Walter Scott Shooting Update – Michael Slager Attorney To Offer Evidence Similar To Our Previous Outline…

Officer Michael Slager has been in jail since April charged with murder.  The first judicial hearing for Officer Slager, and the possibility for bond, will take place this Thursday.

Walter Scott deblurredWalter Scott - upper hand

Today media reports begin to surface from attorney Andy Savage which glean a considerable similarity in defense to our initial research discoveries:

  • Walter Scott was “on top” of Slager during the initial struggle. (link) [we first discovered this in our initial research]
  • Walter Scott’s DNA is on the tazer Officer Slager deployed. (link) [this was anticipated as a result of the visible struggle identified ]
  • During the struggle Officer Slager was “tazed” twice by Scott using his own weapon (link) [our research previously identified this distinct probability]
  • Walter Scott was “fleeing” Officer Slager due to outstanding warrant (child support)
  • A strong possibility exists that a weapon was on the scene between the originating point of the initial chase to the final disposition where the video of the lengthy struggle begins. (link)

Here is the current media release containing defense attorney Savage comments.

(Via CBS) Defense lawyers in South Carolina are prepared to offer controversial, new evidence in the deadly police officer shooting of a reportedly unarmed black man.  […]  The 33-year-old’s defense team now says it will present evidence at Slager’s bond hearing Thursday that includes never-before-seen stills from the cell phone video that are said to show Scott on top of Slager.

[…] “You need to go back to the incident scene and you need to see where the original stop was and you need to see where the final events took place,” Slager’s attorney, Andy Savage, said.

Savage suggested he may not have been completely unarmed the entire time. “Maybe he was found without any weapon on him at the time that he died,” Savage said.

Slager’s defense team believes his Taser was fired six times and that both the officer and Scott were each hit twice, suggesting there was more of a struggle than prosecutors have revealed.

In addition, the former officer’s attorneys allege that Scott’s DNA was on the Taser and that there was blood on Slager’s clothing and abrasions on his knee, and that he had an injured finger.

Savage said the new information should cast doubt on prosecutor’s version of events.  (read more)

The Daily Mail also has an expanded outline based on the above CBS report.

This essentially confirms our earlier suspicions, there is much more to this struggle and shooting than was originally evident on the highly-charged video which was widely reported by the media.

Here’s what we previously discovered during extensive research into the events as they could be reconstructed.  Including Walter and Pierre “riding dirty“:

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

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

Today – We share alarming discoveries within the non-discussed details.

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

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

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

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

Walter Scott map 2

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

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

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

walter scott tazer leads

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

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

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

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

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

walter scott - taser x26 - slager

walter scott - taser s26 specs

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

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

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

Walter Scott - taser lead

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

walter scott - slager - uniform debrief

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

walter scott tazer

This puts Slager at a serious disadvantage and obvious risk.

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

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

Walter Scott - feidin santana statement

feidin santana

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

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

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

walter scott tazer leads

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

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

View post on imgur.com

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

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

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

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

south carolina 3

Walter Scott - Feidin Santana

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

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

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

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

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

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

walter scott witness

All 30 Prior Research/Discussion Links are available HERE

Advertisements
This entry was posted in BGI - Black Grievance Industry, CRS, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, media bias, Police action, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Uncategorized, Walter Scott Shooting. Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to Walter Scott Shooting Update – Michael Slager Attorney To Offer Evidence Similar To Our Previous Outline…

  1. manickernel says:

    That Slager committed cold blooded murder is a fact already accepted by 80% of the public. Just read the comments on CNN or NBC, most seem to think the defense has photo-shopped the video and a grand police conspiracy is in the works. If you really want to have fun go to The Guardian, one poster even posited that The Guardian is now the conscience of the American police.

    Like

  2. acumenmac says:

    I can’t wait to hear those who call themselves conservative explain how this officer did not respond like s good cop would have. What a crock of liberal bull, but they slup it up. This cop’s life was threatened by a perk who could have killed him. Defend the officer.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. DT says:

    Wait, what? Never before seen stills from the cell phone video? You mean the media fed the public edited video? Wish I could say that’s a shock. People believe that video as if it’s the entire event and that’s all the evidence there is.

    Liked by 4 people

    • lurking2014 says:

      My bet is the frames are from the time early in the video when the camera points shakily at the ground for just a second but the cameraman moves two full posts along the fenceline. This segment of the video includes a blurry frame of Scott on his bottom with no Slager in sight. The camera goes down to the leaves, shows Scott for a frame, and then returns to the leaves. Upon pulling up from the leaves, the cameraman is 16 feet away from where he was just a few frames before. This segment has the appearance of having some frames cut out and then the remaining leaf frames slowed down to cover the gap where the frames were removed.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. joanfoster says:

    The fact that this officer has been sitting in a jail without a bond hearing since April is proof positive that no one in Charleston County is interested in justice, but revenge or social justice. It seems he is not being served appropriately by his legal team or the judicial process is so politically stacked against him that his team is attempting to allow enough time to pass so that the malcontents will remain in their huts and forget to recognize the signal to make waste of the heartland. Facts no longer matter in these cases. It is now about hiring the best and brightest mouthpiece or at least one that the below average IQ American can understand. That’s a tall order given what we have already experienced in the perpetually aggrieved community or perhaps more accurately stated the perpetually pissed off and looking for payday community. Freddie Grey’s family got their pay load today. Maybe that’s all they wanted and they will now go home and shut up about police brutality because God knows they would never want the TRUTH to be told that Freddie deliberately injured himself to get his payday in Baltimore.

    Liked by 4 people

    • doodahdaze says:

      No doubt. Plus they have a special social justice judge. This will go just like the Baltimore Six. Cops govern yourselves accordingly.

      Like

      • art tart says:

        doodahdaze ~ The interview w/Savage today was good, imo, I think Officer Slager is in good hands w/Savage. We are powerless about these Judges which are problematic, but w/good counsel like the Officer’s 6 Attorney’s appear to be & Savage, hopefully both cases will have a positive outcome.

        Liked by 1 person

    • deqwik2 says:

      I believe it was part of his attorney’s strategy to leave him in jail. I read an article with an interview from his attorney that made me think this way. Th attorney said something about he didn’t want him out until the time was right.
      It could be that he was safer in jail & they needed things to calm down before he got out. Being a free man might have done more harm than good for his case. With him in jail there wasn’t as many big news stories to spread the false narrative & the story did seem to die down fairly quick in comparison to other stories. May be we’ll find out “the why” when it’s over.

      Like

      • lurking2014 says:

        Could be that he’s going to need to do some time for statements made to the SLED investigators, for example if he omitted that he moved the taser. When he gets off on the murder charge he could have credit for time served for other lesser misdeeds.

        Like

  5. libby says:

    Next, you are going to tell me Trayvon wasnt three feet tall and three years old.
    You havent heard? Pillow fights can be dangerous. See West Point annual pillow fight

    Like

  6. BenY says:

    It’s time to take a stand against these thugs and criminals who have been emboldened to think they cannot be stopped by police.

    Like

  7. remster says:

    The county and police department sacrificed this officer to avoid the rioters and looters. The radicals’ tactics are working.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. flawesttexas says:

    Disturbing that this LEO is sitting in jail with no bond.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. amwick says:

    No surprises here. My gut feeling was all along was that Slager lost control of the taser and shot believing that Scott had it and was therefor dangerous. Hope he gets some kind of bond.

    Like

  10. aspire says:

    The single question people should be asking is if it was reasonable for the officer to still believe the perp was a threat to the safety of the officer or others at the time of the shooting. Considering he attacked an officer and tazed him moments before, it’s hard to argue that it wasn’t reasonable for the officer to view him as a public threat. There’s no dispute that the perp was in the middle of committing a crime, and it’s not reasonable to assume that the officer must have known the perp was no longer armed with the tazer. Nor do I think it’s reasonable to assume the perp would have been no threat to the public had he escape. He demonstrated that he was willing to break the law AND harm innocent people to escape justice.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Rojas says:

      It may have been reasonable to use deadly force during the struggle. It was unreasonable to shoot the man in back when he was clearly retreating.

      Like

      • Monroe says:

        When Slager pulled his weapon, Scott was still facing him and both were caught together in the taser wire. The human brain can only process info so quickly and it is likely that there was insufficient time for Slager to stop his action once it started.

        A jury and specialists will need to analyze the footage, the time elapsed, and the human physiology of stimulus/reaction to determine whether it was realistic to expect Slager to be able to react quick enough to Scott’s change in position.

        Of course, the argument still exists as to whether Slager had the right to use the taser on Scott and then whether he had the right to draw his weapon. Chip has presented info on this aspect that I don’t completely understand but he is usually spot on.

        However, there are still people who want to believe that police wake up every morning with the desire to hunt black men and no amount of facts will make a difference.

        Liked by 4 people

        • Rojas says:

          Scott was facing him when he reached for his weapon but he is well into his retreat before the pistol clears the holster.
          My personal experience at similar distances is that one is acutely aware if a threat is advancing or retreating. Perhaps there is something in his training that spurred his commitment to use deadly force, but their was plenty of time for the synapses to fire that the treat was moving away.

          Liked by 1 person

  11. CTH doing the job that the media strives to avoid…

    Liked by 3 people

  12. AghastInFL says:

    “…a weapon was on the scene between the originating point of the initial chase to the final disposition…”
    What was the weapon and was it recovered? second, does that affect opinion here and now amongst this CTH group?

    Like

    • AghastInFL says:

      A clarification I should have stretched my quote to include that this ‘weapon’ is only a “strong possibility” according to the article. Whatever that actually means.

      Like

    • Monroe says:

      If Scott was no longer in possession of the weapon and Slager was aware of that point, then the weapon probably would not have bearing on whether Slager had the right to shoot.

      It would depend on where in the timeline of events the weapon was in play.

      Like

    • Armie says:

      There are a number of variables in the process by which video gets from the source footage to a clip on a website, including different compression schemes, resolution differences, gamma adjustments, etc. The first time I saw the dash cam video, I believed I could see a frame or two where it was clear that Scott was wearing one of those “tummy packs” that are also sometimes disguised holsters. I commented on it here, and another member said he couldn’t see it. I subsequently looked at several (but not necessarily all) versions of the footage without being able to find one that showed it. But maybe the defense has found a video version that shows it. That’s one possible explanation for the statement. Guess we’ll know Thursday.

      Like

  13. oldiadguy says:

    It will be interesting to see what this “new evidence” is that Savage found. Reading between the lines of Savage’s statement, I would urge everyone not to get there hopes up just yet. Let me break down the parts of Savage’s statement that I find troubling.

    “Time will tell and I think that you will be able to judge his actions not by just what he said but what the independent evidence is,” Savage said.”

    From this statement, it appears that Slager’s statement(s) are very problematic for his defense. Savage is apparently going to try to use his interpretation of the evidence to paint a different scenario, possibly different from Slager’s statement(s) . Tough to do with a video of the most important part of the incident. It will also be interesting to see if he truly has new independent evidence or just going to present the state’s evidence in a different light.

    “Slager’s defense team believes his Taser was fired six times and that both the officer and Scott were each hit twice, suggesting there was more of a struggle than prosecutors have revealed.”

    Tasers record each time the device is discharged, whether the cartridge is fired, if it is used to drive stun or if it is being tested. In short, the defense team should know how many times the Taser was discharged.

    If either Scott or Slager was struck by one of the four darts that were apparently fired, then there should be some kind of puncture wound. During one of the news conferences, someone stated that Scott had a Taser dart in his leg. Up until this point, no one has said anything about Slager having a dart in his body, shirt or body armor.

    “In addition, the former officer’s attorneys allege that Scott’s DNA was on the Taser and that there was blood on Slager’s clothing and abrasions on his knee, and that he had an injured finger.”

    I’ve discussed the issue with possible DNA on the Taser and the problems with Slager’s actions concerning the Taser after the shooting, so I won’t go over this again.

    It would be interesting to know whose blood was on Slager’s clothing and where. I would suspect there should be some blood on Slager’s pants if he had an abrasion to his knee.

    I wish Savage would had been more specific on what kind of injury Slager sustained to his finger, which finger and which hand. From past experience, whenever I heard a defense attorney make this kind of non specific claim of an injury, I have found them to be trying to “boot strap” their case. I hope it is not true here.

    “Savage’s defense team believes the new evidence could lead to the North Charleston officer’s pre-trial release from jail, and Savage said he may use the evidence during trial to seek a lesser charge.”

    The money quote in the last part of Savage’s statement, “to seek a lesser charge.” I truly hope that I’m wrong, but from past experience, I would say Savage is working on a plea bargain. I believe the Murder charge is inappropriate, but it may have been sought for a bargaining position, with the hope of a plea bargain to a lesser charge. If there is some kind of “deal” being worked out, I would not be surprised to see Slager released on bond to spend some time with his family before taking a plea.

    I hope that I’m wrong, but watching how Savage has been handling the case to date, it sure looks like he working on a plea to a lessor charge. Time will tell.

    Take Care

    Liked by 1 person

    • Armie says:

      As long as the lesser charge is littering, I’m all for it.

      Like

      • coeurdaleneman says:

        I scoff at the idea that asking for reduced charges is indicative of a plea bargain. In this case, it is to remove a fallback position for a jury not inclined to convict for murder.

        Like

    • sundance says:

      Don’t forget that SLED refused to allow Savage to have access to Slager’s clothing to investigate. Don’t forget SLED refuses to move the physical evidence from it’s location more than 2.5 hours from where the case is being tried. Don’t forget that SLED refused to allow independent forensic and expert review of the physical evidence by the defense.

      These SLED activities do not portend to a solid case against Slager. Rather they display an apparent SLED intent to avoid sunlight and transparency of evidence.

      These issues are also part of the hearing scheduled.

      Liked by 3 people

      • oldiadguy says:

        Sundance,

        I respect you opinion and I’m not forgetting the issues you raised, but I have a different view point as having been in a similar situation as the SLED investigators.

        Let me give you an example. We have a local defense attorney with a similar reputation as Savage. The local attorney has done many high profile cases and many of the high profile police cases. The local attorney has made similar claims that the Internal Affairs Division would not provide him with copies of the evidence and documents in a particular case.

        The truth was the items he requested were gathered the day he requested them and were in the deputy commander’s office awaiting someone from his office to come by to pick them up and sign for them. I know, as I was the person who dropped everything to make sure the items would be available by the end of the day. These claims would go on for weeks. Despite numerous phone calls and daily emails reminding him the items were ready for pickup, he would continue to claim we would not provide him with the documents. Usually we would send someone to deliver the documents to his office, which was outside of our jurisdiction, just to shut him up.

        Is that the case here? I don’t know, but Savages actions to date feel familiar.

        In regards to the request that the evidence (clothing) be conveyed to a location convenient for Savage, I take that as going overboard on his part. The way I read his request is that he wants the state to take one of their employees from their duties, sign the evidence out of the evidence storage facility, use a state vehicle and state supplied gas, and convey the evidence to a location of his choosing at a date and time convenient for him. While there, the employee has to monitor how the evidence is handled so it is not altered, damaged or lost. Then after his experts are through with their examination, the state employee has to return the evidence back to the state evidence storage facility.

        Also, all accredited law enforcement labs follow procedures for the custody of evidence. Those rules are set in stone unless a judge orders otherwise. I suspect that the SLED lab has procedures for attorneys and their experts to come and examine evidence, in my opinion Savage just doesn’t want to pay the expenses of following those procedures.

        One last thing. What defense attorney makes a public statement like this, “Savage said he may use the evidence during trial to seek a lesser charge.” We both agree that the Murder charge is excessive. Why would an attorney want the option of a lesser charge that could increase his client’s chances of being convicted?

        Savage has seen the evidence and knows whether the state has a case against his client. Has Savage made any statement about his client being innocent?

        Then there is this statement, “Time will tell and I think that you will be able to judge his actions not by just what he said but what the independent evidence is,” Savage said.”

        Is Savage saying Slager’s statements were not accurate/truthful? I don’t know, but that is a very odd statement for a defense attorney to make.

        I have felt for some time that there is a deal being worked out after watching Savages (in)action concerning this case. Savage’s statements I listed continues to confirm my suspicions, however, time will tell.

        Sundance, I want to thank you for the opportunity to express my opinions here at CTH. I know that often my opinions are not popular, but be assured I do not express them lightly as I base them on my law enforcement experiences.

        Take Care and have a Blessed Day

        Liked by 2 people

        • coeurdaleneman says:

          We’ll see whether Savage has the goods in the next 30 hours. If indeed Scott’s DNA was the most dominant on the taser, as claimed by Savage, then the ballgame changes.

          Like

          • oldiadguy says:

            coeurdaleneman

            I agree, it will be interesting to see if Savage has “new evidence” or if he is trying to give a new interpretation on already known evidence.

            I’m not sure if there is a way to give a quantitative amount concerning DNA traces. I know they can ascertain where the DNA was located on the object, in this case the Taser.

            I’m not sure how much bearing finding Scott’s DNA on the Taser is going to have. Had Slager left the Taser where it had fallen, then the DNA trace would be relevant Since Slager handled the Taser after the shooting, the possibility of contamination by Slager I believe negates any finding of Scott’s DNA.

            Also, bringing up the Taser and DNA opens a lot of doors I’m not sure Savage would want to be opened. If I was on the prosecutor’s team and was preparing for trial, I would have already interviewed the instructor who trained Slager in Evidence procedures, obtained a copy of the class syllabus and any followup evidence training Slager may have received. I would have obtained copies of the PD’s rules and regulations concerning evidence procedures and have a DNA expert on deck who can explain cross contamination. If we wanted to play hardball, there are other areas where I would have obtained records and interviewed experts, and have them available to march through the doors that Savage could open concerning DNA evidence.

            I believe Savage has his work cut out for him and I’m interested to see how he proceeds.

            Take Care

            Like

        • Armie says:

          Just as matter of information, part of the delay has been due to Savage having surgery. Don’t know what kind, don’t know how long, just wanted to throw that in there.

          Like

          • oldiadguy says:

            Thanks Armie, I was aware of the fact that Savage had surgery done recently. What I was referring to was the time frame immediately after he took the case and the time up until the surgery.

            If I was in Slager’s place and knew that I was justified in shooting Scott, I would be demanding that my attorney get me out of jail so I could be with my family. If this happened, I didn’t see it reported.

            If an attorney believes his client is improperly charged and imprisoned, I would expect the attorney to fight tooth and nail to get his client released. Again, if it did happen, I didn’t see it being reported.

            The way this case is playing out is more than odd and I don’t mean the BLM angle. I really wish I could see/hear Slager’s interviews, it would shed a lot of light on this case.

            Take Care

            Like

    • art tart says:

      oldiadguy ~ excellent comment, I agree with your comment on all points.

      oldiadguy shared ~ “Savage’s defense team believes the new evidence could lead to the North Charleston officer’s pre-trial release from jail, and Savage said he may use the evidence during trial to seek a lesser charge.”

      When Savage stated this, I interpreted it to mean, it was an extensive fight, both men were shot twice w/the taser, Slager feared for his life.”

      This is troubling because Slager could see Scott didn’t have the taser. What did Slager tell SLED? Did he tell SLED that Scott had his taser? Even though Slager dropped it & picked it up, did he admit that to SLED before the video appeared.

      What I find most troubling is the what the Prosecutor said: (paraphrased.) “Slager lied & tried to plant evidence.” The video may show Slager to be dishonest. Slager dropping the taser/picking it up will be difficult for Savage to overcome, especially if Slager is on record telling a different story.

      I too think Savage may be working on the best possible deal for Slager. Savage is left w/what Slager said in interviews w/SLED before he became the 3rd lawyer.

      Liked by 1 person

      • oldiadguy says:

        According to news reports, Slager told his chief and two lieutenants that Scott had taken his Taser and pointed it at him. Remember the interview video I kept pointing out?

        I’ve also read that in addition to the videographer, there is a second witness. Both witnesses say Scott never had the Taser.

        If the prosecutor can show Slager to be dishonest, it is all but over.

        I’ve been catching up on reading the articles concerning the “new evidence.” After reading some of Savage’s purported statements, my confidence in him is starting to fade.

        Judging from the comments from both sides, this is going to get very ugly.

        Take Care

        Like

  14. e.g.g. says:

    Seriously, the police forces of this country NEED to invite, beg, cajole their politicians at all levels to be trained in a police crash course. Then go through an exercise where split second decisions must be made in life or death situations. Then the clueless politicians need to go on a patrol to the worst areas. The politicians have….no….idea….what our police are up against. They need to be educated. Until this happens the police every where will be thrown under the bus by superiors, or killed.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Monroe says:

      Officers could also use some more training. Based on the info released, it was not a wise decision for Slager to have pursued Scott. However, he did nothing wrong by choosing that course of action. But there are more negatives than positives associated with his choice.

      This perspective came from a seasoned big city officer who has been in the same situation where a perp goes running. However they stayed and secured the car and the passenger and established a perimeter. Passenger rolled on perp and perp caught. Not pursuing is not the same thing as doing nothing.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Armie says:

        The problem with trying to make a call based on the info released is that we don’t know how much of that info Slager had at that point. He’d contacted a guy driving a vehicle he couldn’t prove was his. While he was running the guy’s ID, the guy tried to distract him, then he suddenly bolted. Scott knew there was a non-payment warrant out, but Slager may not have gotten a return on the license yet… and if not, any suspicion he had that the car was stolen or the guy was wanted for something serious would have been confirmed when Scott rabbited.

        Just as a matter of information, it’s not uncommon to stop a stolen vehicle where the theft hasn’t been reported yet. Just one more factor to weigh.

        The judgment call always has to be based on the question of what the officer knew at that instant, and what a reasonable officer would do based on just those facts that were known.

        Liked by 1 person

  15. MouseTheLuckyDog says:

    Can someone clarify? From previous discussions here: the taser only had two shots in it how can it have been used six times? I’m confused.

    Like

  16. Nick says:

    I agree with 99% of what sundance reports but despite all the evidence that there was a struggle and the officer was down being beaten, tased etc. It doesn’t change the fact that the very moment the officer pulled the trigger, there was zero imminent threat to his life, ZERO. He had every justification to shoot him DURING the struggle/fight when his life was being threatened but the moment Walter turned his back and began to run, he posed no more threat to the officer.

    I think what happened is the officer was unable to (legally) defend himself with his sidearm DURING the struggle for whatever reason but was too quick to use it once he had the opportunity. He felt he had the justification to shoot Walter during the struggle but didn’t stop to realize that the moment he pulled the trigger, Walter was no longer an immediate threat. Unfortunate set of circumstances he has to live with.

    Like

    • gjb says:

      So chase him down and risk being overpowered again, maybe get his gun taken the second time? People are capable of taking out concealed weapons while in flight and shooting over their shoulders, as well. There was still threat to him and threat to the public if he got away, that’s why the fleeing felon rule is in effect, and why Tennessee is written the way that it is. Are you able to just shut off your mind and body when under duress? Probably not. Inattentional blindness takes hold, adrenaline pumps, and flight or fight is in full force.

      He had just used his most readily available non-lethal weapon to subdue him, reloading it even. It didn’t work, and he was overpowered. How many hoops do you really want him to jump through? He gave Scott several opportunities to stop, but he didn’t. He should not be sitting in jail for this.

      You sound like the uneducated masses sitting on CBS New running your mouth, passing judgement.

      http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/police-chief-fatal-shooting-of-armed-suspect-justified/ar-BBlsHyd

      Liked by 2 people

      • Nick says:

        In full all out war, when the formerly armed enemy surrenders, you are not to shoot him EVEN THOUGH they were shooting at you 30 seconds ago. This is a widely agreed on rules of WAR. Police are not soldiers and the people they arrest are suspects, NOT enemies so they should show even more restraint when it comes to deadly force. The example you gave on MSN was a situation where the suspect shot at officers during the chase and the officers shot back, perfectly justified. This particular case was a cowardly move and this officer deserves to serve the rest of his life in jail for his actions.

        Like

      • oldiadguy says:

        gjb

        If Slager felt he could not control Scott, all he had to do was keep him in sight, direct responding cars to the location where they could take him into custody without using lethal force. Officers are doing it everyday.

        There is an old saying, “you can’t outrun Motorola.”

        Take Care

        Like

        • coeurdaleneman says:

          Slager’s reply to that is that Scott could have wheeled at any time and attacked him again. And that Slager wasn’t aware of where the taser was at the moment he began to fire. Slager began firing at very close range, while there was plenty of opportunity for a desperate, violent man to pull a Mike Brown.

          Like

          • oldiadguy says:

            coeurdaleneman

            Slager is not going to make a reply to that scenario or any other scenario. Savage is not going to allow him to testify. He can’t!

            Look at Savage’s choice of words in his statement to the press. Savage is telling folks to disregard what Slager had said in his interviews and instead look at the “independent evidence.” That statement does not bode well for Slager in my opinion.

            Had Scott pulled a “Mike Brown” Slager may have been justified in shooting Scott.

            Like

            • coeurdaleneman says:

              Savage will be doing the argument for Slager.

              Don’t overread/misinterpret Savage’s language about Slager’s statements in the immediate aftermath. He’s not saying that there is any conflict. You’re reading something extra into them that isn’t there. From what I can tell, he’s saying that the evidence is copacetic with his statements.

              Like

              • oldiadguy says:

                coeurdaleneman

                I’m aware that Savage will be representing Slager. What I referred to the fact that Slager will not be on the stand to testify and explain his actions. Savage can’t testify for Slager, all he can do is try to create reasonable doubt with the jury should the case go to trial.

                We will have to disagree about the meaning of Savage’s statements to the press. When I read those statements, the first thing I thought was, “oh sh!t,” this isn’t good.

                I don’t know Savage nor am I familiar with his style of lawyering. Sundance thinks highly of him so that is good enough for me. I would expect a lawyer of his experience and standing to chose his words carefully. To me he is preparing the public for something, possibly a plea bargain to a lesser charge. My suspicion is the “new evidence” is going to be presented to make the deal more palatable to the public. On this we will have to wait and see.

                I have to disagree about the meaning of Savage’s statement concerning on what Slager had said previously (interview(s) and to look at the independent evidence. If the independent evidence backed Slager’s statements, Savage did an extremely poor job of saying that. Again, Savage could have said that the physical evidence in the case will back by client’s statements and will show that the shooting of Scott was justified. Unfortunately Savage didn’t say that in his press conference.

                We should know more by the end of the day. Lets see what Savage has to say in court.

                Take Care

                Like

                • art tart says:

                  oldiadguy ~ I view the case as you do, I too think from Sundance + what I have read, that Savage is a good Attorney & will do the best job he can for Slager. The problem is: When you’re the 3 rd Attorney, you’re left w/Slager’s statements locked in w/SLED Investigators & the Prosecutor has the evidence she can prove/& the video.

                  I’ve read some legal experts think Slager will get bail since he isn’t a flight risk, I hope so.

                  Like

        • Armie says:

          I’d agree IF all that was involved was an unarmed guy suspected of a property crime trying to flee. If the situation involved a guy armed with a taser who had just exhibited a willingness to assault police, and was running toward the location from which my backup was coming, that’d be a situation where “all” might not be enough. Let’s see if we can get some clarity on exactly what was known and when.

          I agree that you’ve found the likely interpretation for Savage’s comments.

          Like

          • oldiadguy says:

            Armie,

            “Let’s see if we can get some clarity on exactly what was known and when.”

            I agree completely and with this thought in mind, lets clear up a couple of points concerning terms used in describing this incident.

            Many here at the CTH have used the term “assault” when referring to Scott’s actions toward Slager. In my police experience, an assault is usually an unprovoked physical attack against someone. The primary goal of an assault is to hurt someone.

            We would have described Scott’s actions toward then Officer Slager as being a “resisting.” A resisting could be by simply running away (Resisting by Flight) up to lethal force (Felony Resisting) being used against an officer to prevent an arrest.

            The primary goal of a resisting to avoid capture and from what we know to be facts, this term best describes Scott’s actions. It is not a big issue, but it helps clarify Scotts intentions.

            “If the situation involved a guy armed with a taser who had just exhibited a willingness to assault police, and was running toward the location from which my backup was coming, that’d be a situation where “all” might not be enough.”

            Police officers chase suspects and apprehend everyday in this country without incident. In urban areas, officers work as teams to police their jurisdiction and this team work carries over to police actions such as foot pursuits. If a suspect is faster than the officer, all the pursuing officer has to do is keep the suspect in sight and direct responding units via miniature radio to facilitate the suspect’s capture.

            In this case, Scott had already ran a couple of blocks, struggled with Slager and from the video, looks like he was exhausted. In short, his fighting and running potential was degraded. The responding officers were fresh and equipped with Taser/cartridges that could be used at a stand off distance to control Scott.

            Even if Scott had possession of the Taser as he ran from Slager, Slager could have alerted responding officers of that fact, so the responding offices could use the necessary precautions. Remember, at this point the Taser could only be used to drive stun someone.

            Sadly Slager made a number of bad decisions that day, firing those shots was one of them.

            Take Care

            Like

            • Armie says:

              I take your point re: defining terms. The word “assault” has both a generic and statutory definition. In the generic sense, it defines any attack on a person, and I’d put pointing a taser at a person and firing it in that category. The initial charge in California would have been resisting (148 pc). I think it can be argued that at a point in the incident it evolved from resistance to lawful authority to assault on a peace officer. In my neighborhood, he’d have been charged with both. (Again, assuming the facts are as Savage described them).

              Like

  17. I believe the police officer is being held illegally held without bond, I believe as this new information has now come forward, he WILL be redeemed.. In my opinion he is innocent of ANY wrong doing. He should be released & compensated for 6 months of jail time.. + money.. He should be reinstated with full honors.. A apology from his chief, & DA.. That is my feeling, God bless this police officer & his family..

    Like

    • bertdilbert says:

      Would you think it a good idea for Officer Wilson to remain on duty in Ferguson? He would just become a target for a mental with a gun. I think the same would apply here. Best to slink off into the sunset. Take what you are owed and move on.

      Like

  18. coeurdaleneman says:

    With the introduction of the cocaine evidence, the opportunity for candycoating Scott anymore just evaporated.

    Like

  19. georgelrusso says:

    Hi Guys, this is my first comment on your excellent site that I’ve been reading for years. I was on a believer in your account of the struggle between Scott and Slager until I enlarged and slowed down the video.

    It appears that Slager is standing up and pointing down towards Scott when the taser sound is heard.

    The still frame that is supposed to show Scott on top of Slager actually seems to show Scott’s feet (white tennis) coming off of the ground as Slager is next to him on the ground – perhaps with his arm going around Scott’s chest to pin him and cuff him.

    After Scott gets up and just before he runs away Scott appears to throw the Taser over Slager’s left shoulder either before his wrist is held or just after he breaks free.

    Video of the struggle that I enlarged and slowed down:
    http://1drv.ms/1Oh6bt6

    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