Shot In The Back

at

charleston

With [Walter] Scott more than 10 feet from [Officer Michael] 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 Scott’s side. Scott died there.
Slager soon jogs back to where he fired his gun and picks up something from the ground. He walks back to Scott’s body and drops the object.

North Charleston officer faces murder charge after video shows him shooting man in back (Post &  Courier)

117 thoughts on “Shot In The Back

  1. Wayne.F

    Officer has been charged with Murder, like any other citizen would and will be tried like any other citizen

    1. Swoon

      Only because he was caught on video.Potentially hundreds if not thousands murders have not been caught on video.
      Your comment is fairly trite if you consider that.

      1. Wayne.F

        Really, so without the video the eye witness who recorded it would not submit evidence, which could be supported by forensic science.

        Like all trials evidence of a substantial nature should not be released into the public domain as it may be seen as prejudicial and put any trial at risk.

        The officer should face the same justice system as any other citizen for his alleged crimes

        1. Swoon

          I don’t think the witness could have convinced others that the cop dropped stun-gun/taser at the body for a start.Maybe he didn’t notice it happened until he played back video.

          1. Wayne.F

            Because Forensics couldn’t possibly prove that the officers finger prints were on the weapon beside the body??

    2. bob

      If you don’t think this has wider implications than a murder by a citizen, just like any other, then you’re incredibly naive or blinkered.

      And your eye-witness and forensic evidence comment shows this further. I think you’ve been watching too much CSI.

      1. Frank K

        It certainly does have wider implications in that it will be milked by the “racism” industry for all it’s worth, and that thousands of indoctrinated liberals will march up and down in support of a system that’s trying to destroy them.

        1. Starina

          “racism industry”. lol. reminds me of that episode of Red Dwarf where teenage Lister is calling everyone a “crypto-fascist”.

          1. scottser

            wanna buy a racist? 2-for-1 special on kkk members this week.. get em while they’re hot, they’re luvly etc.

    3. Starina

      have you even been watching the news this year? white cops have total freedom to murder black citizens in the US. this guy would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t so blatantly caught on video, and shared to the public before the police could suppress it to protect their own.

    4. Corky Duke

      He was pulled over for a broken tail light, he must of had more to hide otherwise he would not have tried to run away. Officer is doing his job, the crimial didnt stop running so force was used – enough to stop him, and a little bit more for good measure.

        1. ZeligIsJaded

          Also – ‘must have’ – It’s ‘must have’.

          What’s ‘must of’?

          Think about it, for the love of grammar.

        2. Frank K

          Why’s it “trolling”?
          It’s just reality.

          Same thing will be happening in Ireland soon enough if the Africans aren’t sent home.

          1. Fergus the magic postman

            Ah, I was stupidly giving you the benefit of doubt, but it seems you’re a straight up racist.

          2. Ultach

            Though, to be fair, PSNI are very restrained and responsible. I’m all for police having guns as long as the police are well-trained, accountable and transparent, as they seem to be here in the northeast.

          3. Lorcan Nagle

            “Same thing will be happening in Ireland soon enough if the Africans aren’t sent home.”

            This is their home now. You’re more than welcome to sod off though.

    5. Ultravox

      You haven’t a clue about the reality of what is happening in the U.S. with regard to law enforcement and the African-American community have you? That or perhaps you’re a closet racist.

  2. Frank K

    From the linked article…

    “At the time, he 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 an assault and battery charge in 1987.”

      1. ZeligIsJaded

        He’s not saying it.

        He’s just trying to sew together his gut-reaction and his common sense.

        But the needle isn’t sharp enough!

        1. Joe the Lion

          Apparently he only ran away because he was afraid of being collared for child support

    1. Fergus the magic postman

      Ah. That clears things up. At first, I thought a fleeing black man was shot eight times in the back until he was dead.

  3. Garthicus

    It’s interesting as the footage wasn’t known to exist for a day or two so there was enough time for him to come up with his sequence of events.

    “A statement released by North Charleston police spokesman Spencer Pryor said a man ran on foot from the traffic stop and an officer deployed his department-issued Taser in an attempt to stop him.

    That did not work, police said, and an altercation ensued as the men struggled over the device. Police allege that during the struggle the man gained control of the Taser and attempted to use it against the officer.

    The officer then resorted to his service weapon and shot him, police alleged.”

  4. erm...

    And there are contributors to this site who would see the controls over gun ownership loosened when it is clear that even the trained professionals wield them with abandon at the merest hint of an opportunity,

        1. Joe the Lion

          The issue is not with gun ownership but with improper gun use

          Thus there is no validity to the point erm… made

          1. Dan

            You’re point is a fallacy. Arguing that the issue is with gun use infers that it is your belief that problems concerning gun violence can be solved through some sort of education program or some sort of safe use campaign (they can’t by the way). Ignoring the fact that gun ownership must come before gun use willfully discounts any argument stating that without ownership there can be no use. That argument is based in fact.

            You are using a fallacy to suit an ideological outlook which probably extends beyond the single issue of gun ownership, rather than reasoning a solution using points of fact.

            In short, you’ve drank the kool-aid and are acting like an idiot.

          2. edalicious

            Yeah but you’re kinda going down the Michelle Mulherin “Fornication is the most likely cause of unwanted pregnancies” logical dead end. Absolutely logically airtight but fails to actually deal with any of the issues at hand.

          3. Dan

            I understand what you mean, but fornication is necessary in society, guns are not. Which is to say, there are societies which function and survive without gun ownership, but none which function and survive without fornication.

          4. edalicious

            Also, it’s ridiculous to say that without gun ownership, there can be no use. The vast majority of gun crime in this country is committed with firearms that aren’t legally owned so banning the ownership of any form of gun isn’t going to affect any of the weapons which are illegally smuggled into the country.

          5. Dan

            This is a policy discussion, obviously decreeing that cocaine is illegal doesn’t automatically eradicate it’s use, in the case of gun ownership it’s about limitation. Making trite observations doesn’t help the debate.

          6. edalicious

            And making completely over-simplified and uncompromising statements does? Trite or not, it’s a valid point.

          7. Joe the Lion

            Dan I’m not even going to waste an ounce of energy with you.

            You claim to argue based on points of “fact” while presuming to know what the basis of my wider philosophy is – which is of course – as you don’t know me – something you can’t know. Thus how you can say it’s a “fact”‘ is not a “fact” that I can rely on. I could go on tearing you a new arsehole but others have already benchmarked your belief system to that of troll and two year old.

        2. Dan

          Appreciate the clemency, Joe.

          I criticized your argument, I didn’t make my own. I also said your opinion ‘probably’ extends past gun ownership to a wider ideological outlook. The only fact I used was that use cannot exist without ownership. Who has ‘benchmarked’ my belief system’? There’s another Dan out there on this site, maybe it was him. I think it’s funny that you would get annoyed when I said your argument is ‘probably’ part of a wider ‘philosophy’ and then go on to say others have ‘benchmarked’ my belief system. You aren’t tearing me a new one because others have done to me what you got annoyed about me doing to you. It was fine for me to be benchmarked, but when I made a tentative assumption about your ideas, in the context of your opinions on gun ownership, it’s not cool. Well, boo-hoo Joe.

          1. Joe the Lion

            What the hell are you on about son? Your specific criticism pertained to what you deemed to be points of fact, you then constructed your own flimsy strawmen on a wholly unreasonable and shaky foundation of presumption. That’s just silly. Be quiet.

    1. Lorcan Nagle

      I really don’t think that ongoing gun debate here means what you think it does

    2. sickofallthisbs

      Ah here in fairness there is only one moron who does that and he is probably mates with the people who run this site.

      1. Lorcan Nagle

        You haven’t actually read one thing he’s written about guns on this site, have you?

  5. Niallo

    Failure to pay child support punishable by death I see, nice.
    Guns dont kill people, a,holes kill people.

    1. Gers

      Rubbish! Why have a flipping Gun in the first place then?! No Gun, nobody dead. Get it? Gun do kill people, that is their primary use.

      1. Niallo

        In fairness i think that statement says more about you than it does about guns.
        You can use a gun as a saw for example, or as a drain unblocker.
        Only a,holes use them to shoot people, my point stands.
        Not a gun fan by the way.

  6. Richard

    You’ve got the names wrong in your comment – according to the video (4′ 03″) Scott is the victim, Slager is the officer. You’ve got it the wrong way round in yr opening sentence before correcting yrself in para 2.

  7. Miami Dolphin's Barn

    Bodycams for all officers. It would practically eliminate the majority of these scenarios would they not?

    1. Joe the Lion

      all armed officers perhaps

      if perps could look for video evidence every time an officer made a stupid remark or acted inappropriately it would remove the limited discretion US cops have for handling things in a more practical way

      1. scottser

        surely mechanised police officers are the way forward – robot cops if you will – ROBOCOPS!!!!

        1. Corky Duke

          It was tested out here for a while. They called it RoboGarda, they showed him on Republic of Telly….he was good, very good. Too good, so they had to close down the project.

    2. Starina

      unfortunately, no. that was argued after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, but then Eric Garner was choked to death by an officer and the whole thing was filmed (not by a body camera, but by a bystander), and the cop still goes unpunished.

      1. Joe the Lion

        Not disagreeing with you but in Garner’s case the grand jury found there was insufficient evidence to prosecute that cop with – his name escapes me now. Garner had resisted arrest and apparently was known to be a violent person with previous serious convictions. We may not agree with it but some sources I read said that the sort of choke hold performed on Garner was not illegal and that that sort of heavy handed policing in general wasn’t that unusual in the US.

  8. john

    http://theantimedia.org/us-cops-killed-more-people-in-march-than-uk-cops-have-killed-since-1900/
    http://theantimedia.org/still-no-justice-after-cop-kills-unarmed-and-peaceful-man-over-weed/

    I think the statistics speak for theme selves.

    Even when that guy was chocked to death in New York for some mnor reason and was filmed no one was charged.

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

    There are countless videos of cops murdering people in the US with no charges being filed.

    Let’s be honest our own Guards aren’t exactly a beacon of shinning light. If they can get away with it they will do it. Cops don’t work for the citizen, they work for the state.

    1. Formerly known as @ireland.com

      It says that the entire UK Police total is 52, since 1900. I would have expected more than that, if the RIC/RUC are included.

      A quick look at Wikipedia says this, of the RUC during “The Troubles”:
      In the same period, the RUC killed 55 people, 28 of whom were civilians.[5]

      That 55 total exceeds the 52 mentioned.

      Were the Black’n’Tans considered a police force?
      This is what Wikipedia has:
      To reinforce the much reduced and demoralised police the United Kingdom government recruited returned World War I veterans from English and Scottish cities. They were sent to Ireland in 1920, to form a police reserve unit which became known as the “Black and Tans” and the Auxiliary Division of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

      I presume they would have killed plenty of people.

      Wikipedia has 14 people killed (murdered) by the RIC mentioned in this section:
      Many of the activities popularly attributed to the Black and Tans may have been committed by the Auxiliary Division; and some were committed by regular RIC men. For instance, Tomás Mac Curtain, the Mayor of Cork, was assassinated in March 1920 by local RIC men and the shooting dead of 13 civilians at Croke Park on Bloody Sunday was also carried out by the regular RIC, although a small detachment of Auxiliaries were also present.

      So, I have 69 Irish people, after 10 minutes research. So, that article is wrong.

    1. Ultravox

      It’s news here give the Irish politicians who trooped off to the U.S.A to march in St. Patty’s parades with U.S. cops, including New York PD… god forbid the subject of black people being shot by Irish-Americans would be raised.

  9. ReproBertie

    Yes, it’s fox news but it’s worth watching the video.

    http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/27788056/2015/01/07/activist-critical-of-police-undergoes-use-of-force-scenarios

    Jarrett Maupin has been very vocal during the recent protests, leading marches on the Phoenix Police headquarters after officers shot an unarmed man who reportedly fought with them. He agreed to go through a force on force training with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and went through three scenarios where you have to decide to shoot, or not to shoot. FOX 10 asked Maupin what his biggest take-away from the exercise will be. “I didn’t understand how important compliance was, but after going through this; yes my attitude has changed, this happens in 10-15 seconds. People need to comply for their own sake,” said Maupin.

    I’m not saying it applies in this case, just that there’s often more to it than evil cop shoots unarmed man.

    I said often, not always as the non-fatal shooting of Robbie Tolan by Bellaire police officer Jeffrey Cotton shows.

    1. Grouse

      Complying will certainly help you not get shot, but that doesn’t mean that non-compliance gives anyone moral justification to shoot.

      A culture is allowed to develop in which authority is able to kill suspects with relative impunity. Of course the authority can say “comply and you have less chance of being hurt,” and they are right in that. According to their cultural values (protection of self rated orders higher than protection of the innocent) compliance is your best chance, but only because they are allowed to kill you if they feel in any way threatened.

  10. JunkFace

    You wouldn’t want to be black in America. Especially in the states below the bible belt. Their Police are out of control. From a routine broken tail light stop, to shot dead in a few mins.

    1. ReproBertie

      This is the sixth unarmed black male killed by police in the US since March 2014.

      That hardly counts as out of control. To put it into context there have been 3,187 deaths through gun violence in the US so far in 2015 and 57 in the last 72 hours alone.

      1. Lorcan Nagle

        How many unarmed white men did the police shoot in the same timeframe? How many women? Hell, go look up how frequently they shoot dogs for barking when they raid a house (frequently cases of mistaken address or because they’ve been SWATted).

        1. ReproBertie

          What’s your point? I was responding to Junkface’s over the top statement about the police being out of control meaning “you wouldn’t want to be black in America”.

          Out of interest how many unarmed white men did the police shoot in the same timeframe? How many women (presumably their ethnicity is irrelevant)?

          1. Lorcan Nagle

            My point is that comparing the number of unarmed black men shot by police to the number of people shot in gun violence is meaningless. There’s a huge difference between people being shot by criminals and those being shot by the people meant to defend them from criminals.

            And I was considering breaking the women point into ethnicity as well, but it was awkward to phrase.

          2. ReproBertie

            And my point is that in a country where 57 gun deaths in 72 hours is unremarkable, 6 deaths in a little over a year is not evidence of an almost 1 million strong police force being “out of control”.

          3. Lorcan Nagle

            You welcome to that conclusion, but I reserve the right to call it comparing apples to mountains.

          4. ReproBertie

            Call it what you like. You’re still missing the point completely.

            I’m not saying that a police shooting is the same as a criminal shooting. I’m saying gun deaths are quite common in America and, in my opinion, 1 gun death every 2 months or so, while not good, is not evidence of a police force being out of control.

          5. Lorcan Nagle

            I absolutely understand where you’re coming from, I just don’t think it’s relevant to the issue at hand, especially when there’s far more discrimination towards black people at the hands of American police than just shootings. Look up John Oliver’s recent piece from Last Week Tonight were he looks at the results of the inquiry into the St. Louis Police for a taster. (And I’m not saying to get all your news from John Oliver, it’s just the last thing I watched about it)

            Do I think gun crime is a massive issue in the the US? Absolutely. Do I think it mitigates or lessens institutionalised rascism in the US? Not at all.

            At this point I doubt we’re going to see eye to eye though.

          6. ReproBertie

            Do you think these 6 shootings are evidence of a police force being out of control? If you don’t then we are in agreement.

            Again, I’m not defending the police or the shootings. I’m just saying it’s a massive leap to claim that these 6 deaths mean the US police forces are out of control.

          7. Lorcan nagle

            I don’t know if I’d literally use the phrase out of control, but I do think there’s a huge problem with racism in US police departments, and these killings are one of the aspects thereof

  11. pissedasanewt

    Did he fire warning shots or are all American cops extremely bad shots? If I was being shot at i’m not sure if I’d stop and surrender or keep running. Probably the latter.

  12. brytothey

    I’m just confused why it’s ok for the Irish Times, the Journal and most other media outlets, including Broadsheet, to post this video when they refused to post the video of the wounded policeman getting executed in the Charlie Hebdo attacks “out of respect” for the dead and the family. Anyone?

    https://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/01/07/beyond-satire-3/

      1. Ultach

        Possibly, but on the other hand the Charlie Hebdo shooters wanted the world to see what they did whereas this policeman probably doesn’t want anyone to see what he did.

        1. brytothey

          Sorry, but that doesn’t add up. The coverage of the Charlie Hebdo attack was everywhere in massive detail. Be interesting to know Broadsheet’s train of thought on this, if there was one.

  13. Niamh

    I suppose it depends on who released the video maybe? Was this released by the victim’s family? If so, that would probably make it okay compared to the other video which the victim’s family may not have wanted shown.

  14. Buzz

    Wow that is sick, gunned down like an animal. Then calculating enough to plant the taser gun by his side. Deeply f**ked up. Hope the cop goes to jail for a long time.

      1. Corky Duke

        What you need is robogarda…………and his superior, Detective Dicky Hickey….

  15. Laughter Tack.

    Just as the video starts (well after the man was pulled over and as a scuffle was ending, I’m assuming) you can see the taser being dropped behind the officer.

    The police officer didn’t know where the the taser was. If I was that cop, I would have been in fear of him using the taser.

    It looks brutal in the video but being a cop in America is not an easy job and judging a situation without all the facts is very harsh.

    CCTV of the entire altercation would be very interesting to see.

  16. Kieran NYC

    So – Broadsheet. How is it that we can’t swear on posts, but Frank K and ABM are allowed spew homophobic and racist bile just to generate conversation and clicks?

Comments are closed.