GUILTY SC - Walter Scott, 50, fatally shot by North Charleston PD officer, 4 April 2015 - #2

New Posts

What’s in the officer’s mind?
Other South Carolina Supreme Court decisions further confuse the situation.
In a 1989 decision, the state supreme court said it would give the shooter in a self-defense situation the “right to act on appearances” that he was in danger, even if he wasn’t actually in danger.
“A defendant must show that he believed he was in imminent danger, not that he was actually in such danger, because he had the right to act on appearances…” (emphasis added.)

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post...ve-defense-state-law-there-missouri-confusing
 
IF Slager gets off because he BELIEVED he was in danger, then a new precedent will be set. That precedent will be that LEO's can shoot anybody at anytime for any reason. They just have to utter the words "I believe that I was in danger".

Personally I think any reasonable person who watches the shooting knows he was not in any kind of danger whatsoever. Unless it can be proven that Scott whispered in his ear that he was going to go run to find a weapon and come back and get him. JMO
 
Cubby said:
What’s in the officer’s mind?
Other South Carolina Supreme Court decisions further confuse the situation.
In a 1989 decision, the state supreme court said it would give the shooter in a self-defense situation the “right to act on appearances” that he was in danger, even if he wasn’t actually in danger.
“A defendant must show that he believed he was in imminent danger, not that he was actually in such danger, because he had the right to act on appearances…” (emphasis added.)

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post...ve-defense-state-law-there-missouri-confusing
Click to expand...

I see your point. It IS the law, sadly. And I think this may be the case that will change that law. An officer's perception of "imminent danger" is, IMO, a bit of a shaky ground. There needs to be a more stringent criterion than "I was askeered".

What's to stop any officer from gunning down anyone and saying "That baby looked at me and raised her pacifier and my blood ran cold-I was in fear for my life. So I shot her".

I know that is a ridiculous example, but I think that a LEO being allowed to shot a fleeing man in the back because the LEO just says he was in fear of his life is RIDICULOUS.
 
CoolJ said:
IF Slager gets off because he BELIEVED he was in danger, then a new precedent will be set. That precedent will be that LEO's can shoot anybody at anytime for any reason. They just have to utter the words "I believe that I was in danger".

Personally I think any reasonable person who watches the shooting knows he was not in any kind of danger whatsoever. Unless it can be proven that Scott whispered in his ear that he was going to go run to find a weapon and come back and get him. JMO
Click to expand...

You said it much better than I. I am really tired and just chugged a big ole double esspresso. So I'm a bit "blah blah blah"..
 
EllieBee said:
I see your point. It IS the law, sadly. And I think this may be the case that will change that law. An officer's perception of "imminent danger" is, IMO, a bit of a shaky ground. There needs to be a more stringent criterion than "I was askeered".

What's to stop any officer from gunning down anyone and saying "That baby looked at me and raised her pacifier and my blood ran cold-I was in fear for my life. So I shot her".

I know that is a ridiculous example, but I think that a LEO being allowed to shot a fleeing man in the back because the LEO just says he was in fear of his life is RIDICULOUS.
Click to expand...


I too hope this is the case that changes the law. As the law is written, it is too much leeway. I'm anxious to see how it plays out. I want to hear Slager explain himself.
 
I'm confused by the comments about self defense.

Has the officer said he fired in self defense?

I don't think this is a self defense case, but I could be wrong.
 
K_Z said:
I'm confused by the comments about self defense.

Has the officer said he fired in self defense?

I don't think this is a self defense case, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Prior to the video surfacing, that was his claim. BBM
Attorney David Aylor, who released a statement on Slager's behalf earlier this week, said Tuesday that he wasn't representing the officer anymore. Slager has said through Aylor that Scott had wrested his Taser from him during a struggle. The officer felt threatened when he fired, his attorney said.
Click to expand...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/04/07/charges-in-sc-police-shooting/25430473/
 
I will share that I am on the fence about this case. I am reserving judgment until ALL of the video is available to everyone that wants to see it.

If it can be shown that there was indeed a physical struggle with the officer, involving the taser (or not, or any other weapon), then I believe the officer was justified in shooting, and I would not vote to indict on murder charges if I were on the Grand Jury.

If Mr. Scott exited his vehicle and went on the run, with no other physical interaction with Officer Slager, then the shooting was not justified, IMO.

If there was no physical altercation with the officer, then, IMO, it was an inappropriate/ illegal shooting, and murder.

If there was a physical altercation, with resisting arrest, it is a justified shooting, IMO.

At the moment, I view Mr. Scott's actions as causing his own death. But I am open to evidence that he did not assault the officer over a simple traffic stop. I see the hasty firing and charging of the officer as a purely political attempt to appease the aggrieved population, and head off riots. JMO.
 
K_Z said:
I will share that I am on the fence about this case. I am reserving judgment until ALL of the video is available to everyone that wants to see it.

If it can be shown that there was indeed a physical struggle with the officer, involving the taser (or not, or any other weapon), then I believe the officer was justified in shooting, and I would not vote to indict on murder charges if I were on the Grand Jury.

If Mr. Scott exited his vehicle and went on the run, with no other physical interaction with Officer Slager, then the shooting was not justified, IMO.

If there was no physical altercation with the officer, then, IMO, it was an inappropriate/ illegal shooting, and murder.

If there was a physical altercation, with resisting arrest, it is a justified shooting, IMO.

At the moment, I view Mr. Scott's actions as causing his own death. But I am open to evidence that he did not assault the officer over a simple traffic stop. I see the hasty firing and charging of the officer as a purely political attempt to appease the aggrieved population, and head off riots. JMO.
Click to expand...

I do NOT want officer's killing without cause and for the most part, they do not. HOWEVER, when people resist arrest/argue/fight/talk back/run, there will be incidence such as this. I cannot imagine acting that way with an LEO....but then I was raised differently! There HAS to be CONTROL or we will have utter CHAOS...believe me!
On the one hand, I see a man, Scott, that has run from the law his entire life, avoiding doing right, snubbing his nose at our laws and his own kids. On the other hand is Slager, a man that has run to do right his entire life and serve others. In a scuffle with a criminal he has over reacted and fired 8 times, yes, shooting a man in the back....but I'm still having a hard time mustering up sympathy for Scott... :waiting:
 
I don't care of there was a physical fight with the officer. Unless Scott somehow managed to injure Slager to where Slager couldn't run (he didn't), there was no reason to shoot a fleeing man in the back.

Shooting a man in the back after he (allegedly) bests you in a physical altercation is called retaliation.

Slager should have pursued on foot, calling for back up, until they caught up to him. JMO
 
I posted about this in thread #1, but wanted to bring it up again as it is regarding an expert who explains when an officer can and cannot use deadly force.

Dennis Root is a LE trainer and nationally recognized expert who trains officers in, among other things, proper use of force. He was an expert witness for the defense in the George Zimmerman trial, and he is frequently interviewed on CNN regarding police involved shootings. He has said the officer's use of deadly force in the Michael Brown shooting was justified, as well as the officer's use of deadly force in the shooting of the mentally disabled man in Texas. This is what he said regarding Slager's use of deadly force:

Gunfire is the last option for an officer.

"The application of deadly force ... is always the ultimate last resort," said Dennis Root, an expert on the use of police force and a law enforcement trainer. "It is not objectively reasonable to shoot a fleeing subject who poses no immediate threat to the officer or others."
Click to expand...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/10/us/south-carolina-case-police-deadly-force/index.html

He was interviewed on CNN and said if someone is an aggressor and pointing a taser at an officer then the officer is justified in elevating his application of force, but he said that is clearly not the case in this situation. He said the taser was no longer at play and Scott was fleeing, so the use of deadly force is unjustifiable. He went on to discuss Slager's claim that Scott "grabbed" his taser and explained that since Slager had already discharged it, even if Scott did gain possession it, it could no longer be used to incapacitate Slager because the probes cannot be reset into the cartridge, so it would not be a deadly force threat.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=d5yCMxC3Qrg

In this part he discusses how Slager running back and retrieving the taser was improper protocol because it was not an immediate threat or risk, and it was part of the crime scene that should have been preserved.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0sFSQBDdbmE

And in this final part he addresses Slager's apparent planting of evidence when he dropped the taser next to the victim's body.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=mOYuinLbdJE
 
Tawny said:
I don't care of there was a physical fight with the officer. Unless Scott somehow managed to injure Slager to where Slager couldn't run (he didn't), there was no reason to shoot a fleeing man in the back.

Shooting a man in the back after he (allegedly) bests you in a physical altercation is called retaliation.

Slager should have pursued on foot, calling for back up, until they caught up to him. JMO
Click to expand...

BBM

I know that you don't care whether there was a physical fight with the officer or not. But I do care. I do not think it was right that Scott ws shot in the back. But I do care that he fought with the officer and ran away.

I am worried that we are creating a public backlash where perps will automatically begin resisting arrest and running, even for traffic stops and such. I see it happening already.

One thing I know that is happening with SOME officers now----they do not want to interact with certain situations that may put them in these kinds of circumstances. So they are not engaging with as many suspicious characters, that might be up to no good. And that is NOT a positive thing for society in general, imo. Crime will become more pervasive. It may save a few two-bit criminals from being in a shoot out. But it will also give the criminals free reign in many neighborhoods. When they see a suspicious vehicle in a parking lot at 3 am, they do not want to go see what's up anymore. They are going to drive on by.
 
katydid23 said:
BBM

I know that you don't care whether there was a physical fight with the officer or not. But I do care. I do not think it was right that Scott ws shot in the back. But I do care that he fought with the officer and ran away.

I am worried that we are creating a public backlash where perps will automatically begin resisting arrest and running, even for traffic stops and such. I see it happening already.

One thing I know that is happening with SOME officers now----they do not want to interact with certain situations that may put them in these kinds of circumstances. So they are not engaging with as many suspicious characters, that might be up to no good. And that is NOT a positive thing for society in general, imo. Crime will become more pervasive. It may save a few two-bit criminals from being in a shoot out. But it will also give the criminals free reign in many neighborhoods. When they see a suspicious vehicle in a parking lot at 3 am, they do not want to go see what's up anymore. They are going to drive on by.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to back up this claim?
 
Tawny said:
Do you have a link to back up this claim?
Click to expand...

No, just personal experience with the many LEOS that I know. Why should they put themselves in the position to have any physical altercations if they are not going to be backed up or supported?

There is one recent link here, showing a teen at Burger King, being asked to leave the premises. He attacks the cop and holds him in a headlock for 20 seconds and the crowd watches and laughs. THAT is the new social reality. And it is not going to end up as a positive thing for us all.
 
katydid23 said:
No, just personal experience with the many LEOS that I know. Why should they put themselves in the position to have any physical altercations if they are not going to be backed up or supported?
Click to expand...

The LEOs? Why would they not have back up?

I'm confused.
 
Tawny said:
The LEOs? Why would they not have back up?

I'm confused.
Click to expand...

PUBLIC backup---public support. My cop friends/relatives are feeling a distinct lack of support in some neighborhoods. So they are now feeling hesitant to make any stops, have many interactions in those areas, where they have no support.
 
If they are hesitant to do their jobs because they may not have "public support" for it, that's a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 167 more.
Total: 3,220 (members: 168, guests: 3,052)

Online statistics

Members online
168
Guests online
3,052
Total visitors
3,220
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,485
Messages
17,969,640
Members
228,788
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top