South Carolina Officer Is Charged With Murder

[ArmorPierce]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/so ... 22000&_r=0

South Carolina Officer I Charged With Murder in
lack Man’ Death
 MICHAL S. SCHMIDT and MATT APUZZO APRIL 7, 2015
WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was
charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting
and killing an apparently unarmed black man in the back while he ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, had said he feared for his life because
the man took his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video,
however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man — Walter L. Scott, 50
— fled.
The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news
conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting comes on the heels of high­profile incidents of police officers
using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere
around the country. The deaths have sparked a national debate over whether
police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
A White House task force has recommended a host of changes to the
nation’s police policies, and President Obama dispatched Attorney General
Eric H. Holder Jr., to cities around the country to try to improve police
relations with minority neighborhoods.
North Charleston is the state’s third­largest city with a population of about
100,000. African­Americans make up about 47 percent of residents, and
whites account for about 37 percent. The city police department is about 80
4/7/2015 South Carolina Officer Is Charged With Murder in Black Man’s Death ­ NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/so ... bicmp=AD&b… 2/4
percent white, according to data collected by the Justice Department in 2007,
the most recent period available.
“When you’re wrong, you’re wrong,” Mayor Keith Summey said of the
shooting during the news conference. “And if you make a bad decision, don’t
care if you’re behind the shield or just a citizen on the street, you have to live
by that decision.”
The shooting unfolded after Officer Slager stopped the driver of a
Mercedes­Benz with a broken taillight, according to police reports. Mr. Scott
ran away, and Officer Slager chased him into a grassy lot that abuts a muffler
shop. He fired his Taser, an electronic stun gun, but it did not stop Mr. Scott,
according to police reports.
Moments after the struggle, Officer Slager reported on his radio, “Shots
fired and the subject is down. He took my Taser,” according to police reports.
But the video, which was taken by a bystander and provided to The New
York Times by Mr. Scott’s lawyer, presents a different account. The video
begins in the vacant lot, apparently moments after Officer Slager fired his
Taser. Wires, which carry the electrical current from the stun gun, appear to be
extending from Mr. Scott’s body as the two men tussle and Mr. Scott turns to
run.
Something — it is not clear whether it is the stun gun — is either tossed or
knocked to the ground behind the two men and Officer Slager draws his gun,
the video shows. When the officer fires, Mr. Scott appears to be 15 to 20 feet
away and fleeing. He falls after the last of eight shots.
The officer then runs back toward where the initial scuffle occurred and
picks something off the ground. Moments later, he drops an object near Mr.
Scott’s body, the video shows.
The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, the state’s criminal
investigative body, has begun an inquiry into the shooting. The F.B.I. and the
Justice Department, which has opened a string of civil rights investigations
into police departments under Mr. Holder, is also investigating.
The Supreme Court has held that an officer may use deadly force against a
fleeing suspect only when there is probable cause that he “poses a significant
4/7/2015 South Carolina Officer Is Charged With Murder in Black Man’s Death ­ NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/so ... bicmp=AD&b… 3/4
threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”
Officer Slager served in the Coast Guard before joining the force five years
ago, his lawyer said. The police chief of North Charleston did not return
repeated calls. Because police departments are not required to release data on
how often officers use force, it was not immediately clear how often police
shootings occur in North Charleston, a working­class community adjacent to
the tourist destination of Charleston.
Mr. Scott had been arrested about 10 times, mostly for failing to pay child
support or show up for court hearings, according to the Post and Courier, the
local newspaper. He was arrested in 1987 on an assault and battery charge, and
convicted in 1991 of possession of a bludgeon, the newspaper reported. Mr.
Scott’s brother, Anthony, said he believed Mr. Scott fled from police on
Saturday because he owed child support.
”He has four children; he doesn’t have some type of big violent past or
arrest record. He had a job, he was engaged,” said Chris Stewart, a lawyer for
Mr. Scott’s family. “He had back child support and didn’t want to go to jail for
back child support.”
Mr. Stewart said the coroner told him that Mr. Scott was struck five times
— three times in the back, once in the upper buttocks and once in the ear —
with at least one bullet entering his heart. It is not clear whether Mr. Scott died
immediately. (The coroner’s office declined to make the report available to The
Times.)
Police reports say that officers performed CPR and delivered first aid to
Mr. Scott. The video shows that for several minutes after the shooting, Mr.
Scott remained face down with his hands cuffed behind his back. A second
officer arrives, puts on blue medical gloves and attends to Mr. Scott, but is not
shown performing CPR. As sirens wail in the background, a third officer later
arrives, apparently with a medical kit, but also not seen performing CPR.
The debate over police use of force has been propelled in part by videos
like the one in South Carolina. In January, prosecutors in Albuquerque
charged two police officers with murder for shooting a homeless man in a
confrontation that was captured by an officer’s body camera. Federal
4/7/2015 South Carolina Officer Is Charged With Murder in Black Man’s Death ­ NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/so ... bicmp=AD&b… 4/4
prosecutors are investigating the death of Eric Garner, who died lat year in
Staten Island last year after a police officer put him in a chokehold, an incident
that a bystander captured on video. A video taken in Cleveland shows the
police shooting a 12­year­old boy, Tamir Rice, who was carrying a fake gun in a
park. A White House policing panel recommended that police departments put
more video cameras on their officers.
Mr. Scott’s brother said that his mother called him on Saturday, telling
him that his brother had been shot by a Taser after a traffic stop. “’You may
need to go over there and see what’s going on,” Anthony Scott said his mother
told him. When he arrived at the scene of the shooting, officers told him that
his brother was dead, but he said they had no explanation for why. “This just
doesn’t sound right,” he said in an interview. “How do you lose your life at a
traffic stop?”
Anthony Scott said he last saw his brother three weeks ago at a family
oyster roast. “We hadn’t hung out like that in such a long time,” Mr. Scott said.
“He kept on saying over and over again how great it was.”
At the roast, Mr. Scott got to do two of the things he enjoyed most: tell
jokes and dance. When one of Mr. Scott’s favorite songs was played, he got
excited. “He jumped up and said, ‘That’s my song,’ and he danced like never
before,” his brother said.

Apparently the cop had already discharged the taser on him and it was tossed to the ground. When the guy turned to run the cop unholstered his gun and shot him down.

The cop then ran to pick up the taser and came back to the body and dropped it next to the body and claimed that the man took is stun gun and he feared for his life.

The video surfaced and he was arrested.

What a shame. This is why I support filming cops and requiring body cams on cops. They wield too much power to not hold them accountable. If it wasn't for this man filming it the cop would have gotten off free.

[Terralthra]

Slager's defense attorney dropped the case immediately when the video came to light.

[AMT]

Disgusting. I hope they throw the book at him.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Slager's defense attorney dropped the case immediately when the video came to light.

Wait, dropped the case? As in "Fuck you, I am out", or "We need to pick a better defense strategy, because I am not suborning perjury for your murdering ass" ?

[mr friendly guy]

TYT has a good description of it.

Warning - shows the man being shot and it might not be work safe or at least disturbing for people who don't actually like seeing people shot in real life.

[Adam Reynolds]

Slager's defense attorney dropped the case immediately when the video came to light.

Wait, dropped the case? As in "Fuck you, I am out", or "We need to pick a better defense strategy, because I am not suborning perjury for your murdering ass" ?

Not that I know specifically for this case, but the officer might have been suing to get his job back. More than one police department has had the issue of firing an officer only to be forced to rehire them after a lawsuit. The beauty of strong public unions in America(and gutless private ones, the opposite of how it should be).

[Patroklos]

The planting the tazer bit is being backtracked on most media. For one he goes and gets it and drops in near the body after the other cop is on the scene and both plainly see the bystander videotaping. Secondly he holsters the tazer (if that's what it is) later which makes no sense if you planted it there to be found later by whomever is looking into it. More likely is he picked it up and brought it to where he and the other cop were working so it wasn't unattended 20 yards away. I would be very curious as to whether his original statement plainly states it was found near the body (I haven't seen that). That other cop will have some explaining to do to if he went along with that.

I can see in now though. the tazer was dropped close to and below the field of view of the police officer and he will claim he had no way of knowing it had been dropped after being wrenched from his hands. It was reasonable to assume he still had it and that was justification to shoot. I don't know if that will fly, but that's really all he has to go with.

[Terralthra]

Slager's defense attorney dropped the case immediately when the video came to light.

Wait, dropped the case? As in "Fuck you, I am out", or "We need to pick a better defense strategy, because I am not suborning perjury for your murdering ass" ?

The former.

XCLUSIVE: Michael Slager’s Attorney Dumped Him As Soon As He Saw Video
David Aylor on his ex-client who's been charged with murder after he was seen shooting Walter Scott eight times in the back.
The lawyer who first represented Michael Slager, the North Charleston police officer charged with murdering Walter Scott on Saturday, said he dropped his client soon after a video emerged showing Slager shooting Scott eight times as he ran away.

Charleston attorney David Aylor told The Daily Beast that he took on Slager as a client on Saturday, the day of the shooting, and removed himself as counsel on Tuesday afternoon. Aylor said he wouldn't go into detail about his brief representation of Slager thanks to attorney-client privilege but he spoke generally about the situation. The following has been lightly edited for clarity.

You were quoted as Officer Slager's attorney in the aftermath of this high-profile shooting but before the video came out. Now you're not his attorney anymore. What happened?

I can't specifically state what is the reason why or what isn't the reason why I'm no longer his lawyer. All I can say is that the same day of the discovery of the video that was disclosed publicly, I withdrew as counsel immediately. Whatever factors people want to take from that and conclusions they want to make, they have the right to do that. But I can't confirm from an attorney-client standpoint what the reason is.

David Aylor on his ex-client who's been charged with murder after he was seen shooting Walter Scott eight times in the back.
When you were representing Slager, you said, “I believe once the community hears all the facts of this shooting, they’ll have a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding this investigation.”

That was my belief at the time, that's why I made that statement.

Now that the video is out, it seems the community has a much better understanding about what actually happened, and not necessarily in the officer's favor. What's your take on that new information?

I think that there's been a release of information that was not public information at the time, or not discovered at the time at least to any knowledge of mine or anyone else publicly— at least the video. I can't comment on the specifics of what I think the video says. I'm not going to analyze the video, but again ... the video came out and within the hours of the video coming out, I withdrew my representation of the client.

How did you come across the video?

I can't say where I saw it first. I first became aware of it via the media. In fact, a reporter sent it to me via e-mail.

These days, more and more people are carrying video recording devices on their phones and it's hard to not know if everything we do isn't being captured somehow. How do you, as an attorney, know to trust what you're saying about a client is true—and what do you do if you find out information that seems to refute it after you've made a statement?

All I can say is that the same day of the discovery of the video that was disclosed publicly I withdrew as counsel immediately.
I'm not going to speak specifically to this case, but generally speaking as an attorney, when you're looking at a case you have to look at a number of different factors. One part is when you have a high-profile case, on behalf of your client and at the time due to their encouragement or what they're directing you to do, you make public statements based on the information you have. It's common in any type of case when you're a defense attorney that any kind of information that you're provided is limited throughout as far as what information you're given from your client compared to when you actually get to discovery or the evidence, moving all the way to the point of more additional evidence or witnesses coming out as the case progresses. So I think with any case it's always a changing situation, or it can be.

Do you know whether Officer Slager knew someone was taping the incident?

I can't say what my client did and didn't tell me, but I can tell you that I was not aware of the video, and I'm still not aware of who filmed the video, where the video came from, how the video got disclosed and who it was disclosed to first. As far as whether it was disclosed to authorities first or whether it went straight to the media, I don't even know the answer to that question now.

Any other thoughts on this situation as his former attorney?

Not so much as his former attorney, just as someone in the community, I feel that it's a tragic situation that occurred. I feel for all of those who are affected by the incident and of course the loss of life. At no point, not specific to this case, just generally speaking, is anybody above the law. And I think that's why we have process and court systems and everybody deserves their day in court, but I won't be participating in anything related to this case moving forward in that regard.

[Elheru Aran]

I have absolutely no problem with the attorney's actions. If you're representing someone who is a defendant in a criminal case, you have to believe, at some level, that they are innocent of what they are being accused of. If evidence arises that causes you to change your belief and assume that they are guilty, then the ethical thing to do is to withdraw your representation and allow the client to seek other representation. It's no wonder that once he saw the video he'd have changed his stand swiftly.

As for Slager, hopefully he goes up the creek for a pretty good while. The evidence is absolutely incontrovertible-- he shot a fleeing, unarmed civilian. There's absolutely no reason for that to happen.

[Borgholio]

It's common in any type of case when you're a defense attorney that any kind of information that you're provided is limited throughout as far as what information you're given from your client compared to when you actually get to discovery or the evidence...(snip)

That says it right there. He was going to defend the guy but saw the video and basically said, "Well you're guilty as fuck, I can't defend you against this. I'm outta here."

[Simon_Jester]

I have absolutely no problem with the attorney's actions. If you're representing someone who is a defendant in a criminal case, you have to believe, at some level, that they are innocent of what they are being accused of. If evidence arises that causes you to change your belief and assume that they are guilty, then the ethical thing to do is to withdraw your representation and allow the client to seek other representation. It's no wonder that once he saw the video he'd have changed his stand swiftly.

I'd argue otherwise.

After all, even people who are very obviously guilty deserve a defense attorney; you can think someone is guilty and still present the best possible defense of their actions, in an attempt to mitigate the sentence that gets handed down, or in an attempt to establish that their rights were violated in a way that exculpates them.

However, one thing a defense attorney cannot afford to tolerate is a client who lies to them about what really happened. Because it's practically impossible to mount a credible defense of a client in that case. The client lies to you about what happens, you gather information and construct arguments based on your false idea of what happened. And when you go to trial... the prosecution can just go "ho-ho-ho!" and totally disprove your version of events, because you didn't know what happened.

This is why the prosecution is required to list the evidence and witnesses ahead of time- to avoid situations where the prosecution pulls a surprise set of facts on your defense.

But if the defendant lies to the defense attorney, then they are again vulnerable to that scenario, and the defense attorney has no recourse. Plus the lawyer is then made to look stupid and incompetent.

So I can't blame the attorney for not wanting to defend a client who was apparently caught telling him easily disprovable lies about what really happened.

[Thanas]

I have absolutely no problem with the attorney's actions. If you're representing someone who is a defendant in a criminal case, you have to believe, at some level, that they are innocent of what they are being accused of.

Why?

EDIT:

However, one thing a defense attorney cannot afford to tolerate is a client who lies to them about what really happened. Because it's practically impossible to mount a credible defense of a client in that case. The client lies to you about what happens, you gather information and construct arguments based on your false idea of what happened. And when you go to trial... the prosecution can just go "ho-ho-ho!" and totally disprove your version of events, because you didn't know what happened.

This is why the prosecution is required to list the evidence and witnesses ahead of time- to avoid situations where the prosecution pulls a surprise set of facts on your defense.

But if the defendant lies to the defense attorney, then they are again vulnerable to that scenario, and the defense attorney has no recourse. Plus the lawyer is then made to look stupid and incompetent.

So I can't blame the attorney for not wanting to defend a client who was apparently caught telling him easily disprovable lies about what really happened.

Yeah, I think this is what happened.

[ArmorPierce]

Considering that the taser was already discharged, would it matter had he ran with the taser? I don't really know about tasers but they don't look like you can shoot it again once it's already been shot (which it was, you see the wires hanging off him).

[Irbis]

After all, even people who are very obviously guilty deserve a defense attorney; you can think someone is guilty and still present the best possible defense of their actions, in an attempt to mitigate the sentence that gets handed down, or in an attempt to establish that their rights were violated in a way that exculpates them.

Yeah. Right to fair trial is basic human right and you can't have one without competent defence.

However, one thing a defense attorney cannot afford to tolerate is a client who lies to them about what really happened. Because it's practically impossible to mount a credible defense of a client in that case. The client lies to you about what happens, you gather information and construct arguments based on your false idea of what happened.

On the other hand, despite attorney confidentiality, I can see why a lot of people would be uneasy about incriminating themselves even in private and frankly, would telling the attorney all details of what happened change anything? Their job is still getting the lowest possible sentence, so all it would do in most cases is that the attorney would have lied consciously instead of just presenting his client's case.

No, I think he just reached the conclusion the case can't be won and dropped it like hot potato.

Considering that the taser was already discharged, would it matter had he ran with the taser? I don't really know about tasers but they don't look like you can shoot it again once it's already been shot (which it was, you see the wires hanging off him).

IIRC some taser models still can be used in direct contact with the body even after shooting the load.

[Simon_Jester]

On the other hand, despite attorney confidentiality, I can see why a lot of people would be uneasy about incriminating themselves even in private and frankly, would telling the attorney all details of what happened change anything? Their job is still getting the lowest possible sentence, so all it would do in most cases is that the attorney would have lied consciously instead of just presenting his client's case.

At least in the US, that is a violation of professional ethics- lawyers aren't supposed to knowingly make false statements about the material facts of a case.

Which is another reason to drop the case whether it's winnable or not- any defenses the attorney had already planned would now be outright lies if he tried to present them in court, since everyone knows about this video that contradicts them.

No, I think he just reached the conclusion the case can't be won and dropped it like hot potato.

Defense attorneys do lose cases and aren't automatically doomed by doing so. After all, some lawyer has to defend even the most obviously guilty person, and they will predictably lose that case no matter how hard they try.

Being pretty sure you're going to lose is not a reason to drop a client; you still get paid for losing and no one's likely to blame you for "failing" to defend the indefensible man. As long as you clearly did your best and didn't screw up, that's not a black mark on your record.

On the other hand, having a client who knowingly misled you about the facts CAN be a reason to drop a client. Because it violates trust you place in the client. And because it not only makes you lose the case, it makes you directly look dumb while losing the case.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

In cases like this where the evidence of guilt is as solid as it gets, I have to wonder why any defense lawyer would touch this case with a ten-foot pole.

[TheHammer]

In cases like this where the evidence of guilt is as solid as it gets, I have to wonder why any defense lawyer would touch this case with a ten-foot pole.

Because there are more to trials than guilt/innocence. Even if guilt is all but assured, a good lawyer can help argue for a lighter sentence or negotiate some sort of plea deal. Plus it helps when they are getting paid big money to do so.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

In cases like this where the evidence of guilt is as solid as it gets, I have to wonder why any defense lawyer would touch this case with a ten-foot pole.

As has been said, a good defense lawyer can get her client a lighter sentence. It's like with the Boston bomber who just got convicted of being a terrorist. His defense team admitted that he did it, but the whole object of his defense is simply get him life without parole instead of execution.

[RogueIce]

In cases like this where the evidence of guilt is as solid as it gets, I have to wonder why any defense lawyer would touch this case with a ten-foot pole.

Because you have the right to counsel, which means somebody has to defend you. Whether it's an attorney of your choice, some unlucky lawyer picked by a judge or whoever is the least liked in the Public Defender's office.

[madd0ct0r]

it also forces the prosecution to be honest, to make sure procedures are followed to ensure a fair trial. If not, the defence lawyer might get it thrown out on a technicality.

[mr friendly guy]

Some people tried to start a crowd funding campaign to defend Slager

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEMCxuHBB9Q