What If There Was No Video?
Apr 8, 2015 Law Enforcement
I do not want to rush to judgement on the video of a South Carolina police officer shooting a man in the back. From all I have seen it appears as if the officer, Michael Slager, murdered the suspect but the officer will get his day in court and perhaps there is some valid reason for what happened. From what I saw it seems like it will be hard to find that reason.
I heard Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee on Sean Hannity’s show on the way home. Clarke and Hannity were discussing this shooting and Clarke stated he would not allow this shooting to be used to put down all other cops in America by any person.
Strong words there sheriff. You don’t get to decide what people use this shooting for. If they want to use it to indict all cops that is there business and nothing you can do will change that. How many cops use incidents by a few people to label all people of a certain group as bad? How about we work to make sure they don’t do that?
I like Sheriff Clarke and I agree with many of his views. I think that he probably used a poor choice of words and his intent was that he would not entertain that kind of thinking. I doubt, given his views, he meant that he would not allow people to express themselves as is their right.
In any event, I think people should question what took place in this incident. This police officer appears to have really crossed a line. It should be looked at and viewed from a wider angle.
I would ask a few questions. First, what would have happened if this incident had not been recorded? I think we know the answer to that. The police report filed by those involved showed it as a justified shoot. The officer lied on the report. It is unclear if the second officer lied because there is no way to know what he saw since he arrived later.
The officer lied and the police were ready to call this a good shoot when the recording arrived. Some guy walking to work saw it and recorded it. The recording contradicts everything the officer said. So I ask again, if there had been no recording what would have been the outcome?
He would have been free and clear. It would have been ruled a clean shoot and he would be on the street today. The recording made the difference.
To address Sheriff Clarke the second question would be how many times has something like this happened and it was ruled a clean shoot because there was NO recording? How many times have police officers gotten away with murder simply because there was no recording, the report was a lie and there were no other witnesses (though realistically a witness is useless when questioning the police as their word is always regarded as more truthful)?
I know there are plenty of good men and women in the police force who try to do a great job everyday and many of them are disillusioned by ticket quotas that are nothing more than revenue generators. But there are bad ones and lots of them. They get away with things because they lie and because the other officers will not speak up against them. The blue line is think and most officers will not cross it to do the right thing. When they protect the ones doing bad things they all get a bad rap.
As they should.
In this incident the police officer was fired and has been charged with murder. I think that is a correct thing to do and he will get his day in court. I know if I shot some guy running out of my house in his back and killed him this officer would be the first to arrest me for murder. His badge and uniform do not shield (see what I did there) him from the consequences of his actions.
At least not when there is recorded evidence.
Otherwise he would have walked…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: david clarke, murder charge, police shooting, recording, south carolina
Will They Exempt Radical Muslims?
Feb 14, 2010 Political
South Carolina is looking to move closer to the big brother world where thoughts and ideas are punished. A piece of legislation is out there that requires organizations (defined as 2 or more members of a group) that have beliefs which include the overthrow of the US government, to register with the state.
I don’t see where it is any of the state’s business what your group believes. If you believe that it is OK to overthrow the government then that is your right. If you actually try to do that you will have problems and that is when you should be dealt with.
Do we require people who belong to groups that want to commit crime to register that they believe it is OK to knock off banks and steal their money?
And how many of these groups would actually register? If you believe that you need to overthrow the government would you actually register with the government?
There are exemptions for groups (including religious groups) as long as they do not believe in overthrowing the government.
So will the radical Muslim groups be required to register? They believe that it is their duty to replace our system of government with Sharia Law so should they have to register?
Just as importantly, should the Democrat party (lead by Barack Obama) be required to register in South Carolina?
It is their intention to overthrow our government and replace it with their Socialist form of governance.
They are just as dangerous and any group defined in the South Carolina legislation.
The legislation is called the SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES REGISTRATION ACT and there is no group more subversive than the Democrat party.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Democrats, overthrow government, south carolina, subversive act
What Will Bill Clinton Do Now?
Jan 26, 2008 Political
The votes are being counted in South Carolina and the only question remaining is how badly will Hillary Clinton be beaten by Barack Obama? The race was called for Obama based on exit polling which is not usually done unless there is a very large margin of victory. As of this post 98% of the precincts have been counted and Obama has more than twice the votes that Clinton has. The Clinton campaign tried to downplay this before th election but they worked hard to win the state nonetheless. Why is she losing so badly when the difference was only about 12% on pre primary polling?
Exit polling shows that the electorate, by and large, was displeased with Bill Clinton’s style of campaigning. This was true among the black voters but also true in about 68% of the white vote. These voters indicated that they believed that Bill Clinton had unfairly attacked Barack Obama and they let him now it with their votes.
I wonder if Hillary Clinton will lose her mind and throw ashtrays at Bill since he is being blamed for the rout? It would be interesting if she does because she was more than happy to have Bill attacking Obama while she campaigned elsewhere. Regardless of how she feels about the affect of Bill this loss must be particularly stinging because in addition to the majority of the black vote Obama picked up about 25% of the white vote. Additionally, only about 20 people showed up at the place they booked for a post primary party. It will also be interesting to see if the Clintons hit even harder or if they switch tactics. She might have to muster up a few more tears. She certainly did not waste time leaving South Carolina for Tennessee…
I also if race will play into this even more. Bill made a remark that Jesse Jackson won the state as if it were no big deal that a black guy won it. I imagine if a white Republican had sad that Jackson would be gathering the Rainbow Coalition for an old fashioned protest and it is still possible that Clinton’s remarks will be seen as patronizing and incur backlash. Regardless, the Clinton campaign is going to have to be more careful because every word they utter now will be scrutinized for perceived racial content.
This might not mean much and Hillary will probably split the Tsunami Tuesday states with Obama. Since February 5th will not decide the candidate, the decision could come down to the Democratic Convention and there might be a real fire fight there.
I do wonder though, if these candidates will pick the other to be a running mate. Given how they have attacked each other it would seem to me they are less than credible in their beliefs if they picked each other. Of course Democrats wold not look at it that way so long as their party wins.
However, if Obama selected Hillary he would never have to worry about someone taking him out…
Sources:
MSNBC
CNN
Washington Post
Others with interesting posts:
Outside the Beltway, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Nuke Gingrich, A Blog For All, 123beta, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Right Voices, Pursuing Holiness, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: billy blowback, blowout, Clinton, Obama, racial tension, rout, south carolina