Police officer in South Carolina shoots man in the back 8 times.

crimsonaudio said:

That would change things, but the current case is the equivalent of shooting someone in the back after they grab a police officer's baton, pepper spray, or any other NON-LETHAL tool.

I get that the officer had to consider him a threat, but as soon as the attacker is fleeing and is not an imminent threat to the officer or another person, killing them is not an option.

The trail will be interesting, but I just can't justify the shooting unless there's some info showing that the guy was an immediate threat to harm someone else.

Click to expand...

After the suspect has disengaged from the struggle and is fleeing the scene, shooting him in the back can never be an option.

crimsonaudio said:

Unless he is armed and moving toward a third party - if the bad guy is brandishing a knife while running towards someone else, the shoot would be justifiable.

Click to expand...

Well yes, but in this case, none of the above seemed to apply..

Just my personal opinion but I think that the second you attack someone, especially a law enforcement officer, with a weapon you've given anyone within firing distance a legitimate reason to shoot you.

And the operative word there is "attack", as opposed to defending yourself or someone else from attack.

Bazza said:

This cop will see prison - and be thrown in with the general population. I wonder if he'll make it past the first week?

Click to expand...

Being a Correctional Officer (at Donaldson CF in Bessemer) I can tell you no he wouldn't make it. If there is one thing inmates hate more than child molesters, sex offenders, or gang dropouts is ex cops. Many prisons (Alabama in particular) in the U.S. have largely done away PC or protective custody. For his sake he'd better hope they make an exception. This is all assuming he gets convicted. Now while it doesn't appear he had probable cause to shoot the man, it is a felony to run away from the police when they are arresting you.

jps1983 said:

The $30k is unpaid child support, not court costs. I don't know about SC, but in Texas, minimum child support, depending on the number of kids a guy has, is around $200/month (we take a percentage of net income depending on number of kids). Not only did th guy fail to pay, he also failed to appear in Court to face the legal action for his failure to pay.

I've believed from the beginning, this was murder, taser lost for a time or not, because that harm/threat vanished when the guy turned and ran. But I don't have much sympathy for the guy. Truthfully, his death was the only way his kid(s) was/were going to get support from him as they'll likely now get some settlement.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The cop shouldn't have shot him 8 times in the back but let's face it, the man owed so much in chid support, was a deadbeat and was still stupid enough to flee police. I don't feel bad for him dying. Just one less worthless person in America.

crimsonaudio said:

Indeed, which is why I've been repeatedly calling this unjustifiable and murder.

Did I mistype something to lead you to believe otherwise? I just want LEOs held to the same standard we civilians are art employing deadly force...

Click to expand...

No, and I agree with your premise.
We civilians are held to a standard whereby we are justified in using force to "Eliminate the threat". That is, we can shoot as long as they are in our homes and/or posing an immediate threat to ourselves or our families. Once the threat has ended though, such as if they have left and are out on the street, we may not run outside and shoot them in the back as they walk away.
So to repeat my earlier post, "Since the subject had disengaged the struggle and was running away, the deputy was not justified in chasing after him and shooting him in the back.". I do agree with you that it was nothing less than murder..

crimsonaudio said:

So, how long after the attacker disengages and runs is it ok to shoot them in the back? Five seconds later? An hour later? A week later?

There's a reason that deadly force is to stop an immediate threat, and someone running away, apparently unarmed, is not an imminent threat.

Click to expand...

How long after?

As long as he is in the vicinity and not obviously surrendering or otherwise incapacitated.

CajunCrimson said:

I saw he had the darts from the taser in him - while he was shooting - was he shooting while being Tased? Because even if the guy was running away -- wouldn't that mean he was still under attack if he was still being shocked? They had already scuffled once -- and the guy got up and ran off -- should they have just let him go? That's where it gets cloudy for me.....

The guy was running, so he was desperate.....he grabbed a cops taser, used it as a weapon, and tried to continue to run.....

If he fired the weapon while being shocked -- that (to me at least) would explain a lot....

Click to expand...

Since it appears that one of the darts hit him in the chest, he most likely wasn't being shocked as his vest would have prevented the dart from contacting his skin.

Of course, if it was around the edge of the vest or more in the shoulder area than it appeared to have been then it's possible.

crimsonaudio said:

So, how long after the attacker disengages and runs is it ok to shoot them in the back? Five seconds later? An hour later? A week later?

There's a reason that deadly force is to stop an immediate threat, and someone running away, apparently unarmed, is not an imminent threat.

Click to expand...

All valid questions, and I agree with the appearance of threat.

My only disagreement: I still do not hold to the same premise you are that law enforcement should be held to the SAME standard to use deadly force as civilians. Their job is to protect everyone. That is not the case for civilians. Just my opinion, and I guess we can agree to disagree on that.

One thing that I do not know whether or not has come out is previous history with this guy. There may be some history where the officer knew more about what he was capable of or willing to do, and the fact that he attacked him (maybe this has happened before with a him or another LEO) added to a sense of urgency to do something.

I feel compelled to say this again. Even if all the extenuating circumstances discussed were true, for me there does not appear to be any justification for what happened here, and I appreciate the action taken by the department. However, appearances can be very deceiving when all we have to look at is a small clip of time.

mittman said:

All valid questions, and I agree with the appearance of threat.

My only disagreement: I still do not hold to the same premise you are that law enforcement should be held to the SAME standard to use deadly force as civilians. Their job is to protect everyone. That is not the case for civilians. Just my opinion, and I guess we can agree to disagree on that.

One thing that I do not know whether or not has come out is previous history with this guy. There may be some history where the officer knew more about what he was capable of or willing to do, and the fact that he attacked him (maybe this has happened before with a him or another LEO) added to a sense of urgency to do something.

I feel compelled to say this again. Even if all the extenuating circumstances discussed were true, for me there does not appear to be any justification for what happened here, and I appreciate the action taken by the department. However, appearances can be very deceiving when all we have to look at is a small clip of time.

Click to expand...

Make of it what you will:

Bamaro said:

Make of it what you will: ...

Click to expand...

Not sure what to make of that. Did he really reach for something in the car? That doesn't seem to be the case. It appeared that he was going to have him exit the car from the time that he walked to the door.

Two other questions:

1. Is this video representative of the whole scene? Is this the first time they walked to the door of the car or is it a return after getting information and running it? From the video it appears to be the first time.

2. It appears that he is defending his actions to the black officer. Why? Is there some history there? The same guy appears to be on the scene of the shooting not sure if it is though.

I can see a case being built my multiple scenes of this type to illustrate his normal mode of operating good or bad. But, this does not appear to have any bearing on previous history with the man shot.

I thought if a person was Tazed he was incapacitated for a period of time? Absolutely no reason for the man running away to be shot in the back.

I'm still not sure who tased who.:conf2: