Definitely heavy tint making this milquetoast huwhyte guy look black or he would’ve been given a pass to drive like an entitled cretin
1 Like
This is an interesting elaboration on my question.
Not murder, but he may be culpable in the death.
Ladell W. Harrison created a deadly situation by fleeing the police and was charged with “fleeing/eluding an officer resulting in death.”
That seems like a reasonable charge to me. Harrison was convicted and is now in prison.
1 Like
This is where it starts going off the rails for me.
For the record, I believe the police are vital, appreciate their bigger picture and think they should be funded. And whatever else is a viral talking point.
I understand the logic of “surviving” a situational incident even if the officer is wrong in the moment but can’t get behind the comrade logic supporting it.
Officers are public servants and I don’t mean that in a derogatory way. I see entitlement as a two-way street. Scottie was acting very entitled per the accounts I’ve read (and I’ve mentioned my opinion around it), but this doesn’t mean officers do whatever the fuck they want and then press charges on ensuing events. Like grabbing a car with an engaged engine and then playing victim.
I’m not challenging that the officer didn’t have legal authority to stop Scottie.
Thoughts on no-knocks and officers being shot in the process?
As soon as Scottie fails to follow directives, he is in the wrong.
So what are the options? Do “I” overrule the first line of law and order, because there have been policemen who overstep their authority?
We are all flawed humans, both the police and the public. Don’t allow the “perfect” to be the enemy of the “good.”
1 Like
The law should be a guide for the type of society we want.
If we want more people to believe that arguing with a cop or running away from a cop is the best move when confronted by a cop, we should continue to make excuses for people who do and ensure that the penalties for doing so are minimal or nonexistent.
In other words, if you want more of a particular behavior, incentivize it.
Again, I’m not suggesting Scottie’s actions leading up to the car surfing were right. I don’t see “assault of an officer”, however.
I would suggest the option is to disallow police from pressing charges on events their own incorrect chain of action initiated.
I know my comment is tongue in cheek but I’m heading in to some end of week meetings and will be disengaging for a bit.
In the meantime, can I boil this down to “make an example, regardless of fault, for public perception”?
Sincerely asking.
It was a fluid situation that it seemed very few knew exactly what was going on.
IMO, follow police directives or suffer the consequences, regardless if the police directives are correct at the time. One thing is certain, a person sitting in a backed up line of cars has no idea what the cause is. At least the police have radio contact.
He will be in court on the 3rd…let the court decide
if he is guilty of something then he should pay whatever that price is for his actions
And that is a portion of law and order. This portion is done as a Monday Morning Quarterback. Supposedly, the best interest of the public is the standard for the sentence, if there is one.
What is different, is that both Scottie and the policeman didn’t have the advantage of being a Monday Morning Quarterback. They lived it “live.”
Depends on whether a reasonable person would believe they shot at an officer doing his job, or at a home invader.
What do you mean by “incorrect?” Are you suggesting that poor or ill-advised tactics allow someone to commit assault or murder(I guess it would be homicide in that case)?
My monday morning quarterbacking…is if he did something serious…he would not have been out within an hour and he definitley would not be making it the golf course for his tee time
1 Like
I think he’s saying when an officer employs a tactic that increases their odds of being harmed / killed… should the suspect he held liable. Like putting yourself in front of a fleeing car. He obviously has an anti-police attitude… cringey af… but I understand his position
1 Like
Posted bond likely… so that’s not necessarily true
Obviously, Scottie was not a flight risk, as in he would be lost forever. And it seems that when the event was analyzed apart from “real time” that there wasn’t a deep routed rejection of authority and no one was injured. Both sides prioritized the events differently. But I stand firm that he should have been arrested. The first line of law and order must be adhered to (as a Christian, Romans 13:1).
Cops have been sent to prison long before the general public ever heard the term qualified immunity.
3 Likes
Exactly. George Floyd was a lifelong violent, degenerate felon and pervert. But even the politicians ended up kneeling before saint fentanyl Floyd.
1 Like
That’s why I asked for clarification.
This would be stupid, and I don’t get the idea that’s what happened in this situation. I’m pretty sure it’s well-established that you can’t intentionally put yourself in danger in order to create a charge(or to justify the use of lethal force). But what he seems to be asking is whether everything that happens to an officer should be nitpicked prior to charges.
Officers should, ideally, use great tactics all the time, but it can’t always be expected. Chasing someone through the woods and his hand goes into his waistband? You should probably slip behind a tree while waiting to see that hand. That doesn’t mean that guy firing a blind shot behind him and hitting the officer in the head should not be charged with murder.
Having been in THOUSANDS of scenarios… it’s easy to armchair QB after the fact, but police too often do make less than ideal decisions under duress. More training is needed.