UPDATE: Defendant in Walter Scott Death To Be Retried After Mistrial Declared

Before you read this post, I have to offer a disclaimer so that you won't think I'm any crazier than you already do. Or perhaps so that you won't think I'm newly crazy... Anyway, several months ago I began having trouble with Blogger (again) and have been  unable to correct the issue. I'm tired of taking hours to get out a post (or days) and have it still not be correct. So, I'm just posting this the way it is; perhaps someone will be able to help me correct it. (I do know some HTML 5/CSS 3)  The issue is the font; if you notice, in some places it's sentence case while in others it's all uppercase. I didn't do that, when I wrote it everything was in sentence case. When I hit Preview though, it all changed....
************************************************************************************

Well hallelujah,  democracy lives! I won't say 'justice', because we haven't seen that yet, but I'm praying  for it! Especially in this case, where they have it on videotape that the man was running away from the police officer after a traffic stop and the officer pulled  his gun and shot the man in the back, then placed a Taser by his dead body. His claim was that he was in fear for his life because the man running from him might have turned around and charged the officer!!!

"Slager testified that even at 18 feet away, Scott still posed a threat to him and could have turned around and charged him."

So he didn't shoot because the man was turning around, fumbling at his waistband, yelling threats, none of the usual dumb excuses; he shot because he thought the man who was obviously so scared that he was running away might turn around (at 18 feet  away) and charge him. Meaning the man  might run back the 18  yards he'd gained and attack the officer. If he was scared enough to run in the first place, why does this guy think we're going to believe that he thought the runner might turn around and come back? Nah, don't wash with me officer, no way. You shot him because he was 18 feet away already and gaining ground with every step, and you couldn't let it be said that you lost him because he outran you, so you took him down. (Of course that's JMHO)

Here's the story for you to read yourselves.

Walter Scott Cop To Be Retried for Murder in 2017

Ex-officer Michael Slager will again face a state jury trial for shooting Scott in the back beginning on March 1.

BY: The Root Staff

POSTED: December 30, 2017

Michael Slager testifies at his trial for killing of Walter Scott

The former North Charleston, South Carolina police officer charged in the murder of motorist Walter Scott will be retried on March 1, 2017, reports CNN.

A state judge declared a mistrial in the case earlier this month, after jurors could not unanimously reach a decision to convict.

Although Slager was caught lying about the April 4, 2015, encounter, in which video captures him shooting Scott several times in the back and placing his Taser near Scott’s body, the jury failed to reach a guilty verdict after four days and more than 24 hours of deliberation.Of the 12 jurors, 11 black and one white, one juror, in a note, said he couldn’t vote for a conviction and wouldn’t change his mind, despite the fact that the judge on the case allowed the jury to consider a lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter. Prosecutors charge that Scott, a father of four, ran after Slager stopped his car for a broken taillight because he feared going to jail for unpaid child support. They assert that Slager pursued and killed Scott even though his life was not in danger.

Slain father of four, Walter Scott

An emotional Slager testified that even at 18 feet away, Scott still posed a threat to him and could have turned around and charged him.

If convicted of either charge, Slager faces 30 years to life in prison.

Additionally, Slager is being tried in federal court on May 1, 2017, according to CBS News. In the federal case, Slager is charged with violating Scott’s rights under the color of law, lying to investigators and using a firearm in a violent crime. For those charges, he faces a term of life in prison. Read more at CNN and CBS News.

Update on Shooting of Charles Kinsey - What Did I Tell You?

Well, well, well, imagine that; the officer now claims  that he:

  "was aiming at the patient, who he thought was a threat, but missed and shot Charles Kinsey."

He   thought   the  patient   was   a  threat.  

Even  though the alleged   'victim'  was   lying on the ground with his hands  high in the  air  TELLING the officers  that  the other man (who was  sitting quietly playing with his truck, from what I could see) was his patient, was not dangerous, and that he .did not have a gun or weapon of any kind.  (see picture)

Does it look like Charles Kinsey is being in any way threatened by the patient? Where are the patient's hands? (In his lap!) So, the  still unidentified cop was aiming to shoot this man sitting with his hands in his lap  talking to Mr. Kinsey?

That's problem  #1 I have with this  new story today. Here's #2.

In the original article, this statement appeared: 

"Kinsey said that what upset him most about the incident was what happened after he was shot."

“They flipped me over, and I’m faced down in the ground, with cuffs on, waiting on the rescue squad to come. I’d say about 20, about 20 minutes it took the rescue squad to get there. And I was like, bleeding—I mean bleeding...."

Flipped him over?  Faced down on the ground? With cuffs on??? But wait,  I thought the cops believed the autistic person  was the dangerous one, and the one they just cuffed was the victim?

See? What did I  tell you? 

Guess I Need To Start Following Up!!

I'm rather embarrassed about this; after some thought it seems like it should have been obvious... When I first started this blog in 2008 it never occurred to me to go back and see if there were any updates to some of the older posts, especially the ones where crimes were committed and either no one was caught or the guilty were not being punished.

This one falls between the two, as it took them a while to identify the killer.

The original story was about a woman named Kim Jones, (you can read it here) a 56 year old woman who went out to the bus stop to go to work one day, and was shot and killed. At the time, my problem with it was the headline some of the newspaper articles were written under.

  Lesbian gunned down in North Philly

Kim Jones

 That was the way the articles in some Philadelphia newspapers read. (And other headlines along the same lines.) "Lesbian Gunned Down" as if she was a lesbian gang member who was executed by a bunch of gun-wielding competitors a la Valentine's Day Massacre and Elliott Ness! (I didn't realize that after all this time I am still so angry about that!) She was a social worker, she was a woman who worked at a non-profit, she was a newly married woman, she was a loving mother of two sons; she was NOT JUST A LESBIAN!! Considering the fact that it's a gay newspaper that the original article came from, one might think that would excuse it, but IMO it actually makes it worse. Being singled out and identified strictly by your gender is WRONG, and more wrong when it's done by those who are supposed to understand. 

Okay, I'm sorry, this is supposed to be about an update in Ms. Jones' murder case, not a rehash of my own rantings...

So here's the story. You can read the whole thing here if you prefer, but the upshot is Ms. Jones was targeted, just as the article states.  She was killed by someone who knew her schedule, so she was probably stalked, and the person was waiting for her when she came out to catch the bus. While standing at the bus stop, listening to gospel music and probably planning her day, someone walked up behind her and shot her in the back of the head. The reason it was done that way rather than a drive-by or faking a robbery or something? Because that way her killer had a better chance of not being seen. He couldn't let that happen, just in case he failed to kill her, because she knew her murderer. It was someone that she had hired as Associate Director at the non-profit organization she was Director of, someone that she worked closely with on a day-to-day basis. Randolph Sanders shot and killed her to keep her away from a meeting she had scheduled that day. She was meeting with DHS to inform them of Mr. Sanders' alleged misappropriation of funds.(You can read more about that here.)

To bring you up-to-date, unfortunately Mr. Sanders has not yet been to trial. His date is set for February 27, 2017. I will definitely be keeping track of this case and will keep you posted.

If you'd like to receive updates, you can follow my blog through G+1, go to the bottom of the page or sign up with Networked Blogs; if you have questions,  send me an email.