Video shows white officer shooting to death a black man. (suspected, dollars)

[southbel]

So, some news on the case. This has been reported locally but I haven't seen it nationally yet.

1. First, the solicitor Scarlet Wilson has announced she won't pursue the death penalty because the case doesn't meet any of the aggravating circumstances as defined by SC law. She is still pursuing murder charges though.

2. The passenger in the car has been identified. He wanted to remain anonymous but the local news ferreted him out. A lot of locals are pretty upset with P&C (our local newspaper) because they did so since the guy wanted to remain out of the news. He has a past record which P&C highlighted. His past history includes drugs charges for crack, weapons charges, and assault charges. He made a statement and said he doesn't know why Scott ran.

3. Protesters have been flowing in from Ferguson to North Charleston. This includes Malik Shabazz who has publicly announced he has no interest in speaking with any leaders here and has come only to 'escalate' protests.

4. Protesters in North Charleston blocked traffic during rush hour yesterday but NCPD did not move them, instead working to turn cars around. These protesters, based on everything I've seen on local media, etc are making citizens pretty mad and hurting their cause, in my opinion. Of note, the protesters causing this are not local - they're from Ferguson.

5. The Black Lives Matter group made a list of demands to North Charleston Mayor Summey. They demanded an emergency meeting to speak about a citizen review board which would have the power of subpoena. By law, Mayor Summey cannot grant them this and cannot call an emergency meeting of city council. He asked if they would be willing to meet this week. The group's leader (another imported protester) rejected this and said they would now enter the "resistance phase" of protesting.

That's everything which has been going on locally. People around here are getting angry at all of these imported protesters (as am I). They're making things worse, not better, and I wish they would go home.

[MMM05]

Originally Posted by southbel

So, some news on the case. This has been reported locally but I haven't seen it nationally yet.

1. First, the solicitor Scarlet Wilson has announced she won't pursue the death penalty because the case doesn't meet any of the aggravating circumstances as defined by SC law. She is still pursuing murder charges though.

2. The passenger in the car has been identified. He wanted to remain anonymous but the local news ferreted him out. A lot of locals are pretty upset with P&C (our local newspaper) because they did so since the guy wanted to remain out of the news. He has a past record which P&C highlighted. His past history includes drugs charges for crack, weapons charges, and assault charges. He made a statement and said he doesn't know why Scott ran.

3. Protesters have been flowing in from Ferguson to North Charleston. This includes Malik Shabazz who has publicly announced he has no interest in speaking with any leaders here and has come only to 'escalate' protests.

4. Protesters in North Charleston blocked traffic during rush hour yesterday but NCPD did not move them, instead working to turn cars around. These protesters, based on everything I've seen on local media, etc are making citizens pretty mad and hurting their cause, in my opinion. Of note, the protesters causing this are not local - they're from Ferguson.

5. The Black Lives Matter group made a list of demands to North Charleston Mayor Summey. They demanded an emergency meeting to speak about a citizen review board which would have the power of subpoena. By law, Mayor Summey cannot grant them this and cannot call an emergency meeting of city council. He asked if they would be willing to meet this week. The group's leader (another imported protester) rejected this and said they would now enter the "resistance phase" of protesting.

That's everything which has been going on locally. People around here are getting angry at all of these imported protesters (as am I). They're making things worse, not better, and I wish they would go home.

Quote:

1. First, the solicitor Scarlet Wilson has announced she won't pursue the death penalty because the case doesn't meet any of the aggravating circumstances as defined by SC law. She is still pursuing murder charges though.

Not so fast; The DOJ (Government) is on this Murder case. They can bring the Death penalty to the table.
And, IMO.....They should.

[ToucheGA]

Originally Posted by petch751

That's my point. Brown would still be alive if he didn't try to grab the cops gun. Scott would still be alive if he would have stayed in the car. The cop would be going home to his pregnant wife if he didn't over-react. It could have been avoided.

Geeze, just put your hands on the wheel, answer the questions, if you are being arrested shut up and get a lawyer. No one is perfect all the time, and this was a collision of people doing everything wrong. In this case one is dead and the other will live in hell on earth.

Slager would be at home with his pregnant wife if he had not shot Scott in the back.

Originally Posted by WannaliveinGreenville

Things the jury will hear:

1. Why did Mr. Scott get out of his car "twice" when asked to stay in his car? (When you get stopped, do you ignore the officer and keep driving? Or, if he tells you to stay in your car, will you get out of your car anyway?)

2. Why did he have a Mercedes (bought/or contemplating buying) when he had been arrested nearly 10 times for failure to pay his child support for his four (4) children/and failure to show up for court hearings? Mr Scott owed over $18,000 in back support. He had not paid child support since 2012. (This is a contributing factor to his fear of being arrested "AGAIN" for failure to pay child support. The jury could wonder why he was buying a Mercedes instead of paying back child support?)

How much was the Mercedes worth? I know a guy who owned a Lexus, which was paid for with his paycheck from McDonalds. It was a 1994 ES 350 with 200,000 miles on it. He paid $1,000 for it ($28/month for 36 months.)

I am not expert, but I am guessing that the Mercedes that Scott was driving is not worth $50,000.

Originally Posted by WannaliveinGreenville

3. Mr. Scott had a Bench Warrant out for failure to pay child support.

4. Also, Mr. Scott had previous arrests for assault and battery and for possession of a bludgeon.

Was he convicted of the assault and battery charges? Were the charges dropped? If he was never convicted in a Court of Law, his arrests will probably not be allowed as evidence. If he was never convicted, he is not guilty of them, and will never be found guilty of them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have still not seen any evidence to suggest that Scott was a convicted felon.

Originally Posted by WannaliveinGreenville

When the family consensus is " He did not do anything wrong." (not paying child support can get your drivers license taken away, your tax refunds seized, your business license taken away, your wages garnished) not to mention those 4 kids he had ...that were not being supported)

I think the jury has to decide what to do with this, but if he (the officer) was fired, but dash cam video shows it was not premeditated but rather heat of the moment, anger, frustration to get the suspect to stop, if his outcome will be manslaughter, versus 1st Degree Murder?

Manslaughter will make a huge difference in the sentencing, if the defense can show what lead to the point of the actual shooting and what Mr Scott may have done (outside of any cameras) that caused the officer shoot him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us...ans-death.html

Mr. Scott had been arrested about 10 times, mostly for failing to pay child support or show up for court hearings, according to The Post and Courier newspaper of Charleston. He was arrested in 1987 on an assault and battery charge and convicted in 1991 of possession of a bludgeon, the newspaper reported. Mr. Scott’s brother, Anthony, said he believed Mr. Scott had fled from the police on Saturday because he owed child support

Walter Scott's family plans burial - CNN.com

There is no question that Scott did a number of things wrong. The point is that he did not do anything that warranted Slager's use of deadly force.

That said, I agree that Manslaughter is going to be a more likely scenario.

Originally Posted by bobtn

MMM05, I have little doubt the prosecution isn't going to deal. The videotape is like a full house in cards. Slager's goose is cooked, and this is as easy a case for the prosecution as the Boston bomber.

I am going to play Devil's Advocate, and try to put myself in the shoes of the defense attorney at this trial:

The video is of fairly poor quality, and was taken at a distance. It is apparent that Slager dropped something before firing, picked up something after he shot Scott, walked to Scott's body, and dropped something next to his body. However, the quality of the video does not make it possible to identify this object. Many people believe it was the taser, but there is no way to prove this. We cannot even tell, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the object that was picked up and the object that was dropped was the same object. Salger will almost certainly have to explain what was picked up and dropped, but he may very well be able to come up with an explanation that cannot be refuted by watching the video.

There appears to be some kind of wire that is attached to Slager and/or Scott just as Scott started running (a few moments before Slager opened fire). Many assume that this is the wire(s) from the taser. I don't see how the wire(s) could be anything except the taser wires. Some claim that the leads we attached to Scott, while others claim that the leads were attached to Slager. Watching the video, I cannot tell if the leads were on Slager's end or Scott's end. If the wires were attached the Slager, Slager could argue that Scott was trying to attack him with his own taser. In this case, the defense might argue that the Use of force Continuum authorized Slager's use of a firearm to counter Scott's use of the taser. Policies differ between law enforcement agencies, but many policies allow an officer to use a method (or weapon) that is "one level" higher in the continuum than the suspect's method of attack. For example, some agencies allow a cop to use a night stick against someone who is attacking with bare fisits, or a firearm against someone who is attacking with a knife or other edged weapon. One might argue that a firearm is one level higher than a taser.

There is a lot of talk about "enhancing" the video, in order to get a better idea of what happened (e.g. to identify with greater certainly if the object that was dropped next to Scott's body was actually a taser.) Despite what you see in the movies, there is very little that experts can do to substantially increase the quality of a video. Even if an attempt is made to enhance the video, the defense attorney can simply challenge the methods used to enhance the video.

Lastly, it's important to note that the defense will almost certainly try to convince the judge to not allow the video to be used at the trial. If this were to happen, the prosecution's chances of getting a manslaughter or murder conviction will be drastically reduced, and may even make it impossible for them to convict Slager of any crime. There are a myriad of ways they could attempt this, such as challenging chains of custody, or even the authenticity of the video. Did Feidin Santana edit or otherwise alter the video in the three days before he came forward? These may seem like outlandish accusations, but accusations such as this have been sufficient to suppress evidence in the past.

At the moment, there are far, far too many possibilities and unknown variables in this case to "guarantee" a conviction.

Originally Posted by justNancy

I disagree. The Boston bombing was premeditated. There is absolutely nothing that proves Slager had any intention of killing Scott when he stopped him....What if Scott turned out to be a violent felon who got away? If he hurt someone, would we then be complaining that the cop didn't do his job? We only learned that Scott wasn't a violent criminal AFTER all this was reported.

In no way am I justifying shooting a man in the back or lying on a police report. I only know that I hear a calm and professional cop one minute and then I see him shoot 8 times into a man who is running. People keep saying after ordering a suspect to stay in the car, after chasing him and using his taser, a cop should just give up and let him go because he'll be able to find him later. Is that the way it works?

I'm not making excuses for a bad cop. Slager is guilty of something, maybe manslaughter. I'm not so sure it's cold-blooded murder as much as very poor judgment.

The prosecutors in the Boston bombing case had hordes of physical evidence to prove premedication and clear, advance intent to kill a large number of innocent citizens. No one in the world believes that this level of intent and premeditation is present in Slager's case. Proving this level of premeditation in Slager's case will be impossible.

Comparing this incident to the Boston Bombing is like saying that Slager began planning Scott's murder sometime in 2013 or 2014. As it is, I am not convinced that Slager planned to kill Scott before he drew his gun.

I think Salger probably acted inappropriately, but he is not a terrorist.

Originally Posted by southward bound

Cops have a really tough job that we don't appreciate unless we've been in that job. They can easily find themselves "damned if they do and damned if they don't." They're under incredible stress and on guard because anyone, at any moment can shoot them without provocation. Remember the cop that was shot in the face?

Consider this scenario -- if the cop had let Scott get away, knowing that they would track him down anyway, and Scott in the interim killed someone. The officer would be in serious trouble for that as well
and the media would be all over him for letting the guy get away in the first place.

Now, I don't think he should have shot to kill. I don't understand why they are trained to aim for the torso (except that it's the largest target). A cop who is a good marksman could just as easily have disabled the guy by shooting him in the leg.

p.s. I didn't see Nancy's post earlier, but agree with it. Couldn't rep you just yet...

Based on the evidence that has been released to the public, Slager had absolutely no reason to believe that Scott had any intent to harm to kill anyone.

Originally Posted by natalie469

Honestly, I don't care what led up to this or what this guy did in his past. The fact is that he was shot in the back while running away unarmed.

This fact is certainly undisputed, and I think this fact alone is probably enough to put Slager away for a long, long time, assuming that the defense does not manage to pull off some kind of trick or miracle (see above.)

Originally Posted by O.C. Ogilvy

How did Slager know that he was unnarmed? We know that in hindsight, but not once during the traffic stop did Slager ask Scott to step out of the vehicle and search him. He calmly and respectfully inquired about the taillight and insurance, asked for a driver's license, and went to check it on his computer. Scott ran and could have had a weapon for all Slager knew. All Scott had to do to not be shot was stop running.

Originally Posted by O.C. Ogilvy

Really? You don't think that an armed person running away from a cop might be a threat to the community or that he couldn't turn around and shoot Slager?

Of course, Slager had no way of knowing if he was armed. However, the use of deadly force is not warranted unless the officer is certain that the suspect is armed, and that he has intent to harm or kill someone. Since Slager did not know, for a fact, that Scott was brandishing a weapon, I do not think the shooting was justified.

As I said before, at this moment, I think Slager acted inappropriately. However, I am still not willing to pass final judgment in this case, as we have not heard Slager's story yet. I have not heard any statements from him, or his attorney. Last I checked, the officials have not even released his incident report (though reports for other officers have been released.) Will the incident report (which may have been written and submitted before Slager even knew of the video) match what we saw in the video, or will his statements in his report be contrary to the video? The evidence that has been discussed on this forum, and in the media, only includes evidence that has been released to the general public. How much more evidence is out there?

[justNancy]

Originally Posted by ToucheGA

Comparing this incident to the Boston Bombing is like saying that Slager began planning Scott's murder sometime in 2013 or 2014. As it is, I am not convinced that Slager planned to kill Scott before he drew his gun.

I think you misread my post. I never compared this shooting to the Boston Marathon Bombing. In fact, I said many times that I'm sure Office Slager considered this to be a routine traffic stop. If not, he wouldn't have gone back to his car to run a check on Walter Scott's license and the vehicle he was driving.

While we are all going back & forth about this case, there might be a lot of evidence we haven't heard or seen. As I've written many times, we need to wait until his trial, that is, if he can get a fair trial. Videos can be edited and eyewitness testimony isn't always reliable. We still don't know why Scott ran. However, I never said the shooting was justified in any of my comments. I only said I hope cases aren't decided soley on cell phone videos, social media, and public opinion, since that's not the way our justice system was designed.

[southbel]

Latest news coming from our local media:

1. A judge has been assigned for the Slager trial and all pre-trial motions. In South Carolina, the SC Supreme Court can choose to choose a judge to assign to a case vice it being randomly assigned by the rotation. They chose Judge Clifton Newman, who is not local to the Charleston area.

2. The passenger in the car has his attorney do some interviews on local media. He says they were on the way to a cookout when stopped and he did not know why Scott decided to run. Per the passenger, Scott tried to phone his family right before he got out of the car and ran. The passenger remained in the car. He heard what he described as a taser sound followed by several gunshots. He did not see any of the confrontation.

3. The Black Lives Matter group is having some issues with each other (national vs. local). They came up with new demands (national). Local BLM has asked for citizen review boards with the power of subpoena (that last part not allowable by law). The national BLM group wants the Police Chief Driggers to resign and wants half of the NCPD's budget to go to non-police community activities.

4. SLED has released some information about their investigation. They were denied interviews with Slager immediately following the shooting via Slager's attorney. It was two days before they could interview Slager at his attorney's office. At this point, SLED already had the video and forensics showing the discrepancies between Slager's official report and what the scene showed - as documented in their records and reports. They arrested and charged Slager at the conclusion of this interview. Of note, while Slager refused to speak with SLED after the shooting, his attorney went to every local media outlet almost immediately after the shooting putting Slager's "version" out there. This attorney eventually quit after the release of the video and has since been replaced by local defense attorney (who LOVES big media cases), Andy Savage.

Now my opinions on a few things:
I did some research on this Black Lives Matter group and I'm not thrilled with their "demands" on a larger/national scale. One of the things they ultimately want is to have no police whatsoever and to change to a self-policed type of society. This is both unrealistic and ridiculous on its face. If this is their ultimate goal, I can't imagine why anyone would support them. From their national group's Tumblr page #BLACKLIVESMATTER : Photo

As to the narrative the national media wants to continue to push about Slager wouldn't have been charged if not for the video, I think this is inaccurate. At this point, SLED already knew Slager's account did not remotely match the forensics of the scene. Did the video make SLED's job easier? Yes but the national media is pushing a narrative that doesn't appear to be true - I'm looking at you CNN!

[Casper in Dallas]

Originally Posted by O.C. Ogilvy

I predict that when all the facts come out, the lynch mob mentality of those who want to hang Slager will be shown for the ignorant bluster that it is.

Speaking of ignorant bluster............

[ToucheGA]

Originally Posted by justNancy

I think you misread my post. I never compared this shooting to the Boston Marathon Bombing. In fact, I said many times that I'm sure Office Slager considered this to be a routine traffic stop. If not, he wouldn't have gone back to his car to run a check on Walter Scott's license and the vehicle he was driving.

While we are all going back & forth about this case, there might be a lot of evidence we haven't heard or seen. As I've written many times, we need to wait until his trial, that is, if he can get a fair trial. Videos can be edited and eyewitness testimony isn't always reliable. We still don't know why Scott ran. However, I never said the shooting was justified in any of my comments. I only said I hope cases aren't decided soley on cell phone videos, social media, and public opinion, since that's not the way our justice system was designed.

I was agreeing with you, and disagreeing with a prior post that made a direct comparison of Slager's case to the Tsarnaev case.

Originally Posted by southbel

Latest news coming from our local media <snip>
...At this point, SLED already had the video and forensics showing the discrepancies between Slager's official report and what the scene showed - as documented in their records and reports. They arrested and charged Slager at the conclusion of this interview. . . As to the narrative the national media wants to continue to push about Slager wouldn't have been charged if not for the video, I think this is inaccurate. At this point, SLED already knew Slager's account did not remotely match the forensics of the scene. Did the video make SLED's job easier? Yes but the national media is pushing a narrative that doesn't appear to be true - I'm looking at you CNN!

Very interesting. It seems that Slager wrote his report, and submitted it before he even knew the video existed. This fact will not work in his favor!

I see you point about the video being just one of a few "silver bullets." As others have said, SLED already had some concerns about the case before the video surfaced. The video will probably give the prosecution a lot of leverage, which may result in a more severe penalty. However, Slager might have faced an uphill battle even if the video never came to light.

If I had to guess, based on the current evidence that has been made public, the prosecutor will hold fast to the murder charge, but will ultimately accept a plea bargain for manslaughter. This carries a sentence of 2 years (minimum) to 30 years (maximum). I imagine he will get a sentence that's in the upper part of that range (e.g. 15-20 years.) If Slager insists on a not guilty plea, the prosecutor will probably choose to go to trail for manslaughter, and will press for the maximum of 30 years with no parole if he is convicted. Either way, he will be a convicted felon, and will never work as a police officer (or even a security guard at a bar) for the rest of his life.

As Dennis Miller says, "that's my opinion, I could be wrong." :-)

[newtoks]

Originally Posted by O.C. Ogilvy

I predict that when all the facts come out, the lynch mob mentality of those who want to hang Slager will be shown for the ignorant bluster that it is.

Why, we saw the officer execute a man in cold blood on video. Additionally, SC law only requires one functioning tail light, so the initial stop itself was bogus. What facts could possibly come out that would justify a cop shooting a man running away from him in the back after a completely illegitimate traffic stop?

[Osito]

I'm kind of on the fence here. Running from cops is a stupid thing to do, no matter what's going on. But I can see the need to do it as I've seen plenty of videos of cops using excessive force on people who didn't resist, and you never quite know who you're dealing with. I'm not okay with cops shooting to kill except in cases where their life is actually in danger (someone is armed, and I mean really armed, going for their weapon, or attacking the officer) but sometimes these things get fuzzy when cops think someone is reaching for a weapon and they're not, or another type of situation. Again, another stupid thing for civilians to do, since the nature of law enforcement includes always being on guard and ready to take control of a situation.

[southbel]

And Jesse Jackson is now on his way down here. He'll be here on Thursday and Friday. <sigh>