my daughter is due in June, and yes, it is hard to think about this lady's anguish... so much joy and anticipation to turn so bad, and so quick with no warning! The stress must be almost unbearable...but, she's 35 years old, (what I read), and already has 2 children, so she has to be strong. She has no choice. moo
SC - Walter Scott, 50, fatally shot by North Charleston PD officer, 4 April 2015 - #1
- Thread starter Tawny
- Start date
- Status
SStarr33
Inactive
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2013
- Messages
- 7,881
- Reaction score
- 34
http://www.postandcourier.com/artic...ton-area-to-handle-michael-slager-murder-case
S.C. Supreme Court: Judge outside Charleston area to handle Michael Slager murder case
Though he is based outside the circuit where Slager is set to be prosecuted, Newman, like other judges, hears cases in Charleston from time to time.
“While I was unaware this was in the works,” Wilson said on Facebook, “it is not without precedent for the chief justice to assign judges to cases.”
But Slager’s attorney, Andy Savage of Charleston, said Toal’s “unprecedented but long overdue” decision would ensure that constitutional due process provisions will be followed and would be well-received by attorneys statewide.
The high court’s order gives Newman the authority to set hearings regardless of whether a term of court is scheduled.
“Judge Newman enjoys an excellent reputation as a jurist and we look forward to working under his guidance,” Savage said. “A more competent member of the judiciary could not be found.”
S.C. Supreme Court: Judge outside Charleston area to handle Michael Slager murder case
Though he is based outside the circuit where Slager is set to be prosecuted, Newman, like other judges, hears cases in Charleston from time to time.
“While I was unaware this was in the works,” Wilson said on Facebook, “it is not without precedent for the chief justice to assign judges to cases.”
But Slager’s attorney, Andy Savage of Charleston, said Toal’s “unprecedented but long overdue” decision would ensure that constitutional due process provisions will be followed and would be well-received by attorneys statewide.
The high court’s order gives Newman the authority to set hearings regardless of whether a term of court is scheduled.
“Judge Newman enjoys an excellent reputation as a jurist and we look forward to working under his guidance,” Savage said. “A more competent member of the judiciary could not be found.”
This is true in fact when they held their press conference to announce that Dragers had been charged with murder they admitted that they had only seen the video an hour before! Talk about a rush to judgement! And yet that didn't stop the Mayor from saying of Slager "when you do wrong you do wrong".
From what I have seen the pronouncements coming from the police chief and Mayor are disgraceful and in some cases ridiculous. The Mayor actually suggested that in future police might be better off not getting out of their cars in these type of traffic stops. That they should instead get on a bull-horn and let the driver know he has a broken tail light. Never mind the fact that these type of stops can yield usual information such as the fact that Scott was driving around without proof of insurance. Of course we have heard this line of reasoning in similar incidents in the past. "If only the officer had just stayed in his car So-and-so would be alive today"..."If only the neighborhood watch guy had just stayed in his car So-and-so would be alive today"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xnaabg7Q7Q
SStarr33
Inactive
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2013
- Messages
- 7,881
- Reaction score
- 34
Walter Scott’s friend recalls sounds of Taser, then gunfire
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150415/PC16/150419622/1177
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150415/PC16/150419622/1177
It was one of the 1st bits of news to come out and has been mentioned in multiple stories and on multiple sites including this one, but here you go...2nd paragraph. http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-michael-slager/
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,875
- Reaction score
- 187
Slager, 33, has been fired, officials said Wednesday. His wife is eight months' pregnant and the city will continue paying for her medical insurance until the baby is born, North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey told reporters. He also has two stepchildren.
link
why do you suppose the officer has not screamed this little tidbit off the mountain tops....very odd, very odd. Or his attorney, or his fellow officer's. It takes an awful lot to break that blue line, but somehow in this case nobody is defending this guy...Why?????? I'm assuming they are all in on something, maybe there is more going on here, maybe it's a set up, maybe he's a fall guy for something bigger..... J/K
For all we know officer Slager has given an account of being shot with a taser in his interview with police that took place in his original lawyers office.
The fact is none of the information from that interview has been released. Also - if Slager produced an incident report it has not been released. His original lawyer will not address these questions (for obvious reasons). His new lawyer Andy Savage is reportedly having trouble getting police to turn over forensic information so I expect he is being cautious at this point although you can bet he has hired forensic experts to go over the video and audio.
It takes time for the truth to drip out. We saw the same thing in Ferguson. Even though there was a mountain of exculpatory evidence exonerating Officer Wilson it would be month's before any of it was released to the public and by then it was too late to change public sentiment. Same thing with Zimmerman. It took months for pictures to be released showing the serious head injuries inflicted on GZ by TM.
Don't you think if he told them he got tazed by scott and then proved it that they might have just waited for the grand jury to decide. I don't buy that all these people, the chief, the other officers etc....have backed away from him if this was true.....and trust me, if was true we would have heard about it.....there is no conspiracy here....
I thought that I had read somewhere that inside the car Scott was on the phone with his mother - tipping her off that he was going to be arrested - and yet his friend in the car makes no mention of this? Instead he says:
I am trying to find where it was reported that Scott was on the phone with his mother. Does anyone have a link? IIRC the information came from the family.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,875
- Reaction score
- 187
Fleeing Felon Rule limited as a result of the following precedent setting case.
The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.
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. . . .
link
TENNESSEE V. GARNER
Supreme Court of the United States, 1985.
471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1.
Supreme Court of the United States, 1985.
471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1.
The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.
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. . . .
link
Fleeing Felon Rule limited as a result of the following precedent setting case.
TENNESSEE V. GARNER
Supreme Court of the United States, 1985.
471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1.
The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.
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. . . .
link
BBM is what I think are the key sentences. There is good evidence (the video) to suggest that Scott threatened Slager with a weapon (we can see the taser being thrown to the ground during the struggle). Furthermore there is evidence that Scott in fact shot Slager with the taser (video shows Scott dragging taser cartridge behind him - taser barbs appear lodged in Officers uniform). If proven true - Slager was well within his rights to use deadly force against Scott even though Scott was running away from him. I know it doesn't look pretty to shoot someone in the back but there are times when it is justified and legal under the law. Scott may not have posed an immediate threat to Slager as he ran away from Slager but if in fact he had tried to grab Slagers weapon - Scott was a threat to the many fellow police officers who were descending on that park from every direction in the city (you can hear the sirens in the video). Scott's erratic behavior meant that he also posed a threat to all residents in the area. He had to be stopped!
EllieBee
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2015
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 66
Can someone please supply a MSM source stating that suspect Slager was tased by the victim, Scott? I am waking up and reading post after post about the ex-officer being tased as if it is an established fact, yet I cannot find anything to back that up in MSM.
Also, Slager has been charged with Scott's murder.
Also, Slager has been charged with Scott's murder.
EllieBee
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2015
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 66
Slager, 33, has been fired, officials said Wednesday. His wife is eight months' pregnant and the city will continue paying for her medical insurance until the baby is born, North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey told reporters. He also has two stepchildren.
link
I am glad they will continue to cover her medical expenses. I feel awful for Mrs. Slager.
sloane7777
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 4,652
- Reaction score
- 12,732
I still think he ran because Slagle said something to make him run, I had a traffic stop once and the officer was very threatning she told me to shut up before something happens??? I never figured out what she was so hostile about either
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 hadnt 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.
link
Also from the linked article -
Unfortunately, police officers encounter lawbreakers on a regular basis. Unfortunately, some resist arrest. Some flee. These are simply occupational conditions of being an officer an admittedly tough job that few of us would sign up to do. But none of those offenses grant a license to gun a man down.
There is no moral equivalency between running and killing, and anyone who argues this obdurate absurdity reveals a deficiency in their own humanity.
Agree with both statements.
Elley Mae
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2008
- Messages
- 22,418
- Reaction score
- 49,808
The last thing Officer Slager said was get back in the car when he attempted to exit just seconds before he did exit and took off running. jmo I think it was Walter Scott's past that made him run. jmo
Sonya610
Former Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 7,174
- Reaction score
- 49
Moral equivalency? What a bunch of rubbish.
It has NOTHING to do with "moral equivalency" and everything to do with the LAW. If it can be proven that he broke the law then he will be punished.
- Status