GUILTY SC - Walter Scott, 50, fatally shot by North Charleston PD officer, 4 April 2015 - #2

[Woodland]

Another example of not using the 21 foot rule might be someone running from LE - 21 feet, in this case, quickly became much more. Jmo.

Not seeing how using LE vs 21 feet in this case aligns with what we know. Is there an 80 feet and widening rule we might use?

 

[al66pine]

Here are the times with the format as follows: HH:MM:SS.miliseconds
Last frame on the ground: .........00:00:21.15
Begins drawing gun: .................00:00:25.08
First shot: ...............................00:00:25.25
Total time from ground to first shot:...... 4.10 seconds.
This, btw, is why I, personally, doubt he will be indicted by the grand jury.

(added .......s)

Thanks shadowraiths for finding that. I found a slo-mo version w no time display, so not much help.

"Last frame on ground: 00:00:21.15" - I take it this is last frame of LEO on ground.
Timing "Total time from ground to first shot: ............................. 4.10 seconds."
Seems Slager is still vulnerable from Scott, so maybe premature to start clock?

Or maybe not premature. While Slager is still on ground, if he had time to look
& see Scott was off, say past 21' zone, then had TTRHNLUT, so clock sh/start,
timing, as shadowraiths said ...................................................... 4.10 seconds

If Slager did not look for Scott until after back on feet, then sh/clock start later?
After Slager is back on his feet & has had chance to check for threats - Scott's possibly continuing threat and possible new threats from others -
then Slager had TTRHNLUT & clockshould start ticking, most-def imo, and
timing (pls check my math, anyone)............................................ 0.17 seconds

Or maybe TTRHNLUT clock should start ticking in between these ^points.

How many seconds is Time-to-Realize-He's-No-Longer-Under-Threat?
Seems 0.17 seconds is not enough, imo. Is 4.10 seconds long enough? IDK.

Regardless, it happened fast. JM2cts.

 

[Tawny]

I quite honestly don't know how this cop gets indicted. The one thing I bet he regrets is talking too soon. Had he waited until after the video was released, he would have crafted his story to coincide with the video. Instead, he spoke too soon and got locked into a story. I have no idea if he'll be convicted, but I'd be shocked if he isn't indicted and would truly question our justice system if he's not. If this officer isn't indicted, I can't imagine a situation that would lead to an indictment. Dealing with an unarmed individual. His underlying crime was not one that involved violence. He was no threat to anyone.

Whether or not the officer is guilty and if so, of exactly what, is an entirely different question.

Personally, I'd rather we didn't give him time to craft a story that could get him off, you know? If he's a dangerous cop, which he is in my opinion based on this and prior incidences with other subjects, then he needs to be off the force at the very least, and off the streets at the most.

 

[al66pine]

No confusion here.

Woodland, you are absolutely right.
My bad. My mistake in referring to Santana's vid as source of info re paper exchange.
As shadowraiths noted - that exchange was shown on LE dash cam vid.

My apologies for my error. I'm sorry.

 

[shadowraiths]

(added .......s)

Thanks shadowraiths for finding that. I found a slo-mo version w no time display, so not much help.

"Last frame on ground: 00:00:21.15" - I take it this is last frame of LEO on ground.
Timing "Total time from ground to first shot: ............................. 4.10 seconds."
Seems Slager is still vulnerable from Scott, so maybe premature to start clock?

Or maybe not premature. While Slager is still on ground, if he had time to look
& see Scott was off, say past 21' zone, then had TTRHNLUT, so clock sh/start,
timing, as shadowraiths said ...................................................... 4.10 seconds

If Slager did not look for Scott until after back on feet, then sh/clock start later?
After Slager is back on his feet & has had chance to check for threats - Scott's possibly continuing threat and possible new threats from others -
then Slager had TTRHNLUT & clockshould start ticking, most-def imo, and
timing (pls check my math, anyone)............................................ 0.17 seconds

Or maybe TTRHNLUT clock should start ticking in between these ^points.

How many seconds is Time-to-Realize-He's-No-Longer-Under-Threat?
Seems 0.17 seconds is not enough, imo. Is 4.10 seconds long enough? IDK.

Regardless, it happened fast. JM2cts.

If you look at this video, you'll see Walter Scott breaking away from Officer Slager, as the officer is beginning to draw his gun. From what I can tell, the taser had already been fired, in that it bounces off to the ground behind the officer, and the cartridges drop between the officer and Scott. Scott wrenches out of Slager's grasp, turns and begins to run. This all occurs within the time frame that I posted earlier.

With this in mind, including the "tussle" on the ground, I am of the opinion that the officer is pumped up from being on the ground, then shooting the taser. I am also of the opinion that 4 seconds is just too short of a duration for Officer Slager's sympathetic nervous system to have returned to stasis. In other words, there was the struggle, the taser was deployed, and he reached for his gun.

NB: if they find Mr. Scott's prints on the taser, that will also support Officer Slager's claim, as well as arguably support why he began shooting.

Notably, it is unclear how long the struggle was, as they appeared to already be on the ground when Santana began videoing them. However, from the point he began, to the last frame of them being on the ground is approximately 1 minute 34 seconds (divided by 10 to account for the slo-mo), per my slowed down video.

However, from that last frame of them being on the ground, to Officer Slager firing his weapon is a mere 4.10 seconds. This is why I think the grand jury will rule that he reacted as any reasonable LEO would react in that situation. Esp considering escalation of events (i.e., tussle => taser => firearm).

Moreover, considering his professional demeanor when he made the stop, I really do not think he intended to shoot and kill Mr. Scott. It was, imho, unfortunately very situational and pretty much a pressure cooker situation for Officer Slager.

In other words, as ugly as it looks from the outside, and as tragic as Walter Scott's death is, I honestly cannot see the grand jury indicting Officer Slager. Or, if they do, a jury convicting him.

 

[vanlutz]

Many believe if there was no video the officer would have never been charged. That's BS. It might have taken a little while. But, he'd still have to explain why he shot a man in the back 5 times and no where else. He'd have been arrested, we just would have never heard about it.

For the defense I wouldn't mind cross examining the guy that took the video. I kept hearing him over and over saying he saw the fight between the cop and Scott on the ground, and he says that the cop was always in control. My question would be "If the cop was always in control, how did Scott get away?"

I would imagine if I were the defense I'd argue that Scott ran, Scott was in control on the ground, he took the taser and the cop freaked and shot. He's still going to prison for manslaughter. If they go the murder only route he'll walk. The jury will need that manslaughter count to convict.

 

[Woodland]

Wish I could agree that Slager would have been charged without the video - he had a story that was working until the video showed up. 5 shots to the back didn't seem all that important without the video imo.

Imo, Santana hesitates slightly before choosing the words (paraphrasing) 'Slager seemed in control'. English is not a first language for Santana - I take the 'in control' to mean, or possibly mean, Slager's life/well being did not appear in danger during that struggle rather than Slager had the upper hand to prevent Scott from running any further. Have spoken to many people where English is not a first language in many situations - one has to make an allowance for the words that are chosen at times. Santana will likely explain at some point what he meant by those particular words and possibly put some further context to what he saw or thought he saw. Jmo.

 

[Tawny]

I don't agree that Slager would have been arrested/charged without the video. There were no other witnesses to this shooting except Santana. Had he not been there, it would have been just another dead criminal (because that's how it gets spun) shot for being violent (because Slager had already crafted his "he went for my taser" line). JMO

 

[vanlutz]

The point you are both missing, in his police report he can't say "I was frightened for my life and therefore I shot him five times in the back" that makes no sense.

Forensic would have shown that Clark was running away and an investigation would have brought out the facts.

Maybe in the 60s - 70s it could have been swept under the rug, not anymore.

He'd have been charged. If they decided not to prosecute, the civil suit would have brought out the facts, and then he'd be charged.

The grand police conspiracy against the masses is 95% gone. It just can't be done anymore.

 

[ohiogirl]

Hmmm, I have been thinking about this. I wonder if the cop thought that Scott had run off with his taser, and only after shooting him realized that he didn't. Perhaps that is why he tried to put it on the ground next to Scott, because he knew at that point that Scott had just run empty handed.

 

[vanlutz]

Hmmm, I have been thinking about this. I wonder if the cop thought that Scott had run off with his taser, and only after shooting him realized that he didn't. Perhaps that is why he tried to put it on the ground next to Scott, because he knew at that point that Scott had just run empty handed.

This is just my take on it: It was a normal traffic stop... Scott got out of the car and was told to get back in, which he does... A few moments later Scott takes off (as people who know the story after the fact, we know he ran probably because of the child support, the officer might not have known that. He just knew the guy took off, which is alarming in and of itself. Is he a wanted mass murderer, a drug dealer, a thief, rapist...)... The officer catches up and a fight ensues... Either the cop tasers him and nothing happens, the guy grabbed the taser. Whatever happened, Scott got away... Traffic stop, chase, fight, the guy might have the taser, whatever, he's not getting away, and Scott is shot till he falls. Basically the cop was going to stop Scott, which makes it manslaughter and not murder.

 

[CoolJ]

Another example of not using the 21 foot rule might be someone running from LE - 21 feet, in this case, quickly became much more. Jmo.

Not seeing how using LE vs 21 feet in this case aligns with what we know. Is there an 80 feet and widening rule we might use?

Maybe that's why he shot him so quick. Didn't want him to get outside that 21ft free shooting zone.

 

[perplexed1]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...olina-cop-banned-seeing-newborn-baby-day.html

Recent article.

 

[vanlutz]

Maybe that's why he shot him so quick. Didn't want him to get outside that 21ft free shooting zone.

The 21 ft rule is if the suspect is charging the officer not running away. No rules apply to shooting a suspect in the back.

 

[Woodland]

Guessing that the meaning of 'no rules apply to shooting a suspect in the back' means LE cannot shoot someone in the back as they are not a threat?

 

[Tawny]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...olina-cop-banned-seeing-newborn-baby-day.html

Recent article.

It's annoying that that article focuses so heavily on this poor father being restricted from seeing his newborn.

PLENTY of people charged with murder are restricted from seeing their babies, no one is crying rivers for them. JMO

 

[vanlutz]

Guessing that the meaning of 'no rules apply to shooting a suspect in the back' means LE cannot shoot someone in the back as they are not a threat?

That all depends. If a police officer shoots a suspect they feel is a threat, they of course have to shoot someone facing them. However, they shoot till the threat is gone or basically once the suspect falls. So, in theory if a person is shot and they turn they can be shot in the back. You just can't continue to shoot them in the back, and you can't shoot a suspect ONLY in the back.

 

[Supernovae]

Has everyone seen Santana's pre-shooting vid in slo-mo?

Vid shows LEO & Scott "on the floor" as cellphonevid'er Santana described.
Maybe Scott was kneeling by or over Slager, maybe not straddlinghim (IDK),
but clearly, they were not both on their feet. Can their actions be anything but an altercation?
The vid establishes fact of altercation, not just opinion about altercation.
(/unless they were laying to take a nap in alley/sarc).

Then seems imo, the crucial question is whether, in ~split seconds or ~several seconds afterward,
whether Slager's continuing belief that he was in danger was reasonable.

I doubt that many of us have been shot at, at least I hope not many.
Trying to come up w ex. of adrenalin-flooding similar to that, which is more commonly experienced.
How about driving on interstate highway, when car ahead suddenly brakes, & you are forced to swerve
to avoid rear-ending it?

I've experienced a variation of this two times in interstate driving.
Once in downpour I was in far left lane, along metal guardrail, when car ahead braked, and
did a 360 in front of mine. Nowhere for me to move - left or right, just brake (gently) in terror.
The second was essentially the same thing happening on icy interstate, w snow coming down.
That was the other longest 5 sec of my life, & I think those two experiences used up 8 of 9 lives.

The point here: I'm in a situation which is dangerous, so being esp alert and careful. Then when car ahead starts spinning
fear & adrenalin spike in, say, 5 sec as 360 spin happens,but once those seconds elapse & most immediate terror-filled danger is over, fear & adrenalin linger.
True - both in my driving examples, as well as in suspect & LE interaction & altercation.

After ~5 sec pass on ^ ex., no longer in danger of t-boning car ahead at 90 (or other) degree angle.
I can't say: Thank goodness, it's all safe now w that car spun around and over in next lane now
I'm still on icy or wet highway w all typical dangers of high speed driving in bad conditions.
After those few seconds, danger, fear & adrenalin do not instantly disappear. They linger.
I'm comparing my ~5 sec of car-ahead-spinning to suspect & LEO 3-5-10? sec. encounter "on the floor."

Multiple actions by Scott cranked up Slager's antennae:
1. Pre-stop, non-operational 3d brake light.
2. Scott gave contradictory answers about whether he owned car or wanted to buy car.
3. Scott produced no registration or ins coverage card (IIUC, this is fact).
4. Scott opened car door, was admonished back in.
5. Scott exit car & ran.
6. Scott & Slager had physical altercation, verified by slo-mo vid w them "on the floor."

Pre-shooting -
- 5 illegal actions by Scott (maybe 6) and offenses were escalating.
- no improper actions by Slager (not aware of, not yet).

Plausible, imo: Slager reasonably believed that was facing risk of serious physical injury or death.
JM2cts.

Those very videos, coupled with the dash cam video, convince me that this was a legal, justified shooting. I would not vote to indict, if I were on the GJ. That said, I have no confidence in the selection of the GJ for this case, due to the publicity. They will get the GJ they want, and it's likely Slager will be indicted. IMO.

There may have been some departures from protocol for which Slager should be disciplined-- such as leaving his patrol car unattended, and possibly the way in which he moved the taser, or parts of it. And there may be other more minor departures. Slager has been fired, so that seems punishment enough, IMO, for procedural departures. I still don't think the shooting rises at all to any level of murder.

Charging Slager with murder is the same kind of analogy, IMO, as charging a surgeon with murder, because the patient was non-compliant, combative, and died of complications after he was discharged. Doctors are almost never charged criminally for egregious actions they make in the course of their duties, and almost never charged with murder,-- even when their actions are unconscionably egregious departures from established practice, and clearly produced the patient's death, as in the examples of former doctors Conrad Murray and Roberto Bonilla. Why should sworn officers be any different? Why do some professions get a golden parachute, and others don't?

I wanted to quote these posts in full because it seems that people are bending over backwards to defend the indefensible. As someone else has said, if this isn't excessive force, and provably so, what is? I can well believe that the red mist could have descended after the altercation, but this would seem to be an anger, rather than a fear response, otherwise why not retreat, take shelter in the car, and call for back up? (The same could have been said of Darren Wilson, but that case was more ambiguous). Also, having said that, he seems to have had the presence of mind to plant the Taser a very short while later, rather than trying to render medical assistance. To me that is one of the most revealing aspects with regard to his state of mind because it shows that he knew he'd done wrong and needed to cover up for it.

It's also a bit much glossing over this as a "breach of protocol." I would hope that there is a protocol against interfering with evidence in a police shooting, but it goes beyond that. The only reasonable explanation was that he was trying to manipulate the evidence to bolster his story that Walter Scott was in control of the Taser at the time, and thus it would be a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice (or whatever the American equivalent is). I would hope that would be another charge as that should be a very easy one to prove.

 

[Cubby]

Hmmm, I have been thinking about this. I wonder if the cop thought that Scott had run off with his taser, and only after shooting him realized that he didn't. Perhaps that is why he tried to put it on the ground next to Scott, because he knew at that point that Scott had just run empty handed.

I had considered that scenario and dismissed it because Slager spent no time looking around for the location of the taser.
After he shot Scott, he turned right around and walked directly to the location of the taser. He didn't even turn his head in a different direction looking for it. His actions retrieving it, indicate to me he knew it's location all along.

 

[jjenny]

Hmmm, I have been thinking about this. I wonder if the cop thought that Scott had run off with his taser, and only after shooting him realized that he didn't. Perhaps that is why he tried to put it on the ground next to Scott, because he knew at that point that Scott had just run empty handed.

Regardless of what he might have tought, if he moved that taser afterwards, it's still tampering with evidence.