So, to put any content into this - a separate question that concerns race, a topic that is quite often mentioned here.

The whole concept of distinct human races is often questioned (I myself think there are no races) - but this will not be the point of the question. ASSUMING, there are distinct, biological (as opposed to those resulting from cultural differences) races of the human species how much are there?

So, the obvious lowest number (at least in my opinion) is 3.
- Caucasian
- Mongoloid
- Negroid
And of course that seems to be way too low. So, how many do you think would be the most suitable number, according to some general information criterion.

races aren't bad at all. If you walk in on a robbery, the guys runs off, and a cop asks you who he needs to be looking for, saying 'black,' 'white,' or 'asian' helps. And races are NOT the same as species, similar species can have large distinct groups, due to environmental factors and such, but it doesn't change their species necessarily.

James, what you describe is phenotype. Of course the colour of the skin helps, the same way hair colour would help, eyes colour and for that matter stuff like what the robber was wearing or what car he was driving. It's just describing the subject, but does not require the concept of distinct races to be true. Note that while race is not species, it is still an important step in classification, which especially in terms of human was and is being used in extremely brutal manner. Anyway, the question is - how many?

It is like asking how many colours there are. There are no real wrong answers, and how right an answer is depends on what you want the information for. A television manufacturer could justifiably say 3, a child would likely say seven, Dulux would insist on several thousand, and if you really wanted to you could say there was an infinite number.

That doesn't stop colours being fundamentally the same thing, nor does it stop red and blue being different.

I find it interesting to consider what would be happening if a heroic bystander hadn't taken video of this murder.

Walter Scott would still be dead, of course. But instead of being charged with murder, Michael Slager would be enjoying a paid vacation right now, and be widely acclaimed as a "hero" who "put his life on the line" and "did the right thing" during his "life and death struggle" with a "fleeing felon". Walter Scott would be denounced as a would-have-been "cop killer" who "had it coming".

Why people still believe police stories and claims about anything when there is no video is beyond me.

When someone is shot there should automatically be an investigation. If this turns up no evidence to support murder and the shooter had good reason to be armed and has a plausible explanation to why the shooting was necessary, I don't see how any other action than exoneration is possible or desirable.

Lots of murderers get away with it every year because we demand guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. That they get away with it is unfortunate, but it is by far the least worse way of doing it.

IMO, the police officer was criminally trigger happy in this case, but murder one would be over-charging him. I'd call it voluntary manslaughter.

I think that police officers in the United States need standardized and strict rules of engagement, so that way there's less legal ambiguity over whether or not a shooting is justified.

For example, IMHO attempting to disarm a police officer is more than sufficient justification for use of deadly force. Try to take a cop's gun; you get ventilated. Period.

But simply fleeing from a police officer should NOT be justification for deadly force (barring exceptional cases, such as a convict escaping from a prison, an active shooter, a looter, or a serious riot)

*Especially* without a clear, unambiguous verbal warning (i.e. "STOP OR I WILL OPEN FIRE") or a warning shot (when safe and practical, such as in a rural area).

But I don't see how race plays into this. This police officer will be tried by a fair and impartial jury of his peers, and, given the evidence, most likely convicted. Justice will be served. Where's the racial angle?

"When someone is shot there should automatically be an investigation."

All police shootings in America are investigated.

The problem is they're investigated by other police - sometimes even the co-workers of the officer involved - who have no interest in seeing a "brother officer" go down, no matter how bad the shooting is.

As an aside, I think I found a source that reported that Scott took the officer's taser, which is why he opened fire on Scott, who was fleeing. It's a legal question of whether or not LTL devices like a taser are considered as one of the officer's "weapons", which could justify the shooting if the officer opened fire to prevent that "weapon" from falling into the wrong hands.

Still, he was WAY too trigger happy. A verbal warning would have been in order, especially since the suspect was fleeing.

The officer apparently planted the taser on the victim after he shot him. Sounds like he knew what he did. For a change, they're doing the right thing and pressing charges immediately.

If he did indeed plant the taser, then it should be voluntary manslaughter plus "tampering with evidence" (or whatever charge equals the act of tampering with evidence; I'm not a lawyer).

I don't see any evidence whatsoever of malice aforethought, which is what you would need for a murder one conviction. IMHO, the only way you could nail a cop with murder one if he was a dirty cop and was carrying out a "hit" on behalf of a criminal enterprise (or a similar scenario in which the cop fully intended to pull the trigger before the incident even began)

Police are almost automatically considered better witnesses since they are "trained." Until evidence is presented to contradict false police statements, their stories are accepted.

Already the early reports are ruling out premeditation charges in this case, but lesser murder charges are still possible.

Cops are murderous? Shocker.

Under an illegitimate government, agents of the law are no more than thugs.

Woah, it's a wall of text I did not expect, and I gotta go to sleep so I'm just gonna respond to:
@Octavious, yes, it is just as asking "how many colours are there?". And while there are almost no wrong answers (of course there are wrong answers, while maybe even 0 might be considered a proper answer -1, Pi or apple are for sure wrong answers) there is also the best answer if we assume some information criterion. And while the information criterion would vary based on context it still doesn't mean the question isn't valid.
So if you cannot give a general answer we can look at possible contexts - James gave an example of a robbery. How many races are optimal for this question.
My personal guess is 5 (intentionally stylized as an answer of a robbery witness):
- White
- Asian
- Black
- Indian (woah, I was looking for some ways to describe Native Americans, that is harsh: http://www.rsdb.org/race/native_americans )
- Arab-by, brownish type of guy. Or maybe Indian? (as in the other ones)

So what are the other possible answers? What's the maximum? What's your personal guess?

Here's the solution to the plague of police shootings in America: pass a federal law that states if a police officer kills someone with a gun, justified or not, they lose the use of their weapon for life. I guarantee police shootings would decline by 90% and there would be no increase in police being shot.

The consequences now of a police shooting is a paid vacation and exoneration. It is the consequences that must change to change behavior.

@yassem - how long is a piece of string?

@ rkane

I disagree. I believe that mandatory body cameras and a codified set of RoEs would be more than enough to solve the problem.

what a ridiculous suggestion - an officer who shoots someone in certain situations should get an award, not a punishment. i completely (can't believe this) agree with gunfighter that we need the mandatory body cameras, and that's the best idea. It would curb the horrible tragedies alot.

It will curb the tragedies but not prevent them. We'll start finding instances where the camera magically glitched and didn't film for two minutes and then all of a sudden there's a dead guy and a cop. They already do that with dash cams.

Would a cop still get the benefit of doubt in that case though?

They tend to.

I guess I understand it can be tricky to prosecute him but I'd at least fire him, just in case..

There are legitimate reasons to kill a suspect, especially when aiming for the center of mass is likely to kill. However in this case the video showed that the police officer was attempting to cover up his actions by making it look like a legitimate shooting and planting his taser near the body. Without the video the witness would probably not been enough to contradict the officer's version.

In case the camera glitches (unless it is ripped off by the aggressor, which then will be filmed anyways), they should lose their pension in case kill someone. Also, I think it would be good idea to let them lose the right to have weapon for some time. 10 years would be a good address.

So for those saying take away guns, cops wear guns after they retire for the most part for protection against anyone they arrested, etc. Depriving them of that right is lessening their ability to defend themselves.