http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/mich...YX3?ocid=HPCDHP


how is fox news going to spin this cop murder?

They haven't Binnie. They have all condemned this shooting by the police officer. Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reily and Megan Kelly all have condemned the shooting.

that's great to hear. god, are they ever going to stop!

Not into the republican persuasion eh? Can take the man out of So. Cal but can't take the So. Cal out of the man

Don't like to judge things until all the facts come out. But, Ill say this: Based upon what I know at this point, this cop deserves to go to prison for the rest of his life.

Putting cameras on the police is a great idea, specially for the cops that are rightfully doing their job. Without that video the cop could have made up any story about that shooting, even if there was an eye witness. That video looks like the cop did throw something down by the body, probably was the taser that he had earlier used. Shooting a guy in the back while fleeing is just wrong. I wonder if shooting someone in the back while fleeing is justified if the guy had just killed someone or had wounded the officer.

Who is going to pay for that? If these activists are so gung hoe about this, then they should write checks for the cameras. It's not fair to make taxpayers pay the bill for the cameras.

hey, I get you, up here in Idaho its republican all the way, you can't believe how conservative. we democrats are almost underground. barely have a voice.

It is only the rich tax payers who have the pay. The rest don't have to pay for anything.

Don't believe they are all lying you know how fox always lie because someone told you.

Taxpayers money is going to these civil servants who(not all) constantly violate constitutional rights and feel the are above the law. Cameras are definitely need to keep the gestapo in order



Just joking with you.

now, that's not true foots, everybody pays taxes. the rich have tax shelters, the middle class doesn't

Good luck with that. 0% chance that get's passed in any state legislature. And the feds sure as hell ain't passing that. And if they do, good luck enforcing it without appropriating money for the states to purchase the cameras.

Edit: Actually, California and the northeastern states probably will pass it.

If a video had not existed, this cop would have covered it up by claiming that he struggled with the guy over his taser. If you take the case in Ferguson, the cop would have been acquited earlier and less violence and destruction would have occurred, if the cop had a camera filming Michael Brown attacking him.
On a side note, I would rather pay for a cop's camera than for an Obama phone anyday.

Not all and extremely few. A small minority of cops give the rest a bad name. How about before we go and pass emergency legislation, we actually consider the consequences. Passing laws in a rush is never a good idea. It's the same thing with Obama Care and Gun Control. All reactionary liberal tactics.

Well I did say not all but most police officers have to problem violating peoples rights when someone doesn't comply with their orders.

Having a cameras on these civil servants is not reactionary and not even on the same level as gun control

I'm glad we agree.

Having a cameras on these civil servants is not reactionary and not even on the same level as gun control [/quote]

Yes it is reactionary. Changing the law for a few incidents (Yes, its a few, its just reported every time in national news) is reactionary. It is reactionary just like Gun Control because politicians try to exploit these tragedies to get legislation passed.

Let me ask you, if we put cameras on these cops, should we make it that every time someone is killed they release the video? What are you going to do when you find out that the vast majority of the time, the cop was acting properly?

Well it should surprise you that it is not reactionary for me, because this shooting and the one before it have nothing to do with my feelings on police cameras. They aren't changing my mind one way or the other, you are just assuming it is for some reason. I happen to record every police interaction I have for my protection and I tell people to do the same.

The video doesn't have to be released why do I have to see it? What does that have to do with anything?

That's fine.

As far as releasing the footage, I think if we are going to force cops to wear cameras, that the taxpayers should be able to see for themselves what percentage of incidents are not justified. I think it's only fair. When you have a program of this kind, we should be able to make a determination, after it has been in effect for a little while, whether it's worth having. And seeing the video every time something like a killing happens, would provide us taxpayers with the data we need.

As far as recording your own encounters, I would ask the following: How often are you interacting with police that you feel it necessary to record those interactions? And if it is often, what is causing those interactions?

Once something like that is implemented I can't guarantee but I will tell you will see arrests, complaints against the department and violent encounters will decrease. Finding out whether a police shooting is justifiable or not is a not the point, it is keeping the police accountable for all interactions.



I am a law abiding citizen but no matter the situation I always do it

You're a white kid. If you're getting pulled over alot then you're doing something wrong. To imply that you're not, is to insult the legitimate plight of blacks in this country who are pulled over for no other reason than they are black.

White yes, kid maybe I am 28 you could define that age as a kid

I never said I was pulled over a lot you did you are assuming things. It doesn't matter how often or the reason(neither are your business which is why I deliberately said I am a law abiding citizen, meaning I do not break the law) police should be held accountable during all interactions which is something I believe.

Having cameras on police would benefit the plight of the black community so don't make me laugh. A camera on a police officer protects them as much as it indict them

I don't know how any one could be against having cameras on cops, it could save a lot of lives.

maybe making them think before they shoot.

Sounds like you want Fox to defend the cop because you hate Fox so much. I watch MSNBC once in a while and don't automatically assume that everything they say is knee-jerk anti-cop (although often they are), and I don't assume that everything on Fox is knee-jerk pro-cop.

The difference that I notice is that MSNBC has a lot of hosts who tend to make judgments before all the evidence is in while the hosts on Fox tend to go with the evidence. The one recent killing where I disagree with some of the hosts was on Eric Garner, although Sean Hannity did say that the cop put pressure on Garner's back and said he believed that killed him, which I agree with. Personally, the only Fox hosts that I really like are Greta van Susteren, John Stossel and Neil Cavuto.

those are good hosts, maybe its difficult being a news host.

I do think its a good think we are moving away from network news. I think that's positive,

This cop is a scumbag, theres no way you can defend him.

Now this is a case where I can see why people are pissed and protesting. Totally different than that thug Michael Brown.

yup, if he gets cut loose, look out. and justifiably so.

I've been fighting with people on Facebook about this all day, so I'll simply say my piece and see my way out of here.. This was murder. 100%. There can be no justification for shooting a guy 8 times in his back unless he's hurting an innocent person at the time

blacksheep, good post, short and to the point.

I could not agree more.

Don't know if you've ever seen this clip, but with your avatar you probably have.


saw this live on 20/20 as a kid