- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 59,458
- Reaction score
- 39,041
- Location
- Best Coast Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Ya just don't get it do ya.The second officer wasn't involved in a killing. He arrived on scene after the fact and related his actions at the scene
Justice includes due process. That concept seems to escape some here who prefer to just make stuff up and hope it sticksPlay 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
In real life I debunk fallacies like what we've seen hereYa just don't get it do ya.
What do you do in real life.
What's the minimum number of sentences you would acceptIf 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.
In real life I debunk fallacies like what we've seen here
What's the minimum number of sentences you would accept
What trial. There's no reason to believe the second officer did anything wrong or that he will be chargedI will wait for the trial.
Nothing but BGi absurdity.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.
A 2 sentence report on a shooting?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/u...st-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
A 2 sentence report on a shooting?
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/u...st-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
A 2 sentence report on a shooting?
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.
What trial. There's no reason to believe the second officer did anything wrong or that he will be charged
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.
This thread isn't about the first officerOf 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?Making excuses, could strain something doing that.
Falsifying? There was not falsifying.Falsifying reports,
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.
Do you have a link to this?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.
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.
NO link. He made it upDo 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.
The Times seems to omit that fact that Habersham's comments were not the report but rather a supplement to the actual incident report.“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
Wrong.For an Officer involved killing. Yep, that is making excuses.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?