Justice!

Former cop found guilty of second-degree murder in shooting of unarmed black man

"A former South Carolina police officer was sentenced to 20 years in prison after a federal judge ruled that he committed second-degree murder in the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man.

The judge ruled Thursday that Michael Slager, a former North Charleston officer, also obstructed justice with his statements to state police following the shooting, ABC News reported.

Slager, who is white, shot Walter Scott in April 2015 following a traffic stop."

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

and it only took a clear video, and an unarmed victim running away from the cop

guess we gotta start somewhere

hope this isn't the standard they use for all other cases

I think this case is different for more than just the video.
Physical and forensic evidence supported the cops' stories in many of the other high profile cases. Without a video in this case the evidence would still have shown he was shot in the back and from a distance. He tried to plant evidence, but I am willing to bet whatever story the cop had in mind would not have matched the evidence at the scene.

That is just untrue. A couple cases maybe...but not "many".

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

and it only took a clear video, and an unarmed victim running away from the cop

guess we gotta start somewhere

hope this isn't the standard they use for all other cases

I think this case is different for more than just the video.
Physical and forensic evidence supported the cops' stories in many of the other high profile cases. Without a video in this case the evidence would still have shown he was shot in the back and from a distance. He tried to plant evidence, but I am willing to bet whatever story the cop had in mind would not have matched the evidence at the scene.

That is just untrue. A couple cases maybe...but not "many".

Your speculation is better than his?

I'll add that around here... even when the evidence does support police action... the 'yah buts' flood this thread. Cops cannot win no matter what- unless they're killed in the line of duty (there's been several cops killed performing police duties recently- the ratio is becoming more balanced for the police opponent/criminal proponent faction!).

dignin said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

and it only took a clear video, and an unarmed victim running away from the cop

guess we gotta start somewhere

hope this isn't the standard they use for all other cases

I think this case is different for more than just the video.
Physical and forensic evidence supported the cops' stories in many of the other high profile cases. Without a video in this case the evidence would still have shown he was shot in the back and from a distance. He tried to plant evidence, but I am willing to bet whatever story the cop had in mind would not have matched the evidence at the scene.

That is just untrue. A couple cases maybe...but not "many".

Your speculation is better than his?

I'll add that around here... even when the evidence does support police action... the 'yah buts' flood this thread. Cops cannot win no matter what- unless they're killed in the line of duty (there's been several cops killed performing police duties recently- the ratio is becoming more balanced for the police opponent/criminal proponent faction!).

I don't need to speculate. Go back through this thread, how many cops have been convicted or even tried in all these stories?

I'm not going to re-litigate any of them, because it's a lost cause and life is too short.

Many of the cops that weren't convicted or tried were supported by the type of evidence that Mace referred to.

Not all, but definitely more than many here would care to admit.

unsung said:

Graphic.

Not guilty.  The next person that tells me that police serve and protect might get puked on.

https://youtu.be/qYRRSdjdcbo

I don't think anyone will ever claim there are not bad cops out there, and cops who made bad decisions. What bothers me are the blanket statements that say police do not protect and serve.
There are bad cops, and there are cops who just shouldn't be qualified to be a cop. Then there's the other 99% of cops.
If you could find a couple hundred recent examples corrupt or murderous cops I might believe that number is higher. So far I've only seen a dozen or two examples out of 600,000 current police in this country.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

Graphic.

Not guilty.  The next person that tells me that police serve and protect might get puked on.

https://youtu.be/qYRRSdjdcbo

Un-f**king believable.

said if in the same circumstances he wouldnt change a thing.......

This case perfectly illustrates one of the double standard in policing that bothers me.

There are two men in that hallway that fear for their lives.
One is wearing body armour and has an assault rifle drawn with his finger at the trigger.  He has countless hours of training and experience in dealing with fear inducing situations in his chosen career and there is no immediate threat to his life, but there is a possible threat to be considered.
The other is a half? drunk dude trying to comply with (ridiculously complicated and unnecessary) instructions while staring at a loaded rifle aimed at his head.  He has zero training and has never been in a situation like this before, he is literally being threatened verbally and physically with death.

The expectations placed on the two men respectively are entirely reversed to what logic would dictate.
The one with training, experience, and appropriate tools is given wide latitude to respond to fear emotionally and irrationally, and the one who has no training, no experience, and no tools with which to cope is expected to respond to fear with perfect composure.