This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
5 Second Slow Mo Video Shows What REALLY Happened With Policeman Who Shot Fleeing Man In Back
The officer shooting the unarmed man in the back who was running away is – appropriately – front-page news.
But there’s a bigger story …
Initially – as Kit Daniels shows – the media believed that the officer shot in self-defense … until the video was released. If the brave witness hadn’t filmed the entire incident on his cellphone, the truth would never have been discovered.
The Intercept explains:
Because three days elapsed between the shooting and the publication of the video of the shooting, the Scott incident became an illuminating case study in the routinized process through which police officers, departments and attorneys frame the use of deadly force by American cops in the most sympathetic possible terms, often claiming fear of the very people they killed. In the days after the shooting, the police version of events — an utterly typical example of the form — was trotted out, only to be sharply contradicted when the video surfaced. In most cases like this, there is no video, no definitive, undisputed record of much of what happened, and thus no way to rebut inaccurate statements by the police.
The first report of the Saturday afternoon incident, from Charleston’s The Post and Courier, followed the usual script: The police department’s story portrayed the victim as behaving dangerously, in this case, purportedly struggling to take an officer’s Taser as part of a violent altercation. Family and friends of the slain black victim mourned his loss and questioned the narrative offered by authorities.
The pro-police spin continued two days later, when a lawyer for Michael Slager, the officer who shot Scott, said Scott “tried to overpower” his client, who “felt threatened and reached for his department-issued firearm and fired his weapon.” Scott’s family and allies could do little more than note that Scott was unarmed, and call for the truth to somehow emerge.
A former U.S. Marshal reveals that law enforcement is trained to justify deadly force by pretending that they felt threatened by the suspect:
Moreover, police have shot people in the back and killed them as they ran away many times before. Here are a couple of recent examples, which happen to have been caught on tape:
- An unarmed man running away in Long Beach, California
- An unarmed man in Muskogee, Oklahoma (video)
- A man in Pasco, Washington
- An innocent artist in Utah who liked to dress up in anime (and see this)
Moreover, police often frame innocent suspects.
They also plant weapons on people, as “justification” for shooting them. The practice is so well-known that the New York Times noted in 1981:
In police jargon, a throwdown is a weapon planted on a victim.
Newsweek reported in 1999:
Perez, himself a former [Los Angeles Police Department] cop, was caught stealing eight pounds of cocaine from police evidence lockers. After pleading guilty in September, he bargained for a lighter sentence by telling an appalling story of attempted murder and a “throwdown”–police slang for a weapon planted by cops to make a shooting legally justifiable. Perez said he and his partner, Officer Nino Durden, shot an unarmed 18th Street Gang member named Javier Ovando, then planted a semiautomatic rifle on the unconscious suspect and claimed that Ovando had tried to shoot them during a stakeout.
Wikipedia notes:
As part of his plea bargain, Pérez implicated scores of officers from the Rampart Division’s anti-gang unit, describing routinely beating gang members, planting evidence on suspects, falsifying reports and covering up unprovoked shootings.
Here, officer Slager was caught on film planting his taser on Walter Scott after he had already killed Scott:
(This is a slow motion excerpt from the video.)
Why is this happening?
One reason is that many law enforcement officers consider failure to comply with the officers’ demands as a basis for using lethal force.
Police have become so militarized in modern America that – in the words of civil rights and constitutional attorney John Whitehead – “the only truly compliant, submissive citizen in a police state is a dead one.”
Of course, if we had the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, this would not be such a problem. Sadly, we’ve lost virtually all of those rights.
No wonder you’re 55 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist.
»
- advertisements -
Forget where, but I saw a slow motion image stabilized version of the original video. I don't think it was even pointed out during the segment in question, but it was pretty clear to me that the tazer was being dragged 15' or so behind the guy running away, likely simply because the barbs were still in him, and the cop hadn't secured his tazer after using it.
If watched carefully, what the cop likely did was to move the tazer closer to the body to try and justify his actions. (Putting it under the suspect's realm of influence, and then of possible use against the officer.)
Hadn't heard the bit (perhaps I did, and it didn't register) that this was all over an out tail light.
Incredible.
Look up Tenn v Garner.
However, this does not appear to meet that standard.
You need to read state law and have a Black's Law rference.
What ever happened to using the least amount of force necessary?
It's a WWE world. Why slug it out like a man when you can smash a chair over thier head? After all, we're 'Muricans! The path of least resistance is our birthright!!!!!!!!
Friend of mine is a cop. He told me straight up that if someone pointed a taser at him, he would shoot to kill - because this cop says he would never want to be tasered ever again in his entire life. I wouldn't be surprised if that is what was going on here. Don't you know that they get paid all that public money and benefits cuz the cops are gods? Why should they have to put in "decision making" or "judgment" on the job like you peons? Responsibility? Cops break the law every day - you gotta be a wolf to catch the wolves, blah blah blah.
I would too. The next cop might not get so lucky in the gone/taser wrestle.
If there have to be cops, they need a 1 strike rule. Kill one person, for whatever reason, and you are fired. Exonerated by grand jury, fine, find another job. Otherwise life in prison. Hold them to the highest standard possible.
Being a cop is a privilege, not a right. Also, scan their brains and weed out the psychopaths in the first place. Should solve about 99% of the problems we are seeing.
Netwerk @SuperWil gaat gewoon door met het ageren tegen de dirigistische rol van het systeem 'Liegen om te Leven'.
http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/samsom-roept-fractie-in-speciale-ver...
Netwerk @Juncker heeft inmiddels ook de nieuwe strategie van de VredeVrijheidDirect-beweging gekregen om de 3e SpinozaGolf te versnellen. De oproep van PvdA-fractievoorzitter Diederik Samsom aan zijn Kamerleden 'om strijdbaarder, assertiever en zichtbaarder te zijn' is natuurlijk tot mislukken gedoemd, indien men niet inzet op beleid in lijn met de 'Logica van de 1'.
http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4492/Nederland/article/detail/3948520/2015/04/...
Gelukkig werkt onze democratie zodanig dat fracties in het collectief bewustzijn worden gedecimeerd indien ze geen 'gezond verstand' hebben. De meeste kamerleden ontbreekt het niet aan capaciteiten, zeggen betrokkenen tegen de @RvT_SiT. Probleem is gewoon dat ze niet aan waarheidsvinding mogen doen.
http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/04/10/rechter-boek-over-rabobank-moet-vern...
Zolang de rechtelijke macht verbiedt om de namen te noemen van degenen die betrokken zijn bij de 3e SpinozaGolf kun je de volksvertegenwoordigers niet beschuldigen dat ze niet weten hoe ze de wiskundige definitie van de absolute waarheid moeten toepassen.
Guardian article about the Sheriff of the county in which Walter Scott was killed:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/10/walter-scott-county-sheri...
Amazing video of the Sheriff and his Deputies beating the snot out of a white guy & letting a police dog attack him. The whole story is very sickening but is a must read. Plus, the guy that was attacked, Timothy McManus, was somehow a no show for this $600K damages trial against the officers, and Guardian reporters have been unable to locate him.
Damn! I shot another negro! Better plant some evidence asap!
"No wonder you’re 55 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist."
Wake up, police are the terrorists!
https://youtu.be/0mtY0dLfK1Y
But why?
Premeditated and he attempted to cover it up, is there a death penalty in that state?
Whoa! A throw-down gun. They've been using that in Texas since forever!
Notice that there was another officer (black?) who DIDN'T EVEN FLINCH when one of his fellow officers dropped a taser next to the victim.
Still think it's about race? 95% of it is about police brutality.
The local newspaper says his name is Clarence Habersham.
One of the comments made to the newspaper story says "It was heavily reported by the local media before the video surfaced that another officer on the scene corroborated officer slager's report That leads me to believe that the other officer on the scene contributed to the false narrative. The local media bought the police version of events, hook, line and sinker, until the video fortunately shined the light of day on the facts. Facts are a pesky thing when substantiated by audio and video evidence."
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150408/PC16/150409421
Edit: Daily Mail article about the other 7 cops who showed up at the scene:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3034354/The-Real-Reason-Thugs-Di...
Hillary could have ducked her way out of that ....she has before ,according to her anyway
Indeed, it is not as it seems.
After viewing the unedited video it is plausible that the suspect wrestled with the cop, got hold of his taser, attempted to tase the officer, dropped the taser and fled. It is also quite possible that the officer believed he was still in possesion of the taser and therefore a threat. As for planting the evidence, the officer is responsible for the taser, if it was left on the ground in a public place someone (a kid) could get hold of it. There is no doubt there was a struggle for the taser and the taser was fired, you can hear it go off and see the wires on the cop in the video. Videos:
https://vimeo.com/124336782
https://vid.me/B54T
I'm no fan of our militarized police, but this isn't as cut and dry as it seems. Ongoing discussion here:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/10/the-walter-scott-shooting...
Yes, cause a disfunctioning tail light apparently is a reason to stop a car, get the driver out leading to a supposed situation -supposed by you- that they wrestled over a taser (cause a disfunctioning tail light is really something to be tasered for) eventually leading to shooting an unarmed 'suspect' (of having a disfunctioning tail light) in the back 8 times. Then have the taser in question dropped next to the 'suspect' (of a disfuntioning tail light) in order to 'secure the taser'. Cause some other owner of a disfunctioning tail light could pick up the taser. You know, them owners of disfunctioning tail lights are one of the main threats to society.
C'mon Joe, the video is damning enough. Don't go saying stupid shit like the victim was shot because of a tail light out. The victim tusseled with the cop over the taser and then ran. I'm not making excuses, but I'm not falsifying the causation like you are...
1. Lethal force is only justified as long as a threat is imminent and unavoidable. It doesn't matter whether or not the officer may or may not have been in a struggle for his taser. As soon as the alleged assailant flees the "imminent" threat is no longer presented and the justification for lethal force is no longer valid.
2. The officer has a duty to maintain the integrity of a crime scene. If, according to your own narrative, there was as struggle for the taser, the duty of the officer was to ensure the taser remained EXACTLY on the location where it was dropped until the crime scene could be examined.
Stop apologizing for this fucking scumbag. His own department has distanced itself from him. Says more about you than anything.
I won't take sides on this issue because the video is unbiased and self explanatory.
I recommend the following educational exercise for you so that you can get a more complete real-world understanding of police civil servant behavior in the USA today:
1st: Update your life insurance policy, make detailed complete preparations for your dependents to be cared for in your absence.
2nd: Go find some cops doing something that they don't want a record of, eg harvesting citations for profit, excessive use of force, etc and video record them.
If you survive, and when you get out of jail for all the fabricated charges that they will impose upon you, come back here and share your experience.
Yeah, it just SEEMS like Mr. Scott was unarmed and shot while running away. Did you not see the report BEFORE the video? Yet you still want to believe the police? I know it shatters your idealism that police are honest but, in truth, this whole incidence proves police lie, until the truth is forced upon them.
Officer never had a chance to search the suspect, couldn't know he was really unarmed. Second link on my original post shows a dark blue blob (cop) rolling around on the ground with a bright green blob (Mr. Scott). Witness claims there was a "tussel" between Mr. Scott and officer. Yes, sorry, if you wrestle with a cop and take his taser, he is going to shoot you.
If they find Mr. Scott's fingerprints on the taser, do I get an official apology?
you are a fucking idiot
"Yes, sorry, if you wrestle with a cop and take his taser, he is going to shoot you".
He shot at him 8 times in the back. Even when he runs away from you, is unarmed and a safe distance away from you. The cop aimed straight at his torso so was shooting to kill.
Ummm...nice try but the cop naturally put dead Scott hand on taser, right? I mean planting evidence 101!
That must have been a donut the cop dropped as he got to the body.
No: dead men still have fingerprints and that means the officer put the taser in a dead man's hand.
He's caught completely on video committing murder and planting evidence.
You have no ability to deny this. Solid evidence shows it as fact.
well, if he took the taser, he wouldn't need to drop it there, would he? Also, because he tried to get the taser, then fled, that is sufficient reason to shoot him in the back?
I dunno....looks like 2 cops gone bad to me but you do bring up one valid point. It is hard to know the whole story when seeing only a replay of a part of it. But in this case not so sure.
Welcome:
Just got out of the Police Academy, department of trolling.
So, Mr. Washington, if they do find Mr. Scott’s fingerprints on Officer Slager’s taser, do I get an apology?
You won't get an apology. You won't get shit. You're not a party to what happened. Your son isn't dead. Your son didn't pump several rounds into someone's back as they ran away. Don't fucking make this about your assumptions.
Dunno ... you can get a print off of someone who is already dead.
Also, you can FAKE fingerprints these days. Easy as 1-2-3 ... (more).
Ok, then what were the wires coming off the officer's shoulder and chest when he shot the suspect? You can clearly see them in the video and their angle suggests the hooks were fired at him. You can also see the taser cartridge dangling from the suspect's leg, which would indicate he was the one that fired it.
https://vimeo.com/124336782
Put it full screen, between seconds 17 and 18 you can see the taser handle fall behind the cop. Pause at 19 seconds, you can clearly see wires coming from the cop. From 20-22 seconds you can clearly see a little black box following the suspect as he runs away. This seems to indicate the officer was telling the truth and the suspect did get his taser and try to use it on him. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is what I see in the video. That is all I'm saying, not that the shooting was "justified" just that it looks like the cop's story isn't total BS.
If one looks carefully, at the 22 and one half mark, the ‘officer’ does pull out what appears to be petroleum jelly; trademarked Vaseline or generic is not clear. What is a concern, however, is whether the sand that is thrown in (at mark 23) just moments prior to this piece-of-shit-sociopath penetrating any shreds of legitimacy, integrity and Goodwill remaining in this once great nation between law enforcement and civil society, was deliberate or not. Further, I cannot discern if Mr. ‘3 Weeks and 2 Days’ Frosty is a two-legs bad four-legs idiot, or a Napoleon asshole. Please advise.
TRue, yet it does not justify killing once the police officer was safe
Sir, LOOKS DIFFERENT TO ME ...
Those could be 'planted' also, just wrap the guys hand around it after dead and you have prints.
Just means he has a lot of learning to do. Instead of insults help these guys wake up. While I do understand that the occasional Hasbara makes it's way to this site, this guy is just a newbie. Help 'em out.
Thirtyseven, let me help you out.
Mr. Faggy = troll
Hasbara?!?! LOL
Wow, I'm about as anti-semitic as they get. I'm racist too, so I assume the black guy was "keeping it real" and assaulted the officer before he was shot. Hey, if they can prove Mr. Scott did not wrestle with the officer and got hold of his taser, then yea, the cop deserves to fry for murder.
You, a racist?
More like a race baiter, working for the man to keep us at each other's throats.
I was saying that you are NOT Hasbara and trying to defend you from attack from another poster. Don't be so quick on the draw brother.
I apologize then. The truth hurts and people are quick to jump on you when you say painful things.
One thought comes to mind when I think of the plight of black people in this country. So many blacks have been kiled by police officers, both white and black, that when something like Ferguson happens, why do the rioters strike out against the local businesses instead of against the police, courthouses, and banks?
It is called "radiclism". When you feel like you have nothing to lose why not burn everything down? IF we could give the rioters buses to Wall Street and the proper equipment perhaps we could see the people act out on the real puppet masters.
"...the Scott incident became an illuminating case study in the routinized process through which police officers, departments and attorneys frame the use of deadly force by American cops in the most sympathetic possible terms, often claiming fear of the very people they killed."
This has been going on for quite some time:
Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”
“I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution states:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
I am Witness One. Who will be Witness Two?
The banksters need to repay us.
I used to live in a major metropolitan city of just less than 1 million. This city hosted a Super Bowl recently and has hosted several Final Fours.
On the Eastside of the city, just past the county line is an almost all white town of about 4000 people which has their own Police Force. It is a running joke that just before sundown ALL minorities must leave the town limits or risk being arrested for drug possession or being shot. Anytime you see a car pulled over it is almost always a minority driven car. (Black, Hispanic, Asian, it doesn't matter). Even the restaurants in this small town schedule their kitchen help, cooks and bussers to be off the clock so they can leave before it gets dark outside (if they are not white).
This is 2015 and stuff like this STILL goes on in the U.S......This tiny little town also has taken advantage of the Military excess equipment and they have several vehicles, equipment and now their own SWAT team and Bomb Squad.
God Bless the Facists State of America.