North Charleston officer faces murder charge after video shows him shooting man in ba

[Cebu_4_2]

North Charleston officer faces murder charge after video shows him shooting man in back
https://vimeo.com/124336782

A North Charleston police officer was arrested on a murder charge Tuesday after video surfaced of the lawman shooting eight times at 50-year-old Walter Scott as he ran away.

Scott died Saturday after Patrolman 1st Class Michael Slager, 33, shot him in the back.

The State Law Enforcement Division, which looked into whether the shooting was justified, confirmed that the officer had been booked into Charleston County’s jail late Tuesday afternoon on a murder charge.

Mayor Keith Summey said during a news conference that Slager’s “bad decision” had prompted his arrest.

“When you’re wrong, you’re wrong,” Summey said. “When you make a bad decision, don’t care if you’re behind the shield or a citizen on the street, you have to live with that decision.”

The footage, which The Post and Courier obtained Tuesday from a source who asked to remain anonymous, shows the end of the confrontation between the two on Saturday after the officer said Scott, who had a warrant out for his arrest, ran from a traffic stop. It was the first piece of evidence that could contradict a statement that Slager released to the public through his attorney.

Attorney David Aylor, who released a statement on Slager’s behalf earlier this week, said Tuesday that he wasn’t representing the officer anymore.

It was not immediately clear whether Slager had hired a new lawyer.

“I’m no longer involved in form or fashion,” Aylor said.

The three-minute clip starts out shaky, but it levels off as Slager and Scott appear to be grabbing at each other’s hands.

Slager has said through his attorney that Scott had wrested his Taser from him during a struggle.

The video appears to show Scott slapping at the officer’s hands as several objects fall to the ground. It’s not clear what the objects are.

Scott starts running away. Wires, presumably from Slager’s Taser, stretch from Scott to the officer’s hands.

With Scott more than 10 feet from Slager, the officer draws his pistol and fires seven times in rapid succession. After a brief pause, the officer fires one last time. Scott’s back bows, and he falls face first to the ground near a tree.

After the gunfire, Slager glances at the person taking the video, then talks into his radio.

The cameraman curses, and Slager yells at Scott as sirens wail.

“Put your hands behind your back,” the officer shouts before he handcuffs Scott as another lawman runs to the scene.

Scott died there.

Deputy Coroner Brittney Martin was not immediately available Tuesday to confirm how many times Scott was shot.

At the time, Scott was wanted for arrest on a Family Court warrant, Charleston County sheriff’s Maj. Eric Watson said Tuesday.

He had a history of arrests related to contempt of court charges for failing to pay child support. The only accusation of violence against Scott during his lifetime came through a 1987 assault and battery charge, but the disposition of that charge was not immediately known.
National sentiment

The footage comes amid a discussion about race and policing in the U.S.

Scott was black. Slager is white.

The nationwide conversation was sparked by the fatal shooting in August of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. Brown, an 18-year-old black man, was unarmed at the time, but witnesses said he got into a struggle with Officer Darren Wilson, who is white, and was shot during the scuffle.

Though a grand jury did not find any reason to indict Wilson, the shooting ignited protests, some of which turned violent. A “black lives matter” movement inspired talk about whether police nationwide too quickly resort to deadly force against black men.

During that wave of public sentiment that prompted rallies in the Charleston area, South Carolina Trooper Sean Groubert, who is white, was arrested for shooting Levar Jones, a black man who had reached into his pickup for his driver’s license during a September traffic stop in Columbia. Groubert faces a charge of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, and the state settled a lawsuit by Jones for $300,000.

The development in Scott’s death also came on the same day when SLED arrested a North Augusta police officer in the Feb. 9, 2014, shooting death of Ernest Satterwhite. The officer, 25-year-old Justin Gregory Craven, faces a count of discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle, a felony charge punishable with up to 10 years in prison.
Leaders urge calm

Community leaders in North Charleston have stressed the need for calm in the aftermath of Scott’s death. The North Charleston Police Department has fought accusations in past years that aggressive enforcement tactics have unfairly targeted poor, black communities.

Slager, a former Coast Guardsman, served for more than five years with the department without being disciplined, his attorney said.

Two people filed complaints against Slager during his time with the force, including one man who said the policeman shot him with a Taser for no reason in September 2013. Internal investigators, though, exonerated the officer of any wrongdoing.

Ed Bryant, the president of the North Charleston chapter of the NAACP, was taken aback by a description of the video. He had not seen it, he said.

But he encouraged investigators and prosecutors to pursue justice in Scott’s death and urge openness from the authorities.

“If he was running away, how does that pose the need for deadly force?” Bryant said. “If he’s leaving, they should just pursue him. But shooting him? That’s another story.”

Pastor Thomas Dixon said that he has not yet seen the video, but that he and other community activists are preparing for its release and trying to work out a plan.

“We do believe it’s necessary to expect that there may be some sort of community reaction,” he said.

Dixon added that he is concerned about outsiders coming into the community to incite violence and rallies. He said the outcry of anger so often ends up “tearing down our communities,” and emotions should be diverted to something more constructive than violence.

“Good people get caught up with crazy people,” he said. “The smart reaction is to just gather and peacefully let your voice be heard without any foolishness or craziness.”

Dwight James, executive director of the S.C. State Conference of the NAACP, said leaders were gathering in Columbia on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the case.

James said he was looking forward to all the facts coming out.

“We’re in touch with law enforcement on multiple levels,” he said. “The last feedback I got was that (the officer) was not talking.”

Nelson B. Rivers III of the National Action Network said he was suspicious of Slager’s story because he had quickly hired an attorney, though many officers-involved in shootings do the same.

Rivers attended a vigil for Scott last weekend.

“Police officers don’t get lawyered up that fast,” he said, “unless they’ve done something really bad.”
Officer’s account

Slager said earlier this week in a statement from his attorney at the time that his encounter with Scott had started Saturday morning as a routine traffic stop.

His department said he pulled over Scott’s Mercedes-Benz sedan near Remount and Craig roads because it had a broken brake light. But at some point, Scott ran away with Slager in pursuit on foot. Scott’s passenger stayed with the Mercedes.

During the foot chase, Scott confronted Slager, according to the statement from the officer’s lawyer. Slager got out his Taser to subdue the man, but Scott took the device during a struggle, the statement said. That’s when the officer fired at Scott several times because he “felt threatened,” it added.

The bystander’s cellphone camera continued to roll as Slager stands over Scott and another officer puts on gloves.

“(Expletive) abuse,” the cameraman says. “(Expletive) abuse.”

During the two and a half minutes after the shooting until the end of the video, the backup officer lifts up Scott’s shirt to check his wounds. But no one immediately starts CPR.

The video ends with Slager standing next to Scott, who was still face down, and checking the dying man’s pulse.

Summey, the city’s mayor, said the cameraman handed over the footage to Scott’s family, who gave it to SLED. City officials reviewed it late Tuesday afternoon.

“We’ve got 343 police officers,” Summey said. “This is a bad decision by one of those 343.”

Glenn Smith, Melissa Boughton, Christina Elmore, Brenda Rindge and Schuyler Kropf contributed to this report. Reach Andrew Knapp at 937-5414 or twitter.com/offlede.

[Dogman]

Needs to be convicted and placed in general population in prison !

No excuse for this one !

If you watch the vid you can see the cop "planting" a taser by the body. He goes back to where both were before the guy ran and picked up his taser and walked back to the body and dropped it by the body.

[ximmy]

Pig checking his pulse afterwards, just in case the perp needed a few extra caps popped in his ass...

[SWRichmond]

No actual people were harmed in the making of this movie. The narrative is that this cop is being held accountable, and all of you mundanes can now go back to loving your masters.

[Horn]

1 man and his tazer acting as family court's jury and executioner.

I'll bet if there were no tazer there would have been no gun produced, he'd call for back up when the guy ran.

[singular_me]

dead and still being handcuffed

[Hitch]

If you watch the vid you can see the cop "planting" a taser by the body. He goes back to where both were before the guy ran and picked up his taser and walked back to the body and dropped it by the body.

You are damn right that's what he did! Great eye, Dogman, good catch.

Murdering SOB, took a life. Caught on camera.

I don't get police these days. An unarmed, wanted...man runs, you chase him and catch him honorably.

The video shows murder, straight up. You can't argue those actions. They are done. Hope that evil bastard rots in prison, then hell.

[palani]

I wasn't there. I don't know what happened.

[Hitch]

I wasn't there. I don't know what happened.

If you were there, and decided to run, you would have been shot in the back.

That's what 'would' have happened.

Sit this thread out. Make some posts and threads that don't mean shit to real people in real life.

[palani]

Make some posts and threads that don't mean shit to real people in real life.

In this day and age of photo shop why would you accept visual evidence of anything? A video can't testify. They can even paste a dead actors face to anothers body and use that image to sell stuff or to produce movies. You can even be convinced that man walked on the moon. Don't be so quick to jump to the 'logical' conclusion when YOU DON'T KNOW SHIIIIIITTTTTTT!!!!!!

[Hitch]

In this day and age of photo shop why would you accept visual evidence of anything? A video can't testify. They can even paste a dead actors face to anothers body and use that image to sell stuff or to produce movies. You can even be convinced that man walked on the moon. Don't be so quick to jump to the 'logical' conclusion when YOU DON'T KNOW SHIIIIIITTTTTTT!!!!!!

Do you REALLY believe that cheap cell phone camera footage was faked? Honestly? Don't even try to compare this to the man on the moon footage, don't drag up any BS reason to support your false argument.

Focus on the topic of this thread. Prove to us that this video is faked. Try to, I can't wait.

[Horn]

No need to go ape and pull your weapons out on palani's "not there" statement, Hitch.

[palani]

Do you REALLY believe that cheap cell phone camera footage was faked?

Why would I need to believe either the truth or falseness of something that comes to me over the internet? The medium itself is not real so why should anything I receive over it be real?

[Hitch]

No need to go ape and pull your weapons out on palani's "not there" statement, Hitch.

It's "not there" statements and opinions is why our country is going down the shithole, Horn. Any asshole can turn a blind eye to injustice.

[Hitch]

Why would I need to believe either the truth or falseness of something that comes to me over the internet? The medium itself is not real so why should anything I receive over it be real?

If and when you get shot in the back, by police, maybe then you'll realize it's real.

[palani]

If .... then .....you'll realize it's real.
Its all a lucid dream, Hitch. Time to wake up.

The mind has this amazing ability to imagine something and by the Law of Attraction they tend to come to fruition. Why do you want to go there? Stop imagining and bringing all these nasties down on yourself?

[palani]

It's ... is why our country is going down the shithole

I didn't know you and Horn were countrymen.

[Hitch]

Its all a lucid dream, Hitch. Time to wake up.

I'm not the one who fails to see reality, palani. I suggest you watch that video, in the OP, again.

[palani]

I suggest you watch that video, in the OP, again.
I already watched it on the evening national news. That is strike II against it. The news media actually PROMOTE things that are false. They do this for a reason. Try to think what that reason might be.

[madfranks]

Why would I need to believe either the truth or falseness of something that comes to me over the internet? The medium itself is not real so why should anything I receive over it be real?

I don't think you understand. The internet is one of the last real places left.

[Horn]

It's "not there" statements and opinions is why our country is going down the shithole, Horn. Any asshole can turn a blind eye to injustice.

That's debatable, and rather well better put than just rounding off 8 shots into palani's back.

or I can just step aside and watch u guys mutilate each other. Which seems a better option at this point.

[Hitch]

I already watched it on the evening national news. That is strike II against it. The news media actually PROMOTE things that are false. They do this for a reason. Try to think what that reason might be.

I've been overworked and running on a lack of sleep.

Why don't you enlighten us and tell us that reason.

[Dogman]

That's debatable, and rather well better put than just rounding off 8 shots into palani's back.

or I can just step aside and watch u guys mutilate each other. Which seems a better option at this point.

Agreed !

Odorous forum pastime !

[Hitch]

That's debatable,

Is it debatable? I don't think it is. If it was...let's debate! I don't see any debate going on in this thread. Bring that to the table, Horn.

[palani]

Why don't you enlighten us and tell us that reason.

Probably 999,999 out of every 1,000,000 people are going to achieve an average 11.6 Systolic increase in BP after considering this film which statistically will result in 15,950 heart attacks and strokes in People who are historically obese and cannot stand excitement. Obamacare then becomes a godsend and five million doctors will enter medical school to fill the demand. Chemical companies will declare dividends and coroners and funeral directors will be able to buy islands in the Caribbean. And the goal of reducing world population to 600 million people will be on track.

[Horn]

Lol! O.K. the debate is over!

[Hitch]

Probably 999,999 out of every 1,000,000 people are going to achieve an average 11.6 Systolic increase in BP after considering this film which statistically will result in 15,950 heart attacks and strokes in People who are historically obese and cannot stand excitement. Obamacare then becomes a godsend and five million doctors will enter medical school to fill the demand. Chemical companies will declare dividends and coroners and funeral directors will be able to buy islands in the Caribbean. And the goal of reducing world population to 600 million people will be on track.

I agree with this. I don't see how this applies to the topic of this thread however.

They want to 'thin the herd', it's obvious, but don't quite get why PD is getting more and more blatantly violent against citizens. That's not how we were taught, at least not how I was. It was all protect and serve and uphold the Constitution.

All that is gone now.

[palani]

I agree with this. I don't see how this applies to the topic of this thread however.

You can fight Obamacare. You can prevent 5 million students from deciding to enter the medical field. You can reduce pharmaceutical companies to bankruptcy. Coroners can get back to their main job of regulating the sheriff. Funeral directors will be digging their own graves before they bury another stranger.

Nothing is real unless you can see it, hear it, feel it, taste it or smell it and even then you might suspect you are a victim of MK-Ultra and are just dreaming. Keep your blood pressure low and live to 120 ... screw 'em all!!!!

[Santa]

City officials reviewed it late Tuesday afternoon.
“We’ve got 343 police officers,” Summey said. “This is a bad decision by one of those 343.”

Don't you just love city officials? Only one "bad decision" out of 343. Gee, that's some amazing spin.
Cop murders an old fat guy whose barely able to hobble away by shooting him in the back 8 times and city officials brag about police efficiency.

[ximmy]

He was a good boy... who dindu nuffins

Photo of Walter scott, your typical American family man. umm who was running away from cops because he had a warrant for not paying child support.
It turns out that the reason Scott was being held by the officer had to do with missing child support payments and a resulting warrant from family court. His only history of violence was for an assault and battery charge 27 years ago, in 1987.
http://www.postandcourier.com/storyimage/CP/20150404/PC16/150409635/EP/1/2/EP-150409635.jpg&Maxw=620&q=85
Let's see what we can find on this violent criminal, besides attacking the cop, which ended in his death.

We were initially told Walter Scott had no criminal history. Our own research in Charleston, Berkeley and Dorchester counties showed only a couple of charges for driving under suspension and failure to pay child support. Some of the local media dug deeper and found a few other criminal charges including assault and battery and possession of a bludgeon (club). Some local outlets have chosen to ignore or minimize that information. WTMA reported this morning that Scott had “no criminal record”.
http://charlestonthuglife.net/2015/04/pining-for-protests/

excerpt from 4chan:
[I]don't run from the police
act like a civilized person
don't play knockout game with the officer
Live
not very fucking hard /pol/ but many of you seem to have a difficult time grasping this

>>43515639 (OP) (http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/43515639/walter-scott-shot-in-back#p43515639)

Eagle Scout, student body president, and regular blood donor Walter Scott was on his way from his volunteer shift at the soup kitchen when suddenly Neo-Nazi KKK Grand-Wizard and climate-skeptic Michael Slager saw the glow of his halo.

He stepped out of his gas-guzzling hummer and took chase.

Walter Scott, weighed down by his backpack full of Nobel peace prizes and handwritten letters to grandma, was soon overtaken by the Aryan Nation member.

The only escape was to the street, but alas, there was no crosswalk.
Faced with certain death or breaking the law, the straight-A student made his stand.

He attampts to reason with his attacker but the iliterate racist murderer only has ears for white supremacy speeches and Mein Kampf passages.

"Any last words?" said Michael Slager through a mouthful of chewing tobacco.

Walter Scott looks his executioner in the eye, puts his hands up clearly inidcating his surrender and says "World Peace"

"FUCK BLACK PEOPLE!" shouts Michael Slager as he unloads the clip of his fully automatic assault rifle.

If not for the Republican Party, Scott may have survived, but the skinhead's extended magazine, unfettered by gun-control legislation, unloads hundreds of rounds into the Harvard-bound, endangered animals advocate.


Mr. Scott had been arrested about 10 times, mostly for failing to pay child support or show up for court hearings, according to The Post and Courier (http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150406/PC16/150409558/1177/north-charleston-police-say-officer-who-fatally-shot-man-pulled-him-over-because-of-brake-light) newspaper of Charleston. He was arrested in 1987 on an assault and battery charge and convicted in 1991 of possession of a bludgeon, the newspaper reported. Mr. Scott’s brother, Anthony, said he believed Mr. Scott had fled from the police on Saturday because he owed child support.
“He has four children; he doesn’t have some type of big violent past or arrest record,” said Chris Stewart, a lawyer for Mr. Scott’s family. “He had a job; he was engaged. He had back child support and didn’t want to go to jail for back child support.” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html?_r=0

[ximmy]

Did Walter Scott take Officer Slager's Taser?
------
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/stun_guns/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html?_r=0

Anyone care to guess what officers practice when they are trained in the use of the Taser? That’s right, reloading and reloading on the run. So, if the officer was carrying the X-26 with a spare cartridge, and fired the first one with no effect, it is very likely he could have affixed that second cartridge before the Taser was taken from him by Scott. WCSC chose not to tell you about that possibility in their rush to misinform the public with their irresponsible speculation and fraudulent facts.


http://charlestonthuglife.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ScreenHunter_3504-Apr.-07-07.07.jpg (http://charlestonthuglife.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ScreenHunter_3504-Apr.-07-07.07.jpg)


WCSC also chose to use an image of the Taser X-26P in their story. That version has one cartridge attached. WCSC used that photo in spite of the fact they have no idea which version of the Taser the officer was carrying. They didn’t exactly admit that, you have to read between the lines. Not that it matters. WCSC also slanted their article in an effort to make you believe a Taser without a cartridge installed is a harmless piece of plastic.
http://charlestonthuglife.net/2015/04/pining-for-protests/

https://vimeo.com/124336782 (https://www.stormfront.org/forum/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2F124336782)

------
Help me out, i have been looking at this slowly and noticed a few things, stop and start the video at 19 seconds until the taser line can be seen, stop and start it again and the taser line appears to tighten up when the suspect flees...could the suspect have the taser? The black object behind the officer could be anything else.

The officer could have dropped the taser by the suspect toward the end but what we see is him picking something up.

19-20 seconds, the taser line doesn't appear to be up over the officers shoulder attached to the black object that falls behind them.
The video isn't the best but it looks like the taser is sticking into the officers arm...as the suspect flees look towards his feet, something black is being dragged, could this be the taser? He could have dropped it when he was out of view and got caught on one of his feet?

I don't know.
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1096545/?postcount=10#post12751588

Update: The headline of this post originally stated that the video appears to show the officer planting a Taser on the victim. It's unclear whether he's planting it or if he dropped it and picked it up afterward. The headline has been changed to account for this uncertainty. This is a developing story, and we'll continue to update it to reflect the latest.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/07/walter_scott_michael_slager_murder_charge_south_ca rolina_shooting_of_black.html

------
NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCIV) -- The attorney for a North Charleston police officer who shot a 50-year-old man during a confrontation at a traffic stop Saturday says his client believes he followed proper procedure.
The incident began about 9:30 a.m. Saturday when Officer Michael Slager, 33, pulled 50-year-old Walter Scott over for a broken tail light at the corner of Remount and Craig roads.
Police and witnesses say Scott tried to run from Slager before turning to fight for the officer's Taser. It was during that scuffle that the officer fired his service weapon, fatally wounding Scott.
According to an incident report, officers heard Slager say over the radio that he had deployed his Taser and "seconds later" he said "Shots fired and the subject is down. He took my Taser."
http://www.abcnews4.com/story/28725562/coroner-identifies-man-shot-killed-by-north-charleston-police-officer

[Cebu_4_2]

You don't just shoot people in the back cause they are afraid...

WTF If some pig did that exact thing to you and you knew he was going to kill you (trending) would you just stand there or run?

[Cebu_4_2]

Good follow up Ximmy.

[Hitch]

Nothing is real unless you can see it, hear it, feel it, taste it or smell it and even then you might suspect you are a victim of MK-Ultra and are just dreaming. Keep your blood pressure low and live to 120 ... screw 'em all!!!!

Fair enough, but that also means YOU aren't real. Your message, to me and all out there, is not real because we can't feel it, taste it, etc.

Think about that. There's more, imo. I think you are real, even if you don't want me to think it.

[Horn]

He must've already been chasing him on foot for some time? I'm hearing he was pulled over for a tail light, yet they're standing in a park?

My whole bias against the current enforcement system in the U.S. is they are way overpowered. Here in C.R. you only ever see them standing on the street in two or more, (sometimes even in gangs of 5 or more in worse areas) and if they actually do act on anything its well thought out with chain of command and many bodies. Of course they're paid as well as a taxi driver so they are able to put more out there if needed.

Police in U.S. have way too many freedoms and overpowered individually to plan and respond independently, and on their own conviction. No good comes from it.

Tazers only multiply the force to do what one wills without consequence.

[Jerrylynnb]

When any person, of whatever race, defies the law, it is because he considers the situation he is in to be OUTSIDE the law.

For many of us older men, arresting men for child support is OUTSIDE fundamental human law. A man's natural right is to bed down with as many women that he can persuade to do so willingly, without any penalty whatsoever from any law anyone cares to envision, or enact. That is a fundamental human right. The enactment of "child-support" (so-called) accompanying "no-fault" divorce (so-called), back in the late 1960's was a flagrant violation of mankind's natural laws. That meant a man had no options whatsoever when his wife, or lover, slept around on him. His only future was to work like a dog, accept his court-ordered poverty, and PAY child support or be handcuffed, manhandled in the back of a police car, driven around for hours, without any concern by the patrolmen as to his need to urinate, and, then booked, slapped in a holding cell, and then treated worse than a rabid dog by the system.

Had I been in his shoes, I'd probably have ran also, as the reality set in about what I was about to have to endure - I would have done so because I probably would have gone berserk at the prospect. Had he been armed, he probably would have shot that patrolmen, and he would have considered it self-defense.

The ONLY legitimate option, under fundamental human rights, to deal with a "dead-beat" dad (so-called) is the same way you would to someone who borrows money from the bank and then can't pay - you got a civil suit against which NO BODILY attachment can be made - seizure of property and garnishment of wages is the maximum penalty for civil non-compliance. It is the harshness of having your body SEIZED by brutal, tormenting, bullies in uniform that drive non-paying fathers to go off the deep end. It is the re institution of "debtor's prisons" that the child-support laws gave us, thereby violating one of traditional america's most fundamental tenants - the OUTLAWING of debtor's prisons.

Adding salt to the wound, these laws (child-support and no-fault divorce) were passed AFTER THE FACT. Although this was not a consideration in the present case, it most certainly was back in the early 70's when so many men, who had married under "show cause" marriage laws, were held responsible under the new divorce laws that were passed AFTER THE FACT. That is like prosecuting you for something you did years ago by a new law just passed now making what you did a crime, when it wasn't at the time you did it. Even though it isn't pertinent to the present case, its flagrant violation of a constitutional prohibition (ex post facto legislation) demonstrates the utter disregard our lawmakers have for any kind of human rights that we all feel deep in our makeup.

This case was reckless homicide, probably, but, the underlying cause here is the base wrongness of the child-support/no-fault divorce laws that are an assault to any man's fundamental rights to be a man free of any jeopardy to his body short of him having committed, threatened, or recklessly caused, a violent act against another.

[palani]

I think you are real, even if you don't want me to think it.

I am a memory. Where do memories exist?

[palani]

Walter Scott? Come on now. As in Sir Walter Scott?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Scott

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Sir_Henry_Raeburn_-_Portrait_of_Sir_Walter_Scott.jpg/250px-Sir_Henry_Raeburn_-_Portrait_of_Sir_Walter_Scott.jpg

You see what you are intended to see.

[singular_me]

jailing somebody for failing to pay child support is utterly wrong in the first place because once the person is imprisoned, the child support will definitely not be paid at all and to add to the injury the latter/convict is on society's tab.

It is the irrationality of the system that is at the core of the issue.

[Shami-Amourae]

This case probably won't stay in the news long. It doesn't fit the template. The template requires the Dindu shooting to be ambiguous so the Conservatives take the cops side and the Liberals take the Dindu's side. Most Conservatives will take the Dindu's side on this case, so there's no meat to keep it covered for long.

[ximmy]

When any person, of whatever race, defies the law, it is because he considers the situation he is in to be OUTSIDE the law.

For many of us older men, arresting men for child support is OUTSIDE fundamental human law. A man's natural right is to bed down with as many women that he can persuade to do so willingly, without any penalty whatsoever from any law anyone cares to envision, or enact. That is a fundamental human right. The enactment of "child-support" (so-called) accompanying "no-fault" divorce (so-called), back in the late 1960's was a flagrant violation of mankind's natural laws. That meant a man had no options whatsoever when his wife, or lover, slept around on him. His only future was to work like a dog, accept his court-ordered poverty, and PAY child support or be handcuffed, manhandled in the back of a police car, driven around for hours, without any concern by the patrolmen as to his need to urinate, and, then booked, slapped in a holding cell, and then treated worse than a rabid dog by the system.

Had I been in his shoes, I'd probably have ran also, as the reality set in about what I was about to have to endure - I would have done so because I probably would have gone berserk at the prospect. Had he been armed, he probably would have shot that patrolmen, and he would have considered it self-defense.

The ONLY legitimate option, under fundamental human rights, to deal with a "dead-beat" dad (so-called) is the same way you would to someone who borrows money from the bank and then can't pay - you got a civil suit against which NO BODILY attachment can be made - seizure of property and garnishment of wages is the maximum penalty for civil non-compliance. It is the harshness of having your body SEIZED by brutal, tormenting, bullies in uniform that drive non-paying fathers to go off the deep end. It is the re institution of "debtor's prisons" that the child-support laws gave us, thereby violating one of traditional america's most fundamental tenants - the OUTLAWING of debtor's prisons.

Adding salt to the wound, these laws (child-support and no-fault divorce) were passed AFTER THE FACT. Although this was not a consideration in the present case, it most certainly was back in the early 70's when so many men, who had married under "show cause" marriage laws, were held responsible under the new divorce laws that were passed AFTER THE FACT. That is like prosecuting you for something you did years ago by a new law just passed now making what you did a crime, when it wasn't at the time you did it. Even though it isn't pertinent to the present case, its flagrant violation of a constitutional prohibition (ex post facto legislation) demonstrates the utter disregard our lawmakers have for any kind of human rights that we all feel deep in our makeup.

This case was reckless homicide, probably, but, the underlying cause here is the base wrongness of the child-support/no-fault divorce laws that are an assault to any man's fundamental rights to be a man free of any jeopardy to his body short of him having committed, threatened, or recklessly caused, a violent act against another.

How does that negro male saying go?... Muh dick? That is most important and essentially what you are saying... Right?

[StreetsOfGold]

The black guy was FAT and running slow, what's the problem?
An even FATTER donut muncher too pitifully inept to physically subdue the man.
Heck, I would not have even needed a baton to bring him down and I'm over 50

[7th trump]

When any person, of whatever race, defies the law, it is because he considers the situation he is in to be OUTSIDE the law.

For many of us older men, arresting men for child support is OUTSIDE fundamental human law. A man's natural right is to bed down with as many women that he can persuade to do so willingly, without any penalty whatsoever from any law anyone cares to envision, or enact. That is a fundamental human right. The enactment of "child-support" (so-called) accompanying "no-fault" divorce (so-called), back in the late 1960's was a flagrant violation of mankind's natural laws. That meant a man had no options whatsoever when his wife, or lover, slept around on him. His only future was to work like a dog, accept his court-ordered poverty, and PAY child support or be handcuffed, manhandled in the back of a police car, driven around for hours, without any concern by the patrolmen as to his need to urinate, and, then booked, slapped in a holding cell, and then treated worse than a rabid dog by the system.

Had I been in his shoes, I'd probably have ran also, as the reality set in about what I was about to have to endure - I would have done so because I probably would have gone berserk at the prospect. Had he been armed, he probably would have shot that patrolmen, and he would have considered it self-defense.

The ONLY legitimate option, under fundamental human rights, to deal with a "dead-beat" dad (so-called) is the same way you would to someone who borrows money from the bank and then can't pay - you got a civil suit against which NO BODILY attachment can be made - seizure of property and garnishment of wages is the maximum penalty for civil non-compliance. It is the harshness of having your body SEIZED by brutal, tormenting, bullies in uniform that drive non-paying fathers to go off the deep end. It is the re institution of "debtor's prisons" that the child-support laws gave us, thereby violating one of traditional america's most fundamental tenants - the OUTLAWING of debtor's prisons.

Adding salt to the wound, these laws (child-support and no-fault divorce) were passed AFTER THE FACT. Although this was not a consideration in the present case, it most certainly was back in the early 70's when so many men, who had married under "show cause" marriage laws, were held responsible under the new divorce laws that were passed AFTER THE FACT. That is like prosecuting you for something you did years ago by a new law just passed now making what you did a crime, when it wasn't at the time you did it. Even though it isn't pertinent to the present case, its flagrant violation of a constitutional prohibition (ex post facto legislation) demonstrates the utter disregard our lawmakers have for any kind of human rights that we all feel deep in our makeup.

This case was reckless homicide, probably, but, the underlying cause here is the base wrongness of the child-support/no-fault divorce laws that are an assault to any man's fundamental rights to be a man free of any jeopardy to his body short of him having committed, threatened, or recklessly caused, a violent act against another.

Really?
So you agree to running away from your responsibility of taking care of your own flesh and blood child by messing around even more with other strange women?
Have you ever thought about putting yourself in that childs shoes growing up with strangers your whole life...some good and some bad?

Disregard for human rights?
What about the childs rights you just brought into the world?
A child who needs a father figure but instead gets abandonment.
What about the human rights of those who take care of their children and work for nothing to have taxes taken out of their paychecks to feed the child who has no father to support him?
Do you think its fair and just for the productive responsible father and mother to have to take care of the child of a worthless fool?
People like you make my blood boil!
And people wonder why this country is messed up.

[Jerrylynnb]

How did mankind survive before they instituted no-fault divorce and child support? You know the answer - because most men by nature care about their children. Not because they fear having to pay child support, but because that is just nature's way of providing for the young.

But by assuming you have the right to seize the body of a man who walks away from whatever children he sires, is to equate that act to one who maims, tortures, and kills others.

Where is your sense of perspective?

A man who refuses what the rest of us think are his responsibilities is a far cry from a violent murderer, and, the maximum penalty for irresponsible abandonment is seizure of property, NOT seizure of the body.

If you don't see that, then you are well on your way to a police state where anybody can have his body seized for his beliefs, or failure to bow before the state-sanctioned "god", or failure to pay whatever amount of money some judge says he owes for whatever reason some judge decides is warranted (debtor's prison).

We got nothing more to discuss on this matter - seizure of the body is strictly restricted to acts of violence - NOT for dishonorable, but non-violent, behavior out of favor with the sentiments of the rest of us.

This guy Scot ran out of fear of being physically assaulted for not having paid money to his ex - before condemning a man who takes flight when suddenly confronted with overwhelming force about to seize his body, put yourself in that situation and ask yourself are you always so calm and deliberate in your composure - can't you imagine losing you mind and acting out of fright at the prospect of being violently assaulted, for no reason other than not having paid money?

I have found that so many wise and intelligent men are convinced so easily to award ZERO rights to others that they find out of favor with their own beliefs and philosophical holdings. Even a man who sires children and abandons them still has rights to his own body, in spite of the fact that so many civilized men are ready to see him sent to the guillotine, since they hold such a man in contempt. The best measure of your maturity in sociological thinking is to decide what rights you will insist on for those amongst us whom you hold in most contempt, but, who are not in any way responsible for any violent acts or disturbance to the peace. If you let your disdain translate into acceptance of violent acts against those you hold in such disfavor, then you become fodder in the hands of tyrants. They know how to toggle your pet-beliefs - child-support today, church tithing tomorrow, vaccinations after that, surrendering of wealth, and so on and on - there is no end once you cross the line of sanctity of the body.

[EE_]

How did mankind survive before they instituted no-fault divorce and child support? You know the answer - because most men by nature care about their children. Not because they fear having to pay child support, but because that is just nature's way of providing for the young.

But by assuming you have the right to seize the body of a man who walks away from whatever children he sires, is to equate that act to one who maims, tortures, and kills others.

Where is your sense of perspective?

A man who refuses what the rest of us think are his responsibilities is a far cry from a violent murderer, and, the maximum penalty for irresponsible abandonment is seizure of property, NOT seizure of the body.

If you don't see that, then you are well on your way to a police state where anybody can have his body seized for his beliefs, or failure to bow before the state-sanctioned "god", or failure to pay whatever amount of money some judge says he owes for whatever reason some judge decides is warranted (debtor's prison).

We got nothing more to discuss on this matter - seizure of the body is strictly restricted to acts of violence - NOT for dishonorable, but non-violent, behavior out of favor with the sentiments of the rest of us.

This guy Scot ran out of fear of being physically assaulted for not having paid money to his ex - before condemning a man who takes flight when suddenly confronted with overwhelming force about to seize his body, put yourself in that situation and ask yourself are you always so calm and deliberate in your composure - can't you imagine losing you mind and acting out of fright at the prospect of being violently assaulted, for no reason other than not having paid money?

I have found that so many wise and intelligent men are convinced so easily to award ZERO rights to others that they find out of favor with their own beliefs and philosophical holdings. Even a man who sires children and abandons them still has rights to his own body, in spite of the fact that so many civilized men are ready to see him sent to the guillotine, since they hold such a man in contempt. The best measure of your maturity in sociological thinking is to decide what rights you will insist on for those amongst us whom you hold in most contempt, but, who are not in any way responsible for any violent acts or disturbance to the peace. If you let your disdain translate into acceptance of violent acts against those you hold in such disfavor, then you become fodder in the hands of tyrants. They know how to toggle your pet-beliefs - child-support today, church tithing tomorrow, vaccinations after that, surrendering of wealth, and so on and on - there is no end once you cross the line of sanctity of the body.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/23266068.jpg

[mick silver]

when you can not feed yourself STOP having kids . I am sick of feeding others people for ficking like rabbits ... but the shooting was not called for ...

[Horn]

If women were not given a false sense of security thru child support law. They most certainly would think twice before receiving sperm.

I used to be all for providing it to them, but have trained myself very well in my later years...

[ximmy]

If women were not given a false sense of security thru child support law. They most certainly would think twice before receiving sperm.

I used to be all for providing it to them, but have trained myself very well in my later years...

Once again, it's the woman's fault. Little, if any, responsibility is required when the passionate "muh-dick" argument is utilized.

[Shami-Amourae]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/08/13/275CD3D700000578-3029597-Slager_is_pictured_above_picking_up_something_seem ingly_his_Tase-a-14_1428496520613.jpg

Cop placing "evidence".

I think what happened was the Dindu tried to take the taser from the cop and shoot him with it, but missed. The cop was livid and Dindu starts waddling off, and gets shot in the back.



The Supreme Court has held (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=1) that an officer may use deadly force against a fleeing suspect only when there is probable cause that the suspect “poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-08/caught-tape-south-carolina-cop-shoots-unarmed-man-8-times-back


If this is true this may be slightly justifiable given the current precedence. It is looking more ambiguous if my analysis is true, which may make this into a larger International case.

[Horn]

Once again, it's the woman's fault. Little, if any, responsibility is required when the passionate "muh-dick" argument is utilized.

Geez! Don't shoot me, sister!

[Cebu_4_2]

Cop placing "evidence".

If this is true this may be slightly justifiable given the current precedence. It is looking more ambiguous if my analysis is true, which may make this into a larger International case.

Fuck the Pigs, in no place or time have I needed them ever. The only encounters I have had with them was with them fucking with me for no reason at all. If they all went away I don't thing my life would change at all except the past encounters.

[Horn]

That's one other question besides lonely cop in the middle of the park. Why if noticing someone filming would u blatantly plant evidence?

[Dogman]

Because they can!

[7th trump]

Pretty much straight up murder...hang the bastard!

[Cebu_4_2]

There are like 10 threads on this, where do I go? Merge them all. Video at link.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/walter-scott-shooting/man-who-recorded-walter-scott-being-shot-speaks-out-n338126

The bystander who captured on video a white police officer shooting an apparently unarmed black man in the back in South Carolina thought about erasing the recording over fears of retaliation.

The video recorded by Feidin Santana shocked the nation when it was released this week. The footage resulted in Officer Michael Slager, 33, being arrested and charged with murder Tuesday for the shooting death of Walter Scott, 50, after a traffic stop in North Charleston Saturday.

"I won't deny that I knew the magnitude of this, and I even thought about erasing the video," Santana said in an interview on MSNBC's "All In With Chris Hayes" Wednesday.

"I felt that my life with this information might be in danger. I thought about erasing the video and just getting out of the community, you know Charleston, and living some place else," the 23-year-old said. "I knew the cop didn't to the right thing."

Earlier Wednesday, Santana revealed himself as the videographer to "NBC Nightly News" anchor Lester Holt in his first interview since the shooting, and said Slager and Scott did struggle before the encounter turned deadly. But he said the officer did not appear to be in danger when he opened fire.

"Before I started recording, they were down on the floor. I remember the police [officer] had control of the situation," Santana said. "He had control of Scott. And Scott was trying just to get away from the Taser. But like I said, he never used the Taser against the cop."

"As you can see in the video, the police officer just shot him in the back," Santana said. "I knew right away, I had something on my hands."

Slager claimed Scott took his Taser and that he feared for his life. The video shows an object being thrown to the ground and Scott running away, and a delay before the officer fires seven times, pauses, and fires an eighth time.

Scott's parents told TODAY on Wednesday they believe Scott fled from Slager because he owed child support and didn't want to go to jail again.

Santana said he turned over the video after reading the police report and hearing about it on the news. "It wasn't like that, the way they were saying," Santana said on MSNBC. "I said, 'No ... this is not what happened.'"

Anger Boils Over in North Charleston After Walter Scott Shooting
Nightly News

Santana told NBC News that when he turned over the video to Scott's family, "they were very emotional when that happened, including me also."

"I thought about his position, their situation ... If I were to have a family member that would happen [to], I would like to know the truth," Santana said.

He has been called a "hero" by attorneys for the family, but Santana said there are no winners in the situation.

"It's not something that no one can feel happy about. He has his family, Mr. Scott also has his family," Santana told NBC News. "But I think, you know, he [the officer] made a bad decision, and you pay for your decisions in this life."

"Mr. Scott didn't deserve this, and there were other ways that can be used to get him arrested, and that wasn't the proper way to do that."

Police Chief Eddie Driggers said when he watched the video of the encounter, "I was sickened by what I saw."

North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey announced Wednesday that Slager was fired. He also ordered body cameras for the police force. Every officer on the street will wear one after a policy is established and the force is trained, Summey said.

Slager is being held without bond at Charleston County Jail.

[BrewTech]

Walter Scott? Come on now. As in Sir Walter Scott?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Scott

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Sir_Henry_Raeburn_-_Portrait_of_Sir_Walter_Scott.jpg/250px-Sir_Henry_Raeburn_-_Portrait_of_Sir_Walter_Scott.jpg

You see what you are intended to see.

Would have been cooler if his name was Randolph Scott...

[mick silver]

Illinois Cops Fatally Shoot Teen Boy in the Back as He Ran from Them
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/illinois-cops-fatally-shoot-teen-boy-ran/#ZK4uWbvt7I1Hlx8T.99

[madfranks]

Fuck the Pigs, in no place or time have I needed them ever. The only encounters I have had with them was with them fucking with me for no reason at all. If they all went away I don't thing my life would change at all except the past encounters.

100% agree. Not once in my entire life have I been helped by a cop. Even the one time I called them for help, they never gave it. On the other hand, I've been threatened, lied to, assaulted, extorted, reprimanded, etc., etc numerous times, mostly for petty traffic nonconformity.

[palani]

Not once in my entire life have I been helped by a cop.
The nature of a cop. You will never find a good cop. If they are good then they are peace officers. If they are bad then they are cops.

I have never met a friendly rattlesnake either. I suspect these reptiles all have the same nature so avoid them when I can. I guess that makes me a racist because I never give a friendly rattler the opportunity to show how much of a friend he can be.

[Jewboo]

http://s0.cinema.com/image_lib/3924_pota003.jpg

http://cdn.acidcow.com/pics/20100805/fat_cops_09.jpg

http://www.shadowlocked.com/images/stories/features/2011/007_July/25/planet_of_the_apes/planet_of_the_apes_franchise.jpg

http://cdn.themetapicture.com/media/funny-opposite-day-black-cops.jpg




After they lay off all the "racist" White cops in Ferguson the new peace officer replacements will bring peace and prosperity for all.

:)

[ximmy]

The nature of a cop. You will never find a good cop. If they are good then they are peace officers. If they are bad then they are cops.

I have never met a friendly rattlesnake either. I suspect these reptiles all have the same nature so avoid them when I can. I guess that makes me a racist because I never give a friendly rattler the opportunity to show how much of a friend he can be.

What about a Constable?

[palani]

What about a Constable?

Doesn't that depend upon which age you are living in?


constable (n.)
c.1200, "chief household officer, justice of the peace," from Old French conestable (12c., Modern French connétable), "steward, governor," principal officer of the Frankish king's household, from Late Latin comes stabuli, literally "count of the stable" (established by Theodosian Code, c.438 C.E.), hence, "chief groom." See count (n.). Second element is from Latin stabulum "stable, standing place" (see stable (n.)). Probably a translation of a Germanic word. Meaning "an officer of the peace" is from c.1600, transferred to "police officer" 1836. French reborrowed constable 19c. as "English police."

Same comment holds for a marshal.


marshal (n.)
early 13c. as a surname; mid-13c. as "high officer of the royal court;" from Old French mareschal "commanding officer of an army; officer in charge of a household" (Modern French maréchal), originally "stable officer, horse tender, groom" (Frankish Latin mariscaluis) from Frankish *marhskalk or a similar Germanic word, literally "horse-servant" (compare Old High German marahscalc "groom," Middle Dutch maerschalc), from Proto-Germanic *markhaz "horse" (see mare (n.1)) + *skalkaz "servant" (source of Old English scealc "servant, retainer, member of a crew," Dutch schalk "rogue, wag," Gothic skalks "servant").

Cognate with Old English horsþegn. From c.1300 as "stable officer;" early 14c. as "military commander, general in the army." For development history, compare constable. Also from Germanic are Italian scalco "steward," Spanish mariscal "marshal."

If presented with someone who identifies himself as a 'constable' ask him if he might be a nabbing-cull.


nab (v.)
"to catch (someone)," 1680s, probably a variant of dialectal nap "to seize, catch, lay hold of" (1670s, now surviving only in kidnap), which possibly is from Scandinavian (compare Norwegian nappe, Swedish nappa "to catch, snatch;" Danish nappe "to pinch, pull"); reinforced by Middle English napand "grasping, greedy." Related: Nabbed; nabbing. Nabbing-cull was old slang for "constable," and Farmer & Henley has "TO NAB THE STIFLES = to be hanged."

[Hitch]

100% agree. Not once in my entire life have I been helped by a cop. Even the one time I called them for help, they never gave it. On the other hand, I've been threatened, lied to, assaulted, extorted, reprimanded, etc., etc numerous times, mostly for petty traffic nonconformity.

It's really a shame police have such a bad public image these days. I still think it's by design, they want folks scared of the police.

I did a few good things during my short time in PD. Gave a drunk guy a ride home, caught a guy gun in hand before he shot someone (not too often do you get the chance to stop a crime from happening).

Once there was a white guy stopped at a red light in my beat late a night. He was scared and lost. I told him don't even stop at red lights here, and then I gave him directions out of the ghetto and followed him out.

[Santa]

It's really a shame police have such a bad public image these days. I still think it's by design, they want folks scared of the police.

I did a few good things during my short time in PD. Gave a drunk guy a ride home, caught a guy gun in hand before he shot someone (not too often do you get the chance to stop a crime from happening).

Once there was a white guy stopped at a red light in my beat late a night. He was scared and lost. I told him don't even stop at red lights here, and then I gave him directions out of the ghetto and followed him out.

Cops are like spam mail. Let one in and before you know it, they're clogging up the entire email system. Cops need to be blocked, deleted and sent to the trash.

[Cebu_4_2]

Cops are like spam mail. Let one in and before you know it, they're clogging up the entire email system. Cops need to be blocked, deleted and sent to the trash.

Wrong. Cops need to be de-militarized, held accountable, and not above the law, and that's that.

Good luck with it.

[Shami-Amourae]

Newly released video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttyxt3bjq2k

[Horn]

Watched too much Starsky without Hutch as a child.