Total Pageviews

Thursday, April 9, 2015

// WALTER SCOTT // POLICE OFFICER MICHAEL SLAGER // The Officer, Michael Slager, Was Charged With Murder //

         " ONE QUESTION THOUGH "

 " Can someone please explain to me why everyone gets very upset about a shooting death of a black male by a white police officer " BUT " no one gives two cents that there is a killing or shooting in the low-country just about everyday??? I’m not saying they officer is justified at all but why do people only care and protest when this is the scenario? Seems like If Lives Matter then All Lives Matter regardless of who was doing the Shooting. Please Have Riots and Uproars to Help Stop the Daily Violence so I can Rest a Little Easier that Neither my Family nor I will be Shot while Traveling or Going to the Mall. Anyone??? "  AMEN  !!!!!!!

------------------------------------------------

 The Death of Walter Scott is tragic and was caused by a chain of bad decisions made by all involved. Unfortunately, it also gives the Black Hustlers exactly what they have been trying to get by lying about events in other cases – a dead black man with empty hands shot in the back by a police officer.
 Based on Evidence can be aggravating to some of our readers and irritant to the media trying to set the narrative, but that analysis is infinitely better than hysterical comments based on rage, racism, ignorance and misinformation provided by the media. We have already told you our belief the officer made a terrible decision to shoot at Scott when he was actively fleeing. That does not matter to some of you. The fact that we have to weigh in to counter outright lies means we are racist by default to some who can’t think for themselves. No worries. We are accustomed to their irrational behavior.
 The contention the Officer Planted Evidence, to wit, the Taser. Immediately after handcuffing Scott the officer trots back and picks up the Taser from the spot where it fell, or was dropped, as Scott turned to flee. Some have argued he may not have had actual possession, but slapped it out of the officer’s hand instead. After reviewing the video we find that is a possibility. Just before the video first catches Scott and the officer we believe we hear what could be the Taser hitting the hard packed dirt or concrete they are on. Or it could be the person recording stepping on a stick.
 The photo below you can see the Taser between Scott’s feet as he breaks contact with the officer and turns to flee again.



ScreenHunter_3541 Apr. 07 19.13



Another still showing the Taser on the ground.



ScreenHunter_3543 Apr. 07 19.14



Immediately after handcuffing Scott the officer moves to recover the Taser. He walks back to Scott and appears to drop the Taser on the ground at about 1:35, resulting in memes like this.



ScreenHunter_3563 Apr. 08 07.27


Here is a clearer shot.


ScreenHunter_3564 Apr. 08 07.33


What the media fails to show you are the images of the officer picking up and holstering the Taser at about the 2:00 minute mark.


ScreenHunter_3559 Apr. 08 07.24ScreenHunter_3560 Apr. 08 07.24ScreenHunter_3561 Apr. 08 07.25ScreenHunter_3562 Apr. 08 07.25



 Video shows the officer shooting a fleeing suspect in the back and the absence of the required ability, opportunity and jeopardy at the moment the shots were fired, but it also shows there was no planted evidence. We suspect the SLED report will show the same thing.
Some are commenting about the officer going back to the recover the Taser instead of attempting to render aid. All we can say to that is, try chasing, fighting, then shooting a fleeing suspect and see what state you are in immediately after. Contrary to what most armchair police experts believe, these incidents are traumatic for the officer as well and shock sets in immediately. Once again, we are not excusing the terrible decision to shoot a fleeing suspect, just giving you the truth the media will fail to provide.
 A News report today in which David Aylor indicates he no longer represents the officer. There is a lot of speculation about that and what it says about the case, so we will lay out some of the possibilities.
1) The officer hired Aylor of his own accord after the shooting and has simply chosen to have another attorney represent him now.
2) Aylor could have decided the case was such a loser and public relations disaster he no longer wanted any part of it. To be honest, we would be disappointed in any attorney who ended his representation of any client for this reason.
3) Aylor may have discovered he had a conflict of interest such as formerly representing a member of Scott’s family.
4) We can’t say for sure, but if the officer is a member of the Fraternal Order of Police or Police Benevolent Association he may have been provided an attorney immediately after the shooting. We don’t know if Aylor is one of the attorneys used by the FOP or the PBA. If he is, the organization who provided his services as part of their membership plan may have pulled their support for the officer after criminal charges were filed. If so, he would now be responsible for paying for his own attorney.
5) Some are claiming Aylor stepped away from the case because the officer lied about the shooting and lied to him.
We find number five quite interesting because those making that allegation have no access yet to any of the official statements given to investigators by the officer. We all know if you get your lies and misrepresentations out there early enough in the game they will be repeated so often they will stick in the minds of the uninformed in spite of what the evidence later shows.
So far, all we know about what the officer said is what has been released to the media. He is said to have claimed:
1) He conducted a traffic stop.
2) The driver fled and a foot pursuit ensued.
3) There was a struggle involving the Taser and the officer was relieved of that Taser during the struggle.
4) The officer subsequently shot the suspect.
Those basic facts have been proven by the video to be true. Any claims that the officer lied in his statement are just that – claims with no basis in the evidence currently available to the press or the public. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. Only when the final SLED report is released will we know for sure what the officer told investigators.

Now, let’s deal with the bullshit claims that without the video nothing would have been done. Those claims are coming from the usual suspects, of course. They choose to overlook the evidence one finds in something called a “forensic investigation”. Yes, that is correct. The same type of forensic investigation which showed the witnesses in Ferguson were lying would have revealed serious issues with this shooting.
First, a forensic autopsy would have shown the entrance wounds in Scott’s back and an analysis of those wounds would have shown those shots were fired from a distance. The evidence would have shown Scott was running away from the officer and no shots were fired during an actual struggle. As we mentioned before, we are told Investigators had Issues with this Case Right from the Start. The video made it much easier for them to make their case. It is too bad the video was not shown or provided to SLED investigators while they were actually 0n-scene. Due to the three days it took for the video to be made available to authorities the usual suspects with no idea of how an actual criminal investigation works are now making their usual unfounded claims of improprieties on the part of the police.
Their claims of “they would have covered it up” are baseless and irresponsible, but we all know what their end game is. Sit back and watch in the coming days as the hustlers and the media try desperately to make this case about race. They don’t care that their efforts will actually cause some to discount the loss of Scott’s life and the violation of established law and police policies and procedures that contributed to it.
Notice we said “contributed to it”, because that is the truth. As much as certain people try to avoid reality, Scott’s poor decision making also contributed to his death. His bad decision to run from and struggle with a police officer was compounded by the officer’s poor decision to shoot him in the back as he fled. If you are going to assign blame honestly you cannot deny both are responsible for Scott’s death. The only real decision any person has to make for themselves is what percentage goes where.

  Charleston Thug Life Wrote This Story !! see below link :

  /http://charlestonthuglife.net/2015/04/new-developments-2/
    • It really is quite simple. I do not believe that the investigation WHEN COMPLETED will find that up until the moment in time the first round was fired, the officer was 100% in the right. They will find that Scott started off in the wrong {taillight, child support warrant} and compounded it by resisting arrest/fleeing. Until the first round was fired, Scott was 100% in the wrong.
      Sometimes your choices have unforeseen consequences. Doesnt make the cop any more or less wrong for his choices, but certainly makes Scott’s choices more tragic.
      He valued his immediate freedom more than he valued the debt he owed his children. He valued his immediate freedom more than his Mercedes, unless he thought it would still be there when he came back. He valued his immediate freedom more than the eventual loss of freedom he was likely to suffer because of fleeing/resisting arrest. Pursuing that immediate freedom, he put himself in a situation where someone else had to make a choice.
      The first and possibly subsequent choices were made by Scott, and they were wrong. The last choice was made by the officer, and it was wrong.
      If Scott decided to sit in his car, get his taillight ticket and calmly be arrested for not paying his just debts to his children, do you think things would have ended the same?
  1. It is refreshing to see a critical analysis of the whole situation. They were both wrong, and the officer made the worst decision. If he would not have been arrested before the video was shared, he would have been arrested after an autopsy, as you are right the forensics would not have matched. Ferguson was based upon lies, and the forensics showed that, as they will prove it in this case. I feel for the families of both the officer and the man killed, as they have to suffer due to both’s actions.
    • You said it best with that last sentence.
  2. Seems some of the articles on here lately have taken a turn. I used to be with you guys on must subjects, but clearly you old LEO’s are taking sides. I’m not impressed CTL, youre about to lose some followers after this. Wrong is wrong, no justifications.



  3. Are you serious about ascribing a percentage of the blame to Scott for the officer’s action of shooting him in the back??? There is NO justification in this situation for the PO to shoot him, no matter what happened prior to the struggle. There was no subsequent action after the struggle over the taser other than to unholster his gun and shoot until Scott fell down. No attempt to chase and apprehend, no radio call to report him fleeing, only an attempt to shoot center mass. If it was ONLY a broken taillight, he could have let him run and then meet Scott on his door step in an hour or so because he had the vehicle information, all he needed to do was call for backup and go to Scott’s address. Just let him run and add the charge of resisting arrest and fleeing. The PO had several choices he could have made, AND he is TRAINED to QUICKLY assess the situation and MAKE THOSE CHOICES in order of importance… Shooting the victim is not 1st in importance, otherwise, the charge against the PO would probably be something different…
    Scott precipitated the entire series of events by running and resisting. Had he stayed in his car and taken his ticket, or did his day in jail on the outstanding bench warrant, he would be alive. So, yes, he bears some of the blame. Facts cannot be ignored just because you don’t like them or because the officer screwed up at the end of the encounter.
  4. Dude, you’re truly are a complete moron. If there was no video, you wouldn’t have laryngitis from all this grand standing defending a guilty murder.


  5. In the “That didn’t last long” post you anonymously chided race hustlers who “make false accusations and imply wrongdoing on the part of police for weeks before any serious effort is made to counter their BS.”
    “By then,” you wrote, “law enforcement has lost the battle and a segment of the population steadfastly believes the propaganda spread by those with a cash-driven agenda.”
    But in the killing of Scott law enforcement already has lost the battle – and the benefit of the doubt. And it’s all because of the video, which you are foolishly – and transparently – trying to marginalize by arguing that regardless of the footage Slager would have been charged based on the outcome of the pending SLED investigation.
    How do you know that? You don’t. There is no way you could. You’re chest thumping atop a flimsy box constructed of speculation. These are the apparent facts at the moment: The video changed the narrative. The video worked like a cold shower of truth, not the system. And you were wrong to jump the gun and spout off without having all the facts.
    You’re just as bad as the race hustlers you loathe. Maybe worse.
    So long CTL.
    • See ya! Feel free to stop in whenever you feel like the logic and rational thought won’t give you a headache.
      Apparently you can’t make the connection the first article you reference was written well before the revelation presented by the video. You criticize us for saying the forensic evidence would have (and did) cause investigators to question the initial story. How do we know that? I suppose in the same manner you “know” they wouldn’t have. Pot, meet kettle. We did not marginalize the video. The video facilitated the charging of the officer more quickly than normal.
      And yes, our comments about the race hustlers still stand. “No justice no peace”. Yeah, well, justice is being served as we speak. We suppose everyone forget the officer is currently in jail and the long, slow march toward justice has begun.
  6. Get Ready…
  7. I appreciate the reply. But wow… The only thing that gives me a headache on this site is your poor grammar (which I’d tried to ignore before today) and miserable reading comprehension. I’m not sure what you’re attempting to convey in the gibberish quoted above, but I’ll try to explain this to you once more: The so-called “article” you wrote before the video “revelation” was irresponsible. You did not have all the facts. Period.
    Now I want you to read my previous post again. Go slower this time. Did I make any prediction about the outcome of the SLED investigation, as you assert in your response? Nope. Yet another example of you getting it wrong.
    • Gee, are you sending that same message to the local media? Have you set it to the New York Times, TMZ, Inside Edition or any of the other national outlets perpetuating the fraudulent narrative of planted evidence? Bet you didn’t.
      You make the assumption the officer would not have been charged without the video. You make that assumption without having all the facts or even the luxury of a completed investigation.
      Don’t go away mad, just go away.
  8. People should realize this site is run by north charleston cops. Chief you blast Berkeley county every chance you get and now you put some of the blame on mr. Scott. That man was running and no longer a threat to the officer. He flat out murdered that man. I do agree with you on the race hustler and I do believe this incident does not reflect the entire north charleston police department. But your biased post is so evident. Maybe people will soon realize what group is actually behind CTL
    • As usual Donnie, you show your ignorance. We pointed out the officer was wrong and should have been charged. Just because it fits your agenda to ignore it does not change that fact. Crawl back into your corrupt Berkeley County hole.
    • Now that’s the Donnie we’ve all come to love and enjoy! Welcome back. Good to see you’re taking a tragic incident and turning it in to your own personal vendetta against someone that would shoo you out the door if he is elected. I wish that I was there because it must be awesome to see someone talking out of both sides of his ass like you do. First it’s CTL baselessly bashing your Agency, then you want everyone to know about the interim Sheriff finally showing up for work now, but he never used to because he was using employees to do his fish frys. Are you really bashing the interim Sheriff hoping he doesn’t realize it’s his cyber guy doing it, or is he in on it and telling you to do it to help out Ollic since he’s only there for a short time? Maybe I’ll be back one day and know for sure once the Feds do an audit on your computer, but for right now I don’t care, just let the Scott family and the officers family deal with their stuff instead of turning this into your own personal Ollic bandwagon.
  9. Thanks for posting a different perspective on this story. Too many are blinded by race to see this is a very wrongful death where the victim is black and shooter is a white cop.
  10. In this terrible situation there are two wrongs. Yes both parties were wrong. Scott for resisting arrest and the officer for firing at a fleeing suspect. Mr. Scott has received his punishment and the officer will receive his. Will it be equal? No, because two wrong don’t make it right.
  11. Sorry, just don’t care anymore.
     April 8, 2015
  12. If u don’t want to be in an altercation with police, don’t run! Maybe if the NAACP and good ole Al would like to stop “profiling” they would go to their own “hoods” and stop these innocent black men from selling dope? Not many people look for dope in the golf course community but every city in America has dope in the “hood”! Not my neighborhood because WE the law abiding citizens DO NOT allow that type behavior around our homes. It’s time to either shit or get of the damn pitty pot! For all you ignorant, common senseless and monthly check recipients- clean up your own back yard or quit paying Al’s mortgage!!
  13. Been discussing this at work I googled ” fleeing felon ” I feel like the officer might have been justified in his actions under commannlaw
    • If I recall correctly, The Supreme Court ruled (and outlawed) on Police Officers firing on fleeing felons back in the mid 80’s. However, based on that fleeing suspect on James Island a few years ago, if this Officer had been a civilian, I wonder if he would have had as much of an issue.
      If you don’t recall the case, a civilian fired upon a guy fleeing the scene where guy stole his stereo. At that time it was ruled justifiable, because he was attempting to render a civilian arrest.
      I don’t know if the lack of prosecution came from the Solicitor, or if the Charleston Sheriff’s Office made that determination.
      I agree with Chief, however. It should not have happened and it would not have happened if the guy didn’t assault and run. The commenters who “will never darken this site again” seem to be fixated on the idea that this Cop was looking for someone to shoot. Apparently that is all they are seeing. It all goes back to “feelings”. They feel outraged and that’s what they are knee-jerking on. Liberals. No analysis of anything, just react with base instinct.
    • Two scenarios in which an officer is allowed to use deadly force on a fleeing felon:
      (1) When he reasonably believes the felon poses a threat of bodily harm to fhe cop, or
      (2) when he reasonably believes the the fleeing felon poses a threat to others.
      For several reasons, the shooting does not seem legal under the common law.
      1) Walter Scott was not a felon.
      2) Walter Scotf appears 15-20ft from the officer, and was running even further, making it evident that he posed no threat to the officer
      3) Accordig to the man who shot the video, he was the only other civilian around. The video shows no sign of others. Walter Scott is unarmed. These alleged facts provide no support that he posed a threat to others either.
      I’m not sure why your legal analysis brought you to the opposite conclusion.
  14.  April 8, 2015
  15. Chief your an idiot. Just because a man runs from police doesn’t in no way put blame on him for being shot. There was no threat to that officer when that man was running with his back to that officer. If it was your child or anybody’s child that got shot in the back running from a police officer yall would feel different. There is no shared blame for him getting shot. He fired 8 times at that man. However I don’t expect anything less from this site.
    • You are a moron, Donnie. Face it. He would still be alive if he hadn’t run. As I said, the officer was wrong and will pay for actions. Scott was also wrong. You can misrepresent the facts as much you want – you do it all the time. We don’t expect anything more from you.
  16. Chief your next, your identity can’t be hide forever
    • LoL. Pushing the stereotype button is hard not to do, isn’t it?
  17. According to the law, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5843997099226288287&q=+471+U.S.+1&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5, which apparently most police and white people in this country are unaware of, you have the right to run without being shot, unless you have a bomb, are shooting at the police or running at people with a weapon in hand. Otherwise according to the law, which is a federal law now, the police are to pursue on foot or in vehicle and/or call for backup whichever they chose, and apprehend the suspect alive, let me say that loud and clear ALIVE…..there was no threat, this man was not a wanted felon such as a murderer, he had NO weapon, he posed NO THREAT. In fact, this cop had no reason to tase him, not one. Over a busted tail,light? pfft foh with that bs. Whatever makes you boarderline racist feel better to get to sleep at night because you really don’t feel bad that a black person died…cause you know you don’t feel they’re human or close to being as important as you are anyways. Hence the title of this crappy webpage. There’s always an excuse with you people, always. This was cold blooded racist murder period. Anytime they can talk to a white man with a loaded gun pointed at them for almost 3 hours and not shoot or tase him but shoot a kid under 5 seconds without getting out of the vehicle and then shoot this man in the back after tasing him over a busted tail light and then planting evidence and then lying on the report that he “feared for his life” hahahah…I wish my ancestors had not helped you all when you first landed! They messed up….look what people like you and this cop did to us and black people. And are still doing and then denying and telling black people to stop being racist and bringing up race. Huh? You’re the ones who are doing the killing and the racist things….how are black people supposed to stop being racist when they’re not the ones bringing racism to this country? How the hell are you people angry with black people when racist kill them, call them thugs, stereotype them, and treat them worse than dogs? You aren’t any smarter or better than black people just because of the color of your skin, I’ve met plenty of dumb white people, coming onto reservations with the “oh my great great great great grandpas uncles cousins sister was Native” hahahaha…..stfu! You’re white! Stop trying to be relevant with my people! We don’t want you! There are good white people but not on this site! And no “common law” was not a proper justification, maybe read a little further than the first line of the search engine! The cop has to be in DANGER of losing life or limb….there is no leeway in that definition, none, absolute….he is not allowed to be judge and executioner, once the suspect flees or surrenders without threat, the officer is to apprehend. A p p r e h e n d……….apprehend apprehend apprehend….and just so you can understand what that means, Google the definition…
    • So, you’ve found the pinnacle case on the issue. Congratulations. Unfortunately, I disagree with your analysis of the case law and the LIMITED available facts. So much so, in fact, that I am posting for the very first time (and this is after years of visiting the site and reading the comments).
      Before delving in to my opinion, I would like to emphasize that I will not be responding to your racial diatribe. I will respond to the legal analysis that you present; the law is the same regardless of race.
      Let’s consider your opening two sentences in conjunction with a one sentence excerpt from Henry v. Purnell, which was decided by the 4th Circuit (which would also review a case pursued under § 1983 on behalf of Scott). See Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524 (4th Cir. 2011).
      This case applies the holding from Tennessee v. Garner. Although the facts of this case are not the same as the LIMITED published facts surrounding the incident involving Mr. Scott, it does offer a great example of the rules that the court would likely apply.
      You Said:
      According to the law, (sic), which apparently most police and white people in this country are unaware of, you have the right to run without being shot, unless you have a bomb, are shooting at the police or running at people with a weapon in hand. Otherwise according to the law, which is a federal law now, the police are to pursue on foot or in vehicle and/or call for backup whichever they chose, and apprehend the suspect alive, let me say that loud and clear ALIVE….
      Henry v. Purnell said:
      “A police officer who shoots a fleeing suspect without “probable cause to *532 believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others” violates that suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 3, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985).
      So, no, the exceptions to the rule regarding shooting fleeing suspects is not at all limited to those possessing bombs, those shooting at the police, or those running at people with a weapon in hand. In fact, if you look at the language in the rule, it is vague. That was more than likely done intentionally because it would be impossible to predict every possible scenario where it might be appropriate to shoot a fleeing suspect, especially given how quickly technology and life is changing anymore.
      This means that you were also very wrong when you said “The cop has to be in DANGER of losing life or limb….there is no leeway in that definition, none, absolute….”
      I am now getting frustrated as I try to pick through your caustic soliloquy for the bits that are not racially motivated, as those bits are so truly few and far between. Furthermore, I generally only do legal research when I am paid to do so.
      Regardless, if you learn nothing else, please (1) don’t render legal advice until you go to law school and pass the bar (if you have already done so, then all I can say is damn… they must really be lowering the standards); and (2) don’t be a judge, jury, and executioner, yourself; wait for the legal system to work.
      *This does not constitute legal advice and is provided only as general information. The information provided is from a SUPER cursory review of the available material.
    • ----------------------------------------------------------
  18. " Can someone please explain to me why everyone gets very upset about a shooting death of a black male by a white police officer - BUT - no one gives two cents that there is a killing or shooting in the low-country just about everyday ??? I’m not saying they officer is justified at all but why do people only care and protest when this is the scenario? Seems like if lives matter then all lives matter regardless of who was doing the shooting !! Please have riots and uproars to help stop the daily violence so I can rest a little easier that neither my family nor I will be shot while traveling or going to the mall. Anyone ??? " 

No comments:

Post a Comment