SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > General Topics > The Lounge

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 9 April 2015, 20:04
Look. Don'tTouch. Look. Don'tTouch. is offline
killjoy
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: West
Posts: 1,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Smith View Post
The video of the dash cam footage has been released and is stirring up quite the shit storm already.
How so? It only shows the suspect running, no different than the running that took place at the time of the shooting.
What's going to stir up more is the statement from the video-taker about seeing the suspect and officer on the ground struggling prior to the video.

If a taser is deemed as a "deadly weapon" and the officer at the time thought the suspect was in possession of the taser, that could be the route it takes in court.
  #62  
Old 9 April 2015, 20:07
Mr.Smith Mr.Smith is offline
FNG
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: The Rockies
Posts: 1,325
I should have said in better detail what I meant. Shit storm as in social media shit storm. All I've seen from people is "don't run from the cops!" "don't break the law."

*sigh

What the witness said would be very telling, however, in the video you see the guy didn't have shit on em'. And I may be incorrect, but was there not a report that said they pulled probes out of him?
  #63  
Old 9 April 2015, 20:09
Look. Don'tTouch. Look. Don'tTouch. is offline
killjoy
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: West
Posts: 1,988
Regardless of what you see in the video, the officer at the time can still claim that he believed the suspect was in possession of it(since the officer was not in possession of it any longer).

How do the probes being pulled out play a role in this?
  #64  
Old 9 April 2015, 20:13
Mr.Smith Mr.Smith is offline
FNG
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: The Rockies
Posts: 1,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Look. Don'tTouch. View Post
Regardless of what you see in the video, the officer at the time can still claim that he believed the suspect was in possession of it(since the officer was not in possession of it any longer).

How do the probes being pulled out play a role in this?
If he was zapped with it then how did he have possession of it?I guess is what I was getting at.
  #65  
Old 9 April 2015, 20:17
pirana pirana is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: gone
Posts: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-O View Post
I have no way of knowing this for sure but, I would ASSume, the responding officer thought it was a justified shoot. Not an outright homicide; I would also guess the ex-cop was giving the responding officer his version of how things went down (complete with the ex-cops taser laying next to the victim). I would think that upon viewing the video, he is as dumbfounded as everyone else as to why the ex-cop decided to shoot.
I think that's how I'll have to proceed. Clearly, nothing suggests the second-on-scene was complicit, and I'm not fair to make any such suggestion. I'm just struck at how casual the whole thing is.

At what point is the first officer not allowed to touch anything on the scene?, I guess is the question. This fucking incident has opened up a huge can of worms; hopefully things improve from it.
  #66  
Old 9 April 2015, 20:20
Look. Don'tTouch. Look. Don'tTouch. is offline
killjoy
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: West
Posts: 1,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Smith View Post
If he was zapped with it then how did he have possession of it?I guess is what I was getting at.
No different than being shot and 2 seconds later getting a hold of the gun.
  #67  
Old 9 April 2015, 20:25
Fu King Lawyer Fu King Lawyer is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: ...
Posts: 1,552
I hesitate to jump in on this until all the facts are out, and I think that SLED as the complaining LE agency tends to indicate there is a lot of evidence to support a charge (not necessarily premeditated murder). But the comments above about the elements of murder and the (overcharging IMHO in the) prosecution of Zimmerman prompts me to offer some points, hopefully devoid of emotion…

The Washington Post is reporting there was a ground fight. They don’t go into a lot of detail, but if there was, that ups the LEO’s use of force (UofF) considerations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...-carolina-cop/

The dash cam video on this evening’s news shows the subject ran, the officer pursued, yelled “Taser” (as he was taught), and presumably the ground fight the Post reports started after that….

http://www.wistv.com/story/28761385/...f-walter-scott

Scott had a lengthy rap sheet extending back to at least 1987, when he was arrested on a charge of assault and battery. In 1991, he was convicted of possession of a bludgeon. He also had a history of arrests related to contempt of court charges for failing to pay child support, and in 2008 was convicted of driving under suspension and having an open alcohol container in his car.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7024404.html

When the officer “ran” Scott, he probably learned Scott had an outstanding warrant and the above history including crimes of violence. Like it or not, a subject’s prior history of violence enters the equation in determining whether the use of force was objectively reasonable.

Officers are taught that if a subject in a (ground) fight attempts to take his/her gun (ASP, OC, Taser) the subject will likely turn the officer’s weapon on him and he/she is dealing in a life or death situation. Too many officers are killed after losing control of their weapons.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Topics/Topic.aspx?Topicid=84

So the LEO may (and I use ‘may’ cautiously) have believed Scott was engaged in attempted murder of the officer.

Again, I am not judging the incident, but in the other thread, the case of Tenn v. Garner (
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=471&invol=1 ) is mentioned. The Supreme Court held that an officer can use deadly force against a fleeing person provided he has probable cause to believe if allowed to escape, that person will engage in a crime resulting in death or serious bodily harm. People who assault (armed) officers are believed to be willing to assault anyone. Particularly if the subject is known to have an extensive criminal Hx, that includes crimes of violence.

In my opinion, the clearest, best example of a case where the use of deadly force was justified against a fleeing subject, is FBI Agent Ed Mireles walking over and shooting Platt and Matix in the FBI’s Miami shootout. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout Platt had run out of ammunition, abandoned his assault on the FBI and was attempting to flee when both he and Mattox were killed by Mireles. Mireles could limp over and do so because he had probable cause to believe Platt and Matix if allowed to escape, would continue to rob and kill (even though Ed was wrong, Platt had the top lobe of his right lung blown off by one of Dove’s bullets and could not survive the wound).

This officer will be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer, faced with a similar fact pattern (See Graham v. Connor (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/ ). All will depend on the facts he can articulate and the investigation can verify and that might justify his belief that he had the requisite PC to shoot the fleeing subject.

LEOs aren’t required to shoot a fleeing subject, but if they have the required PC as stated outlined in Tenn v Garner, the shooting is legal. If I were to encounter a serial rapist/killer who attempted to flee the location naked, I could (and would) use deadly force. I am not equating Scott to a serial killer, I am only making the point it boils down to PC for future serious crime and the officer’s decision to shoot.

A couple of other points. The Taser will mark the point of fire with AFIDs
https://www.taser.com/images/support...26c_manual.pdf
So the position of release becomes a known for the UofF investigation – he may, and I say may, have been in a “bad” location and simply moved the device close to the body so he could keep both in his field of vision? I know I have been trained that if a weapon is subject to being pilfered from a crime scene, that weapon should be safeguarded over concerns for maintaining all items in place for processing.

I have heard several news reports about the 8 shots fired. My viewing of the video revealed Scott didn’t fall until the last shot. LE went through a long period of time between the Miami shootout – when training changed to teach LEOs to continue to fire until the threat ends. Recently the Supreme Court addressed the issue in Plumoff v Rickard http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...-1117_1bn5.pdf where the Court addressed the issue of shooting the subject 15 times and ruled that if officers are justified in shooting, they do not need to stop shooting until the threat ends.

Again, I am not sufficiently informed to say this may have been justified, or may have been a murder. We all have friends who based upon our past, ask us our opinion. I have expressed a few of the above points and found that many are not aware of what I have included. I simply offer it for your consideration to weigh against the facts, when they finally become known.
  #68  
Old 9 April 2015, 20:29
Five-O's Avatar
Five-O Five-O is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Philly:Nightwork
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirana View Post
At what point is the first officer not allowed to touch anything on the scene?, I guess is the question. This fucking incident has opened up a huge can of worms; hopefully things improve from it.
As additional units arrive on scene and a little order begins to replace the chaos; supervisors and senior officers able to think on their feet start making sure the crime scene is secure. On route to the scene, via radio, supervisor(s) should be giving instructions to officers on the scene to start securing the (crime) scene and preserving evidence. I not aware of a specific time frame but with an officer involved shooting the cop is escorted to a secure area as soon as is practical. Some PD's will require a blood draw as part of the interview process.
  #69  
Old 9 April 2015, 20:37
KS11's Avatar
KS11 KS11 is offline
Reverse Apache Master
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Here and There
Posts: 2,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-O View Post
Malice of forethought can take a split second to formulate in ones mind. I think, based on my brief read of SC homicide statute, that "murder" or criminal homicide is appropriate. We shall see.
I agree that it can form in a split second, but I think that's pretty damn thin in a dynamic situation like this one. "Malice aforethought" isn't a bad/wrong decision. It's "Fuck this guy. I know he's running away, but I'm going to kill his ass."

Either way, there might be a 1% chance of proving that element up in court, which is why I think the play is to plea it down to the "appropriate" charge of Manslaughter.
__________________
A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. --Dwight D. Eisenhower

Giving the enemy a boner is half the battle. --Jungle Recon
  #70  
Old 9 April 2015, 21:08
diverescue diverescue is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 604
This is another pursuit turned bad for the suspect. At what point should someone have said, "chill out with the kicks to the face. There are 9 of us and only one of him"?

Would there be action on this (or the SC shooting) without video?

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...99250951.html#

Also, who steals horses anymore!?
  #71  
Old 9 April 2015, 21:28
The Corporate Guy's Avatar
The Corporate Guy The Corporate Guy is offline
All Labs Matter
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Virtual Panopticon
Posts: 4,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fu King Lawyer View Post
The Supreme Court held that an officer can use deadly force against a fleeing person provided he has probable cause to believe if allowed to escape, that person will engage in a crime resulting in death or serious bodily harm. People who assault (armed) officers are believed to be willing to assault anyone...

LEOs aren’t required to shoot a fleeing subject, but if they have the required PC as stated outlined in Tenn v Garner, the shooting is legal. If I were to encounter a serial rapist/killer who attempted to flee the location naked, I could (and would) use deadly force. I am not equating Scott to a serial killer, I am only making the point it boils down to PC for future serious crime and the officer’s decision to shoot...
Taking your analysis at face value, I am nothing but less confident that due process exists in any conflict with a LEO. The idea that a LEO has the ability to kill a fleeing person, who has not been tried or convicted of the offense for which the officer may conclude there is PC, and poses no immediate threat to the officer or others, is vile. Its an example of the things we were taught growing up that existed on the other side of a wall, in an evil empire, where state empowered thugs ruled the day.

If the officer in question mounts a defense that looks anything like the case you have laid out, and that defense get any traction, then I predict this will be a watershed moment where the public demands police reform. At times, violently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fu King Lawyer View Post
I have heard several news reports about the 8 shots fired. My viewing of the video revealed Scott didn’t fall until the last shot. LE went through a long period of time between the Miami shootout – when training changed to teach LEOs to continue to fire until the threat ends. Recently the Supreme Court addressed the issue in Plumoff v Rickard http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...-1117_1bn5.pdf where the Court addressed the issue of shooting the subject 15 times and ruled that if officers are justified in shooting, they do not need to stop shooting until the threat ends.
While my initial thought is that this line of reasoning is a fart in a stiff wind, the case you have laid out opens me to the possibility this could also actually be debated. If so, Walter Scott will be a name preserved in history books as the trip wire in a conflict between US citizens and the police state they had been subject to up to the great police reform movement.

Hyperbole? Maybe.

Maybe not.
__________________
“I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.” John Cleese

Last edited by The Corporate Guy; 9 April 2015 at 21:45.
  #72  
Old 9 April 2015, 22:22
iraqgunz's Avatar
iraqgunz iraqgunz is offline
Overseas Gunplumber
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warm and sunny Arizona
Posts: 6,055
Who is they? Prosecutors overcharged in the Zimmerman case as well.

There still must be a foundation in the law and I think the prosecutor is going to be have to be careful how they proceed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by docadams68 View Post
IMHO, after Zimmerman and the Ferguson cop was tried in the court of public opinion. I do not believe the race baiters who have been waiting for this very incident will let it go on a plea bargain.

I think they would push for a 1st degree murder trial and skip the plea just to prove a point. They may lose and riot but they will most certainly gamble on the 1st degree charge.
__________________
"The Armies of our ancestors were lucky, in that they were not trailed by a second army of pencil pushers".

I have been to some armorer courses.

Owner- Semper Paratus Arms, LLC
  #73  
Old 10 April 2015, 02:16
iraqgunz's Avatar
iraqgunz iraqgunz is offline
Overseas Gunplumber
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warm and sunny Arizona
Posts: 6,055
Strangely similar case again in S.C. I do find the timing a little curious as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7034406.html
__________________
"The Armies of our ancestors were lucky, in that they were not trailed by a second army of pencil pushers".

I have been to some armorer courses.

Owner- Semper Paratus Arms, LLC
  #74  
Old 10 April 2015, 07:23
Gpool Gpool is offline
Paving the way
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Corporate Guy View Post
While my initial thought is that this line of reasoning is a fart in a stiff wind, the case you have laid out opens me to the possibility this could also actually be debated. If so, Walter Scott will be a name preserved in history books as the trip wire in a conflict between US citizens and the police state they had been subject to up to the great police reform movement.

Hyperbole? Maybe.

Maybe not.
Kung Fu's reasoning is what a good defense attorney would do. The Prosecution will be gaming it in their heads to ensure they don't overcharge.

As to conflict between the US citizens and the "police state". The US public has not taste for open war, maybe on a limited scale against their local liquor store. People that have jobs, can eat, and don't have the police personally assaulting them aren't going to go looking for trouble. There will be limited stuff sure, but a conflict? I don't see that anytime soon. It's the Facebook generation it's cool to be outraged. then they'll be outraged about something else next week. Shoot for you 15min of fame and a hashtag. There isn't the right mix of stresses here yet for anything that would cause even a regional conflict.

That said it looked like a bad shoot! Jeez it looks awful. Even Kung Fu would have a tough fight on his hands. The officer’s original attorney quit after seeing the video. Which is awful in its own right.

Police reform is coming as well, and this officer will be probably be going to jail. Which is a good thing about everyone having a video camera. I refuse to fall into the outrage of the week club. You don't need a tinfoil hat to keep the media/gov from controlling your mind. Just close the news feed.
__________________
I don't have anything witty to write.
  #75  
Old 10 April 2015, 07:29
Fu King Lawyer Fu King Lawyer is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: ...
Posts: 1,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Corporate Guy View Post
Taking your analysis at face value,...Its an example of the things we were taught growing up that existed on the other side of a wall, in an evil empire, where state empowered thugs ruled the day.
Hyperbole? Maybe.

Maybe not.
TCG, Thank you for your reasoned response. I am not taking sides, just pointing out that there may be enough evidence that the charge of premeditated murder may have been premature. If what the Post reported is accurate, there may be enough evidence to rise to reasonable doubt. Again, I understand SLED filed the accusation and if so, there is probably a lot of evidence to support the charge and we won't know about that for quite some time.

Your point regarding the 'other side of the wall' stuck with me as I was doing my morning read - this one link makes me think. No intent to offend, just pointing out the point we are, in the country.

http://fourthamendment.com/?p=16675#more-16675
  #76  
Old 10 April 2015, 07:41
The Corporate Guy's Avatar
The Corporate Guy The Corporate Guy is offline
All Labs Matter
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Virtual Panopticon
Posts: 4,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fu King Lawyer View Post
TCG, Thank you for your reasoned response. I am not taking sides, just pointing out that there may be enough evidence that the charge of premeditated murder may have been premature. If what the Post reported is accurate, there may be enough evidence to rise to reasonable doubt.
Understood and your legal perspective is appreciated.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fu King Lawyer View Post
Your point regarding the 'other side of the wall' stuck with me as I was doing my morning read - this one link makes me think. No intent to offend, just pointing out the point we are, in the country.

http://fourthamendment.com/?p=16675#more-16675
No offense taken. But would also point out that not only does a growing portion of the population believe the that fourth amendment rights have been assaulted, but that the militarization of law enforcement is an encroachment on the intent of the third amendment (safeguard against the dangers of a standing army "policing" the populace). IMO, the former has diminished more than the latter, but a trend is being recognized.
__________________
“I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.” John Cleese
  #77  
Old 10 April 2015, 08:04
The Corporate Guy's Avatar
The Corporate Guy The Corporate Guy is offline
All Labs Matter
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Virtual Panopticon
Posts: 4,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gpool View Post
As to conflict between the US citizens and the "police state". The US public has not taste for open war, maybe on a limited scale against their local liquor store.
Where was "open war" suggested? Conflict comes in many forms...legal, social/reform movements, civil disturbances and targeted violence are among a few. The latter is evidenced by the NYPD assassinations and the two officers in Ferguson shot/wounded at a protest. These are not the typical cop gets in a gun fight with a bad guy situations, and while not unique, there should be concern if these data points soon develop into a trend. (Personally, I think there is a good chance that if the SC officer was not already arrested another data point or two...making this look dangerously similar to a trend to target LEOs...might have already happened.)

The liquor store comment you made is telling. Liquor stores are where troubles start in the hood...IMO the danger here is for authorities to incorrectly frame the issue as a "black/minority" issue. To be sure, there are problems with law enforcement in those communities. But there is a good part of middle-class America (including a lot of veterans) who feel uncomfortable with law enforcement and a perceived general erosion of constitutional rights. I think there are similarities with how middle-class America starting taking interest in the racial issues in the 60's...except now, for many, the predisposition is NOT to oppose the minority groups in duress but rather more generally support their cause.

For those interested in police reform, the danger is throwing sprinkles on the great self-licking ice cream cone that is crime, civil unrest and the need for more police funding and hardware, leading to more civil unrest and a need for more police funding.......
__________________
“I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.” John Cleese
  #78  
Old 10 April 2015, 08:25
docadams68 docadams68 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Prairieville, La
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by iraqgunz View Post
Who is they? Prosecutors overcharged in the Zimmerman case as well.

There still must be a foundation in the law and I think the prosecutor is going to be have to be careful how they proceed.
In this particular case “They” would constitute the media, the race pimps (Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, even C-in-C) and the public would put so much pressure on the prosecutor to over reach.
  #79  
Old 10 April 2015, 10:55
EightyDeuce EightyDeuce is offline
Puttin' on the foil
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: East Coast
Posts: 965
Is this an accurate understanding of murder vs manslaughter?

Murder: I have had a chance to think about it (maybe a few seconds, maybe years) and have decided to kill you. and I kill you.
Example: Wife kills husband to collect insurance check.

Manslaughter: I thought I was defending myself reasonably when I killed you, but I was wrong. OR I decided to kill you spur of the moment (like second degree) but you had provoked me first in a way that a reasonable person might find partially excuses my action, and when I killed you I was still in the heat of passion from that provocation.
Example: Husband walks in on wife setting fire to the only copy of the novel he's spent the last 10 years writing. He pushes her head into the flames and she dies.
  #80  
Old 10 April 2015, 10:58
leopardprey's Avatar
leopardprey leopardprey is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 14,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by EightyDeuce View Post
Is this an accurate understanding of murder vs manslaughter?

Murder: I have had a chance to think about it (maybe a few seconds, maybe years) and have decided to kill you. and I kill you.
Example: Wife kills husband to collect insurance check.

Manslaughter: I thought I was defending myself reasonably when I killed you, but I was wrong. OR I decided to kill you spur of the moment (like second degree) but you had provoked me first in a way that a reasonable person might find partially excuses my action, and when I killed you I was still in the heat of passion from that provocation.
Example: Husband walks in on wife setting fire to the only copy of the novel he's spent the last 10 years writing. He pushes her head into the flames and she dies.
So would the manslaughter charge be upgraded to Murder, once the prosecution finds out he had the novel saved on a hard drive and a back up flash drive?
__________________
"Look Sharp, Act Sharp, Be Sharp - But don't cut yourself!"
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 22:12.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
© SOCNET 1996-2018