Pages Navigation Menu

Exposing the criminal element for 3 years

New Developments


Let’s deal with some new developments in the case of the horrendous officer involved shooting in North Charleston. Yes, we know reasoned analysis is racist, but what the hell, let’s do it anyway.

First and foremost are the actions of James Johnson, Al Sharpton’s racist in training, who levied his usual unfounded allegations of racial profiling against police. He may tell you he doesn’t want riots, but he’s secretly longing for them so he can continue his time in the spotlight and he doesn’t mind slipping in those sly references in order to stir up the public to facilitate his dream.

The death of Walter Scott is tragic and was caused by a chain of bad decisions made by all involved. Unfortunately, it also gives the hustlers exactly what they have been trying to get by lying about events in other cases - a dead black man with empty hands shot in the back by a police officer.

We know reasoned analysis based on evidence can be aggravating to some of our readers and irritant to the media trying to set the narrative, but that analysis is infinitely better than hysterical comments based on rage, racism, ignorance and misinformation provided by the media. We have already told you our belief the officer made a terrible decision to shoot at Scott when he was actively fleeing. That does not matter to some of you. The fact that we have to weigh in to counter outright lies means we are racist by default to some who can’t think for themselves. No worries. We are accustomed to their irrational behavior.

Next up is the contention the officer planted evidence, to wit, the Taser. Immediately after handcuffing Scott the officer trots back and picks up the Taser from the spot where it fell, or was dropped, as Scott turned to flee. Some have argued he may not have had actual possession, but slapped it out of the officer’s hand instead. After reviewing the video we find that is a possibility. Just before the video first catches Scott and the officer we believe we hear what could be the Taser hitting the hard packed dirt or concrete they are on. Or it could be the person recording stepping on a stick.

In the photo below you can see the Taser between Scott’s feet as he breaks contact with the officer and turns to flee again.




ScreenHunter_3541 Apr. 07 19.13




Another still showing the Taser on the ground.




ScreenHunter_3543 Apr. 07 19.14




Immediately after handcuffing Scott the officer moves to recover the Taser. He walks back to Scott and appears to drop the Taser on the ground at about 1:35, resulting in memes like this.




ScreenHunter_3563 Apr. 08 07.27



Here is a clearer shot.



ScreenHunter_3564 Apr. 08 07.33



What the media fails to show you are the images of the officer picking up and holstering the Taser at about the 2:00 minute mark.



ScreenHunter_3559 Apr. 08 07.24 ScreenHunter_3560 Apr. 08 07.24 ScreenHunter_3561 Apr. 08 07.25 ScreenHunter_3562 Apr. 08 07.25




The video shows the officer shooting a fleeing suspect in the back and the absence of the required ability, opportunity and jeopardy at the moment the shots were fired, but it also shows there was no planted evidence. We suspect the SLED report will show the same thing.

Some are commenting about the officer going back to the recover the Taser instead of attempting to render aid. All we can say to that is, try chasing, fighting, then shooting a fleeing suspect and see what state you are in immediately after. Contrary to what most armchair police experts believe, these incidents are traumatic for the officer as well and shock sets in immediately. Once again, we are not excusing the terrible decision to shoot a fleeing suspect, just giving you the truth the media will fail to provide.

Let us clear something up before we go any further. Yes, attorney David Aylor has an ad on our site. No, we have never met nor do we know Aylor. He has never represented us in any legal matter. His ad is there because an interested party knew we were having equipment problems last year and Aylor was willing to provide that piece of equipment in exchange for an ad. He also has ads on most of the local media sites and quite a few national sites. Aylor owes us nothing and aside from a specified period for his ad run, we owe him nothing. Aylor does not contact us, nor do we contact him. He has no editorial control over what is on this site, just like he has no editorial control over other media outlets where he advertises.

We saw a news report today in which David Aylor indicates he no longer represents the officer. There is a lot of speculation about that and what it says about the case, so we will lay out some of the possibilities.

1) The officer hired Aylor of his own accord after the shooting and has simply chosen to have another attorney represent him now.

2) Aylor could have decided the case was such a loser and public relations disaster he no longer wanted any part of it. To be honest, we would be disappointed in any attorney who ended his representation of any client for this reason.

3) Aylor may have discovered he had a conflict of interest such as formerly representing a member of Scott’s family.

4) We can’t say for sure, but if the officer is a member of the Fraternal Order of Police or Police Benevolent Association he may have been provided an attorney immediately after the shooting. We don’t know if Aylor is one of the attorneys used by the FOP or the PBA. If he is, the organization who provided his services as part of their membership plan may have pulled their support for the officer after criminal charges were filed. If so, he would now be responsible for paying for his own attorney.

5) Some are claiming Aylor stepped away from the case because the officer lied about the shooting and lied to him.

We find number five quite interesting because those making that allegation have no access yet to any of the official statements given to investigators by the officer. We all know if you get your lies and misrepresentations out there early enough in the game they will be repeated so often they will stick in the minds of the uninformed in spite of what the evidence later shows.

So far, all we know about what the officer said is what has been released to the media. He is said to have claimed:

1) He conducted a traffic stop.

2) The driver fled and a foot pursuit ensued.

3) There was a struggle involving the Taser and the officer was relieved of that Taser during the struggle.

4) The officer subsequently shot the suspect.

Those basic facts have been proven by the video to be true. Any claims that the officer lied in his statement are just that - claims with no basis in the evidence currently available to the press or the public. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. Only when the final SLED report is released will we know for sure what the officer told investigators.


Now, let’s deal with the bullshit claims that without the video nothing would have been done. Those claims are coming from the usual suspects, of course. They choose to overlook the evidence one finds in something called a “forensic investigation”. Yes, that is correct. The same type of forensic investigation which showed the witnesses in Ferguson were lying would have revealed serious issues with this shooting.

First, a forensic autopsy would have shown the entrance wounds in Scott’s back and an analysis of those wounds would have shown those shots were fired from a distance. The evidence would have shown Scott was running away from the officer and no shots were fired during an actual struggle. As we mentioned before, we are told investigators had issues with this case right from the start. The video made it much easier for them to make their case. It is too bad the video was not shown or provided to SLED investigators while they were actually 0n-scene. Due to the three days it took for the video to be made available to authorities the usual suspects with no idea of how an actual criminal investigation works are now making their usual unfounded claims of improprieties on the part of the police.

Their claims of “they would have covered it up” are baseless and irresponsible, but we all know what their end game is. Sit back and watch in the coming days as the hustlers and the media try desperately to make this case about race. They don’t care that their efforts will actually cause some to discount the loss of Scott’s life and the violation of established law and police policies and procedures that contributed to it.

Notice we said “contributed to it”, because that is the truth. As much as certain people try to avoid reality, Scott’s poor decision making also contributed to his death. His bad decision to run from and struggle with a police officer was compounded by the officer’s poor decision to shoot him in the back as he fled. If you are going to assign blame honestly you cannot deny both are responsible for Scott’s death. The only real decision any person has to make for themselves is what percentage goes where.









  1. You’re also making assumptions by saying Scott’s death was partially his own fault for running. That’s an assumption because you’re assuming Slager wouldn’t have shot him if he didn’t run. I don’t know about you but the video I saw showed an officer with no regard for human life. He didn’t just gun down Scott, he did it in a manner as if it was a completely normal situation. He didn’t act flustered or anything, he just pulls his gun out, unloads and walks over to Scott in a slow and calm manner. If there’s a cop out there that would shoot someone without fleeing it would be someone like this guy. Also, with the whole picking up of the taser, I got the impression he was waiting for the other officer to be there to see him picking up the taser next to Scott’s body so he would vouch for him. It is a possibility.

    • Nice to know you are psychic and know what the office was thinking. Who is making assumptions, really?

    • Yeah, we were waiting for the other officer to get there to see the Taser. Problem is, the officer was already there.

    • It really is quite simple. I do not believe that the investigation WHEN COMPLETED will find that up until the moment in time the first round was fired, the officer was 100% in the right. They will find that Scott started off in the wrong {taillight, child support warrant} and compounded it by resisting arrest/fleeing. Until the first round was fired, Scott was 100% in the wrong.

      Sometimes your choices have unforeseen consequences. Doesnt make the cop any more or less wrong for his choices, but certainly makes Scott’s choices more tragic.

      He valued his immediate freedom more than he valued the debt he owed his children. He valued his immediate freedom more than his Mercedes, unless he thought it would still be there when he came back. He valued his immediate freedom more than the eventual loss of freedom he was likely to suffer because of fleeing/resisting arrest. Pursuing that immediate freedom, he put himself in a situation where someone else had to make a choice.

      The first and possibly subsequent choices were made by Scott, and they were wrong. The last choice was made by the officer, and it was wrong.

      If Scott decided to sit in his car, get his taillight ticket and calmly be arrested for not paying his just debts to his children, do you think things would have ended the same?

    • U sounds stupid cause that’s q black man got kill now if that was black person killed a white person they will get the chair

    • Very well put together!

      FWIW - this video has a little higher quality for screencaps IMO. By the process of elimination, I think we can pretty definitively conclude Scott did indeed have the taser just before we see it bouncing across the ground as opposed to it being knocked out of the officer’s hand(s) (one of which is gripping Scott’s forearm, the other fiddling with his utility belt/firearm).

    • You are wrong on a few things. Watch other videos and you’ll see that the object on the ground by his feet isn’t the taser. The taser went flying back behind the officer when Scott shook off the wires. The officer went back picked it up and did drop the taser by the body and then later picked it up, since he had a witness that saw where he had planted it, and could testify that it was by Scott’s body. I like how you defend this murderous cop, good job, maybe go to court and testify in his behalf.

    • Once again, reading comprehension fails some. There is a difference between defending someone and telling the truth of the matter. Just because your own bias won’t let you accept the truth does not mean it doesn’t exist.

    • watch this video and you’ll see the taser flying back

    • Watch the video and you’ll see that when he gets out of the car to run, he has a baseball cap on. That’s what you point out in the pictures above as being the taser by his feet.

    • Yep. We admitted to that error.

    • Too bad the dashcam video shat on your theory. You evidently assume that Slager would just walk up to the car and shoot him. His on camera demeanor undermines that.

    • I beg you all to please read these 2 articles completely watch the entire videos with audio and then tell me how media and groups have profited from not showing us that or playing the audio? Please make sure to read the breakdown below the video as well.

  2. Pretty bad that per the picture below, we have nothing more then the same story with multiple headlines. Thanks for what you do CTL.

  3. It is refreshing to see a critical analysis of the whole situation. They were both wrong, and the officer made the worst decision. If he would not have been arrested before the video was shared, he would have been arrested after an autopsy, as you are right the forensics would not have matched. Ferguson was based upon lies, and the forensics showed that, as they will prove it in this case. I feel for the families of both the officer and the man killed, as they have to suffer due to both’s actions.

    • You said it best with that last sentence.

  4. Seems some of the articles on here lately have taken a turn. I used to be with you guys on must subjects, but clearly you old LEO’s are taking sides. I’m not impressed CTL, youre about to lose some followers after this. Wrong is wrong, no justifications.

    • So take a hike. We didn’t justify the officer killing Scott, we are simply discussing the case with reason. Apparently you can’t comprehend that.

  5. Are you serious about ascribing a percentage of the blame to Scott for the officer’s action of shooting him in the back??? There is NO justification in this situation for the PO to shoot him, no matter what happened prior to the struggle. There was no subsequent action after the struggle over the taser other than to unholster his gun and shoot until Scott fell down. No attempt to chase and apprehend, no radio call to report him fleeing, only an attempt to shoot center mass. If it was ONLY a broken taillight, he could have let him run and then meet Scott on his door step in an hour or so because he had the vehicle information, all he needed to do was call for backup and go to Scott’s address. Just let him run and add the charge of resisting arrest and fleeing. The PO had several choices he could have made, AND he is TRAINED to QUICKLY assess the situation and MAKE THOSE CHOICES in order of importance… Shooting the victim is not 1st in importance, otherwise, the charge against the PO would probably be something different…

    • Scott precipitated the entire series of events by running and resisting. Had he stayed in his car and taken his ticket, or did his day in jail on the outstanding bench warrant, he would be alive. So, yes, he bears some of the blame. Facts cannot be ignored just because you don’t like them or because the officer screwed up at the end of the encounter.

    • He ran so he is partially to blame. The analogy being … the drunk girl at the party would not have been raped if she was not drunk. So she is partially to be blamed.

    • Watch TV much?

  6. Dude, you’re truly are a complete moron. If there was no video, you wouldn’t have laryngitis from all this grand standing defending a guilty murder.

  7. Hard to believe that Thug life does not have some bias, with the police officers lawyers advertising on your page.

    • Did you read the article? We told you the truth. Whether you choose to believe it or not is entirely up to you. BTW, Aylor doesn’t represent the officer anymore. Andy Savage has filed paperwork to do that. You knew that one was coming in light of the national nature of this case.

  8. I have been a frequent visitor to CTL and had recommended the site to many who have, in turn, also become regular readers. But your botched reporting on the Scott case and stubborn refusal to back down has caused us to turn our backs on what has clearly become a biased, half-baked forum for “reporters” who hide behind anonymity while masquerading as legitimate journalists.

    In the “That didn’t last long” post you anonymously chided race hustlers who “make false accusations and imply wrongdoing on the part of police for weeks before any serious effort is made to counter their BS.”

    “By then,” you wrote, “law enforcement has lost the battle and a segment of the population steadfastly believes the propaganda spread by those with a cash-driven agenda.”

    But in the killing of Scott law enforcement already has lost the battle – and the benefit of the doubt. And it’s all because of the video, which you are foolishly – and transparently – trying to marginalize by arguing that regardless of the footage Slager would have been charged based on the outcome of the pending SLED investigation.

    How do you know that? You don’t. There is no way you could. You’re chest thumping atop a flimsy box constructed of speculation. These are the apparent facts at the moment: The video changed the narrative. The video worked like a cold shower of truth, not the system. And you were wrong to jump the gun and spout off without having all the facts.

    You’re just as bad as the race hustlers you loathe. Maybe worse.

    So long CTL.

    • See ya! Feel free to stop in whenever you feel like the logic and rational thought won’t give you a headache.

      Apparently you can’t make the connection the first article you reference was written well before the revelation presented by the video. You criticize us for saying the forensic evidence would have (and did) cause investigators to question the initial story. How do we know that? I suppose in the same manner you “know” they wouldn’t have. Pot, meet kettle. We did not marginalize the video. The video facilitated the charging of the officer more quickly than normal.

      And yes, our comments about the race hustlers still stand. “No justice no peace”. Yeah, well, justice is being served as we speak. We suppose everyone forget the officer is currently in jail and the long, slow march toward justice has begun.

    • I dont think a fair analysis of the facts is the wrong thing to do. In all cases, you have to look at all the facts leading up to the actual incident. And saying that, based on the physical evidence that would have been found during the autopsy, an arrest would have still been made, is the same as saying it wouldn’t have.. an unproven opinion because neither event actually occurred.

      People are utterly shocked that someone bound by oath to uphold the law, actually did what is shown on the video, but that doesnt mean they lost ALL hope or belief in our law enforcement. They know the actions of one, or even five, doesn’t mean the others would have done the same.

      The ONLY way this battle of “with/without the video” would have been answered, is if someonr would have waited to release it at all until AFTER the autopsy and sled reports had been completed and released. I, myself, wish that had been the case, simply because I want to know for sure how bad, or good, things really are. I want to know for sure if it was the action of 1 cop or a systemic problem.

      But since that didn’t happen, i cant make a substantially valid statement in either direction.

  9. You lose.

  10. There is no way this result should be condoned, nor am I seeing it condoned, but I would submit that I suspect somewhere down inside of that Cops mind, he is seeing how useless his job is when he hasn’t got the support of a Criminal Justice system that fails to prosecute or allows violent criminals to walk or do extremely minimal time dozens … sometimes more… of times before that criminal commits something heinous… and I would bet my pension that Andy Savage will be using any perusal of this website or the County Records website as part of his defense.

    Get Ready…

  11. See Ya. Taking a hike. You people are every bit as bad as the choir boys mother. have a nice life.

    • Oh, that hurts. Not really. It’s not like we get paid to report on crime like we do. Don’t need ya.

  12. “Apparently you can’t make the connection the first article you reference was written well before the revelation presented by the video.”

    I appreciate the reply. But wow… The only thing that gives me a headache on this site is your poor grammar (which I’d tried to ignore before today) and miserable reading comprehension. I’m not sure what you’re attempting to convey in the gibberish quoted above, but I’ll try to explain this to you once more: The so-called “article” you wrote before the video “revelation” was irresponsible. You did not have all the facts. Period.

    Now I want you to read my previous post again. Go slower this time. Did I make any prediction about the outcome of the SLED investigation, as you assert in your response? Nope. Yet another example of you getting it wrong.

    • Gee, are you sending that same message to the local media? Have you set it to the New York Times, TMZ, Inside Edition or any of the other national outlets perpetuating the fraudulent narrative of planted evidence? Bet you didn’t.

      You make the assumption the officer would not have been charged without the video. You make that assumption without having all the facts or even the luxury of a completed investigation.

      Don’t go away mad, just go away.

  13. People should realize this site is run by north charleston cops. Chief you blast Berkeley county every chance you get and now you put some of the blame on mr. Scott. That man was running and no longer a threat to the officer. He flat out murdered that man. I do agree with you on the race hustler and I do believe this incident does not reflect the entire north charleston police department. But your biased post is so evident. Maybe people will soon realize what group is actually behind CTL

    • As usual Donnie, you show your ignorance. We pointed out the officer was wrong and should have been charged. Just because it fits your agenda to ignore it does not change that fact. Crawl back into your corrupt Berkeley County hole.

    • Now that’s the Donnie we’ve all come to love and enjoy! Welcome back. Good to see you’re taking a tragic incident and turning it in to your own personal vendetta against someone that would shoo you out the door if he is elected. I wish that I was there because it must be awesome to see someone talking out of both sides of his ass like you do. First it’s CTL baselessly bashing your Agency, then you want everyone to know about the interim Sheriff finally showing up for work now, but he never used to because he was using employees to do his fish frys. Are you really bashing the interim Sheriff hoping he doesn’t realize it’s his cyber guy doing it, or is he in on it and telling you to do it to help out Ollic since he’s only there for a short time? Maybe I’ll be back one day and know for sure once the Feds do an audit on your computer, but for right now I don’t care, just let the Scott family and the officers family deal with their stuff instead of turning this into your own personal Ollic bandwagon.

  14. Thanks for posting a different perspective on this story. Too many are blinded by race to see this is a very wrongful death where the victim is black and shooter is a white cop.

  15. In this terrible situation there are two wrongs. Yes both parties were wrong. Scott for resisting arrest and the officer for firing at a fleeing suspect. Mr. Scott has received his punishment and the officer will receive his. Will it be equal? No, because two wrong don’t make it right.

  16. Sorry, just don’t care anymore.

  17. If u don’t want to be in an altercation with police, don’t run! Maybe if the NAACP and good ole Al would like to stop “profiling” they would go to their own “hoods” and stop these innocent black men from selling dope? Not many people look for dope in the golf course community but every city in America has dope in the “hood”! Not my neighborhood because WE the law abiding citizens DO NOT allow that type behavior around our homes. It’s time to either shit or get of the damn pitty pot! For all you ignorant, common senseless and monthly check recipients- clean up your own back yard or quit paying Al’s mortgage!!

  18. Been discussing this at work I googled ” fleeing felon ” I feel like the officer might have been justified in his actions under commannlaw

    • If I recall correctly, The Supreme Court ruled (and outlawed) on Police Officers firing on fleeing felons back in the mid 80’s. However, based on that fleeing suspect on James Island a few years ago, if this Officer had been a civilian, I wonder if he would have had as much of an issue.

      If you don’t recall the case, a civilian fired upon a guy fleeing the scene where guy stole his stereo. At that time it was ruled justifiable, because he was attempting to render a civilian arrest.

      I don’t know if the lack of prosecution came from the Solicitor, or if the Charleston Sheriff’s Office made that determination.

      I agree with Chief, however. It should not have happened and it would not have happened if the guy didn’t assault and run. The commenters who “will never darken this site again” seem to be fixated on the idea that this Cop was looking for someone to shoot. Apparently that is all they are seeing. It all goes back to “feelings”. They feel outraged and that’s what they are knee-jerking on. Liberals. No analysis of anything, just react with base instinct.

    • Two scenarios in which an officer is allowed to use deadly force on a fleeing felon:
      (1) When he reasonably believes the felon poses a threat of bodily harm to fhe cop, or
      (2) when he reasonably believes the the fleeing felon poses a threat to others.

      For several reasons, the shooting does not seem legal under the common law.
      1) Walter Scott was not a felon.
      2) Walter Scotf appears 15-20ft from the officer, and was running even further, making it evident that he posed no threat to the officer
      3) Accordig to the man who shot the video, he was the only other civilian around. The video shows no sign of others. Walter Scott is unarmed. These alleged facts provide no support that he posed a threat to others either.

      I’m not sure why your legal analysis brought you to the opposite conclusion.

    • I’m just reminded of the James Island case and the disparity.

    • It is very discouraging to see that someone has the gaul to see ANY justification in what we saw there on camera. Not only did he shoot the man in the back, he tried to plant a weapon on him and flat out lied about the whole situation. You don’t need to look up anything to see that this guy has no business carrying a gun and badge. This was not his first rodeo either.

      “rom another article before the existence of the video was known:
      Of the two complaints in [Slager’s] file, one dealt with a resident’s allegation of unnecessary use of force. Slager went to the man’s Delaware Avenue home in September 2013 to investigate a burglary. When the resident opened the door for Slager, the burglary victim yelled that he wasn’t the suspect, the documents stated. The man also insisted that he wasn’t the perpetrator, but he later told internal investigators that Slager threatened to use a Taser against him if he didn’t come outside. When the man followed the order and stepped outside, he said Slager “Tased (him) for no reason and … slammed him and dragged him.” But another officer there said Slager had been forced to use the device during a struggle. The investigators exonerated Slager of wrongdoing.”

      Sound like an honorable guy to you?

  19. Chief your an idiot. Just because a man runs from police doesn’t in no way put blame on him for being shot. There was no threat to that officer when that man was running with his back to that officer. If it was your child or anybody’s child that got shot in the back running from a police officer yall would feel different. There is no shared blame for him getting shot. He fired 8 times at that man. However I don’t expect anything less from this site.

    • You are a moron, Donnie. Face it. He would still be alive if he hadn’t run. As I said, the officer was wrong and will pay for actions. Scott was also wrong. You can misrepresent the facts as much you want - you do it all the time. We don’t expect anything more from you.

  20. Chief your next, your identity can’t be hide forever

    • LoL. Pushing the stereotype button is hard not to do, isn’t it?

    • His identity may come out one day, but you will always be an illiterate, ignorant fool.

  21. According to the law,,5, which apparently most police and white people in this country are unaware of, you have the right to run without being shot, unless you have a bomb, are shooting at the police or running at people with a weapon in hand. Otherwise according to the law, which is a federal law now, the police are to pursue on foot or in vehicle and/or call for backup whichever they chose, and apprehend the suspect alive, let me say that loud and clear ALIVE…..there was no threat, this man was not a wanted felon such as a murderer, he had NO weapon, he posed NO THREAT. In fact, this cop had no reason to tase him, not one. Over a busted tail,light? pfft foh with that bs. Whatever makes you boarderline racist feel better to get to sleep at night because you really don’t feel bad that a black person died…cause you know you don’t feel they’re human or close to being as important as you are anyways. Hence the title of this crappy webpage. There’s always an excuse with you people, always. This was cold blooded racist murder period. Anytime they can talk to a white man with a loaded gun pointed at them for almost 3 hours and not shoot or tase him but shoot a kid under 5 seconds without getting out of the vehicle and then shoot this man in the back after tasing him over a busted tail light and then planting evidence and then lying on the report that he “feared for his life” hahahah…I wish my ancestors had not helped you all when you first landed! They messed up….look what people like you and this cop did to us and black people. And are still doing and then denying and telling black people to stop being racist and bringing up race. Huh? You’re the ones who are doing the killing and the racist things….how are black people supposed to stop being racist when they’re not the ones bringing racism to this country? How the hell are you people angry with black people when racist kill them, call them thugs, stereotype them, and treat them worse than dogs? You aren’t any smarter or better than black people just because of the color of your skin, I’ve met plenty of dumb white people, coming onto reservations with the “oh my great great great great grandpas uncles cousins sister was Native” hahahaha…..stfu! You’re white! Stop trying to be relevant with my people! We don’t want you! There are good white people but not on this site! And no “common law” was not a proper justification, maybe read a little further than the first line of the search engine! The cop has to be in DANGER of losing life or limb….there is no leeway in that definition, none, absolute….he is not allowed to be judge and executioner, once the suspect flees or surrenders without threat, the officer is to apprehend. A p p r e h e n d……….apprehend apprehend apprehend….and just so you can understand what that means, Google the definition…

    • So, you’ve found the pinnacle case on the issue. Congratulations. Unfortunately, I disagree with your analysis of the case law and the LIMITED available facts. So much so, in fact, that I am posting for the very first time (and this is after years of visiting the site and reading the comments).

      Before delving in to my opinion, I would like to emphasize that I will not be responding to your racial diatribe. I will respond to the legal analysis that you present; the law is the same regardless of race.

      Let’s consider your opening two sentences in conjunction with a one sentence excerpt from Henry v. Purnell, which was decided by the 4th Circuit (which would also review a case pursued under § 1983 on behalf of Scott). See Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524 (4th Cir. 2011).

      This case applies the holding from Tennessee v. Garner. Although the facts of this case are not the same as the LIMITED published facts surrounding the incident involving Mr. Scott, it does offer a great example of the rules that the court would likely apply.

      You Said:

      According to the law, (sic), which apparently most police and white people in this country are unaware of, you have the right to run without being shot, unless you have a bomb, are shooting at the police or running at people with a weapon in hand. Otherwise according to the law, which is a federal law now, the police are to pursue on foot or in vehicle and/or call for backup whichever they chose, and apprehend the suspect alive, let me say that loud and clear ALIVE….

      Henry v. Purnell said:

      “A police officer who shoots a fleeing suspect without “probable cause to *532 believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others” violates that suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 3, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985).

      So, no, the exceptions to the rule regarding shooting fleeing suspects is not at all limited to those possessing bombs, those shooting at the police, or those running at people with a weapon in hand. In fact, if you look at the language in the rule, it is vague. That was more than likely done intentionally because it would be impossible to predict every possible scenario where it might be appropriate to shoot a fleeing suspect, especially given how quickly technology and life is changing anymore.

      This means that you were also very wrong when you said “The cop has to be in DANGER of losing life or limb….there is no leeway in that definition, none, absolute….”

      I am now getting frustrated as I try to pick through your caustic soliloquy for the bits that are not racially motivated, as those bits are so truly few and far between. Furthermore, I generally only do legal research when I am paid to do so.

      Regardless, if you learn nothing else, please (1) don’t render legal advice until you go to law school and pass the bar (if you have already done so, then all I can say is damn… they must really be lowering the standards); and (2) don’t be a judge, jury, and executioner, yourself; wait for the legal system to work.

      *This does not constitute legal advice and is provided only as general information. The information provided is from a SUPER cursory review of the available material.

    • Thank you Alana Whitefeather!!!!!!

  22. Can someone please explain to me why everyone gets very upset about a shooting death of a black male by a white police officer but no one gives two cents that there is a killing or shooting in the lowcountry just about everyday??? I’m not saying they officer is justified at all but why do people only care and protest when this is the scenario? Seems like if lives matter then all lives matter regardless of who was doing the shooting. Please have riots and uproars to help stop the daily violence so I can rest a little easier that neither my family nor I will be shot while traveling or going to the mall. Anyone???

    • Well said!!!!

  23. Why did he run to pick up the taser immediately and then drop it by the dead body just to pick it up and hostler it? Something fishy was going on.

    • It was really fishy when he picked it up again 30 seconds later and holstered it, right?

    • Why did he purposely drop it near the body in the first place? Yes, he picked it up AGAIN, but lets not ignore what happened directly before that. That doesn’t strike you as odd AT ALL?

  24. Clearly its easy to see and Ill say it once again…..Blacks have been killing each other every night and no one says anything. they shot up chuck e Cheese and even Frankie’s and no one bother to say anything or even protest. There have been home invasions and even shootouts at the clubs…killings at bike Week,….and not one time have the “Black Lives Matter” crew even bothered to crank up their vehicles to come protest. But now this happens and theres vigils everywhere and protesters comign out of the wood word. Where were you when blacks were killing each other every night and chicken heads were fighting all over the IHOP parking lot?

    • Very well said Mass Confusion!!!!!!

  25. Good job Chief and all who contribute endless unpaid hours researching to keep us informed of what the local media won’t likely tell us! There are thousands of loyal followers who will continue to read, comment, and contribute to your site. Thank you for all your hard work. Thank you for bringing the truth to us and for not being afraid to spotlight what needs to be known. It would be nice to see these posters who are wasting their energy on trying to slam on CTL would just take their meds and STAY ON TOPIC. So I’m going to jump on the crazy derailed train long enough to laugh at them…because, after all, somebody has to do it, and it might as well be in this thread since my comment is totally off the railing too.

  26. Why is that everybody is screaming “#blacklivesmatter”??? Is it because a white officer killed a black man. But when it is black on black crime do black lives not matter then?? Why don’t we have these same angry mobs and protestors when we are gunning down each other?? Is it because that’s all we would be doing, cause we stay killing each other!!! When I look at this video, I didn’t see a white man police officer kill a man simply because he was black. I didn’t hear ANY RACIAL SLURS… So therefore we can’t say that it was done solely on race. What I see when I look at this video is an officer who shot and killed an unarmed man — reason unknown. But I guess I’m the only one who looks at things with open eyes…..

    • Why was Scott out of his vehicle? Why did he run and resist arrest? These actions escalated the situation. It appears the office was wrong but Scott put himself in that situation by his initial actions.

  27. Such a tragic situation which of course the race pimps/whores are going to jump all over. They finally got a situation that they might be able to hang something on.

    I don’t buy into the scenario that without the video the Officer would get away with it. The autopsy would’ve showed the evidence. Just like Ferguson and NYC did.

    It’s really tragic that Mr Scott was shot and killed. Surely everyone would’ve been better served if only he had, {made better decisions} fixed his tail light or paid his Child Support instead of spending thousands of dollars on Rims and Wheels for his car. Some very tragic and bad decisions all around.

  28. Hey, get a load of this guy people.A reasonable man!

    Thanks for the Xlnt work, Sir.

    A dying nation is in your debt.

    G*d Bless.

  29. I think partitioning a certain percentage of blame on the victim is not only wrong but irrelevant. Victim blaming does nothing but incite rage. Do we blame the drunk girl who gets raped? The ostentatious asshole driving a blinged out Hummer who gets car jacked? “Well, if they had just done this…” Walter Scott resisting arrest should not have led to him being shot. He is dead 100 percent because someone couldn’t handle their frustration. Racial motivations can only be speculated. And again, they are irrelevant. What matters is the facts and the actions of someone who is trained and paid to know better. I’m disappointed in the victim blaming. Yes, running from police is not a wise decision. But God bless Mr Scott, I am sure he died surprised as anyone that he would be shot for what he chose to do.

    • So, by your argument, just because telling the hard truth makes people angry, the truth should be concealed. We see that sentiment a lot in these pages. We find it strange that the “only God can judge” crowd throw that mantra out the window when it suits them.

    • Here is the difference in your scenario: The things you mention are not crimes. Running from the Cops IS. But that is why we have Courts and not Street Justice. Law Enforcement should not be Gangsta.

  30. The witness who videotaped the incident came out of seclusion and is on the world news talking about he is afraid for his life….aint that a bitch. No one told him to go for his 15 seconds of fame. he could have remained anonymous and not do any interviews for the most part. Dumbass dont realize that if you witness a murder, you dont say shit until time for court.Not give an interview to every camera that points in your face.

  31. There is so much blame being placed on the victim. I’m from another State and was directed to this site by a few locals. Racist is a understatement. The tone and racist innuendos made constantly on this site is like normal language. Is this how SC really is? I thought that shit ended in the late 60s.
    What bothers me is when ignorant people say, well blacks are killing each other everyday and nobody protest or marching for “black lives”! You country, redneck, racist bastards listen up. None of those blacks shooting blacks have taken an oath to serve and protect and also receive a check and benefits for doing that. If you haven’t realized the Jim Crow era is over! the earlier reporting on this subject dating April the 4th made it seen as the killing of Mr Scott was justified by this officer and you did a great job of reporting it but once the video came out you wanted to stand fast on your story and now its if the victim would have never ran this would never have happened. realize the chief of police was going alone with his officers story. and the cover up was in motion now that I can see the other four officers police report that was on the scene. it the fact if it wasn’t for the witness who videotaped this horrendous murder execution taking place then the good ol boys would have swept it under the rug!nothing is wrong with speaking the hard truth but the races in your windows that you make is not cool and apparently you feel that something is wrong because you are anonymous. that says a lot about you!

    • Here is the entire content of the April 4th post:

      “We are getting bits and pieces about an officer involved shooting in the area of Craig Street in North Charleston this morning. The shooting occurred after a pursuit. We are sure SLED is on the way.

      More details as they become available. Don’t worry, we won’t let the local media get away with their usual spin.”

      Apparently you read much more into it than was actually there. So, let’s see which parts of the initial story released by authorities was wrong.

      1. Officer conducted a traffic stop - True
      2. Driver (Scott) fled from said stop - True
      3. There was a struggle and a Taser was involved - True
      4. The officer shot Scott - True.

      Had Scott stayed in his car instead of fleeing, he would be alive today. Your willingness to ignore that truth does not make it any less factual. Was the officer wrong in pulling the trigger? Definitely. Had Scott stayed in his car and dealt with his problems none of this would have happened.

    • Not to mention that the video wasn’t released until a couple of days later. The guy who took the video turned it over to the Scott Family, they turned it over to either SLED or NC PD, who then released it. Once it was known, the officer was promptly arrested and charged with murder.

      The common denominator through all of these situations are: resisting arrest, disobeying a lawful order, fleeing, assaulting a police officer. But for those “facts”, most of these people {if not all} would still be alive today.

    • If all facts are on the table, the first fact of the matter is that there was a traffic stop for a broken taillight… REALLY??? Is this Mayberry circa 1942?? Even if the PO had reported that he used the impaired vehicle stop to serve the bench warrant, then your argument that Scott’s actions triggered all subsequent events could start there, but it would still be as flimsy as wet toilet paper. No PO circa 1990 until today uses a broken taillight except to establish probable cause to follow up on suspicion. So, all of this was triggered by the PO attempting to establish probable cause because of some profile he wanted to follow up on… Broken taillight my eye… Every commentor on here would be pissed to the highest of pissivity if a PO stopped you for a broken taillight. The PO could have pulled up along side the car at a stop light to give some good ole “protect and serve” advice to get the light fixed without making that stop official, because a broken taillight is nothing in a state that stopped mandatory vehicle inspections decades ago. Hell, with all the clunkers on the road spewing smoke and oil, I almost wish those inspections would come back… but I did say almost…
      But anyway, all of this started with the PO checking up on a profile, not Scott running away…

    • Let’s see - the law requires working brake lights. Not having all brake lights is a ticket. So now the officer is to blame for simply doing his job? Maybe we should just pay cops to not do their jobs.

    • c’mon dude… the LAW doesn’t require ALL, it requires WORKING lights. I have only had the highbar brake light working on my car for two years, pass by and followed by PO regularly but have NEVER been stopped for it. If improperly working vehicles are a priority for LE, then they wouldn’t have much time at all to focus on more serious matters. Do your job, but there is also common sense, courtesy, compassion and decency involved in doing that job as well. Having gun and “authority” is far too much power for most human beings to handle, that’s why LEOs areTRAINED in other aspects of the job to not begin to see citizens only as subjects of the government… You know, that thing the founders of this most current organization of states wanted to leave behind in the old country…
      You cannot deny that stop was a profile/probable cause technique and be truthful, especially considering your knowledge…

    • Re the “if you got pulled over for a broken taillight

      I was pulled over for a broken taillight. I maintain a friendly attitude, stayed in the car, kept my hands in view, didnt shift around. I was issued a ticket.

      And then it happened…

      The officer told me to bring the repaired car to the court date, and he’d cancel the ticket!

      I had stoppped at a convenience store. I went inside, bought the bulb, and fixed it before he had left the parking lot!

      I wasnt shot. I had no outstanding warrants. He wasnt looking for any probable cause.

      It is clear Scott didnt want to go to jail, unable to man up to his dead-beat dad situation. He succeeded.
      Scott was 100% wrong until the first shot was fired. Slager became 100% wrong when he fired the first shot.

      Slager’s wrong does not eliminate Scott’s wrong. Scott’s actions allowed the situation to start, unless you believe that Slager would have shot Scott if he had sat in the car like a reasonable person and taken his arrest for not paying his child support like a man.

    • I am not a black man and I’ve been pulled over for no brake lights. I’ve been pulled over for no lights on my trailer. I’ve been pulled over late at night because I crossed a center line (bug flew in window into my eye). Each one of those times I was in the wrong. Not one of those times did I choose to run.
      I love the part of your rant when you call all of us “country, redneck, racist bastards”. Pot calling kettle black?
      Ever see the movie Pulp Fiction? One aspect of the movie is to point out how the actions of one person precipitates the outcome of another person’s life. Precisely what happened here. One person’s bad decision precipitates the next person’s very bad decision.
      And why the reason for remaining anonymous? The threats on our lives, our families, our homes, etc. By the way, you didn’t exactly post a full name and picture of yourself either. Pot, meet kettle, again.

  32. Chief, keep up the good job. Your stance is far from racist and is exquisitely rational.

    The majority of the population lacks the common sense and ability to set emotion aside when incidents like this happen.

    Scott would still be alive today if he cooperated. That is a fact. Is the officer wrong? Without a doubt. However, the situation was created by Scott’s violation of South Carolina law. The “let them run and catch up with them later at home” crowd exhibits a fundamental, ignorant flaw by that mentality. That approach to policing would allow criminals to run rampant on our streets without fear of immediate punishment. Emotion has no place in forming public policy.

    And to the guy who said to Chief, “Your an idiot”, think about what you just wrote. Think long, think hard, take all the time that you need. Idiot.

  33. And the officer wouldn’t be locked up for murder and without bail if he wouldn’t have shot either.

    • Murder? That charge was given solely to pacify the community. The crime does not meet any of the elements for the death penalty, nor for murder as defined by SC Code 16-3-10.

      Sure, the officer is in jail. But a conviction for murder will not be had. Were his actions contrary to what officers are taught? Yes. Was he wrong in shooting Scott? Yes. However, it was not murder as defined by SC law.

    • No, he wouldn’t have. Do yourself a favor. Watch the movie Pulp Fiction. It (in it’s own way) demonstrates how one person’s actions dictates what happens to another person and how it has a domino effect on even more lives. It’s a good watch.

  34. White man kills a black man and the black population wants answers. Black man kills a black man and no one knows or saw a thing.

    This video speaks volumes.

  35. In the video, just before the shooting, after the “object” has been knocked out of the officers hand, and immediately after Mr. Scott turns and begins to run, you can see what looks like a string or wire (Taser wire?) running towards the officer become taut. If the object that was knocked away just before the shooting was indeed a Taser, yet the Taser leads were attached or tangled to the officer (during the stuggle?) and they subsequently tightened as Mr. Scott ran away, is it possible that the officer believed Mr. Scott actually had the Taser, with it’s leads in contact with the officer?

  36. In the video, just before the shooting, after the “object” has been knocked out of the officers hand, and immediately after Mr. Scott turns and begins to run, you can see what looks like a string or wire (Taser wire?) running towards the officer become taut. If the object that was knocked away just before the shooting was indeed a Taser, yet the Taser leads were attached or tangled to the officer (during the stuggle?) and they subsequently tightened as Mr. Scott ran away, is it possible that the officer believed Mr. Scott actually had the Taser, with it’s leads in contact with the officer?

  37. Yea,about the same as when a white man molest a white child and no one says anything. I guess is a culture thing! You rednecks are a fucking joke!

  38. Way too soon to be assigning blame percentages, no matter “how it looks so far”.

    The object on the ground between the two men as they break apart appears to me to be Scott’s cap, not the taser. What I think is the Taser appears a few frames after Scott breaks away, a few feet behind the officer.

    Suggestion has been made that foot pursuit should have been used. Scott overpowered and escaped while tasered, and has not been searched for a weapon, that reduces the viable options.

    However much some like to bash the police, it would be a sad shame if the lesson here isn’t to not resist arrest

    • You are correct about the item on the ground. We didn’t see the Taser clattering across the pavement when we first saw the video.

  39. Cop or civilian, if you unlawfully take a life you gotta face the consequences. If there were ever a case that warranted the death penalty, this is it. This man has tarnished the hard work that all the brave men and women that put on a badge every morning do for us in the community. The men and women that risk their lives to keep us safe. God bless our law enforcement officers, and God Damn all the cowards that hide their criminal behavior behind a badge.

    I can think of few things more loathsome than a crooked cop hiding behind the ‘blue line’ at the expense of his brothers and sisters in blue. For shame on this man.

    If there is one upside to this story, at least the family will know that this man, as an ex-cop entering prison, is going to somewhere far worse than hell on earth. Inside of five years if he isn’t killed, or killed himself, his mind and body will be completely broken and destroyed by the abuse meted out by the other inmates.

  40. Why was there no smoke from his weapon?

    Why was there no movement on the back of Scott’s shirt as he was shot?

    Why is there no blood or signs of damage when the black cop turns him and checks him?

    Why does this seem like a hoax?

  41. He had an NRA sticker on his truck, sarge. I was scared for my life. I had to shoot him.

  42. I fully support the Police Officer and know the shooting was justified. If you grab a weapon from my hands and shot me with it which is what happened then I would do what the Police Officer did and shot your a**. It’s also great there is one less ni**er in the world. A f**king men!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>