"Small people talk about people, average people talk about events, great people talk about ideas" Eleanor Roosevelt
Greatness lies not in being strong, but in the right use of strength - Henry Ward Beecher
Baby sister, I was born game and I intend to go out that way - Rooster Cogburn
After reading pretty much the entire thread (48 pages), watching the video at least 5 times, reading 3 different articles from three different sources concerning the shooting and now watching the dash-cam video of the initial routine traffic stop (see video below), I could find no concrete evidence to support claims that Officer Slager's life was in danger or any justification for Mr. Scott being shot to death. Here are the facts based on video footage (both on the scene of the shooting and during the traffic stop) and from information as reported by HuffingtonPost.com (see OP) and NYTimes.com:
- Mr. Walter Scott was stopped by Officer Slager on a routine traffic violation - a broken taillight.
- Mr. Scott did not have proper documentation (i.e., bill of sale, vehicle registration, proof of insurance) to prove that he had purchased the vehicle he was driving (a used Mercedes-Benz) or was in the process of purchasing the vehicle.
- Officer Slager was in the process of verifying Mr. Scott's ID when Mr. Scott fled from his vehicle on foot.
- During the foot chase, you can hear Officer Slager shout "Get on the ground," in the dash-cam video.
- From the original video that captures the shooting, you initially see Mr. Scott and Officer Slager standing calmly facing each other.
- It's barely audible, but if you listen closely around the 12-18 second mark, you can hear Officer Slager warn Mr. Scott, "If you [flee?] I will shoot you".
- Within seconds, Mr. Scott attempts to flee the scene for the second time. If you watch closely, you'll notice the tether wire from Officer Slager's stun gun extends between Mr. Scott and Officer Slagere as Mr. Scott is fleeing. This at least confirms that Officer Slager did discharge his stun gun during the initial chase.
- Ms. Scott tosses something on the ground prior to fleeing the second time. It's unclear if this was Officer Slager's stun gun as he alleges that Mr. Scott had taken it or if it's something else. (But let's go with it was Officer Slager's stun gun as it appears that the object Officer Slager retrieves and tosses next to Mr. Scott's body was in the shape of a "gun".)
- Officer Slager fires 8 rounds, 3 of which reportedly hits Mr. Scott in the back(side).
- Officer Slager neither attempts to pursue Mr. Scott as he attempts to flee the scene a second time, nor does he call for backup to inform other police in the area that he was pursuing his victim. He does, however, report that shots were fired after the fact.
- Officer Slager goes back to spot where he and Mr. Scott initially stopped and picks up whatever was dropped. He is filmed seconds later dropping the same item next to Mr. Scott's body (which he later retrieves after a second police officer comes onto the scene).
- Officer Slager makes no attempt to resuscitate Mr. Scott when it becomes clear the victim has become non-responsive. (You see Officer Slager check Mr. Scott at his neck for a pulse with two fingers on his left hand, but that's all he does as far as checking Mr. Scott for signs of life.)
1. If Mr. Scott had taken Officer Slager's taser as he alleges AND he believed his life was in danger, why didn't he cuff Mr. Scott immediately after he had initially stopped him?
2. If Mr. Scott had taken Officer Slager's taser, why didn't he retrieve it immediately after stopping him once the initial pursuit had ended?
It seems obvious to me that the above would have been the obvious things to do as a cop when a perp takes your weapon of any sort - you subdue him and retrieve your gear. Why was neither of these things done?
Regardless of why Mr. Scott ran, nothing on either video warranted him being shot. Mr. Scott did not appear to be a threat to Officer Slager. The fact that they are initially standing face-to-face AND Mr. Scott is not in handcuffs after the initial pursuit gives strong indication this was a non-violent, non-threatening situation.
IMO, Officer Slager was rightfully charged with murder.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 04-09-15 at 09:09 PM.
"A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground
So I was listening to XM radio, one of the political channels and they were talking about this. A vet from the Iraq war called in and said that the justification for shooting a potential combatant was stricter in some cases, than the police have when dealing with citizens. He said that towards the end of the war if a person was walking towards him with a weapon he would have to wait until the actual weapon was pointed at him, or shots fired before he could respond.
As a side note the Geneva convention calls for FMJ bullets in fields of battle, where police are allowed to use HP's on civilians. Again, some real bass aquards thinking....
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary (or faith) depends upon his not understanding it.”
‘This Is What People Said Ferguson Was’
Everyone is wrong except you it seems. Almost everybody clearly sees the officer committing homicide by shooting an unarmed and non dangerous man.
1. the victim was unarmed
2. he was not a danger to anybody whatsoever
I would assume you have not seen this video once or you would not be posting utter untruths about this case time and time again.
The man was at the moment of the first shot being fired, no danger whatsoever and to say otherwise is denying the reality of what is on that video.
Even Ben Carson the republican candidate realizes it, he is calling it an execution: " “It’s horrible to see an execution take place in the street like that.”
The boss of this police officer has called it sickening what his officer did to that poor man.
But I guess you are one of the few who sees it "like it is" and the rest of us is just talking nonsense Sorry, but you denials and distortions do not add up to a truthful story.
"This is not Ferguson. In Ferguson, there was a bona fide fight over the officer’s gun and the officer won the fight," Judge Nap said. "This is two disparate cases. This is a victim running away from the police, shot in the back. This is what some people said Ferguson was, but it turned out it wasn't."
When he was shot he was not resisting, he was not a danger to the officer or anybody else and his shooting is therefore a homicide.
the First Amendment gives everyone “the right to be very critical of a Petty, handicapped mocking, unbalanced, whiny so-called President and criticize him strongly.”