I believe in Charleston that we can set the stage for what being united, by keeping Burke alive and well. Being united first has to start at the local government level. It's always been to my understanding that the county,city,and state governments support the same people. Then why not each do their part to save an institution that can unite and serve everyone well.
I dream to create a hospitality high school focused on the hospitality Industry in Charleston. I think Burke would be a great location to start this off. It offers so much that we could all benefit.
I remember when Stoney Field opened. It was built on "reclaimed land" - the City of Charleston's garbage dump. Bishop England football players dubbed it Golgotha. It's a sin and a shame the City has chosen to let it fall into disrepair.
I also remember when Burke High School was a force for good in our community. I remember being thrilled by their band's performances in parades. I remember watching their debate teams in tournaments perform with poise and skill. I remember seeing Burke students around town - quietly proud and always joyful.
We, as Charlestonians, need to do everything we can to help Burke High School ascend to her former glory. She MUST become the shining jewel she was in Charleston's crown again. She deserves our help. Her students, past present and future, deserve our very best efforts.
I had surge protection thru SCE&G and they didn't pay out. They send you a denial letter then you never get put on permanent hold. It's a scam.
They didn't pay out on my claim. The who thing is a scam.
"The court's view of his actions on that day cannot be viewed the same as a Saturday night killing or a typical murder case, but must be viewed through the eyes of a reasonable police officer at the time he determined to use lethal force"
This is correct. As a police officer, he is not limited to firing in self defense. The 'Fleeing Felon' law, as amended around 1985, says an officer can fire upon a fleeing suspect IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE to determine the suspect is a danger to the officer, other officers in the area, or the community at large. This is what many people do not realize in these cases. An officer can LEGALLY shoot you in the back if the above conditions are met.
When determining guilt, the jury must consider if probable cause existed to fire. The suspect did not have to be an ACTUAL danger, only that the officer had a reasonable belief that the suspect could possibly be a danger. Unarmed or not, the officer can legally shoot you if he believes you are a danger at the time he fired.
In this case, the jury will be asked to determine if such probable cause existed. Could the officer see that the suspect, Mr. Scott, was unarmed? We can see his hands from our angle, but can the officer? Was the fact that the officer could not search Mr. Scott, and the later struggle, enough to create a reasonable image that Mr. Scott was a danger to others?
For this to be murder, there must be malice, and forethought. I doubt the prosecution has proved this. Moving the taser, if done to contaminate the scene, is not enough to prove murder. The prosecution should have avoided the political pressure to try for a murder conviction, and instead tried for voluntary manslaughter, which, I believe, would have been a more accurate charge for this case. But, what do I know.....
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper