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

[SStarr33]

Has the video from the entire incident been released?

 

[CoolJ]

What do you think they were doing on the ground?

I think Slager was straddling him so he could tase him. Like I said. It seems to be his MO

 

[CoolJ]

lawyers

Oh the lawyers did it?

 

[SeeAlice]

I don't know much, but I do know I trust LE a whole lot more than I do CNN. This stuff is absurd.

JMO

 

[KEVINinTO]

Walter Scott owed more than $18,000 in child-support payments and had a bench warrant for his arrest when he was fatally shot by a South Carolina police officer, according to court documents obtained by NBC News.

[...]

Scott owed a total of $18,104 in back child-support, the documents obtained by NBC News show. His last payment was on July 20, 2012, according to the paperwork. The bench warrant for his arrest had been active since a January 16, 2013, court hearing. At that time, Scott had owed $7,836 — but the amount had increased to more than $18,000 at the time of his death.​

link

So, in a matter of 2¼ years, the amount increased 250%?!? It's very hard for me to accuse someone of being a "deadbeat dad" when their child support increases exponentially. I'll reiterate, imho, these sort of fines system set up supporting parents for failure. And again, in light of this, I am not really surprised he ran. Not the best or smartest move but I can certainly understand it.

So it appears that the Associated Press was wrong when it reported no bench warrant outstanding. This is a reminder that even MSM sources can be wrong.

 

[Tawny]

I don't know much, but I do know I trust LE a whole lot more than I do CNN. This stuff is absurd.

JMO

How about Fox?

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/28...ager-for-excessive-force-in-2014-traffic-stop

 

[Cubby]

Post #119 has the incident reports.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...r-Charged-with-Murder&p=11669934#post11669934

hopefully the link will work.

 

[Tricia]

Hi Everyone,

Please refrain from the snarky and sarcastic type posts.

My patience with the snarky and sarcastic type poster is gone. Kaput. No longer visable. Vanished. Unable to view.

Thank you for understanding.

Tricia

 

[Bayou Mistress]

I am sure that it has been stated many times in the MSN that Scott was resisting arrest (the video provides evidence of this). If you resist arrest by an officer it is automatically considered assault. Had Scott lived he would have been charged with an assault.

The former LEO had the identification of Walter Scott for less than 30 seconds. The audio does not have him calling in the driver's licence. I saw nothing that tells me that Scott was resisting arrest. In fact, Scott was either dead or close to dead when cuffed. He did FLEE. Obviously the two are not the same thing.

 

[Tawny]

Ugh, def not a fan of Fox. (Sorry. JMO)

LOL No offense taken, I can't stand Fox! It was the first valid MSM link to that video I could find

 

[Zuri]

http://www.justanswer.com/criminal-law/3fc8k-state-sc-maximum-punishment-resisting.html

 

[Tawny]

In these type of cases, I have found it best to avoid MSM to find the truth.

Yes, well, that's where we get our information. It's part of the forum rules *shrug*

 

[Tawny]

http://www.justanswer.com/criminal-law/3fc8k-state-sc-maximum-punishment-resisting.html

So, if I'm reading that correctly, in SC it's a misdemeanor?

 

[MzOpinion8d]

I think I understand what happened now.

Officer S notices Scott driving and sees all of his brake lights are out AND the red plastic over one of them is also broken. After pulling him over, he informs Scott that he's pulling him over because his middle brake light in the window is not working.

This is because Officer S is a thoughtful guy, and he doesn't want to make Scott feel bad by telling him about ALL the brake lights being out and the red plastic being broken all at once. He's going to break it to him gently.

Scott doesn't understand the mountain of compassion inside Officer S and makes a dumb criminal move and runs away from him.

Officer S pursues him and deploys his taser. Scott goes down and Officer S catches up and attempts to take him into custody. Scott, however, gets the taser and retaliates by tasering Officer S.

Officer S doesn't tell anyone about being tasered, because there's no reason to make Scott look worse than he already does - after all, he ran from a cop, and he's a deadbeat dad with no car insurance.

Scott is able to disengage himself from Officer S after tasering him, and begins to run away. As his legs begin to move, it causes an electrical impulse to surge into Officer S's tased body, triggering an involuntary removal of the officer's gun from its holster and firing the weapon 8 times.

Seeing that Scott has tripped and fallen, Officer S makes sure to gather any items that may have fallen during the incident in order not to litter. He then goes to Scott's side, placing the trash next to Scott and instructing Scott to place his hands behind his back so he can handcuff him.

Scott doesn't respond and Officer S thinks Scott is resisting his authority again. As his fellow officers arrive on the scene, he realizes his involuntary gunshots may have wounded Scott and immediately checks for a pulse in order to begin life saving measures as soon as possible. Or as soon as other officers who actually do what they're trained to do arrive, whichever.

Just another day protecting and serving! Saved the general public from the dangers of broken brake lights, saved Scott from having to go to jail over his back child support. All in a day's work.

(The above was written with #ExtremeSarcasm filter firmly in place.)

 

[SStarr33]

Yes, well, that's where we get our information. It's part of the forum rules *shrug*

I know. When the MSM is hiding stuff, I go mostly off forum for discussion of what really happened then come back when they are forced to reveal the truth.

I was glad for the Bruce Jenner case we were allowed to use TMZ so we could discuss what really happened.

 

[CoolJ]

I think I understand what happened now.

Officer S notices Scott driving and sees all of his brake lights are out AND the red plastic over one of them is also broken. After pulling him over, he informs Scott that he's pulling him over because his middle brake light in the window is not working.

This is because Officer S is a thoughtful guy, and he doesn't want to make Scott feel bad by telling him about ALL the brake lights being out and the red plastic being broken all at once. He's going to break it to him gently.

Scott doesn't understand the mountain of compassion inside Officer S and makes a dumb criminal move and runs away from him.

Officer S pursues him and deploys his taser. Scott goes down and Officer S catches up and attempts to take him into custody. Scott, however, gets the taser and retaliates by tasering Officer S.

Officer S doesn't tell anyone about being tasered, because there's no reason to make Scott look worse than he already does - after all, he ran from a cop, and he's a deadbeat dad with no car insurance.

Scott is able to disengage himself from Officer S after tasering him, and begins to run away. As his legs begin to move, it causes an electrical impulse to surge into Officer S's tased body, triggering an involuntary removal of the officer's gun from its holster and firing the weapon 8 times.

Seeing that Scott has tripped and fallen, Officer S makes sure to gather any items that may have fallen during the incident in order not to litter. He then goes to Scott's side, placing the trash next to Scott and instructing Scott to place his hands behind his back so he can handcuff him.

Scott doesn't respond and Officer S thinks Scott is resisting his authority again. As his fellow officers arrive on the scene, he realizes his involuntary gunshots may have wounded Scott and immediately checks for a pulse in order to begin life saving measures as soon as possible. Or as soon as other officers who actually do what they're trained to do arrive, whichever.

Just another day protecting and serving! Saved the general public from the dangers of broken brake lights, saved Scott from having to go to jail over his back child support. All in a day's work.

(The above was written with #ExtremeSarcasm filter firmly in place.)

Where is this Slager getting tasered stuff coming from? Am I missing something? Or is this just the way people want it to have happened?

ETA - ok gotcha. Saw the sarcasm disclaimer at the bottom. LOL. My apologies. It is hard to tell with some of the posts I have been reading lately.

 

[Zuri]

So, if I'm reading that correctly, in SC it's a misdemeanor?

That is how I read it too, as a misdemeanor. I didn't think it was a felony, but had no clue. Sorry about the link to the defense attorney lol. I just thought it was explained simply enough for me to understand .

 

[shadowraiths]

At present, there appear to be at least two instances of Slager using a taser. The first instance involved a case of mistaken identity, wherein he was alleged to have dragged the wrong person from their home in the middle of the night, and tased them. (ScribD link). And the second involved a routine traffic stop, wherein there were also claims of planting evidence. (youtube link) These could be arguably used to point to pattern of behavior. The big however is that there are only two instances over several years. Which directly refutes such an argument.

As for the question of a fight? In some frames it seems Scott has the upper hand, and in other frames it appears Slager has the upper hand. Though, it's still pretty blurry.

Just before the shooting however, it is clear Slager is attempting to "hold on" to Scott.

Imho, this could have played out in two ways. One, Slager caught up and tackled Scott, they rolled around on the ground, until Scott managed to break free. The other way is that Scott turned and confronted Slager, and they ended up on the ground. Either way, even if Slager tackled Scott, I think this could be seen as assaulting an officer, as well as attempting to evade arrest. Bc, at this point, whether Slager knew there was a warrant or not, the guy is definitely facing an arrest.

So, imho, this leaves the question whether Slager wrongly used deadly force. It's natural to say yes, of course. Esp after viewing the video. Otoh, the chasing in conjunction with the altercation and having to make a split-second decision? I remain unconvinced he will be indicted. And even if the Grand Jury returns an indictment, I very strongly doubt the jury will come back with a guilty verdict. For a number of reasons to include but not limited to Scott running, after being stopped for a minor traffic infraction, to the struggle, to running after the officer was clearly trying to physically detain him.

While I do not think in any way that the man should have been shot, I am just doubtful Slager will be indicted and convicted.

 

[Zuri]

There were a couple of things that bothered me about this tragedy, apart from the shooting of Mr. Scott in the back as he ran. It did not surprise me that Mr. Scott ran, as he probably knew he had a bench warrant and sadly because this was not his first encounter with a white LEO that did not go too well. No stones please!

Secondly, Slager's lawyer withdrew after seeing the video. I don't know why he did, but his responses led me to believe that Slager wasn't wxactly forthcoming to his attorney. My assumption.

Thirdly, no CPR or first aid was rendered to Mr. Scott by the two officers first on scene that I can tell from the video. The other LEO that arrived a short time later, ran out of their car and began working immediately on Mr. Scott. Why didn't the first two officers render aid?

I am not saying that Mr. Scott was not culpable, but I don't believe he deserved to be shot down like a rabid dog. He was a person with a family and friends. IMO, JMV

 

[Tawny]

At present, there appear to be at least two instances of Slager using a taser. The first instance involved a case of mistaken identity, wherein he was alleged to have dragged the wrong person from their home in the middle of the night, and tased them. ( ScribD link. And the second involved a routine traffic stop, wherein there were also claims of planting evidence. (youtube link) These could be arguably used to point to pattern of behavior. The big however is that there are only two instances over several years. Which directly refutes such an argument..

RSBM One of the incidences was in 2013, one in 2014, one in 2015 resulting in death.

That's a very distinct pattern of behavior.