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

[Elley Mae]

I would assume based on the year of the vehicle, the back lamp cover is faded, making it look bright. It still works though and would get the attention of the car behind them as he brakes, so it works as intended, just not the right color. JMO

Yeah well I have seen people use red tape but to say any color will do is a stretch. There are laws on the books and I don't thing white is acceptable for a brake light. The light was not working properly and gave reason for the stop.

................................

It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or move or for the owner to cause or knowingly permit to be driven or moved on any highway any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in such an unsafe condition as to endanger any person or property or which does not contain those parts or is not at all times equipped with lights, brakes, steering and other equipment in proper condition . . . .

Pursuant to § 56-5-4730, "[w]hen 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." S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-4730 (1991).

http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=3124

 

[Tawny]

This is the same point in the debate yesterday when I lost track of what we were even debating. The back lights DO light up. My replies were in response to those saying NONE of the back lights were working. They were.

 

[Tawny]

I'm also still unclear as to what the relevance of the tail lights even is? He was pulled over for third brake light out, no one is disputing that here that I'm aware of.

How it led to being shot at 8 times is where it becomes really fuzzy for me.

 

[MyBelle]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/09/south-carolina-shooting-video/25508479/

Why is there a white light lit in the back passenger tail light while the vehicle is moving? That is not normal. jmo

the red lens cover over the brake light sorta wraps around the side and that part is broken, which exposes the lamp, which is a violation of S.C. statute.

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

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

 

[MyBelle]

You can see the car pulling into a parking space and brakes would be needed to park.

yes, manual transmission or not, brakes are needed to STOP and the motorist behind you needs to know you are stopping or he'll slam right into you.

JMO

 

[jjenny]

Agree, but I doubt a police officer is going to plant evidence when he knows he is on video.

He didn't know he was on video. He didn't know the guy was recording on his cell phone.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

I can not lump all the cases together because I have some questions on some of the cases, But I will say in this one it is clear and concise. This man was murdered by a cop. This cop did not even attempt to chase him, He shot him dead over a freaking tail light. All he had to do was give him a citation IN THE CAR, and then move on, But he wanted more out of this stop. He had all his information, Back up is coming.

This was just someone who wanted to take the law in his hands. How easily he pulled out and shot him, is hard to watch. This man was not a threat.

RBBM
How could he issue a citation while Mr. Scott was in the car when Mr. Scott chose to make a run for it. No citation here, Mr. Scott was going to be arrested and he knew it IMO.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/wa...over-child-support-court-records-show-n339151

 

[MyBelle]

He didn't know he was on video. He didn't know the guy was recording on his cell phone.

The Officer didn't have eyes and couldn't see him getting closer and closer with a cell phone? I think the Officer was well aware Santana was standing there. Santana also ignored an officer directive to stay there and he left.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

RBBM
How could he issue a citation while Mr. Scott was in the car when Mr. Scott chose to make a run for it. No citation here, Mr. Scott was going to be arrested and he knew it IMO.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/wa...over-child-support-court-records-show-n339151

I agree. If there was a bench warrant, then he did know the Officer would have to take him into custody. Which then begs the question as to why he wouldn't make sure the brake lamps were all working so he wouldn't be pulled over in the first place. His brother said he had a fear of being pulled over for tail lights so why drive with no proper brake lights? It makes no sense. Officers can't ignore traffic safety violations that severe.

JMO

 

[SStarr33]

He didn't know he was on video. He didn't know the guy was recording on his cell phone.

Did Slager say that? He clearly looked towards the camera more than once.

 

[Brightbird]

I'm also still unclear as to what the relevance of the tail lights even is? He was pulled over for third brake light out, no one is disputing that here that I'm aware of.

How it led to being shot at 8 times is where it becomes really fuzzy for me.

He could have been caught in the act of stealing a car, took off like he did, and the shooting still wouldn't make sense to me :dunno:

 

[Cubby]

I'm also still unclear as to what the relevance of the tail lights even is? He was pulled over for third brake light out, no one is disputing that here that I'm aware of.

How it led to being shot at 8 times is where it becomes really fuzzy for me.

The reason is 'distraction, distraction, distraction', trying to keep the focus on Scott and off of Slager. In the grand scheme of things no one is going to be disputing whether or not the traffic stop was legit at a trial or grand jury.

The sole question a grand jury and jury will be looking at is whether Slager had a legitimate reason to use deadly force.

Lights not so big an issue. Use of deadly force the only reason we know about this case. And why this case is getting the attention it is.......

 

[EllieBee]

The taser could still be used as a stun gun. And if you review the video, you can see other people who could have gotten ahold of it.

So he dropped it on the ground next to the victim? Seems he would have held onto it if he were securing it from falling into the wrong hands.

He was planting evidence. JMO.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

What did Slager know at the time Scott ran? He only knew what Scott had told him. The video and audio were working. What you do not hear is Slager "calling it in" or getting a report or notice that Scott even had a bench warrant. Seventeen seconds. That's how long it took for Slager to walk away from the mercedes and for Scott to attempt to get out of the car the first time. Some seconds were spent with Slager telling Scott to stay in the car. Twelve seconds later, Scott was out and running for the last time in his life. Slager stopped Scott for a broken third brake light. That is all there is to that. One could postulate that Slager intended to only issue a written warning based on the lack of radio communication prior to Scott's final run. Perhaps he never intended to check out the car's registration. It's really hard to know what this accused killer was thinking.

 

[MyBelle]

The reason is 'distraction, distraction, distraction', trying to keep the focus on Scott and off of Slager. In the grand scheme of things no one is going to be disputing whether or not the traffic stop was legit at a trial or grand jury.

The sole question a grand jury and jury will be looking at is whether Slager had a legitimate reason to use deadly force.

Lights not so big an issue. Use of deadly force the only reason we know about this case. And why this case is getting the attention it is.......

BBM. Scott's family is disputing it and being quite vocal about it:

EXCLUSIVE - My brother was NOT stopped because of his tail light: Grief-stricken brother says Walter Scott died because of South Carolina cops' system of 'racial profiling'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...m-stopped-racial-profiling.html#ixzz3XJLSBSVD

JMO

 

[Cubby]

can we look at other areas of this case beyond the traffic stop and vehicle lights?

Anyone given any thought to whether or not Slager will agree to a deal to avoid a trial and avoid his child to be basicly fatherless? I can't help but wonder how the new baby to be will factor into the decisions Slager and his defense will have to make.

 

[MyBelle]

He could have been caught in the act of stealing a car, took off like he did, and the shooting still wouldn't make sense to me :dunno:

Does a shooting after a physical altercation with a cop and resisting arrest make sense to you? Because it sure does to me.

JMO

 

[Cubby]

BBM. Scott's family is disputing it and being quite vocal about it:

EXCLUSIVE - My brother was NOT stopped because of his tail light: Grief-stricken brother says Walter Scott died because of South Carolina cops' system of 'racial profiling'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...m-stopped-racial-profiling.html#ixzz3XJLSBSVD

JMO

His brother is entitled to his opinion and his grief. I am quite certain a grand jury will be focusing on Slager's actions when he fired his weapon with far more scrutiny than whether racial profiling influenced the traffic stop.

 

[al66pine]

"Santana,at some risk to his own safety, kept recording. Kept getting closer too. He films the arrival of a second cop. He films ....
"Scott, of course, was dead on the ground. Santana went to work. The news came on and when Santana heard the initial reports he knew what he heard was not what he had seen. He sought to tell police that he had the evidence of what actually occurred but got the distinct vibe this was not something they wanted, so he wondered what to do next."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/13/the-man-who-watched-walter-scott-die.html April 13

bbm1
If Santana believed he was genuinely at risk for filming, why did he keep filming? And why did he get closer?

BTW: bbm2
Question: Was Scott pronounced dead at the scene? Or did ambulance transport him to hosp? I just do not recall.

bbm3
"Sought to tell" LE? Did he take his cellphone w video to PD station?
If he did, at PD station who gave him "distinct vibe"? What did they say?
If he did not take that concrete type step to show vid to LE, how did he get the "distinct vibe" LE did not want it?
From someone other than police?

Send the vid clip as email attachment to PD?
Email to CrimeStoppers org or equivalent?

 

[SStarr33]

no, actually I did follow them. What is your point if I may ask?

You commented that the media would want to report big news about the case and they clearly didn't want to in those cases. And if you were speaking about the page I think you were speaking about, they were the ones who brought forth the truth in both of those cases.