Ex-cop Michael Slager sentenced to 20 yrs for killing Walter Scott

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you 911, I know you well enough by now to know you're an intelligent, Knowledgeable and Honest Police Officer
 

Traveler said:
So, what do we have here ? RPG feels that a cop has every right to shoot people in the back just because they are running away. Hmm. A person is caught driving without a license, he gets scared and he runs ---- KILL HIM ! A person has a warrant on him for failure to appear in traffic court (broken headlight) he gets scared and he runs --- KILL HIM ! RPG feels it is perfectly alright to shoot people in the back for minor traffic offenses. What next RPG ? Do you advocate killing 16 year old kids who shop-lift, if they try to run ?
Click to expand...


The officer has every right, dare I say duty to stop a fleeing suspect. He has many tools wit which to do this. First is his voice command STOP...the suspect chooses to run, the next, is likely his Taser, it may or may not do the job ? The next is likely his weapon, snap decision made, he shoots, the suspect is killed. The suspect had two or more previous opportunities to STOP...he chose to continue fleeing...he killed himself.
 
Thanks for the sane summary, 911. Could you tell us what is the standard protocol for dealing with someone who unexpectedly starts running, with no weapon in view? Is there ever any justification for shooting him? You mention "if the car is not stolen," sometimes just letting him run. What if the car is stolen? Is shooting the suspect then considered OK? I'm not arguing, I'm really just curious. Do the rules given to the police vary from one jurisdiction to another?

I also wonder why in these situations the police don't seem to aim at their legs instead of an upper part of their body.

Holly, I believe the police in England are unarmed. Is that true? If so, how would they deal with, say, a car thief?
 

911 said:
OK, so I have read all of the posts and the referenced material. IMPO, this post is the most sensible. Traveler and rgp, both of you have little to no idea what it is that you are talking about. Neither of you know what the “rules” of engagement are and what protocol is to be followed. Most all police departments that I am aware of do have some sort of rules regarding when it is permissible for officers to draw their weapon and when they are permitted by department protocol as to when they are permitted to fire their weapon.

If I make a routine traffic stop for a burned out brake light, which is highly unlikely, but if I should, before I exit my vehicle, I will run his tag on my computer inside my car. If it comes back that there are no wants or warrants for the driver or the car was not stolen, I would then exit my car and if he would run, I’d let him run or I may give chase. If I don’t see a weapon, I would more than likely believe that he’s running because he has no license, insurance or other minor offense. You would not believe some of the reasons why people do what they do.

If if there was a “BOLO” or a warrant on the car or driver, that’s an all together different story and the procedure has now changed, including what I am trained to do with my weapon. (“BOLO is a Be On the Look Out.”)
Click to expand...


If you are a policeman, I do not need t tell you that running the tag, only tells you about the car....assuming that the car & the tag are a match. I does not tell you anything about the person driving the car. And [if] said person exits the car & starts fleeing, you have no idea just how dangerous he may be, &/or what he may be guilty of.

At that time a decision must be made by the officer. That decision his alone to make. I am not going to second guess him. Again....in every case i am aware of, he [the suspect] has had every opportunity to stop & did not.
 
Sunny, the police by and large are unarmed here...that is no lethal weapon, they do have batons, and mace sprays but they are largely unarmed ( except in Northern Ireand)... however they do have specialist armed units who are called on if needed.

if the police suspected a car was stolen and they gave chase then they would radio other patrol cars ahead who would employ the use of a stinger (or tyre strip) to bring the car to a halt , and the driver would be dragged out of the car and arrested..

if on the other hand there was a stop and check as in this case we're discussing now, and the driver ran off or attacked the officer , 90% of the time would give chase and arrest calling for backup , and if the car thief got away and they suspected he was involved in something more serious , a helicopter search , and a dog team would be employed to find him. Otherwise if it was just a simple stop, and the driver ran away...they'd just try and discover who the car belonged to...and he'd be arrested at a later date..
 
You Brits are indeed civilized. And how amazing that you don't have thousands of crazed killers running around as a result of the (relatively) unarmed police.

At least, I don't think you do. If you watch enough Netflix and Acorn murder mysteries, you might begin to wonder. ;)

Just trying to lighten things up here a bit. Seriously, rgp, if you are just trying to fan the flames of a heated discussion, you've succeeded. If you are really an advocate of the kind of stuff you are suggesting, you and your
ilk are frightening. Your philosophy on this really does sound like Nazi Germany.
 
rgp said:
If you are a policeman, I do not need t tell you that running the tag, only tells you about the car....assuming that the car & the tag are a match. I does not tell you anything about the person driving the car. And [if] said person exits the car & starts fleeing, you have no idea just how dangerous he may be, &/or what he may be guilty of.

At that time a decision must be made by the officer. That decision his alone to make. I am not going to second guess him. Again....in every case i am aware of, he [the suspect] has had every opportunity to stop & did not.
Click to expand...

Nonetheless, it does not give the officer a right to draw his weapon and shoot the man when the officer has no idea of any wrong doing.

Look, I am not going to be dragged into an argument over when a police officer has a "right" to fire his weapon because all of the when and wheres would take up too much space and time. Each officer is trained to obey his department's protocol as to when and in what situation their weapon may or should be used. The first thing that is always considered is public safety. Would I chase a speeding car through a city or a small town going 80 mph or higher, just to catch a speeder? Not likely, unless of course, there is a criminal element also involved.

Let's stick to the case that started this thread. Do you really believe that the officer was in his right, given all that you know now, to fire his weapon? If the officer followed his training and checked for wants, warrants and BOLO's before he exited his vehicle and found none, the driver committed no offense, other than to have a burned out taillight, why would he shoot at the driver? A police officer cannot shoot at a suspect(?) just because he may have committed a crime. The officer had better be darned sure he knows who he is shooting at. In today's society, it is just not done the way you have described.

The officer probably should have called for backup, given a description of the driver and the direction he was running and then given chase. And, the bottom line here is that the officer admitted at his sentencing that he was wrong and apologized to the family, which to me at least, goes a long way in allowing the family something to lean on and gives them at least a little peace.
 
applecruncher said:
911, aren't officers trained to aim for leg to stop person from running? Everyone who saw the video saw that Slager shot Mr. Scott in the back eight (8) times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/07/us/michael-slager-sentence-walter-scott.html
Click to expand...


Well, you're putting me on the spot. Again, it depends on the situation. If we are chasing a known suspect that has committed a serious offense, say a homicide, and he is firing at me, I am going to take the best shot that I can to stop him. There may be other policeman lurking here, so I hope that they understand that I am only trying to educate the public as to how police approach and handle situations. Here's what's taught at the academy. If your being shot at, you will return fire. Depending how far away from the victim you are, shooting to hit a leg may be very difficult. The torso is a much bigger target and so, that's where most police officers are taught to shoot.

If the police has a suspect cornered or barricaded in a building or home, it's handled differently. No one wants to be the first man through the door. That's when, in most cases, we will use a mediator and a SWAT team, that if necessary, will perform the extraction of the suspect. They are specially trained officers that wear special equipment that will hopefully repel any shots that may hit the SWAT team member. It's not a prestigious job, that's for certain.

In Slager's case, I just cannot give you an honest answer. I wish he wore a body or lapel camera and it would have been made public. All that I have to go on is what the testimony was and sometimes that varies by witness. I know that some officers will aim for a leg, but it's dependent upon the factors at the time. At the State Police Academy, we spend hours upon hours training the Cadets and Troopers the many different situations that they may find themselves in and what course of action should be used in each situation, but at the end of the day, if his or her life is threatened, then the officer has to make that ultimate decision as to what course of action they will take.

Personally, I have been shot at five time during my 37 year career. One time, there were several of us chasing two armed robbers that had just held up a bank and had an undetermined amount of cash in their possession. I was about two miles in front of their car coming toward them. I was ordered to lay down a spike strip or tire shredder as some call them, which I did. Then, I went about a mile back up the road turned my car 90 degrees and waited. When their car hit the spike strip, they saw me standing behind my open driver's door, so they exited their car and started to fire at me. Of course, as soon as I saw their gun and before they fired, I ducked down behind my car door. I had a .45 on my hip, but decided to use the shotgun due to how close we were. My fear was that one of them would try to come around the back of me. Just as I was ready to fire the shotgun, two more Troopers arrived. Once they knew the party was over, they surrendered.

I hope this helps you to understand that there is just too many situations when and when not to take that shot.
 
Sunny said:
Thanks for the sane summary, 911. Could you tell us what is the standard protocol for dealing with someone who unexpectedly starts running, with no weapon in view? Is there ever any justification for shooting him? You mention "if the car is not stolen," sometimes just letting him run. What if the car is stolen? Is shooting the suspect then considered OK? I'm not arguing, I'm really just curious. Do the rules given to the police vary from one jurisdiction to another?

I also wonder why in these situations the police don't seem to aim at their legs instead of an upper part of their body


Holly, I believe the police in England are unarmed. Is that true? If so, how would they deal with, say, a car thief?
Click to expand...


We don't shoot car thieves, unless they are also wanted for a more heinous crime, like a homicide. I read a story not too long ago about an officer following a car and he decided to run the tag. The tag came back that the car was stolen. We always also get a description of the car, just to make sure the car's tag matches up with the vehicle. We also get the VIN. We get the make, year and VIN. The officer turned on his lights and beeped his siren. The driver pulled over and began to run. The officer made a bad decision and fired at the suspect and hit him in the cervical area of his neck making him a paraplegic. He was found guilty and sentenced, but that's not the end of the story.

The suspect sued the officer and the police force. He won the suit and I believe it was somewhere between $4-6 million dollars. In fact, now that I think about it, the officer was actually a deputy sheriff in Florida.

It's not like the days back in the wild west where they were allowed to shoot or hang a horse thief.
 
Thank you Trooper 911 for giving us a calm, rational, view of proper procedure when a person runs away. At one time I lived in Pennsylvania and I know Pa State Troopers to be highly trained and professional. Other jurisdictions, however, are not necessarily as professional. This is especially true in the south.
But, whatever the jurisdiction, it is my strongly held belief that blacks are unfairly targeted by the police. A black man, driving late at night, is much more likely to be stopped for the slightest infraction of traffic laws, than a white man. Thus, we have what is widely known as "driving while black". It is this "targeting of blacks" that preceded the killing of the of the black driver. If ex-cop Slager had not stopped the black man for a burned out stop light then the unlawful killing never would have happened.
 
911 said:
Nonetheless, it does not give the officer a right to draw his weapon and shoot the man when the officer has no idea of any wrong doing.

Look, I am not going to be dragged into an argument over when a police officer has a "right" to fire his weapon because all of the when and wheres would take up too much space and time. Each officer is trained to obey his department's protocol as to when and in what situation their weapon may or should be used. The first thing that is always considered is public safety. Would I chase a speeding car through a city or a small town going 80 mph or higher, just to catch a speeder? Not likely, unless of course, there is a criminal element also involved.

Let's stick to the case that started this thread. Do you really believe that the officer was in his right, given all that you know now, to fire his weapon? If the officer followed his training and checked for wants, warrants and BOLO's before he exited his vehicle and found none, the driver committed no offense, other than to have a burned out taillight, why would he shoot at the driver? A police officer cannot shoot at a suspect(?) just because he may have committed a crime. The officer had better be darned sure he knows who he is shooting at. In today's society, it is just not done the way you have described.

The officer probably should have called for backup, given a description of the driver and the direction he was running and then given chase. And, the bottom line here is that the officer admitted at his sentencing that he was wrong and apologized to the family, which to me at least, goes a long way in allowing the family something to lean on and gives them at least a little peace.
Click to expand...


" If the officer followed his training and checked for wants, warrants and BOLO's before he exited his vehicle and found none, the driver committed no offense, other than to have a burned out taillight, why would he shoot at the driver? "

 All that information is about the license plate....It means nothing regarding the person. They are quite often not the same. Particularly in the criminal world.
 
Traveler said:
Thank you Trooper 911 for giving us a calm, rational, view of proper procedure when a person runs away. At one time I lived in Pennsylvania and I know Pa State Troopers to be highly trained and professional. Other jurisdictions, however, are not necessarily as professional. This is especially true in the south.
But, whatever the jurisdiction, it is my strongly held belief that blacks are unfairly targeted by the police. A black man, driving late at night, is much more likely to be stopped for the slightest infraction of traffic laws, than a white man. Thus, we have what is widely known as "driving while black". It is this "targeting of blacks" that preceded the killing of the of the black driver. If ex-cop Slager had not stopped the black man for a burned out stop light then the unlawful killing never would have happened.
Click to expand...


So because the driver was black...you want him [the officer] to ignore an infraction of the law ?

If the suspect had not fled, there would have been no killing.

Just curious, what other laws broken do you want police officers to ignore , just because the suspect is black ?
 
rgp said:
" If the officer followed his training and checked for wants, warrants and BOLO's before he exited his vehicle and found none, the driver committed no offense, other than to have a burned out taillight, why would he shoot at the driver? "

The answer is quite simple. Slager was a racist and thought he was above the law. I'd be willing to bet everything I own that Slager thought, as he exited his vehicle, "I got me another ni**er !"
Click to expand...
 
Traveler said:
rgp said:
" If the officer followed his training and checked for wants, warrants and BOLO's before he exited his vehicle and found none, the driver committed no offense, other than to have a burned out taillight, why would he shoot at the driver? "

The answer is quite simple. Slager was a racist and thought he was above the law. I'd be willing to bet everything I own that Slager thought, as he exited his vehicle, "I got me another ni**er !"
Click to expand...

So now....you are a mind reader ?
Click to expand...
 
RPG is sure going to a lot of trouble attempting to make excuses for a convicted murderer. The video evidence, testimony of an eye-witness and physical evidence is over-whelming, yet RPG continues to defend that killer cop. What can possibly be going through RPG's mind ? :confused: What ever it is, it is very sad. :(
 
Sunny said:
You Brits are indeed civilized. And how amazing that you don't have thousands of crazed killers running around as a result of the (relatively) unarmed police.

At least, I don't think you do. If you watch enough Netflix and Acorn murder mysteries, you might begin to wonder. ;)

Just trying to lighten things up here a bit. Seriously, rgp, if you are just trying to fan the flames of a heated discussion, you've succeeded. If you are really an advocate of the kind of stuff you are suggesting, you and your
ilk are frightening. Your philosophy on this really does sound like Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...



I cannot change your opinion on my philosophy...so I won't waste my time.

My 'philosophy' is...if the truth matters too you...I am sick & tired of crime & criminals, and their 'philosophy'/mantra...that if they run & get away, no harm - no foul , it's all good. Well it's not all good.

I am for getting them off the street . If it means that a few of them meet an early demise, at the hand of law enforcement I really don't care. DO NOT RUN....is all they need learn.

This guy Scott had a bench warrant , and was $18,000 behind in child support, he decided...let me say again, he decided....that was enough to make him bolt. Had he met & been meeting his responsibility all along,...very likely none of this , from the stop to his death would have ever happened....He killed himself.

Did officer Slager fall short of departmental protocol / procedure/training? I do not know, if he did ? that is an employment issue . I do not believe he set out that day to kill anyone, and I believe the charge of murder , and the sentence were just over the top. All this does is lead to a reduced quality of people that might enter into police work. Due to...the more level headed among those considering, to think...hell no why should I put myself in that potential trick bag.
 
Traveler said:
RPG is sure going to a lot of trouble attempting to make excuses for a convicted murderer. The video evidence, testimony of an eye-witness and physical evidence is over-whelming, yet RPG continues to defend that killer cop. What can possibly be going through RPG's mind ? :confused: What ever it is, it is very sad. :(
Click to expand...



It is no trouble at all...I feel I am defending a man that went to work that day, intending to protect us from the bad people, the criminals.

The video is a video of him doing just that. Trying to effect an arrest of a man that arrogantly thought that it was [he] that was above the law.
 
rgp said:
It is no trouble at all...I feel I am defending a man that went to work that day, intending to protect us from the bad people, the criminals.

The video is a video of him doing just that. Trying to effect an arrest of a man that arrogantly thought that it was [he] that was above the law.
Click to expand...


Strange way to arrest someone ! Put 8 slugs in his back. If I had been on the jury, I'd have voted for life in prison without any possible parole. 20 years locked up ? The killer cop got off easy.

However, some good MIGHT come of all this. Maybe, just maybe, a few thick-headed cops will get it through their heads that they can not kill someone unless they (the cops) are absolutely 100 % certain that the person they are shooting is a very serious criminal. Examples : escaped convicts, murderers, serial rapists, armed robbers, and other violent criminals. Being late on child support does not qualify as a danger to anyone and because he was running away from the cop, it is not possible that the cop thought his life was in any danger.
 
Traveler said:
Strange way to arrest someone ! Put 8 slugs in his back. If I had been on the jury, I'd have voted for life in prison without any possible parole. 20 years locked up ? The killer cop got off easy.

However, some good MIGHT come of all this. Maybe, just maybe, a few thick-headed cops will get it through their heads that they can not kill someone unless they (the cops) are absolutely 100 % certain that the person they are shooting is a very serious criminal. Examples : escaped convicts, murderers, serial rapists, armed robbers, and other violent criminals. Being late on child support does not qualify as a danger to anyone and because he was running away from the cop, it is not possible that the cop thought his life was in any danger.
Click to expand...



If I had been on the jury, I would have voted not guilty.

And if we support our police, maybe, just maybe the thugs will realize we the people are tired of their criminal ways.
 
rgp said:
If I had been on the jury, I would have voted not guilty.

And if we support our police, maybe, just maybe the thugs will realize we the people are tired of their criminal ways.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yeah, we get the idea. Do you have anything new to add, or are you just going to repeat yourself, over and over again. ?

I think this guy RPG is an embittered ex-cop who thinks we are still living in the old wild west. I've got news for him. It's the 21st century and it's time to stop murdering people just because a cop THINKS the poor guy MIGHT be a criminal.
Click to expand...
 
applecruncher said:
:yes:

So an unarmed person running away from someone is a threat? :rolleyes: What a crock.

His excuse was pure BS. GUILTY! :clap:
Click to expand...
If you can just turn and run away from the police with no fear of being stopped as long as you can out run them, then our system falls apart. I'm white (and I only say that because this is not about color) and have always known that if I did that I would likely get shot... how else can the police be effective? They have to be in control of situations.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top