More twists in the Walter Scott shooting case

Citizen said:

Good points.

Plus, I think you just touched on something very big--departments are usually quick to release information supporting their cops. The absence of the information you're pointing out is devastating to Slager. Being fired was bad enough; but, the absence of the supporting information...oh, boy, is that bad. Really bad.

Click to expand...

Not only SLED, his department, the union, but his own attorney dumped him. I think this guy sends chills down just about everybody's spine.

BB62 said:

I disagree. More information is better than less.

Slager has a great deal to explain, and may not ultimately be able to justify his actions, but there is more to the incident than the video, and various parties are already playing games with selective information release.

Click to expand...

Yes, I just found out today the Scott had picked his nose, he certainly deserved it...

WalkingWolf said:

That is why they yell taser, taser, taser, before deploying the taser so the person about to be tasered will know it is not a firearm. .

Click to expand...

No is more for the other LEOs so they know what is going on.

WalkingWolf said:

That is why they yell taser, taser, taser, before deploying the taser so the person about to be tasered will know it is not a firearm.

Click to expand...

This plays into a larger question I have had for several years. Frankly, it kinda scares the crap out of me--you'll see what I mean in a moment.

How does a citizen's specialized knowledge play into things?

Lemme give you some examples of what I mean by specialized knowledge:

The Four Rules of Firearm Safety.
Police academy training on firearm safety.
Videos showing police yelling "stop resisting" at an arrestee who clearly is not resisting.
A couple videos, and plenty of articles where a cop mistakenly fired his pistol when he/she meant to use their taser.
Lethal force training in the military; self-education on justified lethal force (video, books, etc.)

I don't mean for that to be an exhaustive list; just some stuff I thunk up off the top of my head.

Now, lets say that because of my military guard-duty training on batons, lethal force, and baton strikes above the shoulders, and self-education on justified lethal force (Mas Ayoob on this point, if I recall), I know that a bludgeon or baton strike to the head can cause grave bodily injury or death. Now, one day I see a cop beating the stuffing out of someone with a baton--I see the whole thing from inception, enough to know the whole story as to whether lethal force by the cop is justified--and I see those baton strikes move from torso to head. Now, what do I do? Shoot the cop? Draw and command he stop, and risk getting shot by his colleagues? Or, shot by him when he turns and sees my gun at low ready?

Now, lets say I see a cop point a gun at someone, but his finger is inside the trigger guard? I know danged good and well they got trained on the Four Rules in the academy. Just per the Four Rules, his finger inside the trigger guard means that cop is about to fire that gun. If I know to a dead moral certainty the detainee/arrestee has done nothing to justify receiving lethal force, what do I do? Shoot the cop? Yell, "finger!!" like an IDPA match? Or, "get your finger out the trigger guard!" Do I get arrested for interfering?

So, turning back to your comment about "taser, taser, taser!!" Given the number of accidents where the cop used his pistol by mistake, and the number of times I've seen cops yell "stop resisting" for the benefit of witnesses when the detainee/arrestee was clearly not resisting, the last thing I'm going to do is actually take the cops' word for it that he is only going to use his taser. I have to assume there is a reasonable chance I am about to be shot. Of course, in this case, if the warning is being yelled at me, compliance with orders is the simplest and most survivable solution. But, what about somebody else? I guess there isn't really much I can do except hope and pray the cop grabs the right tool.

Lets assume for the moment that Scott was murdered. What if I witnessed Slager drawing and launching lead at Scott? Stand around and let an innocent guy be murdered?

None of the above paragraphs leaves me with a warm, confident feeling about outcomes. And, that's just the immediate outcomes; that is before considering the longer-term legal outcomes. Now you know what I mean by "scares the crap out of me."


ETA: Question answered. See posts #27 and #29 below.

WalkingWolf said:

Yes, I just found out today the Scott had picked his nose, he certainly deserved it...

Click to expand...

But, which hand? Unless the indictment specifies which hand was used, it is legally void, no?*


(*Channeling a judge that Abraham Lincoln knew as a very strict judge. Using rhetorical exaggeration to make his point, Lincoln reported that judge would hang a man for blowing his nose in public if the law said so; but, would quash the indictment if it failed to specify which hand was used to do the nose-blowing. When you think about it, its actually a pretty good standard. If someone witnessed him blowing his nose in public, they would necessarily have to have seen which hand was used. The absence of that information would tend pretty strongly to suggest there is something wrong the state's case or the witness statements, etc.

Another example of strict logic by judges comes from the ancient Hebrew courts, the Sanhedrin. They used an example to educate witnesses about clear thinking. They said to suppose you saw one man with a sword chasing another. The fleeing man, unarmed, runs into a house, followed by the one with the sword. You follow into the home in time to see the fleeing man dying of a stab wound, the pursuer standing over him holding a bloody sword. According to the Sanhedrin, you saw nothing. The lesson being to distinguish what you saw from what you concluded.)

We may not, under any circumstance, interfere with a cop acting in the course of his official duties. Be a good witness. Your life depends on it. Be very cognizant of the possibility that you coming to the aid of a cop may be the last good thing you ever do. Be a good witness is likely the key to your survival.

1) The old feller down in TX that took the long pistol shot to save a cop almost got taken out by responding cops until the the cop he saved intervened. What if that cop had been incapacitated? Could not speak then or were dead? One dead hero. 2) That WA fella shot by nitwit cops because he called in a suspicious car while a BG was being pursued. 3) Then there is the Dorner "incident."

We have one who he will not intervene on behalf of a citizen having his rights violated, in his presence, by a fellow cop, and may intervene if that citizen is under threat of bodily harm, qualifiers for that intervention exist, a wee beat-down vs. near death experience. Who knows where the line in the sand is.

Me? I will find myself being 110% compliant with a cop and hope that I survive that encounter.

Unfortunately, and in my view, no cop will be seen "in the heat of the moment" as the unjustified aggressor...ever! A thorough investigation will need to be performed to be sure that the cop can be absolved of any wrong doing...until the facts cannot support the default narrative that the cop was doing his job properly. This incident is the very very rare exception to the rule that cops are only reacting to a aggressive/non-compliant perp.

OC for ME said:

We may not..(the whole post).

Click to expand...

I guess that really answers it. The situation today makes it just too dangerous to intervene, forcing the self-preservation default setting. Mothers or husbands, maybe; otherwise, be a good witness.

OC for ME said:

...Be very cognizant of the possibility that you coming to the aid of a cop may be the last good thing you ever do...

Click to expand...

It may also be the least good thing you ever do.

Nightmare said:

I suspect R. A. Heinlein's 'Fair Witnesses' would also be as discriminating. Fair Witnesses developed in Stranger in a Strange Land.

Click to expand...

Wow. That takes me back. Hadn't thought of Fair Witnesses in years. I didn't care much for the story. I didn't dislike it; it just didn't hold my interest much. But, I did think the concept of a Fair Witness was pretty cool.

I was listening to the audio of the stop, and the officer yells "taser,taser,taser" well before he says "get on the ground". Shame we don't have video covering that, but it appears the taser was deployed before the struggle. If Slager was trying to cuff him while tasering him alone, he would have encountered a person flailing, and incapable of knowingly reaching for a taser. By taking the only eye witness report it seems the wires got pulled lose and entangled in the struggle. I do not believe after being tased, with the considerable evidence of lack of motor functions, on strong, healthy men/women Scott could have taken the taser. I think Scott just wanted to get away, and had enough motor ability for his legs to work, he was not even running fast, unlike when he ran from the car.

I at first thought Slagers actions were due to anger, now I am not so sure considering his lying, and his laughter after the event. IMO he is a cold blooded killer.

WalkingWolf said:

I was listening to the audio of the stop, and the officer yells "taser,taser,taser" well before he says "get on the ground". Shame we don't have video covering that, but it appears the taser was deployed before the struggle. If Slager was trying to cuff him while tasering him alone, he would have encountered a person flailing, and incapable of knowingly reaching for a taser. By taking the only eye witness report it seems the wires got pulled lose and entangled in the struggle. I do not believe after being tased, with the considerable evidence of lack of motor functions, on strong, healthy men/women Scott could have taken the taser. I think Scott just wanted to get away, and had enough motor ability for his legs to work, he was not even running fast, unlike when he ran from the car.

I at first thought Slagers actions were due to anger, now I am not so sure considering his lying, and his laughter after the event. IMO he is a cold blooded killer.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you.

from stop to shots there is no continuous record of the entire incident, that break in video may be the key to absolving the cop of any criminal wrong doing. There was a potential witness in the Benz. then the videographer there is. There is no guarantee that severe criminal sanctions will be imposed. The benefit of the doubt must go to a defendant, and in this case, the defendant is a cop as well. Cops get the benefit of the doubt by the great unwashed masses.

...reality...rears its ugly head...or will...no?

OC for ME said:

...The benefit of the doubt must go to a defendant, and in this case, the defendant is a cop as well. Cops get the benefit of the doubt by the great unwashed masses.

...reality...rears its ugly head...or will...no?

Click to expand...

Wait. I thought they got held to a higher standard?

OC for ME said:

from stop to shots there is no continuous record of the entire incident, that break in video may be the key to absolving the cop of any criminal wrong doing. There was a potential witness in the Benz. then the videographer there is. There is no guarantee that severe criminal sanctions will be imposed. The benefit of the doubt must go to a defendant, and in this case, the defendant is a cop as well. Cops get the benefit of the doubt by the great unwashed masses.

...reality...rears its ugly head...or will...no?

Click to expand...

There is continuous audio of the entire incident, even him talking on the phone. He may get off, but his chances are slimmer than most. There is only one eyewitness to the scuffle and shooting, and that eyewitness does not give him a lot of hope. Unlike the eyewitnesses in the Zimmerman case who destroyed the states case, and GZ did not have to take the stand. The only witness for Slager, is Slager, and he was caught on video planting evidence, shown that his statement contained outright lies. One of things that destroys his credibility, is that he is not drawing his gun until Scott is already a safe distance away. Unlike Wilson who drew his gun during the struggle.

Time will tell, but this case may go the distance.

It will certainly be interesting to follow as the case proceeds and more information becomes available. Given the national mood I'm not sure we can even say that the prosecutor bringing charges quickly is indicative of much of anything at this point. Perhaps I am too measured in these things sometimes. It certainly seems there is more to this story than we know but whether it is condemning or exculpatory is to be seen.

deepdiver said:

...It certainly seems there is more to this story than we know but whether it is condemning or exculpatory is to be seen.

Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly. Clearly neither of us would be a member of a lynch mob.

Slager's got LOTS of explaining to do, IMHO.

As a matter of interest, there could be lots of digging into Scott's passenger and the fellow who "sold" him the car, too.

I agree 100% about never interfering. However it's amusing to see the media condemn in general people around a cop struggling with a perp that do not help the cop.

The other thing is benefit of the doubt. It's not always so clear. If you take a life (of course various state laws wordings come into play) there usually needs to be some kind of proof it was self defense. If someone walks up to another person and shoots them dead then claims they were afraid for their life because the person aggressive came at them to attack I doubt they will be given benefit of the doubt without some evidence.

Cops will be the first people to tell you that tasers are a bunch of things, but not deadly weapons.

In any event, I don't care if he tased the guy half a dozen times. He wasn't tasing anybody when he was shot.

marshaul said:

Cops will be the first people to tell you that tasers are a bunch of things, but not deadly weapons.

In any event, I don't care if he tased the guy half a dozen times. He wasn't tasing anybody when he was shot.

Click to expand...

But he may have somehow tazed someone else had he gotten away! Those people needed to be protected! What if the guy had turned around to "bum rush him like Mike Brown!"

Site called "The Conservative Treehouse" Says "Game changer or paradigm shift, Walter Scott shooting enhanced video shows officer Slager with taser darts

This is some serious eye-rolling stuff right here... And no, I'm not going to go to a website called The Conservative Treehouse...

So much for the idea that he might not get sufficient legal defense due to a fundraiser being pulled from the web - these are some impressively manufactured justifications and explanations here.