• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prosecution of 2nd Officer in Walter Scott Shooting Is Sought

The second officer wasn't involved in a killing. He arrived on scene after the fact and related his actions at the scene
Ya just don't get it do ya.
What do you do in real life.
If their was a serious injury on site, how well would the so called professional, well trained second responders 2 sentence report go over?
Out of a job at a minimum.
 
Play your games, you have stated in other threads basically what I posted.
Clearly for you it is Justice for some. And **** the rest.
Justice includes due process. That concept seems to escape some here who prefer to just make stuff up and hope it sticks
 
Justice includes due process. That concept seems to escape some here who prefer to just make stuff up and hope it sticks

No it has escaped you.
If the criminal had not run away he would be alive today. Your attitude, not mine.
Exactly WTX kind of logic and sense of justice is your guiding light.
 
Ya just don't get it do ya.
What do you do in real life.
In real life I debunk fallacies like what we've seen here

If their was a serious injury on site, how well would the so called professional, well trained second responders 2 sentence report go over?
Out of a job at a minimum.
What's the minimum number of sentences you would accept
 
In real life I debunk fallacies like what we've seen here

What's the minimum number of sentences you would accept

I will wait for the trial.
 
I will wait for the trial.
What trial. There's no reason to believe the second officer did anything wrong or that he will be charged
 
In a two-sentence report filed after the shooting, Officer Habersham wrote that he had “attempted to render aid to the victim by applying pressure to the gunshot wounds” and by helping to coordinate the emergency response.

But critics of Officer Habersham questioned his account and said video evidence indicated that he had done little to assist Mr. Scott. They also suggest that Officer Habersham omitted significant information from his report — for instance, that Mr. Slager dropped an item, possibly his Taser stun gun, near Mr. Scott after the shooting. Officer Habersham could not be reached for comment on Sunday.
Nothing but BGi absurdity.

A 2 sentence report on a shooting?

So what?
There is nothing wrong with his two sentence report. It is accurate and to the point.
You do not report more than necessary and they also have his radio communications.
 
As I've said, we don't know what Habersham's departmental directives are. Because everything written and recorded is going to be shared globally, this may be at least a partial explanation for the brevity of his report. It's a brave new journo world out there.
 
A 2 sentence report on a Police killing speaks volumes, and all negative towards the Department, the leadership of the Police, the city and the State.
It speaks to routine.

It speaks also to the almost endemic corruption in the law enforcement community.
 
It speaks also to the almost endemic corruption in the law enforcement community.

And it's high time that house of cards crumbled. No more "thin blue line" in terms of police protecting police. Those who lie or omit or mislead or cover up for bad cops are bad cops themselves. We need, we must have, we demand only good cops.
 
And it's high time that house of cards crumbled. No more "thin blue line" in terms of police protecting police. Those who lie or omit or mislead or cover up for bad cops are bad cops themselves. We need, we must have, we demand only good cops.

Yes, and a very important part of the equation is that we must also have rational and constitutionally sound policies for the police to enforce. Poor policy and poor laws naturally lead to poor police tactics.
 
What trial. There's no reason to believe the second officer did anything wrong or that he will be charged

Of the 1st Officer.
Then we have the ongoing investigation. Who knows what will be found.
 
Nothing but BGi absurdity.



So what?
There is nothing wrong with his two sentence report. It is accurate and to the point.
You do not report more than necessary and they also have his radio communications.

Making excuses, could strain something doing that.
 
Of the 1st Officer.
Then we have the ongoing investigation. Who knows what will be found.
This thread isn't about the first officer
 
Making excuses, could strain something doing that.
Making excuses?
Wut?
Wrong.
There is nothing wrong or unacceptable about his report.
It is accurate and to the point.
You do not report more than necessary. And they also have his radio communications.
 
Making excuses?
Wut?
Wrong.
There is nothing wrong or unacceptable about his report.
It is accurate and to the point.
You do not report more than necessary. And they also have his radio communications.

For an Officer involved killing. Yep, that is making excuses.
It appears some will defend this 2 ,line report as all that was needed.
I mean, the guy was dead right.
“Arrived, saw a dead body. The Officer stated he shot him. I checked the area. Asked if the OS Officer needed any assistance. U I the provided assistance then checked and sure enough the suspect was dead.”
The above 2 lines is exactly 2 lines on a word document.
 
Last edited:
For an Officer involved killing. Yep, that is making excuses.
It appears some will defend this 2 ,line report as all that was needed.
I mean, the guy was dead right.
“Arrived, saw a dead body. The Officer stated he shot him. I checked the area. Asked if the OS Officer needed any assistance. U I the provided assistance then checked and sure enough the suspect was dead.”
The above 2 lines is exactly 2 lines on a word document.
Do you have a link to this?

It doesn't seem that Habersham stated anything which was false.

It does seem that he may have left out a seemingly significant detail what we saw Slager do in front of Habersham.

Habersham's behavior has interesting possibilities for idle and unfounded speculation.
 
Do you have a link to this?

It doesn't seem that Habersham stated anything which was false.

It does seem that he may have left out a seemingly significant detail what we saw Slager do in front of Habersham.

Habersham's behavior has interesting possibilities for idle and unfounded speculation.


“Arrived, saw a dead body. The Officer stated he shot him. I checked the area. Asked if the OS Officer needed any assistance. I the provided assistance then checked and sure enough the suspect was dead.”
The above 2 lines is exactly 2 lines on a word document.
The lines quoted & underlined above are what I wrote to make 2 sentences. I believe it was an 11 font.

Odd how many, not saying you do, find a 2 sentence report on an Officer involved killing to be sufficient.
Is this what you needed?


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/u...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
In a two-sentence report filed after the shooting, Officer Habersham wrote that he had “attempted to render aid to the victim by applying pressure to the gunshot wounds” and by helping to coordinate the emergency response. But critics of Officer Habersham questioned his account and said video evidence indicated that he had done little to assist Mr. Scott. They also suggest that Officer Habersham omitted significant information from his report — for instance, that Mr. Slager dropped an item, possibly his Taser stun gun, near Mr. Scott after the shooting. Officer Habersham could not be reached for comment on Sunday.
 
Last edited:
Do you have a link to this?

It doesn't seem that Habersham stated anything which was false.

It does seem that he may have left out a seemingly significant detail what we saw Slager do in front of Habersham.

Habersham's behavior has interesting possibilities for idle and unfounded speculation.
NO link. He made it up
 
“Arrived, saw a dead body. The Officer stated he shot him. I checked the area. Asked if the OS Officer needed any assistance. I the provided assistance then checked and sure enough the suspect was dead.”
The above 2 lines is exactly 2 lines on a word document.
The lines quoted & underlined above are what I wrote to make 2 sentences. I believe it was an 11 font.

Odd how many, not saying you do, find a 2 sentence report on an Officer involved killing to be sufficient.
Is this what you needed?


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/u...st-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
The Times seems to omit that fact that Habersham's comments were not the report but rather a supplement to the actual incident report.
 
For an Officer involved killing. Yep, that is making excuses.
Wrong.
There is nothing wrong or unacceptable about his report.
It is accurate and to the point.
You do not report more than necessary.
 
Back
Top Bottom