Posted on 04/07/2015 4:24:56 PM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda
Cop charged with murder of motorist after jarring video surfaces
CHARLESTON, S.C. — A white South Carolina police officer has been charged with murder in the shooting death of a black motorist after a traffic stop. North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey told a hastily called news conference that city Patrolman Michael Thomas Slager was arrested and charged Tuesday after law enforcement officials saw a video of the shooting following a Saturday traffic stop. Authorities say the victim, 50-year-old Walter Lamer Scott of Charleston, was shot after the officer already hit him with a stun gun.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
BTTT
I’d say the murder wrap is justifiable, in this case. I hope the scumbag cop gets his just desserts.
I think we need to hear all the evidence. From another article;
“Police say an altercation then began between Slager and Scott resulting in a fight for the officer’s Taser. During the fight, Scott allegedly gained control of the Taser to use it against the officer who then fired his service weapon at the suspect.”
Is that true? I don’t know yet.
The story as told in other articles...
The policeman tased Scott. Scott took the taser from him. The policeman drew a pistol. Scott ran, and the policeman shot him. Scott’s family was notified and conferenced with officials.
Looks like the policeman shot a VIP.
First degree murder.
I have no doubt there was an altercation - wouldn’t surprise me if scumbag criminal DID try to get the cops taser. BUT - in the video, the dude runs away. Cop should have given chase, not stood there shooting. The moment the crook started running, the cop was no longer in imminent danger. Had he shot the crook WHILE the crook was trying to take his taser? Totally different story. The moment the crook started running AWAY from the officer, there went any justification for shooting him. Did the crook have a gun? Was he endangering anyone immediately around? Doesn’t look like it. Cop should not have fired.
Yep, it’s the bad ones that do it! OR ... maybe I should say that it’s the bad ones who do what some people only post!
The victim was fifty feet away running from the cop when he was shot in the back.
I don’t know, but the video clearly shows him running away with his back turned and this cop shot at him 8 times.
The article posted above states that a stun gun was used. Did Scott get the stun gun? Would he have used it to get the policeman’s weapon? Who knows?
With regards to outcomes of many other recent incidents, looks like the policeman shot a VIP just the same.
Remember the Rodney King case where the media only showed the parts of the video where Rodney was being beaten, and left out the parts where Rodney was attacking the cops.
If that’s the case, cop is guilty. I admit that I don’t watch vids of people being killed. So I’ll take your word for it.
Bogie
“Remember the Rodney King case where the media only showed the parts of the video where Rodney was being beaten”
I remember that well, as I saw the original vid the first time it was aired. Never saw that version again. King refused to stay down, and kept getting up and trying to run around the car.
Cynical thot..wonder if the guy knew he'd get shot and he would get a BIG $$$$ lawsuit??
Shoot a guy in the back for running away from a traffic stop?
The executioner didn’t looked disheveled to me. The guy was sprinting the other way in broad daylight. I’m glad I’m not that public servant. Almost feel a little bad for him.
A video clearly shows the perp a good 40 feet away from the officer.
That justifies shooting an unarmed man in the back as he was running away?
CNN has video of the cop then walking back to the person he shot and tossing what appears to be a black object (the taser?) next to the body.
Sure looks like he was planting the weapon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.