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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
from https://www.sspba.org/gen/articles/What_you_need_to_know_when_you_need_legal_assistance_86.jsp

LET US KNOW IF YOU ARE NAMED IN A LAW SUIT

Contact the PBA legal department immediately if you are named in a lawsuit, and provide our office with a copy of the suit once you are served. If the incident is duty-related and is not vicarious, PBA will assign eligible members an attorney to monitor the case.

A SHOOTING OR AN ACCIDENT…​

NO ONE LIKES TO THINK ABOUT IT!​
It can happen to any law enforcement officer at any time. There’s a shooting or a serious accident…someone is hurt…you’re involved. As a PBA member, you’re not alone. PBA is here to protect your rights

IF IT HAPPENS TO YOu

  • Don’t Panic! Calm down and compose yourself.
  • Don’t rush into making a statement.
  • If you are asked to make a statement, call the PBA Hotline: 1-800-233-3506
  • PBA will provide you with an attorney prior to making a statement - either on the scene or wherever needed.
  • Wait until you talk to a PBA attorney before making any statements, oral or written.
 
Bayou Mistress said:
I believe that a condition of employment is answering investigative questions. Once he was fired then he could refuse. Or get fired for refusing.
Click to expand...

I think any employment contract that would attempt to abrogate a persons constitutional rights would be considered un-enforceable.
 
KEVINinTO said:
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.
Click to expand...
'His own police chief', did not throw him under the bus. He is trying to do his job. As far as everybody else you mentioned, well maybe there's his sign...I can't feel sorry for him. That video and audio, whew, makes me glad he's locked up. moo
 
KEVINinTO said:
I think any employment contract that would attempt to abrogate a persons constitutional rights would be considered un-enforceable.
Click to expand...

Most employers expect their employees to fully cooperate with an investigation. Of course the employer has the right not to do so. And the employer has a right to not employ someone who doesn't follow their rules.
 
KEVINinTO said:
He should have been suspended with pay. He is innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

as with any investigation, if they have enough evidence than they charge the person with the crime and arrest them. Why is this different, because he's a cop. Does that mean they shouldn't arrest a cop even if they have the evidence to charge him....??????
 
tambo said:
as with any investigation, if they have enough evidence than they charge the person with the crime and arrest them. Why is this different, because he's a cop. Does that mean they shouldn't arrest a cop even if they have the evidence to charge him....??????
Click to expand...

In a court of law anyone charged with a crime is considered innocent until a conviction. Criminal charges don't mean a person is guilty.
 
Here are two excerpted videos that I slowed down and uploaded to youtube. I did not attempt to "clean them up" or "sharpen" them

The first shows just the "tussle" and the second shows from where Scott breaks away from Slager.

The second shows what appears to be two taser cartridges, one of which ends up being dragged through the grass by Scott.


As I've noted earlier, I do think the "tussle" will be pivotal to this case and whether (or not) the grand jury will indict.
 
Bayou Mistress said:
I believe that a condition of employment is answering investigative questions. Once he was fired then he could refuse. Or get fired for refusing.
Click to expand...

Quote below might help in ^ above issues^, i.e., distinguishing between situations where

LEO may exercise 5th A'mt Right not to incriminate self re poss crim chgs
vs
Other Circumstances where he must answer Q's by Employing PD, per Garrity Rule, internal views & employment matters.

Keep in mind advice below is given from standpoint of LEO union to its members.

https://www.sspba.org/gen/articles/...___Know_your_rights_under_Garrity_Rule_87.jsp

Garrity Information: Protect yourself - Know your rights under Garrity Rule
Southern States PBA is a professional law enforcement association with a mission to enhance the profession while seeking equity and fairness for our members. We do not support or condone illegal activity by anyone. It is with this principle in mind that we wish to educate our members on protection against self-incrimination.

All law enforcement personnel should be familiar with Miranda. If you are not, please contact this office as soon as possible (1-800-233-3506). Garrity is a much less known warning because it protects the officer and not the criminal.
Garrity comes from a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Garrity v. New Jersey (1966) where police officers were questioned during an investigation alleging ticket fixing. The officers were ordered to respond to the investigators’ questions and were informed that refusal to respond to the questions would result in their being terminated from employment. The officers answered the questions and their answers were used against them in a criminal prosecution.

The Supreme Court held "that the choice imposed on [the officers] was one between self incrimination or job forfeiture," a choice the court termed "coercion." The court basically ruled that statements which a law enforcement officer is compelled to make under threat of possible forfeiture of the officer’s job could not consequently be used against the officer in a criminal prosecution.

It has been established that you cannot be questioned under Miranda and Garrity simultaneously. Law enforcement officers commonly are faced with making decisions regarding their employment under confusing circumstances. For instance: you are summoned to your superior’s office or to internal affairs, where you are suddenly told to answer questions regarding a possible complaint or allegations of misconduct, or asked if you have any knowledge of a particular incident.
What should be your response?

Your immediate concern is to establish whether you are being questioned for criminal allegations or for administrative rule violations. Keep in mind the following:

  1. If the questioning is for alleged criminal conduct, then you should invoke Miranda and not respond to any questions until an attorney is present representing you.
  2. If you are questioned about a rule violation, you should answer all related questions truthfully. All law enforcement personnel are sworn to tell the truth and are held to that requirement when being instructed to answer questions relating to their conduct. To refuse to answer exposes the officer to charges of insubordination. To not answer truthfully exposes you to charges of untruthfulness.

The confusion occurs when an officer is confronted with questions by an authority and is not told the circumstances or the purpose of the questions. Should that happen, the following responses would be appropriate.

IMMEDIATELY establish the type of inquiry you are involved in: criminal or administrative. Simply ask, "is this an administrative inquiry, and am I under orders to respond?" Forcing the issuance of a directive to answer questions or make statements regarding any misconduct inquiry invokes the Garrity rule and prevents your response from being used against you in a criminal prosecution. Should you be told you are not suspected of any wrongdoing, then ask to be give a directive prior to answering any questions. Should you be told it is an internal investigation, you should also ask for a superior to order you to respond.

Be aware of any attempt to use your response for an allegation of insubordination. Do not refuse to answer any questions in an administrative inquiry; to do so gives a basis for charges. You should courteously and calmly ask the above question to create the Garrity standing. Should the authority refuse to give you an order to answer questions, then you are not required to answer. Simply respond that you are available at any time you are needed in regard to the matter. Your use of the Garrity rule protects you and your agency. Should the investigation produce conclusive evidence of criminal actions on part of any officer, the agency could be prevented from using such evidence in a criminal prosecution if the Garrity rule is not followed.

GARRITY RIGHTS

Whenever you are required to make a written statement, ALWAYS BEGIN YOUR STATEMENT LIKE THIS:
"At the direct order of __________________, understanding that I can be disciplined and/or terminated for violating a direct order, I am making this statement".
Then begin your statement.
Once you use this opening statement, you are invoking your Garrity rights. Generally speaking, truthful statements cannot be used against you in a criminal proceeding. This does not preclude their use in an administrative proceeding.
If you are directed to make an oral statement, be sure you are ordered to make the statement. DO NOT VOLUNTEER TO SAY ANYTHING. Most statements are recorded, and you want to make sure the order is also on tape.
Ideally, the administration should present you with a written order to be signed in the presence of witnesses, and you should get a copy. If this is not done, once the recorder is turned on and the officer in charge begins to make the opening remarks, listen carefully. If he fails to tell you that you are being ordered to make this statement, your first response should begin with the statement that you are following the direct order of whoever is in charge of the questioning. You may want to use words similar to this:
"I have been ordered to make this statement at the direct order of ____________________, and I understand that it is a condition of my employment."
Revised 10-2-12



 
3202d77f.gif

Walter Scott Is Not on Trial -- New York Times

I not only watched television pundits discuss the shooting of Walter Scott in North Charleston, S.C., last week, I participated in some of those discussions.

And the most disturbing thread that emerged for me was people who said up front that they saw no justification for Scott being killed, but nevertheless stalked around for a back door that would allow them to surreptitiously blame the victim for his own death. Some formulation of “if only he hadn’t run...” was the way this dark door was eased open.

I find it particularly disturbing the way that we try to find excuses for killings, the way that we seek to deprecate a person when they have been killed rather than insisting that they deserved to remain among the living.​

EYESR_zps1dff9e53.gif

link
 
KEVINinTO said:
In a court of law anyone charged with a crime is considered innocent until a conviction. Criminal charges don't mean a person is guilty.
Click to expand...

and when is person is charged with the crime of murder especially a police officer I just don't see how you can suspend them with pay no less, and what else just let them walk around like nothing is wrong. But if your a regular citizen and your charged with murder you go to jail, your employer can fire you if they want to, most employers wouldn't keep around and pay somebody just charged with murder. And of course he will have his day in court. But again I don't care what your job is, when you are charged with murder you go to jail and wait for your bail hearing etc....just like everybody else.
 
"Originally Posted by Bayou Mistress I believe that a condition of employment is answering investigative questions. Once he was fired then he could refuse. Or get fired for refusing."

My post above w looooooooooongazz quote might help in distinguishing between situations where

LEO may exercise 5th A'mt Right not to incriminate self re poss crim chgs
vs
Other Circumstances where he must answer Q's by Employing PD, per Garrity Rule, internal views & employment matters.

Or not.
 
KEVINinTO said:
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.
Click to expand...

<modsnip>

He said at a news conference when the murder charge was announced that he only watched the video of the shooting once and he was so stunned, he didn't watch it carefully. When a reporter asked him what he saw, he took nearly 15 seconds to compose himself. His voice still cracked a little as he started to speak.

"I think all these police officers on this force, men and women, are like my children. You tell me how a father would react to seeing his child do something," Driggers said. "I'll let you answer that yourself."

http://news.yahoo.com/shooting-makes-north-charleston-chiefs-outreach-job-harder-083809648.html
 
MyBelle said:
The Police Chief's boss is the Mayor so he'll do whatever his pal tells him to do. It's not about being fair, it is about pandering for votes. The Chief even admitted he really didn't watch the video closely. imo, he doesn't care about being a boss, he just wants everybody to like him.

He said at a news conference when the murder charge was announced that he only watched the video of the shooting once and he was so stunned, he didn't watch it carefully. When a reporter asked him what he saw, he took nearly 15 seconds to compose himself. His voice still cracked a little as he started to speak.

"I think all these police officers on this force, men and women, are like my children. You tell me how a father would react to seeing his child do something," Driggers said. "I'll let you answer that yourself."

http://news.yahoo.com/shooting-makes-north-charleston-chiefs-outreach-job-harder-083809648.html
Click to expand...

Do you think it's a conspiracy?
 
tambo said:
and when is person is charged with the crime of murder especially a police officer I just don't see how you can suspend them with pay no less, and what else just let them walk around like nothing is wrong. But if your a regular citizen and your charged with murder you go to jail, your employer can fire you if they want to, most employers wouldn't keep around and pay somebody just charged with murder. And of course he will have his day in court. But again I don't care what your job is, when you are charged with murder you go to jail and wait for your bail hearing etc....just like everybody else.
Click to expand...

Yes it is true. In just about any other occupation if you are charged with any serious crime your employer will fire you. Police are a special case because their job description includes - under certain circumstances - the use of lethal force and the taking of another person's life. We do not know if Slager was justified in using lethal force but if the latest evidence which seems to suggest that Scott used the taser on Slager is proven true than Slager will walk. If in fact Scott grabbed Slagers taser and fired it at the officer than this isn't even a manslaughter case. This will be justifiable homicide.
 
dodie20 said:
people get fired from jobs. They are paying his wife's health insurance. Slager should be grateful.
Click to expand...

I am also pregnant (6 months) and I have a hard time thinking about Mrs. Slager.
I cannot imagine being in her position right now. It's just unbelievable.
Just the looks she must get when she goes in for her weekly appointments.
I can't imagine how she can even get out of bed right now.
I know Scott's family has support, I hope that she does as well. So many victims here. :tears:
 
KEVINinTO said:
Yes it is true. In just about any other occupation if you are charged with any serious crime your employer will fire you. Police are a special case because their job description includes - under certain circumstances - the use of lethal force and the taking of another person's life. We do not know if Slager was justified in using lethal force but if the latest evidence which seems to suggest that Scott used the taser on Slager is proven true than Slager will walk. If in fact Scott grabbed Slagers taser and fired it at the officer than this isn't even a manslaughter case. This will be justifiable homicide.
Click to expand...

is there any place i can read about this latest evidence that is from a Legit source not a blog.
 
tambo said:
.... But again I don't care what your job is, when you are charged with murder
you go to jail and wait for your bail hearing etc....just like everybody else.
Click to expand...
sbm bbm

I am woefully ignorant on this -- does everybody arrested murder go to jail? Thx in adv.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 194 more.
Total: 469 (members: 195, guests: 274)

Online statistics

Members online
195
Guests online
274
Total visitors
469
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,292
Messages
18,252,144
Members
234,596
Latest member
gentlep23
Back
Top