South Carolina policeman charged with murder

Some things that is being looked into:

maxresdefault.jpg


Here is the video frame to frame analysis: (with caption)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xs4HFCgvLo&spfreload=10[/ame]
 
If the victim did touch the Taser his fingerprints should be on it , I had not heard anything about the Taser being checked for his.
 
It may be too late because the cop picked up the taser and planted it near the body. If he didn't go back and pick up, his fingerprint may be on it...hence he tampered the evidence.

whatdidyousay! said:
If the victim did touch the Taser his fingerprints should be on it , I had not heard anything about the Taser being checked for his.
Click to expand...
 
Calvin said:
It may be too late because the cop picked up the taser and planted it near the body. If he didn't go back and pick up, his fingerprint may be on it...hence he tampered the evidence.
Click to expand...

I thought of that after I posted this , the more we learn about this the messier it get. I think the CC left out part of what being said , I had trouble understanding part of video and was trying to see if the CC would print that part .
 
Walter Scott’s passenger retains attorney, identity still a mystery

By Bo Petersen and Melissa Boughton
Apr 10 2015 4:47 pm Apr 10 8:11 pm

The mystery passenger in the car Walter Scott drove has retained a Charleston attorney but has declined to go public.

Mark Peper confirmed late Friday that he represents the man, but he could not reveal his identity.

“At this point in time, I can only confirm that my office has been retained by the passenger in Mr. Scott’s vehicle,” he said. “In an effort to help the Scott family seek the justice they deserve, we provided (the State Law Enforcement Division) with a written statement earlier this afternoon.”

SLED did not subsequently file charges against the man, spokesman Thom Berry said Friday.

“He has asked that his name not be disclosed,” Berry said. “We have to respect his privacy.”

SLED declined to reveal any information about the passenger, citing that privacy concern. There also was no indication what the passenger saw of the fatal confrontation between Scott and North Charleston Police Officer Michael Slager on April 4.

State law would allow the identity to be kept secret if releasing it would cause “an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy,” although whether that’s the case here is “a difficult question,” S.C. Press Association attorney Jay Bender said.

It’s possible SLED is concerned that the passenger might be threatened if the name were released, but citing privacy concerns “too often plays into the hands of cops,” Bender said. In general, it would be in the public interest to know what the passenger saw, he said.

Incident reports from North Charleston police obtained so far have not included the name of the passenger. Police have said it would be SLED’s job to release the name as the investigating agency.

Bender said any North Charleston police report that includes the passenger’s name should be released.

“Just because SLED has it doesn’t mean the incident report is not public record,” he said.

There was a warrant for Scott’s arrest for failure to pay child support, according to court records and the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office. Scott would take long detours driving to his parent’s house to avoid police patrols on the more direct route, said Rodney Scott, his brother.

He had purchased the 1991 Mercedes a few days earlier from a neighbor to replace a hand-me-down van with a failing transmission. He was driving to an auto parts store when Slager pulled him over for what the officer said was a broken taillight.

When Scott saw the flashing lights, he called his mother to tell her he might be heading back to jail, Rodney Scott said.

On the police dash cam video, Slager can be heard asking Scott for his license and registration, then heading back to his cruiser. Scott tries to get out once, Slager says something and Scott sits back down. But moments later he runs.

The passenger remained seated. According to the police dash cam video and the North Charleston police incident report, the passenger didn’t leave the car until being escorted to a squad car.

The North Charleston officer who took charge of Slager’s vehicle in a nearby parking lot, J. Banias, filed a supplemental report that reads, “I also spoke to the passenger on the vehicle that was stopped. The passenger was also detained and placed in the back seat of my vehicle. I remained on the scene while SLED conducted an investigation. Nothing further."
Click to expand...

Scott's passenger
 
Reba said:
Scott's passenger
Click to expand...
The passenger was also detained and placed in the back seat of my vehicle.
Click to expand...
The passenger was not involved so why did the police put him in the back of police car? Looks like the police did the bad job. If I was a passenger who had nothing to do with the first cop, I have rights to refuse to sit in the back of the police car.
 
Child-support payments dogged Walter Scott
Lauren Sausser

Apr 10 2015 9:00 pm Apr 10 9:26 pm

Some 15 years ago, long before Walter Scott’s death by a North Charleston police officer made national headlines, a family court judge threw him in jail for 15 days because he hadn’t made his child support payments.

Scott already knew how the system worked — he owed support for two children, and then two more — but he claimed at the time that the Department of Social Services sent some of his money to the wrong mother.

Nevertheless, he went to jail. And then he lost his $35,000-a-year job at a film company.

“I got mad at everybody in the whole world because I just lost the best job I ever had,” Scott told The Post and Courier in 2003. “I just stopped doing everything. I just closed myself into a little shell and started doing things I shouldn’t have been doing.”

He drank. He found odd jobs. Still, he couldn’t make enough money to make the payments he owed.

“I didn’t even care if I lived or died,” he said.

Then, Scott seemed to turn a corner. He was featured in an article about a promising program called “Father to Father,” designed to help men who had fallen behind on their payments. He admitted his mistakes, then turned himself in to the state for even more missed child-support payments. He spent another five months in jail.

“This whole time in jail, my child support is still going up,” he said. “I said, ‘Man, you got four kids depending on you, and you got people in your life that love you. You got to get it together.’ ”

Maybe Walter Scott eventually became the father he hoped he could be. Maybe “Father to Father” helped him find the footing he needed to support his family. Maybe it didn’t. After all, those child support payments caught up with him again.

He owed nearly $18,104 in child support, according to court documents. He’d already been jailed three previous times.

“He said that’s what he would do, he would run, because he’s not going to jail for child support,” his brother, Rodney Scott, told MSNBC on Wednesday. Walter Scott, father of four, was a wanted man. Like untold thousands of other South Carolinians, a warrant had been issued for his arrest because, once again, he hadn’t paid his child support. . .

Anthony Scott, Walter Scott’s older brother, knows why he ran.

“I know why he ran away. We know why he ran away. Everybody knows why he ran away now,” Anthony Scott said. “I wasn’t saying it before, but it’s out there now.”

He didn’t know how much Walter owed in child support or why he fell behind on his payments, other than to say he was “just living life.” According to Fielding Home for Funerals, Scott was a warehouseman at Brown Distribution before his death. The Associated Press reported he was a temporary forklift operator.

In 2003, child support payments were automatically drafted from Scott’s paycheck. Back then, he earned about $800 a month. It is unclear how much money he made at Brown Distribution.

“If God ever blessed me and I came into some money, I’d help,” Scott told the newspaper 12 years ago.

But his brother said the deck was always stacked against him.

“I hate for anybody to get in the child support system. It can be trying. It doesn’t seem to work out for them,” Anthony Scott said. “(Walter) said that it was crazy, that he couldn’t wait to get over it. But once you’re behind, you’re behind.”
Click to expand...

Child support issues
 
He was not arrested... only detain to question the passenger. The cops can detain anyone involved because it's part of investigation.

CrazyPaul said:
The passenger was not involved so why did the police put him in the back of police car? Looks like the police did the bad job. If I was a passenger who had nothing to do with the first cop, I have rights to refuse to sit in the back of the police car.
Click to expand...
 
CrazyPaul said:
The passenger was not involved so why did the police put him in the back of police car? Looks like the police did the bad job. If I was a passenger who had nothing to do with the first cop, I have rights to refuse to sit in the back of the police car.
Click to expand...
No one knew whether or not the passenger was involved until he was questioned. He was detained, not arrested.
 
Calvin said:
He was not arrested... only detain to question the passenger. The cops can detain anyone involved because it's part of investigation.
Click to expand...

He wasn't handcuffed when he was detained.
 
Calvin said:
He was not arrested... only detain to question the passenger. The cops can detain anyone involved because it's part of investigation.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand that the police can ask a person questions but was it necessary to place him in the back of the police car until it was time to let him go?

For example, if the passenger was his 15 years old daughter or his 70 years old mother, would they put her in the back of the police car while detained? Too overpowered!
 
It's part of investigation that police has to figure out what happened and to why and making sure the passenger is not accessory to a crime. If I was seated in that car, I would certainly be detained but I'd cooperate with the investigator and give them the answer they want to know.

CrazyPaul said:
Yes, I understand that the police can ask a person questions but was it necessary to place him in the back of the police car until it was time to let him go?

For example, if the passenger was his 15 years old daughter or his 70 years old mother, would they put her in the back of the police car while detained? Too overpowered!
Click to expand...
 
I have to question why the Officer took Walter's license back to his car. I have been pulled over for a non-working tail light. After the Officer questions me - chats - whatever you want to call it, they usually just let me know my tail light is out and let me go on my way. If they seem suspicious of me, they will take my license back to their car, come back and tell me to get it fixed and wish me well (just out of my cumulative experiences).

The Officer was suspicious of Walter, after Walter did not have proof of insurance. He may have even thought Walter was driving a stolen vehicle. But ... why did Walter wait for the Officer to go back to his car before running? Why not floor his car and try to outmaneuver the Officer while in the car?

What made him bolt the way he did? Was it when he realized the Officer didn't buy his story?
 
To check the database system to see if driver have outstanding warrant. I was pulled over a few times and they asked for my license and get in his patrol car to run the database. It's a routine traffic stop.

Steinhauer said:
I have to question why the Officer took Walter's license back to his car. I have been pulled over for a non-working tail light. After the Officer questions me - chats - whatever you want to call it, they usually just let me know my tail light is out and let me go on my way. If they seem suspicious of me, they will take my license back to their car, come back and tell me to get it fixed and wish me well (just out of my cumulative experiences).

The Officer was suspicious of Walter, after Walter did not have proof of insurance. He may have even thought Walter was driving a stolen vehicle. But ... why did Walter wait for the Officer to go back to his car before running? Why not floor his car and try to outmaneuver the Officer while in the car?

What made him bolt the way he did? Was it when he realized the Officer didn't buy his story?
Click to expand...
 
Steinhauer said:
I have to question why the Officer took Walter's license back to his car. I have been pulled over for a non-working tail light. After the Officer questions me - chats - whatever you want to call it, they usually just let me know my tail light is out and let me go on my way. If they seem suspicious of me, they will take my license back to their car, come back and tell me to get it fixed and wish me well (just out of my cumulative experiences).

The Officer was suspicious of Walter, after Walter did not have proof of insurance. He may have even thought Walter was driving a stolen vehicle. But ... why did Walter wait for the Officer to go back to his car before running? Why not floor his car and try to outmaneuver the Officer while in the car?

What made him bolt the way he did? Was it when he realized the Officer didn't buy his story?
Click to expand...

it's a standard procedure. the police does this to me all the time. I guess it's not like those country cops where everybody knows everybody.
 
Guys, I know why he took the license back to his car. I know he was checking for warrants.

What I am trying to say is that in most encounters I have had with LEO in similar stops, is they will just tell me to fix the light after chatting with me briefly.

If something signals their BS alarm, they will take my license back to their car. I am always honest with LEO, so they always bring my license back to me.

But in the majority of instances ... they just tell me the light needs to be fixed without taking my license.

In other words, if Walter had proof of insurance, the Officer more than likely would have let him go.
 
Back
Top