South Carolina Grand Jury Indicts Officer Michael Slager on Murder Charge In Walter Scott Shooting…

CHARLESTON COUNTY, SC (WCSC) The Ninth Judicial Circuit Solicitor’s Office announced Monday a Charleston County grand jury has indicted Michael Slager on murder in the shooting death of Walter Scott.

Walter Scott deblurredWalter Scott - upper hand

Walter scott- slager indictment

Solicitor Scarlett Wilson made the announcement during an 11 a.m. news conference at the Charleston County Solicitor’s Office. Wilson said the grand jury returned the murder indictment against Slager Monday morning.

Murder was the only charge presented to the grand jury to consider for an indictment, Wilson said. The charge carries a sentence of 30 years to life in prison without parole.

A trial date has not yet been set.

Despite outside pressure to remove Wilson from the case, the solicitor said she will not be stepping aside from what will be her first murder case against an officer, and is confident Slager will get a fair trial in Charleston County.

Attorneys and the family of Scott spoke after the news conference, saying the indictment is only the first step. Attorney Chris Stewart said a civil suit will be filed in the next few months.

Scott’s brother, Rodney, said the family is happy with the murder indictment.  (link)

Walter Scott - taser lead

walter scott tazer leads

Michael Slager’s attorney responded to the news:

[…]  Attorney Andy Savage, who is representing Slager, said in a statement the “grand jury is a formal step,” and his office is reviewing the indictment.

Savage’s complete statement is below:

We were informed by the Solicitor that the Grand Jury has indicted Michael Slager on the charge of murder. We do not know what other charge(s) (if any) the GJ considered. We have yet to be provided with the Discovery (state’s investigation) material that we requested some time ago so we remain at a disadvantage in addressing any questions at this time. The GJ is a formal step, but just another step in the criminal process. Until we have an opportunity to fully evaluate the State’s case and to compare it with our own investigation we will not be commenting on any aspect of the case.

[…]  Slager was fired from the police department and charged with murder. He is being held in protective custody at the Charleston County Detention Center  (link)

Walter Scott map 2

walter scott - slager - uniform debrief

walter scott - taser x26 - slager

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Abusive Cops, Agitprop, BGI - Black Grievance Industry, Conspiracy ?, media bias, Police action, Walter Scott Shooting. Bookmark the permalink.

178 Responses to South Carolina Grand Jury Indicts Officer Michael Slager on Murder Charge In Walter Scott Shooting…

  1. kinthenorthwest says:

    So now we can run and assault officers of the law anytime we want–Oh wait if you are of the right ethnicity that is.
    What has our country come to.

    Liked by 4 people

    • jason says:

      not only are you allowed to do so, but encouraged.

      Quite odd these prosecutors (Baltimore and SC) are denying evidence to the defense, is it not? Hope Slager gets a fair trial, seems like the SOP these days is to try the case in the media and then move on to the next opportunity to exploit/push the narrative :(.

      Prayers to him and his family.

      Liked by 10 people

      • 2bn3mr says:

        I think it’s standard procedure for the prosecutor to wait until after the indictment to begin sharing discovery with the defense. In this case, the indictment was just handed down, it’s too soon to judge if Ms Scarlett is acting inappropriately, like Mosby is.

        Liked by 2 people

        • jason says:

          thank you for the info 2bn3mr.

          Like

        • Anubis says:

          Do they not have the information clearly shown in the above article?

          Like

        • archer52 says:

          Each state is different. Discovery has different meanings depending on statute.

          He isn’t guilty of murder. He is in trouble for a lesser charge. If he was hit with a Taser then his lower functions kicked in and he was reacting rather than thinking. No premeditation.

          Like

      • kinthenorthwest says:

        Trying to figure out how it is that when a criminal is fleeing from the scene of a crime that law enforcement are supposed to just let them go with the possibility of them repeating the crime again. In this instance; Scott was not only fleeing but has tussled and assaulted the officer, along with tazing the officer. (Many states consider each of those a felony.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Ronald J. Ward says:

      I’m not real sure what your argument is but I don’t think assaulting an officer is acceptable by any race. Nor is it acceptable for the officer to take the position of judge and jury and inflict a penalty, particularly pumping multiple rounds into the back of the running attacker.

      Like

      • bertdilbert says:

        The prosecution must prove the state of Slager’s mind beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge will not hold up IMO.

        Liked by 3 people

      • littlelaughters says:

        The officer was not “inflicting a penalty”, he was doing his job.

        Liked by 3 people

      • kinthenorthwest says:

        Ronald–Scott tazed the officer..and tried to steal the tazer..Not sure where you from but that in my book that is called assault.
        How about we all come over to your house and taz you a few times.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Ronald J. Ward says:

          Kin et al, I really don’t care, nor is it relevant what Scott did or didn’t do prior to the shooting if he was in fact fleeing and posing no thereat at the time he was shot.

          The law is quite clear on back shooting. If Scott is proven to have shot a fleeing suspect, as the video indicates, and there was no immediate threat to him or anyone else, as the video indicates, then he should go to jail for a very long time.

          Like

          • Ronald J. Ward says:

            To clarify, if Slager is proven to have shot a fleeing suspect.

            Like

            • Justme says:

              According to the Supreme Court in Tennessee v Garner, the officer has the right to shoot a fleeing felon in the back, if “the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a serious threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others”.

              The words you used “immediate threat” are no where in the ruling. Scott had already assaulted one police officer in his attempt to escape, what would stop him from assaulting a citizen or even another police officer?

              Liked by 3 people

              • kinthenorthwest says:

                For some reason many feel that as long as its only the police that these people are assaulting and threatening then its OK.
                Since when does our nation allow people to assault anyone, especially officers of the law.
                This was/is also the case/mentality of those supporting the teens in the pool party in Texas..
                All of you supporting these people better hang on and get your self equipped to defend your self for it will not be long before it will be those with no respect for anyone or the laws who will be ruling your neighborhood, city, state and country. If you don’t believe me just look at how the crime/homicide rates have escalated this year alone in the cities where Obama has sided with the thugs and other cities where thugs are tying the hands of police..

                Like

          • Kitty Smith says:

            You’re not quite right. The officer’s perceptions of the unfolding apprehension are what matter, legally speaking. These events are not as cut-and-dried as you make this one out to be because they occur in fractions of seconds. I’m not sure where John Q. Public got the idea that it is illegal for an officer to shoot someone in the back if that someone has or is believed to have a weapon, such as a taser or anything else capable of covering a distance available to them, combined with already having demonstrated violence toward the officer. Some compare this to the Michael Brown case because it was first claimed that Brown was shot in the back. Since he wasn’t, and because of his previous violence toward Officer Wilson, there was no indictment. So people assume the fact that Brown was not shot in the back was the only reason there was no indictment. But suppose Brown assaulted Wilson and WAS successful in getting Wilson’s gun or taser but Wilson had a backup weapon? Then what? Does Wilson just let this menace (who just strong-arm robbed a store) and assaulted him (Wilson) run off and not fire at him because Brown’s back is to him, knowing Brown can turn and fire any time at him, or grab a hostage, etc.?

            If Slager thought Scott had his taser, there is little difference. Both weapons can cover distances and harm innocents.

            At any rate, it may well turn out that the prosecutor has done Slager a favor by only offering a first-degree murder charge because the several elements of the corpus for murder1 in SC include malice aforethought and deliberation. This will prove difficult or impossible for the prosecution under the circumstances of the event.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Ronald J. Ward says:

              Your argument is built on a mountain of “ifs”.

              It’s hard for me to buy into some theory that the officer felt a threat to him or anyone else. I mean, the taser was out of Scott’s reach and there was no one around. The guy was running and we see the officer just pumping away in his back.

              Now, I’m not convicting the officer. He’s entitled to due process. I’m simply not joining the crowd here by exonerating based on what I see.

              Like

              • Kitty Smith says:

                You must have missed the first paragraph of my post: “The officer’s perceptions of the unfolding apprehension are what matter, legally speaking.” That is it in a nutshell.

                Obviously you’ve seen the video, as we all have, and you are drawing your conclusions based on that, apparently. You apparently have no understanding of what happens, what is perceived to be happening, and why decisions are made, all in fractions of seconds, by police officers in the field handling criminals and the dregs of society, having their lives threatened, their partners’ lives threatened, all so you can rest easy and comfortable in your home and write posts about things you clearly know nothing about.

                What you see in a video and what the officer perceived IN THE MOMENT are NOT the same thing, and that perception is what will be examined. Hindsight is NOT 20/20 in these cases.

                Like

                • art tart says:

                  Kitty Smith ~ and it would be Slager’s defense Attorney’s job to convince the jury of what was on Slager’s mind or what Slager “percieved” when he shot Scott in the back. No one knows this but Slager & he’s not likely to take the stand & answer for moving the taser, dropping it, picking it up again, it would open a can of worms for the defense imo.

                  Absolutely no one doubts the pressure, the split second decision making Officers do every single day across America & most Americans are grateful. No one doubts another Officer in this identical situation might have chosen to let Scott run free as has been said on previous threads by an Officer who stated “Scott could have been picked up on a warrant later..” But the decisions have to be answered for, whether we like it or not. Everyone wants Slager to return home to his wife/new baby, but there are hurdles for the Defense to overcome for this to happen & some see the hurdles more clearly than others for that to happen..

                  The Prosecutor will likely parade Scott’s relatives on the stand to claim Scott equally feared LE might kill him or he didn’t want to be picked up for child support, I can just hear it now.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Kitty Smith says:

                  The potential statements you attribute to Scott’s family are all hearsay and speculative on their parts. Testimony from family members about what Scott thought about police won’t come in unless the prosecution wants to open the door to Scott’s criminal history.

                  IN SC, the prosecution must overcome an offering of self-defense. Slo-mo of the video may well play into the hands of the defense.

                  In order to get a murder 1 conviction in SC, the 800 ;b gorilla that the prosecution must prove are malice aforethought and deliberation. There is reason to believe that Scott resisted arrest, assaulted the officer and may have fired Slager’s taser at him. Further, Scott was escaping from custody. We don’t know what information Slager had received via radio transmissions about Scott’s criminal history, false identification and wants/warrants.

                  We don’t know what Slager perceived the situation to be, and that is the heart of the case. I appreciate you at least acknowledging that Slager had to make decisions based on his perceptions in fractions of seconds and that what we see may not be anything like what all transpired during the entirety of the stop and chase.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Kitty Smith says:

                  I should add that, under the law, if Slager’s perceptions were misperceptions but reasonable under this unique set of circumstances, he is excused under the law. There is no malice aforethought or deliberation to murder under decided law about reasonable misperception/mistake. I don’t say Slager misperceived- just what the law is under those circumstances. He may have been dead-on accurate in his perceptions.

                  Like

              • Monroe says:

                Ronald,

                You might want to read some of the older threads on this issue. Review of the video indicates that Slager started to withdraw his weapon while he was still in a close proximity physical altercation with the perp. Physiological process impact an individual’s ability to process and change physical movement in a split second. Hence, this is not a straight forward case of the perp was running away and then Slager pulled and fired.

                There are many nuances to this case which will require detailed legal expertise and forensic experts combined with evidence to shed more light on the events.

                Murder seems over the top. I currently don’t have enough knowledge to vilify the cop but I do have empathy for him.

                Your recount of the event is perpetuating the scewed media narrative presented in the news.

                Like

          • 2bn3mr says:

            The key line in your post is: “and there was no immediate threat to him or anyone else”

            A man that is desperate enough to take a taser from a cop and (apparently?) attempt to use it on said cop, could very well be a threat to the next person he encountered. What if Scott had evaded Slager and managed to car jack a minivan full of children on the next street?

            Liked by 1 person

            • art tart says:

              2bn3mr ~ To put your comment in perspective, how many LE Officers across America tussle w/suspects on a daily basis, sometimes the bad guys get away & are later picked up for an outstandiing warrant, OR, they are caught by K-9’s/LE Officers chasing the suspects & hauled in.

              How many times a year do you read about a fleeing suspect that got away from an Officer that is shot in the back multiple times? I can’t remember reading of this happening many times except in cases of murderers, kidnappers, child molesters, etc, the point is: this is a rare occurence & is not frequently used.

              Liked by 1 person

    • fathertime88 says:

      No the rule is that the police officer can’t just shoot you because they’re annoyed you’re running away. Shooting has to be in self defense which this clearly is not.

      Like

    • fathertime88 says:

      No, the idea is that a police officer can’t shoot someone just because he feels like it. It has to be self defense which this clearly was not.

      Like

  2. kinthenorthwest says:

    Hopefully Slager has lawyers who are as wise as Sundance and the Treehouse team.

    Liked by 8 people

    • amwick says:

      I am hoping they find Scott’s prints and DNA on the tazer.

      Liked by 2 people

      • kinthenorthwest says:

        And if they do find that Scott handled the Tazer, we will still have people everywhere saying that Slager was wrong..because Scott was fleeing even after he assaulted the officer…
        We will probably still have people who would say that Slager would have been wrong even if Scott had shot or shot at Slager with Slager’s gun.
        I do believe from what I have read that Slager was tazed by Scott and that Scott tried to steal the tazer to do it again…That means Slager was within police protocol…(Sundance is not the only one who has reported it this way., but has done a better job of it)
        To me that means that if he had not stopped Scott —Scott would have been free to do it again to another officer or ??? This was not Scott’s first encounter with Law Enforcement and many incidents with Law Enforcement having nothing to do with his missed child support.

        Liked by 1 person

        • amwick says:

          Mr. Slager may have believed that Mr. Scott was fleeing with the tazer. My understanding is that it is his belief that counts, evev if Scott tossed the tazer while he was turning to flee. This will be such a close call. 😦

          Liked by 1 person

          • art tart says:

            amwick ~ but I thought it was Slager that threw the taser behind him during the tussle, hence, Slager knew where to go to pick up the taser after the shooting.

            Like

            • Anubis says:

              He could follow the wires attached to the darts in his chest

              Liked by 1 person

            • QuadGMoto says:

              The video was closely analyzed here at CTH. It appears that Slager’s left hand is on Scott’s right arm and his right hand is pulling his pistol at the time the Taser goes flying. If that’s the case, then he was not in possession of it.

              Beyond that is too unclear to determine for sure.

              Liked by 1 person

            • jason says:

              Slager turns his head just after calling in ‘he took my taser’, enough to see it sitting behind him. Hence, how Slager knew where to go pick up the taser after the shooting. Odd for a guy to have the forethought to call in that the perp took his taser, but leave the evidence sitting where he supposedly dropped/threw it, no?

              http://s7.postimg.org/p06hen5d7/scott_taser4.png.

              Again, if Slager has the taser, why can we not see it when the video first focuses on the two in a standing/engaged position and just prior to it bouncing across the ground?

              Liked by 1 person

              • Armie says:

                The thing that keeps getting lost in all the “planting evidence” claims is that if, in fact, that was the taser Slager moved, it wasn’t loaded. It’s pretty clear from the photos that Scott is dragging away the probe cartridge as he runs. Now what evidentiary value would a handpiece with no probe cartridge on it have? Really, none. Slager was picking it up so it didn’t get grabbed by some bystander. Moreover, you can see from the footage that he knew he was being videoed. It would have been the dumbest and most useless evidence plant in history.

                Liked by 2 people

      • oldiadguy says:

        I suspect Scott’s DNA will be found on the Taser, the question is how the DNA arrived on the Taser. Slager’s actions after the shooting maybe what convicts him, if he is convicted, as much as the shooting itself.

        Like

        • art tart says:

          oldiadguy ~ your comment is what I have read repeatedly about “after the shooting” & the years being added for the act of picking up the taser/dropping it/picking it up again. imo, the Prosecutors will paint it that Scott didn’t want to be tased.

          Even if Scott’s DNA is found on the taser, so will Slager’s, no doubt there was a tussle over the taser, but it was Slager that threw the taser, Scott didn’t have the taser to attack Slager with at the time he was shot in the back. (just imo) Hurdles the Defense will have to surpass to convince a jury.

          Like

          • jason says:

            reasonable doubt. How certain are you that Scott never had the taser? Sounds like you aren’t very certain. Hi res evaluation of the video i think would more clearly illustrate it’s unlikely, if not impossible, for Slager to have the taser moments before it comes into view as it bounces along the ground.

            Like

  3. SouthCentralPA says:

    Well, unless his defense team really messes up on jury selection, with no lesser charges to “split the difference” to, he ought to be found not guilty. Hope his defense team has the “Honeycomb Hideout” bookmarked …

    Liked by 1 person

    • kinthenorthwest says:

      this will be the 3rd city burned and looted I bet no matter the verdic

      Liked by 1 person

      • art tart says:

        kinthenorthwest ~ I wholeheartedly agree, “no matter the verdict, it will be burned/looted.”

        I wouldn’t doubt if the “street thug pharmacist” from Baltimore arrived there early while we are on jury watch so they can target the drug stores to burn/loot to replinish their drug supply to take back to Baltimore, seems a supply/demand occupation, sadly, there are no shortages of addicts willing to pay maximum prices for drugs..

        Liked by 2 people

      • Kitty Smith says:

        I don’t think so. There may be some minor upheaval, but unless Sharpton and the feds come to town to stir the pot and bus in rioters and looters, not much will happen. Charleston is only about 25% black. The rest of the population is mostly white with a few Hispanics and Asians. The BGI would have to up the ratio for the cowards and bullies before they could get the edge they had in Ferguson and Lootmore.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Timbo says:

      What is the “Honeycomb Hideout” in reference to?
      I find it outrageous that Slager is in “protective custody”, and not free on bond.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Akela says:

    They cannot DO that…Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    Like

    • BobNoxious says:

      Brady generally applies to withholding potentially exculpatory evidence at trial. Many prosecutors withhold discovery until after the grand jury returns an indictment. If they continue withholding evidnece b/w now and the start of the trial (and at trial), then Brady would apply.

      Liked by 1 person

      • art tart says:

        BobNoxious ~ I was reading an article earlier, will you please opine if you have time on what this means, mainly, can Slager change his original statement or is it too late when he claimed it was “self defense.”

        Article:

        Slager told authorities that he fired his Taser at Scott as he ran, but the stun gun didn’t work. Then during a scuffle over the weapon, Slager said, he shot Scott with his handgun in self-defense. The video appeared to show the men briefly scuffling in a vacant lot, but it also shows Scott clearly running away when the officer starts firing his handgun.

        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-slager-indicted-shooting-walter-scott-south-carolina/

        Like

        • BobNoxious says:

          Change it from self defense to what?

          I still think self defense is his best defense, even if they are only trying him on the murder charge, w/out lesser included offenses.

          Liked by 1 person

          • art tart says:

            BobNoxious ~ since it was Slager that said it was “self defense,” how can the defense prove that since it was Scott that was running away from Slager & Scott no longer proved to be a threat to Slager. There’s no doubt Slager/Scott tussled over the taser, but Scott didn’t have the taser, Slager did & tossed it behind his back.

            It too seems imo no one can know what is in the mind of another. If I sat own that jury, I would not see Scott as a danger to Slager deserving to be shot in the back multiple times because the threat was over. I might buy a different defense for Slager, but not self defense.

            Liked by 1 person

            • art tart says:

              shoud be: on that jury

              Like

            • Kitty Smith says:

              The prosecution has to overcome the self-defense claim offered. They also have to prove malice aforethought and deliberation, among other things. The officer also has a duty to protect the public at large and enforce laws.

              Watching a grainy video of what did happen is different from perceiving and making decisions in fractions of seconds.

              Keep in mind that once somebody has proven themselves to be a threat, the prosecution’s road to overcoming self-defense by a shooter (or whatever means) presents a high hill to climb.

              We don’t know what Scott did or said during the moments the two were physically engaged, or what Slager thought he saw or what circumstances he perceived to be occurring.

              I don’t know for sure that Slager is innocent, but I sure wouldn’t convict him on that video, given Scott’s assault and flight. I certainly don’t see malice aforethought, which is a major element to be proved in SC’s first-degree murder statute. Like you, like me, Slager’s a human being, not a robot. He is entitled to excuse for misperception, if that’s what happened, and that is indeed the law on that subject.

              Like

        • QuadGMoto says:

          Slager told authorities that he fired his Taser at Scott as he ran, but the stun gun didn’t work. Then during a scuffle over the weapon, Slager said, he shot Scott with his handgun in self-defense.

          I would really like to know where he supposedly said this. To my knowledge, his police report has never been released, nor has he given any interviews. It sounds to me a lot like that reporter is putting words in his mouth.

          Besides, if Slager really did say that he fired the Taser at Scott, that seems to contradict the video evidence which could exonerate him. If Scott did not fire the Taser at Slager, then Scott is downgraded from Active Threat to Resisting, making it very bad for him.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Len says:

            There is audio of the taser being fired..
            It was fired. There is no contradiction.

            Liked by 1 person

            • QuadGMoto says:

              Yes, the Taser was fired. No doubt about it. The contradiction is in who fired it at whom.

              The positioning of the wires in the video suggests that it was Scott who fired it at Slager. This statement attributed to Slager says the opposite.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Kitty Smith says:

              And? What’s your point? To date, nobody has claimed it wasn’t fired.

              Liked by 1 person

          • art tart says:

            QuadGMoto ~ did you follow my link to cbs where Slager is quoted?

            WHY is it an “active threat” when Slager had the taser, when you are running away from a taser & a gun, you are no longer an active threat. Scott wasn’t running towards Slager, he was running away from Slager.

            Liked by 1 person

            • QuadGMoto says:

              I did follow that link. It is not presented as a direct quote. That and the fact that to the best of my knowledge his police report has not been released and neither has he done any interviews causes me to strongly question the validity of that claim. Do you, or anyone, know where he supposedly said this?

              Liked by 1 person

              • jason says:

                believe you are correct, Slager has never been quoted, just a generic rehashing of what the SLED asserts are inconsistencies with his report and what’s shown on the video, but no specifics.

                Like

          • Kitty Smith says:

            It’s CBS. What do you expect? Along with the rest of the MSM, they make it up or selectively report whatever creates either the most rousing or most PC story the slimeballs can muster.

            I wouldn’t believe anything they have to say except where and when. The who, what and why are just too subject to their agenda-driven massaging to be believed as the whole truth of what they’ve been given, let alone the fullness of what actually happened.

            Like

            • art tart says:

              Kitty Smith ~ I read all the articles I can find on this case, I thought everyone did that. I am more concerned w/FBI Agents/countless experts that have weighed in on this case through interviews & the problems w/it.

              The picking up of the Taser by Slager was a mistake stated by endless experts, I am a layman, but I agree, nothing good could come from Slager droppng the taser/picking it up. BUT! imo, Slager knew if the taser could be found w/Scott, he would be in a better position than he is in today, then that might have been trully “self defense” IF Scott had the taser, BUT, Scott didn’t have the taser, Slager did.

              Don’t get me wrong, I want Slager to be found “not guilty,” but denying the facts/hurdles that will be difficult for the Defense to overcome instead of admitting they present problems & discussing them doesn’t further advance the discussion as to the possibilities imo.

              Like

              • jason says:

                you keep stating as fact what you are assuming. The only thing we know with certainty is at the moment Scott was shot, no one had the taser. Who had it just prior is something that’s not totally clear. If you have a way to confirm Slager had it, I would like to see. Not because i doubt there’s any such evidence, but that it would put that portion of this case to rest.

                However, I am pretty confident no such evidence exists, and actually, it’s pretty certain from what the video shows that Slager doesn’t have the taser, the bigger question is whether Scott has it instead. I think he did, but that is an admitted assumption based on the fact that it had to be somewhere and if not in Slager’s possession… then there’s a very limited number of alternate possibilities.

                Liked by 1 person

        • Armie says:

          Well, first, we don’t have the actual statement. What we have is a reporter’s version of a management version, of what an investigator told them Slager told him. So, I wouldn’t base much speculation on the purported statements of Slager. Let’s find out what he really said first, and let’s see it in context. As a general rule, first statements are considered the most credible, but that’s subject to a lot of ifs.

          Like

      • partyzantski says:

        BobNoxious,
        The prosecutor act of withholding exculpatory evidence seems to be counter to good sense. One would hope that prosecutors would only bring solid cases forward.
        The same logic, applied by the Police Officer on the street, ends up in them shooting violent felons.
        We are in an age when the prosecutor is now the most potent office in the land.

        Like

    • MouseTheLuckyDog says:

      No. They cannot withhold discovery forever.

      They can however take their time turning it over. My instinct is to wait and see what happens.

      Like

      • ImpeachEmAll says:

        Someone should be heading to jail;

        but is not Michael Slager.

        Liked by 1 person

      • art tart says:

        MousetheLuckyDog ~ BobNoxious is correct. I read earlier today that “Prosecutors didn’t have to turn over evidence until there was an indictment.” Savage has already made previous request for discovery so hopefully, it will be forthcoming soon.

        Like

  5. beowulf says:

    The Supreme Court’s 1985 Tennessee v. Garner decision is directly on point:
    “This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and 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.”
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5843997099226288287&q=en&as_sdt=40006

    Like

  6. Josh says:

    It’s only a matter of time before “they” “win” one. 😦

    Liked by 1 person

  7. art tart says:

    Sundance ~ Thanks for bringing the latest news on Officer Slager for us to discuss, you/treepers had done such great investigations/commentary on previous threads.

    The Scott family Attorney had to throw in “there would be a Civil Suit,” Scott’s family say they want “justice,” but they, like Sybrina/Tracy, want money. I wonder if the Scott family Attorney has explained it to all Scott’s clinging relatives that any monetary settlement will go to Slagers 4 or 5 kids, 1 that is still a minor, NOT, the brothers/sisters of Scott, but his kids in which Scott still owes $ 18,000.00 in back child support. The 3 adult kids are old enough to bring the Civil Suit themselves.

    Liked by 3 people

    • nivico says:

      Considering it has been well documented that he wasn’t a part of his children’s lives and didn’t provide for them financially, it’ll be interesting to see what sort of claims they will try to make in the civil complaint.

      Liked by 2 people

      • art tart says:

        nivico ~ I agree, but, there is always a Civil Suit filed by next of kin which are Scott’s kids & imo, the CIty will pay as they usually do in all of these cases. Eric Garners kids will get a big pay day since there is no cap there, it is predicted to be in the millions.. Scott’s other kin folk are chit out of luck, the $ 18,000.00 from the Judgement will go to the baby mamas for all these years Scott didn’t pay them child support when they file a suit to collect against the Judgement.

        I haven’t found the Civil cap yet for wrongful death in the city, I’m curious.

        Like

        • Kitty Smith says:

          The payday $ have to be payable to the person who owes child support. The person who owes it is dead, so Garner, the father will not be the payee nor is he the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is the estate of Eric Garner, then the kids, minors or not, will get the money because the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are not the judgment debtor for the child support. The baby mamas will not get the money, except that as legal guardians of the minor(s) they will have access to that child’s share as the beneficiary/payee, not as a judgment creditor. That’s the law in many states.

          If Eric Garner was alive, sued somebody and won, or was receiving an inheritance, a simple lien or levy against those proceeds/award based on back support due under a court order for support would divert the past due amount to the baby mama because Garner would be the plaintiff/payee in the suit so it would be an attachable asset (with some exceptions for plaintiff medical disabilities if that was what the suit was about) and maybe additional funds for a trust with a structured payment schedule for future support could be requested from the court if the child is still a minor.

          So, de baby mamas are also chit out of luck – should have picked a better specimen to be baby daddy.

          Like

          • art tart says:

            The kids in both cases, Scott’s/Eric Garners will recieve the monies from the Civil Judgements since they are legally next of kin. Both Garner/Scott had adult kids that will represent the Civil Suits, but Garner had a couple of minor kids, Scott had one that was 17 I think, she would be of majority age by the time of the settlement.

            Since Scott didn’t pay child support, $ 18,000.00, the State may try to claim their money if the baby mamas were on welfare, food stamps, medicaid, etc.

            Judge Judy explained to someone who was a welfare mom on her show that “if she won the lottery, she would have to re-pay the Govt. for welfare for her 7 kids that she was stay at home mom for.” imo, Garner’s kids/Scotts were likely on welfare.

            Like

            • nivico says:

              Art…

              That’s what I’m thinking, too. The money will initially go to Scott’s estate, not his children, and any creditors will have to be paid out of the estate first before any money is disbursed to his heirs.

              The state absolutely should seek reimbursement for every penny of support they’ve have to spend in loco parentis providing for this man’s offspring.

              Like

  8. True Colors says:

    I am still not sure how I feel about this case.

    At first, I thought that it was a slam dunk that the officer was guilty.

    However, after finding out that Mr. Scott was physically fighting with the officer, and also that Mr Scott may have fired the taser at him, it kind of put me on the fence.

    Still, there is a big part of me that thinks if a police officer has someone running away like Mr. Scott was doing, then the officer should just let them run. There were already other officers on the way to the scene. One of them would have nabbed him without the shooting.

    TC

    Like

    • Jett Black says:

      Not just let them run, but definitely not shoot them in the back. That’s why LEOs have radios and K9 units, etc. It’s why you can’t really ever expect to get away from them, no matter how fast you are on your feet or how “hot” your car or bike. Therefore, there’s no need to shoot someone who’s fleeing and presenting no danger of death or grave bodily harm to anyone.

      So, so sorry for Slager’s family and even for him. Seems he made a bad mistake in the heat of a moment following confrontation, and possibly fear and pain from being tased. I hope there’s more to this and that any “Brady” material will help Slager get a NG or at least a lesser verdict, but mostly at this point gotta pray for his family.

      Liked by 1 person

      • realitycheck says:

        Or maybe, just maybe IF the criminal (he had beaten and officer) had not run away to try to resist arrest, he would be alive.
        Rule 1) Don’t run away, beat an officer and resist arrest or you might get shot.
        That may not be the legal standard but somewhere in between should be reality.

        Liked by 1 person

        • True Colors says:

          I am certainly not condoning the actions of Mr. Scott. He was wrong. Period.

          Perhaps there was wrong on both sides — Mr. Scott and the police officer.

          TC

          Liked by 1 person

      • Stephen Mac says:

        Hey you don’t know what the officer’s state of mind was at the time. If the perk had the tazer he might do any number of things. If the officer was tazered it’s another whole scenario. The facts will come out. Just like Gentle Giant Mike Brown, loving Trayvon, and yes Baltimore Freddy. One thing, don’t believe one word of the MSM and their race-baiting African point men.

        Liked by 1 person

        • art tart says:

          Scott too was tasered, we’ll see about Slager as it was reported there were prongs in his leg, Scott didn’t run away w/the taser posing a threat to Slager. Slager had the taser, Slager threw the taser behind him.

          It would be different if Scott was in possession of the taser while running away from Slager, but that is not the case.

          Like

          • jason says:

            Slager did not throw the taser behind him. There are various stills of the instant before the taser becomes visible, Slager’s hands and motions can be accounted for, one is holding Scott’s forearm, the other is unfastening and grabbing his firearm.

            If Slager has possession of the taser, please show where this is evidenced.

            Liked by 1 person

            • art tart says:

              jason ~ so you think Scott threw the taser behind Slager? Can you show Scott threw the taser? Of course not!

              The point is: It doesn’t matter! WHY? Because Scott didn’t have the taser as he was running away from Slager! You can see Scott’s hands as he is running away & couldn’t have used the taser on Slager, the taser Scott didn’t have.. See WHY it doesn’t matter?

              Like

              • jason says:

                I have (IMO) shown Slager didn’t have possession of the Taser. We both seem to agree the taser was thrown. Occam’s razor would apply nicely here I think

                We actually can’t see Scott’s hands as he begins to run, specifically his left hand. We can see it later and perhaps tell he doesn’t have a taser, although I’m pretty sure the only reason we feel pretty sure he doesn’t have it is because after the fact, we see it ended up behind Slager. Scott also has his back to slager, it would be much more difficult to see what is or isn’t in Scott’s hands from that point of view.

                Last, as I proposed above, it’s not a matter of what could be ascertained by the time Scott had gotten 20 yards from Slager, it’s what Slager reasonably believed at the moment he made the decision to shoot. Considering we don’t know where the taser is located as Slager’s unholstering his gun, even after slow motion, video enhancements and endless replays, I think it’s reasonable to assume Slager may very well be just as uncertain. He may also know exactly where the taser was just prior to it getting thrown.

                Whether Scott had possession just prior to the shots being fired matters very much, at least in my mind. Considering I could just as easily be on the jury as any other, seems awfully relevant.
                https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSkiWxkR4j0CCl4FoWpRnUA5fWknRt5JN1MksKaYLAii9gV6ZrCZA

                Like

      • Anubis says:

        Anyone willing to duke it out with cops is a threat to society. One question is was he readily identifiable? If he got away even if he was IDed he would just be another black felon that they know about but wont risk picking up. Forget K9 units in the city the best way to get someone like that is to send them a postcard that they have won something.

        Like

      • Kitty Smith says:

        There are lots of people who get away in these arrest flights. That’s why the cops have dogs, helicopters, APBs, BOLOs, dogs and snitches.

        I agree, though, pray for Slager and his family. This is a nightmare, born of the Kafkaesque BGI.

        Like

    • jason says:

      Just my assessment which may not be correct when the evidence (finally) comes to light, but pretty sure Slager can be heard on the video telling Scott “if you (take/do) that, I’ll (have to?) shoot you”.

      Shortly after we see the two standing and the taser flies across the ground as Scott turns and runs. IMO, close exam of the video would show Slager had lost possession of the taser (and thus, Scott had gained full control) and now was acting on his previous thought “If he gets it, my only choice is my gun” which he communicated to Scott as they were fighting over the taser.

      Slager has to make a split-second decision on whether to draw and fire, or continue to struggle knowing Scott has already taken 1 weapon from him (and seemingly used, or attempted to use it on him). I can’t fault Slager that in that one to two second window he drew and fired rather than wait and see if Scott was still going to struggle with him. Training (I believe) would call for him to continue firing until the threat was neutralized, so the question here is that moment, or just prior to when he initially pulled the trigger.

      Prolonged chase. Physical struggle. Attempt (successful) to disarm the officer and good possibility Scott attempted to use a less than lethal weapon on Slager. In that moment, I think most reasonable people would fear for their life and/or others and do very much the same but JMO.

      Liked by 2 people

      • matterson says:

        Officer Slager also must be thinking in the back of his mind, “where is the passenger in Mr. Scott’s car?”

        There’s seems to be little to no mention of him.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Stephen Mac says:

        Great Post!! Makes sense, and still respects the truth when the facts are revealed and all the lies confronted.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jett Black says:

        I frankly hope that’s how it plays out in court. Just not seeing it now and not seeing a judge or jury giving anyone who shoots someone who’s unarmed, over 10 yards away and running away a pass. Case really gives me a sinking feeling–it hurts LE credibility and so very very sad for this particular LEO and his family.

        Like

        • art tart says:

          Jett Black ~ I feel as you do, as much as I want Slager to be found “not guilty,” I too don’t see Slager given a pass by the Judge/all of the jury, maybe a hung jury, IDK.

          Like

    • partyzantski says:

      A fleeing violent criminal has no boundary left to cross. While continuing to flee, they have no disincentive to NOT harm anyone else, they are truly dangerous.

      As the Police cannot be everywhere, the fleeing felon will just do as they do until exhausted, caught or escape from the area made good.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Kitty Smith says:

        It’s heartening to see that many people here, not all, “get it.”

        Like

      • Jett Black says:

        Um, no felony on Scott’s part. Just not there. Slager had time to run him during the initial traffic stop, before the chase. Whether he did or didn’t, can’t say he was pursuing a dangerous fleeing felon from anything I’ve seen. Scott was a small time n’er do well no one cared about until he became an ambient temp lottery ticket. Pretty sad all round.

        Like

        • jason says:

          He fought with/assaulted an officer – felony.
          He took the officer’s weapon – felony
          he appears to have attempted to use the weapon on the officer – felony

          Seems like a fairly dangerous guy, a shame if the only reason he did all of it was to avoid issues from being late on child support payments. The car that was his, but wasn’t, and passenger who the media has totally ignored except for the puff piece manufactured by Ryan Julison might indicate there were even more nefarious things in play but they seem to have avoided sunlight up to this point.

          Like

          • art tart says:

            jason ~ but Scott hadn’t been arrested or convicted as a felon yet you have claimed Scott a felon by his actions, you’re getting ahead of yourself again & that’s not how it works, I bet you know that. You bring in speculation, which is, your opinion, not a fact but you don’t state that it is “imo.”

            Did you find that video yet that showed Scott throwing the taser? Of course you didn’t cause you don’t have it, you continue to speculate! It may show up later, then it will be a fact, until then, it is just your speculation which you can’t support.

            Like

            • QuadGMoto says:

              Now you’re just being ridiculous!

              Must a police officer prove in court that someone punch

              Like

              • QuadGMoto says:

                Ooops wrong keys. Let’s trying that again.

                Must a police office prove in court that someone punched him before he can arrest that person for punching him? Clearly the answer is NO! The officer Knows that he has been assaulted, therefore he is duty bound to respond appropriately.

                Sheesh!

                Liked by 1 person

            • jason says:

              Uh… pretty sure that’s exactly how it works. Not really sure what basis you’d think otherwise.

              I found video that showed Slager was not in possession of the taser just prior to it being thrown. I don’t have the expertise to determine IF it can be factually determined that Scott threw the taser, but considering Slager does not have possession of it before it gets thrown, I think my speculation is pretty well founded.

              The legal standard is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I can place the taser outside of Slager’s possession. There’s some doubt as to whether Scott had it at the moment. Pretty sure that qualifies as reasonable doubt in most courts. Maybe the lynch mob will ignore it and return a guilty conviction, but you are speculating as much if not moreso. Look at the video, look at the stills, you claim Slager has the taser. Show me where.

              Like

            • jason says:

              Slager (according to reports), video and both ‘witnesses’ claim Scott and Slager were in a physical altercation/tusslin. He was at that moment a felon, no speculation needed.

              Seriously, if you want to get into specifics about what can and can’t be shown with respect to the taser, let’s do that. If you want to nitpick/cherry pick items to obfuscate the issue(s), it seems like a horrendous waste of time. Cheers

              Liked by 1 person

  9. Nation says:

    Did Officer Slager plant the taser on Scott?

    Dman posted good videos on his youtube channel showing Officer Slager pick up an object at the path, drop an object by Scott’s body, and pick up something by Scott’s body and attach it to the left side of his belt where the taser goes.

    I have found more evidence that the object that Officer Slager picked up at the path was the taser. From 5:47 to 5:52 in the video below, Officer Slager holds the object like a gun. This leads me to believe that the object was the taser, not the cartridge. Remember, Officer Slager had previously holstered his firearm before he handcuffed Scott. So he was not holding his firearm from 5:47 to 5:52.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sandra says:

      What do you observe in the video ? Slager drops the item, then picks it back up. What can you reasonably infer from that ? if he were “planting” an object, would he do so while being videerecorded by a citizen and in the presence of another officer ?

      Like

      • Nation says:

        I think it shows consciousness of guilt. Officer Slager knew it was a bad shoot, so he took steps to improve his story (i.e. Scott took his taser and thus was a continuing threat). Officer Slager may have had second thoughts about his plan when he saw Santana still filming. You can see Officer Slager make a furtive gesture towards Santana right after he picks up the object at 5:30 in the video above.

        Why would Officer Slager plant the taser on Scott in the presence of another officer? Maybe he thought he could get away with it. Based on the video above with the synced dialogue, the black officer is clearly preoccupied with rendering first aid to Scott. Officer Slager likely observed this and carried out his quickly thought out plan to plant evidence thinking the other officer would not see it.

        We still don’t have Officer Slager’s official statements. I would like to know how he described his actions after he shot Scott. I want to know if Officer Slager explained what he picked up at the path, why he picked it up, why he dropped it by Scott’s body, and why he picked it up later. Any misrepresentations or omissions are going to be devastating to his defense.

        Liked by 1 person

        • amwick says:

          Why was Mr. Slager standing with his pants leg rolled up in that photo Sundance included in this thread? I, for one, believe he had nothing to hide, and therefore no need to plant anything, anywhere.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Anubis says:

          His nerves could have been shot. He was tassed and fought with the guy 3 times while wearing 30+ pounds of gear. Some people start shaking and losing fine motor control after the heavy stress of being in “condition red”

          Like

        • oldiadguy says:

          I agree with your analysis. Officer Slager’s actions and statements post shooting are going to come back and haunt him.

          Let me get your opinion on this action. Slager picks up the Taser from the ground near Scott and returns it to it’s holster which is on the left side of his belt. The black officer who had been rendering assistance to Scott leaves momentarily. It was at this time that Slager, who hadn’t tried to render medical assistance to Scott, decides to check his pulse. Slager, who had received first aid training as a young man (It was reported he received EMT training), in the Coast Guard and in his police training, should know how to check for a pulse. However, when Slager checks for Scott’s pulse Slager does it with his left hand, not his strong hand. Slager is right handed.

          Notice how Slager is checking to the rear of where one would normally check for the carotid artery for a pulse. Is Slager really checking for a pulse or is he doing something else? Both he and Scott had been running and in a struggle. Both had been sweating. When he made contact with Scott’s neck he would have picked up some of Scott’s DNA (sweat). Remember the Taser is holstered on Slager’s left side?? If Scott’s DNA is only found on the pistol grip of the Taser, I think the State can argue that Slager may have placed it there. What do you think?

          Take Care

          Like

          • art tart says:

            oldiaddguy ~ A good point, or could Scott’s DNA/prints been tranference? imo, it will be an argument the State will make.

            Like

          • Nation says:

            I have never thought of that. Unfortunately we don’t get to see what Officer Slager did with his hand after he checked Scott’s pulse. But it is something else to keep in mind once we get all of the evidence.

            Like

      • oldiadguy says:

        I suspect the reason he picked up the taser after he dropped it, is that the other officer objected to him placing it near the body.

        Liked by 1 person

    • QuadGMoto says:

      Quite simply, I do not buy the “planting” idea. He clearly knows he’s being recorded. The other officer is already there when he returns. It’s more than obvious that he has to go back and get the Taser in the first place. “Planting” simply isn’t possible in that scenario.

      A much more plausible scenario is that he secured the Taser so no one else could grab it. Then simply dropped it to clear his hands in case he needed to help the second officer. Once it was clear that help wasn’t needed, he took the time to check then holster the Taser.

      Liked by 2 people

      • DT says:

        I don’t by the planting, either. In addition to the second officer attending to Scott, I think there may be a good chance that the second officer’s car may have dash cam footage of another angle of the scene if he has his lights on or his mic on. Adding to that thought, the second officer says something to Slager and makes a head nod motion to the area where the taser is before Slager picks it up. The second officer is aware of it and its location, IMO. If Slager was planting it, he would likely go behind the back of the second officer, not drop it in front of him and within his field of view.

        Like

        • oldiadguy says:

          “Adding to that thought, the second officer says something to Slager and makes a head nod motion to the area where the taser is before Slager picks it up. The second officer is aware of it and its location, IMO.”

          Another option was that Officer CH told Slager that he was having none of it. That may have been the reason Slager picked up the Taser.

          Like

      • Nation says:

        Police officers are suppose to leave the scene as is. Officer Slager should have left the taser where it was. Other people have argued that Officer Slager had to “secure the scene” in case kids were around. That argument defies common sense. There weren’t any kids around, and if there were Officer Slager could have simply detained them.

        We know police officers are suppose to leave the scene as is. We saw that in the George Zimmerman case. We saw that in the Michael Brown case. Leaving the physical evidence where it was exonerated both George and Darren, because the physical evidence corroborated their accounts of the events. I think we have all scene images of crime scenes that have cones and flags marking where the physical evidence is.

        If Officer Slager did in fact state in his official statement that Scott took his taser, leaving the taser at the path would not have helped corroborate his story.

        Liked by 1 person

        • DT says:

          Meh, I am sure there are department policies about leaving live weapons laying around an unsecured scene. Not so sure I would be keen to leave my taser laying around dozens of feet away from me, especially in today’s mob gathering, police harrassing environment.

          The taser confetti will show where the taser was deployed. There is video evidence where the taser landed so him moving the taser simply isn’t that big of a deal to me. Slager left Scott’s hat and the spent cartridge(s) in the location they landed. The only thing he moved was his taser. It is still a live weapon and it also contains data about deployment which I would want preserved more than leaving the weapon in situ.

          Like

        • QuadGMoto says:

          Please explain to me how one or two officers are supposed to secure a weapon left laying more than 50 yards away while still maintaining focus on their primary responsibility, Mr. Scott. Furthermore, please explain how someone in a location surrounded by trees can be absolutely certain there is no one nearby who won’t hear the shots, come to investigate, and take the weapon before they can intervene.

          Like

          • Nation says:

            The black officer was attending to Scott. Officer Slager could have waited at the path until back up arrived. (7:50 of the video above). Because Officer Slager did not protect the path, another officer actually drove his vehicle onto the path. I don’t know how much the officer’s vehicle contaminated the scene. It could have ruined evidence of a prolonged struggle between Officer Slager and Scott; evidence that would aid Officer Slager’s defense.

            Liked by 1 person

            • QuadGMoto says:

              Still not buying it. When Slager left Scott to go pick it up, he was still the only one on the scene and Scott, though down and handcuffed, was still breathing. Please, tell me how, given those immediate circumstances, he could be sure which place he could be.

              Like

            • jason says:

              The black officer did not arrive on scene until after Slager went back to retrieve the taser.

              I’m waiting until I see the officer’s statement(s) but I do see a scenario where Slager believed Scott still had the taser as he is fleeing. If you watch the video, Slager never reacts to the taser hitting ground behind him as he pulls his gun and then fires. After he stops shooting, he radios in and says ‘He took my tazer’.

              Slager then looks left, over his shoulder which some have speculated was to see the video shooter (see pic). IMO, he’s actually looking to see what landed behind him and notices that it’s his taser. So Slager then goes over to secure Scott, then the concerns about the taser begin as he goes back to retrieve it (whether it be to secure, or about how the scene ‘looks’).

              If it was a guilty conscious where he knowingly made a bad shoot and planned to plant evidence (ie call immediately after stating Scott took tazer), why didn’t he grab the tazer at that moment and relocate it instead of going over to the body and then coming back?
              http://postimg.org/image/rhi8lwp9j/

              Like

        • QuadGMoto says:

          Police officers are suppose to leave the scene as is.

          Yes, police are trained to do that, as much as reasonably possible. They are also trained to note changes they make when it is unavoidable. Securing a live weapon certainly fits into that category.

          Like

        • Kitty Smith says:

          You have no idea what you’re talking about.

          Like

      • He may have dropped it accidentally. He seemed to look around for something, confused, a few seconds later, and picked it up almost exactly 30 second after dropping it. It may have slipped out of his hand.

        Like

      • art tart says:

        QuadGMoto ~ Can you at least admit Slager should not have removed evidence contaminating what was on the taser, then drop it by Scott furthering contaminating the evidence, & then picking it up again? Can you admit the other Officer possibly saw Slager drop/pick up the taser at Scott’s side?

        If you can’t at least admit the obvious mistakes that will cost Slager & aren’t plausible in your theory, why would you believe a jury would believe your theory when many here on this blog don’t believe it & none of use are on the jury.

        So your theory is: Slager chose to contaminate the evidence to secure a crime scene by contaminating the taser? I find that not plausible! Remove your own opinion, be objective, why would a jury believe your speculation when there will be evidence supporting the consequences of removing the taser.

        Like

        • QuadGMoto says:

          No. For the reasons stated above. One of an officer’s primary concerns as part of securing a scene is to make sure any weapons cannot be removed or used by a non-LEO. Maybe it wasn’t necessary due to how fast other officers arrived. But until those officers arrive, he is the only one there. Even two officers (by the time he returned from picking it up) is not enough to secure an area that large.

          What you are calling “obvious”, I call “being obtuse”.

          Like

      • Armie says:

        Also worth noting: The taser wasn’t loaded. You can see Scott dragging the probe cartridge in the grass behind him as he runs. What possible good would it have done to plant a taser handpiece with no cartridge on it?

        Like

    • sundance says:

      @Nation, the “planting a tazer” argument is essentially a moot point.

      This argument continues to be made by multiple people in reference to what Officer Slager is thought to be doing immediately after the shooting. However, what everyone seems to forget is that taser wires are visible and attached to Walter Scott, so the “planting” of a taser with him holds no value.

      The taser was deployed, but it doesn’t appear that Slager was trying to “plant” the taser. What it would indicate is that Slager retrieved the taser from the location it was thrown, behind him, then took it to the body where the wires were evident, then picked it up and holstered it. Nothing more and nothing less.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jett Black says:

        yep. That’s pretty clear. Don’t know why there’s so much chatter about something that clearly shown.

        Like

      • art tart says:

        Sundance ~ so why did Slager contaminate the evidence of Scott’s prints likely being on the taser? I don’t buy the scenario. Why does that make it a “moot point” to some since Slager is the one who would be in a better position if Scott had been found w/the taser next to his dead body? Slager could have then claimed “self defense”easily, just look, Scott was threatening me w/my taser, he was trying to kill me! But, that didn’t happen. It would have been to Slager’s benefit had the taser been found next to Scott, but that didn’t happen. But, eyes were on Slager including the eyes of another Officer.

        As “oldiadguy” state upthread:

        “I suspect the reason he picked up the taser after he dropped it, is that the other officer objected to him placing it near the body.” I tend to side w/oldiadguy as a distinct possiblity, a completely believeable scenario which doesn’t make the argument that “Slager wasn’t planting evidence moot,” imo. We still don’t know what all the Prosecutor has.

        Like

        • oldiadguy says:

          Watch the video of Slager being interviewed by the uniformed officer at the scene. Watch the actions of the interviewing officer. The interviewing officer appears to me to be confirming information he received from Slager. What does the interviewing officer’s actions indicate?

          HINT: Does the interviewing officer’s actions indicate that Slager claimed Scott pointed the Taser at him? Remember how the SLED investigator suspected something was amiss when they learned Scott had been shot in the back. Why would the investigators have been suspicious if Slager told the interviewing officer that he had fired at Scott as he ran away, or did he?

          Yes, we do not know what kind of evidence the prosecutor possess at this time.

          Take Care

          Like

      • Armie says:

        Bingo Sundance.

        Like

    • art tart says:

      Nation ~ I’ve read many article w/experts weighing in on the case & a 40 yr. FBI agent that investigates these cases say “this shows consciouness of guilt, it will get Slager more jail time.” (I thought I save the link, am looking for it)

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Mr. Right says:

    I think this set the tone for officers around the country, “If you do your duty, you might put yourself in a situation that get out of control and you will be the sole person responsible for any possible outcome, including”
    a) your death
    b) the death of the fugitive/aggressor

    So it seem like the result of this will be cops that let criminals simply walk way, not taking the risk to end up in a resisting arrest situation and having to use force.
    Ultimately, drug/crime afflicted area will see murder & violence skyrocket to 30+ year high.
    Already in effect in cities like Baltimore, but be ready to see this all over the US as this mindless persecution of peace officers continues.

    It wont be long for the same FTP protestors, that are making all this happen, blame the police for the rising crime rate in their area.

    We might enter a new era of gated communities, and the self creation of more ghettos all over the country because the police can enforce the law. So good job protestors, instead of working for peace you are fighting the only people that help you live a better life.

    Liked by 9 people

    • jason says:

      think you nailed it. Look at most every case championed by the BGI, most very clear instances where cops were doing their duty yet still have their lives and careers ruined. Now a few are even facing jail time. What incentive is there to go above and beyond when merely looking in on a detainee can get you slapped with manslaughter and intentional assault charges? Going to affect the high crime areas hardest first, but will spread and take it’s toll on everyone soon enough 😦

      Liked by 1 person

  11. kinthenorthwest says:

    We have some good and some bad…I used to praise my small police department to the hilt.
    But now as someone said “Lock and Load” Be prepared to protect your self…
    Two months ago I was bitten by a dog in my yard. It had broken through the fence from his owners side. I was retrieving my cat from my patio at night and didn’t even know the dog was in the yard until I got it twice(once on my leg and once on my butt).
    Damn dog wasn’t even vaccinated. Did the police do any thing NO ..They didn’t even quarantine the dog for 10 days.. Two months later I have come to find out that dog bites don’t heal quickly and the nerve damage sucks–Walk around all the time with my leg feeling like it has a chemical burns, and sometimes like someone is stabbing me.
    Took Talking to a city council member to finally get them to follow through…

    Like

    • yadent says:

      Sorry to hear about your negative dog experience. Unfortunately this is not a police matter but one of animal control(matter of quarantine for instance). The owner of the dog should be liable for all damages incurred via actions of their animal and the animal should be put down…..sorry to say. Good luck.

      Like

      • kinthenorthwest says:

        Animal control is the police in my area…Small town they are all of it..
        sad to say…

        Like

        • czarowniczy says:

          Check with whatever passes for a department of health – states usually maintain some sort of reaction to animal bites and at least a statistical interest therein. If you know whom the dog belongs to you might also want to consider a lawsuit – might not have much to recover but you can teach the dog’s owner a lesson s/he won’t soon forget.

          Like

        • Indiemex says:

          Hey there Kin, if I remember right, you’re in Oregon. Your neighbors’ home owners insurance should be contacted. They will take care of your medical bills and settle something for your pain and suffering. Additionally, most insurance companies will cover a dog for only one bite. (Bye bye bad dog 🙂 Hopefully, you took photos and discussed the cause of your injuries with an ER doc, or your PCP.
          I was bitten in a Portland suburb. Sounds like the owners were more responsible, after the fact, than your neighbor. They put him down within a week.
          Regarding the weird, nerve pain – mine finally, mostly, resolved. Poco a poco.
          Good luck!

          Like

    • michellc says:

      I haven’t broke down on the side of the road in a long time. Happened this evening, me, my daughter and grandbaby. We had gotten the truck off the road and into a empty gravel lot. We were a half block from the police station. It took about an hour for the men to get to us. We knew what the problem was the water pump locked up and broke the belt. So we had our hood up and watched several city officers travel back and forth, several county officers and two highway patrolman.
      My daughter asked me if I thought it was odd that none of them were stopping to ask us if we needed help. I told her it kind of was because the last time I broke down the one and only patrolman I saw did stop and ask if I needed help.
      It’s not that we did, we had help on the way, but it was kind of surprising.

      It was also kind of surprising to me that nobody stopped to ask if we needed help.

      I guess we live in a different world these days.

      As for the dog bite, around here they’re supposed to take it in to the vet and quarantine it and fill out a police report.

      My SIL got bit not long ago and it was kind of a mess.

      Like

      • michellc says:

        BTW it took awhile for them to do what they were supposed to do and the owner wasn’t too happy when they did it.

        Like

  12. carterzest says:

    This is just SO WRONG….

    Hopefully, the truth will come out. Hopefully, Slager’s defense team is reading here.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. joe says:

    I agree. This is very, very wrong.

    Like

  14. James F says:

    Did he ever get bail?
    Is he still in jail?
    Did his wife have their baby?

    Like

  15. Donald Joy says:

    No way it was a good shoot, but no way it was murder, either. Manslaughter at most.

    Like

  16. amwick says:

    I have to think that , given how quickly Mr. Slager was arrested, that this indictment is just a formality. I do not understand why he could not get bailed out.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. czarowniczy says:

    Grand Jury down, the criminal trial (the REAL test) to go. As big a media event as this is it’s no surprise that the GJ went for a true bill, wouldn’t be the first officer to be indicted by the Red Queen’s court only to be found ‘not guilty’ by a jury of his peers. Of course, as we’ve discussed, the Lynch mob from the Obama Department of Ethnic Revenge will be there to rubber-hose him if he’s found not guilty by the criminal jury.

    Liked by 2 people

    • kinthenorthwest says:

      If found not guilty–the Race Card will be pulled…

      Like

    • amwick says:

      If he is found not guilty, I wonder if he could get his job back? Not that he would want it after crawling out from under that giant bus.

      Like

      • czarowniczy says:

        I’m betting the PD and Mayor’s office would make him appeal to the civil service commission/board – let THEM take the heat. That’s what happened here after both State and Fed courts found my friend ‘not guilty’ in the Katrina-related Glover shooting case. The PD (Chief, actually) fired him for following his lawyer’s orders during the trial and made him go through the appeals process. Case (and the CC commission) are so political that they upheld the Chief’s firing. He can appeal and spend beaucoup $$$ trying to get his job back (he’s got the retirement, this was a weird post-retirement Louisiana pay thing) but even if he wins the PD and the pols will make his return a living hell. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

        Like

  18. realitycheck says:

    #GREENlivesmatter …… “Attorney Chris Stewart said a civil suit will be filed in the next few months.”

    Like

  19. doodahdaze says:

    Oh Good Grief. The defense will make mincemeat out of this.

    Like

  20. dsb steve says:

    Can Slager make the case that the shooting was a mistake in judgement? The government obligated/encouraged Slager to pursue and apprehend the fleeing Scott. Because of that the struggle ensued. Where the officers life was in danger. Due to the heightened stress of the situation he mistakenly decided to draw his weapon and shoot Scott. A person should not be punished with jail time because they make a mistake while performing their duty as a police officer.

    Like

  21. Daniel says:

    Hey wait!!! Why are all these police officers leaving the force?! Why are all these unqualified people getting hired on to the force committing all of this corrupt activity that prosecutors are ignoring!?

    Like

  22. fred says:

    When they overcharge like murder 1 is that because they know it won’t happen but want to make a point for the grievance people that they tried. Or do they want a riot if a not guilty comes in. In this case can they drop down to manslaughter or a lesser charge or are they tied to murder one. Seems weird the whole affair.

    Like

  23. sundance says:

    Like

  24. sundance says:

    […] “An expected milestone in the case, the indictment came as the solicitor also received the last part of the State Law Enforcement Division file about the shooting, she said.

    Slager’s attorney, Andy Savage, said the indictment is “just another step in the process.” But Savage said that the state had not handed over its evidence in the case and that he couldn’t comment on it or on the indictment until then.

    “We remain at a disadvantage in addressing any questions,” Savage said. “Until we have an opportunity to fully evaluate the state’s case and to compare it with our own investigation, we will not be commenting on any aspect of the case.”

    Though she noted that the case marked the first time she has handled a murder case against a police officer, Wilson said that it was her duty to pursue the charge and that she thinks a jury in Charleston County can be impartial in making a decision if it reaches a trial.

    The indictment means that Slager is formally charged with murder, a felony that carries between 30 years and life in prison. He was arrested on that charge three days after Scott was shot in the back during a traffic stop April 4. Slager is white, and Scott was black”….

    http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150608/PC16/150609410

    Like

  25. Aslan's Girl says:

    I was wondering when we’d hear more on this case. Thanks for the update. Hopefully, the officer gets a fair trial.

    Like

  26. coeurdaleneman says:

    Thank you Officer Slager.

    Like

  27. PatrickSMcNally says:

    This can’t be a surprise. As has been noted, the reason that no indictment was brought in the Michael Brown case was because the charges were blatantly ridiculous from the get-go. Anyone who gave close attention to the news in the first 2 weeks after August 9 could have figured out that this was a bogus case.

    In the Eric Garner case it looked like there might have been a better basis for some type of wrongful death charges. But even if that were true, it was clear that any such charges made seriously would have to involve the ambulance medics and possibly the black woman officer in charge at the scene. The race-hustlers blew it because they wanted to scapegoat a single white police officer as the murderer of Eric Garner, and this overstretched any plausible case.

    In this case it really does just involve 1 police officer who can be singled out for responsibility. There’s no case that can be made that Walter Scott died in the hands of medics or that other officers somehow contributed. And the charges at face-value are not as blatantly ridiculous as the attempt to frame Darren Wilson was. That is often enough to get a case through a Grand Jury. So no surprise here.

    It does seem likely that a good lawyer can make a serious case for mitigating circumstances so that all charges should be dismissed by any honest jury. If this was a majority-black region then there would be good grounds for seeking a change of scenery, as there is in Baltimore. But that doesn’t seem like a problem here. Nothing to do but wait and watch now.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s