Bingo.
A wise policeman says about engaging in ill-advised pursuits: "No. No, indeed. Hell, no."
 |
click on the YouTube vid to get advice about these things. (Hat-tip to The Baytown Outlaws) :)
Posted on 04/14/2015 5:58:20 PM PDT by IChing
In the very first media reports of the shooting by South Carolina officer Michael Slager of Walter Scott the North Charleston police were quoted as follows (Saturday April 4th):
FIRST MEDIA 4/4/15 […] Police in a matter of hours declared the occurrence at the corner of Remount and Craig roads a traffic stop gone wrong, alleging the dead man fought with an officer over his Taser before deadly force was employed.
[…] A statement released by North Charleston police spokesman Spencer Pryor said a man ran on foot from the traffic stop and an officer deployed his department-issued Taser in an attempt to stop him.
That did not work, police said, and an altercation ensued as the men struggled over the device. Police allege that during the struggle the man gained control of the Taser and attempted to use it against the officer. The officer then resorted to his service weapon and shot him, police alleged. (link)
A video containing part of the confrontation surfaced when eye-witness Feidin Santana contacted the family of Walter Scott the following day (Sunday); and then gave the video to South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) on Monday.
Officer Slager was arrested later Monday afternoon and charged with Murder before witness Santana was even interviewed.
The actual public display of the video began on Tuesday April 7th. With the immediate media storyline stating the original police statements were “false” and/or “factually inaccurate”.
The story became about “lying police”, and that specific narrative framed the media discussion for the next week. Even normally level-headed media punditry jumped into the PC fray for their pound of flesh shouting that Officer Slager falsified his statement(s).
However, with time, further careful research, and much closer looks at the video itself, it appears that nothing initially stated by South Carolina LEO, or more specifically Officer Michael Slager is false or incorrect. [zoomed taser video by Bob]
Yes. Hilarious.
Apparently, Scott actually moved after this moment in time. Will wonders never cease?
Scott ran away from the police officer, if you can believe it. Then, as he was running, and getting further and further away, the officer pumped several rounds into his back.
Funny how much further away Scott was during the time period in which he was shot in the back several times.
assault (black;s 7th):
1. the threat or use of force on another that causes that person to have a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact...
2. an attempt to commit battery, requiring the specific intent to cause physical injury.
felonious assault (black’s 7th):
an assault that is of sufficient severity to be classified and punished as a felony. see aggravated assault.
aggravated assault (black’s 7th):
criminal assault accompanied by circumstances that make it more severe, such as the use of a deadly weapon, the intent to commit another crime, or the intent to cause serious bodily harm.
(yikes...)
South Carolina Code: Assault and battery; Certain offenses committed with a carried or concealed deadly weapon
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php
SECTION 16-3-600. Assault and battery.
(A) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Great bodily injury” means bodily injury which causes a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ.
(2) “Moderate bodily injury” means physical injury requiring treatment to an organ system of the body other than the skin, muscles, and connective tissues of the body, except when there is penetration of the skin, muscles, and connective tissues that require surgical repair of a complex nature or when treatment of the injuries requires the use of regional or general anesthesia.
(3) “Private parts” means the genital area or buttocks of a male or female or the breasts of a female.
(B)(1) A person commits the offense of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature if the person unlawfully injures another person, and:
(a) great bodily injury to another person results; or
(b) the act is accomplished by means likely to produce death or great bodily injury.
(2) A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned for not more than twenty years.
(3) Assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature is a lesser-included offense of attempted murder, as defined in Section 16-3-29.
(C)(1) A person commits the offense of assault and battery in the first degree if the person unlawfully:
(a) injures another person, and the act:
(i) involves nonconsensual touching of the private parts of a person, either under or above clothing, with lewd and lascivious intent; or
(ii) occurred during the commission of a robbery, burglary, kidnapping, or theft; or
(b) offers or attempts to injure another person with the present ability to do so, and the act:
(i) is accomplished by means likely to produce death or great bodily injury; or
(ii) occurred during the commission of a robbery, burglary, kidnapping, or theft.
(2) A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned for not more than ten years.
(3) Assault and battery in the first degree is a lesser-included offense of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, as defined in subsection (B)(1), and attempted murder, as defined in Section 16-3-29.
(D)(1) A person commits the offense of assault and battery in the second degree if the person unlawfully injures another person, or offers or attempts to injure another person with the present ability to do so, and:
(a) moderate bodily injury to another person results or moderate bodily injury to another person could have resulted; or
(b) the act involves the nonconsensual touching of the private parts of a person, either under or above clothing.
(2) A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than two thousand five hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than three years, or both.
(3) Assault and battery in the second degree is a lesser-included offense of assault and battery in the first degree, as defined in subsection (C)(1), assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, as defined in subsection (B)(1), and attempted murder, as defined in Section 16-3-29.
(E)(1) A person commits the offense of assault and battery in the third degree if the person unlawfully injures another person, or offers or attempts to injure another person with the present ability to do so.
(2) A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than thirty days, or both.
(3) Assault and battery in the third degree is a lesser-included offense of assault and battery in the second degree, as defined in subsection (D)(1), assault and battery in the first degree, as defined in subsection (C)(1), assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, as defined in subsection (B)(1), and attempted murder, as defined in Section 16-3-29.
HISTORY: 2010 Act No. 273, Section 6.B, eff June 2, 2010; 2011 Act No. 39, Sections 1, 2, eff June 7, 2011.
[...]
SECTION 16-3-610. Certain offenses committed with a carried or concealed deadly weapon.
If a person is convicted of an offense pursuant to Section 16-3-29, 16-3-600, or manslaughter, and the offense is committed with a deadly weapon of the character as specified in Section 16-23-460 carried or concealed upon the person of the defendant, the judge shall, in addition to the punishment provided by law for such offense, sentence the person to imprisonment for the misdemeanor offense for not less than three months nor more than twelve months, or a fine of not less than two hundred dollars, or both.
HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 16-93; 1952 Code Section 16-93; 1942 Code Section 1258; 1932 Code Section 1258; Cr. C. ‘22 Section 153; Cr. C. ‘12 Section 160; Cr. C. ‘02 Section 132; 1897 (22) 427; 2010 Act No. 273, Section 6.C, eff June 2, 2010.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c023.php
SECTION 16-23-415. Taking firearm or other weapon from law enforcement officer.
An individual who takes a firearm, stun gun, or taser device from the person of a law enforcement officer or a corrections officer is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned for not more than five years, or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both, if all of the following circumstances exist at the time the firearm is taken:
(1) the individual knows or has reason to believe the person from whom the weapon is taken is a law enforcement officer or a corrections officer;
(2) the law enforcement officer or corrections officer is performing his duties as a law enforcement officer or a corrections officer, or the individual’s taking of the weapon is directly related to the law enforcement officer’s or corrections officer’s professional responsibilities;
(3) the individual takes the weapon without consent of the law enforcement officer or corrections officer;
(4) the law enforcement officer is authorized by his employer to carry the weapon in the line of duty; and
(5) the law enforcement officer or corrections officer is authorized by his employer to carry the weapon while off duty and has identified himself as a law enforcement officer.
HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 3, eff June 9, 2006.
(yikes...)
This was not a civilian version of a Taser it's a police version with far different capabilities....and again what ive read the police version has extended battery to give multiple jolts so you can knockdown the suspect multiple times... once the darts are in someone. the guy holding the taser can drop that person multiple times at will by just pulling the trigger...
civilian tasers are defensive weapons
..police Tasers are offensive weapons ...it's a different type ...thing or so ive read... so how will we find out what it actually was capable of before making an assumption...
this is a video from 2010...5 years ago !
.showing..a police taser that is... Multi Shot ..3 shot .simultaneous without reloading.and multi use repeated trigger pulls will give repeated shocks once the dart is in...
again don’t assume we understand was the weapon was capable of ......let’s find out first
Well, that, or Slager stopped Walter Scott for a broken taillight.
I can see back-shooting Walter Scott for running a red light, but maybe just winging him for the broken taillight... LOL! :)
Perhaps you should read a little more closely, and maybe you pick even moar things up.
This is kind of like the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case.
Evryone who wanted Zimmerman's hide said he should have just stayed in the truck. Michael Slager should have just stayed in his squad car. He had Walter Scott's license, his car, and his passenger. He had NO duty to go after Scott, per the Supreme Court.
I might even define what he did as "police vigilantism*".
*Vigilantism. Taking the law into one's own hands and attempting to effect justice according to one's own understanding of right and wrong
Michael Slager was wrong to pursue Walter Scott.
I think keeping up with him on foot until the Calvary arrived would have been better.
To call an unarmed 50 year old over weight winded guy ‘extremely dangerous’ is ridiculous.
The only thing in danger was the officers ego.
Should have waited for back up.
Per the Supreme Court, the police have NO duty to protect the peasantry.
Slager trying to accost Scott for running away from him is "police vigilantism". Slager should have just tried to keep up with Walter Scott instead of assaulting him under color of authority.
You say you think some of us sound like members of the Black Panthers because of our lack of love for militarized police, well you sound like a Nazi functionary.
God protect us from your ilk: How you can watch that guy get shot in the back 5 times and think it’s ok, is beyond me.
When Slater drew down on the back of that hapless, stupid man Scott, there was no risk to himself whatsoever.. He shouldn’t have killed him.
Bingo.
A wise policeman says about engaging in ill-advised pursuits: "No. No, indeed. Hell, no."
|
click on the YouTube vid to get advice about these things. (Hat-tip to The Baytown Outlaws) :)
I had a guy do that to me once, only he didn't have a badge and wasn't able to shoot me. Boy, did he want to!
Lucky me!
“again don’t assume we understand was the weapon was capable of ......let’s find out first”
According to http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/12/game-changer-or-paradigm-shift-walter-scott-shooting-enhanced-video-shows-officer-slager-with-taser-darts/ the taser was an X26 taser, which is a single cartridge (i.e., one-time-deploy) device.
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.