SC - Walter Scott, 50, fatally shot by North Charleston PD officer, 4 April 2015 - #1

[vlpate]

He actually fought with the cop over the taser...a weapon, and then ran...not justifying the shooting, just saying he committed a felony when he did that. Looking at the stills from the video, it looks like the taser landed behind Slager and he may not have known it...maybe thought Scott still had it.

 

[MyBelle]

Exactly, or better yet they had his friend still sitting in the car. They could have asked him, to go ask Scott to come back and talk to them and get his license and car back. If that didn't work they could have gone and asked his mother to talk to him. More then likely after he calmed down, he would have turned himself in. Then the problem would be solved, and the lazy cops wouldn't even have to go chase him.

It's just a brake light charge. No need to kill a guy for it.

No need to disobey an officer's instruction and run away like a coward or physically assault the officer. Man up, make the repairs and pay the fine.

JMO

 

[shadowraiths]

Check out this video! This is the most compelling evidence so far that it was Officer Slager who was struck with a taser NOT Scott

In this enhanced video follow the red triangle as it traces the movement of the taster cartridge being dragged behind Scott.

If the taser cartridge was wrapped around Scotts foot it means that the probes at the other end of the wire HAD to be lodged into Officer Slager because we see the taser wire become taut as Scott runs further away from Slager.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5em7GcDTg8U&feature=youtu.be

Except that:

Police later said that Scott was hit with the Taser at least once, because part of it was still attached to him when other officers arrived on the scene.
​

link

Which makes sense. Since he had been tased, the video showing the taser cartridge dragging behind him. That is, imho, the force of the dart still being stuck in Scott, when the officer was trying to reholster the taser, resulted in the cartridge becoming dislodged and thereby dragged behind Scott, while at the same time, causing the taser to fly off onto the ground behind the officer.

 

[KaaBoom]

No need to disobey an officer's instruction and run away like a coward or physically assault the officer. Man up, make the repairs and pay the fine.

JMO

It was the cop who said that he was in FEAR, while scott was running a way from him. I think that makes him the coward, not Scott.

 

[NSS]

No need to disobey an officer's instruction and run away like a coward or physically assault the officer. Man up, make the repairs and pay the fine.

JMO

Or prepare to die. ????

 

[KEVINinTO]

Except that:

Police later said that Scott was hit with the Taser at least once, because part of it was still attached to him when other officers arrived on the scene.
​

link

Which makes sense. Since he had been tased, the video showing the taser cartridge dragging behind him. That is, imho, the force of the dart still being stuck in Scott, when the officer was trying to reholster the taser, resulted in the cartridge becoming dislodged and thereby dragged behind Scott, while at the same time, causing the taser to fly off onto the ground behind the officer.

As noted a few posts up - I believe that the taser was fired twice since the spare cartridge which could be seen in the dash-cam video (green color) was not visible when the officer re-holstered his taser. So it is possible that Scott was shot first (when Slager shouted "taser, taser, taser" ) and then Scott shot Slager.

 

[KEVINinTO]

Slager will NOT face the death penalty.

http://news.yahoo.com/white-officer-charged-south-carolina-mans-slaying-wont-195640799.html

 

[MyBelle]

He actually fought with the cop over the taser...a weapon, and then ran...not justifying the shooting, just saying he committed a felony when he did that. Looking at the stills from the video, it looks like the taser landed behind Slager and he may not have known it...maybe thought Scott still had it.

<modsnip>

Singletary, a photographer and accountant who is currently running for mayor of North Charleston, says that Scott became "a personal friend of mine" after helping to secure a job for Scott in home construction. "He was just a joy to be around, not the kind of person that was aggressive, violent, anything like that," Singletary says.

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/...-dads-who-are-behind-on-child-support-payment

 

[MyBelle]

Or prepare to die. ????

Anyone who physically assaults an armed police officer should be prepared for the consequences of their actions.

JMO

 

[leah]

No need to disobey an officer's instruction and run away like a coward or physically assault the officer. Man up, make the repairs and pay the fine.

JMO

Physically assault the officer? Am I missing something, or have you stated this wrong?

 

[shadowraiths]

and is presumed innocent until proved guilty.

JMO

Right. In a court of law, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is part of the instruction the Judge gives to jurors. For people on the internet? Not so much. Why, bc people are going to have opinions about this case or that. And these opinions will quite naturally differ, one from another.

 

[MyBelle]

As noted a few posts up - I believe that the taser was fired twice since the spare cartridge which could be seen in the dash-cam video (green color) was not visible when the officer re-holstered his taser. So it is possible that Scott was shot first (when Slager shouted "taser, taser, taser" ) and then Scott shot Slager.

Thanks. This is what I think happened.

 

[shadowraiths]

Forgive me if this is addressed later in the thread (haven't read the whole thread bc I was following the Arias sentencing),
but why did Mr. Scott owe so much child support, $18,000? Three of his children are in their twenties, only one still a minor at sixteen. My son's child support agreement ended when he turned eighteen. Surely he could have negotiated that amount down several years ago!

This seems to explain how people end up owing tens of thousands in child support:

Two surveys of county jails in the South Carolina conducted in the last decade found that at least one out of every eight incarcerated people were there because they had been held in contempt of court for not paying child support. Under South Carolina law, if a family receives public benefits, it takes only five days of a non-custodial parent, usually a father, falling behind on a payment to trigger a civil contempt hearing that could mean ending up in jail for up to a year. And unlike many other states, South Carolina doesn’t allow modifications for how much child support is owed if the parent is incarcerated, whether for owing child support or another reason. The result in states without such modifications is that people can easily leave jail owing $15,000 to $30,000 in child support, in addition to other fees related to their incarceration.​

link

Within the context of South Carolina law, this is not only seriously problematic, in that it sets fathers up to repeatedly fail (5 days? c'mon!) but could very well explain why Scott ran.

 

[shadowraiths]

Suspect to what? You have to have a crime before you can have a suspect.

I respectfully disagree. The minute he ran, his behavior is going to be quite naturally viewed as suspect in nature. That is, he was pulled over for a minor traffic infraction, why was he running? This is esp so, from an officer's (imho, any officer's) pov. In other words, the behavior did not match the context of the situation.

 

[MyBelle]

I respectfully disagree. The minute he ran, his behavior is going to be quite naturally viewed as suspect in nature. That is, he was pulled over for a minor traffic infraction, why was he running? This is esp so, from an officer's (imho, any officer's) pov. In other words, the behavior did not match the context of the situation.

I agree with you. If the cop's intent was to shoot him for fleeing, it would have happened in that first 100 yards. But the shots were not fired until: 1) after a chase 2) after a physical altercation took place and 3) after a Taser was deployed. At any point in that sequence of events, Scott could have stopped resisting. He chose not to.

JMO

 

[Smarty Jones]

IDK, honestly, but I would imagine he was in arrears quite a bit and still owes for non-payment from when the now-adult kiddos were still minors.

Just a guess.

I saw three smaller amounts noted in his previous court cases several years apart and assumed he had been able to catch up on them. I'm just musing that if/when the arrears amounted to $18,000, some negotiation could have been attempted between the parties in court, esp since the kids were adults. He probably could never have caught up. It's sad that Mr. Scott lost his life running away because of a child support issue. He doesn't appear to have been a bad guy, just a poor one. JMO

 

[MyBelle]

And who's to say which is which.


Yes we did. And guess what? The grand jury did not indict as a result of good forensics work. Otherwise put, the justice system worked as it should, regardless of the cacophony of voices crying for his head.

I think the known facts should say which is which. I doubt the businesses that were torched in Ferguson agree with you that the justice system worked as it should. The "cacophony of voices" that fueled the violence included witnesses who lied to the grand jury. If the justice system worked as it should, they would have been prosecuted.

This case already has two witnesses who have come forward and their versions don't match.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

I saw three smaller amounts noted in his previous court cases several years apart and assumed he had been able to catch up on them. I'm just musing that if/when the arrears amounted to $18,000, some negotiation could have been attempted between the parties in court, esp since the kids were adults. He probably could never have caught up. It's sad that Mr. Scott lost his life running away because of a child support issue. He doesn't appear to have been a bad guy, just a poor one. JMO

I don't believe Scott was running away over any child support issue. I think he was running away because he knew he had committed a much more serious crime.

JMO

 

[al66pine]

Forgive me if this is addressed later in the thread (haven't read the whole thread bc I was following the Arias sentencing),
but why did Mr. Scott owe so much child support, $18,000? Three of his children are in their twenties, only one still a minor at sixteen. My son's child support agreement ended when he turned eighteen.
Surely he could have negotiated that amount down several years ago!

. bbm

Yes, I was surprised that 3 offspring were in their twenties, and so much ChSup $ was still owed.

IIUC, $ amt of ChSup is ct ordered, to be paid, usu. monthly, until children are a certain age.
If father fails to pay, IDK if or how he can 'negotiate it down' in a legally binding sense.
IDK why a mother would agree(unless she had $ to burn, and even then, ?).
If a father had no job or low paying-jobfor yrs, she could hope he'd win the lottery and she'd collect arrearages.

Maybe could let enough time pass that the statute of limitations run,
so she w/not legally be able to collect by filing suit against father.

But if a mother receives certain govt or state welfare benefits for the kids, and
a father has been ct-ordered to pay ChSup, IIUC, then father makes payments to state or thru ct-controlled a/c.
IIUC, then mother would not legally be able to 'negotiate' or let it pass,
as the father is obligated to pay $ to state, not her.

JM2cts and I hope someone knowledgeable in family law will weigh in to correct, clarify, or confirm.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

For the sake of debate, let's just say that it is Scott's fault he got shot. The guy owed child support. He had a friend in politics who helped him get a job. He ran from the police because he thought the police would learn about a bench warrant for child support. He gets tasered and escapes the officer's control. Then he was shot at eight times. The shooter is no longer employed. The shooter is in jail charged with murder. The shooter killed a man who did not have a weapon and who was running away. I don't care how you frame the victim, the shooter's actions leave little doubt about something: A man is dead. Another man is locked up over it. How much responsibility for the victim's death resides with Scott? 20% ? or, 40, 60, 80, 100 %??? I don't want that former LEO in my hometown enforcing the law. Do you?

Yes, Scott should not have run. Twice. No matter what, death is the not the reasonable, expected outcome in this scenario. Yet, we have a man, dead. Shot from behind by a civil servant.