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

[CoolJ]

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

These two cases are in no way similar.

 

[KEVINinTO]

Hasn't he already been charged with MURDER?

Yes he has and it may turn out that the prosecutor jumped the gun (no pun intended) in doing so.

In determining if excessive force was used allowances must be made for the fact that officers are forced to make split-second decisions. The officers actions are not to be judged on the basis of 20/20 hindsight (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight we can all agree that there was no need to kill Scott).

Here is a passage from the D.O.J. report on the killing of Michael Brown. I can see similar arguments being made in favor of Officer Slager.

The Shootings Were Not Objectively Unreasonable Uses of Force Under 18
U.S.C. § 242
In this case, the Constitutional right at issue is the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition
against unreasonable seizures, which encompasses the right of an arrestee to be free from
“objectively unreasonable” force. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989). “The
‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable
officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id. at 396. “Careful
attention” must be paid “to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the
severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the
officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by
flight.” Id. Allowance must be made for the fact that law enforcement officials are often forced
to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.
Id. at 396-97.

 

[CoolJ]

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.

Because Scott had his back to him running away.
Are You proposing LEO should have the right to use deadly force on basically anybody because they MIGHT be armed?

 

[AlwaysShocked]

This one does (see 3:17 mark):

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

There is no CPR depicted. I see some bandages being applied.

 

[CoolJ]

Yes he has and it may turn out that the prosecutor jumped the gun (no pun intended) in doing so.

In determining if excessive force was used allowances must be made for the fact that officers are forced to make split-second decisions. The officers actions are not to be judged on the basis of 20/20 hindsight (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight we can all agree that there was no need to kill Scott).

Here is a passage from the D.O.J. report on the killing of Michael Brown. I can see similar arguments being made in favor of Officer Slager.

I suppose anything is possible. But this looks like an open and shut case of a killer cop to me. Can't shoot a man in the back who is running away from you. That my friend is cold blooded murder. He is going to the clink for life, or lethal injection. Take your pick. Personally, I would rather him rot in a cell with his new colleagues.

 

[Brightbird]

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

What do his parents have to do with it now? Honestly, I don't know whether some posts are intended to be inflammatory.

 

[CoolJ]

There are very few professionals in this world who deserve more respect than an honest, passionate police officer.
However, the reverse of that - a dirty, corrupt cop; is the worst kind of criminal , and should be locked away to the fullest extent of the law. JMO

 

[MyBelle]

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.

Good Point. LEO would have no way of knowing if the public in his path was in danger. The officer also wouldn't know if Scott was mentally ill, on drugs or anything else that could make him a danger to the public.

JMO

 

[mysteriew]

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.

True. But what is not here is "imminent threat of harm".

If he had shot him during the "struggle" that might have applied. But he didn't. If he determined that Scott had a weapon, he might have been able to use that. But there is no evidence of that.

The problem is that he waited until there was no imminent threat of harm..... while Scott was running away, while Scott's back was turned to him..

 

[MyBelle]

I suppose anything is possible. But this looks like an open and shut case of a killer cop to me. Can't shoot a man in the back who is running away from you. That my friend is cold blooded murder. He is going to the clink for life, or lethal injection. Take your pick. Personally, I would rather him rot in a cell with his new colleagues.

Cops have shot and killed fleeing suspects in the past and they will continue to do so in the future. They are allowed to make that judgment call.

What is very rare is for a cop to shoot someone for following their instructions during a traffic stop.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

True. But what is not here is "imminent threat of harm".

If he had shot him during the "struggle" that might have applied. But he didn't. If he determined that Scott had a weapon, he might have been able to use that. But there is no evidence of that.

The problem is that he waited until there was no imminent threat of harm..... while Scott was running away, while Scott's back was turned to him..

BBM. We don't know if there was or was not imminent threat of harm to the public that was in his path.

JMO

 

[CoolJ]

Cops have shot and killed fleeing suspects in the past and they will continue to do so in the future. They are allowed to make that judgment call.

What is very rare is for a cop to shoot someone for following their instructions during a traffic stop.

JMO

They may continue to do so. But many citizens are catching on and are not going to put up with it anymore. That's why this one is sitting in a cell and will remain there for the remainder of his natural life. JMO

 

[mysteriew]

BBM. We don't know if there was or was not imminent threat of harm to the public that was in his path.

JMO

Apparently that wasn't his concern. According to media, what he said in his report was that he was in fear for his own life.

 

[Cubby]

Or perhaps Scott wished the cop would inflict serious harm against him as in suicide-by-cop.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/24/us-usa-nebraska-shooting-idUSKBN0MK2Q920150324

RSBM

[h=1]Man Shot by Police Had Much to Celebrate in Recent Months[/h]
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-shot-police-celebrate-recent-months-30228053

This doesn't sound like someone attempting suicide by cop.

 

[popsicle]

He has been charged with murder. Not seeing this happening at all.

Section 16-3-10 - "Murder" defined.
"Murder" is the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied.

http://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/2012/title-16/chapter-3/section-16-3-10

 

[Cubby]

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.

His back was to the LEO. What is important is what happened when the officer fired the weapon. There is no evidence the LEO was in danger when he used his weapon. Can you provide a link they were in a fist fight/brawl?

 

[Cubby]

True. But what is not here is "imminent threat of harm".

If he had shot him during the "struggle" that might have applied. But he didn't. If he determined that Scott had a weapon, he might have been able to use that. But there is no evidence of that.

The problem is that he waited until there was no imminent threat of harm..... while Scott was running away, while Scott's back was turned to him..

:clap: :clap: :clap: :goodpost:

 

[al66pine]

RSBM. Where is the video of the ground scuffle ? Thus far I've only watched the LiveLeak video of the incident; and from the start of that clip it looked like Scott was slapping something out of Slager's hands (looked like something fell to the ground at that point ) and then Scott takes off, running ?
Imo

I just now watched LiveLeak vid - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9d2_1428500514 someone else pointed to and
did not see a lying-on-the-ground fight w the two. I thought I'd seen vid or narrative of it, not finding now.
My apologies, if this was an on-their-feet altercation only. I'll BOLO for vid or other source.

In any case, question in my question is still unanswered, so repeating here:
"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)"

If LEO did not frisk or pat down, how can anyone say LEO knew he was not in any danger?

 

[Brightbird]

He has been charged with murder. Not seeing this happening at all.

Section 16-3-10 - "Murder" defined.
"Murder" is the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied.

http://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/2012/title-16/chapter-3/section-16-3-10

Police are trained to shoot to kill. Malice aforethought means he had the intent to kill.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/malice-aforethought/

Malice aforethought is the the deliberate intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Malice aforethought is an element that must be proved in the crime of first degree murder. This description of the perpetrator's state of mind basically means that he or she had an intent to inflict injury without legal justification or excuse (legal justification included such defenses as self-defense, while excuse includes mental illness and duress).

Malice aforethought is comprised of any one of the following three elements: (1) an intent to kill; (2) an intent to inflict grievous bodily injury; or (3) an intent to act in a manner that creates a plain and strong likelihood that death or grievous harm will follow. Of these three prongs of malice, the first two prongs require a specific intent on the part of the defendant, measured subjectively, while the third prong only requires a general intent, measured both subjectively and objectively. Accordingly, malice aforethought may exist without an actual intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm, if there is proof of the "third prong" of malice. This simply means that the perpetrator knew of circumstances that a reasonably prudent person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood of death or grievous bodily harm resulting from the perpetrator's act. The law can infer malice from circumstantial evidence, such as from the intentional use of a deadly weapon.

 

[RANCH]

I finally got a chance to view some video on this police shooting. It doesn't look good for Officer Slager. I would like to know more about the taser. Did Walter Scott actually grab it? Are his fingerprints on it? How much of a struggle (if there was one) between the two happened off camera?

I'm not sure what to make of the apparent lack of CPR by LE. Maybe someone with a medical background can say if it would be appropriate to do in a case like this. I have a feeling it wouldn't have mattered but that's just my opinion.