Minister: Shooting of black man by white officer racist

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[puck2]

To confirm what I wrote before, the US police needs an urgent revamp of its job education, look at this awful, uncontrolled and animallike behaviour of these violent police idiots (not yet reported here in TV.)

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/polizeigewalt-in-den-usa-neues-video-von-pruegelattacke-a-1028080.html

Edited April 15, 2015 by puck2

[F430murci]

When dealing with people like these, its no wonder cops and normal law abiding citizens in these areas are on edge.

----------

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/28780012/police-investigate-fight-in-viral-video?clienttype=generic

[Publicus]

Shooting runaway black guys who are unarmed in the back is the act of a very confused or a malicious police patrol officer, neither of which changes a history and tradition of US police patrolling going back to the early 19th century.

https://youtu.be/-XFYTtgZAlE

"Any law enforcement officer wound up that tightly and that scared should not be walking around with a gun. This video shows an incident on September 4, 2014, where Trooper Sean Graubert shoots Levar Jones in Columbia, South Carolina. If cops are trained to be wound that tightly and shoot on sight like that, we have a serious national problem."

[Publicus]

Edit the post immediately above to read: "...going back to the 18th century."

The posts above state that the first officially organized runaway slave posse or patrol was organized in South Carolina in 1704. Walter Scott was not around SC back then but there is a common element in this from now to back then, which is the respective skin color of each principal, a badge, a gun, a patrol function, a consciously and willfully fatal incident of the unarmed black person.

The black guy in the linked video --yet another video-- did not resist...did not appear to argue or try to menace the police patrol officer, did not reach for the patrol officer's sidearm or tezer, did not charge the patrol officer, did not appear to be threatening or making any gestures or motions that per se appeared to threaten or to menace the patrol officer in any way.

If patrol police are this terrified in certain areas of the country, such as involved Walter Scott in North Charlotte SC, then they are indeed cowered and unable to perform their duties to the citizens and their communities. The model of police militarization only makes things worse, as we have seen most recently.

Maybe the patrol homicide policeman Officer Slager and many others like him should have been operating a day taxi as a full time job instead of a police cruiser.

[halloween]

No, it was because you are white and rich, able to make the necessary registration, license, etc. for your vehicle. Poor people can't. You can try all you want, but the old right wing tactic of changing the subject and blaming the person won't work, except for those willing to do the same, i.e. right wingers. Oh, and I'd be glad to say all those words to your face, I'm no pacifist. The subject is an unarmed black man was shot in the back by a white cop and murdered, not me and not you.

Are you saying that poor people should be allowed to drive unlicensed and unregistered? And you assume white equals rich?

[sgtsabai]

In the lawyer's case, yes, white equals rich. In white people's case, white equals privilege. Assume = make an ass out of you, not me. Plenty of documented cases of confrontation with white people openly carrying a gun not only not getting shot, not getting arrested. No, people should have license, registration, insurance, many don't have the money, especially in these times. Unfortunately, many not only don't have the money to pay for those, they can't pay fines either. Are you suggesting, they walk everywhere looking for work only to get beat up and arrested for walking while black, maybe they should just be shot? Sounds like it. Being white and very poor isn't much better, ever not known where your next meal was going to come from or how you were going to feed your son? I have. Would I have ever gotten out of that situation if I had been black, I seriously, seriously doubt it. I was white (well a bit of Creek and Choctaw thrown in the mix...lol) and had white friends, attorneys, the good kind, there are a few, very, very few. And what exactly does not having proper license and registration have to do with getting murdered, dawg whistle, right wing subject change tatic.

[sgtsabai]

Here is a little cartoon with "officer friendly". Well, maybe its really not all that funny. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/13/1376893/-Cartoon-Hey-kids-It-s-Officer-Friendly?detail=email

[MaxYakov]

Shooting runaway black guys who are unarmed in the back is the act of a very confused or a malicious police patrol officer, neither of which changes a history and tradition of US police patrolling going back to the early 19th century.

https://youtu.be/-XFYTtgZAlE

"Any law enforcement officer wound up that tightly and that scared should not be walking around with a gun. This video shows an incident on September 4, 2014, where Trooper Sean Graubert shoots Levar Jones in Columbia, South Carolina. If cops are trained to be wound that tightly and shoot on sight like that, we have a serious national problem."

Jones was lucky to survive and the trooper's story didn't match the one told by the dash cam video - MSNBC Article.

I don't believe cops are trained to be "wound up that tightly" or to "shoot on sight like that", but that doesn't mean we don't have a national problem. BTW, I've never exited my vehicle after being pulled over unless invited to do so. Never thought it was a good idea and law enforcement doesn't like it either even though it is not illegal to do so.

Ya think maybe it (quick-to-shoot) has something to do with this:

South Carolina Line of Duty Deaths (Source: https://www.odmp.org/search/browse/south-carolina)

Gunfire - 194

Assault - 10

Stabbed - 8

Vehicular Assault - 12

Vehicle Pursuit - 12

Automobile Accident - 57

Blacks aren't the only victims of this: 70 year-old-man shot reaching for cane during traffic stop

Edited April 17, 2015 by MaxYakov

[Publicus]

Shooting runaway black guys who are unarmed in the back is the act of a very confused or a malicious police patrol officer, neither of which changes a history and tradition of US police patrolling going back to the early 19th century.

https://youtu.be/-XFYTtgZAlE

"Any law enforcement officer wound up that tightly and that scared should not be walking around with a gun. This video shows an incident on September 4, 2014, where Trooper Sean Graubert shoots Levar Jones in Columbia, South Carolina. If cops are trained to be wound that tightly and shoot on sight like that, we have a serious national problem."

Jones was lucky to survive and the trooper's story didn't match the one told by the dash cam video - MSNBC Article.

I don't believe cops are trained to be "wound up that tightly" or to "shoot on sight like that", but that doesn't mean we don't have a national problem. BTW, I've never exited my vehicle after being pulled over unless invited to do so. Never thought it was a good idea and law enforcement doesn't like it either even though it is not illegal to do so.

Ya think maybe it (quick-to-shoot) has something to do with this:

South Carolina Line of Duty Deaths (Source: https://www.odmp.org/search/browse/south-carolina)

Gunfire - 194

Assault - 10

Stabbed - 8

Vehicular Assault - 12

Vehicle Pursuit - 12

Automobile Accident - 57

Blacks aren't the only victims of this: 70 year-old-man shot reaching for cane during traffic stop

The data presented for South Carolina revert to the year 1797.

Can anyone link to runaway slave data or other data pertaining to blacks in the US that revert to, say, 1697....

Keep in mind African Americans in the US did not secure full citizenship until the postbellum year of 1868 when the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the laws was adopted.

The immediate question and the issue before us is anyway whether the minister in the OP is correct when he said at the funeral the shooting of the murdered Walter Scott was "racist"?

Was the homicide shooting of Walter Scott multiple times in the back racist?

Walter Scott had been running away from the police officer after the officer had stopped Scott while on police patrol. Are routing police patrols and the routine shootings of unarmed black guys now routine matters that everyone needs to accept, and to accept without any question in each and every circumstance?

Walter Scott was 50 years old and watching him run leaves no doubt of it. The hefty young buck cop who towered over Scott couldn't chase down the runaway Scott as a reasonable alternative to instantly shooting him to death in the back? I know a 70 year old white guy who's spent a professional career sitting in an office that could have tackled Walter Scott moments after Scott had begun to flee.

Violent techniques used on peaceful protesters in 1963. During desegregation protests in 1963, city officials, at the order of the brutally violent police commissioner Eugene "Bull" Conner, used fire hoses and clubs on un-armed, nonviolent protesters. Pictures like this one raised global awareness for the civil rights movement. Source: © AP Photo

I myself consistently support and respect the police across the country. We have 'em because we need 'em and we need to support 'em and to thank 'em every day. I'm just not sure about some local police in too many places and instances over too long a period of time.

[MaxYakov]

Shooting runaway black guys who are unarmed in the back is the act of a very confused or a malicious police patrol officer, neither of which changes a history and tradition of US police patrolling going back to the early 19th century.

https://youtu.be/-XFYTtgZAlE

"Any law enforcement officer wound up that tightly and that scared should not be walking around with a gun. This video shows an incident on September 4, 2014, where Trooper Sean Graubert shoots Levar Jones in Columbia, South Carolina. If cops are trained to be wound that tightly and shoot on sight like that, we have a serious national problem."

Jones was lucky to survive and the trooper's story didn't match the one told by the dash cam video - MSNBC Article.

I don't believe cops are trained to be "wound up that tightly" or to "shoot on sight like that", but that doesn't mean we don't have a national problem. BTW, I've never exited my vehicle after being pulled over unless invited to do so. Never thought it was a good idea and law enforcement doesn't like it either even though it is not illegal to do so.

Ya think maybe it (quick-to-shoot) has something to do with this:

South Carolina Line of Duty Deaths (Source: https://www.odmp.org/search/browse/south-carolina)

Gunfire - 194

Assault - 10

Stabbed - 8

Vehicular Assault - 12

Vehicle Pursuit - 12

Automobile Accident - 57

Blacks aren't the only victims of this: 70 year-old-man shot reaching for cane during traffic stop

The data presented for South Carolina revert to the year 1797.

Can anyone link to runaway slave data or other data pertaining to blacks in the US that revert to, say, 1697....

Keep in mind African Americans in the US did not secure full citizenship until the postbellum year of 1868 when the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the laws was adopted.

The immediate question and the issue before us is anyway whether the minister in the OP is correct when he said at the funeral the shooting of the murdered Walter Scott was "racist"?

Was the homicide shooting of Walter Scott multiple times in the back racist?

Walter Scott had been running away from the police officer after the officer had stopped Scott while on police patrol. Are routing police patrols and the routine shootings of unarmed black guys now routine matters that everyone needs to accept, and to accept without any question in each and every circumstance?

Walter Scott was 50 years old and watching him run leaves no doubt of it. The hefty young buck cop who towered over Scott couldn't chase down the runaway Scott as a reasonable alternative to instantly shooting him to death in the back? I know a 70 year old white guy who's spent a professional career sitting in an office that could have tackled Walter Scott moments after Scott had begun to flee.

Violent techniques used on peaceful protesters in 1963. During desegregation protests in 1963, city officials, at the order of the brutally violent police commissioner Eugene "Bull" Conner, used fire hoses and clubs on un-armed, nonviolent protesters. Pictures like this one raised global awareness for the civil rights movement. Source: © AP Photo

I myself consistently support and respect the police across the country. We have 'em because we need 'em and we need to support 'em and to thank 'em every day. I'm just not sure about some local police in too many places and instances over too long a period of time.

Was the homicide shooting of Walter Scott multiple times in the back racist?

Even if it weren't, it's going to be declared so (apparently).

Are routing police patrols and the routine shootings of unarmed black guys now routine matters that everyone needs to accept, and to accept without any question in each and every circumstance?

Apparently not, as evidenced by his immediate firing and charge of murder delivered by the prosecutor. I'm waiting for the other DOJ shoe to drop.

I'm surprised you haven't politicized this double tragedy. Care to try?

[Publicus]

Shooting runaway black guys who are unarmed in the back is the act of a very confused or a malicious police patrol officer, neither of which changes a history and tradition of US police patrolling going back to the early 19th century.

https://youtu.be/-XFYTtgZAlE

"Any law enforcement officer wound up that tightly and that scared should not be walking around with a gun. This video shows an incident on September 4, 2014, where Trooper Sean Graubert shoots Levar Jones in Columbia, South Carolina. If cops are trained to be wound that tightly and shoot on sight like that, we have a serious national problem."

Jones was lucky to survive and the trooper's story didn't match the one told by the dash cam video - MSNBC Article.

I don't believe cops are trained to be "wound up that tightly" or to "shoot on sight like that", but that doesn't mean we don't have a national problem. BTW, I've never exited my vehicle after being pulled over unless invited to do so. Never thought it was a good idea and law enforcement doesn't like it either even though it is not illegal to do so.

Ya think maybe it (quick-to-shoot) has something to do with this:

South Carolina Line of Duty Deaths (Source: https://www.odmp.org/search/browse/south-carolina)

Gunfire - 194

Assault - 10

Stabbed - 8

Vehicular Assault - 12

Vehicle Pursuit - 12

Automobile Accident - 57

Blacks aren't the only victims of this: 70 year-old-man shot reaching for cane during traffic stop

The data presented for South Carolina revert to the year 1797.

Can anyone link to runaway slave data or other data pertaining to blacks in the US that revert to, say, 1697....

Keep in mind African Americans in the US did not secure full citizenship until the postbellum year of 1868 when the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the laws was adopted.

The immediate question and the issue before us is anyway whether the minister in the OP is correct when he said at the funeral the shooting of the murdered Walter Scott was "racist"?

Was the homicide shooting of Walter Scott multiple times in the back racist?

Walter Scott had been running away from the police officer after the officer had stopped Scott while on police patrol. Are routing police patrols and the routine shootings of unarmed black guys now routine matters that everyone needs to accept, and to accept without any question in each and every circumstance?

Walter Scott was 50 years old and watching him run leaves no doubt of it. The hefty young buck cop who towered over Scott couldn't chase down the runaway Scott as a reasonable alternative to instantly shooting him to death in the back? I know a 70 year old white guy who's spent a professional career sitting in an office that could have tackled Walter Scott moments after Scott had begun to flee.

Violent techniques used on peaceful protesters in 1963. During desegregation protests in 1963, city officials, at the order of the brutally violent police commissioner Eugene "Bull" Conner, used fire hoses and clubs on un-armed, nonviolent protesters. Pictures like this one raised global awareness for the civil rights movement. Source: © AP Photo

I myself consistently support and respect the police across the country. We have 'em because we need 'em and we need to support 'em and to thank 'em every day. I'm just not sure about some local police in too many places and instances over too long a period of time.

Was the homicide shooting of Walter Scott multiple times in the back racist?

Even if it weren't, it's going to be declared so (apparently).

Are routing police patrols and the routine shootings of unarmed black guys now routine matters that everyone needs to accept, and to accept without any question in each and every circumstance?

Apparently not, as evidenced by his immediate firing and charge of murder delivered by the prosecutor. I'm waiting for the other DOJ shoe to drop.

I'm surprised you haven't politicized this double tragedy. Care to try?

Was the homicide shooting of Walter Scott multiple times in the back racist?

Even if it weren't, it's going to be declared so (apparently).

Answer the question plse thx.

It is a question that is taken from the assertion in the OP yet certain people have been sidestepping it, have avoided it, and have obscured it throughout the thread.

Pirouetting both the question and the issue instead doesn't cut it.

[MaxYakov]

<Snipped>

Jones was lucky to survive and the trooper's story didn't match the one told by the dash cam video - MSNBC Article.

I don't believe cops are trained to be "wound up that tightly" or to "shoot on sight like that", but that doesn't mean we don't have a national problem. BTW, I've never exited my vehicle after being pulled over unless invited to do so. Never thought it was a good idea and law enforcement doesn't like it either even though it is not illegal to do so.

Ya think maybe it (quick-to-shoot) has something to do with this:

South Carolina Line of Duty Deaths (Source: https://www.odmp.org/search/browse/south-carolina)

Gunfire - 194

Assault - 10

Stabbed - 8

Vehicular Assault - 12

Vehicle Pursuit - 12

Automobile Accident - 57

Blacks aren't the only victims of this: 70 year-old-man shot reaching for cane during traffic stop

The data presented for South Carolina revert to the year 1797.

Can anyone link to runaway slave data or other data pertaining to blacks in the US that revert to, say, 1697....

Keep in mind African Americans in the US did not secure full citizenship until the postbellum year of 1868 when the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the laws was adopted.

The immediate question and the issue before us is anyway whether the minister in the OP is correct when he said at the funeral the shooting of the murdered Walter Scott was "racist"?

Was the homicide shooting of Walter Scott multiple times in the back racist?

Walter Scott had been running away from the police officer after the officer had stopped Scott while on police patrol. Are routing police patrols and the routine shootings of unarmed black guys now routine matters that everyone needs to accept, and to accept without any question in each and every circumstance?

Walter Scott was 50 years old and watching him run leaves no doubt of it. The hefty young buck cop who towered over Scott couldn't chase down the runaway Scott as a reasonable alternative to instantly shooting him to death in the back? I know a 70 year old white guy who's spent a professional career sitting in an office that could have tackled Walter Scott moments after Scott had begun to flee.

Violent techniques used on peaceful protesters in 1963. During desegregation protests in 1963, city officials, at the order of the brutally violent police commissioner Eugene "Bull" Conner, used fire hoses and clubs on un-armed, nonviolent protesters. Pictures like this one raised global awareness for the civil rights movement. Source: © AP Photo

I myself consistently support and respect the police across the country. We have 'em because we need 'em and we need to support 'em and to thank 'em every day. I'm just not sure about some local police in too many places and instances over too long a period of time.

Was the homicide shooting of Walter Scott multiple times in the back racist?

Even if it weren't, it's going to be declared so (apparently).

Are routing police patrols and the routine shootings of unarmed black guys now routine matters that everyone needs to accept, and to accept without any question in each and every circumstance?

Apparently not, as evidenced by his immediate firing and charge of murder delivered by the prosecutor. I'm waiting for the other DOJ shoe to drop.

I'm surprised you haven't politicized this double tragedy. Care to try?

Was the homicide shooting of Walter Scott multiple times in the back racist?

Even if it weren't, it's going to be declared so (apparently).

Answer the question plse thx.

It is a question that is taken from the assertion in the OP yet certain people have been sidestepping it, have avoided it, and have obscured it throughout the thread.

Pirouetting both the question and the issue instead doesn't cut it.

Firstly, the minister did not use the term "racist" he used "racial prejudice". Here's the quote from the OP:

"All of us have seen the video," the Rev. George Hamilton, the minister at W.O.R.D. Ministries Christian Center, told an overflow congregation. "There is no doubt in my mind and I feel that Walter's death was motivated by racial prejudice." (emphasis mine, of course)

Secondly, the minister is entitled to his opinion and it is apparently with "no doubt".

Thirdly, It would surprise me if Slager didn't have any "racial prejudice". However, I am not going to "prejudge" Slager as the minister did beyond what is on the video, which doesn't show his thought processes or state of mind as he pulled the trigger. What disturbs me the most, besides the actual shooting, is Slager's seeming casual attitude to it, his attempt to cover it up and his seeming lack of remorse. This will not help him at trial.

Fourthly, why don't you go to North Charleston, interview everyone involved, and get back to us with your astute opinion?

Edited April 18, 2015 by Scott

[Publicus]

<<snip>>

The immediate question and the issue before us is anyway whether the minister in the OP is correct when he said at the funeral the shooting of the murdered Walter Scott was "racist"?

Was the homicide shooting of Walter Scott multiple times in the back racist?

Walter Scott had been running away from the police officer after the officer had stopped Scott while on police patrol. Are routing police patrols and the routine shootings of unarmed black guys now routine matters that everyone needs to accept, and to accept without any question in each and every circumstance?

Walter Scott was 50 years old and watching him run leaves no doubt of it. The hefty young buck cop who towered over Scott couldn't chase down the runaway Scott as a reasonable alternative to instantly shooting him to death in the back? I know a 70 year old white guy who's spent a professional career sitting in an office that could have tackled Walter Scott moments after Scott had begun to flee.

Violent techniques used on peaceful protesters in 1963. During desegregation protests in 1963, city officials, at the order of the brutally violent police commissioner Eugene "Bull" Conner, used fire hoses and clubs on un-armed, nonviolent protesters. Pictures like this one raised global awareness for the civil rights movement. Source: © AP Photo

I myself consistently support and respect the police across the country. We have 'em because we need 'em and we need to support 'em and to thank 'em every day. I'm just not sure about some local police in too many places and instances over too long a period of time.

Was the homicide shooting of Walter Scott multiple times in the back racist?

Even if it weren't, it's going to be declared so (apparently).

Are routing police patrols and the routine shootings of unarmed black guys now routine matters that everyone needs to accept, and to accept without any question in each and every circumstance?

Apparently not, as evidenced by his immediate firing and charge of murder delivered by the prosecutor. I'm waiting for the other DOJ shoe to drop.

I'm surprised you haven't politicized this double tragedy. Care to try?

Was the homicide shooting of Walter Scott multiple times in the back racist?

Even if it weren't, it's going to be declared so (apparently).

Answer the question plse thx.

It is a question that is taken from the assertion in the OP yet certain people have been sidestepping it, have avoided it, and have obscured it throughout the thread.

Pirouetting both the question and the issue instead doesn't cut it.

Firstly, the minister did not use the term "racist" he used "racial prejudice". Here's the quote from the OP:

"All of us have seen the video," the Rev. George Hamilton, the minister at W.O.R.D. Ministries Christian Center, told an overflow congregation. "There is no doubt in my mind and I feel that Walter's death was motivated by racial prejudice." (emphasis mine, of course)

Secondly, the minister is entitled to his opinion and it is apparently with "no doubt".

Thirdly, It would surprise me if Slager didn't have any "racial prejudice". However, I am not going to "prejudge" Slager as the minister did beyond what is on the video, which doesn't show his thought processes or state of mind as he pulled the trigger.

Fourthly, why don't you go to North Charleston, interview everyone involved, and get back to us with your astute opinion?

I pose questions yet in successive posts I get questions as a reply to my questions.

And the representation of the OP by the post immediately above is incomplete to the point of it being an inaccurate representation.

Because there is this from the OP::

Minister: Shooting of black man by white officer racist

BRUCE SMITH, Associated Press

PHILLIP LUCAS, Associated Press

SUMMERVILLE, South Carolina (AP) — The death of a black man shot in the back while fleeing a white police officer was the act of a racist cop, a minister told hundreds of mourners who gathered Saturday for the funeral of Walter Scott.

So it is unmistakably stated in the headline and in the lead paragraph of the news article that the minister said the police officer is a "racist cop." The act of a racist cop is, after all, the act of a racist cop. The minister said Officer Slager's racist act defines Slager as a "racist cop."

Racist cop.

So I asked if anyone would question the minister saying the murder of Walter Scott was racist, whether anyone would contest the minister's assertion that the murder was a racist act committed by a racist cop. My question posed above in the thread is whether the minister is correct, accurate, whether what the minister said at Scott's funeral is true.

Racist cop.

I ask again, is the minister's statement true?

[Publicus]

From the OP::

"This particular cop was a racist. You don't Tase a man and then shoot," the minister said. But he added "we will not indict the entire law enforcement community for the act of one racist."

[MaxYakov]

From the OP::

"This particular cop was a racist. You don't Tase a man and then shoot," the minister said. But he added "we will not indict the entire law enforcement community for the act of one racist."

Yes, the minister appeared to escalate the severity of the race-based accusations and even pass judgment on former officer Slager's use of his firearms, but I think his comments were inappropriate for this or any funeral.

[Publicus]

From the OP::

"This particular cop was a racist. You don't Tase a man and then shoot," the minister said. But he added "we will not indict the entire law enforcement community for the act of one racist."

Yes, the minister appeared to escalate the severity of the race-based accusations and even pass judgment on former officer Slager's use of his firearms, but I think his comments were inappropriate for this or any funeral.

No one turned their back on the minister when he spoke, as the NYPD had turned their backs on their mayor when he spoke at the funerals of the two NYPD police officers shot to death by the deranged murderer who then went off to kill himself besides.

The NYPD were willfully and arrogantly disrespectful of their mayor as they stood in formation outside the funeral service for their slain officers, an act that was intemperate and a putulant tantrum that many people in NYC, the nation and the world recognized as such and wholly rejected.

It could seem some certain police as displayed in New York seem to have their own code and rules that other police in South Carolina and throughout the country do not have. Did South Carolina police reject or turn their backs on the minister because of the minister's statement? There aren't any reports of it that I have come across.

The video of the murder of the runaway Walter Scott by Officer Slager has not been discredited, so the minister at Scott's funeral seems to have spoken the truth about Slager's unjustified use of his sidearm. It is not in dispute either that the residents of SC, the nation and the world also agree with the minister concerning Slager and the unjustified use of his firearm, and the dreaded reason Slager used his firearm against the runaway Scott.

The minister said what he believes and what so many others everywhere believe. It did indeed need to be said and it was appropriately said at Scott's funeral, which was a peaceful and respectful environment and occasion. If the SC police and other police in the US are not criticizing the minister for what he said, when, where and why, then others who do criticize the minister make the severe error to speak inappropriately, unwisely, without any proper invitation or welcome.

[MaxYakov]

From the OP::

"This particular cop was a racist. You don't Tase a man and then shoot," the minister said. But he added "we will not indict the entire law enforcement community for the act of one racist."

Yes, the minister appeared to escalate the severity of the race-based accusations and even pass judgment on former officer Slager's use of his firearms, but I think his comments were inappropriate for this or any funeral.

No one turned their back on the minister when he spoke, as the NYPD had turned their backs on their mayor when he spoke at the funerals of the two NYPD police officers shot to death by the deranged murderer who then went off to kill himself besides.

The NYPD were willfully and arrogantly disrespectful of their mayor as they stood in formation outside the funeral service for their slain officers, an act that was intemperate and a putulant tantrum that many people in NYC, the nation and the world recognized as such and wholly rejected.

It could seem some certain police as displayed in New York seem to have their own code and rules that other police in South Carolina and throughout the country do not have. Did South Carolina police reject or turn their backs on the minister because of the minister's statement? There aren't any reports of it that I have come across.

The video of the murder of the runaway Walter Scott by Officer Slager has not been discredited, so the minister at Scott's funeral seems to have spoken the truth about Slager's unjustified use of his sidearm. It is not in dispute either that the residents of SC, the nation and the world also agree with the minister concerning Slager and the unjustified use of his firearm, and the dreaded reason Slager used his firearm against the runaway Scott.

The minister said what he believes and what so many others everywhere believe. It did indeed need to be said and it was appropriately said at Scott's funeral, which was a peaceful and respectful environment and occasion. If the SC police and other police in the US are not criticizing the minister for what he said, when, where and why, then others who do criticize the minister make the severe error to speak inappropriately, unwisely, without any proper invitation or welcome.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

There are and will be in the future plenty of venues for accusing Slager of racism. I just don't think it was necessary to do it at the funeral, if that's what he actually did. He could have had a press conference following the funeral, for example. This is the type of activism and race-baiting that is in Al Sharpton's realm. There will be plenty of opportunity for everyone to climb on Slager case (literally) during the trial and afterwards. Perhaps HeijoshinCool wasn't far off with the third post of this thread here.

What was the minister's intention, exactly?

He's certainly not making it any easier for the law enforcement to do their jobs, just as did Slager's actions as seen on the video did not. Also, as we saw in Ferguson, this type of incitement can lead to mayhem in the community.

What is your intention in pressing this issue?

[Publicus]

Well at least there was a response before there came another question so first things first.

The black community in the United States has its way of doing things just as the blue collar police community has its ways. Second guessing the minister for his statement in a church concerning this high profile homicide which brought charges of murder against the killer cop seems to be a game to some while it is a serious matter to the large number among the populations who reject such policing of our communities.

The only mayhem occurring is in the atrocious police patrol behaviors of certain police. It can reasonably be said all parties in SC that are involved or affected by Officer Slager's murderous homicide of Walter Scott have conducted themselves well and without riot and absent violence against the police. While the impact of the homicide has been national and global, it has not been destructive or negative. It is a tragedy and the fact is being mitigated somewhat by its being informative, instructive, constructive.

As to the solicitous and dubious question in the post, I with so many others nationally and globally continue to pursue the nature and the character of this conscious and willful homicide in which the unarmed runaway 50 year old Scott was shot to death in the back multiple times. The discourse to include at this thread and site is a part of the reality of the tragedy and its being informative, instructive, constructive.

After all, the officer who committed this obvious and blatant crime is seen immediately afterward on the video obstructing justice at the scene, to include planting 'evidence' while his police patrol partner assisted in same from the moment of his own arrival to the unnecessary fatality. They almost got away with it. The fact the two police officers have thus far not got away with it makes this homicide by Slager a seminal event.

[MaxYakov]

Well at least there was a response before there came another question so first things first.

The black community in the United States has its way of doing things just as the blue collar police community has its ways. Second guessing the minister for his statement in a church concerning this high profile homicide which brought charges of murder against the killer cop seems to be a game to some while it is a serious matter to the large number among the populations who reject such policing of our communities.

The only mayhem occurring is in the atrocious police patrol behaviors of certain police. It can reasonably be said all parties in SC that are involved or affected by Officer Slager's murderous homicide of Walter Scott have conducted themselves well and without riot and absent violence against the police. While the impact of the homicide has been national and global, it has not been destructive or negative. It is a tragedy and the fact is being mitigated somewhat by its being informative, instructive, constructive.

As to the solicitous and dubious question in the post, I with so many others nationally and globally continue to pursue the nature and the character of this conscious and willful homicide in which the unarmed runaway 50 year old Scott was shot to death in the back multiple times. The discourse to include at this thread and site is a part of the reality of the tragedy and its being informative, instructive, constructive.

After all, the officer who committed this obvious and blatant crime is seen immediately afterward on the video obstructing justice at the scene, to include planting 'evidence' while his police patrol partner assisted in same from the moment of his own arrival to the unnecessary fatality. They almost got away with it. The fact the two police officers have thus far not got away with it makes this homicide by Slager a seminal event.

Sentence 1: OK. Here we go again.

Paragraph 1: My discussion is not about the "black community" in the US. This is specifically about, North Charleston, SC, which was listed by the 2010 Congressional Quarterly Press as No. 63 in a list of 400 "most dangerous cities" which was a "significant drop from the previous year". The "City officials attributed the drop to the hard work of the North Charleston and the cooperation of city residents". Ref: Wikipedia

And, once again, my point was that it was a funeral (even though it occurred in a church) and his statements were not appropriate for the proceeding. The purpose of the funeral should have been to honor Scott and not to condemn his killer of racism. By doing so it could be considered by some a condemnation of the North Charleston police department despite the minister's claim that he was not doing so.

A CBC News article had a slightly different version of the minister's racism accusation here (Posted Apr 11, 2015 6:48 AM EST):

"Reverend George Hamilton, a minister at W.O.R.D. Ministries, told the overflow crowd as Scott's funeral ended that the shooting "was an act motivated by overt racism," and that the officer who shot him, Michael Slager, was a disgrace to the North Charleston Police Department."

You won't "second guess" the Reverend Dr. George Hamilton of the W.O.R.D. Ministries Christian Center but I will:

He was using the funeral as a platform for inciting political activism or some other agenda.

The evening of April 11, there was a demonstration at the City Hall as documented by Yahoo News here.

"A group of marchers stood in the lobby of North Charleston City Hall discussing ways to move the community forward after Walter Scott's shooting. Participants talked about how their lives have been touched by gun violence and law enforcement. Marchers chanted and sang as they began their walk.

Some wore shirts that said "No Target Practice," and "Stop Killing Us." One of the group's leaders wore a shirt with an empty Skittles bag fastened to it and an empty can of Arizona Iced Tea on a rope — a nod to Trayvon Martin, 17, who was fatally shot by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who was acquitted in his death."

It seems that there are black elements and others, continue their protests of the Zimmerman acquittal.

To what end?

Paragraph 2: You asserted that the "only mayhem occurring" was in the "atrocious police patrol behaviors of certain police". The Charleston, SC historic crime rate record doesn't exactly back your "only mayhem" assertion does it? To whom are you referring, exactly? If it is former officer Slager, he stands accused of murder, not mayhem. Can you be more specific? I know I saw a lot of mayhem in Ferguson and it was not by the police department.

Paragraph 3: Fine. As long as the "the nature and the character of this conscious and willful homicide in which the unarmed runaway 50 year old Scott was shot to death in the back multiple times" is done honestly, objectively and out of funerals.

Paragraph 4: "The fact the two police officers have thus far not got away with it makes this homicide by Slager a seminal event." I guess you're implying that other police officers have "got away with it". A lot of other police officers have not "got away with it" and I'm sure many bad cops have committed crimes and have escaped punishment. But I don't see this one as much different from the Bart Police shooting of Oscar Grant who didn't "get away with it" either. Although it probably was an accident by former Bart police officer Mehserle, many in the black community rioted and wanted him accused of murder.

The common thread I see in Oakland, in Ferguson, even with the Zimmerman incident, is behavior that has no place in a civil society or outright lawlessness leading to tragic incidents, whether they be errors of judgment by law enforcement officers or even murder. Following these incidents it has become not unlikely that additional lawlessness will ensue by large numbers of rioters and protesters. I consider the actions of the black community and others from outside Ferguson to be one of the most embarrassing moments American History and the whole world was watching it.

Where is the outrage about these incidents of lawlessness, that the minister was risking inciting again in North Charleston at a funeral by accusing someone who is in jail facing murder charges and possibly other charges as well?

As an after thought, as far as I can tell from rudimentary research that being a racist is not (yet) a crime unless one acts upon racist beliefs in a manner that conflicts with the law. Ref: www.quora.com

The minister did stop short, it appears, of accusing Slager of committing what I guess would be considered a "race crime". Or was the implication of it enough for most of his conveniently-available audience, including the press? Or was he really advocating a "hate crime" (Wiki) investigation of Slager's killing of Scott?

[rijit]

it was @ worst foolish to run, but unforgivable to shoot him in the bac and on the face of it a case should be brought. However, racist? I suppose the question that ought to be asked is would he have been shot if he weren't afro american?

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Publicus]

Well at least there was a response before there came another question so first things first.

The black community in the United States has its way of doing things just as the blue collar police community has its ways. Second guessing the minister for his statement in a church concerning this high profile homicide which brought charges of murder against the killer cop seems to be a game to some while it is a serious matter to the large number among the populations who reject such policing of our communities.

The only mayhem occurring is in the atrocious police patrol behaviors of certain police. It can reasonably be said all parties in SC that are involved or affected by Officer Slager's murderous homicide of Walter Scott have conducted themselves well and without riot and absent violence against the police. While the impact of the homicide has been national and global, it has not been destructive or negative. It is a tragedy and the fact is being mitigated somewhat by its being informative, instructive, constructive.

As to the solicitous and dubious question in the post, I with so many others nationally and globally continue to pursue the nature and the character of this conscious and willful homicide in which the unarmed runaway 50 year old Scott was shot to death in the back multiple times. The discourse to include at this thread and site is a part of the reality of the tragedy and its being informative, instructive, constructive.

After all, the officer who committed this obvious and blatant crime is seen immediately afterward on the video obstructing justice at the scene, to include planting 'evidence' while his police patrol partner assisted in same from the moment of his own arrival to the unnecessary fatality. They almost got away with it. The fact the two police officers have thus far not got away with it makes this homicide by Slager a seminal event.

Sentence 1: OK. Here we go again.

Paragraph 1: My discussion is not about the "black community" in the US. This is specifically about, North Charleston, SC, which was listed by the 2010 Congressional Quarterly Press as No. 63 in a list of 400 "most dangerous cities" which was a "significant drop from the previous year". The "City officials attributed the drop to the hard work of the North Charleston and the cooperation of city residents". Ref: Wikipedia

And, once again, my point was that it was a funeral (even though it occurred in a church) and his statements were not appropriate for the proceeding. The purpose of the funeral should have been to honor Scott and not to condemn his killer of racism. By doing so it could be considered by some a condemnation of the North Charleston police department despite the minister's claim that he was not doing so.

A CBC News article had a slightly different version of the minister's racism accusation here (Posted Apr 11, 2015 6:48 AM EST):

"Reverend George Hamilton, a minister at W.O.R.D. Ministries, told the overflow crowd as Scott's funeral ended that the shooting "was an act motivated by overt racism," and that the officer who shot him, Michael Slager, was a disgrace to the North Charleston Police Department."

You won't "second guess" the Reverend Dr. George Hamilton of the W.O.R.D. Ministries Christian Center but I will:

He was using the funeral as a platform for inciting political activism or some other agenda.

The evening of April 11, there was a demonstration at the City Hall as documented by Yahoo News here.

"A group of marchers stood in the lobby of North Charleston City Hall discussing ways to move the community forward after Walter Scott's shooting. Participants talked about how their lives have been touched by gun violence and law enforcement. Marchers chanted and sang as they began their walk.

Some wore shirts that said "No Target Practice," and "Stop Killing Us." One of the group's leaders wore a shirt with an empty Skittles bag fastened to it and an empty can of Arizona Iced Tea on a rope — a nod to Trayvon Martin, 17, who was fatally shot by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who was acquitted in his death."

It seems that there are black elements and others, continue their protests of the Zimmerman acquittal.

To what end?

Paragraph 2: You asserted that the "only mayhem occurring" was in the "atrocious police patrol behaviors of certain police". The Charleston, SC historic crime rate record doesn't exactly back your "only mayhem" assertion does it? To whom are you referring, exactly? If it is former officer Slager, he stands accused of murder, not mayhem. Can you be more specific? I know I saw a lot of mayhem in Ferguson and it was not by the police department.

Paragraph 3: Fine. As long as the "the nature and the character of this conscious and willful homicide in which the unarmed runaway 50 year old Scott was shot to death in the back multiple times" is done honestly, objectively and out of funerals.

Paragraph 4: "The fact the two police officers have thus far not got away with it makes this homicide by Slager a seminal event." I guess you're implying that other police officers have "got away with it". A lot of other police officers have not "got away with it" and I'm sure many bad cops have committed crimes and have escaped punishment. But I don't see this one as much different from the Bart Police shooting of Oscar Grant who didn't "get away with it" either. Although it probably was an accident by former Bart police officer Mehserle, many in the black community rioted and wanted him accused of murder.

The common thread I see in Oakland, in Ferguson, even with the Zimmerman incident, is behavior that has no place in a civil society or outright lawlessness leading to tragic incidents, whether they be errors of judgment by law enforcement officers or even murder. Following these incidents it has become not unlikely that additional lawlessness will ensue by large numbers of rioters and protesters. I consider the actions of the black community and others from outside Ferguson to be one of the most embarrassing moments American History and the whole world was watching it.

Where is the outrage about these incidents of lawlessness, that the minister was risking inciting again in North Charleston at a funeral by accusing someone who is in jail facing murder charges and possibly other charges as well?

As an after thought, as far as I can tell from rudimentary research that being a racist is not (yet) a crime unless one acts upon racist beliefs in a manner that conflicts with the law. Ref: www.quora.com

The minister did stop short, it appears, of accusing Slager of committing what I guess would be considered a "race crime". Or was the implication of it enough for most of his conveniently-available audience, including the press? Or was he really advocating a "hate crime" (Wiki) investigation of Slager's killing of Scott?

Just about everyone agrees the mayor and police chief of North Charlotte have handled this reasonably well since the video had become available so your post says nothing new or significant and moreover fails to find riot, violence, disorder, to the extent of it making headlines due to lives lost, people injured, property destroyed or damaged.

You and I agree to disagree that the minister spoke headlines at the funeral instead of, say, holding a separate press conference....for which the reactionaries of the society are likely to have attacked him anyway.

The minister's statements at the funeral that the murder was an act of racism has been taken pretty calmly by all groups involved as there have been no riots, wild demonstrations, further violence or anything of the sort. I think the minister well expected a continued public calm, which is the extant and ongoing state of affairs there. That's not to say people aren't upset, but the whole of the situation in North Charolette has been under control from the outset of the murder.

And here is the headline and the story from Fox which btw says nothing against the minister saying at the funeral that the murder was an act of racism by a "racist" police officer.....

Minister at Walter Scott's funeral calls shooting an act of racist cop

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/12/minister-at-walter-scott-funeral-calls-shooting-act-racist-cop/

Maybe a few people elsewhere have some individual and personal problem in what the minister said at the Scott funeral, but the vast number of the rest of us simply accept the minister's statements at the Scott funeral as not only informative, but as accurate, true, appropriate. It seems only the people who don' like truth, fact, reality, try to raise a false stink about truth being spoken at a funeral.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Publicus