GUILTY SC - Walter Scott, 50, fatally shot by North Charleston PD officer, 4 April 2015 - #2
- Thread starter Tricia
- Start date
wassermann
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction score
- 0
I listened to this imo murderer... "i don't have it" "but at the time..." "i can't recall...." "i don't remember that". I don't have any profession I respect more than police, and that's why people like him disgust me. If that's what lawful killing is, I'd be terrified to be visit that city. I don't know if he had a chance to plead guilty to something, or not.. but explaining away that video.. just no.
It came across to me as very condescending - as did the testimony of the officers yesterday.
Jax49
Florida Native
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Messages
- 10,038
- Reaction score
- 30,041
Closing arguments to begin in Michael Slager murder trial
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html
LIVE BLOG / DAY 15
10:30 a.m.
"Mr. Scott must have been running for a certain reason," he said.
"I was in total fear that Mr. Scott didn't stop and continued to come towards me," he said.
"At that time, I pulled my firearm (from the holster) and I pulled the trigger," he said. "I fired until the threat was stopped like I am trained to do."
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html
UBM - this is not what happened. Slager pulled his gun when Scott started running - and the defense had someone testify to that fact.
LIVE BLOG / DAY 14
3:30 p.m. North Charleston police Lt. Walter Humphries continued testimony, mainly relating to training.
He said 1.49 seconds, the time it took for Michael Slager to pull his pistol and start shooting at Walter Scott, is a "good" time for drawing the weapon. During that time, Scott had distanced himself from the officer by 17 or 18 feet, experts have estimated.
Imo, all of the officers that testified gave their own interpretation of the 'rules' so as to suit the case, and even made caca up as they went along.
Surely the jury will see this.
10:30 a.m.
"Mr. Scott must have been running for a certain reason," he said.
"I was in total fear that Mr. Scott didn't stop and continued to come towards me," he said.
"At that time, I pulled my firearm (from the holster) and I pulled the trigger," he said. "I fired until the threat was stopped like I am trained to do."
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html
UBM - this is not what happened. Slager pulled his gun when Scott started running - and the defense had someone testify to that fact.
LIVE BLOG / DAY 14
3:30 p.m. North Charleston police Lt. Walter Humphries continued testimony, mainly relating to training.
He said 1.49 seconds, the time it took for Michael Slager to pull his pistol and start shooting at Walter Scott, is a "good" time for drawing the weapon. During that time, Scott had distanced himself from the officer by 17 or 18 feet, experts have estimated.
Imo, all of the officers that testified gave their own interpretation of the 'rules' so as to suit the case, and even made caca up as they went along.
Surely the jury will see this.
Jax49
Florida Native
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Messages
- 10,038
- Reaction score
- 30,041
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html
Live coverage; jury coming in for closing arguments.
Live coverage; jury coming in for closing arguments.
minor4th
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,529
- Reaction score
- 5,223
I saw that the judge allowed the lesser included manslaughter charge to be added. That's appropriate IMO and might prevent a hung jury.
To me, the video just seems so clear. Slugger's testimony amounted to - "believe me; don't believe what you saw and heard with your own eyes and ears."
I hope he is convicted.
To me, the video just seems so clear. Slugger's testimony amounted to - "believe me; don't believe what you saw and heard with your own eyes and ears."
I hope he is convicted.
Agree minor4th - the lesser charge of manslaughter struck me as appropriate as well for a conviction. It is likely the only way considering an emotion driven person manages to get through on every jury where a LEO or former LEO is concerned.
It's rarely about the facts with an emotional juror - who wants to believe a cop could be someone other than a hero - or a person that would lay down their life for another.
Those days are gone imo. The job now attracts a different breed - people have trouble dealing with that.
It's rarely about the facts with an emotional juror - who wants to believe a cop could be someone other than a hero - or a person that would lay down their life for another.
Those days are gone imo. The job now attracts a different breed - people have trouble dealing with that.
Jax49
Florida Native
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Messages
- 10,038
- Reaction score
- 30,041
Jax49
Florida Native
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Messages
- 10,038
- Reaction score
- 30,041
bluesneakers
not today satan
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2014
- Messages
- 19,144
- Reaction score
- 9,421
Pins and needles here.
Jax49
Florida Native
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Messages
- 10,038
- Reaction score
- 30,041
Jury asked for testimonies of Slager and Peterson.
Court official says testimonies of #michaelslager and SLED agent Peterson now in jury's hands.
Court official says testimonies of #michaelslager and SLED agent Peterson now in jury's hands.
LIVE BLOG / DAY 7:
Noon. SLED Agent Angela Peterson, the lead investigator on the case, took the stand about 11:15 a.m., and testified for nearly an hour on the April 6, 2015, interview at Slager's previous lawyer's office.
Peterson refers often to her 14 pages of notes from that interview during her testimony.
During the chase and the scuffle afterward, Slager was afraid that Scott would take his weapon and turn it on the officer, Peterson said. Also, he could hear a voice on Scott's phone and was afraid that someone would show up to assist Scott before any other officers arrived.
1:30 p.m. SLED Agent Angela Peterson was still on the stand under cross examination.
Chief Deputy Solicitor Bruce DuRant asked Peterson why a statement from Michael Slager wasn't obtained when agents interviewed the officer.
The defense asked for a mistrial. Because not giving a statement shouldn't be held against the officer, defense attorney Andy Savage said this questioning would be prejudicial for jurors.
Judge Clifton Newman denies the motion, saying the witness never really answered the question, so nothing prejudicial happened.
2 p.m. Defense attorney Andy Savage started cross-examination of SLED Agent Angela Peterson.
Consistent with the defense's theme in the case, Savage sought to highlight shortcomings of Peterson's work on the case, pointing out that testing was done on Michael Slager's Taser that could have destroyed trace evidence on the device. The testing was done after a judge ordered that no destructive testing be done.
Savage also challenged Peterson on whether she had followed avenues of investigation that could have called into question bystander Feidin Santana's eyewitness account and video of the shooting.
"He was there," Peterson said, "and what he has said has been consistent with what we have been told."
3:30 p.m. The defense finished peppering SLED Agent Angela Peterson about why certain things were done and others were not in the agency's probe of Walter Scott's shooting death.
Lawyer Andy Savge pointed out what he called discrepancies in Peterson's reports on the case. One noted that Scott was trying to get away from the officer's Taser. Another noted that Slager was trying to get away from the Taser when it was in Scott's hands.
Peterson often could not answer Savage's questions.
"These are all critical matters in terms of what was in the mind of officer Slager at the time lethal force was used," Savage said.
"I don’t know what was in his mind at the time," Peterson said. "Only he can explain that."
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html
Noon. SLED Agent Angela Peterson, the lead investigator on the case, took the stand about 11:15 a.m., and testified for nearly an hour on the April 6, 2015, interview at Slager's previous lawyer's office.
Peterson refers often to her 14 pages of notes from that interview during her testimony.
During the chase and the scuffle afterward, Slager was afraid that Scott would take his weapon and turn it on the officer, Peterson said. Also, he could hear a voice on Scott's phone and was afraid that someone would show up to assist Scott before any other officers arrived.
1:30 p.m. SLED Agent Angela Peterson was still on the stand under cross examination.
Chief Deputy Solicitor Bruce DuRant asked Peterson why a statement from Michael Slager wasn't obtained when agents interviewed the officer.
The defense asked for a mistrial. Because not giving a statement shouldn't be held against the officer, defense attorney Andy Savage said this questioning would be prejudicial for jurors.
Judge Clifton Newman denies the motion, saying the witness never really answered the question, so nothing prejudicial happened.
2 p.m. Defense attorney Andy Savage started cross-examination of SLED Agent Angela Peterson.
Consistent with the defense's theme in the case, Savage sought to highlight shortcomings of Peterson's work on the case, pointing out that testing was done on Michael Slager's Taser that could have destroyed trace evidence on the device. The testing was done after a judge ordered that no destructive testing be done.
Savage also challenged Peterson on whether she had followed avenues of investigation that could have called into question bystander Feidin Santana's eyewitness account and video of the shooting.
"He was there," Peterson said, "and what he has said has been consistent with what we have been told."
3:30 p.m. The defense finished peppering SLED Agent Angela Peterson about why certain things were done and others were not in the agency's probe of Walter Scott's shooting death.
Lawyer Andy Savge pointed out what he called discrepancies in Peterson's reports on the case. One noted that Scott was trying to get away from the officer's Taser. Another noted that Slager was trying to get away from the Taser when it was in Scott's hands.
Peterson often could not answer Savage's questions.
"These are all critical matters in terms of what was in the mind of officer Slager at the time lethal force was used," Savage said.
"I don’t know what was in his mind at the time," Peterson said. "Only he can explain that."
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html
LIVE BLOG / DAY 15
10:30 a.m. (Shortly after Michael Slager took the stand, the livefeed of the trial went out. Judge Clifton Newman took a break about 10:30 a.m. for county employees to try to fix the feed, which was restored at 10:40 a.m.)
On the witness stand, Slager gave details about the traffic stop that ended with the fatal shooting of Walter Scott. He talked about the traffic stop for a broken tail light, and what he was thinking when Scott ran.
"Mr. Scott must have been running for a certain reason," he said.
When Scott went down the first time, Slager thought he had hit Scott with the Taser, he said.
"I thought everything was going to be good," he said, but when he approached Scott to handcuff him, Scott started fighting back and eventually seized the officer's stun gun.
"I saw that Taser coming at me and I knew I was in trouble," he said, his voice cracking. "I knew I was overpowered."
As Slager spoke, his divorced parents, with Slager's wife Jamie sitting between them, listened intently, occasionally wiping away tears.
"I was in total fear that Mr. Scott didn't stop and continued to come towards me," he said.
"At that time, I pulled my firearm (from the holster) and I pulled the trigger," he said. "I fired until the threat was stopped like I am trained to do."
12:30 p.m. On cross-examination, Deputy Solicitor Bruce DuRant shows the bystander's video again, asking Slager about the details of the moments before the shooting.
When Slager has problems recalling details, DuRant points out that Slager has a clear recollection of the day except for events that are "bad for you."
"He never at any point during this donnybrook had any kind of tactical advantage over you at all. You described it as him wiggling, trying to get away," DuRant said.
"Correct, he was," Slager answered.
He said he made the decision to use deadly force because Scott "never stopped."
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html
The problem with Slager's testimony imo is, we can see the taser knocked away from the scuffle/struggle and land behind Slager. So how did Scott point it at Slager?
Slager knocked the taser away from Scott or vice versa?
Either way, there is no longer a taser as a threat. Jmo.
10:30 a.m. (Shortly after Michael Slager took the stand, the livefeed of the trial went out. Judge Clifton Newman took a break about 10:30 a.m. for county employees to try to fix the feed, which was restored at 10:40 a.m.)
On the witness stand, Slager gave details about the traffic stop that ended with the fatal shooting of Walter Scott. He talked about the traffic stop for a broken tail light, and what he was thinking when Scott ran.
"Mr. Scott must have been running for a certain reason," he said.
When Scott went down the first time, Slager thought he had hit Scott with the Taser, he said.
"I thought everything was going to be good," he said, but when he approached Scott to handcuff him, Scott started fighting back and eventually seized the officer's stun gun.
"I saw that Taser coming at me and I knew I was in trouble," he said, his voice cracking. "I knew I was overpowered."
As Slager spoke, his divorced parents, with Slager's wife Jamie sitting between them, listened intently, occasionally wiping away tears.
"I was in total fear that Mr. Scott didn't stop and continued to come towards me," he said.
"At that time, I pulled my firearm (from the holster) and I pulled the trigger," he said. "I fired until the threat was stopped like I am trained to do."
12:30 p.m. On cross-examination, Deputy Solicitor Bruce DuRant shows the bystander's video again, asking Slager about the details of the moments before the shooting.
When Slager has problems recalling details, DuRant points out that Slager has a clear recollection of the day except for events that are "bad for you."
"He never at any point during this donnybrook had any kind of tactical advantage over you at all. You described it as him wiggling, trying to get away," DuRant said.
"Correct, he was," Slager answered.
He said he made the decision to use deadly force because Scott "never stopped."
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html
The problem with Slager's testimony imo is, we can see the taser knocked away from the scuffle/struggle and land behind Slager. So how did Scott point it at Slager?
Slager knocked the taser away from Scott or vice versa?
Either way, there is no longer a taser as a threat. Jmo.
"I was in total fear that Mr. Scott didn't stop and continued to come towards me," he said.
"At that time, I pulled my firearm (from the holster) and I pulled the trigger," he said.
He is so full of ****. The video CLEARLY SHOWS him pulling his gun out and firing his weapon as this "threat" ran AWAY. Ugh.
"At that time, I pulled my firearm (from the holster) and I pulled the trigger," he said.
He is so full of ****. The video CLEARLY SHOWS him pulling his gun out and firing his weapon as this "threat" ran AWAY. Ugh.
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 80
- Guests online
- 1,055
- Total visitors
- 1,135