Update: Walter Scott Shooting – Officer Slager Court Hearing – No Bond Decision Today….

Reporter Andrew Knapp attended the first pre-trial hearing today.  He filed the following reports:

Walter Scott - taser lead

UPDATE: Defense argued that Walter Scott got on Slager during a struggle and pummeled him. Attorney Andy Savage said Michael Slager looks forward to clearing his name. Prosecutor Scarlett Wilson, though, said Slager became executioner and planted evidence, lying to make it look like self-defense.

UPDATE: Michael Slager bond hearing is over. No decision by the judge in impassioned, emotional three-hour hearing for Michael Slager, the former North Charleston policeman charged with murder in Walter Scott’s shooting death.

Judge: “This matter is deeply important and will be treated as such,” the judge, adding he needs time to digest the arguments. He will not rule today.  (Read More)

Walter Scott - judge clifton newman

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Abusive Cops, Agitprop, BGI - Black Grievance Industry, CRS, Cultural Marxism, media bias, Police action, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Racism, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

190 Responses to Update: Walter Scott Shooting – Officer Slager Court Hearing – No Bond Decision Today….

  1. TwoLaine says:

    I wonder if Shrillary has called Officer Slager’s family yet.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Judge: “This matter is deeply important and will be treated as such.”

    My interpretation:
    a.k.a. The #BlackLivesMatter consideration, i.e. “they might call me Uncle Tom if I let him out on bail.”

    I can’t believe it’s taken this long just to get a bond hearing.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. carterzest says:

    “couldn’t help but make you feel ashamed, to live in a land, where justice is a game”

    “Hurricaine”, Bob Dylan

    I only can pray that this judge does the right thing. We at the Treehouse know the case inside and out…

    Run from a traffic stop, grab a cops taser, jump on top of him….Get Dead!

    Prayers for Officer Michael Slager!

    Liked by 2 people

  4. art tart says:

    Although Scott’s family doesn’t want Officer Slager to get bail, the family previously claimed that “he likely ran because he owed back child support.” (paraphrased & only speculation on their part.)

    FACT:

    Chris Stewart, an attorney representing Scott’s family, said he didn’t think the toxicology test results from Tuesday’s filing have any bearing on the case.

    A toxicology report that says Scott had cocaine and alcohol in his system.

    The toxicology report says the level of cocaine in Scott’s blood was 36 nanograms per milliliter, and notes that the average amount for typical impaired drivers is about 87 nanograms per milliliter. The report also said Scott had 1,300 nanograms per milliliter of benzoylecgonine, a byproduct of cocaine metabolism, and cocaethylene, a metabolite that forms when cocaine and alcohol are in the bloodstream at the same time.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/us/south-carolina-walter-scott-shooting-michael-slager/

    imo, it’s what Savage says that matters on the toxicology, why would anyone take the word of an attorney looking for a big pay day from this family? I too think Scott didn’t want a drug/alcohol test, if he failed he would likely lose his job, his license & I don’t know about the car insurance, etc.

    Liked by 1 person

    • nivico says:

      Granted, he did hand ‘a’ license to the officer… but then he took off.

      So I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess that his license was already suspended or revoked (punishment in SC for failure to pay child support). We do know that his car wasn’t even registered in his name, so you can probably add driving without insurance and invalid tags and registration to the list, too.

      Like

      • art tart says:

        nivico ~ you may very well be right that his license was suspended/revoked.. Scott didn’t want to face going to jail for any reason, having to get bailed out etc.

        Like

    • gjb says:

      I’m sure we’ll hear more about this part of his background at trial. Even if it wasn’t at levels for impairment at that particular time, there’s no good reason why a fifty year old with four children who he owes child support towards should be using cocaine (and mixing it with alcohol, no less). The “he ran because of child support” storyline doesn’t hold water with that admission.

      I’m sure we’ll hear more about this part of his background at trial. His interactions with Pierre Fulton that day and previously will certainly be a talking point at trial. Wonder how thoroughly SLED checked the car that day.

      Like

  5. How and I ask how can the cop plant evidence on him when a camera was shooting the whole thing up until the other cops arrived. He grabbed his hands and placed them behind his back and bound him. He did not linger near it at any time.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Monroe says:

      He moved the taser for some unknown reason.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jake Speed says:

        the taser darts had been deployed, reportedly the officer was stuck with at least one of them…you can see the lead wires in the pic. If the dart was still in the officer….it is plausible that he took the taser over to where he was securing the suspect because it was still attached to him via the leads…. Dragging around a device that is attached to you by a wire with a straightened #5 Eagle Claw fish hook in you is not something you want to do for long…

        Like

        • Just Sayin says:

          Great point, Jake.

          Great point.

          Anyone want to argue the “planting” side in response?

          Well?

          Like

          • oldiadguy says:

            I will defend the theory that Slager was trying to plant the Taser next Scott’s body.

            Relative the Jake Speed’s theory that Slager had a Taser dart stuck in his body/uniform.

            First of all there has been no evidence presented by either side that Slager had a Taser dart stuck in his body or in his uniform. It was reported early on that Scott had a Taser dart in his leg, which explains why a Taser cartridge was bouncing behind him as he ran.

            Second, Savage described Slager’s injuries as being an abrasion on his leg and an injured finger. There was no mention of any puncture wounds

            or any other injuries having been “Tasered.”

            Third, this alleged “Tasering” that Slager sustained apparently was a secret just recently discovered by Savage’s defense team. Slager didn’t think it important enough to mention it to his first attorney, the interviewing officers from his department or the SLED investigators. Really??

            In regard to the movement of the Taser, let me say this. That Taser was a critical piece of evidence in this case. That Taser should not have been moved from the location it landed by anyone except the officer assigned to process and seize the evidence. Evidence should never be relocated by anyone in a fatal shooting, but especially in an officer involved shooting and especially not by the officer who did the shooting! This is evidence 101.

            There was no emergency to secure the Taser from some imagined miscreant who was going to come and snatch it away. The incident occurred in a large field with a fence on two sides and open on the other two. There was no threatening crowd. The only person on the ground was the videographer who was on the other side of the fence.

            Do you really think the videographer was going to jump the fence, run over and grab the Taser and make off with it after witnessing Slager shoot Scott in the back? As I stated in previous threads on this topic, if Slager had any concerns about the security of the Taser, all he had to do is return to the location of the struggle and preserve the scene.

            I have discussed this incident with a number of experienced officers, both active and retired, none of us could come up with a legitimate reason for Slager to pickup the Taser, remove it from the scene of the struggle, convey it to the Scott’s location and then drop it in the vicinity of Scott’s body. All of us believed it was an attempt to plant the Taser near Scott’s body to justify the shooting. Sadly, it is what it appears to be.

            It is also evident from the video that the Slager changed him mind for some reason as he picked up the Taser and holstered it. Why we don’t know, but it will be interesting to see what Officer Habersham had to say.

            By the remarks made yesterday at the hearing, this case is going to get uglier. Let’s discuss this in a civil manner.

            Take Care

            Like

            • coeurdaleneman says:

              My personal belief is that Slager was impacted by the fight and killing Scott, and that for a few minutes afterward reacted in a stunned manner. It also explains his other oddities which don’t present any basis for smearing the guy.

              There’s not an iota of proof that he was planting.

              Like

              • oldiadguy says:

                There’s not an iota of proof that he was planting. That iota of proof you are saying doesn’t exist is the content of the video.

                coeurdaleneman – I am not smearing Slager anymore than the numerous law enforcement experts on television, the experienced officers I have spoken with nor the numerous comments by officers on various police websites, who have concluded as I have that Slager attempted to plant the Taser next to Scott’s body in an effort to justify the shooting. All of us are made this determination based on our training and experience.
                Based on this training and experience we know what to look for and how to explain the actions we see.

                You may want to read this article to see the incident from the prosecution’s viewpoint.

                http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150910/PC16/150919963/ex-officer-michael-slager-to-ask-for-bail-today-in-walter-scott-shooting-death

                Think about an experienced gymnast explaining a complicated gymnastics routine. The gymnast knows from training and experience what they are seeing in the routine and knows how to explain it to a non gymnast. It is the same here. Experienced LEO’s viewed the video and made our conclusion about what the video shows the same as an experienced gymnast would have done for a gymnastic routine. It is that simple.

                “My personal belief is that Slager was impacted by the fight and killing Scott, and that for a few minutes afterward reacted in a stunned manner.”

                Based on what I’ve heard this week, I suspect that you may have hit upon Slager’s defense strategy. This week the defense team has claimed that Slager was pummeled by Scott who was on top of him and that Slager was Tased twice. If this their strategy, I believe they will have some problems.

                Savage has described Slager’s injuries as being an abrasion on his leg and an injured finger. Savage did not describe any contusions, abrasions or lacerations that would normally be expected when someone is pummeled by an assailant. Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman and was pummeling him before Zimmerman shot him. Did Slager have any apparent injuries like Zimmerman?

                I described Taser injuries up thread. No one until this week has stated that Slager had been Tased nor has anyone described what if any Taser injuries that Slager sustained. With that being said, I do believe it was possible that Slager may have received a jolt from being entangled in a Taser wire if the Taser was discharged. I know that during training we were warned to give the wires a wide berth because of this possibility. Whether this type of shock will leave a telltale mark I don’t know.

                The CTH is here for the search for the truth. Sometimes the truth is not something we want to see or accept, but it is still the truth. We need to remain civil in our discussion as it appears this is going to be a long case.

                Take Care

                Like

                • Concerned says:

                  Sorry, but you are not able to reject all comments from people simply because you have law enforcement experience. We’re talking about common human behavior here, not something that requires law enforcement training to assess. We are ALL capable of judging whether or not someone “planted” something. And keep in mind that the jury will be comprised of all types of citizens, not LEOs.

                  Who would “plant” something when two other people are in close proximity and one is using a camera to record the goings on? Slager clearly purposefully dropped the taser to the ground, not even very close to Scott’s body. What was his purpose? Ask him, don’t assume just because you are jaded.

                  I want to add another thing. You think Slager is a bad seed. What about you? How do we know that you are a good person? That your assessments are honest and bias-free?

                  Like

                • oldiadguy says:

                  Concerned – My comment was directed specifically towards coeurdaleneman who has been sniping at me and others who disagreed with him.

                  The reason I brought up the point about how law enforcement personnel are recognizing Slager’s actions as an attempt to plant the Taser is explained in my Gymnast analogy.

                  I agree that everyone is capable of judging whether or not Slager attempted to plant the Taser and I know that the jury will be comprised of civilians. However, the case is being prepared by law enforcement professionals who will explain to the jury in far greater detail than I, why it is evident that Slager was attempting to plant the Taser. Yes, the jury will be the final deciders of fact.

                  Why would someone attempt to plant evidence when two other people are in close proximity and one is using a camera to record the proceedings?

                  First, there is no evidence that Slager knew he was being recorded. Also, the videographer left the scene and was not known to exist until a couple days latter. The other witness was a fellow police officer. Perhaps Slager was relying on the “Blue Wall of Silence.”

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence

                  I have not said Slager was a bad seed. I have stated he had made some bad decisions that led to the death of Scott and his own imprisonment.

                  “What about you? How do we know that you are a good person?”

                  SMH That can be asked of everyone who posts here, including yourself. 🙂

                  “That your assessments are honest and bias-free?”

                  What do wish me to do? I have listed my experience relative to police shooting, misconduct and corruption investigations on several occasions. I could list the commendation’s and awards I received from my Department, the DOJ and the FBI, due to my investigations.

                  I have sent Sundance info during the Michael Brown shooting. I believe Sundance cross checked my info and may well know me and my reputation.

                  I have also made an offer to Sundance in the past to send him copies of my Departmental documents, training certificates and awards if there was any question about my veracity. That offer still stands.

                  Other than the above, I don’t know how else to prove to you that I am honest and bias free.

                  Take Care

                  Like

                • Monroe says:

                  Whether you use the word “plant” or “move”, the bottom line is that evidence was moved in violation of what is likely SC police policy.

                  The reason for moving this evidence is unknown.

                  This is fact.

                  Like

            • Les says:

              What about the gun shot residue on Scott’s hands? Do you think it is transfer from Slager?

              Like

              • oldiadguy says:

                Haven’t read that yet. Could you provide a link. TY

                Like

              • oldiadguy says:

                I found an article concerning the gun shot residue on Scott’s hands. First, I was surprised they tested Scott’s hands for guns shot residue as there has been no mention of him possibly having fired any shots. The Taser uses compressed nitrogen to propel the Taser darts.

                I guess it is possible that if Slager had guns shot residue on his hands from firing his service pistol, he could have transferred some traces to Scott’s hands when he handcuffed him.

                To be honest, from some of the statements made by Savage and his defense team, I’m starting to see what could be signs of desperation. Normally if you have a good defense to a charge, you present that defense and run with it. In this case the defense team appears to be using a technique we called, “throwing mud” in a hope that something will stick.

                SLED didn’t find all the spent bullets – interesting, but not unusual for an outside scene.

                SLED destroyed evidence – again interesting, but they deleted a partial 3d scan and I believe they documented it in their report.

                Scott had traces of cocaine and alcohol in his blood – irrelevant in regards to Slager’s justification for shooting Scott and it is also inflammatory.

                Scott had traces of gun shot residue on his hands – interesting, but irrelevant as no one including Slager ever said Scott had fired a handgun.

                The NCPD had a requirement for officers to stop 3 cars a day – irrelevant in regards to Slager’s justification for shooting Scott and it is also inflammatory.

                These are some example, though there are more statements by the defense team that makes me wonder what they are thinking.

                Read Savage’s theory about how Slager was “Tasered” in this article.

                http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/09/09/michael-slager-defense-team-claims-damming-evidence-walter-scott/

                Savage may be saving the best for the trial, but so far he is not presenting a very good defense based on actual evidence.

                Take Care

                Like

            • Just Sayin says:

              What of the video that shows a taser wire go taught between Slager’s torso and Scott’s leg as Scott runs away? Is it possible that the taser was stuck in Slager’s body armor rather than in his torso? Does that reconcile your evidence?

              Also, maybe you’ve never seen anything run with a wire wrapped around its leg. If one end of the wire is attached to a fixed item and the other end is free but wrapped around a moving object, the free end will catch up to whatever is running away because it will be going twice as fast.

              When I was a kid, I had a horse who ran through an electric fence and the wire was caught on his leg. One end of the wire was still attached to a metal post; the other end was affixed to the plastic handle of the fence that allows you to make a gate. He kept running until the gate handle caught up to him, flipped around his leg and was no longer being dragged. You can try the same thing with fishing line. Just attach one end to something stationary and the other end to something without hooks in it so you don’t hurt yourself. Step your foot so that you kick the line around your foot and start walking forward dragging the other end behind you. Eventually, that other end will catch up to you.

              Watch that video and tell me whether the cartridge is simply being dragged behind or whether it appears to be gaining ground on Scott. If it’s the latter, then he simply had the wire around his leg.

              Like

              • oldiadguy says:

                “What of the video that shows a taser wire go taught between Slager’s torso and Scott’s leg as Scott runs away? Is it possible that the taser was stuck in Slager’s body armor rather than in his torso? Does that reconcile your evidence?”

                I commented on some earlier threads that I believe a Taser wire may have been wrapped around Slager’s radio mike. The radio microphone’s location is consistent with where the wire is shown to be connected to Slager. I suspect the wire became attached to Slager when he was rolling on the ground with Scott.

                If Slager did have a Taser dart embedded in his body armor, I can not image his fellow NCPD officers overlooking this critical piece of evidence. Even if they had overlooked it,
                why didn’t Slager or his first attorney mention it early on. That would have been a game changer.

                It was reported that Scott had a Taser dart embedded in one of his legs. I believe the NCPD chief made that statement, but I could be wrong on the source.

                Take Care

                Like

            • Travis says:

              The taser holster was on his left side. Whatever he had in his hand was placed in a small holster, next to his revolver on the right side. Watch the youtube video again, and yet again, if you doubt it.

              Like

              • oldiadguy says:

                I have watched the video dozens of times. When Slager picked up the Taser from the ground, he reached across the front of his waist and placed it in his Taser holster on the left front area of his belt. You can see him apply the strap if you watch closely.

                Second, Slager was armed with a semi-auto pistol and not a revolver. Slager did make a motion with his right hand when he removed the magazine from his pistol to check the number of round left in his magazine. Slager then reinserted the magazine into the pistol. This action is what I believe you are seeing.

                Take Care

                Like

        • art tart says:

          Jake Speed ~ so you can see the problem Savage has when accusing SLED of “not doing a good job on the taser as to where the fingerprints were.” Slager picked up the taser, walked over to Scott, dropped it, pick it up again w/his own fingerprints on the taser that could have “smudged” any evidence on the taser.

          Liked by 1 person

          • David says:

            No evidence at all that the object Slager picked up and dropped next to Scott was the taser. This is mere speculation.

            Like

            • oldiadguy says:

              It was his Taser. You can identify it as he walking back towards Scott. You can see it when he tosses it to the ground next to Scott. You can see him pick it up and place it in his Taser holster. The enhanced stills photos used during the trial will confirm it. It is not mere speculation

              Like

              • David says:

                No you cannot.

                Like

                • Travis says:

                  When Slager walks back to his car at the beginning of the video, you can see he has a crossdraw taser on his left side, which is pretty much police regulation these days, so you don’t accidentally use the wrong weapon. If he did pick up the taser, why not put it back in the original holster.

                  Like

            • art tart says:

              David ~ I guess you haven’t been following the case.

              Now that you know the taser was in fact Slager’s, that he picked the taser up, moved it near Scott’s dead body, dropped it, then picked it up for a second time smearing evidence, I’m waiting for your excuse why Slager did this.

              Consider the Prosecutor has stated after Savage spoke, (paraphrased.) “Slager is a liar & tried to plant evidence.” Consider what evidence the Prosecutor has to make this statement so emphatically against Slager.

              Like

              • David says:

                Actually I have followed the case in intimate detail and the object dropped next to Scott has never been positively identified as the taser or any other object.

                Like

                • art tart says:

                  David ~ You are dead wrong. Use “google” when you don’t know something,” you can pull up the news articles on the subject! If you read the previous threads & I don’t believe for a second you have from your comments, you can answer your own questions, there are links to Media articles that you need to read.

                  Your comments reflect you haven’t “followed the case in intimate detail” because if you had, you wouldn’t ask questions every person commenting knows but you! Go back to the first threads, start there to catch up.

                  Like

              • David says:

                I suggest you look into the requirements for authentication of a “writing”

                Like

    • Jacobite says:

      Uh, look at a college track meet on TV and then wonder why the new rule is that any perp who can outrun a cop gets a pass. Yeah, what a mystery?

      Like

  6. doodahdaze says:

    They have one thing in common that I notice. These “judges” i, Baltimore and South Havan I mean Carolina.

    Like

  7. Just Sayin says:

    I am going to be VERY curious to find out what all those people who called this a “BS (traffic) stop” when they find out the popo were required to make 3 minor stops per day.

    I hope I don’t have to wait too long to find out.

    Like

    • Just Sayin says:

      I wish I could edit my posts sometimes. My I should just try proofreading better.

      The above should say: “I am going to be VERY curious to find out what all those people who called this a “BS (traffic) stop” have to say when they find out the popo were required to make 3 minor stops per day.

      Like

      • tz says:

        And they make stops where they will get the least pushback, i.e. not in the wealthy neighborhoods.

        Like

        • nivico says:

          The officer wasn’t policing a ‘neighborhood’… wealthy, poor, or otherwise.

          It was a main street in North Charleston lined with businesses, churches, strip malls, fast food, and the like.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Jacobite says:

          I’d say that depends on what the meaning of the word ‘pushback’ is. White people might file a complaint to city/county officials, but non-whites are liable to shoot you.

          Like

  8. Just Sayin says:

    Cops can be bad; cops can do bad things. Not all cops are good cops. Some are rogues and some are corrupt and some belong in jail. Some are a-holes who abuse their authority. Some are lazy and bide their time until they can take an early retirement and go work at Wal-Mart passing out grocery carts while collecting their police pension.

    But most cops are conscientious public servants who do a job that’s often dangerous, mostly thankless, but very necessary to maintain order and protect the law-abiding citizens among us from those who would harm us. Without cops, this country — primarily in large inner-cities — would be a very dangerous and inhospitable place. We NEED cops.

    And here’s what’s going to happen. Not soon. Not tomorrow. But down the road. We’re going to find fewer and fewer good people willing to make the sacrifices necessary to police the inner cities. And those inner cities will suffer greatly because of it.

    You wonder why copys aren’t leaving the Baltimore PD in droves when they see what is happening to their fellow officers. Well, they aren’t leaving in droves right now because a lot of them are marking time until they can take retirement. Police pensions tend to be pretty generous if you can stick it out long enough.

    Retention of younger officers — the future leadership of the various metropolitan PDs around the country — is a different story. And recruitment. That’s going to be more of a challenge, too.

    They’ll have to lower standards in order to find enough people to fill all the spots.

    And, when you lower standards, you’ll wind up with more of the kinds of cops described in the first paragraph above and fewer of the kinds of cops described in the second.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tz says:

      A cop who would go along with a “3 chickenshit tickets every day” policy is NOT a good cop. There is a reason the colonists diverged from the loyalists over how they saw the Red-Coats. They stopped protecting and became tax-collectors and thugs.
      Burglary, vandalism? Take a report for the insurance company, investigations cost too much money so if it the least bit difficult don’t do it, but every traffic ticket you write insures we won’t have to raise taxes or cut the budget, both politically unpopular, so we don’t care that you became a policeman to protect and serve life, liberty, and property and uphold the constitution – you weren’t hired for that, you were hired to raise revenue so go out there and write those tickets!

      Like

      • JeremyR says:

        Some departments have a three or four stop rule. That does not mean the officer must write tickets though. We were on occasion told to make regular stops on head light and tail light violations. not because any one would get revenue, they were warnings, but to improve public safety. The other thing is that a lot of drivers who do not take care of their vehicles also don’t take care of insurance and registration either. When I would be writing my reports, I would park near a busy road, and just maintain an eye on traffic. Being visible tended to slow people down, and if I saw the bad head light or tail light, I could take five minutes and make the road a little safer.
        As a matter of fact, if we wrote tickets for those kinds of things, we had better have a good reason. Just handing out a ticket was not considered to be in the public interest whereas a stop was.
        As this one has progressed, I have shifted from being in favor of arrest to strongly on the side of the officer. The stop was legit, Scott ran indicating that there was a big reason for him to not want contact with the law. Its crazy to me that he would do all that over child support. If I had been the officer, I wold have thought he had a bigger reason.
        The shoot as he was fleeing was my hurdle. As more has come to light, it is obvious he believed he was in mortal danger.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Monroe says:

          I concur. My sister cop says that these stops are pro-active policing and public safety. Folks don’t always know that a tail light is out. Doesn’t mean they get a ticket, Not the officer’s fault if the driver was stupid enough to have 5 kilos of pot sitting on the passenger seat.

          Some of these directives/quotas also come from the Mayor’s office. Traffic stops provide a police presence which the Mayor believes makes people feel safer.

          Liked by 2 people

        • AghastInFL says:

          I agree wholly, the sentiment expressed above by tz is IMO akin to the DOJ report on Ferguson et al, they note a particular high instances of traffic stops, yet not once do they address the stops as illegitimate.
          The Scott traffic stop was entirely likely to produce a warning alone right until the moment Walter Scott made it into something else completely.

          Liked by 1 person

          • JeremyR says:

            That or he would have spent a night in jail, then spoke to the judge about his back child support, been placed on some kind of payment plan, released, and promptly gone back to his old ways.

            Liked by 2 people

      • Just Sayin says:

        So, call it a chickenshit stop and prosecute the guy because he’s not a “good” cop because he followed protocol? You should suggest that line of argument to the prosecutor, TZ. I’m sure a jury would follow right along with that logic: “He was a baaaaad cop because he followed policy and stopped a dude for something trivial. Clearly, this was baaaad cop. Just like the Red-Coats back in the day.”

        Like

  9. coeurdaleneman says:

    The “planting” malarkey is going to linger as long as the phone operator telling Zimmerman not to get out of his car. Pure dishonesty.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Monroe says:

      He moved the taser. Thus, there is some truth buried within the concern of planted evidence especially when it comes to Scott’s DNA on the taser.

      Liked by 1 person

      • coeurdaleneman says:

        Securing and moving is a fact. Accusations of planting is mind reading.

        There was a legitimate reason to secure. He dashed to the site to discover where it was and secured it. How he handled the taser afterwards is open to criticism, but planting is only one of several explanations. And the most unlikely one.

        That this prosecutor still declares it unequivocally tells me that she is a Nifong.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Armie says:

          One reason for securing that’s not often mentioned is that the taser contains a chip recording the data on its usage. If somebody scampers off with it, an important piece of evidence is lost.

          The plant accusation is, as you opined, totally bogus. It’s the Slager version of “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”. He was aware he was being videoed, and moving the weapon from where it was in proximity to the confrontation to where it would have been no threat to him would diminish his case, not improve it. He also risked reducing Scott’s DNA by handling it after he did.

          Like

          • DT says:

            Yes the planting is totally bogus, IMO. He dropped the taser with Habersham mere feet from him, with Habersham facing towards him. Possibly within the view of Habersham’s dash cam, if it was on. Honestly, if you were going to plant evidence, you wouldn’t expect an un-involved officer to cover for you. It’s a pretty big insult to Habersham to insinuate Slager thought so little of him, he could “plant” evidence right in front of him and expect him to go along with it.

            Liked by 1 person

          • art tart says:

            armie ~ what evidence, not your speculation, do you have that Slager knew he was being videoed?

            Slager was fired from his desk job as soon as the video turned up which was a day or 2 later than Slager told his story to SLED/interviewers. What evidence do you have that the story Slager told SLED/interviewers was the same as was shown on the video?

            The Prosecutor has said he “lied,” she will compare Slager’s intereviews to the Jury with the video, it will be her burden to prove he tried to plant the taser. Even Savage is just hoping to have Slager’s charges “reduced” as he said in an interview.

            Like

            • gjb says:

              He said he may seek to reduce charges in trial. Doesn’t mean that’s his finite goal by the end of all of this. He’s a defense lawyer; he’s supposed to take all avenues into consideration.

              Like

              • art tart says:

                gjb ~ I totally agree, it’s Savage’s job to get the charges reduced as much as possible so if Slager faces jailtime it will be less that the “lifetime” he is now facing w/his charges. Of course it is the Defense Attorney’s job to take all avenues into consideration, imo Savage is a good attorney & will do the best job he possibly can for Slager.

                Savage knows what Slager told SLED/investigators, he knows what we don’t know, Savage isn’t claiming he thinks Slager will get off by evidence he has, he’s hoping to reduce charges inn trial & lower bail. Savage is focusing on the extended fight between Slager/Scott in which Savage’s firm stated both men were shot twice w/the taser but Scott didn’t have a weapon or taser when he died.

                Like

            • coeurdaleneman says:

              That prosecutor is Nifong.

              Like

            • Concerned says:

              what evidence, not your speculation, do you have that Slager knew he was being videoed?

              After the shooting Santana got much closer to Slager and Scott while Slager was tending to Scott. Then after the other officer arrives, who is heading directly toward Santana and there is no visual obstruction, Slager looks directly at Santana. This all happens well before Santana drops the taser by Scott. You would need to have massive vision problems to be in Slager’s locations and not see Santana. A cop in particular would be acutely aware of anyone in the surrounding area. Be reasonable, art tart, that’s what will be expected of the jurors too.

              Like

              • art tart says:

                Concerned shared ~ “Be reasonable, art tart, that’s what will be expected of the jurors too.”

                Concerned, I’ve not only been reason, I’m objective something you haven’t been, it will be the reasonableness of the Jurors if the case gets that far that will listen to Slager’s interviews versus what the video showed when it showed up days later. The Prosecutor has already called Slager out for this very thing! Slager didn’t know he was being videoed because if he did, Slager would have told the exact truth to SLED Investigators & wouldn’t have been fired the day the video appeared proving the story Slager told was not the same as the video reflected.

                You are speculationing & Slager possibly has vision problems when you claim that Slager saw Santana. Common sense: if Slager had seen Santana, he would have been honest w/SLED Investigators. WHY do I think Slager was dishonest w/SLED? Because he was arrested immediately, still sits in jail.

                Slager wasn’t tending to Scott, after Slager dropped the taser next to Scott’s dead body, Slager picked up, back up had arrived!

                Like

        • Jacobite says:

          This is white versus non-white. Support whichever side you want, but you are supporting one side or the other. There is no time-out or king’s X in a racial conflict. As non-whites commit crimes at a rate 10 times or more greater than whites, it’s obvious that in any conflict between police and criminals. the racial lineups are a given. Do whatever you want, but don’t be surprised when some day somebody asks you “Which side are you on?”

          Like

          • art tart says:

            Jacobite ~ I don’t who you are commenting to, but this case wasn’t about race, even Scott’s family said “it wasn’t about race.” Seems you want it to be about race, that’s ridiculous on your part.

            You should look at the evidence, there are no sides, there are facts & those that speculate as if it is fact which it is not.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Concerned says:

              It doesn’t matter what the Scott family said. All that matters is that Slager was hastily imprisoned (OK, jailed) and is still sitting there months later without a bond hearing. Charleston was quick to blame Slager, without any real investigation, and quick to appease the BGI to avoid the mayhem suffered by Ferguson and Baltimore, not that the Charleston residents would have “burned sh*t down” but the carpetbagger activist-thugs would have. If Slager had been black, or if Scott had been white, Slager would not have been arrested.

              Liked by 1 person

              • art tart says:

                Concerned shared ~ “It doesn’t matter what the Scott family said.”

                It matters a lot, any American shot as many times as Scott was shot and as many X’s in the back would be investigated & arrested if evidence was discovered that the Officer had been untruthful, regardless of race.

                Slager wasn’t arrested immediately, something you/other’s forget. Slager was given the benefit of the doubt, placed on desk duty until the video appeared when Slager was immediately fired/charged/jailed.

                Slager’s statements to SLED differing from what the video showed is what has had Slager sitting in jail, not Scott’s race.

                Liked by 1 person

      • art tart says:

        Monroe ~ I think you are exactly correct. We know the taser was fired 6 times, it hit Scott twice, it hit Slager twice. There is no doubt there was an altercation, Scott clearly was trying to get away from Slager. Scott didn’t have the taser when he died, it was behind Slager on the ground. The moving of the evidence will complicate this case for Slager no doubt.

        Though Savage is claiming “SLED did a poor job w/the fingerprints on the taser,” no doubt during the trial the Prosecution will show Slager moving the evidence for what ever reason which could have possibly smudged/smeared whatever evidence was on the taser to start with, dropping the taser next to Scott, then picking it up.

        That is what the Prosecutor was referring to imo when she inferred “Slager was trying to plant evidence.”

        Like

        • Just Sayin says:

          Fired 6 times, eh?

          That kind of blows the whole “once it’s been fired, it cannot be re-fired; ergo, Slager couldn’t have seen it as a threat” narrative out of the water.

          Now that we know it was fired 6 times, I’d like to hear from all those people who said “Slager, the murderer, couldn’t have been in fear of the taser since it had already been fired and couldn’t be fired again.” Well?

          Like

          • art tart says:

            Just Sayin ~ I don’t who you are talking about. Did you read all the other threads on this case? I don’t think so. To quote you, “Well?” Direct your comment to whom you are speaking!

            I have never responded a single time about the taser because I don’t know anything about tasers. Those w/LE backgrounds discussed how many times in previous threads how many times the taser possibly fired, they were speculating because we only found out now the # of times it fired.

            G back & read the threads, address whom you are talking to! Well? Surely you have time to do so if you want to comment about it.

            Liked by 1 person

            • coeurdaleneman says:

              Your comments belong in the laugh zone.

              Like

              • oldiadguy says:

                You are undermining your arguments by your uncivil comments. Please reframe from making snide remarks to other commenters.

                Each of us have our own opinions on how we interpret the evidence available to us. I have explained why I interpret the evidence as I do. My interpretation is based on my training and experience in law enforcement and having conducted investigations into police shootings, police misconduct and corruption.

                I have yet to see you describe your training, experience or expertise on which you base your opinion. To do so will allow other Treepers, the means to judge the validity of that opinion.

                Like

                • art tart says:

                  oldiadguy ~ thank you for putting “coeurdaleneman” in his place, I must have been commenting at the same time you were. On the last thread on this subject, “coeurdaleneman” attacked you w/insulting comments that were outrageous & attacked me as always.

                  I ask “coeurdaleneman” for his level of expertise, legal or LE background on the last thread when he attacked you but you see “oldiadguy,” “coeurdaleneman” has no expertise. What he has is his opinion not based on fact, but his speculation.

                  “coeurdaleneman” can’t claim he is a lawyer, his is wrong legally. He can’t claim LE experience, as he is on the wrong side of what LE/FBI Experts/Legal Analysts/Retired LE/active LE Officers think as well as Law Proffessors on this case.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • doodahdaze says:

                  I suppose there are millions of cops. I imagine that in the split second that a cop has to decide what to do there will be a lot of differing reactions, That is why when society puts a cop out to be a cop the cop must have room to move. Second guessing the cop is hindsight. Hindsight is 20/20, but can not be the test a cop on the job must pass. That is my opinion and it is backed by black letter law I can cite if anyone wants. They have shown no motive for murder. None, zero, zip. The guy was listening to tunes on the radio mere seconds before the incident.

                  Like

                • art tart says:

                  doodahdaze ~ Although I respect your opinion, it’s not the black letter of the law. If it was “legally the black letter of the law,” Slager would have been released on bail/house arrest.

                  Even Savage is just hoping to have the charges/bail reduced. Not dismissed.

                  Like

                • oldiadguy says:

                  Actually the number of LEO’s in dispute. I’ve read anywhere from 400,000 to 800,000 depending on how the define an LEO.

                  Yes, I agree that LEO should have the benefit of the doubt in some cases as they are making decisions on the fly. This is where their training and experience guides those decisions. Good training and supervision makes for good decision making.

                  Society has the right and even the duty to second guess cops, politicians and judges. These groups has the power of life and death over each of us. We must hold them to acceptable standards.

                  I believe the motive the prosecution is claiming will be that Slager became enraged that Scott had bested him in the struggle and was getting away.

                  You may not believe it, but that radio issue raises concerns of an old IAD guy. Since car cams have come into use, some of the more sketchy officers have been trying to come up with ways to defeat them or at least make them less effective in monitoring their behavior. In Slager’s car cam video, the video came on, followed by a brief pause then the car radio. Most car cam videos I have viewed, the video and audio come on simultaneously. There is no pause. The fact that the car radio came on playing tunes could indicate an attempt to mask the conversation the officer was having with the person he stopped. I’m not saying that is the case here, but it is a commonly used ploy. I would have to look at some more of Slager’s car cam videos to see if this is a common occurrence with his car stops.

                  Normally officers turn their car radios off so the dispatcher can here their communications. It may be nothing, but it is something I would have checked if I was investigating the case.

                  Take Care

                  Like

              • art tart says:

                coeurdaleneman ~ Nobody cares what you think! You have no evidence but your speculation which means nothing to anyone but you!

                I am not bullied by anyone & someone such as yourself that spews your stupidity to insult me is the joke, I’m still laughing at you. Time to grow up coeurdaleneman, put your big boy painnts on & act like an adult where everyone on this subjectt converses respectively except you which paints the picture to other treeprs who you are. If you want anyone to read your comments, spewing insults gets you no where.

                Even after insulting “oldiadguy” on the last thread, he has been kind enough to respond to you on this thread which was more than you deserved. Attacking those that don’t support your mere speculation gets you & your speculation no where.

                Like

            • doodahdaze says:

              It is Black Letter Law. I cite.
              State v. West
              Tennessee v. Garner
              Plumhoff v. Richard
              Graham v. Connor
              Untalon v. City of Laredo, 430 F.3d 312, 314 (6th Cir.2008). Especially.
              The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the PERSPECTIVE of the officer on the scene. rather than the 20/20 vision of hindsight.
              Now….art tart. I think you should stick to art rather than Black Letter Law of which you have no clue. No offense.
              Please give me your legal argument. If you have one. I have cited mine. Your move.

              Like

              • art tart says:

                doodahdaze: I use expert opinion on Law since IANAL on the argument on this case.

                The cases argued by some is: Graham v. Connor & Tenessee v. Garner but Attorney’s/Law Professors argue why they won’t help Slager. IANAL, but they are & understand their arguments why they won’t help Slager.

                “On Shooting Fleeing Suspects”

                “unless some very unusual mitigating information emerges, this was too much firepower considering the offense and the situation surrounding it.”

                But don’t take my word for it; here are the rules: (The rules of Law are written in the Article)

                “You don’t shoot fleeing felons. You apprehend them unless there are exigent circumstances — emergencies — that require urgent police action to safeguard the community as a whole,” said Greg Gilbertson, a police practices expert and criminal justice professor at Centralia College in Washington state.

                That’s the reason the condemnation of Slager was strong from all quarters, including from police.

                http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/04/on-shooting-fleeing-suspects/

                Like

              • art tart says:

                doodahdaze ~ There is another legal argument at the bottom of the page because the thread is moving too far to the right.

                Like

          • oldiadguy says:

            That assertion was made by Savage. Reading some of Savage’s other statements concerning the Taser, I’m not sure Savage knows much about Tasers. The Taser in question can discharge (fire) a cartridge containing the two darts only once. According to news reports, the original cartridge and the spare, stored in the handle, were both discharged. That would account for two of the six times the Taser was activated. The other four activations could have been drive stuns (direct contact) or accidental activations during the struggle.

            Savage’s contention that Scott had been “Tased” two times and Slager had been “Tased” two times, is at this point conjecture on his part unless he can show actual evidence of these “facts.”

            Here is an example of what I mean about Savage’s lack of familiarity with Tasers.

            “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,” said Slager’s attorney, Andy Savage, to CBS News.

            The defense claims there was a scuffle, and that Scott may have been armed. The defense also alleges that Scott’s DNA was on the officer’s Taser, and gun residue was on Scott’s hands. They also allege that there was blood on Slager’s clothing, abrasions on his knee, and that his finger was injured.

            The lawyers believe Scott took the Taser from the officer and fired twice, but missed because he did not know how to operate the weapon. Savage claims Slager fired “because he felt threatened” by Scott’s “irrational behavior” and had no way of knowing whether Scott was unarmed because there had been no opportunity to give Scott a pat down.

            “He sees irrational behavior of a suspect, at that time,” the lawyer added. “He sees a guy who’s committed four felonies in the last minute and a half — violently resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, robbing the police officer of his weapon Taser, and using that Taser in attempt to harm him. Four felonies in the last 30-45 seconds.”

            http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/09/09/michael-slager-defense-team-claims-damming-evidence-walter-scott/

            So Savage is claiming Scott was able to disarm Slager, fire the Taser at him, remove the discharged cartridge, reload the fresh cartridge from the handle, fire again missing Slager for the second time, but somehow Scott ends up with a Taser dart in his leg. All in the 67 seconds from the first Taser activation to the last. This would have been the appropriate time for Slager to defend himself and shoot Scott, not when he was running away.

            Take Care

            Like

            • doodahdaze says:

              I do not think Savage is such a great criminal defense lawyer myself. If I was Slager I would fire him and hire Donald West.

              Liked by 1 person

              • art tart says:

                doodahdaze ~ West paid his dues, GZ was an innocent man, West likely doesn’t have a license to practice there. But most importantly, West wasn’t paid for GZ’s trial, the Slager family has no money to pay anyone, not even Savage it appears.

                Liked by 1 person

              • oldiadguy says:

                I agree Donald West would have been a better choice. I’m getting the feeling that Savage is actually having some of the younger attorneys in his office handling the case and he is monitoring them. Slager needs an experienced full time attorney that is truly interested in his case.

                Take Care

                Liked by 1 person

                • gjb says:

                  Being as he’s taken this case pro bono, knowing what personal and professional consequence it presents to him, I’m giving Savage the benefit of the doubt. Anyone criticizing him on this thread, whether you have any experience as a lawyer or not, should do the same.

                  Like

        • doodahdaze says:

          He was securing a dangerous weapon. It was still charged. Any crazed black fool could have gotten hold of it.

          Like

          • art tart says:

            doodahdaze ~ “oldiadguy” made a nice comment about this & why the “dangerous weapon” wasn’t a problem because the field was protected by fencing. (Read upthread.)

            When Slager moved the taser, a retired FBI Analyst that works w/Officer’s charged in cases stated, “Slager moving the taser will get him more jail for moving it.” As “oldiadguy” shared, “Training 101, (paraphrased,) you don’t move evidence.

            Liked by 1 person

            • doodahdaze says:

              Have you ever heard of anyone jumping over a fence? It is reasonable to think it could happen. Do not bet the ranch. The state has the burden to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. In an affirmative defense it is only a preponderance, a much lower bar. That is why S.C. had to get a “special” judge and a “special” court.

              Like

              • art tart says:

                doodahdaze ~ Have you forgotten back up arrived almost immediately as you can watch on the video? Reasonable to whom to think someone could jump a fense when Officer Slager just killed a suspect that was lying on the ground dead, you? No one was going to jump a fense where an Officer just killed someone when they knew they could also be shot by the same Officer, it’s just common sense.

                The Prosecutor has made clear she can prove this element of the case. With what? imo, the SLED interview Slager did before he got his 3d Attorney Savage in which Slager has been strapped with. The video showed up later when Slager was immediately fired which was compared to Slager’s statements to SLED/Investigators. If you don’t see the potential problems for Slager, just listen to Savage’s interview again which he has very little to work with.

                Liked by 1 person

      • David says:

        What evidence do you have to support our contention that the object moved was in fact the taser?

        Like

        • Armie says:

          You know, originally I had my doubts. There’s also an object on the ground between them. I’ve since concluded that’s probably Scott’s hat. And, since the prosecution keeps referring to the object Slager moved as a taser and the defense hasn’t corrected them, I’m comfortable with it being the taser.

          Liked by 1 person

    • doodahdaze says:

      The planting is a hypothesis the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense can claim another reasonable hypothesis such as securing a dangerous weapon. If there are more than one reasonable hypothesis the law says “NOT GUILTY.”

      Like

      • art tart says:

        doodahdaze ~ What if Slager told SLED/Investigators, “he had my taser & threatened me w/it when I shot him?”

        doodah ~ If Slager said this, then the video showed up proving discrepancies in what Slager told SLED since there was no evidence Slager knew he was being videoed, he’s sunk! The Prosecutor stated empatically, “Slager is a liar/he planted evidence.” imo, I believe her. Why? Because Slager wasn’t aware of the video & spun his own story before the video showed up & being released to the public. Every single discrepancy Slager stated before the video appeared will be shown as a lie by the Prosecutor.

        Even w/Savage pleading/Slager himself for bail, they didn’t get it, maybe they will this week. Will Slager be able to afford the bail? IDK. (I am assuming you pay for bail even when there is a house arrest.)

        Like

        • doodahdaze says:

          Not admissible evidence. He is not sunk at all. It will never even get in to the trial according to the rules of evidence. Just ask John Galt. It matters not if you believe her. This is the Charleston Choo Choo. Sister of the Orange Blossom Special.

          Like

          • art tart says:

            doodahdaze ~ I always love your passion/determination. I can wait to see this play out in the Court System, I think there will likely be a plea of some sort. I respect you don’t, we’ll both have to wait & see.

            Like

            • doodahdaze says:

              Wait! So what is yoiur opinion of my citation of Unitalon v. City of Laredo. It is Black Letter Law. I am not letting you get off the hook that easy. 🙂 I await your response..

              Like

              • oldiadguy says:

                DDH check you citation or provide a link. A Bing search came up empty for Unitalon v. City of Laredo.

                Like

                • Armie says:

                  Try Untalan v. City of Lorain. 430 F3d 312. It’s a qualified immunity case that doesn’t really stand on all four here.

                  Like

                • oldiadguy says:

                  TY

                  Like

                • doodahdaze says:

                  I do not agree. This case comes down to whether Slager was or was not objectively reasonable. If he thought the perp posed a serious threat to himself OR TO OTHERS, it is not unreasonable to effect a seizure by using deadly force. I say he was reasonable. You say he was not. Problem is this., the calculation must be made from the perspective of a cop on the scene in an environment where he is forced to make split second judgement in tense, rapidly evolving circumstances, rather than the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Do you want more?

                  Like

          • oldiadguy says:

            DDH – I agree with art tart, I admire your passion, but sometimes I can’t figure out what you are talking about. 🙂

            Help a guy out, explain what you mean.

            Like

            • doodahdaze says:

              I think the state can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, or any other reasonable hypothesis he was not objectively reasonable. I think that Slager had probable cause to think that the perp threatened imminent bodily harm to himself, other cops he might encounter, and the public. All Slager has to do is show this by a preponderance of the evidence. Here again the states own evidence will exonerate the cop. It is Slagers “perception” of the threat at that split second that matters. Not the video, not the media, not the S.C. Supreme Court or any other thing.

              Like

        • doodahdaze says:

          Savage should never accept the jurisdiction of this “special court” and “special judge” IMO. I would first fight there. On federal grounds.

          Like

        • kathyca says:

          Wait, what? You believe the prosecutor because she stated the State’s position “emphatically”? She’s probably just talking about the weapon that Slager dropped near the POS he shot then re-holstered.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Concerned says:

            Thank you for keeping it real, kathyca.

            Like

          • doodahdaze says:

            Ya know what I mean. Here we have a special court, and a special judge, authorized by the S.C. Supreme Court so that there can be no appeal in the state system. This is a new one on me. It is a star chamber. The only way to fight this is in the federal court system. IMO. What do you think? It seems so totalitarian and beyond anything I have ever seen.

            Like

            • oldiadguy says:

              DDH – I don’t know the specifics with the special court you are describing, but I had a case where a special judge was selected to handle a police brutality case. Due to the numerous motions that were going to be filed in the case and the probability a change of venue was going to occur a retired judge was selected, to free up the regular courts.

              It might be the same reason a special judge was assigned to this case.

              Like

          • doodahdaze says:

            Can you believe this special judge and special court? I think it is a first.

            Like

            • kathyca says:

              I’ll have to catch up. I wasn’t following what went on this week too closely.

              Like

              • doodahdaze says:

                This is about the Slager case. S.C. Supremes reached down and took the case away and appointed a “special” judge to hear the pleadings. Also they made a “special” jurisdiction that can not be subjected to appeal within the state legal system. This was before any litigation at all occurred in the normal process. The new improved special court is over 100 miles away from the location the defendant is incarcerated in and is run by a black social justice activist. Savage has been appointed to defend Slager. Savage is worse than if Slager defended himself IMO.

                Like

                • kathyca says:

                  Ok. I remember that from back in the beginning. I remember discussing who exactly the appointed Judge is. But what’s this about no appeals? That’s news to me.

                  Like

                • doodahdaze says:

                  He was appointed by the SC and given full authority over all proceedings. How can anything he does be appealed in the state system?

                  Like

                • kathyca says:

                  The same way any other judge’s rulings are appealed? Idk why anything would be different just because he was specially appointed. I don’t know how many divisions the SC Court of Appeals has, but the only issue I can think of is which division an appeal would be heard in if jurisdiction is based on which trial court the case is pending before.

                  Like

          • art tart says:

            kathyca ~ The Prosecutor stated: “Slager was a liar & he planted evidence!” imo, she spoke emphatically, confidently, secure in her evidence to prove her statements in what she has against Slager.

            The Prosecutor was talking about what Slager told SLED in the events that happened before the video showed up days later when she referred to Slager as a liar, and when she said he “planted evidence,” imo, is not the story Slager told SLED when Slager is shown days later dropping the taser & picking it up.

            Like

            • kathyca says:

              Prosecutors always emphatically state their version of the truth. Especially when, of late, they are involved in persecuting police officers for shooting black criminals…blm and all of that. Her statements mean nothing whatsoever, imo. You may recall another set of prosecutors who were similarly emphatic in Florida not so long ago.

              Like

              • art tart says:

                kathyca ~ I didn’t believe the Prosecutors in Fla., they were immediately called out by Alan Derchowitz in National Media whom I respect immensely. The Fla. Prosecutors were inept as they projected, MOM/West had an innocent client in which they could prove his innocence. We don’t know all the evidence here, but we do know Savage isn’t speaking confidently about the case.

                This is not the same case as in Fla., just think, if there was a video of GZ/TM, GZ would never have been charged.

                Like

                • kathyca says:

                  I agree the cases are not exactly the same, but I stand by my point about what the prosecutor said, how she said it and what she was likely referring to. We shall see 🙂

                  Like

        • Concerned says:

          Slager wasn’t aware of the video

          See my comments above, including link to article in which Santana said Slager was aware he was being videorecorded.

          Like

        • gjb says:

          I think people need to back off insulting Andy Savage. Being as he’s doing this pro bono, and he’s recognized as one of he better defense attorneys in the country, I don’t think he’d be actively pursuing this case knowing what personal and professional consequence it is presenting to him. He let tensions cool a bit, and was saddled with SLED’s reticence to release discovery to the defense. That is why he didn’t request bail sooner. And he has said that his intent is to clear Slager’s name and prove this shoot was legally justified.

          In regards to the SLED interview, we’ll have to wait and see. But she didn’t say what, specifically, he was a liar in regards to, only that he moved the Taser. If it comes out that he was actually honest and forthcoming to SLED about what happened that day, then yes, it will represent a rush to judgement without a proper investigation. I say this because in at least two audio recordings the day of he shooting, he clearly says that Scott was shot as he ran away. Nothing is certain at this point, and he isn’t sunk.

          The Judge didn’t immediately grant bail because he faced a 150-page document that he needed to review, along with weighing Officer Slager’s own history, to make a balanced decision. I’m fairly confident he’ll get and make bail; the prosecution’s claims that he’s a flight risk and danger are baseless, whereas Mr. Savage compiled letters from over thirty people, ranging from family, officers of the police department, and former coworkers, as well as a letter from a recognized psychiatrist, validating the fact that he isn’t a flight risk or a danger. Also, according to the prosecution, they don’t anticipate being ready for trial until the end of 2016; doubt the judge is going to support keeping Officer Slager in solitary for that length of time, especially when house arrest is a perfectly viable option.

          Like

          • oldiadguy says:

            I believe the lie the prosecutor is referring to is the claim that Scott pointed the Taser at him which was the reason Slager gave for shooting Scott. I’ve read several articles that Slager made the statement to his chief and two NCPD lieutenants. The SLED interview is apparently still under wraps, so what he said there is unknown.

            The video did not show this incident to have occurred. Also, there have been news reports that the videographer and another witness said it did not happen. I believe this is the basis of the prosecutor’s claim.

            Like

            • gjb says:

              The videographer has now made at least three statements in interviews that are going to be discredited in court–that Officer Slager had control of the situation (clearly didn’t), that Scott never grabbed the Taser (he did, and the audio confirms he did), and that he never gave a warning that he would shoot (he clearly did). If they obtain the original video as requested and come to find he tampered it in any way (coupled with the fact that he has since profited off the video, has maintained a close personal friendship with the Scott family, his own inherent bias against police, and the fact he can’t keep a consistent story as to what his intentions were with having that video), Mr. Savage will ruin him on the stand. A second witness isn’t going to change that, especially when they too could have very easily formed their viewpoint around what they heard on the news. Just because he didn’t see it happen at a distance, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

              Officer Slager, as I’ve previously stated, made at least two statements caught on audio saying that he shot Scott as he was running away, one to a superior, the other to his wife. He also knew he was being recorded, as one of the other commenters posted up thread. Just some of many reasons why I don’t buy the planting evidence theory and the notion he lied to SLED. You seem to be comfortable criticizing the defense, yet you turn a blind eye towards SLEDs own shortcomings on multiple occasions (even the prosecution has complained about how they’ve handled the investigation). So the idea that SLED did, in fact, rush to arrest him based solely on that part of the video (and not based on his interview) is still a valid theory.

              It doesn’t matter if Scott pointed the Taser at Slager for three seconds or three minutes–if he was in that position at any point during the struggle, given how quickly everything unfolded, then he was posing a threat, whether real or perceived. The prosecutor’s claim that “he was just trying to get away from the Taser” is her attempt to play mind reader, and only parrots what Feidin Santana and the media have said about the incident. In fact, the majority of what she said at that hearing parrots his statements. I question the strength of her own case in that regard.

              Liked by 1 person

              • gjb says:

                If we’re going to assess each legal team’s credibility based on semantics and word choice, then she evidently has her own uphill battle in prosecuting this case. Her statements made her sound more like a pundit criticizing the shooting on a news program than a prosecutor. And evidently she can’t distinguish the necessary components of malice a forethought. In one statement, she’s saying how in the heat of passion he developed a mischievous bent. Next she’s saying how he got the shoot “very wrong”. There’s a distinct difference between making the wrong decision with good intentions in a quickly evolving situation and killing with a depraved heart, in the heat of passion. The fact that he immediately cuffed Scott (an action by the police chief’s own admission was appropriate) and moved the Taser won’t sway the jury in favor of murder when there’s other viable explanations for his actions after the shooting.

                Like

                • art tart says:

                  gjb ~ You don’t have any idea what a Jury will think! WHY? Because you don’t know what evidence Savage has seen against Slager & what the State can prove!

                  Savage has already stated he will try to have the charges “reduced.” You commented to me “it was his job,” but every single person on this Blog knows Savage’s job, what he needs to do, & your comment trying to explain Savage’s job was purile. We don’t you need telling anyone what they need to think about Savage or anyone else. You have one opinion, that would be your own. Other’s interpretation of the facts is different from your opinion, get over it, they have a right to their opinion.

                  Savage didn’t sound positive in his interview, Savage is supposed to be a good Attorney as I agreed, but the fact is, an Attorney is only as good as the client he represents. IF the Prosecuctor’s have evidence to convict Slager on several counts, it explains why Savage wasn’t claiming Slager would be found not guilty, he stated “he hoped other’s would look at his evidence his way & reducing charges.”

                  Like

                • gjb says:

                  Being as I’m commenting from my phone and the format won’t let me see the entirety of your message, I’ll keep this short. Savage also said in a later interview the day of the second hearing that his intent was to prove this shoot was legally justified. Point is, neither of us knows what either side has at this point. But you dissect everything Savage says as representation that he has doubts in his case, yet you accept everything the prosecution says at face value, no questions asked. Do yourself a favor–calm it the f–k down. This attitude you take whenever anyone shows any sort of challenge to yours and oldiadgiy’s statements is part of the reason why people don’t take your statements seriously. You behave like a petulant five year old every single time.

                  Like

            • DT says:

              ABC had an article where it had some comments from Savage in regard to the FBI enhancement of the video. http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-officer-michael-slager-set-bail-hearing-walter/story?id=33645057

              “The FBI analysis of the video is a violent physical assault in which clearly on that video, Mr. Scott obtained the upper hand,” Savage said. “We believe the video portrays Mr. Scott with a taser aimed at officer Slager.”

              Savage said the video shows Scott tossing the taser to the ground as Slager fires his first shot.
              This last sentence is of interest to me. I think most assume that Slager didn’t first fire until Scott’s back was turned, that statement implies otherwise. Scott tossing the taser behind the both of them while facing the opposite direction seems like an awful awkward motion.

              Liked by 1 person

              • oldiadguy says:

                DT – Thanks, I saw that article and I believe it is another example of Savage misstating the evidence.

                Savages says, “The FBI analysis of the video is a violent physical assault in which clearly on that video.”

                The FBI enhanced the video, they did not “analysis the contents of the video to my knowledge, nor would they normally make that kind of judgment. This fact is stated later in the article.

                “The FBI has confirmed it enhanced the video, but has not discussed its analysis.”

                The way Savage phrased his statement could lead many to believe that the FBI analyzed the video and ascertained that Scott violently assaulted Slager. There is no evidence to support Savage’s inference.

                Savage said. “We believe the video portrays Mr. Scott with a taser aimed at officer Slager.”

                The key word here is “believe.” Savage did not use the word “prove.” Further in the article, “The enhanced video, obtained by ABC News, lasts four seconds and makes it difficult to tell exactly what happened leading up to the shooting.” So a non involved party viewed the same video and does not see what Savage “believes” happened.

                “Savage said the video shows Scott tossing the taser to the ground as Slager fires his first shot.”

                This last sentence is of interest to me. I think most assume that Slager didn’t first fire until Scott’s back was turned, that statement implies otherwise. Scott tossing the taser behind the both of them while facing the opposite direction seems like an awful awkward motion.”

                We can disagree whether Scott threw the Taser or Slager tossed it behind him, but the video clearly does not support Savage’s statement. The Taser had already come to rest behind Slager and Scott was about six to eight feet away before Slager even had his pistol in firing position. In short, it did not happened the way Savage described.

                In that one article, ABC points out two misstatements by Savage concerning the evidence and they are running the video of the shooting that shows the incident did not occur how Savage described it. I have pointed out several other questionable statements by Savage in the thread and have been chastised for it. But I really don’t understand what Savage is doing in these interviews. These misstatements are not helpful to Slager’s defense.

                Take Care

                Like

                • art tart says:

                  oldiadguy shared ~ “The Taser had already come to rest behind Slager and Scott was about six to eight feet away before Slager even had his pistol in firing position. In short, it did not happened the way Savage described.”

                  oldiadguy ~ This is correct, + the relevance of who threw the Taser is far less important because what is most important is this: Scott didn’t have the taser, Slager knew it, he was not approaching nor threatening Slager at the time he was fleeing when he was shot as legal experts have repeatedly said.

                  “Violent struggle” stated by Savage. What is the meaning of violent since Slager had a wound to one finger & what else? Scratches to his legs?

                  What those that make excuses for Slager want’t to deny is what the State has as “proof” against Slager. Even Slager’s own Attorney is grasping at anything positive to say to defend his client. Why? imo, Savage knows the evidence against Slager! He’s doing the best he can w/what he has to work with.

                  Like

                • Rojas says:

                  Art,
                  Do you in fact know that Slager knew the whereabouts of the taser when he fired?

                  Like

      • Armie says:

        Here’s the problem with the planting argument: I have yet to hear a credible theory for how that would help a self-defense claim. In a drop-gun situation, the officer has used deadly force against someone unarmed, then plants a gun on him to justify the officer’s claim that the guy represented a credible threat of death or serious injury at the time the force was used.

        In this case, Scott was fleeing. Fleeing while carrying Slager’s taser is no more a justification for immediate use of deadly force than fleeing while having wrested Slager’s taser from him and thrown it behind him. Neither scenario presents an immediate threat of serious injury or death to the officer. Scott was facing the opposite direction, running away, and out of taser range, Even in the absence of a video, those facts would be demonstrated by the forensic evidence, so there’s just no scenario I can see where being able to claim Scott still had the taser when he was shot would make it a better self-defense case than Slager thinking Scott had it and finding it behind him would. If it was a “plant”, it was the most inept and useless plant in history.

        Now the other thing that comes to mind is that the only party I’ve heard floating the theory that Slager claimed self-defense is the city, the prosecution, and their bought-and-paid-for investigation team. I’d like to know whether he actually made such a claim or it’s something they just invented. That’ll be a key point in the trial I think.

        Liked by 1 person

        • doodahdaze says:

          Thank You. All he has claimed is that he followed the rules as best he could in his own mind at the time. The state has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did no and committed murder. The only way this is still ongoing is the S.C. Supreme Miscarriage of Justice. Committed by no less than the S.C. Supreme Court and the Guvnah.

          Like

        • oldiadguy says:

          “If it was a “plant”, it was the most inept and useless plant in history.” I believe you are on mark here. You are analyzing it without pressure. I suspect Slager was thinking on the fly, he didn’t think it through.

          Take Care

          Like

          • gjb says:

            We’re not mind readers, nor is the prosecutor. Officer Slager was proficient with a Taser; he would know that AFIDs would be deployed with the Taser to mark its location and time of use. Also, if his intention was really to plant that Taser, he would have likely collected it first and placed it with more deliberation near Scott before cuffing Scott. Instead, he effectuated an arrest first by cuffing Scott, then goes back to secure the Taser, and proceeds to throw the Taser in the grass around Scott, only to reholster it shortly thereafter.

            Also, if he were really trying to plant evidence, he would have likely collected the cartridges off the ground as well and moved them within closer proximity of Scott in order to really modify the scene.

            You’re insinuating that his moving the Taser represents a sloppy plant job done without much thought. I don’t. I suspect that his action of moving the Taser was a mistake, in hindsight, made in quick succession with the events that had just unfolded under the intent to secure it, rather than him trying to modify the scene. As if he were running on autopilot in handling the scene afterward, given the traumatic turn of events. The action of moving the Taser and reholstering it all happens in the minute or two after what turned out to be a violent struggle. It’s Solicitor Wilson’s burden to prove his state of mind before and after the shooting, and when there are other reasonable explanations to explain his actions afterwards, I don’t think she’ll ever be able to prove to a jury that he was tampering with the scene, SLED interview be damned.

            Hell, being as the prosecution and defense have both addressed their issues in how SLED has handled this investigation, who knows if that interview will even be admissible in court, when all is said and done.

            Like

            • doodahdaze says:

              Maybe Scarlett will call The Great Kreskin as a witness to tell us what exactly Slager was thinking. He could bend some spoons to impress the judge.

              Like

              • Rojas says:

                Basically we are talking about a really short cattle prod at this point so I don’t see an overwhelming public safety need to secure this device. It’s not rational.
                However one who has just broadcast “shots fired, man down, he took my taser” might rationalize moving evidence to match that prior statement. It will be a question for the jurors to decide. Kreskin is not required as each juror comes with an internal BS meter.

                Liked by 1 person

                • oldiadguy says:

                  You are correct on your assessment, with one slight correction, Slager said “shots fired, subject is down, he grabbed my Taser.”

                  Like

                • art tart says:

                  oldiadguy ~ you shared, “he grabbed my Taser.” I am wondering if Slager inferred to SLED that Scott had his taser when he shot him. Of course, the video disproves this.

                  I too wonder if Slager might have seen Santana recording his dropping of the taser for the first time when he dropped the taser next to Scott, then looked directly at Santana, then picked it up, as why he picked it up if he saw the taser at that point.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Rojas says:

                  Thanks, I appreciate the correction. I did see it quoted on one of the news sites as “took”. Perhaps they were paraphrasing.

                  Like

            • oldiadguy says:

              gjb – I am letting you know that I will not be responding to any more of your rants. While I am not a moderator, I have asked as a participant in a conversation, for all to remain civil. You have chosen not to, both in responses to myself and up thread to art tart, who also disagreed with your assertions.

              Therefore, I will not waste anymore of my time or Sundance’s bandwidth to respond to your rants.

              Have a nice day

              Like

              • art tart says:

                oldiadguy ~ I second your emotion. There’s absolutely no excuse for the immature behavior/attacks of a few against others. They unknowingly project who they are as a person, they project they have no tolerance nor respect for those they attack, & I too won’t waste my time reading nor responding to the couple of bloggers that choose to defy what is ask of Treepers, to act respectively. You can’t take any comment of those that participate in that behavior with any relevance, they have proven they don’t get it when other’s see who they are. I wouldn’t have those type people as personal friends, I don’t associate w/those that think to attack other adults is an acceptable behavior.

                You have responded more than kindly to the couple who don’t even have to be named, they know who they are, I ignore both participants in playground behavior.

                The CTH set themselves apart with as such a respectful Blog because 99.7 % of the Treepers repsect the Blog and act respectively towards each other even when they see things differently.

                Like

        • art tart says:

          armie ~ The Prosecutor will make that argument for you armie. armie, some believe that Slager “knew he was being videoed.” You, yourself make your entire argument that Slager knew he was videoed & from that perspective which is why, imo, you don’t understand a lot of what Slager did!

          I ask you specifically upthread “to prove the with fact/not speculation that Slager knew he was being videoed.” You can’t prove this & as long as you aren’t objective, you can’t see why Slager did the things he did & never will, we will watch the case on TV if it even goes to Court.

          imo, Slager didn’t know he was being videoed! Why? Because Slager didn’t imo tell the same story to Sled Investigators as the video reflects! (A) Why do you think the Prosecutor can back up that Slager lied & tried to hide evidence? (B) Could Slager have told Investigators Scott had his taser & he had to shoot him? (C) Is that why Slager dropped the taser, then picks it up & puts it in his belt? (D) Slager got desk duty only till the video showed a different story than what Slager had told because he wasn’t aware of the video imo.

          imo, Slager was a good cop & made a poor decision in a split second when shooting Scott. The problem started when Slager picks up the taser while not knowingly being videoed, drops it, picks it up, then he story doesn’t match what he told SLED. He’s arrested/fired/jailed.

          Like

  10. art tart says:

    For those that haven’t seen Savage’s short interview, here’s the link:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-slager-attorneys-offer-new-evidence-walter-scott-shooting/

    Liked by 1 person

  11. doodahdaze says:

    First the S.C. Supreme Court intervened prematurely. The Supreme Court is an appellant court. Not a trial court or a preliminary hearing court. That is the starting point. It should first be litigated there with a federal appeal. Savage is a go along get along shill.

    Like

  12. doodahdaze says:

    Let me try to explain my thinking. The S.C. Supreme Court reached down and set up a state of S.C., appeal proof, special court and judge. Are you following this? Slager has no recourse to appeal anything the special judge does in the S.C. court system. The rulings of the special judge in the special court are final. This was before any litigation at all. They did not even go through the motions of an impartial hearing of the case. It is a star chamber. It only serves political ends. Savage is right in there with it. Hey Slager! Ya better fire this shill and get a real criminal defense lawyer. IMO.

    Like

  13. doodahdaze says:

    The S.C. legislature should defund and eliminate the special court and special judge. Just like Kansas.

    Like

      • Armie says:

        Interesting piece of information in the story. We’ve been told by the media that the first attorney bowed out after seeing the footage, the implication being he was so shocked he walked away from the case. Now we discover that Slager was told he’d been fired during that interview, which leads to the alternate theory that he left the case because, as the attorney for North Charleston officers he no longer had an officer for a client. Quite an interesting little tidbit that the media and/or SLED didn’t see fit to share with us until now.

        Like

        • art tart says:

          Armie ~ you might ask “oldiadguy” about this, he knew before now why the first Attorney left, I seem to recall this was the reason oldiadguy gave months ago. I guess he knew because of his LE background, that North Charleston wasn’t going to pay an Attorney to represent an Officer that no longer worked for the department. I read this morning, Slager was fired on the 3rd day, the day the video appeared, for some reason I was thinking the 2nd day.)

          Too, “doodahdaze” I think or someone else shared that Savage “was appointed as legal counsel by the Courts to represent Slager.” Some one upthread said Savage was “pro bono.” If Savage was told to represent Slager by the Courts, Slager would be “indigent” & Savage would be allowed nominal fees for his services, his office workers, research, court cost etc., but not at what he usually charges. I haven’t read that Slager is indigent, but imo, he may be w/no income & a wife/baby. IDK.

          Pro Bono is not the same as Court Appointed. (I know you know this because you have a legal background) Savage is the 3rd Attorney in the case. I don’t remember why the second attorney left. I had assumed Savage was being paid whatever monies Slager’s family could put together but IDK. Do you?

          Like

        • Lenfb says:

          Yes it is interesting. It is now pretty clear that Officer Slager did not have a taser dart/prong lodged in his skin, and it is no longer speculation that the suspect took the taser.

          As for the other person’s suggestion.
          Based on my own observations, I would suggest you don’t ask or engage either of the two anything.
          All I have seen is irrelevancy and deflection from both with a proclivity to tag team and a tendency to pat those on the back who agree with their position.
          It is all very suspect.

          Like

          • oldiadguy says:

            Lenfb – It would seem that your comment is a slap at myself and art tart since she agrees with me on the facts in this case, think it very suspect and that we are working as a “tag team.”. If you have followed other police threads here on CTH you would know that art tart and I have not always agreed, the Eric Garner case comes to mind.

            If you or anyone else does not wish to ask questions of someone who has over a decade of experience investigating police shootings, misconduct and corruption cases or engage in a civil discussion, I’m fine with that. It is you right.

            It is my observation that some here at CTH have convinced themselves that anything Slager or Savage says is the gospel truth and all others are liars or frauds. Those individuals have had the tendency to snipe at, insult and ridicule those who hold a different view point from their’s. Having been a target of their barbs, I have on a number of occasions pointed out their lack of civility.

            This is a shame, as the purpose of the CTH is to find the truth. Sometimes the truth is painful and not something we want to hear or accept, but it is still the truth.

            Take Care

            Like

        • art tart says:

          Armie ~ I too found interesting from the article part of Slager’s story: “Slager says he tried to get out of the way of Scott, who was coming at him with the Taser in his hand.”

          “When I shuffled to the left, I just started firing,” he said.

          It seems hard to believe Scott would approach Slager when Slager had his gun out, ready to fire, Slager immediately stated shooting.

          With the original position of the taser behind Slager, Scott wasn’t approaching Slager & his gun w/a taser he didn’t know how to shoot. If Slager’s story was truthful, the taser would have been found beside Scott, not dropped there by Slager.

          Like

        • oldiadguy says:

          Armie, we don’t know the reason why Aylor ended his representation of Slager. Someone reported earlier on that South Carolina LEO’s are at will employees, so I don’t believe they have much if any due process rights considering termination. Because of this at will status, I can’t understand why the police union would not still represent him as the incident occurred on duty and the termination was a result of this incident.

          If a South Carolina Chief or Sheriff wanted to screw over an officer/deputy and prevent him getting legal representation, all they would have to do is terminate that employee. Most police unions that I am familiar with will represent officers long after an incident even if they have been terminated, resigned or retired, as long as the incident occurred while they were a member of the union. I had several incidents where the local POA provide a former officer legal representation years after the officer left the Department.

          There are three reasons that I can think of why Aylor ended his representation of Slager.

          Slager was terminated and was no longer entitled to legal representation by the local police union. This one I have a hard time believing.
          Aylor did so for ethical reasons. Aylor went with the version of events provided to him by Slager and he allowed Slager to make a Miranda statement. After locking Slager into a statement, the SLED investigators revealed the video and Aylor discovered there was nothing on the video that corroborated Slager’s version of events. If Aylor believed Slager was untruthful with him, I don’t see how he could continue to as his attorney.
          The police union decided not to represent him any longer. This can happen as I seen it happen a very few times locally, but it is rare. I believe the police union president addressed this issue shortly after Slager was arrested.

          There maybe additional reason for Aylor’s withdrawal, unless Aylor explains why he withdrew, all we have left is speculation.

          In regards to SLED not releasing this information about Slager being terminated after the video was made known, no credible investigative agency releases information concerning their investigation. This information was made known during court filings. This is one of the reason why some defense attorneys’ snipe at the investigative agencies because they know the agency will not respond back.

          Take Care

          Like

      • DT says:

        This is interesting, thank you. Slager also says he fired while Scott had the taser in his hands. Makes me wonder if the enhanced video has frames the public was never shown due to editing or what. It has always bothered me not seeing where the taser appears from when it goes tumbling off behind Slager.

        I notice Santana says that Slager moved the taser before the other officers arrived and that is clearly untrue by the video and stills of Slager dropping the taser. Habersham is literally right there when it happens.

        Like

        • Rojas says:

          He “moved” it before… it was in route to it’s destination when the other officer arrived.

          Liked by 1 person

        • oldiadguy says:

          The FBI took possession of the video and tried to enhance the parts of the video that may have contained the struggle. According to ABC news, even with the enhanced video it is not clear what happened during that four second time frame.

          If there was any indication of editing, the FBI report should indicate it and I’m sure Savage would have stated same in court filings.

          Take Care

          Like

      • oldiadguy says:

        Thanks, this is the first time I’ve read anything that outlined Slager’s version of events. If the events described in the article are correct, it appears the investigators locked Slager into a statement prior to showing him the video. Not good!

        Also, in this interview Slager did not say he was Tased twice as Savage has indicated nor did he describe any part of the event where he “pummeled.” I don’t recall another incident like this where the media has pointed out the discrepancies in the defense’s case as they are doing here.

        SMH

        Take Care

        Like

    • art tart says:

      doodahdaze ~ I agree w/your comment for many reasons but on a lot of different Judicial Offices. Just like we watched Corey snatch GZ’s case from a Grand Jury fearing there would be a “no finding” like the GJ did for Officer Wilson. Look what we’ve seen Mosby do over stepping her powers/promoting her Office/agenda.

      If every person who is charged regardless of celebrity status, wealth, or a LE Officer, imo, the same system should work & go through the normal channels as they expect the same treatment as Joe Blow that shot a neighbor if a dog dispute.

      Like

  14. art tart says:

    Who Was Savage Retained By?

    Savage released the following statement Wednesday afternoon: (not a new link)

    Our firm has been formally retained to represent Officer Slager. We filed a formal Notice of Appearance with the Clerk of Court and we have initiated our investigation. I suspect it will take some time. As we focus in on the facts, we will probably have more to say, but it is far too early for us to be saying what we think. Slager’s previous counsel fell into that trap and we have no intention of doing our client further harm.

    http://www.wistv.com/story/28753053/solicitor-releases-statement-on-charges-against-officer-in-walter-scotts-death?clienttype=generic

    Since Savage was “formally retained,” I assume Savage was Slager’s choice as Savage has a good reputation & his family has likely pooled their resourses to helped Slager, what most families would do to help a loved one imo.

    Like

  15. sundance says:

    Like

    • DT says:

      Ugh, this does not sit well with me. I really don’t see how he can be seen as a danger to the community.

      Like

    • Armie says:

      The old “hold them hostage so they rush their trial prep” game. The judge said he wanted to get to trial in 60 days.

      Like

      • Armie says:

        You know, on second thought, the reporting has varied on that 60 day matter. I just ran across a story saying the court wanted a meeting within 60 days regarding setting a trial date. At any rate, “speedy trial” is one of his concerns.

        Like

        • oldiadguy says:

          I also read about the 60 day window for setting a trial date. The media has not been all that accurate in reporting some of the details in this case.

          Like

    • art tart says:

      Thanks Sundance as I had been wondering. I feel terribly for Officer Slager, his wife/baby & extended family that had gathered from neighboring states anticipating Slager would be released on bail over the weekend.

      Savage said “Slager was depressed,” I can’t even imagine and that was before he was denied bail. Doesn’t seem fair, Legal Experts “expected Slager to be released on bail” but they were wrong.

      Like

  16. art tart says:

    Rojas ~ I am responding to you here because for some reason, when comments go to far to the right, the “reply” option doesn’t show up on my computer. (I have a lap tap.)

    Rojas shared ~ “Art, Do you in fact know that Slager knew the whereabouts of the taser when he fired?”

    Rojas, this link:
    According to Slager, Scott was able to grab the Taser with his left hand and pull it away from Slager. Scott turned and pointed the Taser right at Slager.

    “I’m afraid now. Is he going to tase me and take my weapon? Am I going home tonight to my pregnant wife? Is he going to take my weapon and shoot me?” Slager asked himself during the scuffle, he told investigators.

    Slager says he tried to get out of the way of Scott, who was coming at him with the Taser in his hand.”

    “When I shuffled to the left, I just started firing,” he said.

    http://www.abcnews4.com/story/30013470/i-just-started-firing-slager-tells-sled-investigators

    Slager told investigators after the incident that Scott tried to grab his gun and Taser. But Wilson told the court that Scott was running away from the officer and the only time Slager could be seen running was to go back, pick up the Taser and then drop it by Scott’s body.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bond-denied-for-ex-south-carolina-cop-michael-slager-charged-in-death-of-walter-scott/

    Prosecutor Wilson has the video evidence to show that Slager ran back to get the Taser which was behind Slager, after Slager had told SLED “Scott tried to grab his gun and Taser so he fired.” (paraphrased)

    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