Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Dash Cam Footage of Walter Scott Shooting Released

Dash Cam Footage of Walter Scott Shooting Released

How could this happen?

Authorities have released more information regarding the police officer shooting of Walter Scott. Last weekend, cell phone footage surfaced showing South Carolina officer Michael Slager pursuing and then shooting a fleeing Scott several times in the back.

The video evidence itself was damning, but it left a lot of people wondering what could possibly have happened to provoke such a seemingly vicious and senseless attack. Yesterday, authorities released “dash cam” footage that reveals what happened in the minutes before the cell cam footage picks up:

The video depicts the moments leading up to the fatal shooting: the officer is seen calmly walking up to the car, occupied by Scott and a second passenger, and asking Scott for his license and registration; Scott says that he is not the owner of the car, but planned to buy it soon. The exchange is cordial.

When Slager went to run Scott’s record in his car, Scott ran, allegedly because he was worried that he’d be arrested for late child support payments. Seconds later, Slager gave chase, leading to the second video taken by a bystander.

Watch:

Here’s the full video of Slager’s attack on Scott:

On Tuesday, Slager was charged with murder.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

Humphrey's Executor | April 10, 2015 at 7:34 am

We’ve seen this before: cops forced to give chase to a non-compliant fleeing suspect and then using, or perceived to be using, excessive force. Is it adrenalin, frustration, anger, reflex, a combination? Or is it just a bad cop?

    MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Humphrey's Executor. | April 10, 2015 at 8:01 am

    There is more to this then these videos show. In between the guy running out of the car, and the cop shooting him, the cop caught up with him and they “tusseled” for several minutes.

    Then someone got the taser and it went off. There are several possibilities on who got hit but probably the best reconstruction so far is that one barb hit Scott and one barb hit Slager.

The arrest warrant clearly says that Mr. Slager killed Mr. Scott with “malice aforethought.” This is something hard for me to understand. I have heard that forethought could be only a second or two, but malice? SMH

    stevewhitemd in reply to amwick. | April 10, 2015 at 8:24 am

    Malice is, as I understand it, a legal concept — it is something that can happen in the briefest moment.

      MattMusson in reply to stevewhitemd. | April 10, 2015 at 9:08 am

      I would assume that Malice and Forethoght are necessary for a 1st degree murder charge. But – I think this is more of a Reckless Disregard situation.

        Dana Thompson in reply to MattMusson. | April 10, 2015 at 11:43 am

        It’s hard to imagine that emptying one’s gun in another person’s back is an expression of disregard of another person’s wellbeing. If I did it, it would almost certainly reflect an intention to do that person harm, i.e. a malicious state of mind.

    Ragspierre in reply to amwick. | April 10, 2015 at 8:56 am

    Yeh, as I’ve said before, I’m really uncomfortable with the dilution/perversion of those terms and concepts in the criminal legal context.

    IMNHO this resulted from “creative” prosecutors who pushed the plain meanings of the terms off the table, along with jurists who let them.

    Bad, bad, bad.

From Conservative Treehouse:
The Walter Scott Shooting Backstory Begins To Surface – A Newer, Bolder, Julison Strategy….
If I write “Skittles and Ice-Tea” and you know what that means, you know Ryan Julison.
If I write “White-Hispanic” and you know what that means, you know Ryan Julison.

You might not know who he is, but you have mentally purchased his products.

Because Ryan Julison is the guy who arrives at the request of the Black Grievance Industry advocates, and quickly frames the optics, narratives and memes to place the deepest possible “hooks” (<– his word) into the public psyche. Julison guides who goes where, when, and who does what.

      stevewhitemd in reply to Kitty. | April 10, 2015 at 8:29 am

      Interesting. Seems like there was indeed a fight — how much video do we have of that?

      Who is the passenger and where is he now?

        MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to stevewhitemd. | April 10, 2015 at 8:32 am

        IIRC it’s a she.

        treestump666 in reply to stevewhitemd. | April 10, 2015 at 10:02 am

        I dont care if there was a fight or not. There is never an excuse outside of warfare to shoot an unarmed man that many times in the back. Never. How about ya know, chasing him? Had his car, had his info, knew where he lived. Add in the complete fabrications on the police report, and the absolute quickness to move evidence, and sorry, this dog dont hunt.

          #1- maybe you didn’t watch the video: it wasn’t his car. He had ZERO documentation on it. What sane person isn’t thinking the car is “borrowed” without the owner’s knowledge.

          #2-a. He got out of the car mid stop. EVERY COP IN THE WORLD WILL CLEAR LEATHER WHEN YOU MAKE THAT MOVE. Black, white, green. You don’t get out of the car mid stop w/out instruction to do so.

          #2-b. He ran. In light of #1 and #2b, this scene just got hot in mind of anyone.

          #3- If I’m a juror, I see I’ve got a 2 time runner and someone who did in fact tussle with a cop.

          What I can’t figure out is why the suspect is still upright in the start of the second video. He should be down on the ground- face in the dirt. The explanation of a scuffle is a good reason why he is not at that point.

          I’m not entirely convinced this is a criminal act. I’m more convinced we ought to have more K9s to do takedowns on perps like this.

      mariner in reply to Kitty. | April 10, 2015 at 5:07 pm

      I notice this comment has three ups and seven downs.

      Has the LI community degraded to the point of being actively hostile to knowing facts or being exposed to another viewpoint?

      Based on the Treehouse’s record over the last three years, I’d say the version of events that develops there will very likely turn out to be the one best fitting the available evidence.

        mariner in reply to mariner. | April 10, 2015 at 5:08 pm

        By “this comment” I meant Kitty’s link to the Treehouse thread.

        (Sorry, I should have specified that.)

          Gremlin1974 in reply to mariner. | April 10, 2015 at 9:39 pm

          Nope, there are just a couple of yahoos that ever since the end of the Zimmerman case come on here and down vote pretty much everything and since the community her tends to write responses and not use the up and down vote system, it just shows up more.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Kitty. | April 10, 2015 at 12:58 pm

    Certainly the story is more nuanced that MSM will reveal. I heard the witness already admit there was a fight … it looks like his video started right after that as his video is jerky like he is running up to the scene at the start. So it is not selective editing, if that is the case.

    But in all the replays, it doesn’t seem to show how much time there is between the guy running and the shots fired.

    Obama has created this “cops are bad” atmosphere, so many in the black community will play the game of lying to fit the Sharpton/Julison narrative. So in Ferguson those liars should probably have been prosecuted at some level, or it is encouraged.

    Because they were in a violent fight and it does seem Scott had the Taser at one point, it is clear the officer did not just chase him and shoot him. He tried to apprehend him, to the point of having to fight him hand to hand. Even though Scott ran, that certainly classifies him as some level of violent offender.

    I’ll leave it to the professionals to determine when that becomes legit to shoot when he then runs. I’d certainly think if he was wanted for murder and the officer had that knowledge, the shooting may well be justified. My guess is this didn’t rise to that level, but it did rise to “violent” level.

    mariner in reply to Ragspierre. | April 10, 2015 at 4:36 pm

    The family did ask Sharpton himself to stay clear, but they’ve been meeting with other NAN types from the beginning.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to mariner. | April 12, 2015 at 12:24 pm

      Then they said Al Sharpton was welcome to preach at their church (separately from the funeral)

      Looks like there’s been some negotiating.

I am glad to hear the family is asking Sharpton to stay away.

But sorry, tussle or no, the man was shot in the back while running away. At that point he did not represent a threat.

    MattMusson in reply to tarheelkate. | April 10, 2015 at 9:11 am

    Charleston is the #1 weekend destination in the SouthEast. And the #2 wedding destination in the USA. My guess is that movers and shakers will write a BIG check to the family and get the Police Officer to plead guilty before the Summer tourist season is in full swing.

    MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to tarheelkate. | April 10, 2015 at 9:17 am

    An immediate threat is not necessary…

    “Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where … feasible, some warning has been given.”

    As an example, consider a cop comes across a man who has just violently raped a woman. He frisks the man finds a knife which he confiscates.

    In the meantime a truck crashes into a building nearby enough to distract the cop, so the rapist flees. The cop is not allowed to shoot the rapist in the back?

      tarheelkate in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | April 10, 2015 at 9:55 am

      So far we don’t have evidence that any of those conditions apply in this case.

      BrokeGopher in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | April 10, 2015 at 10:31 am

      First, what evidence is there that this guy had committed any crime involving physical harm? What evidence is there that he was a threat to anyone? You have the word of a cop who was caught planting evidence. Second, why is shooting him necessary to prevent escape? He can’t run down a 50-year-old man?

      And in your example, no I don’t think you can shoot a disarmed person you suspect of rape to keep him from escaping. Same reasons — what is your evidence, and what is the threat?

This is a story best left for Mr. Branca, IMO. I’m looking forward to his continued analysis as the facts come out.

If the taser was discharged during the scuffle then, absent a rigged jury, first degree seems quite a stretch.

All the split hair, head of a pin legalistic mental masturbation aside, here’s a simple truth: fighting with cops is apt to get you dead.

There are very, very few pure victims.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to bildung. | April 11, 2015 at 1:43 am

    Agreed, I would expect that if this goes to trial that it would go for 2nd degree or manslaughter. If there is a plea deal it would probably be for manslaughter.

Middle aged white man with broken taillight != violent rapist.
Middle aged black man with broken taillight != violent rapist.

This man was not a violent rapist, and “public safety” did not require that he be executed on the spot, and I do not think you would have made that conflation if he had been white.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Miller. | April 10, 2015 at 12:07 pm

    Was a tail light even broken in the first place? When I was in high school, it was common for a cop to stop a driver with the broken tail light excuse. When questioned, even politely, the cop would smash a lens with his club, and say “you have a broken tail light!”.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | April 10, 2015 at 12:36 pm

      The officer said, “the reason I stopped you is your brake light’s broke.”

      Whether brake light or tail light, it doesn’t necessarily mean the *lens* is broken, only the bulb inside can be broken or burnt out.

        MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Henry Hawkins. | April 10, 2015 at 1:06 pm

        I don’t drive anyomore, so I can’t say but you can see the light is white at the beginning of the video. According to others a car is not supposed to show a white in any direction except the one it’s going towards.

      healthguyfsu in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | April 10, 2015 at 1:56 pm

      He said third brake light, which is the middle in the back of the window. In all models that have the light, it is required to be functional to pass inspections.

      South Carolina does not have annual car inspections, so most people either find out it is out from a friend or get a ticket.

Middle aged white man with broken taillight != violent rapist.
Middle aged black man with broken taillight != violent rapist.

This man was not a violent rapist, and “public safety” did not require that he be executed on the spot, and I do not think you would have made the jump “50 year old man = violent rapist” if he had been white.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Miller. | April 10, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    Selling “loosies” (individual cigarettes) shouldn’t be cause for summary execution either, but it happened.

      That’s not an opinion. That’s a lie.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | April 12, 2015 at 12:42 pm

      There was no execution. Eric Garner had a bad case of asthma, and an athhma attack can kill someone, but they didn’t understand. The EMS people didn’t understand what was going on. The police also probably thought he was faking – playing dead – as part of a strategy of “passive resistance” to the cigarette law. Eric Garner had, after all, announced “this ends now” or words to that effect.

      Later on the medical examiner tried to cover all bases, and attributed the death, in part, to a choke hold.

Time to Rein in the Cops: Walter Scott Didn’t Have to Die.

“Leave it to the New York Times to instantly racialize the incident; after all, the Narrative must be advanced at every opportunity. But this story is larger than that. Because, in this era of militarized, trigger-happy police, what officer Slager did to poor Walter Scott could happen to any of us. . . . America 2015: where everything you have, including your life, belongs to the state. Who won the Cold War, again?”

http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2015/04/08/time-to-rein-in-the-cops-walter-scott-didnt-have-to-die/

    Ragspierre in reply to Miller. | April 10, 2015 at 11:22 am

    As hyperbolic, overblown bullshit goes, that was off the charts.

    Watch some movies of the 40s and 50s, read some history, and you’ll see that police today are generally…

    1. MUCH more restrained in the use of deadly force

    2. MUCH better trained

    3. MUCH less prone to be corrupt

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 10, 2015 at 12:13 pm

      OK, “down-twinklers”, come out from behind your logs and defend this bullshit.

      C’mon, cowards. Put it out there.

      Twanger in reply to Ragspierre. | April 10, 2015 at 12:24 pm

      I have three cops in the family, and can corroborate what Rags says here.
      They are more highly educated, more carefully screened, and better trained than ever before.
      Bad apples can be found everywhere, but with the intense scrutiny on LEOs today they had better be squeaky clean, and the vast majority are.

      Phillep Harding in reply to Ragspierre. | April 10, 2015 at 6:41 pm

      Key word being “generally”. Small towns hire nearly anyone, and even the AK State Troopers has the occasional scum demanding sex.

      MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Ragspierre. | April 11, 2015 at 6:10 am

      Until Tennessee vs Garner, this situation would have been standard practice without a thought.

        Ragspierre in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | April 11, 2015 at 9:48 am

        That’s true. A lot of the radical libertarians here are young and ignorant of history. A lot of them don’t think well, either, but they think they think. Some libertarians of my acquaintance just have bad wiring, and can’t learn anything new. But they are always right. They’ll tell you, even if you don’t ask.

Has anyone anywhere shown any evidence that Walter Scott’s race had anything to do with this event?

    gasper in reply to Anchovy. | April 10, 2015 at 11:44 am

    We may know that answer when the multiple complaints (13, I read) against this officer are known. He may just hate everyone, or may be selective in his hatred. Those previous complaints, in my opinion, are going to be decisive in what happens to him. His behavior seems extreme and habitual. Also not noted in anything I have seen so far is the fact the second law officer appears to be a black female. I wonder what her initial statement was? The fact he would throw down that taser in her presence is telling.

      gasper in reply to gasper. | April 10, 2015 at 3:27 pm

      The 13 previous complaints appear to be bogus. He had one complaint of using excessive force but was exonerated.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to gasper. | April 11, 2015 at 1:46 am

        I think the 13 was just a misunderstanding or a mistype somewhere. It was one complaint in 2013, so I am guessing that some how got changed to 13. I seriously doubt that many departments would keep someone who had 13 complaints.

          Sammy Finkelman in reply to Gremlin1974. | April 12, 2015 at 12:37 pm

          He had two complaints, one of excessive force (unnecessary use of a taser) and one of failing to take a police report.

          The one about excessive force was not upheld but probably should have been, and now, after this, the victim is suing.

          It involved a man who had come in univited to his ex-girlfriend’s home. Maybe he thought she might take him back. She complained to the police and took them or they went to his mother’s home.

          It seeme like what then happened was something like this:

          The policeman (Slager), without explaining anything at all about what this was all about, demanded the man who was by the door walk out. He didn’t, then he barged in, and ordered him to go out. Mario Givens was wearing only a T-shirt and boxers.

          Slager, deciding that Givens wasn’t following his instructions fast enough, pulled out his taser, and tased him in the stomach. He fell down and two cops then dragged him outside. The woman complainant then said that’s the wrong man. Meanwhile Givens was complaining about why he as tased. So Slager tased him again. Then he was arrested and charged with resisting arrest, but later the charges were dropped.

          Mariop Givens made a formal complaint the next day, but nobody was ever contacted. There were neighbors as witnesses too. Six weeks later he called up and was told the officer had been cleared.

          The man they were after – the man who had snuck into his girlfriend’s home – was Mario Givens’ brother. And Mario is 5 feet 5, and his brother is 6 feet tall.

    Andy in reply to Anchovy. | April 10, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    Firefighters/EMTs/Medics/ER staff/cops…. HATE and I mean HATE in all caps (a word much stronger than racist) welfare cheats, seekers/tweekers, drug abusing homeless people and other government grifters who represent 85% of their calls regardless of race. However they still perform their jobs like professionals in these situaions. At the outter bounds of these calls they will be slightly less friendly in dealing with them… a far cry from homicide.

    If you’ve met an actual racist, they are usually passive in their disdain for the whole (not the individuals of said minority, whom they are generally quite friendly/cordial to).

    So the active HATE has ZERO incidents of summary executions and media coverage, but the passive form of disdain has the media narrative of Mississippi Burning/Heat of the Night.

    mariner in reply to Anchovy. | April 10, 2015 at 4:55 pm

    Of course not, but somehow everybody just knows he was killed by an out-of-control racist cop.

First of all this shooting was very obviously NOT legally justified. But, neither was Mr. Scott’s flight to avoid arrest and physically resisting the officer’s lawful efforts to detain him.

Yes, I can hear the crying now. But, a person should not be shot for running from the police and, when caught, fighting with the officer and fleeing a again. Maybe not, but all actions have consequences and bad things happen in this world. This is not Disney World, after all.

The lessons to be taken away from this are:
1): Pay your child support.
2): If you know that there is a warrant for your arrest, surrender.
3): Do not run from police officers
4): If you do choose to run, surrender when the officer catches you, do not attempt to fight him

Scott was NOT shot because he was black. Scott was NOT shot because he questioned whether the charge was real, he knew the warrant existed. He did not run because he thought that the officer was going to harm him. The officer had treated him with respect up until the time that he fled. He was shot because he was actively resisting the legal efforts of the officer to detain him. Now the force used to stop his flight may not have been lawful. But, the only reason that the force was used was because of Mr. Scott’s actions. He precipitated the incident by his prior lifestyle choices [not paying court ordered child support]and by his choice to flee from the officer and then to physically struggle with him when he (Scott) was captured.

I hope we have all learned the lessons here.

    Sian in reply to Mac45. | April 10, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    5): Apparently downvote fairies don’t like the truth.

    If you don’t do stupid things around cops, you aren’t very likely to get shot.

    betty in reply to Mac45. | April 10, 2015 at 12:41 pm

    Logic and clarity !

    It is a pleasure to read your comment.

    Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | April 10, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    “He was shot because he was actively resisting the legal efforts of the officer to detain him.”

    No. IF that were true the LEO would not be facing murder charges. He was shot because the LEO left his training and the law behind.

    “Now the force used to stop his flight may not have been lawful.”

    You equivocation is repugnant. It was NOT lawful.

      MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Ragspierre. | April 10, 2015 at 1:01 pm

      “Now the force used to stop his flight may not have been lawful.”

      You equivocation is repugnant. It was NOT lawful.

      Tsk tsk and you a lawyer. It’s not lawful when a jury says it’s not ( well there are also appeals so technically not even then ).

      However more to the point here I think the OP meant that it is early and there maybe another shoe to drop.

        Ragspierre in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | April 10, 2015 at 1:23 pm

        The LEO may have a defense, but his use of force was not lawful.

        Was it?

          MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Ragspierre. | April 10, 2015 at 2:05 pm

          It’s lawful until a jury says it’s not. You as a lawyer should know that.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 10, 2015 at 2:26 pm

          No, Mouse.

          Try to remember what lawyers here have tried to teach, including Andrew.

          What a jury rules or fails to rule can be blatantly AGAINST the law.

          When you interpose the AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE of self-defense, you are admitting that the elements of the offense you are charged with are present.

          See?

          mariner in reply to Ragspierre. | April 10, 2015 at 4:45 pm

          You and I usually see things the same way, but not this time.

          You seem unwilling to acknowledge that you only saw part of the interaction between Slager and Scott, you *don’t* know all the facts, yet you’re pontificating as though you do.

          I promise to remind you of this later, when more facts show this case is not as cut-and-dried as your comments.

          You should know better. 🙁

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 10, 2015 at 5:13 pm

          No, actually I am totally unwilling to suspend what I did see.

          I’m not saying that there is no conceivable way that this LEO can clear himself. I am saying I don’t see anything that could do that at present.

          So I’ll take up your gauntlet.

          Plus, you’ll note that I’m (kind of characteristically) catching it from all sides here. I think bad cops are bad, and mighty few.

          mariner in reply to Ragspierre. | April 10, 2015 at 5:49 pm

          I won’t ask you to dismiss what you saw.

          I’m asking you not to pretend that what you saw is all there is.

          I know you’re a lawyer, but you don’t have the facts (nor, likely, the knowledge of SC law) to support your statement that the officer’s use of force was unlawful.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 10, 2015 at 5:54 pm

          Bullshit.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Ragspierre. | April 11, 2015 at 1:54 am

          That’s Ok Rags I will say it. I don’t see any conceivable way that the cop could justify his opening fire, regardless of what happened previous to his opening fire. Now that is not saying a Jury might let him off, I mean they let the cop that shot the guy on the side of the road off, so stranger stuff has happened.

          Personally, I expect a plea deal for Manslaughter, but that is just me.

      Mac45 in reply to Ragspierre. | April 10, 2015 at 2:43 pm

      Sorry to disagree with you, but the stop and attempted detention was legal. The level of force used to stop Scott, as he was running away, i.e.; shooting him, may not have been.

      Now,another twist to this. At around :17 in the phone video, Slager is apparently gripping Scott’s right arm with his left hand and drawing his service pistol with his right. Immediately thereafter, an object of the same size and shape as a taser is seem bouncing on the path behind the officer. It is nt beyond the realm of possibility that Slager did not see the taser come out of Scott’s hand and, therefor, reasonably believed that he was still armed with it as he ran away.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Mac45. | April 11, 2015 at 1:57 am

        You might be correct, but a taser isn’t a deadly weapon and since it had already been discharged once, it had at most one more shot left in it and then it is just a close range stun gun.

        Even if he had the Tazer I think it is a stretch to say that the shooting was justified because he had one of the officers non-lethal devices. I mean in that case would you support the cop shooting if the guy had taken his can of pepper spray?

    Sanddog in reply to Mac45. | April 10, 2015 at 4:17 pm

    And the number 1 lesson: You don’t get to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back over a burnt out brake light and unpaid child support.

    mariner in reply to Mac45. | April 10, 2015 at 4:57 pm

    I hope we have all learned the lessons here.

    You obviously haven’t learned a big lesson you should have learned years ago: don’t jump to conclusions based on incomplete information, especially at the behest of the MSM and BGI.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Mac45. | April 12, 2015 at 12:57 pm

    I think it’s come out that was no outstanding warrant for Walter Scott’s arrest. That is an idea spread by the Scott famly lawyer, who actually didn’t even say that, bit spoke about the fact he’d been arrested. He probably knew the facts by then.

    Walter Scott was running because he knew it was probably a stolen car that he had “bought” or rented. And he hadn’t given the policeman his driver’s license, so if he got away, there’d be nothing to connect him to the car.

Henry Hawkins | April 10, 2015 at 12:48 pm

Any report on whether this officer received any injuries? He has claimed he feared for his life. If officers shot someone every time they had a scuffle, ooph.

Having watched COPS for 20 years, I’m an expert on law enforcement (lol), so… in this scenario – traffic stop, suspicious explanations for lack of documents, “get back in your car”, the runaway, catch up, scuffle, run again, isn’t it protocol to call for back up, set up a perimeter, and catch the guy that way?

Emptying a clip into his back as he flees is highly effective, but probably not legal.

I saw/heard of no search conducted by the officer. Was he justified in considering Scott possibly armed as he chased him?

MouseTheLuckyDog | April 10, 2015 at 12:51 pm

Does anyone know what the record of Officer Slager is?
I’m assuming it isn’t bad because if he had dozens of complaints, we would be hearing about them all over the news.

    I read he had 13 complaints against him. I have not verified that and will look again and see what I can find.

      gasper in reply to gasper. | April 10, 2015 at 3:26 pm

      The 13 previous complaints appear to be bogus. He had one complaint of using excessive force but was exonerated.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to gasper. | April 11, 2015 at 2:00 am

        Now I heard on the radio that the guy that filed the complaint has come forward and said that he opened his door and was immediately shot with a tazer and he has now decided to possibly sue the department, but that may be more opportunistic than anything, basically fishing for a settlement.

MouseTheLuckyDog | April 10, 2015 at 12:54 pm

In the dashcam video, Scott gets out once and then gets back in, I think because Slager’s partner tells him to. Then he gets out and runs away.

has it occured to anyone that if Scot had stayed in the car like he was told to, he would still be alive?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | April 10, 2015 at 1:59 pm

    And if Officer Slager had never been born, Scott would still be alive. Plus, if it was the year 281AD, before semi-auto firearms were common, Scott would still be alive.

    These kinds of statements are 100% true and 100% meaningless.

    At the beginning of the stop, he had a child support bench warrant and his brake light was out. Then, after calculating he was about to get arrested, he fled the scene – that’s a new offense, but not a shoot him the back thing. He also apparently scuffled with the officer who ran him down – that’s an additional offense, but not a shoot him in the back when he wiggles free and runs thing either.

    He had crim issues when stopped and added to them mightily during the stop, but by what we know to this point, he did nothing to warrant getting shot in the back.

    —–

    It looks to me like an officer who ran into one too many assholes (from his perspective) and just lost his shit.

      MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Henry Hawkins. | April 10, 2015 at 2:36 pm

      First. Whoooooooshhhhhhh.
      What’s that. The sound of every military plane in the US flying over your head.

      Second.
      It may or may not matter, but your facts are out of alignment.
      Slager had not yet run Scott’s priors. He was running them was Scott ran. So he didn’t know what warrants Scott had.

      What he did know was that there was a good chance Scott stole the car.

      Slager: Insurance and registration.
      Scott: I don’t have insurance, I just bought the car.
      More back and forth.
      Scott: I haven’t bought the car yet.

      Any alert cop would be thinking “maybe this guy stole the car” when he was walking back.

      Then Scott runs.

      What is a reasonable person supposed to think?

      Then they scuffle. To some degree Scott is on par healthwise with the cop, since they scuffle for several minutes ( in a fight 30 seconds is an eternity ). Scott maybe goes for the taser. Someone may have been tased. Taser vanishes. Maybe Slager sees it on the ground maybe he doesn’t.

      There are lot’s of details that we won’t know till the trial, but the rule isn’t to judge Slager on what was happening, but what a reasonable man would think was happening.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | April 10, 2015 at 3:46 pm

        Um, it wasn’t necessary for Slager to know about the warrant, just for Scott. Once running, the officer has to assume the worst for self protection.

        As for the rest of your post, yeesh.

        You’re the guy who isn’t a lawyer but goes onto criminal threads like this one to lecture idiot lawyers who haven’t your expertise, correct?

        Gremlin1974 in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | April 11, 2015 at 2:05 am

        While I agree that there are details that we don’t know, and I have given it actual thought, I just can’t think of a detail that could have happened in between the dash cam and the cell phone video that would have justified opening fire.

        Sammy Finkelman in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | April 12, 2015 at 1:14 pm

        I don’t think Scott stole the car.

        Somebody else did, in another state, hundreds of miles away.

        Or possibly it was reported stolen or totalled to insurance companies and then sold, not necessarily by the original owner, but maybe by an auto repair shop.

        We really should know what was the story about the car, but the media don’t seem to be too interested in covering it.

        Since one of his brother’s, Rodney, Scott, said that Walter always checked and said he didn’t want to get stopped, maybe he was taking it out for a test drive.

        Who is that other passenger, and what is his connection with car, and why is Walter afraid to cast suspicion on him?

        There is big problem with cars being stolen and sold, although usually they take them out of the United States altogether – over land to Mexico (NOBODY AT THE BORDER CHECKS VEHICLE ID NUMBERS) or by ship maybe to some place like Kuwait.

        Apparently the ptgher passenger is not a female.

    healthguyfsu in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | April 10, 2015 at 2:00 pm

    I don’t particularly like you or your line of reasoning. However, if you wrote that as a play on the “If Zimmerman never got out of his car, Trayvon would be alive” nonsense then that was cleverly executed.

    “has it occured to anyone that if Scot had stayed in the car like he was told to, he would still be alive?”

    likewise if all those boys that john wayne gacy sodomized and raped had just stayed home
    they’d all be alive too

    and so would john wayne gacy
    as long as we’re making excuses for killers
    and blaming there victims …….

MouseTheLuckyDog | April 10, 2015 at 1:59 pm

Something to consider here two recent prominent resisting arrest cases were caused by people resisting stupid Democrat laws!

In New York, the laws about selling cigarettes are mainly backed by Dems and pushed for two reasons: one to bleed every possible tax cent from smokers, two because smokers are evil and we need to punish them as much as we can. ( Of course pot smokers are not evil. ) This created a blackmarket of which Eric Garner was a member and it got him killed.

BTW one of the biggest ironies of this was that there is a lot of pressure on cops from superiors to crack down on these laws. A lot of cops don’t like enforcing them, and I have never heard of a cop who did.

Walter Scott ran because he didn’t want to go to jail for not paying child support. Now fathers should pay there child support, but we have systems for collecting debt. In the case of child support, Dems are so determined to force fathers to pay that they have installed draconian measures ( deducting from tax refunds ). In this case they are willing to send a guy to prison for debt, despite the fact that we shuttered debtors prisons close to 150 years ago.

In this case, Walter Scott

    Henry Hawkins in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | April 10, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    Are you suggesting Eric Garner was shot dead for no other reason han he was selling individual cigarettes against local ordinance? Are we sure there was nothing more to that event?

    Also, you don’t get imprisoned for back child support. You might pull some weekends in county, especially if you’re a frequent flyer offender, but no prison. You usually have to make some agreement as to how you are going to pay it, fine maybe, probation maybe, probation violation if already on probation, but you don’t go to prison for child support delinquency only in any state where I’m familiar with the laws.

    —-

    Tangentially OT: In NC, a farm or any other domestic animal can sue a human for, um, kid support. Imagine my shock.

      tom swift in reply to Henry Hawkins. | April 10, 2015 at 4:03 pm

      Are you suggesting Eric Garner was shot dead

      Garner died in the “chokehold” case.

      “Are you suggesting Eric Garner was shot dead for no other reason han he was selling individual cigarettes against local ordinance”

      He wasn’t shot. He was accidently killed while resisting arrest. When you empower officers to arrest someone for avoiding cigarette taxes, you also empower them to use force on someone resisting that arrest.

    Ragspierre in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | April 10, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    Mouse, I love you, but you really need to stop digging.

    Dead-beat parents (and I’ve seen both sexes) face contempt of court when then stiff their kids respecting child support. The legislatures of EVERY state in the union follow the same pattern. Child support is aggressively pursued PARTLY to keep welfare roles in check. Child support in most states can be withheld from an employee’s paycheck, even in Texas where no other class of creditor (except the government) can get to a wage-earner’s check under our Constitution. Child support is one of the few unsecured debts you cannot bankrupt around.

    That has NOTHING to do with partisanship. It is a value that is universal in our society. We want parents to be responsible for their kids. And we want kids off welfare roles.

    A few hours or weekend in the Iron Bar hotel can have a sobering effect on scofflaws.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | April 10, 2015 at 3:51 pm

      Well, he has a point. If the Big Bang had never happened, Scott would still be alive today. And if an employee at the plant where Slager’s ammunition was made had slipped some duds into the production stream and Slager had ended up with them, Scott would still be alive today.

      I think any trial attorneys in the audience ought to take note of this line of thinking.

healthguyfsu | April 10, 2015 at 2:08 pm

I find it interesting that there’s so much agreement on the side of guilt for the officer that the MSM is now resorting to releasing more footage that drums up support for the officer to keep that cash cow lactating.

No controversy = no ratings. Our society is one big social experiment harvested for profit.

Watching the video again, it looks as though Slager is holding the taser on Scott, and Scott possibly slaps it out of Slager’s hand, causing it to fall to the ground. Slager immediately draws and fires at the fleeing Scott.

I’m going to postulate that the slap is the origin of Slager’s claim that “he got my taser”, and in his mind was enough to justify, on paper anyway, his use of deadly force. At least he could claim justification on his police report.

However, a picture is worth a thousand words and it’s pretty clear that Slager just wanted an excuse to execute this guy.

    Murphy in reply to BrokeGopher. | April 10, 2015 at 4:31 pm

    “Slager just wanted an excuse to execute this guy”

    and certain elements here just want an excuse to cheer on a killer cop

    healthguyfsu in reply to BrokeGopher. | April 10, 2015 at 5:50 pm

    The video-grabbing eyewitness has already publicly stated that there was more to the fight and struggle than what was captured on video. You can hear some of it on audio in the dashcam footage.

Even if Slager had the legal right to shoot a fleeing suspect, moving the Taser to conform to a story shows consciousness of guilt.

    healthguyfsu in reply to randian. | April 10, 2015 at 6:04 pm

    Not necessarily…probably, but not necessarily.

    Consciousness of the current societal whims on law enforcement, yes definitely.

    Whether that extends to guilt in his mind or not…dunno and impossible to predict. Regardless, it looks really bad from everyone else’s perspective but his own.

I’m very disappointed to see so many so-called “conservatives” ready to lynch this cop before all the evidence has been released and considered.

Remember it took a while for all the evidence about Zimmerman to come out. It took a while for all the evidence about Wilson to come out.

For the third time in the last three years the very same BGI personalities are manipulating people and media coverage to crucify a non-black man just because he shot a black man, and it looks like the majority of commenters here are eager to go along.

    Ragspierre in reply to mariner. | April 10, 2015 at 5:20 pm

    You’re being WAY too free with “lynching” and “crucifying” language, and “just because he shot a black man” crap.

    For most all of us here, the race of the dead guy is of no significance whatsoever. The race of the LEO…? Likewise.

    And, for me personally, I’m not going to view this killing through the filter of any other event.

    The LEO appears dirty to me. I’ve seen nothing to indicate otherwise, and his own department and prosecutors seem to agree.

    But nobody is denying him due process. I insist on it, matter of fact.

    healthguyfsu in reply to mariner. | April 10, 2015 at 6:01 pm

    Actually, it didn’t take a while. The cops had all the evidence right away and chose not to charge Zimmerman (and they were right about it).

    It trickled out slowly because the media was playing a game with society again for $$$$$$$.

    BrokeGopher in reply to mariner. | April 10, 2015 at 6:28 pm

    I can’t imagine what more there could be to this story that justifies what we see in the video. Maybe if Scott had an invisible machine gun and was about to massacre a bunch of orphans just out of frame. Any previous tussle is irrelevant if he was unarmed and fleeing.

Midwest Rhino | April 10, 2015 at 5:15 pm

Here is what Andrew Branca had on the shooting of a hypothetical fleeing Brown. He uses a lot of big words and stuff, which is totally cool. 🙂

But as I said above, it seems (on my casual reading) there can be a situation (in some states?) where it would be “lawful” (justifiable?) to shoot a dangerous fleeing unarmed felon, but if I read it right the situation for that is rather narrow. I don’t see how Scott qualified for that, despite the fight he had with the officer that maybe qualified him as “violent” to some degree, but not that degree. (I think the Kitty libertytreehouse link above, said that justified shooting the fleeing Scott)

https://legalinsurrection.com/2014/08/did-mo-law-allow-for-deadly-force-arrest-of-mike-brown/

You guys, it was a bad shoot. Just because you’re happy another “black thug” (lol, they’re all “thugs” aren’t they!) got removed from the planet; and just because you reflexively worship uniforms and would apparently be happier living in a fascist police state where no-one dares question the right of armed agents of the State to conduct extra-judicial summary executions; doesn’t make this a “good shoot”.

Despite all your attempts to blame and demonize the victim and find any excuse on God’s green earth for forgiving your heroic white cop, the fact is that there’s only one bad guy here: the 30-year-old cop who emptied his weapon into the back of a fleeing, unarmed 50-year-old man who was no threat to public safety.

    Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | April 11, 2015 at 8:07 am

    OK, crazy person, who are you and what have you done with Amy?

      Some of the comments here really freak me out, Rags. I really didn’t think that there’d be all these brownshirts crawling out of the woodwork to defend the cop and blame the murder victim for his own death. Not in this case.

        amwick in reply to Amy in FL. | April 11, 2015 at 8:58 am

        The whole fleeing felon thing that Mouse mentioned “Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others” well this seems (to me) to all hinge on whether Slager believed that Scott had taken his tazer and ran off with it.. (which is when he opened fire). Another confusing incident that revolves around the officer’s perception. How can you truly judge someone’s perception?

          There is no evidence whatsoever that Scott presented a danger to the general public. None.

          Midwest Rhino in reply to amwick. | April 11, 2015 at 10:44 am

          I doubt Scott running off with the Tazer qualifies him for being shot. Even without a Tazer, he could have run home and gotten a gun anyway.

          We don’t have all the evidence, but there is nothing indicating a “good shoot”. The most conclusive “evidence” the public has is that they charged him with murder. The video leaves very little room for anything else, as I see it, judging from “facts” gathered from the news and blogs.

          Geraldo was making the case for manslaughter, something about heat of the moment. I have no idea on that. If they really did fight (“tussle”) for 1:45 minutes, that’s a long time. At this point I trust they made the correct charge, but have some concern public pressure can enter the process.

          They made the right charge at first with Zimmerman till politics intervened. They made the right call with Wilson but his future is still reshaped, and he had to go in hiding. In old TV shows Wilson is a hero, celebrated in his community. He gave the bad guy every chance. Those in “minority communities” don’t live in that world, and it’s made worse by activist Holder and his agent Sharpton.

          Ragspierre in reply to amwick. | April 11, 2015 at 10:45 am

          Well, THAT is interesting. Actually, juries don’t attempt to divine someone’s perceptions, mostly because no evidence will ever come before them of what a “perception” was at any moment in time.

          A witness may testify as to what they were thinking or perceiving during an incident. What a jury does is weigh the credibility of that testimony, and we all know there is a HUGE number of influences that shape what someone SAYS about what they THOUGHT or SAW. It could all be self-serving lies, and we all know that.

          So juries don’t try to know perceptions. They weigh testimony. And, generally, they do a very good job.

          BrokeGopher in reply to amwick. | April 11, 2015 at 12:06 pm

          The fact that immediately after killing Scott, Slager goes back to where the taser was dropped, indicates that he knew Scott did NOT have the taser.

          amwick in reply to amwick. | April 11, 2015 at 2:06 pm

          Just playing devils advocate, but I think a man fleeing with a tazer is a danger to the public, and to other LEO. Not because the tazer is lethal, but because he could taze another cop and then get a gun. We know in hindsight that Scott didn’t actually have it when he was shot, but the issue is what the LEO thought. Slager made a mistake, a deadly one. Two seconds in the video could confirm that, 2 seconds hopefully someone can look at very closely. I thought the tazer dropped in between Scott and Slager, until I saw something else flying behind Slager. I have to wonder at what point Slager realized that the tazer was left behind.

          randian in reply to amwick. | April 11, 2015 at 2:11 pm

          Sure, Slager could claim he thought the guy was a danger to the public. The problem is if I’m on the jury, I’m asking “if you thought what you did was righteous why did you try to cover it up by moving the Taser?”

        Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | April 11, 2015 at 9:25 am

        Well, there ARE some extremes here, fer shore.

        Maybe someone here hold the view that it’s hard to tell who won the Cold War, but that’s just loopy, IMNHO.

        Or that this incident has jack-diddly to do with “militarized” policing. Any more support for that BS than saying this was “ray-ciss”?

        But I also think that some of the commenters here are merely counseling the suspension of judgment, which is not being a Brownshirt or anything of the kind. I don’t happen to agree in this case that there’s MUCH open question here, but I do allow how it MAY be. I’m not about to deny the LEO his day in court, but it looks very dark.

Also, I think Popehat (Ken White) makes an interesting and provocative point in this blog post: If we believe in the Broken Windows Theory of law enforcement (which is the theory behind coming down so hard on citizens like Garner and Scott), we should be applying the same “zero tolerance” approach to police over-reach and misconduct as well.

If tolerating broken windows leads to more broken windows and escalating crime, what impact does tolerating police misconduct have?

Maybe it’s time to stop tolerating and excusing police excesses, starting with the small ones, to try to prevent more big ones like this. I mean, if the Broken Windows theory is sound. If you don’t think it’s sound, then obviously we have to stop applying it to the Garners and Scotts of the world too.

    Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | April 11, 2015 at 9:17 am

    Well…

    1. I don’t think enforcing tax laws is really any kind of application of “broken windows” so much as it is clawing for more revenue.

    2. I don’t think that Garner or Scott were victims of police “coming down too hard”. In both cases, THEIR conduct brought about an escalation that didn’t need to happen. Garner had been through the drill repeatedly, and it was no big deal. Scott apparently had, too. Note that I’m NOT saying that Scott “got what he deserved”. I am saying that if any LEO in the circumstance brought him down with a night stick, there’d be no issue here.

    3. A murder charge is not in the ambit of “approbation”. It’s hard to imagine a more clear example of showing less “tolerating and excusing [a] police excess”.

    4. Enforcing a bench warrant for a dead-beat parent is not “broken windows” either. It is how a family law court gets the offender in to be heard, to see if there is some good explanation for their conduct. Sometimes there is, but often there isn’t. Courts don’t come to this without a lot of due process, at least in my jurisdiction. As I noted (above), this is a process that is universal across the U.S., and is intended in large part to keep welfare roles down.

    5. I agree that the police…all emergency responders…have to be carefully watched and themselves policed. But the Garner and Scott incidents are NOT examples of a lack of that. In Garner, there was a grand jury and there was a public inquisition that everybody involved was put through. The pols involved should…and may yet…pay the price for their poor use of the police. But the police in that case were not really at fault, IMNHO.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Amy in FL. | April 12, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    Broken Windows is sound, and it’s been working in North Charleston, South Carolina.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/us/south-carolina-police-shooting-seen-as-crime-fighting-gone-awry.html?_r=0

    The aggressive tactics by North Charleston’s mostly white police force, including frequent stops of drivers and pedestrians for minor violations . and an increased police presence in high-crime, mostly black areas, have led to a decrease in violent crime.

    And yes, of course, it works when it comes to police misconduct as well.

    Had a “broken windows” philopsohy been applied to the previous accusation of unwarranted use of a taser against Michael Slager, this death probably would not have happened.

    Instead Michael Slager learned it is possible to cover things up.

    They got a new police choef two years ago, who is very decent, but apparently he trusted his subordinates too much.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend