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

al66pine · Apr 25, 2015

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.

Has everyone seen Santana's pre-shooting vid in slo-mo?

Vid shows LEO & Scott "on the floor" as cellphonevid'er Santana described.
Maybe Scott was kneeling by or over Slager, maybe not straddlinghim (IDK),
but clearly, they were not both on their feet. Can their actions be anything but an altercation?
The vid establishes fact of altercation, not just opinion about altercation.
(/unless they were laying to take a nap in alley/sarc).

Then seems imo, the crucial question is whether, in ~split seconds or ~several seconds afterward,
whether Slager's continuing belief that he was in danger was reasonable.

I doubt that many of us have been shot at, at least I hope not many.
Trying to come up w ex. of adrenalin-flooding similar to that, which is more commonly experienced.
How about driving on interstate highway, when car ahead suddenly brakes, & you are forced to swerve
to avoid rear-ending it?

I've experienced a variation of this two times in interstate driving.
Once in downpour I was in far left lane, along metal guardrail, when car ahead braked, and
did a 360 in front of mine. Nowhere for me to move - left or right, just brake (gently) in terror.
The second was essentially the same thing happening on icy interstate, w snow coming down.
That was the other longest 5 sec of my life, & I think those two experiences used up 8 of 9 lives.

The point here: I'm in a situation which is dangerous, so being esp alert and careful. Then when car ahead starts spinning
fear & adrenalin spike in, say, 5 sec as 360 spin happens,but once those seconds elapse & most immediate terror-filled danger is over, fear & adrenalin linger.
True - both in my driving examples, as well as in suspect & LE interaction & altercation.

After ~5 sec pass on ^ ex., no longer in danger of t-boning car ahead at 90 (or other) degree angle.
I can't say: Thank goodness, it's all safe now w that car spun around and over in next lane now
I'm still on icy or wet highway w all typical dangers of high speed driving in bad conditions.
After those few seconds, danger, fear & adrenalin do not instantly disappear. They linger.
I'm comparing my ~5 sec of car-ahead-spinning to suspect & LEO 3-5-10? sec. encounter "on the floor."

Multiple actions by Scott cranked up Slager's antennae:
1. Pre-stop, non-operational 3d brake light.
2. Scott gave contradictory answers about whether he owned car or wanted to buy car.
3. Scott produced no registration or ins coverage card (IIUC, this is fact).
4. Scott opened car door, was admonished back in.
5. Scott exit car & ran.
6. Scott & Slager had physical altercation, verified by slo-mo vid w them "on the floor."

Pre-shooting -
- 5 illegal actions by Scott (maybe 6) and offenses were escalating.
- no improper actions by Slager (not aware of, not yet).

Plausible, imo: Slager reasonably believed that was facing risk of serious physical injury or death.
JM2cts.

mysteriew · Apr 25, 2015

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.

If there was a struggle with the officer and the officer pulled his weapon and shot him I would have defended the officer. But in this case if there was a struggle, Mr Scott disengaged and ran. He was no longer a threat. Then the officer shot his weapon.

I don't have a problem with the stop. I don't have a problem with the chase. I don't even have a problem if an officer escalates during a struggle by using his weapons. What I have a problem with is an officer who uses his weapon on someone who is no longer a threat.

Mr Scott was not armed. He wasn't charging the officer. He wasn't making threats. He was no longer a risk. And he got shot in the back.

At one time shooting someone in the back was considered the lowest of the low. Was even considered cowardly.

katydid23 · Apr 25, 2015

mysteriew said:
If there was a struggle with the officer and the officer pulled his weapon and shot him I would have defended the officer. But in this case if there was a struggle, Mr Scott disengaged and ran. He was no longer a threat. Then the officer shot his weapon.

I don't have a problem with the stop. I don't have a problem with the chase. I don't even have a problem if an officer escalates during a struggle by using his weapons. What I have a problem with is an officer who uses his weapon on someone who is no longer a threat.

Mr Scott was not armed. He wasn't charging the officer. He wasn't making threats. He was no longer a risk. And he got shot in the back.

At one time shooting someone in the back was considered the lowest of the low. Was even considered cowardly.

I agree. I do not think it was a justified shooting from what I have seen so far. My post was in reply to another, in which the person said they did not care if there was a struggle or not.

It is true that he was running away, and the only defense the officer could have is if he was convinced the perp was a danger to the public at that point. But I don't see a case for that with what we know so far.

But my post was more about the bigger picture and the bad outcomes if we start encouraging people to resist arrest and/or to run when being confronted by LE.

mysteriew · Apr 25, 2015

katydid23 said:
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.

I understand what you are saying and I fear it too. LE is feeling like it is an us vs them situation (and we are the them.) That is a situation much like a soldier goes through. Which is not a good thing when it comes to civilan police work.

It's a complicated issue and I can't say how to fix it. There will always be persons who abuse their police powers. And there will even be those who aren't trying to abuse their power but may act incorrectly. Those people should not be on the police department. And it is those people who give police officers a bad name. All we hope to do is to try to weed those officers out before a fatal situation develops.

CoolJ · Apr 25, 2015

katydid23 said:
I agree. I do not think it was a justified shooting from what I have seen so far. My post was in reply to another, in which the person said they did not care if there was a struggle or not.

It is true that he was running away, and the only defense the officer could have is if he was convinced the perp was a danger to the public at that point. But I don't see a case for that with what we know so far.

But my post was more about the bigger picture and the bad outcomes if we start encouraging people to resist arrest and/or to run when being confronted by LE.

So are you saying that anytime an officer engages in a struggle with a citizen, They should then have the right to be able to use lethal force?

In my mind, in this case, there may have been an "altercation". But do we know if Scott was fighting back, or was he simply trying to get away? Or was he just trying to defend himself from being roughed up?

It seems to me that there is no clear cut agreement as to when a LEO is justified in using lethal force. Some think it should only be when the officer is in fear for his life. While others seem to think they should be justified anytime a LEO and citizen make physical contact.

There should be no ambiguity here whatsoever.

JMO

mysteriew · Apr 25, 2015

katydid23 said:
I agree. I do not think it was a justified shooting from what I have seen so far. My post was in reply to another, in which the person said they did not care if there was a struggle or not.

It is true that he was running away, and the only defense the officer could have is if he was convinced the perp was a danger to the public at that point. But I don't see a case for that with what we know so far.

But my post was more about the bigger picture and the bad outcomes if we start encouraging people to resist arrest and/or to run when being confronted by LE.

I could respond to that but my post probably wouldn't be considered politically correct and might even get me banned.

MzOpinion8d · Apr 25, 2015

In my opinion, part of the reason the decision to shoot is questionable comes from his actions immediately after. He does not appear to have any concern for Scott, and appears almost robotic as he moves about the crime scene "tidying up".

katydid23 · Apr 25, 2015

CoolJ said:
So are you saying that anytime an officer engages in a struggle with a citizen, They should then have the right to be able to use lethal force?

In my mind, in this case, there may have been an "altercation". But do we know if Scott was fighting back, or was he simply trying to get away? Or was he just trying to defend himself from being roughed up?

It seems to me that there is no clear cut agreement as to when a LEO is justified in using lethal force. Some think it should only be when the officer is in fear for his life. While others seem to think they should be justified anytime a LEO and citizen make physical contact.

There should be no ambiguity here whatsoever.

JMO

There should not be a struggle with a citizen. Scott should not have run away from the traffic stop. Did you see/hear how polite the cop was being? Scott ran because he knew he had a warrant <modsnip>, imo.

There should not have been a struggle. And once there is a struggle then a cop may end up having to use lethal force IF the perp is being very aggressive.

It is ambiguous because when you are in the heat of battle, it is confusing/overwhelming. How many punches are you going to accept?

CoolJ · Apr 25, 2015

katydid23 said:
There should not be a struggle with a citizen. Scott should not have run away from the traffic stop. Did you see/hear how polite the cop was being? Scott ran because he knew he had a warrant <modsnip> imo.

There should not have been a struggle. And once there is a struggle then a cop may end up having to use lethal force IF the perp is being very aggressive.

It is ambiguous because when you are in the heat of battle, it is confusing/overwhelming. How many punches are you going to accept?

But there should be no ambiguity as to what is right and what is wrong when it comes to lethal force. The details of the "heat of the battle" can be worked out later.

Why do folks disagree on when lethal force is justified according to law?
Either you can shoot someone in the back who is fleeing or you can't.
Either you can shoot someone who is resisting arrest or you can't.

This case is simple. Scott did nothing but try to get away. He ran from the car and then ran again after the "altercation". How does an unarmed man doing nothing but running away from you pose any kind of threat.

Slager has to be brought to justice... Or say hello to your "Police State"

JMO

katydid23 · Apr 25, 2015

An unarmed man running away from the cops may be perceived as a danger to the public. Sometimes they are running from recent crimes like a recent murder. Sometimes they are desperate and will do a home invasion or car jacking in order to escape the cops. IMO< cops take that into account when someone runs inexplicably from a traffic stop. Especially if they struggle with the officer and run over a broken tail light.

shadowraiths · Apr 25, 2015

Witness in Walter Scott case recognized by SC House

COLUMBIA, S.C. (WCIV) -- The man who recorded a North Charleston police officer fatally shooting a man in the back was recognized Thursday by the South Carolina House.

ABC News

shadowraiths · Apr 25, 2015

Activists call for Solicitor Scarlett Wilsons removal from Walter Scott case

The local National Action Network and other community activists on Thursday called for the replacement of 9th Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson as lead prosecutor on the murder case against the former North Charleston police officer who fatally shot Walter L. Scott.

[...]

The community doesnt trust that at the end of her prosecution, were going to see what we perceive to be justice, Dixon said. She has not given us a history of prosecution in these cases that would earn our trust.

Dixon cited lingering questions in the community about the death of 19-year-old Denzel Curnell, who investigators said shot himself in June during a struggle with a Charleston police officer. Wilson found no cause to pursue charges in the case.

[...]

Curnell didnt follow the officers orders to take his hands out of his pockets, so a struggle ensued, the police have said. Investigators determined that he shot himself with the revolver, which was found near his right hand. That raised suspicion among some observers because Curnell was left-handed.

Post and Courier

al66pine · Apr 26, 2015

Greater Than said:
We have seen absolutely no evidence that Scott assaulted Slager. Do you have a link?

No link showing Scott assaulted Slager, but wonder if you've seen Santana's pre-shooting vid in slo-mo?

Vid shows LEO & Scott "on the floor" as cellphone vid'er Santana described.
Maybe Scott was kneeling by or over Slager, maybe not straddling him (IDK),
but clearly, they were not both on their feet. Can their actions be anything but an altercation?

The vid establishes an altercation occurred, not just opinion that altercation occurred.

Sorry I can't find ^ pix clipped from the slo-mo link, but shows Scott in aqua or green shirt.

JM2cts.

bessie · Apr 26, 2015

Tricia said:
Dear Websleuths Members,

We are going to give this a try one more time.

This thread is not about your personal agenda. This is about Walter Scott. Walter Scott was shot in the back while running from a police officer. That officer has been charged with murder.

We will only allow mainstream media sources. If anyone tries to get around this rule by posting a link that hides the actual website that person will be timed out or banned for good.

If you post a video please post only mainstream media links. If you have a video of the shooting you would like to post and it is not sourced to a mainstream media outlet please send me a private message or email with a link to the video. triciastruecrimeradio@gmail.com I will look into you video suggestion and decide whether to allow it or not.

The new rule is: We will not allow any discussion of any protests. Past, present, or future. The protests have nothing to do with this case.

We will only discuss the Walter Scott case in this thread.

This thread will be constantly monitored. We may have to close it during the times no moderators are available. That will depend on all of you. If we can leave the thread alone every once in a while without a problem then we will. On the other hand if we leave and people go nuts then we will end up opening and closing the thread depending on how is here to moderate.

On final bit of advice: Accept the fact that you will never change some people's minds. No matter the evidence, no matter what you see as the truth, there will always be people who disagree with you.
If you find yourself posting back and forth with someone whose mind will not change then just learn to scroll. Don't give yourself a stroke because your blood pressure gets so high your brain explodes. It's not worth it. Scroll on by.

Below is the link from the first post of the first thread. Thank you Tawny

http://www.abcnews4.com/story/28725...hot-killed-by-north-charleston-police-officer

Thread Number 1

:bump:

shadowraiths · Apr 26, 2015

al66pine said:
No link showing Scott assaulted Slager, but wonder if you've seen Santana's pre-shooting vid in slo-mo?

Vid shows LEO & Scott "on the floor" as cellphone vid'er Santana described.
Maybe Scott was kneeling by or over Slager, maybe not straddling him (IDK),
but clearly, they were not both on their feet. Can their actions be anything but an altercation?

The vid establishes an altercation occurred, not just opinion that altercation occurred.

Sorry I can't find ^ pix clipped from the slo-mo link, but shows Scott in aqua or green shirt.

JM2cts.

Wrt the issue of the struggle, here's a post I made in the first thread regarding two (imho, crucial) slo-mo sections from Feidin Santana's video of the Walter Scott's shooting:

shadowraiths said:
Here are two excerpted videos that I slowed down and uploaded to youtube. I did not attempt to "clean them up" or "sharpen" them

The first shows just the "tussle" and the second shows from where Scott breaks away from Slager.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx2dZkrwqHU

The second shows what appears to be two taser cartridges, one of which ends up being dragged through the grass by Scott.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTZfDcWeWTE

As I've noted earlier, I do think the "tussle" will be pivotal to this case and whether (or not) the grand jury will indict.

And here's a post I made regarding the struggle:

shadowraiths said:
With regard to the struggle.

In context of what we have on the video, it is quite clear contact was made between Scott and Officer Slager. Who first made the contact, is arguably moot. The point is, there was a struggle. And the officer appeared to be over-powered during at least part of that struggle. Moreover, he was unable to physically detain Scott. And once that occurred, all bets were off. He was unsurprisingly pumped, that is, his adrenaline had kicked in when contact was made. At which point, he is in the fight mode, as opposed to flight mode. That is, his behavior is arguably more visceral than cognitive. His stance, when he is taking aim, seems clearly singular. Focused.

Does this make the shooting right? Of course not. Understandable? I would pose that, to some degree, it does.

Eta ~ adding video of struggle for clarity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx2dZkrwqHU

K_Z · Apr 26, 2015

Those very videos, coupled with the dash cam video, convince me that this was a legal, justified shooting. I would not vote to indict, if I were on the GJ. That said, I have no confidence in the selection of the GJ for this case, due to the publicity. They will get the GJ they want, and it's likely Slager will be indicted. IMO.

There may have been some departures from protocol for which Slager should be disciplined-- such as leaving his patrol car unattended, and possibly the way in which he moved the taser, or parts of it. And there may be other more minor departures. Slager has been fired, so that seems punishment enough, IMO, for procedural departures. I still don't think the shooting rises at all to any level of murder.

Charging Slager with murder is the same kind of analogy, IMO, as charging a surgeon with murder, because the patient was non-compliant, combative, and died of complications after he was discharged. Doctors are almost never charged criminally for egregious actions they make in the course of their duties, and almost never charged with murder,-- even when their actions are unconscionably egregious departures from established practice, and clearly produced the patient's death, as in the examples of former doctors Conrad Murray and Roberto Bonilla. Why should sworn officers be any different? Why do some professions get a golden parachute, and others don't?

Greater Than · Apr 26, 2015

K_Z said:
Those very videos, coupled with the dash cam video, convince me that this was a legal, justified shooting. I would not vote to indict, if I were on the GJ. That said, I have no confidence in the selection of the GJ for this case, due to the publicity. They will get the GJ they want, and it's likely Slager will be indicted. IMO.

SBM

BIB - Who is "they"? The PT has absolutely nothing to do with the selection of the grand jury. You know that, right?

And what do you mean by the selection of the grand jury for "this case"? No jury is selected for "this case" until it goes to trial. The grand jury is selected by the court and sits for 12 months. They hear numerous cases throughout the year.

I agree that Slager will be indicted, but not for any reason other than he broke the law.

perplexed1 · Apr 26, 2015

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".

I think it would be a far more peaceful world if there was a little more fear that one might get shot. Then there will be some respect for the LEO and HIS life. The criminals seem to have more rights than the good citizens of the land....JMO

CoolJ · Apr 26, 2015

perplexed1 said:
I think it would be a far more peaceful world if there was a little more fear that one might get shot. Then there will be some respect for the LEO and HIS life. The criminals seem to have more rights than the good citizens of the land....JMO

Think about that for a second... A far more peaceful world where everyone is a little more in fear of getting shot. That's not what my utopia looks like,

SStarr33 · Apr 26, 2015

K_Z said:
Those very videos, coupled with the dash cam video, convince me that this was a legal, justified shooting. I would not vote to indict, if I were on the GJ. That said, I have no confidence in the selection of the GJ for this case, due to the publicity. They will get the GJ they want, and it's likely Slager will be indicted. IMO.

There may have been some departures from protocol for which Slager should be disciplined-- such as leaving his patrol car unattended, and possibly the way in which he moved the taser, or parts of it. And there may be other more minor departures. Slager has been fired, so that seems punishment enough, IMO, for procedural departures. I still don't think the shooting rises at all to any level of murder.

Charging Slager with murder is the same kind of analogy, IMO, as charging a surgeon with murder, because the patient was non-compliant, combative, and died of complications after he was discharged. Doctors are almost never charged criminally for egregious actions they make in the course of their duties, and almost never charged with murder,-- even when their actions are unconscionably egregious departures from established practice, and clearly produced the patient's death, as in the examples of former doctors Conrad Murray and Roberto Bonilla. Why should sworn officers be any different? Why do some professions get a golden parachute, and others don't?

Best post on this case. Could not agree more.

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

Well-Known Member

A diamond in process

Well-Known Member

A diamond in process

Well-Known Member

A diamond in process

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

LISK Liaison, Verified Forensic Psychology Special

LISK Liaison, Verified Forensic Psychology Special

Well-Known Member

Verified Insider

LISK Liaison, Verified Forensic Psychology Special

Verified Anesthetist

Retired Moderator

New Member

Well-Known Member

Inactive

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics