home

Murder Charges Filed Against S.C. Police Officer

By Jeralyn, Section Misconduct
Posted on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:46:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A South Carolina police officer has been charged with murder in the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man. The shooting was captured on video. The man was running away and the officer fired 8 shots, striking him in the back.

The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled.

...“When you’re wrong, you’re wrong,” Mayor Keith Summey said during the news conference. “And if you make a bad decision, don’t care if you’re behind the shield or just a citizen on the street, you have to live by that decision.”

[More...]

The encounter apparently began with the officer stopping Walter Scott for a defective tail light on the Mercedes he was driving. There was a passenger in the car.

Apparently, Scott ran from the car and scene, the cop chased him, "deployed" his stun gun, which may have malfunctioned or may have struck Scott, then there was a scuffle and the cop claims Scott took his stun gun. Scott was fleeing and the cop shot him.

< FL Judge Strikes Allegations Against Dershowitz and Prince Andrew | DEA Secretly Tracked Billions of Phone Records For Decades >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Murder Charges Filed Against S.C. Police Officer | 204 comments (204 topical)
    I'm wondering whether (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by scribe on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 05:21:12 AM EST
    he was hanging out with the folks involved in this, or whether officers in his department trained on the running black man target.

    Wouldn't be the first time.

    But, this is what you get in a world where, in the words of a small paper the other day "citizens get to carry smartphones and police get to carry guns".

    I am wondering why anyone sentient (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 06:02:02 AM EST
    would run away from a law enforcement officer who stopped him or her for an vehicle code equipment violation.   And, yes, it is tragic that the officer fatally shot this man in the back.

    Parent
    Perhaps they felt their life (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 06:19:53 AM EST
    Was in danger.

    Thanks for showing such empathy for the deceased.

    Parent

    Excerpt from NYT: (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 06:38:22 AM EST
    Mr. Scott's brother, Anthony, said he believed Mr. Scott had fled from the police on Saturday because he owed child support.
    "He has four children; he doesn't have some type of big violent past or arrest record," said Chris Stewart, a lawyer for Mr. Scott's family. "He had a job; he was engaged. He had back child support and didn't want to go to jail for back child support."  [Emphasis added.]


    Parent
    Since you and I weren't there (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 06:47:45 AM EST
    we don't know the exact reason he felt compelled to flee, despite what his brother said, but that you feel compelled to answer your own rhetorical makes your lack of empathy even more disturbing, if that's possible.

    Parent
    Not a smart move (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 07:42:19 AM EST
    OTOH, absent some appearance of a threat to the officer or others, also irrelevant to the issue.

    Parent
    and yet (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by CST on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:34:10 AM EST
    his life was in danger.

    Parent
    Don't mnid oculus (none / 0) (#81)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    she's the one who said said Tamir Rice was "big for his age" (another potential capital crime).  

    Parent
    Why is acting like this necessary? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:34:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Is this the first time you've noticed it? (none / 0) (#125)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 12:23:57 AM EST


    Parent
    No :) (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 08:01:44 AM EST


    Parent
    Did I? (3.00 / 2) (#110)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 07:48:51 PM EST


    Parent
    And the only one (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 03:25:49 PM EST
    (As far as I know), who has actually prosecuted police officers.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 03:39:00 PM EST
    and the SC cop and the one who shot Tamir Rice once arrested an actual criminal..

    Parent
    So what? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by sj on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 06:11:26 PM EST
    jondee is still right.

    But then again, who oculus did or did not prosecute is only relevant in explaining her world view. With that in mind, I suspect that you have revealed a little bit more than you intended. You both love the punishment side of the legal world.

    Parent

    Not so. (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 07:49:28 PM EST


    Parent
    His brother repeated this on CNN (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:40:03 PM EST
    Tonight.  He said that he had discussed with his brother the child support arrears problem and his brother told him he would run before he allowed himself to be arrested for back child support.

    I can't say that that makes it okay for any police officer to shoot someone though, not ever.

    Parent

    According to the NYT, Mr. Scott had more than once (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:48:38 PM EST
    in the past failed to appear in court.  He would surely have been arrested, not for the equipment violation but for any outstanding warrant. Very strange.  NYT also stated per the brother that Mr. Scott had recently got a job and bought a car.


    Parent
    People are strange (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:19:36 PM EST
    One size doesn't fit all.  It isn't how you or I would have chosen to deal with the issue, but it should not have had the ability to get him shot...shot in the back, killed, and then an officer just make up what happened.

    The other officer on the scene later seemed to lack any natural curiosity also.  He just seemed immediately accepting of everything and not interested in the health or well being of the wounded man either.  It's really creepy, just a very disturbing video.

    And the gentleman who recorded the video became concerned about how the police were responding to him at the police station once he convinced them that a video existed and he immediately decided to get himself a lawyer.  It's just disturbing how much unchecked power law enforcement has sometimes.

    Parent

    Really... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:54:57 AM EST
    ...nothing pops in your head as to why someone might run from the police, even though it happens all the time ?

    Parent
    The news report said he owed back support (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 07:47:51 AM EST
    In Alabama if you owe and the other parent files the appropriate paperwork you are immediately arrested.  The news report speculates he feared being arrested for back child support.

    Parent
    That just great. (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 01:18:34 PM EST
    Let's see the mother of his four sons try to collect that child support now. I agree with Yman. Judging by that video, and absent an imminent mortal threat to the detaining officer or others in the vicinity, there was absolutely no valid reason for that officer to just shoot the guy in the back like that as he fled.

    The deceased had effectively abandoned his car and passenger when he took off in what I'll assume was a panic, and the law would've likely caught up with him eventually over the monies owed to his kids -- at the very least, when he attempted to renew his car registration and / or driver's license.

    But now, as yet another African-American is sent by the authorities to his eternal rest well before his natural due date, the law will instead have to turn its attention to this Harry Callahan wannabee and the municipality that hired him.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Everyone I know owns a gun (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:39:52 AM EST
    i have never know anyone to get shot.  Let alone killed.   The guy did not have a gun.  This had nothing to do with gun ownership.

    Exactly... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:53:03 AM EST
    ...what is the suggestion to disarm the police ?  I mean seriously.

    And IMO, he shot the guy because he didn't want him getting away.  What is really shocking is the man having the wits to realize he F'ed up and planting evidence right after killing a human being.

    Not the actions of someone afraid of anything but getting caught.

    Parent

    Plus (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:01:17 AM EST
    how could he not see the guy shooting video.  It's not like he seemed to be trying to be subtle.  He walked right up to it.

    Parent
    "I mean seriously" (none / 0) (#31)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:30:14 AM EST
    "In the United States, it seems obvious that police officers carry guns and are allowed to use them. In other places, however, this would be considered a provocation and a violation of law. In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol."

    Parent
    So what is your point (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:35:15 AM EST
    take all the guns?  Good luck with that.  No sane person would disarm the police with the number of guns in this country unlike Britain etc etc

    Parent
    So your argument is (none / 0) (#35)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:39:58 AM EST
    we have too many precision murder weapons, and deaths at the hands of those weapons, in our society, so we have to make sure police also have lots of precision murder weapons. That doesn't make sense. A rational person would say we should try to reduce the overall number of precision murder weapons, not increase.

    Parent
    In fantasy land that sound great (2.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:41:40 AM EST
    in reality it's the dumbest thing I've heard today.  Including Yugoslavia.

    Parent
    The reality is (none / 0) (#42)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:44:18 AM EST
    that countries with fewer guns have fewer violent crimes and deaths. That is an indisputable fact to those of us who do not live in American exceptionalism fantasy land.

    Parent
    Wow really (2.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:47:18 AM EST
    i did not know that.  We are so lucky to have you to tell us these thing.
    K.  What's you first step to a gun free america?

    Parent
    Perhaps avoiding your sarcasm (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 02:20:06 PM EST
    It is a valid point.

    You used to be more reasonable....

    Parent

    Or not (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 02:23:28 PM EST


    Parent
    I could say countries with no or few (1.00 / 4) (#54)
    by NycNate on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 11:08:25 AM EST
    {fill in the blank} have little crime.  Guns.  Drugs.  Blacks.  Hispanics.  Poor People.  

    Parent
    I take it you've never been to London (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CST on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 11:12:24 AM EST
    Although you're right about one thing - they don't have many guns.

    Parent
    In Britain the rate of violent crimes such (none / 0) (#100)
    by scribe on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 06:21:38 PM EST
    as home invasions, assaults, [armed] robberies and the like approximately doubled after the British government confiscated all legally-owned privately-owned handguns.  (One of Tony Blair's first moves.)

    Seems the criminals (a) didn't get the memo, (b) didn't obey it on the odd chance they got it, and (c) know the potential victims are unarmed and therefore harmless while (d) the criminals are not unarmed.

    Parent

    From one last year (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 06:36:20 PM EST
    ...To two this year.  It doubled.

    From what to what?

    If you know.

    Unless you are saying that the entire population of the UK now quakes in fear, because the government confiscated all (both) of the "legal" handguns then this is classic smoke substituting for mirrors.

    Friends of mine did a photo shoot in London, used a real pistol as a prop.  Said pistol had to be accompanied by a government licensed armorer to travel to the shoot and he had to stay while it was used, even though it was not loaded and was not fired.  This was before Blair took office.  How many privately owned legal handguns would you think there were in the UK?  Ten?  Fifteen?

    How many were "confiscated?"

    Parent

    More NRA BS (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:13:01 PM EST
    Violent crime has been going down since 1995, two years before the 1997 firearms Act was passed.

    Parent
    Not really correct. It was not Tony Blair's... (none / 0) (#170)
    by gbrbsb on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 09:58:32 PM EST
    ... government but John Major's that enacted The Firearms (Ammendement) Act 1997 effectively banning private ownership of handguns (bar small calibre 22mm) as a result of the "Cullen Report" on the 1996 Dunblane school massacre. Tony Blair's government merely extended the ban later that year on gaining power enacting The Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which included all small calibre 22mm as well as a result of pressure from the "Snowdrop Petition" and massive popular support for the ban.

    OTOH, I'm not sure one can say the 160,000 plus handguns handed in under the amnesty were "confiscated" since owners, (controversially even gun shops and related businesses), were compensated for them, and their being "legally owned" seems a bit of a moot point as new laws were removing that legality from a set date after which they would be illegally owned.

    In respect of crimes "approximately doubling" for two years after the ban I don't know enough, but what at first read appears to be a thorough report by the US Library of Congress - Law "Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Great Britain" notes, "Newspapers reported that in the two years after the ban on handguns... ...the number of crimes in which handguns were carried increased by 40%" with no statistics to support it. But even were it correct, the percentage of crimes involving guns in the UK (less than 0.5% iirc) is insignificant compared with the US, and since an overwhelming majority of Brits want it to stay that way there is little, if any, polemic here over our extremely restrictive gun laws, and unlikely there will be any time soon since from my understanding even the paltry amount of gun crime has been steadily falling for at least the last decade.    

    Parent

    But you might be black (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 11:13:09 AM EST
    right?

    Parent
    Am I premature in predicting (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 12:19:08 PM EST
    that our new friend Nate is not long for this community?

    Parent
    one can only (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by CST on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 12:25:33 PM EST
    hope

    Parent
    One can only hope (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 03:52:01 PM EST
    You are correct and time is really, really short.

    Parent
    Taking just one of the caterogies (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 02:18:57 PM EST
    you rattle off, you say

    Countries will no or few Hispanics have little crime.

    Really?   Latino communities are among the most safe.  El Paso, Texas is well over 70% Latino.  It regularly is listed as one of the safest cities.   One recent year, it had only 5 murders for the whole year at the beginning of December, and two of those was a murder suicide of an elderly couple, and one was a jealous suitor who ran over his rival with his truck outside a bar.

     

    Parent

    "Countries with no or few..." (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 02:20:44 PM EST


    Parent
    What the F ? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 02:50:26 PM EST
    I could say countries with no or few {fill in the blank} have little crime.  Guns.  Drugs.  Blacks.  Hispanics.  Poor People.

    Yeah, exactly how many countries have few guns, drugs, black people, Hispanics, and poor people ?  I am gonna say that is exactly zero, maybe Antarctica but that is a continent.

    I got it, the Vatican.  Great point, spot on.

    Parent

    Monaco, maybe? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 04:11:31 PM EST
    Luxemburg?

    Parent
    But Do They Party in Luxembourg ? (none / 0) (#96)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 04:54:01 PM EST
    According to this, they do:
    Irish adults drink more alcohol per capita than any other Europeans with the exception of those in Luxembourg and Hungary.

    And this:

    ...In particular, lifetime prevalence of cannabis use increased from 9.3 % in 1983 to 38.9 % in 1999 among 16- to 20-year-olds. Lifetime prevalence rates for ecstasy increased from 1.2 % in 1992 to 5.2 % in 1999 in the same age group.

    Monaco might be number two of 195.

    Parent

    Ah, Luxembourg! (none / 0) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 06:54:15 PM EST
    That country actually became a pretty popular European gateway for a time in the 1990s, thanks to Icelandair, which had made Luxembourg (city) its hub on the continent.

    Icelandair became the preferred choice of many American travelers headed to Europe because its fares were usually much less expensive than what was then being offered by the other major airlines plying the skies between the U.S. and Europe, such as TWA, Pan Am, Sabena and Swissair.

    And unlike those four particular air carriers, Icelandair's still around -- and its fares are still generally cheaper than those of its competitors. Alas, though, they no longer fly to Luxembourg.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    (Sigh!) Yes, you could say that. (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 04:19:39 PM EST
    NycNate: "I could say countries with no or few {fill in the blank} have little crime.  Guns.  Drugs.  Blacks.  Hispanics.  Poor People."

    And by saying that, you'd also prove yourself to be ignorant and uninformed.

    For example, Russia has few if any citizens of African or Hispanic descent, and its poverty rate is actually about 25% below our own.

    (Although admittedly, the Russian poverty rate is presently spiking sharply, due to the rigorous economic sanctions which have been imposed by the U.S. and the West.)

    But Russia's overall crime rate is nevertheless quite high and further, despite having gun laws that on paper are among the toughest in the world, its murder rate is about 10% higher than the same for Louisiana, the state which ranks at the very bottom in our country in that particular category.

    And while Russia does have lots of cheap vodka and heroin readily available for public consumption, and a populace whose collective penchant for public intoxication was one of the most visually astonishing of any country I've ever visited, I'd say that the primary reason for its high crime rate probably has more to do with the entrenched and corrupt Russian oligarchy presently holding sway in Moscow, than any problems with alcohol.

    (Extensive substance abuse in a state or region is generally a telltale symptom of real or impending socio-economic decay. It's hardly likely to be the primary cause of that decay, although its established presence within the population certainly doesn't help matters any.)

    With that aforementioned oligarchy providing precious little opportunity for citizens to get ahead legally -- unless, of course, one is wired directly into the prevailing corrupted system through professional necessity and / or personal acquaintances -- it's really no surprise that:

    • Russians have built a thriving black market economy;

    • This underground economy has over the years come to be dominated by criminal syndicates and corrupt public officials, who are sometimes one and the same; and

    • These racketeers strive to maintain their own strong and extensive ties with the ruling elite in Moscow.

    Clearly, a population's relative homogeneity has little or nothing to do with its host country's propensity for fostering economic well-being and security amongst its people.

    So personally, were you to say to me what you wrote above, I'd have to retort that you really need to access information from a wider diversity of source than you apparently are doing at present, so that you might perhaps garner some decent and reliable personal perspective regarding what's really going on in the world around you.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Since We don't Live... (none / 0) (#64)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 01:17:07 PM EST
    ..."In other places", you argument makes no sense.

    Cops from those countries would not last a day in Houston, where I live.  That is the reality of where we are at, here in the US.  So many guns that disarming the police would result in anarchy, and not the good kind.

    But this is about a cop who shot someone, not gun policy on the other side of the planet.

    Parent

    I know a lot of people who have been shot (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 07:01:29 PM EST
    One, as I explained elsewhere, by a deputy for fleeing a suspended license citation.

    One of the guys I hired a few weeks out of prison fifteen years ago and who now owns my old company, got shot before I met him.  He was exchanging gunfire across a street with a rival drug dealing thug who was a better shot.

    In 1972 I was on the stage of the Nassau Coliseum where the band I roadied for was about to open a show for the Grateful Dead.  Bill Graham came onstage and personally informed me and the rest of the band that the bass player's mother, father and brother had all been murdered the night before.  (Shotgun)

    My friend's 14 year old sister found her grandfather's pistol in a closet, and used it to kill herself.

    Another friend made a picnic lunch, ate it on a hillside, then shot himself.

    Around 1971 a woman I knew was murdered, then decapitated in a lurid crime in Santa Cruz.

    A friend of mine was the road manager for Van Morrison, a great gig that took him all over the world, first class.  Fueled by coke and alcohol, he put a .357 size non-fatal hole in his girlfriend, then did a couple of years of hard time.  (Lost the Morrison gig, ended up with the Doobie Brothers!)

    I was an Army medic in the '60s, but I'm not counting people I knew who had Purple Hearts.

    I could probably dredge up a few more, but you get the picture.  I know/knew lots of people who have been shot.  If you don't know anyone who has been shot, you have lived a blessed and very protected life.

    Parent

    I have been blessed and somewhat protected (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 07:25:54 PM EST
    on the other hand I grew up with guns.  Everyone I know owns multiple guns.  Well, not everyone.  But you know what I mean.  People around here are raised to know how to use them.  And how not to.  You never hear about a kid around here "finding" gun and hurting themselves or someone else.  That's Is because they are raised to respect them.  And know to not touch them even if they find them.
    Actually when I was small an uncle was hunting, set his gun down to cross a fence and a twig or something caught the trigger when he picked it up and he shot himself.  
    And once when I lived in NY and worked at National Video on the west end of 42nd street.  A friend and I witnessed a shooting from the office window.  Road rage or something.  Dude pulled up behind someone at a stoplight got out if his car walked up and shot the a guy in a car.  Like, emptied the gun into him while we just stood out with our mouths hanging open.
    That's the extent of my experience  with gun injuries.

    And I lived in major cities all my life.  NY, LA, places like that.
    Bad neighborhoods in NY too.

    Parent

    The people I know (none / 0) (#112)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 07:56:25 PM EST
    ...who shot themselves, knew how to use the weapon, obviously.  Who knows why the teenage girl shot herself?  She would not have done it if a weapon had not been so easily available, that is for certain, because she did not personally own a firearm.

    I hate guns, won't own one, don't care if you do or don't, just do not enter my house with one.  I hang out in places where I'm the only white guy and the only person without a criminal record.  Maybe even the only one not packing.  If anyone wants to shoot me, I'm easy to find and I won't be armed, but so far no one has.

    Last time I pulled a trigger, it was 1967, and it was an Army M-14.  It wasn't anything I wanted to do, but the Army required it of me.

    Parent

    The last time for me was about 13 or 14 (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:05:04 PM EST
    probably.  I never wanted to go hunting with the men.  Something boys are supposed to do around here.  It just never sounded like something I would be into.  So one of my two older brothers decided he was going to take charge of the situation.  He showed me how to use whatever gun he gave me and made me go hunting with them.
    It was a disaster.  When I wasn't bitching about bugs or being hot or tired or thirsty or hungry I was talking really loud about the cute squirrels or OH LOOK a giant stick insect!
    They never asked me to go again.

    Parent
    Just remembered one other (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:31:44 PM EST
    my favorite uncle took his own life with a gun about 10 years ago.  But as sad as it was it was ok with me.  His family, mostly very religious (he was not particularly) took it very hard but me not so much.
     His wife, my aunt, who he had been married to fro 62 years had died peacefully while sitting on the sofa reading a book.   That's how they found her.  He tried to live without her.  He made it for almost two years but I think he just very calmly and rationally decided he didn't want to anymore.  He knew exactly how and where to shoot himself to inflict as little trauma as possibly on whoever found him. My cousin said there was almost no blood. He has severed the spinal column just at th base of his skull which stopped his heart almost instantly.  
    He was good man and a great uncle.  I respect his decision.  I can see myself making the same one someday.

    Parent
    But probably not (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:33:11 PM EST
    with a gun.

    Parent
    "nothing to do with gun ownership." (none / 0) (#34)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:36:35 AM EST
    The guy was killed with a gun! It has everything to do with the prevalence of guns in American society - if the cop hadn't had a gun, the guy wouldn't be dead right now.

    Just look at Scott's comment - he can't even fathom the idea that we would disarm cops, yet in several developed countries (by many measures, more developed than the U.S.) cops don't carry precision murder weapons. And those countries all have lower rates of violent crime, lower deaths at the hands of police, and (obviously) far fewer gun deaths.

    American's obsession with murder weapons is a symptom of a deeper sickness within our society, imo.

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:39:58 AM EST
    tell you what.  We'll deputize you and send you out to keep the peace unarmed.

    Parent
    That'd be a death sentence (2.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:41:58 AM EST
    with hotheads like you out there, for whom owning murder weapons is an integral part of your identity and self worth. The first step would be to make sure people like you can't own murder weapons.

    Parent
    If you had bothered to read (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 12:46:15 PM EST
    the entire thread, especially CaptHowdy's comment #50, you would know that he does not own a gun.
    You owe him an apology.

    Parent
    Thanks but meh... (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 01:10:10 PM EST
    to be fair to whozit that comment cam after the one you responded to.  That said, I could have made that point earlier but I did not feel the need.

    Parent
    I was trying to figure out (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 01:36:58 PM EST
    when you went from Men's Warehouse exploding dude to gun toting Neanderthal :P

    Parent
    I think that (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 01:57:15 PM EST
    most of us already knew that you didn't own a gun.   ;-)

    Parent
    In the interest of full disclosure (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 06:05:26 PM EST
    I now feel I need to admit that while I wouldn't say I own it there is in fact a gun in my house.  Someplace.  A rather dim but well meaning relative sort of insisted I take it when I moved in here "just in case"
    Wow! A rusty old shotgun!  Just what I wanted!
    I have never fired it and would not swear it even works.  It looks pretty dicey like if you fired it it might be as dangerous for you as whatever you are pointing it at.
    But it case I am threatened by a particularly vicious groundhog or whatever I will be protected.  Although I might be more likely to use it as a club.

    Parent
    Well, if you want to borrow (none / 0) (#102)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 06:28:22 PM EST
    One of ours, they all work.   ;-)
    No, I wouldn't even try to fire a rusty shotgun.  Unless you know how to clean it up, which I kind of doubt.
    And if you are nervous about guns at all, you shouldn't be using one, anyway.  Nor should you attempt to use one unless someone who knows what they're doing shows you how, and takes you out to practice a bit.  
    Just because you live in Arkansas, though, Howdy, doesn't mean you have to be able to use a firearm.  Plenty of people don't.

    Parent
    Ha (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 06:39:10 PM EST
    i done even have any shells.  And would have no idea what to buy.

    Don't tell the groundhogs.

    Parent

    Let me know (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:43:34 AM EST
    when that's done.  K?

    Parent
    Won't happen (none / 0) (#43)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:45:43 AM EST
    till your ideological brethren - Scalia, Alito, Thomas - die off.

    Parent
    So Scott had a point (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:48:06 AM EST
    thank you.

    Parent
    Of course sometimes (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 10:47:30 PM EST
    the gun is a useful tool.

    Parent
    And sometimes (none / 0) (#129)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 07:01:14 AM EST
    it's a killer.

    Parent
    And in both cases (2.00 / 1) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 08:17:50 AM EST
    it is the user of the tool that is the culprit.

    How many die from car accidents each year?? Some by just plain old poor driving skills. Some by just accidents. Some by people drinking and driving.

    Shall we prohibit booze???

    Parent

    maybe, if, like most of the rest of (none / 0) (#133)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 08:39:51 AM EST
    The civilized world, we keep guns out of the hands of fools, we wouldn't have such a high % of "accidental" gun deaths as we do now.

    How many car wrecks, etc, are caused by toddlers?

    As for banning booze, well, that's been tried before.  Equating guns and alcohol, well, that just means you aren't thinking very clearly about the problem, as usual.

    Parent

    Are You There ? (none / 0) (#143)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 12:48:38 PM EST
    We prohibit the combination of alcohol, person, and vehicle, but you can drink and shot all you want.  We prohibit cars that are not equipped with safety items such as airbags, seat belts, and impact absorption design.  You can buy a gun without a safety.  We prohibit the age one can operate a vehicle, and while most state require you be a certain age to buy a gun, there are few state that prohibit gun use by age.

    If there was as little regulation on automobiles as guns, roads would not exist because no one would drive in a death traps on roads with drunken teenagers that have no speed limits.

    Parent

    Not in most states (none / 0) (#144)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 01:11:33 PM EST
    many states have a statute similar to:

    2011 Connecticut Code
     Title 53 Crimes
     Chapter 943 Offenses Against Public Peace and Safety
     Sec. 53-206d. Carrying a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug prohibited. Hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug or while impaired by the consumption of intoxicating liquor prohibited.

           Sec. 53-206d. Carrying a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug prohibited. Hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug or while impaired by the consumption of intoxicating liquor prohibited. (a)(1) No person shall carry a pistol, revolver, machine gun, shotgun, rifle or other firearm, which is loaded and from which a shot may be discharged, upon his person (A) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or (B) while the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person is ten-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight.

           (2) Any person who violates any provision of this subsection shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

           (b) (1) No person shall engage in hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or while impaired by the consumption of intoxicating liquor. A person shall be deemed under the influence when at the time of the alleged offense the person (A) is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or (B) has an elevated blood alcohol content. For the purposes of this subdivision, "elevated blood alcohol content" means (i) a ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person that is ten-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight, or (ii) if such person has been convicted of a violation of this subsection, a ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person that is seven-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight. A person shall be deemed impaired when at the time of the alleged offense the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person was more than seven-hundredths of one per cent of alcohol, by weight, but less than ten-hundredths of one per cent of alcohol, by weight.

           (2) Any person who violates any provision of this subsection shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

           (3) Enforcement officers of the Department of Environmental Protection are empowered to arrest for a violation of the provisions of this subsection.

    Parent

    As for age (none / 0) (#145)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 01:30:33 PM EST
     there is federal law:

    18 U.S.C.§ 922

    (b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver--  
     (1) any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age;  

       Most states also have age restrictions

     Link


    Parent

    The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? (none / 0) (#146)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 01:40:44 PM EST
    Forget it, he's rolling.

    Parent
    I should have alos cited (none / 0) (#147)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 01:56:13 PM EST
      18 U.S.C. 922 (x)

    (x)
     (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile--  
     (A) a handgun; or  

     (B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.  

     (2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess--  
     (A) a handgun; or  

     (B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.

    (note subsection (2) has some limited exceptions found in subsection (3))

    Parent

    et al (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 09:39:07 PM EST
    Reconstructionist... Somehow I think you missed the point.

    Mondriggian....And we have had to rescue the rest of the world two times.

    Scott...See Reconstructionist.

    Parent

    that comment was spam (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 10:51:08 AM EST
    and was deleted. There was a foreign spam link at the end of the comment. And Mr. Scott was not carrying a gun.

    Parent
    Please review comment # 54. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 07:33:43 PM EST


    Parent
    At 2:10, (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:41:59 AM EST
     the shooter appears to pick something up from the ground next to the victim.

       I can't tell for certain but it does not appear to be the object he dropped next to the body earlier.

     

    It's the taser I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:47:02 AM EST
    see above comments.  Originally the cop said he tried to take it.  And he may have but the cop also goes back to pick up whatever it was he dropped.

    Parent
    Look at 2:10 (none / 0) (#21)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:54:52 AM EST
     Much earlier in the video the shooter goes back to where the two were when the video started, picks up an object (the TASER?) and brings it back to where the black cop is now kneeling over the body and drops it (indeterminable whether the black cop saw him do it).

      Then later, at 2:10, by the body, the shooter picks up an object and either puts it in his pocket or on his belt.

       I can't be certain,  but I don't think it is the same object. (The cameraman has moved so the perspective has shifted but it looks to me as if the object he picks up at 2:10 is on the other side of the body from earlier dropped item)

     

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:59:39 AM EST
    i missed that.  I will look again.

    Parent
    Agreed. At the ~2:10 point he picks up an item (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 02:00:12 PM EST
    and makes a winding motion with his other hand around that item, which I would guess is him winding broken-off taser wires. Then he puts the tiem on his left side, which if he is right-handed, is likely the position of his taser holster.

    Parent
    I can't make it out. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 04:03:42 PM EST
      It still looks to me as if he picks up the second object some distance from where he dropped the first. Perhaps it rolled or "skipped" because his arm was swinging when he dropped it.

      Whether it's the same object or a different object (TASER or something else for that matter), the immediate question is why would he pick it up. Obviously, he is not supposed to disturb a crime scene before it is marked and photographed. Cops are not supposed to move ANYTHING even things that appear irrelevant to the investigation.

      On top of that, if it is the TASER, and he went to the trouble of retrieving it and planting it next to the body then why pick it up to prevent some other cop from finding it there? Wasn't that the whole point of dropping it in the first place?

       I'm delving into pure speculation even beyond not being sure what I am seeing at this point. Was he thinking in a calculated fashion,   worried  that the victim's prints would not be on the TASER (which actually could be the case even if the victim did handle it) and so decided to deliberately be seen by the second cop handling it to provide an explanation for the lack of prints? ("Oops, I was so caught up in the moment and not thinking clearly, sorry about that, I guess I might have accidentally of obscured any prints but my own.")

       Was he worried the black cop did see him drop the TASER by the body and would subsequently tell the investigators? ("Oh, yeah, I did drop it when I came back to the body. I guess my hands were shaking from the tension. I picked it up because I dropped it there well after I shot him. I guess it was a reaction, you know?)

       Just thinking out loud. I really have no idea.

       

    Parent

    Ya, it looks to me like the item (none / 0) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 04:21:45 PM EST
    he picked up is not in the same area as the item he tossed down. If it is the same item, he must have kicked it over to that location, or something.

    If it is the same item, it appears to me that he intentionally put the item near the victim and then thought better of it.

    Which does not bode well for his intentions.

    Parent

    The back-up officer appears in the video (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 07:40:27 PM EST
    approaching Mr. Scott's body almost at the same time as the initial officer puts something alongside Mr. Scott's body.

    Query:  does the video include the officer firing at Mr. Scott?  

    Parent

    It does. Did you not see it? (none / 0) (#124)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 12:23:02 AM EST


    Parent
    Need to look at a bigger screen w/ (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 12:54:13 AM EST
    the sound turned on.

    Parent
    Silly cell phone! :-) (none / 0) (#137)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 09:37:26 AM EST


    Parent
    Actually, the more I look at the vid (none / 0) (#95)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 04:50:57 PM EST
    the more I think the item was picked up from very near where it was thrown down.

    I can't think of any good justification for purposely putting an item near the body and then deciding to remove it a short time later.

    Parent

    I still can't tell (none / 0) (#139)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 10:00:41 AM EST
     The camera has clearly moved (It appears to me approximately 90° clockwise) between "the drop" and the "pick up."

      It's way too far for me to say much of anything about the object[s] other than small, dark and probably roughly cuboid.

       I imagine, it will be possible to digitally enhance the cell phone video and maybe that will give a clearer picture. The enhanced video might not be admissible in court though. Simply enlarging an image (with a corresponding loss of resolution) is one thing, but digital manipulation involves closer authentication issues.  

    Parent

    just thinking out loud (none / 0) (#185)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:14:42 AM EST
    I really have no idea.

    You can say that again --

    Parent

    The film is not fiction (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 02:09:39 PM EST
    When I viewed it, my mind & the rest of me had to keep reminding that this human being is running away with his back to someone, a policeman, who has taken dead aim and is shooting 8 times at the man's back, and he shot him dead.  It had an almost execution-like look ... it was light out, a fairly even straight path, no unusual nor obscuring weather nor other people nor unusual sounds ... nothing seen in the running human's hands, no turning by the man to charge the officer ....  

    'Watched a second time, & looked for something intimidating or anywhere near provocative from the about-to-be-killed man.  Reminded myself that this was a recording of a real happening, since the normalcy look of everything around seemed so jarringly at odds with the happening. Told myself that there must have been a hidden threat ... but then, I read about the man's background and saw only that he was in arrears on child support (bad but not a cause for killing, imo) ... and, after noticing the dropped article, part of my mind kept thinking about possible planting ... and on and on.

    Still, the image of the law enforcement officer (or anyone for that matter) taking a target shot stance and shooting as he did ... well, it would be hard to erase the image of that "summary judgment."

    Even before he was shot (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 04:13:13 PM EST
     he was clearly not running very fast. Not even for a middle aged guy. The cop appeared to give no thought to chasing him, just drew and fired.

     

    Parent

    Best and most appropriate (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 03:35:45 PM EST
    Sign of the Day:

    "Back Turned -- Don't Shoot"

    Some entreprenuer should get the (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 04:12:40 PM EST
    t-shirts with 'Don't Shoot' printed on the back printed up.

    Parent
    That would be classic. (none / 0) (#93)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 04:23:03 PM EST


    Parent
    What turned my stomach... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by desertswine on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 11:57:26 PM EST
    was that the cop seemed to have shot the man with such nonchalance, so to speak, like he was taking a sip of his coffee.

    Cover up (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 06:28:53 AM EST
    Police chief Eddie Driggers says:

    I have watched the video, and I was sickened by what I saw".

    I'll bet because the coverup you were engaged in just blew up in your face.

    The video couldn't have been anymore sickening than the autopsy showing that he had been shot in the back and that no CPR had been done on him.

    That's right, the ME would know if CPR had been done or not. Was he going to be part of the coverup as well???

    Start cleaning out your desk --

    What source supports your assertion (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 08:58:26 AM EST
    "the ME would know if CPR had bern done or not"?

    Parent
    CPR (none / 0) (#136)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 09:10:07 AM EST
    If you do CPR chest compressions right you will crack ribs.

    Parent
    I can't believe my ears, I can't believe my eyes (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 05:00:16 PM EST
    CNN has two individuals on commenting.  One of them is Don Lemon.  And he's saying people of color in certain communities have to act differently interacting with law enforcement right now in order to stay alive.  Then what is the incentive for law enforcement to deal with its abuse of power?  None if blacks are willing to be treated differently just to stay alive.  That's the status quo.

    Second, both commenters passive agressively blamed the victim because "he ran".  Law enforcement does not get to act inappropriate in response. I will not even entertain the discussion. Corruption in law enforcement exists, Serpico is a real person.  This discussion indicating that someone running away is at fault and somewhat deserving of the death they got is intolerable.  It will only breed corruption and we saw corruption go down in the killing of this man already.

    If we allow law enforcement to maintain this level of abuse, they will eventually be doing this to all of us.  That's the history of oppressive force getting away with lawlessness, they may not be hunting you today but that's only a temporary security.

    passenger (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 07:54:30 PM EST
    If you look at the dashcam video, there was a passenger in Scott's car. What happened to him???

    I don't know why the officer chased him in the first place. He wasn't going very far as the officer had his name, his license, his address, his car ... and his passenger.

    Apparently Mr. Scott told the officer he was unabl (none / 0) (#164)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 08:06:19 PM EST
    hand him the requested documents.

    Parent
    Just seems a bit like Yugoslavia to me. (1.83 / 6) (#13)
    by NycNate on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:00:53 AM EST
    All last year, people have been protesting, "what do we want, dead cops!  When do we want them? Now!"  Then two cops shot for nothing in Nyc and Ferguson. Others executed in Philly.

    On the surface, it seems like two gangs are fighting a low intensity insurgency war. For the life of me, I do not understand how a moving violation ends up this way. I've been arrested several times. I didn't want to go to jail either. But I complied. I didn't want some cop beating or shooting me.

    As for the White cops patrolling black neighbourhoods, they really have to ask themselves is it worth the risk to pull over a black person for a low level offense?  To me, it wouldn't be worth it.

    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:05:29 AM EST
    just like Yugoslavia.

    Parent
    This guy's too much... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:08:31 AM EST
    ya can hardly call it a war...more like a slaughter.  

    Over 1,000 civilians killed by police in 2014, only 126 officers killed and that includes traffic accidents.

    Not to mention the over 2 million souls in captivity as I type...if this is a war, it's the Nazis v. Poland.  We're the Poles.

    Parent

    More like (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:15:19 AM EST
    LINK

    Parent
    Fewer than 60 citizens killed by British police... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 10:01:42 AM EST
    ...since 1900.

    Think about that.

    Parent

    I tried (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 10:37:41 AM EST
    it hurts.  I assume everyone who counts here knows I neither own a gun or am in any way pro gun.

    Parent
    Of course, the gunny rabbits will say... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 10:59:10 AM EST
    ...well, those British police don't have to face the freely and fiercely armed criminals U.S. officers do. Which, in our ridiculously armed nation, has validity. Okay, they may not have been smart enough to say it, but I just did it for them. And it's a valid point in Ammosexual Nation. It just ignores, you know, the entire police CULTURE that has evolved, devolved, over time in response. In an absurd way the NRA could never comprehend their own self-created ironies.

    Parent
    The ironies never end it seems (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 11:07:02 AM EST
    NRA Annual Meeting: No Guns Allowed

    Parent
    Which is not unlike the yahoos (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 11:15:18 AM EST
    in Idaho or wherever who passed a law saying it was perfectly fine to carry a gun anywhere except the statehouse.

    Parent
    The Deputy who shot my (Black) friend (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:13:52 AM EST
    ...emptied his weapon, 14 shots according to the news article.  I counted six bullet holes in the driver's door, the front side windows were gone and the front tire was flat.  No telling where the other four or five rounds ended up, somewhere in the crowded neighborhood.

    The charge was failing to stop after being observed driving on a suspended license.  Since the officer knew he had a suspended license, it is clear the officer knew his identity.  Instead of going to his house later and arresting him, he shot my friend on the spot.

    Deputy is back on duty.  My friend is still messed up, a year and a half later.

    Should a cop empty his weapon in a crowded neighborhood over a minor, non-moving vehicle code violation?  Should you get shot for trying to avoid a TRAFFIC TICKET?

    You should befriend a poor Black person and hang out with him or her for a while.  It might change your perspective on law enforcement.  It sure changed mine.

    Parent

    Ruined my morning (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 07:50:07 AM EST
    What is " a kit behind the pawn shop" a reference to? One of the police officers mentioned it before the officer that shot the man dropped something on the ground near the body.

    I thought it was the taser (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 07:56:15 AM EST
    that was dropped.  Whatever it was you can see him go back to where the original altercation was and pick it up.  

    Thank god citizens are armed with cameras or this would never have been revealed for what it was.

    Parent

    My thinking too (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 07:59:44 AM EST
    I just wondered if they didn't have a better throw down but it wasn't easily accessible so he threw the stun gun down.  How inconvenient for all of us, that a stun gun is also an immediately available throw down.

    Parent
    He Ain't... (none / 0) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:46:50 AM EST
    ...been found guilty yet.

    I have no faith in prosecutors and juries when it comes to incidents with cops caught doing bad things on video.

    Parent

    The argument will (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 12:50:48 PM EST
    most likely be that the cop knew the victim reached for his taser, the cop realzid his taser was gone, the cop assume--in good faith--the victim had the taser, and then to protect the public shot the victim.

    It was just a mistake when the cop assume the victim had the taser.  The cop was just doing his job.

    This is far from over.

    Parent

    My Guess... (none / 0) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:57:49 AM EST
    ....that is cop code for an weapon used to plant on suspects.

    I am thinking back in the day these were acquired at pawn shops since they sell weapons of all kinds.

    Parent

    My guess is it is short for first aid kit. (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 01:54:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Correct (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 02:04:18 PM EST
    From the dispatch audio via WaPo.

    "Shots fired," Slager said into his radio moments after the shooting, according to the police dispatch audio, as Scott lay motionless on the ground. "Subject is down. He grabbed my Taser."

    Two minutes later, Slager called in again: "Need someone to come behind pawn shop with a kit. Gunshot wounds to chest, to the right thigh, not responsive."



    Parent
    Are gunshot wounds to the back (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 04:06:40 PM EST
    Considered the chest?  At least a police officer on CNN was utterly shocked that the guy was handcuffed and lay face down while nobody attempted to administer any life saving procedure.

    I guess from here on out we all need to constantly quietly film all police officers but wait for them to make their official reports before we allow our videos to be known about and viewed. I don't know what else to do at this point.

    Parent

    And that they were physically behind a pawn (none / 0) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 02:05:09 PM EST
    shop.

    Parent
    The worst part of this (none / 0) (#9)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 07:53:42 AM EST
    is that the shooting took place 3 days ago and yet there had been no arrest or even talk of doing so by the chief or anybody.

    And all of this with the chief having the autopsy results in his hand immediately after the shooting showing that the victim had been shot in the back.

    The police knew that he had been shot in the back 3 days ago, that he had been murdered by one of their own proven by the autopsy results, and yet they were going with the "I was afraid for my life" mantra all the way.

    Did they intend to falsify the autopsy results??? -- until this video surfaced.

    The officer is also shown on the video planting evidence -- reaching down, picking something up [probably the taser] and placing it by the body.

    Needless to say the officer's police union lawyer who had been lying for him for 3 days dropped him yesterday.

    And why is any of this (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 07:57:21 AM EST
    surprising?

    Parent
    What do (none / 0) (#37)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:40:26 AM EST
    you call it when a police officer fires his gun eight times at the back of an unarmed civilian?

    "A bad decision".

    8 shots -- "A bad decision". (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 10:07:32 AM EST
    Yeh -- I think they might want to call that "8 bad decisions".

    Parent
    to be fair (none / 0) (#45)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:47:44 AM EST
      The SC authorities  have charged him with murder (SC does not have degrees of murder; it carries either 30-life or death).

      I don't think three days to conduct a preliminary investigation before filing formal charges is excessive.

      We will see what happens now that the case is in the judicial system, but it seems a bit "paranoid" to accuse law enforcement (apart from the shooter, of course) of negligence let alone malevolence thus far.

    Parent

    Question.... (none / 0) (#49)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 10:24:11 AM EST
     
    We will see what happens now that the case is in the judicial system, but it seems a bit "paranoid" to accuse law enforcement (apart from the shooter, of course) of negligence let alone malevolence thus far.

    "...apart from the shooter"?

    Who else are we talking about?

    Parent

    The people (none / 0) (#55)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 11:10:48 AM EST
      who investigated and filed charges of murder against the shooter.

      More spcificaly, I was referring back to comments like:

    The worst part of this is that the shooting took place 3 days ago and yet there had been no arrest or even talk of doing so by the chief or anybody

    Did they intend to falsify the autopsy results??? -- until this video surfaced.

     

    Parent

    Murder. (none / 0) (#73)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 02:09:14 PM EST
    The worst part of this is that the shooting took place 3 days ago and yet there had been no arrest or even talk of doing so by the chief or anybody

    Did they intend to falsify the autopsy results??? -- until this video surfaced.

    I can only think the worst -- that they would have tried to cover it up until the video made it impossible for them to do so.

    It is telling to me that the Mayor, even after the surfacing of this video, could describe the policeman's action as a "bad decision".

    Oooof!

    Parent

    From what I read the local police immediately (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 02:50:54 PM EST
    turned the investigation over to the state police, which seems appropriate.

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#97)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 04:54:12 PM EST
    It was appropriate... but without the video... and the what seems to me to be the reluctance to criticize any action by the police (exemplified by the Mayor calling this shooting a "bad decision")

    without the video ---

    Here is a link to what the media had been reporting before the appearance of the video...

    It is put together from local news reports, "verbatim" according to the author:

    Here's a News Report We'd be Reading if Walter Scott's killing Wasn't on Video.

    Parent

    The other cop at the scene (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 06:26:08 PM EST
    What did he say initially?  Did he try to cover for the shooter?

    He should be in trouble too, if he did not come clean--before the video was uncovered.

    Parent

    Tsarnaev guilty of all 30 counts in Boston bombing (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 02:06:33 PM EST


    I can't say that I'm surprised. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 04:48:03 PM EST
    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's general complicity in the crime was never really in dispute here. Now comes the real legal contest in this case, the penalty phase, to determine whether or not Tsarnaev should be sentenced to death for it.

    While I remain strongly and unalterably opposed to capital punishment on principle, I have to admit that the now-convicted defendant is hardly a sympathetic poster child for the cause of its national abolition.

    That Tsarnaev's ultimate fate now rests in the hands of twelve jurors who just voted rather quickly for his conviction on all 30 counts, is a situation entirely of his own making, if not necessarily his deliberate choosing. Defense counsel Judy Clarke certainly has her work cut out for her, but if anyone can persuade jurors to spare him the needle, it's her.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Been busy all day (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 10:53:10 PM EST
    Got a good look at the video this morning.

    This isn't Ferguson.

    And I don't care why he ran. I don't care where the taser was. I don't care why he was stopped.

    The cop clearly murdered the man.

    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 06:48:49 AM EST
    This isn't Ferguson.

    It's awfully close --

    Parent

    No Chip and please (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 08:14:13 AM EST
    stop trying to fan the flames.

    Parent
    Close (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 08:54:12 AM EST
     
    stop trying to fan the flames.

    I think you said the same thing about the Ferguson shooting -- see how awfully close they are to each other. It makes you sing the same song.

    And where had we heard this tune sung before:

    Last weekend, Slager told the department he had feared for his life when Walter Scott took his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop.

    Sounds like his excuse for chasing down and shooting the victim to death came right out of the Darren Wilson's parade of fear songs.

    He saw Wilson get away with it singing that song in Ferguson and knew that it would work for him as well -- as long as there was no video.

    Parent

    Yes, I said the same (2.00 / 1) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 09:45:48 PM EST
    The GJ had spoken.

    The DOJ found no reason prosecute.

    A bunch of witnesses backed up the policeman's story.

    Yet you tried your best to stir the pot.

    Here we have a clear cut video. The cop has been charged and jailed with zero chance of not being punished.

    Yet you want to compare??

    Puleezzeeee Louiseeeeeee.

    Parent

    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:49:09 AM EST
    ...because video evidence assures a cop conviction, cough, cough, Rodney King.

    Speaking of cop beatings caught on video...

    Parent
    The GJ finding isn't dispositive (none / 0) (#182)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:39:55 AM EST
    Or final.

    Glad to clear that up for you.

    Parent

    I guess (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 09:42:08 AM EST
    this cop or one of his friends is going to set up a fund and he'll be a millionaire and conservatives will donate money to him in Trayvon Martin's and Brown's name. Maybe they can even donate in the name of the victim in NYC.

    Parent
    fund (none / 0) (#141)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 10:36:40 AM EST
    Someone set up an Indiegogo account for him with a $5,000 goal. Last check he had $393 in it.

    Parent
    I just read rhat one site refused to host a (none / 0) (#142)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 10:49:22 AM EST
    fund for the officer.  

    Parent
    Ga, that is ugly claim with no basis (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 09:41:36 PM EST
    in fact.

    But oh so typical of you.

    Parent

    In fact, there was a fund set up for him (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:35:41 AM EST
    so it seems Ga6thDem didn't make things up,

    Glad to clear that up for you.

    Parent

    Mr. Santana, who filmed with his Samsung (none / 0) (#140)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 10:22:40 AM EST
    cell phone. was "exclusively" interviewed and then interviewed by other media.  Before he started the video, he saw the officer and the man struggling on the ground.  He stated the officer had the man "under control."  Then the man got up and ran.

    Then he was shot in the back and killed. (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 02:03:51 PM EST
    And thus, what ostensibly began as a routine traffic stop for a broken taillight had instead quickly escalated to a completely unnecessary physical confrontation, which prompted a rapid series of appallingly bad snap judgments on the parts of both individuals involved in this otherwise avoidable tragedy.

    As a result, one man is dead, the other is in custody for his apparent murder, the deceased's family has been irretrievably broken by the senseless shooting of their loved one, while their counterparts have likely been rendered equally dumbstruck by events and left to grope in the dark for their own answers.

    America: Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

    Parent

    Police are supposed to be trained to (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 03:17:55 PM EST
    deal with people acting out of fear; for crying out loud, is there anyone whose heart doesn't beat faster or whose adrenaline doesn't start to pump when they see flashing lights behind them and realize they are being pulled over?  Especially now, as every routine-stop-gone-bad flashes in front of ther eyes as they wonder if they're going to be the next headline?

    Which is why cops approaching a citizen for a "routine traffic stop" need to communicate via body language and demeanor that this is, in fact, just a routine stop.  Seems to me the man with the gun on his hip can afford to be pleasant and non-threatening in order to engender a similar demeanor in the people he stops.

    Common sense would tell you that doing what you can to keep the interaction calm is better for both the citizen and the cop.  

    And even if the cop's approach is all it should be, dealing with someone who has other reasons to fear having been stopped requires a level of care and focus that this cop apparently didn't have within him.  

    He never yelled at the man to stop.  He never ran after him.  Just started shooting.  And just like the Tamir Rice encounter, there was no effort or attempt to render aid in the aftermath.  

    Whole thing just makes me sick.

    Parent

    Not that it discounts what you said at all, (none / 0) (#150)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 03:37:02 PM EST
    but it seems, from interviews with Mr. Santana, the guy who recorded the incident on his cell phone, that the cop chased Scott from the auto parts store to the grassy location.

    Just as a guess, looking at google maps, that was at least 100 yards, probably more. During that run the cop was yelling "stop," according to Santana.

    When they got to the grass, they tussled and the taser was deployed by the cop, according to Santana.

    The rest we see on the video.

    This is an fyi only.

    Parent

    And that somehow excuses (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Zorba on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 04:02:46 PM EST
    shooting the fleeing guy in the back eight times?
    Just asking.

    Parent
    whoa, there... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 04:05:34 PM EST
    Sarc's comment could not be read as suggesting any such thing.

      This is an emotional subject, but everyone should probably read comments twice carefully then take a deep breath before posting.


    Parent

    That's your opinion, (none / 0) (#156)
    by Zorba on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 06:28:52 PM EST
    which you are welcome to.
    It's not mine.

    Parent
    It is fact, and not opnion, (none / 0) (#157)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 06:40:58 PM EST
    that your opinion of my comment is wrong.

    Hope that helps.

    Parent

    No, it doesn't (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Zorba on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 07:15:40 PM EST
    One wonders why you were so compelled to post this.
    I don't care what happened before, whether it was 100 yards, whether there was an initial tussle, etc.
    You do not shoot someone who is fleeing in the back, unless he is very clearly armed and dangerous and an imminent threat to others.
    This is not the case here.
    Sorry if you feel differently.

    Parent
    A reasonable person (none / 0) (#175)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:43:58 AM EST
     would conclude that Sarc was motivated to post because Anne  stated:

      "He never yelled at the man to stop.  He never ran after him.  Just started shooting."

      It also appears  he posted with no intention of implying she was  intentionally fabricating or distorting facts, but was simply unaware of recently released info that he was bringing to her attention. He went out of his way to  state he didn't think the new information undermined her conclusion and that he was just providing new info because she apparently had seen it.

      That an innocuous post such as that, from a person who has a long record of being level headed and reasonable provokes you to imply that somehow he is advocating for the cop  and by extension for a racist police state tends to undermine your credibility. It would be wise at this point to acknowledge you reacted rashly, misinterpreted what he wrote and why he wrote it, and say you are sorry.

    Parent

    I've been so buried in this last push (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 07:34:42 PM EST
    to the end of tax season that I haven't seen a whole lot of interviews, so thanks for filling in some of the blanks.

    But, having read the additional info, I'm not sure that changes anything.  Scott's entire purpose seems to have been to get away, not to spend any time in the presence of anyone in law enforcement, not to confront any cops, not to move toward them with aggression.

    He was trying to get away.  Now, you and I, as fairly rational people, know that very few people are ever successful in eluding or escaping the cops.  Maybe the initial cop, for a little while, but eventually, if they want you, they will get you.  But Scott wasn't looking at this that way, and unfortunately, instead of having well-trained cop on the other end of this thing, he drew the one who decided the only other thing he could do was start shooting.

    How many more people have to die because the people with the badges and guns don't know how to handle the job?  

    And for all you law-and-order types reading this, don't even suggest that the answer to the question of how one stays alive when in the presence of law enforcement is just to do whatever they tell you, either, unless you think we'd all be so much better off just allowing the police state to happen.

    Parent

    Generally, but not always, complying with the (2.00 / 1) (#163)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 08:00:35 PM EST
    lawful orders of a law enforcement officer making a vehicle code stop is better bet than taking off running. This stop occurred in during daylight hours.  There were uninvolved persons in the vicinity and a passenger in the Mercedes.

    At present, there is no evidence released to the public which supports justifiable homicide.  Even the answers to these questions will likely not provide such justification:    (1) what happened during the struggle Mr. Santana saw b/4 Mr. Scott ran from the officer (apparently he also ran away after the vehicle stopped and the officer contacted him at the driver's side of the Mercedes; (2) was Mr. Scott driving the Mercedes with the owner's permission?; (3) did the officer know or have reason to know before he fired that Mr. Scott did not have on his person a weapon capable of seriously injuring the officer or others?; (4) did Mr. Scott have outstanding felony warrants?  If so, was the officer aware of this information prior to firing?  


    Parent

    Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 08:28:45 PM EST
    So ... I finally did a look-see at this seminal case--the SCt case that held the then-Tenn. law that allowed for measured force response, including lethal, to the extent that a fleeing suspect did not pose a reasonable risk to the officer's life or imminent threat.

    Most of my career has been in the area of civil law, but my quick glance at this criminal matter does show that the condition precedent of reasonable fear of the officer's life (or imminent serious injury) would be a condition precedent to the use lethal force by the involved officer. The Garner case specifically involved a fleeing man who did not appear to possess or threaten with arms, etc. ...in the matter of the fleeing suspect with no immediate serious threat to the officer, the Supreme Court said a clear "No" to lethal force to stop or apprehend the suspect.  

    Insofar as I know, there has been no repudiation of Garner and Garner-like cases.  Assuming that case is decisive, then, why would it alter the result or why would it matter what may have occurred prior to the video events at the heart of this?  Don't we say "so what" to background whys & wherefores UNLESS there is a clear showing and reason to believe that a fleeing, apparently non-armed man somehow transformed into an immediate physical threat to the officer's life/body or to those in the immediate vicinity???  IOW, there does not appear to be any ambiguity in that regard in the immediate circumstances of the shooting.

    (Frankly, oculus--and, again, I do not pretend to legal experience in these particulars--the video  is powerful.  The police officer gives no chase; he stops, takes his stance, and shoots those several shots square on.  It reminded me of those sad films of the lazy would-be hunter going to a deer farm where such "hunter" shoots the deer head on. Beyond sad.)

    Parent

    It sounds like you are not aware (2.00 / 1) (#173)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:34:41 AM EST
    that the cop had chased Scott for what looks like 100-200 yards immediately before his physical fight with Scott, and all this occurring just previous to the start or the video.

    I am no lawyer, do the above facts change anything in your view, legally? I realize you are not a criminal lawyer.

    Seems to me that there has to be a "reasonable" limit, legally, on the acceptable/excusable impact previous incidences/actions have on such deadly shootings.

    Parent

    The state of mind at issue (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:04:00 AM EST
      will be the state of mind that existed when the act (the shooting) occurred.  In other words when he shot did the officer possess a reasonable apprehension that the suspect posed  significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others if allowed to escape. "Imminence" is not actually required here but the nature of the purportedly perceived threat is relevant.

      What the officer knows about the fleeing suspect, including knowledge gained from the encounter or earlier is certainly relevant in assessing the subsequent state of mind when the shots were fired.

      That the initial encounter, the suspect's flight, the chase, the scuffle and the second flight are all relevant  does not mean they provide persuasive evidence that the officer was reasonable if he believed shooting the man was necessary to avert death or serious bodily harm being inflicted on someone.

      Most would likely conclude that what we can all see undermines the position that the cop was justified. Even what we can't see (the altercation when the cop caught him after the first fight) seems unlikely to provide strong support for the argument that the cop could have reasonably believed the man was likely to kill or seriously harm someone if he got away.

    Parent

    the patenthetical (none / 0) (#183)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:40:23 AM EST
    in the final paragraph should be "after the first FLIGHT."

    Parent
    Yes, that is what I was getting at. (none / 0) (#187)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:47:39 AM EST
    There has to be a point where previous actions no longer can be accepted as justification for a deadly shooting.

    Parent
    Well, it would depend (none / 0) (#189)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:05:48 AM EST
     A hypothetical might help illustrate.

      Imagine a man convicted of a horrific multiple homicides has vowed revenge against his former lover who testified that she witnessed him kill members of her family. Even while incarcerated he has continued to express rage and vow he will kill her. Years pass with him locked away.

      Then he makes a prison break and in doing so kills a guard. He makes his way to where he believes she now lives. He tortures someone there, forces her to disclose his ex-lover's location, steals a car and takes off.

      Days later, a patrol car spots the vehicle traveling a desert highway many miles from nearest human being. A car  chase ensues and the suspect fires a weapon at the patrol car disabling it and gets away. Hours later, the suspect's vehicle is found abandoned and a foot search s undertaken. Officers locate the suspect hiding in the brush a couple of miles away. He takes off running.  A cop shoots him in the back, killing him.

       Same end result, but most people would likely have a different view of whether that cop was reasonable in believing it was necessary to kill the man to prevent someone from being killed or seriously injured.

      In the unlikely event that cop was nonetheless charged and tried, I believe everything I have described, including the murders years before for which he was serving time and the threats he had made also years before would be relevant (admissible) and that most people would give substantial  weight to  those facts (along with the others) in assessing whether the cop acted reasonably.

       That's obviously a very extreme hypothetical but it helps illustrate that there is more of a "totality of the circumstances" analysis rather than standards imposing arbitrary proximal or temporal limits.

    Parent

    Really well done. I wrote, and then deleted (none / 0) (#190)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:24:17 AM EST
    before posting, my own hypothetical that was nowhere near as good. Add a role for Angelina Jolie and you have a decent storyline pitch for Michael Bay...

    Parent
    Reconstructionist explains the analysis (none / 0) (#192)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:57:48 AM EST
    quite well. I concur with his comment below as to
    what would likely be regarded as "reasonable" and what would be considered "imminent."

    Parent
    Oh, yoiks (none / 0) (#166)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 08:32:22 PM EST
    Sorry ... I left out "unconstitutional" in the first paragraph.  The SCt found the statute unconstitutional to the extent that lethal force would be allowed against fleeing suspect where no threat of serious body harm (or death) to police officer.

    Parent
    This NYT article is a good review of the issues: (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    [North Charleston police-shooting not justified, experts say]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/us/north-charleston-police-shooting-not-justified-experts-say.html ?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad

    Parent
    If it hasn't already happened (none / 0) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 07:45:34 PM EST
    we are skating pretty damn close.

    Parent
    Although I expressly stated (none / 0) (#172)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:22:17 AM EST
    that I was NOT trying to discount your comment, iow, I was NOT trying to show that the facts that you were unaware of were supposed to "change anything," I do appreciate your reasonable response.

    Parent
    I didn't mean to suggest that you (none / 0) (#174)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 06:30:42 AM EST
    were trying to change anyone's mind by providing the additional information, or that you had any expectation that the additional information would make people take another look and re-think their opinions - I just wanted to acknowledge, I guess, that while I was glad to know more, it didn't turn me in a different direction, that's all.

    Also - and maybe you could tell this from my original response to you - I didn't read your comment as trying to provide justification for the shooting, either.  

    Parent

    All good, thanks Anne. (none / 0) (#186)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:34:31 AM EST


    Parent
    btw, I posted the link to the dashcam vid (none / 0) (#191)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:28:28 AM EST
    as it speaks directly to the cop's demeanor toward Scott during the traffic stop.

    He seemed generally professional and businesslike, imo. Which, disturbingly, seems very much like the demeanor he displayed during and following the shooting.

    Parent

    And, of course, what you, (none / 0) (#193)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:25:42 PM EST
    me, or anyone else thinks is irrelevant. The critical factor, and what he must convince a jury of, is what he truly believed at the moment he fired his handgun.

    Even if, after the fact, everyone agrees his actions were unwarranted, it doesn't matter. If He believed that he, or others, were in imminent danger, a jury could exonerate him. His thoughts, and, his beliefs, are all that matters.

    When it comes to Southern juries, and their propensity to believe what they want to believe, has been on display all too often for anyone here to think this is a "slam dunk": case.

    Parent

    His belief plus the jury's determination of (none / 0) (#194)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:35:11 PM EST
    whether this belief was reasonable.

    Parent
    that's incorrect (none / 0) (#195)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:39:05 PM EST
      as you should have divined from the many posts on the subject a sincerely held but unreasonable belief does not suffice under the law to establish justification.

      Could a jury ignore the law and acquit? Sure, any jury can do that (although I don't believe any USA jurisdiction instructs the jury of this power). Nothing can stop a jury from voting to acquit despite all members believing the prosecution has proven every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt.

      It's virtually impossible to say for a moral certainty when that occurs (how do we know the jury "nullified" as opposed believing an element was not proven?) but cases involving  white on black crime during the civil rights era did certainly fit that surmise.

    Parent

    True dat, should be interesting. (none / 0) (#197)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:44:13 PM EST


    Parent
    True meaning I agree about juries in the south. (none / 0) (#198)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:49:31 PM EST
    But then again I'm a biased northern ignoramus, so what do I know?

    Parent
    No stats., but my impression is that. In general, (none / 0) (#199)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:54:03 PM EST
    jury's are reluctant to convict law enforcement officers of crimes where the issue is use of force.

    Parent
    I wonder how that might affect such a high-profile (none / 0) (#200)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:36:36 PM EST
    case?

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#201)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:43:23 PM EST
      but very rarely will a jury see such compelling video evidence of what actually occurred in a case where a cop shot a man to death. This case will not be "who should I believe about what really happened."

      In a run of the mill "beat the crap" out of the guy case  and the cops lie and say he resisted where only the victim can counter their story affords the cop a big advantage (particularly where, as often is the case, the victim isn't citzen of the month material).

      If I were this cop, I'd be looking for a manslaughter deal because a trial would be very difficult. I doubt there is much chance the DP will be sought, but LWOP is possible and 30 is the minimum. (In SC one has to serve a third to be eligible for parole)  

    Parent

    The jury will also see the dash cam video (none / 0) (#202)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:10:46 PM EST
    and perhaps conclude the victim started the process by running away after the officer asked him for documents re driver license and the Mercedes. Unfortunately, the fact the officer is Caucasian and the victim is AA may also influence the jury.

    Parent
    I'd say it is a certainty (none / 0) (#203)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:16:53 PM EST
     a jury would conclude the victim started the process. I still think it highly unlikely a jury would conclude that process justifiably ended with him being shot multiple times in the back and then having his prostrate, dying body handcuffed while the cop went to retrieve and move evidence.

    Parent
    I think it will depend on (none / 0) (#205)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:21:33 PM EST
    What happened during the scuffle on the ground b/4 the officer fired.

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#206)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:25:21 PM EST
      I also think that pretty much no matter what the cop claims happened at that juncture will be just as, if not more,  amenable to supporting an argument he shot out of anger and frustration than fear for himself or others.

    Parent
    Yup... (none / 0) (#207)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:38:28 PM EST
    ...and like the recent shootings it will be one person's word against a corpse.

    Not a cop on trial that didn't include 'I thought he had a....' or 'I believed going for...'

    And if the donations are coming in, he will surely have a top notch attorney.  IMO this is not the slam dunk every seems to think it will be.

    But this is unique in that he gave a statement before the evidence was known, and it's clear he lied about what happened after the scuffle.

    Parent

    The state law enforcement (2.00 / 1) (#158)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 06:45:53 PM EST
    agency investigating the homicide released video of the officer's contact w/ the driver of the Mercedes, who said he couldn't produce the documents the officer requested re the car.  The driver said he was buying the car.  Officer returns to patrol car. Driver of the Mercedes looks around and runs off.

    Parent
    Why is this comment downrated? (none / 0) (#176)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:46:12 AM EST


    Parent
    Dashcam video of the traffic stop (none / 0) (#154)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 05:08:08 PM EST
    released.

    Parent
    Here is a clearer version (none / 0) (#155)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 06:28:03 PM EST
    of the video.

    It looks like the cop and Scott both dropped/threw something down before Scott started running. Maybe the tazer and its case?

    With this new video it does not look to me like the cop picked up the same thing he threw down near Scott. The thing he threw down was near Scott's feet and appears to remain there while the cop picked up a different item near Scott's side.

    Looking at the arrest warrant (none / 0) (#171)
    by Redbrow on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:21:38 AM EST
    It mentions malice aforethought which is usually associated with first degree murder.

    Does SC judicial system include lesser offenses like voluntary manslaughter or do they have to prove murder, otherwise he goes free?

    If I'm Slager's lawyer (none / 0) (#177)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:46:42 AM EST
    I argue that as bad as this looks it's still not as bad as what the Ferguson cop did and he was not indicted.

    I argue that when Scott ran he suspected the worst -- that the vehicle was stolen, that passenger in the vehicle was a kidnap victim, that he might have just committed a felony, and he was now a potentially dangerous guy on the loose in the community.

    And yet in light of those possibilities the officer chased him 200 yards with gun holstered all the way trying to take him down barehanded without resort to even his Taser.

    He then went to his Taser when the suspect would not stay still -- his Taser not his gun. The Ferguson cop went immediately to his gun when the suspect tried to get away.

    There then ensued a struggle for his Taser and when he ran after that the second time, the only thing the officer had left in his belt was his gun.

    Then I cite the Ferguson DOJ report which said that the alleged struggle for the officer's gun was all the evidence the DOJ needed to exonerate  Wilson.  

    In this case I point out that Slager was hoping to just wound the suspect but in Ferguson the officer shot to kill -- and yet he was not indicted.

    I point out that next to Wilson Slager is a boyscout. He handed over his weapon right there at the scene which Wilson didn't. He didn't go back to the station to wash off evidence, which Wilson did.  

    And as far as picking up the Taser and moving it,  he just wanted to move it closer to the body so that it didn't get trampled on or lost.

    If I'm representing him, then I use Ferguson as my slide rule.

    fortunately for him (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:06:39 AM EST
     you will not be his lawyer.

    Parent
    Slager needs a plausible defense, (none / 0) (#188)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:00:30 AM EST
    ...which he may have had...before the amateur video surfaced.

    Then I cite the Ferguson DOJ report which said that the alleged struggle for the officer's gun was all the evidence the DOJ needed to exonerate  Wilson.

    So much of the right-wing punditry has used the word "exonerate" so many times that anyone who wants to believe it feels justified.  

    Insufficient evidence to prosecute/convict is just too nuanced a concept to fit into a catchy headline or clickbait.

    The Wilson's-actions-were-worse defense would be easily countered by pointing out that lack-of-evidence is what kept Wilson from prosecution...and this case has some video evidence (which appears to have some important details that differ from the story that Slager was telling before that video surfaced).

    Parent

    No judge would permit a defense attorney to (none / 0) (#204)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:18:43 PM EST
    argue that the evidence was more damning of a different defendant.

    Parent
    Let's say that Scott did have the taser (none / 0) (#208)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:00:53 PM EST
    at some point during the scuffle (from the vid, it looks like he did).

    Would Scott's having possession of the taser reach the legal level of validating the cop's reasonable belief of significant bodily harm or death to himself?

    Then, from the video, it seems pretty clear that when Scott turned to run, the taser and something else simultaneously hit the ground. Maybe the taser had some sort of case or something that got separated before the pieces hit the ground.

    Anyway, as it seems the taser was the core of the tussle at that point in time, I would assume that the cop saw the taser hit the ground and/or could see that Scott no longer had the taser in his hand as Scott turned and ran, before the cop started firing.

    Assuming that the taser was on the ground, would that render moot any argument by the cop that he felt he was in danger, or others would be in danger?

    Scott, do you have a link to the cop's statement? (none / 0) (#209)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:04:17 PM EST
    I cannot find the actual statement.

    But this is unique in that he gave a statement before the evidence was known, and it's clear he lied about what happened after the scuffle.


    Murder Charges Filed Against S.C. Police Officer | 204 comments (204 topical)