Who Is The Blame For Walter Scott's Death?

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". Originally Posted by Jackie S

According to the video of the shooting he showed pretty fast. There has to be some radio traffic recording of communications from the time the guy ran in the patrol-cam shot and the shooting video. He might have been in the area based on the initial traffic stop. But it's almost like he could have seen the shooting.

I think all those you listed are probably felonies in SC, with "aggravating circumstances" of a "public servant" acting under "color of authority."

Just remember the Rodney King state officers did well in state court, but the Feds nailed them. Any time by either one of these guys will be a death sentence.

Anybody have a link to the police report(s)?

It appears word on the street that running from the cops is a pretty successful strategy for NOT being arrested or giving the survivors a good lawsuit.

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

In all likelihood, YES!!!

You must be a rocket surgeon! Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

No, just a surgeon that builds a rocket in his spare time

Anybody have a link to the police report(s)?

It appears word on the street that running from the cops is a pretty successful strategy for NOT being arrested or giving the survivors a good lawsuit. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Since the deceased had a headstart and the officer caught up with him, at least for this guy, it was not so successful to avoid "the arrest." There was apparently a struggle once the officer caught up to him, the tazer didn't work or wasn't "effective," and the deceased decided to run some more.

For the financial rewards of a lawsuit, as being "a good lawsuit," .... unless the officer recently won the lotto or inherited a lot of money (in which case he probably wouldn't be working the street), a judgment against him won't be worth wiping their asses. If he has insurance coverage, it's probably only good for "negligence," as an "umbrella policy," and the carrier my offer a defense to the civil action with the reservation of the carrier to deny liability agreed upon until the suit is concluded. Additionally, a "dead beat" father is not a good source of "revenue" for a dependent ... FYI.

That is one of the reasons why all this family whining is not a good idea. It draws sympathy that he is poor, but it begins a record for a defense to claim they didn't lose much in the way of future support to justify damages. There admissions to the media will be admitted against them. In addition, as would be customary, he probably filed all sorts of paperwork (under oath) about how broke he was, couldn't get a job, earnings low, and other "defenses' to being held in contempt for failing to pay support. Admissible as judicial confessions and government documents on the issue of potential damages.

Excellent read. The second paragraph really spells it out for me. The thought of getting shot was abstract to him. The fear that he might go to jail, which he had before for the very thing he was worried about, was very real to him. We will never know exactly what was going through his head, but you're right, it led to his death and a police officer is probably going to spend a fair amount of the rest of his life behind bars. No one wins in situations like these. Also, why is a guy still being forced to pay child support to a child that is 27 years old? Originally Posted by WombRaider

I have a brother 53 years old the man/child is 35. He is still getting paycheck garnished due to child support. It is nuts. Grant it he didn't take care of his obligation when he should have but 35 years later still being punished is excessive.

I have a brother 53 years old the man/child is 35. He is still getting paycheck garnished due to child support. It is nuts. Grant it he didn't take care of his obligation when he should have but 35 years later still being punished is excessive. Originally Posted by yerassman2

"Child support" is not a "punishment" ... It's an obligation of a parent.

The cop deserves to be locked up for a long long time.

Yes dear

"Child support" is not a "punishment" ... It's an obligation of a parent. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Since the deceased had a headstart and the officer caught up with him, at least for this guy, it was not so successful to avoid "the arrest." There was apparently a struggle once the officer caught up to him, the tazer didn't work or wasn't "effective," and the deceased decided to run some more.

For the financial rewards of a lawsuit, as being "a good lawsuit," .... unless the officer recently won the lotto or inherited a lot of money ...... Originally Posted by LexusLover

That will not be a good enough for Donald Crump. Somebody, the city, the land the shooting happened upon, TAZER, Smith & Wesson, the state, the feds, repeat, somebody, must have deep pockets...after all this man's civil rights were violated - MSABCBCNN and the Obama Administration.

That will not be a good enough.... Somebody, .......must have deep pockets...after all this man's civil rights were violated - MSABCBCNN and the Obama Administration. Originally Posted by gnadfly

If the officer was pissed off because his hot coffee spilled in his lap as he began the traffic stop, and he purchased the coffee at McDonald's ....

.... there's your answer!

I have a brother 53 years old the man/child is 35. He is still getting paycheck garnished due to child support. It is nuts.

...but 35 years later still being punished is excessive. Originally Posted by yerassman2

Yes dear Originally Posted by yerassman2

Sounds like childish runs in the family..... even to 53.

Anybody have a link to the police report(s)? Originally Posted by gnadfly

The ROS is getting "out" .... my guess right now is there is more video footage prior to the shooting. Whether you (public) gets to see it will be another story.

Since the deceased had a headstart and the officer caught up with him, at least for this guy, it was not so successful to avoid "the arrest." There was apparently a struggle once the officer caught up to him, the tazer didn't work or wasn't "effective," and the deceased decided to run some more.

For the financial rewards of a lawsuit, as being "a good lawsuit," .... unless the officer recently won the lotto or inherited a lot of money (in which case he probably wouldn't be working the street), a judgment against him won't be worth wiping their asses. If he has insurance coverage, it's probably only good for "negligence," as an "umbrella policy," and the carrier my offer a defense to the civil action with the reservation of the carrier to deny liability agreed upon until the suit is concluded. Additionally, a "dead beat" father is not a good source of "revenue" for a dependent ... FYI.

That is one of the reasons why all this family whining is not a good idea. It draws sympathy that he is poor, but it begins a record for a defense to claim they didn't lose much in the way of future support to justify damages. There admissions to the media will be admitted against them. In addition, as would be customary, he probably filed all sorts of paperwork (under oath) about how broke he was, couldn't get a job, earnings low, and other "defenses' to being held in contempt for failing to pay support. Admissible as judicial confessions and government documents on the issue of potential damages. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Wrongful death won't have to take that into consideration, depending on the state law. And he was employed at the time of his death. Do a little research, please.

Hey LexusLover check this out. Don't anybody else look... http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...ts/#more-99326