This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Dash Cam Footage Shows Moments Before Policeman Shot Fleeing, Unarmed Man
Last weekend, a white South Carolina police officer shot a fleeing, unarmed black man 8 times in the back, further inflaming race relations in the country and raising fresh concerns about police misconduct. Now, the officials investigating the incident (which left 50-year old Walter Scott dead), have released the dashcam video from officer Michael Slager's patrol car which depicts the moments before Scott was killed.
Via NY Times:
The video begins with a traffic stop in a parking lot at an auto parts store. Officer Slager asks Mr. Scott for his identification and insurance paperwork. But Mr. Scott says that he has not yet purchased the vehicle — telling Officer Slager that he intends to do so soon — and that he does not have any documentation of insurance coverage.
Officer Slager, telling Mr. Scott “I’ll be right back with you,” returns to his patrol car. Mr. Scott soon emerges from his vehicle but returns to the driver’s seat at Officer Slager’s direction.
About 20 seconds later, though, Mr. Scott jumps from the car and flees on foot. Officer Slager follows, saying at one point, “Taser! Taser! Taser!”
Perhaps a South Carolina lawyer who spoke to the Times put it best:
“If a guy runs, officers will chase him. But you can’t just shoot a guy.”
»
- 46927 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Have you ever thought through 10:1 logically? Read Red Nails by Robert E. Howard. Classic feud mentality that leads to everyone ending up dead.
he wont serve in gen pop.
Anyone have a clue what the song is that's playing in the background?
Everlast, from 1998
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbyYV0v6JCI
The lack of respect for a life. Lord, where are we now?
kind of ironic for the mans last tune
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCZ1YteCv5M
Very first thing I thought when I saw what song it was.
Then you really might know what it's like.......
Song is What Its Like by Everlast, from the album Whitey Ford Sings the Blues. You couldn't have picked a better song to be playing while this happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPoEA43cqKc
It is ironic considering that song is the soundtrack to a murder, being that song is about empathy.
Everlast. What it's like.
Is that surreal or what?
Why chase at all in this case? You have his car. Impound it. He'll be back. It's like the car chases that do nothing but endanger the public. A broken taillight? C'mon.
That was plan A.....but they went with plan B.
Remember the woman that took a wrong turn in DC with a baby in the back seat? Same thing basically.
It says above that the victim told the cop he didn't own the car or have paperwork for it but was "planning to buy it soon".
Not defending the cop or his actions by any means, just repeating what was clearly written above since several comments reference the car/plates as being able to identify the victim.
He was going to jail, his old lady broke the taillight because he would'nt or could'nt pay prolly knowing a cop will pull you over, he thought about his circumstances and decided to run away and at least be on foot. The cop was tired of chasing, so he gunned him down and did the natural thing, try to cover it up, these are trained animals so pretty much anything goes when you go against his law, plain and simple, nothing to see here, you can move about your day.
I worked in a private security role for a while and shadowed several police units. I had more than one officer confide to me that they carried clean knives in their boots, in case of just such a shooting, after which they assured me they would not hesitate to stick the blade in their own leg or something, and plant it in the suspect's hands to make it appear justified. I did not doubt their propensity to execute that plan if it came to that.
Just another reason to, if you witness this kind of murder, pump 2 in the chest, 1 in the head of the murderer. Right away.
Back child support payments. Should NOT be a Police matter, period. So guy runs, big deal. Local guy ain't going no where far.
Check out this police matter from PCR on RT.
CPS issue brought on by a skool teacher gets a female veteran 9 mos pregant punched by LEO as her 18 mo old wails & is removed by authorities.
http://rt.com/usa/248125-texas-woman-punched-police/
He was running to get his insurance papers.
I do that every time I get stopped.
That doughnut eating maggot needs to be bubba's bend over boy toy at midnight in the 8x8 motel.
I don't think this cop will get raped in prison. Day One, he seeks out the AN leader, gets a swastika and an shamrock/18 tattoed on his forehead, and then is ordered to kill some non-white inmate. If he is succesful, then he is a made guy and all's well. Shouldnt be too hard for someone like this to accomplish, especially if it is what it takes to remain a virgin.
Driving a German car while black. That's a code.
Not his yet though. Lethal force was apparently not warranted under the circumstances, but I will leave that to the jury. As more things come out, Mr. Scott appears not to be on the side of the angels. Having police yell "Stop!!! or I will yell Stopp!! again." seems a bit lame, but was probably the right thing to do here.
Be like OJ bro. Stay in the car.
A Nig-er .... in a sensible Mercedes .... is rather suspicious .... I thought the officer was way too lenient .... to leave him alone .... after suspect's first volley of stupid lies .... the trouble makers in Ferguson .... still haven't admitted their errors of judgment .... the chance this was justifiable homicide .... 95% !
You're an idiot. I certainly hope you don't produce offspring.
Justifiable? According to your sick standards of justice or the actual law?
Plus, you don’t use ‘chance’ as a legal argument. It’s not a question of ‘probability’, but ‘proofs’. Either you’re guilty or you’re not – there’s no ‘chance’ involved. If you cannot prove an argument (in a legal case) it’s not an argument but pure speculation (= the other lawyer should object).
But your comment implies a much more sinister and ignorant aspect of American contemporary society – the slow but steady acceptance from the masses of the coming police state (were what’s ‘justifiable’ is defined by the people with the most guns/and who controls the narrative (owns the MSM)).
Officer involved shootings .... are usually resolved in the officer's favor .... I thought the officer was polite .... If I was the suspect .... I would have told the officer .... thank you for noticing .... that's why I stopped at Auto-Zone .... can I please have a warning .... but, oh no .... out came a live stream of incoherent lies .... duh ?
And people who don't act rational or polite should be shot? (Not according to your 'morals' - I know the answer here - but according to the law?)
Maybe the real owner .... was a young white lady .... she may be dead in her bed .... with suspect's DNA on the used toilet paper .... remember the lovely Amanda Knox ?
Maybe. But why should we – or anyone else – care about your fantasies? I know they serve the purpose of keeping your twisted worldview alive, but for the rest of us?
You don't get to convict a man of a crime you imagined may have possibly happened. And you certainly do not get to execute him for it.
We are SUPPOSE to be a land of LAWS. You and rotten cops do not get to play God. Was the cop in fear of his life? NO. Was the fleeing perp armed, dangerous and an immediate threat to others? NO.
All other arguments are noise. moot. not relevant. (This includes your fucking idiotic statement that the black man could have stolen the vehicle from a "white woman, who could be dead in her bed, with the suspect's DNA on used toilet paper", just like that tragic news story you jacked off to that one time.)
LAWS. Not feeeeeelings, imagination, biases, hang-ups, mystic auras, or any other bull shit. Because, when the laws no longer matter, the justice system becomes pointless. And there is simply no reason for citizens to continue to acknowledge or comply with a pointless legal system.
yeah but what if the white woman was the cops wife----just supposing--and she's fine and the guys passenger is a white woman and the cop a white southerner -----lots of what ifs going around---
troll trololololololololo
He's been to training school, prolly didn't stack up.
Shut the fuck up you dumb cunt apologist...
Monetas...an ellipsis...has no place...in...the..."sentences"...that you...attempt...to...construct.
Your...incorrect...use...of ellipsis...is an indicator...of your lack of...any rational thought.
Thanks for the tip .... I looked up Ellipsis .... then below it I saw .... Elipsis Points .... that's what I do .... and, although my use is my own invention .... I think my use of them fits one of the definitions .... I invite you to look it up .... use a good dictionary !
Hahahahaha you had to look up the word ellipsis? And you think you "invented" a clever way to use them?! Ahhhh, that is GOOD stuff right there! I wish you well Monetas. May your journey through life be filled with many, many glorious learning moments like these!
Your avatar gives you away as a troll. Even if (likely) the car was not his own ("borrowed") and even if the victim had a "habit" of "borrowing" cars, even IF, and adding the fact that he ran away... there is still no need to shoot him in the back.
If the guy was a car thief, and if the cop hadn't shot him, he would have gotten away. There is no way the cop could have tackled him with the kind of taser-induced adrenalin charged running head-start the victim had.
But apparently, the cop had the victim's license information. The cop was back in his cruiser, running the license when the victim bolted. Even if the victim had a rap sheet that indcated he was a violent offender, in this case, he was acting non-violently- running away is not violent.
If the guy had gotten away, the cop puts out an APB and everyone starts looking for the guy. When he is eventually apprehended, THEN, back at the station under controlled conditions (ie, NO RECORDING DEVICES) the cops can beat the ever-living fuck out of him.
NO NEED TO SHOOT. THIS IS MURDER.
We have to have rule of law. Even officers must follow rule of law. I guess it would help if the President and Mrs. Clinton would obey the rule of law.
Always remember the first rule of laws, which is. There is a law for unins, and a law for weins, and they aint the same law.
Gotta fix it:
"You'uns"
"We'uns"
For chrissake, learn to spell, wouldja?
When you have the prosecutors office in your back pocket, the rule of law is what you say it is.
Just ask Holder (and the Clintons).
That escalated rather quickly!
Meaning the whole subject of steroid munching cops opening fire on children and fleeing grandmas. Happens in every state, every year, without fail.
The men and women who film haywire cops have balls bigger than you or I.
We saw the cop plant the tazer. Why was the cop not worried about the guy filming it? Why didn't he shoot the camera man?
It looks like he re-holsters the tazer around 230 in the clip - depending on the tazer, if he used it, it was all done without a new cartridge anyway. I think he was just keeping track of it - not justifying his actions, but the story was all over by the time he started walking over to the dying man.
look at my name. I am not even close to a defender or apologizer for the police, but he did not plant the tazer. He went and picked it up from where it fell and dropped it beside the victim.
Dropping it there does not contradict the officers story. Even the video shows a physical altercation between the victim and officer, over the tazer.
He will get in trouble for moving evidence, but there is no planting of evidence.
Are you really trying to interchange the word "plant" with "place"?
Planting evidence or placing evidence is the same fucking thing. If you don't say that you moved the tazer from here to there it shows that the officer was intentionally trying to alter the crime scene and cloud the facts of the event. Where the fuck does "logic" like this come from?!
who are you responding to? I reread my post and cannot find the word 'place' anywhere. All I did was say that the video corroborates the officers story so far that there was an altercation between the victim, officer and his tazer. The tazer fell, then after the shooting the officer moved it.
These are facts.
Your OPINION that the officer was trying to intentionally trying to alter the crime scene and cloud the facts is CONJECTURE base on how you perceive the video
Don't get me wrong. I do not condone what the officer did, but am just saying objectively nobody can say that he planted evidence, especially when there is no comparison. In order to conclude that is was planted, it would have to contradict the testimony of the officer. Without knowing that testimony there is no evidence of planting evidence, only moving it.
"Without knowing that testimony there is no evidence of planting evidence, only moving it."
Placed..etc..
These words are interchangable. There's a reason why altering a crime scene is against the law, because it clouds the investigation and can render some evidence inadmissable in the trial. And let's not forget that before the video surfaced the police department and media had concluded everything went down according to this unheard testimony. There was a coverup and the video is proof of this. Why didn't the coroners report conclude "homicide" since he had five bullet wounds that struck him from behind at a distance of 25-30feet? The report would have proved the officer was not in danger because the victim was not moving towards him. These facts must have been known before he (the cop) was cleared of any wrong doing.
And I'm not accusing you of being an apologist either but your claim of conjecture is flimsy at best.
It's been fun discussing but you are back pedaling too much now. First, there is a HUGE difference between planting and moving the evidence in the context in which they are used. Planting implies intent to deceive. Moving it means it was moved without implying a motive to it. The video shows he moved the item, and it 'appears' to many that he was planting evidence. Big difference. The words are not interchangeable as used.
There is no proof of a cover up, only that more evidence, ie. the video, has shown up. Unless it contradicts the testimony of the officer, there is no cover up. I have not heard any contradictions.
I am not disputing whether the officer was in danger or not. He had no idea the victim was unarmed. All I said is that according to the law, a police officer is allowed to use lethal force on a fleeing suspect if he believes that the suspect may cause serious harm or death to the officer or the public.
It is this law that the officer will defend himself from and the video does not go against that defense at all.
And my claim of conjecture is 100% correct. Drawing conclusions from the video, and now from unsaid things is conjecture.
I am not back peddling an inch WTF are you talking about? Where is this law that allows an officer to use lethal force on a fleeing suspect? If one does exist in the state of SC I am quite sure there has to be reasonable suspicion the subject is a threat to the public, which fleeing from a traffic stop does not qualify for.
Originally he was cleared of any wrong doing. If we assume protocol was done, the coroner's report and investigation would have shown the officer was in no danger. Your entire stance relies on this fantasy law of yours.
If you accuse me of conjecture then sure'y you are guilty of the same because we both don't know what the cops testimony was?! The only thing we do know is that he was originally cleared of any wrong doing? How is this possible if there wasn't a cover up or the officer didn't lie to his superiors and a proper investigation didn't occur? Either way there is a whole lot of law breaking going on here.
EDIT: BTW regardless if there is "intent" when moving a piece of evidence the use of the word "planted" applies to neglect as well.
2nd EDIT: I am not junking you
you changed to argue about 'moved' instead of placed = backpedaling.
I am only basing my observations on what actually happened and is visibly available. That is not conjecture. You are drawing conclusions on what happened without seeing the information. That's conjecture.
conjecture: an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.(and there is a picture of you right beside the definition)
As for me I have made a prediction on what I think will occur, but that is entirely different.
Finally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner
While this appears to say you can't shoot an unarmed person when they run, it has specific clauses that allow an officer to shoot when the subject is involved in a felony.
Assaulting an officer is a felony.
Further, you can't watch the video a hundred times and come the conclusion but must judge the officer in the heat of the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor
"[t]he "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.
edit: I am not junking you either. gotta go now.
My EDIT clearly states that the word "planted" is acceptable whether it was done with "intent" or by "neglect" = NOT BACK PEDDLING. Nice try.
Thanks for admitting you were wrong about the law. Now what say you about the officer being originally cleared? How is this possible if a proper investigation was performed?
I understand you are not supporting the cop in this story but your comments could easily lead one to believe you are of the boot licking variety.
Your edit = more backpedaling.
The law is very clear that an officer has the right to use lethal force on a fleeing suspect when they have a reasonabe belief that the suspect may cause serious harm to the officer or the public.
That is the law.
It further goes to state that you cannot judge a police officer in hindsight but must base your decision off of the 'heat of the moment'
It's very clear, and you are very wrong.
You can argue whether in this incident the officer had the right to use lethal force, but you are tilting a windmill if you think that they cannot shoot a fleeing suspect. They can, and they do, and it's legal.
While I attacked your arguments, you are now resorting to ad hominem attacks, so you lose, doubly. So I guess that makes you a winner.
cya!
LOL you are losing it now.
"The law is very clear that an officer has the right to use lethal force on a fleeing suspect when they have a reasonabe belief that the suspect may cause serious harm to the officer or the public.
That is the law."
Accept you post the law which states clearly "Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
Probable cause. Sorry buddy fleeing a traffic stop and resisting arrest do not qualify.
Also I didn't attack you but point out that your weak attempts to be "objective" could lead some to believe you support these actions illegal or not. And why won't you answer my questions about the officer originally being cleared?
Dupe
The whole thing makes you wonder how many others are walking around after having done the same thing but without being captured on a camera. Good thing states (Texas) are trying to pass laws now to prevent filming "officers".
Well, one comes to mind very quickly. Of course, that was a good shoot because the guy was a thug, and I can't imagine that officer lying to protect himself. Besides there was no video.
Clearly, running away is deemed a threat to personal safety.
These "folks" are screened according to the criteria of "HUMAN (ha) Resources" psychologically speaking.
The rot needs to be routed beginning at the psycho that emplemented that very profile.
Beause he ran, then attacked the police officer, he only had moment to assess whether his or the PUBLIC's safety was in jeopardy. Due to the violence exhibited, in the heat of the moment, the officer decided he could not let him escape and cause serious harm to the general public or the other officer in the area. So he opened fire.
According to how the law is written, this is completely legal for a police officer to do.
It was also a very important lesson Peter Parker learned.
I've never heard of Peter Parker, but if it's a pun, I hope ol' trigger finger is the parking place.
Peter Parker = Spider Man
During a school field trip, Peter was bitten by a radioactive spider granting him his powers. He used these powers for his own needs and worked in a TV station and provided money for his family. He vowed only to look after himself and his family. However, on one fateful night, a burglar just robbed the station and went by Peter, who was too selfish to stop him. During that same night, Ben and May had a huge fight and Ben went for a long walk to console himself. When he arrived home, he was confronted and shot by a burglar wanting to rob them. When Peter returned home, he found his uncle dead and vowed to exact revenge on the killer as Spider-Man. When he confronted the killer, he turned out to be the same burglar Peter allowed to escape at the TV station, Dennis Carradine. Overcome with grief and guilt, blaming himself for his uncle's death, Peter realised that "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility", and vowed to use his powers to help people and fight crime, thus becoming the hero he is today.
And so, the lesson is... when a police officer shoots a felon in the back as he is running away, that is not only legal, but the cop is a hero because it is likely that person would then go out and kill someone while trying to get away. And that is the reason why the law is written that way.
Indeed, with great power comes great responsibility to shoot people as they are running away.
edit: don't downvote spidey.
+1 downvote.
All I am sure of is that if this cop does not wind up in jail for 30 years the USSA will be burned to the ground in short order.
Only a police officer could consider this shoot legal. The fact that some of them seem to think it was is evidence of the piss poor training they get on the use of lethal force.
And that my friends is why we as citizens must never allow them to make filming a police officer in public a crime.. but they are trying real real hard for that folks..
Any chance of this cop being a Russkie plant? Obama want's Martial Law in America. Hook or by Crook. Within the week, this will be spun as a Trigger-Happy NRA Member on the police force.
? ?????? ???? ????. Perhaps that answers your questions.
I would buy into the Russkie plant if he was riding a unicorn at the time.
god damn Russian unicorns err taking er jerbs!!!
Oh man I almost spilled my morning coffee with that one lmao
please go back to surfing midget tranny pr0n, k? ( thats what you paid gov trolls do most of the time, beside troll posts here, right? )
I jog but maybe I sould wear my titaniam vest in case they suspect me of needing to be shot.
Tavis Smiley was on the Daily Show the day this happened. I've rarely seen Jon Stewart lost for words, but TS took the opportunity to bring this crime to the attention of his audience and JS's discomfort was all too evident.
Its a 'can't say no' hierarchy of government. Can't say no to police, can't say no to city hall, can't say no to IRS,NSA, FDA, EPA, HSA, TSA, DC, or wall street or any corporation that pays the right people.
Not only can you not say no, you cannot even express and opinion without being politically incorrect or potentially violating hate speech laws. Heaven forbid you teach your kids something different than their indoctrination at public education's hands.
What the hell is wrong with this picture???
Don't you just hate when a vehicle test drive turns out in disappointment?
Bad boys, bad boys
Better get a clue
You now know what happens
When they come for you.
The tragedy of abolishing slavery - if we still allowed slavery Mr. Scott would have had some property value that one would have been more relucant to damage.
He probably stole the car though.
Prosecutors need the police to lie to keep up their 95+% conviction rates. The dummies chosen on juries want to trust and forgive the police. The prosecutor and the cop's attorney chose the jury. (voir dire)
Expecting justice from US courts?
In reality, however, the prosecution and the defense get the same number of challenges during voir dire.
There are so many other methods to influence the selection of jurors and the jurors chosen. http://criminaldefense.homestead.com/juryselection.html
Would you be happy if your defense attorney wanted the prosecutor to win?
Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are ALL corrupt, without exception. The criminal "just-us" system is a good ol' boys club, and the vast majority of US citizens are not in it.
Granted, if one can afford to hire their own defense counsel, then one has in essence hired their own "paid liar", and the odds of the defendant receiving a favorable ruling increases proportionately to the amount of the retainer/defendant's bank account.
The corruption has only grown more blatant and obvious during the past 14 years or so, even to the point where the attorneys, judges, and prosecutors seem to revel in their corruption. They all seem to take great pleasure in trampling people's Constitutional Rights and destroying people's lives.
When the great reset occurs, these individuals will all have something to worry about.
In the role of a witness to this, if one were to shoot the cop in defense of the victim, I'm curious what the verdict would be in the given social climate, and what kind of precedent it would set. I can't even guess.
pretty sure the verdict would be guilty of murder.
Police are allowed to kill people, even when they flee, if they believe that person may cause serious harm to the officer or the public.
Um.
If he's fleeing, he presents no danger to the officer and I didn't see him spraying shots with a sub-machine gun while hi-stepping his way out of what looks to be a public park in a residendial area.
Guess who was the immediate danger to public saftey in the video.
um.
If the officer BELIEVES there is a danger to the officer or the PUBLIC, then he has the legal authority to use lethal force.
And while hindsight is 20/20, and can be used against a civilian, it cannot be used against a police officer. They must be judged on how they acted in the heat of the moment.
I didn't write the laws, and I think they are shite, but that's how they are.
I'm afraid in this case the evidence will take precedence over what the officer 'believes'. He could believe in flying unicorns but to claim a man fleeing with no weapon presents a threat to anyone won't wash.
well we'll just have to wait and see won't we?
The officer can sercretly believe in flying unicorns, and as long as he doesn't say it out loud, nobody will know exactly what he was thinking, but I am sure what he will say is that in that moment after being attacked, he felt he, other officers, and the public could be seriously harmed or killed. And that's all that needs to happen. The video doesn't show shit and his belief and testimony will take precedence over the video, and in fact supports him that there was a fight between him and the victim.
He ran from then fought with a police officer after being tazed. When you attack a police officer, that's a threat. The officer doesn't have the luxury to let him go hoping that after just attacking a police officer that he will peaceably run off. That is the justification that will be used, and the cop will be fully vindicated........according to how the laws are written.
Again, I don't agree with it, but I will put money that's how it plays out.
A CWP-holder who pumps the cop with 2 in the chest, 1 in the head would also be acting in the moment out of what they did or did not perceive as mortal danger to themselves or a 3rd party. The law varies by state, but in SC there is solid ground for blazing anyone in the act of murder.
The belief cannot be wholly unfounded as in this case. Idiot.
My final words to my child when I sent to a small school in the South: A cop is a god in the South. Yes sir, No sir. Don't get in trouble.
It didn't matter. He helped escort home a woman from a party who had too much fun--ossified. The officer, well known as a rogue cop, had him blow three times. He wasn't drunk. He blew a zero. The officer became enraged, threw him against the car and handcuffed him. Threw him in jail overnight and his frat brothers had to get him out in the morning. As an asthma sufferer he flipped out and couldn't breath. The cops wouldnt stop at the school and let him get his medicine.
I have no respect for these assholes. Highschool bullies armed with tasers, guns and the ability to arrest.
Not any more, you can! There's a Constitutional amendment for that.
I would have sued had I enough money to do so. Plus my son loved the school and wanted to stay. The lawyer which I had to hire on the fake drunk charges told us that my son had a big target on his back because of his hair color and height and that this cop would go after him for the final two years/
Love small town Virginia
not to mention that he had to appear before a student tribunal that has a tougher honor code than West Point.
Vindicated by his peers.
VMI? Officer Smith?
close by but not VMI.
I can't recall the name. PTSD, /but i can look and see if I saved my emails to my son or the school
The guy said he was buying the car on Monday and didn't have any insurance or registation and then runs?
what's up with that However, Shooting him in the back is UNJUSTIFIED.
The guy should have never run off. Cops are unpreditable. Some shoot, some don't.
This guy happened to run into a trigger-happy cop.
It could have been a black cop as well.
Yeah! Freakin victims! I hope all these victims rot in New Jersey! On a serious note, the victim might be tired of being beaten by cops and felt the risk was worth it.
If you run you get shoot at the back. If you dont run, you get choked to death. So the proper thing to do is not to be born black.
Racist like you are sick. You know the data doesn't support your racist views but you don't care as long as it supports your hateful views
You are correct.
The data clearly shows that people are being born black.
Some are even born naked.
I'm guessing he was being facetious...
It was a facetious joke. A really good one, but not original. It's not racist. You want racist? Why is most of this page white? Think that's an accident? Eh? EHH?
"But for the lack of any untoward circumstances for this young secretary to notice, and the total non-involvement of Mr. Melish in anything illegal, the full weight of the law would have insured that Ralph Auldus Melish would have ended up like all who challenge the fundamental laws of our society. In an iron coffin with spikes on the inside.'
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/melish.php
If you're born black it's "Would you prefer the iron coffin with spikes on the inside, or would you like to give up your body for scientific experiments?"
"But you can’t just shoot a guy."
As this officer has shown.... Why yes, yes you can.
Remember when the FEMA pigs were busting down doors in Boston - the guy that took the photo of one of them had a rifle pointed straight at him,lucky he didn't catch a round.
LEOs can shoot someone in the back. Garner vs Tennessee. This incident did not apply.
Someone can shoot LEOs in the back. Jack McCall vs "Wild" Bill Hickock.
The guy in this video wasn't killed, however he was kicked in the head and in the nuts while he was face down with his hands behind his back. It takes a special type of asshole to kick another man in the nuts; you would think these pigs were punting a football.
If the victim was white. Nobody would care.
Not true, see my comment directly below yours where the victim is white. This is not a black/white/hispanic issue...they are out to get all goyim. If this shit were happening in a Warsaw ghetto to a group of "chosen" people there would be big budget hollywood movies made about it.
Okay I get it. So, how many more incidents occur daily that the police act rationally and are themselves abused? Really sheeple, the man deserves a slow death, but just remember the veil of propaganda they are exploiting you with.
Police get paid to do a job. It's a very safe job compared to many out there.
Maybe finish swallowing the Kool Aid before you talk about propaganda.
This psychopath murdered someone in plain sight, and you are saying that's fine.
Recently - the past 15 years or so - whenever I hear of a LEO being gunned down or beaten to death, I almost always wonder what kind of sicko BS that cop was doing to deserve this. I think it's called a paradigm shift. It could be from modern movie propaganda, I suppose, but having known quite a few LEOs quite well, and knowing the kind of twisted evil crap they pull every day, well, my sympathy is rarely with the LEO.
i dunno folks, my spidey senses are tingling on this one. there are too many question marks for my liking:
1) low res filming leading to lack of details
2) no blood seen at any point
3) neither cop EVER acknowledges the video guy's presence
4) no muzzle flashes
5) no recoil
6) dubious shot sounds
7) sketchy interviews with brother & lawyer afterward
In light of the above I am not convinced this thing is legit. What is the end game here? More fuel for the racial & bad cops paradigms, to continue to distract us from the real threats to society?
I hope you aren't paid much to write this drivel in favor of government murderers.
I don't think he's favoring the government murderers. I think he's suggesting that this was staged BY the government murderers to facilitate more murdering, and more arbitrary confiscation of property while travelling (or even in your own home), and more surveillance of innocent citizens. Slightly outre, but who knows?
PT i don't favour government murderers, in fact, quite the opposite. I just consider myself to be a skeptic whenever the MSM & the usual suspects all sing in unison, especially when the further erosion of liberties and freedoms follow such events, as appears to be the case here.
Remember, if a government can kill its own citizens to justify political/financial ends, then ANYTHING is possible, even a video like this...
My thoughts exactly, first time i watched the video I could see fake setup! No blood no one looking at camra! An appeasement!
sometimes it is what it is.
Here's a simple test: take a cheap LG smartphone to a shooting range. Set the camera to record 720p resolution (most common). Shoot a Glock 19 at a pig while recording from (estimating) 120 yards away, while closing to 100 yards. The gun and hand are represented by about 10 pixels in all. Any recoil movement less than 45 degrees (too much for a 9mm Glock) will not show up. Blood spray would be sub-pixel, so invisible except as a very subtle brightness change. There's no visible muzzle flash from a 9mm in daylight, but if there were, it would be represented by just 1 pixel. I've fired 1000s of 9mm rounds. I've shot real people at varying distances. The video looks and sounds legit to me. I think you watch WAY too many movies and live in a gated community.
This is assuming that the pig won't shoot back?
Of course the pig won't shoot back - he'll shoot first!
Did you see the suspect's mother's (double possesive with ellipsis .... boy, am I good) .... crocodile tears .... she's salivating, not crying .... you'll see her soon at a 7/ll .... buying lottery tickets with her settlement money .... instead of paying back .... any public assistance arrears .... really !
Did you see that government pig murder that guy in cold blood?
It's way too soon .... to come to that conclusion .... this video is adding some light .... wait for more revelations .... we don't wan't to lynch a good cop !
Or, DO we?
Are you blaming the mother?!?
every time we read about police 'brutality' its always someone breaking the law and putting themselves in a risky situation. whenver you have to talk with a cop for something you may be doing illegally you are putting yourself in harm's way as you cannot predict what the officer is thinking/feeling and the outcome. cops are still human beings you can't do a replay and say hey you should've done this or that playing monday morning armchair quarterback real life doesn't work that way.
here's a little hint for everyone. don't do anything that even smacks of illegal activity and if you do/accused of doing do your best to be polite and accommodating to what you're told and a lot less people would be hurt or dead.
Every time we read about police BRUTALITY, it's usually a Piglet murdering an unarmed person. Cold blooded psychopathic murder.
And a lot of dumbasses excuse the psychopaths because the dumbasses worship a god they call "govenrment". Religious nuts.
RIkky, you're such a special fuckhead. Must be a prosecuter or a pig right?
I love your hint about don't do anything that even smacks of illegal activity... But the part you didn't add is the UNLESS you have lots of money or are a public employee.
Thing is, I don't notice any courts holding those groups accountable to any laws. Ask Jon Corzine if he had to spend any time. Ask any cops if they think any laws pertain to them and they will tell you "Son, I am the law". How is it that prosecuters are exempt from being prosecuted for any lieing they do?
But then don't you simple citizen dare fucking fart in the wrong direction. Isn't that true fuckhead?
Hey buttmunch you brake laws everyday everybody does. So what are you going to do when its your turn to be fucked with. I know what you will do. You will roll over like the weak pathetic person you are.
Nobody needs to be shot in the back and the cop did a throw down with the tazer and then lied.
When the law changes depending on your ethnic, religious, and sexual identity, it's not worth "following." When the President, Secretary of State, and leaders at the IRS and Dept of Justice brazenly disregard some law and creatively 'interpret' others, the law is only for suckers.
Repeat after me: the rule of law in the United States is kaput. The court system has been perverted to expensive 'justice theater'. The State is no more or less lawful than any other totalitarian regime.
To all the geniuses saying 'they had his car', did you even listen to the effin video? The guy admitted it was not his car. He had no papers for it. He lied several times in the first minute. If I was a cop, I'd suspect a stolen car at a bare minimum. Maybe the passenger was a hostage in a car jacking? Who knows? But damn suspicious. The ID given could easily have been false.
So they had no way to 'pick him up at his house later'. And he sure as hell wouldn't come back to pick up a car that wasn't his. Geniuses.
Then the guy runs. Why? Obviously he's committed some kind of serious crime, no way to know what.
Then the guy resists arrest. I don't know about you, buy by now I believe if I resist arrest in the good 'ol USA, there's a very good chance they're gonna shoot me.
That's the point where the cop made a huge error. No sense shooting the guy, too big a risk that they blame you for it. Better to let him go and continue his criminal ways unmolested.
I mean that seriously. The cop obviously should not have shot the guy, and should definitely be fired, maybe charged with manslaughter (which he'll probably end up convicted for, but murder, no way.) He wildly over reacted. But, hey, I wouldn't want his job for all the money in the world.
So watch now as cops withdraw from trying to arrest anyone who resists. Too risky. What if they suspect has a heart attack while fighting off 6 cops like the big mf did? Charge the cops with murder. Too risky. Better to let him go.
Within 6 months I guarantee we will be seeing crying black mothers all over the news asking why the cops ain't doing nuthin to stop the crime in their neighbourhoods.
It's all so easily predictable.
1st degree murder charge would be appropriate, with life in maxium security prison. Have his cell be in the gorilla block. You shoot a man in the back when he's fleeing with no evidence of any serious crime then plant evidence to make him look guilty. How can you stick up for an officer murdering in cold blood and planting evidence? Officer was too lazy to run after a 50 year old black man? Was it his laziness and disregard for human life that made just shooting him in the back and planting evidence easier? This cop should be publicly executed.
I don't blame anyone that would run from the police. Domestic police are more dangerous than Islamic terrorism, russians, iraq, libya, and afghanistan combined. If George Bush was making the call and following the Bush doctrine he may launch a preemptive strike at this threat to innocent human lives.
Everyone who downvotes me is bootlicker.
I hope you enjoy your enslavement.
You are making excuses for cold blooded murder, and also the fact that the murderer tried to cover it up. You are a monster.
He's not a monster, he's just stipid.
He's a fuckin asshole minimum.
Problem in black community is most couldn't legally get or legally possess a firearm. Second, the reliance on gov't.
Same problem in the "white community" eh? There is only one community: The American community.
This "community" bullshit started when political wonks decided to repurpose the word to mean things it never meant before. The establishment clowns in their divide-and-conquer strategy decided to split people up into "communities" that they would dictate.
Time to remove the Northeastern wannabe blue bloods from power.
On one hand I agree with your sentiment. I'd like to just be an American (US citizen if you demand PC-ness...but hey, First Amendment, fuck off), but in reality, there is no single US culture. There are distinct regional cultures, with plenty of overlap. The cultural ideals I hold dear (and many,many people in my locale) would be an anethema to Northeaterners, Californians and Liberals in general. To be perfectly honest with you, I endorse an amicible seperation between my state, and the rest of the US. I, and many people in my state, have no representation by our elected officials in the US government. We'd certainly be better off not supporting multi-generational welfare, corporate welfare, unecessary foreign wars, currency debasement and agreeing to treaties with foreign powers that don't benefit us.
Bull-fucking-shit. Being "American" isn't a matter of nationality, it's a state-of-mind. Being a worthless, lazy tax-sucking parasite is the anthesis of what it means to be "American".
The government those people wanted and created is dealing with them the only way such governments know how.
Boo fucking hoo.
Actually reading the article before commenting is frowned on by The Kneejerkers Union.
"Facts should never influence opinions." is the Union Motto.
Another autofellating cop.