Until I hear more clarity of the events, I believe that Scottie contributed to him being charged with assault.
As best I can tell, this is not a fact. Might the car have been stopped? Only the officer and maybe Scottie know what happened at the moment the officer “attached” himself to the car Scottie was driving. The driver is always responsible for decisions he makes while driving.
Is there proof that the officer fabricated the story. I don’t know. I suppose the officer could have said he fabricated the story. But how do we know which time he told the truth? He could have felt pressured to alter his story.
If you felt that I didn’t answer this question, let me clarify. The evidence of the damaged pants of the officer and the fact that he sought treatment for injuries, regardless how minor, means that I have no problem with Scottie being arrested and “charged” with assault. (His guilt is determined by the court system.)
A little education before you harp about the minor injury of the officer. I am sure it is little different from when I worked for civil service. If you are injured on the job, you better go to doctor or you will find yourself with no workman’s compensation if you later are diagnosed with a spinal cord injury, etc.
You’re choosing to ignore the broader, developing dialogue in favor of literal blind trust, which you’ve defended to the point of maintaining optics even if the story is as egregious as it is beginning to sound.
For the 7th or 8th time, I disagree this line of thinking is best practice. I appreciate your explanations and defense of your stance but we can agree to disagree at this point. You don’t have to justify your belief to me.
From the article, “a pole-mounted video from across Shelbyville Road did not appear to substantiate the detective’s account. Three ESPN employees who were arriving at the scene to cover the PGA tournament also gave eyewitness reports that disputed it.”
While performing this incredibly stupid human trick, I am going to get hurt because of my lack of coordination and stupidity. I will blame you for my shortcomings and charge you with a felony because I am an officer of the law and I must protect you.
Well, you made the leap from this golfer’s arrest to QI, and Michael Brown’s death is still commonly cited in the context of advocating for the elimination of QI. You don’t seem to be running a fundamentally different playbook and you’re not highlighting any other examples to…
I guess I don’t see any particular significance to this case, other than the involvement of a high-profile athlete, murky details and differing accounts of the events. However it shakes out once all of the facts are known, I just don’t see it being all that significant to any broader discussion about law enforcement in the USA.
Besides, cases involving celebrity athletes don’t always work out the way one might expect. Some people even go so far as to say that OJ Simpson should have been found guilty of murder. Others might suggest that NFL players will face fewer consequences for beating women than you or I might.
I don’t recall any contention around the fact that Michael Brown charged the officer, after committing a violent crime. An escalation of force in this scenario makes perfect sense to me. The arguments opposing were essentially that black violent criminals who attack arresting officers shouldn’t be shot.
Scottie was driving in to a golf tournament, was told to proceed by an officer in uniform and then had his car tackled by another guy dressed like a parking attendant who then arrested him erroneously by his own admission if the articles stating his view that the charges should not be pursued are correct.
Definitely apples and oranges. Given this is the crux of your comment I’m not sure how to respond to the rest.
There was quite a bit of contention around the fact that Michael Brown assaulted Darren Wilson. Parts of the nation rioted over his death. It has since been woven into the argument against QI.
As @NickViar just pointed out, you’re really making all kinds of logical leaps with this story while working with a very limited set of facts. The only new fact I read in that story worth noting is that the D.A. is making an announcement tomorrow at 1pm.
So we are snippeting again. Against the greater backdrop of the developing story, it sure would.
I think this thread has flown its coup with snippets, tangents and forced points spiraling the conversation in many directions at this point.
If you believe the police should be able to make willynilly arrests and maintain the podium, as it appears to be the case with Scottie, then more power to you.
If, on the other hand, you believe probable cause should be followed and expected, it’s ok to admit that it sometimes isn’t and that this presents a problem. It doesn’t make you anti-police so don’t worry there.
If anything it makes you a limited government guy who appreciates individual freedom and the rule of law.
I’m not sure. I will be curious to see how this case plays out and what it looks like for both sides in the end.
I do not have a problem with the majority of police work, including force escalation, when warranted. And I would hinge on when warranted.
In this case if the burgeoning eyewitness & camera stories are true I would like to see the officer disciplined beyond a slap on the wrist and possibly terminated from the force.
The incompetence he displayed during his job (assuming the eyewitness story pretense) would justify the same in nearly every other profession out there. So if there is a status quo to break, it’s ending the “thin blue line” of protection for mistakes and incompetence, or worse. Speaking of optics, hold officers accountable for job quality, or best practice. Whatever descriptor feels best.
I’ll add the caveat that we don’t know the full story yet.
