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

[CoolJ]

Mr. Scott doesn't get to lodge a complaint, which is my point. His actions resulted in his death.

Every state has traffic laws and drivers must obey them and follow instructions.

SC Code § 56-5-740 (2012) No person shall willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer, fireman or uniformed adult school crossing guard invested by law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic.

HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 46-287; 1952 Code Section 46-287; 1949 (46) 466; 1977 Act No. 149 Section 1.

http://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/2012/title-56/chapter-5/section-56-5-740/

My apologies. When you said "failure to obey a police officer is a crime", I thought you actually meant it that way. Didn't know you were talking about traffic laws.

 

[KEVINinTO]

BBM That is not how the Supreme Court has ruled in regards to LEO shooting/use of force cases. Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and Graham v. Connor (1989).

Here is a relevant passage from this ruling:

It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster

Note from the parts BBM that if the officer has reason to believe that a suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm deadly force deadly force may be used.

We know from the eyewitness account that Scott was struggling with the officer on the ground, i.e. Scott was trying to inflict serious physical harm against the officer. It seems to me that under these circumstances the officer was legally justified in using deadly force against Scott. We do know that up until he fired the shots Officer Slager's actions were exemplary. If my interpretation of the law is correct it could turn out that the only charges that Slager will face will be related to tampering with evidence. I hope my interpretation is correct because it would be a tragedy if this young father-to-be was sent to prison for life.

 

[EllieBee]

This one does (see 3:17 mark):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbvU8HFROwI&t=3m17s

Sorry, but all I see is officers wrapping/unwrapping white bandages, or something. I never saw anyone actually performing CPR on Walter.

 

[MyBelle]

He doesn't get to lodge a complaint because he was shot dead with 8 shots to his back while running away.

After which, it appears the officer tried to enhance his claim of "he's got my taser" by retrieving the taser (not anywhere NEAR the dead man Scott) and depositing it next to the murdered man's body. After a moment he realizes his partner saw the plant and he picks it back up.

Paint it however you will. This was not justifiable and every single one of us as Americans ought to be shaking in our boots. No matter how you respond, next time it could be YOU.

Constitutional rights don't end with the second amendment. Why are people so gung ho to defend that right, but not a citizen's right to due process? If Scott was guilty of a crime, he was entitled to his day in court.

Shooting him in the back 8 times is not legal justice.

I never suggested the shooting is justifiable. I don't know if it was or not. That's the purpose of a grand jury. A similar process used in the Michael Brown case in Missouri.

JMO

 

[Tawny]

Here is a relevant passage from this ruling:



Note from the parts BBM that if the officer has reason to believe that a suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm deadly force deadly force may be used.

We know from the eyewitness account that Scott was struggling with the officer on the ground, i.e. Scott was trying to inflict serious physical harm against the officer. It seems to me that under these circumstances the officer was legally justified in using deadly force against Scott. We do know that up until he fired the shots Officer Slager's actions were exemplary. If my interpretation of the law is correct it could turn out that the only charges that Slager will face will be related to tampering with evidence. I hope my interpretation is correct because it would be a tragedy if this young father-to-be was sent to prison for life.

IMO, we don't know if he was trying to inflict harm or trying to get away from it. We'll never know because he didn't survive the encounter. LE has a responsibility to citizens to, you know, keep them safe from harm... even during an arrest. Some of them seem to be forgetting that.

 

[shadowraiths]

Sorry, but all I see is officers wrapping/unwrapping white bandages, or something. I never saw anyone actually performing CPR on Walter.

Technically speaking, you're right. They did not perform CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation). They did however appear to be attempting to provide some form of first aid.

 

[CoolJ]

Here is a relevant passage from this ruling:



Note from the parts BBM that if the officer has reason to believe that a suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm deadly force deadly force may be used.

We know from the eyewitness account that Scott was struggling with the officer on the ground, i.e. Scott was trying to inflict serious physical harm against the officer. It seems to me that under these circumstances the officer was legally justified in using deadly force against Scott. We do know that up until he fired the shots Officer Slager's actions were exemplary. If my interpretation of the law is correct it could turn out that the only charges that Slager will face will be related to tampering with evidence. I hope my interpretation is correct because it would be a tragedy if this young father-to-be was sent to prison for life.

Hasn't he already been charged with MURDER?

 

[MyBelle]

My apologies. When you said "failure to obey a police officer is a crime", I thought you actually meant it that way. Didn't know you were talking about traffic laws.

This case involves a traffic stop.

 

[Brightbird]

BBM That is not how the Supreme Court has ruled in regards to LEO shooting/use of force cases. Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and Graham v. Connor (1989).

Let me rephrase then. I hope the jury can be objective in judging whether Slager reasonably felt threatened or that Scott was a danger to the public. If the jury finds that is not the case, then I hope he is held accountable to the same standards as anyone else tried for murder.

 

[MyBelle]

Technically speaking, you're right. They did not perform CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation). They did however appear to be attempting to provide some form of first aid.

They were trying to apply wound pressure. CPR would be useless if the blood was just gushing out. Impossible to provide necessary circulation when that is happening.

JMO

 

[EllieBee]

Technically speaking, you're right. They did not perform CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation). They did however appear to be attempting to provide some form of first aid.

Please don't think I was being snooty, I just wanted to be clear that I didn't see CPR! Hope we are cool.

 

[CoolJ]

This case involves a traffic stop.

I thought the topic of discussion was that we should teach our children to do whatever a LEO tells them to do?

 

[Brightbird]

Hasn't he already been charged with MURDER?

And fired from his job. No pun intended.

 

[EllieBee]

They were trying to apply wound pressure. CPR would be useless if the blood was just gushing out. Impossible to provide necessary circulation when that is happening.

JMO

True, since his back was riddled with bullet wounds.

 

[shadowraiths]

Please don't think I was being snooty, I just wanted to be clear that I didn't see CPR! Hope we are cool.

No problem. Didn't think you were being "snooty" at all.

 

[MyBelle]

Here is a relevant passage from this ruling:



Note from the parts BBM that if the officer has reason to believe that a suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm deadly force deadly force may be used.

We know from the eyewitness account that Scott was struggling with the officer on the ground, i.e. Scott was trying to inflict serious physical harm against the officer. It seems to me that under these circumstances the officer was legally justified in using deadly force against Scott. We do know that up until he fired the shots Officer Slager's actions were exemplary. If my interpretation of the law is correct it could turn out that the only charges that Slager will face will be related to tampering with evidence. I hope my interpretation is correct because it would be a tragedy if this young father-to-be was sent to prison for life.

Or perhaps Scott wished the cop would inflict serious harm against him as in suicide-by-cop. We do not know what Scott said to Officer Slager. He may have said he had a gun. This is very similar to a recent case in Nebraska.

Police said they were responding to the Family Dollar store robbery when they found Elrod near another business, He refused to show them his hands or to get on the ground, instead climbing onto the hood of a vehicle, police said.

An officer tried to stop Elrod with a Taser, but he pulled the wires out, and Elrod was turned toward other officers when Lugod fired, police said.

Elrod proved to be unarmed, but said he had a gun and repeatedly went into his waistband in a threatening manner and told officers to shoot him, Schmaderer said at the time.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/24/us-usa-nebraska-shooting-idUSKBN0MK2Q920150324

 

[Tawny]

Pretty sure Slager would have said by now if Scott had told him he had a gun.

 

[mysteriew]

http://www.sled.sc.gov/ProtectionOfPeople.aspx?MenuID=CWP
South Carolina common law castle doctrine

 

[MyBelle]

I thought the topic of discussion was that we should teach our children to do whatever a LEO tells them to do?

The topic is supposed to be Walter Scott's shooting. Apparently his parents didn't teach him to obey the officer's command to remain in his vehicle.

JMO

 

[al66pine]

Scott was at least 25 feet away and running in the opposite direction. If that causes someone to be in fear for their life, they have no business in law enforcement. At the time the officer fired the shots, he was not in any danger.

Sorry, this does not answer my question, so repeating it here:
.
"Originally Posted by al66pine Did LEO have a chance to pat down or frisk him for a weapon?
Anyone? Any vid? Any stmt by LEO or wit? Link?
(If so, I missed it, sorry)"

ETA: If LEO had no chance to frisk/pat down, how can anyone say, LEO was not in danger from man ~25' away, who had run from him 2x & engaged in fistfight/brawl on the ground w him, in prior 10 min
(or even 5 or 2 min?).
How?
How would LEO know he was not in any danger? The man c/h/had a weapon that LEO had no chance to find.