South Carolina policeman charged with murder

The day of the shooting, our pastor and some other people from our church were in that same neighborhood delivering donated food items to a shelter there. He said they didn't hear the gun shots but when they came outside they saw more police cars in one place than ever in their lives.
 
No registration, no insurance = more risk and should be detained in advance.
 
Yes, and the vehicle gets impounded for at least 30 days.

Foxrac said:
No registration, no insurance = more risk and should be detained in advance.
Click to expand...
 
whatdidyousay! said:
The cop shot the guy as he way running away from him so I can't see were the cop life was in danger.
Click to expand...

It's only partially about the cop's life. The cop also has to think about the lives of others. The guy fled the scene, twice, and once after a struggle. The cop doesn't know what he is dealing with and they have a physical confrontation. The cop has to make a decision on whether the guy is a threat to the public. That, is what will be argued in court.

They can change the law so that cop's must let the guy go, but where does that leave the public? Do we want to let someone who is potentially dangerous flee among the pubic? Where should we draw the line? This is not an easy question.

And, how do we fashion the law so that someone doesn't use it in a vindictive or racist manner?

Nothing about this case is simple.
 
In SC, if the car doesn't have insurance but the driver does, he's good to go. The car is impounded only if the driver doesn't have insurance.
 
POLICE VERSION
Police officer Michael Slager said in a statement earlier this week that his encounter with Walter Scott began at around 9.30am on Saturday.
He said he pulled Scott's Mercedes over as a routine traffic stop for a broken brake light.
He said Scott then ran away into a vacant grassy lot where, at some point during the chase, the victim confronts Slager.
The officer then tried to use his Taser to subdue Scott, but claims the suspect grabbed the stun gun during the struggle, according to the statement.
According to police reports, Slager fired the stun gun, but it did not stop Scott.
At that point, the officer fired at Scott several times because he 'felt threatened,' Slager's statement said.
He added that his actions were in line with procedure.
Police then said Slager reported on his radio moments after the struggle: 'Shots fired and the subject is down. He took my Taser.'
His department said the officers then performed CPR and delivered first aid to the victim.
WHAT THE VIDEO SHOWS
Slager's account has been called into question after the video appears to show him shooting Scott in the back.
The footage begins in the vacant lot apparently moments after Slager fires his Taser.
Wires which administer the electrical current appear to be extending from Scott's body.
As Scott turns to run, Slager draws his pistol and, only when he is 15 to 20 feet away, starts to fire the first of the eight shots at his back.
The video shows Slager handcuffing Scott's lifeless body.
Footage then appears to show Slager jogging back to the point where the Taser fell to the ground, bringing it over to Scott's body around 30 feet away and dropping it next to him.
It is only after two-and-a-half minutes that Slager is seen placing his hand on Scott's neck in an apparent attempt to check his pulse.
A black colleague then arrives and puts on blue medical gloves before handling the body, but is not seen performing first aid.
They are joined by a third officer, who also does not appear to tend to the victim.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-fellow-officers-actions.html#ixzz3WsIWdVD4
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Click to expand...

Who is twisting the story...PD or was it Media? I don't **** trust media at all.

Let's just wait until trial, and all evidence will come out.

What if judge do not want to include incident video, because the police officer was not informed that he's being filmed.......they can use that as loophole.
 
You guys can speculate on both the victim and the cops actions all you want, but the victim is dead and I don't think the cop is going to say much, so we will probably never know why Mr. Scott ran, all we will know is the cop shot him in the back and killed him.
 
authentic said:
Who is twisting the story...PD or was it Media? I don't **** trust media at all.

Let's just wait until trial, and all evidence will come out.

What if judge do not want to include incident video, because the police officer was not informed that he's being filmed.......they can use that as loophole.
Click to expand...
A person (including police) doesn't need to be informed of filming when it happens in public. There is no expectation of privacy in a public outdoor area.
 
Reba said:
The part where the two of them tussle is not on the dash cam video. It's on the very beginning of the other video taken by the witness.

I'm sorry there are no captions on this yet. I hope there will be a later version with captions.

When Slager goes up to Scott's driver-side window, he calmly asks for driver's license, insurance, and registration. He also explains that he pulled him over because the brake light was out. Scott says he doesn't have proof of insurance because he's in the process of buying the car. But he gives Slager his license. Slager goes back to his car to check the DL.

I wonder if the passenger in Scott's car witnessed the shooting? Don't know who it was, or what happened to that person after the shooting.

I noticed in the background of the video a couple of people running by, and a car driving by. I wonder if any of those people saw anything? That's a busy area, so there might be more witnesses.
Click to expand...


Well, I know for a fact that a dealer will not let you drive off the lot without proof of insurance. He also does not have a temporary plate on his vehicle.

He didn't have insurance. He didn't bother to get insurance. He wasn't in the middle of buying that car. And .... the Officer knew all this when Walter told him.
 
Reba said:
A person (including police) doesn't need to be informed of filming when it happens in public. There is no expectation of privacy in a public outdoor area.
Click to expand...

yes. the courts have ruled that it is perfectly legal.
 
seb said:
You guys can speculate on both the victim and the cops actions all you want, but the victim is dead and I don't think the cop is going to say much, so we will probably never know why Mr. Scott ran, all we will know is the cop shot him in the back and killed him.
Click to expand...

Nobody is doubting the outcome does not fit the crime. The questions have always been and shall always be, "is it legal" and "should it be legal". Should the police have that much power?

In both of THESE cases, Ferguson and NC, the outcome is complicated by the actions of the victim. Any person, regardless of race, who gets into that type of altercation with a police officer is going to get shot.

If you take another case, like the gas station shooting in SC:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/justice/south-carolina-trooper-shooting/

It is VERY clear that the cop was in the wrong. Thankfully, nobody died. And, actions were taken in that case against the police officer. Nobody doubts the guy was mistreated and that the officer acted unlawfully, there is no proof the guy was a threat to the public.
 
I found out that the person in the car with Scott was a guy. I saw a longer version of the dash cam that showed him being frisked by the cops after he had been taken out of the car. He was a fairly big guy. They didn't name him yet, or say what he told them.
 
Reba said:
I found out that the person in the car with Scott was a guy. I saw a longer version of the dash cam that showed him being frisked by the cops after he had been taken out of the car. He was a fairly big guy. They didn't name him yet, or say what he told them.
Click to expand...

Well...good thing he didn't run also...so maybe he'll be truthful telling his version of it all.
 
Steinhauer said:
Well, I know for a fact that a dealer will not let you drive off the lot without proof of insurance. He also does not have a temporary plate on his vehicle.

He didn't have insurance. He didn't bother to get insurance. He wasn't in the middle of buying that car. And .... the Officer knew all this when Walter told him.
Click to expand...
No one said that the car was from a dealership. It could be a private sale.
 
Reba said:
No one said that the car was from a dealership. It could be a private sale.
Click to expand...

Then I'm guessing he would most likely be in the car with the owner if he was, "in the process of buying it". Although, some dealers would let you take the car, I wonder if they would let you take a car with a broken tail light. I guess if you can see a dealer plate that would tell you. But, I'm not sure a private sale would let you take the car.

It's interesting someone is buying a Mercedes with 19K is child support debt. But hey, there's a lot more wrong with this situation than just economics.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
It's only partially about the cop's life. The cop also has to think about the lives of others. The guy fled the scene, twice, and once after a struggle. The cop doesn't know what he is dealing with and they have a physical confrontation. The cop has to make a decision on whether the guy is a threat to the public. That, is what will be argued in court.

They can change the law so that cop's must let the guy go, but where does that leave the public? Do we want to let someone who is potentially dangerous flee among the pubic? Where should we draw the line? This is not an easy question.

And, how do we fashion the law so that someone doesn't use it in a vindictive or racist manner?

Nothing about this case is simple.
Click to expand...

I feel the cop over reacted by shooting the guy 5 times in the back and personally I would be more concerned about having that cop lose on the street !

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-michael-slager/ he had a complain filed against him in the past .
 
VacationGuy234 said:
Then I'm guessing he would most likely be in the car with the owner if he was, "in the process of buying it". Although, some dealers would let you take the car, I wonder if they would let you take a car with a broken tail light. I guess if you can see a dealer plate that would tell you. But, I'm not sure a private sale would let you take the car.

It's interesting someone is buying a Mercedes with 19K is child support debt. But hey, there's a lot more wrong with this situation than just economics.
Click to expand...

having no insurance paper is not an issue in here. it is the warrant for his arrest for failing to pay for child support.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
Then I'm guessing he would most likely be in the car with the owner if he was, "in the process of buying it". Although, some dealers would let you take the car, I wonder if they would let you take a car with a broken tail light. I guess if you can see a dealer plate that would tell you. But, I'm not sure a private sale would let you take the car.

It's interesting someone is buying a Mercedes with 19K is child support debt. But hey, there's a lot more wrong with this situation than just economics.
Click to expand...
If it's a deal between friends or family members it could be handled very casually. It happens all the time.
 
I don't think it was about the child support warrant for Mr. Scott. I think he might have decided that he was going to find a place probably a restroom or something he saw that he needed to talk to someone closer to the site. He did not felt like trying to explained to the officer about it. He had a reason to run away for something. It would be good to know if the guy in the car can explained what Mr. Scott was running from.

You can not jump to conclusion every time you think he might try to run away from something for a reason. A lot of people in cars, even on sidewalk like the old man had to deal with police officers's attitudes.

That is my observation on what I think might have happened. Beside, I could not believe that the police officer, Slagg, would covered up his evidences. He damaged the evidences but the video proof him otherwise. So it is good that Slagg was charged with murder the unarmed man, just because he was black and was running away from him for a reason. May Mr. Scott rest in peace. My condolence to his family and friends. :(
 
Back
Top