Police Shoot Another Unarmed Man in the Back, Where is the Outrage?

[ltorlo64]

Where is the outrage? I have been waiting for a week to hear how horrible and unjustified it was for a police officer to shoot a fleeing, unarmed, suspect in the back. Instead of cries for the officers firing and calls for him to be tried for attempted murder he is hailed as a hero. The suspect was running away and was not armed, well except for the Pop Tarts that he was carrying. A few months ago after another police officer shot a fleeing suspect in the back this was all you heard. We had a thread going here where it multiple people stated that “shooting a fleeing suspect in the back is never justified, it is indefensible, it is murder.” Now it has happened again and there is acceptance that the officer did the right thing. How could this shooting be acceptable while the one in South Carolina is not? Is it because this time both the police officer and the suspect shot are white? Or could it be in this instance we had a more complete picture of how dangerous the suspect was so we agree that the suspect needed to be stopped using any means possible, even if the suspect for the moment was unarmed. Maybe if we been given a more complete picture of what happened in South Carolina instead of just a 10 second video clip of the end of the altercation we would be hailing that officer as a hero as well. I think the officer did the right thing in NY by shooting the suspect and prison escapee while he ran away. I just want to know why there is no outrage from everyone else this time.

[alismith]

Where is the outrage? I have been waiting for a week to hear how horrible and unjustified it was for a police officer to shoot a fleeing, unarmed, suspect in the back. Instead of cries for the officers firing and calls for him to be tried for attempted murder he is hailed as a hero. The suspect was running away and was not armed, well except for the Pop Tarts that he was carrying. A few months ago after another police officer shot a fleeing suspect in the back this was all you heard. We had a thread going here where it multiple people stated that “shooting a fleeing suspect in the back is never justified, it is indefensible, it is murder.” Now it has happened again and there is acceptance that the officer did the right thing. How could this shooting be acceptable while the one in South Carolina is not? Is it because this time both the police officer and the suspect shot are white? Or could it be in this instance we had a more complete picture of how dangerous the suspect was so we agree that the suspect needed to be stopped using any means possible, even if the suspect for the moment was unarmed. Maybe if we been given a more complete picture of what happened in South Carolina instead of just a 10 second video clip of the end of the altercation we would be hailing that officer as a hero as well. I think the officer did the right thing in NY by shooting the suspect and prison escapee while he ran away. I just want to know why there is no outrage from everyone else this time.

Your question provides the answer, as far as the CMSM is concerned. It's not worthy of news coverage because the person who was shot was white. There's no one to get riled up to righteous indignation, who will then protest and riot. Therefore, not newsworthy. This incident provided no future news to cover and take out of context. It, simply, did not fit the leftist agenda.

[ltorlo64]

So we have further proof that the MSM is racist and only see news as worthwhile if there is a racial component. They do not see right and wrong, just color of skin.

[shorthair]

So we have further proof that the MSM is racist and only see news as worthwhile if there is a racial component. They do not see right and wrong, just color of skin.

That is true. I've been waiting for the outrage. But who is going to call them out. They control who gets on their programs, so no one can call them out. They ignore other media that doesn't march to their tune.

[TEN-32]

The race component is missing, yes. But more importantly this is a convicted murderer, escaped from prison. Death warrant signed, sealed and delivered under deadly force rules of engagement.

[ltorlo64]

The race component is missing, yes. But more importantly this is a convicted murderer, escaped from prison. Death warrant signed, sealed and delivered under deadly force rules of engagement.

So in some cases shooting an unarmed suspect in the back is alright. You and I were on the same side of this argument before, so I think I know your answer. I am waiting on others who said under no circumstances was it ever right to weigh in.

[Dan Morris]

A happy ending! ^^^^^^
Dan

[Schuetzenman]

The race component is missing, yes. But more importantly this is a convicted murderer, escaped from prison. Death warrant signed, sealed and delivered under deadly force rules of engagement.

This.

The black man shot in SC was not an escaped convicted murderer with an all points bulletin out on him. He was stopped for a busted tail light I think it was and he had back alimony or child support issues.

[ltorlo64]

This.

The black man shot in SC was not an escaped convicted murderer with an all points bulletin out on him. He was stopped for a busted tail light I think it was and he had back alimony or child support issues.

And he ran and then fought with the officer possibly managing to shoot the officer with his own tazer before running again. The only part of the altercation we were shown was the shooting. What he was stopped for and what he was shot for are two different things. In fact, the initial reports that were broadcast by the MSM made it sound as if the officer got tired of chasing the suspect so he just shot him.

Had we been given all the facts in the first case instead of just the part of the video that showed the shooting most people would have responded to it as they are responding to this, the police officer did his job. Instead, the only facts released were that the officer was white and that the suspect was black, unarmed, and running away which left out some very important items as I noted above.

[TEN-32]

What is important to remember is the totality of the circumstances AND what information was known to the officer at the time he dropped the hammer. What we learn after the fact is largely irrelevant in terms of the judgement to shoot or not to shoot.

[ltorlo64]

What is important to remember is the totality of the circumstances AND what information was known to the officer at the time he dropped the hammer. What we learn after the fact is largely irrelevant in terms of the judgement to shoot or not to shoot.

Exactly. Too many people jumped on the incident in South Carolina based on a video taken out of context and did not take into account the entire interaction between the two. If the officer knows the person is violent and willing to fight with and try to disable the officer that needs to be taken into account when deciding if he should have fired. In the South Carolina incident that needs to be investigated and should have been investigated before the officer was fired. As I said earlier, I think the officer in NY did right. My point in this whole thread was to show that sometimes it is acceptable, and even necessary for an officer to shoot a suspect in the back and the incident in NY is a great example of when it is. It is not the only time it is appropriate, but it was definitely appropriate this time.

[JTHunter]

ltorlo64 - do you have a link to your story in the OP?
Where and when did this happen? In what newspaper or on which TV news station was this reported?

[ltorlo64]

ltorlo64 - do you have a link to your story in the OP?
Where and when did this happen? In what newspaper or on which TV news station was this reported?

It happened last Sunday in New York, near the Canadian border. You will never hear the words that the officer shot the suspect, David Sweat, in the back. What you will read is that when the office who shot him told him to come to him, Mr. Sweat turned and ran away (a good example is in the third paragraph of this article http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/29/ny...shot.html?_r=0). If Mr. Sweat was running away from the officer the only place he could be shot is in the back.

Here is the Reuters story (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0P80TT20150628) from the same day. Both of these stories came out within hours of Mr. Sweat's apprehension.

[ltorlo64]

ltorlo64 - do you have a link to your story in the OP?
Where and when did this happen? In what newspaper or on which TV news station was this reported?

There were also news reports on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, etc. Here are some more links.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/york-prison...ry?id=31648706

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/escape...n-to-hospital/

[TEN-32]

Exactly. Too many people jumped on the incident in South Carolina based on a video taken out of context and did not take into account the entire interaction between the two. If the officer knows the person is violent and willing to fight with and try to disable the officer that needs to be taken into account when deciding if he should have fired. In the South Carolina incident that needs to be investigated and should have been investigated before the officer was fired. As I said earlier, I think the officer in NY did right. My point in this whole thread was to show that sometimes it is acceptable, and even necessary for an officer to shoot a suspect in the back and the incident in NY is a great example of when it is. It is not the only time it is appropriate, but it was definitely appropriate this time.

I was in the "bad shoot" camp on the SC traffic stop shooting. I still think it was totally unnecessary.

[ltorlo64]

I was in the "bad shoot" camp on the SC traffic stop shooting. I still think it was totally unnecessary.

But you were not in the "shooting in the back is always a bad shoot" category. I have not made up my mind on the SC shooting, I don't think we still have enough information. What I know is that the officer did not just shoot the guy because he didn't want to chase him, there is much more to the story. It may exonerate the officer or it may seal his fate, I am willing to wait for all the evidence to come out, or, and this is more likely, to accept the verdict of the jury.

[TEN-32]

But you were not in the "shooting in the back is always a bad shoot" category. I have not made up my mind on the SC shooting, I don't think we still have enough information. What I know is that the officer did not just shoot the guy because he didn't want to chase him, there is much more to the story. It may exonerate the officer or it may seal his fate, I am willing to wait for all the evidence to come out, or, and this is more likely, to accept the verdict of the jury.

Yes on all counts. However we cannot know the unknowable. Based upon all the monday morning qb facts in that case I just cannot find any reasonable/legal justification to shoot the guy. Believe me I have tried. Worst case scenario, he grabbed for the taser. At the time of the shooting he had released the taser and was running empty handed away creating distance. Threat is gone. Chase or do not chase, but can't shoot him. Hell, you have his car and you know who he is. Go get a warrant and pick him up later at your leisure.

[ltorlo64]

Have you seen the pictures that seem to show the tazer darts sticking out of the officers uniform? As you were a police officer I hold your opinion on this in high regard. If it is found that the suspect did shoot the tazer at the officer does that change your feelings on this?

[TEN-32]

Have you seen the pictures that seem to show the tazer darts sticking out of the officers uniform? As you were a police officer I hold your opinion on this in high regard. If it is found that the suspect did shoot the tazer at the officer does that change your feelings on this?

I have not seen those photos. I have "ridden the lightning" though and I can tell you that I wanted to shoot the sonofabitch that hit the switch...LOL. It is incapacitating and very painful. Still, when the juice stops, the effects stop...immediately. So it would most likely still not change the threat level of an unarmed assailant retreating. One major variable or "what if" that would change the equation is if he had shot the guy before he got tazed but after he was disarmed. Bad guy takes taser and brandishes it=shoot bad guy. I HATE being a MMQB but its just how I see this one. Objectively its no good.

We have a couple other cops on here. Hopefully they will weigh in. I'm interested to hear other view points.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

So in some cases shooting an unarmed suspect in the back is alright. You and I were on the same side of this argument before, so I think I know your answer. I am waiting on others who said under no circumstances was it ever right to weigh in.

Won't hear it from me. Fleeing VIOLENT Felon likely to harm others is fair game IMO.