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

[MyBelle]

RSBM

So , there is NO video of the fight alluded to by witnesses ? That's too bad, because it would help the investigation.
I am by no means anti-law enforcement ; but if Slager was in the wrong he needs to face the maximum punishment.
Slager is more accountable than Scott was or than we are -- because of his position and authority. He is held to a higher level .
Not saying Scott was a law abiding person, and IF he fought with Slager and rolled around or knocked Slager to the ground ; that was unwise and may have cost him his life.
When a cop stops any of us , he/she does not know what kind of person you are-- an obedient type or a raving lunatic , or somewhere in between.
Also, we don't know if the officer is a mild-mannered type , or possessing a hair trigger temper.

At this point, and seeing Slager try to drop the tazer by Scott, I'm guessing he snapped and lost it. But who knows ? Now we have to let the justice system sort this out.
The scant evidence on the video is all we have to go on.

Not sure what to think of witnesses since their perception of events can be faulty.

One thing out of many that astounded me in the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy was that people commenting (admittedly mostly on (ms)NBC news) seemed to have been right there in person that night ,following either Martins' or Zimmermans' footsteps -- they way they all described how it all went down. Ridiculous.
:moo:

Well, we also don't know if Scott was impaired by drugs or alcohol nor do we know for sure why he decided to tangle over a taser. It would be nice if we had a play-by-play audio/video capture of the entire incident but that didn't happen. Every cop has a right to protect himself--and a DUTY to protect the public--if physically assaulted and the perp flees toward a populated area.

I'm willing to allow the process take its course.

JMO

 

[popsicle]

He has a very good lawyer imo.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/10/michael-slager-lawyer-andy-savage_n_7044044.html

 

[Zuri]

In this case, detaining was never achieved. Mr. Scott resisted being detained, had a physical altercation with a police officer and fled. Because of his actions, I'll be very surprised if this case results in a guilty verdict.

JMO

I will be surprised if there isn't some form of sentence handed down to Slager. While I believe Scott was culpable by resisting arrest, the overwhelming appearance of excessive force by Slager gives me pause. I have heard snippets of the interviews with the man that shot the video. Has his account of what happened remained consistent?

 

[forthelost]

Well, we also don't know if Scott was impaired by drugs or alcohol

It would come up in an autopsy. I'm sure that one has been done or will be done, like with any suspicious death.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

When a woman gets raped do we say "Her skirt was too short." "She was asking for it, what did she expect?" "Look at her history, she had consensual sex with X number of men in the last year." Well, I guess some people say that sort of thing and find ways to blame the victim or assign her some responsibility. I, personally, would not say that to or about a rape victim. If she didn't want sex and it was forced upon her, it was rape. Her actions, her history don't change the vileness of the rapist.

I think of this case in the same way. Walter Scott did not want to die. With the video evidence we have, nothing the man did makes it okay for him to have been shot in the back. The man was a victim. The perpetrator (at this point) appears to be guilty regardless of the poor decisions the victim appears to have made-exiting the car, running and his history of child support arrearages.

 

[Cubby]

If this case gets to trial the outcome is going to weigh heavily on whether the cell phone video is admissible evidence. If it is, Slager is going to have a tough time showing how his life was threatened at the moment he fired his weapon.

 

[panthera]

If this case gets to trial the outcome is going to weigh heavily on whether the cell phone video is admissible evidence. If it is, Slager is going to have a tough time showing how his life was threatened at the moment he fired his weapon.

I expect the defense will do everything in their power to have the cell phone video ruled inadmissible as it is key to the state's case. However, there is still the matter of the five gunshot wounds to Scott's back...which there is no justifiable reason for, in my opinion.

MOO

 

[MyBelle]

It would come up in an autopsy. I'm sure that one has been done or will be done, like with any suspicious death.

Sure it would come up in an autopsy but that also doesn't mean the information will be made public prior to trial.

 

[jjenny]

In this case, detaining was never achieved. Mr. Scott resisted being detained, had a physical altercation with a police officer and fled. Because of his actions, I'll be very surprised if this case results in a guilty verdict.

JMO

A police officer can not shoot someone for simply fleeing. His life was clearly not in danger since Mr. Scott was running away. So why wouldn't it be a guilty verdict?

 

[MyBelle]

I will be surprised if there isn't some form of sentence handed down to Slager. While I believe Scott was culpable by resisting arrest, the overwhelming appearance of excessive force by Slager gives me pause. I have heard snippets of the interviews with the man that shot the video. Has his account of what happened remained consistent?

It will all come down to what transpired between the two of them during the scuffle on the ground and whether the grand jury will find the Officer's testimony credible.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

A police officer can not shoot someone for simply fleeing. His life was clearly not in danger since Mr. Scott was running away. So why wouldn't it be a guilty verdict?

Scott wasn't "simply fleeing" if he did so AFTER he was on the ground struggling with a police officer.

JMO

 

[jjenny]

Scott wasn't "simply fleeing" if he did so AFTER he was on the ground struggling with a police officer.

JMO

At the moment he was shot he was running away. Whatever scuffle happened before doesn't allow for a police officer to shoot him.

 

[i.b.nora]

Was the former police officer tested for drugs and alcohol?

 

[MyBelle]

At the moment he was shot he was running away. Whatever scuffle happened before doesn't allow for a police officer to shoot him.

Actually it does if--as a result of the physical altercation-- the officer fears for his safety or that of the public.

JMO

 

[Brightbird]

Scott wasn't "simply fleeing" if he did so AFTER he was on the ground struggling with a police officer.

JMO

That's so illogical. How can he use the defense that he felt threatened if Scott was running AWAY from him? Twice he ran AWAY from him. They can shoot while they're being threatened, not because they did feel threatened. That's more like revenge than defense. I'm not seeing the connection between the scuffle, fight, or whatever, and Scott being a threat to anyone after he broke away and ran.

 

[MyBelle]

If this case gets to trial the outcome is going to weigh heavily on whether the cell phone video is admissible evidence. If it is, Slager is going to have a tough time showing how his life was threatened at the moment he fired his weapon.

I think the problem with the video is going to be that Santana didn't turn it over right away. It will be difficult to establish chain of custody. I also don't buy his story that he didn't start recording until after the physical altercation ended. Very convenient that he left that out.

JMO

 

[jjenny]

Actually it does if--as a result of the physical altercation-- the officer fears for his safety or that of the public.

JMO

Mr. Scott was running away as fast as he could. Clearly at the time Mr. Scott was shot, police officer couldn't possibly fear for his safety.
He could argue he was somehow worried about public's safety, but it's going to be a tough sell.
Especially considering tape shows a what appears to be taser moved and dropped next to Mr. Scott's body (evidence tampering).

 

[jjenny]

I think the problem with the video is going to be that Santana didn't turn it over right away. It will be difficult to establish chain of custody. I also don't buy his story that he didn't start recording until after the physical altercation ended. Very convenient that he left that out.

JMO

Mr. Santana had it in his custody during this time so why would it be difficult to establish chain of custody?

 

[MyBelle]

That's so illogical. How can he use the defense that he felt threatened if Scott was running AWAY from him? Twice he ran AWAY from him. They can shoot while they're being threatened, not because they did feel threatened. That's more like revenge than defense. I'm not seeing the connection between the scuffle, fight, or whatever, and Scott being a threat to anyone after he broke away and ran.

Even running away, if the officer felt the perp was a threat to public safety, he can use force. It's up to the grand jury to decide.

JMO

 

[MzOpinion8d]

This is a serious question. Is it really legal anywhere in the world to shoot a person in the back? How can a person be considered a threat to you if they are running away from you?

Even if Scott did grab for the taser, it was not any threat to the officer. The taser had already been deployed, and the electrodes were in Scott's body somewhere. He would have had to unhook the electrodes from himself (painful - I've had to remove them from inmates before), then figure out how to reload them into the taser and then fire it at the officer and hope he'd done it right. This was not an imminent threat to the officer in any way.

Had he shot him DURING the scuffle over the taser, I would feel that was justified.

In Michael Brown's case, I feel really sad that a young man died, but the fact is he broke the law by stealing the cigars, then attempted to get the officer's weapon, and then came at the officer in an aggressive manner. His behavior led the officer to believe there was imminent danger to his own life. It sucks, and I think the officer overreacted, but I still feel it was justified. What bothered me about the circumstances there is that it turned into a fiasco about bad cops and racism when that wasn't really what happened there. And unfortunately bad cops and racism do exist and a spotlight does need to be shined upon them, but the Brown case was not the example to use. This situation, however, illustrates exactly what the Ferguson protesters were angry about. Fortunately it appears there will be consequences for this officer and hopefully the protests won't be necessary.