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

[mysteriew]

JMO-The justification for using a gun and shooting a suspect 8 times would be the officer was in fear for his life. It's hard to meet that bar when the suspect is running away and all the bullets are aimed at the suspect's back.

I'm not excusing what Scott did. I just don't think it should have earned him the death penalty.

In my personal opinion, the officer made a few serious errors, as well. He shot and killed someone who was running away, then he carefully crafted a story to fit his scenario of what happened in his call to dispatch and the report. Beyond that, it sure appears he staged the scene to help sell it. And then there is the whole basically stand by and watch the suspect die issue. Did anyone give CPR? Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't appear that it was done in any kind of a timely manner if it was. There were a few of them involved with that.

I don't believe the takeaway from all this is never run from police, always comply, comply, comply. Some are going to be very fearful that a bad officer will be willing to lie and stage a scene to attempt to guarantee a conviction. That is not a good thing. We have to be better than this.

Excellent!

One thing I would like to point out, allegedly Slager claimed that he was "in fear for his life"
And he claims that Scott took his tazer. LE has always claimed that
tazers are a non lethal solution. And it would be pretty hard for a running suspect to figure out
how to take the safety off, aim and fire while running away.

IMO Slager was fine until Scott ran. I think Slager just didn't want to chase him.

 

[Woodland]

RSBM

Had to go back and rewatch it. That was what it looked like to me, but like I said before... we used to own horses and I can tell when they are alarmed or frightened.
I thanked your post because it's good for me to hear an opinion contrary to my own. There are friends and coworkers with whom I disagree; but we still get along with each other. And I mean really disagree. A dear friend whose relatives were murdered in a home invasion thinks the death penalty is wrong. I think she is deluded in that opinion , but i will not argue about that with her as I've been fortunate enough to have never lost anyone close to me. Hope I never know how that feels.

My opinion of law enforcement is skewed to mostly agree with their side --- this is due to the fact I've never been harassed or had an unpleasant encounter with anyone in that occupation. Might have a change of heart if a cop beat me up , although I cannot imagine under what circumstances that would happen ?
Maybe I'm just lucky.
:moo:

Imo, one doesn't have to experience the poor conduct of LE these days to dislike or be disgusted by it. For me, reading about it makes me angry and afraid - no one should be afraid of LE imo.

It is understandable that people still want to believe in LE and that all is well and all will always work out - imo their current culture is dangerous not to mention costly - in lives, health care and money for incapacitated or wronged citizens. Inexcusable, jmo.

It's worthy of continuing discussion though!!

 

[Sonya610]

Why run at all? I really don't understand that.

Maybe because a small minority can't control themselves therefore the rest of society needs to set their standards based on the lowest common denominator?

 

[mysteriew]

There is a portion of the interaction between Mr. Scott and the officer that is not captured on film.

Film #1 - By police car webcam. Shows there is no lighted tail light visible on left rear of Scott vehicle when he comes to a stop in front of the police car. Officer taps the tail light area with his hand as he approaches the driver side of the car.

A passenger can be seen inside the Scott vehicle. Mr. Scott begins to exit vehicle once and is directed by officer to get back into the vehicle. He does. Then, just a little later, Mr. Scott exits the vehicle, running away from the car. Then you can hear officer running after him, shouting something about tazing.

Film #2 - Bystander film This film picks up AFTER the bystander has seen Mr. Scott on the ground with the police officer over him. This event was not filmed. The film begins with Mr. Scott running away from the officer and captures the shooting of Mr. Scott.

So the very important - probably essential - part of the interaction between the two was NOT filmed.

I too do not have any great amount of sympathy for Mr. Scott. IMO he contributed to his own death by twice fleeing from police. Once AFTER being tazered.

What should the officer have done in the circumstance? Let the guy get away?

You have a situation where a guy is pulled over, he has no paperwork on the car, says he just bought it and then changes the story to "I'm going to buy it on Monday". Of course the cop suspects it is a stolen vehicle. Cop is checking out the driver and the vehicle when Scott flees. Did the cop already learn Scott had warrants? If so, are we sure they were only for non-payment of child support? Did the cop learn that the vehicle was indeed listed as being stolen? Or that it was unregistered?

So Scott is fleeing, cop tazers him and Scott goes down onto ground. Officer is over Scott and it appears to bystander that officer "has things under control". Then SOMETHING happens that allows Scott to get up and flee once again. WHAT happened? Nothing? Nothing at all? It just does not make sense that Scott got away from that situation without SOMETHING taking place.

What if the officer was telling the truth, that Scott DID "go for his tazer"? Or even if not, Scott was up and once again fleeing. What was the officer to do then? Let him get away?

I will say, I do not understand all of the parameters the various police departments are under as to who they can shoot and who they can't. But I do think there are damn good reasons wise parents instruct their children not to EVER run from the police.

And the "he didn't like police" and "he didn't want to go to jail for not paying child support" is surely not a very good excuse for what Scott did.

Yes, the bystander film is dramatic, but it does not tell the full story.

You make some good points. No Scott shouldn't have run. Yes the officer had to give chase.
But what I see is that the officer is the one who escalated the situation to lethal violence.

 

[Cubby]

Plus, isn't Scott already shot in this pic? I thought this was taken after the officer jogged back, picked the taser up and returned to drop it next to Scott. He then retrieves it again, I guess having thought better of it.

I thought this photo was when the taser originaly fell to the ground and Scott ran a second time. I think that because Scott is sitting up in this photo. He was already laying on the ground when Slager went back to pick up the taser bringing it back and dropping it next to Scott.

 

[Tawny]

Maybe because a small minority can't control themselves therefore the rest of society needs to set their standards based on the lowest common denominator?

Can you clarify this statement? It's super confusing.

 

[Tawny]

I thought this photo was when the taser originaly fell to the ground and Scott ran a second time. I think that because Scott is sitting up in this photo. He was already laying on the ground when Slager went back to pick up the taser bringing it back and dropping it next to Scott.

No, he's on his stomach handcuffed in that photo. The figure on the left is the other officer.

 

[Hatfield]

RSBM

....snipped to focus on this part....

My opinion of law enforcement is skewed to mostly agree with their side --- this is due to the fact I've never been harassed or had an unpleasant encounter with anyone in that occupation. Might have a change of heart if a cop beat me up , although I cannot imagine under what circumstances that would happen ?
Maybe I'm just lucky.
:moo:

This is a GOOD and very important point.

For those have never experienced being pulled over by an officer that got enranged at you for no good reason, you may not even believe things like this can and do happen.

Or getting pulled over just because of the color of your skin or type of car you have.

IMO, I can guarantee this happens. Here is my true life example.
I once bought a nice newly painted sports car. I was very careful when I drove it because it was such a nice car.

Very shortly after I purchased the vehicle, I started noticing I was getting pulled over for nundane reasons. Registration sticker not displayed properly (it had dirt on it), crossing the center line (WTH?), etc.

For the 2 years I had that vehicle, I was pulled over about 6 times. In my entire life before that, I was only pulled over about 3 times. So in those 2 short years, the number of times I got pulled over doubled my entire life's worth.
Just estimating based on memory because its been awhile.

And as soon as I sold the car, it stopped. Havent been pulled over since.

That is my own personal experience of proving that LE will pull you over just because of the type of car you have.

From that experience, I have to conclude and agree with folks that claim to be pulled over just because of the color of their skin or just because of how they looked.

I think this has jaded me and I can understand for people that have never experienced this sort of thing and only had friendly experiences, they would have an entirely different opinion.

 

[Cubby]

RSBM

Isn't this photo of Slager and the other deputy ? I thought Scott was on the ground having been already shot in this photo ?
I thought this photo was of Slager "planting" the tazer next to Scott's body ?
At the bottom/middle of this photo, isn't that the aqua-ish t-shirt Scott was wearing , and isn't that Scott's flip flop sticking up in the photo ?
Imo

Yes, I think you and others are right. My bad. When the taser was originally dropped it was on that white path. In this photo, it appears the taser is being dropped on the grass..........


sorry, and thanks for pointing out my mistake guys. :blowkiss:

 

[al66pine]

from AlwaysShocked post: "What should the officer have done in the circumstance? Let the guy get away?"

BBM. Chase him. I have yet to see an ounce of evidence Slager was in any danger. In fact, it appears he was simply too lazy to chase Scott, so he let his bullets do the chasing for him.

If not 'any danger' comment is intended to refer to time after Slager got back on his feet, IDK, maybe less danger.

But two ppl down on the ground - wrestling/scuffling/brawling - one w. firearm in hip holster, not any danger to him?
Sorry, but two adult men were not in playful pillow fight.

Did LEO have a chance to pat down or frisk him for a weapon? Anyone? Any vid? Any stmt by LEO or wit? Link?
(If so, I missed it, sorry)

 

[AlwaysShocked]

You make some good points. No Scott shouldn't have run. Yes the officer had to give chase.
But what I see is that the officer is the one who escalated the situation to lethal violence.

It is what we DON'T see - what happened between the time of the police vehicle webcam and the beginning of the bystander video - that likely holds the answers.

We do not see Mr. Scott going down to the ground, presumably already tasered. The bystander in his narrative only picks up the story when Scott is already on the ground, describing the scene as the police officer apparently "having him under control". Or at least that's the way it appeared to the bystander.

At that point there seemed to be a bit of a gap in the bystander's narrative. He did not describe Mr. Scott getting back up onto his feet and beginning to run away again. Perhaps he was accessing his phone and turning on the video camera portion when this happened. Because when the bystander video begins, Mr. Scott is already up and running.

--------------------------------------------

RE CPR Reports are that CPR was given. Not by the two officers we see in the video. Other officers and paramedics arrived. We do not know who gave CPR. We do not know who claimed to have given CPR. We also do not know what the wording was on the police reports. The reports may not have specified WHO gave CPR or when it was given. It may have just said "Officers at the scene gave CPR". Or not.

 

[Hatfield]

Re: What should the officer have done in the circumstance? Let the guy get away?



If not 'any danger' comment is intended to refer to time after Slager got back on his feet, IDK, maybe less danger.

But two ppl down on the ground - wrestling/scuffling/brawling - one w. firearm in hip holster, not any danger to him?
Sorry, but two adult men were not in playful pillow fight.

Did LEO have a chance to pat down or frisk him for a weapon? Anyone? Any vid? Any stmt by LEO or wit? Link?
(If so, I missed it, sorry)

The officer drew his weapon and began the shooting only AFTER the guy was running away.

The scuffle on the ground was over and then the bullets started flying.

 

[Sonya610]

Yep, I wonder how they are going to go about collecting that $7,800 in back child support, now that he is dead?

Collecting child support should be a civil matter, not criminal. This just shows how badly our system fails.

I agree. It should be a civil matter. However when the parents fail to pay it becomes the burden of the tax payer, and I don't want to pay for his kids. So then it becomes a criminal matter.

Guess that is why so many just don't get married, they avoid the whole "civil" problem and just soak as much out of the tax payers as they can.

A marriage license is so "old fashioned". Feeding and supporting your own offspring is also old fashioned, now you can have as many as you like and OTHER people can pay to feed/raise them.

The great American Dream.

 

[jilly]

The officer drew his weapon and began the shooting only AFTER the guy was running away.

The scuffle on the ground was over and then the bullets started flying.

So when was the "tussle" as described by the female witness?

 

[Cubby]

Re: What should the officer have done in the circumstance? Let the guy get away?



If not 'any danger' comment is intended to refer to time after Slager got back on his feet, IDK, maybe less danger.

But two ppl down on the ground - wrestling/scuffling/brawling - one w. firearm in hip holster, not any danger to him?
Sorry, but two adult men were not in playful pillow fight.

Did LEO have a chance to pat down or frisk him for a weapon? Anyone? Any vid? Any stmt by LEO or wit? Link?
(If so, I missed it, sorry)

Scott was at least 25 feet away and running in the opposite direction. If that causes someone to be in fear for their life, they have no business in law enforcement. At the time the officer fired the shots, he was not in any danger.

 

[MyBelle]

The tone of this thread is not to defend criminal actions, past present or future by someone shot by LE - don't see that posted here anywhere. It's about should those criminal actions result in being shot by a cop. Fwiw, the accusation of defending the criminal actions of someone shot by LE seems to always come up in such threads - even when they don't exist. It's difficult to defend non-existent accusations. Jmo.

BBM. Cops are allowed by law to make the judgment call. Which is why responsible parents teach their children to respect authority and obey instructions without question.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Yep, I wonder how they are going to go about collecting that $7,800 in back child support, now that he is dead?

Collecting child support should be a civil matter, not criminal. This just shows how badly our system fails.

Any minor children will be able to collect Social Security survivor's benefits.

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10085.pdf

 

[Hatfield]

So when was the "tussle" as described by the female witness?

It does get confusing.

This is my understanding based on what I saw on news.

1-Officer approaches car to talk to driver
2-soon afterwards, the driver runs
3-officer does chase him and this is where "tussle" occurs and tazer involved
4-Both of them end up on their feet at some point and the guy starts to run away.
5-officer draws weapon and shoots him in the back as he is running away. The first few shots hit him in the back and he is about 15-20 feet away when first few shots hit him in back.
6-The guy begins falling down and he gets shot with the rest of the officer's rounds as he is falling to ground. All while back turned to officer.


IMO, I think the officer just lost his temper at that point and didnt want to chase him anymore so he shot him. JMO of course.

 

[Cubby]

Here is some info on the CS arrears info. Just to clear things up on whether or not there was a bench warrant at the time.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/wa...over-child-support-court-records-show-n339151

Though, personally, even if he owed 6 figures in child support, it was still no reason to be shot. I'm posting this not to bash Scott, but to indicate why he would run. He faced at least 6 months in jail, if not longer......

According to the following link more than 10K in arrears is a 2 year prison sentence.... http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/citizensguide/citizensguide_child_support.html

 

[popsicle]

Not much different with this case... LEO makes contact with a person, a struggle ensues, the guy runs off and is chased by the LEO. The guy turned around and shot the LEO and then ran off. The LEO is now in critical condition.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...ty-Search-for-Suspect-Underway-299306111.html