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.
You really think somebody is going to start filming BEFORE anything happens?
By the time the guy realizes something is occurring and gets his phone out, the running and shooting are taking place.
exactly........
Child support is not alimony. Child support is one of the ways people deal with the consequences of their choices. You shouldn’t get out of your responsibilities to your children just because you didn’t marry their mother.
And be charged with Obstructing a Police Officer, if you're lucky.
Well, it takes two to tango. Some sluts have made men into their atm machine while still collecting welfare. It’s a game to them.
If you are not married, why are you slutting around without birth and disease control protection? If you are getting child support from half a dozen men, why are you getting welfare? This lifestyle has to stop being profitable. It’s hurting children.
At the very end of Megan Kelly’s show on Fox tonight...
there is another video, according to the reporter on the ground in Charleston, also a recording from the officer’s car, if I heard that correctly.
I am going to wait for the entire story, and not rush to judgement. Too many are doing that at this point in time.
Also, the bystander who recorded the first video will be crucial as to testimony about the details leading up to when his recording began.
“WHY DOES THE VIDEO START WHERE IT DOES??????”
It really doesn’t matter in this case what proceeded this. If he shot the victim in the back as he was fleeing, as the video shows, it was murder...
“so why would you run away and give them a reason to over react”
Sorry, but that’s about the craziest thing I’ve heard in months... So are you saying it’s the dead guys fault that the cop “over reacted” ?
I agree. It’s a damned sad state of affairs when old people like you and me are afraid of cops. They’re all a bunch of jack booted liars who cover for each other UNLESS there’s a video what will get their asses in trouble for lying.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the cop didn’t tell the guy “Stop resisting or I’ll shoot.” When the man heard this, or something similar, he figured his only chance was to hope the cop couldn’t hit a moving target.
There are a couple of annoying things about this video. First, it starts with a black screen explaining a bit of what you will see. Then, inexplicably, they start the video and *choose* to deliberately overlay the field of view during the walk-up with a “disturbing content” message. Why overlay the field of view? Theoretically, you might see what the officer and shooting victim were up to at that point. Were they struggling already, as the officer claimed? There is no reason to cover the field of view at this point unless you don’t want the viewers to see what is behind the overlay.
Second, there is an obvious break in the video at 0:16-0:17. It’s *just* before we see the officer draw his gun to shoot. That break seems pretty damn suspicious to me. I am going to listen further to the background noises to see if there is continuity.
Third, when we finally get the officer and shooting victim in sight, two objects are ALREADY in the air. Something happened very quickly to cause two things to go flying. What happened? When did the shooting victim supposedly get tased?
Fourth, at the moment we get the cop in view, notice how the cop’s posture is designed to keep his belt area away from the victim. He’s leaning forward with his hips purposefully thrust back. Then things go flying. Why? Was the shooting victim reaching for something? Was he trying to grab the cop’s gun but only managed to dislodge other equipment? The cop definitely starts the scene in a defensive posture. Something happened directly before that which is not depicted.
SO, again, I am not justifying shooting a man in the back, but there are elements of this video that stink of alteration. Like the Dan Rather memos.
Now, let’s assume that the video was altered. Let’s assume that the shooting victim actually attacked the cop, and there was a struggle where the victim went for the cop’s gun. Not a “broken nose” struggle, but a wrist grabbing, wrestling struggle. Once the victim realized he had failed, he starts to flee. What is the cop’s mindset? 2nd degree murder mindset, or voluntary manslaughter? “Federal law defines voluntary manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice [u]pon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.”
The running away part makes it difficult. Is the quarrel still occurring? Theoretically not, but the heat is still on for the officer.
I would not be surprised to discover two things about this case:
1. We discover that this video has, in fact, been altered to hide a struggle.
2. The cop gets a plea deal for voluntary manslaughter, punishable in SC by 2 to 30 years in prison, with a sentence of 10 years, and is out in 5.
You’re not saying it...but you ARE saying it.
One more chance to clarify. Are you saying that a black guy with a concealed weapons when stopped needs to shoot first?
I thought that I was clear. No, but I hope that I never have to.
See 133.
“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.”
This is off the subject, but I like this - BOTH parties should be responsible.
But since there apparently will be no "whitewash" of the case there will not be nearly as much for the race baiter "man of the cloth" to sink his teeth into.
See 133. The video is altered. Close your eyes and listen to the audio from the beginning to about 20 seconds in. There is no continuity. The video has had some part purposefully removed. The background siren has no continuity as other sounds similarly lack continuity,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpt7sEt3k4Y
Again, I’m not saying what the cop did was wrong, but - for all I know - the guy slugged the cop and went for his gun in the missing segment of the video. It doesn’t make the shooting justified, but it will change the nature of the charges.
They also need to stop shooting dogs. I believe the police are being trained to shoot the dogs first to take them out of the situation. If a cop shot my dog, I cannot guarantee how I might act.
That combined with this shooting and too many police think they have a license to kill.
Not good strategy but I think it was a move of desperation during a panicked realization of guilt.
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.