Posted on 04/12/2015 11:18:02 PM PDT by familyop
"Our agents and crime scene technicians arrived shortly after the incident took place," said SLED Chief Mark Keel."There were inconsistencies including what appeared to be multiple gunshot wounds in Mr. Scott's back. We believed early on that there was something not right about what happened in that encounter. The cell phone video shot by a bystander confirmed our initial suspicions."..."I appreciate that Feidin Santana was worried about his safety and whether he could trust the police after what he saw and captured on his cell phone. I'm grateful he decided not to erase the video. We are eager to discuss the incident with him,"Keel said."We have interviewed Michael Slager, the other officers and others who may have some knowledge of the this incident," Keel said."We will pursue this case until we are confident we have developed as much factual information and evidence as possible to give to prosecutors. We have worked throughout this case with Solicitor Wilson and will continued to do so until the matter is resolved."
Slager was arrested and charged by SLED with murder following an interview Monday afternoon at his then-attorney's office. Slager remains in the Charleston County Detention Center.
(Excerpt) Read more at live5news.com ...
(Mayor)Summey said Scott was hit with the officer’s Taser weapon, and they know that, Summey said, because one of the Taser projectiles was still attached.
That puts an end to the conspiracy theory that Slager had taser barbs in his leg and torso:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3278316/posts
Alright, if that’s the case, we are back to he shot the man in the back, I suppose in an attempt to prevent him from escaping, which is not a legal shooting.
If any one of us did the same, we’d be in for trouble.
“If any one of us did the same, we’d be in for trouble.”
As a certified Pistol instructer I can assure you that you or I would be charged with murder in the same situation.
The premature release of specific details has the potential to harm the investigation
They go through all this and then they say nothing in the story?
What other details could there possibly be?
This about two weeks old already and they've had the officers statement, a body, a witness and 2 good videos.
What ever inconsistencies exist, they've known exactly what they were early on.
If a man is pulled over by the police and runs-he damn sure risks being shot. When I saw the guy bolt from the car he damn sure looked guilty. Now had this guy gone and killed someone folks would blame the officer for that too.
Scott was pulled over for a taillight infraction. This was not a felon traffic stop with suspected violent people involved.
Looked guilty of what??
Driving While Amish
/rolleyes
Resisting arrest is a misdemeanor. Striking or assaulting a cop is a felony. (Although I have not heard of any injuries to the cop). In my state (Washington) the law says that you can shoot a person fleeing a felony. BUT - it sounds like the Supreme Court has overruled all of those types of laws.
However, just a few years ago, a private citizen shot a kid in the back (In WA state) that had broken in and was running away with a couple hundred bucks worth of stuff. So perhaps that wasn't just a “fleeing felon”, but seeing as the kid still had the stuff, was preventing the felony.
But what if Scott had stuck a knife in the cop - left the knife there, and ran away. No weapon on him anymore, so not an imminent risk to anyone (one could argue). Does that mean a cop can't shoot him as he is running away from a stabbing? I would find that hard to believe.
The Supremes haven’t said cops can’t shoot a fleeing suspect.
They said it may be justifiable if it was reasonable to believe the runner posed a risk of death or serious physical injury to the cop or others AND that shooting him was the only way to detain him.
Have yet to see evidence that either of these applied in this case. There have been (rare) cases where a civilian who killed a cop in a fight was found to have acted in self-defense.
I don’t know what happened, and neither does anybody else at this point except the cop in question.
But if the report is accurate that other cops were suspicious prior to the release of the video, it doesn’t look good for the shooter. Cops always give the benefit of the doubt, to put it mildly, to each other.
BTW, eyewitnesses should not be given too much credence. We should all remember what some of the eyewitnesses said about the Brown shooting. Eyewitness testimony is about the weakest type of evidence, though that’s not the way people think about it.
Which is why the video is so important. Shows (part of) what actually happened, not some random person’s recollection of it.
That puts an end to the conspiracy theory that Slager had taser barbs in his leg and torso:
...
I don’t think the mayor’s hearsay puts an end to anything.
in 1985 Tennesse v Garner narrowed the cases where police can shoot fleeing suspects from any fleeing felon to instances where “the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community.”
SO you say it should be open season on anyone running from the cops?
Will the State get the traffic fine from any estate? I'm surprised that cops are allowed to murder people before they pay up.
Now if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their ass when they jumped. Poor guy won't kill anyone now so we'll never know, yeah.
TN v Garner also required that there be no other way to detain him.
LOL! A sharp post.
Firearms expert, LEO and gunwriter Massad Ayoob testified on behalf of a defendant who shot someone in the back and was charged with murder.
The defendant was acquitted. Each case turns on its facts.
Having said that, this case doesn’t look good for the LEO.
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.