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.
Another still showing the Taser on the ground.
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.
Here is a clearer shot.
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.
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.