GUILTY SC - Walter Scott, 50, fatally shot by North Charleston PD officer, 4 April 2015 - #2

[Tricia]

Dear Websleuths Members,

We are going to give this a try one more time.

This thread is not about your personal agenda. This is about Walter Scott. Walter Scott was shot in the back while running from a police officer. That officer has been charged with murder.

We will only allow mainstream media sources. If anyone tries to get around this rule by posting a link that hides the actual website that person will be timed out or banned for good.

If you post a video please post only mainstream media links. If you have a video of the shooting you would like to post and it is not sourced to a mainstream media outlet please send me a private message or email with a link to the video. triciastruecrimeradio@gmail.com I will look into you video suggestion and decide whether to allow it or not.

The new rule is: We will not allow any discussion of any protests. Past, present, or future. The protests have nothing to do with this case.

We will only discuss the Walter Scott case in this thread.

This thread will be constantly monitored. We may have to close it during the times no moderators are available. That will depend on all of you. If we can leave the thread alone every once in a while without a problem then we will. On the other hand if we leave and people go nuts then we will end up opening and closing the thread depending on how is here to moderate.

On final bit of advice: Accept the fact that you will never change some people's minds. No matter the evidence, no matter what you see as the truth, there will always be people who disagree with you.
If you find yourself posting back and forth with someone whose mind will not change then just learn to scroll. Don't give yourself a stroke because your blood pressure gets so high your brain explodes. It's not worth it. Scroll on by.

Below is the link from the first post of the first thread. Thank you Tawny


http://www.abcnews4.com/story/28725...hot-killed-by-north-charleston-police-officer

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCIV) -- The attorney for a North Charleston police officer who shot a 50-year-old man during a confrontation at a traffic stop Saturday says his client believes he followed proper procedure.

The incident began about 9:30 a.m. Saturday when Officer Michael Slager, 33, pulled 50-year-old Walter Scott over for a broken tail light at the corner of Remount and Craig roads.

Thread Number 1

 

[Tawny]

Thanks Tricia!!

 

[EllieBee]

Thank you, Tricia.

Walter was no saint but deserves to be considered a human being. Being shot IN THE BACK (thanks SteveS) is very telling.

 

[shadowraiths]

Does officer who shot Walter Scott have a defense? State law there - like in Missouri - is confusing

The police killing of Walter Scott in South Carolina looks like an open and shut case of murder. But South Carolina, like Missouri and many other states, has confusing laws on police use of deadly force – laws that could provide Officer Michael Slager with a defense, experts say.

Because of outdated and conflicting law, an officer sometimes can justify shooting an unarmed suspect who has fought with the officer and fled. In short, an officer sometimes can get away with what may look like murder on the video screen.​

St Louis Public Radio

 

[KEVINinTO]

^ Very interesting article. Based on the SC laws concerning use of lethal force it seems very unlikely that the murder charges will stick under these circumstances. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Grand Jury toss out the murder charge.

 

[K_Z]

Has a Grand Jury been assembled yet to hear this case? Or is a GJ hearing the case now?

If not, is there a maximum amount of time in SC that a person can be held in jail before being indicted?

In SC, is the prosecutor bound to follow the GJ's recommendation?

Anyone know?

 

[SStarr33]

Has a Grand Jury been assembled yet to hear this case? Or is a GJ hearing the case now?

If not, is there a maximum amount of time in SC that a person can be held in jail before being indicted?

In SC, is the prosecutor bound to follow the GJ's recommendation?

Anyone know?

LOL, I just posted this in another thread. In the Moorer case (Myrtle Beach, SC), we found out people are not allowed to be held unless they are a risk of flight or danger to the community.

 

[Tawny]

LOL, I just posted this in another thread. In the Moorer case (Myrtle Beach, SC), we found out people are not allowed to be held unless they are a risk of flight or danger to the community.

Even in capital murder cases? For some reason, I had the impression that doesn't apply when it's a murder charge.

 

[SStarr33]

Even in capital murder cases? For some reason, I had the impression that doesn't apply when it's a murder charge.

Moorer case is not a capital case and I think I read that this one is not either.

 

[Tawny]

Ohhhhhhhh for some reason I thought it was. I think I'm getting cases confused LOL!

 

[popsicle]

Has a Grand Jury been assembled yet to hear this case? Or is a GJ hearing the case now?

If not, is there a maximum amount of time in SC that a person can be held in jail before being indicted?

In SC, is the prosecutor bound to follow the GJ's recommendation?

Anyone know?

iirc It was stated by the prosecutor's office the case will go to a GJ in early May.

 

[i.b.nora]

This article explains it all:

Death penalty does not appear to apply to Michael Slager case
Posted: Apr 13, 2015 3:35 PM PDT Updated: Apr 14, 2015 4:22 AM PDT

Read more: http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/28...ot-apply-in-michael-slager-case#ixzz3Y3HsXX00

snip

"We will continue to analyze and evaluate the evidence in this case, along with SLED. Unlike other states, South Carolina does not have an investigative grand jury system for counties. Our Charleston Grand Jury will not meet again until May. When we present indictments to the grand jury will depend upon when we receive the investigative file and the amount of time it takes to review it. South Carolina's Rules of Criminal Procedure and the common law provide that indictments should be sought within 90 days of my office receiving the warrant from the Clerk of Court.

My office is committed to notifying the public and the media if/when the Charleston County Grand Jury returns indictment(s) against the Defendant and when other court hearings are scheduled.

Because of the nature of the charge, South Carolina law requires that bond be set by a Circuit Court judge. At this time, we have not received a defense request for bond. When/if we do, the public will be notified as to the time and place of the hearing."​

Read more: http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/28...ot-apply-in-michael-slager-case#ixzz3Y3GkvOK1

 

[LietKynes]

nation.foxnews.com/2015/04/13/recording-reportedly-captures-cop-s-statements-after-shooting-walter-scott

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/ap...chael-slager-audio-recording?CMP=share_btn_tw
The senior officer told Slager during the conversation to go home and relax, assuring him that he would not have to answer questions about the shooting for days.

This is troublesome ; it's like Slager's superiors are telling him (Slager) that he has time to think about what he wants to say.
Any time a law enforcement officer has killed someone --whether it was in the line of duty or not , and whether it was justified or not -- my opinion is that it's darn strange to tell the officer involved to take some time and think it over.
Doesn't seem right , and I cannot imagine this is standard for most police dept.'s.


www.liveleak.com/view?i=84f_1428789994
Here is the full length video of Michael Slager appearing before judge.

WS-ers' : is LiveLeak an approved msm source ? Just curious since the previous Walter Scott thread had a video from LL showing the initial confrontation.

Since this courtroom video clip was taken from their cc cameras ; it seemed legit. Apologies if this clip was already posted. In this clip--- Slager appears glum ; like he knows he knows it " ain't over yet".

If LL is not an approved source I will delete this link.
Thanks in advance !

:moo:

 

[dodie20]

nation.foxnews.com/2015/04/13/recording-reportedly-captures-cop-s-statements-after-shooting-walter-scott

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/ap...chael-slager-audio-recording?CMP=share_btn_tw
The senior officer told Slager during the conversation to go home and relax, assuring him that he would not have to answer questions about the shooting for days.

This is troublesome ; it's like Slager's superiors are telling him (Slager) that he has time to think about what he wants to say.
Any time a law enforcement officer has killed someone --whether it was in the line of duty or not , and whether it was justified or not -- my opinion is that it's darn strange to tell the officer involved to take some time and think it over.
Doesn't seem right , and I cannot imagine this is standard for most police dept.'s.


www.liveleak.com/view?i=84f_1428789994
Here is the full length video of Michael Slager appearing before judge.

WS-ers' : is LiveLeak an approved msm source ? Just curious since the previous Walter Scott thread had a video from LL showing the initial confrontation.

Since this courtroom video clip was taken from their cc cameras ; it seemed legit. Apologies if this clip was already posted. In this clip--- Slager appears glum ; like he knows he knows it " ain't over yet".

If LL is not an approved source I will delete this link.
Thanks in advance !

:moo:

I've been doing a lot of reading the last few days and unfortunately, I do think this is standard procedure. One article referred to it as ' decompressing'... so if they have a name for it, I'd guess it's the norm. smh, I could just imagine the reaction if us regular folks decided we wanted to go home and decompress after killing somebody. moo

 

[Cubby]

Does officer who shot Walter Scott have a defense? State law there - like in Missouri - is confusing

The police killing of Walter Scott in South Carolina looks like an open and shut case of murder. But South Carolina, like Missouri and many other states, has confusing laws on police use of deadly force – laws that could provide Officer Michael Slager with a defense, experts say.

Because of outdated and conflicting law, an officer sometimes can justify shooting an unarmed suspect who has fought with the officer and fled. In short, an officer sometimes can get away with what may look like murder on the video screen.​

St Louis Public Radio

Very interesting article. Based on my understanding, it appears Slager will very likely walk. And basically it really doesn't matter whether Slager was tased or not. The struggle over the taser was enough justification for Slager to use deadly force. As the law is written, that is........

The argument should then turn to changing the law...... Otherwise we might as well give PO's the ability to shoot to kill anyone they :censored: well feel like.


.....and if Slager does get out of the charges does that mean he can appeal the decision to have him fired and get his job back?

SMH, the law as written makes no sense.

 

[dodie20]

Very interesting article. Based on my understanding, it appears Slager will very likely walk. And basically it really doesn't matter whether Slager was tased or not. The struggle over the taser was enough justification for Slager to use deadly force. As the law is written, that is........

The argument should then turn to changing the law...... Otherwise we might as well give PO's the ability to shoot to kill anyone they :censored: well feel like.


.....and if Slager does get out of the charges does that mean he can appeal the decision to have him fired and get his job back?

SMH, the law as written makes no sense.

but where he shot his own self in the figurative foot, was moving/planting evidence and not rendering aid and then lying in the initial report. There's no taking any of that back or justifying it. Imo though, the 8 shots at a man whose back was turned would have gotten him in trouble, regardless of the other stuff. There's the law, but then there's logic, you know? moo

 

[katydid23]

I've been doing a lot of reading the last few days and unfortunately, I do think this is standard procedure. One article referred to it as ' decompressing'... so if they have a name for it, I'd guess it's the norm. smh, I could just imagine the reaction if us regular folks decided we wanted to go home and decompress after killing somebody. moo

Cops routinely have to have physical confrontations while on the job. So they have certain legal protections built in, that you and I do not have. i think it is warranted. We pay them to carry weapons and protect the public. He pulled over someone for an infraction--totally legal action on his part--was extremely polite and on point--and the subject ran. They had a scuffle. ....then it went sideways.

I think it was entirely fair for the officer to be given time to collect himself before he gave a formal statement. In fact, the same protection is given to ALL citizens. If you kill someone, you do NOT have to give a statement. You ask for a lawyer then wait to see if you are given bond, or not.

 

[Cubby]

but where he shot his own self in the figurative foot, was moving/planting evidence and not rendering aid and then lying in the initial report. There's no taking any of that back or justifying it. Imo though, the 8 shots at a man whose back was turned would have gotten him in trouble, regardless of the other stuff. There's the law, but then there's logic, you know? moo

That's a good point, so what would the prosecutors argue? That his going back to pick up the taser and then returning and dropping it next to Scott's body is proof he did not believe he was in danger?

I'm not as confident as I was previously the charges will stick. Not that I would like to see them dropped, I don't. I simply think the way the law is written it's not as cut and dry as might have been.

 

[LietKynes]

Seriously, I cannot imagine Slager wanting to resume his police duties in that town. Really ? He would have to be concerned every day about his own safety ; imo. Some people are not going to 'let that go' ; and I do mean ANYONE.

Another item I am still waiting to see is the entire video clip of the altercation. If there is more, it needs to be seen . Maybe not by me... but by a jury.
And just what was Slager placing by Mr. Scott ? No matter what transpired beforehand--- that looked pretty incriminating.

This may have been discussed to death before ; but these are questions that aren't going away -- nor are they being answered , afaik.
:moo:

 

[dodie20]

Cops routinely have to have physical confrontations while on the job. So they have certain legal protections built in, that you and I do not have. i think it is warranted. We pay them to carry weapons and protect the public. He pulled over someone for an infraction--totally legal action on his part--was extremely polite and on point--and the subject ran. They had a scuffle. ....then it went sideways.

I think it was entirely fair for the officer to be given time to collect himself before he gave a formal statement. In fact, the same protection is given to ALL citizens. If you kill someone, you do NOT have to give a statement. You ask for a lawyer then wait to see if you are given bond, or not.

we're not given the same protection. For one thing we're not allowed to go Home, relax and decompress. Here's a quote from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/02/son-deceased ' The officer, Sean Wallace, thought that the man was holding a gun. It turned out to be a spoon. Shortly after the shooting, Wallace received five hundred dollars from the Albuquerque police union, which routinely gave money to officers to help them “decompress” after a shooting, according to a statement issued by the union’s president and vice-president. ' We're not treated with these kid gloves, but then again, I wouldn't expect to be. But I wouldn't expect cops to be treated this way either. moo