Posted on 04/14/2015 6:38:37 PM PDT by dragnet2
On April 4, less than an hour after Slager fatally shot 50-year-old Walter Scott....When investigators attempted to speak to Slager, he told them he had retained an attorney, Berry said.
Investigators began interviewing Slager on the morning of April 7, Berry said, and Slager was arrested later that day at the end of the interview. He was charged with murder and fired.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
It appears he was for 3 days after the incident when it was finally decided to obtain his statement and only until after his statement was obtained.
Would that not be recorded/written and signed?
Or was this just a friendly chat over coffee?
Seems to be an ongoing pattern of false propaganda to support a particular meme...
I'm reserving judgment, because I don't have enough facts yet.
It's hard to glean facts from the numerous and politically coordinated, intentionally misleading reports, from both media and government sources.
Mr. Scott is dead.
Mr. Slager killed him.
We know the who, how and the when.
The what and the why are still not clear.
The media/government are going to have to retract a lot of false “facts”?
_______________________________________________________
Are you referring to the timeline or?
Informal interview? ... That audio was on the dashcam recording from Slager’s car. It’s about an hour after the incident, and I haven’t had a chance to listen to the whole thing. The officer he’s talking to is taking notes, so I’m assuming there was some discussion about what happened. I’m looking forward to hearing the whole thing.
Yeah, that’s the way I read it.
BTW, was he informed of or allowed to see scene evidence, scene images etc., during those 3 days prior to providing a statement to investigators?
I am not implying anything but these are just a few of the questions which will be asked/investigated.
The PR guy from the Zimmerman case is working this case too. “He was shot for having a hoodie and Skittles” is just a matter of time.
I'm confident you're not suggesting what was heard during the off camera chat was an interview by investigators. I certainly did not hear anything which could be construed as an interview. In fact, I am not sure the officer even knew it was being recorded. I believe it was from his dashcam/audio which was still recording. I could be wrong.
Now why in the world would you say that ?I mean, if he has nothing to hide, right? RIGHT?
Here ya go... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ldPUccULQk
Hey! A ghost with a sense of humor!!
When investigators attempted to speak to Slager, he told them he had retained an attorney, Berry said.
...
Which is the correct thing to say for anybody. The headline is extremely misleading.
Asking you for a source is not being contentious, and I know your record.
We were advised at an academy, that “officers” should get together and “corroborate their testimony” after an incident.
Check out the video at post 51. It’s more than just misleading.
I think SC uses lethal injection.
Listen, I'm not defending the guy. Based on the little I know right now, I think he is guilty of a serious crime. Few scenarios can justify what I saw in that video. There are no less than a million ways to explain it, but few to justify it. Regardless, he is now a defendant and unless he is George Zimmermans brother, he'll listen to his lawyer and let him handle this mess. You would see even less information had I been in this cops shoes, public opinion be damned...
A news video of the quick interview?
OK.
So he gives a 44 second statement before the scene was processed. After the scene is processed he waits 3 days and provides a formal statement/interview to the investigators. Which he's then arrested right after the interview.
I dunno. That seems to scream >inconsistencies< occurred during his interview/statement.
Anyway, if ya ever see his statement released, ping me.
” I guess obtaining a statement as soon as possible while the events are still current and fresh in one’s memory mean nothing anymore.”
In every police shooting, the officer is read his rights before questioning. He is a criminal suspect. Getting the info while its fresh? Think of every other case where a non cop shoots someone. Would you advocate the police should demand answers immediately while its fresh?
To get this speedy answer, do you advocate some sort of law where the cop cannot be prosecuted no matter what he says? Or do you advocate he cooperate quickly so as to assist the potential case they will bring against him?
This guy could be facing a death penalty or life in prison.
How do you coerce a man in that position to hurry up and give a statement? You have heard of Miranda I assume. He might NEVER want to talk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.