Little-noticed loudmouth to exploit race issue in York County

We were puzzled by news of a press conference and "rally" to be held by the D.I.P.S.H.I.T. who leads some group which calls itself "T.H.U.G." in Rock Hill. Some guy from Charlotte, with nothing to do in his own city and state, has decided to stick his nose into a closed case where officers were forced to act in self-defense, killing a 15 year-old robber who pointed what appeared to be a pistol at them.

The intended goal of this press conference and the Saturday event is to:


"address issues that exist in Rock Hill, S.C. and abroad" and to "find ways to bridge the gap between the police & the community and to receive complaints from the community about discrimination"


The way we see it, the problem isn't a gap between police and the community, but rather a lack of understanding that if you commit violent crimes and point weapons at cops (or armed citizens acting in self-defense), you can expect to get shot. For the benefit of those who haven't figured out that violent crime comes with these kinds of occupational hazards, we hope the D.I.P.S.H.I.T. will take a few minutes to point this out while he's in town.

But since he's there to get attention, not solve problems, we're betting he won't.

We don't know if there will be any prayers of sympathy offered for the officers who shot the 15 year-old, who are likely going through a lot of hurt, or the families of cops who are slain in the line of duty or those who have been killed in robberies. In any event, we greatly resent this effort to exploit a tragedy and fuel racial animosity by the event's organizer and hope that he ... finds his way back to Charlotte as soon as possible.

We continue to support Kevin Brackett, the Solicitor for York County, who made the decision that the shooting by the officers was indeed justified, as well as the officers who were forced to make a tough, but necessary, decision to protect their lives, as well as their community.

11 Response to "Little-noticed loudmouth to exploit race issue in York County"

  1. west_rhino 26/6/09 10:50
    I'm left to ponder DSS being petitioned to carry forward child abuse, child neglect and contributing to the deliquency of a minor charges as a quid pro quo for any civil court charges of a civil rights violation.

    What say you Earl? Do we need Fedral OSH regulations for criminals, that we may have kinder gentler dhimmitude?
  2. pluvlaw 26/6/09 15:52
    FWIW, I hear that an in-car camera was essential in the Solicitor's decision to not charge the cop. I can tell you first hand that there are municipalities in SC that refuse to equip their vehicles with cameras b/c they don't want to "help" potential defendants. Please remember cases like this when you hear such nonsense.
  3. Earl Capps 26/6/09 15:57
    Pluv, nobody should be worried about accurate documentation and full disclosure, which is what video provides.

    Of course, there are a few former SCHP officers who probably wish video cameras hadn't been invented, but that's their problem.
  4. mg 26/6/09 16:09
    I support the police
  5. Anonymous 26/6/09 18:09
    Video cameras should be mandatory in all law enforcement vehicles. They protect the public, and the police. And quite simply, if they don't do anything wrong, then they have nothing to worry about.
  6. Obama Man 27/6/09 00:03
    Cracker cops killed a young sista and you bitch like a little white bitch about people standing up.

    Cracker, please. My President will fix this shit, wait and see.
  7. mg 27/6/09 12:26
    you can really bring them out Earl
  8. Anonymous 28/6/09 07:29
    Hey Earl, when's the cross burning?
  9. Anonymous 28/6/09 23:47
    Obama man--I hate to tell you this but your beloved Pres.Obama could find his ass with both hands,a mirror and compass. You may think he's the captain of state but the sad truth is he wouldnt make it a deck on a raft down the Santee...teg
  10. pluvlaw 29/6/09 09:15
    I think there actually are some pretty strong legal arguments that every cop car in the state that makes traffic stops IS REQUIRED to have cameras. The bill requiring on-site video of DUIs was passed in 1998 and companion amendments allowed for a 110% assessment on all fines in muni and magistrate courts. A portion of those assessments are supposed to be used to outfit vehicles.

    As to why some cops don't want video, I agree it makes no sense. But in lawschool, I worked on a project to convince law enforcements to videotape the full interrogation of suspects, not just their confession. At the time, I forget how many states had adopted that policy, but every single one had done so over the objections of local law enforcement. They went back and surveyed those cops after the policy had been in effect and every single agency that adhered to it, loved it now. Because it made their cases so much stronger in court.
  11. Anonymous 29/6/09 10:30
    Tis a reason field sobriety tests are done in front of the camera...

    Given the readiness to exocriate others, why hasn't the Charelston City Councilwoman's video graced Youtube?

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts!

To post a comment without having a Blogger account, select "Name/URL", put your name in, but leave the URL line blank. Email me if you'd like to comment, but need help making it work.