*Update* Game Changer OR Paradigm Shift ? – Walter Scott Shooting: Enhanced Video Shows Officer Slager With Taser Darts…

update-1Updated 4/12/15 2:15pm with additional video

On the first day we saw the North Charleston, South Carolina, shooting video of Walter Scott by Officer Michael Slager we were as shocked as everyone.  However, as our research now indicates, there is much more to the story.

What we cover here in the latest update might just change the entire way the story continues…

Today, April 12th – We share alarming discoveries within the non-discussed details.

Treeper Diwataman , who previously discovered the “Three Stooges” interaction with Trayvon Martin (which became a game changer leading to the discovery of why Trayvon was at the 7-11) has done another incredible job creating a video to aid a larger understanding.

With discovery of the full radio dispatch recording of North Charleston Police, and with the Dash Cam video(s) from two vehicles, Diwataman was able to assemble a video syncing all of the data into one format easily understood.

The sync’d  video IS BRILLIANT and shows the length of time in the chase, confrontation, physical struggle between Officer Slager and Walter Scott, and the first aid administered by the responding officers.

Additionally, by adding a running clock from the moment Scott begins to run from the vehicle scene you can see the length of the struggle:

Walter Scott map 2

You can clearly see and hear this was not a short fight prior to Officer Slager using his firearm to shoot Walter Scott.  But that fact alone is not the most important discovery in the past 24 hours.

What is potentially a game changer occurs when you review Officer Slager stating he had lost control/custody of the x26 Taser he deployed to restrain a non compliant Scott – and recognize the Taser actually appears to have been used against him.

At least one dart appears lodged in the upper torso, chest, shirt of Officer Slager.

walter scott tazer leads

If you review the raw footage  (source New York Times) of the witness shooting video you can clearly see the wire from the Taser connected to Officer Slager.

Additionally, if you follow the wire you also recognize the cartridge from the Taser itself is being dragged behind the fleeing Walter Scott.

This is critical because the darts are on one end of the wire, and the cartridge is on the other end – usually cartridge remaining in the trigger assembly.  However, the cartridge is obviously dislodged in the struggle.

If the cartridge is dragging behind Scott -somehow tangled with his foot/shoe or leg – and the line is visibly taut (which it is) then the dart end is indeed attached to Officer Slager.

*NOTE* The civilian version of the x26 (x26C) only has 10-15′ of wire, but the LEO version is 25′ to 35′.  From the imaging it appears the length is at least 25′.

walter scott - taser x26 - slager

walter scott - taser s26 specs

This means when the Taser fired during the struggle, the darts actually penetrated Slager, not Scott.

Factually this aligns with the recorded statement of Slager and the reports of his initial debriefing.

It could be that one dart is in the leg of Slager and the other is in the upper torso region as evidenced below.

Walter Scott - taser lead

This would also explain the picture of Slager being debriefed after the confrontation with his left pant leg folded up as he explains events to the documenting officer.

walter scott - slager - uniform debrief

Expanding these visuals and going back to the original source video taken by eye-witness Feidin Santana, an emerging picture comes to the surface.  Officer Slager did in fact lose custody of the Taser to Walter Scott.

walter scott tazer

This puts Slager at a serious disadvantage and obvious risk.

Eye-witness Santana describes hearing the sound of the Taser in his statement (as shared by his attorney Todd Rutherford):

[…]  After observing the two men struggle on the ground and hearing the sound of a Taser gun, I began filming the altercation with my cell phone”. (link)

Walter Scott - feidin santana statement

feidin santana

In the micro-seconds of decision-making, and having chased a fleeing suspect, and having physically struggled for almost two minutes, a scenario emerges where Slager -having lost the advantage of his Taser, and facing the risk of incapacitation from his own Taser being used against him – doesn’t realize (as they stand up – still fighting) the cartridge has dislodged from the trigger assembly.

The Taser wire is clearly still attached to Officer Slager as he draws his firearm to regain control against the risk presented by Scott.  The whereabouts of the actual trigger assembly unknown to Slager but in the video you can see it landing behind them.

If you frame by frame the video you will note the wire is still attached to the torso of Slager, and tightening by the fleeing Scott, as Slager fires the first shot.

walter scott tazer leads

Between shots 1 and 2 the wire pulls free from the officer’s upper torso as Scotts’ forward momentum dislodges it.

However, the wire is also still hung up on the foot/leg area of Scott as he runs away.  You can see the Taser cartridge bouncing along behind him.

View post on imgur.com

An argument can be made, and would be supported by factual evidence, that Officer Slager didn’t know Scott was not in possession of the trigger assembly.  Slager now focused on using his firearm – this is all happening in microseconds.

How dramatically this information changes the position or perspectives of the people who are holding opinion is most likely based on the ideology/bias of the observer.

Does the paradigm shift all the way to justification?  Not sure – that’s not our forte’.

However, weighing all of this against a charge of murder, and considering it presented before a jury…. well, at least to us, at the very least, this presents ‘very reasonable’ doubt.

south carolina 3

Walter Scott - Feidin Santana

Video eye-witness Feidin Santana with his attorney Todd Rutherford visit with the family of Walter Scott and their attorney Chris Stewart – Friday 4/10/15.

[…]  “The family’s legal team was gathering evidence for a civil federal lawsuit. “A civil lawsuit can’t bring him back to life,” Mr. Stewart said of Mr. Scott, “but it provides for the future, which would be his children”  (link)

The youngest child of Mr. Scott is 16 and the older three are in their 20’s.   That’s a fact you will see largely ignored by the MSM.  However, perhaps Mr. Scott in death will do for his children what he chose not to do in life.

[…]  “He (Feidin Santana) kept recording as the officer struck Mr. Scott and put a stun gun to Mr. Scott’s side, then as Mr. Scott slipped away”.. (link)

“Slipped away”?  “A Tussle”?  What’s next, a pillow fight? And then there is this little nugget:

[…]  “He (Feidin Santana) checked Facebook to see if he knew anyone in common with the family, and found that they shared some friends. He asked one of those friends to make an unusual introduction. He showed the video to the Scott family on Sunday and turned it over to state investigators on Monday”…. (link)

walter scott witness

This entry was posted in Abusive Cops, BGI - Black Grievance Industry, Conspiracy ?, CRS, Cultural Marxism, media bias, Police action, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Racism, Ryan Julison, Walter Scott Shooting. Bookmark the permalink.

1,083 Responses to *Update* Game Changer OR Paradigm Shift ? – Walter Scott Shooting: Enhanced Video Shows Officer Slager With Taser Darts…

  1. Rod Wallen says:

    This article was a great read for all intents and purposes; however, the officers report did not state he was hit with the tazer. He grabbed tazer, he reached for my tazer are all reports of an attempt. It stands to reason that the officer would have recalled for certain if he had been tazed and that would have been a warranted threat and easy defense. In any event, the officer if feeling the need to draw his fire arm to apprehend the suspect, could have aimed to injury. He shot to kill and it is clear that the suspect feeling from the officer and that the officers life is not in danger therefore giving the officer no grounds to “lawfully” commit homicide. Regardless of “alleged” scuffle (for which back up should have been radioed) there was no grounds evident for justifiable homicide. Officers cannot be above the law the are sworn to enforce, they should be an example of it.

    Like

    • Philip Chin says:

      Wait a second. First you admit and say that the 1st Officer and Scott were on the ground, most likely scuffling and fighting. That in itself is a life and death situation. If the 1st Officer allowed the Scott to flee, wouldn’t the 2nd Officer (seen seconds away in the video) engage Scott from the left of the video and there would be AGAIN the same scuffle and fighting (another life and death situation)?

      Liked by 4 people

      • From Plumhoff v. Rickard, a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case:

        In Brosseau [v. Haugen], we held that a police officer did not violate clearly established law when she fired at a fleeing vehicle to prevent possible harm to “other officers on foot who [she] believed were in the immediate area, . . . occupied vehicles in [the driver’s] path[,] and . . . any other citizens who might be in the area.” 543 U.S. 194, 197 (quoting 339 F. 3d 857, 865 (CA9 2003); internal quotation marks omitted).

        END QUOTE

        “to prevent possible harm” to “any other citizens who might be in the area”

        They’ll be lucky to get an indictment.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Philip Chin says:

          I bet the local officials and even federal officials are privately telling themselves, just drag this out so we can best prepare for the worse case scenario of a riot since there is no way the DA is going to get a 1st Degree ruling, or even an indictment from a grand jury. The Ferguson thing went nowhere and this SC cop thing is no different, plus the same video is going to prove the SC police officer showed tremendous restraint and good judgement in protecting the public and protecting 2nd police officer running to the scene.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Jonathan White says:

          A vehicle, in that circumstance, represents a weapon and therefore a threat. The perpetrator in that case could have easily used the car to run over other officers. A person fleeing, in and of itself, is not a threat, particularly if there is no evidence of a weapon. The officer to the left had the ability to apprehend Scott in a typical manner. The fact that there was another officer available to help apprehend Scott is even more reason why deadly force was not necessary in this circumstance.

          Liked by 1 person

          • It doesn’t matter. Now you’re arguing whether Scott posed a threat of “possible harm” to “any other citizens who might be in the area.” Is it obvious he did not? Take a look at the image that has been posted here, at Conservative Treehouse: https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/walter-scott-upper-hand.jpg

            That’s Slager and Scott on the ground, in the bystander video, maybe twelve seconds before Scott bolts. Scott is the green shirt, of course.

            Feidin Santana, who recorded the video, has said he saw Slager and Scott on the ground. How would you like to be a prosecutor trying to argue that Scott obviously posed no threat to others when you know that image will be in evidence?

            Like

            • Jonathan White says:

              You obviously have no legal training at all. Have several seats ___

              Fighting with an officer in an attempt to flee is cannot be analogous to whether or not he will pose a danger to ordinary citizens. There is no correlation, ESPECIALLY due to the fact that Scott, again, had no weapons.

              Liked by 1 person

              • PS From that Plumhoff quote again:

                “possible harm to other officers on foot who [she] believed were in the immediate area”

                Like

                • “… in the immediate area [of a suspect fleeing in a CAR]”

                  Reading contextually is more than fundamental and a little complicated… so if you can’t do it, leave it to those who can.

                  Like

                  • Yes, the flight in a car, as opposed to on foot, is a conspicuous distinction between Brosseau and this case of Slager and Scott, but it is not on its face a critical one. Another possible distinction is that Slager was attacked and put in fear for his life by Scott before Scott dashed away the final time. I’d be interested to read a case in which a suspect who had broken away from a police officer whom he’d unsuccessfully attacked in the course of a chase was held to have retained the flight right he’d had at the chase’s beginning.

                    Like

                  • 1gandydancer says:

                    A car is ipso facto a dangerous weapon so, yes, that distinction IS, on its face a critical one.

                    Liked by 1 person

                  • jimmy says:

                    Seems like disarming a taser from a law enforcement officer would pose a threat. Better rethink what you are arguing. Black man no comply, black man die. It is sad but still an ever present part of every one of the last few of these events that transpired. I have an idea why don’t people just listen and comply with an officers request? I bet this Scott character isn’t such a nice man.

                    Like

              • Manny says:

                How does he know he has not weapon, a confrontational criminal fleeing the scene, attacking a sworn lawman has to always be considered armed and dangerous.

                Like

              • ButterCookie77 says:

                Enough with the “unarmed” bit. You can’t go by what wasn’t known until after the fact. Scott never gave Slager the proper legal opportunity to search him for weapons, and therefore assumed the risk of being perceived as dangerous or possibly armed.

                Like

                • 1gandydancer says:

                  Sorry, Slager wasn’t legally entitled to assume he was armed on that basis.

                  Like

                  • pciorlandosalestwopciorlandosales says:

                    Sorry but the officer legally had to assume Mr. Scoot could in fact be armed. In failing to do so .. the officer endangers his own life, and that of the public at large. This has been proven viable in many instances over and over again.

                    Like

              • pciorlandosalestwopciorlandosales says:

                And you obviously have had none .. and are telling another poster they have had none LOL

                With reckless disregard to the dangers involved … Mr. Scott chose to flea from a traffic stop. It can be argued that the pattern of reckless disregard continued as Mr. Scott continued to struggle with the officer (after being tased). 1. At this point .. Mr. Scott has committed a felony (in any state). Felony battery on a police officer. Then upon the struggle ensuing .. Mr. Scott knocks the taser out of the officers hands (at the very least). Then regains his footing and chooses to (yet again run). 2. That if any citizen will fight in resistance r non compliance with a law enforcement officer, It can be reasonable to believe that said felon would be a danger to themselves, the officer involved, and the public at large. 3. At no point was the officer assured that Mr. Scott did not have a weapon on him. For the officer to assume this .. would be extremely dangerous to the officer, and the public at large. 4. Under the fleeing felon rule … if an officer determines that said felon is a danger to himself, herself or the public at large. The officer may use lethal force to stop the fleeing felon.

                Like

                • StayGoldJohnny says:

                  People need to read the Garner vs TN Supreme court case.

                  They found it was not within the law to shoot a fleeing suspect. But it IS within the law to shoot a felonious suspect who could potentially be a threat to ANYONE.

                  Disarming & assault of a police officer is multiple felonies in itself. It doesn’t matter whether it was morally right or wrong. He was operating with the LAW. Get ready for disappointment.

                  Like

                  • Bbp says:

                    No…. unless the suspect has a weapon in plain sight there is no legality in firing upon a fleeing individual…. get ready for disappointment

                    Like

                  • Jason Deeds says:

                    A weapon does not have to be in plain sight you are way off base.

                    Like

              • joeh7 says:

                Oh God. I just love how you vigilantes are ok with fighting with police officers, running from police officers, etc etc, but when a police officer shoots back its OH MY GOD he was unarmed. How about DONT RUN FROM THE POLICE. Its an absolute insult to police officers everywhere and shows how ridiculous our society is, that a police officer doesn’t have the freedom to shoot at a fleeing criminal. They CHOSE to flee. THEY put their own lives in danger. They should not have the right to flee and a police officer should be able to use any means necessary to prevent them from escaping.

                Like

          • Holly A says:

            The other officer hadn’t arrived yet…

            Like

        • Monty says:

          Really!? You don’t see the distinction between fleeing on foot and fleeing in a vehicle presenting possible harm to others in vehicles.

          Liked by 1 person

          • I didn’t say I don’t see a distinction; I said the distinction is not, on its face, critical. With respect to Slager-Scott, what is significant about Brosseau is that the court did not require the possible harm to be imminent or to specified parties.

            Like

            • REPLY TO MYSELF:

              Having looked at this matter again, I see I was hasty and erred in examining Plumhoff v. Rickard, as well as Brosseau itself (the Supreme Court case). In Brosseau, the Supreme Court did not decide whether the officer had had the right to shoot Haugen as the latter attempted to flee in a car; the Court said simply that, at the time of the shooting, the law had been unclear enough that Brosseau couldn’t be sued for the shooting. The court specifically said it was not deciding the constitutionality of the shooting itself, which the lower court (9th Circuit Court of Appeals) had said was unlawful. In Plumhoff, the Supreme Court referred to its Brosseau decision only as an example of a case in which an official won protection from suit because the law governing her deed had been unclear at the time of the deed.

              Like

        • Paul Molloy says:

          The fleeing car was the danger to other officers and civilians. This case has nothing to do with the Scott shooting and would not be pertinent. I suspect the indictment will be almost knee jerk. The resulting trial will be where the facts in this case will be seen.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Scott was unarmed and a taser could not kill the other officer so no one was in real harm.

          Like

          • pciorlandosalestwopciorlandosales says:

            I’m guessing the officer used his x ray vision to know Mr. Scott was not armed .. correct? Since any (sane) person would conclude that the officer indeed had no clue as to if Mr. Scott could be armed or not. I suggest you look at where Mr. Scott’s hands are located in perspective to the officers field of view, at the time the officer shoots Mr. Scott. Remember .. Mr. Scott has chosen to flee from the traffic stop … and then was tased .. dropped to the ground … then both Mr, Scott and the officer struggle on the ground. The stun gun is then knocked from the officers hand. Mr. Scott fights to gain his footing (as he does) and yet again chooses to run). By this time Mr. Scott has committed a felony, battery on a law enforcement officer. He has posed himself to be a danger to the officer, the public at large, and for his own safety. I suggest that Mr. Scott’s actions permit the officer to use deadly force to stop him, according to the fleeing felon rule.

            Like

        • patrick says:

          A vehicle is a deadly weapon. Firing at a fleeing car and firing at a fleeing person are not the same thing.

          Like

        • Bob page says:

          Even though it was a terrible incident, the question still remains why did Scott bail and take off afoot, was this a stolen vehicle and the Officer made the stop and chase. I don’t see any info or any news media ask the question why did Scott take off.

          Like

        • To All Persons visiting Mr. Walter Scott Webpage:

          Yes, the Grand Jury handed an indictment to the Solicitor to proceed with a trial, but please be mindful the Solicitor’s office and judge can very well agree to charge the officer with a lesser crime. Should the above take place, it is possible the officer could be sentenced to as little as 3 years imprisonment.

          Also, it is possible for the Solicitor to make errors during the trial and a higher court such as the Appeals Court may throw the case out due to critical errors committed by the Solicitor’s. Remember, Mr. Andy Savage is a “seasoned attorney.

          As of this day, the Grand Jury has issued a true bill indictment. Let’s move on thereby asking for the removal of District Attorney Scarlett Wilson

          Like

      • tarawa1943 says:

        Wait, shoot to injure, can you do that? I doubt it very seriously, especially under stress. The concept of self-defense (most Statutes of States in the USA) is to eliminate the threat that is threatening your life, civilian or LEO. LEO did not know they fleeing felon was armed after being shot with a Taser.

        Like

      • pciorlandosalestwopciorlandosales says:

        Bottom line .. the passenger never fled and he remained unharmed.

        Like

    • Rational Thinker says:

      No such thing as a “shoot to wound”. Your ignorance is showing. Imagine running a hundred yards, then shooting a basketball at hoop fifteen yards away THAT IS MOVING CONTINUOUSLY AND ERRATICALLY. You are COMPLETELY too inexpert to be allowed to pass judgment on this issue. You watch too much TV. As to the situation as a whole, further investigation will reveal more information for trial. Arrest has already been made.

      Like

    • David says:

      There is no such thing as “aiming to injure”. Several courts at all levels have proved that an attempt to do so is actually more dangerous, and is improbable, at best, to accomplish.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Chris says:

        Do you by chance have any links to those court rulings? I have ignorant friends who constantly say “Dude, he shoulda just aimed for the leg. He just wanted to kill that guy.” anytime an officer uses lethal force. I’d like to show them otherwise.

        Like

        • pciorlandosalestwopciorlandosales says:

          Law enforcement officers are trained to only draw their weapon when necessary. If you draw your weapon and do not shoot it .. then the law looks at it as if you should never have drawn it to begin with. Once you have drawn and you start to shoot, you can only stop shooting if 1 of 2 things occur. 1 the subject complies … (on knees, hands above head, fingers interlocked.) 2. Unless or until the subject no longer posses a perceived threat or danger to the officer or the public at large. In most cases the subject would be terminated at this point. This is SOP for all agencies with regards to use of lethal force.

          Like

    • Larry Hobel says:

      Unless you’ve been in that situation and dealt with an imminent threat to your life you have no clue the amount of adrenalin pumped into your system……trying to recall details clearly moments after an incident is not an easy task…….sometimes it takes days to recall details clearly…..yes we are trained to recall details as quickly as possible but sometimes thats not the easiest thing to do especially if your life has just been in danger your adrenalin is still pumping and you are not thinking clearly……..add on the fact that you’ve just had to take the life of another human being who was determined to take your life just moments before…….that stress in itself is massive and can be debilitating……so before you set there and arm chair quarterback what happened go take a course thats offered on what you would do in an officers place and deal with what is dealt with on the streets everyday and have to make the split second decisions whether to shoot or not……then maybe just maybe you’ll understand what LEO’s go through

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jonathan White says:

        If you can’t handle it, don’t take the job. You have a responsibility and we have to be able to trust that you will handle yourself accordingly. You HAVE THE PUBLIC TRUST. If you can’t handle that, find another job.

        I’m not a cop because I don’t want to be. I don’t want to be in the situations you face, whether I can handle it or not. On any job I have a responsibility and if I can’t fulfill that responsibility, I shouldn’t be doing that job. Don’t use the excuse of too much stress or too much adrenaline keeps you from being able to do your job the right way. You, as a cop, are NOT the judge and jury. Your job is to de-escalate and to arrest… to enforce the law, not be above it.

        You get no sympathy when you violate the public trust and take the life of someone who didn’t deserve death. He was RUNNING AWAY, with no weapon.

        Liked by 1 person

        • David says:

          He didn’t say he couldn’t do the job, he said the adrenaline and stress make it difficult to recall details immediately following the event.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Isn’t recalling details, exactly as they happened, a part of the job? Am I confusing something here?

            Liked by 1 person

            • truthmonger says:

              So, you have NO PROBLEM with people expecting the impossible from you at YOUR job? Jeeze, expectation of performance outside of the ability of the human body and mind is…. insane. Try juggling three balls in the air while running at full speed reciting the Bill of Rights.

              Like

            • DT says:

              In officer involved shootings, the interview of the officer involved are generally not mandated to immediately take place. There is a cooling off period of a day or two. This allows the officer to decompress and de-stress.

              This article is a worthy read. http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2213&issue_id=102010

              Remember that under stress, officers may remember certain aspects of the incident and may not remember others. In general, the officers who returned to the environment can remember from about 50 percent to 70 percent of the significant details of the experience, while those trying to remember in a different place can recall only about 30 percent to 50 percent of the specifics.1 As a result, a physical walk-through at the incident scene might assist officers in their recollections prior to or during the interview.

              Even when it’s your job to recall and remember events, you cannot over-ride the effects stress hormones have on your brain chemistry. You can calm your breathing and over-ride your tunnel vision, you cannot change the dump of chemicals and hormones or the effects they have on your body.

              Liked by 1 person

        • Scott’s actions certainly can and likely will work in the officer’s favor if the case goes to court. If Scott was trying to gain possession of the taser, then Slager would have to assume he intended to use it against him, and Slager would be justified in using deadly force if necessary to prevent that: an armed officer cannot allow someone to incapacitate him.

          So it’s possible Slager legitimately felt he was in a fight for his life during the struggle. Scott would be responsible for creating that situation – including the adrenaline effects which would occur in any human being in such a circumstance. The adrenaline and other chemicals involved change someone physiologically and psychologically in ways that cannot be prevented and by nature have unpredictable consequences. It’s not as if the officer were merely “excited.” And not being able to accurately report what happened immediately afterward is normal; it has nothing to do with the fitness of the officer.

          Slager may well have made a mistake in opening fire when he did. But it may only be because he was grappling with a mortal threat a just fraction of a second before that, and that would be on Scott. Should Slager have switched off that deadly threat mindset sooner? Sure. Can any of us say we would have been able to? No. At this point, there’s no reason to think Slager wasn’t a good officer determined to do his best.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Yogi says:

            Its quite possible that during the struggle for the taser, Slager maybe thought Scott gained control of it and took off. He probably didn’t see it go behind him during the struggle

            Like

          • 1gandydancer says:

            “Slager have switched off that deadly threat mindset sooner? Sure. Can any of us say we would have been able to? No. At this point, there’s no reason to think Slager wasn’t a good officer determined to do his best.”

            A “good” officer has to know the difference between shooting someone who is struggling with you for your weapon and shooting someone who is fleeing, apparently unarmed, at a significant distance. The latter is murder.

            Liked by 1 person

            • nwcboy says:

              KNOWING the Tazer is connected to HIM (Officer Slager) and SEEING the Tazer wire coming FROM Scott, he may have thought Scott still HAD the Tazer and could use it! That and the fight (Scott grabbing the Tazer) cause DOUBT!

              Like

        • pciorlandosalestwopciorlandosales says:

          LOL and you used your x – ray vision to determine he had no weapon right? You do understand that someone who (is) armed .. is even more of a danger to you as they are moving away from you? Don’t think so? Go look at the video and stop it right when Slate shoots Mr. Scott for the first time. Where are Mr. Scott’s hands in relation to Slates point of view?

          Like

    • chris says:

      In law enforcement, there is no shooting only to cause injury. There is no shooting to kill. He shot to STOP him. As soon as the suspect stopped and hit the ground, the officer stopped firing. They train officers to aim at “center mass” or middle of the torso. It appears as though the officer followed his training.

      Like

    • MacHope says:

      Cops are never taught to shoot to wound. Not saying it’s right, but all cops are taught from Day 1 that you shoot to kill and till your target is completely neutralized.

      Like

    • Duke Snider says:

      Initial reports seldom contain all the details. This is obviously a pre-primary stunt for votes and to prevent the larger black population from rioting as they did in Ferguson, Mo. The media does what it has done for some time… LIE, DISTORT, SENSATIONALIZE, and promote their socialist/communist agenda. I was dubious of the media account from day one and although I could not see the wire I could there was scuffle, Scott grabbed what I took to be the taser, and it bouncing on the ground behind him while initially running half turned for the first few steps as if attempting to fire a weapon…

      Like

      • Jonathan White says:

        You’re blind.

        Liked by 1 person

      • 1gandydancer says:

        “… while initially running half turned for the first few steps as if attempting to fire a weapon…” Someone with your overactive imagination certainly shouldn’t be permitted into a position requiring judgment as to whether to use lethal force.

        Liked by 1 person

        • kathyca says:

          Look at you, all over the back pages spewing your biased dreck “gandydancer.” Would love to know how you decided on that moniker. I’m guessing it’s angsty.:)

          Like

    • MrMe says:

      Ha ha! How is he going to radio for backup in the middle of a fight? You’re deranged.

      Liked by 1 person

      • pciorlandosalestwopciorlandosales says:

        Deranged? The witness who recorded the video states that both where on the ground struggling. That’s when he decides to get his phone out and start recording, by then Mr. Scott has knocked the stun gun out of the officers hand and is on his feet one again. This is what the witness told NBC during the interview.

        Like

        • auscitizenmom says:

          I guess you are assuming the witness is telling the truth.

          Liked by 1 person

          • pciorlandosalestwopciorlandosales says:

            It very much fits the timeline and the scenario. Why would the guy lie?

            Like

            • JohnBoy says:

              Why would he show the family the video first? Intentionally or unintentionally, he was biased after meeting with the family. You can tell by his tone also when questioned about the event. If there’s any question after you consider those facts. Watch the video when the recorder says the words abuse while recording and he has no idea what specifically is going on even though he is present.

              Like

    • TB says:

      The officer may not have known he was hit with the taser if it connected only with his clothing and not his skin. As is the same affect with a suspect, when they are hit with a taser and it only penetrates the clothing they suspect keeps fighting because the taser has no affect on them, therefore they are a threat to the officer or anyone else they are engaged in an altercation with. The fact that the taser was taken away from the officer shows intent by the suspect to cause enough harm to be able to flee. And, I don’t know what academy you were taught at (obviously none) but police are taught to shoot to stop the threat, in other words shoot to kill because a wounded suspect is still a threat. They are not taught to shoot to injur. Any person pulling a trigger on a gun is shooting to kill not injur because that bullet will kill and if it doesn’t it’s because of where the bullet penetrated more than where it was aimed!

      Like

    • Rollory says:

      re: Rod Wallen:
      “could have aimed to injury”

      This is bullshit. You have no freaking clue what you’re talking about. It’s not an action movie. If you need to fire your gun, you do so with the intent of utterly destroying your target. If you don’t intend to do that, you don’t fire the gun.

      re: the article –

      I started off thinking this was clearly beyond the pale, a cop just shooting somebody for no good reason – which certainly does happen, against both white and black targets. But this piece provides some convincing evidence to the contrary, and makes the cop’s actions a lot more understandable.

      I still want to get rid of the militarized triggerhappy cops we have. But we have them because that’s what’s needed to keep the lid on a multiracial society, and the multiracial society is what really has to go.

      Like

    • MJ White says:

      It’s obvious that you know little, if anything, about weaponry and point of aim. Officers are not taught “shoot to kill”, or “shoot to injure”. They are taught to shoot at “center mass”, the best target (more so when the target is moving away and becoming smaller). Any decision on the outcome will be based on the FACTS at hand, and not mere opinion based on perceptions and interpretation.

      Like

    • TJ says:

      The officer could have aimed to injure!?! After a struggle, at a fleeing (running) target? And, because you know everything Rod, with what backdrop? Officers protect LIVES (plural, as in not just his). Not saying it was or wasn’t justifiable. Just watch another movie, Rod, and keep fanning the flames of unrest.

      Like

    • Bruce Moore says:

      There is absolutely no instance where law enforcement is trained to “Shoot to injure.” Once a law enforcment officer faced with the delima for the use of “Deadly or lethel force.” they cannot shoot to injure or assume the perpetrator of a crime is not armed and can, while being wounded, return fire and fatally wound the officer…thus they are trained to kill the perpetrator…it is illogical to assume an officer can, with precision, shoot and wound a moving target….there, based on the text and photographs of the article, is much more to the story than the video shows….I was not there, nor was any other commentor but a judgment should be rendered on the entire incident rather than a 60 second video that concluded it…

      Like

    • JT Kuhn says:

      The thing I don’t understand is how this article or any article I have seen that mentions the officer getting struck by the taser does not mention how all officers wear bulletproof vests. He apparently got struck in the upper torso, so if the vest could stop a bullet, I would imagine it could stop a taser dart (I don’t know that for sure, of course. Just speculating). So it would be possible the officer did not even feel the taser or know that he was shot.

      Like

    • Caleb Hall says:

      Dude….”shoot to injure”…..really????? Police are not taught to “shoot to injure,” there’s no such thing!!! They are taught to shoot center mass so as to stop the threat of force… c’mon now…

      Like

    • Lyndy Hair says:

      Of course the officer would not know he was hit with the taser. He’s wearing a vest. You can not say with certainty that Mr. Scott posed no threat. At a close encounter the suspect will try to disarm an officer and use his/her own weapon against them. Officer Slager did not know if Mr. Scott had a weapon of any kind on him and the attempt to put distance between them would enable the suspect to draw their own weapon. The only thing clear is Mr. Scott ran away during a routine traffic stop (for no apparent reason), a busted tail light, had a physical confrontation and continued running in the opposite direction. Why? To possibly hide behind one of the trees, draw a weapon and shoot the officer or anyone else nearby by a stray bullet. You can’t reasonably say Mr. Scott was in fear of his life when he originally ran considering there was a passenger in the car and he didn’t run, even when he had a chance. “Lawfully commit homicide?” No such thing. The coroner did conclude death by homicide (that’s when one person killed another). It doesn’t mean a crime has been committed.

      No officer is ever trained to “aim to injure”. They are trained to shoot center mass to eliminate any threat to themselves and others is the area. When do you think he had time to call for back-up during the “scuffle”? This is not a T.V. show.

      Yes, the officer has been arrested and charged. That was done based on the primary viewing of the recording. We will see when all the evidence, all witnesses are interviewed and all is presented.

      Like

    • It is quite possible that the first dart didn’t penetrate his kevlar vest. If he was not aware the taser was dropped, he could fear the next two shots, if it was an X3

      Like

  2. stevethegeek says:

    The pant leg pic… Seems it is just the officer in process of turning over his BUG (back up gun) that was in his ankle holster. He likely turned it over moments before.

    Like

    • David says:

      I don’t see a BUG holster….that strap going up his leg is a “shirt stay”

      Liked by 1 person

      • David says:

        The holster, if there was one, was likely turned over with the weapon. It’s not hard fact, but many departments request that, if possible, a weapon remain holstered. If Officer Slager’s holster was of the velcro variety,it would be safer to remove holster and all.

        Like

  3. Angel says:

    I believe this article is very helpful to people’s eyes. Everyone always sees it the way they want to or how they were shown. Cops aren’t their to kill people. In fact, this officer had seconds to react. It wasn’t like it was slow motion or he had time to think. People don’t know how hard it is to be out in these situations. Its easy to say I wouldn’t have done that or I would have done this, because you might have done the same thing if it were you.

    Like

  4. Darwin L. Thomas says:

    I agree with both posts directly above me here. And it seems to me if there wasn’t such a lack of respect for our law enforcement some of these things wouldn’t be happening? Mr. Scott would be alive today if he had chose not to assault/run from officers. If your running from officers, your guilty of something, period. As for Mr. Santana, he admits to showing his video to the Scott family first and foremost. Tell me why he would have taken this video directly to law enforcement? The racial over tones are screaming here!! And I’m not a racist, I have deceased ancestors that served in the civil war to free brothers of another color!! We have officers dying every day in this country because they hesitated a moment to act, or lost the scuffle on the ground. It wasn’t video taped and we hear little of it. But here is another case where the black man is killed by a white officer! Facts are if Scott would have surrendered, not ran, not gotten physical with police officers, he would be ALIVE TODAY!! People, you better wake up and stop and look at groups like ISIS who, because your american want to wipe you off the earth!! Pull together, respect our laws and protect our country. Incidents like this only make us weaker at the very core. To the Scott family my sincerest sympathy’s for your loss. To officer Slager, I wish to Thank You for your service as an officer and I hope you may be able to continue to serve and protect in the near future. Thank you here for allowing me to post my opinion.

    Like

    • Jonathan White says:

      Yes, he was guilty of not paying child support. Last time I heard, that doesn’t warrant a death sentence.

      Like

      • David says:

        From the video I saw, he was guilty of that….and driving without a license, without insurance, in a vehicle that didn’t belong to him (hence the reason for the stop); then, felony evading; aggravated assault of a peace officer; and whatever else happened that I didn’t see because I WASN’T THERE! You preach on about the officer acting as if he was above the system in one hand, and pass your own judgement upon him in the same manner. You weren’t there. If the system that we all have faith in, works as it should, then the truth will come out – whatever that may be. It’s no different than Garner in New York. Everybody screamed the exact same allegations that you are now, “selling cigarettes isn’t a death sentence!!”….then come to find out the asthmatic, 400lb man had 20-some-odd health problems. Yeah, clearly that’s what the cop was banking on – his health would “do him in, legally”. Doubt that would sell in ANY court.

        Liked by 1 person

      • pciorlandosalestwopciorlandosales says:

        Yeah that must have been it! Certainly not fleeing from a traffic stop .. or struggling on the ground with an officer after being tased. (as the witness that recorded the video told NBC).

        Like

    • fathertime88 says:

      “Mr. Scott would be alive today if he had chose not to assault/run from officers.”

      He’d also be alive if the officer had chosen not to shoot him. You can bitch about disrespect for officers all you want, but all the disrespect in the world doesn’t give them the right to shoot people who are running away and pose no threat.

      “If your running from officers, your guilty of something, period. ”

      That’s not for the officer to decide, that’s what we have a judge and jury for.

      “And I’m not a racist, I have deceased ancestors that served in the civil war to free brothers of another color!! ”

      I’m not saying you are a racist, but saying “I’m not a racist because my ancestors fought in the civil war” is a really weak argument. You are not your ancestors.

      Like

  5. Jay S says:

    Nothing here changes the fact that he shot Scott in the back…and shot at him 8 times. By definition, a subject running away is no threat to his pursuer. Murder suggests it was Slager’s plan to kill Scott. That’s a bit much. But manslaughter fits the bill, and my guess is the prosecutor will reduce the charge accordingly, perhaps in a plea deal. He’ll be sentenced to 10 years, and will be out in 5.

    Like

    • MrMe says:

      If he had reason to believe that the man had his taser–and was in the process of tasing him–the shooting in the back could be justified. Sorry–I know you want to act as judge and jury, but we actually have a system for these things.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jonathan White says:

        OH, you mean the system that the cop avoided by killing a fleeing unarmed suspect.

        Liked by 1 person

        • pciorlandosalestwopciorlandosales says:

          OH you mean the officer that used his x -ray vision to determine that Mr. Scott was unarmed?

          Like

      • 1gandydancer says:

        “If he had reason to believe that the man had his taser–and was in the process of tasing him–the shooting in the back could be justified.” Yeah, right. The guy running away was busy tasing him. LOL.

        Like

  6. Well-written but does it change the fact that the guy was running away when he shit him several times? He wasn’t attacking the officer, he was trying to get away. Don’t get me wrong, you should do this, but running away doesn’t warrant getting shot over and over again.

    Like

    • Michael says:

      TN v Garner says differently. This important case allows a peace officer to shoot a violent fleeing felon and yes even in the back. That case law is huge and gives officers the right to defend the safety of the public. While you are at it search Graham V Connor. It amazes me of the people saying silly things like,”he should have shot in leg… You cannot shoot running away.”

      Before I saw this entire piece it made me think the officer was stupid. But as always there is more to the story. Now it appears the officer might have acting reasonable.

      Liked by 1 person

      • David says:

        ^^what he said^^

        Like

      • 1gandydancer says:

        “Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

        In other words, you’ve got it back-asswards.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Michael says:

          Ass backwards? Uh negative! The case was monument when a Memphis officer shot a POS burglary suspect with a TV. TN v Garner certainly can apply in a case like this! If a suspect violently attacks an officer or third person and the officer can articulate why deadly force was justified it can be used. You can bet your sweet ass I am familiar with this case law as it has been instilled in my brain for 25 years and I just had another training class where this case law was pounded home. If you are fleeing violent felon you can be terminated!! End of story.

          Like

    • JohnBoy says:

      Scroll in the video at the top of this page to 1;30;28. As soon as the phone camera holder zooms in, you will see Scott on top of Slager on the ground. Slager clearly was not in control. Slager was attacked by Scott. You have to be quick to catch it in the video. You will only see it for 1/4 of a second. Green shirt guy overtop the other guy on the ground.

      Like

    • pciorlandosalestwopciorlandosales says:

      He was resisting with violence (just according to what the witness told NBC, the guy that made the video). That’s a felony (in any state). It shows Mr. Scott’s disregard to the danger he was creating and it made him a threat to the officer and to the public at large. Anyone willing to take an officers stun gun … would be just as willing to take an officers firearm.

      Like

  7. I’m thinking that I’m out of my league to even be commenting here. You all are so good at analyzing the information as it is being accumulated.

    If Scott fired the Taser, his fingerprints will be on it. I hope that there is a reliable chain of evidence process.

    My second comment is an observation. I don’t understand why members of the Scott family smiling in the photo? Aren’t those women his relatives? Daughters? Wife?

    Like

    • Michael says:

      Smiling because they are thinking: my ship is about to come in!! $$$$$

      Like

      • Phae says:

        Considering he didn’t pay child support, I wonder if he was also distant/estranged from his children.

        Like

        • auscitizenmom says:

          Someone said he was close to his older children (but, how many lies have we read so far?) and it might be that their mom was able to raise them and he owes the money to her, to replace what she had to spend on them growing up.

          Like

      • Jonathan White says:

        Really. How callous of you to say some bs like that.

        Like

        • pciorlandosalestwopciorlandosales says:

          You probably said the same thing when the story came out about Micheal Brown stealing from a store and assaulting the clerk, before he tangled with officer Wilson.

          Like

    • TB says:

      Just to say, as a latent examiner, there is a good possibility that there will be no prints on that taser. Depends on the surface of the taser wheather or not good latents will be recovered if any at all.

      Like

    • truthmonger says:

      Texturing on the tazer makes prints unlikely. DNA? Possible. Things don’t work the way you see them on CSI:Miami…..

      Like

  8. Michael says:

    I have a wonderful idea!!! Let citizens start policing if you think cops are out gunning “innocent” people down. Cops have a split second to make life altering decisions. I am not pro police, but I am even more against criminals doing garbage that requires resources that I pay for. If all the idiots wish the cops would just go away, they would really NOT like if fed up citizens start dealing with them!! Bottom line: the police cannot protect you, but you can!! Why would anybody want to be in law enforcement these days?? Always someone with their smartphone up in the air recording their every move. Trying to do your job and arrest a black today and you are labeled a racist. I will pass!!

    Like

  9. JohnBoy says:

    Scroll in the video at the top of this page to 1;30;28. As soon as the phone camera holder zooms in, you will see Scott on top of Slager on the ground. Slager clearly was not in control. I would attach the screenshot here but do not know how.

    Also, Slager notices the camera man at several points throughout the video. What if Slager shot Scott to help protect the camera man’s life. Slager may not have known where the camera man was at that particular moment. He was afraid for the camera man and his own life.

    Like

    • Michael says:

      You make interesting points John. There were probably a million things running thru his mind while his adrenaline was pumping. To black lives matter all it was a white cop gunning unarmed black man down. One of the idiots on the left, I believe Chris Matthews, suggested disarming cops. My God can you imagine what criminals would do if that happened? If Black lives matter then STOP your behavior that draws unwanted attention to you. And if you are doing something that causes concern for law enforcement STOP committing violence on them. We are at a strange time right now with Michael Brown, Travoyn Martin and now Scott. People are viewing things from the color of their skin. Blacks feel the justice is not in their favor and the whites are feeling the criminal actions are getting old!! History will repeat itself. Race relations suck in this country.

      Like

    • 1gandydancer says:

      What utter nonsense. Scott was fleeing, not attacking random bystanders with his nonexistent weapon.

      Like

  10. mike says:

    Here is an idea that may blow your mind……stop committing crimes and you won’t have cops chasing you. Don’t fight with cops. Don’t run from cops that pull you over for a tail light out. Stop lying to cops. Obey the law and act politely with cops. It doesn’t matter skin color, sex, age, religion, or anything. Stop blaming cops negative reactions with the public on cops if it’s the public that committed the crime. if the public didn’t commit crimes we wouldn’t need cops in the first place.

    Like

  11. If you have ever been shot with a taser gun you will understand why someone would try to not be shot with one. If someone were about to shoot me with one of those things and they were at arms reach, I would try to take it from them too! However, NONE of this excuses Slager for shooting the man 8 times in the back while he was fleeing. Sure, Scott had an outstanding warrant but he was not armed and he was not dangerous. They could have picked him up later. Slager didn’t have to murder him. That’s the bottom line. The debate ends there.

    Like

    • Philip Chin says:

      Not armed and not dangerous? So fighting/scuffling with a cop is not dangerous?
      And how was the 1st Officer supposed to know that Scott was not armed? Scott certainly didn’t allow the 1st Officer to frisk him as Slager would have wanted to put handcuff immediately since he disobeyed his commands and kept running.

      Like

    • michael says:

      The debate doesn’t ‘end there’ because You say it does…and..you obviously don’t know the law

      ‘Murder’ requires aforethought…The best this DA will even come close to is Manslaughter, and i even doubt that

      lets paint an accurate picture

      -bad guy runs from cop
      -bad guy fights with cop
      -bad guy shoots cop in chest (vest) with cops own taser
      -bad guy tries to run again
      -cop doesn’t know if bad guy is armed or not..(no search had taken place)

      at this point, courts have ruled that if a person is fleeing police and has shown to be a danger to society; that a cop may shoot to stop them

      -bad guy has already proven the desire to run and attack officers with their own weapons
      -will he find a open building and take hostages?

      Now similar to the Brown shooting, i believe this guy should be allowed to be a cop again, but only because he had the proper tools at his disposal and he still ended up on the ground with his taser being used against him

      Like

    • Blacksplainer says:

      Slager had no way to know that Walter Scott had an outstanding warrant.
      Slager had no way to know that Walter Scott did not have an outstanding warrant.
      Slager had no way of knowing whether Walter Scott was armed or not.
      Slager had no way of knowing why Walter Scott chose to bolt.

      Slager was given the responsibility and authority to enforce the laws of the US, the State of South Carolina.and the City of North Charleston and to protect the public safety using his professional training, experience and judgment.

      We, the People, cannot and do not expect a cop to act as an attorney, social worker, psychologist and psychic at the same time he or she is carrying out the duties of a law enforcement officer.

      Like

  12. George Goss says:

    Interesting and revealing that Scott grabbed Slager’s Taser. Do you expect an ordinary citizen to know the difference between pistol and Taser? Scott was grabbing for Slager’s pistol and grabbed the Taser instead. Scott secured a weapon and then aimed and fired the weapon at the officer with deadly intent. Further Slager probably knew the difference, after it was fired, and was worried that, if the darts were properly attached, a proper grip on the Taser would incapacitate himself. The video shows that Scott still had possession of the trigger mechanism. Slager, If incapacitated, knew the intent of Scott (deadly intent obviously) was to kill him. I predict there will not be a grand jury indictment. Further Slager will sue the PD and come back with a tremendous settlement for wrongful termination and a whole lot else (unless the firing is a ruse to de-escalate tensions). The local politicos may have already figured that a lawsuit from Slager would be cheaper than full scale riots like at Ferguson.

    Like

  13. Ron Herring says:

    Why did and Innocent man run?

    Like

  14. Observer says:

    The taser theory does not support what is presented in the video stills. If Scott had used the taser on the officer from close range, both prongs would be in the officer’s upper torso and his ballistic vest would have prevented penetration. A taser cartridge can only be fired once and if the prong was in the officer’s leg, then it too would have been as tight as the upper prong as Scott was running. This was an unfortunate incident for both parties, but I have to question the legality of the traffic stop for a malfunctioning third brake light. The law in South Carolina only states that a vehicle has to have a functioning stop light.

    Like

    • Michael says:

      Legality?? Cops can make up a reason to pull anyone over and not much can be done about it. I will give you the one working brake light though. I have been pulled over for no reason as well and I was pissed as I showed the officer my ID from my department and badge. I told him he was fishing and he knew it. Should have Scott been pulled over in the first place? Maybe, maybe not and it could be debated until the cows came home.

      The bigger question is why in the hell does Scott make a mad dash bolting from the scene is the issue that says,”hey cop !!! Look at me!!! Now chase me cause I know my a$$ is wanted!” His flight and fight was his ultimate demise. The initial traffic stop over a third brake light is trivial and minor at best and a child support warrant that Scott refused making good was what this was about. And damn be a cop take me to jail for it. So I am going to fight and flee and whatever it takes to elude the law.

      If he would have paid for the kids he had fun creating he would have had to only be inconvenienced by the initial stop. When I first saw the video I was shocked at it. Now I see more of the story I think the cop acted reasonably and objectively if and only of Scott was fighting and went for the officer’s weapons. If he shot the cop with the taser and fled, he asked for the officer to defend the safety of the public.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Slager should have let him run and called a K9 unit. First time watching video, I thought that officer appeared to be too lazy, too entitled to run after suspect. Anyway, if Slager knew a backup officer, Habersham, was coming from the direction Scott was running, why did he shoot the man 8 times?
    *We have watched plenty of Cops episodes and seen officers disarm/contain and arrest suspects. They never outright killed anyone.

    Like

  16. Editing my comment. If Slager was exhausted from running/scuffling and possibly being hit with the taser himself, I’d gladly adjust my perspective. I do understand that a police officer is not going to let a suspect get away. Walter Scott ran. Why did he run? The officer chased him and the 2 men struggled with the taser between them. I had not considered that the taser was attached to the officer and not the suspect. It appeared that the taser wire was attached to Walter Scott’s leg as he ran. If he was running and that caused the wire to exert pain and pressure on the officer, that would explain why the cop drew his service revolver to me. Running from a cop makes you look guilty of something. I hate that a man was killed. I hate that an officer is on trial for his life.

    Like

  17. Law Abiding Citizen says:

    I look at some of these comments and see nothing but stupidity. Police officers are humans and humans are prone to make mistakes, including civilians and police officers. If some of you pay attention to alot of these cases, they are similar in a way that people will not understand. These past couple men were resisting arrest from police officers Scott has a warrant for his arrest and previous charges for child support and an assault some time ago, Brown had just committed a crime before that incident happened. I am in no way saying these men deserved to die. I believe everyone should receive proper judgement in a court, and ALL of us will before God one day. What i am saying is when someone resists an arrest and gets into an altercation with a police officer, that person probably makes himself look pretty dangerous to the officer. There were 30 witnesses who saw Brown charge at Wilson, and you can clearly see the wire in this video where Scott had the tazer. Even when I looked at it on big news websites and paused it, I could still see it. People don’t wanna look at the facts though, they just want to look at the headlines the media portrays as “Black man fatally shot by white police officer”. HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW IF SLAGER IS RACIST OR NOT??? None of us personally know him. Therefore, the media gets people all rallied up into labeling it as racism. This incident was probably a bad judgement and bad decision between Slager AND Scott, who BOTH had adrenaline pumping and weren’t thinking clearly. So people stop acting like police are out to get you. They don’t go to work and think to themselves about killing black men or people in general. If you don’t want an altercation with police, then don’t resist them or an arrest. Even WHEN it is over and you are done with your tantrum, you will get even more charges stacked on for resisting arrest and assault against a police officer. Stop trying to stir up trouble people. Not to mention that my intro to criminal justice TEXTBOOK says that African American males are more likely to commit crimes and/or engage in criminal activity. If you want things like this to stop, then encourage troubled youth black, white, yellow, orange, purple, whatever. Reach out to troubled kids to teach them right from wrong so they will grow up into being law abiding citizens. Having children grow up not knowing the difference between right and wrong is like pre-sentencing them to a death or prison sentence. We need to start educating and showing young people and all people right from wrong, before we can say that all police officers are bad.

    Like

  18. Lynda Falls says:

    I cannot tell what all is happening for sure, but if the man was fighting with the officer and trying to get the police officer’s taser ; then the officer would most likely be scared and have his adrenaline rising. He still shot somebody in the back but his adrenaline would still be raised from the fear with the scuffle and his judgement not have time to return to normal yet. Maybe things are not what they first appeared to be. I guess the judge and jury will hear all the evidence and be able to make a decision. But the officer only had seconds to think. Sometimes things are not what they look like. It really appeared that the man was shot for no reason at first but now things look possibly different.

    Like

  19. Lynda Falls says:

    Most cops are good and decent but some are not and that is why some people have become less trusting of them.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/05/robert-leone_n_1651829.html

    Like

  20. Observer says:

    Officer Slager had no knowledge of Scott’s warrant and had no obligation to chase him since he had Scott’s drivers license and vehicle, not to mention there was also a passenger in Scott’s vehicle that could have left with the vehicle or the officer’s vehicle. Remember that the initial stop was for a non-working third brake light which is not a felony in South Carolina. Scott was unarmed and not a threat to anyone when he took off running so lethal force was not justified. Cops are human and criminal-like minded citizens do slip in and become police officers. The proof is in the history of police corruption that has been documented in many American cities. I am not saying that Officer Slager is or had criminal intentions when he pulled the trigger but reminding some of you of the possibilitythat these officers do exist. In Officer Slager’s initial report, he stated that Scott took his taser and tried to use it on him. He did not state that Scott used it on him. And yes, the media has access to police reports in Charleston, SC. I agree that the adrenaline rush may have clouded his judgement but he had less lethal tools at his disposal before he escalated to the use of a taser. On the front of his duty belt he had a canister of pepper spray and also was in possession of a collapsible baton. Those should have been used first before escalating to the taser and then the use of deadly force with a gun. That is how it is taught in the police academy.

    Like

    • Cracker says:

      That is so stupid, so the LOE is going to spray pepper spray at his back? or try and pull it out of his belt??? or a a collapsible baton while running and use those first? He had the man down and he kept fighting back, resisting arrest and grabbed the taser from his hand or belt. And the other thing is when the stupid criminal behavior came out when he was pulled over for a minor traffic violation, why did he act like the criminal and run, then fight and resist arrest after he was caught? That is the true stupidity, not police corruption. You don’t know all the facts and neither do I, that is why they have investigations and trials. People in this country are innocent until proven guilty. Read case law if you want to sound like you know something, police academy training is not what will be judged it will be the Constitution and previous case interpretation, when he ran and fought and resisted, he was a threat to everyone, he acted like a criminal and endangered all involved including himself with his actions. Maybe it will take another 100 years to figure out that when you choose to act the way you did in this case, you can die and he did. Last if you would open your ears when the second police man was there, the shots identified were 3 on Mr.Scott. Leg, Butt and Back, 3 not eight. Get ready for the Prime time, Lies, Videos that area altered, PR games and then when the truth comes out….Looting and Riots.. All I can say is sit back, the same thing is going to happen. Stupid is as Stupid does. Last, there is no law in the country that says you can’t kill an unarmed man. Blacks DO IT ALL THE TIME!! Sick of all this same old story. Them vs Us. Too bad the AA President, Sharpton and Holder couldn’t make it right in the last 2 Dramas with Ferguson and Trayvon. Yes it is sad, but when you distort the truth to get an Agenda, well life just does not work that way. When the Criminal Behavior stops, then change will occur. Until then, I will see you this time in the streets because this is the South and we will fight back, so after all of this, again we will see no change.

      Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      Clearly Slager was trying to shoot Scott in the toe and stop him. Scott did not comply and was jumping around all over the place. This caused the cop to miss his toe. That is why he had to shoot 8 times. A toe shot is hard to make even in the best of conditions.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. jc says:

    The plate is visible on the car, has any treeper been able to run the plate to determine the car owner? Walter Scott, the neighbor or somebody else?

    Was the car searched for weapons and drugs? Was the car impounded as part of murder investigation?

    Like

  22. puckfany says:

    J White, you seem like someone who knows what they’re talking about. Death is ALWAYS a tragedy but we can ALL prevent these “senseless” shootings if we ALL obey the law AND LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF. BTW, if you are who I think you are, I retired in 2011 from L.A.

    Like

  23. SF says:

    Does anyone understand the audio of the license plate number or have the ability to resolve the fuzziness of the video? It sounds like 1-3-1- 8 Ka Ka. With that info, someone could find out who really owns that gray Mercedes.

    Like

  24. Pingback: Quora

  25. Frank Reynolds says:

    During the course of six routine traffic stops in the past FORTY FIVE years I have never been compelled to struggle with a cop or flee. Two of those stops were bogus/nuisance pull overs similar to equipment violation.

    Like

  26. Pingback: UPA Report 4.19.15 Islamic takeover in Dearborn, MI all street signs in Arabic. : :: United Patriots of America ::

  27. Philip Chin says:

    TASER WIRES NOT MOVED:
    There appears to be taser wires on the ground. Why pick up the taser, and NOT the wires if you want to modify the weapons evidence and crime scene? And does the taser have combo stun gun capabilities even after begin fired?

    DISMISSAL?:
    Notice how the 1st Officer was dismissed on a whim of partial video evidence, but no real analysis of what really happened. Plus, notice how the 1st Officer was dismissed before the dash cam video came out. That would be called, “rush to judgement” on edited cell phone evidence.

    Like

  28. Josh Ya says:

    The officer should be let free. The man was a criminal, ran from the officer, and tried to take his taser from him. People need to stop sticking up for criminals. It’s that simple. If someone comes into my house their ass is getting shot. I don’t care if they claim to be selling girl scout cookies. Castle Doctrine. Look it up.

    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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s