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 ...
Justified shooting...Tennessee vs Garner 1985.
The officer responded to the scene of a dead man to offer humanitarian assistance. WTH else is National Bar Association looking for? NBA must be another Obama & Holder clown circus like Barnum & Bailey.
The gentle giant was charging the police officer with intent to do harm. This happened immediately AFTER the gentle giant fought for the officers gun.
This case (seems at this point); much different. Suspect running away with no threat to officer.
They are accusing him of filing an incomplete report, but based upon the video he arrived after the shooting and it seems to describe what he did. He put on latex gloves, which all police carry on their belt, and rendered aid. If you look at what he is doing when the shooter drops the object (maybe the taser) next to the body, it is quite possible that the backup officer didn’t see that. This is just An attempt to rile up the community.
Can we have schools or rallies to educate African chulren about the law? Education sucks, crack rocks?
Like W. Scott driving Mercedes, not paying children support, being 50 year old and who knows what else, worth running away?
Yeah. This is the wrong place to try the case, especially without all the pertinent facts.
With all that said, does this case meet that standard. From the video alone, it sure doesn't look like it. I think you could have let this guy run a couple more blocks and he would have died from a heart attack. There is another video from the dash cam of a responding officer that shows the entire scene after the shooting, so you can see it takes place in a confined area. The grassy area he was shot in is adjacent to where he pulled over his car.
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.
...
That’s true, but we don’t know if Scott did or said something (witnesses have said there was a physical altercation) that caused Slager to believe he was a dangerous threat.
Sitting in your easy chair watching an incomplete video on the Internet isn’t the legal standard that applies.
I REPEAT no scenario where the guy that got shot in the back is not an immediate threat is justified. I don’t care what he may or may not have said to the cop. More cops were already coming. This shooter was just wrong and the court will bear that out - if it goes to court. It will most likely be plead out to manslaughter.
What’s incomplete? The video clearly shows the cop drawing and shooting a retreating unarmed man in the back.
[gotnews april 10/15... Tennessee vs Garner
“It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.
Read more at http://bit.ly/1Gxj7bU
“That’s true, but we don’t know if Scott did or said something (witnesses have said there was a physical altercation) that caused Slager to believe he was a dangerous threat.”
But I think mad_as_he$$ sees - correctly I might add - that there is no plausible and justifiable explanation as to why the officer shot the man RUNNING AWAY FROM HIM in the BACK multiple times. The only thing I can think of is if the officer claims, “Well, I thought he was reaching for a gun while he was running away from me so I shot him.” But the police arrested the officer even BEFORE this video came to light so they must have already discounted that as a possibly valid claim (if it was ever even made).
I’m all for a full investigation. I’m all for a fair trial. I just don’t see how the officer can explain his actions away - even if he said he made a gross error (”Oh, I thought he was reaching for a gun but he wasn’t”) really won’t cut it.
Why would he leave such a critical fact out of his report?
If he is an accessory to a murder he should be facing jail time.
If a really bad guy runs from a cop it's OK to shoot him dead?
[cnn 4/10/15]
Feidin Santana, who took the video of the shooting, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that he was walking to work when he saw Slager on top of Scott, who was on the ground. He said he could hear the sound of a Taser in use.
Scott owed $18k in child support and was buying a car.
Here’s an article describing the two major Supreme Court decisions that will apply in this case.
Do you have a link to the report? thanks.
Do you have a fertile enough imagination to picture various things that a "really bad guy" might have done *before* the camera started rolling?
Hand ups,don't shoot!
Nah, all I had to see was a pudgy 51 year old black man running away from a 36 year old white cop who carefully and deliberately aimed and gunned down the black man from behind. Including a nice dramatic pause before the kill shot.
What we saw was the ugly of white cops. I don’t even try to defend them anymore. Now I just want 50% of cops to flat out have their guns taken away and they’re to conduct police work without them. The other 50% with guns can wait around the precincts and patrol areas waiting for back up calls.
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.