A couple pf points on the Sam Dubose killing

As one might expect, there is a rush to justice in the killing of Sam Dubose.  That does not mean that a miscarriage of justice will result, it simply means that "guilty until proven innocent" (or perhaps "guilty without a trial") is the new modus operandi.

So - two form Huffington Post:

1.  HP notes that the "Cop plead not guilty" to the killing.  SOmehow, I doubt he plead not guilty to the killing - it is on video, his hand, his gun, the shot fired, the sad death. For the sake of accuracy, it is more likely he plead not guilty to first-degree murder and will mount a defense based on self-defense.  I will not say what his chances are, but let's at least be accurate - he did not say he did not kill him, he is arguing the details of the event.  Doesn't look good for him.

2.  HP notes that some other LEOs have been quick to condemn this officer and others no so much.  What they seem to be saying is "If you are not willing to immediately, on only the evidence you currently have, reflexively condemn this person, then you are evil". I think they prefer the Prosecuting Attorney's approach to making really definitive, pejorative, and premature statements.

I do have to say that I disagree with the Prosecuting Attorney who noted ""I think [Tensing] lost his temper because Mr. DuBose wouldn't get out of his car."

There is no indication that he lost his temper; in fact, he seemed most patient with Mr. Dubose who seemed incoherent, evasive and largely unresponsive to lawful questions. Why and when he would have drawn his gun is another issue.  As some commenters online have noted, this was not a dangerous felon and if Dubose had driven away he was not going to get far. As others have noted, there was no apparent lethal threat here (but again, why jump to conclusions); there was an evasive, apparently intoxicated suspect and seeing this form another angle would be useful.  The officer was cordial, courteous, and very patient for much longer than many would have been, he behaved in a respectful and reasonable manner until he made the potential mistake of deploying his weapon.

The problem here is that Mr. Dubose's innocence is being assumed, while the officer's guilt is likewise.