Alarming Video – South Carolina Cop Will Be Charged With Murder – Video Shows Victim Shot In Back While Fleeing Arrest…

~ This Shooting Appears To Be Everything The Mike Brown Shooting Was Not ~

♦ The Victim’s name is Walter Scott. ♦ He was shot on April 4th by a South Carolina Police officer. ♦ There is a video of the shooting taken by an eye witness – SEE VIDEO HERE (also embedded below) ♦ Arguably without the video the police officer would not have been arrested. ♦ The Police officer, through his attorney, previously said he followed proper procedure. ♦ The video reflects the police lied.

South Carolina

(BACKSTORY) On APRIL 5TH NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCIV) — The attorney for a North Charleston police officer who shot a 50-year-old man during a confrontation at a traffic stop Saturday says his client believes he followed proper procedure.

The incident began about 9:30 a.m. Saturday when Officer Michael Slager, 33, pulled 50-year-old Walter Scott over for a broken tail light at the corner of Remount and Craig roads.

Police and witnesses say Scott tried to run from Slager before turning to fight for the officer’s Taser. It was during that scuffle that the officer fired his service weapon, fatally wounding Scott.

According to an incident report, officers heard Slager say over the radio that he had deployed his Taser and “seconds later” he said “Shots fired and the subject is down. He took my Taser.”

Attorney David Aylor released a statement Monday that reiterated the police report. (link)

Then the eye witness video was released by the victims family which entirely disputes the substance and construct of the police report. The Police Officer, Michael Slager (33), will be charged with murder.

(Via ABC News TODAY) A South Carolina police officer who shot and killed an unarmed man Saturday is being charged with murder, officials announced today.

Police cited witness video that appears to show the moment when the officer fatally shot a driver whom he had pulled over this weekend, and the victim’s family attorney, who gave the video to ABC News, believes it could prove that the officer used excessive force.

south carolina 3North Charleston officer Michael Slager will now be charged with murdering Walter ‘Lamar’ Scott, 50, who died shortly after the Saturday morning incident. A murder conviction in the state could lead to the death penalty or life in prison, according to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.

The two videos that Scott family attorney Chris Stewart says were recorded by a bystander, whose name has not been released, appear to show the moments when Scott begins to run away from the officer. While the officer’s stun gun is not visible in the video, what appears to be a string is visible stretching from Scott to Officer Slager, where it was apparently attaching the stun gun to his clothing. Scott is seen running away from Slager as the officer proceeds to fire eight successive shots in Scott’s direction before Scott falls to the ground.

“I can tell you that as a result of that video and the bad decision made by our officer he will be charged with murder and that’s not something that we like to hear,” Mayor R. Keith Summey said at a press conference this evening.  (read more)

south carolina 2

This is the THIRD Police Shooting in South Carolina (we are aware of), within the last year, where the Police Officer wrongfully shot a victim.

#1  September 4th 2014 – A South Carolina State Trooper shoots a man who was pulled over for a seatbelt violation in a gas station. (link)

The 31 year old South Carolina State Trooper, Sean Groubert, shot Mr. Levar Jones, 35, for absolutely the most ridiculous reason. In addition to all the other factors (You have to watch the video) the trooper is white and the victim is black.

#2  March 2014 – A South Carolina Cop shot a 70-year-old man who exited his pickup truck during a traffic stop. (link)

South Carolina – Deputy Terrance Knox, 24, stopped Bobby Canipe, 70, of Lincolnton, Tuesday night in Clover, for an expired tag.  Deputies said Canipe got out of his truck and grabbed a walking cane out of the bed of his pickup. The deputy thought the cane was a weapon.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Abusive Cops, BGI - Black Grievance Industry, CRS, media bias, Notorious Liars, Police action, Racism, Uncategorized, Walter Scott Shooting. Bookmark the permalink.

295 Responses to Alarming Video – South Carolina Cop Will Be Charged With Murder – Video Shows Victim Shot In Back While Fleeing Arrest…

  1. BobNoxious says:

    The cop shown placing the stun gun next to the mans body in the slowed down version from the NYT website. He picks it up later but the fact that he did that will seriously harm whatever case he might have had. What the NYT video embedded in this article:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html

    Like

  2. True Colors says:

    This video looks incredibly damning for the police officer. Really, really bad. Horrifying.

    Unless there is something outrageous which happened the video started(such as the deceased pulling out a deadly weapon on the police officer), then this cop will be nailed to the wall in very short order.

    I was an extremely strong supporter of Darren Wilson during the Ferguson fiasco, but this is different. Wow. Just wow.

    TC

    Liked by 5 people

    • Roy says:

      “This video looks incredibly damning for the police officer. Really, really bad. Horrifying.”

      I read about this incident early this morning and it really took me aback. From the video I saw, it didn’t look like anything but murder.

      Horrifying is right. However, I can’t get too worked up over this because I’m just plain tired. Tired of the fact that honesty and truth are so one-sided. I’m horrified, you’re horrified, and I believe everyone on this blog is horrified, as we should be.

      In sharp contrast to the fact that blacks just don’t give a hoot, and in fact, support and agitate for blacks killing whites. They’re then NOT horrified.

      So I’m tired of being horrified when a white murders a black and the percentage of blacks murdering whites is much greater and they’re not horrified, from the hood to the occupied White House.

      Like

  3. zephyrbreeze says:

    People don’t go into policing to murder people and spend the rest of their lives in jail. Poor training, poor discipline, adrenaline, and incompetence. When I make mistakes on the job, no one gets hurt. Police officers carry a heavy burden.

    Liked by 3 people

    • jason says:

      spot on, seems this officer likely made a very poor decision in the heat of the moment and now he’ll have to answer for it.

      I don’t envy their job, especially in this new age where every little thing is second guessed and filtered through someone’s agenda driven lens. But when mistakes are made those responsible need to be held accountable.

      Like

      • lou says:

        they must be taught and drilled to shot several shots or to shoot to kill…..what ever happened to billy clubs?…whatever happened to cops being big and strong and able to tackle people?….

        I’ll reserve judgement on this incident until I see what happened just before the shots were fired…for all we know, the victim could have grabbed the gun and try to shoot the cop….

        again, modern day cops have no sense of proportion nor rationality nor relativity nor a sense of what their job is supposed to be….to keep the peace…to protect the citizens….

        Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      Adrenaline? From a traffic stop where a 50 year old dude gets out of the car and takes off running?

      That’s not adrenaline. That’s an itchy trigger finger – with intent to obstruct justice by attempting to cover up his murder.

      Liked by 1 person

      • jason says:

        the video starts when the two appear to have just been physically engaged. Whatever you want to attribute it to, it’s very possible the officer made a decision in the heat of the moment that lethal force was necessary, but failed to reassess when the victim took off running.

        Wrong decision, but if the officer solely had an itchy trigger finger, why bother trying the taser first? It’s a terrible situation for certain, but shouldn’t look at this in a vacuum. The attempted cover-up definitely does not help the officer’s case tho.

        Like

      • MouseTheLuckyDog says:

        The guy did get into some kind of struggle before he ran away. Aparently a taser was discharged. Still, even if there is some reason to shoot at a person fleeing from a cop, there doesn’t need to be this rapidfire discharge of a weapon.

        Like

      • ImpeachEmAll says:

        “takes off running?”

        That most certainly is what everyone does,

        when experiencing a traffic stop.

        “Adrenaline?”

        Question is?

        Who of the two had the Adrenaline rush?

        Does one normally have the ability to out-run a bullet?

        http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Adrenaline+Rush

        Like

        • ButterCookie77 says:

          Very good points!! Also, they are now reporting that Scott had another guy in the car with him. Couple that with “struggling on the ground” with the officer and you actually do have a threat situation.

          Like

      • BitterC says:

        I agree the video is very damning, but damn it! Why would you do something (prior to video and I assume that “something” is what got the videotaper’s attention to start filming) to cause an officer to taze you and then start running away over a traffic stop? I am not defending the cop but just puzzled why time and time again, the unarmed folks who end up dead either attempt to do bodily harm to or run from a cop.

        Liked by 1 person

        • ButterCookie77 says:

          Exactly. The witness admits that he actually pulls out the phone to start taping BECAUSE Scott and the officer were on the ground. According to the witness, it was at this point when Scott was tased. They both got up, Scott attempts to take the taser but fails, and starts running. Not only did he just fight with an officer, he had another guy in the car with him…I can actually understand the threat posed.

          Like

    • Amy says:

      You know Zephyrbreeze, some cops I think are just too scared. Don’t get me wrong, you should never have your guard down.. In this case, the cop didn’t even look scared, he casually walks over, then how he plants the taser.. wow. just wow.

      Like

    • John says:

      You must also consider the personality type who would agree to the job. Often it’s people who, feel that they never got respect growing up. I’ll show them….I’ll carry a badge and a legal firearm and tell you all what’s what! It’s a personal agenda, that is very damaging to the rest of society.

      Like

  4. Jett Black says:

    So the system works, albeit despite criminal conduct by POPO. It’s the “us vs. them” mentality and the perception, forced down our throats by gummint, that whatever a cop does, we’re supposed to just suck it up. That has all kinds of really awful unintended consequences, this being a particularly tragic one for everyone involved, including the whole community.

    So very sorry for the vic’s and the cop’s families–they get the brunt of it all. Especially the cop’s family, who’ll probably be dealing with a suicide pretty soon and won’t have BGI to feather their beds on the back end. Prayers up for everyone–I just have to leave this whole thing to the Lord.

    Like

  5. BertDilbert says:

    The cop did not yell “FREEZE!” or anything that would have told the victim that he had his weapon drawn on him. That might have ended it. The only thing going for the officer’s favor is he tried to use non lethal force with the stun gun first. That might buy him a few years off. I would be amazed if the officer did not do time over this shoot.

    Like

    • MouseTheLuckyDog says:

      If a cop is justified in shooting someone fleeing, yelling Freeze doesn’t matter. If a cop is not justified, it doesn’t help him either.

      Like

    • ButterCookie77 says:

      But cops should not have to yell “freeze” in the first place. Citizens are aware that when you are under arrest, you must comply. I am a black woman, but let me tell you what is unfolding: Blacks see themselves as a protected class who is literally above the law. They do not want to be policed. This is why we keep hearing that they are assaulting officers or running away, all to be supported by a public who now upholds the criminal.

      Like

  6. Monroe says:

    Sadly this incident gives the black community and BGI the ammunition to support their claims that the police hunt blacks because they are black. The black community doesn’t get that there is good and bad in every profession,

    This will further erode the police/citizen relationship and likely will result in more black persons trying to flee or attack the police. The high profile fake incidents prime the pump for violence when their is a real killing.

    The black community will fail to note that the justice does work, even for blacks, Instead this will fuel the hate.

    Liked by 4 people

    • auscitizenmom says:

      Unfortunately, I think you are right. 😦

      Like

    • bogeytct says:

      That’s precisely how it will work.

      He is now the poster child. They’ll forget the other names except as part of a Gish gallop.

      Like

    • If you feel this incident gives support to claims made by the black community, maybe these claims are valid after all?

      Walter Scott’s brother Anthony does “get that there is good and bad in every profession.” He stated in a press conference, “I don’t think all police officers are bad cops, but I don’t want to see someone shot down like my brother.”

      The conduct of the Scott family has been, frankly, impeccable. If anything they have disarmed any arguments those who might whine about a “BGI” might make.

      Like

      • BitterC says:

        Nicolo, That’s a pretty big leap from one obviously bad shoot to validating the claims of the black community in this post Ferguson environment. I mean, just since Mike Brown (who did NOT validate anything), you had Vonderitt who got 3 shots off before his gun jammed, Antonio Martin who got no shots off in the gas station since his gun jammed or still had the safety on, Isaac Holmes who gets out of the car w a gun in his hand. Most of the Ferguson fulminating was over young men making bad choices.

        Making excessive use of force by cops a race issue was the Ferguson “movement”‘s big mistake. I have read my share of horror stories over bad shoots and have watched in horror as state and local leos have been handed x-s military equipment like candy. But the BGI made it all about race and “past injustices” so they lost over 1/2 the country’s support, because frankly, blacks are into their 3rd generation post LBJ and have developed a culture that is backward looking and resentful (attitude) instead of taking advantage of affirmative action and moving forward. The majority of people killed every year by cops are white but you’d never know it from the media or the “movement”.

        I’m glad Scott’s family are behaving like right thinking individuals, but have to wonder if that will last after the Rev Al and Crump Esq come a calling. It gives me hope to know there are still black people in this country that do not view every event in their lives thru the prism of race.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Monroe says:

          I agree. I also want to ask how many police officers are killed or seriously injured via assault.? Likely more than police wrongfully shooting a perp.

          Where are the protesters? Oh yeah, they are shouting that more cops need to be killed. Who is hunting whom?

          The cop appears to have made a fatal error and he will be punished. He will also likely be killed in prison.

          Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      The argument seems to be that if a black resists arrest the cops should just let them go and try to recapture them later, or something. The common thread in these cases is blacks resisting arress and fighting with the cops. That is never addressed.

      Liked by 2 people

    • CurlyDave says:

      Fortunately, in this case there was a video of the incident. In cases where there is no video, there cop gets the benefit of the doubt in every single case.

      You see with your own eyes the cover-up with planting the taser, and the lies in the report. Is this just an isolated incident? That is what the cops would have us believe, but I am not buying it. I think it is very, very common.

      Like

      • auscitizenmom says:

        “The planting of the taser.” That is what it looks like, but is that really what happened. Don’t we know enough here to at least wait for the investigation WHICH HASN’T HAPPENED YET.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. auscitizenmom says:

    Well, this does look like a bad one. But, I do have one question, and I am sure I am not the only one to ask it. “Why was the black guy running?”

    Liked by 3 people

    • rmnewt says:

      he was afraid some murderous idiot would shoot him and he was right.

      Liked by 1 person

      • auscitizenmom says:

        I believe there is more than that.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Martha says:

          Actually, he may be correct. You will never be able to identify with how it feels to be a young black person living in America. A black man at that. For many years, I have tried to believe that we can all live together in unity and in love. I’m a 22 year old black woman, and unfortunately I’ve found out that, that is not true. Our black men are targeted. Just the other day, I was riding with a friend. He’s a college graduate and an engineer for Lockheed Martin. Has a brand new Benz & He was pulled over by a white cop for no reason, and instantly became nervous. Heavy breathing, pouring sweat etc…. I asked him why was he so nervous and he replied “Because I don’t know what he’s going to do”. It’s a shame that we have to live in fear of the police when their job is to serve & protect. Walter Scott could have very well been running SIMPLY because he feared the officer. Things have to change. This video has saddened me. All officers are not out to get black people, but in instances such as this, Officer Slager is one that targets. Thank The Lord that he has been charged with murder.

          Liked by 1 person

          • stella says:

            I have to ask. How do you know that your friend was pulled over by the police because he is a black man? Perhaps there was a car involved in a crime that was similar to the one your friend was driving; you would have no way of knowing that.

            I have been pulled over simply because a tail light was burned out, and that was on the way to work one morning. I’m a white woman, and was issued a warning that gave me two weeks to remedy the issue and report back. I was also recently pulled over for speeding (I was guilty), but was let go with a warning because of my excellent driving record.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Les says:

              I’m a white speeder, I admit it. I have been pulled over twice in the last year, both times by black officers (Louisiana and Alabama). I was speeding both times. I knew I was speeding. I didn’t make a big racial issue out of it. I got a ticket and a warning. I didn’t b*tch about it, just paid the ticket and thanked the officer for the warning.

              People looking for an excuse or someone else to blame will always find it. I have enough sense of self and self-worth to be able to admit my mistakes.

              Liked by 5 people

              • ImpeachEmAll says:

                Bingo.

                Unfortunately, Martha will die of old age

                and never understand “sense of self and self-worth”.

                “Victim”, yes; “sense of self and self-worth”, no.

                Liked by 1 person

          • jason says:

            And yet the vast majority of violent crimes that young black males fall victim to are by other black males and your friend is scared of the cops? And what of the cops, who just as easily can be and are being shot, most by black males, for doing their job?

            If the violence by black males were to drop significantly, I’m just guessing, but I’d imagine the number of police stops would drop proportionately.

            Liked by 4 people

            • ButterCookie77 says:

              BRAVO!!!!
              Placing the focus on law enforcement allows blacks to ignore their role in this.. It is simply deflection.

              Like

          • chick20112011 says:

            I’ve had the talk with my kids. I hate color descriptions of avg Americans unless suspects, but my kids are “light skinned”. I was almost pummeled twice by a lady cop (black) and a white cop (man) because I was confused at the airport. I didn’t do a thing or at least attempt to make it worse by not doing what I was ordered to do. At night, unless with a driving light on, I don’t know how the police can see who they are pulling over for a violation. Different during the day and even then, depends on the speed and driving violation. I’m NERVOUS if I get pulled over. Even if I have done nothing wrong. It’s not a sole “skin color” thing.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I call b#llsh#t on this story.

            “….. we can all live together in unity and love ….”
            Not until your homies stop playing the knock-out game with whitey, we can’t.

            The biggest threat to black males is black males – everybody knows that.
            Your b.s. story is not believable.

            Liked by 3 people

          • manickernel says:

            Years ago I used to get pulled regularly since I had long hair and Grateful Dead stickers on my van. Actually bought it that way though I am a Dead fan. Always keep my hands on wheel and do not exit vehicle. THAT will put them on high alert. Ask me how I know. 🙂

            Yes, some cops will pull a black man, especially a young black man, for little or no reason. Problem is the media makes it sound like a major epidemic and only Blacks are affected. Many more Whites get shot by police than Blacks. What is really sad is we seem to be seeing everything as racial now, and not looking at the root of the problem. States need to review their departments and reassess training and rules for deadly force. Many do need real professional training and to get rid of the SWAT mentality that some have as well. I can understand it in some urban areas but not in many small towns.

            Like

          • Monroe says:

            Do you know how it fee to be a white person? We are targeted for being white and then blamed for being beat up. My favorite example is if a white person hits a black person then it is a hate crime. If a black person hits a white person then they deserved. At the grocery store I wonder if the black people hate me.

            When I attended predominately black schools there was no punching a teacher for disrespecting. Folks got along. But now the media wants to focus on the violent behavior and it becomes generalized.

            Like

          • frangelica1 says:

            Martha – People are more likely to be pulled over for minor things if they are driving a nice expensive auto or a sport car! As a white female, I used to be pulled over so frequently in my sport cars and given a ticket for something like a non working tail-light, that I would switch to driving my older pickup truck. Guess what – never stopped once in my pickup truck! I was a careful driver also and always got really nervous when pulled over by the police.

            I used to say that the police were car profilers!

            Liked by 1 person

          • doodahdaze says:

            My advice is that if you are arrested do not resist, attack the cops, run away, or try to get the cops guns. Fight in court not the street. If the shooting was not justified the law will take care of the matter. He would not be dead and the cop not charged with murder if he had not fought and run.

            Liked by 4 people

          • Chip Bennett says:

            What did the officer claim was the reason for the stop?

            Like

          • kathyca says:

            I have a hunch there was a different reason he was so nervous that he didn’t necessarily want to share with you.

            Like

      • So sad..He was literally running for His life.

        Like

        • Monroe says:

          He wouldn’t have been in that situation if he didn’t resist. But the BGI and the media perpetuate damaging steroetypes that create fear.

          In the case of the wedding shooting, the pastor was truly afraid of the cop and it wasn’t trumped up for some cause. That’s sad.

          Liked by 1 person

        • crossthread42 says:

          No, This is NOT correct, He was Running from LEO to AVOID going to JAIL for unpaid Child Support, He most likely KNEW about…

          Liked by 1 person

    • Monroe says:

      He ran because cops are undercover klansmen who enjoy hunting blacks./sarc

      Like

    • John Galt says:

      He apparently had an outstanding warrant for nonpayment of child support, with prior arrests for the same offense. He drove a Mercedes, but didn’t support his children.

      Liked by 3 people

      • auscitizenmom says:

        Oh, I’m so surprised.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Monroe says:

          I believe there is a cultural reason. For a class I had to interview people of various ethnicities. I don;t remember the black principal’s reason, which one person doesn’t represent the entire population. But it wasn’t lack of responsibilty

          Like

          • auscitizenmom says:

            Oh, come on. The black principal didn’t pay for the children he sired? Is that what you are saying? And, it wasn’t for lack of responsibility?

            Like

            • Monroe says:

              What I am saying is that not all blacks are the same and that some segment of the black community hold certain beliefs. But the schools focus on the inane and no longer yeach life skills.

              Like

              • doodahdaze says:

                Some schools do. You can get Applied Science degrees that are useful in life. Many schools offer useless degrees in social science and culture pedagogy. Good luck with your classes and get those A+ grades. A good Applied Science degree is a worthy goal.

                Like

            • Monroe says:

              The black principal was female and her son went to West Point. She paid the bills and spent time raising her sons. Hence their success.

              Like

        • crossthread42 says:

          Oh, I’m so surprised. 😉 NOT!

          Like

  8. LEE JAN says:

    If anyone on this thread was stopped for a traffic violation would you get out of your vehicle and run away?

    Like

    • auscitizenmom says:

      Nope. I would keep both hands on the wheel and smile at the officer.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Monroe says:

        I also don’t make sudden movements and tell the officer that my license is in my backpack and registration in the glove box. A cop let me off with a warning because I was polite and concerned about his safety.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Monroe says:

        My sister also gets folks who raise their hands. Usually folks from CA. Guess it’s the law.

        Like

    • art tart says:

      LEE JAN ~ it’s not about anyone on this thread, it’s about a suspect shot w/2 of the shots in his back by a LE Officer, he’s dead. The LE Officer was out of line, he’s charged for good reason & will be judged by a jury of his peers! He’ll likely be convicted as he should be imo, I can’t imagine he wouldn’t be.

      The more important question is WHY would a LE Officer shoot repeatedly & hit a suspect in the back w/2 of the shots?

      Like

      • BertDilbert says:

        Because he did not spend enough time at target practice?

        Like

      • jason says:

        officer was out of line, but entire situation escalated, as many have before and will do so with alarming regularity in the foreseeable future because perp/suspect did not comply.

        He ran, he struggled with officer after being tased, may have gotten control over taser from officer, and ran again. The officer should not have fired (IMHO), but this person put the officer in a situation that was wholly unnecessary.

        Much like the ‘a little bit of rioting/disruption will be allowed’ in Ferguson, how much non-compliance should officers be forced to endure before they can be certain they aren’t overstepping their duty? The more non-compliance becomes the rule, rather than exception, the more these incidents will occur.

        Again, seems to be enough time for the officer to have made a different choice, but at the same time, how many times could this victim have done the same? Why are the officers the only ones held accountable when things escalate?

        Liked by 3 people

    • michellc says:

      We don’t know what happened before the shooting and I’m sorry but any cop who thinks it’s a good idea to shoot someone in the back, just possibly might have done something else we’re not aware of.
      I’ll defend any cop who is in the right, I have no use for cops who are in the wrong and just because I supported Wilson and have ranted about cops being shot while sitting in their vehicles, doesn’t mean I have some misconception that all cops are good cops. Corrupt cops are everywhere, cops who have no business wearing a badge are everywhere.
      Personally, I don’t care why he ran, he was running and he was shot a decent distance away from the cop in the back. The cop then lied. No defense and no excuse for this cop.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Sentient says:

        Agree 100%. This site has done much good im the Zimmerman and Wilson cases. I commend Sundance for posting this video here. Evenhandedness burnishes your credibility.

        Liked by 1 person

    • If Iwas a 50year old black male in fear for my life, like this dead man who was shot in the back, I sure as Hell would run. That was an execution. Period.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Monroe says:

        The BGI and media push this concept of cops hunting blacks while failing to care that more blacks are killed by blacks. Are there bad cops,yes. Until the BGI stops stoking the flames of hate, there will be more problems. We try to point out the lies spread and we are called racists.

        Like

        • auscitizenmom says:

          You know what. If my mom was going to spank me and I ran away, the spanking would have been twice as bad when I was finally caught, which was inevitable.

          Liked by 1 person

          • michellc says:

            Today there would be someone with a smart phone videoing your mom chasing you down and spanking you and then putting it all over the internet demanding her arrest for child abuse.
            Then even people professing to be conservatives would comment that spanking is abuse and people should be looking out for you who is just a child who needs protection from your abusive mother and applauding the busybody who recorded it.

            I saw something similar locally on FB. A mother was walking out of WalMart with her screaming toddler, she picked the toddler up and gave her a quick spat on the rear and told her that was enough. As she was putting her in her carseat, she was yelling no and kicking her legs, the mother spatted her on the leg then held her legs down and buckled her up and told her again it was enough. The child then yelled she wanted her boo boo(I’m assuming a toy) and her mother told her she was going to ride without it because she was being bad. She then got in the car and drove away and they zoomed in on her license plate. They commented that they turned the video over to LE who said no crime had been committed. So they turned the video over to CPS who said they would investigate but that it had been a week and nothing had been done. Our LE and CPS are not protecting this child.
            Someone commented that people should mind their own business and liberals should get over themselves that their mom would have given them much worse than a few spats for acting that way.
            Someone else commented to that person and said they weren’t a liberal but a conservative and that she abused that child and there is never an excuse for hitting a child. She applauds these people because we should all be looking out for abused children and abused animals who cannot defend themselves. LE and CPS should be ashamed of themselves for not protecting this child and removing her from her abusive home and throwing her abusive mother in jail.

            Some days I just want off this crazy train. This mother didn’t even really spank the child. I pat my Grandson’s bottom harder than she spat the child. It was no more than a pat.

            Liked by 2 people

            • auscitizenmom says:

              I’m sure I would have been arrested for being an abusive mother. My son was only about 18 mo. old when we came out of a store and he wanted me to carry him. I had a bag in my arms and couldn’t so he threw himself down on the pavement in parking lot (in Cal. no less). I only drug him a couple of inches before he yelled it hurt. I said it was going to hurt a whole lot more if I had to drag him all the way to the car like that. He got up and walked and never did that again. He turned out fine.

              Liked by 2 people

              • michellc says:

                I spanked my kids, I didn’t enjoy spanking my kids and I only spanked them when they really deserved it, but I was and am a believer in spankings.
                My daughter and youngest son were talking about their spankings Easter. It started because they were taking bets on if I could spank my Grandson. My youngest son said he didn’t think I could and that he could only remember me spanking him twice. My daughter said that was because my arm was worn out by the time he came along, then admitted that she could only recall 5 times that I spanked her, but one of those was a spanking that lasted for a long time, all the way from the road to our house that sit a long way off the road, so it should count as at least a dozen.
                I laughed and asked her if she ever left the yard and ran out in the road again?
                She said no but that wasn’t really because she was afraid of being ran over and instead never wanted to be spanked all the way back to the house again.
                I told her whether she got the point that she could be ran over or not, the point was still made that running into the road was bad and she never did it again.lol
                Then my son said it was never the spankings that really made him want to be good, but just the threat of the spanking, so that it only took a few spankings for him to know I was serious and would spank him.
                So my husband told my daughter, “see that is why your brother got less spankings, he was just smarter than you and figured that out with fewer spankings.”
                So then they moved on to how many spankings they got from him, which weren’t that far off from mine.
                So I told them I was learning they obviously didn’t get enough spankings if they could remember all of them.lol

                Liked by 1 person

            • Monroe says:

              And FB is filled with pictures of young children exposed to drugs such as MJ. Once again the black community shoots themselves in the foot by raising brain damaged children due to drug exposure.

              Like

      • ButterCookie77 says:

        Why would the 50yrd old criminal be in fear for his life, exactly? How about comply with the arrest procedure and argue in court. Noooo… that’s racist to suggest that blacks should comply with the law like everyone else, huh?

        Like

    • ImpeachEmAll says:

      Only if someone were selling cold, sliced watermelon
      or porch furniture within sight and
      in the process of closing shop for the day.(/sarcasm)

      Like

    • frangelica1 says:

      No and I know you are to never exit the vehicle unless the cop asks you too!

      Like

    • crossthread42 says:

      Me being a “Amputee”, I put My hand out the Windeer.. Officers CANNOT see that I’m a Amputee.. Wouldn’t be the last time, I’ve had a Weapon pointed @ Me during a Stop… Quite Un-nerving… 😉 I tend too move REAL SLOW…

      Like

    • John says:

      I have a driver’s license that I got outside of Area 51. It’s an intergalactic driver’s license. It actually did get me out of a speeding ticket. Cops need a laugh sometimes, too.

      Like

  9. Monroe says:

    I actually want to to switch from counseling and research to being a cop. I want to make a difference and change this relationship and help people succeed.

    My counseling experience helps me relate to individuals with mental health problems. I’ve had violent, delusion patients threaten to harm me in a very small office. The swinging cane was challenging. Also doing research with the black community I eventually established trust and was never short of participants. I do an EKG on one pt and several others flash their chests. I received one marriage proposal.

    I also think it is very important that the gun is a last resort. My sister hates her gun and is able to de-esculate using words and body language. Being 5’8 also helps. In 8 years she has never drawn her service weapon and she worked in a not so nice part of Atlanta, if you get my drift.

    Traffic stops shouldn’t result in gunfire unless there is imminent danger. Sadly, I know an officer that did shoot at a fleeing vehicle of a frequent flyer that would have offended again..

    Like

  10. Chip Bennett says:

    The BGI will likely be nowhere to be found, since there is no fake controversy to gin up.

    Am I understanding correctly, that the officer tried to plant the TASER wires on the victim after he shot him?

    Death penalty.

    Liked by 3 people

    • jason says:

      The officer appears to have planted the taser next to the body. The taser wires can be seen as the two are next to each other and the victim begins to run. What looks like it’s likely the taser gets (thrown/knocked) to the ground behind the officer as the vic turns to run.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html

      Like

      • art tart says:

        jason ~ too, the Officer claimed the suspect “had taken his taser.” The video proves the suspect didn’t have the taser & the video proves the damning lie by the Officer.

        Like

        • jason says:

          I know what the officer claimed, i also see what appears to be the taser being knocked or thrown several feet behind the officer. Whether the suspect ever had possession of, or attempted to the taser definitely can’t be gleaned from the video, but at the same time, it seems rather odd for the officer to have tossed the taser behind/to the side of him IMHO.

          Maybe after initial use it’s no longer worthwhile so officer dropped and/or threw it aside? Perhaps the victim actually got possession of the officer, then realized having it could escalate the situation and threw it away as he turned to run.

          Video definitely appears to show the officer lied about things, I’m not sure it confirms the suspect never took the taser and potentially dropped it as he tried to run. If there’s something I’ve missed, I certainly didn’t spend much time going over each detail and would be happy to know more detail.

          Liked by 1 person

        • anthedohmy says:

          Put it in a non-linear editor, slow it down, and say that again, please.

          Like

      • czarowniczy says:

        Even if the perp had full control of the officer’s loaded taser the question is: ‘what’s the department’s policy on use of deadly force if the skel (probably not the word they’d use) has a taser and seems prepared to deploy it.’
        We had Asps, OC spray and out handgun – made up quit carrying lead-loaded gloves and saps. Our policy was that if the other guy got our Asp away from us or had his own and appeared to be making a threatening move we could use deadly force. Department was too cheap to buy tasers (wouldn’t even pop for vests) so that question never came up. If they got our OC the situation was a wee bit foggy. general fall-back was that the fear was they’d go for our weapons if they sprayed us.
        However, with his back towards the officer even if he had the taser he was running away and it would be very hard to make the case that he was a mortal threat to anyone. Let’s see how much money it will take to salve the grieving NOK.

        Like

    • Jim says:

      Don’t hold your breath. The National Action Network, Charleston, SC representative was on the local Charleston, SC news tonight saying how distract the family was.

      Like

      • art tart says:

        Jim ~ but in this case, the officer is charged, his department will likely pay a huge settlement in a Civil Suit to the victim’s family. It’s understandable the family is distraught, what family regardless of race wouldn’t be distraught w/these circumstances?

        I see BGI attorney’s such as Crump/Parks contacting the family to represent them in a Civil Suit to get a quick settlement in this case.

        Like

  11. Monroe says:

    The black community brings this on themselves. More inappropriate behavior in traffic stops increases the possibility of a misunderstanding. Violent behavior will elicit stronger use of force.

    Liked by 1 person

    • art tart says:

      Monroe shared: “The black community brings this on themselves.”

      imo, it doesn’t matter what color you are, NOBODY DESERVES to be shot in the back, NOT once but twice. If the guy were white, would he too deserve to be shot in the back twice?

      WHY do you think this officer was charged so quickly, ahhhhhhh, because he was dead wrong.

      Like

      • Monroe says:

        I’m not saying he deserved to be shot. Nobody deserves it and that is why we have laws. But when one acts inappropriately, it increases the odds that the situation will escalate. As long as the BGI pound the war drums, the black community grows more fearful.

        Both parties need to accept responsibility.

        Like

      • Monroe says:

        One solution to create a check and balance system is to get a grad student(free and increase community involvement) to do an internship to analyze the policing practices for bias.The same applies to sentencing severity and length, One study shows that black males are sentenced with more violent charges. Although that is changing whereby violent crimes receive light sentences. This reenforces non productive behavior. which holds back the black community.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Monroe says:

        Another solution is to form a civilian review that includes a person from the community, a religious representative,a police officer.The case also needs to be sent to another police jurisdiction for review. This process is used in research safety approval.. Also punishment guidelines need to be established.

        Like

        • Monroe says:

          I will not engage in race baiting. Perpetual blame reenforces the very stereotypes that need to change.

          I do want solutions and not blame. Bad cops need to go mobs/rioting/polar bear game needs to be stopped and punished. Acceptance is demeaning to the back community.

          Looting and arson are not solutions and decreases empathy and desire to promote change.

          I can propose many low cost solutions that could address bias. But the black community needs to be willing to engage. I’ve tried and folks don’t want to discuss the issue.

          When you are ready, lets find solutions , A google document account can be created and a proposal can be developed.

          Liked by 1 person

          • BertDilbert says:

            A low cost solution is to train students how do behave during an engagement with a cop in school. Once students have passed the test there is no excuse for misbehaving such as running away or resisting arrest. Should failure to act properly result in a death, the family would not be able to hold the government liable in a civil suit.

            The cop would still have to suffer the consequences of bad behavior but law abiding citizens would not have to pay civil claims when the idiot escalated the situation resulting in the cop taking additional action.

            This could also be added to a driver licence exam.

            Liked by 7 people

  12. Monroe says:

    There is a lack of understanding that behavior has consequences. Whitey gets beat up and we are blamed. Blacks slaughter blacks and there is no blame.The black supervisor received no scrutiny with the Eric Garner case even though she was responsible for the other officers’ behavior.

    Like

    • art tart says:

      Daniel Panteleo was responsible for hanging on the neck of Eric Garner pulling him to the ground, the black supervisor couldn’t have foreseen Panteleo would be so stupid. (Panteleo has been sued again, 2 more times since Jan. 2015 for wrongful arrest & in BOTH cases, the charges were dropped.)

      Like

      • Monroe says:

        It was the sustained sitting on Mr. Garner that worsened his health problems which resulted in his later death. The supervisor should have this type of hold when the alleged offender said he couldn’t breath. Of all the times that folks say they can’t and don’t mean it, there is always a handful that are true. Thus one probably should treat everyone as it they were telling the truth. But Im not a cop and there maybe more to this procedure.

        Liked by 1 person

        • BitterC says:

          FWIW. I think it was leaving Garner on his belly with his hands cuffed behind him, given his girth. When I watched that video I kept expecting the officers to turn him over and pull him over to the bldg to sit with his back against it. I also kept waiting for them to take the cuffs off. I don’t think the “choke” hold or take down had anything to do with it. It was leaving him on his belly with his hands cuffed behind him.

          Liked by 1 person

  13. rmnewt says:

    Big question, did the family get the tail light fixed and was it really broken?

    I’ve mentioned the concept of proportionality before. I just dont get going from broken tail light to lethal force. So the perp was running away from a broken taillight, you got his car. If its not his car and he had really stolen it, get his prints and you can nail him later. If’n he was Osama Bin Laden reincarnated, oh well, we missed him. With what was apparently in the Officer’s report, there was nothing that justifies lethal force.

    Same went for Eric Garner. Results indicated they used lethal force in subduing him for illegally selling cigarettes. We’ve seen this attitude many times and while the individual cop needs to be held accountable, the leadership and cover-up mentality need to be brought into focus. For the leadership, what type of training and engagement culture do they have such that a trained and expereinced cop does this, lies abotu it and thinks he can get away with murder. Unreal.

    Like

    • auscitizenmom says:

      “Eric Garner. Results indicated they used lethal force in subduing him for illegally selling cigarettes.” HE resisted arrest and caused himself to die. If he hadn’t he wouldn’t be dead. It is unfortunate that the laws or regulations were put in place. And, it is unfortunate that he decided to do something illegal and then resist arrest. I just can’t find sympathy for him.

      Liked by 1 person

      • art tart says:

        auscitizenmom ~ Eric Garner didn’t deserve to be piled on by 8 officers, despite begging to breathe, the 8 remained on Eric Garner restricting his breathing & he died. That’s WHY NY LE will pay into the millions to Eric Garner’s family. Eric Garner couldn’t have run 20 ft. & was unarmed.

        I have sympathy because excessive force, imo, caused EG’s death. Because of Eric Garner’s case, 35,000 LE Officer are being retrained BECAUSE of D. Panteleo.

        Like

        • auscitizenmom says:

          You will have to try to forgive me, but I am absolutely sick to death hearing about criminals who are doing the wrong thing and then resisting arrest and causing their own demise. These are criminals.
          And, I agree, when a cop is too aggressive, he needs to be stopped, but in most of these cases they are dealing with no-shit actual criminals.

          Liked by 1 person

          • rmnewt says:

            are you saying Garner’s was a criminal deserving death? The issue of resisting will no doubt be part of the litigation. He’d been ticketed/served previously on the same violation and didnt flee. He went to those hearings and had a pending hearing on the same subject when the cops rolled in on him again and killed him. No doubt at some point he was resisting the strangulation, but up until that point it seemed he was awaiting his due process before a judge. Seems the cops short circuited that and became judge, jury and executioners. To cap it all off, no accountability. Even if accidental, they killed the dude. They had overwhelming strength in numbers and seemed to have no justification in rolling him up in the first place. They should have just given him another ticket, but I digress.

            Like

            • auscitizenmom says:

              Are you serious?? “he was awaiting his due process before a judge. Seems the cops short circuited that and became judge, jury and executioners.” HE WAS CONTINUING TO DO THE CRIME HE WAS WAITING FOR DUE PROCESS ON. If he had robbed a store and was waiting for DUE PROCESS, should he have been ignored?????

              Liked by 2 people

              • rmnewt says:

                so for this subsequent incident you conclude he was guilty. No trial, and now no defense since he’s dead. Cant believe anyone really argues this death is warranted or justifed.

                Like

                • auscitizenmom says:

                  Are you kidding me, really? The police were called because he was in the process of committing the crime. He had been picked up many times for the same thing.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Sentient says:

                  Their response was disproportionate to the supposed crime of selling something that he had purchased. Like if the cops pulled you over for going 56 in a 55 and hog-piled on you until you died.

                  Like

                • Chip Bennett says:

                  So many straw men where Eric Garner is concerned.

                  The police did not use force against him in response to illicit cigarette sales. The police used force to restrain Garner after he physically resisted a lawful arrest.

                  Liked by 2 people

            • Monroe says:

              The cops didn’t strangle Garner. The stressful event triggered an asthma attack that set a chain of health issues that led to his demise.

              Garner was at fault for resisting and the cops are at fault for not using other tactics to deesculate the situation. I’m not a cop and this procedure may be legal but it lacked common sense and needs to be addressed.All that effort over fricking cigarettes.

              Liked by 2 people

              • True Colors says:

                It was not the responsibility of the police to “de-escalate” Eric Garner.

                Eric Garner was responsible for de-escalating Eric Garner. He failed.

                When someone physically resists arrest(like Garner did) then the police have a legal right to physically subdue him.

                If you do not like that, then guess what? CHANGE THE LAW. You should make it illegal for police to physically subdue black people when they resist arrest.

                If you do not want people to be arrested for selling loose cigarettes, then guess what? CHANGE THE LAW. Stop complaining because a law on the books just so happened to get applied to a black person.

                Garner was a giant man. His death was a direct result of his obesity. Given his extremely poor health, he should have known better than to risk a physical confrontation with police. His death was a direct result of his own actions.

                TC

                Liked by 2 people

            • jason says:

              he was physically resisting prior to the headlock. Had he complied at the outset, no need to “roll him up”.

              Garner’s actions are what caused the cops to subdue him and his poor health, not the headlock are what ultimately led to his death.

              Liked by 1 person

          • jsjavascript says:

            “IMO” Eric Garner should have recived no more then a summons to appear. the police department is NOT the ATF and in no way on this planet or anywhere in the universe should a man lose his life over a loose cigarette! of which infact might not have been illegal to sell in the first place, a key detail that might have been papered over. seeing that the cigarete tax was already paid. a use tax is not imposed if it meets one of three exceptions: 1) the cigarette tax imposed under § 471 has already been paid; 2) the cigarettes are exempt from taxation under New York State tax law; or 3) the person brought into the state four hundred cigarettes or less. The only thing in that case that could have been illegal was the Choke Hold resulting in that man’s death. disproportionality of the response is the culprit. we all know that Eric Garner used every bit of his last breath to tell police that he couldn’t breathe eleven times, but the video that a guy Ramsey Orta shot of the incident also shows Garner telling the cops he didn’t sell anyone a cigarette half a dozen times.
            the cops responce was was a vague “somebody in a red shirt”

            Garner is dead and the “another guy in a red shirt” who Garner may have passed a cigarette to is apparently in the wind, Mr Garner lived in a community where the people who were supposed to protect and serve were more interested in bending him to their authority.

            We are supposed to own it when we are wrong, something my father instilled in me at a early age was “You may make mistakes, but you are never a failure until you start blaming someone else for your mistake”

            Eric Garner and Walter Scott were wronged and they indeed paid the ultimate price,
            We cannot in good conscience allow these situations to continue or stand behind this officer or the men that took down Mr Garner, I know I can’t.

            Liked by 1 person

            • BitterC says:

              FYI, I read somewhere that it is against FEDERAL law to sell cigs individually. It’s an FDA thing.

              Like

            • auscitizenmom says:

              Maybe selling loosies shouldn’t be illegal, I have no idea. But, that needs to be taken up with whoever made it illegal. Not the cops, they don’t make the laws. And, I do not believe it was really a choke hold. He did not die of a choke hold, he died of a heart attack and fat.

              Liked by 1 person

            • lovely says:

              The Garner case has nothing to do with this case, Garner was not killed over a loose cigarette.

              Like

        • Les says:

          How is it kids on a playground can withstand a dogpile? It’s a wonder we all didn’t die before the age of 12…

          Liked by 3 people

          • art tart says:

            Les ~ multiply 8 X 150 pounds! (that is conservatively estimating the weight of the officers.) Could you withstand that much weight on your back restricting your breathing? That answer is NO!

            Like

            • Les says:

              He was a big dude. In fact, he ate himself into such poor health that his body couldn’t tolerate the prone position and all of his own weight on his organs. He died in the ambulance. Pretty sure the cops didn’t all jump on the stretcher with him…

              If there is fault, it is in the fact they didn’t let him sit up. People who aren’t obese don’t understand what it feels like to be that big. I know it isn’t healthy, but I couldn’t tick off the fifty reasons why and hundreds of things morbidly obese people can’t do because it isn’t part of my life experience.

              I don’t agree with you simply because you are removing Garner’s lifetime of bad choices from his fate. He wasn’t innocent.

              Liked by 1 person

              • art tart says:

                I didn’t say Eric Garner was innocent, I said “he didn’t deserve to die.” IF the officers had allowed Eric Garner to sit up, his breathing wouldn’t have been constricted & he likely wouldn’t have died. Eric Garner’s “other medical problems” only contributed to his death but was NOT the cause of EG’s death.

                That’s WHY the 35,000 LE officers are being retrained to learn procedures to avoid that constrict breathing of suspects.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Les says:

                  I know many people who have died, many of them young people. None of them deserved it. That’s an emotional strawman.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • True Colors says:

                  Garner could have easily sat down in the patrol car and breathed easy after he peacefully submitted to an arrest.

                  Instead, he chose to physically clash with police.

                  Moral of the story — do not physically clash with police.

                  TC

                  Liked by 3 people

                • ButterCookie77 says:

                  Agreed 100%. Unfortunately, blacks are slowly making the case to not be policed at all, even to the point that they want some crimes (the ones they commit) to be decriminalized. “Change the law on loose cigarette selling”…”He was fighting the cop because he was scared”…”He assaulted Zimmerman because he didn’t like to be followed”.

                  Like

              • nivico says:

                “Eggshell skull” rule…

                “the Court characterized the “eggshell plaintiff” rule as follows: a Defendant takes a Plaintiff as he finds her and is responsible for her damages resulting from his negligent conduct even though because of the Plaintiff’s preexisting frailty of health they proved to be more severe than they would have been in a normal person.”

                Like

          • jason says:

            (white) privilege? /sarc

            Like

        • lovely says:

          LE did not kill Eric Garner, after years of over eating, eating unhealthy foods, leading a sedentary life, and then physically resisting arrest Eric Garner died of a heart attack.

          This officer here seems to have murdered this man and then tried to plant evidence.

          Nothing like the Garner case.

          Like

          • nivico says:

            The aggressor doesn’t get to argue in his defense that his victim probably wouldn’t have died had the victim been in better health. You take your victim ‘as you find him’ and you’re responsible for whatever injury you cause him.

            It’s called the “Eggshell skull” rule:

            “the Court characterized the “eggshell plaintiff” rule as follows: a Defendant takes a Plaintiff as he finds her and is responsible for her damages resulting from his negligent conduct even though because of the Plaintiff’s preexisting frailty of health they proved to be more severe than they would have been in a normal person.”

            Like

            • Chip Bennett says:

              Eric Garner was the aggressor. He physically resisted a lawful arrest.

              Like

              • nivico says:

                There is a distinction between being argumentative / non-compliant and physically resisting arrest.

                One of the three elements necessary to prove the latter is:

                “The defendant acted violently toward the law enforcement officer or threatened to act violently.”

                Like

                • Chip Bennett says:

                  Garner used his height and weight to resist officers’ lawful attempts to restrain him. He flailed his arms and pulled them away from efforts to place cuffs on him. He physically resisted a lawful arrest, which statutorily justified the use of force to effect the arrest.

                  Like

                • rmnewt says:

                  Is it true that a cop can arrest anyone for anything, even the most trivial violation? Is there any check on their power, and please dont say the justice system? Even Holder argued that case.

                  I understand Ferguson where Wilson was dealing with a strong arm robbery suspect and he experienced direct hostile attacks, confirming his predisposition that sever force may be necessary. What I dont get is the going-in mentality or potentially a cultural disposition in the police forces to escalate a trivial encounter to lethal force.
                  If money was an issue with back child support, the guy was running away from his car so impound the car. Problem solved, no one dead or in jail.

                  Like

                • nivico says:

                  You’re condemning Garner for what he was (big and tall) not what he did… in no way was Garner behaving in a violent or threatening manner towards those officers, and I wouldn’t characterize his arm movements as flailing (“to wave or swing wildly” “to strike or lash out violently”).

                  Michael Brown, for a perfect contrasting example, clearly used his size and weight to intimidate and threaten the proprietor of the store he robbed.

                  Like

                • Chip Bennett says:

                  No, I’m placing the justification for the police officers’ use of physical force against Garner for what he did, which was physically resist a lawful attempt to restrain him while placing him under arrest.

                  Physically resisting a lawful arrest is inherently unlawful, and statutorily justifies the use of force necessary to effect the arrest. The resistance does not have to meet some threshold of violence or threat in order to justify the use of force.

                  Like

        • jason says:

          35,000 officers are being retrained b/c of the schmuck who was elected to office in NYC. Ferguson and eventually all PDs nationwide will be retrained because of a lie that was perpetuated by the media, the attorney general and agitator in chief. The mere fact that some elected official want to try and push this ‘cops are all racists looking to kill minorities’ doesn’t mean it has any validity.

          Google search – Ferguson was a lie….

          Liked by 2 people

          • Monroe says:

            The training will probably focus on bad whitey and not techniques and strategies that would reduce policing problems.

            More cops will be killed bc they will have to nicely ask the perp to stop shooting at them.

            Blame and lack of public responsibility will not yield effective solutions.The public needs some education.

            Like

        • jason says:

          For @#%@% sake, there weren’t even 8 officers involved in restraining Garner, let alone were they (all) on his back while he stated he couldn’t breathe. Why must every situation be perverted and twisted into whatever you think makes it fit the agenda/narrative rather than what actually happened?

          STOP LYING or START taking the time to actually inform yourself BEFORE these tirades about how terrible the thing that never actually happened was.

          Liked by 1 person

    • BobNoxious says:

      The guy was stopped for a taillight and also had an arrest warrant for failure to pay child support. He apparently didn’t want to go to jail so he resisted and when the cop took out his taser he either grabbed or slapped it away and took off running. Technically that would constitute assault and battery and resisting arrest.

      That said, the point from that happening to the shooting was incredibly quick and probably wasn’t justified based on the curcumstances. Then there is the part with the officer running back to retrieve the taser and then it appears as though he tossed it on the ground next to the suspect for about 20 seconds before picking it back up again. That part will be tough to explain and is incredibly damaging to his any defense that he might have.

      Liked by 1 person

      • rmnewt says:

        So lets kill the guy for not paying child support. Makes sense, this way the tax payer will be able to pay the child support, Millions for killing the father.
        It will be interesting to hear “the rest of the story”

        Like

        • Les says:

          We are paying for those children now and have been since birth. Funny you are trying to pretend we aren’t. We paid for their parents and we will pay for their children.

          Your argument is shit.

          Liked by 1 person

        • BobNoxious says:

          Did I say anything about it being OK to kill him for child support?

          Like

          • auscitizenmom says:

            Was it okay for him not to pay child support? So, then, he ran so he wouldn’t go to jail for nonpayment of child support for the fruit of his loins.

            Like

        • Monroe says:

          He wasnt killed for not paying child support. He resisted arrest, maybe assaulted a cop (video may not represent the entire situation) and the officer allegedly used excessive force (not convicted yet and criminal are considered alleged until a verdict is released) and poor judgement with dire consequences. Conviction appears it will be a likely outcome.

          Time to stop making excuses.

          Liked by 1 person

        • jason says:

          your logic is the same that tries to imply Mike Brown was killed simply b/c ‘he was walking in the street’. Stop these stupid games. The guy actively (physically) resisted arrest.

          At the point he was shot, he didn’t appear to be a threat but had he not had the physical encounter with the officer moments before, it’s unlikely the gun would be drawn especially since the officer could have done so in lieu of the taser.

          Like

        • So lets kill the guy for not paying child support.
          Do you folks ever tire of reaching for illogical conclusions?

          That said, the point from that happening to the shooting was incredibly quick and probably wasn’t justified based on the curcumstances.

          So, no, he didn’t say let’s kill a guy for not paying child support. Never mind that that’s not the reason he was shot in the first place. He was shot because he ran. It had nothing to do with not paying child support. And just so the poor scarecrows aren’t forced to worry about you stealing their straw, no, I don’t believe people should be killed just for running away

          Like

          • rmnewt says:

            OK, it was a somewhat sarcastic comment regarding killing someone for child support. Obviously no one should be shot for not paying child support. While there’s been a lot of bantering about the various issues, the point I was trying to make dealt with proportionality. Typically the professionals (cops) should not escalate, but control the situation. At times that would seem to require backing off vice having a situation spiral out of control. Sadly, this bad ending happens more often than we’d like to see because of poor training, poor leadership in the departments, over zealous cops, and little or weak checks on the cops. Not saying that’s what happened here, but we’ll see.

            And Stevie, the only conclusion I’m making is what we see in the video (dude shot in the back) and what was reported as the reasons for the stop (taillight) and an apparent record of skipping on child support. This case will be sorted out in time via a thorough investigation I trust. What seems of use is a healthy discussion on factors or cultural problems that get us to this sad situation. Sad for all parties including the cop and his family.

            Like

        • ButterCookie77 says:

          How do you begin to make some connection that Scott was killed for not paying child support?

          Like

          • rmnewt says:

            I’ve made many comments that try to explain my issue, but I’ll try again. I used the term proportionality, but its also the justification for use of lethal force by the police. Doing a little research I found:
            … a 1989 decision, Graham v. Connor, lays out three factors that police should consider before using force against a suspect: “the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Though there are some cases in the federal appeals court which governs South Carolina indicating that a Taser may sometimes be used against fleeing suspects, two of the Graham factors cut strongly against the use of force. Scott was initially stopped only for having a broken taillight, and it’s not at all clear how Scott posed a threat to anyone before the officer decided to escalate the encounter.

            Its from: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04/08/3644229/supreme-court-say-police-killings-like-walter-scott-shooting/
            Never been on that site before and given its title, I find it surprising that I’d ever need to, but the 4th Amendment reference seems useful.

            Another interesting reference to “investigatory stops” came out with the following:
            http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/04/north_charleston_shooting_how_investigatory_traffic_stops_unfairly_affect.html

            I know there’s a focus on blacks, but I’ve witnessed profiling abuses that stretched the 4th amendment at best where race, age and other discriminators were abused by police.

            Unlike you, I’m reluctant to conclude Scott a criminal. He may have been a minor one, but I’ve not read anything that indicated he was a violent one. Therefore, it will be interesting to get the rest of this story. In the meantime, I’d like to see the 4th Amendment issues and checks on the police/excessive use of force debated.

            Like

            • auscitizenmom says:

              Wait, wait. “Scott was initially stopped only for having a broken taillight, and it’s not at all clear how Scott posed a threat to anyone before the officer decided to escalate the encounter.” “THE OFFICER DECIDED TO ESCALATE THE ENCOUNTER?” So, you are against the officer doing his job. Every time I have been stopped for something, granted there are only a few, but they have run my info before I got a ticket or whatever. I imagine that is what he did here, and came up with a warrant on this guy. Am I wrong. I don’t see why it was the cop who escalated.

              Like

              • rmnewt says:

                I dont consider using lethal force a remotely reasonable response to alleged violations. Apparently his former employer doesnt either.
                I also think there are many cases where the cops dont do a professional job or treat people respectfully. With the power cops have they need to be better than the average citizen. Further, they are teh ones responsible for controlling the engagement. That is their job.
                We’ll find out if he came up with a warrant, maybe he did and maybe he was just trying to affect the arrest. But based upon many references we’ve already seen, a cop doing his job cant shoot a non-violent/reportedly non-threatening guy who may even deserve to be arrested for just running away.
                I may be biased in the fact I’ve not seen the police, police themselves well. In this case, perhaps due to a video and/or other evidence they are. We’ll see.

                Like

                • auscitizenmom says:

                  But, where did the excalation start? When the cop asked for his DL? And, I guess, from my viewpoint, the escalation came from Walker running. If he hadn’t run, this wouldn’t have happened. Can we agree on that?

                  Like

                • rmnewt says:

                  Agree that he shouldnt have run and I expect that Mr Scott isnt a model citizen.
                  Some years ago the organization I was in experienced a fatal event where one of our true professionals saw something that wasnt there and it led to a tragedy. Investigations delved into why this individual, in the heat of battle so misjudged the situation. Many of us concluded it went back to an overly aggressive and unhealthy culture within the organization. Talk about squishy judgments. On the one hand you want the officers to be safe and effective, but you dont want them to be twitchy trigger fingers. Add in human emotions and factors like distrust or BS like we saw in Ferguson and we get a degenerative or unhealthy environment. In the end, IMO it comes down to leadership and that we are sorely lacking from the top on down to many places.

                  Like

                • auscitizenmom says:

                  I can totally agree with all that.

                  Liked by 1 person

      • art tart says:

        Bob Noxious ~ the taser is a big problem for the Officer since he lied & stated “the suspect had taken his taser.” I guess he thought better of the lie & tried to plant the taser by the suspect, but the Officer didn’t realize the video would tell the story.

        Like

      • Sentient says:

        The shooting “probably wasn’t justified”? Probably? He shot the guy in the back multiple times as he was running away. I’m with Chip. Death penalty.

        Like

      • ImpeachEmAll says:

        Panic decision.

        How many people leave the scene of an accident?

        How many people leave the scene of a hit and run?

        Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      You’re right in this case, but wrong about Eric Garner.

      Police used force not in response to Garner selling illicit cigarettes, but rather in response to Garner unlawfully and physically resisting arrest.
      Police used less-than-lethal force in subduing Garner. He died due to his own morbidity, and the negligence of the attending paramedics.

      Liked by 2 people

      • rmnewt says:

        We’ll continue to disagree on this one counselor. when dealing with the aged, overweight, or whatever and you have more than adequate force to control the situation, then you are responsible.

        Like

        • Monroe says:

          So Garner had no responsibility. Must be nice to have Black Privilege and never be wrong. That doesn’t mean I think he deserved to die.

          No more excuses.

          Like

          • rmnewt says:

            I’ve asked this before, why wasn’t Garner just cited? If they handed him a ticket, it would have made it thru the system to his pending hearing and been judged accordingly.
            Was an arrest even justified or necessary?

            Like

            • auscitizenmom says:

              Was it required because of his past offenses? Was it the ONLY way they could stop him from committing the (stupid crime) and make him leave the scene?

              Liked by 1 person

  14. manickernel says:

    I am not in any way defending the cop. But let me ask you this, if someone is trying to take a gun from you and fails, and during the struggle you know if he gets it you will be dead, think you might shoot as he runs away? There was an altercation/fight going on right as the video picked up on them, then he ran. The cop should have stood down, but I can also understand the impulse, as I would probably shoot too, then regret it.

    Like

    • Sentient says:

      Good thing you’re not in any way defending the cop. Because the way you sounded, it seemed like you were totally defending the cop.

      Like

      • Monroe says:

        I think manickernel is saying that the cop is human. It appears(all facts not yet released) he made a very big mistake and will pay dearly for it.- prison time and the knowledge that he needlessly took a life. .

        Like

  15. lovemygirl says:

    The point the BGI will overlook is the system worked. The cop has been charged with murder.

    Like

  16. I know the location where this happened intimately; it’s mere yards from the perimeter of Charleston Air Force Base. I was stationed there for 4 years, from 1982-86, and would pass this very intersection on my way to and from my girlfriend’s house and visiting the commercial strip on Rivers Avenue.

    Very damning video, horrible actions by the cop. He’s going down, but not for murder. Murder is the charge, but he’ll be convicted of voluntary manslaughter instead. Why? Mitigating factors as follows.

    It will be pointed out to the jury that you can hear the taser (that ratchety clicking sound) at the beginning of the video, before anything really comes into focus. That means the taser had been deployed on Mr. Scott prior to the frame where you see him and Slager standing in confrontation.

    It will be explained that Scott resisted arrest, and that Slager was unable to subdue Scott to get him into custody on the outstanding arrest warrant. Due to the taser failing to stop Scott as Scott resisted, and tried to wrest the taser away from Slager, assault on a police officer will be argued — Scott at this point is legitimately deemed by Slager to be violent felon. The video supports this, and the defense will almost certainly argue it. Slager, now, has a legitimate argument that his own life is in jeopardy if Scott is able to get the taser away from him, possibly turning it on him, incapacitating him, and accessing his pistol. So, Slager abandons the taser (it falls to the ground) and reaches for his pistol as a last resort. This causes Scott to flee.

    That’s the point at which a reasonable person would expect Slager to desist from using deadly force, but the defense will argue that Slager had a duty to use any means up to and including deadly force to stop the escape of a violent felon who had just assaulted a police officer and tried to get a weapon (the taser) from the officer.

    The jury will not accept the full implications of this defense, yet they will also not be able to agree on murder.

    Slager’s action in the immediate aftermath (moving the taser) will help the jury rationalize convicting him of voluntary manslaughter, which can carry a prison term equal to murder.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Now that I think about it some more, they might go involuntary….

      Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      I’m thinking Tennessee v. Garner will apply directly here.

      Like

    • maggiemoowho says:

      Could the officer have moved the taser to disconnect it from Scott or turn it off. Because he picks it back up after the other cop works on Scott. Just a thought, I own a taser, but never had to use it, thank God. It will continue to shock the person until the battery dies or until I disconnect it or I guess if the person pulls the wires off.

      Like

      • art tart says:

        maggiemoowho ~ imo, it is more plausible that the officer remembered he had reported the suspect “had taken his taser” which was an outright lie. That’s the reason the Officer would have liked for the taser to be found near the suspect, to confirm the lie.

        Like

    • Defense also may argue that Scott got, or (to Slager) seemed to be about to get the taser away from Slager. Plenty of reasonable doubt as to certain key points such as that.

      Slager’s defense team will emphasize the totality of the circumstances, exploit the mitigating factors, and rest in the ample amount of reasonable doubt as to Slager’s culpability for the murder charge. But Slager will be in the hoosegow for a while on a lesser conviction.

      Liked by 1 person

      • art tart says:

        Donald Joy ~ ABC is reporting there were 4 shots to the suspects back, what is a defense for that?

        The Officer is held without bond, is that customary?

        http://abcnews.go.com/US/video-cited-police-murder-charges-shows-officer-shooting/story?id=30137525

        Like

        • I already described what I think the defense will be — mainly a way to avoid murder conviction and have the jury go down to manslaughter instead.

          But let’s suppose that Slager, in the confusion of the scuffle, didn’t realize the taser fell to the ground behind him, and genuinely believed Scott had the taser with him as he fled. That argument would give some more weight to the the possible angle that Slager viewed Scott as a continuing potential threat, even if it doesn’t fully justify shooting him in the back.

          Not sure why bond is being denied.

          Liked by 2 people

          • auscitizenmom says:

            I think they are trying to head off the BGI.

            Like

          • nivico says:

            How soon can a taser be used again after the wires/probes have been deployed…?

            I’ve seen LE argue in the past that tasers weren’t used in a situation because you only get one shot… so presuming that the taser in the current situation was already deployed and expended, was there an immediate danger or threat of the man using the taser on the cop?

            Like

          • Side note….this is why cops don’t use tasers when guns are needed. It clearly failed here. If he were coming for the cop instead of running away, the cop would be dead.

            Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      Ya never know. The evidence will tell. His rights should be protected at every phase. I hope he shuts up and gets a good lawyer.

      Like

    • wrongonred says:

      Once the ECD is discharged, it is useless unless there is another cartridge loaded. In your review, you noted that you can hear the ECD discharging before the video, yet then state it is still reasonable for the officer to think the already discharged cartridge could potentially be used against him somehow. I am not sure how one gets past this, nor mitigates the the fact the officer retrieved the ECD and threw it down next to the victim. The prosecution will argue this itself was evidence of mens rea. In fact, I just heard Slager Attorney just withdrew as his representation.

      Liked by 1 person

    • True Colors says:

      Donald Joy I always enjoy reading your posts and your insights.

      In this case, I think you are off on one point.

      The cop did not have a good reason to fear for his own life. I just don’t see that. But he may have legitimately thought that there was a criminal on the loose who was a danger to society and needed to be stopped.

      It might be a different story if the deceased had been charging the officer — or if the deceased had at least turned around to face the officer — similar to what Michael Brown did. Then you could say that the cop feared for his safety.

      However, this guy did not do any of that. The video shows that the criminal had his mind on one thing only…. running away as fast as he could and not looking back.

      Perhaps some information will come out which casts this story in a different light(like we saw with Rodney King). But unless there is proof that the deceased was doing something extremely dangerous before the video started(like firing a gun at somebody), then the odds are extremely high that this cop is going to be toast.

      TC

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks, but you misinterpreted what I said. I’m not arguing justifiable self defense, I’m just saying what the defense will probably argue as mitigating factors, and that murder is too much; manslaughter is more appropriate and more likely conviction.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Slager may have actually believed Scott made off with the taser, not realizing that it fell to the ground behind him.

        Liked by 2 people

        • crossthread42 says:

          Donald joy, appreciate your comments here @ the treehouse. That’s the way I saw it to, the COP didn’t realize that the Tazer was “jerked” out from His hand(s), (As Scott was turning partially), IMOP, the LEO thought in the heatofhe moment*.. Scott managed to “take” His tazer, While doing a “partial body turn starting to run”.. I see that Scott was wearing what appears to be a Heavy Sweat Shirt, very loose fitting,, THUS, the Tazer barbs may NOT have penetrated the Shirt allowing Scott to Make the moves that He did. Leading to the Officers Misjudgment in thinking He had a “Violent Felon” trying to escape from him.. It happened So quick, the Officers reaction was a TRAINED Response, (automatic), before thinking,,, I base My opinion By the Officer Discriminately shooting, eg: Not checking the area(s), Down range if you will, where his discharged bullets were headed.. Bad Judgment “ALL Around”, though you are right I believe that Manslaughter is in the cards..

          Like

        • crossthread42 says:

          looked to Me the first couple of seconds, in the video, It seemed… That the TASER was in the AIR, flying back at the Officer, giving the Officer the “appearance” that the TASER was taken from His hands?

          Like

    • frangelica1 says:

      Very good points you have made. I initially thought the officer maybe would get prison for murder and this was a cut and dry case based on the video. However the suspect resisted arrest and fled then resisted some more and fled again. My question would be is shooting a criminal in the back ever okay? Initially I would have said no unless the criminal was still a potential danger to the officer or others. I thought that fleeing the scene would not be enough to justify being shot at by an officer. Then I thought of a scenario where it could be justifiable, depending on the laws in that state and the officer’s actual perception of what was transpiring.

      What if they definitely struggled for the stun gun and the stun gun dropped but the officer thought the fleeing suspect had the stun gun with him, making the suspect a continuing threat to the public or the officer? He could have shot at the fleeing suspect because he feared the suspect was dangerous to others. Maybe when he reached the suspect and got him under control was when he realized that the stun gun was not with the suspect and it had been dropped. Then it could have been a lawful shooting or at the very worst a shooting based on fear that the suspect still had the stun gun and was dangerous to general public and officers. Once realizing the stun gun was not with the subdued suspect, he went to retrieve it to secure it. This would be the only plausible scenario where the officer would not be guilty of murder and perhaps some of the lesser charges. This is all assuming that state law prohibits shooting a fleeing criminal just for fleeing and resisting arrest.

      If the police report prepared by the officer does not reflect this scenario, then he would at minimum be guilty of filing a false police report. if the police report does not jive with what the officer said happened, it could also cast doubt on the officer’s version of what transpired.

      It is so easy even for myself to jump to conclusions, but shows that as more facts come in that there are some potential fleeing suspect shootings that may be justified? Time will tell.

      Like

    • ButterCookie77 says:

      This is the best argument I have seen. Thank you and I agree. When you think about what all transpired to even lead up to Scott and the officer being on the ground in the 1st place, that is a felony assault. As you stated, the moment Scott got up to flee, he is deemed a violent fleeing felon. Also, today CNN reported that there was another gentleman in the car with Scott. This would explain the officer looking around after the incident, as he does not know if he will be attacked again. Good post!

      Like

  17. Breogan says:

    Could the the taser knocked away justifies “a threat” to himself and public?
    Could going back for the taser dropping it for a sec then gathering it be just carelessly trying to keep track of it?
    I’m surprised so many here have already condemned this police officer.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Les says:

      I have LEO in the family so I’m definitely not a hater, but from the clip I saw it almost looks like the cop shot him because he didn’t feel like chasing him. He knew who the guy was, he could have just put out a BOLO.

      I’ll wait for more evidence before I make up my mind as to guilt, but my first impression isn’t good on this.

      Liked by 2 people

    • cohibadad says:

      Couldn’t agree more. For a video that starts when the two separate and the man running from the cop I sure wouldn’t assume anything in this case. Investigate. Gather evidence. Innocent until proven guilty. Does anyone really think that man is running from the cop because he has a reasonable fear? That the cop used a taser for no reason? I’m not prejudging. The wise advice to anyone is don’t run from a cop. It’s totally suicidally insane. Not because we live in a police state, but because cops are human and that type of action might result in a fatal reaction that would otherwise be less likely to occur.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sentient says:

        Exactly. Cops are human. Some of the them get angry and get revenge by murdering someone.

        Like

        • auscitizenmom says:

          And, criminals are always criminals and they don’t care who they hurt and they are dregs on society all the time. And, the only thing standing between us and them are the cops. And, we hope the cops are good guys………………………………………………………Sometimes they aren’t. But, ALWAYS the criminals are bad guys.

          Liked by 2 people

          • ButterCookie77 says:

            BRAVO!! This is exactly my point. My stomach is starting to turn every time the public upholds the criminal in these cases. They keep saying, “He was running away” as if that is perfectly fine to do. Allow the criminal to run away. As for being a threat? YES. Scott became a threat the moment the state of South Carolina issued an arrest warrant for him.

            Like

        • cohibadad says:

          Possible. But the cop in the video didn’t look enraged or out of control. He could be a cold-blooded killer and the black cop with him his accomplice. It could be that something happened before the man ran that helps explain the shooting better. It could be that the cop thought he was following procedure but wasn’t and it was a bad shoot.

          Liked by 1 person

    • ButterCookie77 says:

      I have considered this possibility as well. It looks like he was retrieving his issued equipment (taser) and carelessly dropped it bear Scott, as he is leaning over to check the cuffs and the state of his suspect. Good point!

      Like

  18. sundance says:

    Like

  19. czarowniczy says:

    There are valid and defensible reasons for an officer shooting a perp in the back as the perp runs away – this doesn’t seem like one of them. That said, that’s a personal opinion and the courts, as it should be, will be the final arbiter as to the officer’s culpability.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Howcome says:

    Sorry guys, 15 years LEO here, sometimes things are what they appear. This cop is busted, no other way to look at it. This site has been great for exposing the Mike Brown and Trayvon cases for what they were, bullcrap. Don’t defend what can’t be defended, it hurts our side. Their are bad cops who commit crimes and this appears to be one of them. When a suspect has his back to you it is extremely difficult to justify deadly force. Have a good night. John in TN.

    Liked by 6 people

  21. Burnt Toast says:

    Cops scare me too, so much so, while I may have had some crazy thoughts… but thinking of having a warrant, getting the dumb luck of getting pulled over, scuffling with the cop, then running thinking that if/when I get shot dead in the back I could have the smug satisfaction of knowing I was wronged, never thought of that.

    Never thought of wearing a mini skirt and hooker boots to a biker bar a quarter to two either…
    or rubbing myself down with lamb chops and jumping to the lion’s den at the zoo…

    not to blame the victim, based upon what I have heard so far,

    shooter guilty of something, sure.

    civil suit, uhh, no. no jackpot for stupid.

    Like

  22. Yogi says:

    Although the video does look very bad for the officer I would wait to hear all the evidence first. I think we have learned from the past that things aren’t always as they appear. Funny how the video only shows what happens at the very end, but not what happened leading up to the altercation. Seems edited to me. .. But if the cop did do a crime he should do his time.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. TheLastDemocrat says:

    My wife told me about this new white-cop-on-black-victim story as I relaxed from a demanding day of work.

    The comments thus far seem accurate that the cop was far from being in the right to shoot.

    i have another point besides that; please don’t scorn me for not addressing the current tragedy – it will be addressed in full either way.

    Here is my point to make:

    A story like this will not draw in and engage the BGI in the same way as TM or MB. Why not? Because this story is pretty clear. The Marxists have a goal of gettign us everyday citizens to not use our everyday discernment/discrimination between decent and not-decent.

    The end goal of the Marxists is this: get us all to recognize nearly all of us are oppressed by the owners of the means of production/those who control the reigns of the cultural hegemony; foment division wherever possible (by community organizers, etc.); lead us to the “eventual” workers’ revolution; then arrive at the installation of Marxism as the superior form of government/economic system.

    To achieve this, those of us who otherwise would support the cultural hegemony (capitalism, the nukelar family, and Christianity) need to have our inherent believe in the cultural hegemony weakened.

    So, a decent Black person getting harrassed, or killed, is not newsworthy: all decent folks will be against that;

    what is needed are cases where the indicators of anti-establishment attitude are obvious: pants-hung-low, dreadlocks, tats, smoking MJ, listening to rap, and so on –

    A victim needs to have these characteristics.

    Why?

    To weaken the ability of ordinary citizens to discern decent from indecent. To reflexively make excuses for those doing wrong. “Just because his pants were on the ground doesn’t mean he was a criminal.” “Just because he had a yard-long rap sheet does not mean he was poised to attend community college and turn his life around,” “Just because he smoked weed doesn’t mean he was a thief or killer.”

    These seemingly obvious claims are all part of a bigger rhetorical campaign.

    The goal is to get us, everyday citizens, in the habit of not making discernment between good behavior and bad behavior. So, when we see an out-of-place character wandering our suburban neighborhood, instead of calling the local constable to check out the unsavory character,

    we second-guess ourselves, and taboo our thoughts: “how dare you suspect that person to be a scoundrel just because they are strolling the sidewalk of your repeatedly convicted young adult drug-dealer texting, and that cars pull up to his mom’s house for a minute or two then drive away after meeting with him – what – are you prejudice?!”

    The intent is to get us to not listen to our ability to make discerning judgments about others, but rather to judge ourselves as wrong.

    That makes it much easier for Marxism to convince us our society is wrong and to await the revolution.

    This case is a wrong. But, like many others, it will not be promoted by the Marxist progressives as was TM, MB, Troy Davis, and others – this is an obvious case and those in the cultural hegemony recognize how terrible it is; it does not advance the goal of the downfall of society; TM and MB did: we are supposed to not see the thug culture, and rather are supposed to see those as innocent characteristics unfairly used as tokens of evil by an evil society.

    Most young adults singing “N” into a home recording kit, and smoking MJ, are not terrible threats to society. We can handle that.

    We cannot handle a taboo against calling out blatantly illegal behavior that brings down our prevailing society, but that is what the Marxists want us to adopt internally: don’t make a peep or you are ostracized. Better yet: do not accept that from yourself (self-censorship / taboo).

    Liked by 3 people

    • doodahdaze says:

      Your case rings true. It is an indictment of the Marxist MSM. Everything they do is tuned to pushing the communist agenda. Produced and directed by the marxists.

      Like

    • ButterCookie77 says:

      Absolutely!!! I saw the cultural- marxist angle from the 1st second of its reporting. The Marxists are succeeding in their goal to turn blacks into the perfect revolutionary class against America/Capitalism. I am disgusted.

      Like

  24. zephyrbreeze says:

    I feel badly for the officer’s family, friends, department, and obviously for the victim’s family as well. This is a nightmare.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ButterCookie77 says:

      Victim? Which victim, exactly? I agree with you, but feel worse for the officer and his family. I call Scot what he was: a criminal. His family has suffered a loss, unfortunately, but it was the decision of the criminal to die rather than to go to jail.

      Like

  25. Monroe says:

    If the officer is proven to be in the wrong, all I can say is that when he made a mistake he did it big. DailyMail is showing a picture of the of the dead man in his Coast Guard uniform and saying he handcuffed the dead body.When the sh*t hits the fan……..

    Like

  26. boogywstew says:

    I think this case will be in the lame street media 24/7 and I believe there will be non stop violent protests to emphasize that blacks are being hunted like jungle animals. The black grievance industry is going to take this “ball” and run with it. I don’t think blacks will appreciate the fact that the officer was immediately arrested and charged and instead, in their minds, this is living, actually un-living, proof that every black that has been killed by law enforcement has always been innocent. I expect this to eclipse even the Furguson BS. I also agree with a previous poster who theorizes that the perp was indeed a fleeing violent criminal who just displayed a propensity for violence by violently resisting arrest. I think the cop had a responsibility to use deadly force. Certainly the cop wasn’t threatened at the time he shot him but the escaping criminal was obviously a danger to the community. Maybe the cop, after doing the right thing, second guessed himself and decided to stack the deck a bit by planting evidence. That would be a tragedy.

    Like

  27. pspsst says:

    There are good cops and bad cops. For every one ‘bad’ cop I meet far more good cops.

    When the person stopped has a rap sheet, and is not cooperating, it becomes a danger zone. Try walking into any danger zone, be it crane working overhead without your hard hat and boots. Things happen. I’d like to ask the Ferguson ‘authorities’ who instantly agreed to cops using insufferable tasers with wires as apology because Mike Brown was ‘an innocent. One retarded solution in response to BGI game playing risks more trouble for everyone. I can’t comprehend this cop trying to untangle those wires to pin onto a felon. For criminy! The felon figured the cop wouldn’t use a gun to stop him ……… because the cop was pinning a lousy taser to him………which he flicked away or grabbed easily. No fear! The whole stinkin’ Ferguson mess makes me sad.

    Like

  28. pspsst says:

    I’m assuming an autopsy was done to confirm cause of death by bullets too. Tasers have known to kill people with weak hearts, later. I apologize if this is clear in the vid as I cannot play vids.

    Like

  29. PatrickSMcNally says:

    This will probably rank on a scale similar to the case with Michael Dunn and Jordan Davis. I never heard of any real evidence that Dunn had any valid reason to shoot Davis, but that case never climbed into the ratings the way that Zimmerman/Martin did. It was frequently mentioned by people who argued that Zimmerman should be convicted, but the Dunn/Davis case seemed more like background support for the “Lynch Zimmerman!” campaign.

    In the future the next time that a Michael Brown case happens then I expect that many people will cite this case as evidence that the new Darren Wilson must be guilty. But it doesn’t seem likely that this will be a lead controversy unless new exculpating evidence is uncovered. If a video were to appear that somehow showed that Scott was pulling a gun on Slager at the last moment then it would be more likely to turn into a big controversy.

    Like

  30. remmy says:

    What is the South Carolina law that pertains to police shooting a fleeing felon?

    Liked by 1 person

  31. crossthread42 says:

    On ALL Sites.. Gearing ginning it up, the Racial aspect that is.. CHAAA – CHING!!!!! FBI & DOJ are reported to be getting involved…
    Rally planned after white South Carolina police officer kills black man *The officer has been charged with murder and the FBI and U.S. Justice Department are investigating the shooting, the latest in a series of incidents that have raised questions about U.S. policing and race relations.

    Civil rights leaders have called for calm, and many people praised the courage of the witness who filmed the killing and gave the video to the family of victim Walter Scott.*

    I feel it’s going to be a very Hot & long Summer….

    Like

  32. crossthread42 says:

    Jesus, Already; Folks are saying he was SHOT 8 times in the back… NOT shot AT, 8 times with 2 projectiles landing the fatal wounds.. (and ONE grazing his Ear)…

    Like

    • amwick says:

      I have mentioned before, roughly 25% hit rate for LEO shootings.. 2 out of 8 is the statistic average. (heard this from a DA at a concealed carry course)

      Like

  33. amwick says:

    I have looked and looked at this video.. At 18 or 19 seconds something black falls to the ground, in front of the cop, closer to the feet of Mr. Scott. After it fell you can see Mr. Slager reaching around for his pistol. One other thing that puzzles me is that around 1.10 another (female black?) officer shows up. This happened while Mr. Slager went back to retrieve whatever he was picking up. The way I saw it, he went back to pick up the tazer, and when he returned there was another LEO on the scene. I can’t and won’t defend the shooting, or him lying about it, but things are not that cut and dry, if that black object was in fact his tazer. Time will tell, maybe.

    Liked by 1 person

    • imjustsaying says:

      he placed that supposed tazer there before another LEO arrived on the scene he only picked it up once the officer arrived and was next to the body

      Like

      • VegasGuy says:

        He goes to retrieve the Taser between 1:01 & 1:10 on the video, but prior to him returning to the victim, the other officer is walking up to the body at 1:11, prior to him returning to the scene.

        So, no. He did not “plant” the Taser at the body prior to a second officer arriving. When he returns, the other officer is there & the Taser (or something) is in his hand.

        Like

  34. MP says:

    Even without the video, the officer would not have gotten away with this. The post mortem examination of the victim will show that the bullets hit his back and not the front as in the Mike Brown scenario. The evidence would not have jived with the officer’s account of what happened, so placing weight on hard forensic evidence is certainly stronger than eyewitness accounts. In this case, since there is a video of the actual shooting, it should be a straightforward case for the prosecutors. If the officer has a smart lawyer, he should start a plea deal to reduce sentencing.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Stormzx says:

    There just had to be other alternatives to apprehending this guy besides deadly force, sirens in background verifies backup was on the way..this guy seriously didn’t look like an Olympic runner or as if he was covering much ground very fast with saggy pants.

    Like

  36. Stormzx says:

    Sincerely feel bad for the cop that shot the old man grabbing for his cane, no doubt a horrible tragic error of judgement..at night alone, seems he genuinely believed he was going for a weapon, still very sad for all involved. ,

    Like

  37. Where is this supposed police/incident report that’s supposedly filled with lies? Can’t find it.

    Like

  38. Monroe says:

    The general public probably only interfaces with police during traffic stops, with the exception of high crime areas. Folks forget that it is the police that arrive on the scene of a squashed and bloody driver from a truck falling over in a turn. Then you have domestic violence, human trafficing, child abuse, responding to suicidal persons, breaking down doors to get EMS to pts, carrying a 5 year old into the ER after a shooting, Ferguson abuse….

    The rare times a cop wrongfully shoots an innocent are likely to be small, in particular when you consider the number of public interactions. He was likely wrong and he will be punished.

    Thugs are innocent till proven guilty and made into saints when killed for their stupidity. The cop is always guilty even when proven innocent. To vilify all cops is shameful.

    Cops should be respected. Hats off for the services you provide.

    Thank you.

    Liked by 2 people

    • PatrickSMcNally says:

      While it may be true that this officer was guided by racism, O’Mara’s claim does not appear to be supported by any argument. That comment there just sounds like O’Mara is looking for a seat on the gravy train. It will be necessary to carefully review this officer’s record with all types of people before any charge of racism can be supported.

      Liked by 2 people

      • auscitizenmom says:

        Could it be that he did it because he is disgusted and tired of criminals getting away over and over again. This guy evidently had a long rap sheet.

        Like

        • Chip Bennett says:

          His “long rap sheet” consisted of failure to pay child support, failure to appear in court for said child support arrears, and failure to pay the fines attendant to failure to appear.

          Liked by 2 people

          • PatrickSMcNally says:

            None of which would suggest that he was violently dangerous. For the officer to justify this he will need something more. Maybe something more will turn up and this case may look different a week from now. But at the moment it does seem that the officer’s actions were disproportionate to the case. Whether or not racism was a motive is a different issue altogether.

            Like

            • “For the officer to justify this he will need something more.”

              It looks to me so far all he can say is the guy ran, then struggled with the cop, struggled for the taser, then ran again. Does struggling with a cops taser count? Maybe the cop thought in those few seconds that if the guy was willing to go for his taser what would stop him for going for the gun so it was best to not try to apprehend him physically.

              I doubt he shot him because of the color of his skin.

              Like

          • auscitizenmom says:

            Hmm.

            Like

      • frangelica1 says:

        I think O’Mara is making an opinion based on an example : If the fleeing person were white and had been stopped for a broken taillight and had outstanding warrants for not paying child support, would an officer shoot the fleeing suspect that had no weapon on them?

        I think O’Mara is exploring if there were some hidden ingrained potential racism that even the officer may not suspect he has involved with the officer actually resorting to shooting the fleeing suspect. I am not saying that this is the case with this incident. But he is opening a discussion about this possibility contributing to the officer maybe using deadly force in this case, ie are there cases where white suspects fleeing and attempting to avoid arrest that were also shot at by officers? Is there a difference in how officers handle this same type of incident depending on whether the fleeing suspect is white or black?

        I do think this is a valid question but think he should be concerned with inflaming racial tensions right now.

        However I do think it is something that should be looked at to help identify how some ingrained perception could affect an officer’s judgement of how they respond during an emotional incident trying to arrest a fleeing suspect. I do think it would be valuable to do an honest evaluation of any recent year cases where a fleeing suspect with only unpaid child support priors is shot at by police and note the races of the suspects. Are the suspects a variety of races or are the majority of the fleeing suspects black men? If there is a majority of black or minority suspects fleeing the officers it may indicate less of a hidden racial bias but more of an educational need to do more to educate minorities that you do not run and have to listen and obey an officer when stopped. If there are enough white suspects fleeing the police with these same types of minor criminal incidents, the shooting ratio may provide some indication of deliberate racism or hidden racism that people may not be aware of? Anyway, just thinking out loud about his comment and thinking outside the box about how to prove or disprove that subtle racial biases may or may not exist among so many other variables and are they or are they not a factor in incidents like these.

        I believe that the majority of officers are good people and try to do their job the right way, however we all are aware that officers are people too and there probably are a percentage of officers that are unethical, dishonest and racist and those percentages are probably in line with the general population tendencies. How often does this contribute to killings of citizens, whether the citizens are a minority or white?

        Like

  39. pspsst says:

    Why does Walter, have his hands in cuffs his back while on the ground, being deceased already — was he not dead at the time he was cuffed? Again, an autopsy must be done, because the officer may have shot to warn him to stop.

    Second question, in the photo above, the deceased was running but he does not line up with the cop’s gun nor trajectory if you view the walking path? Again, I cannot view the vid. I’m asking those who can.

    What the heck is going on? Was the cop set up conveniently with a camera? Who killed JR?

    Like

    • tessa50 says:

      Not positive but I don’t think cops can fire warning shots.

      Like

      • ButterCookie77 says:

        ‘Warning shots” are illegal, and so is “shooting to wound”. The only reason to fire a gun at another person, whether you are law enforcement or not, is to KILL.

        Like

        • Chip Bennett says:

          The only reason to fire a gun at another person, whether you are law enforcement or not, is to KILL.

          Not just wrong, but potentially criminally wrong.

          The only reason to use deadly force is to stop the threat to your life/limb. If you state that you were shooting to kill, you’re going to spend a very long time in prison, and rightfully so if true.

          Like

  40. pspsst says:

    Why does Walter, have his hands in cuffs in back while on the ground, being deceased already — Was he not dead at the time he was cuffed? Again, an autopsy must be done, because the officer may have shot to warn him to stop. I cannot view the vid. I’m asking those who can.

    Like

  41. pspsst says:

    Second question, in the still photo above, the deceased was running but he does not line up with the cop’s gun nor trajectory if you view the walking path.

    Like

  42. pspsst says:

    What the heck is going on? Was the cop set up with a camera? Who killed JR?

    Like

  43. crossthread42 says:

    I had another look @ the video Provided… I need to capture and load into My Professional Video Program & work on the Keyframes It APPEARS in the first few seconds, that Mr. Scott AND Michael Slager ,, are BOTH on the ground Wrestling, before the camera, (I-phone?) Zooms in on both the subjects ,, I have to double check in the Video Software..

    Like

    • pspsst says:

      Thank you, CT42. There is more than meets the eye. There always is when lamestream gets involved. Question and verify every sound bite of evidence they put out.

      Like

    • It’s difficult to get the facts because of the BGI diffusion lens that distorts everything but from what I understand so far this started with the initial taillight thing in an auto store parking lot then apparently something caused the guy to run, the cop chases him and at some point deploys the taser in the midst of a struggle but is ineffective and this video starts at the very end of that. It’s too difficult to see if they are on the ground from what I’ve seen, not sure that would change anything though as it appears a struggle of some sort is actual.

      Liked by 1 person

  44. VegasGuy says:

    The problem for the defense will be the time span of the volley of shots & that the last shot fired was the one that finally brought down the fleeing victim. After the initial shot, was there sufficient time for the PO to re-evaluate the situation? Was the proper protocol, after initial shots where the victim did not cease running & comply, for the PO to initiate a foot chase? Should he have at that point? What is the Statute regarding use of lethal force by a PO in S.C.? And how did the state of mind of the PO affect his actions? What transpired prior to te views of the video?

    That said, we still must look at the opening segments of the video as there is, potentially, some supporting evidence of the PO’s claims that lethal force might have been required.

    At 0:17 secs into the video, it certainly does appear that the hands of both the PO & the victim are in contact. IMO, the account of the victim possibly taking control of the Taser is plausible.

    The PO also appears to be in a position that could indicate the victim was pulling him forward. If you look closely, the PO’s feet are firmly planted yet his upper body is leaning well towards the victim, a position of “tug of war”. At the same instance, the victim is semi crouched and appears to be pulling backwards. Did the victim actually gain control of the Taser?What is going through the mind of the Po at that instant? Remember, at that time he is unassisted by any backup.

    Quite possible it was the victim that actually tossed it behind the PO as he turned & ran. At that moment, what appears to be the Taser is seen bouncing several feet behind the PO. Yet, both hands of the PO appear, IMO, to be in front of the PO at the time, so it does not appear that he was the one that flung or tossed the Taser behind himself. The action of drawing the weapon comes from the PO’s front, with his right hand moving to his side. The Taser is already in view, bouncing behind him as his hands move to his side.

    Simultaneously, the PO’s right hand moves to his weapon and draws it. And yes, something does drop between the PO & the victim just as the victim turns & runs. It is unknown at this time what that was or if there was any connection to the interaction.

    Multiple shots are fired (7) that do not appear to hit the victim. There is a slight pause and the final shot does hit & the victim goes down. The PO immediately ceases fire as the victim drops. The PO moves to the downed victim and places him in custody.

    Without defending or making any presumptions, the video does appear to show the PO following procedure. The only relevant question is what was the state of mind at the instant the weapon was drawn, that caused the PO to determine to fire the weapon rather than pursue the victim. That will make the difference between murder & involuntary manslaughter, IMO. (FWIW…)

    And regarding “planting” the Taser….The other officer on scene will certainly clarify the implied actions that are speculated on regarding that issue.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Chip Bennett says:

      The glaring hole in this analogy is the time and distance that transpired from any prior struggle until the officer started shooting. The victim was a good 10-20 yards away, and clearly fleeing, before the officer started shooting.

      If the officer had unholstered his gun and shot Scott while the two were struggling over the TASER? This is probably a different story. But that’s not what happened here.

      Like

      • VegasGuy says:

        “The victim was a good 10-20 yards away, and clearly fleeing, before the officer started shooting.”

        Respecfully disagree Chip. At 0:17 they are in contact & struggling. At 0:18 the PO reaches for & draws the weapon & has it pointed. They are about 5-6 feet apart at that point. The first shot is at 0:19 and the victim is within 15 – 18 feet of the PO, and running.

        “The glaring hole in this analogy is the time and distance that transpired from any prior struggle until the officer started shooting.”

        Where is the Glaring Hole”? Under 3 seconds & maybe 18 feet? That’s pretty instantanious in my mind . They were clearly in contact (a struggle) at 0:17 in the video.

        Like

      • pspsst says:

        Except that I actually see in the still frame that the cop is not aiming directly at the fleeing Walter. I wish I could see more of the still frames to capture the exact moments of shots.

        Like

  45. cajunkelly says:

    While I do not posit that this is a justified shoot and do believe he should be prosecuted, I’m not ready to believe (yet) that he was attempting a “throw down” maneuver with his Taser. LEOs are required to secure all weapons at a scene such as this, right? That Taser was totally out of his control where it was laying initially. Until further information is released, I’m willing to believe he simply was getting that weapon back in his control.
    Someone has mentioned he tried to reconnect the Taser leads to the man? I don’t see that in the video.

    Liked by 1 person

    • VegasGuy says:

      I agree. Actually, at 1:50 in the video, it looks like the female officer had removed something from the victim & it got placed on the ground. Slager moves it, or kicks it aside, with his foot. About 3 seconds later, he looks down at it, & it appears that this is what he picks up. Doesn’t look to be a Taser, but video is very grainy.

      Looks to me like he might have placed whatever it was into the front of his utility belt, which would not be the correct storage point for a Taser, IMO.

      Of course, he could have just transferred it to his left hand.

      When he returns earlier from retrieving the Taser off the walkway, it was visable in his hand. But after that, I really do not see it again throughout the video.

      Like

  46. pspsst says:

    {{Waves hello}} My comment got lost! At mod convenience, help, thank you.

    Like

  47. Jacques says:

    That is interesting, looks like Scott would have stole the officer’s tazer, before shooting the tazer at the officer and that after a 200 foot chase. And all this before the officer shot him. Why was this not disclose in the first place, why are we promoting angers between humans of different skin colors ?

    http://woundedamericanwarrior.com/explosive-revelation-enhanced-video-shows-officer-slager-with-taser-darts-in-chest-and-legs/#

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s