Former South Carolina police officer indicted in shooting of unarmed man

A former North Charleston police officer was indicted on a murder charge Monday in the fatal shooting of an unarmed man who was running away from the officer after a traffic stop.

The shooting April 4 was captured on video by a bystander and showed officer Michael Slager firing eight times as 50-year-old Walter Scott ran away.

Slager was charged with murder by state law enforcement agents almost immediately after the video surfaced. Prosecutor Scarlett Wilson announced the indictment.

"The jury will make up its own mind after it sees the video and hears the other testimony," Wilson said of Slager's trial.

No trial date has been set.

Former South Carolina police officer indicted in shooting of unarmed man

Well...looks like this former LEO could get 30 years to life for this. This was clearly a case of an execution to me.....at least from the video they showed it appeared that way. I will be keeping my eye on this story when it comes to the jury....would be surprised if he was actually convicted of anything.

Maybe next time he won't shoot someone in the back while they're running away, call his buddies and lie about what happened, and stroll up and plant evidence on the corpse.

It's times like this I wish ats would let me curse. Oh well

It took long enough for an indictment to be handed down. The wheels of justice will be turning very slowly for this case, I think.
Give it time for things to calm down, the guy will probably get a change of venue for the trial, some high priced lawyer paid for by the FOP or police union will get him off, if he doesn't plead it down.
If he does go to prison, he won't be with the general population... where he belongs.

a reply to: butcherguy

South Carolina allows 90 days from time arrest to return of true bill for indictment.

It took them a little over 60 days to get it done. I don't think the wheels of justice are "grinding" all that slowly, myself.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: butcherguy

South Carolina allows 90 days from time arrest to return of true bill for indictment.

It took them a little over 60 days to get it done. I don't think the wheels of justice are "grinding" all that slowly, myself.

Ok.
We shall see how it all turns out.

a reply to: butcherguy

I did a little reading and due to the structure of SC's murder statutes, it's entirely possible for the charge to stick. At first blush (and apparently enough so for indictment) the event meets the requirements for it, although not enough for capital punishment.

As you say, it will be interesting to see of a plea deal is offered, accepted, etc. The situation doesn't look too bright for Slager.

As it should. Or shouldn't. Whatever. You know what I mean.

a reply to: Vasa Croe
Would like to see the video. Do you have it by any chance?

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Would like to see the video. Do you have it by any chance?

Pretty disturbing.....guy was running away and the officer puts 8 rounds at him.....I think the term excessive is able to be used in this instance. No idea what all occurred before, though I have heard what happened, I have not seen any prior video myself. Either way, the killing here does not seem justified from this video.

I do not see any threat to the officer's life once the guy was running away. He obviously didn't have a weapon on him or trying to deploy one. He was running both arms/hands visible enough to know that. It seems to be the officer's AUTHORITY was slapped in the face and he couldn't handle it. There are times and reasons deadly force can and should be used. But, only as a last resort to imminent threat of death or great bodily injury, not because a suspect doesn't respond to your orders. Once the altercation stopped in which we really don't see what occurred and the suspect was running away, the need for deadly force is not there.

This would seem to be a control failure of the officer's. There was fleeing felon laws where a fleeing felon could be shot by a LEO. Apparently, they are still widely on the books. However, when the original crime was a BROKEN TAILLIGHT, there is no reason to use deadly force. It wasn't a murder suspect or kidnapper with hostage held for ransom somewhere. Prosecutions and convictions should be made as the only way I see stopping other officers from doing the same. Right now, they seem to not fear prosecution and prison.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I am thinking if he did get off, it would be because of some argument how the taser barbs were in the officer and he did not "know" that the suspect did not have the taser anymore.

ID

originally posted by: spirit_horse
I do not see any threat to the officer's life once the guy was running away. He obviously didn't have a weapon on him or trying to deploy one. He was running both arms/hands visible enough to know that. It seems to be the officer's AUTHORITY was slapped in the face and he couldn't handle it. There are times and reasons deadly force can and should be used. But, only as a last resort to imminent threat of death or great bodily injury, not because a suspect doesn't respond to your orders. Once the altercation stopped in which we really don't see what occurred and the suspect was running away, the need for deadly force is not there.

This would seem to be a control failure of the officer's. There was fleeing felon laws where a fleeing felon could be shot by a LEO. Apparently, they are still widely on the books. However, when the original crime was a BROKEN TAILLIGHT, there is no reason to use deadly force. It wasn't a murder suspect or kidnapper with hostage held for ransom somewhere. Prosecutions and convictions should be made as the only way I see stopping other officers from doing the same. Right now, they seem to not fear prosecution and prison.

Not siding with anyone, but as you said in your post, there are times when you can fire on a fleeing felon, but *the crime was a tail light* Well initially yes, but isn't it a felony to fight a cop, and then take his taser and shoot him with it? The taser barbs are clearly seen stuck in the officer, so in fact he WAS shooting at a fleeing felon, who demonstrated that he WOULD not only fight an officer, but also use a weapon on one. Fine line but I don't think a cops life should be ruined for taking out unproductive trash who does not deserve to be in a civilized society to begin with. The guy owed child support. We all know well what happens with fatherless minority children. They most always turn into criminals. How many future crimes were saved by ending this violent felons life?

This reminds me of the movie "the Rock", to bomb the jail on Alcatraz, killing a few hundred, to save millions. Sometimes that is just.

ID

a reply to: ItalianDressing

In most states (all the ones I'm aware of anyway), shooting at a "fleeing felon" is only permissible when they present an imminent threat of great bodily harm or a lethal threat.

Assuming the subject assaulted the officer and was running away afterwards yes, he is at that point suspected of having committed a felony.

But does he still have the means to inflict great bodily harm or present a lethal threat? Had he already done so, or had he simply resisted the officer's attempts to control him?

a reply to: Shamrock6

I don't think the officer realizes he dropped the taser, you can see it on the ground, but the cop never looks down. I think he only planted it afterwards realizing "oh crap he didn't have it". So I think there may have been legitimate fear of a threat initially.

Also to answer your question, he did have reason to believe, that the next officer to make contact, would have been attacked also, just like he was, and that what if that time it wasn't the taser, but the officers sidearm that he grabbed?

I think there is a fine line here. Both could be in the wrong, like a tie. In that case they should look at both men and who was the more righteous. A felon criminal, or a law abiding public servant.

And also, this was a LONGG foot chase. It started a few hundred yards away on another block. So your attacked, tased, tired and out of breath, confronted with a split second decision. The pressure is definitely built up on this officer. Mistake or not he had a lot on his plate. Either way and weather the officer was in the wrong or not, WHY WHY WHY would you RUN then ATTACK a cop for a silly child support warrant where you will get released from jail the very same or next day?!?! That shows this man was mentally jacked up. A dangerous thing.

ID

a reply to: ItalianDressing

That's an odd thing to say, since the Taser ended up behind the officer. How did the officer not see the Taser if they were fighting over it and it wound up behind him? And the officer marched over to where the Taser was and picked it up, without once appearing to look for it near the subject, or anywhere between the point where Scott started running and where he fell.

And the manner in which the officer casually drops it as he's walking near Scott.

And the manner in which Slager nonchalantly approached Scott after the shooting.

Can honestly say I've never in my career approached a "dangerous felon" with such a casual disregard as Slager seems to have.

ETA for your ETA - I'm sure that's pretty much the argument the defense will use. My response is this: was Slager attacked? Or did Scott resist? You can resist without attacking. You can what if all day. Bottom line is that he will be judged according to what a reasonable officer would've done in that situation. I wouldn't have shot him. We obviously can't see the altercation prior to the shooting, but Slager doesn't appear to have sustained great bodily harm. He's clearly not dead. What if scenarios don't count for much. What actually happened and what a reasonable reaction to that would've been counts.

originally posted by: ItalianDressing
This reminds me of the movie "the Rock", to bomb the jail on Alcatraz, killing a few hundred, to save millions. Sometimes that is just.

ID

I see your point. I did not realize that the tazer was taken and fired at the officer. That is part of the issue of when the video started we see the ending of the initial confrontation. It will be interesting to see what is made of it all in court and the juries decision should it reach that point, which I believe it will.

However, with many officers on their way to help and the guy had broken contact and was several yards away, to shoot him 8 times in the back was absolutely unnecessary. He was trying to do more than stop him imho. The guy was unarmed and you can hear the sirens in the video. There was an officer on scene only a half or a minute after the shooting. Certainly, they could have apprehended this suspect.

originally posted by: spirit_horse

originally posted by: ItalianDressing
This reminds me of the movie "the Rock", to bomb the jail on Alcatraz, killing a few hundred, to save millions. Sometimes that is just.

ID

I see your point. I did not realize that the tazer was taken and fired at the officer. That is part of the issue of when the video started we see the ending of the initial confrontation. It will be interesting to see what is made of it all in court and the juries decision should it reach that point, which I believe it will.

However, with many officers on their way to help and the guy had broken contact and was several yards away, to shoot him 8 times in the back was absolutely unnecessary. He was trying to do more than stop him imho. The guy was unarmed and you can hear the sirens in the video. There was an officer on scene only a half or a minute after the shooting. Certainly, they could have apprehended this suspect.

Well the Officer may very well be wrong or misjudged because of the whole stressful dynamics of the situation. Maybe the officer felt, that he exhausted everything he had and nothing worked so he felt this man had to be stopped regardless. I still don't think it should be a murder charge though. Maybe some form of manslaughter. When an average civilian cannot be stopped by a cop who is highly trained in restraint etc, wins the fight, then that person is dangerous. Maybe he thought if he gave chase again, he would be harmed at contact, yet not chasing him was not an option. I don't know.

ID

a reply to: ItalianDressing

I really have no idea where you're getting your facts, aside from perhaps the Slager fan page.

The total distance of the foot chase is less than 1,000 feet as the crow flies from the address the stop was made to the address behind which the shooting happened. The shooting took place in a alley behind that address, so shave off a few more feet.

Slager was attacked? According to who? Slager himself. The guy who shot the video says he wasn't. He also says Scott never went for the Taser. Even the incident report says Slager fired the Taser and that Scott was hit by at least one barb from it.

If Slager isn't in the wrong, why was he terminated so quickly? Arrested so quickly? Indicted?

If you want to talk character, let's. Scott had a history of arrests. Slager, meanwhile, was the subject of an investigation that he deployed a Taser on somebody for no reason. Twice. As in two separate occasions, two different people. And a third time he was named in a complaint for not filing a report made by a woman who complained about her kids being harassed.

a reply to: ItalianDressing

South Carolina law stipulates that a murder suspect only needs a moment of intent to commit murder.

Everything you've said are all things I'm sure Slager's legal team will bring up. Some may stick, some may not. I think they're in a tough spot.

Good.

Charleston always struck me as a pretty sane place.

Good for them.

... I did not realize that the tazer was taken and fired at the officer....

He didn't.

Slager, who is white, told authorities that he fired his Taser at Scott, who is black, as he ran, but the stun gun didn't work