Originally Posted By: Binnie_Coll
Originally Posted By: Moe_Tilden
I'm pretty sure cops are supposed to use lethal force only if their life is in danger.

This cop's life wasn't in danger.

If he was shooting him in the leg or arm to subdue him like he should have been trained, then that is fair enough - but he shot him several times, calculatedly, with lethal force.

The cop didn't even have to shoot him to begin with. The victim was running so lethargically, he easily could have been caught if pursued.

But the real smoking gun here is the fact that the cop tried to plant evidence beside the victim.

Would any of you honestly want this guy protecting or serving you? God knows how much evidence has been tampered with before cameraphones became so ubiquitous.

I don't know what the victim's personal circumstances have to do with anything.

The cop has been in trouble before for not paying child support so he is just as much of a deadbeat as the victim allegedly was.


that was a great post moe, I feel exactly as you do.


A lot of people complain about why cops don't shoot to wound or why cops don't shoot the hands or arms or legs. They are trained to shoot to the torso, to the center of gravity. They don't shoot at extremities because they are smaller targets and are easier to miss and may hit someone else, and may not stop the threat.

You're correct that cops are supposed to shoot if they are in fear for their lives (a common phrase that they use in court), or that there's an immediate danger to others. With this guy in SC there was no danger, which is why that cop is being charged with murder. Too bad it took a guy with a camera to bring an arrest, but cameras are the wave of the future. Cameras will protect good cops and put bad ones away.

Last edited by Faithful1; 04/12/15 12:53 PM.