If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   South Carolina deputy, who shot unarmed suspect four times while serving warrant, charged with manslaughter. Next they'll be saying suspects shouldn't have tried to swim away from police while stealing 75 pounds of chains   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 64
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

8226 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jan 2006 at 7:25 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-01-05 12:57:41 AM
Feh. That's nothing - try shooting a former Chicago police officer 25 times during a traffic stop.
 
2006-01-05 07:31:09 AM
okay!
 
2006-01-05 07:34:11 AM
i agree with that headline. wait, what?
 
2006-01-05 07:34:28 AM
I wonder if they ran a drug test on tht Chicago guy. Read the story, my question... if he didnt shoot the officers who did.

It also doesnt say how many officers were involved if its 6 officers 25 doesnt sound unreasonable.

Also, why were his lights off? At night... it's not like it was at 6 am, or 6 pm or something, it was bloody midnight without lights, not very proffesional if he was a cop of any kind.
 
2006-01-05 07:35:26 AM
I think these guys need to learn something from British police: threaten to go on strike when an armed officer murders someone and they'll get away with it. Bonus points are awarded if any higher-ups get investigated for telling lies about the shooting.
 
2006-01-05 07:36:01 AM
Cops scare me, even when I've done nothing wrong. Now I wonder why that could be, hmmmm....
 
2006-01-05 07:44:00 AM
Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?
 
2006-01-05 07:44:09 AM
This is a strange story. I want to see how it unfolds.
 
2006-01-05 07:48:23 AM
"The rule of the law prohibits any officer from shooting a fleeing suspect four times,"

'If only he had been shot three times.' the officer thought.

Seriously though, I hope they put this cop away in a maximum security prison and it gets out.
 
2006-01-05 07:48:33 AM
Sounds like he saved the taxpayers of South carolina some money
 
2006-01-05 07:55:34 AM
FormlessOne
I rta on the guy that was shot 25 times, how does 12 000 + 188 000 = 2 million dollars???
 
2006-01-05 07:56:49 AM
Sheffield has previous convictions for assault and battery with intent to kill, assault with a deadly weapon, drug possession, and discharge of a firearm into a dwelling.

Nice guy

cop will get off
 
2006-01-05 07:57:00 AM
"Sheffield has previous convictions for assault and battery with intent to kill, assault with a deadly weapon, drug possession, and discharge of a firearm into a dwelling."

Hey, if we could get a few more of these criminals off the streets, great!
 
2006-01-05 08:00:34 AM
drone1

Sounds like he saved the taxpayers of South carolina some money



Only if his own prison term is less than the suspect's would've been.
 
2006-01-05 08:00:52 AM
Sheffield has previous convictions for assault and battery with intent to kill, assault with a deadly weapon, drug possession, and discharge of a firearm into a dwelling.
Saved the taxpayers how much?
 
2006-01-05 08:02:01 AM
Sheffield has previous convictions for assault and battery with intent to kill, assault with a deadly weapon, drug possession, and discharge of a firearm into a dwelling.

It's a damn shame he was shot. Really. I've got tears here somewhere... just give me a few seconds.
 
2006-01-05 08:03:53 AM
"Hey, if we could get a few more of these criminals off the streets, great!"

There is no excuse for shooting an unarmed suspect to death, no matter how much they may or may not have deserved it.

That kind of decision needs to be made in the court system, not on the streets.
 
2006-01-05 08:04:19 AM
Article doesn't go into much detail. I wonder what really happened?
 
2006-01-05 08:06:41 AM
python1
when posting bond, you only have to post 10%
 
2006-01-05 08:10:17 AM
Yeah, I'll believe that there are reprecussions to any cop's actions when he's actually convicted.

Farking cops.
 
2006-01-05 08:10:44 AM
"Voluntary manslaughter"? What about just some good 'ole-fashioned murder?
 
2006-01-05 08:11:39 AM
Kurmudgeon: There is no excuse for shooting an unarmed suspect to death, no matter how much they may or may not have deserved it.

That kind of decision needs to be made in the court system, not on the streets.


Amen to that, pal.
That's what I liked the old Bobbies for. No weapons, just respect. Would still be working. But the gun nuts gain majority...
 
2006-01-05 08:25:40 AM
FormlessOne: Feh. That's nothing - try shooting a former Chicago police officer 25 times during a traffic stop.

How the hell did that *not* get greenlighted? Much better than this story.
 
2006-01-05 08:25:42 AM
CruiserTwelve
Article doesn't go into much detail. I wonder what really happened?

I agree, Maybe the next one will be different like the miners one. It sounds to me like they have no real information again and just want to stir up folks against the cops.
After all one can not expect the reportes to wait untill they have all the facts and report unbiased news facts can one?
 
2006-01-05 08:26:38 AM
There is no excuse for shooting an unarmed suspect to death, no matter how much they may or may not have deserved it.

That kind of decision needs to be made in the court system, not on the streets.


Ummmm....no. A police officer may only use enough force as necessary to effect an arrest. An unarmed person, no matter how unruly, is not enough of a threat to justify killing him.

Throw the cop in jail where he belongs.
 
2006-01-05 08:27:36 AM
The article doesn't state how many officers were sent to serve the warrant. With that kind of rap sheet, I think I would have sent two or three.
 
2006-01-05 08:30:42 AM
doglover:

Most of the time,yeah, but not always. My brother went to jail once and was told that bail was set at $5k. Period. No 10%. Needless to say, he was in jail until the trial. If the judge wants to be a prick, he can dismiss the 10% and make it a flat dollar ammount. Still, $200K IS a bit extreme. I wonder if he did it so the defendant couldn't get out. Much easier to have an "accident" in jail than out on the street.

/Near my old neighborhood a cop fired warning shots into the back of a fleeing suspects head.
//Paranoid? Me? Nah.
 
2006-01-05 08:40:25 AM
Great headline!
 
2006-01-05 08:42:02 AM
ScreamingInDigital How the hell did that *not* get greenlighted? Much better than this story.

The actual incident occurred almost a year ago. In other stories, he supposedly stopped for going the wrong way down a one way street, not driving with his lights off.
 
2006-01-05 08:47:01 AM
Have fun getting raped, pig.
 
2006-01-05 08:50:32 AM
Have fun getting raped, pig.
And a hearty "Goodmorning" to you too, Sunshine!

/lol
 
2006-01-05 08:52:25 AM
Well, we've got this far without a death penalty argument. I'm sure it won't last.

You gotta love USA. The more they kill, the more they kill. Wonder when the penny will drop...
 
2006-01-05 09:02:56 AM
The guy was probably a total scumbag. It still gave the cop no right to weigh him down with lead to slow his escape. I could just picture bubba saying "I told ya not to run boy". Just as he was spittin out some chew. Back in the day it was called "due process". (at the end of a bullet, or bullets)
 
2006-01-05 09:09:05 AM
"The rule of the law prohibits any officer from shooting a fleeing suspect four times," prosecutor Jay Hodge told the Florence Morning News.

Felony arrest of a potentially armed subject that has been arrested both on assault and weapon charges before, I think not.

Sounds like the prosecutor is running for office. If the officer felt that the suspect was a danger to himself another officer or the public shooting is justified, reasonable person rule applies.

I love these people that say you can't shoot someone who is unarmed. What do you think happens when a prisoner goes over the wall he doesn't halt he's shot end of story....

This is a Tenessee vs Garner issue

Tennessee vs. Garner. "Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so."


The case will be decided on whether or not a felony suspect with prior weapons and assault arrests represented a 'reasonable' threat to others if the cop even thought he 'may be armed' the shoot was justified. The number of times doesnt matter cops are trained to shoot until the suspect stops.
 
2006-01-05 09:15:31 AM
The number of times doesnt matter cops are trained to shoot until the suspect stops.

It does matter if the suspect was incapacitated after the first shot but still alive. If the shots were fired in rapid succession he could have been stopped after bullet number one but the cop wouldn't know if he fired four times in a couple of seconds.

You can't make rules in situations like this. You simply judge each case on it's merits.
 
2006-01-05 09:18:54 AM
Wonder if the cop has any skeletons in his closet.

Because we know that everyone who does anything like this is clean as the purest snow...
 
2006-01-05 09:19:58 AM
As to the Chicago thing anyone who has ever tried to do business in Cook County knows how corrupt Chicago is. My guess is this is what happened

Routine traffic stop

Victim is pissed wants to show his badge but they wont let him in the search they find his sidearm someone either pops off a round and or the weapon discharges accidently.

There is a psychological thing that happens with cops they here gunfire and they start shooting its a reflex action that only proper training can overcome which by the way chicago cops don't get.

10-1 the two wounded chicago officers were not wounded by the suspect but by their own buddies in the crossfire.

Everything else is just the Cook county bullshiat corruption that has been around for 200 years trust me.
 
2006-01-05 09:21:14 AM
LocalCynic

Well if he had any complaints against him at all it would have been on the record the article says he is clean. Doesn't mean he isn't a scumbag just that he has no complaints about being a scumbag.
 
2006-01-05 09:22:06 AM
You guys are amateurs. Our cops shoot people more times than that when they haven't even broken the law!

/British
//Sorry
 
2006-01-05 09:24:40 AM
Stryyder

Well if he had any complaints against him at all it would have been on the record the article says he is clean. Doesn't mean he isn't a scumbag just that he has no complaints about being a scumbag.

That's what I was getting at. Farkers love to pervert the idea of "innocence" to be such that it's not just whether or not you've committed a crime but whether you're a good or bad person.

/BLAME THE VICTIM!11!!!onme
 
2006-01-05 09:29:09 AM
LocalCynic

True but what matters is the facts of this particular case not his past.

Personally I am all for letting cops decide whether they should pop a fleeing felon that has both a record of weapons and assault with intent to kill charges.

Now if he didn't shoot him and the guy got away, ran into a neighbors house while on the lamb and then carjacked some women and her two kids and they got hurt or killed we would be saying the cop didn't do his job.

Dying to know what the facts of the case are felony arrests on warrants are usually done by a team what happened did the suspect take someone down on the way out was he headed to another dwelling or a outbuilding where weapons could have been concealed. not enough facts
 
2006-01-05 09:34:10 AM
why even have laws at this point? it seems pretty clear that "law and order"-types are just as happy (if not more so) seeing people in positions of authority go vigilante as they are seeing justice served (except for the authorities that go vigilante, of course). so why pretend to be a civil and just society? most of us apparently feel that cops and walmart security guards should have the right to kill unarmed "scumbags" without fear of consequences. let's just get rid of the laws, turn it all over to the vigilantes we fetishize, and hope dirty harry doesn't come a-knockin' on our doors.
 
2006-01-05 09:41:50 AM
Haplo53


So are you an anarchy guy????

Court systems don't work until you get the suspect into the system. You want cops to let every fleeing suspect go? Please explain. You need to put the proper people in place give them the right training and let them use judgement that is how it should work.

Here on Long Island we have County police in the two major counties but warrant arrests are handled by the Sheriff's department that does nothing but transport prisoners and arrest suspects with warrants out on them. They are trained specifically for that purpose and work in a taskforce when making felony arrests with the County police as back up it works very little problems except for the bad guys who get pinched every time.
 
2006-01-05 10:05:20 AM
it seems pretty clear that "law and order"-types are just as happy (if not more so) seeing people in positions of authority go vigilante as they are seeing justice served (except for the authorities that go vigilante, of course).

It seems pretty clear that you are making bizarre sweeping statements based on your mindless generalization of a handful of cases...

/keep up the good work!
 
2006-01-05 10:11:30 AM
Stryyder

Personally I am all for letting cops decide whether they should pop a fleeing felon that has both a record of weapons and assault with intent to kill charges.

Why does he need to flee? Why not shoot him? I mean maybe the felon already served time, but he's subhuman, right? Cops should be judge, jury, and executioner.

Now if he didn't shoot him and the guy got away, ran into a neighbors house while on the lamb and then carjacked some women and her two kids and they got hurt or killed we would be saying the cop didn't do his job.

So you're saying that the fate and calibre of the cop isn't determined by his or her skill but rather by criminals? That consequences matter moreso than anything else?
 
2006-01-05 10:19:31 AM
Works for me. Scum criminal dead, bad cop going to jail.
 
2006-01-05 10:21:40 AM
This is why you don't give people with GEDs guns and authoritaaaay!
 
2006-01-05 10:25:47 AM
Local cynic

You are arguing with yourself with rhetorical questions what is your issue?

What I said was pretty clear is that in today's society the cop gets blamed period whether he gets the suspect or not. This is the pendulum swinging the other way after a time where officer offenses were a problem. What I am saying is that there is no pleasing the idealist and that the what we need here is a realistic view not an idealistic one.

What are you saying?
 
2006-01-05 10:28:15 AM
LocalCynic: So you're saying that the fate and calibre of the cop isn't determined by his or her skill but rather by criminals? That consequences matter moreso than anything else?

Exactly. Virtually every life or death situation for cops these days is a lose-lose scenerio.
 
2006-01-05 10:42:37 AM
Stryyder

What I said was pretty clear is that in today's society the cop gets blamed period whether he gets the suspect or not.

No, you said that cops should be able to shoot to kill when a person has a record. This baffles me, as a person who flees from the police probably wouldn't identify himself in the first place. It's one thing to say that cops should have discression. It's another thing to say that it was okay for him to pop the guy with the iPod earbuds because he had a criminal record.

Hostility to cops is going to continue so long as we have a society where people where both crime and violent response to it is considered a necessary evil. Not to mention, when police departments deny the existence of profiling and "suicide by cop," what can you expect? If neither the criminals and the cops can be honest, expect people to trust neither group.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report