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

[Bayou Mistress]

If he didn't have a valid license, there is no way he could be buying the car because he couldn't register it or get it insured.

JMO

In that brief time Scott was in the car after handing over ID to the officer, he called a family member indicating he knew he was hit. This points to Scott having actually turned over his own identification. I haven't seen anywhere that his license was revoked or suspended although to suspect so given the state of his child support arrearage is not out of line.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

Here is a video of the guy that gets tased FOUR times and has no problem fighting the police and then running. From what I have read tasers primarily cause a whole lot of pain, and pain can never be relied on to stop someone.

(Video contains colorful language)

I've heard that drug-fueled folks have a different pain tolerance than the unimpaired. There is nothing to indicate that Scott was under the influence of anything.

 

[Sonya610]

I've heard that drug-fueled folks have a different pain tolerance than the unimpaired. There is nothing to indicate that Scott was under the influence of anything.

Not just drug fueled folks. People that are NOT on drugs have fought and killed while being tased.

 

[al66pine]

Slager never once said he was shot with his own taser, and why wouldn't he have said that over dispatch? All he said was "he grabbed my taser." He didn't even say he TOOK it, he DEFINITELY didn't say he USED IT and I'm blown away by all of the ways people are just making up what "could have happened" when nothing anywhere says there's any indication any of it happened. Unless you can provide MSM links that say Scott was shot during the altercation on the ground and that Slager was ever hit with his own taser, stop saying it "could have happened". It's like you just want to find the "reason" Slager shot Scott 8 times. Good luck, there is none.

bbm

Not this taser usage point in particular, but IIUC, we are free to speculate, within ToS about what could have happened.
We need to label as such -imo, jmo,moo; whereas in stating a purported fact, we need to give MSM link or official source.

Re this situation, MSM has reported some info from PD and some from Scott's fam & friends.
Personally I'm not convinced about which 'info' bits & bobs are factual -- applies to LE & to his fam, 'witnesses' et al.

LE and st atty are constrained by law about some info they release or can't release and timing in doing so.
Atty for fam? Well, not quite so constrained.
Fam, friends, 'witnesses,' activist groups, you name it, virtually no legal constraints at all (aside from defamation of character).
MSM, well, some are more mainstream than others, in terms of journalistic integrity. Some, not so much.
Let's just leave SM out of this pix.

Briefly, without speculation, until a trial, if that ever occurs, we'd have little to discuss.

 

[panthera]

It wasn't the lense which was broken, it was the light bulb. Brake light bulbs are easily replaced, they snap in and are easily accessed from the trunk. The bulbs are a few dollars and are a standard item at auto parts stores.

They are super easy to change, anyone can do it. Almost as easy as changing a lamp bulb in a house.

They can also be purchased at some Wal Mart stores. A burned out tail light usually results in a warning or fix-it ticket at the most. In this case, it could have been an excuse for the traffic stop with Slager believing the car to be stolen. By the dialogue Slager has with Scott that's captured on the dash cam, that seems to be where the questions were leading.

MOO

 

[Bayou Mistress]

Not just drug fueled folks. People that are NOT on drugs have fought and killed while being tased.

That may be true, but you posted drug fueled bender guy. :thinking:

 

[al66pine]

I believe that the interview on Anderson Cooper clarified this issue. Sanatana stated that he either told the officers at the scene that he had witnessed or videoed it and they told him to remain in place. Anderson asked "So what did you do?" And Santana stated that he left for work and later showed the video to the parents of Mr Scott. Theyshowed the video to their lawyer and then later it was shown to LE.

Is there a media thread re this case? Link to ^ AC interview or a transcript, pls, anyone? Thx in adv.

 

[MyBelle]

He could still buy it. He just wouldn't be able register or get insurance for it. I have uninsured motorist coverage because people do that all the time. JMO.

People do it and get thrown in jail for it.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

In that brief time Scott was in the car after handing over ID to the officer, he called a family member indicating he knew he was hit. This points to Scott having actually turned over his own identification. I haven't seen anywhere that his license was revoked or suspended although to suspect so given the state of his child support arrearage is not out of line.

If he was $18,000 in arrears, Scott had not had a SC driver's license in quite a long time.

License Revocation

If the non-custodial parent accumulates an arrearage of at least $500 and has not made a payment within 60 days, any driver's, occupational, professional, business or commercial license issued by the State of South Carolina is subject to being suspended or revoked. Once a license has been suspended or revoked, the non-custodial parent cannot have the license reinstated until they have reached an agreement with the ICSSD to pay the arrearage.

http://www.state.sc.us/dss/csed/enforce.htm

 

[Deleted member 39678]

People do it and get thrown in jail for it.

JMO

I'm not sure about getting thrown in jail. Impounding the car is more likely. If it's a piece of junk that's not worth much they don't care about that happening. They just get another one.

Not sure how much the Mercedes that Scott was driving is worth. JMO.

 

[jadejazzkayla]

i'm glad this officer is charged with murder and off the street. how the heck did he pass the le psych exam I will never know. I hope this incident will teach like minded officers to think twice to help save lives and careers.

 

[dodie20]

All in a days work it seems, for some LE. Imo, these LE officers watch too many Bruce Willis movies.

watching that video and how the cop acted afterwards, got me to wondering something...how many cops saw it and weren't shocked? but then bemoaned cellphone video for interfering with what they do and how they do it. I hope not very many, but seeing Slager so comfortable shooting at such close range and then standing around doing nothing, (aside from jogging to get the black thing, of course), made me think he wasn't a cop experiencing something out of the unordinary. Imo, what we saw was what we got...not until the crescendo of a siren signaling the arrival of another cop, did he put his hand on the victim's neck... going through the motions, imo, just like the out of breath/high pitched, (so different from the get your hands behind your back voice), call in. He was so out of breath he could barely talk? but then he still had the energy to jog and get the black thing? going through the motions, imo. The whole thing was a REAL glimpse into the mind of at least one cop, hopefully not many more. all moo.

 

[KaaBoom]

I don't think Scott was pulled over because of race, however, I do think he was shot at because of race. I can't imagine former officer Slager shooting a white man running away from him.......

MOO

I'm not so sure about that. Driving While Black (DWB) seems to be a pretty common reason for traffic stops. I have seen some dashcam videos of police stops, where there seems to be no logical reason for the traffic stop, other then the color of the driver's skin. Often the police will pull up along side the car, see black occupants in the car. Then they will drop back and just follow them until they can figure out something to pull them over for.

I think Scott was probably pulled over because he was black, and shot because he was black.

 

[KaaBoom]

I just saw this for the first time.

 

[MyBelle]

Hey all,
if anyone who commented below re stop for brake light, tail light, anything other than third brake light,
Pls check dash cam vid again and LISTEN.
Article w dash cam vid: http://www.wyff4.com/news/sled-police-officer-charged-with-murder/32239980
~40-45 sec into vid, LEO said "The reason for the stop is your third brake light is out. IIHC.
Not the tail light. Not the (regular) brake light. Not the brake light lens.
THIRD BRAKE LIGHT, i.e., brake light on the 'back deck' (kind of a shelf) behind rear passenger seats.

After listening, if you think LEO said something other than stopping for third brake plight, pls post again
and let us know what you heard LEO saying. Or other vid w audio of LEO stmts, w link. Thx in adv.

I might have misheard dashcam aud-vid. Do grassy knoll-ers think '3d brake light' was dubbed in? Wink.

BTW, I think the left brake or tail light looked a bit wonky, but IIHC, that's not reason for stop.
________________________________________________________

The reason for the stop is that the third light was out. It was a legit, traffic safety stop because neither of the other brake lights were working, either.

I think an officer is going to approach the driver with the assumption the driver was well aware the left taillight red lens was missing because it is easily seen and Officer Slager also pointed it out on the dash cam. The driver may or may not know the right brake light didn't work. But when the third light is also not working, it is a dangerous situation for other drivers.

In at least one media article, Scott's brother said he always made sure his tail lights were working so that he wouldn't be stopped yet the car didn't have ANY working red break lights. If he had such an issue with making sure his tail lights were working, it is kind of odd that he would want to buy any car with no brake lights.

JMO

 

[KaaBoom]

Scott could have handed over an expired or revoked license with his name on it to Officer Slager. We just don't know at this point. JMO.

Your point is? Do you think an expired or revoked license, should be a capital offense?

 

[MyBelle]

I'm not so sure about that. Driving While Black (DWB) seems to be a pretty common reason for traffic stops. I have seen some dashcam videos of police stops, where there seems to be no logical reason for the traffic stop, other then the color of the driver's skin. Often the police will pull up along side the car, see black occupants in the car. Then they will drop back and just follow them until they can figure out something to pull them over for.

I think Scott was probably pulled over because he was black, and shot because he was black.

Scott was pulled over as a matter of traffic safety. My husband and I were pulled over for non-working tail lights on a trailer we were towing. The wire had become loose. We were not allowed to get back on the road until my husband fixed it.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

I'm not sure about getting thrown in jail. Impounding the car is more likely. If it's a piece of junk that's not worth much they don't care about that happening. They just get another one.

Not sure how much the Mercedes that Scott was driving is worth. JMO.

Obviously not much if it was 24-years-old and had no working brake lights.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Your point is? Do you think an expired or revoked license, should be a capital offense?

No. I was saying that it's possible that Scott handed over a license that had his own name on it and not another persons ID.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Obviously not much if it was 24-years-old and had no working brake lights.

In my opinion it's hard to put a value on the car with what we know. But it's obviouse that it would be much less than a newer Mercedes.