American police killed more people in March than all the people police killed in the UK in 115 years.

http://www.alternet.org/american-police-killed-more-people-march-111-entire-uk-police-have-killed-1900

A total of 111 people were killed by police in the United States in March of 2015. Since 1900, in the entire United Kingdom, 52 people have been killed by police.

Yeah. Those numbers are real.

A total of 111 people were killed by police in the United States in March of 2015. Since 1900, in the entire United Kingdom, 52 people have been killed by police.

Don't bother adjusting for population differences, or poverty, or mental illness, or anything else. The sheer fact that American police kill TWICE as many people per month as police have killed in the modern history of the United Kingdom is sick, preposterous, and alarming.

I agree.

" You get the same order of criminality from any State to which you give power to exercise it; and whatever power you give the State to do things for you carries with it the equivalent power to do things to you." Nock

"If law enforcement agencies feel they have a need to be allowed to purchase an item for use then I as a private citizen should have the same right. Otherwise said items use should be restricted to the military and martial law should be declared in disaster areas to maintain control."
Damaged Eagle

NOTE: I doubt the military will cooperate with a President and/or Congress that attempt to declare martial law across the nation unless it was an extreme situation.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww5GXbk58R0

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/man-jailed-filming-eric-garners-death-eat-rat-poison-prisons-food/

According to The Guardian, homicide rates attributed to guns is much higher in the U.S.A.

Per every 100,000 residents, England/Wales had .07 gun homicides... U.S.A. Had 2.97

Gun ownership, per every 100 people in the U.S.A. is 88... England/Wales was 6.2

Obviously, a suspect stopped by police in the U.S.A. has a greater chance of possessing a gun.

However, this doesn't obviate the need for police to verify a suspect's possession of a gun before blasting away.

The uk has very restrictive gun laws... see knife statistics.

Just violent crime stats are probably more meaningful.

Just saw (ABC National News) of the video of the cop killing a man running away from the officer. Officer fired 5 or 6 shots, one into the back one into the buttock of the victim.

Officer to be charged with murder.

Is it because of the video????

The officer said the usual thing... he felt threatened because he said the perp had his taser...

Only thing is, the video clearly shows the deceased running away and absolutely no threat to the murderer.

They don't post the video, but here is a pic of the murder.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video-cited-police-murder-charges-shows-officer-shooting/story?id=30137525

Baffling... I wonder just what training is accomplishing... or what it's intended to.

http://natmonitor.com/2015/04/08/outrage-as-n-d-pot-using-college-student-found-dead-after-police-turn-him-into-drug-informant/

Eric wrote:

Just saw (ABC National News) of the video of the cop killing a man running away from the officer.  Officer fired 5 or 6 shots, one into the back one into the buttock of the victim.  

Officer to be charged with murder.  

Is it because of the video????

The officer said the usual thing... he felt threatened because he said the perp had his taser...

Only thing is, the video clearly shows the deceased running away and absolutely no threat to the murderer.

Absolutely NOT simply because of the video....there was evidence on the victim that gave proof that the victim was indeed shot in the back.....much different than the BS that happened in Ferguson where the stories were....shot in the back...shot from a distance...and shot while surrendering....all BS....In this case in SC...initial reports concluded as to where the victim was shot and the circumstances and the department made a correct call....The officer did not perform his duties in a lawful manner and/or follow department training... policies and guidelines....

The "Fleeing Felon' laws that used to be on the books in many/most states/jurisdictions have been completely modified or done away with...no longer can LEO's shoot a fleeing felon simply because he is a felon....now there has to be substantial information that the felon was placing the public in imminent danger and had to be stopped immediately in order to protect another person(s)....

MW, did you know that his ex-lawyer was quoted as saying that he was just defending himself? It was said in preparation of defending his client in court. And I guarantee that he would have gotten off. The cop even moved the tazer over to the victim's body in an effort to make his story more believable.

Only thing is... that video surfaced. The lawyer bailed on the cop client and the cop was then charged with murder.

Yes, I DO believe it was the video!

Eric wrote:

MW, did you know that his ex-lawyer was quoted as saying that he was just defending himself?  It was said in preparation of defending his client in court.  And I guarantee that he would have gotten off.  The cop even moved the tazer over to the victim's body in an effort to make his story more believable.

Only thing is... that video surfaced.  The lawyer bailed on the cop client and the cop was then charged with murder.

Yes, I DO believe it was the video!

   Difficult to prove ....fear of personal safety or in fear for you life in this circumstance...The attorney and/or the officer can say what they want but shooting in the back as the victim was running away is a losing strategy....Not only would the entry/exit wounds corroborate what had happened...the wounds themselves would reveal the distance that the victim was shot from....the video certainly is important and disproves the comments by the officer/attorney for self-defense even with the taser in his possession...But even without this would not have been a justifiable or clean use of deadly force....

    There was no video in the Brown incident....but the evidence certainly did not support the allegations that were initially reported...Certainly feel no better about this incident simply because the officer was wrong....it's a loss of life that didn't need to happen and the guilty should be punished....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

The UK doesn't always use police to handle internal problems.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVM8LObbeLo

Say what you will, MW, but with the officer moving the tazer from where it was by his feet when he shot, to beside the victim would have bolstered his "fear for his life" defense.

And all the blue shirts all the way up to the head sheriff and DA would have gladly stood behind this poor persecuted law enforcement officer.

To think otherwise is naive.

So, it used to be okay to shoot "fleeing felons". Maybe this officer just forgot you couldn't do it anymore. It'll be okay, officer. Just one of those things.

Eric wrote:

Say what you will, MW, but with the officer moving the tazer from where it was by his feet when he shot, to beside the victim would have bolstered his "fear for his life" defense.

And all the blue shirts all the way up to the head sheriff and DA would have gladly stood behind this poor persecuted law enforcement officer.

To think otherwise is naive.

So, it used to be okay to shoot "fleeing felons".  Maybe this officer just forgot you couldn't do it anymore.  It'll be okay, officer.  Just one of those things.

Did you read my posts?..If you had you wouldn't be making the foolish comments that you've made..Yes the fleeing felon laws did allow more latitude to use deadly force...Never did I say that it was 'ok'....You're characterization is simply nonesense...My intention was to simply mention that the fleeing felon laws have change and by the way for the better...Just as a homeowner confronting a thief/burglar and shooting the criminal when they turn and run posing no imminent threat to the homeowner...Self-defense is a defense but you've got to have the evidence to support the claim...Agree or disagree but the points that I've made are based on law(s) and not emotion and/or attemting to be whatever you're attempting to be....You don't know all the blue shirts all the way up to the sheriff and DA would have gladly stood behind this 'poor persecuted law enforcement officer'....that's hypothetical and based and your biased opinion----the facts alone in this incident would have disproven your comments...
As I stated the video certainly was important but the evidence would have proven that this was what it is....murder...The charged criminal in this case should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law....And believe it or not other officers are capable and have the integrity to see this for what it is and would not support....

Just look at the numbers, MW.  Hypothetical?  Maybe.  But the numbers don't lie.  The odds are overwhelming in the favor of the LEO, especially when there is no video.

Biased?  You're damn right I am biased... because LEOs get away with murder all the time.  The system is full of good-old-boy LEOs that back their fellow officers, to the point of lying if necessary, and the DAs, who work with the LEOs every day, want to keep their relationship with the LEO community to the point of presenting a case for acquittal to the Grand Juries.  

U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

I can expect you to say that the LEOs did their jobs and the Grand Juries heard all the facts in an unbiased setting and lawfully decided to refrain from an indictment. Case Closed. Yeah, right. And I'm the Easter Bunny.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Teo, the video has an error, I believe. The commentator said the victim was shot 8 times in the back. I think the LEO shot 8 times at a running victim, hitting him once in the back (the fatal shot), and once in the butt.

http://eideard.com/tag/walter-scott/



Five of the eight bullets hit Scott, his family’s attorney said. Four of those struck his back. One hit an ear.

Eric wrote:

Just look at the numbers, MW.  Hypothetical?  Maybe.  But the numbers don't lie.  The odds are overwhelming in the favor of the LEO, especially when there is no video.

Biased?  You're damn right I am biased... because LEOs get away with murder all the time.  The system is full of good-old-boy LEOs that back their fellow officers, to the point of lying if necessary, and the DAs, who work with the LEOs every day, want to keep their relationship with the LEO community to the point of presenting a case for acquittal to the Grand Juries.  

U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

I can expect you to say that the LEOs did their jobs and the Grand Juries heard all the facts in an unbiased setting and lawfully decided to refrain from an indictment.  Case Closed.  Yeah, right.  And I'm the Easter Bunny.

'LEOs get away with murder all the time'.. Well there's nothing more to be said with that lack of logic.....Well...this incident disproves that [all the time nonsense] and rightfully this criminal was arrested and charged with murder....There seems to be some confusion...have heard no one even come close to supporting or defending this criminal and again he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and possibly up to and including the death penalty for his criminal actions...

This guy is a murderer, when he pulled the trigger he stopped being a cop and became a criminal. He then did what ALL criminals do, try to cover up his crime and launch a BS defense. It ain't going to work........

"have heard no one even come close to supporting or defending this criminal"

Not true. His lawyer was preparing a valiant "fearful for my life" defense and even made a statement to that effect.

But that was before the video surfaced, lol.

nochain wrote:

This guy is a murderer, when he pulled the trigger he stopped being a cop and became a criminal. He then did what ALL criminals do, try to cover up his crime and launch a BS defense. It ain't going to work........

Correct.. Good point once he committed the act... he by his own choice moved into the criminal category....he wasn't trained to conduct himself in this manner and he certainly has to have knowledge of the law(s)..policies....procedures.....but to attempt to continue to say this is reflective of all is ridiculous especially when there is no one defending/supporting this criminal...It would be similar if some[and they have] continued to post about all priests are guilty...get away with it all the time...and people all the way up would do what was necessary including lying...Aside from being totally ridiculous and done for no other reason other than to be irritating...but some can be irritating and others....well were chastised...warned...and eventually banned....