Walter Scott Shooting – The Case For Lesser Charges….

Donald Joy at Clash Daily has a reasonable perspective on shooting of Walter Scott by Police Officer Michael Slager. His argument is one that many people agree with; if the State of South Carolina takes only a murder charge to trial they will lose.

As each of these types of cases surfaced we have continued to remind everyone they are not legal cases; they are political cases played out inside legal courts.

Angela Corey RockstarRioting erupts in Ferguson, Missouri after police involved shooting of an unarmed teen

Arguably three years ago few people understood how an individual could be brought to trial without clear factual evidence of their guilt for the specific charges they were facing. That changed when the transparently innocent George Zimmerman was arrested on a murder charge -solely for political cover- on April 11th 2012.

On August 9th 2014, in the case of the Mike Brown shooting by Officer Darren Wilson, an eerily similar scenario played out again – only this time the Saint Louis Missouri prosecutor did not succumb to political pressure and allowed the grand jury to decide lawfulness or lack thereof.  The case never went to trial – the DOJ confirms there was nothing unlawful with Darren Wilson’s action during the encounter.

North Charleston SC

Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, and now Walter Scott, are not legal cases established by determinations of investigations, factual evidence, considerations of legal justifications, or lack thereof. Nor are they prudent prosecutorial decisions made carefully after analysis of all aspects.

Unfortunately, these charges are based on political decisions made by agents of government deciding how to avoid or manage controversy. In the Walter Scott shooting the political machine made an arrest decision based entirely on a portion of a video.

Without ever interviewing the eye-witness Feidin Santana who took the video; and without interviewing Police Officer Slager before or after the video surfaced; and with almost no substantive investigation to support them; and within 12 hours of watching a video of dubious interest, a political entity -SLED- (not a part of law enforcement) determined they needed to charge Officer Michael Slager with murder to appease a growing political and media mob.

ONLY THEN, after the arrest, did they began their investigation.

This is an incredibly dangerous approach to law and order enforcement.  The mob that was appeased by the political apparatus now has unrealistic expectations.

Walter Scott deblurred(Clash Daily) The video of South Carolina police officer Michael Slager taking steady aim and repeatedly shooting the fleeing Walter Scott in the back is rather shocking and disturbing. It shows the horrible consequence of Slager completely following through on his decision to resort to deadly force when, after a foot chase and fierce physical fight, Scott looked to be turning the officer’s own taser against him.

Some who have analyzed the incident and video closely know that the details are somewhat different than the authorities and media would have people know.

The moment of decision looks to have happened so fast. Lightning fast. With taser wires visibly somehow attached to both men, at the moment of struggle over the taser when Slager is justified in going to his gun, the taser flies from between them, landing behind the officer as Scott suddenly whirls and runs away from the officer. But Slager’s resolute drawing and repeatedly firing into Scott’s back after that point is uninterrupted.

A clear-cut case of murder, according to many.

Walter Scott - upper handHowever, even in failing to halt his deadly volley of shots when the situation immediately changed (arguably from one of justified deadly force to something else), Slager is not guilty of murder, and an honest jury will not convict him of it.

Why do I say this? Arguments have raged in online forums non-stop, with speculation about all kinds of contingencies, about the technical capacities of tasers, and especially about Slager’s state of mind (the heart of the matter, really) at the moment he fired each individual shot. (continue reading)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Abusive Cops, BGI - Black Grievance Industry, Conspiracy ?, media bias, Mike Brown Shooting, Notorious Liars, Police action, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Racism, Ryan Julison, Trayvon Martin, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, Walter Scott Shooting. Bookmark the permalink.

226 Responses to Walter Scott Shooting – The Case For Lesser Charges….

  1. realitycheck says:

    Liked by 2 people

    • ackbarsays says:

      Cute graphic, but in fact, untrue. The guy in South Carolina last year who followed the cop’s instructions and attempted to retrieve his drivers license is the obvious case study.

      Like

    • ackbarsays says:

      That said, it’s also false whenever I hear my black friends say things like “police always shoot first when the dude is black.” This is a great example. The guy had a gun he thought was concealed (and had a permit for) but it was showing because of his loose pants. Notice he IMMEFIATELY does exactly as the officers ask.

      Like

      • MouseTheLuckyDog says:

        What happened to the guy?

        Like

        • ackbarsays says:

          He is becoming a test case in Florida. He was arrested for the gun being visible and charged. It was actually, according to what I’ve read, the FIRST time he’d carried concealed since he got his new CCW permit. He didn’t realize (or says he didn’t) that his gun would show. He was convicted by the judge, with his conviction upheld by the 4th circuit court of appeals. It is now on appeal to the state supreme court.

          The “test case” point is this – that courts in Florida have long held that concealed carry is a privilege that can be revoked, but courts and the legislature and the constitution in Florida have long held that Florida citizens have the “right” to bear arms. So, according to the guy’s lawyers, if concealed carry is a PRIVILEGE, then it must hold that open carry is a RIGHT. The 4th circuit disagreed with that finding, but it has been appealed and is soon to be heard by the Florida Supreme Court.

          https://www.floridacarry.org/litigation/21-flcourts/70-norman-v-state

          Like

          • realitycheck says:

            If his pants had been pulled up, he wouldn’t have had the problem.

            Liked by 1 person

          • MouseTheLuckyDog says:

            Hmm. The concealed is a privilege, therefore open must be a right makes a lot of sense given Peruta. But that’s an around the fact that he did violate the law, in spirit if not in fact, albeit accidentally.

            What is of interest to me, is what is going to happen to him if his conviction stands up. A first time offender with a record good enough to qualify for CCW, where his offense is due to sloppiness, not intent–I think he should at most get probation and his carry rights not be suspended.

            Like

      • auscitizenmom says:

        I am really glad he did has he was asked. And, I am glad he wasn’t shot. But, aw comeon guy, pull your pants up and dress like an adult.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. aprilyn43 says:

    I would not want to be a police officer – A military person – A fire rescue person!
    Your life is on the line every moment from the criminals, from the BGI and the Liberal establishment.
    And, the pay is pittance – your life for nothing!

    One wonders what the Liberals really want the future to look like; and those of us with sanity know there won’t be freedom in it for anyone. Remember, Stalin, Lennin and those of like minds used the minions to get the power, then eliminated them without so much as a hic-up!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Sentient says:

      6 of the top 10 government employees in Philly work for the police, including a detective making > $300k, which is a lot higher than the mayor’s pay. Many cops can retire with generous pensions after as few as 20 years. Most do better than a “pittance”.

      Like

    • kinthenorthwest says:

      H3LL even correctional officers are being put on guard. They are being told to watch their backs when outside of the facility in uniform.

      Like

      • Millwright says:

        KWN, Not only COs ! Prisons have a lot of unsworn employees in prisoner contact. The nature of the system means prisoners know, ( or can find out ) pertinent personal details of unsworn employees they might harbor animus for. BTDTGTTS

        Like

  3. peachteachr says:

    I learned about these constructs when I found you, SD. I would have remained a sheeple without you teaching me, so thanks. Trayvon was my introduction to the BGI.
    Your site just asked to “track my physical location”. That has NEVER happened before just now.

    Like

  4. The investigation didn’t begin after the arrest. There are numerous reports that outline that the investigation would continue after the arrest, but the video made the arrest happen as it did, which is to say that it happened much quicker, and without the video, there may not have ever been an arrest.

    Like

      • Looks like the my previous comment got eaten after being in moderation. Damn that WP shark.

        I’ve read this before. What are you seeing? I see where it says, multiple times, that the investigation began prior to, and concurrent with, the receipt of the video evidence. News reports say the same thing.

        Where are you seeing that it says the investigation began AFTER the arrest of Mr. Slager?

        Like

        • sundance says:

          Like

  5. MouseTheLuckyDog says:

    If you remember in ZImmerman they charged him with Murder 2.

    But when the jury got it they were instructed on Murder 2 and Manslaughter, because a Florida law allows lesser included charges to be specified at the end. I highly disagree with this. A prosecutor should charge the highest crime they can justify and include the lesser included charges at the beginning, barring some unforseen event. Allowing anything less gives the prosecutor a chance to “shoot for the moon” and bail his ass out when he falls flat on his face. Yes I want criminals to go to jail, but I want them to receive the correct sentence too.

    Anyway, it may be that in SC they have a similar procedure of piling on the lesser includeds at the end.

    Like

    • VegasGuy says:

      LOL…Remember when they even attempted to get some utterly rediculous charge like…Abuse of a minor included?

      By the end of the trial they were grasping at any straws available. I was almost expecting a charge of trespass for voilating “stay off the grass” signage.

      Liked by 3 people

    • It’s ridiculous, people should have their charges ahead of time to be able to defend against them.

      That said, I don’t understand why more minor charges weren’t put on Casey Anthony at the last minute.

      Like

  6. Justice_099 says:

    I am very quickly becoming bored with this movie. It is like waterworld. It just never ends and never gets more exciting. And the sequels are just the same plot over and over again.

    Tuning out

    Like

  7. SeekerofTruth says:

    I live in the Grand Strand of SC, and have a LEO in the family who came by last night. He hadn’t seen the pictures showing the taser wires being entangled with Slager, however, it didn’t change his mind that he was still in the wrong by shooting Scott. He said that he would have to be sure that either he, or the public was in immediate danger to shoot Scott while he was fleeing. It is his opinion, and many of his co-workers that Slager is indeed in the wrong by doing this. They are upset because of the attention this is now going to bring upon them.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yogi says:

      He and the public were

      Like

    • Justice_099 says:

      So easy to criticize in hindsight. He has no idea if he would do exactly the same thing if he were in exactly the same set of circumstances.

      Your friend does not know the totality of events and evidence but he is positive of his opinion. So he is confident in making uninformed decisions that could ruin a man’s life. Something tells me that with that attitude we will probably see HIM on the news at some point.

      “They are upset because of the attention this is now going to bring upon them.”

      Well, let’s just fry Slager, then. We wouldn’t want that!

      Liked by 1 person

      • SeekerofTruth says:

        He is basing his opinion on the known facts thus far, I’m sure if more facts come out supporting Slager, his and his fellow officer’s opinions will change as well.

        Like

        • kathyca says:

          There are no known facts thus far that show this to be an unjustified shooting. It concerns me quite a lot to see LEO’s themselves getting on board with the BGI in this way. Not just your friend.

          Liked by 3 people

          • SeekerofTruth says:

            I disagree. We know Scott was shot in the back several times while running away. We that the taser was deployed at least once by someone. We know that there was a physical altercation, and we know that Scott ran. There are lots of variables here, to me, it looks more unjustified at this moment than justified. I could care less either way, I just want to know the truth. I don’t want to see Slager railroaded like Wilson or Zimmerman, but I also don’t want Slager to get off if he did something wrong.

            Liked by 1 person

            • kathyca says:

              The point is that there are a whole bunch of salient facts which are known to be unknown. There is insufficient known information to conclude that the shooting was unjustified. For me, that’s the largest point of this entire discussion.

              Liked by 2 people

            • disgustedwithjulison says:

              We also don’t know the following….there were two males in the car. Slager was scuffling (tussling) with one…but had no idea if he was going to be ambushed by the other (who wasn’t following their chase…but could have been and Slager would have been blindsided and possibly killed by the passenger). Slager shooting at a fleeing violent suspect while not knowing where the other suspect was due to the disorientation of wrestling suspect 1 also needs to be taken into account (Slager’s personal safety was in potential jeopardy due to the actions of Suspect 1). Suspect 1 was creating a situation where Slager had to make a quick and unfortunate decision to protect himself from being teamed up on on a remote back driveway.

              I still have a lot of trouble with this shooting….but I also feel it is the American way to look at all the facts before passing judgement.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Outstanding observation, glad you pointed that out. It HAS to be taken into consideration.

                Like

              • Chewbarkah says:

                What was Suspect 2 suspected of? Abetting a taillight violation?

                Like

                • disgustedwithjulison says:

                  In hindsight…yes. Place yourself in the actual incident as the police officer. Two people in the car you pull over. One takes off and you pursue to apprehend. For two minutes this suspect resists arrest and fights and takes taser….meanwhile, officer has no idea where #2 is. In hindsight, he remained at the car….but when you are dealing with a violent felon and have to make split second decisions…you have to be wondering if #2 is going to ambush and join the fray.

                  Like

                • hues10 says:

                  The officer didn’t know if he was a dangerous felon or not. He was sitting in a vehicle
                  where the driver had no insurance and no registration papers and had run to avoid arrest. Car-thieving murderers are often arrested in just such a circumstance.

                  Like

        • Justice_099 says:

          Based on this sentence, “They are upset because of the attention this is now going to bring upon them.”

          I really doubt that. They won’t change their opinion until it is popular to do so. Such bravery.

          Like

          • SeekerofTruth says:

            I don’t think you quite understand. With our community absorbing close to half a million black people during one week or weekend which is only a month away, the last thing they want is the majority of those being angry at them. There is a slight possibility that it could turn into Ferguson on steroids. The attention being brought on to SC cops has nothing to do with Slager being innocent or guilty, it’s just unwanted attention.

            Like

            • Justice_099 says:

              I sympathize, but you still don’t throw a fellow officer under the bus simply because you are afraid.

              How would they like it if they were in Slager’s position and their fellows were so eager to do so to save their own butts?

              I completely understand. They want to appease the mob. Which is exactly why I said they won’t back Slager until it is popular for them to do so.

              It’s cowardice. May sound harsh, but I am not known for mincing words.

              Liked by 2 people

              • SeekerofTruth says:

                I said previously that the feeling is separate from Slager. Whether he is innocent or not, they don’t want the attention.

                Like

              • Allfal says:

                I am not throwing a fellow officer under the bus, nor does this situation induce any fear. I am simply stating my opinion based on training and experience and given the limited number of facts presented. Just for reference, here on this board I supported Zimmerman from the start. I believed he may have made some poor choices but no mistakes that made him culpable for any crime. I supported Officer Wilson since the shooting was clearly justified.

                There may be facts unknown in this case that mitigate the circumstances in this shooting. Due to the fact that it appears there was a time during this struggle when lethal force would have been justified some guesses or assessments can be made. It is unlikely this officer set out to use lethal force without provocation. It is possible that through tunnel vision or because it was outside his OODA loop that he followed through on what would have been a legal use of deadly force well after the time such force would have been justified.

                This mitigates his actions. It does not justify them. He mad a bad call at a bad time in the timeframe that probably felt like less time than a heart beat to him. He made this bad call in a career that is less than forgiving of such calls. Despite your statement that any who make these statements do so in order to be appeasing to the BGI, this is not true. Perhaps you would be more content if I simply sat back and stated that any police officer involved shooting must be a good shoot if the officer shot. I will continue to give my opinion of the situation given the information presented.

                I continue to support lesser charges. I do not feel that the officer’s actions support a Murder charge. I will continue to be guilty of giving the benefit of the doubt to the officer where such doubt exists. There would have to be some massive unknown fact in this case for such doubt to exist. I am not seeing it. I believe the charge is to severe and the process overtly political. That doesn’t justify the shooting.

                Liked by 3 people

                • Justice_099 says:

                  In summary, you will give the cop the benefit of doubt when it is popular to do so. Because all you have is a blurry video of a few seconds to base your opinion on and yet you are so confident there is no doubt of his guilt.

                  You clearly are confident in making uninformed rash decisions that could affect a man’s life. I find that quite ironic given your judgement of ofc. Slager’s actions. The difference is that you’ve had over a week to formulate your reaction. He had less than a second. Oh, and you didn’t even have someone wrestling you on the ground and grabbing your taser.

                  Thank you and have a good day.

                  Like

                • Justice_099 says:

                  To be clear: I will ALWAYS give the cop the benefit of the doubt over a felon. Right up until it is proven otherwise.

                  Not the other way around as you have done.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Allfal says:

                  I am guessing, given your statements that you are also a LEO. I am no longer one, having recently retired. I won’t get into a “whose is bigger” argument by telling war stories.
                  I am clearly confident in giving my opinion based on training and experience, given our limited information. Should I have been one involved in the process of deciding this officers fate, I would require more information.

                  I to will almost always give the officer the benefit of the doubt over a felon. I will give it where it is simply 2 different stories, where any witness is prejudiced against the officer or where I see reasonable doubt. I will not blindly support officers whose actions I see as clearly wrong.If you are a LEO you must be aware that video evidence is difficult to overcome. Even blurry grainy video. You must be aware that in order to justify deadly force, this officer had to perceive a reasonable deadly threat against himself or others. That would mean some sort of deadly weapon not yet entered into public knowledge in the offenders possession AND the reasonable perception that he would use it against someone.

                  I will gladly admit that the officer may have perceived it as a deadly threat. However, that perception appears to be unreasonable given the limited info. You know that if an offender takes your partners firearm during a struggle and flees that, given proper articulation, you can legally justify shooting him in the back at that distance. Had the offender possessed the officers unfired Taser at that range, you could even justify the shoot IF he were facing you or another officer. You could do that even if the range was a couple of feet further than the Taser range if you perceived him as in range. In that case perception = reality because it is reasonable. Lacking substantial new evidence, you cannot justify this call. You can explain it, you can mitigate it but perception of a threat does not justify deadly force unless the perception is reasonable. I could more easily defend the officers actions where the officer shot the unarmed individual in the traffic stop. At least in that dash cam record I see the subjects actions as something that someone might have perceived as a threat even if he ended up simply reaching for ID.

                  Liked by 2 people

                • Justice_099 says:

                  Not a law enforcement officer, no.

                  But I will not beat a dead horse. I have given my opinion and you have given yours. Clearly, we simply will NOT agree. Good luck to you.

                  Like

        • lovely says:

          My LE friends would never second guess another officers actions on such flimsy evidence, they know what it is like to be judged and Monday morning arm chaired, I find it disconcerting that he would condemn Slager and that he would speak for his fellow officers in such a serious matter.

          Liked by 2 people

    • doodahdaze says:

      It is Slagers opinion that counts. No one else was in his shoes at the time.

      Liked by 2 people

      • SeekerofTruth says:

        Completely agree

        Liked by 1 person

      • oldiadguy says:

        Not necessarily DDH. If you go on any number of police forums, you will see they are also discussing this case. These discussions are being had by officers who have been confronted with use of force decisions. The vast majority of these officers commenting, believe this to be a bad shoot. The others are basically sitting on the fence awaiting more evidence. I have yet to find a blog or website ran by an LEO or a prosecutor that haven’t said it was a bad shoot.

        As much as it pains me to say it, I believe it was a bad shoot. I can’t think any of the known, unkown facts that could change the status of the shooting. I’ve been trying to move my fellow treepers into accepting that with my postings.

        Officer Slager’s moving the Taser shows even he had doubts about the justification for his shooting Scott. That video is powerful evidence.

        Liked by 1 person

    • coeurdaleneman says:

      I don’t give a rip what lightly informed people think. In fact, lightly informed people expressing opinions–while presenting themselves as experts–often are the worst offenders against truth.

      Tell your pal to get a clue.

      Liked by 1 person

    • sundance says:

      SeekerofTruth, when faced with contrary viewpoints – ask your LEO friends, or friends in general, what’s the State’s “Probable Cause” for the arrest.

      The State must justify, specifically justify, facts, not opinion, about evidence that leads to a determination to remove the liberty from an accused person.

      Have you seen such put forth in this case?

      Liked by 5 people

      • I don’t get this question: what is the state’s “probable cause” for the arrest?

        We know a person is dead, we know who the person is that killed him, and we have video evidence that calls into question the justification for killing him. That is the epitome of probable cause.

        Like

        • sundance says:

          SLED’s: “the Defendant did shoot the victim multiple times in the back after an altercation” is not fulfilling statutorily required probable cause for murder.

          Nor does it outline the 3 essential elements which would be needed for a PCA which expressly determines a charge of “murder”..

          “The unlawful killing” – not evidenced, outlined or determination expressed.
          “Malice Aforethought” – not evidenced, outlined or determination expressed.
          “W/ Specific Intent” – not evidenced, outlined or determination expressed.

          Again, SLED’s sum total is: ….”the Defendant did shoot the victim multiple times in the back after an altercation”….

          Can you think of a time when “the Defendant did shoot the victim multiple times in the back after an altercation” and the killing was reasonable/justified?

          Because you can think of such examples is the evidence within the argument a Probable Cause Affidavit is missing. It is a political statement within a legal tool generally used for specific legal purposes.

          Which is my entire point in this mess. They don’t intend to seek a murder charge because the substance of a murder affidavit is missing. Ethically, just like the Zimmerman PCA, there is supposed to be an outlining in total of justification for the charge.

          Both intentionally absent/lacking. Because they are political statements. Doomed to the same end result.

          Liked by 4 people

          • I understand what you’re looking for, but this is what a typical charging document looks like, so it doesn’t seem out of sorts to me. The Zimmerman criminal complaint was ridiculous. I agree with you on that one.

            Like

            • oldiadguy says:

              I agree justincaselawgic. All the charging documents I’ve seen over 36 years have been similarly brief. In the case of my old PD, the affidavits were prepared by the prosecutor. I’m curious if Officer Slager’s attorney has a problem with document and if so, what could he do about it. File a writ?

              Like

          • cohibadad says:

            bingo. nice catch.

            Like

      • SeekerofTruth says:

        I’ll ask him when I see him tomorrow.

        Personally, I believe there may be probable cause for the arrest. Scott was shot in the back and the State already knows whether or not Slager was hit with the taser. However, I reserve judgment until we are privy to all of the facts.

        Like

    • jason says:

      If Scott had retained/kept hold of the taser, wouldn’t anyone within the immediate vicinity have been in ‘immediate danger’ as well given the fact Scott had already shown a willingness to fight with a cop, disarm him and/or potentially use a dangerous weapon in an effort to escape?

      Of course we now see Scott did not have the taser at the time he was running, but most likely did just prior. I’d think many can see what they thought should have happened knowing the end result, but not so sure how many would feel the same in the heat of the moment when the only thing they could know for certain is this guy was willing to do just about anything to make sure he got away. JMO tho

      Liked by 1 person

    • There aren’t many arguing against the idea that Slager was wrong. The key issue here is whether it rose to the level of murder, and if the state is risking him walking away free if they don’t let jurors opt for lesser charge/s.

      Like

      • doodahdaze says:

        Wrong. The key issue is the law and whether Slager was within the law or not. Top to bottom and left to right. If he was within the law of course he should walk free. Watch, and learn.

        Liked by 2 people

      • deqwik2 says:

        Did you know that Geraldo was the only person in MSM that I heard say what you just said. Imagine that…Geraldo, the only one to get it right.

        Like

      • Stupid Guy says:

        You say:

        The key issue here is whether it rose to the level of murder,…

        I say:

        Slager claims a bare handed Walter Scott grabbed his Taser.

        If Scott grabbed the Taser Scott’s DNA and fingerprints would be on the Taser.

        SLED investigators examined the Taser very carefully.

        Why do you think Slager was charged and fired so quickly?

        Like

        • coeurdaleneman says:

          If your argument is that, because authorities have the evidence in hand and quickly charged him, then they must have something …. well recent experience instructs not to swallow it until you actually see the evidence. Especially in these race cases where authorities faint and then cheat. That is sort of sundance’s point, here ,,, where’s the beef?

          Mike Nifong had the assurances from a rookie raape nurse that the false victim showed signs of raape by the Lacrosse boys. He stuck with it, even after getting the DNA results which showed otherwise. So early

          The CSI in this is likely to be confusing. Slager retrieved the taser, and handled it for a minute. Fingerprints? Who knows if they still could be processed. DNA? Well, Slager’s hands were also in contact with Scott, so it is possible that the DNA could have been transferred by the later handling of the taser, rather than any putative possession by Scott..

          Like

          • Stupid Guy says:

            When Slager ran back to pick up the Taser he could’ve holstered the Taser at the very moment he picked it up. However, prima facie, Slager did not run back to pick up the Taser for the purpose of safely securing a weapon.

            On his way back to the body Slager is walking with the Taser in his right hand. Prior to reaching the body Slager suddenly stops walking because he now sees, for the very first time, the man video recording him. Slager turns and faces him. He makes a radio call to dispatch about having to secure his car. He stumbles on his words (223 dispatch, I need, I need …) because he now knows he is not going to be able to get Scott’s fingerprints on the Taser because he is being video recorded.

            At no other time does Slager need to stop walking to make a radio call in.

            Then he throws the Taser down beside the body.

            Later he picks the Taser up and holsters it without ever having the chance to get Scott’s fingerprints on it because the man is still recording the entire event and now other officers have arrived on the scene.

            Many people, including the man who shot the video, claim that right after the shooting Slager turns his head to look at the man video recording the shooting.

            This is incorrect.

            If you watch carefully you will see that Slager turns his head all the way around to look behind himself at the Taser that Slager just threw behind himself prior to the shooting.

            Because he turns his head to the left it makes it appear that he turned to look at the man video recording, but, in truth, he has turned his head all the way around to look for the Taser. And he turns his head to the left (not to the right) to look for the Taser because he knows he threw the Taser behind himself, and to the left of himself, (not to the right of himself) from his right hand.

            The Taser was required to be picked up from its original location by an officer wearing gloves and put directly into an evidence bag. Any DNA on the Taser now is cross contaminated by Slager handling the Taser three additional times since it was first thrown. Once when he ran back and picked it up to retrieve it – a second time when he picked it up and holstered it after dropping it by the body – and a third time when he finally took it out of his holster and gave to an investigating officer who finally placed it in an evidence bag.

            Only Scott’s fingerprints on the Taser will prove Scott grabbed the Taser and no fingerprints were found.

            The lack of fingerprints in combination with the video evidence and the eye witness stating Scott never grabbed the Taser is why Slager was charged and fired so quickly.

            The time line of the running clock that is added to the Youtube video is also incorrect.

            Scott and Slager were already at the spot of the shooting behind Mega Pawn by the 56 second mark and Scott was Tasered at the 56 second mark since running from his car.

            The running clock has the Tasering occur at the 128 second mark on the running clock.

            This is incorrect.

            The running clock is off by 32 seconds.

            The video of the man recording begins at the 126 second mark on running clock time, however, it should actually begin at the 54 second mark because you can hear Scott being Tasered in his video and Scott was Tasered at the 56 second mark since fleeing the car. The Tasering is heard two seconds after the man begins recording at the 126 second mark, but, in truth, the 126 second mark is actually the 54 second mark and the Taering occurs two seconds later at the 56 second mark.

            Moreover, there is at least one, if not two, other persons who eye witnessed the shooting in the vacant lot. They were standing behind the fence and behind Slager at the time and would have witnessed Slager throw the Taser behind himself and to the officers left from his right hand. They may or may not have come forward yet, but video evidence shows one person run and one person walk towards the fence to witness the event prior to the 8 live rounds being fired.

            Like

  8. coeurdaleneman says:

    The outrages started well before Trayvon. The Duke Lacrosse case featured the epitome of egregious politicization of criminal justice, imo.

    The Lacrosse kids didn’t do anything close to resulting in death, yet they were crucified in order to placate black delusions and the liberal professoriate at Duke University. The perfect storm of crooked politicians, sleazebag media, and the BGI caused guys with perfect alibis to undergo a year of persecution, after which no persecutor apologized. In fact, many of the persecutors at Duke were rewarded with promotions, and the others besides Nifong were not punished whatsoever. Sick as sick can be.

    This is a war for America. That is why I am willing to lend Slager as much slack as possible.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Col.(R) Ken says:

      Not criminally punished. Nifong was destroyed, law license was revoked, financially ruin, left homeless with NO state retirement, that is my understanding. As for those professors who signed the ad, they paid also terms were not disclosed. The Unversity also paid, terms were not disclosed. Maybe not charged criminally, financially is just as good! Now where do these young men go, to get their reputations back?

      Like

    • sundance says:

      Coeurdaleneman, the difference between Duke Lacrosse, Tawana Brawley etc. etc. and the recent events surrounds evidence.

      In the aforementioned cases the evidence was lies, manufactured lies, which garnered the arrest and attempted prosecution. The accused were not transparently innocent, they were innocent after the removal of false claims.

      In the current cases of similar prosecutorial disposition, there aren’t even lies – it’s the factual lack of evidence to back up the charges. The accused being transparently innocent from the outset.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. BertDilbert says:

    The enhanced audio in the ariticle the “I am going to take that and shoot you” comes out pretty clear. Clear enough that a jury will make it out as well. That means Scott threatened the officer with the use of deadly force first.

    Having been threatened with the use of deadly force, the officer response should be with deadly force.

    Not guilty of any charges, should it make it to trial.

    Liked by 1 person

    • BertDilbert says:

      If Slager had the taser in his hand at that moment, that could be when he ditched the taser and went for the gun. I can’t see where the taser comes from when it hits the ground. I think the audio is going to seal this case over the video evidence.

      Like

    • cohibadad says:

      I didn’t see any enhanced audio in the article. Are you talking about the stabilized video? I still get something like “I’m going to hate to have to shoot you”.

      Like

    • Do you often telegraph what you’re about to do to your opponent in a fight? Or have you never been in a fight? Trash talk happens before a fight, not during, which would make that statement pretty stupid, and completely unrealistic.

      Like

    • Stupid Guy says:

      You say:

      The enhanced audio in the article the “I am going to take that and shoot you” comes out pretty clear.

      I say:

      Who enhanced the audio?

      In the original some words are muffled, but the last three words are crystal clear.

      “I am going to take that and shoot you” has nine words and the word ‘to’ is not spoken before the words ‘shoot you”.

      “I’m going to hate to have to shoot you” also has nine words and the word ‘to’ is heard before the words ‘shoot you’ — “… to shoot you”.

      While there is debate on what was actually said, there is no debate about the last three words spoken, and, prima facie, the word ‘to’ is said before the words ‘shoot you’ are spoken, because it’s crystal clear.

      As the phrase “I am going to take that and shoot you” do not contain the word ‘to’ before the words ‘shoot you’, it is also crystal clear that the phrase “I am going to take that and shoot you” were never said at any time.

      Therefore, you might want to ask the person who enhanced the audio how they managed to delete the word ‘to’ before the words ‘shoot you’.

      Liked by 1 person

    • unitron says:

      Once you “enhance” something (although an acceptable investigatory technique), it becomes something that used to be evidence until you started monkeying around with it.

      Might as well say “We found a partial print and once we drew in some more lines it was a perfect match.”

      Liked by 1 person

  10. rumpole2 says:

    ONLY THEN, after the arrest, did they began their investigation.

    This is logically (scientifically) the WRONG approach. To go into any study or research with a bias as to what the outcome should be. It skews the results. “Data snooping” is frowned upon by reputable researchers. It ls far to easy for “experimenter effect” to cause people to downplay some evidence and hook on to other, and completely miss the Gestalt.

    Further, it is in fact clearly an approach based on “an assumption of guilt” which is anathema to the British/US judicial system, based on “a presumption of innocence”.. for very important reasons. As a society we long ago decided that to convict an innocent man is so abhorrent, we err on the side of letting some guilty men go free. We intentionally place a difficult burden on those wishing to lay and prove charges against an individual… well we pay lip service to that principle.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Justice_099 says:

      “To go into any study or research with a bias as to what the outcome should be. ”

      Certainly not the first time. Just recall the probable cause affidavit in the Zimmerman case.

      “It ls far to easy for “experimenter effect” to cause people to downplay some evidence and hook on to other, and completely miss the Gestalt.”

      Sadly, this is what science has become in this Idiocracy. The smartest people today are arguably dumber than the average person 50 years ago.

      Liked by 5 people

      • coeurdaleneman says:

        The rush to judgment, based upon the video, was breathtaking. Public officials at every level fainted when presented with it.

        The problem for them is that, while only looking at the seeming damming images, they overlooked the more powerful exculpating information.

        Poster oldiadguy wondered on an earlier thread about who was leaking various videos. In my opinion, because the reaction was so swift and unanimously inimical to Slager, no one trying to help him dared to work around official channels. Leak something favorable …. pffffttt. In fact, has anyone seen a drop of courage from his colleagues anywhere, even anonymously?

        Liked by 2 people

    • cohibadad says:

      Starting from a biased position is so obviously incorrect, and yet it is true of about every person on every issue to some degree.

      Like

      • TheLastDemocrat says:

        Yes. We are all inherently biased. Our brains are hard-wired to make patterns and narratives out of the incoming information.

        We cannot avoid it.

        In a sensory deprivation tank, your mind will soon make up things to perceive.

        ! We use strategies such as due process and science to over-ride our inherent biases and arrive at, we hope, the truth.

        To understand all of this, you FIRST have to accept the reality that your mind is designed to introduce bias.

        Like

  11. czarowniczy says:

    I believe the ‘murder’ charge was something that was thrown out there just to have the officer in custody – the political reality overrode the reality-reality. It isn’t unusual for the DA to alter the charges for the trial, the initial charges have to be weighed against what the prosecutors believe that they can get a conviction on. In this case the ‘aggrieved’ will want to the state to go to the nearest hardware store and buy a good hank of rope, perhaps even have the DoJ bring its traveling Star Chamber Roadshow in – the Torquemada Divisions
    The initial charges were possibly a reaction to the mob’s rumbling and grumbling – what would have happened had the state charged the officer with manslaughter vice murder? Now the state has the unsavory task of proving the officer ‘murdered’ the suspect (In SC: ‘ the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied.’) or going down to a lesser charge of manslaughter (In SC:’the unlawful killing of another without malice, express or implied,’). You can bet there’ll be sympathetic jurors who wouldn’t convict on murder so the question of a hung jury comes up while the BGI will froth at the mouth if the charges are dropped to a more easily prosecutable (in comparison) manslaughter.
    I’m betting the state will go for manslaughter as they’re afraid a murder charge will fall flat and at least they’ll have a conviction to wave in front of the drooling masses. In any event you can bet the Feds will be right in there with a civil rights case against the officer – just as soon as they finish the civil rights cases against the killers of those other police officers who were killed in the line of duty in the last month.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Yogi says:

    If anyone goes back and watches the zoom in video. You can clearly see that Slager is right handed and he is standing with his body to the right. So there is no way possible that he had the taser in his hand because the taser is rolling on the ground to the left. No way, no how. Also, I read somewhere that someone said Slager threw his taser behind him and then grabbed his firearm. Again that is ridiculous. As you can clearly see in zoom in video his arm goes from forward motion than directly to his firearm. If he threw his taser behind him it would be a backward motion than a forward motion to get his firearm. That never happens. Also, just to note. He (Slager) kept his taser on his left hip. So if the 2 men are in a struggle and facing each other Scott would have very easy access to the taser. ( If you grab a partner and try all these motions you will see what im talking about)

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      “He (Slager) kept his taser on his left hip. So if the 2 men are in a struggle and facing each other Scott would have very easy access to the taser.”

      In a cross draw holster. I don’t know if they use some kind of a retention lock on the holster, but a cross draw holster on the hip might motivate a gun grab attempt.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yogi says:

        Its possible when Scott heard Taser taser taser he turned around and attacked Slager bc he didn’t want to get tased. And that’s when the “tussle” began.

        Like

        • Yogi says:

          Also just to note when Scott originally ran from the car and you heard Taser Taser Taser than shortly after you hear get on the ground. But hear no taser going off.

          Like

          • James F says:

            Santana claims he heard the taser go off while they were on the ground tussling, before he started recording.

            Now Feidin Santana has come forward to explain how he came to record the Walter Scott shooting video. Santana says he was walking to work but ran to the scene because he noticed the former police officer controlling Scott on the ground. That’s when Santana says he heard the sound of the Taser gun going off just after Scott managed to get loose and start to run away.

            “They were down on the floor before I started recording. I remember the police had control of the situation,” Santana said, according to NBC. “He had control of Scott. And Scott was trying just to get away from the Taser. But like I said, he never used the Taser against the cop. As you can see in the video, the police officer just shot him in the back. I knew right away, I had something on my hands.”

            Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1993886/michael-slagers-taser-fight-with-walter-scott-a-lie-witness-feidin-santana-explains-the-shooting-video/#KEhuJKgXre62XQGx.99

            Like

  13. doodahdaze says:

    If no murder no lesser charge can be proved. The very same rules and laws apply to all charges. That is how I see it. Scarlett is in a bind but maybe the Special Judge will help her out.

    Like

    • VegasGuy says:

      There are slight differences in the “must prove” elements of the varying degrees of homicide.

      But, I agree, if they go with murder, he’s acquitted. The kink is that in SC, non-capital murder must encompass “malice aforethought”. That basically equates to a “grievance against” the victim by the defendent, and the opportunity for that to be developed, imbedded, and acted upon, just did not exist in the very short encounter.

      If there were questionable interaction between Slager & Scott at the vehicle, with Slager showing hostility or ill will towards Scott at that time, then we have a different ball game.

      But fortunately, the interaction was more cordial than most anyone would have expected.

      Liked by 3 people

    • John Galt says:

      I don’t think they can convict w/o stacking the jury. SC requires a unanimous jury of 12.

      Like

  14. AghastInFL says:

    Another nice article from Donald, well written and he picks up on many of the opinions expressed within the threads… I just wish clicking on a “Clash Daily” link would not entail a trip into SpamPopupHe**.

    Like

    • coeurdaleneman says:

      What’s the point of releasing a statement (with an inflammatory title) hinting of egregious contradictions between Slager and the evidence, without specifying them? If they were so blatant, then what’s the point of holding them back?

      I don’t trust Keel in particular. I don’t trust SLED in general,

      Liked by 1 person

      • sundance says:

        The factual substance within your questions is what most people are missing.

        Everything put forth by SLED about their decision is not based on any facts they have outlined to support that decision. Not one.

        Their statements are 100% politically driven. Reading them from the perspective of investigative value about actual empirical evidence leaves the reader clueless as to what they could possibly be talking about.

        When you think about what’s missing – you are left asking “where’s the probable cause affidavit”. The PCA is the justification for the incarceration – the removal of liberty.

        However, with SLED’s approach they appear not to need any justification – they appear to be saying we will remove liberty based on our opinions of what we think might be best.

        That’s not due process.

        Liked by 9 people

  15. dsb steve says:

    I think Slager’s defense should be focused on him making a mistake in judgment. Where the police should not be prosecuted when the make mistakes. Scott is the one who was running from and then fighting with Slager. Everyone’s capacity for making sound decisions while under stress is different.

    Like

  16. Still no bond hearing Andrew J. Savage, III?

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Fired, arrested, charged three days after the event with little investigation, no file sent to the prosecutor, no bond hearing, possible grand jury someday etc.

    Liked by 2 people

    • doodahdaze says:

      Scarlett, oh poor Scarlett. Tara is in shambles.

      Liked by 1 person

    • doodahdaze says:

      Scarlett is in a much bigger bind than Bernie ever was. Hi Bernie.

      Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      Scarlett has no clue of what is transpiring. Weeks to get the evidence of probable cause??? Good Grief! What a travesty.

      Like

      • VegasGuy says:

        Doodah

        Their working on it. Come on…be realistic…..

        You don’t think probable cause jumps into you lap. If you want probable cause, you gotta go out there & find it.

        That’s what they are doing right now…..Give it a chance to be found. Hey…This IS an investigation. Let them investigate.

        LOL…This SLED is on a very slippery slope with too many on board…..Look out below…

        Like

  18. acumenmac says:

    The statement may be far more prophetic “it is going to be a dangerous summer” than intended. This potentially may be the fuse. No doubt it is lit. This may be the explosion that changes everything.
    To see the embedding of the “narrative” and the power they have in media, government, law enforcement, with no one to stop them is chilling.

    Liked by 3 people

  19. There is no way this officer should be convicted of any crime. He did his job! Tennessee vs. Garner says this is a justified shooting.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. No preliminary hearing Andrew J. Savage, III?
    http://www.savlaw.com/home.html

    “In South Carolina, any person arrested in South Carolina for a felony (and some misdemeanor charges) has a right to a preliminary hearing.”
    http://www.charlestonlaw.net/preliminary-hearing-south-carolina/

    Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      They have a Special Jude. What good would a preliminary hearing do? The fix is in. This case can only be fought on constitutional grounds pre trial. Calling Dr. West….Calling Dr. West.

      Like

    • Armie says:

      I don’t know what the situation is in SC, but in California a Grand Jury hearing is an alternative to a preliminary hearing. Both proceedings serve the purpose of determining whether there’s probable cause to bring the defendant to trial.

      As far as bail goes, in SC the defense needs to file a motion for a bond hearing. To the best of my knowledge they don’t have a hearing date yet. There were some filings on the 15th, but they appear to be prosecution related. I can think of several reasons the defense might choose to wait on the bail hearing, some practical, some tactical.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “…a Grand Jury hearing is an alternative to a preliminary hearing.”

        Slager, as does every U.S. citizen, has a right to file for a preliminary hearing, Habeas Corpus or motions to dismiss. Slager also has the right to waive all that and wait for the grand jury.

        Yes on the bail thing, that’s why I mentioned it earlier as I checked today as well and still see nothing from Savage.

        Like

        • VegasGuy says:

          You know for sure, Slager getting Bond/Bail is fuel for the fire for the BGI.

          There will be an uproar…..& therefore another problem for SLED & the State.

          They sure didn’t think this one out did they?

          Like

        • sundance says:

          D-Man. I believe we are both on the same trail. Finding the absence of specific information which leads to only one plausible explanation.

          The SLED affidavit was politically expedient yes, but substantively missing ALL of the key, and required, legal elements to support the affidavit itself.

          Why Andy Savage is reluctant to “go after” this specific omission is unknown. However, most likely – strategic.. well, maybe.

          Liked by 1 person

  21. thefirstab says:

    Wanted to share something, a video my 16/yo son sent me (yes we live in the same house – smh). We have seen CJ before , a fine young man who hopefully will make a difference –
    hw-mobile.worldstarhiphop.com
    *im posting this on my phone, and hope the link comes through but you can probably find this on YouTube. I have faith in our young citizens like CJ Pierson, and my son!

    Like

    • I accidentally liked you’re comment lol, what is this about, you’re link is weird.

      Liked by 1 person

      • lovely says:

        Diwataman2014 I’ve accidentally liked posts in the past if you hit like again it will remove your accidental like 🙂 Not that there is anything to dislike in thefirststabs post just letting you know in case it happens to you in the future.

        Like

    • thefirstab says:

      That’s why I added the disclaimer, my son is the computer geek in our house. I may have not copied/pasted the link properly. My point was, this is a terrific young black man speaking out about the race-baiting that is obviously being encouraged by Sharpton etc. and it was on the unexpected World Star Hip Hop site.
      I’ll stick to the desktop in the future! 😊

      Like

  22. “SLED released dozens of hours of dash cam footage from the day of the shooting, including audio of a call Slager took shortly after the shooting. In it, he told the person on the other end that he had just shot someone.”
    http://www.abcnews4.com/story/28798207/sled-officer-who-shot-walter-scott-refused-interview-after-shooting

    If someone is brave enough please contact SLED for these so we can get them unfiltered, thanks 😉
    http://www.sled.sc.gov/

    Like

    • Armie says:

      That ABC story said they were going through all the footage they got. I’d love to hear what was said just before that discussion re: adrenalin. The officer in the photo appears to be taking notes. `There’s also some silent footage of Slager speaking to that same officer in which he appears to be describing what happened. The audio for that conversation should be on the same webcam video where they got the “laugh” from. For some reason, we haven’t heard it. Did SLED erase it from the footage because it conflicts with their effort to claim that he clammed up, or did ABC decide it didn’t fit the narrative? Somehow, I think if that audio exists and it’s inculpatory, we’d have heard it.

      Like

  23. Phae says:

    Feidin Santana, the music artist from Aug. 9, 2014: (The SAME DAY of the MIKE BROWN incident!)

    “It’s hard to understand the purpose of God with us but it’s real! Let’s just have faith!

    This was my second song(never finished) by me and Rafael Acevedo. It’s hard for me to understand how I described in that song what we are living now! It’s in Spanish but it’s about injustices, police brutality, on how I decided to make a difference and don’t stay silence, etc…

    Let’s believe in us… this is not just a fight! This is OUR(no matter the race) fight against injustices, respect to our lives and respect to our civil rights!”

    Can someone translate?

    Like

    • Phae says:

      He’s pretty active on Facebook now and a lot of posts are ending with this:

      ‪#‎justice‬# WeallOneRace#Blacklivesmatter#Alllivesmatter

      Like

    • WOW! Savage is going to love this lol.

      Like

    • Phae says:

      Rafael Acevedo, his Facebook page says he is a Production Assistant at WCIV ABC News 4, just to note.

      I got a screen shot just in case too:

      Liked by 1 person

    • Phae says:

      This comes up for Feidin Santana. * See note after links

      Twitter:

      Youtube Channel:

      https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAdHV0kmbSSkhijSjV6cO2Q

      Website (1 year registration):

      http://www.feidinsantana.com/

      *I’m not sure if these are actually Feidin Santana’s or someone pretending to be him; first glance seems like the latter to me. The Web registrant links to a Sined Idama from Maryland. Email: amatshi@gmail.com

      Found a fourm where the email is used: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1265816&page=6

      It’s linked to this username: amadi74
      Twitter w/ this username: https://twitter.com/amadi74

      And Google+ for Sined Idama:
      https://plus.google.com/110927346160860174964/reviews

      Website Info:

      https://who.godaddy.com/whoisstd.aspx?domain=feidinsantana.com&prog_id=GoDaddy

      Domain Name: FEIDINSANTANA.COM
      Registry Domain ID: 1917731832_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
      Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
      Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
      Update Date: 2015-04-09T00:21:13Z
      Creation Date: 2015-04-09T00:21:13Z
      Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2016-04-09T00:21:13Z
      Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
      Registrar IANA ID: 146
      Registrar Abuse Contact Email: xxxxxxxx
      Registrar Abuse Contact Phone:xxxxxxxxx
      Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
      Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited
      Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited
      Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
      Registry Registrant ID:
      Registrant Name: Sined Idama
      Registrant Organization: The Inc.
      Registrant Street:xxxxxxxxx
      Registrant City: beltsville
      Registrant State/Province: Maryland
      Registrant Postal Code: 20705
      Registrant Country: United States
      Registrant Phone: +xxxxxxxxxx
      Registrant Phone Ext:
      Registrant Fax:
      Registrant Fax Ext:
      Registrant Email:xxxxxxxxxx
      Registry Admin ID:
      Admin Name: Sined Idama
      Admin Organization: The Inc.
      Admin Street:xxxxxxxxx
      Admin City: beltsville
      Admin State/Province: Maryland
      Admin Postal Code: 20705
      Admin Country: United States
      Admin Phone: xxxxxxxxx
      Admin Phone Ext:
      Admin Fax:
      Admin Fax Ext:
      Admin Email: xxxxxxxx
      Registry Tech ID:
      Tech Name: Sined Idama
      Tech Organization: The Inc.
      Tech Street: xxxxxxxx
      Tech City: beltsville
      Tech State/Province: Maryland
      Tech Postal Code: 20705
      Tech Country: United States
      Tech Phone: xxxxxxxx
      Tech Phone Ext:
      Tech Fax:
      Tech Fax Ext:
      Tech Email: xxxxxxxxx
      Name Server: NS3807.HOSTGATOR.COM
      Name Server: NS3808.HOSTGATOR.COM
      DNSSEC: unsigned
      URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/
      Last update of WHOIS database: 2015-4-18T2:00:00Z

      Edits by admin: Private contact information should not be posted

      Like

      • Phae says:

        Admins,

        Sorry, I will remember that for the future. You might want to edit my comment as there is still some contact information that I can see under the Admin and Tech sections.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Sharon says:

          Thank you. We encounter problems in these intense investigations when personal contact or location is included with links.

          Sometimes the link is there only because the commenter “thinks it might be related” to the case and the end result is that someone’s personal information is published who may or may not have any significant connection. In other cases, even if we know an individual is in the mix of the situation somehow/somewhere, that is not good reason to provide their personal information to anyone, including the readers of the Treehouse.

          We have hundreds of thousands of views, into the millions on some of these cases and many of those who read do not have good intentions. We never want to be seen as being in the business of simply exposing people, no matter who they are.

          Like

  24. coeurdaleneman says:

    Here’s where I begin when analyzing this case…

    I know a gal who was a sheriff’s deputy that transported jailbirds back and forth to court. She was in her thirties when she was jumped by one, and was left partially disabled. That was about 25 years ago. She lost her career and a decent life. Because, since then, she has suffered chronic back and neck.pain without relief. Trips to the doctor, the chiropractor, pills and the rest have dominated her existence. A good night’s sleep has been a rarity.

    All of these monday morning QB legal brainiacs should have a chat with her about “tussling.” See what she has to say about the burden of having to coddle a greasy, selfish, irresponsible slimeball like Scott, and whether the latter deserves the benefit of the doubt in an affiar like this. Because she might be one of the “few” (?) that Donald Joy believes supports this as a good shoot.

    I think that this was a great shoot, and I am glad that Officer Slager came out of it physically intact. He alone was able to judge whether Scott was a human or a wildman, not these keyboard warriors or the glamour girl prosecutor, and I’ll support his cause until something really damming arises.

    Liked by 6 people

    • TwoLaine says:

      You must know my cousin. That happened to her as well. Throw in kidnapping and rape from the slob too, and you just described her life. Never.The.Same.Again.
      Now a dispatcher for law enforcement.

      Like

  25. Terry in GA says:

    At some point, our society is going to have to purposefully go back to teaching children how to obey authority and that it is unacceptable to resist arrest or provoke a fight of any nature with police. These people are causing their own problems with behavior that has lethal force as a consequence.

    Actions have consequences. All actions have consequences, either positive or negative, and we have only ourselves to blame for negative consequences to avoidable inappropriate actions. Children who are allowed to behave as hoodlums without proper discipline are doomed. Like it or not, thugs wind up dead at very early ages.

    Liked by 4 people

    • realitycheck says:

      This starts in the home …. unfortunately the lawyers and threats of lawsuits have handcuffed the ability of schools to discipline the people with no respect

      Like

      • kathyca says:

        I see people blame this on lawyers all of the time. And they are bad and wrong for sure in a lot of cases. But ask yourself WHO makes it worthwhile for lawyers and their clients to pursue bullchit claims and the answer is the JURY. Lawyers won’t pursue a case that’s not going to make them money. It’s the juries that award the absurd verdicts. And who is the jury?

        Liked by 1 person

        • realitycheck says:

          I beg to differ with you BUT; many(most?) cases NEVER get to the jury because of the costs of a trial ….. Lawyers take cases to extort money from the deepest pockets all the time …. they know most insurance companies will pay up versus go to trial.
          (Perfect example is Trademark’s egg donor and the homeowners association)

          Like

  26. hues10 says:

    It is a sad day in the U.S. when people of integrity are fired and falsely accused of racism BECAUSE they held to their convictions and the minions of demagogues rioted in retaliation. That was Fergusion. That is less grievous in my opinion, than Angela Corey getting Zimmerman indicted when he was innocent and now of Officer Michael Slager being charged with murder for being human and doing his job. The laws of the ghetto are going mainstream: Might is right and the strong do what they want while the weak suffer what they must.

    Who will lead the organization to garner forces to counter the riots while justice prevails? Who?

    NOT THE GOVERNMENT WE HAVE NOW.

    Like

  27. TwoLaine says:

    Great Job Again Donald & Team Treeper!

    Like

    • coeurdaleneman says:

      As before, the link to sundance’s Paradigm Shift thread serves as the sole conduit to the fuller truth of the matter. This is about the 4th sizable blog that I have seen it cited and linked. Slowly but surely, the enhanced taser-wire images are having a growing impact.

      Like

  28. lovely says:

    I’m not sure if Grahm V. Connor has been discussed or not but, I’ve tried to keep up with the threads, but I could have missed it. I was trying not to continue to speculate about whether Slager was legally justified in shooting Scott but I was directed to

    GRAHAM v. CONNOR, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

    so I thought I would bring it here

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=490&invol=386

    The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 396-397

    If the BGI were not involved in directing the narrative, in influencing and inflaming I would think that Slager would walk.

    Again Scott gave Slager reason to believe that the car he was in may have possibly been stolen, Scott fled, fought, and tried to get his hands on Slagers taser, Slager was tangled in the the taser wire attached to Scott, Scott was acting irrationally and could have very easily posed a threat of physical violence to anyone he encountered in the immediate vicinity I think Savage will be able to establish that in the split seconds Slager used to make his decision that his decision was reasonable for a police officer.

    There are still too many unknowns we don’t know what Slager said happened and we don’t know if Scott made any threats toward Slager during the fight. I am no longer calling it a tussle two independent people have verified that Slager and Scott were having a physical altercation, the altercation continued for over a minute I think “tussle” sounds like too gentle of a word.

    Liked by 1 person

    • VegasGuy says:

      The BGI can “pretty it up” all they care to with words like tussle, Church, volunteer, family man, wage earner, questionable stop, scared of the Police, unarmed, etc.

      The legal status of Scotts actions are, at a minimum, “Failure To Comply”, “Interference With An Investigation”, “Misdemeanor Fleeing From A PO”, “Resisting With Force”, “Felonious Assault With Force On A PO”, “Attempt To Disarm A PO”, “Felonious Evasion”.

      Probably a few others depending on what transpired that has been withheld & not on audio/video.

      Liked by 4 people

  29. coeurdaleneman says:

    Coincidence of coincidences … as weird chance would have it, yesterday something similar happened not far away in my neck of the woods.

    Two perps began a car chase after being lit up by a cop car. Their car crashed, and both ran.

    But here’s where Slager’s tormentors and Scott-kissers should pay attention: one perp then committed a home invasion. And then wrestled with a cop and got ahold of his taser.

    Luckily, the cops were able to prevail. Nevertheless, assurances that desperate runners are only harmlessly trying to get away and present little harm to the public are simply incorrect.

    http://www.khq.com/story/28835034/witnesses-shook-up-after-brownes-addition-crash

    Liked by 2 people

  30. Yogi says:

    Question. Anyone know what type of handgun Slager was using?? Reason I’m asking is bc .40 or .45 and some 9mm you have smoke come out everytime you shoot. Yet we see no smoke we Slager shoots. Just curious

    Like

  31. TheLastDemocrat says:

    “The Case for Lesser Charges” is obvious.

    Here is the case for greater charges: WHEN Slager goes scot-free, it will be way more powerful, rhetorically, than if he were found guilty of some lesser charge. Over-charging Zimmerman, which led to Zimmerman being innocent of charges, was tremendously powerful for the Marxists.

    Like

    • Serpentor says:

      Unless they were going to charge Zimmerman with “exiting the vehicle,” they weren’t going to get any conviction. Going to trial was an over charge. GZ was innocent the entire time.

      Like

  32. I wonder if anyone has insight about the following scenario: Suppose Slager, through his lawyer, offers to plead guilty to manslaughter, and the state rejects it. Then they go to trial for the murder charge, and the jury hangs or acquits. At that point can they convict him on a charge of manslaughter after they’ve already rejected his offer of a guilty plea to that?

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Stupid Guy says:

    At 0:11 seconds of the Youtube video Slager radios in Scott’s plate number and the color of the car. Slager says it’s a grey Mercedes Benz.

    Scott’s car is not gray.

    When Slager calls in the plate and car model prior to the stop the radio music and song by Everlast is not playing. Then when Slager stops the car the radio music is playing.

    How can this be?

    Did Slager turn on the music to make the stop or was the music edited into the Youtube video?

    I don’t hear music playing in the background when other officers radio in calls?

    Like

  34. Stupid Guy says:

    Scott runs from the car at the 3:05 second mark of the Youtube video. The first thing Slager does is radio in the plate and model of the car at 0:11 seconds prior to even stopping the car. It’s now been nearly three minutes and no report of a stolen Benz has come back.

    Prima facie, Slager has no reason to believe the car is stolen.

    Slager tells Scott the reason for the stop is that the third brake light is not working. Scott tells Slager he does not own the car and will only be buying it on Monday. Slager accepts this as fact and returns to his patrol car.

    Prima facie, based on the evidence Slager has at the time, Slager has no reason to believe Scott owns the car or that the car is stolen.

    A burnt tail light is just a Fix It ticket. The car owner must fix it and show the police department it’s fixed and the ticket is ripped up. The ticket goes to the car owner not the driver of the car. Slager knows Scott does not own the car.

    Why then is Slager running after Scott?

    Since when is a burnt tail light a felony?

    At no time do we hear Slager tell Scott that he is under arrest. Slager might’ve told him so during the foot chase when the mic is not recording. But what could Scott even be arrested for since the fix it ticket goes to the owner of the car and Slager has accepted as fact that Scott does not own the car.

    Even if Scott could be arrested and was resisting arrest, in SC resisting arrest is a misdemeanor (unless Scott assaults, beats, or wounds Slager) and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

    Slager has no legal right to chase Scott, Taser him, arrest him, or shoot him.

    Like

    • manickernel says:

      Troll alert.

      Like

    • Eskie Mom says:

      Seriously? A person who is being questioned by law enforcement & just suddenly takes off running doesn’t create “suspicion”? Why did they run? The most likely reason, in my mind, is that they were holding drugs & he wanted to dispose of them. Or a weapon that was stolen, possibly. He feared the risk of being searched.

      When Officer Slager went after him to try & find out why Walter Scott was running, Scott did assault him. Any fool knows that 1. you run from a cop, you’re gonna create suspicion. #2, you assault a cop, not only will you be arrested, but you might get a little roughed up in the process. Being attacked doesn’t make anybody friendly.

      If Scott had just kept his head- instead of getting all paranoid & irrational, he’d have been on his way in just a few minutes. And he’d be alive today. Officer Slager hadn’t given Walter Scott any reason to be afraid until Scott attacked him. What made Officer Slager believe that Walter Scott might be especially dangerous was that Scott’s behavior abruptly became especially irrational. At that point, there was no telling what Walter Scott would do. I have heard these exact words from a cop regarding a stalking situation, myself. It’s how they think.

      Like

      • Stupid Guy says:

        Despite being in a government issued patrol car, dressed in a government issued police uniform, and wearing a government issued badge, the law in SC is that after stopping a vehicle for a traffic matter the police officer MUST present his law enforcement badge or other appropriate identification to the driver immediately upon approaching him and before questioning.

        If this law only applied to plain clothed officers, or officers in unmarked cars, the legislator is required to expressly say so. No such text within the provision states it only applies to plain clothed officers or officers in unmarked cars. Therefore, prima facie, it applies to all police officers by operation of law.

        If a police officer fails to present his law enforcement badge or other appropriate identification to the driver immediately upon approaching him and before questioning him; everything the officer does after this point in a traffic stop is a complete nullity and void ab initio.

        Slager failed to present his badge or other appropriate identification to Scott immediately upon approaching him and before questioning him. Because Slager failed to do so Scott was never lawfully detained and Scott was free to drive off, walk off, run off, and ignore all of Slager’s commands; (stay in the car, get on the ground, etc) and there was nothing Slager could do about it.

        Slager stated he followed proper procedures when, in truth, he patently did not.

        Title 56 – Motor Vehicles

        CHAPTER 7

        Traffic Tickets

        SECTION 56-7-70. Law enforcement officer identification upon stopping a driver.

        When a law enforcement officer stops a driver for a violation of the motor vehicle laws, he shall present his law enforcement badge or other appropriate identification to the driver immediately upon approaching him and before questioning.

        Like

        • Eskie Mom says:

          Cops wear their badge right on their shirt, in plain open view. lol

          Like

          • Stupid Guy says:

            It appears you got lost after the first and second paragraph.

            The legislator writes the laws of the State. The legislator knows clothed police officers wear a badge because they wrote the law requiring them to wear it. The legislator also wrote the law requiring police officer to present their badge or other identification to a driver after being stopped.

            Wearing a badge is not presenting it.

            Section 56-7-70 isn’t restricted to plain clothed officers or officers in unmarked cars.

            What this law requires is that every police officer must identify themselves to the driver once they are stopped. Slager failed to do so and everything that occurred after his failure to identify himself is unlawful.

            Like

    • Justice_099 says:

      “Why then is Slager running after Scott?”

      No…. why did Scott run from Slager for just a fix-it ticket? That’s the question that needs to be asked.

      Fleeing while being detained by an officer is a felony.

      Prima facie, you wasted an awful lot of words on a foolish notion.

      Like

      • Stupid Guy says:

        You say:

        Prima facie, you wasted an awful lot of words on a foolish notion.

        I say:

        Prima facie, Walter Scott is dead because Michael Slager killed him.

        A jury will not have to watch more than one minute of the government issued dash cam video on Slager’s government issued patrol car to convict him of murder.

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=glsGDw8f6ns

        Slager also breached his duty of law to warn Scott before Slager took the time to aim, set his feet, then shoot Scott 5 times in the back with deadly force.

        See Deorle v. Rutherford (9th Cir. 2001) 242 F.3rd 1119; imposing a duty to warn, where appropriate, before using potentially deadly force.

        Like

        • Justice_099 says:

          No.

          Like

        • kingkazpur says:

          South Carolina is in the 4th circuit…. why would you think think a 9th circuit opinion has any relevance?

          Like

          • Stupid Guy says:

            It’s an Appeal Court. The USA is part of the common law world. SC is located in the USA. Cases from other jurisdictions apply in SC.

            Scott also did not have a gun. If Scott had a gun he would’ve pulled it out and shot Slager, not waste time trying to take the Taser from Slager.

            Scott never touched, grabbed or took the Taser, either.

            But for those who believe Scott had the Taser, he no longer had it when he ran from Slager because those who claim Scott had the Taser also claim Scott threw it at Slager and Slager ducks to avoid being hit by it.

            Thus, prima facie, Slager knew Scott no long had the Taser when he shot him 5 times in the back while he was running away because Slager allegedly ducked to prevent being hit by it.

            See Curnow v. Ridgecrest Police (9th Cir. 1991) 952 F.2nd 321, 324-325; holding that deadly force was unreasonable where the suspect possessed a gun but was not pointing it at the officers and was not facing the officers when officers shot.

            And Ting v. United States (9th Cir. 1991) 927 F.2nd 1504, 1508-1511; Use of deadly force unreasonable when the suspect had already dropped his gun.

            Like

        • Hey genius, play the audio enhanced video, you can hear Slager warn Scott he’ll shoot him when they are on the ground fighting over the taser.

          Like

    • Sharon says:

      Well then.

      Cleared all of that right up.

      How can we thank you.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s