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

[Tawny]

I see that the lengthy interview took place in the office of his original lawyer - David Aylor. This seems like a huge mistake on Aylor's part to let his client talk to police investigators. It is rarely in the interest of person's facing criminal charges to talk to police. Adding insult to injury - after Aylor dropped Slager as a client he gave an interview with Politico in which he made it very clear that he dropped Slager - not the other way around and said "people could draw their on conclusions". To me this is highly unethical behavior on the part of a lawyer. The lawyer should have kept his mouth shut. If I was Slager I would take action to have Aylor disbarred.

Pretty sure Slager has more serious problems to worry about than getting his lawyer disbarred. Like, say, a murder rap.

The lawyer didn't shoot Scott. Slager did.

 

[Greater Than]

Dennis Root is a LE trainer and nationally recognized expert who trains officers in, among other things, proper use of deadly force. He was an expert witness for the defense in the Zimmerman trial. This is what he said regarding the use of deadly force in this case:

"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."

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 here. 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

 

[KEVINinTO]

Completely agree.

Didn't know Aylor did an interview with Politico--gonna go read it now.

I got my blogs mixed up. It was "The Daily Beast" where he gave an exclusive interview

 

[Bayou Mistress]

I see that the lengthy interview took place in the office of his original lawyer - David Aylor. This seems like a huge mistake on Aylor's part to let his client talk to police investigators. It is rarely in the interest of person's facing criminal charges to talk to police. Adding insult to injury - after Aylor dropped Slager as a client he gave an interview with Politico in which he made it very clear that he dropped Slager - not the other way around and said "people could draw their on conclusions". To me this is highly unethical behavior on the part of a lawyer. The lawyer should have kept his mouth shut. If I was Slager I would take action to have Aylor disbarred.

At the time, David Aylor may have dropped Slager because he isn't death penalty certified. I realized the DP is off the table now but it wasn't when Aylor dropped Slager. Could also have dropped him because this case is going to get expensive and Slager doesn't have financial resources. Or dropped him because his firm is too busy with personal injury rainmakers. Or maybe he just didn't like Slager. So many possibilites.

 

[KEVINinTO]

At the time, David Aylor may have dropped Slager because he isn't death penalty certified. I realized the DP is off the table now but it wasn't when Aylor dropped Slager. Could also have dropped him because this case is going to get expensive and Slager doesn't have financial resources. Or dropped him because his firm is too busy with personal injury rainmakers. Or maybe he just didn't like Slager. So many possibilites.

David Aylor was employed by the Southern States Police Benevolent Association. As a paid-up member of this association Officer Slager was entitled to free legal representation so money should not have been an issue.

This is the explanation Aylor gave:

I can't specifically state what is the reason why or what isn't the reason why I'm no longer his lawyer. All I can say is that the same day of the discovery of the video that was disclosed publicly, I withdrew as counsel immediately. Whatever factors people want to take from that and conclusions they want to make, they have the right to do that. But I can't confirm from an attorney-client standpoint what the reason is.

These are the words of a lawyer throwing his client under the bus. The ONLY comment he should have made is "I no longer represent Mr. Slager" and leave it at that.

 

[dodie20]

Pretty sure Slager has more serious problems to worry about than getting his lawyer disbarred. Like, say, a murder rap.

The lawyer didn't shoot Scott. Slager did.

getting this lawyer disbarred would be a lost battle before the battle even got started, smh. And suggesting Slager's lawyer was wrong to let him interview about the shooting? What should he have done? advised him to run from the law? We heard in released audio that Slager was well aware that he'd have to give an interview and he voiced NO opposition. He had no choice, standard procedure. He was lucky to get the extra thinking time... He should've used the time more wisely. A person has to be honest with his lawyer if he wants good representation, because no decent lawyer wants to look like a fool when caught in a lie. moo.

 

[dodie20]

At the time, David Aylor may have dropped Slager because he isn't death penalty certified. I realized the DP is off the table now but it wasn't when Aylor dropped Slager. Could also have dropped him because this case is going to get expensive and Slager doesn't have financial resources. Or dropped him because his firm is too busy with personal injury rainmakers. Or maybe he just didn't like Slager. So many possibilites.

or maybe because the evidence didn't match the story Slager told him. moo

 

[Tawny]

Wait... why shouldn't he have interviewed? I'm confused. Isn't it pretty standard to interview the suspect of a murder case?

 

[SStarr33]

Wait... why shouldn't he have interviewed? I'm confused. Isn't it pretty standard to interview the suspect of a murder case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Fifth_Amendment

 

[al66pine]

David Aylor was employed by the Southern States Police Benevolent Association. As a paid-up member of this association OfficerSlager was entitled to free legal representation so money should not have been an issue....

sbm bbm

Unfamiliar w typical contracts or this arrangement between LEO union and atty/law firms.
I imagine contract could provide for LEO-members to receive legal rep
for internal reviews, employment matters, like terminations, suspensions, etc.

Does contract provide free legal services re criminal charges LEO-members face stemming from on-duty actions?
Thx in adv for info on this.

ETA: I was a bit surprised too about Aylor's stmts in interview.

 

[Tawny]

I'm well aware of what the 5th Amendment states. He's probably pretty aware as well and knew he didn't have to answer any questions. He obviously chose to anyway.

 

[SStarr33]

I'm well aware of what the 5th Amendment states. He's probably pretty aware as well and knew he didn't have to answer any questions. He obviously chose to anyway.

That is not what you asked.

 

[Tawny]

Right right right right right right right.

 

[KEVINinTO]

getting this lawyer disbarred would be a lost battle before the battle even got started, smh. And suggesting Slager's lawyer was wrong to let him interview about the shooting? What should he have done? advised him to run from the law? We heard in released audio that Slager was well aware that he'd have to give an interview and he voiced NO opposition. He had no choice, standard procedure. He was lucky to get the extra thinking time... He should've used the time more wisely. A person has to be honest with his lawyer if he wants good representation, because no decent lawyer wants to look like a fool when caught in a lie. moo.

Actually the officer was not obligated to talk to police. His rights are no different from any other citizen. He is protected by the Fifth Amendment and cannot be compelled to testify against himself, i.e. "self-incriminate". It is not "running away from the law" to refuse to talk to police. It is very rare for a lawyer to ever allow a client to give an interview with police. There is usually nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Now it maybe possible that Slager lied to his lawyer and that would be a good reason for a lawyer to drop a client but even in that case a lawyer must keep his mouth shut. He cannot say anything that could jeopardize his former client. A lawyer cannot do an interview with a major website saying essentially "I immediately dropped my client as soon as I saw the video and you can draw your own conclusions"

 

[Tawny]

Then I guess he did Slager a favor by dropping him when he did before he could do any more damage.

 

[SStarr33]

Right right right right right right right.

Are you responding to anyone in particular?

Not sure if you know about this feature, but if you hit the Reply With Quote button, the comment you are responding to comes up in your post. It makes following much easier.

 

[KEVINinTO]

sbm bbm

Unfamiliar w typical contracts or this arrangement between LEO union and atty/law firms.
I imagine contract could provide for LEO-members to receive legal rep
for internal reviews, employment matters, like terminations, suspensions, etc.

Does contract provide free legal services re criminal charges LEO-members face stemming from on-duty actions?
Thx in adv for info on this.

ETA: I was a bit surprised too about Aylor's stmts in interview.

From the SSPBA website: https://www.sspba.org/gen/articles/Legal_Benefits_83.jsp

Legal benefits PBA members receive
No other law enforcement association even comes close

LEGAL BENEFITS ARE AVAILABLE TO SSPBA MEMBERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY FOR INCIDENTS ARISING FROM THE PERFORMANCE OF A DIRECT LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION.


Shooting and Serious Injury Incidents
When a call to the SSPBA emergency line is made on behalf of a member involved in a shooting or accident with serious injury, SSPBA will promptly have an attorney in touch with the member, going to the scene if necessary. The attorney will represent the member to the resolution of the incident.

Civil Suits and Criminal Action
An attorney is assigned to ensure that the member is adequately represented and, if necessary, the attorney will personally represent the member until resolution of the action. No cap or limit.

Grievance and Disciplinary Representation
SSPBA chapters assist members through the early levels of their appeals. Upon approval of the chapter, the SSPBA legal department will review the case for assignment of an attorney at the last level of appeal.

With PBA’s Legal Defense Benefit…
“Do I need committee approval?”
NO!

“Do I need the general membership’s approval?”
NO!

“Will personalities be involved in my request?”
NO!

“Will inner-circle politics be involved?”
NO!

Under the Legal Defense Benefit of the PBA, only four simple questions are asked…

1. Are you a PBA member in good standing?

2. Were you a PBA member on the day of the incident?

3. Have you maintained your membership?

4. Was the incident within the scope of your official duties in performing a law enforcement function?

As a PBA member, you will have available to you 24-hour, on the scene coverage, PLUS there is no dollar limit on your coverage!

For further coverage details, please contact the SSPBA Legal Department at (800) 233-3506 ext 3.

 

[Greater Than]

What you need to know when you need legal assistance

YOUR MEMBERSHIP MUST BE ACTIVE
In order to receive PBA coverage, an officer must be an active PBA member, must have been so at the time of the incident, and must have maintained uninterrupted membership. This underscores the importance of keeping your dues payments up to date.

In addition, officers must remember that it is necessary to be employed in law enforcement to be covered. If an officer resigns his employment, he is ineligible for PBA service.

https://www.sspba.org/gen/articles/What_you_need_to_know_when_you_need_legal_assistance_86.jsp

Seems pretty clear to me that once he was fired he was no longer eligible to receive services, hence Aylor withdrawing as counsel.

 

[tambo]

re: him not giving an interview to the police. He is the police for petes sakes, he was at work when this happened, he of course needs to tell his bosses what happened....for the love of....the only difference between him and your average murderer is that he got more time to think about how he was going to answer some questions. Did he turn in a report? Or is this another one of those.....

 

[tambo]

https://www.sspba.org/gen/articles/What_you_need_to_know_when_you_need_legal_assistance_86.jsp

Seems pretty clear to me that once he fired he was no longer eligible to receive services, hence Aylor withdrawing as counsel.

I was thinking the same thing.