A person would have to be blind to the events of the past 5 years regarding controversial violent encounters (Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, Tony Robinson, etc) and the inherent manipulation of the details therein, not to notice that some information/evidence is released and some similar information/evidence is brutally missing, for an very intentional purpose.
The South Carolina Walter Scott shooting -by Police Officer Michael Slager- is absolutely filled with intentionally missing elements in an effort by ALL INTERESTED PARTIES to sell a narrative useful for their purposes.
What does that mean? It means this is not just a legal issue; it means the shooting is being manipulated for a political benefit; it means the substance in the media reports are there to sell a purposeful narrative from one singular perspective.
Someone needs to step into the discussion; someone needs to do the research; someone needs to dig for the facts, uncomfortable or inconvenient as those facts might be. It is only when the facts are fully known that finding the truth is possible.
That’s where we come in.
Against the backdrop that Walter Scott fled after giving up his Driver’s License, thereby easily identifying his personage, an obvious issue is: What was more risky to Walter Scott than staying in an innocuous traffic stop and being processed/cited?
No-one is asking the question, and something is not passing the common sense sniff test.
The family (Ryan Julison – spokesman) narrative to explain the motive for fleeing is to claim warrants for outstanding unpaid child support. However, as the Associated Press reports, there was no outstanding warrant to fill that meme.
[…] Court records show that Walter L. Scott was almost $7,500 behind in child support at the time he was shot and killed by a police officer, but no bench warrant had been issued for him. (link)
So Ryan Julison wants to sell a motive that doesn’t exist. Curiousor and curiousor.
Walter Scott claims in the Dash-Cam video that he just purchased the vehicle on Friday and was going to get the “paperwork” processed on Monday. However, according to the Daily Mail, and quoting his co-worker, he put new wheels on it the week prior. So he didn’t just purchase it….
Further Julison narrative expansion has Walter Scott buying it from a neighbor. Yet with 24/7 coverage and a fleet of reporters, no-one appears interested to locate this “neighbor”…. for the “personal impact” angle…..
According to the Daily Mail Scott was on the phone with his Mother during the entire police stop. Yet the family initially claimed they didn’t know who the passenger was?
What is it about this vehicle, and more importantly this “passenger”, which is creating such anxiety? What’s the risk to the Ryan Julison narrative such that extensive lengths would be taken to obfuscate the subject?
Mystery NO MORE:
Charleston County, SC, LEO Engagement consists of:
2001 – (16 years old) 2 counts of armed robbery – No disposition listed because the prosecutor sent it down to family court and those proceedings are protected from public view. [link]
2003 – (18 years old) Unlawful Carrying of a Pistol (dismissed), [link] Unlawful Possession of a Pistol (plead guilty – sentenced to 2 years probation[link]), Distribution of Crack Cocaine (reduced to possession of crack – probation [link]), Possession With Intent to Distribute Crack Near a School (dismissed [link]).
2005 – (20 years old) Unlawful Carrying of a Pistol (plead guilty – 174 days time served), Possession of a Stolen Pistol (dismissed) [link], Unlawful Possession of a Pistol (dismissed), Probation Violation – probation revoked for a short period. [link]
2011 – (26 years old) Distribution of Marijuana (dismissed) [link].
Last Friday – (Via Post and Courier) The mystery passenger in the car Walter Scott drove has retained a Charleston attorney but has declined to go public.
[Attorney] Mark Peper confirmed late Friday that he represents the man, but he could not reveal his identity.
“At this point in time, I can only confirm that my office has been retained by the passenger in Mr. Scott’s vehicle,” he said. “In an effort to help the Scott family seek the justice they deserve, we provided (the State Law Enforcement Division) with a written statement earlier this afternoon.”
SLED did not subsequently file charges against the man, spokesman Thom Berry said Friday.
“He has asked that his name not be disclosed,” Berry said. “We have to respect his privacy.”
SLED declined to reveal any information about the passenger, citing that privacy concern. There also was no indication what the passenger saw of the fatal confrontation between Scott and North Charleston Police Officer Michael Slager on April 4.
State law would allow the identity to be kept secret if releasing it would cause “an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy,” although whether that’s the case here is “a difficult question,” S.C. Press Association attorney Jay Bender said.
It’s possible SLED is concerned that the passenger might be threatened if the name were released, but citing privacy concerns “too often plays into the hands of cops,” Bender said. In general, it would be in the public interest to know what the passenger saw, he said”. (read more)
Knowing there was NOT an outstanding warrant, what would motivate Walter Scott to such an extent that even knowing his Driver’s License was in the hands of a police officer he would choose to run?
He’s not an emotional teenager, he’s a fully matriculated adult man of 50 years.
Not only did he choose to run, he chose to fight the officer in a physical struggle, escalating to the struggle over a deployed taser, all in an effort to evade a police officer who didn’t appear remotely concerned about anything other than the vehicle status.
What gives? What was his real motivation for running, fighting, seeking escape?
(left) Walter Scott, Driver – (right) Pierre Fulton, Passsenger
THE GAP – “What’s missing is what happens from the time the two men run out of the frame of dashboard video to the time picked up in a bystander’s cellphone video a few hundred yards away. The cellphone footage starts with Scott getting to his feet and running away, then Slager firing eight shots at the man’s back.
“It is possible for something to happen in that gap to significantly raise the officer’s perception of risk,” Seth Stoughton, a former police officer and criminal law professor at the University of South Carolina.” (link)
We have now begun to identify exactly what happened in the gap. During the chase a lengthy physical struggle occurred between Officer Slager and Walter Scott.
During the struggle Scott gained control of the Taser of officer Slager and used it against him – OUTLINED HERE.
Here is the full radio dispatch from the event, aligned with the dash-cam footage and the eye witness footage. Judge for yourself: