This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
5 Second Slow Mo Video Shows What REALLY Happened With Policeman Who Shot Fleeing Man In Back
The officer shooting the unarmed man in the back who was running away is – appropriately – front-page news.
But there’s a bigger story …
Initially – as Kit Daniels shows – the media believed that the officer shot in self-defense … until the video was released. If the brave witness hadn’t filmed the entire incident on his cellphone, the truth would never have been discovered.
The Intercept explains:
Because three days elapsed between the shooting and the publication of the video of the shooting, the Scott incident became an illuminating case study in the routinized process through which police officers, departments and attorneys frame the use of deadly force by American cops in the most sympathetic possible terms, often claiming fear of the very people they killed. In the days after the shooting, the police version of events — an utterly typical example of the form — was trotted out, only to be sharply contradicted when the video surfaced. In most cases like this, there is no video, no definitive, undisputed record of much of what happened, and thus no way to rebut inaccurate statements by the police.
The first report of the Saturday afternoon incident, from Charleston’s The Post and Courier, followed the usual script: The police department’s story portrayed the victim as behaving dangerously, in this case, purportedly struggling to take an officer’s Taser as part of a violent altercation. Family and friends of the slain black victim mourned his loss and questioned the narrative offered by authorities.
The pro-police spin continued two days later, when a lawyer for Michael Slager, the officer who shot Scott, said Scott “tried to overpower” his client, who “felt threatened and reached for his department-issued firearm and fired his weapon.” Scott’s family and allies could do little more than note that Scott was unarmed, and call for the truth to somehow emerge.
A former U.S. Marshal reveals that law enforcement is trained to justify deadly force by pretending that they felt threatened by the suspect:
Moreover, police have shot people in the back and killed them as they ran away many times before. Here are a couple of recent examples, which happen to have been caught on tape:
- An unarmed man running away in Long Beach, California
- An unarmed man in Muskogee, Oklahoma (video)
- A man in Pasco, Washington
- An innocent artist in Utah who liked to dress up in anime (and see this)
Moreover, police often frame innocent suspects.
They also plant weapons on people, as “justification” for shooting them. The practice is so well-known that the New York Times noted in 1981:
In police jargon, a throwdown is a weapon planted on a victim.
Newsweek reported in 1999:
Perez, himself a former [Los Angeles Police Department] cop, was caught stealing eight pounds of cocaine from police evidence lockers. After pleading guilty in September, he bargained for a lighter sentence by telling an appalling story of attempted murder and a “throwdown”–police slang for a weapon planted by cops to make a shooting legally justifiable. Perez said he and his partner, Officer Nino Durden, shot an unarmed 18th Street Gang member named Javier Ovando, then planted a semiautomatic rifle on the unconscious suspect and claimed that Ovando had tried to shoot them during a stakeout.
Wikipedia notes:
As part of his plea bargain, Pérez implicated scores of officers from the Rampart Division’s anti-gang unit, describing routinely beating gang members, planting evidence on suspects, falsifying reports and covering up unprovoked shootings.
Here, officer Slager was caught on film planting his taser on Walter Scott after he had already killed Scott:
(This is a slow motion excerpt from the video.)
Why is this happening?
One reason is that many law enforcement officers consider failure to comply with the officers’ demands as a basis for using lethal force.
Police have become so militarized in modern America that – in the words of civil rights and constitutional attorney John Whitehead – “the only truly compliant, submissive citizen in a police state is a dead one.”
Of course, if we had the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, this would not be such a problem. Sadly, we’ve lost virtually all of those rights.
No wonder you’re 55 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist.
»
- advertisements -
Actually, I have been posting on this board for about 6 years. They just keep deleting my accounts for not going along with the whole "let's hate them" meme.
Only the most supreme of wrong-headed assholes and troll-spam my-mom-made-18000$ last month accounts actually get the boot from zerohedge.
BoPeople: here is your answer:
Unlike in the movies, when one gets shot there is no noticeble blood unless a main artery was severed or a special type of hollow point rounds were discharged.
Yes, this is not Hollywood. Back doesn't lend itself to major ateries like your chest or thigh. I am sure he had plenty of blood from exit wounds.
So people don't even get a little blood leaking from a bullet wound to the back?
Odd, I have gotten cut and scratched in the back and it bled. But you say bullet holes don't bleed, then you must be experts.
And holes in the shirt ... must be small, eh so we cannot see them., even in the still photos shown online. I wonder out of 8 times how many times the cop missed...
BoPeople, unless you are looking at videos I have not seen, I am not sure how you can make those statements. The video is a long ways away, low res, and quite jumpy.
I am Fire/EMS and, luckily, my world has been quiet, but, when I do see blood it does not explode or splater out. It really is just seepage into the clothing. Messy stuff, but, not usually visible with a phone camera from 50 feet.
Right ... and agreed. Look at this one.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-08/caught-tape-south-carolina-cop-...
This has given the cop time to come up on the guy after "downing him" with supposedly 8 shots to the back (ummm and yeah he could have missed) cuff him and plant the taser. Look at the still shot after the video.
You see any blood?
Charlie redux.
There are people who are dumber than a box of rocks -- those who don't understand that when the heart stops beating, so does blood flow -- and those who are paid to be dumber than a box of rocks to manipulate and dominate the conversation in popular web forums. I think I know which group you belong to.
So, why do you believe his heart stopped and the blood immediately lost pressure and coagulated upon being hit by the first bullet? Does not thinking that is likely give you the right to call me names?
I would like you to also notice the different angles of this video posted by George and the still shot with the other video (where is the fence?) posted by Bruce.
Notice that in combination we can see both sides of his back... no blood.
Ya know what I think s funny is that so many different aliases are used to try to make it look like a whole bunch of people think I am wrong. But, that just leads me to know more about you.
"So, why do you believe his heart stopped..."
It is known that one of the 5 bullets that didn't miss hit his heart, which stopped it instantly.
See all of my earlier posts about there not always being a lot of blood when something gets shot. I've killed big animals and watched a lot of them get killed with a lot more firepower than what a cop would carry with virtually no blood on the ground, or even on the fur. It is very common for all of the blood to pool up INSIDE the chest cavity. Ever dumped a gallon of blood out of an elk after shooting it and opening it up? No? Well, I have.
Granted .. there does not have to be blood pool out. But typically there will be some matted in the fur around the entry point ... I am thinking that there should be good color contrast between that blue-green shirt and dried blood at the entry points.
I've seen where there is no blood on the fur, but the animal is deader than a doornail.
Doop
Keep trying to make your lack of understanding and inability to do forensic analysis of a crappy cellphone video sound like a conspiracy. You're almost there...
There were a lot more photos (and some of them very clear after-shooting still photos online).
I am not saying I understand or do not understand anything. I do have personal experience of wounds to my back bleeding. It seems logical that if wounds to my back bleed, then wounds to someone else's back would also bleed.
Are you claiming to be an expert in forensic analysis? If so, please state you credentials and explain your experience with back wounds.
People are :rolleyes: at you because your premise is bizarre. It goes like this: OKC > Right Wing Terrorism > 9/11 > Patriot Act (War on Terror/Electronic Surveillance) Sandy Hook > 2nd Amendment > Boston > 4th Amendment Armed Home Invasion > SC Cop Shooting > Race War Really?
A 5 year cop (really an actor) has been denied bail and sits in jail facing a murder rap on a false flag for a race war. Shoot, Manson should have just dressed Tex Watson up as a deputy and shot black folks to start Helter Skelter.
I would hope that you still don't quite get it... but then again that is not really the case, is it? Ridiculing legitimate questions is a clear give-away as to your intent. You care nothing about the truth, but instead want to distract people away from it by trying to make me defend all sorts of distractions.
But, ya know what? People may be slow, but after a long enough time (and it has been a long time), they start catching onto the tricks used and when they see attempts to use the tricks they get confirmation that they are on the right path.
Thank you very much for confirming that this was a scam. If it was not, then you would not have acted as you did just now.
Again, many thanks for the confirmation.
Is he ridiculing legitimate questions, or are YOU trying to legitimize ridiculous questions?
Well let's see. Try legitimately answering them both ways and we will see.
Are any of the things that I have posed as questions or suspicious possible based on the evidence we see?
Please answer truthfully.
Then ... what could possibly be my motive for asking ridiculous questions? What would it accomplish? Money, fame? I am not paid to do this ... my pattern of posts is not that of a shill or bot.
At the current rate of "Above the Law acting Rambo cops" shooting and killing people I think we will soon see a rise in Cop killings.
everytime a white cop shoots a black criminal the media jumps all over the incident
everytime a white cop criminal shoots a black criminal suspect the media jumps all over the incident
Fixed it for you cocksucker
lot a junks but you're right - insofar as there are lots of incidents involving white cops and white vics - and it never makes the news because it lacks the racial angle the media loves to play up.
www.copblock.org
They really don't care about the color of their victim. They're just going with the odds. There are far more black felons, thanks to drug charges, than white. They know they can get away with killing felons. A DA won't bother them. OTOH, if they kill a politician's son after purchasing those drugs, they're toast.
You forgot to add- In The Back.
Clearly suicide
...and 'unarmed', and 'fleeing' (not attacking), and 'for a minor offense'.
Damn that liberal media...
Well they should jump on it everytime anyone gets shot. The fact that the rest are not heard about is the problem. Or is it ok in your world to gun down petty criminals? Would it be ok for me to gun down someone trying to rob me? How about some yelling abuse at me? 8 bullets for them too? What's your threshold for gunning down. Is it only cops that should be allowed to decide who lives and who dies or is it ok for anyone to decide?
Actually, I do think it's OK to gun down someone trying to rob you. I agree with the rest of your argument though.
Of course, somebody trying to rob you is doing more than just microagressing you. They're physically taking your stuff away from you. If you're talking about a mugging, almost certainly by force. If they're in your house, well, who wouldn't feel threatened by a burgler in their house? Larceny is another story, but actual robbery/burglary, yes, you should be allowed to shoot.
i suspect this video makes it look worse than it really is. there was a cop in LA who beat a woman alongside the freeway, where she was walking. it looked pretty bad, but consider you're a cop, you have a homeless person, mentally ill probably, suicidal maybe, and you are both standing at the edge of a busy freeway. one quick move and she is road kill. you might actually commend the policeman if you knew what he was thinking and why he did it but most people assume, the cop just wanted to beat the hell out of her which is a pretty unreasonable assumption.
WTF? They could turn on you and it would be A OK with that kind of reasoning. Fuck that. I'd rather get rid of cops, but since that's not going to happen without a total collapse, cops should not be cops unless they can rationally look at the facts and make rational decisions based on those facts. I don't give a fuck if the cop was paranoid and actually thought a twinkie was a weapon or if the cop was just a thuggish bully. Brutality is not justified.
Same thing happened to this man. They beat him so he wouldn't jump into traffic while he was laying face down on the ground handcuffed.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Man-on-Stolen-Horse-Stunned-by-S...
What were those dopes thinking?
There's a helicopter right overhead that probably has NBC NEWS written on the side.
Those helicopters are loud and they had to know it was there, but they just beat the fuck out of him anyway.
It's like either they don't care or are trying to provoke people
A lot of departments will nix a potential candidate if they score too high on the aptitude tests. Seriously. This made it up to the appelate court, and the appleate court said that it was OK because smart people might lose interest in policing. In other words, a lot of police departments are selecting some dumb motherfuckers.
...And unemployable (psycho) ex-MP's. I've known two who were fired for the same thing, drunk driving. It's kinda embarrassing when that arrest shows up in the news.
The traffic stop supposedly stemmed from bad tail lights. They look fine to me but for some reason the cop taps the one on the passenger side.
Almost like he was pointing out that it wasn't working.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POLQWpJFu4Y
It's funny we haven't heard from the passenger. Scared shitless or already sent to GITMO?
"The traffic stop supposedly stemmed from bad tail lights."
Did the police report say tail lights or brake light. The car's third brake light in the rear window is out.
"...but for some reason the cop taps the one on the passenger side..."
He's not pointing out that the tial light isn't working. In fact, it appears to be working just fine. He claimed a tail-light was 'broken', so it could have been chipped or cracked although that's not apparent in the vid.
U.S. cops are trained to leave their fingerprints on the tail lights or upper rear corners of cars they stop and approach. This is in the U.S., so the cop is approaching the left-hand driver's side, not the passenger-side. They'll often wipe their neck or forheads just before that to ensure a good oily set of prints of four fingers. If the car takes off, there's physical evidence - the officer's fingerprints - that that vehicle was the one stopped. Plates can be stolen or altered, so they're less-than-reliable as physical evidence of a specific vehicle at a specific place at a specific time.
The cop's job is not tail-light public safety. It's building up chains of evidence for prosecutors while they're fishing for crimes you may have committed.
Well, I did learn something today that I would never have learned otherwise. (fingerprints). Thanks Paveway, one upvote from me for that little tidbit.
That's exactly what he did too, he taps the drivers side light, not passenger side like I said.
It's a useless bit of trivia that you can't unlearn. I don't mean to diminish the dangers cops have to face - this is more an observation of how we can see something a thousand times and never imagine the action has any bit of significance. Now, for the rest of your life, you are guaranteed to notice this every time you see it. Sorry for that.
The cop's partner in crime, complict, accessory to First Degree Murder, after the fact, is still free and will seek to silence witnesses againt him.
They are psychpaths without remorse.
That taser drop would be an incredible and damning omission from any reports that are required.
There probably is plenty of room to allow for editing of those reports as videos come out. Time stamping is probably unheard of (budget restraints).
Actualy the proper term would be accesory to murder. Thats what a civilian would be charged with.
Cops are civilians. They don't act like it and they don't dress like it, but in the end, they are not subject to the UCMJ.
You may be technically right about that but in real life they are on a much higher pedestal then any citizen of the lower 99%.
A really stupid cop, he should have gunned down the witness, Santana,..
I guess that he missed that class at his police academy!
sarc
Probably lack of observation, not stupidity. He didn't see the witness. If he had, he would have killed him for videotaping a cop and destroyed the video.