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

[dodie20]

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

not only was he interviewing as a suspect, (he may not have realized he WAS a suspect), but also interviewing as part of his job description. He had to weigh the 2 and set his priorities and it looks like he thought he could talk his way out of any wrongdoing, therefore keep his job-so he talked as the cop, not as the standard suspect. If he had been fired and then asked to interview, I doubt very seriously he would have agreed to talk. moo

 

[jjenny]

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.

That I don't agree with. He did this while employed. Seems like firing him afterwards shouldn't be a ground for him losing his lawyer.

 

[tambo]

That I don't agree with. He did this while employed. Seems like firing him afterwards shouldn't be a ground for him losing his lawyer.

but why should they have to pay for him. It would seem they already know he murdered this man, they have arrested him and charged him, and now they should be expected to pay for his defense.

 

[jjenny]

But he was on duty when it happened. Why should they be able to just drop him? He was employed by them when he killed Mr. Scott.

 

[Greater Than]

That I don't agree with. He did this while employed. Seems like firing him afterwards shouldn't be a ground for him losing his lawyer.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it, I just posted what their policy is for coverage.

It states one must be currently employed in LE to receive the benefits. Knowing this, it seems clear to me why Slager's original attorney is no longer representing him.

 

[Greater Than]

What are the requirements for eligibility?

The member must be in good standing (with dues up to date) at the time of the incident and at the time he or she requests legal service – with no breaks in membership – and must maintain membership throughout the course of representation.

https://www.sspba.org/gen/articles/Frequently_Asked_Questions_89.jsp

BIB - impossible for him to do since he was fired.

 

[EllieBee]

Right right right right right right right.

Because I'm all about that right, about that right, no left"



I juss keeding.

 

[KEVINinTO]

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.

That could well be the reason if so it really sucks for Slager. He has been thrown under the bus by his own police chief, the Mayor, his lawyer and finally the Benevolent Association he paid dues into. He has even been shut-out of crowd-funding websites as a way to raise money for legal representation. I can't help but feel very sorry for him (and his family). Up until the point that he pulled the trigger Slager was doing his job completely by the book beginning with the courteous and professional manner in which he addressed Scott.

 

[Tawny]

Maybe don't shoot anybody in the back?

 

[EllieBee]

That could well be the reason if so it really sucks for Slager. He has been thrown under the bus by his own police chief, the Mayor, his lawyer and finally the Benevolent Association he paid dues into. He has even been shut-out of crowd-funding websites as a way to raise money for legal representation. I can't help but feel very sorry for him (and his family). Up until the point that he pulled the trigger Slager was doing his job completely by the book beginning with the courteous and professional manner in which he addressed Scott.

Except for those other previous charges against him.

But, yes, let us blame the VICTIM.

 

[Tawny]

Should they have kept him employed?

 

[jjenny]

Should they have kept him employed?

If he paid his fees and he was employed during the incident, I think they should be responsible for representing him even if he is fired.
Of course their rules say otherwise. But it's like having insurance but they are allowed to drop you after the incident and don't have to pay your damages because they dropped you after the incident.

 

[KEVINinTO]

Should they have kept him employed?

He should have been suspended with pay. He is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[EllieBee]

Maybe don't shoot anybody in the back?

Now that is just CRAZY!!!!!

Again, I am being the sarcastical personage......lol

Sorry to make light on Mr. Scott's thread but the room needs some levity.

The meanness about the victim has reached scary proportions...can this please stop?

 

[Bayou Mistress]

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:



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.

When Slager was no longer a police officer, then Aylor quit him?

 

[EllieBee]

He should have been suspended with pay. He is innocent until proven guilty.

And yet his own dept chose to do otherwise. Quite telling. They know far more than do we.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

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"

I believe that a condition of employment is answering investigative questions. Once he was fired then he could refuse. Or get fired for refusing.

 

[Brightbird]

Right, it's a big conspiracy against the noble Officer Slager. Must be a pretty organized effort against him with complaints filed by citizens, and even his own employers turning against him. And the evidence for this conspiracy? He was courteous. Because murderers can't be polite and professional. Makes sense.

 

[KEVINinTO]

Except for those other previous charges against him.

But, yes, let us blame the VICTIM.

What other charges against him? The complaint related to the tasing of Mario Givens was fully investigated and Officer Slager was cleared of any wrongdoing. This latest civil lawsuit related to a traffic stop is clearly bogus without any merit. Just another felon trying to jump on the money train.

 

[SStarr33]

I believe that a condition of employment is answering investigative questions. Once he was fired then he could refuse. Or get fired for refusing.

Wilson was not required to answer questions. I guess the rules are different depending upon location.