I can’t see what difference who “caused” the scuffle makes.

Well, say the victim lunged at the police officer, they fought over the stun gun, at that moment the police officer thinks, shit this is all getting **** up I need to go for my gun, they fight on, the tazer goes to ground the victim flees and the police officer carries out the action he had been trying to for the past few seconds. Now I would hope that once the victim has turned his back and is running, the officers training should kick in and counteract the course of action he is set on. But in the heat of the moment people can make bad decisions.

Alternatively, the cop approaches the man, is abusive and bullying, threatens to tazer him, the man trys to defend himself, is terrified and runs only to be shot repeatedly in the back.

Neither situation is good and neither should see the officer unpunished, but they would or should bring very different sentences.

Man gets stopped while driving,

man gets scared and runs off, fight or flight,

police oficer chases him and shoots him,and kills him,

police officer charged with murder,

days of rioting, grabbing what you can from any local shops.

many politicians get their face on tv, talking heads get time on tv,

dead mans family appeal for peace,

police officer let off suffering from stress etc etc.

and youre back in the room.

But sadly somebody has died, and it will happen again a and again probably.

Well, say the victim lunged at the police officer, they fought over the stun gun, at that moment the police officer thinks, shit this is all getting **** up I need to go for my gun, they fight on, the tazer goes to ground the victim flees and the police officer carries out the action he had been trying to for the past few seconds. Now I would hope that once the victim has turned his back and is running, the officers training should kick in and counteract the course of action he is set on. But in the heat of the moment people can make bad decisions.

To me, that bad decision looks like it should be called murder.

Anyway, grim news.

^ that theory. Look closer, the citizen has Tazer wires horizontal/then dangling from him as he turns and runs. The Tazer looks like it was discharged. The Police Officer had Adrenaline/mist and lost it.

Neither situation is good and neither should see the officer unpunished, but they would or should bring very different sentences.

The police officer concerned has been charged with first-degree murder. It is reasonable to assume that the authorities have sufficient evidence to believe that a first-degree murder charge is appropriate in this particular situation.

First-degree murder is “any intentional murder that is willful and premeditated with malice aforethought”.

Being charged with first degree murder, and being guilty are two different things. There is a whole legal process and trial to go through before you decide his guilt.

And frankly if I was the DA or whoever it is that decides charges in the US, that is what I would charge him with now, just to try and stop the city from burning to the ground tonight.

There’s obviously a significant amount of ‘events’ to get to where they were (if it was a traffic stop as suggested, then they both appear to be a long way from the cars when this happens.

I still can’t see any grounds for (even an incorrect belief of) ”immediate threat’ which makes me feel it’s a lot more serious than excessive force.

Look at ernies still frame ^ wheres the threat or feeling of danger. The bloke was already a distance and legging it.

No man deserves a death squad or execution. Leave that to the Brazilians.

Being charged with first degree murder, and being guilty are two different things. There is a whole legal process and trial to go through before you decide his guilt.

Thank you for pointing that out. You were suggesting that the seriousness of the crime depended on who was ‘responsible’ for the scuffle. I was suggesting otherwise given the pictures/video/evidence widely circulating. And I pointed that “it is reasonable to assume that the authorities have sufficient evidence to believe that a first-degree murder charge is appropriate in this particular situation”.

I am not suggesting that guilt should be established at this stage merely that it is reasonable to assume that the authorities have sufficient evidence to believe that a first-degree murder charge is appropriate.

Why look at the still frame, the video tells more of the story. There is barely a second between the end of the struggle to the shots being fired.

But the video still doesn’t tell the whole story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdQwKNfuSiM&feature=youtu.be

Filming someone commit murder would represent a serious risk to any sane person. The footage just doesn’t look right, zooming suggests the cameras not hidden and theres no acknowledgement from the police.

Smells IMO.

Also its being pitched as B vs W thing but the second cop is black so abuse of position/power not necessarily racial.

I don’t really know what point your trying to make Ernie, you just seem to want to argue for the sake of it.

Really ? I thought my point, which I repeated twice, was obvious. I get every impression that it is you who appears unable to accept that someone has a different opinion and wants to argue the toss. But there you go.

A 1st degree conviction in this situation would be hard to prove I think, it requires proof of premeditation and malicious intent, I imagine it’ll be downgraded to 2nd or possibly voluntary manslaughter. Allthough either of those will be as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit for the dead mans family.

Neither situation is good and neither should see the officer unpunished, but they would or should bring very different sentences.

Not really, for political reasons the guy needs to go down for a long time.

Otherwise more officers will be shot, more riots will take place, there will be more racial polarization and less people will respect the police force. White officers also need to be given an example to keep in mind the next time they decide to shoot someone.

Thank you for pointing that out. You were suggesting that the seriousness of the crime depended on who was ‘responsible’ for the scuffle.

I was suggesting the seriousness of the sentence may depend on who started the scuffle. You know like normally happens in sentencing when juries and judges have looked at the events surrounding the incident.
Then for some strange reason, you decided that the fact he has been charged with first degree murder is a counter argument to that.

Yep, given the amount of innocent people shot and killed by officers in the US and the historical conclusions previously reached I agree moose. The first-degree charge is extremely unusual if not unprecedented and I would be surprised if this case proved to be a ground-breaking. We’ll see what happens.

Then for some strange reason…..

For some strange reason I don’t agree with you. This strange reason is that the conclusion I’ve come to is different to yours. Having seen the same stuff as you I don’t think who started the scuffle is important. That’s my opinion, it’s different to yours. You appear to think that I’ve taken it because I want “to argue for the sake of it, you don’t seem to think that it is feasible that someone should not agree with you.

In this situation who started it is irrelevant, that may have be pertinent if it was two civilians having a dispute but in this case one of them is a trained LEO who is trained in threat assessment and the appropriate use of force. Like I said in a previous post, unless he was armed a posed a risk to thers then the officer would have had cause to fire on him. I think the cop is going to jail in the near future.

The guy was running away and was shot in the back, the cop tried to fabricate the incident scene to his own ends – that’s murder according to me and i hope the cop gets what he deserves and that does not include an easy prison sentence in a safe n’ secure prison, drop him in amoungst everyone else and let natural selection take it’s course.

Pretty Damning stuff

He had control of Scott. And Scott was trying just to get away from the Taser.

So according to the eyewitness Walter Scott fled because he thought he was going to be tasered. Given the circumstances, ie an armed copper, and the end result, ie being shot dead, that clearly was a mistake.

Although I can understand how the thought of being tasered could cause someone to panic. And of course Walter Scott probably couldn’t have known that the man in uniform was certain to be a murderer. If that turns out to be the case.