|
Toasticle posted:
Ok, i'll give it a shot: It makes sense to ask that woman to put out her cigarette, people do that all the time to cover the smell of alcohol. It makes sense to pull someone over for staring at police driving by, people committing crimes on street corners or in cars do this to see if they should start running or continue with their transaction. I cant say this kind of thing anywhere in D&D. If you dont understand the law, you probably shouldn't comment on legal matters. Hell, I'll probably pick up a probation for posting this. (i never learn) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Ok, i'll give it a shot: Does it make sense to ask her to do it at the very end of the stop, after you were going to let her off with a warning?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Pretty much. We "racists" are still lurking, but you dont really want anything from us. Wouldnt want to legitimize the "other side" by bringing another point of view you dont want to hear to the table. Haha drat
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Pretty much. We "racists" are still lurking, but you dont really want anything from us. Wouldnt want to legitimize the "other side" by bringing another point of view you dont want to hear to the table. MattD1zzl3 posted:Ok, i'll give it a shot: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
I watch police warily when they drive by my house. They don't lock up the brakes and pull guns on me. It doesn't matter if they've profiled "criminal behavior", they're choosing to use it in a way that disproportionately effects poor black people. Police can't be trusted on what they can or can't smell. Your persecution complex is pretty bad. Just about anywhere else you'd be back patted and praised for being such a good ol' boy. Shocking that some people here don't worship the police, but it doesn't equate to you being probated for doing so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Ok, i'll give it a shot: She wasn't pulled over under suspicion of Drunk Driving though? And the cop had already talked to her and written her ticket, He didn't ask her to put out the Cigarette until after the ticket was already written and the traffic stop pretty much over. I disagree, Looking at someone shouldn't be enough to pull them over, but once again. I pretty much have no problem with a cop pulling someone over. It's the brutality, and unnecessary stuff like escalating a situation that is for all intents and purposes over that I dislike.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Wait, so someone is actually supporting that someone should be pulled over for "staring" at a cop while driving because people standing on streets stare at cops if they're committing crimes? Is avoiding eye contact also a reason someone should be pulled over, since guilty people avoid eye contact?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Wait, so someone is actually supporting that someone should be pulled over for "staring" at a cop while driving because people standing on streets stare at cops if they're committing crimes? All you gotta do is just act white, y'know?.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Shukaro posted:All you gotta do is just act white, y'know?. So are you agreeing that justifications like "he was staring" or "he avoided eye contact" are often used to target minorities disproportionately more than whites? If you're trying to debate or discuss I'd suggest using fewer one liners.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So are you agreeing that justifications like "he was staring" or "he avoided eye contact" are often used to target minorities disproportionately more than whites? Literally nobody except trolls looking for a rise (see crazypants up there) thinks that they aren't used for that, or has argued that they aren't (pretty sure). Trabisnikof posted:If you're trying to debate or discuss I'd suggest using fewer one liners. From now on I'll clearly designate my jokes as such, I guess? [THIS IS A JOKE IN RESPONSE TO RECENT POSTER MattD1zzl3's ALLEGATION THAT IT'S OK TO PULL OVER PEOPLE FOR LOOKING AT YOU FUNNY THAT IS REFERENCING A PAST POSTER IN THIS THREAD WHO SAID THAT BLACK PEOPLE GETTING HARRASSED BY POLICE SHOULD "ACT WHITE" WHO WAS RIGHTFULLY MOCKED] All you gotta do is just act white, y'know? Syenite fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Ok, i'll give it a shot: As noted above - your argument that the cigarette was used to mask alcohol doesn't hold when the request to put it out comes out at the end of the stop. In the United States of America, making and holding eye contact with an officer is not a legal grounds to pull someone over. Officers must have reasonable suspicion that the detainee is committing or has committed a crime. If you don't understand the law, you probably shouldn't comment on legal matters. And you're still not addressing the point that just because something might be legal doesn't mean it's the right or moral thing to do. Which is probably the bulk of the complaints being levied against the police in these circumstances. Or that even IF it results in administrative action, the officer in question can often get a job at another precinct due to the good old boys network. Or that we don't as a country track the number of "bad" shoots, because that might mean someone, somewhere might have to own up to the fact that sometimes officers make mistakes, and sometimes officers are just bad people. But there seems to be absolutely no interest in finding and holding these bad apples accountable. So if there is hostility against officers and their supporters in this thread, I would argue that constant incidents where the police commit, or appear to commit any number of improprieties, followed by the number of posters like you who apologize and refuse to even countenance the notion that policing in this country could use some improvement, possibly might have something to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Also people really like responding seriously to obvious bait/drunkposts in this thread, which doesn't help matters.
Syenite fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:If you dont understand the law, you probably shouldn't comment on legal matters. Why not? The U.S. is still a representative democracy, why shouldn't I be able to comment on (or even question  ) laws/legal matters?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Ok, i'll give it a shot: Cigarette: Thats not even close to a legal reason because smoking in your car is not illegal. If he suspected she was drinking that's what breathalyzers and FSB's are for. If he had asked "Could you put that out, the smoke is bothering me" that would be reasonable. Ordering her to stop doing something legal then arresting her is not. That's the problem people had. Staring: It was 11pm. They drove past each other. There is no loving way you could see some other drivers face until you passed their headlights so at most he saw him staring for 2 seconds. The city itself released a statement that staring at a cop is not a legal reason to pull someone over. The guy was pulled over for not signaling more than 100 feet before a turn. Despite I would guess almost nobody knowing thats even illegal I seriously doubt the cop was able to tell it was less than that, unless the guy signaled right at the turn I guess. The entire chain of events, again while "legal" was blatant bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Shukaro posted:Also people really like responding seriously to obvious bait/drunkposts in this thread, which doesn't help matters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Wait, so someone is actually supporting that someone should be pulled over for "staring" at a cop while driving because people standing on streets stare at cops if they're committing crimes? Once more unto the breach, I guess... When the driver asked why the officer was following him, the officer stated that he started following him because he thought the driver was staring at him. The officer pulled the driver over for improper signaling after the officer started following him. A patrol officer deciding to follow a car for a while based on gut feelings or just no reason at all is legal as far as I can tell, and I don't think the law needs to be changed. This is sort of the problem here: people get upset about situations where they don't even have the basic facts right, but expect that their opinions about those situations should be treated seriously. This is compounded by the fact that a lot of the posters unhappy about policing can't articulate a coherent, logical idea of what the law should be instead, and, when called on this, insist that the people they've been calling bootlickers provide a proposal for them. Talking about how an outcome is bad (Dead children!) is pointless without talking about the law and process, because you can't change individual outcomes after the fact, only the process. Take your suggestion that people who disagree with you believe, "it is impossible to ensure that body cameras or dash cameras are admissible as evidence without violating the constitutional rights of the police officer being recorded." This isn't anyone's position. The original discussion came up because of a single incident where a prosecutor wasn't able to get an incriminating video entered into evidence. The massive overreaction was to suggest that the law must be changed so that video recordings of the police can always be entered into evidence, and that there should be special rules of evidence to make sure this never happens again. Never mind that there isn't any sort of evidence that is considered automtically admissible without challenge. Now you're asking why they couldn't find someone else to authenticate the video, but that's more a post-mortem for the prosecutor's office than anything else. Maybe they just didn't have the time after their first witness developed amnesia. Either way, we're back to the problem of being unable to identify a deficiency in existing law or procedure except that it didn't produce the results you wanted this time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Once more unto the breach, I guess... Nah, we're on the same page about the actual incident. I was talking about the poster in this thread defending this idea: MattD1zzl3 posted:It makes sense to pull someone over for staring at police driving by, quote:The massive overreaction was to suggest that the law must be changed so that video recordings of the police can always be entered into evidence, and that there should be special rules of evidence to make sure this never happens again. Never mind that there isn't any sort of evidence that is considered automtically admissible without challenge. But see this is the problem you're pointing out. People didn't want to make some magical special kind of evidence that would require changing the constitution to do so, that's what posters just declared people wanted. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Shukaro posted:Also people really like responding seriously to obvious bait/drunkposts in this thread, which doesn't help matters. There was a certain AG who had a habit of posting really condescending "Sorry hone posting" one line insults so its kind of hard to tell the difference 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This is sort of the problem here: people get upset about situations where they don't even have the basic facts right, but expect that their opinions about those situations should be treated seriously. You mean like quote:He said he followed him because he looked at him funny. He pulled him over and ticketed him for not using his turn signals. There is a difference. Oh wait that was you, sorry. People get poo poo wrong sometimes. I don't give a poo poo you got a "basic fact" wrong except you keep calling people out for posting without having their facts straight/all the facts yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Why not? The U.S. is still a representative democracy, why shouldn't I be able to comment on (or even question Because you don't know what it's like, civilian. You are not a part of the thin blue line keeping people from smoking when addressing an enforcer of the law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But see this is the problem you're pointing out. People didn't want to make some magical special kind of evidence that would require changing the constitution to do so, that's what posters just declared people wanted. I don't really see how else to interpret this: Devor posted:Why is introducing unverified video evidence a bad idea? Other than as a call for videos of police to be a priviledged class of evidence. Toasticle posted:You mean like  if you're seriously getting on my case over the distinction between "didn't signal" and "didn't signal early enough."
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Can everybody please, once again, stop all this nth-dimensional thread metacommentary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
E: Dunno if my post was ok with the concurrent mod post
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Dexo posted:She wasn't pulled over under suspicion of Drunk Driving though? And the cop had already talked to her and written her ticket, He didn't ask her to put out the Cigarette until after the ticket was already written and the traffic stop pretty much over. I actually have a lot of problems with cops pulling people over for little to no reason. It's edging awfully close to "Papers please" stuff out of red scare communist dystopia fiction. Hell, I was recently pulled over for having a headlight out. Fair enough. But ticket me and then go on your way for gently caress's sakes. Instead, I was then grilled for an extra forty five minutes or so because the cop thought I was probably drunk or something due to driving at 1 AM on a Sunday morning. I also have kinda bad anxiety and it gets pretty aggravated when I have some large man wielding authority at me. During this stop, I also "consented" to a search of my car because I'm not about to start even a verbal fight with a guy who has the power to throw me in jail over the long weekend. And everyone that constantly tells people not to talk to cops is full of poo poo. Doing that is going to piss them off and they have total freedom to levy punishments that just aren't labelled as such (ie throwing people in jail on vague, unprovable charges).
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:I actually have a lot of problems with cops pulling people over for little to no reason. It's edging awfully close to "Papers please" stuff out of red scare communist dystopia fiction. That qualifies as unnecessary escalation of a situation, I'm not happy with people getting pulled over for little reasons like that, but I get it. I'm not going to go screw cops(as since I am well away that Cops have Numbers that they are "suggested" to hit in terms of citations especially in smaller towns) Like yeah I might not have signaled a lane change, hell I might be pissed about it. But yeah, once the situation is obviously not what you are hoping for in terms of something worse just write your Citation and keep it moving.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Please excuse a feeble attempt to move the thread to possibly less trodden ground. Again, I don't think people aren't really worried about whether the officer acted legally. It's about cops making just, good faith users of their time within the existing law. I think we can all agree that there is a huge range of actions legally available to police, many of which can be justified by very flimsy excuses. The question is more why police are applying that range of legal actions unevenly, based on class, race, or whim. The answer very likely has to do with attitudes toward class, race, and criminality nationwide. If it's necessary to change laws (or, as may be more likely, police SOPs) governing police conduct then fine, but that's kind of sad. There should be reasons of empathy for cops to do better than they are. The last page still looks like one side going "should he have policed x way" and the other going "who cares, it was legal." and never the two shall meet, obviously (except one total nutcase)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
At what point do we admit we've become that papers please Red Scare nightmare when we talk about being scared of what the police may do for slightly annoying them for exercising your rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Terry stops are an unfortunate consequence of local department ticket quotas plus "tough on crime" bullshit. A whole lot of problems with police would be solved immediately if governments were competent at budgeting and dropped the war on drugs, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Yeah but to not be stupid about budgets might mean raising taxes, and as we all know taxes are Communism!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Shukaro posted:A whole lot of problems with police would be solved immediately if governments were competent at budgeting and dropped the war on drugs, to be honest. In many counties there's been a push to increase revenue through fines and fees on the "criminal" classes of society to make up for money lost due to the refusal to raise taxes after years or even decades of cuts. So it's not incompetence at budgeting, it's maliciousness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Yeah but to not be stupid about budgets might mean raising taxes, and as we all know taxes are Communism! It's ok they can just cut a few more billions from education.  FourLeaf posted:In many counties there's been a push to increase revenue through fines and fees on the "criminal" classes of society to make up for money lost due to the refusal to raise taxes after years or even decades of cuts. So it's not incompetence at budgeting, it's maliciousness. Maliciousness... incompetence... sociopathy... Is there a difference between them in today's American politics?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Officials released footage of Natasha McKenna's death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUNMIf2wGf8 I feel like this video is very relevant to the discussion being had in the past few pages. The sheriff released this footage to prove that the officers were following procedure days after a criminal investigation declined to press charges. But even though the actions the cops took were legal, they were also cruel, dehumanizing, and brutal, and resulted in a person being killed in an extremely disturbing way. Sometimes it seems like the only real solution is to change the law to make certain police methods illegal, since cops cannot be trusted to exercise good or fair judgement in how they apply force. This applies to broad things involving the justice system as a whole, like funding the county by giving impossible-to-pay fines to poor minorities for bullshit petty crimes, but also individual things like the type of holds police officers can legally use to restrain people. Of course this solution relies upon a system being in place that actually punishes cops who break the rules, instead of brushing it under the rug. Shukaro posted:Maliciousness... incompetence... sociopathy... There definitely is if you're interesting in ending this poo poo. I suppose it's similar to those saying people are racist because of ignorance/misunderstandings, when the truth is a lot of people have a keen interest in institutional racism continuing because it makes them a profit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:And everyone that constantly tells people not to talk to cops is full of poo poo. Doing that is going to piss them off and they have total freedom to levy punishments that just aren't labelled as such (ie throwing people in jail on vague, unprovable charges). They mean if you are under arrest or brought in for "questioning", especially hen under arrest saying anything without your lawyer is legal suicide. Cops have no requirement to explain everything you said or even the context in which you said it. There's a shooting. Someone said they saw you there. You, knowing you're innocent just go in to clear things up. Cop asks if you were there, you say yes a few hours before the shooting. Cop asks if you own a gun. You say yes, I have a concealed carry permit, I keep the gun unloaded in the glovebox" In court the cop can say "When interviewing Lyesh he confirmed he was at the location of the shooting and was in possession of a gun". He is telling the truth and now your attempt to explain no I wasn't there then just looks like you trying to weasel out. Having an attorney present is a right not enough people exercise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
If I wanted to scare the gently caress out of someone with schizophrenia I would get a bunch of dude in hazmat suits speaking through weird voice modulators to strap them to a chair. How do those people not take a second to stop and think "Oh, I'm literally helping to carry out someone's worst imaginable nightmare."?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Lemming posted:If I wanted to scare the gently caress out of someone with schizophrenia I would get a bunch of dude in hazmat suits speaking through weird voice modulators to strap them to a chair. Something about how she shouldn't have escalated the situation, I imagine. That video shows just how entirely they dehumanize you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
http://www.abcnews4.com/story/30027919/bond-denied-for-former-police-officer-michael-slager-in-walter-scott-shooting CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCIV) -- Bond was denied Monday afternoon for the former North Charleston police officer charged with the murder of 50-year-old Walter Scott. "After careful consideration of all of the evidence presented and the nature of the circumstances of the offense, the Court finds that release of [Slager] would constitute an unreasonable danger to the community and the request for release on bond should be denied," Judge Clifton Newman wrote in the order. A second appearance for Slager has been set for Nov. 20. Slager's attorney Andy Savage said he was disappointed in the judge's decision, but was still certain a jury would see that Slager lacked criminal intent in the shooting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
☰ http://www.abcnews4.com/story/30013470/i-just-started-firing-slager-tells-sled-investigators 6 'I just started firing,' Slager tells SLED investigators Posted: Sep 11, 2015 7:32 PM EDT Updated: Sep 11, 2015 7:32 PM EDT CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCIV) -- A 49-page response to the defense team's 150-page response filed Thursday in the Walter Scott murder case gives first-hand accounts from several of the key players in the April shooting. The most notable stories come from former North Charleston police officer Michael Slager and eyewitness Feidin Santana, the man who recorded the video that ultimately led to Slager's arrest several days after the shooting behind a pawn shop. Three days after the April 4 shooting, State Law Enforcement agents and a North Charleston officer were given the chance to hear Slager tell the full story of the shooting that stemmed from a traffic stop on Remount Road. Slager described seeing Scott's brake light out and stopping him, how Scott opened the door once and closed it before opening the car door a second time a running, all things that are corroborated by his dash cam video. Slager told investigators that at the time of the stop he could not see who was driving the car, or that there was a passenger. It was only when he approached the car that he could see Scott was black and that there was a passenger. Slager says Scott was 15 feet ahead of him and running at the same speed, making it unlikely that he would overcome the 50-year-old man in the foot race, when he deployed his Taser for the first time. The prongs did not hit Scott, he told investigators, and Scott was waving his arm behind his body -- an act he thought was an attempt to divert the prongs and keep from being shocked. One of the prongs went into Scott's upper back, Slager thought, but he didn't think the other hit Scott. He described to investigators hearing the "click click click" sounds from the shock, but Scott did not react. Slager deployed his Taser a second time. Scott was about 10 feet away now. It connected and Scott dropped to the ground. Scott was also carrying a cellphone during the chase, Slager told investigators. He noted that he could hear a voice coming from the phone a several points, telling Scott: "Stop. Do what the officer says." Slager says he told Scott to put his hands behind his back, but Scott moved them to the ground as though he was trying to push himself back up. Slager dropped to the ground over Scott, he says, trying to hold Scott to the ground and handcuff him. "I'm not a real strong guy," Slager tells investigators as he starts explaining the struggle with Scott as he pushed himself up. He says Scott put his right hand on the ground and pushed Slager in the chest with his left arm, trying to make space between the two. Slager used the Taser a third time without a cartridge, an act he describes as "drive-stunning" where he forced the Taser body directly against Scott's body. According to Slager, Scott was able to grab the Taser with his left hand and pull it away from Slager. Scott turned and pointed the Taser right at Slager. "I'm afraid now. Is he going to tase me and take my weapon? Am I going home tonight to my pregnant wife? Is he going to take my weapon and shoot me?" Slager asked himself during the scuffle, he told investigators. Slager says he wasn't sure if Scott knew how to use the Taser and did not remember hearing it fire while Scott was holding it. Slager says he tried to get out of the way of Scott, who was coming at him with the Taser in his hand. "When I shuffled to the left, I just started firing," he said. Officers who later responded to the scene noted that Slager had skinned his knees and had a cut on his finger. Evidence photos also released Friday show Slager's hands were covered in dirt. Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services 6 'I just started firing,' Slager tells SLED investigators Posted: Sep 11, 2015 7:32 PM EDT Updated: Sep 11, 2015 7:32 PM EDT CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCIV) -- A 49-page response to the defense team's 150-page response filed Thursday in the Walter Scott murder case gives first-hand accounts from several of the key players in the April shooting. The most notable stories come from former North Charleston police officer Michael Slager and eyewitness Feidin Santana, the man who recorded the video that ultimately led to Slager's arrest several days after the shooting behind a pawn shop. Three days after the April 4 shooting, State Law Enforcement agents and a North Charleston officer were given the chance to hear Slager tell the full story of the shooting that stemmed from a traffic stop on Remount Road. Slager described seeing Scott's brake light out and stopping him, how Scott opened the door once and closed it before opening the car door a second time a running, all things that are corroborated by his dash cam video. Slager told investigators that at the time of the stop he could not see who was driving the car, or that there was a passenger. It was only when he approached the car that he could see Scott was black and that there was a passenger. Slager says Scott was 15 feet ahead of him and running at the same speed, making it unlikely that he would overcome the 50-year-old man in the foot race, when he deployed his Taser for the first time. The prongs did not hit Scott, he told investigators, and Scott was waving his arm behind his body -- an act he thought was an attempt to divert the prongs and keep from being shocked. One of the prongs went into Scott's upper back, Slager thought, but he didn't think the other hit Scott. He described to investigators hearing the "click click click" sounds from the shock, but Scott did not react. Slager deployed his Taser a second time. Scott was about 10 feet away now. It connected and Scott dropped to the ground. Scott was also carrying a cellphone during the chase, Slager told investigators. He noted that he could hear a voice coming from the phone a several points, telling Scott: "Stop. Do what the officer says." Slager says he told Scott to put his hands behind his back, but Scott moved them to the ground as though he was trying to push himself back up. Slager dropped to the ground over Scott, he says, trying to hold Scott to the ground and handcuff him. "I'm not a real strong guy," Slager tells investigators as he starts explaining the struggle with Scott as he pushed himself up. He says Scott put his right hand on the ground and pushed Slager in the chest with his left arm, trying to make space between the two. Slager used the Taser a third time without a cartridge, an act he describes as "drive-stunning" where he forced the Taser body directly against Scott's body. According to Slager, Scott was able to grab the Taser with his left hand and pull it away from Slager. Scott turned and pointed the Taser right at Slager. "I'm afraid now. Is he going to tase me and take my weapon? Am I going home tonight to my pregnant wife? Is he going to take my weapon and shoot me?" Slager asked himself during the scuffle, he told investigators. Slager says he wasn't sure if Scott knew how to use the Taser and did not remember hearing it fire while Scott was holding it. Slager says he tried to get out of the way of Scott, who was coming at him with the Taser in his hand. "When I shuffled to the left, I just started firing," he said. Officers who later responded to the scene noted that Slager had skinned his knees and had a cut on his finger. Evidence photos also released Friday show Slager's hands were covered in dirt. The Santana Story SLED investigators did not talk to Feidin Santana for the first time and get his side of the story until April 10. There were four conversations with Santana between April 10 and April 21. Santana's story starts nearly an hour before the traffic stop at 8:40 a.m. as he's waking up and starting his walk to the barber shop. As he was walking on Craig Street, he says Scott was running towards him. Seconds later, he saw Slager chasing after Scott. Slager yelled at Scott to stop twice, Santana recalled in the interviews. The first happened as they were running down Craig Road; the second happened as they turned onto the paved path behind the pawn shop that had been painted yellow. As the two men turned on to the yellow path, Santana lost sight of them briefly, he said. When he moved into view, Scott was lying on his stomach on the ground and Slager crouching over the top of him. Santana said the two men were struggling to move. He saw Slager's right knee on the ground between Scott's legs, and his left knee on the ground on the other side of Scott. Then he heard the Taser used. Santana also described a punch from Slager to Scott's side. During the event, Santana says he was trying to bring up the video recorder on his phone, but the camera feature only came up several times before he was able to record the exchange between Slager and Scott. The recording captures several shaky and blurry images of the tussle that are not easily interpreted for or against Slager. The video steadies as Scott runs from Slager and the former officer opens fire. Santana says during the tussle, he could not see anything in Scott or Slager's hands, but admitted because of the angle he may not have seen everything clearly. Slager fired, and Scott fell to the ground. Santana told investigators that before other officers arrived, Slager walked back to the area where the two men were wrestling and picked something up from the ground and moved it closer to Scott's body. When Slager's backup arrived, Officer Clarence Habersham, Santana says he thinks both Slager and Habersham saw him recording the events. According to Santana, he told officers that he had recorded the shooting and was told he needed to wait for someone to talk to him. But Santana said he left and went to several locations where different people asked him to send them the video. One of the people he met with in the days after was the local leader of Black Lives Matter, Muhiyidin D'Baha, who put Santana in touch with Scott's family. The group sat together and watched the video on Santana's phone. The following day, Santana met with Chris Stewart, an attorney representing Scott's family, and showed him the video. Santana said he also sought out an attorney for himself because members of the media were starting to reach out to him for the video. Stewart downloaded the video. Later, attorneys decided to turn the video over to police. With the video in hand, police scheduled a meeting with Slager and his attorney at the time, David Aylor. When detectives played the video for Slager, Aylor and another attorney, officials report that Aylor asked for it to be played several times. During the first viewing, Slager typed something into his phone, officials noted. After watching the video several times, Aylor said he did not think they could make any further statements until he could talk to Slager in private and the three men left the room. Several minutes passed and the second attorney came back into the meeting room to say Aylor would return again in a few minutes. When Aylor returned, he told investigators that he was "bowing out" of the case and the interview had to stop. Aylor told investigators that Slager was talking to his wife on the phone and that he had been told that he had been fired by the North Charleston Police Department. Slager was taken into custody and transported to the Charleston County Detention Center where he has been held since. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:I feel like this video is very relevant to the discussion being had in the past few pages. The sheriff released this footage to prove that the officers were following procedure days after a criminal investigation declined to press charges. But even though the actions the cops took were legal, they were also cruel, dehumanizing, and brutal, and resulted in a person being killed in an extremely disturbing way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:33
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:In what way? The sherrifs didn't put on the suits for fun: she had a history of fighting with police and medical personnel, spitting, biting, and was peeing on the floor. If you read the report, they had the normally clothed officer ask her to leave the cell first, and she appeared initially compliant, but when he finished putting her handcuffs on, she tried to yank the restraints into the cell. That's when he called in the guys in tyvek suits. They continued to ask her to stop struggling, they weren't sadistic, they didn't beat her or kick her. There have been plenty of videos in this thread of officers taking swings at prisoners for relatively minor resistance, you didn't see any of that here. In between taser uses, they tried to get her to comply. As soon as they had her secured, they backed off and let the nurses examine her. Which part of their conduct do you think was excessive, brutal, or cruel? Yeah, it would probably have gone better if there was a trained psychologist on hand to try to talk her through it, but for sheriffs tasked with moving a combatitive prisoner, it didn't seem like they were out of line. What should they have done differently given their orders and the resources on hand? One thing that renders discussion impossible is that the question of whether policing, and the law more generally, is a professional field varies seemingly arbitrarily. At one instance, people are demanding a coherent plan to do things differently, and then in another, dismissing any criticism as inherently uninformed and wrong. It seems to vary according to what's more effective in stopping substantive conversation, too.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, it would probably have gone better if there was a trained psychologist on hand to try to talk her through it, but for sheriffs tasked with moving a combatitive prisoner, it didn't seem like they were out of line. What should they have done differently given their orders and the resources on hand? Cops in this country need a lot more training in handling the mentally ill considering they're very likely to come into contact with them on a regular basis and it so often ends in tragedy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:42
|
|
