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

[shadowraiths]

bbm sbm

Link and copy and paste, pls for ^fact - electrodes were embedded in Scott's body.
Anyone?

Police later said that Scott was hit with the Taser at least once, because part of it was still attached to him when other officers arrived on the scene.​

link

 

[dodie20]

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.

Right...people making wild accusations against Scott in an attempt to damage a dead man's credibility, would be like others speculating that Slager was in a killing mood that day and bided his time, waiting for an easy target...or accusing the video guy of somehow having ulterior motives. Just about anything's 'possible', but unless LE says Scott used a fake ID, I don't see the purpose in discussing it. moo.

 

[jjenny]

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.

Considering that nothing has been reported to suggest otherwise, I would think it's not just possible but what actually happened.

 

[al66pine]

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

Ummmm... Inability to get car registered or to buy auto ins does not stop everyone from buying a car.
Not does it stop driver from operating car on public roads.
For some, just means possible traffic tix &ct dates (they'll ignore), fines (they won't pay), maybe jail (if slow runners).
Some ppl driving on public roads have no driver's license, did not get lawfully-obtained plates on vehicles,
not get titled and reg, and have no auto ins. Mr S could have been one of them. Or not, IDK about him, no info beside MSM.

FYI, some people with felony convictions or others unable to lawfully register handguns (in state or area requiring reg)
buy handguns illegally!?!?!?!

MyBelle --thanks for posting link to info about SC driver's license suspension for failure to pay ChSup.
________________________________________________________________________

Is it poss a person could pay car owner for car, receive doc's to required for title and registration,
but not follow thru w that, not get plates or sticker issued, and not buy auto ins? Yes, poss can be done. Lawfully?
Is person breaking the law? If car is trailered to storage, not driven on public roads, no ins, may not be, IDK, not sure.

 

[Cubby]

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

LEO's are trained to tap the back of a car to see if the trunk is unlocked and there could be a person hiding with a gun in the trunk. (I learned this at a citizens policy academy a few years back). If you watch for it at traffic stops, you should always see that rear drivers side tap.

No where has it been stated there where NO working brake lights. ONLY the third brake light was not functioning. Please stop making up or exagerating facts. It's not very becoming as far as validity to your posts. If you would like your input taken seriously, it would be wise to ensure you are accurate with what you are stating as fact.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

Right...people making wild accusations against Scott in an attempt to damage a dead man's credibility, would be like others speculating that Slager was in a killing mood that day and bided his time, waiting for an easy target...or accusing the video guy of somehow having ulterior motives. Just about anything's 'possible', but unless LE says Scott used a fake ID, I don't see the purpose in discussing it. moo.

Slagle most likely did not know anything about a bench warrant, a valid or invalid DL at the time he shot Scott in the back. Scott is the victim. Shot in the back. That's not okay whether it's over fleeing, child support, a broken brake light, or an invalid license.

 

[MyBelle]

Ummmm... Inability to get car registered or to buy auto ins does not stop everyone from buying a car.
Not does it stop driver from operating car on public roads.
For some, just means possible traffic tix &ct dates (they'll ignore), fines (they won't pay), maybe jail (if slow runners).
Some ppl driving on public roads have no driver's license, did not get lawfully-obtained plates on vehicles,
not get titled and reg, and have no auto ins. Mr S could have been one of them. Or not, IDK about him, no info beside MSM.

FYI, some people with felony convictions or others unable to lawfully register handguns (in state or area requiring reg)
buy handguns illegally!?!?!?!

MyBelle --thanks for posting link to info about SC driver's license suspension for failure to pay ChSup.
________________________________________________________________________

Is it poss a person could pay car owner for car, receive doc's to required for title and registration,
but not follow thru w that, not get plates or sticker issued, and not buy auto ins? Yes, poss can be done. Lawfully?
Is person breaking the law? If car is trailered to storage, not driven on public roads, no ins, may not be, IDK, not sure.

BBM. I realize that but buying a car with the intent of driving it illegally is a reflection of the person's character who is doing it. It imperils the safety and welfare of other drivers.

If Scott didn't have a valid license, the owner of the car had liability for anything that happened. Not everybody can afford under-insured motorist coverage and maybe if states would make it a felony with mandatory jail time, people would stop doing it.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

LEO's are trained to tap the back of a car to see if the trunk is unlocked and there could be a person hiding with a gun in the trunk. (I learned this at a citizens policy academy a few years back). If you watch for it at traffic stops, you should always see that rear drivers side tap.

No where has it been stated there where NO working brake lights. ONLY the third brake light was not functioning. Please stop making up or exagerating facts. It's not very becoming as far as validity to your posts. If you would like your input taken seriously, it would be wise to ensure you are accurate with what you are stating as fact.

Excuse me? There is a dash cam video that I watched. Officer Slager did NOT tap the trunk. He pointed to the missing red lens. And it clearly shows there were no working RED brake lights as the Mercedes came to a stop.

JMO

http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news...of-walter-scott-shooting-reveal--425807939752

 

[Tawny]

Can you provide an MSM link stating he put OTHERS in danger by not assessing the area behind his target?

IMO Slager was a pretty good shot. Five out of eight at that distance with a moving target is pretty impressive.

3 out of 8 that went who knows where. Are you aware of how far those bullets can travel?

Do we know for sure that Scott gave Slager HIS license?

MSM links please?

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.

MSM links please?

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

Yes it did, stop spreading lies. It was ONE brake light, the rear window light, that was out. What video did you watch?

 

[MsFacetious]

This thread is going to end up shut down if people can't disagree respectfully. :sigh:
(Not a mod just pointing out the fact.)

 

[popsicle]

[h=1]Walter Scott shooting: officer describes adrenaline rush in recording[/h]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ooting-officer-michael-slager-audio-recording

 

[Bayou Mistress]

Being victim friendly doesn't mean unless the victim is dead or unless the accused is a cop. I am so sorry that Walter Scott is dead and that his family is now missing a son; his children are missing a father; his girlfriend is missing her love; his siblings are missing a brother; his baby momma(s?) will never get that child support. A man is dead. Gone. Shot in the back by a police officer sworn to serve and protect.

 

[MyBelle]

Universal Citation: SC Code § 56-5-4730 (2012)

Any motor vehicle may be equipped, and when required under this chapter shall be equipped, with the following signal lamps and devices:

(1) A stop lamp on the rear which shall emit a red or yellow light and which shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake and which may but need not be incorporated with a tail lamp; and ....

When a vehicle is equipped with a stop lamp or other signal lamps, such lamp or lamps shall at all times be maintained in good working condition. No stop lamp or signal lamp shall project a glaring or dazzling light.

http://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/2012/title-56/chapter-5/section-56-5-4730

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/dashcam-video-captures-moments-walter-scott-fatally-shot-30211980

 

[Bayou Mistress]

Universal Citation: SC Code § 56-5-4730 (2012)

Any motor vehicle may be equipped, and when required under this chapter shall be equipped, with the following signal lamps and devices:

(1) A stop lamp on the rear which shall emit a red or yellow light and which shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake and which may but need not be incorporated with a tail lamp; and ....

When a vehicle is equipped with a stop lamp or other signal lamps, such lamp or lamps shall at all times be maintained in good working condition. No stop lamp or signal lamp shall project a glaring or dazzling light.

http://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/2012/title-56/chapter-5/section-56-5-4730

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/dashcam-video-captures-moments-walter-scott-fatally-shot-30211980

I don't understand. Is someone saying that the deceased, Walter Scott, should not have been pulled over? If so, I missed it. If not, what are trying to say?

 

[dodie20]

[h=1]Walter Scott shooting: officer describes adrenaline rush in recording[/h]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ooting-officer-michael-slager-audio-recording

what a jovial laugh. Glad things didn't go quite as planned. moo.

 

[Woodland]

[h=1]Walter Scott shooting: officer describes adrenaline rush in recording[/h]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ooting-officer-michael-slager-audio-recording

OMG! This recording certainly confirms my thoughts/observations over the last few years regarding the culture within LE. Self-serving and a law unto themselves, imo.

Superior officers sent Slager home for a few days with the explicit advise to jot down his thoughts on shooting Scott - then they will ask him a few questions. That's what they did the last time?

Shouldn't the taxpayers be afforded the same courtesy? Whether it's a broken tail light, selling contraband, rape, murder etc.

Everyone is screwed imo, if taxpayers can't regain the control over LE that should be there.

 

[dodie20]

OMG! This recording certainly confirms my thoughts/observations over the last few years regarding the culture within LE. Self-serving and a law unto themselves, imo.

Superior officers sent Slager home for a few days with the explicit advise to jot down his thoughts on shooting Scott - then they will ask him a few questions. That's what they did the last time?

Shouldn't the taxpayers be afforded the same courtesy? Whether it's a broken tail light, selling contraband, rape, murder etc.

Everyone is screwed imo, if taxpayers can't regain the control over LE that should be there.

I was thinking the same thing. Why are citizens not given a few days to get their own stories straight? And I didn't care for that laugh...creeped me out. moo

 

[WideOpen]

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.

Just a FYI, I was pulled over about a year ago in that same general area. I had a tail light out. I am a white female and was driving a white mercedes (older model).
I live here, I think LE will pull someone over if they are violating a law or causing a possible traffic issue. They are most likely checking for insurance and other things as well.
I know if I have a turn signal or light out that an officer WILL pull me over. Has happened several times in the last few years. No big deal, they run me, check my insurance, write me a warning, off I go. I would never get aggressive with an officer. I know they might shoot me.

JMO

 

[Cubby]

Excuse me? There is a dash cam video that I watched. Officer Slager did NOT tap the trunk. He pointed to the missing red lens. And it clearly shows there were no working RED brake lights as the Mercedes came to a stop.

JMO

http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news...of-walter-scott-shooting-reveal--425807939752

Let me break it down to it's simplest form. When a car is in park and there is no foot on the brake pedal and it is daytime the rear lights will appear off. Lights being off while a car is in park is different than the former officer following Scott and seeing his brake lights working or not working while following Scott on the road.

The video you are looking at thinking the brake lights are not working is while the car is in park in a parking lot. Please look at the car while it is being driven on the road and Scott is braking and turning into the AutoZone. You can clearly see his brake lights working -except for the third brake light which he was pulled over for. It was daytime so no head lights or rear lights were needed, hence not seeing any rear lights while the car was in park.


I'm quite sure former officer Slager was competent enough to at least determine if one or all of the break lights were not working.

 

[Cubby]

Tail light touch during traffic stops:

http://thelawdictionary.org/article/why-do-policemen-touch-a-tail-light-when-they-pull-you-over/

Now, it doesn't mention what I was told at the citizens police academy, but it does list the reasons why this is standard procedure and not demonstrating a cracked tail light.