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

[i.b.nora]

Officer and victim in S.C. shooting are Coast Guard vets
Navy Times
http://www.navytimes.com/story/mili...ael-slager-walter-scott-coast-guard/25512843/

"Personnel records show that Slager served in the Coast Guard from 2003 to 2009, last serving at Station Cape Canaveral, Florida, as an unrated fireman before his honorable discharge.

His service record is unusual as most enlisted qualify for a rating within a few years of service and move up the petty officer ranks, a retired Coast Guard captain told Navy Times.

The Coast Guard is known for long wait times for "A" school, retired Capt. Jim Howe said, but six years is highly unlikely.

"It's possible he got rated and then through nonjudicial punishment or court-martial was reduced in rate back to E-3, but that is just speculation," he said. The Coast Guard was unable to provide a full record of his dates of rank, awards and duty stations on Thursday."​

There is more...

 

[EllieBee]

Insert LE for the word you.

LE have not said Scott stole the car. And if you have a link that states otherwise, please post it. Victim bashing is not allowed.

 

[EllieBee]

Whoops, just saw Tricia's post about the car. My apologies againnnnnnn! lol I'm on a roll.

Can I call you Butta'?

 

[Tawny]

Can I call you Butta'?

Only if it's because I'm so smooooooooooooooooth.

 

[MyBelle]

People in South Carolina have 45 days to change the title on the car.

But in those 45 days, isn't it also advisable to carry the bill of sale with you to prove ownership is being transferred? Scott's car had tags on it so it had to be registered to somebody and he said he didn't own it yet. It is a question the media has not yet addressed.

JMO

 

[EllieBee]

OT
All of it. He knew he was driving under a suspended license (third offense) and that is why he was being arrested. Also he should have been tased in the vehicle instead of the officers dragging him out. jmo

Mr. Scott is the victim. Victims and their families, unless named as POIs by LE, are off-limits.

I read ALL the newbie stuff and think I got that part right. Right?

 

[EllieBee]

Only if it's because I'm so smooooooooooooooooth.

And 'cause you are on a ROLL.....

 

[EllieBee]

But in those 45 days, isn't it also advisable to carry the bill of sale with you to prove ownership is being transferred? Scott's car had tags on it so it had to be registered to somebody and he said he didn't own it yet. It is a question the media has not yet addressed.

JMO

So if I drive my sister's car, and am planning on buying it, but haven't yet, I deserve 8 bullets to the back?

Good to know.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Mr. Scott is the victim. Victims and their families, unless named as POIs by LE, are off-limits.

I read ALL the newbie stuff and think I got that part right. Right?

I wasn't referring to Mr. Scott. If you read the subsequent posts you will see that. Hence my adding the OT. I don't think I'm breaking any rules.

 

[MyBelle]

Because the ownership of the car isn't in question. NO ONE has come forth to say their vehicle matching that car has been stolen. In a case as high profile as this, are we to believe that would get overlooked?

No, because the car wasn't stolen. It was his car. Whether he had "just bought it" or not, he was driving it lawfully.

My point isn't that the car was stolen or not, my point is that once Officer Slager returned to his cruiser with the driver's license, Officer Slager must have discovered something serious enough to engage in a foot pursuit. I doubt if he would have done so just because somebody had no working brake lamps. I think if that were the case, he would have let Scott run and just impounded the car.

JMO

 

[EllieBee]

But in those 45 days, isn't it also advisable to carry the bill of sale with you to prove ownership is being transferred? Scott's car had tags on it so it had to be registered to somebody and he said he didn't own it yet. It is a question the media has not yet addressed.



JMO

Also, Mr. Scott is a victim of an alleged murder. And as such is not allowed to be bashed or trashed. Not here anyway.

 

[Tawny]

My point isn't that the car was stolen or not, my point is that once Officer Slager returned to his cruiser with the driver's license, Officer Slager must have discovered something serious enough to engage in a foot pursuit. I doubt if he would have done so just because somebody had no working brake lamps. I think if that were the case, he would have let Scott run and just impounded the car.

JMO

Yet just upthread, it's stated that he chased Scott because he ran, back when we were being erroneously told that running is a felony. So which is it?

 

[MyBelle]

Yet just upthread, it's stated that he chased Scott because he ran, back when we were being erroneously told that running is a felony. So which is it?

I suggest you direct your question to the poster that stated it was a felony to run. I'm not that poster.

 

[EllieBee]

Yet just upthread, it's stated that he chased Scott because he ran, back when we were being erroneously told that running is a felony. So which is it?

Wait. I run several miles a day. Now I see running is a FELONY?

:thud:

(i kid)

Not that this is funny. But the comments often border on "WTF?!".

 

[Brightbird]

My point isn't that the car was stolen or not, my point is that once Officer Slager returned to his cruiser with the driver's license, Officer Slager must have discovered something serious enough to engage in a foot pursuit. I doubt if he would have done so just because somebody had no working brake lamps. I think if that were the case, he would have let Scott run and just impounded the car.

JMO

And yet you tell people they are "clueless" and don't know what was going on in Slager's head. How is that you have such insight into his thought processes?

 

[Tawny]

I suggest you direct your question to the poster that stated it was a felony to run. I'm not that poster.

That's why I didn't say "you said".

 

[Brightbird]

Also, Mr. Scott is a victim of an alleged murder. And as such is not allowed to be bashed or trashed. Not here anyway.

All you have to do is accuse MSM of creating a narrative to suit a certain agenda and withholding the 'truth', and then you can insinuate all kinds of accusations against the victim.

 

[EllieBee]

All you have to do is accuse MSM of creating a narrative to suit a certain agenda and withholding the 'truth', and then you can insinuate all kinds of accusations against the victim.

Clever minx, you.

 

[Cubby]

OT
All of it. He knew he was driving under a suspended license (third offense) and that is why he was being arrested. Also he should have been tased in the vehicle instead of the officers dragging him out. jmo

Do you have a link confirming Mr. Scott had two prior offenses of driving on a suspended?
Court records would be great. I used to belong to a child support enforcement group so I know just because a law is on the books, doesn't mean it's always used.

 

[al66pine]

sbm & bbm

SECTION 16-9-320
" (A)... unlawful for a person knowingly and wilfully to oppose or ... to resist an arrest
being made by a law enforcement officer....
.
...misdemeanor ...fined [$500.00 to $1000.00] or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
.
"(B) ...unlawful for a person to knowingly and wilfully ... to assault, beat, or wound an officer
when the person is resisting an arrest being made by ...a law enforcement officer.
.
... felony ... fined [= $1000.00 to 10,000.00] or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The full monty:

ARTICLE 4
Interference With Judicial Process
SECTION 16-9-310. "Law enforcement officer" defined.
For purposes of this article "law enforcement officer" shall mean any duly appointed or commissioned law enforcement officer of the State, a county or municipality.
HISTORY: 1980 Act No. 511, Section 3.

"SECTION 16-9-320. Opposing or resisting law enforcement officer serving process; assaulting officer engaged in serving process.
(A) It is unlawful for a person knowingly and wilfully to oppose or resist a law enforcement officer in serving, executing, or attempting to serve or execute a legal writ or process or to resist an arrest being made by one whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer, whether under process or not. A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

"(B) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly and wilfully assault, beat, or wound a law enforcement officer engaged in serving, executing, or attempting to serve or execute a legal writ or process or to assault, beat, or wound an officer when the person is resisting an arrest being made by one whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer, whether under process or not. A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

"HISTORY: 1980 Act No. 511, Section 3; 1990 Act No. 598, Section 2; 1993 Act No. 184, Section 24."
"Current through the end of the 2014 Session
^http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c009.php.^