Who Is The Blame For Walter Scott's Death?

This all started when Walter Scott decided to run.

All because Walter Scott, by his fleeing, put an Officer in a terrible position where he made a horrible decision.

And in doing so, escalates the situation to the extent that results in the needless death of a man. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Who is to blame for Walter Scott's death? The cop. Just for clarity, the cop is to blame. He was too fucking lazy to do his job and pursue a suspect on foot while radioing for back up. End of story.

He was also monumentally stupid for trying to run. But now, because Officer Friendly was too lazy to chase down an over the hill fat man, Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

It is Scott's fault because he ran, and it is Slager's fault for shooting him in the back. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

RIP Mr. Scott.....you shouldn't have ran. You also fucked up. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

So Slager wouldn't have shot him if he (Scott) didn't run?

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2...-scott-running

Why would a man who has been stopped on a routine traffic violation suddenly run from the scene. What did he fear so much that would compell hi, to take such an action.

Read the link. It's not that long, and gives a good insight into the mentality of men who have a justified fear of any contact with a law enforcement officer.

You might not agree with it, but these arcane laws have resulted in the death of a man, and the ruination of the life of a Police Officer. Originally Posted by Jackie S

a better question is WHY DID the cop shoot him?
did the cop know he was a felon?
It seems that there was no reason to shoot him, why did the cop shoot him?

a better question is WHY DID the cop shoot him?
did the cop know he was a felon?
It seems that there was no reason to shoot him, why did the cop shoot him? Originally Posted by bigcockpussylicker

Apparently the officer used his tazer on him, and the tazer didn't work. Assault on a peace officer in most states is a felony, and it is obvious after the guy ran, the officer caught up to him and some sort of physical altercation occurred.

I'm not "justifying" the shooting for this reason: Options: The officer has the vehicle and the driver's license of the guy. What ever his warrant was based upon he then would have at least two or more charges for warrants (the traffic offense for which he was stopped, no insurance, possibly possession of stolen vehicle, fleeing, resisting arrest, and/or assault on a peace officer). Apparently the guy was local or from the general area (I am not clear on that). The officer submits his paper work, files his complaints, follows up on the warrants being issued, and confirms the warrants get in the system, along with his the existing warrant. The vehicle is impounded with a "evidence hold" on it, not to be released without the officer's approval, a supervisor, and/or court order (most evidence must be released with a court order signed by a judge to protect the agency).

Hopefully the kid who took the damning video would also provide the video in which the officer disengaged the confrontation and did not shoot the suspect to document the officer was assaulted and the suspect resisted and fled again.

A problem with all this "second guessing" is "we" are sitting in here DAYS LATER .. what ... A WEEK ... ALMOST 11,000 minutes or about 600,000 seconds later ... analyzing and discussing what the officer did and did not do, should and should not have done, in the comfort of the location in front of our computers after viewing at least 2 different videos .... and passing judgment on an event in which "we" were not present, and with which most (if not all) have had no experience in dealing, for which another HUMAN BEING had 1-2 seconds to make a decision.

What's that old saying about Indians and moccasins?

And there is another one ....

..... for all you gun toting, cowboy, swaggering CHL holders:

"There goes I but for the grace of God." .. And speaking of God ..

"Matthew 7:1-3 King James Version

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

Apparently the officer used his tazer on him, and the tazer didn't work. Assault on a peace officer in most states is a felony, and it is obvious after the guy ran, the officer caught up to him and some sort of physical altercation occurred.

I'm not "justifying" the shooting for this reason: Options: The officer has the vehicle and the driver's license of the guy. What ever his warrant was based upon he then would have at least two or more charges for warrants (the traffic offense for which he was stopped, no insurance, possibly possession of stolen vehicle, fleeing, resisting arrest, and/or assault on a peace officer). Apparently the guy was local or from the general area (I am not clear on that). The officer submits his paper work, files his complaints, follows up on the warrants being issued, and confirms the warrants get in the system, along with his the existing warrant. The vehicle is impounded with a "evidence hold" on it, not to be released without the officer's approval, a supervisor, and/or court order (most evidence must be released with a court order signed by a judge to protect the agency).

Hopefully the kid who took the damning video would also provide the video in which the officer disengaged the confrontation and did not shoot the suspect to document the officer was assaulted and the suspect resisted and fled again.

A problem with all this "second guessing" is "we" are sitting in here DAYS LATER .. what ... A WEEK ... ALMOST 11,000 minutes or about 600,000 seconds later ... analyzing and discussing what the officer did and did not do, should and should not have done, in the comfort of the location in front of our computers after viewing at least 2 different videos .... and passing judgment on an event in which "we" were not present, and with which most (if not all) have had no experience in dealing, for which another HUMAN BEING had 1-2 seconds to make a decision.

What's that old saying about Indians and moccasins?

And there is another one ....

..... for all you gun toting, cowboy, swaggering CHL holders:

"There goes I but for the grace of God." .. And speaking of God ..

"Matthew 7:1-3 King James Version

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Originally Posted by LexusLover

Maybe this could be the case but for one important fact. The guy was running away from him, there is no justification for this shooting other than years of the Police getting away with this kind of crap.

Maybe this could be the case but for one important fact. The guy was running away from him, there is no justification for this shooting other than years of the Police getting away with this kind of crap. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Excuse me: Did you miss?

"I'm not "justifying" the shooting for this reason:" .....

And as for this:

".....other than years of the Police getting away with this kind of crap."

This officer was charged with murder.

Please provide me with stats supporting your accusation and the source:

"....Police getting away with this kind of crap."

The "crap" being, I take it, shooting an innocent man running away in the back.

That does sound like a Sharpton or Holder comment.

Now I have recently seen some news reports about "the Police" getting ambushed! Those officers WERE innocent.

Also, as I recently disclosed the SCOTUS doesn't have a problem with "seizing" an escaping/fleeing felon under some circumstances ... and as God created us "fleeing" is not very effective when running backwards facing the officer.

Apparently the officer used his tazer on him, and the tazer didn't work. Assault on a peace officer in most states is a felony, and it is obvious after the guy ran, the officer caught up to him and some sort of physical altercation occurred.

I'm not "justifying" the shooting for this reason: Options: The officer has the vehicle and the driver's license of the guy. What ever his warrant was based upon he then would have at least two or more charges for warrants (the traffic offense for which he was stopped, no insurance, possibly possession of stolen vehicle, fleeing, resisting arrest, and/or assault on a peace officer). Apparently the guy was local or from the general area (I am not clear on that). The officer submits his paper work, files his complaints, follows up on the warrants being issued, and confirms the warrants get in the system, along with his the existing warrant. The vehicle is impounded with a "evidence hold" on it, not to be released without the officer's approval, a supervisor, and/or court order (most evidence must be released with a court order signed by a judge to protect the agency).

Hopefully the kid who took the damning video would also provide the video in which the officer disengaged the confrontation and did not shoot the suspect to document the officer was assaulted and the suspect resisted and fled again.

A problem with all this "second guessing" is "we" are sitting in here DAYS LATER .. what ... A WEEK ... ALMOST 11,000 minutes or about 600,000 seconds later ... analyzing and discussing what the officer did and did not do, should and should not have done, in the comfort of the location in front of our computers after viewing at least 2 different videos .... and passing judgment on an event in which "we" were not present, and with which most (if not all) have had no experience in dealing, for which another HUMAN BEING had 1-2 seconds to make a decision.

What's that old saying about Indians and moccasins?

And there is another one ....

..... for all you gun toting, cowboy, swaggering CHL holders:

"There goes I but for the grace of God." .. And speaking of God ..

"Matthew 7:1-3 King James Version

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Originally Posted by LexusLover

On that last part, apples and oranges. A CCL does not have an obligation to enforce the law. They are just supposed to be about self defense. If someone attacks you, you draw your weapon and they run away, then you have done your job.

On that last part, apples and oranges. A CCL does not have an obligation to enforce the law. They are just supposed to be about self defense. If someone attacks you, you draw your weapon and they run away, then you have done your job. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Either you were daydreaming in class, you had to take an R&R break, or your instructor accidentally turned some extra pages or skipped some overheads.

You missed that part about ....

..... "defense of other persons" ... and/or "citizen arrests"!

Scenario ... according to JD:

JD is strolling in the mall with his GF while he is "carrying" and some asshole walks up, knocks your GF down with a sucker punch, pulls out a knife, sticks it to her throat, threatens to slice her throat if she resists, tears off her hot shorts she wore for you, and fucks her right there in the mall in front of you.

JD "says" to himself: "I can't do shit! .....I have a CCL and A WEAPON .. BUT..

"A CCL does not have an obligation to enforce the law. They are just supposed to be about self defense."

So JD calls 911 and asks for an officer to come quick because someone is fucking his GF without permission in the mall at knife point.

This part of your "training" is "over the top".....

"If someone attacks you, you draw your weapon and they run away, then you have done your job."

... "attacks you" with what? ..... a paper range target rolled up?

On the "obligation" to "enforce the law" opinion, I would have to research SC law, which I doubt is a lot difference from Texas, because I believe SC is a "Model Penal Code" state, but generally speaking officers have A LOT of DISCRETION in "enforcing the law" in most states with EXTREMELY LIMITED MANDATORY arrest titles (offenses).

Back to the OP ... this officer had DISCRETION in everything he did. Meaning he had choices besides taking this person into custody, unless departmental policy dictates otherwise ... but departmental policy does not trump state law. If he violated policy by complying with state law, then he might lose his job or get days off, but he wouldn't violate "the law."

According to the OP, there is.....black men don't pay child support. So, they run from cops and when the cop makes a monumentally bad judgment call and shoots the black man to death.....it's the black man's fault for ruining the white cop's life. Originally Posted by timpage

That's not evidence..

Rocket Science/Brain Surgery baby aside

You are both right and this is truly as simple as that. Both of them are at fault to some degree, one has paid for it and the other will pay (already started paying). Either could have prevented it, but neither did Originally Posted by Freedom42

You must be a rocket surgeon!

I understand it's was a "throw down" taser.

This was another case of a cop "enforcing the law" by turning a person into Swiss cheese.

Judge Dredd.

I understand it's was a "throw down" taser. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

It is if it doesn't work. I understand it didn't function properly.

If it had .... the deadbeat father might have been lightly roasted cheese, ...

................ but not Swiss.

That's not evidence.. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

It is according to the Constitutional Law Professor in Chief in the "White" House,

and his advisers, Sharpton and Holder.... and their loyal supporters.

It is if it doesn't work. I understand it didn't function properly.

If it had .... the deadbeat father might have been lightly roasted cheese, ...

................ but not Swiss. Originally Posted by LexusLover

What is your take on the video where he goes back picks something up and drops it near the body before the other officers arrives? Tazer?

A lot of pundits are now wondering what charges will be brought against that 2d cop who arrived on the scene after the shooting.

Falsifying a police report? Obstruction of justice? Aiding and abetting in the commision of a felony?

As Ricky Richardo said,........"you got some 'splaining to do".

Either you were daydreaming in class, you had to take an R&R break, or your instructor accidentally turned some extra pages or skipped some overheads.

You missed that part about ....

..... "defense of other persons" ... and/or "citizen arrests"!

Scenario ... according to JD:

JD is strolling in the mall with his GF while he is "carrying" and some asshole walks up, knocks your GF down with a sucker punch, pulls out a knife, sticks it to her throat, threatens to slice her throat if she resists, tears off her hot shorts she wore for you, and fucks her right there in the mall in front of you.

JD "says" to himself: "I can't do shit! .....I have a CCL and A WEAPON .. BUT..

"A CCL does not have an obligation to enforce the law. They are just supposed to be about self defense."

So JD calls 911 and asks for an officer to come quick because someone is fucking his GF without permission in the mall at knife point.

This part of your "training" is "over the top".....

"If someone attacks you, you draw your weapon and they run away, then you have done your job."

... "attacks you" with what? ..... a paper range target rolled up?

On the "obligation" to "enforce the law" opinion, I would have to research SC law, which I doubt is a lot difference from Texas, because I believe SC is a "Model Penal Code" state, but generally speaking officers have A LOT of DISCRETION in "enforcing the law" in most states with EXTREMELY LIMITED MANDATORY arrest titles (offenses).

Back to the OP ... this officer had DISCRETION in everything he did. Meaning he had choices besides taking this person into custody, unless departmental policy dictates otherwise ... but departmental policy does not trump state law. If he violated policy by complying with state law, then he might lose his job or get days off, but he wouldn't violate "the law." Originally Posted by LexusLover

Who the fuck do you think you are lexie? O'Henry?