you about $5k per officer just for the in car camera - the Panasonic Arbitrator 360.

Now I agree with the fact they should have them and any law enforcement that says they don't is hiding something because it wins them court cases when some loser claims something happened and the officer rolls the tape in court, but this is not cheap. THAT is why they don't have them.
They have been shown to pay for themselves in the form of vast reductions in use of force complaints. It's a no brainer.
They also pay for themselves in reduced litigation. I'd file far fewer Motions to Suppress car stops/searches/confessions if there was video contesting my client's version of events. And in other cases prosecutors would be quicker to concede error rather than defend bad cops if the video showed my guy was right.

Video is a win for justice and the budget
It's not winning for the budget for this dept., now is it?
No, not in the short run. And also not in the long run for any departments that hire itchy trigger fingers.

 
He would not have received the millions without the camera system so this camera system just tacked on millions to the price of it. That's a hidden cost of the systems....and I am for the systems.
Of course, this camera also helped put an armed, murderous thug behind bars. That's probably worth spending money on if you are supposed to be a law enforcement agency.

 
Law enforcement organizations are traditionally against mandatory dash-cams, body-cams, and taped witness/suspect interviews, but video is obviously the best way to weed out the bad cops, protect the good cops, and keep the mid-range cops working in a professional manner.

They don't want to get caught doing something bad but ignore the fact that video will "catch" them doing the right thing most of the time and help change both the reality and perception of cop misbehavior.
Which leads me to believe we should do it right now.
We'll send you the bill. I'm going to guess you want a system where you can't tamper with or delete the video. That'll run you about $5k per officer just for the in car camera - the Panasonic Arbitrator 360.

Now I agree with the fact they should have them and any law enforcement that says they don't is hiding something because it wins them court cases when some loser claims something happened and the officer rolls the tape in court, but this is not cheap. THAT is why they don't have them.
Is it cheaper than settling law suits? Is it cheaper than the loss of public trust? Guns aren't cheap we get them. Cars aren't cheap we get them. Everybody seems to know the cost of everything but most people know the value of very little.

 
What was the traffic stop for again? Seems extremely over the top to draw a gun on a "routine" stop.
Some of the other posts say it was for "seat belt violation", but that's hard to call since the guy was getting out of his vehicle at a gas station. It's hard to still have on a seat belt and exit the vehicle at the same time. Luckily for the victim, the cop was a bad shot.

 
What was the traffic stop for again? Seems extremely over the top to draw a gun on a "routine" stop.
Some of the other posts say it was for "seat belt violation", but that's hard to call since the guy was getting out of his vehicle at a gas station. It's hard to still have on a seat belt and exit the vehicle at the same time. Luckily for the victim, the cop was a bad shot.
in the video, the cop was leaving the gas station and then threw it into reverse to go after seat-belt guy.

call me crazy- but it's entirely possible for the cop to have seen this guy before he got of the car. or he just doesn't like people who get out of cars.

 
What was the traffic stop for again? Seems extremely over the top to draw a gun on a "routine" stop.
Some of the other posts say it was for "seat belt violation", but that's hard to call since the guy was getting out of his vehicle at a gas station. It's hard to still have on a seat belt and exit the vehicle at the same time. Luckily for the victim, the cop was a bad shot.
I believe the story is he unbuckled his seatbelt as he pulled in and that was the reason. Pretty ticky tack though.

 
What was the traffic stop for again? Seems extremely over the top to draw a gun on a "routine" stop.
Some of the other posts say it was for "seat belt violation", but that's hard to call since the guy was getting out of his vehicle at a gas station. It's hard to still have on a seat belt and exit the vehicle at the same time. Luckily for the victim, the cop was a bad shot.
I believe the story is he unbuckled his seatbelt as he pulled in and that was the reason. Pretty ticky tack though.
If this is true wow.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top