More twists in the Walter Scott shooting case

[OC for ME]

Unlike the Hein decision, SC law clearly does not contain ambiguous language regarding working tail light(s). Mr. Slager clearly does/did not know the law, or does/did not care what the law requires, or is/was he doing what cops in the NCPD do and simply following orders.

Interesting take from Boston.

We’ll be told that most cops are “good” cops.

But if so many cops are good, why are we here again?

http://www.boston.com/news/opinion/...alter-scott/fW5py3nmVPcOGHFYclMM5O/story.html

A very good question.

 

[The Truth]

Unlike the Hein decision, SC law clearly does not contain ambiguous language regarding working tail light(s). Mr. Slager clearly does/did not know the law, or does/did not care what the law requires, or is/was he doing what cops in the NCPD do and simply following orders.

Interesting take from Boston.A very good question.

No one is really even talking about the SC law regarding tail lights.

Also,

"In this case, Scott was running away, and it is hard to imagine why Slager would have had to fire to prevent his escape, said David A. Klinger, a former police officer and criminology professor at the University of Missouri at St. Louis.

“The guy doesn’t run very fast,” Klinger said of Scott. “The officer’s clearly ambulatory, because after he stops shooting he runs up to the suspect. That’s a key component. It’s not merely that the individual is fleeing, it’s that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent escape.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...shooting-was-suspicious-before-video-emerged/

 

[OC for ME]

No one is really even talking about the SC law regarding tail lights.

...

True, unfortunate as this is. If the stop is/was unlawful the acts of the officer subsequent to that time are to be (should be?) scrutinized, no? Or, are we to ignore the lawfulness of stop. If "the totality of the circumstance" hold any meaning the justification of the stop must be a component of the investigation.

 

[BB62]

...“The guy doesn’t run very fast,” Klinger said of Scott. “The officer’s clearly ambulatory, because after he stops shooting he runs up to the suspect. That’s a key component. It’s not merely that the individual is fleeing, it’s that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent escape.”...

And what force that the officer hadn't already employed would he employ when he caught up to the fleeing (again) Mr. Scott?

Edited to add: And if you say "Taser", it appears that only the direct contact mode of the Taser would have been usable at that point.

 

[Citizen]

Man Sues Slager for Tasering Him

Oh, this doesn't look good. A fella named Julius Wilson is suing Slager for tasering him unnecessarily during a traffic stop.

The accompanying article is heavy on the race hyperbole, so much so that I omitted to link the video of the tasering the usual way (to watch the video thru OCDO) because even the title is a bit hyperbolic. I recommend focusing on what the video shows.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b51_1428975191

 

[OC for ME]

The bar has been set very high for Slager given that he has been set adrift by his former department and union, based only on a video and before any investigation has been completed. His first attorney (union provided?) cast him aside. The facts, when compiled and presented in a courtroom may tell a completely different story than what is in the news. If it is found that Slager acted with justification and within the confines of the law (the use of force component) and department policy (use of force component) he should sue the crap outta his former department and the city. Can he sue the union for abandonment? I certainly hope so. Suing the media for their redundant behavior is a non-starter. But, he should have his attorney hoist the media on their own petard.

As I stated earlier, Slager's motivation (justification) to initiate the stop is what concerns me. A misunderstanding of the law? Again? Scott would be alive today if Slager followed the law (if he knew/knows).

Scott would have likely been pinched, peacefully, at some point in the future, for being a deadbeat dad.

110% compliance may mitigate, completely, the premature assumption of room temperature...may be.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Isn't black guy in a Mercedes reason enough to stop him

 

[marshaul]

The bar has been set very high for Slager given that he has been set adrift by his former department and union, based only on a video...

You mean, like a Justin Bieber video? It wasn't, like, a video of him obviously murdering a man or anything, was it?

 

[The Truth]

In one of the articles I posted his department Chief said that they knew something about the shooting wasn't right before they ever saw the video. It sounds like Slager has had issues in the past.

 

[BB62]

In one of the articles I posted his department Chief said that they knew something about the shooting wasn't right before they ever saw the video. It sounds like Slager has had issues in the past.

(my emphasis)

No, those were officials of SLED who said that: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...shooting-was-suspicious-before-video-emerged/

And, the article was titled "S.C. investigators say they thought fatal police shooting was suspicious before video emerged"

Someone who calls himself "The Truth" ought to make sure he speaks in such a manner when he makes such a declarative statement.

 

[The Truth]

Ok, so his department chief still made a negative comment in the same article a paragraph below, apparently I got the SLED quote and the Chief's quote mixed up.

"North Charleston’s*police chief, Eddie Driggers, said he was “sickened” by the video."

 

[Citizen]

(my emphasis)

No, those were officials of SLED who said that: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...shooting-was-suspicious-before-video-emerged/

And, the article was titled "S.C. investigators say they thought fatal police shooting was suspicious before video emerged"

Someone who calls himself "The Truth" ought to make sure he speaks in such a manner when he makes such a declarative statement.

I skimmed the article.

While I'm glad SLED is expressing doubts about Slager's actions, I can't help but wonder whether those doubts would have gone public without the video. I can't help but wonder whether there was a political calculation, something along the lines of, "Geez, boss, there were inconsistencies, but with the video gone public, we can't ignore or bury those doubts. We have no choice; the video is pretty damning and anybody supporting Slager in the face of that video is gonna come off looking like a police schill."

Why weren't the inconsistencies voiced before the video came to light? How many other cops, maybe not shootings, but serious situations with inconsistencies, did SLED...ummm...just happen to omit voicing their concerns about?

 

[BB62]

...While I'm glad SLED is expressing doubts about Slager's actions, I can't help but wonder whether those doubts would have gone public without the video. I can't help but wonder whether there was a political calculation, something along the lines of, "Geez, boss, there were inconsistencies, but with the video gone public, we can't ignore or bury those doubts. We have no choice; the video is pretty damning and anybody supporting Slager in the face of that video is gonna come off looking like a police schill."

Why weren't the inconsistencies voiced before the video came to light? How many other cops, maybe not shootings, but serious situations with inconsistencies, did SLED...ummm...just happen to omit voicing their concerns about?

They may have, and they may not have. Without the video, although there may have been inconsistencies, would a further investigation have turned up sufficient proof to support a charge? I dunno.

Although Slager's version of events ought to be available for a full and fair conclusion, I'm wondering if the law in SC would at all support Slager's actions if Scott were considered a violent felon?

 

[rushcreek2]

And this is why I keep advocating (angrily, at times) to utilize the principle of Presumption of Innocence. I still see so many people do trial by social media, which angers me. In nearly every case like this, a single video - showing only part of the story - is what everybody focuses on. Then they're surprised by a Not Guilty verdict, because the jury saw the whole of the evidence.

I am with you on this one. The officer involved was immediately placed on administrative leave at the scene by the responding officer ( perhaps supervisor) and disarmed. Then ...for his own safety - pending a full investigation of the shooting of yet ANOTHER black male who failed to comprehend the concept that you are under arrest while detained for a traffic stop....he was placed under arrest and charged with "murder" ....per post-Ferguson SOP.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

One thing always boggled me. Those who think its ok to kill someone for fleeing. (In stops for traffic or other non violent issues).

"They won't stop and face justice, so I killed them". Seems to be the rational of some cops and those who offer apologia for them.

 

[77zach]

One thing always boggled me. Those who think its ok to kill someone for fleeing. (In stops for traffic or other non violent issues).

"They won't stop and face justice, so I killed them". Seems to be the rational of some cops and those who offer apologia for them.

It's so shocking that I almost have taken it for joking in the past but this incident proves some are completely serious. The penalty for contempt of cop: DEATH. Sieg Heil!

 

[marshaul]

I am with you on this one. The officer involved was immediately placed on administrative leave at the scene by the responding officer ( perhaps supervisor) and disarmed. Then ...for his own safety - pending a full investigation of the shooting of yet ANOTHER black male who failed to comprehend the concept that you are under arrest while detained for a traffic stop....he was placed under arrest and charged with "murder" ....per post-Ferguson SOP.

Sounds like racists and police apologists who fail to comprehend that there is nothing which could have possibly happened before the video was taken which could justify what we see here.

Whether or not he was able to "comprehend the concept that you are under arrest while detained for a traffic stop" is completely, utterly irrelevant.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Sounds like racists and police apologists who fail to comprehend that there is nothing which could have possibly happened before the video was taken which could justify what we see here.

Whether or not he was able to "comprehend the concept that you are under arrest while detained for a traffic stop" is completely, utterly irrelevant.

Indeed. They are fond of saying things like "well if he hadn't resisted in the first place the cop wouldn't have had to be put in the situation to murder them".
Of course the irony that he also wouldn't be in that position if he wasn't harassing the citizen in the first place escapes them.

 

[solus]

a picture is worth a thousand words isn't it!!

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/14/us/arizona-police-run-over-suspect/

and LE say intentionally running over the suspect 'saved lives'...

and the chief said that with a straight face!!! scary, truly scary!!
ipse

 

[WalkingWolf]

I only look at one aspect in these cases, was the force justified? In the Scott case clearly NO. In the case of using a automobile I would say yes, it was justified. Thief with a loaded weapon, firing weapon in the air.

If I ran the motor pool I would be PO'd, because of the damage to the car. But the officers were justified to use deadly force. The only thing I can criticize is the officer not warning fellow officers before doing it.