Posted on 04/11/2015 5:56:39 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
NORTH CHARLESTON, SC (WCSC) - Officials with the National Bar Association are calling for the immediate arrest and indictment of a North Charleston police officer who responded to the shooting of Walter Scott. Officer Clarence Habersham was the officer on scene after Michael Slager shot and killed Scott.
According to the group, Habersham filed an incomplete police report on the shooting of Walter Scott and left "material facts out of his report."
Habersham gave the following narrative in a North Charleston Police Department report that was released to the media:
(Excerpt) Read more at live5news.com ...
Lynch mob rule of law is alive and well in the good ole U S of A.
The national Bar Association has less validity than the other NBA. (not to mention being even more racially exclusive)
I’m with you. I did that in the Zimmerman and brown cases. As the evidence trickled out it became more and more obvious what the right position was. Eventually, it was so obvious that those on the internet arguing for what we now know was the “wrong” position looked stupid and racist.
On one site where I’ve been a member for over a decade, I kept a list of which members are not logical thinkers.
The problem is that whether a shooting is legally justified has nothing whatsoever to do with the records of the parties involved.
You may think he’s a better or worse person based on that record, but a career criminal who kills someone justifiably is and should be in exactly the same position as someone who’s led an utterly blameless life.
Except of course that the career criminal probably shouldn’t have had a gun to begin with.
BTW, I’ve seen remarkably little comment on the fact that the second cop referred to here is black. Quite black.
Outrage first, facts later. LOL
I thought I saw a black female officer in one of those clips.
When there's a lack of firm,complete evidence it does.Do we know exactly what happened...*everything* that happened...from start to finish? I doubt it.Remember the Rodney King video? There were two versions...the long one and the short one.The short one showed what looked like a pretty ugly example of police "overreaction".The long version suggests that King just might have had it coming.
I am not at all convinced that we know the whole story.I'm gonna wait and see before I make up my mind.
No scenario backs a cop shooting a guy in the back 5 times when he is not a threat to anyone. Period, end of story.
The background of the shooter might very well have considerable bearing on the sentence if found guilty, as aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
But it simply has nothing to do with whether the shooting was justified or not.
The Rodney King beating was (somewhat) justified by the earlier portion of the video, and FTM by the fact that they were attempting to subdue a resisting man.
I challenge you or anybody else to construct a scenario in which the North Charleston shooting is justified. Can’t be done, IMO.
So unless you can come up with a fictional justification, let’s stop pretending a real one might exist.
Police brutality is alive and well. Just ask this guy, at least the horse didn’t get beat or shot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KIKUEjn3Z0
The felon suspect fled from the officer, the officer caught suspect and they struggled to the ground with suspect grabbing at tazer. The suspect ran again and the officer fired 8 shots with 5 hitting suspect. The officer handcuffed suspect and retrieved the suspects CAP and placed it near suspect.
If that Guy was headed to your house to hide in, I am sure you would have applauded his death.
No I would shoot him when he tried to break in - in the front.
I can *easily* construct a scenario in which the shooting *might* have been justified.The guy ran from a routine traffic stop.That suggests to me that he just *might* have had something to hide....kinda like the Gentle Giant having had things to hide (as we discovered days *after* "hands up,don't shoot" was being repeated in a Rose Garden press conference).Guys with serious things to hide are know to do...or to attempt to do...bad things to cops.
For me the best I can come up with right now is "might".The cop might have committed a very serious crime...he might not.
I've seen a lot of people try to lump an entire case as a single event, but it simply doesn't work that way. The situations are always, 100% of the time, dynamic. If a guy shoots at you, then is lying on the ground 10 seconds later in surrender, you simply can't/don't shoot him. Even if the dead guy was a serial killer, the law tells us (in general terms) that you simply cannot kill someone who isn't an immediate threat. The same rules apply (thank God) to LEO.
People can argue whether or not he "deserved" it, but that's an entirely different debate altogether. That being said, to say someone deserved it at this point would be stepping across a line as well, we simply don't know what went on and we never will (completely). The cops will craft their story to their own benefit, it is just how humans are... sad as it may be. We expect higher standards from the police, but incidents since the dawn of the cheap video age have shown us what many people have claimed since the beginning.
Sentence FIRST!!!!
Investigation?
What that be anyways?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.