// 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.

Another still showing the Taser on the ground.

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.

Here is a clearer shot.

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.

 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/

1. You’re also making assumptions by saying Scott’s death was partially his own fault for running. That’s an assumption because you’re assuming Slager wouldn’t have shot him if he didn’t run. I don’t know about you but the video I saw showed an officer with no regard for human life. He didn’t just gun down Scott, he did it in a manner as if it was a completely normal situation. He didn’t act flustered or anything, he just pulls his gun out, unloads and walks over to Scott in a slow and calm manner. If there’s a cop out there that would shoot someone without fleeing it would be someone like this guy. Also, with the whole picking up of the taser, I got the impression he was waiting for the other officer to be there to see him picking up the taser next to Scott’s body so he would vouch for him. It is a possibility.

   Reply
• Nice to know you are psychic and know what the office was thinking. Who is making assumptions, really?
•  / Yeah, we were waiting for the other officer to get there to see the Taser. Problem is, the officer was already there.
•  /

  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?
2. 
   

   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.

   Reply
   • 
     

     You said it best with that last sentence.
3.   April 8, 2015

   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.

   Reply
   •  April 8, 2015 So take a hike. We didn’t justify the officer killing Scott, we are simply discussing the case with reason. Apparently you can’t comprehend that.
4. 
   
5. 
   
6. 
   
7.  April 8, 2015

   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.
8. SweetBabyJesus / April 8, 2015

   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.

   Reply
9. 
   
10. Hard to believe that Thug life does not have some bias, with the police officers lawyers advertising on your page.

    Reply
    • 
      
    • Did you read the article? We told you the truth. Whether you choose to believe it or not is entirely up to you. BTW, Aylor doesn’t represent the officer anymore. Andy Savage has filed paperwork to do that. You knew that one was coming in light of the national nature of this case.
11. I have been a frequent visitor to CTL and had recommended the site to many who have, in turn, also become regular readers. But your botched reporting on the Scott case and stubborn refusal to back down has caused us to turn our backs on what has clearly become a biased, half-baked forum for “reporters” who hide behind anonymity while masquerading as legitimate journalists.

    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.

    Reply
    •  April 8, 2015

      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.
12. 
    

    Reply
13. There is no way this result should be condoned, nor am I seeing it condoned, but I would submit that I suspect somewhere down inside of that Cops mind, he is seeing how useless his job is when he hasn’t got the support of a Criminal Justice system that fails to prosecute or allows violent criminals to walk or do extremely minimal time dozens … sometimes more… of times before that criminal commits something heinous… and I would bet my pension that Andy Savage will be using any perusal of this website or the County Records website as part of his defense.

    Get Ready…

    Reply
14. See Ya. Taking a hike. You people are every bit as bad as the choir boys mother. have a nice life.

    Reply
    • Oh, that hurts. Not really. It’s not like we get paid to report on crime like we do. Don’t need ya.
15. “Apparently you can’t make the connection the first article you reference was written well before the revelation presented by the video.”

    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.

    Reply
    •  April 8, 2015

      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.
16.  April 8, 2015

    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

    Reply
    •  April 8, 2015

      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.
    •  April 8, 2015

      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.
17.  April 8, 2015

    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.

    Reply
18.  April 8, 2015

    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.

    Reply
19.  April 8, 2015

    Sorry, just don’t care anymore.

     April 8, 2015
20. 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!!

    Reply
21.  April 8, 2015

    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.
    •  April 9, 2015

      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.
    •  April 9, 2015 I’m just reminded of the James Island case and the disparity.
22.  April 8, 2015
23.  April 8, 2015

    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.

    Reply
    •  April 8, 2015

      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.
24.  April 8, 2015

    Chief your next, your identity can’t be hide forever

    Reply
    •  April 9, 2015

      LoL. Pushing the stereotype button is hard not to do, isn’t it?
25.  April 8, 2015

    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…

    Reply
•  April 9, 2015

  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.
• ----------------------------------------------------------
26. 
    
27.  / 
    " 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 ??? " 
• 
  

// My "BUT Problems" //

No more BUT :

I resolve to delete the word BUT from my dictionary. I will not start my sentences with the word BUT. I will stop saying "Yes But". I will change my thinking process and my speaking rate to avoid the word BUT.

Get off my BUTT :

I resolve to better use my time for tasks which create value. I will reduce my time potatoeing infront of a television. I will stop reading political blogs. I will avoid poisonous people. 

// Sleep Well, For Tomorrow Begins Tonight //

HAVE you been sleeping well of late? Are you all stressed out. Do you worry that our economy will shrink even further? Or that the  H1N1  will mutate into something more terrible?
Dr David White, the chief medical officer at Philips Home Healthcare Solutions, will probably tell you not to lose too much sleep over matters you cannot control.
“People lose sleep either because they cannot sleep (insomnia) or because they are not setting aside enough time for sleep – both of which can happen because of work-related stress in the current economic environment,” he said.
Although the scope of his study did not encompass Malaysians, I am sure the trend would be similar, more so if you add in the political dimension and the fact that good football matches are always telecast live in the early hours.
The Philips study, however, is focused on the workplace. Conducted in five countries around the globe, it showed that 40% of those questioned blame the state of the world economy as the major reason for their lack of sleep.
The survey was undertaken in March and covered 2,500 managers – equally split across Britain, Germany, the United States, Japan and The Netherlands – using an online poll.
The Americans worry the most, and the Dutch the least.
In response to the question, “Do you believe the worsening economic climate is affecting your ability to sleep well?”, just 15% of Dutch respondents agreed while the global average was 39%. The Americans were highest at 30%.
The Dutch are also less concerned about world events (1% compared with the average 3%), stress at work (12% against 22%) and money worries (5% versus 13%).
Maybe the windmills and the tulips have something to do with this.
A vast majority of respondents (61%) say they have had their work impacted negatively by lack of sleep. On average, each estimated 6.2 days per year were impacted by inadequate sleep – costing companies around the globe millions.
And here is the irony: Because they cannot sleep well, 70% said that their work suffered as a result.
So you get the drift? You cannot sleep because you are stressed at work, and you cannot work because you have not had enough sleep.
Sounds like a vicious cycle to me.
“Sleep is not optional – it is absolutely critical to people’s health,” said White. “The consequences of not sleeping enough are well documented. People who do not get enough sleep can gain weight, are prone to diabetes, high blood pressure and even heart attacks. We are facing a serious healthcare problem if we do not take sleep more seriously.”
Wow. No wonder his study was taken so seriously and was featured in many newspapers throughout the world last week.
A doctor friend challenged us the other day with this question: Do you rest for the day’s work or do you rest after a hard day’s work?
He explained that the situation is not similar. If you think that you are all zonked out after a hard day’s work and therefore need to sleep, you have got it all wrong.
Rest, he argued, is to prepare our body for the day ahead. If you think that way, you will be less stressed out ...

// Create A Culture That Embraces Questions //

To foster a culture in which questions are widely used to create value, begin by letting direct reports know that you value their queries. "For example, tell them to bring their best questions into their performance appraisal," Marquardt says. These might be questions they posed in the past year that led to new ideas and solutions for the company or questions they would like to ask you during the review to boost their own effectiveness and that of the unit or team. 
Just as important, it is up to you as the leader to model the question-asking approach so that your team, in turn, will employ it with their own reports. For example, you can track how well the team is working together by asking questions like: 

• We've been working together for three hours today; what did we do best as a team?
• What enabled us to be successful in coming up with an innovative strategy?
• How can we ask better questions?
• How can we apply what we are learning to other parts of our work?
• What leadership skills helped us succeed today?

What you get by asking 
While going into your team or one-on-one meetings with a list of questions rather than points to be made takes some thoughtful planning, the payoff can be huge. Marquardt experienced this himself when he was executive director of the former Arlington, Va.–based World Center for Development and Training. 
He asked each of his direct reports, "What one idea and/or strategy that we are not currently implementing do you believe would best contribute to the success of our company?" The responses this question generated were amazing, he says. "We came up with a marketing strategy that I had never considered before and added a couple of new services for our customers," including a short-term certificate program and courses that blended classroom and online learning. As a result of his query, the group also examined new markets in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia and developed local partners in those regions. And because these were their ideas, Marquardt's direct reports were committed to putting them into action. "They accepted responsibility in designing, marketing, and implementing the new programs," he says. 
By leading your team meetings with questions, you will also help eliminate ambiguity and create alignment around issues. "Most groups are not aligned when they come together," Marquardt says. "When a leader goes into a group and states a problem, everyone assumes that they understand the problem in the same way. In reality, that is false." If, for example, a product isn't selling, you may assume that it's because of a flawed marketing program. But what if others think it's a flawed product? You won't learn that without asking, "What do you think the issue is?" Without consensus on the problem, you can't define a strategy to address it. Asking such questions enables team members to understand one another's perspectives and agree on what they are dealing with. 
What not to ask 
Marquardt points out that, contrary to the business truism "There are no bad questions," several types of questions can have a negative effect on subordinates. 
Questions focused on why a person did not or cannot succeed force subordinates to take a defensive or reactive stance and strip them of their power. Such questions shut down opportunities for success and do not allow people to clarify misunderstandings or achieve goals. These questions include: 

• Why are you behind schedule?
• What's the problem with this project?
• Who isn't keeping up?
• Don't you know any better than that?

Leading questions seek a specific answer, one that puts the person being asked the question in a negative light, pushes through the questioner's agenda, or exerts social pressure to force agreement. Among their many downsides, leading questions such as the following inhibit direct reports from answering candidly and stifle honest discussion: 

• You wanted to do it by yourself, didn't you?
• Don't you agree that John is the problem here?
• Everyone else on the team thinks John is the problem. What about you?

While closed questions, which require specific answers, can be a good way to open and close a conversation, a whole string of them in a row, such as the following, will make subordinates feel they are being interrogated: 

• Is this a good time to talk?
• What time is the meeting?
• How many people are coming?
• Who else will be there?
• When will the report be ready?

Their success is your success
As you strive to lead by asking rather than telling, remember that leaders are only as successful as the people who report to them. By asking your direct reports the right questions, you can help them develop their ability to solve problems, their creativity, and their resourcefulness. Not only will their greater strength in these areas reflect well on you, but it also will enable them to better help you and the whole unit when fresh challenges arise. 
"You don't have to have the answer to ask a great question," says Marquardt. "A great question will ultimately get an answer."

// How to Ask Better Questions //

One of your direct reports walks into your office looking for help: the rollout of the new line of Web-based products she is managing is falling behind schedule. All the prototypes have been created and beta tested, but she is having trouble getting final sign-off from the VP of IT. Deadlines have come and gone, and no amount of reminding or cajoling will get him to focus on her project. 
As her manager, what should you do? If your first instinct is to suggest a solution, think again. 
Although providing employees with answers to their problems often may be the most efficient way to get things done, the short-term gain is overshadowed by long-term costs. By taking the expedient route, you impede direct reports' development, cheat yourself of access to some potentially fresh and powerful ideas, and place an undue burden on your own shoulders. When faced with an employee's problem, you can respond in a much more value-adding way: by asking the right questions, help her find the best solution herself. We aren't talking about asking just any questions but, rather, employing questions that inspire people to think in new ways, expand their range of vision, and enable them to contribute more to the organization. 
Questions packing this kind of punch are usually open-ended — they're not looking for a specific answer. Often beginning with "Why," "How," or "What do you think about...," they are questions that set the stage for subordinates to discover their own solutions, increasing their competence, their confidence, and their ownership of results. 
Here is a framework for asking the right questions at the right time to create clarity and agreement around issues and to empower your direct reports. 
Ask the right kind of questions 
The word "empower" gets bandied about so much that one could be forgiven for overlooking what it actually means: to imbue someone with power, to instill in the individual a sense of his own strength and efficacy. "When the boss asks for a subordinate's ideas, he sends the message that they are good — perhaps better than his. The individual gains confidence and becomes more competent," says Michael J. Marquardt, a professor of human resources and international affairs at George Washington University (Washington, D.C.) and author of Leading with Questions: How Leaders Find the Right Solutions by Knowing What to Ask (John Wiley & Sons, 2005). 
But an empowering question does more than convey respect for the person to whom it's posed. It actually encourages that person's development as a thinker and problem solver, thereby delivering both short-term and long-term value: the short-term value of generating a solution to the issue at hand and the long-term value of giving subordinates the tools to handle similar issues in the future independently. 
A disempowering question, on the other hand, undercuts the confidence of the person to whom it's asked and sabotages her performance. Often, these types of questions focus on failure or betray that the questioner has an agenda. 
The most effective and empowering questions create value in one or more of the following ways: 

1. They create clarity: "Can you explain more about this situation?"
2. They construct better working relations: Instead of "Did you make your sales goal?" ask, "How have sales been going?"
3. They help people think analytically and critically: "What are the consequences of going this route?"
4. They inspire people to reflect and see things in fresh, unpredictable ways: "Why did this work?"
5. They encourage breakthrough thinking: "Can that be done in any other way?"
6. They challenge assumptions: "What do you think you will lose if you start sharing responsibility for the implementation process?"
7. They create ownership of solutions: "Based on your experience, what do you suggest we do here?"

// Be Prudent //

Watch your Thoughts because they will become your Words.

Watch your Words because they will become your Actions.

Wacth your Actions because they will become your Habits.

Watch your Habits because they will become your Character.

Watch your Character because that will become your Destiny

// Arguments // Not Worth It //

1. To disagree is one thing; to be disagreeable is another.

2. It will do no good to argue if you're in the wrong, and if you're right -- you don't need to.

3. Many an argument is sound -- and only sound!

4. The more arguments you win, the fewer friends you'll have.

5. Before you have an argument with your boss, you'd better take a good look at both sides -- his side and the outside.

6. The weaker the argument, the stronger the words.

7. Sometimes when you're arguing with a fool, he's doing the same thing.

8. An argument produces plenty of heat, but not much light.

9. You get out of an argument exactly what you put into it -- a lot of hot air.

10. In an argument the best weapon to hold is your tongue.

11. Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance.

12. A husband and wife in Montana make it a point not to argue over anything not worth arguing about. Of course, this leads to some dandy fights over whether or not a subject is worthwhile.

13. An argument is a collision in which two trains of thought are derailed.

14. If you must argue, the best way to win is to start by being right.

15. Don't argue at the dinner table. The one who is not hungry always wins the argument.

16. When an argument flares up, the wise man quenches it with silence.

17. Arguing about religion is much easier than practicing it.

18. It is a rare thing to win an argument and the other fellow's respect at the same time.

19. It is fair to hear both sides of an argument, it is heavenly to hear the end of it.

20. An ounce of facts is worth a ton of arguments.

21. More homes are destroyed by fusses than by funerals or fires.

22. There's one thing to be said of ignorance -- it causes a lot of interesting arguments.

23. When a man uses profanity to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak -- probably both.

24. What a great World this would be if people would spend as much energy practicing their religion as they spend quarrelling about it.

25. Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause.

26. Silence is one of the hardest things to refute.

27. Argument is the worst sort of conversation.

28. A sure way to stop a red-hot argument is to lay a few cold facts on it.

29. The only thing worse than being on the wrong side of an argument is being in the middle.

30. The only people who really listen to an argument are the neighbors.

             Never wrestle with a pig. You will get dirty and only the pig have fun