so, carolina cop shooting

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

How the hell could it be argued otherwise?

Who are "they" and what are they supposed to stop? Cops shooting black guys? Hell, this is the first of the big profile cases since Ferguson that has any merit. And the cop is sitting behind bars waiting to be charged. Of course, that hasn't stopped people from protesting anyway. Or liberals like yourself trying to make an issue out of this case then there is none.

He's not that liberal. He lives in Idaho and is super pro-gun.

sir, I am not a liberal, and they I refer to are police, and I happen to believe some are murderers, and many have killed innocent people because of no videos being on the scene.

now, you have your opinion, and I have mine. why do you constantly accuse those who disagree with you of being liberals?

Well, your approach to this latest case is decidedly liberal. And many cops have killed innocent people? You really believe that?



I don't automatically call people I disagree with liberals. Liberals simply are often people I disagree with.

You quite clearly said in another thread that you are a Democrat, doesn't mean your Liberal or not. It does explain why Ivy could get the Impression that you are, without him having to acknowledge your existence, something i'm regretting doing since I've looked at the threads you've started, as well as the baseless theories you've accepted.

I truly think you are one of the most kneejerk posters in this sites history, and that's saying something.

I apologize for anything I've said that offends, and of course delete anything you see as sniping!

Stossel could have sued him for that. David Schultz lost his job over it, and he deserved it for sucker hitting Stossel. On the other hand, this is how the Taker acts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U91MEWG2zHQ

Yes the wrestler did a job on John. He hit him a lot of times. he never sued him I doubt that.

My favorite on Fox is the real fox Megyn Kelly

The thing to note about the clip is that Stossel is a natural born journalist... he NEVER dropped the mic.
Open handed smack(s) did wipe the smug look off his face though.
It made for great tv , which is what I think Stossel was fishing for by asking Dr. D THAT question in front of a tv camera.

Wow. You actually regret acknowledging someone's very existence?

That's deep. Do you think Binnie bothered to read your post?

Stossel tried to get him to say wrestling was fake. The red neck disagreed. If Waldo won Erick is still kicking I wonder what he would have don to John. I saw Erick get stabbed in the old garden because someone did not like nazi's real or fake.

this guy was shot in the back, and the cop belongs in jail blah blah blah. I agree with all that but the guy was shot in the back while running away during a routine traffic stop. why did he do this? because in typical fashion he was way behind in child support and there was a warrant out for his arrest and he didn't want to go to jail. the truth is if he had done the right thing and faced the music, or had been man enough to take care of his kids in the first place he would still be alive today. this cop could rot in jail for eternity for all I care and he probably will, but this guy is just another "fallen angel" just like Micheal Brown and Trayvon Martin before him. but it is refreshing that the family is keeping the Sharpton circus away from them.

Hopefully this guy cops a quick plea and this case goes nowhere. The flames will get ignited if it carries on.



While I agree wrestling is fake, to call it that does not acknowledge the grueling physical year round schedule that these goes go through. It is immensely physical, and ex pro wrestlers see the same physical and psychological issues that ex pro football players see.

So I can see why that wrestler got mad. He could have handled it better, however, when your pumped full of so much adrenaline and steroids things happen.

@Foot,

Dr. D was wrong...but what he should have said was
"Mr. Mcgee, don't make me angry...you wouldn't like me when I'm angry".





and are you taling about Baron Von Rasche?

You think Trayvon Martin was an angel? Maybe he was.

Yes I agree the white/spanish guy did not need to shoot him. I also think Martin had no intention of killing him.

But most people in a fight will use what you have against someone who is beating them up

I was being sarcastic, obviously from what has come out both trayvon, Micheal, and now this new guy were far from innocents they were/are portrayed to be.

On Martin he's he is being followed and does not like it. No body who has done nothing wrong with like it.

So he calls the other guy out. The other guys is losing the fight so he shoots the kid.

No I am taking about this guy

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://youtu.be/qvRXJg8Ph_U

thank you alfa, I appreciate that very much. no, I never read that boys post, im not insulted- I just consider the source.

della, im glad you are not a cop in my town! or any town.

thanks

Never heard of this guy. Only Nazi wrestling villain I remember was the Baron...and I thought I knew all of the Von Erichs. Funny seeing a young Jay Strongbow. My days as a fan began when Backlund beat Superstar Billy Graham for the belt. That's the clip they used to air in the wwf intro.I can believe that a fan went overboard and attacked Waldo.
During the end of the cold war....the Iron Sheik and Nikolai Volkoff(actually Italian) were assaulted by fans

Iv-ran numbver one...Vrussia numbver one!!!!

I don't watch wrestling anymore but the political shows on cable are the exact same thing.

there would be a lot less criminals walking around Ill tell you that.

well, then again. that might not be bad! but no 7 shots in the back. ok.

Doesn't matter what the guys history was in this case, yes he did run but did he deserve 6 or 7 to the back? Hell no. The cop should be hammered and rightfully so.

Even if he grabbed the taser at one point he didn't have it when he ran.

First off Trayvon Martin did nothing wrong he was hanging out at a gas station with a hoodie on and some wannabe cop stalked him and followed him with a gun even after police on the radio told that clown Zimmerman not too.. So wat if Trayvon had some weed in his system shits bout to be legal none of u ever not puff on Chron b4!!! they sd of fried zimmermann!!! Fergeson mayb the cop was justified sounds like it but for all u guy this Carolina cop sd rot put his dumass in Gen POP for being so stupid DELLACROCE so wat if the guy ran u cant just fucken shoot ne body all that retard cop had to do was call backup as hes chasing him on his radio like they train him cops wd be there in secs set up a perimeter they got him!!!

This is why part of the reason Zimmermen got off. He had a cut in the back if the head. He got that when he was pushed to the curb and cut his head.

Then they saw is blackened eyes. He got that when his head hit the curb not from being hit in the face.

Hit someone from behind with something their eyes could blacken. It does not mean they were hit in the front.

Bring someone into emergency they think he was hit in the front. I called it raccoon eyes.

Later a real doctor who knows his stuff will check the patients cheek bones. They will see their are no breaks and realize he was hit in the back and not the front.

But the cops are trying to make a case against Trayvon so they disregard that or they were never told that.

I would love to know what is on the medical report not from the emergency room but from a real doctor. He is dead so the emergency room report might have said he was hit from the front.

The funeral was held yesterday in N. Charleston and sadly, the minister told mourners that it was because of a racist cop that killed him. This inflammatory language especially from a minister is just wrong. At this point there is nothing to show that the cop was racist. I guess it is just assumed in some communities that all cops are racist which isn't true at all. Now, this AM I see that Sharpton is on the way there to fan the flames. Also I was told that the victims family asked him to stay away. This shooting was totally unnecessary since the police had the mans Mercedes. And if he can afford a Mercedes Benz, why can't he pay his child support

Im not defending what the cop did, far from it. there was a million other ways to handle that situation. but you cant deny the fact that if he just stayed in his car like a regular fucking person would during a traffic stop, or had not been a dead beat fucking dad and taken care of his kids in the first place we wouldn't be having this conversation.

the same thing goes for Trayvon. yeah Zimmerman shouldn't have been following him, but all Trayvon had to do was turn around and have a normal 30 second conversation with the guy explaining what he was doing and they both would have gone their separate ways. but no he had to have his thug mentality and jump straight into a fight and with that type of mentality it was just a matter of time before someone shot him. and its a sad but true testament about our country right now but if Zimmerman's skin was just a couple of shades darker(or had Trayvon's been a couple of shades lighter) nobody would have given two fucks about the Trayvon shooting, but since Zimmerman was awfully pale for a Mexican(and he may have been half white?) Trayvon instantly became a martyr against da white devil

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.

and just who is saying anything to the contrary of any of your "points", nice strawman argument. I can just assume your posts was made towards me because I had the audacity to speak badly about this poor fallen angel. ofcourse his personal circumstances have everything to do with it seeing that if he didn't have warrant for his arrest he wouldn't have ran and hence wouldn't have gotten shot. but I guess that's to much common sense for a liberal to understand.

As for your ridiculous comment about aiming for the arm or legs, as an avid gun owner myself I can say with confidence there isn't a cop on earth who is trained to shoot anywhere else but the chest. why? bc its the biggest target aiming for anything else just increases the risk of missing the target and having a civilian being hit with a stray.

but that's all a moot point anyway bc I can agree that no shots should've been fired in the first place. it just bothers me when people say why couldn't they have shot them in the leg? or just shoot the gun out of their hand!(not that this guy had a gun, im just speaking generally) bc its obvious that person is talking out of their ass and never had any real weapons training.

@Dell,

this is your full quote in the thread about "what is a criminal"

lol I don't quite remember making that post but I guess I did, and far be it for me to second guess myself. afterall a Dellacroce divided against itself cannot stand. but come on, as someone else said, a guy who's driving around in a benz but wont pay child support, as we know "a man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man."

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

Lol ofcourse you do

I hate that 'if you don't run you won't die' argument. Not everyone is gonna be a good little german. When fight or flight kicks in, you might choose to run. It's been happening forever like that. With the draconian sentences handed down in America, I can hardly blame people for taking their chances

He still shouldn't have sucker smacked him like that. In the ring they slap on the cheek and other parts to avoid causing lasting damage, plus you know it's coming. David Schultz slapped him on his ears then chased him after he got up and hit him more, off camera. He actually damaged Stossel's inner ears and he did sue. He settled with the WWF for $425,000. Schultz apologized to Stossel and to the WWF, but was fired, deservedly so. Still, it worked out for Schultz, he tried wrestling in a foreign league for a while then became a very successful bounty hunter.

And you might get shot in the back.

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.

And the cop might get charged with murder, since that is murder...

no argument there. that cop deserves a life sentence.

Anyone who brings up shooting them in the leg, etc, has absolutely no clue about firearms, law enforcement, hell even good criminals know better! If you unholster your sidearm and aim it at someone, shoot to kill or don't bother. Otherwise your simply making a bad situation worse. Plus hitting someone in an appendage, especially when they are a moving target is really difficult. People watch too many movies. Not to mention, gunshots to the femoral artery are often fatal due to lose of blood. Few perps deserve to be shot in the back while running away, but anyone that makes a comment about "why don't they shoot them in the leg", is probably too ignorant to be posting here!

True. Cops don't (and shouldn't) do leg shots. But they use that as an excuse for killing people who are no threat. Sometimes the guy gets away... it happens. Can't just kill everyone who runs. This isn't north korea

Hulk Hogan dropped Geraldo on his head once and was subject to legal action.

And the only reason I brought up the whole "shooting him in the limbs" thing is because the victim was running so slowly. This wasn't a high speed chase. The cop had time and the victim was in close enough proximity for the cop to shoot to destabilize him and not shoot to kill.

But then again, the cop should have just ran after him to begin with.

If he is too f*ing lazy to commence a chase on foot, then he shouldn't be a cop to begin with. He should be working at a desk.

There is something called recoil. You aim for a guy's legs you end hitting him in the back or chest.

reporter in Mexico, basically asks for the Stossel treatment asking Cowboy Bob Orton's son stupid questions.

Not that I'm advocating leg shots as a policy, but for recoil making you hit feet off the mark, a trained cop should hit what he aims for. If he goes for a leg and hits a chest due to recoil, he must have slept through training

So all cops are snipers?

Good to know.

ALL cops went thru weapons training yes.. and if they're gonna be carrying guns, I would hope they don't miss a slow moving target 10 feet away by a matter of feet. You don't exactly need to be a sniper for that

Dude, just drop it. There is no police station in the country that has a policy for shooting anything but the torso. This is well documented and it's not going to change. The reasons for this are legitimate.

When you wrote that the cop should have chased after him, yes, you were right on that point. He should have chased him, but he got pissed off and killed Walter Scott.

What's interesting though is that during the early 1900s it WAS policy to shoot fleeing suspects. If a cop told a suspect to stop and he didn't, the cop was allowed to shoot him in the back. Happened often.

Dude, the posts you're talking about have nothing to do with policy. Go read a few back. It was about the idea that a cop would aim for a leg and hit a chest instead because of recoil. Go read the first sentence of my post again

Recoil and other factors. When a target is moving it isnt that easy to get the site... oh fuck it i'm not going to explain it to you.

Ahh now the other factors come in to play. You may actually have a point with other factors involved. But your first post was clearly talking about recoil and only recoil. Anyone with minor training can account for recoil.

Fair enough.

You may think it has nothing to do with policy, but it absolutely does. The recoil and other factors that ItalianForever has been trying to explain to you all go in to policy, and this policy is not only standard for police departments, but also training academies throughout the country. So when a cop is pulling out his piece and is about to fire, he or she knows (or is supposed to know based on training) the physical reasons involved as well as the policy and legal reasons. Police officers are required to follow their training AND policy, and policy has the force of law.

There is just something about a big guy intimidating a small guy that I don't like. Does that supposed to mean the big guy has balls?

I would love to see him do that with the wrong small guy and see what happens. Like maybe the small guy would pay a visit to this guys father and fuck him up.

Agreed with you and Faithful. People are ignorant to say "why didn't he shoot the gun out of his hand" or "why didn't he shoot his leg". That shit is laughable.

When you shoot, you shoot to kill. This ain't no movie where everything is set up and everybody is hitting a string with a pistol from 300 yards which is a freaking joke.

Yea I laugh at him talking crap to that little dude and trying to bully him, yet the WWE is trying to take a stance against it. Go figure. Like you said, it would have been funny if he slapped Orton and knocked him on his ass.

how the incident was eventually resolved

http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Sergeant-in-slapping-video-due-in-court-Tuesday-6125415.php

New story from the big guy bullying little guy files




Published on Apr 15, 2015

The latest incident: a clip showing veteran Denver police officer Choice Johnson shoving an apparently passive LoDo patron down some stairs.

The act has earned Johnson a thirty-day suspension.


The incident took place this past July 26 outside 1Up, a popular arcade, bar and restaurant located at 1925 Blake Street.

According to 7News, which has the scoop on the story, Brandon Schreiber, 29, was celebrating the bachelor party of his brother at the venue.

By 11:30 p.m. that evening, Schreiber's brother was asleep at the bar, having apparently overindulged, and as a couple of security guards were in the process of escorting him outside, a report accessed by the station says the man "verbally challenged" one of the bouncers.

At that point, Officer Johnson, an eleven-year veteran of the DPD who was working an off-duty gig at 1Up, took control of the situation, cuffing Schreiber's brother and calling for a vehicle that would carry him to detox.


Outside, Schrieber tried to talk Johnson into releasing his brother in a conversation that ended with the officer knocking Schrieber backward down some stairs with a two-handed shove.

In his report about the incident, Johnson claimed that Schrieber had taken "a fighting posture, 'pushed his chest out in a defensive manner' and told him 'Don't put your hands on me,'" 7News points out, quoting the report.

However, the footage clearly demonstrates that Schreiber was standing in place with his hands in his pockets at the time he was sent flying.

Statements from the disciplinary order against Johnson include: "He makes no threatening gestures or movements toward Officer Johnson.... The video does not support Officer Johnson’s claim that (Schreiber) ‘pushed his chest out in a defensive manner."


Schreiber was arrested after hitting the deck and charged with resisting police and interfering with a police officer. But those charges were dropped, and Schreiber has contacted an attorney who advised him not to comment for the 7News story.

As for Johnson, his thirty-day suspension begins on April 19.

Johnson's career with the DPD has seen highs and lows. 7News notes that he's received sixteen commendations, but been the recipient of six prior disciplinary actions.

Kind of makes you wonder how many police reports have been falsified since police have been writing them.

@F1,

yeah,I figure that police unions, if they have a say, are going to be against CCTV and bodycams because eventually all the cameras may reduce the need to have as many cops on the beat. Unions are not going to work against their own interests but as more and more of these cases of cops exposed for lying on reports surface, going to harder for them to justify opposition to body cams.