Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Dash Cam Footage of Walter Scott Shooting Released

    Dash Cam Footage of Walter Scott Shooting Released

    How could this happen?

    Authorities have released more information regarding the police officer shooting of Walter Scott. Last weekend, cell phone footage surfaced showing South Carolina officer Michael Slager pursuing and then shooting a fleeing Scott several times in the back.

    The video evidence itself was damning, but it left a lot of people wondering what could possibly have happened to provoke such a seemingly vicious and senseless attack. Yesterday, authorities released “dash cam” footage that reveals what happened in the minutes before the cell cam footage picks up:

    The video depicts the moments leading up to the fatal shooting: the officer is seen calmly walking up to the car, occupied by Scott and a second passenger, and asking Scott for his license and registration; Scott says that he is not the owner of the car, but planned to buy it soon. The exchange is cordial.

    When Slager went to run Scott’s record in his car, Scott ran, allegedly because he was worried that he’d be arrested for late child support payments. Seconds later, Slager gave chase, leading to the second video taken by a bystander.

    Watch:

    Here’s the full video of Slager’s attack on Scott:

    On Tuesday, Slager was charged with murder.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Tags:

    Comments



     
     3 
     
     1
    Midwest Rhino | April 10, 2015 at 5:15 pm

    Here is what Andrew Branca had on the shooting of a hypothetical fleeing Brown. He uses a lot of big words and stuff, which is totally cool. 🙂

    But as I said above, it seems (on my casual reading) there can be a situation (in some states?) where it would be “lawful” (justifiable?) to shoot a dangerous fleeing unarmed felon, but if I read it right the situation for that is rather narrow. I don’t see how Scott qualified for that, despite the fight he had with the officer that maybe qualified him as “violent” to some degree, but not that degree. (I think the Kitty libertytreehouse link above, said that justified shooting the fleeing Scott)

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2014/08/did-mo-law-allow-for-deadly-force-arrest-of-mike-brown/

    You guys, it was a bad shoot. Just because you’re happy another “black thug” (lol, they’re all “thugs” aren’t they!) got removed from the planet; and just because you reflexively worship uniforms and would apparently be happier living in a fascist police state where no-one dares question the right of armed agents of the State to conduct extra-judicial summary executions; doesn’t make this a “good shoot”.

    Despite all your attempts to blame and demonize the victim and find any excuse on God’s green earth for forgiving your heroic white cop, the fact is that there’s only one bad guy here: the 30-year-old cop who emptied his weapon into the back of a fleeing, unarmed 50-year-old man who was no threat to public safety.


       
       0 
       
       2
      Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | April 11, 2015 at 8:07 am

      OK, crazy person, who are you and what have you done with Amy?

        Some of the comments here really freak me out, Rags. I really didn’t think that there’d be all these brownshirts crawling out of the woodwork to defend the cop and blame the murder victim for his own death. Not in this case.


           
           0 
           
           0
          amwick in reply to Amy in FL. | April 11, 2015 at 8:58 am

          The whole fleeing felon thing that Mouse mentioned “Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others” well this seems (to me) to all hinge on whether Slager believed that Scott had taken his tazer and ran off with it.. (which is when he opened fire). Another confusing incident that revolves around the officer’s perception. How can you truly judge someone’s perception?

            There is no evidence whatsoever that Scott presented a danger to the general public. None.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Midwest Rhino in reply to amwick. | April 11, 2015 at 10:44 am

            I doubt Scott running off with the Tazer qualifies him for being shot. Even without a Tazer, he could have run home and gotten a gun anyway.

            We don’t have all the evidence, but there is nothing indicating a “good shoot”. The most conclusive “evidence” the public has is that they charged him with murder. The video leaves very little room for anything else, as I see it, judging from “facts” gathered from the news and blogs.

            Geraldo was making the case for manslaughter, something about heat of the moment. I have no idea on that. If they really did fight (“tussle”) for 1:45 minutes, that’s a long time. At this point I trust they made the correct charge, but have some concern public pressure can enter the process.

            They made the right charge at first with Zimmerman till politics intervened. They made the right call with Wilson but his future is still reshaped, and he had to go in hiding. In old TV shows Wilson is a hero, celebrated in his community. He gave the bad guy every chance. Those in “minority communities” don’t live in that world, and it’s made worse by activist Holder and his agent Sharpton.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Ragspierre in reply to amwick. | April 11, 2015 at 10:45 am

            Well, THAT is interesting. Actually, juries don’t attempt to divine someone’s perceptions, mostly because no evidence will ever come before them of what a “perception” was at any moment in time.

            A witness may testify as to what they were thinking or perceiving during an incident. What a jury does is weigh the credibility of that testimony, and we all know there is a HUGE number of influences that shape what someone SAYS about what they THOUGHT or SAW. It could all be self-serving lies, and we all know that.

            So juries don’t try to know perceptions. They weigh testimony. And, generally, they do a very good job.


             
             0 
             
             0
            BrokeGopher in reply to amwick. | April 11, 2015 at 12:06 pm

            The fact that immediately after killing Scott, Slager goes back to where the taser was dropped, indicates that he knew Scott did NOT have the taser.


             
             0 
             
             0
            amwick in reply to amwick. | April 11, 2015 at 2:06 pm

            Just playing devils advocate, but I think a man fleeing with a tazer is a danger to the public, and to other LEO. Not because the tazer is lethal, but because he could taze another cop and then get a gun. We know in hindsight that Scott didn’t actually have it when he was shot, but the issue is what the LEO thought. Slager made a mistake, a deadly one. Two seconds in the video could confirm that, 2 seconds hopefully someone can look at very closely. I thought the tazer dropped in between Scott and Slager, until I saw something else flying behind Slager. I have to wonder at what point Slager realized that the tazer was left behind.


             
             0 
             
             0
            randian in reply to amwick. | April 11, 2015 at 2:11 pm

            Sure, Slager could claim he thought the guy was a danger to the public. The problem is if I’m on the jury, I’m asking “if you thought what you did was righteous why did you try to cover it up by moving the Taser?”


           
           0 
           
           2
          Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | April 11, 2015 at 9:25 am

          Well, there ARE some extremes here, fer shore.

          Maybe someone here hold the view that it’s hard to tell who won the Cold War, but that’s just loopy, IMNHO.

          Or that this incident has jack-diddly to do with “militarized” policing. Any more support for that BS than saying this was “ray-ciss”?

          But I also think that some of the commenters here are merely counseling the suspension of judgment, which is not being a Brownshirt or anything of the kind. I don’t happen to agree in this case that there’s MUCH open question here, but I do allow how it MAY be. I’m not about to deny the LEO his day in court, but it looks very dark.

    Also, I think Popehat (Ken White) makes an interesting and provocative point in this blog post: If we believe in the Broken Windows Theory of law enforcement (which is the theory behind coming down so hard on citizens like Garner and Scott), we should be applying the same “zero tolerance” approach to police over-reach and misconduct as well.

    If tolerating broken windows leads to more broken windows and escalating crime, what impact does tolerating police misconduct have?

    Maybe it’s time to stop tolerating and excusing police excesses, starting with the small ones, to try to prevent more big ones like this. I mean, if the Broken Windows theory is sound. If you don’t think it’s sound, then obviously we have to stop applying it to the Garners and Scotts of the world too.


       
       0 
       
       3
      Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | April 11, 2015 at 9:17 am

      Well…

      1. I don’t think enforcing tax laws is really any kind of application of “broken windows” so much as it is clawing for more revenue.

      2. I don’t think that Garner or Scott were victims of police “coming down too hard”. In both cases, THEIR conduct brought about an escalation that didn’t need to happen. Garner had been through the drill repeatedly, and it was no big deal. Scott apparently had, too. Note that I’m NOT saying that Scott “got what he deserved”. I am saying that if any LEO in the circumstance brought him down with a night stick, there’d be no issue here.

      3. A murder charge is not in the ambit of “approbation”. It’s hard to imagine a more clear example of showing less “tolerating and excusing [a] police excess”.

      4. Enforcing a bench warrant for a dead-beat parent is not “broken windows” either. It is how a family law court gets the offender in to be heard, to see if there is some good explanation for their conduct. Sometimes there is, but often there isn’t. Courts don’t come to this without a lot of due process, at least in my jurisdiction. As I noted (above), this is a process that is universal across the U.S., and is intended in large part to keep welfare roles down.

      5. I agree that the police…all emergency responders…have to be carefully watched and themselves policed. But the Garner and Scott incidents are NOT examples of a lack of that. In Garner, there was a grand jury and there was a public inquisition that everybody involved was put through. The pols involved should…and may yet…pay the price for their poor use of the police. But the police in that case were not really at fault, IMNHO.


       
       0 
       
       1
      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Amy in FL. | April 12, 2015 at 12:51 pm

      Broken Windows is sound, and it’s been working in North Charleston, South Carolina.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/us/south-carolina-police-shooting-seen-as-crime-fighting-gone-awry.html?_r=0

      The aggressive tactics by North Charleston’s mostly white police force, including frequent stops of drivers and pedestrians for minor violations . and an increased police presence in high-crime, mostly black areas, have led to a decrease in violent crime.

      And yes, of course, it works when it comes to police misconduct as well.

      Had a “broken windows” philopsohy been applied to the previous accusation of unwarranted use of a taser against Michael Slager, this death probably would not have happened.

      Instead Michael Slager learned it is possible to cover things up.

      They got a new police choef two years ago, who is very decent, but apparently he trusted his subordinates too much.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend