Pages Navigation Menu

Exposing the criminal element for 3 years



By now we have all seen the ugly video of a police officer shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. That video will be used in training classes for years to show officers what not to do. That officer is now charged with murder indicating the system worked as intended. That still hasn’t stopped the perpetually aggrieved from issuing very public threats directed at law enforcement.



ScreenHunter_3553 Apr. 07 19.33 ScreenHunter_3554 Apr. 07 19.33ScreenHunter_3555 Apr. 07 19.38



Darius apparently didn’t read the article about the arrest of Officer Slager he was posting on over at the P&C.


Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.


Decades of case law, which is taught in the academy and in-service training, tells police officers shooting a fleeing suspect is not acceptable. Tennesee v. Garner was the definitive case on the matter. There are legal exceptions, of course.

Graham v. Connor provides a possible defense for use by this officer. The case set a “reasonableness” standard. According to that case, the officers actions are “objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” In other words, if a “reasonable” officer could assume the suspect was a danger to the community the standard basically exonerates him. That standard is not judged under the due process clause, but under the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has made it clear in other decisions that the judge has to put himself in the officer’s shoes and view things from his perspective. If the judge finds the officer’s perspective to be skewed based on the evidence, the defense won’t be successful.

When arguing that case we are sure the officer’s attorney will point out the foot chase and the struggle we can see over the Taser when the video first takes focus on the pair. We don’t know what happened prior to the beginning of the video and the last 30 or 40 yards it covered, but James Johnson told WCSC tonight the pursuit covered “3 football fields” (300 yards). That does leave a lot of room for contact between the two we might not be aware of.

Most of us agree on principle that once Scott turned his back and resumed his slow flight no shots should have been fired. Even the concealed weapons classes in this state tell you that. Most of the comments we have seen from police officers indicate they absolutely stunned by what they see in this video.

The video is damning, but if the officer and his legal team can successfully articulate why the officer thought Scott to be a danger to the community, the case may not go the way most believe it should.

Even with our limited legal knowledge we feel safe in telling you right now this officer will not go trial on the charge of murder. Let’s look at 16-3-10:



ScreenHunter_3556 Apr. 07 20.11



There is no way a charge of murder is applicable in this situation. The “malice aforethought” is not there. SLED only charged the officer with murder in order to placate the public, who they knew would be largely outraged after seeing the video.

We suspect he will either plead to or be found guilty of one of the following:



ScreenHunter_3557 Apr. 07 20.12


ScreenHunter_3558 Apr. 07 20.12



Of course, that outcome will definitely enrage the cop haters who indict every cop in the country when one does do something wrong, but a prosecutor and a judge are supposed to apply the law realistically and rationally and not give in to that pressure. Everyone should note, however, that in addition to the problematic video the officer has another big impediment to overcome. 2016 is an election year for 9th Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson. If you don’t think she will play politics with this case, you haven’t been paying attention.

Now, let’s answer some questions and correct some errant perceptions and downright ignorance. No, we don’t like the fact that Scott was shot and killed while running away, but the situation needs to be discussed calmly, without the hysterics and threats to kill police officers we are seeing from some. You should also note that there is absolutely no evidence of racism in this case. Poor decision making in the heat of the moment, yes. Racism, no. The more people harp on the fraudulent racism angle, the more they detract from the real issue.

The first series of stills taken from the first moments the video pans over to the two parties shows the end of a struggle over the officer’s Taser. Scott has control of the Taser in image 2. He drops it by his right foot in image 3 as he turns to flee and the officer moves to draw his firearm. Had Scott maintained control of the Taser and continued to struggle with the officer, we feel the shooting would have been justified. This, however, did not happen.



ScreenHunter_3540 Apr. 07 19.13 ScreenHunter_3541 Apr. 07 19.13 ScreenHunter_3542 Apr. 07 19.13 ScreenHunter_3543 Apr. 07 19.14



The thing to consider at this point, and we won’t know until the case goes to trial, is what did the officer perceive. Did he have tunnel vision and believe Scott was fleeing with the weapon in hand? We know the Taser had been deployed and not reloaded because we can see the wires very briefly as they are caught up between Scott and the officer.

The next series of images show the locations of both parties as eight shots are fired.



ScreenHunter_3545 Apr. 07 19.14

ScreenHunter_3546 Apr. 07 19.15 ScreenHunter_3547 Apr. 07 19.15 ScreenHunter_3548 Apr. 07 19.15 ScreenHunter_3549 Apr. 07 19.15 ScreenHunter_3550 Apr. 07 19.15 ScreenHunter_3551 Apr. 07 19.15 ScreenHunter_3552 Apr. 07 19.16



Ugly, indeed.

We do have to commend Mayor Keith Summey and Chief Eddie Driggers for their handling of this situation. Within an hour of first seeing the video they called a press conference and told the public everything they needed to know. Chief Driggers fought back tears at times and that shows how much he loves his profession and cares about the people who work for him. His disappointment was on display for all to see. It takes a man of character to be as honest as he was in expressing his feelings.

For all of you railing against the system who are too stupid or racist to see it for yourself - the system worked and this officer will eventually pay the price for his poor decision to fire at a fleeing suspect.






  1. There will come a point in time that a police officer will lose his life because he was fearful to use his own weapon.

    • Ceiling Fan,
      Your right ! And when that day comes, where will the NAACP & the BLACK LIVES MATTER people be then ??? No where around I would think. They only come out when it’s a person of color that has been shoot by a WHITE officer.
      Our police have a shitty job to do for our city’s & towns.
      Good or bad, whenever a person is in trouble it’s the cops they depend on to save them…..not the drug dealer down the street.
      I wonder where all these bleeding-heart assholes would be if the cops just said ” piss on it” handle it youeself???

  2. “For all of you railing against the system who are too stupid or racist to see it for yourself – the system worked and this officer will eventually pay the price for his poor decision to fire at a fleeing suspect”. — CHARLESTON THUG LIFE


    • Actually, we believe the crime scene evidence would have caused a number of issues for the officer. Physical evidence tells tales. You probably don’t care to hear that SLED was questioning the officer’s version before they even left the crime scene.

    • Couldn’t agree more. Without video this guy is a free man right now. Also interesting is how the police apologist states that the charges were brought only to “placate the public” even though he states later that the “system worked.” I understand, I suppose. Blindly defending idiots with badges can lead to some confusion, no doubt.

    • Your reading comprehension sucks ass. The charge of “murder” was brought to placate the public. The actual charge should have been Manslaughter because the critical element of “malice aforethought” required by the statute for murder is obviously missing. It’s a legal concept that takes a bit of brain power to understand. We wouldn’t expect you to get it. We didn’t defend him, we just discussed the facts rationally. Something you are apparently incapable of doing.

    • Let me put a finer point on it for you - you’re saying filing a charge to appease the public is a part of a “working” system. I’m saying that is confusing, irrespective of what the charge is. Discuss.

    • The charge has “elements”. For example, in a case of 1st Degree Burglary the elements are 1) unlawful entry into a domicile, 2) in the night-time hours 3) with intent to commit a crime therein. If any of those elements are missing, you don’t charge 1st Degree Burglary.

      The charge of murder has the required element of “malice aforethought”. That element is missing from this case, thus the charge of murder is inappropriate. A charge of Voluntary Manslaughter fits.

      If you want the truth of it, the “system” did not “work” in this case because the charge does not fit the crime, thus, the system failed. Was the officer wrong? Hell yes! Did he commit murder? Not according to the statute.

      Can’t explain it to you any simpler than that.


  4. This family has shown the epitome of grace. They deserve an abundance of praise for helping to keep this tragic situation from becoming another Ferguson. Prayers for the Scott Family.

    • You are so very right… full of grace indeed

  5. Sickening.

  6. Chief, some honest questions here.

    To begin with, isn’t the issuing of threats on the life of police officers a Class F felony under §16-3-1040?

    Getting back to the video, if you can see thin taser wires in the first few frames of that blurry cell phone video, you have better eyes than I.

    You propose a struggle-for-the-taser scenario that ended just as the video began. There are some problems with that, not the least of which is that you are using the video to claim what happened before the video. Bit of a stretch there. Let me float an alternative for you. If the eventual victim saw the taser being pointed at him and (not wanting to be based) slapped it out of the officer’s hand, that would look like the video that we’ve seen. Technically it’s an assault if he touched the officer, but it’s a huge stretch to call that a struggle for the taser given that the victim immediately flees the officer and the taser. It wasn’t a struggle over possession of a taser. It was a struggle over whether the eventual victim was going to get tased. The “he gained control over my taser and I had to shoot him” defense comes from the officer’s original statement through his then-attorney, your key advertiser. They were understandably hoping to spin public perception right after the incident. And you have an incentive to avoid making your key advertiser look foolish for running with the officer’s original story, so your voice is not free of conflict on this topic. But that original version put forth on the officer’s behalf seems to be something you’re trying to hold on to as it melts away before our eyes. That initial version released by Mr. Aylor is an ice cube, and this video is a hot torch. I think most people of color viewing the video will see it as death of a black man from disrespecting a white officer. The stink of racism emanates from that. There are plenty of examples of drunk white college kids who flee officers late at night in the historic district trying to not get arrested. They don’t get shot to death by Charleston City Police. And a lot of people of any color who see an attorney and a client ending the relationship after 48 hours might speculate that the lawyer fired the client for giving him false information that puts the attorney in an untenable position.

    I’m also wondering about something you didn’t address. After the shooting, the officer picks up the taser, and then (according to CNN) drops the taser next to the shot victim’s body and picks it up again. What’s going on there? Suspicious minds might call that an attempt to plant evidence by someone who didn’t know he was being videotaped. I don’t know what it is. You surely know more about tasers than I do. Could you comment?

    Finally, there’s the failure of the officers to render immediate first aid, contrary to what the shooting officer’s statement claimed he did. That failure to render aid as the man was dying inflames the suspicion of racism. Combined with the officer’s earlier actions, it makes it look as if he doesn’t think this particular black life matters. That’s the kind of horrific twist that enrages people. So, is that failure to render aid itself criminal? A civil offense? Or just an NCPD policy violation?

    • We can see a flash of the wires and we know the cartridge had been fired and one probe was found still embedded. We specifically pointed out we did not know what happened prior to the video focusing on the two. Our frame by frame analysis shows the officer has nothing in his hands as Scott begins to flee. The Taser appears to be in Scott’s hand as he turns. If it was slapped out of the officer’s hand it would not a) taken so long to fall to the ground and b) would have flown a distance away.

      As far as the officer later picking up the Taser and then dropping it - people do strange things when in shock. Don’t forget, shootings (whether right or wrong decisions) are also traumatic events for the officer. You failed to mention that shortly after the officer dropped the Taser as he approached the body, he picked it up and holstered it. (at about 1:35 in the video).

      The important question regarding the Taser is, when did the officer realize Scott did not still have control of it?

      As for the attorney - we saw his comment this morning that he no longer represented the officer and were wondering about that. There are a number of possibilities. a) Was the attorney associated with the FOP or the PBA and appointed to represent the officer immediately after the shooting, then pulled off the case due to the obvious issues with the shooting? b) did the officer lie in his initial statements and to his attorney? c) does the attorney now realize this case is a loser and no longer wants to be associated with it?

      The delay in attempting to render aid was due in part to the need to ensure the suspect was not armed - even if he was handcuffed. Without knowing more about the number and location of injuries we can’t say for sure if there was anything that could have been done in the following minute or two before the video ended. We do know additional officers were arriving on-scene and aid may have been administered by them.

      We find it interesting that everyone is commenting on the “officer’s” statement when no one has actually seen a statement from that officer. We believe some may be confusing what was taken from supplemental reports written by others for what the officer involved might have said.

  7. At the end of the day I really think that a lot of people are missing the bigger picture. A MAN LOST HIS LIFE. Now whether he lost it at the hands of a random drug dealer or at the hands of a police officer, as he did, he still is gone! There are tons of people who are going to have to suffer with this lost, but most importantly his children. How do you tell 4 babies that once they close that casket, THAT’S IT!!! That is one of the most difficult things in the world that you could ever have to do! I feel bad and give my condolences for the family of Mr. Walter Scott, but I am also praying for the family of the officer who committed this horrendous crime. He too has a family and their lives will never be the same. Did any of you know that he has 2 children and his wife is expecting his third? I can only imagine what she must be feeling and going through. Instead of us getting on here and saying that everything has to be about race, why don’t we start trying to come up with ways that improve race relations! Yes, I know that racism is still alive and well in the world today, but not everything that happens is a race issue. We have no idea what this man was thinking when he fired his gun. When I look at this video I didn’t see a white man who was killing another man because he was black… I saw a police officer killing a man and then trying to cover it up! We do not know what the outcome would have been whether this had been a Hispanic man, or a Jewish man, or even a Middle-Eastern man. I know that when half of your read this there is going to be a lot of comments about how I must be a “white” person who doesn’t understand what it is to live being “black” in this city… and you would be absolutely, 100%, WRONG!!! I know exactly what it is to be a black person living in this city, and I also know that its about how you live your life!!! Instead of always complaining get up and do something with your life!

    • AMEN sister ! It doesn’t matter what color you are….it matters on how you conduct your self.
      I’ve seen just as many “white nigga’s” as I have black ones in this town.
      My two best friends in this town are as black as coal, and they are the most decent people I’ve met in all my travles across this country.

    • Somethimg that needs to be understood is that this outcome has bben a completely shocking outcome to a bunch of people. Law abiding people who have rarely had contact with the police in more than a traffic stop. Typically law abiding people do things by the book & they know what to say/do, or not say/do,when approached by authority.

      This mentality leads to a general, yet overwhelming,trust in the people who have that authority. An inherent trust that they (the cops) are the good guys & the other guy must be a criminal who did something outrageous to warrant any action that took place.

      This general belief is one that is believed regardless of race. If we hear that someone has fought with, overtook their weapon, fled from police & were shot, we automatically trust that the shooting was justified. After all, cops are the good guys &good guys don’t lie, bad guys do. Like I said, this train of thought is applied in EVERY situation, regardless of race.

      Next, ok so why is it we dont have contact with cops as much as others, well #1 we dont commit crimes or hang around people who do or in areas that are known high crime areas. If we did, we would have more contact with police.

      I myself have been stopped & questioned extensively after driving a friend home once & ending up lost taking a shortcut from the Air Base through Midland Park & Stall Rd. Questioned extensively, and answered respectfully without any irritation, agitation or disdain during any part of the conversation.

      It wasn’t a race based stop, it was a LOCATION stop. I was apparently in an area of high drug activity after 10 at night,driving around slow & likely seeming confused. To me that’s a logical reason to be stopped.

      I definitely would not like that happening every day, but if i lived in an area similar to that one, as much as I would feel inconvenienced, I would also understand why & even be.thankful that the cops were there trying to clean things up.

      not having alot of contact with cops also makes us blind to the idea that cops would harass a person without real reason or abuse their authority in any way.

      That is why this case was initially thought to justified, but then were absolutely astounded with what we saw. In our minds, it was such a crazy, unimaginable occurrence,but the video has really opened many people’s minds to the understanding/belief that cops aren’t as infallible & some may really be a bad guy in sheep’s clothing.

      I hope this makes some kind sense.

  8. For those of you coming here from Reddit - in spite of what one poster there claims we did not provide the officer with a defense. We simply told folks what defense he would likely use. There is a difference.

    • What I don’t is why are they in a field? When I get pulled over I stay in my vehicle and hand the officer my information from inside my vehicle. I never get out of my vehicle. I have never been asked to keave my vehicle either. I am just asking for some enlightenment.

  9. In case you did not know the law regarding the police shooting a fleeing felon here it is..
    U.S. Law[edit]

    Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force “may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others.”[2]

    A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead…however…Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

    —Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

    • We already addressed the legal ramifications in a previous post.

  10. Oh wow, what a horrific video. If anything deserves a death sentence, I would think a killing in cold blood like this would certainly suffice. My prayers go out to the family.

  11. Everyone seems willing to blame this officer, but no one seems to be asking why this man was out of his car and running from a police officer. Why did he have his hands on the taser ? While I’m no fan of law enforcement, I still respect them and the job they do.
    If you have nothing to hide, then you should have no fear of law enforcement.
    I don’t believe the whole story is being told here.

    • While Scott contributed to his death by choosing to run and fight, what this boils down is ability, opportunity and jeopardy at the time the trigger was pulled. None of those factors were present and the officer was wrong to shoot him.

    • I think most people agree that running from the police is not the right thing to do, yet we all know that lots of people will do exactly that & for some very stupid reasons. For instance,teens hanging out in a park after hours see the cops coming, they run. Nobody wants to get in trouble. Its not right, but just as we have to ask why he ran, so would have had the officer. The officer had no clue as to why he was running & as someone who deals with that as a career, he should also be aware that running doesnt automatically mean they have committed a henious crime,are about to, or are a threat to themselves or others. They should know that sometimes its for something that wouldn’t even gain them more than a fine or a few days in jail.

      For that reason, when the facts are unknown, the use of deadly force shouldn’t be an action taken too quickly, or so determinedly. As in, why are officers emptying their whole clips? If that’s the way their trained, then maybe the training needs to be reevaluated.

      next, we all know at least one probe was located still in Mr. Scott, which means that contact was made. We know he didnt fall to the ground, so maybe just maybe the voltage he received wasnt the full amount to incapacitate him, but enough to.send his body, and arms, flailing. Maybe his arm caught in the wire, or hit the officer’s arm & the taser was ripped from his hand & when the voltage let up, Mr. Scott, scared as hell, just started running.

      That scenario is logical in my mind,yet it is also not what I would consider to be Mr. Scott fighting the officer, much less taking his weapon. To me it would be his body reacting to an electrical shock & in the process knocking the taser out of the officer’s hand.

      And going back to why Mr. Scott ran, his family’s attorneys actually gave a very logical scenario,one that CTL even mentioned before they had changed their opinion on the matter. And that’s that Mr. Scott was afraid to go back to jail for the failure to pay child support. Mr. Scott had already been arrested once before & lost his job at that time as a result. It’s logical to assume he would not want to have that happen again. And as disappointing & irresponsible as it is to not pay child support, i do not believe failing to do so would ever call for a death sentence.

      Aside from that, from my understanding, once someone has a warranted issued for failure to pay, even if they get caught up in the payments by paying family court, the warrant may not get revoked. Therefore, a person who has gotten everything financially corrected, could possibly still have to spend a day or 2 in jail until the municipal courts could confirm with the family courts that everything is ok.

      And sometimes even after it is confirmed, they may STILL end up having to serve some time for the charge regardless because they have to “be punished” for the “crime” they committed, even if they tried to “fix” it…

      There are plenty of reasoning on both sides, but what we’re forgetting is that one of those people took an oath to protect & serve this community & are supposed to be held at a somewhat higher standard than everyone else & i don’t believe he held up his end of the bargain. I don’t believe his mind was working the way it should be when making the decision to use deadly force against someone. And I’m not talking in “insanity defense” way either.. just in a logical, rational & respectful for human life way..

    • Just to address a couple of things - If both probes from the taser don’t make contact the circuit cannot be completed, therefore there is no charge delivered. Basis principles of electricity. Second, we never changed on our opinion - it was released that Scott had a warrant. A few days later the PR machine for Scott said there was no warrant, but he knew he owed 18 thousand dollars, which was later changed to 7 thousand. Third - when a warrant is served it is removed from the system.

  12. The other thing that bothers me is that the NAACP and the BLACK LIFES MATTER people. Where are you “people” when a white person is killed by a black person ? Where are you when white people are robbed, shot and have their homes broken into by blacks ? Where are you when blacks are murdering eachother in the streets of our cities and towns ? NO WHERE ! that’s where. You all come out of the woodwork when theres a white officer involved w/ shooting a black person, but fail to appear in any other situation. As far as I’m concerned, your all a bunch of hypocrites. “BLACK LIFES MATTER”….huh ! I was raised that ALL LIVES matter. You people stink. How long before REV AL get’s here to get his face in the new’s again ???

    • *lives

    • Black lives only matter when the shooter is a white police officer. Never hear a peep when it’s black on black or black on white.

    • “Black lives matter”… unless they are totally innocent in the womb? There are cities… Baltimore is one, I think,,, in which the number of blacks are actually regressing because of the abundance of abortions.

      But that is a little different topic…

    • you handle some situation internal…

    • MattV,
      Thank you for correcting my spelling. I’ll remember that in the future.

  13. 1-we do not have the entire encounter on tape.
    2-murder is indeed unwarranted
    3-TennvGarner may be an acceptable defense if the facts and articulation of events prove it out.

  14. Chief, thanks for your response to my post.

    You state without much going into detail that there’s “no way” that the required element of malice aforethought is present and so the charge of murder against Officer Slager can’t be supported. You suggest that the murder indictment was only for political reasons.

    I checked a couple of legal resources for the definition of “malice aforethought.”

    First, West’s Encyclopedia of American Law (2008)

    A predetermination to commit an act without legal justification or excuse. A malicious design to injure. An intent, at the time of a killing, willfully to take the life of a human being, or an intent willfully to act in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to human life; but malice aforethought does not necessarily imply any ill will, spite or hatred towards the individual killed.

    Burton’s Legal gives this definition:

    1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) A general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with police, there is malice aforethought.

    As I read these definitions, all that’s required to meet the legal definition of malice aforethought is that (a) the shooting was illegal and (b) the shooter intended to seriously injure the victim. We may think that because Officer Slager didn’t get out of his patrol car intending to shoot anybody, he can’t have had malice. From these definitions, however, there isn’t any need to have plotted out well in advance, or had a long-standing intent to kill, or that the shooter specifically hated the victim. The simple intent to cause great injury before pulling the trigger constitutes “malice aforethought.” I think most people would say that shooting someone eight times evidences an intent to cause great injury. By contrast, a careless discharge of a weapon resulting in death would not be malice aforethought.

    Looking at the video, it’s clear that Officer Slager did intend to shoot Mr. Scott. Based on these legal definitions of malice aforethought, could you explain your statement that there is “no way” that there was malice aforethought?

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>