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

[Bayou Mistress]

I don't believe Scott was running away over any child support issue. I think he was running away because he knew he had committed a much more serious crime.

JMO

I keep looking for the things that would support this statement, but I can't. I can find no reason to think that Walter Scott committed "more serious" crime that caused him to flee the traffic stop. Jail is jail, no matter the severity of the accusations against you.

 

[KEVINinTO]

I don't believe Scott was running away over any child support issue. I think he was running away because he knew he had committed a much more serious crime.

JMO

I agree in fact there was no bench warrant for his arrest over child support issues. The notion that he fled because he feared being arrested over child support originated from the Scott family's team of lawyers and PR experts who are crafting a narrative which is being spoon fed to the MSM.

 

[MyBelle]

. bbm

Yes, I was surprised that 3 offspring were in their twenties, and so much ChSup $ was still owed.

IIUC, $ amt of ChSup is ct ordered, to be paid, usu. monthly, until children are a certain age.
If father fails to pay, IDK if or how he can 'negotiate it down' in a legally binding sense.
IDK why a mother would agree(unless she had $ to burn, and even then, ?).
If a father had no job or low paying-jobfor yrs, she could hope he'd win the lottery and she'd collect arrearages.

Maybe could let enough time pass that the statute of limitations run,
so she w/not legally be able to collect by filing suit against father.

But if a mother receives certain govt or state welfare benefits for the kids, and
a father has been ct-ordered to pay ChSup, IIUC, then father makes payments to state or thru ct-controlled a/c.
IIUC, then mother would not legally be able to 'negotiate' or let it pass,
as the father is obligated to pay $ to state, not her.

JM2cts and I hope someone knowledgeable in family law will weigh in to correct, clarify, or confirm.

No mother with dependent children is allowed to collect government assistance for the child unless there is a child support order. If the father is a dead beat, then taxpayers provide a stipend for the mother and the state goes after the dad for the money. Do taxpayers ever get reimbursed? Nah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

 

[MyBelle]

I agree in fact there was no bench warrant for his arrest over child support issues. The notion that he fled because he feared being arrested over child support originated from the Scott family's team of lawyers and PR experts who are crafting a narrative which is being spoon fed to the MSM.

I agree. I've noticed no one in the media has managed to come up with the "neighbor" who supposedly owns the Mercedes.

JMO

 

[Elley Mae]

No mother with dependent children is allowed to collect government assistance for the child unless there is a child support order. If the father is a dead beat, then taxpayers provide a stipend for the mother and the state goes after the dad for the money. Do taxpayers ever get reimbursed? Nah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

Thanx, the 18,000 he was in the rears for was nothing, (jmo) compared to what a single mother can get from the state/ fed gov., at the taxpayers expense. IDK Maybe there needs to be a 13th grade for how to respond when confronted by Law Enforcement. jmo idk

 

[Smarty Jones]

. bbm

Yes, I was surprised that 3 offspring were in their twenties, and so much ChSup $ was still owed.

IIUC, $ amt of ChSup is ct ordered, to be paid, usu. monthly, until children are a certain age.
If father fails to pay, IDK if or how he can 'negotiate it down' in a legally binding sense.
IDK why a mother would agree(unless she had $ to burn, and even then, ?).
If a father had no job or low paying-jobfor yrs, she could hope he'd win the lottery and she'd collect arrearages.

Maybe could let enough time pass that the statute of limitations run,
so she w/not legally be able to collect by filing suit against father.

But if a mother receives certain govt or state welfare benefits for the kids, and
a father has been ct-ordered to pay ChSup, IIUC, then father makes payments to state or thru ct-controlled a/c.
IIUC, then mother would not legally be able to 'negotiate' or let it pass,
as the father is obligated to pay $ to state, not her.

JM2cts and I hope someone knowledgeable in family law will weigh in to correct, clarify, or confirm.

I see your point - he was paying the state thru the court system. I'm fortunate that my son's father adhered to the divorce decree, I didn't have go to court to collect. And when our son was 15, we negotiated a 'buyout' for cash so that I could make the down payment on a house for my son & myself. All privately agreed to. I also read Shadowraith's post with the statute in SC. Thanks to both of you for the info. Still sad.

 

[leah]

Is there anything in writing, or statements made on cable news, that Walter Scott physically assaulted the officer?

 

[Tawny]

That was me who asked that, not Sonja.

Sorry for any confusion.

It's ok, I should have paid closer attention

 

[al66pine]

A post suggested: Scott could have negotiated down $ amt of ChSup he owed.

Then I posted: "If father fails to pay, IDK if or how he can 'negotiate it down' in a legally binding sense."

No mother with dependent children is allowed to collect government assistance for the child unless there is a child support order. If the father is a dead beat, then taxpayers provide a stipend for the mother and the state goes after the dad for the money. Do taxpayers ever get reimbursed? Nah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

I did not want to make assumptions about whether Mr Scott's his children recvd st. benefits or assistance.
Did not say this father or any father or parent will/would pay. JM2cts.

 

[KEVINinTO]

Is there anything in writing, or statements made on cable news, that Walter Scott physically assaulted the officer?

I am sure that it has been stated many times in the MSN that Scott was resisting arrest (the video provides evidence of this). If you resist arrest by an officer it is automatically considered assault. Had Scott lived he would have been charged with an assault.

 

[Tawny]

If Mr Scott couldn't afford to pay his child support, how do we suppose he could afford to pay a lawyer to help him negotiate it down?

 

[CoolJ]

I'm sitting hear reading these comments in absolute disbelief. The matter at hand is simple: was former officer slager in fear for his life or the life of others when he used lethal force against Mr. Scott? The answer is an unequivocal NO.
No he wasn't, because there was absolutely no reason to be in fear. Scott was unarmed, had his back to Slager and was running away! And to top it off, we see Slager jog back to the initial scene, pick up the taser, jog back to Scott's body and very suspiciously drop the taser. He was stagin the damn scene because he knew what he had done was murder!

IMAGINE HOW THIS WOULD BE PLAYING OUT IF THERE WERE NO VIDEO!!

IMAGINE HOW OFTEN THIS BS HAPPENS OFF CAMERA!!

JMO

 

[Tawny]

I am sure that it has been stated many times in the MSN that Scott was resisting arrest (the video provides evidence of this). If you resist arrest by an officer it is automatically considered assault. Had Scott lived he would have been charged with an assault.

I'm not sure this is correct. I know I'm questioning like everything you post, but I've NEVER heard of this before. People are charged with "resisting arrest" without also being charged with "assault on an officer" as far as I'm aware.

 

[SStarr33]

I thought part of this forum was backing up the "facts" with a source (preferably one recognized) otherwise it's an opinion?

This reminds me of the Bruce Jenner car accident where we had video and still photos of the incident. Those who didn't want to be spoon fed the MSM version of events could clearly see what happened days if not weeks before the LE version came out. Same with Ferguson and the GZ case.

I've not reviewed everything that has come out in this case on non-MSM sites, but I'm darn sure not going to believe the MSM race baiting idiots until I have vetted all of the other info that is out there.

 

[Cubby]

No need to disobey an officer's instruction and run away like a coward or physically assault the officer. Man up, make the repairs and pay the fine.

JMO

No officer, former or current, was assaulted in this case. Mr. Scott wasn't given the opportunity to make the repairs and pay the fine, thanks to the actions of former officer Slager.

 

[CoolJ]

I am sure that it has been stated many times in the MSN that Scott was resisting arrest (the video provides evidence of this). If you resist arrest by an officer it is automatically considered assault. Had Scott lived he would have been charged with an assault.

Link to support your fairy tale that Slager was assaulted?

 

[SeeAlice]

I'm not sure this is correct. I know I'm questioning like everything you post, but I've NEVER heard of this before. People are charged with "resisting arrest" without also being charged with "assault on an officer" as far as I'm aware.

Fleeing and attempting to elude a LEO is automatically a felony in all 50 states.

This stuff is interesting! SC still has statutes that require hard labor!
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/title16.php

JMO

 

[SStarr33]

Is there anything in writing, or statements made on cable news, that Walter Scott physically assaulted the officer?

Yes. There are two witnesses who said they were fighting.

 

[MyBelle]

A post suggested: Scott could have negotiated down $ amt of ChSup he owed.

Then I posted: "If father fails to pay, IDK if or how he can 'negotiate it down' in a legally binding sense."



I did not want to make assumptions about whether Mr Scott's his children recvd st. benefits or assistance.
Did not say this father or any father or parent will/would pay. JM2cts.

Obviously I didn't explain it very well. Maybe this will help:

Child support orders are typically established in two ways: (1) by South Carolina Department of Social Services Child Support Enforcement (CSE); or (2) as part of a divorce proceeding. Orders established through CSE can be modified administratively by that agency. Child support obligations established as part of a divorce proceeding are called Private Orders and must be modified through the Family Court. A custodial parent can also request that a private order be enforced by CSE in which case the child support obligation can be modified by CSE administratively. If a CSE attorney is present at contempt hearings, the order is subsequently enforced by CSE. If you are unsure about enforcement, the clerk at the Family Court can provide information as to whether a child support court order is enforceable by CSE.

The steps to modify vary depending upon the way in which the order was initially established.

http://www.scfathersandfamilies.com...pport/paying_child_support_and_modifications/

 

[tangelo]

No officer, former or current, was assaulted in this case. Mr. Scott wasn't given the opportunity to make the repairs and pay the fine, thanks to the actions of former officer Slager.

more accurately, the actions of both of em