Officer Involved Shooting In Lexington County
|| By FITSNEWS || There was an officer-involved shooting in Lexington County, S.C. early Tuesday morYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
|| By FITSNEWS || There was an officer-involved shooting in Lexington County, S.C. early Tuesday morYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
16 comments
White Lives Matter! Come on back Jesse and Al!
lol…I always find it interesting when there’s a random source claiming the victim was “nut job” that had interactions with police. I always wait for the video now.
Remind me of Dan Johnson and it’s a “good shoot” type behavior. It seems to be never ending.
Cops always have a reason to shoot people and their pets. Even if they no-knock raided the wrong house.
Yup. Same shit, different day.
So it goes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And the trend continues. Cop in SC shoots someone every 8-9 days. Not saying they aren’t justified, but that level of shooting suggests there is something very wrong with the society in this state.
“Slager’s account of the incident was thoroughly debunked by an amateur video”
Umm, no it wasn’t. You can’t keep saying this. We don’t even know Slager’s “account” of the incident yet, so how exactly can his “account” of the incident be “debunked”. Slager’s incident report has NOT, I repeat, has NOT been released. I know it seems like a small detail but you keep repeating this lie over and over again.
“Slager’s incident report has NOT, I repeat, has NOT been released.”
That may be the case, publicly, but remember that the witness/taker of the video said that the reason he decided to go public with the video is that the report did not match what he recorded.
If I recall correctly, he saw the report via the brother of the victim.
Feidin Santana Statement (From His Attorney):
“As I was walking to work, I saw a scuffle ensue between two men (who have since been identified as Officer Michael Slager and Walter Scott) in a grassy, open area. After observing the two men struggle on the ground and hearing the sound of a Taser gun, I began filming the altercation with my cell phone. The video shows Officer Slager draw his gun and fire eight shots at Mr. Scott as Mr. Scott attempted to run in the opposite direction. When I later learned that Mr. Scott died from the gunshot wounds inflicted by Officer Slager, I mustered up the courage to show the recording of the incident to Mr. Scott’s family. While I initially thought about erasing the video, fearing that my life would be in danger if I came forward, I soon realized I needed to take a stand against such brutality. I realized the importance of serving as a voice for Mr. Scott and the many others who no longer have one.”
Nothing about an incident report or any version coming from Slager is mentioned. The timeline is suspicious, as well:
Saturday April 4th – Shooting occurs at approximately 9:30am
Sunday April 5th – Santana shares the video with the Scott Family.
Monday April 6th – Officer Slager arrested in the office of his attorney. The interesting part about this is that Santana has still not been interviewed by SLED at this point.
Tuesday April 7th – SLED releases the Official Arrest Warrant along with Public release of the video via New York Times.
Wednesday April 8th – Witness Santana begins doing video interviews. – Dash Camera video is released showing uneventful traffic stop until Walter Scott flees vehicle.
“Nothing about an incident report or any version coming from Slager is mentioned.”
This has been was was reported by two outlets I’m aware of(one linked(AP), the other was the Guardian)”
“Santana said he later saw a police report about the shooting and knew that he had to come forward because the officer’s account of what led to the shooting didn’t match what he recorded. Santana said he showed the video to a friend after reading the report, and his friend agreed that he needed to come forward.”
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-police-shooting-unidentified-passenger-car-30198771
That doesn’t sound a bit contrived? He saw “a police report”, not “the” police report. Also, “he showed the video to a friend after reading the report”. There’s no mention of the family or any sort of interaction with the family. I would seriously doubt any member of the family saw any type of incident report. Doing so would in fact make it “public”. It really doesn’t matter in an ongoing investigation. If you release it or any details of it to anyone (family or not), it thereby becomes “public” because you can’t control the dissemination of that information.
“That doesn’t sound a bit contrived?”
I say this in all honesty, no.
“There’s no mention of the family or any sort of interaction with the family.”
I remember reading (probably in the Guardian) it was the brother of the victim. I suppose I could look for the write up if it matters that much to you.
“I would seriously doubt any member of the family saw any type of incident report. Doing so would in fact make it “public”.”
Well, that tells me two things:
#1 You don’t know if the victims family had access to the video or not.
#2 Ergo, by your own definition of public, it’s possible the report was made public-you just don’t know. (and I don’t either)
That’s really my point, because the truth is that there is no way it has been released (to anybody) and we don’t know about it. That would be even more unbelievable if it were in fact true that the officer lied. The Scott family attorneys would have made sure that at least that part was released to the media. So, at the very least, we can safely say that there was no lie in the report and that it was not fabricated.
“That’s really my point, because the truth is that there is no way it has been released (to anybody) and we don’t know about it.”
But you said you don’t know:
“I would seriously doubt any member of the family saw any type of incident report. Doing so would in fact make it “public”.”
So I’m not sure how you could deduce anything further.
Let me re-phrase the first part: There is no way that we could be unaware of the report’s release, if in fact it has been released. If it has been released, we would absolutely know about it. The only thing we can say right now is that we “don’t know”, which really just means that it hasn’t. Like I said, we can say that because if it has been released, there is no way we would not have seen it by now.
“The only thing we can say right now is that we “don’t know”, which really just means that it hasn’t. Like I said, we can say that because if it has been released, there is no way we would not have seen it by now.”
I’m going to respectfully disagree with you. You’ve been respectful and articulate, I just disagree with your summation.
That being said, we will definitely find out at some point in time in the future if a falsified report has been made or not at some point in the future.