Walter Scott DASH-CAM Video (ABC Version #1)

Listen closely to audio and notice the time between when you hear “Taser, Taser, Taser”, “get on the ground, on the ground” to the end of the video. No audio of shots. So initial struggle/fight (Julison word “tussle”) of considerable length – because in eye-witness video “tussle” end to shots fired was less than 2 seconds.

Also, what’s in his hand?

walter scott dash cam 1

Here’s another version where the “mystery passenger” gets out of the car. Now, during the live airing CNN showed the full frontal view of the passenger. However, on uploaded clips they stop video before he turns around.

Why is no-one putting out the entire length of the DASH CAM video from beginning to end, that would include the audio. Obviously the 8 shots fired would be audible in the dash-cam audio. That would give us a good indication as to how long the “fight” (tussle) lasted. Think about it… at the moment the eye-witness video begins the fight/struggle ends. Two seconds later 8 shots fired.

If there is a long time between Walter Scott taking off, and the sound of shots fired, that would indicate a lengthy physical fight.

walter scott map 1

Advertisements
This entry was posted in media bias, Police action, Uncategorized, Walter Scott Shooting. Bookmark the permalink.

497 Responses to Walter Scott DASH-CAM Video (ABC Version #1)

  1. Amy says:

    Sundance,
    I have the utmost respect for you, I want you to now this-I hope you know this. However, how can you explain the cop planting the taser next to his body? Lying about they tried CPR? If there was a fight- does it give him a right to shoot him in the back?

    Respectfully Submitted,
    Amy

    Like

    • Elspeth says:

      Until we know how many of the “facts” are Julison creations, we really don’t know much.

      Like

    • jason says:

      they didn’t lie about CPR/First aid

      screencap taken from last part of vid linked
      http://t.co/gn7fInQzQs

      There was a fight, Scott took his taser and had it at the moment Slager started to withdraw his gun. Unclear if Slager was aware Scott had thrown taser away (behind him) as he turned to run. The made him a significant threat.

      Like

      • Chip Bennett says:

        There was a fight, Scott took his taser and had it at the moment Slager started to withdraw his gun.

        I’m pretty sure that it remains pure speculation that Scott actually had possession of the TASER.

        Like

        • Phae says:

          It could be the taser went off during the struggle on the ground and when they got up, Slager held on to Scott so he couldn’t run away again.

          Like

        • Not speculation at all. Slager had both hand full and occupied a split second before the the taser flew past him. The only possible explanation is that Scott threw it with his free hand.

          Like

    • James F says:

      I realize your question is addressed to Sundance but If you read through this thread and the previous thread you will find plenty of discussion and possible explanations for your first question.

      You will also see that Sundance posted a video that shows the officers providing first aid and trying to revive Scott.

      Like

    • sundance says:

      No qualifiers needed. Question everything.

      But where do you get the “cop planting taser next to the body” as a factual statement. I don’t see that.

      I see the cop retrieving a device he has just been in a struggle with, securing it, and throwing it in the proximity of the suspect and evidence being evaluated. In the sight of another officer responding, and while he knew he was being recorded. He’s also got to be physically exhausted having just fought for several minutes with a suspect. He then picks it up again as more officers arrive and he’s calling for his vehicle to be secured etc.

      Ryan Julison wants you to believe the cop is planting evidence, but nothing appears to reflect that in actuality.

      Regarding the non-CPR. Again, the Ryan Julison narrative would want to sell that point just like Mike Brown unattended for 4.5 hours in Ferguson. However, again, that is not factual against the medical attention given to Walter Scott in the video moments later.

      And while it might have been a better option to chase, or allow the “violent felon” to flee, it is not necessarily illegal for the officer to shoot a violent felon attempting to get away – regardless of the back or front.

      Liked by 6 people

  2. yakmaster2 says:

    It seems to me that the time between Scott running from the car and Slagle running after him and yelling “taser, taser” is very short. And I think I hear the taser going off shortly after that warning.
    So, the question in my mind is how did Scott keep running so far after being tased? From Starting Point to End Point seems a considerable distance and neither Scott nor Slagle could have covered the distance from Point A to End Point C in the short amount of time it took for Slagle to start yelling “taser, taser” so the tasing must have happened somewhere in between, at Point B. Or am I wrong?

    Like

  3. kathyca says:

    Hanging it up for the night, but just want to say, for those who are savvy like that, I’m looking for the “neighbor” who owned the Mercedes. I’m wondering how much it cost Julison, et al. to buy the car in question :::ahem:::Looks like the full plate is visible in the dashcam vid.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Armie says:

      You might also see if you can determine at what point the hat and fanny pack Scott’s wearing when he leaves the car disappears. He’s wearing neither at the end. I wouldn’t be surprised if one or both of them is what Slager retrieved and placed next to the body.

      Like

  4. whodoneit says:

    As usual, things might not be as they “seem” due to intentional manipulation of and/or omission of actual circumstances. We quite obviously don’t have the whole picture right now, and I suggest we withhold judgment until we do.

    Liked by 2 people

    • sundance says:

      Yes. However, the Truth is not going to come to us. We are going to have to go and find it.

      Unless we go find it independently we will only be given that which the narrative creators want us to receive.

      Liked by 4 people

  5. Sandra says:

    I need to search back through earlier threads to answer my own question, unless one of you would be so kind to help me out. 🙂

    How did Slager get charged with murder so quickly? And who did it? I remember the Zimmerman case, Gov Rick Scott pushed the regular prosecutor aside and appointed special prosecutor Angela Corey, and then she produced that humdinger Affidavit of Probable Cause. In the Slager case, it looks like some SLED agent Angela Peterson stated that the Santana video is sufficient cause for a murder charge, and Judge Alvin Bigen signed off on it. Was there no prosecutor involved? Had they (whoever they are) seen the police dashcam video? Did they think a Grand Jury was unnecessary to charge someone with the most serious crime possible?

    Like

    • yakmaster2 says:

      I think the move to charge so quickly was a political one. Neither Internal Investigations nor Grand Juries are trusted by the Black population in these cases ((that’s already been proven), so protestors would surely have filled the streets if either of those options were chosen. The Mayor and Chief of Police did the Pontius Pilate thing—washed their hands of it to keep the peace.
      Remember, Charleston is a tourist town, especially this time of year.

      Liked by 2 people

    • As to your question about who charged Mr. Slager, the affidavit that sundance linked in another post shows that the affiant in this case is Special Agent Angela Peterson from SLED.

      Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      Looks like a set up. Now comes the Special Prosecutor Scam if the local one takes a pass.

      Like

    • What does the dashcam video have to do with the subsequent shooting? And why keep comparing this to Zimmerman? Other than the BGI there is no comparison.

      Like

  6. This is all pretty cut and dry, in my opinion, which goes to why the charge came so quickly.

    Law enforcement are not allowed to shoot at a fleeing suspect, unless they have probable cause to believe the suspect is a violent felon and poses a significant threat of bodily harm or death to the officer or others. According to The Post and Courier, Mr. Scott had one accusation of violence stemming from a charge nearly 30 years ago. All other issues with the law were apparently due to failure to pay child support or similar issues. Mr. Slager opened fire on Mr. Scott when they were about 10 feet from each other and, as we all can see, while Mr. Scott was running in the opposite direction (not very gracefully, I might add). There was no significant threat to Mr. Slager and there was no probable cause to believe Mr. Scott posed a significant threat to others.

    It really doesn’t matter what, if anything, was in Mr. Scott’s hand as he exited the vehicle, since there was no claim by Mr. Slager that Mr. Scott had any weapon of any kind.

    In my opinion, Mr. Slager knew he made a big mistake almost immediately after the shooting, as there would be no other reason to toss the tazer, as it seems likely to be, by Mr. Scott’s body afterward. If he was trying to secure the scene for their CSU, he would have left everything in it’s place, or he would have held onto it. Tossing it near the body, insinuates something much more nefarious.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Len says:

      No it is not cut and dry.
      We have seen that the suspect had the taser. His taking it made him a threat of which the Officer was then legally able to respond to with deadly force.The fact that the suspect then threw the taser would only matter if the Officer knew he did.
      If he did not know, then the Officer is still acting reasonably to the known threat.

      Like

      • Dean Smith says:

        It is cut and dry. The officer was wrong and he will get convicted.

        Like

        • Sandra says:

          Don’t hold your breath or you will be as disappointed as the BGI and malinformed supporters after Zimmerman was found not guilty.

          Like

          • I wouldn’t use the word disappointed in describing how I would if the officer was found not guilty, meaning I’m not rooting for his incarceration.

            I do think he will be found guilty, though. The Zimmerman case is completely different from this case. We don’t need to relitigate that case, but we all know that Zimmerman had no escape and no other choice. There was some time and distance between Mr. Slager and Mr. Scott. Julison brings up those old, bitter emotions for many, and they may be interfering with how one is perceiving this situation.

            Like

    • Law enforcement are not allowed to shoot at a fleeing suspect, unless they have probable cause to believe the suspect is a violent felon and poses a significant threat of bodily harm or death to the officer or others.

      And since you have no idea whatsoever is that is the case, then no, it isn’t so cut and dry.

      Like

      • Which is why I said it was my opinion. My opinion is based on what we can see from the multiple videos, the former officer’s statement through his attorney and the reported background of Mr. Scott, among other things. I’m looking at what is there and not grasping for what is not.

        Like

  7. archer52 says:

    Justincase is correct.

    There are a lot of questions, was the car stolen? Borrowed? Why did a man with no record run, and not in the dark but in the daylight? Who was in the car with him? What did that person have or want to hide? Reason I ask this is this isn’t the first time a decoy runs on a single officer. Instinct is to chase, leaving behind the real culprit.

    Regardless, the shoot is bad. I am horrified that any coverup occurred. Once the bad guy gets away, he gets away.

    I had one I wrestled with for a few minutes, trying to stop him from swallowing the pills he had (stupid mistake on my part) and he squirreled away from me, ran up a two story set of stairs and jumped off a balcony. And no, I didn’t chase him off the balcony. He got away.

    Two weeks later the Sheriff office got him off the warrant I filed.

    Cops today are too quick to the gun. Combination of threat environment (and it is bad out there), training and mindset.

    Liked by 2 people

    • AdukeLAXobserver says:

      Not all of them…

      https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2014

      Line of Duty Deaths: 127
      9/11 related illness: 1
      Assault: 2
      Automobile accident: 26
      Drowned: 2
      Duty related illness: 3
      Fire: 1
      Gunfire: 47
      Gunfire (Accidental): 2
      Heart attack: 19
      Motorcycle accident: 4
      Struck by vehicle: 5
      Vehicle pursuit: 5
      Vehicular assault: 10

      Liked by 1 person

  8. MrRight says:

    Officers are not robots, so anyone that pick a fight with an officer might be the one that push him over the edge and snap (and they carry lethal force and are trained to use it)

    Criminals need to stop thinking “No problem, I just knock that cop down, and run for it. By law he cant shot me if I’m 10 feet away from him”

    I’m not saying that the shooting is justified, but to point out that the only person truly able to stop this from developing to its end was the victim. Lying , fleeing, resisting arrest and battery, fleeing.

    The solution in every case to date : stop resisting arrest, dont attack an officer.

    How about we give that a try and see how it turns out?

    And I have yet to hear this again:

    “If he just stayed in the car, like the cop told him to, nobody had to die!”

    Yea, where are those loud mouth now.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dean Smith says:

      The guy was running away and the officer shot him in the back 8 times and killed him. Last time I checked, this was America. Fleeing doesn’t carry a death sentence by firing squad.

      Liked by 1 person

      • kathyca says:

        “a death sentence by firing squad”??? Putting the melodrama aside, fleeing can be met with deadly force in America. Everyone should know this. Here’s the judicial standard from Tennessee v Garner — again. Also note that two justices dissented. Including the Chief Justice at the time. Both Americans who thought it was stupid to let fleeing felons escape so long as their felonies weren’t “too bad.” It’s not exactly a new concept.

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

        Liked by 1 person

        • Curbcooler says:

          Yea but we’re talking about child support payments here not kidnapping or murder so there was no potential harm to the public. Even the cops on Fox News said cops don’t waste there time running after wlders for past due child support bills.

          Liked by 1 person

          • nimrodman says:

            Those are fine distinctions you raise, Curbcooler (“only” child support, etc).

            Now – do we have any assurance the policeman knew that at the time? Do we know that his warrants check over the radio was complete?

            The suspect ran from arrest and then resisted arrest and fought with the police officer (the “tussle”). Those are reasonable grounds for the policeman to have presumed he was dealing with a potentially dangerous felon. How many non-dangerous non-felons flee and resist arrest typically? I presume it’s not the typical thing that law-abiding citizens do routinely.

            Liked by 1 person

          • kathyca says:

            No. We’re talking about assaulting a police officer and attempting to or actually taking his weapon…which is what happened right before the shots were fired. As another poster pointed out — if someone is willing to run from a routine traffic stop, fight with LE on the ground and attempt to or actually take LE’s weapon, what would they do when they get away. Carjack me…your mother or sister…break into a house and take hostages. Who knows what someone will do who’s willing to get into an armed confrontation with a police officer. That’s insane and you can expect that the person will continue to act insanely.

            Like

            • Chip Bennett says:

              No. We’re talking about assaulting a police officer…

              We don’t know that Scott assaulted Slager, rather than merely continued his attempts – before and after the physical altercation – to flee. Resisting arrest and assault are not the same thing.

              …and attempting to or actually taking his weapon…

              We don’t know that Scott either intended to take or succeeded in taking the TASER.

              …which is what happened right before the shots were fired.

              Right before the shots were fired, Scott got up, unarmed, and started running away.

              Liked by 2 people

            • Hi kathyca,

              That perspective definitely has merit, but I would also urge you to consider the possibility that the “tussle” was one man trying to get away from another, meaning there was potentially no attempt to take the officer’s weapons away from him. Considering that in each occurrence Mr. Scott’s flight mechanism for protection kicked in, it seems less likely, but not impossible, that he was not looking to fight with Mr. Slager.

              Also, fleeing from law enforcement is not something you or I would do, but it is not considered a violent offense, nor would it be grounds for considering insanity, hence it would not provide probable cause to believe the suspect was a significant threat to others.

              Liked by 2 people

      • doodahdaze says:

        It does under certain conditions. A fleeing felon may be shot in the back if the cop has a reasonable fear he may pose a danger to the public.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The guy was running away and the officer shot him in the back 8 times and killed him
        This is why no one should take you guys seriously when you can’t even get the most basic parts right. He wasn’t shot 8 times. You aren’t interested in the facts, you’re interested in pushing an agenda.

        Liked by 1 person

        • You’re splitting hairs, here. The only reason Mr. Scott wasn’t shot 8 times is because the former officer missed 3 times. The intent was there for all 8 shots. The description you called out doesn’t smack of an agenda to me, other than an attempt to illustrate a point. The former officer didn’t fire once or twice. He fired seven times, paused briefly and then fired an eighth time.

          Like

  9. AzzLad says:

    I saw that he threw something, if you stop the video at 2:35, you can see he throws something from his left hand, it lands somewhere near the front left of the police car. Looks like weed to me but I could be wrong.

    Like

  10. BlueDevil says:

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/7125-future-weapons-taser-x26-video.htm
    https://www.taser.com/images/support/downloads/downloads/m26c_manual.pdf

    Looking at the two objects hitting the ground it appears the cartridge head is what flies behind the Officer Slater. Scott appears to have the X26 taser body still in his hand before dropping it once they got up off the ground. That means Scott was in a position to use the taser as a drive contact weapon as it can be used as such without the cartridge head.

    Like

  11. BlueDevil says:

    24 AFID tags are discharged with every shot of an X26 cartridge. But, given they were rolling around on the ground, I doubt that will help clear the air much about this. Unanswered question: if the cartridge release was hit during the struggle, and, Scott then tried to deploy the taser against Officer Slater, could that be what caused the cartridge to go flying? I see an expert witness from the company being called to the stand.

    Like

  12. doodahdaze says:

    CNN is worried that the Police don’t have good relations with the criminals. Good Grief!

    Like

  13. Millwright says:

    Kudos Archer52 ! I’ll agree with your conclusions with one proviso. Cops didn’t create the “threat environment” today’s officers work in.

    Like

  14. JAS says:

    Having cops in the family I am one that gives cops every benefit of the doubt. Sorry to say though, based on the original video it doesn’t look good.

    Like

    • kathyca says:

      The “original video” is, at best, a partial edited video that was specifically designed to “not look good” by the absolute best scheisters in the business. Having cops in your family who think it doesn’t look good is the intended purpose. How’s about recognizing it for the propaganda that it is and wondering why you’re seeing an edited video and getting no other information about the other obvious players — for example, the “neighbor” who owned the car or the passenger in the vehicle.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hi kathyca,

        Considering all of the previous schemes from the BGI, it is smart and prudent to approach this event, especially the video, with a healthy amount of skepticism. Having said that, when Mr. Scott was shot, he was running away, apparently unarmed. This posed no significant threat to the officer or others. So, unless the cut video reveals that Mr. Scott made a verbal threat prior to fleeing, it is unlikely any edit, of the happenings prior to what we’ve seen, would have any significant impact.

        Like

        • kathyca says:

          Watching the video, it seems to me there’s a good chance the officer didn’t know where the taser was. Which also is consistent with what we know of his statement. It’s also the part of the story that the BGI has highlighted from the beginning with the narrative that it’s being a lie, or inconsistent. Which means it’s very important to them that that idea sticks. And, no one’s bothered to publish the officer’s own account. We’ll see. That said, I have to admit I’m not a big fan of the Garner decision. I don’t like the idea of police officer’s having to let criminals escape. I also wasn’t a big fan of the high speed chase laws when that came to pass — although I agree with the rationale of those laws a little more. So I start from a position of “I don’t really care what happened to Scott” because he brought it all on himself 1000%. So that should help explain why I’m not so angsty about what happened and why I’m not all that concerned about whether he actually had the cops weapon or not. What he DID do and is known to have done under anyone’s version is enough for me, personally, putting Garner aside.

          Like

          • Hi kathyca,

            That’s perfectly understandable. My position is focused on the protection of the presumption of innocence. I am against the death penalty, mostly because I am an atheist, which means I see life in prison as more of a punishment than ending one’s life. But, I also don’t like the idea of granting our representatives the ability to deny life to the people they represent. Going back to the presumption of innocence, I have a favorite quote from John Adams:

            ““It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”

            Like

            • kathyca says:

              Interesting. I too, am an atheist and believe that pov informs my pro-death penalty (in some cases) stance. It also informs my view of the protection of the presumption of innocence in exactly the same way, I think — i.e., when there is no legitimate presumption (imo) because of an admission of guilt coupled with video, for example, there is no compelling interest in preserving a fiction (also imo). Thus, I have no qualms about the death penalty applied to admitted serial killers, child rapists, etc. And, similarly, don’t have an issue with the shooting of a fleeing felon who, by their own actions, chooses to use the presumption as a sword rather than a shield. Was Scott a fleeing felon here? To me it seems that he probably was and that, at a minimum, the officer is not guilty of murder. It also seems possible to me that once all of the facts come out, that there will be reasonable doubt as to whether the shooting was justified. What’s really interesting, though, is that to me none of this has anything to do with race, but only to do with criminality. While the “other side,” so to speak, chalks it all up to hate. So, at the end of the day, no amount of rationale polite discussion matters in the least. :::sigh:::

              Like

              • Hi kathyca,

                I agree with your last statement for probably close to 90% of the “other side”. I would estimate only about 10% are willing to objectively look at the facts in cases involving race. Yet, we’re supposed to be the cowards, right?

                It is interesting that we come down on different sides of the death penalty, but are using the same base rationale. Since I don’t believe in a hell or heaven, I see no punishment, other than the finality of losing one’s life, in the death penalty. I think that type of punishment actually punishes the living more. Life is a beautiful thing and I think we, all too often, think of snuffing it out without giving much more than a passing thought to it. My son is into Batman and he once asked me why Batman doesn’t kill criminals. I talked to him, and my daughters, about the power of posterity and why it is that a long and properous life is so important for humanity, since I don’t know the real reason. We’re kind of getting off topic, but I appreciate the conversation.

                Liked by 1 person

                • kathyca says:

                  It’s because I don’t care about punishment, I think. I view the primary purpose of our legal system to be protecting the public. I don’t care so much about retribution as about very bad things not happening to innocent people in the first place and, certainly, not again if we can stop the cause. I think that’s consistent with atheism because it does not value all life equally and puts value singularly on the earthly life of the innocent. Hope that makes sense. Anyway, yes we are OT, but I also appreciate the conversation.

                  Like

                • auscitizenmom says:

                  “I view the primary purpose of our legal system to be protecting the public. I don’t care so much about retribution as about very bad things not happening to innocent people in the first place and, certainly, not again if we can stop the cause.” Yes, that is how I see it. I am not an athiest, but I don’t believe that God intended for us not to protect ourselves. So often, murderers who get out just go and do it again.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • I see your point. You’ve given me something to consider. Thanks again.

                  Liked by 1 person

          • DT says:

            People across the internet are mistakenly identifying Scott’s cap as the taser body. They are basing their analysis on the taser being immediately visible to the officer, in front of him, between Scott’s feet. It’s almost positive that the taser body ended up behind the officer. The hat is on the hard pack, the taser body is in the grass. When the officer retrieves the taser body, he goes to the grass. It’s behind him, out of his sight line when Scott takes off. That matters.

            Like

            • kathyca says:

              Yes, that’s what I’m referring to. That is consistent with what we know of the officer’s version and not inconsistent with the video. Thanks!

              Like

  15. Somebody please post a pic of Scott aiming his pistol at Officer Slager, at 2:12 in the above dash cam video. I can’t seem to do it.

    Like

Leave a Reply to Tommy Stubbe Cancel 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