Walter Scott was driving his passenger home for a cookout...shot dead by South Carolina cop

Associated Press and Dailymail.com ^ | 16 April 2015 | Associated Press and Dailymail.com Reporter

[familyop]

Walter Scott and his passenger were looking forward to having a cookout when he was pulled over and shot dead by a South Carolina police officer, it has emerged. Scott, 50, and Pierre Fulton, his friend of several years, had met for breakfast on April 4 before Scott drove him to a church...Scott was behind $18,000 in his child support payments and family members have said he may have run because he was worried about going to jail.

[kiryandil]

When you assault a police officer and grab his weapon, you have committed a felony.

You Police State boosters STILL are completely ignoring the fact that Walter Scott bravely ran away.

Slager then had to chase after him, and catch him. Scott wasn't assaulting anybody.

What you'd have posters like me & Digital Handyman believe is that once Slager donned his magic cape-suit with its powerful shiny amulets, that chasing after a person, catching them, and assaulting them is no longer an assault because of the special gew-gaws.

IN FACT, if The Magic Person was to grab the assaultee, or punch the assaultee, and the assaultee responded in kind, then SUDDENLY, the assaultee becomes a Felon Assaulter, and Stern Measures can be taken to suppress the former assaultee, including Tasing & back-shooting.

Neat trick, that.

Slager should have kept his dumb behind planted in the squad car, trying to find a satellite view of Walter Scott's address on Google Maps, instead of trying to invoke his Magic Trick in front of a video camera.

There'd be more of a chance of me agreeing with your position if Walter Scott hadn't been CONSISTENTLY running away. The whole time.

[Yardstick]

Your analysis is ridiculous.

[kiryandil]

Your analysis is ridiculous.

No, your bizarre cop game of "Tag - You're Dead (If I Feel Like Killing You)" is ridiculous.

1. Walter Scott bolts from the car. He's not a fleeing felon. He's not assaulting Michael Slager.

2. Michael Slager decides rashly to give chase.

3. Michael Slager catches up with Walter Scott, and touches Scott in some way, shape or form. Remember, Scott is running away - he's not trying to confront or assault Michael Slager.

4. Walter Scott perhaps shrugs Slager's hand off, or pushes away from him. Scott is still running away.

5. According to you, this mere act, however innocuous, INSTANTLY turns Walter Scott into a "fleeing felon". Now Michael Slager can kill Walter Scott, if he feels like it, according to your bizarre logic.

6. If Walter Scott outruns Michael Slager, and Slager is not able to "tag" him, then Walter Scott is just some guy fleeing the police, which I believe is a misdemeanor.

Hang on a second - you don't believe that the mere act of fleeing the police is an automatic felony, punishable by death at the pursuing officer's discretion, do you?

[King Moonracer]

2. Michael Slager decides rashly to give chase.

That’s what he’s paid for, when someone runs from a lawful stop, they might be hiding something. Look out, the RA is listening at the door.

[Digital Handyman]

Gut feelings, discretion and perception together have another name, by which the founders called this type of law enforcement: “arbitrary” - the opposite of lawfulness.

A law enforcement officer must be bound by the law. By substituting other elements for explicit authorization in law, we depart from a system of law and justice and end up with something else, something in which you or I have no rights or liberties worth the name.

[Yardstick]

The common law in force during our founding held that fleeing felons could be killed. So go lecture our founders.

[kiryandil]

Look out, the RA is listening at the door.

LOL! That brings back memories!

"Entree, if you're not an RA"

That’s what he’s paid for, when someone runs from a lawful stop, they might be hiding something.

He had Walter Scott's license, his car, and his passenger.

Maybe he was hoping to catch up with Walter Scott and beat some Respect out of him.

Slager had to settle for back-shooting him on video.

Whoops!

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) :)

[kiryandil]

The common law in force during our founding held that fleeing felons could be killed. So go lecture our founders.

Are you continuing to maintain that Walter Scott was a "fleeing felon"?

Was he a "fleeing felon" when he bolted from his car - or was it some time afterwards that he SUDDENLY became a "fleeing felon"?

Maybe you could pinpoint for us where exactly you think Walter Scott was a "fleeing felon". LOL! :)

[kiryandil]

A law enforcement officer must be bound by the law. By substituting other elements for explicit authorization in law, we depart from a system of law and justice and end up with something else, something in which you or I have no rights or liberties worth the name.

I think they actually believe in their little "Tag - You're Dead!!!" police game.

Apparently, if a policeman touches my arm, and I shrug his hand off, I've become an INSTANT FELON, and can be killed out of hand - just as the Founding Fathers envisioned...

[TheDon]

Fleeing the LEO is resisting arrrest, a crime. Sorry it is not in the LEO job description to let criminals escape justice.

It will be interesting to read what made him draw his weapon.

[caww]

...”Fleeing the LEO is resisting arrrest, a crime”...

That’s how I see it...if you run anything can happen one might not have bargained for.

[kiryandil]

Fleeing the LEO is resisting arrrest, a crime.

You people keep dodging the question:

Was Walter Scott a "fleeing felon" at the moment he bolted?

Or not?

Is is your position that law enforcement officers are imbued with the power to confront and engage the peasantry in order to turn them into "fleeing felons", thus facilitating their execution if the officer so desires?

"Fleeing the LEO is resisting arrrest, a crime" and a misdemeanor - NOT a felony - but it's plainly evident that you're gnashing your teeth that it's not a felony.

It will be interesting to read what made him draw his weapon.

It is interesting that you care so deeply about the carefully massaged "story" of a "law enforcement officer" (and I use the term loosely) who found it necessary to "tidy up" the scene of his murder of a peasant who had only committed a misdemeanor, at worst.

@ Digital - I'm only pinging you so you can watch the wriggling. :)

[Jim Noble]

As it turns out we’re always just one or two clever Executive Orders away from Obama declaring himself Chancellor

Congress (EXACTLY like the Reichstag) is going to pass an Enabling Act within the next few years.

We (EXACTLY like Germany in 1930) are too divided for an electoral representative system to function. If we don't luck out and get a Pinochet, a National Socialist dictator is what we will get, and within a few years, IMO.

[TheDon]

By fleeing Walt was resisting arrest, a crime. Yes, as stated already, and obvious to all, LEOs have a duty to capture criminals. If you flee a LEO that has stopped you, they will pursue you. Try it sometime.

The outcome of the court case will likely be determined by what made the LEO draw his firearm in the first place. That makes it the most important fact that will come out in the trial.

[kiryandil]

By fleeing Walt was resisting arrest, a crime.

I see you're still refusing to admit that "fleeing" is a misdemeanor, not a felony. You apparently think if you SHOUT "a crime" long enough & loud enough, it will be come a felony to everyone else. In your mind, it already IS "a felony".

Yes, as stated already, and obvious to all, LEOs have a duty to capture criminals. If you flee a LEO that has stopped you, they will pursue you.

It's a police departmental policy, not "a duty".

Clearly we can see that this is a policy, by the number of local police departments that have reversed policy on dangerous high-speed automobile pursuits. They've made it against policy. If it was a "duty", then the hands of these police departments would be tied, and the "hot pursuit" deaths of innocents would continue.

Just a by-the-bye - the Supreme Court has already held that the police have no duty to protect indivual peasants - no duty whatsoever.

So, you keep talking about "duty", where this chimera does not exist.

It might be that this "duty" exists only in the violent Police Call of Duty video game playing in a loop in your head.

If you flee a LEO that has stopped you, they will pursue you.

As we have seen, this is not necessarily true. High speed police chases are one example.

I imagine that this case will add another example:

"Don't pursue running misdemeanor suspects who've given you their information & vehicle. You'll get them later. Acting like a retarded coonhound on a blood trail will get you prison, McFly."

The outcome of the court case will likely be determined by what made the LEO draw his firearm in the first place.

It will likely be decided by a plea bargain after the prosecutor brings up "the back-shooting" and "the moving evidence around" that was caught on video.