Walter Scott Shooting Case Update: Officer Michael Slager Bonded From Jail – Judge and Prosecutor Deny “Speedy Trial”…

FINALLY – Good Legal Advice – Officer Michael Slager did not waive his right to a speedy trial, he invoked it.

Walter Scott - judge clifton newmanscarlett wilson

However, the Judge denied the request.  Judge Clifton Newman and Lead Prosecutor, Ninth Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson, have just opened themselves up for increased scrutiny.  Smartly, Officer Michael Slager, through his attorney, requested his constitutional and legal right to a speedy trial be invoked.

According to a local media report Prosecutor Scarlett Wilson filed a 10 page motion to request the defendants’ right to a speedy trial be denied.  As many of you are familiar, when facing malicious and political prosecution the (almost guaranteed) tendency of the State is to delay the trial. 

Prosecutor Wilson’s intent affirms the political aspect to the trial will take precedent in her approach.   Judge Newman agreed with the State Prosecutor and set the trial date for October 31st 2016 – yeah, Halloween.

However, on the positive side, Judge Newman, citing the distance to trial date, granted a $500k bond which allows Michael Slager to finally leave jail.  He has been incarcerated continuously since April of 2015.

Media Report HERE

Walter Scott - upper hand

Pictured Above – Walter Scott on top of Officer Slager during struggle, fighting for control of Tazer.

walter scott tazer

Walter Scott deblurred

Walter Scott - taser lead

Outline of Shooting Events

SLED Investigator Points to Malicious Prosecution

Link to prior research on Walter Scott Shooting HERE

 

This entry was posted in BGI - Black Grievance Industry, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, media bias, Notorious Liars, Police action, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Uncategorized, Walter Scott Shooting. Bookmark the permalink.

231 Responses to Walter Scott Shooting Case Update: Officer Michael Slager Bonded From Jail – Judge and Prosecutor Deny “Speedy Trial”…

  1. Doodahdaze says:

    Wonder what excuse the judge used?

    Liked by 1 person

    • John Galt says:

      Maybe South Carolina only has one attorney? Poor thing has two cases.

      “Slager’s attorneys had requested a speedy trial, but Ninth Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson filed a 10-page response to that motion, saying a date in the fall would be both reasonable and necessary because she is also working on the case against Dylann Roof, the suspect in the June shooting deaths of nine parishioners at Mother Emanuel AME Church.

      Wilson told the court she felt the trial should be held in November at the earliest.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • Doodahdaze says:

      O’Hara claimed the reason is her crowded docket and the judge granted. This violates his 6th amendment rights.

      When the Right is Denied.—“The right of a speedy trial is necessarily relative. It is consistent with delays and depends upon circumstances. It secures rights to a defendant. It does not preclude the rights of public justice.”21 No length of time is per se too long to pass scrutiny under this guarantee,22 but on the other hand nei[p.1403]ther does the defendant have to show actual prejudice by delay.23 The Court rather has adopted an ad hoc balancing approach. “We can do little more than identify some of the factors which courts should assess in determining whether a particular defendant has been deprived of his right. Though some might express them in different ways, we identify four such factors: Length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.”24 The fact of delay triggers an inquiry and is dependent on the circumstances of the case. Reasons for delay will vary. A deliberate delay for advantage will weigh heavily, whereas the absence of a witness would justify an appropriate delay, and such factors as crowded dockets and negligence will fall between these other factors.25 It is the duty of the prosecution to bring a defendant to trial, and the failure of the defendant to demand the right is not to be construed as a waiver of the right;26 yet, the defendant’s acquiescence in delay when it works to his advantage should be considered against his later assertion that he was denied the guarantee, and the defendant’s responsibility for the delay would be conclusive. Finally, a court should look to the possible prejudices and disadvantages suffered by a defendant during a delay.27

      A determination that a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial results in a decision to dismiss the indictment or to reverse a conviction in order that the indictment be dismissed.28
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt6frag2_user.html

      This judge is real “special.”

      Liked by 10 people

      • John Galt says:

        “This judge is real “special.”

        He denied Slager bond because he was too great a “danger” to the community. Nothing changed with respect to that “danger” so now he turns Slager loose on bond.

        Liked by 6 people

        • Doodahdaze says:

          My thoughts too. What is diff now? This is worse than GZ.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Monroe says:

          The danger Slager created was that a certain “community” would try to kill him and his family if he had been released on bail at an earlier time. The creation of said opportunity to kill Slager would be racist and discriminatory since some progressives seem to think that some “communities” are unable to control their behavior.

          Per progressive mind think, Slager’s release would have been a form of entrapment for a minority to be “forced” to kill him.

          Like

    • JeremyR says:

      Obambi executive Action suspended the Constitution.
      Then again, its been mostly dead since the (un)Civil War.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Donald Joy says:

    Slager finally gets to hold his 6-month old baby for the first time.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Doodahdaze says:

    In November, after the election. What a surprise!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. ImpeachEmAll says:

    Amanda Marshall and Scarlett Wilson look like sisters.

    Birds of a feather?

    Like

  5. Donald Joy says:

    Political railroading of a man doing his job. If Slager did anything wrong, it’s manslaughter at the very most. Charging him with murder is absurd. The unedited video shows Scott had Slager down on the ground, and was on top of him just before the video then shows them standing with Scott in posession of the taser. The worst that can be said about Slager’s actions is that he failed to halt/reel back in his justified decision to use deadly force once the situation suddenly changed(Scott whirling and running). Scientists testify that it is not uncommon for people under extreme duress to be physiologically unable to reverse such a decision once it is begun. Furthermore, if Slager actually believed Scott still had the taser, the law is on his side.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Donald Joy says:

      Not to mention that Slager had already had to physically fight Scott at various points along the way to the final spot.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Stephen Richter says:

      not to prejudge but why can’t the defense be that the Officer made a mistake? The police dept had him working alone. He was obligated to chase down and apprehend Scott. Because of the resulting struggle, where his life was in danger, he suffered a momentary lapse in judgement and shot the man. Heck, we recognize PTSD. What about TSD?

      Liked by 1 person

      • No mistakes are allowed when it’s a white cop vs. a black perp.

        Liked by 4 people

      • palerider1861 says:

        How about because it wasn’t a mistake…the officer performed reasonable actions based on the events as they unfolded, and the only one who made a mistake was the deceased.

        Liked by 6 people

        • DelAware says:

          This is really the entire truth of the matter.

          These dindu nuffins make one miserable stupid violent antisocial choice after another…day in, day out, month after month, year after year, their entire lives, and push everyone around them into situations of conflict, confusion, and outright mortal threat.

          Then somehow it’s someone else’s fault for not responding to the sociopath in a complex situation in a way that is absolute behavioral perfection according to a malevolent panel of onlookers. “Oh yes, you were right to set THIS boundary, but at THAT point, where the physical grappling began, you should have done it differently!”

          Yo, “yoofs”–if you don’t want to live under the rule of US law, move the frack to Mogadishu or Lagos. You’re better adapted genetically to live there, and we civilized people are sick of your boundary-pushing, drama-queen, looks-at-muh, Worl’ Sto’ behaviors.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Monroe says:

        Stephen,

        Based on the info provided, Slager was not obligated to chase down the perp. One could make a case that Slager showed poor judgement. Scott was not an escaped felon or brandishing a weapon. Slager did not know if Scott had a weapon and/or was leading him into an ambush nor did he know if the passenger had a weapon and would pursue. Also there could have been a victim in the trunk.

        Too often, officers think they have to pursue.

        I’m not saying Slager was wrong to pursue Scott; just that there were other options. Choosing to pursue was a legal option and would be considered the “norm”.

        I’m not advocating the Safari Principle. I’m stating that officers need to work smarter.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Millwright says:

          Ever hear of the “predator/prey reflex ? I’m not being sarcastic, but too often we ( most particularly the self-proclaimed elite ) conveniently “forget” we have tens of thousands of years of survival reflex behaviors ingrained in our hind brain that comes to the fore in stressful conflict conditions.

          Like

          • Allfal says:

            We used to call it the rabbit / dog reaction. Most that I worked with would have been ashamed to show their face should they fail to pursue a fleeing subject that had been approached in a lawful manner. It’s a new world, I guess.

            As to the shoot, It was a terrible shoot as filmed. But think on it for a second or two, probably around the time that the officer had to think. It would have been a completely justifiable shoot on several occasions earlier in the struggle. Think about focus and tunnel vision. Is there a reasonable possibility that the officer thought that when he lost control of the taser that now was the time for deadly force? Is it also reasonable that the officer continued to think, for that incredibly brief time, ” oh dam, he has my taser”. If so, He has not committed the crime of which he has been accused.

            Don’t mistake my intentions. The officer made an unforgivable mistake in an occupation that is unforgiving. He should probably never work in the occupation again. He should also never be convicted of a crime where such reasonable doubt remains.

            Like

      • Monroe says:

        I’m in spam.

        Basically, Slager did not have an obligation to chase down the perp based on the info released.

        Like

        • Allfal says:

          I don’t know which state you reside in. In mine, lacking a lawful directive from a superior, there is no legal obligation to chase any offender. It just comes naturally.

          Like

        • He had no obligation NOT to. Indeed, he had a DUTY to pursue. What kind of police force would we have if cops didn’t bother chasing down fleeing perps?

          Like

          • Chip Bennett says:

            Scott wasn’t a “perp” when Slager started pursuing him. In terms of severity, he was basically the equivalent of a jaywalker. Remember Amanda Jo Stephen?

            https://www.dailytexanonline.com/person/amanda-jo-stephen

            She was similarly pursued and physically assaulted for jaywalking and failure to obey a police officer.

            Up until the physical altercation between Scott and Slager started, Scott was, in the eyes of the law, no different, more dangerous, or more criminal than Amanda Jo Stephen.

            No, Slager did not have a duty to pursue Scott, over what was at that point merely a petty, civil citation.

            Like

    • treepersrock says:

      Donald Joy ~ the biggest problem for the defense is that the story Slager told Detectives/SLED is different from what the video showed. The problem is, the video appeared 3 days later after Slager had been given the benefit of the doubt & was working a desk job, at that time Slager was fired & arrested.

      Slager’s wife admitted in her interview that Slager’s story was different than what the video showed because he was in “shock.”

      Like

      • Donald Joy says:

        The media has perpetuated what you allege, but there’s actually no evidence which has been made public which verifies what you said — we do NOT know what Slager said, because we have not been provided with anything to substantiate what it is alleged that he said. All we really have are highly suspect media reports from the usual lying anti-white racial grievance mongers.

        And even if Slager’s initial remarks don’t jibe 100% with what was/is determined later, doesn’t necessarily mean he’s guilty of murder.

        To the point, the video itself does not necessarily condemn him, either. Of course it looks very bad, especially to the untrained eye, but it also shows information which can provide reasonable doubt.

        Like

        • treepersrock says:

          Donald Joy ~ I don’t allege anything, you are behind on your reading of the case. I never said NOR do I recall any treeper ever stating “Slager is guilty of murder.” That’s ludicrous, some think he may be convicted of possibly a lesser count. imo, though Slager is charged w/only “murder,” I wouldn’t doubt it to see Prosecutor S. Wilson offer Slager a Plea Deal for a lesser count.

          Prosecutor Scarlett Wilson’s account:

          To prosecutors, Slager became an executioner when he fired eight shots as the 50-year-old man ran away, then tried to plant evidence and lie to concoct a story of self-defense.

          http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150910/PC16/150919963/1529/after-defense-prosecutors-battle-in-michael-slager-bond-hearing-judge-to-weigh-their-arguments

          You are supposed to be going where the evidence takes you, I see nothing but your personal opinion based on no facts. Wilson had outright called Slager “a liar.” That’s easy to understand. WHY does she know this? Because his interview doesn’t match the video on at least this key piece of evidence. It wasn’t self defense imo, Scott had no weapon.

          Remember the hype Savage planted about his interview for new evidence? That was a bust, if you go back to the last thread, “oldiadguy” explained alot about the interview Savage gave. Savage hasn’t said much to help Slager, I’m disappointed he has not been more aggressive.

          As to the video, the Prosecutors, imo, will again use it to condemn Slager, rightly or wrongly.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Donald Joy says:

            No, I’m saying none of us really know what, if anything at all, Slager said to investigators after the shooting. We have merely been told by the media, without actual proof, that he made statements which conflicted with the video.

            Liked by 1 person

            • treepersrock says:

              DJ ~ give it a rest. If you don’t believe what the Prosecutor said, that’s on you. The problem is the video showing up 3 days later! It’s that simple. We have been told by the Reporter in the article what was said in the Courtroom. Because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it untrue.

              If you have something factual, share it, but I have not seen anything factual from you but your opinion & nothing much from Savage in Slager’s defense.

              Like

              • Monroe says:

                What a prosecutor says is not “evidence”. The prosecutor will present information that supports her case. Until the Slager’s actual statements are released, we only have the word of people who have an agenda, whether it is the defense or the prosecution.

                Look at the first Baltimore 6 trial. The prosecutor kept making statements that the defendant had lied or made contradictory initial statements. Yet, both of the statements were never entered into evidence. In fact, the jury asked for both statements and that was when the judge stated both were not in evidence.

                Liked by 1 person

                • treepersrock says:

                  Monroe ~ The evidence will be presented at trial, the Baltimore 6 case is not the same as this case where Scott is being seen shot/killed on video. In fact, there is little evidence in the Baltimore 6 case. The cases don’t compare nor do the Prosecutors imo. If you have any evidence that Prosecutor Wilson is corrupt, present it & share the link, I’ve not found any! There is plenty to support that Mosby is corrupt.

                  Slager wasn’t aware of the video. The Prosecutor’s have compared the video 3 days later to what Slager stated in his intereviews, we will see the differences in trial, the evidence. imo, it’ll be shown again & again for the jury to compare.

                  Like

          • Donald Joy says:

            …and what the prosecutor CLAIMS.

            Like

          • Donald Joy says:

            ….and again, if he did lie to try to cover up unfavorable (for him) aspects of the shooting, doesn’t necessarily mean he’s guilty of murder.

            Like

          • Jason says:

            as far as I can tell, the “lie” Slager is being accused of is that he “did nothing wrong”?

            “He knew that Taser wasn’t going to support self-defense where it was,” she said. “Desperate people do desperate things.”

            Slager eventually picked up the Taser. Then, Wilson said, he “doubled down” and said he did nothing wrong in killing Scott in self-defense.

            It’s clear the prosecution believe Slager is lying, it’s still not entirely clear what his statements were that are proven false with the video. There’s an assertion by Wilson that even if Scott had Slager’s taser, he was too far away to be a threat at the point they were standing (curious line of argument if you don’t believe he ever had the taser… but I digress), still not clear what the lie was.

            Was he possibly guilty of planing evidence? Quite possibly IMO. Did he lie about his dropping the taser? No evidence so far that he did IMO. Did he not mention the episode of dropping his taser… a lie of omission? Possibly and probably… but for that he’s guilty of murder?

            If you have something that readily/clearly points out the ‘lie(s)’, I’d appreciate it. Best I have found was that apparently Slager initially indicated Scott was in front of him and he wasn’t sure what he was doing the moment he fired, then changed to Scott was heading towards him at the moment of firing after a private consult with his former attorney. Would appreciate seeing whatever additional info/clarification is out there cause I haven’t seen it either.

            Like

      • Donald Joy says:

        Btw, do you have a source for this interview with Slager’s wife you cited?

        Like

        • treepersrock says:

          There are links on the last thread, google it, it’s not hard to find! It was in National News as well as the Daily Mail had it.

          Sorry, I don’t keep links that are easy to pull up on Google & articles were on countless sites.

          Like

      • Donald Joy says:

        Never mind, I found the interview.

        Like

      • Donald Joy says:

        All she said was that when Slager himself saw the video, he said the incident looked different than as he remembered it. No real specifics, and no, she didn’t specifically say that he said anything different to investigators than what the video showed.

        Otherwise, she said it’s “absolutely political” and “from the first second, they’ve made it a race thing, from the headlines, even before the video came out” She says the video reveals Scott on top of her husband, and supports everything her husband told her about being in fear for his life, etc.

        ‘He could have been dead. He was very worried about his safety and he could have been dead.
        ‘There had been confrontation and he had had a weapon used against him. He wouldn’t have done what he did unless he felt like he needed to for his safety and for the public safety… and to be able to get home to me.’
        She said the video of the shooting may have been viewed across the world, but most people had not seen Scott grappling with the officer and using his Taser.
        ‘I just know that the Taser was used on him. He did not have it at the time. Scott had it and it was used on him.
        ‘There were Taser marks on my husband’s work shirt.’
        Slager’s finger had been wounded, probably while trying to retain his Taser, and there were bloodied bruises on his knees from where he struggled with the suspect on the ground, she said.
        Mrs Slager said at the hospital, her husband was in shock and subdued: ‘He was very quiet about it. He just kept saying that he felt like he had to do it.
        ‘He had a couple of scrapes.He was sore. He said it was at traffic stop for a light. He had to run after him and that was about it. There was a confrontation and he shot him.
        ‘He said he had to shoot him because he was afraid for himself and he was afraid he was going to hurt somebody else. He kept saying “he was a big guy”.
        ‘He didn’t know it had been caught on a cell phone.’
        The following day, after the family had left for a hotel, the video surfaced and Slager met with his legal team.
        ‘He was at his attorney’s office and he called me and he said: “It is as plain as day. It is as plain as day on there. I don’t remember that,”‘ Mrs Slager said.
        ‘He said it was bright and he couldn’t remember [Scott] being as far away and he didn’t remember stuff that was on there.
        ‘It was different from what he remembered. He was in shock. That is a lot to happen in a short amount of time. It looked different on the video from how he remembered it.
        ‘There are pieces of it that he doesn’t remember.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3285493/My-husband-right-shoot-Walter-Scott-innocent-wife-Michael-Slager-cop-shot-black-man-Charleston-breaks-silence-says-officer-acted-self-defense.html

        Like

        • treepersrock says:

          Donald Joy ~ I have read all the articles on the Slager case as I check it weekly since it occured. I know exactly what Slager’s wife said & read all the accountings of what she said. You don’t have to quote for most of us as it has all been discussed before. I know what Slager’s wife said as most treepers do as it was discussed previously, I wonder if you missed a thread on the case?

          What did you expect Slager’s wife to say? Most importantly, what did you expect Slager to say since he didn’t know there was a video accounting until he was fired/arrested & he had told investigators “it was self defense?” Did the video show Scott charging Slager causing him to fear for his life? No! Scott was unarmed & didn’t have the taser.

          Did it show “self defense” as Slager claimed in his interview, in which Prosecutor Wilson called Slager a liar? imo, it doesn’t support self defense.

          Like

          • Donald Joy says:

            I’ve written several articles on the case. I did miss that interview with his wife, which came afterward. The interview really doesn’t change anything.

            Refer to my initial comment.

            Like

            • treepersrock says:

              Donald Joy ~ you’re right, the interview doesn’t change anything, she just admits that Slager’s interview is different from the video. She gets her information from Slager so it is irrelevant, Slager had to admit his interview was different to her because it will be shown in Court & she’ll it!

              Like

          • Scott took the taser. It flies across the screen and lands, skids, to Slager’s left/rear, when Slager had Scott’s right wrist in his left hand and his gun in his right hand, immediately before the shooting. Who had a free hand to throw the taser?

            Like

            • oldiadguy says:

              I’m not sure what video you are referring to that shows the Taser flying across the screen. I’ve stated a number times during these discussions, that the Taser is not visible in the open space between Scott and Slager. It is only visible as it bounces along the ground behind Slager, prior to Slager drawing his pistol.

              I have also stated that as an officer, I would have either dropped my Taser or tossed it behind me if the situation changed that required me to escalate to lethal force by going for my pistol. I have asked numerous active officers the same question. What would you do if you were holding a Taser in your gun hand and the situation escalated where lethal force was now needed. All of them stated the same thing. They would either drop their Taser or toss it behind them to get it out of reach of the suspect as they went for the pistol. This is what Slager appears to have done in the video.

              I believe the prosecution is going to be making this argument and will bring in police training experts to make their case. Unless the defense can show in the video the Taser crossing that space, therefore proving Scott had the Taser, I believe the prosecution can convince a jury that Slager was the person who tossed the Taser.

              Time will tell.

              Like

              • DT says:

                Oldiadguy, I watched the video many times this morning with eyes to your perspective of Slager throwing the taser behind him. If Slager had the taser, it is such an awkward behind pitch. His hand never breaks the upright plane of his body, it lacks rear motion “follow through”, if you will, which you would expect if he was trying to pitch something behind him and clear his holster so that same hand can smoothly draw his service weapon. It would put all the motion of the throw in his wrist which is just odd to imagine doing yourself if you were in that position of needing to discard one item for another, especially if you feel your life is in jeopardy. Not saying it’s impossible or it didn’t happen that way, it’s just so very awkward. I understand economy of motion, particularly when you are winded, I just wouldn’t expect it at that point in the altercation.

                That said, at that same instance you cannot see any movement by Scott that is an obvious toss, either. Neither make any obviously discernible move to discard the taser. I am hoping if the FBI enhanced video ever makes it to the public, it’s at least a bit more clear.

                Like

                • Actually, I just watched the video again. Although both of Slager’s hands were occupied, and thus he could NOT have thrown it, it seems Scott had it in his right hand, not in his left as I originally thought, and just as Slager said. Scott rapidly jerked his hand upward over his head, breaking free of Slager’s grasp, and just as rapidly threw the taser downward and away from himself as he turned to run. Then the taser can be seen bouncing/skidding past Slager, coming to rest behind him and to his left.

                  Like

              • Would you use your middle hand to throw the taser?

                Like

              • Actually, the taser can’t be seen (AFAICT) flying across the screen in the air, but can be seen on the ground a split second later. Scott threw it with his right hand.

                Like

          • Monroe says:

            If I based my decision strictly on the video, I would say it was self defense. IMO, it appears that Slager started to unholster his weapon while still facing Scott and tangled in taser wire. Based on neurological/physiological studies he would have had a hard time stopping the muscle movement in the time frame of unholstering to when Scott turned and fled.

            However, others have raised other issues as to whether Slager had the legal right to use force (taser) earlier in the incident which then led to the point where Slager and Scott were physically fighting and ultimately to use of his service weapon. I don’t understand all of that argument, but IMO Chip seems to have a sound grasp on these kind of matters and I think oldiaguy also raised this point.

            Like

            • oldiadguy says:

              You are on the right track. Kudos to Chip who did an excellent job in explaining the applicable law. Remember that brief pause in the string of shots that Slager fired? It is my understanding from some SC officers that the prosecutor is going to use that pause to show that Slager was no longer on acting on an automatic response (neurological/physiological studies), but had regained full control, realized that his shots were not stopping Scott, paused, took more careful aim and fired the lethal shots that stopped Scott. This is supposedly the reason Slager was charged with Murder instead of Manslaughter.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Doodahdaze says:

                He was clearly trying to put down the threat. The question is only whether or not it was justified under the law. IMO it was. It must be from the cops perception at the time. State will have to prove he did not perceive the perp as a threat to him or anyone else. A high bar.

                Like

                • Chip Bennett says:

                  State will have to prove he did not perceive the perp as a threat to him or anyone else.

                  No, the state will not have to prove what Slager’s actual perception was or was not; rather, the state will merely need to prove that Slager’s perception was unreasonable.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • Donald Joy says:

                    For murder, they need to prove more than that.

                    Like

                  • Chip Bennett says:

                    Indeed, which is why I don’t think there’s any chance that the state successfully proves murder. Slager’s use of deadly force was unjustified, but it was not malicious.

                    Like

                  • Doodahdaze says:

                    To the exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis. Good luck with that one.

                    Like

                  • Chip Bennett says:

                    To the exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis. Good luck with that one.

                    You’re conflating two different concepts. Determination of reasonableness under the Reasonable Man standard, while subjective, is binary: either something is reasonable or it is not reasonable.

                    If the jury considers Slager’s perception of threat posed by Scott to be reasonable, then reasonable doubt will exist in the state’s allegation that Slager committed murder, on the basis that Slager reasonably acted in self-defense. However, if the jury considers Slager’s perception of threat posed by Scott NOT to be reasonable, then the hypothesis that Slager acted in self-defense is not reasonable, and does not factor as a reasonable doubt against the state’s allegation that Slager committed murder.

                    Like

  6. hocuspocus13 says:

    The corruption in this country gets bigger and bolder by the day…

    Liked by 6 people

  7. optingout says:

    The State definitely has put a target on Slager’s back. Another victim of our anarcho-tyranny. What he has been put through is foul. Those prosecuting him are vicious. The State must be destroyed.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. jackphatz says:

    Why didn’t they request the “speedy” trial six months ago? I just don’t get why there doesn’t seem to be anything happening with this case.

    Like

  9. keebler AC says:

    I haven’t studied the Slager case in great detail since the video however slanted seemed indicting…..but that screenshot shows officer down – following the color detail of the Slager’s white arm badge, distinctive light blue officer pants stripe on navy blue contrasted with the other man’s outfit (green shirt, white undies, dark sweat pants and white sneakers), If the fleeing man had actually tried to hurt and severely maim the officer, even kill him… then all bets are off! I’m relieved Slager got bonded out. It shows Slager has evidence favoring presumed innocence.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. furrcats says:

    I don’t recall the constitution giving the government the right to deny a speedy trial demand 😡

    Liked by 6 people

  11. True Colors says:

    In this country, a judge should not be allowed to throw a person in jail and let them sit there month after month after month without any bond or trial date.

    Slager was given neither of those as he was sitting in isolation during the past 9 months. This was a blatant violation of his civil rights. This type of tactic reeks of political imprisonment in 3rd world countries where corrupt governments try to drive people insane, or extract bribes from them, or force them to accept unfair plea deals.

    Also, I am sure that the bureaucrats in South Carolina are eager to start working on the Dylann Roof case because they figure that they will score more political points and generate better headlines for themselves than they will see during the Slager trial. But that is a poor reason to delay Slager’s trial for an extra 10 months.

    Dragging things out unnecessarily is a form of punishment in and of itself. If the government is going to convict Slager, then so be it, but at least give him a trial and get it over with.

    TC

    Liked by 4 people

  12. Angel Martin says:

    The whole Slager prosecution has been a disgrace from the beginning. The delayed bail nonsense is especially galling when illegal immigrants who are accused of murder, two attempted murders and attempted rape, and get bail.

    http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/29/ohio-judge-sets-bail-10-million-illegal-immigrant-accused-violent-crime-spree

    Liked by 5 people

  13. EggsX says:

    Notice that the trial wouldn’t conclude until after the election! That’s how you know their case won’t hold up but too risky politically.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. tz says:

    The problem with working for a corrupt system that shows no mercy is that you may be its next victim. What did Walter Scott go through?
    When police departments and prosecutions are about raising revenue, not keeping the peace, they fall victim to their own greed.
    Where were/are the “good cops” exposing the corrupt systems?

    Like

    • Allfal says:

      Keeping their heads down as much as possible and working towards retirement. The new ones are generally much less proactive. However, in fairness, I remember hearing much the same over 30 years ago. I believe that they were also wrong then.

      Like

  15. Chip Bennett says:

    Holding someone in prison for a year and a half before even starting trial proceedings is a clear and blatant violation of rights protected under the sixth amendment. Heck, holding someone in prison for nine months before even starting trial proceedings is a violation. Being forced to bond out for a half-million dollars in order not to be imprisoned for a year and a half before trial just adds insult to injury.

    Liked by 10 people

  16. DT says:

    I am sure there is probably a good reason but it seems to me since the Slager incident occured before the Roof incident, Slager should get a trial before Roof. I guess our justice system doesn’t work on the FIFO system.

    Like

  17. amwick says:

    our justice system doesn’t work Justice seems to be getting an a$$whooping in this case. But, I still believe that the truth will come out, I still believe a jury will have a just verdict. Without that belief, I may as well pack up and move. At least justice has an ally here, many allies.

    Like

  18. BobW462 says:

    If Scott did indeed resist Slager’s lawful attempt to detain/arrest; and, if Scott did gain control the taser at some point during the struggle (felony resisting), Slager may well have been within applicable law when he chose to use deadly force to stop a “fleeing felon” who, perhaps in Slager’s mind, was likely to present an immediate threat to the community at-large.

    Of course, I, like most, don’t know all of the facts. But, I’m just saying…

    Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      That seems to be the prevailing consensus here at the Treehouse – and this is one of the few times where I don’t side with the consensus.

      Not to rehash old arguments, but I think the defense is going to have a difficult time justifying a reasonable belief that Scott – clearly intending nothing more than evasion of a police officer – was an imminent threat to the community, even if he were in possession of an already-fired (and thus, only useful as a contact weapon) Taser.

      Liked by 3 people

      • But he’d already fought a cop, proving that he was a danger.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Chip Bennett says:

          But he’d already fought a cop, proving that he was a danger.

          That’s not how the legal justification for shooting a “fleeing felon” works.

          Please read Tennessee v Garner. The gist of the holding is that law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

          If Slager had shot Scott during their struggle, there would be no issue, because Scott would have reasonably posed an imminent threat to Slager. The problem is that Slager shot Scott after Scott had disengaged (thus the imminent threat to Slager was no longer present), and was clearly fleeing. Thus, to be legally justified to shoot a fleeing Scott, Slager would have to had reasonably believed that Scott posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to others.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Anyone who assaults a cop poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer OR OTHERS.

            Like

            • Chip Bennett says:

              Anyone who assaults a cop poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer OR OTHERS.

              You have evidence that Scott assaulted Slager, as opposed to merely resisting Slager’s attempts to detain him?

              Claiming that Scott assaulted Slager comes across as an attempt to conflate this situation with Michael Brown’s actual, documented assault of Darren Wilson.

              Liked by 1 person

              • There’s a fine line between resisting arrest and assaulting a cop. The video shows Scott crossed it.

                Like

                • Chip Bennett says:

                  There’s a fine line between resisting arrest and assaulting a cop. The video shows Scott crossed it.

                  The only line is who instigated it. If we assume that Slager was justified in using force to effect an arrest (something that is not a given, by the way), the video still does not show who instigated the altercation.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • Is attempting to arrest a fleeing felon “instigating an altercation”? Technically, I suppose it is, but is it incriminating to Slager?

                    Like

                  • Chip Bennett says:

                    Is attempting to arrest a fleeing felon “instigating an altercation”? Technically, I suppose it is, but is it incriminating to Slager?

                    What felony had Scott committed, prior to the physical altercation?

                    Prior to use of force against Slager, Scott was not a “fleeing felon.” He had committed no felony, and Slager had no knowledge that he was wanted for any felony. Therefore, Slager was not attempting to effect an arrest of a “fleeing felon.” The only crime known to Slager was failure to obey a peace officer, which is merely a misdemeanor. And even if running from a traffic stop were considered a felony, I believe Tennessee v Garner addresses the matter of “technical” felonies, vs violent felonies.

                    Liked by 2 people

                  • “What felony had Scott committed, prior to the physical altercation?” That’s like asking what felony a bank robber committed before robbing a bank. Attacking Slager WAS the felony. Slager had a DUTY to shoot him.

                    Like

                  • Chip Bennett says:

                    Slager had a “duty” to shoot Scott?

                    This is some dangeroud ground you’re treading.

                    Like

                • Monroe says:

                  Char,

                  Below you said that Slager had a duty to shoot Scott. An officer should use his weapon as a last resort. Instead of all the “diversity” and “micro-aggression” training, officers should receive tactical training and how to be “smart” officers. Unless Scott said he planned to kill somebody, Slager had a duty to contain the situation, not kill a person. Scott was not a serial killer nor had a bomb strapped to his chest. It wasn’t the best strategy to chase Scott in the first place.

                  Like

          • Doodahdaze says:

            That Garner case will not be the one the defense relies on IMO. Think it perfectly reasonable for him to have taken out the threat.

            Like

            • Chip Bennett says:

              That Garner case will not be the one the defense relies on IMO. Think it perfectly reasonable for him to have taken out the threat.

              If you are claiming that Slager will not attempt a “fleeing felon” defense, then you must demonstrate that Scott was a threat to Slager himself, at the exact moment that deadly force was used.

              What threat did an unarmed, fleeing man, some 20 feet away and gaining distance, pose to Slager at the moment he used deadly force?

              None. The answer is: none. Scott did not pose a threat to Slager at the moment he used deadly force.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Doodahdaze says:

                Your motion is denied.

                Like

              • treepersrock says:

                Chip ~ you’ve done an excellent job of breaking down the case law that might be used in the case.

                Like

              • kathyca says:

                This is the holding in Garner — “such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

                Maybe you’re talking about a different case. But, under Garner, there is no express requirement to the threat perceived by the officer be “exactly” temporally immediate and there also is no requirement that the felon actually BE a threat.

                Like

                • Chip Bennett says:

                  We don’t disagree on the Garner holding. What was Slager’s probable cause that Scott posed a serious risk to himself or others?

                  Scott was clearly running away from Slager. He did not pose a serious risk to Slager. So, that leaves probable cause of serious risk to others. From Slager’s perspective, Scott had done nothing but attempt to evade police scrutiny. None of his actions are indicative of someone who is generally violent, or otherwise a serious risk to others.

                  It is also germane that Scott was not a felon when he began fleeing. He only potentially became a felon when he physically resisted a police officer. Given that his sole “crime” up until that point was a civil infraction (whatever moving violation he committed that led to the traffic stop), and failure to obey a police officer (when he fled, and did not stop) – Scott was not being arrested; rather, he was likely being issued a citation – I’m not sure that Slager was justified in using force to detain a fleeing Scott.

                  (I could be 100% wrong about that – but if I am, then I’m saddened that police are justified to use such force against people for non-violent, minor infractions of the law.)

                  If the force Slager used was not, in fact, lawful, then Scott’s resistance of that force was not unlawful. If that is the case, then Scott was never a felon, at any point during his “fleeing.” If that is the case, then not even Garner justifies the use of deadly force to stop a fleeing Scott.

                  Like

                  • kathyca says:

                    Keeping in mind that we’re only ever told one side of this story, and having listened to his wife’s interview and read the pieces here, I think the probable cause will be that Scott had used or attempted to use the taser on Slager (also rendering Scott a seriously dangerous felon) and that he reasonably thought Scott still had control of the taser.

                    Like

        • coeurdaleneman says:

          Yes, it’s the fighting aspect that elevated Scott to a status beyond a mere runner. And the fact that Scott was able to defeat Slager on the ground made his a continuing physical threat.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Doodahdaze says:

            Also trying to recapture him would pose a risk to the cop. He had already disarmed him once of his tazer. It would be risky to physically try again. He could have got the cops gun.

            Like

      • treepersrock says:

        Chip Bennett ~ (I was formerly art tart.) I agree w/ya. It will be extremely difficult too for the Defense to explain why Slager’s story was different than what the video showed when it appeared 3 days later.

        We know Scott wasn’t in possession of the taser when he died as we saw Slager drop the taser beside Scott, then pick it up. The Prosecution has accused Slager of “planting the taser,” I assume Slager told the Detectives that Scott had the taser, then the video showed Scott didn’t have it when he died.

        Like

        • coeurdaleneman says:

          Not sure what your logic is here. Don’t you think that Slager might have thought (while he was shooting) that Scott had the taser while running? And that he might have been surprised when, after he approached his body, it was not there? And only after that, Slager then made the decision to hustle to secure it?

          If it had been the other way around (going to get the taser before cuffing the body), then your position would have some strength.

          Liked by 3 people

          • treepersrock says:

            coeurdaleneman shared ~ “then your position would have some strength.”

            Let me explain the logic to you:

            To be perfectly clear, it isn’t my position that needs strength, it is the Prosecutor’s position that has Slager jammed up with Slager’s own description of the incident & what the the video showed! Even Slager’s wife has admitted “Slager’s version is not what the video showed.” We have no idea what Slager claimed happened, but it was enough to get him fired/arrested 3 days later when the video appeared.

            I have absolutely no idea what was in Slager’s mind nor do you, so you have no facts to support your position, your imagination has no strength!

            Like

            • coeurdaleneman says:

              All that I have seen from the prosecutor is tortured spin, some of which is negated by other aspects on the video.

              Evidently, your argument is “this prosecutor is an ethical person that hasn’t shared the goods” and you are willing to take that leap of faith.

              Liked by 1 person

              • treepersrock says:

                I shared the link in what the Prosecutor said when stating “Slager was a liar & tried to plant evidence.” I have no reason to distrust her for doing her job because I don’t like what she said, I think she will prove Slager lied in his interviews & the video will prove he lied. That’s no leap of fact, that’s connecting the dots.

                Since you have nothing factual to support Slager, not anything even positive from Savage defending Slager, you will to do a lot of imagining to explain why Slager claimed “it was self defense!” The video proves that statement by Slager to be a lie.

                Like

            • Jason says:

              source for this quote? I have tried and cannot find it.

              Other info
              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3285493/My-husband-right-shoot-Walter-Scott-innocent-wife-Michael-Slager-cop-shot-black-man-Charleston-breaks-silence-says-officer-acted-self-defense.html
              “‘They knew what the video showed before the shooting but they never released that or the fact that Scott’s DNA was all over the Taser.

              ‘No fingerprints were taken from it and that is poor professionalism.’

              He said Slager gave three separate statements to police at the time of his arrest and was clear on each occasion that Scott had grabbed the Taser, but this information had been held back.”

              Like

              • treepersrock says:

                Jason ~ I think what Slager’s wife has said is not factual, she is basing what she said on what she was told by Slager. Slager had already claimed “self defense,” which the video proves it wasn’t.

                What we know is: Slager was not in fear of his life when he shot a fleeing Scott which he said he was because the video proved that to be a lie. We know Scott didn’t have the taser. While Scott may have grabbed the taser earlier in the video during an earlier confrontation, Scott did not have the taser when he died NOR did he pose a threat to Slager endangering Slager’s life. The video proved that too.

                Like

                • Police, unlike civilians, are authorized to shoot in situations that don’t involve self defense.

                  Like

                  • Chip Bennett says:

                    Police are civilians.

                    The only time police are legally justified to use deadly force other than in self-defense is when warranted to effect a lawful arrest.

                    Like

                  • Donald Joy says:

                    Defense of others’ lives, prevent loss of classified material vital to national security, prevent escape of dangerous prisoners from custody….

                    Like

                  • Chip Bennett says:

                    Defense of others’ lives is a component of self-defense, available to everyone. Theft of classified material vital to national security is a crime, and thus apprehension of the person in possession of it would fall under effecting an arrest. Likewise with preventing the escape of a dangerous prisoner.

                    Like

                • Jason says:

                  I still don’t see any quote for what you claim Slager’s wife stated. “Slager’s version is not what the video showed.”

                  Also, to the contrary, ‘we’ don’t know what Slager felt. If moments before he pulled the trigger Scott had the taser, I certainly would have feared for my life and expect any reasonable individual, including this officer to consider it to be a significant threat as well.

                  I appreciate your opinion, however I wish you would be more careful to make it clear which portions are your assumption/opinion, and which are factually based, especially where statements and quotes are concerned. Just want to make sure we’re all working with accurate information. Cheers

                  Like

                  • treepersrock says:

                    Jason ~ I posted upthread what Prosecutor said in her statement as well as the link.

                    I too appreciate your opinion, we view the case differently.

                    Like

            • Doodahdaze says:

              If there is another reasonable hypothesis, then the jury instructions tell the jury to vote not guilty. Remember the state must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis.

              Like

              • treepersrock says:

                Doodahdaze ~ But the Prosecutor’s imo, will put on the stand “what a reasonable Officier would do.” As “oldiadguy” has stated, Police Blogs participants agree “it wasn’t a good shoot.” Maybe Savage could get some Officier’s to say it was reasonable, but the Prosecutor will trump that Academy Training Instructors etc.

                Like

        • reasonablefearordepravedheart says:

          He told investigators why he moved the Taser; right before the shooting, as he was running from his car, Scott had been on the phone with his mother. Slager told SLED that he went back to retrieve the Taser because he was concerned that whoever was on the other end of the line would come and take it. Apparently he told them this before the video was released.

          I can’t find the link to the article in which this was stated, but it’s stated clear as day that he explained this to investigators.

          The SLED interview isn’t nearly as detrimental as people suspect it is; an obstacle, but not something that can’t be overcomed.

          Liked by 2 people

        • fearordepraved says:

          He told investigators before the video was revealed that he moved the Taser and why he retrieved the Taser; he was concerned that whoever Scott was on the phone with would come and try to take it.

          I can’t find the article in which this is contained, but it was released at the time of his first bond hearing. It explains what he told them in the build-up to the video.

          The SLED interview, in my opinion, isn’t nearly as detrimental as some people suspect it is. A challenge, but one that can be overcome.

          Like

          • treepersrock says:

            fearordepraved shared ~ “The SLED interview, in my opinion, isn’t nearly as detrimental as some people suspect it is. A challenge, but one that can be overcome.”

            Are you kidding? If Slager could have over come it, he wouldn’t have been arrested when the video appearing 3 days later contradicts what Slager said in the interviews! The Prosecutor has called Slager a liar, I think she can back it up!

            Liked by 1 person

            • Donald Joy says:

              Ahem They did the same thing to Zimmerman. You actually believe a prosecutor in a highly political case?

              Liked by 2 people

              • treepersrock says:

                Donald Joy ~ I’d buy your theories if you had any facts to support your theories, you don’t! This case is not the same as GZ’s, in fact, the black population hates Proseuctor Wilson there claiming she is harder on AA’s than caucasians. The Black Caucus was unsuccessful in removing Wilson. The problem is the video. If there was no video, Slager may have walked in this case w/Slager being given the benefit of the doubt because he was an Officier. Unfortunately for Slager, the video was a game changer 3 days later when Slager was fired/arrested.

                GZ had excellent representation, the facts on their side, & MOM/West did an excellent job proving it. Slager has Savage who has made very few & poor arguments for Slager.

                Like

                • coeurdaleneman says:

                  What will end up vindicating Slager is the video. Counterintuitive now. But better than what Zimmerman had (only one witness that sorta hedged after being badgered by BDLR).

                  Liked by 1 person

            • Donald Joy says:

              But supposing Slager did either lie, or make statements inconsistent with the video. Doesn’t necessarily mean it was murder. He may have been trying to make manslaughter out to be self-defense, or merely confused.

              Like

              • Chip Bennett says:

                But supposing Slager did either lie, or make statements inconsistent with the video. Doesn’t necessarily mean it was murder.

                Especially in situations that escalate to the use of deadly force, making statements inconsistent with other available evidence is absolutely not evidence of lying on the part of the person making the statements. There is well-documented psychology involved with such situations – which is the reason that police officers generally do not give formal (under oath) statements until 24-48 hours after such an incident.

                I do not put much weight on such allegedly inconsistent/inaccurate statements. The prove nothing of any guilt, and if anything, speak in his favor, in that if his statements were a truthful statement of his perception of events, they bolster his Reasonable Man defense. (Anyone in his specific circumstances may reasonably have perceived the situation as he did, even if that perception was inaccurate to an uninvolved observer.)

                Like

                • treepersrock says:

                  Chip ~ What concerns me is there is one charge for murder. None of us think it’s murder, in your opinion, will “manslaughter” possibly be added? I’ve always thought maybe a plea would be offered for a lesser charge, but I’m not familiar w/one charge of “murder,” & the consequences of 50 yrs. in prision.

                  Do you have any thoughts?

                  Like

                  • Chip Bennett says:

                    I honestly have no idea how lesser charges work in South Carolina. I’m sure one of the resident lawyers could weigh in.

                    Like

                  • Donald Joy says:

                    Not a lawyer here, but I called Scarlett Wilson’s office twice last year and could not get any reply whatsoever as to any lesser included charge possibility/alternative.

                    However, my research up to this point leads me to believe that it’s fairly standard that a jury has that option — it’s just that juries are not always instructed by judges in that regard, to consider a lesser charge. That is, they generally can, but unless prompted, juries often are not aware that they can. Also, it appears that defense attorneys sometimes do not want juries to consider lesser charges, and can formally request that judges leave such instruction out of the proceedings.

                    Like

                  • treepersrock says:

                    I did find this NYT article on SC Law:

                    Under South Carolina law, there is only a single murder charge, which Ms. Wilson described as being an “unlawful killing with malice aforethought” — with the premeditation required to exist for only a few seconds before a killing in order to gain a conviction.

                    Mr. Slager was indicted by a grand jury on a murder charge on Monday in connection with an April 4 shooting.

                    “As long as malice is proven in the heart and mind, the state has proven its case,” she said.

                    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/us/former-south-carolina-officer-is-indicted-in-death-of-walter-scott.html?_r=0

                    Like

            • coeurdaleneman says:

              Arguing that, because a prosecutor fainted at the first sight of the video, Slager necessarily lied (and was contradicted) is a guess on your part. Nifong. The Florida crew. All experienced prosecutors with high conviction rates who were willing to railroad in order to respond to the public.

              Your faith in this woman is very misplaced.

              Liked by 1 person

              • treepersrock says:

                coeurdaleneman ~ Provide factual information that Prosecutor Scarlett Wilson is corrupt to support your position. Your opinion is not a fact & thus far, facts would make a big difference to support your accusations.

                There were prior accusations against Corey before the Zimmerman case & Mosby was inexperienced, inept from her first interview. This is not the case w/this Prosecutor.

                Like

            • Doodahdaze says:

              He was arrested on order of higher ups. Probably Haley.

              Like

        • fearordepraved says:

          Slager told investigators prior to the release of the video that he moved the Taser and why he moved the Taser. Because he was concerned that whoever Scott was on the phone with as he ran from his car would come and take it.

          I don’t know which article I found this in (it was one of the local sources from that area), but it was released at the first bond hearing. He and Feidin Santana’s interviews were outlined in the article, and this detail was revealed.

          In my opinion, the SLED interview isn’t nearly as detrimental as some people suspect it is. A challenge? Yes, like everything else in this case. But not one that can’t be overcome.

          Ultimately, it comes down to this–whether he was operating from a depraved heart or a place of fear for himself and others, even if it is determined to be unjustified. Whether Scott had the Taser at the time of the shooting or not, whether he was armed at the time or not, whether he posed a legitimate threat or not, whether he moved the Taser or not, Slager’s perception is what matters most. And misperception is not murder.

          Liked by 3 people

          • treepersrock says:

            fearordepraved shared ~ “Slager told investigators prior to the release of the video that he moved the Taser and why he moved the Taser.”

            Please provide the link to support your position, that has been stated in opinion many times but not as fact. Slager claimed “he has my taser,” but Scott didn’t have the taser when he died which is relevant. That is a major hurdle for the Defense to over come.

            What matters most is: What Slager told Detectives/SLED versus what the video showed. If Slager lied, that is not a “Misperception,” which is what you want to reduce this to. It’s certainly not murder, but what the jury finds remains to be seen. We will have to wait until trial to see all the evidence & what Slager said before the video appeared.

            Like

        • DT says:

          The prosecution will have to prove Slager’s intent in “planting” the taser, this to me will be an uphill battle. The defense can introduce their reasonable doubt as to why he handled it. Since he dropped it with Habersham present, and picked it up soon after, you wouldn’t convince me as a jury member that he planted it. It didn’t remain planted for investigators to find.

          The defense doesn’t have to prove Slager’s innocence, they just have to poke holes in the prosecutions case and allow reasonable doubt to shine through. Given the totality of the circumstances of the entire event, I think the prosecution has a steeper battle than the defense. We shall see.

          Like

          • Chip Bennett says:

            I think the whole issue with Slager moving the Taser is and will be a non-issue. The question is whether, at the moment it was used, the use of deadly force was justified. The prosecution has zero chance of proving “depraved heart”, but that doesn’t mean that the use of deadly force was, or will be found to have been, justifiable.

            That’s why Tennessee v Garner and the “fleeing felon” rule will be important. The prosecution merely needs to prove a) Slager shot Scott, and b) Slager did not reasonably fear imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. The defense will then need to convince the jury that Slager reasonably believed Scott to pose a serious threat to others.

            It is that last point that has had me caught up, from the very beginning. With or without the expended Taser, there is no evidence that Scott reasonably posed any such risk.

            Liked by 1 person

            • coeurdaleneman says:

              Chip, only a week later than this episode, a similar one happened in my neck of the woods. Two fleeing perps managed to evade capture, including a tasering, and then one of them committed a home invasion.

              To declare that Scott did not present that sort of potential threat is a fallacy, don’t you think? My stance is that Scott’s body of actions placed him in a category of more than just a runner. He obviously was desperate. Slager experienced it first-hand. To pooh-pooh his real time threat requires the reception of mitigating information about Scott that was only gained later. And even then, that wasn’t very reassuring.

              Like

              • Chip Bennett says:

                Chip, only a week later than this episode, a similar one happened in my neck of the woods. Two fleeing perps managed to evade capture, including a tasering, and then one of them committed a home invasion.

                To declare that Scott did not present that sort of potential threat is a fallacy, don’t you think?

                Apples: oranges. Unlike your two fleeing perps, Scott was not engaged in a violent crime with encountered by Slager. He was sitting in a car. He did nothing but flee, and resist restraint – even if violently – by Slager, after which he resumed fleeing. There is nothing to suggest that Scott would have posed a serious threat to anyone in the community, based on the information at hand at the time known to Slager at the time he used deadly force.

                That’s why I fully support a trial. Slager should have to provide a defense for his use of deadly force, and provide evidence that he reasonably believed Scott to pose a serious threat to others at the moment he shot him. If the evidence at trial supports that defense, then so be it. But this is absolutely not a cut-and-dry case of justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Jason says:

                  fighting with an officer AND taking his weapon and (possibly) using that weapon on the officer kinda puts him at serious threat to public level from my POV.

                  I doubt it’s a slam dunk either way, but if I were on such a jury, I think that defense would be compelling/convincing.

                  Glad he will finally be able to be released.

                  Liked by 2 people

                  • Chip Bennett says:

                    fighting with an officer AND taking his weapon and (possibly) using that weapon on the officer kinda puts him at serious threat to public level from my POV.

                    He didn’t “fight” a police officer. He resisted detainment. Motivation matters, when trying to claim that Scott posed a serious risk to others.

                    Had Slager shot Scott during the altercation, none of this would matter, because Scott would have posed a current, imminent threat to Slager. But Scott de-escalated that threat, by getting himself free of Slager, and continuing to flee.

                    Liked by 1 person

                  • Jason says:

                    @Chip – there was a physical struggle on the ground, maybe we could escalate the description to a tussle instead of fight/resisting detainment? sarc.

                    We’re going on some assumed info so kinda pointless to get too into the weeds on details, but I think many would consider a struggle in which someone relieved a LEO of their (less than lethal) weapon to be something more than simply arresting.

                    Respect your insight.

                    Like

                  • Jason says:

                    err.. something more than simply resisting… not arresting😦

                    Like

              • treepersrock says:

                coeurdaleneman shared ~ “To declare that Scott did not present that sort of potential threat is a fallacy?”

                A good link for you to read w/experts weighing in pro & con:

                http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-south-carolina-legal-20150409-story.html

                Like

            • treepersrock says:

              Chip ~ The reason I think the moving of the taser is important, is because this may have proven Slager lied in his interview to Detectives/Sled since Slager wasn’t fired/arrested until the video appeared 3 days later. We don’t know what Slager has said in his interview, a lie of any kind, imo, will make a difference to a jury. But we do know the story is different, hence the firing/charges/his wife admitting Slager’s story is not the same as his interview.

              Chip, since we don’t know what Slager has said in his interviews, if the video proves Slager lied, imo, what Slager “reasonably believed” won’t matter.

              imo, Grahmn vs Connor is more appropriate:

              “In other words, a police officer who fires at a fleeing man who a moment earlier murdered a convenience store clerk may have reasonable grounds to argue that the shooting was justified. But if that same robber never fired his own weapon, the officer would likely have a much harder argument.

              “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.”

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

              Like

            • John Hall says:

              The pivotal issue isn’t whether a fleeing Scott posed a threat to others. Rather, was it reasonable for Slager to believe that Scott did. Further, it’s the prosecution’s burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that no reasonable officer would have concluded Scott posed a significant threat to others under similar conditions. Considering that Scott first fled, and then appears to get in a physical confrontation with Slager, what would a reasonable officer conclude? What it be unreasonable for a cop in a similar situation to believe that if Scott got away, he would car-jack the first motorist he could? Knowing what we now know about the nature of Scott’s warrant, I doubt he would have. But that doesn’t mean that it was unreasonable to believe he would have.

              Liked by 2 people

              • Chip Bennett says:

                What it be unreasonable for a cop in a similar situation to believe that if Scott got away, he would car-jack the first motorist he could?

                What is the specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion that Scott would have committed some violent act against an arbitrary person in the community?

                I’m sure that the defense will use the physical altercation between Scott and Slager as that evidence, but I don’t see that altercation as anything other than further evidence that Scott’s sole intent was to evade a police officer. Scott initially fled the traffic stop. Slager pursued and caught up with Scott. Scott physically resisted Slager’s attempts to detain him, then when successful in that resistance, resumed fleeing.

                Not wanting to be detained by a police officer is not evidence of willingness or intent to pose a serious threat to anyone else. So, I think the defense will need to produce more evidence than merely that assertion.

                Did Scott gain possession of the Taser and shoot Scott with it? Maybe that would lead to a conclusion of reasonableness of belief that Scott posed a risk to others. Did Slager see approaching officers and believe that Scott might attempt to use force against those officers? Maybe that would lead to a conclusion of reasonableness.

                Ultimately, we’ll just have to see what comes out at trial – if SC ever gets around to holding one.

                Liked by 1 person

            • Doodahdaze says:

              I do not agree with that.

              Like

          • treepersrock says:

            DT shared ~ “The prosecution will have to prove Slager’s intent in “planting” the taser, this to me will be an uphill battle.”

            DT ~ It won’t be an uphill battle if Slager told Detectives/SLED Scott “had the taser when he died.” From what the Prosecutor has said in an interview, “Slager was trying to plant evidence,” imo, Slager may have told Detectives Scott had the taser.. Why? Because the interview showed Scott didn’t have it. The Judge claimed “the bail was so high because of the Prosecution’s evidence.” The Judge is a moron imo for setting such an outrageous bail, but the Prosecution has a lot to compare which we haven’t seen.

            I disagee that the Prosecution has a steeper battle because they have Slager’s interview versus the video of what Slager told Detectives. If Slager is proven to be a liar, his “perception” won’t matter to juror’s. We have no idea what all Slager stated in his interview which is worrisome to me & should be to you imo. Have you seen the interviews w/Savage? imo, they weren’t reassuring he had a good defense of Slager. Savage is supposed to be a good Attorney but had little to say in defense of Slager.

            Like

            • Jett Black says:

              Here’s how the prosecution hurdles all objections–“white LEO shot bin-0bummer in the back, multiple times. bin-0bummer dindunuffin. He scuffled a lil an’ was jus’ runnin’ away, ’cause he askeert of da white debbil.” G verdict for manslaughter or above in @30 mins (after jury’s next meal following receiving the case for deliberation). Not saying it’s right; that’s just more probably than not how it’s going down.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Doodahdaze says:

              That interview may not be admitted as evidence if it was required to be given as part of police department procedure and Slager was not warned of incrimination.

              Like

              • treepersrock says:

                Doodahdaze ~ Interviews were used in the cases of the Officier’s 6. I believe one interview Slager had an attorney w/him.

                Like

        • Jason says:

          to be clear, is the ‘different than what the video showed’ in your opinion, Slager’s claim of self defense? Would appreciate clarification cause it’s not clear what his ‘lies’ supposedly were.

          Certainly the video appears a certain way… but the context of the events immediately preceding it are very relevant to Slager’s perception of events IMO.

          Like

          • Doodahdaze says:

            He has not claimed self defense I do not think.

            Like

            • treepersrock says:

              This reporter was in the Courtroom to hear the arguments for 3 hours during the bail hearing, the Prosecutor showed information that Slager claimed “self defense” in her argument to the Judge.

              To Prosecutors,

              Slager became an executioner when he fired eight shots as the 50-year-old man ran away, then tried to plant evidence and lie to concoct a story of self-defense. She showed photos of Slager in a clean uniform and a few scrapes on his knee and his finger.

              “That is not someone who was pummeled,” Wilson said.

              To Defense Attorney’s:

              Slager was doing his job when he stopped Scott’s car, trying to fulfill his department-mandated quota of three traffic stops every shift for minor violations. In the eyes of some observers, it amounted to a stunning indictment of North Charleston police policy that affirms residents’ long-held complaints.

              http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150910/PC16/150919963/1529/after-defense-prosecutors-battle-in-michael-slager-bond-hearing-judge-to-weigh-their-arguments

              If you read the artricle in its entiry, you will see both arguments, why Savage lost this fight for trying to blame policies.

              Wilson goes on to claim “Slager then tried to claim self defense.”

              Like

      • BobW462 says:

        Yes, I certainly agree that it looks like the defense has some hurdles to overcome. I just see this case as a bit more complicated than the premeditated “cold-blooded” murder that has been portrayed in the media.

        But, (again) I simply don’t know all of the facts/evidence.

        Liked by 1 person

        • coeurdaleneman says:

          Since the burden is upon the prosecution, here are some of their own difficult hurdles:

          Declaring that the deceased was not a remaining threat to the officer or the public. Well, Scott had not been frisked for weapons and had just physically defeated a cop’s strength AND a taser. By doing so, Scott demonstrated a very high level of desperation, far more than the average perp who first runs and then surrenders when caught. Severe desperation like that can lead to carjackings, home invasions, etc. etc., something that a good officer reasonably should take into consideration.
          Proving that Slager knew that Scott did not have the taser while running. How? By using the video and centering on a point in time where Slager definitely sees the taser elsewhere? Personally, I fail to see that beyond reasonable doubt.
          Proving the planting claim. This will be even harder, since there is an innocent explanation or Slager’s post-shooting moves. Besides the fact that he did not immediately run back to where he drew his weapon before first approaching the body, there are other issues. One of the strongest was the obvious presenced of a moving civilian (cameraperson) before AND after the shots. That person was not motionless, concealed within bushes, etc. And his distance from the action is comparable to being on the other side of a larger family room. Ask yourself: could a trained cop be so oblivious to that person? Moreover the cameraperson’s nearness made HIM a potential target, had Scott possessed a hidden weapon or made a snap judgment to extend his mayhem in that direction. How was Slager to guess that Scott might not change direction on a whim?

          Like

          • And Scott had a gun at the at the initial stop in the car.

            Like

            • Donald Joy says:

              ??? How are you coming up with this?

              Like

              • Watch the dash cam video from 2:07. There’s something in Scott’s hand as he starts to exit the car, then quickly conceals with his other hand when Officer Slager orders him back in the vehicle. https://youtu.be/-7gg-HUAYg4

                Like

                • Chip Bennett says:

                  …There’s something in Scott’s hand as he starts to exit the car…

                  So, there’s a huge difference between saying, “there’s something in Scott’s hand” and saying, “there’s a gun in Scott’s hand”.

                  One, watching it frame-by-frame, it looks more like a wallet than a gun. Two, Scott would have been a freaking fool to exit the vehicle with a gun in his hand. And three, there’s no indication on-camera that Slager ever thought Scott had a gun, at that point or any other.

                  Liked by 2 people

                  • Chip Bennett says:

                    It was a gun.

                    Where’s the evidence?

                    Like

                  • One, if it’s a wallet, it looks like a wallet with a 3-inch barrel. You must be one of those liberals who’ve undergone sensitivity training to render you incapable of seeing a weapon in the hand of a black man. Two, Scott was a proven Darwin-laureate-level fool, and he would have shot Slager if the officer hadn’t seen him before he could fire. Three, Slager didn’t recognize it; t was a small black gun in a brown hand, and Scott covered it as soon as Slager looked/talked to him. But I suppose that was no threat. A gun can’t hurt you if you can’t see it, right? Four, the passenger ditched the gun before the other cops arrived.

                    Like

                  • Chip Bennett says:

                    You must be one of those liberals who’ve undergone sensitivity training to render you incapable of seeing a weapon in the hand of a black man.

                    You must be new here.

                    Liked by 1 person

                  • Donald Joy says:

                    It’s one thing to say that you IMAGINE what is/are likely his briefly protruding finger or two fingers as the barrel of a very small gun concealed within his palm, but it’s another thing to insist that it IS a gun, with nothing to go on except your imagination — and it’s quite a stretch.

                    Liked by 1 person

                  • Who points a wallet at anyone?

                    Like

                  • Chip Bennett says:

                    Who points a wallet at anyone?

                    Show me on the Cabbage Patch doll where Scott pointed his imaginary mouse gun at Slager?

                    When you start sounding like the Trayvon Warriors, inventing evidence out of thin air, and imagining that you see and hear things that were not done or said, it might be a good time to take a step back, take a deep breath, and then take a break until you can again evaluate things objectively.

                    Like

                • Donald Joy says:

                  What are you smoking?

                  Like

        • treepersrock says:

          BobW462 ~ well said. This is a complicated case, the complication for Slager is that, imo, he didn’t know most of the incident was videoed when he told the Detetives/SLED his story. Slager was given a desk job & given the benefit of the doubt.

          Then, the video appeared 3 days later. Slager was promptly fired/arrested w/the Prosecutor accusing Slager of “trying to plant evidence.” imo, it’s likely Slager may have told Detectives/SLED Scott had his taser which Scott didn’t have. We’ll know a lot more when we hear what Slager stated which we won’t know until trial.

          I’m relieved Slager’s home w/his family, it was outrageous he wasn’t released before. I remain concerned that Slager is now responsible for paying his own legal defence now, unless Savage has agreed to proceed pro bono for now on.

          Like

          • BobW462 says:

            One thing I can say is that at least Slager now has a decent attorney. Savage has done well here in SC. If Slager has any chance against the now stacked odds, Savage will make the best of it.

            Liked by 1 person

          • AFAIK, Slager never said Scott “had” his taser, in the sense of taking and keeping possession of it, only that Scott took it from him, which is undeniably true based on the video. It’s possible Slager dropped the taser because he tripped slightly, as he seems to. After all, he picked up the taser and holstered it a mere 30 seconds later.

            Like

      • John Hall says:

        In response to our ever-narrowing exchange upthread, my hunch is that Slager has no idea why he shot Scott. In the way that a dog won’t normally run into traffic but will do so without hesitation when chasing a cat—adrenaline, the fight-response and target-fixation operate outside the purview of the intellect. It’s after the fact that people fill in the blanks by describing what they think they were thinking, or more apt, what they think they ought to have been thinking to justify their behavior. My point being that human fallibility is one thing, malicious intent quite another. Where criminal culpability factors in is hard for me to say, but I lean towards wanting to see some evidence of malice.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Chip Bennett says:

          My point being that human fallibility is one thing, malicious intent quite another. Where criminal culpability factors in is hard for me to say, but I lean towards wanting to see some evidence of malice.

          I agree completely. If I had to make a determination, right now, based on what evidence I’ve seen, I would consider Slager to have used non-justifiable deadly force. It wasn’t justifiable use of deadly force, and it most certainly was not depraved use of deadly force.

          Liked by 1 person

          • John Hall says:

            If (say) Scott had an outstanding warrant for murder in the commission of an armed robbery, and the same scenario played out, would Slager be charged and/or convicted? I’m thinking not. Based on the ‘degree of desperation’ we’d assume someone wanted on such charges would be operating under, the imminent danger such an individual posed to society would be a given. So, I think the prosecutor or a jury would find that Slager’s subjective assessment of Scott’s ‘degree of desperation’ was accurate and his subsequent actions justified. If that were the case with Scott, do you think Slager should/would be charged and/or convicted?

            Like

            • Chip Bennett says:

              If (say) Scott had an outstanding warrant for murder in the commission of an armed robbery, and the same scenario played out, would Slager be charged and/or convicted? I’m thinking not.

              I agree, because the outstanding warrant for a violent crime constitutes reasonable belief that he posed a serious risk of death or harm to others.

              So, I think the prosecutor or a jury would find that Slager’s subjective assessment of Scott’s ‘degree of desperation’ was accurate and his subsequent actions justified.

              That assessment must be based on specific, reasonable, articulable facts. A known, outstanding warrant for a violent crime would constitute such facts. Merely observing someone who doesn’t want to talk to police, and is willing to flee to avoid doing so, does not constitute such facts.

              Like

          • John Hall says:

            Let me rephrase my hypothetical: If unbeknownst to Slager, Scott had recently committed a murder during a robbery and the subsequent events transpired the way they did, should Slager be charged?

            I’m not clear on an answer. On the one hand, under the Garner ruling, I can see that Slager would not have probable cause in regard to why Scott was fleeing, and hence, would not be justified in using lethal force to prevent Scott’s escape. But on the other hand, Scott wasn’t just fleeing; he appears to have escalated fleeing beyond merely running away and became combative. So for instance, if Slager thought Scott was trying to get his gun, wouldn’t that suffice for probable cause that Scott did pose a significant threat to others? Or to put in terms more near the actual events: If Slager would have been justified shooting Scott during the physical encounter, we’re saying that Slager had legitimate grounds for being in fear for his life; if Slager had legitimate grounds for being in fear for his life during the physical encounter, wouldn’t that threat assessment of Scott continue if he let allowed him to escape?

            Like

            • Chip Bennett says:

              If unbeknownst to Slager, Scott had recently committed a murder during a robbery and the subsequent events transpired the way they did, should Slager be charged?

              Without knowledge of such prior acts, they would be irrelevant to Slager’s evaluation of the situation.

              But on the other hand, Scott wasn’t just fleeing; he appears to have escalated fleeing beyond merely running away and became combative.

              We don’t actually know that. We do know that he physically resisted detainment. We do not have evidence that he was the aggressor of the physical altercation.

              So for instance, if Slager thought Scott was trying to get his gun, wouldn’t that suffice for probable cause that Scott did pose a significant threat to others?

              IMHO? Without a doubt: yes. Attempting to gain possession of a deadly weapon is prima facie evidence of willingness and intent to use it.

              But as far as I know, Slager never claimed that Scott tried to take his firearm. And as far as that goes, we don’t even know that Scott attempted to take the Taser (as opposed to Scott merely trying to prevent its use on himself).

              If Slager would have been justified shooting Scott during the physical encounter, we’re saying that Slager had legitimate grounds for being in fear for his life; if Slager had legitimate grounds for being in fear for his life during the physical encounter, wouldn’t that threat assessment of Scott continue if he let allowed him to escape?

              No. The use of deadly force in self-defense (which is what you’re describing here) must be contemporaneous with the mortal threat that justifies that use. Once the aggressor clearly stops aggressing, and removes himself from the situation, the threat against your person has ended, and you no longer have the legal justification to use deadly force in self-defense.

              Liked by 1 person

      • Allfal says:

        An offender gaining control of a less lethal weapon, such as a taser, baton or capstun, was justification for deadly force. The 7 yd rule still applied, just like edged weapons. Just as long as the officer perceived the threat. The key word is perceived.

        Like

        • Chip Bennett says:

          An offender gaining control of a less lethal weapon, such as a taser, baton or capstun, was justification for deadly force.

          …which is why we would be having an entirely different conversation had Slager used deadly force during their physical altercation. Once Scott successfully disengaged from that altercation, and continued fleeing, the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy of Scott to be a mortal threat to Slager no longer existed.

          The 7 yd rule still applied, just like edged weapons.

          The Tueller drill applies to an assailant running toward, not away from, a potential victim.

          Just as long as the officer perceived the threat. The key word is perceived.

          Mere perception is not enough; that perception must be reasonable. On this point hangs almost my entire disagreement with most here.

          Like

          • VegasGuy says:

            Interesting exchange of views. I want to weigh in with an opinion here.

            I truly believe that Slagers’ action hinge on one & only one assumption (belief) on his part. Did Scott have, or did Slager reasonably believe Scott still possessed, the Taser at the instant Scott fled?

            I say that for the following reasons. 1st , Slager was “bested” in the 2 prior physical encounters. He was simply outfought by Scott for whatever reason. If he reasonably believed Scott still retained the Taser, a pursuit & possible third physical encounter could reasonably be assumed to have had him the underdog yet again. And, if his belief that Scott still retained the Taser were founded, then he was at risk of imminent danger by pursuing, yet again, a felon, now potentially armed with a weapon.

            2nd, a suspect fleeing, potentially in possession of an Officers’ weapon, is a threat period. You have no way of knowing who he might encounter and what he might do to anyone he did encounter.

            A Police Officer is duty bound to stop and/or apprehend at that point, having knowledge that the Officer has lost a weapon to a fleeing suspect, even if subsequent knowledge shows that not to be the case.

            3nd, Continuing with this thought, the volley of shots taken to actually bring Scott down, would, IMO, be reasonable due the potential belief of Scott still being in possession of an Officers’ weapon.

            All of that transpired in seconds with judgement calls (maybe valid, maybe not) made by both participants in the heat of the moment.

            From a Police Officer standpoint, insuring that a suspect is incapacitated is justified when firing at a fleeing suspect who potentially might still be armed & had just prior deployed a weapon against the Officer. The objective of deadly force, at that point, would be to insure that the suspect could not re-engage, and that the suspect is incapacitated to the point of not being able to use a potential weapon once approached.

            If the commitment of deadly force is instituted, the end result is incapacitation and safety for the pursuing Officer to fore full the apprehension.

            And notice an important aspect, IMO, that Scott, even while shots are being fired at him, at no time ceases his run, raises his hands, or gives any indication of surrender. He was hell bent on evasion to the point of even bullets whizzing past him did not cause him to cease his evasion. If he had stopped & surrendered at that point would Slager have continued his fire? We don’t know.

            That, in addition to the prior altercations where Scott clearly bested Slager, says a lot to me as to Scotts’ state of mind regarding any compliance with Slagers’ orders. IMO, Slager had to view those situations in a similar manner at the instant.

            JMHO…..There are still many unknown specific aspects to this incident. Let’s keep in mind that we are dealing with a Police Oficer attempting to apprehend a violent felon, as evidenced by the prior data that has been revealed regarding Scotts’ resistance.

            Again, just my opinion regarding the issues Slager might have faced.

            Like

            • Chip Bennett says:

              There is a lot that is yet to be known, about what evidence exists regarding what happen, and how things will play out in court.

              It is possible that Slager will claim that he believed that Scott had his Taser. It is possible that reasonable belief of Scott being in possession of an expended Taser (thus rendered a contact weapon) constitutes reasonable belief that Scott posed a serious risk to others.

              Because I do not see this a clear case of self-defense or justified deadly force against a fleeing felon, I believe that a trial is appropriate. But because of the great number of unknowns, I remain fully willing to accept whatever verdict is returned by a jury that deliberates over all of that evidence currently unknown to us.

              I seriously wonder if some of the commenters here, adamantly supporting Slager – some to the point of reductio ad absurdum – can honestly say the same thing?

              A question, though: have I missed (or forgotten) something about this incident? I’ve now seen two references to two separate physical altercations between Scott and Slager – whereas I only recall a single altercation.

              Like

              • VegasGuy says:

                “A question, though: have I missed (or forgotten) something about this incident? I’ve now seen two references to two separate physical altercations between Scott and Slager – whereas I only recall a single altercation.”

                There is the altercation that was taped & there is an audio only that occurred just prior with Slager first deploying the Tazer. I believe it was on Slagers’ open mic during the initial foot chase while in contact with command. It is in one of the treads but I don’t have the exact link for it. That encounter was at or near the entrance to the area & where there was a supposed female witness. They then proceeded further into the park area where the second encounter occurred.

                There were 2 seperate encounters.

                Like

              • treepersrock says:

                Chip ~ I fully support whatever verdict comes too, I trully wish that Slager would be freed to go home to his family but at this piont, it doesn’t look likely. I still think maybe Slager may take a plea of a lesser charge.

                When Savage did an interview, he didn’t claim Slager thought Scott had the taser. Savage claimed Slager “was injured,” but Savage presented pictures of a minor cut on the hand from the incident between the 2 men over the taser. When Savage had a platform to claim Slager’s innocence, he’s tried to blame police policy, which was a bust imo, the 3 stops required by the City daily doesn’t constitue a man fleeing an arrest & shot in the back.

                Like

  19. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:

    Like most, if not all, of these incidents the police officer is not at fault. Why would any sane person resist arrest unless they were a criminal and were in the wrong and would rather risk getting shot rather then going to jail for a long time!

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Please, somebody check out the dash cam video and let us know if you see Scott aiming a gun at Officer Slager. Check out the first time he opens the door, when Slager tells him to get back in the car, before he bolts.

    Like

    • Donald Joy says:

      I just played it again and I do not see what you claim is there.

      Like

      • What is in Scott’s right hand that he suddenly feels the need to cover with his left hand?

        Like

        • armie says:

          I believe it was established that he was holding up his cell phone because his mother had demanded to speak to the police officer who’d stopped him.

          Liked by 1 person

          • MouseTheLuckyDog says:

            OK. I’ll say this. I’m unclear about what Char Char is talking about. I haven’t seen the incident.

            The thing is that it doesn’t matter what it actually was, What matters is what a “reasonable office” in Slauger’s position would have thought it was.

            So even if it is a cell phone that does not matter. What matters is what it looks like it is.

            Like

          • It’s been awhile since I’ve been pulled over by a cop, so explain how this goes, please. A fifty-year-old man gets stopped for a violation, and then the cop is supposed to talk to his mother on the phone? That must be why Scott ran. His momma tol’ him to cut her a switch — she was finna whoop his behind fo’ not havin’ registration an’ proof of insurance!

            Like

  21. gary lacey says:

    The Judge is in error, the Judge cannot deny a defendants “”RIGHT”” to a fast and speedy trial. It is in the 6th Amendment of OUR BILL of RIGHTS!

    Liked by 1 person

  22. i’d think the agenda-ists would want to do the whole “win by losing” thing ie, having slager walk free, pre-election…so they can spin it as another unarmed black man killed by a white cop FOR NO REASON AT ALL, ginning up black dem voters who buy into the BLM mantra — regardless of the evidence found on this site that supports the theory that a struggle ensued and off. slager may have had his taser used against him, thereby justifiable use of deadly force etc etc. cuz y’know facts and shit don’t matter

    Like

  23. coeurdaleneman says:

    As sundance notes, this prosecutor is mimicking the things that were done in the Zimmerman debacle.

    Personally, I think that she has made a load of statements that are stretches. The latest is that Slager is a flight risk and a danger to the community. That’s pretty rich, given that she is going to bat for a deceased that obviously was both. Her nonsense that the state has no one reliable to keep a watch on Slager during house detention goes well beyond being disingenuous.

    That woman is a menace to justice.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Jett Black says:

    In my state, I think when a defendant moves for a speedy trial, if the state doesn’t try him within 4 months he rolls out without bond. Then they have a year to try him, if he can be found, or the indictment/information expires. These issues are governed by state law with U.S. Constitution only affecting at the margins. This prosecution has overreach and abuse written all over it and the judge is apparently in the tank for it. No doubt handling would be very different, if it were an illegal or a bin-0bummer.

    That said, I agree with Chip’s comments above regarding the merits. Very sad situation. Praying God’s blessings for the Slager family and mercy for Mr. Slager!

    Liked by 1 person

    • dalethorn says:

      I’d guess it’s a strategy, and being based close by, a very effective strategy. Delay, delay, until the anger fades, hence less aggravation from the socialists who organize the riots.

      Like

  25. I have not followed this case much.

    The Constitution guarantees a ‘speedy trial.’ The government, which is bound by the Constitution, has no authority, outside the specific Constitutional checks and balances, to determine if it is following the Constitution or not. That is simply absurd to allow them to unlawfully exercise that undelegated authority.

    How did we let that happen? How did the People allow our servants to decide if they were following, or not, the rules we established for them???

    Liked by 1 person

  26. p35flash says:

    I wonder if his lawyer will file an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the speedy trial motion?

    Like

  27. MouseTheLuckyDog says:

    A good lawyer dealing with Garner will put aside what legal experts have to say about it and deal with the decision itself. Anyone who reads the decision will notice several statements:

    Before the case, it was common law that a cop could shot any fleeing felon.
    One of the things that has happened is that the crimes that count as felonies have greatly expanded. [My note: Now, under the right circumstances, even speeding is a felony.]
    For that reason, “fleeing felon” is no longer sufficient justification.

    Now it goes on to say:

    A fleeing person who is an eminent danger to police or bystanders is sufficient justification.

    it does not say that this is a “bright line”, In fact the decision strongly suggests that if the felony in question was a felony in 1800, then it is justification to shoot a fleeing felon.

    Like

  28. MouseTheLuckyDog says:

    There is a SCOTUS decision, that maybe very applicable to this situation. Brown vs US.

    It is not what most legal scholars take to be the main point of the decision, but there is a part of the decision establishing a “continuation rule”. In basketball, there is a rule. If you are fouled, everything that happens after the foul does not count, but if you are fouled while shooting the “continuation” of the shot does count. Brown says that there is a continuation rule in self defense. If you shoot s guy with a knife twice, it’s self defense. If the guy drops the knife, and you shoot one more time, it is still self defense, as long as the third shot is a continuation of the first two.

    Let us now consider Slager’s point of view, and let’s go “geek mode” and talk about modes.

    Slager walks up to car in “write ticket” mode. He starts to go back to the squad car in “suspicious, probably stole car” mode. Before he gets the registration of the car and Scott’s priors, Scot runs for it. Now he is in “almost certainly criminal” mode followed by “give chase mode”.

    Slager catches up with Scott and they struggle. now Slager is in “fight and apprehend” mode.
    They struggle for a while. The Taser is pulled and discharged. Slager warns Scott then goes into “Shoot” mode. Scott manages to disengage, starts to runaway. Slager is tired and a bit fuzzy from the fighting. He may also have been tazed adding to his confusion. He is slow to change from “shoot” mode to “chase” mode and shoots. It seems like what he did was a continuation, he fired before he realized that Scott was no longer an imminent danger.

    Furthermore, Scott was desperate. You have to be desperate to flee from police and to fight them. If Slager did not shoot, Scott would likely have got away.

    Slager did not know he was unarmed. Even if he was, Scott could have gotten an axe, a trowel, broke into a home and got a gun or a butcher knife … . A guy on the run can find lots of weapons.

    A desperate man, hiding from the cops, armed pretty much is an imminent danger.

    Like

    • Doodahdaze says:

      The perp in this case had already attacked him and got away twice. It is easy from Slagers perspective to see him as a threat to be stopped by deadly force. If he caught the perp it would be a clear danger to himself and if the crazed perp got away a danger to others. Solution….shoot perp. Case closed IMO. This is a first magnitude political lynching by the South Carolina Republicans due to fear of the BLM and other black mobs.

      Like

      • Chip Bennett says:

        The perp in this case had already attacked him and got away twice.

        Where is the evidence that Scott attacked Slager?

        “Gotten away” twice? He fled a traffic stop without “attacking” anyone. It is fair to say that he “got away” after physically resisting arrest by Slager.

        It is easy from Slagers perspective to see him as a threat to be stopped by deadly force. If he caught the perp it would be a clear danger to himself and if the crazed perp got away a danger to others.

        Scott demonstrated himself willing to use physical force to evade detainment by a police officer. He did not demonstrate himself anything willing to do anything other or more than that.

        Fleeing a routine traffic stop is odd, but not evidence that Scott is “crazed”. And he wasn’t a “perp” of anything more than a minor civil infraction, until engaged in an escalation of physical force, instigated by Slager.

        There is no evidence that Scott posed any sort of danger to anyone else.

        Solution….shoot perp. Case closed IMO.

        You are essentially advocating that the appropriate solution is to use deadly force against someone guilty of nothing more than whatever caused the initial traffic stop, and then disobeying a police officer, by fleeing that traffic stop.

        There is a critical distinction in this case, that seems to be too casually overlooked: to the extent that Scott was ever a threat to Slager during their altercation, Slager ceased being such a threat by extricating himself from that altercation, and continuing to flee. At that point, self-defense – even for a police officer – is no longer a valid, legal justification for using deadly force against Scott.

        Because Slager could no longer be legally justified as using deadly force in self-defense, the justification for the use of deadly force must then become that of a “fleeing felon”: that Scott posed a serious risk of death or bodily harm to arbitrary others.

        Liked by 1 person

        • coeurdaleneman says:

          By the time that Slager had gotten to his feet, Scott had already proved to be a threat to everyone’s safety. Whatever the initial reason for chasing Scott, by that time it did not matter. You also continue to whitewash the fact that Scott had never subjected himself to frisking.

          Personally, I dwell on the blurry frame of the two men on the ground. I mentally put myself in Slager’s shoes, and try to imagine what was racing through his mind. At that point, he was just a decent officer doing his job, but had his physical well-being put in danger by the violent actions of a sociopath. You know, somebody that is unable to comply with the most basic rules of society. And not just for fleeing when it was called for, but wrestling with a cop. Slager should be getting the benefit of the doubt here, not that flake whose actual danger at that time was incalculable.

          Like

          • Chip Bennett says:

            By the time that Slager had gotten to his feet, Scott had already proved to be a threat to everyone’s safety.

            Scott demonstrated nothing more than an excessive desire not to interact with a police officer. Even a willingness to resist physically against police detainment is not evidence that Scott would have been a threat to anyone other than that police officer.

            Whatever the initial reason for chasing Scott, by that time it did not matter.

            That will be a key matter for the jury to decide, based on all of the evidence presented.

            You also continue to whitewash the fact that Scott had never subjected himself to frisking.

            And you also continue to ignore the presumption of innocence afforded under the constitutional protection of the right of due process, and the constitutionally protected right to be secure in one’s person and not to be subjected to unreasonable searches. Absent specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion that Scott was armed, there is no basis to assume that he was armed.

            Personally, I dwell on the blurry frame of the two men on the ground. I mentally put myself in Slager’s shoes, and try to imagine what was racing through his mind. At that point, he was just a decent officer doing his job, but had his physical well-being put in danger by the violent actions of a sociopath.

            I don’t know how many times I have to say this: if Slager had shot Scott at that moment, we would not be having this conversation. But that’s not when he shot Scott.

            Also: “violent actions of a sociopath”? Seriously? Scott was a deadbeat, and had plenty of his own problems and shortcomings; but there is no evidence that he was a sociopath, or that he was particularly violent.

            On that last point: it is most probable that Slager, not Scott, instigated the physical altercation between the two, and that Scott merely resisted that physical altercation. Also – and this is important when attempting to claim that Scott was violent and dangerous – when Scott got the upper hand, he did not continue to engage physically. He extricated himself, and continued to flee.

            Liked by 1 person

            • coeurdaleneman says:

              Anybody that serially refuses obey the demands of society is a sociopath.

              In the second-to-the-last photo posted by sundance, Slager is shown drawing his gun. I believe that he, having concluded that Scott could hurt him, was justified. We’ll find out how justified, after the full evidence/testimony about the taser is debated. But until then, Slager gets my benefit of the doubt.. It’s the only reasonable thing to do.

              Like

              • Chip Bennett says:

                Anybody that serially refuses obey the demands of society is a sociopath.

                I don’t agree with that definition of a sociopath, and I do not know whether the criterion itself even applied to Scott. What I do know, however, is that Slager had no specific knowledge, at the time, regarding Scott being someone who “serially refuses to obey the demands of society.”

                Like

                • coeurdaleneman says:

                  By that time, Slager knew:

                  There were problems with his documentation.
                  That he ran to avoid the consequences.
                  That he disobeyed a lawful order to stop.
                  That he resisted when confronted.
                  That he wrestled instead of submitting.
                  That he kept fighting after being tasered.
                  That he ran again without being frisked.

                  And possibly took the officer’s taser. And that goes without us knowing whether the child-support problems were on Slager’s radar at the time, also.

                  This perp was like Freddie Gray, someone who cannot operate within the law. Society beng unwilling to deal forcefully with these sociopaths is why the country is crumbling.

                  Like

            • treepersrock says:

              Chip shared ~ “I don’t know how many times I have to say this: if Slager had shot Scott at that moment, we would not be having this conversation. But that’s not when he shot Scott.”

              Chip, those that continue to deny this important fact haven’t read all the available information on this case pertaining to Law Professors, Legal Experts, LE Training experts, Experts on Police Shootings, etc. There a whole lot out there explaining this point over & over on this case. I am forever surprised at how many treepers don’t do this to understand more clearly.

              Sundance says: “The treehouse is a search for the truth, where ever it leads.” Those that deny where facts lead, will see at trial. I expect them to blame the Prosecutor, the Judge, etc.

              Like

  29. dalethorn says:

    Based on the 1992 Rodney King case and the 1994 OJ case, where 4 trials were decided 12-0 and each decision was perfectly predictable based on the race of the jury and the defendant, here are my possible scenarios: 1) Give Slager a jury of his peers and he’s free of the murder charge at least, and maybe free of all else. 2) Give Slager a jury of the “victims” and he’s screwed. 3) Give Slager a mixed jury and get a hung jury. I hate to be pessimistic, but I see prison or lifetime house arrest, because nobody in the mass media is touching the jury issues. Just imagine what happens when the defense presents the video frames of Scott on top of Slager – anyone taking bets? That maybe the judge will disallow those, or provide “jury instructions” to try to head those off before they cause damage to the state’s case?

    Like

  30. Donald Joy says:

    This is the post I found on FreeRepublic.com(and which included/linked in one of my articles), from Freeper 101stAirborneVet:

    “It has been discussed in scientific papers that the human mind under duress is generally unable to stop certain actions quickly once they have commenced.

    “This has been applied to the law enforcement setting where a police officer, after being in physical combat, is justified in using deadly force but then the circumstances change in front of him. An officer may neurologically be unable to stop firing until either the suspect is down or several seconds elapse.”

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3278316/posts?page=495#495

    The comment thread was below my posting of one of Sundance’s articles on this case.

    Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      “This has been applied to the law enforcement setting where a police officer, after being in physical combat, is justified in using deadly force but then the circumstances change in front of him. An officer may neurologically be unable to stop firing until either the suspect is down or several seconds elapse.”

      Doesn’t that presume that the officer first began firing while under duress?

      While this phenomenon is quite real, it will have limited application to the specific circumstances of this case. There are significant time gaps that interrupt that neurological impulse.

      Like

  31. fearordepraved says:

    For the record, Slager did tell SLED investigators prior to the revealing of the video that he had retrieved the Taser and holstered it. He said he moved it because he was concerned that whoever was on the phone with Scott would come and take it. It’s stated under the paragraph titled “Community at Ease”. He also states that Scott had the Taser in his right hand, and that he believed that Scott must have dropped it as he ran away from him, before/as he started firing.

    He believed that Scott still had the Taser at the time of the shooting.

    http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150914/PC16/150919639/1005&source=RSS

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s