Posted on 04/08/2015 4:02:10 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The outcry over the death of Walter Scott stems from a video, taken by an anonymous bystander,
that depicts police officer Michael Slager shooting at Scott eight times as he flees. In an interview with Time, however, Scott’s brother says that the video may not have come out if the police hadn’t initially tried to paint Slager as innocent.
Anthony Scott told Time that he found the circumstances surrounding his brother’s death, caused after a routine traffic stop, highly suspicious. “When I got there somebody told me that he was gone. And I was like what in the world? What happened? What happened? How did you get killed in a random stop? It just didn’t make any sense to me.”
Slager initially said that he shot Walter Scott out of fear for his life, claiming that he had taken his stun gun, and police performed CPR immediately on the shooting victim. The video, which Scott said he received at a wake earlier this week, showed otherwise:
“He wanted to see what reports were coming from the North Charleston Police Department because of the fact that they may have told the truth,” Scott said in an phone interview from home with TIME Wednesday. “And when they continued with the lies, he said, ‘I have to come forward.’”
…“I was angry. Shocked,” Scott said. “I said, ‘We have to have that.’ So that we could prove it was innocent.”
Scott credits the bystander and the video with getting Slager charged with murder. “I think that if that man never showed the video we would not be at the point that we’re at right now,” he said. “The video tells the truth. It would not be so hard for us to prove that this man was running away when you get shot in your back. I mean how can you defend that?”
The man who filmed the video has not yet been named.
What this is going to do is add credence and credibility to all the race hustlers in the race industry.
They'll use this to the hilt to prove they were right all along, that racist cops are shooting and killing blacks as a matter of routine.
They'll say the only reason this was different was because the cop was videoed in the act of shooting an unarmed black man in the back, proving cops are unjustifiably targeting blacks and killing them.
This is not going to turn out well or benefit those in law enforcement.
You can bank on that.
2005, sex unknown... 1
If someone was given a day ahead of time to think about it, most folks facing this type of situation would plan to just lay face down on the ground, with hands spread out.
But in the heat of the moment, sane folks often do irrational things. It is quite natural to want to flee from a threat. A good cop would understand this, and know how to properly handle such a response.
We don’t the details for sure. But apparently he used the taser during his
altercation with the deceased. The deceased ran, the cop pulled his weapon
and fired eight times hitting the deceased five times, four in the back
and one in the ear. It would have been nice had the video person had been
able to get more of the event.
This chart is not just shootings, but it is information.
If you go to the You Tube video posted earlier in this thread, you’ll see an unobstructed view of the beginning of the conflict, towards the end of the clip. The taser appears to be on the ground in front of the officer and there is a cylinder rolling away behind him. It might be a can of pepper spray or something else. It appears the taser was picked up and moved. Unless he laid eyes on it, he probably never knew the cylinder was gone. The officer might have had the world’s worst duty belt technique or he may have had help in dislodging his equipment.
Maybe he got a vibe that the cop was a maniac and didn’t want to get shot?
Now that's an interesting theory. I agree that what the police officer did on video sure doesn't look right. It looks like he was planting something. And, given that he'd just shot a man as he was running away, I wouldn't trust his story. This looks really, really bad.
My first thought is that the cop is dirty. But sometimes things aren't as they appear to be.
I happened to have witnessed something similar happen around 25 years ago while riding the subway home from work one late night. Only a few passengers were on the train. One was my coworker. And a very drunk man, probably homeless, was on the train, too, listening to his Walkman (a radio/tape player with headphones attached).
Someone must've alerted the subway police (known for being rough). I remember my coworker being annoyed by the man, as a matter of fact. The train stopped. The police walked on, removing this guy from the train and onto the platform.
As they're holding the man, I saw the guy stumble and fall, while the officer holding him was holding his Walkman. Picture the officer's hand grasping the radio and holding it up, to keep it from being pulled down with the headphones along with the man who'd just fallen.
That's what I saw.
But the other passengers, including my coworker, jumped up and yelled at the officers. They thought the cop had raised his hand to hit the man. Now I don't know what the police did after the train pulled away; they might've roughed him up then. But that's not what happened before our very eyes. The officer was holding a radio up, not planning to hit the man. My coworker, though, wouldn't listen to me the next day. She insisted that they were getting ready to beat him up right in front of us.
Anyway, with the wires attached, etc., your theory sounds similar.
You shouldn’t qualify for child support if you didn’t get married, I think it’s as simple as that. If you didn’t care enough about the child’s welfare to make that basic preparation, then you have accepted the consequences of possibly having to shoulder the burden by yourself.
Change those laws and see how fast the ‘casual sex’ culture that poisons modern day America starts to retreat, as people are made to deal with the consequences of their choices.
Do cops just toss things into the crime scene like that before the investigators show up?
Especially such a crucial piece of evidence as the weapon that the dead man was supposed to have been killed for possessing, and which he didn’t actually possess?
Yep.
I don’t consider that an unobstructed view of the beginning of the scuffle. By the time you see both actors, the scuffle is already in progress.
Why is there an apparent break in the video?
Not justifying the officer. Just wondering.
i love being conservative.....unlike the liberals we battle against daily.....we eat our own when we don’t hold the same opinion or have a different thought.......that is why we will likely lose to hillary......
it’s just a question.....it does start at just the right moment......luck......maybe......who knows
Anse112, I’m not making any excuses for this officer.
It looks like a set up to me.
But I have to concede that that theory is a possibility.
I live in the north, and I can tell you that the cops up here can be just as corrupt, violent, and bigoted as anywhere else. It’s not limited to small towns, or big cities either, and it’s not only happening to black victims either.
I really don’t buy the excuses that “it’s just a few bad cops” anymore. There are systemic issues going on here, because we see the same problems over and over again, in departments across the country. I think the common thing is the types of policies and training that have been enacted by all these departments over the years. Police for decades were losing ground in court cases over civil rights issues, and I think, instead of trying to reform their behavior to avoid the problem, they became defensive. Now an “us versus them” mentality has set in, where the police see any citizen as a potential threat, and see civil rights as something that gets in the way of them doing their job, instead of something that they are sworn to uphold.
Yeah, that’s exactly what I am getting at. We think we are seeing something that is obvious, but in reality it was something else.
The reason I think that there may be some possibility that moving the gun was legit is because he did it right in front of the second officer that arrived. He did make any attempt at all to disguise or hide the dropping of the taser there, so I am thinking that it is possible that too much is being made of that particular action.
That being said, I could be right, I could be wrong, I just don’t know, and I still state that I can see no reason in that video for the officer to shoot the man. I am just trying to understand why he moved that taser.
“It is quite natural to want to flee from a threat.”
Yep, the most natural impulse, besides fighting. Neither one of which is good to choose when dealing with the police, but that doesn’t change our instincts.
Am I the only one who sees the apparent break in the video from when he is walking up, moving the field of view over the fence, then suddenly the view has shifted?
supposed to be didn’t* make any attmept...
These guys who want to jump from bed to bed should think things through before unzipping their pants. You don't get to walk away when you've made someone pregnant.
But that doesn't mean a person (man or woman) should be put into prison for nonpayment of child support. How many states do that? My state doesn't. It appears that SC does.
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.