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.
I understand what you're saying. I just don't think it would work. Plus, I happen to believe that a father should help to support his children. Assuming that he knows he has any.
I also have known many single mothers who worked hard, often two jobs at the same time, to make ends meet, whereas they couldn't get the fathers to support their children.
For the record, though, as I stated somewhere on this thread, I don't think anyone should go to jail for not paying child support. My state doesn't do that. I'm not sure if SC does.
Well, why would you expect any comment on that? We all know that about “the code”. Cops don’t rat out other cops, and nobody really expects them to anymore. We’ve lowered our expectations for law enforcement that much, and they still manage to disappoint us.
Anything less than Murder in the First or Second Degree would be an absolute outrage, IMO.
Yes, I'm aware that the "victim" in this case had a police record and an outstanding warrant. That still does not give the officer the right to use DEADLY FORCE when no deadly force was required at all.
What we have happening in this country with the militarization of the local police forces and what seems to be a constant deluge of police exercising excessive force when none is required should concern us all.
Well, the system we have now isn’t working, so I think we need some new approaches. Maybe my plan wouldn’t work, but if so, it wouldn’t be any different than the current laws in that respect.
We definitely agree on that. Some new approaches are needed.
The planting of the taser after walking back to pick it up.
That showed a motive to cover up a crime.
Huge mistake on his part.
Dashcam video now available at this thread here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3277613/posts
That can’t possibly show premeditation.
Yes, it shows that he knew full well that he was committing a crime and needed to alter the evidence.
.
Uh. Premeditation means you planned to do something. Realizing you just committed a crime and deciding to cover it up is, temporally, something that occurs after, not before.
The shooting itself was probably not planned unless we hear something on enhanced audio where he says, “If you run, I will shoot you in the back!”
If a broken tail light and late child support are executable offenses, you can bet that “interfering with an officer” is as well. So go ahead, smart guy, interrupt the cop.
When any excuse will do to kill an unarmed man who was no threat in broad daylight, no excuse is needed for the guy with the camera who saw you do it and who can put you on death row.
Even if he only saw the initial confrontation, it’s enough to get the cop fired. That’s a lot better reason than a busted light for the cop to beat or kill you.
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.